Delhi District Court
State vs Tejender Pal Singh on 13 August, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN KUMAR, MM-12, SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS, DELHI State Versus Tejender Pal Singh FIR No. : 313/92 P.S. : 380/420/468/477A IPC Under Section : Lodhi Colony 1.
Serial No. of the case : 178/11 2. Date of commission of offence : 02.09.2000 3. Name of the Complainant : Baldev Krishan 4.Name of the accused and his :Tejender Pal Singh Bhinder parentage & residence address : S/o Sh. Iqbal Singh Bhinder, R/o WZ -21, New Sahib Pura, MBS Nagar, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi. 5.Date when judgment reserved : 27.07.2013 6.Date when Judgment pronounced : 13.08.2013 7.Offence Complained of or proved : Section 380/420/468/477A IPC 8.Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty 9.Final Judgment : Convicted
1. The accused in the present case stood for trial for the commission of offence u/s 380/420/468/477 A IPC. The present case remanded back by the Ld. Appellate court after setting aside the judgment and order on sentence and while remanding back it was directed to recall PW1 for cross examination and recording of statement u/s 313 Cr.PC. The trial was conducted in compliance of direction of appellate court.
2. The prosecution case in brief as made out from the charge sheet is that the accused was working at the office of controller of Accounts in ministry of Environment and Forest at the relevant period of time. The present case FIR is the outcome of written complaint made by Sh. Baldev Krishan, Account officer (HQ) to SHO, Lodhi Colony, which is as follows: " A case has been noticed where an official of this office has defrauded the Govt. to an extent of Rs.9,61,000/- (Rupees Nine Lacs and Sixty one Thousand only) by arranging the issue of a pay order No.8885 dated 17.09.1992 from Union Bank of India, Sunder Nagar in the name of J.K. Scientechno, WZ-21, New Sahib Pura, MBC Nagar, New Delhi. This office suspects the involvement of Sh. T.P.S. Bhinder, an official of this office in the fraud. He is an allottee of Qr. A-361, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi. The bank draft for Rs.9.61 lacs was deposited by the Defrauding Agency in Canara Bank, Ganesh Nagar, New Delhi-110 018. The concerned bank has been directed to stop payment to the concerned party as a result of the money credited to their account on account of this Pay Order and has also been requested to write back the amount to Govt. Account in the UBI, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi. Copy of our letter dated 25.09.92 and 28.09.92 addressed/endorsed to U.B.I. Sunder Nagar letter dated 28.09.92 to Canara Bank, Ganesh Nagar, New Delhi-18 are enclosed."
3. During the investigation the Investigating Officer had seized the original requisition letter, carbon copy of the above requisition letter, and letter dated 24.09.92 addressed to Pay and account officer regarding confirmation of genuineness of fourth entry in the requisition slip allegedly handed over to Investigating Officer by Ms. Indu Gupta of Union Bank of India, Sunder Nagar Branch. Investigating Officer also seized following documents from Canara Bank, (1) one current A/C opening form no. NF 101 dated 12.09.92 for current account no. 1234 of M/s J.K. Scientechno, (2) one letter of proprietorship form no. NF 110 dt. 12.09.92 duly filled and signed by Tejender Pal Singh, (3) A specimen signature card no. NF 109 dt. 12.09.92 bearing two specimen signatures of Tejender Pal Singh and with two stamps for J.K Scientechno, (4) one paying in slip bearing date 19.09.92 vide which an amount of Rs. 9,61,000/- was deposited by way of pay order no. 008885 dt. 17.09.92 of UBI, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi deposited in the bank & (5) a statement of account no. 1234 current account in respect of M/s J.K. Scientechno proprietor Tejender Pal Singh.
4. The aforementioned seized documents alongwith specimen signatures and handwriting of the accused were submitted to CFSL for opinion of handwriting expert. The detailed examination report is placed on record.
5. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused. The copies of charge sheet and annexed documents were supplied to accused in due compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
6. After considering the contents of the charge sheet and hearing the submission made by both the parties, charge was framed U/s 380/420/468/477 A IPC against the accused on 12.03.96 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. In order to establish the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined total 14 witnesses.
8. PW4 Mohan Lal Mittal was posted as Pay account officer in the Ministry of Environment and Forest. He deposed that on 14 or 15 September, 92, a requisition for correction in three demand draft was submitted for signature and he signed the same. The requisition slip is Ex PW1/G. He further deposed that at the time, he put his signature, there were only three entries in the said requisition and the entry at sr. no. 4 was a forged entry made by the accused after his forwarding. It is further deposed that he was informed regarding enquiry by Union Bank of India of Sunder Nagar branch about pay order of Rs. 9.61 lakhs. After collecting information from ministry and UBI, he stated to have requested not to make payment of such amount. He further deposed that he came to know that pay order has been deposited into Canara Bank, Ganesh Nagar. Thereafter, he stated to have requested to Canara Bank to stop the payment of said pay order and reported the matter to Head Quarter.
In his cross examination he stated that as per rules the draft or cheque received in the office should be diarized. He shown his ignorance whether the drafts of requisition slip were properly diarised or not before submitting before him. He also stated that the accused was not concerned in any manner with the preparedness, diarising or dispatch of such draft, rather he was posted in reconciliation and post audit section.
9. PW7 Mahesh Sharma was posted in the ministry of Environment and forest in pay and account office and deposed that on 28.07.92 he received a cheque / letter and kept the same in dak file. He further deposed that the concerned lady clerk was on leave on that day.
10. PW10 Smt. Prishkila Verma had been posted as LDC in the pay and account office of Ministry of Environment and Forest since 1989. She deposed that she was on leave on 28.07.92 and 29.07.92. She further deposed that she made diary entry of the pending received dak and there was no cheque in the dak of Rs. 9,61,000/-. There was no entry of any such cheque of the above said amount in the diary. She deposed to have reported to the pay and account officer on 21.01.93. She further stated that till date that no entry of such cheque exist in the record. The copy of the letter written to the pay and account officer by her is Ex PW10/A. She produced the diary register containing the record of diary entries from 18.07.92 to 30.07.92 on page no. 261. It was not having any entry regarding the cheque / DD of amount of Rs. 9,61,000/-. The photocopy of the entry in the register are Ex PW10/B( register was seen and returned).
In her cross examination, she admitted that she was not the only person who used to deal with the seat. She also admitted that there are torn pages in this register. She further admitted that all the papers received in the section should be diarised. She further stated that she is not in position to tell as to why this draft was not diarised. She could not affirm or deny that the accused was concerned with the cheque in question. She also stated that the inquiry was conducted regarding this cheque /draft.
11. PW12 Baldev Krishan deposed that it is brought to his notice that one DD no. 115735 has been dishonestly encashed from the bank and the matter was reported to the police and the complaint Ex PW12/A was made. Further, he deposed that his statement was recorded by the police during investigation.
In his cross examination, it has been admitted by the witness that he did not remember the date when the commission of fraud came to his notice as it was a 8 years old case. However, he admitted that the DD which are received unutilized are diarised in the office and thereafter, goes to concerned section. He denied the suggestion that Mr. Mittal was responsible for dealing with this drawer and the accused was not concerned with this matter.
12. PW8 Ms. Indu Gupta was posted as officer in Union Bank of India, Sunder Nagar branch from November 1990 to September 1996 and statedly received the requisition letter from the accused. She deposed that on 15.09.92 the accused now present in the court got the requisition slip containing four drafts from serial no. 1 to 3 for rectification and fourth one for cancellation and reissue in favour of J.K. Scientechno, New Delhi. She further deposed that one 17.09.92 all the three drafts and pay orders of Rs. 9,61,000/- were received by the accused after giving acknowledgment on the carbon copy of requisition. She further deposed that she received a call from Canara bank, Ganesh Nagar, ensuring the nature of transaction of issuance of alleged pay order. Thereafter, she deposed to have tried to contact the pay and account officer. She deposed to have intimated the details of draft cancelled and issuance of pay order to Mr. Ravinder who inquired about the same. It is deposed that on receiving letter from Canara Bank, she gave a letter on behalf of Branch manager to P & A office regarding genuineness of party. She stated that on 25.09.92 the accused handed her a letter of P & A officer mentioning that the pay order was genuine. During the investigation PW8 handed over the documents to IO and the same were seized and sealed with the seal of SPQ vide seizure memo Ex PW8/A. Further she deposed that one request to stop the payment of pay order was made by Sh. D.P. Gupta, but she told him to contact Canara Bank as pay order had already been cleared by the branch.
13. PW3 Dharampal Vermani was an officer in Canara bank, Ganesh Nagar in the year 1992. He deposed that in October/ November 1992 police met him in the bank premises and made inquiry about the case of M/s J.K. Scientechno. He further deposed that he handed over the documents i..e current account opening form Ex PW1/I, letter of proprietorship Ex PW1/J, specimen signature card Ex PW3/A, pay in slip for Rs. 9,61,000/- Ex PW1/K to the IO and the same were seized vide memo Ex PW3/B. He further deposed that the accused appears to be the same person who opened the account no. 1234 in the name of M/s J.K. Scientechno.
In his cross examination he deposed that he cannot identify the person who opened the account.
14. PW9 M. U. Siddiqui deposed that about 6-7 years ago the accused present in the court came to his shop no. 8, INA Market and got stamp for J.K. Scientechno, Proprietor on payment of Rs. 20/-. He further deposed that after 5-6 months, IO came to him and he recorded his statement. He also deposed that the accused claimed himself to be the director of the firm.
In his cross examination, he deposed that he had been dealing in the preparation of stamps since the year 1994 at the same place and used to prepare 10 / 12 stamps daily. He further deposed that the stamps were prepared after taking authority letter and record is maintained in the register. He denied the suggestion that he cannot identify the accused and only identifying in the court at the instance of the police.
15. PW13 Insp. S.P. Gupta is the investigating officer of this case and deposed that on 30.09.92 one complaint of department of Environment and Forest was marked to him for inquiry. During inquiry he went to CGO Complex with Ct. Teja Singh / PW2 and on inquiry prima facie case was made out. He further deposed that he had made the endorsement Ex PW13/A on the complaint and got the case registered through Ct. Teja Singh. The FIR was registered by PW5 and the copy of the same is Ex PW5/A. He further deposed that during investigation he visited the Union Bank of India, Sunder Nagar and officer Indu Gupta handed over one original requisition letter, one carbon copy of authority letter and one copy of requisition letter which bears initial of T.P.S Bhinder and other letter dt. 24.09.92 addressed to pay and account office, Ministry of Environment and Forest, which was reported to be handed over by accused to Indu Gupta. He further deposed that he seized the aforesaid documents in the sealed envelop sealed with the seal of SPG and seizure memo is Ex PW8/A. He further deposed that on 19.10.92 that he alongwith Ct. Raj Kapoor had gone to Canara Bank, Ganesh Nagar and the manager Dharampal Vermani / PW3 handed over original account opening form of current saving account no. 1234, original proprietorship form, specimen signature card, pay in slip and the statement of account. He deposed that he seized the above documents and seized the same with the seal of SPG. The seizure memo is Ex PW3/B. He further deposed that on the basis of secret informer, he apprehended the accused T.PS. Bhinder who was identified by PW3 / Mr. Vermani. He also stated that on 29.10.92 he took specimen signatures of the accused and seized the same vide memo Ex PW3/C and sealed in the envelop with the seal of SPG. He further deposed that he recorded the disclosure statement of the accused Ex PW13/D. He also stated that the accused got recovered one stamp of J.K. Scientechno from his house. He deposed to have seized the same vide seizure memo Ex PW13/E after sealing with the seal of SPG. He further stated that on 24.11.92 Indu Gupta of UBI, Sunder Nagar handed over carbon copy of letter dt. 24.09.92 addressed to P & Officer with initial of the accused on it and the same was seized vide seizure memo Ex PW6/A. He also deposed that he recorded the statement of witnesses and sent the seized documents to FSL for comparison. In his testimony, one sealed pullanda was opened and found containing one stamp which is Ex P1.
16. PW14 Ct. Raj Kapoor deposed that he joined the investigation with SI S.P. Gupta on 16.10.92 and during investigation IO seized some documents from Union Bank of India, Sunder Nagar Branch vide memo Ex PW 8/A. He further deposed that on 19.10.92 some documents were seized from Canara bank, Ganesh Nagar vide memo Ex PW3/B. He also witnessed the recording of the disclosure statement of the accused Ex PW13/D. He also witnessed the recovery of the stamp at the instance of the accused which was seized vide memo Ex PW13/B. He further deposed that specimen writing of the accused was taken by the IO in his presence. He also witnessed the personal search of the accused which is Ex PW14/A.
17. PW1 Dr. S.C. Mittal was the expert who gave his report on the hand writing on the questioned documents after comparing with the specimen signatures and handwriting. He deposed that he examined the documents sent to FSL with scientific aids and on the basis of scientific examination and evaluation, he prepared his report Ex PW1/M. PW1 was cross examined and he stated that the specimen hand writing of Tejender Pal Singh was not taken in his presence. He admitted that individual identification hand writing, sign cannot be based on only general hand writing characteristics like pen pressure, shading, movement, alignment, slant, spacing, proportion, skill, paragraphing as they are class characteristics and can be found in the hand writing of group of people. He also stated that no consistent and repeated dissimilarities were observed in questioned and specimen documents. He denied the suggestion that sufficient comparable material was not available for giving opinion. He admitted that hand writing science is the corroborative science as it needs corroboration. He also admitted that in most of the civil cases the private hand writing expert frequently give diagonally opposite opinion to that off government hand writing expert. He also admitted that he had not mentioned any basic or fundamental dissimilarities between the question and specimen hand writing and signatures.
18. All the incriminating circumstances came in prosecution evidence put to the accused while recording the statement U/s 313 r/w 281 CrPC. He denied the incident and pleaded false implication by the police. He also stated that the present incident was not concerned with his seat and he has not forged any entry as alleged.
19. I have carefully perused the case record and have heard arguments advanced by ld APP for the state as well as by the accused.
20. Before appreciating the evidence, I would like to have a glance at relevant statutory provisions necessary for the disposal of this case. The accused is charge sheeted U/s 380/420/468/477A IPC.
Section 380 provides for sentence for the commission of offence of theft in dwelling house.
As per Section 420:
Whoever, dishonestly induces by way of cheating to deliver any property to any person or to make alter or destroy the whole or any part of the valuable property is liable to be punished.
In substance, the ingredients of offence of section 420 are:
(i) There should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him.
(ii) The person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person or the person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or to omit to do anything which he would not do or omit, if he were not so deceived.
Section 468 provides for -
Whoever commits forgery, intending that the [document or electronic record forged] shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 477A IPC provides sentence for falsification of account, valuable security in the possession of his employer or has been received by him for or on behalf of employer in the capacity of clerk, officer or servant.
21. In brief the allegations against the accused are that he committed theft of one DD no. 115735 and committed the forgery in requisition letter issued for rectification of three bank draft, by adding fourth entry of cancellation of abovesaid demand draft and got reissued the same in the name of J.K. Scientechno at New Delhi. The requisition letter was deposited at Union Bank of India, Sunder Nagar. Further as per prosecution the accused had opened fictitious bank account in the name of J.K. Scientechno at Canara Bank, Ganesh Nagar branch. The reissued DD was alleged to be deposited in this fictitious account. Allegedly, the account opening form and sample signatures of accused are in the handwriting of the accused and requisite rectification and cancellation was done by the bank. Further the prosecution case is that at the time of opening of account one letter of proprietorship was furnished by the accused which bears the signature of accused and firm is shown in the name and address of the accused.
22. The case of the prosecution, mainly rest on the testimony of PW3, PW4 & PW8. The oral testimony of the aforesaid witnesses found corroboration from the opinion of the hand writing expert. PW7 deposed to have received the cheque / letter and kept the same in the dak. PW4 deposed that he had signed a requisition Ex PW1/G for certain corrections in three demand drafts on submitting before him for signature. He also deposed that the entry at sr. no. 4 in the requisition letter was not done by him and the same was added by the accused after misusing the same. His cross examination is mainly focused on the fact that the cheque and DD received by the office were not properly diarised in the register. Further, admittedly the accused was not working in the concerned branch at that time. In his deposition it is categorically mentioned that he conducted the inquiry from UBI Bank, Sunder Nagar branch and Canara bank, Ganesh Nagar regarding the forgery in the requisition letter and encashment of the same by opening a forge account in Canara bank.
23. PW8 was the officer of Union Bank of India, Sunder Nagar branch and she deposed that the accused gave him requisition slip containing four drafts from sr. no. 1 to 3 for rectification and fourth one for cancellation and re issue of pay order for Rs. 9,61,000/- in favour of J.K. Scientechno. He also deposed that she handed over three drafts alongwith the pay order of Rs. 9,61,000/- after taking acknowledgment from the accused on carbon copy of requisition letter. She also stated to have received a letter handed over by the accused in which it was mentioned that the pay order was genuine. She correctly identified the accused in the court. In her cross examination, she remains unrebutted as far as the identification of the accused in the court is concerned. She categorically stated in her cross examination that she knew regular customers
24. PW3 Dharampal Vermani was the officer of the Canara bank, Ganesh Nagar and deposed that he handed over certain documents of current saving account no. 1234 to the police during the investigation. He also deposed that the accused appears to be the same person who had opened the current account no. 1234 in the bank in the name of M/s J.K. Scientechno.
25. PW13 S.P. Gupta who was the investigating officer of this case. In his testimony he stated that he seized the relevant documents from UBI and Canara Bank and send the same to the FSL alongwith the specimen handwriting and signature of the accused for comparison. He also stated that the accused was apprehended and the stamp of M/s J.K. Scientechno proprietor was recovered in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by the accused.
26. PW9 is the person who had made the stamp of J.K. Scientechno proprietor on the request of the accused. He correctly identified the accused in the court.
27. The other important piece of the evidence for the prosecution is the report Ex PW1/M prepared by hand writing expert. As per the report of the hand writing expert, it was opined that Hand writing evidence points to the writer of the specimen English writings and signatures mark S-1 to S-3, S-3/1 to S-3/24, S-4 to S-6 and S-6/1 to S-6/20 attributed to Tejender Pal Singh Bhinder being the person responsible for writing the questioned English writings and signatures marked Q-1 ( fourth entry in the requisition slip Ex PW1/G), Q2 ( acknowledgment allegedly made by the accused with his initial on carbon copy of the requisition slip), Q6 ( name and address of the accused on the account opening form Ex PW1/I), Q8 ( name of address of the accused on the letter of proprietorship Ex PW1/J) Q9 ( name of the J.K. Scientechno on the letter of proprietorship Ex PW1/J), Q10 ( date and place on the letter of proprietorship Ex PW1/J), Q14 ( particulars on the pay in slip Ex PW1/K), Q 15 ( particulars of the cheque on the pay in slip Ex PW1/K) and Q16 ( initial of the on the letter dt. 24.09.12 Ex PW1/L ").
28. The main defence of the accused is that on the alleged date he was posted at different branch and was not concerned with the alleged DD in any manner. Further, it is submitted in the course of arguments that there is no entry of alleged DD in the diary register. The other defence of the accused is that opinion of the hand writing expert is not a substantive piece of evidence and he has not observed the basic dissimilarities in the questioned documents and specimen documents.
29. The testimonies of PW3, PW4 and PW8 stands unrebutted during the cross examination. The defence that the accused was not working in the concerned branch is not sustainable and not sufficient to creates doubts over the case of the prosecution. There is no denying to the fact that he was working in the said office and had the every opportunity to commit the act. Moreover, he was correctly identified by PW8 to whom he gave the requisition letter Ex PW1/A, for cancellation of alleged DD and reissuance of the same in the name of J.K. Scientechno. Further PW8 also established that she had handed over the DD after reissuance to accused against the acknowledgment on carbon copy of requisition letter. Statedly the accused had submitted letter on 25.09.92 confirming the genuineness of the party. PW8 remains unimpeached in her cross examination regarding the identity of the accused. PW8 categorically stated that she used to meet the accused regularly in the course of business and further she knew regular customer.
Further more the bank account at Canara bank, Ganesh Nagar was opened in the name of J.K. Scientechno Pvt. Ltd at the address of accused. The letter of proprietorship of was also in the name and address of accused accused.
30. Apart from the oral testimony of prosecution witnesses as discussed above the prosecution also relied upon the opinion of the hand writing expert. The report of the handwriting export Ex PW1/M attributes the authorship, of fourth entry in the requisition slip, acknowledgment on carbon copy of requisition slip, the name and address on account opening form, name and address on letter of proprietorship, name of accused and J.K. Scientechno, dated and place on letter of proprietorship, particulars on paying slip, particulars of chque on back of paying slip and initials on carbon copy of letter dated 24.09.92 regarding enquiry from office of ministry, to the accused. The defence on this aspect as raised by the counsel is that the handwriting expert has not considered the basic dissimilarities in the questioned documents and specimen documents. Despite the defence the report Ex PW1/M is very reasoned and satisfactory and the same can be used for corroboration of the deposition of the prosecution witnesses.
I agree with the submission of the defence that science of handwriting comparison is not a perfect science and can merely be used for the corroborative purpose. It is settled that conviction cannot be based merely on the opinion of hand writing expert.
The expert / PW1 denied the suggestion that sufficient comparable material was not available for giving opinion in respect of questioned initials, date and abbreviated words. He also admitted that handwriting science is a corroborative science.
31. The oral testimony of PW3, PW4 & PW8 corroborated by opinion of the hand writing expert established that the accused used the requisition slip and added the fourth entry in it. It is also established that the accused had opened a fictitous account in the name of J.K. Scientechno by using a forge document of proprietorship concern. The stamps used on the documents of the proprietorship were recovered from the house of the accused at his instance.
32. The cardinal principle of criminal law cannot be forgotten that the prosecution has to prove the case against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of proof is not preponderance of probabilities but proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is well settled legal proposition that the any benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused. Thus, this court is of the considered view that the benefit of doubt in the present case be given to the accused and he is entitled to be exonerated on the charges against him in the present case.
33. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the prosecution successfully established the charge framed against the accused. The prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond the reasonable doubt and therefore, the accused Tejender Pal Singh is held guilty and is convicted for commission of offence u/s 380/420/468/477A IPC.
Announced in open Court (PAWAN KUMAR) on 13.08.2013 Metropolitan Magistrate - 12, South East, Saket Courts.
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" > <head><title> Untitled Page </title></head> <body> <form name="form1" method="post" action="detail_dc.aspx" id="form1"> <div> <input type="hidden" name="__VIEWSTATE" id="__VIEWSTATE" value="/wEPDwULLTE4NTY1NjExMTlkZPvkXQmwKzGc5thNRCpub4/yPyaa" /> </div> <div> <input type="hidden" name="__VIEWSTATEGENERATOR" id="__VIEWSTATEGENERATOR" value="2D6A1E2C" /> <input type="hidden" name="__EVENTVALIDATION" id="__EVENTVALIDATION" value="/wEWAgKQ4ZarAwLs0bLrBtHg1b/uTCPenSpOcNbwpH8LPj3O" /> </div> <div> <textarea name="TextBox1" rows="2" cols="20" id="TextBox1" style="height:522px;width:851px;"></textarea></div> </form> </body> </html>