Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/convict under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction dated 23.12.2022 and order on sentence dated 02.06.2023 passed by Ld. MM, North, Rohini Courts thereby convicting the appellant/convict to undergo 06 months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 420/511 IPC and in default of payment of fine to Rakesh Kumar Vs. Statement undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. A cost/ expenses of Rs.5,000/- was awarded to the prosecution, out of the fine imposed upon the convict.

CHARGE

3. Vide order dated 31.01.2018, charge for the offence punishable under Section 420/511/468/471 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for prosecution evidence and in order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 06 witnesses.

EVIDENCE

4. PW-1 Dr. Joy N. Tirkey, DCP, Crime Branch, New Delhi, who has deposed that on 08.04.2016 he was posted as Additional DCP, Recruitment Cell, Delhi. He deposed that on that day he had given a written complaint to DCP (N/W) District Rakesh Kumar Vs. Statement regarding taking of legal action against one Rakesh Kumar who had applied for the post of Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police 2012 in pursuance to the advertisement issued. He deposed that the abovesaid accused had qualified the trade test for the above- said post and furnished copy of heavy transport vehilce driving licence which was required for the above-said post. He deposed that on the basis of verification conducted by the Special Branch, Delhi Police from the concerned issuing authority of Driving Licence, the driving licence furnished by the above-said accused was found to be fake/forged. He further deposed that Rakesh Kumar had tried to seek employment with Delhi Police by adopting deceitful means through malafide intention by submitting a fake/forged driving licence, upon which he gave his complaint Ex.PW1/A. PW-2 is Sh.R.K. Jayantkumar Singh, DT/RTO Thoubal, Manipur, who has brought the original register containing the record relating to the driving licence bearing no. 12002/MTH. He deposed that the said driving licence was issued in the name of Mr. Elangbam Rajendro Singh S/o Sh.E.Dhaman Singh R/o Hiyaglam Awang Leikai, Manipur on 26.07.1995 and initially was having its validity till 25.07.2000 and thereafter was renewed on 07.12.2004 to 06.12.2009. He further deposed that as per the original record the said licence was not issued in the name of any Rakesh Kumar S/o Sh.Umrao Singh. He further deposed that the proforma regarding the verification of the Rakesh Kumar Vs. Statement above-said driving licence is Ex.PW2/A. He has also proved the attested copy of the above-said relevant portion relating to the above-said driving licence as Ex.PW2/B. PW-3 is Inspector Deepak Chandra deposed to have brought the original file relating to letter bearing no.10272/ Rectt. Cell (R-VI)/NPL dated 06.10.2016, related documents, copy of advertisement, employment news dated 30.05.2012 and 02.06.2012 containing the advertisement for the post of Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police and certified copy of the result relating to the above-stated post declared on 17.12.2012. He further proved to have brought copy of letter no.10272/Rectt. Cell (R-VI)/NPL dated 06.10.2016 as Ex.PW3/A. He further proved that as per the record, the above-said letter was accompanied with an original application form Mark X-1 and original verification report Ex.PW2/B of driving licence relating to the candidate Rakesh Kumar, Roll No.809892. He further deposed that the photocopy of advertisement relating to the vacancy in question published in Hindustan Newspaper on 30.05.2012 has been proved as Ex.PW3/B. Witness also proved the photocopy of advertisement relating to the vacancy in question published in Employment News on 02.06.2012 as Ex.PW3/C. Witness proved that the result of the written test for the above-said post conducted on 11.11.2012 (running to 16 pages) as Ex.PW3/D (colly). Witness deposed that the roll number of candidate Rakesh Kumar S/o Umrao Singh, Roll No. Rakesh Kumar Vs. Statement 809892 is at page no.3 of the above-said result.

Thus, the inference which is culled out from the above is that it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

11. In this backdrop, I proceed to delve upon the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution.

12. The accused had been convicted for the offence under Section 420/511 IPC. The essential postulates of the penal provisions are as follows:

SECTION 420 IPC

420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.--Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person de-

19. Thus, after perusal of the record and the findings given, there is no illegality in the judgment dated 23.12.2022 and the ld. Trial court has thus rightly convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 420/511 IPC and the judgment dated 23.12.2022 is upheld.

COMING TO THE POINT OF SENTENCE

20. The Court is mindful of the sentencing policy and its impact on all the stakeholders.

"......The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims an demands. Security of persons and property of the people is an essential function of the State. It could be achieved through instrumentality of criminal law. Undoubtedly, there is a cross cultural conflict where living law must find Rakesh Kumar Vs. Statement answer to the new challenges and the courts are required to mould the sentencing system to meet the challenges. The contagion of lawlessness would undermine social order and lay it in ruins. Protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. Therefore, law as a corner-stone of the edifice of "order"