Delhi District Court
3. Title Of The Case : State vs . B.B. Sharma & Ors on 13 August, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SUNIL CHAUDHARY : ACMM-0I
(CENTRAL) : TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
1. Case No. : 252/2/98
2. Unique I.D. No. : 02401R0857932005
3. Title of the Case : State Vs. B.B. Sharma & Ors
: FIR No. 113/98
: PS Preet Vihar
: U/s 409 r/w 120-B
4. Date of Institution : 15.04.1999
5. Date of reserving judgment: 07.08.2010
6. Date of pronouncement : 13.08.2010
JUDGMENT :
a) The Sl. No. of the case : 252/2/98 b) The date of commission : 22.02.1998
c) The name of complainant : Sh. Inderjit Nagpal R/o C-12/314, Yamuna Vihar New Delhi-110053
d) The name of accused : 1. M. N. Badam S/o Shri Shridarjoo R/o 302, Vipin Garden FIR No. 113/98 State Vs. B.B. Sharma & Ors. Page 2/ 6 Kakrola More, Uttam Nagar New Delhi -110059
2. A. Subba Rao S/o Shri A. Srinivasayya R/o 153/1A, West Azad Nagar, Gali No. 14, Krishna Nagar, Delhi.
e) The offence complained of: 420/120B/409 IPC f) The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty g) The final order : Acquitted h) The date of such order : 13.08.2010
i) Brief facts of the decision of the case
1. In the present case, M. N. Badam and A Subba Rao were sent to face the trial for the offence of cheating criminal misappropriation and the criminal conspiracy on the allegations that they alongwith co-accused B.B. Sharma, who was the Chairman cum Managing Director of the Hoffland Finance Ltd , entered into conspiracy somewhere in the year 1996-97 to cheat the public at large and accepted the deposits from the FIR No. 113/98 State Vs. B.B. Sharma & Ors. Page 2/ 6 public at high rate of interest and issued receipts against deposits and postdated cheques and that the cheques on the due dates were not encashed and thus they have cheated the public at large and did not repay the amount deposited with them and have misappropriated the same.
2. That the charges were framed against the accused persons by the Predecessor of the court to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accordingly, prosecution was asked to lead its evidence and prosecution have examined forty one witnesses to substantiate the charge. During the trial, accused B.B. Sharma was declared proclaimed offender and he was representing the company viz Hoffland Finance Ltd. Accused M.N. Badam and A. Subba Rao did not examine any defence witness in their defence.
3. The witnesses examined by the prosecution have deposed that they have deposited certain amounts with the accused company and receipts were issued against the said deposits alongwith postdated cheques and the postdated cheques when were deposited were not encashed. It is further deposed that when the witnesses contacted the company FIR No. 113/98 State Vs. B.B. Sharma & Ors. Page 2/ 6 they were avoided on one pretext or another and thereafter they came to know that the office of the company have been closed and they have been cheated. All the witnesses have deposed against company and its Chairman- cum- Managing Director B.B. Sharma. No prosecution witness have deposed about the role of the accused M N. Badam and A. Subba Rao with regard to deposits made by them with the accused company. It is PW13 Deepak Bangar, Sr. Technical Assistant from the office of the Registrar of Company who have brought form No. 32 of the accused company which shows that accused M.N Badam and A. Subba Rao were its Directors. No other evidence against these two accused persons have been brought on file. None of the prosecution witnesses have deposed that they ever saw the accused M.N. Badam and A. Subba Rao in the accused company or in the company of accused B.B. Sharma
4. The offence of cheating punishable under section 420 deals with the cases whereby the deceived person is dishonestly induced to deliver any property to any person or to make, alter, or destroy, the whole or any part of the valuable security or anything which is signed or sealed and which is FIR No. 113/98 State Vs. B.B. Sharma & Ors. Page 2/ 6 capable of being converted into the valuable security.
5. No prosecution witnesses have deposed that they were induced by these two persons to deposit the amount with the accused company. The accused M. N. Badam and A. Subba Rao being the Directors of the accused company cannot be held guilty of the cheating by way of vicarious liability as it has not been brought on file that they were the incharge of day to day affairs of the accused company. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are not showing entrustment of amount to the accused M. N. Badam and A. Subba Rao or any inducement given by them or that they were the part of the conspiracy with co-accused B.B. Sharma in respect of inviting deposits from the public and non- repayment of the maturity amount. As such they both are acquitted from the charge framed against them.
Announced in the open court (SUNIL CHAUDHARY) on 13.08.2010 A.C.M.M 01-DELHI FIR No. 113/98 State Vs. B.B. Sharma & Ors. Page 2/ 6 FIR No. 113/98 State Vs. B.B. Sharma & Ors. Page 2/ 6 FIR No. 113/98 State Vs. B.B. Sharma & Ors. Page 2/ 6