Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . Anil Pawar on 10 January, 2014
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. AMIT BANSAL, CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CC No. 142/1/11
FIR No. RC DAI-2011-(A)/0023
U/s 420/465/471 IPC.
CBI Vs. Anil Pawar
Unique Case ID No. 02403R0092402011
JUDGEMENT U/S 355 Cr. P.C.
a) Sr. No. of the case 02403R0092402011
b) Date of commission of offence 2005-2006
c) Name of the complainant Source
d) Name, parentage & address of Anil Pawar s/o Sh. B.C. Pawar, r/o
accused H.No. 230/77, Sector 23, Pratap
Nagar, Jaipur ( Rajasthan).
Permanent address AM-82, Shalimar
Bagh, Delhi 88.
e) Offence Complained of or proved U/s 420/465/471 IPC
CC No. 142/1/11 CBI Vs. Anil Pawar 1 of 17
2
f) The plea of the accused and their The accused in his statement under
examination section 313 Cr.PC denied all the
material incriminating circumstances
appearing in the prosecution evidence
against him and stated that he is
innocent and has been falsely
implicated in the present case. He
further inter alia stated that he is a
graduate from Agra University and
got a job in ICCR on the basis of
original and genuine degree issued to
him by Agra University. He stated
that he joined the present job in the
year 2006 and got the graduation
degree in the examination conducted
by Agra University in the year 2004.
He further stated that he did not
know from where the CBI officials
got hold of a degree issued by Delhi
University and he had never filed or
supplied any forged graduation
degree to his employer or anyone at
any point of time. He stated that he
had never studied in the Delhi
University and that the minimum
qualification for appointment of APO
was graduate.
In his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C the
accused preferred to lead defence
evidence.
.
g) The Final order Accused Anil Pawar is acquitted
u/s 420/465/471 IPC
h) The date of such order 10.01.2014
Date of institution of case : 13.12.2011
Date of reserving judgment/order : 03.01.2014
Date of Pronouncement : 10.01.2014
CC No. 142/1/11 CBI Vs. Anil Pawar 2 of 17
3
BRIEF FACTS/ STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR
THE DECISION :-
1. Accused Anil Pawar is facing trial on the allegations of the prosecution that during the year 2005-2006 he secured appointment for the post of Asstt. Programme Officer (APO) with ICCR by inducing /deceiving Indian Council of Cultural Research (ICCR) by fraudulently/dishonestly using fake and forged B.A. Degree of year 1991 bearing Enrollment no. CC-88/7247 and Roll no. 268721 dated 24.03.1992 issued by Delhi University as genuine and also forged the said B.A Degree certificate intending that it shall be used for cheating and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 420/465/471 IPC.
2. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court u/s 420/465/471 IPC against the accused. Copy of charge sheet and documents were supplied to the accused free of costs.
3. After hearing the arguments, the Charge u/s 420/465/471 IPC was framed against the accused by Ld. Predecessor of this Court on 24.08.2012 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
CC No. 142/1/11 CBI Vs. Anil Pawar 3 of 17 4
4. The prosecution has examined total five witnesses in support of its case i.e. PW-1 Sh. Malkit Chand, PW-2 Sh. Virender Singh Chauhan, PW-3 Sh. Morice Tete, PW-4 Sh. Ram Niwas and PW-5 Insp. Pramod Kumar, IO of the case.
5. Accused in his statement under section 313 Cr.PC denied all the material incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against him and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further inter alia stated that he is a graduate from Agra University and got a job in ICCR on the basis of original and genuine degree issued to him by Agra University. He stated that he joined the present job in the year 2006 and got the graduation degree in the examination conducted by Agra University in the year 2004. He further stated that he did not know from where the CBI officials got hold of a degree issued by Delhi University and he had never filed or supplied any forged graduation degree to his employer or anyone at any point of time. He stated that he had never studied in the Delhi University and that the minimum qualification for appointment of APO was graduate. In his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C the accused preferred to lead defence evidence.
6. The accused himself stepped into the witness box and examined CC No. 142/1/11 CBI Vs. Anil Pawar 4 of 17 5 himself as DW-1 in support of his defence. No other witness except himself was got examined by the accused in his defence.
7. I have heard the final arguments and carefully perused the record.
8. As mentioned above, the prosecution in support of its case has examined total five witnesses.
PW-1 Sh. Malkit Chand deposed that he was working as Programme Director ( Administration ) at ICCR, HQ, Ministry of External Affairs in the year 2011. He deposed that he had seen the file No. Admn./AP/2006( Ex PW1/A) which was handed over to the CBI Officials, however, deposed that he was not sure about the contents / documents in the said file. He further deposed that he had also seen the certified copy of the Service-Book of the accused which have been collectively proved as Ex PW1/B deposing that the same were handed over to CBI Officials by someone else. He deposed that the part file in respect of the certificates submitted by the accused are on record, however, further deposed that he could not say whether the said certificates as forming part of the file were submitted by the accused or not. He deposed that he was not posted as Programme Director ( Admn. ) in the year 2005-07 and as such he could not say whether the said documents were submitted by the accused or not. He CC No. 142/1/11 CBI Vs. Anil Pawar 5 of 17 6 proved the photocopy of Degree of B.A of Delhi University bearing roll no. 268721 pertaining to the accused as Ex P-1 which formed the part of the file Ex PW1/A. PW-1 proved the signatures of the accused on one document in Ex PW1/B. He deposed that the accused was appointed as Assistant Programme Officer and the minimum qualification required for the post was graduation. In cross examination, PW-1 deposed that he did not know about the contents of the documents contained in the file and that he had no personal knowledge as to what documents were submitted by the accused or not. He also admitted that he did not know as to who had filled the first page of the Service Book of the accused.
PW-2 Sh. Virender Singh Chauhan was Assistant in the United India Insurance Company and inter alia deposed that he did not remember the exact date, however, about a year back he was present at CBI Office and there Insp. Pramod Kumar met him and introduced him to the accused. He deposed that in his presence the accused produced a original B.A. Degree which was seized by Insp. Parmod Kumar as per seizure memo Ex PW2/A bearing his signatures at point A. The said degree issued by Delhi University has been proved as ExPW2/B bearing the signatures of PW-2 at the back of the degree at point A. PW-3 Sh. Morice Tete deposed that he was working as Assistant Registrar {Asstt. Controller of Exams (D)} in Examination Branch, CC No. 142/1/11 CBI Vs. Anil Pawar 6 of 17 7 University of Delhi since 2007. He deposed that he was still working in the said University and his branch verifies the degree after checking the record maintained by the University. One letter dated 03.11.2011 written by PW-3 bearing his signatures at point X to Insp. Pramod Kumar, CBI has been proved as Ex PW3/1. He deposed that according to Ex PW3/1 the enrollment no. CC88/7247 and roll no. 268721 of Bachelor of Arts year 1991 in the name of Sh. Anil Pawar dated 24.03.1992 was not issued by the Delhi University. He further deposed that the roll no. 268721 was issued in the name of Ms. Veena Kushwha in the year 1999, however, she also did not pass the examination in the year 1999. He deposed that the degree Ex PW2/B was not issued by University of Delhi and the same is a forged and fabricated document. He brought the original office file containing proceedings in respect of verification of roll no. 268721 in the name of Ms. Veena Kushwha of year 1999 and enrollment no.CC 7247/88 in the name of student Mr. Dharmender Kumar s/o Sh. Shyam Lal. He deposed that Ms. Veena Kushwha had essential repeat in all the three years. The said proceedings have been proved as Ex PW3/2 to Ex PW3/4.
PW-4 Sh. Ram Niwas was working as UDC, ICCR, Azad Bhavan, New Delhi. As per record, PW-4 did not support the case of
prosecution at all and deposed that he knew nothing about this case. PW-4 was cross examined by ld. APP for State,however, nothing substantial have CC No. 142/1/11 CBI Vs. Anil Pawar 7 of 17 8 appeared in the cross examination of PW-4 in favour of the prosecution or the accused. PW-4 deposed in cross examination that he had never seen the signatures of the accused in his official capacity and denied the suggestion that he was conversant with the signatures of the accused. He also denied the suggestion that he could identify the signatures of the accused. He also deposed that Ex.PW1/A was the file pertaining to his office,however, further deposed that he had identified the said file only on the basis of file cover of Ex.PW1/A as it pertained to ICCR. The said witness i.e. PW-4 was shown page no. 19 of one attestation form as contained in the file Ex.PW1/A i.e. the column no. 9 of Educational Qualification i.e. Mark Z2,however, PW-4 after seeing the same deposed that he could not verify the correctness and authenticity of the said entries.
PW-5 Insp. Pramod Kumar is the IO of the case. He deposed that during investigation he collected certified copy of service book of accused along with his Bio Data from ICCR, the service book has been proved as Ex.PW1/A and the Bio Data has been proved as Ex.PW5/B. He deposed that he had received one original personal file of accused and one file containing certified copy of service record of accused vide production cum seizure memo dated 03.11.2011 which has been proved as Ex.PW5/C. He deposed that he had received one booklet of constitution of ICCR vide production cum seizure memo dated 25.11.2011 which has been proved as Ex.PW5/D. PW-5 CC No. 142/1/11 CBI Vs. Anil Pawar 8 of 17 9 deposed that on 28.11.2011 he seized original certificate / degree of B.A. in respect of accused having enrollment no. CC88/7247 and Roll No. 268721 from the accused in the presence of independent witness Sh. V.S. Chauhan vide production cum seizure memo dated 28.11.2011 which has been proved as Ex.PW2/A and the certificate has been proved as Ex.PW2/B. He deposed that he had also received certain documents relating to the present case from Sh. Vimal Sharma, Vigilance Officer, ICCR vide letter dated 30.11.2011 which have been proved as Ex.PW5/E. He deposed that during investigation it was revealed that qualification for appointment of Assistant Programme officer (APO) was graduation degree as per the certified copy of the advertisement received vide seizure memo dated 30.11.2011. He further deposed that he verified the degree of B.A. obtained by the accused from Delhi University, it was found that the said degree was not issued to him from Delhi University. During cross examination, PW-5 inter alia deposed that after filing of the charge sheet, he did not make any further investigation in the matter and that he did not send the seized degree to FSL for examination.
9. The accused (DW-1) deposed to the effect that he had graduated from Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Agra in the year 2004 and he had filed the original of the said graduation degree while applying for job in ICCR in the year 2006. He deposed that he had applied for a duplicate B.A. (Part III) CC No. 142/1/11 CBI Vs. Anil Pawar 9 of 17 10 degree mark sheet for which he deposited Rs.200/- with Allahabad Bank situated within the premises of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra. Photocopy of the same is Mark A. He deposed that he had filed an affidavit (Mark B) dated 03.12.2013 before the University Authorities and the original of the same was deposited with the University Authorities being the procedure for obtaining the duplicate degrees. DW-1 filed the original composite mark sheet of three years of his graduation course with roll no. 231986 of the above said University, Agra which he received from the above said University after depositing Mark A and Mark B as received in an envelope Ex.DW1/A and the said mark sheet in original has been proved as Ex.DW1/B. The provisional certificate dated 04.11.2013 in original and received by the accused from the above said University on his application showing that he had passed his B.A. Examination in the year 2004 in first revision has been proved as Ex.DW1/C. DW-1 also filed photocopies of B.A. Mark sheet Part-I, Part -II and Part-III issued by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar University, Agra dated 06.9.2003, 25.7.2004 and 16.8.2005 respectively as Mark C to Mark E respectively and deposed that he had already deposited the originals of the same with his headquarters at the time of joining ICCR. DW-1 further deposed that as he had graduated from the said University at Agra in the year 2004 in the first division, therefore, he had absolutely no reason to file a forged degree of graduation of some other university with his headquarters in the year 2006 while applying CC No. 142/1/11 CBI Vs. Anil Pawar 10 of 17 11 for the said job. He further deposed that he did not know from where the CBI officials obtained a degree in his name from Delhi University and he did not hand over any degree of Delhi University to CBI officials. He deposed that the CBI officials called him to their office and forced him to sign on certain documents, the contents of which were not shown to him and that he had signed those documents under threat and duress under fear of arrest. He further deposed that he had never studied or graduated from Delhi University, he is a graduate from Agra University, got job in ICCR on the basis of original and genuine degree issued to him by Agra University, he joined the present job in the year 2006 and got the graduation degree in the examination conducted by the Agra University in the year 2004. He further deposed that he had never filed or supplied any forged graduation degree to his employer or anyone at any point of time.
10. The case of the prosecution is that during the year 2005-06 the accused by using fake and forged B.A. degree of the year 1991 with roll no. 268721 and enrollment no. CC-88-7247 as issued by Delhi University secured appointment at the post of APO in ICCR by deceiving ICCR, forged and also used the said forged documents knowing them to be forged documents and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 420/465/471 IPC.
CC No. 142/1/11 CBI Vs. Anil Pawar 11 of 17 12
11. PW-1 came from the office of ICCR itself, however, he deposed to the effect that he was not sure about the contents / documents in the file Ex.PW1/A (stated to be personal file of the accused maintained by ICCR). He further could not say whether the certificates forming part of the said file were submitted by the accused or not. In cross examination, PW-1 specifically deposed that he did not know about the contents of the documents contained in the file and he had no personal knowledge as to what documents were submitted by the accused or not. In these circumstances, the prosecution through the testimony of PW-1 has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused in fact gave any forged documents / degree of Delhi University to his department at the time of taking the job of APO at ICCR in the year 2006. One other witness as examined by the prosecution from ICCR is PW-4, however, as discussed above, PW-4 has absolutely not supported the case of prosecution against the accused. PW-4 was cross examined by ld. PP for CBI,however, nothing has come in his cross examination either in favour of the prosecution or against the accused. PW-4 specifically deposed to the effect that he had never seen the signatures of the accused in his official capacity. He denied the suggestion that he was conversant with the signatures of the accused or that he could identify the same. He also deposed to the effect that he had identified the file Ex.PW1/A only on the basis of file cover of Ex.PW1/A, the file Ex.PW1/A does not bear his signature and that he had CC No. 142/1/11 CBI Vs. Anil Pawar 12 of 17 13 never handled the said file in his official capacity. PW-4 also could not verify the correctness and authenticity of education qualification at item no. 9 of Mark Z2. It is thus evident that through PW-4 also the prosecution has miserably failed to prove either the contents of the file or the signatures of the accused or that the accused filed any forged documents / certificate of Delhi University at the time of getting the above said job in the year 2006. It is pertinent to note in this regard that the accused as DW-1 has specifically deposed that he had never studied or graduated from Delhi University and has proved the mark sheet and the provisional certificate of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra regarding passing of his B.A. examination in the year 2004 as Ex.DW1/B and Ex.DW1/C respectively. DW-1 also inter alia deposed in his cross examination that he had never worked in the administrative section of his office and hence was not aware whether any personal file or service book was being maintained in his office or not and that he did not know whether Ex.PW1/A was his original personal file being maintained by his department. It is the case of prosecution, the prosecution has to stand on its own legs and has to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In view of the above said testimony of PW-1 and PW-4, the prosecution has failed to prove the main plank of its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt to the effect that the accused to obtain a job filed forged certificates / degree of Delhi University with ICCR. In these CC No. 142/1/11 CBI Vs. Anil Pawar 13 of 17 14 circumstances, the testimony of PW-3 to the effect that the degree was not issued by the Delhi University shall be of no consequence in this case. Further, the prosecution has failed to examine any witness who could have authentically deposed about the contents of the personal file of the accused. It is absolutely fatal to the case of prosecution and the accused is entitled to acquittal in the present case.
12. The case of the prosecution is to the effect that in the presence of independent witness PW-2, the IO (PW-5) seized original certificate / degree of B.A. in respect of accused vide production cum seizure memo dated 28.11.2011 which has been proved as Ex.PW2/A and the said certificate has been proved as Ex.PW2/B. The said Ex.PW2/A bears the signatures of PW-2 at point A, PW-5 at point B and that of accused at point C. DW-1 (accused) in his testimony has specifically deposed that he did not know from where the CBI officials obtained a degree in his name from Delhi University, he did not hand over any degree of Delhi University to CBI officials, the CBI officials called him to their office and forced him to sign on certain documents whose contents were not shown to him and that he signed those documents under threat and duress under fear of arrest. The independent witness in this regard has been examined as PW-2,however, PW-2 is absolutely not a reliable witness as is clear from his testimony. PW-2 firstly deposed in his CC No. 142/1/11 CBI Vs. Anil Pawar 14 of 17 15 examination that he did not remember the exact date. PW-2 in his cross examination at one hand deposed that he was sent by his office for a day's duty in CBI office and thereafter later on in his cross examination denied the suggestion that he was deputed from his office for CBI duty. It is a very material contradiction in the testimony of PW-2 which raises a very strong doubt upon the truthfulness and veracity of his testimony and in turn the testimony of PW-5 and the entire case of prosecution including the above said memo Ex.PW2/A. It also raises a very strong doubt over the fact that the accused handed over the degree Ex.PW2/B to PW-5 in the presence of PW-2 or that the accused handed over the degree Ex.PW2/B to PW-5. Further, PW-2 could not produce any letter issued by his office for doing the duty at CBI office and also deposed that he did not give copy of duty letter to CBI. These circumstances raises a very strong doubt over the presence of PW-2 itself at the time when Ex.PW2/A was allegedly prepared. The benefit of doubt arisen goes in favour of the accused, who is entitled to acquittal in the present case.
13. As per the case of prosecution, the accused filed forged certificate/ documents of graduation from Delhi University in the year 2006 while applying for the above said job at ICCR, however, the accused as DW-1 has proved the mark sheet in original of Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, CC No. 142/1/11 CBI Vs. Anil Pawar 15 of 17 16 Agra showing that he passed B.A. in the year 2004 and the provisional certificate of the said University of passing B.A. in the year 2004 in the first division as Ex.DW1/C. The cross examination of DW-1 shows that no where it has even been suggested by CBI that the said documents i.e. Ex.DW1/B or Ex.DW1/C are forged and fabricated documents. No suggestion was also put by CBI to DW-1 that the accused did not pass his graduation from Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Agra in the year 2004. In these circumstances, the CBI/prosecution shall be deemed to admit the genuineness of the said certificate i.e. Ex.DW1/B and Ex.DW1/C as filed by DW-1 (accused) and also shall be deemed to admit that the accused passed his graduation course from Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Agra in the year 2004. In this regard, there is substance in the testimony of DW-1 to the effect that as he had graduated from the Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Agra in the year 2004 in first division, therefore, he had absolutely no reason to file a forged degree of graduation of some other University with his headquarters in the year 2006 while applying for the said job. It is a settled law that the prosecution has to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt whereas the accused has only to show preponderance of probability in his defence and has not to prove his defence beyond reasonable doubt. In the above said circumstances, the accused has been able to successfully discharge the said onus by showing preponderance of probability. The benefit of doubt CC No. 142/1/11 CBI Vs. Anil Pawar 16 of 17 17 arisen goes in favour of the accused.
14. Further, no witness has specifically deposed that the accused himself forged any B.A. degree of Delhi University and no FSL report in this regard has also been proved on record by the prosecution.
15. Accordingly, from the above said discussion, it is evident that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the charge under section 420/465/471 IPC against the accused and therefore, the accused Anil Pawaris acquitted in the present case under section 420/465/471 IPC. Bail bonds of the accused are cancelled and his surety is discharged.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on : 10.01.2014 ( AMIT BANSAL ) CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS NEW DELHI.
10.01.2014
CC No. 142/1/11 CBI Vs. Anil Pawar 17 of 17