Delhi District Court
No.779/94, Is A Reported Judgment Cited ... vs Union Of India 1989 I on 7 December, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI:DELHI
SC No. 131/1/10
Unique Identification No. 02404R0999502003
CBI
Versus
Vijay Khanna
Son of late Sh. N.D. Khanna
R/o 9407, DLF IV,
Gurgaon, Haryana.
RC7 (S)/96/Delhi/CBI/SCBI
FIR No. 138/94
PS Hazrat Nizamuddin
Us. 120B, 420,467,468,471 of IPC
& U/s. 489A/489B of IPC
Date of Decision: 03/12/2011
Date of order on Sentence: 07/12/2011
Order on Sentence
07/12/2011
Present. Sh. Manoranjan, SPP for CBI.
Convict from J.C. with counsel Sh. Anil Lakra and counsel Sh.
Ghanshyam Sharma.
SC No. 131/01/10 1
Heard on the point of sentence.
Learned defence counsel has contended that convict is aged about 65
years. He is senior citizen having various ailments. Learned defence counsel
further submits that convict is suffering from diabetes for the last so many years
and his right big toe was amputated. Learned defence counsel further submits that
convict is suffering from liver problem and is taking 12 medicines to survive.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that convict has faced trial of this
case since 1994. He has two sons, who are posted outside Delhi. Wife of the
convict is also suffering from diabetes and is having heart problem with arthritis.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that except the convict, there is no
one in the family to look after his wife. Learned defence counsel has further
contended that if diabetes of the convict is not treated well, then there is
apprehension of amputation of left toe. Learned defence counsel further submits
that if the convict will remain behind the bars, then better treatment could not be
provided to him and these problem can aggravate further. Learned defence counsel
further submits that convict is not a previous convict.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that convict be given
benefit of probation of good conduct and in support of the same, has relied upon
2004 (114) DLT 132 titled as Sanjay V. State, wherein convict was released on
probation U/sections304 PartII, 452, 427,323/34 of IPC.
Learned defence counsel has further relied upon 2002 (3) AD (Delhi)
IV titled as Layak Ram V. State, wherein convict was released on probation of
good conduct U/s. 308/34 and 323 of IPC.
Learned defence counsel has further relied upon 2005 (124) DLT 322
SC No. 131/01/10 2
titled as Naresh Dutta Sharma V. State, wherein convict was released on
probation U/s. 409 and 477A of IPC.
On the other hand, Ld. SPP for CBI has contended that accused has
committed a serious offence and NRIs were targeted. Convict has also forged and
fabricated bank note i.e. draft of a foreign bank, hence, appropriate sentence be
imposed.
I have considered the above facts and circumstances alongwith age,
antecedents and character of the convict. Offences proved against the convict are
grave in nature and are punishable upto the life imprisonment, hence, I am not of
the view to release the convict on probation. Hence, request of learned defence
ocunsel is turned down.
Offence U/s. 120B of IPC is punishable with imprisonment in the same
manner as he has abetted such offence, which is punishable with death,
imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or
upwards.
Section 109 of IPC i.e. abetment is punishable with punishment
provided for the offence.
Accordingly, sentence of five years S.I. is imposed against the convict
for the offence U/s. 120B of IPC with fine of Rs. 5000/. In default of payment of
fine, he shall further undergo one and a half year SI.
Section 420 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to
fine.
Accordingly, sentence of five years S.I. is imposed against the convict
SC No. 131/01/10 3
for the offence U/s. 420 of IPC with fine of Rs. 5000/. In default of payment of
fine, he shall further undergo one and a half year SI.
Offence U/s. 467 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment for life or
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years
and shall also be liable to fine.
Accordingly, sentence of five years S.I. is imposed against the convict
for the offence U/s. 467 of IPC with fine of Rs. 5000/. In default of payment of
fine, he shall further undergo one and a half year SI.
Section 468 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to
fine.
Accordingly, sentence of five years S.I. is imposed against the convict
for the offence U/s. 468 of IPC with fine of Rs. 5000/. In default of payment of
fine, he shall further undergo one and a half year SI.
Offence U/s. 471 of IPC is punishable in the same manner as he has
forged such document.
Accordingly, sentence of five years S.I. is imposed against the convict
for the offence U/s. 471 of IPC with fine of Rs. 5000/. In default of payment of
fine, he shall further undergo one and a half year SI.
Offence U/s. 489A of IPC is punishable with imprisonment for life or
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years
and shall also be liable to fine.
Accordingly, sentence of five years S.I. is imposed against the convict
for the offence U/s. 489A of IPC with fine of Rs. 5000/. In default of payment of
SC No. 131/01/10 4
fine, he shall further undergo one and a half year SI.
Offence U/s. 489 B of IPC is punishable with imprisonment for life or
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years
and shall also be liable to fine.
Accordingly, sentence of five years S.I. is imposed against the convict
for the offence U/s. 489B of IPC with fine of Rs. 5000/. In default of payment of
fine, he shall further undergo one and a half year SI.
In this case, due to forge and fabricated demand draft of 25,000 US
dollar besides a loss of Rs. Five lacs, Rs. 3,12,500/ were also obtained from
complainant B.S. Chhabra, which were never returned. Accordingly,
compensation to the tune of Rs. Five lacs is also imposed upon the convict payable
to Sh. B.S. Chhabra.
Fine and compensation not deposited.
Convict remained in custody 09/05/1994 to 23/08/94 and from
03/12/2011 till today.
Benefit of Section 428 of Cr.P.C. be given to the convict.
All the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.
Compensation amount, if deposited, be released to Sh. B.S. Chhabra.
after expiry of the period of limitation of filing of appeal. A notice to this effect
be also issued to complainant B.S. Chhabra.
Convict is remanded to JC to serve the sentence.
Announced in Open Court on (Virender Kumar Goyal)
th
dated 7 of December, 2011 Additional Sessions Judge
Fast Track Court
Rohini : Delhi
SC No. 131/01/10 5
SC No. 131/01/10 6
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI:DELHI
SC No. 131/1/10
Unique Identification No. 02404R0999502003
CBI
Versus
Vijay Khanna
Son of late Sh. N.D. Khanna
R/o 9407, DLF IV,
Gurgaon, Haryana.
RC7 (S)/96/Delhi/CBI/SCBI
FIR No. 138/94
PS Hazrat Nizamuddin
Us. 420/467/471 r/w 120B of IPC
& U/s. 489A/489B of IPC
Date of institution of the case: 06/07/94
Arguments heard on: 14/11/2011
Date of reservation of order: 17/11/2011
Date of Decision: 03/12/2011
JUDGMENT
This case was registered on the complaint of one B.S. Chhabra given to DCP, Crime Branch, Adarsh Nagar, U/s. 420/467/471/120B of IPC.
During investigation, international draft was taken into possession and SC No. 131/01/10 7 was seized in this case. Report from Bank of Baroda was taken. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Statements of bank account were obtained and on completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed in the year 1994. Later on, matter was investigated by CBI. Fresh FIR was recorded.
Specimen handwriting was taken of accused and FSL report was obtained. On completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against accused Vijay Khanna and name of Nitin Jain was shown in Column No. 2. Case was committed to the Court of Session in the year 2003. It was received on 10/11/2003.
After hearing the arguments, charge was framed against accused Vijay Khanna on 22/05/2004 U/s. 120B read with Section 420/467/468/471 of IPC and U/s. 420/467/468/471/489A and B of IPC to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
After completion of evidence of the prosecution, statement of accused was recorded. Accused has denied the case of the prosecution and has stated that there was Assistant Police Commissioner Mr. P.R.S Barar, who was putting pressure on him to help a Delhi business man namely Chauhan Jeweller, which he refused. When the pressure mounted and since he was out of country, his wife Radha Khanna filed a writ no.673/93 against the uncalled visits by the local police to their residence including SHO. After the Writ, they kidnapped him from the office of business man in Cannought Place on 04/04/94. Under that pressure, the Writ was withdrawn as non prosecution. Number of false cases were made against him after 04/04/94, while he was in custody. The police alongwith some criminals even dispossessed his family from house no. E224, Sainik Farm, New Delhi and SC No. 131/01/10 8 forcefully occupied the house. His wife lodged a complaint with Ambedkar Nagar PS, FIR no. 259/94 against the police officer including Mr. P.R.S Barar and associates of this complainant. Later on, this FIR was also taken by CBI on their request and a case no. 19S, CBI Special Branch is pending against all the accused persons therein and they have been chargesheeted, which is pending in the Court of Ms Surya Malik Grover, Ld MM, Saket. Next date in that case is 16/12/10. Simultaneous to this FIR, they lodged a criminal writ in Delhi High Court no. 779/94 through which the Hon'ble High Court delivered them the possession of E224, Sainik Farm. While he was in custody, 8 criminal cases were charged against him in various courts of Delhi, which all were transferred to CBI through a letter of Home Secretary of India and he has been till today acquitted/discharged in four of those cases. Rest cases are pending for trial/disposal. The order of Writ no.779/94, is a reported judgment cited as Vijay Khanna Vs Union of India 1989 I JCC Delhi page 35. It is a false case against him and he is innocent.
In defence, accused has examined DW1 and DW2 , handwriting expert. I have heard arguments on behalf of CBI by Sh. Manoranjan, Ld. SPP and learned defence counsel Sh. Anil Lakra, counsel for accused and have gone through the material placed on record with evidence adduced.
Complainant of this case is PW18. He has stated that he had given a complaint to ACP Crime Branch on 21/04/94 vide diary No. 916 Ex. PW7/A, which bears his signatures at point A. He gave four documents with complaint Ex. PW7/A, which are mentioned therein. One of the document i.e. draft Ex. PW9/D, which was seized vide memo Ex. PW7/C, bears his signatures at point A. The letter of PNB is Ex. PW13/B5. The letter of Bank of Baroda is Ex. PW13/B4. The SC No. 131/01/10 9 letter of Chemical Bank of New York is Ex.PW12/A/Ex. PW13/BA.
PW18 has further deposed that during the month of October, 1992, he visited NRI Conference at Hotel Holiday Inn in New Delhi. There, he met with Mr. N.K. Jain, who introduced himself as NRI Consultant. After the conference, Mr. N.K. Jain contacted him on several occasions. Mr. N.K. Jain also introduced his son Nitin Jain to him. In some of the meetings, they proposed to him that they were setting up NRI consultancies and wanted him to get involve. They offered him Chairmanship on 50% share holding. This offer was never put in writing. During the other discussions, they asked him for a loan of Rs. 5 lac for business purposes and offered him to give a promissory note against the same, to which, he agreed. he extended a loan of Rs. 5 lac in cash to Mr. N.K. Jain and his son Nitin Jain. At the same time, both Nitin Jain and N.K. Jain gave him promissory note. Few days later, Mr. Nitin Jain and Mr. N.K. Jain contacted him and told that they wanted to introduce him to a business friend by the name of Mr. Khanna. So, he agreed to this and they came to his house, where Mr. Khanna also agreed to come, but at that time, they stated that Mr. Khanna was to attend some other business meeting and he will not come. Subsequently, meeting was arranged with Mr. N.K. Jain, Mr. Nitin Jain and Mr. Khanna. They stated that they had arranged some payment to him i.e. sum of 25000/ US $. They met at the Oberoi hotel coffee shop, where Mr. Nitin Jain, Mr. N.K. Jain and Mr. Khanna discussed something and told him that they had a draft of 25000/ US $ in his favour. They gave it to him. Mr. Nitin Jain and Mr. N.K. Jain then told that draft had a value of over Rs. 8 lacs at the exchange rate of at that time. They both asked him to pay the difference in cash, to which, he agreed, after they convinced him that draft was SC No. 131/01/10 10 genuine. So, they all had gone to his house at C82,. South Extension, New Delhi, where he handed over about Rs. 3,15,000/ to them and they handed over the draft to him.
PW18 has further deposed that after about two days, he visited Punjab National Bank, Naraina, and deposited the draft there in his account. It took about four weeks, when he heard that the said draft was declared as forged and fabricated. Then, he contacted Mr. N.K. Jain and Nitin Jain, who told that they will look into the same. Thereafter after few days, they told that there was some misunderstanding and they will sort out the matter. Then, they met again and either Mr. Nitin Jain or Mr. N.K. Jain called up in London to some one Mr. Jack and supposed to have given instructions to hand over the money in London to his elder son at a given place. He informed his elder son and his son waited for a long time, but nobody turned up. His son went back home and informed him that nobody turned up to pay the amount.
PW18 has further deposed that he again contacted with Mr. Nitin Jain and N.K. Jain. They kept promising that cash with interest will be paid, but failed to deliver any money. So, he left with no other choice and lodged complaint Ex.PW18/A. As PW18 did not support the case, so, he was cross examined by Ld. SPP for CBI, wherein he has stated that he has studied upto 10th class and being NRI, he is well conversant with the English language and admitted that he had given complaint Ex.PW18/A dated 21/04/94 with the facts, which transpired at that time. He has further admitted that he gave true contents of the facts in his complaint Ex.PW18/A and has admitted his signatures at point A on complaint SC No. 131/01/10 11 Ex.PW18/A. In further cross examination, PW18 has admitted that in the complaint Ex. PW18/A, he had mentioned that one day Mr. N.K. Jain called him and told that Mr and Mrs Khanna and he required the sum of Rs. 5 lac in cash for a business ventures of theirs and that if he could lend them that amount, they will jointly guarantee to its return within three months and after meeting with Mr and Mrs. Khanna, he agreed to lend them the said amount.
PW18 has further admitted that Mr and Mrs. Khanna and their son also came to his residence on that day, but Mr,. Jain informed him that owing to some last minute business commitments, they were unable to come. PW18 has further admitted that he has mentioned in his complaint Ex.PW18/A that after receiving the money, Vijay Khanna and his son Vikas telephoned him on a number of occasion, assuring him that the money, they had borrowed, would be returned as agreed and also seeking to get him interested in other business proposals.
PW18 has further admitted that he has also mentioned in his complaint Ex.PW18/A that at the end of February, 1993, Mr. N.K. Jain called him to say that they were not ready to return his money and consequently, on the 1 st March, 1993, they met at the Oberoi Hotel. At the meeting MR. N.K. Jain was present with his son Nitin and Mr and Mrs. Khanna were present with their son Vikas. They met in the coffee shop and there, accused Vijay Khanna told that he had arranged a draft in the sum of $25000/ in his favour, through some of his wife's relatives, who were settled in America. He questioned the genuineness of the draft and all the persons assured him of its genuineness. Accused Vijay Khanna told that since the draft was in the sum of $25,000/, which at the conversion rate of Rs. 32.50 to the SC No. 131/01/10 12 dollar, worked out to Rs.8,12,500/, and he agreed to pay the balance of the sum over the Rs. 5,00,000/ borrowed by them, in cash to them. Accused Vijay Khanna and Vikas came to his residence to collect the balance. Mr. N.K. Jain and Nitin Jain came to his residence, where he gave Mr. Khanna the balance of Rs. 3,12,500/ and also returned the promissory note for Rs. 5 lakhs to N.K. Jain.
PW18 has further admitted that Mr. Khanna had asked him to hand over money to Mrs,. Khanna and Vikas Khanna as he had to go to another meeting to finalize another similar deal and then went away. Mrs. Khanna and Vikas Khanna took charge of the money and they left 20 minutes after with Mr. Jain and Nitin Jain.
PW18 has further admitted that after receiving the information that draft was forged and fabricated, he contacted Mr. N.K. Jain and Mr. Khanna and visited their houses. Both of them assured him to return the money, but they did not pay any single penny and whatever had happened with him and the manner, in which, he was cheated, he mentioned the same in his complaint Ex.PW18/A and handed over the same to the police. During the whole of the transaction, he met with accused Vijay Khanna 23 times in a flash as he always used to be in a hurry.
Learned defence counsel has contended that PW18 cannot be believed and relied upon as in the cross examination, he has admitted that complaint Ex. PW18/A was typed by the police and his signatures were obtained on the same at point A. The contents of Ex. PW18/A were not read over to him. CBI officials never called him nor he contacted them. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW18 has admitted that accused Vijay Khanna, who was mentioned in the complaint, was not shown to him at any point of time by the SC No. 131/01/10 13 police or by the CBI. So, identity of accused Vijay Khanna as same Vijay Khanna is not proved in any manner.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that there can be so many persons in the name of Vijay Khanna in India and has further contended that in the cross examination, PW18 has stated that he had handed over Rs. 3,12,500/ to Nitin Jain, but all were present. So, this fact its falsify the deposition of PW18 that he gave balance of Rs. 3,12,500/ to Mr. Khanna at his residence and returned the promissory note of Rs. 5 lacs to N.K. Jain. So, the witness cannot be relied upon about identity of accused Vijay Khanna and also about the transaction, as deposed.
On the other hand, learned SPP for CBI has contended that from the conduct of PW18, it seems that he has been won over by the accused because when he was examined on 27/04/2011, his examination in cross on behalf of State could not be completed and even on the next date, he supported the case of the prosecution regarding making of complaint and admitted the facts mentioned in complaint Ex. PW18/A, but he intentionally did not depose the incriminating facts against accused Vijay Khanna and also not identified him before the Court.
Learned SPP has further contended that on 26/04/2011, PW18 sought adjournment on the ground that he was not feeling well, but has denied the suggestion that he sought adjournment in order to negotiate with the accused. So, this fact itself shows that something had happened in between 27/04/2011 to 28/04/2011, which has resulted in the cross examination conducted on behalf of accused, wherein PW18 stated that complaint Ex. PW18/A was typed by the police and his signatures were obtained. It was not read over to him.
In my view, had it been so, then PW18 on the previous date, could not SC No. 131/01/10 14 have admitted the facts during his cross examination conducted on behalf of CBI, which shows that he was won over by the accused in between 27/04/2011 to 28/04/2011, but even then, whatever he has stated can be relied upon against the accused. In support of same, I rely upon (1991) 3 Supreme Court Cases 627 titled as Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari V. State of Madhya Pradesh, wherein it has been held that merely because a witness declared hostile, his entire evidence cannot be treated as effaced from the record. His testimony, to the extent found reliable, can be acted upon .
PW8 Inspector Bishan Mohan has stated that on 22/04/94, he was posted as SI at Adarsh Nagar, Crime Branch. On that day, complaint Ex. PW7/A was marked to him by ACP Ajay Kumar for inquiry. He made endorsement on the complaint on 22/04/94 and got registered the FIR. His endorsement is Ex. PW7/B. The FIR, which was registered on the basis of complaint, is Ex. PW4/1. Ruqqa was taken by Constable Randhir Singh. On 22/04/94, complainant handed over to him draft of Chemical Bank, Los Angeles, issued in his favour dated 26/02/93. He seized the same vide memo Ex. PW7/C. He seized the copy of reply of Punjab National Bank vide same seizure memo, copy of which is mark A. Copy of letters are Mark A and B. On 26/04/94, he arrested Radha Khanna, wife of accused Vijay Khanna and took her specimen handwriting Ex. PW7/D to Ex.PW7/F. On 09/05/94, he arrested accused Vijay Khanna on the basis of production warrants and recorded statements of Sh. B.S. Chhabra, N.K. Jain and lady Constable Krishna. Later on, he was transferred and investigation was handed over to SI Mehak Singh of Crime Branch Adarsh Nagar.
In the cross examination, PW8 has been cross examined about the case SC No. 131/01/10 15 of Chauhan Jewellers, which he has denied that he was IO of the case of Chauhan Jewellers or that accused was arrested in the case of Chauhan Jewellers. PW8 has also denied the suggestion that accused Vijay Khanna was arrested in this case without any basis and the real culprit was Sh. B.S. Chhabra. So, the cross examination itself is contradictory to PW18. No such suggestion has been given to PW18 in his cross examination that he was a real culprit and he cooked up a story at the instance of Chauhan Jewellers or at the instance of police or that he in connivance with the police officials got registered a false case against the accused. So, nothing came out from the cross examination of PW8 to disbelieve his testimony.
Strangely, if signatures of PW18 were obtained by the police on complaint Ex. PW18/A and it was not read over to him, then how he has been able to depose the facts before the Court in the same manner as has been mentioned in the complaint and why he did not make any complaint to senior police officials. He was NRI, so, it cannot be said that he was not knowing about law and procedure. He is conversant with English, so, it cannot be said that he could not take any action if he was treated like this by the police, as deposed by him in the cross examination conducted on behalf of accused, which shows that he was won over by the accused and has tried to depose falsely in favour of accused.
PW8 has also corroborated with PW18 regarding handing over of documents i.e. draft, letter of PNB, letter of Bank of Baroda and letter of Chemical Bank. If PW18 was not having any complaint about the forged draft, as deposed by him, then why he handed over these documents to the IO, which is not in dispute and both PW18 and PW8 have corroborated in this respect that these SC No. 131/01/10 16 documents were seized in this case. PW8 Inspector Bishan Mohan has also stated that complaint of B.S. Chhabra was marked to him by ACP and PW18 Sh. Balbir Singh Chhabra has also stated in his statement that he had given a complaint to ACP Crime Branch on 21/04/94. PW18 has also stated that it was handed over to him on 22/04/94. He made his endorsement and got registered the FIR. So, it is not in dispute that PW18 had given a complaint to ACP Crime Branch and has further admitted the contents of the same in his cross examination conducted on behalf of CBI. So, the deposition of PW18 that complaint was got typed by the police and his signatures were obtained and further that it was not read over to him is of no consequence and it seems that he was won over by the accused, so, he took a somersault in the cross examination on the facts i.e. complaint and handing over of Rs. 3,12,500/ to Nitin Jain, but rest of the facts are not disputed as PW18 has not been cross examined in any manner by the counsel for accused, which are unrebutted and unshaken.
PW7 is HC Ranbir Singh. He has stated that on 22/04/94, he was posted at Crime Branch, Adarsh Nagar. He received ruqqa from IO SI Bishan Mohan and took the same to PS Nizamuddin, on the basis of which, FIR No. 138/94 was registered. Thereafter, he handed over the copy of FIR and ruqqa to IO. PW7 has not been cross examined in any manner.
PW4 ASI Yashwant Singh was posted at PS Nizamuddin in the year 1994 and he recorded FIR No. 138/94 in his handwriting on receipt of ruqqa from PW7 Constable Ranbir Singh. Copy of FIR is Ex. PW4/1. He also made endorsement on ruqqa Ex. PW4/2 and copy of FIR and ruqqa were sent to SI Bishan Mohan through Constable Ranbir. So, both PW7 and PW4 have SC No. 131/01/10 17 corroborated with PW8 Inspector Bishan Mohan that on the complaint received from ACP Ajay Kumar for inquiry, he made endorsement and got registered the case from PS Nizamuddin.
PW5 Sh. P.N. Kapoor has stated that he was posted at PNB Naraina from September 1989 to August 1994 at the post of Manager. Sh. B.S. Chhabra, who was having accounts in their bank had deposited a draft purportedly issued by Chemical Bank, Los Angeles, Californis, of US 25000 dollar. Chief Manager has ordered on 16/03/93, on credit voucher dated 16/03/93, for credit of Rs. 2.5 lacs in the account of Sh. B.S. Chhabra. Order of Chief Manager Sh. N.K. Jain is appearing on Ex. PW2/C at point B. PW5 has identified the handwriting of Sh. N.K. Jain as he had seen him writing. The amount reflected in Ex. PW2/C as 2,47,560/ was the amount, which was credited after deducting the commission of the bank in the account of Sh. B.S. Chhabra having account No. 24691.
PW5 has further stated that thereafter, at the insistence of Sh. B.S. Chhabra, the balance amount towards the value of aforesaid bank draft was credited in the account of Sh. B.S. Chhabra bearing No. 2469. The Foreign outward bill purchase value of aforesaid draft was assessed at the rate of Rs. 31 per US dollar. The writing of Chief Manager is appearing on Ex. PW2/B i.e. the transfer voucher/credit voucher dated 19/03/93. The amount of Rs. 3,76,290/ after deduction of bank commission was credited in the account of Sh. B.S. Chhabra vide aforesaid transfer voucher dated 19/03/93. PW5 has also identified the writing of Chief Manager appearing at point B on Ex. PW2/B. Debit voucher of Rs. 2,50,000/ already exhibited as Ex. PW2/D and debit voucher dated 19/03/93 of Rs. 5,25,000/ already exhibited as Ex. PW2/E bears his signatures at SC No. 131/01/10 18 point B and A respectively.
PW5 has further deposed that thereafter, their Naraina Branch sent the aforesaid draft to ECE House, Connaught Place, New Delhi, Foreign Exchange Designated Branch of PNB, for onward submission to Bank of Baroda, Bombay through PNB House Bombay. The Bank of Baroda, Bombay was to forward the draft in question to Chemical Bank, California for collection. This draft was deposited in their Naraina Branch by Sh. B.S. Chhabra and the stamp of their branch in token of having received the draft, purchase and for submission for collection of amount to Bank of Baroda, Bombay through their PNB House Bombay. The stamp of Manager of their branch is appearing at the back of the draft is Ex. PW4/3.
PW5 has further deposed that it was learnt from the Bank of Baroda that draft in question has been received unpaid as Chemical Bank, New York, informed that they do not have any branch of Chemical Bank in California and they further advised to exercise caution in the matter. The unpaid draft was returned back to their branch through the same route through which it was submitted alongwith the Bank of Baroda's letter dated 27/03/93 informing the telex message of Chemical Bank, New York. The message of Chemical Bank, New York, informing Bank of Baroda was also attached with the aforesaid letter of Bank of Baroda. Attested copy of Bank of Baroda and telex message of Chemical Bank are marked A and B for identification.
PW5 has further deposed that amount advanced by the bank in respect of foreign outward bill purchase with respect to aforesaid draft of Chemical Bank, which was received unpaid, was adjusted after debiting the account of Sh. B.S. SC No. 131/01/10 19 Chhabra. Then, chief Manager N.K. Jain wrote a letter to Chief Manager, PNB House Bombay dated 07/03/93 requesting therein to inform the bank about the fate of aforesaid draft of US 25000 dollar bearing No. 00718642, to which, Chief Manager, PNB House, Bombay informed that till date, they had not received any communication regarding aforesaid queries. PW5 has identified signatures of Sh. N.K. Jain at point A and the attested copy of letter is Ex. PW4/4.
PW12 Sh. Mungam has appeared from the Bank of Baroda. He has stated that during 1993, he was posted in Bank of Baroda, Apollo Street, Bombay, main office as Senior Manager. So, he was conversant with day to day business of the branch. Letter dated 11/03/93 was received from Punjab National Bank in their branch alongwith demand draft of Chemical bank, the details of which are mentioned in it. It was received for effecting payment in rupees in favour of Punjab National Bank. He has identified the certified copy of the letter mark as X4. He passed this letter alongwith the demand draft to the concerned officer for processing. Thereafter, the processing officer got in touch with the drawing bank i.e. Chemical Bank, Los Angeles, California, for the purpose of confirming the genuineness of the draft. Thereafter, a tested/authenticated message was received from Chemical Bank denying the issue of the said demand draft giving the reasons that they do not have any branch in California,hence, they do not take responsibility for the said draft, which was present in Bank of Baroda.
PW12 has further deposed that their branch had received the telex message on 22/03/93 and has identified the message before the Court bearing the stamp of the bank at point A and having inward stamp of the bank, which is Ex. PW12/A. The telex message is mark B. Since the drawing bank informed their SC No. 131/01/10 20 branch that draft No. TD00718642 was not genuine, therefore, it was returned to PNB vide their covering letter dated 27/03/93 alongwith other documents.
PW14 is Sh. P.S. Mohan Ram. He was posted as Chief Manager in Bank of Baroda during the year 1993 and onwards. DD No. 00718642 was received in their bank for US dollars 25000 from Punjab National Bank, Bombay, for payment in Indian rupees. In order to know about the authenticity of the draft, they sent a telex message to Chemical Bank seeking confirmation regarding issuance of aforesaid DD. The reply received by their bank is Ex. PW12/A, wherein it was informed by the Chemical bank that they have no branch in Los Angeles and they have no knowledge of issuance of the said draft. Thereafter, their bank returned the bank draft to Punjab National Bank, Bombay, unpaid.
PW2 is Sh. P.K. Chawla. He has stated that during June 1990 to November 1994, he was working in Punjab National Bank, Naraina Branch, as Assistant Manager. He has seen the certified copy of ODD register maintained in their branch. Entry No. 61 and 62 in the said certified copy of register pertains to deposit of two drafts issued from Chemical Bank, USA. He has identified the same. The register issued by their bank is Ex. PW2/A. Vide transfer entry No. 19/03/2003, an amount of Rs. 3,76,290/ was credited into saving account No. 24691 of Sh. B.S. Chhabra and another credit of Rs. 2,47,560/ vide credit transfer dated 16/03/2003 also made in the same account of Sh. B.S. Chhabra. He has identified the signatures of Sh. P.N. Kapoor, the then Manager, at point A on the respective credit vouchers, which are Ex. PW2/B and Ex. PW2/C. PW2 has also identified the signatures of Sh. P.N. Kapoor at point A on cheque discounting slips dated 16/03/93 and 19/03/93 in respect of FOBC 61 and 62, which are Ex. PW2/D SC No. 131/01/10 21 and Ex. PW2/E. PW2 has further stated that while he was posted in the PNB Narain Branch, he heard that the bank draft of US 25000 dollars had been returned by the drawer branch during the tenure i.e. after March 1993.
Learned defence counsel has not been able to point out any material contradiction or any other fact to disbelieve the testimonies of these witnesses. From the deposition of these witnesses, prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that the draft in question was deposited by complainant B.S. Chhabra in his account No. 24691 maintained by PNB, Naraina Branch, and the same was further forwarded to Bank of Baroda for realization , which was returned unpaid as according to telex message sent by Bank of Baroda officials for confirmation of issuance of the said draft was replied that no such draft was issued by Chemical Bank, Los Angeles, California, and was not having any branch there, from which, the alleged draft was issued. So, amount credited in the account of complainant was adjusted.
PW11 SI Karan Singh also joined investigation with SI Bishan Mohan and has stated that he recorded statements of two public witnesses i.e. Paramjeet Singh and Sh. B.S. Chhabra, who appeared before IO SI Bishan Mohan, on his dictation, which were got signed by SI Bishan Mohan from the witnesses.
In the cross examination, he has stated that public witnesses did not sign the statements, which shows that their statements were recorded U/s. 161 of Cr.P.C. So, if statement of B.S. Chhabra was recorded, then it cannot be said that he had not given any complaint to the police about the forged and fabricated demand draft handed over to him, otherwise he was not required to join the investigation and there was no need to record his statement in this case. SC No. 131/01/10 22
According to PW8 Inspector Bishan Mohan, further investigation was handed over to SI Mehak Singh, who has been examined as PW6. He has stated that he received investigation of this case on 11/05/94 from SI Bishan Singh, when he was posted at Adarsh Nagar Crime Branch. FIR No. 138/94 was registered at PS Nizamuddin. He filed the chargesheet on 30/06/94. However, original documents were not filed as the same were sent to CFSL and their photocopies were filed. Chargesheet was filed alongwith the documents. On 17/01/97, case was transferred to CBI for further investigation. He handed over the original bank draft and other documents including expert report and specimen writing of Radha Khanna to CBI for further investigation.
After handing over the investigation to the CBI, PW10 Sandeep Chaudhary, Inspector CBI, New Delhi, has stated that during the year 199596, he was posted as Sub Inspector in SCB1, CBI, New Delhi. On 08/10/96, a case RC 7S 96 DLI was registered by Sh. P.S. Sandhu, Superintendent of Police, CBI/SPE/SCB1 New Delhi. He has identified the signatures of Sh. P.S. Sandhu at point A and point B on FIR Ex. PW10/A. After registration of the FIR, investigation was entrusted to him for short time as thereafter, he was transferred to Mumbai. PW10 has further stated that vide receipt memo dated 18/11/96, he had received death certificate of Sh. N.K. Jain from his son Nitin Jain. His signatures are appearing at point A and of Nitin Jain at point B. Receipt memo is Ex. PW10/B. Death certificate is Ex. PW10/c.
Further investigation was taken over by PW16 Inspector Kanwar Singh. He has stated that he had taken over the investigation from SI Sandeep Chaudhary, when he was promoted in January 1997. He had taken the documents SC No. 131/01/10 23 from SI Mehak Singh vide receipt memo dated 17/01/97. His signatures are at point A on Ex. PW16/A. The documents mentioned in this memo have already been exhibited as Ex. PW9/D dated 14/01/2005. The specimen handwriting in three pages already exhibited as Ex. PW8/D and report of Dr. M.A. Ali are the documents, which are mentioned in receipt memo Ex. PW16/A. Receipt memo dated 13/02/97 bears his signatures at point B on Ex. PW16/B. The documents so mentioned in Ex. PW16/B has already been exhibited as Ex. PW2/A to Ex. PW2/E. Receipt memo dated 04/03/97 bears his signatures at point C already exhibited as Ex. PW13/A. The documents mentioned in receipt memo dated 04/03/97 have already been exhibited as Ex. PW13/B1 and Ex. PW13/B8.
PW16 has further deposed that specimen signatures of Vijay Khanna were obtained by him, which runs into 29 sheets, already exhibited as Ex. PW9/C, in presence of R.S. Tanwar. PW16 has identified the signatures of Sh. R.S. Tanwar at point A1 and A29. Letter dated 10/04/97 was received by him, which was sent by Sh. V.P. Batra. The said letter has already been exhibited as Ex. PW1/A and the statements of account sent with the said letter have already been exhibited as Ex. PW1/B and C. He has recorded the statements of witnesses. On 08/05/97, he was transferred to CBI, Gandhi Nagar Branch, so, he handed over the investigation of this case of Inspector K.S. Negi.
PW16 has been cross examined only to the aspect that specimen signatures of accused were taken, to which, he has denied the suggestion that signatures of accused Vijay Khanna were not taken before Kanwar Sain or that accused Vijay Khanna has not given any specimen signatures on 06/02/97. PW16 has stated that specimen signatures were obtained in SCB Branch. SC No. 131/01/10 24
PW17 R.S. Tanwar, Inspector CISF, has stated that he has seen specimen writing taken of accused Vijay Khanna and Radha Khanna at page No. 55 to 111 of the judicial file already exhibited as Ex. PW9/C S1 to S29, wherein on all pages, he had signed as witness, already marked as point A1 to A29. He has identified his signatures on all the pages S1 to S29. The specimen writing was taken by Kanwar Singh, IO, whose signatures have been identified by PW17 at point B1 to B29. The specimen writings of Vijay Khanna are on pages S1 to S13 and of Radha Khanna on S14 to S29. In the cross examination, PW17 has stated that specimen writings of Vijay Khanna and Radha Khanna were taken on 06/02/1997.
So, both PW16 and PW17 have corroborated each other that on 06/02/97, in the office of CBI, specimen signatures of accused Vijay Khanna were taken from S1 to S13 and these were witnessed by PW17. No suggestion has been given to PW16 or to PW17 that specimen signatures of accused Vijay Khanna were taken under any pressure or that he was forced to give specimen signatures in the office of CBI on 06/02/97. In absence of such cross examination or any suggestion, from the depositions of PW16 and PW17, prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that specimen signatures on pages S1 to S13 were taken of accused Vijay Khanna in the office of CBI on 06/02/97, which he gave voluntarily without any pressure from any side.
In the investigation conducted by CBI, documents were collected and it has been stated by PW1 Sh. V.P. Batra that during April, 1997, he was posted in PNB, Naraina Branch Manager and he confirmed letter dated 10/04/97, which was written by him under his signatures to Inspector of Police, CBI, which is Ex. SC No. 131/01/10 25 PW1/A. Alogwith the letter, two statements of account No. 3411 and other statement of account No. 3416 of B.S. Chhabra maintained in their branch were also handed over. These were computer generated and were not requiring signatures of the receiving authority. These are Ex. PW1/B and Ex. PW1/C. PW1 has not been cross examined about the fact that he had not handed over the statement of account alongwith letter Ex. PW1/A to Inspector of Police, CBI.
PW3 Satish Kumar Gupta was posted in PNB, Naraina Branch, during February, 1997. He has stated that he handed over documents pertaining to this case to SBI Inspector vide receipt memo dated 13/02/97 bearing his signatures at point A. The details of the documents are mentioned in the receipt memo, which are exhibited as Ex. PW2/A1 to Ex. PW2/A2 and Ex. PW2/B to E. In Ex. PW2/B and Ex. PW2/C, there is mentioning of a draft having No. 00718642 of US 25000 dollar. The charges, which were debited by the branch, are mentioned in Ex. PW2/A2 and after adjusting the same, the amount was credited vide credit voucher already exhibited as Ex. PW2/B and C. In the cross examination, PW3 has admitted that Mr. Chhabra had deposited two drafts as per the record. So, it is also not in dispute that complainant B.S. Chhabra had deposited draft No. 00718642 of US 25000 dollar. Nothing has been suggested to PW3 that B.S. Chhabra had not deposited this draft in question of US 25000 dollars in his account in PNB, Naraina Branch. So, prosecution has also been able to prove that the draft in question was deposited in his account by B.S. Chhabra of US 25000 dollars for realization.
PW13 Sh. M.R. Singh has stated that vide receipt memo dated 04/03/97, he handed over the certified copies of correspondence regarding SC No. 131/01/10 26 international draft No. 00718462 of US 25000 dollars in favour of B.S. Chhabra containing eight pages. Receipt memo Ex. PW13/A bears his signatures at point A. Certified copies of the documents also bear his signatures at point A on each page and also bear the stamp of PNB House Bombay at point A. Certified copies of documents are Ex. PW13/B1 to B8 collectively. Ex. PW13/B8 is the certified copy of telex message sent by Chemical Bank, New York. He has identified the same.
PW13 has not been cross examined in any manner. Even it is not suggested that the telex message is forged and fabricated or that such telex message was not received from Chemical Bank in any manner and was created to falsely implicate the accused in this case.
PW15 is Inspector K.S. Negi. He has stated that he was posted as Inspector in SCB Branch, New Delhi, since January, 1997. On transfer of IO sh. Kanwar Singh, all the documents including statements of the witnesses were handed over to him on 17/02/98 for further necessary action. Since Sh. Kanwar Singh has already completed the investigation, so, he submitted the chargesheet in the court.
PW9 is Sh. V.K. Khanna, Principal Scientific officer, CFSL, CBI, New Delhi. He has stated that he is working in the aforesaid post since July 1996. He is MSC in Chemistry from Rajasthan University and took post graduation degree in the year 1969. He received his training in all aspects of document problems by working as ACIO grade I under Sh. R.P. Singh and Sh. S.K. Sharma, both then Government Examiners of questioned documents, Intelligence Bureau. He is examining questioned documents since 1973 and has dealt with about more than SC No. 131/01/10 27 2500 cases involving lacs of documents.
PW9 has further deposed that in this case, he has examined certain documents, which were received from SP CBI, SCP, New Delhi, and gave his opinion in his report Ex. PW9/A signed by him at point A on each page. The forwarding letter vide which the report was sent is Ex. PW9/B. The specimen signatures and questioned documents, which are part of the report, are Ex. PW9/C collectively. The questioned document is Ex. PW9/D. PW9 has been cross examined only to the extent that science of comparison of handwriting is a developing science and not a perfect science. PW9 has also explained that handwriting of only those persons, who are educated and had to write much, changes with time, but the handwriting of those, who are illiterate, does not change with time. In my view, this cross examination is not relevant at all about the manner and procedure adopted by PW9 for examining specimen handwriting and questioned document writing. PW9 has deposed about his qualification and experience. So, he cannot be doubted in any manner about his finding as given in his report Ex. PW9/A that handwriting evidence points to the writer of the specimen English writings marked S1 to S13 being the person responsible for writing the questioned English writings marked Q1 and Q2 and has further elaborated the reasons for the same. Q1 and Q2 are signatures appearing on the draft in question. S1 to S13 are the specimen signatures of accused Vijay Khanna. So, prosecution has been able to prove that Q1 and Q2 were written on the draft in question by accused Vijay Khanna.
In defence, DW1 Radha Khanna has been examined. She is wife of accused Vijay Khanna. She has deposed certain facts about Chauhan Jewellers, SC No. 131/01/10 28 with whom, they were having some dealings. Some dispute arose between Abdul Razzak and owners of Chauhan Jewellers and they asked accused to mediate the dispute, but he refused. They pressurized her husband to mediate the dispute. So, a complaint was made at PP Sainik Farm. Thereafter, owners of Chauhan Jewellers started building pressure on them through police as the money was belonging to Mr. P.R. S. Brar, the then Additional Commissioner, Delhi Police. As the police officials continued their pressure and threatened her, so a writ petition was also filed before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Notice of the same was issued. On 02/04/94, her husband was kidnapped and she received a phone call to withdraw the writ. At about 8.30/9.00 p.m., Biba Chauhan, Ganju Chauhan and some other persons came to her house and on gun point, they took his signatures on some blank stamp papers and on few plain papers.
On the next day, she reported the incident at PP Sainik farm and on her complaint, FIR No. 259/94 was registered against some persons. As no action was taken, hence, on her representation, investigation of the same was transferred to CBI. At about 4.00 p.m., she was informed that her husband was arrested in some case. Within 1015 days, many cases including this case were lodged by the police against her family. These cases were also transferred to CBI. She also filed another writ No. 779/94 in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, copy of which is mark X. Photocopy of certified copy of order on charge in RC No. 19/S/994 against the police officers is Mark X1.
In the cross examination, DW1 has admitted that the cases, which were against them and the cases, which were filed by them, were sent to CBI for reinvestigation and the CBI also filed chargesheet against the persons of the SC No. 131/01/10 29 opposite party as well as against the accused.
Learned SPP has contended that this shows that CBI has acted in a fair manner and whatever was made out against whom was filed in the Court of Law. So, it cannot be said that accused has been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of another person.
In my view, deposition of DW1 is not related to this case in any manner. Merely for false implication of the accused, the police officials could not have arranged so much documents, fake complainant, fake account and fake report about the draft etc. Nothing has been suggested to complainant B.S. Chhabra that he was acting under the pressure of police officials and was a person of Mr. P.R.S. Brar, the then Additional Commissioner of Police. Complainant B.S. Chhabra is an NRI and he has narrated the true facts before the Court. Nothing came out from the deposition of PW18 that he was connected with the dispute of Chauhan Jewellers in any manner or was acting at the behest of police officials against accused Vijay Khanna. So, deposition of DW1 is not helpful to the accused in this case in any manner.
To prove that draft in question is not bearing the signatures of accused Vijay Khanna, DW2 Sh. M.S. Mishra has been examined as handwriting expert, who has stated that he has scientifically examined disputed handwriting on the draft in question dated 25/02/93. He compared it with 13 specimen handwritings of accused Vijay Khanna affixed on the specimen sheets mark as S1 to S13. After the comparison, he found that the disputed handwriting Mark as "Q1 & Q2" has not been written by the same persons, who had written 13 specimen handwritings marked as S1 to S13. He has given his opinion dated 17/07/2011 and has SC No. 131/01/10 30 submitted his opinion with 15 photographs duly signed by him. These are collectively exhibited as Ex. DW2/A. In my view, DW2 cannot be relied upon in any manner as he has admitted in the cross examination that he has not mentioned in his report about his qualification nor he has deposed about the same before the Court during his examination. He has further admitted that he has not deposed about his experience in his examination in chief. Merely that DW2 obtained the material regarding finger prints from FBI, USA, which was sent to him through post, but no certificate was issued in this respect, is not authenticated in any manner nor on the basis of the same, it can be said that DW2 is qualified for giving opinion about handwriting and was having sufficient experience for examining such case to give opinion regarding handwriting and signatures of a person.
DW2 has stated in his cross examination that he has not mentioned in his report or has not deposed before the court as to what type of scientific instruments were used by him, while observing the questioned documents. So, it seems that he has given his report at the instance of accused, hence cannot be relied upon.
While considering the report of an handwriting expert, his experience and qualification has to be seen. Further, it has also to be seen as to how many cases he has dealt with because examination of questioned documents with specimen handwriting merely is not a matter of qualification, but also requires lots of scientific analysis and experience, which DW2 has failed to depose before the Court. It has also to be seen as to when the questioned document was executed and when the specimen handwriting was taken because a long gap can change the SC No. 131/01/10 31 writing pattern of a person, who is alleged to be author of the questioned signatures. The specimen handwriting was given by the accused voluntarily without any pressure from any side in the office of CBI. So, there was not much gap in execution of the questioned document and in obtaining the specimen handwriting of accused. Hence, it could have easily be compared with the help of scientific instruments, which DW2 has failed to depose. DW2 cannot be relied upon in any manner to the extent that accused Vijay Khanna is not the author of the draft in question at Q1 and Q2.
Accordingly, all the witnesses examined by the prosecution have corroborated each other and they inspire confidence. Nothing has been brought on record that all these witnesses were interested to depose falsely against the accused. Even it seems to be improbable that to falsely implicate the accused, the police in connivance with some other persons, as alleged, had taken so much pain about the deposit of forged and fabricated draft and to obtain the report on the same from Chemical Bank, Los Angeles, California. The witnesses have completed the chain of evidence against the accused since handing over the draft to the complainant till it was forged and fabricated.
In view of above discussion, relying upon the deposition of PW18 complainant, prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that Sh. B.S. Chhabra had to receive back loan amount from N.K. Jain and Vijay Khanna and for this purpose, N.K. Jain called complainant B.S. Chhabra in Oberoi Hotel coffee shop and handed over one draft of US 25000 dollar to complainant, which was later on found forged. N.K. Jain has already been expired, which shows that N.K. Jain and Vijay Khanna entered into a criminal conspiracy to SC No. 131/01/10 32 commit an illegal act or to do an act by illegal means because Vijay Khanna was introduced to PW18 Sh. B.S. Chhabra by N.K. Jain and otherwise was not known to complainant, hence, from the circumstances, it is clear that N.K. Jain and Vijay Khanna had entered into a criminal conspiracy to forge international draft to use the same as genuine and handed over the same to complainant. So, prosecution has been able to prove offence U/s. 120B of IPC against accused Vijay Khanna beyond reasonable doubts, for which he is held guilty and convicted for the same.
In view of above discussion, from the deposition of PW18, prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that Rs. 5 lacs in cash were given on credit to Mr and Mrs. Khanna by PW18 and in meeting with Mr. And Mrs. Khanna and Mr. N.K. Jain with his son Nitin Jain met in the coffee shop and there accused Vijay Khanna had told that he had arranged a draft of 25000/ US $ in favour of complainant and as it was amounting to Rs. 8,12,500/ at the time of the conversion rate of Rs. 32.50 , so, PW18 agreed to pay the balance of Rs. 3,12,500/ over and above of the loan amount of Rs. 5 lacs and accused Vijay Khanna alongwith his son Vikas went to the residence of PW18 to collect the balance and he handed over to accused Vijay Khanna balance of Rs. 3,12,500/ and also returned the promissory note of Rs. 5 lacs to N.K. Jain. So, this draft was deposited in the bank by the complainant, which was found to be forged and fabricated later on, according to the telex message of Chemical Bank, Los Angeles, California. So, not only, accused Vijay Khanna delivered forged and fabricated bank draft Ex. PW9/D, but also dishonestly induced complainant PW18 to further hand over Rs. 3,12,500/ to him. The contention of learned defence SC No. 131/01/10 33 counsel that PW18 Sh. B.S. Chhabra has stated in the cross examination that money was given to Nitin Jain is also not forceful because it has already held that PW18 was won over and more so, he has stated that money was given to Nitin Jain but all were present, so they were acting in a criminal conspiracy. So, prosecution has been able to prove offence U/s. 420 of IPC against accused Vijay Khanna beyond reasonable doubts, for which, he is held guilty and convicted for the same.
In view of above discussion, from the statements of PW18 and other witnesses, it has been proved beyond reasonable doubts that a forged and fabricated draft of Chemical Bank, Los Angeles, California, which was not existing, was given to the complainant Sh. B.S. Chhabra in discharge of loan amount as per his statement and from the deposition of PW9, prosecution has also been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that signatures appearing at point Q1 and Q2 on Ex. PW9/D i.e. draft in question, were written by accused Vijay Khanna. So, it is proved beyond reasonable doubts that accused Vijay Khanna forged a bank draft, which was a valuable security. Accordingly, prosecution has been able to prove offence U/s. 467 of IPC against accused Vijay Khanna, for which, he is held guilty and convicted for the same.
In view of above discussion, as offence U/s. 420 of IPC has been proved beyond reasonable doubts against accused Vijay Khanna, accordingly, offence U/s. 468 of IPC i.e. forgery for the purpose of cheating is also proved against him, for which, he is held guilty and convicted for the same.
In view of above discussion, it has been proved beyond reasonable SC No. 131/01/10 34 doubts that a forged draft was used as genuine by Vijay Khanna, which was handed over to complainant Sh. B.S. Chhabra in discharge of the loan amount of Rs. 5 lacs. It was assured to be genuine one and even after knowing the fact that draft was forged and no such branch of Chemical Bank was existing in Los Angeles, California, N.K. Jain told that he will look into the matter and after few days, he told to the complainant that there was some misunderstanding and they will sort out the matter. Not only this, N.K. Jain when met again with complainant called up one Mr. Jack in London and supposed to have given instructions to handover the money to the elder son of complainant at a given place, but no one turned up. So, accused Vijay Khanna with N.K. Jain (since expired) used the draft in question Ex. PW9/D as genuine and believing the same, it was deposited in PNB Naraina branch, but was found forged and fabricated. Hence, offence U/s. 471 of IPC is also proved against accused Vijay Khanna beyond reasonable doubts, for which, he is held guilty and convicted for the same.
In view of above discussion, from the telex message received from Chemical Bank sent to Bank of Baroda, Bombay, India, Ex. PW12/A/13/B8, it is clear that the draft in question was forged and fabricated as there was no such branch of Chemical Bank, Los Angeles, California and the draft falls within the ambit of definition of Bank notes, which was counterfeited by accused Vijay Khanna, who with N.K. Jain delivered the same to the complainant B.S. Chhabra, which was deposited in PNB, Naraina Branch. Not only this, signatures of the purportedly authorized person were also fabricated by accused Vijay Khanna on the same. So, prosecution has been able to prove offence U/s. 489A of IPC, for which, accused Vijay Khanna is held guilty and convicted for the same. SC No. 131/01/10 35
In view of above discussion, as this forged and counterfeited bank note i.e. draft Ex. PW9/D was made by accused V.K. Khanna after signing the same and further used the same as genuine i.e. said bank note by handing over the same with N.K. Jain to complainant B.S. Chhabra in discharge of the loan amount of Rs. 5 lacs, so, prosecution has also been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts offence U/s. 489B of IPC, for which, accused is held guilty and convicted for the same.
Announced in Open Court on
dated 3rd of December, 2011 (Virender Kumar Goyal)
Additional Sessions Judge
Fast Track Court
Rohini : Delhi
SC No. 131/01/10 36
SC No. 131/01/10 37