Delhi District Court
State vs . Farhad Khan on 22 July, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. BHAVNA KALIA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE06, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
JUDGMENT
FIR No. 580/91 P.S. Kalkaji U/s 420/406/34 IPC STATE VS. FARHAD KHAN a. Sl. No. of the case : 8681 b. Date of Institution : 22.07.1997 c. Date of Commission of Offence : 26.11.1991 d. Name of the complainant : Dinesh Chander e. Name of the accused and his : Farhad Khan parentage and address S/o Mansoor Ali R/o H. NO. 97, GaliNO. 8, Jawahar Colony, District Faridabad, Haryana f. Offence complained of : U/s 420/406/34 IPC g. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty h. Order reserved : 26.06.2014 i. Final Order : Acquitted u/s 406 IPC Convicted u/s 420/34 IPC j. Date of such order : 22.07.2014 FIR No. 580/9, PS Kalkaji Page 1 of Page 28 At the outset, it is clarified that the present judgment is only with regard to accused Farhad as accused Tapan, Kajal and Jagdish were declared PO on 27.11.1998.
Judgment Case of prosecution in brief :
1. The case of prosecution in brief are that on 26.11.1991, complainant Dinesh Chand Mandal came to police post Govind Puri and gave his statement to Chowki Incharge Ishwar Singh stating therein that he works as Helper in Jupitor Radius (Texta), C42, Okhla PhaseII.
Several workers of his company had given money to Unique Estate Agency, Govind Puri. He further stated that during the year 19891990, the proprietors of Unique Estate Agency and Hindustan Builders, Faridabad used to show plots neat Palla village and also collecting money for the said plots for they were given receipts and used to assure them that the registry of the said plots would be done as earliest.
2. On seeing the same, the complainant also contacted the said agency which was being run by Tapan Kumar, Kajal, Jagdish, Farhad Khan, Keval Kumar and Vijay Kumar for the purpose of purchase of one plot and on 28.03.1990, the complainant vide receipt no. 792, deposited Rs. 4500/ and on 08.07.1990, vide receipt no. 007 deposited Rs. 2000/ with the agency as an advance. The said amount was FIR No. 580/9, PS Kalkaji Page 2 of Page 28 deposited in the office of agency at 166213, Gali no.15.
3. The complainant further stated that more than 100 persons had given money for purchase of plots . The complainant along with other persons visited the office of the agency several times but neither they had been given the possession of the said plots nor any document/paper for the same.
4. The complainant further stated that the accused persons had closed down their office and they had fled away from there. The complainant further came to know that the accused persons had collected around Rs. 17lacs and therefore they had cheated the complainant as well as other persons. It is further submitted that the accused persons had grabbed the property with one Harish. Thereafter on the basis of statement of complainant, offence u/s 419/406/120B IPC was appeared to be made out. Investigation was carried out. Receipts no. 792 and 007 were taken into possession by the IO. IO visited the office of Bhartiya Majdoor Sangh where he contacted Mr. Raj Kumar and he disclosed that accused Jagdish, Keval, Farhad Khan, Kajal Barua and Tapan Barua had cheated approximately 122 persons for a sum of Rs. 17 lacs. Thereafter IO went to H. no. 1662B where B.S Rana met and he was interrogated about the Proprietors of New Hindustan Builders and Unique Estate Agency and he told that the said office has been closed by the aforesaid persons. Thereafter IO had inquired about Tapan and FIR No. 580/9, PS Kalkaji Page 3 of Page 28 Kajal Barua but no information could be gathered about them. Thereafter FIR was registered, charge sheet was prepared and the same was filed in the court.
Charge :
5. Accused was charged for the offence u/S. 406/34 IPC for dishonestly misappropriating or converting the money collected from different complainants amounting Rs. 17 lakhs (approx.) against receipts issued on behalf of Unique Estate Agency, in furtherance of his common intention with other accused persons.
6. Accused was further charged for the offence u/S. 420/34 IPC for falsely representing himself to be the owner of land in Palla Village and for deceiving the complainant and various other persons and inducing them to purchase plot against consideration, in furtherance of his common intention with other accused persons. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Evidence led by the prosecution :
7. Prosecution examined 20 witnesses to prove its case. PW1, Smt. Sudesh Puri stated that in the year 1999, she purchased a plot measuring 125 gaj @ Rs. 180 per gaj for residential purpose at Meethapur near Palla Village from the accused person and from one Kajal. She further stated that she gave Rs. 12,000/ to Mandal Ganesh who was the employee of FIR No. 580/9, PS Kalkaji Page 4 of Page 28 accused and whose duty was to collect the installments from customers and issue receipts for payment. She further stated that receipt of installment of Rs. 12,000/ was given to her by accused Farhan and another accused.
8. Thereafter when she started construction work, she was restrained by the other person who claimed himself as the real owner of the plot. She later came to know that the plot had already been sold by the accused to another person. She was crossexamined by Ld. APP and she stated that she was working in Texla TV at that time and she came to know from her factory workers that persons at Unique Estate Agency were selling plots at Palla village at easy installments.
9. She further stated that she went to the said office and approached one Tapan Kumar, Jagdish, Kajal and Farhad Khan who were the organisers of the office. She agreed to purchase the plot of 125 gaj for Rs. 27250/ and on 16.12.90, she gave Rs. 5,000/ to them for purchase of one plot of measuring 100 gaj. She also gave them Rs. 11,000/.
10. She handedover photocopies of cash payment mark A and B to the police vide seizure memo Ex. P1/PX2. She stated that she had received the receipt from accused Jagdish and Tapan which she handedover to the police. She was crossexamined by Counsel for the accused and she stated that her statement was not recorded by the police. She further stated that accused Farhad Khan did not give her any receipt and he was FIR No. 580/9, PS Kalkaji Page 5 of Page 28 not concerned.
11. She stated that she had gone to purchase the property from Tapan Kumar on installment basis. She further stated that she did not start construction on the plot nor anyone objected to the same. She stated that she had agreed to purchase property measuring 125 yards for consideration of Rs. 25250/ and she had to make payment within 2 years. She stated that she had not made the entire payment to the property dealers. She further stated that a number of persons had got the registry of land in Palla Gaon from Tapan, Kajal and Jagdish.
12. PW2 Dinesh Chander stated that he was informed by Tapan, Jagdish, Kajal and Farhad regarding land situated at Palla Village. He alongwith Dharni Mandal, Mudrika Singh, Rani and Sudesh Puri went to the office of the accused run in the name of Unique Estate Agency. He gave Rs. 6,000/ to Tapan for which receipt was issued by Tapan and Rs. 4,000/ to Jagdish for which no receipt was issued.
13. He further stated that all the said accused took them to see the land at Palla Village. After 6 to 7 months, When he planned for construction over the land measuring 200 gaj, objection was raised by a person who claimed to be the landlord. He stated that his statement was recorded by the police Ex. PW2/A and he handed over two receipts to the police Ex. PW2/B and Ex. PW2/C vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/D. FIR No. 580/9, PS Kalkaji Page 6 of Page 28
14. During his cross examination by Ld. APP, he stated that receipt of Rs. 4500/ and Rs. 2000/was given to him by Tapan. He further stated that accused Farhad was interrogated in his presence and his disclosure recorded vide Ex. PW2/PX1. He denied the suggestion that on 06.01.1992, he had accompanied the police to the residence of accused Farhad from where Rs. 11000/ were got recovered by the accused. He further stated that he did not know the denomination of the said currency. The said currency were produced in the court in an unsealed condition and the witness stated that he could not identify the same.
15. PW3 Mundrika Prasad stated that she had purchased a plot measuring 50 square yards for Rs. 12,000/ from property dealer Jagdish, Tapan, Farhad and Kajal in the year 1990 who had formed Unique Estate Agency. She identified accused Farhad in the court. She stated that she had paid three installments of Rs. 6000/ and two installments of Rs. 3000/ each for which accused had issued receipts Ex. PW3/A to PW3/C which she handed over to the police vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/B. She stated that all the accused persons ran away with her money and did not allot any plot to her at Pala Village, Faridabad. She stated that accused persons in similar way had cheated other persons.
FIR No. 580/9, PS Kalkaji Page 7 of Page 28
16. PW4 Omwati deposed on the same lines as PW3. She also stated that she had purchased one plot in the year 1990 for total amount of Rs. 13,000/ to be paid in five installments. She stated that accused had issued receipts to her Ex. PW4/A to PW4/E which police seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/F. She further stated that no plot was allotted to her.
17. PW5 Sh. Kuldeep Singh stated that in the year 1991, he had purchased 100 sq. yards plot and one shop through Unique Estate Agency, which was run by Tapan , Jagdish, Kajal and Farhad. The accused persons had shown the site at Palla Village to him and he had given Rs. 24,000/ as advance money and the rest he had to pay in installments. He further stated that Farhad along with his associates had issued receipts against the said amount. When he went to take possession of the plot, he came to know that the plot was belonging to someone else. He lodged a complaint. He along with other persons went to the office of the accused which was closed. He identified accused Farhad in the court.
18. PW6 Bharat Lal deposed on the same lines as PW5. He stated that he had given Rs. 13,000/ to the accused who had issued three receipts i.e. S.no.16 for Rs. 1000/, S.no.309 for Rs. 2000/ and S.no. 150 for Rs. 3000/. He further stated that he had purchased one plot at Palla FIR No. 580/9, PS Kalkaji Page 8 of Page 28 Village where many employees of Texla Company had also purchased plot. He stated that IO seized the photocopy of the said plot vide seizure memo Ex. PW6/D and the same are Ex. PW6/A, B and C. He also stated that the plot belong to someone else and the accused persons had cheated him.
19. During his cross examination, PW6 stated that he had not given any statement to the police nor he had ever met the police. He further stated that he could not say whether the receipts issued to him were signed by the accused Farhad or not. He stated that it was correct that the plot was shown by Kajal and Jagdish at Palla Gaon
20. PW7 Krishan Sharma stated that in the year 1989, Tapan and Jagdish came to his office for buying land. He introduced them to Kamal and Vijay and they entered into an agreement for buying land measuring 5 acre. Registry was done for land measuring 1 acre and he received Rs. 25,000/ as commission. He further stated that he came to know later that accused Tapan and Jagdish had played fraud with public. He went to the police station Kalkaji and handed over Rs. 25,000/ to the IO who seized it vide seizure memo Ex. PW7/A. Rs. 25000/ are Ex. P1. He further stated that he did not have any link with the said case.
21. During his cross examination by Ld. APP, he was confronted with his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. He stated that he FIR No. 580/9, PS Kalkaji Page 9 of Page 28 had not stated to the police that Farhad Khan met him along with Tapan and Jagdish. He further stated that he had not stated to the police that he had received a commission of Rs. 28,000/ and he returned Rs. 3000/ to Farhad Khan. He further stated that he had not stated to the police that Tapan, Jagdish and Farhad had cheated people at large and collected Rs. 17 lacs. He further stated that police had obtained his signatures on two blank papers.
22. PW8 Himesh Singh also stated that he had been cheated by Tapan, Kajal and Jagdish and all of them had run away with his money.
23. During his cross examination by Ld. APP, he stated that all the four accused had opened the office at Govind Puri. He failed to identify accused Farhad in the court.
24. PW9 Sh. Dharnidhar Mandal deposed on the same lines as PW8.
25. PW10 Sh. Gokaran was cross examined by Ld. APP where he stated that Unique Estate Agency was run by four accused persons who had shown him the land near Pala Gaon. He further stated that the said persons had taken payment but failed to give the land. He identified accused Farhad as one of the persons who had taken his money and not given the land.
FIR No. 580/9, PS Kalkaji Page 10 of Page 28
26. PW11 Ramji Lal, PW12 Brij Mohan, PW13 Nirmal Kumar, PW14 Nand Lal and PW16/Munni Ram also deposed on the same lines as PW10. PW14 further stated in his cross examination that the receipts were issued by accused persons including Farhad Khan and Farhad coordinated with other accused for issuance of receipts. He denied the suggestion that the accused had no concern with the plot or the money.
27. PW16 stated that the plot was purchased from the accused persons in the name of his sister Kamlawati for which a total sum of Rs. 11,250/ was deposited for which three receipts were issued which were taken into police possession vide memo Ex. PW16/A and the receipts are marked as P16/X, P16/Y and P16/Z. He further stated that the receipts were given by accused Farhad and other accused persons.
28. PW15 HC Hemraj stated that on 26.11.1991, he was posted at PP Govind Puri, PS kalkaji. On that day, Sh. Dinesh Chand Mandal handed over two receipts of Rs. 2000/ and Rs. 4500/ of Unique Estate Agency and Hindustan Builders bearing no. 007 and 792 against his name which was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/D and which receipts are already Ex. PW2/B and PW2/C.
29. PW17 SI Surender Singh stated that on 26.11.1991, he was posted at PS Kalkaji as Duty Officer. He received Rukka through Ct. Ajeet on the basis of which, he recorded FIR, copy of which is Ex. PW17/A. He FIR No. 580/9, PS Kalkaji Page 11 of Page 28 put his endorsement on Rukka vide Ex. PW17/B.
30. PW18 Ct. Pushpender stated that on 27.11.1991, he was posted at PP Govind Puri and was investigating the present matter with IO/SI Ishwar Singh. On the said date, they both had gone to B49, Neelam Bala Road, Faridabad where they met Krishan Kumar/PW7 who handed over Rs. 25,000/ to them which were seized vide memo Ex. PW7/A.
31. During his cross examination, he stated that no public person were joined at the time of investigation.
32. PW19 Narender Chawla, ACP stated that on 06.01.1992, he was posted as SI in Special Staff. He along with IO/SI OM Prakash joined investigation in the present matter. In his presence, IO seized Rs. 11,000/ at the instance of accused Farhad from his bed at his house. Same were sealed vide memo Ex. PW2/PX2. On further search of the premises, a letter head pad of Unique Estate Agency, visiting cars of F. Khan, deposit slips of SBI and layout plan etc., were seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW19/A. On 12.01.1992, IO seized photocopies of documents pertaining to land which were produced by one Kamaljeet Singh vide seizure memo Ex. PW19/B. Photocopies of the said document are Mark A colly.
33. During his cross examination, he stated that he did not remember much as 23 years have passed. He did not remember whether public persons were asked to join the investigation or whether any site plan had FIR No. 580/9, PS Kalkaji Page 12 of Page 28 been prepared or not. He denied the suggestion that he had not joined the investigation at any point. He further denied that the accused had been falsely implicated in the present case.
34. PW20 Inspector Ishwar Singh(wrongly stated as PW19) stated that on 26.11.1991, he was posted as Incharge, police post Govind Puri and on that day, the complainant Dinesh Chand Mandal came to the police post and gave his statement which was recorded by him. He prepared Rukka and got the case registered through Ct. Ajeet. On the same day, complainant handed over two receipts of Rs. 4500/ and Rs. 2000/ to him. During investigation, he seized Rs. 25,000/ from PW7.
35. During his cross examination, he denied that he had not investigated the case properly.
36. PW21 Sanjay Shah (wrongly stated as PW20) stated that he had deposited money with one Tapan and Raj Kumar through Dinesh Mandal for investment for which no receipts were given to him.
37. During his cross examination by Ld. APP, he stated that he did not know whether accused Farhad Kha was one of the culprits. He further stated that he had handed over photocopy of receipt of his investment to the police vide Ex. PW20/A. Receipts are mark Y1 and Y2. He stated that he did not have the original of the receipts.
FIR No. 580/9, PS Kalkaji Page 13 of Page 28 Statement of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C.
37. All the incriminating evidence were put to the accused which he denied and stated that he had been falsely implicated in this case. He further stated that he did not want to lead evidence in his defence. Decision and Reasons:
39. Accused has been charged for offence under section 406/420/34 IPC.
To constitute an offence under section 420 IPC there must essentially be the following:
1.Deceit, that is to say, dishonest or fraudulent misrepresentation; and
2.Inducing the person deceived to part with property.
40. The accused has also been charged under section 406 IPC for misappropriating the property of public witnesses. Section 406 IPC provides for punishment for criminal breach of trust. Section 405 IPC defines criminal breach of trust the ingredients of which are as follows:
1.the accused must be entrusted with property or have dominion over property; and
2.the accused must:
FIR No. 580/9, PS Kalkaji Page 14 of Page 28
a) dishonestly misappropriate or convert the same to his own use; or
b) dishonestly use or dispose of that property or willfully suffer any other person to do so in violation of
i) any direction of law; or
ii) any legal contract.
41. From the above stated it flows that the most important ingredient of the offence under section 405 IPC is 'entrustment'. In order to constitute a legal entrustment the complainant must be the owner of property, there must be a transfer of possession, such transfer must be an actual transfer and such transfer must be made to somebody who has no right excepting that of a custodian. After entrustment there must be dishonest misappropriation of the said property. Hence, the essential question is whether there was entrustment of any property by public witnesses to the accused Farhad Khan.
42. The prosecution has examined 20 witnesses out of which there are effectively 16 public witnesses who have stated that they were cheated by persons from Unique Estate Agency. They were shown certain property at Palla Village, Faridabad. When they tried to take possession of the said property, they were stopped by someone or the other stating that the property belonged to some other persons. They further stated that they had made part payment to persons from Unique FIR No. 580/9, PS Kalkaji Page 15 of Page 28 Estate Agency which was never returned by the said persons. Most of the witnesses have taken the name of Tapan, Kajal and Jagdish stating that they had entered into contracts with these persons and they had taken the money for which they had issued certain receipts also. The witnesses have also taken the name of the accused Farhad Khan and stated that he had also taken money and issued receipts.
43. To see whether the facts as stated by the prosecution and to see whether accused Farhad Khan actually committed any crime or not, it is essential to appreciate the testimony of all the witnesses.
44. In her examination in chief, PW1 stated that she had purchased plot for residential purpose at Palla Village from accused Farhad and also from Kajal and had given Rs. 12,000/ to Mandal Ganesh who was the employee of accused Farhad and whose duty was to collect installments from customers and issue receipts. She further stated that receipt of installment of Rs. 12,000/ was given to her by accused Farhad Khan and also another accused. She further stated that when she went to the office of Unique Estate Agency, she approached Tapan, Jagdish, Kajal and Farhad. She further stated that the receipt which she had handed over to the police, were signed by Jagdish and Tapan in her presence. PW1 in her cross examination has stated that Farhad Khan did not give her any receipt nor he had any concern and that she has purchased the property from Tapan Kumar on installment basis. She FIR No. 580/9, PS Kalkaji Page 16 of Page 28 further stated that a number of persons got registry of the land in Palla Village from Tapan, Kajal and Jagdish.
45. From the testimony of PW1, it appears that accused Farhad did not make any fraudulent misrepresentation to her nor did he dishonestly induce her to part with any property. Further, it does not appear that there was any entrustment of property by PW1 to accused Farhad Khan.
46. PW2 Dinesh Chandra Mandal in his examination in chief stated that he met Tapan, Jagdish, Kajal and Farhad from Unique Estate Agency and was told by them regarding land at Palla Village. He went with other complainants to the office of the accused persons where he gave Rs. 6000/ to Tapan and Rs. 4000/ to Jagdish and receipt was issued to him for Rs. 6000/ by Tapan.
47. During his cross examination by Ld. APP, he stated that Rs. 11000/ recovered from the house of accused Farhand Khan were not recovered in his presence.
48. From the testimony of PW2, it appears that accused Farhad did not make any fraudulent misrepresentation to him nor did he dishonestly induce him to part with any property. Further, it does not appear that there was any entrustment of property by PW2 to accused Farhad Khan.
FIR No. 580/9, PS Kalkaji Page 17 of Page 28
49. PW3 in his examination in chief stated that he had purchased plot measuring 50 square yards at cost of Rs. 12,000/ from Jagdish, Tapan, Farhad and Kajal. He further stated that he had purchased the said plot and paid three installments i.e one installment of Rs. 6000/ and two installments of Rs. 3000/ each for which accused had issued three receipts to him Ex. PW3/A to PW3/C. He further stated that all the accused persons ran away with his money and did not allot any land to him neither returned any money to him. He further stated that other persons had also been cheated by the accused persons similarly.
50. Ex. PW3/A to Ex. PW3/C have been perused. On perusal of the same, the signatures on the receipt cannot be identified. It cannot be said as to which accused had signed the said receipts. PW3 in his testimony has also not stated as to which accused had signed the receipt and given to him. He has, however, stated that all the accused persons had cheated him by not allotting any land to him and by not even returning his money.
51. From the testimony of PW3, it appears that accused Farhad along with other accused persons did make fraudulent misrepresentation to PW3 and also dishonestly induced him to part with his property. However, it does not appear that there was any entrustment of property by PW3 to accused Farhad Khan.
FIR No. 580/9, PS Kalkaji Page 18 of Page 28
52. PW4 in his examination in chief similarly stated that she had purchased property from all four accused persons for which she had paid total amount of Rs. 13,000/ in five installments. She also stated that accused had issued receipts Ex. PW4/A to PW4/E. She also stated that all accused persons ran away with her money and did not allot any land to her and in similar way cheated many other persons. No land was allotted nor any money was returned by the accused persons.
53. During her cross examination, she stated that the accused did not give her any receipt for the installment paid. She had denied the suggestion that the accused had no concern with the land and the installment given by her.
54. From the testimony of PW4, it appears that accused Farhad along with other accused persons did make fraudulent misrepresentation to PW4 and also dishonestly induced her to part with her property. However, it does not appear that there was any entrustment of property by PW4 to accused Farhad Khan.
55. PW5 in his examination in chief similarly stated that he had purchased property from all four accused persons for which he had paid advance amount of Rs. 24,000/ and remaining he had to pay in installments.. He also stated that accused had issued receipts for the FIR No. 580/9, PS Kalkaji Page 19 of Page 28 same. He also stated that all accused persons ran away with his money and did not allot any land to him and in similar way cheated many other persons. No land was allotted nor any money was returned by the accused persons.
56. From the testimony of PW5, it appears that accused Farhad along with other accused persons did make fraudulent misrepresentation to PW5 and also dishonestly induced him to part with his property. However, it does not appear that there was any entrustment of property by PW5 to accused Farhad Khan.
57. PW6 in his examination in chief similarly stated that he had purchased property from all four accused persons for which he had paid amount of Rs. 13000/ and accused had issued three receipts for the same.
58. In his cross examination, he stated that he could not say whether receipts were signed by accused or not. He further stated that the plot was shown to him by Kajal and Jagdish and that he had not made the full payment.
59. From the testimony of PW6, it appears that accused Farhad along with other accused persons did make fraudulent misrepresentation to PW6 and also dishonestly induced him to part with his property. However, it does not appear that there was any entrustment of property FIR No. 580/9, PS Kalkaji Page 20 of Page 28 by PW6 to accused Farhad Khan.
60. PW7 has stated in his examination in chief that Tapan and Jagdish had gone to his office for buying land and he introduced them to Kamal and Vijay. They entered into an agreement and purchased 1acre land . PW7 further came to know that Tapan and Jagdish had made fraud with public.
61. The testimony of the witnesses has to be disregarded as it appears to be only hearsay.
62. PW8 in his examination in chief similarly stated that he had purchased property from Tapan, Kajal and Jagdish for which he had paid amount of Rs. 8000/ which was given to Dinesh. He stated that dealers ran away after receiving cash without giving the land or the money back. However, he refused to identify the accused Farhad Khan who was present in the court.
63. From the testimony of PW8, it appears that accused Farhad did not make any fraudulent misrepresentation to him nor did he dishonestly induce him to part with any property. Further, it does not appear that there was any entrustment of property by PW8 to accused Farhad Khan.
FIR No. 580/9, PS Kalkaji Page 21 of Page 28
64. PW9 in his examination in chief similarly stated that he had paid amount of Rs. 14,500/ to Tapan, Kajal and Jagdish for buying land through them. He further stated that all accused ran away after receiving the money. However, he refused to identify the accused Farhad Khan who was present in the court.
65. From the testimony of PW9, it appears that accused Farhad did not make any fraudulent misrepresentation to him nor did he dishonestly induce him to part with any property. Further, it does not appear that there was any entrustment of property by PW9 to accused Farhad Khan.
66. PW10 stated that for purchase of land, he had contacted one Khan and paid Rs. 9000/ and there were 23 other persons with Khan. He further stated that no land was given to him. He stated that he could not identify the person to whom he had given the money.
67. During cross examination by Ld. APP, he stated that Unique Estate Agency was run by Jagdish, Tapan, Farhad and Kajal who had shown the land to him and who had taken money and did not give the land. He identified accused Farhad as one of the persons.
68. From the testimony of PW10, it appears that accused Farhad along with other accused persons did make fraudulent misrepresentation to PW10 and also dishonestly induced him to part with his property.
FIR No. 580/9, PS Kalkaji Page 22 of Page 28 However, it does not appear that there was any entrustment of property by PW10 to accused Farhad Khan.
69. PW11 in his examination in chief stated that he had purchased property from Tapan, Farhad and Kajal at Palla Village for which he had paid amount of Rs. 14, 700/ . He further stated that he had given payment of Rs. 14,700/ to accused Farhad Khan but possession was never given to him and his money was also not returned to him.
70. From the testimony of PW11, it appears that accused Farhad along with other accused persons did make fraudulent misrepresentation to PW11 and also dishonestly induced him to part with his property. However, it does not appear that there was any entrustment of property by PW11 to accused Farhad Khan.
71. PW12 in his examination in chief stated that he had purchased property from one Khan. He identified the accused Farhad correctly. He further stated that he and his brother given Rs. 50,000/ jointly to purchase land but possession was never given to him and his money was also not returned to him.
72. From the testimony of PW12, it appears that accused Farhad along with other accused persons did make fraudulent misrepresentation to PW12 and also dishonestly induced him to part with his property. However, it does not appear that there was any entrustment of property FIR No. 580/9, PS Kalkaji Page 23 of Page 28 by PW12 to accused Farhad Khan.
73. PW13 stated that he went to the office of Farhad, Jagdish and Tapan for purchase of land and deposited Rs. 6500/ for which he got one receipt Mark A, B and C. However, when he again visited the office, he found out that the accused had ran away. He correctly identified accused Farhad in the court.
74. During cross examination, he stated that the receipt was not issued by accused Farhad but he was present in the office with other accused persons.
75. From the testimony of PW13, it appears that accused Farhad along with other accused persons did make fraudulent misrepresentation to PW13 and also dishonestly induced him to part with his property. However, it does not appear that there was any entrustment of property by PW13 to accused Farhad Khan.
76. PW14 in his examination in chief stated that he met the accused Farhad with other accused persons and he deposited amount through different installments on different dates for a sum of Rs. 11,200/ for which he received receipts. He further stated that when he went to take possession of plot, he came to know that the plot belonged to other person.
FIR No. 580/9, PS Kalkaji Page 24 of Page 28
77. During his cross examination he stated that the installment receipts were issued by accused Farhad and other accused persons.
78. From the testimony of PW14, it appears that accused Farhad along with other accused persons did make fraudulent misrepresentation to PW14 and also dishonestly induced him to part with his property. However, it does not appear that there was any entrustment of property by PW14 to accused Farhad Khan.
79. PW16 in her examination in chief stated that she and her sister agreed to purchase property from Tapan, Farhad, Jagdish and Kajal for Rs. 11,250/. She further stated that the plot was purchased from the accused persons in the name of her sister but no deed was executed. However, when no plot was delivered, they made inquiry but they found that the office of Unique Estate Agency was closed and they had been cheated.
80. During cross examination she stated that as per her knowledge, accused Farhad was the managing incharge of the office and the receipts were given to her by him and other accused persons.
81. From the testimony of PW16, it appears that accused Farhad along with other accused persons did make fraudulent misrepresentation to PW16 and also dishonestly induced her to part with her property. However, it does not appear that there was any entrustment of property FIR No. 580/9, PS Kalkaji Page 25 of Page 28 by PW16 to accused Farhad Khan.
82. PW15 and PW17 are only formal witnesses. PW18 had taken part in the investigation with IO/SI Ishwar Singh but had only recovered Rs. 25000/ from PW7.
83. PW19 Narender Chawla stated that Rs. 11,000/ were seized at the instance of accused Farhad Khan from his house in front of him and after further search of his house, further documents were seized.
84. PW20 who was the IO stated that he had conducted the investigation in the present case and seized the receipts and other documents and had also examined the witnesses.
85. From perusal of the documents , it is seen that even though there are receipts in original and photocopy which were handed over by the public witnesses to the Investigating Officer, the signatures on the said receipts cannot be identified. It cannot be said that the said receipts were signed by accused Farhad or any other accused. Further, the prosecution has also relied on the recovery of Rs. 11000/ from the house of accused Farhad but it cannot be said that the said amount of Rs. 11000/ was pertaining to the present case. The said Rs. 11000/ cannot be identified as case property in the present case.
FIR No. 580/9, PS Kalkaji Page 26 of Page 28
86. However, relying on the testimony of some public witnesses as discussed above, it is clear that accused Farhad along with other accused persons tried to sell certain plots of land to various persons and also collected certain amount from them. No plot of land was handed over to any public witnesses nor any money was returned to them. From the testimony of witnesses, it is clear that accused Farhad along with other accused persons did make fraudulent misrepresentation to the public witnesses and also dishonestly induced them to part with their property without the intention to hand over any plot of land to them or to return their money. Further, as stated by the witnesses, when they tried to search for the accused persons, they found the office of Unique Estate Agency locked without further knowledge of whereabouts of the accused persons.
87. In view of the above submissions, offence u/s 420 IPC is made out against accused Farhad. Further it is also established that the accused in furtherance of his common intention with other accused persons, cheated the public witnesses. Offence U/s 34 IPC is also made out. However, there has been no entrustment of any property to accused Farhad, hence no offence u/s 406 IPC is made out.
FIR No. 580/9, PS Kalkaji Page 27 of Page 28 88. Accordingly, accused Farhad is convicted for the offence u/s
420/34 IPC and he is acquitted for offence u/s 406 IPC.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (BHAVNA KALIA)
ON 22.07.2014 METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE06
SOUTH EAST/SAKET COURTS
FIR No. 580/9, PS Kalkaji Page 28 of Page 28