Delhi District Court
State vs . Jagdev Singh on 21 May, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. KAPIL KUMAR, MM-06,
(NORTH)ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
State Vs. Jagdev Singh
PS. Adarsh Nagar
1. FIR No. : 78/05
2. Date of Offence : 12.02.2005
3. Name of the complainant : Vijay Joshi Legal Manager
Shop no. 105, First Floor,
Mukund House,
Commercial Complex, Azad
Pur, Delhi.
4. Name, parentage and Address : Jagdev Singh
of the accused S/o Sh Suraj Mal
R/o 25 BPO, Singhu, New
Delhi.
5. Offences complained of : 420 IPC
6. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
7. Date of reserving the order : 21.05.2015.
8. Sentence or final order : Acquitted.
9. Date of order : 21.05.2015.
10.Unique ID No. : 02401R0418702005
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the prosecution against the accused is that during the year 2005 at shop no.5, First Floor, Mukund House, Commercial complex, Azad Pur, Delhi FIR No. 78/05 Unique Id no. 2401R041872005 1/6 within the jurisdiction of PS Adarsh nagar accused cheated complainant company M/s Magma Leasing Ltd by dishonestly inducing it to grant a loan of Rs 16,39,500/- for purchasing trucks no HR 69 2566 and HR 69 2567 on the basis of his false assurance and hypothication agreement, and not paid installments as per the schedule which caused wrongful loss to the complainant company(order dated 10.08.2006).
2. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused. The copy of charge-sheet and annexed documents were supplied to accused in compliance of Section 207 Cr. P.C. Thereafter Charge under Section 420 IPC was framed upon the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its version, prosecution examined 6 witness. PW-1 is HC Ranbir, PW-2 is Vinod Raheja Special Assistant State Bank of India Punjabi Bagh Branch, PW-3 Mahinder Singh Clerk from DTO Office Sonepat, PW-4 HC Harjeet Singh, PW-5 Inspector S K Sharma and PW-6 is Retd SI Om Prakash. It is pertinent to mention here that summons issued to PW-Vijay Joshi and records clerks from Magma Company and Agno Trechs, Commercial remained unserved. Thereafter summons were issued upon them through concerned DCP but even then they remained unserved. The report of DCP was received vide letter no.617-18/Summon Cell/NWD,dated 07.05.2015.
4. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded U/s 281 Cr.P.C. Accused stated that he is totally innocent and has been falsely FIR No. 78/05 Unique Id no. 2401R041872005 2/6 implicated in the present case. Accused opted not to lead DE.
5. I have heard Ld. APP for State and Ld Counsel for the accused. I have perused the record.
6. It is the cardinal principle of Criminal Justice delivery system that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of accused persons beyond reasonable doubts. No matter how weak the defence of accused but, the golden rule of the Criminal Jurisprudence is that the case of the prosecution has to stand on its own leg.
7. The whole case of prosecution revolves around the alleged fact of cheating committed by the accused with the complainant company by obtaining a loan on false assurances and hypothication agreement which he never intended to pay. For proving the same it was very much essential for the prosecution to bring on record the agreement vide which the loan was taken by the accused and to prove the same. It is not possible to comment upon any alleged loan taken by the accused from the complainant company without the original loan agreement proved on record. The loan agreement is not proved on record as none appeared on behalf of complainant company to prove the same. Despite various efforts summons issued to complainant company M/s Magma Leasing Ltd unserved. Summons were even issued through concerned DCP but of no avail. It was the complainant company only who could only prove whether any loan was taken by the accused or not and if any loan was taken then what assurances or what properties were hypothicated by the accused. Non examination of relevant persons of complainant company was fatal to the case FIR No. 78/05 Unique Id no. 2401R041872005 3/6 of prosecution. Further the compliant given by the Magma Leasing Ltd Company to SHO PS Adarsh Nagar also stands not proved for want of official from complainant company.
8. For the offence of 420 IPC it is to be proved by the prosecution that accused had dishonest intention of not returning the loan amount since inspection. This positive evidence was to be lead by the prosecution as per Section 101 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 and for this the concerned persons of complainant company was the best person. Again at the risk of repetition it is to be mentioned that prosecution failed to examine the concerned persons of complainant company and thus failed to lead any evidence qua mens rea of accused.
9. The testimony of PW-1 who was the Duty Officer in PS Adarsh Nagar 12.02.2005 or of PW-2, Special assistant of SBI or of record clerk of DTO office is not of any avail. Similarly the testimony of Inspector S.K Sharma who proved on record the ration card bearing no. 081289 which was issued in the name of accused is also not supporting the case of prosecution by itself. Further the statement of PW-4 HC Harjeet Singh and PW-6 IO Retd SI Om Prakash is also not of any use of prosecution for proving the offence of cheating. PW-4 and PW-6 deposed to the effect that after getting the case registered they started investigation and on the instance of the complainant they arrested the accused, thereafter accused made disclosure statement and got the trucks recovered. The recovery of two trucks from the possession of accused in itself is not in any manner the evidence of offence of cheating FIR No. 78/05 Unique Id no. 2401R041872005 4/6 allegedly committed by the accused.
10. In absence of testimony on behalf of complaint company it is not proved on record whether the accused took any loan from the complainant company or whether the accused cheated the complainant company by not paying the installments. In fact prosecution even also fail to prove that accused not made the payments of installments of loan amount as none appeared on behalf of complainant company to depose on those lines. Prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proof.
Accused Jagdev is acquitted from the charges framed in the present case.
Announced in the open court (KAPIL KUMAR)
on 21.05.2015. Metropolitan Magistrate-06
North District, Rohini Court
FIR No. 78/05 Unique Id no. 2401R041872005 5/6
FIR No. 78/05
P. S. Adarsh. Nagar
21.05.2015
Present: Ld. APP for the state.
Accused Jagdev Singh produced from JC(on bail in this case), represented by Ld Counsel.
Bail bonds as per section 437A Cr.PC furnished.
Final arguments heard.
Vide separate judgment of even date, announced in open court, accused Jagdev Singh is hereby acquitted from the charge framed in the present case.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
(Kapil Kumar) MM06, North District Rohini Courts, Delhi 21.05.2015.
FIR No. 78/05 Unique Id no. 2401R041872005 6/6