Delhi District Court
State vs Ranvir & Ors. on 3 March, 2009
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUKHVIR SINGH MALHOTRA,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:ROHINI COURTS:DELHI
FIR NO. 454/07
U/S 420/468/471/34 IPC
PS:Bawana
State Vs Ranvir & Ors.
Date of Institution of case : 16/10/07
Date of Judgment reserved:03/03/09
Date of which Judgment pronounced:03/03//09
JUDGMENT
Sl. No of case :45/02
Date of commission of offence :07/08/07
Name of the complainant :Sh. Dharampal
Name and address of accused :1. Ranvir
S/o Sh. Hari Singh
R/o Jhuggi No. 2185,
A-Block, Madrasi Comp.,
Shahbad Dairy, Delhi.
2. Deep Chand,
S/o Ganga Saahi,
R/o C-18/38,
Shahbad Dairy,Delhi.
Offence complained of :420/468/471/34 IPC
Plea of accused :Pleaded not guilty
Date of order :03/03/09
Final order :Convicted
Date of final Order :13/03/09
1
BRIEF REASONS
1. By this judgment I shall dispose off the challan as has been sent by SHO, PS Bawana against both accused persons namely Ranvir & Deep Chand on the fact that they both in furtherance of their common intention cheated the complainant Dharampal by dishonestly inducing him to deliver Rs. 18,500/- to both of them & thereby committed an offence punishable U/S 420/34 IPC and further that in furtherance of their common intention forged Ration Card mark 'A' and 'B' intending that these shall be used for the purpose of cheating and thereby they committed an offene punishable U/S 468/34 IPC and after completing investigation, the same has been forwarded by the SHO with a prayer to dispose of the same in accordance with law.
2. After filing the challan and after supplying the copies to both the accused persons, who were in J/C, charge was framed against them on 11/12/07 to which they both pleaded not guillty and claimed trial. It is also a matter of record that the charge sheet, which was filed against the accused persons was U/S 420/468/471/34 IPC but the accused persons were discharged U/S 471 IPC at the time of framing up of chage.
3. Thereafter, opportunity was given to the prosecution to prove acquisation against the accused persons. Accordingly, prosecution examined PW1 Dharam Pal, PW2 Rekha, wife of complainant, PW3 Ct. Vinod, PW3 ASI Prem Singh would be read as PW-3A, PW4 Shyam Lal, PW5 SI Jas Mohinder Chowdhary, PW6 Soran Singh, Food & Supply Officer, Budh Vihar, Circle 21, Food & Supply Department, Govt. of Delhi, PW7 SI 2 Deepak Malik, PW8 ASI Anil Kumar.
4. The testimony of PW1, PW2, PW6, PW7 & PW8 is relevant and they are material witness, other witnesses are formal in nature. PW1 is complainant and he has deposed that he is living on the address given i.e. C-21/4, Shahbad Dairy & accused Ranbir & Deep Chand both came to him and stated to him that they will arrange two jhuggis for him for an amount of Rs. 18,500/-. Accused Deep Chand was known to him earlier as he used to reside in his neighbourhood and accused Ranbir had met through accused Deep Chand. Both the accused persons instigated him to sell out his plot no. C-17/6 saying that they will arrange a better rate for him and as such he sold his jhuggi for Rs. 40,000/- and gave Rs. 1,000/- to the accused persons who handed over two photocopies of ration card to him, one in the name of himself & with his father name written as Ranbir and another copy of ration card in the name of his wife & when he was asked for the original Ration Card, it was told that original ration card is lying with the registering authority. After some days, he handed over another amount of Rs. 17,500/- to both the accused persons. Neither the original ration card nor his money & the possession of jhuggies were handed over to him & when he demanded his money back, he was threatened by the accused persons & ultimately on 17/08/07, he made a complaint to the police which is Ex.. PW1/A bearing his signature at pt. A. He also handed over photocopies of ration card to the police which was given to him by accused persons vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/B bearing his signature at pt. A & accused persons were arrested on 18/08/07. Arrest 3 memos and personal search memos in this regard are Ex.PW1/C, PW1/D, PW1/E & PW1/F, all bearing his signature at pt. A.
5. PW2 is wife of the complainant and she has deposed that she is living with her husband at the same address and earlier she used to reside at C- 17/6, Shahabad Dairy and accused Deep Chand was known to them since eight years and he instigated her and her husband that if they sell their plot, then he will arrange two jhuggies for them, but they denied. Accused persisted by saying that after about 2 years jhuggies will be removed and Govt. will provide accomodation to jhuggi holders. Accused Deep Chand and Ranbir, both present in the court, showed two jhuggies to them & her husband gave Rs. 18,500/- to the accused persons, 1,000/- for ration cards & Rs. 17,500/- for two jhuggies. Accused persons handed over two photocopies of ration cards, one in the name of her husband but name of the father of her husband was mentioned as Ranbir & another copy of ration card in her name. The photocopies are marked A & marked B, and when they demanded the possession of the jhuggies, both the accused persons neither handed over the possession of jhuggies nor they returned their money.
6. Both these witnesses were cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused and in cross examination PW1 has deposed that plot no. C-17/6 had never been allotted to him. He admitted as correct that sale & purchase of properties in slum areas is prohibited & he also did not have any knowledge, whether the property in slum areas can be sold by the persons other than the allottee. He knew that the rationing office is situated at 4 Budh Vihar and he also knew that for ration card, some forms have to be filled and same has to be deposited with authorities for issuance of ration card and he had never filled up any form for issuance of ration card. He also deposed that he had not handed over/shown any documents to the police regarding selling of plot no. C-17/6. He had sold plot no. C-17/6 at the time of registeration of sale deed & he does not remember the date, month and year, when the sale deed was registered & he further deposed that he had not shown any document showing his ownership/right/interest in plot no. C-17/6 at the time of registeration of sale deed. He denied the suggestion that he has no concern with the property no. C-17/6 or that such property was never transferred/disposed off by him. He also denied the suggestion that the story with respect to selling of property no. C-17/6 was manipulated & is after thought. He had also never made any complaint before rationing authority in respect of ration card in his possession or photocopy thereof. He had made oral complaint to the police before 17/08/07 & he had mentioned this fact in his complaint Ex. PW1/A. This part was confronted with Ex. PW1/A wherein, it was not so recorded. He denied the suggestion that he himself has procured the photocopies of ration cards mark 'A' & 'B' & accused persons had never asked for any money & no money was handed over to accused by him. He admitted as correct that he was aware of the facts that the power of allotment and delivery of possession in slum areas/lands only lies with appropriate authorities and no individual person can interfere with it & he also admitted as correct that he never applied for allotment of 5 slum/property/jhuggi before appropriate authority or to any one and also that he was having the knowledge of the fact that without any application, the jhuggi or land cannot be given to any person in the said area. He also admitted as correct that he neither approached to slum office or MCD for delivery/allotment of jhuggi or slum property nor he had submitted any document with respect to property no. C-17/6. He also admitted as correct that accused Ranbir was not known to him prior to 17/08/07. He was also cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Deep Chand and in cross examination, he deposed that accused Deep Chand neither handed over any copy of ration card to him nor he had received any amount from him. He didn't remember the exact date on which date money was handed over to accused persons. However, he submitted that money was handed over in the presence of his wife but there was no written dealing with regard to the payment of money. He also denied the suggestion that he had not paid any amount to accused persons or there was no dealing between himself and accused. He also denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely and implicating the accused persons on account of personal enmity.
7. PW2 in her cross examination has deposed that all transactions and conversations were taken place in her presence. The plot no. C-17/6 was allotted in the name of her husband but she was not a witness to the sale deed executed by her husband. She did not remember the date, month and year, when plot was sold by her husband. She also did not remember whether the photographs of the alloted land and her spouse were taken by the concerned authority before allotment of plot. She does have a ration 6 card and name of her husband in ration card is mentioned. She also deposed that she has her own ration card at the address of her mother-in- law and she is well aware of the fact that having two ration cards is an offence punishable by law. She also denied the suggestion that photocopies of ration card mark 'A' & 'B' were procured by her husband & same were not given by accused persons. She also admitted as correct that accused Ranbir was not known to her before 17/08/07. She denied the suggestion that no dealing as stated by her was held between her & accused persons. She also admitted as correct that being a housewife, she had not visited any office or authority for preparing of ration card or allotment of plot etc. and she also admitted as correct that no ration card was issued to them at the address of C-17/6 at any point of time. She denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely at the instance of her husband. She further denied the suggestion that accused persons have been falsely implicated due to previous enmity. She does not remember that how many papers were signed by her.
8. PW3 Ct. Vinod, he has joined the investigation alongwith SI Deepak Malik to whom the IO had handed over rukka for getting FIR registered. He took the same to PS and got the case registered & came back & handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to SI Deepak Malik on 17/08/07. On 18/08/07, he again joined the investigation and accompanied IO, SI Deepak Malik & complainant Dharam Pal to the house of accused persons, where accused persons were arrested on the identification of complainant. Arrest memo and personal search memos are Ex.PW1/C, 7 PW1/D, PW1/E & PW1/F. During interrogation both accused persons made disclosure statements which is Ex. PW3/A & PW3/B, in his presence. He was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for both accused persons and in his cross examination he denied the suggestion that he had not joined the investigation or that accused persons were not arrested in his presence. He further denied the suggestion that no disclosure statements were made by the accused persons in his presence or he is deposing falsely at the instance of IO.
9. PW-3A, ASI Prem Singh has deposed that he was posted at PS Bawana as Duty Officer and on the day on the basis of rukka sent by SI Deepak Malik, he registered FIR no. 454/07, which is Ex. PW4/A, which bears his signature at pt. A. He was not cross examined.
10. PW4 is Shyam Lal, who has deposed that he had purchased H. No. C- 17/6, Shahbad Dairy, Delhi from one Dharam Pal, complainant in November'2006 for Rs. 40,000/-. He is also formal in nature and was not cross examined.
11. PW5 is SI Jas Mohinder Chowdhary, who is one of the IO and has deposed only to the fact that he got extended the J/C remand of both the accused persons and thereafter he was transferred. He was also not cross examined.
12. PW6 is Sh. Soran Singh, Food & Supply Officer, Budh Vihar, Circle-21, Food & Supply Department, Govt. of Delhi and he has deposed that on 04/10/07, he received an application regarding verification of two ration cards. Photocopies of ration card, which are mark 'A' & 'B' & he further 8 deposed that mark 'A' was not issued from their office and the ration card mark 'B' was verified & has not been issued from their office as number of fair price shop was not clearly visible on it and gave his report to the police post Shahbad Dairy, which is Ex.PW6/A, bears signature of Inspector Dev Karan at pt. A. He was also not cross examined.
13. PW7 is SI Deepak Malik and he deposed that on 17/08/07, he was posted at PP Shahbad Dairy, PS Bawana as SI and on that day he received a complainant Ex. PW1/A, upon which he prepared rukka and handed over same to Ct. Vinod, who went to PS, got the case registered and returned to the spot with copy of FIR and original rukka and handed over the same to him. He next day went at the house of complainant & he handed over him photocopies of two ration cards which were seized by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B and he recorded the statement of wife of the complainant, Rekha Devi. Thereafter, both the accused persons were arrested from their houses. Arrest memo & personal search memo in this regard were already Ex. PW1/C, PW1/D, PW1/E. On finalisation of investigation, he handed over the case file to MHC(R). He was also not cross examined.
14. PW8, ASI Anil Kumar, he has deposed that after transferring of present case to him, he sent the photocopies of ration cards mark 'A' & 'B' for verification to food and supply office, Rohini Zone, Budh Vihar, Delhi & report of Food & Supply Officer was received, which is already Ex.PW6/A, in which it was mentioned that ration cards were not issued from the concerned office. He after completing the investigation, prepared 9 the charge sheet and filed in the court through SHO. He was also not cross examined.
15. No other PW's were examined.
16. It is a matter of record that prosecution has referred as many as 9 witness and examined all the witnesses, which were referred by them. After examination of all the PW's, P.E was closed and statement of accused persons U/S 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, in which they submitted that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They further stated that they do not want to lead evidence in defence.
17. I have perused the record.
18. In nutshell, the case against both accused persons is that in furtherance of their common intention firstly allured and enticed the complainant to sell off his piece of land and then told him that they will arrange two jhuggies for him and his wife, if he pays Rs. 18,500/- to them which in future would be helping the complainant to get alternative plot in case jhuggies are demolished by Govt. and in pursuance of that aspect they handed over two photocopies of ration card to the complainant, who firstly paid Rs. 1,000/- to the accused persons and amount of Rs. 17,500/- afterwards. But the accused persons neither returned the amount of Rs. 18,500 to the complainant nor delivered the possession of any jhuggies to the complainant and ultimately, they filed the complaint against the accused persons, upon which present FIR was written by SI Deepak Malik & who and after investigation the matter called the report from Food & Supply Department with respect to the two ration cards upon which report was 10 submitted by PW6, Sh. Soran Singh, which he took on record and it was stated that none of the ration cards were issued from their circle and he after completing investigation filed the challan in court.
19. In this background, now the testimony of the witnesses has to be appreciated.
20. The testimony of PW1 & PW2 is quite coroborative that they both are husband and wife and they categorically have deposed that accused Deep was well known to them and accused Ranvir was introduced by Deep Chand and both accused induced both of them to sell their piece of land in order to have two jhuggies on the basis of two ration cards. Photocopies of ration was handed over to both of them. Both accused persons took Rs. 17,500/- from them and when they did not returned the money or handed over the jhuggies to them, the present complaint was registered.
21. PW1 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused at length and in cross examination, he was trying to establish that plot no. C-17/6 was never allotted to these accused persons. But PW4, Shyam Lal, who appeared in the witness box & has deposed that he had purchased the plot no. C-17/6 from one Dharam Pal, the complainant in November'2006 for an amount of Rs. 40,000/- and there was no cross examination of this witness also.
22. In these circumstances, irrespective of the fact that whether accused induced the complainant to sell their property C-17/6, Shahbad Dairy or whether the complainant sold the property of their own to Sh. Shyam Lal does not make much difference, as far as the fact which stands proved that 11 plot no. C-17/6, Shahbad Dairy was being owned by the complainant and he sold the same. The another thrust in cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accused is on the aspect that the complainant is well aware of the fact that for the allotment of some jhuggies, certain formalities are required and certain forms have to be filled but the complainant never filled up any form. This is an admitted fact by the complainant that he never filled any form for the allotment of any jhuggies in his name nor he ever gone to slum office or MCD Office for the allotment of jhuggies in slum area. He also admitted as correct that he never made any application for preparing his ration card nor he filled any form or completed any formalities to that effect. He also admitted as correct that the power of allotment of delivery of possession in slum land only lies with the Govt. and not with individual persons. Similarly, PW2 in her cross examination has deposed that he did not know whether her husband had applied for any ration card or for allotment of any jhuggi before the office of MCD or DD slum but she corroborated the fact that photocopy of ration card mark 'A' & 'B' were given to them by the accused persons and she denied the suggestion that ration card mark 'A' & 'B' were procured by her husband. She also admitted as correct that she herself had not visited any office or any authority for allotment of jhuggi or for the preparation of ration card. She also denied the fact that she had no right in plot no. C-17/6. She also denied that she is deposing on the saying of her husband.
23. All these part of evidence confirms the fact that the inducement given by the accused was such that the complainant had made the payment of Rs.
1218,500/- to the accused persons for the purpose of allotting of two jhuggies to them by the accused persons. If the complainant would have to fill up a form for the preparation of ration card or for applying the jhuggi before slums or before the DD Office, then, there would have not been any necessity to come into the trap of accused persons, the inducement of the accused persons was such that they have paid Rs. 18,500/- to accused persons. As far as payment of Rs. 18,500/- is concerned, there is no much cross examination which has come on record from the accused persons except the mere suggestion that no such amount was ever given to them & which suggestion have otherwise been denied by PW's. Accused persons have not lead any evidence. It has also come on record that accused Deep Chand was well known to the complainant. It is also a matter of record that accused Deep Chand & Ranvir are two accused persons & there is not even a single suggestion by the accused persons to any of the witnesses that accused Deep & Ranvir are not known to each other or they are strangers. Not even the suggestion has been given by the witnesses to that effect. The testimony of the complainant is duly corroborated by the testimony of PW4, who deposed that he had purchased the property from the complainant. This further prove that accused persons were given money after selling their plot/piece of land.
24. PW1, had further deposed that ration cards which were given to them were forged & the fact is confirmed by PW6, when he deposed that two ration cards, photocopy of which is mark 'A' & 'B' have not been issued by their office. As far as ration card mark 'A' is concerned, it was not issued 13 by their office and ration card marked 'B' is concerned it could not be verified because the number of fair price shops was not visible. PW1 & PW2 both have categorically deposed that these photocopies were given by the accused persons but accused persons have denied of having given any such copy of the ration card and have simply suggested that they were procured by the PW1 himself. There is no explanation given by the accused persons in cross examination of PW1 & PW2 as to why PW1 or PW2 were deposing falsely against them. No enmity or malafide has ever been attributed to the complainant. On the other hand, the complainant have been able to prove that they had sold their property plot no. C-17/6 and had given the money to the accused persons on their such allurment. It is also a matter of record that PW1 & PW2 were cross examined at length by Ld. Counsel for accused. PW6 is the witness of Food & Supply and PW7, SI Deepak Malik, they both were not cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons. Therefore, one fact is clear that prosecution has been able to prove that the photocopy of ration card mark 'A' & mark 'B' were given by the accused persons to the complainant and once this fact is proved that these two photocopies of ration card have not been issued by the competent authority or the office concerned, it amounts to be a forged document. Forgery has been defined U/S 463 IPC which read as under:-
Section-463 IPC Forgery-[Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury], to the public or to any person, 14 or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person or part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed commits forgery.
"Section 468 IPC proves that his forgery is for the purpose of cheating and reads as under :-
Section : 468 IPC Forgery for purpose of cheating:- Whoever commits forgery, intending that the [document of electronic record forged] shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
By reading both the sections together with the evidence, it has come on record and it is clear that accused persons have forged the photocopy of ration card which they had given to the complainant for the purpose of taking Rs. 18,500/- from them and not only that, accused persons Ranvir & Deep Chand had induced the complainant but they rather have been successful in extracting an amount of Rs. 18,500/- from the accused persons and as such the court is of the opinion that prosecution has been able to prove that both the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention have prepared forged ration card marked 'A' & 'B' unintending to use the purpose of cheating and have cheated the complainant for an amount of Rs. 18,500/- and as such both the accused persons have committed an offence punishable U/S 420/468 IPC. They are accordingly convicted.15
25.Accordingly, the accused is convicted for the offence punishable Under Section 420/468/34 IPC. They be heard on the point of sentence on 13/03/09.
(SUKHVIR SINGH MALHOTRA) Metropolitan Magistrate Rohini Court, Delhi.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY i.e on 03rd March, 2009 16 17