Delhi District Court
Central Govt. Employees vs . Neterballabh & Ors on 8 March, 2013
Central Govt. employees vs. Neterballabh & Ors
CR No. 81/12
IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIJAY KUMAR DAHIYA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
DWARKA COURTS : DELHI
In the matter of :
Central Government Employees
Residents Welfare Association
Delhi Cantt.
Through its Ex.President
Sh. Lalit Kumar Tiwari
R/o 87/8, Old Pinto Park
Air Force Station Palam
Delhi Cantt10 ...Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Neterballabh
R/o E43/1, Kabul Lines
Delhi Cantt10
2. Suresh Kumar
R/o 51/5, Kabul Lines
Delhi Cantt10
3. Narinder Singh Rawat
R/o T13/1, Uri Enclave
Delhi Cantt10
4. Laxman Kaushik
R/o 235/1, CVD Lines
Delhi Cantt.10 ... Respondents
CR No. 81/12
Date of Institution: 08.06.2012
CR No.81/12 -:1:- 08.3.2013
Central Govt. employees vs. Neterballabh & Ors
CR No. 81/12
Reserved for orders on: 23.01.2013
Judgment announced on: 08.03.2013
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 22.05.2012.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner/revisionist is the ExPresident of Central Government Employees, Residents Welfare Association, Delhi Cantt which was recognized by the Govt. of India, Ministry of DOPT and registered under the Society Registration Act, 1960 and were having grant in aid from Government of India and the petitioner/revisionist was legally authorised to initiate legal action by the members of the association in general body meeting held on 03.04.2011 and as per by laws, petitioner was further empowered to initiate legal actions against the misholdings and illegalities committed by the respondent on the letter head of RWA. It is further stated that respondents No.1, 2, 3 and 4 were Vice President, Secretary, Joint Secretary and members executive respectively of the above said organisation who got printed forged and fabricated five cash receipts books and 2000 pamphlets and further collected money from public at large illegally including from the persons who are not members of RWA in violation by laws of RWA.
3. It is further stated that respondents proposed to celebrate Independence Day in the year 2010 but the petitioner CR No.81/12 -:2:- 08.3.2013 Central Govt. employees vs. Neterballabh & Ors CR No. 81/12 refused to do so on account of shortage of funds in terms of the managing committee meeting held on 08.08.2010. It is further stated that respondent demanded cash receipt book (bill book) from the treasurer namely Sh. Yuvraj Sharam who refused to give the same to respondents as Sh. Yuvraj Sharamhad no instructions from the RWA to issue such cash receipt books. It is further stated that the respondents entered into criminal conspiracy and on 12.10.2010, respondent No.4 got printed 2000 pamphlets and 5 bills from headquarters Delhi Area, Printing Press, Delhi Cantt in the name of complainant organisation without their consent and permission and one of the cash memo No. 576/00876 dated 12.08.2010 was placed on record. It is further stated that persons who had made payments had no knowledge that the said amount is collected in lieu of forged and fabricated cash receipts and without the consent of RWA but this fact was with the knowledge of respondent.
4. It is further stated that petitioner/revisionist (RWA) organisation is under Govt. of India, Ministry of DOPT, Welfare Department which gets grant inaid from Ministry of DOPT, Welfare Department and as per by laws issued by Ministry of DOPT, it has been specifically provided that association shall desist from taking part directly/indirectly in any political or anti government activities or associating with foreigners or foreign institution/association. It is further stated that respondents collected money from politicians and officers where the petitioner/revisionist organisation is dealing with the general grievances of the public at large and welfare of the CR No.81/12 -:3:- 08.3.2013 Central Govt. employees vs. Neterballabh & Ors CR No. 81/12 residents of the Delhi Cantt area. It is further stated that following persons had made payment in terms of the receipts namely Sh. Ashok Jain Rs. 11,000 (receipt No.101), Sh. Manoj Gupta, AE Rs. 5,000(receipt No.102), Diwan Singh Boraji IDSE, GE (West) Rs. 5,000 (receipt No.103), Sh. Ajay Kumar Verma, GE (South) Rs. 5001 (receipt No.104), Sh. Akhilesh Mishra, GE (Electrical)Rs.1001 (receipt No.105) and Maj K.K.Tiwari, GE (East), Delhi - Rs. 5001 (receipt No.109).
5. It is further stated that respondent persons were not authorised to collect money from the above said persons. It is further stated that on 09/16.1.2011, respondents were given an opportunity to explain under what circumstances they have got printed cash receipt books and collected money in the name of of the organisation of the petitioner but the respondents left the meeting without being given an explanation. It is further stated that on 06.02.2011, respondent No.2 had resigned after admitting guilty in the Managing committee Meeting held on 06.02.2011 and on 08.02.2011, the petitioner/revisionist organisation submitted a report of the above said incident to the Chief Welfare Officer, Ministry of DOPT and same is placed on record. It is further stated that respondent after having removed from the post continuously used the letter head of the petitioner/revisionist organisation and misrepresentation made to the public that they are still holding their posts and collected a sum of of Rs. 25,100/ for making members in the petitioner/revisionist RWA. It is further stated that respondent No.2 has not handed over all the documents to the newly appointed CR No.81/12 -:4:- 08.3.2013 Central Govt. employees vs. Neterballabh & Ors CR No. 81/12 secretary Sh. Mukesh Kumar. It is further stated that neither the respondents were authorised to collect the money for enrollment of new members nor to renew the membership of RWA as per the by laws of the RWA. It is further stated that after initiate enquiry under section 202 Cr.PC and after getting the matter enquired from IO, the status report was placed on record and IO has never denied that the accused persons/respondents had never got printed five cash receipt books and 2000 pamphlets including the fact that the said amount was collected by the respondents in terms of those forged and fabricated receipts. It is further stated that, prima facie, offences are made out from the averments of the complaint and precharge evidence has not been considered by the Ld. Trial Court and dismissed the present complaint. It is further contended that present RWA of the petitioner was not a defunct association at the time of filing of complaint and even if the RWA of the petitioner is presumed to be defunct the respondents have no right to do illegal act in violation of bylaws.
6. It is further stated that there is no delay in approaching the matter before an opportunity was given to the respondents to show their bona fide but respondents failed to show their bona fide and the RWA of the President filed the present complaint. It is further submitted that Ld.Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that forged and fabricated receipts were prepared by the respondent with intention only to defraud and thereby cheated the innocent persons by collecting money in the name of flag hosting ceremony and, prima CR No.81/12 -:5:- 08.3.2013 Central Govt. employees vs. Neterballabh & Ors CR No. 81/12 facie offence, is made out. It is further submitted that respondents had given an amount of Rs.18,848/ to the treasurer but treasurer refused to put on record because the said money is not belonging to RWA and the respondents have further taken the amount of Rs. 15,000/ and said amount of Rs. 18,848/ on account of payment of fee to the counsel and there is material on record and summons the respondents under section 420/467/468/471/474/34/120B IPC.
7. It is further contended by the Ld counsel for the petitioner that ld. Trial Court did not appreciated the fact that the respondents were not authorised to collect the money as per the bye laws of the RWA. It is further contended that Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate the fact that the money which was collected by the respondents on forged and fabricated cash receipts was used to impress and oblige respondents officers with whom the RWA was having their official dealing. It is further contended that Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate the fact that details of the expenditure which was submitted by the respondents to the RWA does not show anything regarding nature of expenditure.
8. It is further contended that Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate the fact that the respondent No.2 resigned from the post of the secretary on 06.02.2011 and admitted his mistake and further till date, the respondent No.2 has not challenged the acceptance of his resignation and further remaining respondents did not challenge their removal from the RWA but all of them presenting themselves as CR No.81/12 -:6:- 08.3.2013 Central Govt. employees vs. Neterballabh & Ors CR No. 81/12 office bearer of the RWA and collected further money from the public on the pretext for making members. It is further contended that ld. Trial Court did not appreciate the fact that the respondents dishonestly induced or deceived the public at large on the fake cash receipt book. It is further contended that Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate the fact that the IO never denied in his status report/reports that five fake cash receipt books and 2000 pamphlets have not being got printed by the respondents and on the same cash was collected by the respondents.
9. It is further contended that Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate the fact that there is prima facie and sufficient evidence on record to summon the respondents with the commission of the alleged offence under section 420/467/468/471/474/34/120B IPC. It is further contended that Ld. Trial Court while dismissing the complaint has exercised his discretion in purely arbitrary manner without appreciating prime facie evidence or material on record and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. It is further contended that the statement of witness and documents on record are sufficient to summon the respondents under section 420/467/468/471/474/34/120 B IPC and the order dated 22.05.2012 is liable to be set aside.
10. On the other hand, respondents in person have contended that they had collected money from the persons in accordance with law being as office bearer of the said organisation as CR No.81/12 -:7:- 08.3.2013 Central Govt. employees vs. Neterballabh & Ors CR No. 81/12 the treasurer had refused to hand over the cash receipt book and after celebrating the independence day, they counted each and every penny which got collected. So no cheating or forgery committed by the respondents and the petitioner association is dragging the matter in order to settle their own personal score.
11. So far as offence of cheating as alleged in the complaint and agitated during the course of arguments is concerned, the Ld. Trial Court has rightly observed in para 7 that respondents have handed over the unused cash receipt books and amount of Rs. 18,848/ to the treasurer and further deposited a sum of Rs. 25,100/ in the account of the complainant association and the said fact is also corroborated by the status report filed by the police. Therefore, the act alleged to have been committed on the part of the accused persons does not smacks of dishonest intention which is the basic ingredients of the offence of cheating. Therefore dishonest intention appears to be absent right from the beginning in the present case as the respondents have collected the amount in the capacity of the office bearer of the association for organising Independence Day and this fact has also been admitted by the complainant in his complaint. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that no offence under section 420 IPC is made out.
12. Now coming to the next contention that respondents have committed forgery in preparing the forged documents but so far as the ingredients of forgery are concerned, there should be a CR No.81/12 -:8:- 08.3.2013 Central Govt. employees vs. Neterballabh & Ors CR No. 81/12 fraudulent intention right from the beginning. Therefore fraud or deceit is the basic ingredient to constitute the offence of forgery. But from the bare averments of the complaint, no offence of forgery is made out as the accused allegedly after collecting the money got deposited the unused cash receipt to the treasurer alongwith remaining amount as well as the amount collected for making the members of the said organisation. Therefore, even from the bare averments of the complaint, no offence of forgery is made out and Ld. Trial Court has rightly observed in this regard in para 9 of the impugned judgment.
13. From the above discussion, I am of the opinion that counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any illegality in the impugned order. So this petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.
14. Needless to say that nothing stated herein shall tantamount to an expression of my opinion on the merits of the case.
15. TCR and copy of the order be sent to the Ld. Trial Court for information and compliance.
16. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (Vijay Kumar Dahiya) on the 8th Day of March 2013 ASJ/ Dwarka Courts/New Delhi CR No.81/12 -:9:- 08.3.2013