Delhi District Court
State vs . Naresh Kumar & Others on 7 February, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. SHAILENDER MALIK:
ACMM/01, NORTH EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
State Vs. Naresh Kumar & Others
FIR No. 108/2000
U/s 420/468/471 R/w 120B IPC & 174A IPC
PS Bhajan Pura
JUDGEMENT
1 Sl. No. of the case : 33/09
2 Date of commission : 22.04.2000
offence
3 Date of institution of the : 14.11.2000
case
4 Name of the complainant : SI Balbir Singh, D. C. Cell, North East District 5 Name of accused, : 1 Navraj S/o Rajbir Singh R/o parentage & Address C118, Ambedkar Vihar, Aman Mohalla, Johri Pur, Delhi 2 Naresh Kumar @ Bali S/o Jai Pal Singh R/o 18/157, Tunda Nagar, Johri Pur, Delhi 3 Vidya Sagar S/o Bhanu Pratap R/o J197, Old Seema Puri, Delhi.
6 Offence complained of or : 420/465/467/468/471/120B IPC & proved 174A IPC 7 Plea of the accused : Navraj (Pleaded guilty) Naresh Kumar @ Bali & Vidya Sagar (Pleaded not guilty ) 8 Date of reserve for order : 07.02.2013 9 Final order : Convicted 10 Date of Judgment : 07.02.2013 FIR No. 108/200 PAGES 1 OF PAGE 13 BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE CASE : Accused Naresh Kumar @ Bali son of Jai Pal Singh and Vidya Dhar son of Bhanu Pratap were sent up to face trial for offence u/s 420/467/468/471/120B IPC. Factual background of the matter is that on 22.04.2000 SI Balbir Singh along with HC Dori Singh were on patrolling and search for clue duty in the area of Bhajan Pura Bus Stand. SI Balbir Singh stated to have received secret information that one person by name Vidya Sagar son of Bhanu Pratap who supplies forged documents of DTC, will come at C12, Telephone Exchange, Yamuna Vihar for supply of forged and fabricated DTC Passes to his customers and if raid be conducted, he can be apprehended along with fabricated documents. It is stated that upon receipt of said secret information, SI Balbir Singh along with the staff went near Telephone Exchange, Yamuna Vihar and they saw one person standing there along with one bag, secret informer pointed towards that person stating to be Vidya Sagar. After this SI Balbir Singh tried to join some public passerby in the raiding party but all the public persons left expressing their inability to join the proceedings and thereafter said person was apprehended, upon enquiry he revealed his name to be Vidya Sagar and when the bag on which "Nallie Silk Sarees" which accused Vidya Sagar was holding in his right hand, was checked from it five I Cards of ITI Shahdara, Five DTC Passes, one stamp of Principal of Corresponding School of Timarpur, Result Card issued from Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya and one TC (Transfer Certificate) of Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya and stamp were recovered. Accused stated to have told the SI Balbir Singh upon enquiry that those documents are forged and he was going to supply them to FIR No. 108/200 PAGES 2 OF PAGE 13 his customers. SI Balbir Singh stated to have got DTC Passes verified from one Gauri Shankar of DTC who also verified that those DTC Passes were fabricated.
On the above said facts SI Balbir Singh sent rukka for registration of the FIR and after the registration of the FIR accused Vidya Sagar was arrested, who upon interrogation made the disclosure statement disclosing therein the name of his coaccused namely Naresh Kumar. During the investigation Vidya Sagar pointed out the house of accused Naresh Kumar at C118, Ambedkar Vihar, Aman Mohalla and thereafter accused Naresh Kumar was apprehended who also got recovered DTC Passes, Identity Card of ITI and other documents. Name of another co accused Navraj son of Rajvir Singh was also revealed, who stated to have been absconding and during the investigation said accused Navraj was declare proclaimed offender. It is further stated in the report u/s 173 CrPC that during the investigation, specimen handwritings/signatures were obtained and documents and the specimen handwriting were sent to FSL Malviya Nagar. Upon completion of investigation charge sheet was filed, wherein accused Navraj was kept in column No. 2 as proclaimed offender whereas other two accused were charge sheeted.
Copy of charge sheet was supplied to both the accused persons, free of cost and Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 21.02.2008 framed charge for offence u/s 420/465/467/468/471 R/w 120B IPC on different counts, to which accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
FIR No. 108/200 PAGES 3 OF PAGE 13 During the course of trial accused Navraj Tomar who was declared proclaimed offender during the investigation, was also arrested and a supplementary charge sheet for offence u/s 174A IPC was also filed. Copy of the same was given to the accused Navraj and this court considering the material available on the main charge sheet and the supplementary charge sheet, concluded vide order dated 25.04.2012 that there was no evidence as against accused Navraj for offence u/s 420/467/468/471 IPC, however accused was charged for offence u/s 174A IPC, to which accused at that stage did not plead guilty.
In order to substantiate the charge prosecution has examined as many as eleven witnesses.
PW1 is Maheshanand Pant, who is Office Assistant and Shyam Lal College, Shahdara, who brought the relevant record and testified that as per the record Roll No. 7026 relating to B.A. (Hons.) History for admission in year 200001, the copy of the same is Ex PW1/A is for one Yatender Kumar, whereas the I Card collected during the investigation which is Ex PW1/B does not bear the stamp of Principal of the college or any other competent authority and is fake.
PW2 is Smt. Bhagwati, who states that she is residing in the area of Seema Puri since beginning and no person by the name Sajid son of Mohd. Shahid is residing at her address at Old Seema Puri and she never authorized any one for issuance of DTC Pass No. 985092.
PW3 is Dr. Naresh Kumar, Ex Education Officer, who has testified FIR No. 108/200 PAGES 4 OF PAGE 13 that during the investigation of this case IO had shown him one School Leaving Certificate Ex PW3/A of School Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya of one Rajeev Kumar Sharma, PW3 says that after seeing the record he had given the letter dated 08.09.2000 Ex PW3/B stating therein that said document Ex PW3/A is fake.
PW4 is Gajraj Singh Tyagi, who has also testified regarding the same School Leaving Certificate Ex PW3/A, that same was never issued by him when he was working as Principal of Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya.
PW5 is Shashi Prakash Sharma, Associate Professor from Shyam Lal College, who states that he was working as NCC Officer as Captain and Reader in Economics, (Department of Commerce) in the above said college and NCC Certificates collected during the investigation which are Ex PW5/A & PW5/B were never issued by his college and those documents were fake.
PW6 is Umesh Chand Verma, who has also testified regarding DTC Passes Ex PW6/A, PW6/B & PW6/C to be never issued from Shyam Lal College Evening Wing and were fake.
PW7 is one Nitin Sharma, who has testified that during the year 1999 he had taken admission in Industrial Training Institute (ITI) for Training of Draftsman and was also issued one Identity Card, subsequently PW7 stated to have left the said course and his Identity Card was misplaced. PW7 says that Identity Card Ex PW7/A though bear his photograph but he do not remember if there was any person by the name Bali in his class of that Institute.
FIR No. 108/200 PAGES 5 OF PAGE 13 PW8 is ASI Ved Prakash, who proved the formal registration of the FIR Ex PW8/A and endorsement on rukka Ex PW8/B. PW9 is ASI Dori Singh, who has testified that on 22.04.2000 while he was posted at District Crime Cell, Bhajan Pura, on that day he along with SI Balbir Singh, Ct. Somdutt, were present at Bhajan Pura where secret informer informed SI Balbir Singh that one Vidya Sagar who used to supply fake and forged passes of DTC, would come at Telephone Exchange, C12, Yamuna Vihar, for supply of fake DTC Passes to his customers and can be apprehended if raided. PW9 says on said information they along with secret informer reached at the spot where one person was standing and at the instance of secret informer, he was apprehended and on search of a bag with him, fake DTC Passes, I Cards, seals were recovered. PW9 says that public persons were also asked to join the proceedings but none had agreed. PW9 further says that subsequently accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex PW9/A and PW9/B and made the disclosure statement Ex PW9/C. PW9 further testifies that on 18.09.2000 SI Balbir arrested the accused Naresh Kumar who was involved in the present case vide memo Ex PW9/E & PW9/F and disclosure statement is Ex PW9/G. PW9 further testifies that during the investigation that he along with the IO had gone to the house of accused Vidya Sagar and IO had also searched for accused Navraj. Witness has also proved pointing out memo Ex PW9/H & PW9/I and one no recovery memo Ex PW9/J. PW9 further testifies regarding recovery of fake DTC Passes and other documents from the house of accused Naresh Kumar on 23.04.2000 vide seizure memo Ex PW9/K. Case property was produced in the court and plastic bag is Ex P1 and FIR No. 108/200 PAGES 6 OF PAGE 13 stamp is Ex P2.
PW10 is HC Sanjeev, who proved the relevant entry in the Register No. 19 regarding depositing the case property in the malkhana of PS Bhajan Pura vide entry No. 1718 same is Ex PW10/A. PW11 is IO SI Balbir Singh, who when appeared in the witness box, has also testified regarding apprehending of accused Vidya Sagar at C12, Yamuna Vihar upon pointing out by secret informer as well as regarding recovery of alleged fake DTC Passes, I Card and stamps etc. vide seizure memo Ex PW9/D. PW11 further testifies that he prepared the rukka Ex PW11/A and sent the same through Ct. Somdutt for registration of FIR and prepared the site plan Ex PW11/B. PW11 also proved the arrest of accused Vidya Sagar after the registration of FIR as well as about disclosure statement of the accused Vidya Sagar Ex PW9/C. PW11 further testifies that accused Vidya Sagar led the police party and pointed out the place of coaccused Naresh Kumar at House No. 157, Gali No. 1, Tunda Nagar, where accused Naresh Kumar use to allegedly prepare fake documents, pointing out memo is Ex PW9/I. Witness further testifies that upon the search of the accused some documents like fake DTC Passes, NCC Certificates of Shyam Lal College, Identity Card of Shyam Lal College, were recovered vide seizure memo Ex PW9/K. PW11 also testifies regarding arrest of accused Naresh Kumar on 18.09.2000.
Since prosecution was given many opportunities to record the evidence and since matter pertains to year 2000, therefore prosecution evidence was closed and upon closure of the same, all the FIR No. 108/200 PAGES 7 OF PAGE 13 incriminating evidence as came on the record, were put to the accused in terms of the provision of section 281/313 CrPC, wherein accused while denying the evidence has taken the plea of false implication.
No evidence was led in defence.
Since only charge as against accused Navraj Tomar was for offence u/s 174A IPC, accused Navraj pleaded guilty to the said charge u/s 174A IPC vide his separate statement recorded on 07.02.2013 which was duly identified by his counsel.
I have heard Shri Praveen Chaudhary, Ld. Counsel for the accused Vidya Sagar and Shri Sanjeev Kumar Ld. Counsel for accused Naresh Kumar.
Having heard the submissions and having gone through the record carefully, it would be noted that accused persons have been charged for offence u/s 420/465/467/468/471 R/w 120B IPC, section 415 of Code has defined the offence of '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, reputation or property is said to "Cheat".
FIR No. 108/200 PAGES 8 OF PAGE 13
Explanation: A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within
the meaning of this Section."
The first part of the definition relates to property. The second part need not necessarily relate to property. The second part speaks of intentional deception which is not only to induce the person deceived to do or omit to do something but also to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. In order to constitute an offence the ingredients of cheating are :
(i) There should be a fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him.
(ii) The person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person.
(iii) To consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which if 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.
Then section 463 of the Indian Penal Code defines the offence of 'forgery' as:
"Whoever make any false document or part of a document 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, FIR No. 108/200 PAGES 9 OF PAGE 13 or to enter into any express or implied contract or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery."
In order to constitute forgery, the first essential is that the accused should have made a false document. The false document must be made with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any class of public or to any community. It may also be stated that Section 463 defines a forgery simpliciter, whereas Section 465 to 471 define an aggravated form of forgery. Section 467 relates to forgery of such documents as valuable securities and of other documents mentioned. Section 468 deals with forgery for the purpose of cheating. The offence is complete as soon as there was forgery with a particular intent. Section 471 deals with using as genuine a forged document. For the purpose of convicting an accused under Section 467 read with Section 471 IPC, it has to be shown that an accused either knew or has reason to believe that the document was forged.
Since it necessary for establishing charge of 'Forgery' that there must be making of a false document, Section 464 IPC defines the words of "Making a false document" as under : First. Who dishonestly or fraudulently makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document, or makes any mark denoting the execution of a document, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of a document was made, signed, sealed or executed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed or FIR No. 108/200 PAGES 10 OF PAGE 13 executed, or at a time at which he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed or executed; or Secondly: Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or, otherwise, alters a document in any material part thereof, after it has been made or executed 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, knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practiced upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration.
Explanation 1 A man's signature of his own name may amount to forgery.
Explanation 2 The making of a false document in the name of a fictitious person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by a real person, or in the name of a deceased person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by the person in his lifetime, may amount to forgery.
As per section 464 of the Penal Code, a person is said to make a false document who dishonestly or fraudulently makes, signs, seals or FIR No. 108/200 PAGES 11 OF PAGE 13 executes a document or part of a document. The definition of a "false document" contained in S. 464, I.P.C., would show that a person is said to make a false document under Cl. (1), if any signature, mark, writing etc. of another is made with requisite mens rea, or under Cl.(2) if a document is materially altered unauthorized or under Cl. (3) if a document is got executed from a person of unsound mind or intoxicated person or a person who from deception practiced on him does not know the contents of the document. A reading of section 463 and section 464of the I.P.C. will clearly show that if a person writes a document in his own name and with intention that the person receiving the document should accept it as a document coming from himself and not from any third person then he cannot be said to have committed forgery.
Keeping in view the above discussed legal propositions in mind, if we appreciate the evidence came on the record witnesses PW1 to PW8 only indicate regarding different documents collected during the investigation to be fake. Similarly two witnesses namely PW9 & PW11 have been examined regarding apprehending of accused Vidya Sagar and Naresh Kumar as well as regarding fake documents like DTC Passes, I Card etc. Documents recovered from the house of the accused Naresh Kumar have been sought to be proved to be fake by evidence of PW1 to PW8. Taking the evidence in totality I find that at the most accused can be fastened with criminal liability for offence of cheating as it has been proved on the record that these accused persons had prepared those documents only with intention to deceit and to take wrongful gain. But I do not find there is evidence on the record to show that it was accused Vidya Sagar and Naresh who have forged these FIR No. 108/200 PAGES 12 OF PAGE 13 documents thus necessary ingredients of offence u/s 464/463 IPC, are not proved on the record because it has not been proved that it was accused persons who have made these documents or have committed the forgery. Thus making of false document as defined u/s 464 IPC could not be proved on the record even if we take the FSL report into consideration which is lying on the record and is perse admissible. Although I find that ingredients for offence u/s 471 IPC is well proved on the record because it is proved on the record that the documents recovered are false and also recovered in the possession of the accused persons in such circumstance for reasons discussed above I find accused Vidya Sagar and accused Naresh guilty for offence u/s 420/471 IPC only.
Since accused Lavraj Tomar has pleaded guilty therefore he is convicted for offence u/s 174A IPC. Let accused persons be heard on the point of sentence on tomorrow i.e. 08.02.2013.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 07.02.2013 (SHAILENDER MALIK) ACMMI, North East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi FIR No. 108/200 PAGES 13 OF PAGE 13