Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . Lokesh Kumar on 7 January, 2013
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRADEEP CHADDAH: SPECIAL JUDGE:
CBI01, CENTRAL DISTRICT. DELHI
CC No. 80/06 RC No. 28(A)/1999
PS: CBI/ACB/ND
CBI Vs. Lokesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Jayanti Parsad,
R/o H.No. 90B, Sarai Nagar,
Opposite Shambhu Dayal Degree College,
Ghaziabad, U.P.
Date of Institution : 23.10.2004
Judgment Reserved : 10.12.2012
Judgment Delivered : 07.01.2013
J U D G M E N T
1. The instant chargesheet was filed by CBI against accused Lokesh Kumar. Name of Sunil found mention in column no. 2 of the chargesheet. He was not sent for trial. According to chargesheet source information had been received that number of touts were active in and around state transport authority at Burari and Sarai Kale Khan. The touts induce public at large who come to the authority for obtaining driving licences and getting other jobs done, to submit their applications through them and get their work done for a price. The touts share their spoils with the officials of transport CC No. 80/06 CBI Vs. Lokesh Kumar pg. no. 1 of 29 2 authority. A surprise check was conducted at about 10.30 am in presence of independent witnesses Sh. A.S. Mann and Sh. R.N. Seth on 8.6.99. It was observed that group of people were collecting application forms and cash from individuals. They were getting them attested from so called doctors sitting outside the authority. Those doctors were taking money from the touts and they were also attesting affidavits. Touts Lokesh Kumar and Sunil Kumar were apprehended. They disclosed that part of the money charged by them was passed on to transport authority for issuance of driving licence, registration certificate etc.
2. Lokesh was found in possession of Rs. 1120/, diary containing details of work to be executed, driving licence of Manoj Kumar Srivastava and Ram Jeevan, six registration certificates and various forms. Lokesh was also found in possession of forged insurance certificate for vehicle no. DL 6CB 6392, forged pollution control check certificate. His writings had been confirmed on few documents. He was maintaining the pocket diary in which he used to write the work to be done, amount paid and the balance payable. Lokesh Kumar cheated/attempted to cheat the customers by assuring that he would get their job done. No evidence against any officials of the transport authority had come on record. No sufficient evidence could come up against CC No. 80/06 CBI Vs. Lokesh Kumar pg. no. 2 of 29 3 Sunil Kumar who was working as tout. It was prayed that Sunil Kumar be discharged and Lokesh Kumar be tried of offences u/s 8 of P.C. Act and Sec. 468, 474, 420/511 of IPC.
3. After appearance of accused, copies were provided to him by my Ld. Predecessor. He found prima facie case against the accused and framed the following charge:
" Firstly that in month of May/June you accepted Rs. 100/ as advance from Mohd. Ahsan S/o Ronak Husain R/o 5/252 Vishnupuri Delhi as a motive or reward for inducing by corrupt or illegal means the official of Transport Authority at Sarai Kale Khan for transferring the scooter No. DDZ 8649 in the name of Mohd. Ashan in the month of May and Rs. 500/ was to be accepted by you after completing the work thereby you have committed an offence punishable Under Section 8 of PC Act, 1988 and within my cognizance.
Secondly that on 08/06/99 at Sarai Kale Khan Authority office you had in your possession forged Pollution Certificates for vehicle DL6C 2925 & DL6CB6392. Forged insurance of vehicle no. DL6CB6392 and CC No. 80/06 CBI Vs. Lokesh Kumar pg. no. 3 of 29 4 after forged documents which you dishonestly and fraudulently intended to be a genuine and that you have thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 474 IPC and within my cognizance.
Thirdly that on 08/06/99 at Sarai kale Khan you fraudulently used forged documents as genuine which you know at the time when use it to be a forged documents and that you thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 468 r/w 471 IPC and within my cognizance.
Fourthly that on 08/06/99 at Sarai Kale Khan you cheated Mohd. Ahsan S/o Ronak Hussain R/o 5/252, Vishnupuri Delhi and fraudulently induced him to deliver Rs. 100/ to you to which you were not entitled, thereby causing wrongful loss to Mohd. Ahsan. You thereby committed an offence punishable U/s. 420 IPC and within my cognizance."
4. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution in support of its case examined twenty four witnesses, while accused did not examine any witness in defence.
5. PW1 was Raj Kumar data entry operator of Sarai Kale Khan CC No. 80/06 CBI Vs. Lokesh Kumar pg. no. 4 of 29 5 Transport Authority. He deposed that on 30.05.01 he handed over registration file of vehicle No. DL 6CB 6392 to Inspector Virender Thakran vide memo Ex.PW1/A. The vehicle was initially registered in the name of Mahesh Chand Jain. Later on it was transferred to Sushil Kumar. On 27.8.99, the vehicle was transferred in the name of Balkesh Singh. Form29 were Ex.PW1/B1 and PW1/B2. The witness deposed further that on 01.06.2001 he handed over file of vehicle No. DDZ 8649 to Inspector Virender Thakran. The said vehicle was registered in the name of H.S. Sabharwal and then it was transferred to the name of Mohd. Ahsaan. In his crossexamination he claimed that he had no personal knowledge regarding file pertaining to those two vehicles.
6. PW4 was Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dhingra. He deposed that he was a property dealer. In 1988 his in laws gave him scooter No. DDZ 8281 in dowry. He sold the scooter through Daya Ram for Rs.6800/ to Dr. Dholpuria. He had also handed over registration certificate of the scooter along with Form29 & Form30.
7. The next witness to be examined was Daya Ram. He deposed that he had sold scooter No. DDZ 8281 to Dr. Dholpuria for Rs.7000/.
CC No. 80/06 CBI Vs. Lokesh Kumar pg. no. 5 of 29 6
8. The next witness was Mr. Ramjivan Kedia. He deposed that original licence No. 89030403 was issued in his name. The said licence was Ex.P1. He wanted to get the licence renewed after expiry. He met one individual sitting outside authority and handed over the licence to him for renewal. When he went back after about 23 months, he did not see him at the authority. The witness was crossexamined wherein he claimed that he was not sure whether accused present in the court was the same person to whom he had handed over his original licence.
9. PW7 was Mr. K.N. Bhatt. He deposed that he was working as Manager with G.R. Motors and was authorized signatory for issuing pollution control check certificates. MarkPW7/A was forged pollution certificate regarding vehicle No. DL 6C 2925. He had not issued it. Duplicate copy of genuine pollution certificate attested by him were Ex.PW7/B1 and PW7/B2, while attested copy of the register was Ex.PW7/C. The documents had been seized by CBI vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/D. Upon being crossexamined, he claimed that pollution certificate used to be issued between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. CBI had not seized any genuine seal of his name or seal of the company. They had also not taken his CC No. 80/06 CBI Vs. Lokesh Kumar pg. no. 6 of 29 7 specimen signatures. Entries in Ex.PW7/C which was register were in his handwriting.
10. The next witness to be examined was Sh. A.S. Mann. He claimed that on 08.06.99, he along with Sh. R.N. Seth attended CBI office on directions of FCI Vigilance. They were part of CBI team which conducted raid at STA office, Sarai Kale Khan. They were part of a team which approached some doctors sitting under umbrellas. The doctors were taking money from public and issuing medical certificates. They also saw some agents collecting application forms and money from public. Those agents used to go inside the authority and get work done from the public servants inside. The witness was cross examined by Ld. PP wherein he claimed that accused was the same person who was apprehended by CBI. In his cross examination, he claimed that he reached CBI office on that day at about 8.00 am. R.N. Seth had also reached there on his own. 56 teams were constituted and they reached Sarai Kale Khan authority at about 10.30 am. He did not know name of any person who had given money or application to accused Lokesh. No incriminating article was recovered from him and no disclosure statement of the accused was recorded in his presence. Rs. 5/7, Comb and handkerchief were recovered from personal search of the accused. The CC No. 80/06 CBI Vs. Lokesh Kumar pg. no. 7 of 29 8 personal search memo was Ex. PW8/B and it contained his signatures.
11. Mr. R.N. Seth was the other independent witness to be examined by the CBI. In his similar testimony he claimed that he went to CBI office in June 1999 on directions of his vigilance department. He also saw doctors issuing medical certificates and taking money at Sarai Kale Khan authority. He also saw some touts telling people to hand over their documents for getting the work done. Accused Lokesh Kumar posed himself as a doctor. He also had his board. A customer handed over money to Lokesh Kumar and Lokesh Kumar gave him medical certificate after affixing his stamp. Immediately thereafter Lokesh Kumar was apprehended. In his cross examination, he claimed that he had reached CBI office at about 7/7.30 am and from there transport authority Sarai Kale Khan at 10.30 am. They watched activities of touts and agents. Accused had medical certificate of 23 customers with him, but no such medical certificate was on the judicial record. He was not aware of the amount paid by customers. CBI had not recorded statement of any customer whose medical certificates were attested by accused.
12. Mr. Suraj Prakash Tiwari entered the witness box and was examined as PW10. He claimed that he had handed over documents to get work done CC No. 80/06 CBI Vs. Lokesh Kumar pg. no. 8 of 29 9 to one agent who has since expired. He did not know accused Lokesh Kumar. In his cross examination by Ld.PP, he denied having made statement to CBI.
13. Mr. J.R. Kohli of National Insurance Company was Ex. PW11. He deposed that in 2001, he was posted as Administrative Officer in Division no. 17, 12 Community Center, East of Kailash. Mr. Roy Chaudhary was working as Assistant Administrative Officer and had since retired. Certificate of insurance Ex. PW11/A, having policy no. 351700/6104774 for vehicle no. DL 6CB 6392 was in the name of Sushil Kumar. Though the certificate was not issued by their division, but it contained genuine signatures of Mr. Roy Chaudhary. He had also issued letter to CBI Ex. PW11/B. In his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused he claimed that Mr. Roy Chaudhary was alive and had worked with him in a branch as well as in the division.
14. Mr. Daulat Ram, Motor Vehicle Inspector was the next witness to be examined. He deposed about various documents like licences, copies of pollution certificate, registration certificates, NOC slips etc. etc. All the documents barring three were only marked and not exhibited. Thus we CC No. 80/06 CBI Vs. Lokesh Kumar pg. no. 9 of 29 10 ignore them. He deposed about registration slip pertaining to vehicle no. DDA 436 issued by transport authority Sarai Kale Khan which was Ex. PW12/E, registration certificate in respect of vehicle no. DL 6 C 2925 which was Ex. PW12/G and NOC slip of vehicle no. DDV 541(wrongly typed as DDB 541) was Ex. PW12/C1 and PW12/C2
15. Mr. K.L. Nanda deposed as PW13. He deposed that he was working as Manager in RN Soin & Sons Petrol Pump Darya Ganj Delhi. Their pump has been authorized to issue Pollution Under Control Certificate(PUCC). PUCC mark PW13/A bears name of their petrol pump but was not issued by them. It was forged certificate. It pertained to vehicle no. DL 6 CB 6392. The registration number was of the car but emission level has been mentioned against column no. two and three wheeler. In his cross examination he admitted that it was a manipulated photocopy. He also could not tell as to who had prepared the certificate Mark PW13/A.
16. CBI thereafter examined Sh. N.K. Aggarwal Senior Scientific officer. He claimed that he had examined the documents forwarded vide letter Ex. PW14/A. He gave his report Ex. PW14/B which was forwarded to CBI vide CC No. 80/06 CBI Vs. Lokesh Kumar pg. no. 10 of 29 11 letter copy of which was Ex. PW14/C.
17. CBI thereafter examined Sh. M.S. Singhal. He deposed that in 1999 he was posted as DSP in CBI. Complaint Ex. PW15/A bore his signatures. A surprise check was conducted on 8.6.99 at transport authority Sarai Kale Khan after information was received that many touts were active in the area. They used to induce public at large who visited the authority for registration of vehicles, transfer of vehicles, issuance of driving licence etc. Touts used to charge various amounts for getting the work done. They had reached the authority at 10.30 am and started observing the activities. They (members of the raiding party) tried to identify spot witnesses but could not succeed. They then arranged witnesses Sh. A.S. Mann and Sh. R.N. Seth from FCI Headquarters. After prolonged observation, CBI team apprehended various touts and doctors including the accused. Incriminating documents and cash were also seized. Surprise check memo was Ex. PW8/A. The memo contained signatures of Lokesh Kumar at point D. Rs. 1120/, red colour Executive diary Ex.PW15/B, driving licence no. 89030403 in the name of Ram Jiwan Ex.PW15/C, driving licence in the name of Manoj Kumar Srivastava Ex.PW15/D, bunch of papers Ex.PW15/E and bunch of cash receipts were seized from Lokesh Kumar. In addition, bunch of documents containing RC of vehicle no. DDZ 8649, DBF 8266, DL 3SE 1070, DDA CC No. 80/06 CBI Vs. Lokesh Kumar pg. no. 11 of 29 12 8204, DDC 7931, DDZ 8281, two blank affidavits and other documents, details of which were provided by the witness in his testimony were recovered from accused Lokesh Kumar. The documents seized were signed by both the independent witness MR. R.N. Seth and Mr. A.S. Mann. Memo Ex. PW8/A was prepared. Lokesh revealed that he was giving share of Rs. 200250/ to clerk Vinod Kumar of State Transport Authority. The proceedings concluded at about 3.00 pm. Complaint Ex. PW15/A was drawn. On its basis, FIR No. RCDAI1999A0028 was registered. It was marked to Inspector Virender Thakran. He also handed over all the documents. Upon being cross examined by Ld. Counsel, he claimed that he had not personally received the information but it had been received in Anti Corruption Branch of CBI. The information conveyed to him by the SP was general and not specific. He claimed that there were 12 officers excluding supporting staff as well as four public witness who had started from CBI office at about 9.4510.00 am. His statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C., had been recorded on 22.11.2002. He could not offer any explanation for the delayed statement. From the date of raid till date of recording of his statement, he had remained posted in ACB/CBI, Delhi. Further he claimed that he himself had seen two touts including Lokesh Kumar inducing a customer but he could not provide description of the customer so induced. He claimed that CC No. 80/06 CBI Vs. Lokesh Kumar pg. no. 12 of 29 13 attempts were made to secure presence of spot witnesses but were not successful. He further claimed that Lokesh Kumar and Sunil Kumar were getting documents attested from other persons sitting in the complex under umbrellas. They had sign boards of doctors/medical certificate, licence. He could not identify any document on the record which Lokesh Kumar had got attested. So far as he could recollect, there was no board of Dr. Lokesh Kumar. He also could not remember having seen Lokesh Kumar acting as a doctor and attesting medical certificate. He had not recorded statement of Vinod Kumar, employee of STA. He even did not check if Vinod Kumar was an employee of STA and whether he was present in the office that day. Ultimately he claimed that he did not have knowledge that outside post offices, transport authority etc.. people sit and do writing work and fill up forms for those who cannot write and charge money.
18. PW16 was Nasir Khan. He deposed that in 1998 he had purchased a Honda Bike. He got it financed from Narender Singh & Sons. Ex.PW16/A was form26 filled on behalf of Narender Singh & Sons. It contained his signatures. Photocopy of his telephone bill was Ex.PW16/B. He had given both the documents to Narender Singh & Sons for obtaining duplicate RC.
CC No. 80/06 CBI Vs. Lokesh Kumar pg. no. 13 of 29 14
19. PW17 was Sh. Pradeep Anand from Motor Licensing Department. He deposed about the procedures followed in Transport Authority for doing various jobs. He also deposed about various forms which were used in the authority.
20. PW18 Mohd. Javed Khan deposed that from 2000 to 2005 he was posted as Pollution Level Test Inspector in Sarai Kale Khan Authority. RC Ex.PW15/F was in the name of Mohd. Ahsaan. It was issued by their zone and contained signatures of Inspector Ramanathan. RC of vehicle No. DDA 8204 was issued under signatures of Mahesh Verma. The same was Ex.PW18/A. RC of vehicle No. DDC 7931 was Ex.PW18/B. RC of vehicle No. DDZ 8281 was Ex.PW18/C. RC of vehicle No. DBF 8266 was Ex.PW18/D. RC of vehicle No. DL 3SE 1070 was Ex.PW18/E. RC of vehicle No. DL 6CB 6392 was Ex.PW18/F. Upon being crossexamined, he claimed that Mr. Bhatt had not signed MarkPW7/A (wrongly typed as Ex.PW7/A) in his presence.
21. Mr. Diwan Chand entered the witness box as PW19. He deposed that he was posted as Jr. Accounts Officer in Transport Department Sarai Kale Khan Authority from April 1998 to September/October 2000. On CC No. 80/06 CBI Vs. Lokesh Kumar pg. no. 14 of 29 15 08.06.99, he attended office after 11 a.m. as his father was sick. A surprise check was conducted by CBI and cash of various persons maintaining fee counter was checked. Surprise check memo Ex.PW19/A contained his signatures at point A. Upon being crossexamined he claimed that there were eight counters in all. He did not remember if any personal cash declaration register of 08.06.99 was seized by CBI or not.
22. Sh. Ajay Kumar Srivastava was the next witness to be examined. He claimed that his mobile number was 9811023702 and Manoj Kumar Srivastava was his brother and lived in West Bengal. Ex.PW15/E contained photograph of his brother in law and his (PW20 Sh. A.K. Srivastava). Mobile No. 9811023702 written on it. In his crossexamination, he claimed that he could not say as to when the photograph of his brother in law were stappled on Ex.PW15/E.
23. Sh. Manoj Kumar Srivastava was examined as PW21. He claimed that he met Sh. D.P. Sahni who told him that there was a man who could arrange driving license. He gave him six or twelve photographs and Rs. 1200/. He also gave his details. Ex.PW15/E was in his handwriting and it contained his photographs. Ex.PW15/D was driving license issued by CC No. 80/06 CBI Vs. Lokesh Kumar pg. no. 15 of 29 16 Licensing Authority Ghaziabad which contained his signatures. He had been taken to Sarai Kale Khan Authority but he did not meet the person who got the license prepared.
24. PW22 was Sh. Vijay Kumar. He deposed that from August 1998 to July 1999, he was posted as LDC in Sarai Kale Khan Authority. On 08.06.99, he was on his counter No. 1 when CBI team raided their office. His counter was also checked. The cash tallied with the record. Surprise check memo Ex.PW19/A also contained his signatures.
25. PW23 was Mr. Rajkumar Tomar. He claimed that his brother Balkesh purchased a Maruti Car No. DL 6CB 6392. His brother gave him form29, form30, form34, form35, RC, Pollution certificate, insurance certificate and other documents related to the bank. Notice of termination of hire purchase was MarkPW18/2 (wrongly typed as Ex.PW18/2). RC in the name of Sushil Kumar was MarkPW23/1. Form29 which was Ex.PW1/B2 contained signatures of Sushil Kumar. The form was filled by Lokesh Kumar. Form30 also contained signatures of Sushil Kumar. It was filled in by Lokesh Kumar. Form34 also was filled in by Lokesh Kumar. It contained signatures of his brother Balkesh. The said forms were CC No. 80/06 CBI Vs. Lokesh Kumar pg. no. 16 of 29 17 Ex.PW23/B and PW23/B1. Photocopy of Pollution certificate was Mark PW23/4 and photocopy of insurance was also MarkPW23/4. He deposed further that he had taken all the documents to Sarai Kale Khan authority where he met a boy whose name he came to know later on was Lokesh who agreed to get the work done for Rs.1000/ and after bargaining he scaled down the demand to Rs.700/. He could not identify Lokesh in the court. The witness was crossexamined by Ld PP wherein he reiterated that he could not identify as the matter was very old. He denied the suggestion that he was trying to favour the accused.
26. CBI had also examined two public witnesses namely Mohd. Ahsan as PW2 and Shamshuddin as PW3. Mohd. Ahsan in his testimony deposed that in 1999 he had purchased a scooter no. 8649. He alongwith Shamshuddin went to Sarai kale Khan authority and met Lokesh. He demanded Rs. 800/ for registration of the vehicle in his name. The amount was settled at Rs. 600/. Advance of Rs. 100/ was paid to him and balance was to be given after the work. Lokesh also told them that he would have to give some money inside the authority. In his cross examination, he claimed that he could sign in Hindi. His statement had been recorded after about 9 months by the CBI. He was unable to recall the date of his visit. Lokesh CC No. 80/06 CBI Vs. Lokesh Kumar pg. no. 17 of 29 18 was simply sitting on a tea shop at the time of his visit. He had not asked the accused as to how much money was to be given inside the authority and to whom. He denied the suggestion that he had not accompanied Shamshuddin to the transport authority alongwith documents of the scooter. PW Shamshuddin in his testimony claimed that he knew Mohd. Ahsan. Ahsan had purchased scooter no. DDZ 8649 from Sagir. He took all the papers pertaining to the scooter and went to transport authority for getting the vehicle transferred in the name of Ahsan. Accused met him and enquired the purpose of the visit. Accused asked him to hand over the documents to him and also pay Rs. 800/ for getting the vehicle transferred. The amount was reduced to Rs. 600/. He told the accused that he would come next day after obtaining signatures of his friend. Accused suggested that he should sign posing as Mohd. Ahsan on the forms. At instance of the accused, he signed in the name of Mohd. Ahsan and also paid him Rs. 100/ as advance. Ex. PW3/A1 to PW3/A8 were the documents which had been handed over to the accused. Ex. PW3/A3 and PW3/A4 were signed by him posing as Mohd. Ahsan. In his cross examination he claimed that he did not remember the date on which he had gone to transport authority. He had gone alongwith Ahsan. The forms which he was filling up were torn off by the accused. They had remained at the authority for about half an hour and had not made CC No. 80/06 CBI Vs. Lokesh Kumar pg. no. 18 of 29 19 any complaint about acts of the accused. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely under pressure of CBI.
27. The last witness to be examined by CBI was Inspector Virender Thakran. He deposed that on the basis of complaint Ex.PW15/A, FIR Ex.PW15/B was registered. A surprise check had been made on 08.06.99 by Sh. M.S. Singhal outside transport authority Sarai Kale Khan. Lokesh Kumar and other persons were apprehended. He arrested Lokesh and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW8/B. He collected documents from M.S. Singhal, seized delivery receipt vide seizure memo Ex.PW24/A. The receipt was Ex.PW24/B. He also collected documents from National Insurance Co. vide letter Ex.PW11/B. He collected information that policy No. 351700/6104774 had not been issued by the insurance company for vehicle No. DL 6CB 6392. He seized registration file of said vehicle and also of vehicle No. DDZ 8649. He also seized copies of pollution control certificates of vehicles from G.R. Motors. On 30.03.2001 Lokesh Kumar gave his specimen writings and signatures on twenty sheet. They were Ex.PW24/D. On 12.09.2001 he again gave his handwriting and signatures on sixteen sheets which were Ex.PW24/E. He had collected driving license Ex.PW15/D of Manoj Kumar Srivastava and CC No. 80/06 CBI Vs. Lokesh Kumar pg. no. 19 of 29 20 host of other documents. He obtained opinion of expert Ex.PW14/C. It was revealed that pollution control certificate of vehicle No. DL 6C 2925, DL 6CB 6392 and insurance of vehicle No. DL 6CB 6392 were forged. They had been seized from Lokesh Kumar by M.S. Singhal. After completing investigation, he filed the charge sheet. Upon being crossexamined, he claimed that he could not tell as to when copy of FIR was sent to Special Judge CBI. He was not member of any of the surprise check teams. Then he volunteered that he joined the team, but was called back midway. Articles 1 to 10 mentioned in surprise check memo Ex.PW8/A were recovered from accused Lokesh Kumar. They were given to him along with the memo. He had not prepared any seizure memo on his own. He admitted as correct that in the check memo Ex.PW8/A, it was not mentioned that pollution certificates in respect of vehicle No. DL 6C 2925 and DL 6CH 9392 were recovered from Lokesh Kumar. He also admitted that it was not mentioned in the check memo that insurance certificate of vehicle No. DL 6CH 9393 was recovered from Lokesh Kumar. He admitted that Ex.PW11/A which was insurance certificate contained genuine signatures of Roy Chaudhary who had admitted his signatures. He also admitted that Mark PW13/A was photocopy of pollution certificate of vehicle No. DL 6CB 6392. Lastly, he admitted that outside public dealing government buildings, CC No. 80/06 CBI Vs. Lokesh Kumar pg. no. 20 of 29 21 there are writers who assist public at large in filling up the forms and they charge their fees. He also admitted that he recorded statement of M.S. Singhal on 22.11.2002. He claimed that he might have been busy in some other case till then. He also admitted that he did not get evidence that accused had paid money to any Transport Officer.
28. After closing of PE, statement of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. recorded wherein he denied the case of prosecution and claimed to be innocent. He claimed that he was a matriculate and could not get any job. He had seen people sitting outside public offices and doing writing work. He used to do writing job outside Sarai Kale Khan Transport Authority. He used to fill up forms and charge nominal amount. He was picked up by CBI on suspicion. He used to maintain a diary to keep record of persons who had given him their documents.
29. He did not lead any evidence in defence.
30. I have heard Sh. Praneet Sharma, Ld. Sr. PP for CBI and Sh. N.K. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for accused at length. I have also gone through the file.
CC No. 80/06 CBI Vs. Lokesh Kumar pg. no. 21 of 29 22
31. The first charge framed against the accused is Under Section 8 of the PC Act for accepting Rs. 100/ from Mohd. Ahsaan for inducing by corrupt or illegal means the officials of transport authority for transferring scooter no. DDZ 8649 in the name of Mohd. Ahsan. The second charge against the accused was Under Section 474 IPC for being in possession of forged pollution certificate for vehicle DL 6C 2925 and DL 6CB 6392 and forged insurance of vehicle no. DL 6CB 6392. The third charge was Under Section 468 r/w 471 IPC for fraudulently using forged documents as genuine and the last charge was U/s 420 IPC for cheating Mohd. Ahsan of Rs. 100/.
32. According to testimony of complainant M.S. Singhal, he alongwith CBI team had gone to transport authority and observed the activities going on. They tried to rope in public witnesses but did not succeed and so arranged witnesses from FCI namely A.S. Mann and R.N. Seth. M.S. Singhal lodged a complaint Ex. PW15/A on basis of which FIR was registered. It is mentioned in the complaint that they found doctors operating from the authority. They were charging money from the touts and were also attesting affidavits. They were apprehended alongwith touts namely Lokesh Kumar and Sunil Kumar. Upon interrogation they disclosed that part of the CC No. 80/06 CBI Vs. Lokesh Kumar pg. no. 22 of 29 23 money were passed on to authority officials. Nexus was revealed between touts and authority officials.
33. Regarding accused present before us, complaint is silent that accused was inducing anybody or had received any money or had promised to get the job done. The complaint also indicates that no independent witnesses were available at the spot and so two independent witnesses were called from FCI. However, PW15 complainant in his cross examination admitted that the CBI team alongwith four public witnesses had started from the CBI office at about 9.45/10.00 am. If we take a look at testimony of public witnesses Sh. A.S. Mann and Sh. R.N. Seth, we find that they had attended CBI office in the morning at instance of their senior officers. So it indicates that the complaint Ex. PW15/A carried some incorrect and false averments regarding availability of public witness.
34. Ld. Counsel also assailed delay in recording in statement of the witnesses by the CBI officials. Raid had been conducted on 8.6.99. Statement of complainant M.S. Singhal was recorded on 22.11.2002. No explanation for such a long delay was offered. Even IO PW24 Virender Thakran had no logical explanation to give. He claimed that he might have been busy in other job. This is strange and not acceptable. Hon'ble Supreme CC No. 80/06 CBI Vs. Lokesh Kumar pg. no. 23 of 29 24 Court in Jaipal Vs. State of U.P. : 2003 SCC 1737 held that delay of 50 days in recording of statement could not be accepted on its face value. There the explanation offered was that witness was not available for recording of his statement. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Shishpal Vs. State: 2012 (2) JCC 1248 where delay was of 2 ½ years held that it was fatal to the case of prosecution. Coming back to case in hand, the delay in recording of statement is almost of more than three years and so it should be seen with suspicion.
35. Complainant PW15 for the first time in his cross examination claimed that he had seen Lokesh Kumar inducing a customer. Had there been any truth in this averment, it should have found mention in complaint Ex. PW15/A. Moreover he was unable to provide any detail or description of the customer so induced.
36. Now let us examine the evidence led by the CBI in support of the said four charges.
37. The first charge was U/s 8 of P.C. Act, that was for accepting Rs.
CC No. 80/06 CBI Vs. Lokesh Kumar pg. no. 24 of 29 25 100/ for inducing officials of the transport authority. CBI had examined Mohd. Ahsan and Shamshuddin in support of this charge. Mohd. Ahsan claimed that Lokesh met him at the tea shop and said that they will have to pay money of which some money will be paid inside. PW3 Shamshuddin does not make any such claim. I have serious doubts regarding presence of PW2 & PW3 in the transport authority at the same time. According to Mohd. Ahsan he had gone to transport authority alongwith Shamshuddin. They had met Lokesh and Lokesh had demanded Rs. 100/ from him which he paid. The beginning portion of testimony of Shamshuddin indicates that he had gone there alone. I would like to quote from his testimony as follows:
"In the end of May or June 1999, I took all the papers of the said scooter for getting the scooter transferred in the name of Mohd. Ahsan and went to transport authority Sarai Kale Khan. I went to the window in the office at Sarai Kale Khan and obtained form for transfer of vehicle. I sat on the bench and was filling the transfer form. At the same time, Lokesh Kumar who is present in the Court today as accused came there and enquired as to why I was sitting there".
38. Further down in the testimony Shamshuddin claimed that accused demanded Rs. 800/ and after bargaining agreed to accept Rs. 600/. He also CC No. 80/06 CBI Vs. Lokesh Kumar pg. no. 25 of 29 26 told the accused that he would come next day after obtaining signatures of his friend ( Mohd. Ahsan). If both of them had gone to the authority together, then there was no occasion for Shamshuddin to say that he would come next day after obtaining signatures of Ahsan. Moreover there was no occasion for accused to tell Shamshuddin to sign posing as Ahsan on the documents. If version of CBI is to be believed, then Ahsan was already present alongwith Shamshuddin and he could have put his signatures right then and there. Moreover, Mohd. Ahsan in his testimony claimed that accused took money from him and Shamshuddin had made a similar claim. I have serious doubts regarding presence of both of them at the same time in the transport authority. Moreover PW Mohd. Ahsan in his cross examination admitted that he had not asked the accused as to how much money he was to give inside the authority and to which public servant. He claimed that he had paid Rs. 100/ to Lokesh Kumar. PW Shamshuddin too had claimed that he had paid Rs. 100/ to Lokesh Kumar. He made no claim of accused telling him that he would have to pay money to a public servant inside the authority. The first doubt which is created is as to who had made the payment of Rs. 100/ to the accused. Whether it was paid by Ahsan or by Shamshuddin? Section 8 of P.C. Act is regarding taking gratification to influence public servant. No claim to this effect was made by Ahsan or by CC No. 80/06 CBI Vs. Lokesh Kumar pg. no. 26 of 29 27 Shamshuddin. So this charge does not stand against the accused.
39. The second charge against the accused is that he was found in possession of forged pollution certificate of vehicle no. DL 6C 2925 and DL 6CB 6392 and forged insurance of vehicle no. DL 6CB 6392. CBI had examined PW K.N. Bhatt. He deposed that he was work Manager in G.R. Motors and was authorized signatory for issuing pollution control checks certificate. Mark PW7/A was forged pollution certificate of vehicle no. DL 6C 2925. CBI had also examined K.L. Nanda Manager of R.N. Soin & Sons Petrol Pump. He deposed that Mark PW13/A was pollution control certificate which contained name of their petrol pump but was not issued by the. It was for vehicle no. DL 6CB 6392.
40. The said two documents are not originals, but photocopies. Hon'ble Apex Court in V. Sujatha Vs. State of Kerala : 1994 SCC 436 held that no case of forgery could be built up on photostate copies. Our own Hon'ble Delhi High Court in M .K. Rajdhan Vs. State, an unreported judgment delivered on 03.03.2008 held that when neither original nor its certified copy had been placed before the Court, how could a finding be given that petitioner had committed forgery. In a very recent decision dt.
CC No. 80/06 CBI Vs. Lokesh Kumar pg. no. 27 of 29 28 11.12.2012, Hon'ble Apex Court in U. Sree Vs. U. Sriniwas : 2012 XII AD SC 538 went through large number of previously decided cases and held that secondary evidence relating to contents of a document is inadmissible until non production of the original is accounted for.
41. Now coming back to case in hand, the alleged forged certificates were only photocopies. No explanation of the original has been provided. So no case for possessing forged pollution certificates of the two vehicles is made out.
42. Accused was also alleged to be in possession of forged insurance of vehicle no. DL 6CB 6392. PW11 J.R. Kohli had deposed about it. He claimed that it was not issued by their division but it contained original signatures of Mr. Roy Chaudhary. If the document bears original signatures and how it can be termed as a forged document. It may not have been issued by that particular division, but so long as admission of genuine signatures is there, it cannot be treated as forged. I therefore hold that the second charge against the accused can also not stand.
CC No. 80/06 CBI Vs. Lokesh Kumar pg. no. 28 of 29 29
43. The third charge against the accused is of having used forged documents as genuine. There is absolutely no evidence of user of the forged documents led by CBI. IO PW24 Virender Thakran in his cross examination dt. 30.8.2012, deposed about registration certificate and receipt of vehicle no. DDZ 8649. They were recovered from the accused during surprise check. Its file was also seized from the transport department. But there was no charge framed against the accused for having used documents pertaining to this vehicle as genuine.
44. The last charge against the accused was of cheating Mohd. Ahsan. If averment of CBI are accepted at their face value, that accused had taken money from Mohd. Ahsan for getting the vehicle transferred then where is the element of cheating? It is not even case of the witnesses that they were cheated by the accused.
45. To sum up, I hold that prosecution has not been able to make out its case against the accused. Accused Lokesh Kumar stands acquitted of the offences charged. His surety bond stands discharged.
Announced in open Court
on January 07, 2013 ( PRADEEP CHADDAH )
CC No. 80/06 CBI Vs. Lokesh Kumar pg. no. 29 of 29
30
Special Judge:CBI01
Central District. Delhi
CC No. 80/06 CBI Vs. Lokesh Kumar pg. no. 30 of 29