Delhi District Court
State vs . Babar Ali. on 5 June, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. VISHAL SINGH : MM : DELHI
State Vs. Babar Ali.
FIR No. 142/98.
U/s. 419/465 IPC
PS Mukharjee Nagar, Delhi.
JUDGMENT
a) The sl. no. of the case : 744/3.
b) The Unique ID No. of the case : 02401R0798592003.
c) The date of commission of the : 04/06/1998.
offence
d) The date of institution of case : 24/03/1999.
e) The name of the complainant : Constable Satish Kumar.
f) The name & address of accused : Babar Ali S/o.
Sh. Noor Mohamad,
R/o Village Osika, PS Baraut,
Distt. Baghpat, U.P.
g) The offence complained of : U/s. 419/465 IPC.
h) The plea of the accused : pleaded not guilty.
i) The date of reserving the order : 09/05/2012.
j) The final order : Acquitted U/s. 419 IPC.
Convicted U/s. 465 IPC.
k) The date of such order : 24/05/2012.
FIR No. 142/98
PS Mukharjee Nagar 1
THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT :
1. The prosecution case is that on 04/06/1998 application forms were being received at New Police Lines, Parade Ground, within the jurisdiction of PS Mukharjee Nagar, for recruitment of constables in Delhi Police. On that day at around 12:00 noon, at footpath, outside New Police Lines Parade Ground, the accused was found preparing false documents by affixing fake stamps and fake signatures to attest the application forms and the copies of educational certificates of the candidates. The accused was apprehended and handed over to ACP B.D. Sharma by constable Satish Kumar. Upon completion of investigation, the challan was filed by the police.
2. Complete set of copies was supplied to the accused and after hearing arguments, charge was framed against the accused for trial of offence U/s. 419/465 IPC, by my Ld. Predecessor to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW.1 Mohar Singh, Principal, Veer Smarak Inter College, Baraut, Distt. Baghpat, U.P, who has proved his specimen signatures given to the police vide Ex. PW1/A and his statement vide Ex. PW1/B. He deposed that the stamp used by the accused was fake. PW.2 ASI Balbir Singh and PW6 Ct. (now HC) Satish Kumar are the eye witnesses to the incident who had seen the accused putting stamp FIR No. 142/98 PS Mukharjee Nagar 2 impressions on some papers outside the venue of recruitment, and apprehended him. PW.3 is constable Ombir, who had joined the investigation alongwith SI Dinesh Kumar and proved the arrest and personal search memos of accused vide Ex. PW3/A and Ex. PW3/B, statement of accused vide Ex. PW3/C, statement of constable Satish Kumar vide Ex. PW3/D, rukka vide Ex. PW3/E, physical examination of accused vide Ex. PW3/F and also identified the stamps impressions on the documents Ex. P1 to Ex. P15 and identified two fake stamps Ex. P16 collectively and stamp pad Ex. P17. PW.4 is Inspector Jasvinder Kaur, Duty Officer, who has proved the copy of FIR vide Ex. PW4/A. PW.5 is retired ACP B.D. Sharma, before whom the accused was produced by constable Satish Kumar and ASI Balbir Singh.
4. Statements of accused was recorded U/s. 313 CrPC separately, wherein he pleaded innocence and false implication in this case. However, he did not wish to examine any witness in support of his defence.
5. I have heard arguments from Ld. APP for State, Ld. Defence Counsel for accused respectively and also gone through the evidence and documents on record carefully.
6. The prosecution has to prove that the accused has committed the above alleged offence. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined six witnesses in total.
FIR No. 142/98 PS Mukharjee Nagar 3
7. Since one of the stamp seized from the accused bore the impression of "Principal, Veer Smarak Inter College, Baraut (Meerut), Baghpat, U.P., the prosecution examined PW1 Mohar Singh, Principal, Veer Smark Govt. College, Baraut, U.P., who deposed that he was the Principal in the said college from 20th February 1985. He deposed that in the year 1998 the police had inquired from him regarding his signature and the stamp of the college on the papers produced by the police before him and he denied to having signed the said papers. He further deposed he told to the police that no stamp of the college was made by that time. PW1 deposed that he also gave his specimen signatures on document Ex. PW1/A to the police. He deposed that police recorded his statement Ex. PW1/B. After seeing the document mark A (later exhibited as Ex. P1 by the witness PW3), PW1 refused to having signed the same at point X. He deposed that the said stamp impression did not belong to his college.
8. Regarding the incident, the prosecution has examined PW6 Ct. (now HC) Satish Kumar, who deposed that on 04/06/1998 he was posted at DAP, 5 th BTN and was operator of PW5 ACP B.D. Sharma. He deposed that on the said day the rechecking of recruitment forms of Delhi Police was going on in NPL Parade Ground and he alongwith PW2 ASI Balbir Singh and ACP had gone to NPL Parade Ground. He further deposed that when they, after leaving the ACP in parade ground, were coming outside the ground they saw gathering of many persons outside the parade ground. He deposed that he saw that one person was putting stamp impression on some paper on the right side FIR No. 142/98 PS Mukharjee Nagar 4 of the gate of barrack and he apprehended the said person. He further deposed that on checking he found that the said person was using one stamp of Unani Dispensary and another stamp of the Principal of Veer Smark Inter College, Baraut, for attesting the photocopies of educational certificate and was also affixing his signature on the recruitment forms in the name of M. Singh. He deposed that he called ASI Balbir Singh, driver of ACP and both of them produced that person before ACP, and, on interrogation the name of the said person was revealed as Babbar Ali. He further deposed that on the instruction of ACP, he alongwith PW2 ASI Balbir Singh and the accused was going to PS Mukharjee Nagar and on the way SI Dinesh met him to whom he narrated the whole incident and handed over two stamps, stamp pad, documents i.e. photocopy of mark sheet, original recruitment form of Delhi Police and the other articles recovered from the possession of the accused to SI Dinesh. He further deposed that SI Dinesh Kumar recorded his statement Ex. PW6/A and after putting endorsement on the same, prepared the rukka, seized all the documents vide Ex. PW2/A, stamp pad and stamps were also seized vide Ex. PW2/A and arrested the accused. This witness has identified the recovered documents from the accused in court vide Ex. P1 to Ex. P15. He has also identified the stamps vide Ex. P16 collectively and stamp paid vide mark Ex. P17.
In his cross examination by Ld. defence counsel, PW6 stated that he did not inquire from any person standing at the spot about the purpose of their gathering. He denied the suggestion that that the stamp pad and seals were FIR No. 142/98 PS Mukharjee Nagar 5 picked up by him from the patri where it was lying abandoned. He further denied the suggestion that since all other persons had fled from the spot and as only the accused was standing there he caught him and made a false case against him. He further denied the suggestion that the finger print of the accused was not verified on the stamp pad and the seal as the same had not been seized from the hands of the accused. He further denied the suggestion that the accused was not putting any stamp on any document or attesting any document.
The prosecution sought to corroborate the testimony of PW6 HC Satish Kumar with the testimony of PW2 ASI Balbir Singh. PW2 deposed about his presence at the spot alongwith PW6. As the testimony of PW2 ASI Balbir Singh was lacking in specific details, he was cross examined by Ld. APP. In his cross examination he deposed about his ignorance that the accused was affixing some forged signature and seal of government officials to attest the application forms of the candidates. He denied to having signed the seizure memos of the stamps, stamp pad and forms recovered from the accused at the spot.
The testimony of PW2 ASI Balbir Singh corroborates the testimony of PW6 constable (now HC) Satish Kumar only to the extant that he saw accused Babar Ali putting some stamp impressions on some papers on the right side of the entry gate of NPL and the accused was apprehended by PW6 Ct. (now HC) Satish Kumar.
FIR No. 142/98 PS Mukharjee Nagar 6
Although, the IO of the case had expired before deposing, the police investigation proceedings has been proved by PW3 Ct. Ombir.
PW5 is retired ACP B.D. Sharma to whom the accused was handed over by PW6 Ct. Satish Kumar and ASI Balbir Singh. He deposed that on 04/06/1998 he was posted as ACP Adjutant, 5th BTN, DAP, New Police Line, Delhi and on that day he was on duty for recruitment of constable in New Police Line ground when his operator PW6 Ct. Satish and his driver PW2 ASI Balbir Singh produced accused Babar Ali before him alongwith forged stamps etc., and in the meanwhile, IO SI Dinesh also reached there and the custody of the accused and recovered stamps and documents was handed over to him. He further deposed that he did not notice as to which documents and seals were handed over to the IO by PW6 Ct. Satish. In his cross examination by Ld. defence counsel, PW5 stated that he did not know personally about the spot from where accused Babar Ali was caught as he was inside the New Police Line recruitment ground. He stated that he could not say if Ct. Satish Kumar and ASI Balbir Singh caught a wrong person instead of the person who was actually using the forged stamps.
9. In his statement recorded U/s. 313 CrPC, the accused stated that he did not know anything about this case. He stated that he had come to NPL Parade Ground with his brother Islam Mohd., who was seeking recruitment in Delhi FIR No. 142/98 PS Mukharjee Nagar 7 Police and since the documents to be submitted were required to be attested they went on the patri where one person was attesting the documents of several candidates from whom his brother also got his documents attested. He further stated that at that time some police personnel came there and everyone including the person who was attesting the documents ran away and his brother took all his documents in his hands which were taken by the police officials on the pretext of checking the documents. He further stated that since he was standing with his brother the police official asked both of them to accompany him to his superior officer thereafter he was taken to PS and detained there without any reason. He stated that he was innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case.
10.The accused Babar Ali was apprehended at the spot by eye witnesses PW2 ASI Babar Ali and PW6 Ct. (now HC) Satish Kumar while using the stamps of Unani Dispensary and the Principal of Veer Smark Inter College, Baraut, U.P., for attestation of photocopies of educational certificate and affixing his signature on the recruitment forms in the name of M. Singh. Regarding the stamps or the signature on the said document Ex. P1, the prosecution has examined PW1 Mohar Singh, who denied to having signed on the said document at point X and also deposed that the stamp recovered from the accused did not belong to his college. The accused led no evidence to prove his defence. The exculpatory statement of the accused U/s. 313 CrPC is nothing more than ipse dixit of the accused, unsubstantiated by independent evidence and is contrary to the evidence on record. Thus, the witnesses FIR No. 142/98 PS Mukharjee Nagar 8 examined by the prosecution are corroborating each other on all the material aspects. There is no inconsistency or inherent contradiction in their statement. The evidence led by prosecution through its witnesses is completely reliable and sufficient to bring home the offence against the accused and does not require any further corroboration from any other independent public witness. The minor discrepancies and inconsistencies pointed by the Ld. defence counsel in the testimonies of PWs do not go to the root of the matter and do not prejudicially affect the prosecution case. To the argument of Ld. defence counsel that the documents seized from the accused were not sealed by the IO, it need only be observed that this fact, per se, does not go to the root of the case. The handwriting of the accused on the documents Ex. P1 to Ex. P15 did not require any verification from handwriting experts because the accused was apprehended right at the spot by PW6 while putting fake signature and fake stamp on the documents of the candidates. No complaint from the public persons could be expected in the peculiar circumstances of this case as the candidates, whose documents were not attested, would themselves be interested in getting their documents attested from the accused with fake signatures and stamps.
11.No evidence has come on record to the effect that the accused was impersonating as some government official, thereby cheating the candidates at the spot while affixing the stamp and signature of a government official on the documents of the candidates. No such candidate upon whose document the accused by affixed forged stamp or signature has been examined in the FIR No. 142/98 PS Mukharjee Nagar 9 court. However, it could well be presumed here that no candidate would believe that a government official will stand at the gate of a recruitment centre to attest their documents. Thus, the accused is entitled to acquittal against the charge of cheating by impersonating U/s 419 IPC. However, the prosecution has amply proved that :
1. The accused was present outside the gate of parade ground NPL i.e. Recruitment Centre on 04/06/1998.
2. That the accused was in possession of two fake seals/stamps Ex. P16 collectively of the government official and the application forms and photocopies of educational documents bearing fake seals/stamps and fake signatures of the government officials (documents Ex. P1 to P15).
3. That the accused was found putting fake stamp/seal of the government official and putting forged signatures upon the application forms and photocopies of educational documents of the candidates at 12:00 noon on 04/06/1998 on the pavement, outside Parade Ground NPL, in order to attest the said documents, thereby preparing false documents. Thus, the prosecution has successfully brought home the offence of forgery against the accused punishable U/s. 465 IPC.
12. Thus, in view of the above observation and discussion, in my opinion, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused for the charge U/s. 419 IPC beyond any reasonable doubt. Hence, I hereby acquit the accused for FIR No. 142/98 PS Mukharjee Nagar 10 the charge U/s. 419 IPC. However, the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused for the offence U/s. 465 IPC. Therefore, I hold the accused guilty for the offence U/s. 465 IPC and convict him accordingly. Order on sentence shall be announced after hearing the accused.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN
COURT ON 24/05/2012. (VISHAL SINGH)
Metropolitan Magistrate
(Copies 1 + 1) Delhi
FIR No. 142/98
PS Mukharjee Nagar 11
IN THE COURT OF SH. VISHAL SINGH : MM : DELHI
State Vs. Babar Ali.
FIR No. 142/98.
U/s. 419/465 IPC
PS Mukharjee Nagar, Delhi.
ORDER ON SENTENCE
Pr: Ld APP for the State.
Accused/convict Babar Ali on bail with Counsel.
I have heard arguments on the point of sentence from Ld. counsel for accused and from Ld. APP for State. It is argued by the Ld. defence counsel that it is an old case of the year 1998 and convict is facing trial for the last 13 years. It is further stated that facing trial for such a long period is itself a punishment for the convict and hence he is entitled to benefit of probation for good conduct. It is further stated that the convict is not a habitual offender and has not been previously convicted by any competent court of law. It is further stated that the convict is the only bread earner of his respective family.
On the other hand, it is stated by Ld. APP that the only fact that it is an old case does not entitle the convict for any lenient view. It is further stated by Ld. APP that dthe convict deserves maximum punishment.
It is true that there is no record of previous conviction against the accused and he is facing trial since 1998. Considering that the accused has been acquitted in this case U/s. 419 IPC and the maximum sentence for the offence U/s. 465 IPC is two years of imprisonment and this is his first offence, I deem it a fit case where the benefit of probation can be granted to the accused. In these FIR No. 142/98 PS Mukharjee Nagar 12 circumstances, benefit of section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is given to the accused. The accused is released on the bond of probation on furnishing PB in the sum of Rs. 20,000/ with one surety of like amount for a period of one year subject to the condition that he will keep peace and be of good behaviour during such period and he can be called to receive sentence in breach of the same. Accused/convict shall deposit Rs. 10,000/ as cost of proceedings in the court. Cost not deposited by the accused/convict. The probation bond not furnished today.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN
COURT ON 04/06/2012. (VISHAL SINGH)
Metropolitan Magistrate
(Copies 1 +2) Delhi
FIR No. 142/98
PS Mukharjee Nagar 13
State Vs. Babar Ali.
FIR No. 142/98.
U/s. 419/465 IPC
PS Mukharjee Nagar, Delhi.
04/06/2012
Pr: Ld. APP for State.
Accused/convict Babar Ali on bail with counsel.
Heard. Vide separate order, order on sentence announced in the open court. The accused is released on the bond of probation on furnishing PB in the sum of Rs. 20,000/ with one surety of like amount for a period of one year subject to the condition that he will keep peace and be of good behaviour during such period and he can be called to receive sentence in breach of the same. Accused/convict shall deposit Rs. 10,000/ as cost of proceedings in the court. Cost not deposited by the accused/convict. The probation bond not furnished today.
On request of accused, put up for furnishing of probation bond / depositing of Rs. 10,000/ as cost of proceedings, for 05/06/2012.
MM:DELHI 04/06/2012 FIR No. 142/98 PS Mukharjee Nagar 14