RAM SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal Is directed against the judgment dated 24.5.76 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi by which he found the appellant guilty under Section 474 of the Indian Penal Code on two counts and sentenced him to undergo RI for 3 years on each count. The sentences, however, were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The appellant alongwith four other accused persons was prosecuted for offences under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 467/471 and 474 IPC. The Director General, Postal Services, Delhi Circle received intimation from the British Postal Authorities, Chesterfield through the Director of Audit and Accounts P & T, Delhi that British Postal Orders (BPOs for short) of Pounds 5 denomination each having series FF 48, FF 51 and FF 69 received by that office for payment were forged. They were 1076 in all which were received by the Agent, State Bank of India, Okhia Industrial Estate, New Delhi on 21.1.1966 and 22.1.1966 from Okhia Industrial Estate Sub-Post office. New Delhi. The coaccused Daya Singh, O.P. Chadha, D.R. Behl and Urmila Rani were found to have presented the aforesaid BPOs for encashment. A case was registered and during the investigation, the aforesaid BPOs along with statement of account and Pay-in-slips etc. were collected. The investigation was then transferred to Jot Ram, DSP PW19 who on 17.7.66 visited Jullundur and collected documents of case FIR No. 773 of PS Jullundur which had been registered there at the instance of D.R. Behl, accused, because he said that they had acquired the BPOs from Ram Singh, appellant. On 10.7,66, the Punjab Police in pursuance to FIR 773 allegedly recovered 28 forged BPOs from the house search of the appellant Ram Singh. On a reference being made to the concerned authorities in the United Kingdom the aforesaid 28 BPOs were also found to be forged. Thus it was found that there was a criminal conspiracy to cheat the postal Authorities and in pursuance thereof D.R. Behl, Urmila, O.P. Chadha and Daya Singh obtained paymant to the tune of Rs. 71285.00 in their bank accounts while Ram Singh. appellant was in league with those persons. The factum of recovery of 28 BPOs from him indicated that he knew the same to be forged and his coaccused dishonestly used 1076 BPOs as genuine. The prosecution further alleged that D.R. Behl in order to create false evidence and to hoodwink the authorities got the FIR 773 registered at P.S. Jullundur City under Sections 420/474 IPC against the appellant on 9.7.66. The prosecution further alleged that the accused persons other than the appellant made a faudulent and dishonest attempt to obtain bank certificates in order to establish their import entitlement under the Defence Remittance Scheme in respect of the encashment of the forged BPOs by making misrepresentation to the effect that the BPOs had been obtained by them as gifts from U.K. although they knew that the same had never been received as gifts from U.K. and the same were also not genuine.

(3.) After a prolonged trial the learned ASJ acquitted the appellant and other accused persons of the charges of conspiracy. He also found that the charge under Sections 420, 467/471 and 474 read with Section 120BIPCwere not proved against the appellant and other co-accused persons. However, he held that although a charge had not been framed under Section 417 Indian Penal Code against the remaining four co-accused but it was always permissible to convict an accused of a lesser offence even if no specific charge was framed. Therefore, he convicted those four accused persons under Section 417 Indian Penal Code while he convicted the appellant under Section 474 Indian Penal Code on account of the alleged recovery of 28 BPOs from his residence in village Atta, District Jullundur.