Delhi District Court
State vs . Baljeet Singh Page No. 1 Of 28 on 4 May, 2018
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY, MM-1,
SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
StateVs. Baljeet Singh
FIR No.08/2007
P.S: Lodhi Colony
U/s 420/468/471 IPC
JUDGMENT
1. Serial No. of the case : 254/2012 2. Case No. : 88352/2016
3. Date of commission of offence : In the year 2005
4. Name of the Complainant : Neeta Singh, Assistant Director (B) ARC Hqrs, CGO Complex (opp. Paryavaran Bhawan), New Delhi
5. Name of the accused, and :1) Baljeet Singh his parentage and residence S/o Sh. Chand Ram R/o VPO - Sulkha, Distt. - Rewari, Haryana.
6. Date when reserved for judgment : 04.05.2018
7. Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 04.05.2018
8. Offence Complained of : 420/468/471 IPC
9. Plea of accused : Plead not guilty
10. Final Judgment : Acquitted u/s 468 IPC and Convicted u/s 471/420 IPC
1. The accused Baljeet Singh S/o Sh. Chand Ram stood FIR No.08//2007 PS: Lodhi Colony State Vs. Baljeet Singh Page No. 1 of 28 2 for the trial for commission of offence punishable U/s 420/468/471 IPC. As per case of prosecution, in the year 2005, accused was appointed as trainee pilot on probation in ARC, DG (S), Cabinet Secretariat on direct recruitment basis vide memorandum/letter dated 07.11.2005, letter No.4117/2004-DO-II-6258, Government of India, Cabinet Secretariat, Bikaner House, Annexe, Sahajahan Road, New Delhi-110011 for the period of two years probation on temporary basis. It is further case of prosecution that at the time of appointment/ joining, accused produced the certificate of matriculation and intermediate certificate and the aforesaid documents were found to be fake on verification from the Bihar Board. It is further case of the prosecution that accused also produced the attested copies of the certificates allegedly attested by Principal of Chhotu Ram Polytechnic Collage, Rohtak and on verification, the said attestation was also found to be fake. It is further case of prosecution that accused committed forgery of matriculation and Intermediate certificate with intension that those documents shall be used for the purpose of cheating the appointing authority and accused used the FIR No.08//2007 PS: Lodhi Colony State Vs. Baljeet Singh Page No. 2 of 28 3 forged documents fraudulently and dishonestly with knowledge and having reason to believe the same to be forged and accused had cheated the officials of ARC (Aviation Research Centre)/appointing authority by dishonestly producing the above mentioned forged documents and got appointment as trainee pilot with ARC.
2. Vide order dated 16.12.2013, accused was charged for the offence punishable U/s 420/468/471 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
3. The matter was put to prosecution evidence.
Prosecution has examined total eight (8) witnesses to prove its case against the accused.
PW1 Ms. Neeta Singh, AIG, CISF, North Zone Saket is the complainant and she deposed that during the year 2005, she was posted as Assistant Director, ARC Headquarter CGO Complex, Delhi on deputation. PW1 had produced the memorandum No.4/17/2004/DO-II-1972 dated 05.12.2006 Ex.PW-1/A regarding termination of services in respect of Sh. Baljit Singh/accused. PW1 also produced the original letter FIR No.08//2007 PS: Lodhi Colony State Vs. Baljeet Singh Page No. 3 of 28 4 bearing Sr. No.D-5362 Ex.PW-1/B of Special Branch Patna, Bihar dated 07.07.2006 regarding verification of educational qualification of Baljit Singh. PW1 also produced the Intelligence Bureau Memorandum regarding clearance, dated 14.10.2005 at No.4/S-II 2005-VI(30037,
39)-2773 Ex.PW-1/C, additional DGP CID, Haryana Diary No.2361 dated 21.11.2005 regarding clearance Ex.PW- 1/D, Internal clearance (ARC) memorandum No.ARC/Coord/79/2005 dated 03.11.2005 Ex.PW-1/E, bond certificate deposited by accused Baljit Singh against his service condition dated 20.12.2005 Ex.PW-1/F, notification / order No.4/17/2004-DO-II-142 regarding appointment of accused Baljit Singh Ex.PW-1/G, offer of appointment as Trainee Pilot in ARC DG (S) vide No.4/17/2004-DO-6258 of accused Baljit Singh Ex.PW-1/H. Witness identified the accused in the court. PW1 deposed that on 05.01.2007, she was posted as Assistant Director ARC Headquarter CGO Complex, Delhi and on that day, she made the complaint Ex.PW-1/I to the SHO PS: Lodhi Colony regarding fake matriculation and intermediate certificate of accused Baljeet Singh.
During the cross examination of the witness, FIR No.08//2007 PS: Lodhi Colony State Vs. Baljeet Singh Page No. 4 of 28 5 witness failed to disclose as to whether any written examination for selection of trainee pilot was conducted for recruitment as a trainee pilot and witness stated that record regarding the same were weeded out as per office rule. Witness re-asserted that accused was appointed provisionally subject to verification of documents of the accused and appointment letter dated 07.11.2005 was issued. Witness stated that attestation form was submitted by the accused on 10.08.2005 with the photocopies of documents. Witness stated that procedure in the department is that at the time of submissions of attestation form, original documents of the candidate is used to be seen and returned and copy of the same is used to be kept for verification purposes. Witness stated that no notice was given to the accused prior to his termination and he was terminated with immediate effect. Witness stated that IO had not recorded her statement. Witness denied the suggestion that accused had submitted original documents to the department.
PW2 Sh. B.S. Hudda Principal Chotu Ram Polytechnic Rohtak Haryana deposed that on 17.01.2007, he was posted as Principal Chotu Ram FIR No.08//2007 PS: Lodhi Colony State Vs. Baljeet Singh Page No. 5 of 28 6 Polytechnic, Rohtak, Haryana and on that day, he issued memo No.62/3139/CP during the investigation in the present case regarding the verification of attestation of the documents of Mr. Baljit Singh. PW2 produced the original record of the above said memo No.62/3139/CP Ex.PW-2/A. During cross examination of the witness, witness/PW2 stated that IO had inquired from him regarding the present case. Witness stated that IO had not sealed the seal of college but had taken the specimen of the seal of the college. Witness failed to disclose as to whether IO had taken his specimen signatures. Witness denied the suggestion that IO had not visited to the institute or never had met with the witness.
PW3 ASI Dharam Singh is the Duty Officer and he deposed that on 05.01.2007, he was posted at PS:
Lodhi Colony and working there as Duty Oficer from 04:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. and at about 04:45 p.m. one rukka was given to him by Inspector Anand lakra with his endorsement for registration of FIR. PW3 deposed that he registered the FIR Ex.PW-3/A on the basis of rukka and made endorsement on the rukka Ex.PW-3/B. PW3 FIR No.08//2007 PS: Lodhi Colony State Vs. Baljeet Singh Page No. 6 of 28 7 deposed that after registration of case, copy of FIR and original rukka were handed over to Inspector Anand Lakra.
The testimony of this witness remained unrebutted as nothing was asked during his cross examination.
PW4 HC Satyavan deposed that on 20.02.2007, he was posted as HC at PS: Lodhi Colony and on that day, he was posted in the court of Sh. Satish Kumar Ld. MM at Patiala House Court as a Naib Court.
PW4 deposed that on 19.02.2007, an application for surrender of the accused was moved and on the next day, the accused surrendered himself in the court. PW4 deposed that with the permission of the court, IO interrogated the accused and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW-4/A and thereafter, the accused was arrested and personal search was conducted and memos Ex.PW-4/B and Ex.PW-4/C respectively prepared in his presence. PW4 deposed that IO recorded his statement. Witness identified the accused in the court.
During the cross examination of the witness/PW4, witness stated that he had signed arrest FIR No.08//2007 PS: Lodhi Colony State Vs. Baljeet Singh Page No. 7 of 28 8 memo, personal search memo and disclosure statement of the accused.
PW5 Inspector Anand Lakra is the IO of this case and he deposed that on 05.01.2007, he was posted as Inspector Investigation PS: Lodhi Colony and on that day, a complaint Ex.PW-1/I regarding fake certificate of Baljeet Singh was made by Ms. Neeta Singh, Assistant Director ARC Headquarter, CGO Complex to the SHO PS:
Lodhi Colony and then he endorsed the complaint Ex.PW- 5/A for registration of the case and handed over the same to the Duty Officer for the registration of FIR. PW5 deposed that complainant had also submitted the copy of memorandum Ex.PW-1/H, appointment order as Trainee Pilot Ex.PW-1/G, bond of accused Baljeet Singh Ex.PW-1/F, verification of character and antecedents issued by CID Haryana Ex.PW-1/D, memorandum issued by IB regarding security record of accused Baljeet Singh Ex.PW-1/E, educational qualification verification issued by Special Branch Patna, Bihar Ex.PW-1/B, letter of termination against accused Baljeet Singh issued by Cabinet Secretariat Bikanner House Ex.PW-1/A, attestation form of accused Baljeet Singh Ex.PW-5/A, letter issued by FIR No.08//2007 PS: Lodhi Colony State Vs. Baljeet Singh Page No. 8 of 28 9 Principal Chotu Ram Polytechnic College Ex.PW-A, the documents regarding attestation of Baljeet Singh including marksheet Ex.PW-5/B, provisional certificate issued by Bihar Intermediate Educational Council Ex.PW- 5/C, attested certificate Ex.PW-5/D and marksheet Ex.PW- 5/E of high school issued by Bihar School Examination Board and commercial pilot license of Baljeet Singh Ex.PW-5/F. PW5 deposed that then he moved a letter Ex.PW-5/G to the Deputy Secretary, Vigilance, Bihar School Examination Samiti for verification of certificate and marksheet of secondary examination of accused Baljeet Singh and also sent the attested copy of certificate of High School and Intermediate of accused Baljeet Singh. PW5 deposed that thereafter, he handed over the case file to SI Jeet Singh for further investigation.
During cross examination of the witness/PW5, it came on record that witness did not visit to the office of complainant for investigation after receipt of complaint. Witness stated that office of ARC had handed over him all the original documents including 10th and 12th mark sheets of the accused. Witness stated that 10 th and 12th class board examination of the accused were from two FIR No.08//2007 PS: Lodhi Colony State Vs. Baljeet Singh Page No. 9 of 28 10 different board examination. After going through the judicial file, witness stated that original mark sheet of 10 th and 12th class of the accused were not placed on judicial file. Witness stated that he had not personally visited to the board office regarding verification of genuineness of the documents of the accused. Witness stated that he along with the IO/ SI Jeet Singh went to Chotu Ram Polytechnic College during the investigation of the case, however, witness failed to disclose the date of his visit, name of the principal of the college.
PW6 SI Jeet Singh is the second IO of the case and he deposed that on 20.02.2007, he was posted as SI at PS: Lodhi Colony and on that day, the investigation of the present case was assigned to him. PW6 deposed that he was informed that the accused would surrender before the court of Sh. Satish Kumar, Ld. MM, Patiala House and thereafter, he went to the court, where with the permission of the court, he interrogated the accused and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW-4/A. PW6 deposed that he arrested the accused and got conducted his personal search and prepared memos Ex.PW-4/B and PW-4/C. PW6 deposed that with FIR No.08//2007 PS: Lodhi Colony State Vs. Baljeet Singh Page No. 10 of 28 11 the permission of the court, he took the police custody remand of the accused for 2 days. PW6 deposed that during the course of investigation, he along with accused went to the Chotu Ram Polytechnic, Rohtak, Haryana where they met the Principal Sh. B.S. Hudda, he inquired him and recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. regarding the verification of questioned attested document and stamp. PW6 deposed that they along with the accused returned back to the police station. PW6 deposed that he took the specimen signature of the accused Baljeet Ex.PW-6/A and thereafter, he sent the specimen signature to the FSL for opinion along with questioned documents. PW6 deposed that he prepared the charge sheet and submitted before the court. Witness identified the accused in the court.
During cross examination, witness stated that he had not collected any documents regarding the selection procedure of the selection of trainee pilot during the investigation of the case. Witness stated that on 20.02.2007, he recorded disclosure statement of the accused in Patiala House Court premises. Witness stated that he had never visited to the office of the complainant.
FIR No.08//2007 PS: Lodhi Colony State Vs. Baljeet Singh Page No. 11 of 28 12 Witness stated that on 21.02.2007, he visited to Chhotu Ram Polytechnic Institute Rohtak, Haryana and he recorded the statement of principal of Chhotu Ram Polytechnic Institute. Witness stated that he had not placed on record the original educational documents of the accused with the charge sheet. Witness stated that he had sent a notice dated 16.04.2007 to the complainant ARC (DG) to furnish original documents. Witness stated that office of the complainant had replied to the said notice in the name of Inspector Anand Lakra Mark-X. PW7 Sh. Yogeshwar Roy (Rtd.) Deputy Secretary, Posted at Bihar School Examination Board, Patna deposed that on 04.04.2007, he was posted as a Joint Secretary, Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Budha Marg, Patna-1, Bihar and on receiving the Letter No.15/SHO/Lodhi Colony dated 09.01.2007 for verification of the intermediate mark sheet of the accused Baljeet Singh, they got verified the mark sheet of the accused Baljeet Singh and on verification, it reveals that the last roll number of the candidate who passed in the year 1997 was 10120. PW7 deposed that the mark obtained at roll FIR No.08//2007 PS: Lodhi Colony State Vs. Baljeet Singh Page No. 12 of 28 13 No.10128 of the accused Baljeet Singh was not found in the tabulation register of the year 1997, so, the intermediate mark sheet of the accused Baljeet Singh against roll No.10128 was fake and false. PW7 deposed that at that time, the verification report Ex.PW-7/A was prepared by Sriniwas Chander Tiwari, Secretary, B.I.E.C., Patna and the verification report was signed by Ranjeet Mishra, SGA, Avni Kumar Dubey, SO, Shambhu Nath Dass, Dy. C.E along with him and Sriniwas Chander Tiwari. PW7 identified the signatures of the above said persons who had signed the verification report at point B,C, D & E as he had worked with them and had seen their signatures during the course of his duty.
During cross examination of the witness, he deposed that he had not personally checked the record prior to forwarding it to the Secretary. Witness stated that as per his verification, the roll number of the accused was not found in the record and mark sheet of the accused was found to be forged as the same was not issued from the Board Office and name of the accused Baljeet Singh was also not found in the record of office. Witness denied the suggestion that mark sheet in FIR No.08//2007 PS: Lodhi Colony State Vs. Baljeet Singh Page No. 13 of 28 14 question was issued by the department/board office and the same was not a forged documents.
PW8 Sh. Sriniwas Chander Tiwari deposed that in the year 2007, he was posted as a Secretary, BIEC, Patna, Bihar. PW8 deposed that the letter No.15/SHO/ Lodhi Colony dated 09.01.2007 in regard to the verification of mark sheet of Baljit Singh, roll No.10128, passing year 1997 received in his office and the said mark sheet of Baljit Singh had been verified and report Ex.PW-7/A regarding the same was submitted to the investigation officer, PS: Lodhi Colony. PW8 deposed that on verification, they found that the said mark sheet was incorrect, fake and false as per our record.
During cross examination, witness stated that in the year 1997 there were two separate boards in regard to high school and intermediate examination and they had verified only intermediate mark sheet of accused Baljeet Singh. During cross examination of the witness, record register of the Bihar Intermediate Education Council of the year 1997 was produced when the same was asked by defence counsel and the questioned roll number of the accused bearing No.10128 FIR No.08//2007 PS: Lodhi Colony State Vs. Baljeet Singh Page No. 14 of 28 15 of the accused Baljeet Singh was not found to be mentioned in the register and last roll number in the said register was mentioned as 10120 of the Intermediate examination 1997 (Science) in the name of candidate Kishan Kumar. Witness stated that the provisional certificate and mark sheet of roll No.10128 of the year 1997 had been not issued from Bihar Intermediate Examination Council in the name of Baljeet Singh and no such roll number or certificate number were existing in the record of the Board and no such mark sheet and certificate was issued in the name of Baljeet Singh in the year 1997.
4. On examination of all the material witnesses, the prosecution evidence was closed. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C r/w section 281 Cr.P.C, after putting all the incriminating evidence against him. Accused opted to lead defence evidence.
5. DW-1 Sh. Jitendra Singh deposed that he works at ARC, DGS, Cabinet Secretariat and he authorized on FIR No.08//2007 PS: Lodhi Colony State Vs. Baljeet Singh Page No. 15 of 28 16 behalf of the ACR to produce the reply of letter dated 16.04.2007 given by the IO Sh. Anand Lakra before the court. Witness produced the original reply as Ex.DW-1/A. The reply Ex.DW-1/A was addressed to IO Anand Lakra in response to the notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C. and as per rely, the ARC had informed to the IO that they would produce the original documents of the case whenever the same was required by the court.
6. After defence evidence, matter was fixed for final arguments.
7. I have heard the final arguments put forth by the Ld. APP for the state and by Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused. It is argued on behalf of the State that case of prosecution is proved beyond the reasonable doubt, hence, accused is liable to be convicted.
It is argued on behalf of the accused by defence counsel that accused was removed from service of trainee pilot without giving any notice and the factual basis on which complaint was lodged to the police was not proved by prosecution. It is further argued that accused was selected for the post of trainee pilot after FIR No.08//2007 PS: Lodhi Colony State Vs. Baljeet Singh Page No. 16 of 28 17 clearing the selection procedure and at the time of joining of the accused as a trainee pilot, his original documents were verified by the concerned authorities. It is further submitted that the alleged copy of fake documents which were produced by prosecution to establish the allegations against the accused are planted one and the original documents on the basis of which accused cleared the selection process was never produced in the court. It is further argued that original documents of the accused were retained by appointing authority at the time of his joining. It is further argued that accused is innocent and was falsely implicated by complainant department. It is further argued that no seal qua the fake attestation of polytechnic college was seized or send for foreignsic examination to establish that accused forged the signature of the official who attested on behalf of the polytechnic college. It is further argued that IO never visited to the office of the complainant during the investigation of the case and there are many loophole in the prosecution story which creates doubt qua the charges against the accused. It is further argued that case of prosecution is not proved beyond the reasonable FIR No.08//2007 PS: Lodhi Colony State Vs. Baljeet Singh Page No. 17 of 28 18 doubt, hence, accused is liable to be acquitted and benefit of doubt be given to the accused.
8. I have also perused the materials available on record.
9. As per case of prosecution, in the year 2005, accused was appointed as trainee pilot on probation in ARC, DG (S), Cabinet Secretariat on direct recruitment basis vide memorandum/letter dated 07.11.2005, letter No.4117/2004-DO-II-6258, Government of India, Cabinet Secretariat, Bikaner House, Annexe, Sahajahan Road, New Delhi-110011 for the period of two years probation on temporary basis. It is further case of prosecution that at the time of appointment/ joining, accused produced the certificate of matriculation and intermediate certificate and the aforesaid documents were found to be fake on verification from the Bihar Board. It is further case of the prosecution that accused also produced the attested copies of the certificates allegedly attested by Principal of Chhotu Ram Polytechnic Collage, Rohtak and on verification the said attestation was also found to be FIR No.08//2007 PS: Lodhi Colony State Vs. Baljeet Singh Page No. 18 of 28 19 fake. It is further case of prosecution that accused committed forgery of matriculation and Intermediate certificate with intension that those documents shall be used for the purpose of cheating the appointing authority and accused used the forged documents fraudulently and dishonestly with knowledge and having reason to believe the same to be forged and accused had cheated the officials of ARC (Aviation Research Centre)/appointing authority by dishonestly producing the above mentioned forged documents and got appointment as trainee pilot with ARC.
It is not in dispute by the accused as well as by the prosecution that accused was selected in ACR (Aviation Research Centre) for the post of Trainee Pilot through document Ex.PW-1/H which is offer letter given to the accused for joining the post of trainee pilot. The order of selection of the accused through document Ex.PW-1/G is also not in dispute. At the time of joining of the accused, accused furnished bond to the ARC through document Ex.PW-1/F and the same is also not in dispute. The Internal clearance (ARC) dated 03.11.2005 Ex.PW-1/E is also not in dispute. It is also not in dispute by the FIR No.08//2007 PS: Lodhi Colony State Vs. Baljeet Singh Page No. 19 of 28 20 accused and prosecution that accused was terminated from the post of Trainee Pilot vide letter dated 05.12.2006 Ex.PW-1/A. It is also not in dispute by the accused and prosecution that accused has furnished attestation form Ex.PW-5/A at the time of joining as a trainee pilot.
In order to establish the allegations against the accused Baljeet Singh S/o Sh. Chand Ram regarding the fact that accused furnished fake certificate of matriculation and fake certificate of intermediate for getting appointment as a trainee pilot with ARC, prosecution has relied upon the testimony of complainant/PW1, testimony of PW7/Official from Bihar School Intermediate Education Council, PW8/ Official from Bihar School Intermediate Education Council, PW5 first IO/ Inspector Anand Lakra and second IO/ SI Jeet Singh. PW1 during her testimony had proved the complaint Ex.PW-1/I on the basis of which the present FIR was registered and investigation was carried out by both the IOs. PW1 also proved the report of verification of educational qualification documents i.e. Intermediate and High School Certificate as per which the copy of documents which were furnished by the accused for FIR No.08//2007 PS: Lodhi Colony State Vs. Baljeet Singh Page No. 20 of 28 21 joining the post of trainee pilot and as per report Ex.PW- 1/B, the certificate of matriculation and intermediate of the accused were fake. Witness PW5/IO deposed that document Ex.PW-5/B and Ex.PW-5/C are the copy marksheet and certificate of the accused qua his intermediate qualification which were used by him for getting appointment at the post of Trainee Pilot and he collected these documents from the office of ARC during the investigation of the case. Witness also deposed that document Ex.PW-5/D and Ex.PW-5/E are the copy of certificate and mark sheet of matriculation of the accused which were collected by him from the office of ARC during the investigation which were used by the accused for getting appointment at the post of Trainee Pilot. Witness PW7 and PW8 are the officials of Bihar Intermediate Education Council who deposed regarding the verification report of the intermediate certificate and mark sheet of the accused which were used by the accused for getting appointment for the post of Trainee Pilot in ARC and both the witnesses duly proved during their examination that they prepared the report of verification of documents on the basis of official record available in their office and as FIR No.08//2007 PS: Lodhi Colony State Vs. Baljeet Singh Page No. 21 of 28 22 per their verification and record of the office, the intermediate certificate of the accused and intermediate mark sheet of the accused were not issued from their office and no such roll number was allotted against the name of the accused, neither accused had appeared in intermediate examination. Prosecution had not examined any witness qua the matriculation certificate and matriculation mark sheet of the accused, neither any witness was associated by the IO during the investigation qua the matriculation certificate and matriculation mark sheet of the accused.
Prosecution has examined the PW2/Principal of Chotu Ram Polytechnic College qua the allegation against the accused regarding fake attestation on copy of documents of matriculation and intermediate, however, IO had admitted that the seal of which was used on attestation of documents were not seized by him during the investigation of the case, so the allegation qua the fake attestation on the copy of documents of matriculation and intermediate is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
During the investigation as carried out by PW7 FIR No.08//2007 PS: Lodhi Colony State Vs. Baljeet Singh Page No. 22 of 28 23 and PW8, the original of matriculation certificate and intermediate certificate were not traced out, neither the same were placed on record to establish the fact that accused had forged those documents in order to get appointment as a Trainee Pilot with ARC and no evidence is brought on record to establish the charge of the offence punishable u/s 468 IPC.
Cheating is defined u/s 415 IPC and it provides as under: Section 415 IPC :- Cheating.--Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".
Section 420 IPC provide as - Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.--Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to FIR No.08//2007 PS: Lodhi Colony State Vs. Baljeet Singh Page No. 23 of 28 24 make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished wit imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Forgery is defined in Section 463 IPC as -
"Whoever makes any false documents 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 contact, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery".
Section 471 IPC provides as - Using as genuine a forged (documents or electronic record).-"Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any (documents or electronic record) which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged (document or electronic record), shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such (document or electronic record)".
FIR No.08//2007 PS: Lodhi Colony State Vs. Baljeet Singh Page No. 24 of 28 25 Section 101 Indian Evidence Act provides about burden of proof as - "Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove the those facts exist.
When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person".
Section 102 Indian Evidence Act about on whom burden of proof lies as - "The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on the person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side".
Section 103 Indian Evidence Act provides about burden of proof as to particular fact as - "The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person".
Section 106 Indian Evidence Act provides about the burden of proving fact especially within knowledge as - "When any fact is especially within the FIR No.08//2007 PS: Lodhi Colony State Vs. Baljeet Singh Page No. 25 of 28 26 knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him".
In the present case, accused had joined for post of Trainee Pilot with ARC on the basis of educational qualification documents of matriculation and inter- mediate which were found to be fake on verification, so burden of the fact to prove qua the defence as taken by the accused that the documents which were furnished by him at the time of joining the post of Trainee Pilot with ARC are not the same which were relied upon the prosecution qua the charge of offence punishable u/s 471/420/468 IPC was upon the accused who was having exclusive knowledge regarding the fact that from which place or college he qualified matriculation and intermediate examination and what were his original documents but accused did not lead any evidence to establish his defence. Further, accused took contradictory defence in his oral arguments by saying that document which were allegedly verified and produced by authorities of ARC at the time of his joining are not the same copy which were produced in the court as accused himself put the defence during cross examination of PW7 that mark FIR No.08//2007 PS: Lodhi Colony State Vs. Baljeet Singh Page No. 26 of 28 27 sheets in question were issued by the Bihar Intermediate Education Council. During cross examination of PW8, the record register of Intermediate Education Council was also produced when the same was asked by counsel for the defence and the roll number of the accused qua the mark sheet in question and name of the accused as a candidate of examination were not found in the register. Accordingly, the defence as taken by the accused does not hold any merit in the eye of law.
From the testimony of prosecution witness/ PW1 complainant, PW2, PW5, PW6, PW7 and PW8, prosecution has duly proved that accused Baljeet Singh S/o Sh. Chand Ram used forged and fake intermediate certificate in order to get appointment at the post of Trainee Pilot with ARC and on the basis of copy of forged and fake intermediate certificate, accused was appointed as Trainee Pilot with ARC and accused cheated the ARC/ Government Agency while getting appointment as a trainee pilot on the basis of forged and fake intermediate certificate.
10. Hence, the Court is of the considered view on the FIR No.08//2007 PS: Lodhi Colony State Vs. Baljeet Singh Page No. 27 of 28 28 basis of above discussion that prosecution has failed to establish the charge of the offence punishable u/s 468 IPC beyond all reasonable doubts and accused is acquitted from the charge of offence punishable u/s 468 IPC. Prosecution has duly proved beyond the reasonable doubt the charge of offence punishable u/s 471/420 IPC and he is held guilty and convicted for the same.
11. Be put up for arguments on sentence on 08.05.2018.
Announced in open Court (RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY) on 04 th May 2018 MM-01(South-East):Saket Courts New Delhi FIR No.08//2007 PS: Lodhi Colony State Vs. Baljeet Singh Page No. 28 of 28