Delhi District Court
State vs Ramesh Chand Etc.4 on 16 May, 2026
State Vs. Radhey Shyam etc.
FIR No.: 324/2007 PS: Anand Vihar
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANISH JAIN
ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
State Vs. Radhey Shyam & ors.
FIR No.: 324/2007
PS: Anand Vihar
CNR No. DLSH020003432009
A Case Identification 77747/2016
Number
B Name of the Mr. H.K. Verma
Complainant
C Name of the accused 1. Ramesh Chand
S/o Sh. Dal Chand
persons & their
2. Sukhbir Singh
parentage S/o Sh. Punjab Singh
3. V.K. Chaturvedi
S/o Late S B Chaturvedi
(proceedings abated vide order
dated 13.03.2024)
4. Radhey Shyam
(proceedings abated vide order
dated 17.09.2012)
5. Deepak Kumar(PO)
S/o Radhey Shyam Sharma
D Date of commission of On or before 06.10.2003
the offences
Digitally
signed by
MANISH
MANISH JAIN
page No. 1 of 19 JAIN Date:
2026.05.18
16:10:53
+0530
(Manish Jain)
ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi
State Vs. Radhey Shyam etc.
FIR No.: 324/2007 PS: Anand Vihar
E Date of Institution of the 18.06.2009
case
F Offences charged u/s 420/120B IPC.
G Plea of accused persons Pleaded not guilty
H Date of Pronouncement 16.05.2026
of judgment
I Final Order Acquitted
JUDGMENT
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
1. Present accused persons are produced before the court to stand trial for the offences punishable u/s 420/34/120B IPC.
2. In brief, the present case originates from a complaint filed by Canara Bank through its duly authorized officer, competent to institute and pursue the proceedings on behalf of the bank. The complaint was filed before the concerned court, alleging commission of offences by the accused persons in relation to credit facilities availed from the bank. It is the case of the prosecution that accused no.1, being the proprietor of M/s Baleshwar Metals, along with accused no.2 and accused no.3 (guarantor), approached the complainant bank at its branch at Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH Date:
JAIN page No. 2 of 19 JAIN 2026.05.18 16:11:00 +0530 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Radhey Shyam etc. FIR No.: 324/2007 PS: Anand Vihar Karkardooma, Delhi, and sought grant of credit facilities. Acting upon their request, the bank sanctioned various facilities including overdraft limit, bill purchase limit and other credit facilities under its scheme. The accused persons executed the necessary loan documents in favour of the bank. In order to secure the said facilities, the accused persons created an equitable mortgage by depositing title deeds of their immovable properties situated at East Baldev Park, Shahdara, Delhi and Chhajju Singh Gate, Babarpur, Shahdara, Delhi. Legal scrutiny and valuation of the properties were also obtained by the bank prior to sanction. It is further alleged that the accused persons, in collusion with each other and certain bank officials, obtained the loan facilities by suppressing material facts and by dishonest representation. After availing the said facilities, the accused persons did not utilize the funds for the intended purpose but diverted the same for their personal use and other undisclosed purposes. The investigation further revealed that the loan account of the accused persons was not operated satisfactorily and soon became irregular. A substantial outstanding amount remained unpaid and despite repeated demands and notices by the bank, the accused persons failed to regularize the account or repay the dues. Consequently, the bank suffered wrongful loss, whereas the accused persons derived wrongful gain. It is also alleged that in furtherance of their common intention and criminal conspiracy, the accused persons dishonestly induced the complainant bank to sanction and disburse the loan amount Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH JAIN page No. 3 of 19 JAIN Date:
2026.05.18 16:11:08 +0530 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Radhey Shyam etc. FIR No.: 324/2007 PS: Anand Vihar and thereafter misappropriated the same. The acts of the accused persons resulted in siphoning of public money and caused financial loss to the bank. On the basis of material collected during investigation, including loan documents, mortgage papers, legal and valuation reports and other relevant record, it was found by the investigating officer that the accused persons committed offences punishable under Sections 420/406/120B IPC, and accordingly, the present chargesheet came to be filed. Supplementary chargesheet was filed qua accused Ramesh Chand, Vinod Kumar Chaturvedi and Sukhbir Singh.
3. Upon filing of the charge-sheet, cognizance was taken by Ld. Predecessor of this Court and copy of the charge-sheet was supplied to accused persons. Further, the matter was listed for arguments on the point of charge.
4. Further, Ld. Predecessor of this Court directed to frame charge for the offences u/s 420/120B IPC against accused Ramesh Chand, Sukhbir Singh and Vinay Chaturvedi.
5. Thereafter, prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined various witnesses in their favor.
6. PW-1 Mukesh Kachhwaha produced the original Power of Attorney dated 13.05.1994 in the name of Sh. Harey Krishna Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH JAIN JAIN Date:
page No. 4 of 19 2026.05.18
16:11:13
+0530
(Manish Jain)
ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi
State Vs. Radhey Shyam etc.
FIR No.: 324/2007 PS: Anand Vihar
Verma, Senior Manager, Central Bank of India (who retired on 31.10.2010), which had been summoned from the Central Office, Mumbai. The said Power of Attorney was exhibited as Ex.PW1/A (OSR, 7 pages) along with his covering letter bearing his signature at Point A.
7. PW-2 Hare Krishna Verma deposed that he was posted as Senior Manager at Karkardooma Branch, Delhi from 2005 to 2007. In March 2007, he filed the present complaint (Ex.PW2/A) u/s 200 CrPC and also an application u/s 156(3) CrPC (Ex.PW2/B) with affidavit (Ex.PW2/C) before the concerned court, on behalf of Central Bank of India, Karkardooma Branch, in the capacity of Senior Manager and as Power of Attorney holder (Category C). He deposed that the complaint was filed against Sh. Radhey Shyam Sharma and others who had taken a loan from the branch and failed to repay the same, resulting in the account being declared NPA. The accused Ramesh Chand, proprietor of M/s Baleshwar Metals, opened current account no. 101669 on 26.07.2003 and availed an overdraft facility of Rs. 9.5 lakhs under the Cent Trade Scheme, which was later enhanced on 24.12.2003 to a total limit of Rs. 40 lakhs (OD limit Rs. 25 lakhs + bill purchase limit Rs. 15 lakhs). Accused Deepak Sharma stood as guarantor. Accused Ramesh Chand executed loan documents (Annexure B, colly, 19 pages -- now Mark PW2/A) and created equitable mortgage of his two properties, Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH JAIN JAIN page No. 5 of 19 Date:
2026.05.18 16:11:20 +0530 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Radhey Shyam etc. FIR No.: 324/2007 PS: Anand Vihar namely (i) C-34, East Babarpur, Shahdara, Delhi-32 in Khasra No. 178 measuring 110 sq. yds (Ex.PW2/D, 9 pages), and (ii) 5/170, Chajju Singh Gate, Babarpur, Shahdara, Delhi-32 measuring 300 sq. yds (Ex.PW2/E, 6 pages), by depositing original title documents with the bank. Legal scrutiny of the properties was obtained through panel advocate Smt. Shelly Rohtagi dated 07.08.2003 (Ex.PW2/G, 8 pages) and valuation was done by M/s R. Kumar & Associates vide reports dated 26.08.2003 and 09.08.2003 (Ex.PW2/F, 7 pages). The loan was processed and recommended by then Manager Sh. S.B. Singh and sanctioned by then Senior Manager Sh. V.K. Chaturvedi.
He further deposed that bank enquiry revealed that bank officials, in connivance with the accused persons, purchased outstation cheques drawn on sister concerns -- namely M/s Crystal Metal India Pvt. Ltd. (Bank of India, Janpath), M/s Ganpati Alloys (Punjab & Sind Bank, Fatehpuri), and Shyam Bartan Bhandar, Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan -- to defraud the bank. The outstanding amount as on 01.02.2005 was Rs. 1,10,55,747/- plus interest. The bank filed a recovery suit for Rs. 1,30,01,852/- including interest up to 26.06.2006. A complaint was also filed with SHO PS Anand Vihar on 06.09.2006 (Ex.PW2/H). The documents filed with the complaint are Annexure A to A28, collectively marked as Ex.PW2/I (95 pages).
Digitally
signed by
MANISH
MANISH JAIN
JAIN Date:
2026.05.18
16:11:26
+0530
page No. 6 of 19
(Manish Jain)
ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi
State Vs. Radhey Shyam etc.
FIR No.: 324/2007 PS: Anand Vihar
8. PW-3 Inspector Kumar Jiweshwar deposed that on 02.06.2007, he was posted at PS Anand Vihar as Sub-Inspector. He received the application of the complainant u/s 156(3) CrPC along with the court order and a copy of the registered FIR from SHO Anand Vihar for conducting investigation. He thereafter issued a notice u/s 91 CrPC to the Manager, Central Bank of India, directing production of relevant documents including the inquiry report. He was subsequently transferred and handed over the case file to MHC(R).
9. PW4 Retd. SI Sarabjeet Singh Minhas deposed that on 21.04.2009, he was posted at DIU Cell, East District as Sub- Inspector. On that day, IO/SI Kushalpal recorded the disclosure statement of accused Radhey Shyam in FIR No. 325/07 in his presence (Ex.PW4/A). He further deposed that accused N.K. Nimani, Bank Manager, was arrested and taken to Shivaji Park, Delhi, and he also arrested accused Radhey Shyam in FIR No. 325/07. The disclosure statements and arrest memos were duly prepared and exhibited. The identities of accused Sukhbir (S.B. Singh), Vinod Kumar Chaturvedi and Ramesh Chand were not disputed by the learned counsel for the accused. It is recorded that proceedings qua accused Radhey Shyam have already abated.
Digitally signed by MANISHMANISH JAIN JAIN Date:
page No. 7 of 19 2026.05.18 16:11:35 +0530 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Radhey Shyam etc. FIR No.: 324/2007 PS: Anand Vihar
10.PW5 Retd. SI Kushalpal deposed that he was the second IO in the present case. He formally arrested accused V.K. Chaturvedi on 17.08.2009, when the accused appeared at the police station with his anticipatory bail order; arrest memo is Ex.PW5/D and personal search memo is Ex.PW5/E. He was released on police bail as per the bail order. Similarly, accused Ramesh Chand was arrested on 23.09.2009 (Ex.PW5/F and Ex.PW5/G) and accused Sukhbir Singh was arrested on 26.07.2009 (Ex.PW5/H and Ex.PW5/I), all released on police bail. He further deposed that he recorded disclosure statements of all the accused persons, collectively marked as Ex.PW5/J (colly). After completion of investigation, he prepared the charge-sheet and supplementary charge-sheet and submitted the same before the Court. The identities of accused Sukhbir, Vinod Kumar Chaturvedi and Ramesh Chand were not disputed.
11.PW6 Raj Kumar Nemani deposed that he was posted as Senior Manager, Central Bank of India, Karkardooma Branch, Delhi from May 2007 to May 2010. On 05.08.2007, he along with IO Ghanshyam visited DRT Office, Jhandewalan, Delhi for obtaining documents. DRT officials handed over documents to IO Ghanshyam as per seizure memo Ex.PW6/A, bearing his signature at Point A. The said documents (A to A28, already Mark PW2/A, 19 pages) are collectively Ex.PW2/I (95 pages). He also handed over documents i.e. letter dated 23.09.2008 to Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH JAIN page No. 8 of 19 JAIN Date:
2026.05.18 16:11:46 +0530 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Radhey Shyam etc. FIR No.: 324/2007 PS: Anand Vihar IO Ghanshyam (Ex.PW6/B). The statement of account (8 pages) is Mark-PW6/1 (objected to as to mode of proof) and the evaluation paper (7 pages) is Ex.PW2/F, both bearing his signature on each page.
12.PW7 ACP Ghanshyam deposed that on 12.01.2008, he was posted at PS Anand Vihar as Inspector/ATO. The present case was marked to him for further investigation as per directions of senior officers. He received the case file from MHC(R) and found that the case was registered on the complaint of the Authorised Representative of Central Bank of India, in compliance with court directions u/s 156(3) CrPC, against Ramesh Chand Sharma, proprietor of M/s Baleshwar Metals, and Sh. Deepak Sharma (guarantor), regarding a loan of Rs. 9.5 lakhs later enhanced to Rs. 25 lakhs. During investigation, he issued notices to the Manager, Central Bank of India, Karkardooma Branch for production of original documents pertaining to the mortgaged property. It was revealed that the original documents had already been submitted to DRT for recovery proceedings. Manager Sh. R.K. Namani appeared at PS Anand Vihar and produced the original account opening forms of M/s Baleshwar Metals, which were seized vide Ex.PW7/A; the account opening form is Ex.PW7/B (colly, 2 pages). On 05.08.2008, he along with R.K. Namani went to DRT Office, Jhandewalan and obtained documents A to A28 as Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH JAIN page No. 9 of 19 Date:
JAIN 2026.05.18 16:11:55 +0530 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Radhey Shyam etc. FIR No.: 324/2007 PS: Anand Vihar per seizure memo Ex.PW6/A (collectively Ex.PW2/I, 95 pages). He received a letter from Central Bank dated 10.07.2008 (Ex.PW7/C), listing S.No. 1 to 57 documents signed by Senior Manager R.K. Namani; these documents are now collectively Ex.PW7/E (colly). He also received a letter dated 23.09.2008 (Ex.PW6/B) with further documents. Certified copies of documents pertaining to M/s Baleshwar Metals, M/s Divya Impex, Suman Enterprises and J.P. Enterprises were received from R.K. Namani as per letter dated 12.08.2008 (Ex.PW7/D, colly, 159 pages). He also seized the death certificate of Lt. Sh. Chhajju Singh, S/o Sh. Bhotu Singh, vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/F; the copy of the death certificate is Mark Z. He recorded statements of witnesses u/s 161 CrPC during investigation. Thereafter, the case was transferred to DIU and he handed over the case file to MHC(R).
13.Accused Ramesh Chand and Sukhbir Singh have made separate statements u/s 294 Cr.P.C. and admitted documents i.e. FIR and endorsement on rukka as Ex.A1 and Ex.A2.
14.After completion of prosecution evidence, same was closed and the matter was listed for recording of statement of all the accused persons u/s 313 Cr.PC.
15.In the statement u/s 313 Cr.PC, all accused persons deposed as Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH JAIN page No. 10 of 19 JAIN Date:
2026.05.18 16:12:01 +0530 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Radhey Shyam etc. FIR No.: 324/2007 PS: Anand Vihar under:
a) Accused Sukhbir Singh has submitted that the loan/OD facility was facilitated as per the valuation report and other documents submitted by the other bank officials and the panel lawyer etc.
b) Accused Ramesh Chand has submitted that he was the servant of Radhey Shyam Sharma and he has been falsely implicated. His signatures were misused by his owner Radhey Shyam.
16.Accused persons showed their unwillingness to lead evidence and thereafter, matter was listed for final arguments.
17.It is pertinent to state in here that accused Radhey Shyam and V.K. Chaturvedi were expired during the trial and proceedings against them stood abated vide order dated 17.09.2012 and 13.03.2024. During the trial, accused Deepak Sharma was declared Proclaimed Person vide order dated 16.08.2010.
18.I have heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsels for accused persons and Ld. APP for the State and carefully perused the entire record.
FINDINGS AND REASONS
19.The accused persons have been sent for trial on the allegations that, in conspiracy with each other, they induced the Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH JAIN page No. 11 of 19 JAIN Date:
2026.05.18 16:12:09 +0530 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Radhey Shyam etc. FIR No.: 324/2007 PS: Anand Vihar complainant bank to sanction overdraft/loan facilities on the basis of false representations and thereby caused wrongful loss to the bank and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves.
20.At the outset, it is settled law that in a criminal trial the burden always rests upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and such burden never shifts. The prosecution is required to stand on its own legs and cannot derive strength from the weakness of defence.
21.The principal allegation against accused Sukhbir Singh is that, while functioning as a bank official, he facilitated sanction of the loan facility in conspiracy with co-accused persons and in violation of banking norms. The allegation against accused Ramesh Chand is that he, being proprietor/borrower, dishonestly availed the loan facility and participated in the alleged conspiracy.
22.However, upon appreciation of the entire evidence on record, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of cheating or criminal conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt.
A. ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE OF FRAUDULENT OR DISHONEST INTENTION AT THE INCEPTION
23.To constitute an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC, it is Digitally signed MANISH by MANISH JAIN page No. 12 of 19 JAIN Date: 2026.05.18 16:12:16 +0530 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Radhey Shyam etc. FIR No.: 324/2007 PS: Anand Vihar essential that fraudulent or dishonest intention should exist at the very inception of the transaction. Mere failure to repay loan or subsequent default cannot by itself constitute the offence of cheating.
24.In International Advanced Research Centre for Power Metallurgy & New Materials & others vs Nirma Cerglass Technics Pvt. Ltd. & Another CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2128 OF 2011, it was held that mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution under Section 420 IPC unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of transaction, i.e. the time when the offence is said to have been committed.
25.In the present case, prosecution evidence itself shows that the overdraft facility was processed through normal banking procedure. PW2 and documentary exhibits Ex.PW2/F and Ex.PW2/G establish that valuation report and legal scrutiny report were obtained prior to sanction of the facility. The prosecution neither examined the valuer nor the panel advocate to prove that the reports were forged, fabricated or prepared in collusion with accused persons.
26.No evidence has come on record to show that accused persons had concealed any material fact from the bank at the inception of the transaction. Mere fact that the account subsequently Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH JAIN page No. 13 of 19 JAIN Date:
2026.05.18 16:12:23 +0530 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Radhey Shyam etc. FIR No.: 324/2007 PS: Anand Vihar became irregular or recovery proceedings were initiated before DRT cannot automatically give rise to criminal liability.
B. FAILURE TO PROVE CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY
27.The prosecution has also alleged criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120B IPC. However, conspiracy cannot be presumed merely because a transaction subsequently resulted in financial loss.
28.In Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) 1988 (3) SCC 609, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that criminal conspiracy requires proof of meeting of minds to commit an illegal act.
29.Likewise, in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu 2005 INSC 333, it was held that though conspiracy is generally proved through circumstantial evidence, circumstances relied upon must unerringly point towards guilt.
30.In the present matter, there is no evidence of any prior agreement between accused Sukhbir Singh and co-accused persons. No evidence regarding receipt of illegal gratification, pecuniary benefit or sharing of wrongful gain by accused Sukhbir Singh has been produced.
31.The prosecution has not proved any communication, meeting, document or conduct suggestive of concerted action between Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH JAIN page No. 14 of 19 JAIN Date:
2026.05.18 16:12:32 +0530 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Radhey Shyam etc. FIR No.: 324/2007 PS: Anand Vihar accused persons to cheat the bank. Mere processing of loan documents by a bank official during official course of duty cannot by itself establish conspiracy.
C. ADMISSION OF INVESTIGATING OFFICER CREATES SERIOUS DOUBT
32.The testimony of PW7 ACP Ghanshyam materially weakens the prosecution case. During cross-examination, PW7 categorically admitted:
"During investigation no incriminating evidence were against the accused Ramesh Chand till the time I have collected the evidences/documents."
He further made similar admission with respect to accused Sukhbir Singh. Such admission by the Investigating Officer is highly significant. The investigating agency itself could not collect any independent incriminating material connecting the accused persons with fraudulent conduct except the loan documentation forming part of official banking record.
33.It is settled law that suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute legal proof.
D. DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS HAVE NO SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENTIARY VALUE PW4 and PW5 proved disclosure statements allegedly made by accused persons. However, no recovery pursuant thereto has Digitally signed page No. 15 of 19 by MANISH MANISH JAIN JAIN Date:
2026.05.18 16:12:47 +0530 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Radhey Shyam etc. FIR No.: 324/2007 PS: Anand Vihar been proved.
34.It is well settled that disclosure statement of an accused is admissible only to the limited extent contemplated under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
35.In Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor, it was held that only that portion of disclosure statement which distinctly relates to discovery of fact is admissible.
36.In the present case, no consequential recovery has been proved pursuant to the alleged disclosure statements. Hence, the same cannot be treated as substantive evidence of guilt.
E. INVESTIGATION SUFFERS FROM MATERIAL DEFICIENCIES
37.The evidence of PW6 Raj Kumar Nemani reveals further infirmities in the prosecution case. PW6 admitted during cross- examination that he had not brought the written notice allegedly issued to him by Regional Manager for joining investigation and further stated that the same "may be obtained from the branch of the bank."
38.Subsequently, when recalled, PW6 admitted that he had not even sent any letter to obtain the said document from the bank after his earlier deposition. Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.05.18 16:12:53 page No. 16 of 19 +0530 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Radhey Shyam etc. FIR No.: 324/2007 PS: Anand Vihar
39.Thus, the prosecution failed to prove the foundational record regarding participation of PW6 in seizure proceedings. Such omission assumes importance particularly because the case substantially rests upon documentary seizures.
F. STATEMENTS UNDER SECTION 313 Cr.P.C.
40.The explanations furnished by the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. also appear plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case.
41.Accused Sukhbir Singh consistently stated that he merely processed the facility on the basis of valuation reports and legal scrutiny reports submitted by authorized persons appointed by the bank and that sanction authority vested with senior officials.
42.The said explanation finds support from prosecution evidence itself.
43.Accused Ramesh Chand stated that he was merely servant of deceased accused Radhey Shyam Sharma and his signatures were misused. Though the burden was upon him to prove such defence, prosecution was still required to affirmatively establish his culpable involvement beyond reasonable doubt, which it has failed to do.
Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.05.18 page No. 17 of 19 16:13:19 +0530 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Radhey Shyam etc. FIR No.: 324/2007 PS: Anand Vihar G. PREDOMINANTLY CIVIL NATURE OF DISPUTE
44.The material on record shows that the complainant bank had already initiated recovery proceedings before DRT in respect of the loan transaction. The dispute essentially emanates from sanction, utilization and recovery of loan facility.
45.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. (2006 INSC 452) cautioned against converting civil disputes into criminal prosecutions merely to exert pressure.
46.In absence of clear evidence of fraudulent intention or fabrication attributable to the accused persons, continuation of criminal liability would not be justified merely because the loan account became irregular or recovery remained pending.
H. BENEFIT OF DOUBT The cumulative effect of the aforesaid discussion is that:
•prosecution failed to establish fraudulent intention from inception;
•no material proving meeting of minds or conspiracy has been produced;
•no recovery pursuant to disclosure statements has been proved; •investigation suffers from material inconsistencies and omissions;
•even the Investigating Officer admitted absence of
incriminating evidence against accused persons during
Digitally signed
by MANISH
MANISH JAIN
page No. 18 of 19 JAIN Date:
2026.05.18
16:13:25 +0530
(Manish Jain)
ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi
State Vs. Radhey Shyam etc.
FIR No.: 324/2007 PS: Anand Vihar
investigation;
•prosecution failed to prove wrongful gain or illegal benefit derived by accused persons.
Thus, serious doubts arise regarding the prosecution story. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that benefit of every reasonable doubt must go to the accused.
47.Accordingly, this Court holds that prosecution has failed to prove offences punishable under Sections 420/120B IPC against accused Sukhbir Singh and Ramesh Chand beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, both the accused persons are acquitted for the above stated offences.
Announced in the Open Court Digitally signed by today i.e. on dated 16th May 2025 MANISH MANISH JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.05.18
16:13:30
+0530
(MANISH JAIN)
ACJM: SHAHDARA DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS:DELHI
page No. 19 of 19
(Manish Jain)
ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi