Delhi District Court
State vs Ravi Nayar on 25 June, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUMIT DASS : METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE - 02 : TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
State v/s Ravi Nayar
FIR No: 668/2002
PS: Hari Nagar.
U/s: 419 IPC
Date on which the case was instituted : 17.03.2003
Date on which the Judgment was reserved : 25.06.2012
Date on which the Judgment was passed : 25.06.2012
JUDGMENT
a) Sl. No. of the case : 1295/II/2009
b) Date of commission of offence : 20.11.2002
c) Name of the complainant : Jagdish Bhola
d) Name of the accused, parentage : Ravi Nayar
S/o Sh. R P Nayer
R/o T 427, Baljeet Nagar,
Patel Nagar, Delhi/
New Address :D517, Pentap
Vihar, Sector 11, Ghaziabad,
UP.
e) Offence complained of or proved : U/s: 419 and 384 IPC
f) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
g) Final Order : Acquitted under section
384 IPC and convicted for
offence under section 419 IPC
h) Date of such Order : 25.06.2012
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
1. Accused Ravi Nayar stood trial for the offence(s) under Section 419 and 384 IPC.
2. The prosecution case commenced upon a complaint Ex. PW3/A got recorded by PW3 Jagdish Bhola. The gist whereof is as under: FIR No: 668/2002 Page 1 of 5 " I am putting at the address stated herein above and have a business of Detergent powder. Today at 11 AM by the one person by the name of name of Ravi Nayyer son of of Ram Piley Nayer came and stated that he is a Inspector in Police and posted at R K Puram and he demanded the registration of the firm. I immediately recognized him as the person who had taken sum of Rs. 2000/ from me approximately four months back and had also threatened that otherwise he would get the registration cancelled. I demanded to show his I card whereupon he became pale and in the meanwhile Shri O P Gulati also came there and demanded that he should show the I card and he then produced the I Card from his shirtpocket which was of traffic police, Gautam Budh Nagar having the address of Ravi Nayyer as C30, Sector 2 , Post as ASI Special Officer. I became suspicious and immediately called the PCR.
3. Endorsement was made by PW5 Investigating Officer ASI Rajender Singh upon the same and thereafter he had prepared the 'rukka' and subsequently PW 2 HC Ashwani Kumar /Duty Officer had registered the FIR Ex. PW2/A and also made the endorsement on the rukka Ex. PW2/A.
4. Investigation commenced and concluded upon filing of the chargesheet. Charge for offence(s) under Section 419/384IPC was framed against the accused vide order dated 29.04.2005. The accused opted to contest.
5. Thereafter the matter was listed for evidence. Prosecution has examined the following witnesses: PW1HC Rajbir Singh. He had accompanied the IO PW5 SI Rajinder Singh ; 2.) PW2 HC Ashwani Kumar i.e. Duty Officer ; 3.) PW3 Jagdish Bhola, is the complainant ; 4.) PW4 O P Gulati is also an independent person ; 5) PW5 Retired SI Rajender Singh is IO of the case. Thereafter the statement of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused denied the incriminating evidence against him and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case in hand. He also stated his version of events as stated here under: FIR No: 668/2002 Page 2 of 5 "I had gone to Jagdish Bhola's house as he had published an advertisement seeking boys/employees for his Detergent business and I had also at that point of time residing in Baljeet Nagar and had approached him. Jagdish Bhola demanded Rs. 5000/ as security from me. He also told me that I have to give Rs. 5,000/ as security and I would be given Rs. 10,000/ for detergent to sell. I also demanded a guarantee of Rs. 5000/ which I had to pay as a security whereupon the PW3 Jagdish Bhola became angry. We had a heated argument. Office boy thereafter took us to the house of Mr. Gulati. Then subsequently arguments took place at the house of Mr. Gulati too. Thereafter Mr Gulati called the police".
6. Ld. defence counsel has contended that the accused has been falsely implicated in the case in hand. Being a poor person he had thought that he can start a small business and had approached the complainant whereupon heated arguments took place over there on account of settling of business terms and the police had to be called. A false extortion case was made and the accused was implicated as such.
7. Heard either side.
8. The plea of false implication fails to impress, the offence under section 419 IPC precedes within the definition clause under section 416 IPC. The crux of the said section is that a person intends to impersonate/claims himself to be someone who in reality he is not. The illustrations as mentioned under section 416 itself makes it apparent . The criminality is in the projection of being someone else laced/coupled with the required intent as such. The accused herein claims himself to be a policeman. He demanded the registration of the complainant. He not only demanded the same but had also demanded the same under the authority and under the exercise of the power which a policeman is vested with. Later on upon insistence he had shown the I Card which also bears the insignia of the Lion Emblem, having the photograph of the FIR No: 668/2002 Page 3 of 5 accused and also purportedly issued by the traffic police, Gautam Nagar . The designation is also noted Special Officer and the post was ASI. Admittedly, the accused is not a policeman. He is not working in any police authority in any capacity either on a pay roll or honorary capacity. The I card . Ex. P1 was flashed , clearly and unequivocally used to strengthen the claim that he was a policeman and had the required authority to demand the registration certificate from the complainant.
9. In reference to the said I card which is in my opinion is most relevant and incriminating document question no. 3 under section 313 Cr.P.C. was specifically put to the accused to which the accused had replied that the I Card had been issued by the Traffic Police . However, he was not working in Noida, Traffic police nor holding any post. It betrays reason/logic as to how the I Card at the first place was in possession of the accused if he was not holding any post nor employed in traffic police. The logical an obvious inference is that the I card was a manipulated one and intended to be used to claim/show that the accused was a policeman.
10. The evidence of PW3 and PW4 both is cogent and reliable. Furthermore, both the said witnesses have not been cross examined by the accused persons. No infirmity in their evidene has been pointed out. They had no animosity or axe to grind against the accused or to falsely implicate him. Even for the sake or argument assuming that there was a business dispute which arose , even then also in my opinion going to the extent of getting a case registered and coining an all together different story is highly improbable. The prosecution has , thus been able to prove its case for the offence under section 419 IPC on the basis of the FIR No: 668/2002 Page 4 of 5 aforesaid evidence and more particularly on the basis of the document Ex. P1.
11. Coming to the Second offence i.e. section 384 IPC, it is to be noted that PW3 Jagdish Bhola had not initially complained when the first incident occurred. He has also not been able to state the correct date and time when the accused person had come to him to his premises and demanded money . PW3 Jagdish Bhola had also deposed that subsequently he realize that the accused was not an Inspector but was a fraud. Still, he had not complained to the police. The non reporting of the incident to the police and the subsequent delay i.e. four months in my opinion weakens the evidentiary value of the testimony of the complainant particularly in reference to the offence under section 384 IPC . Another reason which also weighs is the fact that the registration certificate of the complainant , the fear of cancellation whereof was the impelling factor has neither been filed by the IO nor even produced by said PW3 during the course of his examination. The charge which has been framed is putting in fear of cancellation of registration certificate and hence in my opinion at least the existence of the certificate of the registration certificate should have been brought on record.
12. Accordingly , the accused is acquitted for the offence under section 384 IPC and convicted for the offence under section 419 IPC.
13. He be heard on the point of sentence on 05.07.2012 at 2:00 PM.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
DATED: 25.06.2012 (SUMIT DASS)
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE - 02
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
FIR No: 668/2002 Page 5 of 5