Delhi District CourtVinod Kumar Goyal vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 1 April, 2014IN THE COURT OF SH. R.K. GAUBA: DISTRICT & SESSIONS 
     JUDGE (SOUTH DISTRICT) SAKET: NEW DELHI


Criminal Revision No. 341/2013
ID No.: 02406R0347812013

Vinod Kumar Goyal, 
S/o Late Shri Padam Chand Goyal, 
R/o Flat No. 10, Sec­5, Pkt­I, 
DDA SFS Flats, Dwarka, 
New Delhi.                                            ....    Revisionist

       Versus 

The State (NCT of Delhi)                              .....    Respondent

Instituted on: 16.12.2013
Judgment reserved on: 18.03.2014
Judgment pronounced on: 01.04.2014


                               J U D G M E N T1. This revision petition seeks to question the correctness, legality 

       and propriety of order dated 09.09.2013 passed by Shri Sandeep 

       Garg, Metropolitan Magistrate­07 (South) on the file of criminal 

       case No. 1292/2 of 2011 (2001) whereby charge was found made 

       out for putting the petitioner to trial for offences undersections 

       406/467/468/471/120 BIPC.Crl. Rev. No. 341/2013 Vinod Kumar Goyal Vs. State                Page 1 of 152. Respondent/State has appeared to contest the revision petition on 

       the basis of trial court record.3. I have heard Shri Dharmender Arya, Advocate for the petitioner 

       and   Shri   Devender   Kumar,   Additional   Public   Prosecutor   for 

       respondent/State. I have gone through the record.4. It is necessary to trace briefly the background facts at this stage.5. The criminal case pending trial before the court of Metropolitan 

       Magistrate arises out of FIR No.176/01 registered on 24.03.2001 

       pursuant   to   directions   of   the   Metropolitan   Magistrate   undersection 156 (3)Cr.P.C on the basis of criminal complaint dated 

       15.03.2001   presented   by   Gordhan   Singh   Rathi   seeking   action 

       against Smt. Vijay Laxmi, wife of late Shri Inder Singh Rathi for 

       offences   undersections   406/420/467/468/489/471/474IPC.   It 

       may be added here that the complainant/first informant (Gordhan 

       Singh Rathi) introduced himself in the criminal complaint as a 

       76 year old person having permanent residence in village Rajpur, 

       PO   Maidan   Garhi,   New  Delhi­30.   Even   as   per   the   FIR,   Smt. 

       Vijay Laxmi (person shown in the complaint as accused) was his 

       daughter­in­law. The material on record indicates that Smt. Vijay 

       Laxmi having been rendered a widow had been living separately 

       with her two children, both minors at the relevant point of time.Crl. Rev. No. 341/2013 Vinod Kumar Goyal Vs. State                    Page 2 of 156. According to the case set up by the complainant in the FIR, he 

       had purchased units worth Rs. 40,000/­ from Unit Trust of India 

       (UTI) in the form of two UTI certificates each dated 27.05.1991 

       for Rs. 20,000/­ with date of maturity specified as 26.05.1998. 

       The certificates had been issued by UTI under a seven year plan 

       in the joint names of the complainant and Smt. Vijay Laxmi, they 

       having been shown as first and second holder respectively, the 

       maturity amount being payable to "either or survivor".7. The prosecution case is that Smt. Vijay Laxmi, the second holder 

       of the certificates unauthorisedly and dishonestly submitted the 

       two certificates to UTI on 14.03.1997 with endorsement overleaf 

       on each document purporting to have been signed, inter alia, by 

       the   complainant   seeking   surrender   of   the   certificates   and 

       discharge of liability by UTI. It is the prosecution case that the 

       two   certificates   duly   discharged   with   such   endorsement   were 

       received by UTI on 20.03.1997 along with a covering letter dated 

       14.03.1997   under   the   signatures   of   Smt.   Vijay   Laxmi.   The 

       endorsements   seeking   premature   repurchase   of   the   units   were 

       attested by the petitioner as a witness. UTI granted the request 

       and issued two 'not negotiable' and 'not transferable' cheques 

       each   dated   26.03.1997   for   Rs.   41613.99   favouring   theCrl. Rev. No. 341/2013 Vinod Kumar Goyal Vs. State                   Page 3 of 15complainant,  for  encashment  through Account No. 5466 Dena 

       Bank, Chhatarpur, Delhi and dispatched it at the address of the 

       complainant   given   as   Village   and   Post   Office   Mittraun, 

       Nazabgarh, New Delhi­43.8. As per the allegations of the complainant, he had discovered on 

       16.06.1996 that the original UTI certificates had been lost. He 

       lodged a report with police station Mehrauli on the same date 

       and   informed   UTI   vide   letter   dated   20.06.1996   as   per   the 

       material   on   record   (communication   dated   24.10.2001   of   UTI 

       Investors Services Limited). Upon receipt of the said letter dated 

       20.06.1996, the complainant had been advised by the UTI vide 

       letter dated 10.07.1996 to submit the request letter of undertaking 

       and comply with the necessary formalities. The prosecution case 

       itself shows that the complainant did not comply with the said 

       requirement and, thus, no follow up action was taken.9. It was the allegation of the complainant in the FIR that since he 

       did not receive any communication from UTI after the date of 

       maturity, he sent a communication requesting for the maturity 

       proceeds   to   be   paid.   He   claimed   to   have   learnt   about   the 

       premature payment as aforementioned in the follow­up inquiries.10.During investigation, the police seized the two UTI certificatesCrl. Rev. No. 341/2013 Vinod Kumar Goyal Vs. State                     Page 4 of 15(Ex. P1 and P2) along with the covering letter dated 14.03.1997 

       submitted   for   premature   payment   by   Smt.   Vijay   Laxmi.   The 

       complainant   disputed   the   signatures   on   reverse   of   the   said 

       certificates purporting to have been appended by him at points 

       Q1  and  Q2 respectively. The investigating office collected the 

       specimen writings of the complainant and Smt. Vijay Laxmi and 

       submitted the material for opinion of hand­writing expert. The 

       report dated 26.09.20014 of CFSL shows that the authorship of 

       specimen signatures marked Q1 and Q2 could not be connected 

       with the specimen writing of the complainant. The hand­writing 

       expert   was   unable   to   express   any   opinion   regarding   the 

       authorship of the said questioned signatures upon the same being 

       compared with the specimen writing of Smt. Vijay Laxmi.11. Charge­sheet was laid by the police in the court of Metropolitan 

       Magistrate on 06.01.2003 seeking trial of Smt. Vijay Laxmi for 

       offences undersections 406/420/467/468/469/471and474IPC. 

       The Magistrate took cognizance and issued process vide order 

       dated 26.02.2003.12.Smt. Vijay Laxmi (hereinafter referred to as "accused No. 1") 

       was put to trial on the basis of charge framed on 09.02.2005 for 

       offences undersections 406/467/468/471IPC.Crl. Rev. No. 341/2013 Vinod Kumar Goyal Vs. State                   Page 5 of 1513.In the proceedings that followed, the complainant was examined 

       as PW1 on 15.02.2006 and was cross­examined on 09.12.2006. 

       Thereafter,   the   prosecution   examined   three   other   witnesses 

       namely   Karamveer   (PW2),   SI   Alam   Singh   (PW3)   and   Harish 

       Kumar Bhalla (PW4) on 15.02.2006, 12.04.2010 and 03.10.2011 

       respectively.14. On 02.11.2011, the complainant moved application undersection 

       319read withsection 190Cr.P.C seeking the summoning of the 

       petitioner as an additional accused, mainly on the ground that he 

       was an attesting witness to the endorsements seeking premature 

       release of the money against the two UTI certificates purporting 

       to bear the signatures of the complainant at points Q1 and Q2 

       respectively   which   are   alleged   to   be   forged   and   fabricated 

       signatures.15.The Ld. Magistrate considered the request and found, vide order 

       dated   26.04.2012,   grounds   to   proceed   against   the   petitioner, 

       thereby issuing  summons against him to appear as accused to 

       answer   the   accusations   for   offences   undersections 

       406/467/468/471/120 BIPC.16.The  petitioner  appeared before  the  Metropolitan  Magistrate  in 

       response to the summons issued in exercise of jurisdiction underCrl. Rev. No. 341/2013 Vinod Kumar Goyal Vs. State                   Page 6 of 15section 319Cr.P.C and resisted the framing of charge.17. The   question   of   charge   was   considered   by   the   Metropolitan 

       Magistrate   leading   to   the   impugned   order   being   passed   on 

       09.09.2013 holding  prima facie  case to be made out to put the 

       petitioner   to   trial   for   offences   undersections 

       406/467/468/471/120   BIPC.   It   may   be   added   here   that   in 

       resisting   the   framing   of   charge,   the   petitioner   had,  inter   alia, 

       relied upon judgments of the civil court(s) and consumer forum. 

       The Metropolitan Magistrate declined to go by the said material 

       on the reasoning that the same could not be looked into in view 

       of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ofState of Orissa Vs. Devender Nath Padhi2005 1 SCC 568.18.The  petitioner  having felt  aggrieved has come up through the 

       revision petition at hand questioning the correctness of the view 

       taken   by   the   Metropolitan   Magistrate.   The   basic   plea   on   his 

       behalf is the fact that the complainant had failed to make out a 

       case of dishonest release of money against the UTI certificates 

       by UTI at the instance of accused No. 1 would show that the case 

       is wholly unfounded. According to him, the only role attributed 

       to him in the charge­sheet was of being a UTI agent who hadCrl. Rev. No. 341/2013 Vinod Kumar Goyal Vs. State                         Page 7 of 15presented   the   UTI   certificates   for   premature   release   at   the 

       instance of accused No. 1. He explains that the act of he having 

       signed   as   an   attesting   witness   on   the   endorsements   seeking 

       premature release in favour of the accused No. 1 who had handed 

       over to him the original certificates with the history of it having 

       been   passed   on   to   her   by   the   complainant   himself   was   an 

       innocent step taken in good faith in normal course of business 

       and in absence of any further material could not be alleged to be 

       pursuant to some criminal conspiracy, a charge with which even 

       the accused no. 1 had not been arraigned . He argued that the 

       version of accused no. 1 has been found to be substantiated by 

       the civil court in the corresponding litigation. He further submits 

       that given the fact that the request was made for release of the 

       money against the UTI certificates in the name of the first holder 

       (the complainant) and the fact that the cheques were issued by 

       UTI   for   encashment   through   the   joint   account   held   by   the 

       complainant and accused No. 1 were sufficient to satisfy him that 

       the   transaction   which   he   was   facilitating   through   the   above­

       mentioned endorsement was genuine and, thus, according to him, 

       there is no material to transpose him from the list of prosecution 

       witnesses to that of the accused.Crl. Rev. No. 341/2013 Vinod Kumar Goyal Vs. State                     Page 8 of 1519.I have given my considered thoughts to the above submissions in 

       the light of the facts and circumstances of the case.20.In the case ofState of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh, AIR 1977 SC 

       2018 Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under :"Strong   suspicion   against   the   accused,   if   the 
               matter   remains   in   the   region   of   suspicion, 
               cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the 
               conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if 
               there   is   a   strong   suspicion   which   leads   the 
               Court   to   think   that   there   is   ground   for 
               presuming that the accused has committed an 
               offence then it is not open to the Court to say 
               that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding 
               against the accused."21.InUnion of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal1979 Crl. L.J. 

       154,     Hon'ble   Supreme   Court   made   the   following

       observations   regarding   the   test   to   be   applied   at   the   stage   of 

       consideration of the case for charge :"Where   the   materials   placed   before   the 
                 court   disclose   grave   suspicion   against   the 
                 accused   which   has   not   been   properly 
                 explained the Court will be fully justified in 
                 framing a charge and proceeding with the 
                 trial.Crl. Rev. No. 341/2013 Vinod Kumar Goyal Vs. State                         Page 9 of 15XXXX
                 In exercising his jurisdiction underSection 
                 227the Judge _ _ _ _ _ _ cannot act merely 
                 as   a   Post­   Office   or   a   mouthpiece   of   the 
                 prosecution, but has to consider the broad 
                 probabilities of the case, the total effect of 
                 the  evidence  and  the  documents  produced 
                 before   the   Court,   any   basic   infirmities 
                 appearing   in   the   case   and   so   on.   This 
                 however   does   not   mean   that   the   Judge 
                 should make a roving enquiry into the pros 
                 and   cons   of   the   matter   and   weigh   the 
                 evidence as if he was conducting a trial."22.The law on the subject was expounded on same lines inState of 

       M.P   Vs.   S.   B.   Johari2000   Crl.L.   J.   944   (SC)   and   inP. 

       Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala2010  Crl. L. J. 1427.23.In my considered view, the Ld. trial court has fallen into grave 

       error   by   refusing   to   take   into   account   certain   admissions 

       mentioned   in   the   judgements   arising   out   of   the   civil   dispute 

       which was raised in corresponding/parallel proceedings on the 

       same set of facts as arise in the proceedings at hand. The copy of 

       the judgment in civil suit No. 34/01 decided by Shri Raj Kumar 

       Chauhan, the then Commercial Civil Judge, Delhi on 24.03.2004Crl. Rev. No. 341/2013 Vinod Kumar Goyal Vs. State                       Page 10 of 15shows that the suit had been preferred by the complainant underOrder 37 CPCseeking recovery of Rupees One Lakh impleading 

       UTI and Smt. Vijay Laxmi (accused No. 1) as defendants. The 

       suit was contested by the defendants with UTI taking the position 

       that it had lawfully allowed the request for premature refund of 

       the money against the units on the request properly presented by 

       the second holder. Smt. Vijay Laxmi, on the other hand, took a 

       specific stand that the money had been invested with UTI against 

       these   certificates   from   out   of   her   savings   and   that   the   unit 

       certificates had been handed over to her by the complainant in a 

       family  panchayat  on   his   own   after   signing   the   discharge 

       certificates   on   the   reverse   and   that   pursuant   thereto   she   had 

       submitted the documents with the request for premature release 

       to UTI in her own rights.24.Noticeably, during his cross­examination as PW1 in the aforesaid 

       proceedings   arising   out   of   the   corresponding   civil   suit,   the 

       complainant   admitted   that   the   UTI   certificates   had   been 

       purchased   with   the   help   of   money   arranged   through   cheques 

       issued by Smt. Vijay Laxmi against a joint account No. 5466. 

       Though the complainant as plaintiff had claimed that the source 

       of fundings for these investments was his own savings, the civilCrl. Rev. No. 341/2013 Vinod Kumar Goyal Vs. State                       Page 11 of 15court returned a clear finding to the contrary. The civil court also 

       noted an admission of the complainant to the effect that the UTI 

       certificates had been purchased "for the benefit of Vijay Laxmi 

       and her children". The civil court held Smt. Vijay Laxmi to be 

       entitled to encashment of the units against these certificates and, 

       thus, she having withdrawn the amount prematurely as of right. 

       Primarily on the basis of these findings, the civil suit presented 

       by the complainant on the ground of dishonest withdrawal was 

       dismissed.25.The complainant had challenged the judgment of the Civil Judge 

       by   way   of   Regular   Civil   Appeal   No.   29   of   2004   which   was 

       dismissed by Shri H.S. Sharma, the then Additiona District & 

       Sessions Judge, Delhi vide judgment dated 01.12.2004. The copy 

       ofthe   said   judgmentindicates   that   the   first   appellate   court 

       concluded that the complainant had tried to mislead the court, 

       inter alia, about the admission on the part of UTI in negligence 

       or lawful payment of amount to accused No. 1. The appellate 

       court found no substance in the appeal and, thus, dismissed it. 

       The said order was further challenged by way of Regular Second 

       Appeal No. 43/05 before Hon'ble High Court. The second appeal 

       was   dismissed   vide   order   dated   21.08.2006.   It   is   apposite   toCrl. Rev. No. 341/2013 Vinod Kumar Goyal Vs. State                      Page 12 of 15mention here that Hon'ble High Court noted that no admissible 

       evidence had been adduced to substantiate the allegation that the 

       signatures   of   the   complainant   on   the   certificates   had   actually 

       been forged.26.I agree with the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner that 

       the   above   material   cannot   be   kept   out   of   consideration.   The 

       findings   and   result   of   the   corresponding   civil   litigation   have 

       reached finality. They are binding on the parties involved herein 

       so far as civil dispute is concerned. The findings on issues of fact 

       recorded   by   the   civil   courts   in   the   corresponding   litigation 

       demolish the theory of any fraudulent or dishonest intention in 

       the   submission   of   the   UTI  certificates   for   premature   payment 

       and discharge of the units. Noticeably, the material on the basis 

       of   which   the   said   findings   were   returned   includes   one   to   the 

       effect   that   the   certificates   had   been   handed   over   by   the 

       complainant   to   accused   No.   1   himself   after   signing   on   the 

       reverse. At any rate, the admissions of the complainant in the 

       course of trial of civil case that the investments were made from 

       out of funds held by the accused no. 1 (though is an account 

       jointly operated) and were for her benefit and that of her children 

       renders the very basis of his grouse false. Since the material onCrl. Rev. No. 341/2013 Vinod Kumar Goyal Vs. State                       Page 13 of 15record   also   shows   that   the   documents   were   submitted   to   UTI 

       through the petitioner leading to the maturity amount being paid 

       by way of cheques encashable in the name and joint account of 

       the complainant, it is neither just nor fair to put him to trial on 

       allegations of he being party to some criminal conspiracy with 

       Smt. Vijay Laxmi.27. Assuming that Smt. Vijay Laxmi had committed offences in the 

       nature of those punishable undersections 406/467/468/471IPC, 

       there may be some reason to suspect his complicity on account 

       of hand­writing expert observing it to be not possible to connect 

       the complainant with the authorship of the questioned signatures. 

       But   this   opinion   cannot   in   any   way   take   one   directly   to   the 

       conclusion that the signatures had been forged as part of a design 

       to   which   the   petitioner/complainant   was   privy.   The   suspicion 

       does not travel to "grave suspicion" so as to result in petitioner 

       also   being   arraigned.   There   are   other   weighty   circumstances 

       available on record to infer contrary set of facts to be of greater 

       probability.   Given   the   material   which   has   already   come   on 

       record during the trial of accused no. 1, it is not possible to say 

       that the said material if it were to remain uncontroverted it would 

       lead only to the conclusion of the petitioners being guilty. DoubtsCrl. Rev. No. 341/2013 Vinod Kumar Goyal Vs. State                        Page 14 of 15about   his   complicity   exist   and   would   persist   even   at   final 

       adjudication.28.For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order is set aside. The 

       petitioner is discharged.29.The   revision   petition   stands   disposed   of   with   these 

       observations/directions.30.On   being called upon, the petitioner   submit that his surety is 

       ready and willing to continue as surety for purposes of Section 

       437­A   Cr.P.C.   Thus, it  is directed that  the  bail  bond   already 

       furnished   shall   continue   in   force   for   a   further   period   of   six 

       months in terms of Section 437­A Cr.P.C.31. Trial court  record along with a copy of this judgment be sent 

       back.32.File   of   the   criminal   revision   petition   be   consigned   to   Record 

       Room.Announced in open Court today 
on this 01st day of April, 2014.                   (R.K. GAUBA)      
                                                   District & Sessions Judge (South) 
                                                                 Saket / New Delhi.Crl. Rev. No. 341/2013 Vinod Kumar Goyal Vs. State                        Page 15 of 15