Delhi District Court
State vs . Ramotar @ Ramu And Others on 25 March, 2009
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRITAM SINGH
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE/ NEW DELHI.
State Vs. Ramotar @ Ramu and others
FIR No: 101/91
U/s: U/s 419/420/468/471/34 IPC
P.S. : CHANKAYA PURI
JUDGEMENT
1. Sl. No. of the case :415/2
2. Date of commission of offence :In the month of April, 1990and May and June, 1991
3. Name of the complainant : Sh. R.B. Sharma
4. Name of accused :(1) Ramotar @ Ramu S/o Sh.
Kharak Singh R/o Village Charoli, PS Jewar, District Bulandsahar, UP.
(2) Ghanender Pal Singh S/o Sh.
Hukam Singh R/o Village and PO Khandeha, PS Tappal, District Aligarh, UP (3) Anil Kumar Mishra S/o Sh.
Mohan Lal R/o Ganga Ghat, PS Ganga Ghat, District Unnao, UP (4) Hari Raj Singh S/o Sh.
Chander Pal Singh R/o Village Mathna, PO Budhana, District Bulandsahar, UP
5. Offence complained off: :U/s 419/420/468/471/34 IPC
6. Plea of the accused :pleaded not guilty
7. Final Arguments heard on :13.03.2009 2
8. Final Order :Acquitted
9. Date of such order :25.03.2009 BRIEF REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION OF THE CASE:-
1. The brief facts of the case are that a complaint dated 04.05.1991 was made by Sh. R.B. Sharma, Wing Commander, Asst. Provost Marshel. It is stated in the complaint "It has been reliably learnt that some persons other than the original candidates have been appearing for Selection Test in consideration of Rs. 500/- each during Air Force recruitment examinations which is held for Airman's post at Airmen Selection Centre, Race Course, New Delhi-3. The problem, therefore, was discussed with the selection authorities and Cpl 629761-
L Cpl Raghavan of this Unit was decided to be used as a decoy for the recruitment of 04 May 91 after making a fake Admit Card for him. At about 1700 Hrs on 03 May 91 the decoy along with two other policemen in plain clothes were sent outside Race Course Gate for conducting the transaction as planned. Cpl Raghavan was handed over fake Admit Card and five currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination bearing numbers 8PB767856, 9LW879112, 1SR266954, 6UB701578, 3TA392129 duly signed by me.
As per the version given by Cpl. Raghavan and others, the decoy while moving around among the people outside the gate as a desparate candidate came across one gentleman who gave his name as Ramotar Singh alias Ramu, S/o Shri Karak Singh, R/o Vill+Post: Chauroli, Police Station : Jewar, Bulandsahar, U.P. He assured his recruitment on a consideration of Rs. 20,000/- but he wanted to pay him Rs. 500/- immediately so that he could arrange a person to appear in the test on his behalf and asked him to handover his Admit Card. He also demanded that he had to pay Rs. 10,000/- i.e. half of the agreed amount on 04 May 91 and remaining balance before the Medical Examination. He also cautioned him that if the amount was not paid as informed he would get him rejected.
Cpl. Raghavan handed over the fake Admit Card and the signed 3 currency notes to Mr. Ramu. Seeing this the other policemen approached and caught Ramu and brought him to Air Force Police Unit and informed of the incident telephonically at my residence. I immediately detailed an investigation team to interrogate Mr. Ramu, with the intention to establish his credentials and contacts at the Air Force Selection Unit and rule out the other ulterior possibilities like spying and subversion etc. During investigation it was revealed that Shri Ramotar Singh is an Ex -Air Force personnel and has gone on discharge in Jan
89. He also revealed that he has been using Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra, S/o Pandit Mohan Lal Mishra of Shukla Ganj, Unnao, Uttar Pradesh to appear in the tests for other candidates by replacing their photographs at the Admit Card and used to pay him Rs. 500/- per candidate. Further, he said that in absence of Mishra he appeared himself in case of Mr. Hari Raj, S/o Shri Chanderpal Singh, Vill:Mathana, PO:Budhana, Bulandsahar on 29 Apr 91.
Mr. Ramu informed that he was to meet Mr. Mishra and two candidates near Safdarjung Tomb at about 2200 Hrs on the same day. A team comprising of Sgt Kumar, Cpl M Singh, Chelvan and Raghavan was, therefore, sent to the stated point along with Ramu. On pointing out by him Mr. Mishra and two candidates namely Mr. Ghanendra Pal Singh and Sonpal were caught, brought to police Unit and interrogated. Mr. Mishra confirmed that he had appeared for the test for three candidates namely, Shri Ashok Kumar, Sh. Shambir and Shri Ghanendrapal Singh. The candidate Shri Ghanendrapal Singh, S/o Shri Hukam Singh, Vill+Post: Khandeha, Aligarh informed that he had paid Rs. 22,500/- to Mr. Ramu for his recruitment but he did not appear in the test. Mr. Sonpal, S/o Shri Gangashahy, Vill+Post: Khandeha also confirmed having paid Mr. Ramu Rs. 15,000/- which was to take place on 17 May 91.
The interrogation of aforesaid persons has revealed that none of these people had any motive like espionage, spying or subversion which could be injurious to the Security of Air Force in particular and Defence Services in general. Mr. Ramu and Mr. Mishra are involved only in recruiting racket for the lure of money. All the four persons after Medical Examinations are being handed over to you for necessary action at your end. The documents related to the case can be obtained from the Airmen Selection Centre, Race Course, New Delhi-3.
42. On this complaint, a case U/s 419/420/468/471/34 IPC was registered at PS Tuglak Road. After investigation of the case, a challan was filed against the accused Ramotar @ Ramu, Ghanendra, Anil Kumar Mishra and Hari Raj Singh.
3. After compliance of the Provision of Section 207 Cr. PC, the charges were framed U/s 419/420/467/468/471/34 IPC against the accused Ramotar Ramu. Charges were framed for the offence U/s 420/467/468/34 against the accused Ghanendra and Hari Raj. The charges were framed for the offences U/s 419/420/467/468/471/34 IPC against the accused Anil Kumar Mishra.
4. The Prosecution in order to prove its case has examined 14 witnesses. R.K. Bali, Chief Admn. Officer, Air Force Station was examined as PW 1, Kamlesh Kumar Sarjent, Raiding Party witness was examined as PW 2, Sonpal, public witness was examined as PW 3, Dr. S. C. Mittal, Handwriting Expert was examined as PW 4 and the question English signatures marked Q15 to Q 17 S.I, Kishan Pal Singh was examined as PW 5, HC Om Prakash was examined as PW 6, Retired SI Nanak Chand was examined as PW 7, Insp. Jagat Singh was examined as PW 8, Inspector Veer Bala was examined as PW 9, P.K. Mukherjee, Retired Sqr. Leader was examined as PW 10, Attar Singh was examined as PW 11, Inspector Inder Singh, Crime Branch, IO of this case was examined as PW 12, Mahavir Singh, another raiding witness was examined as PW 13, Group Capt. R.B. Sharma (Retired) who was the complainant in the present case was examined as PW 14.
5. Documents were exhibited as follows:
(i) The complaint is Ex. PW 14/A.
(ii) FIR is Ex. PW 9/A.
(iii) Seizure memo of I-Card in the name of Raghvan and five notes in
denomination of Rs. 100/- is Ex. PW 12/E.
5
(iv) I-Card of Raghvan is Ex. P 3.
(v) Jamatalashi of accused Ramotar, Anil Kumar Mishra, Ganender Pal
and Ravi Raj is Ex. PW 12/A to Ex. PW 12/C respectively.
(vi) Disclosure statement of accused Anil Kumar Mishra, Ganender Pal are Ex. PW 5/A and Ex. PW 5/B respectively.
(vii) Hand writing expert report Ex. PW 4/L. (viii) Answer Sheet in the name of Hari Raj Singh are Ex. PW 4/E, Ex. PW 4/ F & Ex. PW 4/G. (ix) I-Card in the name of Ganender Pal Ex. PW 4/A.
6. Thereafter, the statement of the accused U/s 313 Cr. PC was recorded wherein all the accused denied the prosecution story. Sh. Parmod Gupta, Allahabad Bank was examined as DW 1 in defence evidence of accused Ramotar.
7. Final arguments heard from the Ld. APP for State and from the Ld. Counsel for all accused. Record perused and considered.
8. PW 2 deposed that on 01.05.1991 he was on office duty and he was informed by his Commanding Officer, R.B. Singh, that some irregularities is going on in Air Man Selection and in suspicious manner public were watching around. PW 2 further deposed that on his instruction a team was constituted having four persons namely CPL. Ragvan, CPL M Singh, CPL Chelven and himself. They were sent outside the main gate in plain clothes. PW 2 further deposed that Ragvan was issued with the fake I-Card and Rs. 500 signed by the Commanding Officer. PW 2 further deposed that Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra was caught and brought to the Air Force Unit. On interrogation he told the name of Ramotar as team leader and main operator of the Recruitment Racket Gang. Ramotar along with others was caught at the instance of Mishra at Safdarjung Tomb. They were interrogated and later on handed over to PS Tuglak Road.
69. PW 3 who was public witness as per prosecution case turn hostile and deposed that he did not know anything about this case and nothing happen in his presence. PW 3 was cross-examined by the Ld. APP for the State in which he denied that he had made any statement to the police.
10. The hand writing expert report Ex. PW 4/L. PW 4, hand writing expert deposed that he had examined all the documents carefully with various scientific instruments and arrived at the following opinion:
(i) The question English signature marked Q 15 to Q 17 on Ex. PW 4/A are not written by the person who wrote the specimen signature marked S 20 to S 22 attributed to Ganender Pal Singh which are Ex. PW 4/B1 to Ex. PW 4/B3.
(ii) Hand written evidence points to the writer of the specimen English signature marked S 28 to S 30 now Ex. PW 4/C1 to Ex. PW 4/C3 attributed to Anil Kumar Mishra being the person responsible for writing the question English signature marked Q 15 to Q 17 on Ex. PW 4/A.
(iii) Handwriting evidence points to the writer of the specimen English and Hindi writings marks S-1 to S 14 now Ex. PW 4/D1 to D 14 attributed to Hari Raj Singh being the person responsible for writing the question English writing marks Q 9 to Q 11, Ex. PW 4/E, Ex. PW 4/F and Ex. PW 4/G.
(iv) The question rubber seal impression mark Q 12 on Ex. PW 4/H and the specimen seal impression mark S-40 which is Ex. PW 4/J have been impressed/ affixed from the same rubber seal.
(v) The question rubber seal mark Q 22 on Ex. PW 4/A and the specimen rubber seal impression mark S-40 on Ex. PW 4/I are affixed from the same rubber seal.7
(vi) The question rubber seal mark Q 21 on Ex. PW 4/A and S 39 on Ex.
PW 4/J do not tally with each other.
(vii) The question rubber seal impression mark Q 20 on Ex. PW 4/A and the specimen rubber seal impression mark S 31 to S 38 on Ex. PW 4/K1 to K 08 do not tally with each other.
(viii) The detailed reasons for the above mentioned opinions are given in my report which is Ex. PW 4/L which runs into six typed pages bearing my signatures at Point A on each page. The corrections bearing my initials also in my hand.
11. PW 7, Retired SI Nanak Chand witness of recovery of Rs. 50,000/- as per prosecution case. He deposed that he along with IO SI Inder Singh went to the house of accused Ramotar at Village Chorali. The accused pointed out his house, and recovery of Rs. 50,000/- ( 450 Notes of 100 denomination and 100 Notes of 50 denomination) and IO seased the same vide sezure memo PW 7/A which bears his signature at point A. Rs. 50,000/- in loose and in sealed condition produced and PW 7 identify the same as recovery from the accused. PW 7 further deposed that he along with IO and two Constables went to the Village of the accused. No public witness was joined with them at that time. PW 7 further deposed that IO contacted public persons of the village but he did not know their names.
12. PW 11 Atar Singh deposed many year ago, police from Delhi came to his village and carried out the search of the house of Ramotar but nothing was recovered from his house in his presence.
13. PW 12 who is the IO of the case deposed on 04.05.1991 Duty Officer produced four persons, three of them were accused namely Ramotar, Gajender and Anil Kumar Mishra along with the complaint and FIR. During investigation he arrested the three accused vide their personal search memo Ex. PW 12/A, Ex. PW 12/B and Ex. PW 12/C and recorded their declared statement. PW 12 8 further deposed that accused Ramotar caught and recovered Cash Rs.50,000/- from his house at Village Chorali District Bulandshar Uttar Pradesh (U.P.). PW 12 further deposed that during the personal search of accused on 04.05.1991 Rs. 500 consisting of 5 Notes of Rs. 100 initially by R.B. Sharma, Wing Commander and one I-Card bearing the photo of Mr. Ragav was recovered which was seized after sealing in an envelope with the seal of IS vide seziure memo Ex. PW 12/E.
14. PW 13 Mahavir Singh deposed that on 03.05.1991 when he along with Raghvan, Chelvan reached outside the Wing they saw one person contacted Mr. Raghvan and Raghvan gave him I-Card and Rs. 500/- . PW 13 further deposed after completion of dealing with Raghvan he gave signal to them and they rushed to the spot and apprehended the accused Ramotar. He was brought to the Wing and inquiry was made from him and he declared that some accomplishment were to come at night at Safdarjung Makbra for further dealing. PW 13 further deposed that at about 10.00 P.M the accused lead them to Safdarjung Makbra. PW 13 was accompanied Sarjent Kamlesh Kumar, Raghvan and Chelvan. The accused pointed out towards three persons namely Anil Kumar, Sohan Pal and Gajender Pal. PW 13 further deposed that all the accused present were brought to the Air Force Unit and the police was informed later on. Rs 500/- and one fake I-Card was recovered from the possession of Ramotar by the police.
15. Now, it has to be seen whether the prosecution succeed in proving charges against the accused persons with the help of above mentioned deposition of witnesses and documents exhibited by them. First of all, I am taking Section 419 of IPC.
Section 419 of IPC provides : Punishment for cheating by personation- Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or 9 with fine, or with both.
The ingredient of Section 419 IPC is that a person cheats by impersonation.
16. The allegations against the accused Ramotar and Anil Kumar Mishra are that they appeared in the written test for the selection of Air Man in place of real/genuine candidates. But the prosecution failed to bring evidence except the disclosure statement of said accused that they appear in the written test in place of real/genuine candidates. It is well settled law disclosure statement of an accused person made to the police is inadmissible in evidence. None of the prosecution witnesses deposed that accused Ramotar and Anil Kumar Mishra appeared in examination of Air Man Selection in place of genuine candidate. It is also important to mention here that accused Ramotar and Anil Kumar Mishra were not arrested from the Examination Hall. Neither any Admit Card of genuine candidate was recovered from their possession. The report of handwriting expert did not support the prosecution story that accused Ramotar has appeared in place of accused Hari Raj and accused Anil Kumar Mishra appeared in examination in place of genuine candidates Shyamveer and Ashok. Therefore, I am of the view that prosecution failed to prove charges U/s 419 of IPC against the accused Ramotar and Anil Kumar Mishra.
Section 420 provides: Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induce the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Ingredients of Section 420 of IPC - the ingredients of an offence of cheating are : (i) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him, (ii) (a) the person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property; or (b) the person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or 10 omit to do any thing which he would not do or omit if he were so deceived; and
(iii) in cases covered by (ii)(b), the Act of omission should be one which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property.
17. Before convicting an accused for offence U/s 420 of IPC, its ingredients should be fulfilled. The allegations against all the accused persons as stated above are that accused Ramotar run Recruitment Racket Gang and he engaged Anil Kumar Mishra to appear in place of real/genuine candidates in the written examination and paid him Rs. 500/-. The allegations against accused Anil Kumar Mishra are that he appeared in the written examination in place of real/genuine candidates in connivance with co-accused Ramotar. The allegations against accused Ganender and Hari Raj are that they are the candidates who have agreed that fake candidates will appear in their place in the examination for selection of Air Man. The prosecution failed to bring any incriminating evidence against all the accused persons regarding offence U/s 420 of IPC. There is no evidence to prove to whom the accused person have induced dishonestly to deceive.
Section 467 of IPC provides: Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.- Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make for transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principle, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receive for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with {imprisonment for life}, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be fine.
Section 468 of IPC provides:Forgery for purpose of cheating.- Whoever commits forgery, intending that the (document or electronic record 11 forged) shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description, a term which may extend to 7 years, and shall also be liable to fine.
To convict a person U/s 467 or U/s 468 or U/s 471 of IPC, it is necessary that the prosecution must have to prove forgery. Section 463 of IPC defines forgery.
Section 463 of IPC provides:Forgery.-(Whoever makes any false document or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury), to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause and person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.
The ingredients of Section 463 of IPC are making of forged documents. The question arises what forged document was made or prepared by the accused persons? No fake I-Card was recovered from any of the accused persons. The original documents which were recovered from the Air Force Authority were not found to be forged, nor bearing the signature of any accused falsely. As discussed above no accused can be convicted on the basis of disclosure statement made to the police. As the prosecution failed to establish forgery on the part of any of the accused, the question of conviction for forgery of valuable security or any other available document or forgery for the purpose of cheating does not arises. Similarly, when no forged document was recovered from the possession of accused person and no evidence that they used any forged document as genuine, they cannot be convicted for offence U/s 471 IPC.
18. So far the question of recovery of Rs. 50,000/- from the house of accused Ramotar is concerned, this money could not be related to the money which accused Ramotar received from the candidates in whose place he appeared in the examination as alleged by the prosecution. None of the witnesses deposed that Rs. 50,000/- which were recovered from the house of the accused given to the accused Ramotar in their presence by any of the candidate who applied for selection for Air Man Services. Except the disclosure statement of the accused Ramotar, there is no other evidence that Rs. 50,000/- was related 12 with the case in question. On the other hand, DW 1 Sh. Parmod Gupta from Allahabad Bank branch Noida, Uttar Pradesh deposed that Sh. Kharag Singh, father of accused Ramotar had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 95,000/- on 04.05.1991 from his account. The certificate of that record in this regard is Ex. DW 1/A. I am of the considered view that prosecution failed to connect the recovery of Rs. 50,000/- from the house of accused Ramotar to the present case.
19. In view of the above discussions, I am of the considered view that Prosecution miserably failed to prove the charges against all the accused persons. All the accused persons namely Ramotar @ Ramu, Ghanender Pal Singh, Anil Kumar Mishra and Hari Raj Singh are acquitted. Bonds are discharged.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court PRITAM SINGH
Metropolitan Magistrate Delhi
25.03.2009