Delhi District Court
State vs . Santosh Kumar on 16 April, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAMESH KUMAR : SPECIAL JUDGE : NDPS
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE : ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 06/11
PS Mukherjee Nagar
U/s. 420/471 IPC
State Vs. Santosh Kumar
FIR No.121/93
Date of receipt : 07.07.2011
Date of arguments: 16.04.2012
Date of Decision : 16.04.2012
JUDGMENT
1. By this judgment, I shall dispose of an appeal filed U/s. 378 (1) Cr.PC against the order dated 07.04.2011 passed by Ld. Trial Court, whereby the respondent/accused, Santosh Kumar, has been acquitted by Ld. Trial Court for the offences punishable U/s.420/471 IPC.
2. Briefly stated the facts of this appeal are that on 15.10.1992 the respondent/accused had submitted an application for the post of Constable in the Delhi Police and alongwith that application, the respondent/accused had filed a copy of caste certificate dated 22.01.1990, belonging to 'Meena' community, issued by the City Magistrate, Bharatpur, (Rajasthan), which upon verification, was found to be a forged document. Thereafter, a complaint was filed by DCP A.K. Singh and on the basis of that said complaint, the FIR was registered against the respondent/accused and respondent/accused was challaned for the offences punishable U/s. 420/468/471 IPC.
3. I have heard arguments on behalf of both the parties and have gone through the record carefully.
4. Section 420 IPC is reproduced, hereunder, for ready reference "Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property: 2 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 part 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".
5. Section 471 IPC is reproduced, hereunder, for ready reference " Using as genuine a forged document : Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document".
6. It is clear from the above quoted section 420 IPC, that there should be an element of cheating and there should be dishonest inducement, on the part of the accused/applicant to deceive another person to deliver any property to any person. Further, it is clear from the above quoted section 471 IPC that the forged document should be used as genuine one within the knowledge that the document produced is forged document.
7. It has been contended on behalf of Ld. Addl. PP for the State that to substantiate the case against the respondent/accused, prosecution examined 11 witnesses and there was sufficient evidence to convict the respondent/accused, but Ld. MM had failed to appreciate the evidence available on the record file. It has further been contended that prosecution had produced sufficient evidence to prove that the certificate in question was forged one, by examining PW1 Uma Shankar Sharma, 3 Patwari, PW2 Kanwar Bahadur, LDC Office of the Collectorate, Bharatpur Rajasthan. PW5 Sh. H.P.S. VIRK Additional DCP VIP Route, New Delhi, testified that in the year 1992, the accused had applied for the post of Constable in Delhi Police, PW10 Sh.
rd A.K. Singh, DCP, testified that in the month of June, 1993, he was posted as DCP 3 Batallion DAP Delhi, and it was reported to him that the respondent/accused Santosh Kumar was selected in Delhi Police under the category of Scheduled Tribe during the recruitment in the year 19911992 against Roll No.106 and in support of the claim, the respondent/accused Santosh Kumar, furnished one caste certificate of Meena community shown to be issued by the City Magistrate, Bharatpur. It has been prayed by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that keeping in view the testimonies of the abovesaid witnesses, the present appeal be allowed.
8. On the other hand, it has been contended by Ld. Counsel for the respondent/accused that in order to substance his defence, the respondent/accused examined defence witnesses i.e. DW1 Sh. Pyare Lal, DW2 Sh Ram Singh and DW3 Sh. Mahender Singh, all residents of Anna Gate, Bharatpur, (Rajasthan), to show that the respondent/accused belongs to Meena community and the family of the accused shifted to village Fateh Pur, District Bulandshahar, in the year 1990. It has further been contended that Ld. Trial Court has rightly observed that the allegations of cheating and using forged documents by the respondent/accused were both based on the fact as to whether the photocopy of the caste certificate dated 22.01.1990 which was produced by the respondent/accused at the time of seeking employment in Delhi Police, was forged or not and the said certificate was purported to have been issued by City Magistrate, Bharatpur, Rajasthan, and that the prosecution had failed to examine the officer, who was the City Magistrate, Bharatpur, Rajasthan, at the relevant time, on 22.01.1990. It has further been contended that Ld. Trial Court has also rightly judged 4 that the prosecution had also failed to place on record, the name of the aforesaid concerned City Magistrate and, therefore, the identity of the concerned City Magistrate could not be established by the prosecution, and that the register, if any, maintained by the office of the said City Magistrate, in that regard, had also not been produced on record to show that the said certificate was not issued by the said City Magistrate.It has been contended by Ld. Counsel for the respondent/accused that caste certificate was issued by the City Magistrate, Bharatpur (Rajasthan). It has further been contended that the respondent/accused belongs to 'Meena' community and the said certificate was produced after obtaining it from the concerned City Magistrate. It has also been contended that the said certificate bears the date of 22.01.1990. Even though, PW11, ADM Mahavir Prasad Sharma, has deposed that he was posted as City Magistrate, Bharatpur, Rajasthan from July, 1990 to September, 1991 and, therefore, it is clear that he was not the concerned City Magistrate at the relevant time. Ld. Counsel has also contended that Ld. Trial Court has very rightly observed that the cardinal principle of Indian Evidence Act is that the best evidence should be placed on record, but in the instant case, the best evidence and the witness was the concerned City Magistrate, who could have identified or denied his signatures on the photocopy of the certificate, which are Mark A and Mark G on the record file, who failed to enter in the witness box. Ld. Counsel has argued that PW2, Kanwar Bahadur, LDC from the office of Collectorate Bharatpur, Rajasthan, has deposed in his crossexamination that he could not deny that the certificate Mark A and Mark G might have been issued by City Magistrate, Bharatpur, Rajasthan, who further voluntarily deposed that the report exhibited as Ex.PW2/A written by District Magistrate, Bharatpur, Rajasthan, was prepared on the basis of the report of the Tehsildar. Ld. Counsel has further argued that Ld. Trial Court has again rightly observed that in absence of any proof regarding 5 the ingenuity of the said certificate, the allegations pertaining to cheating and forgery against the respondent/accused are bound to fail and thus, the onus placed upon the prosecution has remained undischarged. It has been argued that there is no illegality, infirmity or irregularity in the judgment dated 07.04.2011, passed by Ld. Trial Court. It has been prayed that the present appeal be dismissed.
9. There is nothing on the record file to show that the certificate in question, was not issued by the concerned City Magistrate. In the present case, the prosecution witnesses have not deposed on the point that the said Certificate was not issued by the concerned City Magistrate. The concerned City Magistrate has not been examined on behalf of the prosecution. There is nothing on the record file to show that the appellant had produced forged document i.e. Caste Certificate. In the absence of any evidence on the record file that the said certificate was not issued by the concerned City Magistrate, I am of the considered view that the Ld. Trial Court was justified in acquitting the respondent/accused U/s.420/471 IPC. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the present appeal is hereby dismissed.
10. The ld. Trial Court record with copy of this judgment be sent back.
Appeal file be consigned to the record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (RAMESH KUMAR)
COURT TODAY i.e. 16.04.2012 ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI