Delhi District Court
State vs . Tilak Raj on 25 May, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK DABAS METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (NW05) ROHINI: DELHI FIR No. 407/1996 ID 02401R0048151998 U/s. 419/420 IPC PS Adarsh Nagar State vs. Tilak Raj JUDGMENT
1. Sr. No of case 314/2
2. Date of commission of offence 20.9.1996(as per FIR)
3. Name of complainant Sh. Sandeep Dhawan
4. Name of accused Tilakraj
s/o. Late Sh. Sohan Lal
r/o. H No. 101D, AD Block
Shalimar Bagh, Delhi.
5. Offence complained of u/s. 419/420 IPC
6. Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
7. Final order Acquitted
8. Date of such order 25.5.12
BRIEF REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION:
1. The prosecution was set into motion in the present case on the basis of a typed complaint of the complainant i.e. Sh. Sandeep Dhawan dated 20.9.1996. In his complaint the complainant had alleged that he is the Proprietor of M/s. Dhawan 407/1996Adarsh Nagar page1/ Brothers(AP) having office at 21, Timber Market, Azadpur, Delhi. It is further alleged that on 14.9.1996 at about 9.30 PM one truck driver had come to his shop and told his employee i.e. Sh. Anil Jain that he had to deliver them the goods i.e. bamboo which he had brought from Jalpaiguri. It is further alleged that at time Sh. Prahlad i.e Proprietor of Delhi Timber was also present in his shop. It is further alleged that both of them i.e. Sh. Prahlad and Sh. Anil Jain checked the documents produced by the driver of the said truck and in the documents the name and address of the firm of the complainant was mentioned. It is further alleged that thereafter the driver told them i.e. Sh. Prahlad and Sh. Anil Jain that he had to deliver the said goods on the address mentioned on the envelope and the same was found to be of Lakshmi Timber, 29 Timber Market, Azadpur. It is further alleged that his employee informed him about the incident and also told that the driver had gone to bring the truck leaving the documents with him. It is further alleged that thereafter the driver did not come back and contacted the owner of Lakshmi Timber for unloading of the goods. On the basis of the said complaint present case was registered and 407/1996Adarsh Nagar page2/ investigation was carried out.
2. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed.
Accused was summoned and provision of section 207 cr.p.c. were complied with.
3. The particulars of offence were explained to accused in Hindi language and charge for offences punishable u/s. 419/420 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trail and accordingly the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
4. During the course of trial prosecution examined eleven witnesses in support of its case.
5. PW1 is Sh. Ramgopal; PW2 is Sh. Anand Prakash; PW3 is Retd HC Mahender Singh i.e. the duty officer; PW4 is Sh. Allah Rakha i.e. the owner of the truck in question; PW5 is Sh. Anil Kumar Jain i.e. an employee of complainant PW6 is Retd SI Radhey Shyam i.e. 1st investigating officer; PW7 is Sh. Sandeep Dhawan i.e. the complainant; PW8 is Sh. Pradeep Choudhary; PW9 is Retd ASI Satyadev i.e. 2nd IO; PW10 is SI Rajbir Singh i.e. 3rd IO and PW11 is Sh. Prahlad Singh.
407/1996Adarsh Nagar page3/
6. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed on 25.2.12 and statement of accused was recorded on 27.4.12 wherein the accused denied the evidence that had come on record against him. However, accused choose not to lead evidence in his defence.
7. I have heard Ld APP for State as well as Ld counsel for accused and have also carefully gone through the file.
8. PW1 Sh. Ramgopal deposed that on 26.9.96 one truck loaded with chatais made of bamboo had come to their shop i.e. 21, Timber Market, Azadpur and the documents reflected that the goods were to be delivered at Laxmi Timber. He further stated that on the documents the sales tax number of their shop was mentioned. He further stated that he directed the driver to deliver the said goods at Laxmi Timber which was situated opposite to their shop. He further stated that he handed over the documents to his employer i.e Sh. Sandeep Dhawan and thereafter he alongwith Sh. Sandeep Dhawan went to police station Adarsh Nagar and handed over the said documents to the police which were taken into possession vide memo i.e. Ex. PW1/A.
9. In his cross examination, PW1 stated that the truck 407/1996Adarsh Nagar page4/ reached their shop at about 4.00 AM and he was called from his house at about 6.00 AM. He further stated that the truck driver had handed over the documents directly to him and the goods were unloaded in his presence. He further stated that nobody demanded the fare/ charges from them either from Delhi or from Assam. He further stated that they did not hand over the custody to the driver to the police. He further stated that he do not remember whether he had noted down the RC number of the truck in question. He denied the suggestion that false case was lodged against accused due to personal grudge as the complainant was the General Secretary of Timber Association. He further stated that all the documents which were handed over by him to the police were prepared at Assam. He further stated that when Sh. Sandeep Dhawan reached the spot the goods were being unloaded at the shop of accused. He further stated that on the same day complainant had called a meeting of the market in the evening and police reached there for the first time. He denied the suggestion that accused had no concern with the truck in question or the goods therein and he was falsely implicated at the instance of complainant.
407/1996Adarsh Nagar page5/
10. PW2 Sh. Anand Prakash deposed that on 26.6.96 he alongwith Sh. Sandeep Dhawan went to the police station Adarsh Nagar and handed over a complaint to the police. He further stated that he had put his signatures on the complaint as well as other documents. This witness was cross examined by Ld APP for the State.
11. In his cross examination by Ld APP for the State, PW2 admitted that on 25.9.96 he went to 21 Timber Market. He denied the suggestion that there Sh. Ramgopal handed over the relevant documents of the shop to the police. He voluntarily stated that Sh. Sandeep Dhawan had handed over the same to the police at the police station. He admitted that his statement was recorded by the police. PW2 was confronted with his statement Mark A.
12. In his cross examination, PW2 stated that at that time Sh.
Dhawan was the Secretary of the Timber Market. He further stated that recovery memo was prepared in his presence. He further stated that Sh. Dhawan had put his signatures on said recovery memo. He further stated that he do not know the nature of the documents handed over by Sh. Dhawan to the police. He further 407/1996Adarsh Nagar page6/ stated that he do not know whether accused was also having a shop in the Timber Market. He further stated that accused frequently visited the shop of complainant. He admitted that accused was having a shop at Timber Market. He further stated that he do know whether there was some animosity between the complainant and accused on account of Timber Market elections. He denied the suggestion that he do not know the contents of the complaint and was not present with the complainant at the police station.
13. PW3 Retd HC Mahender Singh merely deposed regarding registration of the FIR and proved the FIR i.e. Ex. PW3/A.
14. PW4 Sh. Allah Rakha deposed that he is the owner of the truck bearing No. UP 12 8036. He further stated that he do not know who had booked the said truck as the custody of the truck in question was with his brother i.e. Sh. Allah Banda.
15. IN his cross examination, PW4 stated that police never met him regarding the present case nor his statement was recorded. He further stated that police never demanded RC of truck directly from him or through any other person.
407/1996Adarsh Nagar page7/
16. PW5 Sh. Anil Kumar Jain deposed that about 1415 years ago he was employed with M/s. Dhawan Brothers AP whose Proprietor was Sh. Sandeep Dhawan. He further stated that at about 7.30800 AM when he reached his office one truck driver came there and informed that the truck loaded with bamboo had reached to which he told the driver that their firm do not deal in bamboo and inquired from his employer who told him that he had never ordered for the same. He further stated that Sh. Sandeep Dhawan asked him to keep the documents. He further stated that thereafter accused came there and told him that the goods belonged to him and he handed over the documents to him. He further stated that at about 10.30 AM when Sh. Sandeep Dhawan reached the office, he narrated the incident to him. He further stated that on the next day police came and he narrated the incident to the police also. PW5 was cross examined by Ld APP for the State.
17. In his cross examination by Ld APP for the State, PW5 admitted that Sh. Prahlad who was also having a shop at Timber Market reached there are about 10.00 AM. He admitted that he had told to the police that accused had used the sale tax number of his 407/1996Adarsh Nagar page8/ employer and managed to get prepared the builty for the goods.
18. In his cross examination, PW5 stated that he used to come to his office at about 7.308.00 AM. He further stated that the truck had come there after about 57 minutes and it remained there for about 2530 minutes and thereafter accused came there and took the truck. He further stated that police had come to their office with the driver namely Banda Rakha. He further stated that his statement was recorded by the police after about 15 days of the incident in their office. He further stated that statement of any other person was not recorded in his presence. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely at the instance of complainant. He also denied the suggestion that accused did not come to their office or that he had not taken away the documents which were produced by the driver. He further stated that driver had handed over an envelope containing 89 documents and the said envelope was handed over by him to the accused who left the spot with loaded truck. He admitted that accused was having a shop in Timber Market. He denied the suggestion that accused was not on talking terms with the complainant.
407/1996Adarsh Nagar page9/
19. PW6 Retd SI Radhey Shyam testified that on 21.9.96 he was posted at police station Adarsh Nagar and on that day investigation of the present case was marked to him and he went to Dhawan Timber Store but nobody met him there. He further stated that on the next day he again visited the said office and father of Sh. Sandeep Dhawan met him who told that complainant had not reached there. He further stated that he again visited the office of the complainant on 25.9.96 and met Sh. Madan Gopal, Sh. Ram Gopal and another person whose name he do not remember. He further stated that some of the employee handed over to him the documents including the the builty etc and the same were seized vide seizure memo i.e. Ex. PW1/A and thereafter he was transferred. PW6 was cross examined by Ld APP for the State.
20. In his cross examination by Ld APP for the State, PW6 admitted that on 28.9.96, Sh. Madan Kishore handed over to him some other documents and the same were seized vide memo i.e. Ex. PW6/A.
21. In his cross examination, PW6 stated that he do not remember whether he had obtained the signatures of complainant 407/1996Adarsh Nagar page10/ on any document or not. He further stated that he himself did not record the statement of complainant. He further stated that he had firstly visited the shop of complainant on 21.9.96. He further stated that he had recorded the statement of the person who had handed over to him the documents including Sh. Madan Kishore and Sh. Ram Gopal. He further stated that Sh. Ramgopal firstly met him on 25.9.96. He further stated that when he seized the documents complainant was not present in his office. He further stated that he took the signatures of Sh. Ramgopal on the seizure memo and had also obtained the signatures of Sh. Anand Prakash. He further stated that he do not remember exactly the particulars of the documents seized by him. He further stated that he do not remember whether the documents were handed over to him on 25.9.96 and 28.9.96 by Sh. Ramgopal or by Sh. Madan Kishore. He further stated that he only seized the documents and recorded the statement of witnesses and thereafter he was transferred. He denied the suggestion that he did not go to the shop of the complainant or seized the documents or nobody handed over the documents to him or he prepared the documents while sitting in the 407/1996Adarsh Nagar page11/ police station at the instance of complainant.
22. PW7 Sh. Sandeep Dhawan deposed that in the year 1996 he was Proprietor of M/s. Dhawan Brothers having office at 21 Timber Market, Azadpur. He further stated that on 14.9.96 at about 9.30 AM he had received a call from Sh. Anil Jain that one driver had come to their office with an envelope addressed to M/s. Dhawan Brothers Co which contained another letter for supply of bamboo. He further stated that at that time they were not dealing in bamboos. He further stated that his empolyee i.e. Sh. Anil Jain informed him that the driver was asked to bring the truck to their office. He further stated that when driver was called at the office, he produced another slip on which address of office of M/s. Laxmi Timber was mentioned. He further stated that Sh. Anil Jain had snatched the papers on which address of their firm was mentioned and thereafter driver fled from there. He further stated that thereafter he went to his office on the calling of his employee i.e. Sh. Anil Jain and met Sh. Anil and Sh. Prahlad i.e. Proprietor of Delhi Timber Store. He further stated that Sh. Anil handed over the documents i.e. envelope, challan, receipt and bill and other 407/1996Adarsh Nagar page12/ documents such as slip bearing the truck number; letter addressed to accused; RC; receipt from Forest Deptt; duplicate receipt; photocopy of certificate from the Office of Gram Panchayat Pradhan. He further stated that he lodged the complaint i.e. Ex. PW7/C with the police. He further stated that the accused was the Proprietor of M/s. Tilak Timber.
23. In his cross examination, PW7 stated that the truck came to their office in the morning. He further stated that he do not know the name of the driver who met Sh. Anil Jain. He further stated that no police was called to his office on 14.9.96. He further stated that he did not lodge the complaint with the police till 19.9.96. He voluntarily stated that a meeting was called to settle the matter but the matter could not be settled. He further stated that he alongwith Sh. Ramgopal and Sh. Anand Bhardwaj went to the police station to lodge the complaint. He further stated that he did not verify the documents recovered from the driver. He further stated that he did not inquire about the bamboo from where it was sent nor had paid the money for the same. He further stated that police did not meet him after lodging of the complaint nor he 407/1996Adarsh Nagar page13/ visited the police station. He further stated that police did not obtain his signatures at the time of lodging the complaint nor any document was prepared by police in his presence. He denied the suggestion that he had falsely implicated the accused.
24. PW8 Sh. Pradeep Choudhary deposed that in the year 199697 he was dealing in bamboo in West Bengal in the name of M/s. Pradeep Choudhary & Co. He further stated that he do not know whether any person namely Shanti Rajandas was also dealing in bamboo. He further stated that accused had never purchased bamboo from him. He voluntarily stated that accused used to purchase bamboo from some other person in the Village.
25. In his cross examination, PW8 stated that police met him once but his statement was not recorded in his presence. He further stated that he do not remember for how many times accused visited his Village. He further stated that he had lastly seen the accused at the time of incident and thereafter he never saw him. He further stated that accused never purchased anything from him. He further stated that he never had any kind of transaction with the accused.
26. PW9 Retd ASI Satyadev testified that further 407/1996Adarsh Nagar page14/ investigation of the case was marked to him on 11.1.97 and he tried to trace the complainant as well as the accused but could not find them. He further stated that on 13.2.97 he went to West Bengal and met Sh. Pradeep Choudhary and Sh. Rattan Choudhary and Sh. Tara Chand and recorded their statement and also tried to trace the accused but did not find him. He further stated that he had appeared before the court on 13.3.97 with regard to bail of accused and thereafter he was transferred.
27. In his cross examination, PW9 denied the suggestion that he did not visit Jalpaigudi on 13.2.97 or that he had recorded the statement of witnesses while sitting in the police station.
28. PW10 SI Rajbir Singh testified that on 20.3.97 he was posted at police station Adarsh Nagar and further investigation was marked to him. He further stated that on 29.3.97 he interrogated the accused and thereafter arrested him. He further stated that he served notice u/s. 133 of MV Act to the owner of the truck in question and the same was replied by Sh. Allah Rakha and thereafter he prepared the chargesheet.
29. In his cross examination, PW10 stated that he did not 407/1996Adarsh Nagar page15/ impound the truck. He further stated that he recorded the statement of Sh. Dhawan in office. He further stated that he had also recorded statement of Sh. Karnel Singh, Sh. Prahlad Singh and Sh. Dhawan and Sh. Anil in Delhi. He further stated that he had recorded the statement of Sh. Allah Rakha and Sh. Bandha Rakha in UP. He denied the suggestion that accused was falsely implicated at the instance of complainant.
30. PW11 Sh. Prahlad Singh deposed that he do not know anything regarding present case. PW11 was cross examined by Ld APP for the State.
31. In his cross examination by Ld APP for the State, PW11 stated that he had been dealing in Timber from the age of 2530 years. He further stated that he was having good terms with the complainant who was General Secretary of Timber Market. He further stated that he do not remember whether he was present in the shop of complainant on 14.9.96. He further stated that no truck loaded with borries had come to the shop of the complainant in his presence that day. PW11 was confronted with his statement Mark A where it is so recorded. He denied the suggestion that a person 407/1996Adarsh Nagar page16/ namely Tilak Raj had come to the shop of complainant and left with the truck. PW11 was confronted with statement Mark A. He denied the suggestion that he was present in the shop of complainant and do not remember anything as he has been won over by accused.
32. Accused in his statement u/s. 313/281 cr.p.c. recorded in court denied the evidence that has come on record against him. He choose not to lead evidence in his defence.
33. In the present case, charge for offences punishable u/s.
419/420 IPC was framed against the accused. As per prosecution version accused had brought the bamboo products from different places to Delhi on the basis of false and fabricated documents and also used the sales tax number of the complainant in order to avoid payment of sales tax. As per prosecution version the accused by misusing the sales tax number of the complainant caused wrongful loss to the complainant and wrongful gain to himself. As per prosecution version the complainant came to know of the commission of the aforesaid offence by the accused on 14.9.96 when one truck driver came to his shop and also handed over some 407/1996Adarsh Nagar page17/ documents to the employee of the complainant.
34. Section 419 IPC provides punishment for cheating by personation. Section 416 IPC defines cheating by personation. Section 416 IPC postulates that a person is said to "cheat by personation" if he cheats by pretending to be some other person or by knowingly substituting one person for another, or representing that he or any other person is a person other than he or such other person really is. Section 420 IPC provides punishment for cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. Section 415 IPC defines cheating. The contents of section 415 IPC and 420 IPC are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.
35. A perusal of testimony of PW1 shows that he had not stated anything regarding the incident of 14.9.1996. PW1 in his testimony recorded in court deposed that on 26.9.96 a truck loaded with chatais came to their shop and the driver of the said truck had shown certain documents to him which reflected that the goods were to be delivered at Laxmi Timber Shop but the said documents were bearing the sales tax number of their shop. As per testimony of PW1 he directed the driver of the truck to unload the goods at 407/1996Adarsh Nagar page18/ Laxmi Timber Shop situated opposite to their shop. As per testimony of PW1 he took into possession the documents which were produced by the driver and the documents were lateron handed over to the police by his employer i.e. Sh. Sandeep Dhawan. The testimony of PW1 recorded in court is totally contradictory to the prosecution case as well as to the testimony of other PWs. The testimony of PW1 is even contradictory to his statement recorded u/s. 161 cr.p.c. by the IO. As per statement of PW1 recorded by the IO u/s. 161 cr.p.c. PW1 had joined the investigation on 25.9.96 and he had merely produced and handed over certain documents to the IO. In the said statement, there is no mention regarding the arrival of truck containing bamboo products etc on 26.9.96. Even as per prosecution case, the truck in question had arrived at the shop of the complainant on 14.9.96 at about 8.00 AM and at that time only Sh. Anil Kumar Jain i.e. employee of the complainant and Sh. Prahlad were present. As per prosecution case PW1 was not present on 14.9.96 and the truck in question had not arrived in his presence. As per prosecution version and as per Ex. PW7/C i.e. the written complaint the driver of the aforesaid 407/1996Adarsh Nagar page19/ truck fled from the shop of the complainant. As per testimony of PW1 the truck in question was containing chatais whereas as per prosecution version the truck in question was containing bamboos.
36. The testimony of PW2 is of formal nature. PW2 in his examination in chief had not supported the prosecution version. PW2 was cross examined by Ld APP for the State. Even in his cross examination PW2 deposed regarding handing over of certain documents to the police by the complainant i.e. Sh. Sandeep Dhawan. As per version of PW2 the said documents were handed over to the police in the police station and not at the shop of the complainant. A bare perusal of testimony of PW2 shows that he had not stated anything inculpatory qua the accused. As per testimony of PW2 the documents were handed over to the police in the police station and not at the shop of the complainant. This version of PW2 is also contrary to the prosecution version.
37. PW3 merely proved the FIR. PW4 is the owner of the truck in question and he had also not stated anything inculpatory qua the accused. As per testimony of PW4 he never met the police regarding this case and the police never recorded his statement.
407/1996Adarsh Nagar page20/
38. The testimony of PW5 is very important one because as per prosecution case the truck in question arrived at the shop of the complainant in his presence and on suspicion he informed his employer who lateron informed the police. The testimony of PW5 was recorded in court on 17.7.2010. PW5 in his testimony recorded in court deposed that about 1415 years ago at about 7.30 AM one truck loaded with bamboo came to their shop and he told the driver of the said truck that they are not dealing in bamboos and they had not ordered for the same. As per testimony of PW5 the accused came to their shop and told him that the bamboos in question belong to him and consequently he handed over the documents to the accused who took the truck and the documents with him. As per testimony of PW5 he narrated the incident to his employer and on the next day police came to their shop and he narrated the incident to the police also. Perusal of examination in chief of PW5 itself shows that PW5 had nowhere stated that the documents which were produced by the driver of the truck were bearing the sales tax number of their shop. As per testimony of PW5 the accused had taken all the documents brought by the 407/1996Adarsh Nagar page21/ driver with him. The testimony of PW5 is also very shaky one and is contradictory to the prosecution case on some very material aspects. As per Ex. PW7/C i.e. the complaint on the basis of which the prosecution was set into motion the forged and fabricated transport documents remained with the complainant and they were handed over to the police by the complainant. As per complainant, the said documents were handed over to him by PW5 but as per PW5 accused had taken the said forged and fabricated documents. It is also pertinent to mention that in para 3 of Ex. PW7/C, it is mentioned that the documents produced by the said driver correctly carried the name, address and the sales tax number of the firm of the complainant. As per the contents of Ex. PW7/C the name, address and sales tax number of the firm was correct. If that is so, then how the documents in question were forged and fabricated. The prosecution was under an obligation to prove the same but no evidence has come on record regarding the same.
39. PW6 is the first IO of the present case and he merely deposed regarding seizure of certain documents by him. The testimony of PW6 is of formal nature.
407/1996Adarsh Nagar page22/
40. The testimony of PW7 is also very important as he is the complainant of the present case. However, a perusal of testimony of PW7 shows that he was not present in his shop at the time when the truck in question arrived at his shop. As per testimony of PW7 himself he was informed by his employee i.e. Sh. Anil Jain about the incident. The testimony of PW7 is also contradictory to the testimony of PW5 i.e. Sh. Anil Jain. As per testimony of PW7, Sh. Anil Jain (PW5) had snatched the papers which were addressed to their firm from the driver and thereafter the driver fled away from their shop. As per testimony of PW7, Sh. Anil Jain handed over the documents to him and the said documents were lateron handed over by him to the police. At this stage, a reference is again made to the testimony of PW5 recorded in the court wherein PW5 had stated that he had handed over all the documents brought by the driver of the truck in question to the accused and the accused took the said documents with him alongwith the truck. In his cross examination, PW7 admitted that on 14.9.96 no police was called to their office and till 19.9.96 no complaint was lodged with the police. PW7 voluntarily stated that a meeting was called in the market to settle 407/1996Adarsh Nagar page23/ the matter but when the matter could not be settled a complaint was made to the police.
41. PW8 is a bamboo merchant from Jalpaigudi, West Bengal. PW8 deposed that accused never purchased bamboo from him and the accused used to purchase the bamboo from some other person of his Village. PW8 was not cross examined by Ld APP for the State. The testimony of PW8 is also not inculpatory qua the accused.
42. PW9 is the second IO of the present case and his testimony is also of formal nature. PW10 is the third IO of the present case and he deposed regarding formal arrest of the accused and also regarding the part of the investigation carried out by him. The testimony of PW10 is also not inculpatory qua the accused.
43. PW11 is also a very important witness in the present case. As per prosecution version on 14.9.96, PW11 was present at the shop of the complainant alongwith his employee namely Sh. Anil Jain when the truck in question carrying bamboo arrived at the shop of the complainant. PW11 in his examination in chief stated that he do not know anything about the present case. PW11 was 407/1996Adarsh Nagar page24/ cross examined by Ld APP for the State. IN his cross examination by Ld APP for the State, PW11 denied the whole prosecution version. PW11 specifically denied that on 14.9.96 the truck in question loaded with borries had come to the shop of the complainant. PW11 also specifically denied that the accused came to the shop of the complainant and went away with the said truck.
44. The aforesaid analysis of the testimony of PWs clearly shows that the testimony of PW2, PW3, PW4, PW6, PW8, PW9 and PW10 is of formal nature and is not inculpatory qua the accused. The testimony of PW7 is based upon the information given to him by his employee telephonically and PW7 was not present at his shop at the time when the truck in question had arrived. As per prosecution version, PW11 was an eye witness but PW11 had not supported the prosecution case and he deposed that he do not know anything regarding the present case. The testimony of PW1 is full of contradictions and in his testimony recorded in court, PW1 had propounded a completely new case which is totally contrary to the prosecution version. PW1 had made drastic improvements in his testimony recorded in the court and the 407/1996Adarsh Nagar page25/ aforesaid contradictions/ improvements have rendered the testimony of PW1 unreliable. The testimony of PW5 is also not in consonance with the prosecution case. PW5 failed to depose regarding the material particulars. The testimony of PW5 is totally contradictory to the testimony of PW7 regarding the handing over of the documents in question.
45. For bringing home the guilt of the accused for offence punishable u/s. 419 IPC, the prosecution was obliged to prove that
(i) the accused had cheated by pretending to be some other person or (ii) by knowingly substituting one person for another or (iii) representing that he or any other person is a person other than he or such other person really is. The perusal of the testimony of all the aforesaid PWs clearly shows that they had not stated anything in this regard. None of the PWs had deposed that accused Tilakraj had cheated by pretending to be some other person or by knowingly substituting one person for another or representing that he or any other person is a person other than he or such other person really is. None of the PWs had stated anything regarding the aforesaid ingredients of the offence punishable u/s. 416/419 407/1996Adarsh Nagar page26/ IPC. Even the circumstances do not show that the accused had committed the offence punishable u/s. 419 IPC. Hence, the accused is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable u/s. 419 IPC.
46. In the present case, no evidence has come on record to show that some wrongful gain has accrued to the accused or some wrongful loss was caused to the complainant or any other person. The prosecution even failed to prove that the sales tax number which the complainant is claiming to be his infact belonged to him as no witness was produced and examined by the prosecution from the sales tax department in this regard.
47. In the present case, the alleged forged and fabricated documents were not sent to FSL/ CFSL and no opinion has been obtained regarding the handwriting on the said documents. The prosecution also failed to show that the accused had purchased the Timber in question and he had misused the sales tax number of the complainant for causing wrongful gain to himself or wrongful loss to the complainant.
48. It is also pertinent to mention that the incident in question had taken place on 14.9.96 and the complaint to the police was 407/1996Adarsh Nagar page27/ made on 20.9.96. There is delay of about one week in lodging the complaint with the police. No plausible explanation has come from the prosecution regarding the delay. PW7 in his cross examination stated that initially efforts were made to settle the matter but when no settlement could be arrived at, the present complaint was made to the police.
49. The aforesaid discussion clearly shows that most of the witnesses had not stated anything inculpatory qua the accused and the testimony of the witnesses who had deposed against the accused is contradictory to each other as well as to the prosecution version. Each material witnesses has come out with his own version of the incident in question. The chain of circumstantial evidence is also broken from many places and even the circumstantial evidence do not point towards the guilt of the accused. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove essential ingredients of the offences in question. Hence, the accused is hereby acquitted in the present case for offences punishable u/s. 419/420 IPC.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT DEEPAK DABAS on 25th of May, 2012 MM:NW05:ROHINI:DELHI. 407/1996Adarsh Nagar page28/ 407/1996 AN 25.5.12 Present: Ld APP for the State.
Accused is present on bail alongwith Ld counsel. The case is today fixed for final arguments.
Final arguments heard. File perused.
Vide my separate judgment of even date announced in open court today, accused is hereby acquitted in the present case. Bail bonds are cancelled. Surety is discharged. Original documents if any of surety on record be returned after cancellation of endorsement thereon. File be consigned to the record room after necessary compliance.
DEEPAK DABAS
MM:NW05:DELHI:25.5.12
407/1996Adarsh Nagar page29/