Delhi District Court
State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) vs . Pradeep Kumar on 30 March, 2021
IN THE COURT OF MS NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
SOUTH EAST: SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CA NO. 388/2019
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Through Public Prosecutor, New Delhi .......... Appellant
VERSUS
Sh. Pradeep Kumar
S/o Sh. Mange Lal Sharma
R/o: House No. 87, Pul Prahlad Pur, .......... Respondent/
New Delhi Accused
First date before this Court: 27.07.2019
Date of Decision: 30.03.2021
ORDER :
1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 378 Cr. P. C. has been filed by the State against the Judgment dated 21.02.2019 vide which the respondent/accused has been acquitted under Section 466/474 IPC.
2. An application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for Condonation of Delay has been filed along with the appeal wherein delay of about 29 days in filing the appeal is sought to be condoned on the ground that the delay happened due to administrative procedures as appellant is a Government Agency.
3. For the reasons given in the application, the delay in filing the present appeal is condoned.
CA NO. 388/2019 Page No. 1 of 15STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) VS. PRADEEP KUMAR
4. The facts in brief are that on 20.12.2017 at about 07.00 pm ASI Shri Ram on receiving secret information that the respondent/ accused prepares fake Driving License and provides them for Rs. 2,000/- each, constituted a Raiding Party. Ct. Sanjeev was sent as shadow witness along with the secret informer to respondent/ accused Pradeep Kumar. Upon receiving the signal from Ct. Sanjeev, ASI Shri Ram along with other staff of the raiding team, apprehended the respondent/accused and recovered five Driving Licenses from his possession. He made a disclosure statement and pursuant thereto he led the raiding party to his rented House No. 87, Gali No. 4, Pul Prahlad Pur, New Delhi and got one CPU, Monitor, Key Board, Scanner and Printer recovered. The recovered articles were sent to CFSL Chandigarh and the Expert Opinion was obtained. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed under Section 466/474 IPC.
5. The charges were accordingly framed under Sections 466/474 IPC vide order dated 10.10.2014.
6. Nine (09) witnesses were examined by the prosecution.
7. PW-1 SI Rajender Singh has registered the FIR dated 20.12.2017 vide Ex. PW-1/A.
8. PW-2 HC Sanjeev is the shadow witness and PW-3 HC Ravinder and PW-4 ASI Satender Singh were the members of the raiding team, who deposed about the apprehension of the respondent/ accused and recovery of five Driving Licenses from his possession.
CA NO. 388/2019 Page No. 2 of 15STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) VS. PRADEEP KUMAR
9. PW-5 SI Shri Ram, IO deposed about the entire investigation conducted in this case.
10.PW-6 Sh. Dalip Singh, a public person had explained about the driving licence in the name of Narender that was recovered from the possession of the accused/ respondent. He deposed that he along with Sh. Narender and Sh. Rajesh was present near his house when they met the Respondent/accused going towards Sheikh Sarai Authority. The receipt of the challan vide which the Driving License of Sh. Narender was impounded for fast driving was given to the respondent/accused for getting the same released. He further deposed that he was not aware of other facts. In his cross- examination by the Ld. APP for State, he denied the suggestion that Narender had given his Driving License to the respondent/accused or that Sh. Pradeep had not returned the Driving License to him or that the same had been misplaced. The authenticity of the licence in the name of Narender that was recovered from the accused was established by PW-8 Sh. R. K. Pahwa, Section Officer, Office Incharge, Sheikh Sarai Authority, New Delhi who deposed that the Driving License in the name of Sh. Narender Singh was issued on 31.03.2000 by the Transport Authority and was valid upto 30.03.2020. The details of the Driving License are Ex. PW-8/A.
11.PW-7 Dr. M. Baskar, Deputy Director (Physics), CFSL, Chandigarh proved the FSL Report as Ex. PW-7/A.
12.PW-9 Sh. R. K. Pawa, Section Officer, Office Incharge, Sheikh Sarai Authority, New Delhi deposed that the Driving License in the CA NO. 388/2019 Page No. 3 of 15 STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) VS. PRADEEP KUMAR name of Neeraj Gupta, Jugesh Mishra, Sikandar and Mohd. Orang Jaib which had been recovered from the possession of the respondent/accused had not been issued from their Transport Authority and were fake. The copy of the Report has been exhibited as Ex. PW-9/A.
13.Statement of the accused/respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. in which he pleaded his innocence.
14.Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate in his impugned Judgment observed that neither there was any evidence brought on record in regard to the usage of fake Driving License by the respondent/accused nor any admissible evidence led in support of the forgery of the Driving License by the respondent/accused and hence he was acquitted.
15.Aggrieved by the said acquittal, the present appeal has been filed by the State.
16.The grounds of appeal are that Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate has failed to appreciate the evidence of PW-2 HC Sanjeev in whose presence respondent/accused was apprehended and fake driving licences recovered while he was selling them to the decoy customer. The consistent testimony of PW-3 HC Ravinder and PW-4 ASI Satender Singh as well as PW-5 SI Shri Ram who were part of the raiding party, has also not been appreciated correctly. The Verification Report submitted by the official of Sheikh Sarai Authority, New Delhi and testimony of PW-7 Dr. M. Baskar, Deputy Director (Physics), CFSL, Chandigarh also proves that the Driving Licences recovered from the accused were fake but that has CA NO. 388/2019 Page No. 4 of 15 STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) VS. PRADEEP KUMAR also not been appreciated in the right perspective. The impugned Judgment of acquittal is, therefore, liable to be set-aside.
17.I have heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Chief Public Prosecutor for the State and Ld. Counsel for the respondent/ accused. I have perused the record, as well as, Trial Court Record and the evidence led therein. My observations are as under:
18.The respondent/accused has been charged for the offences under Sections 466/474 IPC for being found in possession of forged Driving Licenses intending to use them fraudulently or dishonestly as genuine. The entire case of the prosecution rests on the police witnesses.
19.The first aspect which has been argued on behalf of the State is that the testimony of the police witnesses cannot be discarded merely because they happen to be the police officials. Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate was not justified in rejecting the testimony of the prosecution witnesses merely on the ground that they were police officials.
20.Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Gyan Chand & Others vs. State of Haryana, 2013 (14) SCC 420, has observed that Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act gives rise to the presumption that every official act done by the police was regularly performed and such presumption requires rebuttal. The legal maxim omnia praesumuntur rite it dowee probetur in contrarium solenniter esse acta i.e., all the acts are presumed to have been done rightly and regularly, applies. When acts are of official nature and went through CA NO. 388/2019 Page No. 5 of 15 STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) VS. PRADEEP KUMAR the process of scrutiny by official persons, a presumption arises that the said acts had been performed regularly. It was further observed that when a police officer gives evidence in Court that a certain article was recovered by him on the strength of the statement made by the accused it is open to the Court to believe that version to be correct if it is not otherwise shown to be unreliable. The burden is on the accused to cross-examine the witnesses or through other material show that the evidence of the police officer is unreliable. If the Court has any good reason to suspect the truthfulness of such evidence of the police, the Court could certainly take into account the fact that no other independent person was present at the time of recovery. It is neither a legally approvable procedure to presume that police action is unreliable nor to jettison such action merely for the reason that police did not collect signatures of independent persons in the documents made contemporaneous with such actions. Thus, even though no independent public witness was joined at the time of appreciating the statement that in itself cannot be ground of rejecting the testimony of the police witnesses. Their evidence has to be examined to consider the intrinsic value of their statement.
21.It is rightly submitted on behalf of the State that the prosecution witnesses cannot be disbelieved simply because they happen to be police persons and their testimony has to be considered holistically to determine if their evidence brings home the offences against the respondent.
CA NO. 388/2019 Page No. 6 of 15STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) VS. PRADEEP KUMAR
22.The case of the prosecution is that respondent/accused used to print fake Driving Licenses and sell them to the individuals for a price. On the date of the incident i.e. 20.12.2017 the police officials on the basis of secret information had apprehended the respondent/accused while selling the fake Driving Licenses to the decoy customer and four fake Driving Licenses were also found in his possession.
23.Forgery is defined under Section 463 IPC, which provides that whoever makes any false document with intent to cause damage to the public or to any person, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or commits forgery.
24.Essential components for the offence of forgery or making a false document is the requisite intent, which is:
(a) To cause damage to any public person;
(b) To support any claim title or to cause any person to part with property;
(c) To enter into an express or implied contract or intended to commit fraud.
25.Therefore, the two aspects of forgery are firstly: the act of making false document and secondly: requisite intention, as specified under Section 463 IPC.
26.Section 464 IPC provides for making of a false document. It provides that a person is said to make a false document or false electronic record if he makes, sign, seals or executes a document or part thereof a document; affixes any electronic signature on any CA NO. 388/2019 Page No. 7 of 15 STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) VS. PRADEEP KUMAR electronic record; makes or any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the electronic signature, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part thereof document was executed transmitted or affixed by the authority by whom he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed.
27.Likewise, if a person without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with digital signature either by himself or by any other person, also amounts to creating a false document.
28.Section 466 IPC further provides that if forgery is done of any document purported to be made a public servant in his official capacity commits the offence of forgery and such act shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to 07 years and also to fine.
29.Section 474 IPC further provides the punishment for being in possession of a document, as described under Section 466 IPC knowing it to be forged and intending it to be so used.
30.The case of the prosecution has been described in detail in the testimony of PW-5 IO ASI Shri Ram who has deposed that on 20.12.2017 while he along with HC Satender, Ct. Sanjeev, Ct. Ravinder and one more Constable, whose name he did not remember, was on patrolling duty, he received secret information that one person who prepared fake Driving Licenses and makes CA NO. 388/2019 Page No. 8 of 15 STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) VS. PRADEEP KUMAR them available @ Rs. 2,000/-, would be coming to G. B. Pant Polytechnic, Okhla Phase-III, New Delhi along with samples of fake Driving Licenses. PW-2 Ct. Sanjeev was sent along with the secret informer/decoy customer to hear the conversation between the respondent/accused and the decoy customer. After sometime, respondent/accused Pradeep Kumar reached the spot and started to talk to the secret informer, who pointed towards him and thereafter secret informer left the spot. They apprehended respondent/accused Pradeep Kumar at the spot and recovered two Driving Licenses from the right hand, while three other Driving Licenses were recovered from the pocket of his shirt, which were seized, vide Seizure Memo Ex. PW-2/A.
31.The testimony of PW-5 IO ASI Shri Ram is conspicuously silent and he has not deposed that there was a raiding team constituted. He merely stated that Ct. Sanjeev was sent along with the secret informer to listen to the conversations between the respondent/ accused and the secret informer. He has further stated that respondent/accused Pradeep Kumar had started talking with the secret informer and secret informer pointed towards him and he along with the police officials apprehended the respondent/accused. The only aspect which gets proved from his testimony is that respondent/accused was apprehended and five Driving Licenses were recovered from his possession.
32.This is significant in the light of testimony of PW-4 ASI Satender Singh, who had deposed that PW-2 Ct. Sanjeev was instructed to CA NO. 388/2019 Page No. 9 of 15 STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) VS. PRADEEP KUMAR hear the conversation between the respondent/accused and the secret informer and to give signal after striking of the deal. After sometime, Ct. Sanjeev gave signal by waving his hand and respondent/accused was apprehended by the police team. According to PW-4 ASI Satender a raiding party was constituted by PW-5 ASI Shri Ram and PW-2 Ct. Sanjeev was sent as a shadow witness sent to hear the conversation between the respondent/ accused and the decoy customer/secret informer. PW-4 ASI Satender Singh is only a witness to the recovery of the Driving Licenses from the possession of the respondent/accused. Neither he heard the conversation nor was a party to the deal purportedly entered into between the secret informer and the respondent/accused for purchase of fake Driving Licenses.
33.The other material witness PW-3 HC Ravinder had also deposed on the similar lines as of PW-4 ASI Satender Singh. The testimony of these two witnesses also proves merely that on the signal from HC Sanjeev, they apprehended the accused with five Driving Licences. They were not a witness to the conversation between the Accused and the alleged decoy customer.
34.The most material witness of the Prosecution is PW-2 HC Sanjeev who was allegedly sent as a decoy customer. He had deposed that he was associated with the secret informer while the other members of the raiding team took their position in the vicinity. The secret informer talked with the respondent/accused, who told him that he would charge Rs. 2,000/- for procuring a Driving License which CA NO. 388/2019 Page No. 10 of 15 STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) VS. PRADEEP KUMAR would be similar as the original. Respondent/accused handed over two Driving Licenses to him as sample to check. He gave signal to the raiding team, who came and apprehended the respondent/ accused and recovered two Driving Licenses from his right hand and three from the pocket of his shirt.
35.According to the prosecution, HC Sanjeev was a shadow witness, while the secret informer was decoy customer. The main evidence to prove that the respondent/accused had offered to sell fake Driving Licenses for consideration was the secret informer but because he happened to be the secret informer, his identity was not disclosed and he has also not been cited as a witness. The most important link in proving the alleged sale of fake Driving Licenses by the respondent/accused for consideration is therefore missing. PW-2 HC Sanjeev as supposed to be the shadow witness, which means that he was to be present at a distance and hear the conversation between the respondent/accused and the decoy customer. Interestingly, from his testimony what appears is that he had accompanied the decoy customer and was a party to the conversation between the respondent/accused and the decoy customer. According to his deposition, respondent/accused told him that he would charge Rs. 2,000/- for procuring the Driving License which would be similar to the original and he handed over two Driving Licenses to him to check as sample. However, immediately thereafter the raiding party apprehended the respondent/accused and those two Driving Licenses which according to PW-2 HC Sanjeev CA NO. 388/2019 Page No. 11 of 15 STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) VS. PRADEEP KUMAR were handed over to him for checking were interestingly recovered from the hands of the respondent/accused Pradeep Kumar. There is no explanation coming as to why those Driving Licenses were not with PW-2 HC Sanjeev, who had taken them to check, but were found in the hands of the respondent/accused. PW-3 HC Ravinder, PW-4 ASI Satender Singh and PW-5 ASI Shriram had deposed that PW-2 HC Sanjeev was the shadow witness to the decoy customer (secret informer) but that is not what PW-2 HC Sanjeev has deposed. As per his testimony, he had gone with the secret informer. Clearly there are material contradictions and their testimony do not prove any conversation between the secret informer and the accused about the sale of fake driving licenses.
36.It is consistently deposed by all the prosecution witnesses that two Driving Licenses were recovered from the right hand of the respondent/accused Pradeep Kumar. Moreover, according to PW-2 HC Sanjeev, the fake Driving License was to be sold for consideration of Rs. 2,000/-. There is no money which was recovered either from PW-2 HC Sanjeev or from the respondent/ accused Pradeep Kumar. There is not an iota of evidence of any sale transaction having taken place between the respondent/accused and the decoy customer. The only fact which is proved against the respondent/accused was that he was in possession of fake Driving Licenses. There is no evidence whatsoever, to show that they were intended to be sold for a consideration or were intended to be used as a genuine document.
CA NO. 388/2019 Page No. 12 of 15STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) VS. PRADEEP KUMAR
37.The prosecution had examined PW-9 Sh. R. K. Pawa, Section Officer, Office Incharge, Sheikh Sarai Authority, New Delhi, who had deposed that the four Driving Licenses in the name of Neeraj Gupta, Jugesh Mishra, Sikandar and Mohd. Orang Jaib were not issued from their Transport Authority and their details were also not available. He proved his Report as Ex. PW-9/A.
38.The testimony of PW-9 Sh. R. K. Pawa proved that four Driving Licenses recovered from the possession of the respondent/accused were not genuine, but merely being in possession of fake Driving License is not an offence. It has to be coupled with an intention to cause damage or to claim a title or intent to commit fraud. Such intention could have been proved by having proved through the conversation between the respondent/accused the decoy customer couped with recovery of offered money. However, this evidence is conspicuously missing.
39.Another significant fact which has been proved by the Prosecution is recovery of the computer, lamination sheet and paper from the house of the respondent/accused. PW-5 IO SI Shri Ram has deposed that pursuant to the disclosure statement Ex. PW-2/D the respondent/accused led them to his house in Pul Prahlad Pur, New Delhi and got recovered a computer, scanner, paper, lamination sheets from his house which were seized vide Memo Ex. PW-2/E. The computer and recovered articles were sealed and sent to FSL for examination.
CA NO. 388/2019 Page No. 13 of 15STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) VS. PRADEEP KUMAR
40.PW-7 Dr. M. Bhaskar, Deputy Director (Physics), CFSL, Chandigarh had deposed that he had examined the computer and retrieved the data pertaining to these Driving Licenses available in the computer Ex. H-1 and printout of the same (08 pages) was annexed along with his Report Ex. PW-7/A. The retrieved data had only one Driving License pertaining to Sikandar which was recovered from the possession of the respondent/accused. The data of other Driving Licenses available in the computer were not in the hard copy. The Driving License in the name of Sikandar was recovered from the pocket of the respondent/accused and there is no evidence to show that he had any intention to use it as genuine document or to commit any forgery. Simplicitor having possession of fake document in the absence of requisite intention, cannot be held to be an offence either under Section 466 IPC or for Section 474 IPC.
41.The Prosecution may have been able to prove that respondent/ accused was found in possession of fake Driving Licenses, but this in itself is not sufficient to bring home the offence of forgery punishable under Section 466 IPC in the absence of any cogent evidence that there was also the requisite intention.
42.Prosecution has also not been able to prove that the respondent/ accused who was found in possession of fake Driving Licenses/ documents had an intent to use them as genuine document and offence under Section 471 IPC is also not proved.
CA NO. 388/2019 Page No. 14 of 15STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) VS. PRADEEP KUMAR
43.In view of above, the offences under Sections 466/471 IPC are not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the respondent/accused Pradeep Kumar. This is one case where there is some incriminating evidence against the accused but he benefits from the slipshod investigations and from the gaps and inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The respondent has been rightly acquitted by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate. The appeal is therefore, dismissed.
44. Trial Court Record be sent back alongwith a copy of this order.
45. The bail bonds under Section 437-A of Cr. P. C. be furnished by the accused within three days w.e.f. today.
46.Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by NEENA NEENA BANSAL BANSAL KRISHNA
KRISHNA Date: 2021.03.30 16:09:43
+0530
Announced in the open court (NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
on 30.03.2021 Principal District & Sessions Judge,
South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi
CA NO. 388/2019 Page No. 15 of 15
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) VS. PRADEEP KUMAR