Delhi District Court
State vs Vijay Kumar Jain on 23 August, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SHRI YASHDEEP CHAHAL
Metropolitan Magistrate01 : New Delhi District
Patiala House Courts : New Delhi.
FIR No.734/2000
P.S. : Connaught Place
Under Section : 420, 467 of IPC
State Vs. Vijay Kumar Jain
ID number of the case : New No. 56625/2016
DLND020003932003
Date of commission of : 02.06.1999.
offence
Date of institution of the : 19.12.2003.
case
Name of the complainant : Shri J.N. Kakkar, Deputy Director (Estates),
NDMC, Palika Kendra, New Delhi.
Name of accused and : Shri Vijay Kumar Jain,
address S/o Shri R.S. Jain,
R/o WZ34/1, Golden Park, Rampura,
Delhi110035.
Offence Complained of : Under Section : 420 & 471 of the Indian
Or Proved Penal Code, 1860.
Offence charged of : Under Section : 420 & 471 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860.
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Convicted
Date of Judgment : 23.08.2023.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION
FIR No.734/2000 State Vs. Vijay Kumar Jain Page No. 1
1.The accused in the year 1997 was allotted a shop on licence by the complainant, NDMC and the accused had furnished a bank guarantee from Union Bank of India. During the period of sustenance, accused sent a letter to Union Bank of India, purportedly written by Assistant Director (EstatesII), NDMC and got released the FDR and Kishan Vikas Patra against which the bank guarantee was given by the bank in favour of NDMC. Effectively, the accused is alleged to have discharged the bank guarantee on the basis of a forged letter which was presented by him as genuine in the bank.
2. By this judgment, I shall decide the case of the prosecution filed against accused Vijay Kumar Jain.
3. As per version of prosecution, between 02.06.1999 to 03.02.2000, NDMC allotted a Shop No. 53 at Shaheed Bhagat Singh Palace to accused Vijay Kumar Jain on licence basis, subject to furnishing bank guarantee/FDR and Kishan Vikas Patra. However, the accused with an intention to cheat the complainant/Union Bank of India, fraudulently and dishonestly forged a letter bearing No. SA/VI/Estate/0762/D dated 02.06.1999, purportedly issued by Assistant Director, EstateII, NDMC, Palika Kendra, New Delhi and used the same as a genuine and produced it before the Union Bank of India, Connaught Place Branch, New Delhi for getting released the said Bank Guarantee No. 369/98 dated 08.01.1998 for Rs.1,71,644/, original FDRs and Kishan Vikas Patras in his favour. Thus, accused Vijay Kumar Jain FIR No.734/2000 State Vs. Vijay Kumar Jain Page No. 2 committed an offence punishable under Section 420 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code,1860.
4. Thereafter, complainant lodged an FIR. After conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed by the I.O. Subsequently, charges under Section 420 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 were framed against accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. During the period in which the accused was absconding, prosecution evidence was recorded in absence of the accused under Section 299 Cr.PC. In the evidence under Section 299 Cr.PC, Constable Vinod Kumar was examined.
6. Upon apprehension of the accused, certain witnesses were recalled and prosecution evidence was conducted. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined eight witnesses.
7. During his testimony recorded on 01.04.2008, PW1 Duty Officer/Head Constable Madan Lal proved registration of FIR, copy of which is Ex. PW1/A, bearing his signature at point and endorsement on the rukka at point X. After registration of case, he had handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to SubInspector Heera Lal for handing it over to I.O. for further investigation.
FIR No.734/2000 State Vs. Vijay Kumar Jain Page No. 38. Shri Pramod Kumar Maheshwari, S/o Late Goverdhan Dass, Retired Chief Manager, Union Bank of India, R/o C304, Saket Dham, Sector61, Noida deposed as PW2 that in the year 2000 while working as Chief Manager in Connaught Place Branch, he had replied the notice under Section 91 Cr.PC of the I.O. vide reply Ex. PW2/A vide reference No. CP:BG:2253/00 dated 08.11.2000 and had provided certain documents i.e. copy of letter No. 0685 dated 18.05.1999 (Mark 2A1), copy of letter No. 0762 dated 02.06.1999 (Mark2A2) and letter dated 13.03.1999 (Ex. PW2/B). In his reply, he had stated that original bank guarantee was lying with the NDMC and the same was not returned by it. Thereafter, on 01.12.2000, he had also provided certain documents i.e. copy of letter No. 172/P dated 15.01.1991 by Assistant Director (Mark2A3), copy of letter No. 2366 dated 02.12.1998, signed by Assistant Director (Mark2A4), copy of letter No. 3852 dated 27.01.2000 signed by Assistant Director (Mark2A5) and details of security deposit of Mr. V.K. Jain (Mark2A6) in response to notice under Section 91 Cr.PC of the I.O.
9. During further examinationinchief of PW2 it came on record that complete original file of bank guarantee No. 369/98 was not traceable in the Bank records vide order daed 21.04.2016, however, photocopy of the same was available on the judicial file (running into two pages) and the same was marked as Mark Z1).
FIR No.734/2000 State Vs. Vijay Kumar Jain Page No. 410. During his crossexamination, PW2 deposed that in the year 199899, he was not posted in Connaught Place Branch, when case of accused Vijay Kumar Jain was handed over in the bank. He further deposed that neither he had seen nor identified accused at the relevant time. He further affirmed that documents Ex. PW2/B, Mark2A1 & Mark2A2 were not made in his presence nor had he seen the originals thereof. He further deposed that he had provided photocopies of the documents, mentioned at serial Nos. 2, 3 & 4 in Ex. PW2/A, which were available in the records of Bank. He further deposed that Ex. PW 2/B is the duplicate copy of the original since original document was sent to NDMC. However, he could not say whether Mark Z1 is the photocopy of the original document or not. He further deposed that he had seen documents Ex. PW2/X1, Ex. PW2/X2, Ex. PW2/X3, Ex. PW2/X4, Ex. PW2/X5 and Ex. P2/X1. He could not say whether these documents were available in the records of Bank or not.
11. Retired Deputy Director (Estates), NDMC, Palika Kendra, Shri J.N. Kakkar, S/o Late B.C. Kakkar, R/o A32, Brij Vihar, Pitam Pura, Delhi110034 was examined as PW3. He verified his signatures on the complaint/letter dated 12.12.2000, Ex. PW3/A, at point A.
12. Assistant SubInspector Kanwar Pal, No. 2020, Posted in Security, EBlock, Security Line, New Delhi was examined as PW4. He deposed on oath that on 03.05.2003, while he was posted as Constable in Police Station Connaught Place, he had joined investigation in the FIR No.734/2000 State Vs. Vijay Kumar Jain Page No. 5 present case along with SubInspector S.K. Verma, who had arrested accused Vijay Kumar Jain vide memo Ex. PW4/A and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW4/B. Disclosure statement of accused was recorded vide memo Ex. PW4/C and specimen signatures of accused Vijay Kumar Jain were taken by the I.O. vide memo Ex. PW 4/D (running into nine pages), all bearing his signature at point A respectively.
13. Retired Deputy Government Examiner Shri S.N. Gupta, S/o Late Manohar Lal, R/o Flat No. 301, Surya Tower, ABlock, Snehpuri Colony, Nacharam, Hyderabad was examined as PW5. He deposed on oath that during his service tenure documents of the present case were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination and opinion by Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, New Delhi District, vide memo No. 966/SO/ADCPI/NDD dated 26.03.2001. After careful and thorough examination of the questioned and standard documents he came to the conclusion/opinion (Ex. PW5/C) that the person who had written red enclosed signatures, stamped and marked S1 to S3 and A1 to A3 did not write the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked Q1. He further deposed that Shri D.D. Goyal had also examined these documents independently and came to the same conclusion. He further deposed that opinion based on the reasons (Ex. PW5/D) is correct. Thereafter, the opinion was forwarded to then DCP vide letter No. AH42/2001/1384 & 1385 dated 11.12/04/2001.
FIR No.734/2000 State Vs. Vijay Kumar Jain Page No. 614. PW5 further deposed that documents consisting of questioned documents Mark Q1 and specimen signatures of accused Vijay Kumar Jain, Mark S4 to S12 (on nine sheets) Ex. PW4/D (collectively) were again sent for examination and opinion vide memo No. 1878/SO/ADCP/NDD dated 12.05.20003. After careful and thorough examination of the questioned and specimen documents he came to the conclusion (Ex. PW5/E) that signature Mark Q1 is slow drawn and imitated carefully and as such do not afford suitable and sufficient scientific data for basing any opinion on it. He further deposed that Shri R.B. Bhosale, Assistant Government Examiner had also examined those documents independently and came to the same conclusion.
15. Investigating Officer/Inspector Heera Lal, No. D1/779, Posted as InCharge, Special Staff, Shahdara District, Delhi was examined as PW6. He deposed on oath that on 16.10.2000, while he was posted as SubInspector in Police Station Connaught Place, he had received a written complaint from NDMC, Palika Kendra, New Delhi against accused Vijay Kumar Jain, which is already Ex. PW3/A. Thereafter, he prepared rukka Ex. PW6/A, bearing his signature at point A. He further deposed that complainant had given photocopies of relevant documents and after scrutinizing the same, he had issued notice under Section 91 Cr.PC (Ex. PW6/B) to Shri J.N. Kakkar, the then Director and Union Bank of India to provide certain documents which were received on 01.12.2000 from the concerned Bank vide reference FIR No.734/2000 State Vs. Vijay Kumar Jain Page No. 7 No. CP:BG:2543/00 dated 01.12.2000 (already Ex. PW2/C). Thereafter, on 23.11.2000, he had obtained specimen handwriting of Shri R.L. Sharma (running into three pages, already Ex. PW5/B). Later, he was transferred to Police Station Tughlak Road, hence case file was deposited with MHC (R).
16. PW6 Inspector Heera Lal was not crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for accused despite opportunity.
17. Final Investigating Officer/Inspector Sanjeev Kumar Verma, No. D319, Posted at ATO, P.S. Preet Vihar, Delhi was examined as PW7. He deposed on oath that in the year 2002 while he was posted as SubInspector at Police Station Connaught Place, New Delhi, further investigation of this case was marked to him. Thereafter, he had served notices under Section 91 Cr.PC to the Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Connaught Place on 02.12.2002. Subsequently, he had received reply dated 07.12.2002, wherein it was replied by the Chief Manager that original bank guarantee was not returned to the concerned person (accused Vijay Kumar Jain) and said guarantee was given against the security of FDRs worth Rs.70,000/ and Kisan Vikas Patra worth Rs.1,05,000/ and original FDRs and Kisan Vikas Patras were released to the accused on 29.06.1999 which were encashed by him on 20.07.2001 in his A/c. No. 11378. The Bank Manager had also provided certified copies of FDRs and KVPs and release application of accused Vijay Kumar Jain dated 28.06.1999. PW7 correctly identified copies of FDRs FIR No.734/2000 State Vs. Vijay Kumar Jain Page No. 8 and KVPs as well as release application as MarkB, MarkC and MarkD respectively. Thereafter, on 03.12.202, he served notice under Section 91 Cr.PC (Ex. PW7/A) to the then Deputy Director (Estates), NDMC to provide certain documents. Subsequently, on 08.01.2003, he received a reply (MarkE) wherein Assistant Director, namely, Maan Singh had provided photocopy of the bank guarantee (already marked as Z1). He also informed that no letter bearing No. SAVI/Estates/0685/P dated 18.05.1999 was issued by his department. Thereafter, he formally arrested the accused vide memo Ex. PW4/A and personally searched him vide memo Ex. PW4/B and recorded disclosure statement of accused vide memo Ex. PW4/C. After that he obtained specimen handwriting and signatures of accused Ex. PW4/D (running into nine pages), all bearing his signatures at point B. Thereafter, he sent the same to GEQD, Hyderabad for expert opinion. After completion of investigation, he prepared the charge sheet and filed the same in the concerned Court. PW7 correctly identified the accused in the Court.
18. PW7 was not crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for accused despite opportunity.
19. Shri Gursharan, Head Assistant, EstatesI, NDMC, New Delhi was examined as PW8. He produced file containing original allotment letter dated 07.11.1997 in respect of Shop No. 53, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Place in favour of Vijay Kumar Jain (Ex. PW8/A). The letter dated 08.01.1998 in respect of aforesaid shop was exhibited as Ex.
FIR No.734/2000 State Vs. Vijay Kumar Jain Page No. 9PW8/B. The occupation/vacation report dated 13.01.1998 in respect of aforesaid shop was exhibited as Ex. PW8/C. He deposed that release of bank guarantee dated 02.06.1999 (already marked as Mark P2/X1) and Mark 2A2 (already Ex. PW5/A) and all other relevant documents were handed over to the I.O. during investigation.
20. PW8 was not crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for accused despite opportunity.
21. After completion of evidence of all the PWs, P.E. was closed.
22. Statement of accused was recorded under Section 281 read with Section 313 of Cr.PC on 10.10.2022, wherein the accused stated that he has not committed any offence, as alleged. Further, he has no knowledge about the documents in question. Rather, he had joined the investigation in the present case and his specimen signatures were taken by the I.O. but the same did not match in the scientific examination as he did not forge any document. Further, SubInspector S.K. Verma did not record his disclosure statement and has written a false statement. However, the accused did not lead any evidence in his defence.
23. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for final arguments.
FIR No.734/2000 State Vs. Vijay Kumar Jain Page No. 1024. Final arguments were advanced by Ld. APP on behalf of State as well as by Ld. Counsel for accused.
25. Ld. APP for the State submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and all the witnesses have invariably supported the case of the prosecution.
26. Per contra, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for accused that the story of the prosecution, especially the testimony of the complainant, suffers from material inconsistencies and the case has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. He further submitted that the material witnesses have not disclosed incriminating circumstances to the satisfaction of the Court and the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden.
27. The fundamental rule of criminal law postulates that the burden of proving the case rests on the shoulders of the prosecution. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the accused was allotted a Shop No. 53 at Shaheed Bhagat Singh Palace by NDMC between 02.06.1999 to 03.02.2000 on licence basis, subject to furnishing bank guarantee which was sanctioned by the bank on the basis of FDR and Kisan Vikas Patra. However, the accused with an intention to cheat the complainant, fraudulently and dishonestly forged a letter bearing No. SA/VI/Estate/0762/D dated 02.06.1999, purportedly issued by Assistant Director, EstateII, NDMC, Palika Kendra, New Delhi and used the FIR No.734/2000 State Vs. Vijay Kumar Jain Page No. 11 same as genuine and produced it before the Union Bank of India, Connaught Place Branch, New Delhi for getting discharged the said Bank Guarantee and to secure release of original FDRs and Kisan Vikas Patra in his favour. Subsequently, the amount was released in his favour.
28. Before proceeding, I may reproduce Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code for ready reference, which reads thus:
420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
-- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
29. Section 420 IPC culminates two elements of cheating and delivery of property as a result of deception followed by inducement in a dishonest manner. Whereas, the latter element is fairly clear, the former derives its meaning from Section 415 IPC, which reads thus :
415. Cheating. Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudu lently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to de liver any property to any person, or to consent that any per son shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".
Explanation.--A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section.
FIR No.734/2000 State Vs. Vijay Kumar Jain Page No. 1230. I may now briefly lay down the ingredients required for proving the offence under question. For bringing home the charge under Section 420 of IPC, it is essential that -
(a) The accused deceives any person by doing any act including a false representation;
(b) The deception results in dishonest or fraudulent inducement of any person to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security.
31. For proving the offence under Section 471 of IPC, the basic ingredient is of forgery as provided under Section 463 of IPC. It may be noted that forgery is making of any false document with the intent to cause damage or injury to any person or to support any claim or title or to cause any person to part with property etc. The essential ingredient of forgery is making of a false document which is defined in Section 464 of IPC. In Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of Bihar, 2009 (8) SCC 751, Section 464 of IPC was explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and was divided into three categories. The relevant para may be reproduced as :
FIR No.734/2000 State Vs. Vijay Kumar Jain Page No. 131. "14.An analysis of Section 464 of the Penal Code shows that it divides false documents into three categories:
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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."
32. In addition to the above, Section 471 penalizes dishonest or fraudulent use of any forged document as genuine, despite knowing or having reason to believe that it was forged.
33. Coming to the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution, it is the foremost requirement of criminal law that the prosecution must establish three essential attributes - actus reus, mens rea and causal link between the crime and accused on trial. The actus reus required in this case is of inducement with a dishonest intent leading to delivery of property (for the offence under Section 420) and use of a forged document as genuine (for the offence under Section 471). So far as the mens rea is concerned, all the offences in question primarily require a dishonest or fraudulent intention.
FIR No.734/2000 State Vs. Vijay Kumar Jain Page No. 1434. In the entire prosecution evidence, the material witnesses examined by the prosecution are PW2, PW3 and PW7. PW2 was Chief Manager, Union Bank of India and primarily testified regarding the reply submitted by the Bank which is Ex. PW2/A. PW2 did not have any personal information regarding the case and could not identify the accused. However, I may note at the very outset that the non identification of the accused, in this case, is not material as the witness had joined the bank later and could not have identified the accused for understandable reasons. PW3 has confirmed the contents of the complaint which is Ex. PW3/A. Furthermore, PW7 has testified regarding the reply obtained by him from the Bank. There is no manner of doubt regarding the genuineness of the reply sent by the bank. The said reply, which is Ex. PW2/A, discloses that the original bank guarantee No. 369/98, executed in favour of NDMC was lying with NDMC itself. It further discloses that the accused had approached the Bank on the strength of two documents, namely, letter No. 685 dated 18.05.1999 purportedly addressed by NDMC to the accused and letter No. 762 dated 02.06.1999 purportedly addressed by NDMC to the Bank. These are the forged documents which were used by the accused for securing release of guarantee documents, as alleged. The entire case of the prosecution is primarily based on documentary evidence and the aforesaid letters constitute the primary evidence in this case. No doubt, the witnesses on behalf of the bank and NDMC could not testify with respect to their personal knowledge. However, the witnesses have appeared in official capacity and have testified with respect to the FIR No.734/2000 State Vs. Vijay Kumar Jain Page No. 15 genuineness of the documents relied upon by the prosecution, supplied from their end. Thus understood, the documentary evidence forms the genesis of this matter and the same is to be appreciated as such.
35. For further appreciation of evidence, I shall refer to the aforesaid two letters bearing exhibit Ex. PW5/A (with respect to letter dated 02.06.1999 written by Assistant DirectorII, Estate) and Mark 2/A 1 (with respect to letter dated 18.05.1999), original complaint given by NDMC, Ex. PW3/A and MarkB which is a reply on behalf of the bank to the I.O. Ex. PW5/A is the principal document which was given by the accused to the Bank for release of FDR and Kisan Vikas Patra. The said document is purportedly executed by Assistant DirectorII, Estates, NDMC. The signature of the said officer on the said letter was marked as Questioned signatures (Q1) and was sent for scientific examination/comparison with specimen and admitted signatures of the said officer. The report of examination, has been exhibited by PW5 as Ex. PW5/C, wherein it has been opined that the said letter was not signed by the officer of NDMC. The opinion of PW5 makes it clear that the said letter was not written on behalf of NDMC and was indeed a false document. The signature on the said letter was also compared with the specimen and admitted signatures of the accused. The report in that regard is Ex. PW5/E which reveals that the signatures of the accused did not match with the questioned signatures. A question that arises at this stage is whether the inconclusive report of scientific examination would ipso facto absolve the accused from the charges. The answer, in my FIR No.734/2000 State Vs. Vijay Kumar Jain Page No. 16 considered opinion is in negative. For, I have carefully gone through the report of scientific examination as well as the specimen signatures of the accused which were taken by the I.O. for the purpose of comparison. The specimen signatures of the accused are marked as S1 to S12 and are collectively Ex. PW4/D. On a perusal of the specimen signatures, I am compelled to observe that the signatures taken by the I.O. were not at all similar to the questioned signatures. It is amply clear that for conducting a comparison between questioned and standard signatures, the specimen signatures/handwriting are to be obtained in a similar style and manner as the questioned signatures. In this case, the specimen signatures/handwriting samples are carried out in a materially different style. It is no surprise that the comparison carried out by scientific examination failed. The signatures appear to be materially different even from the naked eye. In such circumstances, the report of scientific examination is liable to be rejected and cannot form the basis of any judicial opinion.
36. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the letter in question was indeed a forged document, since it is conclusively proved that it was not executed by Asst. Director (EstatesII), NDMC. The replies received from the Bank also makes it clear that the letter was supplied to the bank by the accused and the security documents (FDR and KVP) were released in favour of the accused. The accused was the ultimate beneficiary of the deception practiced upon the bank. The replies further make it clear that the amount against the said security documents was FIR No.734/2000 State Vs. Vijay Kumar Jain Page No. 17 indeed credited in the account of the accused. Thus, the prosecution has successfully proved the causal link between the alleged act and the accused. In such circumstances, it is not material that the accused was not identified in the Court. Such an identification cannot be carried out by an official witness from the Bank. The documents on record speak volumes in favour of the case of the prosecution and in fact, point towards a uniform conclusion.
37. The factual matrix of the case also reveals that much before the expiry of the Bank guarantee on 03.01.1999, the complainant NDMC had written multiple letters to the Bank asking for revalidation of the Bank guarantee after the prescribed period of one year. The said request for revalidation, as discernible from the terms of Bank guarantee, was in accordance with the normal procedure as the bank guarantee had to be revalidated after each year. The first request in this regard was made on 02.12.1998, second request was made on 15.01.1999. Thereafter, on 27.01.2000, another request was sent by NDMC to the Bank reiterating the request for revalidation of Bank guarantee. It was in response to this communication that the Bank informed NDMC about the fact that the Bank guarantee had already been discharged/released in favour of the accused in response to the alleged letter dated 02.06.1999. A perusal of the contents of the said letter reveals that the letter was meant to free the bank from any further communication with NDMC. It is stated in the letter, purportedly written by NDMC, that the accused had furnished a new guarantee in favour of NDMC and accordingly, it was requested FIR No.734/2000 State Vs. Vijay Kumar Jain Page No. 18 that the amount against the existing bank guarantee No. 369/98 be released in favour of the accused. This letter also shows beyond any doubt that the accused was the beneficiary of the said letter and the same is substantiated by the fact that the amount was actually released in the account of the accused. In other words, the inducement practiced on the strength of the forged letter resulted in the delivery of property in favour of the accused.
38. Even if it is assumed that the letter was written by someone else, the credit of guarantee amount in his account ought to have alarmed the accused and he must have approached either NDMC or the Bank to inform the same. It was never done by the accused. Even otherwise, the accused has not even given a suggestion or a statement under Section 313 Cr.PC to the effect that the letter was forged by someone else or that the inducement was offered by someone else. In such circumstances, it is beyond doubt that the bank was induced by the accused to release the amount against the Bank guarantee and the amount was actually delivered in his favour.
39. It is fairly settled that intention is to be gathered from surrounding circumstances and overall conduct of the accused. As noted above, the accused simply failed to take any action with respect to the amount credited in his account and the same is in line with the other circumstantial evidence which point towards the guilt of the accused and indicates culpable conduct.
FIR No.734/2000 State Vs. Vijay Kumar Jain Page No. 1940. Even if forgery could not be proved to have been committed by the accused, the same shall have no bearing on the charge under Section 471 IPC. It is so because Section 471 contemplates using a false document as genuine. The essential ingredient is "use" of a document for the purpose of cheating. It has been proved that the letter dated 02.06.1999 was a false document (from FSL report) and also that the said letter was presented to the Bank by the accused. It is also proved that inducement and delivery of property followed on the basis of the said false document and the accused was the beneficiary in fact. In view of the same, the essential ingredients required for proving the offences under Section 420 and 471 of IPC are proved to the satisfaction of the Court and beyond reasonable doubt.
41. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully discharged its burden. The material ingredients of the offences in question have been proved to the satisfaction of the Court and beyond reasonable doubt. In fact, no doubt whatsoever was ever raised or suggested by the accused during trial. Accordingly, accused namely Vijay Kumar Jain stands convicted for the commission of offences punishable under Section 420 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
42. Let convict be heard on the point of sentence on 01.09.2023 at 2:00 p.m. FIR No.734/2000 State Vs. Vijay Kumar Jain Page No. 20
43. This judgment contains 21 pages and all pages have been signed by me. YASHDEEP Digitally signed by YASHDEEP CHAHAL CHAHAL Date: 2023.08.23 16:08:32 +0530 Announced in the open Court (YASHDEEP CHAHAL) rd On 23 August, 2023. Metropolitan Magistate.01 : NDD : PHC FIR No.734/2000 State Vs. Vijay Kumar Jain Page No. 21