Delhi District Court
State vs . Mrs. Prema Ashok on 2 November, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SHRI B.R. KEDIA, SPECIAL JUDGE07
(CENTRAL), (PC ACT CASES OF ACB, GNCTD), DELHI
C.C.No. : 73/11
Unique Case ID : 02401R0056312002
STATE VS. MRS. PREMA ASHOK
W/o Late Sh. Ashok Kumar,
R/o BH12, Madangir, New Delhi
Permanent Address:
TC9/2000, Kochar Road, Kartika,
Sasthamangalam, Trivandrum10,
Kerala.
C.C.No. : 74/11
Unique Case ID : 02401R0056332002
STATE VS. MRS. PREMA ASHOK
W/o Late Sh. Ashok Kumar,
R/o BH12, Madangir, New Delhi
Permanent Address:
TC9/2000, Kochar Road, Kartika,
Sasthamangalam, Trivandrum10,
Kerala.
C.C.No. : 75/11
Unique Case ID : 02401R0056322002
C.C. No. 73/11, 74/11, 75/11 & 76/11 Page No. 1 of 27
STATE VS. MRS. PREMA ASHOK
W/o Late Sh. Ashok Kumar,
R/o BH12, Madangir, New Delhi
Permanent Address:
TC9/2000, Kochar Road, Kartika,
Sasthamangalam, Trivandrum10,
Kerala.
C.C.No. : 76/11
Unique Case ID : 02401R0059702002
STATE VS. MRS. PREMA ASHOK
W/o Late Sh. Ashok Kumar,
R/o BH12, Madangir, New Delhi
Permanent Address:
TC9/2000, Kochar Road, Kartika,
Sasthamangalam, Trivandrum10,
Kerala.
FIR NO. : 06/1999
U/S : 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 r/w Section 420/468/471 IPC
P.S. : ANTI CORRUPTION BRANCH,
DELHI
C.C. No. 73/11, 74/11, 75/11 & 76/11 Page No. 2 of 27
Date of Institution 30.10.2002
Judgment reserved on 01.11.2011
Judgment delivered on 02.11.2011
JUDGMENT
1. By virtue of this common judgment, I shall dispose of all these four cases bearing CC No.73/11, CC No 74/11, CC No 75/11 and CC No 76/11 as the complaint is composite pertaining to all these four cases and emerged out of same FIR bearing No.6/99, PS Anti Corruption Branch, Delhi and during the course of the trial vide order dated 13.10.2006 it was ordered that evidence would be recorded in the main case file bearing CC No. 87/02 (New Number CC No.73/11) and would be read for other three connected cases. Besides this, even common final arguments were addressed from both sides in all these four cases.
2. The precise case of the prosecution is that the complaint No. 57(10)/Emp./Vig.99/1677 dated 19.2.1999 was received by the Anti Corruption Branch, Delhi from Sh.K.K.Siam, Joint Director, (Employment) alleging therein that Lady Harding Medical College notified vacancies for the post of Staff Nurse directing the interested C.C. No. 73/11, 74/11, 75/11 & 76/11 Page No. 3 of 27 candidates to deposit their application in the nearest Employment Exchange. In response to the said advertisement, R.K.Puram, Employment Exchange received large number of applications and during process of verification of those applications, it was noticed that some applicants were not registered in the said Employment Exchange. During course of inquiry, many candidates as called by Sub Regional Employment Officer (SREO), Employment Exchange, R.K.Puram informed that they got their names registered through Mrs. Prema Ashok, UDC working in the said Employment Exchange for consideration. The handwriting on Forms X10(b) are same as that of Mrs. Prema Ashok, UDC. It is further alleged that it has also come to notice that said Mrs. Prema Ashok, UDC had taken a loan of Rs. 30,000/ from Syndicate Bank, Sector4, R.K.Puram, New Delhi on 6.2.1998 by submitting Pay Slip of December 1997 and a Certificate bearing No.234 dated 3.2.98 regarding deduction of loan in installment from her salary but both said documents were bogus and not issued by the concerned Authority. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR No. 6/99 relating to the present cases was registered at PS Anti Corruption Branch, Delhi on 5.3.1999.
3. The further case of the prosecution is that during course of C.C. No. 73/11, 74/11, 75/11 & 76/11 Page No. 4 of 27 Investigation, the IO collected copies of the letter dated 24.4.98 regarding advertisement for post of Nurses, copy of the Posting Order, copy of Surrender Order, copy of the Sanctioned Leave and Attendance Register of the accused. IO also obtained the specimen signatures of the accused and specimen seal impression. IO also collected the rubber stamp of Sub Registrar Employment Officer, P & E, Employment Exchange, Sector4, R,K.Puram, New Delhi. IO also obtained the Bank Loan Application Form of the accused, Loan Account Statement of the accused, Letter written by the accused to the Administrative Officer, Letter written by M.A.Usmani, SREO, Employment Exchange, R.K.Puram to Assistant Director (Exchanges), Directorate of Employment, Delhi, Biodata of the accused, Bank Statement of Account of the accused. IO also obtained the FSL Result and Sanction Order for prosecution as against the accused and collected the relevant documents from the concerned Authorities, recorded the statement of various witnesses and after conclusion of the Investigation filed four separate chargesheet in pursuance of which these four cases were numbered and registered though emerged out of the same complaint and one FIR.
4. As per the case file bearing CC No.74/11, the basic C.C. No. 73/11, 74/11, 75/11 & 76/11 Page No. 5 of 27 allegation as against the accused is that she being posted as UDC in Employment Exchange, R.K.Puram, New Delhi had demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.500/, Rs.1000/ and Rs.500/ from Ms.Simi Joseph, Ms. Betty Joseph and Ms. Rincy Alex respectively as reward for preparing their fake Registration Identity Card without any residential proof.
5. As per the case file bearing CC No.75/11, the basic allegation as against the accused is that she being posted as UDC in Employment Exchange, R.K.Puram, New Delhi had demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.1000/, Rs.1000/ and Rs.900/ from Ms.Jancy Lukose, Ms.Deepa Jose and Ms. Cristy John respectively as reward for preparing their fake Registration Identity Card without any residential proof.
6. As per the case file bearing CC No.76/11, the basic allegation as against the accused is that she being posted as UDC in Employment Exchange, R.K.Puram, New Delhi had demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.1000/ each from Ms.Sijji Sukumar, Ms. Jolly Cyric and Ms. Sophy Mathew respectively as reward for preparing their fake Registration Identity Card without any residential proof. C.C. No. 73/11, 74/11, 75/11 & 76/11 Page No. 6 of 27
7. On hearing both sides, vide order dated 18.5.2004 charge for offence punishable U/S 420/468 r/w Section 471 IPC and U/S 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was framed in the case bearing CC No.73/11 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Similarly, on hearing both sides, vide order dated 24.4.2006 charge for offence punishable U/S 7 & 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and U/S 420 & 468 IPC was framed as against the accused in the case bearing CC No.74/11, CC No. 75/11 & CC No. 76/11 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8. During course of trial vide order dated 13.10.2006 considering the facts that all these four cases emerged out of the same complaint and FIR, evidence was ordered to be recorded in the Main case file bearing CC No.87/02 (New CC No.73/11) and same to be read for other three connected cases.
9. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution got examined 27 prosecution witnesses namely Sh.B.R.Verma, the then Administrative Officer in Directorate of Education, South District, New Delhi, a formal witness as PW1, Sh.Vijay Kumar, the then UDC in the office of Commissioner C.C. No. 73/11, 74/11, 75/11 & 76/11 Page No. 7 of 27 (Industries), Kashmere Gate, a formal witness as PW2, Sh.Gopal Ravi Kumar, the then Senior Manager, Syndicate Bank, R.K.Puram, Sector4, Delhi, a formal witness as PW3, Sh.Mangal Sain, the then Inspector, Food & Supply Department, a formal witness as PW4, Inspector Prem Chand, Initial IO as PW5, Ms.Simi Sharma, an applicant/candidate for Staff Nurse as PW6, Ms Adarsh Arora, the then Manager, Syndicate Bank, Sector4, R.K.Puram, a formal witness as PW7, Sh.K.K.Siam, the then Joint Director, Directorate of Employment/complainant,as PW8, Sh.Ashok Kumar, the then Head Clerk in Directorate of Education, a formal witness as PW9, Sh.S.Bala Subramanyam, the then Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, Sector4, R.K.Puram, a formal witness as PW10, Sh.Mansoor Ahmed Usmani, the then Employment Officer, Employment Exchange, R.K.Puram, New Delhi as PW11, Sh.Rajinder Kumar, the then Director of Education, Sanctioning Authority as against the accused as PW12, Sh.R.S.Yadav, the then Sr. Manager, Canara Bank, Triveni, PhaseII Branch, a formal witness as PW13, Mrs. Neelam Chandna, the then District Employment Officer, South District, a formal witness as PW14, Sh. P.K.K. Raman, the then Administrative Officer of Lady Harding Medical College and S.K.Hospital, New Delhi, a formal witness as PW15, Ms. Betty Joseph, an applicant/candidate for Staff C.C. No. 73/11, 74/11, 75/11 & 76/11 Page No. 8 of 27 Nurse as PW16, Sh.K.K.Bhatia, the then Deputy Director/Vigilance Officer, Employment Exchange, a formal witness as PW17, Sh.Rakesh Sharma, the then Assistant, Career Counsellor, Directorate of Employment, a formal witness as PW18, Sh.Anil Kumar, the then LDC, Employment Exchange, Dariya Ganj, Delhi, a formal witness as PW19, Sh.Ram Lal, the then UDC in Labour Department, New Delhi, a formal witness as PW20, Sh.Ashok Kumar Khanna, the then Broadma Machine Operator in Employment Exchange, R.K.Puram, New Delhi as PW21, the then SI Kanwar Singh, Duty Officer, PS AC Branch, a formal witness as PW22, Sh.Siji Sukumar, an applicant/candidate for Staff Nurse as PW23, Sh.V.K.Jain, the then Employment Officer in District Employment Exchange, South, a formal witness as PW24, the then Inspector Ranbir Singh, subsequent IO as PW25, Ms. Jolly Cyric, an applicant/candidate for Staff Nurse as PW26 and Sh.Harshvardhan, Assistant Director (Documents), FSL as PW27.
10. After closure of the PE, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which the accused denied about any demand and acceptance of the bribe from any one. She further added that the Registration Certificates were prepared by her but she had not C.C. No. 73/11, 74/11, 75/11 & 76/11 Page No. 9 of 27 accepted any money for preparation of the same from anyone. She further added that she had not submitted any forged documents for procurement of her loan and there was never any default in refund of the said loan from her side. Accused claimed to be falsely implicated in these cases having no concern with the alleged offence.
11. I have heard Common Final Arguments as addressed by Sh.Shashank Garg, Adv. Ld. Counsel for the accused and Sh.Vinod Kumar Sharma, Ld. Addl.PP for the State in all these four cases and perused the relevant record including the written submissions of the accused.
12. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the accused has neither demanded nor accepted any bribe from any applicants/candidates for preparation of ICards/Form X10(b) as issued from Employment Exchange, Sector4, R.K.Puram, New Delhi and prosecution has failed to prove about the said aspects and hence, accused deserves to be acquitted. It is also added by Ld. Defence Counsel that none of the applicants/candidates who has been examined as PW has deposed anything regarding demand and acceptance of the bribe as against the accused for issuance of the said C.C. No. 73/11, 74/11, 75/11 & 76/11 Page No. 10 of 27 ICards/Form X10(b) and furthermore, several applicants/candidates namely Ms. Sophy Mathew, Ms. Cristy John, Ms. Rincy Alex, Ms. Jancy Lukose and Ms. Deepa Jose could not be examined as PW by the prosecution despite grant of number of opportunities. It is also added by Ld. Defence Counsel that though the accused does not deny her signature on said ICards/Form X10(b) being prepared by her but mere fact that the registration number could not be tallied with the concerned Register of the Employment Exchange, it would only make those ICards/Form X10(b) invalid but not forged and prosecution has failed to prove the same as forged by the accused. It is also added by Ld. Defence Counsel that as certain Registers of the Employment Exchange relating to said ICards/Form X10(b) could not be traced out, the accused has been made a scapegoat by putting entire blame upon the accused. It is also added by Ld. Defence Counsel that as regards obtaining loan of Rs.30,000/ by the accused from the Syndicate Bank, the accused had submitted one Confirmation Letter showing employment of the accused in Employment Exchange, R.K.Puram, New Delhi and the factum regarding said employment of the accused is not disputed and as the accused had duly repaid the said loan to the Bank in time without any default at her own level, therefore, no case U/S 420/468/471 IPC made out against the accused. C.C. No. 73/11, 74/11, 75/11 & 76/11 Page No. 11 of 27 It is also added by Ld. Defence Counsel that even the FSL Report does not implicate the accused in pursuance of committing forgery. It is also added by Ld. Defence Counsel that there is considerable delay in the registration of the case and same also falsify the case of the prosecution. It is also added by Ld. Defence Counsel that Sh.K.K.Siam/complainant duly admitted that he had no personal knowledge of any offence committed by the accused. It is also added by Ld. Defence Counsel that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the foundational aspects to prove the guilt as against the accused for the charged offence and hence, the accused deserves to be acquitted. Ld. Defence Counsel in support of his submission has referred and relied upon following judgments: (1) 2007 (1) JKJ 457 (2) 2009 (15) SCC 200 (3) AIR 1997 SC 3424 (4) AIR 1966 SC 523
13. To the contrary, it is submitted by Ld. Addl.PP for the State that the prosecution by examining 27 PWs have clearly established its case as against the accused and therefore, the accused deserves to be convicted for the charged offence. It is further added by Ld. Addl.PP C.C. No. 73/11, 74/11, 75/11 & 76/11 Page No. 12 of 27 for the State that the accused has obtained the loan of Rs.30,000/ from the Syndicate Bank by furnishing two forged documents and mere fact that the accused has already repaid the said loan at her own level, can be of no help for the accused. It is further added by Ld. Addl.PP for the State that the prosecution has successfully established that said ICards/Form X10 (b) as prepared by the accused were forged documents for which the accused had demanded and accepted bribe from various applicants/candidates and therefore, the accused cannot escape from the liability of the same. It is further added by Ld. Addl.PP for the State that there are ample evidence on record to establish that it is the accused who had prepared the said I Cards/Form X10(b) without any residential proof of the concerned candidates and thereby committed the offence punishable U/S 468 IPC. It is also added by Ld. Addl.PP for the State that no doubt Ms.Jancy Lukose, Ms. Deepa Jose, Ms. Cristy John, Ms. Rincy Alex and Ms. Sophy Mathew who were certain applicants/candidates for registration in the Employment Exchange for post of Staff Nurse, could not be examined as PWs being found untraceable but same can be of no help for the accused. Ld. Addl.PP also added that the FSL Report corroborate the commission of offence of forgery by the accused in preparation of said ICards/Form X10(b) and there is no C.C. No. 73/11, 74/11, 75/11 & 76/11 Page No. 13 of 27 reason to disbelieve the same. Thus, Ld. Addl.PP for the State urged for conviction of the accused for the charged offence.
14. From the perusal of the record, it is reflected that the basic allegation as against the accused is that she had demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.500/ to Rs.1000/ from various applicants/candidates for the purpose of the preparation of forged I Cards/Form X10(b) in the Employment Exchange, R.K.Puram, New Delhi. The factum regarding posting of the accused as UDC during the relevant period in Employment Exchange, Sector4, R.K.Puram, New Delhi and the preparation of the ICards/Form X10(b) by the accused, are found not disputed even by the accused being admitted by the accused in her statement U/S 313 Cr.P.C. but the accused has clearly denied regarding demand and acceptance of any money from anyone for the preparation of the same. As accused in response to Query No.52, she had interalia replied as under: "It is a false case. I am innocent in the entire episode. I neither demanded nor instructed anybody to accept any money on my behalf. It is correct that the registration certificates which bear my handwriting were prepared by me but I had not accepted any money for the preparation of the same."
C.C. No. 73/11, 74/11, 75/11 & 76/11 Page No. 14 of 27
15. From the perusal of the record, it is reflected that the prosecution has got examined several applicants/candidates namely Ms. Simi Sharma as PW6, Ms. Betty Joseph as PW16, Ms. Siji Sukumar as PW23 and Ms. Jolly Cyric as PW26 as registrants in the Employment Exchange, R.K.Puram but they have not deposed regarding demand and acceptance of any bribe amount by the accused from them for preparation and issuance of ICards/Form X10(b) to them. Though PW26 Ms. Jolly Cyric stated to have paid Rs.1000/ to the accused for issuance of her Form X10(b) in presence of Ms.Siji Sukumar but said fact is negated from the deposition of PW23 Ms.Siji Sukumar and therefore, I am not inclined to treat the said allegation of PW26 as against the accused as trustworthy and reliable. As said PW23/Siji Sukumar had even denied the specific suggestion of Ld.Chief Public Prosecutor that in the year 1998 the accused had demanded Rs.1000/ as bribe for registration in the Employment Exchange. She also further denied the suggestion of Ld. Chief Public Prosecutor that she had handed over her Bio data and Rs.1000/ to the accused. It is further revealed from the record that the prosecution has failed to get examined several material PWs namely Ms.Sophy Mathew, Ms.Jency Lukose, Ms. Deepa Jose , Ms. Cristy John and Ms. Rincy Alex, from whom the accused is alleged to have demanded and C.C. No. 73/11, 74/11, 75/11 & 76/11 Page No. 15 of 27 accepted bribe for preparation and issuance of ICards/Form X10(b) to them, despite several opportunities granted to the prosecution being stated to be untraceable. In view of the same, I have no hesitation to safely conclude that the prosecution has failed to establish regarding the factum of demand and acceptance of the bribe by the accused from anyone for preparation and issuance of ICards/Form X10(b).
16. Since the prosecution has failed to establish regarding the factum of the demand of bribe by the accused from any candidates, the presumption as contemplated U/S 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 cannot be attracted in this case and my said view is found supported from the judgment as rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case reported as AIR 2007 SC 489 "V.Venkata Subbarao vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, A.P." In Para 24 of the said judgment, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under: "Submission of the learned counsel for the State that presumption has rightly been raised against the appellant, cannot be accepted as, inter alia, the demand itself had not been proved. In the absence of a proof of demand, the question of raising the presumption would not arise. Section 20 of the Prevention of C.C. No. 73/11, 74/11, 75/11 & 76/11 Page No. 16 of 27 Corruption Act, 1988 provides for raising of a presumption only if a demand is proved".
17. In the absence of proof of "Demand of bribe" by the accused, I am of the considered view that the accused cannot be held liable for penal provisions U/S 7 and Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1)
(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for which she has been charged with and my said view is found supported from the following judgments: (1)2006 (1) SCC 401 "T.Subramanian Vs. State of Tamil Nadu"
(2) 2005 Crl.L.J. 1136 "State of H.P. Vs. Sukhdev Singh Rana"
(3) 2007 Crl.L.J. 2919 "State of M.P.vs. Anil Kumar Verma"
(4) 2006 (3) RCR (Crl.) 796 "Amrit Lal vs. State of Punjab"
(5) 2000 Crl,.L.J. 4591 "State of M.P. Vs. J.B.Singh"
(6) 2006 (1) RCR (Crl.) 314 "L.K.Jain vs. The State"
(7) 2005 (4) RCR (Crl) 716 "R.V.Subba Rao Vs. State"
(8) AIR 1979 SC 1408 "Suraj Mal Vs. State"
(9) 1992 (3) RCR (Crl.) 139 "Pritam Singh vs. State of Haryana"
(10) 2009 (4) LRC 275 (SC) "State of Maharastra Vs. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede"
C.C. No. 73/11, 74/11, 75/11 & 76/11 Page No. 17 of 27
18. Now the next question arises as to whether the accused can be held liable for offence punishable U/S 468 IPC for preparation of I Cards/Form X10(b) which are Ex.PW11/E1 to 107? So far the said aspect is concerned, the factum regarding the preparation of the said documents by the accused is even admitted by the accused in her statement U/S 313 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the next question arises is whether said ICards/Form X10(b) which are Ex.PW11/E1 to 107 are forged documents?
19. PW11/Sh.Mansoor Ahmed Usmani, the then Employment Officer in Employment Exchange, R.K.Puram, New Delhi has deposed that in December 1998 some vacancies for the post of Staff Nurse were notified by Lady Harding Hospital and the candidates had to submit their Application Forms in this respect through their respective Employment Exchange. Therefore, number of Application Forms were received from the candidates in Employment Exchange, R.K.Puram and on verification, it was found that some of the candidates had submitted their Application Forms alongwith fake Employment Registration Card/Identity Card and said Cards are Ex.PW11/E1 to 107. Said PW11 has also deposed that on inquiry, he came to know that accused Prema Ashok posted as UDC in the C.C. No. 73/11, 74/11, 75/11 & 76/11 Page No. 18 of 27 Employment Exchange, R.K.Puram had issued those fake Employment Registration Cards/Identity Cards. Said deposition of PW11 is also found corroborated from the deposition of PW21 Sh.Ashok Kumar Khanna who was posted at the Employment Exchange, R.K.Puram, Sector4, New Delhi during the relevant period.
20. From the perusal of the record, it is further reflected that PW27 Sh.Harshvardhan, Assistant Director (Documents), FSL has proved his Report as Ex.PW25/H. From the perusal of the said Report, it is clearly reflected that the questioned initial marked Q1 to Q35, Q42 to Q53, Q55 to Q92, Q94, Q96 to Q99, Q101 to Q105 as found on said ICards/Form X10(b) and the standard initials marked A8 to A12 (i.e. initials of the accused as found on the Attendance Sheet of the accused as per Ex.PW21/G) were all written by one and same person thereby establishing that the said ICards/Form X10(b) have been prepared by the accused. It is further reflected from the said FSL Report Ex.PW25/H that the sample stamp impression "Sub Reg. Employment Officer, P & E Employment Exchange, Sec4, R.K.Puram, New Delhi", as per S10 to S12 (as found in Ex.PW21/A to C) tallied with the questioned red enclosed sealed impression mark C.C. No. 73/11, 74/11, 75/11 & 76/11 Page No. 19 of 27 Q108 to Q110, Q112, Q114, Q117, Q123, Q128, Q130 to Q133, Q135, Q136, Q139, Q141 to Q143, Q145 to Q166, Q167, Q170 to Q178, Q180, Q182 to Q184, Q186 to Q190 in design, size, relative location of corresponding character / word and also superimpose over each other, establishing thereby that the official stamp of "SubReg. Employment Officer, R.K.Puram, Employment Exchange" has been affixed unauthorisedly in the said ICards/Form X10(b).
21. In view of the aforesaid material as available on the record, I do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Defence Counsel to the effect that said ICards/Form X10(b) are merely invalid and not forged as the Registration Number could not be tallied due to untraceability of the relevant register in the Employment Exchange. I do not see any reason to disbelieve the deposition of PW11/Sh.M.A.Usmani and PW21/Sh.Ashok Kumar Khanna specifically when it is found corroborated from the FSL Report Ex.PW25/H and therefore, I have no hesitation to conclude that the accused can be validly held liable for the offence punishable U/S 468 IPC for preparation of said forged ICards/Form X10(b) Ex.PW11/E1 to 107.
C.C. No. 73/11, 74/11, 75/11 & 76/11 Page No. 20 of 27
22. The next question arises whether the accused can be held liable for offence punishable U/S 468 r/w Section 471 IPC for forging a document purported to be her Pay Slip for the month of December 1997 which is Ex.P1 and one Certificate dated 3.2.1998 purported to have been issued by Sh.M.A.Usmani SubRegional Employment Officer, R.K.Puram, New Delhi which is Ex.P2 and for using the same as genuine. PW11/Sh.M.A.Usmani, the then Employment Officer, Employment Exchange, R.K.Puram, New Delhi has deposed that during the course of inquiry, he had come to know that the accused Prema Ashok had taken a Loan of Rs.30,000/ from Syndicate Bank by furnishing false Pay Certificate and Pay Slip after forging his signatures and said Pay Slip for the month of December 1997 is Ex.P1 and Certificate dated 3.2.1998 is Ex.P2. He has also deposed that both said documents do not bear his signatures at point A. Said deposition of PW11 is also found supported from the contents of the FSL Report Ex.PW25/H. From the perusal of the said FSL Report Ex.PW25/H, it is clearly reflected that the questioned signature marked Q106 as found on Pay Certificate dated 3.2.1998 Ex.P2 and questioned signature marked Q107 as found on Pay Slip for December 1997 Ex.P1 and the standard signatures of Sh.M.A.Usmani Marked S7 to S9 (specimen signatures of C.C. No. 73/11, 74/11, 75/11 & 76/11 Page No. 21 of 27 Sh.M.A.Usmani as per Ex.PW27/A1 to A3) and standard signatures of Sh.M.A.Usmani are A5 to A7 (admitted signatures of Sh.M.A.Usmani on office record as per Ex.PW25/E, F and G) were not written by one and same person. In view of the aforesaid deposition of PW11/Sh.M.A.Usmani coupled with the FSL Report Ex.PW25/H, it is clearly reflected that said Pay Slip for December 1997 Ex.P1 and Pay Certificate dated 3.2.1998 Ex.P2 do not found bear the genuine signatures of said Sh. M.A.Usmani and therefore, both said documents were forged. But the FSL Report does not indicate that both said documents have been forged by the accused. However, from the perusal of deposition of PW3 Sh.Gopal Ravi Kumar who was posted as Senior Branch Manager in Syndicate Bank, R.K.Puram, Sector4, New Delhi in the year 1998, it is clearly reflected that the accused had applied for Bank Loan of Rs.30,000/ for medical treatment of her husband and alongwith the Loan Application Form, accused had submitted her Pay Certificate and one Confirmation Letter proving the employment of the accused in Employment Exchange as issued by the Employment Officer and he has proved the said Pay Slip furnished by the accused as Ex.P1 and the Confirmation Letter purported to have been issued by Employment Officer as Ex.P2. Said PW3 further deposed that Loan C.C. No. 73/11, 74/11, 75/11 & 76/11 Page No. 22 of 27 of Rs.30,000/ was sanctioned to accused Prema Ashok. There is no reason to disbelieve the said deposition of PW3 which is found corroborated from the supporting documents available on the record. Furthermore, the factum regarding submission of the Application alongwith supporting documents for obtaining Loan of Rs.30,000/ from Syndicate Bank, R.K.Puram, Sector4, New Delhi and ultimate sanction of said Loan on 6.2.1998 have not been found disputed from the side of the accused. In view of the aforesaid material as available on the record whereby indicating that though there is no evidence to prove that said Pay Slip of December 1997 Ex.P1 and Certificate dated 3.2.1998 Ex.P2 were forged by the accused but since it has been duly established that both said documents have been submitted by the accused alongwith the Application for Loan from the Syndicate Bank, R.K.Puram, Sector4 Branch, New Delhi, the accused can be held validly liable for the offence punishable U/S 471 IPC.
23. The next question that arises is whether the accused can also be held liable for offence punishable U/S 420 IPC? Regarding this aspect, during course of argument, it is submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that since the factum regarding employment of the accused in Employment Exchange, R.K.Puram, Sector4, New Delhi is not C.C. No. 73/11, 74/11, 75/11 & 76/11 Page No. 23 of 27 disputed and the accused has duly repaid the Loan of Rs.30,000/ at her own level to the Syndicate Bank, R.K.Puram, Sector4 Branch, New Delhi and has neither caused any wrongful gain to herself nor any wrongful loss to said Syndicate Bank and therefore, no case U/S 420 IPC is made out as against the accused. It is further added by Ld. Defence Counsel that as there is no evidence on record to establish that the accused had dishonestly and fraudulently induced any candidates to deliver any amount for preparation of any fake Registration ICards and therefore, also no case U/S 420 IPC is made as against the accused. To the contrary, it is submitted by Ld. Addl.PP for the State that there are ample evidence on record as against the accused for offence punishable U/S 420 IPC. It is further added by him that the accused by submitting forged Pay Slip and Pay Certificate had obtained the Loan of Rs.30,000/ from the Bank. It is further added by Ld. Addl.PP that the accused has dishonestly induced several candidates for paying bribe to her for preparation of forged ICards/Form X10(b) and therefore, the accused is duly liable for offence punishable U/S 420 IPC.
24. From the perusal of the record, it is reflected that PW3 Sh.Gopal Ravi Kumar has deposed that in the year 1998 he was C.C. No. 73/11, 74/11, 75/11 & 76/11 Page No. 24 of 27 posted as Senior Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, R.K.Puram, Sector4 Branch, New Delhi and as per record, accused Prema Ashok was having her Saving Bank Account bearing No.6815 since 1995. She had applied for Loan of Rs.30,000/ for medical treatment of her husband and attested copy of the Bank Loan Application is Ex.PW3/A. He has also deposed that two persons namely Sh.Ashok Kumar, the husband of the accused and another person namely Sh. Ratheesan had stood as guarantor for her Loan and copy of Pay Slip of guarantor Ashok Kumar is Ex.PW3/B and copy of Pay Slip of guarantor Sh.Ratheesan is Ex.PW3/C. He also deposed that the Pay Slip as produced by the accused along with her Application Form is Ex.P1 and the Confirmation Letter purportedly issued by SubReg. Employment Officer is Ex.P2. He has also deposed that on 6.2.1998 Loan of Rs.30,000/ was sanctioned to the accused Prema Ashok. PW10/Sh.S.Bala Subramanyam, the then Senior Branch Manager in Syndicate Bank, R.K.Puram, Sector4 Branch, New Delhi has deposed that on 11.6.2002 he had forwarded the Statement of Account of accused Prema Ashok having A/C No.DL 1/98 which is Ex.PW10/A bearing his signature at point A and Covering Letter alongwith the said Bank Statement is Ex.PW10/B bearing his signature at point A. From the perusal of the deposition of PW3/Sh.Gopal Ravi Kumar, C.C. No. 73/11, 74/11, 75/11 & 76/11 Page No. 25 of 27 PW10/Sh.S. Bala Subramanyam coupled with Statement of Loan Account of the accused Ex.PW10/A, it is clearly reflected that the accused Prema Ashok was granted Loan of Rs.30,000/ on 6.2.1998 vide Loan Account No.DL 1/98 by the Syndicate Bank, R.K.Puram, Sector4 Branch, New Delhi and the accused has duly repaid the said Loan by 27.3.2001 on periodical payments. In view of the same, I found force in the submission of Ld. Defence Counsel to the effect that since the accused had neither caused any wrongful gain to herself nor any wrongful loss to the Syndicate Bank, no case U/S 420 IPC can be attracted as against the accused. From the bare perusal of Section 420 IPC, it is clearly reflected that one basic ingredient concerning said provision is that there should be dishonest inducement by the accused against the person deceived. Section 24 IPC defines "Dishonestly" as under: Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing "dishonestly".
25. Furthermore, from the perusal of the record, it is clearly reflected that the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused has made dishonest inducement to any candidate for paying bribe to her for preparation of ICards/Form X10(b), as none of the C.C. No. 73/11, 74/11, 75/11 & 76/11 Page No. 26 of 27 candidates as examined by the prosecution have deposed as against the accused in this respect. In view of the same, I have no hesitation to safely conclude that the accused cannot be held liable for offence punishable U/S 420 IPC.
26. The net result of the aforesaid discussion is that the accused is found guilty for offence punishable U/S 468 and 471 IPC and is convicted accordingly. However, as the prosecution could not be successful in establishing the offence U/S 7 and 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and U/S 420 IPC, this accused stands acquitted concerning the said offence.
27. Let accused Prema Ashok be heard separately on the point of sentence.
Announced in the open court on this 2nd day of November, 2011 (B.R. Kedia) Special Judge07 (PC Act Cases of ACB, GNCTD) Central District, THC,Delhi C.C. No. 73/11, 74/11, 75/11 & 76/11 Page No. 27 of 27