Delhi District Court
State vs . Bijender Singh on 21 March, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN KUMAR, LD MM02,(CENTRAL) TIS
HAZARI COURTS, NEW DELHI.
State Vs. Bijender Singh
FIR No. 342/2000
P. S. Timar Pur
U/s. 420/468/471 IPC
JUDGEMENT
1. Srl. No. of the case : 1308/G
2. Unique Identification No. : 02401R0159812001
2. Date of institution : May,2001
3. Date of commission of offence : 29.07.2000
4. Name of the complainant : SI Subeer Ojaswi
5. Name of the accused : 1)Bijender Singh
s/o Sh. Pratap Singh
r/o Gali No. 7, Mandali
Extension,Delhi.
2) K.L.Arora
S/o Sh.D.D.Arora
(Proceedings stand abated
vide order dated 28.09.15)
6. Nature of offence complained of : U/s 420/468/471 IPC
7. Plea of the accused : accused pleaded not
guilty
8. Date reserved for order : 21.03.2016
9. Final Order : Acquitted
10. Date of such order : 21.03.2016
1. The accused Bijender Singh has been facing the trial for the commission of offences u/s 420/468/471 IPC. The charge sheet was filed against the accused Bijender Singh and K.L.Arora. Accused FIR No.342/00 PS: Timar Pur State Vs. Bijender Kumar Page No. 1 of 11 K.L.Arora had expired during the trial and therefore proceedings qua him stood abated vide order dated 28.09.2015. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the Contract of the parking at Majnu Ka Tilla, Timar Pur was given to the accused K.L.Arora. The prescribed rate of DDA parking was Rs 15 for four hours and Rs 25 for 12 hours. On the basis of the complaint of overcharging, one raiding party was prepared on 29.07.00 which was led by SI Subeer Ojaswi. The complainant alongwith other police officials reached at the spot and joined one independent witness in the investigation, who was the driver of a Truck. The complainant handed over two currency notes of Rs 20 and Rs 10 duly signed by SI Subeer Ojaswi and one Panch witness. When they reached in the parking alongwith the decoy customer in the form of truck driver, the accused Bijender Singh asked for Rs 25 for the parking of the said truck. The accused Bijender Singh had issued one receipt of Rs 25/. Signed notes were recovered from the accused Bijender Singh and seized by the Investigating Officer. It is alleged that the accused had issued the forged receipt in violation of DDA prescribed rates and hence cheated the customers. On the basis of the aforesaid allegation, the present case FIR was registered and present investigation was conducted .
FIR No.342/00 PS: Timar Pur State Vs. Bijender Kumar Page No. 2 of 11
2. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed. The copy of the charge sheet was supplied to the accused in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C.
3. Considering the charge sheet and material placed on record, prima facie case against the accused was made out and accordingly, Charge for the commission of offences u/s 420/468/471 IPC was framed against him. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and case was subsequently fixed for prosecution evidence.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined nine witnesses.
PW 4 SI Subeer and PW 8 Inspector Sanjeev Kumar are the member of the raiding party and it is deposed that on 29.07.2000 they alongwith one Kamal Kumar, LDS, NCC Department were on government vehicle and reached at parking lot at Majnu ka Tilla, Timar Pur as there were complaints of over charging by the parking officials. One driver Manjeet Singh was joined in the investigation. PW 4 & PW8 alongwith PW2 boarded the truck of Manjeet and entered into the parking. The accused Bijender Singh was the parking attendant and he said that he will charge Rs 25/ for the parking for one and a half hour. Currency notes of Rs 20/ and Rs10/ were given to the accused and he FIR No.342/00 PS: Timar Pur State Vs. Bijender Kumar Page No. 3 of 11 returned Rs 5/ to Manjeet and given a receipt of blue colour. The accused informed that he is charging Rs 25/ at the flat rate on the directions of contractor Kishan Lal. PW2 made the search of the accused and recovered the aforementioned currency notes from his possession. The currency notes were signed by Panch witness before handing over to Manjeet. PW4 seized the currency notes and the slip vide seizure memo EXPW 2/A and EXPW 2/B. PW4 prepared the rukka and handed over the same to SI Sanjeev Kumar/PW8. SI Sanjeev Kumar got the FIR registered and after registration of FIR the investigation was assigned to SI Mahavir. PW4 handed over the accused to SI Mahavir. There was no display of parking rates prescribed by MCD neither inside nor outside the parking. PW4 identified the case property in the court. The accused is identified by both the witnesses.
PW 2 Shri Kamal Kumar was also part of the raiding party as a Panch witness. He deposed on the similar line as deposed by PW 4 and PW8.
PW 9 Inspector Mahabir Singh is the investigating officer. He deposed that on 29.07.2000 after receiving the FIR, he reached at the spot where SI Subeer Ojaswi handed over the accused, one parking slip, two bunches of parking slip and two currency notes in the denomination FIR No.342/00 PS: Timar Pur State Vs. Bijender Kumar Page No. 4 of 11 of Rs. 10/ and Rs 20/ and two seizure memos. The witness interrogated the accused Bijender and arrested him and conducted his personal search vide memos EXPW6/D and EXPW6/E. PW 9 prepared the pullinda of the currency notes and sealed it with the seal of MSD and seized vide seizure memo EXPW6/N. Investigating Officer took the specimen handwriting of the accused Bijender on 12 separate sheets and seized vide seizure memo EXPW6/M. The witness seized the documents handed over by the accused K. L Arora vide seizure memo EXPW9/A and the aforesaid documents are marked A1. The witness also received document from the DDA and seized the same vide seizure memo EXPW9/B. The witness sent the case property to FSL and received the result EXPW1/A. PW1 Deepa Verma examined the questioned document sent by the Investigating Officer for the opinion of hand writing expert. The detailed report in this regard is EXPW 1/A. PW3 HC Jagbir Singh deposed that on 29.07.2000, he registered the FIR on the basis of Rukka . The copy of FIR is EXPW 3/A. PW5 Ct. Pawan Kumar deposed that on 15.12.2000, he received two parcels and deposited the same in FSL Malviya Nagar vide Road certificate No. 140/21 FIR No.342/00 PS: Timar Pur State Vs. Bijender Kumar Page No. 5 of 11 PW 6 Ct. Shyam Lal accompanied the Investigating Officer/PW9 and deposed on the similar line as deposed by PW9.
PW7 Mukesh Chand brought the record of the case file with Contract No. F99, the copy of the same is EXPW 7/A
5. On exhausting, the list of prosecution witnesses, prosecution evidence was closed by the court order.
6. Statement u/s 313 r/w 281 Cr.P.C. of accused was recorded in which he pleaded innocence and claimed false implication. The accused opted not to lead defence evidence.
7. I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for the State and Ld. counsel for the accused and perused the record carefully.
8. Prosecution case in brief is that on the complaint of over charging at the parting lot of Majnu Ka Tilla, Timar Pur a raiding party reached there. The case qua the accused Bijender Singh is that being the parking attendant he issued a receipt of Rs 25/ for the parking of a truck for one and a half hour which was more than the prescribed rate of MCD/DDA.
9. It is admitted fact that accused K.L.Arora was the contractor of the parking. It is further admitted that the accused Bijender Singh was FIR No.342/00 PS: Timar Pur State Vs. Bijender Kumar Page No. 6 of 11 the parking attendant there. The aforesaid facts are not denied or disputed on behalf of the prosecution. It is defence of the accused that being an illiterate person he had no knowledge regarding prescribed rates of the MCD/DDA and further he had issued the receipt on the instructions of the coaccused K.L.Arora who was the contractor of the parking.
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 420:
Whoever, dishonestly induces by way of cheating to deliver any property to any person or to make alter or destroy the whole or any part of the valuable property is liable to be punished Essential ingredient of Section 420 are: Cheating and dishonest inducement to deliver any property.
Section 468 provides for 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 a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 463 defines forgery Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part f 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 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 commits forgery.
FIR No.342/00 PS: Timar Pur State Vs. Bijender Kumar Page No. 7 of 11 Section 464 defines make of false documents - 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 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 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.
Section 471 provides for Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any [ document or electronic record ] which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged [ document or electronic record], shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such [ document or electronic record].
In order to attract the provision of Section 471 IPC, one of the essential ingredient is act of forgery. Forgery is defined in Section 463.
Section 463 consists of making of any false document or part of any document with intention to cause damage or injury, or to FIR No.342/00 PS: Timar Pur State Vs. Bijender Kumar Page No. 8 of 11 support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any expressed or implied contract or with any intention to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed.
Actus rea in the offence of forgery is the make of document or part of document.
Section 464 defines making of false document. The essential ingredient of Section 464 is that the document should have been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made, signed 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 for it made or signed. The second part of the Section 464 provides that the making of a false document including alteration of a document by cancellation or otherwise without lawful authority.
10. In the present case there are allegation of issuance of parking receipt by the accused which is alleged to be fake or forged. There is no evidence of making any document by forging the authority of any person. Admittedly, the receipt was filed and signed by the accused himself. It is not the case of the prosecution and there is no evidence to the fact that the accused had forged the signature of any other person on the receipt. The ingredient of section 468/471 IPC are not fulfilled even if the whole prosecution case is believed to be true. Therefore, the charge of commission of offence punishable u/s 468/471 IPC is not established against the accused.
11. As far as the commission of offence u/s 420 IPC is concerned , FIR No.342/00 PS: Timar Pur State Vs. Bijender Kumar Page No. 9 of 11 it is the case of the prosecution that the accused K.L.Arora was given the contract of the parking at the alleged site and there were complaints of over charging. In order to attract the provisions of section 420 IPC, the prosecution has to prove the dishonest intention to cheat on the part of the accused. In the criminal jurisprudence, mens rea is essential constituent of the commission of offence. There can not be any offence in the absence of mens rea or guilty mind except in certain offences. In the offence u/s 420 IPC, there must be dishonest intention of the accused from the very beginning. In the present case it is admitted that the accused was the parking attendant of the contractor K.L.Arora and he was issuing the receipt on his instructions. Since the contract was executed between the MCD and K.L.Arora, therefore, the knowledge of terms and conditions of the contract to the accused cannot be imputed. In the attending facts and circumstances, it is not possible to infer that the accused had the knowledge of the terms of the contract and he had issued the alleged receipt with the dishonest intention. There is no evidence to the fact that accused had cheated the public with any dishonest intention.
12. The cardinal principle of criminal law cannot be forgotten that the prosecution has to prove the case against accused beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of proof is not preponderance of probabilities but proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is well settled legal proposition that the any benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused.
FIR No.342/00 PS: Timar Pur State Vs. Bijender Kumar Page No. 10 of 11
13. There is no evidence that the alleged receipt was forged or fake. Admittedly, the receipt in printed form was filed and signed by the accused. The allegation of forgery are not made out. The prosecution failed to establish that the accused had cheated the complainant and dishonestly induced to deliver the property. The aspect of dishonest intention is missing in this case. The prosecution miserably failed to establish the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. Hence, accused Bijender Kumar is acquitted of offences punishable U/s 420/468/471 IPC.
Announced in open court (PAWAN KUMAR) today i.e. 21.03.2016. MM02(Central), Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi FIR No.342/00 PS: Timar Pur State Vs. Bijender Kumar Page No. 11 of 11