Delhi District Court
Jai Prakash vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 15 September, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. JAGDISH KUMAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02 (WEST) , DELHI.
Criminal Rev. No. 125/17
Jai Prakash
S/o Late Sh. Sita Ram
R/o WZ-525, Nangal Raya
New Delhi - 110046 ......... Revisionist
Versus
1. State of NCT of Delhi
through its Chief Secretary
Delhi Sachivalaya Delhi
2. D. K. Shastri
Principal/ HOS
GSBV D Block
Janak Puri
New Delhi-110058
3. SHO
PS Maya Puri
New Delhi ............Respondent
Date of Institution : 25.03.2017
Date of Assignment to this court : 27.03.2017
Date of Arguments : 15.09.2017
Date of Judgment/orders : 15.09.2017
JUDGMENT :
1. The present revision has been preferred U/S 397/399 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 17.02.2017 (hereinafter called the 'impugned order) as passed by Ld. MM/THC/Delhi, (hereinafter called the Ld. Trial Court). Vide impugned order the Ld. Trial Court has discharged the accused D.K. Shastri for the offence U/s 467 IPC.
Cr. Rev. No. 125/17 Jai Prakash Vs. State & Anr. Page 1 of 62. It is submitted that revisionist was working as PGT (Physics) in GSBV where Sh. D. K. Shastri was Principal and was the revisionist was scheduled to be retired on 31.08.2011. It is asserted by the revisionist that as per Government policy the revisionist was entitled to get re-employment for two years subject to medical fitness and work conduct report. The decision for re-employment was to be taken one month in advance from the retirement. The revisionist stated that he had applied for re-employment on 05.07.2011 but the respondent no. 2 had sent his request to the appropriate authority on 30.07.2011 and the dispatch number to his letter is given 404 dated 29.07.2011. It is alleged that the forgery has been committed by respondent no. 2 because the letter was signed on 30.07.2011 which is not possible as the letter was dispatched on 29.07.2011. Ld. Trial Court has wrongly discharged the respondent no. 2.
3. Before proceeding further I would like to mention here that a complaint has been filed by the revisionist U/s 200 Cr.PC against Smt. Indra Rani Singh and Sh. D. K. Shastri. The Ld. Trial Court after adducing pre summoning evidence has summoned them for the alleged offence U/s 500/467/34 IPC. The summoned persons namely Smt. Indra Rani Singh and Sh. D. K. Shastri have preferred a revision petition before Ld. Sessions Court against summoning order. The Ld. Sessions Court, vide its order dated 13.03.2014, has set aside the summoning order qua offence U/s 500 IPC against respondent Cr. Rev. No. 125/17 Jai Prakash Vs. State & Anr. Page 2 of 6 no. 2 and Smt. Indra Rani Singh and summoning order was also set aside against Smt. Indra Rani Singh for the offence U/s 467 IPC.
4. However, Ld. Sessions Court vide its order dated 13.03.2014 has ordered that material is sufficient to proceed further against respondent no. 2 U/s 467 IPC. Subsequently, The Ld. Trial Court has proceeded further and examined pre charge witnesses and after pre-charge evidence the respondent no. 2 has also been discharged for the alleged offence U/s 467 IPC.
5. One thing is also pertinent to be mentioned here that there is no impugned order against respondent no. 3, SHO PS Maya Puri being passed by the Ld. Trial Court hence no question arises for revising of impugned order against respondent no. 3 SHO PS Maya Puri. And respondent no. 1 is proforma party being State.
6. Considering the argument of the revisionist who himself has argued in person that Ld. Trial Court has wrongly discharged the respondent no. 2. It is submitted that respondent no. 2 has committed forgery as his application for the re-employment was forwarded to higher officers vide dispatch no. 404 dated 29.07.2011 but it was having signatures on 30.07.2011. It shows that file was prepared on 29.07.2011 and signature on cannot be put on 30.07.2011. It is submitted that all this has been done by respondent no. 2 Cr. Rev. No. 125/17 Jai Prakash Vs. State & Anr. Page 3 of 6 as he has not given bribe to the respondent no. 2. It is argued that the respondent no. 2 has forged the document.
7. On the other hand, it is submitted by the respondent no. 2 that Ld. Trial Court has passed correct order and no forgery has been committed by the respondent no. 2.
8. Before further adverting to the facts of the case I would like to mention here the basic ingredients to constitute the offence U/s 467 IPC which are that accused has committed forgery and he had committed said forgery by preparation of a forged document or an electronic record in the manner provided in sections 463 and 464 IPC.
9. Section 463 IPC prescribes that accused must have made false documents with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any class of public or to any community and it is made with an intent to defraud.
10. Section 464 IPC says that a person is said to make a false document or electronic record who dishonestly or fraudulently makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document, who makes or transmit any electronic record or part of any electronic record. Affixes any digital signatures on any electronic record, makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the electronic signature.
Cr. Rev. No. 125/17 Jai Prakash Vs. State & Anr. Page 4 of 611. Considering the record it reveals from the evidence as adduced on record that a suggestion has been given to the revisionist / CW1 that date 29.07.2011 instead of 30.07.2011 mentioned inadvertently on the memo on 404/29.07.2011 which also includes memo no. 406 dated 29.07.2011. The suggestion in itself shows that probability cannot be ruled out that the date 29.07.2011 could have been mentioned due to typographical mistake or inadvertently. Particularly where the revisionist himself has admitted in his cross examination (pre- charge evidence) that on the file sent by respondent no. 2 Sh. D. K. Shastri on 30.07.2011 the concerned authorities have taken the appropriate action.
12. Even otherwise, suppose the letter could have been sent on 29.07.2011 or prior to that then it was sure that the appropriate authority i.e. Directorate of Education, NCT Delhi, could have re-employed the revisionist. It is not so because revisionist himself has admitted that the Directorate of Health has taken appropriate action on the application being sent for re-employment. It is pertinent to mention here that revisionist has availed the legal remedies against the decline of re- employment before Central Administrative Tribunal as well as before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and even before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India where he has not succeeded.
13. Here in the present case the revisionist has been unable to brought on record any document/ evidence which has been forged by the respondent no. 2 being a valuable Cr. Rev. No. 125/17 Jai Prakash Vs. State & Anr. Page 5 of 6 security. At the stage of charge the court has to consider if after considering the prosecution case in totality being admitted as correct even then it does not result into the conviction of the accused then accused must be discharged.
14. Here in the present case, if the case of the revisionist is admitted to be correct even then it does not fulfill the ingredients of Section 467 IPC. I am of the view that Ld. Trial Court has rightly discharged the respondent no. 2.
15. I find no illegality or infirmity or lack of judicial proprietary in the impugned order as passed by Ld. Trial Court. The present revision is without any merits and same is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly dismissed.
16. Let a copy of this order be sent to Ld. Trial Court/Successor Court. Trial Court record be sent back.
17. Revision file be consigned to record room after due completion.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 15.09.2017 (JAGDISH KUMAR ) ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02 (WEST):DELHI Cr. Rev. No. 125/17 Jai Prakash Vs. State & Anr. Page 6 of 6