Delhi District Court
State vs . Ramesh Kumar on 22 August, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SUGANDHA AGGARWAL,
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (WEST),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
FIR No. 382/2003
PS Janak Puri (AntiForgery Section, EOW)
U/s 406/420/467/468/471/120B IPC
State Vs. Ramesh Kumar
Unique Case ID No. 02401R1381302002
JUDGMENT
(a) Sr. No. of the case 1031/2
(b) Date of offence(s) 2002
(c) Complainant Shri S.L. Sharma
(d) Accused Ramesh Kumar, Son of Late Shri Laxman, Resident
of House No. M320, Shakurpur, J.J. Colony,
Delhi.
(e) Offence(s) under Sections 420, 468 and 471 read with Section
120B of The Indian Penal Code, 1860.
(f) Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty.
(g) Final Order Acquitted
(h) Date of institution 22.12.2007
(i) Date when judgment 10.07.2015
was reserved
(j) Date of judgment 22.08.2015
1. This judgment shall decide the case filed under Section 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code (herein after referred as IPC) FIR No.382/2003 State Vs. Ramesh Kumar Page No.1 to 13 against the accused.
2. The facts as alleged in the chargesheet are that Office of EOW, Crime Branch received a complaint from Shri S.L. Sharma who was the Chief Manager of Punjab National Bank. It was alleged in the complaint that a group of persons namely Vivek Bhatia, Lokesh Bhatia both S/o Yashpal Bhatia, Shobhna Bhatia W/o Lokesh Bhatia, Ramesh Bhatia W/o Yashpal Bhatia and Yashpal Bhatia S/o Late Shri R.L. Bhatia are approaching various branches of the bank for raising car loans in their names on the basis of fake documents. It is further alleged that the said persons are availing loan facility for same second hand vehicle from more than one branch of the bank after preparing forged documents. In this manner above mentioned persons have cheated the bank. All the loan accounts are irregular and the post dated cheques issued by them have been returned without encashment for different reasons. Particulars of various such cars have also been given in the complaint by the complainant. It is further averred in the chargesheet that during investigation various documents were collected and seized, statement of witnesses were recorded and expert opinion was obtained on certain documents. After investigation it was concluded that there is sufficient material to proceed against all the accused under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC. However during investigation accused Vivek Bhatia, Lokesh Bhatia, Shobhna Bhatia, Ramesh Bhatia and Yashpal Bhatia were declared Proclaimed Offenders. Hence the present chargesheet has been filed alleging offences under FIR No.382/2003 State Vs. Ramesh Kumar Page No.2 to 13 Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC against the accused Ramesh Kumar.
3. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed. Copies were supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Charges for offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 120B of IPC was framed against the accused vide order dated 28.02.2011 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case prosecution has examined bank officials of various branches of Punjab National Bank and the police officials who have participated in the investigation of the present case.
5. PW 1 Shri S.L. Sharma was the Chief Manager of Punjab National Bank, Mall Road Branch, New Delhi. He has deposed that he had made a complaint of Cheating and forgery against accused persons namely Vivek Bhatia, Lokesh Bhatia, Shobhna Bhatia, Ramesh Bhatia and Yashpal Bhatia. He has further deposed that said accused persons were approaching various branches of their bank for raising car loans on the basis of fake documents. PW 1 has further given details of the cars with the name of the model and registration number for which the accused persons have applied for loan in his branch. PW 1 has identified his complaint as Ex. PW 1/A bearing his signatures at point A. PW 1 was not cross examined by accused Ramesh Kumar and discharged as remaining accused persons were declared Proclaimed Offenders.
6. PW 2 Inspector Virender Singh Chouhan has deposed that on 23.11.2003 FIR No.382/2003 State Vs. Ramesh Kumar Page No.3 to 13 he was posted at Anti Forgery Section, EOW, Crime Branch, New Delhi. On that day he was entrusted with the investigation of the present case. During investigation he collected various documents and recorded the statement of witnesses. PW 2 has further identified the seizure memos vide which he has seized the documents and also his signatures on the same. PW 2 was not cross examined by accused Ramesh Kumar and discharged as remaining accused persons were declared Proclaimed Offenders.
7. PW 3 Shri S.P. Lamba was working as Senior Manager, Punjab National Bank, Moti Bagh Branch on 30.06.2005. He has deposed that he handed over two original cheques bearing number 112062 dated 15.07.2002 for Rs. 3,60,000/ drawn in favour of BPL Pvt. Ltd. and another bearing No. 509423 dated 17.10.2002 for Rs. 3,97,000/ drawn in favour of Ramesh Kumar to the police which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW 3/A. PW 3 has identified the said cheque as Ex. PW 3/B and Ex. PW 3/C. PW 3 was not cross examined by accused Ramesh Kumar and discharged as remaining accused persons were declared Proclaimed Offenders.
8. PW 4, Shri R.B. Bansal was working as Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Nangal Rai Branch on 07.07.2003. He has deposed that on 26.10.2002 Lokesh Bhatia S/o Yashpal Bhatia has had applied for a car loan for purchasing a Maruti Esteem Car Bearing No. DL9CE 3694. Shri Ramesh Kumar S/o S.P. Singh was seller of the car and Shri Yashpal Bhatia stood as the guarantor. Loan application cum sanction form dated 26.10.2002 was executed. PW 4 has deposed that accused Lokesh Bhatia has cheated their bank to the tune of Rs. 4,20,000/ in the said transaction. FIR No.382/2003 State Vs. Ramesh Kumar Page No.4 to 13 PW 4 has identified the copies of all the documents pertaining to the said transaction. PW 4 has further deposed regarding the loan applications made by accused persons for other cars and have also identified copy of documents pertaining to the said loan transactions. PW 4 was cross examined by accused Ramesh Kumar and discharged as remaining accused persons were declared Proclaimed Offenders.
9. PW 5 Shri Rajeev Bhatia was working as Deputy Manager, Punjab National Bank, Janakpuri Branch in the year 2002. PW 5 deposed regarding the loan applications made by accused persons for other cars and have also identified copy of documents pertaining to the said loan transactions. PW 5 was not cross examined by accused Ramesh Kumar and discharged as remaining accused persons were declared Proclaimed Offenders.
10.PW 6 Shri Roshan Baliar Singh who was working as Deputy Manager, HDFC Bank, Vasant Vihar Branch has identified the account statement of accused Vivek Bhatia and all the documents such as account opening form etc. pertaining to the said account. PW 6 was not cross examined by accused Ramesh Kumar and discharged as remaining accused persons were declared Proclaimed Offenders.
11.PW 7 Shri Yogesh Kumar Kalra was working as Computer Operator at Punjab National Bank, Moti Bagh Branch in the year 2003. He has deposed that one agreement to sell dated 10.10.2002 was executed between Ramesh Kumar S/o S.P. Singh and accused Lokesh Bhatia for Maruti Esteem Car bearing No. DL 9CE 3694 which has been identified as Ex. PW FIR No.382/2003 State Vs. Ramesh Kumar Page No.5 to 13 7/A. PW 7 has identified the copies of all the documents pertaining to the said transaction. PW 7 has further deposed regarding the loan applications made by accused persons for other cars and have also identified copy of documents pertaining to the said loan transactions. PW 7 was cross examined by accused Ramesh Kumar and discharged as remaining accused persons were declared Proclaimed Offenders.
12.PW 8 Retd. SI Raj Pal was working as Duty Officer on 07.07.2013 and has identified the copy of the FIR as Ex. PW 8/A bearing his signatures at point A. PW 9 Navjyot Khanna, Manager Operations, Royal Bank of Scotland, DLF, Cyber Greens, Gurgaon, Haryana has deposed that the details of account statement of accused Vivek Bhatia was given to the Investigation Officer, copy of which has been identified as Ex. PW 9/A, Ex. PW 9/B1 to B7, Ex. PW 9/C1 to C8 and Ex. PW 9/D1 to D15 pertaining to different periods. PW 9 identified signatures of Mr. Kapil Mathur on all the said statement at point A. PW 8 and PW 9 were not cross examined by accused Ramesh Kumar and discharged as remaining accused persons were declared Proclaimed Offenders.
13.PW 10 Retd. Inspector Hanuman Dan is the second IO in the present case. He has deposed that after collecting the documents accused Ramesh Kumar was arrested on 29.07.2005 vide arrest memo Ex. PW 10/E and his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex. PW 10/F both bearing his signatures at point A. He further deposed that he has taken the specimen signatures of accused Ramesh Kumar S/o Shri Laxman and Ramesh Kumar S/o Shri S.P. Singh. The said signatures were sent to FSL FIR No.382/2003 State Vs. Ramesh Kumar Page No.6 to 13 alongwith questioned signatures on the documents which were seized during investigation. PW 10 was cross examined by accused Ramesh Kumar and discharged as remaining accused persons were declared Proclaimed Offenders.
14.PW 12 HC Jawahar Lal has joined the investigation with Inspector Hanuman Dan. He has deposed that accused Ramesh Kumar was arrested from his house and his personal search was conducted. Disclosure statement of the accused was recorded which is Ex. PW 12/A. PC remand was taken from the Court however nothing could be recovered at the instance of the accused during PC remand. PW 12 was not cross examined by accused Ramesh Kumar and discharged as remaining accused persons were declared Proclaimed Offenders.
15.PW 13 Retd. Inspector Ashok Kumar has deposed that on 14.05.2003 he received a complaint from the Senior Manager of Punjab National Bank. He made an endorsement on the same and got the FIR registered. Subsequently, the investigation was marked to Inspector V.S. Chouhan. PW 2 Inspector Virender Singh Chouhan has deposed that on 23.11.2003 he was posted at Anti Forgery Section, EOW, Crime Branch, New Delhi. On that day he was entrusted with the investigation of the present case. During investigation he collected various documents and recorded the statement of witnesses. PW 2 has further identified the seizure memos vide which he has seized the documents and also his signatures on the same. PW 10 Retd. Inspector Hanuman Dan had further conducted the investigation in the present case. He has deposed that after collecting the documents FIR No.382/2003 State Vs. Ramesh Kumar Page No.7 to 13 accused Ramesh Kumar was arrested on 29.07.2005 vide arrest memo Ex. PW 10/E and his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex. PW 10/F both bearing his signatures at point A. He further deposed that he has taken the specimen signatures of accused Ramesh Kumar S/o Shri Laxman and Ramesh Kumar S/o Shri S.P. Singh. The said signatures were sent to FSL alongwith questioned signatures on the documents which were seized during investigation. PW 11 Inspector Sameer Srivastav is the subsequent IO in the present case. After making efforts to trace other accused persons he has filed the present chargesheet in the Court. PW 2 and 10 were cross examined by the accused and discharged. PW 11 and PW 13 were not cross examined despite opportunity and discharged. Remaining accused persons were Proclaimed Offeners.
16.After closure of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Incriminating evidence was put to accused. He denied all the allegations and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Accused did not opt to lead any evidence in his defence. Hence defence evidence was closed.
17.Final arguments heard on behalf of both the parties.
18.Ld. APP has argued that all the prosecution witnesses have deposed against the accused. Accused Ramesh Kumar is the beneficiary of the loan amount disbursed by the bank as he received the same in his account. Lateron, he had withdrawn the said amount and shared the same with the coaccused FIR No.382/2003 State Vs. Ramesh Kumar Page No.8 to 13 persons. Ld. APP has further argued that the FSL report also prove the guilt of the accused.
19.Per contra, Ld. Defence counsel has argued that the present accused Ramesh Kumar was not named in the complaint Ex. PW1/A. He has never applied for any loan. The present accused is not the owner of any of the vehicle including Maruti Esteem Car bearing no. D9 CE 3694. It is further argued that as per the FSL report also the signature on agreement to sell and all other documents are of Ramesh Kumar S/o Sh. S. P. Singh and not of the present accused. Hence, accused shall be acquitted.
20.I have considered the rival contentions and perused the record.
21.In the present case, six accused persons were charge sheeted initially. However, as five accused persons were declared proclaimed offender, only present accused has been facing trial. As per the allegations of prosecution, the present accused was involved in taking loan from the bank in respect of only one vehicle ie., Maruti Esteem Car bearing no. D9 CE 3694. Though, there are numerous other vehicles involved but as the other accused persons have been declared proclaimed offender, no finding is given for the said loan transaction.
22.Numerous bank officials have been examined by the prosecution. However, any of the prosecution witnesses except PW4 and PW7 have not deposed about the loan for Maruti Esteem Car bearing no. D9 CE 3694. Hence, the testimony of the said bank officials is not relevant at this stage for deciding the present case. Accused Ramesh Kumar has been charged for the offences U/s. 120B, 420, 468 and 471 IPC wherein it has been stated FIR No.382/2003 State Vs. Ramesh Kumar Page No.9 to 13 that he had cheated the bank by taking loan on the same second hand vehicle Maruti Esteem Car bearing no. D9 CE 3694 from more than one branch. As per the testimony of PW4, the Punjab National Bank, Nangal Rai Branch, Delhi has disbursed loan in favour of Lokesh Bhatia for vehicle ie., Maruti Esteem Car bearing no. D9 CE 3694. It is further deposed by PW4 that one Ramesh Kumar was the owner of the said vehicle to whom Pay Order was issued. It is also stated that the payment of the loan amount was made to said Ramesh Kumar. However, during cross examination PW4 has identified the registration certificate of said car as Ex. PW4/S where name of the owner was mentioned as Ramesh Kumar S/o Sh. S. P. Singh. It is further deposed by PW4 in his cross examination that the accused Ramesh Kumar is not the same person who has done the deal and received the loan amount from their bank. Another witness who has been examined with respect to vehicle Maruti Esteem Car bearing no. D9 CE 3694 is PW7. PW7 has also deposed that as per their reports one Ramesh Kumar S/o Sh. S. P. Singh was the owner of the said vehicle and has received the loan amount. Hence, from the testimonies of these witnesses it is clear that accused persons have taken loan from more than one branch for the same vehicle ie., Maruti Esteem Car bearing no. D9 CE 3694. However, the owner of the said vehicle was one Ramesh Kumar S/o Sh. S. P. Singh and not the present accused. The said fact is also clear from the perusal of R. C. Of the said vehicle ie., Ex. PW4/S.
23.AS per the case of the prosecution, present accused was employed with the remaining accused persons and received the loan amount in his account. It FIR No.382/2003 State Vs. Ramesh Kumar Page No.10 to 13 is further stated that the present accused in conspiracy with other accused had knowingly entered into loan transaction from more than one branch for the same vehicle. The fact that present accused was an employee of the remaining five accused persons and the loan amount was deposited in his account has been admitted by the accused in his statement u/s. 313 Code of Criminal Procedure. However, as per the defence of the accused, he had no knowledge of the fraud committed by other accused persons. He was merely asked to sign certain papers which he was under the obligation to sign being their employee. Now in the present circumstances, onus was on the prosecution to prove that it was the present accused who had received the pay order from the bank and deposited the amount in his account with the knowledge of the entire transaction. However, the original agreement to sell, receipt, pay order and all other original documents in respect of loan transaction of vehicle ie., Maruti Esteem Car bearing no. D9 CE 3694 bearing signatures of Ramesh Kumar was sent for examination to the FSL. The FSL report dated 30.09.2005 has categorically stated that signatures of Ramesh Kumar on these documents are of Ramesh Kumar S/o Sh. S. P. Singh and not of Ramesh Kumar ie., the present accused. Hence, from the FSL report it is clear that the loan documents were not signed by the present accused.
24.It is the settled law that in order to prove the guilt of the accused u/s. 420 IPC prior dishonest intention has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, it is clear from the testimony of PW4 and the FSL report that present accused Ramesh Kumar had not entered into loan transaction FIR No.382/2003 State Vs. Ramesh Kumar Page No.11 to 13 with the bank. He has stated that he has received the amount in his account at the direction of other accused persons being their employee. Hence there is a plausible explanation as to why loan amount was received by present accused in his account. Accordingly, prosecution has failed to prove prior dishonest intention on part of present accused Ramesh and therefore he cannot be held guilty for the offence under Section 420 IPC.
25.With respect to offences under Section 468 and 471 IPC, it has to be proved that accused has committed forgery and has used the said forged documents for the purpose of cheating. As discussed above, the present accused Ramesh cannot be held guilty for the offence of cheating. Further, even for the offence of forgery, there is not even, an iota of evidence on record against the present accused. As per the FSL report all the documents have been signed by Ramesh S/o Sh. S P Singh who was the registered owner of vehicle Maruti Esteem Car bearing no. D9 CE 3694. What are the other documents with respect to which accused has committed forgery has not been explained by the prosecution. Hence, accused cannot be held guilty for the above mentioned offences.
26.For the reason stated above, it cannot be said that accused with the prior intention entered into conspiracy with other accused persons for the purpose of cheating and forgery. Hence, no offence is made out under Section 120B IPC also.
27.Accordingly, accused is acquitted for the offences under Section 120B, 420, 468 and 471 IPC.
28.At request of the accused his bail bonds already on record are extended for FIR No.382/2003 State Vs. Ramesh Kumar Page No.12 to 13 the purpose of Section 437(A) of Code of Criminal Procedure for a period of one month or till final of the appeal whichever is earlier. Announced in the open Court on August, 22, 2015.
(SUGANDHA AGGARWAL) CMM (WEST), DELHI FIR No.382/2003 State Vs. Ramesh Kumar Page No.13 to 13