Delhi District Court
State vs . Vijender Pal Singh on 26 March, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN KUMAR, MM01,
SOUTH EAST: SAKET COURTS: DELHI
State Vs. Vijender Pal Singh
FIR No. : 115/1998
U/s 409/420 IPC
P.S. Lodhi Colony
Serial No. of the case : 485/12
Date of Institution : 28.01.2000
Date of commission of offence : 06.01.1998
Name of the Complainant : Shri Sanjay Hemant
Kumar Baxla
Deputy Manager ( P & A) N. R
Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd.
Name, parentage and residential
address of the accused : Vijender Pal Singh
S/o Shri Hukam Singh
R/o A110, Indra Puri
Ghaziabad, U.P.
Date when judgment reserved : 07.03.2014
Date when Judgment pronounced : 26.03.2014
Offence Complained of or proved : Section 409/420 IPC
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Judgment : Convicted for the offence
punishable U/s 408 IPC.
J U D G M E N T
The accused Vijender Pal Singh has been facing trial for the FIR No. 115/98 P.S. Lodhi Colony Page No.1 of 9 commission of offences punishable U/s 409/420 IPC.
2. The present case FIR was registered on the written complaint/application of complainant Shri Sanjay Hemant Kumar Baxla, Deputy Manager (P &A ) N. R. Pawan Hans Helicopter Ltd. The complaint in brief is that Sh. Bijender Pal Singh, Sr. Office Attendant working in Finance Department of our organization, Pawan Hans Helicopter Ltd., Northern Region, Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi was given US Dollars 152.30 and US Dollars 445 for depositing in our account No. 3190 with Vijaya Bank, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi on 06.01.1998. It is reported that Sh. Bijender Pal Singh left the office on 06.01.1998 at 11 am for depositing the dollars with Vijaya Bank. As per the statement of Sh. Bijender Pal Singh he deposited the dollars with Sh. Verma of Vijaya Bank, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi who in turn gave him pay in slips acknowledging the payment. The payment, however, has not been reflected in our account and the bankers have denied receiving this payment". On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the present case FIR was registered and the investigation was conducted. During investigation, IO collected the relevant documents and sent to the handwriting expert for comparison.
3. On conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused. The copies of charge sheet and annexed documents were supplied to the accused in due compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
4. After considering the contents of the charge sheet and hearing the submission made by both the parties, charge was framed against the accused Vijender Pal Singh for the offence U/s 409/420 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
FIR No. 115/98 P.S. Lodhi Colony Page No.2 of 95. In order to establish the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined total six witnesses.
6. PW1 Sh. Sanjeev Thakru deposed that on 05.01.1998 he was posted as DGM Finance at Pawan Hans Helicoper Ltd. Company . On that day his cashier Rajender Singh received 597.30 US Dollar and handed over to office attendant Vijender Pal Singh for depositing in current A/c No. 3190, Vijaya Bank, Barakhamba Road. The accused returned back from the bank and handed over pay in slip to Sh. Bhoria. On checking the account, the aforesaid amount was not found credited in the account of the company. On enquiry from the bank it was informed that signature on pay in slips of US Dollars did not match with any member of the staff. On 08.06.1998 the said pay in slips was seized by vide memo ex. PW1/A.
7. PW 2 Joginder Singh Bhoria deposed that on 06.01.1998 the accused Vijender Pal received two slips along with $ 445, 152. He himself filled up a slip and handed over to accused to deposit the said amount in A/c No. 3190 at Vijaya Bank, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. The accused returned back and handed over the counter slips having no signature or seal of the bank. On enquiry the accused informed that he had handed over the slip and the dollars to Mr. Verma at the bank. On receiving credit advice from the bank, it is found that the aforesaid dollar were not deposited. He reported the matter to senior officers of the company. The witness correctly identified the accused and slips Ex. P1 and P2. The detail dollar slips marked A and B were prepared by him in his own handwriting.
FIR No. 115/98 P.S. Lodhi Colony Page No.3 of 98. PW9 Sanjay Hemant Kumar Baksla deposed that in the month of March 1998 he was posted as Deputy Manager in the company and finance department of the office told him that some dollars were given to the accused to deposit in account of company but he had not deposited the same. He made the complaint Ex. PW9/A and identified the accused.
9. PW3 HC Banwari Lal deposed that deposed that on 30.09.1998 IO took specimen signature of the accused in his presence on three papers which are Ex. PW3/A to Ex. PW3/C and thereafter sealed with the seal of HG.
10. PW4 HC Rekha Rani was the Duty Officer on 15.04.1998 and recorded the FIR, on receiving the rukka. The carbon copy of FIR is Ex. PW4/A and the endorsement on rukka is Ex. PW4/B.
11. PW5 Neeraj Kumar deposed that on 30.09.1998 he along with accused was called by the IO to the PS. In his presence IO obtained the specimen signature of the accused.
12. PW7 Ct. Indermal deposed that on 06.10.1998 he received a sealed pullanda from the IO and on his instruction he deposited the same with FSL, Malviya Nagar vide RC No. 107/21.
13. PW8 P K Verma deposed that in the year 1998 he was working as a Section Manager in Vijaya Bank, Barakhamba Road. On 06.10.1998 he was on duty at cash counter and on that day he had not received US dollar 152.30 and 445 in the name of Pawan Hans Helicopter Co. Ltd. The company was maintaining an account in the bank vide A/c FIR No. 115/98 P.S. Lodhi Colony Page No.4 of 9 No. 3190. He produced account statement of A/c No. 3190 for a period from 01.04.1997 to 31.03.1998 and the same is Ex. PW8/A.
14. PW10 SI Pradeep was a witness to the arrest of the accused vide memo Ex. PW10/A. 15 PW11 (wrongly written as PW10) Retd. SI Hulas Giri deposed that on 05.05.1998 he recorded the statement of one Joginder and he also took a photocopy of the slip and seized the same vide seizure memo already Ex. PW1/A. On 05.06.1998 he recorded the statement of Mr. Takru and collected the original slip for 152.30 dollars and 445 dollars which was deposit in the Vijaya Bank. On 19.08.1999 he arrested the accused. He took the specimen signature of accused which is already Ex. PW3/A to Ex. PW3/C. In cross examination, he states that there was one register to make entry regarding deposit of Indian currency and Foreign Currency, maintained by the said Vijaya Bank. He had seen the register. Photocopies of the said register was handed over to him on 06.01.1998 and same is already marked Mark A & B. He did not match deposit of Vijaya Bank seized by him with the other deposit slips with Pawan Hans. He did not seize any other original deposit slips except two deposit slip which are judicial file.
16. After examining all the material prosecution witnesses, prosecution evidence was closed. All the incriminating circumstances came in prosecution evidence put to the accused while recording the statement U/s 313 r/w 281 CrPC. He denied the incident and pleaded false implication by the police. He examined Shri Joginder Singh as defence witness as DW 1.
FIR No. 115/98 P.S. Lodhi Colony Page No.5 of 917. DW 1 Shri Joginder Singh produced the statement of account of the company for the period from 01.04.1997 to 31.03.1998. The statement contains entries of dollors deposited by the company with Vijaya Bank, Barakhamba Branch. The statement of account is Ex.DW1/A. He deposed regarding certain entries in the statement of account and the counter part of the concerned entries reflects only initials and no stamp of the bank. The deposit slips are Ex.DW1/B to Ex.DW1/D.
18. I have carefully perused the case record and have heard arguments advanced by Learnedd APP for the state as well as by the accused.
19. Before appreciating the evidence, I would like to have a glance at relevant statutory provisions necessary for the disposal of this case. The accused is charge sheeted U/s 409/420 IPC.
Section 420 provides that Whoever, dishonestly induces by way of cheating to deliver any property to any person or to make alter or destroy the whole or any part of the valuable property is liable to be punished.
In substance, the ingredients of offence of section 420 are:
(i) There should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him.
(ii) The person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person or the person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or to omit to do anything which he would not do or omit, if he were not so deceived.
Section 409 provides for the punishment for offence of criminal breach of trust by public servant or by banker, merchant or agent.
FIR No. 115/98 P.S. Lodhi Colony Page No.6 of 920. In brief the allegations against the accused are that he was working as a Senior Office Attendant at the office of Pawan Hans Helicopter Ltd. He was entrusted with total 597.30 US dollors to be deposited in the account of the company at Vijaya Bank. The accused handed over the counter slip of the deposits slip without any stamp and signature of the bank official. The aforesaid amount was not credited in the account of the company.
21. The defence of the accused is that he deposited the amount at cash counter to Mr. Verma to be deposited in the account of the company and the payinslips were given by him.
22. There is no denying to the fact that the aforesaid amount was entrusted to the accused being the office attendant to be deposited in the account of the company. PW1 & PW2 are the material prosecution witnesses. They deposed that he handed over two payinslips along with 445 and 152 US dollars to the accused to be deposited in account NO.3190, Vijaya Bank, Barakhamba Road. He also deposed that on his return, the accused handed over the counter slip MarkA & MarkB which were without any seal and signature of the bank. On inquiry, the accused told that the slip along with detail of the dollors was handed over to bank official Mr. Verma. It is further deposed by PW1 that in the credit advice sent by the bank, the aforesaid amount was shown not credited in the account of the company.
23. PW8 Shri P. K. Verma is the bank official to whom the accused alleged to have given the aforesaid amount. He deposed that on 06.01.1998 he was on duty at cash counter of the bank and he had not received US dollars 152.30 and 445 in the name of Pawan Hans FIR No. 115/98 P.S. Lodhi Colony Page No.7 of 9 Helicopter company. He produced the statement of account for the period from 01.04.1997 to 31.03.1998. The witness was not cross examined by the accused.
24. The testimony given by the prosecution witnesses is reliable and trust worthy. They stands unimpeached during the cross examination. Further more, the defence taken by the accused that he had deposited the aforesaid amount with Shri P. K. Verma, the employee of the bank and he had given the unsigned and unstamped payinslip is not believable in view of the fact that the employee to whom the aforesaid amount was alleged to be given was not crossexamined by the defence when he appeared as prosecution witness.
25. The cardinal principle of criminal law cannot be forgotten that the prosecution has to prove the case against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of proof is not preponderance of probabilities but proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is well settled legal proposition that the any benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused.
26. It is established on record that the accused being the employee of the company was entrusted with amount of 597.30 US dollars to deposit in the bank. However, the amount was not deposited and the accused committed the breach of trust in respect of the aforesaid amount and misappropriated the same. Hence the accused has committed the offence punishable U/s 408 IPC.
27. The charge was framed against the accused U/s 409 IPC. However, the accused cannot be considered as public servant, banker, FIR No. 115/98 P.S. Lodhi Colony Page No.8 of 9 merchant or agent. There is a specific provision for criminal breach of trust by clerk or servant U/s 408 IPC.
28. Section 222 Cr.P.C. provides :
"When offence proved included in offence charge(1) When a person is charged with an offence consisting of several particulars, a combination of some only of which constitutes a complete minor offence, and such combination is proved, but the remaining particulars are not proved, he may be convicted of the minor offence, though he was not charted with it.
(2) When a person is charged with an offence and facts are proved which reduce it to a minor offence, he may be convicted of the minor offence, although he is not charged with it.
(3) When a person is charged with an offence, he may be convicted of an attempt to commit such offence although the attempt is not separately charged.
(4) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a conviction of any minor offence where the conditions requisite for the initiation of proceedings in respect of that minor offence have not been satisfied."
29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that the prosecution successfully established case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, accordingly, the accused namely Vijender Pal Saingh is held guilty and is convicted for the commission of offence punishable U/s 408 IPC.
30. Let the parties be heard on the point of sentence.
Announced in open Court (PAWAN KUMAR)
on 26.03.2014 Metropolitan Magistrate -01:
(South East): Saket Courts.
FIR No. 115/98
P.S. Lodhi Colony Page No.9 of 9