Nawab Singh vs State Of Delhi
2014 Latest Caselaw 337 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%
                                                 Reserved on 16.01.2014
                                            Date of Decision: 20.01.2014

+                         Crl. Appeal No.655/2010

        NAWAB SINGH
                                                          ..... Appellant
                          Through:     Mr. K.B. Andley, senior advocate
                                       with Mr. M.L. Yadav, Advs.

                          versus

        STATE OF DELHI
                                                          ..... Respondent
                          Through:     Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN

                              JUDGMENT

V.K.JAIN, J. (Oral)

A complaint to the Director (Vigilance) of Delhi Government was

made by Sangeeta Uttam, daughter of Suresh Uttam, alleging therein

that her father applied to the SDM, Kalkaji, in the year 2002, for issue of

a caste certificate, vide diary No. 768/2002. She further alleged that the

Enquiry Officer Nawab Singh verified her application and the

documents annexed thereto with the original documents and found the

same to be in order. He also made them bring the ration cards of two

neighbours, noted their names on a paper and then demanded a sum of

Rs 500/- as bribe for writing a report. They did not have Rs 500/- with

them, but Nawab Singh took Rs 100/- from her aunt (wife of her

paternal uncle) and also asked them to send her father to meet him in the

office. Her paternal uncle then met Nawab Singh, who demanded a

bribe of Rs 500/- from him, whereupon her father made a complaint in

this regard to the SDM. However, on coming to know of the complaint,

Nawab Singh gave an unfavourable report stating therein that the

neighbours knew them only for three months and, therefore, caste

certificate could not be issued. She also alleged that Nawab Singh had

himself put the signature/thumb impression of the witnesses against

their names. She also alleged in the complaint that one of the witnesses

Smt. Usha was a literate person who puts her signature, whereas the

other witness was illiterate. An FIR under Section 7/13 of Prevention of

Corruption Act and Section 177/182/465/466 and 471 of IPC was

registered against the appellant Nawab Singh on the basis of the above-

referred complaint of Sangeeta Uttam and the case was handed over to

Anti Corruption Branch of Delhi for investigation.

2. Vide impugned judgment dated 12.05.2010 and Order on

Sentence dated 15.05.2010, the appellant was convicted under Section 7

and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988 as well as under Sections 177/468/471 of IPC. Being aggrieved

from his conviction and the sentence awarded to him, the appellant is

before this Court by way of this appeal.

3. Smt. Bhagwati Devi, paternal aunt of the complainant, came in

the witness box as PW-3 and stated that an official from SDM office

came to their residence to make an enquiry, asked her to bring ration

cards of two neighbours, noted down the particulars from the ration

cards which he brought from the neighbours and refunded the same to

her. She also provided the photocopies as required by him. He thereafter

demanded Rs 500/- from her. When she explained her inability to pay

that much amount, he demanded Rs 100/-, which she paid to him. He

then asked her to send her husband to his office. She narrated these

facts to his husband Naresh Uttam and her niece Sangeeta Uttam. The

witness, however, did not identify the appellant Nawab Singh in the

Court and expressed her inability to identify the culprit since the

incident had become 4-5 years old, by the time she was examined in the

Court. This witness, however, was not cross-examined by the appellant,

despite opportunity given in this regard. Shri Naresh Uttam is the

paternal uncle of the complainant. He also deposed that when he

complained to the SDM, he called one clerk Mr R.K. Singh and asked

him to look into the matter. Mr R.K. Singh asked him to come again

after 15 days and told him, in the presence of the appellant Nawab

Singh, that the fee of the appellant for issue of caste certificate was Rs

500/-, but the appellant did not object to the aforesaid statement of R.K.

Singh by asking him as to why he was using his name in such a manner.

During cross-examination of this witness, no suggestion was given to

him that R.K. Singh had not told him in the presence of the appellant

that his fee for issue of caste certificate was Rs 500/- and no objection to

the said statement was raised by the appellant.

4. PW-7 Abdul Rasheed is the neighbour of the complainant. He

stated that when the IO of the present case came to him on 24.10.2004

and showed to him the SC certificate prepared by Nawab Singh and the

thumb impression of his father appearing on the said certificate, he told

the IO that his father has expired long ago and someone has forged the

thumb impression of his father on the said certificate. During cross-

examination of the witness, no suggestion was given to him that the

thumb impression, purporting to be of his father, was not a forged one

and was the genuine thumb impression of his father.

5. PW-9 Usha Rani is the another neighbour of the complainant. She

stated that about 8 years before her deposition, the wife of Ramesh

Uttam had come to her house and sought a copy of her ration card. Her

son handed over the photocopy of the ration card to her. Thereafter, the

ration card was returned to her. During cross-examination by the learned

APP, she admitted that no one from SDM office had come to her house,

for verification in connection with the SC certificate and she had not put

any thumb impression since she was literate and used to put her

signature. She also admitted that Bhagwati Devi had taken her ration

card from her and retuned the same to her.

6. PW-10 Shri R.K. Meena, Deputy Collector, stated that the

application for issue of SC certificate was rejected by his predecessor on

the basis of verification report submitted by the Bailiff, Nawab Singh.

He, however, later issued the certificate on the basis of verification

report of another Bailiff Bhuvneshwar Singh.

PW-14 K.N. Singh is the fingerprint expert, who compared the

questioned thumb impression mark Q-1 on Ex.PW-4/G with the

specimen thumb impression of Smt. Usha Rani mark S-1 to S-18 and

opined that Q-1 was not identical with any of the specimen thumb

impression of Smt. Usha Rani. A detailed report of this witness is

Ex.PW14/A.

PW-15 Ami Lal Daksh is a handwriting expert from FSL, Rohini.

He compared the questioned writings Q1/1 on Ex.PW-4/G with the

specimen signatures of the appellant marked S1 to S12 and opined that

the person who wrote the writings and signatures marked S1 to S12 had

also written the question writings Q1, Q1/1, Q2 and Q3. The detailed

report of this witness is Ex.PW-15/A and A-1.

7. In his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the appellant

Nawab Singh admitted that in August, 2002, he was working as Bailiff

in the office of SDM, Kalkaji. He did not dispute that Suresh Uttam,

father of the complainant Sangeeta Uttam had submitted an application

Ex.PW-4/C along with the requisite documents for obtaining SC

certificate and had submitted the documents annexed to the said

application, including the ration card Ex.PW-4/B. He expressly admitted

that the enquiry for issuing caste certificate was assigned to him. He did

not dispute that he had gone to the house of Sangeeta Uttam, compared

the documents with the original one and called for the ration card of two

neighbours, namely, PW-6 Abdul Rashid and PW-9 Usha Rani. He,

however, denied having demanded Rs 500/- from the family members of

the complainant. He also admitted that the endorsements at points „A‟,

„B‟ and „C‟ on Ex.PW-4/G and in his hand. He stated that a lady,

namely, Usha Rani, was produced before him, who appended her thumb

impression and one person by the name of Abdul Rashid was produced

before him, who also appended his thumb impression in his presence.

According to him, there was no reason for him to disbelieve that the

persons produced before him were not Usha Rani and Abdul Rasheed.

8. This is not in dispute that an application was submitted by Shri

Suresh Uttam for issue of Scheduled Caste Certificate and the aforesaid

application was assigned to the appellant, Nawab Singh, for making

inquiry. It is also not in dispute that the writings Q1 & Q2 as well as the

signatures Q3 on the report Ex.PW4/G are in the hand of the appellant.

This is also an undisputed position that the appellant had gone to the

place of the complainant for making inquiry in connection with his

application for issue of Scheduled Caste Certificate. The appellant in

his statement dated 24.8.2009, while admitting the endorsements on

Ex.PW4/G claimed that one lady by the name of Smt. Usha Rani and

one male by the name of Abdul Ahmed were produced before him and

they had appended their respective thumb impressions in his presence.

The question which then arises is whether two persons who claimed to

be Usha Rani and Abdul Ahmed were produced before the appellant and

they had put their respective thumb impressions on Ex.PW4/G or not.

When Smt. Usha Rani came in the witness box as PW9, she expressly

stated that no person from the SDM Office, Kalkaji came to the house of

Suresh Uttam for verification of the SC Certificate and non one signed

and put thumb impression in her presence. This was not the case of the

appellant during cross-examination of this witness that someone other

than her was produced before him and was represented to be Usha Rani.

On the other hand, the suggestion given to her was that she had put

thumb impression on the documents. I see no reason to disbelieve Smt.

Usha Rani. There was no enmity or ill-will between her and the

appellant and there was no reason for her to depose falsely against him.

Moreover she expressly stated in her examination in the Court that she

never put any thumb impression since she was literate and used to sign.

In the ordinary course of human conduct a person who knows how to

sign would put his signatures instead of putting his thumb impression,

when called upon to sign a document. This is also not the case of the

appellant that any rule of the Government required thumb impression of

the witness to be obtained even when the witness was literate and knew

how to sign. In any case, there could be no reason for the family of the

complainant to produce a fictitious person before him, along with the

genuine ration card of Smt. Usha Rani, particularly when the statement

made by that person was to go against them. If they were to produce a

fictitious and represent her to be Usha Rani, that person would state in

their favour, which according to the appellant, was not the position.

There could have been no reason for the family members of the

complainant to produce fictitious persons before the appellant as Usha

Rani and Abdul Ahmad. Admittedly, the ration cards of the above-

referred persons were produced before the appellant at the time he went

to the house of the complainant for making inquiry. Therefore, they had

no difficulty in producing their neighbour, and had no reason to resort to

an illegal act of producing fictitious persons and make them impersonate

as Usha Rani and Abdul Ahmad. Therefore, I have no hesitation in

holding that Smt. Usha Rani did not put thumb impression on

Ex.PW4/G. The necessary inference, therefore, is that the appellant had

made some person other than Smt. Usha Rani put his/her thumb

impression against her name on Ex.PW4/G.

9. It has also come in the deposition of PW6, Abdul Rashid, who is

the son of Abdul Ahmad that in August, 2002 no one from the Office of

the SDM, Kalkaji had come to him for verification of caste in

connection with the Scheduled Caste Certificate of Suresh Kumar

Uttam. He also stated that he had told the IO that his father had expired

long back and someone had forged the thumb impression of his father

on the said certificate. During his cross-examination no suggestion was

given to him that his father was alive at the time the appellant visited the

place of the complainant in August, 2002. No suggestion was given to

him that the report Ex.PW4/G bears the thumb impression of his father.

There could be no good reason for the family of the complainant to

produce a fictitious person and represent him to be Abdul Rashid. The

view taken by me, with respect to thumb impression of Usha Rani

equally applies to the thumb impression of Abdul Rashid. It is,

therefore, obvious that it is the appellant who had made someone put his

thumb impression on Ex.PW4/G against the name of Abdul Ahmad.

10. The deposition of PW3, Smt. Bhagwati Devi, which I see no

reason to disbelieve shows that the person who had come to her place

for making inquiry in connection with issue of Scheduled Caste

Certificate to Suresh Uttam had demanded a bribe of Rs.500/- and she

had paid a sum of Rs.100/- to him as bribe. Though as rightly pointed

out by the learned counsel for the appellant, she did not identify the

appellant as the person who had come to her place and demanded and

accepted bribe from her, since it is an admitted case that it is the

appellant, Nawab Singh, who had gone to her place to make an inquiry

in connection with issue of a Caste Certificate to Suresh Uttam, it is

only the appellant, Nawab Singh and no other person who could have

demanded and accepted the bribe from her while making inquiry in

connection with the issue of Caste Certificate. The identity of the

appellant as the culprit, therefore, stands established beyond reasonable

doubt.

11. As noted earlier, the evidence produced by the prosecution proves

that the thumb impressions on the report Ex.PW4/G are not of Smt.

Usha Rani & Shri Abdul Abmad, and it is the appellant who made

someone put thumb impressions on the said document. Had the

appellant not demanded bribe there could be no reason for him to

prepare a false report and going to the extent of forging the document by

making someone put thumb impressions against the name of Usha Rani

and Abdul Ahmad on the said document. It has come in the deposition

of Shri Ramesh Uttam that he had complained to the SDM, Shri A.K.

Singh with respect to demand of bribe from him. The logical inference,

therefore, would be that the appellant forged the report Ex.PW4/G either

because a complaint was made against him to the SDM or because the

whole of the bribe amount of Rs.500/- was not paid to him.

12. Since the appellant who was legally bound to furnish correct

information in his report to the SDM, submitted information which he

knew to be false, he has rightly been convicted under Section 177 of the

Indian Penal Code. The appellant is also guilty of offences punishable

under Sections 468 and 471 of IPC since he forged the report Ex.PW4/G

and also used it as a genuine document by submitting the same to the

SDM in connection with issue of Caste Certificate to the complainant.

The appellant made a false document within the meaning of Section 464

of IPC since his report contained statements purporting to be made by

Usha Rani and Abdul Ahmad though, in fact, neither of them had made

any such statement. This, obviously, was done with the intention of

causing wrongful loss to the complainant who was legally entitled to

issue of a Scheduled Caste Certificate. The appellant thereby acted

dishonestly while making the report Ex.PW4G as he did it with the

intention of causing it to be believed that the aforesaid statements on the

report Ex.PW4/G were made and thumb marked by Usha Rani and

Abdul Ahmad. Since making of a false document with the intent of

cause damage or injury to any person amounts to forgery within the

meaning of Section 463 of the IPC and the purpose of forging the

document was to induce the SDM to refuse Caste Certificate to the

complainant, which he would not have done had he known that the

report contained forged statements of Usha Rani and Abdul Ahmad, the

forgery committed by the appellant is punishable under Section 468 of

the IPC. Fraudulently or dishonestly using forged document as genuine

knowing or having reason to believe to be a forged document is

punishable under Section 471 of the IPC and the appellant dishonestly

used the forged report Ex.PW4/G as genuine by submitting it to the

SDM, knowing fully well that it was a forged document. Therefore, no

ground for interfering with the conviction of the appellant under

Sections 177, 468 and 471 of the IPC is made out.

13. Section 7 of the PC Act, to the extent it is relevant for this case,

provides that whoever, being a public servant, accepts or obtains or

agrees to accept or attempts to obtain, for himself any gratification

whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing

or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show,

in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any

person, shall be liable to the prescribed punishment. Therefore, a

demand of money for doing a favour such as submitting a favourable

report for the purpose of issue of Caste Certificate would constitute an

attempt to obtain illegal gratification as a motive or reward for doing or

forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in

the exercise of his official functions. The appellant by demanding bribe

of Rs.500/- and then accepting Rs.100/- from Smt. Bhagwati Devi

committed an offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act.

14. Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act to the extent it is relevant for the

present case, provides that a person is said to commit criminal

misconduct, inter alia, if he (i) by corrupt or illegal means or (ii) by

abusing his position as a public servant obtains himself any pecuniary

advantage.

The expression "corrupt or illegal means" has not been defined in

the Act. Illegal would obviously mean something which the law

prohibits. The definition of the expression „corrupt‟ in the Shorter

Oxford Dictionary includes something influenced by bribery. This

expression would also include something which is morally unsound,

dishonest, depraved or pervert. Therefore, accepting money as bribe

would certainly amount to use of corrupt means. Since taking or

attempting to take bribe is prohibited by law, such an act would also

amount to use of illegal means.

15. The appellant abused his position as a public servant by

demanding Rs.500/- and accepting Rs.100/- from Smt. Bhagwati Devi.

Had he not been holding the position of a bailiff in the Office of the

SDM, it would not have been possible for him to demand and accept the

aforesaid amount. He, therefore, clearly abused his position as a public

servant for obtaining pecuniary advantage to the extent of Rs.100/- and,

therefore, has rightly been convicted under Section 13(1)(d) read with

Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

16. The learned counsel for the appellant, during the course of

arguments, relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Banarsi Dass

Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2010 SC 1589. In the aforesaid case the

charge against the appellant was that he demanded and accepted bribe

for changing khasra girdawari in the name of the mother of the

complainant Smt. Sat Pal Kaur. However, when she was examined in

the Court, she denied her statement before the police Ex.PW3/A as well

as memos alleged to be signed by her, saying that she had signed them

without reading the same. The Apex Court also found that on the

material circumstances/facts she had completely taken a somersault

while deposing before the Court. Another witness Gurmej Singh,

besides disowning his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in its entirety

stated that he was not present either when the bribe was demanded or

when the same was accepted. The complainant also admitted that she

had an altercation with the appellant and thereafter had put the money

on his table. The plea taken by the appellant was that since the

complainant insisted on changing the khasra girdawari she got annoyed

and the money was lying on his table without any knowledge or demand

when it was recovered. It was in these circumstances that the Court held

that the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification could not be

proved by the prosecution in accordance with law. The facts before this

Court are altogether different and besides oral evidence of Smt.

Bhagwati Devi, the documentary evidence in the form of forged report

of the appellant establishes the case against him beyond any reasonable

doubt.

17. Coming to the sentence part, I find that the substantive sentence

awarded to the appellant does not exceed two (2) years on any count and

the sentences have to run concurrently. The appellant went to the extent

of forging the statements of Smt. Usha Rani and Shri Abdul Ahmad

merely because the family of the complainant refused to meet his

demand for a bribe of Rs.500/- and made a complaint against him to the

SDM. He, abusing his position as a public servant, extracted money

from a person belonging to a weaker section of the society who was in

dire need of Caste Certificate, and then made the SDM refuse such a

certificate to him. The facts & circumstances of the case warrant no

leniency in the matter of punishment awarded to him and no case for

reducing the sentence is, therefore, made out.

18. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the appeal is hereby

dismissed. The appellant is directed to forthwith surrender before the

trial court for undergoing the remaining sentence awarded to him. The

fine, if not already deposited shall be deposited within a week from

today. If the appellant fails to surrender forthwith, the trial court shall

take steps to procure his presence and commit him to prison to undergo

the remaining sentence.

The trial court record be sent back immediately along with a copy

of this order.

V.K. JAIN, J JANUARY 20, 2014 BG/b'nesh