Delhi District Court
State Pooja Date vs 5:36:34 on 31 October, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MS. POOJA TALWAR
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (SOUTH)
SAKET DISTRICT COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of :
Digitally signed
by POOJA
TALWAR
State POOJA Date:
TALWAR 2018.11.01
Vs. 15:36:34
+0530
Roop Narayan
FIR No. 101/2009
P.S Ambedkar Nagar
JUDGMENT
1. Sr. No. of case 2034998/2016
2. Date of institution 24.02.2011
3. Name of the complainant Sh. Atul Tripathi
CCFIL, Citi Financial, 3, LSC,
Pushp Vihar, New Delhi.
4. Date of commission of offence 24.04.2009
5. Name of accused Roop Narayan
S/o Sh. Kuldeep Narayan
R/o House No. C-70, Telecom
FIR No. 101/2009 PS Ambedkar Nagar Page- 1 of 27
Staff Quarters, Vivek Vihar,
Delhi.
6. Offence complained of U/s 419/420/511/468/471 IPC
7. Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
8. Date of reserving the judgment 15.10.2018
9. Final order Convicted
10 Date of such judgment 31.10.2018
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR
THE DECISION OF THE CASE
1. The story of the prosecution is that a complaint was received from one Sh. Atul Tripathi, Manager, Citi Financial alleging that one Sh. Rohit Verma had applied for a loan of Rs. 4 lacs. He represented that his father's name is Ramesh Verma and he is a resident of House No. 58, Gali No. 2, Krishna Kunj, New Delhi. He also represented that he was working with Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as BSNL) in the capacity of ADG. Upon enquiry, it was revealed that no one in the said name was working in the office. Hence, he was called. In response to the same, he produced an I Card in FIR No. 101/2009 PS Ambedkar Nagar Page- 2 of 27 the name of Sh. Rohit Verma, ADG, BSNL. He also produced electoral I Card in the name of Roop Narayan. He also produced one PAN Card No. AHSVP5661K. The said PAN Card was forged. Hence, FIR was registered on the complaint of Manager, Citi Financial. Investigation was carried out and chargesheet was filed.
2. Provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with. On appearance of accused before Court and prima facie case having been made out, charge for the offence of under section 419/511 IPC and section 420/511 IPC, 468/471/466 IPC was framed against the accused.
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses in all.
4. Complainant Sh. Atul Tripathi was examined as PW1. He deposed that in the month of 2009, he was posted as Manager (Fraud Management) in Citi Financial Company at LSC, Pushp Vihar. During that period, accused Roop Narayan (impersonated himself as one Rohit Verma) had applied for a loan of Rs. 4 lacs in their company vide loan application no.15889161 wherein he had disclosed that he was working FIR No. 101/2009 PS Ambedkar Nagar Page- 3 of 27 with BSNL, 20, Ashoka Road as a ADG. Thereafter, they started the process on his application for which they had inquired from his office i.e. BSNL but on their inquiry, they also found that no person by name of Rohit Verma was working as ADG. The members of the Credit team also found that the documents supplied by accused were suspicious. Thereafter, they called the accused who produced his I-card. He also produced one electoral I-card which was in the name of Roop Narain showing the photographs of accused as well as PAN card which was also found forged on inquiry. Thereafter, they called the police and informed about the attempt of cheating by accused with their company. He gave a typed complaint dated 24.04.2009 to police against the accused which is Ex.PW1/A. He also handed over a PAN Card, Licence, voter I-card and office ID to the police which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B. In this way, accused attempted to cheat the financial company to the tune of Rs. 4 lacs as a loan by submitting forged documents. The certified copy of PAN Card is Ex.P1, photocopy of application form of loan is marked as Mark A and office I-card of accused is marked as Mark B. The electoral I- card is marked as Mark C. Witness correctly identified the FIR No. 101/2009 PS Ambedkar Nagar Page- 4 of 27 accused before the Court.
5. Sh. J.P. Meena was examined as PW2. He deposed that in the year 2010, he was working as AGM (Administration-I) in BSNL. On 13.07.2010, he had replied to Inspector Raj Kumar Saha. The reply is Ex.PW2/A He deposed that no I-card in the name of Rohit Verma, ADG was issued by their office and no such employee had ever worked in their office. The said I-card is Ex.P1.
6. ASI Mam Chand was examined as PW3. He deposed that on 06.06.2010, IO Inspector Raj Kumar Saha issued a notice under section 91/160 Cr.P.C in the name of Ramesh Verma, who was the father of Rohit Verma @ Roop Narayan residents of 58, Gali No.2, Krishna Kunj Extension, Near Mother Dairy. He went to the aforesaid address to serve the notice. On reaching the spot and after inquiry, no person in the name of Ramesh Verma was found in the aforesaid address. He made a report on the same which is Ex.PW3/A. He also recorded the statement of Smt. Indu W/o Sh. Sanjeev Kumar as well as Chetan who were the resident of R/o 58, Gali No.2, Krishna Kunj Extension, Near Mother Dairy, who stated that no person in the name of Ramesh Verma was residing in the aforesaid address. FIR No. 101/2009 PS Ambedkar Nagar Page- 5 of 27 Statements of Smt. Indu and Chetan are Ex.PW3/B and Ex.PW3/C.
7. Sh. Man Mohan was examined as PW4. He deposed that in the year 2010, he was working as AGM (Administration) at Corporative Office since 2004 to 2013. He marked the copy of letter dated 11.08.2013 as Mark D which was purportedly issued from the office of Ministry of Communication, Department of Telecommunication, Sanchar Bhawan, 20, Ashoka Road on the letter head of BSNL and purportedly signed by the witness. He further deposed that the letter was never issued by him and did not bear his signatures. He did not know Mr. Rohit Verma and to best of his knowledge, he never remained posted as ADG in BSNL at that time in Ministry of Communication.
8. Duty Officer HC Virender Singh was examined as PW5. He deposed that on 24.04.2009 at about 8.10 pm, a rukka was received through SI Hari Prakash. On the basis of which present FIR was registered by Computer Operator on his instructions in the computer. One computer generated copy alongwith rukka was handed over to Ct. Surender for further investigation. Another computer generated copy of FIR was kept as record. FIR No. 101/2009 PS Ambedkar Nagar Page- 6 of 27 The copy of FIR is Ex.PW5/A. He made an endorsement on the rukka which is Ex.PW5/B.
9. Sh. G.R. Meena, GST Officer, IP Estate, ITO was examined as PW6. He deposed that on 11.05.2009, he was posted as Assistant Electoral Registration Officer at Assembly Constituency, Shahdara. That day, he issued a letter to IO of the present case with regard to verification of election ID card bearing No. ZSX 0670984 in the name of accused. He also issued the copy of enumerator/BLO, dated 22.11.2007 and copy of electoral roll. His letter is Ex.PW6/A and copy of enumerator/BLO is marked as Mark D.
10. Retired SI H.P. Gulia was examined as PW7. He deposed that on 24.04.2009, he received the complaint in the present case for further investigation of the case as per the directions of SHO. He prepared the rukka on the complaint which is Ex.PW7/A. He gave rukka to Duty Officer PS Ambedkar Nagar for registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, the original rukka and copy of FIR was handed over to him by Duty Officer for further investigation. He further deposed that the complainant gave certain documents to him which were seized by him vide seizure memo already Ex.PW1/B. The personal FIR No. 101/2009 PS Ambedkar Nagar Page- 7 of 27 loan application form is Ex.PW7/B, PAN Card is Ex.P2, election ID card is Ex.P3, driving license is Ex.P4, TATA indicom telephone bill is Ex.PW7/B1, bank statements of Canara Bank are Ex.PW7/B2 and Ex.PW7/B3, salary statement of BSNL is Ex.PW7/B4. He further deposed that accused was arrested on 24.04.2009 in the presence of complainant vide arrest memo Ex.PW7/C. His personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW7/D His disclosure statement was recorded vide disclosure statement memo Ex.PW7/E. He recorded the supplementary statement under section 161 Cr.PC of complainant.
During the course of investigation, he issued written notices to various departments for the purpose mentioned in the notices itself. The notice issued to Electoral Registration Officer, to the Office In-Charge, BSNL, Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi, to the Manager, Corporate Bank, Preet Vihar, Vikas Marg, Delhi Branch are Ex.PW7/F1 to Ex.PW7/F3 respectively. During the further course of investigation, he collected the rent agreement from Corporation Bank, Preet Vihar Branch, Delhi. The rent agreement is Ex.PW7/G which was collected by him from Corporation Bank and placed on record for the purpose of FIR No. 101/2009 PS Ambedkar Nagar Page- 8 of 27 sending the same to the FSL. Some reports were also received by him from various departments were placed on record. Due to his transfer on 20.01.2010, he handed over the case file to MHC(R) PS Ambedkar Nagar. Witness correctly identified the accused before the Court.
11. Inspector Raj Kumar Saha was examined as PW8. He deposed that on 08.02.2010, investigation of the present case was assigned to him. During investigation, he examined witnesses and recorded their statement under section 161 Cr.PC. He also got verified the ID Card no. 0669 issued in the name of Rohit Verma from BSNL. On 02.03.2010, he took the specimen signatures and handwriting of accused in presence of HC Mam Chand. The specimen signatures are Ex.PW8/A and the specimen handwriting is Ex.PW8/B. Thereafter, he sent the questioned documents and specimen documents to FSL vide covering letter Ex.PW8/C. During investigation, he also served notice under section 91 Cr.PC upon Ramesh Verma which is Ex.PW8/D. The letter written to AGM, BSNL for verification of ID Card no. 0669 and pay slip is Ex.PW8/E. After completion of investigation, he filed the chargesheet before the Court. Witness correctly identified the accused before the FIR No. 101/2009 PS Ambedkar Nagar Page- 9 of 27 Court.
12. Ms. Richa Pal, Senior Manager, Corporation Bank, Panchkula, Sector-11, Haryana was examined as PW9. She deposed that on 02.04.2009, she was working as an Officer at Asansol, West Bengal. The account opening form of accused is marked as Mark P1, copy of passbook and account statement are marked as Mark P2.
13. The entire incriminating evidence brought on record and his statement under section 313 Cr.PC It is stated on behalf of accused that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is stated that he had gone to Citi Financial for loan where they took 5-6 photographs and original documents i.e Voter ID card, Driving Licence and was asked to come after the formalities are completed. When he reached the office of Citi Financial, he came to know that one forged and fabricated form was filled in the name of one Rohit Verma with his detail and signatures and his photographs were also affixed. Certain other forged documents in the name of Rohit Verma were there with his photographs affixed on those documents. When he raised alarm against the said documents, Manager Sh. Atul Tripathi locked him in the room and called the police and handed over to FIR No. 101/2009 PS Ambedkar Nagar Page- 10 of 27 police by falsely alleging that he had signed as Rohit Verma. He does not know any Rohit Verma.
14. I have heard Ld. APP for the State and Ld. counsel for the accused and have also perused the judicial file carefully.
15. It is alleged against accused that he personated as Rohit Verma and annexed forged documents alongwith his application form in order to deceitfully obtain loan from Citi Financial.
16. PW1 Sh. Atul Tripathi was examined wherein he deposed that an application form Ex.PW7/B was filed by accused for obtaining a loan in the sum of Rs. 4 lacs. In the application, it was stated that the accused was working with BSNL. Upon enquiry, it was revealed that no person in the name of Rohit Verma was working with BSNL as ADG. When accused was called in the office, he produced an I Card, his PAN Card and one electoral I Card in the name of Roop Narayan. Both I card and PAN Card were in the name of Rohit Verma. Upon verification, I Card and PAN card were found to be forged. Whereas the electoral I Card in the name of Roop Narayan was found to be issued to the accused.
17. PW1 Sh. Atul Tripathi was not cross examined and his FIR No. 101/2009 PS Ambedkar Nagar Page- 11 of 27 testimony remains unrebutted and uncontroverted.
18. PW2 Sh. J.P. Meena was examined from BSNL. In his reply Ex.PW2/A, it is stated that I Card and Pay slip sent to the office of BSNL did not belong to any employee of BSNL. PW2 Sh. J.P. Meena was also not cross examined. His testimony remains unrebutted and uncontroverted.
19. PW4 Sh. Man Mohan Singh also corroborated the testimony of PW2.
20. PW6 Sh. G.R. Meena was examined to prove the verification of election I Card in the name of Roop Narayan. It is deposed by him that the said electoral I Card was issued in the name of Roop Narayan. Testimony of said witness proves that the correct name of accused is Roop Narayan.
21. PW7 retired SI H.P. Gulia deposed that documents such as personal loan application Ex.PW7/B, original I Card in the name of Rohit Verma issued by BSNL PAN Card Ex.PW1/P2, Election I Card Ex.P3, DL Ex.P4, TATA Indicom telephone bill Ex.PW7/B1, bank statement is Ex.PW7/B2, Salary slip and BSNL list is Ex.PW7/B3 and B4 were provided to him by the complainant. He got the said documents verified from the FIR No. 101/2009 PS Ambedkar Nagar Page- 12 of 27 various departments. He also collected rent agreement from Corporation Bank Ex.PW7/G. Various reports received from various departments were filed by him.
22. PW8 Inspector Raj Kumar Saha took specimen signatures and handwriting of accused Roop Narayan which is Ex.PW58/A. Special handwriting of accused is Ex.PW8/B. The said documents were sent to FSL alongwith covering letter is Ex.PW8/C.
23. It is opined by Dr. Virender Singh that accused signed the documents at Q6, Q7, Q13 and Q17. As per his opinion, the sample handwriting Mark S1 to S5 of the accused was found same as that on Q6, Q7, Q13 and Q17.
24. The defence taken by the accused in his statement under section 313 Cr.PC is that he had handed over 5-6 photographs to Citi Financial for obtaining loan. When he went to the office of the complainant, he found a forged and fabricated form filled in the name of Rohit Verma and forged documents having his photograph annexed alongwith the said form. He was compelled to sign the application form and upon refusal, he was forcibly implicated in the present case.
FIR No. 101/2009 PS Ambedkar Nagar Page- 13 of 27
25. The said defence has not been taken by the accused while cross examining either PW1, who was the complainant, PW7 and PW8, who were the Investigating Officers of the case. Testimonies of all these witnesses remain unrebutted and uncontroverted.
Law is settled in this regard that the foundation of the defence of any accused is required to be laid down during the course of cross examination of prosecution witnesses. The defence of the accused must be suggested to the prosecution witnesses during the course of their cross examination. In case a new line of defence, is sought to be introduced during the course of defence evidence or statement under section 313 Cr.P.C., whose foundation has not been laid during the course of cross examination of the prosecution witnesses, such defence cannot be accorded much credibility and viability. Reference may be made to the judgement titled as Ranbir Singh v. State of Haryana, reported as 2000(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 158 (P&H) wherein it was observed:
".....7. Some defence witnesses had been examined so as to indicate that the version of the petitioner is correct that he was not driving the vehicle rashlyand negligently. FIR No. 101/2009 PS Ambedkar Nagar Page- 14 of 27 But this was entirely a new case that had been set up. It had never been so suggested to the witnesses of the prosecution. It was clearly an after-thought and thus the defence was rightly rejected...."
26. The accused has been charged with the offence under section 419/511 IPC i.e attempt to cheat by personation and with 420/511 IPC i.e attempt to cheat.
The essentials of section 419 IPC are as under:-
(i) That the accused cheated someone;
(ii) That he did so by impersonation.
27. In order to bring home the charge under section 419, first and foremost the prosecution is required to prove that the accused cheated someone and in order to bring home the charge of cheating, the prosecution is required to prove that the accused induced someone to deliver any property and accused did so dishonestly by personating himself as someone else.
28. There must be cheating in addition to personation and personation must be for the purpose of cheating. Thus, cheating is an essential ingredient for the offence under section 419 IPC.
FIR No. 101/2009 PS Ambedkar Nagar Page- 15 of 27 Deception by itself does not amount to cheating unless the person so deceived is induced to do any of the acts which he would have not done if he were not so deceived.
29. In the present case, PW1 Sh. Atul Tripathi nowhere stated that due to personation of accused as Rohit Verma he was induced to grant loan. It is not stated by him that the loan would not have been granted in case the accused did not personate himself as Rohit Verma.
30. Reliance is being placed on the judgment titled as Thakur Mandal Vs. Emperor, AIR 1942 Pat 43: 43 Crl. J 65: 196 IC 748 wherein it has been held that "Personation is defined in section 416 IPC, the charging section is 419 IPC. To bring home an offence under section 419 IPC, the elements of section 416 IPC are to be proved. This apart to bring home a charge under section 419 IPC the person said to be deceived must be shown to have been cheated by the personation. This brings into the field the necessity of establishing of ingredients for cheating namely that there should be deception or intentionally inducing the victim to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived. This element can be illustrated by a Patna Case. There one M was an FIR No. 101/2009 PS Ambedkar Nagar Page- 16 of 27 employee in the Railway workshop. His service was terminated on account of reduction in the establishment and he was granted a certificate of discharge. This certificate was given by M to T as T had promised to get him re-employed in the workshop T then gave this certificate to one B who got an appointment in the workshop. B was prosecuted and conviced under section 419 IPC and T under section 419 IPC read with section 109 IPC. The certificate was found in the office of workshop. There was nothing in the evidence of the Manager of the workshop to show that he was induced by the discharge certificate in making the appointment of B. As regard, appointments, he said in his evidence that personal qualification of a candidate was the criterion for his appointment and if a candidate was found unfit for appointment, any recommendation would not be of any use. In the circumstances since the appointing authority was not induced to appoint B on the strength of the discharge certificate, the delinquent could not be said to be guilty for cheating by personation. "
31. In view of the law as laid down, prosecution has failed to prove that PW1 Sh. Atul Tripathi was induced by accused to FIR No. 101/2009 PS Ambedkar Nagar Page- 17 of 27 process his loan application form.
32. Accused thus cannot be said to be guilty of cheating by personation as the prosecution has failed to prove that PW1 who is allegedly deceived by the accused was induced by reason of such deception to process the loan application form of the accused which he would not have done if the accused had not personated himself as Rohit Verma.
33. As discussed above, prosecution has failed to prove that accused attempted to cheat PW1 Sh. Atul Tripathi, he cannot be said to be guilty of offence under section 420/511 IPC.
34. The accused has also been charged for the offence under section 468 IPC.
The essential ingredients of section 468 IPC are as under:-
(i) That the accused committed forgery;
(ii) That he did so intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating.
35. The essential ingredient is that the person should have committed forgery. Forgery is defined under section 463 IPC FIR No. 101/2009 PS Ambedkar Nagar Page- 18 of 27 and making a false documents under section 464 IPC.
Section 463:- Whoever makes any false document [or false electronic record] or part of a document [or electronic record], with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim of 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.
Section 464:- A person is said to make a false document or false 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 part of document, electronic record or [electronic signature] was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the FIR No. 101/2009 PS Ambedkar Nagar Page- 19 of 27 authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, 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 of electronic record or the nature of the alteration.
36. In judgment titled as Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of Bihar (2009) 8 SCC 751 wherein it was held by the Court:-
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 FIR No. 101/2009 PS Ambedkar Nagar Page- 20 of 27 FIR No. 653/2000, PS Moti Nagar Page 8/14 authorized by someone else; or
(ii) he altered or tampered a document; or
(iii) he obtained a document be practising deception, or from a person not in control of his senses.
12. The sale deeds executed by first appellant, clearly and obviously do not fall under the second and third categories of 'false documents;. It therefore remains to be seen whether the claim of the complainant that the execution of sale deeds by the first accused, who was in no way connected with the land, amounted to committing forgery of documents with the intention of taking possession of complainant's land (and that accused no. 2 to 5 as the purchaser, witness, scribe and stamp vendor colluded with first accused in execution and registration of the said sale deeds) would bring the case under the first category. There is a fundamental difference between a person executing a sale deed claiming that the property conveyed is his property, and a person executing a sale deed by impersonating the owner or falsely claiming to be authorized or empowered by the owner, to execute the deed on owner's behalf. When a person executes a document conveying a property describing it as his, there are two possibilities. The first is that he believes FIR No. 101/2009 PS Ambedkar Nagar Page- 21 of 27 that the property actually belongs to him.
13. The second is that he may be dishonestly or fraudulently claiming it to be his even though he knows that it is not his property. But to fall under first category of 'false document', it is not sufficient that a document has been made or executed dishonestly or fraudulently. There is a FIR No. 653/2000, PS Moti Nagar Page 9/14 further requirement that it should have been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by, or by the authority he knows that it was not made or executed. When a document is executed by a person claiming a property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorized by someone else. Thereafter, execution of such document (purporting to convey some property of which he is not the owner) is not execution of a false document as defined under section 464 of the code. If there is no forgery, then neither section 467 IPC nor section 471 IPC of the code are attracted.
"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 authorized by someone else; or (ii) he altered or tampered a document; or (iii) he FIR No. 101/2009 PS Ambedkar Nagar Page- 22 of 27 obtained a document by practising deception, or from a person not in control of his senses"
37. As discussed above in Mohd Ibrahim (supra) judgment, a person is said to have made a false document if he obtained a document by practising deception.
38. The accused can be held guilty under section 468 IPC if it is proved on record that he has committed forgery. From the provision as discussed above, it is not alleged against the accused that he made I Card Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 himself or obtained the same from Government and BSNL Office by deception which is essential requirement to hold accused guilty for the offence under section 468 IPC.
39. It has already been discussed above that the accused cannot be held guilty for cheating hence, he cannot be said to have committed offence under section 468 IPC.
40. Since prosecution has failed to prove that the accused committed forgery for the purpose of cheating hence, he cannot be held guilty for the offence under section 468 IPC.
41. The accused has also been charged under section 466 IPC. FIR No. 101/2009 PS Ambedkar Nagar Page- 23 of 27 The essential ingredients of the said section are as understand (I) That the accused forged a document (or an electronic re record);
(ii) That such document (or electronic record) was purported to be;
(a) A record or proceeding of or in a Court of justice; or
(b) A registered of birth, baptism, marriage or burial or a register kept by the public servant as such; or
(c) a certificate or document purported to be made by a public servant in his official capacity as such; or
(d) any authority to institute or defend a suit; or
(e) to take any proceedings therein or to confess judgment; or
(f) a power of attorney.
42. In order to bring home the charge under section 466 IPC, the prosecution is firstly required to prove all the ingredients necessary to prove an offence punishable under section465 IPC.
43. As it has already been observed above that the accused has not committed forgery as defined under section 465 IPC, he FIR No. 101/2009 PS Ambedkar Nagar Page- 24 of 27 cannot be held liable under section 466 IPC.
44. The accused has also been charged with the offence under section 471 IPC.
The essential ingredients to bring home the charge under section 471 IPC are as under:-
(i) fraudulent or dishonest use of a document as genuine;
(ii) the person using it must have knowledge or reason to believe that the document is forged one.
45. The important ingredient of section 471 IPC is that the document although not genuine and a person knowing it not to be genuine or having reason to believe that it is not genuine but a forged document uses it fraudulently or dishonestly is said to have committed offence under section 471 IPC.
46. In the present case, it has been proved on record that Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are forged documents which is evident from the testimony of PW2 Sh. J.P. Meena, PW4 Sh. Man Mohan, PW7 retired SI H.P. Gulia, PW8 Insepctor Raj Kumar Saha and PW9 Ms. Richa Pal. PW3 ASI Mam Chand and PW4 Sh. Man FIR No. 101/2009 PS Ambedkar Nagar Page- 25 of 27 Mohan have proved on record that document Ex.P1 has not been issued by the office of BSNL.
47. As per deposition of PW1 Sh. Atul Tripathi, the accused had filed the forged documents alongwith his application form in the bank and thus knowing fully well that the PAN Card as well as the identity card from BSNL were forged documents. His testimony is unrebutted and uncontroverted. Hence, it is proved that the accused filed forged documents as genuine and has thus committed offence under section 471 IPC.
48. From the aforesaid discussion, it is established on record that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the offence under section 471 IPC against accused beyond reasonable doubt and he is accordingly convicted for the said offence. However, the prosecution has failed to prove the offence under section 419/511 IPC, section 420/511 IPC and section 468/466 IPC against accused for which he is acquitted.
49. Copy of judgment be given to convict free of cost.
Announced in the open
Court on 31.10.2018 (POOJA TALWAR)
CMM (South), Saket Courts,
New Delhi
FIR No. 101/2009 PS Ambedkar Nagar Page- 26 of 27
Certified that this Judgment contains 27 pages and each page is signed by me.
(POOJA TALWAR) CMM (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi FIR No. 101/2009 PS Ambedkar Nagar Page- 27 of 27