Delhi District Court
State vs . Lalit Kumar on 29 July, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. SATISH KUMAR ARORA, CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, SOUTHEAST DISTRICT, NEW DELHI State Vs. Lalit Kumar FIR No. : 109/06 U/s : 420/468/471 IPC P.S. : Sangam Vihar (Crime Branch) Date of institution of case : 18.09.2007 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 29.07.2016 Unique ID No. : 02403R0620542007 J U D G M E N T 1.
S. No. of the Case : 66/02/07
2. Date of Commission of Offence : 06.02.2006
3. Name of the complainant : SI Balbir Singh
No. D1186, Anti Robbery Cell,
Crime Branch
4. Name,parentage & address of accused: Lalit Kumar S/o Sh. Satya Pal
Singh, R/o H. No. E51,
Vishwakarma Colony, M.B.
Road, New Delhi44
5. Offence complained of or proved : 420/468/471 IPC
6. Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty
7. Final Order : Acquitted
8. Date of Final Order : 29.07.2016
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
1. The case as projected by the prosecution is that on 06.02.2006 at about 06:00 pm when complainant / PW08 SI Balbir Singh was present at the ARC office of Crime Branch, a secret informer came and informed that one Lalit Kumar under the garb of running a computer and photostat shop from plot no. 1, Vishwakarma Colony, Lal Kuan is into the business of preparing and selling forged driving licences of various States. The information was reduced into writing vide DD No. 12 and was passed on to the IO PW07 Inspector Ram Niwas Vashisht who then FIR No: 109/06, PS: Sangam Vihar(Crime Branch), State Vs. Lalit Kumar 1/12 constituted a raiding team comprising of himself, complainant SI Balbir, Ct. Ravinder and Ct. Devi Dayal. Vide same DD No. 12, the raiding team with the secret informer left the office and reached near the spot i.e. Shop in plot no. 1, Vishwakarma Colony, Lal Kuan. At the spot, when independent witnesses were asked to join the raiding team, one person by the name of Amarjeet Singh agreed to join as a decoy customer and was told to visit the shop of accused to negotiate for preparing of a forged driving licence in his name. After negotiation, the decoy customer came back and told the raiding team that he had negotiated with the accused to prepare a driving licence in his name for a sum of Rs. 250/. The decoy customer was handed over the said amount by the IO and subsequent thereto, accused was apprehended and from his possession not only the said amount of Rs. 250/ was recovered, two forged driving licences one in the name of accused and the other in the name of decoy customer were also recovered. Besides this, from the search carried out of the shop of accused, one computer make SAMSUNG with a HP Printer and other related accessories were recovered. Forged driving licences of different persons with two identity cards of the accused were also recovered. FIR came to be registered and matter was investigated. Accused was arrested and after completion of investigation, charge sheet for the offence punishable u/s 420/468/471 IPC was filed against the accused.
2. Cognizance of the offence was taken and the accused was summoned. After compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C and on finding a primafacie case against the accused, charge for the offence punishable u/s 420/468/471 IPC was framed to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
FIR No: 109/06, PS: Sangam Vihar(Crime Branch), State Vs. Lalit Kumar 2/12
3. In order to substantiate and prove the charge against the accused, prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses.
(i) PW01 Amarjeet Singh is the decoy customer
(ii) PW02 Ajay Kumar is the additional driving licence clerk, Licencing Authority, Faridabad. He stated that DL No. 13195F2004 was not issued by the Authority to anyone. A letter in this regard of Deputy Superintendent, Licencing Authority was proved on record as Ex. PW2/A.
(iii) PW03 HC Chittar Mal is the Duty Officer. He proved on record the copy of FIR as Ex. PW3/A recorded by him on the basis of rukka sent by SI Balbir through Ct. Devi Dayal on 06.02.2006 at about 10:30 pm. He also proved his endorsement made on the rukka as Ex. PW3/B.
(iv) PW04 HC Devi Dayal is a member of the raiding team.
(v) PW05 HC Ravinder Kumar is again a member of the raiding team.
(vi) PW06 Inspector Sanjeev Sharma is the last IO of the case. He after completing the investigation, prepared the charge sheet and filed it in the Court.
(vii) PW07 Retired ACP Ram Niwas Vashisht is the first IO of the case.
(viii) PW08 SI Balbir Singh is the complainant and a member of the raiding team.
4. In his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C, accused denied the prosecution case against him. However, he admitted that he was running a photostat shop in plot no. 1, Vishwakarma Colony, Lal Kuan, Delhi. He stated that police officials of PS Sangam Vihar used to visit his photostat shop for getting the photocopies done and when he denied to do their bulk photocopies, they in collusion with the special staff R.K. Puram got him falsely implicated in the present case. He further stated FIR No: 109/06, PS: Sangam Vihar(Crime Branch), State Vs. Lalit Kumar 3/12 that on 06.02.2006, police officials forcibly took him to PS R.K. Puram with all his goods and also took his signatures on some blank papers. Despite being afforded opportunity, accused did not examine any witness in his defence.
5. Sh. Jagdamba Pandey, Ld. APP for the State and Sh. V.C. Gautam, Ld. counsel for the accused were heard and the judicial record was carefully perused and considered.
6. Ld. APP for the State argued that despite the decoy customer PW1 Amarjeet having turned hostile to the prosecution case, still through the testimony of members of the raiding team PW04 HC Devi Dayal and PW05 HC Ravinder Kumar alongwith the testimony of the complainant PW08 SI Balbir and first IO PW07 Retired ACP Ram Niwas Vashisht, prosecution has been successful in establishing beyond reasonable doubt that the accused from his computer and photostat shop was indulging in preparing forged driving licences and selling it off for consideration to various persons. It was argued that there has been a recovery of forged driving licences from the shop of accused and as can be seen from the testimony of PW02, no driving licence bearing no. 13195F2004 was ever issued by the concerned Licencing Authority, Faridabad. It was also argued that the accused was indulging in preparing forged documents was also proved through the testimony of PW06 Inspector Sanjeev Sharma who stated that during investigation carried out by him, he got one identity card of Lalit Kumar as issued from Shahid Bhagat Singh College verified and upon verification from the concerned Principal vide letter Ex. PW6/A, found it to be a forged document. Ld. APP, thus, argued that from the prosecution evidence, it has been established beyond all doubt that the accused for the purposes of cheating was FIR No: 109/06, PS: Sangam Vihar(Crime Branch), State Vs. Lalit Kumar 4/12 preparing forged driving licences and was selling them for consideration.
7. Ld. Defence Counsel, on the other hand, argued that prosecution has miserably failed to prove any of the offences punishable u/s 420/468/471 IPC. It was argued that the very basis of the entire raid was the decoy customer PW1 Amarjeet Singh who admittedly in his examination turned hostile to the entire prosecution case by deposing that the police officials had obtained his signatures on several blank papers on the pretext of joining him as a witness to an accident which had happened near Lal Kuan, Badarpur. It was argued that when the decoy customer himself had turned hostile, testimony of the members of the raiding team who all are police officials inspires no confidence and cannot be said to be reliable. It was further argued that even otherwise, testimony of the members of the raiding team is fraught with material contradictions. It was argued that whereas PW04 HC Devi Dayal and PW05 HC Ravinder have deposed about the recovery of two forged driving licences, one of the accused and the other of the decoy customer, contrary thereto, as per the testimony of IO / PW07 retired ACP R.N Vashisht, it was the decoy customer who was found carrying two forged licences in the name of Amarjeet Singh with a small photograph. It was argued that the prosecution made an attempt to fill up the aberration by cross examining the IO who then changed his entire stand by only stating that due to lapse of time he had incorrectly stated that he had found the decoy customer with the two forged licences and that too both in his name. Ld. Defence Counsel further argued that there is absolutely no evidence brought on record by the prosecution that it was the accused who was preparing forged driving licences of various States. It was submitted that merely because PW02 had stated about the Licencing FIR No: 109/06, PS: Sangam Vihar(Crime Branch), State Vs. Lalit Kumar 5/12 Authority, Faridabad not issuing any driving licence bearing no. 13195F2004, it cannot in itself be said to be sufficient evidence to conclude that the accused forged the said driving licence. It was, thus, submitted that accused be acquitted of all the offences as the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against him.
8. Whether or not the prosecution has been successful in establishing its case against the accused, the testimony of the material witnesses can be taken note of.
9. PW1 Amarjeet Singh was projected by the prosecution as the decoy customer who was part and parcel of the raiding team and at his instance that subsequent recoveries of alleged forged driving licences were made from the accused. As has been noted, PW1 Amarjeet Singh turned hostile to the prosecution case in all its material aspects. In his testimony recorded on 16.04.2010, PW1 stated that he does not remember the date, month and year, however, it was about 34 years back when he was going to his house from Saket and reached near Lal Kuan, Badarpur, he found one accident having already taken place and a boy lying on the road. He further stated that he removed the said boy from the road to its side and in the meanwhile, police officials came and asked him to become a witness to the accident. He further stated that despite his refusal, police obtained his signatures on several blank papers and thereafter he went to his house. Even in his cross examination by Ld. APP, PW1 denied the police having recorded his statement mark A. He also denied of the police having asked him to join as a decoy customer or that on 06.02.2006 he was running a motor garage under the name of Climax Motors. He further denied having been informed by the police that accused from his shop at plot no. 1, Vishwakarma Colony, Lal Kuan FIR No: 109/06, PS: Sangam Vihar(Crime Branch), State Vs. Lalit Kumar 6/12 was running business of preparing and selling forged driving licences. He further denied of his having negotiated with the accused to prepare a forged driving licence for a sum of Rs. 250/. He also denied of his having witnessed preparing of handing over memo of the currency notes. He reiterated that police had obtained his signatures on several blank papers.
10. Once the only independent witness PW1 Amarjeet Singh turned hostile to the prosecution case on all material aspects, the burden fell upon the other prosecution witnesses to support the charge against the accused. As already noted, PW4 HC Devi Dayal and PW5 HC Ravinder are the members of the raiding team and as such are material witnesses for the prosecution.
11. PW4 HC Devi Dayal stated that on 06.02.2006 when he was posted as Constable in the Anti Robbery Cell, R.K. Puram, at about 06:00 pm Inspector R.N. Vashisht called him and Ct. Ravinder to his office where SI Balbir and secret informer were already present. He stated that Inspector Vashisht briefed them about the secret information regarding preparation of forged licences in a shop of one Lalit in the area of Lal Kuan, Vishwakarma Colony. He further stated that at about 07:00 pm, he alongwith the above noted persons reached at Vishwakarma Colony where SI Balbir requested few public persons to join the team and one Amarjeet Singh joined the investigation. He further stated that after briefing Amarjeet Singh, IO asked him to visit the photostat shop to develop the secret information. He further stated that at about 07:30 pm Amarjeet Singh came back from the shop and told that a person namely Lalit who is the shopkeeper of the photostat shop was ready to prepare a forged driving licence in his name from the Faridabad FIR No: 109/06, PS: Sangam Vihar(Crime Branch), State Vs. Lalit Kumar 7/12 Transport Authority. He further stated that Inspector Vashisht gave Rs. 250/ to Amarjeet Singh in the denomination of two currency notes of Rs. 100/ and one currency note of Rs. 50/ vide handing over memo Ex. PW4/A. Amarjeet Singh was told to go to the photostat shop and to negotiate the deal for preparing forged driving licence and as soon as the deal is fixed, to give a signal to the raiding team by waiving his hand on his head. He further stated that at about 08:30 pm, Amarjeet came out of the shop and gave the signal as directed whereupon the raiding team went inside the shop and found accused Lalit having two driving licences and a photograph in his hand. IO checked the said licences and found one to be in the name of accused and the other in the name of Amarjeet. The photograph was also found to be of Amarjeet. He further stated that SI Balbir took the formal search of accused and recovered the three currency notes as handed over to the decoy customer vide Ex. PW4/A. He further stated that the currency notes were sealed with the seal of "BS" by the IO and were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/B. The two driving licences and the photograph were also sealed in a white envelop with the seal of "BS" and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/C. He further stated that the shop of accused was also searched and the instruments i.e. computer, CPU, UPS, Printer, Lamination Machine etc used for preparing forged DL were also seized in three sacks sealed with the seal of "BS" vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/D. He further stated that SI Balbir Singh prepared the rukka and gave it to him for registration of FIR. He further stated that after getting the FIR registered, he came back to the spot and the accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW4/E and personal search memo Ex. PW4/F. It is pertinent to note that when the case property was produced for the purposes of identification by the FIR No: 109/06, PS: Sangam Vihar(Crime Branch), State Vs. Lalit Kumar 8/12 witness, it was produced in two white envelops with seals found broken on both. The witness correctly identified the three currency notes as Ex. P1 to P3 and the two driving licences with the photograph as Ex. P4 to P6. In his cross examination by Ld. defence counsel, PW04 stated that no specific mark was put by the IO on the currency notes Ex. P1 to P3. He admitted that the shop is situated in a thickly populated area with more than 1000 persons residing in the vicinity. He stated that he cannot say whether the IO called the neighbours to join the proceedings or not. He further stated that statement of PW1 Amarjeet Singh was recoded by the IO in the ARC branch office, R.K. Puram in the morning of 07.02.2006. The judicial file was seen and it was noticed that no such statement of PW1 has been annexed with the charge sheet. PW4 further stated that the computer and the CPU were checked by the IO but he cannot say whether the same were operated or not. He further stated that all the seizure memo's were prepared by the IO at the spot itself during the time period 08:30 pm to 11:30 pm and the FIR Number was added later on. He further stated that no specimen signatures of the accused were obtained by the IO. He further stated that no investigation was carried out regarding the genuineness of P1 to P11. He denied the suggestion that the case property has been planted upon the accused or that the accused was made to sign on blank papers by the IO. One important fact to be noted in the testimony of PW4 HC Devi Dayal is that Rs. 250/ was handed over by the IO to the decoy customer for negotiating with the accused for preparing forged driving licence. This is contrary to the prosecution case as it was when the decoy customer PW1 Amarjeet had allegedly settled down the deal with the accused for a sum of Rs. 250/ for preparing a forged driving licence, it FIR No: 109/06, PS: Sangam Vihar(Crime Branch), State Vs. Lalit Kumar 9/12 was then that the IO gave him the said amount in the denomination of two currency notes of Rs. 100/ and one currency note of Rs. 50/.
12. Now, coming on to the testimony of PW5 HC Ravinder Kumar, it is also a parrot like narration of the prosecution case as so deposed by PW4 HC Devi Dayal. Similar contradiction regarding the handing over of Rs. 250/ by the IO to the decoy customer is to be found in his testimony. Also, no statement of the decoy customer as deposed by this witness to have been recorded by the IO at the ARC office, R.K. Puram in the morning of 07.02.2006, was found on record.
13. PW7 Retired ACP R.N. Vashisht, as rightly pointed out by the Ld. defence counsel, introduced a material contradiction into the prosecution case by deposing that at about 08:00 - 08:30 pm when decoy customer Amarjeet came outside the shop and gave the predetermined signal, he was carrying two fabricated licences of his name alongwith his small photograph. Ld. Prosecutor made an attempt to undone the damage so done by the witness by cross examining him and in the cross examination seeking an explanation from the witness that he so told incorrectly about the decoy customer carrying two licences and photograph in his hand due to lapse of time. This explanation by the witness cannot be believed and is clearly an after thought. One more contradiction is to be found in the testimony of PW7 when it is read in tandem with the testimony of PW4 HC Devi Dayal and PW5 HC Ravinder. As already noted, both PW4 and PW5 have stated that Rs. 250/ was handed over by the IO to decoy customer to effect the deal with the accused to prepare forged driving licence in his name. Contrary to this, PW7 stated that at about 07:30 pm the decoy customer came out of the shop of accused after making enquiry and when he told that FIR No: 109/06, PS: Sangam Vihar(Crime Branch), State Vs. Lalit Kumar 10/12 accused is demanding Rs. 250/ to prepare forged driving licence of Faridabad, that he handed over to him the said amount by way of handing over memo Ex. PW4/A.
14. Lastly, taking up the testimony of PW8 SI Balbir, his examination in chief is also a repetition of the testimony of other prosecution witnesses especially PW4 HC Devi Dayal and PW5 HC Ravinder. In his cross examination, PW8 also introduced a contradiction by stating that when the raiding team entered the shop of accused after the predetermined signal made by the decoy customer, accused was found inside and from his casual search, two driving licences, one in his name and the other in the name of decoy customer, with a photograph of the decoy customer were recovered. This is contrary to what the other witnesses have deposed that the two licences with the photograph were found in the hand of the accused when the raiding team entered his shop.
15. One more important aspect of the matter to be taken note of is about the alleged preparation of forged driving licences by the accused. As rightly submitted by the Ld. defence counsel, there is absolutely no evidence brought on record by the prosecution that it was the accused who had prepared forged driving licences. Mere alleged recovery of forged driving licences in itself cannot be said to be a proof of its preparation by the accused. Admittedly, as per the prosecution case the secret information was that by the use of computer, accused was indulging into the activity of preparing forged driving licences of various States. It is also an admitted fact that computer, keyboard, printer, monitor, lamination machine etc were recovered from the shop of accused by the raiding team. Mere recovery thereof again cannot in itself be said to be a proof that these instruments were used by the accused in FIR No: 109/06, PS: Sangam Vihar(Crime Branch), State Vs. Lalit Kumar 11/12 preparing forged driving licences. Neither these articles were sent for forensic or expert opinion nor were these operated or checked to find incriminating evidence against accused that by use of these articles / instruments, he was preparing forged documents. Also, there is no evidence of use of such forged documents by the accused when admittedly the decoy customer had completely turned hostile on all the material aspects of the prosecution case. Thus, there is absolutely no convincing evidence on record that the accused committed the offence of cheating as punishable u/s 420 IPC or that for the purposes of cheating, he prepared and used forged documents as punishable u/s 468/471 IPC. The prosecution, thus, miserably fails to prove the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
16. In view of the forgoing discussion, accused is held not guilty and is accordingly acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 420/468/471 IPC. His B/B / S/B are discharged. Endorsement, if any, be canceled and original documents, if any, be returned against due acknowledgment. Bonds u/s 437A Cr.P.C be separately furnished by the accused.
File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29.07.2016 (SATISH KUMAR ARORA) Chief Metropolitan Magistrate South East District / Saket Courts New Delhi/29.07.2016 FIR No: 109/06, PS: Sangam Vihar(Crime Branch), State Vs. Lalit Kumar 12/12