Delhi District Court
Fir No.544/93 Ps Janak Puri State vs . Balbir Singh Etc. on 6 December, 2012
FIR No.544/93 PS Janak Puri State Vs. Balbir Singh etc.
IN THE COURT OF SHRI PULASTYA PRAMACHALA
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, WEST
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
F.I.R. No. 544/93
Police Station: Janak Puri
Under Section 420/467/468/471/120B IPC
(a) Case ID number : 02401R 0026061993
(b) Date of commission of the : In the year 1993.
offence
(c) The name of the complainant : Insp. Chander Has.
(d) The name of the accused : 1. Balbir Singh S/o late Sh Hukam
persons, their parentage and Chand, R/o 540/19,Nai Basti,Kishan
residence Ganj, Delhi7.
2. Karan Singh S/o Sh. Udai Ram,
R/ovillage and post office Mundella,
Najafgarh, Delhi.
3. Smt. Vasu Devi W/o Sh Babu Khan
R/o Jhuggi No. 51, J.J. Colony,
Wazirpur, Delhi52.
4. Shyam Lal S/o Sh Hassa Nand,
R/oB121Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi.
5. Mool Chand S/o Late Sh Raghubir,
R/o.HP109,PitamPura,Delhi(Expired
& proceedings abated on 20.08.2002)
6. Baldev Raj S/o Sh Dan Dass, R/o
KD41B Ashok Vihar PhaseI, Delhi.
(Expired & proceedings abated on
26.02.2011)
(e) The offence complained of U/s 420/467/468/471/120B IPC.
(f ) The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
(g) The final order : Accused Balbir, Shyam Lal and Vasu
Devi are convicted and accused
Karan Singh is acquitted.
(h) Final argument concluded on : 29.11.2012
(I) Judgment passed on : 06.12.2012
(PULASTYA PRAMACHALA)
Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
West District, Tis Hazari Courts:Delhi
Page no. 1 of 12
FIR No.544/93 PS Janak Puri State Vs. Balbir Singh etc.
JUDGMENT
Briefly stated the case set up by prosecution is as follows :
1. Accused Balbir Singh and Shyam Lal obtained forged documents of Plot No. G52, Vikas Puri, which was previously allotted to Smt. Ram Khilari by DDA but was cancelled and in this regard they entered into a criminal conspiracy among themselves with accused Vasu Devi and with DDA officials and said plot was sold to one Murli Dhar for a consideration of Rs.12 and a half lacs and was further sold for Rs.16 lacs to Subhash Anand and Shyam Pahuja. They produced one Vasu Devi w/o Babu Khan as Ram Khillari on 26.5.93 at the office of Registrar Janak Puri, where sale deed in respect of the said property was executed for Rs.98,000/. On these allegations, present FIR for offences u/s 420/467/468/471 IPC was registered. During the investigation, accused Vasu Devi, Balbir Singh, Shyam Lal, Mool Chand, Baldev Raj Monga and Karan Singh were arrested and it was found that Balbir Singh, Shyam Lal, Vasu Devi, Balraj Monga and Raj Kr Chopra by entering into a criminal conspiracy got the forged documents, such as sale deed in respect of plot no. G52. Accused Karan Singh supplied the forged documents to them against consideration. Accused Baldev Raj Monga, Shyam Lal, Balbir Singh and Vasu Devi on behalf of Ram Khillari had earlier entered into transaction with respect to the same plot with Murli Dhar for Rs. 12 and a half lacs and accused Baldev Raj Monga had received Rs.50,000/ as earnest money and in presence of accused Balbir Singh & Shyam Lal, accused Vasu Devi was introduced as Ram Khillari to Murli Dhar and he further received Rs. One lac at the house of daughter of Vasu Devi at Janta Flat, Mayur Vihar. These accused persons were present at that time also. The (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA) Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate West District, Tis Hazari Courts:Delhi Page no. 2 of 12 FIR No.544/93 PS Janak Puri State Vs. Balbir Singh etc. documents were executed by forging the documents in the name of Ram Khillari. Thereafter accused Balbir Singh, Shyam Lal and Vasu Devi entered into another transaction with Subhash Anand and Shyam Pahuja for a consideration of Rs.14 lacs and when these purchasers put a condition for getting the site plan approved, accused Balbir Singh through advocate D.K Singhal contacted accused Mool Chand UDC in DDA and entered into a criminal conspiracy with him. He obtained the approved site plan by instant system in respect of said plot G52 Vikas Puri. In the conspiracy accused Vasu Devi, Balbir Singh and Shyam Lal appeared before Sub Registrar Janak Puri and got executed sale agreement and power of attorney in favour of Shyam Pahuja and Subhash Anand and signed on a receipt of Rs.98,000/ on which photograph of Vasu Devi was affixed and signatures were put as Ram Khillari. Accused Balbir Singh signed as a witness and it was also revealed that in the property register instead of G52 Vikas Puri, J52 Vikas Puri was shown and this entry was done by some employee of DDA. The hand writing and specimen signatures of accused persons on the original documents were sent for expert opinion on which report was obtained.
2. Vide order dated 5.1.2002, all the accused persons were charged with offence punishable under Section 120B, 467 r/w Section 120B, 468 r/w Section 120B, 471 r/w Section 120B and 420 r/w Section 120B IPC. However, on the basis of settlement between accused persons and victims Shyam Pahuja and Subhash Anand, offence under Section 420 IPC was compounded vide order dated 4.1.2012. The other offences were not compounded and trial continued in respect of said charges against the accused persons.
FINDINGS.
(PULASTYA PRAMACHALA) Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate West District, Tis Hazari Courts:Delhi Page no. 3 of 12 FIR No.544/93 PS Janak Puri State Vs. Balbir Singh etc.
3. All the accused persons were charged with the allegations that they entered into a criminal conspiracy during the year 199293 to forge the documents of plot No. G52, Vikas Puri in the name of Ram Khillari and thereby committing the offence punishable under Section 120 B IPC. They were also charged with the allegation that in the aforesaid time and in pursuance of their criminal conspiracy, they forged power of attorney, sale deed etc of the above mentioned plot, which was the valuable security thereby committing offence punishable under Section 467 read with Section 120B IPC. They were also charged with the allegation that in pursuance of their criminal conspiracy, they forged the aforesaid document for the purpose of cheating, thereby committing the offence punishable under Section 468 read with Section 120B IPC. It was also alleged against them that out of their criminal conspiracy, they dishonestly used the above said forged document of plot No. G52 Vikas Puri, believing the same to be forged document and used those documents as genuine while selling the aforesaid plot to Subhash Anand and Shyam Pahuja for Rs.16 lacs and thereby committing the offence punishable under Section 471 IPC.
4. PW1 Karan Jit Singh deposed that two affidavits and one indemnity bond Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C respectively do not bear his sign or stamp and such sign at points A, B and C as well as the stamp of attestation are forged. In his crossexamination he deposed that I.O did not demand his register maintaining the records of attestation. He also deposed that he used to change his stamps, when they were not usable.
5. PW2 Shiv Charan deposed that in Nov.1993, he was working as Superintendent in LAB residential section of DDA, he had supplied copy (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA) Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate West District, Tis Hazari Courts:Delhi Page no. 4 of 12 FIR No.544/93 PS Janak Puri State Vs. Balbir Singh etc. of property register Ex.PW2/A to I.O and had attested the same. He had also attested the sheets on which I.O. had taken specimen handwriting of Narshottam Sharma and B.S. Chandana. In his crossexamination he deposed that he was not maintaining original register of Ex.PW2/A nor he could produce the same. He also deposed that he did not appear before any Magistrate for giving specimen handwriting nor any permission was taken from his office.
6. PW3 R.K. Jain deposed that on 01.10.1993, he was working as Deputy Director (Building Section) in DDA. He further deposed that building plan of plot no. G52, Vikas Puri was sanctioned under the instant system on 17.05.1993, wherein power had been delegated to private practicing architects or supervisors having valid licence from Council of Architectural/local body. He proved file of processing of the building plan of plot no. G52, Vikas Puri as Ex.PW3/A containing 27 leaves and two leaves as Ex.PW3/B, which contain noting of the department. In his crossexamination, he deposed that he did not sanction the plan for construction over this plot nor was he handling this file on 01.10.1993 or earlier thereto. He did not handle the file of allotment of this plot.
7. PW4 SI Vijay Kumar deposed that on 25.09.1993, he was posted as DO in PS Janak Puri and he had registered the FIR on the basis of rukka sent by SI Ganga Dhar. In his crossexamination he admitted that there was overwriting in the serial number of FIR but he denied the suggestion that this overwriting was done with view to make another FIR as 544/93.
8. PW5 Subhash Chand deposed that he and Sh. Shyam Pahuja were in need of a plot. They met accused Shyam Lal, who was a property dealer. Accused Shyam told them about plot no. G52, Vikas Puri and assured to arrange purchase of this plot for 14 lacs. He also told about Balbir as the (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA) Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate West District, Tis Hazari Courts:Delhi Page no. 5 of 12 FIR No.544/93 PS Janak Puri State Vs. Balbir Singh etc. acquaintance of the owner lady namely Ram Khilari. They agreed to purchase this plot and accused Shyam Lal showed them photocopy of the lease deed in the name of Ram Khilari. They paid Rs.20,000/ as advance money to accused Shyam Lal towards consideration of the said plot. Accused Shyam Lal told them that map of the plot would be sanctioned and extension of the time for construction would also be obtained from appropriate authority, which would take one month's time. Thereafter, PW5 along with Shyam Pahuja went to the house of accused Shyam Lal at Kirti Nagar, where accused Shyam Lal and Balbir were present. An amount of Rs.12,82,000/ was paid to them and accused Shyam Lal told PW5 and Mr. Pahuja that accused Balbir would get the documents executed in their favour from Ram Khilari. Thereafter, PW5 with Mr. Pahuja went to Janak Puri Authority. Accused Shyam Lal, Balbir and Vasu also came there. An amount of Rs.98,000/ was paid to them. Accused Vashu was introduced by Shyam Lal and Balbir as Ram Khilari. All the documents were prepared in their name with photograph of Vashu and She signed those documents in Urdu. PW5 identified all accused in the Court and told that accused Vashu had told her name as Ram Khilari, in the office of Sub Registrar. PW5 further deposed that he produced documents Ex.PW5/B1, Ex.PW5/B2, Ex.PW5/B3, Ex.PW5/B4 before IO, who seized them vide Ex.PW5/A. PW5 further identified documents Ex.PW5/B5 to Ex.PW5/B21, which were produced by him before IO and were seized vide Ex.PW5/A. PW5 further deposed that accused Shyam Lal, Balbir and Vashu were apprehended by police in his presence. This witness was not crossexamined by the accused persons.
9. PW6 R.S. Yadav was Joint Director (Building) in DDA in 1993. He had signed site plan along with J.E. Sh. M.P. Goel under instant system. In his crossexamination he deposed that accused Balbir and Shyam Lal did not (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA) Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate West District, Tis Hazari Courts:Delhi Page no. 6 of 12 FIR No.544/93 PS Janak Puri State Vs. Balbir Singh etc. contact him.
10.PW7 Insp. Chander deposed that he received secret information regarding cheating of plot no. G52, Vikas Puri. He further deposed that this plot was alloted to Ram Khilari and subsequently it was cancelled by DDA. He after making enquiry from the DDA, prepared rukka, on the basis of which present FIR was registered and investigation was assigned to SI Ganga Dutt. This witness was also not crossexamined by the accused persons.
11.PW8 Murlidhar examination was though conducted on 26.09.2008 and 19.07.2010 but it was not completed as he settled his dispute along with PW 5 with the accused persons.
12.PW9 B.N. Chandana had given photocopy of property register containing particulars of plot no. G 52, Vikas Puri, which was shown in the name of Ms. R.K. Wadhwa. It was proved as Ex.PW9/A. He also produced original property register, which showed plot no. G52, Vikas Puri in the name of Ms. Ram Kumari Wadhwa. Attested copy of this register was proved as Ex.PW9/B and seizure memo was proved as Ex.PW9/C. In his crossexamination he deposed that register did not contain sign of allottees.
13.PW10 Krishan Kumar produced the original record of Will and GPA dated 09.05.1993 registered on 26.05.1993 from the office of SubRegistrar, Janak Puri. He was not crossexamined. This Will and GPA were executed by Vasu Devi in favour of PW 5 and Shyam Pahuja.
14.PW11 Jagmal Singh produced original file no.F3 (38) 88/LAB (R), which pertained to allotment of plot no. G52, Vikas Puri. As per that record Sh. Amrik Singh, Sh. Parminder Singh, S. Ram Singh and S. Amrik Singh got this plot free hold. He also produced original lease register from 199293 (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA) Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate West District, Tis Hazari Courts:Delhi Page no. 7 of 12 FIR No.544/93 PS Janak Puri State Vs. Balbir Singh etc. from DDA, copy of which (relevant pages) were proved as Ex.PW9/B.
15.PW12 Rajinder Singh Sachdeva deposed that he was posted as cashier in Vikas Sadan, DDA and had issued receipt dated 17.05.1993 no. A585606 under instant sanction plan. He produced original office copy of receipt and proved copy of same as Ex.PW12/B. He also proved copy of site plan as Ex.PW12/A. He had identified this site plan and receipt during investigation of this case and told police that accused Mool Chand had come with a person, who had brought site plan and other documents before him.
16.PW13 ASI Virender had taken rukka for registration of FIR.
17. While dealing with law existing prior to insertion of Section 311 A Cr P.C, Supreme Court held in Sukhvinder Singh v State of Punjab (1994) 5 SCC 152 that "Where the case is still under investigation and no proceedings are pending in any Court in which it might be necessary to compare the two writings, the person (accused) can not be compelled to give his specimen writings. The language of Section 73 does not permit any Court to give a direction to an accused to give his specimen writing for comparison in a proceeding which may subsequently be instituted in some other Competent Court. Section 73 of the Evidence Act in our opinion can not be made use of for collecting specimen writings during the investigation and recourse to it can be had only when the inquiry or the trial Court before which proceedings are pending requires the writing for the purpose of enabling it to compare the same."
18. In Raj Mani v State,1997CrLJ 3879, Supreme Court held that "The senior scientific Officer, in my opinion is not covered in clause (a) of Sub Section (4) of Section 293 since while examining the handwriting in question. He was neither discharging his functions as a Chemical Examiner nor (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA) Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate West District, Tis Hazari Courts:Delhi Page no. 8 of 12 FIR No.544/93 PS Janak Puri State Vs. Balbir Singh etc. Assistant Chemical Examiner to the Government so as to make the report admissible in evidence without examining the maker of the report as the witness. Section 293 Cr P.C nowhere uses the expression hand writing expert or Senior Scientific Officer (Documents). The Legislature must be aware about the reports of examination of hand writing by the experts. It has consciously not included such reports in Section 293 Cr P.C. This may be for the reason that the science of hand writing is not a perfect science, just as the science of finger prints. This means that the maker of the report regarding hand writing has to appear as a witness for the proof of the contents of the report".
19. In the present case, neither hand writing expert was examined nor permission from the Magistrate holding the inquiry in this case was obtained before taking specimen handwriting of accused persons. Hence, report of FSL can not be taken into account, while appreciating the evidence on the record.
20. However, in this case, PW 5 made very categorical statement regarding the role played by accused Balbir Singh, Shyam Lal and Vasu Devi. His statement shows that all these three accused persons were acting consciously together, in order to sell plot no. G52 Vikas Puri to PW 5 and Shyam Pahuja and for this purpose, they appeared before Sub Registrar Janak Puri and executed the GPA, Will, Agreement to Sell, Receipt and SPA etc and received the consideration amount from PW 5 and Shyam Pahuja. Such documents were falsely prepared in the name of Ram Khillari and signatures were put on these documents showing them being signed by Ram Khillari.
21. In Ram Narain Poply v. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 2748, the Court defined 'Forgery' observing that (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA) Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate West District, Tis Hazari Courts:Delhi Page no. 9 of 12 FIR No.544/93 PS Janak Puri State Vs. Balbir Singh etc. "In order to constitute forgery, the first essential is that the accused should have made a false document. The false document must be made with an intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any class of public or to any community. The expression 'intent to defraud' implies conduct coupled with intention to deceive or thereby to cause injury. In other words, defraud involves two conceptions namely, the deceit and injury to the person deceived that is infringement of some legal right possessed by him but not necessarily deprivation of property. The term 'forgery' as used in the statute is used in its ordinary and popular acceptation."
22.Forgery has been defined in Section 463 IPC in the terms that who ever makes any false document with intent to cause damage or injury to any person or to support any claim or title or to enter into any express contract or with intent to commit fraud. Section 464 IPC defines making of false document in the terms that who ever dishonestly or fraudulently signs or executes a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made, signed, executed etc by the authority of a person by whom he knows that it was not signed, executed etc. In the present case, PW 5 has deposed that accused Vasu Devi was introduced as Ram Khillari and she had executed the sale documents pertaining to plot no. G52, Vikas Puri as Ram Khillari. Thus, the sale documents, which were executed by accused Vasu Devi in the name of Ram Khillari w/o late Durga Ram are well covered within the definition of making false documents because these documents were shown to be signed by Ram Khillari, though they were not signed/executed by Ram Khillari rather they were signed/executed by accused Vasu Devi in the name of Ram Khillari. In these circumstances, from the unrebutted and unchallanged testimony of PW 5, I find that there is no doubt to the fact that accused Balbir Singh, Shyam Lal and Vasu Devi acted out of (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA) Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate West District, Tis Hazari Courts:Delhi Page no. 10 of 12 FIR No.544/93 PS Janak Puri State Vs. Balbir Singh etc. conspiracy to prepare false documents in the name of Ram Khillari and pertaining to plot No. G52, Vikas Puri. This Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that there cannot be a direct evidence to establish the conspiracy among the accused persons. Existence of a conspiracy is assumed on the basis of appreciation of conscious acts of the accused persons. The act of Shyam lal and Balbir in persuading PW5 to purchase a plot, which was not owned by accused Vasu Devi and in presenting her as Ram Khiladi before the purchasers, is sufficient to show their malafide and dishonest mind to lay a trap for unlawfull gain. The act of Vasu Devi to introduce herself as Ram Khiladi and to execute the sale documents in the name of Ram Khiladi, shows that she was also taking a conscious part in aforesaid illegal transaction and was thus, part of this conspiracy to prepare forged documents and to cheat PW5 and Shyam Pahuja, using such forged documents.
23. In Vikram Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 1007, the Court held that "While it is undoubtedly for the prosecution to prove its case beyond doubt but the standard to be applied for evaluating the evidence in a case of circumstantial evidence visavis an eyewitness account would vary and a slightly different yardstick for assessment has to be applied. It is for this reason that Courts have repeatedly emphasized that the chain of circumstances against an accused in a case of circumstantial evidence must be directed only towards his guilt and admit of no other hypothesis, whereas in the case of the evidence of an eye witness a chain of circumstances is not required and one good eye witness is sufficient to record a conviction."
(PULASTYA PRAMACHALA) Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate West District, Tis Hazari Courts:Delhi Page no. 11 of 12 FIR No.544/93 PS Janak Puri State Vs. Balbir Singh etc.
24. Since in the present case, the testimony of PW 5 has not been challenged by the accused persons, I have no hesitation to believe and rely upon the same to conclude that accused Balbir Singh, Shyam Lal and Vasu Devi entered into a criminal conspiracy and out of such conspiracy, forged sale documents in favour of PW5 and Shyam Pahuja were executed and on the basis of such forged documents consideration amount was received by them. The title documents of any immovable property are undoubtedly valuable security and are well covered within the ambit of Section 467 IPC. They all knowing the forged nature of documents, used them and deceived PW5 and Shyam Pahuja to deliver money for purchase of such plot, which was not owned by any of them. Hence, they are guilty of offence under Section 467 as well as 468 and 471 read with Section 120B IPC. Since the offence under Section 420 IPC has already been compounded, therefore, there is no occasion for me to return any finding in respect of such charge levelled against the accused persons.
25.The prosecution evidence is totally silent in respect of the role played by accused Karan Singh, therefore, no presumption of his culpability in respect of aforesaid offences can be raised.
26. In view of my aforesaid observations and findings, accused Balbir Singh, Shyam Lal and Vasu Devi are convicted for offences punishable under Section 467/468/471 r/w Section 120 B IPC. Accused Karan Singh is acquitted of the charges.
Judgment dictated and (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA) pronounced in the open Court Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
On this 6th day of December, 2012. West District, Tis Hazari Courts:Delhi (This judgment consists of twelve pages) (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA) Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate West District, Tis Hazari Courts:Delhi Page no. 12 of 12