Delhi District Court
The Important Facts Of The Case vs . on 20 September, 2014
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIVEK KUMAR GULIA
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (SOUTH)
SAKET DISTRICT COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of :
State
Vs.
Aaskaran & Another
FIR No. 296/94
P. S.: Hauz Khas (C.B.)
JUDGMENT
1 Sr. No. of case : 02403R0012271997
2 Date of institution : 04.01.1997
3. Name of the complainant : Sh. P.D. Narang, K.S Rathore and
K.K. Goel
4. Date of commission of offence : 199394
5. Name of accused : (1) Aaskaran son of Sh. Jagdish
Lal Bhaniani R/o Flat No. 48,
AIIMS Apartment, Mayur Kunj,
Mayur Vihar, PhaseI, Delhi
110096.
(2) Navin Goyal S/o Jagdish
Chand R/o 282, Goyal Bhawan
Krishna Nagar, Bullandshar
(U.P).
6. Offence complained of : Section 380/411/420/467/471/
120B IPC.
7. Plea of guilt : Accused pleaded not guilty
Page 1 of 11 State vs. Aaskaran & another; FIR No.296/94
2
8. Date of reserving the judgment : 06.09.2014
9. Final order : Acquitted
10. Date of such judgment : 20.09.2014
FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
1. The important facts of the case, in brief, are as follows. In this case, FIR was registered on the joint complaint of M/s Dabur India Limited (DIL), M/s. MAS Services Pvt Ltd (MAS) and M/s. MCS Limited (MCS) mentioning that DIL engaged MAS for the purpose of acting as Registrars of intended public issue of 57 lacs equity shares and for processing all the applications received for allotment of shares, making allotment, sending allotment advises/refund and to maintain record of the said public issue. Further, MCS were appointed as Transfer Agents and they were authorized to handle the post issue correspondence including subsequent transfer of shares and correspondence with applicants seeking share transfer, etc. Further, blank share certificates were got printed by DIL from one Utility Forms Pvt. Ltd., who had to deliver the printed blank share certificates to MAS for further processing. Thereafter, MAS utilized the desired quantity of blank share certificates Page 2 of 11 State vs. Aaskaran & another; FIR No.296/94 3 and dispatched the same to the successful applicants. In May, 1994, DIL and MCS received various share transfer forms/deeds accompanied with share certificates and on examination, it appeared that many of the share transfer forms/deeds were questionable since the signatures of the transferor did not match with their specimen signatures contained in the original share application forms; the signatures of the authorized signatories of DIL did not match with the specimen signatures of the authorized signatories; the printed serialized number printed by M/s Utility Forms Pvt. Ltd did not tally with the serialized number corresponding to the original share certificates and to the share certificates allotted to the successful allottees and common seal of DIL was also in great contract with the original authenticated common seal of DIL. Further, it was found that some share certificates were missing from the office and these might have been stolen and forged for their misuse. During investigation, it was found that certain forged certificates were sold by one Ajay Saxena, who was declared proclaimed offender vide order dated 19.07.1996. Further, it was found that accused Aaskaran, an employee of MAS, pursuant to criminal conspiracy with coaccused persons, removed blank share certificates and sold the same to accused Ajay Saxena and Naveen Goyal. After culmination of investigation, both Page 3 of 11 State vs. Aaskaran & another; FIR No.296/94 4 accused were chargesheeted and summoned to face trial. TRIAL PROCEEDINGS:
2. In light of the above stated facts and proceedings and after making compliance of provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C., vide order dated 15092004, the then Ld. MM, framed charges under section 380/411/420/467/471/120B IPC against accused Aaskaran and Navin Goyal, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. For proving its case, prosecution has produced 14 witnesses. 3.1 PW1, ASI Dharambir Singh, deposed that on the basis of rukka, he recorded FIR Ex. PW1/A in this case.
3.2 PW2, Major J.S. Sekhari, testified that a sum of Rs. 2.5 lacs and Rs. 6 lacs was due on Ajay Saxena and Paramvir Singh and thereafter accused Ajay Saxena gave him shares of M/s. Dabur India Ltd and Zee Tele against the said amount but both the companies intimated him that the aforesaid shares were forged.
3.3 PW3, Sh. P.D. Narang, Director, Dabur India Ltd, testified on the lines of his complaint Ex.PW3/A on the basis of which FIR was registered. Further, he mentioned that during investigation, police seized Page 4 of 11 State vs. Aaskaran & another; FIR No.296/94 5 about 150 forged share certificates of his company and these share certificates alongwith share transfer deeds were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/B. Further, he proved the list of said bogus certificate/transfer deeds Ex.PW3/C and bogus certificate/transfer deed Ex.D1 to Ex.D150.
3.4 PW3, Sh. Ghanshyam Singh Verma, testified that he had handed over delivery bill of N.N. Puri and Cystal Finance Services Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 and same were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/A. 3.5 PW4, Sh. Ashok Luthra, testified that he handed over certified copies of documents pertaining to account no. 12069 of M/s Blue Chip Investments of proprietor Ajay Saxena. 3.6 PW5, Inspector Pratap Singh, testified that during investigation, he recorded statement of certain witnesses and he submitted the chargesheet in the Court prepared by Inspector Satish Yadav.
3.7 PW6, Sh. Rakesh Bhatia, testified that he was working as Sales Manager in Utility Forms Pvt. Ltd in 1989 and share certificates of DIL were printed in his company. Further, he mentioned that he does not remember as to how many shares were printed by his company due to lapse of time and nonavailability of record.
Page 5 of 11 State vs. Aaskaran & another; FIR No.296/94 6 3.8 PW7, Retired ASI Durgesh Kumar, testified that during investigation, shares of different companies were got recovered from the possession of accused Aaskaran and these were seized vide seizure memo Mark PW7/A. 3.9 PW8, Sh. Ravi Aiyar, testified that he was Company Secretary of Dabur Finance Limited at the relevant time and on verification of certain share certificates and transfer deeds, these were found to be forged. Further, he mentioned that as per board resolution, the printed signatures of Mr. A.C. Burman, Chairman and Dr. V. Gauri Shankar, Director, were to be printed on share certificates and there were six authorized signatories, of which he was one of them, in respect of share certificates.
3.10 PW9, ExInspector K.K. Gaur, testified that in 1995, he was handed over investigation of this case and then accused Ajay Saxena was declared proclaimed offender and after that file was handed over to Inspector Satish Yadav.
3.11 PW10, Sh. K.K. Goel, testified that he was working in MAS as General Manager and they were doing the allotment of share certificates.
Further, he mentioned that since some of the share certificates of DIL lodged with MCS were forged, they alongwith MCS and DIL made a Page 6 of 11 State vs. Aaskaran & another; FIR No.296/94 7 police complaint Ex.PW3/A. Further, he mentioned that accused Aaskaran was working as Computer Operator in MAS.
3.12 PW11, Mrs. Ruchi Sethi, testified that she was working with DIL as Assistant Company Secretary in the year 1994 and she wrote letters dated 24.06.1994 and 28.06.1994 marked PW11/A and PW11/B to the Executive Directors of Delhi Stock Exchange and further sent a caution notice, which was also published in The Hindustan Times on 17.06.1994.
3.13 PW12, Retd. ACP Sh. O.P. Sagar, testified that on 03.03.1995, SI K.K. Gaur handed over photocopy of seizure memo alongwith photocopy of documents of this case to him and after arrest of accused Navin Goyal and Aaskaran, he handed over investigation back to SI K.K. Gaur.
3.14 PW13, ACP Anil Kapoor, testified that in 1994, he was entrusted with complaint Ex.PW3/A and during investigation, he seized certain documents given by Col. H.S. Bhoparai vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/A. Further, Sh. Arun Mohan, Deputy Company Secretary of DIL handed over 150 forged shares of DIL and 147 forged transfer deeds and same were seized vide memo Ex.PW3/B. Further, Sh. Ghanshyam Singh Verma produced two bills of DIL and same were seized vide memo Page 7 of 11 State vs. Aaskaran & another; FIR No.296/94 8 Ex.PW3/A. Further. Col. H.S. Bhoparai furnished different bills/contract regarding purchase/sale of share of DIL.
4. Since no incriminating evidence was led against accused Navin Goyal, his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with. However, statement of accused Aaskaran was recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and when he was briefed on all the incriminating evidence and documents, he denied the allegations. Though he admitted that he was working as Computer Operator in MAS Services Pvt. Ltd in 1994 but he denied that share certificates of different companies were seized from his possession vide seizure memo Mark PW7/A. Further, he mentioned that he was lifted by the police official from his house on 26.02.1995 and produced in the Court on 28.02.1995 and meanwhile his parents got registered an FIR No. 119/95 P.S Vinay Nagar. Further, he opted not to lead any evidence.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:
5. I have heard the State through Shri V.K. Jaiswal, Ld. Assistant Public Prosecutor and Sh. Suman Kapoor and Sh. Anil Sharma, Ld. defence counsel for accused Aaskaran and Naveen Goyal respectively.
Record is also gone through.
Page 8 of 11 State vs. Aaskaran & another; FIR No.296/94 9
6. It is summed up by Ld. APP that there is material on record to show that accused Aaskaran was working as computer operator in MAS, who was printing share certificates for DIL in 1994 and thus inference can be drawn that he had removed these share certificates from his company's office and sold to other accused. On the other hand, Ld. defence counsel for accused Aaskaran submitted that there is no evidence on record to connect the accused with the alleged offences and therefore accused deserves to be acquitted.
7. The case of the prosecution against accused Aaskaran is that while under employment of MAS, who used to print blank share certificates of DIL, he removed/stole certain blank share certificates and then sold the same to Ajay Saxena and Navin Goyal on cheaper rate. Though PW10 Sh. K.K. Goel has testified that accused Aaskaran was working as Computer Operator with MAS at the relevant time in 1994 and this fact has also been admitted by accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C, but there is no material on record to show that accused stole/removed the blank share certificates from his office. Further, apart from disclosure statement of coaccused, there is no evidence to show Page 9 of 11 State vs. Aaskaran & another; FIR No.296/94 10 that the accused sold the stolen share certificates to coaccused Navin Goyal and Ajay Saxena.
8. PW7 Retired ASI Durgesh Kumar testified that during investigation, he recovered shares of different companies from the accused Aaskaran and same were seized vide memo Mark PW7/A. Admittedly, original seizure memo was not placed on record by the prosecution side. Moreover, Ld. defence counsel rightly pointed out that though PW7 deposed that he joined the investigation with Inspector K.K. Gaur (PW9) but Inspector K.K. Gaur has not stated about the recovery of said share certificates from the accused. Further, Ld. defence counsel has rightly pointed out that PW7 has not given vital details pertaining to recovery i.e. name of companies to which the said shares belonged to, number of shares, date and time of recovery, place of recovery and lastly the witness has not identified the alleged share certificates recovered from the accused during his testimony. Though some of the prosecution witnesses have deposed against accused Ajay Saxena (since P.O.) but they have not stated anything about the role played by accused Aaskaran. Moreover, it is not the prosecution case that any forged share certificate was found in possession of accused Aaskaran. Thus, even if it is assumed Page 10 of 11 State vs. Aaskaran & another; FIR No.296/94 11 that some blank share certificates were recovered from the possession of accused Aaskaran, this fact in itself would not be sufficient to attach any criminal liability to accused Aaskaran.
9. In respect of accused Navin Goyal, prosecution case is that he purchased the stolen shares from coaccused Aaskaran but in the name of evidence, investigating agency had recovered visiting card of accused Ajay Saxena from him. Even PW7 has stated that his disclosure statement is not on file. After going through the entire prosecution evidence, it becomes clear that no incriminating evidence has come on record against him. In such circumstances, even his statement u/s 313 Cr.p.C was not recorded.
CONCLUSION :
10. For the aforesaid reasons, it is concluded that prosecution has failed to prove any of the charges against accused Aaskaran and Navin Goyal. Accordingly, both the accused are pronounced not guilty in respect of the offences involved in this case.
Announced in the open court (Vivek Kumar Gulia)
on 20th day of September 2014 Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (S)
(total 11 pages) Saket Courts, New Delhi
Page 11 of 11 State vs. Aaskaran & another; FIR No.296/94