Delhi District Court
State vs . Virender Etc. on 30 August, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. ASHOK KUMAR, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE (SOUTH EAST) 07, SAKET COURTS, DELHI
STATE Vs. VIRENDER ETC.
FIR No: 97/2006
U/s: 411/420/471/474/511 IPC
PS: K.M. Pur
JUDGMENT
a The Sl. No. of the case : 98/1/2014
b The date of commission : 10.02.2006
c The date of Institution of the case : 20.03.2008
d The name of complainant : Smt. Purnima Agarwal.
e The name of accused 1. Virender Kumar S/o Chander
Lal R/o H. No. 241, Parwana
Road, Khurejji, Delhi.
2 Naeem Ahmad S/o Nazir
Ahmad R/o 5/6, Gali No. 2, Old
Brijpuri, Delhi.
( already discharged vide order
dated 16.03.12)
f The offence complained of : 411/420/471/474/511 IPC
g The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
h Arguments heard on : 30.08.2014
i The final order : Convicted
j The date of judgment : 30.08.2014
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1 Vide this judgment I will decide the case filed by the prosecution against
the aforesaid accused herein under sections 411 and 474 as well as 420 r/w 511 FIR No. 97/06 Page 1 of 21 and 471 r/w 511 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter IPC). The facts of the case are that accused on or before 10.02.2006 ( hereinafter date of incident), dishonestly received or retained one cheque No. 702740 dated 10.02.2006 in the sum of Rs. 15,000/ drawn on HSBC Bank, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Branch, knowing or having reasons to believe that the same was stolen property. It is further the case of the prosecution that on 10.02.2006 at about 3.30 pm ( hereinafter time of incident) at HSBC Bank, F43, South Extension PartI, New Delhi ( hereinafter place of incident) within the jurisdiction of P.S. K.M. Pur, the accused presented the aforesaid cheque for encashment and dishonestly attempted to induce the concerned bank employee to encash the said cheque which he presented and fraudulently or dishonestly attempted to use the aforesaid forged cheque as genuine and thereby committed offences punishable under the aforesaid provisions.
2 Charge was framed against the accused under above said provision on 17.04.2012. The accused has pleaded not guilty for the same and has claimed trial.
3 Prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses.
PW1 is Ms. Purnima Aggarwal who is complainant in the present case and in her examination she has deposed that in the month of February, 2006, she received a telephonic call from HSBC Bank, South Extension Branch that one person had came in the bank to withdraw Rs. 15,000/ from her account. She told the bank officials that she has not signed or given any cheque to anyone for withdrawal of rs. 15000/. She thereafter went to bank and FIR No. 97/06 Page 2 of 21 recognized the person ( who was her driver) who has come to withdraw money from her cheque. Police arrived there and recorded her statement vide Ex. PW1/A and arrested the accused. She identified the accused during her examination. She was also put leading question by Ld. APP wherein she admitted the her account No. as 051568426001 at HSBC Bank, Branch, South Extension Part I as she is working as Panel Lawyer of the HSBC Bank. She has further admitted that the cheque bearing No. 702740 dated 10.02.2006 belonged to her account and stated that she handed over the cheque book to the police. She also stated that police has also obtained her specimen signatures and writing on four pages vide ex. PW1/B, bearing her signatures at point A. PW2 is Ct. Rajender Parsad, who is the witness of investigation being accompanied with the IO during the course of investigation and has deposed that after receiving DD No. 19A he alongwith IO ASI Tej Singh went to the spot i.e. HSBC Bank, South X Part I where they met one lady Ms. Poornima and she handed over the accused to the IO, IO recorded her statement, prepared the rukka and the FIR in the present case has been registered through him. He has further deposed that IO arrested the accused Virender, conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW2/A and PW2/B, recorded disclosure statement of accused, seized the cheque in question vide Ex. PW2/D and recorded his statement.
PW3 is Saurabh Tripathi, who is Branch Operation Manager of HSBC Bank, South Extension Part1, New Delhi has deposed that in the month of February, 2006, accused (whom is correctly identified) was produced before FIR No. 97/06 Page 3 of 21 him by one of his employees for furnishing a self cheque of Rs. 15000/ on which signatures did not match with their record. Thereafter, he called the customer of the cheque who (Purnima Aggarwal) came there and refused having issued any such cheque to anybody and thereafter he handed over the cheque and accused to her.
PW4 is ASI Geroge Masih, who was one of the IO in the present case to whom the further investigation was handed over and he deposed that after getting the priority letter for submitting the FSL result he submitted the cheque in question, specimen handwriting and signatures of accused Nayeem and Virender and of complainant Ms. Purnima Aggarwal to FSL Rohini and thereafter, he was transferred and handed over the file to the MHC(R).
PW5 is Ct. Anant Singh who has deposed about PC remand of accused Nayeem Ahmed with the permission of court by SI Rajnish and thereafter they went to the house of accused at Gali No. 9, H.No. 5/6, Yamuna Park, Delhi, searched the house of accused but nothing was recovered.
PW6 is Anurag Sharma, Assistant Director (Documents) FSL, who has deposed that exhibits markQ1, Q2 & S1 to S24 in 17 sheets were received in their laboratory on 30.08.2006 in open condition in which S1 to S12 of Naeem Ahmed, S13 to S19 of Virender Kumar and S20 to S24 of Purnima Aggarwal and the question writing and signatures MarkQ1 and Q2 were executed on the cheque in question. After examining the same he has opined that (i) the person who wrote the red enclosed writings and signatures stamped and marked S20 to S24 did not write the red enclosed writings and signature FIR No. 97/06 Page 4 of 21 similarly stamped and marked Q1 and Q2. (ii) It has not been possible to fix the authorship of questioned writing/signatures marked Q1` and Q2 with the specimen writings marked S1 to S12 as well as S13 to S19. In this regard he has proved his report vide Ex. PW6/A. He has also identified all the aforesaid exhibits during his examination vide Ex. PW6/B (collectively).
PW7 is ASI Tej Singh, who is the IO of the case and has narrated the facts as stated by PW2 Ct. Rajinder, exhibited the documents prepared during the investigation and apart from the aforesaid investigation he has also proved his endorsement vide Ex. PW7/A (rukka), recording of disclosure statement of accused Virender vide Ex. PW7/B, seizure of cheque book vide Ex. PW7/C, obtaining the specimen signature and writing of accused both accused vide Ex. PW7/D and PW7/E and handing over the further investigation to ASI Geoerge Masih.
PW8 is Ms. Naveet Kaur who was posted as Banking Assistant, in HSBC, South Extension Branch, New Delhi and deposed about the fact that one person came to her and presented a cheque for encashment and upon suspicion over signature on the cheque, she handed over the cheque to her supervisor and also called the concerned customer for confirming signature. PW8 on being cross examined by Ld. APP has also admitted the cheque being No. 702740 for Rs. 15000/ and further stated that she has not stated to the police that accused had handed over the cheque in question to her.
PW9 is Krishnendu Roy who being Assistant Manager posted in the aforesaid bank has exhibited the account opening form with KYC for FIR No. 97/06 Page 5 of 21 account No. 051568426001in the name of S.K. Aggarwal & Co vide and proved that the in the list of authorized signatories name of Sh. Shailender Kumar Aggarwal and Ms. Purnima Aggarwal are mentioned and proved the aforesaid vide Ex. PW9/A1 to PW9/A15.
The accused in his statement recorded u/s 294 CrPC has not disputed the genuineness of the FIR registered in the present case vide Ex. PA/1. 4 Statement of accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C., wherein accused have denied all the allegations made against him and took the plea that the cheque in question was handed over to him by Naeem who asked him to get the same encashed by saying that it was his salary cheque and when he went to bank to encash the said cheque , bank officials called the police and he was arrested. The accused has further deposed that it is a false case and does not know as to why the witnesses have deposed against him. Initially the accused has preferred to lead evidence in his defence but later on vide his statement recorded separately refused to lead evidence in his defence. 5 I have heard Ld. APP for the State, Ld. Defence Counsel, and gone through case file very carefully.
6 The arguments of Ld. APP for the State are that the case against the accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt on the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Contradictions, if any are very minor in nature. Hence the case against the accused is proved beyond reasonable doubts and the he should be convicted.
7 As per the defence counsel the prosecution's evidence is doubtful because FIR No. 97/06 Page 6 of 21 the complainant in her cross examination has stated that she used to mention the details of the cheque issued for various purpose and the amount in the folio attached to the cheque book in normal course. When the cheque book which is seized by the IO in the present case was shown to the complainant and when she was confronted with the fact that why has she not mentioned such details in the cheque book which is Ex. P3, she did not give any explanation for such omission. Hence, it shows that no such cheque was issued to any person because if the same had been issued, the details of the same would have been mentioned in the folio. The absence of the details of the other 13 cheques prior to the present cheque in question which comes at serial no. 14 in the cheque book strengthens the doubt on the prosecution case. It has been further argued that even otherwise the salary of the accused was due and the amount filled in the cheque is only Rs. 15000/ which is a likely salary of a driver. If the accused wanted to misuse the cheque he would have filled more amount in the cheque rather than Rs. 15000/. As per the defence counsel in view of the facts and circumstances, the accused has been falsely implicated to settle the personal scores.
I do not agree with the submissions of the defence counsel. The reason is that the complainant has clearly denied in her cross examination that she used to pay salary to her driver by cheque and even otherwise just because details have not been mentioned in the folio related to earlier 13 cheques does not show that the complainant did not fill the folio because she did not use earlier 13 cheques and used the present cheque to falsely implicate the accused. FIR No. 97/06 Page 7 of 21 Just because the complainant has stated that she used to fill the details in the folio relating to the cheque issued does not mean that she will do it in every case and it is the discretion of the account holder as to how they keep their finances. As this is the defence of accused, hence, onus was on him to call account details of those 13 cheques and nothing stopped him to make an application to the court in this regard. The arguments of Ld. Counsel is only a matter of conjuncture which is not at all helpful in throwing out the prosecution case. Even otherwise there is overwhelming evidence to prove that such cheque was not executed by the complainant which is clear from the FSL report and it is clearly proved from the evidence on record that it was presented by the accused to the bank. It was presented with full knowledge that it was not issued by the complainant and with dishonest intention to encash the same and cause wrongful loss to the complainant as well as to the bank and wrongful gain to himself. This will be shown from a discussion of the evidence led by the prosecution and the discussion whether such evidence proved the ingredients of the offence. This discussion and the ingredients are mentioned in the succeeding paragraphs.
8 Relevant Law:
Minor inconsistencies
It is a settled law that minor contradictions do not affect the merit of the case and it has been laid in catena of judgment. One such citation is Ravi Kapoor Vs. State of Rajasthan 2012 VIII AD(SC) 73.
Overall context of the case is to be seen.
It also the settled law laid down in Sardul Singh Vs. State of Haryana FIR No. 97/06 Page 8 of 21 AIR 2002 SC 3462 that courts have a duty to undertake a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all the vital features of the case and entire evidence with reference to broad and reasonable probabilities of the case in their attempt to find out proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Onus of proof.
It is settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to prove its case on judicial file, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, in the defence of the accused. Further, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that burden of proof of the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the trial is on the prosecution and it never shifts to the accused. Also it is a settled proposition of criminal law that the accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such doubt entitles the accused to acquittal.
9 The following ingredients will have to be proved by the prosecution to establish the offence u/s 411 IPC against the accused:
(i) The accused received or retained any property.
(ii) the property was stolen.
(iii) Such reception or retaining was dishonest in the sense that the accused knew or had reasons to believe that property in their possession was stolen.
FIR No. 97/06 Page 9 of 21
The following ingredients will have to be proved by the prosecution to establish the offence u/s 420 IPC against the accused:
(i) Firstly it has to proved that any person was cheated in terms of the provision of Section 415 IPC.
(ii) By virtue of such cheating that person was dishonestly induced by the accused to deliver any property or any other valuable security or anything which is signed or sealed or which is capable of converting into valuable security.
The following ingredients will have to be proved by the prosecution to establish the offence u/s 471 IPC against the accused:
(i) The accused has used the forged document in terms of provision of 463 and 464 IPC as genuine.
(ii) The accused used that document fraudulently or dishonestly even though he knew or had reason to believe that document to be false.
Section 474 IPC provides punishment for possession of such forged documents.
As per section 511 IPC it provides punishment in cases where the commission of the offence is not complete and the accused was in the course of commission of such offence and does an act towards its commission. In such cases the punishment is one half of longest term of imprisonment provided for the offence.
10 It must be remembered that the present case pertains to the attempt to FIR No. 97/06 Page 10 of 21 encash the forged cheque by deceptively presenting the same before the bank officials for encashment and which cheque belonged to the account of the complainant. The accused was not able to complete the offence by encashment of the cheque and receiving of such cash.
11 Before discussion whether the ingredients of the offence mentioned above have been proved or not it would be pertinent to lay down the facts which have been proved by the prosecution and which the accused could not disprove or contradict from the prosecution case. Such proved facts are as follows:
(i) Accused Virender Kumar was in possession of cheque Ex. P1 and presented it for encashment. He has been duly identified by the complainant, other Pws who are the bank officials, the PW/IO who proceeded to the bank on receipt of information that the accused has wrongfully presented the cheque for encashment and PW Ct. Rajinder accompanying him. To clarify more PW1 complainant Purnima Agarwal has identified the accused in the court who had come to withdraw the money by presenting the forged cheque. Also PW2 Ct. Rajinder Parsad as well as PW7 IO ASI Tej Singh all of whom proceeded to the bank on receipt of the information have identified the accused in the court besides the complainant. Besides this PW3 Saurabh Tripathi who is the bank official where the cheque was wrongfully presented by the accused in attempt to wrongfully encash it has also stated that the accused present in the court came to the bank where he presented one self cheque but the teller counter official found the signatures on the cheque doubtful and called the customer and intimated PW3 about the same. PW1 complainant has deposed that on receipt FIR No. 97/06 Page 11 of 21 of telephone call from the bank about the attempt to encash the forged cheque Ex. P1 by the accused, she went there and saw the cheque. She told the bank officials that she has not signed the said cheque. She recognized that the accused was her driver in the past and she was told by the bank officials that it is this accused Virender who had presented the cheque Ex. P1. On this statement her complaint Ex. PW1/A was recorded on which the present FIR was recorded. PW1 in her cross examination has also deposed that she used to pay the salary of her employee through cheque but this mode of payment was not adopted in case of driver. Hence, it is proved beyond doubt that the cheque Ex.
P1 was in possession of the accused and he wrongfully presented the said cheque for encashment but was not successful in encashing it as during this process he was caught by the bank official.
(ii) Said cheque belonged to account of the complainant. The complainant/PW1 has clearly stated in her examination in chief that the cheque Ex. P1 belonged to her account 051568426001 at HSBC Bank, South Ex. Part1. Besides this PW9 official from the concerned bank has also proved Ex. PW9/A1 to A15 which are the documents of account opening form with KYC which shows that the complainant was a joint account holder with Sh. S.K.Aggarwal. Hence this fact has also duly proved.
(iii) Said cheque was not executed by the complainant. It has been proved by PW Anurag Sharma who is the concerned official from FSL that as per his report Ex. PW6/A the questioned handwriting and signatures Mark Q1 and Q2 respectively on the subject of examination i.e. alleged cheque Ex. P1 FIR No. 97/06 Page 12 of 21 was not written by the complainant. However, said officials could not express any opinion whether the said handwriting and signatures have been forged by the accused. In the cross examination also the said officials reiterated the same fact finding.
(iv) The investigation was duly conducted. It has already been specified in para 3 of this judgment wherein evidence of PW7/IO ASI Tej Singh and PW2/Ct. Rajinder Parsad who accompanied the IO is discussed.
(v) Another pertinent fact is that PW1 has constantly denied the suggestion that she was not happy with the other driver kept by her namely Nayeem and she made a plan to trap him by giving the cheque so that he can present to the bank for encashment and get caught in the process but instead the accused herein namely Virender got caught because he handed it to accused. 11 Discussion of the charge levelled against the accused.
The following ingredients will have to be proved by the prosecution to establish the offence u/s 411 IPC against the accused:
(i) The accused received or retained any property.
As discussed above it has been proved that the accused was in retention/possession of the cheque Ex. P1.
(ii) the property was stolen.
It has been proved that the cheque belonged to the complainant and she did not give the same to the accused because he had already left the job as driver. The accused also admits that the cheque was in his possession which did not belong to him in his statement under 313 Cr.P.C though he says that the FIR No. 97/06 Page 13 of 21 cheque was given to him by Nayeem because it was salary of Nayeem. However, the complainant has denied that she used to give the salary cheque to the drivers. As per the FSL report Ex. PW6/A the cheque is not in her handwriting. Hence, the fact that the cheque was stolen cheque in possession of the accused has been proved.
(iii) Such reception or retaining was dishonest in the sense that the accused knew or had reasons to believe that property in their possession was stolen.
It is clear from the proved fact that the reception of the cheque was dishonest because the complainant neither executed the cheque Ex. P1 nor handed it to the accused for encashment. So it can lead to only conclusion that the accused dishonestly received the same and with such dishonest intention he attempted to present the cheque for clearing to the bank. It was a self cheque or payable to bearer. However, as PW3 and PW8 bank officials were doubtful about the signatures on the cheque, they called the complainant and thereafter as above stated, the accused was caught red handed. Hence the offence u/s 411 IPC is proved against the accused.
The following ingredients will have to be proved by the prosecution to establish the offence u/s 420 IPC against the accused:
(i) Firstly it has to proved that any person was cheated in terms of the provision of Section 415 IPC.
It has been proved that the accused herein tried to encash the cheque Ex. P1 by wrongfully presented it to the bank and thus tried to cause FIR No. 97/06 Page 14 of 21 wrongful loss to the complainant and the bank even though neither the cheque was executed by the complainant nor it was given to the complainant for encashment.
(ii) By virtue of such cheating that person was dishonestly induced by the accused to deliver any property or any other valuable security or anything which is signed or sealed or which is capable of converting into valuable security. It is clear that the accused attempted to dishonestly induce the bank to encash such forged cheque which was not given in favour of the accused by duly signing it by the complainant and in that process tried to cause wrongful loss to the complainant by making the bank deliver to the accused Rs. 15000/ which was the amount of the cheque. However, as above stated the accused was not successful in the act and was caught by the bank officials in the attempt to commit the offence. Hence, the offence of attempt to cheat and induce the victim to deliver the property i.e. Rs. 15000/ has been duly proved on the part of the accused. Hence, the accused is guilty of offence u/s 420 r/w 511 IPC.
The following ingredients will have to be proved by the prosecution to establish the offence u/s 471 IPC against the accused:
(i) The accused has used the forged document in terms of provision of 463 and 464 IPC as genuine.
It is clear from the proved fact that the cheque belonged to the complainant's account, it was not executed by the complainant as per the FIR No. 97/06 Page 15 of 21 evidence on the record and the FSL report Ex. PW6/A.
(ii) The accused used that document fraudulently or dishonestly even though he knew or had reason to believe that document to be false.
However, the accused tried to use the forged cheque dishonestly by presenting it to the bank and tried to encash it fully knowing that it belonged to complainant's account and was not executed by the complainant. Hence, the offence of attempt to use the forged cheque with dishonest purpose is also duly proved against the accused. Hence, the accused is guilty of offence u/s 471 r/w 511 IPC.
Section 474 IPC provides punishment for possession of such forged documents.
In view of the above stated observations, facts proved and law discussed the accused is also guilty for possession of cheque Ex. P1 which is a forged cheque to the knowledge of the accused and it is also clear that he dishonestly possessed it with the intention to use it as genuine. It is clear because the accused actually did present the forged cheque for encashment though he was not successful in the process of doing so. 12 It is also pertinent to note that the accused stated in his explanation under 313 Cr.P.C that the cheque was given to him by Nayeem stating that it was his salary cheque and on asking of Nayeem the accused went to the bank to get it encashed. On the other hand the accused has given a suggestion to the complainant in her cross examination that the cheque was meant for FIR No. 97/06 Page 16 of 21 complainant's sister in law Meeta Rastogi because she needed Rs. 15000/. As per the settled law the false explanation given by the accused may furnish an additional link in the chain of evidence to prove the charge against the accused and may also be used as an additional assurance that the accused has committed the offence. So the accused not only has admitted the cheque Ex. P1 but has contradicted himself in his own defence by stating two things which are mutually contradicting. Either the cheque can be given to Nayeem or it can be given to Sister in law but not to both. The complainant has already stated that she did not pay her drivers through cheques, hence, the defence taken by the accused is clearly self contradictory and false. This also strengthens the prosecution case.
13 Hence, in view of the aforesaid observations and the law cited, the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the commission of offence u/s 411 IPC as well as 474 IPC on one hand and offence u/s 420 IPC as well as 471 IPC read with section 511 IPC against the accused. The accused is accordingly convicted for commission of offence u/s 411 IPC as well as 474 IPC and also for attempt regarding offence u/s 420 IPC and attempt regarding offence u/s 471 IPC read with section 511 IPC. Let the accused be heard on the point of sentence.
Announced in the open (ASHOK KUMAR)
Court on 30.08.2014 MM07, SOUTH EAST,
SAKET, NEW DELHI,
FIR No. 97/06 Page 17 of 21
IN THE COURT OF SH. ASHOK KUMAR, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE (SOUTH EAST) 07, SAKET COURTS, DELHI
STATE Vs. VIRENDER ETC.
FIR No: 97/2006
U/s: 411/420/471/474/511 IPC
PS: K.M. Pur
ORDER ON POINT OF SENTENCE
Presence : Ld. APP for the State,
Convicts in person with LAC Sh. Tej Narain,
Vide separate judgment the accused has been convicted for
offence u/s 411 IPC as well as 474 IPC and also for attempt regarding offence u/s 420 IPC and attempt regarding offence u/s 471 IPC read with section 511 IPC Heard on point of sentence.
Ld. APP for the State says that no leniency should be shown in sentencing the convicts and maximum sentence should be imposed upon him as provided under law.
Ld. Counsel for convict says that convict Virender has suffered JC for 38 days and has family to support consisting of old widowed mother and wife and two children. One child study in second class, Hillwood Academy, Preet Vihar and other child is studying in St. Andrews. One child namely Harshit is suffering from serious digestive tract problem for which it is stated that he will undergo operation. The convict says that he is TSR driver by profession. The convict is not a previous convict. Hence the convict be given FIR No. 97/06 Page 18 of 21 benefit of probation as per the Probation of Offenders Act.
I have heard LAC for convict as well as Ld. APP for the State. The purpose of sentencing after conviction is a balancing act. On one hand, punishment should be sufficient to deter the convict not to repeat the offence in future and become a good member in the society. On the other hand, the punishment should not be too harsh which results in convict becoming a hardcore criminal.
In my view convict does not deserve too much leniency and sentencing the convict merely upto the period undergone by them and giving him benefit of probation on sentencing would be overlooking the gravity of the offence. I am not in favour of releasing the convict on probation. The conduct of the convict is extremely reprehensible in as much as he indulged in retention of the stolen property cheque in question and thereafter, misusing it by presenting the forged cheque to the bank for encashment. It is pertinent to note that the complainant was the former employer of the convict and from whom the convict has been taking his salary in the past for sustenance. Despite that the convict has shown no scruples in cheating the complainant by presenting such a forged cheque for encashment though it is another matter that the convict was not successful in cheating the complainant as he was caught in the attempt to encash it. I do not agree to the suggestion of the counsel that the meager amount of Rs. 15000/ was involved and even for that amount which was filled in the cheque in question, the convict was not able to encash it, hence, no wrongful loss has been committed to the complainant and therefore, this is also a FIR No. 97/06 Page 19 of 21 ground to consider release of convict on the period undergone by the convict in J/C and now releasing the convict on the probation. The reason is that the benefit of good luck of the complainant that the convict was not able to cause wrongful loss to her should not go to the convict. Even otherwise it is a nature of the offence which is to be seen and as already observed the offence is serious and conduct of the convict is highly reprehensible.
Since, there is no document filed by the prosecution to establish any previous conviction against the convict and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in order to discourage such conduct I sentence the convict to a period of 1 year rigorous imprisonment for offence u/s 411 and 474 IPC and also fine of Rs. 250/ each for the said offences and in default to suffer 1 month rigorous imprisonment ( i.e. One month for non payment of the total fine of Rs. 500/ for these two offences). The convict is further sentenced to a period of 1 years rigorous imprisonment for attempt to commit offence u/s 420, 471 IPC read with section 511 IPC and also fine of Rs. 250/ each for the said offences and in default to suffer 1 month rigorous imprisonment ( i.e. One month for non payment of the total fine of Rs. 500/ for these two offences). These sentences are to run consecutively. Separate sentences have been given for two branches of the offences as one branch consists of the possession/retention of forged cheque constituting the offence u/s 411 and 474 IPC as this constitutes one act and other branch of offences constituting offences u/s 420/471 read with section 511 IPC are a result of separate act of presenting the forged cheque to the bank with the knowledge that it is so. FIR No. 97/06 Page 20 of 21 However, the convict be given the benefit of the period already undergone by him in judicial custody. A separate copy of judgment and order on sentence by provided to Counsel of convicts free of cost.
Announced in the open (ASHOK KUMAR)
Court on 30.08.2014 MM07, SOUTH EAST,
SAKET, NEW DELHI,
FIR No. 97/06 Page 21 of 21