Delhi District Court
State vs . Ram Avtar on 2 January, 2015
IN THE COURT OF Ms. SHEETAL CHAUDHARY PRADHAN:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE10 (SOUTHEAST): SAKET
COURTS:NEW DELHI
State Vs. Ram Avtar
FIR No. 59/2010
U/s 468/474 IPC
P.S. Greater KailashI
J U D G M E N T
Serial No. of the Case : 246/2/14
Unique Identification No. : 02406R0469072010
Date of Institution : 25.06.2010
Date on which case reserved for
judgment : 02.01.2015
Date of judgment : 24.01.2015
Name of the complainant : HC Bishan Ram
No.159/SE.
Date of the commission of offence : 27.04.2010
Name of accused : Ram Avtar @ Hari Chand
s/o Shri Uday Ram @
Kanhaiya Lal
FIR No. 59/2010
P.S.Greater KailashI Page No.1 of 12
r/o H. No.F278, Gali No.10,
Shashtri Park, New Delhi
Also at: A556, Rakesh
Pandey Ka Makaan,
Sangam Vihar, New Delhi
Offence complained of : U/s 468/474 IPC
Offence charged of : U/s 468/474 IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Final order : Convicted u/s. 474 IPC and
u/s. 471 IPC
Date of Institution : 25.06.2010
Date on which case reserved
for judgment : 02.01.2015
Date of judgment : 24 .01.2015
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR
THE DECISION OF THE CASE
BRIEF FACTS:
Briefly the case of the prosecution is that the present FIR was registered on a complaint of HC Bishan Ram, wherein he had stated that accused Ram Avtar s/o Shri Uday Ram who was wanted in FIR No.80/02 u/s 191/193/205/420/468/465/471/120B IPC of P.S. Sabzi Mandi was arrested U/s 41.1 FIR No. 59/2010 P.S.Greater KailashI Page No.2 of 12
(c) Cr.P.C. as proclaimed offender vide DD No.39A dated 27.04.2010 and during his personal search (i) one I Card of Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) was recovered issued by Nand Nagari Depot. The same was bearing the photograph of the accused and mentioned token no.6131, registration No.0697, ICard No.39250 PostLDC and mentioned the name and address of accused dated 23.05.2009 and was stated to be valid till 22.06.2014. The aforesaid Icard was signed by Account Office Nand Nagari Depot (ii) One Election ID card issued in the name of the accused mentioning the name and address of accused dated 28.01.1995 also issued from Nand Nagari Constituency was recovered (iii) One DTC Nand Nagri Depot New Delhi 1993, Office Report dated 31.01.2010 in the name of accused Hari Chand, issued in the name of the accused and also PaySlips dated 28.02.2010 & 31.03.2010 issued by Delhi Transport Corporation having the name of accused as Hari Chand s/o Kanhiya Lal, GPF B. No.2686 and one photograph also of accused Ram Avtar was found. Thereafter, accused was inquired about the document and on interrogation accused disclosed that he has been using the same for standing surety in various matters in various courts of Delhi and stands as fake surety. He further disclosed, same were prepared by him and also previously stood surety in various matters.
2. On the basis of the above mentioned complaint, the present FIR was registered. Investigation was carried out and on the conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed. Copy of the charge sheet was supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
FIR No. 59/2010 P.S.Greater KailashI Page No.3 of 12
3. On the basis of material placed on record, charge was framed against the accused under Section 468/474 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. It is evident to discuss the testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses in the present matter, prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses in order to prove its case.
PW1 Shri S. D. Shukla (ManagerDTC, Dilshad Garden) deposed that on 04.05.2010 SI Rajbir Singh came to verify the Icard No.39250 and payslip of Hari Chand s/o Kanhaiya Lal and after checking the official record, he found the aforesaid Icard and payslips were not issued by Nand Nagri DTC Deport and submitted his report to the IO.
During his crossexamination, PW1 stated that he had submitted his report to SI Rajbir Singh in presence of some other official.
PW2 Shri Ghansham (AERO) deposed that on 04.05.2010 SI Rajbir Singh came to verify the Voter ID card No.DL/07/069/255342 of Hari Chand s/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal and after checking the computer record, it was found that the aforesaid card number was invalid and therefore, he submitted his report to the IO.
Opportunity to crossexamine PW2 was granted to the accused but he did not question anything to PW2.
FIR No. 59/2010 P.S.Greater KailashI Page No.4 of 12
PW3 HC Bishan Ram (complainant) deposed that on 27.04.2010 at about 09:00PM he had arrested the accused Ram Avtar s/o Shri Uday Ram in FIR No. 80/02 of P.S. Sabzi Mandi who was already declared proclaimed offender vide DD No.39A dated 27.04.2010 Ex.PW3/C from Madhuban Chowk Court side on the pointing out of a secret informer and arrested vide memo Ex.PW3/A and his personal search was conducted vide Ex.PW3/B. Upon his personal search, one Icard of DTC, Nand Nagri Depot, one Voter ID card were recovered and the same was found to be issued in the name of Hari Chand s/o Kanhaiya Lal r/o C3/433, Nand Nagri Resettlement Colony, Delhi and Voter ID card was also issued in the name of Hari Chand s/o Kanhaiya Lal. In this regard, the report of DTC, Nand Nagri Depot was Ex.PW3/D and two pay slips issued in the name of accused Hari Chand s/o Kanhaiya Lal was Ex.PW3/E (collectively).
During the crossexamination, PW3 stated that the accused was apprehended at Madhuban Chowk, near Rohini court, at about 4.30 p.m., while he was getting down from the bus. He was apprehended at the instance of secret informer and his arrest was made at about 9.00 p.m. The preliminary investigation was carried out at PS. PW4 HC Lalit Kumar deposed that on 27.04.2010 at about 9.00 p.m., he along with IO HC Bishan Ram had arrested the accused Ram Avtar in FIR no. 80/02 of PS Sabji Mandi who was already declared PO vide DD no. 39A dated 27.04.2010 from Madhuban Chowk/Court Side on the pointing of secret informer and upon his personal search vide Ex. PW3/B, one ID card of DTC, Nand Nagari Depot FIR No. 59/2010 P.S.Greater KailashI Page No.5 of 12 and voter ID card was recovered and upon inquiry it was found that all the documents recovered were forged. Thereafter, IO had prepared rukka Ex. PW3/F and the present FIR was registered. Subsequently, the case was investigated by IO SI Rajbir.
During the crossexamination, PW4 stated that the accused was apprehended at Rohini court side from Madhuban Chowk, while he was getting down from the bus and no public person was joined in the investigation though, IO had requested but they all left the spot without disclosing their names and addresses. First IO of the case had conducted the personal search of the accused and the preliminary investigation was done at the spot and further investigation was carried out at PS and IO had offered his personal search to the public persons but they all refused. No notice was given to the public person.
PW5 HC Puran Singh deposed that upon receiving rukka from HC Bishan Ram he endorsed the same vide Ex. PW5/B and present FIR was registered vide Ex. PW5/A. Opportunity to cross examine PW5 was granted to the accused but he did not question anything to PW5.
PW6 Inspector Harpal Singh deposed that the investigation of the present case matter was handed over to him and he had prepared the chargesheet and filed the same before the case.
Opportunity to cross examine PW6 was granted to the accused but he did not question anything to PW6.
FIR No. 59/2010 P.S.Greater KailashI Page No.6 of 12
PW7 Ct. Sunil deposed that on 27.04.2010 while he was posted at PS G K I, one secret informer came to PS and informer HC Bishan that one person namely accused who was a proclaimed absconder, will come near Rohini Court and can be apprehended. Upon receiving the same, HC Bishan prepared the raiding party consisting of PW3 HC Bishan, HC Lalit and himself and the secret informer. Therafter, upon reaching the spot of arrest, accused was apprehended and kalandra was prepared and thereafter accused was sent to the PS. During the crossexamination, PW7 stated that he did not remember the exact time when secret informer came to the PS but he had informed verbally and the secrete information was not written. Further, that they left the PS between 3.00 - 4.00 p.m. and reached the spot at about 4.30 p.m. and though, the place being public, no person was examined by the IO as no public person agreed to join the investigation. Further they all were dressed in civil clothes and after apprehending the accused, they remained at the spot for about one hour. The documents were recovered from the possession of the accused as narrated by other witnesses in his presence.
PW8 SI Rajbir Singh deposed that on 27.04.2010, accused was arrested in FIR no. 80/02 of PS Sabji Mandi by HC Bishan Ram and after arresting the accused some forged documents were found in the possession of the accused and the present FIR was registered and the investigation of the case was marked to him. During investigation, accused was produced before Tis Hazari Courts and his production warrants were obtained and he was formally arrested vide memo Ex. FIR No. 59/2010 P.S.Greater KailashI Page No.7 of 12 PW8/A and disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex. PW8/B. The recovered documents were sealed vide Ex. PW8/C and all the documents were got verified from Nand Nagari Depot and also from Election Office, Nand Nagari. IN the election Icard and DTC card which were recovered from the accused, the same was received in the name of Harish Chand while the photo of the accused was pasted on it. Further, after verification it was confirmed from Nand Nagari Depot that the Icard as well as all the salary slips were not issued from the department. The verification of election Icard was also found to be negative and the same was not found issued from the election office. He recorded the statements of the witnesses and thereafter, on 09.05.2010, he was transferred and the case was marked to subsequent IO.
During the crossexamination, PW8 stated that the aforesaid case was marked to him on 27.04.2010 and the investigation was conducted regarding the genuineness of the documents and the same was done by him after the arrest of the accused and accused was produced in DD no. 39A in the court on 28.04.2010 and he had moved an application for seeking permission to arrest. Further, that he did not remember the exact time or date when he had recorded the statement of Gyan Shyam and Shri S D Shukla in their office. Further that the documents were not sent to FSL. The documents had the photo of the accused affixed and the name and address of the same were different.
5. After completion of the prosecution evidence, prosecution evidence was closed and statement of the accused as mandated by Section 313 r/w 281 CrPC FIR No. 59/2010 P.S.Greater KailashI Page No.8 of 12 was recorded and all the incriminating circumstances came in evidence put to the accused for explanation.
6. No defence witness was examined on behalf of the accused.
7. Before appreciating the evidence, I would like to have a glance at relevant statutory provisions necessary for the disposal of this case.
As per Section 468 IPC : whoever commits forgery , intending that the (document or electronic record forged) shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to pay fine.
As per Section 474 IPC: (whoever has in his possession any document or electronic record, knowing the same to be forged and intending that the same shall fraudulently or dishonestly be used as genuine, shall, if the document or electronic record is one of the description mentioned in section 466 of this Code) be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine and if the document is one of the description mentioned in section 467 shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to pay fine.
FIR No. 59/2010 P.S.Greater KailashI Page No.9 of 12
8. Learned APP for the State had argued that all the prosecution witnesses had supported the case of the prosecution and all the witnesses in their testimonies have very clearly deposed that accused with the fraudulent intention was having in his possession the forged documents with the intention to commit cheating and therefore, he is liable for the alleged offences.
9. On the other hand, The Ld. LAC for the accused has argued that the prosecution has failed to establish its case since the prosecution witnesses in their crossexamination has deposed that the accused did not use the same in any capacity and was barely in possession of the same and therefore, no offence alleged against him is made out and he is liable to be acquitted.
10. I have heard Learned Counsel for accused and Learned APP for the State and gone through the material available on record and has considered the testimony of various witnesses and gone through the evidence on record.
11. In the present matter after going through the material on record and the testimonies of the witnesses, I am of the considered view that primarily to prove the offence u/s. 468/474 IPC, prosecution was required to prove that there there was forgery in respect to a document and the intention of the forgery was that the forged document would be used for the purpose of cheating and the forgery was with a particular intent and the accused was in possession of the forged documents and he FIR No. 59/2010 P.S.Greater KailashI Page No.10 of 12 had knowledge that the document or record was forged and his intention was to use the same fraudulently or dishonestly.
12. In the present matter, there is cogent evidence placed on record by the prosecution to substantiate offence u/s. 474 IPC since the documents recovered from the possession of the accused were forged and not genuine which is substantiate, if we perused the testimony of PW1 and PW2 and that the accused was in possession of the same which fall in the category of document described in section 466 IPC as the documents were purporting to public record, where a clear inference can be drawn that the intention of the accused was to use the same as genuine. Accordingly, accused is convicted for the offence punishable u/s. 474 IPC.
13. Further as far as the aspect of committing forgery u/s. 468 IPC is concerned, prosecution has failed to establish that the documents recovered from the possession of the accused were prepared or forged by the accused himself as the same were not even sent to FSL for comparison or opinion. Therefore, accused is acquitted for the offence punishable u/s. 468 IPC.
14. On the basis of facts and circumstances, the charge against the accused stands proved u/s. 474 IPC. Accordingly, the accused Ram Avtar is convicted for commission of offences punishable U/s 474 IPC & is acquitted for the offence FIR No. 59/2010 P.S.Greater KailashI Page No.11 of 12 punishable u/s. 468 IPC.
15. At the request of the accused as he is produced from JC in some other matter, put up for arguments on sentence, today itself at 2.30 p.m. Pronounced in open court (SHEETAL CHAUDHARY PRADHAN) on 24.01.2015 MM10 (SouthEast): Saket Courts:
New Delhi:24.01.2015 FIR No. 59/2010 P.S.Greater KailashI Page No.12 of 12