2 - Rouse Avenue PDF

IN THE COURT OF MS.
ANU AGGARWAL, ACMM-2-CUM-ACJ,

ROUSE AVENUE COURTS, CENTRAL DISTRICT, NEW DELHI
CBI Vs. Seema Sharma

Case No. : CBI/161/2019
RC No : 13/S/90/DLI
U/s : 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC
Name of Branch : CBI/SCB/ND
JUDGMENT
a) Unique Case ID No. : DLCT12-000509-2019
b) The date of commission of the

offence : During July, 1989
c) Name of the Complainant : Sh. L. M. Lakra,

Dy. Chief Controller of Imports &
Exports (CLA), Peerless Bhavan,
6-7, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi
d) Name, parentage & address
of accused : 1. Seema Sharma
(Proprietor of M/s. Seep International)
D/o Late Sh. A.R.Sharma
R/o E-9, Hauz Khas, New Delhi
e) Offences complained of : 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC
f) The plea of the accused persons : Pleaded not guilty
g) Pronouncement of Judgment : 31.07.2019
h) Date of institution of case : 26.08.1992
i) Date of final arguments : 26.07.2019
j) Date of Reserving Judgment : 26.07.2019
Case No. CBI/161/2019 CBI Vs. Seema Sharma Page No.1 of 47

BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
Brief facts of the case
1. The present case has been registered on 26.10.1990 against M/s.

Seep International on the basis of written complaint from Sh. L.M. Lakra,
Deputy Chief Controller Import and Export (CLA), New Delhi. It is alleged
that accused Seema Sharma is proprietor of M/s. Seep International. She
applied to the office of JCCI&E (CLA), New Delhi for grant of Cash
Compensatory Support (CCS) under S.P.S. on the basis of bank
certificates supporting export purportedly issued by New Bank of India,
Tolstoy Marg Branch, New Delhi in eight (8) instances. The firm was
granted CSS under S.P.S against the said bank certificates. However,
New Bank of India denied having issued any such bank certificates.
2. It is alleged that M/s. Seep International is registered with AEPC,

New Delhi and is doing export business of ready-made garments.
According to the scheme in force at the relevant time, the exporters were
entitled to CCS, on exports made, at the rate of 8% of FOB value.
3. It is alleged that accused vide application dated 06.07.1989 of her

firm claimed CCS worth Rs.50,581.52 against export of 4000 pieces of
ready-made garments worth Rs.6,96,000/- made to M/s. Silver Grace
Incorporated in New York, USA vide shipping bill no.121511 dated
18.11.1988. She also furnished bank certificate of export issued by Central
Bank of India, International Division, New Delhi and invoice no. SI/03/88
dated 15.11.1988 along with other documents in support of the said claim.
Against the said claim, an amount of Rs.48,309/- was paid to M/s. Seep

International vide cheque no. 708955 dated 27.07.1989 (after deducting
5% for late submission), which was credited in firms account operated by
accused. It is alleged that according to AEPC quota, the firm was to export
4000 pieces of ladies rompers worth Rs.2,96,000/- only and accused, for
the sake of obtaining excess CCS worth Rs.30,400/-, inflated the FOB
value of export from 2.96 lacs to 6.96 lacs.
4. It is alleged that accused vide application dated 17.07.1989 of her

firm claimed CCS worth Rs.25,600/- for export of cotton ready-made
garment worth Rs.3,20,000/- (FOB value) purported to have been exported
vide shipping bill no.044823 dated 09.04.1989 on the basis of disclaimer
certificate, bank certificate of export number 00601298 dated 20.04.1989
purportedly issued by New Bank of India, Tolstoy Marg Branch, New Delhi.
It is alleged the claimed was processed and amount of Rs.25,600/- was
paid to the firm vide cheque no. 710265 dated 04.08.1989. The shipping
bill was in the name of Mangalam Arts, Delhi and goods were of different
description. The Airway Bill number 05549252405 of flight no. A-2787
dated 17.09.1989 of Alitalia Airlines endorsed on the shipping bill was
forged as there was no such flight on that day. The bank certificate was
not issued by New Bank of India and was forged. The disclaimer certificate
was signed by accused as Anju Sharma and accused obtained CCS worth
Rs.25,600/- on the basis of false / forged documents.
5. It is alleged that accused claimed CCS worth Rs.16,384/- vide

application dated 17.07.1989 against export of cotton ready-made
garments purported to have been exported vide shipping bill no. 044822

dated 09.04.1989 of Rs.2,04,800/- on the basis of disclaimer certificate,
bank certificate purportedly issued by New Bank of India, Tolstoy Marg
Branch, New Delhi. The claim was processed and accused was paid an
amount of Rs.16,384/- vide cheque no.709974. It is alleged that the
shipping bill no.044882 belongs to M/s. Abbot Traders, New Delhi for
goods of different description. The bank certificate was not issued by New
Bank of India and accused forged signatures of Anju Sharma on disclaimer
certificate. Hence, the accused obtained CCS worth Rs.16,384 on the
basis of false / forged certificate.
6. After the registration of the FIR, investigation was carried out and
charge sheet was filed.
7. The accused was summoned and charges under Section

420/467/468 and 468 read with Section 471 IPC were framed against the
accused vide order dated 18.07.1994 of the Ld. Predecessor of this Court.
The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges framed and claimed trial.
8. During trial, the prosecution has examined 29 witnesses to prove the

case:-
PW1 Sh. R.K. Sharma, He has deposed regarding Airway Bill

Senior Sales Officer, Ex.PW1/1, attested copy of Cargo
Alitalia Airlines Cargo Manifest for flight AZ-787 dated
Terminal, IGI Airport, 18.04.1989 Ex.PW1/2.
New Delhi

PW2 Sh. A.K. Mehra, He was appointed as Officer in New
Officer, Punjab Bank of India in the year 1981. He has
National Bank, deposed regarding procedure of
Regional Office issuance of bank certificate of export
Burdhwan, West and procedure for clearing of the
Bangal cheques.
PW3 Sh. R.C. Chadha, He was posted at International Division,
Foreign Exchange Central Bank of India, Parliament Street
Officer Central Bank Branch in the year 1988. He has
of India Janpath, deposed regarding procedure of
New Delhi issuance of bank certificate of export
and regarding bank certificate
Ex.PW21/P, Invoice Ex.PW21/Q and
Airway Bill Ex.PW13/1.
PW4 Sh. K. Raju He has deposed regarding application of
accused Ex.PW4/B, invoice Ex.PW4/C,
Shipping Bill Ex.PW4/D, Visa Ex.PW4/A,
Visa Ex.PW4/E, application Ex.PW4/F,
Invoice Ex.PW4/G and Shipping Bill
Ex.PW4/H. He has deposed regarding
third Visa Ex.PW4/I, application
Ex.PW4/J, Ex.PW4/K, Affidavit
Ex.PW4/L, Declaration for allotment of
quota Ex.PW4/M, Copy of contract
Ex.PW4/N, Invoice Ex.PW4/O and

Shipping Bill Ex.PW4/P. He has
deposed regarding relevant extract of
control entry register Ex.PW4/Q and
Ex.PW4/S.
PW5 Sh. Agneshwar Sain, He was Deputy Director General Trade.
Deputy Director, He has deposed regarding cash
General Trade compensatory support and procedure of
Udyog Bhawan giving CCS. He has deposed that entry
dated 06.07.1979 at serial no.4755 at
page no.77 Ex.PW5/A, entry dated
12.07.1989 at serial no.5180 at page
no.107 Ex.PW5/B, entry dated
12.07.1989 at serial no.5002 on page
no.109 Ex.PW5/C shows that application
for CCS was made by accused under
SPS.
PW6 Sh. Rajnish Sharma, He is proprietor of M/s. Sky Train
Proprietor of M/s. Services. He has deposed that Shipping
Sky Train Services. Bill Ex.PW6/A, Ex.PW6/B, Ex.PW6/C,
Ex.PW6/D, Ex.PW6/E and Ex.PW6/G
bears fake stamp.
PW7 Sh. Mohinder Singh He was posted in Greater Kailash Post
Office and has deposed that there is no
flat having address at A-70 in Kailash
Colony.

PW8 Ms. Bela Kaushik, She was Probationary Officer in Central
Assistant Branch Bank of India and was looking after
Manager, Central Government Accounts and has deposed
Bank of India regarding cheques Ex.PW8/1 to
Ex.PW8/5.
PW9 Sh. Ramesh Kumar He had joined New Bank of India as
Verma, Special Clerk in the year 1972. He has deposed
Assistant, PNB regarding payee in slip dated
04.08.1989 Ex.PW9/1 and entry at serial
no.1509 in clearing register against
cheque no.709974 of Rs.16384/- and
entry no.1510 against cheque no.
709975 of Rs.19,456/- of M/s. Seep
International Ex.PW9/2. He has
deposed regarding payee in slip
Ex.PW9/3 of Rs.47,118/- and certified
copy of current account no.3502
Ex.PW9/4.
PW10 Sh. K. K. Jolly, He was posted in New Bank Of India,
Manager, Kanchan Connaught Place Branch as Manager in
International Export Section. He has deposed that
cheques issued by CCI are endorsed by
CCI at the reverse of the cheque
showing the bank reference number.
The Checking Officer used to put his

initials on the reverse of the cheque.
PW11 Sh. Ramesh Chand, He was posted as Deputy Office
Administrative Superintendent in the Office of Assistant
Officer, Central Collector Custom Manifest Section. He
Excise & Customs has deposed that his office maintained
import / export documents which
included shipping bill, bill of entry, EGM,
IGM along with invoice etc. He has
submitted that letter Ex.PW11/A dated
18.04.1991 was written by him. He has
stated that letter dated 10.06.1991
Ex.PW11/B was signed by him. He has
deposed that letter dated 29.04.1991
Ex.PW11/C belongs to his office.
PW12 Surinder Kumar Jain, He was posted as Clerk in New Bank of
Clerk, PNB India Tolstoy Marg, in the year 1989. He
has deposed regarding payee in slip
dated 10.08.1989 of current account no.
3502 as Ex.PW12/A, photocopy of
clearing register from serial no.1994 to
1996 as Ex.PW12/B, certified copy of
statement of account no.3502 as
Ex.PW9/4 and cheques from
Ex.PW12/C to Ex.PW12/E.
PW13 Sh. D.B. Anand He was Superintendent in Air Cargo
upto 1990. He has deposed that he has

not signed Ex.PW6/E and Ex.PW13/1
and Ex.PW13/2 bears his initials.
PW14 Sh. Balwant Singh He was Assistant in the office of AEPC
in the year 1985. He has deposed
regarding shipping bills and the
procedure thereof. He has deposed
regarding shipping bill Ex.PW6/G,
Ex.PW6/D, Ex.PW12/A2, Ex.PW6/F and
Ex.PW6/E. He has deposed regarding
endorsement on Ex.PW14/A, three
quota certificate Ex.PW14/B,
Ex.PW14/C and Ex.PW14/D.
PW15 Sh. M. Suresh He has deposed that he was posted as
Assistant Director in AEPC in the year
1988. He has deposed regarding
procedure of endorsement on the
Shipping Bills, allotment of Visa. He has
deposed regarding copies of Visas
Ex.PW15/A to Ex.PW15/F, copy of
application, shipping bill and invoice
Ex.PW15/K1 to Ex.PW15/K17, Office
letter Ex.PW15/K18, copy letter of credit
Ex.PW15/G and Ex.PW15/H.
PW16 Mrs. Anju Chauhan She is real sister of accused. She has
deposed that she had not opened any
account by the name of M/s. Seep

Enterprises with New Bank of India,
Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi. She has
stated that disclaimer certificate Mark-A
of Seep Enterprises, Invoice No.
SE/12/89 dated 20.03.1989 does not
bear her signature and disclaimer
certificate Mark-C, Mark-D Mark-E and
Mark-F does not bear her signature and
someone has forged her signature. She
has stated that she does not know
anything about M/s. Seep Enterprises.
PW17 Sh. Arun Kumar He was posted in New Bank of India as
Chopra Manager in Tolstoy Marg Branch, New
Delhi. He was overall Incharge of
Foreign Exchange Department handling
import / export transactions. He has
deposed that bank certificate
Ex.PW17/A1 and Ex.PW17/A2 was not
issued by his bank. He has deposed
that reference number is not of his bank
and it is not signed by any official of the
bank. He has deposed that bank
certificates do not have reference to RBI
code number and round seal on the
certificate is incomplete. He has

deposed that Ex.PW17/B-1 to
Ex.PW17/B-8 are not signed by bank
officials and they do not bear bank seal.
PW18 Sh. Ram Dutt He was working in Central Bank of India
Sharma in South Extension Part-II for the period
from July 1985 to March 1990. He has
deposed that he knows accused as she
was having CD account with the branch
in the name of M/s. Seep International.
He has deposed that seal on Ex.PW18/A
and Ex.PW18/B does not belong to his
branch. He has stated that letter
Ex.PW18/C alongwith attested
documents Ex.PW18/D and Ex.PW18/F
belongs to his branch.
PW19 Sh. N.C. Sood, He is government examiner, who had
Government examined the questioned documents
Examiner of and gave his report Ex.PW19/15.
questioned
documents
PW20 Sh. Rakesh Chandra He was working as Accountant in New
Gupta Bank of India, Tolstoy Branch, New
Delhi. He has deposed regarding payee
in slip Ex.PW20/A and Ex.PW20B,
Certified copy of clearing ledger
Ex.PW20/C and Ex.PW20/D.

PW21 Sh. Sudersh He was working as Dealing Assistant in
Chaudhary the office of JCCI&E. He had dealt with
claim applications of CCS. He has given
the procedure of CCS. He has deposed
regarding the applications of M/s. Seep
International for CCS and the processing
thereof. He has deposed regarding
complaint Ex.PW21/V.
PW22 Sh. H. N. Wadetiwar He was posted as Controller in the office
Deputy Director of JCCI&E (CLA), New Delhi. He
General, Foreign handed over file opening register to CBI
Trade and has deposed regarding the
procedure of CCS.
PW23 Sh. R.S. Gautam, He was posted as Deputy
Administrative Superintendent in the office of Assistant
Officer, Central Collector, Custom Export Air Cargo Unit.
Excise He has deposed regarding procedure of
filing and processing of Shipping Bills.
PW24 D'Souza Wilberious He was posted as Sub-Manager,
Evanglist Syndicate Bank, Foreign Exchange
Processing Centre in the year 1990. He
has deposed regarding telex message
Ex.PW24/A.
PW25 Sh. R. N. Maini He was working with Lufthansa Airlines
as Cargo Administration Officer. He has
deposed as to how the procedure of

cargo lifting by the Aircraft. He has
deposed that Ex.PW25/A is copy of
original bunch of Airway Bill of Lufthansa
bearing no.220-89914112. Ex.PW25/B
is attested true copy of carting order
signed on 13.03.1991.
PW26 Sh. T.R. Rukmani He was working as Assistant at AEPC
and was authorized signatory to the
shipping documents. He has deposed
that application Ex.PW4/F was
submitted by M/s. Seep International
along with invoice Ex.PW4/G, Shipping
Bill Ex.PW26/A and Special Custom
Invoice i.e. VISA Ex.PW4/E for 4000
pieces of garments of value of
Rs.2,96,000/-. The next quota bearing
no. 410683 of 1200 pieces dated
31.08.1988 was granted to M/s. Seep
International through VISA Ex.PW4/A
and Shipping Bill Ex.PW4/D on
application Ex.PW4/B and invoice
Ex.PW4/C. The next quota bearing no.
410684 for 2700 pieces was issued
through VISA Ex.PW4/I, application form
is Ex.PW4/J, declaration is Ex.PW4/M,

affidavit is Ex.PW4/L, invoice Ex.PW4/L
and Shipping Bill Ex.PW4/P. The entry
in entry register of AEPC regarding
allocation of quota is Ex.PW4/S.
PW27 Sh. L.M. Lakra, Joint He was posted as Deputy Chief
Director (Retrd.) Controller of Import and Export. He has
deposed regarding accused applying for
CCS and his filing complaint
Ex.PW21/U.
PW28 Sh. Rajiv Sharma, He was Inspector in Custom Department
Superintendent IGI and was dealing with Airline Export
Airport Warehouse. He has deposed regarding
entry of M/s. Seep Enterprises in the
entry register maintained at Cargo
Terminal IGI Airport exhibited as
Ex.PW28/A.
PW29 Sh. Jai Kumar, He is Investigating Officer of the present
Additional SP, CBI, case. He has deposed that present FIR
ACB was registered against M/s. Seep
International, a proprietary concerned of
accused. He has deposed regarding the
investigation conducted in the present
case.
9. No other witness was examined by the prosecution and PE was

closed vide order dated 23.04.2013. PW-29 was again summoned for
cross-examination on an application of defence under Section 311 Cr.PC
after conclusion of prosecution evidence. He was further cross-examined
and thereafter, PE was closed on 25.09.2013.
10. Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC on 20.05.2014.

Accused has pleaded innocence and has submitted that her sister Ms. Anju
Chauhan was Incharge of M/s. Seep International and she was looking
after the business. She has further stated that she did not submit any CCS
certificate and her sister might have done so. She has stated that she has
no knowledge about documents as her sister was looking after the affair of
the firm. She has further submitted that her sister Ms. Anju Sharma used
to sign as Seema Sharma, for and on her behalf, without her permission
and she has no knowledge as to how many documents have been signed /
forged by her sister in her name. A dispute arose between her and her
sister Anju Sharma with regard to the ancestral property and she was
falsely implicated in various cases.
11. The accused has examined Sh. Pritpal Singh as DW-1, Sh. Krishan
Lal Singh as DW-2 and Sh. Kamal Kant Khandelwal as DW-2.
11.1 DW-1 Sh. Pritpal Singh has deposed that he knows accused for the
last 20 years. The proprietor of M/s. Seep Enterprises and Seep
International was Anju Chauhan, sister of accused. He has knowledge of
day to day affair of both the firms and Anju Chauhan used to run both the
firms. Accused also used to manage both the firms with Anju Chauhan.
Anju Chauhan was signing authority of both the firms. He has deposed

that accused has not made any signatures in his presence and signatures
of main business dealings were largely done in his presence. He has
deposed that there is property dispute going on between accused and Anju
Chauhan and Anju Chauhan has falsely implicated the accused in the
present case. The original documents Ex.PW21/R2 to Ex.PW21/R5,
Ex.PW21/R7, Ex.PW21/X, Ex.PW21/C, Ex.PW19/3, Ex.PW19/6 to
Ex.PW19/10 and Ex.PW19/14 were put to the witness with respect to
signatures of Seema Sharma and Anju Chauhan.
11.2 DW-2 Sh. Krishan Lal Sharma has deposed that he knows accused
since 1984. There was some property dispute between Seema Sharma
and Anju Chauhan.
11.3 DW-2 Sh. Kamal Kant Khandelwal is handwriting expert, who has
given his report Ex.DW2/2.
12. No other witness was examined by the accused and DE was closed
vide order dated 31.03.2015.
13. Sh. Bharat Chugh, Ld. MM, Central District was examined as Court
witness on 31.03.2015. He has deposed that on 20.11.2014, the expert
took coloured photographs from digital camera in his presence.
14. Vide order dated 21.11.2016, the Ld. Predecessor of this Court
directed the recording of supplementary statement of accused under
Section 313 Cr.PC. This court received the present case by way of
transfer on 02.07.2019 and supplementary statement of accused was
recorded on 26.07.2019.

15. In her supplementary statement under Section 313 Cr.PC, accused
had denied all the allegations. She has admitted that M/s. Seep
International had applied for CCS under SPS. She has stated that
endorsement on the back of the cheque is the proof the certificate issued
by the bank and amount of CCS is to be transferred to the bank account of
the beneficiary only after the verification of particulars of bank certificate.
She has denied that M/s. Seep International had applied for CCS under
SPS scheme vide application Ex.PW21/A. She has admitted of filing the
documents along with the application but has stated that documents are
incomplete. She has admitted that documents filed on behalf of M/s. Seep
International bears her signature and has stated that the documents
pertaining to M/s. Seep Enterprises does not belong to her. She has
stated that CBI is trying to mislead the Court by annexing the documents of
M/s. Seep Enterprises. She has admitted the claims approved against
FOB value on the applications of CCS and the credit of the amount in the
account of M/s. Seep International. She has denied the allegations of
forgery and using of forged documents.
16. I have heard the arguments and have gone through the case file.
17. It is argued by Ld. PP for prosecution that prosecution has proved the
case beyond all reasonable doubt. The deposition of the witnesses along
with the documents has proved the case of prosecution. As regard first
claim, PW-4 has stated that the FOB value was Rs.2,96,000/-. Accused
has forged bank certificate of export Ex.PW21/P issued by Central Bank of
India worth Rs.6,96,000/-. She inflated the value of FOB from

Rs.2,96,000/- to Rs. 6,96,000/- for claiming excess CCS worth Rs.30,400/-.
He has further argued that as regard second claim, GEQD report has
proved that disclaimer certificate and bank certificate are forged. PW-28
has proved that Shipping Bill Ex.PW28/A stands in the name of Mangalam
Arts. He has further argued that as regard third claim, accused has
submitted Shipping Bill Ex.PW6, Mark-A but PW-8 has stated that Shipping
Bill stands in the name of M/s. Abbott Traders. The GEQD report has
proved that the bank certificate and disclaimer certificate are forged. Ld.
PP has argued that accused should be convicted.
18. Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that no case is made out as against
accused. The witnesses who have appeared on behalf of prosecution
have deposed only about the procedure and they have not proved the
documents. Ld. Counsel has further argued that prosecution has failed to
prove that the Expert from GEQD has established the authorship of
accused on questioned documents i.e. signature of proprietor of firm M/s.
Seep International as well as signature of accused as Anju Sharma on
disclaimer certificate. He has argued that GEQD report has not given
opinion on all the questioned documents which favoured the accused. He
has further argued that investigation could not establish the identity of
person who had forged the bank certificate and shipping bills and also that
the documents are forged. Ld. Counsel has further argued that no amount
has been recovered from the accused and no incriminating document was
found in her possession when her office was raided by CBI. He has further
argued that no demand of Rs.72,384/- was raised by New Bank of India,
Central Bank of India and Office of JCCI&E. He has argued that overdraft

and credit facility was available to the accused from New Bank of India in
the year 1989-90 for rupees 2 Crore and accused never misused the
facility.
Ld. Counsel has further argued that original documents were not
produced and even stamp has not been produced by PW-6. No witness
has deposed that the documents are false and fabricated. He has further
argued that there is no proof that the goods worth of Rs.6,96,000/- were
not exported and CBI did not verify whether the quota was purchased from
outside. Ld. Counsel has submitted that accused has been falsely
implicated by her sister Anju Chauhan, who was running M/s. Seep
Enterprises. Ld. Counsel has further submitted that it is unbelievable that
accused, after investing Rs.10,00,000/- in year 1980, committed forgery of
documents just to get benefit of Rs.70,000/-. He has further argued
JCCI&E cannot file complaint with CBI. There is a Vigilance Department in
JCCI&E and only the Vigilance Committee can file a complaint with CBI.
However, there is no report of Vigilance Committee on record. Ld. Counsel
has submitted that various agencies are involved in the entire process and
it is not possible for the accused to forged bank certificate, more-so when
the entire detail is contained at the back of the bank certificate and amount
of CCS cannot be released unless the same is verified. Ld. Counsel has
submitted that prosecution has not proved the case as against the accused
and accused should be acquitted.
19. The accused has been charge-sheeted for an offence punishable

under Section 420/467/468 and 468 IPC r/w Section 471 IPC.

20. Section 420 IPC deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing
delivery of property. It is reproduced as under :-
“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.”
In Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy & Ors. Vs. Sudha Seetharam & Ors. Crl. App.
No.238 of 2019 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held
“The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 420 are as follows:
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 seal and
capable of being converted into valuable security.
Cheating is an essential ingredient for an act to constitute an offence under
Section 420.”
Cheating is defined under Section 415 of Penal Code. Section 415 of
Penal Code reads as:
“Section 415. Cheating – Whoever, by deceiving any person, 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 or

intentionally induces the persons so deceived to do or omit to do anything
which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or
omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in
body, mind, reputation, property, is said to “cheat”.
The ingredients to constitute an offence of cheating are as follows:
i. There should fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by
deceiving him;
ii. (a) the person so induced should be intentionally induced to delivery any
property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any
property, or (b) the person so 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; and
iii in case covered by (ii) (b) above, the act or omission should be one,
which cause or likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in
body, mind, reputation or property.
A fraudulent or dishonest inducement is an essential ingredient for
offence.
20.1 Forgery is defined under Section 463 IPC. It is reproduced as

under :-
“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”.
20.2 The making of false document is defined under Section 464 IPC. It is
reproduced as under, so far as relevant:-
“464. Making a false document: – A person is said to make a false

document or false electronic record –
First - Who dishonestly or fraudulently –
(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;

xxx
xxx
xxx
20.3 Section 467 IPC deals with forgery of valuable security. It is

reproduced as under:-
“Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a

will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to
any person to make a or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the
principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money,
movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be
an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an
acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable
security, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten
years, and shall also be liable to fine”
20.4 Punishment for forgery for the purpose of cheating is defined in

Section 468 IPC. It is reproduced as under:-

“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 terms which may extend to
seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
20.5 Section 471 IPC deals with using of forged documents as genuine. It
is reproduced as under:
“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.”
21. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that JCCI&E has no authority to

file the complaint and complaint could have filed only by their Vigilance
Department. However, I find no force in the argument of the Ld. Counsel.
The complaint is defined in Section 2 (d) of Cr.PC. As per section 2 (d)
Cr.PC, complaint is allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with
the view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether
known or unknown, has committed an offence. Therefore, under Law any
person who has information of commission of offence can file a complaint.
22. According to the prosecution, accused is proprietor of M/s. Seep

International. Vide her application dated 06.07.1989, she claimed CCS
and had shown FOB value of 4000 pieces of garments as Rs.6,96,000/-,
though the VISA for export of 4000 pieces of garments were given for FOB
value of Rs.2,96,000/- by AEPC. The accused submitted bank certificate

of export, invoice and shipping bill showing the FOB value of Rs.6,96,000/-.
Therefore, the accused inflated the value of FOB and by submitting the
forged document, claimed excess CCS worth Rs.30,400/-.
23. The application dated 06.07.1989 is Ex.PW21/R1. The perusal of

Ex.PW21/R1 reflect that it is an application for CCS under SPS scheme.
The application is made by M/s. Seep International against export of 4000
pieces cotton ready-made garment. The amount of FOB entitlement is
Rs.6,35,644/- and shipping bill no. is 121511. The CCS claimed is
Rs.50,851.52 and the CCS paid is Rs.48,309/-. The application has been
made by M/s. Seep International by accused Seema Sharma and her
designation has been shown as proprietor.
24. The accused has admitted, in her statement under Section 313
Cr.PC, that M/s. Seep International had applied for CCS under SPS. She
has also admitted that the application of the party should be accompanied
with Bank Certificate of Export, Invoice, Affidavit, Export Promotion Copy
and Shipping Bill. The accused has also admitted of filing of application for
CCS form Ex.PW21/R1, Shipping Bill Ex.PW13/1, Bank Certificate of
Export Ex.PW21/P and has stated that all the above documents were filed
on behalf of M/s. Seep International bearing signatures of accused and
belongs to accused. The accused has stated that the one pertaining to
M/s. Seep Enterprises do not belong to accused. She has admitted that
bank certificate Ex.PW21/P was issued after seeing invoice Ex.PW21/Q
and Airway Bill Ex.PW13/1. The accused has admitted of filing of
application for VISA Ex.PW4/F along with invoice Ex.PW4/G and allotment

of Quota of 4000 pieces of value of Rs.2,96,000/- vide VISA Ex.PW4/E.
However, she has stated that documents are not complete and signature
alleged to be of accused on the stamp of M/s. Seep International on these
documents are not of her and there is no opinion of Expert on these
documents. She has admitted of receiving of payment against her claim
vide application Ex.PW21/R1.
25. The accused has admitted of filing of application Ex.PW21/R1 and

has also admitted receiving payment against the said claim. PW-21 has
deposed that from July 1986 to September 1990, he was working as
Dealing Assistant in the Office of JCCI&E. He had dealt with claim
applications of CCS. He has deposed that CCS form of M/s. Seep
International is Ex.PW21/R1 and along with application, party had filed
Shipping Bill Ex.PW13/1, Bank Certificate of Export Ex.PW21/P, Invoice
Ex.PW21/Q. Thereafter, the claim of the party was approved against
respective FOB value and the cheque Ex.PW-8/1 was issued to M/s. Seep
International against the claim. The above facts have not been disputed by
the accused in the cross-examination of PW-21. No question or
suggestion was put to the witness regarding filing of application by M/s.
Seep International or making the payment thereof.
26. Though, the accused has admitted of filing the application

Ex.PW21/R1 and receiving the payment thereof, however, she has also
taken the defence that the application does not bear her signature and her
signature has been forged.
27. The specimen signature of accused is S-1 to S-9 (Ex.PW19/3) and

S-37 to S-57 (Ex.PW19/4). As per GEQD report PW-19/15, the signatures
at point Q20 and Q21 on Ex.PW21/R1 are of accused. Therefore, as per
GEQD report, accused had signed the application Ex.PW21/R1 in the
capacity of proprietor of M/s. Seep International. The accused examined
Sh. Kamal Kant Khandelwal, Handwriting Expert as DW-2. He has given
his report Ex.DW2/2. According to his report, the signature at point Q-20
and Q-21 on Ex.PW21/R1 is not of accused.
28. Therefore, there are two contradictory reports on record of

Handwriting Expert being filed by both the sides. Lets examine both the
reports.
29. The prosecution has examined Sh. N. C. Sood, Government

Examiner as PW-19. He has given his report as Ex.PW19/15. The reason
for opinion is Ex.PW19/17. He has opined that the questioned signatures
at point Q20 and Q21 on Ex.PW21/R1 are written by the person who wrote
the writing and signatures stamped and marked S1 to S9 and S37 to S57
i.e. accused. He has stated, in his reasons for opinion, that the questioned
and standard writings and signatures agree in general writing habits such
as movement which is wrist and fore-arm combined, skill superior, speed
fast, line quality free, smooth and normal and also in slant, spacing,
alignment, relative size and proportion of their letter and combinations.
30. It is also stated that the handwriting show similarities in individual

writing habits such as execution 'S' with the nature of its commencement,
relative size of the loop in the upper part going back over the stroke at the
bottom and finish; execution of 'h' with the nature of relative size of the

vertical staff as compared to the body curve; manner of execution of 'a'
with the nature of its oval and direction of finish; manner of execution of 'r'
with the nature of its bifurcation; garlanded movement of 'm'; execution of
final character with the nature of its finish and nature of underscoring;
down-ward commencement of 'A', retrace on the first vertical staff,
angularity at the top, second vertical staff and horizontal bar; manner of
execution of 'n' with the nature of its shoulders and its combination with
succeeding letter 'j'; execution of 'j' with the nature of relative size of loop at
the bottom and location of dot over it; execution of 'u' with the nature of its
through; manner of execution of 'M' with the nature of its bridge; execution
of 'g' with the nature of its oval, loop at the bottom and finish; execution of
'e' with the nature of its eye-let; relative size and location of the curved part
as compared to the vertical staff of the letter 'p'; execution of 'l' with the
nature its loop and its combination with preceding letter 'a' as in the word
'International'; manner of the execution of 'z' which gives the appearance of
English figure '2'; manner of execution of 'N' with the nature of two vertical
staff, diagonal stroke; execution of 'y' with the nature of upper curved part
and direction of finish; execution of 'f' with the nature of loop in the upper
part and clock-wise direction of finish of the loop in the lower part;
execution of 'd' with the nature of its oval and vertical staff; execution of 'E'
with the nature of intermediate part and other variety of letter 'E' with the
nature of its vertical staff and location of 3 horizontal stroke is similarly
found in the questioned and the standard writings; execution of figures 3,
5, 0, 2, 6, 4, 8 and 9. It is further stated that the questioned writing and
signatures are written freely and there is no sign of imitation in them.
There is no fundamental divergence between the questioned and the
standard writings and signatures except natural variation which are the
sign of genuineness.
Therefore, PW-19 has given detailed reasoning of his opinion and

has stated how individual letter were found similar in the questioned and
the standard writings and signatures of accused.
31. The Defence has examined Sh. Kamal Kant Khandelwal as DW-2
and he has given his report Ex.DW2/2. He has opined that accused has
not signed at point Q20 and Q21 on Ex.PW21/R1 and has stated that dis-
similarity in the movement of hand employed, skill, angles, alignment, line
quality and in pictorial aspects were found. It is further stated the line
quality is defective in the disputed writing and signatures whereas in the
specimen writing and signature, it is smooth and flowing. It is further stated
that the formation of all the individual letter are different in the disputed and
in the specimen writings and signatures. It is further stated that the
disputed signatures and writings of Seema Sharma have been copied by
someone by keeping some models of genuine writings and signatures in
front at the time of copying and these writings are written by someone with
slow speed, with normal formation of curvatures whereas the specimen
writings and signatures are written by original writer Seema Sharma with
fairly false speed, with the find formation of curvature, with sharp terminal
strokes and written in normal way of course and in general routine.
It is clear from the report Ex.DW2/2 that DW-2 has not mentioned
what dis-similarities in the movement of hand employed, skill, angle,
alignment and pictorial aspect were observed during examination. A

general observation has been given without any specific details. Further,
what difference in the formation of individual letter in the disputed and in
the specimen writing and signatures were found has not been mentioned.
There is no specific detail with respect to formation of each letter in the
disputed handwriting and signature of accused and specimen signature
and writing of accused. In the absence of specific details, the report of
DW-2 becomes doubtful.
Further, perusal of examination of PW-19 reflect that a detail cross-

examination was conducted. However, no suggestion was given to the
witness that disputed signatures and writings of accused have been copied
by someone by keeping some models of genuine writings and signatures in
front at the time of copying. No suggestion was given to the witness that
the disputed writings are written by someone with slow speed, with normal
formation of curvature and the specimen writing and signatures are written
by the accused with speed and in normal way of course. No suggestion
was given to the witness with respect to any dis-similarity in the questioned
and specimen signature and handwriting for giving opportunity to the
witness to explain the same.
32. In view of the above observations, the report of GEQD Ex.PW19/15

is more specific and is in detail and conspire the confidence of the Court
whereas the report of DW-2 i.e. Ex.DW2/2 is general in nature and no
specific details of reasoning has been given and hence, report Ex.DW2/2
cannot be relied upon.
33. Considering the report of GEQD Ex.PW19/15, it is proved that

accused has signed application Ex.PW21/R1 at point Q20 and Q21 as
proprietor of M/s. Seep International.
34. The perusal of Ex.PW21/R1 reflect that one bank attested invoice,
one bank certificate and shipping bill Ex.PW13/1 was enclosed with the
application.
35. The shipping bill bearing no. 121511 is Ex.PW13/1. The consignee is
M/s. Silver Grace Incorporated in USA and it is for 4000 pieces power loom
cotton ladies rompers. The FOB value has shown as Rs.6,96,000/-. The
shipping bill is of M/s. Seep International and has been signed by
proprietor of M/s. Seep International. It is on the basis of Shipping Bill
Ex.PW13/1 that application for CCS Ex.PW21/R1 was filed. The accused
has admitted of filing of Shipping Bill Ex.PW13/1.
PW-13 is Superintendent in Air Cargo and he has deposed that he

had signed Ex.PW13/1 for processing the Shipping Bill. In the cross-
examination, he has stated that during the processing of Shipping Bill, the
rate of draw back and its calculation is checked. Ld. Defence Counsel has
argued that testimony of PW-13 cannot be relied upon as he has stated in
the cross-examination that his stamp never remained in his custody and
parties used to put the stamp on the Shipping Bill themselves. However, I
do not agree with the submissions of the Ld. Counsel. Even though, the
stamp on the shipping Bills were put by the parties themselves as stated by
PW-13 but he used to put his signatures on the Shipping Bill. The
genuineness of his signature on Ex.PW13/1 has not been questioned in
the cross-examination. Therefore, it is proved that Shipping Bill

Ex.PW13/1 was processed by PW-13. Even accused has admitted of filing
of Shipping Bill Ex.PW13/1 along with her application Ex.PW21/R1.
36. The perusal of bank certificate Ex.PW-21/P reflect that it is of M/s.

Seep International for an amount of Rs.6,96,000/- inclusive of FOB value of
Rs.6,35,644/- and insurance amount. It has been signed by proprietor of
M/s. Seep International as Exporter at point Q178 and bears the stamp of
Central Bank of India. It has been issued by Central Bank of India. The
GEQD report Ex.PW19/15 has proved that Bank Certificate Ex.PW21/P
has been signed by the accused at point Q178 for M/s. Seep International.
The accused has admitted that bank certificate Ex.PW21/P was issued on
the basis of bank invoice Ex.PW21/Q and Shipping Bill Ex.PW13/1.
Ex.PW21/P contains the shipping bill number of Ex.PW13/1. It is purported
to have been issued by Central Bank of India. PW-3 has also deposed that
Ex.PW21/P was issued by Central Bank of India after seeing invoice
Ex.PW21/Q and Airway Bill Ex.PW13/1.
37. The bank attested invoice is Ex.PW21/Q. The invoice is dated

15.11.1988 in the name of M/s. Silver Grace Corporation. It is for an
amount of Rs.6,96,000/- for 8000 pieces of cotton power loom ready-made
garment. The invoice is of M/s. Seep International. The provisional
certificate of export for abovesaid shipping bill is Ex.PW21/T1 wherein the
total FOB value has been shown as Rs.6,35,634/-. Therefore, prosecution
has proved that accused got issued bank certificate Ex.PW21/P on the
strength of invoice Ex.PW21/Q and Airway Bill Ex.PW13/1. The
prosecution has also proved that accused had filed application

Ex.PW21/R1 along with Bank Certificate Ex.PW21/P, invoice Ex.PW21/Q
and Airway Bill Ex.PW13/1 for claiming CCS worth Rs.50,851.52.
38. According to the prosecution, accused inflated the FOB value in

order to claim excess CCS of Rs. 30,400/-.
The application before AEPC for VISA for export of 4000 pieces by
M/s. Seep International is Ex.PW4/F. Perusal of Ex.PW4/F reflect that the
applicant is M/s. Seep International. The destination of export has been
shown as USA for 4000 pieces of power loom cotton ladies romper and the
name of importer as M/s. Silver Grace Incorporated. The total FOB value
has been shown as Rs 2,96,000/-. The invoice number is shown as
SI/03/88 dated 15.11.1988. The invoice Ex.PW4/G reflect that it is bearing
no. SI/03/88 dated 15.11.1988 for M/s. Silver Grace Incorporated for 4000
pieces of Power loom Cotton ready-made garment have FOB value of
Rs.2,96,000/-. Ex.PW4/E is Special Custom Invoice (VISA) for 4000
pieces to M/s. Silver Grace Incorporated wherein FOB value has been
shown as Rs.2,96,000/- and is bearing invoice no. SI/03/88 dated
15.11.1988.
Accused has denied her signature on application for VISA Ex.PW4/F,

VISA Ex.PW4/E and Invoice Ex.PW4/G. She has admitted, in her
supplementary statement under Section 313 Cr.PC, of filing of an
application Ex.PW4/F along with invoice Ex.PW4/G and that small order
quota bearing no.413248 was allotted to M/s. Seep International vide VISA
Ex.PW4/E for 4000 pieces of garments of value of Rs.2,96,000/-. Though
there is no GEQD opinion on the above documents as regard signature of

accused but once, the prosecution has proved that accused is proprietor of
M/s. Seep International and accused has admitted of filing of application
Ex.PW4/F along with invoice Ex.PW4/G and allotment of quota vide
Ex.PW4/E, it is immaterial that the signatures of accused on above
documents have not been proved. Hence, it is proved that the M/s. Seep
International was alloted quota of value of Rs.2,96,000/- for 4000 pieces
and the invoice of the same is Ex.PW4/G.
39. The invoice Ex.PW4/G is bearing no. SI/03/88 dated 15.11.1988 for
M/s. Silver Grace Incorporated for 4000 pieces of Power loom Cotton
ready-made garment having FOB value of Rs.2,96,000/-. However, invoice
Ex.PW21/Q is also bearing no. SI/03/88 dated 15.11.1988 wherein FOB
value has been shown as Rs.6,96,000/-, which was submitted along with
application Ex.PW21/R1.
40. Against the claimed CCS value of Rs.50,851.52 vide application

Ex.PW21/R1, an amount Rs.48,309/- was paid to M/s. Seep International
through cheque no.708955.
41. Therefore, the prosecution has proved that the duplicate invoice with
inflated FOB value of Rs.6,96,000/- was filed along with application
Ex.PW21/R1 by the accused and CCS of Rs.48,309/- was given to her.
Therefore, the prosecution has proved that by filing the duplicate invoice,
the accused induced JCCI&E to pay her the excess CCS worth
Rs.30,400/-.
42. As per prosecution, vide application dated 17.07.1989, accused

claimed CCS Rs. 25,600/- for export of ready-made garment worth
Rs.3,20,000/- vide shipping bill no.044823 dated 09.04.1989 on the basis
of forged disclaimer certificate, bank certificate.

The application is made by M/s. Seep International against export of cotton
ready-made garment. The amount of FOB entitlement is Rs.3,20,000/- and
shipping bill no. is 044823 dated 09.04.1989. The CCS claimed is
Rs.25,600/- and the CCS amount paid is Rs.25,600/-. The accused, in her
supplementary statement under Section 313 Cr.PC, has admitted of filing
of the application and has stated that all the application filed by M/s. Seep
International has been filed by her and bears signature of her. Further, as
per GEQD report Ex.PW19/15, accused has signed at point Q7 and Q8 as
proprietor of M/s. Seep International on Ex.PW21/R5. PW-21 has deposed
that application Ex.PW21/R5 was filed by M/s. Seep International. The
same has not been disputed by accused in the cross-examination of
PW-21. Therefore, in view of testimony of PW-21 corroborated by GEQD
report and admission of accused in her supplementary statement under
Section 313 Cr.PC, it is proved that the accused had filed application
Ex.PW21/R5 for claiming worth Rs.25,600/-.
44. Along with application Ex.PW21/R5, accused has enclosed one bank
attested invoice, one bank certificate, shipping bill and provisional
certificate of export.
45. The shipping bill bearing no. 044823 dated 09.04.1989 is Ex.PW6/E.

The consignee is M/s. Momento USA and it is for 5000 pieces of Cotton
Power Loom ready made garments. The FOB value has shown as
Rs.3,20,000/-. The shipping bill is of M/s. Seep Enterprises and has been
signed by proprietor of M/s. Seep Enterprises at point Q-207. The
signatures at point Q207 on Ex.PW6/E has not been proved by the
prosecution. However, it is the same Shipping Bill which was filed
alongwith application Ex.PW21/R5. The invoice number as mentioned on
Shipping Bill Ex.PW6/E is SE/13/89 dated 20.03.1989 and agent is Alitalia.
46. As per PW-28, the shipping bill bearing no. 044823 is of Exporter
Mangalam Arts and the goods exported were Silk made up and were
exported to Italy. He has produced attested copy of extract of entry
register of Shipping Bill Ex.PW28/A.
47. The disclaimer certificate Ex.PW19/E (also shown as PW-16 / Mark-

E) is purported to have been issued by Anju Sharma for M/s. Seep
Enterprises. As per disclaimer certificate, Ms. Anju Sharma has declared
that M/s. Seep Enterprises has not filed any application for grant of CCS
for shipment of Cotton Power Loom Garments having invoice no. SE/13/89
dated 20.03.1989, shipping bill no.044823 dated 09.04.1989, bank
certificate no. C-00601298 dated 24.04.1989 and airway bill no.055-4925-
2405 dated 11.04.1989 having FOB value Rs.3,20,000/- and M/s. Seep
International shall be filing the CCS claim and she has no objection if CCS
amount is paid to them. As per GEQD report Ex.PW19/15, accused has
signed as Anju Sharma at point Q203 on disclaimer certificate Ex.PW19/E.
48. Anju Sharma has been examined as Anju Chauhan as PW-16. She

has deposed that she had seen disclaimer certificate of M/s. Seep
Enterprises PW-16/Mark-E and it does not bear her signature. Someone
has forged her signature. Therefore, the testimony of PW-16 has been
duly corroborated by GEQD report that the disclaimer certificate
Ex.PW19/E has been signed by accused as Anju Sharma, proprietor of
M/s. Seep Enterprises.
49. Ex.PW17/B2 is invoice no.SE/13/89 dated 20.03.1989 issued by M/s.

Seep Enterprises in the name of Momento for cotton power loom ready-
made garments of 5000 pieces having FOB value of Rs.3,20,000/-. The
shipment has been shown to have been dispatched vide airway bill no.055-
4925-2405 dated 11.04.1989. The above airway bill is Ex.PW1/1. It is a
true copy of the bill attested by Mr. E. Jone. In the Airway Bill, the shipper
address is M/s. Seep Enterprises and it is for 3800 pieces of cotton power
loom ready-made garment. PW-1 has deposed that he is familiar with
signature of Mr. E. Jone and Airway Bill Ex.PW1/1 is bearing his signature.
Ld. Defence Counsel had objected to the mode of proving of Ex.PW1/1.
However, Mr. R.K. Sharma has deposed that he can identity the signatures
of Mr. E. Jone and he is working with Alitalia Airlines since 1973.
Therefore, the objection of the Ld. Counsel as to mode of proof is overruled
as PW-1 has identified the signatures of Mr/ E. Jone and has proved
Ex.PW1/1. Similarly, PW-1 has proved Ex.PW1/2 which is Cargo Manifest
of Alitalia.
50. Perusal of Bank Certificate Ex.PW17/A-2 reflect that it has been

issued by New Bank of India, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi for an amount of

Rs.3,20,000/-. The invoice is shown as SE/13/89 dated 20.03.1989. It is
the same bank certificate which was annexed by the accused along with
application form Ex.PW21/R5. According to the prosecution, it has been
forged by the accused. PW-17 Arun Kumar Chopra is officer of New Bank
of India, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi. He has deposed that he was overall
Incharge of Foreign Exchange Department handling import export
transactions. Mr. Arun Kapoor and Mr. Arun Mehra were handing export
transactions and they were working under him. He has deposed that he
could identify the seal / stamp belonging to their department. He has
deposed that bank certificate Ex.PW17/A1 to Ex.PW17/A2 were not issued
by their bank. The reference number given on the certificate is not of their
bank and it has not been signed by any official of the bank. It does not
have reference to RBI code. The round seal on the certificate is
incomplete. The original seal is of small size contained word FAX. He has
further submitted that party has to submit three copies of bank certificate of
export, three copies of invoice, one copy of bill of lading / air bill along with
shipping bill for the purpose of obtaining bank certificate. He has submitted
that Ex.PW17/B2 and invoice SE/13/89 dated 20.03.1989 have not been
signed by any bank official and it bears false bank seal.
The admitted round seal impression of New Bank of India, Tolstoy

Marg, New Delhi is Ex.PW19/8 (S-60 to S-64). As per GEQD report
Ex.PW19/15, the seal impression at point Q-129, Q-130 and Q-131 on
Ex.PW17/A2 does not tally with admitted seal impression Ex.PW19/8. As
per the reason for opinion Ex.PW19/17, the seal impression do not tally on
superimposition with any of the sample seal impression in size, relative

spacing an alignment. They also do not tally such as the word 'Bio' is
present in the standard, whereas it is absent in the questioned. The word
'NEW DELHI' is in the capital letters in standards whereas it is in the small
letter in question. The Handwriting Expert DW-2 has stated in his report
Ex.DW2/2 that the seal impression cannot compared and commented upon
because the original stamp seals and documents were not available and
they cannot be compared by superimposition therefore not fit for
comparison with the help of photographs. Therefore, no opinion has been
given by DW-2 with respect to sample seal. Perusal of cross-examination
of PW-19 reflect that no question was put to him that due to non-availability
of original sample seal, the comparison is not possible by superimposition.
There is no reason to disbelieve the GEQD report Ex.PW19/15 regarding
the seal. Therefore, it is proved that the sample seal of New Bank of India
has been forged on bank certificate Ex.PW17/A2 and it is a forged bank
certificate. The prosecution has proved that bank certificate Ex.PW17/A2
is forged and has been used by the accused in order to claim CCS vide her
application Ex.PW21/R5. However, it has not been proved that it is the
accused who had affixed the forged seal of bank on the bank certificate
and has prepared the bank certificate.
51. The Special Custom Invoice (VISA) is Ex.PW15/A which has been
issued in the name of M/s. Seep Enterprises having invoice no. SE/13/89.
The total FOB value has been shown as Rs.3,20,000/-. Similarly, the
application form for shipment against export entitlement for 5000 pieces of
FOB value of Rs.3,20,000/- is Ex.PW15/K1. The applicant is M/s. Seep
Enterprises. The invoice is Ex.PW15/K2 which is of M/s. Seep Enterprises

for 5000 pieces of cotton power loom ready-made garment having FOB
value of Rs.3,20,000/-. The shipping bill for the abovesaid consignment is
Ex.PW15/K4 in the name of M/s. Seep Enterprises. PW-15 was Assistant
direction in Apparel Export Promotion Council (AEPC). He has deposed
that Ex.PW15/A is copies of VISA for the purpose of office record issued to
M/s. Seep Enterprises. He has deposed that the VISA was issued in the
name of M/s. Seep Enterprises and Ex.PW15/A was signed by him and
containing his seal. He has deposed that Ex.PW15/K1 to Ex.PW15/K17
are office copies of various documents submitted by the party for VISA and
endorsement. These are the official documents and has not been disputed
by the accused in the cross-examination. Therefore, it is proved that the
VISA for export of 5000 pieces of FOB value for Rs.3,20,000/- was allotted
to M/s. Seep Enterprises and accused forged disclaimer certificate for
claiming worth Rs.25,600/-. The accused vide her application Ex.PW21/R5
filed forged disclaimer certificate and bank certificate and induced JCCI&E
to release CCS worth Rs.25,600/- in the account of M/s. Seep
International.
52. As per prosecution, vide application dated 17.07.1989, accused

claimed CCS Rs. 16,384/- for export of cotton ready-made garment worth
Rs.2,04,800/- vide shipping bill no.044822 Ex.PW-6 on the basis of forged
disclaimer certificate and bank certificate.

The application is made by M/s. Seep International against export of cotton

ready-made garment. The amount of FOB entitlement is Rs.2,04,800/- and
shipping bill no. is 044822 dated 09.04.1989. The CCS claimed is
Rs.16,384/- and the CCS amount paid is Rs.16,384/-. The accused, in her
supplementary statement under Section 313 Cr.PC, has admitted of filing
of the application and has stated that all the application filed by M/s. Seep
International has been filed by her and bears the signature of her. Further,
as per GEQD report Ex.PW19/15, accused has signed at point Q3 and Q4
as proprietor of M/s. Seep International on Ex.PW21/R3. PW-21 has
deposed that application Ex.PW21/R3 was filed by M/s. Seep International.
The same has not been disputed by accused in the cross-examination of
PW-21. Therefore, in view of testimony of PW-21 corroborated by GEQD
report and admission of accused in her supplementary statement under
Section 313 Cr.PC, it is proved that the accused had filed application
Ex.PW21/R3 for claiming worth Rs.16,384/-.
54. Along with application Ex.PW21/R3, accused has enclosed one bank
attested invoice, one bank certificate, shipping bill and provisional
certificate of export.
55. The shipping bill bearing no. 044822 dated 09.04.1989 is Ex.PW-6.
The consignee is M/s. Momento USA and it is for 3200 pieces of Cotton
Power Loom ready made garments. The FOB value has shown as
Rs.2,04,800/-. The shipping bill is of M/s. Seep Enterprises and has been
signed by proprietor of M/s. Seep Enterprises at point Q-208. The
signatures at point Q208 on Ex.PW-6 has not been proved by the
prosecution. However, it is the same Shipping Bill which was filed along

with application Ex.PW21/R3. The invoice number as mentioned on
Shipping Bill Ex.PW-6 is SE/12/89 dated 20.03.1989 and agent is Alitalia.
56. The disclaimer certificate Ex.PW19/B (also shown as PW-16 / Mark-

B) is purported to have been issued by Anju Sharma for M/s. Seep
Enterprises. As per disclaimer certificate, Ms. Anju Sharma has declared
that M/s. Seep Enterprises has not filed any application for grant of CCS
for shipment of Cotton Power Loom Garments having invoice no. SE/12/89
dated 20.03.1989, shipping bill no.044822 dated 09.04.1989, bank
certificate no. C-00601297 dated 18.04.1989 and airway bill no.055-4925-
2405 dated 11.04.1989 having FOB value Rs.2,04,800/- and M/s. Seep
International shall be filing the CCS claim and she has no objection if CCS
amount is paid to them. As per GEQD report Ex.PW19/15, accused has
signed as Anju Sharma at point Q197 on disclaimer certificate Ex.PW19/B.
57. Anju Sharma has been examined as Anju Chauhan as PW-16. She
has deposed that she had seen disclaimer certificate of M/s. Seep
Enterprises PW-16/Mark-B and it does not bear her signature. Someone
has forged her signature. Therefore, the testimony of PW-16 has been
duly corroborated by GEQD report that the disclaimer certificate
Ex.PW19/B has been signed by accused as Anju Sharma, proprietor of
M/s. Seep Enterprises.
58. Ex.PW17/B7 is invoice no.SE/12/89 dated 20.03.1989 issued by M/s.

Seep Enterprises in the name of Momento for cotton power loom ready-
made garments of 3200 pieces having FOB value of Rs.2,04,800/-. The
shipment has been shown to have been dispatched by Alitalia.

59. Perusal of Bank Certificate Ex.PW17/A-7 reflect that it has been
issued by New Bank of India, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi for an amount of
Rs.2,04,800/-. The invoice is shown as SE/12/89 dated 20.03.1989. It is
the same bank certificate which was annexed by the accused along with
application form Ex.PW21/R3. According to prosecution, it has been
forged by the accused. PW-17 Arun Kumar Chopra has deposed that
bank certificate Ex.PW17/A-7 was not issued by their bank. The reference
number given on the certificate is not of their bank and it has not been
signed by any official of the bank. It does not have reference to RBI code.
The round seal on the certificate is incomplete. The original seal is of small
size contained word FAX. He has further submitted that party has to
submit three copies of bank certificate of export, three copies of invoice,
one copy of bill of lading / air bill along with shipping bill for the purpose of
obtaining bank certificate. He has submitted that Ex.PW17/B7, which
invoice SE/12/89 dated 20.03.1989 have not been signed by any bank
official and it bears false bank seal.
60. The admitted round seal impression of New Bank of India, Tolstoy
Marg, New Delhi is Ex.PW19/8 (S-60 to S-64). As per GEQD report
Ex.PW19/15, the seal impression on Ex.PW17/A7 does not tally with
admitted seal impression Ex.PW19/8. As opined above, there is no reason
to disbelieve the GEQD report on sample seal. Therefore, it is proved that
the sample seal of New Bank of India has been forged on bank certificate
Ex.PW17/A7 and it is a forged bank certificate. The prosecution has
proved that bank certificate Ex.PW17/A7 is forged and has been used by
the accused in order to claim CCS vide her application Ex.PW21/R3.

However, it has not been proved that it is the accused who had affixed the
forged seal of bank on the bank certificate and has prepared the bank
certificate.
61. The Special Custom Invoice (VISA) is Ex.PW15/B which has been
issued in the name of M/s. Seep Enterprises having invoice no. SE/12/89.
The total FOB value has been shown as Rs.2,04,800/-. Similarly, the
application form for shipment against export entitlement for 3200 pieces of
FOB value of Rs.2,04,800/- is Ex.PW15/K5. The applicant is M/s. Seep
Enterprises. The invoice is Ex.PW15/K6 which is of M/s. Seep Enterprises
for 3200 pieces of cotton power loom ready-made garment having FOB
value of Rs.2,04,800/-. The shipping bill for the abovesaid consignment is
Ex.PW15/K3 in the name of M/s. Seep Enterprises. PW-15 was Assistant
direction in Apparel Export Promotion Council (AEPC). He has deposed
that Ex.PW15/B is copies of VISA for the purpose of office record issued to
M/s. Seep Enterprises. He has deposed that the VISA was issued in the
name of M/s. Seep Enterprises and Ex.PW15/B was signed by him and
containing his seal. He has deposed that Ex.PW15/K1 to Ex.PW15/K17
are office copies of various documents submitted by the party for VISA and
endorsement. These are the official documents and has not been disputed
by the accused in the cross-examination. Therefore, it is proved that the
VISA for export of 3200 pieces of FOB value for Rs.2,04,800/- was allotted
to M/s. Seep Enterprises and accused forged disclaimer certificate for
claiming worth Rs.16,384/-. The accused vide her application Ex.PW21/R3
filed forged disclaimer certificate and bank certificate and induced JCCI&E
to release CCS worth Rs.16,384/- in the account of M/s. Seep

International.
62. The accused has stated that she did not sign as Anju Sharma on the
disclaimer certificates and she has been falsely implicated in the present
case. In support of her claim, she has examined the handwriting expert as
DW-2 and two defence witnesses, in support of her claim. As opined
earlier, the Handwriting Expert report Ex.DW2/2 cannot be relied upon. The
perusal of testimony of DW-1 reflect that he has stated that he knows
accused Seema Sharma since last 20 years and he knows the facts of the
case. He is having family relation with accused. He has deposed that
proprietor of M/s. Seep Enterprises and M/s. Seep International was Anju
Chauhan. The said deposition is against the records and the evidence,
which has been proved on record.
DW-1 has further deposed that he has knowledge about day to day
affair of both the firms. Accused used to manage the affairs of both the
firms with Anju Chauhan and Anju Chauhan was signing authority of both
the firms. In the cross-examination, he has stated that he was working as
Manager of both the firms for the period from 1988 till 1989. He has further
deposed that he cannot produce any document regarding employment with
the concern. Therefore, there is no evidence on record to show that DW-1
was Manager of both the firms. There is no evidence on record that Anju
Chauhan was signing authority of both the firms or that she was owner of
both the firms.
DW-1 has further deposed that accused has not made any signature
his presence and signatures of main business dealings were largely done

in his presence. He has further deposed that he does not remember as to
how many places accused used to sign and at how many places, her sister
used to sign. Therefore, it clear from the testimony of DW-1 that he was
not involved in all the business dealings and further, there is no evidence
on record to show that he was involved in the business dealing of the
company except his oral testimony.
DW-1 has deposed that he could identify the signature of accused.

He does not remember if any document was signed by accused and filed in
the bank. He has deposed that the property dispute arose between
accused and Anju Chauhan and Anju Chauhan has falsely implicated the
accused in the present case. He has further deposed that the signatures
of accused was forged by Anju Chauhan. He was shown documents
Ex.PW21/R4, Ex.PW21/R3, Ex.PW21/R6, Ex.PW21/R2, Ex.PW21/R7 and
he has stated that the above documents do not bear the signature of
accused or Anju Chauhan and the above documents were not prepared by
accused.
The document Ex.PW21/R4, Ex.PW21/R6, Ex.PW21/R7,

Ex.PW21/R2 are not relevant. As regard Ex.PW21/R3 accused has herself
admitted the said document and there is also GEQD report. When
accused herself admitted the document, the testimony of DW-1 cannot be
relied upon with respect to above documents. Further, the defence has
failed to prove that DW-1 was working in the capacity of Manager with both
the firms and as such, the testimony of DW-1 cannot be relied upon.
DW-1 has stated that document Ex.PW21/R5 was not signed by

accused but Anju Chauhan has signed as Seema Sharma at Q7 and Q8.
The above testimony of DW-1 is contrary to the admission of the accused
of document Ex.PW21/R5, in her statement under Section 313 Cr.PC.
DW-1 has stated that document Ex.PW21/X and Ex.PW21/C has

been signed by Anju Chauhan as Seema Sharma. However, these
documents are not relevant.
DW-1 has stated that document Ex.PW19/7 bears signature of Anju

Chauhan. However, the above document is not relevant.
DW-1 has stated that document Ex.PW19/7, Ex.PW19/8, Ex.PW19/9,

Ex.PW19/10 and Ex.PW19/14 does not bear signatures of Anju Chauhan
and Seema Sharma. The document Ex.PW19/7, Ex.PW19/9, Ex.PW19/10
and Ex.PW19/14 are not relevant. On Ex.PW19/8, a false seal of bank has
been proved by the report of GEQD, though the signatures have not been
proved.
63. The perusal of testimony of DW-2 Kishan Lal Sharma reflect that he
has not deposed about the facts of the case and he has only stated that
some dispute was going on between accused and Anju Chauhan. The
said witness has been examined by the accused to show that she has
been falsely implicated in the present case due to the said dispute.
However, the testimony of DW-2 does not prove the same. Even if, there
is any property dispute between accused and Anju Chauhan, there is
nothing on record to show that she has falsely implicated the accused in
the present case.

64. Therefore, prosecution has proved that accused forged disclaimer
certificates and used forged bank certificates, invoices, disclaimer
certificates to claim CCS under SPS scheme from JCCI&E and received an
amount of Rs.72,384/- from JCCI&E which did not belong to her.
65. Therefore, on the basis of above observations, prosecution has

proved his case beyond all reasonable doubt. Accused Seema Sharma
stands convicted for an offence under Section 420/467/468/471 read with
Section 468 IPC. ANU
Digitally signed by
ANU AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2019.08.03
11:35:10 +0530
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (ANU AGGARWAL)

ON 31.07.2019 ACMM-2-CUM-ACJ
ROUSE AVENUE COURTS
COMPLEX, NEW DELHI

2 - Rouse Avenue PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2 - Rouse Avenue PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE COURT OF MS.

ANU AGGARWAL, ACMM-2-CUM-ACJ,

CBI Vs. Seema Sharma

a) Unique Case ID No. : DLCT12-000509-2019

b) The date of commission of the

c) Name of the Complainant : Sh. L. M. Lakra,

e) Offences complained of : 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC

f) The plea of the accused persons : Pleaded not guilty

g) Pronouncement of Judgment : 31.07.2019

h) Date of institution of case : 26.08.1992

i) Date of final arguments : 26.07.2019

j) Date of Reserving Judgment : 26.07.2019

Case No. CBI/161/2019 CBI Vs. Seema Sharma Page No.1 of 47

1. The present case has been registered on 26.10.1990 against M/s.

2. It is alleged that M/s. Seep International is registered with AEPC,

3. It is alleged that accused vide application dated 06.07.1989 of her

Case No. CBI/161/2019 CBI Vs. Seema Sharma Page No.2 of 47

4. It is alleged that accused vide application dated 17.07.1989 of her

5. It is alleged that accused claimed CCS worth Rs.16,384/- vide

Case No. CBI/161/2019 CBI Vs. Seema Sharma Page No.3 of 47

7. The accused was summoned and charges under Section

8. During trial, the prosecution has examined 29 witnesses to prove the

PW1 Sh. R.K. Sharma, He has deposed regarding Airway Bill

Case No. CBI/161/2019 CBI Vs. Seema Sharma Page No.4 of 47

Case No. CBI/161/2019 CBI Vs. Seema Sharma Page No.5 of 47

Case No. CBI/161/2019 CBI Vs. Seema Sharma Page No.6 of 47

Case No. CBI/161/2019 CBI Vs. Seema Sharma Page No.7 of 47

Case No. CBI/161/2019 CBI Vs. Seema Sharma Page No.8 of 47

Case No. CBI/161/2019 CBI Vs. Seema Sharma Page No.9 of 47

Case No. CBI/161/2019 CBI Vs. Seema Sharma Page No.10 of 47

Case No. CBI/161/2019 CBI Vs. Seema Sharma Page No.11 of 47

Case No. CBI/161/2019 CBI Vs. Seema Sharma Page No.12 of 47

Case No. CBI/161/2019 CBI Vs. Seema Sharma Page No.13 of 47

9. No other witness was examined by the prosecution and PE was

Case No. CBI/161/2019 CBI Vs. Seema Sharma Page No.14 of 47

10. Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC on 20.05.2014.

Case No. CBI/161/2019 CBI Vs. Seema Sharma Page No.15 of 47

Case No. CBI/161/2019 CBI Vs. Seema Sharma Page No.16 of 47

Case No. CBI/161/2019 CBI Vs. Seema Sharma Page No.17 of 47

Case No. CBI/161/2019 CBI Vs. Seema Sharma Page No.18 of 47

19. The accused has been charge-sheeted for an offence punishable

Case No. CBI/161/2019 CBI Vs. Seema Sharma Page No.19 of 47

“420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.—Whoever

Case No. CBI/161/2019 CBI Vs. Seema Sharma Page No.20 of 47

20.1 Forgery is defined under Section 463 IPC. It is reproduced as

“Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of

Case No. CBI/161/2019 CBI Vs. Seema Sharma Page No.21 of 47

“464. Making a false document: – A person is said to make a false

First - Who dishonestly or fraudulently –

(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;

20.3 Section 467 IPC deals with forgery of valuable security. It is

“Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a

20.4 Punishment for forgery for the purpose of cheating is defined in

Case No. CBI/161/2019 CBI Vs. Seema Sharma Page No.22 of 47

“471. Using as genuine a forged [document or electronic record].—

21. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that JCCI&E has no authority to

22. According to the prosecution, accused is proprietor of M/s. Seep

Case No. CBI/161/2019 CBI Vs. Seema Sharma Page No.23 of 47

23. The application dated 06.07.1989 is Ex.PW21/R1. The perusal of

Case No. CBI/161/2019 CBI Vs. Seema Sharma Page No.24 of 47

25. The accused has admitted of filing of application Ex.PW21/R1 and

26. Though, the accused has admitted of filing the application

27. The specimen signature of accused is S-1 to S-9 (Ex.PW19/3) and