Delhi District Court
Vijay Shanker Bhatnagar vs State on 24 July, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. NARINDER KUMAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, (CENTRAL); DELHI
Crl. Revision No.02/2012
Vijay Shanker Bhatnagar
S/o. Late R. S. Lal Bhatnagar,
R/o. 131, Gali Batashan,
Chawari Bazar, Delhi 110 006 ........Petitioner
Versus
State .........Respondent
A N D
Crl. Revision No.09/12
1. Bankim Chandu Lal,
S/o. Sh Chandu Lal Jamuna Dass Modi
R/o. 1462/1, Opposite Panditji Pole,
Sarangpur, Ahmedabad, Gujrat.
2. Rajni Bhai @ Rajni Kant
S/o. Sh Chunni Bhai
R/o. 214, Ghee Kanta Road,
Near Post Office, Ahmedabad,
Gujrat.
Crl. Revision No.02/12 & 09/12 1
Presently R/o. A/103, Ist floor,
Panchjanya Appartment, Ambawadi Circle,
Near Monalisa Tower, Ahmedabad, Gujrat.
3. Atul Kumar
S/o. Sh Rasik Lal Shah
R/o. Purani Niwas, Ist floor,
Opposite Kokadiyas's Pole, Sarangpur,
Ahmedabad, Gujrat. .......Petitioners
Versus
State .........Respondent
Date of institution :
Date of Judgment :
J U D G M E N T
1. This judgment shall dispose of both the revision petitions referred to above, as the same arises out of same order i.e. impugned order dated 08.12.2011 passed by Ld Metropolitan Magistrate in case FIR No. 297/97 of PS Hauz Qazi.
2. Vide impugned order, charge for offences under Section 420, 471 r/w Section 120 B IPC has been framed against the petitioners, who are accused in case FIR No.297/1997, pertaining to Police Station Hauz Qazi. Crl. Revision No.02/12 & 09/12 2
3. Charge framed against Bankim Chandulal Modi and two co petitioners read as under :
"That on or before 27.09.97 you all entered into a criminal conspiracy with coaccused Vijay Shankar Bhatnagar to cheat the Indian Railways in order to get your Railway travel ticket confirmed which otherwise was in waiting list. In furtherance of that criminal conspiracy all of you used a forged and fabricated letter of Sh. Raju Bhai Parmar, MP in order to get your ticket confirmed from New Delhi to Baroda. You had also got the said ticket booked through accused Vijay Shankar (M/s. Vijay Tours and Travels). In furtherance of said criminal conspiracy a forged letter was sent through Fax to the Railway Ministry, Delhi in order to get your ticket confirmed and on the basis of said letter your waiting list journey ticket was confirmed and you were caught while you were travelling in JammuBombay Superfast Express on the basis of the aforesaid ticket no.66329009 within the jurisdiction of PS NDRS. Thus, you all have committed offences punishable U/s. 420/471 r.w.s. 120 B IPC and within my cognizance." Crl. Revision No.02/12 & 09/12 3
4. Charge framed against Vijay Shanker Bhatnagar, petitioner read as under :
"That on or before 27.09.97 within the jurisdiction of PS NDRS you being not authorized agent of the Indian Railways had booked a journey ticket no.66329009 of co accused persons namely Bankim Chandulal Modi s/o. Sh. Chandulal (ii) Rajni Bhai @ Rajnikant s/o. Sh Chunni Bhai
(iii) Atul Kumar s/o. Sh Rasik Lal Shah and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s. 143 of Railway Act, 1989 and within my cognizance.
Secondly, on or before the abovesaid date you entered into a criminal conspiracy with coaccused persons namely Bankim Chandulal Modi s/o. Sh Chandulal; Rajni Bhai @ Rajnikant s/o. Sh Chunni Bhai and Atul Kumar s/o. Sh Rasik Lal Shah in order to cheat Indian Railways by getting their Railway travel ticket confirmed which otherwise was in waiting list. In furtherance of that criminal conspiracy all of you used a forged and fabricated letter of Sh Raju Bhai Parmar, MP in order to get their ticket confirmed from New Delhi to Baroda. In furtherance Crl. Revision No.02/12 & 09/12 4 of said conspiracy a forged letter was sent through Fax to the Railway Ministry, Delhi in order to get their ticket confirmed and on the basis of said letter their waiting list journey ticket was confirmed and they were caught while they were travelling in JammuBombay Superfast Express on the basis of the aforesaid ticket no.66329009. Thus, you have committed offences punishable U/s. 420/471 r.w.s. 120 B IPC and within my cognizance."
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners have submitted that from the material available before Trial Court Magistrate, no prima facie case is made out against any of the petitioners, and as such the charges framed against them and the order dated 08.12.2011 are liable to be set aside.
6. Learned Counsel for Vijay Shankar Bhatnagar, petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has an office under the name & style of M/s. Vijay Tour & Travels in Chawari Bazaar, Delhi and the only role played by him is that he got seats of all the three persons reserved but their names were shown in the waiting list. It has been submitted that the petitioner had no role to play subsequent thereto and that in absence of any evidence of conspiracy with the passengers, no charge could be framed against him.
Crl. Revision No.02/12 & 09/12 5
7. Learned Counsel for Bankim Chandulal Modi and his copetitioners has contended that there is no material with the prosecution to suggest that the letter purported to have been issued by Sh. Raju Bhai Parmar, MP, was forged or faxed by these three petitioners. Further, it has been submitted that there is no material on record to suggest that these three petitioners conspired with Sh. V. K. Bhatnagar in getting their seats reserved. Therefore, it has been contended that the impugned order framing charge against them is liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, learned counsel has referred to decisions in State of Delhi vs. Randhir Singh 2007 (3) JCC 2290, Smt. Suvinder Kaur @ Shavinder Kaur vs. State of Haryana 2003 (2) RCR (Criminal) and Budh Ram vs. State of Haryana 2010 (2) RCR (Criminal).
8. Case FIR No.297/1997 came to be registered on the complaint dated 30.09.1997 made by the officials of Railway Board. As per contents of the complaint addressed to the SHO, Police Station Hauz Qazi, on 27.09.1997, on checking of JammuBombay Superfast Train by the squad of Railway Board, Rajnikant and two others were found travelling against PNR No.2210996624, ticket no.66329009, on berth no.25, 26 & 27, in Coach no.S3. Investigation revealed that these three berths were got reserved from the office of Reservation Rail Bhawan, Baroda House on the basis of a letter purported to have been issued by Sh.Raju Bhai Parmar, MP (Rajya Sabha) and faxed to the said office. Crl. Revision No.02/12 & 09/12 6 When contacted, the Member of Parliament gave in writing that it was a forged and fabricated letter.
9. Investigation further revealed that M/s. Vijay Tour & Travels i.e. of Sh. V. S. Bhatnagarpetitioner through whom the aforesaid berths were got reserved, was not an agency recognized by the Indian Railways.
10. Further, it is case of prosecution that on 30.09.1997 a raid was conducted at the office of M/s. Vijay Tour & Travels, Chawari Bazaar, Delhi and several documents pertaining to M/s. Amit Tour & Travels were seized from there. Receipt no.11494 meant for the aforesaid three passengers i.e. Rajnikant & others was one of the documents recovered from there. On 13.07.1997, V. S. Bhatnagar, accusedpetitioner produced before the police original authorization of Rail Travel Service Agent i.e of M/s. Amit Tour & Travels. License no.31SMCRTSATN9650 is available on record. It is in the name of M/s. Amit Tour & Travels and purported to have been issued by the Northern Railways Headquarter, Baroda House, New Delhi.
11. From the material available on record, it appears that M/s. Amit Tour & Travels was issued a license by Indian Railways to act as its agent for securing reservation on behalf of intending railway travellers from the reservation/booking office located at Tri Nagar. This license was for the period from 13.03.1996 to 12.03.1999. But surprisingly papers pertaining to M/s. Amit Tour & Travels were recovered from the office of M/s. Vijay Tour & Travels, Crl. Revision No.02/12 & 09/12 7 situated in the area of Chawari Bazar, Delhi. Vide another memo, police seized a pamphlet of M/s. Vijay Tour & Travel from that office. In the course of the arguments, it has not been disputed that V. S. Bhatnagar, petitioner used to run M/s. Vijay Tour & Travels.
12. On these allegations prima facie, it appears that M/s. Vijay Tour & Travels was indulging in illegal business using papers and stamps of Anil Tour & Travels.
13. As per case of the prosecution, Rajnikant, Atul Kumar and B. Modi were travelling by train no.421272 on 27.09.1997. The prescribed form for reservation bears rubber stamp of M/s. Amit Tour & Travels. It is in the statement of Sh I. K. Purohit , TTE that all the three passengers told them they had got their travelling tickets reserved through Sh V. S. Bhatnagar of Vijay Tour & Travels, whose office was situated at 131, Gali Badasan, Chawari Bazar and that they had paid him a sum of Rs.1080/ against the actual fare of Rs.720/. They did not state that they had availed of service of Amit Tour & Travels and visited its office. Prima facie, this statement to the TTE is relevant and goes to show that Sh V. S. Bhatnagar charged Rs.1080/ as against actual fare of Rs. 720/. It is for Sh V. S. Bhatnagar to explain as to under what circumstances he charged Rs.360/ in excess to the actual fare. It is not believable that he charged this excess amount only for the services provided by him, when by way of service charges a sum Rs.18/ appears to have been charged as per photocopy of Crl. Revision No.02/12 & 09/12 8 invoice dated 26.09.1997 seized during investigation.
14. No doubt, as per prosecution evidence, the travelling ticket depict that the request of three passengers named above for reservation was in waiting list. It is also for him to explain that the extent of role played by him was played role only in getting issued travelling ticket depicting names of these three passengers in the waiting list. After all, his conduct in charging of Rs.360/ in excess raises a presumption against him that it is he who played role in getting the three seats reserved.
15. So far as forging of letter of Member of Parliament faxed to the reservation office at Baroda House is concerned, file would reveal that during investigation, the person whose fax machine was used in faxing MP's recommendations letter, was also examined. But police did not take steps for test identification of the person who had faxed the letter from the said machine.
16. At this stage, negligence on the part of the IO in this regard does not come to the aid of the petitionerspassengers.
17. It is for the petitionerspassengers to explain as to why did they pay Rs.360/ in excess, to Sh. V. S. Bhatnagar, their copetitioner, when the actual fare was Rs.720/ only.
18. In Randhir's case Hon'ble Court observed that it was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove forging of a document by the accused, and the circumstances of his being a beneficiary was not sufficient to hold the accused Crl. Revision No.02/12 & 09/12 9 liable for forgery. But in the given facts and circumstances, decision in Randhir Singh's case does not come to the aid of the petitioners
19. It is in the statement of Sh. R. K. Purohit, TTE that the three passengerspetitioners had told the squad that they had got the seats reserved through Sh. V. S. Bhatnagar after having paid a sum of Rs.1080/ as against actual fare of Rs.720/. This excess payment by the passengers and its receipt by the copetitioner Sh. V. S. Bhatnagar prima facie in a strong piece of evidence of conspiracy against them in securing confirmation of their seats by illegal means. In the given facts and circumstances, decision in Smt. Savinder Kaur's case (Supra), where only photocopy of certificate was produced, does not come to the aid of the petitioners. For the same reasons decision in Budh Ram's case (Supra) that offence of forgery can only be committed in relation to original documents and not with respect to copy thereof, also does not come to the aid of the petitioners.
20. Another argument has been advanced by learned counsel for V. S. Bhatnagar petitioner that in the impugned order, the Trial Magistrate has not given any reasons as to why charge has been framed against this petitioner. It has been submitted that name of V. S. Bhatnagar was shown in column no. 2 but the Metropolitan Magistrate summoned him with other accused. Crl. Revision No.02/12 & 09/12 10
21. It is significant to note that no revision petition has been filed against the summoning order. It is well settled that reasons are to be recorded in case of discharge of an accused person. The accused persons have not challenged the order dated 31.10.2011 vide which charges were ordered to be framed against them. They have challenged only the charge framed against them. A perusal of the charge would reveal that the entire accusation has been specified in the charge framed against the petitioners. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of learned counsel for petitioner.
22. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that both the revision petitions are without any merit. The same are accordingly dismissed. Copy of judgment be placed in file of Crl. R. No. 9/2012. File of revision petition be consigned to Record Room. Trial Court record be sent back.
23. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 01.08.2012.
Announced in Open Court
on 24.07.2012 (Narinder Kumar )
Additional Sessions Judge(Central)
Delhi.
Crl. Revision No.02/12 & 09/12 11