Delhi District Court
Rajpal Singh vs State on 12 October, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SH M.R.SETHI:
ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE:(FTC)(W):DELHI
Crl Revision No. 85/10
ID No. 02401R0279942010
Rajpal Singh
S/o Sh Chander Bhan
R/o NZB-524, Gali No.9
New Delhi ...... Petitioner
Versus
State .....Respondent
Date of filing of Petition: 06.07.2010
Date of arguments: 30.09.2010
Date of Order: 12.10.2010
Crl. Rev 85/10 Page 1 of 8
ORDER :
1 Vide order dated 28.5.10 passed by Ld Court of Sh R.K. Tripathi, ACMM (W) in case FIR 109/09 PS EOW, learned Trial Court was pleased to order framing of charges against the accused persons. The petitioner who was one of the accused before the learned Trial Court has challenged the said order being aggrieved from the same. The present petitioner, it appears was charged with for having committed offences punishable under Sec.120-B IPC, 420 IPC and under Sections 4,5 & 6 of the Prize Chits & Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act,1978.
2 After the revision petition was assigned to this court, trial court record was summoned and thereafter, arguments were advanced.
3 During course of his submission, it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was a mere employee of M/s Money Mantra having joined the same after his retirement from Army. It was claimed that petitioner was Branch In-charge of Dwarka Office of M/s Money Mantra and Crl. Rev 85/10 Page 2 of 8 infact himself had invested money in the said company. Petitioner reportedly lost his job when the company closed in the first week of December,08. It was claimed that Naveen Sharma and Rachna Sharma, who were Directors of the company and persons In-charge for its day to day affairs infact had cheated the general public and the present petitioner was falsely involved in this case being an employee of the company. It was claimed that the petitioner was neither named in the FIR nor any role was assigned to him. It was claimed that there was no evidence whatsoever in respect of the petitioner having entered into criminal conspiracy with any of the co-accused. Learned counsel claimed that the petitioner had not cheated anyone . It was further pointed out that the petitioner had joined M/s Money Mantra somewhere in the month of May,08 and had left in December,08 while the charge framed against the petitioner was in respect of having entered into conspiracy during the period between 2007 to 2009. It was claimed that the charge apparently was bad. It was further pointed out by learned counsel that originally only one Akshay Kumar Singh Chouhan had lodged a complaint against M/s Money Mantra and M/s Big Leap. It was claimed that subsequently many other complainants had cropped up Crl. Rev 85/10 Page 3 of 8 and were included in the present charge sheet. It was claimed that this was not in accordance with law. It was prayed that none of the money collected was deposited in bank account of the petitioner nor was he beneficiary of any amount. It was prayed that the applicant be discharged as there was no legally admissible evidence on record against him.
4 Opposing, it was submitted by learned Addl PP for State that name of the present petitioner had been specifically mentioned by a number of witnesses as being the person who had lured them to invest in Money Mantra and it was on this lurement that they had invested and got cheated. Attention of this Court in this regard was drawn to statements of Pritam Singh, Navin Chander, S.P. Bisht, Tikka Ram, Satbir,Ramesh Kumar etc. It was submitted by learned Addl PP for State that testimonies of these witnesses were enough to prima facie form an opinion regarding the petitioner having conspired with other co-accused and having cheated the investors. It was further submitted that by running a Prize Money Circulation Scheme and by accepting public deposits, while not being authorized to do so under RBI Rules and Regulations, the petitioner had also committed an offence punishable under the Crl. Rev 85/10 Page 4 of 8 Prize Chits & Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act. Learned Addl PP for State further submitted that apparently there was no irregularity or impropriety in the impugned order and hence, it was prayed that the revision petition be dismissed.
5 Under the Revisionary powers, this Court has to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of finding of order passed by learned Trial Court. Regularity of proceedings before the Trial Court can also be looked into by this Court while exercising its revisionary power .
6 As per allegations against the present petitioner, he alongwith other co-accused persons had cheated innocent investors by luring them to invest in M/s Money Mantra. Perusal of trial court record and specially statements of witnesses recorded under Sec.161 Cr. P. C go to show that the victims have levied specific allegations against the present petitioner & others for having induced and cheated them by way of projecting deceptive schemes of the company.
Crl. Rev 85/10 Page 5 of 87 As per charge sheet filed in this case, the accused companies i.e M/s Money Mantra and M/s Big Leap had made false inducements to lure victims by floating false schemes and the money from the accounts of the companies were transferred to personal account of the present petitioner and other co-conspirators. Statements of witnesses referred to by learned Addl PP for State reveal that the witnesses had specifically named the present petitioner as being the person who projected himself to be top official of the company/promoter of the company and had lured the investors. All these witnesses in unison have named the present petitioner as being the person on whose lurement they had invested in the company on promise of huge returns.
8 As regards submission made by learned counsel for petitioner to the effect that he had joined the company in May,08 and had left the job in December,08 and hence could not be charged with for having entered into any conspiracy during the period 2007 to 2009, it is pertinent to note that co- conspirators can join conspiracy at different stages and it is not necessary that all conspirators join conspiracy from the beginning and remain a conspirator till the end. The essence of Crl. Rev 85/10 Page 6 of 8 a criminal conspiracy is unlawful combination and the same may or may not continue from beginning to end. Conspirators may come at any stage and can leave the conspiracy after their part is over. As such, it cannot be said that merely because the petitioner had joined services of Money Mantra between May,08 to December,08 he could not be said to be part of conspiracy between the period 2007 to 2009.
9 In view of statements of prosecution witnesses recorded under Sec.161 Cr. P.C, as had been enumerated herein-above, it is apparent that prima facie there are enough material on record to frame charges against the petitioner for having committed an offence punishable under Sec.420 IPC.
10 By promoting and conducting Money Circulation Scheme not authorized by law, the petitioner alongwith other co-accused persons prima facie committed an offence in contravention of provision of the PC & MCS (Banning) Act.
11 Keeping in view aforesaid facts & circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to point out any defect in the impugned order. This court on Crl. Rev 85/10 Page 7 of 8 perusal of record is satisfied about the correctness, legality as well as propriety of the impugned order and hence does not find any merits in the present revision petition.
12 Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed and the impugned order is upheld. Copy of order alongwith Trial Court record be sent back to Ld Trial Court.
Revision file be separated and consigned to record room.
Announced in open court (M. R. SETHI)
on 12.10.2010 ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE:
(FTC) (WEST):DELHI
Crl. Rev 85/10 Page 8 of 8