Delhi District Court
State vs Shamsher Singh Oth on 27 July, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. VIDHI GUPTA ANAND,
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
SHAHDARA, KKD, DELHI
JUDGMENT U/S 355 Cr.PC
CNR No.DLSH020000682002
a Serial No. of the case : FIR No. 366/1998, PS
Seemapuri [Cr. Case
No.78997/2016]
b Date of the commission of the : 10.12.1997
offence
c Name of the Complainant : Sh.R.S. Bhandari
d Name of Accused person and his : 1. Shamsher Singh
parentage and residence S/o Sh. Azad Singh
R/o A-92, GTB Hospital
Campus, Delhi.
Also At: H.No.153B,
Gautam Nagar, New
Delhi-49
2. Sher Singh
S/o Sh. Mahender Singh
R/o T-244, Gali No.3,
Bhrampuri, Delhi
3. Naresh Chand
S/o Sh. Hem Chand Joshi
R/o H.No.599, Aliganj,
Lodhi Colony, New
Delhi.
4. Manoj Parsad
Sh. Ganesh Prasad
R/o H.NO.D-4/S-6,
FIR No. 366/98
PS Seemapuri
State vs Shamsher & Ors Page No. 1 of 55
Dilshad Colony, Delhi.
5. Rakesh Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Ved Prakash
R/o 1/3111, Krishna
Marg, Mandoli Road.
6. Suresh Giri
S/o sh. Ram Kishan
R/o B-47, East Nathu
Colony,
Shahdara, Delhi.
7. Subhash Giri
S/o Sh. Late Chandan
Giri
R/o H.No.D-191/5,
Bhajanpura, Delhi.
8. Neeraj Kumar
S/o Sh. Ram Chander
R/o H.No.430, Jatav
Mohalla, Village
Tughlakabad, New Delhi.
9. Tilak Singh
S/o Sh. Ghasi Ram
R/o H.No.519, Gali
No.15, Amar Colony,
Delhi.
10. Darshan Kumar
S/o Sh. Duli Chand
R/o 166, Gali No.8,
Village Mandoli, Delhi.
11. Jag Mohan
S/o Sh. Mangu Ram
R/o H.No.C-9/54,
Yamuna Vihar, Delhi.
12. Kalyan Sahai
FIR No. 366/98
PS Seemapuri
State vs Shamsher & Ors Page No. 2 of 55
Meena
S/o Sh. Sarwan Lal Meena
R/o H.No.WZ525, Nangal
Ray, Delhi Cantonment,
Delhi.
e Offence complained of : 465/466/471/467/120-B
f Plea of the Accused and his : Not guilty.
examination (if any)
g Final Order : Acquitted
h Order reserved on : 27.07.2024
i Order pronounced on : 27.07.2024
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. Subject matter of this case pertains to the year 1996
wherein vacancies for nursing orderlies were allegedly issued by
Guru Tegh Bahadur Hospital, Shahdara, Delhi and consequently, the
then unemployed youth, with a zeal to secure a government job and
hence, secure their futures, tried to secure a seat. Seldom they knew
that in this attempt to secure their futures, they were rather opening
a pandora's box for themselves. Instead of getting a job, alleged
persons were embroiled in the present case for commission of
offences of cheating, forgery and conspiracy amongst others and it is
only after more than two decades that the trial has come to an end.
Justice delayed is Justice Denied, the oft quoted legal
maxim, befits this case; more so on account of the shoddy
investigation carried out by the IOs and lack of efficient witnesses.
Lack of proper investigation in this case is also displayed by the fact
FIR No. 366/98
PS Seemapuri
State vs Shamsher & Ors Page No. 3 of 55
that not once but thrice further investigation has been ordered by the
court in this matter and more importantly, three different State
agencies have conducted investigation in this matter. While the
investigation of this case started at the hands of Delhi Police, it then
went to DIU/NE and ultimately, was concluded by the Economic
Offences Wing (EOW). Thus, even though the case was brought
before this court on 04.02.2002, trial was brought into motion only
in the year 2016 i.e. when the charges were framed against the
Accused persons.
With this judgment, this court shall decide and dispose
off the present case registered around 26 years ago upon the
Complaint of GTB Hospital vide FIR No.366/98 PS Seemapuri u/s
420/467/468/471/34 IPC.
FACTS PUT FORWARD BY PROSECUTION
2. Briefly stated the facts of prosecution case are as follows:
2.1. It is alleged that on 16.12.1996, the Deputy Medical Superintendent of GTB Hospital wrote a letter to Employment Exchange (Curzon Road), Kirbi Place, Delhi Cantt., Delhi for supplying a list of candidates for the post of nursing orderlies and chowkidars.
2.2. In response of this requisition three lists of sponsorship were received by the Medical Superintendent of GTB Hospitals for the post of nursing orderlies vide the following letters:
(i) Letter No. O.C. NOC/491/97 dated 10.12.1997 FIR No. 366/98 PS Seemapuri State vs Shamsher & Ors Page No. 4 of 55
(ii) Letter No. O.C. NOC/488/97 dated 15.12.1997
(iii) Letter No. O.C. NOC/489/97 dated 10.12.1997 2.3. Relying on these lists the aspirants whose names were found mentioned in the list were interviewed and a final list of selected candidates was prepared on 14.05.1998 whereby following candidates from the sponsorship lists were selected by the Staff Selection Board of the Hospital:
(i) Sh. Sham Sher Singh S/o Sh. Azad Singh (Under OBC Category)
(ii) Sh. Rakesh Kumar S/o Sh. Ved Prakash (Under OBC Category)
(iii) Sh. Naresh Chand S/o Sh. H.C.Joshi (Under UR Category)
(iv) Sh. Sher Singh S/o Sh. Mahender Singh (Under UR Category) 2.4. It is alleged that the offer of appointment was sent to all the above four candidates whereupon Sh. Sham Sher Singh and Sh.
Sher Singh joined the service and came on the strength of the hospital. It is further the case of the Prosecution that when the document verification of Accused Rakesh Kumar was being carried out, he submitted his employment registration card bearing registration number SU/7051/95 which was different from the registration number mentioned in the list received from the Employment Exchange.
2.5. Consequently, a reference was made by the Hospital Administration to the Director Employment, Govt. of NCT of Delhi vide letter no.F.16(44)/EII/GTBH/96-97/ptfile/4763 dated FIR No. 366/98 PS Seemapuri State vs Shamsher & Ors Page No. 5 of 55 31.03.1998 and in response Sub-Regional Employment Officer, Kirbi Place, Delhi vide letter no.VC/98/329 dated 23.04.1998 intimated that the supplementary list number NOC/491/97 dated 10.12.1997 listing 8 candidates of OBC category was not sent by the employment exchange and was not authentic.
2.6. Allegedly, as one list was found to be fake, the remaining two lists were also sent for verification to Sub-Regional Employment Officer, Kirbi Place, Delhi. In response, Sub-Regional Employment Officer vide letter number VC/98/1493 dated 08.05.1998 informed that the other two lists were also not sent by them and were therefore, not genuine.
Thus, a complaint dated 29.05.1998 was filed by Superintendent, GTB Hospital, invoking rigors of criminal law for commission of offence of forgery.
TRIAL PROCEEDINGS
3. On the basis of the said complaint, the present FIR was registered u/s 420/467/468/471/34 IPC and the investigation begun. Matter was investigated upon for years and ultimately on 04.02.2002, chargesheet was filed in this matter u/s 420/465/467/468/471/120B IPC against Accused persons namely Shamsher Singh, Sher Singh and Naresh Chand. Alleged Rakesh, questionably, was neither joined in investigation nor charge-sheeted. Meanwhile, cognizance of alleged offences was taken and the three charegsheeted Accused persons namely Shamsher Singh, Sher FIR No. 366/98 PS Seemapuri State vs Shamsher & Ors Page No. 6 of 55 Singh and Naresh Chand were summoned in the court.
3.1. However, vide order dated 04.02.2004, further investigation was ordered by the concerned court u/s 173(8) Cr.P.C. with directions to the DCP to get this case investigated by some agency other than local police of PS Seemapuri.
3.2. Accordingly, further investigation was transferred to DIU/NE and thereafter, on 22.11.2005, First Supplementary Chargesheet was filed whereupon Accused Manoj and Accused Kalyan Sahai Meena were also summoned in the court. With respect to Accused Manoj, LDC at GTB Hospital, it was alleged that he met Accused persons namely Shamsher Singh, Sher Singh and Naresh Chand near the employment exchange and had taken Rs.5,000/- from each of them for preparing their Employment Cards and sending the same to GTB Hospital for the post of Nursing Orderly. With respect to Accused Kalyan Sahai Meena, an employee of Employment Exchange, it was alleged that he acted in collusion with Accused Manoj and put the names of previously mentioned four persons namely persons Shamsher Singh, Sher Singh, Rakesh and Naresh Chand in the list sent by Employment Exchange.
3.3. However, on account of short-comings in the above-said supplementary charge-sheet, yet again further investigation was ordered on 22.01.2008 by the then concerned court stating that Supplementary Charge-sheet does not even whisper about the investigation on the aspect of others who were going to be benefited from the forgery. Thus, it was ordered that investigation u/s 173(8) FIR No. 366/98 PS Seemapuri State vs Shamsher & Ors Page No. 7 of 55 be carried out regarding remaining 25 persons who were left out from the charge-sheet. Also, DCP concerned was directed to personally monitor the investigation.
3.4. Thereafter, on 18.12.2008, Second Supplementary charge-sheet was filed in the court wherein Accused Rakesh was also arraigned in the present case. Accordingly, court summoned Accused Rakesh in the court as well.
3.5. Thereafter, the matter was taken up on arguments on charge. However, while the matter was still at the stage of consideration on charge, on 03.02.2015, Third Supplementary Charge-sheet was filed in this matter whereby six persons namely, Jagmohan, Suresh Giri, Neeraj Kumar, Darshan Singh, Tilak Singh and Subhash Giri were also arraigned in this matter and accordingly, vide order of even date, all the said six persons were also summoned in this matter.
In the above said manner, over a period of around 13 years, 12 Accused persons were summoned to face trial in this matter namely Sher Singh, Shamsher Singh, Rakesh Kumar, Naresh Chand, Manoj, K.S. Meena, Jagmohan, Suresh Giri, Neeraj Kumar, Darshan Singh, Tilak Singh and Subhash Giri.
4. After hearing arguments on charge on behalf of all the Accused persons, vide detailed order dt. 14.08.2015, it was observed by the court that prima facie offences u/s 465/466/471/120B IPC were attracted against all the Accused persons. Vide the same order, FIR No. 366/98 PS Seemapuri State vs Shamsher & Ors Page No. 8 of 55 it was observed that offences u/s 420/468 IPC are not attracted against any of the Accused persons and hence, they were discharged for the same.
Accordingly, in terms of the above-said order, charges were served upon the Accused persons u/s 465/466/471/120B IPC on 22.03.2016 and 09.05.2017, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4.1. Further, on 09.05.2016, it was observed that no specific order on charge had been passed with respect to offence u/s 467 IPC and thus, matter was again listed for arguments on charge, however, only with regard to offence u/s 467 IPC. Ultimately, on 16.11.2016, Accused persons conceded to the charge u/s 467 IPC and accordingly, additional charge was served upon all the Accused persons.
To sum up, Accused persons were charged with the following offences:
Section 120-B IPC Punishment for Criminal Conspiracy Section 465 IPC Punishment for forgery Section 466 IPC Forgery of record of public register Section 467 IPC Forgery of valuable security, will etc Section 471 IPC Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record The matter was thereafter proceeded towards its next FIR No. 366/98 PS Seemapuri State vs Shamsher & Ors Page No. 9 of 55 stage i.e. Prosecution Evidence.
5. Leading evidence for the next 6 years, Prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses to establish case. It is utmost important to briefly read the testimonies of all the Prosecution witnesses before proceeding on deciding the merits of the case.
Given below is a list of witnesses for a quick perusal followed by brief account of the testimonies given by them in the court:
PW-1 Complainant Sh. R.S Bhandari, Retd
Office Supt. GTB Hospital
PW-2 Sh. D.C Rai, Member of Selection
Committee/Board at GTB Hospital
PW-3 Sh. Babu Lal, Retd. Bradama Operator,
Employment Exchange, NCT of Delhi
PW-4 Sh. Satish Kumar Parashar, Sub-
Regional Employment Officer at Krivi
Place
PW-5 Sh. Dayanand, Office Supttd. at GTB
Hospital from the year 1996 to 2000
PW-6 Sh. Kuldeep Chand, Supervisor, Machine
Unit, Employment Exchange, Kirbi
Place.
PW-7 SI Ramesh Chand, No. 407-C, PS
Ranjeet Nagar, (formal witness)
PW-8 HC Vinod Kumar, PS North Rohini,
(formal witness)
PW-9 ASI Narender No. 465, Special Cell,
PW-10 Inspector Dheeraj Singh No. D-I/1226
PW-11 Retd. Inspector H.S Saini (investigating
FIR No. 366/98
PS Seemapuri
State vs Shamsher & Ors Page No. 10 of 55
officer)
PW-12 SI Dinesh Dahiya No. D-122, Security
Unit, Vinay Marg, Delhi, (IO)
PW-13 ASI Sunil Kumar
PW-13A Duty Officer Retd ASI Ravinder Kumar
PW-14 Dr. D.K Srivastava, Medical
Superintendent in GTB Hospital from
07.11.1997 to 21.10.2005
PW-15 Sh. Kiran Pal, Senior Asst. GTB
Hospital, Delhi
PW-17 Sh. R.P Dhiran, Retd. SREO,
Employment Exchange, Vivek Vihar,
Delhi
PW-18 Sh. Amilal Daksh Retd, Senior Scientific
Asst (Document) FSL Rohini
PW-19 Ms. Karishma Mehra, JFACE,
Documents Division, FSL Rohini, Delhi
PW-20 Sh. Ravi Shankar, ACP Welfare, Police
Head Quarter, New Delhi
Above listed witnesses deposed in the court as follows:
5.1. PW1 R.S. Bhandari, the then Officer Superintendent, Estb-II, GTB Hospital: He deposed that on seeing the acceptance letter of Rakesh Kumar, who was selected for post of Nursing Orderly, he found that the details were not matching with the list of employment. He further stated that upon instructions he conducted verification of the details from employment exchange, whereupon employment exchange official had replied that they had not sent any list of candidates for Nursing Orderly. He stated that thereafter, he FIR No. 366/98 PS Seemapuri State vs Shamsher & Ors Page No. 11 of 55 reported the matter to the police vide his complaint Ex. PW1/A. During his cross-examination, he pleaded ignorance with respect to the interview/selection process or the names of the candidates who had appeared for the interview or the names of selected candidates. He further stated that he could not remember the name of official on whose directions he lodged the complaint with the police in the present case, however, admitted that he had not received any written direction in this regard. Further, he stated that Police never met him regarding the complaint Ex. PW1/A and never recorded his statement. He admitted that he had not written his complaint and only signed it at the instructions of his senior officials. He admitted not having any personal knowledge of the case and stated that the complaint was filed in his official capacity.
Further, he stated that at the time of the incident the Deputy Medical Superintendent (Admn) at GTB Hospital was Sh. D.C Rai. He denied the suggestion that he had signed this complaint Ex. PW1/A under pressure or that the employment list was a genuine one.
During his further cross-examination, he stated that he had not personally verified the Employment Exchange list and no one had personally made any complaint to him regarding employment on the basis of fake employment list. He further stated that no one has made any complaint regarding any wrongful loss or wrongful gain caused to him or to anybody else on the basis of fake employment list.
FIR No. 366/98PS Seemapuri State vs Shamsher & Ors Page No. 12 of 55 5.2. PW2 D.C. Rai S/o Sh. Krishan Lal, the then Member of Selection Committee/Board at GTB Hospital: He is one of the most important witnesses being the member of the selection committee. He deposed that in the year 1997, requisition was sent to employment exchange concerned for vacancies of Group D Staff at GTB Hospital, Shahdara for sponsoring the names of eligible candidates. He further stated that the lists of the candidates were received from the employment exchange and thereafter, the office scrutinized and prepared the list for appearing before the Selection Committee/Board of which he was also a member. He further stated that the candidates were interviewed and the proceedings of the interview were sent to the office for further action; whereupon the office prepared the list of selected candidates and issued offer of appointment. He stated that the candidates were to appear before the Office for verification of their certificate, employment exchange registration cards and other relevant documents. He deposed that during the verification of documents, one candidate produced his registration card, the particulars which did not match with the list sent by the employment exchange. He stated that upon suspicion it was decided to send list of selected candidates to the employment exchange for verification. Further, he stated that the employment exchange informed that no such list which included name of that candidate was sent and it was found to be a fake list which contained the name of other candidate also. He deposed that thereafter, the candidature of candidates related from the fake list was canceled and in cases where appointment of candidates was also FIR No. 366/98 PS Seemapuri State vs Shamsher & Ors Page No. 13 of 55 made, employment was subsequently terminated. He specifically stated that it was also decided to file an FIR with the police to take action against the persons who were involved and thus, the present FIR was registered.
During his cross-examination, he deposed that at the time of the incident, he was posted as Deputy Medical Superintendent in GTB Hospital. He admitted that he did not receive any complaint from any public person to show any wrongful loss because of the appointment of candidates. He also admitted that he refreshed his memory from the police file on the day of giving his deposition.
He could not remember whether at the time of the incident any vacancies were published/notified through employment exchange by the hospital or not but stated that the Medical Superintendent approves the constitution of selection board in terms of the prescribed procedure. He stated that no such approval letter was handed over to the police. He could not remember the name of the selected candidates.
Further, he admitted that he did not personally verify the employment exchange list. He also admitted that he did not hand over the cancellation of appointment of candidates to the IO. He stated that he did not receive any complaint from any person regarding the appointment of the candidature from the fake list.
Further, he stated that he did not hand over any of the lists for vacancy of Group D to the police which were allegedly FIR No. 366/98 PS Seemapuri State vs Shamsher & Ors Page No. 14 of 55 given to the employment exchange concerned. He also stated that he did not hand over the list of candidates received from the employment exchange to the police personally. He admitted that he did not provide any letter to the police regarding constitution of board in which he was the member or the list of selected candidates or the appointment letters. He denied the suggestion that he had no concern with the selection proceedings. He admitted that he did not have any of the circulars for issuing the direction to the selected candidates to appear before the office for verification of their certificates, employment exchange registration card and the other relevant document and added that it was the routine practice of the office. He denied the suggestion that the board had already selected their favourable candidates and other candidates were declared fake thereafter and therefore, no action was not taken immediately. He denied the suggestion that he was an interested witness and therefore, deposing falsely 5.3. PW3 Sh. Babu Lal, Retired Bradama Operator: He stated that he is a retired official from the Employment Exchange Office, Government of NCT of Delhi. He deposed that his work was to verify the names after seeing the same from the Employment Exchange Register. He could neither remember the exact date when the police officials came to employment exchange office and conducted enquiries/verifications nor the names of the persons regarding which verifications were being conducted by the police. He deposed that he conducted verification of the names given by the FIR No. 366/98 PS Seemapuri State vs Shamsher & Ors Page No. 15 of 55 police officials from the register X-63 and the names given by the police officials were not found in it. He could not remember those names stating that the matter is more than 20 years old. He stated that thereafter, he did not join the investigation.
Upon his cross-examination by Ld. APP for the State, he admitted it to be correct that IO had shown him four employment cards and he checked the record of employment exchange. He further admitted the suggestion of Ld. APP that IO had shown him the employment card of Naresh Kumar and as per record at that serial number, one person namely Sanjay Kumar was registered. Further, he admitted that as the serial number of employment card of Sher Singh, one person namely Atam Parkash was registered. He admitted that IO had recorded his statement.
Changing his stand in his cross-examination, he stated that his statement was never recorded by the police nor he gave any statement in his handwriting. He also admitted that the original list of the register X-63 has not been produced before the Court. He denied the suggestion that he did not join the investigation of this case at any point of time.
5.4. PW4 Sh. Satish Kumar Parashar, the then Sub- Regional Employment Officer (SREO) at Employment Exchange, Kirbi Place: He stated that in April, 2008, police officials met him and inquired regarding certain documents i.e original submission sheets in question. He stated that Certified copies of diary register, certified copy of letter received from GTB Hospital, Delhi and original FIR No. 366/98 PS Seemapuri State vs Shamsher & Ors Page No. 16 of 55 nomination form of Sh. K.S Meena were seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/A. He admitted the copies of original submissions sheet no. 052253 & 052249, certified copies of dispatch register of employment from 01.10.1997 to 31.12.97 (relevant entries are 5204, 5205, 5206 dt. 11.12.97) and letter dt. 19.06.97 from Deputy Medical Superintendent, GTB Hospital and nomination form of Kalyan Sahai Meena and accordingly, the same were exhibited as Ex. P1 to Ex. P4 respectively. He stated that he had signed on Ex.P2 and Ex.P3. The exhibition was objected to by defence as to the mode of proof as originals had not been produced.
During his cross-examination, he stated that he has already retired and therefore, cannot produce the originals of Ex. P2 and Ex. P3. He admitted having no personal knowledge of the case. He stated that he had seen the original of Ex. P2 and Ex. P3 before certifying the same. Further, he deposed that he got the document Ex. P2 and P3 photocopied from the original lying in their office in the year 2008 only. He denied that Ex. P2 and Ex. P3 are fake and fabricated documents or that their originals were never available in his office or that he was deposing falsely. However, he admitted that his statement was never recorded by the police.
5.5. PW5 Daya Nand Singh, the then Office Superintendent/Section Officer in GTB Hospital: He deposed that in the year 1996, recruitment notification was issued regarding nursing orderlies and appointments were made. He added that during the verification of records of the candidates, the list received FIR No. 366/98 PS Seemapuri State vs Shamsher & Ors Page No. 17 of 55 from employment exchange were found fake and thereafter, the candidates did not give their joining and matter was reported to police. He stated that he had given notification copy and other documents to police officials who enquired from him regarding the present case. He stated that the abovesaid documents were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/A. He exhibited the attested copy of notification of vacancies for Group D in GTB Hospital as Ex. PX (02 pages) which was objected by Ld. Counsel for Accused persons for want of original document.
During his cross-examination, he could not remember the date when police recorded his statement, however, added that as far as he could remember, the same was recorded in the year 1996. He was confronted with his statement Mark A (Statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C.) wherein his deposition in his examination-in-chief regarding finding that the lists received from employment exchange were found fake and the matter was reported to the police does not find mention. He admitted it to be correct that he had given a statement that all the documents in original were with him at that time and the same shall be produced in the Court during the trial. He also admitted that no document in original was provided by him to the police at any point of time. He also admitted that he has not brought the original documents and Ex. PX in the court. He denied the suggestion that he had willfully and intentionally not brought any of the original documents as he never had any originals. He FIR No. 366/98 PS Seemapuri State vs Shamsher & Ors Page No. 18 of 55 denied that Ex. PW5/A and Ex.PX were fabricated by the IO only to suit the prosecution story and obtained his signature.
5.6. PW6 Sh. Kuldeep Chand, Superviser (Machine Unit), Employment Exchange, Kirbi Place, New Delhi: He deposed that he was working in the above-said place since 2018. He brought the X- 63 register of the year 1992 to 1995 in the court.
He deposed that as per the register, X-63 1992, entry SU/1831/92 is not made in the register and exhibited the photocopy of the relevant page as Ex. PW6/X (OSR).
Further, he stated that as per the register, X-63 1993, entry SU/1264/93, name of the candidate mentioned as Ravi W/o Sh. Subhash is made in the register and exhibited the photocopy of the relevant page as Ex. PW6/A (OSR).
Further, he stated that as per the register, X-63 1993, entry SU/1703/93, name of the candidate mentioned as Satpal S/o Sh. Suprakash is made in the register and exhibited the photocopy of the relevant page as Ex. PW6/B (OSR).
Further, he stated that as per the register, X-63 1993, entry SU/1800/93, name of the candidate mentioned as Atma Prakash S/o Sh. Babu Lal is made in the register and exhibited the photocopy of the relevant page as Ex. PW6/C (OSR).
He also deposed that as per the register, X-63 1992, entry SU/1831/92 is not made in the register and exhibited the photocopy of the relevant page as Ex. PW6/Y (OSR). He added that as per the FIR No. 366/98 PS Seemapuri State vs Shamsher & Ors Page No. 19 of 55 register, X-63 1994, entry SU/3128/94 and entry from SU/3100 to SU/3199 are not made in the abovesaid register and exhibited the photocopy of the relevant page as Ex. PW6/D (OSR).
He stated that as per the register, X-63 1995, entry SU/2116/95, name of the candidate mentioned as Jitender Kumar whose father's name is not legible, is made in the register and exhibited the photocopy of the relevant page as Ex. PW6/E (OSR).
He further stated that as per the register X-63 1995, entry SU/2336/95, name of the candidate mentioned as Surender Kumar S/o Sh. Balbir Singh is made in the register and exhibited the photocopy of the relevant page as Ex. PW6/F (OSR).
He also produced carbon copy of Order Card (O.C.) NOC/491/97 dt. 10.12.1997, carbon copy of Order Card (O.C.) NOC/491/97 dt. 10.12.1997, carbon copy of Order Card (O.C) NOC/488/97 dt. 05.12.1997, carbon copy of Order Card (O.C.) NOC/489/97 dt. 10.12.1997. He stated that the abovesaid order cards were sent to the Medical Superintendent, GTB Hospital, Shahadra as per requisition made by the concerned hospital regarding recruitment of nursing orderly. The above said carbon copies of OC cards were exhibited as Ex. PW6/G, Ex. PW6/H and Ex. PW6/I respectively. Exhibition of these documents was objected to on account of mode of proof as the documents were copies.
During his cross-examination, he admitted that neither he is the author of the above mentioned documents nor the same were FIR No. 366/98 PS Seemapuri State vs Shamsher & Ors Page No. 20 of 55 prepared in his presence. He also admitted that he did not know as to who had prepared these documents and was unaware as to whether the copies of above documents were handed over to the police or not. He could not depose as whether there is double entry or entry is missing in the above mentioned document. He admitted that entry at serial no. 1630/92 is recorded in a different ink and in different handwriting as compared to the other entries. He stated that the register X-63 of the year 1992 to 1995 pertains to the record of registration of candidates in the employment exchange. He admitted it to be correct that the name of employment exchange is not mentioned on the register Ex. PW6/X. He also admitted it to be correct that the name of the official and the name of maker of the endorsement are not mentioned on Ex. PW6/X or on documents Ex. PW6/A, Ex. PW6/B, Ex. PW6/C, Ex.PW6/D and Ex. PW6/Y. He denied that documents Ex. PW6/A to Ex. PW6/I, were fabricated later on only to suit the prosecution story or that these registers were not in existence during investigation and that is why the same were not provided to the police. He admitted that the name of employment exchange of Kirbi Place is not typed in Ex. PW6/G, Ex. PW6/H and Ex. PW6/I and they are rather stamped only. He admitted to not having any personal knowledge regarding the documents which exhibited as Ex. PW6/A to Ex. PW6/I. He denied the suggestion that the documents Ex. PW6/A to to Ex. PW6/I are fabricated and their original have not been produced either before the police or before the Court deliberately.
FIR No. 366/98PS Seemapuri State vs Shamsher & Ors Page No. 21 of 55 Further, during cross-examination of the witness, his attention was drawn towards the envelopes containing Ex. PW6/G to Ex. PW6/I and asked as to whether the said envelopes bear any receipt of the addressee or receiver or not and the copies of envelopes were taken on record as Ex. PW6/D1 to Ex. PW6/D3. Witness admitted that Ex. PW6/G to Ex. PW6/I do not bear the signatures of recipients as the same are office copies.
5.7. PW7 ASI Ramesh Chandra: He was a formal witness and deposed on limited aspect i.e. arrest of Accused Sher Singh. He stated that on 24.08.2000, he joined the investigation with SI Dheeraj Singh and went to the house of Accused Sher Singh at Gali no. 3, Gautampuri, Delhi where Accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW7/A and personally searched vide memo Ex.PW7/B. He also stated that IO recorded the disclosure statement of Accused Sher Singh i.e. Ex. PW7/C. He correctly identified Accused in the court.
During his cross-examination, he stated that public persons had gathered at the house of Accused. He added that IO did not record the statement of any public person present at the spot. He also stated that the IO had asked public persons gathered at the spot to join the investigation but none had agreed. He stated that IO did not record the name and addresses of the public persons who refused to join the investigation and no action was taken by the IO against them. He denied the suggestion that Accused Sher Singh was arrested at the PS or that he had not visited the house of Accused FIR No. 366/98 PS Seemapuri State vs Shamsher & Ors Page No. 22 of 55 Sher Singh or that all the proceedings were done while sitting in the PS or that he was deposing falsely.
5.8. PW8 HC Vinod Kumar: He was also a formal witness and deposed on limited aspect i.e. arrest of Accused Naresh. He stated that on 09.05.2000, he joined the investigation with SI Dheeraj Singh whereby Accused Sham Sher was taken out from the lock up and taken to the J & K Bus Stop where Accused Naresh was apprehended at the instance of Accused Shamsher and was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW8/A and personally searched vide memo Ex.PW8/B. He also stated that IO recorded the disclosure statement of Accused Naresh i.e. Ex. PW8/C. He stated that IO recorded his statement and he could identify the Accused Naresh, if produced before him, however, identity of Accused Naresh was admitted by his counsel.
During his cross-examination, he stated that Accused Naresh was arrested at 12:00 noon and they left the spot at about 1:00-1:30 p.m. He denied the suggestion that he did not join the investigation in this case or that no disclosure statement of Accused Naresh was recorded by IO.
5.9. PW9 ASI Narender: He was also a formal witness and deposed on limited aspect i.e. arrest of Accused Sham Sher Singh. He stated that on 08.05.2000, he joined the investigation with SI Dheeraj Singh whereby IO arrested Accused Sham Sher Singh from his home at Gautam Nagar vide arrest memo Ex. PW9/A and personally searched him vide memo Ex.PW9/B. He also stated that IO recorded FIR No. 366/98 PS Seemapuri State vs Shamsher & Ors Page No. 23 of 55 the disclosure statement of Accused Sham Sher Singh i.e. Ex. PW9/C. He failed to identify Accused Sham Sher Singh in the court.
With the permission of the court, Ld. APP for the State, drew attention of the witness upon Accused Sham Sher Singh present in the Court and witness yet again failed to identify Accused Sham Sher stating that due to lapse of time he cannot identify the Accused.
During his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he could not identify the Accused Sham Sher as he never joined the investigation of this case and signed the exhibits as stated above at the instance of IO in the PS. 5.10. PW10 Inspector Dhiraj Singh: He is the first IO of this matter. He deposed that on 20.10.1998, when he was posted at PS Seemapuri as a SI, investigation of the present case was marked to him. He deposed that he collected documents from GTB Hospital i.e three attested copies of candidates list received at GTB Hospital from Employment Exchange containing particulars of the proposed candidates for interview for the post of Nursing orderly and personal files of Accused persons namely Naresh, Sham Sher, Sher Singh and Rakesh. He stated that he also collected employer documents from employment exchange and the same were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW10/A. He added that he also recorded the statement of concerned officials at the employment exchange who clarified that the employment cards of Accused Sher Singh, Sham Sher and Naresh have different entries from that mentioned in employment FIR No. 366/98 PS Seemapuri State vs Shamsher & Ors Page No. 24 of 55 exchange register. He also seized the documents from employment exchange i.e attested copies of submission sheets vide seizure memo Ex. PW10/B. He affirmed arrest of Accused and personal search of Accused Naresh, Accused Sham Sher Singh and Accused Sher Singh vide memos already exhibited as Ex.PW7/A, Ex. PW7/B, Ex. PW8/A, Ex. PW8/B, Ex. PW9/A and Ex. PW9/B respectively. He also affirmed recording of Disclosure statements of Accused Sher Singh, Accused Naresh and Accused Shamsher vide documents already Ex. PW7/C, Ex. PW8/C and Ex. PW9/C respectively. He stated that he also recorded the statement of witnesses and collected the concerned documents.
Further, he deposed that on 24.03.2000, he collected documents from employment exchange, Vivek Vihar i.e. Register X- 63 along with other documents i.e. Ex. PW10/C. He stated that thereafter, on 01.09.2000, he collected documents from employment exchange, South-West, Delhi i.e. Ex. PW10/D. Lastly, he stated that thereafter, he was transferred from the PS and he deposited the case file to MHC(R). He correctly identified Accused Shamsher Singh and Sher Singh in the Court. Identity of Accused Naresh was admitted by his Counsel present in the court.
During his cross-examination, he could not recall the date when he received the documents from GTB Hospital or whether attested copies were compared with the originals or not. After going through the case file in the court, the witness admitted FIR No. 366/98 PS Seemapuri State vs Shamsher & Ors Page No. 25 of 55 that nothing is mentioned in the documents regarding the comparison of documents with the originals at the time of receiving the attested copies. He denied the suggestion that no documents were collected by him from GTB Hospital and due to this reason, he did not prepare the seizure memo to seize three attested copies of candidates list received at GTB Hospital from employment exchange containing particulars of the proposed candidates for interview for the post of nursing orderly and personal file of Accused Naresh, Shamsher, Sher Singh and Rakesh. He denied the suggestion that the alleged attested copies were fabricated by the officials of GTB Hospital at his instance to arrest the Accused persons. He could neither remember the name of the person from whom he collected the attested copy of the documents nor the name of the person who possessed the original documents as stated above. He could not remember the name of the officials of Employment Exchange who joined the investigation and whose statement he recorded. He denied the suggestion that the name of Accused Rakesh or Sher Singh or Sham Sher were not mentioned in any fake list and they were falsely implicated as Accused in this matter on the basis of the disclosure statement of the other co-Accused persons.
5.11. PW11 Retd. Inspector H.S Saini: He was also an IO in this matter and conducted limited investigation basically pertaining to Accused Manoj. He stated that on 19.02.2004, he was posted at DIU, North East and received the investigation of the present case.
FIR No. 366/98PS Seemapuri State vs Shamsher & Ors Page No. 26 of 55 He deposed that he arrested Accused Manoj vide arrest memo Ex. PW11/A and took his personal search vide personal search memo Ex. PW11/B (Both the memos were objected to by Ld. Counsel for Accused as there is no signature of the witness on the said documents). He stated that he also recorded the disclosure statement of Accused Manoj i.e. Ex. PW11/C. He stated that he recorded the statement of three witnesses namely HC Sunil Kumar, one officer of GTB Hospital D.C Roy and Jagmohan.
He stated that thereafter, investigation was transferred to some other officer. He also deposed that he had obtained the original list and fake list of candidates from the employment exchange. He correctly identified Accused Manoj in the court.
He admitted in his cross-examination that except the disclosure statement, nothing was on record against Accused Manoj at the time of his arrest. He denied the suggestion that being a government employee, Accused Manoj was arrested only to put a pressure to upon him and to implicate him falsely. He denied the suggestion that he fabricated the document Ex. PW11/A and Ex. PW11/B and due to this reason, neither the same bears the signature of the witness nor the date is mentioned on Ex. PW11/B. He denied the suggestion that Accused Manoj was falsely arrested on the basis of the his own disclosure statement without having any evidence and added that there was evidence of taking Rs.40,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- by Manoj from various candidates and thus, loss was caused to them.
FIR No. 366/98PS Seemapuri State vs Shamsher & Ors Page No. 27 of 55 5.12. PW12 SI Dinesh Dahiya: He was also an IO in this matter and conducted limited investigation basically pertaining to Accused Kalyan Sahai Meena. He stated that on 11.09.2004, he was posted at DIU, North East and received the investigation of the present case. He deposed that on 14.04.2005, Accused Kalyan Sahai Meena had been granted Anticipatory Bail by the court and thus, he got the bail bonds of the Accused Kalyan Sahai Meena i.e. Ex.PW12/A and prepared his conviction slip i.e. Ex.PW12/B. He stated that he also obtained and seized specimen signature and specimen handwriting of Accused Kalyan Sahai Meena. He exhibted the specimen handwriting of Accused Kalyan Sahai Meena as Ex. PW12/C (colly). He stated that the specimen handwriting of Accused Kalyan Sahai Meena was sent to FSL lab alongwith alleged list of candidates.
He lastly stated that on 16.05.2005, he got transferred from the DIU, North East and he deposited the case file with MHC(R). He correctly identified Accused Kalyan Sahai Meena in the Court.
During his cross-examination he stated that he examined witness Jagmohan in the present case but could not remember the names of other witnesses examined by him. He stated that he obtained the specimen handwriting of Accused Kalyan Sahai Meena at the DIU office before his arrest and intimation regarding the same was not given to concerned Judicial Magistrate.
FIR No. 366/98PS Seemapuri State vs Shamsher & Ors Page No. 28 of 55 5.13. PW13 ASI Sunil Kumar: He was a formal police witness to the case. He deposed that on 17.06.2004, he joined the investigation in the present case with Inspector HS Saini and went to the house of of Accused Manoj at Dilshad Colony where Accused Manoj was apprehended and interrogated regarding the present case. He added that thereafter, Accused Manoj was taken to the DIU Office where he was interrogated in detail and arrested and personally searched vide arrest memos already Ex. PW11/A and Ex. PW11/B. He also stated that disclosure statement of Accused Manoj was also recorded i.e. already Ex. PW11/C. He correctly identified Accused Manoj in the court.
During his cross-examination, he admitted that despite availability IO did not ask the public persons to join the investigation at the time of recording the disclosure statement of Accused Manoj. He admitted it to be correct that the Accused Manoj was already posted at PS GTB Hospital and was on duty. He denied that documents Ex. PW11/A and Ex. PW11/B are fabricated, however admitted that on Ex. PW11/A and Ex. PW11/B the names of the witnesses are mentioned but their signatures are not available on record. He stated that IO did not disclose anything in his presence if there was any evidence of receiving bribe of Rs.40,000/- and Rs.50,000/- from the various candidates. He also admitted it to be correct that IO did not disclose to him if anyone had suffered losses and if Accused Manoj had received the wrongful gain by his FIR No. 366/98 PS Seemapuri State vs Shamsher & Ors Page No. 29 of 55 acts. He denied the suggestion that the Accused was implicated falsely in this case as he did not support the demand of IO.
5.14. PW13 Retd Duty Officer ASI Ravinder Kumar(hereinafter referred to as PW13A): He was a formal police witness inasmuch as he deposed regarding registration of the FIR in this case i.e. Ex.PW13/A on 15.06.1998 on the basis of rukka received from SI Prabha Shankar. He stated that after registration of FIR, he handed over the original rukka with copy of FIR to Ct. Mohd Iliyas to be handed over to IO for further investigation.
5.15. PW14 Dr. D.K Srivastava, the then Medical Superintendent, GTB Hospital: He deposed that he was the Medical Superintendent at GTB Hospital during the year 1998 and during this period certain Class-IV employments were made through candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange. He stated that two sets of applications were received from the office of Employment Exchange. He further deposed that after the selections were made through duly appointed selection committee, it was informed that the second set of applications received from the Employment Exchange was a forged one. He stated that consequently, the selected candidates namely Sher Singh and Shamsher Singh, who joined were terminated from service. He exhibited the original terminated letters as Ex.PW14/A(OSR) and Ex.PW14/B(OSR).
During his cross-examination, he stated that Police Officers never interrogated him in the present case during FIR No. 366/98 PS Seemapuri State vs Shamsher & Ors Page No. 30 of 55 investigation and admitted that he has never handed over document i.e Ex. PW14/A and Ex. PW14/B to any police officer till date. He also stated that he personally did not hand over list of the candidates either selected or not selected to any police officer in this case. He denied that the documents Ex. PW14/A and Ex. PW14/B are false documents or that no termination letter was given to Shamsher Singh and Sher Singh by him or that because of this reason the said documents were never handed over to the police.
5.16. PW15 Sh.Kiran Pal, Senior Assistant, GTB Hospital, Delhi: He was a summoned witness and deposed only regarding the documents produced by him in the court. He brought the summoned records on behalf of Lalit Jain, E-3 Branch, GTB Hospital which were follows: (i) Minutes of the Staff Selection Board for the post of Nursing Orderly dt. 05.01.1998 i.e. Ex. PW15 (OSR), (2) List of the selected candidates for the post of Nursing Orderly dt. 01.01.1998 i.e. Ex. PW15/B (OSR), (3) List of candidates called for interview i.e. Ex. PW15/C (OSR) (4) Documents pertaining to recruitment rules dt. 25.02.1975 i.e. Ex. PW15/D (OSR) and (5) A letter regarding possession of Peon Book in Anti Forgery Economic Offences Wing i.e. Ex. PW15/E (OSR).
He admitted not having any personal knowledge with respect to the documents he produced in the court. He exhibited his authority letter for deposing in the present case as Ex. PW15/F. He admitted that he had never worked with Sh. Lalit Jain, who was actually summoned to depose in this matter.
FIR No. 366/98PS Seemapuri State vs Shamsher & Ors Page No. 31 of 55 5.17. PW17 Sh. R.P Dhiran S/o Late Sh. Jagram Singh: He deposed that he was posted as a SREO, Employment Exchange, Vivek Vihar, Shahadra, Delhi and had retired on 31.01.2014 and stated that due to lapse of time, he did not remember anything about this case. He also stated that his statement was not recorded by the IO in this case. He stated that he was posted in Vivek Vihar branch office of Employment exchange which had no concern with the present case.
5.18. PW18 Sh. Amilal Daksh, Retd. Senior Scientific Assistant: He was an expert witness to the case. He deposed that he was posted as a Sr. Scientific Assistant (Document), FSL, Rohini. He stated that on 20.07.2005, he prepared a report on questioned documents Mark Q1 to Q7 and specimen writing S1 to S14 and his opinion was that it has not been possible to express his opinion regarding authorship in the absence admitted writings . He exhibited his Report as Ex. PW18/A. 5.19. PW19 Ms. Karishma Mehra, JFACE, Documents Division, FSL Rohini, Delhi: She was also an expert witness to the case and stated that she is working as JFACE, Documents Division, FSL, Rohini. She stated that she was deputed to appear before the Court on 06.02.2023 for all necessary Scientific support on behalf of Dr. Virendra Singh. Asst. Director (Doc./CFD) vide authority letter Mark X. She stated that she can identify the signature of Dr. Virendra Singh as she is working under supervision of Dr. Virendra Singh. She exhibted the FSL report bearing no. 2008/D-4777 dt.
FIR No. 366/98PS Seemapuri State vs Shamsher & Ors Page No. 32 of 55 16.10.2009 as Ex. PW19/A bearing signature of Dr. Virendra Singh at point A, B & C. During her cross-examination, she admitted that document Ex. PW19/A was not prepared during her tenure or in her presence. She also stated that she cannot tell what method was used to prepare the report Ex. PW19/A. She denied the suggestion that the report Ex. PW19/A is not a correct report or that she was deposing falsely being an employee under Dr. Virendra Singh.
It may be mentioned here that as per the report Ex.PW19/A, the handwriting on questioned documents Q8 and Q9, matches the handwriting of Accused Rakesh on his admitted documents sent to FSL.
5.20. PW20 ACP Ravi Shankar, ACP Welfare, Police Headquarters, New Delhi: He was the last witness examined in this matter. He deposed that on 05.02.2008, he was posted as a Sub Inspector at EOW Crime Branch, Delhi and was entrusted further investigation of the present case. He stated that during investigation, he collected photocopy of documents from GTB Hospital and Employment Exchange vide seizure memo dt. 13.05.2008 and dt. 14.05.2008 exhibited the same as Ex. PW20/A and Ex. PW20/B respectively. He added that on 12.05.2008, he had arrested Accused Rakesh Kumar after interrogation and prepared his personal search memo vide memos Ex. PW20/C and Ex. PW20/D. He correctly identified Accused Rakesh Kumar in the court and stated that he had also recorded disclosure statement of Accused Rakesh Kumar on FIR No. 366/98 PS Seemapuri State vs Shamsher & Ors Page No. 33 of 55 13.05.2008 and 14.05.2008, vide disclosure statement memos Ex. PW20/E and Ex. PW20/F. Further, he stated that during investigation, Accused Rakesh Kumar was taken into police custody remand for three days whereby at his instance, one original and one fake employment card and three fake experience certificates were recovered from his house.
He also stated that during investigation, he made search of other Accused persons and traced six of them. He further deposed that he had sent documents viz. Specimen signature of alleged Rakesh Kumar i.e. Ex. PW20/G, questioned document, i.e employment identity card of alleged Rakesh Kumar and other suspected persons to FSL. Lastly, he stated that after completing investigation, he had filed charge-sheet and subsequent supplementary charge-sheet in this case.
During his cross-examination, he stated that he did not remember the name of the documents of which copies were collected from the GTB Hospital, however added that the same were related to the interview of the alleged persons. He stated that he had collected copies of the X-63 register pertaining to year 1992, 1993, 1994 and original submission sheets which were meant for some other department and its sheet number were mentioned on the fake sheets.
He admitted it to be correct that there was no other evidence to arrest the Accused Rakesh Kumar on record before his arrest. He denied the suggestion that Accused Rakesh Kumar was FIR No. 366/98 PS Seemapuri State vs Shamsher & Ors Page No. 34 of 55 arrested in a routine manner or that Ex. PW20/A to Ex. PW20/G were fabricated by him only to suit the prosecution story. He admitted it to be correct that he did not ask any of the public witnesses to join investigation at the time of arrest of the Accused persons or at the time of preparation of Ex. PW20/A to Ex. PW20/G. He denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered from the possession of Accused Rakesh Kumar or that recovery, if any, was planted upon the Accused during the course of his police remand and due to this reason no public witness was asked to join the investigation. He admitted it to be correct that at the time of obtaining the signature of Accused Rakesh he did not seek permission from the Court concerned. He denied the suggestion that Accused Rakesh Kumar was arrested falsely or that he never committed any crime.
5.21. It is pertinent to note that in order to prove its case, several witnesses had been cited by prosecution, however, during trial only 20 witnesses were examined as mentioned above and following witnesses were dropped by the court:
PW Chote Lal Summons issued through DCP (official from GTB concerned received back Hospital) unserved with the report that he has been transferred from the hospital in the year 1995 and present whereabouts of the PW Chote Lal are not found despite best efforts. Hence, dropped vide order dt. 29.08.2022.
FIR No. 366/98 PS Seemapuri State vs Shamsher & Ors Page No. 35 of 55 PW Ganeshwar Summons issued through DCP Sharma (official of concerned, received back
AEO Employment unserved with the report that Office) address is incomplete. Dropped vide order dt. 29.08.2022.
PW HC Jail Pal Summons issued through DCP
concerned, received back
unserved with the report that
they have retired from the
services. Dropped vide order dt.
29.08.2022.
PW/Retd Inspector Summons issued through DCP Nathu Singh concerned, received back unserved with the report that they have retired from the services. Dropped vide order dt.
29.08.2022.
PW Ct. Mohd Summons issued through DCP
Illiyas concerned, received back
unserved with the report that
belt number is not correct.
Dropped vide order dt.
29.08.2022.
PW SI Prabha Summons issued through DCP
Shankar concerned, received back
unserved with the report that
whereabouts of of SI Prabha
Shankar is not available.
Dropped vide order dt.
29.08.2022.
PW Suraj Bhan Summons issued through DCP
(DEO Employment concerned, received back
Office, Kirbi Place, unserved with the report that he Delhi has expired. Dropped vide order dt. 29.08.2022.
Sh. I.A Sharma, AO Summons issued through DCP FIR No. 366/98 PS Seemapuri State vs Shamsher & Ors Page No. 36 of 55 GTB Hospital concerned, received back unserved with the report that he has been expired. Dropped vide order dt. 06.10.2022.
Ct. Rajender Summons issued through DCP
concerned, received back
unserved with the report that he
has been expired. Dropped vide
order dt. 06.10.2022.
PW Naveen Chand Summons issued through DCP LDC SREO concerned, received back unserved with the report that whereabouts of not known.
Dropped vide order dt.
27.10.2022.
Prashant, LDC Summons issued through DCP
SERO concerned, received back
unserved with the report that
whereabouts of not known.
Dropped vide order dt.
27.10.2022.
Ms. Shashi Singh, Summons issued through DCP OIO SREO concerned, received back unserved with the report that whereabouts of not known.
Dropped vide order dt.
27.10.2022.
6. After completion of Prosecution evidence as mentioned above, statement of all the Accused persons was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. separately wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to the Accused persons.
Accused persons namely Tilak, Darshan, Neeraj, FIR No. 366/98 PS Seemapuri State vs Shamsher & Ors Page No. 37 of 55 Subhash Giri, Jagmohan, Suresh Giri denied all the allegations against them and stated that witnesses have deposed against them since they are interested witnesses. They also stated that the FIR in the present case has been registered by police officials in collusion with the employees of GTB Hospital.
Accused persons namely Rakesh, Naresh Chandra, Sham Sher Singh and Sher Singh also denied all the evidence against them as incorrect and stated that all the PWs are interested and false witnesses. Further, it was stated by them that they completed their education and applied for employment registration certificate. They denied having any knowledge as to why they have been implicated in the present case.
Accused Kalyan Singh Meena also denied all the evidence put to him. He specifically stated that his specimen signatures were never taken by PW12 Dinesh Dahiya. He stated that all the PWs are interested witnesses and have deposed upon instructions of the IO. He stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
Accused Manoj also denied the prosecution evidence put to him and claimed his innocence stating that he was working as an employee in GTB Hospital as a store keeper. He added that IO of the case came to him and conducted inquiries from him and when he showed his inability to tell anything, IO implicated him in the present case in order to take revenge for refusing to answer the queries put to him.
FIR No. 366/98PS Seemapuri State vs Shamsher & Ors Page No. 38 of 55 Despite opportunity, none of the Accused persons preferred to lead evidence in their defence and therefore, after completion of the Prosecution evidence and recording of statements of the Accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C. matter was listed for final arguments.
7. Final arguments were addressed in detail by Ld. Respective Counsel for the Accused persons as well as Ld. APP for the State.
Due consideration has been given to the court record as well as rival contentions put forward by the parties. Accordingly, this judgment shall finally pull down the curtains upon the trial; bringing an end to it after more than two decades.
Appreciation of Evidence
8. While the investigation of this case began with the registration of FIR for the offence u/s 420 IPC i.e. for the offence of cheating, the trial culminated towards its end mainly for the offence of forgery and other offences for which commission of the offence of forgery is a pre-requisite. As already mentioned above, Accused persons were discharged for the offence u/s 420 IPC and faced trial for the offences u/s 465/466/467/471/120B IPC. Thus, before delving into appreciation of evidence it is vital to make a note of the penal provisions and law elucidated thereon by Superior Courts.
To begin with, quoted below are the provisions of the IPC pertaining the offence of forgery for which Accused persons FIR No. 366/98 PS Seemapuri State vs Shamsher & Ors Page No. 39 of 55 have faced trial:
(i) Section 465 provides Punishment for the Offence of Forgery in the following words:
Whoever commits forgery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
(ii) Section 466 provides Punishment for Forgery of record of Court or of public register, etc. in the following words:
Whoever forges a document or electronic record, purporting to be a record or proceeding of or in a Court of Justice, or a register of birth, baptism, marriage or burial, or a register kept by a public servant as such, or a certificate or document purporting to be made by a public servant in his official capacity, or an authority to institute or defend a suit, or to take any proceedings therein, or to confess judgment, or a power of attorney, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
(iii) Section 467 IPC deals with the forgery of valuable security. Forgery of a valuable security etc. has been defined under section 467 IPC as under:
Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which FIR No. 366/98 PS Seemapuri State vs Shamsher & Ors Page No. 40 of 55 may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.
(iv) Moving ahead, Accused persons have also been charged under Section 471 IPC titled as Using As Geninue A Forged Document Or Electronic Record. The section provides as follows:
Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record forged which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record forged, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record forged
9. The common element between sections 465, 466, 467 and 471 IPC is the offence of forgery which is a pre-requisite of completion of the abovesaid offences. Forgery has been defined under Sec. 463 IPC as follows:
Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.
From a bare reading of the definition of forgery it comes forth that making of false documents or false electronic record is the first essential for the completion of the offence. Answer to the question as to what is Making of a false document can be found in Section 464 IPC which provides as follows:
A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record--
First -- Who dishonestly or fradulently--FIR No. 366/98
PS Seemapuri State vs Shamsher & Ors Page No. 41 of 55
(a)makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;(b)makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;(c)affixes any electronic signature on any electronic record;(d)makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the electronic signature, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or electronic signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly -- Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with electronic signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly -- Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his electronic signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration.
In the light of above mentioned provisions, it is necessary for the Prosecution to first prove the commission of forgery by the Accused persons i.e. creation of false documents with the intention to commit fraud. For completion of offence u/s 471 IPC, it is essential that the Accused persons should have used the forged documents created by them as genuine. Elucidating upon the offence of forgery vis-a-vis Section 467 and 471 IPC, in its recent judgment titled as Shri Sukhbir Singh Badal vs Balwant Singh Khera [2023 LiveLaw (SC) 359] it has been held by the Hon'ble FIR No. 366/98 PS Seemapuri State vs Shamsher & Ors Page No. 42 of 55 Supreme Court of India as follows:
5.8 Therefore, as per Section 463, "whoever makes any false documents, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed", he is said to have committed the offence of forgery. Making a false document is defined under Section 464 IPC.
Therefore, for the offence of forgery, there must be making of a false document with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person. Therefore, making the false documents is sine qua non. Identical question came to be considered by this Court in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. (supra). While interpreting Sections 464 and 471 IPC and other relevant provisions of IPC, in paragraphs 13 and 14, it is observed and held as under:-
"13. The condition precedent for an offence under Sections 467 and 471 is forgery. The condition precedent for forgery is making a false document (or false electronic record or part thereof). This case does not relate to any false electronic record. Therefore, the question is whether the first Accused, in executing and registering the two sale deeds purporting to sell a property (even if it is assumed that it did not belong to him), can be said to have made and executed false documents, in collusion with the other Accused.
14. An analysis of Section 464 of the Penal Code shows that it divides false documents into three categories:
1. The first is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently makes or executes a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by some other person, or by the authority of some other person, by whom or by whose authority he knows it was not made or executed.
2. The second is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part, without lawful authority, after it has been made or executed by either himself or any other person.FIR No. 366/98
PS Seemapuri State vs Shamsher & Ors Page No. 43 of 55
3. The third is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, execute or alter a document knowing that such person could not by reason of (a) unsoundness of mind; or (b) intoxication; or (c) deception practised upon him, know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration. In short, a person is said to have made a "false document", if (i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorised by someone else; or (ii) he altered or tampered a document; or (iii) he obtained a document by practising deception, or from a person not in control of his senses."
In the light of above mentioned provisions, the question that arises before the court to determine first is as to whether the Accused persons made any false documents or not and only thereafter, the applicability of sections 465/466/467/471 IPC shall be determined.
10. Coming now to the facts of the case at hand, it is the case of Prosecution that Accused persons namely Sher Singh, Shamsher Singh, Rakesh Kumar, Naresh Chand, Jagmohan, Suresh Giri, Neeraj Kumar, Darshan Singh, Tilak Singh and Subhash Giri, got their names added in the fake lists of employment exchange through Accused Manoj, LDC at GTB Hospital and Accused Kalyan Sahai Meena, employee of employment exchange. Thus, with respect to Accused persons namely Sher Singh, Shamsher Singh, Rakesh Kumar, Naresh Chand, Jagmohan, Suresh Giri, Neeraj Kumar, Darshan Singh, Tilak Singh and Subhash Giri no direct allegation of preparation of any fake/false document has been made. Rather, on the perusal of entire file, no averment can be found as to who made FIR No. 366/98 PS Seemapuri State vs Shamsher & Ors Page No. 44 of 55 the forged lists on the basis of which this entire case is based. At this juncture, it is highly relevant to make note of the judgement titled as Sheila Sebastian vs. R. Jawaharaj and Anr. [(2018) 7 SCC 581] which elucidates upon the offence of forgery and aspects necessary for completion of the offence, wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as follows:
19. A close scrutiny of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that, Section 463 defines the offence of forgery, while Section 464 substantiates the same by providing an answer as to when a false document could be said to have been made for the purpose of committing an offence of forgery under Section 463, IPC. Therefore, we can safely deduce that Section 464 defines one of the ingredients of forgery i.e., making of a false document. Further, Section 465 provides punishment for the commission of the offence of forgery. In order to sustain a conviction under Section 465, first it has to be proved that forgery was committed under Section 463, implying that ingredients under Section 464 should also be satisfied. Therefore, unless and until ingredients under Section 463 are satisfied a person cannot be convicted under Section 465 by solely relying on the ingredients of Section 464, as the offence of forgery would remain incomplete.
21. It is observed in the case Md. Ibrahim and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Anr., (2009) 8 SCC 751 that-
"a person is said to have made a `false document', if
(i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorised by someone else; or
(ii) he altered or tampered a document; or
(iii) he obtained a document by practicing deception, or from a person not in control of his senses."
22. In Md. Ibrahim (supra), this Court had the occasion to examine forgery of a document purporting to be a valuable security (Section 467, IPC) and using of forged document as genuine (Section 471, IPC). While considering the basic ingredients of both the FIR No. 366/98 PS Seemapuri State vs Shamsher & Ors Page No. 45 of 55 offences,this Court observed that to attract the offence of forgery as defined under Section 463, IPC depends upon creation of a document as defined under Section 464, IPC. It is further observed that mere execution of a sale deed by claiming that property being sold was executant's property, did not amount to commission of offences punishable under Sections 467 and 471, IPC even if title of property did not vest in the executant.
23. The Court in Md. Ibrahim (supra) observed that:
"There is a fundamental difference between a person executing a sale deed claiming that the property conveyed is his property, and a person executing a sale deed by impersonating the owner or falsely claiming to be authorised or empowered by the owner, to execute the deed on owner's behalf. When a person executes a document conveying a property describing it as his, there are two possibilities. The first is that he bona fide believes that the property actually belongs to him. The second is that he may be dishonestly or fraudulently claiming it to be his even though he knows that it is not his property. But to fall under first category of `false documents', it is not sufficient that a document has been made or executed dishonestly or fraudulently. There is a further requirement that it should have been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by, or by the authority of a person, by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made or executed.
When a document is executed by a person claiming a property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorised by someone else. Therefore, execution of such document (purporting to convey some property of which he is not the owner) is not execution of a false document as defined under Section 464 of the Code. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery. If there is no forgery, then neither Section 467 nor Section 471 of the Code are attracted."
24. In Mir Nagvi Askari vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2009) 15 SCC 643, this Court, after analysing the facts of that case, came to observe as follows:
FIR No. 366/98PS Seemapuri State vs Shamsher & Ors Page No. 46 of 55 "A person is said to make a false document or record if he satisfies one of the three conditions as noticed hereinbefore and provided for under the said section. The first condition being that the document has been falsified with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document has been made by a person, by whom the person falsifying the document knows that it was not made. Clearly the documents in question in the present case, even if it be assumed to have been made dishonestly or fraudulently, had not been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that they were made by or under the authority of someone else. The second criteria of the section deals with a case where a person without lawful authority alters a document after it has been made. There has been no allegation of alteration of the voucher in question after they have been made. Therefore, in our opinion the second criteria of the said section is also not applicable to the present case.
The third and final condition of Section 464 deals with a document, signed by a person who due to his mental capacity does not know the contents of the documents which were made i.e. because of intoxication or unsoundness of mind, etc. Such is also not the case before us. Indisputably therefore the Accused before us could not have been convicted with the making of a false document.
25. Keeping in view the strict interpretation of penal statute i.e., referring to rule of interpretation wherein natural inferences are preferred, we observe that a charge of forgery cannot be imposed on a person who is not the maker of the same. As held in plethora of cases, making of a document is different than causing it to be made. As Explanation 2 to Section 464 further clarifies that, for constituting an offence under Section 464 it is imperative that a false document is made and the Accused person is the maker of the same, otherwise the Accused person is not liable for the offence of forgery.
26. The definition of "false document" is a part of the definition of "forgery". Both must be read together. 'Forgery' and 'Fraud' are essentially matters of evidence which could be proved as a fact by direct evidence or by inferences drawn from proved facts.
FIR No. 366/98PS Seemapuri State vs Shamsher & Ors Page No. 47 of 55 From the above interpretation of relevant legal provisions pertaining to the offence of forgery, it is apparent that for establishing the offence of forgery against any Accused it is essential that he must have himself made the false document by executing the same or tampering it or altering it. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it was indispensable for prosecution to prove that the Accused persons created false documents, as defined u/s 464 IPC, in order to commit forgery of the public document i.e. nomination lists and employment cards and also, used the same as genuine for securing government jobs.
11. The most questionable aspect of the entire investigation and the entire trial is that the alleged forged lists sent to the GTB Hospital, on the basis of which entire recruitment process was done, have not been exhibited on record by Prosecution. Nothing has come on record as to who signed the said lists, who dispatched them and who received them in the office of GTB Hospital. The said lists were the basis of the entire Prosecution case and in their absence, entire Prosecution case is reduced to nothing but a half baked story. It was essential for Prosecution to establish that which were the lists originally sent to GTB Hospital Administration and which were the alleged forged lists and who prepared them. Also, even though the FSL result with respect to handwriting of Accused Rakesh on the alleged Forged Employment card has come positive, on close scrutiny, it can be seen that the questioned documents Q8 and Q9 contain basically only the signature of Accused Rakesh and the FIR No. 366/98 PS Seemapuri State vs Shamsher & Ors Page No. 48 of 55 entire remaining contents of the same are filled in different handwriting. Thus, the report cannot be relied upon in toto as it does not pertain to the entire contents of the document and is rather selective in its analysis.
12. As can been deciphered from the Sheila Sebastian Judgment, creating a false document is different from causing it to be made and thus, as far as the aspect of the offence of forgery and connected provisions i.e. 465/466/467 IPC are concerned, they stand unproved as regards Accused persons namely Sher Singh, Shamsher Singh, Rakesh Kumar, Naresh Chand, Jagmohan, Suresh Giri, Neeraj Kumar, Darshan Singh, Tilak Singh and Subhash Giri inasmuch as Prosecution case itself is that these persons did not create any document but gave money to Accused Manoj to add their names in the nomination lists so that they could secure a government job. As far as Accused Manoj and Kalyan Singh Meena are concerned, they have been imputed by Prosecution as the kingpins behind the entire alleged scam. However, no evidence, ocular or documentary, has been brought on record by Prosecution to establish that these persons actually created the forged lists and presented it to GTB hospital Administration. The main evidence against Accused Manoj is the disclosure statements of the co- Accused persons which do not hold any weight to establish the commission of alleged offences by the Accused persons. Neither any recovery of any forged document has been made from Accused Manoj nor any evidence has come on record that he collected money FIR No. 366/98 PS Seemapuri State vs Shamsher & Ors Page No. 49 of 55 from people promising them to secure a government job for them. Thus, there remains no scope of doubt that even with regard to Accused Manoj and Kalyan Sahai Meena, charges u/s 465/466/467 do not stand established.
13. Coming now to Section 471 IPC, it punishes using a forged document as a genuine one. In the case at hand, alleged forged documents can be classified into two groups i.e. first, the Nomination lists allegedly received from Employment Exchange and second, the employment cards. As far as the nomination lists are concerned, it already stands established from the discussion held above, that no such lists have been produced before the court and consequently, their forgery remains unproved. As far as the employment cards are concerned, two employment cards have been recovered in this case i.e. employment cards of Accused Rakesh, allegedly one being fake and other being original, which find mention in the testimony of PW19. It is pertinent to note that primarily, not even a single testimony has been brought on record from the employment exchange to prove that which card was fake and which was original, rather none of the said cards have been exhibited on record. It is the case of Prosecution itself that during document verification process after selection, Accused Rakesh showed his original employment card which did not match with the alleged fake list and thus, as such from the case put forward by Prosecution itself it comes forth that Accused Rakesh did not use the fake employment card, if any, at any point of time. Yet again, merely FIR No. 366/98 PS Seemapuri State vs Shamsher & Ors Page No. 50 of 55 from disclosure statement of Accused Rakesh, his guilt cannot be established. In order to prove the offence u/s 471 IPC against Accused Rakesh, it was essential on the part of the Prosecution to prove that he used his fake employment card in order to secure the job at GTB Hospital which it has clearly failed to do.
14. Lastly, all Accused persons have been charged for the offence under Section 120B IPC titled as Punishment for Criminal Conspiracy. As to what is criminal conspiracy has been defined under Section 120A IPC in the following words:
When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,--
(1)an illegal act, or (2)an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
Explanation.-- It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object.
From the mere perusal of the provision above, it is apparent that in order to complete the offence of conspiracy, agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act or legal act by illegal means is to be essentially proved. Discussing the necessary components of the offence of conspiracy, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held in its judgment titled as Ram Sharan Chaturvedi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh [CRIMINAL FIR No. 366/98 PS Seemapuri State vs Shamsher & Ors Page No. 51 of 55 APPEAL No. 1066 of 2010 decided on 25 August, 2022] as follows:
22. The principal ingredient of the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the IPC is an agreement to commit an offence. Such an agreement must be proved through direct or circumstantial evidence. Court has to necessarily ascertain whether there was an agreement between the Appellant and A-1 and A-2. In the decision of State of Kerala v. P. Sugathan and Anr.((2000) 8 SCC 203), this Court noted that an agreement forms the core of the offence of conspiracy, and it must surface in evidence through some physical manifestation:
"12. ...As in all other criminal offences, the prosecution has to discharge its onus of proving the case against the Accused beyond reasonable doubt. ...A few bits here and a few bits there on which the prosecution relies cannot be held to be adequate for connecting the Accused with the commission of the crime of criminal conspiracy...
13. ...The most important ingredient of the offence being the agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act. In a case where criminal conspiracy is alleged, the court must inquire whether the two persons are independently pursuing the same end or they have come together to pursue the unlawful object. The former does not render them conspirators but the latter does. For the offence of conspiracy some kind of physical manifestation of agreement is required to be established. The express agreement need not be proved. The evidence as to the transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful act is not sufficient..." (emphasis supplied) Thus, the essence of the offence of conspiracy lies in the 'agreement' between the parties. Unless Prosecution proves the agreement between the parties, offence of conspiracy cannot be proved. Coming back to the facts of the case at hand, even though FIR No. 366/98 PS Seemapuri State vs Shamsher & Ors Page No. 52 of 55 Prosecution has alleged the offence of conspiracy against the Accused persons, not even a single direct or circumstantial evidence has been brought on record to show that there was a meeting of minds or agreement of the Accused persons to prepare a fake nomination list on behalf of the employment exchange and present the same at GTB Hospital to secure government jobs. IO has failed to collect any evidence which may show that Accused persons held common meetings or exchanged written or oral communication to do the alleged illegal act. Thus, even the charge of criminal conspiracy is reduced to nothing more than a bald allegation.
15. The entire case was built on the premise that fake nomination lists were sent on behalf of employment exchange to the GTB Hospital administration for securing employment on the seats of nursing orderlies as advertised by the hospital. Thus, the foundation of the case was laid on the said alleged fake lists. To the utter dismay of Prosecution, neither the said lists were ever produced in the court nor were they ever exhibited on court record and consequently, no proof of creation of a fake document and commission of forgery by the Accused persons could come on record. As a natural corollary, when the foundation of the Prosecution case has no strength, the superstructure built on the same is bound to fall.
16. It is already settled in law that the burden upon the Prosecution is to bring home the guilt of the Accused on the basis of evidence collected during investigation. Moreover, as per the tenets FIR No. 366/98 PS Seemapuri State vs Shamsher & Ors Page No. 53 of 55 of criminal jurisprudence, benefit of doubt in the case of the Prosecution goes to the Accused. At this stage, it may be noted that in the leading judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in matter titled as Anand Ramachandra Chougule v. Sidarai Laxman Chougala [2019 (SCC online) SC 974], elucidating upon the onus of proof in a criminal trial, it was held that:
9. The burden lies on the prosecution to prove the allegations beyond all reasonable doubt. In contradistinction to the same, the Accused has only to create a doubt about the prosecution case and the probability of its defence. An Accused is not required to establish or prove his defence beyond all reasonable doubt, unlike the prosecution. If the Accused takes a defence, which is not improbable and appears likely, there is material in support of such defence, the Accused is not required to prove anything further. The benefit of doubt must follow unless the prosecution is able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt.
Also, Narinder Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2012) 7 SCC 171], it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that:
However great the suspicion against the Accused and however strong the moral belief and conviction of the court, unless the offence of the Accused is established beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of legal evidence and material on the record, he cannot be convicted for an offence. There is an initial presumption of innocence of the Accused and the prosecution has to bring home the offence against the Accused by reliable evidence. The Accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt.
Thus, as per the tenets of criminal jurisprudence, benefit of doubt in the case of the prosecution goes to the Accused.
17. With several missing links in the Prosecution case and loopholes in the evidence produced before the court, it is highly FIR No. 366/98 PS Seemapuri State vs Shamsher & Ors Page No. 54 of 55 deplorable that despite lingering on the investigation for several years and change of investigation agencies, no concrete evidence has been collected. In the entire process Accused persons, who are facing the trial since last more than 20 years, have rather become victims themselves. Prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the Accused persons conspired to commit the offence of forgery or that they used as genuine any forged document.
Conclusion
18. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid discussion, analysis of the evidence produced by the Prosecution and after giving due consideration to the relevant legal provisions as well as leading authorities, the court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the Accused persons beyond reasonable doubts as required in law.
19. Hence, all Accused persons namely Sher Singh, Shamsher Singh, Rakesh Kumar, Naresh Chand, Manoj, K.S. Meena, Jagmohan, Suresh Giri, Neeraj Kumar, Darshan Singh, Tilak Singh and Subhash Giri are accordingly acquitted for the offences Digitally signed by u/s 465/466/467/471/120B IPC. VIDHI VIDHI GUPTA GUPTA ANAND ANAND Date:
2024.07.27 Announced in the Open Court (Vidhi Gupta Anand) 16:41:39 +0530 on 27.07.2024 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahdara District, Karkardooma [This judgment contains 55 signed pages] [This judgment has been directly typed to dictation.] FIR No. 366/98 PS Seemapuri State vs Shamsher & Ors Page No. 55 of 55