Delhi District Court
Rakesh @ Neeraj Kumar And Ors vs State on 16 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. PURSHOTAM PATHAK
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05
SOUTH DISTRICT: SAKET COURTS: DELHI
CA No. 12/2020
CNR No. DLST01-000554-2020
1. Rakesh @ Neeraj Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Radhey Shyam Aggarwal
R/o H.no. B-1/604, Sector-88,
SRS Residency, Faridabad, Haryana
2. Niraj Mangla @ Appu
S/o Sh. Ashok Mangla
R/o H.no. 296, Gali no. 2,
New Bhood Colony, Old Faridabad,
Haryana
3. Chander Mohan Rawat @ Chander
S/o Sh. Trilok Singh Rawat
R/o H.no. MCF-385,
Bhagat Singh Colony,
Ballabhgarh, Haryana ...Appellants/Convicts
Versus
The State (Govt. in NCT)
New Delhi ....Respondent/Complainant
Date of filing : 20.01.2020
Date of arguments : 09.01.2026
Date of Order : 16.01.2026
JUDGMENT Digitally
signed by
Purshotam
Purshotam Pathak
Pathak Date:
2026.01.16
CA No. 12/2020 17:34:11
+0530
Rakesh @ Neeraj Kumar & Ors. vs. State Page 1 of 20
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide appeal filed by the appellant/convict under Section 374 read with Section 389 of Cr.P.C. assailing the impugned judgment on conviction dated 18.11.2019 and order on sentence dated 20.12.2019 passed in case bearing case No. 2031586/2016, titled "State vs. Rakesh @ Neeraj Kumar & Ors. " FIR No. 18/2011, PS Saket, whereby appellants/convicts were convicted for offences U/s 420/471/120B/34 IPC and were sentenced as under:-
For offence U/s 420 IPC - Simple imprisonment for a term of two years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- each convict; For offence U/s 471 IPC - Simple imprisonment for a term of six months;
For offence U/s 120B IPC - Simple imprisonment for a term of two years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- each convict;
The appeal has been filed well within its limitation period.
2. Brief facts of the case as are that present FIR was registered against the appellants with allegation that on 24.12.2010, they all entered into criminal conspiracy along with co-accused Gaurav @ Guru (since PO) for cheating / purchase of electronic items form Croma Store, Saket by using fake (cloned) credit card of Sh. Naveen Mehra, which was swapped by co-accused Amit Sharma (employee of Croma Center). As per the case of the Digitally signed by Purshotam prosecution, all the appellants with common intention Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date:
2026.01.16 CA No. 12/2020 17:34:19 +0530 Rakesh @ Neeraj Kumar & Ors. vs. State Page 2 of 20 visited Croma Center, Saket and purchased articles/products worth Rs. 3,45,139/- using clone /fake credit card No. 3769141630009 of Sh. Naveen Mehra, which was got swiped by accused Amit Sharma who was employee of Croma Center, Saket and invoices were signed by accused Neeraj Mangla besides producing photocopy of fake driving license of Sh. Pulukuri Abraham by alleged Gaurav @ Guru (since PO) for dishonestly inducing delivery of articles worth Rs. 1,71,549/- as mentioned in the complaint dated 12.01.2011. Accordingly, all the appellants were charged for cheating, forgery and criminal conspiracy U/s 420/471/120B/34 IPC.
3. During trial, prosecution examined 12 witnesses, who were cross examined by the Ld. defence counsel. Vide statement dated 13.11.2018 U/s 294 Cr.P.C, Ld. counsel for the appellants/convicts admitted FIR no. 18/2011 (Ex. D1).
Statement of all the convicts U/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein they gave their respective defence as under:-
Accused Amit Sharma (U/s 313 Cr.P.C) "I have swapped the credit card in daily routine and good faith. I have not helped the other accused in any manner. I was again appointed by the Croma Company in the Store at the same post. I have been falsely implicated by the police and I was called in the police station by the IO. The other co-accused have falsely made disclosure statement against me. I did not help them in any manner and I do Purshotam know them. It is a false case and IO did not properly Pathak CA No. 12/2020 Digitally signed by Purshotam Pathak Rakesh @ Neeraj Kumar & Ors. vs. State Page 3 of 20 Date: 2026.01.16 17:34:22 +0530 investigate the matter and falsely deposed against me. They are false and interested witnesses. I am innocent. I have been falsely implicated in the present case by police officials. He opted to lead DE."
Accused Niraj Mangla (U/s 313 Cr.P.C) "It is a false case. IO did not investigate the matter properly and falsely deposed against me. They are false and interested witnesses. I am innocent. I have been falsely implicated in the present case by police officials. He did not opt to lead DE."
Accused Rakesh @ Naresh Kumar (U/s 313 Cr.P.C) "It is a false case. IO did not investigate the case properly and falsely deposed against me. They are false and interested witnesses. I am innocent. I have been falsely implicated in the present case by police officials. He opted to lead DE."
Accused Chander Mohan Rawat (U/s 313 Cr.P.C) "It is a false case. IO did not investigate the case properly and falsely deposed against me. They are false and interested witnesses. I am innocent. I have been falsely implicated in the present case by police officials. He opted to lead DE."
4. Accused Amit Sharma examined himself as DW-1. Ld. counsel for the other convicts gave statement dated 03.05.2019 whereby he stated that he did not intend to lead evidence in his defence. On conclusion of trial, vide impugned judgment date 18.11.2019, accused Rakesh @ Naresh, Niraj Mangla @ Appu, Chander Mohan Rawat @ Chander were convicted for offence U/s 120B/420/471/34 CA No. 12/2020 Purshotam Pathak Rakesh @ Neeraj Kumar & Ors. vs. State Page 4 of 20 Digitally signed by Purshotam Pathak Date: 2026.01.16 17:34:26 +0530 IPC. However, accused Amit Sharma @ Vicky was acquitted for the alleged offences. Vide order on the point of sentence dated 20.12.2019, all the convicts were sentenced as under:-
For offence U/s 420 IPC Simple Imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs. 5000/- on each convict;
For offence U/s 471 IPC Simple Imprisonment for six months;
For offence U/s 120B IPC Simple Imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs. 5000/- on each convict;
The convicts were given benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C.
5. Aggrieved of the impugned judgment on conviction dated 18.11.2019 and order on sentence dated 20.12.2019, appellant/convict preferred the instant appeal on the following grounds:-
(a) that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that PW1 Navin Mehra did not lodge any complaint in the police station regarding making of fake credit card and original credit card was never given by Navin Mehra to the IO, hence, the deposition of PW1 is not reliable;
(b) that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that PW2 in his testimony was uncertain about the number of Digitally slips attached with the complaint; Purshotam signed by Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date:
2026.01.16 17:34:29 +0530 CA No. 12/2020 Rakesh @ Neeraj Kumar & Ors. vs. State Page 5 of 20
(c) that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the CD of CCTV footage was not supported by certificate U/s 65-B IEA, as such, it looses its credibility. The said CCTV footage does not reflect any date, time wherein appellant Niraj Mangla was identified by PW2. Appellant Rakesh @ Naresh and Chander Mohan Rawat were not identified in the said CCTV footage. PW-2 in his cross examination deposed that he had not seen two accused persons in the store at the relevant time;
(d) that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that PW2 in his cross examination stated that he moved two complaints in police station dated 12.01.2011 and
25.12.2010 but the copy of the complaint dated 25.12.2010 is not available on record;
(e) that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that PW2 admitted that the model number of the goods / articles is not clearly visible in the judicial file and that the complaint was prepared by Advocates;
(f) that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the disclosure statement was recorded in the police station and it does not bear the signatures of any public witness;
(g) that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that recovery of the goods from the houses of the convicts is highly doubtful and there is no independent without to the recovery; Digitally signed by Purshotam Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date:
2026.01.16 17:34:33 +0530 CA No. 12/2020 Rakesh @ Neeraj Kumar & Ors. vs. State Page 6 of 20
(h) that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that no conspiracy or meeting of minds between the convicts could be proved. It also could not be proved that as to who clone the credit card of PW-1 and who used the same and there is serious doubt in the prosecution story in this regard;
(i) that Ld. CMM dismissed the Probation application without disclosing any reason and benefit of Probation ought to have been given to the convicts as they are first time offenders and they remained in judicial custody for 15 days;
(j) that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that no financial loss was caused to the complainant company as material purchased from the clone credit card was recovered by the police;
6. I have heard arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for the appellants/convicts and Ld. Addl. PP for the State and perused the record.
7. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that the Ld. Trial Court has passed a well reasoned judgment convicting the convicts and they have been suitably sentenced. It is submitted that the grounds raised by the appellants/convicts in the instant appeal have already been considered by the Ld. Trial Court in its judgment/order. It is submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned Digitally judgment/order and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Purshotam Purshotam signed by Pathak Pathak Date:
CA No. 12/2020 2026.01.16
17:34:36
Rakesh @ Neeraj Kumar & Ors. vs. State Page 7 of 20 +0530
8. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for the appellants have argued on the lines of the grounds taken by him in the appeal. It is argued that there are grave inconsistencies in the testimony of the public witnesses which causes dent on the case of the prosecution. It is argued that there is no direct evidence against the appellants/convicts which could establish that they cloned the credit card or used the same. The CCTV is not a reliable evidence as the same is not supported with certificate U/s 65-B IEA, nor the convicts Rakesh @ Naresh and Mohan Rawat are identified in the CCTV footage. It is argued that there is no independent witness to the recovery of goods and other memos, which cast doubt on the police investigation. It is submitted that there is no evidence which could prove conspiracy between the appellants or infer meeting of minds. The Probation application of the appellants/convicts was dismissed by an unreasoned order. It is argued that the appellants/convicts are liable to be acquitted and the appeal shall be allowed.
9. The relevant findings given by Ld. Trial Court in impugned judgment on conviction dated 18.11.2019 are as under:-
"35. Coming to the facts of the present case, accused persons, namely, Rakesh, Neeraj and Chander Mohan Rawat @ Chander after having chosen the electronic goods and articles/items for purchase, approached the cash/payment counter for final payment. Accused gave the credit card to co-accused Amit Sharma @ Vicky who swapped it and took out the charge slips. Accused Neeraj signed the said charge slips and also as per norms, gave a mobile number and copy of ID proof to the said cashier. Digitally signed by
36. The credit card used, was cloned. PW1 Sh. Naveen Mehra (original card Purshotam Purshotam Pathak holder) testified that the original card bearing no. 376916143064007 was with him Pathak Date:
2026.01.16 17:34:39 +0530 CA No. 12/2020 Rakesh @ Neeraj Kumar & Ors. vs. State Page 8 of 20 when the said transaction took place at the Croma Store. He also testified that he never visited the Croma Store where card was used. The amount paid at Croma Store was credited to his account upon necessary enquiry by the concerned credit card company. The bank statement of card reflecting the transaction proved on record as Ex.PW1/D (colly) and taken on record by IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C.
37. It is thus evident that a cloned credit card was used by the accused person, namely, Rakesh, Neeraj and Chander Mohan Rawat @ Chander for affecting the transaction at the said store. The said accused persons knew that they were using a cloned credit card as original and accused never got that issued and it did not belong to either of them. They deliberately, knowing that the same was cloned credit card and they were not the rightful owners or possessers of the said credit card, still presented the same for effecting the transaction and making payment upon purchase of electronic articles from the said Croma Store.
38. Accused persons, thus, intentionally and dishonestly, knowing well the card was cloned and not theirs, concealed the true facts and by presenting the said cloned credit card, induced the cashier Amit Sharma @ Vicky who is incidentally co-accused in the matter, to deliver the said articles/goods although they were not rightful in so receiving those items.
39. Accused persons, namely, Rakesh, Neeraj and Chander Mohan Rawat @ Chander thus, dishonestly concealed the factual premise, known to them, since the outset and thus, induced upon such presentation of false facts as true and genuine, to deliver property to them which they were not lawfully entitled to. The intention to deceive very much existed at the time of inducement which is a pre-requisite for constituting offence of cheating under this section. Also, it was upon the false representation made by accused that the cashier/store manager made up his mind to deliver the property/items in question.
40. The accused person also gave copy of fake Driving Licence as ID proof to substantiate their genuineness to cashier/store person to induce him to believe that the transaction was in order, so as to further induce him to part with the electronic articles/goods purchased.
41. It is evident that the cloned credit card which was swapped to make the payment has not been recovered. However, the articles so purchased have been recovered from the house/possession of above three accused persons. A mini laptop and speaker were recovered from the house of accused Chander Mohan Rawat @ Chander which was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/O. Two mobile phones with the make Nokia, one laptop make Toshiba, Canon Digicam, Croma USB were recovered from the house of accused who was remanded to one day Police Custody on his arrest in the case. These were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex PW3/K, One HD mini laptop, one D-Link Wi-fi router, ultra compaq charger, one mobile phone make Nokia 5530, one laptop make Toshiba, two sandisk micro SD cards, two croma pen drive 16 GB each were recovered from the shop of accused Rakesh which were seized and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/D. These articles were released to Croma Store during investigation vide order dated 05.03.2011 passed by concerned jurisdiction Court. It would be pertinent to observe here that Ld. Counsel appearing for accused persons, namely, Rakesh, Neeraj and Chander Mohan Rawat @ Chander undertook not to dispute the identity of these articles allegedly recovered from respective accused persons vide statement dated 01.03.2011 and 05.03.2011 made before the court. The photographs of these articles were put to respective prosecution witnesses who had correctly identified such articles as Ex.P1 (colly) and Ex.P2 (colly).
42. These articles were recovered from accused persons at their behest upon recording of their disclosure statements which are Ex.PW3/D, Ex.PW3/J and Ex.PW4/C on record. The recovery of these articles respectively from accused persons as per description mentioned above in itself is relevant fact crucial to Digitally signed by Purshotam Purshotam Pathak CA No. 12/2020 Pathak Date:
2026.01.16 Rakesh @ Neeraj Kumar & Ors. vs. State Page 9 of 20 17:34:42 +0530 prove the culpability of accused persons with respect to the commission of the alleged offences for which they are facing trial. The articles were recovered in consequence to the information provided by respective accused persons to the police agency investigating the case. The disclosure statement, to the extent, that it provided information which led to the recovery of articles purchased with the aid of a cloned credit card becomes admissible in terms of section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and hold corroborative evidentiary value. Also there is no evidence that the above named accused persons were put under any duress or compulsion for getting or extracting the disclosure statement. These statements have been respectively proved by PW4 HC Ram Avtar, PW5 HC Hafizulla and PW9 SI Virender Singh in their deposition before the court.
43. Now coming to the other aspect of the allegation, accused persons have also been charged with the commission of offence punishable under section 471 IPC.
44. Forgery is defined in section 463 IPC which, so far as the facts of the present case are concerned, involves making of a false document or false electronic record with the intention to cause any person to part with any property or to commit fraud.
45. As far as the allegations in the present case are concerned, the testimonies and depositions made by the prosecution as appreciated herein before involves using of a cloned credit card to effectuate purchase transaction of electronic articles from the Croma Store.
46. In so far as section 464 IPC is concerned, it defines 'making of a false document or a false electronic record', which, as relevant for the purpose of discussion here, is reproduced here under:-
"464. Making a false document.--A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record---First.--Who dishonestly or fraudulently -
(a) 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 a part of document, electronic record or digital signature was made, 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, 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 alternation; or Thirdly. -Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or 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 deception practiced upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration.
Explanation 1 - A man's signature of his own name may amount to forgery. Explanation 2 - The making of a false document in the name of a fictitious person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by a real person, or in the name of a deceased person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by the person in his lifetime, may amount to forgery.
47. The term "forgery" used in these two sections is defined in section
463. It inter-alia states Purshotam CA No. 12/2020 Pathak Rakesh @ Neeraj Kumar & Ors. vs. State Page 10 of 20 Digitally signed by Purshotam Pathak Date: 2026.01.16 17:34:46 +0530 "Whoever makes any false documents 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 express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that the fraud may be committed, commits forgery".
48. In the present case, a cloned credit card was used. Thus, a credit card by copying the original card was created. This dishonest intention was in place even when the same was created. The card so created was a false document to the conscious knowledge of accused persons. Accused persons created and used this fake card knowing that they have no legal authority to do so and that the authority concerned never issued or created the same with the object that it be used by any of the accused person.
49. An analysis of section 464 of Penal Code shows that it divides false documents into three categories:
The first is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently makes or executes a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by some other person, or by the authority of some other person, by whom or by whose authority he knows it was not made or executed. The second is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part, without lawful authority, after it has been made or executed by either himself or any other person. The third is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, execute or alter a document knowing that such person could not by reason of (a) unsoundness of mind; or (b) intoxication; or (c) deception practiced upon him, know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration.
50. In short, a person is said to have made a false document, if
(i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorized by someone else; or
(ii) he altered or tampered a document; or
(iii)he obtained a document by practicing deception, or from a person not in control of his senses.
51. Coming back to the facts of the present case, the false document in the form of a cloned credit card as created by accused persons was then put to use as a genuine card, posing themselves as bonafide and original card holders, knowing fully well that the same was a forged card. The dishonest use of such fake/cloned credit card induced the store manager/cashier to act upon the same as genuine and part with his property which would not have happened had he not acted on the false representation made by the accused. Accused also produced and submitted copy of Driving Licence as ID proof which was also found to be fake upon verification. PW9 SI Virender Singh deposed that the said Driving Licence was handed over by the Store Manager who also testified as PW2 which was seized by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/C. The said copy of DL is marked as Mark PW2/C. Notice under section 160/91 Cr.PC was served upon the MLO, Sheikh Sarai to give the copy of the said driving license noticing that the same contains the photograph of one Mr. Gaurav. It was however reported that the authority concerned had no record of said Driving Licence. It is thus, evident, that even the Driving Licence was altered with and a copy made to give credibility to the transaction and which act also induced the Store Manager/cashier to believe and part with the property which accused persons wanted to procure. While creating a fake Driving Licence, a copy of which was produced, dishonest intention was there from the outset which also manifested in the act of giving a copy of said DL to the store person, knowing that the ID proof being submitted is fake and also making the arrangement that they would not be identified and caught as neither the details on the card were correct nor the photograph upon the DL which was handed over and accepted by the store, by no means of verification available with them, at that time Digitally signed by Purshotam Purshotam Pathak CA No. 12/2020 Pathak Date:
2026.01.16 Rakesh @ Neeraj Kumar & Ors. vs. State Page 11 of 20 17:34:51 +0530 during transaction and with nothing to suggest that the accused persons are not bonafide.
52. Accused persons thus dishonestly misrepresented or concealed the true facts or presented the facts substantiated with the factum of production of card and ID proof to induce the authorized store person to part with the property in question which accused wrongfully took away. Dishonest intention was also manifested while so creating a document which accused knew at the outset was all falsity and knowing the same, deliberately presented at it which was acted upon to the advantage of accused persons and to the disadvantage of store person who acted on the falsity presented to complete a sale transaction and to hand over the goods to accused persons.
53. The sequence, as it unfolded, is reproduced herein for further discussion. Accused persons presented the cloned credit card for making the payment which was swapped and the payment was done. Invoices were handed over to accused persons. Copy of charge slips were signed by accused who had also presented the credit card for swapping. Copy of ID proof was also given by accused. Delivery of part items/articles was done immediately, part payment was taken by accused persons whereas for remaining articles they provided an address and a phone number. Delivery person subsequently went to hand over the remaining purchase items but found the address provided by the accused persons to be incorrect/non- existent. Upon making call on the number provided, person on the other side disconnected the call and later a call was received on the landline number of the store that the articles would be got collected by themselves from the store. This raised the suspicion and then started the sequence of verification by the store, by the bank whose credit card was used as well as by police authorities to investigate and nab the accused persons. The phone number given was found to be registered in the name of father of accused Rakesh @Naresh Kumar. Said record was proved as Ex.PW8/A. CDRs with respect to the phone number were proved as Ex.PW8/C and certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act for its admissibility was Ex.PW8/D. This number unveiled the investigation. Photographs of accused Rakesh @Naresh Kuamr and Niraj Mangla @ Appu were extracted from the CCTV footage, placed on record as Ex.PW2/F. The house of accused Rakesh @ Naresh Kumar was thronged by police upon obtaining the address from the mobile number provided by accused persons with the help of photographs from CCTV footage to identify the accused persons. This led to the sequence of the apprehension, disclosure, recovery and arrest of accused Rakesh @ Naresh Kumar, Niraj Mangla @Appu and Chander Mohan Rawat @ Chander.
54. Part articles/items were recovered at the behest of such of accused separately on the basis of their respective disclosure statements.
55. All these accused persons namely Rakesh @Naresh Kumar, Niraj Mangla @ Appu and Chander Mohan Rawat @ Chander appearing in the CCTV footage and have been so identified on the basis of such footage and also in the witness box.
56. The thread of commonality of intention is very apparent in the and during the course of entire transaction. All the accused together went to the store and selected the items they wanted to purchase. They were from the same locality and presumably knew each other and that they were in any financial need to transact the purchase of items/articles worth Rs.3,45,1391-. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that one or someone was keeping aloof and not participative and thus, not aware. Card for swapping and signature on charge slips by one, phone number of another who acted with suspicion when contacted and recovery of articles affected from all three on the basis of their respective disclosure statement, commonality of intention can be read and interpreted from respective acts of accused persons supporting the transaction in question in one way or the other.
57. None acted averse to other during the transaction. None distanced himself and no substantial evidence was led to disapprove what was alleged. The incriminating material/evidence were put to the accused under section 313 Cr.PC was simply CA No. 12/2020 Digitally signed by Rakesh @ Neeraj Kumar & Ors. vs. State Page 12 of 20 Purshotam Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date:
2026.01.16 17:34:54 +0530 explained in evasive denial manner, rather fortifying the prosecution version as no alternate theory was floated to cast any doubt upon the allegations made. Accused persons also stated that they wanted to lead evidence but no defence evidence was produced by accused Rakesh @ Naresh Kumar, Niraj Mangla @Appu and Chander Mohan Rawat @ Chander.
58. The action of accused persons and thus the commonality of intention is manifestly attributable to each other with respect to three accused persons. The accused persons namely, Rakesh @ Naresh Kumar, and Chander Mohan Rawat @ Chander even boforc, they visited the store procured or transferred cloned the credit card unlawfully and unauthorizedly. They also were aware that they would have to present ID proof and so they forged one. Thus, before transaction eventually took place, they had their plan and they knew how to act upon it. They made their preparations towards a common design. They acted in tandem as per the common design with roles assigned respectively to each participant. The object and purpose of transaction in question was known evidently to each of accused persons. What manifested in the form of purchase transaction was only the consequence of well drafted detailed plan in place with all necessary tools already pre arranged to bring this plan to fruition.
59. The discussion above entails that accused Rakesh @ Naresh Kumar, Niraj Mangla @ Appu and Chander Mohan Rawat @ Chander conspired and cheated the Croma Store as well as one Sh. Naveen Mehra by creating false documents which was produced as original and genuine, with intent to commit fraud and which induced the said store to part with property wrongfully to the possession of accused persons.
60. Accused Amit Sharma @ Vicky was admittedly the cashier who allegedly swapped the cloned credit card took false ID proof and gave final delivery of the articles/items to remaining three accused persons. He appears on a different footing than the accused persons. Only incriminating evidence against him is the disclosure statement of remaining accused persons with no independent piece of substantive evidence against him. There is nothing to show or decipher from the testimonies led by the prosecution that there was a meeting of mind or any intended participation as part of conspiracy qua the accused Amit Sharma @vicky with other three remaining accused persons namely Rakesh @ Naresh Kumar, Niraj Mangla @Appu and Chander Mohan Rawat @ Chander. There is nothing to suggest that he was keeping in touch with other co-accused or he supported or acted in tandem with them or even shared the intent with which they came to the said Croma Store or shared the proceeds of the crime/transaction later.
61. Accused Amit Sharma @ Vicky also led defence evidence and testified on oath about his work profile and how he innocently acted in due course and did what he was supposed to do in ordinary and usual course of business and that there was nothing which he did which raises bar of suspicion against him. He was also put to cross examination by the Ld. APP for the State but, no contradiction was unearthed in his testimony. His position is entirely different from the other accused persons namely Rakesh @Naresh Kumar, Niraj Mangla @ Appu and Chander Mohan Rawat @ Chander and thus cannot for the reason stated above be put at par and equated whether in respect of conspiracy or to act upon the design or to share the fruits later of crime later on. He was absolved by the internal enquiry by the said Croma Store and started again working in the said store. No evidence of his involvement in the crime came on record. Thus, crime against him remained not proved.
62. It is trite in criminal jurisprudence that 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 doubt on the basis of cogent, convincing and reliable evidence. It is also well settled that in case of doubt, the benefit must necessarily be allowed to the accused. Digitally signed by Purshotam Purshotam Pathak Pathak CA No. 12/2020 Date:
2026.01.16 Rakesh @ Neeraj Kumar & Ors. vs. State Page 13 of 20 17:34:57 +0530
63. Thus, in view of the foregoing analysis and discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the offence against accused persons namely Rakesh @ Naresh Kumar, Niraj Mangla @ Appu, Chander Mohan Rawat @ Chander. Accordingly, they are convicted for the offence under section 120B IPC, section 420 IPC read with section 34 IPC and also under Section 471 read with section 34 IPC.".
10. In the instant case, all convicts purchased articles/goods and approached the payment counter of Croma where they handed over the credit card to the cashier/executive Amit Sharma, who swiped the same for payment of Rs.
3,45,139/-. During investigation, it was surfaced that accused perons took part delivery of the articles worth Rs. 1,71,549/- in Wagon R Car bearing Registration No. DL-4CAA-2251. At the time of transaction, convicts gave one mobile number and copy of ID i.e. Driving License to the cashier of the store. After swiping of the card, the charge slip was also signed by convict Neeraj. Part articles were taken and remaining articles were instructed to be delivered at the address given to the Store. The delivery boy of remaining articles found the deliver address incorrect and on him contacting the convicts at the given phone number, they informed to collect the same on some other day. Thereafter, the phone number given by the convicts was found switched off and they called the landline phone of the Store and informed that they would collect the articles from the store. On this, suspicion arose in the mind of the Store Manager, who verified the transaction from the credit card company and found that it was never undertaken by the original card holder, who was in possession of his original card. This led the Store Manager to call police and register a complaint. During Digitally signed by Purshotam Purshotam Pathak CA No. 12/2020 Pathak Date:
2026.01.16 Rakesh @ Neeraj Kumar & Ors. vs. State Page 14 of 20 17:35:00 +0530 investigation, the DL given as ID by the convicts was found fake after verification and it found the photograph of one Gaurav.
11. The said credit card from which said payment was made belongs to victim Naveen Mehra and not the appellants. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellants, cloned the credit card of the victim and used it for purchasing the articles from Croma, Saket. The verification confirms that the card used by the convicts at Croma, Saket was a cloned copy of the card of Naveen Mehra. The bank statement of the victim Naveen Mehra (Ex. PW1/D) proves the transaction done at Croma from his card, however, he testified that he never visited Croma, Saket, where his credit card was used and his original credit card was in his possession. Since the appellants/convicts were the benificiary of the transaction using the cloned credit card, who themselves used it at Croma, Saket and took part delivery of the goods purchased, therefore, they are the only persons who cloned the credit card of Naveen Mehra. The articles purchased by the appellants from the cloned credit card were recovered from their possession / houses. One HD mini Laptop, One D-Link Wifi router, Ultra compaq charger, one mobile phone make Nokia, one Laptop make Toshiba, two SD cards, two Croma Pen drives 16 GB were recovered from the shop of convict Rakesh @ Neeraj. A mini laptop and speaker was recovered from accused Chander Mohan Rawat. The Digitally signed by CA No. 12/2020 Purshotam Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date:
2026.01.16 Rakesh @ Neeraj Kumar & Ors. vs. State Page 15 of 20 17:35:04 +0530 statement of Ld. cousnel for the convicts Rakesh, Neeraj, Chander Mohan Rawat dated 01.03.2011 and 05.03.2011 was recorded to the effect that he do not dispute the identity of these articles allegedly recovered from the respective convicts.
12. There are glaring evidences which have surfaced during the investigation which directly connect the involvement of convicts in the crime. The mobile number given by them belongs to the father of the convict Rakesh. The CCTV footage confirmed the presence of accused Rakesh, Niraj Mangala and Chander Mohan Rawat at Croma, Saket on the date and time of incident. All the accused persons are from the same locality and are well known to each other who can be seen in the CCTV footage coming, entering the Croma Store and selecting the purchase items, making payment, signing the charge slip and leaving together. In their defence, convicts made the contention that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated but did not give any plausible defence. None of the appellant examined any witness in their defence, which shows that they have nothing in their defence. The Wagon R car baring registration No. DL-4CAA-2251 used in the commission of offence wherein purchased electronic items were carried away by the convicts after purchasing from Croma, Saket was seized, which was belonging to one Rakesh Aggarwal, who is lodged in Faridabad jail.
Digitally
signed by
Purshotam
Purshotam Pathak
CA No. 12/2020 Pathak Date:
2026.01.16
17:35:08
Rakesh @ Neeraj Kumar & Ors. vs. State Page 16 of 20 +0530
13. Perusal of the testimony of PW1 Naveen Mehra reveals that on receipt of monthly statement of his American Express credit Card, he came to know that said card was used in 2010-11 at Croma, upon which he lodged complaint with his bank and they credited the said amount in his account confirming that said transacation was not made by him. He provided his bank statement and Driving License to the IO who recorded his statement.
14. Ld. counsel for the appellants argued that clone card has not been placed on the judicial file or Naveen Mehra did not lodge any complaint or who created clone card or used it could not be established. It may be mentioned it has categorically come in the testimony of PW1 Naveen Mehra that he complained about the transaction of Croma purchase reflected in his statement with the bank, which, re-credited the amount after verifying it. Hence, the question of Naveen Mehra lodging complaint with the police station does not arise. Though clone card could not be recovered, however, appellants can be seen using the same and signing the charge slip at the Croma Store in the CCTV footage. The faces of the appellants/convicts are clear in the CCTV footage and even the documents/ID i.e. Driving License produced by them is found fake. The phone number given by them is that of father of convict Rakesh. When the purchased articles have been duly revovered from the houses of the appellants/convicts, the argument of their model number not being visible in the CA No. 12/2020 Digitally signed by Rakesh @ Neeraj Kumar & Ors. vs. State Page 17 of 20 Purshotam Purshotam Pathak Pathak Date:
2026.01.16 17:35:11 +0530 judicial has no relevance, as the same can be verified from the invoice and seizure memo of the seized articles. PW-2 is the Croma Store Manager, who proved the case of the prosecution in the series and manner in which the events took place and provided the CCTV footage and all possible evidences and he remained intact during his cross examination. All the police witnesses supported the case of the prosecution and they remained intact in their cross examination.
15. The consistency and corroboration in the testimony of witnesses supported by CCTV footage, recovery of articles from the possession of appellants and other material evidences, the conspiracy and involvement of the appellants/convicts for a common object is evident on record.
16.Prosecution has been successful in proving its case for commission of alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt and appellants/convicts have failed to rebut the same. Appellants have been reasonably sentenced as the offences carries imprisonment upto 7 years whereas they have been lienienty dealt considering their age, only upto 2 years.
17.Ld. Trial Court dismissed the application for release on Probation filed by the appellants/convicts on the ground that the offence is serious in nature. Ld. counsel for the appellants/convicts have argued that appellants/convicts Purshotam CA No. 12/2020 Pathak Rakesh @ Neeraj Kumar & Ors. vs. State Page 18 of 20 Digitally signed by Purshotam Pathak Date: 2026.01.16 17:35:15 +0530 are first time offender and they ought to be given benefit of Probation. There is no doubt, the offence is serious in nature and appellants have committed the crime in a well planned criminal conspiracy wherein they all participated and acted hand in gloves. The gravity of offence, and the manner in which offence took place does not warrant grant of benefit of Probation to the appellants.
18. Perusal of the impugned order on sentence reveals that Ld. Trial Court has though imposed fine of Rs. 5000/- each for the offences U/s 420 IPC and 120B IPC, however, has not granted, punishment in default of payment of fine to the appellants/convicts. Ld. Trial Court shall keep this aspect in mind while awarding sentence of fine. Accordingly, appellants/convicts are awarded sentence in default of payment of imposed fine of Rs. 5000/- and in the event of non-payment of fine, appellants/convicts shall suffer further Simple imprisonment of 30 days for the offences wherein fine has been imposed, over and above the substantive sentence of two years.
19. To summarize, there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and the order on sentence emanating therefrom. Resultantly, the instant appeal stands dismissed. The impugned judgment and sentence stands upheld. Appellants/convicts are given benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. Appellant be taken into custody and be sent to jail under appropriate warrant for serving their sentence. The Digitally signed by Purshotam Purshotam Pathak CA No. 12/2020 Pathak Date:
2026.01.16 Rakesh @ Neeraj Kumar & Ors. vs. State Page 19 of 20 17:35:18 +0530 fine amount remains unpaid. Needless to say, Ld. Trial Court shall be at liberty to recover the same as per law. Copy of the order be given free of cost to the appellant. Appellant has further been apprised that he can challenge the present order before Hon'ble High Court, in case he so desires.
20.Copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Record be sent back to the learned Trial Court.
21.Copy of the judgment be also sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for compliance through email. Copy of the judgment be provided to the appellant.
22.Appeal file be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court Digitally signed Today on 16th January, 2026 by Purshotam Pathak Purshotam Date: Pathak 2026.01.16 (PURSHOTAM PATHAK) 17:35:21 +0530 Additional Sessions Judge-05 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi : 16.01.2026 CA No. 12/2020 Rakesh @ Neeraj Kumar & Ors. vs. State Page 20 of 20