Delhi District Court
3.1987 From S.No. 1740 To 2739 Of ... vs Unknown on 17 December, 2018
THE COURT OF SH. BABRU BHAN
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE -07, CENTRAL,
ROOM NO. 345, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
STATE
VERSUS
RAMESH CHANDER
CASE NO. 300024/2016
FIR No. 124/08
P.S- SUBZI MANDI
U/S- 420/471 IPC
1.Date of commission of offence: 12.05.2008
2. Name of the Complainant : D.P. NIDARIA, Office/COC, C/o-
Administration, Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
3. Name of the accused, and RAMESH CHANDER, his parentage and residence : S/o- Raghubir Singh, R/o- VPO- Mundhela Khurd, PS- Najafgarh, New Delhi.
4. Date when judgment : 17.12.2018 was reserved
5. Date when Judgment : 17.12.2018 was pronounced
6. Offence Complained of : Section 420/471 IPC or proved
7. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Final Judgment : CONVICTED for offence U/s 471 IPC Brief Statement of reasons for the decision of the case:
1. This Court had earlier convicted the accused Ramesh Chander for the offence U/s 471 IPC vide order dated 28.02.2018. The said order was challenged before the Appellate Court. The Ld Appellate Court vide its order dated 24.07.2018 remanded the matter back with the directions to this Court to summon the correct record from the school.
2. In compliance of the said directions, summons were issued. Leelu Ram PW8 appeared and produced documents Ex. P8. As per the record produced by Leelu Ram PW8, the accused had never taken admission in Government Senior Secondary School, Julana, Jind, Haryana.
3. The allegations against accused Ramesh Chander are that he used a forged certificate bearing No. 451298 dated 21.04.1984 to get appointment as orderly in the O/o- District & Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts. After this fact was revealed, in pursuant to the directions issued by Ld ACJ vide his letter dated 05.05.2008, D.P. Nidaria PW3 wrote letter Ex. PW3/A to SHO, PS- Subzi Mandi for registration of FIR against accused.
4. SI Bachan Prakash PW2 has deposed that on 12.05.2008, he was posted as ASI at PS- Subzi Mandi and was working as Duty Officer. At about 8.15 am, ASI Vijay Pal presented rukka on the basis of which he registered FIR Ex. PW2/A. After registration of FIR, he endorsed the rukka vide Ex. PW2/B.
5. During course of investigation, on 28.04.2009, IO ASI Vijay Pal PW5 collected the copy of attested copy of the certificate and transfer certificate from Balwan Singh PW1 vide letter Ex. PW1/A. On 24.11.2009, SI Rajender PW6 arrested accused Ramesh Chander vide memo Ex. PW6/A. His personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.
PW6/B. Both these memos are bearing signatures of Ct Ravinder (not examined as witness). During course of investigation, SI Rajender PW6 visited the Government Senior Secondary School, Julana, Haryana to verify the original transfer certificate of the accused. He issued notice U/s 160 Cr.P.C to the Principal which was replied on the letter head of the school. As per the reply, no student in the name of Ramesh Chander, S/o- Raghubir Singh was got admitted to the school under registration No. 2308. Transfer certificate Ex. PW7/A was also found not issued from the school. This letter was seized vide memo Ex. PW6/C. The signatures of Principal Kusumlata were obtained on the same. The aforesaid reply of Principal is on record as Ex. X2. Thereafter, IO moved an application Ex. PW6/D before the O/o- ACJ, Tis Hazari Courts to obtain the original transfer certificate. The concerned office replied vide reply Ex. PW6/E that the original certificate was not available on record and only attested copy of the copy was attached in the personal file of the accused.
6. On completion of investigation, police presented the charge-sheet accusing the accused for the offence U/s 420/468/471/204 IPC. A formal charge for the offence U/s 420/471 IPC was framed to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. To prove its case, prosecution has examined 12 witnesses. Most of the witnesses have deposed the narratives of their formal role played in the process of investigation. Since, the brief of their role has already been given in the foregoing paragraphs, therefore, for the sake of brevity, reproduction of their detailed testimonies can be eschewed.
8. Rajbir Singh, Lecturer (Commerce), Government Senior Secondary School, Julana, Jind, Haryana appeared as PW4. This witness produced the admission cum withdrawal register for the period from 20.07.1981 to 01.03.1987 from S.No. 1740 to 2739 of Government Senior Secondary School, Julana, Jind, Haryana. As per the record produced, admission No. 2308 dated 17.05.1984 was alloted to one Balwan Singh, S/o- Banwari Lal, DOB 08.01.1966. This witness has further deposed that transfer certificate bearing No. 451298 dated 21.04.1984 was also not issued from the abovesaid school in the name of accused Ramesh Chander.
9. Bharti Bhatt, Judicial Assistant posted in Administration III, District & Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts appeared as PW7. This witness produced the attested copy of the transfer certificate dated 21.04.1984. This document was retained on record as Ex. PW7/A.
10. The entire incriminating evidence was put to accused in terms of Section 313 r/w 281 Cr.P.C earlier. Accused has denied the case of the prosecution and tendered his explanation that he had furnished the certificate which was available with him and he was not aware about the forgery of the same. In additional statement recorded, he went to change his version and sought to plead the defence that due to lapse of time, he was not sure that he had filed disputed document or not. Statement was further recorded after the matter was remanded back by the Ld Sessions Court. The additional document brought on record through Leelu Ram PW8 was put to the accused where accused again putforth the explanation that he had taken admission in the school but he failed to give any cogent explanation as to why his name was not mentioned in the list of students who had taken admission in year 1976. He opted not to lead any defence evidence.
11. During course of arguments, Ld APP for the State while taking reference from the statement of accused recorded in terms of Section 313 r/w 281 Cr.P.C, has argued that accused has not denied that the certificate was furnished by him. Although, he subsequently sought to take a feeble defence that due to lapse of time, he was not aware as to whether the documents were filed by him or not but that version can be ignored being an improvement. Ld APP has further argued that the attested copy of the document was available in the personal file of the accused and no one else except him could have produced the same. Ld APP concluded the arguments with the submission that accused had cheated the department by obtaining employment on the basis of forged documents.
On the other hand, Ld counsel for accused has argued that prosecution has neither produced the original disputed documents nor has brought on record documentary evidence to demonstrate that the certificate allegedly produced by accused is forged and fabricated. Ld counsel has also argued that nothing has been produced on record to show that the documents has been produced by the accused.
12. I have heard the arguments. To prove it case, prosecution must establish the following circumstances:
i. That at the time of obtaining employment,
accused had produced document Ex. PW7/A,
ii. This document was forged and fabricated,
iii. Accused was aware about the fact that same
was fabricated and
iv. This document was produced by accused to
cheat the department for obtaining the
employment.
13. Vijaypal Singh PW5, the first IO of the case has deposed that he had obtained the photocopy of the attested copy from the office of the ACJ. Balwant Singh Negi PW1 has corroborated the statement of Vijaypal Singh PW5 that he had provided the copy of the attested copy of the transfer certificate No. 451298 to the IO vide letter Ex. PW1/A. In pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, Bharti Bhatt, Judicial Assistant PW7 produced the personal record file of the accused from ACJ Office, Central. From this file, the attested copy of the transfer certificate was retained on judicial record as Ex. PW7/A. None of the above witnesses have been questioned directly or in form of suggestions that no such document was collected or provided by them. So, it stands proved that the attested copy of the transfer certificate was lying in the personal file of the accused with ACJ office.
14. In his statement recorded in terms of Section 313 r/w 281 Cr.P.C, initially, accused did not deny that he had produced this certificate Ex. PW7/A. He sought to explain that he produced the document which was available with him. It is apparent that in his first statement recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C, accused has not denied the fact that he had filed the disputed certificate with the department. The defence appears to have been pleaded is that he was not aware of the forged status of the documents. After PW7 produced the document, an additional statement in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded. Here, accused changed his version and stated that the document was filed long before and he was not aware whether the document was filed by him or not. Palpably, through this statement, accused has attempted to change his defence and has tried to say that he was not aware as to whether he had filed this document or not. This statement is not corroborated by any evidence and none of the witness who filed this certificate from the personal file of the accused has been questioned on the aspect that it was not availabile on the file.
15. The certificate 451298 Ex. PW7/A was there in the personal file of the accused. The official who produced it has not been questioned that the certificate was not lying in the personal file of the accused. Moreover, accused himself has admitted in his statement recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C that he had filed this disputed certificate ( now Ex. PW7/A) because it was available with him. The record shows that non other than accused had produced the document before the O/o- District & Sessions Judge at the time of obtaining the employment as an orderly.
16. To demonstrate the forgery of document, prosecution has relied upon the statement of Rajbir Singh, Lecturer (Commerce), Government Senior Secondary School, Julana, Jind, Haryana, who appeared as PW4. This witness has stated that as per school records, admission No. 2308 dated 17.05.1984 was alloted to one Balwant Singh, S/o- Banwari Lal, class 9th C. The name of accused Ramesh Chander was not mentioned against the above said admission number. He has also filed the relevant page as Ex. PW4/A (OSR). This witness has further deposed that certificate bearing No. 451298 dated 21.04.1984 (Ex. PW7/A) was not issued in the name of Ramesh Chander.
17. SI Rajender Singh PW6 has deposed that during course of investigation, he had gone to Government Senior Secondary School, Julana, Jind, Haryana to verify the original certificate of the accused. In pursuant to the notice issued by him, Principal of the school issued a letter Mark X2 under her signatures. PW6 seized that letter vide seizure memo Ex. PW6/C. This letter Mark X2 would show that neither any student in the name of Ramesh Chander, S/o- Raghubir Singh was admitted in the school nor any such certificate was ever issued.
18. Accused has sought to challenge the credibility and authority of Rajbir Singh PW4 with the argument that since he has not produced any authority letter issued by the school Principal, his testimony can not be relied upon. The argument is liable to be rejected because in his cross- examination itself, witness PW4 has explained that he was authorized by the school Principal and could produce the relevant authority document, if required by the Court. Thereafter, no suggestion has been given that he was not authorized on behalf of the school to produce the document. This witness was not even suggested that he was deposing falsely. It has also not been elaborated by the defence as to why a witness would appear and depose against the accused without any reason or motive. It is also not the case of the accused that he had some enmity or rancor with PW4. Thus, the testimony and document produced by PW4 are to be relied upon because Court has no reason to doubt them.
19. Further, SI Rajender Kumar PW6 has deposed that during course of investigation, he had gone to the said school and obtained a letter Ex. X2 from the Principal. This original letter Ex. X2 is prepared on the letter head of the school and duly signed by the school Principal Kusum Lata. It also bears the seal of school Principal. This document Ex. X2 is addressed to SI Rajender Singh PW6. Interestingly, Rajender Singh PW6 has not been questioned that he had not gone to the school and had not obtained the letter Ex. X2 from the Principal. Thus, his testimony on this aspect went unrebutted. This document is a certificate prepared in ordinary course of business by the school principal. This document is extract of the school records and admissible piece of evidence as the original record Ex. PW4/A has been produced by Rajbir Singh PW4.
20. The statement and register Ex. PW4/A produced by Rajbir Singh PW4 further corroborated by statement of SI Rajender Singh PW6 and letter Ex. X2 are sufficient to show that accused Ramesh Chander was never admitted in the school mentioned on the certificate under the admission No. 2308 and transfer certificate No. 451298 was never issued in his favour. Thus, same is forged and fabricated documents.
21. Ld counsel for accused has argued that the record produced by the witnesses is pertaining to year 1984 whereas the accused was admitted to school in 1976 and left the same in 1978. The contention raised is that it is possible that same registration number was issued in the name of accused in 1976-1977 which was subsequently issued in the name of Balwant Singh in 1984.
22. Ld Sessions Court vide its order dated 24.07.2018 had observed that since as per the disputed certificate Ex. PW7/A, the accused had taken admission in the school on 01.05.1976 under registration No. 2308 and withdrew his name from the school on 31.07.1978. Therefore, before returning the findings concerning the genuineness of forgery of the disputed document, this Court was suppose to summon the admission register record of 1976 from the school. The record has been filed through PW8 Leelu Ram. The copies of admission register Ex. P8 would show that no person in the name of Ramesh Chander, S/o- Sh. Raghubir Singh had ever taken admission in the said school in year 1976. When the accused had not taken admission in the school, the question of issuance of school leaving certificate Ex. PW7/A in the year 1984 does not arise. On the basis of record produced by Leelu Ram PW8, This Court has no hesitation to return the finding that document Ex. PW7/A is forged and fabricated.
23. Next argument advanced by the Ld counsel for accused is that the original of the forged document has not been produced on record, therefore, the attested copy is not admissible in evidence.
24. This argument would take me the statement of Balwant Singh PW1 wherein he has deposed that the original was returned to the accused. Again, SI Rajender Kumar PW6 moved an applicant Ex. PW6/D to the O/o- ACJ. In reply Ex. PW6/E, it was informed that original was not available on record and only attested copy was on record.
25. Balwant Singh Negi PW1 has not been questioned that original was not returned to the accused. Thus, the fact that original is in possession of accused is not disputed and stands proved.
26. Now, the question is whether secondary evidence of this document can be given in absence of notice U/s 66 of Indian Evidence Act. In my considered opinion the requirement of notice be can dispensed with in this case because from the nature of the case, the accused was expected to know that he was supposed to provide the documents in the Court. Hence, the secondary evidence of the document would be admissible in this case without notice.
27. The last question which would arise in this context is whether attested copy is secondary evidence or not. Obviously, the attested copy was kept on record after comparing the same with the original. Thus, the attested copy Ex. PW7/A is admissible piece of evidence being compared with original.
28. Still, for the sake of arguments, lets assume that attested copy is not an admissible piece of evidence. The question would arise whether law of evidence relating to to primary and secondary evidence of documents is to be applied in cases of forgery or not. In my considered comprehension, it need not be applied in cases of forgery because rules of evidence relating to primary and secondary evidence would come into play when contents of documents are to be proved, not when execution, authenticity and genuineness of document itself is in dispute. An accused can forge a document by using a photocopy machine also. If it is proved that document has been prepared without authority of the person it purported to have been prepared, the person preparing it would be liable for forgery even if original is not produced. Thus, forgery can be established without original also.
29. Accused has also been charged for the offence U/s 420 IPC. However, nothing has been produced on record to show that accused had made any kind of misrepresentation and that misrepresentation resulted into cheating of any kind with anyone.
30. The net result of the above discussion is that accused Ramesh Chander fraudulently and knowingly used a forged transfer certificate Ex. PW7/A. It was upon the accused to establish that he was not aware of the false status of the certificate. However, nothing has been produced by him in this regard. The prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. Accused Ramesh Chander stands convicted for the offence U/s 471 IPC accordingly. BABRU Digitally signed by BABRU BHAN BHAN Date: 2018.12.18 10:14:35 +0530 ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (BABRU BHAN) COURT ON 17.12.2018 METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-07 CENTRAL/TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.