Delhi District Court
State vs Kamal Jain Ors on 29 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-01
EAST DISTRICT, KKD COURTS, DELHI.
TITLE: : State v. Kamal Jain
FIR No. : 143/2004
CNR No. : DLET020000782004
P.S. : Gandhi Nagar
Date of commission of offence : 30.04.2004
Name of Informant/complainant : SI Vijay Shankar
Name of accused : (1) Kamal Jain (2) Anil Kumar (3) Anwar
(4) Shanti Lal
Offence/s complained of : s. 420/467/468/34 IPC
Cognizance under section/s : s. 420/467/468/34 IPC
Charges framed under section/s : s. 467/468 IPC
Plea of the Accused : Not Guilty
Date of hearing Final Arguments : 28.10.2025
Date of pronouncement : 29.11.2025
Final Order : Acquittal
For the Prosecution : Ld. APP
For the accused. : Ms. Sangeeta Jain and Ms. Vidhi Jain
Present : Pritu Raj
J.M. F.C.-01,
KKD Courts, Delhi.
FIR No. 143/2004 State vs. Kamal Jain & Ors Page 1 / 19
JUDGEMENT
1. The accused persons namely Kamal Jain, Anil Kumar, Anwar and Shanti Lal are facing trial for offences u/s 467/468/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter 'IPC')
2. Stated succinctly, the facts germane for the prosecution of the case is that the complainant alongwith HC Pooran Singh and Ct. Mohan Singh was on patrolling duty near Tikona Park at around 06:40 PM, a secret informer informed that 04 people will come near pusta Road Bus Stop who are in the business of forged drafts and can be apprehended if prompt action is taken. Accordingly, the com- plainant alongwith aforesaid police officials reached near Pusta Road, Gandhi Nagar Bus stop, prepared a raiding party and appointed Ct. Mohan Singh as a de- coy customer and instructed him to engage in a transaction with the suspects for purchase of draft. He was further instructed that upon the deal being finalized, he would give a prefixed signal. It is the case of the prosecution that at around 07:25 PM four persons alighted from an RTV and started moving on foot towards Sub- hash Road. The decoy customer also started following them and started talking to them for purchase of bogus drafts and they entered into a transaction for a draft fior an amount of Rs. 9970/-. It is alleged that one of the accused namely Shanti Lal presented a draft No. 185862 for Rs. 9970/- drawn on Canara Bank, Jodhpur main Branch and stated that he can sell this draft for Rs. 1,000/- only. Conse- FIR No. 143/2004 State vs. Kamal Jain & Ors Page 2 / 19 quently, the bogus customer paid Rs. 1,000/- and gave the prefixed signal and took the draft in his hand. There upon, the complainant alongwith patrolling staff apprehended the four accused persons whose name were disclosed as Shanti Lal, Anil Kumar, Kamal Jain and Anwar. Upon their search, these accused persons were found to be in possession of multiple drafts. The same were seized and pul- landa was prepared. The currency note used by the decoy customer was also seized and the pullandas were sealed with the seal of 'VSR'. Accordingly, the present case was instituted.
3. On the written application of the complainant, Gandhi Nagar P.S. registered in re- lation to the above incident FIR no. 143/2004 on 30.04.2004 and, after investiga- tion, submitted the charge sheet on 26.06.2004 against the accused persons. Cog- nizance was taken vide. order dated 26.06.2004 and provisions of section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter 'CrPC') were duly complied with.
4. Charges u/s. 467/468/34 IPC were framed on 24.07.2004 and read over to the ac- cused, in Hindi, to which they denied the incident and claimed to be tried. During the course of trial, accused Anwar was declared PO vide order dated 19.01.2023. He was subsequently arrested on 14.09.2023 and charges u/s. 174A IPC were framed against him on 22.05.2025 to which he pleaded guilty and was sentenced FIR No. 143/2004 State vs. Kamal Jain & Ors Page 3 / 19 to undergo imprisonment for the term already undergone. Trial proceeded qua of- fences u/s. 467/468/34 IPC.
5. The prosecution, in order to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt, exam- ined six witnesses.
6. PW-01 HC Deewan singh was the duty officer. PW-02 Tara Chand Jain deposed that on 11.06.2004, he was posted as a senior Manager, Canara Bank, Jodhpur Main Branch and on that day police officials showed him 11 DDs issued by Jodhpur Main Branch alongwith an application. This witness checked the record of the bank and gave his detailed report which is Ex. PW-02/A. This witness deposed that the DDs were not issued from his branch and were fake. DDs were Ex. PW-2/B to Ex. PW-2/L.
7. PW-03 HC Subhash deposed that on 20.04.2004, he alongwith SI Vijay Shankar, HC Pooran, Ct. Mohan and Ct. Komesh were on partrolling duty and when they reached at Tikona Park, Gandhi Nagar, a secret informer met SI Vijay Shankar and told him that four persons involved in the transaction of fake DD would come at Pusta Road and can be apprehended. A raiding party was prepared and SI Vijay Shankar asked public persons to join the Raiding party but no one agreed and left without disclosing their identity. Ct. Mohan who was in civil uniform FIR No. 143/2004 State vs. Kamal Jain & Ors Page 4 / 19 was made the decoy customer and directed to deal with the accused regarding fake DD and he was to give a signal by putting his hand on his head when the deal was complete. At around 07:25 PM four five persons came from RTV Bus and started going to Subhas Road with Ct. Mohan, who was a bogus customer, also started following them. Ct. Mohan dealt with accused persons regarding DD and deal was complete for DD of Rs. 9970 with accused demanded only Rs. 1,000/- against the DD. When the deal was complete Ct. Mohan gave signal and the accused persons were apprehended. Ct. Mohan handed over a DD of Rs. 9970/- of Canara Bank and stated that he had dealt with accused Shanti Lal. During interrogation, names of other accused were revealed as Anil, Kamal and Anwar and during personal search, five drafts of Punjab & Sindh bank were recovered from acccused Anil. Four drafts were recovered from acccused Kamal and Three drafts were recovered from acccused Anwar. From accused Shanti Lal, three DDs and Rs. 1,000/- (given by decoy customer), were recovered. DDs recovered from accused Anwar and Shanti Lal were of Canara Bank. The demand drafts were taken in possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW-03/A to EX. PW-3/E. The recovered 1,000/- rupees from Shanti lal was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-03/F, a pulanda was prepared for Rs. 1,000/- and sealed with the seal of 'VSR'. IO prepared rukka and this witness went to the PS for getting the FIR lodged. This accused were arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW-03/G to Ex. PW- 03/J and personally searched vide personal search memos Ex. PW-3/K to Ex. FIR No. 143/2004 State vs. Kamal Jain & Ors Page 5 / 19 PW-3/N. This witness deposed that on 02.05.2004, accused Shanti Lal and Anil were taken out from lock up and they were interrogated in police custody. During interrogation they stated they were trying to mislead the police. Disclosure of accused Shanti Lal was recorded Ex. PW-03/O and Shantil Lal lead the police to H.No. A-16, Gali No.7, New govind Pura where a computer, 02 empty cartridges and paper was recovered. Same were taken in possession vide memo Ex. PW- 03/P and the things were kept in a box and sealed with seal of 'VSR'. Pointing out memo was prepared and case property were deposited in Malkhana. This witness further deposed that on 03.05.2004, accused Shanit Lal and Anil were taken out and interrogated, disclosure of accused Anil was prepared Ex. PW- 03/Q and Anil lead the police to H.No. 2327, Gali No. 12, Raghuvar Pura-2 and at his instance, 05 stamps/seals, 66 fake drafts, one stamp pad, one cutter, one stamp of day and date and one tape was recovered. Same were taken in possession vide memo Ex. PW-03/R and pullanda of above said articles was prepared and sealed with seal of 'VSR'. Pointing out memo was prepared which is Ex. PW-03/S. This witness correctly identified all accused except Kamal as accused kamal was not present. This witness correctly identified case property in his examination in cheif dated 24.02.2024 exhibited as Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-7, Mark X and Ex. P8(colly). He further identified the case property in his examination in chief dated 15.04.2024 exhibited as Ex. P-9 to Ex. P-13.
FIR No. 143/2004 State vs. Kamal Jain & Ors Page 6 / 19
8. PW-04 ASI Mohan Singh deposed that on demand he gave Rs. 1,000/- to accused Shanti Lal who in return gave him a fake draft. In the meantime, this witness made a signal by waving his hand on the head and on the signal the raiding party apprehended all accused persons. Upon inquiry, there names were disclosed as Anil Kumar Choubey(05 fake drafts were recovered from his possession), Kamal Jain( 04fake drafts were recovered from his possession), Anwar( 03 fake drafts were recovered from his possession) and Shanti Lal( 03 fake drafts were recovered from his possession). IO seized the three fake drafts of Canara Bank, 04 Fake drafts of Canara Bank, One Fake draft of Canara Bank, Rs. 1,000/-, 03 Fake drafts of Canara bank and 05 Fake drafts of PNB vide seizure memo already exhibited as Ex. PW-3/A to Ex. PW-03/E. IO sealed the above said drafts with seal of 'VSR', prepared rukka and handed over the same to Ct. Subhas for registration of FIR, who returned to the spot after sometime alongwith the FIR. IO in the meantime enquired from the accused persons and recorded the statement of this witness. This witness correclty identified all accused in court except accused Anil whose identity was not disputed.
9. PW-05 ASI Pramod brought Registar No. 19 pertaining to year 2004, the register mentions entry regarding deposit of case property i.e. fake demand drafts at Sr. (mud No.1117 dated 30.04.2004), Sr. 1121 qua computer dated 02.05.2004, Sr. FIR No. 143/2004 State vs. Kamal Jain & Ors Page 7 / 19 No. 1122 dated 03.05.2004 qua demand draft and stamp. Photocopy of entry is Ex. PW-05/A(colly)(OSR).
10. PW-06 Retd. SI Vijay Shankar deposed that on 30.04.2004, he alongwith HC Pooran, Ct. Mohan, Ct. Subhash and Ct. Komesh were on patrolling duty and when they reached at Tikona Park, Gandhi Nagar at around 06:40 PM, a secret informer met him and told him that four persons involved in the transaction of fake DD would come at Pusta Road in RTV Bus and they can be apprehended if action is taken immediately. A raiding party was prepared and this witness asked 04-05 public persons to join the Raiding party but no one agreed and left without disclosing their identity. Ct. Mohan Singh who was in civil uniform was made the bogus customer and this witness handed over Rs. 1,000/- to him and instructed him to complete a deal with the accused persons for receiving the bogus bank drafts and he was to give a signal by putting his hand on his head when the deal was complete. However no handing over memo for the money was prepared. Thereafter, the police officials alongwith this witness reached bus stand Pusta Road with secret informer. At around 06:50 PM four persons deboarded from RTV Bus and the secret informer signalled this witness. All four persons had started going to Gandhi Nagar Market and Ct. Mohan, who was the bogus customer, also started following them. Ct. Mohan talked with one of four accused persons regarding DD and after completion of deal, made the prefixed signal. FIR No. 143/2004 State vs. Kamal Jain & Ors Page 8 / 19 Thereafter, this witness and police officials immediately reached and apprehended the four persons. This witness deposed that Ct. Mohan Singh informed him that he had talked with one of four persons who stated to him that he would give a draft of Rs. 9970/- to Ct. Mohan Singh for consideration of Rs. 1,000/-. Ct. Mohan Singh showed one draft of Rs. 9970/- and signaled towards one of the apprehended persons with whom he had struck the deal. On inquiry name of the person was revealed as Shanti Lal and on his search Rs. 1000/- which were signed by this witness at time of handing over the same to Ct. Mohan Singh was recovered alongwith three bogus bank drafts. On Search of Anwar, three bogus bank drafts were recovered, on Search of accused Kamal Jain, four bogus bank drafts were recovered, on search of Anil Kumar Choubey, five bogus bank drafts were recovered. This wintess prepared pullanda for seized bogus bank drafts and the same was handed over to Ct. Mohan Singh by accused Shanti Lal and sealed with seal of 'VSR'. The seizure memo was Ex. PW-03/C. The recovered Rs. 1,000/- from possession of accused Shanti Lal was sealed with seal of VSR after preparation of pullanda of the same and the seizure memo was Ex. PW-03/F. The remaining bogus bank drafts recovered from accused persons were seized and sealed separately with seal of 'VSR'. The above mentioned separate pullandas were seized vide seizure memos already exhibited as Ex. PW- 03/A to Ex. PW-03/E. Seal was handed over to Ct. Komesh. This wintess prepared rukka and same was handed over to Ct. Shubhas for getting the FIR FIR No. 143/2004 State vs. Kamal Jain & Ors Page 9 / 19 lodged who came back after lodging of FIR alongwith copy of FIR and original rukka. This witness put particulars of case on above mentioned seizure memos. This witness prepared site plan which is exibited as Ex. PW-06/B, interrogated the above mentioned accused and recorded their disclosure statements which is already exhibited as Ex. PW-04/A to Ex. PW-04/D, arrested the accused and personally searched them vide memos already exhibited as Ex. PW-03/G to Ex. CW-03/L. This witness recorded statement of witness on 30.04.2004. Thereafter accused and case property were taken to PS where the case property was deposited in Malkhana and accused were put in lockup. This witness deposed that on 02.05.2004, accused Shantil Lal took the police to H.No. A-16, Gali No.7, New govind Pura where a computer, Monitor, mouse , printer , speaker, 02 empty cartridges and paper was recovered. Same were taken in possession vide memo Ex. PW-03/P and the things were kept in a box and sealed with seal of 'VSR'. Pointing out memo Ex. PW-4/E was prepared and case property were deposited in Malkhana and accused was put up in lockup. This witness further deposed that on 03.05.2004, accused Anil was taken to H.No. 2327, Gali No. 12, Raghuvar Pura-2 and at his instance, 05 stamps/seals, 66 bogus bank drafts, one stamp pad, one cutter, one stamp of day and date and one tape was recovered. Same were taken in possession vide memo Ex. PW-03/R and pullanda of above said articles was prepared and sealed with seal of 'VSR'. Pointing out memo was prepared which is Ex. PW-03/S. case property was deposited in Malkhana and accused FIR No. 143/2004 State vs. Kamal Jain & Ors Page 10 / 19 was put up in lockup. This witness deposed that prior to recoveries made on 02.05.2004 and 03.05.2004, disclosure statement of accused Shanti Lal and Anil Kumar chobe was recorded Vide Ex. PW-3/Q and Ex. PW-3/O respectively and were produced before the court and remanded to JC. This witness recorded the statements of Ct. Komesh and Ct. Subhash. On 10.06.2004, five sealed pulanda of the bogus bank drafts which were recovered on 30.04.2004 in sealed condition were taken by this wintess to one of the branch of Canara Bank, Jodhpur for verification of drafts from the bank manager. However, this witness does not remember the exact name of the branch. This witness further deposed that he opened five pullandas in presence of bank manager of Canara bank after moving an application to him for production of deatils regarding authentication of bank drafts related to Canara bank and this witness recorded the statement of bank manager. This witness correctly identified case property in his examination in chief dated 24.02.2024 i.e. Two cartridges, one printer HP, one Mouse Samsung which are Ex. P1 to P4, one monitor(on which samtel freedom monitor is written on back) exhibit as Ex. P5. , Two photographs of Rs. 1000/-(500x2), bearing No. 3DV174131 and 6AW807338 exhibit as Ex. P6 and Ex. P7, Five rubber stamps, 66 forged bank drafts in which 19 drafts were filled and remaining were blank, one stamp pad, one cutter (rusted), one punching pilers, one stamp of day and date, one cello tape exhibited as Ex. P8(colly). MCH(M) also produced order of Ld. MM, Mahila court, KKD vide which both the FIR No. 143/2004 State vs. Kamal Jain & Ors Page 11 / 19 currency notes were deposited in bank account of East DCP in lieu of demonetization, marked as Mark X. Infurther examination in chief of this witness dated 15.04.2024, this witness correctly identified one CPU make samsung, one keyboard make Samsung, one pair of speakers make PMPO, one UPS make Quantum and paper rim(1/3 of the whole rim), same are exhibit as Ex. P-9 to P-13. This witness further deposed that he got recovered forged drafts verified to one Tara Chand Jain and recorded his statement. After investigation, this witness filed the chargsheet. He further deposed that the forged bank drafts of Punjab and Sindh Bank were recovered from the possession of accused Anil. This witness correctly identified all accused except Shanti Lal and stated that he can identify accused Shanti Lal if shown to him.
11. Evidence on behalf of the prosecution was closed on 16.08.2024 and SA of ac- cused was recorded on 09.09.2025. Final arguments were heard on behalf of both sides and the matter was fixed for judgment.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
12. It is settled law that in order to secure conviction under Criminal Laws, the prose- cution must prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. It is also settled law that the burden of proof always lies upon the prosecution and never shifts. With this background, this court will examine whether the prosecution is able to prove its case against the accused persons.
FIR No. 143/2004 State vs. Kamal Jain & Ors Page 12 / 19
13. The accused persons have been charged for offences u/s 467/468/34 IPC. The sections are being reproduced below for the sake of brevity:-
S. 467 Forgery of valuable security, will, etc: Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
S. 468 Forgery for purpose of cheating: Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record1 forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
14. Section 468 IPC provides the punishment for the offence of forgery for the pur- pose of cheating and it states that whoever commits forgery intending that the document shall be used for the purpose of cheating shall be punished with impris- onment which may extend to 07 years and shall also be liable to fine. Section 467 IPC provides punishment for forgery of a valuable security, will etc. and states that anyone who forges a valuable security or will or an authority to adopt a son or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to FIR No. 143/2004 State vs. Kamal Jain & Ors Page 13 / 19 receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any doc- ument purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, , shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with impris- onment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
15. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid sections makes it clear that for the prosecution to successfully bring home the charge u/s 467/468 IPC, the primary requisite to be fulfilled is that of forgery. The term 'forgery', as defined in section 463 IPC means the making of any false document or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed. Needless to state that if the ingre- dient of forgery has not been proved, conviction u/s 467 IPC or 468 IPC cannot be sustained.
16. The case against the accused persons is that on 30.04.2004 at Pusta Road Bus stop they were found in possession of bank drafts, as detailed in the seizure memo, and it is claimed that the accused persons, in furtherance of their common FIR No. 143/2004 State vs. Kamal Jain & Ors Page 14 / 19 intention, had forged these demand drafts and intended to use them for the pur- pose of cheating. Coming to the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the mate- rial witnesses are PW-03 HC Subhash, PW-04 ASI Mohan Singh and PW-06 Retd. SI Vijay Shankar Rai. Apart from this the prosecution has also examined PW-02 Tara Chand, Senior Manager Canara Bank.
17. PW-03 HC Shubhash (as he was then) has deposed that on 20.04.2004, at Tikona Park, Gandhi Nagar, upon the information of a secret informer, the IO prepared a raiding party upon information that four persons involved in transaction of fake DD would come and they can be apprehended if a raid was conducted. He de- posed that upon receipt of such information, Ct. Mohan Singh was made a dummy customer and was instructed to strike a deal with such persons and upon the completion of the deal, a pre-fixed signal was to be given by this Ct. Mohan Singh. This witness further deposed that upon the pre-fixed signal being given, the accused persons were apprehended and the demand drafts were recovered from them which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-03/A to Ex. PW-03/E. Similarly, a perusal of testimony of PW-04 ASI Mohan Singh shows that he was the decoy customer and was directed to deal with the accused persons regarding fake Demand drafts with further directions to give a pre-fixed signal when the deal was concluded. This witness deposed that he interacted with the accused per- sons, handed over currency notes and on completion of the deal,he made the pre- FIR No. 143/2004 State vs. Kamal Jain & Ors Page 15 / 19 fixed signal consequent to which the accused were arrested and fake demand drafts were seized from them. The IO of the case was examined as PW-06 and he has also deposed on the same lines as PW-03 and PW-04.
18. However, nothing has come on record in the evidence of PW-03, PW-04 and PW-06 to prove the factum of forgery of the seized demand drafts. No averment has been made by these witnesses to the effect that the accused persons had forged the demand drafts. PW-03 has deposed that upon the instance of accused Shanti Lal a computer, cartridges and paper were recovered from A-16, Gali No. 7, New Govind Pura, the same were never sent for FSL examination. It was in- cumbent upon the prosecution to ensure that the aforesaid seized case property ought to have been sent for FSL examination in order to determine whether it was being used for the purpose of forgery. The same was not done.
19. As was the case with the testimony of PW-03, nothing has come on record in the testimony of PW-04 to prove the allegation of forgery. The crux of the testimony of this witness is that accused persons were allegedly found to be in possession of fake demand drafts. For the sake of argument, even if the testimony of this wit- ness is accepted, the factum of forgery remains unproved. The possession of an alleged forged document and committing forgery qua it are two different things and allegations qua them cannot be used interchangeably. Similar is the case with FIR No. 143/2004 State vs. Kamal Jain & Ors Page 16 / 19 the testimony of PW-06 who was the IO of the present case. During his testi- mony, there is no averment regarding the factum of forgery by the accused per- sons.
20. As regards the testimony of PW-02 Tara Chand Jain, a perusal of this witnesses' testimony shows that this witness has deposed that the demand drafts issued by Jodhpur Main Branch were not issued from his branch and were fake. While there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of this witness, the same does not come to the aid of the prosecution for the simple fact that merely proving that the demand drafts were fake cannot be equated with the fact that the demand drafts were forged by the accused persons. As was the case with the other prosecution witnesses, even if the testimony of this witness is accepted without reservation, it would merely prove that the demand drafts were fake. The same does not prove the fact that the accused persons had forged the demand draft. The same ought to have been proved by leading evidence in this regard. However, the same was not done.
21. The case of the prosecution also suffers from serious lapses in investigation. This court fails to understand as to why the seized demand drafts were never sent for FSL examination. The prosecution could have always taken the specimen signa- tures of the accused persons, as per law, and sent the same for comparison to FIR No. 143/2004 State vs. Kamal Jain & Ors Page 17 / 19 prove its case that the demand drafts seized from the accused persons bore their signatures and hence, prove the allegation of forgery. Same was not done for rea- sons best known to the prosecution.
22. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this court has no hesitancy in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the essential requirement of forgery in order to se- cure conviction qua the charged offences i.e. 467/468/34 IPC. Consequently, in the absence of forgery being proved, conviction u/s 467/468/34 IPC cannot be done.
DECISION
23. In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the primary burden in order to bring home the guilt of the accused. It is well settled that the burden which lies on the prose- cution is to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt and not merely on the pre- ponderance of probabilities. The case of the prosecution must stand on its own two legs. Reliance in this regard is placed on S.L.Goswami v. State of M.P, 1972 CRI.L.J.511(SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:-
"...... In our view, the onus of proving all the ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does it shift to the accused. It is no part of the prosecution duty to somehow hook the crook. Even in cases where the defence of the accused does not appear to be credible or is palpably false that burden does not become any the less. It is only when this burden is discharged that it will be for the accused to explain FIR No. 143/2004 State vs. Kamal Jain & Ors Page 18 / 19 or controvert the essential elements in the prosecution case, which would negate it. It is not however for the accused even at the initial stage to prove something which has to be eliminated by the prosecution to estab- lish the ingredients of the offence with which he is charged, and even if the onus shifts upon the accused and the accused has to establish his plea, the standard of proof is not the same as that which rests upon the prosecution..........................."
24. The accused (1) Kamal Jain S/o Sh. Rakesh Jain, (2) Anil Kumar S/o Sh. - Madan Chobey and (3) Anwar S/o Sh. Abdul Salam (4). Shanti Lal S/o Sh. Mange Lal are hereby acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 467/468/34 IPC.
25. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance. This judgment contains 19 pages and each page has been duly signed by the undersigned.
Digitally signed by PRITU PRITU Date:
RAJ RAJ 2025.12.05 17:05:31 +0530 Announced in open Court (PRITU RAJ) on 29 th November, 2025 Judicial Magistrate-01 East, KKD Courts, Delhi.FIR No. 143/2004 State vs. Kamal Jain & Ors Page 19 / 19