Delhi District Court
State vs Yashpal on 16 September, 2025
CNR No. DLWT02-001591-2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANSHUL SINGHAL
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-04, WEST
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No.: DLWT02-001591-2012
Cr. Case: 68467/2016
FIR No.: 65/2011
PS: Moti Nagar
U/s.: 420/467/468/471 IPC
State
versus
Yashpal
S/o Late Sh. Babu Ram
R/o T-2553, Gali No.21 A, Baljit Nagar, Delhi
JUDGMENT
Date of Commission of Offence : 12.03.2011
Name of Complainant : SI Kanwar Singh
Plea of Accused : Not Guilty
Date when judgment was reserved : 19.08.2025
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 16.09.2025
Final Order : Acquitted
Argued By: Sh. Vishal Gupta, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Sh. SA Malik and Sh. R. Khan, Ld. Counsel
for the Accused.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the present case in FIR No.65/2011 PS Moti Nagar u/s. 420/467/468/471 IPC.
FIR No. 65/2011 State vs. Yashpal Page No. 1 of 22 CNR No. DLWT02-001591-2012
2. The brief facts of the case as per the prosecution are that on 12.03.2011 at about 06:45 PM at Moti Nagar Chowk, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Moti Nagar, accused's driver namely Gagan Dev produced a permit of the bus bearing registration no.DL-1PB-3913 which was seemed to be forged and therefore, the accused cheated the complainant SI Kanwar Singh. Further, the said permit was verified and it was found to be forged vide verification report from the State Transport Authority. It is further alleged against the accused, that he got prepared the forged permit for the purpose of cheating and used the said permit for cheating the police officials.
COMMENCEMENT OF TRIAL
3. Chargesheet was filed against the accused on 17.05.2012 on which cognizance was taken by this court on the same day. Accused had also entered appearance on 17.05.2012 and copy of the chargesheet was supplied to him on the same day.
4. After due compliance of Section 207 CrPC, arguments on charge were heard, and charge for offences u/s. 420/467/478 IPC was framed against the accused on 04.09.2014 by this court, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
5. In order to prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined seven witnesses i.e. PW-1, Sh. Anupam Sharma, PW-2, HC Raj Kumar, PW-3, Ct. Kapil, PW-4, HC Surendra, PW-5 SI Ravinder Kumar, PW-6, Sh. Sanjay Dewan and PW-7 Insp. RP Pilania.
FIR No. 65/2011 State vs. Yashpal Page No. 2 of 22 CNR No. DLWT02-001591-2012
6. PW-1 Sh. Anupam Sharma deposed that he was the registered owner of vehicle no. DL-1PB-3913 (Blue Line Bus). It is further deposed by PW-1 that on 27.11.2009, he sold the aforesaid vehicle to one Yashpal (correctly identified in court) through a sale deed, though the ownership/title was not transferred to Yashpal. It is further deposed by PW-1 that the possession of the said vehicle remained with Yashpal, and it was being operated on Route No. 726-A (Janakpuri Block to ISBT).
6.1. It is further deposed by PW-1 that in the year 2010, the transport authority refused to renew the vehicle's permit based on a Supreme Court order. It is further deposed by PW-1 that he had informed Yashpal that Blue Line buses could not operate without a valid permit, yet Yashpal continued to run the vehicle.
6.2. It is further deposed by PW-1 that he brought this to the notice of the Zonal Officer (Z.O.) of Moti Nagar, who then had the vehicle apprehended. It is further deposed by PW-1 that a few days later, he received a phone call from PS Moti Nagar, informing him that the documents submitted by Yashpal to the transport office were not valid, and he was called for an enquiry.
6.3. It is further deposed by PW-1 that he went to PS Moti Nagar, met with the IO, and was asked to verify the genuineness of the documents submitted by Yashpal. It is further deposed by PW-1 that he informed the IO that Yashpal was operating the bus without a valid permit and also submitted photocopies of the genuine documents in his possession.
6.4. It is further deposed by PW-1 that on 15.04.2010, the FIR No. 65/2011 State vs. Yashpal Page No. 3 of 22 CNR No. DLWT02-001591-2012 said vehicle was involved in an accident, and FIR No. 81/10 under Sections 279/337 IPC was registered at PS Patel Nagar. It is further deposed by PW-1 that the total sale consideration for the vehicle was Rs.8.35 lakhs, out of which Rs.3.35 lakhs was paid to him, and the remaining Rs.5 lakhs was to be paid in instalments by accused. The witness was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused and discharged.
7. PW-2 HC Raj Kumar deposed that on 12.03.2011, he was posted at Patel Nagar Circle (Traffic). It is further stated by PW-2 that on that day, he was on duty at Moti Nagar Chowk along with SI Kanwar Singh and Ct. Surender for regulating traffic. It is further stated by PW-2 that there was a drive underway to check the permits of Blue Line Buses operating on the road.
7.1. It is further stated by PW-2 that at about 6:45 PM, a Blue Line bus on Route No. 726A from Janak Puri to ISBT, bearing registration number DL-1PB-3913, was stopped. It is further stated by PW-2 that the bus was being driven by one Gagandeep. It is further stated by PW-2 that SI Kanwar Singh asked the driver to produce the bus documents, and the driver presented photocopies of the permit and driving licence.
7.2. It is further stated by PW-2 that the permit appeared not to be genuine. It is further stated by PW-2 that subsequently, SI Kanwar Singh issued a challan under sections 3/181, 5/180, 66/192A, and 50/177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, though he does not remember the challan number.
7.3. It is further stated by PW-2 that the bus was FIR No. 65/2011 State vs. Yashpal Page No. 4 of 22 CNR No. DLWT02-001591-2012 impounded, and the driver was directed to appear before the court on a specific date. It is further stated by PW-2 that the vehicle was deposited at the Ram Pura Pit. It is further stated by PW-2 that his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer (IO). The witness was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused and discharged.
8. PW-3 Ct. Kapil deposed that on 17.10.2011, he was posted as a Constable at PS Moti Nagar. It is further stated by PW-3 that on that day, he along with SI Ram Pratap went to Baljeet Nagar in connection with the investigation of FIR No. 65/11.
8.1. It is further stated by PW-3 that the accused Yashpal, who is present in the court and correctly identified, was arrested by SI Pratap Singh in his presence vide arrest memo Ex. PW3/A. It is further stated by PW-3 that the personal search of the accused was conducted vide memo Ex. PW3/B, which bears his signatures at point A. 8.2. It is further stated by PW-3 that thereafter, the accused was brought to the Police Station, and his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer (IO). The witness was duly cross- examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused and discharged.
9. PW-4 HC Surendra deposed that on 17.10.2011, he was posted as a Constable at PS Moti Nagar. It is further stated by PW-4 that on that day, he along with SI Ram Pratap went to Baljeet Nagar for the investigation of FIR No. 65/11.
9.1. It is further stated by PW-4 that the accused Yashpal, who is present in the court and correctly identified, was arrested FIR No. 65/2011 State vs. Yashpal Page No. 5 of 22 CNR No. DLWT02-001591-2012 by SI Pratap Singh in his presence vide arrest memo Ex. PW3/A. It is further stated by PW-4 that the personal search of the accused was conducted vide memo Ex. PW3/B, which bears his signatures at point A. 9.2. It is further stated by PW-4 that thereafter, the accused was brought to the Police Station, and his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer (IO). The witness was duly cross- examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused and discharged.
10. PW-5 SI Ravinder Kumar deposed that on 15.03.2011, he was posted as a Duty Officer at PS Moti Nagar. It is further stated by PW-5 that his duty hours were from 12:00 midnight to 08:00 AM. It is further stated by PW-5 that on that day, the SHO, PS Moti Nagar, handed him a complaint at 12:10 AM, on the basis of which he registered the FIR of the present case.
10.1. It is further stated by PW-5 that he handed over the original complaint and a copy of the FIR to IO SI Ram Pratap for further investigation as directed by the SHO.
10.2. It is further stated by PW-5 that the computer-generated copy of the FIR is Ex. PW5/A, which bears his signature at point A on the original FIR (OSR). It is further stated by PW-5 that he also made the endorsement on the original complaint. The witness was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused and discharged.
11. PW-6 Sh. Sanjay Dewan deposed that on 14.03.2011, he was posted as Assistant Secretary at the State Transport Authority, Rajpura Road, Delhi. It is further stated by PW-6 that FIR No. 65/2011 State vs. Yashpal Page No. 6 of 22 CNR No. DLWT02-001591-2012 on that day, the permit bearing No. EX/0004/stage pertaining to vehicle registration No. DL1PB-3913 was produced before him for verification.
11.1. It is further stated by PW-6 that after perusal of the official record, it was noted on the photocopy of the permit that the said permit was not issued by the aforesaid office. It is further stated by PW-6 that the said certificate has already been marked as Mark A, and the portion of endorsement is mentioned at point A, bearing his signature at point B. 11.2. It is further stated by PW-6 that on 23.12.2011, the aforesaid permit, which was shown to be extended up to 31.07.2010, was again produced for verification. It is further stated by PW-6 that the same was endorsed with the reply that the extended permit certificate for the period from 12.02.2011 to 31.03.2011 was not issued by the aforesaid office.
11.3. It is further stated by PW-6 that the copy of the permit is marked as X1, with the relevant portion mentioned at point A, and bearing his signature at point B. It is further stated by PW-6 that at the same time, computer-generated permit transaction details for the said vehicle were provided to the concerned police officials.
11.4. It is further stated by PW-6 that as per the official record, the permit in question was valid only from 05.04.2010 to 31.07.2010. Relevant record was also exhibited during examination-in-chief. The witness was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused and discharged.
FIR No. 65/2011 State vs. Yashpal Page No. 7 of 22 CNR No. DLWT02-001591-2012
12. PW-7 Inspector Ram Pratap deposed that It is further stated by PW-7 that on 15.03.2011, he was posted at PS Moti Nagar as Sub Inspector, and the investigation of the present case was entrusted to him after the registration of the FIR. It is further stated by PW-7 that the copy of the FIR is already exhibited on record as Ex. PW5/A. 12.1. It is further stated by PW-7 that after the registration of the FIR, at the initial stage, the documents, i.e., RC of the vehicle, a bus bearing registration No. DL-1PB-3913, and permit, were collected from the concerned court having jurisdiction over traffic. It is further stated by PW-7 that the seizure memo of the said documents is already on record, exhibited as Ex. PW7/A. 12.2. It is further stated by PW-7 that the original temporary permit, authorization card, and driving licence, as seized vide the aforementioned seizure memo, are marked as Mark P7/1 to P7/3, respectively. It is further stated by PW-7 that the aforesaid bus was also taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW7/B. 12.3. It is further stated by PW-7 that during the course of investigation, document Mark P7/1 was verified from the concerned authority, and the office of the State Transport Authority replied that no such temporary permit was issued by their office.
12.4. It is further stated by PW-7 that the reply given on the copy as sent to their office is already on record and marked as Mark P7/4, with the relevant portion mentioned at point A. It is further stated by PW-7 that the document, i.e., GPA/affidavit FIR No. 65/2011 State vs. Yashpal Page No. 8 of 22 CNR No. DLWT02-001591-2012 entered/executed between Anupam Sharma and the accused Yash Pal, was verified from the concerned notary public, and an entry made by him in his notary register was also taken on record.
12.5. It is further stated by PW-7 that the photocopy of the affidavit along with the photocopy of the entry in the register are marked as Mark P7/5 and Mark P7/6. It is further stated by PW-7 that the facts regarding the entry in the notary register are mentioned at serial no. 339. It is further stated by PW-7 that the statement of the concerned notary public was recorded by him.
12.6. It is further stated by PW-7 that the seizure memos of the said documents are Ex. PW7/C and PW7/D. It is further stated by PW-7 that the person named Anupam Sharma tendered the cash receipts and other documents executed between them, and these were taken on record.
12.7. It is further stated by PW-7 that the photocopy of the delivery receipt and RC are on record and marked as Mark P7/7 and P7/8, respectively. It is further stated by PW-7 that the cash receipts are marked as Mark P7/9 (colly), running into five pages, bearing his signature at point A. 12.8. It is further stated by PW-7 that the accused Yash Pal (present in the court and correctly identified by the witness) was served notice to join the investigation but did not comply, and accordingly, NBW proceedings were initiated against him. It is further stated by PW-7 that on 17.10.2011, the accused was arrested and personally searched.
12.9. It is further stated by PW-7 that the interrogation report FIR No. 65/2011 State vs. Yashpal Page No. 9 of 22 CNR No. DLWT02-001591-2012 of the accused is marked as Mark P7/10.
12.10. It is further stated by PW-7 that the statement of the concerned official of the State Transport Authority was recorded by him. It is further stated by PW-7 that the photocopy of the challan generated by the traffic police is already on record and marked as Mark P7/11.
12.11. It is further stated by PW-7 that after completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the accused by him. The witness was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused and discharged.
13. Since no other witnesses as per the prosecution list of witnesses were remaining to be examined, hence, on submissions of Ld. APP for the State, PE was closed vide order dated 07.04.2025.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED u/s. 313 CrPC
14. Statement of the accused u/s. 313 CrPC was recorded on 10.06.2025 wherein all the incriminating circumstances were put to him. Accused stated that the prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses and he has been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of Anupam Sharma in collusion with the traffic police officials. He has further stated that he is not the owner of the said vehicle, rather Anupam Sharma is the owner. Accused also stated that he does not wish to lead defence evidence. Thereafter, final arguments were heard on 19.08.2025.
FIR No. 65/2011 State vs. Yashpal Page No. 10 of 22 CNR No. DLWT02-001591-2012 FINAL ARGUMENTS
15. Ld. Addl. PP has submitted that the prosecution has been successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt as testimony of any of the witnesses has not been impeached by the accused.
16. He has argued the offence under consideration is proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record. As such, it is prayed that accused be punished for the offences under consideration.
17. Per contra, Ld. counsel for the accused has argued that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Ld. counsel submits that the accused has been falsely implicated by the police in collusion with PW-1 Anupam Sharma and nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused.
18. It is further submitted that PW-1 Anupam Sharma is an interested witness who has falsely implicated the accused to save himself from criminal liability being the registered owner of the vehicle. He has further submitted that there is nothing on record to even remotely suggest that the accused has forged the permit or that he has used the said permit for cheating.
19. Ld. Counsel has further submitted that there are material deficiencies in the case of the prosecution. As such, it is prayed that accused be acquitted of the said offence.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
20. I have heard the submissions on behalf of the state and Ld. FIR No. 65/2011 State vs. Yashpal Page No. 11 of 22 CNR No. DLWT02-001591-2012 Defence Counsel and have carefully gone through all the records at hand and testimony of the witnesses.
21. The allegations in the present matter against the accused are that of cheating and forgery. The ingredients of offence of cheating u/s. 420 IPC have been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Mariam Fasihuddin & Anr. v. State by Adugodi Police Station & Anr., [2024] 1 S.C.R. 623 : 2024 INSC 49, wherein it has been held as follows:
"10. Section 420 IPC provides that whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy, the whole or any part of valuable security, or anything, which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be liable to be punished for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. Further, Section 415 IPC distinctly defines the term 'cheating'. The provision elucidates that an act marked by fraudulent or dishonest intentions will be categorised as 'cheating' if it is intended to induce the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, causing damage or harm to that person.
11. It is thus paramount that in order to attract the provisions of Section 420 IPC, the prosecution has to not only prove that the accused has cheated someone but also that by doing so, he has dishonestly induced the person who is cheated to deliver property. There are, thus, three components of this offence, i.e., (i) the deception of any person, (ii) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person, and (iii) mens rea or dishonest intention of the accused at the time of making the inducement. There is no gainsaid that for the offence of cheating, fraudulent and dishonest intention must exist from the inception when the promise or representation was made.
12. It is well known that every deceitful act is not unlawful, just as not every unlawful act is deceitful. Some acts may be termed both as unlawful as well as deceitful, and such acts alone will fall within the purview of Section FIR No. 65/2011 State vs. Yashpal Page No. 12 of 22 CNR No. DLWT02-001591-2012 420 IPC. It must also be understood that a statement of fact is deemed 'deceitful' when it is false, and is knowingly or recklessly made with the intent that it shall be acted upon by another person, resulting in damage or loss. 'Cheating' therefore, generally involves a preceding deceitful act that dishonestly induces a person to deliver any property or any part of a valuable security, prompting the induced person to undertake the said act, which they would not have done but for the inducement."
22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Mariam Fasihuddin (supra), further elucidated the ingredients of offence of forgery u/s. 463 IPC as under:
"21. The offence of 'forgery' under Section 468 IPC postulates that whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic document forged, shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Whereas Section 471 IPC states that whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any documents which he knows or has reason to believe it to be a forged document, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document.
22. There are two primary components that need to be fulfilled in order to establish the offence of 'forgery', namely: (i) that the accused has fabricated an instrument; and (ii) it was done with the intention that the forged document would be used for the purpose of cheating. Simply put, the offence of forgery requires the preparation of a false document with the dishonest intention of causing damage or injury."
23. The allegations are in respect of permit no. EX/0004/Stage dated 02.02.2011, i.e., Mark P7/1 pertaining to vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1PB-3913, which is alleged to be a forged document. The permit in original has been placed on the record. The report of Asst. Secretary, State Transport Authority is placed FIR No. 65/2011 State vs. Yashpal Page No. 13 of 22 CNR No. DLWT02-001591-2012 on record as Mark P7/4, wherein it has been stated that the permit as mentioned here-in-before was not issued by the said authority. Even the register pertaining to permit history of the vehicle has been exhibited into evidence as, Ex.PW6/A. The endorsement on Mark PW7/4 has been duly proved by examination of the Asst. Secretary as PW-6.
24. It is further to be noted that the accused has nowhere denied that the permit was not forged. It is not even his case that the permit was not forged. His entire case rests on the fact that he is not the one who has forged the said permit.
25. Thus, on the basis of the above documents and testimony of witnesses, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the permit placed on record as Mark P7/4 is a false document within the meaning of section 464 IPC.
26. Since the purpose of creation of said false document was to support a false claim, i.e., that the vehicle is having a valid permit issued by the State Transport Authority, hence, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that forgery within the meaning of section 463 IPC punishable u/s. 465 IPC has been committed.
27. Section 467 IPC deals with the aggravated form of forgery of valuable security, a will, etc. Section 468 IPC deals with forgery for the purpose of cheating. Section 471 IPC punishes the fraudulent or dishonest use of a forged document or electronic record as if it were genuine.
28. In the present case, there is sufficient proof of commission of aggravated forms of forgery as punishable u/s. 467 IPC, i.e., a FIR No. 65/2011 State vs. Yashpal Page No. 14 of 22 CNR No. DLWT02-001591-2012 valuable security creating a right was prepared, i.e., the permit, Mark P7/4 and u/s. 471 IPC, i.e., the said permit, which was a forged document was used as genuine, i.e., when the same was exhibited to the traffic police officials, namely, PW-2 HC Raj Kumar, PW-4 HC Surendra and Complainant SI Kanwar Singh (not examined on behalf of prosecution since expired).
29. Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that non- examination of the complainant himself, i.e., SI Kanwar Singh is fatal to the case of the prosecution and no case can be said to be proved against the accused, when the complainant himself is not examined by the prosecution.
30. Non-examination of complainant is fatal to the case of the prosecution, only when there is no other evidence on record. In cases where there are other eye-witnesses or other scientific evidence for the purposes of proving the accusation against the accused, then non-examination of the complainant cannot be said to be fatal to the case of the prosecution.
31. In my considered opinion, mere non-examination of SI Kanwar Singh, who is the complainant, on behalf of the prosecution is not fatal to the case of the prosecution in the present matter, as two other police officials who were present along with him on 12.03.2011, i.e., when the vehicle in question was stopped, have deposed regarding the entire event and he was not the sole witness to prove that the forged document was recovered from the driver, Gagan Dev and that the said driver had in fact exhibited the forged permit to the police officials.
FIR No. 65/2011 State vs. Yashpal Page No. 15 of 22 CNR No. DLWT02-001591-2012
32. Thus, in view of the testimony of witnesses and evidence on record, the commission of aggravated offences of forgery u/s. 467 and 471 IPC are proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.
33. In the present case, there is sufficient proof of commission of aggravated forms of forgery as punishable u/s. 468 IPC, i.e., forgery for the purpose of cheating, and u/s. 417 IPC, i.e., cheating, however, not for offence u/s. 420 IPC.
34. Section 420 IPC is an aggravated form of cheating, whereby it is essential that pursuant to the dishonest inducement, the person deceived must deliver any property to any person, or make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security.
35. The allegation of the prosecution is that by presentation of forged permit to the complainant and accompanying police officials, the driver Gagan Dev induced them to believe that the permit is genuine and not challan the owner and the driver in respect of the same, and thus, they committed cheating.
36. In this regard, it is to be noted that the copy of challan is placed on record as Mark P7/11, and the vehicle has been challaned u/s. 66/192A of Motor Vehicles Act also, amongst other sections. Thus, although the driver may have attempted to cheat the complainant and accompanying police officials, however, he was not successful in doing so.
37. Thus, in view of the testimony of witnesses and evidence FIR No. 65/2011 State vs. Yashpal Page No. 16 of 22 CNR No. DLWT02-001591-2012 on record, there is sufficient evidence on record pertaining to attempting to commit the offence of cheating, i.e., section 417 read with section 511 IPC and forgery for the purpose of cheating, i.e., section 468 IPC, and commission thereof is proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.
38. Thus, in view of the discussion so far, the commission of offences u/s. 467, 468 and 471 IPC, as also section 417 r/w. 511 IPC is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
39. The next point of consideration before this court is to ascertain whether accused Yashpal can be said to have committed these offences, i.e., forgery of permit and attempted cheating of the police officials.
40. Ld. counsel for the accused has submitted that the vehicle was never sold to accused by PW-1, Sh. Anupam Sharma and that the forged permit was handed over to the driver Sh. Gagan Dev by PW-1, Sh. Anupam Sharma and not by the accused.
41. At this stage, it is to be noted that the PW-1 Sh. Anupam Sharma is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1PB-3913 and Sh. Gagan Dev was driving the vehicle on 12.03.2011, when the same was stopped by PW-4 Ct. Surender along with PW-2 HC Raj Kumar and SI Kanwar Singh (not examined on behalf of prosecution since expired) and the driver/owner were challaned for various offences under the Motor Vehicles Act. The bus and all the documents which were produced were also impounded.
42. Complaint was made by SI Kanwar Singh (now deceased), FIR No. 65/2011 State vs. Yashpal Page No. 17 of 22 CNR No. DLWT02-001591-2012 when after verification from State Transport Authority, it was found that the permit which was produced was never issued by the State Transport Authority.
43. PW-2 and PW-4 have nowhere stated in their testimony that accused was also present at the scene of the crime. It is only the driver of the vehicle, Sh. Gagan Dev who was present at the scene of the crime. Accused is neither the registered owner of the vehicle nor the driver thereof.
44. The accused has been roped in on the basis of testimony of PW-1, Sh. Anupam Sharma, who is the registered owner of the vehicle and that of Sh. Gagan Dev (not examined by the Prosecution and dropped), who was the driver of the vehicle.
45. The first is the statement of Sh. Gagan Dev u/s. 161 CrPC, wherein the driver has stated that earlier the vehicle belonged to Sh. Anupam Sharma and thereafter, Sh. Yashpal (accused) has the possession of the bus. He has further submitted that salary is being paid to him by the accused and he does not know anything about the documents pertaining to the vehicle.
46. The second is the statement of PW-1 Sh. Anupam Sharma who has stated that he had sold the vehicle to the accused on 27.11.2009 and the possession of the vehicle was also handed over to the accused.
47. At this stage, two points are noteworthy in regard to the statement of the driver. Firstly, that even in his statement u/s. 161 CrPC, Sh. Gagan Dev has never stated that the forged permit, Mark P7/1 was handed over to him by the accused. Secondly, FIR No. 65/2011 State vs. Yashpal Page No. 18 of 22 CNR No. DLWT02-001591-2012 that the said witness was never examined as a witness for the prosecution and was dropped from the prosecution list of witnesses vide order dated 06.07.2015, as the prosecution failed to examine the said witness despite repeated opportunities. Since no opportunity to cross-examine the said witness was ever granted to the accused, hence, his testimony cannot be read against the accused.
48. In absence of testimony of PW Gagan Dev, prosecution has sought to rely on the testimony of Sh. Anupam Sharma and documents, i.e., copy of affidavit, Mark P7/5 along with register of notary Mark P7/6, the delivery receipt, Mark P7/7 and the cash receipts, Mark P7/9 (colly), through which prosecution seeks to prove that the possession of the vehicle was with the accused.
49. The case of the prosecution is that the vehicle was sold by PW-1 Sh. Anupam Sharma to the accused on 27.12.2009, and possession of the vehicle was also transferred to the accused on the said date. The affidavit dated 04.09.2010 in this regard is a unilateral document by PW-1 Sh. Anupam Sharma and does not bear the signatures of the accused or any acknowledgment by him. Another GPA dated 04.09.2010, is also placed on record, however, no agreement to sell has been executed between the parties pertaining to the present vehicle and the GPA specifically records that the accused shall only pay monthly installments.
50. Certified copy of court record of case FIR No. 81/2020, u/s. 279/337 IPC, PS Patel Nagar is placed on record, whereby the vehicle in question was released to PW-1, Sh. Anupam FIR No. 65/2011 State vs. Yashpal Page No. 19 of 22 CNR No. DLWT02-001591-2012 Sharma on superdari by order of the concerned order and superdarinama dated 29.04.2010 was furnished by him, against which the possession of the vehicle was handed over to him. The original permit which was valid till 31.07.2010 was also released to PW-1, Sh. Anupam Sharma on superdari by order of the concerned order and superdarinama dated 31.07.2010 was furnished by him.
51. Thus, there is evidence on record that the possession of the vehicle as on 31.07.2010 was with PW-1 Sh. Anupam Sharma. Even if it is assumed that the possession of the vehicle was transferred to the accused by PW-1 Sh. Anupam Sharma on 27.12.2009, then also, there is neither any evidence nor any averment on record to show re-transfer of possession to the accused after 31.07.2010.
52. It is also to be noted that after release of the original permit, PW-1 Anupam Sharma had applied for renewal of permit along with his affidavit and same are placed on record as Ex.PW1/X1. The witness has categorically mentioned in the affidavit that he has not sold the vehicle to anyone through GPA, agreement to sell or otherwise and that the vehicle is in his possession. The witness has also stated that there is no case pending in respect of the said vehicle and that the vehicle is not released on superdari. It is proved on the basis of evidence on record that the vehicle has been released to Anupam Sharma on superdari. Thus, it is apparent that the said fact as mentioned in the affidavit is false.
FIR No. 65/2011 State vs. Yashpal Page No. 20 of 22 CNR No. DLWT02-001591-2012
53. Anupam Sharma is the registered owner of the vehicle. If anything, the case might have been filed against him, however, it is filed against the alleged purchaser of the vehicle and the possession is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Police has also not filed any case against the driver Sh. Gagan Dev who in fact used the forged permit to cheat the police officials and was also present at the scene of the crime. It is also not clear as to how the police officials have absolved Anupam Sharma.
54. As already noted, the accused was not present when the vehicle was stopped by the traffic police officials. When the accused has not exhibited the said forged permit to the traffic police officials, then in such circumstances, accused cannot be said to have committed offence u/s. 468 and 471 IPC, as also section 417 r/w. 511.
55. Further, apart from bleak suspicion, there is no evidence on record that the forged permit was handed over to the driver Sh. Gagan Dev by the accused. There is not even an averment by any of the witnesses that the accused has forged the said permit. The prosecution has failed to proved beyond reasonable doubt that the permit placed on record as Mark P7/1, has been forged by the accused. Accordingly, accused cannot be said to have committed offence u/s. 467 IPC.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT
56. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused has committed the offences under consideration beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is FIR No. 65/2011 State vs. Yashpal Page No. 21 of 22 CNR No. DLWT02-001591-2012 entitled to the benefit of doubt. As such, accused, namely, Yashpal S/o Late Sh. Babu Ram R/o T-2553, Gali No.21 A, Baljit Nagar, Delhi is acquitted of commission of offence under section 420/467/468 IPC.
Digitally signed by
ANSHUL ANSHUL SINGHAL
SINGHAL Date: 2025.09.16
17:34:33 +0530
Announced in Open Court (Anshul Singhal)
on 16.09.2025 JMFC-04, West District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Note: This judgment contains 22 pages and each page has been signed by the undersigned. ANSHUL Digitally signed by ANSHUL SINGHAL SINGHAL Date: 2025.09.16 17:34:38 +0530 (Anshul Singhal) JMFC-04, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
FIR No. 65/2011 State vs. Yashpal Page No. 22 of 22