Delhi District Court
Jeet Singh vs State on 27 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. GEETANJALI,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)- 03; SOUTH EAST
DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS: DELHI.
CA No. 360/17
CNR No.: DLSE01-006787-2017
JEET SINGH
S/O LATE SH. NIRANJAN SINGH
R/O H.NO. 626, SECTOR-22, FARIDABAD,
HARYANA-121005 ........... APPELLANT
Versus
THE STATE
(NCT OF DELHI) ........... RESPONDENT
Date of Institution : 07.09.2017
Order reserved on : 17.01.2026
Order delivered on : 27.01.2026
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal filed by the appellant/ convict assails the judgment of conviction dated 29.07.2017 and order on sentence dated 21.08.2017 (hereinafter referred to as the "impugned judgments") in FIR bearing no. 325/1999, PS C R Park passed by Ld. CMM, South District, _____________________________________________________________ Digitally signed CA NO. 360/2017 Jeet Singh Vs. The State PAGE NO. 1 OF 56 by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2026.01.27 17:05:34 +0530 Saket Courts, New Delhi whereby the appellant/convict was held guilty for the offences punishable under sections 408/467/471/420 IPC and u/s.120-B read with sections 408/467/471/420 IPC and acquitted u/s. 477A of IPC and consequently sentenced to five years of RI and fine of Rs. 25 lakhs, in default on year SI u/sec 408 IPC, five years of RI and fine of Rs. 25 lakhs, in default one year SI u/sec 467 IPC, two years of RI and fine of Rs. 25 lakhs, in default one year SI u/sec 471 IPC, five years of RI and fine of Rs.25 lakhs, in default on year SI u/sec 420 IPC and five years of RI and fine of Rs. 50 lakhs, in default two years SI u/sec. 120-B IPC.
2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution was that appellant/ accused Jeet Singh along with co-accused Gursharan Singh embezzled and cheated the complainant Company with a sum of Rs. 28.51 lakhs by forging the signatures of the authorized signatory of the Company and also misusing some of the signed cheques and misappropriated the said amount. Further both of the accused persons prepared forged and fabricated statement of account and accused Jeet Singh made incorrect entries in the ledger account to keep the complainant Company in dark with respect to the particulars being filed by him in the cheques in question. 2.1 On the said complaint FIR no. 325/1999, PS CR Park under section 408/467/471/420 IPC read with section 120-B IPC was registered.
Chargesheet was filed against both the accused persons. During the trial ten witnesses were examined by the Prosecution and after hearing final _____________________________________________________________ Digitally signed CA NO. 360/2017 Jeet Singh Vs. The State by GEETANJALI PAGE NO. 2 OF 56 GEETANJALI Date:
2026.01.27 17:05:44 +0530 arguments accused Jeet Singh was convicted for the offence under Section 408/467/471/420 IPC read with section 120-B IPC and co-accused Gursharan Singh was convicted u/s. 120-B IPC read with 408/467/471/420 IPC and punished for the same. Aggrieved by said judgment, the present appeal has been filed on behalf of convict Jeet Singh. GROUNDS OF APPEAL:-
3. The impugned judgments have been challenged on the grounds that the the judgment of conviction and order on sentence are based on surmises and conjectures and not on evidence and the material on record and the judgment suffers from gross legal infirmities which is legally unsustainable and deserves to be set aside; that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the Prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt; that the Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the conviction of an accused cannot be founded on the basis of the inferences and the offence alleged was required to be proved against an accused beyond reasonable doubt; that the Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that there was no substantive evidence against the appellant to meet the basic ingredients of Section 120-A of I.P.C. to sustain the conviction for the offence of criminal conspiracy; that the Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the Prosecution has not produced any cogent and convincing evidence to show that the appellant has committed the offences charged with; that the prosecution has failed to show any _____________________________________________________________ Digitally CA NO. 360/2017 Jeet Singh Vs. The State signed by PAGE NO. 3 OF 56 GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2026.01.27 17:05:50 +0530 incriminating material that the appellant entered into any criminal conspiracy with the co-accused which could be used as legal evidence against the appellant to return the finding of conviction; that perusal of the judgment would show that the Ld. Trial Court has not discussed any direct circumstantial or documentary evidence in order to return the finding of criminal conspiracy and the said finding has been given only on the hypothesis, surmises and conjectures and without any legal basis; that the Ld. Trial Court while passing the impugned judgment even ignored that even if two views were emerging from the material on record, ought to have favored the view pointing towards the innocence of the appellant; that the Ld. Trial Court has committed grave irregularity by not discussing the extensive cross examination of prosecution witnesses conducted by the defence and has merely relied upon their examination in chief in the impugned judgment; that the Ld. Trial Court despite admitting in para 10.1.8 of the impugned judgment that the prosecution failed to prove that the appellant was ever appointed as an accountant and in para 10.3 that it was not proved that the account statement Ex. PW3/A was prepared on the instructions of appellant did not give benefit to the appellant and convicted him on the basis of assumptions and conjectures; that the Ld. Trial Court despite rejecting the deposition of PW1/Complainant observing that his testimony had little worth and he was not well versed with the affairs of the Company yet convicted the appellant; that the Ld. Trial Court committed _____________________________________________________________ Digitally signed by CA NO. 360/2017 Jeet Singh Vs. The State GEETANJALI PAGE NO. 4 OF 56 GEETANJALI Date:
2026.01.27 17:05:57 +0530 grave error in not appreciating that the bank statement allegedly taken from the Syndicate bank was a copy not even certified under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act or Bankers Book of Evidence Act and was neither exhibited or proved nor even put to the Syndicate Bank witness PW-5 Ms. Manju Bhola and was only marked as Mark 10/2 and 10/5 in the statement of PW-10/IO who stated that he had collected the said copy of statement from the complainant and the bank vide a seizure memo, respectively; that the Ld. Trial Court ought to have held that since the alleged statement Mark 10/2 and 10/5 were never proved no comparison of it could have been drawn with the alleged forged statement i.e. Ex. PW3/A and hence it could not be established as to which one of the bank statements was correct and what were the discrepancy between the two; that the Ld. Trial Court erred in law while observing in para 10.1.27 of the judgment that proving of the bank statement was merely a formality; that the Ld. Trial Court failed to notice that PWI/complainant stated in his chief that they got the certified copies of the statement from the bank but no such certified copies were on the trial court record and what was filed and relied were the unauthenticated photocopies which were not even exhibited or put to relevant witnesses; that the Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate that both PW1/ complainant and PW2/ Director admitted that neither there was any appointment letter showing appointment of the appellant as accountant nor was there any attendance register; that the Ld. Trial Court failed to _____________________________________________________________ CA NO. 360/2017 Jeet Singh Vs. The State Digitally PAGE NO. 5 OF 56 signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2026.01.27 17:06:04 +0530 appreciate that even PW2 the only director of the Company who deposed that she was not involved in the day to day affairs of the Company and she was an artist and the day to day affairs of the Company including administration, finances and accounting was looked after by Managing Director Sh. P.C. Jain, her husband who was never introduced as a witness in this case; that PW2/Mrs. Renu Jain stated in her chief dated 16.07.2008 that the appellant was looking after all the bank transactions i.e. depositing the cheques, taking out payments making DD's dealing pay orders and making payment of the parties then how come all the 18 cheques during different periods spanning to the period of about two years attributed to him could be only in relation to payments to foreign organizations which were not expected to be over Rs. 4,000/-; that the Ld. Trial Court failed to notice that PW2/Mrs. Renu Jain admitted in her cross dated 26.03.2011 that if the dues were not paid to any foreign organization they receive the demand letter then why no demand letter was given to IO or produced in the Court if the cheques meant for foreign organizations did not reach them and were misused by the appellant but the Ld. Trial Court completely ignored this important defence and cross examination; that the Ld. Trial Court also ignored the cross examination dated 26.03.2011 of PW2/Mrs. Renu Jain as to why she didn't mention the name of beneficiaries in the said cheques even if the amount to be filled were not known to her and her answer to one of the questions on page 07 of said cross in which she replied _____________________________________________________________ Digitally signed CA NO. 360/2017 Jeet Singh Vs. The State by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
PAGE NO. 6 OF 56 2026.01.27 17:06:17 +0530 that "Yes I can do so but the same is not done as in normal course of business I was having faith on accused"; that the Ld. Trial Court did not find anything strange in the fact that even the cheques no. 950796 and 950797 which according to cross dated 14.05.2011 of PW2/Mrs. Renu Jain were allegedly meant for salary of employees of Company namely Bhawani Shankar and Sawai Singh were given blank cheques after signing by her which according to her were also misused and strangely she replied to one of the questions on page 02 of said cross that the said employees did not demand the salary even when the said cheques did not reach them; that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that all the cheques were duly signed by authorized signatory i.e. PW2/Mrs Asha Jain out of which nine were used by her for withdrawal of cash through self cheques and once it was established that said cheques were signed by herself no criminality could be attached with respect to nature of transactions and thus the trial court wrongly held that the appellant induced the bank by presenting the said cheques and committed the offence of cheating; that the Ld. Trial Court erred in law by passing the judgment of conviction based upon the evidence that the DD's/pay orders were got prepared by the appellant by filling the bank forms used for such purpose and self cheques were signed on the back by the appellant as collector of the amounts while totally ignoring the admitted fact that the signatures on all such cheques were genuine and that of the Director/PW2 and were not forged thus no _____________________________________________________________ Digitally CA NO. 360/2017 Jeet Singh Vs. The State signed by PAGE NO. 7 OF 56 GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2026.01.27 17:07:59 +0530 criminality could have been attached with the appellant in view of the genuine nature of signatures on the cheques and mere preparation of DD's/pay orders and withdrawal of amount on self cheques signed by the Director/ authorized signatory was not an incriminating circumstance so as to convict the appellant on that kind of circumstance; that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the prosecution grossly contradicted itself in so far as the complaint Ex. PW1/A and evidence during the course of trial is concerned; that perusal of the complaint would show that everywhere in relations to the cheques in question the complainant/PW1 alleged that accused Jeet Singh forged the signatures of PW2 Mrs. Renu Jain whereas in deposition both the witnesses stated that the cheques in question Ex.PW2/A1 to A18 bear the signatures of Mrs. Renu Jain both on the front and back side including seal of the Company; that the Ld. Trial Court ought to have appreciated the argument of the defence that nо fresh complaint or supplementary statement was given in order to justify the above change in stand and the fact that no fresh complaint or supplementary statement as such was made/ recorded was admitted in the deposition of prosecution witnesses i.e. PW1, PW2 & PW10/IO; that the prosecution failed to explain as to why in the first place the allegation of forgery of signatures was made in the complaint and why it wasn't stated that she signed the cheques in the front as well as back which was despite the fact that PW1 Sh. Sunil Sachdeva stated in his deposition that he drafted the complaint on the _____________________________________________________________ Digitally CA NO. 360/2017 Jeet Singh Vs. The State signed by GEETANJALI PAGE NO. 8 OF 56 GEETANJALI Date:
2026.01.27 17:08:10 +0530 instructions and briefing given by PW2 Smt. Renu Jain, the only director of the Company who deposed during the course of trial; that PW1 filed the complaint on the information of Mrs. Renu Jain (cross-examination dated 25.08.2009) why in the complaint he did not state that the cheques were signed by Mrs. Renu Jain or why did he state that the signatures on the cheques were forged by Jeet Singh and this shows that he deliberately gave a wrong version of his own in the complaint but later on during deposition was compelled to change his stand; that PW2 Mrs. Renu Jain admitted her signatures on the front as well back of the cheques Ex. PW2/A1 to A18 and only referred to one amount of Rs.70,000/- in her examination dated 16.07.2008 which relates to a self cheque; that PW2 Ms. Renu Jain stated in her cross that she had instructed PW1 Mr. Sunil Sachdeva that cheques were signed by her and despite this a false version was given in the complaint; that PW2 Mrs. Renu Jain admitted that the Company did not file any revised income tax declaration and no balance sheets of financial years 1997-98 and 1998-99 were placed on record by her; that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the statement of PW1 who deposed that no investigation was carried out by police in his presence; that the Ld. Trial Court ought to have appreciated that the gross shift in stand in this regard throws immense doubt on the story propagated by the prosecution; that the Prosecution miserably failed to discharge the burden of proof defined under Part-III Chapter-VII of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 by virtue of Sections _____________________________________________________________ Digitally CA NO. 360/2017 Jeet Singh Vs. The State signed by PAGE NO. 9 OF 56 GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2026.01.27 17:08:16 +0530 101 to 106 of the said Act; that the prosecution relied upon a statement of account of Syndicate Bank but failed to put it to any witness including PW5 Ms. Manju Bhola Chief Manager of the said bank and the alleged statement was only marked by the IO as Mark 10/5 and was never exhibited; that the alleged statement produced on the record was only a copy which is not even certified under the Bankers Book of Evidence Act or Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; that since the alleged bank statement was not proved no comparison could be drawn of the same with Ex.PW3/A alleged to be a fabricated bank statement and no conclusion could be drawn regarding the alleged discrepancy between the two; that there was an allegation that the manual bank ledger used to be prepared by the accused Jeet Singh and a copy of the same was placed on record but the said document was never put to any witness including PW1/1 complainant and PW2/Ms. Renu Jain; that co-accused Gursharan Singh was projected simply as brother-in-law of appellant in the Prosecution case and deliberately concealed he was ex- employee of the Company and had pre-existing relations with it; that the Ld. Trial Court in view of observation that the Bank manual ledger was not relied upon by the prosecution ought to have given the benefit by way of acquittal to the appellant; that the alleged counter foils of cheques produced on the record were also proved as never exhibited and not put to any witness including Mrs. Renu Jain/PW2 and were marked by the IO as Mark 10/1; that Ld. _____________________________________________________________ Digitally CA NO. 360/2017 Jeet Singh Vs. The State signed by GEETANJALI PAGE NO. 10 OF 56 GEETANJALI Date:
2026.01.27 17:08:26 +0530 Trial Court committed grave error by relying upon six counter foils which were never proved or even put to any witness and were only marked as Mark D/A to D/F in the cross-examination of PW-1 and Mark 10/1 in the examination in chief of PW10/IO; that the Ld. Trial Court ought to have acquitted the appellant in view of finding in the impugned judgment that it was not proved that the appellant was an accountant and was involved in sundry jobs; that PW4 Sh. Rakesh Arora was proved to be an interested witness being closely related to the complainant Shri Sunil Sachdeva who in his deposition did not refer to any documentary evidence to prove his version and so much so the certificate produced by him as CA was never given to police during the course of investigation and was produced by the complainant's counsel in the Court after many years of trial and therefore his certificate Ex. PW4/A did not have any evidentiary value being a private unproved document prepared as an afterthought and was wrongly relied upon by the Trial Court; that PW1/complainant is proven to be an interested witness being close relation of PW4 and admitted in his cross that his Company was a contracting Company of Spectral Services Consultants Pvt. Ltd; that from the evidence dated 08.12.2011 of PW3 i.e. Mr. Jayakrishna it may be appreciated that it was unbelievable that the alleged forged statement of account running into 47 pages in a single space typing from April 1997 to September 1998 could have been typed in the office on office computer without being noticed by anyone; that even the _____________________________________________________________ CA NO. 360/2017 Jeet Singh Vs. The State Digitally signed by PAGE NO. 11 OF 56 GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2026.01.27 17:08:31 +0530 alleged alterations in the two statements were not put to him by the prosecution; that it is evident from his cross dated 09.12.2011 that the computer on which the alleged forged statement Ex. PW3/A (colly) was typed was not pointed out to the police nor the police seized the alleged computer or the hard disk; that PW4 Rakesh Arora, the CA could not prove any incriminating evidence against the accused persons and even the bank statements were not put to him who was a qualified CA to point out alleged discrepancies; that PW5 Ms. Manju Bhola, Chief Manager of Syndicate Bank only proved some formal documents and the alleged true statement of account of her bank was not even put to her by the Prosecution; that admittedly the statement of account of the bank account of co-accused Gurusharan Singh was not proved by the witness from Indian Bank, Faridabad i.e. PW-6; that the alleged disclosure statements Ex. PW8/C and PW8/D are hit by Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; that PW9 witness from CFSL only proved the handwriting of accused Jeet Singh and nothing incriminating was proved by him relating to alleged forgery; that PW10/IO only marked some formal documents and from his cross dated 16.10.2015 and 28.01.2016 lot of material has emerged pointing out to the innocence of accused persons; that the Ld. Trial Court committed grave error in law by relying on documents most of which were photocopies and marked mostly by PW10/IO as the last witness of prosecution and by observing that nothing prevents the court from relying upon the marked _____________________________________________________________ Digitally CA NO. 360/2017 Jeet Singh Vs. The State signed by PAGE NO. 12 OF 56 GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2026.01.27 17:08:37 +0530 documents; that from the perusal of evidence led by the Prosecution the offences under Sections 408/467/471/420 read with Section 120-B have not been proved against the appellant in accordance of law and beyond reasonable doubt and in any case the appellant was entitled to benefit of doubt even if two views were emerging from the evidence led; that the order on sentence imposing huge fine and grant of compensation to the complainant is highly excessive, unheard off and beyond the canons of justice and both the impugned judgment dated 29.07.2017 and order on sentence dated 21.08.2017 are liable to be set aside on the grounds disclosed in this appeal; that the judgments relied upon by the Trial Court in support of impugned judgment were not relatable to the facts and circumstances of the present case; that the Ld. Trial Court has grossly erred in not appreciating the arguments addresses by the defence including the written synopsis filed and numerous case laws filed and relied by the appellant during the course of arguments and the impugned judgment is absolutely silent on the same thus establishing that the same was passed mechanically without appreciating the correct facts and applicable law on the same. In view of the same, it has been prayed that the impugned judgments be set aside.
4. Notice of the present appeal was issued to the respondent/ State. However, no reply was filed on their behalf.
5. I have heard the Ld. Addl PP for the State and Ld. Counsel for _____________________________________________________________ Digitally signed CA NO. 360/2017 Jeet Singh Vs. The State by GEETANJALI PAGE NO. 13 OF 56 GEETANJALI Date:
2026.01.27 17:08:43 +0530 appellant and perused the Trial Court record as well as the Judgment and the order on sentence and the written arguments filed on behalf of the appellant. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that the impugned judgments do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and appellant has been rightly convicted. Thus, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.
6. The charge 408/467/471/477-A/420 IPC read with section 120-B IPC was framed in the present case on the basis of the complaint made by Sh.
Sunil Sachdeva and the applicant/ accused was convicted for offence punishable u/s. 408/467/471/420 IPC and u/s. 120-B read with section 408/467/471/420 IPC and was acquitted for offence puninshable u/s. 477A IPC.
6.1 Section 408 IPC deals with 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. 6.2 Section 467 IPC deals with Forgery of valuable security, will, etc. Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable _____________________________________________________________ CA NO. 360/2017 Jeet Singh Vs. The State PAGE NO. 14 OF 56 security.
The points requiring proof are:-
(1) that the document in question is a forgery. (2) that the accused forged it.
(3) that in forging it he intended that it shall be used for the purpose of cheating.
6.3 Section 471 IPC deals with using as genuine a forged document Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document. The ingredients of Section 471 are:
(1) there must be fraudulent or dishonest use of a document as genuine and (2) the person using it must have knowledge or reason to believe that the document is a forged one.
6.4 Section 420 IPC deals cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security. 6.5 120B provides punishment for criminal conspiracy which is defined in section 120-A IPC. The constituent elements of the offence of criminal conspiracy are:-
(1) An agreement between two or more persons;
_____________________________________________________________ Digitally signed by CA NO. 360/2017 Jeet Singh Vs. The State GEETANJALI PAGE NO. 15 OF 56 GEETANJALI Date:
2026.01.27 17:08:52 +0530 (2) to do an illegal act or;
(3) to do a legal act by illegal means and;
(4) an overt act done in pursuance of the conspiracy.
7. The case of prosecution is that firstly both the accused entered into a criminal conspiracy in order to cheat the complainant by forging the signatures of authorized signatory of the Company on the cheques bearing nos. 950379, 950437, 950542, 950723, 950796, 9050797, 951112, 951219, 951316, 951317, 95170, 951462, 356133, 366134, 356256, 356385, 356598 and 356497 and getting those cheques and pay orders encashed issued from the account of complainant Company in their favour.
Secondly, accused Jeet Singh being the accountant of the complainant Company misappropriated the cheques entrusted to him and further both the accused persons forged statement of account maintained in the favour of the complainant with Syndicate Bank, Khan Market, New Delhi and thereafter used the same by knowing or at least having reasons to believe the same to be forged by getting them encashed in their favour and also by getting issued pay orders/ demand draft in favour of Punjab Travel Makers and Tour Planners, Balwant Sales Limited, Hargobind Body Builders as well as for self. They further forged ledger books, accounts of the complainant Company and dishonestly induced the bankers of the complainant to pay the total sum of Rs.28.51 lacs in the form of cash, pay orders and demand drafts in favour of Punjab Travel Makers and Tour _____________________________________________________________ Digitally signed by CA NO. 360/2017 Jeet Singh Vs. The State GEETANJALI PAGE NO. 16 OF 56 GEETANJALI Date:
2026.01.27 17:08:58 +0530 Planners, Balwant Sales Limited, Hargobind Body Builders. In order to prove the said allegations the Prosecution examined complainant Sh. Sunil Sachdeva, Director of the complainant Company Ms. Renu Jain, computer operator of the complainant Company Sh. Jai Krishan and the auditor of complainant Company Shri Rakesh Arora.
7.1 The story goes this way that accused Jeet Singh was the accountant of the complainant Company and being the accountant he was looking after all the bank transactions and while working as accountant he misused his authority and diverted large sum of funds for his use as deposed by PW-2 Ms. Renu Jain. She has deposed that "We had started a consultancy firm namely Spectral Services Consultant Pvt. Ltd. I am director of the said consultancy firm. My husband is Managing director. Our work is of consultancy, we employed accused Jeet Singh in the year 1989 as an accountant. He was very hardworking and he worked quite well and soon he got our confidence in him and he Noomdari and we have a lot of faith in Naamdari Guru. He was looking after all over bank transaction i.e. depositing the cheques, taking out payments making DDs and dealing pay orders and making payment of the parties. He was whole sole incharge of our accounts work. We are members of different societies and we pay the annual subscription of said societies which is some time paid in dollars or pounds. We do not know exchange rate of dollar or pounds on the said day that is why I used to sign the blank cheques. The blank cheques were used _____________________________________________________________ Digitally CA NO. 360/2017 Jeet Singh Vs. The State signed by PAGE NO. 17 OF 56 GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2026.01.27 17:09:04 +0530 to be signed along with the filled counterfoil because we follow the said system and we have a counterfoil for each cheque signed. And as a record we used to maintain the counterfoils. We used to signed the blank cheques as we did not know as to how much cash, we have in the bank. It was the job of accused Jeet Singh to check the cash in the account and filled up the cheque accordingly. I used to hand over the blank signed cheques to accused Jeet Singh. The maximum amount for which the cheque could be used and the purpose used to be mentioned on the counterfoil. Usually the amount was not expected to exceed Rs. 4,000/-. I used to issue signed blank cheques as we were not sure about the amount of cash available at a particular time. I had confidence in Jeet Singh and therefore the signed blank cheques were handed over to him with understanding that he would withdraw the appropriate amount only. I also used to sign blank cheques when I used to go out of Delhi as well as out of country. I was not conversant with the procedure for handing accounts. In the year 1999 I came to know that Sh. Jeet Singh had misused the signed blank cheques by cancelling the endorsements on the counterfoil and he withdrew large amount for self such as Rs. 70,000/-. he also transferred money in a Tour and Travel firm by the name of Travel Makers and Tour Planners belonging to his brother in law and he also transferred money to some body builder. When he had joined putting up in a small rented accommodation but gradually he acquired wealth. We had an inhouse CA and the accounts _____________________________________________________________ Digitally signed by GEETANJALI CA NO. 360/2017 Jeet Singh Vs. The State GEETANJALI Date: PAGE NO. 18 OF 56 2026.01.27 17:09:11 +0530 used to be audited by other CA also. The misuse of the cheques by Sh. Jeet Singh could not be detected as the entries tallied with the statement of account from the bank. I noticed that there was very difficulty regarding funds and I could not understand as to where and how our funds were getting lost. Therefore in the year 1998 we appointed another CA (Sobit and Arora) to audit the accounts. Mr. Rakesh Arora of the said firm conducted the audit and he discovered large discrepancies. He also found that the bank statements which were earlier provided to the previous CA by the accused Jeet Singh were forged. It was discovered that during the year 1997-98 and 1998-99 the accused Jeet Singh who was our account incharge had misappropriated a sum of Rs. 29 lacs. Sh. Sunil Sachdeva who was honorary adviser to our Company and who was treated like a brother by my daughter made a complaint to the police. My statement was recorded by the police". She was cross-examined by Ld. defence Counsel.
8. The crux of the aforesaid is that PW-2 Ms. Renu Jain has deposed that accused Jeet Singh was employed by her Company Spectral Services Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. as Accountant and he was looking after all the bank transactions i.e. depositing of cheques, taking out payments, making demand drafts, dealing with pay orders and giving payment to the parties. In order to carry out the said functions she used to handover blank signed cheques to him and the amounts in them were to be filled by the accused Jeet Singh after checking the cash available in bank and that amount was _____________________________________________________________ Digitally CA NO. 360/2017 Jeet Singh Vs. The State signed by PAGE NO. 19 OF 56 GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2026.01.27 17:09:28 +0530 not expected to exceed Rs.4,000/-. She has further alleged that those blank signed cheques were misused by accused Jeet Singh by cancelling the endorsement on the counterfoil and withdrew large amounts. She has relied on eighteen cheques to say so and same were exhibited as Ex.PW2/A-1 to Ex.PW2/A-18 and the counterfoils were marked as Mark D/A to D/G. 8.1 The points requiring proof u/s. 408 IPC are as follows:-
(1) that the accused was a clerk or servant, or was employed at such. (2) that as such he was interested with the property in question with dominion over it.
(3) that he committed criminal breach of trust in respect of it.
8.2 Coming to the first ingredient that the accused was a clerk or servant, or was employed as such, PW-2 Ms. Renu Jain has specifically deposed that her consultancy firm Spectral Services Pvt. Ltd. employed accused Jeet Singh as accountant and he was looking after all bank transactions. During course of cross examination though it has been proved that the post for which the accused applied is found to be vacant in his application form however there is no denial to the fact that accused Jeet Singh indeed was employed in her Company. The testimony of PW-2 Ms. Renu Jain is corroborated by the testimony of PW-1 Shri Sunil Sachdeva and PW-3 Shri Jayakrishnan regarding the said aspect. PW-1 Shri Sunil Sachdeva has deposed that "Jeet Singh was working as an accountant in our Company since last almost ten years. He used to get the cheque signed from the _____________________________________________________________ CA NO. 360/2017 Jeet Singh Vs. The State Digitally signed by GEETANJALI PAGE NO. 20 OF 56 GEETANJALI Date:
2026.01.27 17:09:37 +0530 director of the Company as and when required in his capacity as accountant. Mrs. Renu Jain was the authorised signatory (Director of the Company) who used to sign the cheques. In 1998 we found that he became very close to us as a family member and was getting the cheques signed even it was not properly filled. The reason was very obvious that due to fluctuation in the dollar price and bank balance on that very day. He made almost this as a practice as bearer cheque and the cheque which was involved in the foreign exchange was signed while the name of the person and amount was blank but just want to convince us he used to write on the counterfoil the name of the beneficiary and amount correctly which was intended for but in the audit we found in the bank statement it was not matching at all the amount which was account debited to our amount was different then it was intended (in the counterfoil) was different." During the cross examination he has stated that he was not sure whether accused Jeet Singh was issued any appointment letter by Company or not or he was on roles of Company but he has voluntarily stated that he had seen him working as an accountant and maintaining the account books. Secondly, it can be inferred from the suggestion given to the witness that accused Jeet Singh was not having any designation in the Company that accused Jeet Singh was indeed working in the complainant Company. 8.3 Similarly PW-4 Shri Rakesh Arora has also deposed that "in the year in 1997 I was working as the computer operator in M/s Spectral Services _____________________________________________________________ Digitally signed CA NO. 360/2017 Jeet Singh Vs. The State by GEETANJALI PAGE NO. 21 OF 56 GEETANJALI Date:
2026.01.27 17:09:45 +0530 Consultants Pvt. Ltd. One Jeet Singh who is present in the court today was also working as a Accounts Manager in the Company". During cross examination he has reiterated the fact that accused Jeet Singh was doing accounts related jobs and as per his knowledge he was handling the accounts at that particular time. Henceforth the ld. Trial Court has rightly held that:
"10.1.7 All prosecution witnesses i.e. Sunil Sachdava, Renu Jain and Jaya Krishan and Rakesh Arora have unequivocally deposed to the effect that accused no.1 was doing job of accountant in the Company. However, PW1 Sunil Sachdeva was confronted with a letter written to the Company by the accused no.1, already on record, seeking a job along with his biodata as Ex. PW1/DA which indicated that accused was not having any qualification to be appointed as an accountant in the Company and that he had sought an employment with the complainant Company for any available vacancy and not for post of an accountant. Again, resignation letter written by the accused no.1 Mark 10/3 has been proved on record wherein the accused no.1 has stated that he could not continue with his services with the organization due to his personal reasons and he be relieved from his responsibilities. The obvious question that arises is that if the accused no. 1 was not a permanent employment with the Company, why at all he bothered to submit a letter of resignation at the time of leaving services. As the aforesaid documents proved by the prosecution have not been disputed by the accused no. 1 as forged / fabricated and no _____________________________________________________________ Digitally signed CA NO. 360/2017 Jeet Singh Vs. The State by GEETANJALI PAGE NO. 22 OF 56 GEETANJALI Date:
2026.01.27 17:10:04 +0530 suggestion given in this regard, it can be inferred that the same have been admitted as correct. Hence, the argument of the defence that accused no.1 was not a permanent employee of the Company does not have any force."
8.4 One of the ground of appeal is that the Ld. Trial Court despite admitting in para 10.1.8 of the impugned judgment that the Prosecution failed to prove that the appellant was ever appointed as an accountant and in para no. 10.3 that it was not proved that the account statement Ex.PW3/A was prepared on the instructions of the appellant, did not give benefit to the appellant and convicted him on the basis of assumption and conjectures. Though the Ld. Trial Court has held that "So far as the argument that accused no.1 was not employed as an accountant with the Company, I am of the view that prosecution has indeed failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was formally appointed as accountant in the complainant Company. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, I find that though all oral witnesses as mentioned above depose that he was posted as an accountant in the Company, there is not a single documentary evidence on record to corroborate their testimony as neither the letter seeking appointment nor resignation mentions that he was working as an accountant in the complainant Company. Moreover, qualification of accused no.1 as written in his biodata annexed with the letter seeking employment reflects that he had neither taught job of _____________________________________________________________ Digitally signed CA NO. 360/2017 Jeet Singh Vs. The State by PAGE NO. 23 OF 56 GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2026.01.27 17:10:18 +0530 accountant nor having any qualifications to work on the said post. Hence, I am in agreement with the defence that it has not been duly proved that accused no.1 was formally appointed as an accountant in the complainant Company". However in subsequent para the Ld. Trial Court has justified the way the accused Jeet Singh was handed over blank cheques and given authority to fill the same to a certain limit despite the fact that he was not appointed as regular accountant with the complainant Company and I concur with the finding given by the Ld. Trial Court. The Ld. Trial Court has held that:-
"10.1.9 Having said that, I strongly disagree with the argument advanced by the defence counsel that as accused no.1 was not an accountant, therefore he could not be handed over the blank cheques, nor he could fill up details in the same or that in the corresponding counterfoils without approval of the head accountant. It is a matter of common knowledge that when an employee wins the trust of the employer, he may be handed over responsibilities, which though not as per his qualification or part of his job profile, but which could be given only to reliable and trustworthy employees in the day-to-day affairs of the Company.
10.1.10 In the present case, prosecution has been able to prove through oral evidence that accused had become almost like a family member having worked in the Company from 1989 onwards and also being a Namdhari by faith and as Directors of the Company used to remain out of India many-a-times, and _____________________________________________________________ Digitally signed by CA NO. 360/2017 Jeet Singh Vs. The State GEETANJALI PAGE NO. 24 OF 56 GEETANJALI Date:
2026.01.27 17:10:24 +0530 therefore, in good faith and for general convenience, accused no.1 being a reliable employee, he was handed over blank signed cheques along with corresponding counterfoil, also filled up by the accused no.1, specifying the amount and beneficiary to be written on the cheque, for instance 'not more than Rs.4000/- and the name of the organisation in whose favour it was being drawn. It was expected that depending upon exchange rate of dollar/pound and balance available in the account, accused shall write the details thereupon and present them to the bank for clearance. As such, it appears that the accused was given a responsibility which was not vested in him due to his qualifications / knowledge of accountancy, but rather based on good faith and trust."
8.5 Coming to the second ingredient u/s. 408 IPC i.e. as such he was entrusted with the property in question with dominion over it and the property in question are the cheques. PW-2 Ms. Renu Jain has specifically deposed that she used to handover the blank signed cheques to accused Jeet Singh and it was suggested to the witness during cross examination that the money either was withdrawn by self cheques or paid to the vendors of the Company by DDs or pay orders under her instructions. This suggestion led to the conclusion that indeed blank signed cheques were handed over to the accused Jeet Singh during the course of his employment. 8.6 The last ingredient for proving the offence u/s. 408 IPC is that the employee who was entrusted with the property in question committed _____________________________________________________________ Digitally signed by CA NO. 360/2017 Jeet Singh Vs. The State GEETANJALI PAGE NO. 25 OF 56 GEETANJALI Date:
2026.01.27 17:10:59 +0530 criminal breach of trust in respect of it. Regarding that PW-2 Ms. Renu Jain has specifically deposed that she used to handover blank signed cheques to accused Jeet Singh to pay annual subscription of different Societies and for each cheque the corresponding counterfoil was maintained specifying the beneficiary and the amount to be filled in the cheque which was not to exceed beyond Rs.4000/-. She has further deposed that accused Jeet Singh misused the said confidence which she reposed in him and withdrawn the amount from the account of the Company exceeding the said limit and this he did by cancelling the endorsement on the counterfoil and deposited the said amount in various firms one of which belongs to accused Gursharan Singh. In order to show the discrepancy between the cheques in question and the counterfoils, the Prosecution has relied on the cheques and the counterfoils of the cheques. Those counterfoils were exhibited by the IO in his evidence as Mark 10/1 and were also put to PW-1 Shri Sunil Sachdeva during his cross examination wherein they were marked as Mark D/A to D/F. 8.7 In order to show the misappropriation the disputed cheques, counterfoils and the pay orders containing the signature and handwriting of accused Jeet Singh were sent for FSL examination with the admitted signatures of the accused Jeet Singh on original specimen signature card of the joint account of accused no. 1 alongwith his wife in Indian Bank Ex.PW6/A. _____________________________________________________________ Digitally CA NO. 360/2017 Jeet Singh Vs. The State signed by PAGE NO. 26 OF 56 GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2026.01.27 17:11:05 +0530 8.8 The FSL expert was examined as PW-9 Shri Vijay Shankar and he has deposed that "The documents pertaining to FIR No. 325/99, PS-C.R. Park, New Delhi referred by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime and Railways vide memo no. 264/ACP/Crime dated 11.02.2000 received in their laboratory on 15.02.2000; that the present case case was allotted to him for his examination and opinion; that he had examined the questioned documents consisting signatures and writing on various instruments of Syndicate bank i.e. cheques and other forms; that the disputed writings and signatures are red enclosed and gave marking as Q1 to Q65 and the admitted signatures of one Sh. Jeet Singh marked as Al and A2 alongwith specimen writings marked $1 to $17 were examined by him; that each of the documents examined by him bear the laboratory-seal; that after careful scientific examination of the standard writings and questioned writings, he gave his opinion that the persons who wrote the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked $1 to $17; that Al and A2 also wrote the red enclosed writings similarly stamped and marked Q1 to 065 as there are striking similarities in general writing habits and individual writing characteristics;
that the said opinion dated 21.02.2000 bears his signature; that it also bears the signature of Sh. D.D. Goel, the then GEQD, who also independently examined the documents of this case and arrived at the same opinion; that the said opinion alongwith the documents forwarded to Deputy Commissioner of Police, crime and Railways, Delhi vide their laboratory _____________________________________________________________ Digitally CA NO. 360/2017 Jeet Singh Vs. The State signed by GEETANJALI PAGE NO. 27 OF 56 GEETANJALI Date:
2026.01.27 17:11:12 +0530 no. AH-29/2000 dated 21.02.2000; that his report is now exhibited as Ex. PW9/A, bearing his signature at point A and signature of Sh. D.D. Goel at point B; that he can identify the documents examined by me, if shown to him; that at this stage, 18 cheques of Syndicate Bank already attached with the judicial file are shown to the witness, to which he correctly identified as the same examined by him; that the cheques are already exhibited as Ex. PW2/A1 to A18." His findings were not challenged during the cross examination.
8.9 Henceforth the expert witness has proved that the person who filled the blank columns in the cheque and the person who got make the pay orders is the one and the same person and that is accused Jeet Singh. 8.10 The whole of the testimony of PW-2 Ms. Renu Jain was put to the accused Jeet Singh while recording his statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. to which he has replied as follows: "It is incorrect. PW-2 Mrs. Renu Jain has made a false statement against me in order to cover up her own wrongs. I was kept as a casual worker by her after she met me in a Namdhari Samagam. I used to do Sundry Job for her under the instructions. She never issued any blank cheque to me. The cheques were filled under her instructions and delivered/deposited to the bank by me and others as per her directions. She also used to withdraw the amount by self cheques which after being collected used to be handed over to her by me. She used to sign the cheques both in the front as well as in the back. I never acquired any wealth while _____________________________________________________________ Digitally CA NO. 360/2017 Jeet Singh Vs. The State signed by GEETANJALI PAGE NO. 28 OF 56 GEETANJALI Date:
2026.01.27 17:11:25 +0530 being with the Company or even thereafter. Mr. P. C. Jain and Smt. Renu Jain manipulated the finances themselves and in collusion with Sunil Sachdeva and newly appointed CA Sh. Rakesh Arora who was real brother in law of Mr. Sunil Sachdeva, a false story was concocted and I was falsely implicated in this case in order to prepare defence for the Company for any likely action by the Income Tax Department against the Company and its Directors. The evidence given by PW-2 Smt. Renu Jain against me is false".
8.11 Henceforth it is the plea of the accused Jeet Singh that he used to withdraw the amount by self cheques which after being collected used to be handed over to her by him but he has not led any evidence in defence to prove the said plea. Further if PW-2 Ms. Renu Jain was manipulating the finances of the Company in collusion with Shri P.C. Jain where comes the question of exposing the same through a full fledged complaint. Henceforth the Ld. Trial Court has rightly held that:-
"10.1.18 In order to prove the same, prosecution has proved all the original disputed cheques in question on record vide Ex PW2/A1 to Ex PW2/A18. Further, IO had sent all the disputed cheques for examination of handwriting /signatures with the admitted signatures/handwriting Ex.ExPWG/A original specimen signature card of the joint account of the accused no.1 along with his wife in Indian bank, Faridabad, duly proved by PW6 Brahmjit Grewal who brought the certified copy of the same as well as PW8/F1 to PW8/F13, which is the specimen _____________________________________________________________ Digitally CA NO. 360/2017 Jeet Singh Vs. The State GEETANJALIPAGE NO. 29 OF 56 signed by GEETANJALI Date:
2026.01.27 17:11:38 +0530 signatures/handwriting taken by the IO in the presence of witness PWB HC Jaiveer Singh. Further, PW9 handwriting expert has proved his report Ex PW9/A as per which the questioned handwriting/ signatures on the cheques in question were carrying the same handwriting as the admitted handwriting/ signatures of the accused over his Account Opening Form/specimen signatures taken by IO. Further, audit report Ex.PW4/A proves that during course of audit, it was found that certain cheques which were presented could not be seen in books of accounts.
10.1.19 On the same lines, as per report Ex.PW9/A, the signatures/handwriting of the accused over application for making demand draft/pay order Ex PW9/ B1 to Ex PW9/ B7 were found to be similar to his specimen/ admitted signatures, thereby leading to the inevitable conclusion that DDs/ POs were made on the instructions of the accused no.1. Further, the signatures of the accused on the back side of the cheque matched his admin specimen signatures as per Ex.PW9/A which again proved that accused no.1 had presented the cheques for withdrawal of amount.
xxxxxxxx 10.1.21 So far as Mark-10/C, Mark-10/D and Mark-10/G are concerned, they are original counterfoils and handwriting of the accused no.1 over the same has been duly proved as that of the accused no. 1 by virtue of the FSL report Ex PW9/A as per which the questioned handwriting on the counterfoils matched with that of admitted/ specimen signatures of accused no.1, which has not been disputed and hence, the aforesaid _____________________________________________________________ Digitally signed by CA NO. 360/2017 Jeet Singh Vs. The State GEETANJALI PAGE NO. 30 OF 56 GEETANJALI Date:
2026.01.27 17:11:49 +0530 counterfoils stand duly proved."
9. Coming to the charge u/s. 467/471 IPC, it speaks about forgery of valuable security, will, etc. and using the forged document. The term forgery is defined u/s. 463 IPC. For the sake of convenience section 463 IPC is reproduced below:
"Section 463:- Forgery.--3[Whoever makes any false document or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, 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 any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery."
9.1 Section 464 IPC defines the false document. For the sake of convenience, section 464 IPC is reproduced below:
"A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record-
First - Who dishonestly or fraudulently-
(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;
(c) affixes any [electronic signatures] on any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the [electronic signature], with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or _____________________________________________________________ Digitally CA NO. 360/2017 Jeet Singh Vs. The State signed by PAGE NO. 31 OF 56 GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2026.01.27 17:11:54 +0530 part of the document, electronic record or [electronic signatures] was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed."
9.2 The definition of false document is a part of forgery. It consists of three division and the document should fall atleast in one of these three divisions for making it a false document. The first division relates to the making, signing, sealing or executing a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made by the authority of a person by whom the makers knows that it was not made. The second division relates to the dishonest or fraudulent cancellation or alternation of a document without lawful authority. The third division deals with the act of causing another person to execute or alter a document with the knowledge that the makers thereof does not know the contents of the document or the nature of the alternation.
9.3 Reverting to the facts in hand PW-2 Ms. Renu Jain has deposed that "In the year 1999 I came to know that Sh. Jeet Singh had misused the signed blank cheques by cancelling the endorsements on the counterfoil and he withdrew large amount for self such as Rs. 70,000/-. he also transferred money in a Tour and Travel firm by the name of Travel Makers and Tour Planners belonging to his brother in law and he also transferred money to some body builder" and she has relied on cheques and the _____________________________________________________________ Digitally CA NO. 360/2017 Jeet Singh Vs. The State signed by GEETANJALI PAGE NO. 32 OF 56 GEETANJALI Date:
2026.01.27 17:12:05 +0530 counterfoils to prove the same. The cheques were exhibited as Ex.D/A-1 to Ex.D/A-18 and counterfoils were exhibited by the IO in his evidence as Mark 10/1 and were also put to PW-1 Shri Sunil Sachdeva during his cross examination wherein they were marked as Mark D/A to D/F. The concerned counterfoil is Mark D/A. Perusal of the same reveals that cheque no. 356133 was issued for $55 for Institute of Refrigeration whereas the cheque was issued for self for a sum of Rs.70,000/- after cancelling the connected counterfoil which is apparently showing malafide on the part of the accused Jeet Singh which makes it forged document. Perusal of the said cheque reveals that it was signed by accused Jeet Singh on the back side which was disputed by accused Jeet Singh and in order to prove that the said alteration was done by accused Jeet Singh, the admitted handwriting and signatures of accused Jeet Singh and the disputed one were sent for FSL examination.
9.4 As per the FSL report Ex.PW9/A, the word "cancelled" written on the counterfoils Mark D/C and D/G was found to be in the similar writing as that of admitted handwriting of accused Jeet Singh which went on to prove that it was accused Jeet Singh who made fraudulent cancellation or alteration of a document without lawful authority and those cancellations and alterations were without the knowledge of the lawful authority or that the altered contents of document were not within the knowledge of the original maker of the document. Further accused Jeet Singh presented those _____________________________________________________________ Digitally CA NO. 360/2017 Jeet Singh Vs. The State signed by GEETANJALI PAGE NO. 33 OF 56 GEETANJALI Date:
2026.01.27 17:12:17 +0530 forged cheques to the bank for withdrawal of amount which subsequently got converted into pay orders and deposited by him in the different accounts. Henceforth, the Ld. Trial Court has rightly held that:-
"10.2.4 Applying the present illustration to the facts of the instant case, accused no.1 had been handed over blank cheques which were signed by the director under the instructions that amount and details of payee shall be filled up as per the counterfoils. The fact that the amount and beneficiary as mentioned in the counterfoil and the corresponding cheque in question were different reflects that the accused no.1 committed the offence of forgery."
xxxxx 10.2.7 Lastly, ingredient (v) also stands duly proved as prosecution has been able to establish that the cheques in question were presented by the accused no.1 having been able to prove that the signatures over it belonged to him. Further, by virtue of Mark 10/4 letter received from the bank that six drafts were issued on the basis of cheques and application forms for issuance of the same, handwriting/ signatures over the same also having been proved of accused no.1 vide Ex PW9/A, which were encashed to Indian Bank, Faridabad in the account of Company of accused no.2, which reflects that the said cheques/ valuable securities were presented to the complainant's banker as genuine, on the basis of which money was were presented to the complainant's banker as genuine, on the basis of which money was transferred to the latter.
10.2.8 In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am satisfied that the _____________________________________________________________ Digitally CA NO. 360/2017 Jeet Singh Vs. The State signed by GEETANJALI PAGE NO. 34 OF 56 GEETANJALI Date:
2026.01.27 17:12:23 +0530 offence of forgery punishable under S. 467/ 471 IPC is made out I.e. the accused no. 1 with the dishonest intention to defraud the complainant misused the blank cheques handed over to him, thereby filling the wrong details and knowingly used the said forged cheques as genuine documents for wrongful gain to himself and delivery of money to the Company of his brother- in-law i.e. accused no.2."
10. Coming to the charge under section 420 IPC, section 420 IPC provides punishment for offence of cheating and the offence of cheating is defined u/s. 415 IPC. For the purpose of convenience sections 415 IPC is reproduced below:
"Section 415
415. Cheating- Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "Cheat".
10.1 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as "S.W. Palantikar & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (2002) 1 SCC 241" expounded the difference in the ingredients required for constituting an of offence of criminal breach of _____________________________________________________________ CA NO. 360/2017 Jeet Singh Vs. The State Digitally signed by PAGE NO. 35 OF 56 GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2026.01.27 17:12:33 +0530 trust (Section 406 IPC) viz-a-viz the offence of cheating (Section 420). The relevant observations read as under: -
"9. The ingredients in order to constitute a criminal breach of trust are: (i) entrusting a person with property or with any dominion over property, (ii) that person entrusted (a) dishonestly misappropriating or converting that property to his own use; or (b) dishonestly using or disposing of that property or wilfully suffering any other person so to do in violation (i) of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, (ii) of any legal contract made, touching the discharge of such trust.
10. The ingredients of an offence of cheating are: (i) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him, (ii)(a) the person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property; or (b) the person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and (iii) in cases covered by (ii)(b), the act of omission should be one which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property."
10.2 What can be discerned from the above is that the offences of criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC) and cheating (Section 420 IPC) have specific ingredients. In order to constitute a criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC): -
1) There must be entrustment with person for property or dominion over _____________________________________________________________ Digitally CA NO. 360/2017 Jeet Singh Vs. The State signed by GEETANJALI PAGE NO. 36 OF 56 GEETANJALI Date:
2026.01.27 17:12:40 +0530 the property, and
2) The person entrusted: -
a) dishonestly misappropriated or converted property to his own use, or
b) dishonestly used or disposed of the property or willfully suffers any other person so to do in violation of:
i. any direction of law prescribing the method in which the trust is discharged; or ii. legal contract touching the discharge of trust.
10.3 Similarly, in respect of an offence under Section 420 IPC, the essential ingredients are: -
1) deception of any person, either by making a false or misleading representation or by other action or by omission;
2) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any property, or
3) the consent that any persons shall retain any property and finally intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit.
11. Further, in both the aforesaid sections, mens rea i.e. intention to defraud or the dishonest intention must be present, and in the case of cheating it must be there from the very beginning or inception.
12. The case in hand is regarding the breach of trust by the employee. It is the case of the complainant that blank signed cheques were handed over to accused Jeet Singh and he used to do alteration or modification in the counterfoils thereby withdrawing huge amounts from the account of the _____________________________________________________________ Digitally signed by CA NO. 360/2017 Jeet Singh Vs. The State GEETANJALI PAGE NO. 37 OF 56 GEETANJALI Date:
2026.01.27 17:12:48 +0530 complainant Company. Henceforth the mens rea i.e. intention to defraud or dishonest intention cannot be said to be there from the very beginning or inception. It has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as S.W. Palantikar & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (supra) that "if it is a case of the complainant that offence of criminal breach of trust as defined under Section 405 of IPC, punishable under Section 406 of IPC, is committed by the accused, then in the same breath it cannot be said that the accused has also committed the offence of cheating as defined and explained in Section 415 of the IPC, punishable under Section 420 of the IPC."
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I reached to the conclusion that accused Jeet Singh the offence of cheating is not made out against accused Jeet Singh and the findings of the Ld. Trial Court regarding the same are hereby set aside.
14. Coming to the offence of conspiracy punishable u/s. 120-B IPC. Section 120B provides punishment for criminal conspiracy which is defined in section 120-A IPC. The constituent elements of the offence of criminal conspiracy are:-
(1) An agreement between two or more persons; (2) to do an illegal act or;
(3) to do a legal act by illegal means and;
(4) an overt act done in pursuance of the conspiracy.
_____________________________________________________________ Digitally CA NO. 360/2017 Jeet Singh Vs. The State signed by PAGE NO. 38 OF 56 GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2026.01.27 17:13:31 +0530 14.1 The offence of criminal conspiracy is of technical nature and the essential ingredient of the offence is the agreement to commit an offence.
The offence of criminal offence irrespective of the further consideration whether or not these offences have actually been committed. The very fact of conspiracy constitutes the offence and it is immaterial whether anything has been done in pursuance of unlawful agreement. It is undoubtedly true that the law does not take notice of the intention or the state of mind of the offender and there must be some overt act to give expression to that intention.
14.2 Reverting to the facts in hand, the case of Prosecution is that accused Jeet Singh used to divert the cheated amount in the bank account of Punjab Travel Makers and Tour Planners, Balwant Sales Ltd., Hargobind Body Builders. Regarding that PW-4 Shri Rakesh Arora has deposed that " On extensive investigation, we could found forged bank statements and two of them were duly signed by Mr. Deep Singh. In those bank statements entries with regard to withdrawals and deposits were removed. On the carbon copy of cheques being maintained by Jeet Singh misleading information was written by him like cancelled, DD issued for some dollars in favour of some entity whereas those cheques were misused by him by getting the pay order in favour of parties related to his brother in law i.e. Gursharan Singh and other concerns where the Company had no business relations". He was cross examined at length by the Ld. defence counsel but he failed to elicit _____________________________________________________________ Digitally signed by CA NO. 360/2017 Jeet Singh Vs. The State GEETANJALI PAGE NO. 39 OF 56 GEETANJALI Date:
2026.01.27 17:13:41 +0530 anything during the same which may cast doubt on his credibility. 14.3 The testimony of PW-4 Shri Rakesh Arora is further corroborated by the testimony of PW-10 Inspector Virender Dalal who has deposed that "I gave notices to the bank dated 5-10-1999 Ex.PW10/2 and received reply dated 6-10-1999 Mark 10/4 (two pages). I collected bank statement of M/s Spectral Service Consultant P. Ltd which is Mark 10/5 (total 45 pages). I served notice to the Chief Manager, Syndicate Bank which is dated 25-10-
1999 and the same is Ex.PW10/3 bearing my signature at point A. I collected documents from Syndicate bank vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/4 bearing my signature at point A. The documents collected from Syndicate Bank included cheques and paying slips of M/s Spectral Service Consultant P. Ltd. After serving notice dated 16-12-1999 to Manager, Indian Bank which is Ex.PW10/5 | seized the documents vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/6 and both exhibits bear my signature at point A. After serving notice dated 7-10-1999 to Manager, Indian Bank which is Ex.PW10/7, bear my signature at point A, I collected the documents including photocopies of ledger book (5 pages), photocopies of two cheques and account opening forms (3 pages)."
14.4 The crux of the matter is that during the investigations it came into light that accused Jeet Singh used to transfer the amount in the account of Punjab Tour and Travel Makers through pay orders and relied on document Mark 10/4 and Ex.PW10/7 to prove the same. The document Mark 10/4 is _____________________________________________________________ Digitally signed by CA NO. 360/2017 Jeet Singh Vs. The State GEETANJALI PAGE NO. 40 OF 56 GEETANJALI Date:
2026.01.27 17:13:47 +0530 the reply received from Syndicate bank that the cheques were encashed in the account of Punjab Tour and Travel Makers and no specific suggestion was put to the witness thereby denying the said fact. Further there is no denial of the fact that Punjab Tour and Travel Makers does not belong to accused Gursharan Singh. This part of his testimony goes unchallenged, unrebutted and unshattered as the same has not been assailed by way of cross examination. It is well settled principle of law that if any part of testimony is not challenged in the cross examination that is deemed to be admitted.
14.5 Secondly, accused Gursharan Singh even did not specifically deny in response to the question put to him u/s. 313 Cr.PC regarding the fact that the accused Jeet Singh used to transfer the amount in the account of Punjab Tour and Travel Makers through pay orders. It was specifically put to accused Gursharan Singh that accused Jeet Singh used to misuse the cheques and demand drafts and used to divert the funds in one of the concerns owned by accused Gursharan Singh and in response to the accused Gursharan Singh did not specifically deny the said allegation and has simply stated that the said question does not pertain to him. The specific question put to him while recording statement u/s. 313 Cr.PC regarding the same is reproduced below:-
"Question: PW-4 Rakesh Arora deposed that in the relevant year of present case, he was working as partner in Sobti and _____________________________________________________________ Digitally CA NO. 360/2017 Jeet Singh Vs. The State signed by PAGE NO. 41 OF 56 GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2026.01.27 17:13:54 +0530 Arora Chartered Accountant. He deposed that they were appointed as Statutory auditors for Spectral Services Pvt. Ltd for financial year 1998-99. He deposed that during course of audit, they found certain withdrawals from bank were missing in the books of accounts and corresponding entry with regard to deposit of equivalent amount also missing from books of accounts and corresponding entry with regard to deposit of equivalent amount also missing from books of account. He deposed that on extensive investigation, they could found forged bank statements and two of them were duly signed by Deep Singh. He deposed that in bank statements, entries with regard to withdrawals and deposits were removed. He deposed that on carbon copy of cheques being maintained by you misleading information was written by you like cancelled, DD issued for some dollars in favour of some entity whereas those cheques were misused by you by getting pay order in favour of parties related to your brother in law Gusharan Singh and other concerns where Company had no business relations. He deposed that on some occasions, you withdrew cash and did not recard in books. He deposed that in nutshell, total amount of embezzlement by you during financial year 1998-99 was to the tune of Rs. 4.10 lakhs and for financial year 1997-98 was to the tune of Rs. 24.41 lakhs and totaling to Rs. 28.51 lakhs. He deposed that he submitted that detailed report on embezzlement conducted by you. He exhibited detailed report alongwith annexures vide Ex. PW-4/A (Colly). What you have to say? Answer: The present question does not relate to me. However PW-4 deposed falsely and I have been falsely implicated in this _____________________________________________________________ Digitally signed by CA NO. 360/2017 Jeet Singh Vs. The State GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
PAGE NO. 42 OF 56 2026.01.27 17:14:14 +0530 case."
14.6 Criminal conspiracy is an independent offence and is punishable separately. Prosecution, therefore, must prove the same by applying legal principles which are applicable for the purpose of proving a criminal misconduct on the part of an accused. A criminal conspiracy must be put to action and so long a crime is merely generated in the mind of criminal, it does not become punishable. Thoughts, even criminal in character, often involuntary, are not crimes but when they take concrete shape of an agreement to do or cause to be done an illegal act or an act which is not illegal but by illegal means, then even if nothing further is done, the agreement would give rise to a criminal conspiracy. Condition precedent for holding accused persons guilty of a charge of criminal conspiracy must, therefore, be considered on the anvil of a fact which must be established by prosecution viz. meeting point of two or more persons for doing or causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means. The courts, however, while drawing an inference from materials brought on record to arrive at a finding as to whether the charges of criminal conspiracy have been proved or not, must always bear in mind that a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it is, thus, difficult, if not impossible, to obtain direct evidence to establish the same. The manner and circumstances in which offences have been committed and the level of involvement of accused persons therein _____________________________________________________________ Digitally CA NO. 360/2017 Jeet Singh Vs. The State signed by GEETANJALI PAGE NO. 43 OF 56 GEETANJALI Date:
2026.01.27 17:14:46 +0530 are relevant factors. For the said purpose, it is necessary to prove that propounders had expressly agreed to, or caused to be done illegal act but it may also be proved otherwise by adducing circumstantial evidence and/or by necessary implication.
15. The transaction in the present case is the misuse of blank cheques by cancelling the endorsement on the counterfoils and diverting the said funds to the accounts of firm belonging to accused Gursharan Singh. The cheques were to be used for making payment of annual subscription of some Societies and the amount was not to extend beyond Rs.4000/-. However the blank cheques were manipulated by cancelling the endorsement made in the counterfoils and then used for withdrawing amount more than Rs.4000/- that too for the purpose not authorized by the complainant Company. From the abovesaid it has been proved that those cheques were encashed in the account of concern belonging to accused Gursharan Singh and accused Gursharan Singh has not given any plausible explanation explaining the same. Though it was suggested to complainant PW-2 Ms. Renu Jain that Punjab Travel Makers and Tour Planners were their vendors and they were availing their services personally as well as for the Company but accused Gurusharan Singh has not led any positive evidence to prove the same. In this light, the Ld. Trial Court has rightly held that ..
"10.5.3 Looking at the facts of the case in light of the case law, as regards culpability of accused persons under S. 120 B _____________________________________________________________ CA NO. 360/2017 Jeet Singh Vs. The State Digitally signed by GEETANJALI PAGE NO. 44 OF 56 GEETANJALI Date:
2026.01.27 17:14:52 +0530 IPC, the circumstances which have come to light during the perusal of the oral and documentary evidence are as under:-
(a) Mark-10/4 which was the reply given by Syndicate Bank, whereby 6 pay orders/DD in favour of M/s Punjab Travel Makers & Tour Place were encashed. The said pay orders alongwith the application form Ex. PW9/B-1 to Ex. PW9/B-7 have also been duly proved by the prosecution.
(b) Ex. PW10/7 letter to the Manager, Indian Bank, Sector-22, Faridabad written by the IO to the Bank Manager for clarifications of the receipt of the pay orders.
(c) The original account opening form submitted to the IO by the Indian Bank reflecting that the Company M/s Punjab Travel Makers & Tour Place was being run by accused no. 2.
(d) It stands proved that reflecting that pay orders were directed to be made in favour of Company of accused no.2 by accused no. 1 and it has been duly proved that handwriting over the said cheques/application forms was that of accused no. 1.
10.5.4 Though in cross-examination a suggestion has been made to PW2 that Company of accused no. 2 used to supply him air tickets etc., no documentary proof in this regard could be placed on record by accused no.2. Further, during cross- examination, it has also been brought to light that accused no.2 was an ex-employee of the complainant Company, which fact was not disclosed by the complainant maliciously. Having put such a suggestion, the accused no.1 raised doubts on the bonafides of the complainant Company. However, as nothing cogent could be produced to show as to the reason as to why complainant Company was liable to pay the said amount to the _____________________________________________________________ Digitally CA NO. 360/2017 Jeet Singh Vs. The State signed by GEETANJALI PAGE NO. 45 OF 56 GEETANJALI Date:
2026.01.27 17:14:58 +0530 Company of accused no.2.
xxxxx 10.5.6 Again, it is also not the case of the defence that accused no.2 was not having good relations with his sister and brother-in-law. In fact, the mere fact that his sister i.e. wife of accused no.1 introduced him at the time of opening of the bank account no. 250 in Indian Bank, Faridabad, where the siphoned off amount was deposited reflects that both accused were hand is glove.
10.5.7 Moreover, there is nothing stated by accused nos. 2 with regard to the incriminating evidence against him with regard to transfer of money to his Company except that he had been falsely implicated as he was a relative of accused no.1. On being questioned specifically as regards huge quantum of money transferred to his account, no cogent explanation or oral documentary evidence whatsoever has come forward from accused no. 2 as to why the same was transferred from complainant Company to his Company. In his defence evidence, again accused no. 2 failed to lead oral or documentary evidence with regard to any business relations/ previous dues due to which same was paid to the complainant Company. 10.5.8 In a nut shell, there is nothing on record to indicate that there was any reason that the complainant Company would transfer even a single penny to the Company of accused no. 2.
Moreover, accused no.2 has also failed to explain as to why he did not object to receipts of such payments from the complainant Company. Silence is consent in law. Had he been innocent, he would have certainly refused to accept the _____________________________________________________________ Digitally CA NO. 360/2017 Jeet Singh Vs. The State signed by GEETANJALI PAGE NO. 46 OF 56 GEETANJALI Date:
2026.01.27 17:15:05 +0530 DDs/POs in favour of his Company. That being so, the obvious conclusion is that accused no. 2 was a silent conspirator having complete knowledge of the acts of the accused no.1 and in complicity with the accused no.1 allowed the proceeds of the crimes to be deposited in the bank account of his Company and was an integral part of conspiracy woven by accused no.1 to give a safe and easy outlet to the misappropriated/ cheated amount of money obtained by fraudulent/ dishonest means."
16. One of the ground of challenge is that the Ld. Trial Court despite rejecting the deposition of PW1/Complainant observing that his testimony had little worth and he was not well versed with the affairs of the Company yet convicted the appellant. The complaint in the present case was made by Shri Sunil Sachdeva who was examined as PW-1 and he was the one who initially found mismatch in the cheque amount and the amount of the counterfoil. He nowhere deposed that he is the authorized signatory of the Company or Director of the Company who was required to be well versed in all the affairs of the Company. The complaint made by him just brings the criminal machinery into motion and the allegations made through the complaint has very well been proved by the testimony of PW-2 Ms. Renu Jain and the other witnesses. The case in hand relates to alteration in the cheques and counterfoils qua which PW-2 Ms. Renu Jain has specifically deposed about the manner of alteration. She has very well deposed that accused Jeet Singh was looking after the bank transactions and was used to _____________________________________________________________ Digitally signed by CA NO. 360/2017 Jeet Singh Vs. The State GEETANJALI PAGE NO. 47 OF 56 GEETANJALI Date:
2026.01.27 17:15:18 +0530 be handed over blank signed cheques for making payment towards annual subscription of certain Societies and the amount was to be filled by him which should not exceed Rs.4000/-. She has very well deposed that accused Jeet Singh committed that breach of trust reposed by her and breaching that trust he withdrew huge amount of money from the bank account of the complainant and this he did by cancelling the counterfoils for which the blank signed cheques were handed over and filling the amount beyond Rs.4000/- in the said cheques. Regarding that the Ld. Trial Court has rightly held that :-
"10.1.11 So far as the argument that though complaint was filed by PW1 Sunil Sachdeva, he was having no personal knowledge of the averments made in the same, as he was admittedly not involved in day to day affairs of the Company, the argument looks forceful on the face of it. However, the fact that PW1 was authorized signatory being the adviser of the Company and his authorization has been duly proved as Mark 10/6, I am satisfied that he was authorized to file the complaint Ex PW1/A in his capacity as honorary adviser to the Company as well as authorized representative which he has duly proved. 10.1.12 As regards the factual contents of the complaint, same have been duly deposed by PW2 Renu Jain, director of the Company who has deposed during her evidence that she used to sign the blank cheques and handed them over to the accused no.1. PW1 Sunil Sachdeva and PW3 Jaya krishan, computer operator has deposed on the same lines. So far as PW1 is _____________________________________________________________ Digitally signed by CA NO. 360/2017 Jeet Singh Vs. The State GEETANJALI PAGE NO. 48 OF 56 GEETANJALI Date:
2026.01.27 17:15:24 +0530 concerned, as he has admitted that he was not involved in day to day affairs, his deposition has little worth. However, PW3 Jaya Krishan has duly corroborated the version of PW2 with regard to the entrustment of the blank signed cheques to the accused no.1. Both the witnesses PW2 and PW3 remain firm and unrebutted during their lengthy cross examination and appear trustworthy and reliable."
17. It was further contended that the Ld. Trial Court committed grave error in not appreciating that the bank statement allegedly taken from the Syndicate bank was a copy not even certified under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act or Bankers Book of Evidence Act and was neither exhibited or proved nor even put to the Syndicate Bank witness PW-5 Ms. Manju Bhola and was only marked as Mark 10/2 and 10/5 in the statement of PW-10/IO who stated that he had collected the said copy of statement from the complainant and the bank vide a seizure memo, respectively; that the Ld. Trial Court ought to have held that since the alleged statement Mark 10/2 and 10/5 were never proved, no comparison of it could have been drawn with the alleged forged statement i.e. Ex. PW3/A and hence it could not be established as to which one of the bank statements was correct and what were the discrepancy between the two. It is pertinent to note here that notice given to the Bank thereby supplying original cheques, paying slips and copy of pay order is Ex.PW10/3 and it was on the basis of that notice only the original cheques, pay slips and pay orders were supplied by the _____________________________________________________________ Digitally CA NO. 360/2017 Jeet Singh Vs. The State signed by PAGE NO. 49 OF 56 GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2026.01.27 17:15:30 +0530 Bank. Those original cheques, pay slips and pay orders formed the basis of the present case u/s. 408/467/471 IPC. There is no doubt that the cheques, pay slips and pay orders are in original and the document Ex.PW10/2 as such did not prove anything. Furthermore the notice being sent by IO/PW-10 has very well been proved by him in his evidence. Similarly document Ex.PW10/5 is the letter written to the Bank thereby supplying original account opening form and specimen signature card of Punjab Travel Makers and Tour Planners to prove the forgery and it was on the basis of that letter only the original account opening form and specimen signature card of Punjab Travel Makers and Tour Planners were supplied by the Bank. Those original account opening form and specimen signature card of Punjab Travel Makers and Tour Planners formed the basis of the present case u/s. 408/467/471 IPC. There is no doubt that the original account opening form and specimen signature card of Punjab Travel Makers and Tour Planners are in original and the document Ex.PW10/5 as such did not prove anything. Furthermore the notice being sent by IO/PW-10 has very well been proved by him in his evidence. Henceforth, the Ld. Trial Court has rightly held that:-
"10.1.27 Further, the argument that bank statement Mark 10/5 seized by the 10 has not been duly proved as they are neither certified copies under the Banker's Book Evidence Act nor annexed with certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act, nor the person who has prepared the same has _____________________________________________________________ Digitally signed by CA NO. 360/2017 Jeet Singh Vs. The State GEETANJALI PAGE NO. 50 OF 56 GEETANJALI Date:
2026.01.27 17:15:36 +0530 been examined. To my mind, once it is duly proved that said account statement was seized from the bank by the IO it is sufficient to rely upon it. No suggestion has been given to the effect that the statement was not seized from the bank. Moreover, the fact that it has been duly proved and amounts corresponding to 19 cheques were withdrawn/ transferred and FSL report in this regard has been duly proved, and so has audit report ExPW4/A been proved, reflects that there was misappropriation and therefore, proving of statement of bank account becomes a mere formality and does not mar the case of the prosecution."
18. It was further contended that the Ld. Trial Court failed to notice that PW2/Mrs. Renu Jain admitted in her cross dated 26.03.2011 that if the dues were not paid to any foreign organization they receive the demand letter then why no demand letter was given to IO or produced in the Court if the cheques meant for foreign organizations did not reach them and were misused by the appellant but the Ld. Trial Court completely ignored this important defence. It is pertinent to note here that the issue involved in the present case is manipulation and alterations by the accused Jeet Singh in the blank signed cheques assigned to him during usual course of his duties and it has no where been contended by the defence that the purpose for which the blank signed cheques were handed over to accused Jeet Singh was farce. Secondly, defence has not produced anything to belie the case of _____________________________________________________________ CA NO. 360/2017 Jeet Singh Vs. The State PAGE NO. 51 OF 56 Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:2026.01.27 17:15:43 +0530
the Prosecution that the cheques were issued for paying subscription of the foreign organizations. Hence this ground has no force.
19. It is further contended from the side of the accused that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that all the cheques were duly signed by authorized signatory i.e. PW2/Mrs Renu Jain out of which nine were used by her for withdrawal of cash through self cheques and once it was established that said cheques were signed by herself no criminality could be attached with respect to nature of transactions and thus the trial court wrongly held that the appellant induced the bank by presenting the said cheques and committed the offence of cheating. Regarding that the Ld. Trial Court has rightly reasoned that:-
"10.1.26 Further, the cheque in question was signed on both sides reflecting that the amount qua the 'self' cheques was withdrawn by Smt. Renu Jain personally. The argument has no force as it is common knowledge that bearer cheques are signed on both sides before being handed to the employee in order to acknowledge receipt of money. However, the fact that the sign of accused no.1 were also found at two places on each of the cheques reflects that money in question was handed to him."
20. It is further contended that a perusal of the complaint would show that everywhere in relations to the cheques in question the complainant PW1 alleged that accused Jeet Singh forged the signatures of PW2 Mrs. _____________________________________________________________ Digitally signed by CA NO. 360/2017 Jeet Singh Vs. The State GEETANJALI PAGE NO. 52 OF 56 GEETANJALI Date:
2026.01.27 17:15:49 +0530 Renu Jain whereas in deposition both the witnesses stated that the cheques in question Ex. PW2/A1 to A18 bear the signatures of Mrs. Renu Jain both on the front and back side including seal of the Company. Though it is correct that initially it was alleged that accused Jeet Singh forged the signatures as well of PW-2 Ms. Renu Jain which was later on corrected by saying that the signatures on the cheques are not forged and this has been well explained by PW-2 during cross examination that "signatures are forged by the accused but later on when all the accounts documents were gone through, I found that he used some blank cheques duly signed by me and forged statement of accounts." This contention too has been well dealt by the Ld. Trial Court that:-
"10.1.13 In this context, it has been vehemently argued by ld. Counsel for the accused no. 1 that the complainant had alleged that her signatures had been forged on the cheques by the accused no.1. However, she took a U-turn during her deposition in the court and stated on oath that blank cheques signed by her had been handed over to the accused for daily transactions of the Company, with the instructions that same be filled according to the fluctuating rate of foreign currency subject to the balance in the bank account. Hence, in view of her changing stands, she was totally unreliable and untrustworthy.
10.1.14 am not convinced with the aforesaid argument of the ld. Counsel for the accused as the complainant in her initial complaint in Ex. PW1/A had categorically stated in Para-2 of _____________________________________________________________ Digitally signed CA NO. 360/2017 Jeet Singh Vs. The State by GEETANJALI PAGE NO. 53 OF 56 GEETANJALI Date:
2026.01.27 17:15:55 +0530 the same that on some of the cheques, her signatures had been forged while some blank cheques had been signed in good faith by her, meaning thereby that even in her complaint she had expressed that there might be misuse of signed blank cheques, which had been handed over to the accused. Hence, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that accused had taken a somersault or a divergent stand during her deposition. At the most, a simultaneous reading of the complaint and the testimony reveals that on coming to know of the discrepancies in the accounts, the Director rushed to the conclusion that her signatures on the cheques had been forged, there being a time gap of almost two years between misuse of cheques and same coming in her knowledge. However, at the time of her testimony, she deposed that all the cheques in question had indeed been signed by her and accused no.1 was guilty of writing wrong details/ amounts in violation of the instructions given to him. Hence, the argument bears no force and is dismissed."
21. Coming to the order on sentence dated 21.08.2017, whereby the appellant/convict Jeet Singh was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years for offence u/s. 408 IPC and fine of Rs.25 lacs and in default to undergo SI for one year. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years for offence u/s. 467 IPC and fine of Rs. 25 lacs and in default to undergo SI for one year. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of _____________________________________________________________ Digitally signed by CA NO. 360/2017 Jeet Singh Vs. The State GEETANJALI PAGE NO. 54 OF 56 GEETANJALI Date:
2026.01.27 17:16:03 +0530 Rs.25 lacs for offence u/s. 471 IPC and in default to undergo SI for one year. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 25 lacs for offence u/s. 420 IPC and in default to undergo SI for one year. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 50 lacs for offence u/s. 120-B IPC and in default to undergo SI for two years.
22. In view of the aforesaid findings, since conviction u/s. 420 IPC has been set aside the sentence qua the same does not survive and same is accordingly set aside. Now coming to the other sections, the Ld. Trial Court has duly considered the mitigating circumstances and did not impose highest of the sentence qua imprisonment, same is hereby upheld. However sentence qua fine does not stand in view of the patent illegality as imposed much beyond the jurisdiction of the Ld. Trial Court. In view of the same, sentence is hereby modified to the extent that appellant/ convict Jeet Singh is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years for offence u/s. 408 IPC and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo SI for three months. He is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years for offence u/s. 467 IPC and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo SI for three months. He is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- for offence u/s. 471 IPC and in default to undergo SI for three months. He is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.10,000/- for _____________________________________________________________ Digitally signed CA NO. 360/2017 Jeet Singh Vs. The State by GEETANJALI PAGE NO. 55 OF 56 GEETANJALI Date:
2026.01.27 17:16:12 +0530 offence u/s. 120-B IPC and in default to undergo SI for three months. All sentences shall run concurrently. Benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C. be also given to the appellant/convict Jeet Singh. It is made clear that fine so imposed be paid as compensation to the complainant.
23. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is partly allowed and partly dismissed. The appeal is accordingly disposed off.
24. File be consigned to record room as per rules.
Digitally
Typed to the direct dictation and signed by
GEETANJALI
announced in the open court GEETANJALI Date:
2026.01.27
on this 27th day of January, 2026 17:16:18
+0530
(Geetanjali)
Addl. Session Judge(FTC)-03
South East District, Saket Courts,
New Delhi/27.01.2026
_____________________________________________________________ CA NO. 360/2017 Jeet Singh Vs. The State PAGE NO. 56 OF 56