Delhi District Court
23. In Another Case Titled As Mousam ... vs . State Of West on 25 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-05 (SOUTH-WEST),
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
PRESIDED BY : SH. DEEPAK VATS
STATE V S.R. Krishnamurty and Others
FIR No. 863/08
Police Station: Janak Puri
Under Section: 420/406/120B IPC
Date of institution : 22.09.1998
Date of reserving : 18.02.2020
Date of pronouncement : 25.02.2020.
JUDGMENT
a) Serial number of the case 6729/19
b) Date of commission of offence 25.07.1998
c) Name of the complainant Rakesh Kumar Singh s/o Sh.
R. P. Singh r/o A-264, Sudar-
shan Park, Moti Nagar, New
Delhi.
d) Name, parentage and address 1. S.R. Krishnamurti s/o Late
of the accused Sh. Ramnadan r/o A 5B/77 B
Janak Puri New Dehi. ( Pro-
claimed offender)
2. T. Nagarajan s/o Sh. A.
Thangwell r/o WZ 276/H Up-
per Ground Floor, Inderpuri,
STATE V S.R. Krishnamurty and Others FIR No. 863/08 PS: Janak Puri U/s 420/406/120B IPC 1 Delhi.
3.Challa Durai s/o Tangaraj r/o Shivram P. New Colony (40/91 ) Triputur T.N. ( Pro-
claimed offender)
e) Offence complained of U/s 420/406/120B IPC
f) Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
g) Final order Acquitted
h) Date of final order 25.02.2020
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that during the year 1997 and 1998 or prior to that accused T Nagrajan along with co-accused S. R. Krishna- murti, Chella Durai Sundrajan ( PO) hatched a conspiracy and in pursuance of the said conspiracy formed a firm namely Web Control International, and conspired with each other to cheat the complainant and may other students mentioned in the charge sheet, by inducing them to pay an amount of Rs. Rs. 50,000/- each for get- ting them enrolled in a training programme with stipend payable to the students, without any intention to train the students or to pay them the stipend amount. Thus, it is alleged that accused persons committed offences punishable u/s 420/406/120B IPC.
STATE V S.R. Krishnamurty and Others FIR No. 863/08 PS: Janak Puri U/s 420/406/120B IPC 2
2. Charges were framed against the accused T. Nagarajan vide order dated 13.04.2012 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined Eleven witnesses.
4. PW 1 Sh. S. P. Gangadhar has deposed that in the month of March 1998 he came to know through advertisement about M/s Web Control Interna- tional. He came to Delhi and met with the director and other persons of the above- said company/ partnership firm. He deposed that S.R. Krishnamurthy was the Chairman of the same and Sh. Nagrajan was working as Executive Director, Sh. Sunder Rajan was the H.R. Director and Chella Durai was the Technical Director. He applied for Software Automation examination which was conducted by the abovesaid company. Later on he succeeded in the above said examination and de- posited Rs. 49,000/- as training expenses with the company. He deposed that ear- lier he had given Rs. 1000/- as examination fee through draft in the name of com- pany. He further deposed that as per the terms and conditions, he was selected to receive Rs. 10,000/- per month as stipend. He had not received any stipend from the said firm. His training was also not completed by the firm. PW 1 identified ac- cused T. Nagarajan as the Executive Director of the firm. STATE V S.R. Krishnamurty and Others FIR No. 863/08 PS: Janak Puri U/s 420/406/120B IPC 3 In his cross-examination he stated that he himself left the said firm as he did not received the stipend amount.
5. PW2 Sh. Ranjan Kumar, on similar lines as PW 1, deposed that he had seen an advertisement in Times of India and other newspapers regarding web designing and internet training cum job programme and he came know that all India level Entrance Test for the same was being conducted. He sent a demand draft to M/s Web Control International Janak Puri for prospectus of the firm. After around 10 days he received a prospectus and filled up the form which was sent along with prospectus. After some time he received admit card for All India Examination. He appeared in All India Examination at a school near Rajindra Place. After 15 days he received an envelope from the said company and came to know that he was successful in the examination and company was offering stipend of Rs. 10,000/- per month. He was also informed that he had to deposit Rs. 50,000/- as the cost of training programme for the six months. After that he came to Delhi and went at the office of M/s Web Control International which was situated at Community Center, Janak Puri, There he met one person S.R. Krishnamurthy who introduced himself as a Chairman of the company and also introduced one person as T. Nagarajan. He was also introduced with Technical Director of the company whose name was told as Chela Durai. He brought DD of Rs. 50,000/- and submitted the same in front office. One joining letter was issued to him signed by the chairman of the company. He further deposed that his training programme was initiated and STATE V S.R. Krishnamurty and Others FIR No. 863/08 PS: Janak Puri U/s 420/406/120B IPC 4 time slot of 9 am to 3 pm was alloted to him. First day training was given by Chela Durai and after that they were left with computers to train themselves on their own and no formal training was given. He deposed that one month was passed in the above said manner and no trainer was provided. Only Technical Director Sh. Chela Durai remained present there. He further deposed that in the first month of training, on repeated requested, only Rs. 1800/- were given to them as stipend. He further deposed that on 13th and 14th day of next month, the training programme was closed and computer which were installed at the Web Control International were also shifted from there. Mr. Nagrajan was present there and they asked about the training. Mr. Nagrajan failed to give any concrete reply regarding the training programme and stipend. After some time, the complaint which was Ex. PW 1/A was filed. He deposed that only Rs. 1800/- were returned to him till date and was cheated by accused persons. The receipt of Rs. 50,000/- received by accused T. Nagaraja vide receipt bearing serial no. 3/122 dated 20.04.1998 was Ex. PW 2/A. In his cross-examination he stated that for the first two -three days he was satisfied with the training programme. He also affirmed the suggestion that partial stipend was paid to many students undergoing many training programme.
6. PW 3 was Ct. Sanjeev who proved seizure memo Ex. PW 3/A vide which various furniture items lying in the premises of Web Control International were seized.
STATE V S.R. Krishnamurty and Others FIR No. 863/08 PS: Janak Puri U/s 420/406/120B IPC 5
7. PW 4 was HC M Subaiya who joined the investigation of the case. He exhibited the arrest memos of accused S.R. Krishnamurty, T. Nagarajana and Chella Durrai as Ex. PW 4/A, Ex. PW 4/B and Ex. PW 4/C. He also exhibited personal search memos of accused persons as Ex. PW 4/D, Ex. PW 4/E and Ex. PW 4/F.
8. PW 5 was Sh. Dev Raj Chauhan who was also a student of M/s Web Control International. He deposed on the lines of PW 1 and PW 2 and stated that he along with other students were cheated by the accused persons.
In his cross-examination he deposed that training programme continued for up to two months and after that trainer stopped coming as he was not paid.
9. Inadvertently Sh. Shridhar Rajan, Sr. Manager Legal, Bennett Colman and Co. Ltd, was also examined as PW 5. He was called to prove the advertisement of M/s Web Control International in Times of India newspaper. He deposed that in newspaper dated 05.05.1998 which was exhibited as Ex. PW 5/B, the advertisement mark A was not available.
10. PW 6 was Sh. A. K. Chandhok, who supplied UPS and Stabilizer to the M/s Web Control International . He deposed that he was not paid by the firm for his service.
STATE V S.R. Krishnamurty and Others FIR No. 863/08 PS: Janak Puri U/s 420/406/120B IPC 6
11. PW 7 ASI Sumder was the DO, he exhibited the FIR as Ex. PW 7/A (OSR).
12. PW 8 Mr. Ashok Kumar UDC, Registrar of Firms deposed that M/s Web Control international was registered as a partnership firm and he exhibited photocopy of form A and B as Ex. PW 8/A ( OSR) and PW 8/B ( OSR) respectively.
13. PW 9 Sh. Giribabu was the witness from State Bank of Hyadrabad.
14. PW 10 SI Rakesh Yadav joined the investigation with the IO.
15. PW 11 Sita Ram Meena, Assistant Director, Director of Enforcement, Jaiput was the IO. He deposed regarding the investigation conducted by him in the case. He deposed that after completion of the investigation he filed the charge sheet.
16. Thereafter PE was closed. Statement of accused persons u/s 313 Cr. PC was recorded in which he denied the allegations made against him and claimed that he has been falsely implicated. He stated that he was only an employee in M/s Web Control International and he was employed in the said firm on behalf of Sh. Ram Avtar Yadav who sold the premises in which the said firm was being run to the STATE V S.R. Krishnamurty and Others FIR No. 863/08 PS: Janak Puri U/s 420/406/120B IPC 7 co-accused Mr. T. Chella Durrai and he was inducted in the said firm only to recover the amount of Sh. Ram Avtar Yadav. He further stated that the firm paid stipend to the students / trainees.
17. Accused opted to lead DE and examined DW 1 Sh. Ram Avtar Yadav and DW 2 Ms. Lalita ( wife of accused T. Nagarajan). Both the defence witnesses deposed that the accused T. Nagarajan was inducted in M/s Web Control Interna- tional on behalf of Sh. Ram Avtar Yadav only to ensure that the money due on the firm payable to Sh. Ram Avtar Yadav is paid to him. They further deposed that ac- cused T. Nagarajan had nothing to do with the management of the firm.
18. Final arguments were advanced by the parties. I have heard the sub- missions of Dr Yadvendra Singh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Ld counsel for accused and perused the record carefully.
19. During the course of arguments, Ld. APP submitted that the prosecution has proved its case against accused beyond reasonable doubts. He further submitted the prosecution has proved by cogent and reliable evidence that the accused T. Nagarajan along with other accused persons cheated the complainant and other students. Therefore, accused be convicted as per law. STATE V S.R. Krishnamurty and Others FIR No. 863/08 PS: Janak Puri U/s 420/406/120B IPC 8
20. Ld. Defence counsel for accused has submitted that there is no con- clusive evidence against the accused. He deposed that there was no intention to cheat the students and the accused T. Nagarajan had no role in the management of M/s Web Control International and thus he is entitled to be acquitted.
21. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convinc- ing evidence. Since, there is a strong presumption of innocence in favour of the ac- cused and rebuttal of the same always lies upon the prosecution. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to successfully bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if any, in the defence of the accused. Ac- cused is entitled to benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and any such doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal.
22. Similar observations were made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kaliram vs State of Himanchal Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 2773 and held that accused is presumed to be innocent till charges against him are proved beyond reasonable doubt.
23. In another case titled as Mousam Singh Roy & ors. vs. State of West Bengal (2003) 12 SCC 377, it was held that burden of proof in criminal trial never STATE V S.R. Krishnamurty and Others FIR No. 863/08 PS: Janak Puri U/s 420/406/120B IPC 9 shifts and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence.
24. In the present case, accused has been charged for the offence u/s 420/406 and 120B IPC. The court deems it appropriate to discuss all the three offences separately to find whether the prosecution has proved that the accused committed the said offences.
Discussion on Section 420 IPC.
25. Before dwelling upon the facts of the case, let us first discuss the law on cheating. The offence of cheating has been defined in Section 415 IPC. Section 415 IPC provides as follows :-
"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"
26. In the case of Ramjas v State of UP AIR 1974 SC 1811 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the ingredients to constitute the STATE V S.R. Krishnamurty and Others FIR No. 863/08 PS: Janak Puri U/s 420/406/120B IPC 10 offence of cheating are :-
(i) There should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him;
(ii) (a) The person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property ; or (b) The person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived ;
and
(iii) In case covered by (ii) (b), the act or omission should be one which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property.
27. Further, Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Hemant Kumar Das and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Anr. (Crl. Misc. no. 905/2018 decided on 21.08.2018) opined that the offence cheating is different from mere breach of contract. Hon'ble High Court observed as follows :-
" 33. In Dalip Kaur and Others V. Jagnar Singh and Anr. (2009) 14 SCC 696), the question of determination before the Supreme Court was whether breach of contract of an agreement for sale would constitute an offence under Section 406 or Section 420 of the IPC. After examining the fact of the case and relevant Sections of the IPC, the Supreme Court held that an offence of "cheating'' would be constituted when the accused has fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promises or representation. A pure and simple breach of contract does not constitute the offence of "cheating ''. It further held that if the dispute between the parties was essentially a civil dispute resulting from a breach of STATE V S.R. Krishnamurty and Others FIR No. 863/08 PS: Janak Puri U/s 420/406/120B IPC 11 contract on the part of the appellants for non-refunding the amount of advance, the same would not constitute an offence of "cheating" or " criminal breach of trust"
28. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v State of Bihar, AIR 2000 SC 2341 observed as follows :-
''15. In determining the question it has to be kept in mind that the distinction between, mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating is a fine one. It depends upon the intention of the accused at the time of inducement which may be judged by his subsequent conduct but for this subsequent conduct is not the sole test. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, that is the time when the offence is said to have been committed. Therefore, it is the intention which is the gist of the offence. To hold a person guilty of cheating it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. From his mere failure to keep up promise subsequently such a culpable intention right at the beginning, that is, when he made the promise cannot be presumed''. (Emphasis supplied)
29. From the above precedents, it can be culled out that the offence of cheating is made out only when there is an intention to cheat at the very inception, otherwise, offence u/s 415/ 420 IPC is not attracted. Thus, in the present case, in order to prove cheating, the prosecution needs to prove that the accused, being Director of the company M/s Web Control International cheated the students at the time of enrolling them for their Software Development Automation Programme. STATE V S.R. Krishnamurty and Others FIR No. 863/08 PS: Janak Puri U/s 420/406/120B IPC 12
30. From the evidence available on record i.e. the statements of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 5 Sh. Dev Raj Chauhan and statement of accused T. Nagarajan under Section 313 IPC, it has emerged that the students did enroll for Software Development Automation Programme of M/s Web Control International, that they were not paid stipend as agreed with them and that they were not imparted training for full period as agreed with them. Thus, it is not disputed that students suffered loss due to the acts of the management of M/s Web Control International.
31. The next thing that needs to be determined is whether the accused was the Executive Director of the firm M/s Web Control International and played a key role in the management of the firm as claimed by the prosecution or he was simply an employee of M/s Web Control International and thus he was not responsible for the loss caused to the students, as claimed by the accused.
32. Accused has led defence evidence and examined DW 1 Sh. Ram Avtar Yadav, and DW 2 Ms. Lalita to prove that the accused T. Nagarajan was not Executive Director or a partner of M/s Web Control International and was inducted in the same only to recover the amount on behalf of DW 1 Ram Avtar Yadav, however, the prosecution has examined many witnesses and placed on record many documents which clearly show that accused T. Nagarajan has played a key STATE V S.R. Krishnamurty and Others FIR No. 863/08 PS: Janak Puri U/s 420/406/120B IPC 13 role in the management M/s Web Control International. PW 1, PW 2 and PW 5 Sh. Dev Raj Chauhan have clearly deposed in the court regarding the role of accused T. Nagarajan in the management M/s Web Control International. Further, PW 2 has placed on record receipt Ex. PW 2/A whereby the payment of Rs. 50,000/- was made by PW 2 M/s Web Control International, the same bears signatures of the accused T. Nagarajan at point A and his position is shown as Executive Director of the M/s Web Control International. Thus, there is overwhelming material available on record to show that accused T. Nagarajan played a key role in the management of M/s Web Control International and was not merely an employee of the same. Thus, he cannot escape his liability for acts done by M/s Web Control International, if it is proved that the students were cheated by the firm.
33. Now that it is clear that many students suffered monetary loss due to fault of M/s Web Control International and that the accused T. Nagarajan played a key role in the management of M/s Web Control International, the only question that is to be determined by this court is whether the loss that was caused to the students was due to cheating committed by the management M/s Web Control International or because of any other fault on the part of the management.
34. As discussed earlier to prove the cheating intention of the accused at the inception i.e. at the time of enrolling students need to be seen. In order to see whether there was any intention to cheat the students, the testimonies of PW 1, STATE V S.R. Krishnamurty and Others FIR No. 863/08 PS: Janak Puri U/s 420/406/120B IPC 14 PW 2 and PW 5 and the complaint Ex. PW 1/A are most important evidence.
35. First of all the court needs to look into Ex. PW 1/A the original complaint Ex. PW 1/A on which the present FIR was registered. Perusal of the Ex. PW 1/A no where shows that at the time of enrollment, the company M/s Web Control International had the intention to cheat the students. Ex. PW 1/A states that the students were asked to make the payment of Rs. 50,000/- each to appear in an examination and to enroll for training programme. As per the same, the students were to be paid from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- each per month as per their performance in the written examination. Further, it is stated in Ex. PW 1/A that the company started in November 1999 and three batches were inducted till date of the complaint i.e. 25.07.1998 and a sum of Rs. 53.5 lacs was collected by the firm. It is alleged that no student/ candidate has received a single penny since May 1998. From a bare perusal of Ex. PW 1/A it is apparent that at least some amount though less then the agreed amount, for some time was paid by M/s Web Control International to the students as stipend money. As some money was paid it appears that there was no intention to cheat the students in the beginning.
36. Similarly, the testimonies of PW 1 Sh. S. P. Ganga Dhar, PW2 Rajan and PW 5 Sh. Dev Raj Chauhan, nowhere throw any light on the intention of the firm M/s Web Control International at the time of enrollment of PW 1 , PW 2, PW 5 or other students. Witnesses simply deposed that they were made to deposit a STATE V S.R. Krishnamurty and Others FIR No. 863/08 PS: Janak Puri U/s 420/406/120B IPC 15 sum of Rs. 50,000/- with promise to give them stipend and the training but they were not given full training or the stipend amount. Thus, the testimonies of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 5 are not clear to establish the charge of cheating. Moreover, PW 1 stated that he received training from 04.05.1998 to 25.07.1998. PW 2 admitted in his cross examination that initially some training was provided to the students. He also admitted that stipend was paid to the many students. Likewise PW 5 Dev Raj also admitted in his cross-examination that the course continued for two months.
37. Further, examination of PW 3 Ct. Sanjeev shows that lot of furniture and other property for example revolving chairs, plastic chairs , air conditioners, stabilizers, office, tables, sofa sets ply boards and some other articles were recovered from the office M/s Web Control International. This is also suggestive of the fact that initially the intention of management of M/s Web Control International may not be to cheat the students but to impart training to them.
38. Further, the prosecution has not placed on record any other evidence for example phone call records, account statement of the accused persons or M/s Web Control International to show siphoning of the money received by the M/s Web Control International from the students to the personal account of the accused persons or to any other person or any other evidence which could show that from very inception the intention of the company was to cheat the students. STATE V S.R. Krishnamurty and Others FIR No. 863/08 PS: Janak Puri U/s 420/406/120B IPC 16
39. The above discussion leads to strong possibility that at the inception the intention of management of M/s We Control International was not to cheat the students. No doubt, the acts of the M/s Web Control International has caused massive loss to the students, but the court can only sympathized with them for their monetary loss. Their loss in itself is not sufficient to prove that they were cheated by the firm. The gross mismanagement of the M/s Web Control International in mishandling the money of the students may give rise to a civil case, but the same is not sufficient to prove that M/s Web Control International cheated the students.
40. Apart from the PW 1, PW 2 and PW 5 Dev Kumar Chauhan no other student of the said programme was examined by the prosecution, there is no other evidence filed on record to show cheating. It has already been discussed that their testimonies is not sufficient to show that there was any intention to cheat at very inception.
41. Accordingly, the only conclusion that may be drawn is that evidence placed on record by the prosecution is grossly insufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was intention to cheat the students at the very inception. Accordingly, accused T. Nagarajan is hereby acquitted of the offence u/s 420 IPC.
STATE V S.R. Krishnamurty and Others FIR No. 863/08 PS: Janak Puri U/s 420/406/120B IPC 17 Discussion on Section 406 IPC
42. Section 406 IPC provides for punishment for criminal breach of trust. Section 405 IPC defines Criminal breach of trust. Section 405 IPC provides that " Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or coverts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or willfully suffers any other person to do so, commits "criminal breach of trust".
43. Hon'ble Punjab High court in case of State Vs. Jage Ram, AIR 1951 Punjab 103, discussed the law on criminal breach of trust and observed that to make out a case of criminal breach of trust it is generally necessary to show that the property belonged to someone other than the accused, that the accused acquired it lawfully or with the consent of the owner, that it was in the physical or constructive possession of the accused at the time of the commission, that the accused occupied a fiduciary relationship, that his dealing with the property constituted a conversion or appropriation of the same to his own use or the use of any person other than the owner and that there was fraudulent intent to deprive the owner of the property.
STATE V S.R. Krishnamurty and Others FIR No. 863/08 PS: Janak Puri U/s 420/406/120B IPC 18
44. Further, it is settled law that to constitute offence of criminal breach of trust, entrustment of the property is a must. Entrustment within the meaning of section 405 IPC that implies that the person handing over any property or whose the property is handed over to another, continued to be its owner. One of the most important element of the entrustment is that property in respect of which criminal breach of trust is alleged to have been committed must have been made over or transferred or handed over by the aggrieved persons, who continued to be owner thereof, to the accused ( Pusa Kumar Rai v State of Sikkim 1978 Cr LJ 1379 (Sikkim).
45. Further, in case State of Gujarat Vs Jaswant Lal Nathalal (1968) 2SCJ 334, Hon'ble Supreme court of India observed that the notion of trust in the ordinary sense of that word is that there is a person, a trustee or one who is entrusted, in whom confidence is reposed by another who commits the property to him. Such confidence is to be fully reposed. A person who tricks another in delivering property to him bears no resemblance to a trustee in the ordinary acceptation of that term and section 405 IPC gives to sanction regarding him as a trustee.
46. The above discussion of law on criminal breach of trust makes it clear that there must be entrustment of a property to attract offence u/s 405/406 IPC. In the present case the allegations of the prosecution are that accused cheated the STATE V S.R. Krishnamurty and Others FIR No. 863/08 PS: Janak Puri U/s 420/406/120B IPC 19 students by alluring them to make payment of Rs. 50,000/- to enroll in the course offered by M/s Web Control International. From the bare allegations made in the case of the prosecution, it is clear that there was no entrustment from the students in favour of the accused. It was never the case of the prosecution that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was handed over by the student to the accused only as an entrusrment and without changing the ownership of the said amount. As there was no entrustment of money or any other property, Section 405/406 IPC are not attracted. Thus accused T. Nagarajan stands acquitted for the offence u/s 406 IPC. Discussion on 120B IPC.
47. It is already observed that there is no evidence regarding the intention of the accused at the very inception of the enrollment of students in the training programme of M/s Web control international. Likewise there is no evidence of the conspiracy being hatched by the accused persons to cheat the students. In the absence of evidence to this effect, accused T. Nagarajan stands acquitted for the offence u/s 120 IPC.
48. Accordingly, accused T. Nagarajan is not guilty. Accordingly, he is acquitted of all the charges punishable under section u/s 420/406/120B IPC.
49. Bail bonds under section 437A Cr. PC of accused already furnished. STATE V S.R. Krishnamurty and Others FIR No. 863/08 PS: Janak Puri U/s 420/406/120B IPC 20
50. Documents, if any be returned to the rightful person. Endorsement, if any be cancelled. Bail bonds stand canceled. Superdignama if any, be cancelled.
51. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Court on 25.02.2020 DEEPAK Digitally signed by
DEEPAK VATS
VATS Date: 2020.02.27
16:23:16 +0530
(DEEPAK VATS)
Metropolitan Magistrate-05 (South-West)
25.02.2020.
STATE V S.R. Krishnamurty and Others FIR No. 863/08 PS: Janak Puri U/s 420/406/120B IPC 21