Delhi District Court
In Case Titled As 'Shashi Lata Khanna vs State Of Delhi And on 27 May, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. SONU AGNIHOTRI, CMM, EAST
DISTRICT, KKD COURTS DELHI
FIR No. 615/98
PS Trilok Puri
JUDGMENT
UID No. 02402R0009611998 a. Sl. No. of the case : 702/08 b. Date of commission of offence : 14.07.1994, 07.01.1993 to 30.06.1995 c. Name of the complainant : Mulak Raj d. Name of the accused, his : E. Shri Niwas Rao parentage and address S/o Laxmi Narayana Alluri R/o Village and Taluka Madhira, PS Madhira Town, District: Khammam (AP) Also At: 63B, Kanchan Junga, Sector53, Noida, UP.
FIR No. 615/98 PS Trilok Puri 1/19 e. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty f. Offence complained of or proved: 420/468/471 IPC. g. Final order : Acquitted h. Date of Institution : 24.10.1998 i. Judgment reserved on : 01.03.2014 j. Judgment delivered on : 27.05.2014 Brief Facts
1. As per prosecution version, on 22.06.1998, one complaint vide letter No. M 58 written by Sh. Mulak Raj was received in the PS which was handed over for investigation to Incharge PP, PhaseI and after investigation, SI Sanjay Diwedi, Incharge, PP, Mayur Vihar PhaseI got lodged FIR u/sec 420/468/471 IPC.
2. In the complaint, it was stated that E. Shri Niwas Rao was selected as Direct Recruit Candidate on basis of selection by selection FIR No. 615/98 PS Trilok Puri 2/19 board held on 07.01.1993 for appointment as Junior Photo Interpretation Officer, Group A, Gazetted post in scale of Rs. 22004000/(prerevised) against vacancy reserved for a Schedule Tribe Candidate. It was mentioned that E. Shri Niwas Rao joined at the abovementioned post on 30.06.1995. It was mentioned that at the time of joining in Aviation Research Center, E. Shri Niwas Rao submitted provisional certificate of having completed B. Tech (mechanical) degrees in original issued by Nagarjuna University besides original caste certificate and matriculation certificate together with attested copies thereof. It was mentioned that on 10.06.1997, a written complaint addressed to Cabinet Secretary was received alleging that E. Shri Niwas Rao had discontinued his Engineering course from 3rd year onwards and that he was also debarred by UPSC from 1993 onwards for misconduct in Civil Services Examination. It was mentioned that on receipt of the complaint, inquiries were made with the concerned authorities i.e. Registrar, Nagarjuna University, Director of National Commission for SC /ST, Hyderabad Collector and District Magistrate Khammam (AP) and Secretary UPSC.
FIR No. 615/98 PS Trilok Puri 3/19
3. It was mentioned in the complaint that as per reply received from Registrar, Nagarjuna University, AP, provisional certificate bearing No. 28996 submitted by E. S. Rao showing having cleared B. Tech (Mechanical) at the time of joining Government Service in ARC is not genuine and is forged. It was mentioned that as per reply received from Director of National Commission for SC/ST, Collector, District Khammam (AP), caste certificate issued to E. S. Rao on 25.07.1992 on basis of which he claimed status of ST for his appointment in ARC, the said number is forged and there is no such person by name of E. S. Rao S/o Laxmi Narayan in any village Kallur. It was mentioned that signatures of the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Kallur also not tallied with that of signatures on the certificate. It was mentioned that as per reply dated 23.07.1997 of Secretary UPSC, penalty of debarment was imposed upon E. S. Rao for a period of 10 years w.e.f. 09.06.1994 for adopting unfair means and misbehaviour while taking Telagu Literature PartI Exam on 27.12.1993 in the examination hall. It was mentioned that E. S. Rao in verification form completed on 14.07.1994 in para No. 12 (h) stated that he had never been debarred from UPSC examination.
FIR No. 615/98 PS Trilok Puri 4/19
4. It was mentioned in the complaint that E. S. Rao was asked in writing to produce original degrees of his B. Tech (Mechanical) and matriculation certificate etc. but he failed to produce the same. It was prayed that matter be investigated from criminal aspect of the case.
5. It is stated that during investigation SI Sanjay Diwedi recorded statements of witnesses and arrested accused on 26.08.1998. It is stated that further investigation of the case was assigned to Additional SHO Satyapal Singh but that original certificate could not recovered from accused despite efforts. It is stated that SI Vijay Kumar was sent for outstation verification and investigation who verified the same.
6. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before court on 24.10.1998.
7. Provisions of Sec. 207 Cr. PC were complied with on appearance of accused and prima facie case having been made out, separate charges u/s 420 IPC and U/sec 468/471 IPC were framed against accused on 20.08.1999 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
FIR No. 615/98 PS Trilok Puri 5/19 In order to prove its case, prosecution examined following witnesses: PW 1 Mulkh Raj PW 2 Dr. A. K. Saxena PW3 HC Man Singh PW4 Prem Pal Sharma PW5 Karnail Singh PW6 Ct. Karan Singh PW7 Ct. Prahlad PW8 J. Krishan Nair PW9 SI Vijay Kumar PW10 Inspector Satya Pal Singh PW11 SI Sanjay Diwedi
8. PE was closed vide order dated 09.05.2003.
9. S/A u/s 313 Cr. PC was recorded on 23.10.2003 in which all incriminating material appearing in evidence against accused were put to accused to which accused stated that he is under suspension since 1998 and has not been getting any salary. He further stated that he is innocent and due to enmity has been falsely implicated in this FIR No. 615/98 PS Trilok Puri 6/19 case.
Accused examined Mr. J. K. Singh as DW1 in defence evidence and DE was closed on statement of accused recorded on 05.04.2004.
I have heard final arguments addressed by respective counsels and perused the record including written arguments filed on behalf of accused and on behalf of State as well as judgments filed on behalf of accused.
Decision and Brief Reasons for the Same Before disclosing my opinion on merits, I will discuss evidence led by prosecution and defence.
PW1 Mulkh Raj, Assistant Director, Cabinet Secretariat is complainant in present case. He has exhibited and proved his complaint given to police on basis of which present FIR was lodged vide Ex. PW1/A. Ex. PW1/DA i.e. photocopy of provisional certificate of B. Tech (mechanical) of accused was exhibited in cross examination of PW1 and PW1 after seeing the same has identified signatures of Mr. B. K. Sarangi, Assistant Director upon the same.
FIR No. 615/98 PS Trilok Puri 7/19 PW2 Dr. A. K. Saxena is Deputy Secretary, UPSC who has exhibited and proved letter dated 23.07.1997 written by him to Director General, Security, Cabinet Secretariat with regard to debarment of E. S. Rao, a candidate for Civil Services examination, 1993 and exhibited letter dated 05.07.1994 written by him to E. Shri Niwasa Rao with regard to his debarment from future examinations and selections for a period of 10 years.
PW3 HC Man Singh is DO and has exhibited and proved FIR vide Ex. PW3/A. PW4 Prem Pal Sharma, Assistant, Aviation Research Center, Cabinet Secretariat is the official who accompanied PW1 to PP Mayur Vihar, Phase I for handing over four documents concerning accused for investigation in present case. He has exhibited seizure memo of documents handed over vide Ex. PW4/A. PW5 Karnail Singh, Deputy Field Officer, ARC got arrested accused. He has exhibited and proved personal search memo of accused vide Ex. PW5/A. PW6 Ct. Karan Singh is the police official who took tehrir to PS for registration of FIR and brought back copy of FIR and original tehrir and handed it over to IO.
FIR No. 615/98 PS Trilok Puri 8/19 PW7 Ct. Prahlad was DD writer on 18.08.1998 who has deposed that PW1 came to PP on 18.08.1998 and handed over some documents to IO which were taken into possession vide Ex. PW4/A. PW8 J. Krishan Nair is Superintendent, B. Tech examination Section, Nagarjuna University who has produced record of one Shri Niwas Rao having register No. 84 M450 for the year 198586 /88 for B. Tech. He has exhibited photocopies of the relevant pages of the record vide Ex. PW8/A to Ex. PW8/C and certified copies of the record vide Ex. PW8/D to Ex. PW8/H. PW9 SI Vijay Kumar is police official who went to Guntur University and met Controller of examinations regarding credentials of accused. He has deposed to have received photocopy of marks of accused vide Ex. PW8/A to Ex. PW8/C. He has deposed regarding going to Khammam and inquiring regarding caste certificate of accused.
PW10 Inspector Satya Pal Singh is second IO who sent PW9 to AP with regard to investigation of the case.
PW11 SI Sanjay Diwedi is 1st IO who has exhibited tehrir vide Ex. PW11/A. He has deposed regarding making of Ex. PW4/A. FIR No. 615/98 PS Trilok Puri 9/19 In defence evidence, DW1 J. K. Singh, Field Officer was examined by accused who has exhibited and proved interview letter of accused vide Ex. DW1/A, offer of appointment letter of accused dated 02.06.1995 vide Ex. DW1/B, memorandum issued to accused for his absence from duty w.e.f. 22.12.1997 to 26.12.1997 vide Ex. DW1/C, reminder of letter Ex. DW1/C vide Ex. DW1/D and reply of accused to Ex. DW1/C and Ex. DW1/D vide Ex. DW1/E. After going through evidence as adduced by prosecution on court record, I am of the opinion that prosecution has not been able to prove guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. The reasons as to why I have arrived at such a conclusion are as follows: As per PW1 Mulkh Raj, he received complaint against accused dated 10.06.1997 addressed to Cabinet Secretary that he has not completed B. E degree and has been debarred from UPSC for period of 10 years not to appear in any competitive examination and accordingly request was made to concerned agency i.e Registrar Nagarjuna University and UPSC and also Commission of SC and ST to verify contents of complaint. He further deposed that thereafter on receipt of information from concerned authority, matter was referred to Cabinet Secretary as accused was holding Group A FIR No. 615/98 PS Trilok Puri 10/19 post and Cabinet Secretary is the appointing authority. He deposed that Cabinet Secretary made reference to Central Vigilance Commission for advise. He deposed that CVC advised that Administrative action be taken against individual and request be made to Director CBI to examine criminal aspects of accused of the case. He deposed that on taking approval of competent authority, FIR was lodged with the police. State has not proved on record the complaint dated 10.06.1997 addressed to Cabinet Secretary as was received against accused (as per deposition of PW1). It is an important missing link in version of prosecution. It is beyond comprehension as to how PW1 on complaint addressed to Cabinet Secretary requested concerned agencies i.e. Nagarjuna University, UPSC and SC/ST Commission when as per deposition of PW1 it appears that competent authority in case of accused is Cabinet Secretary as accused was holding Group A post. No reference allegedly made by Cabinet Secretary to CVC has been brought on record by IO. It is an important missing link in story of prosecution. No approval of competent authority for lodging FIR against accused has been proved on record by State (same has not been brought on record by IO). It is an important missing link in story of prosecution.
FIR No. 615/98 PS Trilok Puri 11/19 To my mind for proving ingredients of offences U/sec 420/468/471 IPC against accused, prosecution should have brought on record and proved complete file with regard to service of accused at ARC. Prosecution was required to show that by using false /forged Engineering Degree, ST certificate and by concealing his debarment, accused obtained job of JPIO in ARC. Prosecution was required to prove that degree in Engineering was basic qualification to seek appointment as per notification issued by selection board for job of JPIO at relevant juncture of time. Prosecution was further required to prove that accused applied under ST category for job of JPIO. Prosecution was required to prove that it was one of the condition of job of JPIO at relevant time that it was necessary for candidate to respond to question that he/she should not have been debarred /disqualified by any Public Service Commission/Staff Selection Commission for any of its examination. For proving all this, state was required to prove basic notification and conditions of service on which job of JPIO was offered. Unless and until prosecution proves that forged educational document /caste certificate was used by accused for obtaining job of JPIO, charges u/sec 420/468/471 IPC cannot be sustained. The same has not been done by state. It is a material missing link in version of FIR No. 615/98 PS Trilok Puri 12/19 prosecution which has dented its case to the hilt.
Accused has brought and proved interview letter dated 21.12.1992 received by him for job of JPIO vide Ex. DW1/A. In Ex. DW1/A, point No. 2 states that no TA/DA will be admissible for attending the test /interview. It further states that however, SC/ST candidates (unemployed) appearing for test/interview will be allowed second class rail/bus fare. PW1 in his cross examination has stated that he does not know whether traveling expenses were given to accused to appear before the interview board at the time of interview or not. This answer is an indirect admission of the fact that traveling expenses were not paid to accused for attending interview for job of JPIO which fact suggests that accused might not have applied under ST category for post of JPIO. Prosecution has failed to prove on record that accused applied for job of JPIO under ST category. Further prosecution has failed to prove record of caste certificate of accused.
PW1 in his cross examination has stated that he has not received any documents from accused as he was not holding post of Assistant Director. IO has failed to bring on record service file of accused as mentioned above. In these circumstances, I am of the view that sufficient FIR No. 615/98 PS Trilok Puri 13/19 documentary evidence against accused has not been brought on record by IO on account of which case of prosecution has taken jolt.
No original documents i.e. provisional Engineering certificate of accused, ST category certificate of accused, condition showing clause of declaring debarment /disqualification at the time of obtaining job of JPIO by accused has been brought on record by IO.
In case titled as 'Shashi Lata Khanna vs State Of Delhi And Ors. on 15 July, 2005' Equivalent citations: 121 (2005) DLT 522, 2005 (84) DRJ 577, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held as below: "Before proceeding further in the present case it may be mentioned that the alleged rent note dated 2nd June 1983 which is stated to have been forged by the accused persons and which is stated to have been used by the accused persons knowing or at least having reasons to believe the same to be forged was never produced in original in the court. For an offence of forgery of document it is necessary that the original document should have been produced in the court. Although it is the case of the prosecution that the original rent note was in the possession of the accused persons and they have produced the same and on the other it is the case of the accused that they tendered the original FIR No. 615/98 PS Trilok Puri 14/19 rent note to the investigating officer at the time of the investigation but it was deliberately not produced by the prosecution, the fact remains is that the original alleged forged document was never produced before the court. We cannot forget that the burden to prove a criminal case is on the prosecution and quite heavy."
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in this case discussed judgment in the case of "K.V.R. Iyyanger vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 1988 (2) CRIMES VIII 882" wherein it was held, that "in order to establish an offence of forgery under section 463 IPC punishable under Section 465 IPC the presence of the original document before the court concerned is necessary. Copy or photo stat copy is not sufficient in order to establish offence of forgery. In the present case also the original was never produced in that court nor it was proved in the court in accordance with law hence the offence of forgery or using the said forged document has not been proved. Once the offence of forgery is not proved there is no question of using the forged document as genuine. Accordingly the accused persons cannot even by convicted under Section 465/468/471/120B of IPC."
FIR No. 615/98 PS Trilok Puri 15/19 In this case also as discussed above, no original document has been proved on record by state, so charges U/sec 468/471 IPC cannot be sustained against accused.
Prosecution should have brought on record that accused used alleged forged engineering degree, ST certificate and also made false declaration regarding his debarment for obtaining job of JPIO, then only accused could have been held guilty for offences U/sec 420/468/471 IPC but state has failed to prove so.
Further as per Ex. PW2/A, address of father of accused has been mentioned to be 634, Shri Nagar, Kothagudan (AP) which is address of accused as per Ex. DW1/B. Any communication with regard to debarment/disqualification of accused by UPSC should have been communicated to accused at this address of accused. Perusal of Ex. PW2/B shows that address of accused in the same has been mentioned to be 630, Visalakshi Nagar, DeenDayaleuram, Vishakapattanam (AP). This address of accused has not been proved on record by prosecution. If for sake of arguments, it is considered that accused was debarred /disqualified for a period of 10 years by UPSC, this information atleast should have been shown to be in knowledge of accused. In question asked from PW2 in his FIR No. 615/98 PS Trilok Puri 16/19 cross examination, PW2 has stated that he cannot say without seeing the record whether they received any acknowledgment of letter dated 05.07.1994 (Ex. PW2/B). In these circumstances, unless and until service of Ex. PW2/B upon accused is proved on record, it cannot be said that accused was in knowledge of contents of the same which required accused to declare the same while applying for job of JPIO. In these circumstances, it is difficult to attribute fraudulent /dishonest intention to accused necessary ingredient of offence U/sec 420 IPC.
Further state has proved on record, record of B. E. degree of accused vide Ex. PW8/A to Ex. PW8/H but I am afraid the same does not help case of state as in the same, number of register of accused has been mentioned to be "84M450" whereas as per copy of provisional certificate of B. E. degree of accused (filed on record by state and exhibited in cross examination of PW1 vide Ex. PW1/DA), register number of accused is "84M451". In absence of original provisional certificate of alleged engineering course of accused, nothing can be said as to whether correct record pertaining to degree of accused has been proved on record by state. Further PW8 has not stated in his examination in chief that degree was not completed by accused. Further PW8 has not proved any authority vide FIR No. 615/98 PS Trilok Puri 17/19 which he has been authorized to depose before court on behalf of Nagarjuna University. Further as per PW8 himself, he has been authorized by former Registrar of the university meaning thereby that at the time of deposition of PW8, authority was not delegated by competent person and record produced by him cannot be said to have been proved.
Further, no reason has been assigned by IO for not bringing original documents on record. There is one letter dated 09.10.1998 filed by IO with the charge sheet which has been written by PW1 to SHO PS Trilok Puri in which in para No. 2 it has been mentioned that accused produced original documents with photocopies thereof and the original documents were immediately handed over to him after verification and photocopies produced were retained by office for official record. In case verification of documents produced by accused was already done, nothing has been mentioned about outcome of verification. It has not been stated that documents were found to be forged/false. In case documents were found to be false /forged on verification, why criminal action against accused was not taken before receiving alleged complaint dated 10.06.1997. All this demolishes case of state.
Further PW2 should have produced complete record with FIR No. 615/98 PS Trilok Puri 18/19 regard to debarment of accused i.e show cause notice issued by UPSC and reply given thereto by accused. In absence of complete record, it cannot be said that complete record of debarment of accused has been proved on record by State besides my observation as mentioned above that state has failed to prove service of Ex. PW2/B upon accused.
In view of my discussion in various preceding paras, it cannot be said that state has been able to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused is acquitted for offences u/s 420/468/471 IPC.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (SONU AGNIHOTRI)
Dt. 27.05.2014 Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
District East
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
FIR No. 615/98 PS Trilok Puri 19/19