Delhi District Court
State vs . Vivek Sawhney on 21 August, 2019
IN THE COURT OF MS. NUPUR GUPTA, MM11, SOUTH EAST
DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
FIR No. : 832/2006
PS : KM Pur
No. : 89211/2016
U/s : 419/420/468/471/511 IPC
STATE VS. VIVEK SAWHNEY
JUDGMENT
A Case Identification Number 02403R00139P2009
B Name of the Complainant Sh. Achal Kumar Jain C/o Jain Soap
Mills, 7230 Aram Nagar, New Delhi.
C Name of the accused & his Vivek Sawhney S/o Sh. N.B. Sawhney,
parentage and address R/o 62E PhaseI, Pocket I, Mayur
Vihar, Delhi.
D Offence complained of 419/420/468/471/511 IPC
E Date of commission of offence 14.01.2006
F Date of Institution 07.01.2009
G Offence Charged 419 r/w 511 IPC, section 420 r/w
section 511 IPC and section 468/471
IPC
H Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
I Order Reserved on 02.08.2019
J Date of Pronouncement 21.08.2019
K Final Order Conviction
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
1. Before adverting to the case of the prosecution, it is relevant to FIR No. 832/2006 1/18 mention that complainant Achal Kumar Jain had filed an application U/s 156(3) Cr.PC before the Court and pursuant to the same vide Order dated 19.12.2006, present FIR No. 832/2006 was registered on 30.12.2006. It is the case of the prosecution that accused was Tax Consultant of the complainant Achal Kumar Jain; the complainant was partner of Jain Soap Mills established since 1966; Sh. N.B. Sawhney, father of the accused was the Tax consultant of the complainant for last several decades and after him, accused joined as Tax Consultant. However, since accused was acting prejudicial to the complainant in matters of Sales Tax returns, the complainant lost faith in the working of accused and therefore, from 31.03.2001 accused was no longer representing the complainant as Tax Consultant. It is further the case of prosecution that on 17.01.2006 accused Vivek Sawhney moved an application under RTI Act in prescribed Form A of DDA in the name of one Diwan Singh R/o 3666, Shahtara Street, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi6 seeking information about the property C299, Mayapuri Industrial Area, PhII belonging to complainant for forwarding to Chief Justice of India, New Delhi, Chief Justice of Delhi High Court and Director of CBI. It is further the case of prosecution that complainant came to know about the said fact when he inspected his file in DDA and since he was well conversant with the handwriting and signatures of accused Vivek Sawhney as he used to see him writing and signing during the period when he was his Tax Consultant. It is further the case of prosecution that on 24.05.2005, Diwan Singh had expired as per the certificate issued by Pradhan, Gram Panchayat at Ratoda, Tehsil and Distt Rudra Prayag, Uttranchal. It is further the case of prosecution that complainant had obtained report from approved handwriting expert Sh. N.K. Jain and as per his report, it is clear that accused Vivek Sawhney had filed and signed the said RTI form. The FIR No. 832/2006 2/18 prosecution has thus alleged that accused had applied under the RTI act in order to black mail the complainant and to extort money from him and thereby accused Vivek Sawhney has committed forgery by making an application under RTI Act on 14.01.2006 and by applying on 17.01.2006 in Form A to DDA in the name of Diwan Singh who had died on 24.05.2005 and even the endorsement on the letter dated 08.02.2006 to the effect under "RTI Act 2005" on the top of the complaint, is in the handwriting of accused Vivek Sawhney. The case property was seized, sealed and deposited in Malkhana, statements of witnesses were recorded and finally, upon completion of necessary investigation, the charge sheet u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C was filed before the Court against the accused for trial.
2. Court took cognizance of the offence upon aforesaid charge sheet. Pursuant to his appearance, accused was supplied the copies of chargesheet/documents in compliance of S. 207 Cr.P.C and matter was listed for consideration on charge. Upon hearing the arguments advanced at bar by Ld. counsel for the accused and on perusal of record, prima facie case against the accused for the offences punishable u/s 419 IPC, section 420 r/w section 511 IPC and section 468/471 IPC was found to be made out. However, accused preferred a revision petition before learned ADJ and as per the Order of learned ADJ dated 30.08.2011, amended charge for commission of offences punishable U/s 419 r/w 511 IPC, section 420 r/w section 511 IPC and section 468/471 IPC was framed vide Order dated 29.09.2011. Charge was framed accordingly against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
3. In support of aforesaid case against the accused, prosecution produced and examined ten witnesses before the Court.
FIR No. 832/2006 3/184. PW1 Achal Kumar Jain deposed that he does not remember the exact date but in between the month of December 2005 to January 2006 some persons were complaining against him in different deparment of Delhi Government. PW1 deposed that he came to know that one person, namely, Diwan Singh was working at 3666 Gali Shatara, behind G B Road, who had already been expired in May 2005. Thereafter, PW1 had filed RTI application in the departments of Delhi Government where his complaints were made. PW1 further deposed that in the month of March, 2006 he went to the DDA office in order to inspect his file belonging to his property, that is, C299, Mayapuri Phase II, New Delhi where he found one document dated 17.01.2006 which was the RTI form on which he found the handwriting of accused Vivek Sawhney as he knows the accused and his family from last 40 years. PW1 further deposed that one complaint was also annexed with the said form bearing the signatures of Diwan Singh but the said signatures were in the handwriting of accused and the contents of complaint was made in the name of Corruption Terminator. PW1 deposed that he had applied for the copy of the same through RTI application in April 2006 with the DDA office and obtained the Form A and the complaint bearing the signatures of Mr. Diwan Singh from the DDA office. Thereafter, PW1 had handed over the same to N.K. Jain, Handwriting Expert (private) who also confirmed the said signatures were matching with the handwriting of accused Vivek Sawhney. Thereafter, complaint was made by PW1 in Police Station but no action was taken against his complaint. PW1 further deposed that he had also visited the office of accused Vivek Sawhney and requested him to stop making complaint against him. However, accused demanded Rs.one lac per annum and stated that he shall return all the files pertaining to his business/ profession. Thereafter, he filed complaint U/s 156(3) Cr.PC against the FIR No. 832/2006 4/18 accused.
Thereafter, ld. APP had asked some leading questions from the witness. PW1 admitted that accused Vivek Sawhney had committed forgery by applying Form A on 17.01.2006 to DDA in the name of Diwan Singh who had already died on 24.05.2005. PW1 further admitted that accused Vivek Sawhney has been threatening / black mailing and extorting money from others also in a similar nature.
5. PW2 Sh. Subhash Manchanda deposed that he was having a servant, namely, Diwan Singh who died on 24.05.2005 and in January, 2006 Achal Kumar came to him and asked as to why he is making applications. PW2 further deposed that Achal Kumar Jain informed him that the application was made by one Diwan Singh to which he stated that Diwan Singh is no more and has already died. Witness has further stated that he was called to Police station and was shown the signatures of Diwan Singh on RTI application made to DDA, however, he told the police officials that the said signatures does not belongs to Diwan Singh as he has already expired. PW2 has deposed that he can identify the signatures of Diwan Singh being his employer.
6. PW3 Sh. Devak Ram, retired Assistant Director (Documents), FSL, Rohini, Delhi deposed that he was posted in FSL, Delhi as senior Scientific officer of Document Division and he received the documents from PS Kotla Mubarakpur vide letter no. 832/R/SHO/KM PUR dated 25.07.2008 and the questioned documents were marked as Q1 to Q5, specimen writing and signatures were marked as S1 to S15 and admitted writing and signatures were marked as A1 to A8. PW3 further deposed that he examined the documents with the help of available instruments in his laboratory and gave his opinion. His detailed report is Ex.PW3/A. The FIR No. 832/2006 5/18 questioned documents, specimen signatures and admitted writing and signatures were exhibited as Ex.PW3/B, Ex.PW3/C and Ex.PW3/D respectively.
7. PW4 P.N. Mishra, retired Senior Manager, Bank of Baroda, Asaf Ali Road, Delhi deposed that in the month of July 2008, police officials asked him for certain documents of accused Vivek Sawhney, that is, account opening form, cheques, payinslip etc. He deposed that he only handed over payinslip of accused for depositing of the amount to the police, which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/A and said slips bearing no. 7772 and 7771 were Ex.A5 and Ex.A4.
8. PW5 HC Arvind Kumar deposed that he was posted as Duty officer at PS Kotla Mubarakpur and his duty hours were from 4pm to 12 midnight. He further deposed that on that day, SI Satish Sharma handed over original rukka to him and he made endorsement on the said rukka, which is Ex.PW5/A upon which the FIR was got registered. The FIR is Ex.PW5/B.
9. PW6 Inspector Satish Sharma deposed that on 30.12.2006 he received one complaint from Sh. Achal Kumar Jain alongwith the order of ld. MM for registration of FIR. He endorsed on the said complaint vide Ex.PW6/A and got the case registered. Witness further deposed that during investigation, he recorded statement of one person, namely, Subhash and had applied in the o/o DDA for obtaining the documents. Thereafter, he was transferred from the PS and handed over the present file to MHCR.
10. PW7 Zile Singh, retired Assistant Director, DDA deposed that in the year 2007 he was posted in DDA as Assistant Director, Industrial Branch. Thereafter, the witness was declared as hostile by ld. APP for State and was subjected to crossexamination. In crossexamination by ld. APP, FIR No. 832/2006 6/18 PW7 stated that he does not remember whether he had handed over the documents Ex.PW3/B (Colly) to the police. Thereafter, seizure memo dated 21.11.2007 Ex.PW7/A was shown to him and he identified his signatures upon the same. However, in crossexamination by ld. Counsel for accused, he stated that he does not remember for what purpose he signed on Ex.PW7/A.
11. PW8 ASI Shyam Prakash deposed that on 01.06.2008 he was posted at PS Kotla Mubarakpur and he joined the investigation with SI Naresh Kumar. He further deposed that accused was arrested and was personally searched by IO SI Naresh Kumar vide memos Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B in his presence. He correctly identified the accused in the Court.
12. PW9 Inspector Naresh Kumar deposed that on 26.10.2007 he was posted as SI at Kotla Mubarakpur. On that day, the present case was handed over to him for further investigation. He deposed that he collected the original documents from DDA Vikas Sadan vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/A. He searched for the accused during investigation but he could not be traced. Thereafter, pursuant to NBWs on 01.06.2008 accused was arrested from his house and produced before the Court. PW9 further deposed that during investigation, he tried to obtain the specimen signatures of the accused but he refused and thereafter, an application for the same was moved before the Court and the same was allowed. He further stated that he took the signatures/ handwriting of the accused in the Court Ex.PW3/C and the accused was sent to J/C. He thereafter collected the documents of the accused from Bank of Baroda and some other bank and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW9/A. PW9 has further stated that all the original documents and specimen signatures/ handwriting of the accused were sent to FSL for expert opinion. Thereafter, FIR No. 832/2006 7/18 he had collected the FSL report from FSL Rohini vide letter no. 2008/D2779/5723 dated 12.09.2008. Thereafter, he recorded the statements of witnesses, prepared the challan and handed over the case file to MHCR as he was transferred from the police station. He correctly identified the accused in the Court.
13. PW10 M.P. Bansal deposed that from 2006 to 2008, he was posted as Chief Manager, SBI Bank, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. He deposed that IO had asked him about two cheques issued by accused in his account. After going through the accounts, he took out the cheques issued by the accused and handed over the original cheques to the IO.
14. Thereafter, since all the material prosecution witnesses were examined, prosecution evidence was closed vide Order dated 28.06.2019.
15. After prosecution evidence, the statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C wherein all incriminating evidences led against him during the trial by the prosecution witnesses were put to him, affording him an opportunity to give his explanation, if any. In statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C on 22.07.2019, the accused denied the prosecution's case and pleaded innocence and false implication.
16. Despite opportunity, the accused preferred not to lead defence evidence in his defence. Accordingly, the matter was posted for final arguments.
17. I have heard the learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the accused at length. I have also carefully perused the entire judicial record and carefully appreciated the evidence led by the prosecution.
18. In testimony of PW1 Achal Kumar Jain, it has come on record that when he went to DDA office for inspecting his file in respect of property FIR No. 832/2006 8/18 No. C299, Mayapuri PhaseII, he found RTI form dated 17.01.2006, which was in handwriting of accused Vivek Sawhney. He also deposed that there was also a complaint in DDA office bearing signatures of Sh. Diwan Singh, which were in the handwriting of accused Vivek Sawhney. PW1 has clearly stated that accused had committed forgery by applying form 'A' on 17.01.2006 to DDA in the name of Diwan Singh, who had already expired on 24.05.2005. Prosecution has also examined PW2 Subhash Manchanda who was employer of late Sh. Diwan Singh. He has manifestly stated that Diwan Singh had died on 24.05.2005 and has further stated that the signatures on RTI application given to the DDA were not that of Diwan Singh as he can identify the signatures of Diwan Singh being his employer.
19. Thus, one aspect at this stage, is clear that Diwan Singh had died on 24.05.2005 whereas the RTI application was given on 17.01.2006, which in any event cannot be moved by Diwan Singh who had already expired long back. Further, from the testimony of PW2, it is again corroborated that the signatures on the RTI form was not of Diwan Singh.
20. Thus, what is left to be ascertained is whether accused has forged the signatures of Diwan Singh upon the RTI form and form 'A' and induced DDA officials to deliver him the information regarding the property of the complainant.
21. In order to prove the said fact, prosecution has examined handwriting expert as PW3 from FSL, Rohini, Delhi. As per the report Ex.PW3/A prepared by PW3, documents Ex.PW3/B (Colly), specimen signatures Ex.PW3/C (Colly) and admitted writing and signatures Ex.PW3/D are written by the same person. PW3 has given a detailed report about the examination of the abovementioned documents and has given categoric finding in his report, which is quoted as below : FIR No. 832/2006 9/18 Similarities are also observed in the general features such as writing movement, skill, speed, spacing relative size & proportion of characters and nature of commencing & terminating strokes etc. There is no divergence observed between the questioned and standard writings and the aforesaid similarities in the writing habit are significant and sufficient and cannot be attributed to accidental coincidence and when considered collectively they lead me to the above said opinion.
22. The only argument which has been stressed upon by ld.counsel for accused is that opinion of handwriting expert in the present case is liable to be discarded as neither he was qualified nor any qualifications of the expert is mentioned either in his report or in his deposition before the Court.
23. Sh. Devak Ram who was examined as PW3 was posted as a Senior Scientific officer of Document Division in FSL, Rohini, Delhi at the time when he received questioned documents from the Police station. Though, he has not stated his qualifications in his report, however, it is not the case where a private handwriting expert has been examined and rather, the questioned documents in the present case were sent to FSL, which is a Government body, where the said documents were examined. Merely the fact that the expert has not stated his qualifications, is not sufficient to discard his report or opinion on the documents examined. Though, accused has tried to create dent in the case of prosecution by raising the argument of FIR No. 832/2006 10/18 qualification of expert witness, however, strangely, not even a single suggestion or question was put to the witness regarding his qualifications or admissibility of his report in crossexamination, for the reasons best known to the accused. Rather despite lengthy crossexamination of PW3 on the method used for examination of questioned documents, nothing material in favour of the accused could be elucidiated. Witness has moreover described the instrument, that is, stereo microscope and video spectral comparator IV used for examination of documents in question.
24. Ld.counsel for accused has relied upon judgment titled as 'S.K. Miglani Vs State NCT of Delhi Criminal Appeal no. 744/2019' passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India wherein it was held that opinion of handwriting expert is not conclusive in nature and it has to be corroborated by either clear, direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. However, in the present case, since there cannot be any direct evidence as the alleged offences is of cheating and forgery, but apart from handwriting expert, testimonies of PW1 and PW2 are also corroborative in the present case to the extent that Diwan Singh in whose name RTI application and Form 'A' was filled, had already expired and PW1 has even stated that handwriting on the said application and Form 'A' was of the accused who had signed in the name of Diwan Singh. PW1 has also deposed that he was acquainted with the handwriting of the accused being associated with him for a long time.
25. Ld.counsel for the accused has also relied upon judgment titled as 'State of Himanchal Pradesh Vs Jai Lal & Ors, AIR 1999 SC 3318' passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, however, the said judgment is entirely misplaced in the facts of the present case. In the said judgment, report of the expert was discarded on the ground that he neither FIR No. 832/2006 11/18 made any scientific study or research in such assessment or job earlier and the report was based on surmises and conjectures. However, in the present case, the expert had rather given his detailed report on the basis of his examination of the questioned documents as well as of the admitted handwriting and signatures. Thus, the said judgment is not of any help to the accused.
26. It is no more res integra that expert testimony is made relevant by Section 45 of the Evidence Act and where the Court has to form an opinion upon a point as to identity of handwriting, the opinion of a person 'specially skilled' 'in questions as to identity of handwriting' is expressly made a relevant fact. There is nothing in the Evidence Act, as for example like Illustration (b) to Section 114 which entitles the Court to presume that an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material particulars, which justifies the court in assuming that a handwriting expert's opinion is unworthy of credit unless corroborated. The Evidence Act itself (S. 3) tells us that 'a fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists'. Further, under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, the Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct, and public and private business, in their relation to facts of the particular case. It is also to be noticed that Section 46 of the Evidence Act makes facts, not otherwise relevant, relevant if they support or are inconsistent with the opinion of experts, when such opinions are relevant. So, it is well settled now that corroboration may not invariably be insisted upon before acting on the FIR No. 832/2006 12/18 opinion of a handwriting expert and there need to no initial suspicion. But, on the facts of a particular case, a court may require corroboration of a varying degree. There can be no hard and fast rule, but nothing will justify the rejection of the opinion of an expert supported by unchallenged reasons on the sole ground that it is not corroborated. The approach of a court while dealing with the opinion of a handwriting expert should be to proceed cautiously, probe the reasons for the opinion, consider all other relevant evidence and decide finally to accept or reject it.
27. Apart from principle, let us examine if precedents justify invariable insistence on corroboration. I may now refer to some of the decisions of Hon'ble supreme Court in Ram Chandra v. U.P. State, AIR 1957 SC 381, wherein, Jagannadha Das, J. observed; "It may be that normally it is not safe to treat expert evidence as to handwriting as sufficient basis for conviction" (emphasis ours). 'May' and 'normally' make our point about the absence of an inflexible rule.
28. In Shashi Kumar v. Subodh Kumar, AIR 1964 SC 529, Wanchoo, J., after noticing various features of the opinion of the expert said:
"We do not consider in the circumstances of this case that the evidence of the expert is conclusive and can falsify the evidence of the attesting witnesses and also the circumstances which go to show that this Will must have been signed in 1943 as it purports to be. Besides, it is necessary to observe that expert's evidence as to handwriting is opinion evidence and it can rarely, if ever take the place of substantive evidence. Before acting on such evidence FIR No. 832/2006 13/18 it is usual to see if it is corroborated either by clear direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. In the present case the probabilities are against the expert's opinion and the direct testimony of the two attesting witnesses which we accept is wholly inconsistent with it".
So, there was acceptable direct testimony which was destructive of the expert's opinion; there were other features also which made the expert's opinion unreliable. The observations regarding corroboration must be read in that context and it is worthy of note that even so the expression used was 'it is usual' and not 'it is necessary'.
29. In Fakhruddin v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1967 SC 1326 : 1967 Cri LJ 1197, Hidayatullah, J. said:
"Both under S. 45 and S. 47 the evidence is an opinion, in the former by a scientific comparison and in the latter on the basis of familiarity resulting form frequent observations and experience. In either case the Court must satisfy itself by such means as are open that the opinion may be acted upon. One such means open to the Court is to apply its own observation to the admitted or proved writings and to compare them with the disputed one, not to become a FIR No. 832/2006 14/18 handwriting expert but to verify the premises of the expert in the one case and to appraise the value of the opinion in the other case. This comparison depends on an analysis of the characteristics in the admitted or proved writings and the finding of the same characteristics in large measure in the disputed writing. In this way the opinion of the deponent whether expert or other is subjected to scrutiny and although relevant to start with becomes probative. Where an expert's opinion is given, the Court must see for itself and with the assistance of the expert come to its own conclusion whether it can safely be held that the two writings are by the same person. This is not to say that the Court must play the role of an expert but to say that the Court accept the fact proved only when it has satisfied itself on its own observation that it is safe to accept the opinion whether of the expert or other witness".
30. These observations lend no support to any requirement as to corroboration of expert testimony. On the other hand, the precedents shows that the Court ultimately did act upon the uncorroborated testimony of the expert though the judges took the precaution of comparing the writing themselves. Though in the present case, expert's opinion is corroborated by other circumstantial evidence and testimonies of PW1 and PW2 and moreover, testimony of expert left no doubt that accused had signed on RTI FIR No. 832/2006 15/18 application and Form A in the name of Diwan Singh.
31. Thus, from the above mentioned judgments, it is clear that there is no rule of law, nor any rule of prudence which has crystallised into a rule of law, that opinion evidence of a handwriting expert must never be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated. But, having due regard to the imperfect nature of the science of identification of handwriting, the approach, as indicated earlier, should be one of caution. Reasons for the opinion must be carefully probed and examined. All other relevant evidence must be considered. In appropriate cases, corroboration may be sought. In cases where the reasons for the opinion are convincing and there is no reliable evidence throwing a doubt. the uncorroborated testimony of a handwriting expert may be accepted.
32. Further, section 73 of the Evidence Act expressly enables the Court to compare disputed writings with admitted or proved writings to ascertain whether a writing is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written. Thus, on comparison of signatures on RTI Form and Form A with the specimen signatures of accused, it is clear that is is in the handwriting of the accused only which accused has tried to manipulate by giving some free strokes as the making of the words are similar in questioned documents and the specimen signatures and admitted handwriting.
33. Reverting to the facts of the case in hand, ld. counsel for the accused had not argued regarding the correctness of the report of expert and has only questioned the qualification of expert. I have carefully perused the reasons given by the expert as well as his crossexamination. Nothing has been elicited to throw the least doubt on the correctness of the opinion. Moreover, since the expert witness was a senior scientific officer in FSL at FIR No. 832/2006 16/18 the time of examination of document, question regarding his qualification does not seems to be worthy of considering.
34. Thus, in these facts and circumstances, from the evidence adduced by prosecution, following facts can safely be culled out:
(a) That accused has filled RTI form and also sent Form A to DDA by forging the signatures of Diwan chand who had already died.
(b) That PW3 had identified certain writings i.e. Q1 to Q 5 appearing on the RTI application, Form A and deposed that the said questioned writings are in the handwriting of accused Vivek Sawhney when compared with the specimen writings and admitted handwriting marked as S1 to S15 and A1 to A8.
35. Thus, from the above, it becomes clear that not only PW 3 proved the fact that accused Vivek Sawhney had filled up the RTI form and Form A under the signatures of Diwan singh who had died but also induced the DDA officials to provide him information regarding the property of complainant.
36. Since, it has been established that not only RTI form and Form A was given to DDA by accused Vivek Sawhney but he also signed the same in the name of Diwan Singh who had expired way back on 24.5.2005. Thus, in terms of Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, burden is shifted upon the accused Vivek Sawhney to explain under which circumstances he had filled up the said forms/applications and signed in the name of Diwan Singh. But during trial, he failed to discharge the said burden. In the absence of any contrary evidence on record, this Court has no hesitation to draw a conclusion that accused Vivek Sawhney had not only filled up the said forms/applications knowingly well that the person in whose name he has made the application has already expired but also attempted to induced FIR No. 832/2006 17/18 DDA official to provide him information regarding the property of complainant, thus accused Vivek Sawhney is liable for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC r/w Section 511 IPC.
37. As already discussed that accused Vivek Sawhney had signed in the name of Diwan Singh at the time of applying for RTI, thus he had committed forgery as defined under Section 463 IPC. As he did so with an intention to support his claim that the said forms were signed by the applicant Diwan Singh and fraudulently and dishonestly used the same as genuine to cause wrongful loss to complainant as well as to DDA, thus accused Vivek Sawhney is also liable for the offence punishable under Section 468/471 IPC.
38. Since, it has been established that accused Vivek Sawhney moved an application under the RTI act under the fake identity of Diwan Singh who already expired on 24.5.2005, thus, he is also liable for the offence punishable under Section 419 IPC R/w Section 511 IPC.
39. Prosecution has thus succeeded to bring home the guilt of accused Vivek Sawhney for the offence punishable under Section 419/420 IPC R/w section 511 IPC and under Section 468/471 IPC beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts, accordingly, I hereby hold him guilty thereunder.
40. Let the accused Vivek Sawhney be heard on quantum of sentence.
Announced in the Open (NUPUR GUPTA)
Court on 17th August, 2019 MM11/SED/ Saket Courts/ND
FIR No. 832/2006 18/18