Delhi District Court
State vs Dalip Singh on 17 November, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AMIT BANSAL
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE04, NEW DELHI DISTRICT
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Unique I.D No. : 02403R0132742014
Criminal Revision Number : 180/02/2014
State
through Addl. PP ... Petitioner/Revisionist
Versus
Dalip Singh
( No. 503/SD now 474/Sec. Delhi Police)
s/o Late Sh. Snehi Singh,
r/o Quarter no. 105,
Type II, PS Shakarpur,
Delhi . .....
Respondent
Date of receipt of file in this Court : 16.08.2014
Date when arguments were heard : 17.11.2015
Date of Order : 17.11.2015
ORDER
1. The present Revision Petition is directed against the impugned order dated 17.05.2014 passed by the Court of Ms. Swati Katiyar, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New CR no. 180/2/14 State Vs. Dalip Singh. page 1 of 8 Delhi in proceedings arising out of case FIR no. 334/2004 under Section 467/468/471/120B IPC of P.S. Tilak Marg whereby the learned Trial Court discharged the accused/respondent for the offences punishable under section 467/468/471/120B IPC.
2. I have heard the rival submissions on behalf of ld Addl. PP for the State/revisionist and learned counsel for the respondent/ accused and have also carefully perused the record including the Trial Court record.
3. Ld. Addl. PP for State/revisionist argued that the case FIR was registered on the basis of the directions issued by Sh. A.K. Sarpal, the then ld. MM, PHC, New Delhi on the complaint/ application of Mr. N.L. Gulati. He argued that the accused/respondent in conspiracy with Antony Verghese ( Kept in Column no. 2 of the Charge sheet ) had committed forgery in the transit remand warrant issued by the ld. CMM, Egmore, Chennai, before it was submitted before the court in Delhi by the accused H.C. Dalip Singh who had gone to execute the warrant of arrest against Antony Verghese i.e. the accused in CC no. 929/2001 and 1181/2001 u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881( in short referred to as NI Act ). He argued that the transit remand warrant would show forgery by addition of the words 'up to / or, or, before' to give benefit to Antony Verghese in above said complaint cases. He argued that the no opinion given by the Forensic Laboratory can not be given to the respondent/accused as the said documents had remained in exclusive possession of the accused when the forgery was committed. He further argued that the exoneration in CR no. 180/2/14 State Vs. Dalip Singh. page 2 of 8 the departmental proceedings can not be made the basis of discharge of the accused in the corresponding criminal case. He argued that a grave suspicion arises against the accused/respondent which has not been properly explained and therefore the charge should be framed against the accused/respondent. He thus argued that the impugned order suffers from material irregularity and prayed that the same be set aside.
4. Ld. counsel for the respondent / accused argued that the impugned order suffers from no material irregularity or illegality and no grave suspicion arises against the accused to warrant framing of charge against him. He argued that even the said alleged alteration did not cause damage or injury to public or anybody. He further argued that the said alleged alteration even did not support the claim or title and also did not cause any person to part with any property. He argued that the respondent produced Antony Verghese i.e accused in complaint cases no 929/2001 and 1181/2001 immediately before the ld. trial court at Delhi and therefore there could not be any intention to commit fraud on the part of the accused/respondent. He further argued that the said document did not become false for the simple reason that the respondent/ accused had nothing to gain from the same as the accused Antony Verghese in the said complaint cases was immediately produced before the ld. Trial Court at Delhi. In this regard he referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case Parminder Kaur Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., ( 2010) I SCC 322. He also referred to FSL report dated 29.04.2005 wherein it was not possible to CR no. 180/2/14 State Vs. Dalip Singh. page 3 of 8 link the authorship of the writings and he argued that nothing has come on record nor any witness has stated that the respondent himself made any alteration / addition in the transit warrant. He also argued that no grave suspicion is disclosed against the respondent to frame charge against him. He also referred to the following judgments :
i) Dilawar Balu Kurane Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2002)2 SCC
135.
ii) Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal, AIR 1979 SCC 366 and
iii) Ravichandran Vs. State by Dy. Supdt. of Police, Madras, 2010 CRI.L.J.2879 ( Supreme Court ).
5. The present case FIR was registered upon directions dated 28.06.2004 of the court in complaint case no. 2824/1 titled as M/s Shiv Shakti Traders Vs. M/s Campion Business Associates (P) Ltd. & Ors u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused/respondent under section 467/468/471/120B IPC. Perusal of charge sheet would show that Antony Verghese was kept in column no. 2 of the Charge sheet and has not been summoned by the ld. trial court.
6. The allegations against the respondent / accused are that he was entrusted to execute NBWs against Antony Verghese and Mrs. Tina Verghese, which were issued by ld. ASJ, PHC, New Delhi in complaint cases no. 929/2001 and 1181/2001. The accused/respondent along with complainant Sh. N.L. Gulati and his counsel reached Chennai and arrested the said accused persons on 19.10.2003. After their arrest on 19.10.2003, the accused / respondent did not keep the said accused in CR no. 180/2/14 State Vs. Dalip Singh. page 4 of 8 the police station lockup. On 20.10.2003, Ms. Tina Verghese was granted interim bail by the court at Chennai and transit warrant was issued in respect of accused Antony Verghese by ld. CMM, Egmore for taking the accused to Delhi with the directions to the Supdt., Central Prison, Delhi to receive the accused in the Jail and to produce him at the Patiala House Courts on 30.10.2003. The further allegations against the respondent / accused are that on 21.10.2003, he along with Antony Verghese came to Delhi by Air on expenses of the accused, he tampered with the transit warrant to favour the accused by adding the word 'on or before' in the transit warrant and produced him in the court of ld. ASJ, PHC, New Delhi instead of handing the accused over to the Supdt., Central Prison, Delhi, as directed by ld. CMM, Egmore, Chennai.
7. It is an admitted fact, that the departmental enquiry has culminated in favour of the accused / respondent vide order dated 15.3.2011 of Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, DCP, security, HQ, New Delhi. It is further an admitted fact that the FSL report dated 29.04.2005 could not link the authorship of the writings marked Q1 (writings on the transit warrant ) in comparison with the writings marked S1 to S31 (specimen handwriting of the accused/respondent and Antony Verghese). Even if, the transit warrant was in the custody of accused/respondent, then also it can not be stated that the accused / respondent gained anything from any alleged addition in the transit warrant because the transit warrant was issued on 20.10.2003 by the ld. CMM, Egmore, Chennai and respondent produced Antony Verghese CR no. 180/2/14 State Vs. Dalip Singh. page 5 of 8 before the court of ld. ASJ, Patiala House courts, New Delhi on the very next day i.e. 21.10.2003. The respondent was even otherwise duty bound as per law to immediately produce the accused Antony Verghese before the Court after reaching Delhi and it is an admitted fact that the respondent promptly produced Antony Verghese before the court of ld. ASJ, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi on reaching Delhi on 21.10.2003. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Parminder Kaur (supra), to attract the second clause of Section 464 IPC there has to be alteration of document dishonestly and fraudulently and that in order to attract the said clause, if the document is to be altered then it has to be for some gain or with some objective on the part of the accused and merely changing a document does not make it a false document. In that case the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that presuming that the figure '1' was added, it could not be said that the document became false for the simple reason that the appellant had nothing to gain from the same. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while referring to section 463 IPC (forgery) in that case also held that they did not find as to how the change brought in by adding figure '1' could cause damage or injury to public or any body or how it could support the claim or title or how it could cause any person to part with the property or for that matter how there could be any intention to commit fraud. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in that case came to the conclusion that sections 463/464/467/468 and 471 IPC were not attracted and also held that section 471 IPC would not be applicable for the simple reason that they had already found that there was no CR no. 180/2/14 State Vs. Dalip Singh. page 6 of 8 dishonest intention on the part of the appellant nor she had acted fraudulently. The law laid down in the said case of Parminder Kaur (supra ) is fully applicable on the facts of the present case. In the present case also there seems to be no dishonest intention or fraudulent intention on the part of the respondent/accused and it can also not be stated that any alleged alteration in the document was for some gain or ulterior objective on the part of the accused/respondent as he immediately produced the accused before the ld court at Delhi on 21.10.2003 after obtaining the transit remand from ld. CMM, Egmore, Chennai on 20.10.2003. As mentioned above, it is otherwise also the legal duty of a police official to immediately produce the accused before the concerned court after obtaining the transit remand, which was promptly done by the respondent/accused in the present case. As far as the allegations of traveling by Air and not keeping the accused Antony Verghese in Police lockup at Chennai are concerned, it would be pertinent to note that the said actions would at best make him liable for any departmental inquiry, which as mentioned above, has already culminated in his favour vide order dated 15.03.2011 of DCP concerned. The FSL report dated 29.04.2005 is also not conclusive against the respondent/accused. Said Antony Verghese has also been kept only in Column no. 2 of the charge sheet and had not been summoned by the ld trial court.
8. It is a settled law that where the material placed before the court discloses grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court would be fully justified in framing a CR no. 180/2/14 State Vs. Dalip Singh. page 7 of 8 charge and proceeding with the trial. It is also a settled law that the test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. It is further a settled law that by and large, however, if two views are equally possible and the judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. My views are substantiated by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal (Supra). In the present matter, in view of the above said discussion, no grave suspicion arises against the appellant / respondent to frame charge under section 467/468/471/120B IPC. In facts, there is no material illegality or irregularity in the impugned order dated 17.05.2014 discharging the accused under section 467/468/471/120B IPC to warrant any interference by this court in the revision petition.
9. The present Revision Petition is thus dismissed.
10. TCR be sent back along with the copy of the present order and Revision file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court on 17.11.2015 (AMIT BANSAL) ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE04 PATIALA HOUSE COURTS/NEW DELHI 17.11.2015 CR no. 180/2/14 State Vs. Dalip Singh. page 8 of 8