Delhi District Court
Criminal Case/718/2004 on 28 February, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. GOMATI MANOCHA, LD MM-02,
NEW DELHI, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
FIR No. : 194/01
P.S : Chanakya Puri
Date of commission of offence : 06.06.2001
Date of institution of challan : 20.04.2004
Name of complainant : Ms. Rhenda Mc. Lillan
Name of accused : 1.Tarlochan Singh s/o Late Sh.
Chanan Singh R/o V.P.O
Mansoorwal Dona, PS city
Kapurthala, Distt. Kapurthala,
Punjab.(convicted on 25.08.2005)
2. Lakhwinder Singhs/o Pritam
singh r/o V.P.O Mansoorwal Dona,
Teh. and Distt. Kapurthala,
Punjab.(convicted on 25.08.2005)
3.Sher Singh s/o Sh. Mohan Singh
R/o V.P.O Mansoorwal Dona, Distt.
Kapurthala, Punjab.(convicted on
25.08.2005)
4.Arvinder Singh s/o Sh. Inder
Singh R/o H. No. 936, Jatpura,
Kapurthala, Punjab.(convicted on
25.08.2005)
Dinesh Kaushik S/o Sh. Amar
Singh R/o A-56, Anoop Nagar,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
Offences complained of : U/s 420/468/471/511/120B IPC
FIR no. 194/01 page 1 of 5
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Arguments heard/ order reserved : 28.02.2014
Final order : Acquitted
Date of such order : 28.02.2014
Brief statement of the reasons for the decision:
1.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on or about 06.06.2001 at Canadian Embassy, Chanakya Puri the accused persons attempted to cheat Canadian Embassy for procuring Visa from the said Embassy on the basis of false and fabricated documents in support of their claim for Visa. An FIR was registered and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused persons.
2. The accused were summoned. Section 207 Cr. P.C was complied with. Charge was framed against all the accused persons u/s 420/511 I.P.C on 25.08.2005 to which all the accused except the accused Dinesh Kaushik pleaded guilty and were sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone and a fine of Rs. 5000/- each. The accused Dinesh Kaushik pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove it's case against the accused Dinesh Kaushik, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses.
3. PW-1 Sh. B.B. Malhotra deposed proved the statement in respect of saving account no. 9362 of Sh. Lakhwinder Singh, the copy of the same is Ex. PW-1/A1 to A6 and the computer generated record is Ex. PW-A7 to A9.
4. PW-2 ASI Ramesh Chand copy of the FIR which is Ex. PW-2/A and endorsement on rukka which is Ex. PW-2/B.
5. PW-3 Inspector Satbir Singh deposed that on 15.06.2003 further investigation this case was assigned to him. He sent questioned documents along with the said specimen handwriting to GEQD, Kolkata.
FIR no. 194/01 page 2 of 5
6. PW-4 HC Ram Kunwar deposed that on 27.04.2003 he had joined the investigation of this case along with SI Sunil Godiyal. He along with IO went to Uttam Nagar at the house of Dinesh and the accused Dinesh was arrested vide memo Ex. PW-4/A. On interrogation accused Dinesh made a disclosure statement vide memo Ex. PW-4/B. He identified the accused in the court.
7. PW-5 Ravi Bhushan Jain deposed that he is the senior Manager in the Oriental Bank of Commerce at Kapurthala Branch, Punjab since 03.05.2010. He proved the letter dated 09.06.2001 Ex. PW5/A of their branch prepared by Sh. H.K. Sharma, the then Managar and he is well conversant with the handwriting and signatures of H.K. Sharma. In the cross examination he admitted that the letter Ex. PW-5/A was not prepared in his presence and was also not signed in his presence.
8. PW-6 Ram Kishan Kainth, Manager, Punjab National Bank, Jallandhar, Kapurthala, Punjab proved the letter dated 09.06.2001 which was issued from their branch. The same is Ex. PW-6/A. He stated that the FDRs Ex. P-1 and P-2 were not issued by their office. In his cross-examination, he stated that he cannot identify the signatures on letter ExPW6/A as he was not posted in the branch at that time.
9. PW-7 Inspector Sandeep Ghai deposed that on 07.06.2001 he along with Ct. Vipul were on patrolling duty and when they reached at Canadian High Commission, Chanakya Puri, there they met Mr. Larry Carroll, Counselor, Canadian High Commission who gave him one written complaint mark X along with certain documents and one person namely Mr. Lakhwinder. He made endorsement Ex. PW-7/A on the complaint and on the basis of the complaint of the complainant, he got the case registered through Ct. Vipul. He arrested the accused Lakhwinder and got the accused personally searched vide memo Ex. PW-7/B and Ex. PW- 7/C. Thereafter, he recorded the disclosure statement of the accused FIR no. 194/01 page 3 of 5 Lakhwinder Singh and the same is Ex. PW-7/D. On 08.06.2001, he produced the accused Lakhwinder and got his PC remand vide his application Ex. PW-7/F. He along with accused Lakhwinder and along with other police went to Punjab in search of co accused persons, but they did not find the co accused. Accused Lakhwinder Singh also pointed out towards the houses and offices of co-accused vide memos. On 23.07.2001, NBWs of the co accused persons were obtained from the Delhi court vide his application Ex. PW-7/E. He got the bank documents verified vide application Ex. PW-7/G. On 28.07.2001, the accused Arvinder Singh and Sher Singh were arrested from Punjab on execution of NBWs vide memo Ex. PW-7/H and 7/I and they were personally searched vide memo Ex. PW-7/J and 7/K. The specimen handwriting and the signatures of the accused Lakhwinder Singh, Arvinder Singh and Sher Singh were also taken. Disclosure statement of accused Arvinder Singh and Sher Singh were also recorded as Ex. PW-7/L and 7/M. He admitted that thereafter he got transferred and that he did'nt conduct any investigation with regard to the accused Dinesh Kaushik.
10. PW-8 SI Bijay Kumar deposed that after the transfer of the second IO SI Sunil Godiyal, the investigation of the present case was handed over to him by order of SHO PS Chanakya Puri. During investigation, report of GEQD, Kolkata was obtained was attached with the charge sheet filed by him in the court.
11. PW-9 Mr. A.K. Barik identified the signature of Mr. I.S Rao, Astt. GEQD, on the opinion No. DXC247/2003 Ex. PW- 9/A prepared by I.S. Rao, Assistant GEQD.
12. Thereafter, PE was closed. Statement of the accused was recorded.
13. I have heard final arguments and gone through the record carefully and given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and entire aspect of the case.
FIR no. 194/01 page 4 of 5
14.In this case, despite granting several opportunities to the prosecution, the complainant Ms. Rhenda Mc. Lillan has not been examined. There is no prospect of witness being produced in the court. The allegations of cheating could only be established by the complainant. Inducement could only be proved by the complainant. When the offence for cheating has not been proved, offence of fabricating documents for the purpose of cheating can also not be proved. The complainant did not appear before the court either to prove her complaint or to recognize her signatures upon it. Also the witness examined in this case are also formal in nature.
15. In these circumstances, there is no sufficient evidence against the accused Dinesh Kaushik. Hence, he is acquitted of the charges u/s 420/511 I.P.C. Bail bonds are extended for a period of six months, in view of the provision of section 437A Cr.P.C . File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the (GOMATI MANOCHA) Open Court on 28.02.2014 MM-02/ New Delhi
It is certified that this judgment contains five pages and each page bears my signature.
(GOMATI MANOCHA)
MM-02/New Delhi/28.02.2014
FIR no. 194/01 page 5 of 5
FIR no. 194/01
PS- Chanakya Puri
28.02.2014
Present: Ld. APP for the state.
Accused Dinesh Kaushik in person along with
counsel Sh. Manoj Tiwari.
Other accused have already been convicted.
Arguments heard. Put up at 4PM for orders.
(GOMATI MANOCHA)
M.M-02/New Delhi/ 28.02.2014
At 4.00 p.m.
Present: Ld. APP for the state.
Accused Dinesh Kaushik in person along with
counsel Sh. Manoj Tiwari.
Other accused have already been convicted.
Vide separate judgment of even date, the accused Dinesh Kaushik is acquitted of the offences under Section 420/511 I.P.C. Bail bonds are extended for a period of six months, in view of the provision of section 437A Cr.P.C. File be consigned to the record room.
(GOMATI MANOCHA)
M.M-02/New Delhi/28.02.2014
FIR no. 194/01 page 6 of 5