Delhi District Court
State vs . Anil Kumar on 4 January, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJINDER SINGH: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE04 (SOUTHEAST), SAKET COURTS:NEW DELHI
State Vs. Anil Kumar
FIR No. 67/2001
U/s 408/420/467/468/471 IPC
P.S. Kotla Mubarak Pur
J U D G M E N T
Serial No. of the Case : 679/2
Unique Identification No. : 02406R0066882001
Date of Institution : 01.12.2001
Date on which case reserved for
judgment : 14.12.2013
Date of judgment : 04.01.2014 (Since Courts were
closed for Winter Break from
22.12.2013 to 01.01.2014.)
Name of the complainant : Ms. Sadhvi Suri
r/o D4S, South Extension, PartII,
New Delhi110049.
Date of the commission of offence: 22.02.2001
FIR No. 67/2001
P.S. Kotla Mubarak Pur Page No.1 of 14
Name of accused : Anil Kumar
s/o Shri Sabit Ram
r/o VillageChhadan, P.S. Sujan Ganj
DistrictJaun Pur, Uttar Pradesh
Offence complained of : U/s 408/420/467/468/471 IPC
Offence charged of : U/s 420/467/468/471 IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Final order : Convicted for the offence
punishable U/s 467 IPC.
Acquitted for the offences punishable
U/s 420/468/471 IPC.
Date of Institution : 01.12.2001
Date on which case reserved for
judgment : 14.12.2013
Date of judgment : 04.01.2014 (Since Courts were
closed for Winter Break from
22.12.2013 to 01.01.2014.)
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR
THE DECISION OF THE CASE
BRIEF FACTS:
As per the prosecution case, on 22.02.2001 at Canara Bank, South FIR No. 67/2001 P.S. Kotla Mubarak Pur Page No.2 of 14 Extension Part1 Branch, within the jurisdiction of P.S. Kotla Mubarak Pur, the accused presented for encashment cheque No.022203 drawn on Canara Bank in the sum of Rs.1,20,000/. The said cheque was bearing forged signatures of the complainant Ms. Sadhvi Suri. Through the said forged cheque, the accused withdrew a sum of Rs.1,20,000/ from account No.12318 which was maintained in the name of Royal Impex, of which the complainant Ms. Sadhvi Suri was the proprietor.
The other accused Tilakdhari s/o Sh. Ramhit was not sent for trial. One Shiv Shankar wanted in the present case could not be traced out.
2. The report U/s 173 Cr. PC was filed on 01.12.2001. Cognizance of the offences was taken. Compliance of Section 207 Cr. PC was done.
3. Charge for the offences punishable U/s 420/467/468/471 IPC against the accused Anil Kumar only was framed on 22.05.2002. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE :
4. The prosecution to prove its case examined twelve (12) PWs in all.
PW1 SI Banwari Lal stated, on 27.02.2001 I was posted at P.S. Kotla Mubarak Pur. On that day, the complaint of this case was marked to me. On FIR No. 67/2001 P.S. Kotla Mubarak Pur Page No.3 of 14 01.03.2001 I made my endorsement Ex.PW1/A and got the present case registered. The SHO concerned marked the investigation of this case to some other official.
PW2 Constable Davinder Singh stated, on 04.10.2001 SI Ram Niwas, in my presence obtained the specimen handwriting of the accused (correctly identified). The sheets containing the specimen handwriting of the accused are Ex.PW2/A1 to Ex.PW2/A8.
PW3 Shri P. T. Narsimhan produced the attested copy of account opening form of M/s Royal Impex, 1514, Hemkund Chamber, New Delhi, the same is Ex.PW3/A. The attested computer generated statement of account of account No. No.GECA12318 pertaining to M/s Royal Impex for the period 01.01.2001 to 28.02.2001, the same is Ex.PW3/B. PW4 Shri Pritam Singh stated, accused (correctly identified) was employed by my son at Multi Dimensional Oxford and Research Organization. The accused tore of three cheques from his employer's cheque book, forged his signatures and withdrew Rs.3,00,000/. In this regard, complaint was lodged at P.S. Prashant Vihar. I do not know about the present case.
PW5 Ms. Sadhvi Suri (the complainant) stated, in the year 2001 I was running a business concern under the name and style of Royal Impex Company having account at Canara Bank, South Extension Part1. Accused (correctly identified) was working with me as an accountant. In the year 2001, date I do not remember I sent the accused for getting a cheque book. The accused along with other FIR No. 67/2001 P.S. Kotla Mubarak Pur Page No.4 of 14 accomplices forged my signature on the cheque and withdrew Rs.1,20,000/. On the same day, the accused informed me that he lost his bus pass and was caught by the police. Thereafter he did not report back on duty. Upon checking of the office record, his biodate was found missing. On the next day, I made the complaint Ex.PW5/A. During investigation, police obtained my specimen signature Ex.PW5/B. I also wrote a letter Ex.PW5/C to the police. The cheque Ex.P1 does not bear my signature.
During crossexamination by Learned Defence Counsel, PW5 stated, it is true that the biodate of the accused is not on the judicial file. I do not remember the exact date, however, accused joined my firm in November/December 2001. I do not remember if I gave any separate covering letter with the cheque book requisition slip. I do not remember whether I told the Manager of the Bank, about the nonreceiving of the cheque book. I do not remember who told me that two other persons were also involved with the accused. I do not remember whether I told the police that the biodate of the accused was missing from my office files. The stationary and the files in my office in the cupboard were not under lock and key. It is wrong to suggest that I withdrew the amount from the bank and falsely implicated the accused. I do not remember whether I mentioned the loss of Rs.1,20,000/ in my relevant ITR.
PW6 SI Sultan Singh arrested the accused in FIR No. 466/01 P.S. Prashant Vihar. (It is observed that the statement of PW6 is not signed by the then Learned Presiding Officer) FIR No. 67/2001 P.S. Kotla Mubarak Pur Page No.5 of 14 PW7 HC Ram Singh joined investigation in FIR No. 466/01 P.S. Prashant Vihar along with PW6 SI Sultan Singh. (It is observed that the statement of PW7 is not signed by the then Learned Presiding Officer) PW8 SI Rajbir Singh stated, on 05.10.2001 I was posted as SI at P. S. Kotla Mubarak Pur. On that day investigation of this case was handed over to me for further investigation. Accused Anil (correctly identified) was handed over to me by SI Ram Niwas. I searched for the coaccused Shiv Shankar but he could not be traced. I apprehended the accused Tilakdhari from Narela. I got the specimen signatures of accused Tilakdhari & complainant Sadhvi Suri. The specimen signatures of Tilakdhari are Ex.PW8/A to Ex.PW8/L. The specimen signature of complainant is already Ex.PW8/B. I sent the specimen signatures of accused Tilakdhari to FSL for export opinion. I recorded the statements of witnesses and prepared the challan.
During crossexamination by Learned Defence Counsel, PW8 stated, I obtained the specimen signature of accused Anil on 05.10.2001.
PW9 Constable Manoj Kumar Ray (UP Police) stated, on 12.09.2001 I was posted at P.S. Sujanganj, DistrictJaunpur. On that day I joined investigation with Ct. Manoj Kumar Yadav and 3 officers from Delhi Police. Thereafter we went to the house of the accused at VillageChhedan P.S. Sujangarh. There the IO arrested the accused (correctly identified) and one FDR for a sum of Rs.1,25,000/ was recovered from his possession. We went to the Bank at Machhli FIR No. 67/2001 P.S. Kotla Mubarak Pur Page No.6 of 14 Sehar, District Jaunpur and the FDR was got encashed. Thereafter the accused and encashed amount of FDR were handed over to the officers of Delhi Police.
PW10 Ct. Komal Singh stated, on 05.10.2001 I was posted at P.S. Kotla Mubarakpur. On that day, I joined investigation of this case with SI Rajbir. We went to the house of accused Tilakdhari at Narela along with the accused. Thereafter we along with accused Tilakdhari returned to the spot. IO obtained specimen signatures of the accused, the same is already Ex.PW8/C to Ex.PW8/L. I can identify the accused, if shown to me.
Learned Counsel for the accused did not dispute the identity of the accused Anil.
PW11 SI Ram Niwas stated, on 12.03.2001 I was posted at P.S. Kotla Mubarak Pur. On that day, investigation of the present case was handed over to me. During investigation, I made efforts to arrest the accused Anil Kumar. Investigation revealed that accused Anil is also involved in another case of P.S. Prashant Vihar of similar nature and he has been arrested there. I went to the police station Prashant Vihar and this fact was confirmed by the IO. Thereafter, I got issued production warrant from the Court and the accused (correctly identified) was formally arrested in the present case vide memo Ex.PW11/A. I obtained the specimen signatures of accused Anil Kumar, specimen signature sheets are already Ex.PW2/A1 to PW2/A8. Thereafter I was transferred. Present case file was handed over to MHC(R) P.S. Kotla Mubarak Pur.
During crossexamination by Learned Defence Counsel, PW10 FIR No. 67/2001 P.S. Kotla Mubarak Pur Page No.7 of 14 stated, it is true that no money was recovered from the accused or at his instance in this case. I have not placed on record any document to show that the accused was the employee of the complainant. Vol. The accused removed all such documents from the office of the complainant. The employment document of the employees of the complainant were kept in a drawer in the cabin of the complainant. I did not get identified the accused from any employees of the bank, where the cheque was presented and the cash was withdrawn.
PW12 Dr. S. Ahmed (AGEQD, FSL Bhopal, M.P.) stated, on 15.03.2000 I was posted as Senior Scientific Officer (Documents) at FSL Delhi. On that day, I examined the questioned documents and standard documents of this case. In this regard, my detail report is Ex.PW12/A. Vide statement dated 05.06.2013 the accused admitted the genuineness of FIR Ex.PA/1.
Vide order dated 16.08.2013, PE was closed.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED :
5. On 27.08.2013 statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Accused denied all the allegations against him. Accused did not wish to lead defence evidence.
FIR No. 67/2001 P.S. Kotla Mubarak Pur Page No.8 of 14 DEFENCE EVIDENCE :
6. No defence evidence was led by the accused.
ARGUMENTS :
7. Arguments were advanced by Learned APP for the State and Learned Counsel for accused.
It was argued by Ld. APP for the State that as per the FSL report the signature on the cheque Ex.P1 is not of the complainant. The writing at Q1, Q4 & Q7 on the cheque Ex.P1 was opined to match with the specimens of the accused Anil. It is proved that the accused forged the cheque Ex.P1 and withdrew the amount of Rs.1,20,000/ from the account of the complainant.
It was argued by Learned Counsel for accused that the accused was never the employee of the complainant. The prosecution did not produce any document to show that the accused was ever employed with the complainant. There is no incriminating material against the accused in the FSL report. The complainant stated that the accused was employed by her in November/December 2001, whereas the alleged forgery took place in February 2001.
FIR No. 67/2001 P.S. Kotla Mubarak Pur Page No.9 of 14 REASONING :
8. In the present case, charge for the offence punishable U/s 420 IPC & Sections 467/468/471 IPC was framed against the accused.
In the complaint Ex.PW5/A, it is mentioned by the complainant that the accused was sent to Canara Bank South Extension Part1 for getting her cheque book issued in the name of M/s Royal Impex having current account 12318. It is further alleged that the accused forged the signature of the complainant and withdrew an amount of Rs.120,000/ from her account.
None of the witnesses from South Extension Part1 Branch of the bank concerned were examined to show that the accused Anil presented the cheque Ex.P1 for encashment and also collected the cash withdrawn thereof. Neither any documentary evidence has been produced to show that the accused visited the bank concerned on the relevant date, presented the cheque Ex.P1 for encashment and subsequently collected the withdrawn amount. In short, there is no evidence on record to show that the accused Anil fraudulently induced the bank officials or any other person and through that inducement took delivery of property.
9. Learned Counsel for the accused argued that there is no document on record for proving that the accused was ever employed with the complainant. It was also argued that in her crossexamination PW5 stated that the accused was employed FIR No. 67/2001 P.S. Kotla Mubarak Pur Page No.10 of 14 by her in the month of November/December 2001, whereas the incident pertains to the month of February, 2001.
I have perused the complaint Ex.PW5/A. Therein it is mentioned that the accused Anil was employed on 23.10.2000. The complainant PW5 was examined on 19.09.2006 i.e more than five years after the date of incident. In such circumstances, a minor lapse of memory is very much probable. It appears that this lapse occurred in the testimony of PW5 due to lapse of time. The absence of documents showing the employment of the accused with the complainant is not material in this case. In the present case, the fact of employment of the accused with the complainant is only one of the ingredients to show that the accused had the occasion to get hold of the cheque book of the complainant. Whether the accused forged the cheque Ex.P1 is a separate issue.
10. The documents S1 to S11 are the specimen signatures and handwriting of the accused Anil, the same are Ex.PW2/A1 to Ex.PW2/A8 and Ex.PW8/A to Ex.PW8/C. The admitted signature of accused Anil are A1 to A5.
The admitted signature of complainant Ms. Sadhvi Suri are S1 Ex.PW5/B. On the cheque Ex.P1, the writing Q1 is "Self", Q2 is "one lac twenty thousand only", Q3 is "1,20,000", Q4 is "22.02.2001" , Q5 is "Sadhvi Suri", Q6 is "Sadhvi Suri" on the back side of the cheque and Q7 is apparently written Anil Kr. FIR No. 67/2001 P.S. Kotla Mubarak Pur Page No.11 of 14
As per the FSL report Ex.PW12/A, the writing MarkQ5 & Q6 did not match S21 i.e. the specimen signatures of the complainant Ms. Sadhvi Suri. This would show that the cheuqe Ex.P1 was not signed by the complainant.
In the FSL report, it is further mentioned that the writings and signatures Mark S1 to S11 ( of accused Anil) and Q1, Q4 & Q7 ( on the cheque Ex.P1) have been written by one and the same person. This would show that the accused Anil Kumar wrote the word "Self" (Q1), the date "22.02.2001" (Q4) and one signature (Q7) on the reverse side of the cheque Ex.P1.
As already observed above, the signature Q5 & Q6 on the cheque Ex.P1, purported to be of the complainant Ms. Sadhvi Suri, did not match her specimen signature S21. Whereas on the other hand, the writing Q1, Q4 & Q7 matched specimens S1 to S11 of the accused Anil. It is clear that the cheque Ex.P1 was not signed by the complainant Ms. Sadhvi Suri.
11. The accused Anil could have made the writings Q1, Q4 & Q7 prior to the other writings made on the cheque Ex.P1 or after such other writings were made. In either case, the accused while making the writings on the cheque Ex.P1 was aware that he was making false document/a part of the same. Since he was never authorized by the complainant to make any writings on the chque Ex.P1.
As per the first Clause of Section 464 IPC, where a person makes, signs, seals or executes a document or a part of it and/or makes any mark denoting the execution of a document, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such FIR No. 67/2001 P.S. Kotla Mubarak Pur Page No.12 of 14 document or part of it was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he (the person making the writing) knows it was not signed, sealed, executed or affixed.
In the present case, as already observed above, the accused made the writings Q1, Q4 & Q7 on the cheque Ex.P1, knowing full well that the cheque Ex.P1 was not signed by the complainant Ms. Sadhvi Suri.
12. The FSL report Ex.PW12/A was prepared by PW12 who is an experienced government examiner of questioned documents. There is no reason or ground to suspect or doubt either the competence or independence of PW12.
The cheque Ex.P1 is a valuable security as defined in Section 30 IPC.
13. As already observed above, there is no evidence on record to show that the accused presented the cheque Ex.P1 at the bank concerned and collected the cheque amount. There is also no evidence on record that the accused used the cheque Ex.P1 as genuine or for the purpose of cheating. In view of this, the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge for offences punishable U/s 420/468/471 IPC.
14. In view of the above, it is proved that the accused forged parts of document Ex.P1. As per provisions of Section 467 IPC, there is no requirement of the forgery of valuable security being committed for any particular purpose or with any particular intention. The forgery of a valuable security perse is an offence as FIR No. 67/2001 P.S. Kotla Mubarak Pur Page No.13 of 14 defined U/s 467 IPC.
15. The prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the charges for the offences punishable U/s 420/468/471 IPC against the accused. Accordingly, the accused Anil Kumar s/o Sh. Sabit Ram is acquitted of the offences punishable U/s 420/468/471 IPC.
The prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the charge for the offence punishable U/s 467 IPC against the accused.
The accused Anil Kumar s/o Sh. Sabit Ram is held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable U/s 467 IPC.
16. Let the parties be heard on the point of sentence.
Pronounced in open court (RAJINDER SINGH)
on 04.01.2014 MM04 (SouthEast): Saket Courts:
New Delhi:04.01.2014
FIR No. 67/2001
P.S. Kotla Mubarak Pur Page No.14 of 14