Delhi District Court
State vs Chandan Kumar on 31 May, 2022
DLSW020163862017
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-01,
SOUTH-WEST, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
- PRESIDED BY:
PARAS DALAL, D.J.S.
FIR No. 98/2013
PS Palam Village
U/S : 420/471 Indian Penal Code, 1860
State V/s Chandan Kumar
Cr.C No. : 4776/2017
CNR No. : DLSW020163862017
Date of Institution : 27.06.2017
Name of complainant : Prof. Sanjay Shrivastava
Administrative Officer, MCI
R/o Pocket-14, Sector-8,
Dwarka Phase-I, Raj Nagar,
Palam Colony, New Delhi
Name of accused, parentage and address : Chandan Kumar
S/o Govind Singh
R/o H.No.E-4-44C,
Udyog Vihar, Sector-82,
Noida, UP
Offence complained off : 420/468/471 IPC
Plea of accused : Not guilty
Final order : Convicted
Date of Judgment : 31.05.2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIR No.98 of 2013; P.S. Palam Village Pages 1 of 12 State v. Chandan Kumar
Argued by: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Ld. APP for the State.
Sh. U.S. Yadav, Ld. Counsel for accused.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
1 The SHO, Police Station Palam Village has presented this charge-sheet against above named accused for initiation of trial under Sections 420/468/471 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC").
2 Briefly stated, the facts of the case as per prosecution are that on 14.02.2013 a written complaint of cheating was received from Sh. Sanjay Shrivastav Medical Council of India (MCI) Office, Sector 8, Dwarka Raj Nagar-I, Palam, Delhi. It was stated in the complaint that the Medical Council of India which is an autonomous body established under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and one of its function is to provide registration to the individuals who qualify as doctors from recognized institutions. The Council as a matter of policy undertakes to verify the documents submitted by prospective professionals and therefore, upon verification of one such candidate Sh. Chandan Kumar(accused herein), his 10+2 marksheet was sent to its issuing authority Jharkhand Intermediate Education Council, Ranchi {herein after mentioned as 'JIEC, Ranchi' and presently it is known as Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi (JAC, Ranchi)}. The said marksheet did not match with the Council's record. The MCI finding the record to be false thus wrote the letter requesting the SHO P.S. Palam Village for registration of FIR. The present FIR was thus registered and upon investigation the present challan was prepared u/Ss. 420/468/471 IPC and filed in Court for trial.
3 The copy of chargesheet and documents were supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. Prima facie case was made out, charge FIR No.98 of 2013; P.S. Palam Village Pages 2 of 12 State v. Chandan Kumar for offence u/s. 420/471 IPC was framed against the accused on 11.10.2017 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution Evidence 4 The present case is entirely document based and therefore before proceeding to discuss deposition, the documents exhibited are provided in the table below -
Witness Identification Description
exhibiting
PW1 Dr. Sanjay Mark 1/1 Experience certificate at MCI of Dr.
Sanjay
Ex.PW1/A Letter dt. 14.02.2013 to SHO by MCI
Ex.PW1/B copy of 0+2 Marksheet of accused
Chandan Kumar
Mark PW1/C Letter dt. 16.01.2012 of 10+2
marksheet of accused being false
Ex.PW1/D MCI Letter dt. 07.12.2011
Ex.PW1/E MCI letter dt. 14.02.2013 to accused
regarding rejection of request for
permanent registration due to negative
verification report from Council,
Ranchi of his 10+2 marksheet
Ex.PW1/F(OSR) Copy of application form for
permanent registration in respect of
accused
PW2 Eugene Minj Mark C-1 Letter dt. 05.06.2013 from MCI to
JIEC, Ranchi
Ex.PW2/A Letter dt. 16.07.2012 from MCI to
JIEC, Ranchi
Ex.PW2/B Reply dt. 09.07.2013 by JIEC, Ranchi
Ex.PW2/C Letter dt. 03.11.2014 from JIEC,
Ranchi to IS/ASI Birender Singh
PW3 SI Ram Pal Ex.PW3/A Seizure memo
PW4 ASI Birender Mark A and B Notice issued to Principal, Ranchi
Singh College, Jharkhand and JIEC, Ranchi
FIR No.98 of 2013; P.S. Palam Village Pages 3 of 12 State v. Chandan Kumar
Ex.PW4/A Notice to Section Officer Registration
MCI
Mark C and D Replies from JIEC, Ranchi
Ex.PW4/B Marksheet, 2002 with MS No. 004490
from JIEC, Ranchi
Mark E Reply Principal of Sindri College,
Sindri
PW5 ASI Harbans Ex.PW5/A Notice to Manager Bank of India
Lal MIDLBB New Friends Colony
Ex.PW5/B Notice to accused to join investigation
5 In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined seven witnesses
(hereinafter referred to as 'PW'). PW-1 Dr. Sanjay Srivastava, was the then Secretary, MCI in the year 2013 and he placed on record his experience certificate. PW1 deposed that he wrote a letter dated 14.02.2013 to the SHO P.S. Dwarka Sector 23 to register a case against accused Chandan Kumar Gill for submitting forged 10+2 (intermediate) marksheet as negatively certified by the JIEC, Ranchi vide its letter dated 16.01.2012. The said letter dated 16.01.2012 was in response to letter by MCI dated 07.12.2011. PW1 deposed that since accused submitted fake marksheet, vide letter dated 14.02.2013 accused's request for permanent registration was regretted. PW1 identified and exhibited the letter to SHO, letter to JIEC, Ranchi for verification of 10+2 marksheet of accused, response vide negative verification report by JIEC, Ranchi, letter to accused denying permanent registration and application form by the accused. PW1 was cross examined wherein he answered that MCI verify the documents submitted by the candidates. PW1 denied that documents submitted by the candidates were not kept in safe custody in the MCI, Office. PW1 answered that he only wrote letters and documents were later seized by the IO from MCI. PW1 further answered that none of the MCI official personally went to verify the documents from JIEC, Ranchi. PW1 then explained the FIR No.98 of 2013; P.S. Palam Village Pages 4 of 12 State v. Chandan Kumar functioning particularly regarding verification of various credentials submitted by each candidates and finally denied various suggestions that no forged marksheet was submitted, report of negative verification of marksheet of accused was not genuine and that he forwarded complaint without verifying the documents.
6 PW2 Eugene Minj deposed that since 2008 he was posted as Deputy Secretary Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi which was previously known as Jharkhand Intermediate Education Council, Ranchi. PW2 deposed that they received letter dt. 07.12.2011 (already Ex.PW1/D) alongwith marksheet of 10+2 issued in the name of Chandan Kumar bearing roll code 9603 and number 10258 of Sindri College allegedly issued by JIEC, Ranchi (already Ex.PW1/B) and after verification same was found to be fake as no such student in the name of Chandan Kumar was found enrolled/appeared under the above mentioned details. PW2 identified his letter dt. 16.01.2012 (already Ex.PW1/C). PW2 further deposed that another letter dt. 05.06.2013 from MCI was received for verification and PW2 stated to have replied vide his letter dt. 16.07.2012 stating the same to be fake. PW2 also identified his reply dt. 03.11.2014 to IO/ASI Birender Singh regarding verification of roll code no. 9115 no. 10594 for inter examination 2002(A) and regarding the roll code 9603, roll number 10258 of the year 2001, Sindri College and the letter sent to MCI. PW2 was cross examined and he deposed that he has no written authorization to depose before Court. PW2 answered that he did not bring the incoming or outgoing correspondence, he also stated that he did not bring original letters/ original copies which were received from MCI or IO. He deposed that original letters written by him were sent to MCI and IO; and office copy must be in correspondence section. PW2 further answered that he did not bring the original gazette which is kept with the record FIR No.98 of 2013; P.S. Palam Village Pages 5 of 12 State v. Chandan Kumar section, but stated that he prepared his reports and correspondence after checking the same from the original records. PW2 deposed that the correspondence is prepared by clerk/supporting staff and same is counter signed by section officer, however he admitted that in Ex.PW2/A the support staff or section officer has not signed. PW2 however denied that the document submitted by accused was genuine and same was never verified by the section officer and he also denied that he had not brought the original since Ex.PW1/B (marksheet) was genuine.
7 PW3 SI Ram Pal deposed that he was marked investigation initially and on 16.05.2013 he seized the documents from the MCI vide seizure memo which included letter by JIEC, Ranchi, two letter by MCI to JIEC, Ranchi and accused alongwith application form of the accused. PW3 was cross examined and he deposed that none of the document he seized had stamp of the MCI and he admitted he did not carry on any other investigation.
8 PW4 ASI Birender Singh deposed that the present FIR was registered on the directions of SHO PS Palam Village and investigation was handed over to him. PW4 deposed that he issued notices to (1) Principal, Ranchi College, Jharkhand; (2) Secretary of JIEC, Ranchi; (3) Section Officer Registration, MCI; and (4) to accused to join investigation. All the notices were exhibited by PW4 and he even identified the replies sent by three entities. PW4 deposed that he had gone to Sindri College and Ranchi College and got verified the 10+2 marksheet of the accused Chandan Kumar and stated that 10th marksheet Ex.PW4/B was in order while the marksheet of Sindri College was found to be forged. PW4 was cross examined wherein he deposed that he had not recorded any statement under Section 161 CrPC and he could not tell if Sindri College or Ranchi College had given any complaint to any authority. PW4 further answered that he did FIR No.98 of 2013; P.S. Palam Village Pages 6 of 12 State v. Chandan Kumar not see the original marksheet of Amarjeet Kumar Paswan and he did not collect any document from MCI or made any inquiry there, but he maintained that he made fair and transparent investigation when suggested otherwise.
9 PW5 ASI Harbans Lal was also IO and he deposed that he served notice to Branch Manager Bank of India MIDLLB New Friends Colony, New Delhi which he exhibited as Ex.PW5/A. The said notice was issued to provide details of Demand Draft No. 136540 dated 12.10.2011 which was allegedly submitted by the accused to the MCI. As per investigation PW5 deposed that Branch Manager told him that said DD was not issued from their branch. PW5 further deposed that they issued notice to accused to join investigation, which he complied, he was interrogated and then released. In his cross examination, PW5 admitted that original demand draft no. 136540 dated 12.10.2011 was not seized and not made part of record.
Statement of Accused 10 Prosecution evidence was closed on the 10.01.2020. The statement of accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded on 10.01.2020 and he was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case by the police and though he admitted that he the marksheet to the MCI, however maintained that same was genuine and not fake. Accused chose not to lead any defence evidence.
Arguments 11 Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable shadow of doubts by FIR No.98 of 2013; P.S. Palam Village Pages 7 of 12 State v. Chandan Kumar examining all the material witnesses who have supported the prosecution version in material aspects. Accordingly, conviction of accused was prayed.
12 On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused argued that the no investigation was made from Sindri College, Sindri and PW2 failed to produce the originals from which his reports were prepared.
Findings 13 Now considering the merits of the case and established law, the prosecution in order to bring home the charge has to prove that the accused applied to the Medical Council of India for registration and in that process submitted fake/ false marksheet of 10+2. Prosecution also has to prove that accused had knowledge that the marksheet was not genuine, yet he used it as genuine and the said usage was with dishonest or fraudulent intention to cheat the Medical Council of India. It is no point in contention that Registration certificate be it provisional or permanent is a 'property' for the purposes of Section 420 Indian Penal Code [AIR 1969 SC 40]. It is also not a bone of contention that provisional certificate was delivered to accused and he even had applied for the permanent certificate.
14 It is not in dispute that accused was granted provisional registration certificate by the MCI, Delhi and he had applied for permanent registration. The accused even admitted to have submitted the marksheet of 10+2 in question to the MCI for his permanent registration.
15 The prosecution to prove the charges of cheating and forgery, relied on the testimony of PW2. The said witness is appearing on behalf of independent body i.e. Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi (previously known as Jharkhand Intermediate Education Council, Ranchi). PW2 deposed that as FIR No.98 of 2013; P.S. Palam Village Pages 8 of 12 State v. Chandan Kumar Deputy Secretary he received letter by the MCI, Delhi as well as ASI Birender Singh to verify the credentials of 10+2 marksheet of accused Chandan Kumar and based on their record no such marksheet was available for the year 2001. PW2 even exhibited his replies to the MCI as well as IO of this case that marksheet 10+2 claimed by the accused Chandan Kumar vide Roll no. 10258 in the year 2001 was fake and infact said roll no. in the year 2001 was allotted to one Amarjit Kumar Paswan and even the marks did not tally. As regards the credentials of accused Chandan Kumar, PW2 deposed that as per records he passed 11th standard in the year 2000 vide roll no. 10258 certificate number 124323 of 23.11.2001 from Sindri College, Sindri from JIEC, Ranchi and he cleared his 12 th standard in the year 2002 vide roll no. 10594 from Ranchi College, Ranchi. PW2 even deposed that one letter bearing no. JAC/Ver/475/12 dated 16.07.2012 which purportedly reported as genuine the marksheet of 10+2 of the accused for the year 2001 to be fake and not issued by the JAC, Ranchi (previously JIEC, Ranchi). Therefore, PW2 deposed that not only 2001 marksheet of 10+2 submitted was fake, but during investigation one purported letter from JAC, Ranchi to MCI bearing no. JAC/Ver/475/12 dated 16.07.2012 was fake and never written by the Council, Ranchi. The said letter verified the 10+2 marksheet of accused for the year 2001 as correct.
16 The pivotal question is whether accused Chandan Kumar applied to the MCI and submitted the said marksheet for getting the permanent registration. The accused has only defended that the said marksheet was genuine and all the witnesses are deposing falsely.
17 PW3 and PW4 were the IO who deposed that he collected the application form submitted by the accused from the Medical Council of India. PW2 has FIR No.98 of 2013; P.S. Palam Village Pages 9 of 12 State v. Chandan Kumar already exhibited the negative verification report of the marksheet in question.
18 The prosecution has been able to establish that accused applied for permanent registration which were seized Ex.PW3/A. In the said application, accused stated himself to have passed his 10+2 from Jharkhand Intermediate Education Council, Ranchi vide roll no. 10258 school code 9603. Upon verification this document was found to have not been issued by the Board as per the deposition of PW2. The said set of documents, seizure memo as well as deposition is sufficient to conclude that prosecution has established its case. Not only did the prosecution prove fake marksheet submitted by the accused, but was also able to bring on record his 10+2 marksheet of the year 2002 and relevant tabulation register wherein roll no. 10258 in the year 2001 was issued to one Amarjit Singh Paswan S/o Jagdish Paswan.
19 Once the prosecution has been able to discharge its primary function in the present case, Section 106 of the Evidence Act, can come in aid of the prosecution i.e. any fact being especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. It is a presumed fact that one is privy to his/her qualification and accused when put in such a situation by the prosecution, ought to have come out clean with his education qualifications. The accused admittedly applied for Permanent Registration. The accused did not put a single question to PW1 or to PW2 in cross-examination and did not even rebut having applied to the MCI. It is immaterial if the accused himself filled the form or filled it through someone else, the form categorically states that candidates solemnly affirm that particulars mentioned are true.
FIR No.98 of 2013; P.S. Palam Village Pages 10 of 12 State v. Chandan Kumar 20 The prosecution thus having been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt shifted burden on the accused to prove his innocence and even prove his 10+2 credentials. The knowledge of the said fact was exclusive to the accused and the burden thus was on him to prove. Also nowhere it has come on record that the original marksheet was seized. The marksheet in original, if any was within the possession of the accused, as neither the MCI nor the Council, Ranchi retained the original marksheet. It is judicial noticeable fact that one would possess his own original education credentials. True, that the IO ought to have served notice on the accused to produce the original, yet the same does not absolve the accused under Section 106 Evidence Act, to prove a fact within his personal knowledge i.e. his education qualification. Section 66 Evidence Act also casts a duty upon the accused to produce the original. Since the 10+2 marksheet of accused Chandan Kumar is pivotal in this case, and as per Section 66(2) Evidence Act duty is cast upon him, considering the nature of the case, he was required to produce the original.
21 From the discussion above, the accused is proved to have fraudulently induced the MCI to deliver his provisional registration, which if not for the deception of fake marksheet, the MCI would not have delivered. The accused has thus cheated the MCI by furnishing fake marksheet. Further, because of the said cheating, the MCI having been deceived has delivered the marksheet to the accused. Also, the accused had knowledge that the marksheet was false and yet he fraudulently and with dishonest intention used the same as genuine. It is true that not much effort was made to trace the person who forged the marksheet in question for the accused, however the same does not absolve the accused of his actions.
Conclusions FIR No.98 of 2013; P.S. Palam Village Pages 11 of 12 State v. Chandan Kumar 22 Thus the accused somehow had in his possession a false marksheet which he knew was not genuine. Accused used this fake marksheet to fill his form to the Medical Council of India and thereby got Provisional Registration Certificate. The accused has thus cheated and dishonestly induced the Medical Council of India (an artificial person) so deceived to delivery property i.e. Provisional Registration Certificate. All the ingredients of Section 420 of the Code are thus fulfilled. Similarly since accused knew or atleast had reason to believe that the marksheet was forged, yet he fraudulently or dishonestly used the same as genuine and thus the ingredients of Section 471 of the Code are also fulfilled.
ORDER: CONVICTED 23 In view of the above reasons accused Chandan Kumar is convicted u/S. 420 IPC for cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property; and also he is convicted u/S.471 IPC for using as genuine a forged marksheet.
Announced in Open Court (Paras Dalal)
on this May 31, 2022 MM -01, South West
Dwarka Court, New Delhi
FIR No.98 of 2013; P.S. Palam Village Pages 12 of 12 State v. Chandan Kumar