Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Lodging of FIR became the springboard for police investigation. After culmination of investigation, chargesheet was filed in court. Cognizance was taken by the court of the offences alleged to have been committed by accused. Accused was thereafter summoned by court as he had been served with Notice under Section 41A of the Crpc. for joining investigation by the investigating officer. He was admitted to regular bail on his appearance. Arguments on charge were heard and charge under Sections 420/511 and Section 468/471 IPC were framed against the accused. He did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed trial.

6. Final arguments were heard from the rival parties. Ld. APP for the State contended that prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused. He argued that the accused had attempted to deceive the department of Delhi Police by intentionally submitting details of the driving license issued by the Baghpat Transport Authority which was issued on the basis of a fake/forged driving license alleged to have been issued by the Agra Transport Authority in favour of accused, but in reality, the Agra Transport Authority had never issued any driving license in favour of accused. He urged that the Agra Transport Authority had actually issued driving license bearing no. 3274/Agra/05 in favour of one Shri Chander s/o Shri R. Chander. The license authorized Shri Chander s/o Shri R. Chander to drive only light motor vehicles. He further urged that verification reports submitted by the Special Branch of Delhi Police, unveiled that correct factual situation that the accused had intentionally and knowingly prepared the said fake/forged license alleged to have been issued by Agra Transport Authority and was continuously using the same till he got a new license issued from the Transport Authority, Baghpat on the basis of the previous one. It was further argued that it can be easily deduced that he aimed to deceive the Delhi Police in two ways, i.e. firstly by furnishing details of a fake license to wrongfully secure an employment and secondly to give an impression that he was authorized to FIR No. 690/2016 State vs Upender Kumar page no. 10/30 drive heavy transport vehicles, whereas in reality he did not have either the authorization or expertise to drive such vehicles. It was argued that the conduct of accused posed grave danger for the safety of public at large and hence his conduct is unpardonable. He further argued that since the first license allegedly issued by Agra Transport Authority was fake, consequently the driving license issued and later endorsed by the Baghpat Transport Authority on the basis of the previous fake one, ought also to be considered as fake and forged. He thus argued that accordingly, the accused is liable for conviction for the offence of Section 420/511 IPC as he made attempts to deceive the Delhi Police Department, but his attempt was thwarted and offence could not be culminated as the truth was unveiled well within time i.e. before confirmation of his employment. He lastly contended that there is ample evidence led by prosecution to convict accused even for the offences punishable under Section 468/471 IPC. Hence, Ld. APP for State prayed for conviction of the accused.

11. Reverting to the factual matrix of the present case, the accused Upendra Kumar had been put on trial for allegedly attempting to deceive the Delhi Police department to gain employment for the post of constable (driver), by submitting details of a fake/forged driving license. Prosecution's stand is that Delhi Police department had advertised 752 vacancies in two leading newspapers of Delhi on 30/05/2012 and on 02/06/2012. In response to the advertisements the accused had applied for the post on 20/06/2012 vide registration number 1340186188 and subsequently roll no. 813429 was allotted to him which enabled him to write the written test scheduled for 11/11/2012. Prosecution alleged that the accused wrote the written test and qualified the same. He was declared eligible for the trade test too. But when the driving license details submitted in column no. 12 of the application/registration form by the accused were got verified by the Special Branch of Delhi Police, it was found that the driving license bearing no. V-731/BPT/9 dated 09/02/2009 was issued for driving heavy motor vehicle and the said license had been issued on the basis of an erstwhile driving license bearing no. 3274/Ag/05 dated 30/09/2005 which was purported to be issued by Agra Transport Authority, but in reality such license was never issued in favour of the accused. It is prosecution's case that license of the Agra Transport Authority, was found fake/forged. Allegations against the accused were FIR No. 690/2016 State vs Upender Kumar page no. 14/30 thus of committing offences punishable under Sections 420/511 and Section 468/471 IPC for which he was also charged.

IV) Conclusion

13.Whether the accused had attempted to cheat the Department of Delhi Police by furnishing incorrect details of his driving license in column no. 12 of the application form for the post of constable (driver) and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 420/511 IPC?

a) The allegations of attempt to cheat/deceive have been levelled against the accused in the present case. Accused was accordingly charged under Section 420/511 IPC. The term "cheating" has been defined FIR No. 690/2016 State vs Upender Kumar page no. 15/30 under Section 415 IPC and Section 420 IPC makes the offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend upto 7 years. Further, the attempt to commit an offence has been made punishable vide Section 511 IPC. All the relevant provisions with which the accused has been charged are reproduced as under: