Delhi District Court
CR Cases/1996/2016 on 21 April, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. SALONI SINGH, ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE- EAST DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
CR No. 1996/2016
CNR No. DLET02-000052-2003
FIR No. 264/2000
Under Section 420/468/471/120-B of IPC
Police Station Preet Vihar
State
v.
1.Mukesh Paliwal @ Parasar, Aged - 58 years.
S/o, Sh. Prem Prakash, R/o, Sikri, Police Station Lal Pura, District Hamirpur, Uttar Pradesh.
2. Dr. Tejvir Singh, Aged- 54 years S/o, Sh. Harpal Singh, R/o, House No. 862/28, Bharat Colony, Rohtak, Haryana. ...Accused Date of Institution : 03.06.2003 Date of Reserving order : 25.03.2023 Date of Judgment : 20.04.2023 Final Order : Acquittal Judgment: -
Both the accused were sent to stand trial for commission of offences punishable under Sections 420/468/471/120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC") based on the First Information Report (FIR) bearing no. 264 dated 22.06.2000 registered at Police Station (P.S.) Preet Vihar, Delhi.
Digitally signed by SALONI CR no. 1996/2016 SALONI SINGH 1 SINGH Date: 2023.04.21 17:29:14 +0530
1. On filing of the charge sheet, the accused persons were summoned and copy of the charge sheet was supplied to both the accused in compliance of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "CrPC").
Opportunity was granted to the accused persons to make submissions on point of charge and based on a prima facie case, vide order dated 15.10.2014, charge under Sections 120-B/420/466/468/471/474 of IPC were framed against the accused persons, the contents of which were read over and explained to the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2. To substantiate their case in trial, the prosecution examined the following witnesses, namely Head Constable (HC) Bijender as PW-1 (also as PW-14), Sh. Jai Kumar as PW-2, Sh. Neeraj Kumar as PW-3, Sh. Mahender Singh Yadav as PW-4, Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) Chander Kumar as PW-5, Ms. Beena Kaura (former Assistant Secretary in CBSE) as PW-6, Sh. Jage Ram as PW-7, Sh. Babu Ram Kanaujia, (former Registrar in Uttar Pradesh (U.P.) State University Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeth, Varanasi) as PW- 8, HC Om Prakash as PW-9, Sh. Dinesh Kumar as PW-10, Sub-Inspector (SI) Anand Pratap Singh as PW-11, Investigating Officer (I.O.)/Retired Inspector Vijay Pal Singh as PW-12, Sh. Om Prakash (former Registrar in Chaudhary Charan Singh University (CCSU), Meerut) as PW-13, ASI Naresh Kumar also as PW-13, Sh. Barkatulla, Office Superintendent, (Department of Administration, Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj University, Kanpur) as PW-14, and Sh. Narender Kumar, (Superintendent Office, CBSE Regional Office, Ajmer, Rajasthan) as PW-15.
3. The said prosecution witnesses have relied upon and placed on record the cash receipt no. 240 dated 25.04.2000 as Exhibit PW-4/A (mentioned as CR no. 1996/2016 Digitally signed 2 SALONI by SALONI SINGH SINGH Date: 2023.04.21 17:29:26 +0530 Exhibit PW-2/A on the document), photocopy of admit card in name of Sarita Yadav as Mark A, present FIR as Exhibit PW-5/A, endorsement/rukka as Exhibit PW-5/B, verification report of marksheet and certificate of candidates, Kumar Vijay Mehra, Roll no. 6303888 and Kumari Shivani Mehra, Roll no. 6303874 in All India Secondary School Examination, 1998 as Exhibit PW-6/A and Exhibit PW-6/B, disclosure statement dated 24.06.2000 of accused Dr. Tejvir as Exhibit PW-7/A, Exhibit PW-7/B, seizure memo of documents allegedly recovered from the house of the accused Tejvir as Exhibit PW-7/C, degree and marksheet of candidate Lokender Kumar, BA second year, 1995, Roll no. 279 and registration no. 94228 as Exhibit PW-8/A, degree of candidate Lokender Kumar, BA third year, Roll no. 301 as Exhibit PW-8/B (mentioned as Ex PW on the document), verification report dated 25.09.2000 as Exhibit PW- 8/C, seizure memo of a writing pad allegedly recovered from house of accused Tejvir as Exhibit PW-9/1 (mentioned as Exhibit PW-9/A on the document), advertisement of Raj Consultancy in newspaper as Mark A, receipt dated 14.05.2000 as Exhibit PX, admit card issued for B.Ed. entrance examination as Exhibit PW-10/A, seizure memo of documents handed over by PW-10 i.e., Mark A and Exhibit PX as Exhibit PW-10/B, verification report dated 23.11.2011 of Registrar of CCSU, Meerut as Exhibit PW-11/A, verification report of marksheet / degree of candidate Lokender Kumar, Roll no. 0545176 from Osmania University, Hyderabad filed in Court vide letter dated 07.02.2014 as Exhibit PW-11/B, verification report of Controller of Examination of Osmania University, Hyderabad as Mark X1, seizure memo of documents handed over by the complainant Bidhi Chand to the police as Exhibit PW-12/A, arrest memo of accused Mukesh Paliwal as Exhibit PW-12/B, disclosure statement of accused Mukesh Paliwal as Exhibit PW-12/C, seizure memo of two telephone bills CR no. 1996/2016 Digitally signed 3 SALONI by SALONI SINGH SINGH Date: 2023.04.21 17:29:42 +0530 of MTNL bearing no. L63 and L2730 recovered from the office of accused Mukesh Paliwal as Exhibit PW-12/D, seizure memo of personal car of accused Mukesh Paliwal bearing no. UP14L7576 as Exhibit PW-12/E, seizure memo of the alleged fake certificates and one diary recovered from the office of accused Mukesh Paliwal as Exhibit PW-12/F, search memo of the house of the accused Mukesh Paliwal as Exhibit PW-12/G, pointing out memo of identification of the accused Tejvir by the accused Mukesh Paliwal as Exhibit PW-12/H, arrest memo of accused Tejvir as Exhibit PW-12/I, seizure memo of Rs. 22,500/- (Rupees Twenty Two Thousand and Five Hundred Only) in the court of Sh. O.P. Diwedi, Ld. ASJ for the complainant Vidhi Chand as Exhibit PW-12/K, disclosure statement of accused Mukesh Paliwal as Exhibit PW-12/L, impression of the seals recovered from the house of the accused Tejvir as Exhibit PW-12/M, verification report of 109 degrees/marksheets received by Choudhary Charan Singh University vide a notice under Section 91 of CrPC as Exhibit PW-13/A, application moved by PW-13 before Secretary Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad for verification of marksheets/certificates also as Exhibit PW-13/A, authority letter of PW-14 as Exhibit PW-14/A, letter/verification report dated 28.09.200 written / given by Registrar Sh. V.K. Pandey to Incharge, Special Staff, Delhi Police, East as Exhibit PW-14/B, authority letter of PW-15 as Exhibit PW-15/A, and certified copies of certificates and marksheets of Ms. Neelam and Ms. Asha Rani, Roll No. 6303874 and 6303888 for year 1998, as Exhibit PW-15/B (Colly) and Exhibit PW-15/C (Colly). The prosecution witnesses were cross-examined on behalf of the accused persons.
4. On completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 read with Section 281 of CrPC, wherein all incriminating CR no. 1996/2016 Digitally signed by SALONI 4 SALONI SINGH SINGH Date:
2023.04.21 17:29:53 +0530 evidence/material relied upon by the prosecution was put to both the accused, which were denied by them stating that they have been falsely implicated in this case. Opportunity was then given to the accused to lead evidence, which was not availed by them, and the matter was listed for final arguments.
5. Final Arguments: - Final arguments were advanced on behalf of the State and the accused persons. Written arguments were filed on behalf of the accused Mukesh Paliwal. Mr. Deepak Kumar, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP) for the State submitted that the complainant was not traceable, therefore, the prosecution does not press for commission of offence of cheating under Section 420 of IPC. He argued that, with the aid of testimonies of the I.O./SI Vijay and HC Bijender, the prosecution has shown that fake educational documents (certificates/marksheets) were recovered from the possession of both the accused. Learned APP further argued that their testimonies are reliable and remains unaffected by minor discrepancies of absence of daily diary (DD) entries made by the police and non- examination of public witnesses at the time of the alleged recoveries. He submitted that since the documents recovered from both the accused persons were found to be fake and were educational certificates/marksheets, Sections 466/474 of IPC have been proved.
6. Mr. S.K. Ahluwalia, Learned Advocate for the accused Mukesh Paliwal reiterated the submissions made in the written arguments and submitted that the complainant in connivance with the police has made jurisdiction of Delhi and prosecution has failed to explain the delay in registration of the present FIR. He argued that the I.O. has not named the wife and children of the complainant as witnesses and the complainant has failed to appear and give Digitally signed by SALONI CR no. 1996/2016 SALONI SINGH 5 SINGH Date:
2023.04.21 17:30:05 +0530 evidence and was eventually dropped as a witness. Learned Advocate for the accused argued that all the public witnesses examined by the prosecution have not made any allegation of cheating against the accused persons and that PW-4 and PW-10 have merely stated that they had given money to the accused for coaching and, therefore, the offence of cheating has not been proved. Further, he argued that the testimonies of recovery witnesses, PW- 14/PW-1 and PW-12, are not credible as they have given evasive answers in their cross-examination and failed to identify the documents that had allegedly been recovered from the office of the accused Mukesh Paliwal and the proper trail of the documents from the time of its recovery, seizure and deposit in P.S. Malkhana has not been shown by the prosecution. He also argued that the documents verified from the concerned Universities have not been linked to the alleged recovery made from the accused persons. Lastly, he argued that the prosecution has failed to prove any recovery from the possession of the accused Mukesh Paliwal and no case is made out against him.
7. Mr. Gaurav Kochar, Learned Advocate for the accused Tejvir submitted that none of the witnesses have stated anything incriminating against the accused Tejbir. He argued that PW-12 has failed to identify the documents that had been recovered from the house of the accused Tejvir and the prosecution has failed to prove recovery of any fake documents from the accused Tejvir.
8. Issues: -
a. Whether the accused persons conspired with the object to cheat the complainant Vidhi Chand and other public persons by dishonesty inducing them to pay money for their education and for their family CR no. 1996/2016 Digitally signed by SALONI 6 SALONI SINGH SINGH Date:
2023.04.21 17:30:17 +0530 members and providing educational certificates, which were found to be forged/fake?
b. Whether the accused persons forged the certificates/marksheets, purported to be made by a public servant in official capacity? c. Whether the accused persons fraudulently/dishonestly used as genuine the educational documents (marksheets/degree/certificates) knowing or having reason to believe them to be fake?
d. Whether the accused persons committed forgery of educational documents with intent that the documents are used for the purpose of cheating?
e. Whether the accused persons were found in possession of educational documents (marksheets/degree/certificates), knowing to be forged, and intending that the same are fraudulently or dishonestly used as genuine?
9. Analysis of Evidence/Reasons for findings: - The arguments advanced have been considered and the court file including the evidence adduced and written arguments has been thoroughly perused. At the outset, it is to be examined how accused persons had allegedly cheated the complainant and the other public persons and induced them to pay money to the accused on the pretext of providing educational certificates from various colleges to them, which were found to be fake. The FIR, Exhibit PW-5/A, has been registered on the complaint, Mark Y, made by the complainant Bidhi Chand. The complainant has not been examined as he was not traceable to depose before the Court. The other public persons, who were allegedly cheated by the accused persons and were provided forged educational certificates/degree/marksheets etc. and have been examined by the prosecution are PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, and PW-10.
CR no. 1996/2016 Digitally signed
by SALONI
7
SALONI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2023.04.21
17:30:28 +0530
10.PW-2 in his examination-in-chief has stated that he for himself and his family members had given eight forms for various educational courses or subjects to one Sh. Bhagwan Singh of Charkhi Dadar, who in turn had submitted the forms at Meerut Chaudhary Charan Singh University (MCCSU), and then Sh. Bhagwan Singh had provided admit cards and roll numbers to the candidates. PW-2 has further stated that then he had obtained the marksheets from MCCSU of the said candidates and he had again filled the forms for the same candidates for their second year in those courses from DAV College and he had later obtained their marksheets from DAV College. PW-2 has denied being acquainted with the accused Mukesh. PW-2 is silent on any role or involvement of the accused persons in the admission of the candidates or in providing the roll numbers/admit cards of the candidates or obtaining of the marksheets of the candidates. PW-2 was cross-examined by the Learned APP and during his cross-examination, PW-2 has denied the suggestion that he had met the accused through an advertisement in a daily newspaper and the accused Mukesh had assured to get all the candidates passed in the examinations with excellent marks and for which accused Mukesh had taken Rs. 6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand Only) from PW-2 and that the accused had procured forged marksheets/certificates for PW-2. The contents of the previous statement of PW-2 recorded under Section 161 of CrPC had been read over to him, which PW-2 denied as having made to the police. It is important to mention here that from the examination-in-chief of PW-2, it is not clear whether he or his family members or the candidates, for whom he had got the forms deposited, had appeared in any examination(s) conducted by the said University/College or had been admitted in any of the courses of the said University/College. It is also not clear how Sh. Bhagwan Singh had any authority to deposit forms in a university, and how he had Digitally signed CR no. 1996/2016 by SALONI 8 SALONI SINGH SINGH Date:
2023.04.21 17:30:40 +0530 obtained admit cards of candidates from the University. No documents have been produced by PW-2 to show the admission of the candidates in the said University/College or that they had attended any classes for the first year of their respective courses/subjects. PW-2 was admittedly running a school and from the examination-in-chief of PW-2 it seems that he may have been illegally obtaining admit cards/marksheets from universities/colleges for his candidates/students with the aid of Sh. Bhagwan Singh without the candidates having to attend any classes or appearing for any examinations. This could also be a reason why PW-2 has not deposed specifically about his arrangement with Sh. Bhagwan Singh. Therefore, the testimony of PW-2 is not reliable.
11.PW-3 in his examination-in-chief has merely stated that he has been running a school in U.P. and the police had visited his residence in the year 2000 and inquired from him regarding filling of few admission forms for B.Ed. and about the accused in this case. PW-3 was cross-examined by the Learned APP for resiling from his previous statement and during his cross- examination, PW-3 has denied the suggestion that he had met the accused through an advertisement in a daily newspaper and the accused Mukesh had assured to get all the candidates passed in the examinations with excellent marks and for which accused Mukesh had taken Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) per candidate from PW-3 and that the candidates had failed to secure admission in the B.Ed. course and PW-3 had demanded return of the said amounts, which the accused refused to return. The contents of the previous statement of PW-3 recorded under Section 161 of CrPC had been read over to him, which PW-3 denied as having made to the police. PW-3 is also completely silent on any role or involvement of the accused persons in securing admission of the candidates in the B.Ed. course. The testimony of CR no. 1996/2016 Digitally signed by SALONI 9 SALONI SINGH SINGH Date:
2023.04.21 17:30:52 +0530 PW-3 does not aid the prosecution.
12.The next is PW-4, who in his examination-in-chief has stated that he had read an advertisement in a daily newspaper regarding Raj Consultancy that provided B.A, M.A., B.Ed., and M.Ed. course. PW-4 has stated that he had filled form for B.Ed. course for his daughter Smt. Sarita Yadav through Rohtak University. PW-4 further has stated that on 25.04.2000, he had given Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) to the accused Mukesh for admission of his daughter Smt. Sarita Yadav in B.Ed. course at Maharishi Dayanand University in Rohtak and the accused Mukesh's assistant Tejvir Singh had given a receipt no. 240 against the said amount to PW-4 and had given copy of the admit card to him. Further, PW-4 has stated that the accused Mukesh had assured that he would get the daughter of PW-4 pass with good marks, however, after the examination was conducted, PW-4 found that the name of his daughter was not in the result of the examination and then PW-4 visited the office of the accused, which was locked. PW-4 has identified the accused Mukesh, however, he was unable to identify the accused Tejvir Singh. PW-4 in his examination-in-chief has vaguely stated that as per the advertisement, Raj Consultancy provided B.A, M.A., B.Ed., and M.Ed. courses. It does not seem to be clear how Raj Consultancy was providing these courses or what service was advertised as being provided by Raj Consultancy. It is not the case of the prosecution that Raj Consultancy provided coaching to prospective students seeking admission in colleges. It is also not clear whether the daughter of PW-4 had appeared for the examination. It is also not clear how the accused Mukesh was going to help the daughter of PW-4 secure good marks in the examination. It is also not clear for what exact purpose had PW-4 given Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) to the accused Mukesh. No clarification was sought by the CR no. 1996/2016 Digitally signed 10 by SALONI SALONI SINGH SINGH Date:
2023.04.21 17:31:03 +0530 Learned APP from the witness on these aspects. PW-4 was cross-examined by the Learned APP and during his cross-examination, PW-4 has denied the suggestion that he had told the police that, "Mukesh Parashar se form bharwaya tha aur usne 100% acche numberon se pass karwane ka vada kiya tha aur kaha that ki maine aise aise acche guess paper taiyar karwaye hain jisse 100% pass ho jata hain". PW-4 has denied the suggestion of handing over the newspaper Amar Ujjala dated 25.06.2000 to the police. The contents of statement Mark X from points A to A1 and B to B1 were read over to PW- 4, which PW-4 denied as having made to the police. In his cross-examination on behalf of the accused persons, PW-4 has stated that the accused Mukesh was running an institute and PW-4 had given Rs. 10,000/- to the accused Mukesh as the coaching fee. PW-4 has denied in his cross-examination that he had given any assurance to PW-4 that his daughter would pass with good marks. There are no specific allegations of cheating made by PW-4 against the accused persons. The testimony of PW-4 is also of no assistance to the prosecution.
13.PW-10 in his examination-in-chief has stated that the accused persons were running Raj consultancy/coaching about which he came to know from an advertisement in a daily newspaper, which is Mark A. PW-10 has specifically stated that he had joined Raj Consultancy for taking coaching classes to prepare for B.Ed. entrance examination and for which he had paid Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) vide receipt dated 14.05.2000, which is Exhibit PX. PW-10 has further stated that he had attended the coaching classes for around one month and after which the police had conducted a raid in the coaching centre. He has also stated that the police may have taken a newspaper advertisement and the said receipt from him. He has also stated that he had handed over admit card issued by the coaching CR no. 1996/2016 Digitally signed 11 SALONI by SALONI SINGH SINGH Date: 2023.04.21 17:31:13 +0530 institute for B.Ed., which is Exhibit PW-10/A. Interestingly, during his cross- examination on behalf of the accused persons, PW-10 has stated that he had not given the documents, Mark A, Exhibit PX, and Exhibit PW-10/A, to the police. Further, PW-10 has denied that any of accused persons had issued the receipt, Exhibit PX. He has also denied having any personal knowledge of the owner of the coaching institute or who was running the same. PW-10 has also stated that the receipt Exhibit PX has been issued from Maharishi Dayanand University. There are again no specific allegations of cheating made by PW-10 against the accused persons. The testimony of PW-10 is also of no assistance to the prosecution.
14.From the above, it is stated that the prosecution has not been able to bring on record any concrete evidence to prove either the offence of cheating against the accused persons or any criminal conspiracy of the accused persons to cheat the said public witnesses. Further, none of the said public witnesses have made any allegation of being provided any false educational documents. The said public witnesses have also not brought on record any educational documents that had been provided by the accused persons, which were found to be false/forged. Further, there is no iota of evidence to show that the accused persons had 'forged' or created false educational documents and with intent to use them for purpose of cheating. It is not known who or how the alleged forged documents had been created/prepared. No such instruments have been shown to have been seized or recovered from the accused persons, which could be stated to have been used by the accused persons to create/make the allegedly false educational documents. An impression of seals is stated to have recovered from the house of the accused Tejvir, however, neither the impressions have been verified from the concerned college/university/department nor sent to FSL for comparison CR no. 1996/2016 Digitally signed 12 by SALONI SALONI SINGH SINGH Date:
2023.04.21 17:31:24 +0530 with the original seals (if any). Therefore, the offences under Sections 420/468/466/471 of IPC have not been proved against the accused persons.
15.One of the main contentions raised on behalf of the accused Mukesh is that the educational documents that were got verified from the concerned department/college/university have not been shown to be linked to the accused persons. To ascertain the same, it is imperative to consider the testimonies of the official witnesses. PW-6 has placed on record the report prepared by her of verification of the marksheet and certificate of roll no. 6303888 in the name of Vijay Mehra and roll no. 6303874 in the name of Kumari Shivani Mehra, which are Exhibit PW-6/A and Exhibit PW-6/B. She was partly cross-examined on behalf of the accused; however, her remaining cross-examination could not be completed as she expired. PW-15 has appeared and, in his evidence, placed on record the certified copy of the marksheets and certificates issued by Central Board of Secondary Education of same roll numbers 6303888 and 6303874, which are in the name of Smt. Asha Rani and Smt. Neelam, which are Exhibit PW-15/A and Exhibit PW- 15/C. It is important to mention here that some of the marksheets/certificates, which are part of Exhibit PW-6/A and of Exhibit PW-6/B, seem to be part of the seized documents detailed in the seizure memo, Exhibit PW-12/A, however, they have not been identified by the I.O. or the complainant Bidhi Chand or shown by the prosecution to have been handed over by the complainant to the I.O. Therefore, the testimony of PW- 15 is of no relevance to the prosecution.
16.PW-8 has placed on record the degree and marksheet of candidate Lokender Kumar, second year of year 1995 bearing roll number 279 with registration number 94228, which is Exhibit PW-8/A and degree of Lokender Kumar of Digitally signed CR no. 1996/2016 by SALONI 13 SALONI SINGH SINGH Date:
2023.04.21 17:31:35 +0530 third year bearing roll number 301, which is Exhibit PW-8/B. He is stated to have verified the record and found that no such degree or marksheet had been issued by the U.P. State University Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeth Varanasi, U.P. and his report in this regard is Exhibit PW-8/C. The I.O. has not identified these documents during his examination-in-chief as seized by him during the investigation from either of the accused persons. Even otherwise, there seems to be no such corresponding document in the seizure memos, Exhibit PW-7/C and Exhibit PW-12/F. The prosecution has failed to show that these same documents had been seized during the investigation from the possession of the accused persons.
17.Similarly, PW-13 has deposed that 109 degrees/marksheets had been received by Choudhary Charan Singh University, vide a notice under Section 91 of CrPC, and the documents detailed at serial no. 1 to 109 of his verification report had been verified by the Vigilance Officer and Assistant Registrar of the University and found that no such degrees/certificates had been issued by the said University. His verification report in this regard is Exhibit PW-13/A. It is necessary mention here that the details of the documents given at serial no. 1 to 109 of Exhibit PW-13/A, do seem to correspond with the documents mentioned in the seizure memo, Exhibit PW- 7/C, and these documents are even part of the chargesheet, however, they have not been brought on record or identified by the I.O. in his examination- in-chief. Even otherwise, it is yet to be seen whether these documents have been proved by the prosecution to be recovered from the possession of the accused Tejvir.
18.PW-14 from Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj University has identified the signatures of Registrar, Mr. V.K. Pandey, on the verification report dated Digitally signed CR no. 1996/2016 SALONI by SALONI SINGH 14 SINGH Date:
2023.04.21 17:31:46 +0530 28.09.2000, that had been sent to the police, which is Exhibit PW-14/B. The details of the documents given in Exhibit PW-14/B, also correspond with the documents mentioned (e.g., serial no. 18) in the seizure memo, Exhibit PW-
7/C, and these documents are even part of the chargesheet, however, they have not been brought on record or identified by the I.O. in his examination- in-chief. Even otherwise, it is yet to be seen whether these documents have been proved by the prosecution to be recovered from the possession of the accused Tejvir.
19.It is now only to be considered whether the accused persons were found in possession of educational documents (marksheets/degree/certificates), knowing them to be forged, and intending that the same are fraudulently or dishonestly used as genuine. The police witnesses to the alleged recovery and seizure of the forged documents from the possession of the accused persons are PW-12/Inspector Vijay Pal Singh/I.O., PW-9/HC Om Prakash and PW-14/HC Bijender.
20.PW-12 in his examination-in-chief has stated that he had received the complaint from the complainant Bidhi Chand on 11.06.2000 on which he conducted enquiry, and the FIR was registered. He has stated that he had examined the complainant, who had produced some educational documents/receipts/cheque stating that the educational documents were fake and were given to the complainant by the accused Mukesh. As per PW-12, he seized these documents and with the complainant and his staff went to the office of accused Mukesh at E- 25, Jawahar Park, Shakarpur, Delhi, where the accused Mukesh was found and identified by the complainant. After interrogation of the accused Mukesh, he was arrested, and his disclosure statement was recorded. The office of the accused Mukesh was searched CR no. 1996/2016 Digitally signed 15 SALONI by SALONI SINGH SINGH Date:
2023.04.21 17:31:57 +0530 during which two telephone bills of MTNL, some fake certificates and one diary was recovered and seized. PW-12 also seized the personal car of the accused Mukesh. Thereafter, PW-12 went to the house of the accused Mukesh on 22.06.2000 and a search was conducted after which he returned to the P.S. with the accused Mukesh and deposited the recovered documents in the P.S. malkhana. PW-12 then produced the accused before the court and obtained the police custody of the accused Mukesh and pursuant to the disclosure statement of the accused Mukesh, he, with accused Mukesh and his staff went to the house of the accused Tejvir at Rohtak. The accused Tejvir was identified by the accused Mukesh and the accused Tejvir was interrogated and arrested. PW-12 has stated that the house of the accused Tejvir was searched and many fake educational documents and one writing pad was recovered and seized. PW-12 has further stated that he had recorded the disclosure statement of the accused Tejvir and subsequently, the accused Tejvir was produced before the court and the police custody of the accused Tejvir was obtained. Further, as per PW-12, pursuant to the disclosure statement of the accused Tejvir, a raid was conducted at Ratia, Chakri Dadri and Chhaproli in Haryana, however, nothing was recovered. As per PW-12, PW Dinesh and PW Mahendra Singh had handed over documents to him. PW-12 is stated to have also recovered print/seals from the possession of the accused Tejvir. PW-12 sent the fake marksheets to the respective universities/educational institutions for verification.
21.PW-14 joined investigation on 22.06.2000 with I.O. and on that day at around 3:40 PM, while they were at Madhuban Chowk, Vikas Marg, I.O. prepared tehrir on the complaint made by the complainant and the tehrir was handed over to PW-14, who took it to the P.S. for registration of FIR. PW-14 returned near the coffee home at Vikas Marg and handed over the tehrir and CR no. 1996/2016 Digitally signed by SALONI 16 SALONI SINGH SINGH Date:
2023.04.21 17:32:12 +0530 copy of FIR to the I.O. and the complainant was also present there. They then visited E- 25, Jawahar Park, Shakarpur, Delhi, where the complainant identified the accused Mukesh and stated that the accused Mukesh had given him fake marksheet and certificate in lieu of payment of Rs. 1,10,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Ten Thousand Only). PW-14 has stated that the accused Mukesh was arrested and during his personal search Rs. 6130/- (Rupees Six Thousand One Hundred and Thirty Only) in cash, one wristwatch, one chain, two gold rings were found, and disclosure statement of the accused was recorded. Further, as per PW-14, one telephone bill, and telephone diaries were seized from the said address. PW-14 has also stated that the accused had handed over two marksheets and certificates, which were also seized, and the car of the accused was seized. PW-14 has stated that the complainant had left spot and the police had taken the accused Mukesh to his residence in Ghaziabad, however nothing was found after which they returned to the spot and the seized articles were deposited at the P.S. malkhana. PW-14 has stated that on 25.06.2000, he had joined investigation with I.O. and the accused Tejvir had made a disclosure statement stating that some documents, related to the marksheets that were recovered from him, could be recovered from Ratia and Chhaproli and I.O. had recorded the statement of PW-14. Further, as per PW-14, on 28.06.2000 he had joined investigation again with I.O. and the accused Mukesh had made a disclosure statement with respect to one Manoj residing in Ghaziabad and after which I.O. had recorded the statement of PW-14.
22.PW-9 had only joined investigation on 24.06.2000 and he with PW-12, PW- 14 HC Bijender, Ct. Karanbir, Ct. Sudey Singh and the accused Mukesh went to P.S. Civil Lines at Rohtak of which the arrival entry was made, and ASI Suresh had joined them. They had reached house no. 862/28, Bharat CR no. 1996/2016 Digitally signed 17 SALONI by SALONI SINGH SINGH Date: 2023.04.21 17:32:22 +0530 Colony, Rohtak at the instance of the accused Mukesh, where one public person Jagey Ram joined the raiding party, and the accused Mukesh identified the co-accused Tejvir. PW-9 has stated that the accused Tejvir was arrested after his interrogation and his disclosure statement was recorded and house of the accused Tejvir was searched during which several fake marksheets/migration certificates issued by CCSU and other universities and one writing pad was recovered at the instance of the accused Tejvir. Thereafter, PW-9 with the raiding party went to Chakri Dadri, pursuant to the disclosure statement of the accused Mukesh, but no nothing was recovered, and the raiding party returned to Delhi via Sonipat.
23.The I.O. allegedly recovered fake certificates/educational documents from two places, one from the office of accused Mukesh at E- 25, Jawahar Park, Shakarpur, Delhi and the second from the house of the accused Tejvir at 862/28, Bharat Colony, Rohtak, Haryana. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant Bidhi Chand had given the complaint, Mark Y, based on which the present FIR had been registered and the complainant had taken the police to the said office of the accused Mukesh Paliwal. As per the prosecution, PW-12, and PW-14 with the complainant Bidhi Chand visited the said office of the accused Mukesh. PW-12 in his cross-examination has stated that on 22.06.2000, Bidhi Chand had visited the office of PW-12 and from there they had left for the office of the accused Mukesh. Interestingly, in his examination-in-chief, PW-12 is silent on the names of his staff that had also accompanied him to the office of the accused. Further, PW-12 in his cross-examination has stated that he had sent the tehrir from the office of the accused Mukesh. PW-14 in his examination-in-chief has stated to the contrary that he with PW-12 were at Madhuban Chowk, where PW-12 had prepared the tehrir on the basis of the complaint of the complainant and have Digitally signed by SALONI CR no. 1996/2016 SALONI SINGH 18 SINGH Date:
2023.04.21 17:32:39 +0530 given it to him to take for registration of FIR and that PW-14 after the registration of the FIR had reached the coffee home at Vikas Marg from where he, the complainant and the I.O. had gone to the office of the accused Mukesh. In his cross-examination PW-14 has stated that PW-12 had told him to reach the coffee home after the registration of FIR. Next, as per PW-12, the complainant had produced some documents, which PW-12 had seized vide seizure memo Exhibit PW-12/A and after which he with his staff and the complainant had visited the office of the accused Mukesh. To the contrary, PW-14 in his cross-examination has stated that the complainant had handed over documents in his presence to the PW-12 before entering the office of the accused. The place where the educational documents are stated to have been handed over by the complainant were given to I.O. is not clear. It is possible that I.O. already had some educational documents with him at the time of conducting the search in the office of the accused. Both PW-12 and PW-14 have stated that the office of the accused was a commercial space/building with several storeys. PW-12 has stated in his cross- examination that he had orally requested the public persons to join investigation while PW-14 was unable to recollect whether I.O. had made any request to the public persons to join the investigation. No satisfactory explanation has been given why no public person from the said locality had been made a witness to the search of the office of the accused Mukesh. Even the complainant it seems was not present in the office of the accused Mukesh at the time of the alleged recovery of documents from there. PW-12 in his cross-examination has stated that only the accused was in the office at the time of the alleged search of office of the accused, however, the seizure memo of the documents, Exhibit PW-12/F bears the signatures of the complainant. PW-14 does not seem to be certain if at all any public person or staff member was present at that time in the office of the accused. PW-14 has CR no. 1996/2016 Digitally signed 19 by SALONI SALONI SINGH SINGH Date:
2023.04.21 17:32:50 +0530 stated that the PW-12 was already carrying the documents, that had been given to him by the complainant, when he had entered the office of the accused. PW-14 was unable to identify the documents from the court file that had allegedly been recovered and seized from the office of the accused. Both PW-12 and PW-14 have stated in their examination-in-chief that a diary had also been recovered and seized from the house of the accused Mukesh, however, both had confirmed that the diary was not part of the chargesheet/court record. In such circumstances, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the documents (already with the I.O.) may have been planted at the office of accused Mukesh or that no recovery may have been made from there by the I.O. The several inconsistencies in the testimonies of PW- 12 and PW-14 with respect to the alleged search of the office of the accused Mukesh and absence of any public witness at that time gives rise to a suspicion on the alleged recovery made from there.
24.After the alleged search of the office of the accused, PW-14 has stated in his cross-examination that they had taken a private vehicle and directly gone to the house of the accused Mukesh in Ghaziabad. PW-14 has stated that the case property had been deposited at the P.S. Preet Vihar at around 10pm. PW-14 was unable to disclose who had taken the seized car of the accused to the P.S. or in whose custody the seized car of the accused had been given at Jawahar Park. To the contrary, PW-12 in his cross-examination has stated that from the office of the accused Mukesh, they had returned to the P.S. and deposited the seized documents and the seized car and then immediately they left from the P.S. to Ghaziabad in a government vehicle. There is inconsistency in the statements of PW-12 and PW-14 of how and when they had proceeded to the house of the accused Mukesh and when the allegedly recovered documents from the office of the accused Mukesh deposited at the CR no. 1996/2016 Digitally signed 20 by SALONI SALONI SINGH SINGH Date:
2023.04.21 17:33:10 +0530 P.S. malkhana. The prosecution has not placed on record details of any DD entries made in concerned registers either of the local P.S. or the concerned P.S. at Ghaziabad about the search to be made in the house of the accused in Ghaziabad. PW-12 has stated that a constable from U.P. Police had accompanied them to the house of the accused Mukesh, however, he was unable to disclose the name of that police official. PW-14 was also unable to disclose the names of the police staff that had accompanied them to Ghaziabad. He could not recollect if at all any police official from U.P. police had joined them. As per PW-14, the complainant had not accompanied them to the house of the accused Mukesh in Ghaziabad. PW-12 has admitted that no family member of accused or his neighbour or any public person had been made a witness to the search of the house of the accused Mukesh. There seem to be several discrepancies in the testimonies of PW-12 and PW-14, which create a serious doubt on whether a proper search or any search at all had been made by the police at the office or house of the accused Mukesh. This further makes it doubtful whether any recovery had been made from the office of the accused Mukesh. The prosecution has failed to prove recovery of any fake documents/documents from the office of the accused Mukesh or from possession of the accused Mukesh.
25.For the raid at the house of the accused Tejvir, it seems that several police staff had visited the house of the accused Tejvir. Again, the prosecution has not placed on record any DD entries of the concerned P.S. of the visit of PW- 12 with his team and accused Mukesh to the house of the accused Tejvir. The names and number of the police officials, who had accompanied the I.O. to Rohtak has not been detailed by the I.O. in his examination-in-chief. PW-9 has stated that Ct. Karanbir, Ct. Sudey Singh, and ASI Suresh had also accompanied them, however, the testimony of PW-12 and PW-14 is silent in CR no. 1996/2016 Digitally signed 21 by SALONI SALONI SINGH SINGH Date:
2023.04.21 17:33:23 +0530 this regard. In fact, PW-14 has not even disclosed that he had joined the investigation on 24.06.2000, the day the house of the accused Tejvir had been visited, searched, and alleged recovery was affected. It is important to note here that the witnesses on the seizure memo, Exhibit PW-7/C, are one constable of P.S. CL Rohtak, Sh. Jage Ram, HC Om Prakash and IO. No such police official from CL Rohtak has been examined by the prosecution. Other than the police officials, the only public witness to the alleged seizure of the documents from the house of the accused Tejvir is PW-7. In his examination-in-chief, he has merely stated that in the year 2000 the accused Tejvir Singh was his neighbour in Rohtak in Haryana. PW-7 was cross- examined by the Learned APP and during his cross-examination, PW-7 has stated that at the time of the incident, the police had visited the house of the accused Tejvir Singh and PW-7 had been called by the police or a family member of the accused Tejvir Singh to the house of accused Tejvir Singh. PW-7 has stated that the police informed him that a complaint had been registered against the accused Tejvir Singh and the police had taken the accused for investigation and then the police had made PW-7 sign some papers. PW-7 has stated that he took permission of accused Tejvir Singh to sign the papers and after which PW-7 had signed on Exhibit PW-7/A, Exhibit PW-7/B, and Exhibit PW-7/C, however, PW-7 had not read the contents of the said documents. PW-7 has further stated that no documents had been seized from the house of accused Tejvir Singh in presence of PW-7. PW-7 has denied that the accused Mukesh had at the same time come to the house of accused Tejvir Singh with the police. PW-7 was cross-examined by the Learned APP and during his cross-examination, the contents of statement Mark A from points A to A were read over to PW-7, which PW-7 denied as having made to the police. In his cross-examination on behalf of the accused persons PW-7 has stated that he was at the spot for only one to two minutes CR no. 1996/2016 Digitally signed by SALONI 22 SALONI SINGH SINGH Date:
2023.04.21 17:33:35 +0530 and the contents of the documents on which police had obtained his signatures had not been read over to him. He has also re-affirmed that the police had not personally searched accused Tejvir Singh or the house of accused Tejvir Singh in his presence and that no documents had been seized from the possession of the accused or from his house in the presence of PW-
7. The I.O./PW-12 in his cross-examination was unable to identify the documents that had been allegedly seized from the house of the accused and has confirmed that the writing pad allegedly recovered from the house of the accused Tejbir was not part of the chargesheet/court record. In such circumstances, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the documents may have been planted at the house of accused Tejvir or that no recovery may have been made from there by the I.O. The prosecution has failed to prove recovery of any fake documents/documents from the house of the accused Tejvir or from possession of the accused Tejbir.
26.Finding: - From the above analysis, the Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden on them to prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, both the accused Tejvir and Mukesh stand acquitted of the offences under Sections 120B/420/468/466/471/474 of IPC.
Pronounced in Open Court Today on Twentieth day of April of the year Digitally signed Two Thousand and Twenty-Three. SALONI by SALONI SINGH SINGH Date: 2023.04.21 17:33:47 +0530 (SALONI SINGH), ACMM/East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
CR no. 1996/2016 23