Delhi District Court
M/S Virtus Dordrecht B.V. vs . Vikram Bhargav & Ors. on 12 February, 2016
IN THE COURT OF Ms. SHEETAL CHAUDHARY PRADHAN:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE10 (SOUTHEAST): SAKET
COURTS:NEW DELHI
M/s Virtus Dordrecht B.V. Vs. Vikram Bhargav & Ors.
CC No. 265/1A
P.S. Greater Kailash I
U/s 420/34 IPC
J U D G M E N T
Serial No. of the Case : 265/1A
Unique Identification No. : 02406R0040031999
Date of Institution : 08.04.1999
Date on which case reserved for
judgment : 30.01.2016
Date of judgment : 12.02.2016
Name of the complainant : Mr. Nico Deugd
Director M/s. Virtus
Dordrecht, PO Box 2930
3001 GE Rotterdam,
Netherlands.
CC No. 265/1A/14
P.S. G.K.1 Page No.1 of 28
Date of the commission of offence : JulyAugust 1996
Name of accused : 1)Vikram Bhargav
s/o Late Sh. S.K. Bhargav
(since deceased)
Proprietor
M/s. VSM Transworld
128A, New Friends Colony
New Delhi110065.
2) Saravjeet Singh
S/o Late Sh. Shiv Dev Singh
R/o Khasra No. 197,
Neb Sarai,
New Delhi110068
3) Mrs. Rainee Singh
W/o Sh. Saravjeet Singh
"Aradhna" Khasra No. 197
Neb Sarai, Sainik Farms,
New Delhi110068
4) Ms. Vineeta Bhargav
D/o Late Sh. H.R. Diwan
W/o Mr. Vikram Bhargav
R/o S339, Greater KailashI
New Delhi110048.
CC No. 265/1A/14
P.S. G.K.1 Page No.2 of 28
Offence complained of : U/s 420/34 IPC
Offence charged of : U/s 420/34 IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Final order : Acquitted
Date of Institution : 08.04.1999
Date on which case reserved
for judgment : 30.01.2016
Date of judgment : 12.02.2016
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR
THE DECISION OF THE CASE
BRIEF FACTS:
The brief facts of the case are that the present complaint was filed in the court on 08.04.1999 by complainant Nico De Deuged, Director of M/s Virtus Durdrecht, in which the complainant stated that he was the sole shareholder/director/principal officer of the complainant company and was authorised to sign, verify and initiate legal proceedings on behalf of complainant company. He has further stated that he had knowledge about the present case. He has further stated in CC No. 265/1A/14 P.S. G.K.1 Page No.3 of 28 his complaint that around JulyAugust, 1996, accused no.1 namely Vikram Bhargav (since deceased) approached the complainant representing himself to be a merchant trader and dealing in export of agro commodities, grains, oilseeds, oils etc. Accused no.1 invited the complainant to join in with him in the business of export of such commodities from India to other countries. Accused no.1 (since deceased) further represented to the complainant that he was well versed with the business of export and had established connections and could arrange to procure agricultural commodities in India for the purpose of such export. Thereafter, upon the suggestion of accused no. 1, complainant entered into a joint business venture for dealing in such commodities which could be mutually profitable to each other. The complainant was further assured by accused no.1 that he would arrange for procurement and export of the agro commodities to other countries. The complainant was made to believe by accused no.1 that complainant would be benefiting in the business and also accused no.1 further proposed that a merchant could be engaged in similar business to facilitate the sale of commodities abroad. It is further stated that Mr. Thomas Bliesener of M/s Bliesener & CIF S.A., Switzerland, was known CC No. 265/1A/14 P.S. G.K.1 Page No.4 of 28 to the complainant as a friend and accordingly complainant further discussed regarding the same i.e. the business venture proposed by accused no.1. In the subsequent meeting, Mr. Thomas Bliesener was also made to believe by accused no.1 that the aforesaid business would be profitable and therefore the modalities of business proposed by accused no.1 were agreed by the complainant and he would sign the export contracts with accused and money would be remitted by the complainant and Mr. Thomas Bliesener to the account of accused no.1 in pursuance of the contracts. After the contracts had been signed between the parties, accused no.1 further suggested that apart from procuring the goods from the market and exporting them to other countries, it would be all the more advisable and profitable, if a piece of land could be purchased and the same could be cultivated for plantation, products of which could be exported. Accused no. 1 still represented the complainant that he had business connection and would be able to procure a suitable piece of land at reasonable prices for the said purpose and accused no.1 further assured and told the complainant that there would be no difficulty in executing the project plan. Accused no.1 further told the complainant and Mr. Thomas CC No. 265/1A/14 P.S. G.K.1 Page No.5 of 28 Bliesener that the money for the purpose of export would be remitted to his V3M's account with the bank as advance against exports and simultaneously accused no.1 would endeavour to take steps. Accused no.1 further assured that if the suitable plantation project did not materialise, the money would be remitted to the account of complainant. In pursuance of the aforesaid plan, accused no.1 told that a joint venture company could be established by the complainant, Mr. Thomas Bliesener and the accused could manage the plantation business through the complainant to other countries and therefore all the aforesaid three parties would become shareholders. Thereafter, around September 1996, accused no.1 introduced the complainant and Mr. Thomas Bliesener to accused no.2 Sarabjeet Singh as a personal friend and also introduced accused no.2 as a consultant in trade promotion with prestigious posts in government organizations. Accused no.1 further told that accused no.3 namely Rainee Singh i.e. wife of accused no.2 was also owing a company by the name of M/s Rainees Creations, which dealt in land business and accused no.2 could arrange through accused no.3 an offer of land for sale for the purposes of the plantation and therefore the accused no.2&3 were also made partners in the CC No. 265/1A/14 P.S. G.K.1 Page No.6 of 28 proposed business venture. In October 1996, the offer of sale of land in District Churu of Bikaner in Rajasthan was made by accused no.3 vide letter dated 04.10.1996. The said land was offered by the accused no. 3 at Rs.52,000/ per acre as a suitable for the purpose of the plantation. Upon believing, the complainant and Mr. Thomas Bliesener remitted monies to the account of accused no.1 with each of the shareholders would contribute US $75,000/ towards the equity shareholding of the company and the balance of the investment required for the project i.e. a projected amount of US $ 1,200,000/ would be raised through a foreign loan component. It was further represented by accused no.1&2 to the complainant that the deadline for transfer of plant mentioned in the offer letter dated 04.10.1996 was 31.01.1997 and if the land was not purchased before that date, the advance payment to the seller to support the contract would be forfeited. In view of the same, complainant and Mr. Thomas Bliesener were therefore asked to remit an amount of US $3,50,000/ to the accused to secure the purchase of land. Complainant was further assured by accused no.1 that the said amount would be treated as advance payment towards the export and would write to the RBI to confirm the receipt of this amount as advance CC No. 265/1A/14 P.S. G.K.1 Page No.7 of 28 against export. Accused no.1 further reassured the complainant that in the event of plantation project does not materialise, export of agro commodities as previously agreed between the parties woulud be made by accused no.1 against the aforesaid money. Acting upon the assurance of accused no.1, an amount of US$350,000 was transferred by Mr. Thomas Bliesener to the account of accused no.1 on various different dates. It was further told by accused that the working capital would be supply out of bank loans and accordingly a business plan was prepared for obtaining bank loans. However, since the beginning of 1997, the joint venture company as envisaged by accused no.1 whose name was approved by registrar of company was not established.
Subsequently, complainant was informed by accused no.1 & 2 that due to some local restrictions, the entire land could not be purchased in the name of the company and therefore the same shall be purchased jointly in the name of the complainant, Mr. Thomas Bliesener and accused no.1 & 2. Thereafter, complainant persisted the accused to let him know about the outcome of proposed purchase and the status of the project but despite that, accused no.1 & 2 neglected to response to the queries of the complainant. Complainant further urged the CC No. 265/1A/14 P.S. G.K.1 Page No.8 of 28 accused persons to fulfill their obligation for implementation of the project and for taking steps but did not receive any response. Since, complainant was concerned, he made independent inquiries regarding the purchase of land and obtained copies of the papers pertaining to purchase of land and complainant came to know that the land had not been purchased in the joint name of the complainant, Mr. Thomas Bliesener and accused as represented to him but they had actually been purchased in the personal names of accused no.4 Ms. Vineeta Bhargav being the wife of accused no.1 and also in the name of accused no.2&3. The price of the same was quoted by firm of accused no.3 on the offer dated 04.10.1996 was much higher than the actual price paid by the accused for purchasing the land in their own name.
The accused persons in conspiracy with each other had allegedly cheated the complainant in so much as the complainant was made to remit much more than the actual price of the land in question. The same caused wrongful loss to the complainant and wrongful gain to the accused persons and therefore defrauded the complainant. The accused persons are alleged to have misappropriated the money by converting the same for their own use and also received and retained CC No. 265/1A/14 P.S. G.K.1 Page No.9 of 28 the money of the complainant illegally.
Thereafter, complainant led presummoning evidence and accused persons were accordingly summoned for the offence punishable under Section 406/420/34 IPC.
Accused persons appeared before the court and were admitted to bail and thereafter, complainant led precharge evidence and examined himself as a witness and on 05.07.2004 precharge evidence was closed.
On 22.11.2004, charge was framed against accused persons under section 420/34 IPC. On 31.07.2006, the complainant was examined for postcharge evidence and he adopted his examinationinchief recorded in precharge evidence and thereafter was put to crossexamine by accused no.1,2&3 and the same was concluded on 01.08.2006. During post charge evidence accused No. 1 expired and proceedings were abated qua him.
CW1 during his examinationinchief reiterated the facts of his complaint and documents i.e. memorandum of understanding was Marked A and the contract signed between accused no.1, complainant and Mr. Thomas Bliesener was Marked B. The proposal signed CC No. 265/1A/14 P.S. G.K.1 Page No.10 of 28 between the complainant, Mr. Thomas Bliesener, accused no.1&2 is marked C which is the copy of the CD sent by accused no.1 to the complainant by fax. The fax sent by accused no.3 to the complainant of November 1996 regarding transfer of money for development cost of the project was marked D. Another fax sent by accused no.1 to transfer US $350,000 by the complainant to the accused as money to be paid in advance for the purchase of land was marked E. Subsequent agreement between the accused no.1,2&3 and the complainant allegedly for buying the alleged land in joint names was marked F (the certificate of Aqua marine green development). The alleged money was transferred through the bank of Mr. Thomas Bliesener company and received by the company of accused no.1, the confirmation receipt was marked G. The confirmation of the same given by accused no.1 regarding receiving the money transferred for the purpose of land was marked H. The copy of the business plan of M/s Aqua Marine Green Development was marked I. The certified copies of the land purchased in the name of accused persons were exhibited as Ex.CW1/A to D and the certified copy of Jamabandi (Khatoni) were Ex. CW1/E to H. The receipts issued by accused no.3 from her company namely M/s Rainee CC No. 265/1A/14 P.S. G.K.1 Page No.11 of 28 Creations towards part receipt of money were marked J, K & L respectively. The letter written to Vijaya Bank by Mr. Thomas Bliesener was marked M. The copy of the money transfer through Vijaya Bank to the company of Mr. Bhargav was marked N & O. The civil suit for recovery/injunction filed by the complainant against accused persons before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the resolution of the company for the authorization of the complainant was Ex.CW1/I. During cross examination on behalf of the accused No. 4 during pre charge evidence CW1 stated that it was correct that it was only accused No. 1 Vikram Bhargav (since deceased) who made representation to him in connection with the business transactions. He further stated that apart from accused No. 1, accused No. 2 had also induced him to purchase agricultural land and it was correct that accused No. 1 and 2 had only told him that land in question was meant to be purchased in the name of company. It is further correct that during course of his business dealing with accused No. 1 and 2 the wife of the accused No. 1 i.e. Ms. Vinita Bhargav was neither associate or involved in any of the transaction. It is correct that amount of Rs. 3,50,000/ was transferred in the name of company which was owned by accused No. CC No. 265/1A/14 P.S. G.K.1 Page No.12 of 28
1. During cross examination on behalf of accused No. 2 and 3 during pre charge evidence CW1 deposed that it was correct that there was no written communication between him and his company one side and accused No. 2 and 3 on the other side. It was also correct that at no stage we have paid any money to accused No. 2 or 3 and further it was correct that he had filed civil suit No. 674/98 in Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and upon being shown same which was EX.CW1/DA the complainant did not dispute it. He further admitted that accused No. 2 and 3 were made as defendant No. 2 and Rainee Singh was made defendant No.4 and the company M/s. Rainee Creations was made defendant No. 3 and upon seen the written statement filed on behalf of the accused No. 2 and 4 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as EX.CW1/DB, the complainant did not dispute the same. Complainant further admitted that accused No. 1 had informed him till the finalization for purchase of land for the purpose of plantation was over the money remitted by them was advanced payment for agricultural products. It was correct that he himself inspected the land which was shown to him by accused No. 1 and he had approved the land and its CC No. 265/1A/14 P.S. G.K.1 Page No.13 of 28 cost which was told to him by accused No. 1. He voluntarily stated that cost of land was proposed to him by accused No. 1 and 2 and he did not know if there was any dealing with accused No. 1 and 2. However, there was possibility that there was a dispute arisen between them for the purchase of land at that time. He further stated that he met accused No. 1 in the year 1995 and was introduced over the phone. Further, that the complainant had not entered into other business except this project. The accused No. 1 had represented Apollo Group of London but no business was executed. Complainant further admitted that initially amount was sent for export of agricultural land and it was correct that this amount was not for purchase of land and only for export of agricultural products. It was further correct that as per MOU the contract has to be finalized by 07.08.2001. It was further correct admitted by the complainant that letter dated 10.06.1997 was signed by him and the same was EX.CW1/DC. It was further correct that 3,50,000/ US dollar was sent for the purpose of plantation and during this time complainant was in touch with accused No. 1. It was incorrect that all the developments were told to him by the accused No. 1. He further deposed that during this period the complainant used to travel in CC No. 265/1A/14 P.S. G.K.1 Page No.14 of 28 India and met accused No. 1. He used to stay for about 45 weeks in India and he even went to Churu in Rajasthan alongwith accused No. 1 and one person namely Jai Prakash to see land. Further, he met accused No. 2 and 3 and it was further correct that in the presence of accused No. 1 and 2 the quotation for the cost of land was finalized which was about Rs. 52,000/ per acre. Further, it was agreed by complainant that the said cost was including for the purpose of development charges for plantation.
CW1 further deposed that he did not know as to what amount was transferred by accused No. 1 to accused No. 2 and it was incorrect that it was on the instigation of complainant approximately One Crore Forty Thousand rupees were handed to accused No. 2 and 3 through bank draft in his presence. He further deposed that he had transferred sum of 3,50,000/ US Dollar in account of accused No. 1 for the purpose of purchase of land since accused No. 2 was member of the partnership and, therefore, the money had to be transferred to accused No. 2 for acquiring the land as it was his responsibility to acquire the same. Further, there was no reference for purchase of land from that amount which was sent to accused No. 1. Further CW1 CC No. 265/1A/14 P.S. G.K.1 Page No.15 of 28 admitted that in the MOU no specific amount was mentioned but it was mentioned that advance in payment is to be made and it was correct that no initial word is used in the MOU. Further, after purchasing the land some work was done for the development but it was much too little and too slow. There was a letter of Rabo bank to send some amount to accused but he could not admit or deny if he had sent 1.2 Million Dollars to the accused No. 1. He further deposed that it was agreed that accused No. 1 would arrange bank amount equivalent to US Dollars 1.2 Million for development of the plantation and if he failed to do so complainant raised the money through its own channels. It is correct that it is within his knowledge that accused No. 1 had applied for sanction of loan from the Indian Bank. He further admitted that prior to the date of MOU complainant had taken stay order against the accused persons. But it was not correct that because of the same he could not fulfill the terms of the agreement and it was transferred in the name of accused and their wives upon which he told to return amount. He further deposed that he has no letter from any side of the accused that land had to be purchased in the name of company i.e. Virtus Dordrecht B.V. or in his name or he knew one Jai Prakash through accused No. 2 CC No. 265/1A/14 P.S. G.K.1 Page No.16 of 28 and it was incorrect that he had nominated Jai Prakash to get POA in his name for land measuring 118 acres. He further deposed that he know Jai Prakash and has transferred the land in his wife name Angoori Devi. It was incorrect that the land was transferred by Jai Prakash in his wife name on the instruction of the complainant. Lastly he had not made any complaint case against Jai Prakash and Angoori Devi till today. It is correct that the present complaint was filed prior to the date of expiry of MOU.
Therefore, pre charge evidence was closed. After framing of charge since complainant has adopted his examination in chief recorded during pre charge evidence. He was further cross examined on behalf of the accused persons during post charge evidence.
During cross examination by accused No. 4 in the post charge evidence complainant deposed that it was correct that the initial representation was made to him in connection with the business transaction by only accused No. 1 and it was further correct that at the time of meeting held with regard to purchase of land, accused No. 4 was not there and it was further correct that accused No. 4 was neither CC No. 265/1A/14 P.S. G.K.1 Page No.17 of 28 associate with the meetings or with the transaction of land in question. Complainant further admitted that no document was executed by accused No. 4 in his presence and the amount of 3,50,000/ US Dollar was transferred in the name of company which was owned only by accused No. 1.
During the cross examination on behalf of the accused No. 1 during post charge evidence CW1 stated that it was correct that he was not an Indian or Non Resident Indian and it was further correct that the agreement was signed between himself and accused No. 1 but the same was not performed. Further, document EX.CW1/B in the MOU dated 08.09.1996 and there was no signed on EX.CW1/B. It is further correct that clause 4 of MOU mentioned that arrangement in terms thereof was w.e.f. 08.08.1996 to 07.08.2001. Further, there was no clause in the MOU with respect to purchase of land in India. It was correct that initial payment made during 1996 for the purpose of export of agricultural commodity, therefore, US Dollar 3,50,000/ was paid to accused No. 1 for the purpose of land. Further, that the complainant had document to show that he had given 3,50,000/ US Dollar for purchase of agricultural land and same document was mark G. Further, CC No. 265/1A/14 P.S. G.K.1 Page No.18 of 28 he had not sent any letter from his side or any written communication at the time of sending the aforesaid amount for purpose of purchase of land. Further, understanding between him and accused No. 1 was oral. Further, he was told by accused No. 1 regarding the law of land in India that no foreigner can purchase the agricultural land in India. He further deposed that accused No. 1 had discussed with him regarding FERA law and accused No. 1 had only stated to him regarding the law but did not interpret to him but he did not know whether the land was purchased in the name of individual or company. Further, it was incorrect to state that he was present at the time of purchase of land in the name of accused No. 1 and 2 and that he was in India on 31.01.1997. He further deposed that during his visit in India he even stay in house of accused No. 1 and further it is not within his knowledge the land was purchased in the name of accused No. 1 and 2. Further, it was correct that he had filed the civil suit for recovery in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the year 1997. Lastly, it was correct that he made Angoori Devi as party in the civil suit which was pending before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and she was not made accused in the present matter.
CC No. 265/1A/14 P.S. G.K.1 Page No.19 of 28 During cross examination in the post charge evidence on behalf of the accused No. 2 and 3 which was in continuation of their cross examination during the pre charge evidence CW1 deposed that there was no written communication between their company and the accused no. 2 and 3 at any stage. CW1 voluntarily stated that there was only oral communication and at no stage there company made any amount directly to accused No. 2 and 3.
CW2 Rajneesh Prasad from Vijaya Bank was examined in which he deposed that he was appearing in the matter through authority letter EX.CW2/A and he had brought the certified copy attested by Banker's Book Evidence Act 1891 pertaining to the amount maintained by M/s. V3M Transworld Export Consultant from period 09.09.1996 to 31.01.2005.
Opportunity to cross examine CW2 was granted to the accused persons but they did not question anything from the witness.
Upon completion of the post charge evidence, the complainant evidence was closed on 11.11.2013 and thereafter statement of accused no. 2, 3, 4 u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded.
Thereafter ld. counsel for complainant advanced arguments CC No. 265/1A/14 P.S. G.K.1 Page No.20 of 28 in which ld. counsel for complainant has argued that in the present matter accused persons had induced the complainant and his friend and by deceitful means had obtained an amount totaling to 460595 US dollars by giving false assurance to the complainant and caused wrongful loss to the complainant and wrongful gain to themselves. It is further argued on behalf of the complainant that complainant deposed on the lines of complaint and the case of the complainant proves the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and accused No. 2 and 3 in their statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. had deposed that they had purchased the land in their names from their own sources but they were unable to produce any evidence on record to corroborate the same and no document had been placed on record to substantiate their contention of purchasing aforesaid land by their own means. Ld. counsel for complainant further argued that accused No. 4 had .... stated in her statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. that the present transaction pertaining to the land was a benami transaction but fact remains that land was purchased in her name. Further, perusal of the sale deed EX.CW1/A and EX.CW1/B show that land was purchased in the name of accused No. 1 and EX.CW1/C shows that the land was purchased in CC No. 265/1A/14 P.S. G.K.1 Page No.21 of 28 the name of accused No. 2. It is further argued that the accused No. 2, 3 and 4 operating from behind and keeping accused No. 1 in forefront are equally liable and cannot escape from liability and, therefore, accused persons are liable for the offence alleged against them.
On the other hand, Sh. Ramesh Gupta, ld. counsel for accused No. 2 and 3 has argued that since the present matter was a warrant triable complaint and court was required to consider the evidence produced u/s 244 Cr.P.C. at the stage of charge and even during the conclusion of trial. Ld. counsel for accused No. 2 and 3 has argued that in the present matter complainant has failed to produce any incriminating evidence against the accused No. 2 and 3 and have failed to show if any money was paid by the complainant to accused No. 2 and
3. Ld. counsel has further argued that in the present matter the ingredients pertaining to the alleged offence u/s 420 IPC does not stand established as complainant has failed to proof any deception, inducement or dishonest representation at initial stage before the property was purchased on behalf of the accused No. 2 and 3. He has further argued that the complainant has failed to produce an important witness Thomas Bliesener on behalf of whose company the said amount CC No. 265/1A/14 P.S. G.K.1 Page No.22 of 28 was transferred to accused No. 1 and was not able to substantiate any offence against accused No. 2 and 3. Further, the complainant did not proof guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and was unable to put forth or substantiate the allegations levelled against the accused No. 2 and 3 and that it was for the complainant to stand on its own feet. The onus for proving offence allegedly solely on him. Further, the offence of common intention does not proved as the complainant has nowhere mentioned that accused persons had deceived him entering into conspiracy and having common intention. It is further argued by ld. counsel for accused No. 2 and 3 that it is admitted by complainant during his cross examination that he had never entered into any written communication or commitment with accused No. 2 and 3 and in fact never paid any money to them and complainant has completely failed to establish the case and there are only bald allegations against them.
Learned Counsel for the accused No. 4 has argued that in so far as the case of the accused No. 4, Ms. Vineeta Bhargava is concerned, that perusal of the Complainant would show that barring a bald allegation made in para 14 of the Complainant, there is not even a CC No. 265/1A/14 P.S. G.K.1 Page No.23 of 28 mention of the aforesaid. Accused, Vineeta Bhargava, in regard to the business transactions in question. The complainant has categorically and unambiguously conceded in his crossexamination that the accused herein, Vineeta Bhargava, never made any representation to him. Under these circumstances, no case under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the accused Vineeta Bhargava, also when the complainant has himself admitted in his testimony that the accused Vineeta Bhargava had never been associated with the alleged transactions.
Admittedly, there is no role attributed to the accused herein with respect to the entire business dealing, and in particular, the transaction of purchasing the land for plantation. There is only a bald averment in the complainant which simply hinges upon an assumption on the part of the Complainant, that since the land was purchased by the principal accused in the name of the accused herein (Vineeta Bhargava), she too had connived with him for defrauding the Complainant.
Furthermore, most of the documents which have been placed on record by the Complainant are photocopies and are hence CC No. 265/1A/14 P.S. G.K.1 Page No.24 of 28 legally inadmissible in evidence as per the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act.
Before appreciating the evidence, I would like to have a glance at relevant statutory provisions necessary for the disposal of this case.
As per Section 420 IPC :
Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property--Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
I have heard ld. counsel for complainant and ld. counsel for accused persons. I have gone through the material available on record and also the statement of the complainant before the court. I have also CC No. 265/1A/14 P.S. G.K.1 Page No.25 of 28 gone through all the documents relied upon by the complainant and in my considered view in the present matter the complainant has failed to substantiate the allegations against the accused persons in any manner. The burden of proof in the present matter relied upon the shoulder of the complainant and complainant was required to proof the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, he was required to stand on its own feet. As per the offence charged against the accused, complainant was required to proof that complainant was deceived by the accused persons having common intention and with prior dishonest intention to have wrongful gain and to cause wrongful loss to the complainant. However, in my considered view, the complainant has failed to proof that the dishonest intention of the accused persons was from the very beginning and all the accused persons in connivance with each other had played fraud with the complainant and it cause wrongful loss to him and had gained unlawfully. Further, in the present matter complainant has not placed on record even a single chain of document to proof the manner in which forged played with him or the manner in which the alleged amount 3,50,000 US Dollar was paid to the accused persons. Further, the CC No. 265/1A/14 P.S. G.K.1 Page No.26 of 28 complainant has already admitted during cross examination at length by the accused persons that he was fully aware that alleged amount was paid only to accused No. 1 for the purpose of obtaining agricultural products/commodities and it was only letter that on oral consent of the complainant it was allegedly agreed between the parties that the agricultural land shall be purchased. Further, the complainant has miserably failed to substantiate any of the ingredients required to proof the offence u/s 420 IPC as he has not shown as to how he was induced fraudulently to deliver the amount alleged and also the mensrea required for the purpose of cheating as alleged. Therefore, in my considered view, accused No. 2 Sarvjit Singh, accused No. 3 Mrs. Rainee Singh and accused No. 4 Mrs. Vinita Bhargav are acquitted for the offences alleged against them.
The cardinal rule in the criminal law is that prosecution has to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt and the benefit of the doubt has to be given to the accused.
In Partap V. State of U.P., AIR 1976 SC 966, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the question of burden of proof and observed as under:
CC No. 265/1A/14 P.S. G.K.1 Page No.27 of 28 "The phrase "burden of proof" is not defined in the Act. In respect of criminal, cases, it is an accepted principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden is always on the prosecution and never shifts. This flows from the cardinal principle that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty by the prosecution and the accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt.
In view of above discussion, the accused No. 2 Sarvjit Singh, accused No. 3 Mrs. Rainee Singh and accused No. 4 Mrs. Vineeta Bhargava are acquitted of offence punishable U/s 420/34 IPC.
Pronounced in open court (SHEETAL CHAUDHARY PRADHAN) on 12.02.2016 MM10 (SouthEast): Saket Courts:
New Delhi:12.02.2016 CC No. 265/1A/14 P.S. G.K.1 Page No.28 of 28