Delhi District Court
State vs Manoj Kumar Pathak @ Pandit Etc on 30 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-01
EAST DISTRICT, KKD COURTS, DELHI.
TITLE: : State v. Manoj Kumar Pathak & Anr
FIR No. : 291/2004
CNR No. : DLET020003352004
P.S. : Gandhi Nagar
Date of commission of offence : August 2004
Name of Informant/complainant : Pradeep Kumar Sharma
Name of accused : 1. Manoj Kumar Pathak @ Pandit @ Sunil
Kumar 2. Dharam Raj Kumar @ Raj Kumar
Offence/s complained of : s. 408 IPC
Cognizance under section/s : s. 408/420/468/471 IPC
Charges framed under section/s : s. 419/420/468/471/411 IPC(qua accused
Manoj Kumar Pathak)
s. 408 IPC (qua accused Dharam Raj Kumar)
Plea of the Accused : Not Guilty
Date of hearing Final Arguments: : 28.03.2026
Date of pronouncement : 30.03.2026
Final Order : Acquittal
For the Prosecution : Ld. APP
For the accused. : Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma for accused Manoj
Kumar Pathak
Ms. Vidhi Jain for accused Dharam Raj Kumar
Present : Pritu Raj
J.M. F.C.-01,
KKD Courts, Delhi.
Digitally
signed by
PRITU PRITU RAJ
FIR No. 291/2004 State vs. Manoj Kumar Pathak & Anr Page 1 / 31 RAJ
Date:
2026.03.30
13:58:38
+0530
JUDGEMENT
1. The accused Manoj Kumar Pathak is facing trial for offence u/s. 419/420/468/471/411 Indian Penal Code, 1860 {Hereinafter 'IPC'} and accused Dharam Raj Kumar is facing trial for offences U/s. 408 IPC.
2. The present FIR was lodged on the complaint dated 26.08.2004 of Pradeep Ku- mar Sharma who state that he runs a courier service by the name of Madhur couriers. He deposed that he had employed one Dharam Raj for distributing posts. He states that on 04.08.2004, he gave various envelopes to accused Dharam Raj for distribution and it was claimed by the complainant that subsequent to distribu- tion of posts, the accused used to return the run sheet to the complainant at around 07-08 PM, each day. However, when the accused did not return on 10.08.2004, the complainant searched for him but could not find him. Hence, the present case.
3. On the written application of the complainant, Gandhi Nagar P.S. registered in re- lation to the above incident FIR no. 291/2004 on 26.08.2004 and, after investiga- tion, submitted the charge sheet on 23.12.2004 against a total of eight accused persons. Cognizance was taken and provisions of section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 {Hereinafter 'CrPC'} were duly complied with.
4. Charges u/s 419/420/468/471/411 IPC was framed against accused Manoj Kumar Pathak whereas charge u/s 408 IPC was framed against accused Dharam Raj Ku-
Digitally signed by FIR No. 291/2004 State vs. Manoj Kumar Pathak & Anr Page 2 / 31 PRITU PRITU RAJ Date:
RAJ 2026.03.30 13:58:44 +0530 mar on 25.09.2009 and read over to the accused persons, in Hindi, to which they denied the incident and claimed to be tried. The remaining six accused were dis- charged vide. order of same date.
5. The prosecution, in order to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt, exam- ined 15 witnesses.
6. PW-01 Pradeep Sharma deposed that accused Dharam Raj was doing work at his office for around 2.5 months as a distributor of documents and letters. He deposed that on 10 August 2004 at about 1 PM, accused Dharam Raj came to his office, and this witness handed over post envelopes to accused Dharam Raj for distribu- tion. This witness deposed that accused Dharam Raj used to give him delivery run sheet at about 07-8 PM. However, on that said that accused Dharam Raj did not come back. This witness deposed that he searched for accused Dharam Raj , but could not trace him. This witness deposed that accused Dharam Raj took the car- bon copy of details of the letters which this witness had handed over to accused Dharam Raj. This witness deposed that accused Dharam Raj was his servant and during his service, the offence was committed by accused Dharam Raj. This wit- ness went to police station on 26 August 2004 and made complaint in this regard. The police officer prepared the site plan at his instance and recorded the statement of this witness and interrogated the workers of this witness regarding the accused. This witness handed over the number of letter which he had handed over to the FIR No. 291/2004 State vs. Manoj Kumar Pathak & Anr Page 3 / 31 Digitally signed by PRITU PRITU Date:
RAJ RAJ 2026.03.30 13:58:49 +0530 accused i.e. accused Dharam Raj, for distribution. This witness stated he did not know what was in the envelope which accused Dharam Raj received for distribu- tion because the envelopes were closed. The letter which were handed over to the accused for distribution taken by him according to the directions of this witness. This witness stated he does not know about those persons from whom he received the letters for distribution and that he only recorded the Numbers of the letters not did he know to whom the letters were to be sent. This witness only prepared the delivery run sheet and the name of the person to whom the letter was to be handed over, but he stated that that accused Dharam Raj took these delivery run sheet with the letters. This witness told that the police that he had no information about those letters which he had handed over to the accused as the duplicate of run sheet was also taken by accused Dharam Raj. This witness informed the courier services about the details of those letters and stated that if he received in- formation, he would inform the police. This witness along with police officers went to the address of the accused, but could not find the accused at his home. The statement of this witness was recorded, and after some days, police person came to him and this witness accompanied them in search of the accused. A per- son namely Jeevant Ram came to him and asked about the letter which was sent by him for the courier service, who stated that four DD's were there in his enve- lope which was sent by him for delivery and the same was also handed over by this witness to accused Dharam Raj for delivery. This witness went to the police station along with Jeevant Ram and met the police officer. The police officer FIR No. 291/2004 State vs. Manoj Kumar Pathak & Anr Page 4 / 31 Digitally signed by PRITU PRITU RAJ Date:
RAJ 2026.03.30 13:58:57 +0530 recorded the treatment of Jeevant Ram and Jeevant Ram handed over the proof of demand drafts which were sent by him through courier. The police Official took these things into possession to seizure memo exhibit PW-1/A bearing his signa-
ture at Point A. The police officers recorded the statement in this regard and on 25 October 2004, this witness along with police officials went to the address of the accused and identified the accused consequent, to which he was apprehended and arrested while arrest Ex.PW1/B. The accused was personally searched, but noth-
ing was recovered from his personal search and information regarding arrest of abuse was given to his relatives. The disclosure statement was recorded along with the statement of this witness. This witness correctly identified accused Dharam Raj in court.
7. PW-02 Ct. Kailash Chand that on 26 August 2004, he joined the investigation of the case along with head constable Rakesh Bhardwaj. On that date complainant Pradeep Kumar had handed over some papers to the RU about the present case in his presence. Thereafter, they went to Madhukar Courier, where the IO interro- gated the workers of the courier, namely Kapil, Sushil, Deepak, Rahul etc.., about the accused who informed that they cannot tell anything about the accused. Thereafter, they went to the office of accused, but no clue was found about the ac- cused.
Digitally FIR No. 291/2004 State vs. Manoj Kumar Pathak & Anr Page 5 / 31 signed by PRITU PRITU Date:
RAJ RAJ 2026.03.30 13:59:02 +0530
8. PW-03 Prachi Poonia deposed that on 16 August 2004. She was working as assis- tant manager with Indus bank at Janakpuri branch. On that day, she made a pay- ment of Rs. 2,65,000 to Sunil Kumar, owner of Yogesh trading Company of cheque number 1502:110234008 of the said bank. The cheque is Ex.PW3/A bear- ing her signature at point A. She deposed that on the same day, she made payment of ₹15,000 to Sunil Kumar, owner of Yogesh Trading Company, vide cheque number 1503:110234008 of the said Bank. This cheque is Ex. PW-03/B. She de- pose that on 18 August 2004, a payment of ₹14,500 was made to Sunil Kumar, owner of Yogesh trading Company, cheque number 1504:110234008. The cheque is exhibit PW3/C.
9. PW-04 HC Pooran Chand deposed that on 27 October 2004. He was posted at PS Gandhi Nagar and on that day, he along with SI Dharmpal joined the investiga- tion and reached court number 23, KKD Court, where the IO formally arrested one Brijesh Kumar, Manoj Pathak, Arun Kumar and Abhay Kumar after conduct- ing enquiry from them. Accused Brijesh Kumar was sent to JC and two days PC of the remaining accused was obtained. Accused persons, after their medical ex- amination at SDN and Hospital, were taken to lock up of PS. Statement of this witness was recorded. This witness correctly identified the accused in Court.
10. PW-05 Jeevat Ram deposed that in the year 2004. He was running a business of Ready made garments. He deposed that on 6 August 2004, he had sent 04 demand FIR No. 291/2004 State vs. Manoj Kumar Pathak & Anr Page 6 / 31 Digitally signed by PRITU PRITU RAJ Date:
RAJ 2026.03.30 13:59:07 +0530 draft, the numbers of which he could not remember, for an amount of ₹1 lakh. He deposed that three demands were of ₹29,900, whereas, the fourth one was of ₹9970. He deposed that all the above mentioned demand draft were sent to Yo- gesh trading company Gandhi Nagar as payment through Madhur courier. He used to purchase garments from Yogesh trading company and approximately one week later he contacted Yogesh trading company from where he came to know that above mentioned demand drafts had not been received by them. This witness contacted Madhur courier from where he was informed that their boy at Delhi went missing who used to deliver the parcels. He made a request to the bank, namely Sindhu cooperative bank for stopping payment of above mentioned de- mand draft at Ahmed Nagar, Maharashtra. Witness was informed by the bank that above mentioned demands were already encashed. Thereafter, this witness along with Vijay, owner of Madhur courier came to Yogesh trading company and met Deepak bhai, the owner of Yogesh trading Company and after consultation, he came to PS Gandhi Nagar and lodged the complaint. Two days later, this witness came to know that accused persons had been arrested and case is pending for trial.
11. PW-06 R.K. Srivastava deposed that in November 2005, he was working as deputy manager at IndusInd Bank Janakpuri. He deposed that on 5 November 2004, IO of the case came to the bank and requested him to handover some docu- ments regarding accused Sunil Kumar pertaining to account number 0044 - FIR No. 291/2004 State vs. Manoj Kumar Pathak & Anr Page 7 / 31 Digitally signed by PRITU PRITU Date:
RAJ RAJ 2026.03.30 13:59:13 +0530 C31535-050. This witness handed over the requested documents i.e. original ac- count opening form of Yogesh trading company, copy of driving license of Sunil Kumar, copy of PAN card of Sunil Kumar, original letter dated 12 August 2004 from Yogesh trading Company, copy of rent agreement, original cheque deposit slip dated 12 August 2004 for deposit of cheque number 494862 for ₹9970, origi - nal cheque number 001502 dated 16 August 2004 for ₹2,65,000, original cheque number 001503 dated 16 August 2004 for ₹15,000, original cheque number 001504 dated 18 August 2004 for ₹14,500, photocopy of deposit slip dated 13 August 2004 for ₹1,49,610/-, photocopy of cheque deposit slip dated 13 August 2004 for Rs. 1,19,675/-, statement of account number 0044-C31535-050 of Yo- gesh trading Company from 1 July 2004 to 27 October 2004. Seizure memo of above documents was prepared by this witness, which is Ex. PW-6/B and the doc- uments were handed over vide letter pad of the bank which is exhibited as Ex.PW6/A. This witness deposed that IO also prepared his seizure memo Ex.PW- 6/C bearing the signature of this witness at A.
12. PW-07 B.V. Nayak deposed that on 4 December 2004. He was posted as senior manager at Canara Bank Delhi. On that day of the IO of the case came to his branch and requested to give original demand draft number 176156 dated 07 Au- gust 2004 for ₹19,960, which was encashed on 14 August 2004 at Indus Bank Janakpuri. This witness haded over the demand draft to SI Dharampal, which was FIR No. 291/2004 State vs. Manoj Kumar Pathak & Anr Page 8 / 31 Digitally signed by PRITU PRITU RAJ Date:
RAJ 2026.03.30 13:59:18 +0530 seized vide seizure memo, Ex.PW7/A bearing his signature at point A. the de- mand draft is exhibit PW7/B.
13. PW-08 ACP Naresh Kumar deposed that on 10 October 2004, he was posted at PS Lahori Gate. On that day, he along with SI Ritesh, HC Umed Singh, constable Virender, constable Ashok and other Police officials, joined the investigation of FIR number 322/2004, PS Lahori Gate. Accused namely Manoj Kumar Pathak, Arun Kumar Manohar Abhay, Brijesh Anupam and Rakesh Bansal were arrested in the said FIR and accused persons had disclosed in their disclosure made to the IO regarding the present FIR vide disclosure memo exhibited Ex.PW-8/A to Ex.PW-8/G bearing his signatures at point A. The IO had seized the articles which were recovered from the accused persons, namely Rakesh Bansal and Brijesh Ku- mar vide seizure memo Ex.PW-08/H to Ex.PW-8/K all bearing his signatures of this witness at point A. The statement of this witness was recorded by IO on 25 October 2004. This witness correctly identified the accused in court.
14. PW-09 ASI Rakesh deposed that on 25.10.2004, He along with SI Dharampal and complainant Pradeep Kumar Sharma had gone to Bihari colony, Delhi in search of accused and when they reached at Gali number 1A in search of accused Dharam Raj, he saw the accused was coming in the said Gali and was identified by the complainant. Accused was apprehended and IO interrogated the accused. This witness correctly identified accused Dharam Raj in court. Then the accused Digitally FIR No. 291/2004 State vs. Manoj Kumar Pathak & Anr Page 9 / 31 signed by PRITU PRITU Date:
RAJ RAJ 2026.03.30 13:59:24 +0530 was arrested by IO, was personally searched and information regarding arrest was given to his uncle namely Mahendra through phone. IO recorded the disclosure statement of this accused and the statement of this witness was also recorded by the IO. This witness deposed that on 28 October 2004, he joined the investigation again and on that day, IO had taken the accused persons namely Manoj Pathak, Arun Kumar and Abhay from lock up of the PS concerned who were on Police custody remand and took them to IO room where IO recorded their disclosure statement Vide Ex.PW9/A to Ex.PW-9C. IO had taken the specimen signature of accused Manoj Kumar on blank paper and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW9/D. Accused persons were sent to lock Up Supplementary statement of this witness was recorded by IO.
15. PW-10 ASI Sunil deposed that on 29 October 2004, he along with SI Dharampal and constable Subhash joined the investigation. On that day, Rakesh Bansal Anu- pam and Manohar Kumar were arrested at KKD courts Vide arrest memo Ex.PW 10/ A to Ex.PW-10/C. The disclosure statements were duly recorded and same are Ex PW10/D to Ex.PW 10/F.
16. PW-11 Umed Singh deposed that on 10 October 2004, along with SI Ritesh and constable Jai Prakash were conducting the investigation of FIR No. 322/2004, PS Lahori Gate. On that day, he along with SI Ritesh and Constable Jai Prakash, were at Shakti Khand Apartment, Ghaziabad in search of one Ashok Pandey, who FIR No. 291/2004 State vs. Manoj Kumar Pathak & Anr Page 10 / 31 Digitally signed by PRITU PRITU Date:
RAJ RAJ 2026.03.30 13:59:29 +0530 was arrested and one Chandra Tayal from Connaught Place were also arrested. During interrogation, they informed that accused Manoj Pathak, Abhay Kumar, Ajay Kumar, Rakesh Bansal, Arun Kumar and Manohar would come near HSBC Bank in one car bearing number HR29J6364. He deposed that the said persons ar- rived at the said spot at 12- 12:30 PM and they were arrested by IO SI Ritesh. The disclosure statements of these accused persons were made in FIR number 322/2004 PS Lahori Gate and the same have already been exhibited in the testi- mony of PW8. The statement of this witness was recorded by the IO.
17. PW-12 Pradeep Kumar Nagpal deposed that on 6 December 2004. He was posted as a manager service branch Bank of Baroda Sansad Marg, Parliament Street. That on the said date accused had come to his branch and informed him about the present case and asked for DD number 22346088 dated 7 August 2004 for an amount of ₹14,955 and DD number 223464 dated 7 August 2004 for an amount of ₹9960. This witness deposed that both the demand drafts were in favour of Yo- gesh trading company and stated that he handed over the above demand draft to the IO. He deposed IO seized both the demand draft vide Ex.PW 12/A and the original demand draft exhibited as Ex.PW 12/B and Ex.PW 12/C with these docu- ments bearing the signatures of this witness at point A.
18. PW-13 N Ganesh deposed that on 6 December 2004. He was posted at IDBI Bank Jhandewalan, New Delhi as manager and on that day. SI. Dharampal came to his FIR No. 291/2004 State vs. Manoj Kumar Pathak & Anr Page 11 / 31 Digitally signed by PRITU PRITU Date:
RAJ RAJ 2026.03.30 13:59:36 +0530 bank and handed over him an application asking for cheque number 440971 and 440974 for ₹24,925, each with both being dated 7 August 2004. The said cheques were presented to this bank by IndusInd Bank, Janakpuri Delhi for encashment. This witness handed over the above cheques in original to the IO who seized it. Vide seizure memo EX. PW 13/A bearing signature at Point A. The original cheque number 440971 is EX. P1 and original cheque number 440974 is EX. P2. The statement of this witness was recorded by the IO.
19. PW-14 Retd. SI Dharam Pal deposed that on 11.10.2004, he was posted at PS Gandhi Nagar as a SI and on the same day, the present case file was marked to him being the 2nd IO for further investigation. He perused the case file and on 12.10.2004,He received the information about the arrest of accused persons at PS Lahori Gate. He placed the production warrants of the accused before the court in his case. Meanwhile, on 25.10.2004, He arrested and personally searched ac- cused Dharmraj from his house and memos were prepared accordingly which is already Ex. PW1/B and PW 1/C resp. bearing his signature at point C. He in- quired him and also recorded his disclosure statement which is already Ex. PW 1/D. In his disclosure statement that he had done the job under Madhu Courier and the owner of the said courier company was Pradeep and pradeep had handed over 59 envelops for distribution on the address as stated in the envelope which he had not distributed and sold to person namely Hemant Kumar @ Anupam @ Rakesh Kumar for the sum of 20,000/- and accused Dharmraj received the same FIR No. 291/2004 State vs. Manoj Kumar Pathak & Anr Page 12 / 31 Digitally signed by PRITU PRITU Date:
RAJ RAJ 2026.03.30 13:59:42 +0530 amount in the 2 portions i.e. 13,000/- at first instance and Rs. 7000/- after some time . He further deposed that on 27.10.2004, the remaining accused persons namely Brijesh @ Bablu, Abhay Kumar, Manoj Kumar Pathak @ Pandit, Arun Kumar @ Babli, Rakesh Bansal, Hemant Kumar @ Anupam @ Rakesh Kumar and Manohar Kumar who were in judicial custody produced before the court and He arrested all of them and arrest memos were prepared accordingly which were Ex. PW4/A -Ex. PW4/D, Ex. PW10/A -PW10/C, resp., bearing his signature at point B. Except Brijesh @ Bablu, he recorded the disclosure statement of all the remaining accused. The statement were already Ex. PW 9/A to PW9/C, Ex. PW10/D - PW/F, bearing his signature at point B. He further deposed that on 27.10.2004, He took the PC remand of accused Manoj Kumar, Abhay Kumar and Arun Kumar. He inquired during the PC but nothing was recovered at their in-
stance and they were sent to JC by the court order. He had taken the specimen signatures of accused Manoj Pathak and memo was prepared by him vide memo already Ex PW9/D, bearing his signature at point B. He went to the IndusInd bank and had collected the original cheques. Copy of DL, PAN Card and other documents of Sunil Kumar and some more documents which he had mentioned in the seizure memo and seized all the documents from the bank vide seizure memo already Ex. PW6/A - PW6/C, bearing my name at point B. He had also seized de- posit slip of IndusInd Bank, Panjabi Bagh, (which is hereby Ex. PW 14/A, bear- ing his name at point A) cheque no 440971, 440974, Demand Draft No 176156 and another demand draft no. 228306 dated 09.08.2004 (of Rs. 29955) and DD FIR No. 291/2004 State vs. Manoj Kumar Pathak & Anr Page 13 / 31 Digitally signed by PRITU PRITU Date:
RAJ RAJ 2026.03.30 13:59:47 +0530 No. 223307 dated 09.08.2004 (of Rs. 29955) (hereby Ex. PW14/B, bearing his signature at point A), DD No. 223460, 223464 of Rs. 14,955/- and 9,960/- dated 07.08.2004 and DD No. 494859, 494860, 494861, 494862 (hereby Ex. PW14/C, bearing his signature at point A) of dated 06.08.2004 which all he seized vide seizure memo already Ex. PW13/A, PW7/A, PW12A. He also obtained the de-
mand draft no.. 258681 dated 07.08.2004 of amount 24,950/- which He seized (hereby Ex. PW14/D, bearing his signature at point A). He had sent the speci- men signatures of accused Manoj Pathak to the FSL for its identification. He recorded the statement u/s. 161 Cr.PC of several witnesses who had helped me during the investigation. He prepared the charge sheet after placing all the rele- vant documents and thereafter, filed the same before the concerned court. This witness correctly identified both the accused persons. PW-15 Deepak Gambhir was a hostile Witness.
20. Evidence on behalf of the prosecution was closed on 18.10.2025. SA of accused was recorded on 29.11.2025 wherein accused chose not to lead DE. Final argument were heard and matter was listed for judgment.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
21. In criminal proceedings, the case of the prosecution must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of reasonable doubt and an accused is innocent unless proved guilty. (Raja Naykar v. State of FIR No. 291/2004 State vs. Manoj Kumar Pathak & Anr Page 14 / 31 Chattisgarh 2024 INSC 56). With this backdrop, this Court will proceed to examine whether the prosecution has proved it's case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, with determination qua each accused being taken up separately.
DETERMINATION QUA ACCUSED MANOJ KUMAR PATHAK
22. The accused Manoj Kumar Pathak is facing trial for offence u/s 419/420/468/471/411 IPC. It is the case against him that on 12.08.2004, he cheated IndusInd Bank by pretending to be one Sunil Kumar, proprietor of Yogesh Trading Company, thereby fraudulently and dishonestly inducing IndusInd Bank to open a bank account in the name of Yogesh Trading Company. It is also the case against him that between 12.08.2004 to 18.08.2004, he cheated IndusInd Bank Community Center, Janak Puri of Rs. 2,79,255/- by encashing various drafts and cheques of different amount of different banks issued in name of Yogesh Trading Company, which was transferred to his account and ultimately withdrawn. It is also claimed that on 12.08.2004, this accused forged a rent agreement in name of Yogesh Trading Company, one driving license and one Pan card and used the above mentioned document as genuine knowing them to be forged. It is the further case against him that between 12.08.2004 to 18.08.2004 at IndusInd Bank, Community Center, Janakpuri, Accused was found in possession of various cheques and drafts in the name of Yogesh Trading Company which he dishonestly received or retained having reason to believe the same to be stolen FIR No. 291/2004 State vs. Manoj Kumar Pathak & Anr Page 15 / 31 Digitally signed by PRITU PRITU Date:
RAJ RAJ 2026.03.30 13:59:56 +0530 property. Accordingly, accused Manoj Kumar Pathak has been charged for offence u/s 419/420/468/471/411 IPC.
23. As regards the charge u/s 419/420 IPC, the case of the prosecution is that on 12.08.2004, accused pretended to be Sunil Kumar, Prop. Yogesh Trading Company and induced IndusInd Bank to open an account in the name of Yogesh Trading Company while further cheating the bank of Rs. 2,79,255/- by inducing it to encash various drafts and cheques of different banks issued in the name of Yogesh Trading Company which were transferred and withdrawn from the fictitious account. This court will now proceed to examine the evidence led by the prosecution. In order to prove its case against accused Manoj Kumar Pathak, as observed above, the prosecution has examined a total of 15 witnesses, alongwith leading documentary evidence.
24. PW-01 is the complainant of the present case. A perusal of the testimony of this witness shows that the same is entirely silent as regards the allegations qua section 419/420 IPC. No averment has been made regarding the aforesaid charges. Similar is the case with the testimony of PW-02 Ct. Kailash Chand. Hence, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of these two witnesses. Now, as regards PW-03. This witness is a bank witness and was working as Asst. Manager, IndusInd Bank, Janak Puri Branch. While this witness has deposed that on 16.08.2008, she working as Asst. Manager, IndusInd Bank, Janakpuri branch, FIR No. 291/2004 State vs. Manoj Kumar Pathak & Anr Page 16 / 31 Digitally signed by PRITU PRITU Date:
RAJ RAJ 2026.03.30 14:00:01 +0530 made payment of Rs. 2,65,000/- vide cheque No. 1502-110234008 and another payment on same date of Rs. 15,000/- vide cheque no. 1503-110234008 and another payment of Rs. 14,500/- on 18.08.2004, to one Sunil Kumar, owner of Yogesh Trading Company, her testimony is entirely silent as to whether the said Sunil Kumar and Manoj Kumar Pathak are the same person. In fact, she has not identified the accused Manoj Kumar Pathak as the same person who had impersonated himself as Sunil Kumar in favour of whom the aforesaid cheques had been encashed during her testimony recorded on 12.08.2013.
25. The testimony of PW-04 is also not helpful for the prosecution as it pertains to the investigation for formal arrest of the accused Manoj Kumar Pathak after inquiry. Testimony of PW-05 Jewart Ram is limited to the extent that he had sent four demand drafts to Yogesh Trading Company through Madhur Courier qua purchase of garments from Yogesh Trading Company. He further deposed that when he came to know about the demand draft not being received by Yogesh Trading Company and the subsequent fact of the delivery boy of Madhur Courier missing, he requested for 'stop payment' of the DDs but was informed that his demand drafts were encashed. These witnesses have not deposed anything regarding the allegation of personation and cheating against accused Manoj Kumar Pathak. PW-06 R.K. Srivastava and PW-07 B.V. Nayak are bank witnesses examined by the prosecution. However, the testimony of these two witnesses is limited to the extent of handing over the documents demanded by the FIR No. 291/2004 State vs. Manoj Kumar Pathak & Anr Page 17 / 31 Digitally signed by PRITU PRITU Date:
RAJ RAJ 2026.03.30 14:00:06 +0530 IO of the case. Hence, the testimony of these two witnesses is also of no use to the prosecution because the mere handing over of account opening form/cheques/demand drafts to the IO does not establish personation on part of accused Manoj Kumar Pathak.
26. The testimony of PW-08 ACP Naresh Kumar is limited to the extent that subsequent to disclosure by accused Manoj Kumar Pathak in FIR No. 322/2004, PS Lahori Gate qua the present FIR, the IO of the present case had seized the articles recovered from accused. PW-09, PW-10 and PW-11, who were police witnesses, is also silent as regards the allegations of personation and cheating of IndusInd Bank by accused. Hence, no reliance can be placed on their testimony. Similarly, the other bank witness PW-12 Pradeep Kumar has merely deposed that upon demand drafts No. 223460 and 223464 being asked by the IO, the same were handed over by this witness to the IO. The other bank witness PW-13 N. Ganesh has also deposed about handing over of cheques No. 440971 and 440974 to the IO which were seized by the IO. PW-15 is hostile witness who has not supported the case of the prosecution at all.
27. The testimony of these witnesses i.e. PW-01 to PW-13 and PW-15 is not sufficient to establish the requirements of section 419/420 IPC since the same is totally silent about the requirements of personation and cheating. Now, as regards the testimony of the IO/PW-14 Retd. SI Dharam Pal. This witness has deposed FIR No. 291/2004 State vs. Manoj Kumar Pathak & Anr Page 18 / 31 Digitally signed by PRITU PRITU Date:
RAJ RAJ 2026.03.30 14:00:13 +0530 that he arrested and personally searched the accused Dharam Raj alongwith other accused including Manoj Pathak. This witness admittedly is not an eye witness to the allegations of Section 419/420 IPC. He conducted the investigation of the present case, seized documents from various banks, as detailed above and filed the chargesheet. Hence, no reliance can be placed on his testimony to prove the allegations under section 419/420 IPC.
28. In the considered opinion of this court, the oral and the documentary evidence led by the prosecution is woefully inadequate to bring home the charge u/s 419/420 IPC. To recapitulate the aforesaid discussion, while bank witnesses from IndusInd Bank i.e. PW-03 Prachi Poonia and PW-06 R.K. Srivastava have been examined, as observed above, they have not deposed anything about the allegations of personation and cheating by the accused. These witnesses have not deposed anything qua the factum of accused Manoj Pathak coming to the bank and personating himself as one Sunil Kumar, Prop. Yogesh Trading Company and getting a bank account opened in the name of M/s Yogesh Trading Company. Similarly, there is no averment in the testimony of these two bank witnesses that the encashed cheques and demand drafts were handed over to Manoj Kumar Pathak after he had represented himself as Sunil Kumar, Prop. Yogesh Trading Company. Accused Manoj Kumar Pathak is accordingly acquitted of the offence u/s 419/420 IPC.
FIR No. 291/2004 State vs. Manoj Kumar Pathak & Anr Page 19 / 31
Digitally signed by PRITU PRITU Date:
RAJ RAJ 2026.03.30 14:00:18 +0530
29. Accused Manoj Kumar Pathak has also been charged for the offence u/s 468/471/411 IPC. As regards the charge u/s 468 IPC, to bring home a charge u/s. 468 IPC i.e. forgery for the purpose of cheating, the following requirements, as held in Ram Narayan Popli v. CBI , (2003) 3 SCC 641, are required to be satisfied:
The definition of the offence of forgery declares the offence to be completed when a false document or false part of a document is made with specified intention. The questions are (i) is the document false, (ii) is it made by the accused, and (iii) is it made with an intent to defraud. If at all the questions are answered in the affirmative, the accused is guilty
30. As regards section 471 IPC which punishes using as genuine a forged document, the requirement to be proved are (i) the document or electronic record is forged,
(ii) accused knows or has reason to be believed such document or electronic record is forged (iii) accused may be used of the said document or electronic record despite knowing it to be forged.
31. In the present case, it is claimed that on 12.08.2004, accused Manoj Kumar Pathak forged a rent agreement in name of Yogesh Trading Company, one driving license and one Pan card and used the above mentioned documents as genuine for the purpose of cheating and it is also claimed that the same was done by the accused fraudulently/dishonestly knowing or having reasons to believe the same to be forged. Admittedly, the rent agreement was never sent for FSL examination.
The same is duly corroborated from the cross examination dated 01.09.2025 of FIR No. 291/2004 State vs. Manoj Kumar Pathak & Anr Page 20 / 31 Digitally signed by PRITU PRITU Date:
RAJ RAJ 2026.03.30 14:00:23 +0530 IO/PW-14 who has denied the suggestion that the specimen signatures of accused Manoj Pathak were sent for FSL examination. Similarly, as regards the driving license and Pan card, although these documents were seized, verification from the concerned departments were not obtained by the prosecution to prove that the aforesaid documents were forged. The mere seizure of these documents does not equate to the claim of the prosecution that these documents had been forged and used by the accused in opening the bank account at IndusInd Bank, Janakpuri Branch. In the absence of essential ingredient of 'forgery' being proved, conviction u/s 468/471 IPC cannot be sustained. The case of the prosecution fails and accused is acquitted of the offence u/s 468/471 IPC.
32. Now as regards the last charge of section 411 IPC. The charge against the accused is that between 12.08.2004 to 18.08.2004 at IndusInd Bank, Community Center, Janakpuri, he was found in possession of various cheques and drafts in the name of Yogesh Trading Company which he dishonestly received or retained knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property. The essential ingredient to bring home any charge u/s 411 IPC is that the accused must be found in possession of the stolen property. Admittedly, the demand drafts and cheques were not seized or recovered from the possession of accused Manoj Kumar Pathak. As per the own version of the bank witnesses i.e. PW-06 cheque No. 001502, 001503, 001504, the photocopy of cheque deposit slip had been handed over by this witness to the IO. Similarly, bank witness i.e. PW-07 has FIR No. 291/2004 State vs. Manoj Kumar Pathak & Anr Page 21 / 31 Digitally signed by PRITU PRITU Date:
RAJ RAJ 2026.03.30 14:00:30 +0530 deposed that the demand drafts were handed over by this witness to the IO.
Similar is the averment of remaining bank witnesses i.e. PW-12 who deposed that DD No. 223460 and 223464 were handed over by this witness to the IO and PW-
13 who has deposed that cheques No. 440971 and 440974 had been handed over by him to the IO. No evidence has been led by the prosecution to prove that any of the aforesaid demand drafts/cheques had been recovered from the accused. In the absence of any such recovery, the case of the prosecution fails and accused is acquitted of the offence u/s 411 IPC.
33. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the accused Manoj Kumar Pathak is acquitted of the offences u/s 419/420/468/471/411 IPC.
DETERMINATION QUA ACCUSED DHARAM RAJ KUMAR.
34. The accused Dharam Raj has been charged of the offence u/s 408 IPC. It is claimed that accused Dharam Raj, being employee of one Pradeep Kumar, was entrusted with 59 envelopes containing post for delivery and accused Dharam Raj committed breach of trust qua the same, leading to the present case. Section 408 IPC reads as follows:
408. Criminal breach of trust by clerk or servant.--Whoever, being a clerk or servant or employed as a clerk or servant, and being in any manner entrusted in such capacity with property, or with any dominion over property, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. FIR No. 291/2004 State vs. Manoj Kumar Pathak & Anr Page 22 / 31
Digitally signed by PRITU PRITU Date:
RAJ RAJ 2026.03.30 14:00:35 +0530
35. The term criminal breach of trust has been defined in section 405 IPC as follows:
405. Criminal breach of trust.--Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or willfully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust".
36. S. 408 IPC is a special category of offence which criminalizes criminal breach by clerk/servants. In order to successfully bring home the charge u/s 408 IPC, it is imperative to prove - (i) entrustment by one person to another of property or dominion over property, (ii) misappropriation or conversion to his own use by person who received the property, (iii) such conversion or misappropriation is in violation against or in violation of any direction, or law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract made touching the discharge of such trust, and, (iv) person to whom property was entrusted had received it being a clerk or servant or being employed as one.
37. The Hon'ble SC in Ram Narayan Popli v. CBI, (2003) 3 SCC 641 , while dealing with the offence of criminal breach laid down the test which needs to be satisfied qua the offence of criminal breach of trust as follows:
361. To constitute an offence of criminal breach of trust, there must be an entrustment, there must be misappropriation or conversion to one's own use, or use in violation of a legal direction or of any legal contract; and the FIR No. 291/2004 State vs. Manoj Kumar Pathak & Anr Page 23 / 31 Digitally signed by PRITU PRITU Date:
RAJ RAJ 2026.03.30 14:00:42 +0530 misappropriation or conversion or disposal must be with a dishonest intention. When a person allows others to misappropriate the money entrusted to him, that amounts to a criminal breach of trust as defined by Section 405. The section is relatable to property in a positive part and a negative part. The positive part deals with criminal misappropriation or conversion of the property and the negative part consists of dishonestly using or disposing of the property in violation of any direction and of law or any contract touching the discharge of trust.
365. As noted by this Court in Jaikrishnadas Manohardas Desai v. State of Bombay [AIR 1960 SC 889 : 1960 Cri LJ 1250] to establish the charge of criminal breach of trust, the prosecution is not obliged to prove the precise mode of conversion, misappropriation or misapplication by the accused of the property entrusted to him or over which he has dominion. The principal ingredient of the offence being dishonest misappropriation or conversion which may not ordinarily be a matter of direct proof, entrustment of property and failure in breach of an obligation to account for the property entrusted if proved, may, in the light of other circumstances, justifiably lead to an inference of dishonest misappropriation or conversion.
38. The Honb'le Supreme Court in Somnath Puri vs. State of Rajasthan (1972) 1 SCC 630 while dealing with the term 'entrusted' held as follows:-
Section 405 merely provides, whoever being in any manner entrusted with property or with any dominion over the property, as the first ingredient of the criminal breach of trust. The words 'in any manner' in the context are significant. The section does not provide that the entrustment of property should be by someone or the amount recieved must be the property of the person on whose behalf it is received. As long as the accused is given possession of property for a specific purpose or to, deal with it in a particular manner, the ownership being in some person other than the accused, he can be said to be entrusted with that property to be applied in accordance with the terms of entrustment and for the benefit of the owner. The expression 'entrusted' in section 409 is used in a wide sense and includes all cases in which property is voluntarily handed over for a specific purpose and is dishonestly disposed of contrary to the terms on which possession has been handed over.
The ingredient the offence of criminal breach of trust is that the accused had dishonestly misappropriated or converted to his own use the property in question. The word dishonestly as defined in s. 24 IPC is the intentional FIR No. 291/2004 State vs. Manoj Kumar Pathak & Anr Page 24 / 31 Digitally signed by PRITU PRITU Date:
RAJ RAJ 2026.03.30 14:00:48 +0530 doing of any act causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another.
39. While the prosecution has examined 15 witness, it is only the testimony of PW-01 Pradeep Sharma which is relevant for deciding the present case as he is the person who had allegedly employed accused Dharam Raj as an employee. The remaining witnesses are police witnesses/bank witnesses with the exception of PW-05 Jewart Ram, whose testimony will be dealt with later.
40. As regards the testimony of PW-01, this witness has deposed that accused Dharam Raj was doing work of distribution of documents/letters at his office in the name of Madhur Courier Services. However, no proof of employment was adduced by this witness to prove the employment of Dharam Raj as his clerk/servant. While this witness has also deposed that accused used to give him 'delivery run sheet' every day at about 07-08 PM for the documents delivered by the accused, the same was never adduced in evidence. Even though the witness has claimed that accused had taken the delivery run sheet, the complainant could have produced the delivery run sheets of earlier dates when documents had been handed over to the accused for delivery to buttress his claimed that accused was employed as a clerk/servant for delivery of letters. Same was never done for reasons best known to the complainant. It is also pertinent to observe that while envelopes/letters were handed over to the accused on 10.08.2004 and as per the own version of the complainant, the accused did not return the delivery run sheet FIR No. 291/2004 State vs. Manoj Kumar Pathak & Anr Page 25 / 31 Digitally signed by PRITU PRITU Date:
RAJ RAJ 2026.03.30 14:00:53 +0530 on the same date as was the established norm, complaint to PS was made after an inordinate delay of 16 days i.e. 26.08.2004. The same has not been explained by the prosecution. Another fatal flaw in the case of the prosecution is that while the complainant claims that statements of his workers were recorded with his workers being interrogated, the said workers were never examined as witnesses to prove the fact that the accused was employed as a servant by the complainant. It also does not appeal to reason that a person running a professional courier service would be employing a person as a servant without any written contract /agreement. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this court holds that the essential ingredient of entrustment to the accused has not been proved.
41. As regards the testimony of PW-06, this witness is a hearsay witness. As per his own testimony, he was informed by Madhur Courier that their boy at Delhi had gone missing who used to deal with delivery of parcels and courier. Moreover, his role was to send the demand drafts, for payment to Yogesh Trading Company through Madhur Courier. This witness, by his own deposition never saw the accused nor was he privy to the alleged transaction of entrustment between PW- 01 and the accused Dharam Raj. No reliance can be placed on his testimony.
42. Accused Dharam Raj is acquitted of the offence u/s 408 IPC. FIR No. 291/2004 State vs. Manoj Kumar Pathak & Anr Page 26 / 31
Digitally signed by PRITU PRITU Date:
RAJ RAJ 2026.03.30 14:00:58 +0530 DECISION
43. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this court holds that since the prosecution has been unable to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts, the accused stand ac- quitted and the benefit of the same must go to the accused. It is well settled that the burden which lies on the prosecution is to prove the case beyond all reason- able doubt and not merely on the preponderance of probabilities. The case of the prosecution must stand on its own two legs. Reliance in this regard is placed on S.L.Goswami v. State of M.P, 1972 CRI.L.J.511(SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:-
"...... In our view, the onus of proving all the ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does it shift to the accused. It is no part of the prosecution duty to somehow hook the crook. Even in cases where the defence of the accused does not appear to be credible or is palpably false that burden does not become any the less. It is only when this burden is discharged that it will be for the accused to explain or controvert the essential elements in the prosecution case, which would negate it. It is not however for the accused even at the initial stage to prove something which has to be eliminated by the prosecution to estab- lish the ingredients of the offence with which he is charged, and even if the onus shifts upon the accused and the accused has to establish his plea, the standard of proof is not the same as that which rests upon the prosecution..........................."
44. The accused Dharam Raj S/o Sh. Sadal Mistry is hereby acquitted of the of- fence punishable under Section 408 IPC. The accused Manoj Kumar Pathak S/o Sh. Harivansh Pathak is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 419/420/468/471/411 IPC.
FIR No. 291/2004 State vs. Manoj Kumar Pathak & Anr Page 27 / 31
Digitally signed by PRITU PRITU Date:
RAJ RAJ 2026.03.30 14:01:03 +0530
45. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance. This judgment contains 31 pages and each page has been duly signed by the undersigned.
Digitally signed by PRITU PRITU Date:
RAJ RAJ 2026.03.30 14:01:15 +0530 Announced in open Court (PRITU RAJ) on 30 th of March 2026 Judicial Magistrate-01 East, KKD Courts, Delhi.
FIR No. 291/2004 State vs. Manoj Kumar Pathak & Anr Page 28 / 31 APPENDIX (as per directions of Hon'ble Supreme court of India in Manojbhai Parmar vs. State of Gujarat, 2025 INSC 1433) CHART FOR WITNESSES EXAMINED Prosecution witness Name of witness Description no.
PW-01 Pradeep Sharma Complainant
PW-02 Ct. Kailash Chand Police witness
PW-03 Prachi Poonia Bank Witness
PW-04 HC Pooran Chand Investigation witness
PW-05 Jeevant Ram Public witness
PW-06 R.K. Srivastava Bank Witness
PW-07 B.V. Nayak Bank Witness
PW-08 ACP Naresh Kumar Investigation witness
PW-09 ASI Rakesh Investigation witness
PW-10 ASI Sunil Investigation witness of
FIR No. 322/2004, PS La-
hori Gate)
PW-11 Umed Singh Investigation witness of
FIR No. 322/2004, PS La-
hori Gate)
PW-12 Pradeep Kumar Nagpal Bank Witness
PW-13 N Ganesh Bank Witness
PW-14 Retd. SI Dharam Pal IO
PW-15 Deepak Gambhir Hostile Witness
CHART FOR EXHIBITED DOCUMENTS
Exhibit. No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by /attested by
Ex.PW-01/A Seizure memo of proof of DDs PW-01
handed by Jeewant Ram
FIR No. 291/2004 State vs. Manoj Kumar Pathak & Anr Page 29 / 31 Digitally
signed by
PRITU PRITU
Date:
RAJ
RAJ 2026.03.30
14:01:57
+0530
Ex. PW-01/B Arrest Memo of accused PW-01
Dharam Raj
Ex.PW-01/C Personal Search Memo of PW-01
accused Dharam Raj
Ex.PW-01/D Disclosure statement of accused PW-01
Dharam Raj
Ex.PW-03/A Cheque No. 1502-110234008 PW-03
Ex.PW-03/B Cheque No. 1503-110234008 PW-03
Ex.PW-03/C Cheque No. 1504-110234008 PW-03
Ex.PW-04/A to Ex. Arrest Memos PW-04
PW-04/D
Ex.PW-06/A Letter pad of bank PW-06
Ex.PW-06/B Seizure memo prepared by PW- PW-06
06
Ex.PW-06/C Seizure memo prepared by IO PW-06
Ex.PW-07/A Seizure memo of DD No. PW-07
176156
Ex.PW-7/B DD No. 176156 PW-07
Ex.PW-08/A to Ex. Disclosure statement of accused PW-08 PW-08/G persons in FIR No. 322/2004, PS Lahori Gate Ex.PW-08/H to Ex. Seizure memo of articles PW-08 PW-08/K recovered from accused Rakesh Bansal and Brijesh Kumar FIR No. 322/2004, PS Lahori Gate Ex.PW-09/A to Ex. Disclosure statement of accused PW-09 PW-9/C Manoj, Arun and Abhay Ex.PW-9/D Specimen signature of accused PW-09 Manoj Kumar on blank paper Ex.PW-10/A to Ex. Arrest memo of accused PW-10 PW-10/C Rakesh, Anupam and Manohar Ex.PW-10/D to Ex. Disclosure statement of accused PW-10 PW-10/F Rakesh, Anupam and Manohar Ex.PW-12/A Seizure memo of DD No. PW-10 223460 and 223464 Ex.PW-12/B DD No. 223460 PW-12 FIR No. 291/2004 State vs. Manoj Kumar Pathak & Anr Page 30 / 31 PRITU RAJ Digitally signed by PRITU RAJ Date: 2026.03.30 14:02:05 +0530 Ex.PW-12/C DD No. 223464 PW-12 Ex.PW-13/A Seizure memo of cheque no. PW-13 440971 and 440974 Ex.P1 Cheque No. 440971 PW-13 Ex.P2 Cheque No. 440974 PW-13 Ex.PW-14/A to Ex. Seizure Memos PW-14 PW-14/D FIR No. 291/2004 State vs. Manoj Kumar Pathak & Anr Page 31 / 31 Digitally signed by PRITU PRITU Date:
RAJ RAJ 2026.03.30 14:02:16 +0530