Delhi District Court
Vinod Kumar @ Vinod Gautam @ Manni vs Cbi on 19 November, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJEEV KUMARII,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE5, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 503/ 2017
IN THE MATTER OF:
Vinod Kumar @ Vinod Gautam @ Manni
Son of Sh. Dharam Prakash
R/o 14/2 Bhogal Lane,
Bhogal Jangpura, New Delhi14 .........Appellant
Versus
CBI ........Respondent
Through Standing Counsel
Instituted on : 20.12.2017
Reserved on : 27.09.2018
Pronounced on : 19.11.2018
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been preferred under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Code') as the appellantconvict is aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction dated 20.10.2017 CA No. 503/2017 Vinod Kumar v. CBI Page 1 of 16 and order on sentence dated 17.11.2017 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, SouthEast District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in RC No. 15 (E)/2016, under Section 419,420,471 and 473 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the "IPC"), titled as "CBI Vs. Vinod Kumar @Vinod Gautam@ Manni" whereby appellantaccused was convicted for the offences under Sections 420,471 and 473 IPC and he was sentenced to the rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years alongwith fine of Rs.20,000/ for the offence punishable under section 420 IPC. Appellant was also sentenced to the rigorous imprisonment for the period of two years alongwith fine of Rs. 5,000/ for the offence under Section 471 IPC. Appellant was also sentenced to the rigorous imprisonment for the period of two years alongwith fine of Rs. 5,000/ for the offence under Section 473 IPC. In default of payment of fine the appellant was directed to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Benefits of Section 428 of the Code was also directed to be given to the appellant.
2. Brief facts as mentioned in chargesheet are that instant case RC. 221/2016/E0015/CBI/EOIII/Delhi dated 15.06.2016 was registered against accused/appellant Vinod Kumar under section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC on the complaint dated 15.06.2016 of Sushil Dewan, Inspector, EO.III, CBI, Delhi. It was alleged in the FIR that appellant impersonated as an officer of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) CA No. 503/2017 Vinod Kumar v. CBI Page 2 of 16 and by doing so he cheated Saurav Verma & his father Amit Verma to the tune of Rs. 80,000/ in the name of arranging a job for Saurav Verma in CBI and by doing so, he provided forged identity card and offer letter of CBI in the name of Saurav Verma. During investigation, it was revealed that appellant during the period of August 2015 to June 2016 by impersonating as a CBI officer cheated various persons in the name of arranging jobs for them in CBI to the tune of Rs.2.27 Lacs on the basis of bogus and forged documents. Investigation further revealed that the appellant impersonated as a CBI Officer and deceived one Amit Verma into believing that through his influence, he would arrange a job for his son Saurav Verma as computer operator in CBI for a sum of Rs.80,000/. In order to convince Amit Verma, appellant handed over a forged offer letter purported to have been issued by Sh. MK Bhattcharjee, Special Judge, CBI, Guwahati, New Delhi, Chairman, Selection Board. Appellant also handed over a forged identity card of CBI in the name of son of Amit Verma namely Saurav Verma showing him as computer operator. For impersonating as CBI Officer, appellant initially got prepared a forged identity card of CBI in his name as a Computer Operator Officer in CBI. During the course of investigation, residential premises of appellant was searched which resulted in seizure of a number of incriminating documents such as identity documents, educational qualification, vehicle registrations, filled up SSC forms, handwritten letter to CBI etc.. Apart from Amit Verma, seven other victims were also cheated by CA No. 503/2017 Vinod Kumar v. CBI Page 3 of 16 appellant on the pretext of arranging job for them in CBI. In order to cheat victims, the appellant provided forged identity card to four victims showing their appointment/engagement in CBI. Similarly, forged offer letters were given to five victims showing their appointment in CBI. The identity cards and offer letters were found to be forged. The appellant was also found in possession of a rubber stamp of PP Jangpura, New Delhi in an unauthorized manner, the possession of which was not accounted for by him. The possession of the same was for the purpose of committing forgery of documents. The forged identity cards in the name of CBI of appellant was used by him for obtaining the sim card from the Airtel.
3. After investigation, police report/chargesheet was filed against the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 419,467,468,471 and 473 IPC. By order dated 18.07.2016, charge for the offences under Section 419,420,471 and 473 IPC was framed against the appellant.
4. The prosecution/respondent examined twenty one witnesses, namely, PW1 Amit Verma, PW2 Saurabh Verma, PW3 Mohd Anwar, PW4 Ashish Verma, PW5 Taj Mohd., PW6 Rohit Madan, PW7 Assistant SubInspector Bharat Singh, PW8 Dheeraj Kumar, PW9 Nawin Kumar, PW10 Mohd. Samad, PW11 Prateek Gupta, PW12 Prince Sharma, PW13 Sonu Basista, PW14 Manoj Kumar, PW15 Varun Bharti, PW16 Surender Kumar, Nodal Officer, PW17 CA No. 503/2017 Vinod Kumar v. CBI Page 4 of 16 Sushil Dewan, Inspector CBI, PW18 S L Bhatia, PW19 Karandeep Singh, PW20 Lucky Kumar Mahant & PW21 Sub Inspector Charandeep. Statement of accused/appellant under section 313 of the Code was recorded by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 14.12.2016 wherein he stated that he was falsely implicated by IO/CBI at the instance of Amit Verma.
5. Shri G. B. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that there are several contradictions in the deposition of public witnesses. The public persons who are stated to have been cheated by the appellant, have not filed any complaint. The investigation officer had not verified the facts by going in the home of the complainant. Photocopies of documents have been filed and original document has not been filed. All the prosecution witnesses have contradicted to each other on one or other point. There are no proof that appellant had taken the money from the public witnesses. Appellant is in custody and there is no other criminal case against him except the present one. Age of appellant is 25 years and he can be released on probation. Appellant is having good conduct during the custody of the present case and in this regard he has been appreciated by the Jail Authority and therefore he may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him, if he is not acquitted.
6. Shri Navneet Jawa, learned Public Prosecutor for CBI/Respondent has opposed the appeal stating that the case of the CA No. 503/2017 Vinod Kumar v. CBI Page 5 of 16 prosecution has been fully supported by the public witnesses. Appellant had taken Rs.80,000/ from the PW1 on the pretext of providing a job to his son in CBI. PW1 Amit Verma had introduced the appellant to PW4 Ashish Verma. PW5 Taj Mohd. is the school friend of the appellant who was also cheated by the appellant and from him appellant demanded Rs.2.50 Lacs for getting him a job (driver) in CBI. The learned Trial Court had rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant and therefore, appeal may be dismissed.
7. PW1 Amit Kumar Verma has deposed that accused Vinod Kumar who used to live in the Bhogal area near to his shop, came to him during the month of AugustSeptember 2015 and told him that he is working in CBI and shown his identity card in his name issued by CBI to him and after discussion he told further that he can arrange the job for his son in CBI in a legal manner and demanded Rs.80,000/ for preparation of certain documents etc. He further deposed that accused asked for payment for the different reasons and in total he took Rs. 80,000/ from him on the pretext of arranging a government job in CBI for his son. He further deposed that accused handed over him one identity card in the name of his son Saurabh Verma and offer letter for joining CBI on 10.05.2016. He further deposed that on 10.05.2016 accused took his son and some other aspirants to CBI HQ and told them to wait outside the CBI building and thereafter accused himself entered the CBI building and came back after some time and informed CA No. 503/2017 Vinod Kumar v. CBI Page 6 of 16 them that his boss is not available today and joining process will be done on some other day. Hence, it is clear from deposition of PW1 that he has fully supported the case of prosecution. He has also identified the identity card (Ex. PW1/A) shown by the accused to him, on the basis of which he gained his confidence and convinced him that he is a CBI Officer and working under the designation of Computer Operator Officer. He also identified CBI Card (Ex.PW1/C) issued in the name of his son Saurabh Verma by accused and same was handed over to him by accused. He also identified offer letter (Ex.PW1/D) issued in the name of his son Saurabh Verma and same was handed over to him by accused. Nothing has come in crossexamination of this witness which is against the case of prosecution. In cross examination, PW1 has admitted the suggestion that accused had given identity card and offer letter issued by CBI in the name of his said son in his presence at his house.
8. PW2 Saurabh Verma is son of PW1 who has corroborated the version of his father (PW1). He deposed also that accused duped them by showing his identity card of CBI and given him a similar identity card of CBI alongwith offer letter of appointment of CBI. He deposed also that on instruction of accused, he filled certain documents/forms for job in CBI. He corroborated the factum of taking him in CBI office by accused for joining purpose. He also identified identity card (Ex.PW1/A) and offer letter (Ex.PW1/D). He also CA No. 503/2017 Vinod Kumar v. CBI Page 7 of 16 identified identity card (Ex.PW2/A) issued on his name by CBI. In crossexamination, he stated that he visited CBI office last time on 10.05.2016 alongwith Ashish Verma, Rohit Madan and Taj Mohd alongwith accused.
9. PW3 Mohd. Anwar is father of PW10 Mohd. Samad and they also supported the case of prosecution. PW3 has deposed that during his visit to Amit Kumar Verma (PW1), he met accused and he introduced himself as a CBI Officer and working in CBI under the capacity of computer operator. He was also cheated by accused saying that he can arrange job for his son in CBI and for this he has to pay money. He was also shown identity card (Ex. PW1/A) by accused to win his confidence. Accused had taken Rs. 20.000/ approximately from him. Accused had given him an identity card (Ex. PW3/A) issued by CBI in the name of his son Mohd. Samad. Accused had also handed over one appointment letter/offer letter dated 16.04.2016 in name of his said son and same has been identified by PW3 as Ex.PW3/B. PW10 Mohd. Samad has also identified identity card (Ex. PW3/A) and appointment letter/offer letter (Ex.PW3/B). PW6 Rohit Madan was also cheated by accused with same modes operandi. He also paid Rs. 20,000/ to accused for getting job in CBI. Offer letter dated 04.04.2016 and identity card in name PW6 are Mark X1 and Mark X4 respectively. He has also identified identity card of accused (Ex.PW1/A) pertaining to CBI which was shown to him by accused.
CA No. 503/2017 Vinod Kumar v. CBI Page 8 of 16PW12 Prince Sharma has also deposed that accused gave him SSC application form (Ex.PW12/A) for getting job in CBI. He further deposed that he paid accused approximately Rs. 5,000/ for the documentation purpose and challan. He also identified accused. PW15 Varun Bharti was also told by accused regarding his job in CBI and arranging job for him in CBI. He was also shown identity card (Ex.PW1/A) by accused to show that he is working in CBI. On asking by accused, mother of PW15 had paid Rs. 5,000/ to accused. PW19 Karandeep Singh has also deposed regarding cheating committed by accused with him for getting job for him in SSC and taking Rs. 20,000/ for arranging job from him.
10. PW4 Ashish Verma and PW5 Taj Mohd. were also cheated by accused to get them a job of driver in CBI. They both were also shown by the accused his identity card (Ex. PW1/A). Accused had given an identity card issued by CBI in name of PW4 and same has been identified by PW4 as Ex. PW4/A. PW4 has also identified appointment letter (Ex.PW4/C) issued by CBI and handed over by accused. Accused took approximately Rs. 50,000/from PW4 on different reasons as challan fees etc. Accused had given an identity card issued by CBI in name of PW5 and same has been identified by PW5 as Ex. PW5/B. PW5 has also identified joining letter (Ex.PW5/C) issued by CBI and handed over by accused. Accused took approximately Rs. 30,000/from PW5. PW20 Lucky Kumar CA No. 503/2017 Vinod Kumar v. CBI Page 9 of 16 Mahant has also supported the case of prosecution stating that he had given statement under Section 164 of the Code on 22.06.2016 vide Ex.PW20/A; that at New Friends Colony, accused showed him his ID Card (Ex. PW1/A) and told him that he works in CBI in Verification Department and he handed over a letter and asked him to give this letter to one Anil and thereafter, he handed that letter to Anil.
11. PW18 S L Bhatia had worked in ADI Section, Head Office, CBI. He has clearly deposed that confidential letter Ex. PW18/A written to SP of CBI EOIII for investigation of this case was typed by him on the instruction of Senior Officer Sh. Pankaj Singh, SP, HQ, CBI. He identified his signature and signature of Sh. Pankaj Singh on the said letter. That letter required information sought by CBI EOIII whether the identity card in respect of the persons were received by the CBI Authority or the same was forged. It was replied by SP, HQ with remarks that these cards were not issued by the CBI and are not in conformity with approved CBI access control room / authority. There is nothing against the case of prosecution / CBI in the cross examination of this witness. On the basis of testimony of this witness learned Trial Court has rightly held that documents ie., Ex. PW1/C, Ex. PW3/A, Ex. PW4/A, Ex. PW5/B, Ex. PW1/D, Ex. PW3/B, Ex. PW4/C and Ex. PW5/C were forged documents because same were not issued by or with authority of CBI.
12. PW8 Dheeraj Kumar and PW9 Nawin Kumar Singh are the CA No. 503/2017 Vinod Kumar v. CBI Page 10 of 16 witnesses to the seizure memo vide which various documents and rubber stamp were seized from the possession of the accused. PW8 Dheeraj Kumar has deposed that he was working in FCI, HQ as Assistant GradeIII (General) and on 15.06.2016 vide office order as issued from Administration Department (EII Section) he was directed to report to the CBI office as a witness in the present case and at about 05.00 pm he reached CBI Office where he met Sub Inspector Chandradeep (PW21) who asked him to wait and thereafter at about 07.00 pm he joined the raiding team of the CBI and they left to search to Bhogal, Delhi. The search was conducted at the residence of accused Vinod Kumar. He had identified the seizure memo/ search list Ex. PW8/A. He has also identified his signature on D42 rubber stamp related to PP Jangpura, New Delhi which is Ex. PW7/A. In cross examination, he has accepted the suggestion that when they reached Bhogal, accused Vinod Kumar was also present with them. In cross examination he has further stated that total eight persons were in search team including the accused/appellant and all documents were recovered from the room of accused Vinod Kumar. He has further submitted in his cross examination that all the documents were recovered from the bed box and pooja mandir of the accused Vinod Kumar. He has also admitted the suggestion in his cross examination that all the search documents were recovered from the house of the accused ; that none of the said documents by the Investigating Officer from the office of CBI to the house of accused ; that Ex. PW7/B was CA No. 503/2017 Vinod Kumar v. CBI Page 11 of 16 also recovered from the house of the accused.
13. PW9 Nawin Kumar Singh has deposed that he was working in FCI, HQ as Assistant GradeIII (General) and on 15.06.2016 vide office order as issued from Administration Department (EII Section) he was directed to report to the CBI office as a witness in the present case and at about 05.00 pm he reached CBI Office where he met Sub Inspector Chandradeep (PW21) who asked him to wait and thereafter at about 07.00 pm he joined the raiding team of the CBI and they left to search to Bhogal, Delhi. This witness has corroborated the version of PW8 Dheeraj Kumar. This witness has also deposed that search was conducted at the residence of Vinod Kumar vide search list Ex. PW8/A. He has also identified his signature at D42 rubber stamp related to PP Jangpura, New Delhi which is Ex. PW7/A. In cross examination, he has accepted the suggestion that offer letter of Taj Mohammad was recovered from the house of accused ; that all the mentioned and handwritten were recovered from the house of the accused ; that offer letter of Ashish Verma was also recovered from the house of the accused. He has further stated in cross examination that all the documents were recovered under the mattress of the accused. From the cross examination of PW8 and PW9, learned trial court has rightly observed that the recovery of documents and rubber stamp from the accused vide memo Ex. PW8/A is not disputed. PW7 SubInspector Bharat Singh who was posted on CA No. 503/2017 Vinod Kumar v. CBI Page 12 of 16 27.06.2016 in PP Jangpura as IC has deposed that one SubInspector of CBI came to Police Post (PP) and had shown him SSC Form belonging to victim which was attested by rubber stamp of PP Jangpura. This rubber stamp used for internal documents and papers used by police official and not for attesting any documents. This rubber stamp only used for their internal diary which is issued from police station. He had seen D42 rubber stamp which is Ex. PW7/A. Rubber stamp Ex.PW7/A does not belong to PP Jangpura because in their original stamp word "New Delhi" is not written and as such it is a forged stamp. The stamp in original available at PP Jangpura is not meant for attestation of documents as it is only used for maintenance of official record and communication between PS and PPs. Also, even the incharge of PP Jangpura is not authorized to use it for attestation purpose. The impression of said forged rubber stamp was used on all the documents i.e. Mark 1/A, 1/B, 1/C and 1/D. There is nothing against the prosecution/CBI in the cross examination of this witness. PW21 IO SubInspector Chandradeep has deposed regarding investigation conducted by him. He has stated regarding arrest of the accused on 15.06.2016, seizure memo Ex.PW1/B, receipt memos Ex.PW21/B, Ex.PW4/B, Ex.PW5/A, Ex.PW6/A, Ex.PW21/D and Ex.PW21/E, CD Ex.PW21/C, Ex.PW21/F, search list dated 15.06.2016 Ex.PW8/A. In respect of search list Ex.PW8/A, he deposed that search was conducted at the residence of accused/appellant and documents/articles mentioned in the column CA No. 503/2017 Vinod Kumar v. CBI Page 13 of 16 no.2 and 3 alongwith annexure to the search list were seized during the said search and at the time of said search, independent witnesses were also present. He has also corroborated the version of PW8 and PW9 regarding documents and rubber stamp of PP Jangpura found from the house of the accused at the time of said search.
14. CBI/Prosecution has also examined Surender Kumar, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Limited as PW16 who has deposed that in June 2016, CBI contacted him regarding CAF and CDR of mobile number 9560072520 and 9560300720. He has identified covering letter written by him to CBI vide Ex. PW16/A. He has further deposed regarding original customer application form of mobile number 9560300720 and 9560072520 issued in the name of accused Vinod Kumar alongwith ID proof of accused Vinod Kumar bearing the seal of retailer and also identity card of accused issued by CBI bearing the seal of retailer which are Ex. PW16/B and Ex. PW16/D respectively. He has also deposed regarding CDR of mobile number 9560300720 for the period of 01.06.2015 to 17.06.2016 which is Ex. PW16/C. Here also proved certificate under Section 65 B of Evidence Act given by him to mobile number 9560072520 and 9560300720 from 01.06.2015 to 17.06.2016. There is nothing in the cross examination against the case of prosecution/CBI. On the basis of testimony of PW 16, learned trial court has rightly held that accused Vinod also used forged ID card Ex. PW1/A for getting the mobile connection on his CA No. 503/2017 Vinod Kumar v. CBI Page 14 of 16 name.
15. Hence, learned Trial Court has rightly held that accused (appellant) used the forge documents and seal in order to cheat the victims on the pretext for providing jobs to them in lieu of monetary consideration and he was found in possession of forge documents and has rightly convicted the appellant for the offences under Section 420, 471 and 473 IPC.
16. In so far as sentence is concerned, appellant was sentenced by the learned Trial Court to the rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years alongwith fine of Rs.20,000/ for the offence punishable under section 420 IPC. Appellant was also sentenced to the rigorous imprisonment for the period of two years alongwith fine of Rs. 5,000/ for the offence under Section 471 IPC. Appellant was also sentenced to the rigorous imprisonment for the period of two years alongwith fine of Rs. 5,000/ for the offence under Section 473 IPC. In default of payment of fine the appellant was directed to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that appellant may be released on probation or sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. Appellant has cheated several persons on the pretext of securing jobs for them in CBI. Appellant had also alleged himself to be a computer operator and victims were shown identity card by him showing that he is a computer operator in CBI. He was also found forged rubber stamp of CA No. 503/2017 Vinod Kumar v. CBI Page 15 of 16 PP Jangpura and therefore, I am of the view that probation cannot be granted to him. From the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that appellant has been rightly sentenced by the learned Trial Court. Hence, appeal is dismissed. Appellant was taken into custody by learned Trial Court to serve the sentence.
Announced in the open (Sanjeev KumarII)
court on 19.11.2018 Additional Sessions Judge05,
South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi
CA No. 503/2017 Vinod Kumar v. CBI Page 16 of 16