Delhi District Court
State vs Tej Pal Etc on 29 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. HARJOT SINGH AUJLA JMFC-11 (SOUTH-
WEST) DWARKA COURTS: DELHI
State Vs Tejpal and Kailash
FIR No : 520/2005
U/s : 408/468/471/120-B IPC
P.S : Janakpuri
1. CNR No. of the Case : DLSW020064732019
2. Date of commission of offence : 03.09.2005
3. Date of institution of the case 15.02.2008
4. Name of the complainant Brig. V.K. Pahwa
5. Name of accused, parentage & 1. Tejpal
Address S/o Sh. Rampat
R/o WZ-503, Village
Tihar Delhi
2. Kailash
S/o Sh. Bheru Lal
R/o Village Karoli, P.S
Parag Pura, District
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
6. Offence complained of 408/468/471/120B IPC
7. Plea of the accused(s) Pleaded not guilty
8. Final order Acquitted
9. Date of final order 29.01.2026
HARJOT
Argued by: - Ld. Addl. PP for the State. SINGH
Sh. Y.S. Mathur, Ld. Counsel for accused persons.
Digitally signed by
HARJOT SINGH
Date: 2026.01.29
17:02:22 +0530
FIR No. 520/2005, PS Janakpuri State vs. Tejpal & Anr Page 1 of 24
JUDGMENT
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
FACTUAL MATRIX-
1. The accused persons, namely, (1) Tejpal and (2) Kailash had been charge-sheeted for committing offence punishable under Section 408/468/471/120B IPC.
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
2. It has been alleged by the prosecution that on 03.09.2005, both accused persons agreed to do the illegal acts and in pursuance of which while they were entrusted with an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/-, being the servant of Group 4 Falck for the purpose of replenishing the ATM at UTI bank, Janakpuri, they besides replenishing cash misappropriated the said amount by not replenishing a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- at Janakpuri, UTI ATM branch and committed breach of trust with respect to the said amount and made false entries in the deposit record and ATM trip sheet dated 03.09.2005 with intention that said documents shall be used for the purpose of cheating and used these documents by submitting the same to Group 4 Falck and thereby both accused persons committed an offence punishable u/s 408/468/471/120-B IPC.
3. Complaint was made and FIR was registered. IO conducted the investigation. After completion of investigation, the present charge-sheet was filed. Cognizance of the offence was taken and accused persons were summoned to face the trial.
SUPPLY OF COPY/CHARGE
4. Thereafter, copy of charge sheet was supplied to accused persons under Section 207 Cr.P.C (now Section 230 BNSS). After giving opportunity to State as well as accused persons for making submissions on charge, charge for HARJOT FIR No. 520/2005, PS Janakpuri State vs. Tejpal & Anr Page 2 of 24 SINGH Digitally signed by HARJOT SINGH Date: 2026.01.29 17:02:30 +0530 offence under Section 408/468/471/120-B IPC was framed against both the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
5. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused persons to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt: -
ORAL EVIDENCE PW-1 ASI Shabbir Hussain PW-2 Sh. Rupak Gupta PW-3 Brigedier V.K. Pahwa PW-4 Sh. Gulbir Singh PW-5 HC Anil PW-6 HC Pradeep Kumar PW-7 Sh. R.D. S Bisht PW-8 Sh. Shamsher Arfeen PW-9 Sh. Ami Lal Daksh PW-10 Inspector Vijay Pal PW-11 Sh. Santosh Singh PW-12 Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Taku DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex. PW1/A FIR Ex. PW1/B Endorsement on rukka Ex. PW2/A Disclosure statement of accused person Ex. PW2/B Disclosure statement of accused person Ex. PW2/C Seizure memo Ex. PW2/D Original Cash balance report Ex. PW3/A Complaint Ex. PW3/B Site plan Ex. PW3/C Seizure memo Ex. PW3/D Contract between Group 4 FALCK and both accused Ex. PW3/E Contract between Group 4 FALCK and both accused Ex. PW4/1 Signature and handwriting of both accused to PW4/33 Persons Ex. PW6/A Trip sheet dated 03.09.2005, Vehicle In & Out register with pages No. 92 and 93 of Vault register Digitally signed by HARJOT HARJOT SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.01.29 FIR No. 520/2005, PS Janakpuri State vs. Tejpal & Anr Page 3 of 24 17:02:36 +0530 Ex. PW6/B Trip sheet dated 03.09.2005 Ex. PW6/D Vehicle In & Out register with pages No. 92 and 93 Ex. PW8/A Technical report Ex. PW8/B Status report Ex. PW8/C Print out of general printer report Ex. PW8/D Reply to the queries of IO Ex. PW9/A FSL Report Ex. PW9/B Mark Q-24 and Q-25 Ex. PW10/A Endorsement on the complaint Ex. PW10/B Contract between Group 4 and UTI Bank Ex. PW10/A Arrest memo Ex. PW10/B Arrest memo Ex. PW10/C Personal search memo Ex. PW10/D Personal memo Ex.PW 10/E Search memo Ex. PW11/A Affidavit
6. To prove its case, prosecution examined the following witnesses, the same are as follows:
PROSECUTION WITNESSES
7. Prosecution examined ASI Shabbir Hussain as PW1. His version is reproduced as under:-
"On 8.9.05, I was posted at P.S. Janak Puri as a Duty Officer. On that day my duty hours were from 4 pm to 12 night. On that day at about 9.30 pm, SI Vijay Pal produced a rukka to me and on the basis of rukka I recorded FIR NO. 520/05. The carbon copy of FIR is ExPW1/A, bearing my signature at point A & I also made endorsement on rukka Ex.PW1/B and handed over the copy of FIR & original rukka to SI Vijay Pal for conducting investigation. Original FIR seen & returned".
8. Prosecution examined Sh. Rupak Gupta as PW2. His version is reproduced as under:-
From year 2003 to 2006 I remained employed with Group 4 Securities and Cash Services Pvt. Ltd., Mahipal Pur, Delhi. On 10.9.05 I was HARJOT FIR No. 520/2005, PS Janakpuri State vs. Tejpal & Anr Page 4 of 24 SINGH Digitally signed by HARJOT SINGH Date: 2026.01.29 17:02:41 +0530 National Manager of the said company. On that day I had participated in the investigation of the present case. I had gone to PS. In my presence Police had made enquiry from accused Kailash and Tejpal. Both of them had given their disclosure statement to the police, which was recorded by IO in my presence the said statement are Ex.PW2/A and B both bearing my signature at point A. Both the said accused persons were employee of our company. I had accompanied the police and accused Tejpal to his house. Accused had produced the photocopy of Audit Roll and two copies of cash balance report one original and one carbon copy which were seized by the IO vide memo PW2/C bearing my signature at point A. Photocopy of Audit Roll is mark A whereas the original cash balance report is Ex.PW2/D. Further examination of the witness is deferred as the carbon copy of cash balanced report is not located in the judicial file and assistance of IO is required. Photocopy of audit role is mark A and original cash balance report is ExPw2/D".
9. Prosecution examined Brigadier V.K. Pahwa as PW3. His version is reproduced as under:-
"From July 2005 till December 2005 I was working as Branch Manager in Group 4 Securitas Cash Services (Pvt. Ltd.). The said company the service provider for various bank including UTI and was also responsible for cash replenshment of Bank ATM including UTI bank. It was reported to me in the month of September 2005 by National Manager ATM Sh. Rupak Gupta had of ATM section of the company that Rs.5 Lac 50 thousands has been found embezzled from the ATM of UTI Bank, Janakpuri Branch on 06 September 2005. At this stage examination of witness is deferred.
The photocopy of contract of employment between group 4 falck and accused Kailash Chand and Tejpal are Ex.PW3/D and 3/E. Original seen from the file produced by retired Colonel M.K.Dass from G4S Cash Services India Pvt. Ltd (previously known as Group 4 Falck), seen and returned. The HARJOT FIR No. 520/2005, PS Janakpuri State vs. Tejpal & Anr Page 5 of 24 SINGH Digitally signed by HARJOT SINGH Date: 2026.01.29 17:02:47 +0530 other documents are not produced ile duty roaster of both the accused, report submitted by both the accused regarding replenishment of cash, copy of contract between UTI and group 4 Falck. On 27.10.05, I produced Trip sheet dated 03.09.05, vehicle in a register dated 03.09.05 and two pages of vault register page no.92 and 93 which were taken into possession vide memo already Ex. PW6/A bearing my signature at point B (objected to by Ld. Defence Counsel as document Ex.PW6/A was lying in police file and place on record from the police file.). The vehicle in out register is already Ex.PW6/C(objected to mode and author of the document), the two pages i.e page no.92 and 93 are collectively already Ex.PW6/D(objected to mode and author of the document) and Trip Sheet is already Ex.PW6/B (objected to mode and author of the document). Further chief examination is deferred for want of original document ie duty roaster of both the accused, report submitted by both the accused regarding replenishment of cash, copy of contract between UTI and group 4 Falck. Ld. APP requests for calling these documents from UTI Bombay Branch and seeks one adjournment.
Mr. Rupak Gupta the National Manager, ATM had reported to me that it has been detected on 06.9.05 forenoon that sum of Rs.5 lac 50 thousands had been embezzled from ATM, UTI Bank Branch located at C-3/21 Janakpuri. Rs.6 lacs were entrusted to Mr. Tejpal and Kailash Chand on 03.9.2005 at about
10.00 pm for replenishing at the ATM of UTI Bank C-3/21 Janakpuri besides replenishing the cash of other ATM on the route. As per the report they had replenish the amount at about 2.10 am on 04.9.2005. On 05.9.05 the said team was again given a sum of Rs. 18 lacs for replenishment in the Janakpuri UTI ATM Branch. As per the documents the ATM was replenished at about 3.07 am on 06.9.05. The team had carried out the first line maintenance of the ATM from 3.00 p.m. for 8 minutes on 05.9.05. The ATM status of the computer had revealed that during this period of 8 minutes the ATM chest was opened four HARJOT FIR No. 520/2005, PS Janakpuri State vs. Tejpal & Anr Page 6 of 24 SINGH Digitally signed by HARJOT SINGH Date: 2026.01.29 17:02:52 +0530 times. The physical verification and audit was carried out by Mr. Rupak Gupta and Mr. R.D.S. Visht at about 11.54 a.m. and they had found only 137 currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination in the chest instead of 1237 currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination. As Tejpal and Kailash Chand were the sole custodian of the said ATM hence I had made a complaint to the police at PS Janakpuri on 07.9.2005. The said complaint is Ex.PW3/A bearing my signature at point A. Police had registered the FIR. I had shown the ATM location to the police on 09.9.2005. The site plan Ex. PW3/B bears my signature at point A. I had also given the letter of appointment of both the accused persons, duty roaster regarding the duty of both the accused regarding date 01.3.05 including trip sheet, photocopy of valet register, report submitted by accused persons regarding the replenishment about the amount and copy of the contract between Group 4 and UTI bank. The said documents were seized by the police vide memo Ex.PW3/C bearing my signature at point A. Photocopy of the said documents are already on record. I have not brought the original document as now I have left the services of the said company. At this stage further examination of witness is deferred for want of original documents".
10. Prosecution examined Gulbir Singh as PW4. His version is reproduced as under:-
"On 14.09.05, I was posted at PS Janak Puri. On that day, I joined investigation in case FIR no. 520/05 along with IO SI Vijay Pal Singh. On that day, the accused Kailash and Tej Pal were produced before the court at Tis Hazari Courts. After permission of the court, the signature and hand writing of both the accused in my presence vide memo Ex.PW4/1 to Ex.PW4/33 all bearing my signature at point A. IO recorded my statement".
statement
11. Prosecution examined HC Anil as PW-5. His version is reproduced as under:-
Digitally signed by HARJOT FIR No. 520/2005, PS Janakpuri State vs. Tejpal & Anr Page 7 of 24 HARJOT SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.01.29 17:02:57 +0530 "On 14.09.05, I was posted as Ct. at PS Janak Puri. On that day, I joined investigation in case FIR no. 520/05 along with IO SI Vijay Pal Singh. On that day, the accused Kailash and Tej Pal were produced before the court at Tis Hazari Courts. After permission of the court, the signature and hand writing of both the accused in my presence vide memos already Ex.PW4/1 to Ex.PW4/33. 10 recorded my statement".
statement
12. Prosecution examined as Pradeep Kumar PW-6. His version is reproduced as under:-
"On 27.10.05, I was posted at PS Janak Puri as Constable. On that day. I joined investigation in case FIR no.520/05 along with IO SI Vijay Pal. On that day, SI V.K.Pahwa arrived at PS and handed over trip sheets dated 03.09.05. vehicle in out register dated 03.09.05, two pages of Vault register page no.92 and 93. IO seized the same vide memo (Ex. PW6/A Bearing my signature at point A (objected to by Ld. Defence Counsel as document Ex.PW6/A was lying in police file and place on record from the police file.). The trip sheet dated 03.09.05 is Ex. Ex. PW6/B objected to mode and author of the document). The Vehicle in out register is Ex.PW6/C (objected to mode and author of the document). The vault register running into two pages is collectively Ex. PW6/D (colly) (objected to mode and author of the document)".
document)
13. Prosecution examined as Sh. R. D. Bisht PW-7. His version is reproduced as under:-
"On 6.9.2005, I was working as Operation Officer, Group 4 Securitas Cash Services (P) Ltd. on that day I alongwith Sh Roopak Gupta, National Manager went to C-3 Janak Puri where one ATM of UTI Bank was installed. Accused Tej Pal and Kailash Chand opened the ATM chest with the help of code which was generated by both accused persons at the time of entrustment. In the presence of custodians Sh Tej Pal and Sh Kailash Chand, we HARJOT FIR No. 520/2005, PS Janakpuri State vs. Tejpal & Anr Page 8 of 24 SINGH Digitally signed by HARJOT SINGH Date: 2026.01.29 17:03:03 +0530 checked the ATM chest alongwith Sh Roopak Gupta and we found only 137 of Rs.500/- denomination in the said ATM instead of 1237. 1100 notes were found short in the ATM chest. The total value which was found short was Rs.5,50,000/-. As per the records, Sh Tej Pal and Sh Kailash Chand were the dsole custodians of the said ATM and they were only persons who were knowing the code of chest. Both the accused are present in the court today and correctly identified by the witness".
witness
14. Prosecution examined as Sh. Shamsher Arfeen PW-8. His version is reproduced as under:-
"In the year 2005, I was working as Team Leader in Diebold Systems Pvt. Ltd. I was Engineer and was leading a team of engineers. My main job was technical service of ATM machines supplied to different banks and operating from different places. On 15.9.2005, I inspected one ATM machine situated at UTI bank, at E-3/21 Janak Puri, New Delhi. The model of machine was 1062 IX front load Diebold company. I prepared detailed technical report after inspection of ATM machine which is ExPW8/A bearing my signature at point A and the signature of Sh. Anand Gaourllu at point BI opened the upper portion of ATM machine with the help of custodians ShTej Pal and Sh Kailash Chand as the keys of ATM remains with them. I taken out the general printer report and according to the report, I prepared the Status Report for the period from 3.9.05 at 2.05.30 hours to 6.9.2005 at 3.00.52 hours. The report is ExPW8/B bearing my signature at point A and signature of Sh Anand Gaourllu at point B. As per the report, during the above said period, the ATM chest was opened 7 times. The password/code of the ATM chest remains with the custodians of the ATM chest. Without these password/codes, the ATM chest can not be opened. The print out of general printer report/soft copy is ExPW8/C, running in bearing my signature at point A, B & C and signature of Sh Anand HARJOT SINGH FIR No. 520/2005, PS Janakpuri State vs. Tejpal & Anr Page 9 of 24 Digitally signed by HARJOT SINGH Date: 2026.01.29 17:03:08 +0530 Gaourllu at points A1, B1 and Cl. I also replied some quarries of investigating officer vide my letter ExPW8/D bearing my signature at point A".
A
15. Prosecution examined Sh. Ami Lal Daksh as PW9. His version is reproduced as under:-
"I was posted at FSL on 9.5.2006. The documents mark Q 1 to Q18 purported to be of Tejpal On Group 4 securities Cash service P. Ltd dt.3.2.05 and mark Q19 to Q 23 purported to be of Kailash on Group 4 Page no. 43, 93, mark Q 24 to Q25 on Group 4 Deposit record dated 3.9.05 and specimen writing/signature mark S1-A to S1-O of Tejpal and S2-A to S2-U of Kailash were sent to FSL for comparison and opinion. I examined the above said documents carefully and thoroughly with scientific instruments available at FSL and opined that
1. the person who wrote the red enclosed writings and signatures stamped and marked S1-A to S1-O also wrote the red enclosed writing and signature similarly stamped and marked Q1 to Q18, Q21 for the reasons given in my report.
2. The person who wrote the red enclose writing and signatures stamped and marked S2-A to S2-U also wrote the red enclosed writing and signature similarly stamped and marked Q 24 for the reasons given in my report.
3. It has not been possible to express any opinion on the rest of the items on the basis of material at hand.
My report running in 3 pages, is ExPW9/A bearing my signature at point A, on each page.
Mark Q 1 and Q20 are already collectively ExPW6/D. HARJOT SINGH Digitally signed by HARJOT SINGH Date: 2026.01.29 17:03:14 +0530 FIR No. 520/2005, PS Janakpuri State vs. Tejpal & Anr Page 10 of 24 Mark Q 24 and Q 25 are now ExPW9/B collectively. The document mark Q 2 to Q 18 and Q 21 to Q23 are already collectively ExPW6/B. The document Q 19 is already ExPW6/C. The specimen writing/signatures mark S1A to S1 O are already ExPW4/1 to ExPW4/13 and specimen hand writing/signature mark S2 A to S2- U are ExPW4/14 to ExPW4/33".
16. Prosecution examined Inspector Vijay Pal as PW10. His version is reproduced as under:-
"On 08.09.2005, I was posted at S Janakpuri as St. On that day one letter was received at PS addressed to SHO, Janakpuri regarding embezzlement of Rs.5,50,000/- by two employees Tej Pal and Kailash. The complaint was marked to me for necessary action by SHO, PS Janakpuri. I made endorsement on the complaint and produced the same before the DO for registration of FIR. The complaint is already Ex. PW3/A and my endorsement is Ex PW10/A bearing my signatures at point "A". After that alongwith coraplainant V.K. Pahwa and Ct. Anil went to place of occurrence C-3/21, Janakpuri where the ATM of UTI bank was situated. I prepared the site plan at the instance of V.K. Pahwa and same is already Ex. PW3/B bearing my signatures at point "B". I requested the complainant to provide the documents regarding the employment of the accused persons. On the same day, the documents regarding the employment of accused persons were handed over to me and same are seized vide memo already Ex. PW3/C, bearing my signatures a point "B". The letter of Ex. PW3/A and appointment of accused Kailash is already appointment letter of accused PW3/E. The copy of contract in between Group-4 SECURITAS and UTI Bank is Ex. PW 10/8. Further examination in chief is deferred for the want of original documents from Group-4 Securtas. Thereafter, I arrested both the accused persons on 09.09.2005 vide arrest memos now Ex.PW10/A and Ex.PW10/B bearing my signatures at point A. Personal search memo are FIR No. 520/2005, PS Janakpuri State vs. Tejpal & Anr Page 11 of 24 HARJOT SINGH Digitally signed by HARJOT SINGH Date: 2026.01.29 17:03:19 +0530 Ex.PW10/C and Ex.PW10/D bearing my signatures at point A. I also recorded the disclosure statement of both the accused persons which are already Ex. PW2/A and Ex. PW2/B bearing my signatures at point B. The house of accused Tejpal was also searched vide memo Ex.PW2/C bearing my signatures at point B. Thereafter, house of accused Kailash was search vide memo Ex.PW10/E bearing my signatures at point A. during investigation, 1 also seized the documents from the complainant namely, Vinay Kumar Pawa on 09.09.2005 vide memo already Ex.PW3/C bearing my signatures at point C. The photocopy of contract of employment between complainant and accused person which are already Ex.PW3/D were seized vide the above-mentioned memo Ex.PW3/C. (Vol. The original documents were in the possession of Vinay Kumar Pahwa). The document seized vide memo Ex.PW3/C were contract of employment, vehicle in and out register, volt register, cash deposit record, trip sheet. The specimen signatures of both the accused persons were also taken vide memo already from Ex.PW4/1 to Ex.PW4/33. The seized case property ie. the documents were sent to FSL The FSL form is now Ex.PW10/F. During investigation, one Daibold company handed over reports alongwith and statements of ATM transactions of UTI Bank which are already Ex.PW8/A to Ex.PW8/D. Thereafter, I got transferred and 1 handed over the case file to MHCR. Both the accused persons are present in the court and correctly identified by witness".
17. Prosecution examined Sh. Santosh Singh as PW11. His version is reproduced as under:-
"Today, I have brought an affidavit regarding not tracing the record of the agreement made in year 2005 and same have been wiped out from the record as being old record. Affidavit is Ex.PW/A bearing signatures of Kuldeep Negi, Branch Head, Vilas Puri, at point A. At this stage, agreement executed between UTI Bank Ltd. and Group 4 Securities Pvt. Ltd., are shown to witness.
HARJOT SINGH FIR No. 520/2005, PS Janakpuri State vs. Tejpal & Anr Page 12 of 24 Digitally signed by HARJOT SINGH Date: 2026.01.29 17:03:25 +0530 After seeing the same, witness replies that after renmame of UTI Bank as Axis Bank, the said agreement was in custody of Axis Bank and said agreement was executed by Branch Head, Vikas Puri, namely Sandeep Dam, who had resigned the service in recent years. I do not remember the date of resignation of Sandeep Dam and his current address is not available with the Bank. I can identify his signatures as he was the head of the Dpt. at the time of resignation. Agreement is already Ex.PW10/B bearing signature of Sandeep Dam at point A at all respective pages. This agreement was executed for cash loading in ATM of UTI bank by Group 4 Securatas, Cash Services Pvt. Ltd. Annexure AS is related to the location of ATMs for which the contract was given to Group 4 Securatas, Cash Services Pvt. Ltd.".
18. Prosecution examined Sanjeev Kumar Taku as PW12. His version is reproduced as under:-
"I am authorised representative on behalf of Group 4 Securatas Cash Services Ltd. At the present time, company is not operational since 2010, so I am unable to trace the records of the present case i.e.copy of contract of employment, copies of contract and the original contracts with the client, complete details of vehicle in and out register, complete trip sheet, and vault register. At this stage photocopy of the contract of employment of Kailash Chand, Tej Pal are shown to witness. After seeing the same witness replied that these are made on letter head of the company, but he can not identify the signatory of the said contract. Contract is already Ex. PW 3/D and 3/E. Photocopy of the agreement for cash loading in ATMs of UTI bank executed between UTI Bank Ltd. and Group 4 Securatas, Cash Services Pvt. Ltd. is shown to witness. Witness replies that it was made by the Group 4 Securatas, Cash Services Pvt. Ltd., but I cannot say who was the signatory on behalf of Group 4 Securatas, Cash Services, Pvt. Ltd. Vehicle in and out register, vault register and trip sheet are also available on record. After seeing the same, Digitally FIR No. 520/2005, PS Janakpuri State vs. Tejpal & Anr Page 13 of 24 signed by HARJOT HARJOT SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.01.29 17:03:31 +0530 witness replies that these documents pertain with Group 4 Securatas Cash Services Pvt. Ltd. Page of vehicle in and out register is already Ex.PW6/C, papers of vault register is also already Ex.PW6/D, Trip sheet is also Ex PW6/B. Vault register is maintained regarding withdrawals and deposits of cash in vault. (big cash safe house). Trip sheet is maintained regarding visiting of ATMs and other locations carried by the employees of the company. I do not know regarding Brigadier V.K. Pahwa.
Ld. APP for the State sought permission of the court to ask leading questions regarding Brigadier V.K. Pahwa. Same was allowed. The cross- examination is reproduced as :
I do not know whether V.K. Pahwa was Branch Manager of Group 4 Securatas, Cash Services Pvt. Ltd. from July 2005 till December 2005.
Ld. APP for the State sought permission of the court to cross-examine the witness. Same was allowed. The cross-examination is reproduced as :
I am in job of Group 4 Securatas since 2004. Group 4 Securatas Cash Services Pvt. Ltd. is a separate subsidiary company of Group 4 Securatas. I cannot say who have the custody of documents of Group 4 Securatas Cash Services Pvt. Ltd. after being its inoperational since 2010. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely regarding employment of V.K. Pahwa as being won over by the accused.
19. Vide separate statement recorded under Section 330 BNSS (earlier Section 294 Cr.P.C), both accused persons admitted FSL report dated 30.04.2007 Ex.A1. Hence, the above document was ordered to be read in evidence without its formal proof.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED AND DEFENCE EVIDENCE HARJOT SINGH Digitally signed by HARJOT SINGH FIR No. 520/2005, PS Janakpuri State vs. Tejpal & Anr Page 14 of 24 Date: 2026.01.29 17:03:36 +0530
20. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence in order to allow the accused persons to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them, the statement of the accused persons was recorded on 16.10.2025 without oath under section 351 BNSS, wherein they have stated that they are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present case. They further stated that they do not want to lead defence evidence.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
21. Matter was listed for final arguments. During the course of arguments, learned Addl. PP for the State navigated the attention of the court to the facts of the instant case and the evidence brought forth by the prosecution. Ld. Addl. PP for State argued that the prosecution has discharged its burden beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused persons shall be convicted for the offence charged with. Per-contra, Ld. counsel for accused persons argued that the prosecution has failed to successfully establish the essential ingredients of the offences with the help of cogent oral and documentary evidence. That the testimonies of prosecution witnesses are marred with in-consistencies and thus cannot be relied upon. It is further argued that accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present matter and deserves to be acquitted.
22. I have heard learned Addl. PP for the State and Ld. counsel for the accused persons, perused the material placed on record and considered the submissions advanced.
INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE
23. Now coming to the merits of the case, I first deem it pertinent to enunciate the actus reus and mens rea required to inculpate the accused persons for offence under section 408/468/471/120-B IPC. Section 408/468/471/120-B IPC are reproduced as follows:
HARJOT SINGH FIR No. 520/2005, PS Janakpuri State vs. Tejpal & Anr Page 15 of 24 Digitally signed by HARJOT SINGH Date: 2026.01.29 17:03:43 +0530
408. Criminal breach of trust by clerk or servant.
Whoever, being a clerk or servant or employed as a clerk or servant, and being in any manner entrusted in such capacity with property, or with any dominion over property, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
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.
471. Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record.
Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record.
120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.
(1)Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2)Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.
24. To bring home the charge under Section 408 IPC, the prosecution must establish that the accused was a clerk, servant, or in any manner entrusted with property or dominion over such property in the course of employment and FIR No. 520/2005, PS Janakpuri State vs. Tejpal & Anr Page 16 of 24 HARJOT SINGH Digitally signed by HARJOT SINGH Date: 2026.01.29 17:03:53 +0530 that he dishonestly misappropriated or converted the same to his own use or dishonestly used or disposed of such property in violation of any direction of law or of any legal contract. Mere negligence or accounting irregularity in the absence of dishonest intention would not suffice. For an offence under Section 468 IPC, it must be shown that the accused committed forgery, that is made a false document or electronic record within the meaning of Section 464 IPC and that such forgery was committed with the specific intent that the document so forged be used for the purpose of cheating. The existence of mens rea at the time of making the false document is the sine qua non. As regards Section 471 IPC, the essential ingredient is that the accused fraudulently or dishonestly used as genuine a forged document or electronic record, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged. The offence is complete upon such use, irrespective of whether the accused himself was the forger. Lastly, to attract Section 120B IPC, there must be a meeting of minds between two or more persons to do an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means and such agreement itself constitutes the offence of criminal conspiracy. Direct evidence is seldom available and the conspiracy may be inferred from the conduct of the parties, surrounding circumstances and a chain of events pointing towards a pre- arranged plan provided the prosecution establishes such agreement beyond reasonable doubt.
APPRECIATION
25. To bring home an offence under Section 408 IPC, the prosecution must first establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused persons namely Tejpal and Kailash were employed in such a capacity which brought them within the ambit of "clerk or servant" of the complainant company that is Group 4 Securitas Cash Services (P) Ltd. at the relevant time. In the present case, it is not in dispute that photocopies of appointment letters of accused Tejpal and Kailash Chand were produced and exhibited as Ex. PW3/D and Ex. PW3/E (OSR). Further, by way of suggestions put to PW2/Rupak Gupta and FIR No. 520/2005, PS Janakpuri State vs. Tejpal & Anr Page 17 of 24 HARJOT SINGH Digitally signed by HARJOT SINGH Date: 2026.01.29 17:03:59 +0530 PW7/R.D.S Bisht by the defence side, the defence admitted that both accused were employees of Group 4 Securitas Cash Services (P) Ltd. However, mere proof of employment, in the absence of proof of deployment and duty at the relevant place and time as alleged, is insufficient to satisfy the first ingredient of Section 408 IPC. Admittedly, the prosecution failed to place on record the duty roster showing that both accused were on duty in respect of UTI Bank, Janakpuri ATM on the relevant dates. PW3/Vk Pahwa, PW7 and other material witnesses candidly admitted that the duty roster was neither produced nor proved. The vehicle IN/OUT register Ex. PW6/C shows the location of accused persons as of Rajouri garden vide entry dated 03.09.2005. The cash deposit record Ex. PW9/B dated 03.09.2005 shows location as Janakpuri with no details of the ATM as alleged by the prosecution. Further, the trip sheet Ex. PW6/B is also no absolute proof of deployment of accused persons at the spot/ATM. In the absence of such foundational documentary evidence, the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused were entrusted with duties concerning the alleged ATM at the relevant time as per the version of the prosecution.
26. Further, entrustment of property is the sine qua non for an offence under Section 408 IPC. In the landmark case of R.K. Dalmia v. Delhi Administration (1962), the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that entrustment occurs in the ordinary course of the accused's duty as a servant or agent and dominion implies control akin to ownership for the offense to apply. The prosecution bears the burden to prove these elements through cogent evidence, as mere possession without entrustment does not suffice. A careful scrutiny of the testimonies of material witnesses, PW2 and PW7 reveals that neither of them deposed anything regarding entrustment of the alleged cash to the accused persons in their examination-in-chief. PW1, in his cross-examination, admitted that the entire cash-related record was maintained by subordinate staff of the ATM Cell at Mahipalpur. However, no such subordinate official or vault FIR No. 520/2005, PS Janakpuri State vs. Tejpal & Anr Page 18 of 24 HARJOT SINGH Digitally signed by HARJOT SINGH Date: 2026.01.29 17:04:05 +0530 operator was examined by the prosecution as witness to establish the factum of entrustment. PW1 further admitted in his cross-examination that the information regarding the amount to be replenished in the ATM concerned emanates from the bank, yet no such record or intimation from UTI Bank relating to replenishment of Janakpuri ATM and the amount to be replenished was ever brought on record. PW7 specifically deposed that he did not personally hand over any cash to the accused persons and that the cash was taken from the vault through the vault mechanism.
27. The vault register Ex. PW6/D (pages 92, 93 and 94) is conspicuously silent with regard to any specific entrustment of cash to the accused persons for replenishment of Janakpuri ATM. The original vault register was never placed on record. The two entries reflected therein at pg93, namely of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- and Rs. 5,50,00,000/-, do not correspond to the alleged misappropriation of Rs. 5,50,000/-. There is no heading or clarity regarding the entries therein. The vault operator, who could have been the best person to prove entrustment, was never examined, rendering the prosecution case on entrustment wholly speculative. The prosecution further relied upon the testimony of PW3 to establish entrustment. However, PW3 categorically admitted that his knowledge regarding entrustment was derived from PW2/Rupak Gupta, who himself didn't depose anything regarding entrustment in his testimony. PW3 expired during trial and his testimony remained incomplete and untested by cross-examination. It is a settled principle of law that such testimony, which is both hearsay in nature and remains untested by cross-examination, cannot be relied upon for fastening criminal liability, particularly when original documents such as the vault register were never produced in court. The absence of examination of the vault operator and non- production of original vault records strikes at the root of the prosecution case and renders the alleged entrustment wholly unproved.
HARJOT FIR No. 520/2005, PS Janakpuri State vs. Tejpal & Anr Page 19 of 24 SINGH Digitally signed by HARJOT SINGH Date: 2026.01.29 17:04:10 +0530
28. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the accused persons were employees of complainant and that some cash movement took place, the prosecution has failed to prove dishonest misappropriation by the accused persons. It remained unclear as to whether both the accused, though working as custodians in general as per employment contract, were also custodians of the specific UTI Bank Janakpuri ATM. As per the vehicle in-and-out register dated 03.09.2005 Ex. PW6/C, one Lalit, Nagar and Rambir-II were accompanying the accused persons during the alleged replenishment, yet none of these persons were examined as prosecution witnesses. The guard of the alleged ATM was also not examined as witness. The prosecution failed to explain how PW7/RDS Bisht acquired knowledge of the alleged misappropriation when admittedly no complaint was lodged by UTI Bank, whose money was allegedly misappropriated. There is also no clarity as to how PW7 along with PW2 reached the ATM on 06.09.2005 or how both accused persons were present at the ATM at about 12 noon on 06.09.2005, in the absence of any contemporaneous record or intimation.
29. A serious doubt is cast on the prosecution case by the admitted fact that no intimation was ever given to UTI Bank regarding the alleged shortfall in cash, nor did the bank lodge any complaint. There is no evidence on record to show whether Group 4 Securitas Cash Services (P) Ltd indemnified the UTI bank for the alleged loss (entry 9.9, 11.2 of the contract) or whether the contract between Group 4 Securitas Cash Services (P) Ltd and UTI Bank was terminated as per contractual terms of the contract Ex. PW10/B, which would ordinarily follow such a serious incident. The alleged misappropriation is stated to have been discovered by PW2 and PW7 through physical inspection and audit of the ATM. However, no audit report, inspection report, or contemporaneous document was brought on record, nor was any independent witness associated with such inspection. The alleged inspection was neither photographed nor HARJOT FIR No. 520/2005, PS Janakpuri State vs. Tejpal & Anr Page 20 of 24 SINGH Digitally signed by HARJOT SINGH Date: 2026.01.29 17:04:16 +0530 videographed. Moreover, the contract between UTI Bank and Group 4 Securitas Cash Services (P) Ltd reveals that a key holder register will be maintained showing custody of keys and combinations and duplicate keys of the ATM rested with the service provider/Group 4 Securitas Cash Services (P) Ltd, which directly contradicts the version of PW2 and PW7 that the accused persons were the sole custodians of the ATM chest/keys (entry 2.5 of the contract under the head security). The key holding register was never produced on record. Further, it is inherently improbable that an ATM belonging to a bank could be accessed solely by custodians without any access or control with either the bank or the service provider company. Further, no recovery of the alleged cash was affected from the accused persons thereby striking at the root of the prosecution case.
30. On a cumulative appreciation of the entire evidence, this Court finds that while the factum of employment stands admitted, the prosecution has failed to establish entrustment of the alleged property and dishonest misappropriation by the accused persons, which are the core ingredients of Section 408 IPC. The evidence led by the prosecution is riddled with omissions, contradictions, hearsay testimony and non-production of best evidence.
31. The offence under Section 468 IPC postulates forgery committed for the purpose of cheating. In the present case, as already discussed in detail while dealing with the charge under Section 408 IPC, the prosecution has failed to establish either entrustment or dishonest misappropriation of property by the accused persons. There are no allegations of cheating against the accused persons as the cash was allegedly entrusted with the accused persons and the complainant Group 4 Securitas Cash Services (P) Ltd was not induced to part with the cash under dishonest inducement. Once the very substratum of cheating collapses, the charge under Section 468 IPC cannot independently survive. The prosecution has not alleged, much less proved, that any person was deceived or HARJOT FIR No. 520/2005, PS Janakpuri State vs. Tejpal & Anr Page 21 of 24 SINGH Digitally signed by HARJOT SINGH Date: 2026.01.29 17:04:22 +0530 induced to part with property on the basis of any forged document prepared by the accused. In the absence of proof of cheating or wrongful loss corresponding to deception, the essential requirement of Section 468 IPC remains unfulfilled, rendering the charge legally unsustainable.
32. The FSL report Ex. PW9/A merely establishes that the questioned signatures on the vehicle in-and-out register Ex. PW6/C, page 93 of the vault register Ex. PW6/D, cash deposit record Ex. PW9/B and ATM trip sheet Ex. PW6/B match the specimen signatures of the accused persons. This opinion, at best, proves authorship of signatures and nothing more. The report does not opine that the documents were forged, fabricated or manipulated. Significantly, there is no evidence, oral or documentary that the contents of these documents were false or that the accused persons created any false document within the meaning of Section 464 IPC. Mere proof of signatures on official records of the company, in the absence of proof that the documents themselves are false or forged, does not satisfy the legal ingredients of forgery.
33. To attract Section 471 IPC, it must be proved that a forged document was fraudulently or dishonestly used as genuine by the accused persons. In the present case, not only has the prosecution failed to prove that any document was forged, it has also failed to prove that the accused persons used any such document as genuine. The cash balance report Ex. PW2/D is stated to have been seized from the house of accused Tejpal. However, mere possession of a document does not amount to "using" it as genuine. There is no evidence to show that the accused presented, relied upon, or acted upon the said document to derive any benefit or to cause any loss. The documents were produced by PW3, who died during the trial and whose testimony remained incomplete and could not be tested by cross-examination. Consequently, the essential ingredient of "use" under Section 471 IPC remains conspicuously absent.
HARJOT SINGH FIR No. 520/2005, PS Janakpuri State vs. Tejpal & Anr Page 22 of 24 Digitally signed by HARJOT SINGH Date: 2026.01.29 17:04:27 +0530
34. Further, the prosecution has failed to establish how much cash, if any, was handed over to the accused persons for replenishment of the Janakpuri, UTI Bank ATM. The trip sheet, vehicle in-and-out register and vault register, even if taken at their face value, do not connect the accused persons with the alleged misappropriation of Rs. 5,50,000/-. As already observed, the vault register entries do not correspond to the alleged shortfall amount and there is no specific entry reflecting entrustment of cash to the accused persons for the concerned ATM. In the absence of proof of entrustment and corresponding misappropriation, the mere existence of official records bearing the signatures of the accused does not give rise to any inference of forgery or fraudulent conduct.
35. The charge under Section 120-B IPC is wholly dependent upon proof of an agreement to commit an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. In the present case, there is no direct or circumstantial evidence to suggest any prior meeting of minds between the accused to forge documents, or misappropriate funds. The prosecution has not established the commission of the principal offences under Sections 408, 468 or 471 IPC. Consequently, the allegation of criminal conspiracy automatically falls to the ground. It is a settled principle of law that when the substantive offences fail and there is no independent evidence of conspiracy, the charge under Section 120-B IPC cannot be sustained.
36. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden squarely lies upon the prosecution to prove each and every essential ingredient of the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt, and such burden never shifts upon the accused. The accused is entitled to the presumption of innocence throughout the trial and is not required to prove his defence or disprove the prosecution case. The prosecution must stand on the strength of its own evidence and cannot derive any advantage from the weaknesses, if any, in the FIR No. 520/2005, PS Janakpuri State vs. Tejpal & Anr Page 23 of 24 Digitally signed by HARJOT HARJOT SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.01.29 17:04:32 +0530 defence. Where two views are possible on the evidence on record, the view favourable to the accused must be adopted. Mere suspicion, conjectures or probabilities cannot substitute legal proof, particularly in cases involving allegations of criminal breach of trust, forgery and conspiracy, which require clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence establishing entrustment, dishonest intention, forgery, use of forged documents and meeting of minds.
CONCLUSION
37. In the present case, on a cumulative and holistic appreciation of the entire evidence, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of proving the offences under Sections 408, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence led falls short of establishing entrustment of property, dishonest misappropriation, existence of any forged document, use thereof as genuine, or any criminal conspiracy between the accused persons. The material inconsistencies, omissions, non-examination of crucial witnesses, and non-production of best available evidence create serious dents in the prosecution case, entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt. Consequently, both accused persons namely Tejpal S/o Rampat and Kailash S/o Sh. Bheru Lal are acquitted of all the charges framed against them under Sections 408/468/471/120-B IPC.
38. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by Announced in the open Court HARJOT HARJOT SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.01.29 on 29.01.2026 in the presence 17:04:39 +0530 of the accused persons. (Harjot Singh Aujla JMFC-11, South West Dwarka, Delhi / 29.01.2026 Note: - This judgment contains 24 pages and each page has been signed by me.
Digitally signed by HARJOT HARJOT SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.01.29 17:04:47 +0530 (Harjot Singh Aujla) JMFC-11, South West Dwarka, Delhi /29.01.2026 FIR No. 520/2005, PS Janakpuri State vs. Tejpal & Anr Page 24 of 24