Delhi District Court
Rakesh Kumar vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 17 August, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY SHARMA-II : ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-03,
(CENTRAL): TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 240/2021
CNR No.: DLCT01-016231-2021
Rakesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Rajpal
R/o VPO Goyla Kalan
Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar
Haryana-124 507
..... Petitioner
VERSUS
The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
..... Respondent
Date of Institution : 26.11.2021
Date of Arguments : 07.07.2022
Date of Judgment : 17.08.2022
JUDGMENT
1. The criminal revision petition under Section 397 of 'The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973' (Hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.PC.') is directed against order dated 28.08.2021 (Hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned order') in Crl. Case No. 5159/2019 titled as 'State vs. Rakesh Kumar' arising from FIR No. 211/2013 under Section 420/468/471 of 'The Indian Penal Code, 1860' (In short 'IPC') registered at PS I.P. Estate whereby Ld. MM-03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (In short 'the trial Court') framed charges under Section 420/511 and 471 IPC against the petitioner.
Crl. Rev. No. 240/2021 Rakesh Kumar vs. State Page No. 1 of 9 BRIEF FACTS:
2. An advertisement for filling 676 vacancies to the post of Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police was published in the newspapers on 19.02.2009 and 21.02.2009 respectively. The petitioner applied for the said post, vide application No. 14821, on 17.03.2009. One of the conditions of the said post was that the candidate must be holding a valid licence for driving heavy Motor Vehicle. The petitioner mentioned, in Column No. 5 of the said application, that he was holding a heavy driving licence, vide DL No. 22566/AG/02, issued by Licensing Authority / Agra and renewed by Licensing Authority / Jhajjar, vide Driving Licence No. 1145/06-07, on 23.02.2007. On scrutiny, it was found that the petitioner was initially issued Driving Licence No. 22566/AG/02 by Licensing Authority, Agra. The petitioner was provisionally selected subject to verification of his driving licence from the issuing authority.
3. The case of the prosecution is that Licensing Authority, Agra, vide verification report dated 17.09.2011, sent a letter dated 05.08.2011 that Driving Licence No. 22566/AG/02 was not issued by it as no fee was deposited. On 29.10.2013, Licensing Authority, Agra again informed that Driving Licence No. 22566/AG/02 was not issued by it. Licensing Authority, Agra also informed that in the year 2002, Driving Licence vide Sl. No. 01 to 20420/AG/02 were issued. As the petitioner used a forged driving licence for seeking employment to the post of Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police, the case FIR was lodged.
Crl. Rev. No. 240/2021 Rakesh Kumar vs. State Page No. 2 of 9
4. During investigation, Licensing Authority, Jhajjar provided particulars of renewal of the said driving licence since 23.02.2007 to 22.10.2010, vide Driving Licence No. RDL/1145/06-07.
5. On conclusion of investigation, Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet alleging commission of offences under Section 420/468/471 IPC.
6. The trial Court, vide impugned order, opined that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioner for offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 511 IPC and 471 IPC, as under:
"From careful perusal of charge-sheet, it clearly emerges that the final selection of the accused was not done as he was not offered to join the service and only the recruitment process was going on when the commission of alleged offences were disclosed. This clearly implies that there was only an attempt of cheating made by the accused.
Perusal of record further reveals that there is no material on record, connecting him with the preparation of the alleged forged licence and the material available on record is only pointed the use of alleged forged licence by accused as genuine one. In view of the above, there only exists sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused for offences u/s 420 r/w 511 & 471 IPC. Accordingly, charges for offences punishable u/s 420/511 & 471 IPC are framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial."
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION:
7. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the petitioner preferred criminal revision petition.
Crl. Rev. No. 240/2021 Rakesh Kumar vs. State Page No. 3 of 9 APPEARANCE:
8. I have heard arguments of Mr. Vikas Ahlawat, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Dabas, Ld. Addl. PP for the State / the respondent and examined trial Court record. CONTENTIONS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER:
9. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court did not apply judicial mind and framed charges in a mechanical manner. He contended that there is no prima facie case against the petitioner under Section 420 read with Section 511 and 471 IPC. He contended that as per report dated 05.08.2011, Licensing Authority, Agra informed that no fee was deposited and therefore, driving licence No. 22566/AG/02 was not issued by it whereas vide report dated 29.10.2013, Licensing Authority, Agra informed that it had issued licences from Sl. No. 01 to 20420/AG/02 in year 2002. He contended that Licensing Authority, Agra changed its stand regarding issuance of the said licence. He contended that the said licence was renewed by Licensing Authority, Jhajjar from 23.02.2007 to 22.02.2010, 23.02.2010 to 20.02.2013 and 08.02.2013 to 10.02.2016. He contended that ingredients of Section 471 IPC are not fulfilled as the petitioner had no knowledge or reason to believe that the said driving licence was a forged document. He relied on judgment in Md. Ibrahim & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors., Crl. Appeal No. 1695/2009 to contend that where a document relied on is not a forged document, there is forgery.
He contended that Section 471 IPC is not applicable.
Crl. Rev. No. 240/2021 Rakesh Kumar vs. State Page No. 4 of 9
10. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contended that in the absence of original driving licence, offence of forgery or using a forged document cannot be proved. He relied on Shashi Lata Khanna vs. State of Delhi & Ors., Crl. Revision No. 47/2005. He contended that the ingredients of Section 420 read with Section 511 IPC are not fulfilled. He relied on Sukanti Choudhary vs. State of Orissa, Crl. Revision No. 1407/2008. He contended that Delhi Police did not suffer any harm or injury. He contended that Licensing Authority, Agra and Jhajjar should have taken action against the petitioner. CONTENTIONS OF LD. ADDL. PP FOR THE STATE / THE RESPONDENT:
11. Ld. Addl. PP for the State contended that the petitioner used a forged driving licence for seeking employment to the post of Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police. He contended that mere renewal of a forged driving licence would not make it a valid driving licence. He contended that there is prima facie case disclosing commission of offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 511 and 471 IPC. LAW:
12. Section 239 Cr.P.C. is as under:
"239. When accused shall be discharged.- If, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing."
Crl. Rev. No. 240/2021 Rakesh Kumar vs. State Page No. 5 of 9
13. In Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2013) 11 SCC 476, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held, as under:
"12.....A plain reading of the above would show that the court trying the case can direct discharge only for reasons to be recorded by it and only if it considers the charge against the accused to be groundless.
13. Section 240 of the Code provides for framing of a charge if, upon consideration of the police report and the documents sent therewith and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary, the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under Chapter XIX, which such Magistrate is competent to try and which can be adequately punished by him."
14. In Onkar Nath Mishra and Others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another, (2008) 2 SCC 561, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held, as under:
"11. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclosed the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At that stage, the court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record. What needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. At that stage, even strong suspicion founded on material which leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged would justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence."
Crl. Rev. No. 240/2021 Rakesh Kumar vs. State Page No. 6 of 9
15. In State of Maharashtra and Others vs. Som Nath Thapa and Others, (1996) 4 SCC 659, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held, as under:
"32. The aforesaid shows that if on the basis of materials on record, a court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing of charge exists. To put it differently, if the court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of a charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage."
ANALYSIS AND FINDING:
16. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner used a forged driving licence for seeking employment in direct recruitment to the post of Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police. The petitioner submitted application No. 14821 vide Enrolment No. 809872 for recruitment to the said post on 17.03.2009. In Column No. 5, the petitioner mentioned that he is holding a heavy driving licence No. 22566/AG/02 issued by Licensing Authority, Jhajjar (Bahadurgarh), Haryana on 23.02.2007. The petitioner was provisionally selected subject to verification of his driving licence. Licensing Authority, Agra, vide verification report dated 17.09.2011 alongwith report dated 05.08.2011, informed that it had not issued driving licence No. 22566/AG/02. The said authority again reported on 29.10.2013 that it had issued driving licence from Sl. No. 01/AG/02 to 20420/AG/02 in 2002.
Crl. Rev. No. 240/2021 Rakesh Kumar vs. State Page No. 7 of 9
17. There is prima facie case that the petitioner applied for recruitment to the post of Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police on strength of a forged driving licence. Renewal of a forged driving licence by Licensing Authority, Jhajjar would not make it legal and valid. A forged driving licence would not become a valid and legal driving licence on account of its subsequent renewals. As regards absence of original driving licence, it can be stated that non-production of original driving licence is insignificant as the original application filed by the petitioner alongwith relevant record pertaining to renewal of the said forged driving licence is available on record. There is prima facie case that the petitioner dishonestly attempted to induce Delhi Police to appoint him to the post of Constable (Driver) to which he was not otherwise eligible.
CONCLUSION:
18. This Court is of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. A copy of judgment alongwith trial Court record be sent to trial Court. The criminal revision file be consigned to record room.
Digitally signedSANJAY by SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2022.08.17 16:45:21 +0530 Announced in the open Court SANJAY SHARMA-II on this 17th August, 2022 Addl. Sessions Judge-03 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Crl. Rev. No. 240/2021 Rakesh Kumar vs. State Page No. 8 of 9 Rakesh Kumar vs. State CNR No.: DLCT010162312021 Crl. Revision No. 240/2021 17.08.2022 Present : Mr. Vikas Ahlawat, Advocate for the petitioner (through Video Conferencing).
Mr. Amit Dabas, Ld. Addl. PP for the State / the respondent.
Vide separate judgment, the criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. The criminal revision file be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed SANJAY by SANJAY
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2022.08.17
16:45:38 +0530
Sanjay SharmaII
ASJ03, Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
NK 17.08.2022
Crl. Rev. No. 240/2021 Rakesh Kumar vs. State Page No. 9 of 9