Delhi District Court
State vs . Parvinder Kumar on 6 September, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANISH KHURANA, ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (NORTH), ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
FIR No. 140/2007
Unique Case ID No. 02404R0269212008
Police Station Mukherjee Nagar
Under Section 420/468/471/201 IPC
State Vs. Parvinder Kumar
JUDGEMENT
(a) Date/year of offence 24.08.2006
(b) Complainant Sh. S.K. Ahuja, ACP/R.Cell
Kingsway Camp, Delhi.
(c) Accused Parvinder Kumar
s/o Sh. Devraj Singh
r/o VPO, Rathaura, PS Chhapourali,
Distt. Bagpat, UP.
(d) Offence complained of Sec. 468/471/201 IPC
(e) Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
(f) Final order Acquitted for the offence u/s
468/471/201 IPC
(g) Date of institution 15.11.2008
(h) Date when judgment 22.08.2016
was reserved
(i) Date of judgment 06.09.2016
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR DECISION
1. In the present case, the accused has been charged for the offence punishable under Section 468/471/201 IPC. The allegations State vs. Parvinder Singh, FIR no. 140/07, PS Mukherjee Nagar Page no. 1 / 19 against the accused are that on 24.08.2006, accused Parvinder Kumar forged the document i.e. the sports certificate for the purpose of cheating and he fraudulently and dishonestly used said forged certificate as genuine at the time of his interview for appointment for the post of constable (executive) in Delhi Police and he knew and had reason to believe that he was using the forged document and he also caused the disappearance of original sports certificate with intention to screen himself and he has thereby committed the offence punishable u/s 468/471/201 IPC.
2. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. Copies were supplied in compliance of Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Charge was framed under Section 468/471/201 IPC against accused Parvinder Kumar vide order dated 09.12.2010 by Ld. Predecessor of this court to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. To support its case, prosecution has examined eight witnesses in evidence.
4. PW-1 Sh. M.S. Tyagi deposed that on 19.09.2006 he was posted as Project Officer at Sports Authority of India, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi and he received a letter from Recruitment Cell, 4 th Battalion DAP alongwith photocopies of sports certificates (Kabaddi) from Srl. NO. 1 to 36 and after verification, he prepared the report and handed State vs. Parvinder Singh, FIR no. 140/07, PS Mukherjee Nagar Page no. 2 / 19 over the same to Constable from Recruitment Cell, Delhi Police. He further stated that in his report, the name of Parvinder Kumar was also mentioned at Srl. No. 15 but he could not tell his roll number. The photocopy of the report furnished by PW-1 is Mark-A and the photocopy of the certificate verified by him is Mark-B. He stated that after verification he found that the aforesaid sports certificate was false and the IO recorded his statement. During his cross-examination he stated that he verified all the documents of the candidates mentioned in the list Mark-A on the basis of his experience as a sports person and a coach. He further stated that he had not checked the record of Kabaddi Federation regarding the alleged certificate qua accused Parvinder whose name is mentioned at Srl No. 15 in his report Mark-A. He denied that report Mark-A was false. He also stated that he did not possess the record of Kabaddi Federation as it was with the respective Federation. He also stated that he had informed the police authorities that record pertaining to concerned Federation was not maintained by the Sports Authority and that they should confirm from the concerned Kabaddi Federation.
5. PW-2 Retired ACP Sh. S.K. Ahuja deposed that during the period 2006-2009 he was posted as ACP Recruitment Cell in Delhi Police and during the recruitment of Constable (Executive) in the year 2006, the accused Parvinder Kumar applied for the post of Constable and that at the State vs. Parvinder Singh, FIR no. 140/07, PS Mukherjee Nagar Page no. 3 / 19 time of interview on 24.08.2006, he produced his sports certificate of Kabaddi which was sent to Sports Authority of India for verification. He stated that on receipt of verification report on 26.09.2006 from the Project Officer Sh. M.S. Tyagi it was revealed that the sports certificate of Parvinder Kumar was fake. He stated that the accused used deceitful means to cheat Delhi Police for getting the employment. He stated that a complaint was sent to PS Mukherjee Nagar for registration of the case against the accused which is Ex. PW-2/A and later on requisite documents were sent to PS Mukherjee Nagar vide letter Ex.PW-2/B bearing his signatures at point A. During his cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel he stated that he had not sent the certificates of various candidates including the accused Parvinder herein for verification as the aforesaid certificate had already been sent by his Predecessor Sh. L.N. Rao, ACP. He further deposed that he received the report of Sh. M.S. Tyagi but he did not verify from Sh. M.S. Tyagi or from any other person as to how the said certificates were verified. He denied that Sh. M.S. Tyagi had informed him that the record of Kabaddi Federation was not available with the Sports Authority of India or that the police authorities should get the sports certificates verified from the concerned Federation. He admitted that he had not sought any verification regarding the certificate in question from the Kabaddi Federation. He denied that the record of the Kabaddi State vs. Parvinder Singh, FIR no. 140/07, PS Mukherjee Nagar Page no. 4 / 19 Federation was maintained by the concerned Federation or that the accused was falsely implicated or that the certificate was not properly verified.
6. PW-3 ASI Udai Bhan Tiwari was the duty officer who proved the FIR Ex. PW-3/A and the endorsement on rukka Ex. PW-3/B.
7. PW-4 HC Arun brought the photocopy of interview letter of candidate Parvinder Kumar for the post of Constable (Executive) male in Delhi Police in the year 2006 against roll no. 419395 for interview dt. 24.08.2006 which is Mark-A. During his cross-examination, this witness could not tell even after reading the interview letter as to whether the accused appeared as a general candidate or as a sports candidate. He admitted that uniform interview letters were issued to all the candidates and that if the sports candidate otherwise obtained the eligible marks on merit, he could be considered for the job without showing the sports certificate
8. PW-5 Additional DCP Sh. L.N. Rao deposed that during the year 2006 he was posted as ACP Recruitment Cell and during the recruitment process of Constable (Executive) Male in Delhi Police in the year 2006 he sent the letter alongwith list of 36 candidates to Project Officer, Sports Authority of India for verification of sports certificate produced by the candidates at the time of interview including the certificate State vs. Parvinder Singh, FIR no. 140/07, PS Mukherjee Nagar Page no. 5 / 19 of candidate Parvinder Kumar at Srl. no. 15 of the list. He stated that the letter Mark-X bears his signatures at point A. He stated that the Project Officer submitted his report on 26.09.2006 Mark-A and on the basis of said report, the sports certificate produced by candidate Parvinder is found to be false. During his cross-examination, this witness could not tell as to how many total candidates produced sports certificates for availing the benefits but he stated that there were so many candidates who produced sports certificates. He further deposed that he sent the list of only 36 candidates to The Sports Authority of India and rest of the certificates were sent to various other authorities for verification. He further deposed that the certificate Mark-B was concerned with Sports Authority of India and hence, it was sent to Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Sports Authority of India. However, this witness was shown the certificate Mark-B and after going through the same he stated that the document Mark-B did not bear the name of JNL Stadium. He further deposed that he telephonically inquired from Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium that said certificates are required to be verified from Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium Sports Authority of India and therefore, he sent the certificate alongwith letter to the Project Officer. He denied that the certificate was wrongly verified from Sports Authority of India or that no inquiry was made from Sports Authority of India before sending the list of candidates for verification. He denied that Sh. M.L. State vs. Parvinder Singh, FIR no. 140/07, PS Mukherjee Nagar Page no. 6 / 19 Tyagi, Project Officer had informed him that Sports Authority of India did not possess the record of Kabaddi Federation of India.
9. PW-6 Ct. Vijay Kumar deposed that on 18.09.2007 he was posted at PS Mukherjee Nagar and one person namely Parvinder Kumar came to the PS alongwith his brother-in-law and he stated that the FIR no. 140/07 PS Mukherjee Nagar was registered against him in which he used forged certificate for securing the job in Delhi Police and he told that he had purchased the said certificate from Baraut Bus Stand. He stated that thereafter, IO HC Sukhpal arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW- 6/A and also conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW-6/B and he recorded the disclosure statement of accused vide memo Ex. PW-6/C. He further stated that the accused disclosed that he had dumped the alleged forged certificate in ganda naala. He stated that thereafter, the accused was medically examined and was produced before the concerned MM and the IO recorded his statement. During his cross-examination, he stated that he joined the investigation of the present case twice. He denied that he did not join the investigation or that the accused never came to PS on 18.09.2007 as alleged by him. He denied that no disclosure statement of accused was recorded in his presence or that he had identified the accused at the instance of the IO.
10. PW-7 ASI Sukhpal Singh deposed that on 21.03.2007, after State vs. Parvinder Singh, FIR no. 140/07, PS Mukherjee Nagar Page no. 7 / 19 the registration of present FIR, the investigation was handed over to him and then he received the documents from the Reader of the concerned SHO and he alongwith Ct. Vijay went to the house of accused Parvinder at Distt. Baghpat, UP but the accused was not traceable. He further deposed that on 18.09.2007 accused Parvinder Kumar came to the PS alongwith his brother-in-law and told him that FIR no. 140/07 PS Mukherjee Nagar had been registered against him for using the forged certificate for securing job in Delhi Police and that he had secured the said certificate from Baraut Bus Stand. He further deposed that after verification he arrested the accused and personally searched him and also recorded his disclosure statement. He further deposed that accused disclosed that he had dumped the forged certificate in ganda naala. He further deposed that accused was produced before the court and he recorded the statement of Ct. Vijay and thereafter, he got transferred from the police station and he handed over the file to MHC(M). During cross-examination, he deposed that the sports certificate of accused Parvinder was sent for verification by Sh. S.K. Ahuja, ACP Recruitment Cell before the registration of FIR. He denied that the sports certificate was sent by ACP L.N. Rao. He could not tell as to whether the sports certificate was sent to Sports Authority of India situated at Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi. He admitted that the sports certificate in question pertains to Amateur Kabaddi Federation of India and State vs. Parvinder Singh, FIR no. 140/07, PS Mukherjee Nagar Page no. 8 / 19 not to Sports Authority of India. He admitted that he did not get the sports certificate verified from any other authority except the Sports Authority of India. He stated that he had gone to the office of Sports Authority of India to verify the report sent by Sh. M.S. Tyagi, Project Officer, Sports Authority of India. He stated that he did not seek the record of Kabaddi Federation of India and he also did not ask as to whether the Sports Authority of India maintained the record of Kabaddi Federation of India or not. He stated that he had only verified the fact that the report was sent by Sh. M.S. Tyagi or not. He could not tell as to whether the record of Kabaddi Federation of India was maintained by Sports Authority of India or not. He admitted that the signatures on the sports certificates were not verified by him. He also admitted that without verifying the signatures on the said certificate, it could not be said that the certificate was false or not.
11. PW-8 Deoraj Chaturvedi, Asstt. Secretary Amateur Kabaddi Federation of India deposed that on 20.03.2015 a police official came to his office alongwith the orders of the court regarding certificate verification in the case FIR no. 140/.07 pertaining to Sh. Parvinder Kumar and he verified the particulars of the said certificate and he handed over the reply regarding the said verification which is Ex. PW-8/A. He stated that as per his verification report, the certificate in question was found to be false and fake. During his cross-examination, he deposed that the Sports Authority of State vs. Parvinder Singh, FIR no. 140/07, PS Mukherjee Nagar Page no. 9 / 19 India did not have any record of competitions conducted by National Sports Federation including Amateur Kabaddi Federation of India. He further stated that the procedure has been changed since the year 2015 and now the grant in aid is released by Sports Authority of India on production of requisite documents by National Sports Federation and that the said documents include the name of the players participated in a particular event for which the grant in aid is sought for. He denied that the procedure of providing of documents had not been introduced in the year 2015 or that it was already in existence. He stated that he prepared the verification report Ex. PW-8/A after going through the manual files and scanned copies maintained in the computer record. He stated that the said computer was under his supervision and was password protected. He also stated that the said computer was installed 3-4 years ago. He denied that his verification report Ex. PW-8/A was false and fabricated. He stated that he had not given the report on the basis of sports certificate. He denied that he had not annexed the copy of record only to furnish a false report.
12. Thereafter the prosecution's evidence was closed and statement of the accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr.PC in which the accused categorically denied the allegations and he stated that he had been falsely implicated and that he did not forge the sports certificate and that he did not use the same. Accused did not examine any witness in his State vs. Parvinder Singh, FIR no. 140/07, PS Mukherjee Nagar Page no. 10 / 19 defence.
13. I have heard arguments addressed by ld. counsel for accused as well as by Ld. APP for State.
14. It is fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent and therefore, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The general burden of establishing the guilt of accused is always on the prosecution and it never shifts.
15. Counsel for the accused argued that accused has been falsely implicated as he did not furnish or submit the certificate Mark-B. Ld. Counsel further argued that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused forged the sports certificate in question or that he fraudulently and dishonestly used the same as genuine. Ld. Counsel also argued that PW-8 Deoraj Chaturvedi, Assistant Secretary, Amateur Kabaddi Federation of India has not produced the record regarding the 52 nd Senior National Kabaddi Championship 2004 and in the absence of said record, the guilt of the accused cannot be said to have been proved merely on the basis of report Ex. PW-8/A furnished by PW-8. Ld. Counsel for the accused also argued that the accused neither forged the certificate nor has he used the same, therefore, he is liable to be acquitted.
16. In this case, the accused has been charged for commission of State vs. Parvinder Singh, FIR no. 140/07, PS Mukherjee Nagar Page no. 11 / 19 offence u/s 468/471/201 IPC and as per the case of the prosecution, the accused forged the sports certificate Mark-B for the purpose of cheating and he fraudulently and dishonestly used the same as a genuine document at the time of his interview for the post of Constable in Delhi Police and that he also intentionally caused to disappear the sports certificate with an intention to screen himself.
17. Section 470 IPC defines the term 'forged document' as a false document made by forgery. The term "forgery" is defined in Section 463 as whoever makes any false documents 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.
18. The condition precedent for the offence u/s 468/471 IPC is forgery and the condition precedent for forgery is making of a false document. The making of false document is explained in Section 464 of IPC.
19. An analysis of section 464 of the Penal Code shows that it divides making of 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 State vs. Parvinder Singh, FIR no. 140/07, PS Mukherjee Nagar Page no. 12 / 19 that such document was made or executed by some 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 of 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 practiced upon him, know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration.
20. 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 authorized by someone else; (ii) where a person dishonestly or fraudulently, alters a document in any material part, without lawful authority; (iii) he altered or tampered a document or he obtained a document by practicing deception, or from a person not in control of his senses.
21. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of Bihar and others (2009) 8 Supreme Court cases 751 as under:
That when a document is executed by a person claiming a property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorized by State vs. Parvinder Singh, FIR no. 140/07, PS Mukherjee Nagar Page no. 13 / 19 someone else. Therefore, execution of such document (purporting to convey some property of which is not the owner) is not execution of a false document as defined under 464 of the Code. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery, then neither Section 467 nor Section 471 of the Code are attracted.
22. In the case in hand, the sports certificate Mark-B is stated to be a false document as defined u/s 464 IPC and it is alleged that the accused has made and forged the said sport certificate. However, the prosecution has failed to prove that the said sports certificate Mark-B bears the handwriting of the accused or that the said sports certificate was prepared or forged by the accused. The IO sent the copy of sports certificate Mark-B to the Project Officer, Sports Authority of India for the verification of its genuineness and the charge sheet was prepared and filed on the basis of report furnished by Sh. M.S. Tyagi, Project Officer, Sports Authority of India who has been examined as PW-1. However, during his deposition before the court, PW-1 Sh. M.S. Tyagi has deposed that he verified the documents/ certificates of the candidates on the basis of his experience as a sports persons and as a coach. He also stated that he had not checked the record of Kabaddi Federation regarding the alleged issuance of said certificate to accused Parvinder.
23. Thereafter, an application u/s 311 CrPC was moved by Ld. State vs. Parvinder Singh, FIR no. 140/07, PS Mukherjee Nagar Page no. 14 / 19 APP for the State and the said application was allowed and in consequence thereof, PW-8 Sh. Deoraj Chaturvedi, Assistant Secretary, Amateur Kabaddi Federation of India was examined.
24. PW-8 Deoraj Chaturvedi furnished the report Ex. PW-8/A under his signatures and he stated that as per the report, the sports certificate in question was found to be false. Perusal of the report furnished by PW-8 which is Ex. PW-8/A reveals that Sh. Deoraj Chaturvedi has mentioned in the said report that on the basis of records available in the office of Federation, the copy of sports certificate was found to be false and he also mentioned in the said report that Parvinder Kumar was not a player of Uttar Pradesh team in the said championship. PW-8 Deoraj Chaturvedi has not annexed or filed any document with his report Ex. PW-8/A to explain as to how the said certificate was found to be false. No list of players who participated in 52nd National Senior Kabaddi Championship 2004 has been brought on record. PW-8 has not brought or filed any record on the basis of which he prepared the report Ex. PW-8/A.
25. The prosecution is required to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts and the factum of forgery of the sports certificate is sought to have been proved on the basis of the report Ex. PW- 8/A furnished by Sh. Deoraj Chaturvedi, who has not produced any material on record before the court on the basis of which he prepared the State vs. Parvinder Singh, FIR no. 140/07, PS Mukherjee Nagar Page no. 15 / 19 said report. PW-8 has deposed during his cross-examination on 05.07.2016 that he prepared the verification report Ex. PW-8/A after going through the manual files and scanned copies maintained in the computer record and he stated that the said computer is under his supervision and is password protected and he also stated that the said computer was installed probably 3-4 years ago. The prosecution has alleged that accused used the said certificate on 24.08.2006 and the verification report Ex. PW-8/A was prepared on the basis of record available in the computer which was installed only 3-4 years ago. The copy of certificate Mark-B is stated to have been signed by various officer bearers, however, none of the said persons have been interrogated or examined by the IO during investigation and the IO PW-7 ASI Sukhpal Singh has also admitted during his cross-examination that the signatures on the sports certificate were not verified and he also admitted that without verifying the signatures on the said certificate, it could not be said that the certificate was false or not.
26. Hence, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the accused made the false document as contemplated u/s 464 IPC which is the condition precedent for convicting the accused for the offence of forgery u/s 468 IPC.
27. Prosecution has also alleged that accused used the forged State vs. Parvinder Singh, FIR no. 140/07, PS Mukherjee Nagar Page no. 16 / 19 certificate as genuine for obtaining the benefit of recruitment in Delhi Police and has thereby committed offence u/s 471 IPC. However, as discussed above, the prosecution has failed to prove that sports certificate Mark-B is a forged document. As the sports certificate Mark-B has not been proved to be a forged document, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence u/s 471 IPC.
28. It is further pertinent to mention that the prosecution has alleged that accused furnished the sports certificate Mark-B at the time of his interview however, the prosecution has not examined any witness to prove that the sports certificate mark B was produced by the accused at the time of his interview. The factum of furnishing of sports certificate by the accused is sought to be proved by the document Mark P-3, however, the said document has not been proved on record as neither the person who prepared the said document nor any witness thereto has been examined by the prosecution. The document Mark P-3 has been mentioned by IO PW7 ASI Sukh Pal during his testimony however the said document was allegedly prepared by one Insp. Sumer Singh and the same is also having the signatures of Sh. Ajay Chaudhary, Chairman of the interview Board, however, none of these persons was examined as a witness. The document Mark P-3 is the certificate prepared by checking officer Inspector Sumer Singh regarding the certificates allegedly furnished State vs. Parvinder Singh, FIR no. 140/07, PS Mukherjee Nagar Page no. 17 / 19 by the applicant Parvinder Kumar at the time of his interview, however, no witness has been examined by the prosecution to prove the fact that the accused furnished the sport certificates in question as alleged. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, accused cannot be convicted for the offence u/s 471 IPC.
29. The prosecution has also alleged that the accused caused the disappearance of the original sports certificate with an intention to screen himself and thereby committed offence u/s 201 IPC. To prove the said allegation, the prosecution has examined PW-6 Ct. Vijay Kumar and PW-7 IO/ASI Subhash and they have deposed that the accused disclosed to them that he had dumped the alleged sports certificate in ganda naala. Therefore, the only evidence against the accused regarding the abovesaid allegation is the disclosure statement allegedly made by him to the IO which is not admissible in evidence.
30. Hence, the prosecution has neither proved that the accused forged the sports certificate nor has it been proved that he fraudulently and dishonestly used the said certificate as genuine nor has it been proved that the accused caused the disappearance of the said sports certificate with an intention to screen himself.
31. Considering the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the accused is liable to be acquitted for the offence u/s 468/471/201 IPC. State vs. Parvinder Singh, FIR no. 140/07, PS Mukherjee Nagar Page no. 18 / 19
32. Accordingly, accused Parvinder Kumar s/o Sh. Devraj Singh stands acquitted for the offence u/s 468/471/201 IPC.
Announced in open court (Manish Khurana) on 06.09.2016 ACMM (North): Rohini State vs. Parvinder Singh, FIR no. 140/07, PS Mukherjee Nagar Page no. 19 / 19