Delhi District Court
Cr Cases/47807/2016 on 9 December, 2021
CC No. 47807/2016
IN THE COURT OF Ms. TANVI KHURANA,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE04,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI.
FIR No. 47807/2016
U/s 420/467/474/120B IPC
PS: Inder Puri
State v. Yashwant Singh
JUDGMENT
a) ID. No. of the case : 47807/2016
b) Date of Commission of offence : 31.12.2005
c) Name of complainant : Sh. Alok Shivpuri, Principal, Institute of
Hotel Management, PUSA.
d) Name of the Accused & parentage : Yashwant Singh,
& address S/o Sh. Mahender Pratap, r/o Village
Vishnupura, PS and DistrictChhapra,
Bihar.
e) Offences complained of : U/s 420/468/471/380 IPC
f) Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty
g) Final Order. : Acquitted.
h) Date of such order. : 09.12.2021.
i) Date of institution. : 09.09.2008.
Statement of facts and reason for decision :
1. The accused, namely, Yashwant Singh is facing trial for commission of offences punishable u/s 120B, 420 and 468/474 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as "IPC").
2. Succinctly, the case of the prosecution is that on or before 31.12.2005, after hatching a criminal conspiracy along with untraced accused persons, the accused had forged a cheque bearing No. 627600 belonging to Institute of Hotel Management FIR No. 201/06 PS: Inderpuri State v. Yashwant Singh Page 1 of 16 CC No. 47807/2016 Catering and Nutrition, PUSA to cheat the complainant Institute by presenting the said cheque into his own account. It was also alleged that on 02.01.2006, along with other untraced coaccused, the accused presented the said forged cheque wherein he had signed as the Principal of the Institute in order to cheat the complainant for a sum of Rs. 14,27,860 with intention to cause wrongful loss to the complainant. The prosecution further alleged that the accused had stolen the cheque bearing No. 62700 and forged the same in the name of M/s Yash Infotech. As per the chargesheet filed, the cheque was duly presented and encashed and from the account No. 10285163 at State Bank of India, South Patel Nagar and an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/ was released on 03.01.2006 in favour of M/s Yash Infotech, account No. 3255 at Indian bank, Nehru Place. The Principal of the Institute had denied signing the cheque and complained to the police that on 04.01.2006, the cashier of the Institute received a call from State Bank of India, South Patel Nagar where the account of the Institute was maintained that a cheque bearing No. 627600 was presented by one M/s Yash Infotech for an amount of Rs. 14,27,860/ but the cheque bore only one signature of the Secretary and the second mandatory signature of the Board Member was missing. The standing instructions to the bank were that any cheque of more than Rs. 30,000/ had to be signed by one of the Board Members of the Institute in addition to the Secretary. The Principal also informed that Institute has had no dealings with M/s Yash Infotech and no cheque was ever issued in favour of M/s Yash Infotech. The complainant/Principal also reported that the cheque was stolen from their office by someone and the signatures were forged on the cheque. Upon receiving the complaint, investigation was carried out and the account holder accused Yashwant Singh was apprehended. The coaccused could not be arrested or apprehended. After completion of investigation, chargesheet (Final Report u/s 173 of Criminal Procedure Code, in short "Cr.PC") was filed in the court. Subsequently, supplementary chargesheet was also filed.
3. On appearance in the court, the mandate under Section 207 CrPC was complied with for the accused. Vide order dated 14.09.2018, charge u/s 120B, 467/474 FIR No. 201/06 PS: Inderpuri State v. Yashwant Singh Page 2 of 16 CC No. 47807/2016 and 420 of IPC was framed against the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accordingly, matter was listed for Prosecution Evidence.
4. The prosecution examined eleven witnesses to prove its case:
4.01 PW1, HC Satyabir Singh was the duty officer on 12.06.2006 when at 9.40 PM, SI Hari Kishan had handed over a rukka to him. He proved the endorsement as Ex.
PW1/A and copy of FIR was Ex. PW1/B (OSR).
No questions were asked from the witness in his crossexamination.
4.02 Sh. Om Prakash Kanojia was examined as PW2. He deposed that in December, 2005 and January, 2006, he was posted as Special Assistant in Indian Bank at Nehru Palace Branch and in the month of January, 2006, the bank had received a cheque of more than Fourteen Lacs Rupees in favour of Yash Infotech which was sent to RBI for clearance. The cheque was cleared and thereafter, the cheque for Rs. 10,00,000/ was presented for payment over the counter. The cashier namely, Sh. Jugal Kishore got suspicious as the amount on the cheque was huge and one day before, an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/ was withdrawn from the same account. As per the witness, the cashier had asked him to verify about the cheque in clearance to RBI for the account of Yash Infotech. He informed the cashier that a cheque of about Rs. 14,00,000/ was sent to RBI which was cleared. It was also told to Assistant Branch Manager. The Assistant Branch Manager had told the witness to contact SBI. SBI informed the witness that the said cheque was not issued by their customer in favour of Yash Infotech. The witness then informed the Assistant Branch Manager who conveyed the cashier to hold the payment. At this stage, Ld. Substitute APP requested to crossexamine the witness and after taking permissions, leading questions were put to the witness. The witness admitted that the date of presentation of the cheque of Rs. 10,00,000/ was 04.01.2006. He did not know whether the holder of the cheque was asked to give his identity. He admitted that the holder of the cheque was asked to wait for the payment and the copy of the PAN Card was also taken but he did not know whether the cheque holder had left FIR No. 201/06 PS: Inderpuri State v. Yashwant Singh Page 3 of 16 CC No. 47807/2016 the bank premises as soon as he had informed the Assistant Branch Manager about the nonissuance of the cheque by the account holder in favour of Yash Infotech. He could not recall the account number and was not in position to identify the accused. He rather mentioned that he (the witness) was not the person who had seen the person collecting the money from the cashier. The witness clarified that it was the cashier who had asked the holder of the cheque to wait and it was not done in his presence.
In the crossexamination, the witness mentioned that he was the incharge of cheque clearing section and was entrusted with the duty to verify the cheques. He also deposed that the account was in the name of M/s Yash Infotech and it was a current account. He did not remember whether the account was a proprietorship or a partnership. He also did not know that who was the authorized signatory of behalf of M/s Yash Infotech and what was the business of the said firm. He did not recall the exact amount of the cheque or that who had signed the covering which was accompanied with the cheque. He mentioned that no account holder was present before him on the said date.
4.03 Sh. Virender Kumar Sapra, stepped into the witness box as PW3 and deposed that he did not remember the exact date and month but sometime in 2006, while he was working as counter clerk in Indian Bank, Nehru Place, he was entrusted with the duty to give token to the customers of the bank who used to come to withdraw money from their account. He deposed that one person had come to their bank and handed over a cheque of Rs. 2,00,000/ and the witness gave him the token. He mentioned that after going through the cheque and the outstanding amount in his account, the witness after satisfaction, debited the amount and sent the same to Assistant Branch Manager who was the final passing authority. The witness was shown the cheque bearing No. 017088 dated 03.01.2006 which was Ex. PW3/A. He mentioned that he cannot identify the presenter of the cheque as the incident pertained to 2006.
In the cross examination, the witness responded that he did not know that who had presented the cheque. He mentioned that there was no error on the cheque. He FIR No. 201/06 PS: Inderpuri State v. Yashwant Singh Page 4 of 16 CC No. 47807/2016 mentioned that he had not witnessed any suspicious transaction by the account of Yash Infotech. He mentioned that being a current account, transactions relating with presentation and withdrawal of the amount usually take place.
4.04 Sh. Raghuvir Singh was examined as PW4. He deposed that on 12.09.2007, police had visited his house at Mandir Marg, Nangloi and enquired about S.S Dhaka. He mentioned that no such person by the said name resided at the premises and the rent agreement shown to him was fake. He also mentioned that photocopy of the driving license submitted along with the rent agreement was also shown to him by the police with the rent agreement. He had responded to the police that he could not recall the photograph, however, it appeared to him to be of a person who might have resided at his house some 78 years ago but he was not very sure.
In his cross examination, he mentioned that at that time, he was posted as ASI in Delhi Police. He did not know the owner of the house bearing No. 79, Ashok Mohalla, Mandir Marg, Nangloi in 2006 but at the time of recording of the evidence, he claimed to be owner of the said property.
4.05 Inspector Hari Kishan, PW5 stepped into the witness box to depose that he was marked the case for investigation of theft and forgery. He had enquired from the complainant and came to a conclusion that a case under Sections 380/420/468/471 of IPC was made out. He had prepared the tehrir/rukka on the basis of the complaint and had got the FIR registered. He had also visited the bank of the complainant to obtain the relevant documents. The seizure memo of the documents was Ex. PW5/A. The witness had also visited the Indian Bank and the seizure memo of the documents collected from them was Ex. PW5/B. He mentioned that he had searched for other accused but they were not apprehended.
In his cross examination, the witness stated that the accused was having the account in name of Yash Infotech in Indian Bank and as per the Bank Manager, M/s Yash Infotech dealt in field of computers.
FIR No. 201/06 PS: Inderpuri State v. Yashwant Singh Page 5 of 16 CC No. 47807/20164.06 Inspector Anand Prakash was examined as PW6. He deposed that he was marked the investigation of the case after the transfer of SI Hari Kishan. He had served the notice to the Bank for obtaining the account opening form of the account of the accused and other documents. He had visited the office of the complainant and had conducted the enquiry. He had obtained the specimen signatures and handwriting of the employees of the complainant which were Ex. PW6/A (colly) and specimen signatures and handwriting of Smt. Alka Khatri were Ex. PW6/B (colly), of Suresh Kumar were Ex. PW6/C, of Anil Kumar were Ex. PW6/D, of Rakesh Kumar were Ex. PW6/E, of Harish Chander were Ex. PW6/F, of Lalita Chinda were Ex. PW6/G and of P. Pappu Swami were Ex. PW6/H. He further deposed that during the course of investigation, he had arrested accused Yashwant on 12.07.2008 vide arrest memo, Ex. PW6/I and the search memo was Ex. PW6/H2. He had recorded his disclosure statement. The witness mentioned that he has searched for the other coaccused but in vain. The Specimen signatures and handwriting of accused Yashwant was Ex. PW6/J and thereafter, the said specimens were sent to FSL by him. He had recorded the statements under Section 161 of CrPC and thereafter filled the police report and requested for some time to file supplementary challan as the expert opinion was awaited. The identity of the accused was not disputed.
In his cross examination, he admitted that the bank account of the accused was a current account in the name of M/s Yash Infotech. He further admitted that M/s Yash Infotech dealt in Computers. He denied to the suggestion that he had not conducted a fair investigation on the point that who was in possession of the said cheque and when and by whom the cheque was stolen. He also denied to the suggestion that he had not conducted fair investigation on the point that when the Institute had instructed that the cheque could not be cleared without two signatures, still the cheque was cleared. He further denied that he had not made SBI as one of the accused or a coconspirator intentionally. He also denied that he had not investigated the role of Lalita Chinde who had cleared the cheque and deliberately not recorded her statement. He also denied FIR No. 201/06 PS: Inderpuri State v. Yashwant Singh Page 6 of 16 CC No. 47807/2016 that he had not investigated the relation between the complainant and the accused or on the role of the other accused.
4.07 HC Jai Bhagwan was examined as PW7. He deposed that on 11/12.07.2008 he alongwith IO/SI Anand Prakash and HC Nanak Chand had reached Durga Puri, Gali No. 10, Dabri where they met the secret informer and around 11:45 p.m., on the informer's signal, the accused was apprehended whose name was revealed to be Yashwant. He had also joined investigation to trace other accused at Dwarka but no clue could be traced.
In his cross examination, the witness denied to the suggestions put to him.
4.08 ASI Nanak Chand was examined as PW8 and he reiterated the testimony of PW7. He mentioned that the disclosure statement was Ex. PW8/A. In his cross examination, the witness denied to the suggestions put to him.
4.09 PW9, Jeya Bharathi, Assistant Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Nehru Place was shown letter dated 16.04.2008 which she identified to be of Indian Bank written by the then Assistant Branch Manager addressed to the SHO and was Ex. PW9/A and mentioned that all connected papers of M/s Yash Infotech viz. Account Opening Form, Declaration Cheque Deposit Slip, Cheque of Rs. 2,00,000/ and Cheque of Rs. 10,00,000/ were handed over to Sh. Hari Singh. The original cheque of Rs. 10,00,000/ was Ex. PW9/F and the current account payin slip amounting to Rs. 14,27,860 was Ex. PW9/G. The witnesses proved the statement of account bearing no. 3255, Ex. PW9/B which she mentioned to be in the name of M/s Yash Infotech, Proprietor Yashwant Singh and on 02.01.2006, an amount of Rs. 14,27,860 was deposited for clearing in the account and on 03.01.2006, Rs. 2,00,000/ was withdrawn through cheque no. 017088 from the above account in cash. She also deposed that the account was migrated to Core Banking Solution System (CBS) and the new number of the account was 443263738. The print of the PDF file of the documents was Ex. PW9/C (colly). The FIR No. 201/06 PS: Inderpuri State v. Yashwant Singh Page 7 of 16 CC No. 47807/2016 witness was shown letter dated 04.01.2006 which she identified and was Ex.PW9/D (colly) and according to the document, accused Yashwant Singh had deposited a cheque for Rs. 14,27,860/ on 31.12.2005. The cheque was cleared by State Bank of India, South Patel Nagar Branch and on 03.01.2006, the accused had withdrawn cash of Rs. 2,00,000/ and on 04.01.2006, the accused demanded a payment of Rs. 10,00,000/ from his account vide cheque no. 017089 across the counter and as the transaction in the account was little higher when compared to the turnover of the account, the cashier had alerted the Assistant Branch Manager. She mentioned that the Assistant Branch manager had called the party and made a detailed enquiry regarding sudden entries and increase in the transaction in the account and asked the accused to wait for some time and reported the matter to complainant i.e. Institute of Hotel Management and Nutrition and by the time, the Manager tried to know further details from the accused, the accused had already left the branch to avoid any possible withdrawal from the account as he could not explain the sources of funds and the transactions were beyond the threshold limit. She mentioned that the Bank had frozen the entire balance in the account. The witness also identified letter dated 23.06.2008 which was Ex. PW9/E and as per the statement, the amount of Rs. 12,28,000/ was restored to the Institute.
In the cross examination, the witness stated that she did not have any authority letter from the Assistant General Manager of Indian Bank, Nehru Place Branch and that the Assistant General Manager had asked her to represent him but she also volunteered that the ScaleIII Officer is authorized for making representation before the Court and can verify the documents of the bank. She did not remember that who was the Officerincharge of the Bank at the time of the incident. She denied to the suggestions put to her by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
4.10 Pradeep Kumar Jha, Branch Manager, State Bank of India, South Patel Nagar, PW10 was shown letter dated 05.08.2006 which he identified to have been issued by the Bank and was Ex. PW10/A and vide the same, the documents photocopy of FIR No. 201/06 PS: Inderpuri State v. Yashwant Singh Page 8 of 16 CC No. 47807/2016 Account Opening Form, Original cheque bearing no. 627600 amounting to Rs. 14,27,860, name and address of the Passing Officer who cleared the cheque were handed to the Police. The photocopy of the cheque was Ex. PW10/B In his cross examination, he stated that he had not brought any documents from the Branch and after perusing the record, he came to know that the incident was for a cheque clearance. As per the record, the cheque was cleared in favour of M/s Yash Infotech. He did not know the person in authority who cleared the cheque. He admitted that generally, first the Cheque is put before the window of 'Maker' and then proceeded to 'Checker'. He could not tell what procedure was used to clear the cheque in question. The witness was shown Ex. PW10/D1. The witness admitted that as per the record, the cheque mentioning more than Rs. 30,000/ needed signatures of second signatory, Sh. K.L. Dass in order to clear the cheque. He admitted that the cheque in question had only one signatures. He mentioned that Mark PW10/D2 belonged to SBI.
4.11. PW11/Santosh, UDC produced the record pertaining to account no. 10512863432 which was Ex. PW11/A(OSR) (Colly). He mentioned that record cannot be produced for account no.10512863432 as there was no record pertaining to the said account number.
5. The rest of the witnesses were not examined. Witnesses Sh. Alok Shivpuri, Principal and Sh. Jugal Kishore had expired during the pendency of trial, hence, were dropped from the list of witnesses. Similarly Ct. Gokul Narayan was also dropped by court order from the list of witnesses and the court found that the witness at serial No.15, dealing clerk with case file of account No. 3255 of Yash Infotech was not required as the documents were already tendered by PW9.
6. The accused admitted the genuineness and veracity of FSL Report bearing No. FSL 2013/D6006, FSL/2013, dated 26.12.2016 which was Ex. P1.
FIR No. 201/06 PS: Inderpuri State v. Yashwant Singh Page 9 of 16 CC No. 47807/20167. This is the entire evidence produced in the present case. The statement of accused was then recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein the entire incriminating evidence was put to the accused who maintained his innocence stating that he had been falsely implicated and nothing was recovered from his possession. The accused however chose not to lead defence evidence.
8. I have heard argument on behalf of prosecution as well as defence. Ld. APP for the State argued that the prosecution has examined the witnesses to show that the cheques were forged by the accused who is facing trial and it has been shown from the evidence that he carried out this under a criminal conspiracy with other persons. He mentioned that though, it could not be established that who were the other accused, however, the accused facing trial is the beneficiary of the entire incident as he received the amount of Rs. 14, 27,860/. He further argued that the Institute of Hotel Management must have suffered loss because of the act of the accused. He also mentioned that the FSL report has been admitted by the accused and therefore stands duly established. Ld. APP further mentioned that the inference can be drawn that it was the accused who had cheated the institute and forged the cheque which was presented in his account and he also withdrew the cash from his account subsequent to the clearing of the cheque in a haste to quickly remove any kind of evidence of the amount being in his account. He prayed that the accused be convicted for the offences charged in light of the evidence that has come on record.
9. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused/Defence Counsel argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. He pointed out the lacunae in the case of the prosecution. He argued that the complainant had expired and hence there is no testimony of the complainant or the Institute to whom the cheque belonged. He further argued that the police failed to investigate that how the cheque came into the account of the accused and how the same was allegedly stolen from the Institute. He further mentioned that it was the accused who is made a scapegoat of the FIR No. 201/06 PS: Inderpuri State v. Yashwant Singh Page 10 of 16 CC No. 47807/2016 entire incident. He argued that it is not the accused who had signed on the deposit slip. He further argued that there is no CCTV record or call record on case file which was called by the Ld. Predecessors. He mentioned that the Institute has already got the amount back and the fault of the Bank or the Institute was not investigated into. He further argued that despite proven guilt of the bank, the bank was not made a party or an accused in this matter. He again submitted that accused is innocent and prayed that the accused be acquitted.
10. It is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution has to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and the evidence should be of a quality that the chain of events should be complete. It is also established through catena of precedents that the evidence adduced should bring home the guilt of the accused leaving no room for any doubt.
11. In the present case, the prosecution sought to establish the guilt of the accused on the allegations that he under a criminal conspiracy cheated the complainant. It is the case of the prosecution that a cheque bearing No. 627600 (cheque in question) belonging to the Institute of Hotel Management was presented in the account of the accused and was cleared despite standing instructions by the institute that the same cannot be cleared without signatures of the secretary and one of the board members. Once the cheque got cleared, the very next date, the accused went to his bank and withdrew an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/ vide cheque No. 017088 and the amount was given to him in cash. He again visited the bank on 04.01.2006 i.e. the very next day and again filed a selfcheque for withdrawal of Rs. 10,00,000/ in cash which raised suspicion of the cashier and the cashier reported the matter to Assistant General Manager (AGM). The AGM raised the issue with the bank of the institute i.e. State Bank of India where it was reported that the said cheque in question was not issued by the Institute and the entire incident was unearthed that the said cheque was forged. The signatures also did not belong to the signatory and was cleared by State Bank of India FIR No. 201/06 PS: Inderpuri State v. Yashwant Singh Page 11 of 16 CC No. 47807/2016 without following the instructions of the institute. Later, through the introducer of the accused in the bank, the accused was apprehended and the only evidence on record collected were the statements of the bank and the FSL reports. It is the classic case of botched up investigation wherein the efforts were only put because of several court orders.
12. The charge framed against the accused alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 120B, 468/474 and 420 of IPC. It is now an imperative for the court to appreciate the evidence led in the matter. To prove commission of offence u/s 420 of IPC, the prosecution relied upon the testimony of the IO and Bank witnesses only. The essential ingredients to attract Section 420 of IPC are:
(i) Cheating.
(ii) Dishonest inducement to deliver property or to make, alter or destroy any valuable security or anything which is sealed or signed or is capable of being converted into a valuable security; and
(iii) the mens rea of the accused at the time of making the inducement.
13. To establish the same, the testimony of the representative of Institute would have been the most vital for the prosecution. The State/prosecution have the duty to show that there was any inducement for delivery of any valuable security/cheque in this matter. There is no evidence at all to produce on record to show that the accused Yashwant Singh had caused any inducement, fraudulently or dishonestly upon any of the staff of the Institute. To the contrary, it was reported in the complaint/FIR that the Institute through its Principal expressed suspicion that the cheque was stolen. The investigation carried out did not lead to any conclusion about the theft and in dearth of any evidence, it cannot be concluded that the accused facing before this court has committed any theft or caused the delivery of the cheque in question from the Institute under any deception or under cheating. Hence, the offence punishable u/s 420 of IPC is FIR No. 201/06 PS: Inderpuri State v. Yashwant Singh Page 12 of 16 CC No. 47807/2016 neither proved nor established to have been committed in the present matter by the accused Yashwant Singh.
14. Further the prosecution has also attempted to bring forth that the accused had conspired with unknown persons under a criminal conspiracy punishable u/s 120B of IPC to commit forgery of the cheque in question by forging the signatures of the secretary on the cheque in question. Section 468 of IPC lays down punishment for committing forgery of a document with intention to use the forged document for the purpose of cheating. Section 474 of IPC lays down punishment for being in possession of the forged document with knowledge of it to be forged and with intention to use it as genuine. It cannot be denied that the cheque in question was forged which is apparent from the opinion of the FSL wherein the signatures above the stamp of Secretary, Institute of Hotel Management Catering and Nutrition, Pusa are reported to be not of the Principal of Alok Shivpuri. Hence, the prosecution has been able to establish that the cheque was forged, however, what remained to be established that it was the accused who was the person who forged the cheque in question with intention to cause cheating. As it has been established in the previous paragraphs that there is no evidence to conclude that the offence of cheating was committed, similarly, there is nothing on record except the surmise that it was the accused who created the false document i.e. the cheque in question. Moreover, as it was decided in the judgement of Mohd. Abrahim v. State of Bihar, Crl. Appeal No. 1695/2009 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 04.09.2009, it was held that a person is set 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) altered or tampered the document or (iii) he obtained a document by practicing deception or from a person not in control of his senses. In this matter, it was not established by the prosecution through the examination of any of the 11 witnesses that there was anything revealed during the investigation which pointed out that it was the accused Yashwant Singh who had created this false document. The FSL report also concluded that it was not the FIR No. 201/06 PS: Inderpuri State v. Yashwant Singh Page 13 of 16 CC No. 47807/2016 handwriting of the accused on the impugned cheque. Hence, this court cannot conclude that it was the accused who created the false document with intention of using the document for the purpose of cheating. Resultantly, the charge u/s 468 remains not proved.
The charge was also framed u/s 474 alleging that it was the accused who was in possession of forged cheque in question with the knowledge that it was forged and also intended to use the same as a genuine document. Ld. APP had argued that the cheque was deposited in the account of the accused and that it is presumable that it was the accused who had used the cheque for depositing the same in this account. Here the testimony of PW2 and 3 become relevant. PW2 who was the Special Assistant at Indian Bank, Nehru Place that is the bank of the accused, during his entire testimony could not identify the accused to be the person who had presented the cheque. Moreover, he deposed that he had not met with the person and depose that it was the cashier who must have seen the person who either deposited the cheque or withdrew the amount. During the crossexamination done by Ld. APP, the witness could not identify the accused. Even PW3 who was the counter clerk was the person who had given the token to a person for withdrawal of Rs. 2,00,000/ but he could not identify or recognize the presenter of the cheque as well. The cheque being talked about by both the witnesses were the cheques for withdrawal but the cheque in question was not talked about and none of the witnesses could depose about the presentation of the said cheque. The FSL report filed on record also could not match the signatures/handwriting on pay in slip of the cheque in question with the handwriting of the accused. The remitter of the cheque in the pay in slip was mentioned to be one Manoj with his phone number, however, as the file suggests the investigation was not carried out in time by the investigation agency to nab this remitter. Moreover, the best witness i.e. the cashier could not be examined in this matter on account of his death. Due to lack of any evidence which points out to the conclusion that it was the accused who had used the cheque for depositing in his account, Section 474 of IPC cannot be attracted. In light of FIR No. 201/06 PS: Inderpuri State v. Yashwant Singh Page 14 of 16 CC No. 47807/2016 the above, the court does not find the prosecution to have established the guilt of accused under Section 474 IPC.
15. The offence of Criminal conspiracy is defined u/s 120A of IPC. Punishment for criminal conspiracy is laid down in Section 120B of IPC. To constitute criminal conspiracy as defined u/s 120A of IPC, following essential ingredients must be satisfied:
(i). An agreement between two or more persons.
(ii). The agreement must be to do or cause to be done an illegal act, or legal act by illegal means.
(iii). Some act must be done by one or more parties to the agreement in pursuant to the agreement, if the agreement is not for committing an offence.
16. The entire case of the prosecution rested on the allegation that the accused Yashwant Singh conspired with other unknown persons to cheat and to cause forgery of the cheque in question and further to use the cheque in question despite knowing it to be forged as original/genuine. For this, it was the onus on the prosecution to show that there was an agreement to commit the offence. Such an agreement could have been proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence as was held in Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Solanke v. State of Gujarat, 2012 (8) SLT 392. As direct evidence is rarely available, the prosecution had to show from the circumstances that there existed any agreement between the accused and unknown persons to enter into the criminal conspiracy. There is no evidence produced on the record to have established the same. There is not even a whisper of any evidence on record to show meeting of minds for commission of criminal conspiracy by the accused. The allegations are based upon surmises only. It cannot be denied that the accused Yashwant Singh was the only beneficiary from the entire incident as it was he who had sought withdrawal of the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/ and thereafter Rs. 10,00,000/ from cheques on which FIR No. 201/06 PS: Inderpuri State v. Yashwant Singh Page 15 of 16 CC No. 47807/2016 his signatures were proved through FSL report. However, all the Sections under which the accused was charged have not been established to have been committed by the accused Yashwant Singh. It is in the opinon of the court that the accused deserves benefit of doubt in this matter.
17. In view of the facts above discussed, it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts which is hall mark of criminal law jurisprudence. Accordingly, accused Yashwant Singh is acquitted of the offences charged with.
Pronounced in open court
today i.e.,09.12.2021 (Tanvi Khurana)
Metropolitan Magistrate04
PHC/ND/ 09.12.2021
All the sixteen pages have been signed by me.
(Tanvi Khurana)
Metropolitan Magistrate04
PHC/ND/ 09.12.2021
FIR No. 201/06 PS: Inderpuri State v. Yashwant Singh Page 16 of 16