Delhi District Court
State vs . Bhanu Pratap Singh on 30 October, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINOD KUMAR MEENA:
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURT, NEW DELHI.
FIR No. 284/2005
PS Delhi Cantt. (CB)
State Vs. Bhanu Pratap Singh
U/s 420/467/468/471/474 IPC
JUDGMENT
CIS No. : 423793/2016
Date of institution of the case : 14.08.2005
Date of commission of offence : 15.07.2008
Name of the complainant : SI Sajjan Singh
No. D-834, Anti Robbery Cell,
Crime Branch, Sector-08,
R.K. Puram.
Name of accused and address : Bhanu Pratap Singh
S/o Late Brahm Jit Singh,
R/o B-4/188 D,
Keshav Puram, New Delhi.
Offence complained of : U/s 420/467/468/471/474 IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Final order : Acquittal
Date on which judgment reserved : 01.09.2021
Date of judgment : 30.10.2021
FIR No. 284/2005, PS Delhi Cantt. (CB)
State Vs. Bhanu Pratap Singh Page No. 1 of 27
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE FACTS FOR DECISION:
1. Through this judgment, I shall decide the case bearing FIR No.284/2005 titled as State Vs. Bhanu Pratap Singh PS Crime Branch. Before proceeding further with the present case, it is pertinent to mention here that the chargesheet was originally filed in the year 2008 and the case was disposed of through judgment vide judgment dated 29.07.2017 whereby the accused Bhanu Pratap Singh was convicted for the offence U/s 468/474, Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"). The accused preferred an appeal and the Ld. Appellate Court vide order dated 04.06.2018 set aside the impugned judgment and the case was remanded back to this court with the direction that additional statement of appellant has to be recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C and an opportunity has also to be granted to the accused to lead defence evidence, if any and accordingly, the additional statement of accused was recorded on 07.01.2020 and accused has not lead any defence evidence and defence evidence was closed and the matter was listed for final arguments.
2. Now, to proceed further with the present matter it become inevitable to deduce here brief facts of the case.
2.1 Accused Bhanu Pratap Singh S/o Late Brahm Jit Singh has been chargesheeted for committing offence punishable under Section 420/467/468/471/474 IPC.
2.2 It is the case of the prosecution that one secret informer met SI Sajjan Singh in the office of Anti Robbery Cell, Crime Branch on 14.08.2005 at around 09:00 am and informed that a person is involved FIR No. 284/2005, PS Delhi Cantt. (CB) State Vs. Bhanu Pratap Singh Page No. 2 of 27 in preparing forged certificates, mark-sheets and degrees of different Boards and Universities and had asked him to meet at Dhaula Kuan and he could be apprehended if a raid is conducted. The information was conveyed to senior officers and a raiding party was constituted under supervision of Insp. R.N. Vashisht consisting SI Sajjan Singh, PSI Sumer Singh, Const. Ashok Kumar, Const. Pradeep Kumar, Const. Govind Singh and Const. Arvind Kumar which left the office alongwith secret informer in Govt. vehicle No.DL1CJ-2329 driven by Const. Hoti Lal after making entry in Roznamcha Register vide DD No.4. They reached near Dhaula Kuan Bus stand, Gurgaon Road Petrol Pump at about 09:35 AM. Thereafter, Insp. R. N. Vashisht conducted personal search of SI Sajjan Singh and gave six notes of Rs. 500/- denomination bearing no. (i) 7AV680683, (ii) 3AD607023, (iii) 4BG502362, (iv) 9AH688710, (v) 9BT722788 and (vi) 6AP423068 total Rs. 3,000/- by instructing him to hand over the currency notes to accused after striking deal for preparing certificates of Class 10th and 12th for himself and his friend. Members of raiding party thereafter took position around the bus stand whereas SI Sajjan Singh alongwith secret informer remained at the bus stand. At around 10:45 AM, one white Maruti car No. DL2CA0587 coming from Gurgaon stopped near the secret informer and the person driving the car came out and identified himself as Bhanu Pratap. SI Sajjan Singh was introduced to Bhanu Pratap by secret informer and stated that he wanted certificates of Class 10th and 12th for himself and his friend. Accused Bhanu Pratap, thereafter, produced one certificate claiming that he had prepared around 500 such forged certificates and nobody could distinguish it from original and demanded a sum of Rs. 8,000/- each for such forged certificates. The deal was finally settled for Rs. 6,000/-
FIR No. 284/2005, PS Delhi Cantt. (CB) State Vs. Bhanu Pratap Singh Page No. 3 of 27 out of which Rs. 3,000/- were given as advance and accused submitted that certificates could be collected at around 5:30 PM to 6:00 PM that day itself i.e. 14.08.2005. SI Sajjan Singh, thereafter, gave details for preparing certificates for Class 10th and 12th and currency notes signed by Insp. R.N. Vashisht were handed over to accused Bhanu Pratap Singh. SI Sajjan Singh, thereafter, returned to office of AATS, Crime Branch alongwith staff at around 11:30 AM vide arrival entry bearing DD No. 5 dated 14.08.2005 and information was conveyed to ACP. SI Sajjan Singh alongwith raiding party again left for Dhaula Kuan Bus Stand at around 4:40 PM and requested 4-5 persons to join raiding party who, nonetheless, refused and left without disclosing their identity. At around 5:45 PM, Maruti car bearing No. DL2CA0587 came at Dhaula Kuan Bus Stand and accused Bhanu Pratap Singh alighted from the car and handed over certificates and marksheets of Class 10th and 12th of SI Sajjan Singh and Insp. R. N. Vashisht which appeared to be original. SI Sajjan Singh, at that point, raised his right hand for signaling the raiding party which rushed in immediately and apprehended accused Bhanu Pratap Singh. Personal search of accused was conducted and four currency notes of Rs. 500/- denomination bearing signature of Insp. R. N. Vashisht were recovered from back pocket of his pant which were kept in an envelope sealed with the seal of 'SSY' and seized by police. Forged certificates of class 10th and 12th which were handed over by accused to SI Sajjan Singh were also seized and tehrir for offence U/s 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC was prepared by SI Sajjan Singh which was sent to PS Delhi Cantt. through Const. Ashok Kumar for registration of FIR.
3. Investigation of the case was handed over to SI Shanker FIR No. 284/2005, PS Delhi Cantt. (CB) State Vs. Bhanu Pratap Singh Page No. 4 of 27 Banerjee who prepared site plan and arrested accused. Sustained interrogation of accused was conducted and numerous certificates of CBSE, University of Delhi and other institutions were recovered from his residence alongwith computer, rubber stamps, blank certificates, stationaries, etc. used for preparing fake certificates and marksheets on the basis of disclosure statement of accused recorded by IO. Certificates and marksheets of candidates recovered from accused were sent to offices of CBSE at Delhi, Rajasthan, Allahabad, etc. and replies were received bearing diary no.
F/M&M/VERIFICATION/2005/802 dated 13.10.2005 from office of CBSE, Delhi; letter no. 602/CBSE/RO(AJM)/M&M/VER/186207/07 dated 17.01.2007 and letter dated 01.02.2007 from office of CBSE, Todar Mal Marg, Ajmer, Rajasthan and letter no. RO/ (ALLD)/CBSE/M&M/VERIFICATION/359 dated 21.12.2006 which revealed that certificates and marksheets of most of the candidates were fake. During investigation, a letter was also issued to office of Registrar, Delhi University bearing no. 859/RACP/ARC dated 03.10.2007 for verification of certificates and marksheets of candidates and CPU of computer recovered from accused was deposited in the office of Government Examiner Of Questioned Documents (GEQD), Ramanthapur, Hyderabad vide letter no CCH/168/2007/3456 dated 25.10.2007 for analyzing the contents stored in the hard disk of CPU. Report with respect to forged certificates of Delhi University was received vide letter no. Exam III (ii)/2007/2076 dated 03.11.2007 stating that name of Ruchika Arora did not exist in the official record against Roll no. 4925710 of B.A. (Pass) Exam for the year 2004. it was also reported that copy of marksheet of Jai Shree Baruah of B.Com (Pass) Part I Exam was manipulated as candidate had failed in the FIR No. 284/2005, PS Delhi Cantt. (CB) State Vs. Bhanu Pratap Singh Page No. 5 of 27 examination and marksheet of Anuj Trehan of B.A. (Pass) for the year 2001 bearing Roll no. 734266 was manipulated as marks were different from the official record of Delhi University. On the basis of the complaint, present FIR was registered. After completion of investigation 'final report' was filed by the Investigation Officer (IO) in the Court and the accused was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 420/467/468/471/474 IPC. Supplementary chargesheet alongwith result of exhibits received from GEQD, Hyderabad was filed on 17.12.2008.
4. Chargesheet alongwith annexed documents were carefully perused and after necessary clarifications, cognizance was taken by the Court and summons were issued to the accused. Accused appeared in the Court. Compliance of Section 207 Cr. PC 1973 was done. After hearing the parties, charge for the offence punishable under Section 420/467/468/471/474 IPC, was framed against accused Bhanu Pratap Singh. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. The prosecution has examined 14 witnesses to substantiate the allegations and to prove its case against the accused. All of the witnesses are official witnesses except PW-6 namely Sunil Vats.
5.1 SI Virender Prakash has been examined as PW-1, who on the basis of ruqqa prepared FIR as Ex. PW1/A and made endorsement on ruqqa as Ex. PW1/B. 5.2 Sh. Prashant Goel, Executive Assistant, CBSE, Regional Office, Allahabad, U.P has been examined as PW-2 and he has averred qua FIR No. 284/2005, PS Delhi Cantt. (CB) State Vs. Bhanu Pratap Singh Page No. 6 of 27 letter dated 09.11.2010 as Ex. PW2/A, reply made to the police vide letter dated 21.12.2006 as Ex. PW2/B, copy of marksheet No.057184 as Ex. PW2/C, copy of letter of SI Sanjeev Sharma as Ex.PW2/D, copy of Gazette containing details of Roll No.5186851 of Esha Bhasin as Ex. PW2/E. 5.3 Sh. Murari Lal, Section Officer, CBSE, Delhi Region, Patparganj, Delhi has been examined as PW-3 and he has averred qua photocopies of letter of IO alongwith photocopies of certificates of Saloni Jain and Monis Ali as Ex. PW3/A (colly.), photocopy of letter of CBSE dated 13.10.2005 as Ex. PW3/B, photocopies of Tabulation Register containing Roll No.6133927/2003 of Saloni Jain and Roll No.6397733/2003 of Monis Ali as Ex. PW3/C and Ex. PW3/D. He deposed that as per record of CBSE, candidate Saloni Jain Roll No.6133927 did not adopt or appear in examination of English Course B and Sankrit and candidate Monis Ali Roll No. 6397733 did not adopt or appear in the examination of subjects English Course A and Urdu.
5.4 Smt. Kamlesh, Retd. Deputy Secretary, CBSE, New Delhi has been examined as PW-4. She has averred qua letter no. F/M & N/Verification/2005/802 dated 13.10.2005 as Ex. PW4/A, copy of police letter no.726 dated 21.09.2005 as Ex.PW4/B, copy of certificate of Saloni Jain and Monis Ali sent to CBSE with letter as Ex. PW4/C & Ex. PW4/D, copy of record as Ex. PW4/E, copy of CBSE record as Ex. PW4/E and original fake certificates as Ex. PW4/C1 & Ex. PW4/D1.
5.5 Sh. Yash Paul Wadhwa, Assistant Secretary, CBSE, Todar Mal FIR No. 284/2005, PS Delhi Cantt. (CB) State Vs. Bhanu Pratap Singh Page No. 7 of 27 Marg, Ajmer, Rajasthan has been examined as PW-5. He has averred qua copy of record as Ex. PW5/A and Ex. PW5/A1 and verification letter as Ex. PW5/B. 5.6 Sh. Sunil Vats has been examined as PW-6. He has averred qua seizure memo of one receipt and one admit card as Ex. PW6/A, receipt as Ex. PW6/A1 and admit card as Ex. PW6/A2. He has not supported the police version.
5.7 HC Bhupesh Kumar has been examined as PW-7. He is a police witness who according to the directions of IO had received a sealed CPU and deposited the same to GEQD Hyderabad and returned the copy of RC to MHC (M), PS Delhi Cantt.
5.8 Sh. Shiv Singh Chaudhary, Section Officer, Examination Office, University of Delhi has been examined as PW-8. He has averred qua letter dated 03.11.2007 as Ex. PW8/A and certified copy of all the result and marksheets of roll numbers as Ex. P-8/1.
5.9 ASI Nanak Chand who joined the investigation of present case with IO has been examined as PW-9. He has averred qua arrest memo of accused as Ex. PW9/A, personal search memo of accused as Ex. PW9/B, seizure memo of two car certificates as Ex. PW9/C, disclosure statement of accused as Ex. PW9/D, seizure memo of rubber stamps and other materials for printing work as Ex. PW9/E1, Ex. PW9/E2 & Ex. PW9/E3, two certificates as Ex. PW9/1 & Ex. PW9/3 and all case property as Ex. PW9/3(colly.).
FIR No. 284/2005, PS Delhi Cantt. (CB) State Vs. Bhanu Pratap Singh Page No. 8 of 27 5.10 SI Sumer Singh has been examined as PW-10. He has averred qua seizure memo of four currency notes as Ex. PW10/A, seizure memo of certificates as Ex. PW10/B, seizure memo of Maruti car as Ex. PW10/C, 8 certificates as Ex. PW10/1 to Ex. PW10/8 and envelope alongwith currency notes as Ex. P-11.
5.11 Inspector Sajjan Singh has been examined as PW-11. He has averred qua handing over memo of currency notes as Ex. PW11/A and rukka as Ex. PW11/B. 5.12 Sh. M. Krishnan, Assistant Government Examiner, GEQD Wing, CFSL, Hyderabad has been examined as PW-12. He has averred qua detailed analysis report bearing no.CCH-168/2007 dated 04.04.2008 as Ex. PW12/A and annexures as Ex. PW12/B & Ex. PW12/1 to Ex. PW12/12.
5.13 Retired ACP R.N. Vashisht has been examined as PW-13 and Inspector Shanker Banarjee, IO of the present case has been examined as PW-14. They averred in the same lines as of PW-11.
6. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed. Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. (1) (b) Cr.PC on 28.04.2017. The case was originally disposed of through judgment vide judgment dated 29.07.2017 whereby the accused Bhanu Pratap Singh was convicted for the offence U/s 468/474, IPC. The accused preferred an appeal and the Ld. Appellate Court vide order dated 04.06.2018 set aside the impugned judgment and the case was remanded back to this court with the direction that additional statement of appellant has to be recorded FIR No. 284/2005, PS Delhi Cantt. (CB) State Vs. Bhanu Pratap Singh Page No. 9 of 27 U/s 313 Cr.P.C and an opportunity had also to be granted to the accused to lead defence evidence, if any and accordingly, the additional statement of accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C on 07.01.2020. The accused denied the incriminating evidence. He stated that he was falsely implicated in the present case and accused has not lead any defence evidence and defence evidence was closed and the matter was listed for final arguments.
7. Ld. APP for the State argued that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is further submitted by Ld. APP for the state that all the witnesses have stated in a coherent manner and there is no deviation or contradiction in the averments of all the witnesses which leads to only one conclusion that accused is guilty of committing the offence U/s 420/467/468/471/474 IPC. Hence guilt of the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and accused may be convicted for commission of the offence U/s 420/467/468/471/474 IPC.
8. On the other hand, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for accused that the whole of the case depends upon the allegations that forged certificates had been recovered from accused firstly at Dhaula Kuan from his car bearing no. DL2CA0587 and thereafter from his house bearing no. B4 168 D Keshav Puram New Delhi. It is further submitted by ld. Counsel for accused that both these areas of alleged recovery are heavily populated, however, not even a single public witness had been joined as independent/public witness. It is further submitted by Ld. Counsel for accused that while making the search and seizure from his house bearing no. B 4/168 D Keshav Puram, the FIR No. 284/2005, PS Delhi Cantt. (CB) State Vs. Bhanu Pratap Singh Page No. 10 of 27 proceedings U/s 100 of Cr.P.C has not been complied with. No public person/neighbourers had been made witness which is mandatory U/s 100 (4) of Cr.P.C. It is further submitted by Ld. Counsel for accused that only public witness was produced as PW-6 namely Sh. Sunil Vats, however, he has not supported the version of prosecution. It is further submitted by Ld. Counsel for accused that the impugned recovery is nowhere linked with the present accused and there are serious loop holes in the story of prosecution which raised serious doubts not only qua recovery but also with respect to the forgery of impugned documents. It is finally submitted by Ld. Counsel for accused that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt so the accused may be acquitted.
9. I have heard the submissions and carefully perused the material available on record.
10. Before proceeding further with discussing the present case on merits, it becomes inevitable to discuss here the settled legal position in criminal cases. It is trite that in criminal jurisprudence, the prosecution is under an obligation to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of proof to be adopted in criminal cases is not merely of preponderance of probabilities but proof beyond reasonable doubts on the basis of cogent, convincing and reliable evidence. It is also well settled that in case of doubt, the benefit must necessarily be given to the accused. It is also settled position of law that whenever there are two views possible, the view which favours the innocence of the accused is to be accepted by the Court.
FIR No. 284/2005, PS Delhi Cantt. (CB) State Vs. Bhanu Pratap Singh Page No. 11 of 27
11. The offence for which the accused has been charged with are Section 420/467/468/471/474 IPC. So broadly the offences for which the accused has been charged with can be divided in two categories i.e.
(i) cheating as punishable U/s 420 IPC and
(ii) forgery as punishable U/s 467/468/471/474 IPC.
12. The first offence for which accused has been charged with is offence under Section 420 of IPC. Before proceeding further with the factual position/findings qua commission of the offence U/s 420 IPC, it become inevitable to deal with the basic legal principle as enumerated u/s 420 IPC r.w. Section 415 IPC.
Section 420 of IPC deals with "cheating" which has been defined in Section 415 of IPC. Section 415 of IPC reads as under:
"415. Cheating.- Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".
Explanation.--A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section."
13. After going through the abovementioned definition U/s 415 IPC it can be deduced that in order to attract allegations of "cheating", following ingredients must exist:
(i) deception of a person;
(ii) (A) fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person,
(a) to deliver any property to any person; or, FIR No. 284/2005, PS Delhi Cantt. (CB) State Vs. Bhanu Pratap Singh Page No. 12 of 27
(b) to consent that any person shall retain any property, (B) intentional inducing that person to do or omit to do any thing,
(a) which he would not do or omit if he was not so deceived, and,
(b) such act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.
14. Section 420 IPC reads as under:
"420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person de-ceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
15. After going through the abovementioned definition as provided U/s 420 IPC, it can be said that in order to attract Section 420 IPC., following essential ingredients must be shown to be existed :
(i) cheating;
(ii) dishonest inducement to deliver property or to make or destroy any valuable security or any thing which is sealed or signed or is capable of being converted into a valuable security; and,
(iii) mens rea of accused at the time of making inducement and which act of omission.
16. After going through the essential legal ingredients which are required to be proved for commission of the offence U/s 420 IPC, the Court deem it fit to discuss here the settled legal principals as decided by Hon'ble Apex Court.
16.1 In Mahadeo Prasad Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1954 SC FIR No. 284/2005, PS Delhi Cantt. (CB) State Vs. Bhanu Pratap Singh Page No. 13 of 27 724 it was observed that to constitute offence of cheating, intention to deceive should be in existence at the time when inducement was offered.
16.2 In Jaswantrai Manilal Akhaney Vs. State of Bombay, AIR 1956 SC 575, Court said that a guilty intention is an essential ingredient of the offence of cheating. For the offence of cheating, "mens rea" on the part of that person, must be established.
16.3 In G.V. Rao Vs. L.H.V. Prasad and others, 2000(3) SCC 693, Court said that Section 415 has two parts. While in the first part, the person must "dishonestly" or "fraudulently" induce the complainant to deliver any property and in the second part the person should intentionally induce the complainant to do or omit to do a thing. In other words in the first part, inducement must be dishonest or fraudulent while in the second part, inducement should be intentional.
17. After going through the settled legal principal with respect to commission of cheating and coming to the factual matrix of the case, it is observed by the court that throughout the prosecution evidence the only effort which had been made by prosecution is towards proving the commission of the offence of forgery and no efforts has been made to substantiate the factum of commission of the offence U/s 420 IPC. The only witness who has been produced as independent/public witness was PW-6 namely Sunil Vats, who said to have been cheated by accused. PW-6 has not supported even a single point of version of prosecution. There is no proof or evidence to substantiate or even to give hint towards commission of offence of cheating.
FIR No. 284/2005, PS Delhi Cantt. (CB) State Vs. Bhanu Pratap Singh Page No. 14 of 27
18. In the absence of any evidence, the Court is bound to give finding that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the commission of the offence U/s 420 IPC.
19. The second set of offence for which the accused has been charged with are Sections 467/468/471/474 IPC. All these sections punish commission of forgery. Before starting the discussion on the commission of the offence U/s 467/468/471/474 IPC, it would be relevant to take note of Section 463 and 464 of IPC which defines commission of offence of forgery.
463 IPC defines "Forgery" which reads as under:-
Whoever makes any false documents or electronic record part of a document or electronic record with, intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.
464 IPC defines "Making a false document" which reads as under:-
A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record-
First- Who dishonestly or fraudulently- c. makes signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;
(c) Affixes any digital signature on any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the digital signature, With the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or digital signature was make, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, FIR No. 284/2005, PS Delhi Cantt. (CB) State Vs. Bhanu Pratap Singh Page No. 15 of 27 executed or affixed; or Secondly- Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with digital signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly- Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record to affix his digital signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of unsoundness of deception racticed upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alterations.
20. Basic ingredients of the offence under Section 467, 468, 471 and 474 IPC are that there should be forgery under Section 463 and forgery in turn depends upon creation of a false document as defined in Section 464 IPC.
21. The Court shall now deal with the ingredients of Section 467 IPC.
Section 467 IPC reads as under:
467. Forgery of valuable security, will etc. Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, moveable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any moveable property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with FIR No. 284/2005, PS Delhi Cantt. (CB) State Vs. Bhanu Pratap Singh Page No. 16 of 27 imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
21.1 The following ingredients are essential for commission of the offence under Section 467 IPC:
1. the document in question so forged;
2. the accused who forged it.
3. the document is one of the kinds enumerated in the aforementioned section.
21.2 The basic ingredients of offence under Section 467 IPC are altogether missing even in the allegations of the FIR against the accused. There is not even a single evidence to suggest that the documents which are alleged to be forged are the documents which has been enumerated in Section 467 of IPC. Therefore, by no stretch of the imagination, the accused can be legally prosecuted for an offence under Section 467 IPC.
21.3 Even if all the averments made in the FIR are taken to be correct, the case for prosecution under Section 420 and 467 IPC is not made out against the accused.
22. In view of the abovementioned, the Court has no hesitation in giving the finding that the commission of the offence U/s 467 IPC also has not been proved against accused.
23. Now court deem it fit to discuss here the findings on commission of the offence U/s 471 IPC.
Section 471 IPC reads as under:-
471. Using as genuine a forged [document or electronic record].--Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any [document or electronic record] which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged [document FIR No. 284/2005, PS Delhi Cantt. (CB) State Vs. Bhanu Pratap Singh Page No. 17 of 27 or electronic record], shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such [document or electronic record].
23.1 As far as commission of the offence U/s 471 IPC is concerned, the Court has observed that only allegation against the accused is that he had forged the document. There is not even a single allegation to the effect that he had used such forged document as genuine. There is not even a single evidence to substantiate the commission of offence U/s 471 IPC. So, it can be deduced without hesitation that commission of the offence U/s 471 IPC has also not been proved against accused.
24. Now the Court is discussing the commission of offence U/s 468/474 IPC together.
Section 468 IPC which reads as under:
"468. Forgery for purpose of cheating. - Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
Section 474 IPC reads as under:
474. Having possession of document described in section 466 or 467, knowing it to be forged and intending to use it as genuine.--[Whoever has in his possession any document or electronic record, knowing the same to be forged and intending that the same shall fraudulently or dishonestly be used as genuine, shall, if the document or electronic record is one of the description mentioned in section 466 of this Code], be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if the document is one of the description mentioned in section 467, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description, for a term which FIR No. 284/2005, PS Delhi Cantt. (CB) State Vs. Bhanu Pratap Singh Page No. 18 of 27 may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
25. To substantiate the commission of offence U/s 468/474 IPC, the prosecution was duty bound to prove the following ingredients:
1. The accused is found to be possession of some documents.
2. The impugned documents are forged documents.
3. The accused forged these documents and the forgery is for the purpose of cheating.
26. After going through the settled legal principal which are required to prove the commission of the offence of forgery U/s 468/474 IPC and coming to the factual matrix of the present case, the court deem it fit to mention here that the prosecution case is that one secret informer came to police official specifically to PW11 Inspector Sajjan Singh Yadav at around 09:00 AM and apprised him about the fact that one person namely Bhanu Pratap is involved in preparation of fake education certificate and he had called him at Dhaula Kuan at 10:30 am and on the basis of this information, they made a raiding team and reached at Dhaula Kuan Bus stand at exit point of DTC bus stand near DSOI Colony at 09:35 AM. Accused came there in his white maruti car bearing no. DL2CA0587 and a dealing struck between PW11 i.e. Inspector Sajjan Singh Yadav and the accused for a sum of Rs.6000/- for making forged certificates and he gave Rs.3000/-
in advance. It is also the case that on the same day they went to the same spot i.e Dhaula Kuan bus stand and took their position there and accused came there at around 05:45 pm and handed over the forged certificates and the accused was apprehended there and then and four currency notes in the denomination of Rs.500/- were found from him FIR No. 284/2005, PS Delhi Cantt. (CB) State Vs. Bhanu Pratap Singh Page No. 19 of 27 alongwith fake and forged certificate bearing Ex.PW10/1 to Ex. PW10/8. The court has observed that it is the admitted averment on the part of PW-11 that he reached his office on 14.08.2005 at 09:00 AM where he met with secret informer and informer talked to him for about 15 minutes. The relevant paras from examination in chief and cross-examination of PW-11 is quoted here as under:-
"On 14.08.2005 I was posted at Anti Robbery Cell, Crime Branch, Sector-8, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. On that day, when I was present at my office at about 9 am one secret informer came to me and told that one person namely Bhanu Pratap is involved in preparation of fake education certificates and he further told me that he had called him at Dhaula Kuan today at 10.30 am."
"On that day I reached at office at about 9 am in the morning. There were around 30 staff members were in the office. The office of the Inspector R.N. Vashist is on the ground floor while I and Inspector Shankar Banerjee used to sit on first floor. I was having mobile number in the year 2005 however I do not remember the number of the same at present. I had not written the name and address of the informer. Informer talked to me in the office for about 15 minutes."
27. It is also the admitted fact on the part of PW-11 that they reached the spot at around 09:35 AM. The relevant paras from cross- examination of PW-11 is quoted here as under:-
"It is correct that I made the departure entry no.4. the secret informer told me the name of the accused Bhanu Pratap. I do not remember whether the DD no.4 bears my signature or not. When the DD entry is made by the personnel departing then there is no need to sign the same. However, when the same written by the writer we used to sign the same."
28. PW-13 had averred in his examination in chief that he was called by PW-11 at 09:05 AM alongwith all other police officials. The FIR No. 284/2005, PS Delhi Cantt. (CB) State Vs. Bhanu Pratap Singh Page No. 20 of 27 relevant para is quoted here as under:-
"On 14.08.2005 I was posted as Inspector ARC, Crime Branch, Sector-8, RK Puram. At around 9.05 AM SI Sajjan Singh called myself, ASI Sumer, Ct. Pradeep, Ct. Arvind, Ct. Govind, Ct. Ashok to his office and informed that he has one secret information that one Bhanu Pratap is involved in fabricating false certificates and degrees and he can be arrested if efforts are made."
29. It is also averred by PW-13 that they left the office at around 09:15 AM from their office. The relevant para is quoted here as under:-
"In terms of secret information we departed our raiding party at about 9.15 AM from our office so that they may catch the accused between 10.30 - 11.00 AM near Dhaula Kuan as he is coming from Gurgaon side. We reached Dhaula Kuan by 9.35 AM and parked our govt. vehicle i.e. Toyota Qualis near petrol pump."
30. After going through the admitted averments of prosecution witnesses, the Court found it very strange that PW-11 came to office at 09:00 AM and without doing anything he directly met the secret informer and had interaction with him for around 15 minutes and they prepared a raiding team, left the office at 09:15 AM and reached the spot at 09:35 AM. It is humanly impossible to meet someone at 09:00 AM, have interaction for 15 minutes, analyses all the facts, prepare a raiding team after having an interaction with secret informer for around 15 minutes and reaching the impugned spot i.e. Dhaula Kuan bus stand which is usually marred with traffic jams at 09:35 AM even in a perfect scenario and favorable traffic conditions, it is tough to achieve.
31. Be that as it may and believing the prosecution version on the abovementioned aspects, the Court has to proceed further with FIR No. 284/2005, PS Delhi Cantt. (CB) State Vs. Bhanu Pratap Singh Page No. 21 of 27 deciding the basic ingredients as required to be proved for commission of the offence U/s 468/474 IPC as mentioned above. The first ingredient which has to be proved is that accused is found in possession with the impugned documents. To this, it is observed by the Court that the impugned place of action i.e. Dhaula Kuan bus stand, near DSOI Club where firstly they met with the accused and secondly on the same day they apprehended the accused, is a very busy and crowded place. Very strangely they have not made any public as witness. All the police/official witnesses had stated in their examination that they had asked some public persons to join the proceedings but they refused. However, as the record would reveal, no public witness to the recovery of impugned forged documents has been either cited in the list of witnesses or examined by the prosecution.
32. It is stated by witnesses in their examination that the public person had refused to join the investigation. However, no notice is shown to be served upon them. The IO even did not note down their names and addresses. It is not the case of the prosecution that no public person was present at or near the spot of arrest and recovery. PW-11 has categorically averred and admitted in his cross-examination that the impugned spot was near DSOI Club, however, he has not asked the club personnel to join the investigation. The relevant para is quoted as under:-
"It is correct that in the site plan Ex. PW11/DB at point C there is one DSOI club. I did not ask the club personnel to join investigation."
33. The impugned action cum raid has been done on 14.08.2005 from morning to evening in two parts on the same spot. Apparently, FIR No. 284/2005, PS Delhi Cantt. (CB) State Vs. Bhanu Pratap Singh Page No. 22 of 27 there was sufficient time with police officials as the whole incident runs throughout the impugned day i.e. 14.08.2005 and admittedly they had waited for sufficient time at the spot, however, there is nothing on record to show that PWs had served any notice under Section 160 Cr.PC upon the persons who refused to join the investigation. From a perusal of the record, no serious effort for joining public witnesses appears to have been made.
34. The second set of action has been taken on next day i.e. 15.08.2005, wherein the prosecution allegedly raided his house no. B 4/168 D Keshav Puram. Very strangely the police officials admittedly had not made any DD entry qua their departure to the flat of the accused on 15.08.2005. No intimation had also been given to the local police. They had not intimated or informed the neighbourers and no independent and respectable inhabitant of locality has been made witness which is mandate as provided by Section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C. The relevant averments of PW-14 as made by him in his cross- examination is quoted here as under:-
"I have never interrogated the persons in whose name forged certificates were recovered. No DD entry was made regarding the departure to the flat of accused Bhanu Pratap Singh on 15.08.2005. No entry was also made in the P.S. Kesavpuram in which jurisdiction place of recovery falls. No statement of independent public person was recorded during the entire investigation. The flat of Bhanu Pratap was located at 3rd floor in Kesavpuram. I had not made inquiry from the residents of ground floor, 1st floor and 2nd floor. I cannot say whether the computer and its related accessory recovered on the instance of accused were in working condition or not as same were not checked by me at the time of seizure except printer which was in working condition."
FIR No. 284/2005, PS Delhi Cantt. (CB) State Vs. Bhanu Pratap Singh Page No. 23 of 27
35. From the abovementioned averments of PW-14, it is clear that police officials have not made entry of departure to the flat of the accused. Police officials are under a statutory duty to mark their departure from and arrival in the PS in a register kept in the police station for the purpose as per the Punjab Police Rules. It is relevant here to reproduce Chapter 22 Rule 49 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, which reads as under:
"22.49 Matters to be entered in Register No. II "The following matters shall, amongst others, be entered "(c) The hour of arrival and departure on duty at or from a police station of all enrolled police officers of whatever rank, whether posted at the police station or elsewhere, with a statement of the nature of their duty. This entry shall be made immediately on arrive or prior to the departure of the officer concerned and shall be attested by the latter personally by signature or seal. "Note: The term Police Station will include all places such as Police Lines and Police Posts where Register No. II is maintained."
36. In the present case, admittedly, no DD entry has been made qua the departure to the house of the accused from where all the recovery has been shown. As already discussed, they have not intimated the local police where the place to be searched was situated. It is a well settled proposition that non-joining of public witness shrouds doubt over the fairness of the investigation by police.
37. Section 100 (4) of the Cr.P.C also casts a statutory duty on officials conducting search to call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated. Same has not been done in the present case. This also casts a doubt on the fairness of the investigation.
FIR No. 284/2005, PS Delhi Cantt. (CB) State Vs. Bhanu Pratap Singh Page No. 24 of 27
38. Thus, it is shown on record that the police officials/PWs did not make any genuine efforts in the present case to get independent public witnesses to join the search proceedings despite their availability. No notice or warning is shown to have been given to public persons who had allegedly refused to join search proceedings, which also creates doubt on the story of the prosecution. All the alleged recovery of documents and computer system is shown from the house of accused, however, admittedly no departure has been entered into by police officials. The proceedings U/s 100(4) Cr.P.C has not been complied with. Non-availability of a public witness is one thing and not joining public person as a witness despite their availability is altogether different thing. In case a public person is available, it is duty of the police official to make sincere efforts to persuade such person to join the legal proceedings to become a witness. However, in the present case no such efforts are shown to be made by the police officials. In the case titled as Nank Chand Vs. State of Delhi, Crl. Revision No. 169/81, decided on 07.11.1990, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under:-
"The recovery was from a street with houses on both sides and shops nearby. And, yet no witness from the public has been produced. Not that in every case the police officials are to be treated as unworthy of reliance but their failure to join witnesses from the public especially when they are available at their elbow, may, as in the present case, cast doubt. They have again churned out a stereotyped version. Its rejection needs no Napoleon on the Bridge at Arcola.''
39. In the present case, non-joining of any public person as a witness creates doubt on the case of the prosecution.
FIR No. 284/2005, PS Delhi Cantt. (CB) State Vs. Bhanu Pratap Singh Page No. 25 of 27
40. To substantiate the commission of the offence U/s 468/474 IPC, it was inevitable on the part of prosecution to prove that accused was found in possession of the impugned documents. As discussed above, this very first ingredient has not been proved by prosecution. There are no evidence to substantiate that accused had forged these documents. All the official and police witnesses have made only effort that the documents which are in the judicial file are forged. No effort has been made to substantiate that these documents were found in possession of accused and he had forged the same. Only one public witness PW-6 came to depose, however, he has not supported the version of police officials. The computer and hard disc have been shown to be recovered from his house. However, as discussed above, there are no witnesses to substantiate that same has been recovered from his house. There are even no evidence to substantiate that computer system was in the name of accused or he had forged all these documents from this computer. From the above mentioned, it can be deduced that accused was not found in possession of these documents and he had not forged these documents and/or used these documents for the purpose of cheating. In view of the above mentioned, it can be deduced that the prosecution has failed to prove even the commission of offence U/s 468/474 IPC.
41. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is trite that in criminal jurisprudence, the prosecution is under an obligation to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of proof to be adopted in criminal cases is not merely of preponderance of probabilities but proof beyond reasonable doubts on the basis of cogent, convincing and reliable evidence. It is also well FIR No. 284/2005, PS Delhi Cantt. (CB) State Vs. Bhanu Pratap Singh Page No. 26 of 27 settled that in case of doubt, the benefit must necessarily be given to the accused. It is also settled position of law that whenever there are two views possible, the view which favours the innocence of the accused is to be accepted by the Court.
42. In view of the above mentioned, the accused Bhanu Pratap Singh stands acquitted from the offences punishable under Section 420/467/468/471/474 IPC.
43. Accused has already furnished personal bond and surety bond in terms of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The same have already been accepted and shall remain in force for a period of six months from today.
44. File be consigned to Record Room.
Pronounced in the open court on this 30th October 2021 VINOD KUMAR Digitally signed by VINOD KUMAR MEENA MEENA Date: 2021.10.30 16:46:28 +05'30' (VINOD KUMAR MEENA) Chief Metropolitan Magistrate South West District, Dwarka Courts New Delhi FIR No. 284/2005, PS Delhi Cantt. (CB) State Vs. Bhanu Pratap Singh Page No. 27 of 27