Delhi District Court
Syed Nusrat Ali vs State on 19 September, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SHRI NARESH KUMAR MALHOTRA
ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE, CBI02, NEW DELHI DISTRICT,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Cr. Revision No. 326/17
In the matter of:
Syed Nusrat Ali,
S/o Late Shri Syed Ayub Ali,
R/o D11/127, 4th Floor,
Millat Apartment, Near Abu Bakr Masjid,
Jamia Nagar, New Delhi 110025
.....Petitioner.
Versus
State
(NCT of Delhi)
.....Respondents.
Date of Institution : 27.07.2017
Date of Arguments : 19.09.2017
Date of Decision : 19.09.2017
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide revision petition against the order dated 07.072017 passed by Ld. ACMM, Patiala House Court, New Delhi. Vide which the Ld. ACMM has framed charge under Section 420/471/468 CR No. 326/17 1 of 7 07.01.2017 IPC against the petitioner.
2. Aggrieved by the order dated 07.07.2017, petitioner has filed the present revision petition on the grounds that Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that no TIP was conducted by the IO. Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that no witness has stated that he can identify the petitioner. Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that no proceedings under Section 294 Cr.P.C took place through which documents can be put to the accused so that he can admit or deny the genuineness of documents. No permission was taken by the IO to take specimen signatures of the petitioner. Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that there is no other alleged signatures which were sent to FSL for opinion. IO has not recorded the statement of Gurcharan Singh. It is not the case of the prosecution that Ct. Ashok is acquainted with the signatures of petitioner, therefore, Ct. Ashok cannot prove the alleged signatures available on the parking register to be of the petitioner. The impugned order is against the settled principles of law and against the facts and evidence on record. It is prayed that revision petition be allowed and order dated 07.07.2017 be set aside.
3. The facts of the case as per chargesheet are that during investigation in FIR No. 98/08 dated 02.05.2008, PS Chanakya Puri CR No. 326/17 2 of 7 07.01.2017 accused Jamil Khan made statement that petitioner is also involved in the case and he was using mobile No. 9868047347. As per the chargesheet the main allegations against the accused are that he obtained sim card of mobile phone No. 986847347 in the name of one Narotam Singh by using forged driving license. There are also allegation against petitioner that he had also filled the customer application form. During investigation, statement of Ct. Ashok Kumar was recorded, who stated that petitioner applied for parking label for PHQ and at that time he declared his mobile number as 9868047347. During investigation it was also found that driving license was issued in the name of Narotam Singh S/o Sh. R.R.P. Singh but the photograph available there upon was different from that available on self certified copy of driving license provided by the applicant for taking trump mobile number. During investigation statement of Gurcharan Singh was recorded and he deposed that connection No. 9868047347 was purchased by petitioner.
4. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Ld. Addl. PP for the State at length and perused the records of this court as well as Trial Court very carefully.
Ld. counsel for the petitioner has argued on the lines of revision petition. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for the State contends that CR No. 326/17 3 of 7 07.01.2017 there is no illegality or infirmity in the order dated 07.07.2017 and revision petition be dismissed.
5. In the present case, the first and foremost contention of Ld. counsel for the petitioner is that the procedure u/s. 311A Cr.P.C was not followed when the specimen handwriting of the accused was taken.
I have perused the impugned order. Ld. MM has held in the order that process under Section 311A Cr.P.C was not fulfilled but there are other material on the record which suggest that applicant has taken mobile number 9868047347 by forging the driving license.
6. During investigation specimen handwriting of the petitioner as well as the specimen signature of Narotam Singh and some cheques which bear the signatures of the petitioner along with original agreement form of taking trump mobile were sent to CFSL. As per CFSL report the person who had written the blue enclosed signatures stamped & marked S16 to S20 did not write the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped & marked Q1 to Q3 & Q5, Q6. There is observation of Sr. Scientific Officer that person who wrote the blue enclosed writings marked S1 to S15 & A1 to A11 also wrote the red enclosed writings similarly stamped & marked Q4. Thus, as per the result of CFSL the petitioner had written the writing at Q4 and the CR No. 326/17 4 of 7 07.01.2017 form was not filled and signed by Narotam Singh.
During investigation some cheques were collected by the IO and it is matter of trial whether these cheques bear the signatures of the petitioner or not. I am of the view that at this stage there are enough material on record to frame charge under Section 420/471/468 IPC against the petitioner.
7. During investigation statement of Narotam Singh was recorded and he has stated that he had never applied for taking MTNL mobile phone No. 9868047347. He has also stated that photograph affixed on the customer application form is not of him. He also stated that photograph affixed on the photocopy of driving license does not bear his photograph. He further stated that he has also not signed on the photocopy of driving license nor he filled any form.
During investigation statement of Raju S/o Sohan Lal was recorded and he stated that he had sold the Trump (prepaid) No. 9868047347 and other sim to Gurcharan Singh @ Soni. During investigation statement of Gurcharan Singh @ Soni was also recorded and he stated that petitioner used to come to his shop for getting photocopies of documents. He also stated that in September, 2007 petitioner had taken blank form from him and submitted the form with photograph to him.
CR No. 326/175 of 7 07.01.2017
8. No cogent or convincing reason is disclosed entitling discharge of the petitioner. Further, at the stage of framing of Charge, the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecution purposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. The Apex Court in a number of cases had held that at the stage of framing the charges, meticulous consideration of evidence and material by the court is not required; nor the adequacy of the evidence can be seen at this stage as it would amount to premature appreciation of evidence. The same view has been held by their Lordship in Kanti Bhadra Shah Vs. State of West Bengal, 2000 Crl.L.J.746 and Omwati Vs. State through Delhi Admn,. 2001 (2) Crimes 59.
9. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgments titled as "Harpal Singh Vs. State" and "Sapan Haldar & Anr. Vs. State". I have perused these judgments with utmost regard but these judgments are not helpful to the petitioner at this stage.
10. In view of the above discussions, I am of the view that Ld. MM has rightly framed charge u/s. 420/471/468 IPC against the petitioner. There is no illegality or infirmity in the order dated 07.07.2017 passed by Ld. MM. Revision petition filed by the petitioner is without any merits and same is CR No. 326/17 6 of 7 07.01.2017 hereby dismissed. TCR be sent back with copy of the judgment. Revision file be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Court (N.K. Malhotra)
on 19.09.2017. Spl. Judge, CBI02,
New Delhi District, PHC.
CR No. 326/17
7 of 7
07.01.2017