Delhi District Court
State vs . Naresh Chinani. on 5 September, 2013
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE04, PATIALA HOUSE
COURTS, NEW DELHI.
Presided by: Ms. Vijeta Singh
State Vs. Naresh Chinani.
FIR No. 766/98
U/S 420/468/471/34 IPC
JUDGMENT
1. Case ID No. of the case. : 02403R0008581999
2. The date of commission :22.12.1998 of the offence.
3. Name of the complainant & . : Smt. Laxmi Samu of Bank of Baroda, Dr. RML Hospital Branch, New Delhi.
4. Name, parentage & address : 1. Naresh Chinani S/o Late Sh.
Hira Nand, R/o A2A, 130, Janak Puri, New Delhi.
: 2.Smt. Raj Kumari, R/o A2A/130, Janak Puri, New Delhi.
5. Offence complained : U/S 420/468/471/34 IPC
6. The plea of the accused and :Not guilty.
his examination
7. The final order. : Acquitted.
State Vs. Naresh Chimani Page 1/8 FIR No. 87/00
8. The date of such order. :05.09.2013.
9. Date of institution. : 01.06.1999
10. Date on which the judgment : 05.08.2013 has been reserved.
BRIEF FACTS/ STATEMENTS OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION.
1. The present FIR was registered on a complaint by Senior Branch Manager, namely Smt. Laxmi Samu of Bank of Baroda, Dr. RML Hospital Branch that one M/s American President Lines Ltd. agent of Forbes Gokak Ltd. had complained that one accused Naresh had unauthorizedly opened current account no. 54 in the name of M/s American President Lines Ltd. on 23.02.1998 and five cheques in the name of company aforesaid had been deposited and encased to the tune of Rs. 5.6 lacs. It was also alleged that accused Raj Kumari and Sarojni (since deceased) had stood as mandatees for opening of account. Accordingly, FIR u/s 420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as" the Code") was registered and investigation initiated.
2. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed on 01.06.1999 against all the accused for offences punishable u/s 420/468/471/34 of the Code. Cognizance of offences aforementioned was taken by State Vs. Naresh Chimani Page 2/8 FIR No. 87/00 Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 01.06.1999. Copies of charge sheet and documents were furnished to all the accused on 12.08.1999 and 22.09.1999.
3. Since Ld. Predecessor of this Court was of the prima facie opinion that offences u/s 420/468/471/34 of the Code were disclosed against all the accused, vide order dated 05.04.2003, charge u/s 240 Cr. P.C against all the accused was framed under the aforesaid sections. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Subsequently, during pendencey of the trial proceeding against accused Sarojni abated vide order dated 27.04.2011.
4. Thereafter, prosecution examined the following witnesses: I. PW1 ASI Urmila Tiwari who stated that on 28.02.1999 she conducted personal search of accused Raj Kumari vide Ex. PW1/A and of accused Sarojni (since deceased) vide Ex.PW1/B . She was duly cross examined.
II. PW2 Sh. Pradeep Kumar who was partly exmained as he furnished the address of complainant, the complainant was summoned for examination.
III. PW3 Smt. Laxmi Samu, complainant who inter alia deposed that she was the Branch Manager of the bank at relevant period and State Vs. Naresh Chimani Page 3/8 FIR No. 87/00 accused Naresh who was an exemployee of Forbes and who had got encased cheques dishonestly obtained from the company. She tendered her complaint Ex. PW2/B in evidence alongwith Ex.PW3/A (seizure memo of account opening form and mandate) She also tendered Ex. PW3/B (colly) photocopies and print out copies of statement of accounts opened in the name of M/s American President Lines having account no. 54. She was duly cross examined. IV. PW4 HC Jagdish who was a formal witness to handing over of statement of account to the IO. .
5. Prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 30.05.2013 as despite several opportunities prosecution evidence was not concluded.
6. Statement of accused Raj Kumari u/s 313 Cr.P.C read with Section 281 Cr.P.C was recorded on 18.07.2013 where she admitted that she was the mandatee but denied knowledge about opening of account. Accused Naresh Chinani was examined on 05.08.2013 and he admitted to have opened the account but denied having cheated anybody.
7. Final arguments on behalf of accused were heard on 05.08.2013. Despite opportunity, no arguments were led by the State. State Vs. Naresh Chimani Page 4/8 FIR No. 87/00
8.This Court has given its thoughtful consideration to the material on record and submissions made.
9. To constitute offence punishable u/s 420 of the Code, it is required that following essentials should be proved beyond reasonable doubt:
a. Deception of any person;
b. Delivery of property by the person so deceived.
Therefore, in the facts of the present case, the prosecution is required to prove that accused persons deceived Forbes Gokak Ltd and its agent M/s President American Line and dishonestly caused loss of Rs. 5.6 lacs to it by opening a fake account in its name with the bank.
10. Further, to secure conviction u/s 468 of the Code, the prosecution was required to prove the following ingredients:
a. Made a false documents.
b. With intent to cause damage or injury to any person, or to
support any claim of 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. 11 Further, to secure conviction of accused persons u/s 471 of the State Vs. Naresh Chimani Page 5/8 FIR No. 87/00 Code, the prosecution was required to prove the following ingredients:
a. Fraudulent/dishonest use of forged document as genuine.
b. With knowledge or reason to believe that the document was forged.
12 In this context the law on forgery as enunciated by Hon'ble Apex Court Mohd. Ibrahim & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar and Anr. (2009) 8 SCC 751 is as under:
"... Section 470 defines a forged document as a false document made by forgery. The term "forgery" in used in these two sections is defined in Section 463. Whoever makes any false documents with intent 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 express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that the fraud may be committed, commits forgery..."
"...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).."
"...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 State Vs. Naresh Chimani Page 6/8 FIR No. 87/00 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.
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.
13 In the present matter, the main victim of cheating was Forbes Gokak Ltd. and its agent M/s American President Lines. However, none from aforesaid company was examined by the prosecution to prove its deception and loss of Rs. 5.6 lacs. Thus, deception has not been established and so offence punishable u/s 420 of the Code has not been proved. However, due to non examination of M /s American President Lines Ltd. , there is no evidence brough on record whether State Vs. Naresh Chimani Page 7/8 FIR No. 87/00 or not without authority the account had been opened by accused persons. In absence thereof, it cannot therefore opined that forgery was allegedly committed by execution of a document with intention of causing it to be believed that such documents was made by authority of some other person. It is not the case of the prosecution that false documents were prepared in the present case with intention of causing it to be believed that documents was executed/made by some other person or in other words, accused Naresh had impersonated. Since, ingredients of Section 464 of the Code which defines "making a false documents" have not been established by the prosecution, condition precedent for conviction u/s 468 and 471 of the Code cannot be done. Since prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of accused persons beyond reasonable doubts, the accused persons are acquitted of offences charged with.
14. After compliance with Section 437A Cr.P.C on furnishing of bail bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/ alongwith one surety,file be consigned to Records.
Announced in the open Court (Ms. VIJETA SINGH) on 05.09.2013 MM04/Patiala House Courts New Delhi.
State Vs. Naresh Chimani Page 8/8 FIR No. 87/00