Delhi District Court
State vs . Bijender @ Bully & Anr. on 29 September, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SH. ATUL KRISHNA AGRAWAL,
ACMM (NORTHWEST) ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
FIR. No. : 697/1999
Case No. : 530156/2016
PS. : Ashok Vihar
Offence Complained of : 420/468/471/34/120B IPC
Date of commission of Offence : Year 1995 onwards
JUDGMENT
State Vs. Bijender @ Bully & Anr.
Sh. Satyawan S/o Sh. Samay Ram R/o Village Kurar, PS Sadar, Sonipat, Haryana.
.............................COMPLAINANT
1. Bijender Singh @ Bully S/o Sh. Mukhtiyar Singh, R/o House no. 292, Khera Kalan, Delhi110082.
2. Rajiv Kumar Jain S/o Sh. Hukum Chand, R/o House no. E169, Vijay ViharII, Rohini, Delhi 110082.
...................ACCUSED PERSONS Date of Institution : 05.09.2001 FIR No.697/1999 PS Ashok Vihar State Vs Bijender @ Bully & Anr. Page No.1 of 29 Date of Decision : 29.09.2020 Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty Date of reserving judgment/order : 22.09.2020 Date of pronouncement : 29.09.2020 Final order : Acquitted Brief reasons for the decision of the case:
1. In brief, the story of the prosecution is that on 13.10.1999, complainant Satyawan came to the office of Anti Auto Theft Squad, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi, and made a complainant regarding him being cheated by touts namely Bijender @ Bully and Rajeev Kumar Jain (accused persons in this case), at Ashok Vihar Transport Authority. He alleged that in the name of preparation of Heavy vehicle Driving License, the accused persons after taking money from him, handed over a fake driving licence to him. This fact was verified from the Transport Authority. On the statement of complainant, SI Bhagwati Prasad got the present FIR registered against accused persons u/s 420/468/471/34 IPC at PS Anand Vihar.
2. During investigation, it was revealed that the besides the complainant, many other persons had been similarly cheated by the accused persons, in the name of preparation of driving licences and 22 other such fake licences were also found prepared. The above accused persons were arrested, the relevant documents were seized and statements of other victims were also recorded. The specimen handwriting and signatures of accused were also sent to FSL for examination. After completion of investigation, Charge sheet was filed against both accused for the offences punishable u/s FIR No.697/1999 PS Ashok Vihar State Vs Bijender @ Bully & Anr. Page No.2 of 29 Date of Decision : 29.09.2020 420/468/471/34/120B IPC on 05.09.2001 and cognizance of offences was also taken on the same.
3. Copy of charge sheet was supplied to the accused persons free of cost U/s 207 Cr.P.C. Charge was framed against both accused persons only for offences punishable u/s 420/471/120B IPC on 31.05.2002 to which both of them pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. During PE, 29 witnesses were examined on behalf of prosecution.
5. PW1 is Sh. Om Prakash Tawar, who deposed that in the year 1999, he was posted as LDC at Transport Authority, Ashok Vihar. He produced the documents pertaining to the driving licence and computer record of driving licence maintained at the above Transport Authority, which are Ex. PW1/A1 to A10, bearing his signatures and that of MLO Sh. Praveen Desai. The same were seized through seizure memo Ex. PW1/B. He further stated that in the year 199899, his duty was also assigned on the renewal of commercial licence by the MLO and he (PW1) used to collect fee after perusing the photocopy of relevant papers and photocopy of the ration card. He further deposed that after depositing the document of the licence, the same were sent to the concerne4d authority for the verification and on verification, the licence were renewed. The witness further deposed that the Receipt no. 843429 in the name of Satyawan Ex. PW1/C1 was issued by him and receipt no.706949 for Hans Raj. Further, receipt no. 706909 for Satyaveer Singh, receipt no. 706907 for Prakash, receipt no. 706787 for Dharam Veer and receipt no. 2110 for Rajender Singh were also issued by him and documents were sent for verification and the receipt amount was deposited in the bank in Government account. The witness was not cross FIR No.697/1999 PS Ashok Vihar State Vs Bijender @ Bully & Anr. Page No.3 of 29 Date of Decision : 29.09.2020 examined.
6. PW2 Mrs. Jeevan Verma, Statistical Investigator, Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Old Secretariat, Delhi. She deposed that in October, 1999, she was posted in Transport Authority, Head Quarter, Rajpura Road as Investigator, and was working under Sh. Frances A. Manual, Assistant Director (Secretariat Branch). Certain forged/fake driving licences which were seized by Ashok Vihar Transport Authority were sent to Assistant Director, Secretariat Branch and the same were handed over to her which she again handed over to the Assistant Director and the same were seized by the Crime branch police vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/A. The seized documents include documents pertaining to one Satbir collectively Ex. PW2/B1, of Jorawar Singh Ex. PW2/B2, of Prakash Ex. PW2/B3, of Shri Bhagwan Ex. PW2/B4, of Mahabir Singh Ex. PW2/B5, of Braham Dev Ex. PW2/B6, of Rajesh Ex. PW2/B7, of Satbir Singh Ex. PW2/B8, of Sanjay Kumar Ex. PW2/B9 and of Iqbal Singh Ex. PW2/10. Copy of D/L of Mahavir is Ex. PW2/B11 and the photocopy of DL of Shri Bhagwan is Ex. PW2/B12. This witness was also not cross examined.
7. PW3 Sh. Padam Singh, Record Keeper, Office of MLO, North Zone, Rajpur Road, deposed that as per their record, there was no record pertaining to licence no. 95121747. As per record, no D/L was issued in the name of Satyawan having the abovesaid number. Hence as per the office record, the copy of driving licence Ex. PW3/A was not issued from their office.
8. PW4 is Constable Ved Prakash. He deposed that on 13.10.1999, he was FIR No.697/1999 PS Ashok Vihar State Vs Bijender @ Bully & Anr. Page No.4 of 29 Date of Decision : 29.09.2020 posted in AATS Branch, Adarsh Nagar. On that day, one person namely Satyawan came in their office and made a complaint to SI Bhagwati Prasad. After enquiry, the case was got registered at PS Ashok Vihar. Thereafter, on the next day, he alongwith IO/SI went to Mal Road, Transport Authority with HC Ranbir Singh. At the instance of informer, one person by the name of Vijender @ Bully (accused herein) was apprehended and was arrested in this case. His personal search was conducted vide Ex. PW4/A and accused was interrogated and his disclosure statement was also recorded. PW4 further stated that accused was produced in the Court and his PC was taken by the IO. The witness further deposed that on 20.11.1999, he alongwith the IO came to the Court of Sh. M. K. Gupta, the then Ld. MM as the IO had got issued production warrant for accused Vijinder and with the permission of the Court, accused was interrogated by the IO and his specimen handwriting and signatures were also obtained. The Sheet Ex. PW4/B bears his signatures. Accused was correctly identified in the court by the witness.
9. PW:5 ASI Ranbir Singh, who deposed that on 13.10.1999, he was posted in AATS Crime Branch as HC. IO had prepared a tehrir on the statement of complainant Satyavan and he took the same to PS Ashok Vihar and the case was got registered. He further stated that on the same day, complainant Satyavan had produced certain documents which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/A. On 14.10.1999, he alongwith IO and constable Ved Prakash reached at Mal Road Authority and there at the instance of informer, one person whose name was revealed as Vijender was arrested in this case. His personal search Ex. PW4/A was conducted and body inspection memo Ex. PW5/B was prepared. The accused was interrogated and his disclosure statement Ex. PW5/C was also recorded by the IO. On FIR No.697/1999 PS Ashok Vihar State Vs Bijender @ Bully & Anr. Page No.5 of 29 Date of Decision : 29.09.2020 the next day, the specimen signatures of accused Vijender were obtained on sheets Ex. PW5/D1 to D13. Each sheet bears his signatures as witness. On 21.02.2020, coaccused Rajiv Kumar Jain was arrested by the IO and his disclosure statement Ex. PW5/E was recorded in his presence. The witness also deposed that earlier on 10.11.1999, the IO had seized certain documents from transport authority vide memo Ex. PW1/B. Both accused were correctly identified in the court.
10. PW6 Praveen Kumar, deposed that he was working on the Milk dairy situated at 27.11.12, Sector3, Rohini, Delhi. He went to Ashok Vihar Transport Authority, where some persons who were the agents, met him and he had given his photograph to someone, for renewal of the licence. He also deposed that he did not know anything else about this case.
11. The witness was crossexamined by Ld. APP for State where he denied that he knew accused Rajeev Kumar Jain. He further denied that accused Rajeev Kumar Jain used to come at the dairy mentioned above for taking milk and accused Rajeev Kumar Jain had misrepresented to him (PW6) that he can get issued heavy licence in his favour. PW6 further denied that he had given a sum of Rupees five hundred to accused Rajeev Kumar Jain as advance and accused demanded a total sum of Rupees thirty five hundred from him. The witness further denied that accused had obtained photographs of him and that the accused demanded the photographs, ration card copy and told him that he (accused) will give the licence after 5/6 days. The witness however admitted that form no. 9 and the medical certificate Ex. PW6/A and Ex. PW6/B were affixed with his photographs. The witness was not crossexamined by the accused persons.
FIR No.697/1999 PS Ashok Vihar State Vs Bijender @ Bully & Anr. Page No.6 of 29 Date of Decision : 29.09.2020
12. PW7 is Manoj Kumar Mittal, LDC, Maulana Azad Medical College, Delhi. He deposed that on 07.09.2000, he was posted at Janakpuri Transport Authority and on that day, on the asking and direction of the MLO, he had produced five driving licences of Milap Singh Raju, Jagmohan Sharma, Kishan Lal, Kishori Lal and Mohd. Shamim to the police and the police seized those licences vide memo Ex. PW7/A. The licences are collectively exhibited as Ex. PW7/B.
13. PW8 Sh. Bhagwan, deposed that he was working as Driver in DTC and was having driving licence of heavy vehicles. In the year perhaps 1999 in the month of June/ July, he went to the Transport Authority, Rajpura Road, Delhi, where he came to know that his driving licence had expired. One broker Vijender @ Balli, met him at the Transport Authority and he said that "I got prepared the driving licence". The witness also that he could not identify the accused today due to the lapse of time. The witness further deposed that Vijender also introduced one Ravinder Jain to him but he could not identify even the said Ravinder Jain (coaccused) due to the lapse of time. Ravinder Jain also said "I will got prepared the driving licence". The witness further deposed that Ravinder Jain called him at Ashok Vihar Transport Authority. After 78 days, he went to the Transport Authority, where Ravinder Jain met and took Rs.4000/ from him. Ravinder also photographed him and told him to collect the driving licence on the next day, which was found fake later on. The witness further deposed that he also went to the house of Ravinder where his wife disclosed another name of Ravinder Jain. The document Ex.PW2/B4 bears his (this witness) signatures at pointA and also bears his photograph. Similarly, document Ex.PW8/A also bears his photograph and his signature. Investigating officer FIR No.697/1999 PS Ashok Vihar State Vs Bijender @ Bully & Anr. Page No.7 of 29 Date of Decision : 29.09.2020 recorded his statement.
14. Ld. APP for the State put a leading question to the witness regarding the identity of the accused, after seeking permission of the court. After pointing out towards both the accused, the witness was asked question whether accused Bijender and Rajiv were the same persons who received money from him for preparing the driving licence, the witness deposed that he could not admit or deny this. This witness was also not crossexamined.
15. PW9 Sh. Iqbal Singh, deposed that in the year of 199596, he was residing at Nai Basti, Baakner Police Station, Narela. I went to Transport Authority, Mall Road for preparing his driving licence regarding heavy vehicle. There, one broker namely Bulli met him but he (this witness) could not identify accused Bulli due to lapse of time. Bulli said to him that he will get his driving licence prepared on payment of Rs.5,000/ approximately. Bulli also collected some papers from him. After one and half month, he received driving licence, which was handed over to him by one person, whose name he did not recollect. The driving licence was bearing his (PW9he) address as of Bawana. On asking regarding about the address, that person told him that the address will become correct upon renewal. The witness further deposed that in the year 1998, he went to Ashok Vihar Transport Authority, for the renewal of the driving licence, and then he came to know that his driving licence was fake. He deposited the licence in the Transport Authority. No other associate of Bulli met him. Investigating officer recorded his statement.
16. The witness was crossexamined by Ld. Substitute APP as he was partly resiling from his previous statement. After pointing out towards accused FIR No.697/1999 PS Ashok Vihar State Vs Bijender @ Bully & Anr. Page No.8 of 29 Date of Decision : 29.09.2020 Bulli, the witness was asked whether the accused was the same person who received Rs.5000/ approximately from him for preparing the licence, to which the witness replied that he cannot admit or deny this. The witness further denied that accused Jain also met him. He further denied that he had been won over by the accused persons and so, he was not identifying them.
17. PW10 is complainant Sh. Satyawan. He deposed that in the year 1995, he was residing at inlaws house of his brother at village Hiran Kudna, Nangloi, and at that time he was not holding any driving licence. He went to Ashok Vihar Authority for the purpose of preparation of driving licence. At the Authority, he enquired about the procedure and formalities required for preparation of driving licence. While he was present at the Authority, he met one Dalal (tout) and he showed his documents to that Dalal. The said Dalal demanded Rs.3,000/ from him for preparation of heavy driving licence and asked him to hand over three photographs to him. On the next day, he handed over Rs.3,000/ three photographs and other documents to the said Dalal and on the same day, that Dalal handed over one DL of heavy vehicle in his (PW10's) name and on demand, he paid Rs.500/ to that Dalal. On seeing the DL, he stated to Dalal, that his father's name mentioned in the DL was wrong upon which the Dalal stated to him that he would get the name of his father corrected in DL when he would apply for renewal in future. The licence was for three year.
18. The witness further deposed that after three years i.e. in the month of December, 1998, he applied for renewal of his licence and deposited the license for renewal purposes. Thereafter, in the month of January, 1999, he again visited Authority and met Insp. Budhiraja and he stated to him that FIR No.697/1999 PS Ashok Vihar State Vs Bijender @ Bully & Anr. Page No.9 of 29 Date of Decision : 29.09.2020 the licence deposited by him (PW10) for renewal purpose, was a forged/fake license. Insp. Budhiraja seized his documents and informed the police and police conducted necessary enquiries and seized his documents and DL and Seizure memo prepared by IO to this effect are Ex.aPW5/A. Copy of license is already Exb.aPW3/A and documents seized are already Exb.aPW1/A1 to A10. IO recorded his statement Exb.aPW10/A, which bears my signatures. The witness further deposed that he did not know accused persons present in court.
19. Ld. APP for the State cross examined the witness as he was resiling from his previous statement made before the police. During crossexamination, the witness denied that he told the IO that while he was inclined for heavy driving licence, he met Vijender @ Bulli present in the court or that it was accused Vjender who stated to him that he would get his license prepared from Ashok Vihar Authority or that thereafter in the month of December, 1995, he accompanied accused to Ashok Vihar Transport Authority where accused Vijender introduced him to a Dalal i.e. coaccused R.K. Jain. The witness further denied that it was accused R.K. Jain who demanded Rs.3000/, photographs and documents from him and accused handed over a fake DL to him. The statement Ex.PW10/A of the witness was read over to the witness where the names of both the accused persons and the role played by them in the commission of offence had been specifically mentioned but the witness denied having named accused persons. The witness stated that the IO had not read over statement Ex.PW10/A to him and he had not named accused to IO. The witness also denied that he was deposing falsely and intentionally not making true statement as he was won over by the accused persons.
FIR No.697/1999 PS Ashok Vihar State Vs Bijender @ Bully & Anr. Page No.10 of 29 Date of Decision : 29.09.2020
20. PW11 Sh. Neeraj Sharma, LDC, Land and Building, Vikas Bhawan, deposed that on 07.09.2000, he was posted at Palam Transport Authority as LDC whose office was situated at Distt. Center Janakpuri. On that day, he handed over four driving licenses as sample to police official on the direction of MLO and those driving licenses were seized by IO vide memo Ex.PW11/A. The witness was not crossexamined by the accused persons.
21. PW12 Sh. Kartar Singh, deposed that complainant Satyawan was his brotherinlaw (dewar) of his daughter Ms. Sheela. In the year 2001, Satyawan used to reside in his house at village Hiran Kudna. His name was got entered in the ration card of his family as he used to reside at his house. On being shown the attested photocopy of ration card no.763364 bearing the name of witness as "Mukhiya" of the family, the witness stated that this was copy of his consumer card reflecting the name of Satyawan at Sl. No.7. The attested copy of consumer card is Ex.PW12/A. The witness also stated that he did not remember the date, month and year when police came to his house for making enquiry about the said fact i.e. name of Satyawan in his consumer card due to lapse of long time. The witness was not cross examined by the accused persons.
22. PW13 Sh. Rakesh Bhatnagar, Assistant in the office of Land & Building Department, Delhi Administration, deposed that he did not remember the exact date and month when he joined the investigation of this case in the year 2001. At that time, he was posted in the office of Pay & Account Office at Old Secretariat. In the year 1999, he was posted in Transport Authority Ashok Vihar. His duty was to issue receipts after payment of requisite fees to the persons, who had applied for renewal of commercial FIR No.697/1999 PS Ashok Vihar State Vs Bijender @ Bully & Anr. Page No.11 of 29 Date of Decision : 29.09.2020 license, alongwith photocopies of documents. Thereafter, all the documents were used to be sent to the office (where licences used to be issued) for verification. This office was situated at Mall Road. The concerned staff used to send their report after verification of documents, in the office of MLO for the renewal of the licences. The witness further deposed that during the course of his official duty, he had issued receipt no. 721609 dated 11.01.1999 and 721612 of the same date. After seeing the carbon copies of both the receipts, witness stated that both the receipts were issued by him during the course of his official duty. Receipt no.721609 is Ex.PW13/A and 721612 is Ex.PW13/B. This witness was also not cross examined.
23. PW14 SI Narender Kumar, on 13.10.1999, he was posted at PS Ashok Vihar as SI and working as a Duty Officer. At about 5:30 PM, he received one rukka through HC Ranbir Singh sent by SI Bhagwati Prasad, Crime Branch, and accordingly, he registered the present case FIR No. 697/99, U/s 468/471/420/34 IPC. He brought the original FIR register, the carbon copy of present FIR is Ex.PW14/A and his endorsement is Ex.PW14/B.
24. PW15 Sh. Prakash, deposed that in the year 1999, he worked on field as a farmer and used to drive tractor in the work of agriculture. Since he was not having any driving licence for driving tractor, he went to the Transport Authority Ashok Vihar for applying for driving licence. There, one person namely Rajeev met him and told him that he would get receipt issued for driving licence and also help him in getting DL. On the asking of Rajeev, he handed over Rs.500/ and his photographs to him. Rajeev obtained his signature on twothree forms and also got his photographs clicked in the FIR No.697/1999 PS Ashok Vihar State Vs Bijender @ Bully & Anr. Page No.12 of 29 Date of Decision : 29.09.2020 same building. He further asked him to undergo training for one day at Loni Border and thereafter, they would issue one certificate for completing the training program. Thereafter, he assured him that after getting the certificate, he would get driving licence of heavy vehicles issued for him from the transport authority. Rajeev handed over one DL to him and asked him to attend the training program for driving heavy vehicles, which he attended. One certificate was issued to him from the office at Loni Border. On the next date, he went to Transport Authority Ashok Vihar and met with Rajeev Jain and handed over the certificate to Rajeev Jain. He asked him (PW15) to come again after 15 days with cash of Rs.3200/ and then the DL for heavy vehicles would be issued to him. However, he did not received his DL till today. The witness correctly identified the accused Rajeev Jain present in the court and stated that he was the same person who had met him in the transport authority Ashok Vihar and assured me that he would get issued DL for heavy vehicles for him.
25. The witness further deposed that he visited the transport authority Ashok Vihar several times but accused did not meet him. Form No.9, 1A, copy of DL were shown to the witness and after seeing Form no.9 and 1A, witness stated that these two forms reflect his photographs and his signatures. These two forms were signed by him at the instance of accused Rajeev Jain. Those forms are Ex.PW15/A and PW15/B. The witness also stated that he had handed over the photocopy of his election identity card, matric certificate to the accused and the same are Mark D1 and D2. The photocopy of the Certificate from the office at Loni Border was Mark D3. The document i.e. DL which was given by accused to him for attending training program was taken back by him when he came to the authority on the next day with FIR No.697/1999 PS Ashok Vihar State Vs Bijender @ Bully & Anr. Page No.13 of 29 Date of Decision : 29.09.2020 certificate marked as D3.
26. This witness was crossexamined by the counsel for accused persons after eight years of his deposition wherein he stated that he did not remember the attributes of the person to whom he had handed over the documents and the name of the said person and the name of the said person was Rathi but he cannot identify the said Rathi. The witness denied that the said Rathi was the accused Rajiv Jain, present in the court. Thereafter Ld. APP for the state requested to reexamine the witness and questioned as follows : "In your deposition dated 24.03.2011 you have stated that accused Rajeev Jain (present in court on that day) was the same person who had met me in the transport authority and assured me that he would get you issued DL for heavy vehicles and he was also correctly identified by you in the court, however, today in the court during your cross examination you have stated that none of the accused persons is that person. Which of the said versions is true and correct? Ans. What I am stating today, is correct. Vol. I know only Rathi."
27. Thereafter Ld. APP for the State cross examined the witness as witness had turned hostile. He was asked whether on 24.03.2011, he had deposed falsely in the court regarding the identification of accused Rajeev Jain, upon which the witness avoided the direct reply and stated that he met with Rathi only. He did not know where accused Rajeev Jain was residing and had never been in talking terms with the accused. The witness further stated that he did not know the mobile number of accused Rajeev Jain. He denied that since his deposition in court on 24.03.2011, he had met with the accused and had settled the present case with accused after receiving some FIR No.697/1999 PS Ashok Vihar State Vs Bijender @ Bully & Anr. Page No.14 of 29 Date of Decision : 29.09.2020 consideration /money from the accused and he was deposing falsely in the court at the instance of accused.
28. PW16 Narain Singh, deposed that in the year 1999, he was posted as UDC in State Transport Authority, Sarai Kale Khan. He did not remember the exact date, month and year due to lapse of long time. On that day, one official came to the transport authority and met with MLO. On the direction of MLO, he had shown record pertaining to four driving licences of Chander Bhan, Hukam Chand, Kanda Swami and Som Dutt to him. He did not know whether that official was carrying the original driving licences of those persons or not. He (PW16) handed over the record to him comprising of a book mentioning the details of the persons to whom driving licences had been issued by the authority. On seeing the Seizure memo of four driving licences, the witness stated that the seizure memo bears his signature but he did not remember as to when and where it was prepared.
29. This witness was also crossexamined by the Ld. APP for the State. In the crossexamination, the witness admitted that the police came to transport authority for making enquiry but denied that he handed over four original driving licenses as mentioned in the seizure memo Mark 16/A, to police. He volunteered that he was shown the record pertaining to these licenses and a book was handed over by him to the police. He admitted that the seizure memo Mark 16/A was prepared in the Transport Authority but he did not remember as to whether he had gone through the seizure memo or not, prior to signing the same. Four driving licenses of above named persons Marked as S16 to S19 were shown to the witness upon which the witness denied that he was deposing falsely with respect to the production of those four FIR No.697/1999 PS Ashok Vihar State Vs Bijender @ Bully & Anr. Page No.15 of 29 Date of Decision : 29.09.2020 driving licenses before IO.
30. PW17 Subhash Chand deposed that in the year 1999, he was posted as LDC in STA Ashok Vihar. He did not know anything about the present case and police officials never met him during investigation of this case. The witness was crossexamined by Ld. APP for the State. After going through the seizure memo Mark 17/A dated 16.09.2000, witness stated that he had never produced any driving licenses mentioned in the Seizure memo before police. However, the seizure memo bears his signatures at point A and he signed the Seizure memo in the office i.e. STA Ashok Vihar. He had signed the same after going through the contents of this memo and the facts mentioned in the seizure memo were true. He denied that he had given the four driving licenses to IO and stated he had shown the record pertaining to those licenses to police. The driving licenses of Vinod Kumar, Narender Arora, Vijay Kumar and Duli Chand mark as S20 to S23 were shown to the witness and after seeing those four licenses, witness states that he never given these licenses to the police on 16.09.2000 which were seized by IO in his presence.
31. PW18 Sh. Kuldeep, is another public witness. He deposed that in the year 1995, he was in need of Heavy Motor Vehicle license for private job. He went to Ashok Vihar, Transport Authority and inquired from the persons present there. They told him to contact with one person namely Bully who can get his license prepared early. The said Bully came in the authority on a two wheeler scooter and he met with Bully and asked him to get his heavy D/L prepared and Bully agreed to do so and charged Rs.3500/ for the same. He (this witness) came back to his house and after 710 days, again FIR No.697/1999 PS Ashok Vihar State Vs Bijender @ Bully & Anr. Page No.16 of 29 Date of Decision : 29.09.2020 visited the authority and met with said Bully and handed over him Rs.3500/ in cash, identity proof, photographs and photocopy of his 10 th class marksheet. After 15 days, Bully got prepared his heavy D/L which was valid upto 13.12.98 and handed over the same to him.
32. The witness further deposed that in the year 1999, he went to the said authority to renew his said D/L and filled the required documents in this regard. MLO of said authority on seeing the said document and D/L, stated to him that the said D/L appeared to be forged and he will get it verified. He came back to his house. Later on, police officials came to his house and recorded his statement in this regard. The said accused Bully was correctly identified by the witness. The witness correctly identified the DL which was got prepared by accused for him and same is Ex.P1. The witness alleged that the accused cheated him by handing over a forged D/L instead of a genuine one. The documents which he filled at the time of renewal of his D/L were on the file and were Ex.PW18/A bearing my signature.
33. The witness was crossexamined by the counsel for accused persons on appl u/s 311 Cr.P.C, wherein he stated that he identified the accused Bully on 05.06.2014 on the asking of police officials and accused was shown to him outside the court room. He denied that accused Bully was the same person to whom he handed over the documents for preparation of licence. The Ld. APP reexamined the witness in view of above improvements. The witness then deposed that the police official who met him outside the court room was in civil uniform and he called himself to be from "Staff". He did not know the said person. He further stated that the said person was not present in the court (the day of his crossexamination).
FIR No.697/1999 PS Ashok Vihar State Vs Bijender @ Bully & Anr. Page No.17 of 29 Date of Decision : 29.09.2020
34. The witness was crossexamined by the Ld. APP for the State wherein he denied that he had come in contact with the accused or his counsel. On being pointed towards accused Bijender @ Bully, he denied that he was the same person, who handed over forged DL to him. He denied that since his deposition in court on 05.06.2014, he had met with the accused and had settled the present case with accused after receiving some consideration /money from the accused and he was deposing falsely in the court at the instance of accused.
35. PW19 is Retd. SI Ram Kishan. He deposed that on 26.08.2000, the investigation of the present case was handed over to him. He alongwith previous IO SI Bhagwati Prashad visited the transport authority of Palam, Ashok Vihar, Hill Road, Janakpuri, Tilak Marg, Sarai Kala Khan, Shek Sarai, Mall Road, Anand Vihar, and investigated with RecordIncharge and dealing clerk of the above said transport authorities and also recorded the required statement u/s.161 Cr.P.C. Record incharge Janakpuri Transport Authority produced the driving license in the name of Milap Singh, Raju, Jagmohan Sharma, Kishori Lal, Mohd. Shamin. The said driving licenses were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/A. In the investigation, they found that fake license was prepared in the name of other victims and after that he recorded their statements u/s.161 Cr.PC. After that, charge sheet was prepared and filed before the Court and after that the FSL report was also submitted before the Court. He correctly identified the accused Vijender Singh and Rajiv Jain present in the court.
36. PW20 is Ms. Deepa Verma, Deputy Director, FSL, who deposed that 04.12.2000, documents were received from the Inspector Anti Kidnapping FIR No.697/1999 PS Ashok Vihar State Vs Bijender @ Bully & Anr. Page No.18 of 29 Date of Decision : 29.09.2020 Section, Crime Branch, Dev Nagar, New Delhi in FIR No.697/99, PS Ashok Vihar, in the laboratory for examination. The questioned documents were marked as Q1 to Q22 (printing) Q23 to Q44 (signatures) on different license etc. in original and photocopies. The specific printing / typewriting of different authorities were marked from S1 to S36, specific writing of Vijender @ Bully marked as S37 to S44, and Rajiv Kumar Jain marked as S45 to S50. After careful and thorough examination, she furnished her report no.FSL2000/D, 25873 Dated 12.04.2002 which is Ex.PW20/A bearing her signatures.
37. PW21 is Sh. Ajay, who deposed that in the year 1996, he was working in Water supply department on contract basis. In the month of August 1996, he went to Ashok Vihar, Transport Authority for issuance of driving license for heavy vehicles in his name. He met one person namely Bull, who said that he can help him in issuance of driving license as he (Bully) was having good relations with the officers of authority. He gave his ID and his photographs to the said person. After 2 days, he went back to transport authority and handed over Rs. 3500/ to Bully and he gave him his driving license. After about 3 years in October, 1998, when he again went to transport authority for renewal of licence, he straight forward went to the authorised person inside the transport authority. The transport authority person saw his license and told him that his license was fake and no such license was issued by the transport authority.
38. This witness was also crossexamined by Ld. APP for the State wherein he denied that the accused Bulli met him with one more person namely Jain in Transport Authority. The witness further stated that he could not identify FIR No.697/1999 PS Ashok Vihar State Vs Bijender @ Bully & Anr. Page No.19 of 29 Date of Decision : 29.09.2020 the accused as the matter was very old but the name of accused who gave him fake driving license was Bulli. Witness was unable to identify accused persons in court.
39. PW22 Brahm Dev, deposed that in the year 1999, he was unemployed. At that time, many vacancies were notified in Government departments for the post of driver and so in the year 1999, he went to Transport Authority, Ashok Vihar, for preparation of heavy vehicle driving licence. At the Authority, he met with one person namely Bulli and he assured to get the license prepared and demanded Rs. 2000/ to 2500/ for the said work. On the direction of said Bulli, he visited Transport Authority 2 or 3 times but he did not receive his driving license and thereafter he never visited said transport authority for his driving license. The witness further deposed that could not identify the accused due to lapse of time.
40. During his crossexamination by Ld. APP for the State, he denied that the name of the person with whom he met in the Transport Authority was Jain and not Bulli. He denied that he gave Rs. 5,000/ to the said person and when he, of his own, inquired from the transport authority, he came to know that the said person had tried to issue a fake license in his name. the witness reiterated that the he cannot identify the accused as the matter was very old but the name of that person was Bulli.
41. PW23 Anil Kumar, deposed that on 16/09/2000, he was posted as LDC in Transport Authority, Shekh Sarai, Delhi and on that day, he handed over heavy driving licenses bearing no. C97090298, C97070411, C97090148 and C97090339 to IO/SI Bhagwati Prasad. Said driving licenses were seized as specimen by IO.
FIR No.697/1999 PS Ashok Vihar State Vs Bijender @ Bully & Anr. Page No.20 of 29 Date of Decision : 29.09.2020
42. PW24 Sh. Charanjeet, deposed that on 19/09/2000, he was posted as LDC in Mall Road Transport Authority, Delhi. On that day, he handed over heavy driving licenses bearing no. C90051380, C96060151, C92100871 and P85014723 to IO/SI Bhagwati Prasad. Said driving licenses were seized as specimen by IO.
43. PW25 G. Victor, similarly deposed that on 19/09/2000, he was posted as LDC in Anand Vihar Transport Authority, Delhi. On that day, he handed over heavy driving licenses bearing no. C97080224, C96010343, C 97060455 to IO/SI Bhagwati Prasad. Said driving licenses were seized as specimen by IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW25/A.
44. PW26 Pankaj Gupta, deposed that on 11/09/2000, he was posted as LDC in Tilak Marg Transport Authority, Delhi. On that day, he handed over heavy driving licenses bearing no. C96120053, C95030003, C96060028 and C97040143 to IO/SI Bhagwati Prasad. Said driving licenses were seized as specimen by IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW26/A.
45. PW27 Sh. Balkishan also deposed that on 30/09/2000, he was posted as LDC in Mall Road Transport Authority, Delhi. On that day, IO of present case sought record of driving licenses bearing no. C95040569, C 95122620, C95061061, C95061040, C95061072 and C95122073 from him. On the same notice of IO, he gave reply that these licenses were not issued from Mall Road authority. His reply is Ex. PW27/A bearing his signature.
46. PW28 Sh. Ravinder Saini, deposed that on 19/09/2000, he was posted as LDC in Loni Transport Authority. He handed over to IO the record of FIR No.697/1999 PS Ashok Vihar State Vs Bijender @ Bully & Anr. Page No.21 of 29 Date of Decision : 29.09.2020 driving license no. C97080737, C96120229, C94090336 and C 97080859 as specimen. Said record was seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW28/A bearing his signature.
47. PW29 Inspector Bhagwati Prasad is the main IO of this case. He deposed that on 13.10.1999, he was posted as SubInspector in Anti Auto Theft Squad, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi. On that day, one complainant Satyawan came to his office and gave a statement regarding preparation of forged Heavy Driving License issued by accused Bijender @ Bully and Rajeev Kumar Jain. He recorded his statement Ex.PW10/A and got the FIR registered through HC Ranbir Singh. The tehrir prepared by him is Ex.PW29/A. The witness further deposed that the complainant also produced some documents in support of his allegation which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A. The said documents are Ex.PW1/C1, Ex.PW29/B1, Ex.PW29/B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW12/A. On 14.10.99 at about 7:45pm, he was informed by a source that accused Bijender @ Bully was present outside Mall Road Transport Authority. He immediately constituted a raiding party comprising of HC Ranbir Singh, Ct. Ved, Ct. Karambir and Ct. Jasbir and proceeded for conducting the raid, after lodging DD entry in the rojnamcha, in a private vehicle. After reaching Mall Road Transport Authority, the informer met him and pointed towards the accused and the accused was apprehended. After interrogation, his disclosure was recorded as already Ex.PW5/C and documents pertaining to his arrest were prepared as per procedure which are already Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW29/C and body inspection memo Ex.PW5/B. The accused also disclosed that he was a postman by profession and also working as a tout in Transport Authority.
FIR No.697/1999 PS Ashok Vihar State Vs Bijender @ Bully & Anr. Page No.22 of 29 Date of Decision : 29.09.2020
48. The witness further deposed that he also verified the DL of the complainant from authority which was found to be forged as per their record. Regarding inquiry from said transport authority, his request letter was Ex.PW29/D signed by him and the reply from transport authority on the same request letter, was Ex.PW29/E. He produced the accused in the court on the same day and obtained his one day P.C. remand and efforts were made to arrest the coaccused Rajeev Kumar Jain but he was found absconding. On 15.10.1999, he sent a notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C to the concerned official of Mall Road Transport Authority regarding the record of forged driving licenses which were prepared regarding other victims. The concerned official of transport authority handed over total 22 forged driving licenses which were prepared by touts and handed over to different persons other than complainant of the present case. All these 22 forged licenses along with documents, were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A. Thereafter on 15.10.1999, he also took specimen signature of accused Bijender which are running into total 8 pages and these pages are collectively Ex.PW5/D1 to D6 and Ex.PW4/B and Ex.PW4/D7. He also traced some other victims whose forged driving licences were seized and produced by transport authority and recorded their statement u/s 161 Cr.PC. They also alleged role of accused Bijender @ Bully and Rajeev Kr. Jain in preparation of these forged driving licenses in their statements.
49. The witness further deposed that he also sent a notice u/s 91 CrPC Ex.PW 29/F and Ex.PW27/A to MLO Ashok Vihar and Mall Road for verification of seized DL's. The report from Mall Road Transport Authority was received in the same letter vide Ex.PW29/G. On 21.02.2000, accused Rajeev Kr. Jain surrendered in the court and he was interrogated and his FIR No.697/1999 PS Ashok Vihar State Vs Bijender @ Bully & Anr. Page No.23 of 29 Date of Decision : 29.09.2020 disclosure statement Ex. PW5/F was recorded. Arrest documents of accused Rajeev are Ex.PW29/I. His three days PC remand was obtained and efforts were made to trace the source of printing of forged driving license as per the disclosure of both the accused persons. The witness further stated that he also took specimen signature of accused Rajeev Kr. Jain Ex.PW4/BD8 to D13 all bearing his signatures. Then on 10.11.1999, record of 5 more forged driving licences were seized from Transport Authority Ashok Vihar vide seizure memo Ex.PW29/J. He also requested Director Transport Authority to produce some original driving licenses containing admitted signature of various contemporary MLO's to verify the role as well as signatures of concerned MLO's with the accused persons and the forged driving licenses. He (PW29) was permitted to obtain the original licenses and from different transport authorities, he seized original driving licenses vide seizure memos Ex.PW7/A, 11/A, 26/A, 17/A, 28/A, 25/A and 16/A all bearing his signatures and seizure memo Ex.PW29/K and 29/L both bearing his signature. He also submitted the seized forged driving licenses, specimen signatures and original driving licenses to FSL for expert opinion. Thereafter, he was transferred and further investigation was marked to some another IO. Both accused persons were correctly identified by the witness in the court. He was crossexamined by the accused persons.
50. Thereafter PE was closed. The statement of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C.
was recorded on 05.03.2020, wherein both accused claimed to be innocent and falsely implicated in this case. No DE was led by the accused persons.
51. Final arguments were addressed from both sides. Written arguments were also filed on behalf of accused persons.
FIR No.697/1999 PS Ashok Vihar State Vs Bijender @ Bully & Anr. Page No.24 of 29 Date of Decision : 29.09.2020
52. I have now perused the evidence on record and also considered the rival arguments from both sides.
53. The accused persons are charged for offences u/s 420/471/120B IPC which read as under : Section 420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property
--Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person de ceived 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.
Section 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.
Section 120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy--(1) Whoever is a party to a 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.
54. In Rabindra Kumar Dey vs State of Orissa 1977 AIR 170, it was held by FIR No.697/1999 PS Ashok Vihar State Vs Bijender @ Bully & Anr. Page No.25 of 29 Date of Decision : 29.09.2020 Hon'ble Supreme Court that the onus lies affirmatively on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and in a criminal trial the accused must be presumed to be innocent until he is proved to be guilty and this onus of the prosecution never shifts. Now I shall proceed with appreciation of evidence in the light of ratio of the aforesaid judgment.
55. Having appreciated the evidence on record, in my considered opinion, the case of prosecution is not proved.
56. The prosecution has examined 29 witnesses. Out of this list of witnesses, PW1, PW2, PW3, PW7, PW11, PW13, PW16, PW17 and PW27 are official witnesses from various Transport Authorities, who prove the factum of licences of victims, not being issued from the concerned transport authorities and thereby being forged. PW23 to PW 26 and PW28 are formal official witnesses who merely handed over the specimen licences issued from authority for comparison to the IO. PW10 is the complainant in this case while PW6, PW8, PW9, PW15, PW18, PW21 and PW22 are other public witnesses, who have been similarly cheated in the name of preparation of licence. PW12 is a formal public witness. While PW4 and PW5 are police officials who joined investigation with the IO, PW19 is the second IO of this case and PW29 is the main IO. PW14 is the duty officer who registered the present FIR. Lastly, PW20 is the expert witness from FSL, examined to prove her report wherein she stated that it was not possible to opine whether the questioned documents were prepared by the accused persons or not.
57. From the testimony of official witnesses from different transport authorities in Delhi and that of the police officials, there hardly remains any doubt that FIR No.697/1999 PS Ashok Vihar State Vs Bijender @ Bully & Anr. Page No.26 of 29 Date of Decision : 29.09.2020 many victims were cheated and issued fake/forged driving licences by some touts, as the driving licences seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A, were not issued from the concerned transport Authorities. Moreover, the official witnesses have not even been crossexamined by the accused persons, so their testimonies remain unimpeached. Infact the accused persons have not even challenged the aspect of the seized licences not being forged licences, so this is undisputed.
58. However, it can be seen that all the public witnesses, i.e. the victims in this case, have turned hostile on the point of identity of the accused persons. The Charge was framed against the accused persons for offences u/s 420/471/120B IPC and not for offence u/s 468 IPC. Hence it was important for the prosecution to establish the identity of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Infact all the victims correctly narrated the sequence of events and the manner in which they had been cheated but when they were asked to identify the accused persons in court, they failed to identify them.
59. Even the complainant Satyawan examined as PW10, refused to identify the accused persons despite him making complaint against them by specifically naming them in the FIR. Similarly, PW6, PW21 and PW22 also failed to identify the accused persons. Further on the point of identity, witnesses PW8 and PW9 stated that they could not admit or deny that the accused persons facing trial in this case, were those very persons who had cheated them on the pretext of issuing licence to them.
60. At this stage, it is also pertinent to mention that two of the witnesses namely Parkash examined as PW15 and Kuldeep examined as PW18, did correctly identify the accused persons in the court during their respective FIR No.697/1999 PS Ashok Vihar State Vs Bijender @ Bully & Anr. Page No.27 of 29 Date of Decision : 29.09.2020 examinationinchief. PW15 had alleged cheating by accused Rajeev Jain and PW18 had alleged being cheated by accused Bulli however, when they were recalled for crossexamination by accused persons, both of them turned hostile to the prosecution and did a complete somersault by denying to identify the accused persons. PW15 stated that he was not cheated by accused Rajeev Jain but by some Rathi (despite the fact that the name of this accused was mentioned by the witness even in his examinationinchief besides identifying him) and he also stated that the accused Rajeev was not that person. On the other hand, PW18 stated that he wrongly identified accused Bulli during examinationinchief as accused was shown to him outside the court by some police official (in civil uniform) on the day of examinationinchief and asked to identify the accused in court. He also admitted that he did not bring this fact to the notice of court on the concerned day or even later on.
61. This court has no hesitation in stating that both the witnesses appear to have intentionally deposed falsely before the court. It also appears that there was a prior meeting of the witnesses with the accused persons before their cross examination in court, since the first question put to both the witnesses during crossexamination was on the point of identity of accused persons, which is not normally the case especially when a witness correctly identifies the accused during the examinationinchief. The long gap of more than 6 years between the examinationinchief and crossexamination, appears to have given an opportunity to manipulate evidence. For that reason, their testimonies become tainted and cannot be read either in favour of the prosecution and/or the accused persons and hence, discarded.
FIR No.697/1999 PS Ashok Vihar State Vs Bijender @ Bully & Anr. Page No.28 of 29 Date of Decision : 29.09.2020
62. To conclude, in view of nonidentification of accused persons by the victims themselves and there being no documentary evidence in the shape of FSL report of signatures and handwritings on the fake licences being that of the accused persons themselves or the place from where those fake licences were prepared, there is no evidence on record to convict the accused persons as their identity as offenders, has not been established to the satisfaction of law.
63. In my considered opinion and in view of the aforesaid findings, the evidence on record is not sufficient to convict the accused persons. Accordingly, accused Bijender @ Bully and Rajeev Kumar Jain are hereby acquitted from offences punishable u/s 420/471/120B IPC.
Ordered Accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL KRISHNA
Announced in the open court KRISHNA AGRAWAL
Date: 2020.09.29
AGRAWAL 17:14:08 +0530
(ATUL KRISHNA AGRAWAL)
ACMM/NORTHWEST
ROHINI COURTS/29.09.2020
FIR No.697/1999 PS Ashok Vihar State Vs Bijender @ Bully & Anr. Page No.29 of 29 Date of Decision : 29.09.2020