Dhanji Ram Sharma vs The State

Shamsher Bahadur, J.—This is an appeal of Dhanji Ram Sharma who has been found guilty on three separate counts under sections 474/467, 471/467 and 420/511, Indian Penal Code. On the first two charges the appellant has been awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years each and on the third one for one year only. The three sentences being concurrent, the appellant has thus to undergo an aggregate imprisonment under the order impugned for a period of two years.

The prosecution of the appellant for the various offences of which he has been found guilty is the outcome of a raid of his house in Maliwara on 30th of September 1956 following the information which had been given earlier by Sarwan Kumar who is the principal witness for the prosecution. According to the statement, Exhibit P. 1/1, which Sarwan Kumar made to the Deputy Superintendent of Police Roshan Lal on the day when the raid was organized he had for some time been employed as a Publicity Clerk in Filmistan Distributors in the year 1955 when he came to know the appellant who used to visit him in his office during the month of February. They both came to know each other because the appellant used to ask for free cinema passes which Sarwan Kumar readily arranged for him. Sarwan Kumar left his employment with the Filmistan Distributors sometime in October-November 1955 and after having spent a few months in his village where he was taken ill he came to Delhi in search of employment. In a chance meeting with the appellant, Sarwan Kumar was promised his assistance in the shape of a share in the profits which accrued from the sale of spurious rail tickets to intending purchasers. The modus operandi briefly was to be that Sarwan Kumar was to bring prospective passengers who were to be given fictitious rail tickets on nominal prices which were much less than the scheduled rates and he was to derive reward for his labours by payment of commission and expenses.

According to his statement, Sarwan Kumar disclosed this attractive plan to one Kallu Ram, who is a social worker, and was advised by him that the job was full of risk and should not be taken in hand. Kallu Ram took Sarwan Kumar to one M.S. Upadhya, who is an Inspector (tickets) and whose duty it was to detect such frauds. According to Sarwan Kumar, Upadhya also advised him to desist from indulging in such activities. Upadhya, however, later went to the village of Sarwan Kumar with the intention of persuading him to lay a trap for catching the organisers of the fictitious booking agency. Sarwan Kumar on his return to Delhi was pursuaded by Upadhya to go to Dhanji Ram appellant again and ascertain if the tickets were still available. Upadhya in fact suggested that Sarwan Kumar should ask the appellant for four tickets from Delhi to Howrah.

In a subsequent meeting between Sarwan Kumar and the appellant it was arrenged that four second class tickets from Delhi to Howrah would be sold for Rs. 25/2/- a piece to intending purchasers. This represented one-half of the actual fare between the two stations. Sarwan Kumar was to hand over these four tickets which were actually to be issued from Rewari to Mughalserai for the use of passengers along with two return tickets from Mughalserai to Delhi. Sarwan Kumar was to purchase four genuine tickets for these passengers from Mughalserai to Howrah, which would have cost him approximately Rs. 80/- Swaran Kumar was to get a sum of Rs. 10/- for pocket expenses and Rs. 5/- per passenger ticket as commission.

Sarwan Kumar armed with this concrete proposal contacted Upadhya again who took him to Delhi Main Railway Station on 30th of September, 1956. The statement of Sarwan Kumar was thereafter recorded by the Deputy Superintendent of Police in the afternoon. Sarwan Kumar was handed over currency notes of the value of Rs. 100/- and four two anna pieces by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and he was to hand this money over to the appellant Dhanji Ram in return for the bogus tickets for the intending purchasers. Shri T.S. Saxena, Assistant Commercial Officer, who was living in the Railway Rest House, was to pose as one of the intending passengers. Shri Radhey Mohan Lal, also Assistant Commercial Officer of the Northern Railway, was asked to witness the raid. In the presence of these witnessess, the statement of Sarwan Kumar was read over by the police officer.

The party consisting of Shri Roshan Lal, Deputy Superintendent of Police (P.W.26), Inspector Takhat Ram (P.W.25), S.C. Misra (P.W.23), Radhey Mohan Lal (P.W.21). T.S. Saxena (P.W.20), M.S. Upadhya (P.W.22), and Sarwan Kumar (P.W.24), left the officers Rest House of Delhi Main Railway Station at about 5 O''clock in the afternoon of 30th of September 1956 for the house of the appellant in Maliwara. The appellant was found sitting at the pan-shop of his father and on seeing Sarwan Kumar he stood up. The appellant took Sarwan Kumar to the adjoining shop of Dr. Nigam where a sum of Rs. 100/8/- was received by him. In return, the appellant gave two bundles, one containing four tickets and the other containing two tickets. The four tickets in one bundle were from Rewari to Howrah while the other bundle contained two tickets for return journey by two different routes. The appellant in return was paid a sum of Rs. 50/8/-for his expenses, commission and purchase of tickets for the passengers from Mughalserai to Howrah. After the exchange of the money and documents between the appellant and Sarwan Kumar, Shri Roshan Lal came upon the scene and disclosed his identity. From the possession of the appellant, currency notes and the coins of the aggregate value of Rs. 50/8/- were recovered while Sarwan Kumar was found in possession of the marked currency notes of the value of Rs. 50/-.

Thereafter the raiding party went to the house of the appellant and made a search of his house in his absence, he having declined to accompany them there. The father of the appellant was, however, present during the period whom the raiding party made recoveries. The raid continued till about mid-night when the party returned to the pan-shop. From the search of the house, some Blank Paper Tickets, Excess Fare Ticket Books, Post Office Pass-books, Railway uniforms and some Railway Reference Books were recovered.

The prosecution case really turns on the evidence of Sarwan Kumar and I feel bound to observe that it is of the weakest character and cannot stand the test of scrutiny. It is highly improbable that a person, who has been allured with the prospect of easy gain in the manner deposed by Sarwan Kumar would readily betray his benefactor in this fashion. It would be observed that Sarwan Kumar was unemployed at the time when the proposal was made by the appellant and it does not commend to reason that without giving the scheme a trial he would convey the information to the persons who laid the trap. The evidence which Sarwan Kumar has given of his previous acquaintance with the appellant does not seem convincing. Though the spurious second class tickets which were to be handed over to the intending purchasers would have cost much more, if they had been purchased from the booking stall, it is to be observed that on his own showing Sarwan Kumar far from deriving any profit would have been out of pocket. According to him, he was to purchase genuine tickets from Mughalserai to Howrah for the intending purchasers and admittedly he would have to spend a sum of Rs. 89/- for this purpose. Including his commission and other charges Sarwan Kumar was entitled to a little more than Rs. 100/- but he received only a sum of Rs. 50/- from the appellant. Either the plan had not been fully developed, the trap having been laid too early or Sarwan Kumar is not telling the whole story. The credibility of the witness in any event is gravely shaken when we find that he himself, according to the evidence, was being duped and not the intending purchasers, who were never shown to the appellant. It has been suggested that Shri Sexena, Railway Officer, was pointed to the appellant as an intending purchaser but it seems strange that the prosecution should take the risk of pointing out to a Railway Officer himself as the intending purchaser to the appellant. All in all the scheme in which Sarwan Kumar according to his evidence was invited to participate was too hazardous for the meagre reward of commission on tickets and the expenses assuming for a moment that he had made some mis-calculation when he stated that he received Rs. 50/- only and had to incur an expenditure of Rs. 89/- for the purchase of genuine tickets from Mughal serai to Howrah.

Moreover, the tickets which the appellant is said to have delivered to Sarwan Kumar at the shop of Dr. Nigam are not shown to have been written in his handwriting. They are under the signatures of the station master and there is no evidence to show that they were fictitious. The evidence of recoveries from the house of the appellant is considerably weakened by the circumstance that he was not present at the time and it took more than four hours for the raiding party to search the house. Moreover, Shri Sexena and Shri Radhey Mohan Lal are railway officers and had not been asked to become members of the raiding party by request being sent through the channel of the Ministry as envisaged in the Government of India instructions of 2nd of September, 1954. It is of importance that co-operation of independent persons should be sought and not those whose evidence could be attacked on ground of influence. The trap concerned a railway official and it beloved the police officer in charge to send for persons who were not connected with the Railway Administration.

The defence taken up by the appellant is that when he was working as a Ticket Collector at the Delhi Main Railway Station on 13th of March, 1954, he happened to annoy the Divisional Commercial Superintendent, Shri J.N. Uppal, who wanted to go out of the station by the entrance gate on which he was on duty. Shri J.N. Uppal abused the appellant on that occasion and effected his exit forcibly from that gate. Shri J.N. Uppal by his order of 16th of April, 1954, removed the appellant from service. The appellant filed a suit against this dismissal which was decreed on 20th of February 1957 and was consequently reinstated on 20th of February, 1957. The appellant, however, was again suspended and he had to vindicate his rights right up to the High Court. According to the appellant, the present case is the outcome of his enmity with Shri J.N. Uppal. It is true that there has been some litigation between the appellant and the Railway Administration but it is sheer calumny to suggest that Shri J.N. Uppal had been instrumental in bringing a false case against him. There is no evidence of the incident of 13th of April, 1954, apart from a suggestion, from the defence witness Shri Lakshmi Narain Singh that the appellant had made some complaint against some officer on that score. Moreover, on a perusal of file in which the order of removal was made by Shri Uppal, I find that it was the culmination of proceedings which had been taken against the appellant much earlier. There is no substance in the allegation that Shri Uppal in passing the order of removal had revived or resurrected some old complaint on which it had earlier been decided not to take any action.

The case, in my opinion, must fail on the short ground that the principal decoy witness in this case has not given a story which can be believed. I do not wish for a moment to suggest that the witnesses who were joined in the raid have in any way tried to frame up a false case against the appellant but they have said nothing to corroborate the facts which have been found to be demonstrably false according to the evidence of Sarwan Kumar himself. It may be that in their anxiety to bring the offender to book the railway officials displayed excessive zeal in laying a trap when the plan had not been fully evolved. In this view of the matter it becomes unnecessary to discuss the other prosecution evidence in support of its case.

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the State that the appellant could at least be found guilty in respect of the recoveries which were made from his house. The circumstances to which I have already adverted cast a taint of suspicion even on the evidence of recoveries and I would not unhesitatingly accept this evidence for sustaining charges of being in possession of forged documents. In the result, I feel constrained to allow this appeal and acquit the appellant of all the charges.