Sumer Singh v. Union of India and Anr.

1. The Central Industrial Security Force[1] issued an advertisement for recruiting Constable-cum-Drivers in January 2023. The petitioner applied. He was subjected to physical as well as driving test between 29 June 2023 and 7 July 2023, which he cleared. He thereafter participated in the written examination on 31 October 2023. The final result was declared by the CISF on 21 December 2023. The name of the petitioner was included in the list of qualified candidates. The petitioner was thereafter subjected to medical examination on 26 December 2023.

2. At the time of medical examination, the petitioner was required “CISF”, hereinafter to disclose the pendency, against him, of any criminal cases. As FIR 495/2021 had been instituted against the petitioner under Section 420 of the IPC read with Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, before the Police Station Jaipur Gramin, Kotputli, Rajasthan, this fact was truthfully disclosed by the petitioner. The allegation against the petitioner was that he was present in a shop in which counterfeit goods were being sold.

3. On the next day, i.e., 27 December 2023, the CISF referred the case of the petitioner, for consideration as to whether he was suitable for appointment, to its Standing Screening Committee. The petitioner approached this Court at that stage by way of WP (C) 6458/2024. By order dated 7 May 2024, this Court disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the Standing Screening Committee to take a decision on the suitability and antecedents of the petitioner for recruitment as Constable-cum-Driver and communicate a decision to him forthwith.

4. On 6 June 2024, the petitioner was acquitted by the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate[2] Kotputli. Though the order ultimately states that it was passed on benefit of doubt, a reading of the order indicates that the evidence in the case was duly taken into consideration by the learned ACJM before acquitting the petitioner. We may reproduce the following paras from the judgment of the learned ACJM, which would manifest this position: “learned ACJM”, hereinafter “13. The other witness in the case is P.W. 6 Rakesh Kumar, who has stated in his sworn chief examination that I was working as ASI at Kotputli police station on 02.09.2021. On that day, SHO Sawai Singh had handed over the investigation of case number 495/21 section 420 IPC and 63 Copyright Act to me for investigation. During the investigation, on the indication of the complainant, the first judicial map of the place of incident of Chaudhary Brothers Shop was made in the presence of spot witnesses, which is Exhibit P, on which there are 5 G to H and on the circumstances at the spot, my signatures are G to H. During the investigation, on the indication of the complainant, the second map of the place of incident of Barber Material Shop, Putli, District-Jaiprathal was made in the presence of spot witnesses, which is Exhibit P. 6, on which there are my signatures E to F and on the circumstances at the spot, E to F. On finding the offence of 420 IPC and 63 Copyright Act proved against the accused, notice under 41 CrPC was given, which is Exhibit P. 427 PW 6, on which there are the signatures of accused A to B and my signatures are C to D. The report of the script branch, the return of witnesses, is Exhibit P 14/PW 6 and Exhibit P 15/PW 6, on which there are my signatures A to B. The seized article in the case was sent to FSL for examination, the receipt of which is Exhibit 16/PW 6. Its FSL report is Exhibit P. 17/PW 6. Item A of Malkhana Register Exhibit

12 No. 1216 has markings A to B, the certified copy of which is Exhibit P 18A/P.W. 6. On which my signatures are from C only. On finding the allegations proved, the charge sheet was handed over to SHO Sawai Singh for presenting it in the court, on which A to B are SHO's signatures and C to D are mine. In the crossexamination by the advocate accused, this witness has stated that it is clear from the boxes of fake Raga Professional seized at the spot in the FIR given by the complainant that the accused was selling fake Raga Professional with the intention of getting wrongful gain for himself and causing wrongful loss to the concerned company. In my investigation, I have not found any evidence of selling the said goods to anyone and in my investigation, I have not found any such documentary evidence by which Sumer Singh and Gularam can be placed in the category of owners or operators of the said places. The seizure was not done in front of me. I am not an expert to prove whether any goods are real or fake. No time and date has been mentioned on Exhibit P[5] and P[6]. There is no mention of any sign or board at the spot in the map. This witness is an important witness in the case, who in his investigation has sent the seized fake cash boxes to FSL for investigation and has included the FSL report Exhibit P17/PW[6] in the file and has not taken any action for seizure himself and regarding the ownership of the shops. It has been stated that no documents were received and in its own investigation no evidence of sale of goods to anyone was found. The accused has stated that he does not know any facts about the fake Raga Professional price seized from the accused on the spot and that the accused obtained wrongful gain for himself and caused wrongful loss to the concerned company. During the investigation, the witness has stated that fake price was sold to Raga Professional with the intention of doing so. When the statement of witness Nayantara and other witnesses was taken in the case, whether the price of complainant company Nayantara was real or fake, no statement was made about whether any witness identified the price as fake and it has been stated that the accused sold fake price as per the information given by the complainant of the company. In the case, the FSL report is present on the file as Exhibit P.17. 3 boxes were sent to FSL in sealed condition. Lead difference has been found in total weight, colour, shade, inter discrepancy font size, printed description, seal packing etc. on the box which was examined by them. But the complainant P.W.[5] herself has produced exhibits P.1, P.2, Gr.P.[3] of which exhibits P.[1] and P.[2] are the seized boxes of fake price, exhibit P.[3] is the box of genuine price. She has stated that these have only her signature. She has stated that the signatures were made by the police on a blank paper. In such a case, the seized price may actually be fake and the certification of genuine price is illegal. It seems doubtful that the box was given by Nayanthara to the investigation officer for investigation. This witness does not support the prosecution story.

14. In their defence, the accused have stated in their statements under 313 CrPC that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated and that they do not own the shop. Accused Sumer Singh has got himself examined as D.W.[1] and in his sworn examination-in-chief he has stated that he has nothing to do with the barber material shop. I am neither its owner. I study. I have received call letters from CISF, SSB, MES for which I am preparing. The CISF online document that I have submitted is Exhibit D[1]. The online letter of joining of SSB department is Exhibit D[2]. The mark sheet is Exhibit D[3]. On 02.09.2021, no box or any price was seized by Nayantara and the police from my power possession. When I investigated who is the owner of the barber material shop, I came to know that the barber material shop is owned by Prakash Chand. I obtained the registration certificate online and this witness has stated that I did M.Com in 2019. I have presented it in the court in 2021, the certified copy of which is Exhibit P.4. On Exhibit P.2, my signature was taken on a blank paper at the police station by calling me as a witness. No seizure was made in front of me. I never bought the price of Raga Company. Neither did I ever sell it. I have been falsely implicated in the case on the basis of speculation. From the cross-examination done by the advocate accused, I had done JBT from Haryana till

2023. Exhibit P.[2] has my signatures C to D. It is correct to say that I have not given any written complaint about the case filed against me. I had given it verbally to the SHO. I did not make any complaint to any other higher officer. It is wrong to say that I am the owner of the barber material shop. Its owner is Prakash Chand. The documents presented by the witness, Exhibit D.1, D.2, D.[3] and D.[4] are all copies taken online, which the prosecution officer has objected to accepting in favor of the accused as they were not presented as per the rules of presenting electronic documents under the Evidence Act, their authenticity could not be proved. If these documents are seen in this regard, then the witness himself has taken out online copies of these documents and presented them. There is no signature and seal of the issuer on these documents, nor is the certificate of 65B attached with them. In such a situation, despite putting exhibits on these documents, they cannot be considered proved. But despite this, even if these documents are considered the basis of the decision, the prosecution has not been able to prove the prosecution story beyond doubt on the basis of documentary and oral evidence presented by the prosecution. On 02.09.2021, fake boxes of Raga Professional Company were seized from the possession of the accused and they were selling fake boxes in the name of the company to cause wrongful loss to the company and wrongful gain to themselves. The complainant herself has stated in her statements that the seizure report, exhibit

15. Thus, the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused, being the operators of their shop, manufactured 5 and 12 cans of 500 grams each of fake Raga Professional Detain Removal Cream in the name of complainant company M/s Cavin Care Pvt. Ltd. and cheated the complainant company with dishonest intent and caused wrongful gain to themselves and wrongful loss to the complainant company, and also violated the copyright mark of the product of the complainant company and by printing the name of Raga Professional Detain Removal Cream on the cans of Raga Professional Product Cream, violated the rights of the company by using the name of fake Raga Professional Cream. In such a situation, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, it seems justified to give the benefit of doubt to the accused Gularam and Sumer Singh and declare them innocent. Order

16. In the result, the accused A[1]. Gullaram son of Bhuraram, age 45 years, resident of Ward No. 21, Mohalla Bachdi Kotputli, Police Station Kotputli, Jita Jaipur Rural, A[2]. Sumer Singh son of Vidyanand, age 24 years, resident of Chardaha, Police Station Panipata, Jita Jaipur Rural, are given the benefit of doubt and are declared acquitted in the crimes under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and 63 of the Copyright Act.

17. In this case, the seized goods should be destroyed after the expiry of the time limit as per appeal rules.

18. The bail bonds furnished by the accused under the provisions of Section 437(A) CrPC will remain effective for a period of six months.” (Emphasis supplied)

5. By order dated 29 August 2024, the petitioner was informed that the Standing Screening Committee had considered his case for recruitment to the post of Constable-cum-Driver and that he was not found suitable.

6. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition before this Court.

7. We have heard Mr. Sahil Mongia, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Uma Prasuna Bachu, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondents.