Delhi District Court
State vs Mohd Sadiq on 20 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SEEMA NIRMAL
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS -09,
SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT / SAKET COURTS, DELHI
Cr CASES 4138/2020
STATE Vs. MOHD. SADIQ and Anr
FIR NO. 209/2017
PS DEFENCE COLONY
JUDGMENT
(a) C.N.R No. DLSE020118392020
(b) Name of the Complainant Sushil Kumar, Insp. (Min.), Hotel
Licensing Authority, Defence
colony.
(c) Name of accused person 1)Mohd. Sadiq and 2)Mohd. Saqib
Both S/o Sh. Saeed Ahmad
R/o1739, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Pataudi
House, Daryaganj, New Delhi-
110002
(d) Offence charged U/s 420/465/468/471/34 IPC
(e) Date of commission of offence On 06.01.2017
(f) Date of Institution 26.09.2020
(g) Plea of accused Accused persons pleaded not guilty
and claimed trial
(h) Order Reserved on 19.12.2024
(i) Date of judgment 20.01.2024
(j) Final Order Acquitted
Cr CASES 4138/2020 PAGE 1 OF 19
STATE Vs. MOHD. SADIQ and Anr
FIR NO. 209/2017
PS DEFENCE COLONY
SEEMA Digitally signed by
SEEMA NIRMAL
NIRMAL Date: 2025.01.20
15:29:17 +0530
Present: Ld. Substitute APP for the State.
Sh. A.K. Pandey, Ld. counsel for both the accused
along with both the accused.
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on
06.01.2017 at Hotel licensing authority, PS Defence Colony,
New Delhi the accused persons dishonestly filed application
for renewal of the license of the hotel m/s Kohinoor
Guesthouse for 9 rooms and 12 beds by preparing false
document containing forged signatures of their deceased
mother to the concerned authority and also used the said false
documents as genuine for the renewal of the aforesaid license.
As such, it is alleged that the accused Mohd. Sadiq and Mohd.
Saqib have committed the offence punishable under sections
420/465/468/471/34 IPC of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter referred, “IPC“) for which FIR no. 209/2020 was
registered at the police station Defence Colony.
2. The present FIR is registered on complaint of
complainant Sushil Kumar, retired inspector, from Hotel
Licensing Authority, Defence Colony, in which he stated that a
Lodging License No. HTL/ADDL. CP/LIC. (H)/2009/320 was
issued to Smt. Naima Begum W/o Shri Saeed Ahmed, R/o
Cr CASES 4138/2020 PAGE 2 OF 19
STATE Vs. MOHD. SADIQ and Anr
FIR NO. 209/2017
PS DEFENCE COLONY
SEEMA Digitally signed by
SEEMA NIRMAL
NIRMAL Date: 2025.01.20
15:29:25 +0530
1739, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Pataudi House, Darya Ganj, New
Delhi-110002 to run a guest house in the name and style of
M/s NEW KOHINOOR situated at 1739, Kucha Dakhni Rai,
Pataudi House, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002 for 09 Rooms
and 12 Beds under the provisions of “Regulations for keeping
places of public entertainment in the Union Territory of Delhi,
1980”. The License was renewed time to time and was valid
upto 31/03/2016. A copy of Lodging License is filed. Further,
Shri Mohd. Sadiq and Mohd. Saqib both S/o Shri Saeed
Ahmed, R/o 1739, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Pataudi House, Darya
Ganj, New Delhi-110002 vide their application dated
06/01/2017 applied for change of name in the license of M/s
New Kohinoor Guest House situated at 1739, Kucha Dakhni
Rai, Pataudi House, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002
intimating therein that their mother Smt. Naima Begum has
expired on 02/02/2015. Since Smt. Naima Begum, previous
licensee had expired, the lodging License Issued to Smt.
Naima Begum was cancelled vide order No. 1925-26/Addl.
CP/Lic. (H) dated 11/07/2017 and case of appellants was
processed for obtaining reports from local police and MCD
authorities. On perusal and scrutiny of documents submitted
by Shri Mohd. Sadiq and Mohd. Saqib, it revealed that their
mother had expired on 02/02/2015 but they did not inform the
respondent in this regard and despite the death of Smt. Naima
Cr CASES 4138/2020 PAGE 3 OF 19
STATE Vs. MOHD. SADIQ and Anr
FIR NO. 209/2017
Digitally signed
PS DEFENCE COLONY SEEMA by SEEMA
NIRMAL
NIRMAL Date: 2025.01.20
15:29:31 +0530
Begum they submitted the application for renewal of lodging
license by submitting documents including application form
dated 12/06/2015 and affidavits in name of their deceased
mother by forging her signatures. In view of the documents
received, the Lodging License in the name of Smt. Naima
Begum was renewed by the respondent upto 31/03/2016. An
explanation, for misrepresentation of facts and getting the
license illegally renewed, vide No.1927-28/Addl. CP/Lic. (H)
dated 11/07/2017 was issued to them and Shri Mohd. Sadiq
and Mohd. Saqib submitted reply to explanation on
26/07/2017 stating therein that they were not aware about the
renewing procedure. After the death of their mother, they were
in mourning and area police officers were coming for checking
regularly. They applied for renewal of license by mistake and
got illegally renewed the license. Therefore, looking into the
facts of the entire matter, after being reasonably satisfied that
both of them got the license renewed in their deceased
mother’s name despite her death by putting her forged
signatures, in an act of gross misconduct and they were not
considered to be suitable person, for the grant of license in
their name, the Licensing Authority rejected their application
vide No. 2478-79/Addl. CP/Lic. (H) dated 30/08/2017. Their
appeal against the order of rejection of application for grant of
lodging license of M/s New Kohinoor Guest House, which
Cr CASES 4138/2020 PAGE 4 OF 19
STATE Vs. MOHD. SADIQ and Anr
FIR NO. 209/2017 Digitally signed
PS DEFENCE COLONY
SEEMA by SEEMA
NIRMAL
NIRMAL Date: 2025.01.20
15:29:46 +0530
was pending in the Court of Hon’ble L.G., Delhi has also been
dismissed on 08/11/2017.
3. Upon the said complaint, IO got the FIR registered
under sections 420/465/468/471/34/ IPC. After registration of
FIR, accused persons were interrogated by the IO. They
thereafter seized the relevant documents. However, on
09.10.2019 both the accused were declared absconder. Upon
completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the IO
against the accused Mohd. Sadiq and Mohd. Saqib, in the
court for the offence punishable sections
420/465/468/471/34/174A IPC.
4. On their appearance, a copy of charge-sheet was
supplied to the accused persons in terms of Section 207 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, “CrPC“). On
finding a prima facie case against the accused, charges under
Sections sections 420/465/468/471/34 IPC were framed
against the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty
and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was posted for
Prosecution Evidence.
5. The prosecution in order to prove its case against
accused Rohit Kumar beyond all reasonable doubt examined
the following witnesses, viz.
i.. PW-1- HC Balbir Singh (police witness)
ii. PW-2- Sh. Sattu Parashar (police witness)
Cr CASES 4138/2020 PAGE 5 OF 19
STATE Vs. MOHD. SADIQ and Anr
FIR NO. 209/2017
PS DEFENCE COLONY SEEMA Digitally signed by
SEEMA NIRMAL
NIRMAL Date: 2025.01.20
15:29:52 +0530
iii. PW-3- Sh. Sushil Kumar, Retired inspector
from Licensing Authority (Complainant)
iv.. PW-4- Sh. Mohd. Anis (independent
witness).
v..PW-5 Sh. Bashiruddin (independent witness)
vi.. PW-6 Sh. Vinod (police witness)
vii. PW-7- Sh. Sushil Sawaria (police witness,
second IO)
viii. PW-8- Sh. Rakesh Kumar (police witness
third, IO)
ix. PW-9- Sh. SI Amit Mann (police witness,
first IO)
6. The prosecution, in order to prove its case against the
accused beyond all reasonable doubts, also relied upon the
following documents:
i. seizure memo Ex. PW1/A.
ii. Copy of FIR as Ex. PW2/A (OSR) and
endorsement on Rukka as Ex. PW2/B,
iii. Application filed on behalf of applicant
Naima Begum(since deceased) dated 06/05/2014
for renewal of the lodging license of hotel in
original with affidavits submitted by Naima
Begum dated 22/04/2014, self attested
photocopy of MCD health trade license by
Naima Begum, authority letter submitted by
Naima Begum, self attested photocopy of fire
safety certificate dated 03/10/2012, self attested
Cr CASES 4138/2020 PAGE 6 OF 19
STATE Vs. MOHD. SADIQ and Anr
FIR NO. 209/2017 Digitally signedPS DEFENCE COLONY
SEEMA by SEEMA
NIRMAL
NIRMAL Date: 2025.01.20
15:29:56 +0530
photocopy of BSES electricity bill dated
30/11/2013, 10/03/2014, 30/09/2013, self
attested photocopy of MCD form G8A (Ex.
PW3/ D1 colly)
iv. Application for renewal of lodging license of
applicant Naima Begum dated 12/06/2015,
affidavits submitted by Naima Begum dated
24/04/2015, self attested copies of BSES
electricity bill, NDMC form G8A and death
certificate of Naima by them issued on
27/02/2015. (Ex. PW3/ D2 colly)STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED PERSON AND DEFENCE
EVIDENCE:
7. After prosecution evidence, statement of accused
persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C wherein all
incriminating circumstances led against them during the trial
by the prosecution witnesses were put to them, affording them
an opportunity to give their explanation, if any. Accused
persons pleaded innocence and claimed that they have been
falsely implicated in the present case. The accused persons
preferred to lead defence evidence.
Cr CASES 4138/2020 PAGE 7 OF 19
STATE Vs. MOHD. SADIQ and Anr
FIR NO. 209/2017
PS DEFENCE COLONY SEEMA Digitally signed by
SEEMA NIRMAL
NIRMAL Date: 2025.01.20
15:30:08 +0530
8. In their defence accused persons two witness that is
DW-1 Mohd. Kashif and DW-2 Mohd. Mosim Alam and then
accused persons closed defence evidence. Accordingly, the
matter was posted for final arguments.
FINAL ARGUMENT:
9. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and the Ld.
counsel for the accused persons and gone through the case file
carefully and submissions made by the accused persons. After
hearing rival contentions and after appreciation of evidence on
file, I am of the considered view that prosecution has not been
able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable
doubts and the arguments advanced by the Ld. APP for the
state cannot be accepted for the reasons given below.
10. It is a cardinal principle of criminal
jurisprudence that prosecution has to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing
evidence. Further, it is a settled proposition of criminal law
that in order to successfully bring home the guilt of the
accused, prosecution has to stand on its own legs and it cannot
derive any benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if any, in
the defence of the accused persons. Accused persons are
entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the
Cr CASES 4138/2020 PAGE 8 OF 19
STATE Vs. MOHD. SADIQ and Anr
FIR NO. 209/2017 SEEMA Digitally signed by
SEEMA NIRMAL
PS DEFENCE COLONY NIRMAL Date: 2025.01.20
15:30:24 +0530
prosecution story and any such doubt in the prosecution case
entitles the accused to acquittal.
INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE:
11. In the instant case, the accused persons are charged for
the offence under section 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC read
with section 34 of the IPC. It would be appropriate to
reproduce the relevant sections. These run as under:
Section 463 – Forgery: 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 contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud
may be committed, commits forgery.
Section 465 – Forgery for the purpose of
cheating;”Whoever commits forgery, intending that the
document or electronic record forged shall be used for the
purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to seven years,
and shall also be liable to fine.”
Section 471 – Using as genuine a forged document or
electronic record; Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses
as genuine any document 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.
Cr CASES 4138/2020 PAGE 9 OF 19
STATE Vs. MOHD. SADIQ and Anr
FIR NO. 209/2017 Digitally signed
PS DEFENCE COLONY SEEMA by SEEMA
NIRMAL
NIRMAL Date: 2025.01.20
15:30:37 +0530
“420. 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 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 with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to
fine.”
12. How the ingredients of cheating of aforementioned
provision are to be interpreted is detailed in Archna Rana vs. State
of UP 2021 3SCC 751, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while discussing
above provision guided that no offence u/s 420 IPC can be termed to
have been committed, unless, the ingredients of Section 415 are
shown to have been satisfied, in background of above, it is now
worthwhile to reproduce the relevant part of the judgment as below :
(i) a person must commit the offence of cheating under
Section 415; and
(ii) the person cheated must be dishonestly induced to
a) deliver property to any person; or
b) make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything
signed or sealed and capable of being converted
into valuable security.
Thus, cheating is an essential ingredient for an act to
constitute an offence under Section 420 IPC.
Cr CASES 4138/2020 PAGE 10 OF 19
STATE Vs. MOHD. SADIQ and Anr
FIR NO. 209/2017 SEEMA Digitally signed by
SEEMA NIRMAL
PS DEFENCE COLONY
NIRMAL 15:30:53 +0530
Date: 2025.01.20
13. Cheating is defined under Section 415 of the IPC. The
ingredients to constitute an offence of cheating are as follows:
i) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a
person by deceiving him:
ii)The person who was induced should be intentionally
induced to deliver any property to any person or to consent
that any person shall retain any property, or the person who
was induced should be intentionally induced to do or to omit
to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not
so deceived.
Thus, a fraudulent or dishonest inducement is an essential
ingredient of the offence under Section 415 IPC. A person who
dishonestly induced any person to deliver any property is
liable for the offence of cheating.”
14. The definition of cheating contains two parts. First
comes the main part “whoever, by deceiving any person…..” words
which obviously apply to the whole section. Then comes the first
part “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.” Then comes Part 2, which is an
alternative to subpart 1 viz. “or intentionally induces ….. mind,
reputation or property.” then comes the closing words “is said to
cheat.”. The words “and which act or omission …. reputation or
Cr CASES 4138/2020 PAGE 11 OF 19
STATE Vs. MOHD. SADIQ and Anr
FIR NO. 209/2017
PS DEFENCE COLONY SEEMA by
Digitally signed
SEEMA
NIRMAL
NIRMAL 15:30:59
Date: 2025.01.20
+0530
property” form a portion of Part 2 and are not applicable to Part 1 at
all. (Ishar Das (1908) PR No.10 of 1908 : (1906) 7 Cri LJ 290.
15. The aforementioned judgment makes it clear that there
are two distinct provisions forming part of offence of cheating. First
relating to inducement/deception to fraudulently get a transaction of
property which may be movable or immovable in nature, whereas
second part is more emphatic in connection with act or omission
relating to inducement which may cause damage or harm to
reputation or property. Both the aforementioned parts are distinct
and disjunct; however, “deception” is common in both.
16. This preposition has been strengthened further in
Bavaji (1875) Urrep Cr C 96, Cr R September 23, 1875, wherein it
is detailed “the definition of offence of cheating embraces, in some
cases, in which no transfer of property is occasioned by the
deception and some in which such a transfer occurs; for these cases
generally a general provision is made in Section 417 of the Code.
For the cases in which property is transferred a more specific
provision is made by Section 420 IPC. Again in Iridium India
Telecom Ltd vs Motorola Incorporated : AIR 2011 SC 20 it is
held that “misleading statements which withhold the vital facts for
intentionally inducing a person to do or to omit to do something
would amount to deception. Further, in case it is found that
misleading statement has wrongfully caused damage to the person
Cr CASES 4138/2020 PAGE 12 OF 19
STATE Vs. MOHD. SADIQ and Anr
FIR NO. 209/2017 Digitally signed
PS DEFENCE COLONY SEEMA by SEEMA
NIRMAL
NIRMAL Date: 2025.01.20
15:31:11 +0530
deceived it would amount to cheating”. In Roop Chand & Anr.
Vs. The State 1966 Crl. L.J. 1367 and again in Nadir Ali Barqa
Zaidi And Ors. vs The State of U.P. : AIR 1960 All 103 : 1960
Cri LJ 188 (All), it is held “every promise by a person of his future
conduct implies the statement of witness about it. Therefore, if a
person makes a false representation regarding his future conduct
and thereby obtain property from another, the misrepresentation
made by him would be an existing state and would fall within the
mischief of this section”.
17. While discussing the ingredients, the applicability of
Section requires the following ingredients as is held in Ram Jas vs.
State of UP : AIR 1974 SC 1811:
“1. Deception of any person.
2 (a) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that
person:
(i) to deliver any property to any person, or.
(ii) to consent that any person shall retain any
property,or
(b) intentionally inducing that person …….”
18. While declaring the purport of deception it is held
in Iridium India Telecom Ltd (supra) “nondisclosure of relevant
information would also be treated as a misrepresentation of facts
leading to deception”.
Cr CASES 4138/2020 PAGE 13 OF 19
STATE Vs. MOHD. SADIQ and Anr
FIR NO. 209/2017 Digitally signed
PS DEFENCE COLONY SEEMA by SEEMA
NIRMAL
NIRMAL Date: 2025.01.20
15:31:19 +0530
19. Again, in Robert John D’Souza & Ors vs Mr.
Stephen V. Gomes & Anr 2015 CriLJ 4040 SC, it is held that
essential ingredient of cheating is “deception”.
20. In Swami Dhirendra Brahmachari v/s Shailendar
Bhushan :1995 CLJ 1580 as well as in Motorola Incorporated
vs. Union of India : 2004 CriLJ 1576 (Bom), it is held that “it is
causing to believe what is false; or misleading as to a matter of fact
or leading into an error”.
21. As to what is sufficient to constitute a deception must
be decided in each case on its own fact [Ram Nath Kalphar
(1905) 2 CLJ 524)].
22. Similarly, for proving that the accused has committed
offence under section 468 IPC, it was for the prosecution to prove
that the accused forged the application Offence under section 468
IPC can only be proved by direct evidence and not otherwise.
Merely because someone has used a forged document is not to say
he has forged the documents. It may be noted using a forged
document in itself is an offence under Section 471 IPC to be
punished as if the person has forged the document.
23. Coming back to the facts of the present case, it is the
case of the prosecution that the accused persons dishonestly filed
application for renewal of the license of the hotel m/s Kohinoor
Cr CASES 4138/2020 PAGE 14 OF 19
STATE Vs. MOHD. SADIQ and Anr
Digitally signed
FIR NO. 209/2017
PS DEFENCE COLONY SEEMA by SEEMA
NIRMAL
NIRMAL Date: 2025.01.20
15:31:41 +0530
Guesthouse for 9 rooms and 12 beds by preparing false document
containing forged signatures of their deceased mother to the
concerned authority and also used the said false documents as
genuine in the renewal of the aforesaid license.
24. The present case was registered against the accused on
the application of Inspector (Min.) Sushil Kumar, In-charge, Hotel,
Licensing, New Delhi and his application in this regard is Ex.PW-
3/A. According to this application, the mother of the accused
persons namely Naima Begum was the owner of the hotel in
question for which license was issued. Said Naima Begum had
expired on 02.02.2015 but this fact was not notified to the
department and the accused persons vide their application dated
12.06.2015 alongwith affidavits in the name of Naima Begum
applied for renewal of the license and got it renewed also by
withholding the information about the death of their mother Naim
Begum. So, on the basis of these facts, a case for commission of
offences punishable under Sections 420/465/468/471/34 IPC was
registered against the accused persons.
25. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has
examined the complainant Inspector (Min.) Sushil Kumar, In-
charge, Hotel, Licensing, New Delhi as PW-3 who supported the
case of the prosecution in his examination in chief as per his
complaint Ex.PW-3/A. However, in his cross-examination he has
Cr CASES 4138/2020 PAGE 15 OF 19
STATE Vs. MOHD. SADIQ and Anr
Digitally signed
FIR NO. 209/2017 by SEEMA
PS DEFENCE COLONY SEEMA NIRMAL
NIRMAL Date:
2025.01.20
15:31:46 +0530
clearly stated that he does not know as to which of the accused
persons had furnished the affidavits alongwith the application in the
name of the deceased Naima Begum. Moreover, he also stated in
his cross-examination that when the alleged documents were filed
alongwith the application he was not posted in the concerned
Section of Licensing Unit and as such it can not be said that he had
seen the accused persons moving the application in the name of the
deceased Naima Begum alongwith the affidavits. He further stated
that no application for renewal alongwith the affidavits was made
by the accused persons for the year 2016 and 2017 which goes to
show that if the accused persons had any intention of cheating the
department then they would have moved further application for
renewal in this regard. Further, at one place during his cross-
examination dated 26.09.2022 he has stated that the said application
was moved by the accused persons but in his cross-examination
dated 09.06.2022 he had already stated that he does not know which
of the accused persons had moved the application. Copy of the
reply dated 26.07.2017 by the accused persons in terms of
explanation issued by the complainant to the accused persons is not
filed on record. All of this goes to show that this witness has made
improvement in his version and as such his testimony is not
reliable.
Cr CASES 4138/2020 PAGE 16 OF 19
STATE Vs. MOHD. SADIQ and Anr
FIR NO. 209/2017 Digitally signed
PS DEFENCE COLONY SEEMA by SEEMA
NIRMAL
NIRMAL Date: 2025.01.20
15:31:50 +0530
26. PW-4 Mohd. Anis also clearly stated in his cross-
examination that he does not identify the accused persons.
27. Further, application for renewal of the License is
Ex.PW-3/D2(Colly) pg. 196-206. All these documents bear the
signatures of deceased Naima Begum. Perusal of these documents
would reveal that the stamp papers and affidavits of deceased
Naima Begum are attested by Notary Public who is Sh. O.P.
Chaudhry having registration no.1468. Thus, it is clear that the
deponent must have appeared before the said Notary Public and as
such he was the person who would have best testified that whether
the deponent was deceased Naima Begum or some other person
swore an oath before him and that whether the accused persons
were instrumental in getting the said affidavits from him by playing
fraud on him also but the said withness has not been examined by
the prosecution and as such best witness has been withheld by the
prosecution benefit of which must go the accused persons. Reliance
in this regard can be placed upon Gurdev Singh Vs. State of
Punjab, 1991(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 608 and Swapan Bhowmick
v. State of Assam (Gauhati)(DB) Crl. Appeal No. 146 of 2003.
D/d. 18.12.2012.
28. Furthermore, the application and affidavits filed
alongwith the application bears the signatures of deceased Naima
Begum. So, as per the version of the prosecution said signatures
Cr CASES 4138/2020 PAGE 17 OF 19
STATE Vs. MOHD. SADIQ and Anr
FIR NO. 209/2017
PS DEFENCE COLONY
SEEMA Digitally signed by
SEEMA NIRMAL
NIRMAL Date: 2025.01.20
15:32:01 +0530
have been forged by the accused persons. So, it was incumbent
upon the prosecution to match the handwriting of the accused
persons with the signatures of deceased Naima Begum to prove that
the same were forged by them. However, no specimen handwriting
of the accused persons were obtained for the said purpose. PW-7
Inspector Sushil Sawaria clearly stated in his cross-examination that
he had not obtained any specimen signatures of the accused persons
nor he had seized any document from the accused persons. PW-8 SI
Rakesh Kumar also stated in his cross-examination that no
specimen signatures or any other signatures on the document by the
accused persons was verified in his presence. PW-9 SI Amit Maan
also stated in his cross-examination that he did not get the
documents Ex.DW-3/D1 and Ex.DW-3/D2 (applications and
affidavits) verified. Thus, in these circumstances, it can not be said
that the said application and affidavits were forged by the accused
persons.
29. Further, it is well settled that suspicion, however
strong, cannot take the place of proof. Clear and unimpeachable
evidence is necessary to convict a person. This court finds that such
evidence is absent in this case. Reliance in this regard can be placed
on Anil s/o Shamrao Sute & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra
2013(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 541.
Cr CASES 4138/2020 PAGE 18 OF 19
STATE Vs. MOHD. SADIQ and Anr
FIR NO. 209/2017
PS DEFENCE COLONY SEEMA Digitally signed by
SEEMA NIRMAL
NIRMAL 15:32:05 +0530
Date: 2025.01.20
30. So, considering the facts and circumstances of the
case the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of accused
persons for the commission of offences punishable u/s
420/465/468/471/34 IPC. Accordingly, accused persons are entitled
to benefit of doubt. Hence, accused persons are acquitted of the
charges for commission of offences u/s 420/465/468/471/34 IPC.
Case property, if any, be disposed of as per rules after expiry of
period of appeal/revision. File be consigned to the record room after
due compliance. SEEMA Digitally signed by
SEEMA NIRMAL
NIRMAL Date: 2025.01.20
15:32:11 +0530
Announced in the Open (Seema Nirmal)
Court on 20.01.2025 JMFC-09/ SED/ Saket Courts,
New Delhi/ 20.01.2025
It is certified by me that this judgment contains 19 pages and
each page is digitally signed by me.
Digitally signed
SEEMA by SEEMA
NIRMAL
NIRMAL Date: 2025.01.20
15:32:15 +0530
(SEEMA NIRMAL)
JMFC-09/ SED/ Saket Courts,
New Delhi/20.01.2025
Cr CASES 4138/2020 PAGE 19 OF 19
STATE Vs. MOHD. SADIQ and Anr
FIR NO. 209/2017
PS DEFENCE COLONY
[ad_1]
Source link