Delhi District Court
State vs Jai Pal Singh Etc on 2 April, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAURAV GOYAL, MM06,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
STATE Vs. JAI PAL SINGH & ORS.
FIR No. 39/2002
PS : A. C. BRANCH
U/S : 420/468/471/201/120B IPC
Date of institution of the case : 22.03.2005
Date of judgment reserved : Not reserved
CNR : DLCT020007972009
Date of commission of offence : On or before 06.01.2000
Name of the complainant : Inspector Diwan Chand
Name of accused and address : 1. Jai Pal Singh S/o Sh. Manphool
Singh, R/o VPO, Majara Dabas,
Delhi.
2. Vinod Kumar S/o Sh.
Harshwaroop R/o 135, Lamcer
Road, Timarpur, Delhi.
3. Dharam Singh S/o Late Jai
Singh, R/o C174, Rajasthali
Apartment, Pitampura, Delhi.
Offence complained of : 420/468/471/201/120B IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Date of Judgment : 02.04.2024
Final Order : CONVICTION
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the prosecution against the accused persons is that they hatched a criminal conspiracy to prepare the forged and fake driving licenses and in the purpose committed forgery for the purpose of cheating the government by causing loss of revenue by preparing forge and fake licenses and in pursuance of their criminal conspiracy fraudulently and dishonestly used as genuine the fake licenses which they knew or had reason to believe to be forged STATE Vs. JAI PAL SINGH & ORS. FIR No. 39/2002 PS A. C. BRANCH PAGE NO. 1 / 20 Gaurav Digitally signed by Gaurav Goyal Goyal Date: 2024.04.02 17:10:10 +0530 licenses and they made efforts to cause to disappear the evidence related to the criminal acts and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 420/468/471/201/120B IPC.
COURT PROCEEDINGS :
2. Investigation was completed and police report u/s 173 Cr.P.C was filed under Sections 420/468/471/201/120B IPC. Cognizance was taken and accused persons were summoned. Provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with after appearance of the accused persons.
CHARGE :
3. After hearing arguments on charge, vide order dated 27.06.2011 charge was ordered to be framed for the offence under Section 420/468/471/201/120B IPC against the accused persons.
4. The record transpires that during the course of trial, the accused persons admitted Letter no. 5/(72) Admin/TPT/94/109 dated 15.03.2004 Ex. A- 1, Posting order of accused Dharam Singh Ex. A-2, Letter No. 4(256)/2002/AO- NCC/Admin/866 dated 16.03.2004 Ex. A-3 and his service book of Vinod Kumar Sharma Ex. A-4, Bio data of accused Jai Pal Singh Ex. A-6, Prosecution Sanction No. F-4(15)/Vig./TPT/02/1476 dated 16.08.2004 Ex. A-7, Prosecution Sanction No. F-4(15)/Vig./TPT/02/49 dated 09.02.2005 Ex. A-8, prosecution sanction order no. F-4(256)/2002/AO-NCC/Admin/3390 dated 09.07.2024 Ex. A-10 and medical certificate in form I-A Ex. A-9 and the examination of formal witnesses qua such documents was accordingly dispensed with.
Digitally signedGaurav by Gaurav Goyal Date:
Goyal 2024.04.02 17:10:31 +0530 STATE Vs. JAI PAL SINGH & ORS. FIR No. 39/2002 PS A. C. BRANCH PAGE NO. 2 / 20 EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION :
5. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution has examined twenty six witnesses.
6. PW1 ACP Diwan Chand Sharma submitted that from July, 2002 to January, 2004 he was posted as Inspector in Anti Corruption Branch. In the year 2000, number of complaints regarding issuance of driving licenses on forged and fake documents were received in the Anti corruption branch. The investigation was started in 2002 when notices to MLOs of various departments were issued. Various documents produced by MLOs STA were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/A, Ex. PW1/B, Ex. PW1/C and Ex. PW1/D. The witness further deposed that during the course of investigation ration cards enclosed with the complaint on the basis of which the driving licenses were renewed. The witness further deposed that he received report regarding accused Jai Pal Ex. X1. The witness further deposed that ration cards were found to be forged. The witness further deposed that he also recorded statement of officials who had issued training certificate to accused Jai Pal which is required for license of heavy vehicles and on the verrification report it was found that accused Jai Pal never took the training from the institute. The witness further deposed that he arrested all the accused persons vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/F, Ex. PW1/G and Ex. PW1/H. He also conducted their personal search vide personal search memo Ex. PW1/I, PW1/J and PW1/K. Thereafter, the witness was crossexamined by Ld. Counsels for accused persons.
7. PW2/Ct. Krishan Kumar submitted that on 26.03.2003, he was posted as Ct. At anti corruption branch.
Gaurav Digitally signed by
Gaurav Goyal
Goyal Date: 2024.04.02
17:10:42 +0530
STATE Vs. JAI PAL SINGH & ORS. FIR No. 39/2002 PS A. C. BRANCH PAGE NO. 3 / 20
8. PW3/SI Om Prakash deposed that on 06.08.2002, he was posted as ASI at Anti Corruption Branch when Inspector Diwan Chand handed over the complaint to him for registration of FIR No. 39/02 Ex. PW3/A.
9. PW 4/HC Jai Prakash deposed that on 27.08.2003, he was posted at Anti Corrution Branch when he had joined the investigation. He further deposed that IO interrogated the accused persons who submitted that they were involved in criminal conspiracy to prepare forged and fabricated commercial heavy licenses through brokers on the basis of forged documents.
10. PW5/Retd. ASI Md. Islam submitted that on 15.03.2004, he was posted as MHC(R) at PS Rajori Garden.
11. PW6 Sh. S. K. Rai deposed that in the year 2002, he was posted as Jagatpuri Transport Authority as motor vehicle inspector. He further deposed that on 05.02.2003, he had written the reply along with the attested copies of the documents duly signed by the MLO in reply to the letter received from the police department Ex. PW6/A and Ex. PW6/B.
12. PW7 Sh. Rajesh Kumar deposed that in the year 2003, he was working as MLO at Mall Road Transport Authority. He further deposed in his reply to the letter dated 24.04.2003 of the IO wherein details of 18 licenses were sought from his department. He further deposed that details of the said licenses are Ex. PW7/A5 to PW7/A19 respectively.
Gaurav Digitally signed by Gaurav Goyal Goyal Date: 2024.04.02 17:10:51 +0530 STATE Vs. JAI PAL SINGH & ORS. FIR No. 39/2002 PS A. C. BRANCH PAGE NO. 4 / 20
13. PW8/ASI Mehboob Khan deposed that he was posted at OD Cell Teen Murti Traffic Line Crescent Road, New Delhi. He further deposed when he joined the investigation he had personally checked the records of one person namely Vir Pratap Singh driving license bearing no. C95052013 dated 10.08.1995. He further submitted taht certificate no. 014835 dated 10.08.1999 mentioning Srl. No. 10866 marked PW8/A1 was not issued by OD Cell and the name of person namely Vir Pratap Singh was not mentioned in the register instead it was registered it was registered in the name of Dilbagh Singh.
14. PW9 Smt. Kiran Kharbanda deposed that she was working as inspector in Food and Supply Department at Circle No. 63, Kamla Nagar, Delhi in the year 2003. She further deposed that in her written report Ex. PW9/A and PW9/B she had mentioned that details of the ration card on which circle no. 63, FPS No. 4063 and ration card no. 55072 do not belong to address which falls in the jurisdiction of circle no. 63.
15. PW10 Sh. Arjesh Kumar deposed that he was working as LDC in FSO circle no. 64, Gulabi Bagh in the year 2003. He further deposed that police officials investigating the present matter had asked him to verify the details of photocopy of ration card of circle no. 64 FPS 7445, registration no. 2282. He further deposed that the details of the address of the said ration card do not belong to the address which falls under the jurisdiction of circle no. 64. He furthr deposed that the certified copy of his departement's record and his report are Ex. PW10/A and PW10/B. Digitally signed Gaurav by Gaurav Goyal Date:
Goyal 2024.04.02 17:10:59 +0530 STATE Vs. JAI PAL SINGH & ORS. FIR No. 39/2002 PS A. C. BRANCH PAGE NO. 5 / 20
16. PW11 Sh. Umesh Sehgal deposed on similar lines as PW10 regarding circle no. 60 FSO and FPS No. 26. The contents of his testimony are dispensed with the sake of brevity.
17. PW12 Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta deposed that he was working as UDC at Directorate of Education, Old Secreteriat, Delhi in the year 2003. He further deposed that the he along with Ct. Krishan Kumar joined the investigation in the present matter. He further deposed that accused Jai Pal Singh made oral disclosure statement regarding the conspiracy between the officials of motor vehicle authority and the licensing authority. Thereafter, the witness was crossexamined by Ld. Counsels for accused persons.
18. PW13 Sh. Suraj Bhan deposed that he had been working as cashier in DTC training school since 26.12.1998 and he had retired on 31.03.2010. During his crossexamination by Ld. APP for the State, the witness deposed that cash memos from no. 198731 to 198747 issued on 03.06.1991 were not issued in the name of Jai Pal Singh and the witness further deposed that cash memos issued on 07.05.1999 were not issued in the name of Raj Kumar. Thereafter, the witness was crossexamined by the Ld. Counsels for the accused persons.
19. PW14 Mukesh Sharma deposed on similar lines as PW13 Suraj Bhan and the contents of his testimony are dispensed for the sake of brevity.
20. PW15 P. S. Panchpal deposed that in the year 2002 he was posted as MLO, Mall Road, Delhi. He further deposed on 18.11.2002, he visited the Gaurav Digitally signed by Gaurav Goyal Goyal Date: 2024.04.02 17:11:42 +0530 STATE Vs. JAI PAL SINGH & ORS. FIR No. 39/2002 PS A. C. BRANCH PAGE NO. 6 / 20 Gaurav Digitally signed by Gaurav Goyal Goyal Date: 2024.04.02 17:11:11 +0530 office of ACB to give reply to the notice u/s 160 Cr.P.C. and produce the documents to the IO.
21. PW16 Prem Shankar deposed that he was incharge, foreman at DTC training school in the year 2002 and he was posted as Nand Nagri Depot. He further deposed that photocopy of certificate no. 23779 dated 03.06.1999 in the name of Jai Pal Singh entered in the attendance register no. 2416 was not found to be in the name of accused Jai Pal Singh instead it was found to be in the name of Ramchand. He further deposed that the certificate, cash receipt in the name of Jai Pal Singh are forged and the signatures on the certificate is also forged. The photocopy of the documents seized and cash receipts are Ex. PW 13/A and PW16/A1, A2, A3, A4, A5 and A6.
22. PW17/SI Dhani Ram deposed that in the year 2002, he was posted as MHC(R) at PS Civil Lines. He further deposed that Inspector Diwan Chand Sharma inquired about NCR No. 2011/1999 and the attested photocopy of the NCR is Ex. PW17/A.
23. PW18 Virender Singh deposed that he resides at the address bearing no. House No. 13/4, Timarpur, Delhi since 1989 and the flat was allotted in the name of his father Late Kishan Singh and he stayed at the address till 2015. He further deposed that person namely Jai Pal Singh never resided at the above mentioned address.
24. PW19 Amitabh Nandi deposed that he is working as pollution control officer at Rajpur Road Transport Office and further deposed that he had Digitally signed Gaurav by Gaurav Goyal Date:
Goyal 2024.04.02 17:11:19 +0530 STATE Vs. JAI PAL SINGH & ORS. FIR No. 39/2002 PS A. C. BRANCH PAGE NO. 7 / 20 certified the documents of renewal of Rajesh Kumar and Subhash Chand Ex. PW19/A1 and PW19/A2.
25. PW20 Anoop Singh Malik deposed that he was posted as Vigillance officer, Transport Department in the year 2004 when he had received letter dated 06.04.2004 regarding the original file of accused Jai Pal Singh as the then MLO/accused D. S. Chaudhary of Mall Road Authority had informed the ACB that original file of accused Jai Pal was sent to vigilance department vide letter no. F1(MISC)Vig./2000/05.04.2020. He further deposed that on checking no entry vide which the said record was sent by MLO D. S. Chaudhary was found. Thereafter, the witness was crossexamined by Ld. Counsels for accused persons.
26. PW21 Gagan Saggar deposed that he was working as administrative officer in LIC Branch.
27. PW22 Ashok Kumar Matta deposed on similar lines as PW19 and the contents of his testimony are dispensed for the sake of brevity.
28. PW23 Jyoti Tiwari deposed on similar lines as PW19 and PW22 and the contents of her testimony are dispensed for the sake of brevity.
29. PW24 S. P. Marwah deposed that he was the competent authority to remove beldarcumdriver and he had accorded the sanction to prosecute accused Jai Pal Singh.
30. PW25/Retd. ACP Sundar Dev deposed that he was posted as Inspector at ACB on 06.02.2004. He further deposed that he had submitted STATE Vs. JAI PAL SINGH & ORS. FIR No. 39/2002 PS A. C. BRANCH PAGE NO. 8 / 20 Gaurav Digitally signed by Gaurav Goyal Goyal Date: 2024.04.02 17:11:56 +0530 application to transport authorities Civil Lines to provide the details of accused Dharam Singh, Vinod Kumar Singh and Raj Pal. He further deposed that he had seized the properties from Nand Nagri, Depot Training School DTC and he had also seized the training register Ex. PW25/B and had also seized the photocopy of the atttendance register and had also seized the computer print of the LIC Policy No. 120918060 Ex. PW25/B1. He further deposed that accused Jai Pal Singh had given an application for renewal of his driving license without filing his old driving license or the report of its loss in contravention to rules of STA. He further deposed that the documents filed along with the application of accused Jai Pal were also found to be forged. He further submitted that during investigation the original file of accused Jai Pal Singh was not provided to the investigation authority. He further deposed that during investigation it was found that all the three accused persons had entered into a criminal conspiracy to get issued licenses on basis of forged and fabricated documents. Thereafter, the witness was crossexamined by Ld. Counsels for the accused persons.
31. PW26/Retd. ACP Niranjan Singh deposed on similar lines as PW 25 ACP Sunder Dev and the contents of his testimony are dispensed for the sake of brevity.
STATEMENT / DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED :
32. In examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., all the accused persons pleaded their innocence in the present case. However, they did not prefer to lead any evidence in defence.Digitally signed
Gaurav by Gaurav Goyal Date:
Goyal 2024.04.02 17:12:05 +0530 STATE Vs. JAI PAL SINGH & ORS. FIR No. 39/2002 PS A. C. BRANCH PAGE NO. 9 / 20
33. I have heard Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsels for the accused persons and have perused the record.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS :
34. Before proceeding further with discussing the present case on merits, it becomes inevitable to discuss here the settled legal position in criminal cases. It is trite that in criminal jurisprudence, the prosecution is under an obligation to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
The standard of proof to be adopted in criminal cases is not merely of preponderance of probabilities but proof beyond reasonable doubts on the basis of cogent, convincing and reliable evidence. It is also well settled that in case of doubt, the benefit must necessarily be given to the accused. It is also settled position of law that whenever there are two views possible, the view which favour the innocence of the accused is to be accepted by the Court.
35. The offences for which the accused persons have been charged with are Section 420/468/471/120B IPC. So broadly the offences for which the accused persons have been charged with can be divided in three categories i.e.
(i) cheating as punishable U/s 420 IPC,
(ii) forgery as punishable U/s 468/471 IPC
(iii) criminal conspiracy U/s 120B IPC and
(iv) causing disapperance of evidence U/s 201 IPC
36. The first offence for which accused has been charged with is offence under Section 420 IPC. Before proceeding further with the factual position/findings qua commission of the offence U/s 420 IPC, it become STATE Vs. JAI PAL SINGH & ORS. FIR No. 39/2002 PS A. C. BRANCH PAGE NO. 10 / 20 Digitally signed Gaurav by Gaurav Goyal Date:
Goyal 2024.04.02 17:12:15 +0530 inevitable to deal with the basic legal principle as enumerated u/s 420 IPC r/w Section 415 IPC.
37. Section 420 of IPC deals with "cheating" which has been defined in Section 415 of IPC. Section 415 IPC reads as under :
"415. Cheating. Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".
Explanation.A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section."
38. After going through the abovementioned definition U/s 415 IPC it can be deduced that in order to attract allegations of "cheating", following ingredients must exist :
(i) deception of a person;
(ii) (A) fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person,
(a) to deliver any property to any person; or,
(b) to consent that any person shall retain any property, Gaurav Digitally signed by Gaurav Goyal Goyal Date: 2024.04.02 17:12:22 +0530 STATE Vs. JAI PAL SINGH & ORS. FIR No. 39/2002 PS A. C. BRANCH PAGE NO. 11 / 20 (B) intentional inducing that person to do or omit to do any thing,
(a) which he would not do or omit if he was not so deceived, and,
(b) such act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.
39. Section 420 IPC reads as under :
"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."
40. After going through the abovementioned definition as provided U/s 420 IPC, it can be said that in order to attract Section 420 IPC, following essential ingredients must be shown to be existed :
(i) cheating;
(ii) dishonest inducement to deliver property or to make or destroy any valuable security or any thing which is Digitally signed Gaurav by Gaurav Goyal Date:
Goyal 2024.04.02 17:12:31 +0530 STATE Vs. JAI PAL SINGH & ORS. FIR No. 39/2002 PS A. C. BRANCH PAGE NO. 12 / 20 sealed or signed or is capable of being converted into a valuable security; and,
(iii) mens rea of accused at the time of making inducement and which act of omission.
41. After going through the essential legal ingredients which are required to be proved for commission of the offence U/s 420 IPC, the Court deem it fit to discuss here the settled legal principals as decided by Hon'ble Apex Court.
41.1 In Mahadeo Prasad Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1954 SC 724 it was observed that to constitute offence of cheating, intention to deceive should be in existence at the time when inducement was offered.
41.2 In Jaswantrai Manilal Akhaney Vs. State of Bombay, AIR 1956 SC 575, Court said that a guilty intention is an essential ingredient of the offence of cheating. For the offence of cheating, "mens rea" on the part of that person, must be established.
41.3 In G.V. Rao Vs. L.H.V. Prasad and others, 2000(3) SCC 693, Court said that Section 415 has two parts. While in the first part, the person must "dishonestly" or "fraudulently" induce the complainant to deliver any property and in the second part the person should intentionally induce the complainant to do or omit to do a thing. In other words in the first part, inducement must be dishonest or fraudulent while in the second part, inducement should be intentional. Gaurav Digitally signed by Gaurav Goyal Goyal Date: 2024.04.02 17:12:41 +0530 STATE Vs. JAI PAL SINGH & ORS. FIR No. 39/2002 PS A. C. BRANCH PAGE NO. 13 / 20
42. After going through the settled legal principal with respect to commission of cheating and coming to the factual matrix of the case, it is observed by the court that throughout the prosecution evidence it has been established that the accused persons were involved in criminal conspiracy to obtain licenses on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. This court is of the opinion that prosecution has been able to prove commission of offence u/s 420 IPC against all accused persons.
43. The second set of offence for which the accused has been charged with are Sections 468/471 IPC. All these sections punish commission of forgery. Before starting the discussion on the commission of the offence U/s 468/471 IPC, it would be relevant to take note of Section 463 and 464 of IPC which defines commission of offence of forgery.
44. 463 IPC defines "forgery" which reads as under : Whoever makes any false documents or electronic record part of a document or electronic record with, intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.
45. 464 IPC defines "making a false document" which reads as under : A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record Gaurav Digitally signed by Gaurav Goyal Goyal Date: 2024.04.02 17:13:01 +0530 STATE Vs. JAI PAL SINGH & ORS. FIR No. 39/2002 PS A. C. BRANCH PAGE NO. 14 / 20 First Who dishonestly or fraudulently
(a) makes signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;
(c) Affixes any digital signature on any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the digital signature, With the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or digital signature was make, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with digital signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record to affix his digital signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of unsoundness of deception practiced upon him, STATE Vs. JAI PAL SINGH & ORS. FIR No. 39/2002 PS A. C. BRANCH PAGE NO. 15 / 20 Gaurav Digitally signed by Gaurav Goyal Goyal Date: 2024.04.02 17:13:33 +0530 he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alterations.
46. Basic ingredients of the offence under Section 468 and 471 IPC are that there should be forgery under Section 463 and forgery in turn depends upon creation of a false document as defined in Section 464 IPC.
47. Section 471 IPC reads as under :
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].
47.1 As far as commission of the offence U/s 471 IPC is concerned, the Court has observed that the allegations against the accused persons is that they have forged the documents and used the documents as genuine documents.
48. Section 468 IPC provides:
"468. Forgery for purpose of cheating. Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either Gaurav Digitally signed by Gaurav Goyal Goyal Date: 2024.04.02 17:13:42 +0530 STATE Vs. JAI PAL SINGH & ORS. FIR No. 39/2002 PS A. C. BRANCH PAGE NO. 16 / 20 description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
49. To substantiate the commission of offence U/s 468 IPC, the prosecution was duty bound to prove the following ingredients :
1. The accused is found to be possession of some documents.
2. The impugned documents are forged documents.
3. The accused forged these documents and the forgery is for the purpose of cheating.
50. After going through the settled legal principal which are required to prove the commission of the offence of forgery U/s 468 IPC and coming to the factual matrix of the present case, the court deem it fit to mention here that the prosecution case is that accused persons got driving licenses of heavy vehicles after preparing forged and fabricated documents. The documents on the basis of which the driving licenses were found to be forged by the authorities. So, it can be deduced without hesitation that commission of the offence U/s 468/471 IPC has been proved against accused persons.
51. The third set of offence for which the accused has been charged with are Sections 120B IPC. Section 120A of IPC defines criminal conspiracy as :
Section 120A: Definition of criminal conspiracy:When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done Digitally signed Gaurav by Gaurav Goyal Date:
Goyal 2024.04.02 17:13:50 +0530 STATE Vs. JAI PAL SINGH & ORS. FIR No. 39/2002 PS A. C. BRANCH PAGE NO. 17 / 20 (1) and illegal act, or (2) and act, which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof. ExplanationIt is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object.
51.1 Section 120B reads as under :
120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence. (2) Whoever is a party to criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.Digitally signed
Gaurav by Gaurav Goyal Date:
Goyal 2024.04.02 17:13:57 +0530 STATE Vs. JAI PAL SINGH & ORS. FIR No. 39/2002 PS A. C. BRANCH PAGE NO. 18 / 20
52. In Ajay Aggarwal Vs. Union of India & Ors. 1993 (3) SCC 609 Hon'ble Apex Court indicated the conspiracy is having conceived as having three elements: (1) agreement (2) between two or more persons by whom the agreement is effected; and (3) a criminal object, which may be either the ultimate aim of the' agreement, or may constitute the means, or one of the means by which that aim is to be accomplished. It is immaterial whether this is found in the ultimate objects. It is not necessary that each conspirator must know all the details of the scheme nor be a participant at every stage. It is necessary that they should agree for design or object of the conspiracy.
53. In Mohammad Usman Mohammad Hussain Maniyar & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra (1981) 2 SCC 443 it was held that for an offence under Section 120B IPC, the prosecution need not necessarily prove that the conspirator expressly agreed to do or cause to be done the illegal act, the agreement may be proved by necessary implication.
54. In R.K. Dalmia Etc. Vs. Delhi Administration 1963 SCR (1) 253 Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that it is not necessary that each member of a conspiracy must know all the details of conspiracy.
55. To find the accused persons guilty under Section 120B IPC, the prosecution should prove the meeting of minds. However, it is well settled law that conspiracies are often hatched in secracy and direct evidence of conspiracy is seldom available. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2008 had stated that the meeting of minds of the conspirators can be inferred from the circumstances by STATE Vs. JAI PAL SINGH & ORS. FIR No. 39/2002 PS A. C. BRANCH PAGE NO. 19 / 20 Gaurav Digitally signed by Gaurav Goyal Goyal Date: 2024.04.02 17:14:21 +0530 the prosecution if the inference is possible. The conduct of the accused persons in submitting the forged and fabricated documents and the conduct of not verifying the details of the documents submitted at the time of renewal of licenses clearly shows that accused persons had conspired with each other to defraud the State. Accordingly, accused persons are found guilty of offence u/s 120B IPC.
56. The conduct of the accused persons in not sending the file of accused Jai Pal to the Vigilance Department, Mall Road Transport Authority clearly shows that accused persons had the intention to cause disappearance of evidence. Accordingly, accused persons are found guilty of offence u/s 201 IPC.
57. Result of aforesaid discussion is that in the present case, the prosecution has clearly proved the offences against the accused persons. Accordingly, accused Jai Pal Singh, Vinod Sharma and D. S. Chaudhary are held guiltiy and convicted of offences u/s 420/468/471/201/120B IPC.
Digitally signedGaurav by Gaurav Goyal Date:
Goyal 2024.04.02 17:14:54 +0530 ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (Gaurav Goyal) COURT ON 2nd APRIL, 2024 MM06, Central District Tis Hazari Courts/02.04.2024 This judgment consists of 20 pages and each and every page of this judgment is signed by me. Gaurav Digitally signed by Gaurav Goyal Goyal Date: 2024.04.02 17:15:15 +0530 (Gaurav Goyal) MM06, Central District Tis Hazari Courts/02.04.2024 STATE Vs. JAI PAL SINGH & ORS. FIR No. 39/2002 PS A. C. BRANCH PAGE NO. 20 / 20