Delhi District Court
State vs Sheesh Pal on 31 July, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. HIMANSHU TANWAR,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-10, SOUTH-EAST
DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
FIR No.208/2011
U/s 170/466/471 IPC and 5 of
Emblems and Names (Prevention
of Improper Use)
PS Pul Prahlad Pur
State vs. Sheesh Pal
Date of Institution of case 20.02.2015
Judgment Reserved on 04.07.2024
Date of Judgment 31.07.2024
The institution Sr. No. of the case 90978/2016
The date of commission of offence 10.05.2010, 29.03.2010,
12.04.2010 and 01.05.2010
Details of complainant Sh. Krishan Gopal son of
Sh. Shyam Babu Gupta, r/o
R-35/B/2, Pul Prahlad Pur,
New Delhi
Details of accused person Sheesh Pal son of Sh.
Keshari Singh, r/o H.No.52,
Pkt.8A, Kalkaji Extn., New
Delhi
The offence complained of 170/466/471 IPC and u/s 5
of Emblems and Names
(Prevention of Improper
Use)
The plea of accused person Pleaded not guilty
The final order Acquitted
The date of such order 31.07.2024
By this judgment the court shall dispose of the case u/s
State vs. Sheesh Pal FIR No.208/2011 PS Pul Prahlad Pur Page No.1 of 21
Digitally signed
by HIMANSHU
HIMANSHU TANWAR
TANWAR Date:
2024.07.31
15:38:54 +0530
170/466/471 IPC and u/s 5 of Emblems and Names (Prevention
of Improper Use).
Brief statement of the reasons for the decision:
1) The brief facts of the case of prosecution are that on
10.05.2010accused gave a written complaint to DCP, South East and on various occasions he had knowingly used the National Emblem of Ashok on letterheads and falsely personated himself as a Member of Legislative Assembly and further that on 29.03.2010, 10.05.2010 and 12.04.2010 accused had written complaints to the Commissioner, MCD and also on 01.05.2010 accused had written a complaint to the Director Vigilance Department and used the letterpads wrongly and again posed as a Member of Legislative Assembly and also used the said fabricated letterpads as genuine knowingly that they are false and fabricated and thereby he committed offences u/s 170/466/471 IPC and offence u/s 5 of the Emblems and Names (prevention of improper use).
2) After the accused appeared in the Court, copy of chargesheet and other documents were supplied to him. Thereafter, charge was framed against the accused u/s 170/466/471 IPC and 5 of the Emblems and Names (prevention of improper use), to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and the matter was listed for prosecution evidence.
3) (i) In the prosecution evidence PW-1 Sh. Krishan Gopal, in his examination in chief, deposed that accused Sheeshpal was the legislative member from Tuglkabad Legislative area in the year State vs. Sheesh Pal FIR No.208/2011 PS Pul Prahlad Pur Page No.2 of 21 Digitally signed HIMANSHU by HIMANSHU TANWAR TANWAR Date: 2024.07.31 15:38:59 +0530 1993 to 2003. He had painted on the wall of his office at A-18, Pul Prahlad Pur, Suraj Kund Road, that he was a legislative member. Accused used his letter head of legislative member to file false complaints against the government employees and thereafter, he would bargain with the officers to settle the matter. Accused was well aware that he was not a legislative member still he used the letter heads. He also used the national emblem in his letter head for making false complaint against the government employees. Thereafte, he made a written complaint to the police on 30.06.2011, Ex.PW1/A. The police officials took the photograph of the office of the accused Sheeshpal in his presence.
(ii) Witness correctly identified the accused during examination. Witness also correctly identified the photographs to be same as were taken in his presence by the police officers and deposed that same were of the office of the accused.
Witness also deposed that he also produced the information furnished by CPIO, ASI dated 23.05.2011, mark A to the police. Police recorded his statement u/s 161 CrPC.
Witness was cross-examined by Sh. K.K. Manan, Ld. Senior Counsel for accused.
4) PW2 Praveen Kumar, in his examination in chief, deposed that he worked as property dealer. In the year 2011, he had read the newspaper and thereafter went to the police station Pul Prahlad Pur to know about the letters bearing national emblem given by the accused Sheesh Pal to the MCD Officials pertaining State vs. Sheesh Pal FIR No.208/2011 PS Pul Prahlad Pur Page No.3 of 21 Digitally signed by HIMANSHU HIMANSHU TANWAR TANWAR Date: 2024.07.31 15:39:03 +0530 himself as MLA. The letters were written by the accused Sheesh Pal to the Election Officer in year 2009. Accused also wrote two letters bearing national emblem to the MCD Commissioner in the year 2010. Thereafter, he gave copy of those letters to the police official of PS Pul Prahlad Pur. The photocopy of letter written by accused to the Chief Election Officer and copy of letter given to the MCD Commissioner and copy of letters given to the vigilance department by the accused were seized by IO, Ex.PW2/A. Accused used to make complaint against the officers and used national emblem in his letter pad showing himself as MLA. However, accused had lost the elections in year 2003. He misused his letter pad. Accused had given letter to vigilance officer to whom he met and he stated that he produced the letter to vigilance officer in the condition of not disclosing his name.
Witness correctly identified the accused during examination.
Witness was cross-examined by Ld. APP for State and Sh. K.K. Manon, Ld. Senior Counsel for accused.
5) PW3 Sh. Hans Raj in his examination in chief, deposed that he was running business of property dealing in the year 2011 at Jasola Vihar. He also used to work in the area of Pul Prahlad Pur, Tughlakabad Extension, OIA, New Delhi. During his visit, he found that at the office of accused Sheeshpal at main road, Pul Prahlad Pur, Choudhary Sheeshpal ('Vidhayak') was written on front side of the office of the accused. He also found that accused used sticker of MLA on his Honda City Car bearing No.0007. However, he lost election in the year 2003 and 2008. Thereafter, State vs. Sheesh Pal FIR No.208/2011 PS Pul Prahlad Pur Page No.4 of 21 Digitally signed by HIMANSHU HIMANSHU TANWAR TANWAR Date: 2024.07.31 15:39:06 +0530 he informed the police regarrding the same. Police recorded his statement.
Witness correctly identified the accused during examination.
Witness was cross-examined by Sh. Kartik Gandtra, Ld. Counsel for accused.
6) PW-4 Statement Sh. Ramesh Bidhuri, in his examination in chief, deposed that on 07.07.2011, he made a complaint to SHO PS Pul Prahlad Pur regarding misuse of national emblem by accused Sheesh Pal on his letter head. At that time, he was MLA of the area and in that capacity, he lodged a complaint Ex. PW4/A. He also annexed four letters photocopies allegedly written by the accused along with his complaint Mark X(colly). He also made the said complaint to Sh. Yoganand Shastri, the then Speaker of Vidhan Sabha, Delhi, Mark Z. Witness correctly identified the accused in the open court. Witness was duly cross-examined by Sh. K.K. Manan, Ld. Senior Counsel for accused.
7) PW-5 Inspector Vijay Kumar, in his examination in chief deposed that on 18.07.2011, he was posted as Inspector at DIU, South East, CR Park. On that day, the investigation of the present case was marked to him. Thereafter, he perused the case file. Thereafter, he attended the proceedings of the bail matter of accused Sheeshpal Singh. Thereafter, on 12.01.2011, Ct. Sri Bhagwan collected the complaint given by Sheeshpal to LG, Delhi and thereafter, he seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.
State vs. Sheesh Pal FIR No.208/2011 PS Pul Prahlad Pur Page No.5 of 21 Digitally signed HIMANSHU by HIMANSHU TANWAR TANWAR Date: 2024.07.31 15:39:10 +0530 PW5/A. Thereafter, the investigation was marked to another IO Inspector Suresh Pal.
Witness was duly cross-examined by Sh. K.K. Manan, Ld. Senior Counsel for accused.
8) (i) PW-6 Retired SI Dharam Pal, in his examination in chief, deposed that on 30.06.2012, he was posted as Sub Inspector PS PPP. On that day, he received a complaint from complainant Krishan Gopal. Thereafter, he took legal opinion from the prosecution branch w.r.t. the allegations in the complaint. Thereafter, on 13.07.2011, FIR was registered under the direction of the SHO. Thereafter, he made inquiry from the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant handed over the reply of RTI he had obtained to him and he seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/B. Thereafter, he along with the complainant came to the spot i.e. A-18, Pul Prahlad Pur, Suraj Kund Road and thereafter, he took the photographs, Ex.P1(colly) of the alleged office of accused. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of complainant u/s 161 CrPC. On the same day, he also recorded the statement of Sh. Ramesh Bidhuri who was the MLA Tughlakabad constituency at that time.
(ii) Thereafter, on 16.07.2011, he was present at the PS. On that day, Praveen Kumar resident of Tughlakabad Village came to the PS and handed over copy of three complaints which were made in the letter head of Sheesh Pal Singh as MLA. Thereafter, he seized the aforesaid complaint vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/A. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of Praveen Kumar. He also recorded the statement of Hans Raj Nagar, State vs. Sheesh Pal FIR No.208/2011 PS Pul Prahlad Pur Page No.6 of 21 Digitally signed HIMANSHU by HIMANSHU TANWAR TANWAR Date: 2024.07.31 15:39:13 +0530 resident of Tughlakabad Village. Thereafter, the investigation of the case was transferred to DIU, SED.
Witness was duly cross-examined by Sh. K.K. Manan, Ld. Senior Counsel for accused.
9) PW-7 Retired ACP Suresh Pal in his examination in chief, deposed that on 18.08.2011, he was posted as Inspector at DIU, South East. On that day, investigation of the present case was marked to him. He examined the accused and formally arrested him vide arrest memo, Ex.PW7/A. He also taken his specimen signature of accused, Ex.PW7/B (running into six pages) and sent the same to FSL. Thereafter, he handed over the file to ACP, DIU and was marked to another IO for further investigation.
Witness correctly identified the accused during examination.
Witness was duly cross-examined by Sh. K.K. Manan, Ld. Senior Counsel for accused.
10) (i) PW-8 Inspector Ravi Kant, in his examination in chief, deposed that on 05.10.2013, he was posted as Inspector in DIU South East district and the investigation of the present case was assigned to him by ACP DIU. Thereafter, he made application before Director FSL Rohini to furnish the result of exhibits deposited in the present case and collected the result of FSL. He also moved an application for sanction u/s 6 of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 2005.
(ii) On 13.04.2015, he received the sanction. He recorded the statement of witnesses u/s 161 CrPC and thereafter, he State vs. Sheesh Pal FIR No.208/2011 PS Pul Prahlad Pur Page No.7 of 21 Digitally signed by HIMANSHU HIMANSHU TANWAR TANWAR Date: 2024.07.31 15:39:25 +0530 prepared the chargesheet and supplementary chargesheet and submitted the same before the Court.
Witness was duly cross-examined by Sh. K.K. Manan, Ld. Senior Counsel for accused.
11) PW-9 ASI Sri Bhagwan, in his examination in chief, deposed that on 12.08.2011, he was posted at Ct. at Anti-Human Trafficking Unit, South East District. On that day, he went to HAC/SED and brought the copy of complaint against the accused Sheesh Pal and handed over same to the IO, Ex.PW5/A. Cross-examination of PW9 was nil. Opportunity given.
12) (i) PW-10 Inspector Nand Kishore, in his examination in chief, deposed that he was deputed by Shri Shitiji Kumar, Under Secretary and Shri Praveen Kumar, Director, Delhi Police to appear in the present case vide authority letter Ex.PW10/A (OSR). On that day, PW10 brought the record regarding the sanction of registration of the FIR against the accused u/s 3 and 8 of the State Emblem of India (Provisions of Improper Use).
(ii) On 17.03.2015, Under Secretary Sh. Ashok Kumar issued the sanction letter, Ex.PW10/B to prosecute the accused and forwarded the same to Sh. RK Ahuja, Deputy Secretary (Home), GNCTD. He deposed that he can identify the signature of Sh. Ashok Kumar on the basis of the record available in the office.
Witness was duly cross-examined by Sh. K.K. Manan, Ld. Senior Counsel for accused.
State vs. Sheesh Pal FIR No.208/2011 PS Pul Prahlad Pur Page No.8 of 21 Digitally signed HIMANSHU by HIMANSHU TANWAR TANWAR Date: 2024.07.31 15:39:29 +0530
13) PW-11 Vijender Singh, in his examination in chief, deposed that in the year 2009, he was appointed as Senior Scientific Officer (Documents) in FSL Delhi. On 12.10.2011, some documents were received vide memo No.682/R/ACP/DIU/SE for examination and reporting. All the documents were examined using scientific instruments under different lightning conditions and he was of the opinion that the person who wrote the red enclosed signatures, stamped and marked S1 to S6 also wrote the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked Q1 to Q6. He prepared the report Ex.PW11/A accordingly.
Witness was duly cross-examined by Sh. K.K. Manan, Ld. Senior Counsel for accused.
14) PW-12 ASI Vishram, in his examination in chief, deposed that on 03.07.2015, he was posted at DIU South East District as HC. He was given the authority letter by Inspector Ravi Kant after which he went to FSL Rohini and collected the FSL report in a sealed condition. He handed over the same to Inspector Ravi Kant in a sealed condition. During transportation, the exhibits remained in his safe custody and the seal was intact.
Cross-examination of PW12 was nil. Opportunity given.
15) Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed and matter was listed for recording of statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. In his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. accused had stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to political rivalry and he has never used National Emblem of Ashoka on the State vs. Sheesh Pal FIR No.208/2011 PS Pul Prahlad Pur Page No.9 of 21 Digitally signed by HIMANSHU HIMANSHU TANWAR TANWAR Date:
2024.07.31 15:39:32 +0530 alleged letterpad and further that the office at Pul Prahlad Pur did not belong to him and that he has never used any alleged letterheads and he is innocent and stated that he wants to lead evidence in his defence but on the NDOH accused chose not to lead. DE was therefore closed.
16) I have heard the submissions addressed by Sh. Mukul Kumar, Ld. APP for state and Sh. K.K. Manan Ld. Senior Counsel for accused and carefully perused the documents on record.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
17) (i) It was argued by learned APP for State that the accused Sheesh Pal was a Member of Legislative Assembly till the year 2003. It was contended that accused Sheesh Pal has falsely impersonated himself as the MLA in the years after 2010 and he had knowingly used the National Emblem of Ashoka while giving complaints to various government authorities and pursuant to the same, he had also used a letter pad having symbol of National Emblem of Ashoka and the said letter pad was a false and fabricated one of which accused had the knowledge. It has been further argued that accused was no longer an MLA when he was using the abovesaid letter pad. It was also argued by learned APP that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused through the testimony of complainant and other public witnesses, who had specifically named the accused in their depositions w.r.t. impersonation of the accused as MLA and how he had used the forged letter heads in various communication State vs. Sheesh Pal FIR No.208/2011 PS Pul Prahlad Pur Page No.10 of 21 Digitally signed by HIMANSHU HIMANSHU TANWAR TANWAR Date: 2024.07.31 15:39:36 +0530 with authorities.
(ii) In rebuttal, it was the argument of Sh. K.K. Manan Learned Senior Advocate that the testimonies of complainant and other witnesses are full of contradictions and their testimonies, if read along with testimonies of police officials, prove that there had been no impersonation by the accused as MLA and further the alleged letter heads do not belong to the accused and he has been falsely implicated due to a political rivalry and thus, the accused deserves acquittal.
18) To establish the offence u/s 170 IPC beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution is required to prove the following ingredients:-
(a) Impersonation: the accused must have falsely represented himself as someone else and more specifically must have pretended to be a public servant; and
(b) Knowledge: the accused must have the knowledge that he does not hold such office or he has falsely personated any other person holding such office; and
(c) in such assumed character, accused does or attempts to do any act under the colour of such office.
19) Further to establish the offence u/s 466 IPC beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution is required to prove the following ingredients:-
(a) Forgery: the accused has committed forgery i.e. he had made a false document with intent to cause damage or injury to public or any person or to support any claim or title or with the intent to commit fraud or that the fraud may be committed;
State vs. Sheesh Pal FIR No.208/2011 PS Pul Prahlad Pur Page No.11 of 21 Digitally signed HIMANSHU by HIMANSHU TANWAR TANWAR Date: 2024.07.31 15:39:39 +0530 and
(b) Specific documents: the forgery must involve any of the specific type of documents i.e. the record or proceedings of a court of justice or a register kept by a public servant or a document purporting to be made by a public servant in his official capacity.
20) Further to establish the offence u/s 471 IPC beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution is required to prove the following ingredients:-
(a) the accused has fradulently or dishonestly used a forged document as genuine; and
(b) he had the knowledge or the reason to believe that such document is a forged one.
21) Further to establish the offence u/s 5 of Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution is required to prove the following ingredients:-
(a) the accused must have knowingly or improperly used an emblem, name or official seal protected under the Act without appropriate authorization for the purpose of any trade, business, calling or profession, or in the title of any patent or in any trade mark or design.
22) (i) The allegations, in nutshell against the accused, are that he has falsely impersonated himself as an MLA and had got painted a wall of A-18, Pul Prahlad Pur, Surajkund Road, New Delhi claiming himself as an MLA and further had also used the word Vidhayak on his car, when he was well aware that he is not an MLA. Further, there are allegations that he got prepared forged and fabricated letterheads and had improperly used the National Emblem of Ashoka on the said letter pads and had given State vs. Sheesh Pal FIR No.208/2011 PS Pul Prahlad Pur Page No.12 of 21 Digitally signed by HIMANSHU HIMANSHU TANWAR TANWAR Date:
2024.07.31 15:39:43 +0530 various complaints to various government authorities on them.
23) In the set of circumstances put forth before the Court, the criminal law machinery was initially set into motion on receipt of complaint by the complainant Krishan Gopal pursuant to which the present FIR was registered.
24) (i) A studied perusal of examinations/cross-examinations of PWs reveal various glaring contradictions in their testimonies.
PW-1/complainant Krishan Gopal had deposed that the accused was an MLA from the year 1993 to 2003 and he had painted a wall of his office at A-18, Pul Prahlad Pur claiming himself to be an MLA. PW1 has deposed that accused also used his letter head of MLA to file false complaint of government employees and thereafter he would extort the officers to settle the matter and he had knowingly used the Ashoka Emblem on his letter pads when he was well aware that he is no longer an MLA. PW1 had further stated that police officials had taken the photographs of the accused in his presence and he had identified the office from the photographs placed on record during testimony.
(ii) Quite interestingly, in the cross-examination of PW1, he had denied a suggestion that office shown in the photographs belonged to the accused. PW1 further unable to specify any name against whom accused had made complaints or later had blackmailed them. Further, PW1 had given the photocopy of documents to the IO which were marked as Mark 2A, 2B and 2C, which he received in the letterbox outside his residence but the said documents were never exhibited during the testimony.
State vs. Sheesh Pal FIR No.208/2011 PS Pul Prahlad Pur Page No.13 of 21 Digitally signed HIMANSHU by HIMANSHU TANWAR TANWAR Date: 2024.07.31 15:39:47 +0530
(iii) The complainant/PW1 had nowhere during his testimony has explained as to how he came to know regarding the alleged fact that accused was impersonating himself as MLA and has been using abovesaid forged letter heads. The point becomes more important, as he was never privy to such communication/complaints made on letter heads. In his testimony, it is neither mentioned as to whether PW1 had seen accused writing complaints on above-mentioned letter heads nor the same ever recovered from the possession of accused in his presence. More so he had even never seen the originals of alleged photocopies. The only explanation comes during the cross- examination, wherein PW1 states that since he was the President of Village Pul Prahladpur, Jan Kalyan Samiti, he received the photocopies of letter heads in his letter box, but again it was unclear as to who had sent them and why haven't they approached the authorities. Moreover, complainant had neither verified the allegations with persons, against whom the alleged complaints on letter heads had been made nor with the persons to whom such letters were issued. It appears, that complainant made the complaints on the basis of photocopies received by him and he had presumed that same had been issued by accused by impersonating himself as an MLA. The information to him appears more to be hearsay and complaint was made on the basis of such information only.
25) (i) PW2 Praveen Kumar had deposed that in year 2011, he went to PS Pul Prahladpur to know about letter having National Emblem given by accused to MCD claiming himself as MLA. He State vs. Sheesh Pal FIR No.208/2011 PS Pul Prahlad Pur Page No.14 of 21 Digitally signed by HIMANSHU HIMANSHU TANWAR TANWAR Date: 2024.07.31 15:39:50 +0530 had stated that the letters were written by accused to Election Officer in year 2009 and also wrote similar letters to MCD Commissioner in 2010. PW2 had given the copies of these letters to police. He had deposed accused had misused the letter heads and has shown himself as an MLA. He had also seen a placard at the office of accused, wherein Vidhayak had been written. He had also deposed that accused was seen driving a zen car upon which emblem was used and word Vidhayak was written on sticker pasted on the windscreen.
(ii) PW2 did not remember the address of the accused, and he was unsure as to whether A-18, Pul Prahladpur is exact address or not. During cross-examination, PW2 was unable to recall the registration number of the car. He also failed to disclose the name of MCD official who had given him the photocopies of letters.
(iii) The testimony of the PW2 is full of allegations against the accused, of him impersonating as an MLA and using National emblem on letter, but PW2 had failed to support any of the allegations made by him. Firstly, PW2 was unable to give a name from he had received photocopies of letters. Secondly, he was unsure about the address of office of accused, where he had seen the placard having word Vidhayak written. Thirdly, no photograph any such placard was placed on record. Fourthly, neither the zen car nor its photographs were ever produced in the court. At last, as discussed above, PW2 had neither seen accused writing complaints on above-mentioned letter heads nor the same ever recovered from the possession of accused in his presence. More so he had even never seen the originals of alleged State vs. Sheesh Pal FIR No.208/2011 PS Pul Prahlad Pur Page No.15 of 21 Digitally signed by HIMANSHU HIMANSHU TANWAR TANWAR Date:
2024.07.31 15:39:54 +0530 photocopies.
26) (i) PW4 Ramesh Bidhuri had deposed that on 07.07.2011 he had made a complaint to SHO PS Pul Prahlad Pur regarding the misuse of the National Emblem by accused Sheesh Pal on letter head and at that time PW4 was the MLA of the area and he has lodged the said complaint, Ex.PW4/A in that capacity and he has also annexed four photocopies of letters allegedly written by the accused along with the complaint.
(ii) Surprisingly, PW4 had admitted during his cross-
examination that he had not gone through the contents of the complaint and had further stated that he do not remember the name of the person who had given him the photocopies of letters allegedly written by the accused.
(iii) The very admission on the part of PW4 that he had not gone through the contents of the complaint and had signed the same without even going through it, render his testimony and his complaint Ex.PW4/A more or less inadmissible as he himself is not aware of the contents of the same so how could the Court be expected to rely upon such document.
27) (i) PW6 retired SI Dhrampal had deposed that the present FIR was registered in the year 2011 upon the complaint of PW1 and thereafter, he along with the complainant went the spot i.e A- 18, Pul Prahlad Pur, Surajkund Road and had taken the photographs of the property of the accused, Ex. P1 (colly) and on the same date, he had recorded the statement of Ramesh Bidhuri. It had been stated that on 16.07.2011, PW2 Praveen Kumar came State vs. Sheesh Pal FIR No.208/2011 PS Pul Prahlad Pur Page No.16 of 21 Digitally signed by HIMANSHU HIMANSHU TANWAR TANWAR Date: 2024.07.31 15:39:57 +0530 to the PS and handed over copy of three complaints made by accused Sheesh Pal on his letter heads as an MLA.
(ii) During the cross-examination of PW6 he had stated that the digital camera, through which he took photographs was not in his possession and he had further stated that he had neither investigated nor enquired regarding the ownership of property in dispute.
(iii) It is a basic requirement of the law that to prove any electronic evidence, a certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act is required and PW6 himself being a police official must be aware of the same but no such certificate had been placed on record or even prepared qua the photographs of the spot i.e. A- 18, Pul Prahlad Pur, New Delhi. Further, the camera from which the photographs had purportedly been taken was never produced. It is common sense that to prove whether a property belongs to a person, IO should have sought either the property documents regarding the property or should have at least enquired about the same from the neighbourhood but PW6 or for the matter any police official in the present case had failed to do so for the reasons best known to them. Due to the abovesaid inaction of the police officials, it cannot be said with certainty that the property bearing No. A-18, Pul Prahlad Pur, New Delhi belongs to the accused.
28) (i) PW7 retd. ACP Suresh Pal had deposed that he had examined and formally arrested the accused and had also taken the specimen signatures of the accused, Ex. PW7/B and same were sent to FSL for analysis.
State vs. Sheesh Pal FIR No.208/2011 PS Pul Prahlad Pur Page No.17 of 21 Digitally signed by HIMANSHU HIMANSHU TANWAR TANWAR Date:
2024.07.31 15:40:00 +0530
(ii) During his cross-examination, PW7 admitted that he had not moved an application before the concerned Magistrate to obtain the specimen signatures of accused and had further stated that he took the signatures of the accused in his office only.
(iii) PW11 Virender Singh Assistant Director (Documents) (RFSL) Chanakya Puri had deposed that on 12.10.2011 he had received some documents for examination and after the examination of the same he had opined that the person who wrote the red enclosed signatures, stamped and marked S1 to S6 also wrote the red enclosed signatures, similarly stamped and marked Q1 to Q6 and accordingly prepared the report.
(iv) PW11, in his cross-examination, had stated that the documents in question were received by him in open condition from the HoD of his Division but he was not aware as to who had handed over the said documents in question to the HoD and he was further not aware as to after how many dates he received the said documents for analysis after the same were received by the FSL.
(v) Section 311A CrPC gives the power to the magistrate to order any person to give specimen signatures or handwriting if the magistrate is satisfied that it is expedient to direct any person to give the same for the meaningful conclusion of the investigation or any proceedings. The purpose of Section 311A CrPC is to give sanctity to the process of obtaining the specimen signature of any person. It ensures that specimen signature of a person is taken with the permission of the magistrate and in his presence only, which rules out any kind of tampering while obtaining the specimen signatures and it also ensures that State vs. Sheesh Pal FIR No.208/2011 PS Pul Prahlad Pur Page No.18 of 21 Digitally signed by HIMANSHU HIMANSHU TANWAR TANWAR Date: 2024.07.31 15:40:06 +0530 specimen signatures are given by such person only, with whose signatures, the specimen signatures are to be compared, and no one else. In the case at hand the PW7 had himself donned the hat of a magistrate and therefore, he didn't feel the need of moving an application before the magistrate to take the specimen signatures of accused and proceeded to take the specimen signatures of accused in his office. Such act on the part of PW7, had created a suspicion in the mind of the court, as to whether the specimen signature purportedly taken were actually of the accused or not. This hit the root of the case, as these specimen were to be compared with signatures which were on the letter heads. The suspicion further deepens, as the specimen received by the FSL examiner were in an open condition and not in a sealed condition.
29) (i) PW8 Inspector Ravi Kant had stated that he had collected the FSL result and thereafter moved an application for sanction u/s 6 of Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) and on 13.04.2015 he received the same and thereafter he prepared the chargesheet and supplementary chargesheet and file the same before the Court.
(ii) During the cross-examination, PW8 had affirmed the suggestion that except the application for seeking sanction, the file of the present case was not placed before the sanctioning authority.
(iii) Grant of any sanction is not a clerical work, wherein one just had to forward a report or application made by any official. If the law has granted a power upon an authority to grant State vs. Sheesh Pal FIR No.208/2011 PS Pul Prahlad Pur Page No.19 of 21 Digitally signed by HIMANSHU HIMANSHU TANWAR TANWAR Date: 2024.07.31 15:40:10 +0530 sanction, it goes without saying that such sanction is to be given with due care and utmost responsibility, after going through the contents of the file and same should be backed up with reasons.
In the case at hand, things have been done quite opposite. As admitted, the case file was not put up before the sanctioning authority, so the question arises as to how the concerned official came to the conclusion that sanction to prosecute should be granted. The sanction granted is also silent as to why the same has been granted as it has not been backed up with any reason. It appears the same has been granted mechanically, without even knowing the facts of the case. This sanction cannot be said to be a proper sanction.
30) The case of the prosecutions and testimonies of its witnesses is full of allegations against the accused. It appears that the investigating agency was in such mind frame that only the allegations are to jotted down in the chargesheet and therefore, they forgot to conduct a proper investigation to prove the same. In the opinion of Court, the prosecution appeared making efforts to put the story together but had failed miserably.
31) In the present case, neither there had been any witnesses who had seen the accused purportedly writing letters on allegedly forged letter heads nor there is any testimony w.r.t the fact that the said letter heads were recovered from the possession of accused. Further, prosecution had failed miserably to link the property no. A-18 to the accused, as the angle of ownership was never investigated. The photographs of the property are of no State vs. Sheesh Pal FIR No.208/2011 PS Pul Prahlad Pur Page No.20 of 21 Digitally signed HIMANSHU by HIMANSHU TANWAR TANWAR Date: 2024.07.31 15:40:14 +0530 use, in absence of the requisite certificate and the camera. The cars, i.e., Zen and Honda City, upon which Vidhayak Stickers were used, were never produced in the court. The cherry on the top was the fact that PW4 had given a complaint, the contents of which, he himself was unaware. The final nail in coffin in the prosecution's story was that the sanction was given without any reason and without going through the file.
32) The aforesaid discussion makes the Court opine that there are reasonable doubts in the series of facts and events put forth by the prosecution and case cannot in any manner be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused Sheesh Pal is held not guilty and is acquitted of the offences punishable u/s 170/466/471 IPC and u/s 5 of Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use).
Digitally signed
HIMANSHU by HIMANSHU
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT TANWAR
TANWAR
Date: 2024.07.31
On 31.07.2024 15:40:18 +0530
(HIMANSHU TANWAR)
JMFC-10, SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT
SAKET, NEW DELHI
State vs. Sheesh Pal FIR No.208/2011 PS Pul Prahlad Pur Page No.21 of 21