Delhi District Court
Metropolitan Magistrate 07 vs Avdesh Singh on 21 January, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. BABRU BHAN
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 07, ROOM NO. 137,
CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
STATE
VERSUS
Avdesh Singh
FIR No. 224/1995
P.S.: Subzi Mandi
U/S: 419/420/468/471 IPC
1. Serial No. of the case : 02401R0031671996
2. Date of commission of offence: 04.10.1994
3. Name of the Complainant : Swarn Singh Arora
4. Name of the accused, Avdesh Singh
s/o Sh. Udham Singh
his parentage and residence : r/o 796, PocketI, Janta Flats,
Paschim Puri, New Delhi.
5. Date when judgment : 07.12.2015
was reserved
6. Date when Judgment : 21.01.2016
was pronounced
7. Offence Complained of : U/s 419/420/468/471 IPC
or proved
8. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
9. Final Judgment : Convicted u/s 419 & 471 IPC
FIR No. 224/1995
PS Subzi Mandi
State Vs. Avdesh Singh Page 1/15
Brief Statement of reasons for the decision of the case
1. Case of the prosecution is that accused Avdesh Singh was impersonating himself as an Advocate and in that capacity, he was appearing before Sh. R.L. Chugh, Industrial Tribunal No.III and he also used to affix forged seal of Oath Commissioner. On 04.10.1994, he also filed four affidavits of four different persons before above mentioned court. On verification, his enrollment as an Advocate was found forged. On complaint of Sh. S.S. Arora, a case was registered u/s 419/420/468/471 IPC and investigation was conducted. After investigation, police filed chargesheet under the above mentioned sections.
2. On 20.12.1999, charge u/s 419/420/468/471 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. During Prosecution Evidence, eleven witnesses are examined.
4. PW1 Sh. Suresh Kumar entered the witness box on 02.02.2001 and stated that he was working as Caretaker in the office of Delhi Bar Association. He was handed over with a sealed letter containing some documents and same were got verified by him from the Allahabad Bar Council as per instructions.
During crossexamination, witness stated that he did not remember the date when police recorded his statement. He FIR No. 224/1995 PS Subzi Mandi State Vs. Avdesh Singh Page 2/15 further stated that statement of Sh. Khosla was recorded on the same date. He also stated that the letters which he took from Delhi and brought from Allahabad, both were sealed. He denied the suggestion that he did not take the letter to Allahabad from Delhi.
5. ASI Sushil Ming has been examined as PW2 on 02.02.2001. He stated that on 31.08.1995, he got verified the enrollment certificate of Advocate Avdesh Singh on the directions of higher officials. On verification, the documents were found to be forged and fabricated.
During crossexamination, he admitted that Delhi Bar Association had not given any document to him but he received the documents from IO. He denied the suggestion that IO did not give him any document for verification. He denied the suggestion that he did not bring any report from Allahabad and Banaras.
6. PW3 Sh. Rajeev Khosla made statement before the court on 17.05.2001 and further on 03.12.2003. In his examination inchief, he deposed that on 25.05.1995, one Mr. S.S. Arora gave him a complaint in the office of Bar Association, in which allegations were leveled against the accused that he was impersonating himself as an Advocate and was appearing before different courts. Taking cognizance of the complaint and being Secretary of the Bar Association, he called the accused in his FIR No. 224/1995 PS Subzi Mandi State Vs. Avdesh Singh Page 3/15 office and asked for the record relating to his enrollment number. On this, accused handed over the LLB Degree, Bar Council Certificate and other such documents to the witness. He produced the law degree from Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi, Bar Council Certificate issued by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh under enrollment number 3025/1994. These documents were handed over to Suresh Kumar, Caretaker of Delhi Bar Association for verification. He received a letter from Uttar Pradesh Bar Council in which it was mentioned that said enrollment number was not issued in name of the accused. Thereafter, this witness sent the complaint of Sh. S.S. Arora to Police Chowki, Tis Hazari alongwith Enrollment Certificate no. 3025/1994, LLB marksheets , visiting cards of the accused and said verification report from UP Bar Council for registration of the case. Documents are Ex. PW3/A to Ex. PW3/F. During crossexamination, witness denied the suggestion that these documents were never handed over to him by the accused. He volunteered that these documents were given by the accused on receiving complaint from Distt. & Sessions Judge. Witness also admitted that accused was not a member of Delhi Bar Association. He also denied the suggestion that there were some disputes between Delhi Bar Association and Labour Bar Association. He denied the suggestion that he had got registered a false case against the accused in connivance of the FIR No. 224/1995 PS Subzi Mandi State Vs. Avdesh Singh Page 4/15 complainant.
7. Sh. Umesh Bahadur Singh, Deputy Registrar(Exams), Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth University, Varanasi entered the witness box as PW4 on 09.10.2001. He produced the original record registers Ex. P1, P2 and P3. He further stated that as per record available with the University, the degree and marksheets which are Ex. PW3/A to C were not issued by the University and same were forged. When he was again summoned for cross examination on 27.04.2004, he stated that he did not have original register Ex. P1 to Ex. P3 because he was retired and the original were not in his possession and same could be summoned from the Controller of Examinations.
8. PW5 HC Dalip Singh gave his statement on 23.05.2006. He stated that on 07.11.1996, he went to court no. 218, Court of Sh. T.S. Kashyap alongwith SI Sanjay and met the Ahlmad of the court who handed over photocopies of two vakalatnama to IO in suit no. 712/93. On 13.11.1996, he went to the court of Sh. D.R. Mehra and met the Presiding Officer and Ahlmad of the court handed over two photocopies of Vakalatnama in suit no. 604/90 and five photocopies of vakalatnama in suit no. 586/90.
During crossexamination, he denied the suggestion that he has never visited Rajpura road and no vakalatnama were handed over to police at Rajpura road by the Presiding Officer.
FIR No. 224/1995PS Subzi Mandi State Vs. Avdesh Singh Page 5/15 He stated that two vakalatnamas were handed over to the police in Tis Hazari Court.
9. PW6 Swaran Singh Arora, the complainant made his statement on 19.02.2008. He stated that he had written a complaint to Secretary of Bar Association, Tis Hazari and inquiry was conducted by the Secretary after his complaint Ex. PW6/A. During crossexamination, witness admitted that some misunderstanding occurred between his Advocate and accused in court of Sh. R.L. Chugh, Ld. P.O., Labour Tribunal. He also admitted that complaint Ex. PW6/A was got typed by his counsel and explained to him. This witness also stated that he did not recollect whether the accused appeared as an Advocate in the court of Sh. R.L. Chugh, Ld. P.O., Labour Tribunal in the case titled as "Prahlad Vs. Brahma Swaroop". He also stated that accused had never cheated him. However, he denied the suggestion that he has made a false complaint against the accused on advise of his counsel.
10. PW7 SI Mohd. Yusuf appeared before the court on 19.02.2008. He stated that on 21.07.1995, he was posted at P.S. Subzi Mandi as Duty Officer. On the basis of rukka, produced by Ct. Jatin Kumar sent by SI Dharampal, he registered present case FIR Ex. PW7/A and made endorsement on rukka Ex. PW7/B. He handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to FIR No. 224/1995 PS Subzi Mandi State Vs. Avdesh Singh Page 6/15 Ct. Jatin.
11. PW8 Inspector Dharampal Dahiya made his statement on 17.01.2012. He stated that on 21.07.1995, he was posted at PP Tis Hazari as SI. On that day, Sh. Rajeev Khosla had come to PP Tis Hazari and handed over one complaint to him, on behalf of S.S. Arora to the effect that one person was appearing as Advocate in the court on the basis of forged enrollment. Tehrir Ex. PW8/A was prepared on the basis of the complaint and present FIR was got registered. Documents i.e. Enrollment Certificate of Bar Council of UP, DMCs, visiting card of the accused were also attached with the complaint. The documents were got verified from UP Bar Council and Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi which were found to be fake and forged. On 25.09.1995, accused Avdesh Singh surrendered and arrested.
During crossexamination, the witness failed to admit or deny as to whether accused had handed over any documents to Mr. Rajeev Khosla. He admitted that he himself had not recovered any incriminating document from the accused. He denied the suggestion that accused was falsely implicated at the instance of Mr. Rajeev Khosla.
12. Inspector Sanjay Sharma appeared in the witness box as PW9 on 15.05.2012. He stated that he obtained the photocopy of the vakalatnama filed by the accused in the court of Sh. T.S. Kashyap, vide seizure memo Ex. PW9/A and Ct. Dalip has FIR No. 224/1995 PS Subzi Mandi State Vs. Avdesh Singh Page 7/15 signed the seizure memo as witness. On 13.11.1996, he further obtained the photocopies of some documents including five affidavits in case no. 580/90 and two affidavits in case no. 406/90 which were handed over by the Ahlmad of the concerned Tribunal. These documents were seized vide memo Ex. PW9/B. Witness further stated that he had to seize the photocopies because Ld. P.O refused to part with originals.
During cross examination, witness denied the suggestion that even no photocopy of any vakalatnama filed by the accused in Labour Tribunal was seized by him. He also admitted that no vakalatnama filed by accused before Labour Tribunal was on record. He volunteered that copies of vakalatnama filed by accused were seized from the court of Sh. T.S. Kashyap and not from the Labour Tribunal. Witness also denied the suggestion that signature of HC Kailash Rai on the statement mark PW9/DX1 and PW9/DX2 were fabricated by him with a view to falsely implicate the accused. Witness denied the suggestion that this case was planted upon the accused to nullify the awards made by the Tribunal on the basis of the affidavits. Witness also denied the suggestion that accused never filed any vakalatnama in the court of Sh. T.S. Kashyap, the then Ld. Commercial Judge.
13. PW10 Retd. Sr. Asstt. Jagdish Prasad appeared in witness box on 18.12.2012 and stated that on 07.11.1996, he was FIR No. 224/1995 PS Subzi Mandi State Vs. Avdesh Singh Page 8/15 posted in the court of Sh. T.S. Kashyap, Ld. Commercial Civil Judge, Room No. 218. On that day, he had provided a photocopy of vakalatnama in suit no. 712/93 titled as "DCM Vs. Laxmi Prasad" to police officials which were seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex. PW9/A. Photocopy of vakalatnama is mark X. During crossexamination, this witness stated that he could not say whether vakalatnama bears the signature of the accused Avdesh Singh.
14. PW11 Deepak Kumar, LDC, Record Room, Criminal made statement before the court on 22.10.2013. He produced the original case file of case no. 604/90 and 586/90. From the case file of case no. 604/90, affidavit of Avdesh Singh s/o Udham Singh dated 12.05.1995 and one affidavit of Rama Shankar s/o Sh. Khijan dated 04.10.1994 were produced. The copies of the same were compared with the original and exhibited as Ex. PW11/A and Ex. PW11/B(OSR) respectively. From the original case file of case no. 586/90, one sealed envelope was produced containing the affidavit of Avdesh Singh s/o Sh. Udham Singh and affidavit of Ram Naresh s/o Bhuvneshwar. These documents were also exhibited as Ex. PW11/C, the affidavit of Shiv Pujan was exhibited as Ex. PW11/D, affidavit of Sudershan as Ex. PW11/E, affidavit of Avdesh Singh as Ex. PW11/F and affidavit of Swami Nath as Ex. PW11/G. FIR No. 224/1995 PS Subzi Mandi State Vs. Avdesh Singh Page 9/15
15. After prosecution evidence, the entire incriminating evidence was put to the accused under the mandate of section 313 Cr.P.C wherein the accused stated that he was falsely implicated and he had not committed any forgery or fraud. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned for final arguments.
16. I have heard the arguments from Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of accused.
17. During the course of arguments, Ld. APP has argued that the prosecution has produced the original degree and enrollment certificate of the accused which were found forged on verification. Further, PW10 has also stated that he had provided photocopy of vakalatnama filed by accused in suit no. 712/93 in the court of Sh. T.S. Kashyap which shows that accused was appearing and filing his vakalatnamas as Advocate in the court. Ld. APP has further argued that the evidence on record is sufficient to convict the accused for the offence cheating by impersonation and forgery.
18. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for accused has argued that prosecution has failed to complete the chain of events. Apart from the statement of PW3 Rajeev Khosla, nothing has been brought on record which indicates that the documents which were subsequently found to be forged were recovered from or handed over by the accused to Pw3. It has also not been proved on record that accused had signed the FIR No. 224/1995 PS Subzi Mandi State Vs. Avdesh Singh Page 10/15 vakalatnama allegedly filed by him in the above mentioned courts. Infact, the original vakalatnama were never produced. Therefore, the offence of forgery is also not made out. Ld. Counsel for accused has concluded his arguments with the submission that some awards were passed by Labour Tribunal against the complainant at instance of the accused and out of revengeful motive, he has been falsely implicated.
19. Arguments heard.
20. Now, I proceed with the judgment.
21. Firstly, the original enrollment certificate of the accused bearing no. 3025/94 is filed on record as Ex. PW3/A, his marksheets are Ex. PW3/B to D and his visiting card is Ex. PW3/F. PW3, in his statement has clearly and categorically mentioned that these documents were handed over to him by the accused. PW3 further stated that he had received a complaint from S.S. Arora i.e. Pw6 and on receipt of this complaint, he called the accused in his office and asked for these documents. These documents were handed over to him by the accused himself. He further stated that PW1 Suresh Kumar who was working as Caretaker in office of Delhi Bar Association was sent for verification and when documents were found to be forged, same were handed over to the IO alongwith the complaint. PW8 Inspector Dharampal Dahiya has corroborated the statement made by PW3 who has stated that on 21.07.1995, FIR No. 224/1995 PS Subzi Mandi State Vs. Avdesh Singh Page 11/15 Rajeev Khosla, Secretary, Delhi Bar Association had come to PP Tis Hazari and had handed over him one copy of complaint of S.S. Arora alongwith documents Ex. PW3/A to F. Hence, in my considered opinion, the chain of event is complete on this aspect that the complainant had made a complaint Ex. PW6/A to PW3 i.e Secretary, Delhi Bar Association. On his complaint, PW3 called the accused in his office and demanded the documents for verification. Same were handed over to PW3, which after verification were handed over to the IO.
22. The second argument advanced by the Ld. counsel for accused is that accused has been falsely implicated and documents were not handed over by him to PW3. Ld. counsel for accused has failed to point out any strong reason or motive which could have driven PW3 to get the documents manufactured to falsely implicate the accused.
23. Ld. counsel for accused has pointed out some contradictions in the testimonies of PW3 and PW8. PW3 has stated that he had sent the complainant S.S. Arora to police chowki for registration of the case whereas PW8 has stated that PW3 Rajeev Khosla himself had appeared in the police chowki alongwith complaint and the documents. It is relevant to note that the incident pertains to year 1995, but PW3 was examined on 17.05.2001 i.e. after more than six years of the incident. PW8 was examined on 17.01.2012 i.e. after 17 years of FIR No. 224/1995 PS Subzi Mandi State Vs. Avdesh Singh Page 12/15 incident. This fact cannot be overlooked that human memory fades away with time. Since the witnesses were examined after lapse of considerable time after the date of incident, hence, such minor contradictions can be overlooked.
24. The second question, this court is to called upon to decide is whether the LLB Degree, marksheets and enrollment certificate of the accused were forged or not. This question takes me to the testimony of PW1, Pw2 and PW4 . PW1 Suresh who was caretaker in the office of Delhi Bar Association has stated that he was sent by Rajeev Khosla to Allahabad Bar Council to verify the report. He went and met the Chairman of Bar Council of Allahabad who gave him a letter addressed to Rajeev Khosla, Secretary in a sealed envelope. That letter is filed on record as Ex. PW3/A.
25. PW2 ASI Sushil Ming stated that on directions of his higher officials, he went to Allahabad Bar Council and Kashi Vidyapeeth University on 31.08.1995. On verification, no record of the degree and enrollment certificate was found. He submitted the report to SI Dharampal on 11.09.1995. One such report is already on record which shows that enrollment certificate of the accused was forged. As far as the LLB Degree and marksheets are concerned, PW4 has produced the relevant register Ex. P1 to P3. As per the record available with the University, the degree and marksheets were not issued by it.
FIR No. 224/1995PS Subzi Mandi State Vs. Avdesh Singh Page 13/15 Hence, it also stands proved that enrollment certificate and the degree of the accused were false and fabricated.
26. Now the third question, whether the accused was impersonating and appearing as an Advocate on the basis of fake enrollment or not. This question takes me to the complaint Ex. PW6/A wherein the complainant has clearly and categorically stated that accused generally used to works in Tis Hazari Court and was also appearing before civil courts and labour courts and filed his vakalatnama as an Advocate or as authorized representative. The documents Ex. PW3/F i.e. visiting card of the accused clearly shows that accused was projecting himself as an Advocate having degree of B.A, LLB. Pw10 Retd. Sr. Asstt. Jagdish Prasad has also deposed in his statement that on 07.11.1996, he had provided photocopy of Vakalatnama in suit no. 712/93 to the police officials which were seized by them vide seizure memo Ex. PW9/A. No suggestion was put to this witness during his crossexamination disputing the above mentioned seizure. The document mark X i.e. copy of vakalatnama is on record wherein the name of the accused has been mentioned as an Advocate. These documents are sufficient to establish that accused was impersonating himself as an Advocate and used to file his vakalatnama in different courts.
27. The above discussion is concluded with the findings that FIR No. 224/1995 PS Subzi Mandi State Vs. Avdesh Singh Page 14/15 on the basis of forged LLB degree and forged enrollment certificate, accused used to appear and represent himself as an Advocate, infact he was not. By doing so, he has cheated the court and litigants. Hence, the offence u/s 419 IPC i.e. cheating by impersonation stands proved. It is also proved that these forged documents were recovered from the possession of the accused, therefore, the offence u/s 471 IPC also stands proved. However, it has not been proved that accused himself has forged these documents, therefore, the offence u/s 468 IPC is not proved. Accused stands convicted for the offence u/s 419 & 471 IPC accordingly. Now be put up for arguments on quantum of sentence on 25.01.2016.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (BABRU BHAN)
COURT ON 21st January 2016 . METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE07
CENTRAL/ TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI.
FIR No. 224/1995
PS Subzi Mandi
State Vs. Avdesh Singh Page 15/15