Delhi District Court
Sunil Saxena vs State on 1 November, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. NARINDER KUMAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (CENTRAL): DELHI
Crl. Rev. No.55/12
Sunil Saxena ........Petitioner
Versus
State ........Respondent
J U D G M E N T
Present revision petition has been filed against order dt.02.07.2012 passed by Learned Metropolitan Magistrate in case FIR no.392/91 of PS Daryaganj. Petitioner is one of the accused in the said case.
2. Vide impugned order, charge for offences U/s 408 read with Sec.34 IPC and in the alternative for offences U/s 120B, 420, 468 & 471 IPC has been ordered to be framed against him and his coaccused Sarvan Kumar (non petitioner).
3. Learned counsel for petitioner has contended that the only evidence available with the prosecution against the accused - petitioner is that of disclosure statement alleged to have been made by his coaccused Sarvan Kumar. Further, it has been submitted that nothing incriminating was recovered from the accused - petitioner. It has also been submitted that the specimen handwriting and signatures of the accused - petitioner was collected during Crl. Rev. No.55/12 1 investigation was sent to laboratory with disputed handwriting signatures but as per report received from the expert, the specimen handwriting and disputed handwriting signatures did not tally with the disputed handwriting / signatures.
On the other hand, learned Addl. P.P. respondent has submitted that prima facie case against the accused - petitioner is made out for the offences as the accused - petitioner being an employee, was entrusted with goods receipt book, out of which some of the goods receipt came to be misused by coaccused in prosecution of criminal conspiracy while obtaining loan from the bank.
4. Case FIR no.392/91 came to be registered on the complaint of Sh. Ramesh Chander Sharma, agent of M/s Bhandari Inter State Carriers at 1613/6, Pataudi House, Daryaganj, New Delhi. In the complaint, Ramesh Chander Sharma reported that for issuance of receipts against goods booked by him on behalf of said state carriers, he was issued a goods receipt book by the said carriers. This book contained receipt from book Sr.No.897201 to 897300.
As further reported by the complainant, Ravi Shankar, accused - non petitioner cheated his employee (present petitioner) by collecting blank goods receipt no.897250, 897288, 897289, 89791, 897295 and 897291 to 897300, without giving any goods. Ravi Shankar is alleged to have assured to return these blank receipts within 2 - 3 days but he did not return. Ravi Shankar and his colleagues Rakesh, Mander Mulmule are alleged to have given goods receipts to Punjab National Bank, Branch Nizamuddin (West) and obtained the Crl. Rev. No.55/12 2 loan with the said bank in connivance with said bank employees.
Investigation revealed that loan was obtained by Ravi Shankar from Punjab National Bank, Branch Nizamuddin (West), Delhi on the basis of goods receipts/MTRs no.897291, 897289, 897299 and 897250 by forging the same in conspiracy with the coaccused.
It is case of prosecution that Sarvan Kumar, accused was an employee of the aforesaid state carriers. As per FSL report, handwriting and signatures of said Sarvan Kumar depicted his involvement in forging the documents.
5. A perusal of Trial Court Record would reveal that specimen handwriting and signatures of Sunil, accused - petitioner were obtained and sent to expert for for comparison with disputed documents and the report submitted by the expert did not implicate the accused - petitioner.
Commission of crime came to notice of Ramesh Chander Sharma - complainant when he received telephonic information from Punjab National Bank, Branch Nizamuddin (West), whereupon he checked the receipt book and found that receipt No.8972980 was not there. It led to suspicion in the mind of the complainant. On checking the aforesaid goods receipt book, he found total 9 goods receipt missing from the said book.
It is further in the statement of Ramesh Chander Sharma - complainant recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C. that when he enquired from his employee Sunil (petitioner herein) he disclosed that Sarvan, the previous employee had delivered Crl. Rev. No.55/12 3 some goods receipts to Ravi Shankar, accused against money.
It is not case of complainant that Ravi Kumar (nonpetitioner) had collected the blank goods receipts from him (complainant).
From the contents of the complaint, which Ramesh Chander Sharma, employer of the present accused - petitioner submitted to the police, it transpires that the complainant levelled these allegations after having been so told by Sunil, accused. Only during evidence, it can be seen as to whether the receipts were collected by Ravi Kumar from Sarvan, the other employee and not from Sunil, present petitioner.
6. From the material available on record at the most, prima facie case for an offence U/s 408 IPC is made out against Sunil Kumar, as he being an employee of the complainant and having been entrusted with the goods receipts containing forged goods receipts, parted with these receipts and thereby, committed criminal breach of trust. However, there is no material on record to suggest that the accused - petitioner entered into any criminal conspiracy with his coaccused for forgery of the goods receipts and their use in obtaining loan.
7. In view of the aforesaid findings, the revision petition deserves to be allowed partly. Accordingly, revision petition is partly allowed setting aside the impugned order so far as the charge framed against him i.e. U/s 120B read with Sec.420, 468 & 471 IPC is concerned. Trial Court Record accordingly to amend the charge so far as Sunil accused - petitioner is concerned, by framing a charge Crl. Rev. No.55/12 4 only for an offence U/s 408 IPC against him.
Trial Court Record be returned and file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in Open Court
on 01.11.2012 (Narinder Kumar )
Additional Sessions Judge(Central)
Delhi.
Crl. Rev. No.55/12 5