Delhi District Court
Criminal Case/1341/1997 on 5 October, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (SOUTH),
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
State v. Rohtash Kumar
FIR No. 1341/1997
PSDefence Colony
U/S. 406/409/468/471/420 IPC
JUDGMENT
a) Serial number of the case : 02403R0023592000
b) Date of commission of offence : During October, 1996 and April, 1997.
c) Name of the complainant, if any : Mr. Satish Sharma, A7, NDSE, PartII, New Delhi.
d) Name & address of accused : Rohtash Kumar
S/o Mr. Shyam Sunder,
R/o VillageShahpur,
Chawdhary, PSMukteshwar,
DistrictGhaziabad,
Present Address : 1190B/13,
Govind Puri, New Delhi.
e) The offence complained off : U/S.406/409/468/471/420IPC
f) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
FIR No. 1341/97 State v. Rohtash Kumar 1 of 6
g) Final order : Acquitted.
h) Date for which order was reserved for : 30.09.2013
i) The date of such order : 05.10.2013.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
1. Sh. Satish Sharma, Director of M/s. R.J.S. Studio Private Limited made complaint dated 7.5.1997 against accused Rohtash Kumar, an employee of the company to the SHO, Police StationDefence Colony, which formed basis for registration of FIR in the case. In his complaint, he alleged that accused being an employee of the company was looking after the accounts of the company and was Incharge of Accounts Division and he was in possession of company's books of account, cheque books, cash books, cash and other important documents. He stated that accused was not coming to office since 23rd April, 1997 and he absented from his duty without any prior notice/information. He alleged that on checking the records, it was found that the accused has forged one cheque no. 657353 in his own favour and withdrew a sum of Rs. 14,500/ instead of his actual salary i.e. Rs. 4,500/. Accused had shown his cheque cancelled in the records of the company. One more cheque no. 657385 was also found to be missing from the company, which was in possession of the accused. It was found that the said cheque FIR No. 1341/97 State v. Rohtash Kumar 2 of 6 was encashed by the accused while forging the signatures of Mr. Rajender Chaturvedi. It was also found that one more cheque no. 158202 was missing along with original certificates of Importer Exporter Port of the company.
2. On the aforesaid allegations, made by complainant Sh. Satish Sharma, FIR in the case was registered. Investigation in the case was commenced. Accused was arrested by PW8 Inspector Lalit Kumar vide memo Ex. PW2/A. His personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW3/B. Disclosure statement of accused Ex. PW3/A was recorded. The questioned documents were sent to FSL, Delhi. PW4 Dr. Harshwardhan examined the questioned documents and gave his report Ex. PW4/A. PW8 seized photocopies of office record of the complainant vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/A. On conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused U/s. 406/409/420/468/471 IPC.
3. On 11.10.2000, on the basis of material available on record, learned predecessor of the Court took cognizance of the offences involved in the case. Accused was summoned to face trial. Accused was supplied copy of charge sheet along with documents on his appearance in the Court in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
4. To a charge U/S 406/420/468/471 IPC, accused pleaded not guilty FIR No. 1341/97 State v. Rohtash Kumar 3 of 6 and claimed trial.
5. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined seven witnesses in all. They are as under : ➢ PW1 HC Kartar Singh, Duty Officer recorded the FIR in the case. He proved the FIR, which is Ex. PW1/A. He made endorsement on the complaint vide memo Ex. PW1/B. ➢ In the presence of PW2 Amar Nath, accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted.
➢ PW3 Ct. Pushpender joined the investigation in the case along with the IO. In his presence, accused was apprehended from C202, DDA Flat, Kalkaji on the pointing of secret informer. Disclosure statement of accused was also recorded in his presence.
➢ PW4 Dr. Harshwardhan is an expert, who examined the questioned documents forwarded to him by the investigating agency. After examination, he gave his report Ex. PW4/A. ➢ PW5 Retired ACP Ved Pal Singh Rana and PW7 Inspector Ramphool Meena remained investigating officers for some period. They did not conduct any substantial investigation in the FIR No. 1341/97 State v. Rohtash Kumar 4 of 6 case.
➢ PW6 Lal Sahab Mishra, an official of Standard Chartered Bank could not produce the summoned record despite sufficient time given to him.
➢ PW8 Inspector Lalit Kumar in the course of investigation in the case, recorded statements of witnesses, seized documents, he also arrested accused and collected the cheques in question from the bank concerned.
➢ PW7 Retired ACP S.S. Sharma, on 26.4.2000 visited the court of CJM, Ghaziabad along with the handwriting expert of FSL. They obtained the prints of all the documents i.e. cheque, original receipt and memo of understanding from the court of learned CJM, Ghaziabad. The prints of the aforesaid documents were later on sent by him to FSL for chemical examination. On receiving the result, PW7 prepared the charge sheet and filed the same in the court.
6. Accused being examined U/s. 313 CrPC claimed innocence. He stated that there was a dispute between the partners of the company where he was working. He went on to say that in order to save themselves from FIR No. 1341/97 State v. Rohtash Kumar 5 of 6 liability arising in section 138 NI Act case, they falsely implicated him in the present case. Accused denied to lead defence evidence. Hence, defence evidence was closed.
7. I have heard and considered the submissions of the rival parties and perused the record of the case.
8. In the case at hand, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove on record that accused was an employee of M/s. R.J.S. Studio Private Limited. The prosecution further failed to prove that the accused was entrusted with some property i.e. books of accounts, cheque books, cash books, cash and other documents as alleged in the complaint while acting as a clerk or servant of M/s. R.J.S. Studio Private Limited. The complainant, who made complaint to the police, did not appear to prove his complaint. None of the office bearers of the company either appeared or deposed against the accused. As such there is nothing on record to prove the allegations set out by the prosecution against the accused. A complaint in order to be substantiated in a court of law, is required to be proved and the allegations set out therein are also required to be established as per the rules of evidence contained in the Evidence Act. In the absence of the complainant and any of the officer bearers of the company, neither the complaint against the accused FIR No. 1341/97 State v. Rohtash Kumar 6 of 6 stands proved, nor the allegations of the prosecution against him sustain. All that is there in the entire file is the evidence of the police officials, who were the part of the investigation, few formal witnesses and and an handwriting expert. This evidence does not at all suffice to bring home the guilt of the accused.
9. For the reasons discussed above, the accused is hereby acquitted for the offences, with which he was charged. His bail bond and surety bond is hereby extended for a period of six months from today in view of section 437A Cr.P.C. File be consigned to Record Room. Announced in the open Court today i.e. 05.10.2013 (RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI) Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi/05.10.2013 FIR No. 1341/97 State v. Rohtash Kumar 7 of 6