Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Mrityunjay Ghosal, Etc on 21 February, 2007
IN THE COURT OF DR.SHAHABUDDIN:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: KARKARDOOMA
COURTS: DELHI
CBI V/s Mrityunjay Ghosal, etc
RC-10(S)/94
U/s 419/420/467/468/471/120B IPC
a) Sl. No. of the case : 31/95
b) Date of the commission of : In the year 1991-93.
offence
c) Name of the complainant : Sh. M.B. Pahari
d) Name of the accused, their : (1) Mrityunjay Ghosal,
parentage and residence S/o K.P Ghosal, R/o
46B, Russa Road, East,
1st Lane, Kolkata, (2)
Rakesh Mittal, S/o Late
Sh. Trilok Chand Mittal,
R/o 29/15, Shakti
Nagar, Delhi (Already
Died), (3) D.K.
Chakraborty, S/o Sh.
Dhirender Kumar
Chakraborty, R/o
27/31, Old Rajender
Nagar, New Delhi and (4)
Ram Niwas Chowdhary,
S/o Late Sh. Ramdular
Chowdhry, R/o 2/7,
Kamar Danga, Railway
Quarter, Kolkata
e) Offence complained of or : Se.120B/419/420/467
proved /468/471 IPC
f) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
a) Sl. No. of the case : 31/95
g) Final order : Conviction.
h) Date of such order : 21/02/2007
i) BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR
DECISION
1. The main facts of the prosecution case against
the accused are to the effect that during the year
1991-93, all the accused entered into a criminal
conspiracy at Delhi, Kolkata and other places of India;
that in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy and
with malafide intention, all the accused got encashed
a cheque for Rs. 4,77,750/- (Rupees four lakh seventy
seven thousand seven hundred and fifty only) issued
by Doordarshan Kendra, Delhi (in short referred to as
DD Kendra, Delhi hereinafter) in favour of M/s Piyali
Films, Kolkata as a royalty for the film 'Harte Bazari',
which was telecast by DD Kendra, Delhi on 24/11/91
and for this purpose, the accused got opened a
fictitious bank account in the name of Mr. Chinmoy
Mukherjee representing himself as Proprietor of M/s
Piyali Films, Kolkata; that such account was opened
in United Bank of India, Kamla Nagar Branch, Delhi;
that it was got opened by co-accused, Mrityunjay
Ghosal (in short referred to as M. Ghosal hereinafter)
at the instance of co-accused, D.K. Chakraborty and
Ram Niwas Chowdhury on the introduction of co-
accused, Rakesh Mittal knowing fully well that the
said account was a fictitious one and that M. Ghosal
was not the actual proprietor of M/s Piyali Films; that
in this way, all the accused cheated DD Kendra, Delhi
as well as Smt. Purnima Dutta, who was the actual
proprietor of M/s Piyali Films, Kolkata and
that the cheated amount was distributed amongst the
co-accused; that all the accused stayed in Hotel
Akshay Palace, Pusa Road, Delhi during the relevant
time for committing the aforesaid illegal activities.
After the completion of entire investigation, a charge-
sheet was filed against the accused for taking action
against them as per law for offences U/Ss
120B/420/467/468/471 of The Indian Penal Code,
1860 (in short referred to as IPC hereinafter). During
the course of trial, accused, Rakesh Mittal had died
and proceedings against him were abated.
2. All the accused appeared in the court and they
were supplied copies of documents in compliance to
the provisions of Sec. 207 of The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 ( in short Cr.PC).
3. On 20/04/1996, charge was framed against
the accused U/s 120B IPC r/w Sec. 420, 467, 468 and
471 IPC as well as for the substantive offences U/Ss
419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC to which the accused
persons did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
4. From the side of prosecution, PW1, Dr. M.B.
Pahari, PW2 Sh. Gyan Chand, PW3 Sh. Ramesh
Kumar Singhal, PW4 Sh. J.S Bhatcharya, PW5 Mrs
Lalima Moonga, PW6 Sh. B.S. Joshi, PW7 Sh. K.C.
Chacko, PW8 Sh. Vijay Kumar, PW9 Sh. Ravi Dhawan,
PW10 Sh. Madan Lal, PW11 Sh. Devavisht Ghosal,
PW12 Sh. Ved Parkash Verma, PW13 Sh. Nem Chand
Jain, PW14 Sh. P. Sukumar, PW15 Sh. G.
Krupadanam, PW16 Sh. M.P Puri, PW17 Sh. J.L.
Madan, PW18 Sh. S.R. Pipli, PW19 Sh. Dharampal,
PW20 Sh. Leela Dhar, PW21 Sh. Kailash Chander,
PW22 Sh. B.U.R Baliiga, PW23 Sh. Kailash Chand
Bhopra, PW24 Sh. B.A Vaid, PW25 Smt. Poornima
Dutta, PW26 Sh. Satya Veer Singh, PW27 Sh. Shiv
Charan, PW28 Sh. D.N. Sharma and PW29 Sh.
Sandeep Choudhary were examined and then
remaining Prosecution Evidence (in short referred to
as P/E hereinafter) was closed.
5. Statements of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C were
recorded in which they denied the allegations against
them as false and incorrect. Accused, M. Ghosal and
D.K. Chakraborty wanted to lead Defence Evidence (in
short referred to as D/E hereinafter) and third
accused, Ram Niwas Chowdhury did not want to lead
D/E.
6. However, no D/W was produced by any of the
them despite sufficient time given for this purpose and
hence the D/E on their behalf was closed.
7. Oral final arguments were heard from Ld. APP,
Sh. Anil Tanwar for CBI. The same were heard from
Ld. Counsel, Sh. P.N. Bhan on behalf of accused D.K.
Chakraborty, from Ld. Counsel, Ms. Renu Aggarwal on
behalf of accused, R.N. Chowdhary and from
Ld. Counsel, Sh. Gurbaksh Singh on behalf of
accused, M. Ghosal.
8. The main submission of Ld. APP for CBI was to
the effect that on the basis of entire material on
record, the case stands well proved beyond reasonable
doubt against all the three accused facing trial at
present for the offences for which charge was framed
against them in this matter and that they should be
punished strictly as per law.
9. On the other hand, the main submissions of
Ld. Defence Counsel on behalf of accused represented
by them were almost on the same lines. It was
submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that accused were
falsely implicated in this case; that there was no direct
evidence on record regarding any criminal conspiracy
entered into between these accused; that there was no
meeting of minds between the co-accused before
commission of alleged offences; that there was no
proof of booking of hotel at Delhi in the name of
concerned accused; that hotel bills pertaining to the
same were not produced nor got exhibited as per law
by the CBI; that there were several material
contradictions in the testimonies of the Prosecution
Witnesses (in short referred to as PW's hereinafter)
examined in this case on behalf of the CBI; that there
was no evidence to connect any of the accused with
the commission of alleged offences; that accused were
booked in this case on the basis of some conjectures
and surmises. It was further averred by Ld. Counsel
Sh. P.N. Bhan on behalf of accused, D.K. Chakraborty
that this accused was not at all involved in the
commission of crime in this matter; that there was no
authentic proof on record regarding his entering into a
criminal conspiracy with co-accused for the
commission of alleged offences; that there is no
authentic report on record of the CFSL to the effect
that co-accused, D.K. Chakraborty was also really
involved in committing of forgery of various documents
for the commission of forgery, cheating, etc pertaining
to this matter. Sh. P.N. Bhan also relied upon the
following judgments for claiming acquittal of accused,
D.K. Chakraborty. The photocopies of such judgments
have been put on record. The details of the same are
as under:
(i) 1953 (1) Cr.L.J 129 (Supreme Court of India).
(ii) 2003 (1) JCC 454 (Supreme Court of India).
(iii) AIR 1984 (Supreme Court of India) 1622
(iv) AIR 1980 (Supreme Court of India) 531
10. I perused the entire judicial file minutely in
view of the above mentioned rival submissions
including the judgments relied upon by Ld. Counsel
for accused, D.K. Chakraborty.
11. Before proceeding further on merits of this
case, I consider it essential to refer to the provisions
of law for which charge was framed against the
accused in this matter.
12. Section 120B of IPC provides as under:-
'''120B. Punishment for criminal conspiracy.
--(1) Whoever is a party to criminal conspiracy to
commit an offence punishable with death,
imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for
a term of two years or upwards, shall where no
express provision is made in this Code for the
punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in
the same manner as if he had abetted such
offence.
(2) Whoever, is a party to a criminal
conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to
commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall
be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term not exceeding six months or
with fine or with both''.
13. Section 419 of IPC provides as under:-
''419 Punishment for cheating by
personation -- Whoever cheats by personation
shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to three
years, or with fine, or with both"
14. Section 420 of IPC provides as under:
''420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing
delivery of property. -- Whoever cheats and
thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived
to deliver any property to any person, or to make,
alter or destroy the whole or any prt of a valuable
security, or anything which is signed or sealed,
and which is capable of being converted into a
valuable security, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to seven years, and shall also
be liable to fine''.
15. Section 467 of IPC provides as under:
''
467. Forgery of valuable security, will, etc --
Whoever forges a document which purports to be a
valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt
a son, or which purports to give authority to any
person to make or transfer any valuable security,
or to receive the principal, interest or dividends
thereon, or to receive or deliver any money,
movable property, or valuable security, or any
document purporting to be an acquittance or
receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or
an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any
movable property or valuable security, shall be
punished with [imprisonment for life], or with
imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable
to fine'
'.
16. Section 468 of IPC provides as under:-
''
468. Forgery for purpose of cheating --
Whoever commits forgery, intending that the
document forged shall be used for the purpose
of cheating, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to seven years, and shall
also be liable to fine''.
17. Section 471 of IPC provides as under:
''
471. Using as genuine a forged [document
or electronic record] -- Whoever fraudulently
or dishonestly uses as genuine any [document
or electronic record] which he knows or has
reason to believe to be a forged [document or
electronic record], shall be punished in the same
manner as if he had forged such [document or
electronic record]''.
.
18. Now turning to the evidence on record, PW1 Sh. M.B. Pahari, Director, DD Kendra, New Delhi deposed, inter alia, that in the year 1994 in the month of April, he made complaint to the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Ex. PW1/A bearing his signatures at point 'A' regarding missing cheque of Rs. 4,77,750/- issued in favour of M/s Piyali Films, Kolkata bearing cheque No. 129562 dated 06/01/92 and the said cheque was Ex. PW1/2, which was despatched to proprietor of M/s Piyali Films through registered post vide No. 1971 from Parliament Street Post Office, New Delhi on 08/01/92; that this complaint was lodged because the actual proprietor of this film namely Mrs. Purnima Dutta lodged a complaint in the month of April 1993 that she did not receive the said cheque from Doordarshan. This witness was cross-examined on behalf of the accused but I do not find any material contradictions in his deposition on material points to the above effect.
19. PW2 Sh. Gyan Chand Bansal deposed mainly to the effect that he was working as Chief Accountant in M/s Sobti having three hotels namely Hotel Rajdeep, Hotel Akshay Place and Hotel Sobti and that he handed over hotel register vide memo dated 20/06/94 to the CBI Officers, which was Ex. PW1/1 bearing his signatures at point A; that the endorsement made in the entry register was in his own handwriting and the relevant register entry at Sl. No. 131 was Ex. PW2/2. This witness was also cross- examined on behalf of the accused but I do not find any material contradiction in the statement of this witness to the above effect.
20. PW3 Sh. Ramesh Kumar Singhal deposed, inter alia, that in the year 1993, he was working in the United Bank of India, Kamla Nagar Branch, Delhi and was looking after the over all administration of this branch; that the bank account was opened in the name of M/s Piyali Films, Kolkata at the address i.e 6- UB, Jawahar Nagr, Delhi-07 and the account was introduced by M/s Girish Chand Dinesh Chand through its proprietor, Rakesh Mittal; that the account was opened in the name of Chinmoy Mukherjee on behalf of M/s Piyali Films as proprietor of the same; that the account opening form was Ex. PW3/A bearing his signatures at point 'A';that Sh. B.S. Solanki, an officer of the bank at that time, completed the necessary formalities and he (PW3) identified his signatures as Sh. Solanki was working under him at that Branch at that time; that the cheque Ex. PW3/2 was cleared by Special Assistant, Sh. Kailash Chand; that Rakesh Mittal was having current account No. 112 in their bank and he was the frequent visitor to their bank and he (PW3) identified Rakesh Mittal in the court on the date of his deposition on 06/02/97. This witness was not cross- examined by any of the accused despite opportunity given and hence his testimony remains unrebutted and unchallenged from the side of the accused.
21. PW4 Sh. J.S. Bhatcharya deposed mainly to the effect that in the year 1992, he was working as Manager in United Bank of India, Kamla Nagar Branch, Delhi supervising the function of the Branch at that time; that he had seen account opening form Ex. PW3/1 opened by Mr. Chinmoy Mukherjee as proprietor of M/s Piyali Films, who was introduced by Rakesh Mittal; that three cheques of different amounts were cleared by his signatures and that the person, who claimed the same was brought to their bank by Rakesh Mittal. This witness was also not cross-examined on behalf of any of the accused despite opportunity given and hence the testimony of this witness also remains completely unrebutted and unchallenged from the side of the accused.
22. PW5 Mrs. Lalima Moonga deposed, inter alia, that she knew D.K. Chakraborty and also identified him in the court on the date of her deposition on 06/02/97; that she was Producer in the Film Section from 1990-94; that D.K. Chakraborty met her in connection of telecast of regional films and called her in a birthday party at Hotel Akshay Palace, Delhi and she attended that party; that in that party, D.K. Chakraborty introduced R.N. Chowdhary and M. Ghosal (both also identified in the court by this witness on the date of her deposition on 06/02/1997) telling that they were his business partners in the production of films in Mumbai and Kolkata; that D.K. Chakraborty asked her regarding the payment of films and she told him that he could verify the same from the account section about the payment; that D.K. Chakraborty used to come to her office frequently. This witness was cross-examined at length by Ld. Counsel for accused, D.K. Chakraborty. Several questions were asked from her in her cross- examination as regards her residence at Kalkajee, Delhi; as regards attending of birthday party of D.K. Chakraborty prior to one mentioned above; as regards recording her statement by CBI; as regards presence of other persons also in the birthday party of D.K. Chakraborty; as regards the other family members of the D.K. Chakraborty; as regards her meeting D.K. Chakraborty at Pusa Road, Delhi; as regards the date of birthday party of D.K. Chakraborty; as regards her recommendation of payment of the film telecast; as regards her knowing the other co-accused persons; as regards her joining Doordarshan, etc. From the careful perusal of her entire examination-in-chief and her cross- examination, I am of the considered opinion that she was not shaken on material facts as regards her deposition in her examination-in-chief pertaining to the meeting of D.K. Chakraborty and others in the birthday party of D.K. Chakraborty and regarding other issues of her film telecast and the payment thereof.
23. PW6 Sh. B.S. Joshi deposed that he was working as Receptionist in hotel Akshay Palace, Delhi and that he had seen entry of hotel register at Sl. No. 131 made by Sh. C. Mukherjee dated 09/01/92; that alongwith Mr. C. Mukherjee, three other persons also came to the hotel; that D.K. Chakraborty booked the hotel rooms and that all these persons stayed in Room No. 202; that D.K. Chakraborty told that he was working in a bank and his guests were expected to come and he sought the booking for them; that Rakesh Mittal came to meet alongwith D.K. Chakraborty; that payment was made by D.K. Chakraborty at the time of check out. This witness was also cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused M. Ghosal at length but no material contradictions are found in his entire deposition.
24. PW7 Sh. K.C. Chako deposed mainly to the effect that vide letter dated 04/08/94, Ex. PW7/1, a cheque in sum of Rs. 4,77,750/- was prepared in favour of M/s Piyali Films drawn on SBI, Delhi and that the cheque was Ex. PW1/2 handed over to IO of this case. SI Sh. Sandeep Choudhary. This witness was not cross-examined at all on behalf of any of the accused.
25. PW8 Sh. Vijay Kumar deposed regarding his taking part in the investigation of this matter alongwith Investigating Officer (in short referred to as I/O hereinafter) of this case on due dates and times.
26. PW9 Sh. Ravi Dhawan deposed that he had no personal knowledge about this case.
27. PW10 Sh. Madan Lal deposed mainly to the effect that in the year 1994, he handed over certain documents to I/O SI Sh. Sandeep Choudhary of CBI vide Ex. PW10/1. This witness was also not cross- examined on behalf of any of the accused.
28. PW11 Sh. Devavisht Ghosal deposed mainly to the effect that R.N. Choudhary and D.K. Chakraborty used to visit office of his brother M. Ghosal. His cross- examination conducted on behalf of accused also does not suffer from any material contradictions.
29. PW12 Sh. Ved Parkash Verma deposed mainly to the effect that in the year 1992 he was working as Despatch Clerk in Parliament Street Post Office, New Delhi and that Ex. PW12/1 was neither despatched by him nor was it mentioned in the list of articles prepared by him. He was also not shaken in his cross- examination conducted on behalf of the accused In my considered opinion,
30. PW13 Sh. Nem Chand Jain, PW14 Sh. P. Sukumar, PW15 Sh. G. Krupadanam, PW16 Sh. M.P. Puri, PW19 Sh. Dharampal, PW22 Sh. B.R. Balliga and PW26 Sh. Satya Veer Singh respectively appear to me to be of formal nature and I do not consider it essential to discuss their depositions.
31. The next material witness is PW17 Sh. J.L. Madan. He deposed mainly to the effect that from the year 1993-95, he had handed over certain documents to SI Sh. Sandeep Choudhary of CBI vide seizure memo Ex. PW17/1 on 20/04/95. In my considered opinion, he was also not shaken on material points in his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused.
32. PW18 Sh. S.R. Pipli deposed mainly to the effect that he was working as Sr. Accountant in the year 1995 at CGO Complex, New Delhi and he handed over certain documents to SI Sh. Sandeep Choudhary of CBI vide Ex. PW18/1.
33. PW20 Sh. Leela Dhar deposed to the effect that in the year 1992, he was working as Cashier in United Bank of India of Kamla Nagar Branch, Delhi; that he received voucher dated 01/09/92 and cash Rs. 500/- in favour of new account in the name of Piyali Films, Kolkata and the account number was 921 as current account, which is Ex. PW20/1 on record. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel on behalf of accused, D.K. Chakraborty. In his entire cross- examination, I do not find any material contradictions contrary to his deposition in his examination-in-chief. He was not cross-examined on behalf of remaining accused despite opportunity given.
34. PW21 Sh. Kailash Chander deposed that in the year 1992, he was working as Spl. Assistant in United Bank of India, Kamla Nagar Branch, Delhi; that cheque in sum of Rs. One lakh dated 11/01/92 presented by Piyali Films, Kolkata through its proprietor pertaining to current account No. 921 was received; that further a cheque in sum of Rs. 75,000/- was also received in account NO. 921; that cheque Ex. PW4/4 dated 11/01/92 in sum of Rs. One lakh issued by Piyali Films was also received in account No. 921; that he verified the signatures of party, who produced the cheques for withdrawal and after verifying the signatures and passing the cheques, the money was withdrawn by the party concerned. This witness was cross-examined at length by Ld. Counsel for accused, Rakesh Mittal, D.K. Chakraborty and M. Ghosal. From the careful perusal of his entire examination-in-chief and cross-examination, I am of the considered opinion that he was not shaken on material points. He was not cross-examined on behalf of accused, R.N. Chowdhury despite opportunity given.
35. PW23 Sh. Kailash Chand Chopra deposed mainly to the effect that he was working as Spl. Assistant in United Bank of India, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi; that he had seen the account opening form of R.N. Chowdhury introduced by D.K. Chakraborty and the introducer was one of the customers of their branch having account No. 9741; that a demand draft dated 14/12/91 in favour of R.N. Chowdhury in sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- was encashed in their branch, which was Ex. PW23/2. In my considered opinion, this witness was not shaken at all on material points in his cross-examination conducted on behalf of the accused, D.K. Chakraborty. He was not cross-examined on behalf of the remaining accused.
36. PW24 Sh. B.A. Vaid, deposed, inter alia, that he was M.Sc and Ph.D in Physics; that he received specialised training in the scientific examination of documents including handwriting identification, detection of forgery and allied subjects at Shimla for three years; that he examined documents of this case received in their laboratory from Superintendent of Police, CBI, New Delhi vide letters dated 18/01/95, 24/05/95 and 29/05/95 respectively; that he compared the questioned documents with the standard specimen writings/signatures and prepared his opinion Ex. PW24/140 bearing his signatures at point A. This witness was cross-examined at length by Ld. Defence Counsel for accused, D.K. Chakraborty but I do not find any material contradictions on the material points as regards his forming of opinion on the questioned documents comparing the same with the specimen signatures/handwriting of the accused herein. He was not cross-examined on behalf of the remaining accused despite opportunity given.
37. PW25 Smt. Poornima Dutta deposed mainly to the effect that he was proprietor of M/s Piylai Films, Kolkata; that M. Ghosal and Chowdhury met her in Kolkata in the year 1991 because she was holding rights of film namely 'HateBazari'and they wanted to buy the T.V rights and telecast rights of the film for telecast of it on Doordarshan for which they gave a price in sum of Rs. 2,25,000/-, which was returned to them later on; that thereafter Mr. Chowdhury further came to her residence and told that they had influence in Delhi Doordarshan and knowing several officials and that they would get the telecast of this film done on Delhi Doordarshan @ 2% as service charge; that for a symapthy, she decided to help him; that the said film was telecast on Delhi Doordarshan, Kendra in the year 1991 and she received a letter from Doordarshan that they had sent a cheque for Rs. 4,77,000/- as royalty of the above said telecast but she did not receive that cheque and reported back the matter to the Delhi Doordarshan; that later on Sh. Sandeep Chowdhary of CBI came and seized a lot of documents from her residence in respect of telecast of her film 'HateBazari';that she did not receive any payment for telecast of the said film. This witness was cross-examined at length by Ld. Defence Counsel for all the accused. From the entire cross-examined of this witness, I am of the considered opinion that she has established beyond reasonable doubt on record that the amount in respect of telecast of her film was actually not received by her but it was received by accused by deceitful means in connivance with each other.
38. The next material witness is PW27 Sh. Shiv Charan, the then Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. He deposed mainly to the effect that an application was filed by IO SI Sh. Sandeep Chowdhary of CBI, Ex. PW27/1 for recording confessional statement of R.N. Chowdhury U/s 164 of Cr.PC and that the same was recorded after warning the accused that he was not bound to make any such statement and that if the same was made, it could be read adversely against him during evidence; that despite this warning to the accused, he made a confessional statement U/s 164 Cr.PC. The copy of which is on record as Ex PW27/2 bearing his signatures at point A and that the statement also bears the signatures of accused R.N. Chowdhury at points B and C respectfully. This witness was not cross-examined at all on behalf of any of the accused and hence his testimony remains completely unrebutted and unchallenged from the side of the accused. I have seen the confessional statement of R.N. Chowdhury on record dated 22/05/95 (recorded by this witness) implicating all the co-accused herein for commission of cheating, forgery, etc for the purpose of misappropriating the amount due to Mrs. Purnima Dutta for telecast of her film 'Hate Bazri' by employing deceitful means.
39. PW28 Sh. D.N. Sharma deposed mainly regarding various steps taken by postal authorities for despatch of registered letters/ordinary letters, etc. This witness was cross-examined on behalf of accused, D.K. Chakraborty but I do not find any material contradictions as regards procedure told by him for despatch of postal articles, etc in his deposition. He was not cross-examined on behalf of remaining accused.
40. PW29 SI Sh. Sandeep Choudhary was examined-in-chief and he was only partly cross- examined but he did not appear thereafter for the completion of his remaining deposition. Hence, his partly recorded evidence cannot be read against the accused. In this regard, I further find support from an important judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India given in a case reported as '' 1983, Cr.L.J., Page-159 (SC)''.There is yet another judgment of Hon'bleDelhi High Court on this point given in a case namely, '' Ripen Kumar V/s Department of Customs'',2001 (I), JCC (Delhi) Page..47. In both these judgments, the main emphasis of Hon'ble Higher Courts was that examination-in-chief of a witness cannot be said to be a complete evidence until and unless an opportunity is given to the defence side for the cross-examination of such witness.
41. Accused, M. Ghosal and D.K. Chakraborty desired to bring D/E in their statements recorded U/s 313 Cr.PC but they did not produce any D/E despite sufficient time given for this purpose. They have not produced themselves in the witness box as their own defence witnesses as per mandate of Sec. 315 Cr.PC for the reasons best known to them.
42. In view of the above mentioned discussion and entire material on record including oral as well as documentary evidence on record, I am of the considered opinion that the CBI has been successful in proving essential ingredients beyond reasonable doubt of the offences against all the accused herein for which charge was framed against them in this matter. With due respect, the authorities relied upon by Ld. Defence Counsel of accused, D.K. Chakraborty are not found helpful to this accused for his acquittal because the facts and circumstances of the authorities relied upon are different from the facts and circumstances of the case under discussion. Hence, I convict all the accused facing trial. Accordingly, I convict accused, M. Ghosal for the offence U/s 120B IPC as well as for substantive offences U/Ss 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC respectively. I further convict accused, D.K. Chakraborty for offence U/s 120B IPC as well as for substantive offences U/Ss 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC respectively. I further convict accused, Ram Niwas Chowdhary for the offence U/s 120B IPC as well as for substantive offences U/Ss 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC respectively. Let certified copies of this judgment be given today itself to all the accused against due receipt. Now to come up for hearing arguments on point of sentence on 24/02/07 at 2:00 p.m. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY i.e on 21/02/07 (DR. SHAHABUDDIN) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI