Delhi District Court
State vs Pramod Kumar Etc on 13 February, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. DEEPTI DEVESH: CMM,
SOUTH-EAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
State Vs. Pramod Kumar & Anr.
FIR No.: 33/2000
P.S.: Badarpur
U/Sec.: 420/467/468/471/120B IPC
JUDGMENT :-
Srl. No. of the case & Date of 86755/2016 dated 03.06.2000 institution Date of commission of offence From 24.12.1999 to 13.01.2000 Name of the complainant NTPC Name of the accused (1.) Pramod Kumar Singh s/o Sh. H.N. Singh r/o A-66A, Sector-23, Noida, UP.
(2.) Jitender Gupta s/o Raj Kumar Gupta r/o J-137, Sector-22, Noida, UP.
(3) Santosh Kumar Kashyap
s/o Sh. G.D. Kashyap
(already convicted &
sentenced vide order dated
13.12.2002)
(4). Rajiv Kumar Sharma
s/o Sh. Narain Chander
Sharma
(already PO vide order dated
03.04.2001)
Nature of offence complained U/s 420/467/468/471/120B IPC of Plea of the accused person Accused pleaded not guilty Date of reserving order 18.01.2024 State Vs. Pramod Kumar & Anr.
FIR No.: 33/2000 P.S.: Badarpur U/Sec.: 420/467/468/471/120B IPC Page No. 1 OF 13 Final Order Acquitted u/s 420/467/468/471/120B IPC Date of order 13.02.2024
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE:-
1. In the present case, the accused persons are facing trial for offence punishable under Section 420/467/468/471/120B IPC on the allegations that from 24.12.1999 till 13.01.2000, accused persons in conspiracy with each other and co-accused, committed illegal act of cheating the complainant by withdrawing an amount of Rs. 58,37,200/- from bank account of complainant at SBI, Badarpur branch, after opening fake bank accounts and forging signatures of Naresh Dayal and Beena Jain, both executives of complainant company on 24 blank cheques of the complainant company.
2. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed on 03.06.2000, on which date cognizance was also taken.
Copy of charge-sheet and documents were supplied to both accused persons on 08.06.2000. Charge for offences punishable U/s. 420/467/468/471/120B IPC was framed on 16.08.2001 upon accused Pramod Kumar Singh, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Subsequently, during trial, accused Jitender Gupta was also charge sheeted in supplementary charge sheet and charge qua accused Jitender Gupta was framed under sections 420/467/468/471/120B IPC on 25.07.2018, to which he State Vs. Pramod Kumar & Anr.
FIR No.: 33/2000 P.S.: Badarpur U/Sec.: 420/467/468/471/120B IPC Page No. 2 OF 13 pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. To prove its case, prosecution has examined 28 witnesses.
4. Vide separate statement dated 12.09.2018, both accused had admitted, under Section 294 Cr.P.C, FSL report dated 15.05.2001 Ex. A-1 and FSL report dated 31.10.2000 as Ex. A-2.
5. PW4 is the signatory of complaint on behalf of complainant company, who has deposed that on 19.01.2000, the Management of the complainant company came to know that one blank cheque book containing 50 leaves of the complainant company was missing from office. He further deposed that after further inquiry, it came to light that 24 cheques of the missing cheque book were used for encashment from 24.12.1999 to 13.01.2000 from complainant's bank account, after forging signatures of some officials of complainant. Thereafter, the complainant immediately issued stop payment instructions to the concerned bank with respect to remaining 26 leaves of the missing cheque book. He further deposed that all the transactions using the forged cheques were made in six bank accounts and the details were obtained by the complainant company and given to police in his complaint Ex. PW4/A and Ex. PW4/B. The above mentioned prosecution witness has not been cross examined, despite opportunity by the accused persons.
FIR No.: 33/2000 P.S.: Badarpur U/Sec.: 420/467/468/471/120B IPC Page No. 3 OF 13
6. PW1, PW2, PW3, PW5, PW7, PW8, PW9, PW10, PW12, PW13, PW17, PW25, PW26, PW27 and PW28 are Bank witnesses relating to seizure of account opening forms and related documents of fake bank accounts, allegedly opened by the accused persons in the name of Deepak Verma, Ramesh Kumar Mathur, Naresh Yadav, Mahesh Dwivedi, Anil Chaudhary and Suresh Chand Sharma. Furthermore, the above said bank witnesses have also deposed about the cheques allegedly used by accused persons for deposit and withdrawal of money from the fake bank accounts. None of the above mentioned prosecution witnesses have been cross examined, despite opportunity given to the accused persons.
7. PW6, PW11 and PW15 are employees of complainant company, who have deposed about the information given by them to IO during investigation of the present matter. PW6 has deposed about the attendance register in relation to accused Rajiv Kumar Sharma (Absconder) and that the forged cheques were kept in easy approach of the said accused at office of the complainant company.
8. PW11 is the concerned Executive of the complainant company, whose signatures were forged allegedly by the accused persons. She has deposed about giving specimen signatures to IO for the purpose of investigation.
9. PW15 has deposed about collecting cheque books State Vs. Pramod Kumar & Anr.
FIR No.: 33/2000 P.S.: Badarpur U/Sec.: 420/467/468/471/120B IPC Page No. 4 OF 13 from the concerned bank branch including the cheque book, out of which, 24 cheques were misused by forged signatures to misappropriate money of complainant company.
10. None of the above mentioned prosecution witnesses have been cross examined, despite opportunity by the accused persons.
11. PW18 and PW19 have deposed about election I- cards bearing the same number DL/021/027458, as forged and fraudulent election I-cards, on the basis that no two election I-cards are allotted the same number. None of the above mentioned prosecution witnesses have been cross examined, despite opportunity by the accused persons.
12. PW21 is Assistant Director, RFSL, who has proved FSL report Ex.PW21/A, in which opinion has been given against accused Jitender Gupta that his specimen signatures bearing no. S-178 to S-184 in documents Ex. PW21/D1 to Ex. PW21/D7, match with the signatures at point Q-232 in cheque Ex. PW21/D. The above mentioned prosecution witness has also not been cross examined, despite opportunity by the accused persons.
13. Remaining prosecution witnesses i.e. PW14, PW16, PW20, PW22, PW23 and PW24 are police witnesses.
FIR No.: 33/2000 P.S.: Badarpur U/Sec.: 420/467/468/471/120B IPC Page No. 5 OF 13
14. PW14 has deposed about receipt of complaint from complainant company, on which he made endorsement Ex. PW14/A and got the present FIR registered. Thereafter, he seized documents from various banks vide seizure memos Ex. PW14/C to PW14/G, Ex. PW2/A, Ex. PW1/A, Ex. PW3/A and Ex. PW1/E.
15. PW16 joined investigation with IO on 09.03.2000 and witnessed arrest of convict Santosh Kumar Kashyap and also witnessed recording of disclosure statement of accused Pramod Kumar Singh on 16.03.2000.
16. PW20 has deposed that he was marked investigation of the present matter in February 2000, after which he seized documents from various banks vide seizure memos Ex. PW7/A, Ex. PW3/C, Ex. PW8/B, Ex. PW20/A, Ex. PW10/A, Ex. PW20/B, Ex. PW20/C and Ex.PW5/A. The seized documents are Ex. PW7/C1 to C-8, Ex. PW7/D1 to D8, Ex.PW3/D1 to D8, Ex. PW3/E-1 to E-8, Ex. PW8/C1 to C-21, Ex. PW21/D, Ex. PW17/B and Ex. PW17/C, Mark 20/X1 to Mark 20/XY, Ex. PW10/B1 to Ex. PW10/B11, Ex. PW10/C1 to 10/C4, Ex. PW20/B1 to B5, Ex.PW12/A, Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-3, Ex. PW5/B1 to B-24, Ex. PW5/C1 to C8. He further deposed about arrest of convict Santosh Kumar and accused Pramod Kumar Singh. He obtained specimen signatures from concerned persons and sent the relevant documents for comparison to FSL and filed the original charge sheet in court. Thereafter, he was cross examined State Vs. Pramod Kumar & Anr.
FIR No.: 33/2000 P.S.: Badarpur U/Sec.: 420/467/468/471/120B IPC Page No. 6 OF 13 and discharged on 15.10.2019.
17. PW22 joined investigation with IO on 08.07.2010 and 09.07.2010, witnessed taking of specimen handwriting as well as signatures of accused Jitender Gupta.
18. PW23 has deposed that after taking permission from the court, he obtained signatures handwriting of accused Jitender and sent the relevant documents for comparison to FSL Rohini and thereafter, filed supplementary charge-sheet in the present matter. Thereafter, he was cross examined and discharged on 20.03.2019.
19. PW24 deposed that he also obtained signatures/handwriting of accused Jitender on 09.07.2010 and handed over the said documents to PW23. Thereafter, he was cross examined and discharged on 20.03.2019.
20. No other PW was examined by prosecution and hence, PE was closed.
21. Statements of accused persons were recorded U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., firstly on 12.02.2020. However, thereafter, prosecution evidence was reopened vide order dated 15.09.2020. After further closure of recording of PE, statement of both the accused persons was again recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C on 01.10.2022, wherein they denied the case of the prosecution and State Vs. Pramod Kumar & Anr.
FIR No.: 33/2000 P.S.: Badarpur U/Sec.: 420/467/468/471/120B IPC Page No. 7 OF 13 pleaded innocence. However, they declined to lead any evidence in defence.
22. Final arguments were advanced at length by Ld. APP for the State and counsel for accused Pramod Kumar. Written arguments were filed on behalf of accused Jitender Gupta. Accused Jitender Gupta has relied upon judgments in Manorama Naik vs. The State of Odisha & Anr., Criminal Appeal no. 423/2022 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9722/2016), decided on 14.03.2022 and Ishwari Prasad Misra vs. Mohammad Isa, Civil Appeal no. 630 of 1960, decided on 27.08.1962.
23. I have considered the submissions and perused the record carefully.
24. This being a criminal case, the burden of proving guilt of accused lies upon the prosecution for which the standard required is beyond reasonable doubt. The main ingredient of the offences alleged in the present case is commission of forgery by forging signatures on 24 cheques of the complainant company, which are in the nature of valuable security, and misuse of the forged cheques to cause wrongful loss to the complainant company by fraudulent withdrawal of Rs. 58,37,200/- from bank account of complainant company in fake bank accounts opened allegedly by accused persons in names of fake persons. Now, let us examine if the prosecution has been able to establish the guilt State Vs. Pramod Kumar & Anr.
FIR No.: 33/2000 P.S.: Badarpur U/Sec.: 420/467/468/471/120B IPC Page No. 8 OF 13 of the accused persons on the basis of the evidence adduced.
25. Of all the bank witnesses examined by prosecution, none has deposed that the accused persons facing trial in the present matter were the same persons who had visited the concerned bank branches for opening of allegedly fake bank accounts, in which money from complainant's bank account was received. None of the concerned witnesses have deposed that the photograph given along with bank account opening forms, are photographs of the accused persons facing trial. Thus, the link connecting the accused persons to opening of fake bank accounts in name of fake persons has not been established by way of evidence by the prosecution.
26. Furthermore, PW18 and PW19 have deposed about election I cards being fake documents, but their evidence also suffers from the same lacuna that the said documents Ex. PW2/B2 have not been linked to any accused. The above said documents were seized from different banks and no evidence has been produced before court to show that fake election I cards seized in the present matter were actually handed over by accused persons to the concerned banks at the time of opening of fake bank accounts. The report proved by PW18 as Ex. PW18/A and Ex. PW18/B also has not been linked to the accused persons by the prosecution in evidence. Perusal of all the above said documents, i.e. photocopies of allegedly fake election I- cards and report shows that the same bears photograph, but the State Vs. Pramod Kumar & Anr.
FIR No.: 33/2000 P.S.: Badarpur U/Sec.: 420/467/468/471/120B IPC Page No. 9 OF 13 prosecution has failed to establish if the said photograph on these documents belong to any accused, facing trial. Thus, in absence of any such linking of documents with the accused persons by the prosecution, it cannot be said that the evidence of PW18 & PW19 amounts to any incriminating evidence against the accused persons.
27. Only PW6, who is employee of complainant company, has deposed that photograph of convict Santosh were like the photographs pasted on the seized bank account opening forms of the six fake bank accounts. However, PW6 also has not made any incriminating statement against accused Pramod Kumar Singh or Jitender Gupta, except that their names were disclosed by convict Santosh Kumar in his disclosure statements that they used to visit the house of accused Rajiv Kumar (Absconder). Mere visit by accused persons to the house of co- accused, is not sufficient for incriminating the accused persons facing trial and is the weakest form of evidence that could have been brought by the prosecution.
28. Even the police witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution, including the different IOs of the present matter, have not deposed anywhere that the photographs on bank account opening forms of the fake bank accounts were those of the accused persons. Lack of such evidence on behalf of prosecution establishes a gap in the chain of evidence that could have linked the accused persons to atleast the opening of State Vs. Pramod Kumar & Anr.
FIR No.: 33/2000 P.S.: Badarpur U/Sec.: 420/467/468/471/120B IPC Page No. 10 OF 13 allegedly fake bank accounts.
29. Furthermore, the prosecution has put forward the case that the accused persons had forged signatures of PW11 and one Naresh Dayal, both employees of the complainant company on the 24 stolen cheques of the complainant company. However, no evidence has been produced by the prosecution to support this claim. FSL reports Ex. A1 and A2 failed to give any conclusive opinion regarding the accused persons having made any signature or written any part on the 24 cheques of complainant company seized by IO during investigation. The FSL report Ex.PW21/A contains conclusive finding only in respect of one signature of accused Jitender Gupta at Point Q-232 on cheque Ex. PW21/D. Firstly, the cheque Ex. PW21/D is not one of the 24 stolen cheques of the complainant company. The said cheque Ex. PW21/D belongs to the allegedly fake bank account in the name of Deepak Verma, on which alleged signatures of Deepak Verma have been placed for encashment of Ex. PW21/D in favour of self. The prosecution case has not linked the signatures of Deepak Verma on Ex. PW21/D with the present accused persons in any manner as no evidence have been produced for the same. The only allegation made by the prosecution is that Ex. PW21/D was used by accused Jitender Gupta to encash an amount of Rs. 3,10,000/- from the alleged fake bank account in the name of Deepak Verma, which money was fraudulently withdrawn from the complainant company's bank account originally. Thus, the opinion given in FSL report Ex. PW21/A only establishes the fact State Vs. Pramod Kumar & Anr.
FIR No.: 33/2000 P.S.: Badarpur U/Sec.: 420/467/468/471/120B IPC Page No. 11 OF 13 that accused Jitender Gupta had presented cheque Ex. PW21/D to the concerned bank, and for the purpose of encashment, had put his signatures at point Q-232 on Ex. PW21/D. Without linking the accused Jitender Gupta to actual opening of the alleged fake account in the name of Deepak Verma, or forging signatures on 24 stolen cheques of complainant company or using the allegedly forged 24 stolen cheques of complainant company to withdraw/transfer money from bank account of complainant company, into the alleged fake bank account in the name of Deepak Verma, merely establishing presentment of Ex. PW21/D by accused Jitender Gupta for encashment, does not complete the entire chain of events for conclusively establishing the guilt of accused Jitender Gupta beyond reasonable doubt for the alleged offences. The prosecution has miserably failed to establish the complete sequence of prior events, which would have culminated in encashment by accused Jitender Gupta and merely establishing the last event i.e. actual encashment of Ex. PW21/D, is grossly insufficient to establish guilt of accused Jitender Gupta beyond reasonable doubt.
30. In the entire prosecution evidence, no incriminating evidence at all has been produced against accused Pramod Kumar Singh. No evidence has been produced to link accused Pramod Kumar Singh with theft of cheques of complainant company, forging signatures on the stolen cheques, opening of fake bank accounts, deposit of forged cheques to withdraw/transfer money from bank account of complainant to State Vs. Pramod Kumar & Anr.
FIR No.: 33/2000 P.S.: Badarpur U/Sec.: 420/467/468/471/120B IPC Page No. 12 OF 13 fake bank accounts and withdrawal of money from the fake bank accounts.
31. Thus, as a cumulative effect of all the points discussed above, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and benefit of doubt must necessarily go in favour of both accused persons. Accordingly accused persons namely Pramod Kumar and Jitender Gupta are acquitted of the offence punishable U/Sec. 420/467/468/471/120B IPC.
Digitally signed by(Typed upon dictation directly DEEPTI DEEPTI DEVESH on court computer and DEVESH Date: 2024.02.15 11:06:18 +0530 announced in the open Court today dt. 13.02.2024) (Deepti Devesh) Chief Metropolitan Magistrate South East, Saket Courts New Delhi State Vs. Pramod Kumar & Anr.
FIR No.: 33/2000 P.S.: Badarpur U/Sec.: 420/467/468/471/120B IPC Page No. 13 OF 13