Delhi District Court
State vs Narender Kr.Sharma Etc on 16 May, 2026
State Vs. Sukhbir Singh etc.
FIR No.: 325/2007 PS: Anand Vihar
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANISH JAIN
ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
State Vs. Sukhbir Singh & ors.
FIR No.: 325/2007
PS: Anand Vihar
CNR No. DLSH020003422009
A Case Identification 77745/2016
Number
B Name of the Mr. H K Verma
Complainant
C Name of the accused 1. Sukhbir Singh
S/o Sh. Punjab Singh
persons & their
2. V.K. Chaturvedi
parentage S/o Late S B Chaturvedi
(proceedings abated vide order
dated 13.03.2024)
3. Radhey Shyam
(proceedings abated vide order
dated 17.09.2012)
5. Deepak Kumar(PO)
S/o Radhey Shyam Sharma
6. Narender
S/o Radhey Shyam Sharma
D Date of commission of On or before 17.06.2003
the offences
Digitally
signed by
MANISH MANISH
Date:
JAIN
JAIN 2026.05.18
page No. 1 of 18 16:13:55
+0530
(Manish Jain)
ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi
State Vs. Sukhbir Singh etc.
FIR No.: 325/2007 PS: Anand Vihar
E Date of Institution of the 18.06.2009
case
F Offences charged u/s 420/120B IPC.
G Plea of accused persons Pleaded not guilty
H Date of Pronouncement 16.05.2026
of judgment
I Final Order Acquitted
JUDGMENT
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
1. Present accused persons are produced before the court to stand trial for the offence punishable u/s 420/120B IPC.
2. In brief, the present case arises out of a complaint filed by Canara Bank through its authorized officer before the court of Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. The complainant bank, a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, having its head office at Mumbai and branch office at Karkardooma, Delhi, instituted the complaint through its Senior Manager/Principal Officer, who was duly authorized to sign, verify and file the same. It is the case of the prosecution that accused no.1, being the proprietor of M/s S Enterprises, along with accused no.2 and accused no.3 (guarantor), approached the Digitally signed page No. 2 of 18 by MANISH MANISH JAIN JAIN Date:
2026.05.18 16:14:00 +0530 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Sukhbir Singh etc. FIR No.: 325/2007 PS: Anand Vihar complainant bank for grant of credit facilities. Upon their request, the bank sanctioned overdraft and other credit facilities under its scheme, which were later enhanced. The proposal for sanction was processed and recommended by the concerned bank officials and the accused persons executed the requisite loan documents in favour of the complainant bank. In order to secure the loan facility, accused no.2 created an equitable mortgage by depositing the original title deeds of immovable property bearing no. E-302, East Babarpur, Shahdara, Delhi and another property situated at Chhajju Singh Gate, Babarpur, Shahdara, Delhi. Prior to sanction, the complainant bank obtained legal scrutiny report and valuation report of the mortgaged properties through its empanelled advocate and valuer. It is further alleged that the accused persons, in collusion with each other and with certain bank officials, dishonestly and deliberately suppressed material facts and induced the complainant bank to sanction and disburse the loan facilities. After availing the said facilities, the accused persons did not utilize the funds for the sanctioned purpose and instead diverted and siphoned off the loan amount for their personal use and for purposes other than those disclosed to the bank. The investigation further reveals that the loan account of the accused persons was not maintained satisfactorily and became irregular. Despite repeated requests and demands by the complainant bank, the accused persons failed to repay the outstanding dues. A substantial amount remained outstanding against them and recovery proceedings were also initiated by the bank before the Debt MANISH Digitally signed by MANISH JAIN page No. 3 of 18 JAIN Date: 2026.05.18 16:14:05 +0530 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Sukhbir Singh etc. FIR No.: 325/2007 PS: Anand Vihar Recovery Tribunal. It is also alleged that the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention and criminal conspiracy, committed fraud upon the complainant bank and cheated it by not returning the loan amount. By their acts, the accused persons caused wrongful loss to the complainant bank and wrongful gain to themselves, and the loan amount was misappropriated and siphoned off, thereby causing loss of public money. On the basis of the complaint, FIR was registered at Police Station Anand Vihar, however, no effective investigation was carried out initially, whereafter the complainant approached the court under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Pursuant to the directions of the court, the present case was investigated and upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons Radhey Shyam and Narender Kumar Sharma for offences punishable under Sections 420/406/120B IPC. Supplementary chargesheet has also been filed qua accused Sukhbir Singh and Vinod Kumar Chaturvedi.
3. Upon filing of the charge-sheet, cognizance was taken by Ld. Predecessor of this Court and copy of the charge-sheet was supplied to accused persons. Further, the matter was listed for arguments on the point of charge.
4. Further, Ld. Predecessor of this Court directed to frame charge for the offences u/s 420/120B IPC against accused Narender Sharma, Sukhbir Singh and Vinay Chaturvedi. Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH JAIN JAIN Date:
2026.05.18 page No. 4 of 18 16:14:10 +0530 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Sukhbir Singh etc. FIR No.: 325/2007 PS: Anand Vihar
5. Thereafter, prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined various witnesses.
6. PW1 WHC Indu Bala deposed that on 02.06.2007, she was posted at PS Anand Vihar as WHC working as Duty Officer from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM. At about 1:30 PM, the SHO handed over the complaint of the present matter for registration of FIR. She made endorsement on the rukka (Ex.PW1/A) and got FIR No. 325/2007 registered (photocopy Ex.PW1/B, OSR). After registration, she handed over a copy of the FIR and the original complaint to Ct. Sunil for further handover to SI K.J. Singh for investigation.
7. PW2 Mukesh Kachhwaha deposed that he produced the original Power of Attorney dated 13.05.1994 in the name of Sh. Harey Krishna Verma (Senior Manager, retired 31.10.2010), summoned from the Central Office, Mumbai. The said Power of Attorney is Ex.PW2/A (OSR, 7 pages) along with his covering letter bearing his signature at Point A.
8. PW3 Inspector Kumar Jiweshwar deposed that on 02.06.2007, he was posted at IC/PP PS ISBT Anand Vihar as Sub-Inspector. He received the application of the complainant u/s 156(3) CrPC along with the court order and registered FIR for investigation. He gave notice u/s 91 CrPC to the Manager, Central Bank of India for Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH JAIN page No. 5 of 18 JAIN Date:
2026.05.18 16:14:14 +0530 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Sukhbir Singh etc. FIR No.: 325/2007 PS: Anand Vihar production of relevant documents. He was thereafter transferred and he handed over the case file to MHC(R).
9. PW4 H.K. Verma (Retired Senior Manager, CBI, KKD Branch) deposed that he was Senior Manager at Karkardooma Branch from 2005 to 2007. He filed the complaint (Ex.PW4/A, 6 pages) against M/s N.S. Enterprises and its proprietor Sh. Narender Kumar Sharma on behalf of Central Bank of India, being Power of Attorney holder Category C, on 21.03.2007 before Karkardooma Courts. He also filed an affidavit (Ex.PW4/B), list of witnesses (Ex.PW4/C), and application u/s 156(3) CrPC (Ex.PW4/D). The Power of Attorney dated 13.05.1994 in the name of Sh. Harey Krishna Verma is already Ex.PW2/A. He deposed that accused Narender Kumar Sharma was proprietor of M/s N.S. Enterprises and approached the Central Bank of India, Karkardooma Branch for overdraft facility of Rs. 20 lakhs. The overdraft facility of Rs. 20 lakhs was sanctioned on 17.06.2003 under the Cent Trade Scheme and later enhanced on 14.03.2004 to Rs. 25 lakhs OD limit and fresh BP limit of Rs. 15 lakhs (certified copy is Ex.P1). The proposal was processed and recommended by then Manager S.B. Singh and sanctioned by then Senior Manager Sh. V.K. Chaturvedi, both of whom were not in service at the time of complaint. Accused Narender Kumar Sharma availed the facility and created equitable mortgage of property no. 4/170, land measuring 300 sq. yds, Khasra No. 170, Village Badarpuri, abadi Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH JAIN page No. 6 of 18 JAIN Date:
2026.05.18 16:14:22 +0530 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Sukhbir Singh etc. FIR No.: 325/2007 PS: Anand Vihar of East Badarpur, Delhi; documents given by accused are Ex.P2 (colly, 7 pages). Legal scrutiny report was obtained through panel advocate Smt. Shelly Rohtagi dated 06.06.2003 (Ex.P4, colly, 7 pages) and valuation was done by M/s R. Kumar & Associates dated 09.06.2003 (Ex.P3, colly, 7 pages) valuing the property at Rs. 45,45,000/-. The outstanding amount as on 01.02.2005 was Rs. 85,27,616/- plus interest. A complaint was lodged with SHO PS Anand Vihar on 06.09.2006 (Ex.PW4/E).
10.PW5 Retd. SI Sarabjeet Singh Minhas deposed that on 21.04.2009, he was posted at DIU Cell, East District as SI. On that day, IO/SI Kushalpal recorded the disclosure statement of accused Radhey Shyam in the present case in his presence (Ex.PW5/A). Accused Radhey Shyam disclosed that he resided at E-5 Mansarover Park on rent; his son Narender Kumar Sharma had left home after a quarrel and started residing at Bhiwari; and Ramesh (his servant) used to reside at Modi Nagar.
11.PW6 Retd. SI Kushal Pal Singh deposed that on 15.08.2008, he was posted at DIU Cell, East District and the present case was marked to him for further investigation. He searched for accused Radhey Shyam, Sukhbir Singh, Vinod Kumar and Narender Krishan but could not trace them. On 20.04.2009, along with Inspector Sarbjeet Singh, RK Nimani (Bank Manager) and SI Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH JAIN JAIN Date:
page No. 7 of 18 2026.05.18
16:14:27
+0530
(Manish Jain)
ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi
State Vs. Sukhbir Singh etc.
FIR No.: 325/2007 PS: Anand Vihar
Rajender, he went to Shivaji Gol Chakar where accused Radhey Shyam was pointed out by RK Nimani and subsequently arrested vide Ex.PW6/A (arrest memo) and personally searched vide Ex.PW6/B. Disclosure statement of accused Radhey Shyam (already Ex.PW5/A) was recorded. On 22.04.2009, he along with Inspector Sarbjeet Singh went to Biwari, H.No. 245, UTI Colony, Biwari, Haryana to search accused Narender, but he was not found. He prepared the pointing out memo of accused Radhey Shyam (Ex.PW6/C). On 25.05.2009, he produced the accused before court and sent him to JC. After accused Sukhbir Singh and VK Chaturvedi obtained anticipatory bail, he formally arrested both the accused persons vide arrest memos Ex.PW6/D and Ex.PW6/E and personal search memos Ex.PW6/F and Ex.PW6/G. He prepared supplementary charge-sheet qua accused Sukhbir and VK Chaturvedi and filed it before the court. He also recorded statements u/s 161 CrPC of witnesses.
12.PW7 Retd. Senior Manager R.K. Nimani deposed that on 01.08.2008, he was working as Senior Manager, Central Bank, KKD Branch, Delhi. On that day, he handed over the account opening form of M/s N.S. Enterprises (progressive number 101661, 4 pages) to the IO, which was seized vide Ex.PW7/A. The account opening form is now Ex.PW7/B (colly). On 05.08.2008, he also handed over the following documents to the IO (seized vide Ex.PW7/C): Application form for financial traders Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH JAIN page No. 8 of 18 JAIN Date:
2026.05.18 16:14:43 +0530 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Sukhbir Singh etc. FIR No.: 325/2007 PS: Anand Vihar (Ex.PW7/1), OD Limit sanction letter dated 17.06.2003 (Ex.PW7/2), Promise note dated 17.06.2003 (Ex.PW7/3), Letter dated 17.06.2003 (Ex.PW7/4), Overdraft Agreement dated 17.06.2003 (Ex.PW7/5, 3 pages), Declaration and undertaking by Narender Kumar Sharma (Ex.PW7/6, 2 pages), Form of Guarantee (Ex.PW7/7, 3 pages), Photocopy of sale deed property 4/170 (Ex.PW7/8, 7 pages; objected to as to mode of proof), Memo regarding depositing title deed (Ex.PW7/9), Letter regarding enhancement of OD limit (Ex.PW7/10), Process cum appraisal note (Ex.PW7/11, 2 pages), Promise note dated 10.04.2004 for Rs. 25 lacs (Ex.PW7/12), Form ADV/1 dated 10.04.2004 (Ex.PW7/13), Letter of Waiver dated 10.04.2004 (Ex.PW7/14), Letter of interest dated 10.04.2004 (Ex.PW7/15), Overdraft agreement dated 10.04.2004 (Ex.PW7/16, 3 pages), Declaration by Narender Kumar Sharma (Ex.PW7/17, 3 pages), Promissory note dated 16.04.2004 (Ex.PW7/18), Letter of interest (Ex.PW7/19), Letter of Waiver dated 16.04.2004 (Ex.PW7/20), Bill discount agreement dated 16.04.2004 (Ex.PW7/21, 2 pages), Form of Guarantee (Ex.PW7/22, 3 pages), Notice u/s 13(2) SARFESI dated 28.04.2005 (Ex.PW7/23, 2 pages), Letters to accused dated 19.10.2005 and 01.02.2006 (Ex.PW7/24 and Ex.PW7/25, 4 pages), Statement of account from 19.06.2003 to 31.05.2006 (Ex.PW7/26, 7 pages), Memorandum of interest balance outstanding (Ex.PW7/27), Certificate u/s 2(A)(B) Bankers Books Evidence Act (Ex.PW7/28). On 20.04.2007, he joined investigation and went to Shivaji Park with police, whereafter, Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH page No. 9 of 18 JAIN JAIN Date:
2026.05.18 16:14:49 +0530 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Sukhbir Singh etc. FIR No.: 325/2007 PS: Anand Vihar accused Radhey Shyam Sharma was arrested at his instance.
13.PW8 ACP Ghanshyam deposed that on 12.01.2008, he was posted as Inspector/ATO at PS Anand Vihar, East District. The investigation of the present case was marked to him for further investigation. During investigation on 17.03.2008, notices u/s 160 CrPC were issued to Radhey Shyam Sharma and Narender Kumar Sharma and handed over to the process server. On 15.07.2008, Sh.
R.K. Namani, Branch Manager, CBI submitted documents through forwarding letter (Mark A colly) in compliance of notice u/s 91 CrPC. On 26.07.2008, notice u/s 160 CrPC was issued for Narender Kumar Sharma and Radhey Shyam Sharma to join investigation on 28.07.2008, but they did not turn up. A letter dated 27.07.2008 from M/s R.K. Associates (valuer of property) was received and exhibited as Ex.P2. On 01.08.2008, R.K. Namani appeared and produced the original account opening form of M/s N.S. Enterprises, seized vide Ex.PW7/A. On 05.08.2008, long file documents were produced by Sh. M.S. Chopra, Assistant Registrar, DRT-III, New Delhi in the presence of R.K. Namani and seized vide Ex.PW7/C. A letter to Sub-Registrar, Seelampur was sent to verify property documents. On 24.09.2008, 11 cheques issued by M/s N.S. Enterprises were received through forwarding letter by R.K. Namani (Ex.PW8/A). On 09.11.2008, investigation was transferred to DIU for further investigation and the case file was handed over to MHCR.
Digitally
signed by
MANISH
MANISH JAIN
JAIN Date:
2026.05.18
16:14:56
+0530
page No. 10 of 18
(Manish Jain)
ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi
State Vs. Sukhbir Singh etc.
FIR No.: 325/2007 PS: Anand Vihar
14.After completion of prosecution evidence, same was closed and the matter was listed for recording of statement of all the accused persons u/s 313 Cr.PC.
15.In the statement u/s 313 Cr.PC, all accused persons deposed as under:
a) Accused Sukhbir Singh has submitted that he joined the said branch on 17.06.2003 and before his joining the said branch, the said loan facility was sanctioned by his senior manager and he did not perform any duty on that day.
b) Accused Narender has submitted that he had left his father's business and house and were living separately much prior to this incident and his documents has been misused and he has not received any loan amount from any bank or his father.
16.Accused persons showed their unwillingness to lead DE and thereafter, matter was listed for final arguments.
17.It is pertinent to state that accused Radhey Shyam and V.K. Chaturvedi expired during the trial and proceedings against them stood abated vide order dated 17.09.2012 and 13.03.2024 respectively. During the trial, accused Deepak was declared Proclaimed Person.
18.I have heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsels for Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH JAIN page No. 11 of 18 JAIN Date:
2026.05.18 16:15:02 +0530 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Sukhbir Singh etc. FIR No.: 325/2007 PS: Anand Vihar accused persons and Ld. APP for the State and carefully perused the entire record.
FINDINGS AND REASONS
19.The accused persons have been sent for trial on the allegations that, in conspiracy with each other, they induced the complainant bank to sanction overdraft/loan facilities on the basis of false representations and thereby caused wrongful loss to the bank and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves.
20.At the outset, it is settled law that in a criminal trial the burden always rests upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and such burden never shifts. The prosecution is required to stand on its own legs and cannot derive strength from the weakness of defence.
21.The principal allegation against accused Sukhbir Singh is that, while functioning as a bank official, he facilitated sanction of the loan facility in conspiracy with co-accused persons and in violation of banking norms. The allegation against accused Narender Sharma is that he, being proprietor/borrower, dishonestly availed the loan facility and participated in the alleged conspiracy.
22.However, upon appreciation of the entire evidence on record, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of cheating or criminal conspiracy beyond reasonable Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH JAIN page No. 12 of 18 JAIN Date:
2026.05.18 16:17:28 +0530 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Sukhbir Singh etc. FIR No.: 325/2007 PS: Anand Vihar doubt.
A.ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE OF FRAUDULENT OR DISHONEST INTENTION AT THE INCEPTION
23.To constitute an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC, it is essential that fraudulent or dishonest intention should exist at the very inception of the transaction. Mere failure to repay loan or subsequent default cannot by itself constitute the offence of cheating.
24.In International Advanced Research Centre for Power Metallurgy & New Materials & others vs Nirma Cerglass Technics Pvt. Ltd. & Another CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2128 OF 2011, it was held that mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution under Section 420 IPC unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of transaction, i.e. the time when the offence is said to have been committed.
25.In the present case, prosecution evidence itself shows that the overdraft facility was processed through normal banking procedure. PW4 and documentary exhibits Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 establish that valuation report and legal scrutiny report were obtained prior to sanction of the facility. The prosecution neither examined the valuer nor the panel advocate to prove that the reports were forged, fabricated or prepared in collusion with accused persons. Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.05.18 16:17:33 page No. 13 of 18 +0530 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Sukhbir Singh etc. FIR No.: 325/2007 PS: Anand Vihar
26.No evidence has come on record to show that accused persons had concealed any material fact from the bank at the inception of the transaction. Mere fact that the account subsequently became irregular or recovery proceedings were initiated before DRT cannot automatically give rise to criminal liability.
B. FAILURE TO PROVE CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY
27.The prosecution has also alleged criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120B IPC. However, conspiracy cannot be presumed merely because a transaction subsequently resulted in financial loss.
28.In Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) 1988 (3) SCC 609, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that criminal conspiracy requires proof of meeting of minds to commit an illegal act. Likewise, in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu 2005 INSC 333, it was held that though conspiracy is generally proved through circumstantial evidence, circumstances relied upon must unerringly point towards guilt.
29.In the present matter, there is no evidence of any prior agreement between accused Sukhbir Singh and co-accused persons. No evidence regarding receipt of illegal gratification, pecuniary benefit or sharing of wrongful gain by accused Sukhbir Singh has been produced.
Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH JAIN JAIN Date:
2026.05.18 page No. 14 of 18 16:17:41 +0530 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Sukhbir Singh etc. FIR No.: 325/2007 PS: Anand Vihar
30.The prosecution has not proved any communication, meeting, document or conduct suggestive of concerted action between accused persons to cheat the bank. Mere processing of loan documents by a bank official during official course of duty cannot by itself establish conspiracy.
C. ADMISSION OF INVESTIGATING OFFICER CREATES SERIOUS DOUBT
31.The testimony of PW8 ACP Ghanshyam materially weakens the prosecution case. During cross-examination, PW8 categorically admitted:
"During investigation no incriminating evidence were against the accused Narender Kumar Sharma till the time I have collected the evidences/documents."
He further made similar admission with respect to accused Sukhbir Singh. Such admission by the Investigating Officer is highly significant. The investigating agency itself could not collect any independent incriminating material connecting the accused persons with fraudulent conduct except the loan documentation forming part of official banking record.
32.It is settled law that suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute legal proof.
Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.05.18 16:17:46 +0530 page No. 15 of 18 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Sukhbir Singh etc. FIR No.: 325/2007 PS: Anand Vihar D. DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS HAVE NO SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENTIARY VALUE
33.PW5 and PW6 proved disclosure statements allegedly made by accused persons. However, no recovery pursuant thereto has been proved.
34.It is well settled that disclosure statement of an accused is admissible only to the limited extent contemplated under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
35.In Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor, it was held that only that portion of disclosure statement which distinctly relates to discovery of fact is admissible.
36.In the present case, no consequential recovery has been proved pursuant to the alleged disclosure statements. Hence, the same cannot be treated as substantive evidence of guilt.
E. PREDOMINANTLY CIVIL NATURE OF DISPUTE
37.The material on record shows that the complainant bank had already initiated recovery proceedings before DRT in respect of the loan transaction. The dispute essentially emanates from sanction, utilization and recovery of loan facility.
38.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. (2006 INSC 452) cautioned against converting civil Digitally signed by MANISH page No. 16 of 18 MANISH JAIN JAIN Date:
2026.05.18 16:17:52 +0530 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Sukhbir Singh etc. FIR No.: 325/2007 PS: Anand Vihar disputes into criminal prosecutions merely to exert pressure.
39.In absence of clear evidence of fraudulent intention or fabrication attributable to the accused persons, continuation of criminal liability would not be justified merely because the loan account became irregular or recovery remained pending.
H. BENEFIT OF DOUBT
40.The cumulative effect of the aforesaid discussion is that:
•prosecution failed to establish fraudulent intention from inception;
•no material proving meeting of minds or conspiracy has been produced;
•no recovery pursuant to disclosure statements has been proved; •investigation suffers from material inconsistencies and omissions; •even the Investigating Officer admitted absence of incriminating evidence against accused persons during investigation; •prosecution failed to prove wrongful gain or illegal benefit derived by accused persons.
41.Thus, serious doubts arise regarding the prosecution story. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that benefit of every reasonable doubt must go to the accused.
42.Accordingly, this Court holds that prosecution has failed to prove culpability for the offences punishable under Sections 420/120B Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH JAIN page No. 17 of 18 JAIN Date:
2026.05.18 16:17:58 +0530 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Sukhbir Singh etc. FIR No.: 325/2007 PS: Anand Vihar IPC against accused Sukhbir Singh and Narender Kumar Sharma beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, both the accused persons are acquitted for the above stated offences.
Announced in the Open Court Digitally signed by today i.e. on dated 16th May 2025 MANISH MANISH JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.05.18
16:18:03
+0530
(MANISH JAIN)
ACJM: SHAHDARA DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS:DELHI
page No. 18 of 18
(Manish Jain)
ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi