Delhi District Court
State vs . Sarjeevan Mittal on 23 March, 2012
-1-
IN THE COURT OF SH. MUKESH KUMAR, LD. ACMM :SOUTH DISTT.:
DISTRICT COURT SAKET: NEW DELHI
State Vs. Sarjeevan Mittal
PS Lodhi Colony (CB)
FIR No. 174/95
U/s 420/466/467/468/471/511/120B IPC
JUDGMENT
a) Serial number of the case : 02403R0015281998
b) Date of commission of offence : Year 1993
c) Name of the complainant, if any : Sh. Sada Ram, Sub Regional
Employment Exchange, Vivek
Vihar, Sahadra, Delhi.
d) Name & address of accused : 1. Sarjeevan Mittal
S/o Sh.Om Prakash
R/o F261, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi.
2. Raghubar Dayal,
S/o Sh. Kehri Singh,
R/o 6/196197, Trilok Puri, Delhi.
-2-
e) The offence complained off :U/s 420/466/467/468/471/511/120B IPC
f) The plea of accused : Not pleaded guilty.
g) Final order : Acquitted
h) Date for which order was reserved for: Not reserved for
I) The date of such order : 23.03.2012
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION :
1. By this judgment I will dispose of case of the prosecution based on FIR No. 174/95, PS Lodhi Colony (CB).The gists of facts as per prosecution are that on or about 1993 at unknown time and places both accused were entered into criminal conspiracy the object of which was to forge list and submission sheets sponsoring the name of the candidates registered with the employment exchange of the Curzon road, Employment Exchange by sponsoring the name of the candidates who were not registered with the employment exchange. In pursuant to this conspiracy, both forged submission sheets bearing no. 13856566 vide order no. SH/OD/257/93 and forwarded these forged documents to employment exchange of Vivek Vihar for onward transmission of respective companies where the employment was available with an intention to cheat them. After forging those documents as mentioned above which are purported to be issued by a public servant in discharge of official duties and -3- also with an intention to cheat the companies. After that these forged lists or atleast having reasons to believe the same to be forged and attempted to cheat the office of the company of India Metro Department, Lodhi Road for the post of labour by supplying them the forged list of candidates not registered with employment exchange. After the investigation, IO filed chargesheet. Accused persons were provided with the copies of the chargesheet.
2. Charge U/s 420/466/467/468/471/511/120B IPC was framed against both accused persons who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
To prove its case prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses while two witnesses has been examined by prosecution as PW02 namely Anil Kumar and SI Charan Das. Accordingly, PW Anil Kumar be read as PW 10.
3. To prove their case, prosecution examined PW1 Madan Singh, UDC, Babu Jagjeevan Ram Memorial Hospital who stated that in the year 1993, the requisitioned for 500 submissions sheets to Revinder Kumar was received at his office and the same were issue vide serial number and handed over to the IO. On asking to find out the photocopy of the documents which he handed over to the IO he replies in negative as he was not working with the same at that time. On summoning of record one Sh. J.P. Sharma, Dist Employment Exchange, Curzon Road had brought the original record i.e. demand letter no. -4- 1010 dated 30.06.93 and the stock register vide which the submission sheets bearing no. A137801 to A138800 were issued from the employment exchange. Said entry was mentioned in stock register at serial no. 200 and the copy of the relevant entry vide Ex. PW 1/A and Ex. PW 1/B. He also proved submissions sheet no. 13856566 pertaining to posting of labour for one post vide MarkX.
4. PW2 Charan Das in whose presence signatures / handwriting of accused Sarjeevan Mittal were taken on four sheets which is Ex. PW 2/A1 and Ex. PW 2/A2 respectively.
5. PW03 ASI Jeet Singh who joined the investigation with the IO and in his presence signature of accused Raghubar Dayal were taken on three sheets which are Ex.PW 3/A1 to Ex. PW 3/A3.
6. PW04 Sh. Sada Ram, Retd. SREO, he was the complainant and deposed that a requisition was received from there for class IV employees on the basis of which a list of candidates is prepared and forwarded to the vacancies controlling agencies. After scrutiny certain discrepancies were found on which action was taken. He proved the complaint Ex. PW 4/A. He further deposed that he handed over the Voter card as X2, Vacancy requisition card as X1 in the name of Shyam Babu and carbon copy of candidates and one sheet in respect of submission sheets on dated 09.05.95 which was taken into -5- possession vide Ex. PW 6/B and the above said documents are already Ex. PW 5/A, Mark X1, Mark X2 and the original card is Mark X1 in the name of Shyam Babu which is Ex. PW 4/B and carbon copy of submissions Sheet Ex. PW 4/C (which is objected by Ld. defence counsel). He further deposed that he had stated in his supplementary statement which was given to the IO that he was told by his staff that above said list was in the handwriting of accused Sarjeevan Mittal. It is further deposed that accused Sarjeevan Mittal was never posted at employment exchange and signature of accused Raghuber Dayal, JEO are appended on the above mentioned sheet. It is further deposed that one list of candidates on submissions sheets bearing no. 13856566 has been prepared by one outsider who was the exemployee of employment exchange and who was not posted in Vivek Vihar Employment Exchange at the relevant time.
7. PW05 Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, UDC, Office of SDM, Seema Puri who deposed that on that day IO had given him carbon copy of submission sheet no. SH/IOD/257/93/U144/90 for the post of labour which is now Ex. PW 5/A consisting of one page (objected by Ld. Defence counsel ) and after seeing the same he told to the police that the list bears the signature of one Sh.Raghuber Dayal, SZEO. The list was sent to the employer but the same was not found mentioned at register no. X63. He identified the signature of accused Raghubar Dayal as he had seen him writing and signing during the course of his official -6- duty but not identified the signature and handwriting of accused Sarjeevan Mittal. He further deposed that the name mentioned in the above mentioned submission sheet was bogus name sent to the employer and the same name was not registered in the register no. X63 and identified the accused persons correctly.
8. PW06 Retd. SI Balwan Singh who was the IO and investigated the case. After enquiry of the case he prepared the rukka Ex. PW 6/A and got registered the case through Ct. Dinesh. He visited the employment exchange, Vivek Vihar, Sahadra and collected the order cards X2 from the complainant and taken into possession vide Ex. PW 6/B. He further deposed that photocopy of the card, dispatch registers and vacancy register were seized from Sh. Anil Kumar, AEO of employment exchange vide already Ex. PW 2/A in his presence and the documents on record are Ex. PW 2/B1 to Ex. PW 2/B7. He further deposed that Metrologist Administration, Mausam Bhawn had sent alongwith his forwarding letter the list of fake candidates sent to them and he also forwarded other documents with his letter dated 12.07.95 which was marked to him and he place the same on record. He further recorded the statements of witnesses. He further stated that he arrested the accused persons Sarjeevn Mittal and Raghubar Dayal and obtained specimen handwriting of accused Sarjeeven Mittal and accused Raghubar Dayal on sheets already Ex. PW 2/A1 to Ex. PW -7- 2/A3 and Ex. PW 3/A1 to Ex. PW 3/A3 respectively and sent the fake list Ex. PW 3/A to FSL for examination. After that prepared chargesheet and submitted the same in the court.
9. PW07 Sh. Harsh Vardhan, Asst Director (Documents) FSL, Haryana, Madhuban who deposed that he had examined the questioned documents in the aforesaid case and submitted his detailed report Ex. PW 7/A.
10. PW08 ASI Ratan Singh who was duty officer on the date of registration of FIR. He brought the original FIR and proved the FIR which is Ex. PW 8/A.
11. PW09 Hoshiyar Singh Verma who is working as Professional Assistant at the office of Director General of Metrology, Mausam Bhawan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. He was a formal witness and deposed that a letter dated 16.08.94 was sent to SubRegional Employment Officer, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi for nomination of candidates for peon/mazdoor and in response of the same list of candidates were received in his office with forwarding letter dated 10.09.93. In response of the same a letter was sent by Sh. D.S. Lombay ( Metrologist Administration ) and the letter is Ex. PW 9/A and copy of the letters are marked as Mark Y1 to Y5 collectively.
12. PW10 Anil Kumar Sharma who was posted as AEO, Employment Office, Curzon Road, New Delhi. He stated that he handed over certain -8- documents comprising the photocopy of the order card, the original forwarding letter, requisition letter, photocopy of dispatch register and register no. X16 (one page) and the performa of register no. X16 and the vacancy order which were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW 2/A and the documents on record are Ex. PW 2/B1 to Ex. PW 2/B7. He further deposed that in this case the vacancies of the labour were received from India Metrological Department and the same was booked as number U/144/93 in register no. X16 at serial no. 479 regarding the said list the names of the eligible candidate were sought from the SREO concerned and after receipt of the names the list was sent to the employer vide dispatch number 4194 dated 10.09.93 and the intimation of the same was also given to the SREO Head Quarter.
After the conclusion of PE, accused was examined U/s 313 Cr.PC. No DE was lead.
13. Final arguments heard at length.
I have gone through the documents on record, evidence and submissions forwarded by Ld. Counsel for accused persons and Ld. APP for State.
14. It is the defence of the accused persons that they were falsely implicated in the false case and nothing to do with the same and it is -9- contended that the prosecution is not able to relate the accused persons with the said alleged forged lists. It is further submitted that the complainant himself is not sure about the genuineness of the list containing the names of the candidates allegedly sponsored by the accused Raghuwar Dayal It is claimed that the accused are entitled for acquittal.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case title "Md. Ibrahim Vs. State of Bihar reported at "2009(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 369" laid down the essential ingredients of the offence of "cheating" as follows : "(i) Deception of a person either by making a false or misleading representation or by dishonest concealment or by any other act or omission;
(ii) fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to either deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce that person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and
(iii) such act or omission causing or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property"
It was further held in this case that to constitute an offence under section 420, there should not only be cheating, but as a consequence of such cheating, the accused should have dishonestly induced the person deceived (i) to deliver -10- any property to any person, or (ii) to make, alter or destroy wholly or in part a valuable security (or anything signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security).
In the same case the scope of offence of forgery was also discussed and it was observed that the condition precedent for an offence under sections 467 and 471 is forgery and the condition precedent for forgery is making a false document. The term "forgery" used in these two sections is defined in section 463 as "Whoever makes any false documents with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that the fraud may be committed, commits forgery." Section 464 defining "making a false document" was analyzed and it was held that the section divides false documents into three categories :
"a) The first is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently makes or executes a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by some other person, or by the authority of some other person, by whom or by whose authority he knows it was not made or executed.
b) The second is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently, by -11- cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part, without lawful authority, after it has been made or executed by either himself or any other person.
c) The third is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, execute or alter a document knowing that such person could not by reason of (a) unsoundness of mind; or
(b) intoxication;or (c) deception practiced upon him, know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration.
In short, a person is said to have made a false document', if (i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorized by someone else; or (ii) he altered or tampered a document; or (iii) he obtained a document by practicing deception, or from a person not in control of his senses".
PW01 Madan Singh has produced the summoned record regarding the issuance of submission sheets from Sr. No. A137801 to A138800 issued from employment exchange. The entry in the stock register is Ex.PW 1/A and the letter is Ex.PW 1/B.
15. The complainant Sada Ram has been examined as PW4 and he reiterated the averments of his complaint. The complainant is not able to tell where the complaint was got typed and when it was sent he stated that he forwarded the complaint to the Director and Director further forwarded the complaint to the Crime Branch. It is admitted by the complainant that the list of -12- the candidates was forwarded through a forwarding letter to Curzon Road, Employment Exchange and the procedure was followed in the present case and the forwarding was put on the submission sheets and he admitted that the forwarding letter is not in the judicial file. The witness admitted that the register X63 is not on judicial file with which the comparison of the list and the handwriting of the accused were made by him during the scrutinization. Thus the witness has not deposed to the effect that the list were prepared by the accused persons and they contain the handwriting of the accused persons. It is further deposed by the PW04 Sada Ram that accused that he never worked with the accused person at Sahadra Office and he is not able to identify the hand writing of the accused persons. The dealing clerk concerned has informed the PW04 regarding the initials of the accused and complainant himself was not having any knowledge about the same. Moreover, it is deposed by the PW07 that these are every possibility of forging of initial signature by due practice of that particular pattern.
16. PW5 Anil Kumar was posted as LDC in Vivek Employment Exchange and he stated that three list Ex. PW5/A1 was not prepared by any of the official working at that time with Shahdhara Employment Exchange and do not bear the signature of any official working at that time. The witness was declared hostile by the prosecution and the cross examination was made of the witness -13- by the public prosecutor the witness denied having made any statement to the police to the effect. The witness in his crossexamination by the accused persons stated that he cannot say whether the list Ex. PW5/D1 are genuine or bogus.
17. In the presence of PW06 SI Balwan Singh specimen handwriting of accused Sarjeevan Mittal on 3 sheets which is already Ex.PW 2/A1 to A3 and also of accused Raghubar Dayal on 3 sheets which are already Ex. PW 3/A1 to A3.
18. Thus, the testimony of handwriting expert is the only evidence available on file to connect the accused Sarjeevan Mittal and Raghuvar Dayal with the preparation of documents and the writings on the list.
No other witness have stated about the writing and preparation of the lists by the accused persons. It is further contended that the specimen writing were not taken with the permission of the court. Reliance is placed on this aspect on case title "Alamgir Vs. State of NCT Delhi" reported at "2002 (4) RCR (Crl.) 834" and case title "Rakesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. State" reported at "2004 (72) DRJ 311".
It is observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Alamgir that conviction can not be based at opinion of handwriting expert alone and it can -14- be relied upon when supported by other items of internal and external evidence as the handwriting expert opinion simply corroborate the substantial evidence. It is observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Rakesh Kumar that alleged specimen signatures/handwriting/thumb/finger print impression of accused obtained during investigation by the IO without prior permission from the court could not be made use of during the trial and the report of the handwriting expert/finger print Bureau is thus rendered of no consequence at all.
19. The ratio of the cases discussed above squarely covers the facts of the present case and the findings are thoroughly applicable on the facts involved in the present case. The specimen handwriting any of the accused has not been taken with the permission of the court, even they have not been witnessed by any independent witness thus the testimony about the opinion of PW 11 given by using the said specimen is of no consequences and could not be related with the accused.
Thus on the basis of testimony available on file the accused cannot be held the authors of the alleged forged list and their users.
20. No testimony of any witness is on file to show any inducement ever given by any of the accused person to anybody relying upon which any property -15- is handed over to accused persons. It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of "Guru Bipin Singh Vs. Chongtham Manihar Singh" reported at "1997 Crl. LJ 724" that in a case where allegations of forgery and cheating on a basis of forge documents are made and if the offence of forgery is not proved then offence of cheating cannot stand. So the charge for the offence of the cheating against the accused cannot stand. If the prosecution is not able to prove the case of forgery and cheating against the accused then charge of the conspiracy framed against them also fails.
21. In the light of the abovesaid discussion all two accused are acquitted from the charge framed against them.
In these circumstances, practically there is no evidence against accused persons. As the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, all the accused persons are acquitted for offence U/s 420/466/467/468/471/511/120B IPC.
Announced in the open court
today i.e. 23th March, 2012
(Mukesh Kumar)
ACMM/ SD/Saket Courts/New Delhi
-16-
FIR No. 174/95
PS Lodhi Colony (CB)
23.03.2012
Present: Ld. APP for the State.
All accused are on bail with their respective counsel. Today case is fixed for final judgment.
All the accused are acquitted vide my separate judgment announced and dictated in open court.
Order are yet to be typed.
Their bail bonds are extended for further 6 months as per provision of section 437A Cr.PC.
File be consigned to Record Room.
( Mukesh Kumar ) ACMM/SD/Saket/23.03.2012