Delhi District Court
Exports vs Unknown on 15 November, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. ASHU GARG
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
New Case No. 294799/2016
CNR no. DLCT02-002321-2013
RC: 2(E)/1996
PS: CBI/EOU-I/DLI
U/s 419/420/511/468/471 IPC
CBI v. Iftikar Mansuri
(a) S. No. of the case : 86/2
(b) Name of complainant : Sh. A. K. M. Chakankar,
Deputy DGFT,
New Delhi.
(c) Date of commission of offence : During the year 1996
(d) Name of the accused person : Mohd. Iftikhar Mansuri
S/o Mohd. Ishar,
21, Abul Fazal Enclave,
Kalindi Kunj,
Garden Road,
New Delhi.
(e) Offence charged : U/s. 420 r/w Sec. 511,
467/468/471 IPC.
(f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
(g) Final arguments heard on : 30.08.2018
(h) Final Order : Convicted
(i) Date of such order : 15.11.2018
RC No. 2(E) /1996 CBI v. Iftikhar Mansuri Page No. 1 of 32
JUDGEMENT:
1. Accused Mohd. Iftekhar Mansuri has been facing trial for commission of offences punishable under section 420/511 IPC as well as sections 467/468/471 IPC, with the allegations that during the year 1996, he attempted to cheat the Office of Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), New Delhi, by inducing it to issue advance import licences in the names of two business concerns, that is, M/s. Dewan Trading Corporation and M/s. Echolac Engineering, of which he claimed himself to their proprietor. It is alleged that for this purpose, accused forged certain documents like TR6 Challans, Certificate of Chartered Accountant, Financial Report of Bank etc. and used them as genuine, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged document, and thus attempted to cheat the Office of DGFT by submitting such documents with his applications in the names of aforesaid two business concerns.
2. The present Regular Case (RC) no. RC-2(E)/96/EOW.I/DLI was registered on 24.07.1996 on the basis of a complaint made by Sh. A.K.M. Chakankar, Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade, New Delhi. The said complaint dated 02.05.1996 was made against one business concern M/s. Kwality Exports and its proprietor Mohd. Iftikhar (who happens to be the accused herein), alleging attempt to obtain high value advance license on the basis of forged/fake documents. As per the said complaint, an application dated 01.06.1995 was received by the Office of DGFT, from M/s. Kwality RC No. 2(E) /1996 CBI v. Iftikhar Mansuri Page No. 2 of 32 Exports, for grant of high value advance license for CIF value of Rs. 3,31,85,185/- to import mulberry raw silk. Along with the application, the applicant filed certain documents like copy of export order placed by one M/s. Barakat Oriental Rugs Inc., copy of IE Code (Import Export Code), copy of RCMC (Registration cum Membership Certificate) issued by Export Promotion Council for Handicrafts, Treasury Challan No. 281 of Central Bank of India, copy of Chartered Accountant Certificate issued by M/s. Singhal & Co., and copy of earlier advance license issued by JDG, CLA for value of Rs. 49,61,500/-. When the said application of M/s. Kwality Exports was processed, responses were sought from the office of JDG, CLA, from Export Promotion Council for Handicrafts and from the Central Bank of India. It transpired that no previous license had been issued by the JDG, CLA, no RCMC had been issued by Export Promotion Council for Handicrafts and no Challan had been received by the Central Bank of India in favour of M/s. Kwality Exports. Thus, the documents furnished with the application were found to be forged/fake. When the applicant M/s. Kwality Exports was asked to furnish original documents, it chose to withdraw its application for grant of advance license, by sending a letter dated 21.08.1995 to this effect. The Office of DGFT also sought to conduct an inspection at the given address, but the premises was found locked. Thus, the matter was reported to the CBI, upon which the present RC was registered under Section 511 read with section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC against M/s. Kwality Exports and its proprietor Mohd. Iftikhar.
RC No. 2(E) /1996 CBI v. Iftikhar Mansuri Page No. 3 of 32
3. It may be noted that the present case does not pertain to the said complaint against M/s. Kwality Exports or its proprietor. That happened to be the subject matter of another charge-sheet, with which this Court has no concern in this judgment. The present charge-sheet (stated to be charge-sheet no. 2 in the same RC) has been filed against the accused Mohd. Iftikhar in the capacity of proprietor of two business concerns M/s. Dewan Trading Corporation and M/s. Echolac Engineering.
4. During the investigation of the RC against M/s. Kwality Exports and its proprietor Mohd. Iftikhar, it was found by the investigating agencies that the same person had filed two more applications with the Office of DGFT, in the names of two business concerns, M/s. Dewan Trading Corporation and M/s. Echolac Engineering, showing himself as their proprietor, for obtaining advance licenses, and also filing supporting documents with the applications.
5. One application dated 24.10.1994 in the name of M/s. Dewan Trading Corporation was filed, signed by accused Mohd. Iftikhar as proprietor, and along with the application, accused submitted:
(i) Self attested copy of export order dated 05.10.1994 issued by M/s. Barakat Oriental Rugs Inc.
(ii) Copy of Import Export Code No. 0591042614 obtained from Jt.
DGFT. CLA on the basis of an export order dated 25.02.1992 placed by Al-Munna Book Shop, Sharjah, UAE
(iii) Copy of RCMC issued by Chemicals & Allied Products Export RC No. 2(E) /1996 CBI v. Iftikhar Mansuri Page No. 4 of 32 Promotion Council, obtained by submitting order of Al-Munna Book Shop dated 22.04.1993
(iv) TR6 Challan no. 5519 dated 21.10.1994 for Rs. 12,800/- issued by the Central Bank of India.
(v) TR6 Challan no. 21738 dated 05.03.1992 for Rs. 500/ issued by Central Bank of India.
(vi) Attested copy of Chartered Accountant Certificate issued by M/s. Osmani & Company, Chartered Accountants.
6. The second application dated 03.01.1996 in the name of M/s. Echolac Engineering was filed, signed by accused Mohd. Iftikhar as its proprietor, and along with the application, accused submitted:-
(i) Self attested copy of Export Order dated 11.12.1995 of M/s. Trendy Trade Inc., New York
(ii) Financial report dated 13.12.1994 issued by Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd, Delhi.
7. The CBI, during investigation, found that the TR6 Challans and CA Certificate filed by accused with his application in the name of M/s. Dewan Trading Corporation, were false/fake/forged. Similarly, the Financial Report filed by accused with his application in the name of M/s. Echolac Engineering was found to be fake/false/forged. The CBI also sought information through Interpol about the genuineness of the purchase orders purportedly issued by foreign business concerns, and it was found that even those purchase orders were false. The accused however remained untraceable and could not be apprehended.
RC No. 2(E) /1996 CBI v. Iftikhar Mansuri Page No. 5 of 32 The CBI collected admitted signatures and handwriting of accused Mohd. Iftikhar from his bank Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd, and obtained expert opinion. The opinion of GEQD (Government Examiner Questioned Documents), on the basis of comparison of questioned signatures and handwriting with admitted signatures and handwritings, established that signatures on most of the questioned documents belonged to the accused, though no definite opinion could be given as to the handwriting thereupon. The accused could not be arrested and was later declared Proclaimed Offender. Thus, the present chargesheet was filed on 27.12.1997, showing the accused as a Proclaimed Offender.
8. The Court took cognizance of the offences under section 511/420/467/468/471 IPC and proceeded to record evidence under section 299 CrPC. Eleven PWs were examined by the Court under section 299 CrPC and the file was consigned to record room vide order dated 10.12.1998, with liberty to revive the matter upon arrest of the accused.
9. It was in the year 2013 that the accused was arrested in one case and was thus taken into custody in this case as well. After compliance of section 207 CrPC, charge was framed against the accused, vide order dated 13.09.2013, for commission of offences under section 467/468/471 IPC and under section 511/420 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
RC No. 2(E) /1996 CBI v. Iftikhar Mansuri Page No. 6 of 32
10. At the trial, the court recalled the witnesses already examined under section 299 CrPC for their examination afresh. However, presence of few of them only could be secured and many of them remained untraceable. Few more witnesses were examined in addition to the witnesses already examined under section 299 CrPC earlier. In all, 16 PWs have been examined by the prosecution in support of its case.
11. At this stage, it may be noted that as per section 299 CrPC, if it is proved that an accused person has absconded, and there is no immediate prospect of arresting him, the Court competent to try, or commit for trial, such person for the offence complained of may, in in his absence, examine the witnesses (if any) produced on behalf of prosecution, and record their depositions and any such deposition may, on the arrest of such person, be given in evidence against him on the inquiry into, or trial for, the offence with which he is charged, if the deponent is dead, or incapable of giving evidence or cannot be found or his presence cannot be procured without an amount of delay, expense of inconvenience which, under the circumstances of the case, would be unreasonable. So, even if the CBI could not secure the presence of several witnesses who were examined earlier under section 299 CrPC, for their examination consequent to arrest of accused later, that would not make any difference to the prosecution case. It is not that the prosecution has chosen not to summon or examine the witnesses or that it deliberately dropped the name of any particular witness. Record shows that summons had been issued to all RC No. 2(E) /1996 CBI v. Iftikhar Mansuri Page No. 7 of 32 such witnesses, but the presence of several such witnesses could not be secured. Finally, considering the age of the case, PE was closed by the court. Thus, when the presence of PWs could not be secured without an amount of delay, expense of inconvenience which, under the circumstances of this case, would be unreasonable, their testimony recorded under section 299 CrPC can be read in evidence.
12. It may further be noted that except a couple of witnesses, the testimony of most of the witnesses has remained unchallenged, unrebutted and undisputed, as they were never cross-examined by the accused. Again, it is not a case where the accused was not having any legal assistance or had dearth of financial resources to engage a counsel. Accused was financially sound and had been represented by is counsel on many dates of hearing. However, ld. Counsel in his wisdom chose not to appear or to cross-examine the witnesses whenever they were examined in court. Subsequently, when the ld. Counsel engaged by the accused chose not to appear, the Court provided him a Legal Aid Counsel at State expenses, without even going into the issue if he is otherwise entitled to such legal aid as per the provisions of Legal Services Authority Act. But despite that, the Ld. Defence Counsel chose not to recall any witness for cross- examination. Ld. LAC in his wisdom has contented that the material on record does not require any further cross-examination of any PW. Thus, it is not a case where any PW could not be cross-examined on behalf of the accused for want of legal assistance on account of financial incapacity. The evidence of all such witnesses can thus be RC No. 2(E) /1996 CBI v. Iftikhar Mansuri Page No. 8 of 32 safely read against the accused.
13. Thus, at the trial, prosecution examined 16 witnesses in support of its case (actually 17 witnesses, as two witnesses have been numbered as PW-11. For the sake of convenience, they would be referred as PW-11 and PW-11A).
14. PW-10 Insp. S K Tiwari was the initial investigating officer (IO) of the case to whom the present RC/FIR Ex. PW-10/A was entrusted for investigation. During investigation, he recorded the statements of witnesses and seized documents. He conducted search after obtaining search warrants from the and prepared search lists Ex. PW-10/B and Ex. PW-10/C. He seized the record from the Bombay Mercantile Cooperative Bank vide seizure memo Ex. PW-3/E. He seized the files Ex. PW-8/C and Ex. PW-8/D from the Offices of DGFT vide memos Ex. PW-8/A and Ex, PW-8/B containing all records of the applications filed by the two business concerns. The file Ex. P9 from the Office of Export Promotion Council for Handicrafts was also seized by him. Accused could not be traced despite coercive measures and was declared proclaimed offender. He also sent documents to the government examiner for examining the signatures of accused Mohd. Iftikar on the questioned documents. He also sent Interpol references UAE and USA vide Ex. PW-10/F and Ex. PW-10/G and received replies Ex. PW-10/H and Ex. PW-10/I. Upon his transfer, further investigation was conducted by PW-11 Insp. Jyoti Kumar. He received expert opinion from GEQD, Shimla Ex. PW-11/E. After that, he filed RC No. 2(E) /1996 CBI v. Iftikhar Mansuri Page No. 9 of 32 chargesheet Ex. PW-11/F in the Court.
15. PW-8 Sh. K. P. Singh from the Office of DGFT deposed about seizure of the two files Ex. PW-8/C and Ex. PW-8/F vide seizure memos Ex. PW-8/A and Ex. PW-8/B, pertaining to M/s. Dewan Trading Corporation and M/s. Echolac Engineering, containing the applications and annexed documents. PW-1 Sh. A K Sakhuja from the office of Export Promotion Council for Handicrafts deposed about handing over the complete office records pertaining to the business concern in question to the CBI officials.
16. PW-2 Sh. Shifaul Islam Osmani had been working as Chartered Accountant under the name and style of Osmani & Company. He deposed that the certificate Ex. PW-2/A had not been signed by him and was a forged certificate. He claimed that the letter head was of his company, which had been stolen and misused by the accused Mohd. Iftikhar who used to visit his office. He also deposed about introducing the accused to Bombay Merchantile Co-operative Bank, Darya Ganj Branch while opening account No. 9393, in form Ex. PW- 2/B. He identified the accused through his photographs on record and also in the court post his arrest.
17. PW-3/PW-9 Sh. Amir Azam was an Accountant in Bombay Mercantile Cooperative Bank, Daryaganj where the accused had an account no. 9393 as the proprietor of M/s. Dewan Trading Corporation. He proved the account opening form Ex. PW-2/E RC No. 2(E) /1996 CBI v. Iftikhar Mansuri Page No. 10 of 32 through which accused Mohd. Iftikar opened current account No. 9393 with introduction of Sh. Osmani (PW-2 herein). He also proved the specimen signature card Ex. PW-3/A containing the specimen signatures of the accused. He also deposed about issuance of a bank certificate in favour of M/s. Dewan Trading Corporation and sending it to Chemicals & Allied Products Export Promotion Council, issued on the basis of request letter Ex. PW-3/C of the accused given to the bank. He proved the other documents as per bank records and seizure of the same by the IO. On seeing the financial report Ex. PW-9/A, he state that this financial report had not been issued by the said bank and the signatures appearing thereupon did not belong to any official of the bank. He stated that M/s. Echolac Engineering was not having any account in their bank at that time, that the financial report (Ex. PW- 9/A) had been typed on the photocopy of the letter head which was not the practice and thus, the said report was a forged one. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel wherein he denied that he was not able to identify the signatures of the concerned bank official.
18. PW-7 Sh. Raman Kapoor was from the Central Bank of India who deposed that TR6 Challans No. 5539 and 21738 Ex. PW-7/A and Ex. PW-7/B had not been issued by their bank and did not bear the stamp of the said branch. PW-11 (read PW-11A) Sh. Narinder Pal was another bank official from same branch who corroborated that the said TR-6 Challans were false and did not bear stamp of his bank or signatures of any bank official.
RC No. 2(E) /1996 CBI v. Iftikhar Mansuri Page No. 11 of 32
19. PW-14 Sh. Anand Prakash was Manager in Central Bank of India, Asaf Ali Road, who deposed that the TR6 challan Ex. PW-14/A did not bear his signatures, nor the stamp thereupon pertained to his branch.
20. PW-16 Sh. M C Joshi was the handwriting export with GEQD, Shimla who had examined the documents of this case as submitted by the CBI and gave opinion Ex. PW-11/E. He had received questioned writings/signatures marked Q1 to Q227 along with admitted signature/writings marked as A1 to A22. As per his opinion, the writings and signatures in the portions marked Q30, Q32 to Q46, Q48 to Q69, Q73 to Q77, Q79 to Q85, Q91 to Q113 tallied with those of the person writing/signing as A1 to A22.
21. Additionally, some more witnesses have been examined on record which are not very material and who just joined the investigation in some form or the other. PW-4 Mohd. Akram was brother of the accused who stated that application Ex. PW-4/A bore his photograph but it was not filed by him and did not bear his signature. PW-5 Mohd. Hanif deposed that he alongwith his brother Mohd. Arif had purchased a property from Smt. Rakaiyya Tabassum, wife of the accused. PW-12 Mohd. Arif was brother of PW-5 who also deposed about purchasing flat from Ms. Rukaiya Tabusam. PW-6 Mohd. Shoib Alam was working in STD Booth having telephone numbers 6820366 and 6844177 where accused Mohd. Iftikar used to come for making calls. PW-13 Sh. Tarik Ikramullah deposed that his RC No. 2(E) /1996 CBI v. Iftikhar Mansuri Page No. 12 of 32 brother Sh. Sharik Insarullah had put up STD booth on the ground floor of his house and after his brother left for Saudi Arabia, the booth was operated by Sh. Shoaib Alam (PW-6). PW-15 Sh. I P S Chauhan was from MTNL who deposed about series of phone numbers in that area.
22. Statement of the accused under section 313 CrPC was recorded on 04.08.2018, wherein he denied the allegations and pleaded innocence. He admitted that was the proprietor of Dewan Trading Corporation and had signed the applications on question. He however claimed that all the transactions on its behalf were genuine and that he had no concern with Echolac Engineers. He then claimed that the firm M/s. Echolac had also been floated by him but no effective business had been conducted in its name. He did not tell as to why the present case had been registered against him. He chose not to lead any evidence in his defence.
23. It is in these circumstances that the Ld. APP for CBI has contended that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, as all the witnesses have supported its case and there is no contradiction in their evidence. It is contended that the evidence of the witnesses shows that the documents filed with the applications to the DGFT were forged/fake and that the accused was the person signing the applications and attesting the supporting documents which were found to be forged.
RC No. 2(E) /1996 CBI v. Iftikhar Mansuri Page No. 13 of 32
24. On the other hand, Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for the accused has questioned the genuineness of the case and has submitted that the accused deserves to be acquitted. He prime ground has been that the prosecution has not been able to lead suitable evidence to connect the accused to the offence in question and to establish that the applications had been filed by the accused only. Ld. Counsel submits that the GEQD opinion, on the basis of which the offence has been attributed to the accused, is not conclusive and is rather inadmissible in evidence.
25. I have heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. APP for the CBI as well as the Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused, and have carefully perused the material available on record.
26. To understand the matter better, it would be convenient to begin with the testimonies of two investigating officers PW-10 and then PW- 11, who had investigating the present RC, during which they collected the complete files from the relevant offices. PW-10 Insp. S. K. Tiwari was entrusted with the investigation of the present RC/FIR Ex. PW- 10/A. He collected the relevant documents and after obtaining search warrants, prepared search lists Ex. PW-10/B and Ex. PW-10/C. He collected the entire record from the Bombay Mercantile Cooperative Bank, Daryaganj where the accused Mphd. Iftikhar Mansuri used to maintain his account no. 9393 in the name of his proprietorship concern M/s. Dewan trading Corporation, seized vide memo Ex. PW- 10/C. This fact has been duly corroborated by PW-3/PW-9 Amir RC No. 2(E) /1996 CBI v. Iftikhar Mansuri Page No. 14 of 32 Azam who was an Accountant with the Bombay Mercantile Cooperative Bank, Daryaganj. PW-10 then collected the entire file Ex. P-9 from the Office of Export Promotion Council for Handicrafts, as also corroborated by PW-1 Sh. A. K. Shakuja posted as Export Promotion Officer in the said office. The IO PW-10 then seized the two files Ex. PW-8/C and Ex. PW-8/D pertaining to M/s. Dewan Trading Corporation and M/s. Echolac Engineering, respectively, from the Office of the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) and seized them vide memos Ex. PW-8/A and Ex. PW-8/B respectively. This fact has been duly corroborated by the statement of PW-8 Sh. K. P. Singh, Assistant DGFT. The said witness duly proved all the documents available in the files of their office maintained in the ordinary course. There is no reason for the Court to disbelieve the version of these witnesses. It is nowhere the case of the accused that the investigation did not proceed in the narrated manner or that the files were not so seized or that some other files had been seized or that some documents had been manipulated by either the officers of the concerned departments or by the investigating agency. The original files and the documents therein are available on judicial record and the Court has no reasons to doubt them in the absence of any reason to do so.
27. These files would establish filing of applications in the names of two business concerns M/s. Dewan Trading Corporation and M/s. Echolac Engineering with the Office of the DGFT for issuance of advance import licenses. The files also show that the documents RC No. 2(E) /1996 CBI v. Iftikhar Mansuri Page No. 15 of 32 annexed by the applicants were duly attested by one M. Iftikar, claiming himself to be the Proprietor of these business concerns.
28. The purpose of filing the applications along with the documents duly attested, suitably establishes the purpose. Mere filing of application with the office of DGFT for the prescribed format giving all the necessary particulars and annexing all relevant documents would make it clear that the only purpose for filing these applications was to get advance import licences from the office of DGFT. It cannot be said that the applicants had filed the applications for no reason whatsoever or just for fun. Therefore, even if the witnesses on record never stated in so many words about the purposes of filing of the applications received in their offices, no benefit can given to the such applicants, in as much as, the purpose is apparent and clear beyond doubt. The applicants wanted to get high value advance import licences so as to exploit them in future. However, the matter came under the investigation of CBI and applicants could not gain anything. Therefore, the purpose of filing of such applications by M/s. Dewan Trading Corporation and M/s. Echolac Engineering was to cheat by dishonestly or fraudulently inducing the officials of DGFT to issue them licenses by believing the genuineness of the documents annexed by them with their applications, which they would not have done if they were made aware of the falsity of the annexed documents.
29. The falsity of the documents in question have been sufficiently established by PW-2 Shifaul Islam Osmani, PW-3/PW-9 Amir Azam, RC No. 2(E) /1996 CBI v. Iftikhar Mansuri Page No. 16 of 32 PW-7 Raman Kapoor, PW-11A Narinder Pal and PW-14 Anand Prakash. PW-2 proved the falsity of Chartered Accountant Certificate Ex. PW-2/A and stated that this document does not bear his signatures. He went on to depose that the letter head on which the said certificate had been issued, belonged to his company which had been misused by the accused who used to visit his office. Though the said allegations of theft cannot be said to be established in the absence of sufficient material because no such theft took place in the presence of PW-2, yet the falsity/forgery of CA Certificate Ex. PW-2/A has been duly established by the unrebutted and undisputed testimony of PW-2. He was never cross-examined on behalf of accused and his testimony has gone unchallenged. It is nowhere the case of the accused that PW-2 was deposing falsely or that document Ex. PW-2/A was genuine or that the same bore the signatures of PW-2. Rather it was for the first time that the accused in his statement recorded under section 313 CrPC, claimed that he had obtained the said certificate under signature of his CA. However, no such stand was taken by the accused during the trial or during the cross-examination of PW-2 in particular. Such a claim had been made by accused for the first time at the fag end of the case only in his statement under section 313 CrPC, which also has remained a bald averment in the absence of any evidence to establish this fact. Mere explanation given by the accused in his statement under section 313 CrPC, without any evidential support, cannot be said to be proof of any fact particularly when such a statement is made without oath and is never subjected to cross-examination. Such a defence of accused is thus liable to be rejected. It is therefore RC No. 2(E) /1996 CBI v. Iftikhar Mansuri Page No. 17 of 32 established that the Chartered Accountant Certificate Ex. PW-2/A is forged document, which had been used by the applicant M/s. Dewan Trading Corporation while filing the application before the office of DGFT.
30. Similarly, the forgery in the TR6 challans number 5539 and 21738 Ex. PW-7/A and Ex. PW-7/B stands duly established by the testimony of PW-7 Sh. Raman Kapoor, Branch Manager from Central Bank of India, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi. He categorically stated that these two TR6 challans had not been issued by their office. He also stated that the stamp thereupon was not of their office. He clarified that the actual challan number 5539 had been deposited by HHDCT on 21.10.1994 for Rs. 1,000/-, as against Rs. 12,800/- as per the document on record. His stand has been duly corroborated by PW- 11A Sh. Narender Pal who was also posted in the Central Bank of India, Udyog Bhawan Branch. He corroborated the fact that the challans Ex. PW-7/A and Ex. PW-7/B had not been issued by the bank and signatures thereupon did not belong to any employee of the bank. Again, the evidence of these witnesses has remained unrebutted and undisputed. When this part of evidence was put to accused in his statement recorded under section 313 CrPC, he only claimed that the transactions in the name of M/s. Dewan Trading Corporation were genuine but he had no concern with M/s. Echolac Engineering. Accused never claimed during trial that TR6 challans Ex. PW-7/A and Ex. PW-7/B were genuine. No record from the concerned bank had been summoned to establish the genuineness of these challans nor any RC No. 2(E) /1996 CBI v. Iftikhar Mansuri Page No. 18 of 32 witness had been called in defence to establish that they are not forged documents. Once the falsity of these documents has been established by PW-7 and PW-11A, the Court has nothing to disbelieve them in the absence of any material to ascertain anything to the contrary. The accused has not explained as to who had deposited these challans, when these challans had been deposited, which official of the bank had received the same or signed the same and if the stamp thereupon was genuine. In the absence of any such material and in view of unrebutted testimony of PW-7 and PW-11A, it stands established that the TR6 challans number 5539 and 21738 Ex. PW-7/A and Ex. PW- 7/B are forged documents.
31. Same is the position with respect to TR6 challan number 8378, Ex. PW-14/A purportedly issued by the Central Bank of India, Asaf Ali Road Branch. PW-14 (who was the Manager in the said bank during the relevant period) categorically stated that the said TR6 challan did not bear his signatures, nor the stamp thereupon pertained to his branch. He also stated that the receipt number thereupon also did not belong to his branch, as the receipt number never ran in figure of thousands. Again, the evidence of this witnesses has remained unrebutted because even he was never cross-examined by the accused. Therefore, even this document has been established to be a forged document. It is nowhere the case of the accused that Ex. PW-14/A is a genuine document or that the same bears the signatures of PW-14 or that of any other official of the bank or that the same bore the actual stamp of the branch or that PW-14 was deposing falsely.
RC No. 2(E) /1996 CBI v. Iftikhar Mansuri Page No. 19 of 32
32. To the same effect would be the evidence of PW-3/PW-9 Amir Azam, who was posted as Accountant in the Bombay Mercantile Cooperative Bank, Darya Ganj, from whose possession the concerned file had been seized by the IO. He deposed that the financial report Ex. PW-9/A as available on record, did not belong to his branch. This financial report Ex. PW-9/A, issued in the name of M/s. Echolac Engineers, had been filed with the office of Export Promotion Council for Handicrafts by M/s. Echolac Engineering while applying for RCMC, showing that the said firm was financially sound. However, PW-3/PW-9 categorically stated that the bank was not having any account of M/s. Echolac Engineering, that the said financial report had been typed on a photocopy of letter head which was never used by the bank to give such reports, that there was no request application received by the bank which was necessary for issuing such reports and that during the course of investigation, each and every bank employee had been asked about the signatures thereupon but none had owned or recognized the signatures thereupon. This witness was duly cross- examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel but he satisfactorily answered all the questions put to him and there is no reason to disbelieve his version. It is nowhere the case of the accused that M/s. Echolac Engineering had a bank account with the Bombay Mercantile Cooperative Bank or that said certificate had been issued by any particular bank official. Ld. Defence Counsel has tried to question the testimony of PW-3/PW-9 on the ground that the said Accountant was posted only in the foreign exchange department and could not have RC No. 2(E) /1996 CBI v. Iftikhar Mansuri Page No. 20 of 32 identified the signatures of many other Accountants working in bank (about 10 to 12 Accountants, as per version of PW-3/PW-9 himself). However, such suggetsion was vehemently denied by PW-3/PW-9 who stated that all the employees posted at the bank had been asked about the said signatures during the course of investigation and none of them had owned or recognized the same. He stated that he could identify the signatures of all persons with whom he had worked with but signatures on Ex. PW-9/A did not belong to any of the officials from bank.
33. Well, even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that PW- 3/PW-9 could not have identified the signatures of other bank officials posted at the relevant time (though even this fact cannot said to have been proved), the fact remains that the Bombay Mercantile Cooperative Bank was having only the account number 9393 in the name of M/s. Dewan Trading Company under the proprietorship of M. Iftikar and it did not have any account in the name of M/s. Echolac Engineering, on whose behalf the alleged financial report Ex. PW-9/A is claimed to have been issued by it. Without going into the question as to who had signed Ex. PW-9/A, the document itself is established to be a forged document as it could not have been issued by the bank in the absence of any account in the name of M/s. Echolac Engineering. It is nowhere the case of the accused that M/s. Echolac Engineering was having a bank account in the said bank. No account number or other details have been given by the accused to raise a defence to this effect. Therefore, the material on record has sufficiently established RC No. 2(E) /1996 CBI v. Iftikhar Mansuri Page No. 21 of 32 that even the financial report Ex. PW-9/A is a false/forged document.
34. PW-10 also proved the interpol references made to UAE and USA, Ex. PW-10/F and Ex. PW-10/G and receipt of the replies Ex. PW-10/H and Ex. PW-10/I. These interpol references would also make it clear that even the purchase orders filed by the applicants in support of the applications were also fake/forged.
35. Once these facts are established, it becomes clear that the filing of the said forged documents with the respective applications by M/s. Dewan Trading Cooperation and M/s. Echolac Engineering with the offices of GDFT and Export Promotion Council for Handicrafts, for the purpose of obtaining IE Code, RCMC or high value advance licences, was a criminal act. Merely by filing these documents on behalf of these two business concerns, duly attested by the applicant M. Iftikar, would establish the 'use' of these documents by him as genuine, knowingly or having reason to believe the same to be false/forged documents. Therefore, offence punishable under section 471 IPC read with section 420/511 IPC stand established from the material on record.
36. The question now would be as to how the accused can be said to be the person filing the said forged documents with the respective offices. In his statement under section 313 CrPC, the accused admitted that he was the proprietor of M/s. Dewan Trading Cooperation and accepted that he had filed the application on its RC No. 2(E) /1996 CBI v. Iftikhar Mansuri Page No. 22 of 32 behalf with the relevant offices. For that matter, he even went to admit his handwriting and signatures on the applications filed by him as proprietor of M/s. Dewan Trading Corporation. However, he claimed that he had not filed any application for M/s. Echolac Engineering.
37. In this regard, the only and most important evidence on record is that of PW-16 Sh. N. C. Joshi being the Deputy Director and Scientist, Government Examiner of Questioned Documents (GEQD) Laboratory, Shimla. He was an expert witness who had given opinion Ex. PW-11/E. He had compared the questioned writings/signatures marked Q-1 to Q227 with the admitted signatures/writings marked A1 to A22. According to his report, the signatures at points Q-30, Q-32 to 46, Q-48 to 69, Q-73 to 77, Q-79 to 85 and Q-91 to 113 matched with that of the person who had signed /written the admitted signatures/handwriting A-1 to A-22. However, no definite opinion could be given by him with respect to other questioned writings on the basis of available material.
38. This leads the court to consider the prime defence raised by the Ld. Defence Counsel, who has contended that no specimen signatures of the accused had been taken by the CBI for comparison with the questioned documents and there is nothing to show that even the signatures/writings A-1 to A-22 belonged to the accused. It is also argued that the evidence of PW-16 cannot be relied upon to establish that the questioned signatures/handwriting belonged to the accused. As RC No. 2(E) /1996 CBI v. Iftikhar Mansuri Page No. 23 of 32 per the stand taken by Ld. Defence Counsel, CBI was required to obtain the specimen signatures of the accused and to get the same compared through a scientific expert with the questioned documents to establish that the same belonged to the accused.
39. However, the court does not find merit in the said arguments. It may be noted that the offence pertains to the year 1996 and the accused was not traceable at that time by the investigating agency. He was declared proclaimed offender at that time and in the absence of accused, his specimen signatures could not have been taken by anyone. Thus, it was not possible for the CBI to obtain his specimen signatures at that time. Even if it is taken that no such specimen signatures were taken after the arrest of the accused in the year 2013, that would not nullify the previous proceedings and the other material on record. For best results, the questioned signatures need to be compared with the signatures of contemporary period, for which it is always advisable to obtain the admitted signatures of that period rather than insisting on specimen signatures of current period. Thus, in the considered view of the court, failure to obtain specimen signatures of the accused after his arrest in 2013 or getting the same compared with questioned signatures of 1996, would not adversely affect the prosecution case in any manner.
40. It may be noted that during the course of investigation, IO obtained the "admitted signatures" of the accused from Bombay Mercantile Cooperative Bank. The said bank was maintaining the RC No. 2(E) /1996 CBI v. Iftikhar Mansuri Page No. 24 of 32 account number 9393 in the name of M/s. Dewan Trading Cooperation, the accused Mohd. Iftikhar being its proprietor. The said record was seized by the IO PW-10 from PW-3/PW-9 vide seizure memo Ex. PW-3/E. The said record was being maintained by the bank in the ordinary course of its business and there is no allegation of any forgery or manipulation in the same. It is nowhere the case of the accused that the records so seized by the IO from the bank were manipulated or false documents. The accused has never denied the fact that the account number 9393 belonged to him in the capacity of proprietor of M/s. Dewan Trading Corporation. It includes an account opening form Ex. PW-2/B in favour of M/s. Dewan Trading Corporation. The genuineness of this account opening form has also been established by PW-2 Shifaul Islam Osmani, Chartered Accountant who had introduced the accused to the bank and had signed the form as introducer. PW-2 identified his signatures on Ex. PW-2/B, identified the accused through his photograph as available in the bank records and also identified the accused in the Court. Even the accused has admitted in his statement under section 313 CrPC that he was the proprietor of M/s Dewan Trading Corporation. The specimen signatures card duly signed by the accused Ex. PW-3/A, as maintained by the bank, has also been proved. Similarly, one bank certificate Ex. PW-3/B issued by the Bombay Mercantile Cooperative Bank in favour of M/s. Dewan Trading Corporation and sent to Chemicals and Allied Products Export Promotion Council, issued by it as per the request of accused vide letter Ex. PW-3/C has also been proved. All these documents collectively form the set of admitted RC No. 2(E) /1996 CBI v. Iftikhar Mansuri Page No. 25 of 32 signatures/handwriting, marked A-1 to A-22. There is no reason for the Court to disbelieve the genuineness of these documents and these signatures/handwriting can be safely said to be that of the accused Mohd. Iftikhar. It is nowhere the case of the accused that signatures/writings marked A-1 to A-22 did not belong to him or belong to some other person. No such stand has been taken at the trial or in his statement under section 313 CrPC or by way of defence evidence.
41. Once genuineness of admitted signatures/handwriting has been established, there is no occasion for the Court to question the expert opinion whereby the signatures at certain points have been opined by the expert to be belonging to the same person who had signed/written A-1 to A-22. The comparison of admitted signatures with questioned signatures is the best available evidence which can be appreciated by the Court with the help of expert witness. Even from bare eyes, the comparison of the said signatures would show that the same belong to one and the same person. When the matching questioned writings/signatures and the admitted writings/signatures are compared, it would reveal that the signatures on the applications filed on behalf of M/s. Dewan Trading Corporation and M/s. Echolac Engineering, the signatures attesting the copies of documents annexed with those applications and the signatures on the TR6 challans annexed with the applications, all belong to one and the same person, who happens to be the accused herein.
RC No. 2(E) /1996 CBI v. Iftikhar Mansuri Page No. 26 of 32
42. The file obtained by the IO with respect to M/s. Dewan Trading Corporation shows one application filed before the Office of Joint Director General Foreign Trade, showing receipt of an application dated 24.10.1994 for issuance of advance import license, bearing the signatures of the accused at point Q48. The application form bears the signatures of the accused at points Q49, Q53 and Q57. The annexures filed with the application have been duly signed by the accused at points Q50, Q51, Q52, Q54, Q55, Q56, Q58, Q59 and Q60. The TR6 form bearing no. 5539 for Rs. 12,800/- Ex. PW-7/A (established to be forged, as per the testimony of PW-7 and PW-11A) has been signed by the accused at point Q61. The declaration of the accused on letter head of M/s. Dewan Trading Corporation has been signed by him at point Q62. The copies of RCMC of Chemical and Allied Products Export Promotion Council has been attested by the accused at points Q63, Q64, Q65, Q66, Q73, Q74 and Q75. The copy of IE Code has been attested by the accused at points Q67 and Q76. The copy of CA certificate Ex. PW-2/A (established to be forged as per the testimony of PW-2) has been attested by the accused at point Q69.
43. Again, in the file of Chemicals and Allied Products Export Promotion Council, Calcutta pertaining to M/s. Dewan Trading Corporation, the RCMC granted on 28.05.1993 bears the signature of accused at point Q80. The letter dated 28.05.1993 bears the signatures of accused at point Q79 and the application form bears the signature of accused at point Q81. The annexed documents, that is, copy of IE Code letter has been signed by the accused at point Q82, copy of RC No. 2(E) /1996 CBI v. Iftikhar Mansuri Page No. 27 of 32 purchase order has been attested by the accused at points Q83 and Q84 and letter dated 01.05.1993 has been signed by the accused at point Q85.
44. In the file obtained from the Office of Joint Chief Director of Imports and Exports for obtaining IE Code, pertaining to M/s. Dewan Trading Corporation vide letter dated 07.03.1992, the application had been signed by the accused as proprietor of M/s. Dewan Trading Corporation at points Q30, Q32, Q33, Q34, Q35, Q36 and Q37. The accused had also signed the declaration on the letter head of M/s. Dewan Trading Corporation as its proprietor at point Q39. Similarly, the annexed TR6 challan no. 21738 Ex. PW-7/B (which has been established to be forged as per the testimony of PW-7 and PW-11A) had been signed by the accused at points Q40 and Q41. The copy of Income Tax form has been attested by the accused at point Q42. The reminder letter dated 16.04.1992 had been signed by the accused at point Q45. The accused received the duplicate IE Code vide acknowledgment of receipt at point Q46.
45. All these questioned documents have been categorically opined by the handwriting expert PW-16 to be that of the same person who had signed/written A1 to A22, which happens to be the accused herein. Therefore, it becomes clear that these applications, TR6 challans and annexed documents had been filed by none other than the accused in the respective offices in the capacity of proprietor of M/s. Dewan Trading Corporation.
RC No. 2(E) /1996 CBI v. Iftikhar Mansuri Page No. 28 of 32
46. Similar is the position with respect to business concern M/s. Echolac Engineering. In the file Ex. PW-8/G from the Office of Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, the application dated 03.01.1996 for grant of quantity based advance license had been signed by the accused at point Q98 as proprietor of M/s. Echolac Engineering. The application form in requisite format had been signed by the accused at points Q99, Q100 and Q107. The copy of purchase order has been attested by the accused at points Q101, Q109 and Q108. The copy of RCMC in favour of M/s. Echolac Engineering issued by the Export Promotion Council for Handicrafts has been attested by the accused at points Q102 and Q110. The copy of IE Code was attested by the accused at points Q103 and Q111. The TR6 challan no. 8378 Ex. PW14/A (established to be forged as per the testimony of PW-14) had been signed by the accused at point Q104. The declaration/undertaking given by the accused had been signed by him at points Q105 and Q112. The copy of Income Tax form was attested by the accused at points Q106 and Q113.
47. Again, in the file from the Office of Export Promotion Council for Handicrafts, the application dated 11.12.1995 for issuance of RCMC had been filed by the accused as proprietor of M/s. Echolac Engineering and signed by him at point Q91. The application for membership had been signed by him at point Q92. Form EP5 had been signed by him at point Q94. Copy of IE Code in favour of M/s. Echolac Engineering had been attested by the accused under his RC No. 2(E) /1996 CBI v. Iftikhar Mansuri Page No. 29 of 32 signature at point Q95. Copy of Certificate of registration of District Industries Centre had been attested by the accused at point Q96. The RCMC issued by PW-1 had been signed by the accused at point Q97. More importantly, the financial report Ex. PW-9/A purportedly issued by the Bombay Mercantile Cooperative Bank, was also annexed with the application, which has also been established to be a forged document as proved by PW-3/PW-9.
48. A perusal of the report of handwriting expert PW-16 would show that the signatures / writings on the above questioned documents are that of the person who signed/wrote as A1 to A22, which happens to be none other than the accused herein.
49. Thus, there remains nothing further to doubt the prosecution case. There is nothing in the cross-examination of PW-16 on the basis of which the Court may choose to dispute his expert opinion. No suggestion was put to him by the accused to the effect that he had manipulated the report or given incorrect report or that the questioned signatures on the documents do not belong to the accused.
50. No other stand was taken by the accused at the trial nor raised by Ld. Defence Counsel during the course of arguments.
51. In view of above testimonies, it becomes clear that it was none other than the accused only who had filed respective applications in the respective offices under his signatures as the proprietor of M/s. Dewan Trading Corporation as well as M/s. Echolac Engineering.
RC No. 2(E) /1996 CBI v. Iftikhar Mansuri Page No. 30 of 32 Bald denial on the part of the accused would not serve any purpose. No motive has been imputed by the accused as to why so many witnesses would come forward to depose against him. The witnesses were also not already known to the accused and had no enmity with giving them any motive to implicate an innocent person in a false criminal case. Most of the evidence on record is rather documentary in nature and the documents maintained by the respective offices in the ordinary course of their official business were seized by the IO. The expert opinion clearly shows the involvement of the accused. It is nowhere the case of the accused that signatures on the documents do not belong to him or belong to some other person. It is clear that it was the accused who had filed applications before the respective offices along with the forged documents in order to cheat them and fraudulently induce them to issue him licenses by using forged documents as genuine which he knew or had reason to believe them to be forged.
52. However, the evidence nowhere suggests that forgery had been committed by the accused only. Though the forged document had been used by him to get undue benefit, there is no evidence in the form of any expert opinion or otherwise that the said forged documents had been created by the accused. The source from where the such forged documents had been created, are not known. Therefore, such forgery cannot be attributed to the accused. Thus the offences under Section 467 and 468 IPC on the part of the accused could not be established.
RC No. 2(E) /1996 CBI v. Iftikhar Mansuri Page No. 31 of 32
53. In a criminal trial, burden is on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In view of the above discussion, it can be said that the prosecution has been able to discharge its burden in establishing that the accused used forged documents and attempted to cheat the Office of DGFT by fling applications on behalf of M/s. Dewan Trading Corporation and M/s. Echolac Engineering duly accompanied by forged/false documents.
54. The accused Mohd. Iftekhar Mansuri is thus held guilty and is convicted for the offences punishable under section 420/511 IPC as well as section 471 IPC.
55. Matter be listed for arguments on sentence. Digitally signed by ASHU ASHU GARG Date:
GARG 2018.11.15
00:01:16
Announced in the open Court +0530
this 15th day of November 2018 (Ashu Garg)
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
RC No. 2(E) /1996 CBI v. Iftikhar Mansuri Page No. 32 of 32