Delhi District Court
State vs . Parmod Gupta Etc. on 23 July, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIDYA PRAKASH ACMM1/NW/RC/DELHI
State Vs. Parmod Gupta etc.
FIR No. 356/92
PS: Shalimar Bagh
U/s 408/468/471 IPC
Case ID No. 02401R0144222006
JUDGEMENT
A) Sl. No. of the case : 47/2
B) The date of commission : Between the year 198991
of offence
C) The name of the complainant : Sh. Aylur Subramaniam
Internal Auditor, M/s Balsara
Hygiene Product Ltd., 43, Nagin
Dass Master Road, Fort, Bombay.
D) The name & address of accused: 1. Parmod Gupta
s/o Hari Ram Gupta
R/o RZ142A, Indira Park,
Pankha Road, New Delhi
2. Ajay Gupta
s/o Sh. Hari Ram Gupta
r/o RZ142A, Indira Park,
Pankha Road, New Delhi (discharged
on 10.05.96)
FIR No. 356/92 Page No. 1/40
2
E) Offences complained of : U/s 408/468/471 IPC
F) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
G) Final order : Acquitted
H) The date of such order : 23.07.2011
Date of Institution : 31.07.1993
Judgment reserved on : 23.07.2011
Judgment announced on : 23.07.2011
THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT:
1. The prosecution sent two accused persons namely Parmod Gupta and Ajay Gupta to face trial in respect of offences U/s 408/468/471/120B/34 IPC. The accused Ajay Gupta was discharged in this case vide order dated 10.5.96 passed by Sh Rakesh Garg the then MM, Delhi and thus, accused Parmod Gupta alone is facing trial in the present case.
2. In brief, the case of prosecution is that written complaint dated 06.12.91 was filed under the signatures of Sh. A.C Subramaniam, Internal Auditor Manager on behalf of M/s Balsara Hygiene Product Limited addressed to the then Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime and Adm.) Bombay alleging therein that accused Parmod Gupta and other persons in order to defraud the company got prepared bogus claim and passed them and also collected certain cheques which were FIR No. 356/92 Page No. 2/40 3 issued in the name of various stockists. The accused allegedly used to open bogus accounts in the names of such stockists and then to deposit the cheque/draft obtained by them from company, in those factitious accounts and subsequently used to withdraw money from those accounts and to misappropriate the same. Since accused Ajay Gupta has already been discharged in this case, the allegations levelled against accused Parmod Gupta alone are being discussed herein for the sake of clarity and brevity. It was alleged that in April 1991, the complainant company carried out internal audit at Bombay Head Office and Delhi through its auditors and as per audit reports submitted by internal auditor of the company, it was revealed that the accused have committed the offences of fraud, cheating, forgery as well as misappropriation of amount during the period between 1989 till 1991. The details of the cheques/drafts as well as bogus accounts allegedly opened by accused Parmod Gupta are mentioned in the said written complaint. On the basis of said written compliant running into 12 pages, FIR was initially registered by Crime Branch CID Bombay on 06.12.91 and investigation was entrusted to PSI L.N.S Rao. During investigation, various documents regarding different bogus accounts opened with different banks of different branches from which the cheques issued by complainant company in favour of their stockists, were fraudulently deposited and subsequently encashed, were seized by IO. The statements U/s 161 Cr.PC of concerned persons were also recorded and on the basis of said offences, accused Parmod Gupta was arrested by Bombay police on FIR No. 356/92 Page No. 3/40 4 04.6.92.
3. It is relevant to mention here that accused Parmod Gupta challenged the jurisdiction of Bombay police before Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and pursuant to order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, the investigation was transferred to Delhi. Consequently, FIR No. 356/92 was registered at PS Shalimar Bagh and investigation was entrusted to SI Anil Kapoor who further seized certain documents from different branches of different banks, original claim forms on the basis of which cheques were issued in favour of stockists and also recorded statements U/s 161 Cr.PC of other persons. The questioned documents were sent to CFSL for comparison alongwith specimen writings of accused.
4. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet U/s 408/468/471 IPC was filed in the present case against accused Parmod Gupta and Ajay Gupta on 31.03.1993. Complete copies of the charge sheet and documents were supplied to the accused and after complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C, arguments on charge were heard. Vide order dated 10.5.96, the charge under section 408/468/471 IPC was framed in the present case against accused Parmod Kumar to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
FIR No. 356/92 Page No. 4/40 5
5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses namely PW1 S.L.Mukhi PSO CFSL, PW2 Sh. Shanti Prakash, PW3 Prem Arora, PW4 Sanjeev Gupta, PW5 Satish Chhabra, PW6 Vijay Budhiraja PW7 Dr. Nirdosh Singh Gandharav, PW8 Ballabh Lal, PW9 Aylur Subramaniam, PW10 Vinod Kumar Jain, PW11 Virender Kumar Jain, PW12 Laxmi Narain Gupta, PW13 Sh. L.N.S.Rao, PW14 Sudhir Kumar Sharma, PW15 Raj Kumar Gulati, PW16 Raghbir Singh, PW17 Inspector Anil Kapoor and PW18 Ashok Singhal till 02.02.2005.
PW1 Sh. S.L.Mukhi PSO CFSL deposed that he is an hand writing expert having experience of considerable period. Vide order dt. 19.3.93, the documents pertaining to present case were examined by him with the help of scientific equipment and he gave his opinion vide his report Ex PW1/M. As per said opinion, specimen writing mark S10 to S12 which were exhibited as PW1/A to PW1/A3 and writing on documents mark A34 to A36 which were exhibited as PW1/B1 to PW1/B3, writing on document mark A1 which was exhibited PW1/C and writing on document mark A4 which was exhibited PW1/D, were of the same person who was responsible for writing the questioned writings mark Q6 and Q7 which were exhibited as PW1/D1 to D2, documents mark Q8 to Q10 which were exhibited as PW1/E, mark Q11 which was exhibited as PW1/F, document mark Q35 which was exhibited as PW1/G, Q36 to Q41 which were exhibited as PW1/H, Q41 FIR No. 356/92 Page No. 5/40 6 which was exhibited PW1/J, Q43 Ex as PW1/JK and Q44 and Q45 subsequently exhibited as PW1/L. During his cross examination, he admitted the suggestion that report Ex PW1/M is his opinion based on the scientific equipment. He further admitted that the writing appearing in Q6 to Q11 is not similar to that of writing of S10 to S12. He denied the suggestion that his opinion is not based on scientific examination and is based upon his visional examination.
PW2 Sh. Shanti Paraksh is formal witness who simply deposed that he is landlord of premises no. G72, East of Kailash, New Delhi and the accused Parmod Gupta whose name appears in document Ex PW1/5, never resided at the said address. During his cross examination, he deposed that he did not know any person with the name of Parmod Gupta during his life and he cannot say as to who has filled up the address of G72, East of Kailash in document Ex PW1/5.
PW3 Sh. Prem Arora deposed that he is doing business of distribution under the name and style of M/s P.N Arora & Company as its proprietor. He was distributor of M/s Balsar a Hygiene Product Limited during the period 198990 and also remained its agent for five years. He was having current account in OBC, Kirti Nagar branch. He used to raise claim for damages from complainant company but FIR No. 356/92 Page No. 6/40 7 he did not receive any amount vide cheque no. 012093 dt. 16.11.09 of Rs. 12,550/ or any payment through cheque no. 588050 dt. 21.8.90 of Rs. 8150/ from complainant company. He further deposed that he never opened any account in the name of M/s P.N Arora & Co. with Ghaziabad Zila Sehkari Bank. He further deposed that Sh R.K Gehlot Regional Sales Manager of complainant company used to visit his office from time to time.
During his cross examination on behalf of accused, he deposed that he cannot tell as to who had opened the account in Zila Sehkari Bank Ghaziabad in the name of M/s P.N Arora & company. Accused Parmod Gupta never visited his office at any point of time and he never received any product through said accused. All the payments were used to be made to him by way of account payee cheque.
PW4 Sh. Sanjeev Gupta is again a formal witness who simply deposed that he knew accused Parmod Gupta since 1983 as both of them were working in Ranbaxy at one point of time. He had introduced Ajay Gupta for opening an account in PNB Bengali Market and also identified his signatures on Ex PW4/A. Said witness was not cross examined by accused despite opportunity.
PW5 Sh. Satish Chabhra deposed that he is running business as an agent of FIR No. 356/92 Page No. 7/40 8 complainant company since 1980 and he has got an account in the name of his firm with State Bank of Patiala, Jalandhar. All the payments against the claims submitted by his firm, used to be received by way of account payee cheques or demand draft or credit note. He did not receive amount of Rs. 66,132/ as shown through two demand drafts and four cheques. He never opened any account with Central Bank of India, Ghas Mandi, Baraut (UP).
During his cross examination, he deposed that he had dealing with complainant company through its Regional Manager Mr. Gehlot and Market Manager namely Sh. V.K. Anand and said two persons alone used to visit his office at Jalandhar. He deposed that he did not have any dealings with accused Parmod Gupta and he did not know as to who had opened account with Central Bank of India, Baraut (UP).
PW6 Sh Vijay Bhudhiraja is again a formal witness who deposed that he joined the complainant company as Account Assistant Cum Cashier and worked there for about 8 years till 1996. The accused Parmod Gupta was also working in the complainant company in market department. During his cross examination, he testified that he did not remember as to whether he made any statement to the police or not.
PW7 Dr. Nirdosh Singh Gandharv deposed that in the year 1993, he was posted as Manager, Ghaziabad Zila Sehkari Bank Ltd., Ghaziabad at Surya Nagar FIR No. 356/92 Page No. 8/40 9 Branch. He produced specimen signature card Ex PW7/A of account No. 25 in the name of P.N.Arora & Company bearing the specimen signature of P.N.Arora. He also produced account opening form of P.N.Arora & Company dt. 21.11.89 Ex PW7/B bearing account no. 25 having signature of P.N.Arora. He also produced account opening form of Kishore and Kishore Brothers dt. 16.09.89 Ex PW7/C with regard to account No. 21.
During his cross examination on behalf of accused Parmod Gupta, said witness deposed that account no. 21 and 25 belonging to Kishore & Kishore and P.N Arora were not opened during his tenure and he cannot say about the account opening form Ex PW7/B or account opening form Ex PW7/C was signed by whom as same were not executed in his presence. He also deposed that column of introducer in Ex PW7/C was blank and specimen card was also not available in bank record. The name of introducer in respect of account no. 25 was shown as Vimal Kishore but he cannot say as to whether said Vimal Kishore was account holder with the said bank or not. He improved his statement by further deposing that said Vimal Kishore was allegedly holding account no. 21 on behalf of Kishore and Kishore Company and he introduced P.N Arora and Company for opening account no. 25. He did not know as to whether any complaint was received from P.N Arora and Kishore & Kishore Company for any undue loss or illegal withdrawal from their bank accounts or not. FIR No. 356/92 Page No. 9/40 10
PW8 Sh. Ballabh Lal deposed that in the year 1993, he was posted as Cashier at Ghaziabad Zila Sehkari Bank, Surya Nagar Branch. He further deposed that Dr. Nirdosh Singh the then Manager of Surya Nagar Branch produced specimen signature card Ex.PW7/A of PN Arora & Co., account opening form of PN Arora and Co. bearing account no. 25 Ex.PW7/B and account opening form Ex PW7/C of Kishore @ Kishore Brothers bearing account no. 21 to IO which were seized through seizure memo Ex.PW7/D. During his cross examination, said PW deposed that he has no personal knowledge about accounts no. 25 and 21 opened in the name of Kishore and Kishore Company and P.N Arora and Company respectively. He further deposed that specimen signature card in respect of account opened in the name of Kishore & Kishore Company is not available and also that the column of the signature of introducer in Ex PW7/C is blank. He further deposed that he was not posted in the said branch at the time when both the said accounts were opened and he did not know as to who was operating those accounts during the relevant period.
PW9 Sh. Aylur Subramaniam deposed that he joined Balsara Hygiene Products Ltd. Bombay in the year 1982 as Internal Auditor. In the year 1991, he was working as Internal Audit Manager and he lodged a complaint Ex.PW9/A with police on behalf of complainant Co. At that time, Rakesh Kumar Girohtra was working as Regional Sales FIR No. 356/92 Page No. 10/40 11 Manager at Delhi, J.Lekhwani was wokring as Distt. Manager at Delhi and Parmod Kumar Gupta was working as Sr. Branch Administrative officer at Delhi. In the year 1991, company carried out internal audit at Delhi branch and internal audit report was submitted to the Director (Finance) regarding the irregularities and misappropriation. Bogus claims purportedly produced by the stockists were verified and passed by accused persons and against their claim, cheques were issued in settlement against the claims of purported stockists and these bogus claims were settled and cheques issued against the stockists were deposited by opening fictitious accounts in the name of stockists by impersonating themselves and thereby they cheated the company and encashed the cheques by withdrawing amounts from such accounts and caused wrongful loss to the company. The cheques of Rs. 50,672/ were handed over to Parmod Gupta in settlement of claim for being handing over the same to M/s Kishore & Kishore Brothers. These cheques bearing no. 830316 (DD), 012107, 029590, 588084 were deposited by opening an account no. 21 at Ghaziabad in the name of M/s Kishore & Kishore Brothers in Ghaziabad Zila Sehkari Bank Ltd. This account at Ghaziabad was fictitious one. The bank account was closed on 16.12.90 and all the above said amount was misappropriated. He further deposed that stockist M/s Chhabra Agency was situated at Jalandhar (Punjab) and cheques bearing no. 018088, 023540, 583761 and 588051 and DD 455898 and 830440 were given to Parmod Gupta issued in favour of M/s Chhabara Agency Jalandhar for an amount of Rs. 66,132/. A fictitious account was opened in the name of M/s Chhabra Agency at FIR No. 356/92 Page No. 11/40 12 Central Bank of India, Ghas Mandi, Baraut, UP under account no. 745. The said account was closed on 16.07.91 and this amount was misappropriated by the accused. Similarly cheques bearing no. 012099 and DD No. 830315 and 457035 were given to Parmod Gupta in settlement with Empire Distributor of Chandigarh. A fictitious account in the name of Empire Distributor was opened at Central Bank of India at Baraut, UP and account was closed on 06.02.90 and the amount was misappropriated by the accused. Similarly in settlement with stockist P.N. Arora of Delhi, cheques bearing no. 012093 and 588050 of Rs. 20,700/ were entrusted to Parmod Kumar and fictitious account in the name of M/s P.N.Arora was opened at Ghaziabad Zila Sehkari Bank Ltd under account No. 25 and account was closed on 18.11.90. Same was misappropriated by the accused. In claim forms bearing no. 24047, 24046, the quantity was raised by forging the claim forms. The cheques Ex.PW9/C1 to PW9/C7 are on record which were issued to the parties concerned but were encashed by opening fictitious accounts at above said places and the amount was misappropriated by the accused. Claim forms Ex.PW9/D1 to PW9/D27 were checked, verified and certified Parmod Kumar. The payment for rent was paid by M/s Narang Agencies and the company had issued a credit note favouring Narang Agencies in settlement of the above claim. 50 silver coins were purchased for distribution to the dealers for an amount of Rs. 3400/ but the cash memo Ex PW9/E was fabricated which was initially for an amount of Rs. 3400/ but an amount of Rs. 3400/ was added and an amount of Rs. 6800/ was made and this claim in the name of Narang Agency was verified by Parmod Gupta. FIR No. 356/92 Page No. 12/40 13 Rakesh Goirotra issued a credit note Ex.PW9/D1. Documents Ex.PW9/E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, E6, E7, E8 and Ex.PW9/D1 and D2 and Ex.PW9/E were produced by Padmanadhan which were seized by IO through seizure memo Ex.PW9/F. During his cross examination, PW9 deposed that he resigned from services of complainant company in the year 1996. He had filed the complaint dt 6.12.91 on the instructions of Sh J.D Chacha Director (Finance) of the company. Said instructions were verbal and he did not come across any resolution passed by complainant company in favour of Sh J.D Chacha. He admitted that the accounts of the complainant company are subject to compulsory statutory audit and there was a pre audit system. He further deposed that complaint was also made against two more persons namely Rakesh Gilhotra (Regional Sales Manager) having charge of North Zone and J. Lekhwani District Manager whose duty was to interact with stockists and retailers. He also deposed that accused Parmod Gupta was not authorised to pass the claims exclusively but he was one of the persons whose certification was necessary for approval of the claims of the stockists. It was within the domain of Regional Sales Manager to approve the claims of stockists after certification by accused Parmod Gupta. He admitted that all the claim forms Ex PW9/D1 to D27 are firstly signed by Sales Man after the signatures of stockists and as per procedure, normally claim forms are given by stockists to salesman of the area. At this stage, it is relevant to mention that claim forms Ex PW9/D1 to D5 are in respect of M/s Anita FIR No. 356/92 Page No. 13/40 14 Trading Company, Ballabgarh(Haryana), claim forms Ex PW9/D6 to D10 are of Amit Enterprises, Yamuna Nagar(Haryana), claim forms Ex PW9/D9 to D16 are of Kishore & Kishore Brothers, Amtirsar (Punjab) and claim forms Ex PW9/D17 to D27 are in respect of M/s Chahbara agencies, Jalandara (Punjab). PW9 further deposed that when misappropriation of fund came to the notice during audit, cross checking was also done and the statements of stockists were recorded wherein they stated that the claims were not preferred by them. He could not tell the name of the person by whom claim forms Ex PW9/D1 to D27 were filled up. He admitted that the services of Mr. Rakesh Gilhotra and J. Lekhwani were terminated by complainant company on account of charges which form the subject matter of present case. He also admitted that accused Parmod Gupta had resigned and his resignation was accepted by the company. He was not aware if complainant company had issued certificate to accused Parmod Gupta for his success in his life. He admitted that complainant company had filed suit for recovery of Rs. 4,90,144.60 paise against Rakesh Gilhotra, J. Lekhwani and Parmod Gupta. He did not know as to whether the cheques which were meant to be handed over to stockists, were given to accused Parmod Gupta against proper receipt or not. He categorically deposed that his report was to the extent that cheques issued by complainant company did not reach the right person but instead, those cheques were got encashed through fake accounts but he cannot say as to whether those fake accounts weer opened by accused Parmod Gupta or not. He did not remember as to whether complainant company had to make payment to the stockists FIR No. 356/92 Page No. 14/40 15 in whose favour cheques were earlier prepared and allegedly misused. He denied the suggestion that he had filed false complaint against accused Parmod Gupta.
PW10 Sh. Vinod Kumar Jain deposed that he was posted as Accountant in Baraut branch of Central Bank of India (UP) from 1987 to 1993. The account No. 744 was opened by Sh Rakesh Kumar in the name of Empire Distributor and this account was introduced by M/s Rakesh Kumar Ratan Kumar through proprietor Sh. Ram Gopal Gupta. He proved the copy of original account opening form as Ex.PW10/A. The original account opening form Ex.PW10/A is in torn condition and does not contain contents and signature of introducer. However, those particulars are available in its attested copy Ex.PW10/B. During cross examination, he deposed that he himself did not participate at the time of opening the said account and he has no personal knowledge about the same. He cannot identify the person who had opened the said account.
PW11 Sh. Virender Kumar Jain deposed that he was posted as Cash Officer at Baraut Branch of Central Bank of India from July 1988 to 1994. The current account No. 745 was opened on 02.9.89 in the name of Chhabra Agencies by one Satish Chhabra as its proprietor and Ram Gopal Gupta of M/s Rakesh Kumar, Ratan Kumar introduced said Satish Chabra for opening the account. The introduction portion of this account opening form is in torn condition. He exhibited the certified copy of said FIR No. 356/92 Page No. 15/40 16 account opening form as Ex.PW11/A. During cross examination, he deposed that he was not authorized to get the account of the customer opened and he signed on account opening form Ex PW11/A as a matter of routine. He did not remember the features of Satish Chahbara who had signed on the account opening form. He could not tell as to whether said Satish Chahbara was Sardar or Sikh or clean shaved. He also could not tell even approximate age of said Satish Chahbara or his physical built.
PW12 Sh. Laxmi Narain Gupta deposed that he had seen the account opening form of account No. 1453 which was opened in the name of Kamal Agencies D20, Parwana Road, Delhi and the same was introduced by Sanjeev Gupta having current account no. 1121. He exhibited the specimen signature card of account no. 1453 as Ex.PW12/A. During cross examination, he deposed that Ex PW4/A and PW12/A were not filled up or signed or prepared in his presence. He did not personally know any person namely A.K Gupta and Sanjeev Gupta. He could not tell as to whether Sh. Madaan in whose presence the account was opened, is alive or not. He has no personal knowledge about the case or about the opening of account no. 1253 mentioned supra.
PW13 Sh. L.S.N.Rao deposed that he was posted as Sub Inspector in the General Branch CID in the year 1992. During that posting, he received the complaint Ex.PW9/A from A.C. Subramaniam on behalf of Balsara Hygiene Products Ltd. The FIR No. 356/92 Page No. 16/40 17 said witness has not been cross examined by accused despite grant of opportunity.
PW14 Sh. Sudhir Kumar Sharma deposed that he was working as Regional Warehouse Manager in Balsara Hygiene Product Ltd from 1986 to 1996. He did not know about any inquiry conducted by police officials from him in connection with some case. This witness was also cross examined by Ld. APP for the State and in such cross examination, he stated that he did not remember that he had made statement mark X but he admitted that seizure memo Ex.PW14/A bears his signature. He also did not know that the claim form Ex.PW14/A was submitted by him. He admitted that accused Parmod Gupta was his colleague in the company. The said witness has not been cross examined by counsel for the accused.
PW15 Sh. Raj Kumar Gulati deposed that he was earlier working in Syndicate Bank and in the year 1992, he was posted in East Patel Nagar branch of Syndicate Bank as Sub Manager. He admitted that police had asked him for some record in case of Balsara Hygiene. The same was provided to the police vide letter Ex.PW15/A. The statement of account is mark PW15/B. He further stated that there may be 11/12 cheques handed over to IO out of which 7 cheques were on record and the same were Ex.PW15/C1 to to Ex. PW15/C7. He further deposed that one account opening form of Parmod Gupta as per record, was handed over to police and the same is already exhibited as Ex.PW1/C. FIR No. 356/92 Page No. 17/40 18 During his cross examination, he admitted that the statement of account supplied by him alongwith letter dt. 14.2.92, is certified on 17.3.93. He did not remember as to which statement of account was handed over by him to the police. He admitted that the letter Ex PW15/A is not signed by him. The cheques Ex PW15/C1 to C7 relate to account no. 1677 opened in the name of Balsara Hygienic Product Limited.
PW16 Sh. Raghbir Singh, Chief Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank deposed that in the year 1992, he was posted as Officer in Ranjit Nagar branch of Punjab & Sind Bank. He stated that police had met him regarding this case. He did not know about any inquiry conducted by the police officials from him in connection with some case. This witness was also cross examined by Ld. APP for the State and in cross examination, he admitted that police had recorded his statement. He admitted that account No. CA292 was in the name of M/s Amit Enterprises and was opened on 10.05.90 and its proprietor was some Ajay Gupta and this account was introduced by Director of Ganga Overseas. He further admitted that he had handed over the account opening form Ex PW16/A to the police and also the specimen signature card. Said specimen card is Ex PW16/B. Statement of account of the said account Ex PW16/C was also handed over. The said account was opened by the then Manager Sh. Kulwant Singh.
During his cross examination, said PW admitted that accused Parmod Gupta FIR No. 356/92 Page No. 18/40 19 has no concern with the documents Ex PW16/A to PW16/C and also that the account opening forms Ex PW16/A and PW16/B were not executed in his presence.
PW17 Inspector Anil Kapoor who is IO of this case, deposed that on 13.10.92, he was posted in Crime Branch as SI. He admitted that a complaint of Sh. A.S.Subramaniam Internal Audit Manager, Balsara Hygiene Product was received from Bombay as per order of Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai. On the said complaint, he had made endorsement Ex.PW17/A and a case was got registered at PS Shalimar Bagh vide FIR Ex.PW17/B. He seized documents pertaining to account No. 1257 in the name of Anita Trading Company from Bank of Baroda vide seizure memo Ex.PW17/C. He further seized certain documents pertaining to account no. 292 of Amit Enterprises vide seizure memo Ex.PW17/C. He also seized documents including specimen card Ex.PW16/B and the cheques Ex.PW1/K, Ex.PW1/L and Ex.PW17/D and E. He had gone to Baraut and seized some documents from Central Bank of India. The same were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW17/E. The seized documents are Ex.PW10/A, Ex.PW1/E, Ex.PW17/F, Ex.PW1/D and Ex.PW17/G. On 04.03.93, he visited Ghaziabad Zila Sehkari Bank and documents pertaining to Current Account No. 25 in the name of P.N.Arora and Company produced by Nirdosh Singh Manager were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/B. On 13.03.93, specimen writing of Parmod Gupta and Ajay Gupta were taken on different sheets S1 to S37 collectively Ex.PW17/H. Certain CFSL documents alongwith questioned and specimen were filed in the court FIR No. 356/92 Page No. 19/40 20 vide application Ex.PW17/J. During his cross examination, PW17 admitted that original complaint also contained the names of R.K Gilhotra and J. Lekhwani but clarified that during investigation, no evidence could be collected against them. He did not remember as to whether bank official, introducer of the bank account or any other independent witness of any other company examined by him, deposed that accused Parmod Gupta had opened factitious bank account in factitious name. The claimants on whose behalf bogus claims had been alleged, were not examined by him during investigation. The internal audit report of the company was not supplied to him during investigation by the complainant. He admitted that he did not file on record the statement of complainant namely Sh A.C Subramaniam on whose complaint FIR was recorded. He testified that it is difficult to suggest which claim has been forged/inflated by accused Parmod Gupta.
PW18 Sh. Ashok Singhal Sr. Manager Bank of Baroda deposed that from 1991 to 1995, he was posted in East of Kailash branch of Bank of Baroda. He deposed that in the year 199293, some police officials came to his bank and were handed over some documents i.e specimen signature card of Parmod Gupta and statement of account duly authenticated by bank. The said statement of account is Ex.PW18/A. Thereafter, he transferred from the said branch and no more information was given by FIR No. 356/92 Page No. 20/40 21 him. This witness was cross examined by Ld. APP for the State and in such cross examination, he admitted that one of his statement was recorded by the police on 27.01.93. He admitted that cheques No. 029596 and 588045 of Syndicate Bank, East Patel Nagar branch issued by M/s Balsara Hygiene Product in favour of M/s Anita Trading Company were shown to him and after checking the same, he told that these were credited in account no. 1257 of Bank of Baroda, East of Kailash Branch.
During cross examination by accused, he admitted that account no. 1257 was not opened in his presence and he could not tell as to who was operating the account. He did not identify accused Parmod Gupta. He could not tell as to whether accused Parmod Gupta has any connection with Amit Trading Company or not. He also could not tell as to whether any person claimed the amount in the name of Anita Trading Company from the bank. Despite being pointed out towards the accused Parmod Gupta, said PW stated that he has never seen him and cannot say as to whether said accused ever visited the bank or not.
6. I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for the State and Sh. S.C.Jain, Ld. counsel for the accused. I have also carefully considered the material available on record including the written arguments filed by the accused as well as the authorities cited at the bar.
FIR No. 356/92 Page No. 21/40 22
7. Thereafter, statement U/s 313 Cr.PC of accused was recorded wherein the stand of the accused was of general denial. He stated that he was not the authority to prepare any claim or even to pass the same. All the claims were got prepared by the field staff at the places of distributors throughout the country. No internal audit report was prepared as same has not been produced in the Court and no information of misappropriation was received by complainant company from its distributors. There is no complaint of any distributor against him and the complainant company has not been put to any loss. He is innocent and he had resigned from complainant company on his own against receipt of full and final settlement of his dues and the complaint was lodged by official of complainant company as counter blast to the suit for reinstatement into the services and payment of salary and damages filed by R.K Gilhotra and J. Lekhwani. However, said accused opted not to lead any DE in this case.
8. While opening his arguments, Ld counsel for accused submitted that since internal audit report has not been filed before the Court, an adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution as had there been any discrepancy in the books of accounts of Delhi Branch of the complainant company, same would have been produced before the Court. Ld counsel for accused also relied upon the findings on issue no. 7 given by Ld Court of ADJ in suit for recovery filed by complainant company against Sh. R.K Gilhotra, J. Lekhwani and Parmod Kumar Gupta(accused herein) FIR No. 356/92 Page No. 22/40 23 whereby the said issue has been decided against the plaintiff/complainant company. Ld. counsel also submitted that accused Parmod Kumar Gupta had resigned from services of complainant company on 26.4.91 and said resignation was accepted by complainant company on 08.05.91 and the final dues of said accused were also settled in August 1991 without any objection. Ld counsel submitted that the conduct of complainant company in accepting the resignation letter of accused Parmod Kumar Gupta and also in releasing his full and final dues clearly shows that said accused had no involvement in the commission of offence. In this regard, Ld counsel also argued that on the basis of internal audit report, services of said Sh R.K Gilhotra and J. Lekhwani were terminated by complainant company on 09.04.91 on the ground of misappropriation of company's funds. Ld counsel also referred to the relevant portion of the deposition of PW9 wherein he has admitted those facts during cross examination.
9. As is evident from above discussion, the genesis of filing written complaint dt. 06.12.91 was the internal audit report dt. 02.04.91 by the internal auditor of complaint company during which alleged misappropriations of funds, fraud and cheating had come to light. That being so, this Court agrees with the submission made by Ld defence counsel that said internal audit report was an important piece of evidence and it was incumbent on the part of IO to seize the said report during investigation. Admittedly, said internal audit report has not been seized during investigation and said FIR No. 356/92 Page No. 23/40 24 audit report has not been seen the light of the day till date. IO Inspector Anil Kapoor who has been examined as PW17, has admitted during his cross examination that internal audit report was not supplied to him during investigation by the complainant. Not only this, Sh. A.C Subramaniam who is author of written complaint dated 06.12.91 Ex PW9/A which led to the registration of FIR in this case, also deposed during his testimony recorded before the Court that internal audit report was submitted to Director(Finance) but could not give any explanation as to why the said audit report was not supplied to the investigating agency. He also failed to produce the same before the Court.
10. Not only this, the perusal of the certified copy of judgment and decree dt. 31.3.08 passed by the Court of Sh. R.B Singh the then Ld ADJ, Fast Track Court in civil suit no. 246/06/93 in the matter titled as " M/s Balsara Hygiene Product Ltd. Vs. Rakesh K. Gilhotra & Ors."( judicial notice of which can be taken by this Court being certified copy of final judgment and decree passed by court of law in view of Section 77/79 of Indian Evidence Act) shows that complainant company herein had also filed a suit for recovery against several persons including accused Parmod Gupta for recovery of Rs. 4,90,144.60 paise on same set of allegations that those persons during the course of their employment, committed several offences of criminal breach of trust and misappropriation of funds/properties of plaintiff company and also that the said fact was detected while internal audit was conducted at Delhi branch office of FIR No. 356/92 Page No. 24/40 25 company by internal auditor on 02.4.91. In the said suit, 9 issues were framed by Civil Court as mentioned at page no. 45 of the said judgment. Issue no. 7 is the relevant issue for the purpose of present proceedings and same is reproduced herein as under: "Issue no. 7.
Whether plaintiff company has been caused any loss by acts and amounts of the defendants, and against the plaintiff company."
The findings on said issue appear from page no. 76 to page no. 113 of the said judgment. In nut shell , the Court has held while giving findings on aforesaid issue that since the internal audit report dt. 02.4.91 which was the basis of institution of said civil suit against the defendants, has not been filed by the plaintiff company, reasonable inference has to be drawn that there was no such report or if there was such report then same was not favourable to the plaintiff company and that is why same has not been placed on record despite the defendants having taken objection regarding non filing of said report.
11. It is well settled law that the finding of Court dealing with criminal matters is not binding on Civil Court but not vice versa. At this juncture, it is appropriate to discuss relevant case law on the point in issue. In the matter titled as " K.G Prem Shanker Vs. Inspector of Police & Ors." decided by Hon'ble Apex Court on 12.09.02 relied by accused in the written arguments, it has been held that if the criminal case and the FIR No. 356/92 Page No. 25/40 26 Civil proceedings are for the same cause, Judgment of Civil Court would be relevant if conditions of Sections 40 to 43 of Evidence Act are satisfied but it cannot be said that same would be conclusive except as provided in Section 41.
12. It will not be out of place to mention here that vide order dt. 28.1.98 passed by Sh. Om Parkash the then ASJ in Criminal Revision No. 58/96 preferred by accused Parmod Gupta against the order dt. 10.5.96 dismissing his application seeking discharge or in alternative for stay of proceedings in view of civil suit filed by complainant company against said accused, Ld ASJ while disposing of the said criminal revision held as under: "9. No doubt, the complainant also filed a civil suit against the petitioner including the other two persons who are not accused in the present case for recovery of Rs. 4,90,113.60 paise on the aforesaid grounds.. However, in such a situation the interest of justice, in my opinion, requires that final judgment of the present case shall be subject to the decision of the Civil Court".
13. In view of the aforesaid observation made by Ld. ASJ as well as provisions contained in Section 40 to 43 of Evidence Act & categorical finding of Civil Court vide judgment and decree dt. 31.3.08 that the complainant company failed to prove that any loss has been caused to it by the alleged acts of accused Parmod Gupta, this Court is FIR No. 356/92 Page No. 26/40 27 in agreement with the submission made by Ld defence counsel that finding of Civil Court to that extent, is binding on this Court in the present proceedings.
14. Although, Ld counsel for accused also raised argument that since statements U/s 161 Cr.PC of several PWs more particularly PW5, PW6 and PW9 were not recorded during investigation, prosecution was not justified in producing those witnesses during trial and thus, this Court should not look into the testimonies of said PWs but the said argument is found to be without any merit. It is not at all mandatory to record the statements U/s 161 Cr.PC of all the witnesses by investigating agency during investigation. It is an undisputed fact that aforesaid three PWs have been cited in the list of witnesses filed with the charge sheet. Moreover, it is well within the right of the Court in exercise of power conferred U/s 311 Cr.PC, to examine any person as a witness during criminal trial whose testimony, in the opinion of the Court, is relevant and/or necessary for the purpose of arriving at just conclusion. All the said PWs were examined during trial without any objection from the side of accused and thus, it does not lie in the mouth of accused to raise this objection at the stage of final argument. Hence, said argument stands rejected.
15. Next limb of argument raised by Ld defence counsel is that the prosecution has failed to prove entrustment of any property/money/cheque/demand draft to the said accused or his connivance in any manner with R.K Gilhotra and J. Lekhwani. Ld FIR No. 356/92 Page No. 27/40 28 counsel also submitted that prosecution has failed to prove that any wrongful loss has been caused to the complainant company or that any wrongful gain has been done to this accused.
16. Ld. APP for the State, on the other hand, submitted that PW9 namely Sh. A.C Subramaniam who is the complainant in this case, has fully supported the case of prosecution on material points and has testified before the Court that it was accused Parmod Gupta who had opened bank accounts in the name of stockists as well as in fictitious names and encashed the cheques/demand drafts issued by complainant company in favour of its stockists and subsequently withdrew the amount from those accounts and misappropriated the same. Ld APP for the State also submitted that the testimony of PW9 coupled with FSL result Ex PW1/M clearly proves the involvement of accused Parmod Gupta in the commission of offences and therefore, he should be held guilty.
17. In order to prove the offence U/s 408 IPC, prosecution was required to prove that there was any entrustment of any valuable property to the accused Parmod Gupta during the course of his employment and there is criminal breach of trust on the part of said accused. Entrustment of property contemplated by Section 405 IPC would arise only when it is proved on record that there is actual entrustment of such property but not otherwise. It is also essential to establish on record that accused dishonestly FIR No. 356/92 Page No. 28/40 29 misappropriated or converted to his own use that property or dishonestly used or disposed of that property in violation of such entrustment.
18. In the case in hand, none of the witnesses examined by prosecution has deposed that any bank draft or cheque or credit note was actually handed over to accused Parmod Kumar Gupta during the course of his employment. PW3 and PW5 categorically admitted during their cross examination that they did not have any transaction with said accused. Rather, both the said PWs testified that accused Parmod Kumar Gupta never visited their office at all. Likewise, PW9 who is the material witness relied by prosecution deposed during his cross examination that he did not have any knowledge as to whether cheques which were meant to be handed over to stockists, were given to accused Parmod Gupta or not. He also did not produce any document showing receipt of any such cheque, bank draft or credit note by accused Parmod Kumar Gupta. Rather, he clarified during his cross examination that his only grievance was that cheques issued by complainant company did not reach in the hands of right person and those cheques were got encashed through fake accounts but he cannot say as to whether those fake accounts were opened by accused Parmod Gupta or not. All other PWs examined by prosecution, have not uttered anything qua the said offence against the accused herein.
19. In order to prove the offence U/s 468 and 471 IPC, it was essential for the FIR No. 356/92 Page No. 29/40 30 prosecution to prove that the accused committed forgery with respect to some document or electronic record with intention to use the same for the purpose of cheating and also that the accused used such forged document fraudulently or dishonestly as genuine one with requisite knowledge of said document being forged one.
20. Now the question arises as to what is meant by the term ' forgery'. The expression 'forgery' has been defined in Section 463 IPC which provides that any person making any false document or false electronic record or part thereof with intention to cause damage or injury to any person or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with any property or to enter into any express or implied contract or with intention to commit fraud is said to have committed forgery. Section 464 IPC deals with the situation when a person is said to have made a false document or false electronic record. First clause there of which is relevant for the purpose of present case provides that a person is said to make a false document when he dishonestly or fraudulently makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part thereof with intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part thereof was made, signed, sealed or executed by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, executed or affixed.
21. Now considering the evidence which has come on record in the light of above FIR No. 356/92 Page No. 30/40 31 discussed provisions, this Court does not agree with the submission made by Ld APP for the State that prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt all the ingredients of the offences U/s 468/471 IPC against accused Parmod Gupta. The testimonies of PWs more particularly PW3, PW7, PW8, PW10, PW11, PW12, PW15 and PW16 already discussed herein above, clearly shows that none of the said PWs could identify accused Parmod Gupta to be a person who has opened any of the fictitious accounts with respective banks. Similarly, none of the said prosecution witnesses has identified the signatures appearing on account opening forms or specimen cards to be that of accused Parmod Gupta. Rather, all the said PWs deposed that those bank accounts were not opened in their presence and they have no personal knowledge about the facts of the case. All the said PWs also did not even identify the signatures of concerned bank officials who were posted in the respective branches of said banks during relevant period. In the opinion of this Court, it was the duty of IO to examine the concerned bank officials/managers in whose presence the so called fictitious bank accounts were opened and whose signatures also appear on account opening forms and/or specimen signature cards and also to cite them in the list of witnesses filed with the charge sheet. The prosecution was also required to summon those bank officials and to examine them during trial so that it may be brought on record as to who had opened those so called fictitious bank accounts and/or the persons who got encashed the cheques through said accounts. In the case in hand, there is no piece of evidence available on record which may show that FIR No. 356/92 Page No. 31/40 32 accused Parmod Gupta himself deposited any such cheque or himself withdrew any amount from any of the so called fictitious bank accounts.
22. For the reasons mentioned above, this Court is also of the view that the documents which have been exhibited during the statements of above mentioned witnesses cannot be said to have been proved in accordance with law of evidence. It is well settled law that mere putting of an exhibit mark on a document, does not mean that said document has been proved in accordance with law and said document is still required to be proved in accordance of law of evidence. Still if any authority is required then reference with advantage can be made to the judgments reported in 1995 RLR 286 (Delhi) and AIR 1978 SC 1865. The law of evidence requires the party to the proceeding to prove any document either by examining author thereof or by the person in whose presence said document has been executed or the person who is familiar with the signature and /or hand writing of the executant of the document. Admittedly, the prosecution has not done so in the present case and thus, the documents which have been exhibited during the testimonies of said witnesses, cannot be looked into.
23. Moreover, it is also relevant to note that the prosecution has failed to produce any stockist or distributor or any other person in whose favour cheques/bank drafts were allegedly issued by complainant company but did not actually received them and suffered any loss whatsoever. Not only this, there is no piece of evidence available on FIR No. 356/92 Page No. 32/40 33 record which may even suggest that any loss whatsoever has been caused to the complainant company at all. There is no direct or indirect evidence available on record which may conclusively prove that accused Parmod Gupta had committed any forgery of document or used any forged document as genuine one so as to attract the offences U/s 468/471 IPC. It is also relevant to note that there is no evidence on record to show that it was accused Parmod Gupta who had opened fictitious bank accounts or was beneficiary of any amount deposited in those bank accounts in any form.
24. Although, Ld defence counsel submitted before the Court that FSL result Ex PW1/M should not be considered by this Court as an incriminating piece of evidence because the specimen signatures and hand writing of accused Parmod Gupta were obtained by investigation agency without permission of the Court. To buttress his said argument, Ld defence counsel also placed reliance upon the judgment dt. 05.3.09 passed in Criminal Appeal no. 682/08 in the matter titled as " Santosh @ Bhure Vs. State by our own High Court as well as on another judgment reported at AIR 1980 SC
791.
25. However, the said argument is found to be without any merit in view of the full bench judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter titled as "The State of Bombay Vs. Kathi Kalu Oghad & Ors." reported at AIR 1961 1808 wherein after considering FIR No. 356/92 Page No. 33/40 34 the provisions contained in Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act, Section 5 & 6 of Prisoner Act and Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, it has been held that there was violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution in compelling the accused person to give his specimen hand writing or signature without permission of the Court. The said judgment has also been subsequently relied by Division Bench of our own High Court in the matter titled as "Vipin Kumar Vs. State" reported at 139 (2007) Delhi Law Times 470 (DB).
26. It is well settled law that the prosecution is required to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. It has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter titled as "Rang Bahadur Singh Vs. State of UP" reported at 2000 II AD (SC) 103 as under: "The timetested rule is that acquittal of a guilty person should be preferred to conviction of an innocent person. Unless the prosecution establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt a conviction cannot be passed on the accused. A criminal court cannot afford to deprive liberty of the appellants, lifelong liberty, without having at least a reasonable level of certainty that the appellants were the real culprits."
It is also relevant to refer to the Apex Court decision in the matter titled as "H.P.Admn. Vs. Om Parkash" reported at (1972) 1 SCC 249 wherein it has been FIR No. 356/92 Page No. 34/40 35 observed as under: "the maxim that the accused should be given the benefit of doubt become pivotal in the prosecution of offenders which in other words means that the prosecution must prove its case against an accused beyond reasonable doubt by a sufficiency of credible evidence. The benefit of doubt to which the accused is entitled is reasonable doubtthe doubt which rational thinking men will reasonably, honestly and conscientiously entertain and not the doubt of a timid mind which fights shy though unwittingly it may be or is afraid of the logical consequences, if great Judge said it is 'not the doubt of a vacillating mind that has no moral courage to decide but shelters itself in a vain and idle scepticism'. It does not mean that the evidence must be so strong as to exclude even a remote possibility that the accused could not have committed the offence. If that were so the law would fail to protect society as in no case can such a possibility be excluded. It will give room for fanciful conjectures or untenable doubts and will result in deflecting the course of justice if not thwarting it altogether. It is for this reason the phrase has been criticised. Lord Goddard, C.J., in Rox Vs. Kritz, said that when in explaining to the juries what the prosecution has to establish a Judge beings to use the words 'reasonable doubt' and try to explain what is a reasonable doubt and what is not, he is much more likely to confuse the jury than if he tells them in plain language 'It is the FIR No. 356/92 Page No. 35/40 36 duty of the prosecution to satisfy you of the prisoner's guilt'. What in effect this approach amounts to is that the greatest possible care should be taken by the Court in convicting an accused who is presumed to be innocent till the contrary is clearly established which burden is always in the accusatory system, on the prosecution. The mere fact that there is only a remote possibility in favour of the accused is itself sufficient to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. This then is the approach."
The meaning of the expression 'reasonable doubt' has been explained by Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter titled as "CCE Vs. V.P.Sayed Mohd." reported at (1983) 1 SCC 370 wherein it has been held as under: "It is true that the onus of proving the facts essential to the establishment of the charge against an accused lies upon the prosecution and the evidence must be such as to exclude every reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused.
An accused cannot be convicted of an offence on the basis of conjectures or suspicions. If a reasonable doubt arises in the mind of the court after taking into consideration thew entire material before it regarding the complicity of the accused the benefit of such doubt should be given to the accused but the reasonable doubt should be a real and substantial one and a 'well founded actual doubt arising out of the evidence existing after consideration of all the evidence'. Hence a mere FIR No. 356/92 Page No. 36/40 37 whim or a surmise or suspicion furnishes an insufficient foundation upon which to raise a reasonable doubt, and so a vague conjecture, whimsical or vague doubt, a capricious and speculative doubt, an arbitrary imaginary, fanciful, uncertain chimerical, trivial, indefinite or a mere possible doubt is not a reasonable doubt. Neither is a desire for more evidence of guilt, a capricious doubt or misgiving suggested by an ingenious counsel or arising from a merciful disposition or kindly feeling towards a prisoner, or from sympathy for him or his family."
In another judgment reported at (1973) 2 SCC 808, it has been held that: "Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the cases, one pointing to the guilt of th accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence. Rule has accordingly been laid down that unless the evidence adduced in the case is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with that of his innocence, the Court should refrain from recording a finding of guilt of the accused. It is also an accepted rule that in case the court entertains reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, the accused FIR No. 356/92 Page No. 37/40 38 must have the benefit that doubt. Of course, the doubt regarding the guilt of the accused should be reasonable; it is not the doubt of a mind which is either so vacillating that it is incapable of reaching a firm conclusion or so timid that it is hesitant and afraid to take things to their natural consequences.
The rule regarding the benefit of doubt also does not warrant acquittal of the accused by resort to surmises, conjectures or fanciful considerations.
There has to be clear evidence of the guilt of the accused and in the absence of that it is not possible to record a finding of his guilt.
In arriving at the conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged with the commission of a crime, the Court has to judge the evidence by the yardstick or probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. Every case in the final analysis would have to depend upon its own facts.
Although, the benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the accused, the courts should not at the same time reject evidence which is ex facie trustworthy on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures".
27. Having said that the issue arises as to whether or not the prosecution can be said to have proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt by taking into consideration FSL report Ex PW1/M. It is well settled law that conviction cannot be solely based upon FSL report. Expert opinion is merely corroborating piece of evidence and no conviction can be based solely upon expert opinion in the absence FIR No. 356/92 Page No. 38/40 39 of any other evidence available on record.
28. Before parting with the discussion, it is relevant to observe that in this case investigation has not been conducted by investigating agency in proper manner. Initially the FIR was registered by Crime Branch of Bombay and subsequently matter was transferred to Delhi where fresh FIR was registered but still the IO concerned did not take pains to conduct the investigation properly despite the fact that there were serious allegations of cheating, fraud, forgery and misappropriation of funds by employees of complainant company. The allegations were based upon documentary evidence and it was not difficult for the investigating agency to collect the relevant documentary evidence in order to complete the chain of evidence leading to the guilt of actual culprits. Despite there being specific allegations against R.K Gilhotra and J. Lekhwani in written complaint dt. 06.12.91, no investigation was carried out to ascertain the role of those two accused persons. There is nothing on record which may show that said two alleged persons had any involvement in the commission of offences or not. Similarly, IO neither examined the relevant persons during investigation nor cited them as prosecution witnesses and consequently, those witnesses could not be produced during trial. IO also did not conduct the investigation on scientific lines. He also did not collect internal audit report from complainant company despite the fact that it has come on record that account of complainant company were subjected to compulsory statutory audit and thus, internal audit report must be available with the complainant company. Due to lack of sincere efforts on the part of investigating FIR No. 356/92 Page No. 39/40 40 agency, complete chain of evidence leading to the guilt of accused could not be proved on record.
29. In the light of aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that prosecution has failed to bring home guilt of accused Parmod Kumar Gupta in respect of offences U/s 408/468/471 IPC beyond shadow of doubt. Consequently, accused Parmod Kumar Gupta is hereby acquitted of the said charges by giving him benefit of doubt. His bail bonds stand cancelled. Documents if any, be returned after cancellation of endorsement and after proper verification and identification. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (Vidya Prakash)
today i.e 23.07.2011 (ACMM1/NW/RC/DELHI)
FIR No. 356/92 Page No. 40/40