Delhi District Court
Yatin Bajaj S/O Shri Subhash Bajaj vs State (Govt. Of N.C.T.) Delhi on 3 February, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. R.K.GAUBA, ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE 01 (CENTRAL): DELHI
Criminal Revision Petition No.07/11
ID No.: 02401R0013462011
Yatin Bajaj S/o Shri Subhash Bajaj
R/o H3/210, Sector16,Rohini,
Delhi 110 089. ...Revisionist.
Versus
State (Govt. of N.C.T.) Delhi ...Respondent.
Instituted on: 13.01.2011
Judgment reserved on: 03.02.2011
Judgment pronounced on: 03.02.2011
J U D G M E N T
1. This criminal revision petition has questioned the legality, correctness and propriety of the order dated 18.10.2010 passed by Shri Vinod Yadav, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM), Delhi in criminal case arising out of chargesheet presented on conclusion of investigation into FIR No. 63/2008 of Police Station Special Cell, Delhi for offences under Section 419/468/471/384/120B IPC. Vide the said order, the CMM found charges made out for the said Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 07/11 Yatin Bajaj v. State 1 of 7 offences against the eight accused persons (who were sent up for trial), which include the revisionist Yatin Bajaj arrayed in the chargesheet as accused No. 4.
2. The criminal revision petition was initially resisted by the State. The trial Court record has been called for. I have heard Shri M.K. Duggal, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri R.K. Tanwar, Addl. PP for State. I have gone through the record during the course of arguments.
3. On careful appraisal, I find that it is difficult to uphold the impugned order, in that it suffers from serious deficiency. While it is settled law that the criminal Court passing an order finding charge to be made out need not give detailed reasons as to why the charge is made out, it is yet a requirement of the law and procedure that the order must reflect the views of the criminal court why the contentions of the defence, to the contrary, do not appeal to it. In absence of such reasons, the order passed per se appears capricious and suffering from the defect of nonapplication of mind and, thus, arbitrary.
4. The chargesheet indicates that the eight persons sent up for trial were arrested in the course of investigation. It is alleged that these arrests were effected in the wake of information initially lodged by Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 07/11 Yatin Bajaj v. State 2 of 7 one Yogender Kumar that a mobile phone wrongfully taken in his name on the basis of forged and fabricated documents was being used to extort money from innocent persons. It is alleged that six victims of such offences came to light, all offences being connected with the two firms M/s. Akansha Promotions and Nanglidham. The phone calls allegedly made for the purposes of extorting money are stated to have been intercepted and recorded. It is stated that voice samples of the arrested persons were collected and the material sent for opinion to CFSL. During the course of investigation, a number of mobile phone instruments were seized, at least three such mobile phone instruments having been recovered from the possession of the revisionist herein. Call details of the mobile phone calls/conversations area also stated to have been collected. It is stated in the chargesheet that voice samples of the arrested persons were collected and compared with recorded voices. It is clear from the CFSL report that the voice of the revisionist did not match with any of the recorded voices. On this basis, the chargesheet was laid seeking trial of all the eight persons so arrested on which the Court of Magistrate took cognizance.
5. On careful perusal of the chargesheet, I find it to be withholding information and clarity more than revealing. The investigating Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 07/11 Yatin Bajaj v. State 3 of 7 officer has not spelt out clearly as to how evidence is incriminating each of the eight accused persons whose trial was sought thereby. A general allegation that the evidence in above nature had been collected is followed by the prayer for the trial to be undertaken. Ld. Addl. PP fairly conceded that the chargesheet should have been more specific qua the role of each accused on the basis of the evidence collected. He also fairly conceded that it should have been clearly mentioned as to how separate offences respecting six different victims are being clubbed under the cover of one common FIR and one common chargesheet.
6. The deficiency in the chargesheet seems to have crept into the order whereby the charge has been found to be made out. I find that the Ld. CMM, after setting out broadly what was alleged in the chargesheet, noted the submission on behalf of the accused persons, which would include the revisionist, to the effect that they have been roped in just because they had been found sitting in the office of M/s. Akansha Promotions in which coaccused Sanjeev Kumar was the owner. After mentioning that criminal conspiracy is generally hatched in dark and executed in secrecy, the CMM has observed that direct evidence is very difficult to be found. Thereafter, referring to CFSL reports, statements of the victims, Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 07/11 Yatin Bajaj v. State 4 of 7 call detail records, the transcripts of the intercepted conversations and the documents on the basis of which various mobile phones and SIM cards have been obtained, it has been concluded that there was "prima facie enough material". This, to my mind, was too cryptic a way of taking a decision on the question of framing charge.
7. The error in the order whereby charge was found made out has further travelled into the formal charges that were framed.
8. Charge for the main offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC read with Section 419, 468, 471, 384 IPC vaguely states that all the eight arrested persons were party thereto, without it being considered anywhere, including in the charge order as to how they were connected together to the criminal conspiracy.
9. In the charges for offences under Section 468 read with Section 120B IPC, Section 471 read with Section 120B IPC, Section 419 read with Section 120B IPC and Section 384 read with Section 120B IPC framed under separate heads, all transactions (not even spelt out) have been mixed up which was most improper.
10.While framing charge, the criminal court is expected to be guided by the provisions contained in Chapter XVII of Cr.P.C., particularly Sections 211, 212 and 213 Cr.P.C. Nineteen mobile Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 07/11 Yatin Bajaj v. State 5 of 7 phones and twenty two SIM cards are alleged to have been procured by different individuals on basis of fake identities for the purposes of carrying out the extortion racket. The charge framed under Section 468 IPC does not mention the mobile phone numbers or the SIM cards or the identities of the accused persons who had obtained the same. Same is the defect creeping into the charge under Section 471 IPC. In the context of the charges under Section 419 and 384 IPC, the specific dates and places or the manner of threat to the different victims have not been indicated. The impugned order also does not indicate as to how the said six separate offences of extortion were being covered under one common charge.
11.In above facts and circumstances, it is difficult to appreciate the contentions of the revisionist that his argument that there was no evidence connecting him with the criminal conspiracy or any of the acts committed in execution thereof was not considered, for the simple reason the views of the Ld. CMM are not available on record.
12.For foregoing reasons, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Court of CMM who is requested to hear the parties afresh and pass a detailed order dealing with all the Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 07/11 Yatin Bajaj v. State 6 of 7 contentions raised by the prosecution and the defence, spelling out his reasons. As observed earlier, the chargesheet has not been happily structured or properly worded. The CMM may be well advised to obtain a further report from the investigating agency setting out the specific role of each accused respecting each act of commission/omission which is stated to constitute any of the offences involved here. This would be necessary so that no one is taken by surprise.
13.With above observations, the revision petition stands disposed of.
14.The trial Court record shall be returned immediately with a copy of this judgment.
15.The file of criminal revision petition be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court today
on this 03rd day of February, 2011 ( R.K. GAUBA)
Addl. Sessions Judge01
Central, Delhi.
Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 07/11 Yatin Bajaj v. State 7 of 7