Delhi District Court
Dr Anupam Sachdeva vs State on 14 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHISHEK GOYAL, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-03, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI
CNR No.: DLCT01-017805-2021
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.: 140/2021
DR. ANUPAM SACHDEVA,
S/o. Shri. Ram Lal Sachdeva,
R/o. C-107, Neelamber Apartment,
Pitampura, New Delhi. ... APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ... RESPONDENT
Date of filing : 18.12.2021
Date of institution : 20.12.2021
Date when judgment was reserved : 15.04.2025
Date when judgment is pronounced : 14.07.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( hereinafter, referred to as 'Cr.P.C./Code') against the judgment dated 25.11.2021 (hereinafter referred to as 'impugned judgment'), passed by learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-01/Ld. ACMM-01, Central, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi ( hereinafter referred to as the 'Ld. Trial Court/Ld. ACMM') in case bearing; 'State v. Anupam Sachdeva, Cr. Case No. 29106/2016', arising out of FIR No. 335/2000, PS. Paharganj, under Sections 420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'), convicting the appellant of the offences under Sections 420 and 471 IPC and the consequent order of sentence dated 06.12.2021 (hereinafter referred to as 'impugned order'), passed by the Ld. Trial Court, sentencing, simple imprisonment for a period of 01 (one) year along with fine of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 1 of 51 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.14 16:28:46 +0530 Thousand only) and in default of payment of which, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 01 (one) month, for the offence under Section 471 IPC; and simple imprisonment for a period of 06 (six) months along with fine of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only), in default of payment of which, the appellant was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 01 (one) month, for the offence under Section 420 IPC, the period of said imprisonment being further directed to run concurrently. Further, the appellant was directed to be entitled to the benefit of the provisions under Section 428 Cr.P.C. (hereinafter the impugned judgment and impugned order are collectively referred to as the 'impugned judgment and order').
2. Succinctly, the case of the prosecution is that on 22.06.2000, a complaint was submitted/tendered by the complainant, Sh. R.P. Sehgal (hereinafter referred to as the 'complainant') before the concerned SHO, PS. Paharganj.
Notably, in the said complaint, the complainant inter alia asserted that the co-accused, Uttam Singh (hereinafter referred to as the 'co-accused'), who was an employee with Delhi State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'DSCSC/Corporation/Department'), had been submitting bills/medical claims with the department, relating to the treatment of his son from time to time. The complaint further chronicles that while verifying some of the bills, it was determined that a common Sales Tax and Drug License number was shown in such bills (hereinafter referred to as the 'bills/bills in question'), asserted to be issued by two different firms, i.e., M/s. Ashish Medicos, 644, Rani Bagh, New Delhi-34 and M/s. Sheetal Medicos, ND Market, Pitampura, Delhi-34 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 2 of 51 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.14 16:28:52 +0530 'firms'), which prima facie appeared to be, fake. Correspondingly, as per the complainant, upon further scrutiny, it was determined that Sales Tax and Drug License Number inscribed on the said bills, actually belonged to a third firm, namely, M/s. Ashish Medicos, 1258, Rani Bagh, New Delhi and that no such firms, in the names of M/s. Ashish Medicos, 644, Rani Bagh, New Delhi-34 and M/s. Sheetal Medicos, ND Market, Pitampura, Delhi-34, were in existence, whose bills were submitted by the co-accused for the purpose of reimbursement. Consequently, as per the complainant, by submitting such bogus bills/bills in question, the co-accused endeavoured to cheat the Corporation of sum of Rs. 94,880/- (Rupees Ninety Four Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty only), and that a sum of Rs. 24,930/- (Rupees Twenty Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty only) had been already reimbursed to the co-accused. Further, it was recorded under the complaint that the bills in question were verified by the appellant herein. Ergo, under such facts and circumstances, and on the basis of the complainant's complaint, the instant FIR came to be registered, and the investigation ensued. Relevantly, during the course of investigation, co-accused, Uttam Singh was apprehended and his disclosure statement was recorded, wherein he inter alia avowed that his son, Master Timmy, was under the treatment of the appellant and that the appellant had handed over, the bills in question to him against the supply of medicines for treatment of his said child. As per the co-accused, he used to make payments to the appellant against supply of such medication and the appellant used to issue to him, the bills in question, which were eventually determined to be forged/fake. Correspondingly, the treatment papers of co-accused's son were obtained by the concerned C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 3 of 51 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.07.14 16:28:56 +0530 investigating officer, besides the appellant was interrogated, who denied having issued the bills in question, though, the appellant affirmed that he had verified the said bills on the asking of the co- accused. Subsequently, the concerned IO is asserted to have collected various documents pertaining to the treatment of Master Timmy, obtained the documents from the respective shop owners of 'Ashish Medicose' and 'Sheetal The Medicine Shop' as well as recorded the statements of various witnesses. 2.1. Noticeably, upon conclusion of the investigation in the instant case, chargesheet was filed by the concerned police official/IO before the Ld. MM, upon which, cognizance of the offence(s) was taken by the Ld. Trial Court on 06.03.2002 and summons were issued against co-accused, Uttam Singh.
Subsequently, on 07.10.2002, compliance of the provisions under Section 207 Cr.P.C. was carried out qua the said co-accused, besides directions for issuance of summons qua the appellant were issued by the Ld. Trial Court against the appellant herein. Relevantly, against the said order of summoning, the appellant moved before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case bearing; Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State of NCT of Delhi, Crl. M(M) No. 1625/2003, wherein the Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 08.03.2003, set aside the said order dated 07.10.2002 of the Ld. Trial Court inter alia under the following observations;
"...Every party for that purpose or a person against whom an order has been passed is entitled to know the reason for passing such an order. In the absence of reasons nobody is sure as to how his grievance can be remedied or redressed. In such a case providing reasons for summoning a person as an accused who has not been sent for trial as such and shown in column no. 2 is a rudimentary requirement of law. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside with the directions to the Magistrate to pass fresh reasoned order. The C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 4 of 51 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.07.14 16:29:01 +0530 petitioner is also given an opportunity to appear before the Magistrate on the next date of hearing and the learned Trial Court shall provide him an opportunity of being heard.
The petition stands disposed of..."
(Emphasis supplied) 2.2. Thereafter, the IO filed a supplementary chargesheet before the Ld. Trial Court. Consequently, pursuant to the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble High Court and considering the contents of the chargesheet/supplementary chargesheet, Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 08.12.2009, passed a fresh order of summoning of the appellant in the present case, inter alia under the following observations;
"...After going through the documents on file as well the report of handwriting expert of FSL, I am of view that the possibility of the conspiracy of the Dr. Anupam Sachdeva with the co-accused Uttam Singh in the preparation of false documents cannot be ruled out at the stage. As such there are sufficient grounds to proceed further against accused for the offence punishable u/s. 420/468/471 r/w. 120B IPC Anupam Sachdeva so he be summoned through IO for 23.02.10..."
(Emphasis supplied) 2.3. Thereupon, on the appellant's entering appearance before the Ld. Trial Court and on compliance of the provisions under Section 207 Cr.P.C. qua the appellant as well as on arguments on charges having been addressed by/on behalf of the appellant, co-accused as well as by Ld. Addl. PP for the State before the Ld. Trial Court, charges under Sections 420/468/471/120B IPC were directed to be framed by the Ld. Trial Court against the appellant and co-accused, Uttam Singh, by virtue of order dated 25.07.2017, inter alia under the following observations;
"...Submissions heard. Charge-sheet perused. According to the prosecution, the accused Dr. C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 5 of 51 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.07.14 16:29:05 +0530 Anupam Sachdeva treated the blood cancer-stricken child. The child recovered from the illness, But, the child's father (accused) entangled in the police net when his department found discrepancies in the reimbursement claim. The FIR was lodged and child's father (accused) named Dr. Sachdeva as the person, who supplied the forged medical bills to him. The prosecution has cited two public witnesses to show that Dr. Anupam Sachdeva used to issue medical bills receipts from his clinic.
Charge-sheet prima-facie discloses the commission of offence punishable under Section 420/468/471/120B IPC. The separate accusation of charge under Section 420/468/471/120B IPC has been read over and explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Issue summons to the PWs through DCP Central for 04.08.2017 as priority be given to the old cases..."
(Emphasis supplied) 2.4. Apposite to further reproduce the charges framed against the appellant and co-accused, Uttam Singh on 25.07.2017, as under;
"...I, ***, ACMM-01 (Central), Delhi; do hereby charge you accused Dr. Anupam Sachdeva S/o Ram Lal Sachdeva as follows:
That, somewhere before 22.06.2000, you entered into a criminal conspiracy to help co-accused Uttam Singh to cheat Delhi State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. (Government organization) in submitting fake medical bills for reimbursement relating to the treatment of his son namely Timmy and thereby, you committed an offence punishable under Section 120B IPC which is within the cognizance of this court. Secondly, somewhere before 22.06.2000, you entered into a criminal conspiracy with co-accused Uttam Singh to cheat Delhi State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. (Government organization) by preparing false medical bills which were submitted by co-accused Uttam Singh for the purpose of claiming medical reimbursement of Rs. 94,880/- relating to the treatment of his son namely Timmy and he got part reimbursement amount of Rs.24,930/- and thereby, you committed an offence punishable under Section 420/468 IPC read with Section 120B IPC which is within the cognizance of this court.
C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 6 of 51 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.07.14 16:29:09 +0530
And I hereby direct that you be tried by this court for the aforesaid offences...
*** *** *** I, ***, ACMM-01 (Central), Delhi: do hereby charge you accused Uttam Singh S/o Moti Ram as follows:
That, somewhere before 22.06.2000, you entered into a criminal conspiracy with co-accused/Dr. Anupam Sachdeva to cheat Delhi State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. (Government organization) by submitting fake medical bills for reimbursement relating to the treatment of your son namely Timmy and got part reimbursement amount of Rs. 24,930/- and thereby, you committed an offence punishable under Section 120B IPC which is within the cognizance of this court Secondly, somewhere before 22.06.2000, you entered into a criminal conspiracy with, co-accused/Dr. Anupam Sachdeva and cheated Delhi Stale Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. (Government organization) by submitting fake/forged medical bills of Rs. 94,880/- for reimbursement relating to the treatment of your son namely Timmy and you got part reimbursement amount of Rs. 24,930 and thereby, you committed an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC read with Section 120B IPC which is within the cognizance of this court.
Thirdly, somewhere before 22.06.2000, you entered into a criminal conspiracy with co-accused/Dr. Anupam Sachdeva to cheat Delhi State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd (Government organization) by intentionally preparing fake/forged medical bills of Rs 94,880/- and submitted the same as genuine for the purpose of achieving the common object of criminal conspiracy for reimbursement relating to the treatment of your sun namely Timmy and thereby, you committed an offence punishable under Section 468/471 IPC read with Section 120B IPC which is within the cognizance of this court. And hereby direct that you be tried by this court for the aforesaid offences..."
(Emphasis supplied) 2.5. Relevantly, the appellant and the co-accused pleaded not guilty to the aforesaid charges and claimed trial. Strikingly, during the course of trial, prosecution examined 12 (twelve) witnesses/PWs, i.e., PW-1/Sh. Kundan Lal Chhabra; PW-2/(Retd.
C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 7 of 51 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.07.14 16:29:13 +0530
SI) Jagdish Chander; PW-3/Sh. V.C. Ojha; PW-4/Sh. R.P. Sehgal; PW-5/Sh. Badri Singh; PW-6/Sh. Anil Kumar; PW-7/Sh. Om Prakash; PW-8/Ms. Ritu Bajaj; PW-9/Sh. Vijay Kumar Kalra; PW-10/Insp. Sukhdev Meena; PW-11/Insp. Pankaj Pandey; and PW-12/Sh. Rahul Bhatia. Subsequently, on conclusion of prosecution evidence, recording of statement of the appellant under Section 313/281 Cr.P.C. on 22.02.2021, as well as on the appellant leading defence evidence, i.e., DW-1/Dr. Manas Kalra and DW-2/Dr. Anupam Sachdeva (himself), arguments were addressed by/on behalf of the appellant, co-accused and the State. Consequently, on conclusion of said arguments, the Ld. Trial Court vide impugned judgment and order, while inter alia holding the appellant guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 420/471 IPC, sentenced him in the manner, as noted hereinabove.
3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant outrightly contended that the impugned judgment and order were passed by the Ld. Trial Court on mere conjunctures, surmises and in contravention of the settled principles of law, deserving their setting aside at the outset. In this regard, Ld. Counsel vehemently asserted that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that in the instant case, there are numerous gaping holes in the case put forth by the prosecution and that the prosecution's story does not inspire any confidence, not appealing to the senses of a prudent man. Further, as per the Ld. Counsel, the Ld. Trial Court decided the matter in a mechanical manner and utter haste, without appreciating the evidence produced at the trial. It was further submitted that a perusal of the testimonies of the various witnesses, who were examined before the Ld. Trial Court would clearly demonstrate that there are glaring, and material contradictions and the Ld. Trial Court has C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 8 of 51 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.14 16:29:16 +0530 committed grave error by not considering the same, leading to gross miscarriage of justice to the appellant. Further, as per the Ld. Counsel, Ld. Trial Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the appellant committed the offence under Section 420 IPC, whereas the appellant neither cheated the department nor was any wrongful gain accrued to the appellant by simply verifying the medicines on the alleged bills, which had been duly administered by the appellant as per the record of the Hospital. In this regard, Ld. Counsel vehemently asserted that it is not even the case of the prosecution that the medicines, verified by the appellant on the alleged bills were not administered to the patient Master Timmy (son of the co-accused, Uttam Singh) and as such, the appellant had verified the medicines on the bills only which were administered to the patient, evident from the record of the Hospital. Ld. Counsel further strenuously reiterated that the appellant had merely verified the medicines in the said bills, while discharging his professional duties, in order to ascertain the correctness of the medicines and provide the best treatment to his patient and had no malafide intention to cheat any person and/or department. Correspondingly, as per the Ld. Counsel, Ld. Trial Court even erred in convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 471 IPC, without there being any evidence on record to show that the appellant, produced the said to the department and deployed the same for the purpose(s) of cheating. As per the Ld. Counsel, it was, in fact, co-accused, Uttam Singh, who had submitted the said bills for reimbursement for the medicines administered to the patient and the appellant had admittedly not used the said bills for claiming and financial gains or to cause wrongful loss to the department and/or wrongful gain to itself/the C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 9 of 51 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.14 16:29:20 +0530 appellant. Ergo, Ld. Counsel submitted that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside on this sole ground. 3.1. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that material omissions in the statements/depositions of various witnesses as well as lacunae in the investigation process. As per the Ld. Trial Court, while reaching a finding of appellant's guilt, failed to consider that the investigation in the instant case was not fairly and properly conducted, belying the version put forth by the State against the appellant. In this regard, Ld. Counsel strenuously argued that the investigating officer failed to conduct any search in the shops of PW-1/Sh. Kundan Lal Chabra and PW-9/Vijay Kumar Kalra to ascertain as well as bring on record, evidence whether the said shops and their respective shop owners were in possession of duplicate books in order to cheat the Sales Tax, Income Tax and other departments. Correspondingly, as per the Ld. Counsel, the investigating officer erred in heavily relying upon the evidence of PW-1 and PW-9, without even ascertaining the true and correct facts, which is bound to raise serious doubts into the fairness of the investigation. Even otherwise, it was submitted that the IO even failed to verify/get verified the respective handwritings of PW-1 and PW-9 to ascertain and confirm whether the bills in question were in fact, prepared by PW-1 and PW-9 themselves. Further, as per the Ld. Counsel, while reaching a finding of guilt of the appellant, Ld. Trial Court even failed to consider that if at all the drug license and sales tax numbers of PW-1 and PW-9 were misused by third-party, then what was the reason for PW-1's and/or PW-9's not lodging a complaint against such third party/person, raising serious doubt in the version put forth by the prosecution. On the contrary, as per the Ld. Counsel, C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 10 of 51 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.14 16:29:24 +0530 the only inference which can be drawn under such circumstance(s) is that had any complaint lodged by PW-1 and/or PW-9, then, the same would have resulted in unearthing the actual truth and making PW-1 and/or PW-9 liable to be charged for the offences of forgery, cheating, etc. Ld. Counsel further argued that no evidence/other incriminating documents, bill books, registers, etc., were recovered by the IO from the possession of the appellant. In fact, Ld. Counsel asserted that the prosecution tried to paint a picture and build a case against the appellant for the offences of forgery and cheating, while having failed to find out or place on record, any evidence or document even slightly indicting any involvement of the appellant in such activities. Further, as per the Ld. Counsel, the prosecution's case is premised on a flawed foundation that since the appellant was a Doctor of considerable reputation and had verified the medicines mentioned in the bills in question, he is necessarily involved in the offences in question, which is against all canons of criminal jurisprudence. 3.2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the prosecution deliberately/intentionally failed to produce the medical records of the patient, namely, Timmy/son of co-accused, Uttam Singh, as the same would have clearly proved that the medicines mentioned in the bills in question were in fact administered to the patient. In this regard, Ld. Counsel further submitted that the injection, 'Ehtyol', 'Methotrexate' and 'Recoverin', as verified by the appellant could be verified from the records of the Doctor and Nursing records. Correspondingly, Ld. Counsel submitted that the medical bill, verified by the appellant, demonstrates that the injections of 'Methotrexate' and 'Recoverin' were administered to the patient on the same date. Further, the C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 11 of 51 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.07.14 16:29:28 +0530 patient was given/administered injection, 'Amifostine' on 18.01.2000, which can also be verified from the records of the Hospital, besides, 'Amifostine' is the generic name of 'Ethyol'.
Correspondingly, similar medicines/injections were administered to the son of the co-accused, which can be verified from various documents of the Hospital and the records of the Doctor/Nurse. As per the Ld. Counsel, since the appellant had merely verified the bills for the purpose of ascertaining the medicines, which were administer to the son of the co-accused, appellant cannot be determined to have committed any offence in the instant case. In this regard, Ld. Counsel further asserted that the evidence produced by/on behalf of the evidence belie the allegations levelled against the appellant, which fact was not considered by the Ld. Trial Court, while reaching a finding of guilt of the appellant. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the order of conviction of the appellant is liable to be set aside on the ground as admittedly the appellant was neither the purchaser of the medicines in question, nor procured any medicines from any person or firm for his patient Master Timmy. On the contrary, Ld. Counsel reiterated that the medicines in question were purchased and procured by the father of the said patient, co-accused, Uttam Singh. As per the Ld. Counsel, co-accused Uttam Singh, in order to get the reimbursement of the cost incurred in purchase of the medicines had gotten the said bills verified by the appellant and the appellant does not under any circumstances whatsoever stand to gain anything from the same. In this regard, it was further submitted that the appellant was not concerned with the authenticity of the bills, rather, merely verified the correctness of medicines specified therein, as a part of his professional duty.
C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 12 of 51 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.07.14 16:29:32 +0530 3.3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant vehemently
asserted/reiterated that by verifying the medicines which were mentioned on the bills in question, the appellant could not be, in any manner, held liable for the offences of cheating and forgery. Ld. Counsel further submitted that while reaching the finding of guilt of the appellant, Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that the testimony of PW-5/Sh. Badri Singh ought to have been subjected to the strictest scrutiny, as he was an interested witness and acquainted with co-accused, Uttam Singh. As per the Ld. Counsel, PW-5 falsely implicates the appellant in the instant case, out of grudge against the appellant as PW-5's son could not survive from Cancer, who was under treatment of the appellant. Correspondingly, Ld. Counsel submitted that the statements of PW-6 and PW-7, namely, Sh. Anil Kumar and Sh. Om Prakash, respectively, were not recorded by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, rather, form part of their respective affidavits, which were never seized by the IO. As per the Ld. Counsel, the affidavits PW-6 and PW-7 are even otherwise, false and fabricated as PW-6 and PW-7 were also known to the co- accused. In this regard, it was further submitted that the said affidavits of PW-6 and PW-7 were not a part of the chargesheet, rather, were taken/filed for the first time during their examination before the Ld. Trial Court, solely to help the co-accused Uttam Singh. As per the Ld. Counsel, even otherwise, both the said affidavits are dated 22.06.2000, on the same date on which the complaint was filed in the instant case. Correspondingly, it was submitted by the Ld. Counsel that the Ld. Trial Court passed the impugned judgment under an assumption that co-accused would not tell lies, implicating the appellant, despite the fact that Uttam C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 13 of 51 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.14 16:29:36 +0530 Singh's/co-accused person's son recovered under the appellant's treatment. However, while reaching the said finding, Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that co-accused Uttam Singh levelled the allegations that the alleged bills were given by the appellant when a complaint was lodged against him/co-accused in 2000, fearing his dismissal from service. Accordingly, in light of the foregoing, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that not only did the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider the truth of circumstances and passed its judgment/decision in haste, rather, did not properly appreciate/examine the facts of the present case, wrongly holding the appellant guilty of the aforementioned offences. Even otherwise, as per the Ld. Counsel, the impugned order on sentence was passed by the Ld. Trial Court, inconsiderate of the correct factual scenario, awarding an exorbitant sentence/fine and compensation to the appellant. Consequently, the Ld. Counsel inter alia prayed that the present appeal be allowed, and the impugned judgment and order be set aside. In support of the said contentions, reliance was placed upon the decisions in; Nababuddin @ Mallu @ Abhimanyu v. State of Haryana, Crl. Appeal No. 2333/2010, dated 24.11.2023 (SC); Asraf Ali v. State of Assam, (@008) 16 SCC 328; Basanta Kumar Das v. State of Odisha, Crl. Rev. No. 249/2003, dated 05.07.2022 (Hon'ble High Court of Orissa); Om Prakash v. State of Punjab, Crl. Rev. No. 170/2016, dated 19.03.2019 (Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryan); Madhukar Vinayak Baravkar v. State of Maharashtra, Crl. Appeal No. 155/2002, dated 27.04.2023 (Hon'ble High Court of Bombay); and M. Ajithkumar v. State, Crl. Rev. 1527/2016, dated 24.06.2022 (Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka).
C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 14 of 51
Digitally
signed by
ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.07.14
16:29:40
+0530
4. Per contra, Ld. Addl. PP for the State submitted that the impugned judgment and order was passed by the Ld. Trial Court after due appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in consonance with the settled judicial precedents.
Ld. Addl. PP for the State further submitted that the testimonies of various witnesses placed on record, unambiguously prove the commission of the offences by the appellant. It was further contended by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the depositions of the prosecution witnesses have not only been consistent, rather, unblemished as well as lucidly point towards the only inference of guilt of the appellant. As per the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, the facts and circumstances put forth as well as the evidence placed on record, unerringly point out towards the guilt of the appellant and that no fault can be attributed to the finding of the Ld. Trial Court, which is based on proper appreciation of facts as well as law. Accordingly, Ld. Addl. PP for the State submitted that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed at the outset, as grossly malicious and devoid of merits.
5. The arguments of Ld. Counsel for the appellant as well as that of Ld. Addl. PP for the State have been heard and the record(s), including the Trial Court Record as well as the written notes on arguments/written submissions and the judgments relied by the party(ies) have been thoroughly perused.
6. At the outset, this Court deems it apposite to enunciate the scope of jurisdiction of this Court in an appeal against conviction. In this regard, this Court it is pertinent to outrightly make a reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Padam Singh v. State of U.P., (2000) 1 SCC C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 15 of 51 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.07.14 16:29:44 +0530 621, wherein the Hon'ble Court, while delving into the 'scope and ambit' of appellate court's jurisdiction inter alia noted as under;
"2. ... It is the duty of an appellate court to look into the evidence adduced in the case and arrive at an independent conclusion as to whether the said evidence can be relied upon or not and even if it can be relied upon, then whether the prosecution can be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt on the said evidence. The credibility of a witness has to be adjudged by the appellate court in drawing inference from proved and admitted facts. It must be remembered that the appellate court, like the trial court, has to be satisfied affirmatively that the prosecution case is substantially true and the guilt of the accused has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt as the presumption of innocence with which the accused starts, continues right through until he is held guilty by the final court of appeal and that presumption is neither strengthened by an acquittal nor weakened by a conviction in the trial court..."
(Emphasis supplied)
7. Correspondingly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Narendra Bhat v. State of Karnataka, (2009) 17 SCC 785, iterated in respect of the foregoing as under;
"3. This Court has in a series of judgments held that a court exercising appellate power must not only consider questions of law but also questions of fact and in doing so it must subject the evidence to a critical scrutiny. The judgment of the High Court must show that the Court really applied its mind to the facts of the case as particularly when the offence alleged is of a serious nature and may attract a heavy punishment."
(Emphasis supplied)
8. Quite evidently, from a conjoint reading of the aforenoted judicial dictates it can be perspicuously deduced that the jurisdiction of this Court in an appeal extends to reappreciation of the entire material placed on record of the trial court and to arrive at an independent conclusion as to whether the said evidence can be relied upon or not. In fact, as aforenoted, court(s), while exercising appellate power is not required to consider the question C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) PageDigitally 16 of 51 signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.14 16:29:48 +0530 of law, rather, also question of facts to affirmatively reach a conclusion of guilt or innocence of an accused. In fact, it is trite law1 that non-re-appreciation of the evidence on record in an appeal may affect the case of either the prosecution or even the accused. Needless to reemphasize that the appellate court is to be further wary of fact that presumption of innocence of an accused, even extents until an accused is held guilty by the final court of appeal and that such a presumption is neither strengthened by an acquittal nor weakened by a conviction in the trial court.
9. Therefore, being wary of the aforesaid principles, however, before proceeding with the determination of the rival contentions of the parties, it would be pertinent to reproduce the relevant provisions under law/IPC, for the purpose of present adjudication, as under;
"415. Cheating-Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".
Explanation-A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section.
*** *** ***
420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property-Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces 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.
*** *** *** 1 State of Gujarat v. Bhalchandra Laxmishankar Dave, (2021) 2 SCC 735.
C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 17 of 51 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.07.14 16:29:51 +0530
464. Making a false document-A person is said to make a false document or electronic record-
First-Who dishonestly or fraudulently-
(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;
(c) affixes any electronic signature on any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the electronic signature, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or pan of document, electronic record or electronic signature was made, signed, scaled executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, singed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly-Who without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with electronic signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly-Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his electronic signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration.
*** *** ***
468. Forgery for purpose of cheating-Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine *** *** ***
471. Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record-Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record."
C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 18 of 51 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.07.14 16:29:56 +0530 (Emphasis supplied)
10. Markedly, it is observed from perusal of the above that in order to attract culpability under provisions under Section 468 IPC, the prosecution is inter alia required to establish2, commission of forgery as defined under Section 463 IPC. Notably, as per the provisions under Section 463 IPC, "Whoever makes any false documents 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 any 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". Needless to mention, making of false document, as per Section 464 IPC inter alia amounts to the making, signing, sealing or execution of a document or part of a document or electronic record in the manner specified under the said provision, "with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or electronic signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed". Reference in this regard is made to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar (2009) 8 SCC 751, wherein the Hon'ble Court, while enunciating the ingredients of offence of making of false document(s)/Section 464 IPC, noted as under;
"10. An analysis of section 464 of Penal Code shows that it divides false documents into three categories:2
Dharmala Venkata Subrahmanya Sarma v. The State of A.P., Criminal Petition No. 10174 of 2018, dated 27.03.2024 (Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh).C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 19 of 51 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.07.14 16:30:00 +0530 10.1. The first is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently makes or executes a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by some other person, or by the authority of some other person, by whom or by whose authority he knows it was not made or executed.
10.2. The second is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part, without lawful authority, after it has been made or executed by either himself or any other person.
10.3. The third is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, execute or alter a document knowing that such person could not by reason of (a) unsoundness of mind; or (b) intoxication; or (c) deception practised upon him, know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration.
11. In short, a person is said to have made a `false document', if (i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorised by someone else; or (ii) he altered or tampered a document; or (iii) he obtained a document by practicing deception, or from a person not in control of his senses."
(Emphasis supplied)
11. Here, it is further pertinent to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Karan Kohli v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Revision No. 199/2018, dated 11.10.2018, wherein the Hon'ble High Court observed that for liability under Section 468 IPC to attract, prosecution is not required to prove that an accused actually commits the offence of cheating. On the contrary, "what is material is the intention or purpose of the offender in committing forgery. For proving the case under Section 468 of the IPC prosecution is required to establish that the accused had committed forgery and that he did it with the intention that document forged shall be used for the purposes of cheating." Correspondingly, provisions under Section C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 20 of 51 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.14 16:30:06 +0530 471 IPC would be attracted3 in a case where an accused, fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine, any document or electronic record, which he knows or has reasons to believe to be forged. Here, it is further pertinent to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.S. Krishnan & Ors. v. State of Kerala, MANU/SC/0233/2004, wherein the Hon'ble Court, while explicating the ingredients of offence under Section 471 IPC, remarked as under;
"8. The essential ingredients of Section 471 are (i) fraudulent or dishonest use of document as genuine
(ii) knowledge or reasonable belief on the part of person using the document that it is a forged one.
Section 471 is intended to apply to persons other than forger himself, but the forger himself is not excluded from the operation of the Section. To attract Section 471, it is not necessary that the person held guilty under the provision must have forged the document himself or that the person independently charged for forgery of the document must of necessity be convicted, before the person using the forged document, knowing it to be a forged one can be convicted, as long as the fact that the document used stood established or proved to be a forged one. The act or acts which constitute the commission of the offence of forgery are quite different from the act of making use of a forged document. The expression 'fraudulently and dishonestly' are defined in Sections 25 and 24 IPC respectively. For an offence under Section 471, one of the necessary ingredients is fraudulent and dishonest use of the document as genuine. The act need not be both dishonest and fraudulent. The use of document as contemplated by Section 471 must be voluntary one. For sustaining conviction under Section 471 it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that accused knew or had reason to believe that the document to be a forged one. Whether the accused knew or had reason to believe the document in question to be a forged has to be adjudicated on the basis of materials and the finding recorded in that regard is essentially factual..."
(Emphasis supplied) 3 Deepak Gaba v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 2328 of 2022, dated 02.01.2023 (SC).
C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 21 of 51 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.07.14 16:30:10 +0530
12. Further, it is pertinent to observe here that in order to attract culpability under the provisions of Section 420 IPC, prosecution is required to prove the commission 4 of, "(i) cheating as defined under Section 415 IPC; (ii) dishonest inducement to deliver property or to make, alter or destroy any valuable security or anything which is sealed or signed or is capable of being converted into a valuable security, and (iii) mens rea of the accused at the time of making the inducement." Germane for the purpose(s) of present discourse to further note that this Court is conscious that the offence of cheating encompasses, fraudulent or dishonest inducement of, 'person so deceived' to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or even includes, intentionally inducing a person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived. Quite evidently, in so far as the latter part of Section 415 IPC is concerned, 'property', at no stage, is involved. In fact, it is the doing of an act or omission to do an act by the person so cheated, as a result of intentional inducement by the accused, which is material. However, even in this regard, law is settled that the damage or harm caused or likely to be caused must be the necessary consequence of the act done by reason of the deceit practiced, or must be necessarily likely to follow therefrom, and the law does not take into account remote possibilities that may flow from the act. In other words, law does not take into account remote possibilities that may flow from the act. Clearly, such damage or harm must be proximate and natural result of the act or omission and does not include vague and contingent injury. Reference in this regard is made to the decision of the Hon'ble 4 Binod Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2014 (10) SCC 663 and Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy v. Sudha Seetharam, (2019) 3 SCALE 563.
C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 22 of 51 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.07.14 16:30:14 +0530
Calcutta High Court in Harendra Nath Das v. Jyotish Chandra Datta, AIR 1925 Cal. 100: (1925) ILR 52 Cal. 188 , wherein the Hon'ble Court, while iterating similar sentimentalities, remarked as under;
"6. ...Under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code, the damage or harm caused or likely to be caused must be the necessary consequence of the act done by reason of the deceit practiced, or must be necessarily likely to follow therefrom, and the law does not take into account remote possibilities that may flow from the act [Mojey v. Queen-Empress (1890) I. L. R. 17 Calc. 606]. The proximate and natural result only of the act has to be judged, and not any vague and contingent injury that may possibly arise [Milton v. Sherman (1918) 22 C. W. N. 1001]. The prosecution allege in the present case that the accused used the name of a bogus or non-existent firm, with the object of not fulfilling the contract in the event of the market going up, and as the market did go up he did not supply the jute with the result that Mr. Pithie suffered loss. Such remote consequences must, in my opinion, be ignored for the purposes of Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code..."
(Emphasis supplied)
13. Consequently, mindful of the principles hereinunder noted, this Court would now proceed with the appreciation of the evidence and material placed on record. In particular, at the outset, this court deems it pertinent to make a reference to the testimony of the complainant/PW-4/Sh. RP Sehgal, who inter alia deposed before the Ld. Trial Court that on 22.06.2000, while being posted as a Company Secretary with the Corporation, he/PW-4 made a complaint (Ex. PW4/A, bearing PW-4's signatures at point A) with respect to submission of fake medical claims by co-accused, Uttam Singh, who was an employee of the Corporation/department at the relevant point in time. Correspondingly, as per PW-4, Uttam Singh had submitted the medical claims relating to treatment of his son and while verifying C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 23 of 51 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.14 16:30:18 +0530 some of the bills by the account department of the Corporation, PW-4 deposed, it was observed that a common sales tax and drug license number has been shown in such bills issued by two different firms/shops namely M/s. Ashish Medicos, 644, Rani Bagh. New Delhi-34 and M/s. Sheetal Medicos, ND Market Pitampura, Delhi-34. Further, as per PW-4, from a perusal of the said bills, same were found to be fake. Correspondingly, PW-4 avowed that the sales tax and drug license number, mentioned on the said bills of both the firms, actually belonged to a third firm, namely, M/s. Ashish Medicos, 1258, Rani Bagh, New Delhi. It was further deposed by PW-4 that the aforesaid two firms were not in existence and that he/PW-4 had mentioned the losses caused to the department/Corporation under his complaint, against the bills which had already been processed, and some were wanting clearance. Further, PW-4 deposed that the bills submitted by Uttam Singh for reimbursement had been verified by the appellant, i.e., Dr. Anupam Sachdeva of RML Hospital Rajender Nagar. PW-4 further deposed that on 08.08.2000 Mr. V.C. Ojha, Manager, Accounts with the Corporation, submitted the original documents relating to the treatment of Uttam Singh's son to the police vide seizure memo (Ex. PW3/A), bearing PW-4's signatures at point A. Needless to mention, PW-4 correctly identified co-accused, Uttam Singh, before the Ld. Trial Court. Relevantly, PW-4, upon being cross examined, declared as under;
"XXXXXX by Sh. *** Counsel for accused Uttam Singh.
It is correct that I have not personally scrutinized the bills. Vol. The bills had been scrutinized by the accounts department. I am not aware whether accused Uttam Singh had returned the amount of the bills to the department. I cannot say whether department sustained any loss or not in view of the return of the amount by the accused. I have just forwarded the C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 24 of 51 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.14 16:30:21 +0530 complaint on the basis of the accounts department report. It is correct that I have no personal knowledge about the case.
XXXXXX by Sh. *** Counsel for accused Anupam Sachdeva.
Nil. Opportunity given..."
(Emphasis supplied)
14. Here, it is further pertinent to refer to the testimony of PW-3/Sh. V.C. Ojha, who deposed before the Ld. Trial Court that he had joined the Corporation in the year, 1985 and retired in the year 2004. As per PW-3, in the year 2000, he was working a Manager, Accounts in the office of the Corporation and the co- accused, Uttam Singh was an employee of the Corporation. Further, as per PW-3, Uttam Singh had submitted medical bills of his son for reimbursement and he/PW-3 had given the medical bills, prescriptions, etc., to the police on their demand, which were seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/A, bearing PW-3's signatures at point A. PW-3 further asserted that the details of the documents were mentioned in the seizure memo. PW-3 further proved the document of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Rajender Nagar, bearing registration no. 422260 (hospital card) dated 30.08.1999 as Ex. PW1/A; prescription and summary of the case, dated 04.01.2000 as Ex. PW3/B; Cash bill no. 0143589 for a sum Rs. 11,198/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand One Hundred and Ninety Eight only), dated 18.01.2000, as Ex. PW3/C; Cash bill no. 0144587 for a sum of Rs. 11,160/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand One Hundred and Sixty only), dated 17.02.2000 as Ex. PW3/D; prescription and summary of the case dated 24.01.2000 as Ex. PW3/E; prescription and summary of the case dated 22.02.2000 as Ex. PW3/F; Cash memo no. 240/11/99 of M/s. Ashish Medicos, 642, Rani Bagh for a sum of Rs. 14,400/- (Rupees Fourteen C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 25 of 51 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.07.14 16:30:25 +0530 Thousand and Four Hundred only); Cash memo of Rs. 13,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Thousand only), dated 18.01.2000 as Ex PW3/G; Cash memo of M/s. Ashish Medicos, dated 20.01.2000 for a sum of Rs. 11,000/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand only) as Ex. PW3/H; Cash memo of Sheetal Medicos, dated 19.02.2000 of an amount of Rs. 21,950/- (Rupees Twenty One Thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty only) as Ex. PW3/I; Cash memo for a sum of Rs. 407/- (Rupees Four Hundred and Seven only), dated 20.07.2000 of New Delhi Medicos as Ex. PW3/J; prescription, 11.02.2000 as Ex. PW3/K; prescription, dated 20.02.2000 as Ex. PW3/L; and prescription of Dr. Anupam Sachdeva, dated 24.11.1999 as Ex. PW3/M. Markedly, upon being cross examined, by/on behalf of the appellant/co-accused, PW-3 testified, as under;
"XXXXXX by ***, Ld. Counsel for the accused Uttam Singh.
Accused Uttam Singh is employee of DSCS. I do not remember whether permission for taking treatment in Sir Ganga Hospital was obtained by accused Uttam Singh from the department. It is correct that as per the record the son of the accused was suffering from blood cancer/lukemia. It is correct that as an employee, accused was entitled for treatment of his son. Vol. The same was as per rules. I do not know if the son of accused was also treated at AIIMS. I do not remember whether the amount of reimbursement was taken by the accused or not. XXXXXX by ***, Ld. Counsel for accused Dr. Anupam Sachdeva.
Nil. Opportunity given..."
(Emphasis supplied)
15. Pertinently, the factum of above seizure of documents was also proved by PW-8/Ms. Ritu Bajaj in her deposition before the Ld. Trial Court, who also proved the seizure memo (Ex. PW3/A), bearing her signatures at point C. At this stage, it is further relevant to note that PW-1/Sh. Kundan Lal Chhabra C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 26 of 51 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.14 16:30:28 +0530 proclaimed before the Ld. Trial Court in his deposition that he was operating/running a medical shop in the name of ' Sheetal The Medicine Shop' from ND Market, Pitampura, Delhi and that the owner of the said shop was his/PW-1's brother, namely, Anil Kr. Chhabra. Further, as per PW-1, the license of the said shop was issued in the name of Sh. Abhishek Dhawan, who was a Pharmacist, working with the shop. PW-1 further proclaimed that around 16-17 years prior to his deposition, in the month of October, some police reached at his shop and showed him/PW-1 some bills, which was asserted to be issued from his/PW-1's shop. On inquiry, as per PW-1, he disclosed that the bills shown to him by the Police officials were not issued from his/PW-1's shop as the name of shop mentioned in the bills was, 'Sheetal Medicos', however, the real name of PW-1's shop was, 'Sheetal The Medicine Shop' and as per PW-1, the sale tax no. over the said bills did not belong to his shop. As per PW-1, the license no. of his shop at that time was 9(1182) 20, 21, 208, 21B and he had also given a copy of the said license to the Police, photocopy of which is Ex. PW1/A. Correspondingly, PW-1 proved the original bill of his shop as Ex. PW1/B, bearing PW-1's signature at point A. Markedly, in his cross examination, PW-1 avowed, as under;
"XXXXXX by *** Counsel for accused, Anupam Sachdeva.
It is correct that the license of the shop is not in my name. It is also correct that police had not recorded statement of license holder Abhishek Dhawan and my brother (owner) in this case. I had not handed over any document to the police regarding employment of pharmacist Abhishek Dhawan at my shop. It is correct that neither I nor my brother is a pharmacist. It is incorrect to suggest that no pharmacist in the name of Abhishek Dhawan worked at my shop. Vol. He works at the shop since morning to evening. It is wrong to suggest that Sheetal Medicos, Ashish Medicos were made in a duplicate manner under the license of my C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 27 of 51 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.14 16:30:34 +0530 shop. It is incorrect to suggest that we were running 3- 4 shops in the name of Sheetal and only one license was issued to us in the name of Sheetal the Medicine. It is incorrect to suggest that I have opened 3-4 shops in the name of Sheetal and Ashish Medicos to evade sales tax and income tax. It is correct that a case U/s 132/135 of the Customs Act was made against me. Vol. I was acquitted 4-5 years back. (objected by Ld. APP) It is correct that an appeal is pending which has been filed by me in the Hon'ble High Court. It is wrong to suggest that since I used to do wrong and illegal work that is why we issued the duplicate bills to the customer in this case as well.
XXXXXX by *** Counsel for accused Uttam Singh.
Nil. Opportunity given..."
(Emphasis supplied)
16. Correspondingly, reference is made to the testimony of PW-9/Sh. Vijay Kumar Kalra, who deposed that at the relevant point in time, he had a Chemist shop in the name and style of, 'Aashish Medicos', at WZ-1258, Rani Bagh, Main Market, Delhi-110 034. Further as per PW-9, one medical bill, Ex. PW-3/H and Ex. PW 9/A were shown to him/PW-9 and the same did not belong to his/PW-9's shop, besides, as per PW-9, same were neither prepared by him, nor in his/PW-9's handwriting. However, as per PW-9, the Sales Tax number mentioned at point 'A' on the said medical bills, already Ex. PW-3/H and Ex. PW 9/A belonged to his/PW-9's shop, though, PW-9 reiterated that the said bills were not of his shop. Here, it is further pertinent to refer/reproduce the extract(s) of cross-examination of PW-9 by/at the behest of the appellant and co-accused, as under;
"XXXXXX by ***, counsel for accused Anupam Sachdeva.
I do not remember whether police official recorded my statement in the present case. I had given the specimen/original bill of my shop to the police to show the comparison with the PW-3/H and Ex. PW 9/A but the same is not in the file. Police official did not take my specimen handwriting and signature to C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 28 of 51 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.14 16:30:40 +0530 compare the same with the Ex. PW-3/H and Ex. PW 9/A. It is wrong to suggest that we had made duplicate copies of the bills on the same sales tax number and the licence number. It is wrong to suggest that in order to evade the sales tax and income tax we used to issue the duplicate medical bills. It is wrong to suggest that Ex. PW-3/H and Ex. PW 9/A had prepared by me from my shop and I am concealing this fact deliberately. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
XXXXXX by ***, counsel for accused Uttam Singh.
Nil. Opportunity given..."
(Emphasis supplied)
17. Germane for the purpose(s) of the present discourse to refer to the deposition of PW-5/Sh. Badri Singh, who proclaimed before the Ld. Trial Court that he was working as Fourth Grade employee at Faculty of Law, University of Delhi in the year 1995 and that he/PW-5 had a son whose name was, Vishal and he had cancer, which was being treated in Ganga Ram Hospital. As per PW-5, his son was treated by the appellant/Dr. Anupam Sachdeva in Ganga Ram Hospital and that he/the appellant used to provide medicines, including injections from his own. Further, as per PW-5, the appellant used to ask him/PW-5 to keep faith and that he would prove all the medicines to PW-5's son. It was further asserted by PW-5 that the appellant told him/PW-5 that he/PW-5 would get fake/spurious medicines, if he/PW-5 purchased from the market and that the appellant would, instead provide the medicines from his own. Further, as per PW-5, the appellant provided bills for the medicines, which was issued by Sheetal Medical Chemist and Drugs, ND Market, Pitampura, Delhi. However, as per PW-5, his son died/left for heavenly abode on 26.05.1995. PW-5 further deposed that the bills were also verified by the appellant and he/PW-5 had given the medical documents as well as bills relating C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 29 of 51 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK GOYAL ABHISHEK Date: GOYAL 2025.07.14 16:30:43 +0530 to the treatment of PW-5's son to the IO. PW-5 further proved, three photocopies of bills in the name of Vishal as Mark A, Mark B and Mark C. PW-5, however, expressed his inability to prove the original bills, as the same were stated to be not available with him/PW-5. Notably, under his cross examination, PW-5 affirmed as under;
"XXXXXX by *** Counsel for accused Anupam Sachdeva.
It is correct that the time I got my son admitted in the hospital till his death he remained in the hospital. It is correct that there is a dispensary in the hospital. It is incorrect to suggest that the medicines prescribed by Dr. Sachdeva were provided by the Hospital. It is correct that I do not have any receipt issued by the accused Dr. Anupam Sachdeva for providing the medicines. Vol. The bills were given to me by accused issued from Sheetal Medicos and Drugs. It is incorrect to suggest that the bills were issued by Sheetal Medicos to me personally. Vol. These bills were given to me by accused Dr. Anupam Sachdeva. It is incorrect to suggest that I purchased the medicines from Sheetal Medicos who actually gave me these bills because he was having duplicate bill books in order to avoid sale tax and income tax. It is incorrect to suggest that Dr. Anupam Sachdeva only verified the bills in respect of the medicines given in the hospital for my child and did not issued me any bills of Sheetal Medicos. It is incorrect to suggest that I gave the address of Sheetal Medicos who were dealing in cancer medicines to Uttam Singh who also purchased the same from that shop. I knew Uttam Singh after the date of incident as he came to me and discussed his case with me and then I told my case to him. It is wrong to suggest that Uttam Singh had met me before his son was admitted in the hospital and I had suggested him that I have bought these medicines from Sheetal Medicos from where he can also get the medicines for his son. It is incorrect to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
XXXXX by *** Counsel for accused Uttam Singh.
Nil. Opportunity given..."
(Emphasis supplied) C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 30 of 51 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.07.14 16:30:46 +0530
18. Here, it is further pertinent to note that PW-10/ Insp. Sukhdev Meena deposed in his testimony that during the course of investigation, he collected the treatment papers of Master Timmy from Ganga Ram Hospital and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW10/A, bearing his signature at point A. PW-10 further deposed that he recorded the statement of PW-5/Badri and the treatment papers/bills were sent to FSL Rohini. PW-10 further proclaimed that PW-5/Badri also handed over one complaint to him/PW-10, which was Ex. PW10/B, bearing PW-10's signature at point A, besides PW-5 is asserted to have also handed over photocopy of bills (Mark-A, Mark-B and Mark-C) to him/PW-10, whereupon, he prepared and filed the chargesheet before the Ld. Trial Court. Apposite to further refer to the deposition of PW-6/Sh. Anil Kumar, who proclaimed before the Ld. Trial Court that he knew the co-accused, Uttam Singh since his/PW-6's childhood, being his schoolmate and his house being adjacent to PW-6's house. In the year 1999, as per PW-6, he came to know that Uttam Singh's child namely Timmy was suffering from blood cancer and he had donated blood to Timmy in Ganga Ram Hospital in the year 1999. Further, as per PW-6, the appellant/Dr. Anupam Sachdeva was medically treating his/Uttam Singh's son Timmy and on 29.01.2000, he/PW-6 had also visited the private clinic of the appellant/Dr. Anupam Sachdeva, which was in the name of 'Aastha', situated at Madhuban Chowk, Pitampura with the co- accused Uttam Singh where he/Uttam Singh had given payment of Rs. 24,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four Thousand only) to the appellant/Dr. Anupam Sachdeva and he/the appellant issued, two bills/receipts against the money to the co-accused. PW-6 further proclaimed that one of the bill was in the name of 'Sheetal C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 31 of 51 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.07.14 16:30:50 +0530 Medicos' and he/PW-6 had given one affidavit to the police in respect of the aforesaid facts. As per PW-6, the said affidavit was not on judicial record, however, on the police file, photocopy of which was placed on record as Ex. PW6/A, bearing PW-6's signatures at points A and B. Needless to mention, PW-6 correctly identified both, the appellant and co-accused Uttam Singh before the Ld. Trial Court. Pertinently, upon being cross examined, PW-6 asserted as under;
"XXXXXX by ***, Id counsel for accused Anupam Sachdeva.
Police had recorded my statement in police station Paharganj. I had given the abovesaid affidavit in June, 2000. I do not know whether the police had seized the said affidavit through proper seizure memo or not. I did not sign any document except affidavit when I gave this affidavit to the police nor I had taken any receipt of the same. I had not placed any document or covering letter with this affidavit as to why I am giving this affidavit and in what connection and in which FIR. It is incorrect to suggest that being your schoolmate and neighbor, you have given false affidavit on the asking of accused Uttam Singh. I do not remember today what were the shops and offices and other doctors clinic nearby the clinic of the accused. (Vol. There was one TVS showroom near the clinic). There was one receptionist in the clinic of accused and after that there was a cabin of doctor accused. There was no any other patient at that time. I personally did not take any appointment from the doctor. Accused Uttam Singh might have taken the appointment from the doctor, I went only with him. It is incorrect to suggest that Dr. Anupam Sachdeva has not taken any payment of Rs. 24,000/- nor has given any receipt as alleged by me. It is incorrect to suggest that the doctor's receptionist used to fix the appointment and take the fees from the patients. Before 29.01.2000 and thereafter, I never went in the clinic of doctor. It is incorrect to suggest that I am deposing falsely at the instance of accused Uttam Singh.
XXXXXX by ***, Ld. counsel for accused Uttam Singh.
Nil. Opportunity given..."
(Emphasis supplied) C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 32 of 51 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.07.14 16:30:54 +0530
19. Strikingly, PW-7/Om Prakash deposed before the Ld. Trial Court that he knew co-accused, Uttam Singh since his childhood and that his/Uttam Singh's house was adjacent to that of PW-7's. Further, as per PW-7, in the year 1999, he came to know that Uttam Singh's child, namely, Timmy was suffering with blood cancer and on 08.08.1999, he/PW-9 had donated blood to Timmy in Kalawati Saran Hospital. Further, as per PW-7, the appellant/Dr. Anupam Sachdeva was medically treating Uttam Singh's son, Timmy. It was further deposed by PW-7 that on 22.02.2000, he had visited the private clinic of the appellant/Dr. Anupam Sachdeva, which was in the name of 'Aastha', situated at Madhubank Chowk, Pitampura with co-accused Uttam Singh where co-accused Uttam Singh had given payment of Rs. 21,950/- (Rupees Twenty One Thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty only) to the appellant and the appellant promised to issue bills, later on against the money. PW-7 further proclaimed that he had given one affidavit to the police in respect of the aforesaid facts, which was not on the judicial record, however, on the police file, photocopy of which is Ex. PW6/B. PW-7 further correctly identified the appellant as well as the co-accused before the Ld. Trial Court. Relevantly, under his cross-examination, PW-7 asserted, as under;
"XXXXXX by ***, Ld. Counsel for accused Anupam Sachdeva.
Police had recorded my statement in police station Paharganj. I had given the abovesaid affidavit in June, 2000. I do not know whether the police had seized the said affidavit through proper seizure memo or not. I did not sign any document except affidavit when I gave this affidavit to the police nor I had taken any receipt of the same. I had not placed any document or covering letter with this affidavit as to why I am giving this affidavit and in what connection and in which FIR. It is incorrect to suggest that being your schoolmate and neighbour, you have given false C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 33 of 51 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.14 16:30:58 +0530 affidavit on the asking of accused Uttam Singh. I do not remember today what were the shops and offices and other doctors clinic nearby the clinic of the accused. (Vol. There was one TVS showroom near the clinic). There was one receptionist in the clinic of accused and after that there was a cabin of doctor accused. There was no any other patient at that time. I personally did not take any appointment from the doctor. Accused Uttam Singh might have taken the appointment from the doctor, I went only with him. It is incorrect to suggest that Dr. Anupam Sachdeva has not taken any payment of Rs. 21,950/- nor has given any receipt as alleged by me. It is incorrect to suggest that the doctor's receptionist used to fix the appointment and take the fees from the patients. Before 22.02.2000 and thereafter, I never went in the clinic of doctor. It is incorrect to suggest that I am deposing falsely at the instance of accused Uttam Singh.
XXXXXX by ***, Id counsel for accused Uttam Singh.
Nil. Opportunity given..."
(Emphasis supplied)
20. Remarkably, here, it is also pertinent to refer to the deposition of PW-11/Insp. Pankaj Pandey, who asserted that on 23.06.2000, he was posted as Sub-Inspector at PS. Paharganj and that on the said day, one complaint (Ex. PW4/A) was received from the Corporation, which was marked to him/PW-11 for necessary action and report. Further, as per PW-11, after endorsement regarding the assignment of the complaint, he/PW-11 went through the same and made an endorsement ( Ex. PW 11/A), bearing PW-11's signatures at point A and handed over rukka to the Duty Officer. After registration of FIR, as per PW-11, the DO handed over the original rukka with a copy of FIR to him and he/PW-11 met with the complainant as well as made enquiry from him and recorded his statement. As the photocopies of certain alleged forged bills attached with the complaint, PW-11 asserted that he collected the documents and bills submitted by the accused C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 34 of 51 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.14 16:31:01 +0530 Uttam Singh for reimbursement with the department vide seizure memo (Ex. PW 3/A), bearing PW-11's signatures at point A, details of which were affirmed by PW-11 to be mentioned therein. Further, as per PW-11, he recorded the statement of witnesses and formally arrested the co-accused, Uttam Singh, besides his/Uttam Singh's personal search was conducted vide memo, Ex. PW 11/ C. PW-11 further correctly identified the appellant and co-accused before the Ld. Trial Court. It was further proclaimed by PW-11 that co-accused made his disclosure statement ( Ex. PW11/D), wherein he disclosed that the appellant/Dr. Anupam Sachdeva and he/co-accused used to meet at Astha Clinic, Pitampura where he/the appellant used to administer injection of Ethyanol. As per PW-11, the said injection was expensive and he/the appellant also told him/Uttam Singh that he/the appellant would give him bill for the same, against which he/the appellant could get reimbursement from his office. Further, as per PW-11, during the investigation, he/PW-11 tried to verify the shops bills of which had been deposited by co-accused Uttam Singh and he visited the address mentioned on the receipts, Ex. PW3/I and PW-3/G of Sheetal Medicos, however, no shop in the name of Sheetal Medicos, at the given address was found, however, there was a shop in the name of 'Sheetal The Medicine Shop'. As per PW-11, he made enquiry about the receipt, Ex. PW 3/I and Ex. PW 3/G from the owner of 'Sheetal The Medicine Shop', namely Sh. Kulbhushan, who after going through the receipts, disclosed that the same were not of his shop. PW-11 further asserted that on his request, Sh. Kulbhushan gave a sample receipt of his shop (Ex. PW1/B) and he/PW-11, recorded Sh. Kulbhushan's statement. Thereafter, as per PW-11, he went to verify the receipt Ex. PW 9/A and Ex. PW 3/H, under C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 35 of 51 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.14 16:31:06 +0530 the name and style of 'Ashish Medicos', Rani Bagh, however, as per PW-11, no shop of the said particulars were found at the address specified therein. Correspondingly, PW-11 asserted that he searched the appellant for the purpose of his interrogation at his residential address and at the Hospital also, however, the appellant/he could not be found. Thereafter, as per PW-11, the file was marked to Inspector Sehdev Meena as per the directions of the then SHO.
21. Markedly, under his cross examination, PW-11 testified as under;
"XXXXXX by ***, Ld. counsel for accused Uttam Singh.
As per documents, the child of Uttam Singh namely Timmy was under treatment by Dr Anupam Sachdeva. I am not medically that much sound to dealt whether the said child was being treated for blood cancer/leukemia. I cannot say whether the prescribed medicine was for the treatment of blood cancer/leukemia. As per documents the said child was being treated for the said illness at the clinic of Dr Anupam Sachdeva as well as Ganga Ram Hospital, I cannot say whether the impugned medicine bears batch number or not as the same was not mentioned on the receipt seized by me. Vol. Most of the time writing of doctors and chemist are not legible.
At this stage, the said bill which is placed on the judicial file shown to the witness, the said bill bears the batch number. Proper investigation could have been done through the batch number also. Again said the said document are forged so it cannot be ascertained as the writer of the receipt was not known and the chemist shops in question are also not available in view of the same it would be difficult for the company to divulge to whom the said medicine was given. I do not remember whether the said illness of son of Uttam Singh was cured by the use of said medicine as the same was not disclosed by the accused at any point of time till the time the investigation was with me. I do not remember whether I had verified regarding the price of the medicine mentioned in the impugned bill as the same is available in the market. It is correct that being public servant the accused Uttam Singh was entitled for the C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 36 of 51 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.14 16:31:10 +0530 reimbursement of the bill of medicine that is why Uttam Singh had filed said bills for reimbursement as per rules. It came to my knowledge that one Badri Singh also got treatment of his son Vishal in the same manner from the same doctor but he did not meet me or interrogated by me. I do not remember whether I had examined Anil Kumar and Om Parkash. I do not remember whether I had placed original affidavit of statement of said witnesses. It is correct that accused told that he had paid the cost of the medicine to the doctor in presence of witnesses. I do not remember the name of those witnesses in whose presence the cost of medicine paid. It is correct that accused had told that his son was also got medical treatment in AIIMS for the said illness, I had not seen the medical papers regarding the same. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
XXXXXX by ***, Id counsel for accused Anupam Sachdeva.
I did not investigate regarding the bills and the ownership of the medical stores mentioned on the bills from the sales tax department in respect of the sale tax number as to whom the sale tax number were issued. Vol. Since both the shops were not existing the bills were apparently forged and fabricated. It is incorrect to suggest that I did not verify from the hospital whether the medicine mentioned in the hospital record bills were given or not as the said doctor was never interrogated by me.
Q. Is it correct that the medicine mentioned in the said bills were given in the Hospital which is reflected in the medicine hospital record attached in the file? Ans. I far as I remember the most expensive injections in the bills that is Ethynol was not mentioned in the hospital records but the same was in the medical records held with accused Uttam Singh. Q. Have you ever got the medicine on the bills verified from the hospital record from the doctor of the hospital or not?
Ans. Same as the above.
Q Can you show the seizure memo of the documents Ex PW 6/A and PW 6/B?
Ans I cannot say whether there is any seizure memo is in the record or not in respect of the Ex. PW 6/A and PW 6/B as I was only initial IO and the case was transferred to SI Sukh Dev Meena and case is 20 years old.
I do not remember whether I recorded the
C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 37 of 51
Digitally signed
by ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
Date:
GOYAL 2025.07.14
16:31:14
+0530
statement of these two persons Anil Kumar and Om Parkas. It is incorrect to suggest that PW 6/A and PW 6/B were inserted by me without recording the statement and without mentioning about the seizure memo of these two documents in order to falsely implicate accused Anupam Sachdeva. It is incorrect to suggest that I intentionally inserted those documents in order to falsely implicate to Anupam Sachdeva as he had made complaint against me to the higher authorities. It is incorrect to suggest that the senior doctor specialist does not give medicine or its bills only prescribed the medicine in the hospital or in the private clinic. As far as I am aware many seniors doctors do administers medicine and injections at hospital and at Private clinic | even done for the same It is incorrect to suggest that I have falsely implicate the accused It is incorrect to suggest that I am deposing falsely..."
(Emphasis supplied)
22. Conspicuously, in light of the foregoing, this Court would now proceed with the evaluation of the material placed on record, in light of the arguments addressed by/on behalf of the appellant and the State. However, before proceeding further, this Court deems it pertinent to reiterate that under the impugned judgment, Ld. Trial Court acquitted the co-accused, Uttam Singh inter alia reaching a finding that the evidence placed on record was insufficient to bring home the charges levelled against the said co- accused/Uttam Singh and that, as per the Ld. Trial Court, from the material placed on record, even the offence of conspiracy could not be established against the appellant and co-accused in the instant case. However, in this regard, this Court deems it pertinent to further outrightly note that quite ominously, the Ld. Trial Court reached the finding of guilt of the appellant for the offences under Section 420/471 IPC, despite the fact that the appellant was not even charged with the offence under Section 471 IPC, besides it was not even the case of the prosecution that the bills in question were used/deployed by the appellant to claim reimbursement from C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 38 of 51 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.07.14 16:31:18 +0530 the Corporation. In fact, quite glaringly, though, the Ld. Trial Court reached the finding that the offence under Section 471 IPC was made out in the instant case as forged medical bills were presented for reimbursement with the Corporation/department, however, as aforenoted, co-accused Uttam Singh was acquitted all the charges levelled against him, whilst, appellant was convicted of the said offence, despite him being not even charged with the offence under Section 471 IPC, and as aforenoted, same not being the case of the prosecution or any of the prosecution witnesses that the said bills were, in fact, used by the appellant for seeking reimbursement from the Corporation by the appellant. Here, it is pertinent to refer to the relevant extracts (at pages 14, 15 and 19) of the impugned judgment, in respect of the foregoing, as under;
"...That the above receipts/medical bills were presented for reimbursement by accused Uttam Singh who was employee of DSCSC regarding treatment of his son stands proved from the testimony of PW-3, Sh V C Ojha (Retired Manager Accounts DSCSC) and from the testimony of PW-4 Sh R P Sehgal. Sh R P Sehgal was entrusted with the verification of bills and his testimony has already been evaluated in the above paragraphs. PW-3 Sh V C Ojha has categorically stated that in the year 2000 while he was working as Manager Accounts in the office of DSCSC, accused Uttam Singh who was employee of DSCSC submitted medical bills, prescriptions of his son for reimbursement and he gave these to the police which were seized vide seizure memo Ex PW-3/A bearing his signatures at point A, M/s Ashish Medicos, 642 Rani Bagh of Rs.14400/- cash memo of Rs.13000/- dated 18.01.2000 Ex PW-3/G, cash memo of M/s Ashish Medicos dated 20.01.2000 of Rs.11,000/- Ex PW-3/H, cash memo of Sheetal Medicos dated 19.02.2000 of Rs.21,950/- Ex PW-3/I, cash memo of Rs.407/- dated 20.07.2000 of New Delhi Medicos Ex PW-3/J, prescription dated 11.02.2000 Ex PW-3/K and prescription dated 20.02.2000 Ex. PW-3/L, prescription of Dr Anupam Sachdeva dated 24.11.1999 be exhibited as Ex PW-3/M. Hence, it stand proved that the above forged receipts were presented for reimbursement with the department i.e use of forged documents as genuine (471 IPC) stands C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 39 of 51 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.07.14 16:31:22 +0530 proved.
*** *** *** The present chargesheet has been filed on the allegations that accused conspired with each other for the purpose of preparing forged bills or using forged bills as genuine for seeking reimbursement and in fact managed to seek reimbursement to the tune of Rs. 14,400/- and therefore caused wrongful loss, but none of the PWs have supported the theory of conspiracy and rather majority of them have pointed accusing figure at accused no. 2 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion there is no evidence of conspiracy and rather the evidence suggest that accused Uttam Singh was a victim facing trial as an accused for about 20 years.
In view of the above discussion accused Uttam Singh stands acquitted of all the charges brought against him by the prosecution.
Accused Dr. Anupam Sachdeva stands convicted u/s. 471 IPC for using forged documents as genuine and also for offence of cheating punishable u/s. 420 IPC for causing wrongful loss by using of there documents..."
(Emphasis supplied)
23. Ergo, in light of the foregoing and being cognizant of such irreconcilable finding(s) of the Ld. Trial Court under the impugned order, this Court deems it pertinent to note that since the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the finding of his guilt under the impugned order, and no appeal by State or the complainant against the impugned order has been brought to the notice of this Court, this Court would confine its determination only to the aspect, ' whether from the material placed on record, offence under Section 420/471 IPC could be held to be proved beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant herein, in the instant case?' Conspicuously, in this regard, this Court, incipiently reiterates that the complainant/PW-4/Sh. RP Sehgal inter alia deposed before the Ld. Trial Court that co- accused, Uttam Singh, who was an employee of the Corporation/department at the relevant point in time submitted the C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 40 of 51 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.14 16:31:26 +0530 medical claims relating to treatment of his son. Further, as per PW-4, while verifying some of the bills by the account department of the Corporation, it was observed that a common sales tax and drug license number has been shown in such bills issued by two different firms/shops namely M/s. Ashish Medicos, 644, Rani Bagh. New Delhi-34 and M/s. Sheetal Medicos, ND Market Pitampura, Delhi-34, which prima facie indicated forgery. Correspondingly, PW-4 avowed that the sales tax and drug license number, mentioned on the said bills of both the firms, actually belonged to a third firm, namely, M/s. Ashish Medicos, 1258, Rani Bagh, New Delhi, besides the aforesaid two firms were not even in existence. Further, PW-4 deposed that the bills submitted by Uttam Singh for reimbursement had been verified by the appellant, i.e., Dr. Anupam Sachdeva of RML Hospital Rajender Nagar. Correspondingly, as aforenoted, both, PW-3/Sh. VC Ojha and PW-8/Ms. Ritu Bajaj proved the seizure memo of the documents from the Corporation, including the alleged fake/forged bills. Relevantly, when the testimonies of PW-4, PW-3 and PW-8 are read in conjunction with the depositions of PW-1/Sh. Kundan Lal Chhabra, PW-9/Sh. Vijay Kumar Kalra and PW-10/ Insp. Sukhdev Meena, this Court is in concurrence with the finding of the Ld. Trial Court that the factum of bills, Ex. PW3/H, Ex. PW 9/A, Ex. PW3/G and Ex. PW3/I being forged in nature stands proved in the instant case. Needless in this regard to reiterate that PW-11 specifically asserted before the Ld. Trial Court that upon him visiting the addresses of the medicos/chemist shops, specified under the said bills/bills in question, the shops , i.e., M/s. Sheetal Medicos (as specified under Ex. PW3/G and Ex. PW3/I) and M/s. Ashish Medicos (as specified under Ex. PW3/H, C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 41 of 51 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK GOYAL ABHISHEK Date: GOYAL 2025.07.14 16:31:30 +0530 Ex. PW 9/A) were found, not to be in existence. On the contrary, as noted herein, upon reaching at the address specified under Ex. PW3/G and Ex. PW3/I, as per PW-11, another shop in the name of 'Sheetal The Medicine Shop' was found operational at the said address. Correspondingly, it is in evidence before the Ld. Trial Court that PW-1/Sh. Kundan Lal Chhabra deposed that he was operating/running a medical shop in the name of ' Sheetal The Medicine Shop' from ND Market, Pitampura, Delhi and that the owner of the said shop was his/PW-1's brother, namely, Anil Kr. Chhabra. Further, as aforenoted, PW-1 further proclaimed that the license of the said shop was issued in the name of Sh. Abhishek Dhawan, who was a Pharmacist, working with the shop. PW-1 further proclaimed that around 16-17 years prior to his deposition, in the month of October, some police reached at his shop and showed him/PW-1 some bills, which was asserted to be issued from his/PW-1's shop. On inquiry, as per PW-1, he disclosed that the bills shown to him by the Police officials were not issued from his/PW-1's shop as the name of shop mentioned in the bills was, 'Sheetal Medicos', however, the real name of PW-1's shop was, 'Sheetal The Medicine Shop' and as per PW-1, the sale tax no. over the said bills did not belong to his shop. As per PW-1, the license no. of his shop at that time was 9(1182) 20, 21, 208, 21B. Correspondingly, PW-9/Sh. Vijay Kumar Kalra, deposed before the Ld. Trial Court that he was operating a chemist shop in the name and style of, 'Aashish Medicos', at WZ-1258, Rani Bagh, Main Market, Delhi-110 034 and the medical bills, Ex. PW-3/H and Ex. PW 9/A did not belong to his/PW-9's shop. In fact, as per PW-9, the said medical bills were neither prepared by him, nor in his/PW-9's handwriting, though, as per PW-9, the Sales Tax C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 42 of 51 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK GOYAL ABHISHEK Date: GOYAL 2025.07.14 16:31:33 +0530 number mentioned at point 'A' on the said medical bills, belonged to his/PW-9's shop.
24. Ergo, in light of the foregoing, the only conclusion which even this Court can unambiguously reach in this case is that the bills in question, Ex. PW3/H, Ex. PW 9/A, Ex. PW3/G and Ex. PW3/I, were forged in nature. However, this Court is further in concurrence with the finding with the Ld. Trial Court that there is no evidence on record to prove that the said bills/bills in question were either forged by the appellant or by the co-accused, Uttam Singh in the instant case. In fact, even a scrupulous analysis of the FSL Report dated 30.12.2003 (Ex. PW-12/A, proved by PW-12), gives no indication whether the said documents/bills in question were prepared/forged by the appellant or by the co-accused, in the instant case. In fact, even the said report give no indication whether the contents thereof were written in the handwriting of the appellant or the co-accused, namely, Uttam Singh, rather, besides even the verification by the appellant, overleaf the said invoices are not determined under the said FSL report to be that in the handwriting of the appellant. As a corollary, this Court agrees/coincides with the finding of the Ld. Trial Court that there is no evidence on record to prove the charges under Section 468 IPC against the appellant herein.
25. However, at this stage, this Court deems it pertinent to note that the Ld. Trial Court reached at the finding of guilt of the appellant for the offences under Section 420/471 IPC, primarily relying on the evidence of PW-5/Sh. Badri Singh, PW-6/Sh. Anil Kumar and PW-7/Om Prakash. However, upon a conscientious perusal of the material placed on record, this Court finds itself difficult to concede with the observation/finding reached by the C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 43 of 51 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.07.14 16:31:37 +0530 Ld. Trial Court under the impugned judgment. In this regard, this Court reiterates that PW-6/Sh. Anil Kumar inter alia asserted that on 29.01.2000, he/PW-6 visited the private clinic of the appellant/Dr. Anupam Sachdeva, which was in the name of 'Aastha', situated at Madhuban Chowk, Pitampura with the co- accused Uttam Singh where he/Uttam Singh had given payment of Rs. 24,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four Thousand only) to the appellant/Dr. Anupam Sachdeva and he/the appellant issued, two bills/receipts against the money to the co-accused. PW-6 further proclaimed that one of the bill was in the name of 'Sheetal Medicos'. However, despite such proclamation, it is observed by this Court that it has not come on record, whether the said 'so called' bill, asserted to be handed over by the appellant to the co- accused was the same as the bills in question, i.e., Ex. PW3/G and Ex. PW3/I. Correspondingly, PW-7/Om Prakash inter alia proclaimed that on 22.02.2000, he had visited the private clinic of the appellant/Dr. Anupam Sachdeva, which was in the name of 'Aastha', situated at Madhubank Chowk, Pitampura with co- accused Uttam Singh where co-accused Uttam Singh had given payment of Rs. 21,950/- (Rupees Twenty One Thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty only) to the appellant and the appellant promised to issue bills, later on against the money. However, again, the prosecution, in the considered opinion of this Court, has failed to prove whether or not any such bills were, eventually handed over by the appellant to the co-accused and/or to even demonstrate that the bills, which if eventually handed over/given by the appellant to the co-accused were, in fact, the forged bills. Ergo, both the said witnesses, in the considered opinion of this Court, have miserably failed to attribute the forged bills/bills in C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 44 of 51 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.14 16:31:40 +0530 question to have been issued by the appellant to the co-accused Uttam Singh in the instant case.
26. Correspondingly, Ld. Trial Court/prosecution has also relied on the testimony of PW-5/Sh. Badri Singh, who inter alia proclaimed before the Ld. Trial Court that his son was treated by the appellant/Dr. Anupam Sachdeva in Ganga Ram Hospital and that he/the appellant used to provide medicines, including injections from his own. Further, as per PW-5, the appellant provided bills for the medicines, which was issued by Sheetal Medical Chemist and Drugs, ND Market, Pitampura, Delhi and proved, three photocopies of bills in the name of Vishal as Mark A, Mark B and Mark C. However, in the considered opinion of this Court, no finding of guilt of the appellant could have been reached in the instant case even on the testimony of PW-5 for the reason that the deposition of PW-5 relates to some past transaction/documents, i.e., Mark A, Mark B and Mark C, which were neither proved nor shown to be forged in the instant case. In fact, even the original bills produced by PW-5 were admittedly stated by PW-5 to be not available with him. The same is notwithstanding the fact that the said documents, even presuming for the sake of the argument to be forged, would give no indication that the appellant had used forged bills/bills in question in the instant case, especially when it is the case of the prosecution that the co-accused used forged bills to seek reimbursement from the Corporation and as aforenoted, the said co-accused has already been acquitted by the Ld. Trial Court under the impugned judgment. Needless to further mention even from a scrupulous analysis of PW-5's testimony, it is observed that the said witness has given no indication of any personal knowledge of the C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 45 of 51 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.14 16:31:44 +0530 transaction in question, rather, deposed of an incident unrelated to the one before the Ld. Trial Court.
27. Astonishingly and in fact, one of the most disquieting aspects of the impugned judgment is the Ld. Trial Court heavily placed reliance on assertion of the co-accused, Uttam Singh and largely based its finding on a presumption that no person, whose son was suffering from leukaemia would procure fake bills or medicines, especially when the same were reimbursable by his department. In particular, Ld. Trial Court inter alia noted under the impugned order as under;
"...There is no dispute that son of accused no.1 Uttam Singh was under the treatment of accused no.2 Dr Anupam Sachdeva and during the course of arguments counsel for accused no.1 has agreed with Dr Sachdeva that due to the treatment of Dr Anupam Sachdeva only the disease of blood cancer was cured and now his son is hail and hearty in his youth. If such is the case then accused Uttam Singh ought to have been eternally grateful to Dr Anupam Sachdeva. It is quite unnatural for him to instead implicate Dr Anupam Sachdeva. Further, accused No.1 Uttam Singh appears not to gain anything by procuring fake bills. No person whose son is suffering from lekumia will try to procure fake bills or medicines against fake bills., particularly when such medicines have been actually administered and price of the same shall be reimbursed by his department. As already stated he shall be the last person to level false allegations against the doctor. If fake bills were given to him by the medicine shop then he would not hesitate to take the IO to such shop. Hence, this court is of the opinion that accused no. 1 Uttam Singh has no motive to falsely implicate accused no. 2 Dr Anupam Sachdeva..."
(Emphasis supplied)
28. Clearly, it is seen from above, that while reaching the aforesaid conclusion, the Ld. Trial Court, in the considered opinion of this Court, appears to have been swayed by factors, unwarranted and impermissible under law, in particular, by raising presumptions, which are not only unjustified and prejudicial to the C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 46 of 51 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.14 16:31:49 +0530 interest of the appellant, rather, do not coincide with the provisions under law. In fact, the Ld. Trial Court even erred in appreciating that the co-accused and the appellant were, jointly, in a trial before the Ld. Trial Court and neither was the co-accused, Uttam Singh an approver before the Ld. Trial Court, nor had he tendered any deposition before any court/judicial forum, which could have been tested on the anvils of cross examination by the appellant before the Ld. Trial Court. Correspondingly, while reaching the aforenoted conclusion, Ld. Trial Court further failed to even consider the settled law that a statement made by an accused person is admissible against others5, "who are being jointly tried with him only if the statement amounts to a confession. Where the statement falls short of a confession, it is admissible only against its maker as an admission and not against those who are being jointly tried with him", which is not the case here. Needless to further mention that even where a co-accused has tendered a confessional statement, law is trite6 that conviction of an accused, solely on the basis of confession of the co-accused is not permissible. Ergo, in the considered opinion of this Court, Ld. Trial Court erred even on law, to read the extracts of co-accused Uttam Singh's disclosure statement against the appellant to justify the finding of appellant's guilt under the impugned judgment.
29. Correspondingly, it is observed from a conscientious perusal of the impugned judgment, Ld. Trial Court further erred in appreciating that the charges levelled against the appellant and co- accused pertained to the offences of cheating and use of forged documents, while acting in conspiracy with each other, in so far as 5 Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.C. Shukla & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 1406.
6Surinder Kumar Khanna v. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, AIR 2018 SC 3574: 2018 Cri. LJ 4346.
C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 47 of 51 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.07.14
16:31:53 +0530
it related to the transaction with the Corporation, in distinction to the offence of cheating, if at all and any, of the co-accused by the appellant. Needless to accentuate the co-accused was neither a victim nor a complainant before the Ld. Trial Court, making the finding of appellant's guilt for the offences under Sections 420/471 IPC, as under the impugned order, untenable under law. In fact, in the considered opinion of this Court, from a painstaking scrutiny of the material placed on record, the element of fraudulent or dishonest inducement of the Corporation or any of its employee, officials, etc., so as to deceive the said Corporation, its employee, officials, etc., is not made out against the appellant in the instant case. In fact, even PW-4/Sh. RP Sehgal, PW-3/Sh. VC Ojha or PW-8/Ms. Ritu Bajaj have failed to prove and/or produce any document to demonstrate that the appellant induced the said officials/Corporation and pursuant thereto, there was any conveyance and or permissive retention of property or the officials of the Corporation did any act or omitted to do something, which caused or likely or cause any damage or harm to the Corporation in body, mind, reputation or property. Needless to mention, when the co-accused was acquitted of all the charges levelled against him and none of the said witnesses, PW-4/Sh. RP Sehgal, PW-3/Sh. VC Ojha or PW-8/Ms. Ritu Bajaj deposed anything against the appellant, finding of guilt of the appellant for the offence under Section 420 IPC in the instant case, cannot be reached beyond reasonable doubt in the instant case. Needless to reiterate that none of the said witnesses have deposed of any conveyance in favour of the appellant. In fact, PW-4/Sh. RP Sehgal, PW-3/Sh. VC Ojha or PW-8/Ms. Ritu Bajaj have not even brought on record, any document to corroborate any transfer of amount, even in favour of C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 48 of 51 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.14 16:31:56 +0530 the co-accused Uttam Singh. In fact, even PW-4/Sh. RP Sehgal, in his cross-examination asserted that he was not aware whether loss had been sustained by the department by the acts of Uttam Singh and that he had merely forwarded the complaint on the basis of the report of the Corporation's accounts department. Concomitantly, as aforenoted, Ld. Trial Court erred in convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 417 IPC, despite there being no charge(s) against the said Section framed against the appellant herein and despite the fact that there being no evidence on record to show that the appellant used forged documents with the Corporation. Needless to mention that even the testimonies of PW-5/Sh. Badri Singh, PW-6/Sh. Anil Kumar and PW-7/Om Prakash, in the considered opinion of this Court are insufficient to bring home guilt, beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant in the instant case. Needless to reiterate that in the considered opinion of this Court, the finding of appellant's guilt appears to have been premised on the finding of the Ld. Trial Court that the co-accused was a 'victim' in the present case, contrary to the case of the prosecution as well as against the cannons criminal jurisprudence. As aforenoted, the Ld. Trial Court further erred in drawing the aforenoted presumption against the appellant, impermissible under law. However, here this Court deems it pertinent to further note that it concurs with the observation of the Ld. Trial Court that in the absence of proof of medical records/treatment papers of Master Timmy by cogent evidence, it cannot be determined that Master Timmy was never prescribed 'Ethyol' and that the same was wrongly added by the appellant in the discharge summary of Master Timmy.
30. Consequently, when all the aforesaid factors are C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 49 of 51 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.07.14 16:32:00 +0530 considered in conjunction, this Court reiterates, records and unwaveringly reaches the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case, 'beyond reasonable doubt' against the appellant herein. Needless to mention, it is trite law 7 that the prosecution has to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt and the accused should be considered innocent, till it is established otherwise. It is equally a settled law8 that in case where two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused and the other adversely against it, the view favoring the accused must be accepted.
31. Conclusively, in light of the foregoing discussion, the present appeal deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. As a corollary, judgment dated 25.11.2021 passed by Ld. ACMM-01, Central, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in case bearing; ' State v. Anupam Sachdeva, Cr. Case No. 29106/2016', arising out of FIR No. 335/2000, PS. Paharganj, under Sections 420/468/471 IPC, convicting the appellant of the offences under Sections 420 and 471 IPC and the consequent order of sentence dated 06.12.2021, awarding sentence to the appellant in the manner, specified therein are hereby set aside. The appellant is hereby admitted to bail on him, furnishing of a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) along with one surety of the like amount, as required under section 437A Cr.P.C./ Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('BNSS' for short). Further, as requested, the bail bond be furnished within a period of one week of this judgment.
32. Trial Court Record be sent back along with a copy of 7 Meena v. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 5 SCC 21.
8Raghunath v. State of Haryana, (2003) 1 SCC 398, Dhan Kumar v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (1980) 1 SCC 605 and State of U.P. v. Nandu Vishwakarma, (2009) 14 SCC 501.
C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 50 of 51 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.07.14 16:32:03 +0530 this order/judgment.
33. Appeal file be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by ABHISHEK GOYAL ABHISHEK Date: GOYAL 2025.07.14 16:32:11 +0530 Announced in the open Court (Abhishek Goyal)
on 14.07.2025. ASJ-03, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 51 of 51