Delhi District Court
State vs . Imran Alam on 16 April, 2018
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANUBHAV JAIN, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, SOUTHEAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
FIR NO. 46/08
PS OIA
U/s. 419/420/467/471 IPC ANUBHAV
State Vs. Imran Alam
JAIN
JUDGMENT
Digitally signed by ANUBHAV JAIN A. SL. NO. OF THE CASE : 624/2/10 Date: 2018.04.16 B. DATE OF INSTITUTION : 31.03.2008 21:33:14 +0530 C. DATE OF OFFENCE : 16.01.2008 D. NAME OF THE : J.P. Shukla COMPLAINANT S/o Sh. Ramakant Shukla E. NAME OF THE ACCUSED : Imran Alam So Sh. Aftab Ali F. OFFENCE : U/s 419/420/467/471 IPC COMPLAINED OF G. PLEA OF ACCUSED : Pleaded not guilty.
H. FINAL ORDER : Conviction I. DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 16.04.2018 Brief Statement of Reasons for Decision :
1. Accused person is produced before the court to stand trial for offence punishable u/s 419/420/467/471 IPC.
2. In brief, facts of the case of prosecution are that HC Rajender 2 Singh alongwith Ct. Satish on receiving DD No. 12B on 02.02.2008 reached at Bank of India, DSIDC Shed, OIA Phase1 wherein complainant Jai Prakash Shukla handed them a complaint stating therein that on 16.01.2008 one person aged about 20 years came to the bank with cheque book requisition slip of account no. 602920110000088 of M/s Print Services stating himself to be employee of the firm and asked for issuing of a cheque book, upon which the concerned officer issued a cheque book bearing cheque from serial no. 197551600 to the person carrying the slip. It is further stated that the officer has some doubts regarding the genuineness of the said person and he informed the account holder namely Mr. Gautam who stated that he has never made any such request, upon which the bank officials stop payment of the whole cheque book. That on 02.02.2008 one person who disclosed his identity as Raju came to the bank and presented the cheque no. 197555 of Rs. 40,000/ dt. 02.02.2008 and the concerned officer noticed that the signatures upon the said cheque were forged and thereafter complainant informed the police. It is further the case or prosecution that complainant handed over the accused Imran Alam @ Raju Khan to the police alongwith original cheque book requisition slip and the cheque no. 197555.
Upon the said complaint, an FIR bearing no. 46/08, u/s 420/468/471/511 was lodged against the accused Imran Alam @ Raju Khan. IO recorded the disclosure statement of the accused person and recovered the said cheque book. IO further obtained the sample handwriting of the accused and sent the same to FSL. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed by the IO in the present matter.
33. Accused was produced before the court on 11.04.2008 from JC and copy of chargesheet was supplied to him as per sec 207 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, accused Imran Alam was charged u/s 419/420/467/471 IPC by Ld. Predecessor court vide order dated 31.05.2014 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Prosecution in order to prove its case has examined following witnesses:
4.1 PW1 Niranjan Singh Mahi deposed that in the year 2008, he was working as authorizing and cancellation officer at Bank of India, branch OIA, Phase I, New Delhi and that in the month February 2008, one person came at the bank and he went to chief cashier namely Kalyan Topo and produced a cheque before chief cashier for encashment. He further deposed that the signature on the said cheque did not tally with the signature of the account holder and thereafter, the said chief cashier came at his table with the said person and narrated the said facts before him. He further deposed that he verified the signature on the said cheque with the record register but the signature on the cheque did not tally with the specimen signature of account holder and he alongwith chief cashier and the said person went to the office of Chief Branch Manager Mr. Jai Prakash Shukla and they narrated the above said facts to him and produced the said person in front of him. He further deposed that thereafter, chief manager called to the police at 100 number. He further deposed that he does not remember the number of the said cheque nor he could identify the 4 accused in the court due to lapse of time and further he does not remember anything else regarding this case.
It is pertinent to state in here that the said witness is examined by Ld. APP for the State as witness was resiling from his earlier statement.
4.2 PW2 ASI Rajender Singh deposed that on 02.02.2008, he was posted as HC at PSOIA and was on emergency duty from 8:00 am to 8:00 pm and on that day he received DD No.12B regarding apprehending one person who have committed cheating. He further deposed that thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Satish Chandra went to DSIDC shed, Bank of India, where they met Chief Manager of Bank of India namely J.P Shukla, who produced one person alongwith one cheque bearing number 197555 and one issuing cheque slip bearing no. 0108950. He further deposed that thereafter, Chief Managar gave complaint regarding the cheating and on this he prepared the rukka Ex.PW2/A and got the FIR registered through Ct. Satish Chandra. He further deposed that he seized the said cheque and issuing slip vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/B and after registration of FIR he alongwith SI Vijay Kumar Singh came at the spot and handed over accused and seized cheque, slip and seizure memo to SI Vijay Kumar Singh and second IO namely Vijay Kumar Singh arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/C. He further deposed that IO recorded the disclosure statement of accused Ex.PW2/D and on the basis of disclosure statement he alongwith SI Vijay Kumar Singh, Ct. Satish Chandra and accused went to F97, 2nd floor, Churiya Mohalla, Tehkhand Village, 5 New Delhi where IO recovered one cheque book at the instance of accused and the said cheuqe book was seized by IO Ex.PW2/E. He further deposed that thereafter, they came back at PS with the case property and accused. He further identified the accused and case property in the court.
4.3 PW3 Ct. Satish deposed that on 02.02.2008, he was posted as constable at PSOIA and he alongwith HC Rajender Singh remained associated with the investigation of this case. He further deposed that HC Rajender Singh received DD no.12B and thereafter, they went to Bank of India DSIDC Shed, OIA and met with Chief Manager, Sh. J.P Shukla who produced the accused Imran Alam, and a cheque bearing no. 197555 and a requisition slip of cheque book. He further deposed that IO seized those documents vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/B, cheque and cheque book requisition slip is Ex. PW3/P1 and Ex. PW3/P2. He further deposed that Sh. J.P Shukla gave a written complaint and IO got the FIR registered through him. He further deposed that IO prepared the site plan at the instance of Sh. J.P Shukla and arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/C and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW3/A and disclosure statement of accused was recorded vide memo Ex.PW2/D. He further deposed that accused took them to Thana road near Bank of India, OIAI and pointed out the place from where he found cheque book requisition slip and signed cheque and IO prepared the pointing out memo vide Ex.PW3/B and thereafter accused took them to his rented house at F97, 2nd floor, Churiya Mohalla, Tehkhand Gaon from where 6 he got recovered a bag which was found containing a cheque book of Bank of India and there were total 49 leaves of cheque were present in the cheque book out of which three cheques were already separated from the cheque book having some writing and signature on it and one cheque was having signature in English on it and rest 45 cheques were blank. Witness further prove abovesaid 4 cheques having some writing and signature as Ex.PW3/P3 to Ex.PW3/P6 and cheque book as Ex.PW3/P7. He further deposed that IO had seized all the cheque book vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/C, case property was deposited in malkhana and IO recorded his statement.
4.4 PW4 Jai Prakash Shukla deposed that on 16.01.2008 he was posted as Chief Manager, Bank of India, Okhla Branch, New Delhi and on that day some person approached his officer for issuance of cheque book and he presented requisition slip purported to have been given to him by the account holder. He further deposed that the officer concerned issued the cheque book Ex. PW3/P7 however, as an abundant precaution subsequently called on the account holder who denied having made any such request and thereafter immediately all the cheques were hot listed so that no payment should be made. He further deposed that on 02.02.2008 same person came with a cheque for Rs. 40,000/ and cashier immediately noticed that this cheque was forged and did not make the payment. He further deposed that cashier caught hold of that person and brought the accused to him and said person told him that his name was Imran Khan. He further deposed that accused apologized for his misadventure and begged to be 7 forgiven, however, he called the police and handed over the person alongwith the abovesaid cheque of Rs. 40,000/. He further deposed that he gave his complaint to the police Ex. PW4/A and police also seized the requisition slip and cheque of Rs. 40,000/ which were used by the accused vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/B the said requisition slip and cheque of Rs. 40,000/. He further deposed that the said cheque of Rs. 40,000/ and the requisition slip to issue the cheque book are Ex. PW3/P1 and Ex. PW3/P2.
4.5 PW5 ASI Ramdev deposed that on 16.02.2008 he was posted as HC at PSOIA and remained associated with the investigation of this case alongwith IO / SI Vijay Singh. He further deposed that he alongwith IO went to Patiala House Court and obtained the specimen signatures Ex. PW5/A1 to PW5/A12 of accused Imran Alam with the permission of the court.
4.6 PW6 SI Shanti proved the FIR Ex. PW6/B. 4.7 PW7 ASI Zakir Hussain deposed that on 15.03.2008 he had collected the specimen signatures and banker cheques from Malkhana PSOIA and deposited the same at FSL, Rohini vide RC No. 74/21. He further deposed that after depositing the same, he had handed over copy of RC to MHCM, PSOIA and the samples were not tampered till it remained in his possession.
4.8 PW8 Deepa Verma, Director, FSL Rohini proved the FSL 8 report Ex. PW8.
4.9 PW9 Kalyan Toppo deposed that he does not know anything about this case and could not identify the accused.
It is pertinent to state in here that the said witness is examined by Ld. APP for the State as he was resiling from his earlier statement. During the course of cross examination witness supported the case of prosecution, however, he failed to identify accused in the court.
5. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused Imran Alam was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C on 30.01.2018 in which he denied all the allegations levelled against him and stated that he was present on the said day in the bank for opening Bank Account.
6. I have heard Ld. APP for the state and counsel for the accused and perused the case file carefully.
7. It was argued by Ld. APP for the state that accused was caught red handed on the spot by the bank officials alongwith the cheque forged by him, when he has presented the same before bank officials for encashment. It is further argued that the contents of the cheque were filled upby the accused and same was proved by FSL report. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the state that admittedly said account of which cheque was presented does not belong to the accused and further complete cheque book was recovered from the possession of the accused and as such prosecution has successfully proved its case 9 beyond reasonable doubts and accused is liable to be convicted.
8. On the other hand it is argued by the counsel for the accused that that two of the bank officials namely Niranjan Singh Mahi and Kalyan Topo failed to identify the accused person in the court. It is further argued that there are several contradictions in the story of the prosecution witnesses and prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts and accused is liable to be acquitted for the offense he is charged for.
9. It is settled proposition of law that burden lies upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is the case of the prosecution that:
a) Accused presented a cheque requisition slip of account of no.
602920120000088 representing himself to be employee of Print Services upon which cheque book bearing 50 cheques from no.197551 to 197600 was issued to the accused.
b) That thereafter bank officials confirm the fact regarding requisition of the said cheque book from the account holder who states that he has never made any such request upon which payment against whole cheque book was stopped.
c) That on 02.02.2008 accused appeared in Bank with cheque bearing no. 197555 from the said cheque book bearing the signature of the account holder and when he presented the same for encashment, bank officials call the police and get the case registered against the accused person.
10d) That during investigation accused get the said cheque book recovered from his rented accommodation and further his signature upon the said cheque book matched as per FSL results.
10. In the present case in hand, as per the prosecution accused was apprehended at the spot i.e. bank by the bank officials while he presented the cheque bearing No. 197555 of the Print Services for encashment by forging contents and signature upon the same.
Prosecution in order to prove the same have examined 3 bank witnesses namely Niranjan Singh Mahi as PW1, Jai Prakash Shukla as PW4 and Kalyan Toppo as PW9. Although PW1 and PW4 supported the case of the prosecution during their testimony, witness Kalyan Topo was cross examined by Ld. APP for the state, wherein during the course of cross examination he corroborated the case of prosecution. It is further pertinent to state in here that witness Niranjan Singh Mahi and Kalyan Topo failed to identify the accused in the court.
Be that as it may, complainant Jai Prakash Shukla corroborated the story of prosecution further identified the accused correctly in the court. Furthermore, the fact that accused was arrested from the bank itself alongwith cheque bearing No. 197555 for the sum of Rs. 40,000/ was also proved by the testimony of IO ASI Rajender Singh and Ct. Satish. Furthermore, arrest memo of accused Ex. PW2/C reveals that accused was arrested from bank itself.
11. It is further pertinent to state in here that accused himself in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C has stated that he was present in the Bank 11 on the alleged date and time, however, he went there to open Bank Account. It is pertinent to state in here that no witness was brought forth by the accused to corroborate his story that he went to Bank to open the account. Furthermore, the said story was never put by accused, to any of the witnesses of the prosecution and same finds mention for the first time in statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C.
12. With regard to the fact that said cheque was filled up by accused himself, same is proved by the FSL report PW8/A, which was duly proved by Mrs. Deepa Verma, Director FSL.
13. As such by virtue of testimony of Jai Prakash Shukla, ASI Rajender and Mrs. Deepa Verma, prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that accused person presented the cheque bearing no. 197555 of account number 602920110000088 for a sum of Rs. 40,000/ duly filled up in his own handwriting with the bank for encashment.
14. At this stage, it is pertinent to state in here that no person from M/s Print Services or account holder of account no. 602920110000088 was never examined by the prosecution, nor his statement was recorded by the IO in the present matter to show/prove that said cheque book requisition slip was never issued by him in favour of accused or that he has not handed over cheque bearing 197555 to the accused Imran for encashment. It is further pertinent to state in here that no document has been placed on record by the IO neither any 12 bank witness was summoned by the prosecution to show/ prove as to who is account holder of account no. 602920110000088. Furthermore, IO for the reasons best known to himself has never obtained the specimen signature of account holder of account no 602920110000088 for comparison upon the cheque No. 197555. It goes without saying that IO in the present matter has conducted investigation in callous and irresponsible manner.
15. Be that as it may, merely because IO has not done the investigation appropriately does not in itself became a ground of acquittal in a case. For the same I may place reliance upon judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Sukhwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 12 SCC 490 it was observed by Hon'ble Apex Court:
18. But, if such mistakes or lapses are given undue importance every criminal case will end in acquittal. While it is true that the police should not involve innocent persons, fabricate evidence and obtain convictions, it is equally true that cases in which substratum of the prosecution case is strong and substantiated by reliable evidence, lapses in investigation should not persuade the court to reject the prosecution case. The court with its vast experience should be quick to notice mischief if there is any.
Incompetent prosecuting agencies or prosecuting agencies which are driven by extraneous considerations should not be allowed to take the court for a ride. Particularly in offences relating to women and children, which are on the rise, the courts will have to adopt a pragmatic approach. No scope must be given to absurd and fanciful submissions. It is true that there can be no compromise on basic legal principles, but, unnecessary weightage should not be given to minor errors or lapses. If courts get carried away by every mistake or lapse of the investigating agency, the guilty will have a field day. The submissions relating to alleged overwriting and discrepancies in timings and dates, therefore, are rejected 13
16. In the present case in hand, as per the testimony of Niranjan Singh Mahi and Jai Prakash Shukla cheque no. 197555 used by the accused for encashment from account no. 602920110000088 does not belong to accused, rather same belongs to Print Services. Furthermore, testimony of said witnesses proves that the signature on the cheque bearing no. 197555 does not match with specimen signature of the account holder.
Said witnesses were never cross examined by accused or his counsel on the point that cheque account no. 602920110000088 belongs to accused himself or that said cheque was given to accused by the account holder duly signed by him. Said fact is further not stated by accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C nor accused has brought forth any witness to prove the said fact. Further, there is nothing on record to show that witness Jai Prakash Shukla have any motive to falsely implicate the accused person or that he has some enmity with the accused or that accused is known to him from before. At this stage it would be relevant to reproduce in here sec 106 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which provides as follows:
106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.--When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
Further in Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC 1 it was observed by Hon'ble Apex Court:
144. In this regard reliance may be placed on Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab [(2001) 4 SCC 375 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 717] : (SCC p. 381, para 19) "19. [It is] pointed out that Section 106 of the Evidence Act is not 14 intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but the section would apply to cases where the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts for which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts, unless the accused by virtue of special knowledge regarding such facts failed to offer any explanation which might drive the court to draw a different inference."
17. In the present case in hand testimony of prosecution witnesses shows that accused obtained the cheque book by producing cheque book requisition slip to the bank alleged to be of account of M/s Print Services and thereafter by forging the cheque has produced the same for encashment. It is further pertinent to state in here that complete cheque book, bearing cheque no. 197551 to 197600 for account no. 602920110000088 in the name of Print Services was got recovered by the accused himself from his rented accommodation F97, IInd floor, Churiya Mohalla, Tehkhand and same was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/P7. As such inference can be drawn against the accused that he impersonate himself as an employee of M/s Print Services and obtained the cheque book of the account of M/s Print Services and thereafter tried to encash a cheque for a sum of Rs. 40,000/ from the account of M/s Print Services by forging the same.
18. Before parting the present judgment, reliance can also be placed upon the judgment Yogesh Singh v. Mahabeer Singh and Ors. 2016 SCC OnLine SC 1163 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court wherein it was observed that :
1515. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubts.
However, the burden on the prosecution is only to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt and not all doubts. Here, it is worthwhile to reproduce the observations made by Venkatachaliah, J., in State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal, (1988) 4 SCC 302:
"25. ... Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favourite other than truth. To constitute reasonable doubt, it must be free from an overemotional response. Doubts must be actual and substantial doubts as to the guilt of the accused person arising from the evidence, or from the lack of it, as opposed to mere vague apprehensions. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt; but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case.
26. The concept of probability, and the degrees of it, cannot obviously be expressed in terms of units to be mathematically enumerated as to how many of such units constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is an unmistakable subjective element in the evaluation of the degrees of probability and the quantum of proof. Forensic probability must, in the last analysis, rest on a robust common sense and, ultimately on the trained intuitions of the judge. While the protection given by the criminal process to the accused persons is not to be eroded, at the same time, uninformed legitimization of trivialities would make a mockery of administration of criminal justice."
17. However, the rule regarding the benefit of doubt does not warrant acquittal of the accused by resorting to surmises, conjectures or fanciful considerations, as has been held by this Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh, (1974) 3 SCC 277:
"A criminal trial is not like a fairy tale wherein one is free to give 16 flight to one's imagination and fantasy. It concerns itself with the question as to whether the accused arraigned at the trial is guilty of the offence with which he is charged. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of interplay of different human emotions. In arriving at the conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged with the commission of a crime, the court has to judge, the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. Every case in the final analysis would have to depend upon its own facts. Although the benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the accused, the courts should not at the same time reject evidence which is ex facie trustworthy, on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures."
19. In light of the law and fats stated above, that witness Jai Prakash Shukla during the course of his deposition has stated that accused only produce the cheque book requisition slip for account of M/s Print Services and subsequently he produce one cheque from the said cheque book for encashment and further that cheque book was recovered from the possession of accused himself, and further that M/s Print Services refused to issue any requisition for cheque book, prosecution has able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that accused has committed the offence of cheating by impersonating himself as employee of M/s Print Service and thereby obtained cheque book from the bank, thereby causing wrongful loss to bank. Further as per the FSL report contents upon the cheque no. 197555 were written in the handwriting of accused and accused has presented the same for encashment in the bank and as such accused has prepared a forged valuable security and uses the same as genuine ( when same is presented with bank for encashment) and therefore has committed the 17 offence punishable u/s 467/471 IPC.
20. In light of the facts and law, discussed above, accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable u/s 419/467/471 IPC for which he was charged.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (ANUBHAV JAIN)
Today i.e. 16.04.2018 METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE02
SOUTHEAST, SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI
Present judgment consisted of 17 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(ANUBHAV JAIN) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE02 SOUTHEAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI