Delhi District Court
Sanjay Gupta vs The State on 27 July, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SHRI A.K. JAIN: ASJ03: SE: SAKET COURT
COMPLEX : NEW DELHI
C.R. No. 83/11
Sanjay Gupta
S/o Late Sh. Bhan Prakash Gupta
R/o Flat No. 211, SG Impression,
Sector 4B, Vasundara, Ghaziabad, U.P.
...... Revisionist
Versus
The State ......Respondent
FIR No.: 1052/05
PS: Kalkaji
U/s. : 406/420/120B IPC
ORDER:
1. Revisionist filed present petition being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 16.05.2011 of framing of charge U/s 420 IPC against revisionist /accused Sanjay Gupta.
2. Facts in brief that a complaint is filed against the accused/ revisionist by one progressive channels Association of Information Technology through its President R.K. Malhotra. The members of this association are dealing in the business of selling and purchasing of computer parts including software and hardware and some of its members had Sanjay Gupta Vs. State C.R. No. 83/11 (Contd. Pg No. 1) complained to the association against Sanjay Gupta and his wife Sheetal Gupta of M/s Gravis Computers Pvt. Limited that they have approached the accused for sale of computer hardware and software for purpose of onwards sale to various buyers and in this regard the accused during the period 1.4.05 to 26.1.05 had received the computer hardware and software worth Rs. 55 lakhs from members and thereafter, without making any payment disappeared and in this way fraudulently and dishonestly caused wrongful loss to the members of the complainant association and wrongful to themselves. During investigation police has examined 15 victims and recorded their statements and found accused had cheated them for an amount of 50 lakhs in total. During investigation it was revealed that accused Sanjay Gupta used to receive and handover the goods on his behalf through his two officials Pawan and Sunil and further used to make entries in his personal computer installed at his office but police found no direct evidence against accused Sheetal. On completion of investigation, filed chargesheet against accused Sanjay Gupta.
3. As per present revision, revisionist was running his business of computer in peaceful manner for last 3 years under the name and style of Gravis computer. In the year 2005, revisionist approached some of shopkeepers and requested for supply of computer software and hardware so that goods could be sold onwards to various buyers, and to pay back price on receiving the same. But PW Arvind Singhania and Sanjay Gupta Vs. State C.R. No. 83/11 (Contd. Pg No. 2) Ved Prakash due to business rivalry got involved the accused in false and fabricated case and during the period when he was in custody the locks of his shop were removed and some other person was found sitting in his shop and after release on bail he filed a complaint before the appropriate court and FIR no. 745/06 u/s 380/411/506/ 120 B IPC was registered against accused Arvind Singhania and Ved Prakash. And further their bills were found to be fake and these bills were also filed with the chargesheet but as Ved Prakash know that these are false he withdrew his complaint and this fact is also mentioned in present chargesheet.
4. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist further submits that the entire investigation is tainted and further accused had already made the entire payment of Rs. 17 lakhs at the time of grant of bail. Further, complaint case is also pending in the trial court against Ved Prakash and Arvind Singhania and bare perusal of their bills shows that they are false and fabricated. And none of the invoices of goods received bear the signatures /acknowledgment of the revisionist.
5. IO on the other hand submitted that as per investigation accused Sanjay Gupta with intention to cheat as purchased bulk of goods worth Rs. 55 lakhs and closed his office and vacated his rental house and disconnected his mobile phone. He neither made any payment to the victims nor contacted them. And there is sufficient evidence in Sanjay Gupta Vs. State C.R. No. 83/11 (Contd. Pg No. 3) this regard on record.
6. Arguments heard and record perused.
7. It is settled principal of law at the stage of framing of charge, court has to see only the prima facie case and at this stage cannot sift or weigh the evidence. The Apex Court in case titled as State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi , (2005) 1 SCC 568 had observed that at the stage of framing of charge court has to consider only the material produced by the prosecution and shall not consider the defence or documents produced by the accused.
8. The main ground of challenge to the impugned order is that the entire investigation is tainted and while accused was in custody the locks of his shop was removed and some other persons were found sitting in the shop and FIR in this regard was registered against Arvind Singhania and Ved Prakash u/s. 380/411/530 IPC. Further the bills filed by accused Ved Prakash in the present chargesheet is false and fabricated and for which a criminal complaint case is pending against him. Therefore, he himself withdraw his complaint in present case during investigation.
9. The complaint in the present case is filed by the association whose members were cheated by the accused and the statement of all those Sanjay Gupta Vs. State C.R. No. 83/11 (Contd. Pg No. 4) members were recorded by the IO during investigation and it was found that accused has fraudulently and dishonestly induced those members to supply their material and thereafter, without making payment absconded by locking his shop and disconnected his mobile phone. Though, some criminal complaint is pending for some of the fake bills filed alongwith present chargesheet and further even during the custody of the accused, his lock of his shop was broken. But all this is the defence of the accused and a different cause of action, further its veracity cannot be tested at this stage. Further, the payment of Rs. 17 lakhs at the time of bail is no ground to discharge the accused.
10. On consideration of chargesheet alongwith documents and statements of the witnesses, I find there is a prima facie made out against the accused for trial of offence u/s. 420 IPC. Therefore, I find no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial court. Hence, present revision petition stands dismissed.
11. TCR alongwith copy of this order be sent back to trial court. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court (AJAY KUMAR JAIN) on 27th July , 2011 ASJ03/SE/New Delhi
Sanjay Gupta Vs. State C.R. No. 83/11 (Contd. Pg No. 5)