Delhi District Court
State vs . Pankaj Kumar on 4 March, 2008
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI J.P. NAHAR : M. M.
NEW DELHI
State Vs. Pankaj Kumar
FIR NO. : 24/97
P.S. : G.K. -I
U.S. : 420/468/471 IPC
JUDGMENT :
1.Sr. No. of the Case : 13/2 dated 27.3.97
2. Date of Institution of Case : 15.09.92
3.Name of complainant : Bhanwar Singh SPM
Kailash Colony
4.Date of incident : 27.11.96, 6.12.96 and 9.12.96
5.Name of accused : Pankaj Kumar S/o Late Sh.
Ajit Ranjan Lal R/o 507,
Tara Appartment, North
Shashtri Nagar, Patna.
6.Offence complained of : U/s 420/468/471 IPC
7.Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Case reserved for order : 04.03.08
9.Final order : Convicted
10.Date of such Order : 04.03.08
BRIEF REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION :
1. The case of the prosecution against the accused in brief 2 is that on 27.11.96 , 6.12.96 and 9.12.96 accused had visted the post office Kailash Colony and impersonated as Manoj Kumar Bansal dishonestly and fraudulently and induced the complainant Bhanwar Singh (SPM) to make payment of Kisan Vikas Patra for an amount of Rs. 39,300/- and also accused forged the said Kisan Vikas Patra for the purpose of cheating to complainant and used the said forged Kisan Vikas Patra as a genuine for cheating the complainant.
2. After the registration of the FIR, the police conducted necessary investigation and filed the challan u/s 420/468/471 IPC against the accused.
3. After the filing of the challan, accused was summoned, copies were supplied to the accused and charge for the offence punishable u/s 420/468/471 IPC was framed against the accused on 18.10.97.
4. The necessary sections are referred below as under.:
The essential ingredients to attract S.420 IPC are :
(i) cheating;
(ii) dishonest inducement to deliver property or to make, alter or destroy any valuable security or anything which is sealed or signed or is capable of being converted into a valuable security, and the
(iii) mens rea of the accused at the time of making the inducement.3
The making of a false representation is one of the ingredients for the offence of cheating under Section 420. (See Bashirbhai Mohamedbhai v. State of Bombay (AIR 1960 SC 979)).
To constitute the offence of cheating, it is not necessary that the deception should be by express words, but it may be by conduct or implied in the nature of the transaction itself. The definition of the offence of forgery declares the offence to be completed when a false document or false part of a document is made with specified intention. The questions are (i) is the document false (ii) is it made by the accused and (iii) is it made with an intent to defraud. If at all the questions are answered in the affirmative, the accused is guilty.
Further U/s.471 IPC whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record , shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record.
5. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined PW1 Bhanwar Singh SPM, Kailash Colony who is the complainant and made complaint dated 27.12.97 Ex. PW 1/C to the police in which he corroborated the averment regarding cheating by accused.
4
6. PW2 is Devender Mani, ASP who has deposed that IO/SI Sunil Kumar seized 6 Kisan Vikas Patra Ex. PW 2/A to Ex. PW 2/F and Identify slip Ex. PW 2/H to I and also stated that IO/PW9 prepared seizure memo Ex. PW 2/J and PW9 collected documents from Lodhi Road Head Post Office. PW2 further deposed that IO recorded his statement.
7. PW3 Parmanand Prasad SPM CDA, Patna has deposed that on 10.12.96 he received a confirmation letter sent from Delhi regarding certificate No. 11BB-011731 and 011732 dt. 3.2.94 and on 12.12.96 he also again received confirmation letter regarding certificate No. 31BB-014786 and 014785 dt. 3.2.94. PW3 proved his report Ex. PW 3/A.
8. PW4 is Nabor Beck, Office Assistant has deposed that 6 certificates No. 31BB 011731, 011732, 014785, 014786, 014789 and 014790 were seized vide memo Ex. PW 2/J by IO/SI Sunil Kumar who came at his office and PW4 has further deposed that IO recorded his statement.
9. PW5 is HC Om Parkash who is Duty Officer. PW6 is SI 5 Ganesh Prasad who gave the information of disclosure statement of accused Ex. PW 6/A to P.S. G.K. -I. PW6 has further deposed that all the police stations were informed where case of such nature of cheating by using forged KVS were registered and gave relevant copies of document.
10. PW8 is Nathu Ram Postmaster of PO Multani Danda, Pahar Ganj who has deposed that disclosure statement Ex. PW 6/A in case FIR NO. 915/96 P.S. Pahar Ganj was made by accused Pankaj Kumar present in the court.
11. PW9 SI Sunil Kumar is investigating officer who had conducted the investigation. PW9 also identified the accused and submitted the challan in the court.
12. In the statement of accused u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C he has stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case and he was made to sign on blank papers and he did not made disclosure statement at P.S. Pahar Ganj.
13. I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP on behalf of the State and the Ld. Defence Counsel on behalf of the accused and I have gone through the documents on record, carefully.
14. For the offence u/sec. 420 IPC PW 1 has deposed that the concerned post office situated at Kailash Colony, GK-I Delhi 6 which made payment on Kishan Vikas Patra of Rs. 5,000/- and which was paid by Mr. Kanchi Singh Postal Assistant. The said KVP were issued by CDA Post Office, Patna. After making the payment Ex. PW 1/A which is in copy and which also bears the number NC-10 was returned from Post Office Patna with the report that the said KVP was not issued from the Post Office Patna. It is also exhibited as Ex. PW3/A. Similar is report from Post Master Patna on Ex. PW 1/B on photocopy which is also exhibited as Ex. PW 3/B. All of them are pertaining for a sum of Rs. 5,000/-. The said KVP were reportedly issued in favour of one Mr. Manoj Kumar and not in favour of the accusedherein. A FIR was lodged at P.S. G.K. -I and complaint was lodged vide Ex. PW 1/C and the relevant documents were handed over to IO for necessary inquiry. Cross examination of present witness is nil, after giving of opportunity.
15. PW2 has deposed that on 18.2.97 he had seized six KVP Ex. PW 2/A to Ex. PW 2/F and also seized identity slip Ex. PW 2/G to Ex. PW 2/I. A seizure memo Ex. PW 2/J was prepared where PW2 had identified his signatures at point-X. The documents were seized from the Head Post Office situated at Lodhi Road, Delhi. Cross-examination of present witness is also nil after giving of opportunity.
7
16. PW3 has deposed that he was posted as SPM, CDA Patna on 10.12.96 and the confirmation letter from Delhi regarding the KVP was sent to him number of which is deposed by PW3 in evidence as No. 11BB-011732 dated 03.2.94 and 12.12.96 respectively. PW3 had also received confirmation letter regarding certificate No. 31BB-014786 and 014785 both dated 03.2.94 vide registration No. 4839. PW3 has proved his report as Ex. PW 3/A and Ex. PW 3/B and the same is also exhibited on record as Ex. PW 1/A and Ex. PW 1/B. PW3 has deposed that as per their record the said KVP certificate were not issued from their department and original of which record was seen before the court and it was returned.
17. PW4 has deposed that on 10.2.97 SI Sunil Kumar came to their office and Mr. Devender Moni the then SP produced 6 certificates and number are deposed in deposition of PW4 as 31BB, 011731-32, 014785 to 014787 and 014790. The identify slip was given to SI Sunil Kumar which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW 2/A. Cross examination of present witness is nil after giving of the opportunity.
8
18. PW5 is Duty Officer who has proved the FIR Ex. PW A recorded on the basis of rukka sent by SI Sunil Kumar.
19. PW6 has deposed that on 16.12.96 he was posted at P.S. Pahar Ganj and he had arrested the accused Pankaj Kumar in FIR No. 915/96 pertaining to P.S. Pahar Ganj when he was using forged Kisan Vikas Patra. The disclosure statement of accused is Ex. PW 6/A. PW6 has deposed that he had informed about the forgery and cheating of KVP to all the police station. Nothing incriminating came in the evidence of PW6 during the cross-examination of PW6.
20. PW7 has deposed that he has worked as Senior Scientific Officer since 1996. On 11.3.97 he had received documents pertaining to P.S. G.K. -I which were 6 KVP Q1 to Q6 and the sample writing in three pages from S 1 to S18. The said Q documents were examined by him with sample and submitted his report as Ex. PW 7/A and proved his signatures on the report at point-A. It is deposed that the blue enclosed writing stamp and Mark Q1 to Q6 and S1 to S18 were all written by the same person. PW7 had also seized the documents of KVP Ex. PW 2./A to Ex. PW 2/F. In cross-examination by Ld. Legal Aid counsel it 9 has been suggested that the sample writing were not taken in presence of PW7 by the police.
21. PW8 has deposed that on 16.12.98 he was working as post master at post office Multani Dhanda Pahar Ganj, New Delhi and on that day accused present in the court made a disclosure statement in case FIR no. 915/96 of P.S. Pahar Ganj vide Ex. PW 6/A and which bears the signatures of PW8 at point-B. PW8 has deposed that the disclosure statement was given by the accused at P.S. Pahar Ganj and rest of the suggestion are denied by PW8. No other infirmity is found in his deposition during cross-examination.
22. PW9 is IO in the case who has deposed that on 18.1.97 a written complaint Ex. PW 1/C was given by Postmaster of Kailash Colony on which a case was registered vide FIR No. Ex. PW 5/A. PW9 has also deposed that on 20.1.97 an information about disclosure statement Ex. PW 6/A of accused Pankaj Kumar was received from P.S. Pahar Ganj regarding his involvement and PW9 formally arrested the 10 accused at the court on 27.1.97 and obtained the specimen signature of accused which PW9 sent to FSL for expert opinion. PW9 further deposed that six forged Kisan Vikas Patra Ex. PW 2/A to Ex. PW 2/F and three identity slips Ex. PW2/G to Ex. PW 2/I were seized during investigation and which were sent them to FSL with the sample hand writing of accused. PW9 has further deposed that he had submitted the challan. He correctly identified the accused present in the court.
23. The main contention of the defence is that the sample signature of the accused were not taken in the presence of an independent witness and the accused seeks to derive benefit by showing that the sample signatures are not his. However, other than the averment no cross-examination of PW1 is seen to the said fact and in the cross examination of PW7, there is no suggestion by the accused that the said signature were not taken from him nor he suggested or doubted in not taking of signatures at the police station. Accused has to show prima-facie that by so taking the sample signatures he has been prejudiced in his right. It is prerogative of investigating agency to obtain and collect necessary evidence, get them examined and produce 11 them before the Court. Merely because different procedure is followed is not ground for doubting the authenticity of investigation carried out. It is submitted by the defence is that specimen signature had to be taken before the court only. In view of Rakesh Kuamr Vs. State 109 (2004) DLT 130 the taking of specimen signature of the accused without permission and without authority of the Court is inadmissible in evidence. Therefore the evidence of PW7 cannot be relied upon. In absence of the same the prosecution has no other evidence on record on the basis of which it can claim upon the ingredients of Sec. 468. However, the ingredients of sec. 471 IPC are clearly made out in that accused had used the said Kisan Vikas Patra for the purpose of withdrawal of money and the said withdrawal was made by him as per deposition of PW1 and PW2 , PW3, PW4 and PW8, in false and misrepresenting himself to be some other person knowing that the documents are not genuine and used it dishonestly and therefore he is liable for punishment u/sec. 471 IPC. The defence of the accused is that FIR was lodged after 40 days therefore the evidence wrongly is planted on him but the delay in lodging of FIR explained by the prosecution in the fact that accused was arrested in another case and the police in another case had came to know during 12 investigation about the the involvement of accused in other cases. No other material inconsistency or infirmity is found in the deposition of witnesses. The government servant/postal staff are subject to transfer and keeping view the fact that they are dealing with large matter in a day it may not be possible to them to individually remember each of the case and not bringing before court such particular person who dealt with the accused is in fact a frivolous defence as the documentary evidence and deposition bought against the accused is a record obtained in ordinary course of nature and proved accordingly. Hence accused is convicted u/sec. 471 IPC read with S.465 IPC.
24. The accused has presented the 6 KVP which he knew were not genuine before the post office situated at N Block Kailash Colony, GK-I and therefore dishonestly induced the officers therein to release money on the said forged KVP which were 6 in number and converted those forged KVP into valuable security and thus accused has cheated the Postal Department of the money which was not due to the accused. Accused had used the said Kisan Vikas Patra for the purpose of withdrawal of money and the said withdrawal was made by him as per 13 deposition of PW1 and PW2 , PW3, PW4 and PW8 knowing that the documents are not genuine and used it dishonestly and therefore he is liable for punishment u/sec. 420 IPC, hence accused is convicted u/sec. 420 IPC.
Announced & dictated in
the open Court on 04.03.08 ( J.P. NAHAR )
MM: NEW DELHI