Delhi District Court
State vs . Gajpal Singh Rawat & Ors. on 25 January, 2021
Page 1 of 25
IN THE COURT OF ANURAG THAKUR
MM-02: CENTRAL DISTRICT: TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
FIR No. 27/2001
PS: Timar Pur
U/s 420/468/201/120B IPC
State vs. Gajpal Singh Rawat & Ors.
Date of Institution of case: 24.03.2008
Date of Judgment reserved: 08.01.2021
Date on which Judgment pronounced: 25.01.2021
JUDGMENT
Unique ID no. of the case : 297700/16
Date of commission of offence : On or before year 2000
Name of complainant : SI Rajender Kumar Khatri
PS Timarpur, Delhi
Name and address of accused : (i) Gajpal Singh Rawat
S/o Manwar Singh Rawat
R/o 661, Kalyanwas,
DDA Flats, Delhi.
(ii) Chander Pal Singh
S/o Randhir Singh
R/o 477-Z-Type, Timarpur.
(iii) Rajender Babu Shukla
S/o Pyare Lal Shukla
R/o H. No. 365, Ram Nagar,
Near Hari Singh Gurudwara,
Delhi.
(iv) Dayal Chand @ Dabbu
FIR No. 27/01 State vs. Gajpal Singh Rawat & Ors. PS.: Timar Pur
Page 2 of 25
S/o Murari Lal
R/o H. No. J-6, Beriwala
Bagh, Hari Nagar, Delhi-64
Offence complained of : U/s 420/468/201/120B IPC
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Date of order : 25.01.2021
Final order : Acquitted
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
1. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on or before year 2000, all accused persons namely (i) Gajpal Singh Rawat (ii) Chander Pal Singh (iii) R. B. Shukla and (iv) Dayal Chand @ Dabbu in pursuance of criminal conspiracy agreed to prepare forged documents of TSR bearing no DER-4108 and prepared the forged documents for availing sales tax exemption and interest subsidy as per scheme of government and thereafter used the forged documents to cause wrongful loss to the government as well as to Mr. Anand Ballabh (owner of the TSR) and in the end made efforts and caused to be destroyed the evidence qua preparation of aforesaid forged documents and all of them committed offences punishable u/s 420/468/201/120B IPC. On the basis of the above allegations, the present FIR no. 27/2001 was registered against all accused persons at police station Timar Pur for offences u/s 420/468/201/120B IPC.
2. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against all accused persons. Copies of same were supplied to them in compliance of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called as Cr.P.C. Thereafter, charge for offences u/s 420/468/201/120B IPC was framed against all accused persons namely (i) FIR No. 27/01 State vs. Gajpal Singh Rawat & Ors. PS.: Timar Pur Page 3 of 25 Gajpal Singh Rawat (ii) Chander Pal Singh (iii) R. B. Shukla and (iv) Dayal Chand @ Dabbu on 18.07.2011 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its version, prosecution examined fifteen witnesses. PW-1 Anand Ballabh had deposed that he was the auto driver by profession in the year 2000-2001. He had received challan from Teen Murti, Patiala House Court of red light jumping. Accordingly, he went to the concerned challan court for challan which came to him. On reaching at the date of challan at the concerned court at Patiala House, he told the concerned ld. Judge that the vehicle on which challan has come i.e. TSR Bearing no. DL-RC-64....... was not his vehicle and how that challan issued in his name. Thereafter, the concerned court summoned the record from Teen Murti Office and on the next date of hearing the concerned inspector from Teen Murti informed the court that whatever fraud had happened the same was done at the Transport authority and they had served the notice on the basis of the record. On the next date of hearing peon from the MLO Office came at the court and informed that as per the file, the address had been taken from his earlier vehicle bearing no. TSR DER-4108 and the said vehicle had already been disposed by him in April, 1998 to one dealer namely Lucky Auto Dealer residing at RZ-24, Dal Mill Road, Uttam Nagar, Delhi. Thereafter, the court inspected the file produced by the peon from MLO Office and photographs and other documents relating to TSR bearing no. DER-4108 had been used for the purposes of the present TSR bearing no. DL-1RC-64.... Thereafter his statement was recorded by the court in which he had stated that he had no concern with the said vehicle. Thereafter on the direction of the court, he gave his statement to the police officials in the present case. His specimen signatures were taken by the police officials, in Hindi and English at Police Station, Timarpur. All the specimen signature FIR No. 27/01 State vs. Gajpal Singh Rawat & Ors. PS.: Timar Pur Page 4 of 25 sheets were collectively exhibited as Ex. P.1. PW-1 had recollected the number of the TSR mentioned in the challan which initially came from Patiala House Court. The number of the TSR was DL-RC-1668. Witness was confronted with Ex. PW.1/A. He denied that the two signatures on it were done by him encircled at point Q4 and Q3. PW-1 was again confronted with PW.1/B and witness submitted that Q1 and Q2 were not his signature. He was again confronted with Ex. PW.1/C and denied that signature at point Q5 did not belong to him. He was again confronted with Ex. PW.1/D and denied that Q7 did not belong to him. He was again confronted with Ex. PW.1/F collectively and he denied that at point A he appended his signature. He admitted that Ex. PW.1/G, Ex. PW.1/H and Ex. PW.1/I bear his signatures at point Q8 to Q12. He had voluntarily admitted that he had signed these paper while transferring his auto bearing no. DER-4108 and handed over these document to one Lucky. He also admitted that he had signed at serial no. S7, S8, S9, S10, S11, S21, S22, S23, S24 and S6 which were collectively exhibited as Ex. P.2. He also admitted that document Ex. PW.1/J had been signed by him. He stated that he had written the contents of Ex. PW.1/I on the asking of police officials.
He stated that the vehicle No. DER-4108 was registered in his name and he had sold the same to one Lucky, Auto Dealer at RZ-25 Dal Mil Road Uttam Nagar in the year 1998. Lucky had assured him that he would get the vehicle transferred in his name within 15 days. After 15 days, he went to Lucky who informed him that the vehicle had been transferred from his name and registered in the name of one of Lucky's family member whose name he did not disclose. Thereafter, he received challan in the year 2001 from Teen Murti Traffic. He appeared in the court at Patiala House. The vehicle number DL- 1RC-1668 was in his name, but the same was not issued on his request. He had also informed the court that the vehicle was not got issued by him in his name. The court had given him the next date of hearing and officials from the Teen FIR No. 27/01 State vs. Gajpal Singh Rawat & Ors. PS.: Timar Pur Page 5 of 25 Murti (traffic office) were also called. On the next date, he appeared before the Court, Police officer of Teen Murti also appeared and had informed the court that the record of the above said vehicle had been received in his office from Burari. He had also informed that if there was any manipulation, it may be from Burari. The court had given the next date of hearing. The officers from Burari were summoned. On the next date, he appeared before the court and one person from Burari appeared who disclosed that he was peon in the said office and produced record. The court had shown the record produced from Burari and asked him as to whether the signature in his name in Hindi were hi own or not. After seeing the same, he had replied that it was not his signature as he put his signature in English. His signatures in Hindi and English were taken by the court. The court had also observed that the documents of DER- 4108 were also on the file and court had also observed his signature in the same and it was in English. Court had asked him about the signature on the same and he had reported that it was his signature. The court had also informed him that the photocopy of documents of vehicle No. DER-4108 had been taken and same were misused. The court had directed the police officer to impound the vehicle number DL-1RC-1668. On the next hearing, he again appeared before the court and police Inspector of Timarpur also appeared and produced the documents of vehicle DL-1RC-1668 and informed that the document of the said vehicle has been impounded and the vehicle has been released. The court had directed police officer to impound the said vehicle and keep the next date. Inspector from Timarpur had appeared and produced the vehicle DL-1RC-1668 and the person from whom it was recovered. The court had informed him that he was not required to appear in the case for the time being and had also asked him if police officer ask him to appear, he would appear before them. On two or three occasions, he was called in PS Timarpur and he appeared before them. His specimen signatures had been obtained.
FIR No. 27/01 State vs. Gajpal Singh Rawat & Ors. PS.: Timar Pur Page 6 of 25 During cross-examination by Ld. APP for State he stated that the police officer had recorded his statement but he did not remember the exact date. He could not tell the name of that person who was produced before the court alongwith recovered vehicle no. DL-1RC-1668 because his name was not mentioned to him in the court. Previously, he was residing at A-43, Jain Colony, Part III, Uttam Nagar and had purchased a TSR bearing No. DER- 4108 in his name. He did not know whether Lucky had further sold the same to anyone or not. He admitted that the said vehicle was about 15 years old and as per the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the 15 years old vehicle could not be allowed to run in Delhi and in return of the same, Govt. gave some concessions and new vehicle would be issued in place of the same. He admitted that he had received a challan of vehicle No. DL-1RC-1668 and then he came to know about the challan of the same. From the verification of concerned authority, it was revealed that his old vehicle had been scrapped and new vehicle had been renewed in his name by someone else by getting the benefit of Govt. scheme and on the permit of the same his photo was affixed, but it was not bearing his genuine signatures. He had come to know from the Patiala House Court that his photo had been removed from the documents of the vehicle from the registration/permit file of vehicle bearing no. DER-4108 and the same had been affixed on the forge permit. He admitted that at the time of handing over of vehicle, authority obtained signatures on the register and collected copy of ration card and other ID proof. On the date of issue of new vehicle, he had changed his address at RZ39, Part II, Jain Colony, Delhi and had also obtained a ration card on that address. The said vehicle had been issued on his old address upon which he was not residing on the concerned date and having new address and ration card. He was not having any concern with TSR number DL- 1RC-1668. Neither he had purchased TSR No. DL-1RC-1668 nor he had put his signatures on the documents of the same. Someone else had got benefit of FIR No. 27/01 State vs. Gajpal Singh Rawat & Ors. PS.: Timar Pur Page 7 of 25 the Govt. scheme and obtained abovesaid vehicle on the basis of his old vehicle bearing No. DER-4108. He never put his signatures in Hindi and always used to put his signatures in English language. He had handed over copy of his Identity Card issued by ESI Corporation after self attesting the same mark 1A (running into two pages) which bear his signatures at point A. His self attested signature was also at point B. He had also given his written statement already exhibited as Ex. PW1/1 bearing his signatures at point A. He admitted that at the time of selling his TSR he had signed form number 29 and 30 and did not fill the particulars of the same. He had also handed over the documents of his TSR to Lucky. He admitted that he did not mention date on form number 29 and 30 below his signature. He had brought his original ESI card. Copy of the same was already marked as mark 1A (OSR). He did not know about TSR number DL 1RC 1668 for which he had received challan. After receiving the challan, he directly approached the concerned court Patiala House, Delhi. He also stated to the police that he had no concern with the aforesaid TSR. He did not know who had prepared documents of aforesaid TSR in his name as he came to know about its preparation from the concerned Court of Patiala House, Delhi. No private person had ever contacted him regarding the aforesaid TSR. He had been running to the courts for about 15 years due to aforesaid forged registration of TSR in his name and that was his loss. He came to the court for about 20 times. He used to drive the TSR on rent. Earlier He purchased a TSR in his name bearing registration no. DER 4108. He kept the aforesaid TSR from 1990 to 1998. Thereafter, he sold the aforesaid TSR to Lucky, Financer and Auto dealer at Uttam Nagar. The said TSR was sold by him in sum of Rs. 8000/-. He confirmed from Lucky about transfer of the said TSR in their name to which he informed him that the said TSR was transferred in his name. After one and half month of the selling of the TSR, he confirmed from Lucky about the transfer of the said TSR. He had not FIR No. 27/01 State vs. Gajpal Singh Rawat & Ors. PS.: Timar Pur Page 8 of 25 obtained any paper from Lucky Finance to the effect that the TSR sold by him was transferred in Lucky's name. He believed on the version of Lucky Finance regarding transfer of TSR and on his personal level, he did not verify from the transport authority and he also did not take any paper regarding transferring of said TSR. When he sold the said TSR, he signed the papers with the office of Lucky Financier but he did not visit the transport authority. He only came to know that the Lucky Financier had not transferred the aforesaid TSR when he visited the court at Patiala House. Lucky Financer had kept him in dark as he had not applied for transfer the aforesaid TSR in his name. After selling the aforesaid TSR, he had not purchased any new TSR since he was having no funds and his economic condition was poor. He had signed 10-12 papers at the office of Lucky Financier when he sold his TSR. Since 1998, He never intended to purchase any TSR because he was having no funds and he was also not in good health. It may be possible that the Lucky Financier might have obtained his signature on some more papers.
During cross-examination by accused Chanderpal Singh he denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely. During cross-examination by ld. counsel for accused Gajpal Singh Rawat he stated that he started residing at address RZ-39, Jain Colony, Uttam Nagar from year 1999. His vehicle was challaned for address A43, Jain Colony, part III, Uttam Nagar. Police visited at his address of RZ 39 to hand over challan of TSR no. DL 1RC 1668. He admitted that form 29 and 30 were signed during sell purchase of vehicle. I had not kept the photo copy of form 29 and 30 at that time. The vehicle which was sold by him was having number DER 4108. He denied the suggestion that he never sold the vehicle bearing number DER 4108. He voluntarily stated that the vehicle was sold to Lucky dealer. He denied that he never sold the vehicle to the Lucky dealer and that was why his name was not filled in the transfer letter. He had not obtained any receipt of handing over of vehicle to the Lucky FIR No. 27/01 State vs. Gajpal Singh Rawat & Ors. PS.: Timar Pur Page 9 of 25 dealer. During cross examination by ld. counsel for accused Dayal Chand @ Dabbu he admitted that he did not know Dayal Chand and he had not sold his TSR number DER 4108 to Dayal Chand. He voluntarily stated that he had sold it to Lucky auto dealer. He had not given any document to the IO about the selling of his TSR to Lucky auto dealer. He denied the suggestion that he had not given any document about the selling of his TSR to Lucky auto dealer to the IO because he had not sold his TSR to Lucky auto dealer, or that he had replaced the aforesaid TSR with authority. He admitted that these days he had been driving the rented TSR. He received the challan at his address at RZ 39 Jain Colony which was his own house. He had been possessing his driving license and he had brought the same. He admitted that it was a renewed license. He voluntarily stated that the driving license was renewed after every three years. He did not remember as to whether he got his previous driving license renewed regarding address RZ 39 Jain Colony, However, it might be year 1999 and again renewed in year 2004. Currently he was having Aadhaar Card and Ration card with address RZ 39 Jain Colony. He used to cast his vote having voter card with address RZ 39 Jain Colony, however, he had not brought his voter ID card that day. He did not remember the date of issuance of his voter ID card. He could bring his voter ID card if asked for the same. He had brought his original voter ID card and Aadhaar card. Photocopy of the same was taken on the record (OSR). He admitted that his voter ID card was transferred in 2011 at new address RZ 39, Jain Colony, Part II, Matiyala, Delhi. His previous ID Card was on the address A43, Jain Colony, Part III, Uttam Nagar, Delhi. He admitted that the said challan was received at his address of house no. A43, however, He received the same at his address RZ39. He could produce the ownership document of house of RZ 39 as it belonged to him since 1996. The witness produced GPA regarding plot no. 39, Jain Colony, Uttam Nagar, Delhi which was marked as Mark A running into two pages. He FIR No. 27/01 State vs. Gajpal Singh Rawat & Ors. PS.: Timar Pur Page 10 of 25 admitted that the document was not registered and that he did not know any of the accused present in the court on that day. He also admitted that he had not entered into any transaction with accused persons. He denied that he had signed at point Q3 & Q4 on Ex.PW1/A, or at point Q1 & Q2 on Ex.PW1/B, or at point Q5 on Ex.PW1/C, or at point Q6 at Ex.PW1/D, or at point Q7 on Ex.PW1/E, or that he signed on six pages of Ex.PW1/F. He denied that the permit of alleged vehicle contained his genuine signature or that he was residing at his old address i.e. A-42, Jain Colony, Uttam Nagar, Delhi on 10.08.1998 i.e. at the time of issuance of vehicle in his name. TSR no. DER 4108 was in his name since 1996 and he sold the same to Lucky Auto dealer at around April, 1998. He admitted that he was driving the aforementioned auto since 1994. He did not remember the documents which he signed at the time of transfersale of TSR to Lucky auto dealer. He denied that Form 29 and Form 30 Ex.PW1/G, H & I were duly filled before he put his signature on them. He also did not know who filled the Form 29 & Form 30. He denied that he in collusion with Lucky auto dealer got issued new TSR after scrapping the old one, or that he had falsely implicated the accused, or that he had intentionally put certain signature in Hindi and remaining in English to get undue benefit.
4. PW-2 G. S. Aggarwal deposed that on 07.03.2001, he was posted as administrative officer at Commissioner Transport at Rajpur Road. On that day, IO had approached him to get the record of posted staff at Burari Authority in the year July-August 1998. The same was handed over to the IO in the form of a letter. The letter was Ex. PW2/A bearing his signature at point A. IO recorded his statement. During cross-examination by the ld. Counsel for the accused Gajpal Rawat he stated that he did not know the nature of work assigned to the officials whose name were furnished by him to the IO.
FIR No. 27/01 State vs. Gajpal Singh Rawat & Ors. PS.: Timar Pur Page 11 of 25
5. PW-3 HC Vakil Khan deposed that on 18.06.2002, he was posted as Ct. at PS Timar Pur. On that day, he joined the investigation with the IO SI Rajinder Khatri. The accused Gajpal and Chanderpal were present in the PS. The witness correctly identified both the accused in the Court. After interrogation of both the accused, the IO arrested them and conducted their personal search vide memos Ex. PW3/A to D, all bearing his signatures at point A.
6. PW-4 Dr. S. Ahmed deposed that on 14.03.2002 his office at FSL, Govt. of NCT, Delhi had received the letter from SHO, PS Timarpur regarding examination of documents vide letter No. 309/SHO/Timarpur dated 14.03.2002 with particular of the aforesaid FIR. On 26.04.2002 he prepared the report on the basis of supply of question and standard documents having writing and signature. At the time of preparing of the report he was working as Sr. Scientific Officer (Documents) in office of FSL, GNCT, Delhi on deputation. He prepared the report Ex. PW-4/A bearing his signatures at Point A with seal. During cross-examination by accused Gajpal Singh Rawat he stated that the admitted and contemporary writing or signature were required only when the specimen signatures were found disguised.
7. PW-5 SI Subhash Chand deposed that on 15.01.2001, he was posted as HC at PS Timarpur. On that day, he was present at PS alongwith IO SI Rajender Khatri. One person namely Shiv Sharan alongwith TSR bearing no. DL 1RC 1668 came at PS. After interrogation, IO seized the above said TSR vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/A bearing his signature at point A. He stated that he could identify the above said TSR, if shown to him. The identity of TSR was not disputed.
8. PW-6 Inspector Sanjeev Verma deposed that on 08.01.2008, he was posted as FIR No. 27/01 State vs. Gajpal Singh Rawat & Ors. PS.: Timar Pur Page 12 of 25 Sub-Inspector as In-charge Police Post Jharoda, Police Station Timarpur, Delhi. On that day, investigation of the present case/file was marked to him. He obtained the sanction document with regard to accused R.B. Shukla. Thereafter, he collected the reports from FSL, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. He collected some photocopies of the documents from the office of CBI. He recorded the statement of witnesses. After completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet.
9. PW-7 Surender Singh Negi deposed that he was posted as an Ahlmad in the year 1995 in the court of Ld. MM Dinesh Kumar Sharma and the area of jurisdiction of the abovesaid court was Chanakya Puri, Traffic Circle alongwith other police stations. He remained in the said post till February 2002 (as per his knowledge). In the year 2000, he was working as an Ahlmad in the abovesaid court and Ld. MM was Sanjay Garg having jurisdiction of traffic Circle, Chanakya Puri. On February 2002 he was transferred to the office pool, Patiala House. As per record, the charge of abovesaid court was handed over to Sunil Nautiyal. As per his knowledge, he was posted at Patiala House Court at present. He was called by the court to produce the record pertaining to order dated 18.10.2000 in relation to traffic challan number DL 1RC 1668 passed by the then Ld. MM Sanjay Garg. As per his information, the order dated 18.10.2010 was not on record as the same was checked by him in all official record which was not in his custody right now. It must be in possession of his successor ahlmad namely Sunil Nautiyal as he handed over all the pending record to him being the Ahlmad of the court. The order dated 18.10.2000 and order dated 22.06.2002 was in running condition till 29.06.2002. The concerned record must be in the main file and it should be in the custody of the present Ahlmad concerned of above said court. There was possibility, that the order dated 18.10.2000 might be kept in summery trial register which usually FIR No. 27/01 State vs. Gajpal Singh Rawat & Ors. PS.: Timar Pur Page 13 of 25 was in the custody of the reader of the court concerned. He would also check his record regarding handing over the charge of the present case to the Ahlmad concerned. As per record, said case was adjourned for hearing on 22.06.2002 and further adjourned for 29.06.2002 before the court concerned and during such period, he was not posted as Ahlmad in the Court and Sunil Nautiyal was the Ahlmad posted in the court at that time and only he could say about the further proceeding of the matter.
10.PW-8 HC Jitendra deposed that on 10.09.2002, he was posted as Ct. at PS Timar Pur. On that day, he was present with IO SI Rajinder Khatri and they arrested one person namely R. B. Shukla as Ex. PW8/A bearing his signature at point A. He could identify the accused R. B. Shukla. At that stage, witness pointed out towards a wrong person present in court who was not accused R. B. Shukla. At that stage, Ld. APP for State pointed out towards the accused R. B. Shukla and asked whether he was the same accused which was arrested by IO in his presence. Witness could not identify the accused due to lapse of time. He denied the suggestion that he was intentionally not identifying the accused namely R. B. Shukla present in the court and had been won over by him or due to fear factor. At that stage, attention of the witness was drawn towards the document i.e. personal search memo of accused R. B. Shukla conducted by IO in the presence and bearing his signature. He admitted that the personal search was conducted in his presence and memo Ex. PW8/B bearing his signature at point A. During cross-examination by ld. counsel for accused R. B. Shukla he denied the suggestion that IO did not arrest the accused R. B. Shukla in his presence, or that he had signed the documents without the accused being arrested and to fulfill the procedure.
11.PW-9 Sunil Nautiyal deposed that he was posted as an Ahlmad in May 2001 FIR No. 27/01 State vs. Gajpal Singh Rawat & Ors. PS.: Timar Pur Page 14 of 25 in the court of Sh. Sanjay Garg, the then Ld. MM. He had taken charge as an Ahlmad on abovesaid date and taken the custody/possession relating to pending case file/record of above said court and had taken charge after Ahlmad namely Surender Singh Negi who was working as Ahlmad in the abovesaid court till his joining at the abovesaid court. He had received record of pending files/record without paging/list. Now he was not aware about the fact/record/documents pertaining to present case/FIR. As per his knowledge, that was old case and pertained to traffic challan so, possibly could have been weeded out. IO of the present case never called him and met him regarding that case. Moreover, he could make efforts to cross check the records pertaining to present case if some time was given to him. He further stated that despite his best efforts, the order dated 18.10.2000 was not traceable. However, as per the judicial file record pertaining to case FIR no. 27/01 PS Timar Pur, some documents were there relating to criminal revision number 27/02 dated 25.06.2002, the case file pertaining to order dated 18.10.2000 was requisitioned by the Hon'ble Court of Sh. Yogesh Khanna, the then Ld. ASJ. New Delhi and the trial court record was duly received by the aforesaid Hon'ble court on 24.08.02.
12.PW-10 SI Bhudev Singh deposed that on 22.01.2001, he was posted at PS Timar Pur as Duty officer from 4 pm to 1 am. On that day, at about 5.05 pm, he received a rukka from SI Rajender , on the basis of which, he made DD entry no.14A and registered the FIR no. 27/01, FIR was Ex. PW10/A bearing his signature at point A. He also made his endorsement on the rukka Ex. PW10/B bearing his signature at point A. The copy of FIR and original rukka were given to SI Rajender for further investigation. He had brought original FIR registered (OSR).
FIR No. 27/01 State vs. Gajpal Singh Rawat & Ors. PS.: Timar Pur Page 15 of 25
13.PW-11 ASI Jainesh Kumar deposed that on 16.09.2006, he was posted as Ct. at PP Jharoda Kallan, PS Timar Pur. On that day, SI Samarpal arrested and personally searched accused Dayal Chand @ Dabbu at PP Jharoda Kallan. The arrest memo and personal search memo were Ex. PW11/A and Ex. PW11/B both bearing his signature at point A respectively. IO recorded his statement. (Witness correctly identified accused Dayal Chand in the court).
14.PW-12 U. K. Worah deposed that he did not remember about the case being 10 year old case but he had signed the sanction order u/s 197 Cr.P.C. As he was working in the capacity of Registrar Co-operative Society. He did not remember the name of the accused persons against whom he sanctioned the order u/s 197 Cr.P.C for further proceedings regarding that case. He admitted that he had signed the sanctioned order dated 22.02.2008 which was Ex. PW12/A. At that stage, attention of witness was drawn towards the sanctioned order. He admitted that he had signed the sanctioned order for criminal proceedings against accused R.B. Shukla, the then UDC. He stated that he was at the post of Registrar Co-operative Society from June 2007 to 30th April 2009.
During cross-examination by ld. defence counsel he denied the suggestion that he was not aware about the facts and circumstances when he signed the sanctioned order. At that stage, attention of witness was drawn towards the document Ex. PW12/D3 dated 02.01.2008. He denied that the sanctioned order had been prepared by Sh. V. M. Bhagi, AO Vigilance which was Ex. PW12/D3 and he had merely signed Ex. PW12/A without application of mind. He admitted that he had signed the sanctioned order based on the allegations made in the FIR. He denied the suggestion that he had issued the sanctioned order in a mechanical manner. He voluntarily stated that the sanctioned order was issued after considering full facts. He denied the suggestion that he was FIR No. 27/01 State vs. Gajpal Singh Rawat & Ors. PS.: Timar Pur Page 16 of 25 deposing falsely as he had not gone through the facts and circumstances of the case.
15.PW-13 Insp. Rajender Khatri deposed that on 18.10.2000, Ld. MM Sanjay Garg, Patiala House court passed an order regarding inquiry of one TSR bearing no. DER 4108 (the same order was not found on record qua judicial file). The same order was marked to SI Mahesh Kumar for further action and would be reported on or before 18.11.2000. On 06.01.2001, he filed the inquiry report as the same was prepared by SI Mahesh Kumar and he was on leave. The inquiry report was submitted before the court of Ld. MM Sanjay Garg. The order dated 06.01.2001 was Mark H and same was marked to him for investigation. He seized the TSR bearing no. DL 1RC 1668 from one person namely Shiv Saran vide seizure memo already exhibited as Ex. PW5/A bearing his signature at point B. Thereafter, on 22.01.2001 he prepared rukka Ex. PW13/A bearing his signature at point A and same was handed over to duty officer for registration of FIR. Thereafter, he collected the documents i.e. permit, RC of TSR bearing no. DL 1RC 1668 and State Transport Authority record file of vehicle bearing no. DER 4108 from the court of Ld. MM Sanjay Garg. He seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW13/B bearing his signature at point A. He inquired the documents pertaining to registration of vehicle no. DL 1RC 1668 and DER 4108 of same TSR and found there was mismatch of documents. Thereafter, he inquired the matter from the owner of TSR bearing no. DER 4108 namely Anand Bhallab and took his specimen signature and handwriting which was already Ex. P2(Colly) from S7-S11 in Hindi as well as in English. Thereafter, he interrogated the financier namely Baldev Singh who had financed the TSR bearing no. DL 1RC 1668 to Shiv Saran. He collected the documents i.e. form no. 29 (already Ex. PW1/G), form no. 30 (Ex. PW1/H and Ex. PW1/I) in two pages, form no. 34 (Mark K & K1) FIR No. 27/01 State vs. Gajpal Singh Rawat & Ors. PS.: Timar Pur Page 17 of 25 in two pages and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW13/C bearing his signature at point A. He collected the order of Delhi Government regarding scrapping of old TSRs from Rajpur Road Authority which was Mark T (Colly). On 07.03.2001, he made application to Administrative Officer, Rajpur Road Authority for getting the list of employees working in the authority from July to August 1998. His application was Ex. PW13/D bearing his signature at point A. He received the name of the officials from Administrative Officer and the list was already Ex. PW2/A. Thereafter, he also verified the name of last four employees from the authority. His concerned letter was Ex. PW13/E bearing his signature at point A and received the order regarding such employees which was Mark T1. He also collected the documents regarding the procedure adopted by the authority for registration of TSRs which was Mark T2 (in two pages). He also collected the order from Burari Authority regarding the types of work assigned to the officials at Transport Authority Burari. The photocopies of order at annexure L, N & F which were Mark T3, T4 & T5. Thereafter, he interrogated the employees namely C. P. Singh, G. S. Rawat working at Motor License Authority Burari. After interrogation, he arrested the accused Chander Pal Singh and Gajpal Singh Rawat from PS Timarpur on 18.06.2002 and conducted their personal search vide memos already exhibited as E\x. PW3/B, Ex. PW3/A, Ex. PW3/C & Ex. PW3/D all bearing his signature at point B. On 10.09.2002, he interrogated the accused Rajender Babu Shukla and conducted his personal search vide memos already exhibited as Ex. PW8/A and Ex. PW8/B both bearing his signature at point B. (Witness correctly identified all the three accused persons in court). Thereafter, he had applied for sanction of prosecution for aforesaid accused persons vide application Ex. PW13/F bearing his signature at point A and took sanction from Vigilance Office Transport Department. However, sanction of accused R. B. Shukla was taken by him as he was posted in Forest Department. His FIR No. 27/01 State vs. Gajpal Singh Rawat & Ors. PS.: Timar Pur Page 18 of 25 application regarding the same was Ex. PW13/G bearing his signature at point A. He had applied for getting the information regarding registration of auto rickshaw on conversion basis which was Ex. PW13/H bearing his signature at point A. he also made an inquiry about the purchase of chassis of new TSRs which were purchased from Gautam Motors, GT Karnal Road. He had seized one receipt in the name of Anand Bhallab from Gautam Motors. He interrogated Shiv Saran and had taken the specimen signature and handwriting of Shiv Saran already exhibited as Ex. P1 from S1 to S5. He interrogated accused Dayal Chand present in the court (witness correctly identified him) and took his specimen signature and handwriting as Ex. P5(Colly) from S12 to S16. He interrogated Sanjeev Kumar and had taken the specimen signature and handwriting EX.P6 (Colly) from S17 to S20 He recorded the statement of witnesses. Thereafter, he was transferred to PS Kotwali and investigation of the present case was marked to the other IO and he handed over the case file to MHCR.
During his cross-examination by ld. counsel for accused Gajpal Singh Rawat he denied the suggestion that there was no order issued by Sh. Sanjay Garg, the then Ld. MM on 18.10.2000 about registration of present FIR. He made an inquiry and opined in his chargesheet about the role of accused Gajpal Singh Rawat. He also denied that he had falsely implicated the accused Gajpal Singh Rawat in the present case or that the whole manipulation in the present case was done by Anand Ballabh only, or that he did not investigate the case properly and prepared documents without applying his mind. He admitted that I did not seal the seized documents during the investigation. He denied the suggestion that no tampering or destructions of documents qua evidence was done by accused Gajpal Singh Rawat or that accused Gajpal Singh Rawat had not made any forgery or prepared forged documents.
During cross-examination by ld. counsel for accused Dayal Chand, C. P. FIR No. 27/01 State vs. Gajpal Singh Rawat & Ors. PS.: Timar Pur Page 19 of 25 Singh and R. B. Shukla he stated that as per the investigation, witness namely Ayodhaya Prasad and R. K. Bhardwaj disclosed about the procedure which should have been followed in the present case but it was not followed as per the rules/procedure laid down. He had personal knowledge about the said procedure. The detailed report regarding the procedure was mark T and T2 and orders regarding the types of work assigned to the officials of transport authority mark T3, T4 & T5. He denied the suggestion that he neither investigated the case properly not collected the proper documents nor examined the relevant witnesses to make certain about the involvement of accused in the present case. He denied the suggestion that he falsely implicated the accused persons in the present case or just to solve the case that vehicle was replaced by the vehicle owner Anand Ballabh. At that stage, attention of the witness was drawn towards the judicial file so as to find the order dated 18.10.2000. He denied the suggestion that no order issued by Sh. Sanjay Garg, the then Ld. MM on 18.10.2000 about registration of present FIR that was why the above-mentioned order was not found on judicial file. He admitted that he did not seal the seized documents during the investigation. He denied the suggestion that he manipulated the documents and implicated the accused persons. He denied the suggestion that Dayal Chand and R. B. Shukla did not commit forgery by preparing any forged documents.
During cross-examination by ld. counsel for accused C. P. Singh he stated that the final authority who registered the TSR in question was R. K. Bhardwaj, MLO. He voluntarily stated that it was team work. He denied the suggestion that it was not team work but the work done by MLO R. K. Bhardwaj. He seized the documents collected from court and he could say only after going through the documents whether he seized RC and the permit of the TSR bearing no. DL 1RC 1668. He examined R. K . Bhardwaj, however, he did not find any evidence against him that was why he could not make him FIR No. 27/01 State vs. Gajpal Singh Rawat & Ors. PS.: Timar Pur Page 20 of 25 accused. He did not know at what point of time R. K. Bhardwaj was made accused in the present case as he had investigated the case till 2004. Thereafter, the investigation was transferred to other IO. He denied the suggestion that he did not investigate the case properly and falsely and malafide implicated the accused persons in the present case.
16.PW-14 Inspector Samar Pal deposed that on 16.06.2006, he was posted as SI/In-charge at PP Jharoda PS Timar Pur. On that day, the investigation of the present case was marked to him and collected the case file from MHC(R). After necessary inquiries, he called one accused person namely Dayal Chand and he came to know that he was on anticipatory bail in the present case. On 16.09.2006, he interrogated him and formally arrested him and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW11/A and Ex. PW11/B both bearing his signature at point B. Thereafter, on 30.09.2006, he was transferred to some other place and he handed over the case file to MHC( R). (Witness correctly identified the accused in the Court today).
17.PW-15 Inspector Vijay Kumar deposed that on 26.10.2006 he was posted as SI at PS Timar Pur. On that day, investigation of the present case was marked to him. In proceedings, he interrogated Sh. R.K.Bhardwaj then MLO, Burari and he was already granted anticipatory bail. After interrogation, he formally arrested the accused and conducted his personal search vide memos Ex. PW 15/A & B, both bearing his signature at point X. Accused was released on bail on furnishing bail bond. During investigation, he moved an application to Joint Commissioner of Vigilance, Transport Authority, Rajpur Road, Delhi for granting sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C against Sh. R.K.Bhardwaj then MLO, Burari in connection with the present case & same was pending before the concerned department for approval. On 04.05.2007 he got transferred to some other police FIR No. 27/01 State vs. Gajpal Singh Rawat & Ors. PS.: Timar Pur Page 21 of 25 station and he handed over the case file to MHC(R).
18.Thereafter, PE was closed on 29.08.2019 and statement of accused Gajpal Singh was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C on 10.02.2020 and statements of accused Chander Pal Singh, R. B. Shukla and Dayal Chand were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C on 11.02.2020. All accused persons opted not to lead evidence in their defence. Final arguments were concluded on 08.01.2021.
19.I have cogitated over the submissions made by ld. APP for the state and ld. counsel for the accused. Before adverting to appreciation of evidence for deciding the present case, it would be prudent to discuss the penal provisions involved in the case for arriving at just decision. The penal provisions are reproduced in verbatim:-
420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.--Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
468. Forgery for purpose of cheating.--Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
201. Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.--Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false; if a capital offence.--shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with imprisonment for life.--and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with less than ten years' imprisonment.--and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be FIR No. 27/01 State vs. Gajpal Singh Rawat & Ors. PS.: Timar Pur Page 22 of 25 punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both. Illustration A, knowing that B has murdered Z, assists B to hide the body with the intention of screening B from punishment. A is liable to imprisonment of either description for seven years, and also to fine.
120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.--(1)Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence. (2)Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.
20.The case of prosecution in nutshell is that Anand Ballabh sold his TSR no. DER-4108 to Lucky Financier and some unknown person got the TSR of Anand Ballabh scrapped and got issued an RC of a new TSR bearing no. DL- 1RC-1668. For getting the old TSR scrapped and buying the new TSR, the unknown person caused wrongful loss to Anand Ballabh and wrongful gain to himself by illegally obtaining and usurping sales tax exemption and interest subsidy. Accused Gajpal Singh Rawat, Chander Pal Singh and R. B. Shukla are the employees of Transport Authority who allegedly facilitated this forgery and cheating and Dayal Chand was made an accused since he was beneficiary of the above said fraud.
21.The case of the prosecution is nothing but a story of missed chances, non- examination of witnesses, improper investigation and a tale of maintenance of record or the mismanagement of it in Government Offices. For the record, it is important to state that persons namely S.S.Khullar, Sanjeev Kumar, B.K.Wadhwa, Shiv Saran, Baldev Singh, Bharat Lamba, Ayodhaya Prasad and HC Baldev could not be examined as witnesses as most of them were untraceable and one was suffering form paralysis. Incalculable loss was caused to the case of prosecution by non-examination of these persons as prosecution FIR No. 27/01 State vs. Gajpal Singh Rawat & Ors. PS.: Timar Pur Page 23 of 25 witnesses.
22.The present FIR was lodged upon the direction of the then Ld. MM Sh. Sanjay Garg. Even that order which formed the very basis for registration of FIR was not exhibited as the same could not be produced by PW-7 Surender Singh Negi and PW-9 Sunil Nautiyal. PW-7 stated that when he left charge, the case was going on and all files were given to Sunil Nautiyal. In his testimony, Sunil Nautiyal stated that he received all files without pagination and the record had once been called by Sh. Yogesh Khanna, the then Ld. ASJ, New Delhi. Be that as it may but the record was not traceable in any court and the result was that even that basic order which should have been meticulously kept was not produced.
23.Secondly, the final authority for issuing the permit was MLO concerned. In this case the permit on the basis of forged documents was issued by R. K. Bhardwaj. It is not in dispute that the permit for new TSR no. DL-1RC-1668 was got issued by practicing impersonation and the MLO should have checked the file before signing the permit. The IO applied for sanction u/s 197 Cr. P. C to prosecute the MLO but even after seven years of FIR the sanction was not received and resultantly, the High Court of Delhi vide order dated 04.03.2008 quashed the present FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom against MLO. Was the MLO hand in glove with the other conspirators or not would never be known because of inaction of authorities concerned.
24.Anand Ballabh categorically stated that he sold the vehicle to Lucky financier but surprisingly, Lucky Financier is neither an accused nor examined as a witness in the matter. How the blank signed documents i.e. Form 29 & 30 (required for transfer of ownership of motor vehicle) given to Lucky financier FIR No. 27/01 State vs. Gajpal Singh Rawat & Ors. PS.: Timar Pur Page 24 of 25 by the complainant were misused by the unknown impersonator and how that impersonator is connected to alleged beneficiary Dayal Chand has not been investigated at all. There is no link established between Lucky Financier and Dayal Chand or between lucky Financier or unknown impostor.
25.Even the sanction obtained for prosecuting Gajpal Singh and Chanderpal Singh under Section 197 Cr. P. C available on record could not be proved by the prosecution. Who misused the earlier photographs of Anand Ballabh to get the new TSR issued is not known, how the file which was grossly incomplete was accepted by the MLO and permit issued on the basis of mere forms and without requisite documents or of any identity proof documents is beyond the comprehension of this court. Another problem with the present case is that the procedure for scrapping the old polluting 15 years old TSR and for issuance of new TSR was told to the IO by one of the alleged co-conspirators R. K. Bhardwaj. A plain reading of the procedure described by R. K. Bhardwaj puts all the onus of this wrong doing on three junior level officials who were LDC, UDC and Head Clerk in the MLO Office. It was but expected of the MLO to be circumspect of files placed before him for signing by the lower level officials and to work with utmost sincerity but he failed in his duty and he may have deliberately shifted the blame on junior level officials.
26.The FSL report Ex. PW.4/A proved by Dr. S. Ahmed also exonerates the accused persons as the forged signatures of Anand Ballabh found on the documents for issuance of new TSR and scrapping of old TSR did not match with the handwriting and signatures of any of the four accused persons. Moreover, the prosecution has also failed to prove the custody of the files which contained all document submitted for scrapping old TSR and issuance of new TSR. It was not proved with certitude who had the custody of the files FIR No. 27/01 State vs. Gajpal Singh Rawat & Ors. PS.: Timar Pur Page 25 of 25 since issuance of new TSR till the file was called by Sh. Sanjay Garg, the then Ld. MM. Consequently, it cannot be ascertained 'whether the documents were initially attached in the file or not or whether they have been subsequently removed after issuance of permit and by whom'. The shoddy investigation carried out in the case and the time taken to prosecute the accused persons has ensured that some witnesses could not appear in the court as they were untraceable. The case against the accused persons is not proved beyond reasonable doubt and resultantly, the accused are acquitted of all the charges against them. Neither criminal conspiracy nor forgery, cheating or destruction of evidence could be proved against the accused persons.
Announced in the open court today i.e. 25th day of January, 2021 (ANURAG THAKUR) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE -02 TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI This judgment consists of 25 pages and each and every page of this judgment is signed by me.
FIR No. 27/01 State vs. Gajpal Singh Rawat & Ors. PS.: Timar Pur