Delhi District Court
State vs . Anand Jain on 26 February, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANISH JAIN, MM-01, WEST DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
STATE VS. ANAND JAIN
FIR No. 08/2000
PS: PUNJABI BAGH
U/S: 420/467/471/411 IPC
DLWT020001312001
ID No. 70941/2016
Date of commission of offence Between 30.07.1998 and 12.08.1998
Date of institution of the case 22.12.2001
Name of the complainant Sh. Vinay Kumar s/o Sh. Dharam Nath
Singh, R/o Room No.90, Jubilee Hall
near Mall Road, University of Delhi.
Name of accused and address Anand Jain s/o Sh. Sripal Jain r/o H.
No.54, Saini Mohalla, Nangloi, Delhi.
Charge framed 411/467/471/420 IPC
Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
Final order Convicted
Date of judgement 26.02.2022
Manish Digitally signed
by Manish Jain
Jain Date: 2022.02.26
14:30:01 +05'30'
2
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that during the period i.e. 30.07.1998 to 12.08.1998 at unknown time, accused Anand Jain retained the draft no. 049372 issued by SBI Bank, Begu Sarai branch in a sum of Rs.5,000/- dated 30.07.1998 in favour of complainant Vinay Kumar. It is further alleged that accused forged the signature of complainant Vinay at point Q1 on the back side of said draft and thereafter deposited the said draft in his bank account bearing no. 144, State Bank of Mysore, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi, fraudulently inducing the bank officials consequently crediting the said amount in the account of accused. On the basis of statement of the complainant, an FIR was registered. After completion of necessary investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court. On accused being summoned, charge was framed against him under section 411/467/471/420 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2. The prosecution examined twelve witnesses in support of its case, which are as follows:-
a. PW-3 Sh. Harshwardhan, Assistant Director, FSL Haryana, deposed that the documents sent for examination were examined by him and he gave his report which is Ex.PW3/A. b. PW-9 Dharamnath Singh deposed that on 30.07.1998, he got issued a demand draft bearing no. 049372 in sum of Rs.5,000/- Ex.PW6/D in favour of his son namely Vinay Kumar drawn on FIR No.08/2000, PS Punjabi Bagh, State Vs. Anand Jain.
Manish Digitally signed
by Manish Jain
Jain Date: 2022.02.26
14:30:17 +05'30'
3
State Bank of India, Begu Sarai Branch, Bihar. Thereafter, he sent the aforesaid demand draft to the address of his son namely Vinay Kumar at Jubli Hall Hostel, Delhi University. Thereafter, after 20-25 days, he came to know that the aforesaid DD was not received by his son consequent to which he made complaint to postal superintendent at Begu Sarai which is Ex.PW9/A. c. PW-10 Vinay Kumar deposed that on 30.07.1998, his father had sent a demand draft of Rs.5,000/- through registered post to him, however he did not receive the same. He further deposed that his father filed a complaint with the post office in this regard. He further deposed that the said DD was encashed by some Natraj Enterprises and thereafter complaint Ex.PW10/A was made to the police station Punjabi Bagh.
d. PW-11 ACP Naresh Khanka deposed that on 04.01.2000, investigation of the present case was assigned to him. Thereafter, he had written a letter to the State Bank of Mysore, Punjabi Bagh regarding the encashment of bank draft number 049372 dated 30.07.1988 in a sum of Rs.5,000/- in favour of Vinay Kumar which was replied by bank vide letter Ex.PW11/A stating therein that the said DD was encashed by the Natraj Enterprises on 12.08.1998. He further deposed that on 10.01.2002, complainant was called to police station who handed over him the complaint Ex.PW9/A made to Post Master, Begu Sarai, Bihar. Thereafter, the investigation of the present case was marked to PW12 Insp.
FIR No.08/2000, PS Punjabi Bagh, State Vs. Anand Jain.
Manish Digitally signed
by Manish Jain
Jain Date: 2022.02.26
14:30:31 +05'30'
4
Balihar Singh who conducted the further investigation of the present case. PW12 seized the DD no.049372 dated 30.07.1988 vide Ex.PW12A, arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW12/B.
3. Other witnesses were also examined. However, for the sake of brevity, the testimonies of the said witnesses are not reproduced herein.
4. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused person was recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused and he was questioned generally on the case. He denied all the allegations and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The accused opted not to lead any defence evidence.
5. I have heard the submissions of both the parties and perused the evidence on record carefully. Ld. APP for State has submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused be convicted for the alleged offence.
6. On the other hand, the Counsel for accused has submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts.
7. It was argued by the counsel representing the accused that the specimen signatures of the accused which is Ex. PW2/E1 to E4 has been taken before the investigating officer and not before any judicial authority, and accordingly, since Section 311A Cr.P.C. has not been complied with, the report prepared by the expert which is Ex. PW3/A in inadmissible. It was further argued by the counsel that the rubber stamp FIR No.08/2000, PS Punjabi Bagh, State Vs. Anand Jain.
Manish Digitally signed
by Manish Jain
Jain Date: 2022.02.26
14:30:44 +05'30'
5
seized by the investigating officer was never sent to the FSL and only the specimen imprints of the rubber stamp were sent, and therefore, the report prepared by the expert qua stamp on the alleged Demand Draft shall not be considered being inadmissible.
8. The factum of the bank account bearing no. 54018653187 in State Bank of Mysore, Punjabi Bagh in the name of M/s Natraj Enterprises whose proprietor is accused in the present case stands proved by the testimony of PW6. Further, it has been deposed by PW6 that the demand draft bearing no. 049372 for a sum of Rs. 5000/- dated 30.07.1998 which is Ex. PW6/D has been cleared in favour of accused in the above stated account. Despite opportunity, PW6 has not been cross-examined and accordingly, the testimony given by him stands proved.
9. It has been deposed by PW9 and PW10 that Ex. PW6/D was drawn in favour of the complainant Vinay Kumar i.e. PW10. However, on perusal of PW6/D, it is observed that the same has allegedly been endorsed by Vinay Kumar in favour of accused on the back side of the draft. It is the version of the complainant as well as the prosecution that the said endorsement has not been made by the complainant, rather the same has been made by the accused by forging the signatures of the complainant and thereby inducing the bank to release the amount in favour of accused. In this context, prosecution has relied upon the report prepared by Senior Scientific Officer who was examined as PW3.
10. Before adverting to the report, I would prefer to deal with the contentions made by the ld. Counsel for the accused who has stated that FIR No.08/2000, PS Punjabi Bagh, State Vs. Anand Jain.
Manish Digitally signed
by Manish Jain
Jain Date: 2022.02.26
14:30:56 +05'30'
6
the report Ex. PW3/A is not admissible in evidence as the specimen signatures of the accused has not been taken before any judicial authority. Reliance has been placed on Rakesh Kumar vs State 2004[1] JCC 110 and State through CBI vs Inder Kumar Sharma 2010 [1] JCC 42 wherein it was observed that the handwriting report cannot be considered if specimen signatures are taken without permission of the court. With due humbleness, it is stated that the aforesaid judgments are not applicable in view of State of Bombay vs Kathi Kalu 1961 AIR 1808 passed by 11 Judge Bench wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed that "When an accused person is called upon by the court or any other authority holding an investigation to give his finger impression or signature or a specimen of his handwriting, he is not giving any testimony of the nature of a 'personal testimony'. The giving of a "personal testimony" must depend upon his volition. He can make any kind of statement or may refuse to make any statement. But his finger impressions or his handwriting, in spite of efforts at concealing the true nature of it by dissimulation cannot, change their intrinsic character. Thus, the giving of finger impressions or of specimen writing or of signatures by an accused person, though it may amount to furnishing evidence in the larger sense, is not included within the expression 'to be a witness'."
11. The Apex Court has used the expression "any other authority holding an investigation" which clearly indicates towards the investigating officer. Accordingly, it can be inferred that any specimen of FIR No.08/2000, PS Punjabi Bagh, State Vs. Anand Jain.
Manish Digitally signed
by Manish Jain
Jain Date: 2022.02.26
14:31:11 +05'30'
7
handwriting taken by the investigating officer does not come within the purview of Section 24, 25 or 26 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and is perse not inadmissible, unless it is proved to the contrary.
12. It was further argued that since Section 311A Cr.P.C. has not been complied with, the report Ex. PW3/A is inadmissible. In this context, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as Sukh Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Appeal no. 224 of 2012 has clearly held that Section 311A Cr.P.C. is prospective in nature, and not retrospective. Section 311A Cr.P.C. came into effect in the year 2006 and the issue in hand pertains to the year 2000. Accordingly, the contention raised by the counsel for accused is not tenable.
13. The accused neither during cross examination of the witnesses nor at the time when his statement was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C stated that his specimen signature was taken under compulsion or under threat by the IO, or the same has not been taken from him. Further, no evidence was led by the accused to rebut the case made by the prosecution. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the report Ex. PW3/A is admissible in evidence and can be relied upon.
14. Now, coming to the report, the specimen question signature 'Vinay Kumar' marked as Q1 matched with the specimen hand writing of accused marked as S1 to S5. It implies that in the opinion of PW3, accused Anand has made the endorsement in his favour by forging the signature of the complainant. Further, as per report, the sample stamp FIR No.08/2000, PS Punjabi Bagh, State Vs. Anand Jain.
Manish Digitally signed by Manish Jain Jain Date: 2022.02.26 14:31:26 +05'30' 8 impression marked S6 matches with the questioned stamp impression marked Q3. The argument made by the counsel for accused that the rubber stamp seized from the accused was never sent to the FSL and only the sample imprints of the said rubber stamp was sent, is irrelevant and has no significance.
15. Since the signatures made on the demand draft matches with the handwriting of accused, it can be concluded that it was accused Anand Jain who committed forgery. The opinion formed by PW3 that the demand draft Ex. PW6/D has been forged by accused is well corroborated by the fact that the demand draft has been encashed by the accused.
16. The deposition made by PW9 that the demand draft Ex. PW6/D was sent by him to the complainant residing in Jubli Hall Hostel, Delhi University by post, without any cross-examination by the accused, stands proved. Since the factum of forgery being committed by accused has been proved, the fact that accused retained the demand draft knowing the same to be stolen property also stands proved.
17. Moreover, the fact that accused presented the forged demand draft before the bank and thereby encashed the amount by misrepresenting the bank with respect to endorsement, a wrongful loss has been made to the rightful claimant i.e. the complainant and wrongful gain has been made by the accused to himself.
FIR No.08/2000, PS Punjabi Bagh, State Vs. Anand Jain.
Manish Digitally signed
by Manish Jain
Jain Date: 2022.02.26
14:31:41 +05'30'
9
18. The testimonies made by the witnesses are coherent in nature and inspires confidence. The accused has failed to prove its case or even create a doubt in the mind of the court. All the ingredients of the charged offences stand duly proved. The prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Anand Jain s/o Shripal Jain is hereby convicted for the offences under Section 411/467/471/420 IPC.
19. Convict is directed to file an affidavit of his income and assets in Annexure A format, in compliance of the directions contained in case titled "Karan v. State of NCT of Delhi"; CRL.A. 352/2020 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, within 10 days.
20. State is also directed to disclose the expenses incurred in the prosecution on an affidavit along with the supporting documents within 30 days.
Copy of this judgement be given dasti to the convict.
Manish Digitally signed
by Manish Jain
Jain Date: 2022.02.26
14:31:55 +05'30'
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (MANISH JAIN)
COURT ON 26th FEBRUARY, 2022 MM-01(WEST)/THC/DELHI
FIR No.08/2000, PS Punjabi Bagh, State Vs. Anand Jain.