Delhi District Court
State vs . Tariq Siddiqui & Anr. on 28 January, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDER KUMAR GARG, ACMM,
SOUTHEAST DISTRICT, SAKET, NEW DELHI.
Case No. RBT617/I dated 30.05.2013
Unique Case ID No. 02406R0477882009
FIR No. 14/99
PS : New Friends Colony
U/s : 467/472/474/34 IPC
State Vs. Tariq Siddiqui & Anr.
Date of Institution : 23.09.2000
Date of reserve of order : 22.01.2016
Date of announcement : 28.01.2016
J U D G M E N T
1. Serial No. of the case : RBT617/I dated 30.05.2013
2. Name of the Complainant : SI Yudhvir Singh
3. Date of incident : 08.01.1999
4. Name of accused person : 1. Tariq Siddiqui S/o Sh.Abdul Malik Siddiqui, R/o Mohalla Purani Munsafi, Police Station Laheria Sarai, District Darbhanga (Bihar).
2. Khalid Siddiqui S/o Sh.Abdul Malik Siddiqui, R/o Mohalla Purani Munsafi, Police Station Laheria Sarai, District Darbhanga (Bihar).
FIR No.14/99, P.S. NFC State Vs Tariq Siddiqui & Anr. Page 1 of 19
5. Offence complained of : U/s 467/472/474/34 IPC
6. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7. Final Order : Acquitted
8. Date of such Order : 28.01.2016 BRIEF REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION:
1. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that a complaint dated 8.1.1999 was given by SI Yudhvir Singh stating that accused persons namely Tariq Siddiqui and Khalid Siddiqui were in custody of the complainant on police remand in case FIR No.14/99, U/s 186/353/307/34 IPC dated 4.1.1999 P.S. Ambedkar Nagar till 13.1.1999 and on 8.1.1999 both accused persons disclosed about having fake certificates in an Atechi upon roof of their rented accommodation i.e. Room on 3rd room at House No.80A, Bhagar Nagar, New Delhi. Upon which, the complainant alongwith SI Ajay Shukla, ASI Nirbhay Singh, HC Mukesh Singh, Ct. Parmod and driver Ct. Suresh Kumar as well as both accused persons left AATS office, Amar Colony in a Govt. vehicle no.DL1L6491 for the above said place. On the way, the complainant requested 45 passersby to join the investigation, but they left without disclosing their names & addresses after stating their genuine problems. Without wasting time, at about 11.00 a.m., the complainant reached at the 3rd floor of house no.80A, FIR No.14/99, P.S. NFC State Vs Tariq Siddiqui & Anr. Page 2 of 19 Bharat Nagar, New Delhi which was pointed by the accused persons.
The owner of the house namely Suresh Sharma was joined in the investigation and he was narrated the facts. Accused persons produced one Atechi from roof of their tenanted room, which was lying under a wooden Fatta (block) and the said Atechi was of Blackish Grey colour and was bearing stickers of 'AIFA' and 'T' 'A' 'S' and accused persons disclosed that these are the same documents and stamps which they used to prepare forged certificates and give to other persons. On opening the said Atechi, several blank certificates of different institutions/schools/universities, one passport no.M861653 of Tariq Siddiqui, one chocolate colour file containing one middle class certificate of Tariq Siddiqui and admission cards of other persons, and old identity cards and other related documents of both accused persons and one blue colour raxin bag containing 27 rubber stamps of various schools, institutions and universities, were found. The complainant prepared samples of the stamps and took one copy of each of different certificates as sample and the stamps and remaining documents were kept in the same Atechi. The samples were tagged and sealed with 'YBS' and the Atechi alongwith stamps and remaining documents were also sealed with the seal of 'YBS' and all the articles were taken into the police possession. All the above said documents and stamps FIR No.14/99, P.S. NFC State Vs Tariq Siddiqui & Anr. Page 3 of 19 were forged but seems to be genuine. Upon this complaint, the present FIR was lodged against both accused persons u/s 467/472/474/34 IPC at P.S. New Friends colony.
2. After completion of investigation, charge sheet for offences u/s 467/472/474/34 IPC was filed against both accused persons and vide order dated 23.09.2000, cognizance was taken and both accused persons were summoned. On appearance of accused persons, copy of charge sheet was supplied to them free of cost.
3. Vide order dated 03.12.2004, charge for offences u/s 467/ 472/474 read with section 34 IPC was framed against both accused persons, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Charge is as follows : "That on 8.1.99 at about 11 a.m. from 88A, Third Floor, Bharat Nagar, New Delhi in furtherance of your common intention firstly you forged false documents i.e. certificates of several universities and institutions namely (i) 14 blank certificates of NIIT, (ii) 11 blank diploma certificates of IIFT,
(iii) 15 blank certificates of B.Com. of Jamia Milia Islamia University, (iv) and other forged degrees / certificates/mark sheets of various institutions mentioned in the seizure memo MarkA which are valuable securities have been recovered from your FIR No.14/99, P.S. NFC State Vs Tariq Siddiqui & Anr. Page 4 of 19 possession and thereby you both committed an offence u/s 467 r/w 34 IPC within the jurisdiction of P.S. N.F.C. And within my cognizance.
Secondly, at the aforesaid time and place, 27 counterfeit seals of various principals of college and authority of various universities, under secretaries were recovered from your possession as per seizure memo MarkA intending that the same shall be used for the purpose of committing forgery which you knew to be counterfeit. Thereby you both committed an offence u/s 472 r/w 34 IPC within the jurisdiction of P.S. N.F.C. and within my cognizance.
Thirdly, at the aforesaid time and place you have retained the aforesaid certificates, marks sheet and degrees of various universities and institutions knowing it to be forged and intending to use it as genuine and thereby you committed an offence u/s 474 r/w 34 IPC within the jurisdiction of P.S. N.F.C. and within my cognizance."
4. To prove its case, prosecution has examined 19 witnesses i.e. PW1 Sh.Iraq Raza Zaidi, PW2 Sh.M. Hifzur Rahman, PW3 Sh.Suresh Chand Sharma, PW4 Dr. Sudhir Bahadur, PW5 Ms. Nirmal, PW6 Surender Rajak, PW7 Pradeep Sharma, PW8 Ct. Jagveer Singh, PW9 HC Parmod, PW10 Sh.Ganga Kant Jha, PW11 FIR No.14/99, P.S. NFC State Vs Tariq Siddiqui & Anr. Page 5 of 19 Sh.Sangeet Kumar Verma, PW12 W/Si Annu, PW13 Sh.Bishamber, PW14 HC Mukesh Singh, PW15 Sh.Parmanand Ishwar, PW16 SI Yudhbir Singh, PW17 ASI Suresh and PW18 SI Parveen Vats. The following documents were exhibited / marked during prosecution evidence: Specimen impression of seal of Department of Persian, Jamia Milia Islamia as Ex.PW1/A, seizure memo of Ex.PW1/A as Ex.PW1/B, Specimen impression of seal of Asstt. Controller of Exam, Jamia Milia Islamia as Ex.PW2/A, seizure memo of Ex.PW2/A as Ex.PW2/B, specimen impression of seal of Senior Resident, Department of ENT, AIIMS as Ex.PW4/B, seizure memo of Ex.PW4/B as Ex.PW4/A, copies of disclosure statements of both accused persons and the point out memo as Ex.PW5/A to Ex.PW5/C, specimen impressions of seal belonging to Principal, Brijkishore Dharnidhar Laheria Sarai, Darbhanga as Ex.PW6/A, seizure memo of Ex.PW6/A as Ex.PW6/B, specimen impression of seal of the Director, Management Courses, Univ. Deptt of Commerce & Bus. Admin. L.N.M.U. Darbhanga as Ex.PW10/A, seizure memo of the Ex.PW10/A as Ex.PW10/B, specimen impression of seal of Principal, M.Sc. College, Darbhanga as Ex.PW11/A, seizure memo of the Ex.PW11/A as Ex.PW11/B, copy of FIR as Ex.PW12/A, endorsement on Rukka Ex.PW12/B, specimen impression of seal of Principal of ITI, FIR No.14/99, P.S. NFC State Vs Tariq Siddiqui & Anr. Page 6 of 19 Darbhanga as Ex.PW13/B, seizure memo of the Ex.PW13/B as Ex.PW13/A, specimen impression of seal of the Principal, K.S.R. Mahavidyalaya as Ex.PW15B, seizure memo of the Ex.PW15/B as Ex.PW15/A, Rukka as Ex.PW16/A, site plan as Ex.PW18/A seizure memo of specimen impression of seal of the Transport Department, Patna as Ex.PW19/A, blank documents as Ex.P1 (colly), rubber stamps as Ex.P2 (colly) and the briefcase/ Atechi as Ex.P3, paper bearing fake seal of K.S.R. Mahavidyalaya as Ex.P4, documents and sample seals of case property are Ex.P4 (colly), remaining documents and files of the case property as Ex.P5 (colly), seizure memo of case properties as MarkA and statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of PW3 as MarkA.
5. In crossexamination of PW9, he was confronted with his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C., which is Ex.PW9/D1.
6. Thereafter, PE was closed vide order dated 17.2.2015. Statement of both accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C on 24.02.2015, wherein they denied deposition of witnesses against them and they have stated that they are innocents and have been falsely implicated in this case.
7. Accused persons in their defence evidence have examined Ms. Swarn Lata, Jr. Judicial Assistant, Record Room, Sessions Court, Saket Court as DW1, who proved photocopy of the judgment dated FIR No.14/99, P.S. NFC State Vs Tariq Siddiqui & Anr. Page 7 of 19 23.02.2010 passed in FIR No.14/99, P.S. Ambedkar Nagar as Ex.DW1/A (colly).
8. I have heard Sh.Ashesh Kumar, Ld. APP for the State and Sh.Salil Kumar Jha, Ld. counsel for accused persons and have gone through the entire record carefully.
9. Ld. APP has contended that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the case against both accused persons beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, both accused persons are liable to be convicted.
10. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for accused has contended that both accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present matter. He has further contended that in FIR No.14/99, P.S. Ambedkar Nagar, in which the alleged disclosure statements stated to have been made by both accused persons, both accused persons have been acquitted in the said matter. He has further contended that prosecution has failed to prove on record that any document was made by the accused persons and hence, no case u/s 467/34 IPC is made out against the accused persons. He has further contended that no recovery as alleged by the prosecution was effected from the accused persons and neither they were in possession of any document as alleged, hence, both accused persons are entitled for acquittal. FIR No.14/99, P.S. NFC State Vs Tariq Siddiqui & Anr. Page 8 of 19
11. For deciding the present matter, it would be appropriate to refer sections 463, 464, 467, 472 and 474 IPC which read as under :
463. Forgery.-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 to contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.
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 a document; record;
(c) affixes any electronic signature on any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of 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 FIR No.14/99, P.S. NFC State Vs Tariq Siddiqui & Anr. Page 9 of 19 Secondly-Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alerts a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed of 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.
467. Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.-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 imprison ment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
FIR No.14/99, P.S. NFC State Vs Tariq Siddiqui & Anr. Page 10 of 19
472. Making or possession counterfeit seal, etc., with intent to commit forgery punishable u/s 467.-Whoever makes or counterfeits any seal, plate or other instrument for making an impression, intending that the same shall be used for the purpose of committing any forgery which would be punishable under section 467 of this Code, or, with such intent, has in his possession any such seal, plate or other instrument, knowing the same to be counterfeit, 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 fine.
474. Having possession of document described in section 466 or 467, knowing it to be forged and intending to use it as genuine.-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 fine.
12. Perusal of the file would show that the prosecution has not FIR No.14/99, P.S. NFC State Vs Tariq Siddiqui & Anr. Page 11 of 19 brought evidence on record on the issue who prepared the alleged false documents. No specimen signatures or admitted handwriting of the accused were taken and neither the said documents have been sent to FSL. The said fact has been admitted by PW19 SI Sanjay Kumar, who has admitted in his crossexamination conducted on 17.1.2015, that he had not sent the recovered alleged documents for FSL for the purpose of comparison or seeking opinion over the genuineness of the documents. He has further deposed that he had not recovered the original seal from the concerned department, but he had taken their impression and he has admitted that he had not investigated on the point from where the alleged documents were printed as it was part of initial investigation. From the above deposition and material on record, the prosecution has failed to prove that accused persons prepared the alleged documents or material. No witness has been examined by the prosecution to prove that accused persons fraudulently or dishonestly had made said documents, even if same were made by them. No case u/s 467 IPC is made out against both accused persons.
13. Ld. Counsel for accused persons had contended that no recovery of alleged documents was effected from the accused persons and neither accused persons were found in possession of alleged documents and hence, no case against accused persons is made out. FIR No.14/99, P.S. NFC State Vs Tariq Siddiqui & Anr. Page 12 of 19
14. Perusal of the file would show that as per the prosecution case, alleged recovery was made by IO/SI Yudhbir Singh (PW16) and SI Ajay Kumar Shukla and Sh.Suresh Chand Sharma (PW3) are witnesses to the said recovery. The prosecution has relied upon seizure memo of case property MarkA, however, no original seizure memo has been proved on record.
15. PW3 Sh.Suresh Chand Sharma is only public witness to the said recovery as alleged by the prosecution. The said witness has not supported the case of the prosecution. He has deposed in his examinationinchief that in the year 1999, both accused persons present in the court were residing as tenants in a room of his house. He has further deposed that he did not remember the date and month, however, in the year 1999, one day when he returned to his home from his sister's house, he came to know that both accused persons were apprehended by the police and he further deposed that nothing was recovered from the accused persons in his presence and he did not know anything about this case. In his volunteered deposition, he stated that he was called by the police at Special Staff office at Dayanand Colony and his signatures were obtained on 2/3 papers and his statement was never recorded by the police. The above said witness was crossexamined by Ld. APP for State after taking permission of FIR No.14/99, P.S. NFC State Vs Tariq Siddiqui & Anr. Page 13 of 19 the court. Nothing material could have been elicited from his cross examination and in his volunteered deposition he has deposed that he has already stated that nothing was recovered from possession of the accused persons in his presence as at the time of their arrest, he was not present at his home and he was called by the police on the next date of their arrest at Special Staff office at Dayanand Colony and his signatures were obtained by the police on some papers without disclosing the contents to him. When seizure memo MarkA was put to the said witness, he deposed that the signatures were obtained by the police from him under pressure stating that if he would not sign, he would also be implicated in a case and his house would be sealed.
16. The prosecution has examined HC Parmod as PW9, who is also stated to be with IO/SI Yudhvir Singh. In his crossexamination, he has deposed that accused Tariq Siddiqui was also accompanying them and he disclosed that some papers were lying in a briefcase/ Atechi and same were lying in a room at third floor of the house. Thereafter, he deposed that said briefcase/Atechi was lying on roof of third floor. The said witness has nowhere disclosed about disclosure statement of coaccused Khalid Siddiqui or his pointing out in the alleged recovery of Atechi/briefcase, however, perusal of deposition of PW14 which was conducted on 12.12.2003 would show in which the FIR No.14/99, P.S. NFC State Vs Tariq Siddiqui & Anr. Page 14 of 19 said witness has named both accused persons and further deposed about recovery of one Atechi at the instance of both accused persons on third floor of said premises. There is material contradiction between the deposition of PW9 and PW14.
17. The prosecution has examined IO/SI Yudhbir Singh as PW16. In his crossexamination, he has deposed that accused persons were in his custody in other FIR No.14/99, P.S. Ambedkar Nagar since 4.1.1999. He further admitted that said case had reference of Babloo Srivastav (noted gangster) and the accused were alleged to be his associates. He further admitted that he was IO of that case and admitted that no recovery was made on the basis of first disclosure statement in case FIR No.14/99, P.S. Ambedkar Nagar. He admitted that place of recovery was a residential area, although shops were also made on the ground floor in same building. He admitted that he had not contacted any shopkeeper or the residents of the area, but he asked passersby to join the investigation. He has further deposed that he does not remember how the landlord was called and at which floor he was residing. He has further deposed that he (PW3) was residing in the same building. He has further deposed that staircase was at the side of the building and staircase was uptill the third floor. He further admitted that a person can approach third floor from the ground floor FIR No.14/99, P.S. NFC State Vs Tariq Siddiqui & Anr. Page 15 of 19 from the outside without going inside the house. He further stated that he had gone inside the room of the accused persons, but nothing incriminating was recovered from there and also stated that room was not locked from outside, but bolted from outside which could be opened by anybody. He has further deposed that the accused on their own took out the suitcase and which could be seen from the third floor on climbing the wooden box.
18. From the above crossexamination of PW16, it reveals that there could be access of any person other than accused persons also at the place from where the alleged recovery of case property has been proved. It is admitted case that no recovery was effected from the room where the alleged accused persons were residing and it has also come on record that both accused persons were in custody in another FIR since 4.1.1999 and the alleged recovery is of dated 8.1.1999. The room of the accused persons was not found locked, but it was found only bolted which could have been opened by anybody.
19. In such circumstances, it cannot be stated that alleged recovery was discovery of fact in view of Sec. 27 of Indian Evidence Act as said place cannot be said to be in exclusive knowledge of accused persons. The court would rely upon section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, which reads as under: FIR No.14/99, P.S. NFC State Vs Tariq Siddiqui & Anr. Page 16 of 19
27. How much of information received from accused may be proved.-Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.
20. The accused have examined DW1 Ms. Swarn Lata, Jr. Judicial Assistant, Record Room, Sessions Court, who has brought copy of judgment dated 23.2.2010 Ex.PW1/A, as per which, both the accused persons were acquitted in said FIR no.14/99, P.S. Ambedkar Nagar, during the investigation of which alleged recovery is shown to be effected from the accused persons.
21. PW17 ASI Suresh has deposed in his crossexamination that it was 10 or 11, but he cannot say whether it was day time or night time on 8.1.1999, however, he denied the suggestion that he had not gone alongwith raiding party. The prosecution has examined SI Parveen Vats as PW18, who was first IO of the present matter, who has deposed that it was populated area, but he had not recorded statement of any public person in the neighbourhood. He has further deposed that he remembers that recovery site was above ground floor but he could not exactly tell the floor where the alleged case property FIR No.14/99, P.S. NFC State Vs Tariq Siddiqui & Anr. Page 17 of 19 was recovered and he further deposed that he does not remember whether he entered the room of accused persons or not. He has further deposed that he had seen the roof / place from where recovery was made and does not remember how he climbed the roof, but he remembers that building was not having any lift. He has admitted that he did not verify the certificates recovered as he was initial IO. Above said facts raise doubt about conducting of investigation by IO on the spot as alleged by the prosecution.
22. Ld. Counsel for accused has contended that no offence u/s 472/474/34 IPC is made out against the accused persons as ingredients of said sections have not been proved by the prosecution.
23. Perusal of Sections 472 and 474 IPC would show that mere possession of counterfeit seal etc. or documents as described in Sections 466 and 467 IPC is not sufficient for making out offence against accused persons, but intention on their part is also necessary that same shall be used for purpose of committing any forgery or same shall be fraudulently or dishonestly be used as genuine. Perusal of the record would show that PW16 in his examinationinchief has deposed that both accused persons confessed about preparing and supplying false mark sheets / certificates to people. He has relied upon disclosure statements Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW5/B. This court is of the FIR No.14/99, P.S. NFC State Vs Tariq Siddiqui & Anr. Page 18 of 19 view that above said disclosure statements are not admissible for proving the deposition of PW16 that above both accused persons confessed about preparing and supplying forged mark sheets / certificates to people. The extent of admissibility of the statement during confession is mentioned in section 27 of Indian Evidence Act and the prosecution cannot rely upon said disclosure statement for proving the above said fact. No independent witness or evidence has been proved on record for showing that both accused persons ever intended to use the alleged certificates for the purpose of committing any forgery. No case under Section 472/474/34 of IPC is made out against both accused persons.
24. It is settled law that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. The prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, both accused persons namely Tariq Siddiqui and Khalid Siddiqui are acquitted from offences u/s 467/472/474/34 IPC.
Announced in the open (DEVENDER KUMAR GARG)
court on 28.01.2016 ACMM / SOUTHEAST / SAKET
NEW DELHI.
FIR No.14/99, P.S. NFC State Vs Tariq Siddiqui & Anr. Page 19 of 19