State Through Cbi vs Mohd.Umar
2013 Latest Caselaw 833 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                RESERVED ON : 14th January, 2013
                                DECIDED ON : 19th February, 2013

+                         CRL.A. 616/1999

       STATE THROUGH CBI                        ....Appellant
                Through : Mr.R.V.Sinha, Standing Counsel.

                                versus

       MOHD.UMAR                                   ....Respondent
              Through :         Mr.K.B.Andley, Sr. Advocate with
                                Mr.M.Shamikh, Advocate.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J.

1. State (through CBI) has preferred the present appeal against

the judgment dated 05.09.1998 of learned Special Judge, Delhi by which

the conviction and sentence recorded by learned Metropolitan Magistrate

in R/C No.10 (S)/94 PS SIC-I/SIU-II/CBI, Delhi was set aside and the

respondent was acquitted.

2. The respondent Mohd. Umar was arrested by CBI for

committing offences punishable under Sections 420/468/471 IPC.

Allegations against the respondent were that in September, 1992, he

cheated Udayvir Singh and Dalmia Industries by forging recommendatory CRL.A. 616/1999

letter dated 09.09.1992 addressed to M/s. Dalmia Industries, Bharatpur,

Rajasthan purported to have been signed by Sh.Naresh Chandra and

Sh.A.N.Verma, the then Principal Secretaries, Prime Minister's Office, for

employment of Mahavir Singh and received `500/- from Udayvir Singh.

During the investigation, admitted signatures of the respondent with the

questioned signatures were sent for examination. Statements of the

witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. After completion of

the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the respondent. The

respondent was duly charged and brought to trial. The prosecution

examined eleven witnesses. In his 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the respondent

pleaded false implication. He examined DW-1 (Vijay Singh Yadav) and

DW-2 (SI J.S.Rathore). On appreciating the evidence and considering the

rival contentions of the parties, learned Metropolitan Magistrate held the

respondent guilty for committing offences punishable under Sections

420/468/471 IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for three years with

fine. Being aggrieved, the respondent preferred an appeal before learned

Special Judge, CBI. Vide order dated 05.09.1998 in Crl.A.No.1/1996,

benefit of doubt was given and the respondent was acquitted. The State

has challenged the acquittal.

CRL.A. 616/1999

3. I have heard the learned Spl.PP and learned Senior Counsel

for the respondent and have examined the record. It is not in controversy

that letter (Ex.PW-2/B) was a fake one. It contained forged signatures of

Sh.Naresh Chandra and Sh.A.N.Verma. It was never issued from the

Prime Minister's Office. Claim of the respondent is that he was not

perpetrator of the crime and the questioned recommendatory letter was not

forged by him. The burden to prove that the letter (Ex.PW-2/B) was

forged by the respondent was heavily upon the prosecution. On

scrutinizing the statements of the witnesses examined, I am of the

considered view that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable

doubt that the respondent was perpetrator of the crime and had forged the

recommendatory letter (Ex.PW-2/B). The incident came to the notice of

the investigating agency in 1992. However, First Information Report was

lodged only in 1994 and CBI registered the case at hand. The inordinate

delay in lodging the First Information Report on 23.08.1994 has not been

explained. It was also not revealed as to what detailed investigation was

carried out from September, 1992 till registration of First Information

Report on 23.08.1994. First Information Report lodged by Sh.V.S. Yadav

mentions Mahavir Singh and other 'unknown person' as accused. Name

CRL.A. 616/1999

of the respondent does not find mention therein. It was alleged that

Mahavir Singh entered into criminal conspiracy with other 'unknown

persons' with the object to commit offence of cheating and forgery.

However, no charge-sheet against Mahavir Singh was filed for

committing any offence. Statements of Udayvir Singh and Chander Pal

Singh were recorded in October/ November, 1994 after a considerable

delay of more than two years. Statements of other witnesses were also

recorded in 1994 or 1995. The delay in recording the statements of the

relevant witnesses has not been explained.

4. Admittedly the respondent was working as a carpenter in the

Prime Minister's Office. Apparently, he was not in control of any

stationary/ letter heads. No evidence was collected during the

investigation as to how and in what manner the respondent had access to

the letter heads of Prime Minister's Office and how and by what mode he

obtained it. Letter (Ex.PW-2/B) is not in the handwriting of the

respondent. It is a typed one. The respondent had no regular job to type

letters on the typewriter kept in the office. No witness was examined by

CBI during investigation to infer when, where and at what time the letter

(Ex.PW-2/B) was typed by the respondent. It is unclear in whose custody

CRL.A. 616/1999

the typewriter used to remain and who permitted the respondent to type

letters including the Ex.PW-2/B on the said typewriter. During

investigation, specimen signatures/ handwritings of the respondent on

number of papers were obtained. Documents containing his admitted

signatures were also collected. They were sent to Government Examiner

of Questioned Documents, Shimla. Those documents were carefully and

thoroughly examined by M.L. Sharma and Santokh Singh. The report

(Ex.PW-7/G) did not implicate the respondent and they were of the

opinion that the person who wrote the blue enclosed signatures stamped

and marked S-85 and S-86 did not write the red enclosed signatures

similarly stamped and marked Q-8. They further were of the opinion that

it was not possible to express any definite opinion on the rest of the items

on the basis of material supplied. This report was submitted on

30.12.1994. It appears that subsequently, more documents were sent to

the experts and they, after examining those documents, gave opinion

(Ex.PW-7/H) that the writings mark Q-4, Q-5, Q-8 and specimen

handwriting/ signatures S-8 to S-82, S-102 to S-204, A-9 to A-17 were all

written by one and the same person. It again was of the view that it was

not possible to express any opinion on the rest of the items on the basis of

CRL.A. 616/1999

material at hand. This report was submitted on 25.01.1995. Learned

special Judge gave detailed reasons in the impugned judgment for not

relying upon the subsequent opinion in Ex.PW-7/H. At no stage, the

specimen handwriting and signatures of the respondent were taken in the

presence of the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate. No application was

moved before the Court to seek permission to obtain the handwriting and

signatures of the respondent. PW-7 (M.L.Sharma), Government Examiner

of Questioned Documents, Shimla did not give reasons for two different

and contradictory opinions in Ex.PW-7/G and Ex.PW-7/H. Santokh

Singh, Examiner was not produced before the Court to record his

statement. Mahavir Singh and his brother Udayvir Singh were

beneficiaries. However, their specimen signatures were not obtained and

sent for examination. Neither Mahavir Singh nor Udayvir Singh lodged

any complaint with CBI against the respondent for demanding `500/- on

the promise to make available the recommendatory letter. Being carpenter

in the Prime Minister's Office, there was no legitimate assurance to the

complainant Udayvir Singh that the respondent would make available the

recommendatory letter. Even when Mahavir Singh or Udayvir Singh did

not get the job on the basis of the recommendatory letter, they did not ask

CRL.A. 616/1999

the respondent to return `500/-. Meeting with Udayvir Singh and Chander

Pal with the respondent at Army Canteen was accidental. Nothing has

come on record to show if the respondent had ever made

misrepresentation and cheated any other person to provide him job. No

incriminating stationary including letter head, stamp pad, green colour pen

were found in his possession. He was not involved in any other similar

case. The Trial Court convicted the respondent only on the basis of

subsequent opinion in Ex.PW-7/H given by the expert which was doubted

by learned Special Judge for the reasons mentioned therein. I have no

good reasons to deviate from the said findings.

5. Considering all these facts and circumstances of the case, I

find no illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment whereby the

respondent was given benefit of doubt and was acquitted. The appeal filed

by the State lacks merits and is dismissed. The Trial Court record be sent

back forthwith.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE FEBRUARY 19, 2013 tr

CRL.A. 616/1999