Delhi District Court
Avtar Singh vs State on 7 November, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL,
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE: FTC (WEST): TIS HAZARI; DELHI.
ID No.02401R0280472011
Cr.Revision No. 65/11
Avtar Singh,
S/o Sh. Sardar Mohan Singh,
R/o G-9, Shjam Nagar, New Dehlhi-18
... Petitioner
Vs.
State ...Respondent
Date of Institution : 04.07.2011
Date of Order : 07.11.2014
ORDER
1. The present revision has been preferred challenging the order dated 20.05.2011 whereby the Ld. Trial Court ordered that accused / revisionist be charged for the offence punishable under Section 420/468 IPC.
2. The brief facts giving rise to this revision are that Smt. Ranjeet Kaur filed a complaint before the Ld. MM. On the directions of Ld. MM vide order dated 16.12.2003, FIR No. 586/03 was registered. In the complaint, it was alleged that accused / revisionist had played fraud with Government Department by obtaining Ration Card no. 727557 at House No. A-28/1, Mansarovar Garden without getting cancelled earlier Ration Card No. 113947 obtained at address of House No. C- 71, Bali Nagar, New Delhi. It is also alleged that accused has also obtained Ration Card No. 014378 at House No. F-59/A Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi by filing false affidavit that he is not in possession Crl. Revision No.65/11 Avtar Singh Vs. State 1 of any other Ration Card. Accused has also obtained the Ration Card No. 924256 at the address of House No. C-67, Sharda Puri, New Delhi. The allegations are that he has also given fake sureties of different persons in different Courts on the basis of these Ration Cards.
3. Police after investigation filed the charge-sheet against the accused. During investigation, the register of the Food and Supply Department was seized which shows that there are two Ration Cards issued in his name, one bearing No. 924256 issued on 27.05.1998 issued at the address of House No. C-67, Sharda Puri, Ramesh Nagar, Delhi and the other Ration Card No. 014378 issued on 05.02.2003 in the name of accused / revisionist issued at the address of House No. F-59, First Floor, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi.
4. Both the Ration Cards were having signatures of accused.
5. Ld. Trial Court after hearing the arguments, passed the order of framing of charge for the offence punishable under Section 420/468 IPC which is under challenge in the present revision.
6. Notice of the revision was sent to respondent/State.
7. Trial Court Record was requisitioned.
8. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for petitioner, Ld. Counsel for respondent and perused the record.
9. Ld. Counsel submitted that as per the allegations levelled, the offence, if any, is committed with Food and Supply office. The affidavit, if any, furnished for obtaining the Ration Cards was also furnished with Food and Supply Officer as he had given the false information to the officers of Food and Supply Department, therefore, he has also committed the offence punishable u/s 182 IPC. Thereafter, offence under Section 420 IPC is made out as he Crl. Revision No.65/11 Avtar Singh Vs. State 2 obtained the Ration Cards by playing fraud as alleged in the complaint and as per the evidence.
10. The allegations are that if the false affidavit that he has no other Ration Card, not submitted, the new Ration Card would not have been issued by the Food and Supply Authorities and therefore, private party could not file any complaint. The complainant can only have been the Government Officer and therefore the complaint at the instance of private party is liable to be quashed. The Court should not have taken cognizance as the offence punishable under Section 420 and 182 IPC integral part of the same transaction. Therefore, there is also bar of taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC.
11. Ld. Counsel submitted that so far as the offence punishable under Section 468 IPC is concerned, there is no evidence that accused / revisionist committed forgery as putting his own signatures does not amount to forgery.
12. Ld. Counsel submitted that forgery is defined under Section 463 IPC which means making a false document and false documents is defined under Section 464 IPC which is read as under :-
"464. Making a false document. (A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record-
First - who dishonestly or fraudulently -
(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 signatures was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person Crl. Revision No.65/11 Avtar Singh Vs. State 3 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 record or the nature of the alteration."
13. Ld. Counsel submitted that from Section 464 IPC, it is clear that if a person puts own signature on a document and does not purport to show that it has been issued or signed by any other authorities or by any other person, then it does not amount to forgery.
14. Ld. Counsel submitted that in view of this proposition of law, the order passed by Ld. Trial Court is not sustainable under Law. Ld. Counsel in support of his arguments relied upon the judgment cited as "Rajinder Kumar Chibbar Vs. Aseem Bakshi 2006 (3) RCR (CRIMINAL) 586". Ld. Counsel further submitted that it is settled law that if the offence is committed in the same transaction, there may be two distinct offence committed, but still, the cognizance of one offence, if bared by provision of Section 195 Cr.P.C, then the cognizance of the other offence is also bared. Ld. Counsel in support of his arguments replied upon the judgment cited as "State of U.P. Vs. Suresh Chander Srivastava 1984 (3) SCC 92". Ld. Counsel has also relied upon the judgment cited as "P.D. Lakhani Vs. State of Punjab 2008 (2) RCR (CRIMINAL) 838", "State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy & Anr. AIR 1981 SC 1417".
15. Ld. Addl. PP for the State submitted that in the present case, bar of Section 195 Cr.P.C is not attributed. Ld. Addl. PP for the State Crl. Revision No.65/11 Avtar Singh Vs. State 4 submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case AIR 1966 1775 specifically observed that if two offences are distinct disclose by the same facts and one of the offence is not included the ambit of Section 195 Cr.P.C, then there is no bar in taking cognizance of the offences under Section 195 Cr.P.C.
16. Ld. Addl. PP for the State submitted that in the present case, the record shows that accused had obtained two Rations Cards from the Food and Supply Department. The two rations cards are also in the file, one bearing no. 924256 issued at the address of H. No. C- 67, Sharda Puri, Delhi and the other ration card bearing no. 014378 issued at the address of H. No. A-59/A, First Floor, Mansarover Garden, New Delhi. Both these Rations cards bearing signature of revisionist herein.
17. The record shows that revisionist got issued these Ration cards from the Food and Supply Department by inducing them on the strength of false information that he is not having any other Ration Card. The Food and Supply Authorities would not have issued such Ration Card, if not so deceived by the dishonest representation made by the revisionist herein with dishonest intention to get issued two Rations Cards at two different address. However, Ld Addl. PP for the State agree that putting his own signatures on his own Ration Card does not attract offence punishable under Section 468 IPC. However, it is prayed that accused be charged for the offence punishable u/s. 420 IPC.
18. Keeping in view the submissions and the facts of the case, it is on record that accused/revisionist got issued two different Ration Cards in his own name at two different address and Food and Supply Department would not have been issued these two Ration Cards in the name of the revisionist herein if the department was not deceived Crl. Revision No.65/11 Avtar Singh Vs. State 5 by the revisionist herein by making them to believe that he is not having any other Ration Card, therefore, an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC is clearly made out. So far as the offence u/s. 468 IPC is concerned, the affidavit which was allegedly file before the Food and Supply Department is not placed on record. The only allegations against him that he has signed the Ration Cards, but putting his own signatures on a document does not amount to forgery, therefore, no offence punishable under Section 468 IPC is made out.
19. So far as the contention that taking cognizance of offence punishable under Section 420 IPC is bared by the Section 195 Cr.P.C is concerned, I found that according to the Hon'ble Supreme Court as laid down in the case Durgacharan Naik & Others Vs. State of Orrissa cited as AIR 1966 SC 1775, wherein apex court held that, "Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code does not bar the trial of an accused person for a distinct offence disclosed by the same or slightly different set of facts and which is not included within the ambit of the section, but we must point out that the provisions of Sec.195 can not be evaded by resorting to devices or camouflage".
20. In the presence offence the contention is that the ration card has been obtained by filing false affidavit before public authority and thereby got issued two ration cards, which otherwise would not have been issued, thereby offence punishable under Sec.182 IPC is also committed the cognizance of the same is barred except on complaint by the concerned authority under Sec.195 Cr.PC. But I found that filing of wrong affidavit and issuance of ration cards are two distinct offences based upon slightly different facts but overlapping and therefore, in view of law laid down by Apex Court in case Durga Charan Naik & Others (Supra). There is no bar of taking cognizance Crl. Revision No.65/11 Avtar Singh Vs. State 6 of offence punishable under Sec.420 IPC. Therefore, revision is partly allowed to the extent that accused be charged for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. So far as the framing of charge u/s. 468 IPC is concerned, to that extent, order of Ld. Trial Court is set aside. Copy of the order along with Trial Court Record be sent back. Revision file be consigned to record room.
(VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL) ASJ/ FTC (WEST) TIS HAZARI, DELHI Announced in open court on 07.11.2014 Crl. Revision No.65/11 Avtar Singh Vs. State 7 07.11.2014 Present: Sh.Virender Singh, Ld.Addl.PP for State.
Vide separate order announced in open court, revision is partly allowed to the extent that accused be charged for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. So far as the framing of charge u/s. 468 IPC is concerned, to that extent, order of Ld. Trial Court is set aside. Copy of the order along with Trial Court Record be sent back. Revision file be consigned to record room.
(VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL) ASJ/ FTC (WEST) TIS HAZARI, DELHI Crl. Revision No.65/11 Avtar Singh Vs. State 8