Delhi District Court
Vijayasarathy vs Sudha Seetharam (2019) 16 Scc 739, The ... on 2 July, 2022
DLSE020008222011 IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIMESH KUMAR, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-06, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI STATE FIR NO: P.S U/s Cre No./92798/2016 Date of its institution Name of the complainant Date of Commission of offence Name of the accused JUDGMENT
Sajeeda Begum 124/06 Kalkaji 420/468 IPC 20.08.2011 Sh. Ganga Ram, S/o Kishanji, R/o B-169A, Jawahar Park, Khanpur, Devli Road, New Delhi.
2005(i) Sajida Begum, S/o Sh. Pyare Mian, R/o H. No. 793/7, Govind Putri, New Delhi.
(ii) Anmed Ali @ Puttan, R/o H. NO. 501, Gali NO. 6, Govind Puri, New Delhi --
(absconder).
(iii) Asif Ali, S/o Sh. Ahmed Ali, R/o H. No. 501, Gali NO. 6, Govind Puri, New Delhi {absconder).
Plea of accused : Not Guilty Case reserved for orders : 07.06.2022 Final Order ; Convicted Date of orders : 02.07.2022 A. BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS:-
1. Vide this judgment, | seek to dispose off the case of the prosecution filed against ie accused namely Sajeeda Begum, Asif and Ahmed Ali for having committed the offence punishable u/s 420/468/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1861 (hereinafter referred as IPT).
Z. Briefly stated, the present FIR was registered on the basis of complaint filed by one person namely Ganga Ram. The complainant was working at DTC depat, Kalkajl. In the year 2005, complainant was facing some financial problems. His colleague Shravan Kumar had informed him about one lady namely Sajeeda Begum, the Secretary of All india Milat Vikas Samiti who could arrange funds at lower interest rate. The complainant introduced when the said lady. The complainant had discussed his problem with her and requested for loan. The said lady asked the complainant to first join her organization as 2 'member after depositing an amount of % 500. At the insistence of the said lady Sajeeda Begum, the complainant and his wife became member of the said organization by paying an amount of Rs. 500/- each.
3. Thereafter, the complainant had applied for loan of 3 50,000/- in the name of his wife. Accused Sajeeda Begum asked the complainant to pay an amount of Rs. 1700/- on the pretext of opening a bank account and preparation of loan documents. However, no bank account was opened. After few days, the accused Sajeeda Begum and introduced the complainant with another person namely Asif who informed the complainant that he could arrange higher loan amount for him. The complainant asked him to arrange loan 15 lac. Asif had demanded % 20,000/- from the complainant in presence of accused Sajeeda Begum for early processing of loan file. The complainant had paid % 20,000/- to Asif in presence of accused Sajeeda Begum. Asif had also got certain forms filled by the complainant and had also taken copies of relevant documents i.e. Elections card, DTC employee | card, Ration card, electricity bill etc.
4. Thereafter, the accused Sajeeda Begum along with Asif and his father namely Ahmed Ali @ Puttan Bhai had met the complainant at Kalkaji depot. The accused persons had also induced other members for arranging loan. They had also taken money from other people on the pretext of arranging loan. The accused persons had shown two letters dated 15.02.2005 and 22.02.2005 respectively purported to be issued by financial 'nstitution regarding sanction of the loan. However, no such loan was arranged and these accused persons disappeared after closing the office. ation was carried out by PS Kalkaji, During After completing the formalities, investig accused Sajeeda Begum was arrested by the police officials.
d Ali absconded and were
5. ihe course of investigation, However, the other accused persons namely Asif and Ahme s. Thereafter, charge was framed against the subsequently declared proclaimed person IPC, to which she accused Sajeeda Begum vide order dated 01.04.2014 u/s 420/468/34 pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
B. TESTIMONIES OF WITNESSES
6. In order to prove the guilt of accused, the prosecution has examined following twenty witnesses:
Sh. Ganga Ram deposed as PW-1;
Sh. Sharwan Kumar deposed as PW-2;
ASI Abhay Raj deposed as PW-3;
ASI Raj Pal deposed as PW-4;
Sh. Ram Bharose deposed as PW-5, Sh. Durga Prasad deposed as PW-6;
Smt. Suman deposed as PW-7;
Sh. Janki Das deposed as PW-8;
Sh. Dharambir Singh deposed as PW-9:
¢ Sh. Dev Dutt deposed as PW-10:
* Smt. Sita Devi deposed as PWet y:
« Ms. Meenakshi deposed as PW-12;
* Smt Shakuntala deposed as PW-13:
* Smt. Rani deposed as PW-14:
* Sh. Mukesh Sharma deposed as PW-15;
* ASI Suchir Kumar deposed as PW-16:
* Sh. Dharampal deposed as PW-17;
e Retired SI Ram Lal deposed as PW-18;
inspector Anil Kumar deposed as PW-19; and Retired ACP Sunder Lal deposed as PW-20.
PW deposed that in the year 2005 he was in need of money and he spoke to his
7. inend Sharavan kumar who informed him about the accused Sajida Begum. She used to used to run "All india Milat Vikas Samiti" for lending money at cheaper rate of interest to poor persons. With the help of Shravan Kumar, PW1 met accused at her residence where accused asked him to first become the member of the above organization then only accused would lend money to PW1. On insistence, PW1 along with his wife became member of the said organization. PW1 along with his wife deposited Rs. 500/- each ed to them. The against membership and certain documents and receipts were also issu original receipts were taken by accused Sajida from PW1. Photocopies of the receipts are Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW1/B. Thereafter, PW1 applied for loan of Rs. $0,000/- in the name of his wife. Accused
8. Sajeeda took Rs. 1,700/- for documentation and opening of Bank account. Accused y Mohd. Asif. She also asked PW1 to Sajeeda also introduced PW1 with one person namel introduce her with more people, and, thereafter, 20-25 people from the office of PW1 O/- to obtained membership of that organization. PW1 had also given amount to Rs. 20,00 ter passing of 2-3 months, co-accused Asif in the presence of accused Sajeeda Begum. Af PW1 did not receive loan amount and started enquiring about the same from the accused.
PW1 was informed that the loan was sanctioned in the name of PW1 and accused had given sanction letter vide serial no. DSIDC/749/05 dated 22.02.2005 Ex. PW1/C. Thereafter, on receipt of sanction loan letter, PW1 went to the office of Director of Finance, DSIDC, New Delhi for enquiry whereby he was informed by some official that the office t issued any loan in favour of PW. Thereafter, PW1 filed written complaint at PS had no Kalkaji Ex. PW1/D. Witness correctly identified accused Sajeeda in court.
sed that in the year 2004-05 he had met with accused Sajeeda as PW-2 depo g.
at Vikas Samiti at Govind Puri Gali NO. 6, New Delhi regarding Secretary of All India Mil sanction of loan. Accused asked PW2 to take membership in the above organization then d. Accused also told PW2 that if the member only the sanction of loan can be proceede | 6 Y utc be senior citizen then the rebate on the total loan sanctioned would be 29 %.
Thereafter, father of PW2 took the membership in the above organization vide membership no. 334 dated 17.06.2014 (Mark X). Thereafter, father of PW2 applied for loan of Rs. 7 lac. Accused took sum of Rs. 6,500/- for the purpose of sanctioning the loan but the same was nol sanctioned. The due date of getting the loan sanction was 21/22/23.03.2005 which was issued by the President / Secretary, All india Millat Vikas Samiti bearing name of the father of pwe as Sukh Dayal at serial no. 8 and same was signed by Deputy Director Sh. R P Sharma, DSF DGD dated 15.02.2005 (Mark Y). Pwe along with other victims visited office of accused and financial institution DSF DCD but they informed that no such loan application for loan was lying. They also met one person namely Putan Bhai and Asif at Braham Puri who started to quarrel with them when they enquired about the loan and accused Sajeeda Begum. Thereafter, they lodged a complaint al PS Kalkaji against accused. Witness correctly identified the accused present in court. _
10. PW-3 deposed that on 09.2.2006 at about 05:30 PM he was asked by ASI Ram lal to get-register the present case. Thereafter, he went to PS Kalkaji and got registered the FIR and returned back to PP. Govind puri at about 07:00 PM and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to ASI Ram Lal.
11. PW-4 deposed that on 09.02.2006 at about 05:50 PM Ct. Abhay Raj came and handed over him rukka for registration of case. On the basis of rukka, he recorded FIR-No. 124/06 Ex. PW4/A. Thereafter, he made endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW4/B. 7 "2. PW-5 deposed thal around 12-13 years back, Ganga Ram used to work as Store attendant af DTC and one Shrawan Kumar was conductor. Ganga Ram and Shrawan Kumar told PWS that there was a lady who would help in securing loan at lesser interest rate. PWS had requirement of Re.t lac, and, therefore, agreed for the loan. Shrawan Kumar and Ganga Ram told PWS5 that accused Sajeeda had sought Rs.3000/- as documentation charges. PWS handed over As.2900/- to Ganga Rarn who stated that he would hand aver the money to the accused, However, even affer that, no loan was given to him. When he inquired from Ganga Ram wha informed that he had already handed over ihe money to accused. Ganga Ram further informed that accused Sajida had taken money form several persons and no one had gol any loan. After 8-10 months, PW5 sought refund af his money from Ganga Ram. After that, Ganga Ram repaid him the entire sum. PWS never saw or met accused Sajida.
13. PW-6 deposed that in the month of July, 2004, accused alongwith two other associates had approached PW6 with the help of their staff namely Srawan Kumar who was also employee at DTC Kalkaji, Depot. Accused Sajida had approached by stating that she could provide and sanction loan frorm a government institution namely Khadi Gram Udyog at lesser interest and half of the loan amount would be borne by the government.
Accused further induced PW6 to pay Rs.3400/- for the purpose of quick sanction af loan amount and had got filled out the form for him and other staff, PW6 had filled up the form for Rs.1,00,000/- and accused took a time al two months for the pracess of sanctioning the oan. Accused further informed that the loan was sanctioned and further took Rs.500/- as releasing amount as service charge. Accused had also shown and handed over a copy of sanction of loan in favour of PW6. The said sanction letter is already marked as Mark-Y at serial number 09, The receipt of handing over of As.00/- to accused is now marked as Mark-PW-6/A. After two months when PW6 approached the Head office of Khadi Gram Udyog, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Delhi where PW6 was informed that no such loan was sanctioned from their office nor there was any kind of scheme to provide loans. PW6 came io know that they have been cheated by accused in the name of sanctioning loan. PW6 had tried to contact the accused but accused was not reachable. After some days, PW6 was able to found accused and asked from her to repay his money. Accused started to threaten and abused PW6. Thereafter, finding no other alternative way, PW6 alongwith Ganga Ram, Srawan and some other persons filed a complaint at PS Kalkaji the accused and her associates.
14. | PW-7 deposed that in the year 2004 accused Sajida had visited the house of PW7 and stated that she could sanction a loan in her favour at less interest for some institution. Accused further induced PW7 for some money for the same purpose. PW7 had applied for toan of Rs.50,000/- and her husband had applied a loan of Rs.15,00,000/-. "Accused nad also given application form for loan and obtained their signatures on the same. Finally in the year 2005, accused stated that loan amount was sanctioned and accused further induced PW7 to pay money for getting withdrawal of the same. Accused took Rs.500/-, 9 "fis.1200/-, Rs.3400/- from her and Rs.20,000/- fram her husband on different dates in the name of sanctioning of loan. Accused further introduced herself as Secretary of All India Milat Vikas Samiti and had power to get the loan sanctioned from government departments. Accused had also given PW7 a copy of the list of names in whose favour the loans were sanctioned, Her naine was mentioned at Sr.No.10. The receipt of Rs.500/- was handed over by accused already Ex.PW-1/B. Accused had further stated that they would have tg go to the office and collect their loan amount. The name of the office where they went was given to them by accused. On inquiry from the office given to them by accused, she got to knaw that no such loan was sanctioned from the said office and came to know that she was cheated by accused. Thereafter, her husband alongwith some other aggrieved persons had filed the complaint.
15. PW-8 in the year 2005, was working at DTC Kalkaji depot and still working in the same office. One of his staffs namely Sharwan had approached him on behalf of accused and informed him about loan which would be given by her at less interest rate. PW8 had filled the form and paid Rs.4000/- to accused for documentation of loan. PW-8 had applied for Rs.1,00,000/-. PW-8 was also informed by Sharwan that the loan would be sanctioned at low interest rate. Sharwan had further asked for Rs.3,000/- for further documentation proceedings and sanction of loan. On his inducement, PW8 had further paid Rs.3,000/- to him. On different dates, he inquired aboul sanction of loan from Sharwan to which he replied that it was not yet sanctioned. PW-8 continued to inquire from him till 2006. Later 10 on, PW8 came to know that he was cheated in the name of loan by accused. PW-8 further came to know that 3-4 people from his department were also got cheated bythe. accused and her associates in the name of loan.
16. PW-9 deposed that in the year 2006, he was working with DTC and was posted at Kalkaji depot. In that year, he was approached by accused Sajeeda wha had come alongwith his staff namely Ganga Ram. Accused told that that she could provide a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from a committee namely Khadi Gramin Udyog. PW9 was provided the form by accused for filling up the form and asked to pay Rs.3,900/- for documentation expenses. Thereafter, accused was not traceable. PW9 used to make inquiry from Ganga Ram who used to visit the office for inquiry regarding the sanction of loan. Finally PW9 came to know that the company was closed and accused fled away and the same was informed to him by Ganga Ram. The date of the incident was of the year 2004-05 when accused approached and induced PW9 for loan. Ganga Ram also informed PWS that his name was also there in the list of sanction of loan.
17. W-10 deposed that in the year 2004-05, he was informed by Sharwan and Ganga Ram who were also his office colleagues regarding sanction c Millat Samiti and also shown him: the of loan by some society. The said society was in the name of All India Islami voucher of the said society. PW-10 had applied a loan for Rs.1,00,000/-. PW10 had pal total Rs, 3900/- to become a member of the said society to Ganga Ram and Sharwan. PW10 was informed by Ganga Ram that 6-7 people had already got sanctioned in their ll ¥ ames. After 10-12 months, Ganga Ram and Sharwan had further informed him that the said sociely was a fraud and they cheated people in the name of giving loan. The said society was closed.
18. PW-11 deposed that in the year 2006, accused Sajida visited the house of PW11 and approached regarding providing of loan at flow interest rate. Accused had asked Rs.1700/- for providing the service of loan and thereafter, PW11 had handed over the same to accused. Thereafter, PW11 also tried to contact at office address i.e. house no.501, Gali no.6 of Govindpuri but accused was not found there and office was found closed. The police had also inquired PW11 about the case and police had recorded his statement. Accused was the President of said organization.
19. PW-16 deposed that on 13.12.2007, complainant had intimated Inspector Sunder Lal about the accused Sajeeda Begum. Thereafter, on that day, PW16 along with inspector Sunder Lal and W/Ct. Pooja went to gali no.5 %, Govindputi, at about 5.30 p.m., where the complainant had shown accused Sajida through gesture near House. no.501, Govindpuri, Kalkaji. Thereafter, when they reached at house no.501, Inspector Sunder Lal Prashar had involved PW16 and W/Ct.Pogja in the investigation and PW11 also gave the notice under Section 160 Cr.PC to accused, WICt. Pooja had made cursory search of accused in the other room in same house where four artificial yellow coloured bangles, two one white colour artificial ring were recovered from her custody.
artificial earrings, emo Ex.PW-16/A and conducted personal Thereafter, accused was arrested vide arrest m 12 "search of accused vide memo Ex.16/B. Thereafter PW16 along with Inspector Sunder Lai returned at PS and had sent accused along with W/Ct. Pooja for medical examinatio n.
Witness correctly identified accused present in the court PW-18 deposed that on 15.06.2005, he conducted preliminary 'investigation /
20. inquiry. Thereafter, he made a request to concern DCP office lo give legal opinion regarding present application. On 09.02.2006, the legal opinion for registration of FIR in the present case was given by the concerned DCP office and in compliance of that PW18 prepared rukka Ex. PW-18/A and got FIR registered. During investigation, he made efforts to meet the complainant but he was not present at Kalkaji bus depot and his address mentioned in his statement. Thereafter, he got transferred and further investigation in the present case is marked to Inspector Sunder Lal. | 2i1. PW-19 deposed that on 12.07.2008 he received the case file from previous lO inspector Sunder Lal. At that time, process u/s 82 Cr.PC was issued against two accused persons namely Asif and Ahmed Ali and he executed the same. Thereafter, proceedings u's 83 Cr.PC was issued against the accused Asif and Ahmed. Thereafter, he filed the charge sheet before the court.
22. PW-20 deposed that on 08.12.2006, he was posted at PS Kalkaji as Inspector. The present case file was marked to him by SHO for further investigation. During the course of investigation, PW20 interrogated the compiainant Ganga Ram. During investigation, complainant told him that he had contacted: accused Sajida for loan who used fo run an 13 organization namely All India Millat Vikas Samiti at H. No. 501, Gali NO. 6, Govind Puri. Ganga Ram took membership in the name of his wife namely Suman Devi and deposited Rs. 500/- far membership. Gomplainant told that he also gave Rs, 1700/- to get the loan of Rs. 50,000-. Complainant also told that accused introduced him with Asif Ali and Ahmed Al who were secretary in the above Samiti. Accused told the complainant that if complainant wanted Rs. 15 lac then, complainant had to pay Rs. 20,000/-. Based on this inducement, complainant paid Rs. 20,000/. to accused Ahmed Ali and Asif Ali at instance of accused Sajida Begum. Further, Ganga Ram told that there were other 40 members who were cheated by the accused with her associates on the name of loan. Ganga Ram aiso pravided list of victims and photocopy of the receipt amount. On 13.12.2007, PW20 arrested accused and prepared arrest memo which was already Ex. PW1/E. Personal search of accused was conducted by W/Ct. Pooja vide memo already Ex. PW1/F. PW20 also obtained specimen handwriting of accused. PW20 recorded statement of witnesses. PW20 also interrogated the Director of Finance DSIDC and verified the forms which were issued by the accused along with co-accused persons to the victims which were found to be forged. Thereafter, he prepared the charge sheet and filed before the court against accused and other co-accused were PO in the present case.
23. Perusal of the above testimonies would show that PWi, PW6, PW7, PWS and PW11 were the victims who had supported the case of prosecution. PW2 was the person who had told the complainant about the accused Sajeeda Begum. While he had also 14 "deposed in favour of the prosecution, however, his testimony was largely hearsay in nature. PWS, PW8 and PW10 were also the victims, however, they did not have any direct dealing with the accused Sajeeda and did not even see her. PW12, PW13, PW14, PW15 and PW17 did not support the case of prosecution and pleaded their ignorance about the present case.
24. PW3, PW4, PW16, PW18, PW19 and PW20 were the police officials involved in the investigation of the present case. PW3, PW4 and PW18 were involved in the registration of FIR. PW16 was involved in the arrest of accused Sajeeda Begum. PW19 had filed the charge-sheet in the present case whereas PW20 was the IO who had conducted the major investigation.
After examination of all prosecution witnesses, at the request of Ld. APP, PE was
25. /s 313 Code of Criminal closed on 20.04.2022. Thereafter, statement of the accused u Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C") was recorded on 10.05.2022 wherein she denied the allegations and claimed to have been falsely implicated.
26. The Ld. APP urged that testimonies of the material witnesses have remained oss-examination and there is no reason to doubt th argued that there was unchallenged in the cr eir testimonies.
or the accused persons, on the other hand, The Ld. Counsel f ersons beyond reasonable which could prove the guilt of the accused p nothing on record e in the entire offence and it was o contended that the accused had no rol ermind. She was falsely implicated only on the 15 ae doubt. It was als the co-accused persons who were the mast *pasis of an employee of the organization. Hence, benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.
i have heard the Ld. APP and Ld. Gounsel for the accused and have perused the 2/.
case file.
C. . LEGAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED:-
28. The accused Sajeeda Begum has been charged for the offence of cheating punishable u/s 420/34 IPC and also for the offence of forgery punishable u/s 468 IPC.
Before deciding the culpability of ihe accused for the said offences, | find it apposite to discuss the legal provisions involved in the present case.
"Cheating" per se is defined u/s 415 IPC in the following manner:
*Cheating.--Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any. person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. is said to "cheat"."
30. As laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy vs Sudha Seetharam (2019) 16 SCC 739, the essential ingredients to constitute an offence of cheating as defined u/s 415 IPC are as follows:
16a) there should be fr n n m a pe audulent or dishonest induc n ement of p ivi om rSso by deceiving
(ii) (a) the perso j 2 so induced should be intenti antionally induced to deli iver any property t an : t } 1 a r r nan r 0 y person orto consent u at any pe son shall etal a y p operty oY ' t anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and inc ii ases covered by (ii) (b) above, the act or omission should be one which
(iii) cause is li d or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body mind, reputation or property.
31 i ov Section 420 IPC provides for the offence of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. Simple cheating is punishable u/s 417 IPC. But where there is delivery or destruction of any property or alteration or destruction of any valuable security resulting from the act of person deceiving, the same falls under the ambit of section 420. It reads as under:
"S 420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
--Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any properly to any person, or to make, a valuable security, or alter or destroy the whole or any part of anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of to a valuable security, shall be punished with being converted in description for a term which may extend imprisonment of either to seven years, and shail also be liable to fine" 17
The essential ingredients to attract section 420 IPC are:
* Cheating;
* Dishonest inducement to deliver property or lo make, alter or destroy any Vv .? . . . .
aluable security or anything which is sealed or is capable of being converted into a valuable security; and * Mens rea of the accused at the time of making the inducement. It should also be noted that accused should have dishonest intention to cheat right a BS, at the time of making the promise or representation. If he does not have any such intention. ai the very outset and if he subsequently fails to fulfil the said promise, then he cannot be convicted for the offence punishable u/s 420 IPC. Reference can be taken from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hira Lal Hari Lal vs. CBI (2003) 5 SCC 257.
34. Section 468 IPC deals with the offence of forgery committed for the purpose of cheating. Forgery is defined in section 463 IPC as the making of a false document or false electronic record with any of intentions mentioned therein. Section 464 defines the making of false document or false electronic record.
Section 463 reads as under: , "Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or fo support any claim or title, or to cause any person fo part 18 with property, or lo enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or thal fraud may be committed, commits forgery."
Section 464 reads as under:
"Making a faise decument- A person is said to make a false aecument or false electronic record- First- Who dishonestly or fraudulently- Makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document:
Makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;
Affixes any electronic signature or any electronic record;
Makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or authenticity of the electronic signature, With the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or electronic signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed, or affixed; or Secondly- Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed pr affixed with electronic signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly ~ Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or affix his electronic signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness 19 of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practiced upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the naiure of the alteration."
Therefore, a combined reading of the provisions enshrined in section 463 and 464
35. suggests that in addilion to prove ihe making/existence of a false document by the accused, the prosecution is also required to establish that the said document or electronic record as the case may be, was forged to achieve any of the intentions enumerated in section 463 ie. (i} lo cause damage or injury to the public, or to any person; or (it) to support any claim or title; or (iii) to cause any person to part with property; or (iv) to enter into any express or implied contract; or (e) to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed. Therefore, in order to convict an accused u/s 468 IPC, prosecution needs to prove / establish the making of a false document mentioned therein for the purpose of cheating.
36. | Having discussed briefly the legal position invoived in the present case, | shall now be examining the testimonies of PWs and the defence taken by the accused in the backdrop of the above discussed legal position in order to decide the culpability of the accused in the present case. For the sake of convenience, | shall be deciding the culpability of the accused for each offences separately.
D. CULPABILITY OF THE ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE OF CHEATING
37. As discussed in the preceding part of this judgment, the prosecution is required to first satisfy every essential ingredients of cheating as defined u/s 415 IPC. Thereafter, it is 20 .
required to prove that delivery of property on the basis of fraudulent or dishonest inducement made by the accused, Lastly, the prosecution is required to prove the existence of dishonest intention on the part of accused right at the time of making inducement. | shall naw be examining as to whether all the essential ingredients for convicting a persan u's 420 IPC has been proved by the prosecution or not.
D.1. FRAUDULENT OR DISHONEST INDUCEMENT
38. A fraudulent or dishonest inducement js an essential ingredient of the offence. A person who dishonestly induces another person to deliver any property is liable for the offence of cheating.
3a, One of the most important essential ingredients of the offence of cheating is the element of "dishonest inducement" leading to either delivery of property or doing of an act or omission. Mere deceit is not sufficient to prove the offence. The effect of fraudulent or dishonest act must be such that it induces the person deceived to deliver the property or to do something.
40. "Dishonestly" is defined u/s 24 IPC as "who ever does anything with an intention to causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing dishonestly".
41. On the issue of inducement, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Dethi and others AIR 1999 SC 1216 has held that the crux of the 21 ~ postulate ts the intenion of the person who induces the victim of hig representation and not the nature of the transaction whieh could became decisive in discerning where there was the commission of an offence ar not qe, In the ing SASH. TA Apap a ; .
nsiant case, in order to prove that the accused has marie fraudulant or dishanest inducemen: Mpypay eal ones! duicement to complainant (as well as many other persons), the prosecution has primaniy relied upon the testimonies of PW, PW6, PW7. PW9 and PW11.
4C3 PW? who was the complainant in the present case had completely supported the case of prosecution. In his testimony, he had categorically deposed that in the year 2005 when he was in need of money, he was introduced with the accused Shajeeda Begum by her friend PWe. He had met the said accused at her residence. Accused Shajeeda Begum had asked her to first become the member of the organization namely All india Millat Vikas Samiti. At this inducement of accused, PW1 had become the member of the said organization along with his wife after paying membership fee of Rs. 500/- each. Accused had also issued receipt Ex. PW1/A & PW1/B. Thereafter, he had applied for a loan of Rs. 50,000/- in the name of his wife. Accused Shajeeda Begum had taken Rs. 1700/- from his for the purpose of documentation and opening of bank account. Thereafter, Pw was further induced to pay Rs. 20,000/- for getting additional loan. This inducement was made by the co-accused Asif. When PW1 gave Rs. 20,000/- to the co-accused Asif nthe presence of Shajeeda Begum, both of them had assured that the loan would be sanctioned shortly.
22ad. PW1 was cross-examined at length by Ld. Defence Counsel. in his cross- examination, he stood with his statements given in the examination-in-chief and ho material discrepancies could be observed in his testimony. PW1 had interalia stated hn his cross-examination that it was accused Shajeeda Begum who had told him that he would have to become the member of Samiti in order to get loan
45. Perusal of the testimony of PW1 would clearly show that the accused Shajeeda Begum had indeed made dishonest inducement to him. When the complainant approached for loan, she made first dishonest inducement by asking him to first become member of her organization by paying membership fee of Rs. 500/-. The second inducement was made by the said accused when she had induced PW1 to apply for loan of Ris. 50,000/- and for that purpose also asked him to pay Rs. 1700/-. Third inducement was made when she had introduced the co-accused Asif as secretary of the said organization and also asked PW1 to introduce some persons to her organization. Last and final inducement was made when she had assured PW1 that his loan would be sanctioned shortly after the time when he had made further payment of Rs. 20,000/- for getting loan.
PW6 had also deposed on similar lines. In his testimony, he had categorically 46, stated that in the month of July, 2004, ihe accused Sajeeda Begum along with his y making inducement that es had approached him through his colleague PW2 b associat she could provide and sanction loan from a government institution namely Khadi Gram ser interest rate. She made further inducement that burden of the halt loan Udyog at les : 23 the Court. He was also Cross-ay amined by Ld. Defence Counsel wherein he had stood with his statements giver i i given during 6xamination-in-chief. No material contradictions could b 8 Seen in his testimony,
47. PW? in his testimoy 'S lestmony had also supported the case of prosecution qua the fact that accused Sajeeda Begum had made dishonest inducement to her. In her testimony, PW7 had categorically deposed that the accused had introduced herself as the Secretary of All india Millat Vikas Samiti, PW7 had also stated that in the year 2004, the accused Sajeeda Begum had come to her house and stated that she could get the foan sanctioned in her favour from some institution at lesser interest rate. The said accused had also induced her and her husband to pay certain amount as charges for the sanction of loan amount. She had also correctly identified the accused present in the Court. PW7 was alsa cross:
examined by Ld. Defence Counsel wherein she had maintained her stand. No material contradiction could be seen in her testimony.
48. PW9 had also deposed on the similar lines and had completely supported the case of prosecution. In her testimony, he had categorically stated that in the year 2006 she was approached by the accused Sajeeda Begum with respect to some loan matter. The said accused had made an inducement to him that she could get loan of Rs. 1,00,000/-
sanctioned for him from Khadi Gram Udyog. He was also cross-examined by Ld. Defence 24 "Counsel wherein he had maintained her Stand, No material contradiction could be seen in his testimony, 49, .
9. Perusal of the lestimonias of PW6, PW7 and PW9 would clearly show that it was accused Sajeeda Begum who Nad approached them and made fraudulent or dishonest inducement regarding the fact that she could get loan sanctioned for them from different organizations, All these PWs had Correctly identified the accused in the Court. Also, they all had paid certain amount of money to accused Sajeeda Begum on the basis of inducements made by her and all of them were not sanctioned any loan amount.
90. Therefore, considering the testimonies of the above PWs, | am of the considered view that the prosecution has remained successful in establishing the fact that accused Sajeeda Begm had indeed made fraudulent or dishonest inducements to these PWs by first representing herself to be associated with All India Millat Vikas Samiti and by subsequent assurance that she could get loans sanctioned for them. These inducements were "dishonest" as they were completely false and no such loan was ever received by these PWs. The said inducements were made by accused Sajeeda Begum with the intention to cause wrongful loss to these victims and to cause wrongful gain to herself.
25p iv D.2 DELIVERY OF PROPERTY ON THE BASIS OF INDUCEMENT MADE
51. In order to prov i prove the factum of delivery of properly to the accused Sajeeda Begum on the basis of ind ucement made by her, the prosecution has primarily relied upon the testimonies of PW1, PW6, PW7, PW9 and PWiH1 * As discussed in the previous paragraphs of the judgment, PW1 had completely supported the ease of prosecution. In his testimony, he had categorically deposed that he was induced to become member of All India Millat Vikas Samiti by the accused by paying an amount of the Rs. 500/- for membership. She had also issued a receipt of payment Ex. PW1/A and PW1/B. Original receipts were taken by the accused. Thereafter, PW was again induced to make payment of Rs. 1700/- to the accused on the pretext of sanction of loan amount of % 50,000. PW1 was again induced to pay further amount of Rs. 20,000 accused Sajeeda Begum and co-accused Asif under the pretext of sanction of larger loan amouni.
53. Further, PW6 in his testimony and also supported the prosecution regarding delivery of property on the basis of inducement made by the accused Sajeeda Begum. He had stated that the accused had induced him to pay an amount of % 3400/- for the purpose of foan amount. The said accused had also informed him that th of = 500/- as service of sanction e loan was y sanctioned and further induced him to pay additional amount alread yment of Rs. 500/- given to charge for releasing the loan amount. The receipt of pa accused was also filed on record as Mark PW6/A. 26 Similarly, PW in imilarly 7 testimony had Stated that the accused had induced to mak ( e ayment of certain p amount of money under the pretext of sanctioning of loan. PW7 and Accused had al So given to PW7 a copy of the list of names of those persons whose loan was sancti , :
netioned. Thereafter, PW7 was induced lo pay the total amount of ¥ 5100/- to the accused in order to withdraw the loan amount
55. Further, PW9 had also stated that the accused Sajeeda Begum had approached him and stated that she could provide a loan of 1 lakh from Khadi Gramin Udyog. She had provided a form to PW9 and asked him to fill the said form and pay % 3,900/- towards documentation expenses. Similarly, PW11 and stated that the accused had come to her house in the year 2006 regarding providing of loan at lower interest rate. She had induced & PW11 to pay an amount of Rs. 1700 for provide a loan service.
Perusal of the testimonies of above prosecution witnesses would clearly show that
56. that all these witnesses and indeed paid a certain amount of money to the accused Sajeeda Begum on the basis of inducement made by her. These amounts were paid for documentation and for servicing of loans.
| am of the considered view that the prosecution has remained
57. Therefore, e accused on the basis of successful in proving the factum of delivery of property to th inducement made by her.
27IS no di Shonest intention at the time of making of inducement and the same intention has developed Subsequently, then the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable u/s 420 IPC.
59. in the instant case, the accused Sajeeda Begum had the dishonest intention right at the time of making inducement to arrange loan from different organizations at lower interest rate on the part of accused the Well be inferred from the testimonies of PW1, PW8, PW7, PWS and PW11, Accused Sajeeda Begum from the very beginning knew that she would not be able to arrange any loan for the prosecution witnesses. She was completely aware that no loan was being provided by organizations namely DSIDC, Khadi Gramin Udyog etc. She had made fraudulent inducement only to cheat the innocent persons. Accused Sajeeda Begum had also provided the PWs forged and fabricated list of persons in favour of whom loan was sanctioned. This could also be corroborated testimony of PW-
20 who had stated that during the course of investigation that it was found that forms were forged.
28 4ye when the incriminating materials were put before the accused Sajeeda Begum al the stage of recording of her statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C, she had taken the defence that she used to work in the said organization as servant and it was other co-accused persons namely Asif and Ahmed Ali who used to run the whole organization. She had further stated that she used to do photocopy work on the instruclions of the co-accused persons
61. Durin j g the final arguments, Ld. Counsel for the accused had also contended that ihe accus ed Sajeeda Begum had no role to play in the present case. She used to work as as a ervant in the said organization and the co-accused persons namely Asif and Anmed Alt were the master mind. This submission of the Ld. Defence Counsel cannot be appreciated by.this Court for the reasons discussed hereinafter.
62. It should be noted that the accused had merely made a bald statement in her statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. She did not lead any evidence in order to support her claim. No witness was examined by her in order to substantiate her claim that she was working in the said organization merely as a servant and had no role to play in the entire case. It ored that the prosecution witnesses had categorically deposed against the could not be ign eeda Begum. They had also correctly identified her in the Court. Hence, even accused Saj the identity of the accused has been conclusively established by the prosecution.
63. Also, it should not be ignored that the accused Sajeeda Begum has been jointly charged for the offence of cheating u/s 420/34 IPC constructively along with co-accused persons namely Asif and Anwar Ali. Section 34 provides for the constructive liability of the 29 being shared among them J is lot a subs a , t I f { 8 ta ntive offence ratt era rule of evid i laence. l absconded, however. j : ever, | ' . It could not be said that they were not involved in the present case There are specific evi pecific evider ;
dence on record which shows thal their involvement in the present Case,
64. Even otherwi verwise, the accused Sajeeda Begum can also be convicted for the substantive offence of cheating. It is a settled proposition of law that if two persons are charge ged for having committed a substantive offence with common intention and one is acquitted, the other person can be held guilty for commission of the substantive offence if the prosecution evidence is clear that he had committed the substantive office. There is no bar for the conviction for the substantive offence, provided there Is evidence against him and no prejudice is caused to him. The omission to frame charge for the substantive offence alone being a curable omission is immaterial. Reference can be taken from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Wilie (William) Slaney vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1955 SCR (2) 1140. |
65. In the instant case, there are cogent evidences against the accused Sajeeda Begum for having committed the substantive offence of cheating. Her identity has been categorically established. Perusal of the testimonies of PWs would show that she had tive role in the commission of cheating. It was accused Sajeeda Begum who played an ac . 30 << _ E. CULPAB ILITY OF THE ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE OF FORGERY
66. -- As discus ;
sed ;
| "the preceding part of this judgment, the accused has also been charged for the offence of forgery punishable u/s 468 IPC for making a forged and false document i.
€. Sanction letter dated 22.02.2005 whereby the loan of complainant was said to have been Sanctioned.
67. After perusing the entire materials available on record including the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, | am of the considered view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused Sajeeda Begum for the offence of forgery punishable ufs 468 IPC due to the reasons discussed hereinafter.
68. The alleged forged document was proved on record by the complainant PW1 as Ex. PW1/C. He had stated in his testimony that the accused Sajeeda Begum had given him.a sanction letter dated 22.02.2004 bearing serial no. DSIDC/749/2005. Thereafter, he. went to the office of Director of Finance, DSIDC, New Delhi wherein it was found that the said document was forged.
Testimony of PW1 would be sufficient only to show that the document Ex. PW1/AC
69. was forged. It could not be said that it was accused Sajeeda Begum who had actually LL 31 rade the said forged document, In fact, no witness was examined by the prosecution to show that il was accused Sajecda Begum who had forged the said document. At best, it could be sald that she had used a forged document, FQ. Also, it should also be noied that the original copy of the alleged forged document was also not filed on record by the prosecution. It is a settled proposition of law that contents of any document can be proved either by leading primary evidence or secondary awidence. However, contents of document can be proved by secondary evidence only in ihe circumstances referred u/s 65 of Indian Evidence Act which include the following:
"65. Cases in which secondary evidence relating to docu- ments may be given.--Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition, or contents of a document in the following cases:--
{a} When the original is shown or appears to be in the pos- session or power-- of the person against whom the docu- ment is sought to be proved, or of any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the Process of the Court, or of any per- son legally bound to produce it, and when, after the notice mentioned in section 66, such person does not produce it; {b} when the existence, condition or contents of the original have been proved to be admitted in writing by the person against whom it is proved or by his representative in interest; {c} when the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time;
{@) when the original is of suchan ature as not to be easily movable;32
Sey} . . ade bee s 5 ;
{e when the onginal is a public document within the mean- ing of Section Fd:
it when ihe original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by this Act, or by any other law in force in Ifin- via} to be given in evidence2; T[india] to be given in evi- dence2;"
fg) when ihe originals consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot conveniently be examined in Court, and the fact to be proved is the general result of the whole collection."
#1, In the instant case, the prosecution has failed to highlight the existence of any circumstances as mentioned u/s 65 whereby contents of document could be proved by leading secondary evidence. PW1 had only filed photocopy of the alleged forged document. Hence, contents of the same have not been proved by the prosecution.
F. DECISION
72. Therefore, in view of the above discussions and findings, | am of the considered view that there is sufficient materials on record to conclusively connect the accused Sajeeda Begum in the present case for the offence of cheating punishable u/s 420 IPC.
Prosecution has successfully proved all the ingredients of the offence of cheating beyond reasonable doubt.
73. However, after considering the entire materials available on record, | am of,the considered view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused Sajeeda Begum for the offence of forgery punishable u/s 468 IPC.
33SRS \ WN \ . \\ \\ WK SEN \ -- SSX S SS \
74. Hence, accu Saj : se d Sajeeda Begum stands convicted for the offence punishhble u/s 420/34 IPC. | towever, she stands acquitted for the offence punishable u/s soffped --
| Aninepl Kueh ; Oe Announced in the open court on 02.07.2022 (Animestr erfet 22 MM-06, South East, Ne hi It is certified that this judgment contains 34 pages and each page bears my signatures.
° Anime hm (Animesh Kumar) oy oF/22_ MM-06, South East, .
New Dethi/02.07.2022 34