Delhi District Court
State vs . Prem Singh on 10 September, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SUSHIL ANUJ TYAGI,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
State Vs. Prem Singh
FIR No. 94 of 1996
P.S. Kanjhawala
Unique ID No. 02404RO369242010
Date of institution of case: 18.11.1998
Date of reserving the judgment: 21.8.2012
Date of pronouncement of judgment: 03.9.2012
J U D G M E N T
1. S. No. of the Case : 55/2/98
2. Date of Commission of Offence : 22/23.4.1994
3. Date of institution of the case : 18.11.1998
4. Name of the complainant : Shri R. S. Harihar
5. Name of the accused, parentage
& address: Prem Singh S/o Shri Shish Ram,
R/o village Jonti, Delhi
6. Offence complained or proved : 420/409/468/471 IPC
7. Plea of Accused : "Not Guilty"
8. Final Order Convicted
9. Date of Final Order : 03.9.2012
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
1. The case of prosecution as unfolded by report U/s 173 Cr.PC is that accused Prem Singh was working in Department of Posts, India and was as Branch Post Master at Jonti Post office and he cheated the said department by fraudulently forging signatures of Smt. Bimla Devi and withdrew amount of Rs. FIR No. 94/1996 PS Kanjhawala 1 50,000/ on 22/23 April, 1994 form account No. 3346511 of Bimla Devi and also misappropriated the said amount which was entrusted to him being employee of the department and further fraudulently received an amount of Rs. 10,000/ from one Uday Bhan and had not deposited the same in post office account and misappropriated the same. He also fraudulently forged the signatures of Bimla Devi on the documents for the purposes of cheating and also used those forged documents knowing to be forged one as genuine. Matter was reported to police, accused was arrested and upon completion of further necessary investigation, challan was filed in court for trial.
2. Copies of charge sheet and annexed documents were supplied to accused in compliance of Section 207 Cr. PC.
3. Prima facie case having been made out, charge for offence U/s 420/409/468/471 IPC was framed against the accused on 28.8.2001 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined following witnesses:
5. PW 1 R.S. Harihar deposed that in the year 1996 he was posted as ASPOSIII Sub Division Rohini Post Office, Delhi and on that day he made a complaint to SHO PS Kanjhawala regarding misappropriation of government money by accused Prem Singh who worked as Extra Departmental Branch Post Master and he was promoted as Packer posted at Post Office, Rohini. He FIR No. 94/1996 PS Kanjhawala 2 further deposed that accused when posted at Jonti Branch withdrew an amount of Rs. 50,000/ from the account of one Bimla Devi and besides this amount accused Prem Singh received an amount of Rs. 10,000/ from Uday Bhan for issuance of Kisan Vikas Patras and Prem Singh issued a receipt for that amount alongwith his signatures and official seal but he had not credited that amount in account of KVP nor any KVP was issued in the name of her his daughter Asha. He further deposed that when Bimla Devi came to know about the withdrawal of amount of Rs. 50,000/ from her pass book she made complaint to higher authorities and during investigation accused Prem Singh also also admitted the fact of withdrawal of Rs. 50,000/. He proved his complaint as Ex. PW 1/A and proved his signatures on the same at point A. He further deposed that during investigation he also handed over to the police Form SB7 of account No. 3346511 of Bimla Devi regarding withdrawal of Rs. 50,000/ and pass book of the same account. One SB Form 103 with regard to Kumari Asha singed by Prem Singh for issuance of Kisan Vikas Patras and police seized the same vide memo Ex. PW 1/B. He also proved form SB 7 as Ex. PW 1/C.
6. PW 2 Ram Kumar Sharma deposed that he handed over two sheets of B. O. daily account dated 26.2.92 and 18.12.1991 form No. ACG22(A) signed by accused, to police. He proved both the sheets as Ex. PW 2/A and Ex. PW 2/B. He also proved the seizure memo of said sheets as Ex. PW 2/C. He also reported to the police that no amount of Rs. 10,000/ was deposited in the office in the FIR No. 94/1996 PS Kanjhawala 3 name of Asha nor any Kisan Vikas Patra was issued. He also deposed that as per record Rs. 50,000/ were withdrawn from account of Bimla Devi.
7. PW 3 Roshan Lal Jain deposed that on 19.9.1996 he was posted as Public Relation Inspector, Post office Rohini and on that day on the request of police officials, Mr. R. S. Harihar handed over SB Form 7 of account No. 3346511 dated 5.4.94 and passbook of the same account in the name of Bimla Devi and SB 103 with regard to Kumari Asha and signed by accused. Police seized the same vide memo already Ex. PW 1/B. He proved passbook of Bimla Devi as Ex. PW 3/X and identified the accused in the court. He also proved form SB 7 already Ex. PW 1/C.
8. PW 4 Ram Kumar Chhikara deposed that on 11.10.1996 on demand of police officials Ram Kumar Sharma handed over two BO daily account sheets dated 26.2.1992 and 18.12.91, form No. ACG 22(A) signed by accused as BPM and he also reported to police that as per record dtd. 26.8.93 no amount of Rs. 10,000/ nor any Kisan Vikas Patra was issued in the name of Asha D/o Udai Bhan. He also identified handwriting of accused upon Ex. PW 2/A and Ex. PW 2/B.
9. PW 5 Udai Bhan deposed that on 26.8.93 he handed over Rs. 10,000/ to accused at post office Jonti and accused issued receipt to that effect, where he was posted to receive amount and to make withdrawal. Udai Bhan requested you to issue Kisan Vikas Patra in the name of his daughter Asha but accused did FIR No. 94/1996 PS Kanjhawala 4 not deposit the said amount in official record nor issued any Kisan Vikas Patra. He further deposed that accused also put the official seal on the the said receipt in his presence. He proved the photocopy of said receipt as mark X.
10. PW 6 SI Yashpal Singh ( again examined as PW 15) deposed that on 22.4.97 further investigation of this case was assigned to him and he deposited the questioned documents and specimen signatures to FSL through Ct. Surender.
11. PW 7 SI Jai Bhagwan deposed that accused surrendered in court and he formally arrested the accused and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW 7/A and he made disclosure statement Ex. PW 7/B and obtained his specimen signatures. He further deposed that on 11.2.97 specimen signatures of accused were sent to FSL through Ct. Dev Vrath.
12. PW 8 SI Satender Kumar deposed that complaint of R.S. Harihar was marked to him. He proved the endorsement of DO on the complaint as Ex. PW 8/A and proved his endorsement on the same as Ex. PW 8/B.
13. PW 9 Bimla Devi deposed that on 05.1.1984 she opened an account in post office Jonti and on 5.6.95 she with her passbook went to post office and found that Rs. 50,000/ were less in her account and found that her signatures were forged on withdrawal form and she gave complaint to higher authorities. She proved the withdrawal warrant as Ex. PW 9/A stating that same does not bears her signatures and proved photocopy of passbook as Ex. PW 9/B. She further deposed that accused obtained her passbook in respect of her FIR No. 94/1996 PS Kanjhawala 5 account No. 3346511 on the pretext to make entry of interest in the same on 5.4.94 and accused also issued receipt for the same. She proved the photocopy of the same as Ex. P1. She denied her signatures on receipt Ex. PW 9/A. She further deposed that after withdrawal of Rs. 50,000/ from her account by someone she inquired from accused but accused did not give any satisfactory reply and later on accused admitted that he had withdrew that amount by forging her signatures on the withdrawal form. She further deposed that on 31.12.96 IO obtained her signatures on Ex. PW 9/C and also obtained her specimen writing and proved the same as Ex. PW 9/D.
14. PW 10 Raj Kumar deposed that his wife Bimla Devi was having one account No. 3346511 in post office and on 5.4.1994 on demand of accused for entering the interest he handed over the passbook to accused and accused issued a receipt in this regard which is Ex. P1. He further deposed that thereafter they went to Vyas and on return they came to know that someone had withdrawn Rs. 50,000/ from the account of his wife and upon inquiry they came to know that the same was withdrawn by accused.
15. PW 10 (wrongly numbered) HC Kuldeep Singh was posted as duty officer in PS Kanjhawala and registered the FIR Ex. PW 10/A in the present case.
16. PW 11 HC Manphool Singh deposed that on 10.12.1996 he joined investigation and IO ASI Jai Bhagwan Singh arrested accused vide disclosure statement Ex. PW 7/A, interrogated him and recorded his disclosure statement FIR No. 94/1996 PS Kanjhawala 6 Ex. PW 7/B.
17. PW 12 Surender Kumar deposed that from July 1995 to June 1996 he was attached in Special Investigating Unit of Delhi Foreign Post and in 1995 he was entrusted to investigate a complaint of Smt. Bhateri Devi who had alleged fraud committed by accused for withdrawal from her account and he made report to Sr. Superintendent Post Offices, Delhi North Division Delhi. He further deposed that at the time of recording statement of Smt. Bhateri one another complainant Bimla Devi had also come forward alleging fraudulent withdrawal of amount of Rs. 50,000/ from her account and from another account in which she had deposited the passbook but passbook was not returned to her and there was variation in these amount mentioned in the receipt and credit figuring in the book of account. He further deposed that he had spoken to accused and accised had admitted having settled the account of Smt. Bhateri Devi.
18. PW 12 (wrongly numbered) Devak Ram deposed that the documents in question were examined by Shri Harshwardhan, the then SSO (documents), FSL Rohini and gave his opinion that that the signatures, read enclosed by Smt. Bimla Devi were not written by the real person. He proved the report of Shri Harshwardhan as Ex. PW 12/A and also identified signatures of Harshwardhan.
19. PW 13 Azad Singh deposed that he was the resident of village Jonti and working at Post office Jonti and on 03.5.1995 Raj Kumar, husband of Bimla came at the post office to deposit Rs. 10,000/ in his account and he had deposited FIR No. 94/1996 PS Kanjhawala 7 the amount in his account and on 05.5.1995 after posting interest he returned the passbook to Raj Kumar.
20. PW 14 Inspector Balbir Singh deposed that on 19.8.1996 he reached at Rohini Post Office (North Sub Div. III) where Raghubir Singh Harihar handed over to him one SB 7 form of account No. 3346511 dtd. 22.4.94 of amount of Rs. 50,000/ and the passbook of Bimla Devi bearing relevant entry of Rs. 50,000/ (withdrawl) and receipt of Rs. 10,000/ against NC 4A to Kumari Asha was also handed over to him and proved the same as Ex. PW 14/A and he took possession of these documents vide memo already Ex. PW 1/B. He further deposed that on 11.10.96 he visited post office Kanjhawala where Ram Kumar Sharma handed over to him the daily account statement in handwriting of accused which is Ex. PW 2/A and 2/B and he took possession of the same vide memo Ex. PW 2/C.
21. Statement of accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr.PC on 31.7.2012. He claimed innocence and false implication. He did not wish to lead defence evidence.
22. Ld. APP for the state argued that all the ingredients of the sections charged against the accused are satisfied and duly proved on record. On the other hand, the ld. Defence counsel argued that the accused has been falsely implicated as the witness are the member of rival group of the village and they have deposed against the accused being interested witness. It is further argued that there are two versions in the present caseone is of the interested witnesses and other is of the FIR No. 94/1996 PS Kanjhawala 8 witness Azad Singh who has deposed contrary to the prosecution case. It is contended that where two views are possible, the view favourable to the accused must be adopted. To support the contentions the ld. Defence counsel relied on Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622.
23. I have carefully perused the case record and have heard arguments advanced by ld APP for the state as well as by ld defence counsel.
24. In the present case, the accused Prem Singh was charged for the offence u/s 420/409/471/468 IPC on the twofold allegations firstly, that the accused while working as Branch Post Master at Jonti Post Office cheated the department by using the forged withdrawal form containing forged signatures of Bimla Devi and withdrawn amount of Rs. 50,000/ on 2223.4.1994 from account no. 3346511 of Bimla Devi. The same amount was entrusted to the accused being an employee of the department which he misappropriated for his own use. Secondly, the another allegation raised against the accused in the present case is that he received Rs. 10,000/ from Uday Bhan Singh for issuance of Kisan Vikas Patra (hereinafter KVP) in the name of the daughter of Uday Bhan Singh and misappropriated the said amount which was entrusted to him. Accused is also charged for fraudulently forging the signatures of Bimla Devi on the withdrawal form and knowlingly using the forged withdrawal form as genuine for the purpose of cheating.
25. The sections 420/409/468/471 IPC are reproduced below for reference: FIR No. 94/1996 PS Kanjhawala 9
420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
409. Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
468. Forgery for purpose of cheating Whoever commits forgery, [intending that the document or electronic record forged] shall harm the reputation of any party, or knowing that it is likely to be used for that purpose, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.
471. Using as genuine a forged [ document or electronic record]. Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any [document or electronic record] which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged [document or electronic record], shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such [document or electronic record].
26. To prove the case against the accused, the prosecution is under burden to prove the following ingredients:
•That the accused forged the document i.e. withdrawal form by signing the forged signatures of Bimla Devi;
FIR No. 94/1996 PS Kanjhawala 10 •That the accused knowingly used the forged document as genuine; •That the accused induced the post office department to deliver the property i.e. Rs.50000/;
•That the accused was entrusted with the property in the capacity of banker and he committed breach of trust.
27. Indisputably, the accused Prem Singh was working as Extra Departmental Branch Post Master, Jonti from 30.11.1999 to 30.9.1994. The commission of offence relates to 26.8.1993 and 2223.4.1994. Thus, it is not in dispute that accused Prem Singh was employed as postmaster, Jonti on the dates of commission of offences.
28. The first incident is of 26.8.1993. PW 5 Uday Bhan deposed that on the aforesaid day he handed over an amount of Rs. 10,000/ to accused Prem Singh for which the accused handed over a receipt to him on a plain paper containing signatures and official seal of postoffice. The amount was handed over to accused to deposit the same in the name of his daughter Asha and for issuance of KVP in her name. He further deposed that later on he came to know about the forgery and embezzlement by the accused and he was informed that his amount is also not deposited and no KVP were issued. PW 5 proved the receipt issued by the accused as Ex. PW14/A. PW 2 Ram Kumar Sharma deposed that in the year 1996, he was posted in Kanjhawala postoffice branch and after checking the official record of 26.8.1993 and nearby as desired by police, he reported that no amount of Rs. 10,000/ was deposited in the name of Asha and nor any KVP was issued to her after 26.8.1993 upto 11.10.1996. The testimony of PW 2 Ram FIR No. 94/1996 PS Kanjhawala 11 Kumar Sharma is corroborated by the testimony of PW 4 Ram Kumar Chhikara who also deposed on the same lines. The witnesses are cross examined by the ld defence counsel but nothing could be extracted which could be of any benefit to accused. The testimony of the witnesses stood unblemished and unimpeached. The fact of handing over of Rs. 10,000/ to accused Prem Singh is proved by the testimony of PW 5 Udai Bhan and by the receipt Ex PW14/A which is issued by the accused containing his signatures and seal of post office. The accused has not disputed that he has not signed the receipt Ex. PW 14/A or that the seal of the post office is not genuine. A bare glance at the signatures on the receipt Ex. PW 14/A and the admitted signatures of the accused on Ex. PW 2/A and Ex. PW 2/B conspicuously reveals the similarity of signatures. It can be safely inferred that the receipt Ex. PW 14/A was signed by the accused and was issued by him to the witness PW 5 Udai Bhan for the issuance of KVP of amount 10,000/ in the name of Asha, daughter of PW 5. It is also not the defence of the accused that the amount was deposited or that KVP was issued. PW 2 and PW 4 have proved the fact that as per official record no amount of Rs. 10,000/ was deposited on or around 26.8.1993 nor any KVP was issued around those dates. Thus, the ingredients of criminal breach of trust U/s 409 IPC stands duly satisfied in the present case. The accused as post master of post office Jonti was entrusted with the amount of Rs. 10,000/ by PW 5 Udai Bhan which was clearly neither deposited nor any KVP was issued and thus, accused misappropriated the FIR No. 94/1996 PS Kanjhawala 12 aforesaid amount for his own use and attracted the penal provision of Sec. 409 IPC. This court accordingly holds accused guilty U/s 409 IPC.
29. The second incident pertains to 2223.4.1994. PW 9 Smt. Bimla Devi deposed that accused Prem Chand had obtained her passbook of account 3346511 on the pretext of making interest entry on 5.4.1994 and had issued the receipt Ex. P1A in this regard. She deposed that the withdrawal form Ex. PW 1/C does not bear her signatures at point Q1 and Q2 and she has never withdrawn an amount of Rs. 50,000/ from the post office on 22.4.1994. She proved her passbook, the photocopy of which is Ex. PW 9/B. She further deposed that she had gone to Vyas after handing over the passbook to accused Prem Singh and when she returned and checked her account she found that Rs. 50,000/ has been withdrawn from her account. She further deposed that she made inquiry from accused Prem Singh but he could not give satisfactory reply and admitted that he had withdrawn the amount by forging her signatures on the withdrawal form. She also deposed that on 03.5.1995 she had gone to post office with her husband and found that the balance amount in her account was Rs. 53,745.25 and receipt in this regard was signed by post master Azad Singh. On 4.6.1995 she alongwith passbook went to post office and found that Rs. 50,000/ was less in her account and she gave complaint to higher authorities of post office. Another witness PW 10 Shri Raj Kumar is the husband of complainant Bimla Devi who deposed that on 5.4.1994 accused Prem Singh had demanded the passbook for making interest entry and FIR No. 94/1996 PS Kanjhawala 13 they handed over the passbook for which accused issued a receipt which is already Ex. P1A. Thereafter they all went to Vyas and when they returned back, they came to know that some one has withdrawn Rs. 50,000/ from the account of his wife and with the help of identification by a false witness. He further deposed that the withdrawal form Ex. PW1/C and Ex. PW 9/A does not bear the signatures of his wife at points Q1 and Q2. The testimony of both the witnesses Bimla Devi and Raj Kumar stands corroborated. They both have unanimously deposed that the passbook Ex PW 9/B was handed over to accused Prem Singh for making interest entry and thereafter they went to Vyas and on return they came to know that amount of Rs. 50,000/ has been withdrawn. The receipt issued by Prem Singh for passbook is also proved on record. Further, it is very well proved that Rs. 50,000/ has been withdrawn from the account of Bimla Devi. There is an entry in the passbook Ex. PW 9/B and there is a corresponding entry in the post office record which is proved by PW 2 by producing the original register, saving bank ledger of the account of Bimla Devi which shows the withdrawal of Rs. 50,000/ from the account of Bimla Devi.
30. The said amount of Rs. 50,000/ was withdrawn as per the prescribed procedure of post office and the withdrawal form Ex.PW 1/C is the document vide which Rs. 50,000/ was withdrawn. It bears the forged signatures of Bimla Devi at point Q1 and Q2 and also contains signatures of accused Prem Singh at two places. The accused has not disputed that the signatures on the withdrawal FIR No. 94/1996 PS Kanjhawala 14 Ex. PW 1/C are not his. Also bare glance at the admitted signatures of accused on Ex. PW 2/A and Ex. PW 2/B clearly conspicuously reveal a similarity in the signatures. It can be safely inferred that Ex. PW 1/C was signed by the accused himself.
31. The said document Ex. PW 1/C was sent to FSL for examination with the question whether the disputed signatures of Bimla Devi at points Q1 and Q2 matches with the specimen signatures of Bimla Devi and the specimen signatures taken from accused Prem Singh in the name of Bimla Devi. The FSL report Ex. PW 12/A opines that the disputed signatures does not match with the specimen signatures of Bimla Devi. There is no reason for not relying on the FSL opinion and it becomes amply clear that Bimla Devi had not signed the withdrawal form Ex. PW 1/C vide which Rs. 50,000/ were withdrawn from her account. The accused Prem Singh was the post master at that time and it is previously inferred in this dicta that the withdrawal form was signed by the accused Prem Singh. The withdrawal form also bears the words "mai khatadhari ko janta hoon, tatha isne mere samne hastashar kiye". The said words are in the same ink in which the accused has signed the withdrawal form. It is clear from the FSL report that Bimla Devi had not signed the withdrawal form and it is written on the withdrawal form that Bimla Devi has signed the same in the presence of accused Prem Singh. This fact clearly shows the culpability of the accused in the present case.
FIR No. 94/1996 PS Kanjhawala 15
32. The accused Prem Singh was posted as Post master and was in full control of the affairs of the post office. It is proved on record that the witness Bimla Devi and her husband handed over the passbook to the accused Prem Singh for the purpose of interest entry and for which accused Prem Singh issued a receipt. It is also proved that the amount of Rs. 50,000 was withdrawn from the account of Bimla Devi vide a Withdrawal form which does not bear her signatures as opined by FSL report. It is clear that the such an amount cannot be withdrawn without a due procedure of the post office in which the account holder has to sign in presence of post master and after approval from head post office the amount is allowed to be withdrawn and given to account holder. Thus, in the present case, the amount could not have been withdrawn without the involvement of accused Prem Singh who was at the helm of affairs of the post office, Jonti. The withdrawal form contains the signatures of accused and the forged signatures of account holder Bimla Devi. The accused very well knew that the account holder Bimla Devi has not signed the withdrawl form and the withdrawl form is a false document. Despite, knowing that the withdrawl form is forged, he used the same as genuine and got Rs. 50,000/ withdrawn from the account of Bimla Devi and thereby committed the offence under section 471 IPC. In these circumstances, there remains no doubt in the mind of this court that the accused Prem Singh cheated the department by intentionally and dishonestly inducing the department to withdraw Rs. 50,000/ from the account of Bimla Devi. At the FIR No. 94/1996 PS Kanjhawala 16 same time, he was handed over with the aforesaid money in trust to be paid to Bimla Devi being post master of post office, Jonti which he never handed over and thus attracted the penal provisions of Section 420 and 409 IPC.
33. As far as the provisions of Section 468 IPC are concerned, though the prosecution has proved that the signature of account holder Bimla Devi are not genuine on the withdrawl form but it is also not proved that the forged signatures present on the withdrawal form are done by accused Prem Singh. The FSL report is silent on this aspect and mentions that the questioned signatures could not be matched with the specimen signatures of the accused. Thus, there appears lack of evidence to convict the accused for the offence of forgery under section 468 IPC.
34. The defence raised by accused that the witnesses belong to other rival group of the village is not sustainable merely on the suggestions given by ld. Defence counsel during the cross examination of witnesses which are denied. The arguments, statement of accused u/s 313 or suggestions cannot be read as evidence and are of no value unless any concrete evidence is proved which tend to show probable defence or doubt. The other contention of the defence was that there are two views possible in the present case and the view favourable to accused must be adopted. In the present case, this court does not find two views which can give any benefit of doubt to the accused. The defence is relying on the testimony of PW13 Azad Singh who was a prosecution witness and turned hostile. The accused has endeavored to take benefit of hostility of witness. Also, FIR No. 94/1996 PS Kanjhawala 17 PW13 Azad Singh is the brother of accused Prem Singh which is clearly mentioned in the original complaint EX PW1/A and this fact is nowhere disputed by the accused. This renders PW13 Azad Singh as an interested witness. It is well settled law that the testimony of interested witness has to scrutinised with circumspection. PW13 during cross examination by defence stated that the withdrawal form contains the signatures of Bimla Devi. PW13 has not stated that he was not present at the time of signing of withdrawal form by Bimla Devi. The statement given by PW13 is without any basis and is not found reliable.
35. In the light of above discussions and observations, this court concludes that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. All the ingredients of Section 420/409/471 IPC have been duly proved on record. The accused Prem Singh could not escape his nemesis and is hereby convicted for the offence under Section 420/409/471IPC.
36. Put up for hearing on quantum of sentence.
Announced in open court ( Sushil Anuj Tyagi )
3rd day of September, 2012 Metropolitan Magistrate,
Rohini Courts: Delhi
cr
FIR No. 94/1996 PS Kanjhawala 18
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SUSHIL ANUJ TYAGI,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
State Vs. Prem Singh
FIR No. 94 of 1996
PS Kanjhawala
U/s: 420/409/468/471 IPC
ORDER ON SENTENCE
10.09.2012
Present: Ld. APP for the state.
Accused Prem Singh with counsel.
Accused Prem Singh was convicted u/s 420/409/471 IPC vide order dt. 3.9.2012 and the matter was listed for today for arguments on the quantum of sentence.
Ld. APP for the state submitted that offence u/s 409 IPC provides for life imprisonment and the offence is grave in nature. It is argued that convict is liable for the maximum imprisonment prescribed under law.
The defence counsel averred that convict has already suffered 16 years of trial in the present case. It is submitted that convict is 57 years of age and has family to maintain which includes a wife, one son and two daughters. It is requested that the benefit of probation may kindly be granted to the convict or in the alternative lenient view is prayed.
Heard. Record perused.
Since the offence u/s 409 IPC provides for life imprisonment and considering the fact that the convict being the postmaster/ FIR No. 94/1996 PS Kanjhawala 19 banker committed breach of trust, this court does not find it a fit case for grant of probation.
Merely that 16 years have elapsed during the trial, does not absolve the liability of the convict. Considering the facts of the present case, this court is not inclined to take a linent view. The convict is sentenced as follows:
(a) Two years simple imprisonment u/s 420 IPC.
(b) Three years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/ and in record of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for 6 months u/s 409 IPC.
(c) One year simple imprisonment u/s 471 IPC.
All the sentences of the imprisonment shall run concurrently. At this stage, an application for suspension of sentence u/s 389 Cr. P.C has been moved on behalf of the convict.
Heard.
The sentence of imprisonment is suspended till 10.10.2012 on filing of bail bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/. Bail bond furnished and accepted till 10.10.2012.
The convict has sought some time to deposit the fine. The sentence of fine is also suspended till 25.9.2012.
Now to come up for deposit of fine on 25.9.2012.
Copy of this order alongwith judgment be given to the convict, free of cost.
(SUSHIL ANUJ TYAGI) MM/ Rohini 10.09.2012 FIR No. 94/1996 PS Kanjhawala 20