Delhi District Court
S T A T E vs Narinder Singh on 13 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANURADHA JINDAL,
ACJM (NORTH-WEST), ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
DLNW020000932006
CNR NO.: DLNW020000932006
Cr. Case No.: 530684/2016
FIR No.: 502/2001
P.S.: Ashok Vihar
STATE VS. Narender Singh
Under Section: 420 r/w Section 120-B IPC And 471/474 r/w Section 420/120-B
IPC
JUDGMENT
Unique ID no. of the case : 530684/2016
Date of commission of the offence : May-June 2001
Name of complainant : SI Bhagwati Prasad
Name of accused persons : Narender Singh
S/o Lt. Sh. Jaipal Singh
R/o VPO Bhaita, Loni, Ghaziabad,
UP
Rajiv Bahal
S/o Sh. PN Bahal
R/o R-4/53, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad,
UP
Sanjeev Talwar
S/o Vijay Kumar Talwar
R/o C-4/D-64C, Janakpuri, Delhi
FIR No. 502/2001 State Vs. Narender Singh Page 1 of 13
Digitally signed
by ANURADHA
JINDAL
ANURADHA
Date:
JINDAL 2026.02.13
17:10:16
+0530
Sanjay Bahal
S/o Rajender Bahal
R/o 113, Lukerganj (Bihari Kuti),
Allahabad, UP
Offences complained of : U/s 420 r/w Section 120-B IPC
And 471/474 r/w Section 420/120-
B IPC
Date of order : 13.02.2026
Final order : Acquittal
JUDGMENT
FACTUAL MATRIX
1. The case of the prosecution is that in 2001, a criminal conspiracy was hatched between the directors and salesman of M/s. Nimbus Motors Pvt. Limited (Noida) and accused Narinder Singh. It is alleged that the accused persons induced buyers from Uttar Pradesh to purchase cars with the promise of Delhi registration for an extra fee of Rs. 6,000/- to Rs. 8,000/-.
2. In execution of this conspiracy, multiple vehicles (including DL8CG 4535, DL8CG 2924, DL8CG 2153, and DL8CG 4853) were registered at the Transport Authority, Ashok Vihar, using forged and fake documents such as ration cards, passports, and telephone bills to create bogus Delhi addresses.
FIR No. 502/2001 State Vs. Narender Singh Page 2 of 13 Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date: 2026.02.13 17:10:22 +0530
3. The matter came to light following a secret information received by SI Bhagwati Prasad on 15.08.2001, leading to the registration of the FIR and subsequent seizure of vehicles and forged documents.
TRIAL PROCEEDINGS
4. The record reveals that the formal prosecution began with the filing of the charge sheet on 22.11.2001. The court took cognizance of the various offenses punishable under Sections 420/466/467/468/471/120-B IPC.
5. Accused Narinder Singh was initially in judicial custody until 22.11.2001, while warrants of arrest and subsequent processes under Section 82/83 Cr.PC were issued against the remaining accused persons, Rajiv Bahal, Sanjeev Talwar, and Sanjay Bahal, to secure their appearance before the court.
6. Compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 207 Cr.PC regarding the supply of copies of the charge sheet and relied-upon documents was addressed, with the court noting on 07.02.2002 that notice was issued to the IO for supplying deficient copies. Subsequent records dated 26.03.2003 and 07.04.2003 confirm that deficient copies were supplied to the accused persons.
7. The matter proceeded to the stage of consideration of charge, during which an application under Section 91 and 294 Cr.PC was moved by accused Rajiv Bahal and Sanjay Bahal on 26.04.2004 for the production of Form No. 18 from the Registration Authority, Noida. This application was allowed by the court on 01.11.2004 for a just decision of the case.
FIR No. 502/2001 State Vs. Narender Singh Page 3 of 13 Digitally signed by ANURADHAANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2026.02.13 17:10:29 +0530
8. On 17.09.2011, after hearing detailed arguments from both the Ld. APP for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsels, the court passed a speaking order finding a prima facie case against the accused persons. Formal charges were framed on 17.10.2011 as follows:
a) Accused Rajiv Bahal, Sanjeev Talwar, and Sanjay Bahal were charged under Section 420 read with Section 120-B IPC.
b) Accused Narinder Singh was charged under Sections 471/474 IPC read with Section 120-B and Section 420 IPC.
9. The record reveals that all four accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial on 17.10.2011. The prosecution evidence (PE) was recorded over several years, concluding on 01.10.2022, following which PE was closed.
10.The Statement of Accused under Section 313 Cr.PC was recorded in parts. The statements for the accused Narinder Singh, Sanjeev Talwar and Sanjay Bahl were recorded on 01.02.2024, and the statement of accused Rajiv Bahal was recorded on 14.03.2024. All accused persons denied the incriminating evidence and maintained that they were falsely implicated.
11.This Court has duly considered the final arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both parties. The Court has meticulously examined the entire record, giving careful attention to the evidence presented, and the submissions made on behalf of the parties. Each aspect of the case has been analysed in light of the relevant facts and law, ensuring that all material brought before the Court has been fully reviewed and assessed in reaching a fair and just decision.
FIR No. 502/2001 State Vs. Narender Singh Page 4 of 13 Digitally signed by ANURADHAANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2026.02.13 17:10:37 +0530 MARSHALLING OF EVIDENCE (19 WITNESSES)
12.The prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses to prove its case.
13.PW-1 ASI Badlu Ram (Duty Officer): He testified that on August 15, 2001, while posted at PS Ashok Vihar, he received a rukka at approximately 7:25 PM brought by HC Ranbir from SI Bhagwati Prasad. On this basis, he registered the case FIR No. 502/01. He exhibited the original FIR carbon copy as Ex. PW1/A and the endorsement on the rukka as Ex. PW1/B. During cross-examination, he noted the recording process took 45-50 minutes.
14.PW-2 Smt. Deepa Verma (Assistant Director, FSL): She testified that documents related to this FIR were received for examination on July 24, 2002. These included questioned documents Q1-Q16 and specimen writings S1-S14 of Narender Singh. Her expert opinion concluded that the individual who wrote specimen sheets S1-S14 also wrote the red-encircled portions marked Q3 and Q6. Her detailed report is Ex. PW2/A.
15.PW-3 Sh. Gopal Krishan (Dealing Assistant, STA): He produced summoned records for six cars, including registration details for Ashok Dang, Madan Lal, and Poonam Singh Raghav. He exhibited vehicle particulars as Ex. PW3/A to Ex. PW3/C, RCs as Ex. PW3/D, F, and I, and NOCs as Ex. PW3/E, G, and H.
16.PW-4 Sh. Dinesh Chand Saraswat (Purchaser): He stated that around April or May 2001, he went to M/s Nimbus Motors, Noida, to purchase a Santro car and met accused Sanjeev Talwar. He alleged that although he lived in FIR No. 502/2001 State Vs. Narender Singh Page 5 of 13 Digitally signed by ANURADHA JINDAL ANURADHA Date: JINDAL 2026.02.13 17:10:44 +0530 Noida and had no Delhi residency proof, Talwar offered to arrange it. He later received the RC with registration number DL-8CG-4535. The car was seized on August 15, 2001, via memo Ex. PW4/A.
17.PW-5 Sh. R.K. Aggarwal (UDC, Transport Authority): He deposed that on August 16, 2001, on the direction of the MLO, he handed over seven original vehicle files to police officials. These files were seized via memo Ex. PW5/A. On August 27, 2001, he handed over another file relating to vehicle DL-8CG-2273, seized via memo Ex. PW5/B.
18.PW-6 Sh. Ashok Dang (Purchaser): He testified that he purchased a Santro from Nimbus Motors and was provided with permanent Delhi registration number DL-8CG-4853. Police later informed him the registration was obtained through fake papers. His car was seized via memo Ex. PW-6/A. He correctly identified accused Sanjay Behal in court.
19.PW-7 Sh. Anil Kumar (Relative): He testified that his brother-in-law, Anuj, once requested his address proof for car registration in Delhi. However, he resiled from his earlier statement, claiming he did not remember if he actually provided the proof and stated he had no personal knowledge of the case.
20.PW-8 Sh. B.R. Guliyani (FSO): He testified that in 2001, he was sent a photocopy of a ration card to verify. Upon checking the record, he found the ration card was fake and not issued by his department. His report is exhibited as Ex. PW8/A. FIR No. 502/2001 State Vs. Narender Singh Page 6 of 13 Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2026.02.13 17:10:51 +0530
21.PW-9 Sh. Shammi Taneja (Relative): He stated that his brother-in-law, Ashok Dang, purchased a Santro and took a telephone bill in the name of PW-9's mother, Smt. Santosh Kumari, for the car purchase.
22.PW-9 (Numbered twice) Sh. Sunil Kumar (Relative): He deposed that in 2000, his cousin Nagender wanted to purchase a car and needed documentary proof with a Delhi address. He provided a telephone bill for number 7264673 to Nagender for this purpose.
23.PW-10 HC Ashok Kumar (Raiding Party): He witnessed accused Narender Singh writing specimen samples voluntarily on August 23, 2001, which he signed as a witness (Ex. PW10/A). On August 24, 2001, he joined the investigation where a stamp giving the impression of "Nimbus Motors Noida" was recovered from the accused's house and seized.
24.PW-11 Sh. Sanjay Narula (Motor Vehicle Inspector): He explained his role in 2001 was to physically verify vehicle details like chassis and engine numbers on Form No. 20 at the Ashok Vihar Transport Authority.
25.PW-12 Sh. Manoj Bajaj (Purchaser): He alleged that accused Rajiv Behal induced him with a discount and Delhi registration. He went to the office of Nimbus Motors, where he also met Sanjay Behal and Talwar. He further alleged that formalities were completed at the Ashok Vihar authority by accused Narender Singh. He identified all four accused in court. His Delhi RC is Ex. PW12/C. FIR No. 502/2001 State Vs. Narender Singh Page 7 of 13 Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2026.02.13 17:10:58 +0530
26.PW-13 ASI Virender Singh (Raiding Party): He deposed to joining a raid on August 22, 2001, where accused Narender Singh was apprehended at the Anand Vihar Transport Authority. During a search of the accused, an authority letter from Nimbus Motors was recovered and seized via memo Ex. PW13/A (the letter is Ex. PW13/B).
27.PW-14 Retired SI Ranbir Singh (Raiding Party): He witnessed the seizure of vehicles from various purchasers including D.C. Saraswat, Ashok Dang, and Anuj Kumar between August 15 and 20, 2001. He also witnessed the arrest of Narender Singh on August 22, 2001. Seizure memos include Ex. PW14/A to Ex. PW14/D.
28.PW-15 Sh. Giriraj Sharma (Passport Office): He identified the signatures of Sh. D.P. Ghosh, a former Superintendent at the Regional Passport Office, on a letter dated October 17, 2001 (Ex. PW15/A) regarding passport verification.
29.PW-16 Sh. Rajiv Kalra (MTNL SDO): He produced records for landline number 7143182, confirming it was in the name of Smt. Santosh Kumari since April 23, 2004. His report is Ex. PW16/A.
30.PW-17 Smt. Meena Rani (MTNL Deputy Manager): She reported that landline number 27564673 was in the name of Sh. Deep Chand Aggarwal from June 23, 1992, to December 8, 2005. Her report is Ex. PW17/A.
31.PW-18 ACP Bhagwati Prasad (IO): He detailed the entire investigation, from receiving secret information on August 15, 2001, to raiding Nimbus FIR No. 502/2001 State Vs. Narender Singh Page 8 of 13 Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2026.02.13 17:11:05 +0530 Motors and the transport authority. He exhibited the rukka as Ex. PW18/A, seal impression as Ex. PW18/C, and other seizure memos and reports.
32.PW-19 Sh. Adarsh Nath Tripathi (Transport Clerk, Noida): He produced letters (Ex. PW19/A and Ex. PW19/B) from Nimbus Motors stating they were unable to provide summoned records because their internal records were destroyed in a 2005 fire.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
33.No defence evidence were led on behalf of the accused persons.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE/ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Identification of Accused (A Fatal Gap):
34.The prosecution relied on the testimony of purchasers to link the accused directors and staff of Nimbus Motors to the alleged conspiracy.
35.PW-4 (Dinesh Chand Saraswat) initially pointed toward accused Sanjeev Talwar in court on 09.01.2013, but during subsequent cross-examination on 24.01.2019, he explicitly stated, "I cannot identify today any of the accused persons by name or by face".
36.PW-6 (Ashok Dang) identified accused Sanjay Behal on 14.07.2015, yet under cross-examination, he made a damaging admission: "It is correct that I am identifying accused Sanjay Behal as I came to know on the previous date regarding the identity of accused Sanjay Behal" . PW-6 further admitted he could not identify accused Narinder Singh and denied meeting him at the Transport Authority.
FIR No. 502/2001 State Vs. Narender Singh Page 9 of 13 Digitally signed by ANURADHA JINDAL ANURADHA Date: JINDAL 2026.02.13 17:11:13 +0530
37.The inability of key eyewitnesses to provide identification of accused independent of outside influence or the passage of time creates a fundamental lacuna. An identification made after being "told" the identity of the accused carries zero evidentiary weight in a criminal trial.
Lack of Independent Witnesses (Recovery and Arrest):
38.PW-13 (ASI Virender Singh) testified that accused Narinder Singh was apprehended in a public space near the Anand Vihar Bus Terminal. PW-13 admitted that while the IO requested 4-5 public persons to join the investigation, none agreed. Regarding the recovery of the "Nimbus Motors" stamp from the accused's village (Village Behta), PW-10 (HC Ashok Kumar) confirmed that the IO did not record statements of neighbors or family members during the visit.
39.The failure to join independent public witnesses during a raid in a residential village, coupled with the absence of a site plan of the arrest or recovery spot, severely undermines the credibility of the alleged seizures.
Procedural Lapses (Integrity of Evidence):
40.PW-10 admitted that no handing over or taking over memo was prepared for the seal ('RA') used to secure the pullanda containing the recovered stamp. PW-18 (IO) confirmed he did not prepare a handing over memo of the seal after its use. MTNL officials (PW-16 and PW-17) produced landline reports (Ex.PW16/A and Ex.PW17/A) but admitted they did not forward the mandatory certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
FIR No. 502/2001 State Vs. Narender Singh Page 10 of 13 Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date: 2026.02.13 17:11:20 +0530
41.These lapses are not merely technical; they create a risk of tampering. The absence of a seal handing-over memo and the lack of Section 65B certificates for electronic/computer-generated evidence render those reports inadmissible as primary evidence.
Forensic Evidence Limitations:
42.PW-2 (Smt. Deepa Verma), the FSL expert, opined that Narinder Singh authored portions of the forged documents marked Q3 and Q6. However, she admitted, "specimen writings were not obtained from the concerned person in my presence". The IO (PW-18) admitted that the specimen signatures and handwriting of Narinder Singh were obtained while the accused was in his physical custody during a PC remand "without any judicial orders". In such circumstances obtaining specimen handwritings from an accused in police custody renders the forensic comparison legally suspect and vulnerable to allegations of coercion or fabrication.
Testimony of Official Witnesses (Internal Verification):
43.Official witnesses from the STA, such as PW-3 (Gopal Krishan) and PW-11 (Sanjay Narula), provided neutral or exculpatory evidence for the accused directors. PW-3 admitted he never personally dealt with the registration process of the cars in question. PW-11 (Motor Vehicle Inspector) testified that according to the Motor Vehicle Act, he "did not find any discrepancy during the registration of the vehicle involved in the present case".
FIR No. 502/2001 State Vs. Narender Singh Page 11 of 13 Digitally signed by ANURADHAANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2026.02.13 17:11:27 +0530
44.If the official verification process by the Transport Authority inspectors found no engine/chassis discrepancies at the time of registration, the prosecution's theory of an overt conspiracy involving the dealership and the authority staff lacks a solid foundation within the internal official records.
CONCLUSION AND OPERATIVE ORDER
45.For the reasons stated in the preceding paragraphs, the Appreciation of Evidence reveals significant gaps in the prosecution's case. The primary ground for acquittal is the failure of identification by key public witnesses. Furthermore, the investigative process suffered from a lack of independent corroboration.
46.The forensic evidence is also compromised by procedural irregularities. Additionally, technical reports were produced without the mandatory certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, rendering them inadmissible.
47.It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Given the material contradictions in witness testimony, the procedural lapses in investigation, and the failure of identification, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to meet this burden.
OPERATIVE ORDER:
48.Accordingly, the accused persons, namely Narinder Singh, Rajiv Bahal, Sanjeev Talwar, and Sanjay Bahal, are hereby ACQUITTED of the FIR No. 502/2001 State Vs. Narender Singh Page 12 of 13 Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2026.02.13 17:11:33 +0530 charges framed against them under Sections 420, 468, 471, 474, and 120-B of the IPC.
49.In compliance with the provisions of Section 437A Cr.PC, the accused persons are directed to furnish fresh personal bonds and surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- to remain in force for a period of six months, ensuring their appearance before the Appellate Court if any appeal is preferred against this judgment.
50.The case property be disposed of as per rules after the expiry of the period for filing an appeal.
Pronounced in the open court on 13.02.2026.
Digitally signed by ANURADHAANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2026.02.13 17:11:40 +0530 (Anuradha Jindal) ACJM/NW/Rohini/Delhi 13.02.2026 FIR No. 502/2001 State Vs. Narender Singh Page 13 of 13