Delhi District Court
State vs Mahinder Kumar And Ors on 22 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presided over by - Ms. Medha Arya, DJS
Cr. Case No. : 2039798/2016
FIR No. : 423/2000
Police Station : Crime Branch, South Delhi
Section(s) : 419/420/467/468/471/120B IPC
In the matter of -
STATE
Vs.
i) Mahinder Kumar
S/o Sh. Devi Dayal
R/o BG-5/75B
Paschim Vihar
New Delhi.
ii) Subhash Chander Chugh
S/o Sh. Dhan Pal Rai
R/o L-1/101A, DDA Flat
Kalkaji, New Delhi
iii) Jai Prakash Gupta
S/o Late Sh. Amolak Ram
R/o A-39B, Ashok Vihar-I
Delhi
iv) Sri Krishan Goel
S/o Sh. B.M. Goel
R/o C-60A, Gangotri Apartments
Alaknanda, New Delhi
State vs. Mahinder Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 423/2000, PS: Crime Branch-South Page 1 of 39
v) MG Shenoy
S/o Late Sh. Basudev Shenoy
R/o F-459, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi .... Accused
Sh. Amar Chatterjee, the then
1.Name of Complainant : Director (Housing-I), DDA, INA, New Delhi
2. Name of Accused : As above
3. Offence complained of or proved : 419/420/467/468/471/120B IPC
4. Plea of Accused : Not guilty
5. Date of commission of offence : Unknown
6. Date of Filing of case : 26.02.2001
7. Date of Reserving Order : 18.12.2025
8. Date of Pronouncement : 22.12.2025
9. Final Order : Acquitted Argued by - Ld. APP for the State.
Ld. Respective Counsel for the accused.
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored, but they must be established before they are believed."
- Aldous Huxley In the present case, the prosecution has rested its case on conjectures and unproven assumptions, while failing to establish the foundational facts necessary to bring home the guilt of the accused. Material witnesses were not examined, crucial documentary evidence was withheld, and the chain of circumstances sought to be relied upon remains incomplete and riddled with gaps. As such therefore, the Court is constrained to hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
State vs. Mahinder Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 423/2000, PS: Crime Branch-South Page 2 of 39BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION FACTUAL MATRIX -
1. In the year 1982, one Vinod Kumar Sharma, a registrant under the 5th SFS Scheme of the DDA, was allotted a flat in Paschimpuri, New Delhi. The said allotment was subsequently cancelled at his request, and he also paid the requisite cancellation charges. Thereafter, another application in his name was received by the DDA for allotment of a flat, pursuant whereto flat No. 18, Category II, Sector-8, Jasola (hereinafter "the flat in question") was allotted to him vide allotment letter dated 22.02.1994, at an estimated cost of Rs.6,53,000/-. A final demand letter dated 30.09.1998 was thereafter issued in respect of the flat in question for a total amount of Rs.10,29,200/- The said demand letter, however, was never received by the allottee, although payments towards the flat continued to be made by him. Vide letter dated 12.02.1999, he was called upon by the DDA to explain the reason for making such payments without having received the demand letter, but no response was received from him. Subsequently, on 31.05.1999, he wrote to the DDA requesting that the demand letter be issued at his changed address, i.e., H-151, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi. The demand letter was thereafter also issued at the said address. In the meantime, by virtue of a DDA scheme dated 31.03.1999, the price of the flat in question was re-adjusted, and it was found that a sum of Rs.2,11,181/- had been paid by the allottee in excess. A refund cheque for the said amount was issued in his favour. The possession letter of the flat in question was also handed over to the SPA holder of the allottee, namely, Smt. Vijay Kulkarni. Subsequently, it came to light that the second allotment letter, the SPA and other related documents were forged. A State vs. Mahinder Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 423/2000, PS: Crime Branch-South Page 3 of 39complaint to this effect was lodged by Sh. Amar Chatterjee, Director (Housing-I), DDA with the DCP, Crime/EOW. On the basis of the said complaint, the present FIR was registered and investigation commenced. During investigation, it emerged that the address H-151, Sarita Vihar, to which the request for change of address had been made and where the demand letter was re-sent, belonged to accused SK Goel, who had executed a lease agreement in favour of the allottee for a period of 11 months to facilitate the receipt of DDA communications at that address. It further surfaced that the refund pertaining to the flat in question had been processed by DDA officials on the basis of a forged request letter purportedly issued by the allottee on 16.09.1999. Before processing the refund, accused Mahinder Kumar and JP Gupta, being the Accountant and Accounts Officer respectively in DDA, failed to obtain approval from the competent authority. In fact, the refund file of the allottee was processed by various DDA officials on the very same day at the instance of accused Mahinder Kumar, JP Gupta and SC Chugh, who was then serving as Assistant Director, SFS Management Wing, DDA.
2. The aforesaid three accused, all DDA officials at the relevant time, processed the refund for reduction of cost in respect of the flat in question and caused issuance of the refund cheque at the address of co-accused SK Goel, a property dealer, without verifying the genuineness of the documents submitted in the name of the allottee, especially the fact that the address to which the refund cheque was issued belonged to accused SK Goel.
3. Investigation further revealed that accused SK Goel had connived with accused MG Shenoy, the then Branch Manager of Corporation Bank, State vs. Mahinder Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 423/2000, PS: Crime Branch-South Page 4 of 39Sarita Vihar, to open a bank account in the name of the original allottee on the basis of forms filled and signed by SK Goel, who forged the signatures of Vinod Kumar Sharma on the account opening form and affixed the photograph of his servant Ratan Singh thereon. The said account opening form was also signed by accused SK Goel as the introducer. During investigation, it was found that Ratan Singh had never visited the concerned bank branch and the account had been opened without his knowledge or authority; hence, he was retained in Column No. 2 of the charge-sheet.
4. A charge-sheet was accordingly filed against the remaining accused persons, namely Mahinder Kumar, SC Chugh, JP Gupta, SK Goel and MG Shenoy, for offences punishable under Sections 409/419/420/467/468/471/ 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, the "IPC").
5. After the filing of the charge-sheet, the Court took cognizance of the offences disclosed therein. Summons were issued to the aforesaid accused persons to face trial. Upon their appearance, they were supplied copies of the charge-sheet and all relied upon documents in compliance with Section 207 CrPC. After arguments on the point of charge, vide order dated 30.06.2010, charge for the offences punishable under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/120 B IPC was framed against the accused persons. Proceedings then progressed to the stage of PE.
6. In support of its version, prosecution has examined 14 witnesses:
PW Name Nature of Testimony
PW1 Ms. Nirmala S. She testified that the sheet containing
State vs. Mahinder Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 423/2000, PS: Crime Branch-South Page 5 of 39
Nayyar specimen signatures of Vinod Kumar
Advocate/Notary
Sharma, affidavit of Vinod Kumar Sharma
Public
purportedly notarized on 24.02.1999, SPA
purportedly notarized on 05.11.1999,
affidavit, SPA and undertaking of Vinod
Kumar Sharma, all purportedly notarized on 21.04.1999, Ex PW1/1 to Ex PW1/7, were never notarized by her, and her seal and signatures on all the documents are forged.
She further stated that the IO had obtained her specimen seal and signatures on documents Ex PW1/8 to Ex PW1/13. She further accepted as correct the suggestion, put to her by Ld. APP for State, that she had informed the IO that in the year 1998, she had lost her stamps. She was duly cross-
examined and discharged.
PW2 Sh. Vinod Kumar He testified that in the year 1999 and 2000, Sharma IO had shown him DDA file/documents i.e. Original allottee of the flat in question application for execution of conveyance deed dated 17.05.1999 (Ex PW2/2), application for demand letter dated 31.05.1999 (Ex PW2/3) and letter dated 16.06.1999 (Ex PW2/4) addressed to Lok Shivir, DDA, Vikas Sadan, INA, and stated that he found the same to be containing his State vs. Mahinder Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 423/2000, PS: Crime Branch-South Page 6 of 39forged signatures. He stated that the bank account opening form of Corporation Bank was also shown to him by the IO, Ex PW2/1, and on the same, photograph of some third person was found to be affixed.
Even in Court, he denied his signatures on the said documents.
PW3 Sh. V.D. Arora He testified that on 21.02.2001, he was The then Dy.
posted as Deputy Finance Adviser, Financial Advisor, Housing, DDA (Housing), DDA at Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi. He testified that IO had shown him file bearing no. F178(III)94/SFS/JL/II pertaining to allottee Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, and he recognized the signatures of all the concerned DDA officials of Housing Wing, Management Wing, and Accounts Wing there. He testified that the conveyance deed dated 05.11.1999, Ex. PW3/1, bears the signatures of Sh. SC Chugh, application dated 31.05.1999, which is Ex. PW3/B, and the application dated 16.09.1999, the application pertaining to execution of conveyance deed against flat no. 18-T, Block 8 Jasola, Ex PW2/2, all contained the signatures of accused SC Chugh. He further testified that the noting portion of the State vs. Mahinder Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 423/2000, PS: Crime Branch-South Page 7 of 39aforementioned file from page no. 1 to 5, Ex PW3/2 (Colly), bear the signatures of accused Mahinder Kumar and accused JP Gupta at point A and B respectively at each page. He also testified that the letter dated 24.09.1999, Ex PW3/3 bears the signatures of accused Mahinder Kumar. He further deposed that the bill no. 86 Ex PW3/4 also bears the signatures of accused Mahinder Kumar. He testified that the revised demand letter dated 21.09.1999, Ex PW3/5 and the final calculation sheet, Ex PW3/6 as well as the revised sheet at page 11, Ex PW3/7, the BCI sheet at page no. 10, Ex PW3/8, the letter dated 18.09.1999, Ex PW3/9, the 5th and final instalment sheet Ex PW3/10, all by the signatures of accused Mahinder Kumar and JP Gupta at points A and points B respectively of the said documents. He testified that the calculation sheet Ex PW3/11 bears the signatures of accused Mahinder Kumar at point A thereof. He also testified that the 5th and final demand letter dated 30.09.1998 Ex PW3/12 also bears the signatures of accused Mahinder Kumar. He testified that he could identify the signatures State vs. Mahinder Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 423/2000, PS: Crime Branch-South Page 8 of 39of all the accused persons on the aforesaid documents as he had seen them signing and writing during the course of his employment. He further testified that the relevant account codes were required to be followed by the accountee and the Accounts Officer in the day-to-day functioning of DDA. He testified that it was the duty of the accused persons to ensure that the request of refund of excess payment was received by the original allottee. He also testified that the accused persons were directed to follow the policy dated 31.03.1999 in the correct manner, and as per the said policy, only cases where the demanded payment was deposited prior to 22.08.1996, but the possession letter was not issued, could have been reopened under the said policy. He also testified that it was the duty of the Accounts Officer to send the refund cheque to the original allottee at his genuine address.
PW4 Sh. Devendra He testified that in the month of January Bhushan Gupta 2001, he was posted as Commissioner The then Commissioner, (Housing) DDA and IO had recorded his Housing, DDA statement, during which he informed the IO State vs. Mahinder Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 423/2000, PS: Crime Branch-South Page 9 of 39that the competent authority for restoration of cancelled flats and for refund of money as per Regulation 3 of DDA Regulation is the Vice-Chairman of DDA, but the latter can delegate his powers to any officer under his authority. He testified that no formal delegation order has been found, but in practice, it was being dealt by Financial Advisor (Housing) at the relevant time as far as refunds were concerned. He testified that Joint Financial Advisor (Housing) was not authorized for refunds. He also testified that Financial Advisor (Housing) could not have sub delegated his powers, as per rules, to anybody else. He further testified that any refunds made at the level of Joint Financial Advisor (Housing) or below were wrong. He testified that the note on the DDA file bearing no. F178(III)94/SFS/JL/II in the name of Vinod Kumar Sharma for taking permission of Vice-Chairman, DDA for referring the matter to the police was dictated by him.
PW5 Sh. Amar Chatterjee He proved his complaint, Ex PW5/A. He The then Director, stated that the original allotment of the flat Housing-I, DDA in question was made to Sh. Vinod Kumar State vs. Mahinder Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 423/2000, PS: Crime Branch-South Page 10 of 39Sharma, but the possession was handed over to his SPA Sh. Vijay Kulkarni, which SPA document was later found to be forged. He also stated that the address of the allottee was changed to Sarita Vihar on record on the basis of a fake request letter, and the said address of Sarita Vihar actually belonged to SK Goel, who managed to get his refund cheque in his possession. He testified that he handed over original file no.
F178(III)94/SFS/JL/II, 146(34)93/
SFS/PA/II and HAU-IX F178
(III)94/SFS/JL/II which were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex PW5/B. PW6 ASI Bijender He testified that on 11.11.2000, ASI Sanjeev Formal witness prepared the tehrir on the complaint of Sh.
Amar Chatterjee and handed it over to him for registration of the FIR, and he accordingly got the FIR registered. He further testified that on 13.11.2000, he had gone to the DDA office, Vikas Sadan, where Sh. Amar Chatterjee had handed over some DDA files to IO Sanjeev Kumar. He also testified that on 04.12.2000, certain documents were seized by IO ASI Sanjeev from accused MG Shenoy, who had gone to State vs. Mahinder Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 423/2000, PS: Crime Branch-South Page 11 of 39the EO office, vide seizure memo Ex PW6/A. PW7 ASI Bijender Kumar He testified that on 12.02.2001, SI Manoj Formal witness Kumar arrested accused SK Goel and prepared his arrest memo and personal search memos Ex. PW7/A and Ex PW7/B, in his presence. He testified that on 19.02.2001, IO SI Manoj Kumar had obtained the specimen signatures of Smt. NS Nayyar, Notari Public in his presence, being Ex PW1/8 and Ex PW1/9. He also testified that the IO had obtained the impression of her stamps in his presence, Ex PW1/10 to Ex PW1/13. He also testified that on 12.02.2001, the IO had obtained the specimen signature and handwriting of accused SK Goel Ex PW7/C. He correctly identified accused SK Goel in his testimony.
PW8 ACP Anil Kumar He stated that he had moved an application Formal witness for extension of JC remand of accused persons namely, Mahinder Kumar, JP Gupta and SC Chugh.
PW9 ACP JS Mishra He testified that he joined the investigation of the case with IO SI Manoj on 12.02.2001, and in his presence, IO arrested State vs. Mahinder Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 423/2000, PS: Crime Branch-South Page 12 of 39accused SK Goel from his residence. He deposed that IO discharged the codal formalities such as recording of disclosure statement of the accused (Ex PW9/A) etc. in his presence.
PW10 Retd. Insp. Manoj He testified that the investigation of the case Kumar Agarwal was marked to him in the first week of IO February 2001. He testified that he arrested accused SK Goel and recorded his disclosure statement, Ex PW9/A. He testified that during investigation, Notary Public Nirmala Nayyar stated that she never notarized the documents Ex PW1/1 to Ex PW1/7. He also testified that he had obtained the relevant documents regarding the bank account opened in the name of allottee Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma with Corporation Bank vide seizure memo Ex PW10/A, and deposited the same with the specimen signatures and thumb impressions of the aforesaid allottee with the FSL. He testified that the bank account opening form had the photograph of one Ratan Singh affixed thereon, but the latter denied ever opening the bank account with Corporation Bank. He testified that as per the advice of State vs. Mahinder Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 423/2000, PS: Crime Branch-South Page 13 of 39senior officers, he did not charge-sheet the aforesaid Ratan Singh and retained him in the column of suspect. He further testified that he formally arrested accused MG Shenoy and released him on personal bond as Ex. PW10/B. Accused MG Shenoy filed the surety bond as Ex.PW10/C. He also stated that the original DDA management file of the allottee was seized by SI Sanjeev Kumar vide seizure memo Ex PW5/B, which file is Ex PW10/X. PW11 Ms. Ila Singh She stated that she was posted as Financial The then Financial Adviser, Housing at DDA between April Advisor, Housing, DDA 1996 to October 2000. She was shown the original file of DDA bearing number F178(III)94/ SFS/JL/II, and testified that the said file was never marked to FA, Housing, and therefore, she is not in a position to testify anything with regards to the same.
PW12 Retd. ACP Virender He testified that on 11.11.2000, further Kumar investigation of the case was marked to Second IO him. He recorded the statements of witnesses Sh. Amar Chatterjee, SI Sanjeev, Ct Vijender, Vinod Kumar Sharma and accused MG Shenoy u/s 161 CrPC. He also testified that he arrested accused SC Chugh, State vs. Mahinder Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 423/2000, PS: Crime Branch-South Page 14 of 39Mahindar Kumar, and Jai Prakash Gupta vide memos Ex PW12/A, Ex PW12/B and Ex PW12/C. He also testified that on 04.12.2000, he had gone along with Ct.
Vijendra to Corporation Bank, Sarita Vihar branch, where he met Branch Manager MG Shenoy, who handed over to him the original account opening form of Vinod Kumar Sharma.
PW13 ACP Sanjeev Kumar He testified that on 11.11.2000, he prepared Formal witness the rukka Ex PW13/A, and also proved the FIR, Ex PW13/B. He also stated that on 13.11.2000, he along with Ct. Virender, had gone to the office of complainant Sh. Amar Chatterjee, and had seized the DDA file of the allottee vide seizure memo Ex PW5/B. PW14 ACP VKPS Yadav He testified that on 06.03.2002, the present Third IO case was assigned to him. He testified that during investigation, Sunil Kumar i.e. employee of Corporation Bank was produced before him, and he produced the photocopy of handbook of instructions related to directions of opening the account, which was taken on record by him and same is Ex PW14/A. State vs. Mahinder Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 423/2000, PS: Crime Branch-South Page 15 of 397. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, separate statements of all the accused were recorded under Section 313 CrPC, wherein they claimed to be innocent and denied the allegations levelled against them. Accused Mahinder, SC Chugh, and Jai Prakash Gupta out-rightly denied the allegations that they had processed the allotment file of Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, knowing that it contains forged documents. All of them stated that the witnesses have deliberately deposed false against them, and their testimonies do not correlate with the record of the case. Accused SK Goel stated that the original allottee had approached him in his capacity as a property dealer, for he wanted to sell the flat he had been allotted, through one property dealer Hari Prakash Garg. He stated that the documents in favour of the purchaser Sh. Vijay Kulkarni were duly executed by the allottee, after he was paid the consideration amount. He further stated that the bank account opening form was filled by allottee Vinod Kumar Sharma, who had also affixed his photograph on the same, and he is not aware how the photograph of Ratan Singh, with whom he had never been acquainted, came to be affixed on the said form. Accused MG Shenoy stated that the bank account opening form was duly filled by allottee Vinod Kumar Sharma in his presence, and was signed by SK Goel as an introducer. He stated that introducer SK Goel had also given a letter to the bank regarding the identity of the allottee. He stated that the bank account in the name of the allottee was opened in proper procedure. On specific query, accused Mahinder, JP Gupta and SC Chugh opted to lead DE in the affirmative. Proceedings accordingly progressed to the stage of recording DE.
8. At the stage of DE, the following DWs were examined:
State vs. Mahinder Kumar & Ors.FIR No. 423/2000, PS: Crime Branch-South Page 16 of 39
DW Name Nature of Testimony DW1 Sh. Prahlad Narayan He produced the letter of the then Meena Financial Advisor (Housing), DDA JA/Ahlmad in the Court of the undersigned from judicial file in FIR No. 422/2000 and letter dated 08.12.2000 of then Commissioner (H), DDA addressed to DCP, EOW, Delhi Police as available from judicial file in FIR No.433/2000 as Ex. DW1/1 and Ex.DW1/2 respectively.
DW2 Sh. Shubham Singh He produced the posting order of Asstt. Accounts Officer, accused JP Gupta, Accounts Officer DDA for the year 1991-2000 Ex. DW2/1 (OSR) and posting order of accused Mahinder Kumar, Asst. Accounts Officer, DDA, Ex.DW2/2 (OSR).
DW3 Sh. Nitin Kumar Sharma He produced the posting order of Sr. Secretariat Assistant, accused SC Chugh, Assistant Director DDA from the office of DDA, pertaining to the year 1991-2000, Ex. DW3/1 (OSR).
DW4 Sh. Rohit Sachdeva He produced the copy of letter dated Dy. Financial Advisor, 09.11.2006 from the file bearing no.
DDA JT.FA (H)-I/RTI05/3853/233 issued by the office of the then Deputy State vs. Mahinder Kumar & Ors.FIR No. 423/2000, PS: Crime Branch-South Page 17 of 39
Financial Advisor in reply to the RTI application of accused Mohinder Kumar, Ex. DW4/1 (OSR).
DW5 Sh. Aniraj Kumar He produced the copy of the JA/Ahlmad application filed by the prosecution in FIR NO. 483/2000 titled as State vs Jai Prakash and Ors. u/s 311 Cr.PC on 08.03.2018, Ex. DW5/1 (Colly).
DW6 Sh. Ashok Kumar He produced the letter dated (Housing-I) 08.04.2008 under RTI to Mahinder Kumar to DDA bearing no. F.22 (101) 2005-06 / Housing/ A/CS/ COORDINATION/75 and its reply dated 13.05.2008 bearing no.
2047/PIO/D (H)-I/08/2640 of DDA to Mahinder Kumar as Ex.DW6/1.
DW7 Sh. Deepak He produced the copy of the order JSA, SFS, Housing dated 17.11.1999 issued from the Branch, DDA office of the then Joint Director (SFS), DDA as provided to accused SC Chugh vide reply dated 05.02.2018 under RTI, Ex.DW7/2 (Colly).
DW8 Sh. Chirag Gautam He brought on record the closure JJA/Asstt. Ahlmad in the report filed by the IO after Court of Ld. CJM, South-
State vs. Mahinder Kumar & Ors.FIR No. 423/2000, PS: Crime Branch-South Page 18 of 39
East, Saket investigation of FIR no. 157/93, Ex DW8/1 (Colly).
9. Proceedings then progressed to the stage of final arguments.
Arguments heard. Record, including written submissions filed by accused persons, perused. Considered.
RELEVANT LEGAL POSITIONS
10. Before proceeding further, it shall be apposite to discuss the relevant legal provisions which are pertinent for the adjudication of the controversies involved in the present case:
Sections 101 and 106 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872
11. It is trite that burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt is on the prosecution, and the prosecution is required to traverse the distance between "may have" and "must have". This can be surmised from Section 101 of Evidence Act. As per 106 of the aforesaid enactment, the burden of proving any specific fact which is within the knowledge of the accused is on the accused.
Reasonable Doubt
12. Prosecution is required to prove its case against the accused persons beyond every reasonable doubt, and not beyond every doubt. The meaning of expression "Reasonable Doubt" has been explained by the Hon'ble Apex State vs. Mahinder Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 423/2000, PS: Crime Branch-South Page 19 of 39Court in Latesh @ Dadu Baburao Karlekar Vs. The State of Maharashtra, (2018) 3 SCC 66 thus:
"In our opinion, an ingenious mind can question anything and, on the other hand, there is nothing which it cannot convince. When you consider the facts, you have a reasonable doubt as to whether the matter is proved or whether it is not a reasonable doubt in this sense. The reasonableness of a doubt must be a practical one and not on an abstract theoretical hypothesis. Reasonableness is a virtue that forms as a mean between excessive caution and excessive indifference to a doubt."
Sections 419 and 420 IPC
13. The offence of cheating is defined in Section 415 IPC, and Section 419 IPC provides for the punishment of cheating by way of impersonation. Section 420 IPC provides for the offence of cheating and dishonestly inducing the delivery of any property. It provides that where one person has fraudulently or dishonestly induced another person by deceiving him, and the person so deceived delivers any property to any person, or consents that any person shall retain any property, he is said to commit the offence of cheating. It is also cheating if the person so induced has been intentionally induced to do or to omit to do anything which he would not have done or omitted to do if he were not so deceived. The scope of section 420 IPC was succinctly explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its recent pronouncement titled Professor RK Vijayasarthi Vs. Sudha Sitaraman 2019 16 SCC 739, wherein it was held as follows:
"18. Section 420 of the Penal Code reads thus:
"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 State vs. Mahinder Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 423/2000, PS: Crime Branch-South Page 20 of 39part 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."
19. The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 420 are as follows:
19.1. A person must commit the offence of cheating under Section 415; and 19.2. The person cheated must be dishonestly induced to
(a) deliver property to any person; or
(b) make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security.
20. Cheating is an essential ingredient for an act to constitute an offence under Section 420."
Section 197 CrPC
14. Section 197 CrPC provides for the requirement of Sanction for prosecuting a public servant w.r.t. an offence alleged to have been committed by acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. In the case at hand, accused persons Mahinder Kumar, SC Chugh and JP Gupta were employed with DDA, at the time of registration of subject FIR. However, as it has been alleged that they committed the offence punishable u/s 419/420/467/468/471/120B IPC, there was no requirement of Sanction u/s 197 CrPC for prosecuting them for the offences alleged. At this juncture, reliance can be placed on the pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court titled in Punjab State Warehousing Co. vs. Bhushan Chander and Anr. AIR 2016 SC 3014, wherein it has been held that:
"A survey of the precedents makes it absolutely clear that there has to be reasonable connection between the omission or commission and the discharge of official duty or the act committed was under the colour of the office held by the official. If the acts omission or commission is totally alien to the discharge of the official duty, question of invoking Section 197 CrPC does not arise. We have already reproduced few State vs. Mahinder Kumar & Ors.FIR No. 423/2000, PS: Crime Branch-South Page 21 of 39
passages from the impugned order from which it is discernible that to arrive at the said conclusion the learned Single Judge has placed reliance on the authority in B. Saha's (supra). The conclusion is based on the assumption that the allegation is that while being a public servant, the alleged criminal breach of trust was committed while he was in public service. Perhaps the learned Judge has kept in his mind some kind of concept relating to dereliction of duty. The issue was basically entrustment and missing of the entrusted items. There is no dispute that the prosecution had to prove the case. But the public servant cannot put forth a plea that he was doing the whole act as a public servant. Therefore, it is extremely difficult to appreciate the reasoning of the High Court. As is noticeable he has observed that under normal circumstances the offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC may be of such nature that obtaining of sanction under Section 197 CrPC is not necessary but when the said offences are interlinked with an offence under Section 409 IPC sanction under Section 197 for launching the prosecution for the offence under Section 409 is a condition precedent. The approach and the analysis are absolutely fallacious. We are afraid, though the High Court has referred to all the relevant decisions in the field, yet, it has erroneously applied the principle in an absolute fallacious manner. No official can put forth a claim that breach of trust is connected with his official duty. Be it noted the three-Judge Bench in B. Saha (supra) has distinguished in Shreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli (supra) keeping in view the facts of the case. It had also treated the ratio in Amrik Singh (supra) to be confined to its own peculiar facts. The test to be applied, as has been stated by Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J. in the Constitution Bench in Matajog Dube (supra) which we have reproduced hereinbefore. The three-Judge Bench in B. Saha (supra) applied the test laid down in Gill's case wherein Lord Simonds has reiterated that the test may well be whether the public servant, if challenged, can reasonably claim, that what he does, he does in virtue of his office."
Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC
15. Section 467 IPC provides for the punishment for forging a valuable security or a Will. Section 468 IPC provides for the punishment for the offence of forgery, where such forgery is committed with the intention of forged document for the offence of cheating. Section 471 IPC provides that any person who uses as genuine a forged document shall be punished in the State vs. Mahinder Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 423/2000, PS: Crime Branch-South Page 22 of 39same manner as if they had forged the document themselves. What is a forged document is itself defined in Section 464 IPC. For the purposes of the case instant, a person can be said to forge a document if he dishonestly or fraudulently makes, signs, seals, or executes a document or part of document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted, or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed. In the case Md. Ibrahim and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Anr. (2009) 8 SCC 751, it was held that:
"a person is said to have made a 'false document', if
(i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorised by someone else; or
(ii) he altered or tampered a document; or
(iii) he obtained a document by practicing deception, or from a person not in control of his senses."
Section 120B IPC
16. Section 120A IPC defines the offence of conspiracy, and punishment for the same is provided u/s 120B IPC. In Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Solanki vs. State of Gujarat (2013) 1 SCC 613, the scope of offence punishable u/s 120B IPC was explained thus:
"23. In the said case it has been highlighted that in the case of conspiracy there cannot be any direct evidence. The ingredients of offence are that there should be an agreement between persons who are alleged to conspire and the said agreement should be for doing an illegal act or for doing by illegal means an act which itself may not be illegal. Therefore, the essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both, and it is a matter of State vs. Mahinder Kumar & Ors.FIR No. 423/2000, PS: Crime Branch-South Page 23 of 39
common experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available. Therefore, the circumstances proved before, during and after the occurrence have to be considered to decide about the complicity of the accused."
Section 313 CrPC
17. Statement of the accused u/s 313 CrPC is also relevant for the Court while deciding a case, and the opportunity accorded to accused to explain the incriminatory material brought on record by prosecution, is an opportunity to cast incredulity upon such material. Where the statement of the accused provides links or aids the case of prosecution, the same can also be considered by the Court while finally adjudicating the case. Reliance at this juncture can be placed on Md. Aslam vs State, CRL. A. No. 214/2016, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi (DOD 25.04.2016), wherein it was held as under:
"6.47 Answers given in statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. have also some relevance. Though, such statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. is not a substantive piece of evidence since it is not recorded on oath nor it is subjected to any cross examination, yet such statement can, be taken into consideration, at the trial, against the accused for the purpose of arriving at the guilt or otherwise of the accused. Since no oath is administered to the accused, the statements made by the accused will not be, strictly speaking, evidence. Sub-section (3) also says that the accused shall not render himself liable to punishment if he give false answer. But, then comes sub-section (4), which provides that answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial, and put in evidence for or against him in any other inquiry into, or trial for, any other offence which such answers may tend to show he has committed. Thus, the answers given by the accused, in response to his examination, under Section 313, can be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial. This much is clear on a plain reading of the above sub-section. Therefore, though not strictly construed as evidence, sub- section (4) permits that it may be taken into consideration in the said inquiry or trial. However, such self- incriminating statement indicting co-accused cannot be said to be sufficient in itself. The court can rely State vs. Mahinder Kumar & Ors.FIR No. 423/2000, PS: Crime Branch-South Page 24 of 39
on a portion of the statement of the accused and find him guilty but such statement should not be considered in isolation but always in conjunction with evidence adduced by the prosecution. Reference be made to SANATAN NASKER VS. STATE OF BENGAL AIR 2010 SC 3570."
Circumstantial Evidence
18. In the absence of direct evidence, guilt of accused can be established through circumstantial evidences, provided they form a chain of facts complete in all respects. The locus classicus on the law of circumstantial evidence is the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled Sharad Birdichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra 1984 AIR SC 1622, wherein it has been held as under:
"(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved' as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra where the following observations were made:
"Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions."
(2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say. they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of State vs. Mahinder Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 423/2000, PS: Crime Branch-South Page 25 of 39the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
19. The facts of the case shall be analyzed through the prism of the legal position enunciated above.
In Re: ACCUSED MAHINDER KUMAR, SC CHUGH, AND JP GUPTA
20. At the outset, it merits to be adjudicated if the accused have been wrongly prosecuted, for want of appropriate sanction u/s 197 CrPC against them, as argued. Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in B. Saha Vs. M.S Kochar (1979) 4 SCC 177, where an act constituting an offence is directly and reasonably connected with the offical duty of an accused, the said accused cannot be prosecuted without a valid sanction for prosecution. However, given the position of law discussed in the foregoing portions of this judgment, that where an offence such as one punishable u/s 419/420/467/468/471/120B IPC has been alleged against public servants, which offences cannot be said to have been committed by them in discharge of their official duties, there is no requirement for a prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC for prosecuting such public servants, the case of prosecution cannot be discarded merely for want of such sanction. The objection taken by the aforesaid accused that the prosecution against them is bad in law for want of proper sanction can thus, be set at a naught.
21. The subject proceedings have been initiated not at the complaint of State vs. Mahinder Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 423/2000, PS: Crime Branch-South Page 26 of 39the allottee Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, but at the complaint of Sh. Amar Chatterjee/PW5. As per the subject-line of the said complaint Ex PW5/A, the flat in question was fraudulently allotted to the allottee. The complaint describes how there were discrepancies in the multiple allotment letters received by DDA from the allottee Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, pertaining to his residential address, despite which the flat was allotted in his favour. It is alleged that not only the said documents were suspicious, but the letter requesting refund was also fake, despite which it was processed. It is alleged that accused JP Gupta and Mahinder that they processed the said documents, and basis the said fake conveyance documents as well as SPA purportedly executed by Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma in favour of one Sh. Vijay Kulkarni, handed over the possession letter of the flat in question to the latter. The transfer and posting orders of the accused persons, Ex DW2/1, Ex DW2/2 and Ex DW3/1, contents of which are uncontroverted, conclusively establish that accused persons were not posted in the relevant departments when the flat in question was allotted to the allottee Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma. For any discrepancies in the applications for allotment received from him, and the fact that they were ignored when he was allotted the flat in question, liability cannot be affixed upon the accused. In fact, the allegation that the accused were responsible for fraudulent allotment of the flat to the allottee appears to be manifestly wrong in view of the admission of PW5 Sh. Amar Chatterjee in his cross-examination to the effect that the accused had no role to play in the allotment, which was done through a computerized draw of lots.
22. Case of prosecution against accused Mahinder Kumar, SC Chugh and JP Gupta is that they processed a fake request letter dated 16.09.1999 in the State vs. Mahinder Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 423/2000, PS: Crime Branch-South Page 27 of 39name of allottee Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, and recommended for the reduction of cost without specific approval of the Competent Authority i.e. Commissioner (Housing)/Vice Chairman DDA. It is also alleged against him that the process for issuance of refund was completed by them with undue haste, with a view to cause wrongful loss to DDA, in connivance co- accused SK Goel, at whose address the refund cheque was issued.
23. The case of prosecution to the effect that the letter seeking refund of excess amount received at DDA was forged is itself doubtful. Pertinently, the subject proceedings were initiated at the complaint of Sh. Amar Chatterjee, the then Director (Housing-I), DDA, and not at the behest of the allottee himself. When the allottee was examined by the prosecution as PW2, in his examination in chief, he stated that the refund letter Ex. PW2/4 does not bear his signatures. In his cross-examination, even with respect to the conveyance documents executed in his name in favour of Sh. Vijay Kulkarni, he gave a vague answer. He stated that the signatures on the said documents do not appear to be his, but shied away from categorically denying them. He admitted that he had sold the property ahead to his friend, but did not give any details of such friend to whom he had sold the property. Be that as it may, since he admitted having sold the property in question ahead, there is no reason to hold that the conveyance documents do not contain his genuine signatures. If that be so, the case of prosecution that accused Mahinder Kumar and JP Gupta ought to have suspected that the signatures of the allottee on the documents are not genuine does not sustain.
24. Even as regards the refund request letter dated 16.09.1999 Ex.
State vs. Mahinder Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 423/2000, PS: Crime Branch-South Page 28 of 39PW2/4, the version of PW2 to the effect that the said letter does not seem to bear his signatures cannot be accepted to be truthful, given the fact that the witness has otherwise given vague answers to the questions put to him. In fact, in his cross-examination, the witness stated that he does not remember if he had signed any blank documents while selling the property in question ahead. He also stated that at no point during the investigation did the IO obtain his sample signatures. He admitted that he never gave any specific statement to the police regarding the subject proceedings, and only answered the questions put to him. The vague nature of his testimony renders it unreliable, and it cannot be held, beyond reasonable doubt, only on the basis of his testimony, that the refund letter Ex. PW2/4 is forged. The possibility that the witness at least voluntarily signed a blank document, which was later converted to the refund letter, cannot be discounted. The accused persons cannot be faulted for believing the signatures on the said documents to be genuine. This is more so in view of the FSL report which has remained inconclusive as regards the aforesaid document.
25. As regards the case of prosecution that the refund was wrongly processed in the name of the allottee, testimony of PW5 Sh. Amar Chhaterjee is instructive. In his cross-examination, he categorically admitted that the refund cheque had to be processed in the name of the original allottee in the light of the policy of DDA dated 31.03.1999, since the allottee had deposited his due amount as per the 5 th SFS scheme by 22.08.1996. In his testimony, PW3 Sh. VD Arora deposed that since the possession letter had already been issued in the name of the allottee prior to 31.03.1999, he was not entitled to any refund. However, in his cross- examination, the witness admitted that no such distinction is contained in State vs. Mahinder Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 423/2000, PS: Crime Branch-South Page 29 of 39the aforesaid policy. From the testimonies of the two witnesses, it can be surmised that the refund was not wrongly processed by the accused persons.
26. At this juncture, the testimony of PW11 Smt. Ila Singh, the then Financial Advisor (Housing), DDA is also relevant. In her cross- examination, she admitted that in her noting Ex. PW11/D1, pertaining to the cases of Sh. Himmata Ram, Ms. Harmeet Kaur and Sh. Gulshan Lal, dated 02.09.1999, she had stated that the policy dated 31.03.1999 contains no differentiation between cases where the demand letter has been issued or possession letter has been issued, and the refund was required to be processed in all such cases uniformly. She stated in her testimony that in view of the noting, the refund in the present case had to be processed as per the policy dated 31.03.1999, and the officers of the Accounts Wing of DDA were not required to verify before processing such refunds if the possession was handed over or not to the allottee. In view of the categorical testimony of PW11 to this effect, it stands established that the allottee in the case in hand was entitled to a refund, and as such, the accused persons did not wrongly process the same.
27. No prosecution witness has testified that the refund was incorrectly computed. In fact, the computation sheets are part of the original management file proved by PW10/IO Inspector Dr. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal Ex. PW10/X, and well explain the manner in which the refund was computed.
28. Having observed that the allottee was indeed entitled to a refund, and that the refund was also correctly computed, it shall now be examined if the State vs. Mahinder Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 423/2000, PS: Crime Branch-South Page 30 of 39aforesaid accused deliberately sent the refund cheque to the residence of co- accused SK Goel, knowing that the allottee does not stay there. In this regard, it is to be noted that PW4 Sh. DB Gupta, the then Commissioner (Housing), DDA admitted in his testimony that in the case at hand, the refund was sent to the allottee by way of an account payee cheque. Therefore, it is observed that the accused persons took due care to ensure that the cheque may be encashed by the allottee himself. In the preceding paragraphs of this judgment, it has been observed already that the refund request letter possibly contained the genuine signatures of the allottee. The refund cheque was sent to the allottee at the address mentioned on the letter. The same was also done as per the policy of DDA which required the accused persons to issue the cheque at the last address of the allottee on the record. Now, PW5 Sh. Amar Chatterjee admitted in his cross-examination that the application for change of address used to be given during public hearings. Even the letter Ex. PW2/4 for refund, which contains the address on which the refund cheque was issued to the allottee, was received by the DDA in Lok Shivir. The said letter was not accepted by the accused persons themselves, and since it contained the fresh address of the allottee, they were bound to issue the refund cheque at the said address as per the relevant DDA policy. No evidence has been brought on record by the prosecution to the effect that accused SK Goel had any direct dealings with accused Mahinder or JP Gupta. As such, merely because the refund cheque was sent at the address of accused SK Goel, it cannot be presumed that accused JP Gupta and Mahinder had deliberately sent the cheque to an incorrect address, or had any knowledge that the address at which it was sent belonged to accused SK Goel.
State vs. Mahinder Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 423/2000, PS: Crime Branch-South Page 31 of 3929. It is also the case of prosecution that the refund request of the allottee was processed with undue haste. When the other allegations of the prosecution against the accused have not been established by the prosecution, merely the case that the accused persons processed the refund in a single day is not sufficient to hold them guilty of the offences alleged against them. In any event, bare perusal of the management file Ex. PW10/X shows that the refund was not so processed in a single date.
30. The case of prosecution against accused SC Chugh is also that he handed over the possession letter of the flat in question to Mr. Vijay Kulkarni on the basis of a forged and fabricated SPA, affidavit etc., and did not even verify that the same have not been property notarized. The allegation of prosecution to the effect that the conveyance documents executed in favour of Mr. Vijay Kulkarni by the allottee are forged and fabricated has already been discarded, given the vague nature of testimony of allottee/PW2 Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, who stated that he had executed conveyance document in favour of some person, whose name he was unable to specify. Furthermore, the case of prosecution that the documents were not genuinely notarized also does not appear to be acceptable. PW1 Ms. Nirmala Nayyar, the concerned notary public, testified that the conveyance documents Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/7 do not bear her genuine signatures and sealed. She stated that in the year 1998, she had lost all her stamps. However, in her cross-examination, she stated that she does not have any record of any complaint made by her regarding such theft, nor does she remember the date of such theft. Further, she stated that when she used to notarize the documents, she did not maintain any record/register of the documents notarized by her. From her testimony, it is amply clear that State vs. Mahinder Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 423/2000, PS: Crime Branch-South Page 32 of 39she did not follow the relevant rules for notarizing the documents and her bare testimony to the effect that the documents do not contain her genuine sign or seal does not appear to be creditworthy. At this stage, it is also pertinent to mention that even the FSL report does not conclusively prove that her signatures or seal on the documents as aforesaid are forged. In any event, it is not the case of prosecution that the signatures of the notary public on the documents are so apparently forged as should have been apparent to accused SC Chugh when scrutinizing the documents of the SPA, without the aid of any specialized tools. Since the signatures and seal appear to be genuine when the documents are looked at, for what reason accused SC Chugh was required to doubt the veracity of the same has also not been clarified by the prosecution.
31. The FSL report states that the signatures of PW-1 Nirmala Nayyar on the questioned documents are not genuine. However, the discrepancies noted therein are not such as would be obvious to an unsuspecting person. Merely on this basis, accused SC Chugh cannot be held guilty of the offence of cheating or conspiracy, or of using forged documents, particularly when the fact that the allottee/PW2 Sh Vinod Kumar Sharma had indeed executed the conveyance documents with respect to the subject property is uncontroverted.
32. PW-10/IO Inspector Dr. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, in his cross- examination, admitted that the SPA of the allottee, Sh. Vijay Kulkarni, had appeared in person before the Assistant Director (SFS Housing) on 21.06.1999, and had placed on record a copy of his driving licence, as reflected in the noting in the DDA management file of the allottee, Ex. State vs. Mahinder Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 423/2000, PS: Crime Branch-South Page 33 of 39PW-10/X-1. Thus, the SPA had duly appeared before the competent authority prior to execution of the possession letter in his favour. Further, as is evident from the testimony of PW-5 Sh. Amar Chatterjee, the complainant in the present case, there is no impropriety in the conduct of the accused persons in handing over possession of the flat to the SPA of the allottee. In view of the same, the basis on which the prosecution seeks to fasten criminal liability upon the accused persons remains unclear.
33. It is also pertinent to note that PW-5 admitted that the original allottee never made any complaint alleging that the flat in question had been allotted to some other person not authorised by him, nor did he complain that he did not receive the refund cheque at any point in time. He also never alleged that possession of the flat was taken by any unauthorised person. On the contrary, from his admission that he had sold ahead the property , it is probable that the allottee himself had executed the conveyance documents/SPA in favour of Sh. Vijay Kulkarni, who ultimately took possession of the flat in question. In view of the glaring gaps in the testimony of PW-2 Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, and the fact that the prosecution did not examine Sh. Vijay Kulkarni, the alleged holder of the purportedly false SPA, the prosecution's case that the accused persons deliberately executed the possession letter of the flat in favour of the SPA of the allottee on the basis of forged documents remains not proved.
REGARDING ACCUSED SK GOEL AND MG SHENOY
34. As per the prosecution case, the refund cheque in question was State vs. Mahinder Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 423/2000, PS: Crime Branch-South Page 34 of 39clandestinely obtained by accused SK Goel from accused JP Gupta, Mahinder, and SC Chugh, and was thereafter encashed by him through a bank account fraudulently opened in the name of the allottee, Vinod Kumar Sharma, at Corporation Bank. It is further alleged that accused MG Shenoy, the then Branch Manager of the concerned bank, acted in connivance with SK Goel in opening the said account for the purpose of misusing the refund amount.
35. It is alleged that the bank account opening form bears the signatures of accused SK Goel as an introducer and contains forged signatures of the allottee, Vinod Kumar Sharma, and that in place of the photograph of the allottee, the photograph of one Ratan Singh, the servant of accused SK Goel at the relevant time, was affixed.
36. The prosecution has established beyond doubt that the refund cheque was issued by accused SC Chugh, JP Gupta, and Mahinder at the residential address of accused SK Goel. However, it is also undisputed that the cheque was an account-payee cheque, and could have been encashed only through a bank account in the name of the allottee.
37. It is not disputed that the cheque was encashed in a Corporation Bank account opened in the name of Vinod Kumar Sharma. The IO proved the seizure memo of the bank account opening form, Ex. PW-10/A, and the same has not been controverted by the accused. It is also not disputed that the said account opening form does not bear the photograph of the allottee but that of some other person.
State vs. Mahinder Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 423/2000, PS: Crime Branch-South Page 35 of 3938. However, in the considered opinion of this Court, while these circumstances may raise suspicion against accused SK Goel and MG Shenoy, they do not form a complete chain of circumstances so as to point unerringly towards their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
39. PW-2 Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, in his examination-in-chief, when confronted with the same, stated that his purported signatures appearing on the bank account opening form, Ex. PW-2/1, are forged. However, his testimony is not credible, given the fact that as regards other documents that he signed, being the conveyance documents w.r.t. the property in question, he gave a similar answer. Further, he did not categorically depose that he never maintained any bank account with Corporation Bank. No such specific question to this effect was put to him by the ld APP for the State either. Consequently, there is no clear and unequivocal testimony on record to establish that PW-2 did not have any account with Corporation Bank at the relevant time.
40. Moreover, no official from the concerned bank was examined by the prosecution to prove that PW-2 never appeared before the bank for opening the said account. The prosecution also failed to produce the bank account statement to establish that the amount of the refund cheque was in fact withdrawn by accused SK Goel, and not by complainant.
41. The bank account statement, which could have shown who withdrew the refund amount and in what manner, has also not been brought on record.
State vs. Mahinder Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 423/2000, PS: Crime Branch-South Page 36 of 39In fact, the manner and time of withdrawal remain unclear.
42. While the cheque was sent to the residential address of accused SK Goel, the possibility that he was acquainted with PW-2 Vinod Kumar Sharma, had assisted him as a broker or property dealer, and helped him encash the cheque by introducing the bank account, cannot be ruled out.
43. Merely the fact that accused SK Goel signed the bank account opening form as an introducer, though raising suspicion, is not sufficient to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that he forged the signatures of Vinod Kumar Sharma on the same, or knowingly used the forged bank account in his favour. PW10/IO stated that the bank account was misused by accused SK Goel, there is no document filed by him on record to show such misuse, or to show who actually withdrew the funds from the account. Investigation is seen to be inadequate , to the detriment of prosecution case.
44. The prosecution alleged that the photograph on the bank account opening form is of one Ratan Singh, who was never summoned or examined as a witness. There is no substantiated evidence on record that he was working as a servant under accused SK Goel or that his photograph was misused by the accused. The bare testimony of the IO to this effect, unsupported by any evidence or explanation as to how IO reached the conclusion that Ratan Singh was employed by SK Goel, is insufficient to establish these allegations.
45. There is also no cogent evidence on record to hold that the State vs. Mahinder Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 423/2000, PS: Crime Branch-South Page 37 of 39photograph of Ratan Singh affixed was affixed at the time the account was opened, and the possibility of later tampering by some other bank official cannot be ruled out.
46. The prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that accused MG Shenoy, as the Bank Manager, facilitated the fraudulent opening of the account. There is no evidence to show that he processed the account opening form or that it was within his duties to ensure personal appearance of the account holder and introducer when any account was opened.
47. Where the prosecution seeks to establish guilt of accused solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence, such evidence must be of such a nature that it unerringly points towards the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with any other hypothesis. This standard has not been met in the case at hand .
48. Accordingly, accused SK Goel and MG Shenoy are entitled to the benefit of doubt as well.
CONCLUSION
49. The prosecution alleged that accused Mahinder Kumar, JP Gupta and SC Chugh wrongly processed the refund claim of the allottee, knowing that the various documents bearing the signatures of the allottee on the allotment file are forged. However, it failed to prove such forgery. It also failed to prove that the refund letter received from the allottee was forged.
State vs. Mahinder Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 423/2000, PS: Crime Branch-South Page 38 of 39Furthermore, prosecution alleged that the refund was wrongly processed, but evidence on record shows that the allottee was in fact entitled to the refund processed in his favour. It is pertinent to mention at this stage that the accused persons have also been charged with the offence of conspiracy. However, no evidence, documentary or oral, has been brought on record by the prosecution to show any such connivance between the accused persons. Prosecution has not brought on record any evidence to even show that the said accused were acquainted with each other, much less to show that they had illegally gain anything out of the transaction pertaining to the flat in question, and had then distributed the gains. All in all, for want of sufficient evidence against them, accused persons namely, Mahinder Kumar, Subhash Chander Chugh, Jai Prakash Gupta, MG Shenoy and Sri Krishan Goel stand acquitted of all charges levelled against them.
50. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance of Section 437A CrPC.
Digitally signed by Pronounced in open Court on Medha Medha arya Date:
22.12.2025 in the presence of accused.
arya 2025.12.24 16:51:50 +0530 (Medha Arya) Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi 22.12.2025 State vs. Mahinder Kumar & Ors. FIR No. 423/2000, PS: Crime Branch-South Page 39 of 39