Vikesh Pandey @ Vickey vs State Of Nct Of Delhi
2009 Latest Caselaw 1468 Del

Citation : 2009 Latest Caselaw 1468 Del
Judgement Date : 18 April, 2009

Delhi High Court

Vikesh Pandey @ Vickey vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 18 April, 2009

Author: Sunil Gaur

                HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI

                 Judgment reserved on: April 06, 2009

               Judgment pronounced on: April 18, 2009
 +        Crl. Revision Petition No. 708 of 2006

 %     Vikesh Pandey @ Vickey         ....    Petitioner
            Through:       Mr. Sunil Sethi and Mr. Kiran Singh,
                           Advocates

                               Versus

       State of NCT of Delhi                       .. Respondent
               Through:                  Mr. Amit Sharma, Additional Public
                                         Prosecutor for the State with
                                         Inspector Mahesh Kumar
 COARM

 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunil Gaur
 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
 see the judgment?

 2. To be referred to Reporter or not?

 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?



 SUNIL GAUR, J.

1. Petitioner is aggrieved by order of 27 th April, 2006, of

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, who has

directed the petitioner to stand trial for the offence under

Sections 420/471 read with section 120-B of Indian Penal Code.

2. The charge against the petitioner is that on 11th February,

1998, he alongwith his co-accused had criminally conspired to

cheat the complainant and the HDFC Bank and also Sh. Anit

Mehrotra by forging his signatures as Introducer to open a

Crl. Revision Petition No. 708 of 2006 Page 1 fictitious account of co-accused in the name of K.C. Mohta, at

HDFC Bank for withdrawal of money from the Bank.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the FSL

Report is inconclusive to connect the petitioner with the crime in

question and except the disclosure statement of co-accused,

there is nothing on record to incriminate the petitioner, and

therefore, the petitioner deserves to be discharged.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits

that the present case is not for forging signatures but is of

tracing of the signatures of Anit Mehrotra on the bank

documents by the petitioner and that the petitioner had

conspired with co-accused- Abhisher Pandey and since there

cannot be direct evidence of criminal conspiracy, therefore,

discharge of the petitioner would be detrimental to the entire

prosecution case.

5. The law on the subject needs to be noticed. In the case of

"State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi" (2005) 1 SCC 568,

the Apex Court has reiterated that at the stage of framing of

charge, trial court is required to consider whether there are

sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. The

evaluation of the materials/documents on record has to be

limited one with a view to find out if sufficient ground exists for

the purpose of proceeding with the trial.

6. Apex Court, in the aforesaid decision, has dealt with the

scope of powers of the courts in putting accused on trial, in the

following words:-

Crl. Revision Petition No. 708 of 2006 Page 2 "All the decisions, when they hold that there can only be limited evaluation of materials and documents on record and sifting of evidence to prima facie find out whether sufficient ground exists or not for the purpose of proceeding further with the trial, have so held with reference to materials and documents produced by the prosecution and not the accused. The decisions proceed on the basis of settled legal position that the material as produced by the prosecution alone is to be considered and not the one produced by the accused. The latter aspect relating to the accused though has not been specifically stated, yet it is implicit in the decisions. It seems to have not been specifically so stated as it was taken to be well settled proposition. This aspect, however, has been adverted to in State Anti-Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad and Anr. v. P. Suryaprakasam [1999 SCC (Crl.) 373] where considering the scope of Sections 239 and 240 of the Code it was held that at the time of framing of charge, what the trial court is required to, and can consider are only the police report referred to under Section 173 of the Code and the documents sent with it. The only right the accused has at that stage is of being heard and nothing beyond that."

7. In the case of "State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh", (1977) 4

SCC 39, considering the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the

Code, it was held by the Apex Court that at the stage of framing

of charge it is not obligatory for the Judge to consider in any

detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if

proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the

Crl. Revision Petition No. 708 of 2006 Page 3 accused or not. At that stage, the court is not to see whether,

there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or

whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong

suspicion, at the initial stage of framing of charge, is sufficient to

frame the charge and in that event it is not open to say that

there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.