Delhi District Court
State vs T. Rajesh on 30 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHISHEK KUMAR
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS
HAZARI COURT, DELHI
STATE Vs. T. Rajesh & another
FIR No. 380/1998
PS: DBG Road
U/S: 420/467/471 IPC
JUDGMENT
New Case ID Number : 298975/2016
Date of commission of offence : on or before October 1998
Date of institution of the case : 09.12.2000
Name of the complainant : Sh. Neeraj Jain
Name of accused and address : 1. T. Rajesh
S/o Sh. T. Balaswami
R/o 09/04A, Kali Bari
Marg, Delhi.
2. Akshay Jain
S/o Sh. Surender Jain
R/o 92, Chanderlok
Enclave, Pitampura,
Delhi.
3. Aman Harjai
(Discharged vide order
dated 24.05.2019)
Offence charged of : 420/471/120B IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Acquitted
I No P DB oa a V aj & Ors Pa No
Date reserved for judgment : 23.05.2025
Date of judgment : 30.05.2025
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE FACTS FOR DECISION:
1. In the present case, the criminal machinery came into action on the complaint of Sh. Neeraj Jain, Joint Managing Director of M/s BPL Travel Limited dealing with travel related services including issuance of air tickets to its customers wherein he alleged that some persons cheated the complainant and his company.
1.1 As per the complaint sent to the police, one T. Rajesh (proprietor of M/s. Lorven Travels) was a sub-broker who had been buying air tickets from the complainant and selling the same to his customers. In October 1998, T. Rajesh contacted the complainant and requested to give him air tickets against Credit Card Charge Slips which were to be confirmed before delivery of air tickets. He gave in writing that his own outstanding payments be also adjusted from the said Credit Card Charge Slips. In October/November 1998, said T. Rajesh handed over several such Credit Card Charge Slips of American Express Bank worth Rs. 9,09,510/-, inducing the complainant to adjust the old outstanding dues of Rs. 1,59,015/- and to issue further air tickets towards the balance amount. It was represented to the complainant that the said Credit Card Charge Slips belonged to the card holders who were working with M/s. Samsung Electronics, Delhi. To confirm this fact, complainant was asked to speak to one Raman Kumar, who called himself as PA to the MD of M/s. Samsung Electronics, Delhi, and to one Askshay Jain who called himself as PA to Raman Kumar. After getting the approval from American Express Bank with respect I No P DB oa a V aj & Ors Pa No to the Credit Card Charge Slips, the complainant issued air tickets to T. Rajesh.
1.2. Further, the complainant later got suspicious when T. Rajesh asked him to give separate bills in his name and in the name of M/s. Samsung Electronics, Delhi. The complainant demanded a written order from M/s. Samsung Electronics, Delhi on its letter head to issue air tickets on Credit Card Charge Slips handed over to him by T. Rajesh and not by them. Upon this, the person calling himself to be Raman Kumar promised to visit the complainant, but failed to turn up. When asked, Akshay Jain told that Raman Kumar had gone to Bombay. But when inquired about ther position from M/s. Samsung Electronics, Delhi, the complainant was told that no such persons in the name of Raman Kumar or Akshay Jain were working with them. On 10.11.1998, Akshay Jain and T. Rajesh visited the office of the complainant to settle the account and handed over one more Credit Card Charge Slip of Rs. 1,66,690/-, but the complainant refused to issue air tickets in the absence of written confirmation from M/s. Samsung Electronics, Delhi. The said persons promised to give confirmation letter, but never showed up.
1.3. Subsequently, letter dated 13.11.1998 was received by the complainant from American Express Bank charging back Rs. 1,56,420/-, on the ground that the Card Holder had denied charge on his card. Therefore, the complainant felt cheated at the hands of T. Rajesh, Akshay Jain and Raman Kumar, and reported the matter to the police. On the complaint of the complainant, the present FIR was registered under Section 420 IPC and the matter was investigated.
I No P DB oa a V aj & Ors Pa No 2.0. During the course of investigation, The IO arrested the accused T. Rajesh who confessed that he was sub-broker of the complainant M/s. BPL Travels Limited and to clear the outstanding amount, he along with accused Raman and Akshay Jain provided the complainant forged Charge Slips. He stated that Raman had provided him forged Charge Slips. He however claimed that even the complainant Neeraj Jain knew that the Charge Slips were forged as in this case, the norms were violated and tickets were issued on the forged Charge Slips of American Express Bank. On the other hand, various customers in whose names the Charge Slips had been issued, upon inquiry, 'confirmed that they had never purchased any ticket from the complainant and that their signatures were forged. This information was given to the IO by the American Express Bank. The American Express Bank through its officer Sh. R. P. Kochchar, also told the IO that the payments had been made to BPL Travels Limited on the basis of Charge Slips, but the card members denied the Charge Slips and stated that they did not present their cards at BPL Travels Limited. It was claimed that the contract had been violated by M/s. BPL Travels Limited. The bank claimed that due to the acts of M/s. BPL Travels Limited, the American Express Bank had suffered wrongful loss of Rs. 7,36,145/-.
2.1. Furthermore, the IO in the course of investigation seized the charge slips and necessary letters/documents. The specimen signatures of accused T. Rajesh were obtained and sent for forensic examination. His signatures tallied with some documents seized by the IO, but no definite opinion could be given with respect to the most of the questioned documents. After completion of the investigation, charge I No P DB oa a V aj & Ors Pa No was filed in the court against the accused persons T. Rajesh, Akshay Jain and Aman Harjai, whereby at the same time, name of the complainant Neeraj Jain was also kept in column no. 2 as a person/suspect not charge-sheeted.
3.0 After filing of the chargesheet, cognizance of the offence was taken under section 420/467/471IPC and accused persons were summoned and in compliance of section 207 CrPC, copy of the chargesheet and documents were supplied to the accused persons. Thereafter, arguments on charge were heard and vide detailed order dated 03.07.2002, it was directed that charges to be framed against the accused persons under section 420/471/120B IPC. Accordingly, charges were formally framed against the accused T. Rajesh, Akshay Jain and Aman Harjai.
3.1. Subsequently, the above-mentioned accused persons preferred revision petition against the order dated 03.07.2002 and 06.08.2002. The Ld. Sessions Court vide order dated 06.08.2004 set aside the charge order and directed to reconsider the whole issue denovo.
3.2 At the stage of orders/clarifications on charge after re- consideration of the issue, the then Ld. MM vide order dated 26.07.2008 upon hearing the arguments of Ld. APP for State came to conclusion that as per order dated 14.08.2000, all the accused were to be summoned which includes Neeraj Jain also. Thus, suspect Neeraj Jain was summoned to face the inquiry/trial and thus, the clock was set back to the stage of appearance of accused. However, the presence of the accused could not be secured and he was declared an absconder on 11.08.2010.
I No P DB oa a V aj & Ors Pa No 3.3 After securing the presence of the accused Neeraj Jain, the matter remained pending for supplying the copy of charge-sheet to accused Neeraj and copy of deficient documents to other accused till 23.04.2011 and matter proceeded again for arguments on the point of charge.
3.4 Thereafter, a detailed on charge was passed on 24.05.2019. vide the said order, the accused Aman Harjai was discharged from the case due to the lack of incriminating evidence and statement of co-accused T Rajesh not admissible in the eyes of the law qua him. Also, the accused Neeraj Jain was discharged due to lack of sufficent evidence nut was directed to continue as a prosecution witness. Thus, charges were framed against the accused T. Rajesh and Akshay Jain under section 420/471/120B IPC. Both the accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
4. Accordingly, the matter was posted for prosecution evidence. For the sake of clarity and ready reference, the testimony of the material witnesses as recorded during the trial is being reproduced verbatim as follows:-
i). PW-1 Neeraj Jain: I was one of the Directors in BPL Travels Ltd.
We had a sub agent named T Rajesh, who was Proprietor of M/s Lorvan Travels. The accused T Rajesh is present in the Court today (correctly identified). The matter pertains to the year 1998. T Rajesh was one of several sub agents of my company. He used to procure air tickets from us against post dated cheques. In some instances, he was also giving credit card charge slips. In July-August 1998, the cheques given by him got bounced. Since we were required to pay to the airlines, such payments were made by us irrespective of receipt of the payments from the sub agents. On account of bouncing of his cheques, a sum of ks. 1.59 Lacs approximately was due towards T Rajesh. We I No P DB oa a V aj & Ors Pa No stopped our business dealings with him. In October 1998, he came to us saying that he had got a contract from Samsung Electronics, whereby he would buy air tickets from us in lieu of the credit card charge slips issued by the employees of the Samsung Electronics. He also stated that the outstanding amount of Rs. 1.59 Lacs would also be adjusted from the said amount after deducting 3% bark charges. A letter to this effect dated 15.10.1998 was also given to us. Along with the letter, he also gave three pre filled and duly signed credit card charge slips. He took air tickets for the remaining amount. While entering into such transaction, we had also requested him for a written confirmation from Samsung Electronics for such arrangement as stated by him. He agreed to that. But he stated that the MD of Samsung Electronics was traveling and therefore, he made us talk to Akshay Jain, who introduced himself as PA to the PA of MD of Samsung Electronics. As we already had business dealings with T Rajesh, we never suspected the same. Subsequently, T Rajesh again gave three credit card charge slips and also gave a letter for issuance of air tickets. We accordingly issued the air tickets, though still insisting on the written confirmation from Samsung Electronics. Probably or. 10.11.1998, T Rajesh came to our office with Akshay Jain, who had projected himself as PA to the PA of MD of Sumsung Electronics. Accused Akshay Jain is present in the Court today (correctly identified). had come with another credit card charge slip of Rs. 1.66 Lacs approximately. They insisted for issuance of air tickets and some foreign exchange. T Rajesh also gave a cheque of Rs. 30,000/- from his bank account for the deficient balance, and also gave a letter in writing stating the said arrangement. Prior to this day, we were also made to speak to one Sh. Raman Kumar, who stated himself as PA to the MD of Samsung Electronics. The said Raman Kumar had told us that the MD was traveling and that all the transactions were genuine and that we could go ahead without any worries. When T Rajesh and Akshay Jain had come, we raised suspicion as we were not getting written confirmation despite repeated requests. We therefore did not issue the air tickets. T Rajesh had running account with us as he was our sub agent. Sh. Naresh Kumar Jain, the other Director of BPL Travels Ltd., after suspicion went and met Sh. RP Kochher in American Express Bank. Sh. Naresh Kumar Jain expressed his concerns with respect to the genuineness of the transaction. Mr. Kochher did not give very definite answer but stated that we need not worry because the payments were coming. Probably on 12th or 13th November, 1998, we received the first charge back from the bank. Since our suspicion got confirmed, we wrote letter immediately to PS DBG Road. However, no action was taken on the same to my knowledge. Then, I gave another complaint dated 28.12.1998 to PS DBG Road, on the basis of which the FIR was registered. My complaint dated 28.12.1998 is Ex. PW1/A bearing my signature at point A. The copy of agreement between our company and American Express Bank is Mark A. The board resolution of the company in my favour is Ex. PW1/B. The letter dated 15.10.1998 given by T Rajesh is Ex. PW1/C. A letter given by T Rajesh when he I No P DB oa a V aj & Ors Pa No had come to my office with Akshay jain is Ex. PW1/D. Copy of letter dated 09.11.1998 for issuance of fresh tickets against American Express card slips is Mark B. Bill for issuance of tickets is Ex. PW1/E. Cheque dated 11.11.1998 of Rs. 30,000/- given by T Rajesh is Ex. PW1/F. Photocopy of tickets are Mark C, D and E. The original charge slips are Ex. PW1/G1 to Ex. PW1/G7 which had been given to me by T Rajesh. Photocopies of 19 bills issued by us are collectively Mark F. Seizure memo of documents is Ex. PW1/H bearing my signature at point A. Cross Examination by T. Rajesh: There was no agreement in writing between our company and T Rajesh regarding sub agency. The company had no sub agent named Aman Kumar. I do not remember if I had handed over the PDCs given by T Rajesh which had got dishonored. Q. Did any charge slip, as mentioned in the complaint Ex. PW1/A, allegedly given to you by T Rajesh, had been issued to you by American Express Bank? Ans. None of the six charge slips as mentioned in my complaint had been issued to me by American Express Bank. As of now, I do not have any copy of the complaint dated 09.11.1998. I do not remember if I had not mentioned the name of T Rajesh in that complaint or if I had only mentioned the name of Aman Kumar therein. It is correct that American Express Bank used to issue charge slips to me as per our contract, otherwise than those pertaining to the present case. I do not know if such charge slips could be purchased from open market. Q.Is it correct that as per the procedure related to the charge slips, the customer has to come to us with the credit card and that credit card is required to be imprinted on the charge slip and then the tickets used to be issued to the customers? Ans. No. It is not the procedure. It is not always necessary that a customer should personally come to us to get the tickets issued on charge slips. If he comes personally alongwith his credit card, I used to obtain the impression of the same on the machine. If the customer has not come personally and had come through some business associate, then as a matter of practice, the business associate used to provide already imprinted charge slip. Q. What according to you is the value of the charge slip issued by the American Express Bank? Ans. I will take the imprint of the credit card of the customer on the charge slips in case he is coming to be personally with his credit card. I used to obtain the charge slips only from the bank and never from market. I do not know from where the business associates used to procure charge slips. I do not know if American Express Bank used to maintain record as to in whose favour the charge slips had been issued, going by the serial numbers mentioned thereupon. The charge slips issued in my name used to bear serial numbers. I do not know if such charge slips can be issued only by the bank or if they cannot be procured from the market. It is wrong to suggest that I could not have used any charge slip except those issued by the bank only. Q.Can you explain how the name of BPL Travels is appearing on the charge slip number 578056 which is Ex. PW1/G. Ans. The said charge slip already mentioned credit card number, date of issuance, date of expiry, card holders name, amount of charge slip and card holder signatures. The number of the charge slip was already there. The other I No P DB oa a V aj & Ors Pa No portion was blank. I used to take authorization from the American Express Bank on phone and they used to give authorization code of that amount, which used to be mentioned on the charge slip. Thereafter, the imprint of BPL Travels was taken on the charge slip through the machine. I had adopted the same procedure with respect to all the other credit card charge slips, where the customer was not present personally with his credit card. I do not remember if the IO had taken the machine in his possession by which imprints were used to be taken by me. I do not remember if the IO has seized blank charge slips from me. I am presently not having those blank charge slips and machine being used at that time. I do not know if some new procedure has come into existence thereafter. I have not returned the unused charge slips or the machine to the American Express Bank. It is correct that my company had received some payment from American Express Bank but I cannot say if the amount of the same was Rs. 7,36,145.47/-. Vol. The said money had already been given to the respective airlines whose tickets had been sold. IO had not taken the record of such transactions from me. It is wrong to suggest that no such amount had been given to the airlines or that I am still in possession of this amount. It is wrong to suggest that due to this reason no such record was given to the IO or furnished in the Court. The bills mentioning the names of the passengers, had been given to the IO. We do not maintain any record with respect to the use of the travel tickets or if any person has traveled or not. I cannot say if any person has traveled or not traveled on the air tickets issued by me. It is wrong to suggest that all the bills and documents furnished by me are sham documents. I am not aware of any complaint given to the police by the American Express Bank. I do not know if I was made an accused in this case only on the basis of that complaint. It is wrong to suggest that I had gone personally to American Express Bank and claimed that I had issued tickets on the instance of one Mr. Aman Kumar, my sub agent. Since I had never gone to American Express Bank for this purpose, I had never taken the name of T Rajesh before them. As on date, I cannot produce the statement of running account of T Rajesh maintained by us. I do not remember if any such statement had been given to the IO or not. It is wrong to suggest that no such statement existed and that was why no such statement was given to the IO. It is wrong to suggest that the letters exhibited by me had been prepared in connivance with the police officials and under pressure. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely. Cross Examination by Akshay Jain: I had never talked to any Director of Samsung Electronics personally. I do not know if Aman Kumar and Raman Kumar are the names of the same person or not, as we were told of only Raman Kumar. Only accused persons used to make me talk to the person called Raman Kumar and I had never made a call to him myself. I cannot tell any number on which or from which such call was made. I had never told the IO that Aman Harjai had introduced himself on phone as MD of Samsung Electronics, I had never met Aman Harjai before coming to the Court. I was never called for TIP proceedings to identify Aman Harjai. I am not having any I No P DB oa a V aj & Ors Pa No phone number of Akshay Jain. I was never called for TIP proceedings to identify Akshay Jain. No document of any nature was given to me by Akshay Jain or vice versa. It is wrong to suggest that Akshay Jain had no concern with me or my company. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
ii). PW-2 Inspector Dalbir Singh: At that relevant time, I was posted at DBG Road as Sl. Complaint of the present case was marked to me by the SHO concerned. On the basis of complaint, FIR was got registered which is already Ex. PW1/A bearing my signature at point. I had also served the notice under Section 91 Cr. PC which is Ex. PW2/A bearing my signature at point A. I tried to search for the accused persons but failed to search the same. Thereafter, further investigation was conducted by the SI Satender Rathi. Cross Examination: Nil opportunity given.
iii). PW-3 Inspector Tarkeshwar Singh: During the period of year 2000 I was posted at PS DBG Road as SI. During that period, the case file of the present case was marked to me for further investigation. I collected the case file from MHC (R). During the course of investigation, I had arrested T. Rajesh. During that period of time, arrest memos were not prepared, thus a formal arrest memo is not there on the judicial record. I collected the documents from accused T. Rajesh and seized the same by preparing seizure memo. Again said, I had taken handwriting sample from accused T. Rajesh and not documents. The writing samples taken from accused T. Rajesh are there on the judicial file, which is Ex. PW3/A (colly). I had collected charge-slip from American Express bank. They were six charge-slips. The seizure memo is Ex. PW3/B bearing my signature at point A. Thereafter, I had also seized some documents from the complainant Neeraj Jain. The seizure memo of the same is already Ex. PW1/H bearing my signature at point B. The witness is shown the chargeslip which are there on judicial record. The same are Ex. PW3/C (colly). I had also recorded the disclosure statement of accused and conducted his personal search and recorded his disclosure. The personal search of accused T. Rajesh is Ex. PW3/D bearing my signature at point A. The disclosure statement of accused is Ex. PW3/E bearing my signature at point A. During the period of my investigation, I had also formally arrested the accused Akshay Jain and Aman. Accused Akshay Jain and Aman were already on anticipatory bail. The documents that were collected by me are annexed in the charge-sheet alongwith FSL result. The said documents are Ex. PW3/F (colly). After collection of all the documents, I got the same sent to the FSL for comparison and analysis. After collection of the FSL result I prepared the charge-sheet and filed the same before the Hon'ble court. Accused Akshay Jain and T. Rajesh are present in the court today and correctly identified by the witness. Cross Examination by accused:
The name of accused T. Rajesh came in the investigation of the present case upon the statement given by complainant Neeraj Jain. It I No P DB oa a V aj & Ors Pa No is correct that complainant Neeraj Jain was kept in column no. 12 of the charge-sheet. Vol. The charge was not framed against Neeraj Jain. It is correct that letter dated 28.12.1998 Ex. PW1/A is having reference of letter written on 09.11.1998. It is correct that the letter dated 09.11.1998 is not a part of charge-sheet. I can neither admit nor deny that the letter dated 09.11.1998 was the initially complaint moved by the complainant. The said letter dated 09.11.1998 never came to my knowledge during my investigation and neither I am aware about its contents. The witness is confronted with the letter dated 03.03.2000 written by Sh. R. P. Kocher, Security Department, American Express Bank which is already part of judicial record. It is replied by the witness that he had gone through the said letter and name of T. Rajesh is not coming in the said letter. The said letter is Ex. PW3/D-1. The chargeslips which were collected by me during my investigation, were as per my investigation found to be issued to Foreign Nationals. It is wrong to suggest that as per my investigation, the chargeslips seized by me could not be connected to accused T. Rajesh. The said Foreign Nationals had given their statements through their respective Embassies. The said Foreign Nationals did not join the investigation in person as they had already left India. In the present case, the loss took place to American Express Bank through conduct of accused T. Rajesh and other accused persons. It is wrong to suggest that I had not conducted fair investigation in the present matter. It is correct that in the present matter, American Express made a payment to M/s BPL for ticket purchase done through accused T. Rajesh and others. It is wrong to suggest that I had not conducted investigation qua accused Aman Kumar. It is wrong to suggest that accused T. Rajesh had not made any disclosure as alleged. It is wrong to suggest that the accused was compelled to sign the disclosure statement. It is wrong to suggest that I had not conducted fair investigation in the present case qua the chargeslips. As per my knowledge, no other case is going on qua the chargeslips in question in the present case. It is wrong to suggest that I had not conducted proper investigation by putting complainant Neeraj Jain as a suspect in column no. 12 of the charge-sheet. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
iv). PW-4 Inspector Satinder Rathee: On 28.04.1999, I was posted at PS DBG Road as SI. On that day, further investigation of the present case was marked to me. I collected the case file and went through the same. I found that one notice under section 91 Cr. PC was issued by previous IO SI Dalbir Singh. Copy of same is already on judicial record and is already Ex. PW2/A and is already on judicial record.
This notice was for collection of some documents. I gave a reminder to the American Express Bank in terms of said notice for providing the documents. However, the documents were not provided to us. I remained in the investigation till 05.11.1999. Thereafter, the case file of the present case was transferred from me to SI Tarkeshwar upon the order of the then SHO, PS DBG Road. Cross Examination:
It is correct that I remained IO of the case for a limited period of about seven months. It is correct that remaining investigation of the case was I No P DB oa a V aj & Ors Pa No done by SI Tarkeshwar. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
v). PW-5 Krishna Sastry Pendyala: Presently, I am leading a retired life. During the period of May 2000, I was posted at CFSL Hyderabad as Assistant Government Examiner of Questioned documents. I did Master of Science from Andhara University, M.Tech from Banaras Hindu University. I joined the office of GEQD in the year 1990, undergone three years in service training in the examination of handwriting, signature, forgery and other allied aspects of handwriting examination. During my service, I have examined a large number of exhibits referred by various investigation agencies, Hon'ble courts, Commission Etc. I have also deposed evidence in various courts of law to support the opinion submitted during my service. The exhibits of this case were received in my office on 28.04.2000 through special messenger in sealed cover from DCP, Central District, Delhi vide letter no. 336/2000 dt. 26.04.2000. The acknowledgment of the receipt of the documents were given to the special messenger who came for the submissions of exhibits. After competing the internal formalities of my office, the case has been allocated to me for the purpose of examination and to form an opinion as per the forwarding letter referred above. The exhibits consists of handwriting, signatures of various persons and all are present in 36 sheets. After examination, I came to the opinion. The case has also been examined by Sh. D. D. Goel, the then Government Examiner of questioned documents and came to the same opinion. The opinion dt. 12.05.2000, the forwarding letter dt. 12.05.2000, AH-80/2000/1842 and 1843, the original documents were handed over to the special messenger deputed for collecting the same in sealed cover. Before examination, I have seen the suitability of the standards for the purpose of examination, as the handwriting examination involves comparison of likes is with like. I found the specimen submitted were suitable enough for forming the opinion on few of the questioned documents. The opinion sheets contains my signatures as well as the signature of Sh. D. D. Goel which I can identify today in the Hon'ble court based on my association with him for a decade. The forwarding letters also bears the signatures of Sh. D. D. Goel. The opinion dt. 12.05.2000 is Ex.
PW5/A bearing my signature at point A and that of Sh. D. D. Goel at point B. The forwarding letter dt. 12.05.2000 is Ex. PW5/B bearing signature of Sh. D. D. Goel at point A. All the documents submitted for the purpose of examination bears the rubber seal impression of my office and within the rubber seal also bears the case number of my office and the exhibits number as Q or S, depending upon the questioned document or the specimen respectively. The said documents are also on judicial record and are already Ex. PW1/D, Mark B, Ex. PW1/E, Ex. PW1/F, Mark C, Ex. PW1/C, Mark D, Mark E, Ex. PW3/C and Ex. PW3/A (colly). Cross Examination: I have examined all the documents as submitted to my office by the investigating agency. The specimen numbers S-12 to S-15 were not found suitable for comparison. The investigating officer of the case I No P DB oa a V aj & Ors Pa No did not send me further specimens for comparison qua the above-said specimen. It is wrong to suggest that the signatures mentioned in red enclosed parts on Q23 to Q31 and reproduced Mark Q23/1 and Q25 were not made by the same person who had written specimen S-1 to S-11. Q: How did you find the photostatic reproduction Marked Q23/1 and Q25 to be suitable for examination and and why not for others? A:
For examination of handwriting, the quality of the photographic reproduction material which reveals the individual, general handwriting characteristic which forms the suitable base is necessary. As mentioned above, I found the suitability of the documents of these documents for framing the opinion. Q: Have you explained the above- said reason in your opinion Ex. PW5/A? A: No. the expert voluntarily said the documents Ex/PW5/A is the opinion and not the reasons. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
5. During trial accused persons admitted the factum of FIR No. 650/17 as Ex. A-1. Further, witnesses namely Anil Kapoor, Mr. Raman, Jennet Bristow, Col. Oleg Harasi and Taketo Komeya were dropped from the list of the witnesses. After the closure of PE, statement of accused persons U/s 313 Cr.P.C were recorded in which all incriminating material appearing in evidence against accused was put to them to which they stated that they were innocent and that they have been falsely implicated in this case. No defence evidence was led despite opportunity.
6. Thereafter, final arguments were addressed by the accused and Ld. APP for the State. All the submissions were heard carefully and all the record has been looked into.
7. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. In order to prove its case on judicial file, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if I No P DB oa a V aj & Ors Pa No any, of the defence of the accused. The burden of proof of the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the trial is on the prosecution and it never shifts on to the accused. Also it is a settled proposition of criminal law that accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such reasonable doubt entitles the accused to be acquitted.
8.0 Before proceeding to analyze the facts and evidence on record, it is pertinent to refer to the relevant provisions of law which form the foundation of the present prosecution. The accused in the present case has been charged for the offences punishable under Sections 420/471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, A brief reference to the legal ingredients and purport of these provisions is set out hereinafter.
8.1. The offence pertaining to cheating is covered under Chapter 17 of the IPC under the heading 'of offences against property' and is covered from Section 415 to 420 IPC. Section 420 i.e 'cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property' is an aggravated form of cheating, which provides for enhanced punishment. This provision penalizes any person who cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property. To constitute an offence under this section, the prosecution must establish that:
• The accused deceived the complainant;
• Such deception led the complainant to deliver property; • The accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the very inception of the transaction.
8.2. In the case of Iridium India Tel oftenecom Ltd. v. Motorola Inc., (2011) 1 SCC 74, the Honble Supreme Court of India while refering to I No P DB oa a V aj & Ors Pa No Section 415 IPC has observed as follows:
"...68. A bare perusal of the aforesaid section would show that it can be conveniently divided into two parts. The first part makes it necessary that the deception by the accused of the person deceived, must be fraudulent or dishonest. Such deception must induce the person deceived to either: (a) deliver property to any person; or (b) consent that any person shall retain any property. The second part also requires that the accused must by deception intentionally induce the person deceived either to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit, if he was not so deceived. Furthermore, such act or omission must cause or must be likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. Thus, it is evident that deception is a necessary ingredient for the offences of cheating under both parts of this section..."
8.3. The criminal conspiracy is a punishable offence under Section 120 B IPC, which is defined under Section 120A IPC. In case titled as Rajendra alias Rajesh alias Raju v. State of NCT of Delhi (2019) 10 SCC 623, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that it is trite law that the existence of three elements must be shown--a criminal object, a plan or a scheme embodying means to accomplish that object, and an agreement or understanding between two or more people to cooperate for the accomplishment of such object's.
8.4. Further in the case of Yogesh v. State of Maharashtra [(2008) 10 SCC 394], the honble Supreme Court of India in reference to criminal conspiracy has observed as follows:
"...25. Thus, it is manifest that the meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing an illegal act or an act by illegal means is sine qua non of the criminal conspiracy but it may not be possible to prove the agreement between them by direct proof. Nevertheless, existence of the conspiracy and its objective can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the accused. But the incriminating circumstances must form a chain of events from which a conclusion about the guilt of the accused could be drawn. It is well settled that an offence of conspiracy is a substantive offence and renders the mere I No P DB oa a V aj & Ors Pa No agreement to commit an offence punishable, even if an offence does not take place pursuant to the illegal agreement..."
8.5. To summarize, criminal conspiracy is an independent offence, which is punishable separately and can be proved either by way of direct proof or circumstantial evidence, only if essential ingredients as mentioned under Section 120A IPC are fulfilled. Also, upon the proof of the same, the accused can be held liable for the commission of other substantive offences.
8.6. Section 471 IPC punishes any person who fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document. The essential ingredients are: (i) that the document in question is forged; (ii) that the accused used the forged document as genuine; (iii) that such use was made fraudulently or dishonestly; and (iv) that the accused had knowledge or reason to believe that the document was forged.
8.7. Reliance is placed in the case titled as A. S. Krishnan v. State of Kerala, (2004) 11 SCC 576, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and observations in said case lead to the inference that mere presentation of a forged document is insufficient unless it is shown that the accused knew or had reason to believe that the document was forged.
9. In the present case, before moving ahead, let us understand what was the mechanism of credit card charge slips prevailing at the relevant time. During the year 1998, credit card transactions were carried out using manual imprinters, known as "ZipZap" machines. These were provided by banks to authorized merchants, who would physically imprint the raised details of the customer's credit card on I No P DB oa a V aj & Ors Pa No bank-issued slips. Merchants were expected to obtain telephonic authorization and record the cardholder's signature on the slip. The slips were then deposited with the bank, which, upon verifying the transaction, would release payment to the merchant. If the cardholders later denied the transaction, the bank could issue a charge-back and recover the amount from the merchant. This process involved trust and personal verification and was prone to manipulation if not strictly followed1. The images of such device and charge slips for easy reference are given below:
(a).2
(b).3 :wawC_a_ :wawC_a_#a:C_a_JP :wawC_a_#a:C_a__ __y I No P DB oa a V aj & Ors Pa No
10. Let us now proceed to examine the individual roles of both the accused with respect to the allegations and then, discuss the conspiracy aspect.
11. Pertinently, the complainant has made allegations against the accused T. Rajesh primarliy, who produced the forged credit charge slips and induced the complainant to believe that these were genuine slips. Therefore, accused T. Rajesh being the prime accused, his role is being discussed beforehand.
12. Firstly, we need to consider the issue whether the charge slips in question were forged or not and secondly, whether T. Rajesh Forged those slips or not. Upon analysis of the prosecution evidence, it is apparent that the prosecution has not conclusively proved the fact that charge slips were forged. If we go through the testimony of PW1 Neeraj Jain, he has deposed that American Express Bank had informed him about denial of transactions by cardholders and claiming charge back on the same by claiming that cardholders denied their signatures or authorizing any payment. However, charge-holders could not be examined to buttress the point that the charge slips in questions were not signed or authorised by them. Further, the letter relied upon by the complainant Ex. PW3/D-1 remains unproved, as no official from American Express Bank was examined to affirm its contents or clarify the charge-back process.
13. Further, no expert evidence was led to compare the disputed signatures on the slips with those of the cardholders. PW5 being the I No P DB oa a V aj & Ors Pa No forensic expert was not even asked to examine the authenticity of the cardholder signatures. In the absence of primary evidence either from the cardholders or the bank, and without any forensic opinion on the core issue of forgery, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to establish that the charge slips in question were forged and the evidence appears to be hearsay with documentary evidence being proved.
14. Likewise, nothing on record indicates that it was accused T. Rajesh who had filled or authored those charge slips. However, the forensic expert who examined the questioned documents stated that no definite opinion could be given, which would link accused Rajesh's handwriting to the alleged forged slips. The only matching documents were letters authored by Rajesh himself, which do not prove that he filled or forged the slips in question. No material was recovered from his possession that could suggest he had access to the printing equipment or blank slips. Furthermore, there is no statement or deposition from the cardholders whose names appeared on the slips. Their denials were mentioned only in an unproved letter from American Express, and no witness from the bank was examined. In such circumstances, when the forgery of the slips themselves have not been established, the necessary condition for invoking Section 471 IPC that the accused used a forged document knowing it to be forged, cannot be said to be fulfilled. Also, even if it assumed that the charge slips were forged, there is nothing on record to impute knowledge or reason to believe that the charge slips were forged upon the accused. Consequently, the charge under Section 471 IPC cannot sustain against accused T. Rajesh.
I No P DB oa a V aj & Ors Pa No 15.0. Now, coming to the allegations that the accused induced the complainant to believe that the charge slips were issued from genuine customers, and relying upon the same, the complainant issued airline tickets and also adjusted the earlier outstanding dues of the accused. It is the prosecution's case that owing to the trust reposed and the inducement caused by the accused, the complainant suffered wrongful losses and the accused gained unlawfully. However, upon careful examination of the evidence led, this Court finds that the essential ingredients of Section 420 IPC are not satisfied.
15.1. It is trite law, that to constitute the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was fraudulent or dishonest inducement at the inception, which led the victim to deliver property, and that such inducement resulted in wrongful loss to one and wrongful gain to another. The intention to cheat must exist from the very beginning of the transaction. In the present case, there is no evidence on record to show that accused T. Rajesh dishonestly induced the complainant at the time of making the representations. The complainant claimed that ₹1.59 lakhs were outstanding against Rajesh due to previously dishonored cheques and that the same was adjusted against the payments received through the credit slips. However, no documentary evidence has been brought on record to substantiate either the amount due or the details of dishonored cheques. There is no ledger, account statement, or written acknowledgment to that effect.
15.2. Further, the complainant relied upon the alleged association of the accused with Samsung Electronics to justify resumption of business. However, no witness from Samsung was examined, and no I No P DB oa a V aj & Ors Pa No verification or correspondence was placed on record to establish that such representation was false or made with fraudulent intent. The names of the individuals for whom the tickets were issued are not disclosed, and no evidence has been led to show whether the tickets were used, refunded, or encashed. The complainant stated that the amount received from American Express Bank against the slips was paid to the airlines, but no receipts, invoices, or airline confirmations were filed to prove the same.
15.4. Moreover, American Express Bank, which claimed to have suffered a loss due to charge-back of disputed transactions, cast doubts on the complainant's conduct and on the other hand, the bank alleged that BPL Travels violated the terms of the merchant agreement. The complainant could not offer any reasonable explanation as to why the deviation was followed with respect to the agreement. There is no material to suggest that the complainant refunded the amounts to the bank upon receiving the charge-back. In fact, the bank itself never stepped into the witness box to substantiate its claim or proving the complaint given to police. In the absence of cogent evidence showing actual loss to the complainant and corresponding unlawful gain to the accused, the requirement of Section 420 IPC that the accused caused wrongful loss by dishonest inducement remains unfulfilled.
16.0. Turning to accused Akshay Jain, the allegations against him are confined to the claim that he accompanied co-accused T. Rajesh to the office of BPL Travels and posed as a personal assistant to a person named Raman Kumar, purportedly a senior executive at Samsung Electronics. While the investigating officer stated that inquiries were I No P DB oa a V aj & Ors Pa No made with Samsung to verify the existence of such an individual, it is admitted that no written confirmation or official denial was obtained from the company. The entire verification process appears to have been conducted orally, and no officer from Samsung was examined in court to corroborate that no such employee existed or that no business interaction took place with the complainant through the accused persons. In the absence of any formal or recorded response from Samsung, the prosecution's allegation regarding impersonation remains unsupported by reliable evidence.
16.1. Additionally, the complainant categorically admitted during his testimony that he had never seen Akshay Jain before the alleged visit and identified him for the first time in court. No Test Identification Parade was conducted during investigation to confirm whether Akshay Jain was the same person who posed as a Samsung representative or interacted with the complainant over the phone. It is well settled that when the identity of an accused is sought to be established for the first time during trial, especially in the case of a stranger, a TIP serves as an important procedural safeguard. The absence of TIP in this case substantially diminishes the credibility of the dock identification.
16.2. Furthermore, there is no material on record linking Akshay Jain to the alleged fraudulent transactions. He has not been shown to have authored, filled, or submitted any of the charge slips in question. No documents, digital evidence, or financial records connect him to the proceeds of the transaction or indicate that he shared any common intent with T. Rajesh. There is also no recovery from his possession to indicate any active role in the alleged conspiracy. His mere presence, I No P DB oa a V aj & Ors Pa No without more, cannot by itself lead to a presumption of guilt in a criminal trial. Therefore, his role is significantly linked to conspiracy part, which is being discussed hereinafter.
17.0. Let us now consider whether the charge of criminal conspiracy is made out against the accused persons. It is well settled that to establish an offence under Section 120B IPC, the prosecution must prove that there was a prior meeting of minds--that is, an agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. This agreement may be proved either by direct evidence or by reliable circumstantial evidence that points towards a coordinated plan or understanding between the accused.
17.1. In the present case, there is no direct evidence showing that T. Rajesh and Akshay Jain entered into any agreement to commit the alleged offence. The evidence led by the prosecution does not indicate any coordination between them. The only link established is that they allegedly visited the office of BPL Travels together, during which Akshay Jain is said to have posed as a personal assistant. However, no subsequent action or conduct has been attributed to Akshay that would suggest he played any active role or even had knowledge of the alleged fraudulent activity.
17.2. There is no material to show that Akshay knew of the charge slips, participated in their presentation, or had any stake in the outcome. He was not found in possession of any documents, did not handle any funds, and no calls, messages, or bank transactions have been placed on record connecting him to T. Rajesh in relation to the offence. In the absence of such evidence, the mere fact that they were I No P DB oa a V aj & Ors Pa No allegedly present together on one occasion cannot by itself give rise to a presumption of conspiracy. Courts have repeatedly held that a charge of conspiracy cannot rest on vague or general allegations and must be backed by clear and specific proof of a common design.
17.3. In the present facts, the essential requirement of a "meeting of minds" is clearly absent. There is no established chain of events or surrounding circumstances that demonstrate a concerted effort or agreement to cheat or deceive. Therefore, this Court finds that the charge of criminal conspiracy against the accused persons remains unproved.
18. The prosecution's case is further weakened by the non- examination of material witnesses. The cardholders whose names appeared on the slips were never called to depose. Their purported denials are unproved hearsay. No officer from American Express Bank was examined to prove the contents of Ex. PW3/D-1.
19. Before concluding, it is essential to point out the shoddy investigation conducted by the IO. The investigation appears to be casual and incomplete. No verification was done with the airlines to confirm whether the tickets were used. No recovery of blank slips, imprinters, or other tools was made. The investigation does not inspire confidence and leaves significant gaps.
20. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges under Sections 420, 471, and 120B IPC against accused T. Rajesh and Akshay Jain beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence on record does not establish their I No P DB oa a V aj & Ors Pa No involvement in the alleged offence. Accordingly, both accused are acquitted of all the offenses charged with.
21. Accused persons are directed to furnish personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000 under section 437A Cr.P.C.
(Announced in the open court on this
day of 30th May, 2025)
Digitally signed
ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK
KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.05.30
17:13:03 +0530
(ABHISHEK KUMAR)
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
I No P DB oa a V aj & Ors Pa No