Delhi District Court
Fir No. 01/2011 State vs . Ram Mehar Page- 1 Of 28 on 23 October, 2018
f IN THE COURT OF MS. POOJA TALWAR
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (SOUTH)
SAKET DISTRICT COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of :
Digitally
signed by
POOJA
State POOJA TALWAR
TALWAR Date:
2018.10.25
Vs. 19:09:21
+0530
Ram Mehar
FIR No. 01/2011
PS Fatehpur Beri (AATS)
JUDGMENT
1. Sr. No. of case 2034469/2016
2. Date of institution 20.09.2011
3. Name of the complainant Sh. Pawan Kumar Bansal
FIR No. 01/2011 State Vs. Ram Mehar Page- 1 of 28
S/o Sh. Ram Kishan Dass
R/o House No. 152, Village
Asola, Fatehpur Beri, New Delhi
4. Date of commission of offence At any time on or before 21.08.2010
5. Name of accused Ram Mehar S/o Sh. Mange Ram R/o House No. D-2/249 near MCD School, Nand Nagri, Mandoli, North East Delhi.
& Permanent address:
House No. A-67, Gali No. 2, Village Loni, Johripur Enclave, Ghaziabad, UP.
6. Offence complained of U/s 419/420/468/471/474 IPC
7. Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
8. Date of reserving the judgment 20.10.2018
9. Final order Acquitted 10 Date of such judgment 23.10.2018 BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE CASE
1. The story of the prosecution is that one Inspector Ishwar FIR No. 01/2011 State Vs. Ram Mehar Page- 2 of 28 Singh in furtherance of investigation of FIR No. 276/2010 summoned one Sh. Pawan Kumar Bansal and showed him one No Objection Certificate (hereinafter referred to as NOC) which was seized by him in aforesaid FIR from the Value Tax Office, Trade and Tax Department alongwith other documents pertaining to M/s Balaji Enterprises. On seeing the same NOC Sh. Pawan Kumar Bansal denied having issued the same and stated that he alongwith his three brothers were the owners of plot in Asola Extension. About 2 ½ years ago, the plot was sold to Sh. Ashok and Sh. Subhash. It has now come to his notice that one Ram Mehar started a company in the name of Balaji Enterprises and for obtaining sales tax number, he submitted a fake NOC bearing his name and forged signatures. He also submitted a copy of electricity bill in his name. He alongwith his brothers after selling the plot in question has nothing to do with it. The signatures on the NOC are forged. He had neither given any NOC nor he knows any person namely Ram Mehar. FIR was registered on his complaint and investigation was carried out. Upon completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed.
2. Provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with. On FIR No. 01/2011 State Vs. Ram Mehar Page- 3 of 28 appearance of accused before Court and prima facie case having been made out, charge for the offence of under section 465/468/471/474/420 IPC was framed against accused.
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses in all.
4. Sh. Shyam Sunder, Retired Manager, Syndicate Bank, Service Branch Connaught Place was examined as PW1. He deposed that on 08.08.2011, he was posted as Assistant Manager, Syndicate Bank, Fatehpur Beri Branch. That day as per directions of IO, HC Pramod Kumar visited their branch at Fatehpur Beri and he handed over to him the account opening form of account bearing no. 90162010000299 in the name of Sh. Pawan Kumar Bansal, signature card and a letter written by Pawan Kumar Bansal dated 26.04.1984. The original account opening form is Ex.PW1/A, original card is Ex.PW1/B and letter dated 26.04.1984 written by Sh. Pawan Kumar Bansal to change his name as Pawan Kumar Gupta is Ex.PW1/C.
5. Complainant Sh. Pawan Kumar was examined as PW2. He deposed that there was a plot in Asola Extension Jhanda Colony in his name alongwith his three brothers namely Sh. Brij Lal, FIR No. 01/2011 State Vs. Ram Mehar Page- 4 of 28 Sh. Ram Dayal and Sh. Rajender bearing khasra No. 514, 515 and 516. In the year 2008-2009, he alongwith his brothers had sold the above mentioned plot to Sh. Ashok and Sh. Subhash who were his villagers. He alongwith his brothers handed over the possession of the abovesaid plot to Sh. Ashok and Sh. Subhash. There was a room built on the abovesaid plot in which electricity connection was in his name. At the time of buying the plot, Sh. Ashok and Sh. Subhash promised that they would get the connection in their name. He paid all the electricity bills before selling the abovesaid plot. In January, 2011 he came to know that accused Ram Mehar who was running a company in the name and style of Balaji Enterprises at the above mentioned address had applied for sale tax number in Sale Tax Office with a forged NOC having his forged signatures. Accused had also used a photocopy of electricity bill which was in his name. He saw sale tax file in which he found that the NOC bears his forged signatures. He further deposed that he had not given any NOC to any person namely Ram Mehar Singh. Even he did not know any person with the name Ram Mehar Singh. He lodged a complaint regarding the same which is Ex.PW2/A. On 08.08.2011, IO obtained his specimen signatures and specimen FIR No. 01/2011 State Vs. Ram Mehar Page- 5 of 28 handwriting which is Ex.PW2/B. The NOC which was presented by accused Ram Mehar Singh is Ex.PW2/C purportedly having his signatures at Q1. He never signed document Ex.PW2/C.
6. Sh. Ashok Kumar was examined as PW3. He deposed that he alongwith Subhash Kumar bought a flat No. LG-3, Premise No. 37/A, Khasra No.514/516, Asola, Fatehpur Beri. In the year 2010, they had given the same for rent to accused for a monthly rent of Rs. .7,000/-. The copy of rent agreement is Ex.PW3/A. He deposed that he bought the land from Sh. Pawan Kumar Bansal and constructed the flat through a builder.
7. Sh. Subhash Kumar was examined as PW4. He deposed that he alongwith Sh. Ashok Kumar bought a flat No. LG-3, Premise No.37/A, Khasra No.514/516, Asola, Fatehpur Beri. In the year 2010, they had given the same for rent to accused Ram Mehar S/o Sh. Mange Ram R/o A-31/17, Swami D.N. Gali, Maujpur, Delhi for a monthly rent of Rs. 7,000/- for eleven months from 01.08.2010 to 30.06.2011. He had handed over the copy of rent agreement to IO which was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/A. The copy of rent agreement is already Ex.PW3/A. He alongwith his brother Sh. Ashok Kumar FIR No. 01/2011 State Vs. Ram Mehar Page- 6 of 28 bought the land from Sh. Pawan Kumar Bansal.
8. Sh. Chand Kishore was examined as PW5. He deposed that he retired from Delhi Government Sales Tax Department as Assistant Value Added Tax Officer on 30.04.2011. On 27.08.2010, the file of Balaji Enterprises for allotment of TIN number was received by Sh. Virender Kumar Saini, UDC on counter. After checking all documents, he had signed on form DVAT06 and issued registration certificate and all documents alongwith certificate of registration sent to Ward no. 101 10 th Floor Vyapar Bhawan, ITO for physical verification. Copy of Form DVAT06 dated 27.08.2010 is marked as Mark A.
9. Sh. Virender Kumar Saini, Head Clerk, Education Department was examined as PW6. He deposed that on 27.08.2010, he had received the file of Balaji Enterprises regarding allotment of TIN Number having all documents on counter. After checking the same, he forwarded the same to AVATO Sh. Chand Kishore who issued the certificate of registration on the same. IO recorded his statement.
10. Sh. Praveen Kumar, Steno Personal Branch of Additional Commissioner (Zone-III) Department of Trade & Taxes was FIR No. 01/2011 State Vs. Ram Mehar Page- 7 of 28 examined as PW7. He deposed that on 28.12.2010 Inspector Ishwar Singh came to their office and he handed over the original file of Balaji Enterprises on the instructions of Sh. Surinder Narang, VATO (Ward Incharge-101). Inspector Ishwar Singh took the same into his possession and seized the same vide seizure memo and copy of the seizure memo Ex.PW7/A.
11. Sh. M. Ravi Kumar, Ahlmad posted in the court of Sh. Vipin Kharb, Ld. MM-01 (South), Saket Courts was examined as PW8. He produced the summoned record i.e. case file of FIR no. 276/2010 P.S. Fatehpur Beri under section 420/285/468/471/201/120 B IPC and 3/7/10/55 E.C. Act. The copy of seizure memo dated 28.12.2010 is Ex.PW8/A. Copy of reply of VATO Sh. V.K. Awasthi is Ex.PW8/B. Copy of request of Inspector Ishwar Singh is Ex.PW8/C. Copy of original Form DVAT 06 is Ex.PW8/D. The copy of registration certificate is Ex.PW8/E. The copy of driving licence is Ex.PW8/F. The copy of verification of surety bond is Ex. PW8/G. Copy of local surety bond is Ex. PW8/H. Copy of Form DVAT 04 is Ex.PW8/I. Copy of Form A is Ex. PW8/J.
12. ASI Hari Om, DCP, Crime (Cyber and FICN) was examined as PW9. He deposed that on 02.01.2011, he was performing the FIR No. 01/2011 State Vs. Ram Mehar Page- 8 of 28 duty as Duty Officer from 4.00 pm to 12.00 pm. At about 10.25 pm, he received a rukka from Ct. Santanu sent by Inspector Ishwar Singh. He made an endorsement regarding the same vide DD No. 20A. The endorsement is Ex.PW9/A. On the basis of above said rukka, present case FIR was registered by him. Copy of FIR is Ex.PW9/B. After registration of FIR, copy of FIR and rukka was given to Ct. Santanu for handing over the same to SI Balihar Singh for further investigation of the case.
13. HC Shantanu was examined as PW10. He deposed that on 02.01.2011 Inspector Ishwar Singh gave him a rukka at around 9.30 pm for giving the same to duty officer for registration of FIR. The rukka was given to him by Inspector Ishwar Singh at the office of DIU, South District, Delhi. He went to PS Fatehpur Beri and handed over the rukka to Duty officer for registration of FIR at around 10.20 pm. After registration of FIR, Duty Officer gave him original rukka and copy of FIR for handing over the same to SI Balihar Singh for further investigation of the case. Meanwhile SI Balihar Singh also reached at PS Fatehpur Beri. He handed over original rukka and copy of FIR to SI Balihar Singh.
14. HC Parmod Kumar was examined as PW11. He deposed FIR No. 01/2011 State Vs. Ram Mehar Page- 9 of 28 that on 08.08.2011, SI Balihar Singh gave him an authority letter signed by him addressed to the Bank Manager, Syndicate Bank, Fatehpur Beri, Delhi. He alongwith Ct. Naresh reached at the Syndicate Bank alongwith the above said letter. The letter was given to Assistant Bank Manager namely Shyam Sunder. The Assistant Bank Manager gave the bank account opening form of Pawan Kumar Bansal, signature card and handwritten letter to him. These documents were seized by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW11/A. After seizing these documents he came back at AATS South District, Delhi and handed over these documents to IO of this case.
15. ASI Arvind Kumar was examined as PW12. He deposed that on 05.01.2011 he joined the investigation with IO SI Balihar Singh. Accused Ram Mehar was interrogated by IO and thereafter, accused was formally arrested by the IO vide Ex.PW12/A. His disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW12/B. On 30.07.2011, he again joined the investigation in this case alongwith the IO. That day specimen handwriting of Manoj Singhal, Het Ram, Deepak Sharma, Anil Kumar and Vinay Singhal were taken by IO at AATS, South District Office. He signed as a witness on the paper sheets of specimen FIR No. 01/2011 State Vs. Ram Mehar Page- 10 of 28 handwriting. On 08.08.2011, he again joined the investigation in the present case alongwith the IO. That day, he alongwith IO reached at the residence of Pawan Kumar Bansal and took his specimen handwriting/signatures on paper sheets. He signed on these paper sheets as a witness. Thereafter, they reached at the EOW Office and IO collected photocopy of one seizure memo and one original NOC from Inspector Gurnam Singh. Both these documents were seized by the IO vide Ex.PW12/C. On 10.08.2011, he again joined the investigation alongwith SI Balihar Singh. As per the instructions of IO, he collected 9 sealed parcels and certain other documents including FSL form from Malkhana PS Fatehpur Beri. He went to FSL, Rohini alongwith abovesaid case property and documents. He deposited these documents and parcels at FSL, Rohini. The photocopy of road certificate alongwith copy of FSL receipt was given by him to MHC(M) PS Fatehpur Beri. He handed over the original receipt to the IO. On 21.08.2013, specimen signatures and handwriting of Pawan Bansal were taken by IO SI Balihar Singh in his presence. The specimen signatures Ex.PW12/D. Witness correctly identified the accused before the Court.
FIR No. 01/2011 State Vs. Ram Mehar Page- 11 of 28
16. HC Naresh Kumar was examined as PW13. He deposed that on 08.08.2011 he joined the investigation in the present case as per the direction of IO/SI Balihar Singh and went to Syndicate Bank, Fatehpur Beri alongwith HC Pramod Kumar. There HC Pramod Kumar gave a letter written by IO to the Bank Manager. In response of this letter, Assistant Bank Manager gave original signature card, bank account opening form of Pawan Kumar Bansal and hand written letter to HC Pramod Kumar, which were seized by HC Pramod Kumar.
17. Inspector Ishwar Singh was examined as PW14. He deposed that on 28.12.2010, he was posted at DIU, South District, Gulmohar Park. That day, he went to Sales Tax Department, ITO and he seized some documents of Balaji Enterprises from Sales Tax Department. There was one NOC of Pawan Kumar Bansal which was also seized by him. He prepared rukka Ex.PW14/A. On the basis of complaint the investigation of the present case was marked to SI Balihar Singh. On 22.04.2011, SI Balihar Singh joined him in the investigation of the present case. Thereafter, on that day, IO also took him to the spot with respect to which the NOC was prepared. After reaching there, IO prepared the site plan at his instance vide Ex.PW14/B. FIR No. 01/2011 State Vs. Ram Mehar Page- 12 of 28
18. ASI Dharambir Singh was examined as PW15. He deposed that on 28.12.2010, he was posted as Constable at DIU, South. That day, his duty hours were from 8.00 am to 8.00 pm. That day, he alongwith Inspector Ishwar Singh visited at the Sales Tax office at ITO regarding the investigation of present case for verification of the documents concerned to you. At the office, they met Praveen, who was working as Stenographer in that office. IO enquired from Praveen regarding some documents of your company namely Shree Balaji Enterprises. Thereafter, Praveen handed over to the IO all documents in the name of Shree Balaji Enterprises. Thereafter, IO prepared a seizure memo regarding that documents.
19. Sh. Vijender Singh, Assistant Director (Documents), FSL was examined as PW16. He deposed that on 17.02.2015, he was working as Senior Scientific Officer (Documents), FSL, Rohini, New Delhi. The questioned documents alongwith standard documents were forwarded to FSL, Delhi vide 5747/SHO/Fatehpur Beri dated 09.09.2013 connection with present case for examination and reporting. The documents were carefully and thoroughly examined with various scientific instruments and different magnifying glasses under different FIR No. 01/2011 State Vs. Ram Mehar Page- 13 of 28 lighting condition and he was of the opinion that the person who wrote the red enclosed signatures stamped and marked as Mark S7, S8, S24 to S27, A2, A2/1, A3, A3/1 to A3/3, A4 and A5 to A10 did not write the red enclosed signature stamped and marked as Mark Q1.
20. Inspector Gurnam Singh was examined as PW17. He deposed that on 08.08.2011, he was posted at DIU, South District. That time, he was the IO in FIR No.276/2010 PS Fatehpur Beri. On 08.08.2011, he handed over the original NOC dated 21.08.2010 duly signed by Pawan Kumar Bansal to IO SI Balihar Singh of present FIR and he had also handed over the copy of seizure memo vide which Inspector Ishwar Singh had seized the abovesaid NOC and other documents vide seizure memo dated 28.12.2010 to IO SI Balihar Singh.
21. Inspector Balihar Singh was examined as PW18. He deposed that on 04.01.2011, he was posted at AATS, South District, New Delhi. That day, the investigation of present case was marked to him. Thereafter, he collected documents of FIR No. 276/2010 PS Fatehpur Beri. He moved an application in the Court of Sh. Rakesh Pandit, the then Ld. ACMM for your production warrant vide application Ex.PW18/A and permission FIR No. 01/2011 State Vs. Ram Mehar Page- 14 of 28 was granted by the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 04.01.2011 Ex.PW18/B. On 05.01.2011, he alongwith HC Arvind Kumar went to Tihar Jail and interrogated and formally arrested the accused. He also recorded the disclosure statement of accused. He also moved an application to Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar Jail for production of accused in the Court which is Ex.PW18/C. On 06.01.2011, accused was produced in the Court and he moved an application for obtaining the specimen signatures of accused which is Ex.PW18/D. On 22.04.2011, he prepared the site plan and recorded statement of Inspector Ishwar Singh under section 161 Cr.PC. On 08.08.2011, he got specimen signatures of witness Pawan Kumar Bansal Ex.PW18/E. He had also seized No Objection Certificate and photocopy of seizure memo of documents in case FIR No. 276/2010. On 10.08.2011, he sent documents through HC Arvind to FSL, Rohini. On 12.09.2011, examined concerned official of Sales Tax Department and seized lease deed and he also recorded statement of Subhash and Ashok under section 161 Cr.PC. In February, 2015, he collected the result of FSL. Thereafter, he filed the supplementary chargesheet in the Court. Witness correctly identified you before the court. FIR No. 01/2011 State Vs. Ram Mehar Page- 15 of 28
22. The entire incriminating evidence brought on record against the accused was put to him and his statement under section 313 CrPC was recorded separately. It is stated by accused that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case by the police officials.
23. I have heard Ld. APP for the State and Ld. counsel for accused and also perused the judicial file carefully.
24. It is alleged against the accused that he dishonestly and fraudulently prepared a fake No Objection Certificate for using his premises for business purposes and getting the firm registered at rented accommodation at LG-III, premises no. 37, LGF, Khasra NO. 514/515/516, Village Asola, Fatehpur owned by Sh. Pawan Kumar Bansal by forging his signatures and submitting the NOC in the Sales Tax Department and thereby dishonestly induced the government authority to register the firm. Hence, he committed forgery for the purpose of cheatng.
25. In order to bring home the charges levelled against the accused, it would be pertinent to understand the provision and law as laid down for the offence under section 465/468/471/474 IPC.
FIR No. 01/2011 State Vs. Ram Mehar Page- 16 of 28 The essential ingredients of section 465 IPC would also be of relevance:
(a) Essential ingredients:-The elements of forgery are:
(I) The making of a false document or part of it;
(ii) Such making should be with intent
(a) to cause damage or injury to (i) public, or (ii) any person; or
(b) to support any claim or title; or
(c) to cause any person to part with property; or
(d) to cause any person to enter into express or implied contract; or
(e) to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed.
The essential ingredient of Section 468 IPC are as follows:-
(i) That the accused committed forgery;
(ii) That he did so intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating.
The essential ingredients of section 471 IPC are as under:
FIR No. 01/2011 State Vs. Ram Mehar Page- 17 of 28
(i) Fraudulent or dishonest use of a document as genuine;
(ii) The person using it must have knowledge or reason to believe that the document is a forged one.
The essential ingredient of Section 474 IPC are as follows:-
(I) That the accused committed forgery of a document or electronic record;
(ii) That such forged document (or electronic record) was in possession of the accused;
(iii) That the accused had knowledge about such forgery (forged nature of document or electronic record);
(iv) That the accused has an intention to it fraudulently or dishonestly.
26. Counsel for the accused has relied upon the judgment Mohd Ibrahim Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a very lucid manner has described what may be called a false document in a case titled as Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of Bihar (2009) 8 SCC 751 wherein it was held by the Court:-
11. In short, a person is said to have FIR No. 01/2011 State Vs. Ram Mehar Page- 18 of 28 made a 'false document;, if (I) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or FIR No. 653/2000, PS Moti Nagar Page 8/14 authorized by someone else; or
(ii) he altered or tampered a document;
or (iii) he obtained a document be practicing deception, or from a person not in control of his senses.
12. The sale deeds executed by first appellant, clearly and obviously do not fall under the second and third categories of 'false documents;. It therefore remains to be seen whether the claim of the complainant that the execution of sale deeds by the first accused, who was in no way connected with the land, amounted to committing forgery of documents with the intention of taking possession of complainant's land (and that accused no. 2 to 5 as the purchaser, witness, scribe and stamp vendor colluded with first accused in execution and registration of the said sale deeds) would bring the case under the first category. There is a fundamental difference between a person executing a sale deed claiming that the property conveyed is his property, and a person executing a sale deed by impersonating the owner or falsely claiming to be FIR No. 01/2011 State Vs. Ram Mehar Page- 19 of 28 authorized or empowered by the owner, to execute the deed on owner's behalf.
When a person executes a document conveying a property describing it as his, there are two possibilities. The first is that he believes that the property actually belongs to him.
13. The second is that he may be dishonestly or fraudulently claiming it to be his even though he knows that it is not his property. But to fall under first category of 'false document', it is not sufficient that a document has been made or executed dishonestly or fraudulently. There is a FIR No. 653/2000, PS Moti Nagar Page 9/14 further requirement that it should have been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by, or by the authority he knows that it was not made or executed. When a document is executed by a person claiming a property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorized by someone else. Thereafter, execution of such document (purporting to convey some property of which he is not the owner) is not execution of a false document as defined under section 464 of the code. If there is no forgery, then FIR No. 01/2011 State Vs. Ram Mehar Page- 20 of 28 neither section 467 IPC nor section 471 IPC of the code are attracted.
When a sale deed is executed conveying a property claiming ownership thereto, it may be possible for the purchaser under such sale deed, to allege that the vendor has cheated him by making a false representation of ownership and fraudulently induced him to part with the sale consideration.
27. First and foremost the accused has been charged with the offence under section 465 IPC for preparing a fake No Objection Certificate. It is alleged against the accused that he prepared a fake No Objection Certificate for using the premises taken by him on rent.
28. Prosecution examined PW2 Pawan Kumar who is stated to be the owner of the property has deposed that he alongwith his brother has already sold the plot to Ashok and Subhash. Hence, he was not the owner of the property at the relevant time. Ashok and Subhash have been examined as PW3 and PW4 respectively. Both these witnesses have admitted that the property was let out to accused Ram Mehar vide rent agreement Ex.PW3/A. None of these two witnesses have stated the FIR No. 01/2011 State Vs. Ram Mehar Page- 21 of 28 purpose for which the property was let out I.e whether for residential or for commercial.
29. Both PW3 and PW4 have not alleged that the accused had approached them for obtaining NOC or that the same was declined. It has also not come on record that whether the fact of Pawan Kumar being the owner of the property was within the knowledge of the accused as admittedly, the property was let out to him by Ashok and Subhash.
30. Prosecution has examined PW5 who has deposed that he could not have issued registration certificate if the accused had not filed forged documents.
31. PW6 Virender Kumar, UDC from Sales Tax Department deposed that applicant for TIN filed a surety and if the surety is found correct on verification, TIN number is allowed.
32. PW5 and PW6 have both not stated the complete requirements for issuance of TIN to an applicant.
33. PW5 has simply stated that in case the documents filed by the accused were not annexed the TIN could not have been issued. Whereas PW6 Virender Kumar Saini stated that in case the surety is found sound, a TIN is allotted. FIR No. 01/2011 State Vs. Ram Mehar Page- 22 of 28
34. In the present case, the surety of the accused was found correct. The verification of the surety is Ex.PW8/G.
35. PW16 Virender Singh, Assistant Director (Documents) was examined to prove the signatures on NOC. He only opined that the signatures appearing on document Ex.PW2/C do not bear the signatures of Pawan Kumar. There is no opinion on the said document that the signatures were forged by the accused.
36. PW18 Inspector Balihar Singh was the Investigating Officer.
It is deposed by him that as per Sh. Pawan Kumar Bansal, he did not know Ram Mehar. He did not come across any documents executed between Sh. Pawan Kumar and Ram Mehar. He also admitted that no evidence has come on record to prove that accused Ram Mehar prepared the NOC in question in his own hand. He further admitted that a proper tenancy was created vide valid lease deed in favour of the accused. He denied having any knowledge regarding requirement of obtaining Sales Tax Number.
37. It has come on record that IO has not come across any evidence to the effect that the accused has prepared the NOC in question in his own hand. No witness has been examined by the FIR No. 01/2011 State Vs. Ram Mehar Page- 23 of 28 prosecution to prove that the NOC was prepared by the accused himself. Hence, he cannot be said to have committed forgery.
38. Accused has further been charged with the offence under section 468 IPC.
39. Once no evidence h as come on record to prove that the forgery was committed by accused he cannot to have committed forgery for the purpose of cheating.
40. As far as offence under section 471 IPC is concerned, the prime requirement is that the accused should have knowledge or reason to believe the document to be forged.
41. Prosecution has failed to prove that there was any connect between accused and complainant.
42. It is stated by the complainant PW2 that he had never met the accused.
43. It is also stated by PW18/IO that he had not come across any documents executed between complainant and the accused. Admittedly, the property has been sold by complainant to Ashok and Subhash who had let out the property to the accused by virtue of valid lease deed.
FIR No. 01/2011 State Vs. Ram Mehar Page- 24 of 28
44. It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused was informed by Ashok and Subhash that the property was earlier owned by the complainant or that they refused to give him an NOC. The prosecution has also not proved that the property was let out to the accused for residential purpose and that he wanted to use it clandestinely for commercial purposes.
45. Prosecution has not led any evidence to prove that the accused has requisite knowledge that the NOC Ex.PW2/C was a forged document.
46. As far as offence under section 474 IPC is concerned, the prime requirement is that a person should be in possession of forged document.
47. In the instant case, document Ex.PW2/A has not been recovered from the possession of accused. Hence, once the prime requirement has not been fulfiled, accused cannot be said to have committed offence under section 474 IPC.
48. Accused has also been charged under section 420 IPC,.
The essential ingredient of Section 420 IPC are as follows:-
(i) There must be deception i.e the accused must have deceived someone; FIR No. 01/2011 State Vs. Ram Mehar Page- 25 of 28
(ii) That by the said deception. The accused must induce a person;
(a) to deliver any property; or
(b) to make, alter or destroy the whole or part of valuable security or any thing which is signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable property.
(iii) That the accused did so dishonestly.
49. The prime requirement is that the accused should have induced the complainant to deliver the property.
50. In the instant case, it is alleged against the accused that he dishonestly induced the government authority to register the firm in the office of Department of Value Added Tax.
51. Prosecution has absolutely not led any evidence to prove that document Ex.PW2/A was forged by the accused or that the same was filed by the accused for obtaining the TIN.
52. There is no complaint of inducement by the Department of Value Added Tax against the accused. As far as complainant in the present case is concerned, he deposed that he never met the accused nor has executed any document in favour of accused.
FIR No. 01/2011 State Vs. Ram Mehar Page- 26 of 28
53. Once the essentials of section 420 IPC are not fulfiled, the accused cannot be said to have committed offence under section 420 IPC.
54. It is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent unless the contrary is proved. The burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused "beyond reasonable doubt". The prosecution is under a legal obligation to prove each and every ingredient of offence beyond any doubt, unless otherwise so provided by any statute. This general burden never shifts, it always rests on the prosecution. (Daya Ram v. State of Haryana, (P&H)(DB), 1997(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 662).
55. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused, the benefit of which accrues in his favour. He is accordingly acquitted for the offence under section 465/468/471/474/420 IPC.
Announced in the open
Court on 23.10.2018 (POOJA TALWAR)
CMM (South), Saket Courts,
New Delhi
FIR No. 01/2011 State Vs. Ram Mehar Page- 27 of 28
Certified that this Judgment contains 28 pages and each page is signed by me.
(POOJA TALWAR) CMM (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi FIR No. 01/2011 State Vs. Ram Mehar Page- 28 of 28