Delhi District Court
State vs . Inder Raj on 23 July, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MS. TYAGITA SINGH: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
(SOUTH EAST)-03, NEW DELHI
STATE VS. Inder Raj
FIR NO: 141/00
P. S. Kalkaji
NO. 02403R0217882002
Date of institution of case : 06.07.2000
Date on which case reserved for judgment : 09.07.2012
Date of judgment : 23.07.2012
Advocates appearing in the case :-
Sh. Manish Kumar, Ld. APP for State.
Sh. I.N. Jha, Ld. Counsel for accused Inder Raj
Sh. V.K. Gupta, Ld. Counsel for accused Deep Sagar
JUDGEMENT U/s 355 Cr.P.C.:
a) Date of offence : 02.03.2000
b) Offence complained of : U/s 420/511/471/34 IPC
c) Name of complainant : Sh. R.S. Sharma
d) Name of accused, his parentage, : 1). Sh. Inder Raj
local & permanent residence S/o Sh. Bhagwan Dass
R/o C-2/38, Sector-11
Rohini, New Delhi
2). Deep Sagar
S/o Sh. M.R. Sagar
R/o A-7/13, Sector-18,
Rohini, New Delhi
e) Plea of accused : Both are falsely implicated.
f) Final order : Both are acquitted
BRIEF FACTS OF CASE OF PROSECUTION ARE AS FOLLOWS:
1. In the present case, accused Inder Raj and Deep Sagar have been charged for offences u/s 420/471/511/34 IPC for attempting to cheat Post Master Kalkaji and attempting to dishonestly induced him to deliver maturity amount of FIR no. 141/00 ; PS: Kalkaji St vs. Inder Raj and Deep Sagar Page no. 1/7 Rs. 20,000/- of 20 Indira Vikas Patras, knowing or having reason to believe that the Indira Vikas Patras from no. 61B-238786 to 238792, IVPP no. 61B-238816, IVPP no. 61B-238820 to 238826, IVPP no. 61B-238912 to 238916 having maturity date 02.03.2000 are forged and not genuine.
2. Prosecution has examined four PWs on its behalf. PW1 is Sh. R.S. Sharma, Post Master who stated that on 02.03.2000, he was posted as Post Master in Post Office, Kalkaji and on that day, at about 1 pm, Counter Clerk SB-II, Hari Dutt Sharma came to him alongwith one person namely Inder Raj and 20 Indira Vikas Patras and told him that the Indira Vikas Patras (IVPs) were never issued by the post office and they were forged and fabricated. He stated that he checked the 20 IVPs with reference to the record available in post office and found that these IVPs were not issued by their post office, therefore, he informed the police and lodged complaint Ex.PW1/A and handed over the 20 IVPs and accused Inder Raj to the Police. He correctly identified accused Inder Raj in court. He further stated that Police also obtained specimen stamp of Kalkaji Post Office. The IVPs were exhibited from Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-20. He was duly cross examined and discharged.
3. PW2 is the counter clerk Sh. Hari Dutt Sharma who stated that on 02.03.2000 at about 1 pm, accused Inder Raj (correctly identified in court) came to the counter and produced 20 IVPs but on tallying with record, it was found that they were not issued from their post office and the stamps and serial numbers did not tally with the register maintained in the post office, so he told accused Inder FIR no. 141/00 ; PS: Kalkaji St vs. Inder Raj and Deep Sagar Page no. 2/7 Raj that he can not make payment, therefore, the accused Inder Raj took the IVPs to incharge Post Master Sh. R.S. Sharma. PW2 stated that he did not accompany the accused to the post master. He was also duly cross-examined and discharged.
4. PW3 is Ct. Mahender Singh who joined investigation with IO SI Kuldeep Singh after the lodging of FIR. He stated that the post master Mr. R.S. Sharma had come to police station with complaint and accused Inder Raj was arrested in the police station vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/B and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW3/C and on his disclosure, another accused Deep Sagar was arrested vide memo Ex.PW3/D and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW3/E and disclosure statement of accused Deep Sagar was recorded vide memo Ex.PW3/F. He correctly identified accused persons and the case property i.e. the IVPs in court. He was duly cross- examined by Ld. Defence Counsel. He stated in his cross examination that he did not know the time when post master had come to the police station and he did not recollect the time when they had left the police station for investigation, to the post office. He admitted that it is correct that accused Inder Raj had stated that he had purchased the IVPs from Deep Sagar and Deep Sagar also confirmed that he had sold the IVPs to Inder Raj. One earnest money receipt Ex.PW3/DA was put by the Ld. Defence Counsel to the witness PW3 in cross examination. PW3 stated that he does not recollect if accused Inder Raj had given Ex.PW3/DA with writing on the reverse i.e. Ex.PW3/DB at the time of arrest of co-accused. He admitted that Deep Sagar had confirmed that Ex.PW3/DB was signed and executed by FIR no. 141/00 ; PS: Kalkaji St vs. Inder Raj and Deep Sagar Page no. 3/7 him. PW3 further admitted in his cross examination in last line that Deep Sagar had disclosed to him that he had purchased IVPs from Dev Raj.
5. PW4 is IO SI Kuldeep Singh who stated that on 02.03.2000, Sh. R.S. Sharma, Post Master of PS Kalkaji came to the police station and handed over written complaint regarding fabrication of IVPs and he made endorsement / rukka Ex.PW4/A and got registered FIR and arrested the accused Inder Raj who was brought by the complainant to police station and seized the IVPs vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/A and on disclosure and at instance of accused Inder Raj, he arrested accused Deep Sagar vide documents already exhibited. PW4 stated that Deep Sagar disclosed involvement of one Dev Raj in the case but Dev Raj could not be found, therefore, challan was filed in the court. PW4 was duly cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel and in his cross examination, he admitted that there is no endorsement of SHO for lodging FIR. He admitted that it is correct that Sh. R.S. Sharma was not made witness of seizure memo and other documents. He admitted that he did not seize the original seals and did not send the seal impression for comparison with original seal for expert opinion.
6. After closure of PE, statement of both accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which they stated that they are innocent. Accused led defence evidence and examined DW1 Sh. Inder Kumar who stated that on 16.12.1999, he was present at the office of Mr. Inder Raj situated at C-2/38, Sector-11, Rohini when at about 4 pm, Mr. Deep Sagar came to Inder Raj and stated that he was in need of money and he was having Indira Vikas Patras of Rs. 20,000/- which will FIR no. 141/00 ; PS: Kalkaji St vs. Inder Raj and Deep Sagar Page no. 4/7 be matured within 3 months, so deal was entered between Deep Sagar and Inder Raj by written document and 20 IVPs were purchased for Rs. 16,000/-. In his cross-examination by Ld. APP, he denied the suggestion that he was deposing to please his business friend Inder Raj. After closure of DE, final arguments were heard and case was fixed for order for today.
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION AND DECISION THEREOF After hearing final arguments and from the discussion of above stated facts and evidence, it is clear that there are many discrepancies in investigation. The IO allegedly seized the 20 IVPs of Rs. 1000/- each having maturity date of 02.03.2000 and date of issue 02.09.1994 and having stamp of "sub-post master, Kalkaji, New Delhi" vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/A from the post master Sh. R.S. Sharma but he did not seize any sample of genuine IVPs to show the difference between genuinely issued IVPs from Post Office Kalkaji and the allged forged IVPs. No comparison can be made with genuine IVPs which might have been issued in due course by the same post office, in absence of any such samples of genuine IVPs on record.
Moreover, the specimen stamp "Assistant Sub-Post Master (SB&NSC), Kalkaji PO New Delhi-110019" has been taken by IO on one plain sheet having no signatures of the post master or any other witnesses or the IO himself. IO did not seize the original seals and did not sent the IVPs and original seals of the Kalkaji post office to FSL for expert opinion regarding forgery. The IO has conducted very shoddy and incomplete investigation in this case and he did not FIR no. 141/00 ; PS: Kalkaji St vs. Inder Raj and Deep Sagar Page no. 5/7 bother to take expert opinion of FSL before filing the chargesheet. The defect in investigation is so grave that it strikes at the very root of the case of prosecution. Moreover, the prosecution witnesses have themselves admitted that the IVPs do not contain any name in whose favour they were issued. The stand of accused persons throughout has been that accused Inder Raj purchased the IVPs from accused Deep Sagar and accused Deep Sagar had purchased them from one Dev Raj who was never arrested by the police. It is pertinent to note here that the prosecution witnesses have not claimed anywhere that any IVPs of the serial numbers as mentioned in the 20 IVPs on record, ever went missing from the post office, Kalkaji, which might have been forged and fabricated later by someone without due entries in the post office register. It has not been shown by the prosecution witnesses that the printed form of IVPs themselves are forged or false documents. In absence of comparison with sample genuine IVPs and in absence of FSL report, accused persons can not be convicted for offence of forgery u/s 471 IPC. Hence, accused persons are given benefit of doubt and acquitted from offence u/s 471 IPC.
As far as offence of attempt of cheating u/s 420/511 IPC is concerned, both the public witnesses PW1 Sh. R.S. Sharma and PW2 Sh. Hari Dutt Sharma identified only one accused i.e. Inder Raj in court and stated that accused Inder Raj tried to present the IVPs as genuine and claimed the maturity amount. Accused Inder Raj has brought defence evidence in his favour and proved that he had genuinely purchased the IVPs from Deep Sagar and he did not know and had no reason to believe that they were forged. The essential ingredient of mens FIR no. 141/00 ; PS: Kalkaji St vs. Inder Raj and Deep Sagar Page no. 6/7 rea i.e. dishonest intention is absent in this case. It was accused Inder Raj himself who went to post office to claim the maturity amount and when PW2 counter clerk Hari Dutt Sharma refused to give the maturity amount, Inder Raj himself went to post master Sh. R.S. Sharma for claiming the amount, and he also went to police station with Sh. R.S. Sharma. The facts and circumstances as revealed by PW1 and PW2 clearly reflect that accused Inder Raj never tried to run away or escape when the post office officials came to know that IVPs were not genuine and when they refused to give payment to Inder Raj. The conduct of accused Inder Raj reflects that he did not know and had no reason to believe that the IVPs were not genuinely issued from the post office in ordinary course of business. The dishonest intention is completely missing in this case. As far as accused Deep Sagar is concerned, nothing was recovered from him and he has not been identified by any of the prosecution witness. He was arrested merely on disclosure statement of accused Inder Raj. Though, accused Inder Raj stated that he had purchased IVPs from accused Deep Sagar, but prosecution has failed to produce any independent substantial evidence on record against accused Deep Sagar. Hence, accused persons can not be convicted for attempt to cheat u/s 420/511 IPC. Hence, benefit of doubt is given to both accused persons and accused persons are acquitted from offence u/s 420/511/34 IPC.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ( TYAGITA SINGH ) TODAY ON 23rd JULY, 2012 MM-03(SOUTH EAST),DELHI FIR no. 141/00 ; PS: Kalkaji St vs. Inder Raj and Deep Sagar Page no. 7/7