Delhi District Court
3. Title Of The Case : State vs Jabar Singh Chauhan on 14 September, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI MANISH YADUVANSHI : ACMM0I
(CENTRAL) : TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
1. Case No. : 0202/04
2. Unique I.D. No. : 02401R5482742004
3. Title of the Case : State Vs Jabar Singh Chauhan
FIR No. 276 of 2003
PS : Darya Ganj
U/s 411/467/468/471/120B IPC
4. Date of Institution : 01.07.2004
5. Date of reserving judgment : 12.09.2012
6. Date of pronouncement : 14.09.2012
J U D G M E N T :
a) The Sl. No. of the case : 0202/04
b) The date of commission
of offence : 29.06.2003
c) The name of complainant : SI Arun Kumar
LBR Section, EOW, Crime Branch,
New Delhi
d) The name of accused :1)Jabar Singh Chauhan
S/o Sh. Bhagwan Sahai
R/o 99/7, Shastri Ngar, Meerut (UP)
2) Pradeep Goel (Discharged on 13.10.2008)
S/o Sh. R.S.Goel
R/o 408G, Railway Road,
Bulandsahar (UP)
FIR No. 276 of 2003 State Vs Jabar Singh Chauhan Page
1
of 20
e) The offence complained of : 411/467/468/471/474/201/120B IPC
f) The offence charged with : U/s 411/474 IPC
g) The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
h) The final order : Acquitted
i) The date of such order : 14.09.2012
j) The prosecution's case came to be registered with the following facts:
1. The LBR Section of EOW/Crime Branch received an information that a gang involved in making transactions with businessmen of Delhi and nearby states are providing stolen Bank Demand Drafts of Canara Bank against a deal so made and after having purchased items on the basis of stolen Demand Drafts, they would disappear. The case was developed. An inquiry was made from Canara Bank, Nehru Place Branch, New Delhi. It was revealed that several Demand Draft books from service branch of Canara Bank at Uttaranchal and Uttar Pradesh had been stolen. On 29.06.2003, an informer told that one Jabar Singh Chauhan (Accused No.1) is one of the member of the said gang and that he was to come at SubRegistrar's Office, Asaf Ali Road for cheating some businessmen. The information was conveyed to ACP/LBR who constituted a team consisting of SI Arun Kumar (PW4), SI Anil Samota (PW3/now Inspector), HC Vijay Kumar (not examined), Ct. Bijender (not examined) and Ct. Gajender (not cited as witness) under the supervision of Inps. N.K.Sharma (not cited as witness). The said police team reached the concerned SubRegistrar's Office at 03.30 PM. 56 FIR No. 276 of 2003 State Vs Jabar Singh Chauhan Page 2 of 20 public persons were asked to join the raiding party but none of them agreed and left the place without disclosing their names and addresses. The police team without wasting time took position. On getting a predetermined signal from the informer, a person was apprehended with the help of staff in Veranda in front of SubRegistrarIII Office at Asaf Ali Road, Delhi. He was informed of the case and of the fact his search was needed. PW4/SI Arun Kumar took search of the aforesaid person and recovered two Demand Drafts of Canara Bank bearing S.No. 157348 and 157350 issued on 28.06.2003 in the name of M/s Shanti Steels amounting to Rs. 9.75 lacs and Rs. 9.50 lacs respectively. Both the Demand Drafts were payable at Ghaziabad. The said DDs were recovered from the left pocket of the shirt of the accused namely Jabar Singh Chauhan (Accused No.1). On further interrogation, Accused No.1 told that both the forged DDs were stolen and that he had taken them from one Pradeep Goel (Accused No.2). He stated that one Keemtee Lal Jain was to come to meet him at SubRegistrar's Office subsequent to which they had planned to go to M/s Shanti Steels, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad to purchase material and to make payment through Demand Drafts recovered from him. The material so purchased would have been sold elsewhere and the amount would have been split against all the aforenamed accused persons. On the instructions of Insp. N.K.Sharma, PW3/SI Anil Samota (now Inspector) was sent to Canara Bank, Nehru Place Branch, New Delhi to inquire about the recovered Demand Drafts. After making inquiry, PW3/SI Anil Samota (Now Inspector) came back to the spot and stated that upon verification from the bank, the recovered DDs were found to have been stolen on which signatures of the FIR No. 276 of 2003 State Vs Jabar Singh Chauhan Page 3 of 20 competent authority did not exist. The recovered Drafts were taken into police possession upon execution of Memo (Ex.PW3/A). A 'rukka' (Ex.PW4/A) was prepared and dispatched with a request to the Duty Officer, PS Daryaganj, Delhi by SI Arun Kumar/PW4 for registration of case qua offence punishable U/s 411/467/468/471/120B IPC. Ct. Gajender was sent to the Police Station. Further investigation was requested to be conducted by PW5/SI D.P.Singh (now Inspector). The 'rukka' was dispatched at 08.05 PM. The concerned Duty Office/PW2/ASI Narayan Singh (now SubInspector) recorded the FIR (Ex.PW2/A). He made his endorsement on the 'rukka' in respect of registration of the case. Further investigation was assigned to SI/D.P.Singh (now Inspector). The FIR was registered at 08.15.PM.
2. PW4/SI Arun Kumar handed over the seizure memo and two Demand Drafts alongwith the custody of accused to PW5/SI/D.P.Singh (now Inspector). SI D.P.Singh arrested the accused No.1 upon execution of arrest memo (Ex.PW5/A). He also recorded disclosure statement of Accused No.1 (Ex.PW5/B). His PC remand was obtained. SI D.P.Singh was transferred on 10.12.2003.
3. During the course of investigation, PW5/SI D.P.Singh (now Inspector) sent one letter bearing No. 725/SQ/DCP/EOW dated 30.06.2003 to the Manager, Canara Bank, Nehru Place Branch, New Delhi regarding verification of the recovered Demand Drafts. The bank authority confirmed that the Draft book FIR No. 276 of 2003 State Vs Jabar Singh Chauhan Page 4 of 20 No. ODEC/TL157301 - 157350 was stolen from Vikas Nagar Branch, Canara Bank, Dehradun in the year 2000 and 28 leaves from the same series of Draft had been already encashed from different banks at Mumbai. In respect of the recovered Demand Drafts, FIR No. 12/2K U/s 420/467/468/471 IPC stood registered at PS Vikas Nagar, Dehradun. The Accused No.1 had disclosed that Accused No.2 being a bank employee was acquainted with banking procedure and in making forged signatures. The owner of M/s Shanti Steels namely Sh. Alok Mittal (PW1) was also interrogated. The said company dealt in business of iron. It was revealed that the accused persons had never done any business dealings with him and that they had no knowledge regarding the recovered Drafts. In the meantime, the accused No.2 Pradeep Goel surrendered before the court on 14.10.2003. He was arrested in this case. He disclosed that he filled up the DDs and delivered the same to Accused No.1. His specimen signature/hand writings were obtained. Accused No.1, however, was found illiterate and thus unable to write the matter that existed on the recovered DDs. Accused No.2 also stated that he had burnt the remaining DDs, section 201 IPC was added in the FIR. Sh. Keemtee Lal was also interrogated but not chargesheeted. The specimen signatures/handwriting of Accused No.2 and the recovered DDs were sent to GEQD, Shimla for analysis. The concerned examiner could not link authorship of disputed writings with the sample writings. PW5/SI D.P.Singh (now Inspector) also collected statement of account of various bank of Mumbai. After his transfer, further investigation in this case was assigned to SI Virender Kadyan (not cited as witness). The said official again obtained admitted handwriting of Accused No.2 FIR No. 276 of 2003 State Vs Jabar Singh Chauhan Page 5 of 20 and sent the same for analysis to GEQD, Shimla. The bank employees from Canara Bank, Vikas Nagar Branch, Dehradun namely Dinesh Singh Chauhan, Charan Singh Batra, R.L.Semwal and Bachha Singh were interrogated. Their complicity in the DDs was not found. On the basis of the investigation summarized herein before, charge sheet was thereafter filed in this court against both the accused persons for commission of offence punishable U/s 411/467/468/471/474/201/120B IPC. The accused persons were summoned. Ld. Predecessor found that there was no admissible evidence on record against the Accused No.2 and therefore discharged him on 13.10.2008. Charges U/s 411/474 IPC only were framed against Accused No.1 on the same date. He preferred trial.
4. I have already pointed out that HC Vijay Kumar, Ct. Bijender, Ct. Gajender, Inps. N.K.Sharma and SI Virender Kadyan have been been examined as witness. Out of nine witnesses cited by the prosecution, only five witnesses were examined during trial. Sh. Alok Mittal, Proprietor of M/s Shanti Steels is PW1. Duty Officer/ASI Narayan Singh (now SubInspector) is PW2. Members of police party namely SI Anil Samota (now Inspector) and SI Arun Kumar are PW3 and PW4 respectively. One of the investigating officer namely Inps. D.P.Singh is PW5. HC Vijay Kumar who was record clerk PS Vikar Nagar, Dehradun Sh. R.N.Chaudhary, Dy. General Manager, Canara Bank, Nehru Place Branch, New Delhi were not examined.
5. The incriminating evidence produced in the testimonies of PW1 to FIR No. 276 of 2003 State Vs Jabar Singh Chauhan Page 6 of 20 PW5 was explained to the Accused No.1 U/s 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied the same submitting that the case has been manipulated by the police and the witnesses of the prosecution have deposed falsely. He claimed innocence and opted to produce evidence in his support. Despite several opportunities given to the accused, he did not produce any witness and closed DE on 06.09.2012.
6. I have heard Ld. APP for State Sh. Ghanshyam Srivastava and Ld. Defence Counsel for Accused No.1.
7. Ld. APP for State has submitted that the case of the prosecution stands duly proved in view of the fact that two Demand Drafts (Ex.P1 & P2) were found in his possession. The said Demand Drafts did not contain the name/signature of the authorized bank officials. The name of M/s Shanti Steels was filled up on the bank draft with an intention to commit the offence with which the accused was chargesheeted. According to Ld. APP for State, the intention of the accused is to be gathered from the circumstances of this case. According to Ld. Defence Counsel, the case of the prosecution is suffering from various lacunae and contradictions. It was argued that as per the charge sheet, the modus operandi of the accused was to first make transactions with the big businessmen of Delhi/nearby states and after fixing the deal, provide them a stolen bank Demand Drafts. It was pointed out that PW1 Sh. Alok Mittal, Proprietor of M/s Shanti Steels admitted in his cross examination that Accused No.1 never visited his business premises for any deal and that he saw the Accused No.1 for the first time FIR No. 276 of 2003 State Vs Jabar Singh Chauhan Page 7 of 20 in his life in the court on 21.05.2009. Ld. Defence Counsel therefore argued that there was no occasion for the accused to cause the name of M/s Shanti Steels to be written on Demand Drafts (Ex.P1 & P2) as admittedly, no deal was ever made between the PW1 and the Accused No.1. Ld. Defence Counsel also argued that the main member of the raiding party namely HC Bijender was never examined. He also argued that there is no evidence on file as to from where the Demand Drafts were stolen except for a disclosure statement of Accused No.1 which is inadmissible in evidence. Ld. Defence Counsel also argued that PW3/Insp. Anil Samota had gone for verification of the recovered DDs (Ex.P1 & P2) to the Canara Bank, Nehru Place Branch, New Delhi where he had gone for verification of the aforesaid fact on 29.06.2003 which date was a bank holiday being 'Sunday'. He argued that the actual report made by the bank official on subsequent date was never proved as no bank official from Canara Bank, Nehru Place Branch, New Delhi examined. He argued that since no such verification could have been made on a Holiday, the case of the prosecution regarding recovery of DDs is doubtful. Ld. Defence Counsel also argued that none has been examined by the prosecution from Canara Bank, Vikas Nagar Branch, Dehradun to establish that the DDs were a stolen property. The defence also argued that no investigation was done by the police regarding the role of Keemtee Lal Jain which fact is admitted by PW4/SI Arun Kumar.
8. Lastly, Ld. Defence Counsel also argued that no independent public persons was joined to the raiding party.
FIR No. 276 of 2003 State Vs Jabar Singh Chauhan Page 8 of 20
9. I have given my considered thought to the rival submissions and perused the record carefully. The only charges against the accused No.1 are on two counts. The first charge U/s 411 IPC is to the effect that the Accused no.1 was found in possession of two DDs which were stolen from Canara Bank, Vikas Nagar Branch, Dehradun and which Accused No.1 retained or received dishonestly knowing or having reason to believe the same to be the stolen property. The second charge is U/s 474 IPC to the effect that Accused No.1 knew that the Demand Drafts were forged and he intended to use the same fraudulently or dishonestly, as genuine.
10. So far as first charge is concerned, the recovery witnesses on record of this case are Insp. Anil Samota (PW3), SI Arun Kumar (PW4) only. I have already pointed out that the remaining members of the raiding party i.e., Insp. N.K.Sharma, Ct. Gajender and Ct. Bijender were not examined. On the pointing out of secret informer, the PW4, with assistance of remaining members of the raiding party, apprehended Accused No.1 and made search of the accused in which an envelop containing two Demand Drafts (Ex.P1 & P2) were recovered. PW3 made verification regarding genuineness of the drafts from Canara Bank, Nehru Place Branch, New Delhi on 28.06.2003 (Sunday). It is in his testimony that on verification it was found that both the drafts were stolen and did not have signatures of competent authority besides other details. It is not in his testimony as from whom he made the verification. The verifying officer from the concerned FIR No. 276 of 2003 State Vs Jabar Singh Chauhan Page 9 of 20 bank was not examined. Thus, there is no evidence on record to the effect that the drafts (Ex.P1 & P2) were actually a "stolen property". It is in the charge sheet that the accused No.1 is illiterate. The specimen writing and signatures of Accused No.2 (since discharged) were obtained. The FSL expert opinion being not in favour of the prosecution, Accused No.2 stood discharged by this court. Thus, this is not the case of the prosecution that Accused No.1 had actually forged the drafts. Thus, on the entire file, there is nothing to the effect that no forgery was committed on the bank drafts by forging the name of payee, amount payable, the name of drawee bank, DP Code No., SP No., Draft No. or the signatures of the authorized signatories. The verification report in respect of the factum of theft of these drafts either in blank form or in filled up condition has not been proved by the prosecution while examining any official of the issuing branch i.e., Canara Bank, Vikar Nagar Branch, Dehradun. In the absence of proof to the effect that the drafts were actually a stolen property, the factum of imputing the knowledge upon the Accused No.1 to the effect that he had received or retained the possession of the aforesaid property (Ex.P1 & P2) knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property does not arise at all. It is a primary requirement U/s 411 IPC that the accused should have retained or dishonestly received some stolen property either knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen. This essential ingredient which culminates into commission of offence U/s 411 IPC is missing on record. In such cases, the court may resort to the "common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of a particular case". By doing so, a court may presume existence of FIR No. 276 of 2003 State Vs Jabar Singh Chauhan Page 10 of 20 certain facts U/s 114 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872. In the instant case, this court can not presume existence of the facts merely on the basis of circumstances that the Accused No.1 was in possession of forged as well as stolen DDs until there is some proof to the effect that the same were actually stolen/forged. The omission of the prosecution in mentioning the necessary witness in this regard is fatal.
11. Furthermore, I do not find sufficient justification in the testimony of PW3 and PW4 regarding nonjoining of public witnesses. I am unable to comprehend as where was the need for the police team to rush for apprehension of the accused despite a specific input regarding his presence at the SubRegistrar Office and also despite the company of the secret informer who could have informed the police team as to whether the suspect was about to leave the premises. The police officials could have issued notice to the defaulting members of the public.
12. Accordingly, there is no explanation on record as to why this omission was made. This casts doubt about sincere efforts made by the investigating officer to join independent witnesses. In ROOP CHAND VS. STATE OF HARYANA 1990 (1) CLR 69 it was observed that such explanations are unreliable.
In case of "PREM SINGH VS. STATE" 1996 CRI. L. 3604 (DELHI) and in case of "PAWAN KUMAR VS. DLEHI ADMN" 1989 CRLJ 0127 DEL, it has been observed as under: FIR No. 276 of 2003 State Vs Jabar Singh Chauhan Page 11 of 20 "Kalam Singh has to admit that at the time of arrest and recovery of knife, there was a lot of rush of public at the bus stop near Subhash Bazar. According to Jagbir Singh, he did not join any public witness in the case while according to Kalan Singh, no public person was present there. It hardly stands to reason that at a place like a bus stop near Subhash Bazar, there would be no person present at a crucial time like 7:30 pm when there is a lot of rush of commuters for boarding the buses to their respective destinations. Admittedly, there is no impediment in believing the version of the police officials but for that the prosecution has to lay a good foundation. At least one of them should have deposed that they tried to contact the public witnesses or that they refused to join the investigation. Here is a case where no effort was made to join any public witness even though number of them were present. No plausible explanation from the side of the prosecution is forthcoming for not joining the Independent witnesses in case of serious nature like the present one. It may be that there is an apathy on the part of the general public to associate themselves with the police raids or the recoveries but that apart, at least the IO should have made an earnest effort to join the independent witnesses. No FIR No. 276 of 2003 State Vs Jabar Singh Chauhan Page 12 of 20 attempt in this direction appears to have been made and this, by itself, is a circumstance throwing doubt on the arrest or the recovery of the knife from the person of the accused".
13. In the case of "Hem Raj Vs State of Haryana" AIR 2005 SC 2010, it has been observed that : "The fact that no independent witness though available, was examined and not even an explanation was sought to be given for not examining such witness is a serious infirmity in the prosecution case. Amongst the independent witnesses one who was very much in the know of things from the beginning was not examined by the prosecution. Non examination of independent witness by itself may not given rise to adverse inference against the prosecution. However, when the evidence of the alleged eyewitnesses raise serious doubts on the point of their presence at the time of actual occurrence, the unexplained omission to examine the independent witness would assume significance."
14. In the case of "Sahib Singh Vs State of Punjab" AIR 1997 SC 2417, it has been held as under: "Having gone through the record, we find much FIR No. 276 of 2003 State Vs Jabar Singh Chauhan Page 13 of 20 substance in each of the above contentions. Before conducting a search, the concerned police officer is required to call upon some independent and respectable people of the locality to witness the search. In a given case, it may so happen that no such person is available or, even if available, is not willing to be a party to such search. It may also be that after joining the search, such persons later on turn hostile. In any of these eventualities, the evidence of the police officers who conducted the search cannot be disbelieved solely on the ground that no independent and respectable witness was examined to prove the search but if it is found - as in the present case - that no attempt was even made by the concerned police officer to join with him some persons of the locality who were admittedly available to witness the recovery, if would affect the weight of evidence of the Police Officer, though not its admissibility."
15. In the case of "D.V.Shanmugham Vs State of A.P" AIR 1997 SC 26583", it has been observed as under: "It also appeared from the evidence of PW2 and PW8 that there were several other people who witnessed the occurrence and they are not the residents of that locality. If such independent witnesses were available and yet were not examined by the prosecution and only those persons who are FIR No. 276 of 2003 State Vs Jabar Singh Chauhan Page 14 of 20 related to the deceased were examined then in such a situation, the prosecution case has to be scrutinized with more care and caution".
16. In the case of "Pawan Kumar Vs The Delhi Administration", 1989 Cr.LJ 127 Delhi, in which it was observed as follows: "Kalam Singh has to admit that at the time of the arrest and recovery of the knife, there was a lot of rush of public at the bus stop near Subhash Bazar. According to Jagbir Singh, he did not join any public witness in the case while according to Kalam Singh, no public persons was present there. It hardly stands to reason that at a place like a bus stop near Subhash Bazar, there would be no person present at a crucial time like 07.30 PM when there is a lot of rush of commuters for boarding the buses to their respective destinations. Admittedly, there is no impediment in believing the version of the police officials but for that the prosecution has to lay a good foundation. At least one of them should have deposed that they tried t contact the public witnesses or that they refused to join the investigation. Here is a case where no efforts was made to join any public witness even though number of them were present. No plausible from the side of the prosecution is forthcoming for not joining the independent FIR No. 276 of 2003 State Vs Jabar Singh Chauhan Page 15 of 20 witnesses in case of a serious nature like the present one. It may be that there is an apathy on the part of the general public to associate themselves with the police raids or the recoveries but that apart, at least the IO should have made an earnest effort to join the independent witnesses. No attempt in this direction appears to have been made and this, by itself, is a circumstance throwing doubt on the arrest or the recovery of the knife from the person of the accused".
17. In the case of "Massa Singh Vs State of Punjab" 2000 (2) CC Cases HC 11, conviction was set aside on the ground that it was obligatory on the part of investigating officer to take assistance of independent witnesses to lend authenticity to the investigation conducted by him. It was observed as under: "The recovery has been effected from a public place. The investigating officer could have taken the trouble to associate an independent witness to get the attestation of such independent witness regarding the authenticity of the investigation conducted by him. This aspect of the case has not been properly appreciated by the Court below."
18. In the case of "Chanan Singh Vs State" 1986 Crl. Rev. No.720 (P&H) 94, it was held that it was obligatory on the party of the police to join independent witnesses and the statement of official witness that witnesses refused FIR No. 276 of 2003 State Vs Jabar Singh Chauhan Page 16 of 20 to join investigation was rejected as an afterthought.
19. In the cases of "Gurbel Singh Vs State of Punjab" 1991 Crl. Rev. No.504 (P&H) and "Dhanpat Vs State of Punjab" 2000 (1) CC Cases HC 52, it has been held that nonjoining of independent witnesses is fatal to the prosecution case and accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.
20. At the same time, I am also reminded of the aspect that so far the arguments in respect of non joining of public witness is concerned, it is well settled law that 'the case of the prosecution cannot be thrown away merely on the ground that public witnesses have not been joined. Reliance is placed upon the judgment titled "Ambika Prasad & Anr Vs. State" reported in 2002 (2) Crimes 63 SC wherein it has been held 'Independent persons are reluctant to be a witness or to assist the investigation. In any case,if independent persons are not willing to cooperate with the investigation, prosecution cannot be blamed at and it cannot be a ground for rejecting the evidence of injured witnesses'.
21. Reliance is also placed upon judgment titled Appa Bhai Vs. State of Gujrat reported in AIR 1988 SC 696 wherein it is observed, " These days people in the vicinity where the occurrence took place avoid to come forward to give evidence and civilized persons are in sensitive when crime is committed in their presence and they withdraw both from the victim and vigilance'. FIR No. 276 of 2003 State Vs Jabar Singh Chauhan Page 17 of 20
22. Having analyzed the precedents for and in favour of the prosecution, I find that PW3 got verification of the factum of the bank drafts being stolen from an unnamed bank official on a 'Sunday'. There is no explanation on the file as to whether the concerned bank was open on that day or not. PW3, a member of the raiding party did not ask any person of public to join the raiding party as admitted by him in his cross examination. PW4 in his chief examination did not specify as to which member of the raiding party asked 45 persons to join the raiding party. Surprisingly, in his cross examination, PW4 stated that "I can not say whether Asaf Ali Road area is a crowdy place or not". Both the witnesses were thus suggested that no recovery was effected from the possession of Accused No.1; that no raiding party was ever prepared and that of the proceedings were done in the office of Crime Branch. Even the part IO D.P.Singh (PW5) failed to request any public person to make efforts to involve any independent public members to become part of the investigation made by him. All this creates doubt in the prosecution's case.
23. Here it would be appropriate to refer the case law reported as "Sadhu Singh Vs. State of Punjab" 1997(3) Crime 55 the Punjab & Harayana High Court wherein it was observed as under: "In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from 'may have' to 'must FIR No. 276 of 2003 State Vs Jabar Singh Chauhan Page 18 of 20 have'. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility, the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go the accused".
24. So far as commission of offence U/s 474 IP is concerned, again the prosecution must establish that the accused knew that the Demand Drafts (Ex.P1 & P2) were forged and he intended to use the same fraudulently or dishonestly as genuine. The bank drafts are indeed a valuable security. U/s 467 IPC, there has to be allegation that someone forged on a document which is a valuable security. As per the charge sheet, Accused no.1 is illiterate. Specimen writings and signatures only of Accused No.2 were sent for the purposes of comparison to GEQD, Shimla. Thus, the line on which the case of the prosecution proceeds was to the effect that Accused No.2 might have committed forgery on the stolen/blank DDs. There is no proof that the drafts were stolen and were blank when so stolen. There is no proof that forgery was made on the same by Accused No.1. Accused No.2 has been discharged already. It is the case of the prosecution that Accused No.2 had given the drafts to Accused No.1. If aforesaid is to be believed, then the fact that no deal had been struck with PW1 comes in the way of the prosecution as the accused persons were not likely to fill up the name of M/s Shanti Steels on the DDs (Ex.PW1 & PW2) until a sound deal had been made between them as it would tentamount to wasting a document which was to be used for cheating. I have already pointed out that the presumption U/s 114 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 can not be held, in this case, against the accused No. 1. FIR No. 276 of 2003 State Vs Jabar Singh Chauhan Page 19 of 20
25. The essential ingredients of both the offences are therefore found missing. Corroboration to the testimony of PW3 & PW4 in the form of the testimony of the bank officials or public persons is missing. In the result, the case of the prosecution can not succeed for the reasons aforegoing. The prosecution has failed on both the counts. Accused No.1 namely Jabar Singh Chauhan is acquitted of the charges for commission of offences punishable U/s 411 IPC as well as U/s 474 IPC. His PB/SB are extended for further period of six months in compliance of Section 437A Cr.P.C.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (MANISH YADUVANSHI) on 14.09.2012 ACMM01 DELHI
It is certified that this judgment contains 20 (twenty) Pages and each page bears my signature.
(MANISH YADUVANSHI) ACMM01 DELHI FIR No. 276 of 2003 State Vs Jabar Singh Chauhan Page 20 of 20