Delhi District Court
Dr Anupam Sachdeva vs State on 14 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHISHEK GOYAL, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-03, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI
CNR No.: DLCT01-017805-2021
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.: 140/2021
DR. ANUPAM SACHDEVA,
S/o. Shri. Ram Lal Sachdeva,
R/o. C-107, Neelamber Apartment,
Pitampura, New Delhi. ... APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ... RESPONDENT
Date of filing : 18.12.2021
Date of institution : 20.12.2021
Date when judgment was reserved : 15.04.2025
Date when judgment is pronounced : 14.07.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 374
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( hereinafter, referred to
as ‘Cr.P.C./Code’) against the judgment dated 25.11.2021
(hereinafter referred to as ‘impugned judgment’), passed by
learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-01/Ld.
ACMM-01, Central, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi ( hereinafter referred
to as the ‘Ld. Trial Court/Ld. ACMM’) in case bearing; ‘State v.
Anupam Sachdeva, Cr. Case No. 29106/2016’, arising out of FIR
No. 335/2000, PS. Paharganj, under Sections 420/468/471 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC‘),
convicting the appellant of the offences under Sections 420 and
471 IPC and the consequent order of sentence dated 06.12.2021
(hereinafter referred to as ‘impugned order’), passed by the Ld.
Trial Court, sentencing, simple imprisonment for a period of 01
(one) year along with fine of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 1 of 51
Digitally signed
by ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.07.14
16:28:46 +0530
Thousand only) and in default of payment of which, to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of 01 (one) month, for the
offence under Section 471 IPC; and simple imprisonment for a
period of 06 (six) months along with fine of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Five Thousand only), in default of payment of which, the
appellant was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of 01 (one) month, for the offence under Section 420 IPC,
the period of said imprisonment being further directed to run
concurrently. Further, the appellant was directed to be entitled to
the benefit of the provisions under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
(hereinafter the impugned judgment and impugned order are
collectively referred to as the ‘impugned judgment and order’).
2. Succinctly, the case of the prosecution is that on
22.06.2000, a complaint was submitted/tendered by the
complainant, Sh. R.P. Sehgal (hereinafter referred to as the
‘complainant’) before the concerned SHO, PS. Paharganj.
Notably, in the said complaint, the complainant inter alia asserted
that the co-accused, Uttam Singh (hereinafter referred to as the
‘co-accused’), who was an employee with Delhi State Civil
Supplies Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the
‘DSCSC/Corporation/Department’), had been submitting
bills/medical claims with the department, relating to the treatment
of his son from time to time. The complaint further chronicles that
while verifying some of the bills, it was determined that a common
Sales Tax and Drug License number was shown in such bills
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘bills/bills in question’), asserted to
be issued by two different firms, i.e., M/s. Ashish Medicos, 644,
Rani Bagh, New Delhi-34 and M/s. Sheetal Medicos, ND Market,
Pitampura, Delhi-34 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the
C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 2 of 51
Digitally
signed by
ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.07.14
16:28:52
+0530
‘firms’), which prima facie appeared to be, fake. Correspondingly,
as per the complainant, upon further scrutiny, it was determined
that Sales Tax and Drug License Number inscribed on the said
bills, actually belonged to a third firm, namely, M/s. Ashish
Medicos, 1258, Rani Bagh, New Delhi and that no such firms, in
the names of M/s. Ashish Medicos, 644, Rani Bagh, New Delhi-34
and M/s. Sheetal Medicos, ND Market, Pitampura, Delhi-34, were
in existence, whose bills were submitted by the co-accused for the
purpose of reimbursement. Consequently, as per the complainant,
by submitting such bogus bills/bills in question, the co-accused
endeavoured to cheat the Corporation of sum of Rs. 94,880/-
(Rupees Ninety Four Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty only),
and that a sum of Rs. 24,930/- (Rupees Twenty Four Thousand
Nine Hundred and Thirty only) had been already reimbursed to the
co-accused. Further, it was recorded under the complaint that the
bills in question were verified by the appellant herein. Ergo, under
such facts and circumstances, and on the basis of the
complainant’s complaint, the instant FIR came to be registered,
and the investigation ensued. Relevantly, during the course of
investigation, co-accused, Uttam Singh was apprehended and his
disclosure statement was recorded, wherein he inter alia avowed
that his son, Master Timmy, was under the treatment of the
appellant and that the appellant had handed over, the bills in
question to him against the supply of medicines for treatment of
his said child. As per the co-accused, he used to make payments to
the appellant against supply of such medication and the appellant
used to issue to him, the bills in question, which were eventually
determined to be forged/fake. Correspondingly, the treatment
papers of co-accused’s son were obtained by the concernedC.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 3 of 51
Digitally signed
by ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
Date:
GOYAL 2025.07.14
16:28:56
+0530
investigating officer, besides the appellant was interrogated, who
denied having issued the bills in question, though, the appellant
affirmed that he had verified the said bills on the asking of the co-
accused. Subsequently, the concerned IO is asserted to have
collected various documents pertaining to the treatment of Master
Timmy, obtained the documents from the respective shop owners
of ‘Ashish Medicose’ and ‘Sheetal The Medicine Shop’ as well as
recorded the statements of various witnesses.
2.1. Noticeably, upon conclusion of the investigation in
the instant case, chargesheet was filed by the concerned police
official/IO before the Ld. MM, upon which, cognizance of the
offence(s) was taken by the Ld. Trial Court on 06.03.2002 and
summons were issued against co-accused, Uttam Singh.
Subsequently, on 07.10.2002, compliance of the provisions under
Section 207 Cr.P.C. was carried out qua the said co-accused,
besides directions for issuance of summons qua the appellant were
issued by the Ld. Trial Court against the appellant herein.
Relevantly, against the said order of summoning, the appellant
moved before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case bearing;
Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State of NCT of Delhi, Crl. M(M) No.
1625/2003, wherein the Hon’ble High Court vide its order dated
08.03.2003, set aside the said order dated 07.10.2002 of the Ld.
Trial Court inter alia under the following observations;
“…Every party for that purpose or a person against
whom an order has been passed is entitled to know the
reason for passing such an order. In the absence of
reasons nobody is sure as to how his grievance can be
remedied or redressed. In such a case providing
reasons for summoning a person as an accused who
has not been sent for trial as such and shown in
column no. 2 is a rudimentary requirement of law.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed.
The impugned order is set aside with the directions to
the Magistrate to pass fresh reasoned order. The
C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 4 of 51
Digitally signed
ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK
GOYAL
GOYAL Date: 2025.07.14
16:29:01 +0530
petitioner is also given an opportunity to appear
before the Magistrate on the next date of hearing and
the learned Trial Court shall provide him an
opportunity of being heard.
The petition stands disposed of…”
(Emphasis supplied)
2.2. Thereafter, the IO filed a supplementary chargesheet
before the Ld. Trial Court. Consequently, pursuant to the aforesaid
order of the Hon’ble High Court and considering the contents of
the chargesheet/supplementary chargesheet, Ld. Trial Court vide
order dated 08.12.2009, passed a fresh order of summoning of the
appellant in the present case, inter alia under the following
observations;
“…After going through the documents on file as
well the report of handwriting expert of FSL, I am of
view that the possibility of the conspiracy of the Dr.
Anupam Sachdeva with the co-accused Uttam Singh
in the preparation of false documents cannot be ruled
out at the stage. As such there are sufficient grounds to
proceed further against accused for the offence
punishable u/s. 420/468/471 r/w. 120B IPC Anupam
Sachdeva so he be summoned through IO for
23.02.10…”
(Emphasis supplied)
2.3. Thereupon, on the appellant’s entering appearance
before the Ld. Trial Court and on compliance of the provisions
under Section 207 Cr.P.C. qua the appellant as well as on
arguments on charges having been addressed by/on behalf of the
appellant, co-accused as well as by Ld. Addl. PP for the State
before the Ld. Trial Court, charges under Sections
420/468/471/120B IPC were directed to be framed by the Ld. Trial
Court against the appellant and co-accused, Uttam Singh, by virtue
of order dated 25.07.2017, inter alia under the following
observations;
“…Submissions heard. Charge-sheet perused.
According to the prosecution, the accused Dr.
C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 5 of 51
Digitally signed
by ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
Date:
GOYAL 2025.07.14
16:29:05
+0530
Anupam Sachdeva treated the blood cancer-stricken
child. The child recovered from the illness, But, the
child’s father (accused) entangled in the police net
when his department found discrepancies in the
reimbursement claim. The FIR was lodged and child’s
father (accused) named Dr. Sachdeva as the person,
who supplied the forged medical bills to him. The
prosecution has cited two public witnesses to show
that Dr. Anupam Sachdeva used to issue medical bills
receipts from his clinic.
Charge-sheet prima-facie discloses the
commission of offence punishable under Section
420/468/471/120B IPC. The separate accusation of
charge under Section 420/468/471/120B IPC has been
read over and explained to the accused persons to
which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Issue summons to the PWs through DCP Central
for 04.08.2017 as priority be given to the old cases…”
(Emphasis supplied)
2.4. Apposite to further reproduce the charges framed
against the appellant and co-accused, Uttam Singh on 25.07.2017,
as under;
“…I, ***, ACMM-01 (Central), Delhi; do hereby
charge you accused Dr. Anupam Sachdeva S/o Ram
Lal Sachdeva as follows:
That, somewhere before 22.06.2000, you entered
into a criminal conspiracy to help co-accused Uttam
Singh to cheat Delhi State Civil Supplies Corporation
Ltd. (Government organization) in submitting fake
medical bills for reimbursement relating to the
treatment of his son namely Timmy and thereby, you
committed an offence punishable under Section 120B
IPC which is within the cognizance of this court.
Secondly, somewhere before 22.06.2000, you
entered into a criminal conspiracy with co-accused
Uttam Singh to cheat Delhi State Civil Supplies
Corporation Ltd. (Government organization) by
preparing false medical bills which were submitted by
co-accused Uttam Singh for the purpose of claiming
medical reimbursement of Rs. 94,880/- relating to the
treatment of his son namely Timmy and he got part
reimbursement amount of Rs.24,930/- and thereby,
you committed an offence punishable under Section
420/468 IPC read with Section 120B IPC which is
within the cognizance of this court.
C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 6 of 51 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.07.14 16:29:09 +0530
And I hereby direct that you be tried by this court
for the aforesaid offences…
*** *** ***
I, ***, ACMM-01 (Central), Delhi: do hereby
charge you accused Uttam Singh S/o Moti Ram as
follows:
That, somewhere before 22.06.2000, you entered
into a criminal conspiracy with co-accused/Dr.
Anupam Sachdeva to cheat Delhi State Civil Supplies
Corporation Ltd. (Government organization) by
submitting fake medical bills for reimbursement
relating to the treatment of your son namely Timmy
and got part reimbursement amount of Rs. 24,930/-
and thereby, you committed an offence punishable
under Section 120B IPC which is within the
cognizance of this court
Secondly, somewhere before 22.06.2000, you
entered into a criminal conspiracy with,
co-accused/Dr. Anupam Sachdeva and cheated Delhi
Stale Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. (Government
organization) by submitting fake/forged medical bills
of Rs. 94,880/- for reimbursement relating to the
treatment of your son namely Timmy and you got part
reimbursement amount of Rs. 24,930 and thereby, you
committed an offence punishable under Section 420
IPC read with Section 120B IPC which is within the
cognizance of this court.
Thirdly, somewhere before 22.06.2000, you
entered into a criminal conspiracy with
co-accused/Dr. Anupam Sachdeva to cheat Delhi
State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd (Government
organization) by intentionally preparing fake/forged
medical bills of Rs 94,880/- and submitted the same as
genuine for the purpose of achieving the common
object of criminal conspiracy for reimbursement
relating to the treatment of your sun namely Timmy
and thereby, you committed an offence punishable
under Section 468/471 IPC read with Section 120B
IPC which is within the cognizance of this court.
And hereby direct that you be tried by this court
for the aforesaid offences…”
(Emphasis supplied)
2.5. Relevantly, the appellant and the co-accused pleaded
not guilty to the aforesaid charges and claimed trial. Strikingly,
during the course of trial, prosecution examined 12 (twelve)
witnesses/PWs, i.e., PW-1/Sh. Kundan Lal Chhabra; PW-2/(Retd.
C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 7 of 51 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.07.14 16:29:13 +0530
SI) Jagdish Chander; PW-3/Sh. V.C. Ojha; PW-4/Sh. R.P. Sehgal;
PW-5/Sh. Badri Singh; PW-6/Sh. Anil Kumar; PW-7/Sh. Om
Prakash; PW-8/Ms. Ritu Bajaj; PW-9/Sh. Vijay Kumar Kalra;
PW-10/Insp. Sukhdev Meena; PW-11/Insp. Pankaj Pandey; and
PW-12/Sh. Rahul Bhatia. Subsequently, on conclusion of
prosecution evidence, recording of statement of the appellant
under Section 313/281 Cr.P.C. on 22.02.2021, as well as on the
appellant leading defence evidence, i.e., DW-1/Dr. Manas Kalra
and DW-2/Dr. Anupam Sachdeva (himself), arguments were
addressed by/on behalf of the appellant, co-accused and the State.
Consequently, on conclusion of said arguments, the Ld. Trial
Court vide impugned judgment and order, while inter alia holding
the appellant guilty of the offences punishable under Sections
420/471 IPC, sentenced him in the manner, as noted hereinabove.
3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant outrightly contended
that the impugned judgment and order were passed by the Ld. Trial
Court on mere conjunctures, surmises and in contravention of the
settled principles of law, deserving their setting aside at the outset.
In this regard, Ld. Counsel vehemently asserted that the Ld. Trial
Court failed to appreciate that in the instant case, there are
numerous gaping holes in the case put forth by the prosecution and
that the prosecution’s story does not inspire any confidence, not
appealing to the senses of a prudent man. Further, as per the Ld.
Counsel, the Ld. Trial Court decided the matter in a mechanical
manner and utter haste, without appreciating the evidence
produced at the trial. It was further submitted that a perusal of the
testimonies of the various witnesses, who were examined before
the Ld. Trial Court would clearly demonstrate that there are
glaring, and material contradictions and the Ld. Trial Court has
C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 8 of 51
Digitally signed
by ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.07.14
16:29:16 +0530
committed grave error by not considering the same, leading to
gross miscarriage of justice to the appellant. Further, as per the Ld.
Counsel, Ld. Trial Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the
appellant committed the offence under Section 420 IPC, whereas
the appellant neither cheated the department nor was any wrongful
gain accrued to the appellant by simply verifying the medicines on
the alleged bills, which had been duly administered by the
appellant as per the record of the Hospital. In this regard, Ld.
Counsel vehemently asserted that it is not even the case of the
prosecution that the medicines, verified by the appellant on the
alleged bills were not administered to the patient Master Timmy
(son of the co-accused, Uttam Singh) and as such, the appellant
had verified the medicines on the bills only which were
administered to the patient, evident from the record of the
Hospital. Ld. Counsel further strenuously reiterated that the
appellant had merely verified the medicines in the said bills, while
discharging his professional duties, in order to ascertain the
correctness of the medicines and provide the best treatment to his
patient and had no malafide intention to cheat any person and/or
department. Correspondingly, as per the Ld. Counsel, Ld. Trial
Court even erred in convicting the appellant for the offence under
Section 471 IPC, without there being any evidence on record to
show that the appellant, produced the said to the department and
deployed the same for the purpose(s) of cheating. As per the Ld.
Counsel, it was, in fact, co-accused, Uttam Singh, who had
submitted the said bills for reimbursement for the medicines
administered to the patient and the appellant had admittedly not
used the said bills for claiming and financial gains or to cause
wrongful loss to the department and/or wrongful gain to itself/theC.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 9 of 51
Digitally
signed by
ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.07.14
16:29:20
+0530
appellant. Ergo, Ld. Counsel submitted that the impugned
judgment is liable to be set aside on this sole ground.
3.1. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that
material omissions in the statements/depositions of various
witnesses as well as lacunae in the investigation process. As per
the Ld. Trial Court, while reaching a finding of appellant’s guilt,
failed to consider that the investigation in the instant case was not
fairly and properly conducted, belying the version put forth by the
State against the appellant. In this regard, Ld. Counsel strenuously
argued that the investigating officer failed to conduct any search in
the shops of PW-1/Sh. Kundan Lal Chabra and PW-9/Vijay
Kumar Kalra to ascertain as well as bring on record, evidence
whether the said shops and their respective shop owners were in
possession of duplicate books in order to cheat the Sales Tax,
Income Tax and other departments. Correspondingly, as per the
Ld. Counsel, the investigating officer erred in heavily relying upon
the evidence of PW-1 and PW-9, without even ascertaining the
true and correct facts, which is bound to raise serious doubts into
the fairness of the investigation. Even otherwise, it was submitted
that the IO even failed to verify/get verified the respective
handwritings of PW-1 and PW-9 to ascertain and confirm whether
the bills in question were in fact, prepared by PW-1 and PW-9
themselves. Further, as per the Ld. Counsel, while reaching a
finding of guilt of the appellant, Ld. Trial Court even failed to
consider that if at all the drug license and sales tax numbers of
PW-1 and PW-9 were misused by third-party, then what was the
reason for PW-1’s and/or PW-9’s not lodging a complaint against
such third party/person, raising serious doubt in the version put
forth by the prosecution. On the contrary, as per the Ld. Counsel,C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 10 of 51
Digitally
signed by
ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.07.14
16:29:24
+0530
the only inference which can be drawn under such circumstance(s)
is that had any complaint lodged by PW-1 and/or PW-9, then, the
same would have resulted in unearthing the actual truth and
making PW-1 and/or PW-9 liable to be charged for the offences of
forgery, cheating, etc. Ld. Counsel further argued that no
evidence/other incriminating documents, bill books, registers, etc.,
were recovered by the IO from the possession of the appellant. In
fact, Ld. Counsel asserted that the prosecution tried to paint a
picture and build a case against the appellant for the offences of
forgery and cheating, while having failed to find out or place on
record, any evidence or document even slightly indicting any
involvement of the appellant in such activities. Further, as per the
Ld. Counsel, the prosecution’s case is premised on a flawed
foundation that since the appellant was a Doctor of considerable
reputation and had verified the medicines mentioned in the bills in
question, he is necessarily involved in the offences in question,
which is against all canons of criminal jurisprudence.
3.2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that
the prosecution deliberately/intentionally failed to produce the
medical records of the patient, namely, Timmy/son of co-accused,
Uttam Singh, as the same would have clearly proved that the
medicines mentioned in the bills in question were in fact
administered to the patient. In this regard, Ld. Counsel further
submitted that the injection, ‘Ehtyol’, ‘Methotrexate’ and
‘Recoverin’, as verified by the appellant could be verified from the
records of the Doctor and Nursing records. Correspondingly, Ld.
Counsel submitted that the medical bill, verified by the appellant,
demonstrates that the injections of ‘Methotrexate’ and ‘Recoverin’
were administered to the patient on the same date. Further, theC.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 11 of 51
Digitally signed
by ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
Date:
GOYAL 2025.07.14
16:29:28
+0530
patient was given/administered injection, ‘Amifostine’ on
18.01.2000, which can also be verified from the records of the
Hospital, besides, ‘Amifostine’ is the generic name of ‘Ethyol’.
Correspondingly, similar medicines/injections were administered
to the son of the co-accused, which can be verified from various
documents of the Hospital and the records of the Doctor/Nurse. As
per the Ld. Counsel, since the appellant had merely verified the
bills for the purpose of ascertaining the medicines, which were
administer to the son of the co-accused, appellant cannot be
determined to have committed any offence in the instant case. In
this regard, Ld. Counsel further asserted that the evidence
produced by/on behalf of the evidence belie the allegations
levelled against the appellant, which fact was not considered by
the Ld. Trial Court, while reaching a finding of guilt of the
appellant. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the order of
conviction of the appellant is liable to be set aside on the ground as
admittedly the appellant was neither the purchaser of the
medicines in question, nor procured any medicines from any
person or firm for his patient Master Timmy. On the contrary, Ld.
Counsel reiterated that the medicines in question were purchased
and procured by the father of the said patient, co-accused, Uttam
Singh. As per the Ld. Counsel, co-accused Uttam Singh, in order
to get the reimbursement of the cost incurred in purchase of the
medicines had gotten the said bills verified by the appellant and the
appellant does not under any circumstances whatsoever stand to
gain anything from the same. In this regard, it was further
submitted that the appellant was not concerned with the
authenticity of the bills, rather, merely verified the correctness of
medicines specified therein, as a part of his professional duty.
C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 12 of 51 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.07.14 16:29:32 +0530 3.3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant vehemently
asserted/reiterated that by verifying the medicines which were
mentioned on the bills in question, the appellant could not be, in
any manner, held liable for the offences of cheating and forgery.
Ld. Counsel further submitted that while reaching the finding of
guilt of the appellant, Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that the
testimony of PW-5/Sh. Badri Singh ought to have been subjected
to the strictest scrutiny, as he was an interested witness and
acquainted with co-accused, Uttam Singh. As per the Ld. Counsel,
PW-5 falsely implicates the appellant in the instant case, out of
grudge against the appellant as PW-5’s son could not survive from
Cancer, who was under treatment of the appellant.
Correspondingly, Ld. Counsel submitted that the statements of
PW-6 and PW-7, namely, Sh. Anil Kumar and Sh. Om Prakash,
respectively, were not recorded by the Investigating Officer during
the course of investigation, rather, form part of their respective
affidavits, which were never seized by the IO. As per the Ld.
Counsel, the affidavits PW-6 and PW-7 are even otherwise, false
and fabricated as PW-6 and PW-7 were also known to the co-
accused. In this regard, it was further submitted that the said
affidavits of PW-6 and PW-7 were not a part of the chargesheet,
rather, were taken/filed for the first time during their examination
before the Ld. Trial Court, solely to help the co-accused Uttam
Singh. As per the Ld. Counsel, even otherwise, both the said
affidavits are dated 22.06.2000, on the same date on which the
complaint was filed in the instant case. Correspondingly, it was
submitted by the Ld. Counsel that the Ld. Trial Court passed the
impugned judgment under an assumption that co-accused would
not tell lies, implicating the appellant, despite the fact that Uttam
C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 13 of 51
Digitally signed
by ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.07.14
16:29:36 +0530
Singh’s/co-accused person’s son recovered under the appellant’s
treatment. However, while reaching the said finding, Ld. Trial
Court failed to consider that co-accused Uttam Singh levelled the
allegations that the alleged bills were given by the appellant when
a complaint was lodged against him/co-accused in 2000, fearing
his dismissal from service. Accordingly, in light of the foregoing,
Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that not only did the Ld.
Trial Court failed to consider the truth of circumstances and passed
its judgment/decision in haste, rather, did not properly
appreciate/examine the facts of the present case, wrongly holding
the appellant guilty of the aforementioned offences. Even
otherwise, as per the Ld. Counsel, the impugned order on sentence
was passed by the Ld. Trial Court, inconsiderate of the correct
factual scenario, awarding an exorbitant sentence/fine and
compensation to the appellant. Consequently, the Ld. Counsel
inter alia prayed that the present appeal be allowed, and the
impugned judgment and order be set aside. In support of the said
contentions, reliance was placed upon the decisions in;
Nababuddin @ Mallu @ Abhimanyu v. State of Haryana, Crl.
Appeal No. 2333/2010, dated 24.11.2023 (SC); Asraf Ali v. State
of Assam, (@008) 16 SCC 328; Basanta Kumar Das v. State of
Odisha, Crl. Rev. No. 249/2003, dated 05.07.2022 (Hon’ble High
Court of Orissa); Om Prakash v. State of Punjab, Crl. Rev. No.
170/2016, dated 19.03.2019 (Hon’ble High Court of Punjab &
Haryan); Madhukar Vinayak Baravkar v. State of Maharashtra,
Crl. Appeal No. 155/2002, dated 27.04.2023 (Hon’ble High Court
of Bombay); and M. Ajithkumar v. State, Crl. Rev. 1527/2016,
dated 24.06.2022 (Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka).
C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 14 of 51
Digitally
signed by
ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.07.14
16:29:40
+0530
4. Per contra, Ld. Addl. PP for the State submitted that
the impugned judgment and order was passed by the Ld. Trial
Court after due appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the
case as well as in consonance with the settled judicial precedents.
Ld. Addl. PP for the State further submitted that the testimonies of
various witnesses placed on record, unambiguously prove the
commission of the offences by the appellant. It was further
contended by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the depositions of the
prosecution witnesses have not only been consistent, rather,
unblemished as well as lucidly point towards the only inference of
guilt of the appellant. As per the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, the
facts and circumstances put forth as well as the evidence placed on
record, unerringly point out towards the guilt of the appellant and
that no fault can be attributed to the finding of the Ld. Trial Court,
which is based on proper appreciation of facts as well as law.
Accordingly, Ld. Addl. PP for the State submitted that the present
appeal deserves to be dismissed at the outset, as grossly malicious
and devoid of merits.
5. The arguments of Ld. Counsel for the appellant as
well as that of Ld. Addl. PP for the State have been heard and the
record(s), including the Trial Court Record as well as the written
notes on arguments/written submissions and the judgments relied
by the party(ies) have been thoroughly perused.
6. At the outset, this Court deems it apposite to
enunciate the scope of jurisdiction of this Court in an appeal
against conviction. In this regard, this Court it is pertinent to
outrightly make a reference to the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Padam Singh v. State of U.P., (2000) 1 SCC
C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 15 of 51
Digitally signed
by ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
Date:
GOYAL 2025.07.14
16:29:44
+0530
621, wherein the Hon’ble Court, while delving into the ‘scope and
ambit’ of appellate court’s jurisdiction inter alia noted as under;
“2. … It is the duty of an appellate court to look
into the evidence adduced in the case and arrive at an
independent conclusion as to whether the said
evidence can be relied upon or not and even if it can be
relied upon, then whether the prosecution can be said
to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt on the
said evidence. The credibility of a witness has to be
adjudged by the appellate court in drawing inference
from proved and admitted facts. It must be
remembered that the appellate court, like the trial
court, has to be satisfied affirmatively that the
prosecution case is substantially true and the guilt of
the accused has been proved beyond all reasonable
doubt as the presumption of innocence with which the
accused starts, continues right through until he is held
guilty by the final court of appeal and that
presumption is neither strengthened by an acquittal
nor weakened by a conviction in the trial court…”
(Emphasis supplied)
7. Correspondingly, the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Narendra Bhat v. State of Karnataka, (2009) 17 SCC 785, iterated
in respect of the foregoing as under;
“3. This Court has in a series of judgments held
that a court exercising appellate power must not only
consider questions of law but also questions of fact
and in doing so it must subject the evidence to a
critical scrutiny. The judgment of the High Court must
show that the Court really applied its mind to the facts
of the case as particularly when the offence alleged is
of a serious nature and may attract a heavy
punishment.”
(Emphasis supplied)
8. Quite evidently, from a conjoint reading of the
aforenoted judicial dictates it can be perspicuously deduced that
the jurisdiction of this Court in an appeal extends to reappreciation
of the entire material placed on record of the trial court and to
arrive at an independent conclusion as to whether the said evidence
can be relied upon or not. In fact, as aforenoted, court(s), while
exercising appellate power is not required to consider the question
C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) PageDigitally
16 of 51
signed by
ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.07.14
16:29:48
+0530
of law, rather, also question of facts to affirmatively reach a
conclusion of guilt or innocence of an accused. In fact, it is trite
law1 that non-re-appreciation of the evidence on record in an
appeal may affect the case of either the prosecution or even the
accused. Needless to reemphasize that the appellate court is to be
further wary of fact that presumption of innocence of an accused,
even extents until an accused is held guilty by the final court of
appeal and that such a presumption is neither strengthened by an
acquittal nor weakened by a conviction in the trial court.
9. Therefore, being wary of the aforesaid principles,
however, before proceeding with the determination of the rival
contentions of the parties, it would be pertinent to reproduce the
relevant provisions under law/IPC, for the purpose of present
adjudication, as under;
“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 person 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 or property, is said to
“cheat”.
Explanation-A dishonest concealment of facts is a
deception within the meaning of this section.
*** *** ***
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.
*** *** ***
1
State of Gujarat v. Bhalchandra Laxmishankar Dave, (2021) 2 SCC 735.
C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 17 of 51 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.07.14 16:29:51 +0530
464. Making a false document-A person is said to
make a false document or electronic record-
First-Who dishonestly or fraudulently-
(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or
part of a document;
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or
part of any electronic record;
(c) affixes any electronic signature on any
electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a
document or the authenticity of the electronic
signature,
with the intention of causing it to be believed that
such document or pan of document, electronic record
or electronic signature was made, signed, scaled
executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority
of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows
that it was not made, singed, sealed, executed or
affixed; or
Secondly-Who without lawful authority,
dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or
otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in
any material part thereof, after it has been made,
executed or affixed with electronic signature either by
himself or by any other person, whether such person
be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or
Thirdly-Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes
any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or
an electronic record or to affix his electronic signature
on any electronic record knowing that such person by
reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot,
or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he
does not know the contents of the document or
electronic record or the nature of the alteration.
*** *** ***
468. Forgery for purpose of cheating-Whoever
commits forgery, intending that the document or
electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose
of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to
seven years, and shall also be liable to fine
*** *** ***
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.”
C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 18 of 51 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.07.14 16:29:56 +0530 (Emphasis supplied)
10. Markedly, it is observed from perusal of the above
that in order to attract culpability under provisions under Section
468 IPC, the prosecution is inter alia required to establish2,
commission of forgery as defined under Section 463 IPC. Notably,
as per the provisions under Section 463 IPC, “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”. Needless to mention, making of
false document, as per Section 464 IPC inter alia amounts to the
making, signing, sealing or execution of a document or part of a
document or electronic record in the manner specified under the
said provision, “with the intention of causing it to be believed that
such document or part of document, electronic record or electronic
signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or
affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose
authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed
or affixed”. Reference in this regard is made to the decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar (2009) 8
SCC 751, wherein the Hon’ble Court, while enunciating the
ingredients of offence of making of false document(s)/Section 464
IPC, noted as under;
“10. An analysis of section 464 of Penal Code
shows that it divides false documents into three
categories:
2
Dharmala Venkata Subrahmanya Sarma v. The State of A.P., Criminal Petition No. 10174 of 2018, dated
27.03.2024 (Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh).
C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 19 of 51
Digitally signed
by ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
Date:
GOYAL 2025.07.14
16:30:00
+0530
10.1. The first is where a person dishonestly or
fraudulently makes or executes a document with the
intention of causing it to be believed that such
document was made or executed by some other
person, or by the authority of some other person, by
whom or by whose authority he knows it was not
made or executed.
10.2. The second is where a person dishonestly or
fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a
document in any material part, without lawful
authority, after it has been made or executed by either
himself or any other person.
10.3. The third is where a person dishonestly or
fraudulently causes any person to sign, execute or
alter a document knowing that such person could not
by reason of (a) unsoundness of mind; or (b)
intoxication; or (c) deception practised upon him,
know the contents of the document or the nature of the
alteration.
11. In short, a person is said to have made a `false
document’, if (i) he made or executed a document
claiming to be someone else or authorised by someone
else; or (ii) he altered or tampered a document; or (iii)
he obtained a document by practicing deception, or
from a person not in control of his senses.”
(Emphasis supplied)
11. Here, it is further pertinent to refer to the decision of
the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Karan Kohli v. The
State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Revision No. 199/2018, dated
11.10.2018, wherein the Hon’ble High Court observed that for
liability under Section 468 IPC to attract, prosecution is not
required to prove that an accused actually commits the offence of
cheating. On the contrary, “what is material is the intention or
purpose of the offender in committing forgery. For proving the
case under Section 468 of the IPC prosecution is required to
establish that the accused had committed forgery and that he did it
with the intention that document forged shall be used for the
purposes of cheating.” Correspondingly, provisions under Section
C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 20 of 51
Digitally signed
by ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.07.14
16:30:06 +0530
471 IPC would be attracted3 in a case where an accused,
fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine, any document or
electronic record, which he knows or has reasons to believe to be
forged. Here, it is further pertinent to refer to the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.S. Krishnan & Ors. v. State of
Kerala, MANU/SC/0233/2004, wherein the Hon’ble Court, while
explicating the ingredients of offence under Section 471 IPC,
remarked as under;
“8. The essential ingredients of Section 471 are (i)
fraudulent or dishonest use of document as genuine
(ii) knowledge or reasonable belief on the part of
person using the document that it is a forged one.
Section 471 is intended to apply to persons other than
forger himself, but the forger himself is not excluded
from the operation of the Section. To attract Section
471, it is not necessary that the person held guilty
under the provision must have forged the document
himself or that the person independently charged for
forgery of the document must of necessity be
convicted, before the person using the forged
document, knowing it to be a forged one can be
convicted, as long as the fact that the document used
stood established or proved to be a forged one. The act
or acts which constitute the commission of the offence
of forgery are quite different from the act of making
use of a forged document. The expression
‘fraudulently and dishonestly’ are defined in Sections
25 and 24 IPC respectively. For an offence under
Section 471, one of the necessary ingredients is
fraudulent and dishonest use of the document as
genuine. The act need not be both dishonest and
fraudulent. The use of document as contemplated by
Section 471 must be voluntary one. For sustaining
conviction under Section 471 it is necessary for the
prosecution to prove that accused knew or had reason
to believe that the document to be a forged one.
Whether the accused knew or had reason to
believe the document in question to be a forged has to
be adjudicated on the basis of materials and the
finding recorded in that regard is essentially
factual…”
(Emphasis supplied)
3
Deepak Gaba v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 2328 of 2022, dated 02.01.2023 (SC).
C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 21 of 51 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.07.14 16:30:10 +0530
12. Further, it is pertinent to observe here that in order to
attract culpability under the provisions of Section 420 IPC,
prosecution is required to prove the commission 4 of, “(i) cheating
as defined under Section 415 IPC; (ii) dishonest inducement to
deliver property or to make, alter or destroy any valuable security
or anything which is sealed or signed or is capable of being
converted into a valuable security, and (iii) mens rea of the
accused at the time of making the inducement.” Germane for the
purpose(s) of present discourse to further note that this Court is
conscious that the offence of cheating encompasses, fraudulent or
dishonest inducement of, ‘person so deceived’ to deliver any
property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain
any property, or even includes, intentionally inducing a person so
deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or
omit if he were not so deceived. Quite evidently, in so far as the
latter part of Section 415 IPC is concerned, ‘property’, at no stage,
is involved. In fact, it is the doing of an act or omission to do an act
by the person so cheated, as a result of intentional inducement by
the accused, which is material. However, even in this regard, law is
settled that the damage or harm caused or likely to be caused must
be the necessary consequence of the act done by reason of the
deceit practiced, or must be necessarily likely to follow therefrom,
and the law does not take into account remote possibilities that
may flow from the act. In other words, law does not take into
account remote possibilities that may flow from the act. Clearly,
such damage or harm must be proximate and natural result of the
act or omission and does not include vague and contingent injury.
Reference in this regard is made to the decision of the Hon’ble
4
Binod Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2014 (10) SCC 663 and Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy v. Sudha Seetharam, (2019) 3
SCALE 563.
C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 22 of 51 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.07.14 16:30:14 +0530
Calcutta High Court in Harendra Nath Das v. Jyotish Chandra
Datta, AIR 1925 Cal. 100: (1925) ILR 52 Cal. 188 , wherein the
Hon’ble Court, while iterating similar sentimentalities, remarked
as under;
“6. …Under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code,
the damage or harm caused or likely to be caused must
be the necessary consequence of the act done by
reason of the deceit practiced, or must be necessarily
likely to follow therefrom, and the law does not take
into account remote possibilities that may flow from
the act [Mojey v. Queen-Empress (1890) I. L. R. 17
Calc. 606]. The proximate and natural result only of
the act has to be judged, and not any vague and
contingent injury that may possibly arise [Milton v.
Sherman (1918) 22 C. W. N. 1001]. The prosecution
allege in the present case that the accused used the
name of a bogus or non-existent firm, with the object
of not fulfilling the contract in the event of the market
going up, and as the market did go up he did not
supply the jute with the result that Mr. Pithie suffered
loss. Such remote consequences must, in my opinion,
be ignored for the purposes of Section 415 of the
Indian Penal Code…”
(Emphasis supplied)
13. Consequently, mindful of the principles hereinunder
noted, this Court would now proceed with the appreciation of the
evidence and material placed on record. In particular, at the outset,
this court deems it pertinent to make a reference to the testimony
of the complainant/PW-4/Sh. RP Sehgal, who inter alia deposed
before the Ld. Trial Court that on 22.06.2000, while being posted
as a Company Secretary with the Corporation, he/PW-4 made a
complaint (Ex. PW4/A, bearing PW-4’s signatures at point A)
with respect to submission of fake medical claims by co-accused,
Uttam Singh, who was an employee of the
Corporation/department at the relevant point in time.
Correspondingly, as per PW-4, Uttam Singh had submitted the
medical claims relating to treatment of his son and while verifying
C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 23 of 51
Digitally signed
by ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.07.14
16:30:18 +0530
some of the bills by the account department of the Corporation,
PW-4 deposed, it was observed that a common sales tax and drug
license number has been shown in such bills issued by two
different firms/shops namely M/s. Ashish Medicos, 644, Rani
Bagh. New Delhi-34 and M/s. Sheetal Medicos, ND Market
Pitampura, Delhi-34. Further, as per PW-4, from a perusal of the
said bills, same were found to be fake. Correspondingly, PW-4
avowed that the sales tax and drug license number, mentioned on
the said bills of both the firms, actually belonged to a third firm,
namely, M/s. Ashish Medicos, 1258, Rani Bagh, New Delhi. It
was further deposed by PW-4 that the aforesaid two firms were not
in existence and that he/PW-4 had mentioned the losses caused to
the department/Corporation under his complaint, against the bills
which had already been processed, and some were wanting
clearance. Further, PW-4 deposed that the bills submitted by
Uttam Singh for reimbursement had been verified by the
appellant, i.e., Dr. Anupam Sachdeva of RML Hospital Rajender
Nagar. PW-4 further deposed that on 08.08.2000 Mr. V.C. Ojha,
Manager, Accounts with the Corporation, submitted the original
documents relating to the treatment of Uttam Singh’s son to the
police vide seizure memo (Ex. PW3/A), bearing PW-4’s
signatures at point A. Needless to mention, PW-4 correctly
identified co-accused, Uttam Singh, before the Ld. Trial Court.
Relevantly, PW-4, upon being cross examined, declared as under;
“XXXXXX by Sh. *** Counsel for accused
Uttam Singh.
It is correct that I have not personally scrutinized
the bills. Vol. The bills had been scrutinized by the
accounts department. I am not aware whether accused
Uttam Singh had returned the amount of the bills to
the department. I cannot say whether department
sustained any loss or not in view of the return of the
amount by the accused. I have just forwarded the
C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 24 of 51
Digitally signed
by ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.07.14
16:30:21 +0530
complaint on the basis of the accounts department
report. It is correct that I have no personal knowledge
about the case.
XXXXXX by Sh. *** Counsel for accused
Anupam Sachdeva.
Nil. Opportunity given…”
(Emphasis supplied)
14. Here, it is further pertinent to refer to the testimony of
PW-3/Sh. V.C. Ojha, who deposed before the Ld. Trial Court that
he had joined the Corporation in the year, 1985 and retired in the
year 2004. As per PW-3, in the year 2000, he was working a
Manager, Accounts in the office of the Corporation and the co-
accused, Uttam Singh was an employee of the Corporation.
Further, as per PW-3, Uttam Singh had submitted medical bills of
his son for reimbursement and he/PW-3 had given the medical
bills, prescriptions, etc., to the police on their demand, which were
seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/A, bearing
PW-3’s signatures at point A. PW-3 further asserted that the
details of the documents were mentioned in the seizure memo.
PW-3 further proved the document of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital,
Rajender Nagar, bearing registration no. 422260 (hospital card)
dated 30.08.1999 as Ex. PW1/A; prescription and summary of the
case, dated 04.01.2000 as Ex. PW3/B; Cash bill no. 0143589 for a
sum Rs. 11,198/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand One Hundred and
Ninety Eight only), dated 18.01.2000, as Ex. PW3/C; Cash bill no.
0144587 for a sum of Rs. 11,160/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand One
Hundred and Sixty only), dated 17.02.2000 as Ex. PW3/D;
prescription and summary of the case dated 24.01.2000 as Ex.
PW3/E; prescription and summary of the case dated 22.02.2000 as
Ex. PW3/F; Cash memo no. 240/11/99 of M/s. Ashish Medicos,
642, Rani Bagh for a sum of Rs. 14,400/- (Rupees Fourteen
C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 25 of 51
Digitally signed
by ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
Date:
GOYAL 2025.07.14
16:30:25
+0530
Thousand and Four Hundred only); Cash memo of Rs. 13,000/-
(Rupees Thirteen Thousand only), dated 18.01.2000 as Ex
PW3/G; Cash memo of M/s. Ashish Medicos, dated 20.01.2000
for a sum of Rs. 11,000/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand only) as Ex.
PW3/H; Cash memo of Sheetal Medicos, dated 19.02.2000 of an
amount of Rs. 21,950/- (Rupees Twenty One Thousand Nine
Hundred and Fifty only) as Ex. PW3/I; Cash memo for a sum of
Rs. 407/- (Rupees Four Hundred and Seven only), dated
20.07.2000 of New Delhi Medicos as Ex. PW3/J; prescription,
11.02.2000 as Ex. PW3/K; prescription, dated 20.02.2000 as Ex.
PW3/L; and prescription of Dr. Anupam Sachdeva, dated
24.11.1999 as Ex. PW3/M. Markedly, upon being cross examined,
by/on behalf of the appellant/co-accused, PW-3 testified, as under;
“XXXXXX by ***, Ld. Counsel for the accused
Uttam Singh.
Accused Uttam Singh is employee of DSCS. I do
not remember whether permission for taking
treatment in Sir Ganga Hospital was obtained by
accused Uttam Singh from the department. It is
correct that as per the record the son of the accused
was suffering from blood cancer/lukemia. It is correct
that as an employee, accused was entitled for
treatment of his son. Vol. The same was as per rules. I
do not know if the son of accused was also treated at
AIIMS. I do not remember whether the amount of
reimbursement was taken by the accused or not.
XXXXXX by ***, Ld. Counsel for accused Dr.
Anupam Sachdeva.
Nil. Opportunity given…”
(Emphasis supplied)
15. Pertinently, the factum of above seizure of documents
was also proved by PW-8/Ms. Ritu Bajaj in her deposition before
the Ld. Trial Court, who also proved the seizure memo (Ex.
PW3/A), bearing her signatures at point C. At this stage, it is
further relevant to note that PW-1/Sh. Kundan Lal Chhabra
C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 26 of 51
Digitally signed
by ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.07.14
16:30:28 +0530
proclaimed before the Ld. Trial Court in his deposition that he was
operating/running a medical shop in the name of ‘ Sheetal The
Medicine Shop’ from ND Market, Pitampura, Delhi and that the
owner of the said shop was his/PW-1’s brother, namely, Anil Kr.
Chhabra. Further, as per PW-1, the license of the said shop was
issued in the name of Sh. Abhishek Dhawan, who was a
Pharmacist, working with the shop. PW-1 further proclaimed that
around 16-17 years prior to his deposition, in the month of
October, some police reached at his shop and showed him/PW-1
some bills, which was asserted to be issued from his/PW-1’s shop.
On inquiry, as per PW-1, he disclosed that the bills shown to him
by the Police officials were not issued from his/PW-1’s shop as the
name of shop mentioned in the bills was, ‘Sheetal Medicos’,
however, the real name of PW-1’s shop was, ‘Sheetal The
Medicine Shop’ and as per PW-1, the sale tax no. over the said bills
did not belong to his shop. As per PW-1, the license no. of his shop
at that time was 9(1182) 20, 21, 208, 21B and he had also given a
copy of the said license to the Police, photocopy of which is Ex.
PW1/A. Correspondingly, PW-1 proved the original bill of his
shop as Ex. PW1/B, bearing PW-1’s signature at point A.
Markedly, in his cross examination, PW-1 avowed, as under;
“XXXXXX by *** Counsel for accused, Anupam
Sachdeva.
It is correct that the license of the shop is not in my
name. It is also correct that police had not recorded
statement of license holder Abhishek Dhawan and my
brother (owner) in this case. I had not handed over any
document to the police regarding employment of
pharmacist Abhishek Dhawan at my shop. It is correct
that neither I nor my brother is a pharmacist. It is
incorrect to suggest that no pharmacist in the name of
Abhishek Dhawan worked at my shop. Vol. He works
at the shop since morning to evening. It is wrong to
suggest that Sheetal Medicos, Ashish Medicos were
made in a duplicate manner under the license of my
C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 27 of 51
Digitally
signed by
ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.07.14
16:30:34
+0530
shop. It is incorrect to suggest that we were running 3-
4 shops in the name of Sheetal and only one license
was issued to us in the name of Sheetal the Medicine.
It is incorrect to suggest that I have opened 3-4 shops
in the name of Sheetal and Ashish Medicos to evade
sales tax and income tax. It is correct that a case U/s
132/135 of the Customs Act was made against me.
Vol. I was acquitted 4-5 years back. (objected by Ld.
APP) It is correct that an appeal is pending which has
been filed by me in the Hon’ble High Court. It is
wrong to suggest that since I used to do wrong and
illegal work that is why we issued the duplicate bills to
the customer in this case as well.
XXXXXX by *** Counsel for accused Uttam
Singh.
Nil. Opportunity given…”
(Emphasis supplied)
16. Correspondingly, reference is made to the testimony
of PW-9/Sh. Vijay Kumar Kalra, who deposed that at the relevant
point in time, he had a Chemist shop in the name and style of,
‘Aashish Medicos’, at WZ-1258, Rani Bagh, Main Market,
Delhi-110 034. Further as per PW-9, one medical bill, Ex. PW-3/H
and Ex. PW 9/A were shown to him/PW-9 and the same did not
belong to his/PW-9’s shop, besides, as per PW-9, same were
neither prepared by him, nor in his/PW-9’s handwriting. However,
as per PW-9, the Sales Tax number mentioned at point ‘A’ on the
said medical bills, already Ex. PW-3/H and Ex. PW 9/A belonged
to his/PW-9’s shop, though, PW-9 reiterated that the said bills
were not of his shop. Here, it is further pertinent to refer/reproduce
the extract(s) of cross-examination of PW-9 by/at the behest of the
appellant and co-accused, as under;
“XXXXXX by ***, counsel for accused Anupam
Sachdeva.
I do not remember whether police official
recorded my statement in the present case. I had given
the specimen/original bill of my shop to the police to
show the comparison with the PW-3/H and Ex. PW
9/A but the same is not in the file. Police official did
not take my specimen handwriting and signature to
C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 28 of 51
Digitally
signed by
ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.07.14
16:30:40
+0530
compare the same with the Ex. PW-3/H and Ex. PW
9/A. It is wrong to suggest that we had made duplicate
copies of the bills on the same sales tax number and
the licence number. It is wrong to suggest that in order
to evade the sales tax and income tax we used to issue
the duplicate medical bills. It is wrong to suggest that
Ex. PW-3/H and Ex. PW 9/A had prepared by me
from my shop and I am concealing this fact
deliberately. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing
falsely.
XXXXXX by ***, counsel for accused Uttam
Singh.
Nil. Opportunity given…”
(Emphasis supplied)
17. Germane for the purpose(s) of the present discourse to
refer to the deposition of PW-5/Sh. Badri Singh, who proclaimed
before the Ld. Trial Court that he was working as Fourth Grade
employee at Faculty of Law, University of Delhi in the year 1995
and that he/PW-5 had a son whose name was, Vishal and he had
cancer, which was being treated in Ganga Ram Hospital. As per
PW-5, his son was treated by the appellant/Dr. Anupam Sachdeva
in Ganga Ram Hospital and that he/the appellant used to provide
medicines, including injections from his own. Further, as per
PW-5, the appellant used to ask him/PW-5 to keep faith and that he
would prove all the medicines to PW-5’s son. It was further
asserted by PW-5 that the appellant told him/PW-5 that he/PW-5
would get fake/spurious medicines, if he/PW-5 purchased from the
market and that the appellant would, instead provide the medicines
from his own. Further, as per PW-5, the appellant provided bills
for the medicines, which was issued by Sheetal Medical Chemist
and Drugs, ND Market, Pitampura, Delhi. However, as per PW-5,
his son died/left for heavenly abode on 26.05.1995. PW-5 further
deposed that the bills were also verified by the appellant and
he/PW-5 had given the medical documents as well as bills relating
C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 29 of 51
Digitally signed
by ABHISHEK
GOYAL
ABHISHEK
Date:
GOYAL 2025.07.14
16:30:43
+0530
to the treatment of PW-5’s son to the IO. PW-5 further proved,
three photocopies of bills in the name of Vishal as Mark A, Mark B
and Mark C. PW-5, however, expressed his inability to prove the
original bills, as the same were stated to be not available with
him/PW-5. Notably, under his cross examination, PW-5 affirmed
as under;
“XXXXXX by *** Counsel for accused Anupam
Sachdeva.
It is correct that the time I got my son admitted in
the hospital till his death he remained in the hospital. It
is correct that there is a dispensary in the hospital. It is
incorrect to suggest that the medicines prescribed by
Dr. Sachdeva were provided by the Hospital. It is
correct that I do not have any receipt issued by the
accused Dr. Anupam Sachdeva for providing the
medicines. Vol. The bills were given to me by accused
issued from Sheetal Medicos and Drugs. It is incorrect
to suggest that the bills were issued by Sheetal
Medicos to me personally. Vol. These bills were given
to me by accused Dr. Anupam Sachdeva. It is
incorrect to suggest that I purchased the medicines
from Sheetal Medicos who actually gave me these
bills because he was having duplicate bill books in
order to avoid sale tax and income tax. It is incorrect
to suggest that Dr. Anupam Sachdeva only verified
the bills in respect of the medicines given in the
hospital for my child and did not issued me any bills of
Sheetal Medicos. It is incorrect to suggest that I gave
the address of Sheetal Medicos who were dealing in
cancer medicines to Uttam Singh who also purchased
the same from that shop. I knew Uttam Singh after the
date of incident as he came to me and discussed his
case with me and then I told my case to him. It is
wrong to suggest that Uttam Singh had met me before
his son was admitted in the hospital and I had
suggested him that I have bought these medicines
from Sheetal Medicos from where he can also get the
medicines for his son. It is incorrect to suggest that I
am deposing falsely.
XXXXX by *** Counsel for accused Uttam
Singh.
Nil. Opportunity given…”
(Emphasis supplied)
C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 30 of 51
Digitally signed
by ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
Date:
GOYAL 2025.07.14
16:30:46
+0530
18. Here, it is further pertinent to note that PW-10/ Insp.
Sukhdev Meena deposed in his testimony that during the course of
investigation, he collected the treatment papers of Master Timmy
from Ganga Ram Hospital and seized the same vide seizure memo
Ex. PW10/A, bearing his signature at point A. PW-10 further
deposed that he recorded the statement of PW-5/Badri and the
treatment papers/bills were sent to FSL Rohini. PW-10 further
proclaimed that PW-5/Badri also handed over one complaint to
him/PW-10, which was Ex. PW10/B, bearing PW-10’s signature
at point A, besides PW-5 is asserted to have also handed over
photocopy of bills (Mark-A, Mark-B and Mark-C) to him/PW-10,
whereupon, he prepared and filed the chargesheet before the Ld.
Trial Court. Apposite to further refer to the deposition of PW-6/Sh.
Anil Kumar, who proclaimed before the Ld. Trial Court that he
knew the co-accused, Uttam Singh since his/PW-6’s childhood,
being his schoolmate and his house being adjacent to PW-6’s
house. In the year 1999, as per PW-6, he came to know that Uttam
Singh’s child namely Timmy was suffering from blood cancer and
he had donated blood to Timmy in Ganga Ram Hospital in the year
1999. Further, as per PW-6, the appellant/Dr. Anupam Sachdeva
was medically treating his/Uttam Singh’s son Timmy and on
29.01.2000, he/PW-6 had also visited the private clinic of the
appellant/Dr. Anupam Sachdeva, which was in the name of
‘Aastha’, situated at Madhuban Chowk, Pitampura with the co-
accused Uttam Singh where he/Uttam Singh had given payment of
Rs. 24,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four Thousand only) to the
appellant/Dr. Anupam Sachdeva and he/the appellant issued, two
bills/receipts against the money to the co-accused. PW-6 further
proclaimed that one of the bill was in the name of ‘Sheetal
C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 31 of 51
Digitally signed
by ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
Date:
GOYAL 2025.07.14
16:30:50
+0530
Medicos’ and he/PW-6 had given one affidavit to the police in
respect of the aforesaid facts. As per PW-6, the said affidavit was
not on judicial record, however, on the police file, photocopy of
which was placed on record as Ex. PW6/A, bearing PW-6’s
signatures at points A and B. Needless to mention, PW-6 correctly
identified both, the appellant and co-accused Uttam Singh before
the Ld. Trial Court. Pertinently, upon being cross examined, PW-6
asserted as under;
“XXXXXX by ***, Id counsel for accused
Anupam Sachdeva.
Police had recorded my statement in police station
Paharganj. I had given the abovesaid affidavit in June,
2000. I do not know whether the police had seized the
said affidavit through proper seizure memo or not. I
did not sign any document except affidavit when I
gave this affidavit to the police nor I had taken any
receipt of the same. I had not placed any document or
covering letter with this affidavit as to why I am
giving this affidavit and in what connection and in
which FIR. It is incorrect to suggest that being your
schoolmate and neighbor, you have given false
affidavit on the asking of accused Uttam Singh. I do
not remember today what were the shops and offices
and other doctors clinic nearby the clinic of the
accused. (Vol. There was one TVS showroom near the
clinic). There was one receptionist in the clinic of
accused and after that there was a cabin of doctor
accused. There was no any other patient at that time. I
personally did not take any appointment from the
doctor. Accused Uttam Singh might have taken the
appointment from the doctor, I went only with him. It
is incorrect to suggest that Dr. Anupam Sachdeva has
not taken any payment of Rs. 24,000/- nor has given
any receipt as alleged by me. It is incorrect to suggest
that the doctor’s receptionist used to fix the
appointment and take the fees from the patients.
Before 29.01.2000 and thereafter, I never went in the
clinic of doctor. It is incorrect to suggest that I am
deposing falsely at the instance of accused Uttam
Singh.
XXXXXX by ***, Ld. counsel for accused Uttam
Singh.
Nil. Opportunity given…”
(Emphasis supplied)
C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 32 of 51
Digitally signed
by ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
Date:
GOYAL 2025.07.14
16:30:54
+0530
19. Strikingly, PW-7/Om Prakash deposed before the Ld.
Trial Court that he knew co-accused, Uttam Singh since his
childhood and that his/Uttam Singh’s house was adjacent to that of
PW-7’s. Further, as per PW-7, in the year 1999, he came to know
that Uttam Singh’s child, namely, Timmy was suffering with
blood cancer and on 08.08.1999, he/PW-9 had donated blood to
Timmy in Kalawati Saran Hospital. Further, as per PW-7, the
appellant/Dr. Anupam Sachdeva was medically treating Uttam
Singh’s son, Timmy. It was further deposed by PW-7 that on
22.02.2000, he had visited the private clinic of the appellant/Dr.
Anupam Sachdeva, which was in the name of ‘Aastha’, situated at
Madhubank Chowk, Pitampura with co-accused Uttam Singh
where co-accused Uttam Singh had given payment of Rs. 21,950/-
(Rupees Twenty One Thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty only) to
the appellant and the appellant promised to issue bills, later on
against the money. PW-7 further proclaimed that he had given one
affidavit to the police in respect of the aforesaid facts, which was
not on the judicial record, however, on the police file, photocopy
of which is Ex. PW6/B. PW-7 further correctly identified the
appellant as well as the co-accused before the Ld. Trial Court.
Relevantly, under his cross-examination, PW-7 asserted, as under;
“XXXXXX by ***, Ld. Counsel for accused
Anupam Sachdeva.
Police had recorded my statement in police station
Paharganj. I had given the abovesaid affidavit in June,
2000. I do not know whether the police had seized the
said affidavit through proper seizure memo or not. I
did not sign any document except affidavit when I
gave this affidavit to the police nor I had taken any
receipt of the same. I had not placed any document or
covering letter with this affidavit as to why I am
giving this affidavit and in what connection and in
which FIR. It is incorrect to suggest that being your
schoolmate and neighbour, you have given false
C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 33 of 51
Digitally signed
by ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.07.14
16:30:58 +0530
affidavit on the asking of accused Uttam Singh. I do
not remember today what were the shops and offices
and other doctors clinic nearby the clinic of the
accused. (Vol. There was one TVS showroom near the
clinic). There was one receptionist in the clinic of
accused and after that there was a cabin of doctor
accused. There was no any other patient at that time. I
personally did not take any appointment from the
doctor. Accused Uttam Singh might have taken the
appointment from the doctor, I went only with him. It
is incorrect to suggest that Dr. Anupam Sachdeva has
not taken any payment of Rs. 21,950/- nor has given
any receipt as alleged by me. It is incorrect to suggest
that the doctor’s receptionist used to fix the
appointment and take the fees from the patients.
Before 22.02.2000 and thereafter, I never went in the
clinic of doctor. It is incorrect to suggest that I am
deposing falsely at the instance of accused Uttam
Singh.
XXXXXX by ***, Id counsel for accused Uttam
Singh.
Nil. Opportunity given…”
(Emphasis supplied)
20. Remarkably, here, it is also pertinent to refer to the
deposition of PW-11/Insp. Pankaj Pandey, who asserted that on
23.06.2000, he was posted as Sub-Inspector at PS. Paharganj and
that on the said day, one complaint (Ex. PW4/A) was received
from the Corporation, which was marked to him/PW-11 for
necessary action and report. Further, as per PW-11, after
endorsement regarding the assignment of the complaint,
he/PW-11 went through the same and made an endorsement ( Ex.
PW 11/A), bearing PW-11’s signatures at point A and handed over
rukka to the Duty Officer. After registration of FIR, as per PW-11,
the DO handed over the original rukka with a copy of FIR to him
and he/PW-11 met with the complainant as well as made enquiry
from him and recorded his statement. As the photocopies of certain
alleged forged bills attached with the complaint, PW-11 asserted
that he collected the documents and bills submitted by the accused
C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 34 of 51
Digitally
signed by
ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.07.14
16:31:01
+0530
Uttam Singh for reimbursement with the department vide seizure
memo (Ex. PW 3/A), bearing PW-11’s signatures at point A,
details of which were affirmed by PW-11 to be mentioned therein.
Further, as per PW-11, he recorded the statement of witnesses and
formally arrested the co-accused, Uttam Singh, besides his/Uttam
Singh’s personal search was conducted vide memo, Ex. PW 11/ C.
PW-11 further correctly identified the appellant and co-accused
before the Ld. Trial Court. It was further proclaimed by PW-11
that co-accused made his disclosure statement ( Ex. PW11/D),
wherein he disclosed that the appellant/Dr. Anupam Sachdeva and
he/co-accused used to meet at Astha Clinic, Pitampura where
he/the appellant used to administer injection of Ethyanol. As per
PW-11, the said injection was expensive and he/the appellant also
told him/Uttam Singh that he/the appellant would give him bill for
the same, against which he/the appellant could get reimbursement
from his office. Further, as per PW-11, during the investigation,
he/PW-11 tried to verify the shops bills of which had been
deposited by co-accused Uttam Singh and he visited the address
mentioned on the receipts, Ex. PW3/I and PW-3/G of Sheetal
Medicos, however, no shop in the name of Sheetal Medicos, at the
given address was found, however, there was a shop in the name of
‘Sheetal The Medicine Shop’. As per PW-11, he made enquiry
about the receipt, Ex. PW 3/I and Ex. PW 3/G from the owner of
‘Sheetal The Medicine Shop’, namely Sh. Kulbhushan, who after
going through the receipts, disclosed that the same were not of his
shop. PW-11 further asserted that on his request, Sh. Kulbhushan
gave a sample receipt of his shop (Ex. PW1/B) and he/PW-11,
recorded Sh. Kulbhushan’s statement. Thereafter, as per PW-11,
he went to verify the receipt Ex. PW 9/A and Ex. PW 3/H, underC.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 35 of 51
Digitally signed
by ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.07.14
16:31:06 +0530
the name and style of ‘Ashish Medicos’, Rani Bagh, however, as
per PW-11, no shop of the said particulars were found at the
address specified therein. Correspondingly, PW-11 asserted that
he searched the appellant for the purpose of his interrogation at his
residential address and at the Hospital also, however, the
appellant/he could not be found. Thereafter, as per PW-11, the file
was marked to Inspector Sehdev Meena as per the directions of the
then SHO.
21. Markedly, under his cross examination, PW-11
testified as under;
“XXXXXX by ***, Ld. counsel for accused
Uttam Singh.
As per documents, the child of Uttam Singh
namely Timmy was under treatment by Dr Anupam
Sachdeva. I am not medically that much sound to dealt
whether the said child was being treated for blood
cancer/leukemia. I cannot say whether the prescribed
medicine was for the treatment of blood
cancer/leukemia. As per documents the said child was
being treated for the said illness at the clinic of Dr
Anupam Sachdeva as well as Ganga Ram Hospital, I
cannot say whether the impugned medicine bears
batch number or not as the same was not mentioned on
the receipt seized by me. Vol. Most of the time writing
of doctors and chemist are not legible.
At this stage, the said bill which is placed on the
judicial file shown to the witness, the said bill bears
the batch number. Proper investigation could have
been done through the batch number also. Again said
the said document are forged so it cannot be
ascertained as the writer of the receipt was not known
and the chemist shops in question are also not
available in view of the same it would be difficult for
the company to divulge to whom the said medicine
was given. I do not remember whether the said illness
of son of Uttam Singh was cured by the use of said
medicine as the same was not disclosed by the
accused at any point of time till the time the
investigation was with me. I do not remember whether
I had verified regarding the price of the medicine
mentioned in the impugned bill as the same is
available in the market. It is correct that being public
servant the accused Uttam Singh was entitled for the
C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 36 of 51
Digitally signed
by ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.07.14
16:31:10 +0530
reimbursement of the bill of medicine that is why
Uttam Singh had filed said bills for reimbursement as
per rules. It came to my knowledge that one Badri
Singh also got treatment of his son Vishal in the same
manner from the same doctor but he did not meet me
or interrogated by me. I do not remember whether I
had examined Anil Kumar and Om Parkash. I do not
remember whether I had placed original affidavit of
statement of said witnesses. It is correct that accused
told that he had paid the cost of the medicine to the
doctor in presence of witnesses. I do not remember the
name of those witnesses in whose presence the cost of
medicine paid. It is correct that accused had told that
his son was also got medical treatment in AIIMS for
the said illness, I had not seen the medical papers
regarding the same. It is wrong to suggest that I am
deposing falsely.
XXXXXX by ***, Id counsel for accused
Anupam Sachdeva.
I did not investigate regarding the bills and the
ownership of the medical stores mentioned on the bills
from the sales tax department in respect of the sale tax
number as to whom the sale tax number were issued.
Vol. Since both the shops were not existing the bills
were apparently forged and fabricated. It is incorrect
to suggest that I did not verify from the hospital
whether the medicine mentioned in the hospital record
bills were given or not as the said doctor was never
interrogated by me.
Q. Is it correct that the medicine mentioned in the
said bills were given in the Hospital which is reflected
in the medicine hospital record attached in the file?
Ans. I far as I remember the most expensive
injections in the bills that is Ethynol was not
mentioned in the hospital records but the same was in
the medical records held with accused Uttam Singh.
Q. Have you ever got the medicine on the bills
verified from the hospital record from the doctor of
the hospital or not?
Ans. Same as the above.
Q Can you show the seizure memo of the
documents Ex PW 6/A and PW 6/B?
Ans I cannot say whether there is any seizure
memo is in the record or not in respect of the Ex. PW
6/A and PW 6/B as I was only initial IO and the case
was transferred to SI Sukh Dev Meena and case is 20
years old.
I do not remember whether I recorded the
C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 37 of 51
Digitally signed
by ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
Date:
GOYAL 2025.07.14
16:31:14
+0530
statement of these two persons Anil Kumar and Om
Parkas. It is incorrect to suggest that PW 6/A and PW
6/B were inserted by me without recording the
statement and without mentioning about the seizure
memo of these two documents in order to falsely
implicate accused Anupam Sachdeva. It is incorrect to
suggest that I intentionally inserted those documents
in order to falsely implicate to Anupam Sachdeva as
he had made complaint against me to the higher
authorities. It is incorrect to suggest that the senior
doctor specialist does not give medicine or its bills
only prescribed the medicine in the hospital or in the
private clinic. As far as I am aware many seniors
doctors do administers medicine and injections at
hospital and at Private clinic | even done for the same
It is incorrect to suggest that I have falsely implicate
the accused It is incorrect to suggest that I am
deposing falsely…”
(Emphasis supplied)
22. Conspicuously, in light of the foregoing, this Court
would now proceed with the evaluation of the material placed on
record, in light of the arguments addressed by/on behalf of the
appellant and the State. However, before proceeding further, this
Court deems it pertinent to reiterate that under the impugned
judgment, Ld. Trial Court acquitted the co-accused, Uttam Singh
inter alia reaching a finding that the evidence placed on record was
insufficient to bring home the charges levelled against the said co-
accused/Uttam Singh and that, as per the Ld. Trial Court, from the
material placed on record, even the offence of conspiracy could
not be established against the appellant and co-accused in the
instant case. However, in this regard, this Court deems it pertinent
to further outrightly note that quite ominously, the Ld. Trial Court
reached the finding of guilt of the appellant for the offences under
Section 420/471 IPC, despite the fact that the appellant was not
even charged with the offence under Section 471 IPC, besides it
was not even the case of the prosecution that the bills in question
were used/deployed by the appellant to claim reimbursement from
C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 38 of 51
Digitally signed
by ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
Date:
GOYAL 2025.07.14
16:31:18
+0530
the Corporation. In fact, quite glaringly, though, the Ld. Trial
Court reached the finding that the offence under Section 471 IPC
was made out in the instant case as forged medical bills were
presented for reimbursement with the Corporation/department,
however, as aforenoted, co-accused Uttam Singh was acquitted all
the charges levelled against him, whilst, appellant was convicted
of the said offence, despite him being not even charged with the
offence under Section 471 IPC, and as aforenoted, same not being
the case of the prosecution or any of the prosecution witnesses that
the said bills were, in fact, used by the appellant for seeking
reimbursement from the Corporation by the appellant. Here, it is
pertinent to refer to the relevant extracts (at pages 14, 15 and 19) of
the impugned judgment, in respect of the foregoing, as under;
“…That the above receipts/medical bills were
presented for reimbursement by accused Uttam Singh
who was employee of DSCSC regarding treatment of
his son stands proved from the testimony of PW-3, Sh
V C Ojha (Retired Manager Accounts DSCSC) and
from the testimony of PW-4 Sh R P Sehgal. Sh R P
Sehgal was entrusted with the verification of bills and
his testimony has already been evaluated in the above
paragraphs. PW-3 Sh V C Ojha has categorically
stated that in the year 2000 while he was working as
Manager Accounts in the office of DSCSC, accused
Uttam Singh who was employee of DSCSC submitted
medical bills, prescriptions of his son for
reimbursement and he gave these to the police which
were seized vide seizure memo Ex PW-3/A bearing
his signatures at point A, M/s Ashish Medicos, 642
Rani Bagh of Rs.14400/- cash memo of Rs.13000/-
dated 18.01.2000 Ex PW-3/G, cash memo of M/s
Ashish Medicos dated 20.01.2000 of Rs.11,000/- Ex
PW-3/H, cash memo of Sheetal Medicos dated
19.02.2000 of Rs.21,950/- Ex PW-3/I, cash memo of
Rs.407/- dated 20.07.2000 of New Delhi Medicos Ex
PW-3/J, prescription dated 11.02.2000 Ex PW-3/K
and prescription dated 20.02.2000 Ex. PW-3/L,
prescription of Dr Anupam Sachdeva dated
24.11.1999 be exhibited as Ex PW-3/M. Hence, it
stand proved that the above forged receipts were
presented for reimbursement with the department i.e
use of forged documents as genuine (471 IPC) stands
C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 39 of 51
Digitally signed
by ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
Date:
GOYAL 2025.07.14
16:31:22
+0530
proved.
*** *** ***
The present chargesheet has been filed on the
allegations that accused conspired with each other for
the purpose of preparing forged bills or using forged
bills as genuine for seeking reimbursement and in fact
managed to seek reimbursement to the tune of Rs.
14,400/- and therefore caused wrongful loss, but none
of the PWs have supported the theory of conspiracy
and rather majority of them have pointed accusing
figure at accused no. 2 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva.
Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion there is no
evidence of conspiracy and rather the evidence
suggest that accused Uttam Singh was a victim facing
trial as an accused for about 20 years.
In view of the above discussion accused Uttam
Singh stands acquitted of all the charges brought
against him by the prosecution.
Accused Dr. Anupam Sachdeva stands convicted
u/s. 471 IPC for using forged documents as genuine
and also for offence of cheating punishable u/s. 420
IPC for causing wrongful loss by using of there
documents…”
(Emphasis supplied)
23. Ergo, in light of the foregoing and being cognizant of
such irreconcilable finding(s) of the Ld. Trial Court under the
impugned order, this Court deems it pertinent to note that since the
present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the
finding of his guilt under the impugned order, and no appeal by
State or the complainant against the impugned order has been
brought to the notice of this Court, this Court would confine its
determination only to the aspect, ‘ whether from the material
placed on record, offence under Section 420/471 IPC could be
held to be proved beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant
herein, in the instant case?’ Conspicuously, in this regard, this
Court, incipiently reiterates that the complainant/PW-4/Sh. RP
Sehgal inter alia deposed before the Ld. Trial Court that co-
accused, Uttam Singh, who was an employee of the
Corporation/department at the relevant point in time submitted the
C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 40 of 51
Digitally signed
by ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.07.14
16:31:26 +0530
medical claims relating to treatment of his son. Further, as per
PW-4, while verifying some of the bills by the account department
of the Corporation, it was observed that a common sales tax and
drug license number has been shown in such bills issued by two
different firms/shops namely M/s. Ashish Medicos, 644, Rani
Bagh. New Delhi-34 and M/s. Sheetal Medicos, ND Market
Pitampura, Delhi-34, which prima facie indicated forgery.
Correspondingly, PW-4 avowed that the sales tax and drug license
number, mentioned on the said bills of both the firms, actually
belonged to a third firm, namely, M/s. Ashish Medicos, 1258, Rani
Bagh, New Delhi, besides the aforesaid two firms were not even in
existence. Further, PW-4 deposed that the bills submitted by
Uttam Singh for reimbursement had been verified by the
appellant, i.e., Dr. Anupam Sachdeva of RML Hospital Rajender
Nagar. Correspondingly, as aforenoted, both, PW-3/Sh. VC Ojha
and PW-8/Ms. Ritu Bajaj proved the seizure memo of the
documents from the Corporation, including the alleged
fake/forged bills. Relevantly, when the testimonies of PW-4,
PW-3 and PW-8 are read in conjunction with the depositions of
PW-1/Sh. Kundan Lal Chhabra, PW-9/Sh. Vijay Kumar Kalra and
PW-10/ Insp. Sukhdev Meena, this Court is in concurrence with
the finding of the Ld. Trial Court that the factum of bills, Ex.
PW3/H, Ex. PW 9/A, Ex. PW3/G and Ex. PW3/I being forged in
nature stands proved in the instant case. Needless in this regard to
reiterate that PW-11 specifically asserted before the Ld. Trial
Court that upon him visiting the addresses of the medicos/chemist
shops, specified under the said bills/bills in question, the shops ,
i.e., M/s. Sheetal Medicos (as specified under Ex. PW3/G and Ex.
PW3/I) and M/s. Ashish Medicos (as specified under Ex. PW3/H,C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 41 of 51
Digitally signed
by ABHISHEK
GOYAL
ABHISHEK
Date:
GOYAL 2025.07.14
16:31:30
+0530
Ex. PW 9/A) were found, not to be in existence. On the contrary, as
noted herein, upon reaching at the address specified under Ex.
PW3/G and Ex. PW3/I, as per PW-11, another shop in the name of
‘Sheetal The Medicine Shop’ was found operational at the said
address. Correspondingly, it is in evidence before the Ld. Trial
Court that PW-1/Sh. Kundan Lal Chhabra deposed that he was
operating/running a medical shop in the name of ‘ Sheetal The
Medicine Shop’ from ND Market, Pitampura, Delhi and that the
owner of the said shop was his/PW-1’s brother, namely, Anil Kr.
Chhabra. Further, as aforenoted, PW-1 further proclaimed that the
license of the said shop was issued in the name of Sh. Abhishek
Dhawan, who was a Pharmacist, working with the shop. PW-1
further proclaimed that around 16-17 years prior to his deposition,
in the month of October, some police reached at his shop and
showed him/PW-1 some bills, which was asserted to be issued
from his/PW-1’s shop. On inquiry, as per PW-1, he disclosed that
the bills shown to him by the Police officials were not issued from
his/PW-1’s shop as the name of shop mentioned in the bills was,
‘Sheetal Medicos’, however, the real name of PW-1’s shop was,
‘Sheetal The Medicine Shop’ and as per PW-1, the sale tax no.
over the said bills did not belong to his shop. As per PW-1, the
license no. of his shop at that time was 9(1182) 20, 21, 208, 21B.
Correspondingly, PW-9/Sh. Vijay Kumar Kalra, deposed before
the Ld. Trial Court that he was operating a chemist shop in the
name and style of, ‘Aashish Medicos’, at WZ-1258, Rani Bagh,
Main Market, Delhi-110 034 and the medical bills, Ex. PW-3/H
and Ex. PW 9/A did not belong to his/PW-9’s shop. In fact, as per
PW-9, the said medical bills were neither prepared by him, nor in
his/PW-9’s handwriting, though, as per PW-9, the Sales TaxC.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 42 of 51
Digitally signed
by ABHISHEK
GOYAL
ABHISHEK
Date:
GOYAL 2025.07.14
16:31:33
+0530
number mentioned at point ‘A’ on the said medical bills, belonged
to his/PW-9’s shop.
24. Ergo, in light of the foregoing, the only conclusion
which even this Court can unambiguously reach in this case is that
the bills in question, Ex. PW3/H, Ex. PW 9/A, Ex. PW3/G and Ex.
PW3/I, were forged in nature. However, this Court is further in
concurrence with the finding with the Ld. Trial Court that there is
no evidence on record to prove that the said bills/bills in question
were either forged by the appellant or by the co-accused, Uttam
Singh in the instant case. In fact, even a scrupulous analysis of the
FSL Report dated 30.12.2003 (Ex. PW-12/A, proved by PW-12),
gives no indication whether the said documents/bills in question
were prepared/forged by the appellant or by the co-accused, in the
instant case. In fact, even the said report give no indication
whether the contents thereof were written in the handwriting of the
appellant or the co-accused, namely, Uttam Singh, rather, besides
even the verification by the appellant, overleaf the said invoices
are not determined under the said FSL report to be that in the
handwriting of the appellant. As a corollary, this Court
agrees/coincides with the finding of the Ld. Trial Court that there
is no evidence on record to prove the charges under Section 468
IPC against the appellant herein.
25. However, at this stage, this Court deems it pertinent to
note that the Ld. Trial Court reached at the finding of guilt of the
appellant for the offences under Section 420/471 IPC, primarily
relying on the evidence of PW-5/Sh. Badri Singh, PW-6/Sh. Anil
Kumar and PW-7/Om Prakash. However, upon a conscientious
perusal of the material placed on record, this Court finds itself
difficult to concede with the observation/finding reached by the
C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 43 of 51
Digitally signed
by ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
Date:
GOYAL 2025.07.14
16:31:37
+0530
Ld. Trial Court under the impugned judgment. In this regard, this
Court reiterates that PW-6/Sh. Anil Kumar inter alia asserted that
on 29.01.2000, he/PW-6 visited the private clinic of the
appellant/Dr. Anupam Sachdeva, which was in the name of
‘Aastha’, situated at Madhuban Chowk, Pitampura with the co-
accused Uttam Singh where he/Uttam Singh had given payment of
Rs. 24,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four Thousand only) to the
appellant/Dr. Anupam Sachdeva and he/the appellant issued, two
bills/receipts against the money to the co-accused. PW-6 further
proclaimed that one of the bill was in the name of ‘Sheetal
Medicos’. However, despite such proclamation, it is observed by
this Court that it has not come on record, whether the said ‘so
called’ bill, asserted to be handed over by the appellant to the co-
accused was the same as the bills in question, i.e., Ex. PW3/G and
Ex. PW3/I. Correspondingly, PW-7/Om Prakash inter alia
proclaimed that on 22.02.2000, he had visited the private clinic of
the appellant/Dr. Anupam Sachdeva, which was in the name of
‘Aastha’, situated at Madhubank Chowk, Pitampura with co-
accused Uttam Singh where co-accused Uttam Singh had given
payment of Rs. 21,950/- (Rupees Twenty One Thousand Nine
Hundred and Fifty only) to the appellant and the appellant
promised to issue bills, later on against the money. However,
again, the prosecution, in the considered opinion of this Court, has
failed to prove whether or not any such bills were, eventually
handed over by the appellant to the co-accused and/or to even
demonstrate that the bills, which if eventually handed over/given
by the appellant to the co-accused were, in fact, the forged bills.
Ergo, both the said witnesses, in the considered opinion of this
Court, have miserably failed to attribute the forged bills/bills in
C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 44 of 51
Digitally
signed by
ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.07.14
16:31:40
+0530
question to have been issued by the appellant to the co-accused
Uttam Singh in the instant case.
26. Correspondingly, Ld. Trial Court/prosecution has
also relied on the testimony of PW-5/Sh. Badri Singh, who inter
alia proclaimed before the Ld. Trial Court that his son was treated
by the appellant/Dr. Anupam Sachdeva in Ganga Ram Hospital
and that he/the appellant used to provide medicines, including
injections from his own. Further, as per PW-5, the appellant
provided bills for the medicines, which was issued by Sheetal
Medical Chemist and Drugs, ND Market, Pitampura, Delhi and
proved, three photocopies of bills in the name of Vishal as Mark A,
Mark B and Mark C. However, in the considered opinion of this
Court, no finding of guilt of the appellant could have been reached
in the instant case even on the testimony of PW-5 for the reason
that the deposition of PW-5 relates to some past
transaction/documents, i.e., Mark A, Mark B and Mark C, which
were neither proved nor shown to be forged in the instant case. In
fact, even the original bills produced by PW-5 were admittedly
stated by PW-5 to be not available with him. The same is
notwithstanding the fact that the said documents, even presuming
for the sake of the argument to be forged, would give no indication
that the appellant had used forged bills/bills in question in the
instant case, especially when it is the case of the prosecution that
the co-accused used forged bills to seek reimbursement from the
Corporation and as aforenoted, the said co-accused has already
been acquitted by the Ld. Trial Court under the impugned
judgment. Needless to further mention even from a scrupulous
analysis of PW-5’s testimony, it is observed that the said witness
has given no indication of any personal knowledge of the
C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 45 of 51
Digitally signed
by ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.07.14
16:31:44 +0530
transaction in question, rather, deposed of an incident unrelated to
the one before the Ld. Trial Court.
27. Astonishingly and in fact, one of the most disquieting
aspects of the impugned judgment is the Ld. Trial Court heavily
placed reliance on assertion of the co-accused, Uttam Singh and
largely based its finding on a presumption that no person, whose
son was suffering from leukaemia would procure fake bills or
medicines, especially when the same were reimbursable by his
department. In particular, Ld. Trial Court inter alia noted under the
impugned order as under;
“…There is no dispute that son of accused no.1
Uttam Singh was under the treatment of accused no.2
Dr Anupam Sachdeva and during the course of
arguments counsel for accused no.1 has agreed with
Dr Sachdeva that due to the treatment of Dr Anupam
Sachdeva only the disease of blood cancer was cured
and now his son is hail and hearty in his youth. If such
is the case then accused Uttam Singh ought to have
been eternally grateful to Dr Anupam Sachdeva. It is
quite unnatural for him to instead implicate Dr
Anupam Sachdeva. Further, accused No.1 Uttam
Singh appears not to gain anything by procuring fake
bills. No person whose son is suffering from lekumia
will try to procure fake bills or medicines against fake
bills., particularly when such medicines have been
actually administered and price of the same shall be
reimbursed by his department. As already stated he
shall be the last person to level false allegations
against the doctor. If fake bills were given to him by
the medicine shop then he would not hesitate to take
the IO to such shop. Hence, this court is of the opinion
that accused no. 1 Uttam Singh has no motive to
falsely implicate accused no. 2 Dr Anupam
Sachdeva…”
(Emphasis supplied)
28. Clearly, it is seen from above, that while reaching the
aforesaid conclusion, the Ld. Trial Court, in the considered
opinion of this Court, appears to have been swayed by factors,
unwarranted and impermissible under law, in particular, by raising
presumptions, which are not only unjustified and prejudicial to the
C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 46 of 51
Digitally signed
by ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.07.14
16:31:49 +0530
interest of the appellant, rather, do not coincide with the provisions
under law. In fact, the Ld. Trial Court even erred in appreciating
that the co-accused and the appellant were, jointly, in a trial before
the Ld. Trial Court and neither was the co-accused, Uttam Singh
an approver before the Ld. Trial Court, nor had he tendered any
deposition before any court/judicial forum, which could have been
tested on the anvils of cross examination by the appellant before
the Ld. Trial Court. Correspondingly, while reaching the
aforenoted conclusion, Ld. Trial Court further failed to even
consider the settled law that a statement made by an accused
person is admissible against others5, “who are being jointly tried
with him only if the statement amounts to a confession. Where the
statement falls short of a confession, it is admissible only against
its maker as an admission and not against those who are being
jointly tried with him”, which is not the case here. Needless to
further mention that even where a co-accused has tendered a
confessional statement, law is trite6 that conviction of an accused,
solely on the basis of confession of the co-accused is not
permissible. Ergo, in the considered opinion of this Court, Ld.
Trial Court erred even on law, to read the extracts of co-accused
Uttam Singh’s disclosure statement against the appellant to justify
the finding of appellant’s guilt under the impugned judgment.
29. Correspondingly, it is observed from a conscientious
perusal of the impugned judgment, Ld. Trial Court further erred in
appreciating that the charges levelled against the appellant and co-
accused pertained to the offences of cheating and use of forged
documents, while acting in conspiracy with each other, in so far as
5
Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.C. Shukla & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 1406.
6
Surinder Kumar Khanna v. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, AIR 2018 SC 3574: 2018 Cri.
LJ 4346.
C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 47 of 51
Digitally signed
by ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.07.14
16:31:53 +0530
it related to the transaction with the Corporation, in distinction to
the offence of cheating, if at all and any, of the co-accused by the
appellant. Needless to accentuate the co-accused was neither a
victim nor a complainant before the Ld. Trial Court, making the
finding of appellant’s guilt for the offences under Sections
420/471 IPC, as under the impugned order, untenable under law.
In fact, in the considered opinion of this Court, from a painstaking
scrutiny of the material placed on record, the element of fraudulent
or dishonest inducement of the Corporation or any of its employee,
officials, etc., so as to deceive the said Corporation, its employee,
officials, etc., is not made out against the appellant in the instant
case. In fact, even PW-4/Sh. RP Sehgal, PW-3/Sh. VC Ojha or
PW-8/Ms. Ritu Bajaj have failed to prove and/or produce any
document to demonstrate that the appellant induced the said
officials/Corporation and pursuant thereto, there was any
conveyance and or permissive retention of property or the officials
of the Corporation did any act or omitted to do something, which
caused or likely or cause any damage or harm to the Corporation in
body, mind, reputation or property. Needless to mention, when the
co-accused was acquitted of all the charges levelled against him
and none of the said witnesses, PW-4/Sh. RP Sehgal, PW-3/Sh.
VC Ojha or PW-8/Ms. Ritu Bajaj deposed anything against the
appellant, finding of guilt of the appellant for the offence under
Section 420 IPC in the instant case, cannot be reached beyond
reasonable doubt in the instant case. Needless to reiterate that none
of the said witnesses have deposed of any conveyance in favour of
the appellant. In fact, PW-4/Sh. RP Sehgal, PW-3/Sh. VC Ojha or
PW-8/Ms. Ritu Bajaj have not even brought on record, any
document to corroborate any transfer of amount, even in favour of
C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 48 of 51
Digitally
signed by
ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.07.14
16:31:56
+0530
the co-accused Uttam Singh. In fact, even PW-4/Sh. RP Sehgal, in
his cross-examination asserted that he was not aware whether loss
had been sustained by the department by the acts of Uttam Singh
and that he had merely forwarded the complaint on the basis of the
report of the Corporation’s accounts department. Concomitantly,
as aforenoted, Ld. Trial Court erred in convicting the appellant for
the offence under Section 417 IPC, despite there being no
charge(s) against the said Section framed against the appellant
herein and despite the fact that there being no evidence on record
to show that the appellant used forged documents with the
Corporation. Needless to mention that even the testimonies of
PW-5/Sh. Badri Singh, PW-6/Sh. Anil Kumar and PW-7/Om
Prakash, in the considered opinion of this Court are insufficient to
bring home guilt, beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant in
the instant case. Needless to reiterate that in the considered opinion
of this Court, the finding of appellant’s guilt appears to have been
premised on the finding of the Ld. Trial Court that the co-accused
was a ‘victim’ in the present case, contrary to the case of the
prosecution as well as against the cannons criminal jurisprudence.
As aforenoted, the Ld. Trial Court further erred in drawing the
aforenoted presumption against the appellant, impermissible under
law. However, here this Court deems it pertinent to further note
that it concurs with the observation of the Ld. Trial Court that in
the absence of proof of medical records/treatment papers of Master
Timmy by cogent evidence, it cannot be determined that Master
Timmy was never prescribed ‘Ethyol’ and that the same was
wrongly added by the appellant in the discharge summary of
Master Timmy.
30. Consequently, when all the aforesaid factors are
C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 49 of 51
Digitally signed
by ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
Date:
GOYAL 2025.07.14
16:32:00
+0530
considered in conjunction, this Court reiterates, records and
unwaveringly reaches the conclusion that the prosecution has
failed to prove its case, ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ against the
appellant herein. Needless to mention, it is trite law 7 that the
prosecution has to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt and
the accused should be considered innocent, till it is established
otherwise. It is equally a settled law8 that in case where two views
are possible, the one in favour of the accused and the other
adversely against it, the view favoring the accused must be
accepted.
31. Conclusively, in light of the foregoing discussion, the
present appeal deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. As a
corollary, judgment dated 25.11.2021 passed by Ld. ACMM-01,
Central, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in case bearing; ‘ State v.
Anupam Sachdeva, Cr. Case No. 29106/2016’, arising out of FIR
No. 335/2000, PS. Paharganj, under Sections 420/468/471 IPC,
convicting the appellant of the offences under Sections 420 and
471 IPC and the consequent order of sentence dated 06.12.2021,
awarding sentence to the appellant in the manner, specified therein
are hereby set aside. The appellant is hereby admitted to bail on
him, furnishing of a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/-
(Rupees Thirty Thousand only) along with one surety of the like
amount, as required under section 437A Cr.P.C./ Section 481 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’ for short).
Further, as requested, the bail bond be furnished within a period of
one week of this judgment.
32. Trial Court Record be sent back along with a copy of
7
Meena v. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 5 SCC 21.
8
Raghunath v. State of Haryana, (2003) 1 SCC 398, Dhan Kumar v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (1980) 1 SCC
605 and State of U.P. v. Nandu Vishwakarma, (2009) 14 SCC 501.
C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 50 of 51 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.07.14 16:32:03 +0530 this order/judgment.
33. Appeal file be consigned to record room after due
compliance.
Digitally signed by ABHISHEK GOYAL ABHISHEK Date: GOYAL 2025.07.14 16:32:11 +0530 Announced in the open Court (Abhishek Goyal)
on 14.07.2025. ASJ-03, Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
C.A. No. 140/2021 Dr. Anupam Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 51 of 51