Delhi District Court
Sachin Suri vs State on 4 April, 2025
DLSE010040312024
IN THE COURT OF SH. LOVLEEN ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE-03 SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. 150/2024
SACHIN SURI
S/o Late Sh. Vinod Suri
R/o House No. 151/18, Second Floor,
Mangolpur Kalan Sector-2,
Rohini, Delhi-110085
.... Appellant
VERSUS
THE STATE
.... Respondent
Date of institution : 24.04.2024
Date of reserving the order : 18.03.2025
Date of pronouncement : 04.04.2025
Digitally
signed by
LOVLEEN
LOVLEEN Date:
2025.04.04
15:52:13
+0530 CA No. 150/2024 Sachin Suri Vs. State Page no....1 of 17
JUDGMENT
1. The present criminal appeal under section 374 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 27.07.2023 and order on sentence dated 19.03.2024 passed by Court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate-12, South-East District in Criminal Case No. 87821/2016 titled State Vs. Sachin Suri, which is arising out of FIR No. 221/2011 PS Amar colony. The said FIR was registered u/s 420/468/471/409 IPC at the instance of one S.K. Shailly, Accounts Officer, National Heart Institute Community Center. Vide the said judgment, appellant was convicted of the offence punishable under Section 408 IPC and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for the period of 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default he was to undergo further simple imprisonment for 06 months. For the sake of convenience, appellant shall be referred to as 'accused' in this judgment.
Brief Facts
2. The allegations against the accused are penned down in the FIR. The same is reproduced below for a better understanding of the case.
"To, The Station House Officer, Police Station-Amar Colony, New Delhi.
CA No. 150/2024 Sachin Suri Vs. State Page no....2 of 17 Re: Investigation into the incident of cheating, forgery and misappropriation of huge amount of money in the accounts of National Heart Institute by Sachin Suri and possibly others.
That today, on 7.6.2011, 1 alongwith Sachin Suri, S/o Vinod Suri, C-10/182, Rohini Sector 5, Delhi accountant working under me had gone to the Nehru Place branch of Oriental Bank of Commerce to deposit certain sum of cash. We deposited the said cash of the sum of Rs. 11 Lakh in the bank. After depositing the cash, we went to meet, the lady ficer, dealing with the loan accounts. The said lady officer, enquired from Sachin that you had called me on telephone and instructed that the loan installment- has-not-to be deducted so when should that amount be deducted? I was astonished at such a query and responded as to why should the deduction of the loan installment had to wait? I was told by the said lady officer that there was deficit of fund in the account of National Heart Institute. While I was talking to the said Lady Officer, Sachin Suri, who was standing with me disappeared and was not even available on phone. He has been untraceable ever- since. We also tried to contact him at his home address which was found his house locked. Thereafter, we tried to reconcile our books with the bank statements. We also obtained the hard copy of the statement of account for the period August, 2010 to 7.6.2011 for our Current Account No. 02171010011290 (old a/c No. 261311) in the name CA No. 150/2024 Sachin Suri Vs. State Page no....3 of 17 of National Heart Institute. We have been receiving statement of account in respect of the abovesaid account via email. We found that there were considerable differences in the amounts shown as deposited in the email statement with the copy of statement of accounts obtained from the bank today. The differences are mainly in respect of the cash deposits. It is worthwhile to mention that all the email statements of account were being forwarded by the bank to the email account of Sachin Suri in respect of the said account number.
Upon our preliminary examination we have found-a- difference of Rs. 55, 00, 000 in the period-2.11.2010 to 30.5.2011 which were being falsely maintained in our books as deposited but were in fact not deposited in the bank and were fraudulently-shown in the books.
Contd..
Sl Date of As per the As per the The
no. Deposit statement of statement of difference
account account between the
obtained forwarded by aforesaid
from the the Bank statements
bank today through email to
the email ID of
Sachin Suri
Cash deposits
1. 2.11.2010 0 Rs. 10,00,000 Rs.10,00,000
2. 10.11.2010 0 Rs. 6,00,000 Rs. 6,00,000
3. 9.12.2010 Rs. 7,00,000 Rs. 11,00,000 Rs. 4,00,000
4. 13.1.2011 Rs.1,00,000 Rs.4,00,000 Rs.3,00,000
CA No. 150/2024 Sachin Suri Vs. State Page no....4 of 17
5. 10.3.2011 Rs.10,00,00 Rs.16,00,000 Rs.6,00,000
0
6. 4.4.2011 Rs.20,00,00 Rs.26,00,000 Rs.6,00,000
0
7. 15.4.2011 Rs.11,00,000 Rs.16,00,000 Rs.5,00,000
8. 4.5.2011 Rs.10,00,00 Rs.16,00,000 Rs.6,00,000
0
9. 30.5.2011 Rs.11,00,000 Rs.16,00,000 Rs.5,00,000
Cheque
1. 4.5.2011 0 Rs.2,00,000 Rs.2,00,000
2. 14.5.2011 0 Rs.2,00,000 Rs.2,00,000
All the above said cash deposits were made by said Sachin Suri. In fact, Sachin Suri has been depositing cash in the abovesaid account for the last few years. While examining the papers relating to the deposits today, we have also found certain alterations in the deposit slip /account holder's counterfoil of the cash deposits.
In view of the above, a clear case offence of forgery, cheating, misappropriation of fund, breach of trust has been made out against Sachin Suri. Please investigate the matter in all its various facets and bring to book all those who are involved in the commission of the abovesaid offence and any other or further offences.
Yours sincerely (S.K. Shailly) Accounts Officer, National Heart Institute"
3. After due investigation, the accused came to be chargesheeted CA No. 150/2024 Sachin Suri Vs. State Page no....5 of 17 for commission of offences punishable u/s 420/468/471/408 IPC in the said FIR.
Trial
4. The learned Trial Court, after complying the provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C., framed a charge against the accused for the offences punishable u/s 420/408 IPC on 29.02.2012. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution examined the following witnesses:-
Sl. no. Name of witness Purpose
i). PW-1 HC Rambir Singh Police witness
ii). PW-2 S.K. Shally Complainant
iii). PW-3 Divesh Kumar, Manager, Public witness
OBC Bank, Nehru Place
iv). PW-4 D.K. Kapoor, Retired Public witness
Bank Manager, OBC Bank
v). PW-5 Wing Commander B. Public witness
Jena, Director (Operations),
National Heart Institute.
vi). PW-6 Insp. Vijay Gehlawat Police witness
vii). PW-7 Insp. Manoj Kumar Police witness
viii). PW-8 Anurag Sharma, Asst. Expert witness
Director (Document), FSL
Rohini.
ix). PW-9 HC Nemi Sahay Police witness
CA No. 150/2024 Sachin Suri Vs. State Page no....6 of 17
x). PW-10 Sudhir Saxena, Asst. Public witness
Manager, OBC Bank, Nehru
Place
xi). PW-11 Dr. Virender Singh, Expert witness
Asst. Director, FSL Rohini,
New Delhi
5. Statement of the accused, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., was recorded separately on 26.02.2019, wherein he denied the allegations and claimed to have been falsely implicated. Supplementary statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was also recorded on 27.09.2019. In Defence, accused examined one Mahinder Singh as DW-1 and himself as DW-2. After the conclusion of trial, the accused was convicted u/s 408 IPC vide the impugned judgment.
Grounds of appeal
6. Following grounds have been taken by appellant / accused to challenge impugned judgment and order on sentence:-
a). That the conviction and sentence of the appellant are against the law and facts on record and, therefore, bad in law and liable to be set aside.
b). That the prosecution has not examined any witness from the bank officials present on the date of incident who were witness to the occurrence in support of their case although admittedly the occurrence had taken place CA No. 150/2024 Sachin Suri Vs. State Page no....7 of 17 at the duty hours of the bank. The prosecution has only examined the witnesses of the NHI who are interested witness.
c). That the FIR in the present case had been recorded quite belatedly and there was no explanation over for such delay. According to PW1 H/Ct. Rambir Singh, at about 1.20 A.M, he was marked a complaint for registration of FIR by order of SHO. As per statement of PW-2 S.K. Shally "I came to know about the incident at about 11.00 A.M to 11.15 A.M" and the inference is clear that the FIR had been recorded after deliberation and manipulation.
d). That the appellant examined two witnesses in defence namely, DW1 Shri Mahender Singh and DW2 Shri Sachin Suri. DW1 was won over by the NHI as he is still working there and DW-2 Sachin Suri has explained the same in his statement but the trail judge has wrongly relied on the statement of a hostile witness who made statement before the court without having any proof and had lied before the court. The trial judge wrongly found motive on the basis of false statement of DW-1 although his statement is not trustworthy. The evidence of defence witness DW-2 Sachin Suri was not given due importance and was not appreciated in the proper perspective by the CA No. 150/2024 Sachin Suri Vs. State Page no....8 of 17 learned trial court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held time and again that a defence witness is to be treated at par with a prosecution witness in the matter of appreciation of evidence, and simply because a witness has been examined in defence, he is not to be discredited or discarded on that account.
e). That the entire case of prosecution is based on the assumption that the statement of account of the NHI was forwarded by the bank on the email ID of the appellant but the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the statement of account were being forwarded by the bank to the email account of the appellant and the same was altered by the appellant. PW-2 S.K.Shally has stated in his statement that "I had not received any complaint regarding alteration in computer records by accused Sachin Suri"
f). That the Trial court failed to appreciate that when the record was called by the court on the demand of the appellant that log book filled by the driver of the Hospital vehicles of the relevant period and the attendance sheet of Peon Prakash Sharma then the NHI filed the Administrative order No.55/89 of the NHI dated 22.09.1989, stating that the records are destroyed being five years old. When the court case was pending then at CA No. 150/2024 Sachin Suri Vs. State Page no....9 of 17 that time disposal of documents certainly raises the question on the truth of the prosecution story and proves foul play on the part of the complainant.
g). That the trial court failed to appreciate that the computer system on which the appellant was working was not exclusively used by him, it was open for all the accounts personnel working there and all the computer systems were in networking, PW 2 Shri S K Shally was the admin having access to all the files of every computers of accounts department.
h). that the prosecution failed to produce any scientific evidence which proves that the offence is being committed by the appellant.
i). That the prosecution suffers from serious infirmities and it was absolutely unsafe to base a conviction upon such infirm, shaky and doubtful prosecution evidence.
7. It is prayed that impugned judgment and order on sentence may be set aside.
Submissions of State
8. The prayer has been vehemently opposed by the State. It is argued that the accused has been correctly convicted vide the impugned judgment and appropriately sentenced by the Ld. Trial Court.
CA No. 150/2024 Sachin Suri Vs. State Page no....10 of 17 Discussion
9. I have heard arguments addressed by respective parties and perused the record, including the trial court record.
10. Essentially, the case of the prosecution is that at the relevant date and time, the employer of the accused discovered that the accused, being an accountant, has failed to deposit a sum of Rs. 55 lakh in the bank account of his employer, which amount had come in his possession from time to time by virtue of his employment. The employer of the accused claims that the accused has embezzled the said sum and thereby committed a criminal breach of trust.
11. In order to prove the above allegations, the prosecution has examined the aforesaid witnesses. The prosecution has placed on record the following documents:-
EXHIBIT DOCUMENTS
PW-1/A FIR
PW-1/B ENDORSEMENT ON COMPLAINT
PW2/A COMPLAINT
MARK-A A/C OF NATIONAL HEART INSTITUTE
PW-2/B ARREST MEMO
PW-2/C PERSONAL SEARCH MEMO
PW-2/D SEIZURE MEMO OF HARD DISC
PW-2/E SEIZURE MEMO, DEPOSIT SLIPS
PW-2/F SEARCH MEMO OF HOUSE OF
ACCUSED
CA No. 150/2024 Sachin Suri Vs. State Page no....11 of 17
PW-2/G HOME SEARCH MEMO OF MOTHER
OF ACCUSED
Ex.PW-2/D-1 BANK STATEMENT OF ACCT.
02171010011290 DEC. 2010
PW-3/A BANK STATEMENT OF ACCT.
02171010011290 DEC. 2010
PW-3/B BANK STATEMENT OF ACCT.
02171010011290 JAN. 2011
PW-3/C BANK STATEMENT OF ACCT.
02171010011290 MAR. 2011
PW-3/D BANK STATEMENT OF ACCT.
02171010011290 APR. 2011
PW-3/E BANK STATEMENT OF ACCT.
02171010011290 MAY 2011
PW-4/A SEIZURE MEMO PAY SLIPS OF
ACCOUNT NO. 261311
PW-5/A LETTER TO SHO dated 09.06.2011
PW-5/B LETTER TO SHO DT. 06.08.2011
ENCLOSING AUDIT REPORT
PW-5/C BIO DATA OF ACCUSED
(MARKA-2)
PW-5/D (MARK JOB DESCRIPTION OF ACCUSED
A-1)
PW-5/E (MARK- ATTENDANCE SHEET OF ACCUSED
A3)
PW-5/F (OSR) COPY OF RESUME OF ACCUSED
PW-5/G (COLLY) ATTENDANCE REPORT OF ACCUSED (OSR) FROM 01.10.2010 TO 09.06.2011 (running into 9 pages) MARK-X/1 REPORT ON VERIFICATION OF EMBEZZLEMENT OF FUNDS (INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT BY M/S. RAJNISH AND ASSOCIATES) CA No. 150/2024 Sachin Suri Vs. State Page no....12 of 17 MARK-Y MEMO OF ABSCONDING TO ACCUSED DT. 08.06.2011 MARK-A/4 COPY OF SALARY SLIP OF ACCUSED MARK-A/5 MEMORANDUM MARK-A/6 BANK RECEIPT PW-7/A NOTICE U/S 91 CPC ON BANK OFFICER AND B. JENA ADMINISTRATOR NHI PW-7/B DISCLOSURE STATEMENT OF ACCUSED PW-7/C SPECIMEN HANDWRITING (RUNNING INTO 4 PAGES) PW-8/A FSL REPORT PW-10/A ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF ACCT NO.
02171010011290 IN NAME OF
NATIONAL HEART INSTITUTE 01.09.10
TO 10.06.11 (running into 116 pages)
PW-10/B CERTIFICATE U/S 65B OF ABOVE
STATEMENT
PW-10/C (OSR) ACCOUNT OPENING FORM
(Mark Z3) ALONGWITH KYC DOCUMENTS OF
ABOVE ACCT.
MARK-L/3 A/C OPENING
PW-10/3 BANKER BOOK EVIDENCE
PW-10/A BANK STATEMENT
12. This Court has gone through the oral evidence placed on record CA No. 150/2024 Sachin Suri Vs. State Page no....13 of 17 by the prosecution. The entire prosecution case is hinged upon the oral testimony of PW-2 S.K. Shally. It is apparent from the records that informant PW-2 S.K. Shally has deposed about discovering some discrepancy in the bank account of the employer (of the accused) at the relevant time. He further deposed about making further inquiries in respect of the said discrepancy and to have learnt that 11 entries in the Bank Account Statement of Employer, as submitted by the accused, were reflecting a shortfall of Rs. 55 lakh. He identified the said 11 entries in the bank account statement of the employer, as submitted by the accused, as Ex.P-8 (colly). He further deposed that he got in touch with the bank of employer and learnt that the bank was regularly forwarding emails bearing correct details of deposits to accused from time to time, but the accused used to make alterations in the relevant deposit receipts and also used to prepare a faulty accounts statement thereby preventing the exposure of real facts. He further deposed that the accused had misappropriated the said sum of Rs. 55 lakh. He further deposed that he handed over; the '07 deposit slips' to police during the course of investigation, all of which corroborate the allegations against the accused. He correctly identified the accused during trial.
13. It is apparent from the above oral statement of PW-2 S.K. Shally that he has levelled an accusation of misappropriation of Rs. 55 lakhs against the accused. In order to sustain the said accusation, he has identified the relevant 11 entries in the bank account statement of CA No. 150/2024 Sachin Suri Vs. State Page no....14 of 17 the employer, as submitted by the accused, at the relevant time. However, the oral testimony of PW-2 S.K. Shally as to identification of said 11 entries is liable to be discarded summarily as the said entries are available in a computer print out, which is not supported by the requisite certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act. In such circumstances, this Court could not act upon the bare accusation made by PW-2 S.K. Shally against the accused. That apart, this Court notes that the prosecution has not placed any material on record to show the receipt of a particular sum of money by the employer (of the accused), as is mentioned in the FIR by PW-2 S.K. Shally, on or before the relevant dates of said 11 entries. Admittedly, prosecution has not placed any document / register on record which reflects any acknowledgment by the accused regarding the receipt of any amounts from the employer, which were required to be deposited in the bank account of the employer on the days when the said 11 entries were effected. Admittedly, prosecution has not examined any witness who could attest to or depose that any amount was handed over to the accused on the days when the said 11 entries were effected or any day before. Admittedly, prosecution has not bothered to prove the factum of the forwarding of correct bank accounts statements of employer to the accused by the bank concerned. That apart, it is an admitted fact that the relevant deposit slips Ex.PW1 to Ex.PW-13 were forwarded to FSL, Rohini for forensic analysis as to the hand writing available on the same. However, the FSL report is inconclusive in nature.
CA No. 150/2024 Sachin Suri Vs. State Page no....15 of 17
14. Admittedly, rest of the public witnesses examined by the prosecution are formal in nature. PW-3 Sh. Diwesh Kumar, Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce (Bank of the employer of accused) proved on record the accounts statement of the employer pertaining to December 2010, January 2011, March 2011, April 2011 and May 2011 as Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW3/B, Ex.PW3/C, Ex.PW3/D and Ex.PW3/E respectively. PW-10 Sudhir Saxena, Asst. Manager Oriental Bank of Commerce (Bank of the employer of accused) proved on record the Bank statement of employer from 01.09.2010 to 10.06.2011 - Ex.PW10/A and the relevant certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW10/B. When considered independently, the bank account statement of the employer (of the accused) is insufficient to make any opinion as to the culpability of the accused. Reason being the fact that the said entries merely depict the transactions carried out in the bank account of the employer. Even the audit report Mark X/1 is liable to be discarded for multiple reasons. Firstly being the fact that the prosecution has not bothered to prove the said report as per law - the person who prepared the said report was never examined during the course of trial and; secondly on the ground that the covering letter of the said report itself states that the same may not be treated as an audit opinion as it has not been prepared in accordance with the generally accepted auditing standards. That being so, it could be safely held that no incriminating material is available on record against the accused.
15. In such circumstances, this Court is constrained to hold that CA No. 150/2024 Sachin Suri Vs. State Page no....16 of 17 the prosecution has miserably failed to prove 'entrustment of property', in this case cash sum of Rs. 55 lakh, with the accused by his employer. That being so, conviction of accused u/s 408 IPC could not be sustained. As such, the judgment of conviction and sentence are hereby set aside.
16. The appeal stands disposed off accordingly. A copy of this judgment be forwarded to the Ld. Trial Court with TCR.
Dictated and Announced in open Court on 04.04.2025 (Lovleen) ASJ-03 (South East), Saket Courts, New Delhi CA No. 150/2024 Sachin Suri Vs. State Page no....17 of 17