Delhi District Court
State vs Firoz Ahmed on 24 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAURAV GOYAL, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
FIRST CLASS-06, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
STATE Vs. FIROZ AHMAD
FIR No. 361/2015
PS : CIVIL LINES
U/S : 419/468/471 IPC
Date of institution of the case : 21.11.2015
Date of judgment reserved : 23.01.2025
CNR : DLCT-002535-2015
Date of commission of offence : 18.09.2015
Name of the complainant : DS Rawat S/o Sh. Soban Singh
Rawat, R/o Chief Accountant
Manager, EIS Limited 7 Shyam
Nath Marg, Delhi
Name of accused and address : Firoz Ahmad S/o Sh. Sabbir
Ahmad, R/o H.No.12A/19C, Gali
No.10, Behind Tent Wala School,
Vijay Mohalla, Maujpur, Bhajan
Pura, Delhi
Offence complained of : 419/468/471 IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Date of Judgment : 24.01.2025
Final Order : Convicted
STATE Vs. Firoz Ahmad FIR No. 361/2015 PS Civil Lines PAGE NO. 1 / 13
Digitally signed
by GAURAV
GOYAL
GAURAV Date:
GOYAL 2025.01.24
15:59:00
+0530
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the prosecution against the accused is that on 18.09.2015 at unknown time at at unknown time at lCICI Bank, Civil Lines Branch, Delhi-110054, accused pretended to be Mr. Biswajit Mitra, CFO, EIH Ltd. and gave a letter requesting the said Bank Manager to change the password of current account of Mr. Biswajit Mitra, CFO, EIH Ltd. Further, on the abovesaid date and place, you accused got prepared forged letter dated 18.09.2015 to Branch Manager ICICI Bank, Civil Lines Branch, Delhi in connivance with an unknown person for the purpose of committing cheating by impersonation and fraudulently or dishonesty used abovesaid letter as a genuine document which he knew or had reason to believe the same to be a forged document and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 419/468/471 IPC.
COURT PROCEEDINGS :
2. Investigation was completed and police report u/s 173 Cr.P.C was filed under Sections 419/468/471 IPC. Cognizance was taken and accused was summoned. Provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with after appearance of the accused person.
CHARGE :
3. After hearing arguments on charge, vide order dated 26.07.2019 charge was ordered to be framed for the offence under Section 419/468/471 IPC against the accused.
4. The record transpires that during the course of trial, the accused admitted the 1). FIR No.361/15 PS Civil Lines dated 25.09.2015 certificate u/s STATE Vs. Firoz Ahmad FIR No. 361/2015 PS Civil Lines PAGE NO. 2 / 13 Digitally signed GAURAV by GAURAV GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.01.24 15:59:08 +0530 65B IEA and endorsement vide DD no. 29A Ex.A1, Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 respectively prepared by DO/SI Vijay Singh. 2. CDR and CAF details for mobile no. 9830677685 and 9654194776 for the period 18.09.2015 to 23.09.2015 given by Nodal Officer of Vodafone alongwith letter and certificate u/s 65B of IEA as exhibited as Ex.A4 (Colly.). 3. CDR and CAF details for mobile no. 882626554291 for the period 18.09.2015 to 23.09.2015 given by Nodal Officer, Airtel alongwith certificate u/s 65B of IEA as exhibited as Ex.A5 (Colly.). 4. CDR and CAF details for mobile no. 8572908786 for the period 18.09.2015 to 23.09.2015 given by Nodal Officer of ldea Cellular and certificate u/s 65B of IEA as exhibited as Ex.A6 (Colly.). and the examination of formal witnesses qua such documents was accordingly dispensed with.
EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION :
5. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution has examined six witnesses i.e. PW-1 Sh. B.S. Rawat, PW-2 Puneet Narula, PW-3 Biswajit Mitra, PW-4 HC Kashmir Chand, PW-5 Rakesh Raman and PW-6 Insp. Sanjeev Kumar
6. PW-1 Sh. B.S. Rawat desposed that in the year 2015, he was working as Chief Accountant at Maidens Hotel, Civil Lines. He further deposed that on 18.09.2025, Mr. Puneet Narula received a call from Manager of ICICI Bank, Civil Lines Branch stating that some unknown person had given a letter on the letter head of their company requesting the Manager to deactivate the online transaction password and updation of new email ID with new transaction password of the current account of Biswajit Mitra, CFO of their company. He further deposed that the alleged letter was sent to Mr.Puneet Narula on his whatsapp by the Branch Manager of ICICI Bank. He further deposed that he visited the branch of the bank and inspected the letter which was not found to be STATE Vs. Firoz Ahmad FIR No. 361/2015 PS Civil Lines PAGE NO. 3 / 13 Digitally signed GAURAV by GAURAV GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.01.24 15:59:15 +0530 of their company as there were apparent differences in the original letter head and the letter head given by the accused. He further deposed that Mr. Biswajit Mitra also confirmed that he had not signed upon the letter and no such letter was issued by him. He further deposed that they had requested the bank to alert them if the person visits the branch again. He further deposed that on 23.09.2015, the accused again visited the bank branch with two more forged letters and gave them to the bank bearing forged signatures of Biswajit Mitra for checking the status of his earlier letters but the accused was detined by the bank officials and they were called by the bank. He further deposed that police officials also reached the branch of the bank and the accused was handed over to the police. He further deposed that he gave written complaint to the police ExPW1/B, the letter head of the company bearing the seal ExPW1/C, his employee ID Card ExPW1/D and the photographs alongwith the CD containing the CCTV Footage ExPW1/E. The witness correctly identified the accused before the court. Thereafter, the witness was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused at length, however, nothing contradictory was found in the cross examination of the witness.
7. PW-2 Puneet Narula desposed that in the year 2015, he was working as General Manager at Maidens Hotel, Civil Lines, Delhi and on 18.09.2015, he had received a call from the Branch Manager of ICICI Bank regarding one person who had brought a letter in the name of Biswajit Mitra for change of password of company bank account. He further deposed that the Bank manager requested him to check the vailidity of letter and forwarded the letter through whatsapp to him. The witness correctly identified the accused before the court. Thereafter, the witness was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
STATE Vs. Firoz Ahmad FIR No. 361/2015 PS Civil Lines PAGE NO. 4 / 13 Digitally signed GAURAV by GAURAV GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.01.24 15:59:20 +0530
8. PW-3 Biswajit Mitra desposed that in the year 2015, he was working as CFO at Maidens Hotel, EIH Limited and he was the authorized signatory of the bank account. He further deposed that one person had submitted forged documents with the bank which was not signed by him and which were containing his forged signatures ExPW3/A to ExPW3/C. The witness correctly identified the accused before the court. Thereafter, the witness was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
9. PW-4 HC Kashmir Chand desposed that on 23.09.2015, he was posted as Ct. at PS Civil Lines and IO had arrested the accused vide arrest memo ExPW4/A, conducted his personal search and prepared personal search memo ExPW4/B and seized the articles recovered from him vide seizure memo ExPW4/C, ExPW4/D & ExPW4/E. He further deposed that IO recorded the disclosure statement of accused ExPW4/F. The witness correctly identified the accused before the court. Thereafter, the witness was cross examined at length by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
10. PW-5 Rakesh Raman desposed that on 18.09.2015, he was posted at Branch Manager of ICICI Bank, Civil Lines, Delhi. He further deposed that his office staff had received a request to change the email ID and the phone number in the account of Maidens Hotel, Civil Lines, Delhi. He further deposed that on 23.09.2015, the accused came to his office regarding the status of his request dated 18.09.2015. He further deposed that on 23.09.2015, he had called the hotel manager to cross check the request made by the accused and had also sent the photo of the request. He further deposed that hotel officials came to the branch on the same day alongwith the police officials and the police officials after conducting inquiry from the accused, arrested him. He further deposed that they provided the CCTV footage to the police officials vide seizure memo STATE Vs. Firoz Ahmad FIR No. 361/2015 PS Civil Lines PAGE NO. 5 / 13 Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.01.24 15:59:26 +0530 ExPW5/A. The witness was thereafter cross examined at length by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
11. PW-6 Insp. Sanjeev Kumar desposed that on 23.09.2015, he was posted as SI at PS Civil Lines and he had received information from Branch Manager ICICI Bank regarding apprehension of one person by the bank officials. He further deposed that he alongwith Ct. Kashmir went to the bank and when they reached the bank, the Bank Manager told him that the same person had also visited the branch on 18.09.2015 and had today visited for checking the status of his request made on 18.09.2015. He further deposed that he had apprehended the accused, he took the accused to PS Civil Lines for further investigation. He further deposed that thereafter, he had received a written complaint from the hotel staff. He further deposed that he arrested the accused, conducted his personal search and had seized the articles recovered from the accused. He further deposed that he had also deposited the CCTV Footage already Ex.PW5/A and the FSL report ExPW6/C containing the FSL result. The witness correctly identified the accused before the court. Thereafter, the witness was cross examined at length by Ld. Counsel for accused.
STATEMENT / DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED :
12. In examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., all the accused pleaded his innocence in the present case. However, he did not prefer to lead any evidence in defence.
13. I have heard Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused person and have perused the record.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS :
STATE Vs. Firoz Ahmad FIR No. 361/2015 PS Civil Lines PAGE NO. 6 / 13 Digitally signed GAURAV by GAURAV GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.01.24 15:59:31 +0530
14. Before proceeding further with discussing the present case on merits, it becomes inevitable to discuss here the settled legal position in criminal cases. It is trite that in criminal jurisprudence, the prosecution is under an obligation to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of proof to be adopted in criminal cases is not merely of preponderance of probabilities but proof beyond reasonable doubts on the basis of cogent, convincing and reliable evidence. It is also well settled that in case of doubt, the benefit must necessarily be given to the accused. It is also settled position of law that whenever there are two views possible, the view which favour the innocence of the accused is to be accepted by the Court.
15. The offences for which the accused persons have been charged with are Section 419/468/471 IPC. So broadly the offences for which the accused persons have been charged with can be divided in three categories i.e.
(i) cheating by way of personation as punishable U/s 419 IPC,
(ii) forgery as punishable U/s 468/471 IPC
16. In order to decide whether the aforesaid accused have committed the offence as alleged, it would be pertinent to discuss the provision of section 419 IPC which reads as under:-
Punishment for cheating by personation:-
Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Cheating by personation has been defined under section 416 IPC which reads as under:
STATE Vs. Firoz Ahmad FIR No. 361/2015 PS Civil Lines PAGE NO. 7 / 13 GAURAV Digitally signed by GAURAV GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.01.24 15:59:36 +0530
416. Cheating by personation:- A person is said to "cheat by personation" if he cheats by pretending to be some other person, or by knowingly substituting one person for another, or representing that he or any other person is a person other than he or such other FIR No. 99/1997 PS Hauz Khas (Crime Branch) Page- 56 of 75 person really is.
103. In order to prove the offence under section 419 IPC, the essential ingredients are that:-
(a) the accused cheated someone
(b) that he did so by impersonation 17 Now cheating is defined under section 415 IPC Section 415 IPC reads as under:-
415. 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".
18. The essential ingredient of cheating are that:
(1) deception of any person fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person
(i) to deliver any property to any person or STATE Vs. Firoz Ahmad FIR No. 361/2015 PS Civil Lines PAGE NO. 8 / 13 Digitally signed GAURAV by GAURAV GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.01.24 15:59:40 +0530
(ii) to consent that any person shall retain any property.
19. After going through the essential legal ingredients which are required to be proved for commission of the offence U/s 419 IPC, the Court deem it fit to discuss here the settled legal principals as decided by Hon'ble Apex Court.
20. In Mahadeo Prasad Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1954 SC 724 it was observed that to constitute offence of cheating, intention to deceive should be in existence at the time when inducement was offered.
21. In Jaswantrai Manilal Akhaney Vs. State of Bombay, AIR 1956 SC 575, Court said that a guilty intention is an essential ingredient of the offence of cheating. For the offence of cheating, "mens rea" on the part of that person, must be established.
22. After going through the settled legal principal which are required to prove the commission of the offence of cheating by way of personation u/s 419 IPC and coming to the factual matrix of the present case, the court deems it fit to mention here that the prosecution case is that accused tried to change the bank account password and the email ID of the complainant company i.e. Maidens Hotel by using forged and fabricated letter head containing the forged signatures of the CFO and impersonated himself to be a hotel employee and also provided fake employee ID Card. On verification, the employee ID card was found to be fake. So, it can be deduced without hesitation that commission of the offence U/s 419 IPC has been proved against accused.
STATE Vs. Firoz Ahmad FIR No. 361/2015 PS Civil Lines PAGE NO. 9 / 13
Digitally signed
by GAURAV
GAURAV GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.01.24
15:59:45 +0530
23. The second set of offence for which the accused has been charged with are Sections 468/471 IPC. All these sections punish commission of forgery. Before starting the discussion on the commission of the offence U/s 468/471 IPC, it would be relevant to take note of Section 463 and 464 of IPC which defines commission of offence of forgery.
24. 463 IPC defines "forgery" which reads as under :-
Whoever makes any false documents or electronic record part of a document or electronic record with, intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.
25. 464 IPC defines "making a false document" which reads as under :-
A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record-
First - Who dishonestly or fraudulently-
(a) makes signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;
(c) Affixes any digital signature on any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the digital signature, With the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or STATE Vs. Firoz Ahmad FIR No. 361/2015 PS Civil Lines PAGE NO. 10 / 13 Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.01.24 15:59:50 +0530 digital signature was make, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted 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 or affixed with digital 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 to affix his digital signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of unsoundness of deception practiced upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alterations.
26. Basic ingredients of the offence under Section 468 and 471 IPC are that there should be forgery under Section 463 and forgery in turn depends upon creation of a false document as defined in Section 464 IPC.
27. Section 471 IPC reads as under :-
471. Using as genuine a forged [document or electronic record].--Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any [document or electronic record] which he STATE Vs. Firoz Ahmad FIR No. 361/2015 PS Civil Lines PAGE NO. 11 / 13 Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.01.24 15:59:54 +0530 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].
28. As far as commission of the offence U/s 471 IPC is concerned, the Court has observed that the allegations against the accused persons is that they have forged the documents and used the documents as genuine documents.
29. Section 468 IPC provides:
"468. Forgery for purpose of cheating. - Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
30. To substantiate the commission of offence U/s 468 IPC, the prosecution was duty bound to prove the following ingredients :
1. The accused is found to be possession of some documents.
2. The impugned documents are forged documents.
3. The accused forged these documents and the forgery is for the purpose of cheating.
31. After going through the settled legal principal which are required to prove the commission of the offence of forgery U/s 468/471 IPC and coming to the factual matrix of the present case, the court deems it fit to mention here STATE Vs. Firoz Ahmad FIR No. 361/2015 PS Civil Lines PAGE NO. 12 / 13 Digitally signed GAURAV by GAURAV GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.01.24 15:59:59 +0530 that the prosecution case is that accused tried to change the bank account password and the email ID of the complainant company i.e. Maidens Hotel by using forged and fabricated letter head containing the forged signatures of the CFO. The letter head was found to be forged as per the testimonies of the hotel staff and the CFO denied signing upon the letter head submitted by the accused. So, it can be deduced without hesitation that commission of the offence U/s 468/471 IPC has been proved against accused.
32. Result of aforesaid discussion is that in the present case, the prosecution has clearly proved the offences against the accused. Accordingly, accused Firoz Ahmad held guiltiy and convicted of offences u/s 419/468/471 IPC.
File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
This judgement consists of 13 signed pages. Digitally signed
by GAURAV
GOYAL
GAURAV
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT GOYAL
Date:
2025.01.24
on : 24.01.2025 16:00:05
+0530
(GAURAV GOYAL)
JMFC-06(C)/THC/Delhi/24.01.2025
STATE Vs. Firoz Ahmad FIR No. 361/2015 PS Civil Lines PAGE NO. 13 / 13