Delhi District Court
State vs . Mujeeb-Ur Rehman on 16 September, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN SINGH RAJAWAT:
ACMM (SPL. ACTS): CENTRAL DISTRICT: THC: DELHI
CC No. 292366/16
FIR No.: 318/99
U/s: 201/420/120B IPC
P.S.: Lahori Gate
State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur Rehman
Name of accused : (1) M/s Habib Investment
Ltd.
Office at 1388, Katra
Bijwarian, Ballimaran,
Delhi
(2) M/s Habib Mercantile
Ltd.
Office at 1388, Katra
Bijwarian, Ballimaran,
Delhi
(3) Mujeeb Ur Rehman
S/o. Abdul Rehman,
R/o 181, C-24,
Turner Road, Mororwala,
Dehradun,Uttarakhand.
(4) Habib Ur Rehman
S/o. Late Khalil Ur
Rehman,
R/o Mohalla Qazi, Sarai,
Tehsil Nagina, Distt.
Bijnour, UP
(5) Shaista Nusrat
W/o Mujeeb Ur Rehman
R/o 181, C-24,
State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 1 of 199
Turner Road, Mororwala,
Dehradun,Uttarakhand.
(6) Syed Sikander Javed
S/o. Late Sh. Asgar
Hussain,
R/o Mohalla Court, West,
Sambhal, UP.
(7) Kamal Mahajan Hussain,
W/o late Sh. Satish
Chand Mahajan
R/o 377, Teliwara,
Shahdara,Delhi.
(8) Maqsood Khan
S/o. Sh. Maqbook Khan,
R/o 478, Gali No. 21,
Jafrabad, Delhi.
(9) Arshad Mirza
S/o. Rashid Mirza,
R/o C-10/150, Yamuna
Vihar, New Delhi.
(10) Saeed Ahmed Qaeed
S/o.Sh.Abdul Hameed
Shakir,
R/o 4157, Urdu Bazaar,
Jama Masjid, Delhi
(11) Fahim Ahmad
S/o. Abdul Hameed
Shakir,
R/o 4157, Urdu Bazaar,
Jama Masjid, Delhi
(12) Ahmed Naeem,
State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 2 of 199
S/o. Abdul Hameed
Shakir,
R/o 4157, Urdu Bazaar,
Jama Masjid, Delhi
(13) Khairun Nisa
W/o. Abdul Rashid
Akhtar,
D/o. Abdul Hameed
Shakir,
R/o 4157, Urdu Bazaar,
Jama Masjid, Delhi
(14) Rehmat Un Nisa
W/o. Mohd. Akram,
D/o. Abdul Hameed
Shakir,
R/o 3037, Chowk
Shahganj,
Ajmeri Gate, Delhi.
(15) Yaseen Bano
W/o. Mohd. Tahir,
D/o. Abdul Hameed
Shakir,
R/o 4568, Gali Shatara,
Ajmeri Gate, Delhi.
(16) Nikhat Parveen
W/o. Maqsood Ahmad,
D/o. Abdul Hameed
Shakir,
R/o 3075, Kocha Pandit,
Shahganj Chowk, Lal
Kuan,
Ajmeri Gate, Delhi.
(17) Aneesh Shahzad
State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 3 of 199
S/o. Abdul Hameed
Shakir,
R/o 4157, Urdu Bazaar,
Jama Masjid, Delhi
Accused Rahat Afzal
already declared P.O.
Proceedings against
accused Aziz Fatima
and Abdul Rehman
already abated
Offence complained of : 406/409/201/420/120B
IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Final order : Accused Syed
Sikandar Javed,
Maqsood Khan,
Saeed Ahmed,
FahimAhmed,
Anis Shezad,
Ahmad Naseem,
Rahmatun
Nisha,Yasmin Bano,
Khairun Nisa,
Nikhat Parveen,Arsad
Mirza are acquitted
of offence
U/s 120B/420 IPC.
Accused Kamal Mahajan
acquitted of offence
under Section
201/120B/420 IPC
State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 4 of 199
Accused M/s Habib
Investment Ltd.,
M/s Habib Mercantile
Ltd., accused Mujeeb
Ur-Rehman,Habib-
Ur-Rehman and
Shaista Nusrat are
convicted for
offence U/s 120-
B/420 IPC.
Date of Institution : 06.06.2001
Date of Argument : 08.08.2019
Date of judgment : 16.09.2019
JUDGMENT
Brief statement of the reasons for the decision:-
1 Briefly stated facts of the case are that M/s Habib Mercantile Ltd. And Habib Investment Ltd. were incorporated under the Companies Act with the main object to carry on business as financers and lend, advance money to such person or persons with the aim to encourage habit of thrift, saving and investment by receiving deposits, saving fixed and recurring exclusively from the members of the company. It is alleged in the charge sheet that the company M/s Habib Mercantile Ltd.
and Habib Investment Ltd. and its directors/promoters i.e. accused persons namely Habib-Ur-Rehman, Mujeeb-Ur-
State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 5 of 199 Rehman, Shaista Nusrat, Rahat Afzal (PO), Kamal Mahajan, Syed Sikender Javed, Arshad Mirza, Saeed Ahmed Qaeed and Maqsood Khan in conspiracy have cheated the common public by receiving huge sums of money in various schemes of daily deposit and FDRs as despite the companies have no authorization from Reserve Bank of India to receive deposits from general public. The accused had no intention to return the money on the stipulated date and when complainants/investors went for collecting their return on investment, the office of the accused company was found locked as accused persons have absconded with the money invested by cheating public at large. It is further alleged against accused Saeed Ahmed Qaeed, Ahmed Naeem, Fahim Ahmed, Aneesh Shahzad, Khairun Nisa, Rehmat Un Nisa, Yasmin Banu and Nikhat Parveen that they conspired together in disposing off the property bearing no. 298/11, Gali Gariya Bazar, Matia Mahal, Jama Masjid, Delhi despite same being mortgage as accused Saeed Ahmed Qaeed had taken a loan Of Rupees 12 Lakhs from accused M/s Habib Mercantile Ltd. and thereby cheated the investors as the loan was advanced out of the deposit of the investors. As against accused Kamal Mahajan it is alleged that she has caused destruction of evidence by disposing off the properties of the company and thereby State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 6 of 199 cheated the investors in conspiracy with other directors of accused companies. It is further mentioned in the charge sheet that several complaints were received which were investigated and documents from the office of ROC and various banks where accounts of the company were maintained, were seized. Thereafter, supplementary charge sheet was filed against some of the accused persons. The prosecution has alleged offences under Section 420/406/409/201/120B IPC. The initial charge- sheet was filed on 07.05.2001 and first supplementary charge-sheet was filed on 20.09.2001, second supplementary charge-sheet on 22.03.2002 and third supplementary charge-sheet was filed on 20.07.2007. Twenty Accused were charge-sheeted out of which accused Aziz Fatima and Accused Abdul Rehman expired during the pendency of trial and, therefore, proceedings against them stands abated. Accused Rahat Afzal was declared proclaimed offender and evidence recorded during trial will be considered against him in terms of section 299 Cr.PC. Rest of the seventeen accused persons faced the trial.
2 After hearing arguments, charge for offence U/s 420/120-B r/w 34 IPC was framed against the accused persons namely Habib Mercantile Ltd., Habib Investment State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 7 of 199 Ltd., through Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman and also against Habib- Ur-Rehman, Shaista Nusrat, Kamal Mahajan, Syed Sikender Javed, Arshad Mirza, Saeed Ahmed Qaeed and Maqsood Khan to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Separate charge was also framed against the accused Kamal Mahajan for offence under section 201 IPC. Vide order dated 23.07.2016, separate charge was framed on 06.08.2016 against accused Saeed Ahmed Qaeed, Fahim Ahmed, Anees Shehzad, Ahmed Naeem, Mst. Khairun Nisa, Rehmat-un-Nisa, Yasmin Bano and Nikhat Parveen for offence under Section 420/120B IPC to which all accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3 In support of their case prosecution has examined 55 witnesses who were duly cross examined by the defence. The testimony of the witnesses shall be discussed at the appropriate stage.
4 After conclusion of prosecution evidence, accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.PC and there statements were recorded. No accused led any evidence in defence and hence, final arguments were heard.
5 I have heard detailed arguments on behalf of the State and the accused persons.
State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 8 of 199 6 Ld. APP for the state submits that the accused persons in conspiracy with a fraudulent intention cheated the hard earned money of the public by launching investment schemes with promise of very high returns. He further argued that witnesses had correctly identified the accused persons and all the witnesses have stated the role of every accused in their evidence and stated in detail that accused Habib Ur Rehman introduced himself as promoter of the said company namely Habib Mercantile Ltd. and accused Mujib Ur Rehman introduced himself as Chief Managing Director and accused Shaista Nusrat and her brother Rahat Afzal as director of the said company.
7 . Ld. APP also argued that accused persons were not authorized by the RBI to continue the business of investment.
8 He also pointed out that all the investors/witnesses have clearly identified the accused persons who have duped them. He argued that the accused persons had deliberately and intentionally misappropriated the hard earned money of the investors and cheated the investors by not giving the assured amount or the amount deposited.
State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 9 of 199 9 On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for accused Habib Ur Rehman argued that he was not the director of the company and prosecution has not brought any evidence to prove the allegations of him being promoter of any of the companies. He also pointed out that since Habib Ur Rehman is related to accused Mujeeb Ur Rehman, his presence in the premises of Mujeeb Ur Rehman was natural. Ld. Counsel also argued that the bank account in Nagina was opened in the name of accused Habib Ur Rehman at the instance of accused Mujeeb Ur Rehman who was nephew to accused Habib Ur Rehman.
10 Similarly, Ld. Counsel for accused Mujeeb Ur Rehman and Shaista Nusrat argued that prosecution has not brought any evidence to prove the ingredients of cheating as none of the witnesses stated that they have been wrongfully induced on misrepresentation to invest the money. He also pointed out that all the complainants admitted that accused persons were honest and have good reputation. Ld. Counsel also argued that the company in question was duly registered with Registrar of Companies and even application was pending before Reserve Bank of India for approval. He also argued that all investors were voluntarily invested without any component of cheating on the part of accused persons. He State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 10 of 199 also argued that due to losses in the business which could have occurred to anyone, there were some defaults in return of the money and there was no fraudulent intention on the part of accused persons. He also pointed out the companies were being run for many years and prays for acquittal of accused persons.
11 . Ld. Counsel for accused Arshad Mirza argued that accued Arshad Mirza was working with the Habi mercantile ltd and on 26.01.1999 the accused persons namely Dr. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman, CMD made a phone call to the accused Arshad Mirza on his landline no. 01- 2178905 and directed accused Arshad Mirza to reach Shahdara Branch Office urgently for some paper works so accused went there and after reaching there, accused found Mujeeb-Ur Rehman, Rahat Afzal, Kamal Mahajan and two Chartered Accountants namely Shoaib Raza Zaidi and Ashok Gupta who made him sign on some documents which were English and despite request by him and Kamal Mahajan, accused Mujeeb-Ur Rehman did not allow them to read the papers. He also argued that Arshad Mirza has no role in the alleged cheating and due to intense pressure created by one investor namely Mukarab hussain in first week of April, 1999 and he and Kamal Mahajan forced to execute the documents in State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 11 of 199 resepect of property no. C-184/27, Gali no. 4, Chauhan Bangar, Kalyan Cinema, Shahdara, Delhi as Mujeeb-Ur Rehman had already sold the property and received Rs. 3,10,000/- as sale consideration. He also pointed out that none of the prosecution witnesses deposed against accused Arshad Mirza and to show their bonafide, he and accused Kamal Mahajan filed the criminal writ petition no. 3203/2018 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi to expedite the matter. He prays for acquittal of accused Arshad Mirza.
12 Ld. Counsel for accused Kamal Mahajan argued that accused kamal Mahajan was working as cashier in the Muslim Imdadi fund society since March 1996which was owned by Matloob Ahmed and accused Mujeeb-Ur Rehman had purchased muslim Imdadi Society fund from the Matloob Ahmed on 02.02.97 and merged the same with Habib Group company alongwith staff. It was argued that accused Kamal Mahajan was working as cashier only and being employee have to obey order of Mujeeb-Ur Rehman and Rahat Afzal. It was also argued that in November 1998 accused Mujeeb-Ur Rehman told Kamal Mahajan to be his sister and therefore, Kamal Mahajan starting trusting him who mischievously on 22.12.1998 made accused Kamal Mahajan as director on the ground State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 12 of 199 that Shaista Nusrat cannot work regularly as director as she has to look after his parents. He also submits that on 26.01.99 accused Mujeeb-Ur Rehman and Rahat Afzal alongwith two chartered accountants came at the branch officer at Shahdara and made her sign some papers on the pretext that the documents are to be filed in some authorities and due to trust upon Mujeeb-Ur Rehman she sign the same without reading it. He also submits that Mujeeb-Ur Rehman had made agreement to sell on 08.03.99 with one investor Hasmatulla and asked her to received Rs. One lakh in cash which was handed over to Mujeeb-Ur Rehman. However, on 14.03.1999 accused Mujeeb-Ur Rehman called that he alongwith his family going to Makka to perform Haj and asked to accused kamal Mahajan to look after the business of Habib group of companies. ld. Counel for pointed out that accused Kamal Mahajan was also cheated by accused Mujeeb-Ur Rehman, Rahat Afzal and Shaista Nusrat and therefore, made a police complaint on 30.03.99. Ld. Counsel for accused pointed out that about her appointment in director and neither attendant any board meeting nor drawn his salary as director. He prays for acquittal of accused.
State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 13 of 199 Prosecution Evidence 13 PW-1 Lique Ahmed is one of the investors in the accused companies. He stated that he had deposited the amount of Rs. 10,000/- with Habib Mercantile Ltd. for a period of five years and on the completion of the five years, the company had to pay amount of Rs. 35,000/- and towards that given a post dated cheque of Rs. 35,000/- under the signature of accused Mujeeb Ur- Rehman which is Ex. PW1/A. He further stated that his money was misappropriated by the accused and copy of fixed deposit scheme is Ex. PW1/B. During cross examination, PW-1 admitted that the he had not deposited any amount with the accused Kamal Mahajan. He further stated that Ms. Kamal Mahajan was the Director of the company but had not personally verified the same from the office of Registrar of Companies. He admitted that Mohd. Safi who was the agent of the company had told the scheme of the company and convinced and persuaded him to make the deposit. He stated that he had gone to the office of the accused company and had received post dated cheque where accused Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman and other persons were also present.
14 Mohd. Mosin examined as PW-2. He deposed that he had opened an account in the branch of Habib State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 14 of 199 Mercantile Ltd. situated at Turkman Gate and had deposited the amount in the daily deposit scheme having account no. 398 Ex. PW2/A. He also deposed that two other persons namely Usman and Rafiq also opened the account on the same day having account no. 396 and 397, which are Ex. PW2/B and Ex. PW2/C respectively. He further stated that accused company had assured him for payment of handsome interest on the amount deposited but no payment was made to him by the accused company. The receipts of the same are Ex. PW2/D-1 to Ex. PW2/D6. During cross examination he further stated that he did not remember the date of complaint with the police. He denied the suggestion that his brother never deposited amount with accused company in the daily deposit scheme. He also denied the suggestion that he had not been cheated by the accused company.
15 PW-3 Jafar Ahmed stated that he had deposited an amount of Rs. 40,000/- in the Family Welfare Scheme of Habib Mercantile Ltd. on 28.04.98 for a period of five years and got interest of Rs. 3000/- and Rs. 6000/- on the said amount, only two times and after that he had not received any amount from the accused company. He proved the copy of the scheme as Ex. PW3/A and receipt of the amount of Rs. 40,000/- as Ex. PW3/B. During cross State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 15 of 199 examination, he stated that he had visited the office of the accused number of times. He stated that he met the worker of accused company namely Salim and Mujeeb Ur Rehman and did not meet any other person. He further stated that he was told about the scheme by only accused Mujeeb Ur Rehman and after three months received Rs. 3000/- as interest from Mujeeb Ur Rehman. However, on subsequent visit he was not paid anything by accused Mujeeb Ur Rehman. He further stated that he had never met accused Ms. Kamal Mahajan in the office of Habib Mercantile Ltd.
16 PW-4 Mohd. Wasim stated that Habib Mercantile Ltd. was a finance company and Dr. Mujeeb-UR-Rehman was one of the director of the finance company. He further stated that Rahat Afjal, was also one of the director of the company and Abdul Rehman, Shaista Nusrat, Ajiz Fathima, Sher Sikander Javed and Masqood Khan except Rahat Afzal, all other accused are the director of company. He further stated that Registered Office of the company was situated at 1388, Ballimaran Chandni Chowk, Delhi and after going through the pamphlet of Habib Investment ltd. which had offered employment he met accused Mujeeb Ur Rehman, Rahat Afzal, Sikander Javed, Maqsood Khan, Abdul Rehman, Shaista Nusrat and State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 16 of 199 Aziz Fatima and he was appointed as Jr. Marketing Officer of the company and proved copy of his identity card as Ex. PW4/A2 and proved copy of pamphlet issued by the company as Ex. PW-4/A-1. He further stated that he had collected the money from the public and deposited the same with the company as per account of public persons. He further stated that he had also deposited his own money with the company in various schemes and opened accounts in the name of his mother Amna Be, nephew Mohd. Yasin Rao and also in his name for a period of three years. Copy of accounts are proved as Ex. PW4/A3. He also stated that he invested money vide Ex. PW4/A4 to Ex. PW4/A9 and deposited total amount of Rs. 4,19,075/- of various investors in the Habib Mercantile Ltd. and list of such investors and amount deposited was proved as Ex. PW4/A10. He further stated that the investment of the investors were not returned to the people and the accused persons ran away after closing their head office as well as Branch offices and despite repeated demand accused persons misappropriated the investment in the companies. He stated that in his presence search at the office of Habib Mercantile ltd was conducted and seven ledgers Ex. PW4/B-1 to Ex. PW4/B7, daily collection, received books from S.No. 36001 to 36800 Ex. PW4/B8, passbook of companies Ex. PW4/C1 to Ex. PW4/C3, State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 17 of 199 commission chart Ex. PW4/D1, payment of commission register Ex. PW4/D2, salary register Ex. PW4/D3 and another collection register Ex. PW4/D4 was seized in his presence.
17 During cross examination, he deposed that he had joined the accused company in June 1996 as Jr. Marketing Officer and further stated that accused company has not issued any appointment letter to him. He admitted that only I-card was issued which was already Ex. PW4/A2 which does not bears the signature of Dr. Mujeeb UR Rehman or any stamp impression of the company. He denied the suggestion that I-card Ex. PW4/A2 was forged and fabricated document. He further stated that he did not know the address of the Head Office. He stated he used to keep the record of investors for personal use and denied the suggestion that Ex. PW4/A10 is forged and fabricated. He denied the suggestion that he had deposed falsely against the accused persons because he and other agents have grabbed the property of the company. He also denied the suggestion that company and directors have not committed any cheating or fraud with the investors. He denied the suggestion that he had not handed over the documents Ex. PW4/A1 to Ex. PW4/A9 to police. He State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 18 of 199 denied the suggestion that he had never met the directors of the company. He failed to state whether accused Kamal Mahajan participated in any meeting of the board of directors or received any investments from the investors. He denied the suggestion that Kamal Mahajan has falsely implicated but admitted that he do not remember if Kamal Mahajan made any claim regarding handsome dividend on investment at any point of time.
18 Mohd. Hasmuddin examined as PW-5. He stated that he also invested money in the Habib Mercantile Ltd run by Dr. Muzibur Rehman. through Md. Noor who was the agent of the company. He further stated that he was allotted the account no. 1125 by the accused company for a scheme of 400 days to deposit Rs. 50/- per day and he deposited for 270 days. He proved his account book Ex. PW5/A seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/B. He further stated that till date the company has not returned his deposit and misappropriated the same by the accused persons and directors have cheated him. During cross examination, he stated that he had opened his account in Zafarabad branch and he did not know the name of all agent of the company and only agent Noor Mohd. had used to collect the money from him and receipt of the same was issued to him on the next day and he was also State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 19 of 199 issued a passbook for the said account. He further stated that he had not met the Director of the company before opening the account. He further stated that he did not lodge any complaint against the agent Noor.
19 PW-6 Razaul Hasan deposed that earlier the accused Mujeeb Ur Rehman, CMD of the Habib Group of companies was running clinic adjacent to his clinic at Kutcha Rehman Chandni chowk, Delhi and in the year 1995-96, Mujeeb Ur Rehman asked him to invest money in his company and he invested an amount of Rs. 80,000/- in the accused company in different scheme. He further stated that on the date of maturity, when he visited the office for refund of the scheme, he found the office locked and came to know that accused have absconded after cheating public at large. He also stated that he had handed over the copies of the documents to the police regarding the said investment which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW6/A and the list of the documents Ex. PW6/B1 to Ex. PW6/B6 and the list of investors vide Ex. PW6/C. During cross-examination, he admitted that he had given no written proposal and he had joined the company as agent. Voluntarily, he said that the company had issued Ex. PW6/B2 but admitted that it was not appointment letter. He denied the suggestion that Ex.
State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 20 of 199 PW6/ B2 does not bears the signature of accused persons. He stated that he used to collect the payments from the investors on daily basis and monthly basis and had also opened the account for the said schemes for money back. He further submits that receipt used to be issued on the next day by the CMD of the company. He further stated that he had no record of the money deposited in the company and did not know who has signed the Ex. PW6/B2 to Ex. PW6/B6. He further stated that he had seen the memorandum of articles and memorandum of association of the company and also seen the name of the Directors in the memorandum of association/articles i.e. Mujeeb Ur- Rehman, CMD, Smt. Aziz Fatima, Rahat Afzal, Abdul Aziz, Shaista Nusrat. He denied the suggestion that Smt. Fatima had never been the director in the aforesaid company. He further stated that Mujeb- Ur- Rehman had been running his clinic in shop but he did not remember the number situated in Kutcha Rehman, Delhi. He further stated that he used to visit the head office of the company 2/3 times in a week. He further stated that he had only one passbook in his custody. He further stated that police had recorded his statement and he had signed the statement and he had signed all the paper in the police station. He admitted that list does not bears the seal of the company. He denied the suggestion that no State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 21 of 199 documents/list regarding the investment of investors shown in Ex. PW6/C had been given by him to IO. He denied the suggestion that 1388/2 was owned by Smt. Aziz Fatima and the company had taken it on rent. He further denied the suggestion that Smt. Aziz Fatima used to issue rent receipt in the name of the company. He further denied the suggestion that he had given a forged and fabricated list of investors Ex. PW6/C to the police. He further denied the suggestion that accused persons have not committed any cheating or any other offence or have been falsely implicated in the present case.
20 PW-7 Mohd Taslim stated that accused company Habib Ur Rehman asked him to invest his money in the company on the assurance of handsome interest. He further stated that he opened an account in their branch in his name and also in the name of his wife Smt. Aisha and continued to deposit the amount of an Rs. 300/- per month and invested total amount of Rs. 80,000/-90,000/- in the accused company. He further stated when he visited the office where he had met Madan Mahajan who assured him that need not be worried as the properties of the company were with them. He further stated that the cheques issued by the accused company were dishonoured. He further stated he had brought the copy State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 22 of 199 of FD of an amount of Rs. 10,000/- in the name of the his nephew Saddam Ex. PW7/A. During the further examination in chief of PW-7 recorded on 11.03.2019, one Manbhar Mittal, on behalf of the Habib Court Case Committee produced the original of FDR in the name of Saddam son of Tasleem for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- issued by Habib Mercantile Ltd and the copy of the same Ex. PW7/B and the certified copy of FDR in the name of Aasha in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with S. No. 31 dated 23.06.1997 issued by Habib Mercantile Ltd. in the sum of Rs. 35,000/- and another certified copy of FDR issued in the name of Tasleem in the sum of Rs. 5000/- issued by Habib Mercantile Ltd. as Ex. PW7/D. He also proved the one certified copy of cheque dated 28.05.2002 issued in the name of Tasleem issued by Habib Mercantile Ltd in the sum of Rs. 17,500/- Ex.PW7/D1. He proved Original passbook of Ms. Aiysha W/o Tasleem related to account no. M016 issued by Habib Mercantile Ltd. as Ex.PW7/E (colly)(OSR) and original passbook of Sh. Tasleem, is related to account no. M014 and M046 issued by Habib Mercantile Ltd. as Ex. PW7/F and Ex.PW7/G (colly)(OSR). He further proved the original passbook of Sh. Shabab related to account no. M019 issued by Habib Mercantile Ltd. as Ex. PW7/H(colly)(OSR). He further stated that had also made a request to lodge an FIR to the concerned State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 23 of 199 DCP alongwith other victims and the said complaint bears his signature at point B on Ex. PW26/A. He also proved the pamphlet provided to him by the accused persons which reflects the different forms of investment plans proposed to him. The copy of said pamphlet is Mark X-1. He further stated that another complaint dated 16.10.2006 was made to DCP, EOW, Crime for adding more accused persons as Ex.PW7/I. He further stated that he had only received 40% of his investment from the Committee and the remaining is yet to be received. During cross examination, he stated that he was told by the directors of the company orally with respect to their investment in orchid of mango in Nagina Bijnaur, UP, Mineral Water Factory & Piperment plant at Sahibabad and the same was also mentioned in the broacher of the company. He further stated that he had stopped visiting the company office on 14.03.1999 when he found the same locked. He denied the suggestion that company was still in operation and had not been closed at any point of time. He admitted that the books of the account of company including the other business record was seized by the IO in his presence from office at Turkman Gate. He further stated that he had joined the investigation after seizure of the aforesaid record. He further stated that he had not given any notice to the company as the State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 24 of 199 office of the company was found locked all of a sudden on 14.03.1999 and thereafter the whereabouts of directors were not known and it was not possible for him to give any notice to any of the directors of the company. He denied the suggestion that neither of the directors nor the staff therein had the malafide and fraudulent intention to cheat the investor or that they were sincerely running the company as per law. He denied the suggestion that none of the directors of company had induced/misrepresented him or any other investor to invest in their company.
21 . PW-8 Mohd. Ramesh Farid stated that in the year 1995 he met accused Mujeeb Ur Rehman, CMD of the accused company and other accused persons who asked to him invest money in the company on the assurance of handsome interest. He further stated that the accused company also shown him the certificates assuring that the same were issued by the Government. He further stated that he agreed to deposit Rs. 100 per day deposit scheme and after sometime he visited the office and found the same locked and he was told that accused persons have run away with the entrusted money. He further stated that he produced the certain documents before the police which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/A and Ex. PW8/B. He further stated that he has brought the original State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 25 of 199 pass book having details of the account holder and and the money deposit by the investor as Ex. PW8/C. He further stated that he was the made the agent of Habib Investment ltd. and also issued the card I-card is Ex. PW8/D(OSR). He further stated that he was not doing any service in the year 1995 and he was student in the year 1995. he further stated he did not remember the date when he was met Mujeeb Ur Rehman and he had joined the company in the year 1996 on a commission basis. He further stated that rate of commission was different as per the different schemes. He further stated that the branches of the accused company were at different places at Shahdara, Seelampur etc. He further stated he used to deposit the money in the bank and delivered the receipts to the parties and he had not kept any register with him. He further stated Ex. PW8/C was prepared after having the entries from the depositors and the same was got computerized from the computer shop at Churiwalan and he had not remember the name of the shop. He further stated that there was no computer in the company. He further stated that he had handed over the Ex. PW8/C to the IO in the police station. He denied the suggestion that all entries were false and fabricated. He denied the suggestion that no commission for these entries were received by him from the company as he had never State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 26 of 199 deposited the amount with the company. He further stated the entries were used to be made by the accused Mujeeb Ur Rehman once in a month. He denied the suggestion that entries were made in a single date. He further stated that there are 29 pages in the pass book and it bears the signature of accused Mujeeb Ur Rehman. He further stated that around March, 14, 1999 accused persons absconded. He further stated that he had an FDR an amount of Rs. 10,000/- particulars of which are also mentioned in the case file and the original FDR is with the company. He denied the suggestion that front page of the passbook Ex. PW8/B does not bears signatures of the accused Mujeeb Ur- Rehman. He denied the suggestion that all the depositors have taken back their money. He admitted that some of the depositors also got back their amount after maturity. He further stated that his statement was recorded by the IO. He denied the suggestion that he had prepared the Ex. PW8/B and C for extracting the money from the bank to harass the company management.
22 PW-9 Mohd. Ilyas stated that he came to know about the pamphlet advertisement that one bank namely Habib Mercantile ltd has opened. He further stated that when he enquired about their procedure he was told that State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 27 of 199 there were several schemes of daily deposit and of FD. He stated that he had invested about Rs. 22000/- in one account and Rs. 7500/- invested in the FD and accused had promised to pay him Rs. 26,000/- on maturity but he had not received any money from the accused persons. During cross examination, he denied the suggestion that no such pamphlet or publication has been made by the accused persons. He further denied the suggestion that he had not deposited any amount with the accused persons. He further denied the suggestion that accused Mujib-ur- Rehman and Habib Ur- Rehman are doctors by profession. He further denied the suggestion that he had not visited the office or deposited the amount with the accused company.
23 PW-10 Mohd. Usman stated that he met Mujibur Rehman, Habib Ur Rehman with some other persons and they had told him to invest money in his company on the assurance that he will get an handsome interest on deposit of Rs. 13,000/- or 14,000/-. He further stated that it was about 2 1/2 to 3 years back that he had came to know that accused had closed their office and have fled. During cross examination, he admitted his statement recorded by the police. He admitted that when he met the accused persons on the assurance that the company was State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 28 of 199 registered with the Government and the amount his amount would be safe. He further admits that accused who were the directors fled away and the work was looked after by New Directors Ms. Kamal Mahajan and Arshad Mirza. He denied the suggestion that he had only deposited Rs. 5000/- and not Rs. 14,000/-. He further stated that he deposited his passbook with the police in the Police Station. He admitted that he had also made a complaint to the police Ex. PW10/A. He further stated that his deposit was made by the agent. He denied the suggestion that he had not made any deposit. He further admits that he had not been go to the bank to deposit the amount. He denied the suggestion that his signatures were obtained on the blank papers and statement which was recorded by the police was not read over to him.
24 PW-11 Mohd. Shafaq Khan stated that he was called by the agent of Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman and Habib Rehman and they told him that there were several schemes of daily deposit of Rs. 10/- per day. He stated that he had invested the amount in the account which was opened by accused company. He further stated that after one year and they told him that when one year is complete he can withdraw the amount. He further stated that before one year he had requested them to withdraw State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 29 of 199 Rs. 10000/- but they refused the same as the maturity period was not over and he had not received any money from the accused persons and accused persons fled away after closing their office. The examination of chief of PW- 11 was deferred on 20.01.2005 but he was not again summoned for want of original documents. Hence his testimony will not be read into evidence.
25 PW-12 Altaf Hussain stated that he had joined the Habib Mercantile Ltd. company on 11.11.1996 as agent. He further stated that he remained associated with the company for many years. He further stated that directors of the company was Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman, Habib-Ur- Rehman and Abdul Rehman, Shaista Nusurat, Rahat Afzal. He further stated that he met Mujibur Rehman, Habib Ur Rehman with some other persons and they had told him to invest his money in his company on the assurance that he will get an handsome interest on deposit. He further stated that they told him that there were several schemes of daily deposit. He stated that he had invested the amount in the account which was opened by accused company. He further stated that when he met the accused Mujeeb Ur Rehman and Habib Ur Rehman for refunding the amount alongwith interest they did not refunded the amount and accused absconded after State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 30 of 199 cheating public at large and he, therefore, moved written complaint to DCP, EOW which is Ex. PW12/A. He further stated that he had also supplied the copy of passbook of his daughter Samiah which is Ex. PW12/B. During cross examination, he admitted that he was not issued any letter of appointment by the company. He further stated that company had issued one identity card. He further stated that his duty was to bring the depositors and he used to tell depositors about affairs of the company. He further stated that the investors used to the deposit the money personally in the company. He further stated he had given to the police, the receipts issued by the company. He denied the suggestion that he had not deposited the money collected by him from the investors. He further stated that he did not know when the office of the company was sealed and stated that he had gone to the company on 09.03.1999 for the last time anddid not notice whether it was sealed or not. He further stated that the depositors from whom he had collected the money are demanding the money back. He denied the suggestion that as he had collected the money and it was his duty to payback the amount. He further stated that he did not know if the company has given the amount on loan to various persons and do not know whether the amount is to be paid by them.
State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 31 of 199 26 PW-13 WSI Tirath Devi stated that she was received a rukka by him through ct. Sajeem and on the basis of said rukka she registered an FIR Ex. PW13/A. The witness was not cross examined.
27 PW-14 Salim stated that he had opened an account in the company of Mujeeb Ur Rehman and he further stated that he usually met the accused persons namely Habib Ur Rehman, Mujeeb Ur Rehman and Abdul and accused have not returned even a singly penny to him and have absconded after cheating public at large. During cross examination, he stated that he had deposited the amount after seeing the banner of the company which was displayed by the company. He further stated that he had seen the banner at Churi Walan. He further stated that he med the Branch manager and passbook bears the signature of Branch manager. He further stated the did not know the name of the agent who had deposited the amount and received the passbook. He further stated that agent used to come daily and if on a particular day he did not come and he used to go to deposit the money. He did not know the name of the agent who had brought these receipts. He denied the suggestion that agent who used to collect the amount had himself retained the State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 32 of 199 money and did not deposit the same with the bank. He further stated he did not remember as to how many times he visited the company after 1998 but said had visited a number of time. He denied the suggestion that he had not met the cashier and accountant of the company and did not know the name of the president or secretary of the company. He further stated that he visited company for first time with his friend Mohd. Ilyas. He denied the suggestion that he had no talked with Dr. Mujeeb Ur Rehman.
28 PW-15 Mohd. Sajid stated that some pamphlet were displayed in the area of Kucha Pandat, Lal Kuan, Jama Masjid of the company Habib Bank. He further stated that he met director Mujeeb Ur Rehman and other accused persons in the office at 1388 Ballimaran where he was asked to open the account on the assurance of accused persons and agreed to Rs. 20 per day deposit scheme and continued to deposit the money in the said schemes. During cross examination, he stated that the company might have displayed the pamphlet in the said area. He further stated that he had deposited the money himself in the three account. He admitted that year is not mentioned in the receipts Ex. PW15/A to Ex . PW15/C. He further stated that he demanded money orally from the State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 33 of 199 company. He further stated that he had not given any statement of account to the police. He denied the suggestion that after the money deposited vide Ex. PW15/A to Ex. PW15/C he did not deposit any other money in the company as he came to know that he could not get deposit the money back. He further stated the police did not recorded the statement of his mother and his cousin. He denied the suggestion that on the receipts of Ex. PW15/A and Ex. PW15/B signature were not of the accused Mujeeb Ur Rehman. He denied the suggestion that he had not gone to the bank to open the account and also not deposit the amount and also not demanded the amount.
29 PW16 Gafur Mohd. Stated that he was working as clerk in the branch office of Habib Mercantile Ltd and was appointed by accused Mujeeb Ur Rehman. He further stated that the agent of the company used to come to him and used to deposit the money with him collected from the customers and he used to issue the receipts to the agents . He further stated that he used to make the entry of the deposited amount in the accounts. He stated that he had handed over the records to the police and the police had taken the same into possession. During cross examination, he stated that he did not know any other State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 34 of 199 accused person except the accused stated by him in chief examination. He further stated that the accused Rahat Afzal and Mujeeb Ur Rehman were the officers of the company and not the cashier. He further stated he did not know whether any bank account was being operated by the branch of Jafrabad. He further stated that entries used to make in cash book and journal by him. He denied the suggestion that money deposited in Muslim Imdadi Fund was not returnable. He further stated that nobody has sought ever any Imdad (help) from our office. During further cross-examination, he stated that his statement was recorded by the IO on the same day when the ledger and transfer receipts were handed over to IO. He further stated that his statement was read over to him. He denied the suggestion that he had stated in his statement that he was working as agent. He further stated that he was salary employee. He denied the suggestion that accused Habir-UR-Rehman was not promoter of the company. He stated that the name of the accused Habib Ur Rehman was on each and every paper and stated that he had seen documents of Habib Mercantile ltd. Wherein Habib Ur Rehman cited as promoter.
30 . PW17 Hashmat Ulla stated that he saw the pamphlet/poster of the Habib Mercantile Ltd pasted on State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 35 of 199 the walls in his mohalla. He further stated he met accused Mujeeb Ur Rehman in office who introduced him as director of the said company alongwith other accused persons. He further stated that he was told deposits schemes and accordingly he deposited Rs. 100 per day for 199 days and totally he had deposited Rs. 95000/- in all the accounts. He further stated that in the meantime, he came to know that the said company was not returning the money to the customers as per their assurance and the company was a defaulter. He further stated that he went to branch office of the company as many public persons of the Illaka were annoyed about the said facts where he met with Dr. Mujeeb Ur Rehman and asked him to return his money. He further stated that after sometime, he visited the head office of the said company and found many customers of the company present there and they made possession over the said head office. He proved his written complaint to SHO PS Lahori Gate and stated that IO had taken the photocopies of the both the passbook, receipt of the money and photocopies of the old documents in respect of the both the properties into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW17/A. He further stated that he had brought the originals of the said documents Ex. PW17/1 and Ex. PW17/A2 and Ex. PW17/A3. He proved the other document i.e., GPA, SPA State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 36 of 199 Agreement of Sell, Affidavit, Receipt etc Ex. PW17/A4 to Ex. PW1/A18. During the cross examination, he admitted that he had stated in his statement that one Samimur Hasan used to collect the money on behalf of the said company. He denied the suggestion that he never visited the office of company to give the money as per scheme. He further stated that he did not remember the date of giving his statement to the police. He denied the suggestion that he had not deposited any money in said five accounts. He stated that he negotiated the deal the property with Muhjeeb Ur Rehman who represented himself as owner and at his instance he deposited his earnest money with Kamal Mahajan and Rafiq at the branch officer. He also stated that the receipt of earnest money was got signed by Mujeeb Ur Rehman in the presence of Kamal Mahajan and Rafiq. He also stated that the earnest money was handed over to Mujeeb-Ur Rehman by Kamal Mahajan and Rafiq in his presence. He denied the suggestion that the property was not sold to him by Kamal Mahajan and it was sold by Haroon. He further stated that he had given the document Ex. PW17/A1 to Ex. PW17/18 in the month of June, 1999. He further stated that he did not remember the names of the persons who gathered at PS due to lapse of time. He further stated that he had not given the pamphlet to the State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 37 of 199 police. He denied the suggestion that Mr. Nasir had accompanied him to PS. He categorically denied the suggestion that he had not deposited any money in all the accounts. He further stated that he had paid the money in the branch office to accused Kamal Mahajan and Rafiq. He further stated that they issued receipt of the same which is Ex. PW17/A3. During further cross examination, he stated that he was told that accused kamal Mahajan was working as Director of the company at that time. He denied the suggestion that accused Mujeeb Ur Rehman has left the post of the Managing Director of the company and had already handed over the management to the Kamal Mahajan and Sikander Javed. He further stated that Ex. PW17/A3 was written on 08.03.99 by one staff of the said branch but he did not remember the name of said staff. He further stated that Ex. PW17/A3 was also bearing sign of accused Kamal Mahajan. He further stated that at the time of executing the document Ex. PW17/A3 he had made the payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 57,000/- which were adjusted towards three accounts. He denied the suggestion that there was no actual deposit and all the money deposit was withdrawn by him. He also denied the suggestion that Mujeeb-Ur Rehman has handed over the charge to accused Kamal Mahajan. He admitted that accused Syed Javed and accused Maqsood State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 38 of 199 Khan had never met him in the office of company. He also admitted that he gave money to Kamal Mahajan on the assurance and impression that it will reach to Mujeeb-Ur Rehman.
31 PW19 Shanker lal Verma stated that he was working as Sr. Manager, Canara Bank, District Bijnore UP and brought the documents about bank account of Habib Mercantile Ltd, Habib Investment Ltd etc. including an application for providing the said information. He proved the document Mark A having name of Dr. Habib Ur Rehman, M/s Habib Investment Ltd. and the reply Ex. PW19/A. He has also brought the attested copies of the account opening from, resolution, Memorandum and articles association, statement of account No. CA814 in the name of the Habib Investment Ltd with canara bank, He also proved receipt of Notice under section 91 Cr.PC as Ex. PW19/B1 to Ex. PW19/ B4 and the document Ex. PW19/B5. During cross examination, he stated that as per resolution Ex. PW19/B2, the said account was operated by accused Habib Ur Rehman and the said account was operated from 15.06.96 to 12.02.1999. He admitted that since he was not posted during the said period in the bank he has no knowledge whether there was any change in respect of authorized signatory or not.
State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 39 of 199 He admits that document Mark PW19/C was drawn for preparing a demand draft from the account of Habib Investment ltd. in the name of Habib Mercantile Ltd, Delhi. He denied the suggestion that all the cheques Mark D to E were drawn by Habib Investment ltd for getting demand draft prepared. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely as he was not posted at the relevant time.
32 PW20 Salaudin Khan stated that he was working as a librarian in Govt Boys Sr. Sec. School and Anjum Siddqui wife of his colleague had told him about Habib Mercantile company and its handsome schemes. He further stated he visited the office of company at Ballimaran and met accused Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman and Habib-Ur-Rehman, Rahat Afzal and Shaista Nusrat. He also stated that Habib-Ur Rehman introduced himself as promoter, Mujeeb-Ur Rehman as CMD and accused Rahat Afzal and Shaista Nusrat as directors of the company. He stated that on assurance of accused persons he invested Rs. 1,00,000/- in shape of four shares of Rs. 25,000/- each and in the name of himself and his family members on 03.03.1998 for five years with quarterly payments. He further stated that he received three quarterly payments of Rs. 187/- each but thereafter he State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 40 of 199 found the office closed and accordingly he made complaint to DCP North on 01.09.99 which is Ex. PW20/A. He proved the original certificate Ex. PW20/A1 to Ex. PW20/A4 bearing signatures of accused Mujeeb-Ur Rehman, Habib-Ur Rehman and Rahat Afzal. He further stated that accused persons have not returned him said amount. During cross examination, he stated that he never sent any legal notice to accused persons. He further stated that he had never filed any recovery suit against the company. He further stated that he did not remember whether the lock hanged on the door was small or big. He admitted that when he visited the office to collect the fourth installment, accused persons were not available there. He further stated that he did not know Mr. Massy and do not have any knowledge regarding the proposal of giving payment to the victim after disposing off the property of the company. He further stated he did not know whether the entries of the said certificate as well as the date of payment were reflected in the account of the said company or not. He further stated that he had not asked accused Habib Ur Rehman to show the documentary proof of his being as promoter. He further stated that he had not mentioned the name of Habib Ur Rehman in the complaint which is given to DC of Police (Crime Branch).
State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 41 of 199 33 PW-21 Ms. Anjum Siddiqui stated that she joined the company as agent being relative of accused Dr. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman. She further stated that she had contacted the public persons and told the persons at large about the various schemes of the said company and had opened 16 accounts in the said company. She further stated that she remained agent in the said company for about two years. She further stated that she moved a written complaint at PS Bara Hindu Rao Ex.PW21/A with list of accounts as Ex. PW21/B also proved the identity card Ex. PW21/C. During cross examination, she stated that she remained in the accused company till 1999 and admitted that she was getting 20% commission on the collection being agent. She denied the suggestion that collections were paid by her to the cashier/clerk of the accused persons. She voluntarily stated that she used to deposit the collections with the directors namely Dr. Rahat Afzal and Dr. Mujeeb Ur Rehman. She further stated that there was no computer in the company. She further stated that she did not know where the computer generated statement Ex. PW21/B was prepared. She denied the suggestion that her husband was the agent of the company and not herself. She further stated that she did not know when she signed the statement Ex. PW21/B State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 42 of 199 as the office of the company was already sealed. She denied the suggestion that she did not have any personal knowledge about the statement Ex. PW21/B. She further denied the suggestion that only her husband had the knowledge of the statement Ex. PW21/B and she had signed the statement Ex. PW21/B at PS Bara Hindu Rao. She denied the suggestion that entries shown in the statement Ex. PW21/B were not based on the accounts records of the company of accused persons.
34 : PW22 Mohd. Nasir, stated that it had came to his knowledge that the companies namely Habib Investment Ltd, and Habib Mercantile Ltd. were giving good returns on investment. He further stated that in the month of August 1997, he went to the office of companies at 1388, Katra Bijwarian, Balimaran, Chandni chowk Delhi-06, where he met Dr. Mujeeb-ur-Rehman, Shaista Nusrat, Rahat Afzaal (PO), Abdul Rehmaan (since deceased) and Aziz Fatima (since deceased). He further stated that all persons were family members and were directors of Habib Investment Ltd. He also stated that Dr. Mujeeb-ur- Rehman and Shaista Nusrat were present and that other persons namely Abdul Rehmaan was not present . He further stated that there were two more directors namely Maqsud Khan and Sayeed Sikandar Javed other than the State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 43 of 199 aforementioned directors, who were present in the court. He further stated that Company Habib Investment Ltd., was commenced in 1995 and another company Habib Mercantile Ltd., was commenced on 19.09.1996. He also stated as per his knowledge, Habib Mercantile Ltd., was having three directors, namely, Dr. Mujeeb-ur-Rehman, Shaista Nusrat and Rahat Afzal. He further stated that accused persons, directors of the company had influenced him to invest in different schemes of the company wherein the return rates were comparatively high including 12% for 400 days. He further stated he had opened account in the scheme of Habib Mercantile Ltd., wherein Rs. 10/- per day was deposited by him for 360 days and the scheme was for 400 days and thus, he invested Rs. 3600/- in the scheme. He further stated that he joined in the company Habib Mercantile Ltd. as Directors had assured him that the company was registered under the provisions of RBI and they had target to make the company into Cooperative Bank and Business would be raised upto three crores and the RBI would issue license for achieving the target. He further stated that accused telling him that they had invested the money in different projects including purchasing of Orchid of Mango in Nagina Bijnor(U.P), Mineral water factory in Sahibabad, establishment of Peppermint plant in Sahibabad(U.P) and State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 44 of 199 deals in real estate. He further stated that company had purchased the property in Shahdara, Zafrabad, Chauhan Bangar, Sahibabad, etc., He further stated that they had also assured him that the money would be guaranteed return, as there was sufficient assets behind every investment including his investment. He further stated that he had joined the company namely Habib Mercantile Ltd., on 21.08.1997 as field staff on commission basis against each deal and he projected the introduction of the company to the persons/customers and the schemes for the company as were explained by the Directors. He further stated that he used to collect the money on behalf of the company and deposited the same to the Manager in the branch office at Turkman Gate Branch. He further stated that there were ten branches of the company in Delhi and deposited about Rupees Five lacs in the branch for the period of 21.08.1997 to 14.03.1999. He further stated the amount was collected from his relatives and friends including Rashid Ansaari, Sulemaan, Mohd. Zahid etc., against the schemes told by the directors to them directly as well as through him. He further stated in October 1998, accused persons had created problems to return the money against the investment and he alongwith other staff members including Muteem Rao, Rameshwari, etc., had to visit Head Office where the State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 45 of 199 directors of the company had told him that the money was invested in different areas including Real Estates, providing loans and return of money was not possible at the time and they had assured that they would sell out and mortgage the property for returning the money of investors. He further stated that in the meantime it has came to his knowledge that the director of company (Habib Mercantile Ltd.) had provided the loan of Rs 12 lacs to one person namely Saeed Ahmed Qaeed, and he was not returning the amount of loan, as told by the directors of the company. Dr. Mujeeb-ur-Rehman had sold out the property at Gali No. 32, Zafrabad in January 1999, the property at Chauhan Bangar in February 1999 and other properties in different localities in the aforesaid period. He further stated that other Directors of the company started putting off the matter of returning the money of investment till March, 1999 and on 14.03.1999, the Directors of the company had fled after locking the Head Office of the company at 1388, Katra Bijwarian, Delhi. He further stated that all the staff members had made a complaint against the directors of the company to the police on 20.04.1999 and later on it came to his knowledge that their complaint was clubbed with the other complaints in the present FIR. He further stated that he provided the list of investors, photocopy of pass State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 46 of 199 book Ex-PW22/A of his account to the IO bearing his signatures at point A(Seized documents Ledger no. 2 to 6 is collectively Ex-PW22/A1, Daily Receipt book No. 36801 to 37600 as book 1, number 35201 to 36000 as book No. 2, number 36001 to 36800 as book no. 3 and collectively Ex-PW22/A2, pass books related to 45 duly maturity cases account no. 005, 134, 252..., 538, 759 collectively Ex- PW22/A3, maturity date sheet file as Ex-PW22/A4, Commission Chart File as Ex-PW22/A5, Commission & Salary Expenditure Voucher file as Ex-PW22/A6, Transfer account slips file as Ex-PW22/A7, Muslim Imdadi Fund(Saving) and Scroll of payment of receipt file as Ex- PW22/A8, Transfer & Account slips file as Ex-PW22/A9, Tranfer Account Slips (Turkman Gate) file as Ex- PW22/A10) and Ex-PW22/B(containing 8 pages) bearing his signatures at point A. He further stated that the complaint dated 20.04.1999 given by him to the SHO PS Lahori Gate is Ex-PW22/C(containing 8 pages) alongwith the additional document/complaint which is Ex- PW22/D(containing 5 pages). He further stated that his statement was recorded by the police during investigation, wherein he disclosed all the relevant facts in his knowledge pertaining to this case.
State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 47 of 199 35 During cross examination, PW22 stated he has six brothers and three sisters. He admitted that name of one of his elder brother was Noor Mohd. He further admitted that he had been associated with the company Habib Mercantile Ltd. He denied the suggestion that they were introduced in the company by his brother Noor Mohd. He further admitted that his brother Noor Mohd was working even on 21.08.97 in the company when he joined the same. His brother Noor Mohd. was working as a field staff and he had not got any appointment letter in writing regarding his joining in the company as field officer. He voluntarily stated that he was issued an I-Card only. He further stated that he had already given the copy of document Mark PW22/D1, in Ex-PW22/B to the IO which was on the judicial file. He further admitted that at the time of collection of money he had not issue the receipt immediately. Further he voluntarily stated that the receipt was issued after depositing the money in the account and he used to deliver the receipt to the depositor later. He further stated that he generally used to collect average amount of Rs. 2000/- to 3000/-,but the amount was not fixed and he had not kept record of collection of amount. He further stated that he used to receive 9% of the amount deposited as Commission and the same was calculated by the company and he often State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 48 of 199 used to receive the amount of commission on monthly basis, which might be sometime Rs 1000/- or Rs. 2000/- and sometimes it was nothing. He further stated that he used to receive commission against his signatures on voucher, however no copy used to be supplied to him. He further stated that he had not verified the amount of commission given to him. He further stated that all the calculations of his commission were made by company only and he cannot tell the total amount of commission received by him from the company. He further stated that he was holding a bank account in SBI, Hauz Qazi branch since last two years and he had not have a bank account at the time of incident. He further stated that he had not received the entire commission on the amount of Rs. 5 lacs deposited by him between 21.08.97 to 14.03.99 with the company. He further stated that when he used to deposit the money with the company, Cashier used to be present there. He admitted that there were about 45 field officers including him in the company. He further stated that he know 10 to 12 field officers. He further stated that the company had issued passbooks to the investors and apart from the passbook, receipts were also issued to the investors. He further stated that he had not placed any receipt on record in respect of his investment. He further stated that he did not have any receipt with him.
State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 49 of 199 He further stated that he did not remember whether he was having those receipts at the time of making the complaint. He further stated that Cashier/branch manager used to sign those receipts. He further stated that the receipts were issued each time when the cash was deposited. He denied the suggestion that his brother Noor Mohammad was present at the time when the accused persons/company disclosed about the proposed projects to him for the purposes of convincing him to invest in their company. He further stated that he was aware of the fact that other field officers had also made complaint against the company. He denied the suggestion that he was in the knowledge or the investments done or proposed by the company. He further stated he mostly used to go daily to the office of the company at Turkman Gate, Delhi. He further stated that it was not written clearly in the passbook that the company had promised 12% return on the investments of the investors and stated that however, it was clear from the details given in the column of investments, days, and maturity value and even otherwise it was clearly given in the brochure of both the companies. He further produced the brochure of the company Ex-PW22/D2 mentioning the scheme of investment of 400 days in the company at page No. 8 of the brochure. He stated that he was told by the Directors State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 50 of 199 of the company orally with respect to their investment in orchid of mango in Nagina Bijnaur, UP, Mineral Water Factory & Peppermint plant at Shahibabad and the same was also mentioned in the brochure of the company. He further stated that he had stopped visiting the company office on 14.03.1999 when he found it locked. He denied the suggestion that the company was still in operation and had not been closed at any point of time. He admitted that the books of the account of company including the other business record was seized by the IO in his presence from office at Turkman Gate. He further stated that he had not given any notice to the company as the office of the company was found locked all of a sudden on 14.03.1999 and thereafter the whereabouts of directors were not known and it was not possible for him to give any notice to any of the directors of the company. He denied the suggestion that neither of the directors nor the staff therein had the malafide and fraudulent intention to cheat the investor or that they were sincerely running the company as per law. He denied the suggestion that none of the directors of company had induced/misrepresented him or any other investor to invest in their company.
36 PW-23: Sh. Sharafat Ali stated that on 01.08.1996, he joined the company namely Habib Investment and State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 51 of 199 Habib Mercantile Ltd as Field Staff. He further stated that firstly he had opened his account in the company and get the account opened of his relatives, friends and other known persons etc in the aforementioned companies. He further stated that he, himself as a Field Staff used to collect money on daily basis from account holders who had opened account on his recommendation in aforementioned companies. He further stated that there was no fix collection of money but sometime he used to collect Rs.600/- - Rs.700/- on a day and sometime he used to collect Rs.200/- - Rs.300/- only in a day. He further stated that companies had office at 1388, Kucha Bijwariyan, Balimaran, Chandni Chowk, Delhi and branch office at 5316, Kucha Rehman, Balimaran, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. Mr. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman was CMD of both the companies and Mr. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman alongwith other directors namely Ms. Shaista Nusrat, Mr. Abdul Rehman, Mr. Rahat Afzal, Ms. Azeez Fatima of the companies had offered him to join the company and he was also in need so he joined the companies. He further stated that Ms. Shaista Nusrat, one of the director of the company was present in the court and he was not seeing any other directors of the company and he often used to deposit the collected money of the different account which were opened through him in branch office (code State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 52 of 199
001). Sometime money were received by Mr. Mujeeb-Ur- Rehman, CMD of the company and sometime by other directors. He further stated that there were no separate staff of the company to issue receipts for the collected money from the investors but the same used to be received by different directors as well as CMD of the companies. He further stated that he had joined the company on 01.08.1996 and worked till 14.03.1999 and during this period he had opened account and get the accounts opened in the companies which might be about 50 in numbers. He further stated that out of these 50 accounts, the money in 21-22 accounts were yet to be settled. He further stated that the money might be 1.5 lakh for all the 21-22 accounts which was yet to be settled. He further stated that on 14.03.1999, it came to his knowledge that all the directors of companies had left their houses were locked. Thereafter he came to know that they had fled taking away the money of investors and a joint complaint on behalf of investors was made against them. He further stated that the maturity date of the money of investors in different accounts were yet to arrive when the directors of the companies had fled. He further stated that he had invested Rs.5000/- in FD account which was due on 28.02.2003 and in the year 1998 a cheque of Rs.17500/- was given to him by Mr. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 53 of 199 but he had not presented the cheque in his bank account as he came to know that directors of the companies had fled. He further stated that he had given the list of investors of 21-22 account to the IO of this case and the list might be present on the record. He further stated that seizure memo of the documents including the list in photocopy is Ex.PW23/A bearing his signature at point A. He further stated that the photocopy documents in the seizure memo Ex.PW23/A includes his identity cards, cheque No. 562250 of Rs.17500/- drawn on bank of Hyderabad, FD certificate issued on behalf of Habib Mercantile Ltd. in the name of Sharafat Ali, front page of passbook of his personal account and the entry made therein, list of account holders. It is further stated that all documents were in photocopy in form and four pages in numbers. On the other hand ld. counsel for accused persons had objected on the point of requirement of its original copy and some of the photocopy is not legible. He further stated that it has come to his knowledge that the FIR was registered on the basis of the complaint given against the directors of the aforementioned companies and IO of the case had recorded his statement in the present case and took documents supplied by him.
State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 54 of 199 37 . During cross examination, PW-23 stated that he cannot say at how many time he visited the office and branch office of the companies of the accused persons but stated that he had visited the office of the company first time on seeing the banner of the company affixed at public places. He admitted that the account books of the company were maintained and the same were maintained by the directors of the company. He further stated that directors and CMD introduced themselves to him. He further stated that he had issued I-card by the company. He further stated that the companies had agreed to pay commission to him and the commission had paid to him regularly till November, 1998. He further stated that he had not given any written notice to the directors or the CMD for not paying the regular commission. He voluntarily stated that he had asked them to pay the same verbally several times. He further stated that he had not maintained any account of receiving the commission and the commission used to vary from month to month. He further stated that the commission used to be paid by the companies to him when he used to get the account of other persons opened in the companies and he used to collect the money daily and deposit the same in the office, sometime daily and sometime the next day. He further stated that he had not maintained complete list of the State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 55 of 199 persons (containing their details) who had invested through him and the total commission was 10% which included 1% for his traveling expenses. The settlement of some investors with the companies had taken place in my presence. I had not signed any paper regarding the settlement which had taken place in my presence. He further stated that the investors who are left unpaid by the company have been listed by him on a paper in his own handwriting. He voluntarily stated that he had got that list prepared through computer and submitted the same to the IO and the same is included in the Ex.PW23/A. He further stated that the investors who had not received the money back had not given anything in writing to him. He further stated that he had not handed over the original cheque of Rs.17500/- to the IO. He further stated that he cannot produce the cheque of Rs.17500/- now and he had never given the commission by the companies by way of cheque. He further stated that he had shown the original documents to the IO while handing over the photocopy of the same to him which were seized by him vide Ex.PW23/A. He further stated that he had not given any separate complaint to the police and had read the joint complaint given by the investors. He denied the suggestion that the directors including CMD had not fled on 14.03.1999 and further denied the State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 56 of 199 suggestion that the companies were not surviving thereafter and the CMD including directors of the companies were not interested to return the money of investors.
38 PW-24 Khalil Ahmed stated that it was in the year around 1997-98 while he was working at Delhi Restaurant at Bali Maran, Delhi and used to offer prayers in a nearby mosque where he met father of accused Mujeeb-Ur- Rehman probably his name was Abdul Rehman who told him that they had started a company and he would be invested money. He further stated that he had opened an account with the accused company subscribing Rs. 100/- on a daily basis and had made payment for about 720 days and thereafter it abruptly stopped and nobody came to collect the payments He further stated that they used to issue him the receipts qua the payments made by him and even entries were made in his passbook. He further stated that he had provided the photocopy of his passbook Mark 24/1 entry to the IO. He further stated that he had opened only one account with the accused company. He also stated Mr. Nasir had drafted a complaint on his behalf and the original passbook was deposited with the Habib Court Case Committee and he has brought the acknowledgement copy of deposited pass book Mark State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 57 of 199 24/1A. He further stated that he had deposited total amount of Rs 67,000/-, paid by way of 670 installments of Rs. 100/- each as mentioned in Mark 24/1/A and he had also deposited of Rs 10,000/- in fixed deposit with Habib Mercantile Ltd. he identified accused Mujeeb-ur-Rehman and his wife as directors of Habib Mercantile Ltd. He further stated that he had confused earlier for mentioning 720 days and the correct figure was 670 installments as mentioned in his record. He further stated that he had not been demanded the deposited money back in the meantime as it had deposited for one thousand days and which was yet to be completed. He further stated that his statement was recorded by police but he could not say on which date it was recorded. During further cross examination, he stated that he did not remember whether he had given same statement as deposed by him. He further stated that he had not lodged any written complaint to police or to Registrar of Companies. He further stated that he had not read but seen his statement in the court on 07.02.2017. He further stated that he personally know Ashraf prior to coming into the contact of accused persons. He admitted that he used to pay installments to Mr Ashraf also. He further stated that he had not maintained any account regarding the payments made by him to Mr Ashraf. He admitted that the State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 58 of 199 passbook had left with him only. He further stated that Ashraf had never made any entries in the passbook in his presence, however, he used to carry the passbook to the office and returned it back to him after getting the relevant entries made. He further stated he did not know if he used to make it personally or got it made through somebody else. He further stated that he had misplaced the receipts issued to him by accused persons including Ashraf. He further stated that he had not shown these receipts to the police. He admitted that he used to visit the office of accused company. He further stated that he had not identified the account books at the first sight. He further stated that Abdul Rehman had himself told him that they were all directors sitting there. He further stated that he had not made any personal enquiries as to who all were directors and about the business of accused company but Ashraf, who was his childhood friend, assured him that he was responsible that everything was fine and he had made several complaints to Ashraf but he always assured him that he must rest assured and he shall be taken care of everything. He denied the suggestion that Ashraf introduced him to accused company. He admitted that accused Ashraf was an agent of the accused company and he had not made any enquries if Ashraf had in fact an agent or not. He further stated that State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 59 of 199 he did not know if accused Ashraf used to collect money from others also besides him. He further stated that committee constituted in the instant matter issued him the copy of the passbook produced by him and he had not made any enquiries from the said committee about the property owned by accused persons. He voluntarily stated that he was aware only about property bearing no. 1388, Katra Bajwariyan, Balli Maran, as during conversation once accused Abdul Rehman assured him that he shall be returned back the money after disposal of the said building. He further stated that he had not procured any written assurances from him in this regard. He denied the suggestion that he had never ever been assured by Abdul Rehman about return of money by disposal of the said building. He denied the suggestion that he was testifying falsely. He further denied the suggestion that accused company had not actuated with any criminal intent to misappropriate his money. He further stated that he did not know if ROC had granted any permission to accused company to run such business. He further stated that he did not know that accused persons had left their office after locking it as they were concerned about their safety. He further stated that he did not know if all the documents of the accused company including the accounts book were lying with the court committee from State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 60 of 199 whom he had procured the photostat of his passbook. During further cross examination, he did not know that accused Habibur Rehman had got no connection with the accused company or that he was not a director of the company.
39 PW-25 Ikrar Hussain stated that accused Mujeeb-
Ur-Rehman had known to him and he was a doctor by profession and he had opened a clinic at 1388, Kucha. He further stated that he did not remember the exact address, at Balli Maran at his residence only. He stated he had opened two accounts with accused company, one of which was for a subscription amount of Rs.10/- on a daily basis and in his second account he had deposited an FDR of Rs.5000/- and receipts were issued to him by accused company qua his deposited amount. He further stated that in his first account a passbook was issued to him and the entry used to be made in the passbook on depositing of the money in the account by him. He further stated that photocopy of the FDR certificate and the passbook as Mark 25/1 and Mark 25/2 respectively issued on behalf of the company were available with him and he had brought the same He further stated that he had submitted the original of certificates and passbook (Mark 25/1 and Mark 25/2) on 01.07.1999 to Committee constituted for enquiry State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 61 of 199 in this matter and he had also taken the certified copy of the documents (Mark 25/1 and Mark 25/2) from Habib Court Case Committee and the same had been brought by him in the court and same is marked as Mark 25/1A and Mark 25/2A respectively. He further stated that he had deposited 109 installments of Rs.10/- each in his aforementioned first account and the same was also reflected in his passbook entries marked as Mark 25/2. He further stated that he used to pay his installments to accused Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman at his clinic. He further stated since accused Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman had personally known to him, he had not made any deeper enquiries regarding his company. He further stated that he had not have any dealings with any person apart from accused Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman qua the transaction. He further stated that accused Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman used to make entries in his passbook regarding the payments and at times his brother-in-law (Sala), whose name he did not remember, also used to make entries in his passbook. He further stated that entries were made at the clinic of accused Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman. He further stated it was somewhere in the month of March, 1999, he heard that accused Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman was trying to escape with all our deposited money. He further stated that one day he had noticed that his office had been lying locked and he had State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 62 of 199 made enquries about him in the neighbourhood from his agents and other persons upon which he came to know that he had eloped with our deposited money and he alongwith other depositors approached PS Sadar Bazar, Delhi and made complaint Ex.PW25/A with the police and bears his name in the enclosed list Ex.PW25/B at serial no.28 and 29. He further stated that police had not called him during investigation of the case and he had approached the court after 9 long years. He further stated that no action was being taken against the accused despite a lapse of almost a decade. He further stated that in the meantime, he came to know about a committee constituted in connection with the present matter and thereafter he deposited a copy of his receipt with the committee. He further stated that he had deposited his original documents with PS Sadar Bazar, Delhi. He proved his original passbook Ex PW25/A and the original fixed deposit certificate Ex PW25/B and three deposit receipts bearing no. 63121, Ex PW25/C, bearing no. 72864 Ex PW25/D, bearing no.66137, Ex PW25/E. During cross examination, he stated that he had handed over the photostate copy of the passbook Ex PW25/A to the court committee and he had never summoned by the court committee. He further stated that he had once visited the company for issuance of the fixed deposit certificate and State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 63 of 199 thereafter he visited their office on three-four occasion to deposit the money. He further stated that he deposited the money by way of installments of Rs. 10/- each for about 35-40 days. He voluntarily stated that when the total deposited sum amounted to Rs. 100/- they used to issue him a receipt. He further stated that there were two other persons employed in the company office besides accused Mujeeb-ur-Rehman. He further stated that around 10-15 days after his last deposited, he had noticed that office of accused company had been lying locked and he had not talked with any of the neighbours upon noticing the lock to enquire about the whereabouts of the accused. He stated that he had also not made any personal enquiry about the whereabouts of the accused. He admitted that accused Mujeeb-ur-Rehman used to issue receipts against all the transactions. He further stated that accused Mujeeb-ur-Rehman still owns the premises where he used to pay him money. He further stated that he had not lodged any complaint with the police. He denied the suggestion that accused company was not actuated with any criminal intent to misappropriate his money. He further stated that he did not know if ROC had granted any permission to accused company to run such business. He further stated that he did not know that accused persons had left their office State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 64 of 199 after locking it as they were concerned about their safety.
40 . PW 26 Smt. Nisha Ahmad stated that she did not remember the exact date, one Sh. Soab-ur-Rehman, nephew of accused Mujeeb-ur-Rehman came to their house who showed her some notice/pamphlets and told her about a new bank, which was recently opened, and told her that it was a very good bank and the bank shall pay her very handsome returns if she invested in the bank. She further stated that she had gone to verify about the bank which was opened in Street No. 34, Seelampur where she met uncle of Mujeeb-ur-Rehman namely Sh. Habeeb-ur-Rehman. She further stated that Sh. Habeeb-ur-Rehman assured her that it was a very good bank and she must deposit money with them and assured that if deposit Rs. 20,000/- with the accused company they shall repay Rs. 22,800/- after an year and accordingly, acting upon the assurance, opened five accounts with the accused company. She further stated that one of the account was in her name, another in her husband's name (namely Sh. Mohd. Umar), one in name of her son (Sh. Abdul Rehman), one in the name of her daughter (Ms. Nikhat) and one in the name of her sister in law (nanad) (namely Aisha). She further stated that she and her husband used to deposit Rs. 50/- on a daily basis State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 65 of 199 in our above said accounts with the accused company and similarly her son used to deposit Rs. 20/- and her daughter and her sister in law used to deposit Rs. 10/- each on a daily basis with the accused company. She further stated that her son, daughter and her sister in law had deposited the said sum for 400 days. She further stated that, however, she and her husband were about 3-4 days short of requisite 400 days for which we were required to make the payments and after that they had gone to the office at street No. 34, Seelam Pur and demanded their payments upon deposit of our passbooks, however, they deferred the payment for one/two days. She further stated they had gone to again after one or two days but they again avoided to make the payments. It is further stated that after 3-4 days, herself and her husband had gone to head office of the accused company situated at Ballimaran for depositing the balance payments in the head office. She further stated that they met quite a few persons in the head office, who used to sit there, but whose name she did not remember. She further stated that she met accused Mujeeb-ur-Rehman once in the Ballimaran office. She further stated that after 5-6 days when they had gone to again to receive the payments accused company had vanished from the scene and their office was found locked and after that they had State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 66 of 199 made inquiries in the neighbourhood and people told us that they had fled. She further stated that she approached the police and moved complaint Ex. PW26/A in the PS Civil Lines where IO had recorded her statement and had handed over the photocopy Mark 26A of her passbook bearing account No. 364 on which the agent name and code No. was written Mohd. Nasir and 010 respectively and the said document Mark 26A, the details of daily payments was also mentioned. She further stated that initially, Sh. Soab-ur-Rehman used to collect money from us but subsequently Sh. Mohd. Nasir used to collect it from us. Occasionally they directly deposited the payments with the accused company. During cross examination, she stated that she was testified upon her own knowledge and nobody had goaded to depose. She further stated that she had received the summons from the court whereupon she came and testified and she had not made any inquiries from anyone including the complainant's counsel regarding the mode and manner in which she was required to be testify. She stated that she is illiterate and did not remember if she had retained the copy of the complaint Ex. PW26/A however, if the defence requires she might be search out for the same. She had stated that she brought some documents while coming to the court. She voluntarily stated that she had deposited State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 67 of 199 three payment receipts/acknowledgement with the office of accused company and two were deposited with the committee. She stated that she had not made any complaint against Nasir. She voluntarily stated that she had made the complaints against the persons who fled with their money.
41 . During further cross examination, she stated that around 3-4 months prior to the time when the accused persons fled agent Nasir was known to her. She admitted that accused company had issued her a passbook and entries were duly made in the said passbook and she further stated that she had not given the same to the police at the time of the complaint and agent Shoaib used to the provide her these receipts. She admitted that similarly, the agent Nasir also used to provide her these receipts and the passbooks deposited by them was not seized in her presence by the IO. She further stated that at the time of the payments, the entries were signed in the passbook by the agent Shoaib or agent Nasir. She further stated that she had not made any enquiry about the function of the company. She voluntarily stated that she enquired from them that at times private companies flees away with the money upon which she had assured that this company had sound credentials. She further State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 68 of 199 stated that she did not remember the name of the neighbour who informed her that the accused persons have been fled. She further stated that she used to meet agent Nasir occasionally after the accused persons fleed from the scene. She stated that she had not provided to the IO the above said pamphlet/notice. She denied the suggestion that the accused company had not actuated with any guilty intent and she had lodged a false complaint at the instance of agent Nasir. During further cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that she got the account opened upon the instance of agent Nasir. She further stated that Nasir was an agent and she did not remember if she informed the IO about his status in the company. She further stated that she had seen accused Habeeb-ur-Rehman in the office situated in Street No. 34, Seelam Pur, Jafrabad. She further stated that she was not aware about the profession of accused Habeeb-ur- Rehman. She further stated that she did not know that accused Habeeb-ur-Rehman was a doctor by profession running his clinic. She further stated that accused Habeeb-ur-Rehman represented to her that it was his company when she visited their office. She further stated that she had signed the statement recorded by the IO. She denied the suggestion that she had never met accused Habeeb-ur-Rehman.
State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 69 of 199 42 : PW-27 Sh. Misbahuddin stated that he was working in Habib Mercantile Bank in the office and also worked as agent of the said bank outside it. He further stated that accused Mujeeb-ur-Rehman, was the CMD of Habib Mercantile Bank and he designed a scheme and floated it for the bank. He further stated that as agent of the Bank he used to receive money from the various investors/depositors and many persons got their accounts opened through him in the said scheme. He further stated that his wife namely Ms. Khurshida and his daughter Ms. Kahkasha Rajia also got enrolled for the scheme and he got two separate accounts opened for both of them. He stated that he did not remember the account number of his daughter, however, he can tell the account number of his wife which was a saving bank account and its number was 106. He stated that his daughter got enrolled for a scheme for a duration of 400 days and she was required to deposit Rs. 10/- per day. He further stated that she was assured repayment of Rs. 4400/- upon the completion of the scheme and he used to deposit the installments on behalf of his daughter in the Jafrabad branch of Habib Mercantile Bank. He did not remember the exact address but he knew its location and it was located in front of Idgah in Jafrabad. He further State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 70 of 199 stated that Cashier used to issue receipts against the said payments and the term deposit of his daughter had matured, however, accused Mujeeb-ur-Rehman had vanished from the scene before making the repayment. He further stated that when the accused company vanished without making the payments he had deposited the copy of passbook of his daughter alongwith certain ledger statements maintained by him as an employee of Habib Mercantile Bank. He further stated that IO seized these documents vide seizure memo Ex. PW27/A and the photocopy of the passbook of account bearing No. 787 is Mark 27/A and the above said ledger statements are Mark 27/B (colly). During cross examination, he stated that accused Mujeeb-ur-Rehman was known to him since march 1997 when he joined Habib Mercantile Bank. He stated that he was Graduate. He further stated that upon receipt of a pamphlet he met Mujeeb-ur-Rehman and thereupon he was selected for the job. He further stated that he met Mujeeb-ur-Rehman in his office at Kucha Rehman with the said pamphlet and the terms of his employment were not reduced into writing. He further stated that he was promised remuneration on the percentage basis but he was not paid any regular salary. He further stated that he did not remember the promised percentage now and he remained connected with them for State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 71 of 199 about 2 years from March 1997 to March 1999, when they fled from the scene. He further stated that he did not remember the amount received by him during the course of his employment from the accused. He stated that he did not remember the exact amount deposited by him on a daily basis as an employee of the bank. He further stated that they had issued him an identity card. He further stated that his photo had been affixed upon the identity card but he did not remember what exactly written on the same. He further stated that he was in possession of the original passbook of his daughter's account and he can search for it and can produce it if asked and the passbook was fully updated for 400 days. He further stated that he did not remember as to who used to make entries in the passbook to update it. He further stated that the entries were made in my presence. Generally, one person used to update the passbook but at times there were other persons also who updated it. He further stated that he also used to make entries in the passbook by his hand. He further stated that most of the entries were made by his hand. It is further stated that accused used to maintain statement of accounts and he graduated with Hindi, Geography and Political Science as subjects. He further stated that he had never studied Commerce and the statement of accounts and the passbook were updated State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 72 of 199 simultaneously. He further stated that he used to update the ledger book also. He further stated that he had also issued receipts in the capacity of an employee and used to visit daily to the branch of Habib Mercantile Bank and he only knew of three branches of the Habib Mercantile Bank. He further stated that he had initially employed in Jafrabad branch, thereafter, he had transferred to Seema Puri branch and lastly he had transferred to Kardam Puri Branch. He further stated that his office timings were routine 10:00 AM to 05:00 PM. He further stated that in Jafrabad branch, around 4-5 persons were employed besides him. He stated that he was not aware of their terms of employment and one Sh. Shoib was the Manager, one Sh. Gulzar was the Cashier, one girl namely Farhana was Clerk and he did not remember the name of the guard. During further cross examination, he stated that he used to deposit the cash received with the Cashier namely Gulzar in Jafrabad branch, Mr. Jha in Kardam Puri. He further stated that he was the only employee in Seema Puri Branch and used to work as Cashier. He further stated that when he had gone to Kardam Puri Branch quite a few person were gathered who informed him that accused persons had fled and thereafter, he reconfirmed it from head office at Ballimaran and where he found many persons, whose name he was not aware. He further State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 73 of 199 stated that as a commission agent, he introduced about 15-16 persons to the accused company for investment purposes. He denied the suggestion that accused persons had not fled from the spot after duping the investors of their hard earned money. He further stated that he has brought the identity card Ex. PW27/DA issued by Habib Investments Ltd. And after seeing identity card he was unable to explain the meaning of JMO written in the said identity card. He admitted that neither his signature or signature of any staff of Habib Investment Ltd at the back side of the ID Card. He further stated that he did not have any other document regarding investment. He voluntarily stated that he was tried to search the same at his home but he could not find the same.
43 PW28 Rehmat Ali Bhatti Stated that on 18.06.1999, he was posted as Assistant Accountant with Bombay Mercantile Cooperative Bank, Daryaganj, Delhi and handed over statement of account of account No. 16469 of Habib Mutual Benefit Ltd. Ex. PW28/A. He further stated that Statement of account of account No. 16468 of Habib Agro Private Ltd Ex. PW28/A and Statement of account of account No. 15700 of Habib Mercantile Ltd. (The certified copies of the same is Ex. PW28/C) and Statement of accounts of account No. State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 74 of 199 14395 of Habib Investment Ltd Ex. PW28/D to the IO and the IO seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW28/E. He further stated that on 28.11.1998, he had also handed over to the IO certified copies of account opening form for the account No. 15700 and Certified photocopy of specimen signature card of Mujeeb-ur-Rehman which are now Ex. PW28/F and Ex. PW28/G respectively (OSR). He further stated that on same day, he also handed over to the IO certified copies of account opening form for the account No. 14395 and Certified photocopy of specimen signature card of Mujeeb-ur-Rehman and Shaista Nusrat alongwith certified copies of Resolution which are now Ex. PW28/H and Ex. PW28/I (OSR) and Ex. PW28/N respectively. He further stated on he had also handed over to the IO certified copies of account opening form for the account No. 16468 and Certified photocopy of specimen signature card of Mujeeb-ur-Rehman and Rahat Afjal alongwith certified copies of Resolution which are now Ex. PW28/J and Ex. PW28/K (OSR) and Ex.
PW28/O respectively and also handed over to the IO certified copies of account opening form for the account No. 16469 and Certified photocopy of specimen signature card of Mujeeb-ur-Rehman and Rahat Afjal alongwith certified copies of Resolution which are now Ex. PW28/L and Ex. PW28/M (OSR) and Ex. PW28/P respectively.
State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 75 of 199 He further stated IO seized all the said documents vide seizure memo Ex. PW28/Q. This witness was not cross examined.
44 . PW-29 Sh. Mohd. Tahir stated that he had opened an account with Habib Investments in the year 1996 and he used to deposit Rs. 25/- per day with the said bank. He further stated that the said amount was some time taken from him by the employee of the said bank and sometime he himself used to deposit the same with the bank personally. He further stated that he had regularly paid the said amount of Rs. 25/- for 840 days. He further stated that he was assured by the accused person that after completing the term he will get Rs. 35,000/-. He further stated that one day when he visited the office of said bank he found that accused bank and accused persons have fled from the scene by duping the money he had paid. He further stated that he made a complaint Ex. PW29/A to DCP office alongwith his complaint he had given the photocopy of passbook Mark 29/A. During cross examination, he stated that accused Mujeeb-ur- Rehman and Habib-ur-Rehman assured him that he would be given Rs. 35,000/-. He further stated that no other person was present when accused persons assured him for getting Rs. 35,000/- and the amount of Rs. 35,000/-
State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 76 of 199 had written on the passbook Mark-29/A. He further stated that Mr. Mujeeb-ur-Rehman had mentioned Rs. 35,000/- on the passbook and two agents used to collect money from him. He further stated that he did not remember their names but he can identify them if shown to him. He further stated that the receipt for the payment was delivered to him on the next day by the same agent. He further stated that he did not have all the receipts. He voluntarily stated that he used to tear the receipts after the payment was entered into the passbook. He further stated that he did not have any of the receipt as the entries were made in the passbook. He further stated that the entries in the passbook were made in his presence itself by the agents. He further stated that he had went himself to deposit the money in the said bank for 2-3 times. He further stated that apart from himself his brother namely Mohd. Iliaz had also opened an account with the accused company. He further stated that there was a ID card, which was available with him whereby he came to know that he was an agent. He further stated that he had studied uptill 10th standard. He further stated that when he visited the office of the accused bank other persons were also depositing money and thus he had able to make out that it was a formal office set up. He further stated that he used to deposit money in the State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 77 of 199 Kucha Rahman Office of the accused company, however, his account was opened in the house of accused Mujeeb- ur-Rehman situated in Katra Bijwarian. He further stated when he used to visit the office he had seen only two persons sitting their namely accused Habib-ur-Rehman and Mujeeb-ur-Rehman. He further stated that his complaint was recorded in English by police upon him oral dictation in Hindi. He further stated that he did not know who had typed and he simply orally dictated it to the police officials. He further stated that he had not received the copy of his complaint and stated that it was retained by police after his signature. He further stated that he had gone to inquire about the credentials of the accused company and made personal inquiries after visiting the office 2-3 times but they had vanished and he had never accompanied the police to their office to ascertain as to if they have fled or not. He further stated that he did not know if the accused company was still repaying their customers. He denied the suggestion that accused persons had not fled away with his money or they had not intended to flee. He denied the suggestion that he had filed a false and frivolous complaints upon hearsay evidence. He denied the suggestion that accused Mujeeb- ur-Rehman, Shaista and Abdur Rheman had not involved in any conspiracy or cheating. He denied the suggestion State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 78 of 199 that he was not even aware of the contents of his complaint Ex. PW29/A and the same was written on his own by some police official.
45 PW-30 Tahir-ul-Hasan stated some pamphlets had distributed and pasted in his area in the year 1996-97 and after reading them, he had gone to the office of accused Mujeeb-ur-Rehman at Kucha Rehman and his home at Katra Bijwarian, Balli Maran, Delhi-06, where he met accused Mujeeb-ur-Rehman who asked him to invest money with them and offered very handsome returns. He further stated that he did not remember the exact date however he had deposited Rs. 50,000/- in cash with accused Mujeeb-ur-Rehman and thereafter on another occasion he further deposited Rs. 5,000/- in cash with him. He further stated that in order to gain his confidence, accused provided him quarterly post dated cheques. He further stated that he did not remember the exact count probably it was 22-23 cheques, four cheques for each quarter to be paid over a period of about 5 years including the cheques for his principal amount Rs. 50,000/- plus Rs. 5,000/-. He further stated that initially, two cheques deposited by him were duly encashed and the amount was credited into his account. He further stated that, thereafter, probably 3rd or 4th cheque was State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 79 of 199 dishonoured upon presentation by the bank of accused and thereafter, he had gone to meet accused Mujeeb-ur- Rehman but he found the office to be locked. He further stated that in the holy month of Ramzan falling in March of probably 1998-99 he found him bed ridden at about 11:00 PM at his home and his condition was really critical and seems to be on the death bed. He further stated that considering his poor condition, he was swayed on humanitarian grounds and he forgot about his money. He further stated that thereafter, whenever he had gone to his office it was found locked. He further stated that till date he was waiting for the payment of his money. He admitted that he made the above stated payment of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- in cash on 09.09.1997 and 16.09.1997 respectively and he had also issued receipts against the said payments and the photocopy of the same are Mark PW30/A and Mark PW30/B respectively. He further stated that he had made a written complaint Ex. PW30/ with the police. He further stated he has original receipt of Rs. 50,000/- Ex. PW-30/D deposited by him with Habib Mercantile as he had signed the same in his presence. He further stated that he had the photocopy of two FDRs for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- Mark-E and Rs. 5000/- Mark F and two cheques for a sum of Rs. 53,750/- and Rs. 5375/- given to him by the accused persons against State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 80 of 199 the amount deposited by him with them and original of these are given by me to the Habib Court Case Committee and it also bears signature of one officer of Habib Mercantile Ltd. at point B, but he do not remember his name and further said, his name was Afzaal. He further stated that he had the photocopy of a cheque for amount of Rs. 53750/- Mark-G issued by accused Mujibur Rehman and he had also photocopy of another cheque for amount of Rs. 5375/- Mark-H issued by accused Mujibur Rehman and could identify the signature of accused Mujibur Rehman on both the cheques as he had signed the same in his presence. He further stated that original of all the above mentioned documents ( FDR & Cheques) were deposited by him with the Habib Court Case Committee. Mark-E to H were given to him by the Chairman of the Habib Court case Committee. He further stated that he did not remember the name of the Chairman and the issuing authority had signed at point C&D in his presence on Mark E to H. During cross examination, he stated that the pamphlets had distributed by the hawkers and he did not know their identity and he had not seen those hawkers before they were distributing the alleged pamphlets. He further stated that he came to know about the scheme of Mujibur Rehman for the first time after receiving the pamphlets. He further stated that State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 81 of 199 he alone contacted Mujibur Rehman at Katra Bijwarian, Ballimaran, Delhi. He further stated that accused explained him the scheme and then he had visited Kucha Rehman in the evening where the office was located and met Mujibur Rehman and Afzaal. He further stated that the pamphlet was also having the address. He did not recall how many schemes were mentioned in the pamphlet and it was a single page pamphlet. He further stated that he was not having the said pamphlet. He further stated that office had been run from the clinic itself and no other staff was present. He further stated that no documentation was done on that day. He further stated that he invested Rs. 50,000/- in cash, in the scheme on 09.09.1997 and received one cheque of about Rs. 3000/- as a return of his investment. He further stated he had received another 35 post dated cheques. One cheque was dishonoured. He further stated that he had gone to personally to meet Mr. Mujibur Rehman at their residence who was unwell and in a critical position. Thereafter, he again tried to contact Mujibur Rehman but he was unavailable on phone. Then he had visited his residence after Eid but it was found locked. He further stated that he had not issued any notice separately to the company for return of his investment. He further stated that he had narrated the entire facts as stated by him to State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 82 of 199 the police. He further stated that initially he was not aware whether other investors also made complaint with the police. He further stated that he was a Ph.D and was teaching in Fatehpuri Senior Secondary School. He further stated that he had verified about the credentials of Habib Mercantile during his discussions with Mujibur Rehman. He further stated that he had not separately verified the accounting practices of Habib Mercantile. He voluntarily stated that he had faith in the bonafides of Mujibur Rehman due to his previous family relations. He further stated that he had suspected the bonafides after one of the cheques got dishonoured. However, he had not verified the credentials of Habib Mercantile from Government agency. He further stated that on enquiry, it was revealed from the neighbourhood that accused are absconding after committing fraud with the investors. He further stated that neighbours had not told him as to since when accused are absconding. He further stated that he had not verified the ownership of house/office of accused Mujibur Rehman. He admitted that all the transactions were in writing. He further stated that addresses of the receipts are correct, and the properties of accused are locked. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely with respect to his verification of the alleged absconding accused. He further stated that he State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 83 of 199 did not know whether as on date the company was legally registered. He further stated that he had not made any complaint with the ROC. He further stated that his complaint with the police was handwritten. He further stated that he had not verified how the company would give return on his investment. He further stated that he had not gone through the business model and he had retained copy of the complaint lodged with the police. He denied that accused have not committed any fraud with him and have no malafide intention to commit cheating and run away with his money. He admitted that Ex. PW- 30/C does not bear any date or acknowledgment of the I.O.
46 PW-31 Rafiq Ahmad stated that he joined the company as clerk in January, 1997 with Jafrabad Branch of Habib Investment ltd. He further stated that he came to know that Dr. Mujeeb Ur Rehman, CMD of Habib Investment ltd had gone missing from the scene. He further stated the Habib Investment Ltd. Had indulged in the business of collecting money from the people to be repaid at heavy interest and he used to deposit the money with CMD Dr. Mujeeb Ur Rehman at the head office at Ballimaran and at times it was paid to him at Jafrabad branch. He further stated that he used to maintain the cash book of company. He further stated that he also State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 84 of 199 used to maintain salary voucher for the staff posted at the Shahdra Branch of the company. He further stated that he used to deposit the cash in Jafrabad Branch of the company on the directions of the accused Mujeeb Ur Rehman and sometime at the order of Abdul Mukeem, Manager of the branch. He further stated that cashier Kamal Mahajan used to collect the money by the investors directly in the passbook of the account holder and the cash used to be deposited in Shahdara Branch but no post was assigned to him as Manager Abdul Mukeem used to sit there. He proved the account Book Ex.PW31/A where he had made the very first entry of Rs. 38000/- on page no.1. He also proved the vouchers Ex. PW31/ A1 to Ex. PW31/ A-160 for which he had received transfer receipts after depositing the amount and each receipt was attached with the concerned voucher showing the amount, date and branch. He further stated that he was also the witness to Agreement to Sell Ex. PW17/A3 in respect of H.No. C-1048, Gali No. 34, Jafrabad, Delhi-53 which was agreed to to be sold by one Kamal Mahajan to Hashmidullah for amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- and Rs. 1,57,000/- and he was witness to said bikrinama dated 08.03.1999 given as earnest money. During his cross examination, he stated that apart from him, Ms. Kamal Mahajan was also dealing in the cash seat and lastly he State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 85 of 199 made entry in the books of account on 01.02.1999 and he had never took the accounts book at his home. He further stated vouchers were prepared by him and transfer receipts were received from Head office of Mujeeb Ur Rehman. He further stated that he did not know about any immovable property of the company i.e. Habib Investment and Habib Mercantile. He further stated that he was the only witness of Ex. PW17/A3. He further stated that he had worked about two years. He further stated he had not met any of the alleged victims. He admitted that there was no interpolations/fraudulent transactions in the books of accounts, during his tenure. He admitted that in agreement to sell, it was not mentioned as to who had received the cash amount. He admitted that in his statement before the police, name of only Kamal Mahajan was mentioned. During further cross examination, he admitted that during his tenure, accused Syed Sikander Javed had not joined the office due to his illness and he was resident of Sambhal, Muradabad. He further stated that he was not aware whether he was at his home in Muradabad or in Delhi during that time. He did not remember whether the cash of Rs. One lakh was received by Mujeeb Ur Rehman towards agreement to sell. He admitted that in his presence accused Mujeeb-Ur- Rehman received Rs. One lakh in cash.
State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 86 of 199 47 . PW-32 Avnish Kumar Srivastava proved the record Ex. PW-32/A i.e. account opening form of account no. 11543 in respect of Habib Mercantile Ltd, copy of resolution, letter of thanks, certificate of incorporation, memorandum of association and article of association. During cross examination, he admitted that none of the documents in Ex. PW32/A bears his signature. He admitted that no record of any statement given by the bank officials before police in this case is available with bank record. He further stated that he did not had any personal knowledge about the present case. He admitted that generally without the consent of account holder, account is not closed. He further stated that he was not aware which rules were applicable for closing the account at that time.
48 PW-33 Sh. Matloob Ahmed stated that at the ground floor of his property, he opened a society in the name of Muslim Imdadi Fund. He further stated he had transferred this Muslim Imdadi Fund to accused Mujeebur Rehman who transferred same in his company Habib Mercantile Ltd. He further stated that he had given ground floor of his premises on rent to accused Mujeebur Rehman and he had proved the original rent receipt book Ex. P-1 (OS&R) which contain counter-foils State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 87 of 199 relating to the rent received by him from accused Mujeebur Rehman having signature of Rafiq on behalf of accused Mujeebur Rehman. He has also proved his Election I Card Ex. P-2 (OS&R) in which his residential address is mentioned. He further stated that after sometime, accused persons including Kamal Mahajan and others closed the company and consequent to this, investors used to come at his property to raise their agitation against it and he had called police many times. He further stated that he had given the property on rent in February, march, 1997 and continued till 1999. He further stated that one day, police officials from Lahori Gate came at his house and they searched in the office of accused and collected certain documents. He proved the passbook of the account no. 234, 235, 344, 424, 426, 437, 444, 445, 456, 457, 458, 448, 446, 447, 449, 451, 460, 461, 462, 468, 469, 476, 485, 821, S-001 as recovered from the office of accused which are Ex. PW-33/A1 to Ex. PW-33/A25 respectively. Ledger pads of the accounts the name of Habib Mercantile Ltd. with its address of registered office at 1388, Balli Maran, Chandni Chowk, Delhi are collectively Ex. P-3. He further stated that four account ledgers of company of accused Habib Mercantile Ltd. were seized as Ledger no. 1 is Ex. PW-33/B1, ledger no. 2 Ex. PW-33/B2, ledger no. 3 Ex. PW-33/B3 and ledger State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 88 of 199 no. 4 Ex. PW-33/B4. One red file on which Shahdara was written, shown to him which contains transfer receipts and voucher. Witness correctly identifies the same as recovered from the office of accused which are exhibited Ex. PW-31/A1 to PW-31/A-160. Transfer receipts which are in green colour are also shown to the witness who correctly identifies the same as recovered from the office of accused. Transfer receipts are Ex. PW-33/C1 to Ex. PW-33/C169. Voucher dated 30.09.1998 is Ex. PW-33/D1, voucher dated 17.02.1997 is Ex. PW-33/D2, voucher dated 22.02.1997 is Ex. PW-33/D3, voucher dated 25.02.1997 is Ex. PW-33/D4, voucher dated 28.02.1997 is Ex PW-33/D5, voucher dated 08.03.1997 is Ex PW-33/D6, voucher dated 10.03.1997 is Ex PW-33/D7, voucher dated 03.03.1999 is Ex PW-33/D8. One cash book (copy) is also shown to the witness who correctly identifies the same as recovered from the office of the accused. Cash book is already exhibited as Ex. PW-31/A (colly). He further proved the photocopy of agreement for settlement of account Mark A1 signature at point A and B through which, Muslim Imdadi Fund has been transferred to accused Mujeebur Rehman. He further stated that accused Mujeebur Rehman had signed the document in his presence. He further proved the Mark A2 which bears the signature of accused Mujeebur Rehman at Point A. He proved the State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 89 of 199 documents Ex. PW-33/A1 to PW-33/A25, Ex. PW-33/B1 to PW-33/B4 and documents already exhibited as Ex. PW- 31/A1 to PW-31/A-160 and Ex. PW-33/C1 to Ex. PW- 33/C169, Ex. PW-33/D1 to PW-33/D8 and document already Ex. PW-31/A (colly) were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-33/E bearing his signature at Point A. He further stated that he had sold his property no. 203/1 and 240/1-2 at Bhola Nath Nagar to accused Mujeebur Rehman vide Power of Attorney and other chain documents relating to transfer of the property, photocopy of which is Ex. PW-33/F (colly) (OS&R) bearing signature of his wife at Points A, B, C and it also bears my signatures at Point A1, B1, C1, D1 as a witness. He further stated after seeing original Power of Attorney and other chain documents relating to transfer of the property that he had taken property number 240/1 on rent from accused which he used as a godown. He further stated that accused Kamal Mahajan used to work in Muslim Imdadi Fund and she thereafter started working in Habib Mercantile Ltd. He further stated that Kamal Mahajan was also made Director in the company later on. He also stated. J.K. Jha and Rafiq Ahmed were also worked in Habib Mercantile Ltd. He further stated that he had also made a member in Muslim Imdadi Fund but later on, he resigned after giving a publication in the newspaper State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 90 of 199 Kaumi Aawaz dated 20.03.1999 as accused had stopped giving payments to the investors. He further stated that he had also given his resignation to accused Mujeebur Rehman who was the secretary of the society. He proved the copy of the newspaper and his resignation are Mark D-1 and D-2. He further stated that he himself and his family member i.e. his wife namely Azra Farzana, his daughters namely Saima and Farha had opened account in the company of accused i.e. Habib Investment Ltd. at Shahdara Branch. He Photocopy of his passbook is Mark X1, Photocopy of passbook of his wife's account is Mark X2, Photocopy of the passbook of his daughter namely Farha is Mark X3 and photocopy of the passbook of his daughter namely Saima is Mark X4. He further stated that he could not produce original copies of the passbooks as the same have been misplaced due to long passage of time. He further stated that head office of the company was at 1388, Balli Maran. He also proved the photocopy of the document containing description of the investors and the amount deposited by them in Muslim Imdadi Fund along with their respective dates. He further stated that total amount of the investment had given in cash by him to the accused Mujeeb-ur Rehman. He further proved execution of Mark A1, an agreement for settlement of account with the cash of Rs. 5,40,588/-. He further stated State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 91 of 199 that he did not have original of Mark A1. During cross examination, he stated that he had studied only upto 7 th or 8th class and he did not have any knowledge regarding accounts. He further stated that he came into contact with accused Mujib ur Rehman through his accountant Shahid who had acquainted to him for 6 months before accused was inducted as a tenant in his property. He further stated that he was not aware as to whether Mr. Shahid also used to work as a property dealer. He voluntarily stated that Mr. Shahid introduced accused persons to him. He further stated that accused person were regular in tendering rent for his property and he had no problem regarding rent with them. He further stated that he had never used to visit accused premises after same was let out with them. He further stated that he did not know the name of agent who introduced him for the purpose of opening deposit account with the accused company on behalf of his family member as well as his personal account. He further stated that he used to keep his personal accounts regarding deposit of cash with the accused company and since nobody asked him to produce his personal accounts regarding payments, therefore, he had not produced the same to any authority like police. He further stated that he remained present at the time of police raid at accused branch and the police State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 92 of 199 remained there 3 to 4 hours in their search operation. He further stated that police told him that he had to stand as a witness of the entire recovered articles from the accused branch. Police removed every article which include account books, furniture from the accused branch. He further stated that he was told by the police that they are taking entire articles to Lahori Gate police station but he had not accompany them. He further stated that when police arrived for the purpose of search and raid, there was lock at the main door of the accused branch and the main door of the branch was opened by Ms. Kamal Mahajan. He further stated that he had delivered key of the lock by Ms. Kamal Mahajan in presence of police. He further stated that police had not ask Ms. Mahajan to deliver key of the lock and the physical possession of the branch was with her and since then no written receipt was exchanged between myself and Kamal Mahajan regarding receiving of key as well as physical possession of the branch. Apparently, it was police vehicle TATA 407 which took the record. He further stated that he had not lodged any written complaint before any authority against accused persons or their company. He further stated that he had put his signatures at the time of recovery process initiated by police in the branch. He further stated that no other witness in his presence had signed any State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 93 of 199 document. He further stated that nobody in Shahdara have lodged complaint against accused persons. He further stated that he did not know the persons who had lodged complaints against accused persons in their Delhi branches. He further stated that he had not received any adverse information against accused persons or the other staff in the office during their tenure as tenants that accused persons are cheaters or if money was given to them, they will misappropriate the same and he came to know through Mr. Shahid that the accused company was a valid and legally constituted company. Mr. Shahid is/was not a person of dubious character. He further stated that he had full confidence in Mr. Shahid. He further stated that he also used to work for accused company. He further stated that list of documents were prepared in his presence. He stated that office used to open daily. He stated that Muslim Imdadi Fund was established in the year of 1992, 1994 or 1995 by Mr. Kulke Hassan and Ms. Kamal Mahajan used to work in Muslim Imdadi Fund and that Muslim Imdadi Fund was taken over by accused Mujib ur Rehman and then Kamal Mahajan also joined the said institution. He further stated that in Muslim Imdadi Fund, Kamal Mahajan was working as a cashier and after joining to Dr. Mujib ur Rehman she used to look after the work of accounts. He admitted that Kamal Mahajan State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 94 of 199 resides in Teliwara, Shahdara near to his house. He admitted that when Kamal Mahajan joined his institution Muslim Imdadi Fund, she was residing in Teliwara Shahdara and till date she had been residing in the same house. He admitted that Kamal Mahajan never absconded from her house and she cooperated in the investigation. Kamal Mahajan also told him and several persons also told him that Kamal Mahajan had become Director in the accused company in the beginning of the year 1999. He further stated that accounts of his family were opened with Habib Mercantile in the year 1997 and 1998. he further stated that he did not know whether fraud if any was already committed before Kamal Mahajan was joined. He further stated that he did not know whether the old team of Directors left before joining of Kamal Mahajan as the Director. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely. He denied the suggestion that no offence had committed by Kamal Mahajan, Sayed Sikandar Javed, Arshad Mirza and Maqsood Khan and he further denied that Kamal Mahajan joined as a Director after the completion of fraud, if any.
49 PW-34 Iqbal Ashraf proved the Power of Attorney, Deed of Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Receipt, another General Power of Attorney, Sale Agreement and Affidavit, Receipt for Rs. 70,000/-, Deed of Will, another General State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 95 of 199 Power of Attorney, Sale Agreement and stated these all are the chain document of the transfer of the property no. 203/1, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi and are exhibited as Ex. PW-33/F (colly). During his cross examination, he stated that he has not given any statement to the police in this case. He voluntarily stated that a committee had formed by the court in 2012). He further stated that committee had taken steps to auction all the properties belonging to Habib Group of Companies and out of the all property, two had been sold in auction and sale proceeds lying with the State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Branch and he had proved the documents Ex. PW- 33/F (colly). He further stated that he did not have any personal knowledge of this case. He admitted that committee had started process of disbursement of recovered amount by auction of immovable properties and it was objected by Ld. APP for the State.
50 . PW-35 Mohd. Arafin stated he run a business of raxin in Ballimaran alongwith his father and shop no. 5316 had been given on rent by his father to Abdul Rehman father of accused Mujibur Rehman. He further stated that he did not know whether any rent agreement had been executed between his father and Abdul Rehman father of accused or that whether any rent receipt had been issued by his father either to Abdul Rehman or State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 96 of 199 accused Mujibur Rehman. He further stated that accused and their family used to reside at Katra Bajwariyan, Ballimaran. He further stated in the year 1995, accused Mujibur Rehman had started to run a clinic at shop no. 5316. He further stated that accused Mujibur Rehman had started a company namely Habib Investment Ltd. at shop no. 5316. He further stated that he had also started another company Habib Mercantile and accused Mujibur Rehman was the Director of the company and there were other persons also in the company whose name he did not remember on that day. He further stated that the company had been closed in the year 1999 and had been locked and the key of the lock were given to them. He further stated that on 29.07.1999, police had come at shop no. 5316 and he alongwith other persons opened the door as key were in his father's possession. He further stated that police had searched the shop/office and seized the certain documents in his presence and these documents were taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW-35/A. He further stated that two loan books dated 12.09.97 MN No. 1346 loan account no. 02/001/97 bearing name of Mohd. Alam and dated 10.07.98 loan account no. 92/001/98 bearing name of Munni Devi as seized in his presence from shop no. 5316 as Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2. He further stated that daily State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 97 of 199 receipt book containing no. 360012, 36800, another loan book containing no. 76601 to 76800 and another loan book containing no. 76801 to 77600 and same seized in his presence from shop no. 5316 as Ex. PW-4/D5 dated 19.09.2000. He further stated that file containing application form for fixed deposit and bearing name of Habib Mercantile Ltd. and address of registered office at 1388, Ballimaran Chandini Chowk, contained in a file seized in his presence from shop no. 5316. These are Ex. P-3 and daily collection register of Habib Investment Ltd. Ex. PW4/D4 is seized in his presence from shop no. 5316. He further stated that daily collection register (agent wise of) Habib Investment Ltd. seized in his presence from shop no. 5316 which is Ex. P-4. The ledger Ex. PW-4/B1- B7, Ex. PW-4/B2, Ex. PW-4/B3, Ex. PW-4/B4, Ex. PW-4/B5, Ex. PW-4/B6, of Habib Mercantile Ltd. seized in his presence from shop no. 5316. He further stated that Ledger bearing No. 4 on which 601-800 was written was also as seized in his presence from shop no. 5316 as Ex. P-5. He further proved the passbook Ex. PW-4/C1to C3 were seized in his presence from shop no. 5316. He further proved the 32 FDR of Habib Mercantile Ltd. seized in his presence from shop no. 5316 which are Ex. P-6 (colly). He further proved the commission chart already Ex. PW-4/D1 seized in his presence from shop no.
State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 98 of 199 5316. He further proved the commission register already Ex. PW-4/D2 was seized in his presence from shop no. 5316. He further proved the salary register Ex. PW-4/D3 seized in his presence from shop no. 5316. He further stated that name of the other members of the company were Rahat Afzal, Shaishta Nusrat and Abdul Rehman. My uncle namely Naeem also accompanied him at the time of opening of the lock at shop no. 5316. Sh. Ramish Farid and Mohd. Wasim Rao were also present at the time of the seizure of the document from the shop or office at 5316. He further proved the transfer receipt book of Habib Mercantile Ltd. Mentioned at Sl. no. 4 of seizure memo Ex. PW-35/A containing receipt from the year 1998 to 1999 was also seized. He further proved the transfer receipt book of Habib Mercantile Ltd. mentioned at Sl. no. 4 of seizure memo Ex. PW-35/A containing receipt from S. No. 401 to 600 and in these receipts from S.No.401 to 439 were filled and rest of the receipts were blank and transfer receipt book is Ex. PW35/P7 (colly). During cross examination, he stated that all the exhibited documents were recovered in his presence by the police and police had not taken his signature on any of the document and police has taken all the books in his presence. He further stated that he was only the witness to the recovery process of the police. He further stated Abdul Rehman State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 99 of 199 was tenant of his mother. He further stated that he was not aware whether tenancy rights were surrendered by Abdul Rehman in favor of his mother as he was not present.
51 . PW-36 Dr. Abrar Ansari stated that he was doctor by profession. He further stated that on 14.10.1999, he had gone to Police and given copy of account number 1064 opened in his name in Habib Mercantile Ltd. for 400 days and another account in the Habib Mercantile Ltd. in the name of his daughter baby Munazza Abrar for 400 days. He further stated that he had given photocopy of both account to the police and had also given photocopy of his I-Card which was issued to him as he was working as agent in Habib Investment Ltd. He further stated that he had also given list of the accounts opened in Habib Mercantile Ltd. through him and as per list, total amount of investors deposited in Habib Mercantile Ltd. was Rs. 2,04,646/-. He further stated that he had deposited the amount for some days in his both the accounts and thereafter, he came to know that accused persons had ran away after closing the company. He further stated that the above mentioned accounts were opened in Zafrabad branch of the company Habib Mercantile Ltd and that time, Manager of the company was Mukim Rao and the photocopy of his I Card, passbooks and list of investors State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 100 of 199 were seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex. PW-36/A (OS & R) bearing his signatures at Point A. He further stated that he had original I-Card and photocopy Ex. PW- 36/B1 (OS&R) bearing his signatures at Point A. He further stated that he had also proved the original passbook number 1064 and 1066. He also proved the photocopy of the same are collectively marked as Ex. PW- 36/B2 (OS & R). Original list of investors is Ex. PW-36/B3 bearing his signatures at Point A & B. He further stated that he did not remember the period of deposit of amount with the accused company. He further stated that he had received Rs. 8,000/- after maturity of his FDR or account with the accused company. He further stated that he made inquiry from known persons that the financial status of accused company was sound as they have offices at Balli Maran, Shahdara and Jafrabad. He stated that never made any inquiry from the accused persons regarding their financial status and he was in regular contact with other investors who were known to him and they generally used to talk about status of the company. He further stated that he came to know in the year 1999 from other investors that the accused company had closed. He further stated that he personally gone to the office of accused company at Jafrabad and he found number of people who were using filthy and abusive language State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 101 of 199 against the company and their Directors. He further stated that he did not issue any notice or writing to the accused company regarding return of his amount. He further stated that he was introduced to the accused company by one Mr. Noor Mohammad whose complete name he did not remember and he believed Mr. Noor Mohammad for the purpose of investing in the accused company. He admitted that he personally had not known the accused persons and the accused company used to issue proper receipt mentioning the amount. He further stated that he had preserved all the receipts. He further stated that he had not given receipts to the police as the same were very large in quantity. He admitted that he had not lodged any complaint to the police in writing. He denied the suggestion that it was a civil matter and he had deliberately used the criminal process against the accused persons. He denied the suggestion that accused persons had no malafide intention either to cheat him or to misappropriate his amount.
52 PW-37 Raisuddin stated that on 02.07.1999, he had purchased house no. C-184/27, Near Kalyan Cinema, Chauhan Bangar, Delhi from Muqarrab Hussain through a GPA. He further stated that he had paid cash amount of Rs. 53,000/- and handed over his built up on a land of 50 sq. yards bearing No. C-185, Gali No. 4, Near Kalyan State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 102 of 199 Cinema, Chauhan Bangar, Delhi and further stated that at that time, value of his house was Rs. 3 Lacs. He further stated that Muqarrab Hussain had handed over to him old GPA and chain documents through which, he had purchased the above mentioned house from accused Kamal Mahajan. He further stated that he had given photocopy of old GPA, agreement, voucher and new GPA to the police which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-37/A bearing his signatures at Point A. He proved the original of GPA Ex. PW-37/A1 (OS & R) through which, he had purchased the house no. C-184/27, Near Kalyan Cinema, Chauhan Bangar, Delhi from Muqarrab Hussain. The photocopy of the same which runs in 10 pages is bearing his signatures at Point A. he further proved the original GPA Ex. PW-37/A2 (OS & R). through which Muqarrab Hussain had purchased the above mentioned house from accused Kamal Mahajan and Arshad Mirza. He also proved the original chain documents of ownership relating to the house No. C-184/27, Near Kalyan Cinema, Chauhan Bangar, Delhi and Photocopy of GPA is collectively Ex. PW-37/A3 (OS & R). Affidavit is Ex. PW- 37/A4 (Colly) (OS&R). Another General Power of Attorney is Ex. PW-37/A5 (Colly) (OS & R). He further stated that original of Agreement to Sell dated 02.02.1999 between Muqarrab Hussain and accused person was produced by State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 103 of 199 Sh. Muqarrab Hussain who had been summoned as a witness on that day. Photocopy of the same is Ex. PW- 37/A6 (OS & R). Original of voucher of Rs. 99,115/- dated 15.05.1999 was also produced. Photocopy of the same is Ex. PW-37/A7 (OS&R). He admitted that GPA Ex. PW- 37/A2 had been executed between Muqarrab Hussain and accused Kamal Mahajan and Arshad Mirza as the house no. C-184/27, Near Kalyan Cinema, Chauhan Bangar, Delhi has been sold to Muqarrab Hussain by both the accused on 13.04.1999. During cross-examination, he stated that he was 11th pass and he could not understand difference between Sale Deed and Power of Attorney. He admitted that document which he had brought on that day was not deed. He voluntarily stated that such type of documents which he had brought on that day were executed for the purpose of transfer of title of the properties. He further stated that he was still in physical possession of the said property and he was called by Crime Branch having office at Mehraulli and they noted his statement on the query as to how he had acquired the property no. 184/27, Gali No. 3, Near Pooja Public School, Chauhan Bangar, North East Delhi. He further stated that he was called with regard to the case pending before this Hon'ble Court. He further stated that he had provided documents to the Crime Branch and Crime Branch told State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 104 of 199 him that his paper were correct.
53 PW38 Mohd. Naim, stated that he did not remember the facts of proceedings conducted before him. However, he had signed on some documents which he identified. He further stated that he did not remember whether police had seized some documents and registers. He admitted that police had recorded his statement marked as Mark X under Section 161 CrPC. Same was shown, read over and explained to him. He admitted that his brother Hazi Swaleen who was the owner of shop no. 5316, Kucha Rehman let out the same to Abdul Rehman, father of accused Mujibur Rehman and further said that he was not very sure. He admitted that accused Mujibur Rehman used to do his medical practice at shop no. 5316 and later on he started a finance company in the name of Habib Investment Ltd. in this shop. He further stated that he could not say whether accused Mujibur Rehman was CMD and his brother in law Rahat Afjal, his wife Saista Nusrat and his father Abdul Rehman were also members in the above said finance company. Confronted with statement marked X from point A to A1 wherein it is so recorded. He further stated that he did not know whether accused Mujibur Rehman had locked the company and ran away. Confronted with his statement marked X from State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 105 of 199 point B to B1 wherein it is so recorded. He further stated that he did not remember due to lapse of time whether with the keys, which were with his brother Hazi Swaleen the said company was opened and at that time Wasim Rao, Ramesh Faridi were also present when the search was conducted by the police at above mentioned shop. Confronted with his statement marked X from point C to C1 wherein it is so recorded. He further stated that he did not remember whether police had searched the shop no. 5316 and taken the following documents in their possession vide seizure memo already Ex. PW35/A. Confronted with his statement marked X from point D to D1 wherein it is so recorded. He admitted the preparation of seizure memo already Ex. PW35/A and his signature on the said document. However, the same was not visible being torn. Court observation : Ex. PW35/A is torn from the bottom and the signatures are missing. However, as per certified copy on record, the signatures of witness are available at point B. He further proved the already Ex. P-1, P-2, P-3, P-4, P-5, P-6 (colly), Ex. PW4/D1, Ex. PW4/D2, Ex. PW4/D3 these documents are mentioned in seizure memo already Ex. PW35/A, are shown to the witness who says that he is unable to identify the same due to lapse of time. He denied the suggestion that he was intentionally not deposing the true facts or that he State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 106 of 199 was intentionally not identifying the above mentioned documents as I have been won over by the accused persons. During cross examination, he stated that he was graduate and he did not read and write Hindi language and he had no illness relating to memory lapse. He further stated that his above mentioned brother expired about twenty years ago and no statement of his brother had recorded in his presence. He further stated that he had not read any ownership documents of his brother. He further stated that none of the accused persons were present at the time of recovery. He denied the suggestion that his statement had not recorded by police.
54 PW39 Anish Ahmed proved the seizure of passbook mentioned at serial No. 10 & 11 in seizure memo Ex. PW-39/A and stated that these were seized in his presence. He also stated he does not know the contents, same are Ex PW-39/E (colly)which are 166 in numbers. He further proved the cash books which are six (6) in numbers and mentioned at Sl. No. 12 in seizure memo, Ex. PW 39/A seized in his presence, same are Ex PW-39/F (colly). He further proved the Nine (9) pass books which are mentioned at Sl. No. 13 are shown to the witness who says that these were seized in his presence but he does not know the contents, same are Ex PW-39/G State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 107 of 199 (colly). He further proved one green colour file on which mallimaran and word number 14 was written which was Family Welfare Scheme of Habib Mercantile Ltd. and same was mentioned at Sl. No. 14, seized in his presence but he does not know the contents, same was Ex PW- 39/H. He proved the Memorandum and Article of Association of Habib Investment Ltd., Habib Mutual Benefit Ltd., Habib Agro Pvt. Ltd. & Habib Mercantile Ltd. which are mentioned at Sl. No. 15 of seizure memo Ex PW-39/I (colly). He further proved one prospectus of Habib Group of Companies which was mentioned at Sl. No. 16 is shown to the witness who says that this was seized in his presence but he does not know the contents, same is Ex PW-39/J. He further proved one book in hard bound of containing depositing form of State Bank of Hydrabad, which is mentioned at Sl. no. 17 is shown to him who says that this was seized in his presence but he does not know the contents, same is Ex PW-39/K. He further proved one file containing daily collections pages etc of Muslim Emdadi Fund which is mentioned at Sl. No. 18 was shown to him who says that this was seized in his presence but he does not know the contents, same is Ex PW-39/L. PW39 admitted that file mentioned at Sl. No. 19 of seizure memo EX PW-39/A was seized in his presence as Ex PW-39/M. He further proved one file containing State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 108 of 199 vouchers mentioned at Sl. No. 20 of seizure memo EX PW- 39/A was seized in his presence, same is Ex PW-39/N. He proved one file containing application for fixed deposit of Habib Investment which was mentioned at Sl. No. 21 of seizure memo EX PW-39/A was seized in his presence, same is Ex PW-39/O. He further proved one file containing electricity bill mentioned at Sl. No. 22 of seizure memo EX PW-39/A was seized in his presence, same is Ex PW-39/P. He further proved one file containing field officer record mentioned at Sl. No. 23 of seizure memo EX PW-39/A was seized in his presence, same is Ex PW-39/Q. He further proved one file showing on the cover the words "ballimaran G 24 HO, GDA & 72pages", containing copy of sale relating documents, map etc (all photocopies) on which mentioned at Sl. No. 24 of seizure memo EX PW-39/A was seized in his presence, same is Ex PW-39/R. He further stated that one file on which 'Notice File was written with white ink " mentioned at Sl. No. 25 of seizure memo Ex. PW-39/A was seized in his presence but he does not know the contents, same is Ex PW-39/S. He further stated that one yellow colour file on which "Habib Mercantile Ltd., I, 26, Ballimaran 26" which was mentioned at Sl. No. 26 of seizure memo EX PW-39/A was seized in his presence, same is Ex PW-39/T. He further stated that one envelope containing telephone bill in the State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 109 of 199 name of Accuse Mujeeb Ur Rehman of address -1388, Ballimaran which was mentioned at Sl. No. 27 of seizure memo EX PW-39/A was seized in his presence, same is Ex PW-39/U. He further proved five (5) slip of Habib Cumulative Deposit Scheme from Sl. No. 103 to 108 except 106 which are mentioned at Sl. No. 28 of seizure memo EX PW-39/A seized in his presence, same is Ex PW- 39/V (colly). He further proved one day book on which Turkman Gate 1998 to 1999 , 006 which was mentioned at Sl. No. 29 of seizure memo EX PW-39/A was seized in his presence, same is Ex PW-39/W. He further stated that he did not know who else signed on seizure memo Ex PW-39/A besides himself and one more person, namely, Anis. He further stated that he did not not know whether Sultan Mohd and SHO Lahori Gate signed on the seizure memo due to long laps of time. During cross examination, he had not invested single penny in the company and he used to work in travel agency which was private concern, the said agency had located at Ballimaran. He further stated that police had not asked him to sign on seizure memo. He further stated that he had not volunteered to sign the seizure memo. He voluntarily stated that Mr Anis who had known to him asked him to sign by saying that since he had also signed and he might also sign. He further stated that he could not tell the exact time when State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 110 of 199 he signed the paper given to him by the police. He further stated that he did not ask the police regarding the nature of paper which are given to him for signature. He further stated that he could not tell the exact time, however, he remained there about 2-3 hours. He further stated that he did not took leave from his office as his office was front of the place. He further stated that he did not remember whether he had informed his office the reason of his coming late. He further stated that his office address was Safar International, 5139, Kibriya Manzil, Ballimaran, Delhi. He further stated that he did not had any appointment letter and he had left the service about 20 years back. He denied the suggestion that he had signed on the blank papers and the police officials were prepared the lists, however, he did not remember whether they have put any mark on the seized documents. He further stated that he was not inquired by the police and no one had dictated him.
55 PW-40 Shaddan Khan stated that he lived on aforesaid address with his family and he had a business of stitching. He further stated that he had purchased H.No. 1012-B from Hazi Ishrakh in the August 2000 for consideration of Rs.1.30 lac. He further stated that he had proved the original GPA Ex PW-40/A(Colly)(OSR) handed State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 111 of 199 over to him by Hazi Ishrakh relating to the sale to above mentioned house. He further proved the original chain of documents relating to the sale of said property and proved the copy of the same as Ex. PW-40/B(colly)(OSR). He proved the seizure memo Ex. PW-40/C bearing his signature at point 'A'. During his cross examination, he stated that he had paid all expenses towards preparation of title documents i.e. General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Two Receipts. He further stated that he carefully checked the documents and was aware that the property belongs to Hazi Ishrakh. He further stated that he was not aware that the property belongs to M/s Habib Investment Ltd. He further stated that he was having bank account at the time of purchasing said property. He admitted that there was no dispute of title regarding property which he had purchased and there was no dispute regarding that property till date. He further stated that police had not taken any documents of property and not recorded his statement regarding his said property. He further stated that he had transacted to purchase to said property in cash and he had not given any extra amount for purchasing said property. He further stated that the chain of title documents as well as physical possession of said property was given to him by Mr Hazi Ishrakh Ahmed. He further stated that police had not State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 112 of 199 asked to sign on any document and he had not signed on any document before police. He further stated that he was not aware about the facts of the present case. He voluntarily stated that he had gone with Mr Hazi Ishrakh a place only once but he was not able to give better particulars of that place and he was not contacted by any person on behalf of M/s Habib Investment Ltd. since August, 2000, when he purchased the said property.
56 PW-41 Mohd. Aslam stated that he was tailor by profession and he had been Assistant Branch Incharge of Habib Mercantile ltd kardampuri Branch from March 1997 to August 1998. He further stated that directors of the company are Mujeeb Ur Rehman and Rahat Afzal and the head office of the company was at kardampuri in Gali No. 9. He further stated that company had deposited schemes of Rs. 400, Rs. 600 and Rs. 800/- and the amount towards the schemes was deposited by the agents. He further stated that agents of the company used to deposit against the receipts of Habib Mercantile ltd. and agents given entry of deposits in the books maintained by them and the amount, thereafter, used to be deposited in Jafrabad Branch by him. He further proved the file Ex. PW41/A, Ex. PW41/B, Ex. PW41/C and Ex. PW41/D (colly). He further proved Ex. PW4/E to Ex. PW4/ K. During cross State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 113 of 199 examination, he admitted that the address of the office of Ballimaran was 1388. He admitted that company used to run schemes of 400 days to 1000 days and used to promise the return at the rate of 16% to 25%. He further admitted that field officers/agents used to collect the money and used to deposit the same at the branch against the receipt which was given to the agents by the Directors. He admitted that entries of these receipts were made in the passbook of the account holders. He admitted that the entries of this amount also made in the ledgers of the account holders. He admitted that amount was deposited by accused Mujib-Ur-Rehman, accused Rahat Afjal and sometimes by one employee of the branch namely Naeem used to deposit the amount at Head Office of the company. During cross examination, he admitted that company used to maintain proper accounts of every receipts and also of expenses. He admitted that the company used to give commission to commission agents and there was no dispute of any nature. He admitted that all the accounts books and the records which he had identified. He further stated that Mr. Arshad Mirja who had office assistant used to keep the keys and there were two set of keys. He further stated that one set was kept by Directors of the company and another set kept by him and Arshad. He further stated that during his tenure of State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 114 of 199 employment with the company, he did not note any dispute or notice regarding recovery of money of the customers/client of the company. He further stated that he was not aware regarding investment policy of the company. He further stated that he was not aware as to whether the company used to deal in sale and purchase of immovable properties. He further stated that he had heard from the Directors that they generate money by investing in the immovable properties for the purpose of returning the same at the time of seizure of the document exhibited above. He further stated that there were about 6-7 persons including police personnel at the time of search of the company in his presence. He further stated that he did not call any immediate neighbor for the purpose of witness to the process of searching the premises and consequent to seizure of documents. He voluntarily stated that one person was there as a witness. He further stated that when he reached the company premises the search process was already going on. He further stated that his statement was recorded in the afternoon and he remained there about one and a half hour. He further stated he had gone to police station after 3-4 days of search conducted by the police. He further stated that police did not put any effort in his presence to call the directors of company at the time of search and State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 115 of 199 seizure of documents. He further stated that he was called from his residence to join the search with the police party and he was not aware as to whether the directors of the company were arrested at the time of search and seizure of documents. He further stated that he did not recall whether there were more register/documents available in the office apart from those which were seized. He further stated that he was not aware whether the other witness had called in the police station for recording statement. He further stated that the there were leaflets prepared and distributed explaining the schemes. He further stated that he was not aware since when the company had closed. He further stated that he was not in touch with any other employee after he left the job. He admitted that office was being run in the proper manner with maintaining of the records. He further stated that he was not aware about any bank account of the company. He denied the suggestion that nothing was seized in his presence.
57 PW-42 Saleemuddin stated that he used to work as compounder in the clinic of accused Mujeebur Rehman and worked for 10 years. He further stated that in the year 1995, accused Mujeebur Rehman had opened Habib Investment Co. Ltd. for which people used to invest Rs.
State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 116 of 199 10/20 per day and their agents used to issue receipt against payment of money and they also used to maintain accounts in this regard. He further stated that office of this company was at Shop No. 5316, Kucha Rehman from where, he had also used to run a clinic. He further stated that the money deposited by the public used to be handed over to accused Mujeebur Rehman and accused Rahat Afzal. He further stated that the Directors of the company were Dr. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman, Shaista Nusrat, Abdul Rehman, Aziz Fatima, Sikander Javed and Maqsood. He further stated that he could identify the accused persons and identified accused Sikander Javed and Maqsood Alam. He further stated that accused Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman also opened a company namely Habib Mercantile Ltd. and the above mentioned accused persons were also Directors in this company. He further stated that accused Mujeeb-Ur- Rehman had handed over him accounts of old agents and when old agents complained, he had handed over these accounts to Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman. He further stated that he had also opened account No. 7 and 17 in Habib Mercantile Ltd. and he had to pay Rs. 10/- per day in these accounts. He further stated that he had deposited Rs. 17,000/- in both the accounts. He further stated he had also taken a FDR of Rs. 5,000/- and the passbooks and FDs were used to keep at 5316 i.e. Branch Office of State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 117 of 199 the company and the original are not with him and he further stated that he could not produce the same as the same were lying in the office at 5316. He also stated accused Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman and accused Rahat Afzal used to give cheques to him for encashment from bank and sometimes they also accompanied him. He further stated that he used to hand over the cash to the accused persons immediately and he did not know what they used to do with cash. He proved the photocopy of cheque no. 875284, 875285, 875286, 875268, 875269, 875270, 875271, 875272, 875274, 875281, 875265, 875266 of Habib Mercantile Bank and identifies the signature of accused Mujeebur Rehman at Point A1 to A11 and these are Mark X1 to Mark X11. Mark X3 bears his counter sign at Point B3, Mark X4 bears his counter sign at B4a, B4b, B4c and Mark X5 bears counter sign at Point B5a, B5b. Mark X6 bears his signatures at B6a and B6b. Mark X7 bears his signatures at B7a and B7b. Mark X8 bears counter sign at B8. Mark X9 bears his counter sign at Point B9. Mark X11 bears his counter sign at Point B11 and all these cheques are of State Bank of Hyderabad. He further proved the photocopy of cheque no. 911229 of Bombay Mercantile Cooperative Bank was shown to him who correctly identifies the signature of accused Mujeebur Rehman at A-12 and his counter sign at Point State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 118 of 199 B12a and B12b which is Mark X12. He further stated that after encashment of the above mentioned cheque, he used to give payment either to accused Mujeebur Rehman or Rahat Afzal. He further stated that he had identified signature of Mujeebur Rehman as he had worked with him for 10 years. He further stated that he had identified his signature as he used to sign in his presence. He further stated that when he had learnt that company had not given money to its investors and he had gone to accused persons and asked for return of his money but accused persons had gave him assurance that they would return his money. He further stated that accused persons had ran away after closing of the company. He further stated that he did not remember the date but it was in the year 1999 when accused persons had ran away. During cross examination, he stated that he did not have any document in his possession to show that he used to work as compounder with accused Mujeebur Rehman and he could not bring any such document. He admitted that company used to give receipt of deposit of money by him in his account no. 7 & 17. He further stated that he used to get receipt of payments made by him to the company but he left all the receipts in the passbook which was given to him by the company and the passbook remained at 5316, Kucha Rehman, Chandni Chowk which was the State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 119 of 199 office of company and clinic of the accused Mujeebur Rehman. He admitted that accused Mujeebur Rehman and other directors were in his good confidence, therefore, he had opened his account with their company and he was made agent of the company orally and no document for his appointment had given to him. He further stated that he remained agent for one and a half month but he could not tell the exact year and during this period, he had not brought any business for the company. He further stated that he used to get Rs. 1200/- per month from accused Mujeebur Rehman in his appointment as compounder. He further stated that he had not read his statement in the court and he had given statement to the police at Subzi Mandi Police station and he had alone at that time.. He admitted that police officer had not signed in his presence on his statement. He further stated that he had not seen the original documents of the photostat copy which are shown to him. He further stated that he did not remember when he had deposited last installment in the company. He further stated that he had never given any legal notice to the company or to the accused persons. He further stated that he always communicated orall He admitted that accused Mujeebur Rehman and the company belongings were never removed in his presence. He admitted that Mujeebur Rehman and his State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 120 of 199 other family members had not absconded in his presence. He denied the suggestion that these persons had not ran away from their premises and they were still available. He denied the suggestion that all allegations against accused persons and their company are false and only with a motive to implicate them in criminal case. He admitted that the accused had not committed any act of cheating, misappropriation.
58 PW-43 Ashok Tyagi stated that he was working as public Relation Inspector in Civil Lines, Post Office. He stated the documents i.e. Indra Vikas Patra (IVP) Regd. No. 9987 dated 04.07.1995 had been weeded out. He proved the letter Ex. PW43/A issued by post Master(HSG II), Chandni Chowk, Post Office, Delhi.
59 PW-44 Sh. Jamil Khan stated that in the year 1999, he had run STD (PCO) booth in a shop at the address E-2/1254, Gali No. 18, Nehru Vihar, Musatafabad, Delhi-94 and he was the owner of shop. He further stated that he had 10 shops in the said property except one shop in which he had been running PCO, all other he had given on rent. He further stated that he had given shop no. 3 on rent to one person namely Gulzar for Rs. 1200/- per month as a rent. He further stated that he did not State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 121 of 199 remember exact date and month, however, it had given on rent about 1.3 years prior to year 1999. He further stated that Gulzar disclosed him that he required that shop/property on rent for the purpose of opening of some bank/investment in the name and style of M/s. Habib Invested Bank. He further stated that Gulzar had been working there as a Manager and there was one more person Sagar who was also working there as Cashier and one more person who was working as a peon, however, he did not remember their name. He further stated that accused Ms. Kamal Mahajan who introduced/posed as a Director of M/s. Habib Investment Bank/Fund and also used to come at the office which was opened in his shop no. 3 and number of persons used to come there and they used to open the account of those persons and used to take deposit i.e. money from the public persons. He further stated that above said office had closed in the month of March, 1999 and it had locked by the persons who were using the same as his dues regarding rent as well as electricity charges were due so he tried to trace them, then he came to know that the same company was having a branch at Jafrabad. He further stated that he had visited the Jafrabad office where he met with Gulzar and accused Ms. Kamal Mahajan and he demanded electricity charges and arrears of the rent from them and instead of State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 122 of 199 giving the amount due, Gulzar and Ms. Kamal Mahajan had given only the assurance that his money was safe and would have be paid in future and on the assurance, he came back. He further stated that he shown the office at Jafrabad of the same bank to the police official and stated that he had not entered into rent agreement with Gulzar and it was oral contract regarding the tenancy between him and Gulazar of shop no. 3. He stated during the search of that shop, ledger books, accounts documents, some files were taken into possession by police the documents which were found inside the shop no. 3 vide seizure memo Ex. PW-44/A which bears his signatures at point A. He further stated that later on, his wife also disclosed to him that she also invested Rs. 25,000/26,000/- in the above said Habib Investment Bank/Fund and this fact was disclosed to him by his wife when the investigation of this case was over, otherwise, if, he was aware of it earlier, he would had disclosed the same to the police. During cross examination, he stated that the rent receipts were always prepared by Gulzar and the rent counter foil receipts were always taken by Gulzar from him but Gulzar never took any rent receipts from him. He deposed that he took vacant possession of his premises from Gulzar in the year April, 1999 and Gulzar had not given any writing to him that he was delivering State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 123 of 199 vacant possession of the shop to him and there was no witness present when he had taken the physical possession and none of his family member was present. He further stated that the entire articles lying inside the rented property had taken away by the police and the police also took his signature on a document that they are taking entire articles lying inside the rented property and he stood as a witness to such document and no other person came forward to put his signature as witness on the document. He denied the suggestion that the rented premises remained locked and further denied that rent premises used to open daily and staff also available to do their daily routine work. He further stated that he had given his statement regarding his wife had also opened an account in the company only in the Court. He further stated that he or his wife never lodged any complaint against accused persons regarding opening fixed deposit or depositing money in the accused company. During further cross examination, he stated that Gulzar had introduced him about accused Kamal Mahajan. He further stated that he had met her 2-3 times and he had not been able to identify the accused Kamal Mahajan due to lapse of time. He denied the suggestion that Kamal Mahajan was Cashier and not Director. He further stated that he had visited Jafrabad when the office of the State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 124 of 199 company left from Mustafabad to Jafrabad. He did not remember or recollect the date when he had visited the office of the company at Jafrabad.
60 PW-45 Naveen Gandas, had proved the summoned record Ex. PW-45/A (colly) (OS&R) vide registration No. 4529, Book No. I, Volume No. 1285 from pages 174 to 177 dated 26.04.1965 and the same was in Urdu language and he proved the another document Ex. PW-45/B (colly) (OS&R) bearing registration No. 1353, Book No. I, Volume No. 9796 from pages 120 to 128 dated 18.09.1999. During cross examination, he admitted that his knowledge was based on record and he did not know Urdu language. He admitted that none of the staff present in his office knows Urdu language. He further stated that he did not know the nature of document. He voluntarily stated that he had brought the said document on the basis of registration number and other information provided in English language which he could understand easily. He further admitted that the photo- state copy as exhibited as Ex. PW-45/B after comparing the same with the record copy which he had brought on that day. He further stated that said exhibited document does not have stamp at back of page no. 1 of the document. He voluntarily stated that he can produce the correct copy from his record). He State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 125 of 199 further stated that he was not aware regarding facts of the present case. He admitted he had no knowledge whether police had approached his office for the purpose of investigation regarding document Ex. PW-45/D1 which he had brought on that day received from Hon'ble Court.
61 PW-46 Sh. Mohd. Ishraq Khan stated that in the year 1999 he had purchased a property no. B-11 or 12 , Gali no. 32, Jafrabad from accused Mujib ur Rehman. He further stated that he had purchased the property in consideration of Rs. 6 lakhs. He further stated that the property consisted of 50 sq. ft and Power of Attorney was executed between him and accused Mujib-Ur-Rehman who also handed over old original documents relating to the property. He further stated that in the year 2000, he had sold the property to Sh. Shaddan. He further stated that power of attorney was executed between him and Shaddan and he had handed over all the documents relating to the ownership of the above mentioned property to Shaddan. He further admitted documents already Ex. PW-40/A i.e. relating to the ownership of the property and GPA and document already Ex. PW-40/B and also admits his signature at point A, B, C, D, E & F which is in Urdu language. He also admitted seizure memo already Ex. PW-40/C bearing his signature at point B. State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 126 of 199 During cross examination, he admitted that he had purchased the property from accused Mujib-Ur-Rehman on 11.01.1999 and the number of the house was 1011 & 1012 B, Gali No. 32, Jafrabad. He further admitted that he had further sold the above mentioned property in August 2000 to Shaddan. He further stated that when he had purchased the property from Mr. Mujib-Ur-Rehman, the said property was not disputed and he had not received any notice. He further stated that he did not remember whether he had given statement to the police. He further stated that he had not delivered any document to the police and police had not conducted any nature of investigation from him.
62 PW-47 Brij Lal Beriwal, official from office of Registrar of Companies proved the documents of companies i.e. M/s Habib Investment Ltd, Habib Mercantile Ltd, Habib Agro Ltd. and Al-Habib Mutual Benefit ltd and copy of form no. 32 showing the directorship in M/s Habib Investment Ltd which is Ex. PW47/A(OSR) and he had proved the form no. 18 Ex. PW47/B. He also proved the form no.1 Ex. PW47/C and also proved Ex. PW47/D certificate of incorporation for registration of company and copy of MOA and AOA Ex. PW47/E. He also proved the form no. 32 showing the State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 127 of 199 directorship in Habib Argo company which is Ex. PW47/F. He also proved the form no. 18 Ex. PW47/G. He also proved the form no. 1 Ex. PW47/H. He also proved the certificate of incorporation for registration of company habib Mercantile ltd. Which is Ex. PW47/I and copy of MOA and AOA Ex. PW47/J. He proved the form no. 32 Ex. PW47/K showing the directorship in Al Habib Mutual Benefit Ltd. and also proved the Form no. 18 which is Ex. PW47/L. He also proved the documents Ex. PW47/M, Ex. PW47/N, Ex.PW47/O, Ex. PW47/P, Ex. PW47/Q, Ex. PW47/R Ex. PW47/S and Ex. PW47/T. During cross examination, he admitted that all the abovesaid companies are incorporated as per law and the all the documents filed at the time of incorporation were duly verified. He further stated that he had no personal knowledge.
63 PW-48 RCP Singh stated that he was working as a AGM in department of Non-Banking Supervision, RBI, New Delhi. He further stated that he had given the reply of a letter dated 07.02.2000, handed over to RBI Department of Non-Banking Sueprvision Crime Branch (EOW), Delhi police in connection with the Habib Mercantile ltd. He further stated that Habib Mercantile Ltd. company had applied to RBI for issuance of the State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 128 of 199 certificate of registration under section 415A RBI Act 1934 but its application was pending with RBI since its NOF was below the minimum prescribed limit of Rs. 25 lacs on that date. He further stated that M/s Habib Investment ltd referred to in the letter Ex. PW48/A has not applied to RBI with registration.
64 PW-49 Retired SI Sh. Mahender Singh stated that on 01.11.98 he had posted as Constable, DCC Cell, North District. He further stated that he alongwith HC Abdul Aziz and SI Ramesh joined the investigation of the present case. He further stated that they had gone to Shahdara where they were met with one person namely Ahmad from whom the IO asked whereabouts of accused Kamal Mahajan . He further stated that he alongwith I.O., himself and Abdul Aziz had gone to some distance, there he pointed out towards a lady and told them that she was accused Kamal Mahajan and at that time she was standing outside her home and Ahmad after pointing out went away from there. He further stated that I.O. investigated from Kamal Mahajan and she told that she was the Director of Habib Investment Ltd. And Habib Mercantile Ltd. and in this capacity she collected money from the public. Thereafter, I.O. recorded her disclosure statement which is Ex. PW-49/A bearing his signatures at State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 129 of 199 point A and arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW-49/B bearing his signatures at point A, and her personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex. PW-49/C. He further stated that at that time a lady Constable Savitri was also present with them to conduct the search of the accused. He further stated that accused Kamal Mahajan during investigation presented briefcase in which documents relating to the above mentioned company were kept. He further stated that accused produced these documents to the I.O. which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-49/D bearing his signature at point A. He further stated that after this, she was taken to the PS Bara Hindu Rao and his statement was recorded by the I.O. He admitted that the full name of the above mentioned Ahmad was Matloob Ahmad and that inspection memo was also prepared. He further stated that receipt of Bombay Mercantle Co-operative bank bearing no. 15127, 20627 and 9816 were seized in his presence as Ex. PW-49/E, F and G respectively. He further proved the Voucher of Habib Investment Ltd. of various vouchers of several dates are collectively Ex. PW- 49/H (Colly) totaling to 40 in number. He further proved pay-in slip of current account of Bombay Mercantle Co- operative bank dated 29.01.1999 as collectively Ex. PW- 49/I (Colly) (The slip no. 123276 amount of Rs. 22,000/-).
State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 130 of 199 Current account no. 15700 and slip no. 123277 of current account no. 14395 and slip no. 123278 of above said account no. amount of Rs. 926/- only are filled up and remaining slips are blank but printed. He further stated that document regarding resolution dated 03.11.1995 in the name of Habib Investment Ltd with Bombay Mercantle Co-perative Bank (running into two pages and photostat copy of investment scheme agreement and photocopy of non-incumberance certificate) certificate of incorporation of Habib Agro Pvt. Ltd are Ex. PW-49/J (Colly). He further proved the valuation report dated 05.10.1998 of immovable property no. 204/1-2, Bhola Nath Nagar, Near Railway Raod, Shahdra Delhi-32 belonging to M/s. Habib Investment Ltd along with un incumberance certificate, registration form no. 3, receipt B dated 30.09.1998 and a GPA original dated 13.10.1987, GPA original dated 22.02.1978 and affidavit and agreement to sell and certified copy of sale deed dated 31.10.1979 are collectively Ex. PW-49/K (Colly). He proved the two cheque books of Bombay Mercantle Co- operative Bank issued in favour of Habib Mutual Benefit and Habib Agro Pvt Ltd, the cheques are blank. The cheque books are collectively Ex. PW-49/L (Colly). Two cheques books of State Bank of Hyderabad, the first cheque book is without any cheque leaves and Ex. PW-
State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 131 of 199 49/M. He further proved the heque book contains the leaves of cheque are Ex. PW-49/N. He further proved the two cheque books of Bombay Mercantle Co-operative bank issued in favour of Habib Innvestment and Habib Mercantle Ltd respectiely. The cheque book of Habib Investment Ltd is having one signed cheuqe in favour of one Rahat Afzal, the cheque book is Ex. PW-49/O. The cheque book of Habib Mercantale Ltd contain cheque leaves and is Ex. PW-49/P. He further proved the photocopy of property papers of D-2/15, Rawal Pindi Garden, District Ghaziabad, UP and valuation report of the above said property and rent receipt in favour of Habib Investment. The said documents is Ex. PW-49/Q. He identified one briefcase containing particular of the present case and of make safari and contain one old lock with key tied around, one stamp green colour, two stamps of Habib Agro Pvt Ltd, Habib Investments, Al-Habib Mutual Benefit Ltd as collectively Ex. PW-49/R and one seal pullanda duly sealed with RC and stated to be containing one key and the stamp of green colour of collectively Ex. PW-49/S. The briefcase is Ex. PW-49/T. He also identified another briefcase of black colour make VIP Odissy briefcase is Ex. PW-49/U. During cross examination, he stated that he did not recall whether on other occasion also, apart from what he had stated in his State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 132 of 199 examination chief, he had joined the IO or not. He further stated that when they reached, accused Kamal Mahajan met outside the building and she opened the office with keys which she had already had. He further stated that they had not locked the premises after seizing the documents. He further stated that he did not recall whether accused Kamal Mahajan also signed the documents in his presence or at the documents which he had signed. He further stated that he remained at the spot for about 4-5 hours. He further stated that he did not recall whether any person apart from the police party and accused Kamal Mahajan were present in the office at the time of seizure. He further stated that in his presence, IO had not made any effort, to trace the owners of the companies. He stated that accused Kamal Mahajan handed over the items seized. He further stated that he did not recall whether there remained other items including documents apart from the items seized by the IO. He further stated that he had made a cursory look on the document seized and the documents were not sealed at the spot. Items seized i.e briefcase was deposited in the malkhana. He further stated that documents remained with the IO. He further stated that Kamal Mahajan had identified by the IO on pointing out of one Ahmed. He further stated that Ahmed had not accompany them to State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 133 of 199 the office. He further stated that he did not know Ahmed and he cannot identify the Ahmed and the Office was in thickly populated area. He further stated that none of complainant met the IO in his presence. He further stated that Kamal Mahajan was arrested at the spot vide arrest memo of accused Kamal Mahajan bears the signatures of police party. He further stated that all the paper work had done in the office and not in the PS. He further stated that he did not know where accused Kamal Mahajan resided and they did not have any prior information of presence of accused Kamal Mahajan at spot. It is further stated that no pullanda had sealed at the spot in his presence. He denied the suggestion that IO, himself or any other police official had not visited the spot/office. It is stated that Ct. Savitri conducted the personal search of accused Kamal Mahazan and he did not know who had locked the premises and there were electricity in the office. During further cross examination, he denied the suggestion that accused Kamal Mahajan had visited the police chowki Bara Hindu Rao, Lahori Gate on 01.11.2019 where she was arrested. He denied the suggestion that arrest memo was prepared at PP Bara Hindu Rao.
65 PW-50 Sh. Zulfikar Hussain, stated that in the year 1998 he had seen some Pamphlets about one State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 134 of 199 scheme of daily deposit with promise of higher returns by Habeeb Merchantile Ltd. of Muzib ur Rehman. He further stated that he had opened one account in his name for daily deposit of Rs. 10 for 10 years and was issued a pass book and photocopy of the same is Ex. PW50/A (OSR). He stated that he had deposited total of Rs. 1990/- @ Rs. 10 per day. He stated the office of Habeeb Merchatile was situated at 1388, Ballimaran, Chandni Chowk and in the year 1999, he found that the said office was locked for many days and after some days he saw that the said premises was sealed. He further stated that he had filed one case/complaint at Mehrauli and the copy of the complaint given to police by him is Ex. PW50/B bearing his signatures at point A. He further stated that he remember that a police person had enquired from his about this case. He further stated that he had not received any penny in respect of his investment in that account till date despite several efforts to recover the same. During cross examination, he said that he was not having the said pamphlets with him and he had not given the said pamphlets to the police. He further stated that he used to go himself for the purpose of depositing amount at the office of the accused and at times the agent of the bank had also came to collect the money. He further stated that he himself had gone to the office after State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 135 of 199 seeing the pamphlets. He further admitted that while he was depositing the money, he never found any malafide intention of the accused persons. He further stated that he used to receive receipt of deposit. He further stated that the accused company staff used to put entry on the pass book and he had not given any notice for recovery of money. He admitted that accused were maintaining proper accounts of the money deposited. He further stated that he was told that accused was doing work of water plant at Gurgaon, but he had not verified the same. He further stated that he had never made enquiry regarding antecedents of accused person. He further stated that accused persons were available in their office as and when he used to deposit daily amount as per agreement. He denied the suggestion that he had lodged the false complaint. He denied the suggestion that accused were not having bad intention and had not absconded. He further stated that he did not know who were the Directors.
66 PW-51 Santosh Maheshwari stated that in the year 1999, she had purchased property from Hamida Jamal, owner of the property. She further stated that she did not remember the particulars of the purchase of the property due to lapse of time. She admitted that she had State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 136 of 199 purchased property bearing no. 298/11, Gali Gariya Bazar, Matia Mahal, Jama Masjid, Delhi on 18.08.1999 from Saeed Ahmed and their other family members. She further stated that she did not remember the sale consideration. She stated that she had not stated to the police that she had purchased the property in 10.75 lacs. She further stated that she did not remember whether she had received complete original chain of documents of the above property from the seller. She further stated that Hamida Jamal was the wife of friend of her husband. She further stated that she was co-owner as a purchaser with her in this property. She further stated that the document already Ex. PW45/B (colly) OSR was the photocopy of the identical document which was executed between her and the seller of the property. She further stated that the sale consideration had given from his savings. She further stated that entire sale consideration had given in cash. She further stated that she had not aware whether the property was under some loan. She further stated that she had given 2-2.5 lacs and the same amount of consideration had also given by Hamida Jamal against the purchase of the property. She denied the suggestion that she told the police that she had came to know later that the property had charged with some loan and that property remained under his ownership for about 4-5 State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 137 of 199 years. She further stated that she did not remember that in which year she had sold that property. She further stated that she did not remember that for how much consideration, she had sold the property. She denied the suggestion that on knowing about the loan over the property they contacted Saeed through Jamaluddin who assured them to return the balance amount. She denied the suggestion that she had informed to the police that she had brought the property against the consideration of Rs. 10.75 lacs. She further stated that she did not remember whether that property was purchased by her on market rate or not. She denied the suggestion that she was intentionally not disclosing the true facts related to the purchase of property by her and loan over the property which was in her knowledge. She denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely as she had been won over by the accused persons. She admitted that Jamaluddin the husband of the second co-purchaser Hamida Jamal had dealt the matter for purchase of the said property with the accused Saeed Ahmed and she cannot identify accused Saeed Ahmed. She further stated he did not know what Jamaluddin was doing at that time. She denied the suggestion that Jamaluddin had used force to purchase the property from accused Saeed Ahmed on very less amount.
State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 138 of 199 67 PW-52 Smt. Hamida Jamal stated that in the year, 1999, she had purchased a property in co-ownership with Santosh Maheshwari but he did not remember the property number on that day. She further stated that property had purchased in consideration of Rs. 10,75,000/- from the accused. She further stated that her husband had not told her anything about the property and accused Saeed had also not told anything about the property. She further stated that she did not know anything else about this case. Ld. Addl. PP cross examined the witness under Section 154 of Evidence Act. During cross examination, Statement mark X is shown, read over and explained to the witness. She admitted that h er husband Jamaluddin informed her that at the time of purchase that accused Saeed had taken loan against the property out of which he had made a substantial payment and promised to pay the balance very soon. She admitted that accused Saeed informed them that he had given substantial payment and he would pay the loan amount. She admitted that on the strength of the promise of accused Saeed that he would pay the loan amount, she had purchased the property. She admitted that accused Saeed told them that he would pay the loan amount to the company. She admitted that after some time when her State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 139 of 199 husband asked accused Saeed about the loan he again told them that he would pay the amount. She denied the suggestion that she was not intentionally deposing all these facts as he had been won over by the accused persons. She admitted that on 18.08.1999, she had purchased the property bearing no. 298/11(in roman), Matia Mahal, Gali Gariya. She further admitted that he had purchased the property from the accused Saeed and her family members and she has shown the sale deed already Ex. PW-45/B (Colly) , who identifies her signature at point B, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, B-5, B-6 and B-7. She also identifies her photograph at point C-1 and photograph of co-owner Santosh Maheshwari at point C, Photograph of accused Saeeed at point A-1 and her family members and she also tells that the name written on the top of photograph are the family members of accused Saeed as these are their names. She further stated that she did not remember whether accused Saeeed given him the the chain documents of the property or not. She failed to identify documents Ex. PW-45/A (Colly). She denied the suggestion that she was not intentionally not identifying the documents as she had been won over by the accused. During cross examination, she admitted that her husband was also known by the name of Nawab. She further stated that she did not remember how many years back, she had State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 140 of 199 purchased the property situated at Gali Garhiya, Matia Mahal. She further stated that she had not been told by any person regarding the amount of consideration of the sale amount. She further stated that she had been given the sale amount to the accused Saeed. She did not remember where she had given the consideration amount as several years had been passed and she did not know who had dealt with the accused/seller of the property for sale and purchase and consideration amount. She further stated that she did not remember that the complainant Nasir was talking to his husband or not. She stated that she did not know the name of real brother of her husband. She did not know whether any police case had registered against her husband and real brother of her husband. She denied the suggestion that her husband pressurized the accused Saeed for sale property who was accompanied with some agent of the company including the said complainant Nasir and a police report in this regard was made by the accused Saeed prior to the sale of the property but due to no police protection, he was forced to sell the property. She denied the suggestion that she had been told by the complainant said sale consideration amount.
68 PW-53 Kashif Jamal, stated that he worked as an State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 141 of 199 agent in the Habib group of company from the year 1996 to 1999 and the head office of the Habib group of company was situated at 1388, Katra Bijwarian. He further stated that accused Mujeeb ur Rehman was a CMD of the company and his family members, his father namely Abdul Rehman, his uncle (chacha) Habib-ur- Rehman and his brother in law Rahat Afzal and his wife Shaista Nusrat and his mother Aziz Fatima were the other Directors of the company. He further stated that the other Directors were Sikandar Javed and Maksood Khan. He further stated that accused Mujeeb Ur Rehman, his brother in law Rahat Afzal, Sikandar Javed and Maksood Khan and other Directors used to take care of the work of the company and they used to keep money deposited by the investors and there were four companies in Habib group of companies. He further stated that they are Habib investment, Habib Merchantile Limited, Habib Agro and Habib mutual benefits Limited. He further stated that he had opened two accounts in the company, one in the name of Kashif Jamal, A/c 1389 and other A/c was in the name of M. K. Jamal A/c No. 1188. He further stated that he had given the photocopy now Mark X1 and Mark X2 of the passbook of these account to the police and these accounts were opened for 1000 days and 400 days and the total amount deposited in these two accounts was Rs.
State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 142 of 199 4000/-. He further stated that he had given to the police the list of account holders Ex PW 53/A, collectively of Habib Merchantile Limited. He further stated that he had also given photocopy of his ID card to the police which is Mark X3, bearing his signatures at points A1 and A2. He further stated that he was not having original of his ID card, passbook as same had been lost due to passage of time. He proved the document Mark X1, X2, and X3, Ex PW 53/A which were seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex PW 53/B, bearing his signature at point A and his work had to collect money from the account holder under the direction of Directors of the company and further hand over the same to the Directors and he further used to deposit the money to accused Mujeeb ur Rehman and in his absence to other Directors as were authorized by him and he also used to deposit money to the accused Rahat Afzal. He further stated that the Directors of the company used to issue receipts against the money and he used to hand over the same to the Investors / account holders of the company next date after making the entry in their passbook. He further stated that the accused persons had stopped to give money to the investors from the last month of the 1998 and Later on he came to know that accused persons had fled away with the money of the investors and he used to deposit the State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 143 of 199 money to the Director at the branch at Balli Maharan and name are mentioned in the list of witnesses. He further stated that he used to work on commission basis. He voluntarily stated that he became the agent of the company as accused Mujeeb ur Rehman assured him that company was registered by RBI and he appeared to him a good man but his intention was fraudulent from the beginning. He further stated that when he asked accused Mujeeb ur Rehman that why he was not paying the money to the investors, he told him that there was a property situated at gali Gariyan, Jama Masjid against which 12 lacs loan had given to the accused Saeed. He further stated that Dr. Mujeeb ur Rehman was having documents relating to the ownership of the property at that time. He admitted that the total amount deposited by the account holders whose names are mentioned in the list of investors, Ex PW 53/A, for Rs. 6,19,100/-. During cross examination, he stated that he used to visit at the office of company daily between the year 1996 to 1999 and apart from him, there were 20-25 agents who were on commission basis for the company. He further stated that he used to get 5,000 to 6,000/- average commission from the company. He further stated that the he reached this commission amount from the end of 1996. He further stated that he used to sign on some paper bearing State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 144 of 199 revenue receipts for receiving the commission. He stated that he had prepared and kept the details of the customers brought to the accused persons through him. He further stated that he used to sit in the office of the company for half an hour. He admitted that company used to keep proper accounts and also have staff for such work. He admitted that there was no prohibition for him to look into the accounts maintained by the company on day to day basis. He further stated that he used to deposit money on daily basis but commission used to pay to him after 30 days. He stated that he had given statement once to the police and he had signed on many documents and he had signed at the instance of the police on documents which he provided i.e. photocopy of passbook and I-Card and list of investors. He further stated that he had original passbook in his custody at the time when he provided photostate copy of the same to the police but now he had lost the same. He further stated that he had not seen any loan agreement of the company which he had referred in his examination in chief. He further stated that he was 7th class pass and only doing the commission work of the company and when the customers told him that the accused had been fled away, he had tried to find out their whereabouts but could not find any details. He voluntarily stated that even he had to remain State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 145 of 199 underground for sometime as customers were asking for payments from him also. He further stated that he had not lodged any separate complaint against the accused persons. He further stated that he used to get commission in time at the initial time. He voluntarily stated that during end of 1998, he could not get his commission despite promises. He further stated that he had not given any notice to the accused persons for release of the commission. He further stated that he had not got his commission for about 3-4 months. He admitted that he had been told that the company was registered with RBI and other statutory bodies and never doubted the intention of the accused persons. He admitted that many of his customers received the promised returns. He further stated that he had been told the money collected was invested in property. He admitted that they had invested the money in the property and no property deal was done in his presence. He further stated that he had told to the police what he had stated in his examination in chief. He further stated that he had read over his statement recorded by the police in the presence of Nasir, Babar and few other persons. He further stated that statement of Nasir was recoreded in his presence and he cannot tell the exact time of recording his statement by police at PS Bara Hindu Rao. He further stated that he State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 146 of 199 joined as agent after seeing the pamphlet. He denied the suggestion that the company was still in operation. He further denied the suggestion that accused persons had not been fled. He further denied the suggestion that the intention of accused persons was never bad and they were genuine persons. He further deposed that he was not aware whether any committee had been constituted to look into the financial status of the company.
69 PW-54 ACP Ajay Gupta, stated that On 14.09.2000, he was posted as SI in Anti forgery Section, EOW and on that day, the investigation of the present case was marked to him for further investigation and during the course of investigation, he had sent to notice to Sub Registrar, Kashmere Gate for providing the certified copy of property bearing no. 298, Ward no. 11, Gali Garhiya Bazar, Matia Mahal, Jama Majjid, Delhi. He further stated that on which the report was provided by the Sub Registrar and notice is Mark A bearing his signature at point A. He furthe stated that report received from the concerned Sub Registrar on the same notice and it was informed that the property in respect of which the inquiry had been raised was a registered property at S.No. 4529, Additional book no.1, Bahi No.1285 from page no. 174 to 177. He further stated that during the course of State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 147 of 199 further investigation, he had sent notices Mark B to the Registrar of Companies for providing documents of various companies of Habib Group and the reply in this regard was received from the ROC is Ex. PW54/A. He further stated that in this regard, one more reply Ex. PW54/B had received from the ROC. He further stated that he had also served notice Mark C to the Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad wherein the request for providing the records relating to CA No. 11543 of M/s Habib Mercantile Ltd. was raised bearing his signature at point A. He further stated that another notice Mark D to the same bank was served for record statement of accounts and for stopping of operation of Account No.SB3936. He further stated that two replies relating to the said notices Ex. PW54/C and Ex. PW54/D were received from the concerned bank. He further stated that he had also served two notices Mark E and Mark F to the Manager, Bombay Mercantile Cooperative bank Ltd. regarding the records relating to CA No. 14395, 16468 and 15700 related to M/s Habib Group of companies was sought and the replies Ex. PW54/E, Ex. PW54/F and Ex. PW54/G. He stated that In report was received from Bombay Mercantile Cooperative Bank on three different sheets. He further stated that on 12.06.2001, vide seizure memo Ex. PW54/H, certain document (photocopy) State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 148 of 199 pertaining to property bearing no. 298, Ward no. 11, Gali Garhiya Bazar, Matia Mahal, Jama Majjid, Delhi were seized from Sh. Jamaluddin. He further stated on 14.03.2001, he had served a notice Mark G to the General Manager, Non banking Supervision, Department of RBI and sought the information regarding the status of application of Habib Mercantile ltd. and in reply it was mentioned that for the issue of certificate of registration which was kept pending for want of NOF of Rs. 25 lacs and on the same notice, an endorsement was received from the concerned department and the said application was pending before the department and the said endorsement is point B. He further stated that on 25.10.2000, he had also served a letter Mark H to the post master of the post office at Chandni Chowk and requested for stopping the encashment of IVP (Indra Vikas Patra) of worth Rs. 20,000/- in the name of Syed Majid Ali or Azhar Ali and for the same reason, another letter Mark I. was addressed to the Superintendent of Post Office, Delhi, North Division by the concerned DCP. He further stated that on 14.11.2000, he had seized the documents pertaining to sale of property no. 1011 and 12B, Gali No. 32, Jafrabad from Shaddankhan vide seizure memo already Ex. PW40/C bearing his signature at point C and on the same date vide another seizure memo which State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 149 of 199 was already Ex. PW37/A, bearing his signature at point B, he had seized the documents pertaining to property no. 184/27, Gali no. 4, Chauhan Banger from Rahisuddin. He further stated that on 16.11.2000, accused Maqsood Khan who was present in the court was arrested by him and his personal search memo was prepared vide memo Ex. PW54/I bearing his signature at point A and arrest memo is Ex. PW54/J which bears his signature at point A. He further stated that during custody, the disclosure statement Ex. PW54/K of accused Maqsood was recorded by him. He further stated on 10.08.2001, accused Saeed Ahmad Qaeed who is present in the court was arrested by him and his personal search memo was prepared vide memo Ex. PW54/L bearing his signature at point A and during custody, the disclosure statement of accused Saeed Ahmad Qaeed was recorded by him and the same is Ex. PW54/M bearing his signature at point A. He further stated that he had also recorded the statement of PWs under section 161 Cr.PC and also conducted search for accused Rahat Afzal. He further stated that on 07.11.2000 he had sent a notice to M/s Electroset Aqua Purifier Ltd. for providing the details of the purpose for which an amount of Rs. 3.50 lacs was paid by Habib Investment Ltd. The same was Mark J bearing his signature at point A and the reply Ex. PW54/N was State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 150 of 199 received from the addressee. He further stated that during During investigation he had received around 200 complaints alongwith the copy of the passbook bearing name of Habib Mercantile Ltd. and some complaints are supported by FDRs and the said complaints from the general public who were stated to be the investors in the various schemes of the Habib Group of companies, are collectively exhibited as Ex. PW-54/O. He further stated that he had recorded statement of some of the complainants U/s 161 Cr.P.C. He further stated that after completion of investigation files were submitted to the concerned inspector who later on filed the same in the Court. He further stated that he had not verified the reports submitted to him in pursuance of his queries by the Sub Registrar of documents, ROC, RBI, banks since such agencies are Government agencies, therefore, there was no need to enquire from them. He further stated that he had accepted their reports as true. He admitted that the reports received from office of Sub Registrar and ROC were not adversed to the company. He further stated that as per report of RBI, the registration of company as NBFC was pending. He admitted that he had not seized the application moved by the company before RBI for registration as NBFC either from the accused person or from RBI office. He further stated that he had recorded State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 151 of 199 statement of officials of ROC and banks and he had not recorded statement of RBI officials. He further stated that he was a student of Commerce and Law and he had acquainted with financial accounting system. He further stated that the documents annexed with the complaints could not be verified as the accused persons had removed some of the accounts books and the originals of the passbook/FDR/receipts were checked and verified of the complainants whose statements were recorded. He further stated that he had not recorded the statement of signatory of the receipts and FDRs. He further stated he did not ask copy of the bill from M/s Electrostat Aqua Purifier Ltd. He further stated stated that seizure memo Ex. PW-40/C and PW-37/A were not prepared in the presence of accused persons and he had not verified the claims of all complainants. He voluntarily stated that he had verified around 50 complaints. He further stated that he had not verified all the claims as the complaint were of similar allegations. He further stated that he had written this fact in his charge sheet. He further recorded statement of around 50 complainants U/s 161 Cr.P.C. He further stated that he had not corroborated the documents furnished alongwith complaint from accused and he visited the offices of the company but they were found locked. He further stated that the head office was State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 152 of 199 under Court seal and branch offices were in possession of some other persons. He further stated that he did not enquire regarding title of persons found in possession. He voluntarily stated that it was already done by the previous I.O. He denied the suggestion that the complaints filed against the accused persons were false and further denied that the accused persons had been doing legitimate business and also maintaining proper accounts of receipts and payments. He further denied the suggestion that that there was no malafide intention on the part of accused persons to grab amount of the complainant. He further denied that the accused persons had not run away and that have not closed their business to grab the amount of the complainants. He admitted that he was aware that a committee had been formed to distribute the amount of the assets of the accused persons/company to distribute the same among the complainants. He denied the suggestion that he had not made proper investigation. He admitted that he had conducted a joint investigation of Habib Group of Companies which comprises of M/s Habib Investment Ltd. and M/s Habib Mercantile Ltd. He further admitted that he had not conducted investigation in respect of other companies. He further stated that he did not know whether the group comprises 5-6 companies and he was not aware whether M/s Habib Agro, Habib Mutual State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 153 of 199 Benefits are the group companies of M/s Habib Group. He further stated that he had not investigated M/s Habib Agro and Habib Mutual Benefits. He further deposed that he did not remember the exact number of complaints against M/s Habib Mercantile and M/s Habib Investment. He admitted that he did not remember the exact particulars of complainant examined by him. He further stated that he did not remember whether some complaints had been made against M/s Habib Agro and Habib Mutual Benefits. He admitted that he did not recall the directorship and authorized signatories in each of the companies. He further stated that before Before arresting accused Maqsood he had gone through his case file. He admitted that SI Ramesh Chand was the first I.O and he was not aware whether accused Maqsood was called by SI Ramesh Chand on many occasions and interrogated. He further stated that accused Maqsood was one of the directors of M/s Habib Investment and had opened one bank account under his signature on the basis of resolution passed. He further stated that he did not know that accused Maqsood was not an authorized signatory in any of the companies. He denied the suggestion that accused Maqsood had no role in the present crime and had arrested casually. He admitted that Maqsood Khan and Sayed Sikander Javed had not State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 154 of 199 committed any offence. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely. During further cross examination, He stated that the name of the accused Saeed Ahmad Qaeed was not mentioned in the FIR. He admitted that that his name is also not mentioned in any written complaint resulting in the said FIR. As far as he remember, accused Saeed was also investor in the company. He further stated that he cannot say as to how many agents were appointed by the Habib Group of companies for collection of money from the investors. He admitted that one of the agent was Mohd. Nasir. He further stated that he did not make any enquiry from the agents that how much amount was collected by them from the investors. He further stated that he also had not enquired from them how much amount collected by them was deposited with the company. He further stated that he had not asked even from Mohd. Nasir the amount collected and deposited by him and the during the course of investigation from the perusal of record he came to know that accused Saeed Ahmed Qaeed had taken a loan of Rs. 12 lacs from Habib Mercantile. He further stated that loan was disbursed by cheque after deducting interest for one year. The cheque amount was Rs. 9,84,000/- and said that it was a matter of record as to what was the period of repayment of loan amount. He State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 155 of 199 stated that as per the record, approximate Rs. 6 lacs were found refunded by the accused and there were other borrowers but he cannot tell the number of borrowers. He further stated that he had verified about 3-4 borrowers out of which there were some outstanding payments. He further stated that he did not remember the exact outstanding amount. He further stated that he did not recall whether he had mentioned in the charge sheet about the said outstanding payments. He voluntarily stated that same will be checked from the record of charge sheet. He further stated that he had not checked any register regarding the payments made by accused in cash to the company. He further stated that he was not aware whether some of the repayments have not been entered in the loan application form of accused Saeed. He denied the suggestion that Rs. 9,84,000/- was the total loan amount which was given to the accused Saeed Ahmad. He stated that he did not know that against this loan amount accused Saeed Ahmad had made total payment but the receipt was not issued in respect of the entire payment except few. He admitted that amounts of payment made by the accused Saeed Ahmad in different installments in cash were being mentioned in loan register which was available in the company. He admitted that he had not seized the register of the company. He State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 156 of 199 voluntarily stated that same were seized by the initial I.O and further stated that he had not carried out any valuation of the property no. 298, Gali Garhaiya, Matia Mahal, Delhi. He further stated that he had mentioned the amount of consideration of sale of property on the basis of investigation done with the buyer and the document provided by them. He further stated that he did not recall whether accused Saeed had shown him any complaint filed against one Jamaluddin @ Nawab husband of one of the buyer and even against accused Kamal Mahajan who were trying to take possession of the said property and forcing the accused Saeed Ahmad to sell the property to the said buyers. He further stated that he had not made any enquiry regarding the above said complaint of Saeed Ahmad. He stated that he came to know about resignation of accused Mujeeb Ur Rehman from the record of ROC and records seized by the initial I.O and on the the basis of investigation done, he had mentioned that accused Mujeeb ur Rehman had been looking after the work of the company despite resignation from the directorship and even accepting the money. He further stated that he cannot tell that there were other office bearers and directors of the company including director Kamal Mahajan were also present in the office of the company when Mujib Ur Rehman was receiving cash on behalf of State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 157 of 199 the company. He further stated that he had interrogated accused Mujeeb Ur Rehman to verify the claim of the accused Saeed Ahmad that he had paid cash amount to him but he denied having received any repayment of loan in cash without any receipt from accused Saeed Ahmad. He further stated that no loan register was found seized in the record. He admitted that some property of the company had been sold by the directors including director Kamal Mahajan and he was not aware that accused Kamal Mahajan came to the site of said property of the accused alongwith said Nawab and some other agents and criminal persons putting pressure upon the accused to sell the same to a purchaser close to them. He further stated that he did not know that accused Saeed Ahmad was aware regarding resignation of accused Mujeeb Ur Rehman from the company. He further stated that he did not know whether there were any publication of any kind to inform the public particularly the investors or the borrowers regarding the status of the resignation of the directors/present directors of the accused company. He further stated that he cannot say that accused Saeed Ahmad came to know about the resignation of Mujeeb Ur Rehman from the charge sheet filed in the case. He further stated that he cannot say that any notice had been issued on behalf of the company to accused Saeed Ahmad State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 158 of 199 for demanding balance money towards the said loan amount. He admitted that no complaint had been made against the Saeed Ahmad by the company at any stage. He denied the suggestion that no dishonesty has been shown by accused Saeed Ahmad for taking loan or repayment of the said loan or that he has been falsely implicated. He admitted that accused Saeed Ahmad had not played any role regarding the formation of the company or working in the company in any manner or has played any role between the company and the investors.
70 PW-55 Inspector Sher Singh stated that On 20.10.2006 he had posted as SI in Anti Forgery Section of EOW and the further investigation of the present case had marked to him after receiving of complaint of Sh. Tasleem. He further stated that the complaint had received on 20.10.2006 in the Anti Forgery Section and in this regard the complainant Tasleem had also filed a petition in the Hon'ble High court for direction of further investigation in the present case with regard to the involvement of other persons and the further investigation was conducted by him and during the course of investigation relevant documents of property no. 298/11, Gali Gadia, Matia Mahal, Jama Masjid, Delhi were obtained from the office of Delhi Archives. He further State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 159 of 199 stated that, a letter had sent to the Officer-Incharge Delhi Archives by the Inspector Anti Forgery Section and he had taken the letter Ex.PW55/A to the concerned person which was served and pursuant to the letter, documents already Ex.PW45/A (colly) (OSR) were obtained. He further stated that other documents pertaining to the same property were also collected from the Sub- Registrar-III, Asaf Ali Road, Delhi. In this regard, a letter was sent to the Sub-Registrar-I by the Inspector Anti Forgery Section. He further stated that he had taken the letter Ex.PW55/B to the concerned person which was served and pursuant to the letter, certified documents pertaining to the said property were obtained. Relinquishment deed and sale deed (certified copies) Ex.PW55/C (colly) were obtained. He further stated that as per the relinquishment deed, all the legal heirs mentioned in column no. 2 and 4 of the supplementary chargesheet had relinquished their share in the property no. 298/11, Gali Gadia, Jama Masjid in favour of accused Saeed Ahmad and the said relinquishment had never cancelled by any of the makers. He further stated that on the basis of the relinquishment deed, accused Saeed Ahmad became the owner and obtained loan on the said property from the accused company by mortgaging the relinquishment deed and despite that fact of obtaining State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 160 of 199 loan and mortgaging of the property, all the legal heirs mentioned in column no. 2 and 4 of the supplementary chargesheet along with accused Saeed Ahmad sold the property in question to the wife of Jamaluddin and wife of Anand Maheshwari by concealing the factum of mortgaging the property. He further stated that he had examined both Jamaluddin and Anand Maheshwari and the sale deed had signed by the brothers and sisters of Saeed Ahmad along with Saeed Ahmad and this factum of loan was never brought in the notice of the purchasers. He further stated that as accused Saeed Ahmad had already previously chargesheeted and on obtaining the sufficient proof of the involvement of the LRs mentioned in column no. 2 and 4, he filed supplementary chargesheet in respect of such LRs. He further stated that after preparing the supplementary chargesheet, he had filed the same before the court. During cross examination, he stated that he was aware of the pendency of the present case before investigation was marked to him. He voluntarily stated that he was the Peravi Officer. He further stated that before the supplementary chargesheet filed by him, there were two supplementary chargesheets already filed. He admitted that accused Saeed Ahmad was not chargesheeted in the main chargesheet filed by SI Ramesh Kumar (since State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 161 of 199 deceased) and first and second supplementary chargesheet had filed by SI Ajay Gupta and he was aware of the pending chargesheets before he filed the supplementary chargesheet. He admitted that sale deed and relinquishment deed were already in the chargesheet filed by SI Ajay Gupta. He admitted that in chargesheet filed by SI Ajay Gupta, the brothers and sisters of accused Saeed Ahmad were not made accused. He denied that he had chargesheeted the accused persons maliciously despite there being no evidence against them. He further stated that, firstly, he had investigated on the basis of documents and, thereafter, the purchasers were called for investigation. He further stated that he had examined only Jamaluddin and Anand Maheshwari. He further stated that he had not examined the wives of Jamaluddin and Anand Maheshwari. He admitted that they had disclosed that they had purchased the property in the name of their wives. And he had not made any inquiry whether the registered purchasers had any knowledge regarding the mode of sale and purchase, amount of consideration and the status of the property (title etc.). He further stated that he did not recall whether Jamaluddin and Anand Maheshwari had told as to through whom they had purchased the said property. He further stated that accused Saeed Ahmad was also called for investigation State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 162 of 199 who told about the loan taken on the property in question. He further admitted that the sale consideration was received by accused Saeed Ahmad and paid by Jamaluddin and Anand Maheshwari and he was not aware that Saeed Ahmad had given a complaint to the local police station that Jamaluddin @ Nawab and Kamal Mahajan and others were forcing accused Saeed Ahmad for sell the property and threatening him if he fails to do so. He further stated that he was not aware as the property was sold under duress by the accused. He denied the suggestion that there was no evidence against accused Saeed Ahmad and his brothers and sisters in the earlier chargesheet also and he had made a false chargesheet against them in collusion with the complainant.
71 . In the present case the charge sheet was filed for offences U/s 420/201/406/409/120-B IPC.
72 . At this stage, it would be appropriate to deal with the question of conspiracy. Section 120B of IPC is the provision which provides for punishment for criminal conspiracy.
73 Definition of criminal conspiracy given in Section 120A State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 163 of 199 reads as follows:
"120A- When two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done.-
(1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof".
74 . The essence of a criminal conspiracy is the unlawful combination and ordinarily the offence is complete when the combination is framed. From this, it necessarily follows that unless the statute so requires, no overt act need be done in furtherance of the conspiracy, and that the object of the combination need not be accomplished, in order to constitute an indictable offence.
75 Further it is settled law that in the case of conspiracy there cannot be any direct evidence. Privacy and secrecy are more characteristics of a conspiracy, than of a loud discussion in an elevated place open to public view. The ingredients of offence are that there should be an agreement between persons who are alleged to State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 164 of 199 conspire and the said agreement should be for doing an illegal act or for doing and act with illegal means which itself may not be illegal. Therefore, the essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both, and it is a matter of common experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available. Therefore, the circumstances proved before, during and after the occurrence have to be considered to decide about the complicity of the accused.
76 The inferences are normally deduced from acts of parties in pursuance of a purpose in common between the conspirators. There must be a meeting of minds resulting in ultimate decision taken by the conspirators regarding the commission of an offence and where the factum of conspiracy is sought to be inferred from circumstances, the prosecution has to show that the circumstances give rise to a conclusive or irresistible inference of an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence.
77 It may further be noted that there is no difference between the mode of proof of the offence of conspiracy and that of any other offence, it can be established by direct or circumstantial evidence. The circumstances State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 165 of 199 relied for the purposes of drawing an inference should be prior in time than the actual commission of the offence in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy.
78 In case of cheating which is defined in 415 IPC, money is not parted with voluntarily but is because of some inducement or misrepresentation by or on behalf of the person who has cheated the complainant.
79 Section 415 IPC defines-
Cheating- Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".
80 Section 420 IPC defines-
Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 166 of 199 valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
81 In this background of law it may be noted that section 420 IPC states that whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
82 Thus, section 420 IPC deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. The offence of cheating is made of two ingredients. Deception of any person and fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property.
83 To put it differently, the ingredients of the offence State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 167 of 199 are that the person deceived delivers to someone a valuable security or property, that the person so deceived was induced to do so, that such person acted on such inducement in consequence of his having been deceived by the accused and that the accused acted fraudulently or dishonestly when so inducing the person.
84 To constitute the offence of cheating, it is not necessary that the deception should be by express words, but it may be by conduct or implied in the nature of the transaction itself.
85 Section 420 IPC deals with certain aggravated forms of specified classes of cheating. It deals with cases of cheating, whereby, the deceived person is dishonestly induced: (a) to deliver any property to any person; or (b) to make, alter or destroy: (i) the whole or any part of valuable security; or (ii) anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security. It is required to prove that the complainant has parted with the property due to dishonest inducement of the accused. The property so delivered must have some money value to the person cheated.
State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 168 of 199 86 Further it may be noted that Section 24 of the Penal Code defines "dishonestly" as whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing dishonestly.
87 Further, "Fraudulently" is defined in section 25 IPC. A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise.
88 The word "defraud" includes an element of deceit.
Deceit is not an ingredient of the definition of the word "dishonestly" while it is an important ingredient of the definition of the word "fraudulently". The former involves a pecuniary or economic gain or loss while the latter by construction excludes that element. Further, the juxtaposition of the two expressions "dishonestly" and "fraudulently" used in the various sections of the Code indicates their close affinity and therefore the definition of one may give colour to the other.
89 If it is held that the concept of fraud would include not only deceit but also some injury to the person deceived, it would be appropriate to hold by analogy State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 169 of 199 drawn from the definition of "dishonestly" that to satisfy the definition of "fraudulently" it would be enough if there was a non-economic advantage to the deceiver or a non- economic loss to the deceived. Both need not coexist.
90 In the offence of cheating there are two elements deception and dishonest inducement to do or omit to do something. Mere dishonestly is not a criminal offence. Moreover, to establish the offence of cheating, the complainant would have to show, not only that he was induced to do or omit to do a certain act but that this induced omission on his part caused or was likely to cause him some harm or damage in body, mind, reputation or property--which are presumed to be the four cardinal assets of humanity (Chidambaram Chettiar v. Shanmugam AIR 1938 Mad 129).
91 As laid down by the Supreme Court, the ingredients required to constitute cheating are : (1) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person; (2)(a) the person so deceived, should be induced to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain the property, or (b) the person so deceived, should be intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit to do if he State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 170 of 199 were not to deceived; and (3) in case covered by 2(b) the act or omission should be one which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property.
92 Deceiving means causing to believe what is false, or misleading as to a matter of fact, or leading into error. Whenever a person fraudulently represents, as an existing fact, that, which is not an existing fact, he commits cheating. Deceit means, as stated in Halsbury, a false and fraudulent representation as to a matter of fact, made in order to induce a person to act thereon. Deceit is a false statement of a fact made by a person knowingly or recklessly with the intent that it shall be acted upon by another who dose act upon it and thereby suffers damage.
93 Since prosecution has alleged different set of allegation against each set of accused, I shall be discussing the culpability or otherwise of each accused separately.
94 . Firstly, I shall be devolving upon the role of accused Saeed Ahmed Queed, Fahim Ahmad, Ahmed Naeem, Khairun Nisa, Rehmat Un Nisa, Yaseen Bano, Nikhat Parveen and Aneesh Shahzad:
Prosecution has alleged that accused Saeed Ahmed Qaeed State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 171 of 199 had taken a loan of Rs. 12 lacs from Habib Mercantile Ltd. by mortgaging property at 298/11, Gali Gariya Bazar, Matia Mahal, Jama Majid on the basis of relinquishment deed in his favour by his siblings i.e. accused Fahim Ahmed, Anees Shehzad, Ahmed Naeem, Mst Khairun Nisa, Rehmat-un-Nisa, Yasmin Bano and Nikhat Parveen and without repaying the loan amount have executed a sale deed in favour of Santosh Maheshwari and Hamida Jamal for a consideration of Rs. 10,75,000/-. It is stated that the loan amount was got sanctioned by accused persons in criminal conspiracy as no valid documents have been submitted by the accused Saeed Ahmed Qaeed at the time of applying for the loan and only a relinquishment deed submitted which resulted into disbursal of the loan amount out of the fund deposited by the investors with Habib Mercantile Ltd. and resultant into cheating with them.
95 The loan was sanctioned on 27.05.1998 with EMI of Rs. 1.5 lacs for eight months starting from 27.10.1998. The sale deed of the above property at Matia Mahal was executed on 18.08.1999. However, it is not the case of prosecution that the said property was seized by the IO of the case or any order has been made regarding the said property by any court of law. The factum of sanction of State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 172 of 199 loan on the basis of a relinquishment deed only may point out certain procedural lapses by persons who had sanctioned the loan, but by no stretch of imagination said sanction of loan amounts to cheating with the investors/complainant unless the prosecution is able to show a criminal intent and conspiracy by accused Saeed Ahmed Qaeed and his family members with accused Mujeeb Ur Rehman and others in getting the loan sanctioned.
96 PW-9 had stated that accused Mujib-Ur-Rehman told him that he has given the loan of Rs. 12 lacs to someone against the property and after the said amount was paid, Mujib-Ur-Rehman would pay to him.
97 PW-51 stated that she alongwith Hamida Jamal purchased property at Matia Mahal from accused Saeed Ahmed and his family members. She also stated that she was not aware that the property was under some loan. She had denied the suggestion that police told her later that the properties under loan. She also denied the suggestion that Saeed assured to return the balance amount after she came to know about the property being under loan. She failed to accused identified the accused Saeed Ahmed Qaeed.
State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 173 of 199 98 PW-52 Hamida Jamal stated that the she purchased the property alongwith Santosh Maheshwari from accused Saeed. She had denied the suggestion that accused Saeed has told at the time of purchase that property was under loan and he would pay the balance of the loan amount to the company. She had denied that the she is not stating correct fact that as she has won over by the accused.
99 As per prosecution, it has been alleged that accused Saeed Ahmed Qaeed had taken loan of Rs. 12 lacs from Habib Mercantile Ltd. on the basis of relinquishment deed on record executed by Rabia Begum, Ahmed Naeem, Fahim Ahmed, Aneesh Shahzad, Khairun Nisa, Rehmat Un Nisa, Yasmin Banu and Nikhat Parveen. These accused persons have relinquished their shares in favour of accused Saeed Ahmed Qaeed in respect of property no. 298, Gali Gariya, Matia Mahal, Jama Masjid as said property was in the name of Abdul Hamid Shakeer i.e. father of the above persons. The relinquishment deed was executed on 07.04.1998. PW-22 stated that the loan amount was not returned by accused Saeed whereas PW- 54 stated that Rs. 9,84,000/- was disbursed to accused Saeed after deducting interest for one year. As per Ex. PW55/C i.e. relinquishment deed was executed in favour State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 174 of 199 of accused Saeed Ahmed Qaeed and he become the owner of the property no. 298/11, Gali Gariya Bazar, Matia Mahal, Jamia Masjid, Delhi. PW- 51 stated that she alongwith Hamida Jamal is the co-owner of property purchased from Saeed Ahmed and other family members. She identified Ex. PW45/B as the copy of sale deed in respect of sale of property no. 298/11, Gali Gariya Bazar, Matia Mahal, Jamia Masjid, Delhi. In her cross examination she admitted that Jamaluddin husband of co- purchaser Hamida Jamal dealt with the purchase of property. She failed to identify accused Saeed Ahmed Qaeed. PW-52 stated that she alongwith Santosh Maheshwari purchased the property from accused Saeed for a amount of Rs. 10,75,000/-. She denied the suggestion that she has been informed by the accused Saeed that he will pay the loan amount from the sale consideration. She also identified the sale deed Ex. PW45/B and identified her signature on the same. She admitted that her husband was also known as by the name of Nawab. She denied the suggestion that her husband pressurize accused Saeed for sale of property and the property was sold under pressure. The accused Saeed has not denied that he had taken a loan on the above property from Habib Mercantile Ltd. but he had stated in his statement under section 313 Cr.PC that he State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 175 of 199 had given eight post dated cheques of Rs. 1.5 lac each and he had deposited Rs. 1.5 lacs each against three bounced cheques and also given some cash to director accused Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman and paid the entire loan amount which are entered in the loan register. He also stated that he made police complaint on 18.04.199 to police commissioner and was forced to sell the property in order to save his life at the behest of Jamaluddin @ Nawab who was noted as the criminal of the area. As per Ex. PW45/B, the property was sold on 18.09.1999. However, on 11.11.1999, then IO of the case has moved an application before the Hon'ble court of Sh. D. S. Sidhu, the then Ld. MM seeking appointment of receiver in respect of properties of Habib Group companies. Accordingly, vide order dated 15.11.99, Hon'ble Court has issued a public notice in respect of properties at Jafrabad, Bholanath Nagar, Shahdra and Chikamberpur village, Pergana Loni, Ghaziabad, UP informing the public at large, that the said properties being purchased out of the money alleged to be the cheated money by accused Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman and declaring that the said properties become case property. Hon'ble court has also written to Manager Bombay Mercantile Cooperative Bank Ltd. informing that document of property at Bholanath Nagar, Shahdara lying with the bank be not released to anyone State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 176 of 199 till further orders. But the property at Gali Gariya Bazar was not part of the order dated 15.11.1999. The case of the prosecution that since loan amount was advanced by Habib Mercantile Ltd. out of the funds deposited by the investors it amounts to cheating in conspiracy with the investors is not tenable as the remedy of investors lies against the company i.e. Habib Mercantile Ltd. as it is a separate juristic person having independent identity. The disposing of property by Saeed Ahmed Qaeed and other accused which was under loan may gives a cause of action to the company and its directors to take necessary legal action, if any. However, it does not allow the strangers (investors) to the contract of loan between Saeed Ahmed Qaeed and the company as there is no privity of contract between accused and the investors. The prosecution has not brought any evidence which shows any conspiracy by the above accused persons in cheating the complainant/investors. Moreover, none of the investors who were examined have stated anything against accused Saeed Ahmed Qaeed, Fahim Ahmad, Ahmed Naeem, Khairun Nisa, Rehmat Un Nisa, Yaseen Bano, Nikhat Parveen and Aneesh Shahzad pointing out their conspiracy in cheating the investors. The act of these accused persons in selling the property under loan may give rise to a cause of action in favour of the company State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 177 of 199 which has advanced the loan but it does not amount to any cheating with the investors.
100 Now, I shall deal with the allegation against accused Maqsood Khan and Syed Sikander Javed who as per Ex. PW47/J, ie. Memorandum and Articles of Association of Habib Mercantile Ltd. were the directors in Habib Mercantile Ltd. However, each and every director cannot be fasten with criminal liability unless such director have a role in the commission of offence. Thus, even a chairman or director, because of such status alone, would not be liable for an offence committed by the company unless it is shown that he is connected with the management or administration of the company or that he is in-charge of and responsible for, the conduct of the business of such company. Accused Saeed Sikander Javed and accused Maqsood Khan were arrayed as accused because of their status as directors in Habib Mercantile ltd. However, the prosecution has not led any evidence which shows that they were involved in day-to-day financial affairs of the accused company. None of the prosecution witnesses have stated the role played by them in the commission of alleged cheating. Not a single witness has stated that accused Maqsood Khan and Syed Sikander Javed have committed any cheating with them.
State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 178 of 199 No witness has stated that they have been lured by the accused Maqsood Khan and Syed Sikander Javed in making investment in the accused companies. Thus, the very premise, on which prosecution has been launched qua them, is evidently erroneous and mistaken one and foundation of the prosecution is faulty. There is nothing in the chargesheet or the documents annexed which shows that accused Syed Sikander Javed and Maqsood Khan are the persons responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the accused company. Mere directorship does not make a person liable for criminal offence.
101 Now, I shall deal with the allegation against accused Kamal Mahajan and Arshad Mirza: As per Memorandum and Articles of Association dated 19.09.96 of M/s Habib Mercantile Ltd., Memorandum and Articles of Association dated 18.12.96 of Habib Agro P. Ltd, Memorandum and Articles of Association dated 19.12.96 of M/s Al Habib Mutual Benefits Ltd. Which are Ex. PW47/J, Ex. PW47/T and Ex. PW47/O does not mentions name of Kamal Mahajan and Arshad Mirza as director in any of the companies of Habib Group. The board resolution dated 11.06.1996 of Habib Investment Ex. PW19/B2 also does not mentions the name of accused Kamal Mahajan and Arshad Mirza, as one of the Director State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 179 of 199 responsible for affairs of the company. Similarly, none of the account opening form seized during the investigation mentions the name of Kamal Mahajan and Arshad Mirza as signatory to any of the companies. As per Ex. PW47/F i.e. Form 32 of Habib Mercantile Ltd. also does not mentions the name of accused Kamal Mahajan and Arshad Mirza as director. Similarly, as per Ex. PW47/A i.e. Form 32 of Habib Investment Ltd. also does not mentions the name of accused Kamal Mahajan and Arshad Mirza as Director and as per Ex. PW47/K i.e. Form 32 of Al Habib Mutual Benefits Ltd. also does not mentions their name as director. As per Ex. PW47/P i.e. Form 32 of Habib Agro Pvt. Ltd. also does not mentions the name of accused Kamal Mahajan and Arshad Mirza as director. However, accused Kamal Mahajan and Arshad Mirza are stated to have been made Director in AL Habib Mutual Benefit Ltd. in January, 1999 and were made Director in Habib Mercantile Ltd. in December, 1998. Form -32 of AL Habib mutual benefits Ltd. shows that Kamal Mahajan and Arshad Mirza were appointed as Directors in place of Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman and Shaista Nusrat however, none of the witnesses have stated that they have made the investment on the assurance of Kamal Mahajan and Arshad Mirza. PW-1 has categorically stated that she had not deposited any amount with the Kamal Mahajan and no State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 180 of 199 personal inducement was made by accused Kamal Mahajan. PW-3, who was also one of the investor has failed to identify the accused Kamal Mahajan. All the investors have made the investment which were prior in time to the appointment of accused Kamal Mahajan and Arshad Mirza as directors. As per form 29 filed on 04.12.1998 mentions the name of Kamal Mahajan as one of the director appointed in the company. PW-4 categorically stated that accused Kamal Mahajan has not made any claim regarding rich dividend on investment.
102 As per seizure memo Ex. PW17/A in respect of property at Jafrabad and photocopy of hand written agreement dated 08.03.1999 Ex. PW17/A3 stated to have been executed by Kamal Mahajan in capacity of Director. None of the prosecution witnesses have stated the role played by Kamal Mahajan and Arshad Mirza in the commission of alleged cheating. There is no evidence brought by prosecution that accused Kamal Mahajan and Arshad Mirza has caused destruction of any evidence. PW17 stated that accused Mujeeb Ur Rehman introduced Kamal Mahajan as directions he gave Rs. One lakh to Kamal Mahajan and Rafiq and one receipt was prepared signed by accused Mujeeb Ur Rehman. He also stated that accused Rafiq was also present at the time of State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 181 of 199 preparation of receipt being manager of the company. He also stated that accused Kamal Mahajan and Rafiq handed over the earnest money to accused Mujib-Ur-Rehman in his presence. He denied the suggestion that accused Mujib-Ur-Rehman has left the post of Managing director in the company and handed over the management to Kamal Mahajan and Sikander Javed. He stated that accused Mujib-Ur-Rehman was required to execute the sale deed. He also admitted that accused Saeed Javed and Maqsood Khan was never met in the office. He also admitted that accused Sikander Javed and maqsood Khan and Kamal Mahajan never met in the office except on the day the document Ex. PW17/A3 was prepared. The properties sold by accused Kamal Mahajan were sold prior to 15.11.99 i.e. the date when Hon'ble Court has issued a public notice declaring the properties of companies as part of case property. Hence, the prosecution has not brought any evidence to show that accused Kamal Mahajan and Arshad Mirza have made any fraudulent inducement to any of the investors coaxing them in making investments in the accused companies. The selling of property at Chauhan Banger by Kamal Mahajan and Arshad Mirza does not amount to any cheating or destruction of evidence as PW-37 had stated that he purchased the property at Chauhan banger from State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 182 of 199 Mukarab Hussain who purchased the same from accused Kamal Mahajan. During cross-examination, he stated that the GPA was executed on 13.04.1999 i.e. before the hon'ble court vide order dated 15.11.1999 has declared the properties of accused company as case property. There are no evidence against accused Kamal Mahajan that she has destroyed any of the record of accused companies. On the contrary, PW-49 stated that Kamal Mahajan presented briefcase having documents of the company to the IO. I find substance in the plea of accused Kamal Mahajan and Arshad Mirza that they executed the GPA of Chauhan Banger property under pressure as they have explained in their statement under section 313 Cr.PC, the circumstances under which they executed the said sale transaction.
103 Finally I shall deal with the role played by accused Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman, Habib-Ur-Rehman and Shaista Nursat in commission the offence in respect of M/s Habib Mercantile Ltd. and M/s Habib Investment Ltd. : There is no denial by the accused Mujeeb-Ur Rehman, Habib Ur Rehman and Shaista Nursat that they are the promoters/directors of Habib Group of Companies. Their only defence is that the business of the company was legal and proper accounts State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 183 of 199 were maintained but due to some interested persons who have created false rumors against the company and the accused persons, the accused persons left with no choice but to run for their lives. Accused Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman has claimed that the purpose of company is to take deposit from general public and invest the same in real estates, Agro Plantation etc. and for that purpose experience staff was appointed but at the same time stated that the company has never given any advertisement informing the general public about the various scheme of the companies and deposits were routed through agents appointed by them. However, it has not been stated by any of the accused persons that in the absence of any advertisement/pamphlets how the agents as well as the general public came to know about the various schemes floated by them as there were multiple schemes from daily deposit apart from FDR schemes. All the public witnesses who are investors had categorically stated that pamphlets of the company were distributed at that relevant time which were duly exhibited as PW-4/A1 by Sh. Mohd. Waseem Rao and brochure of the company as Ex. PW-22/D2 by Sh. Mohd. Nasir. In the brochure, the profile of the company was written and all attractive investment schemes of the company are mentioned having scheme from 400 days to five years with different State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 184 of 199 amount of subscriptions. It promises exponential growth the invested money from 14% to 20% and in some of the schemes the rate of interest is 25% per annum. In the company profile at para 3 at page no. 1 "it is specifically written that HABIB MERCANTILE LIMITED was incorporated as Non Banking Financial Company approved as residuary Non Banking Financial Company by Reserve Bank of India". It also mentions the name of the board of directors of Habib Mercantile Ltd. which includes Dr. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman, Shaista Nusrat, Rahat Afzal and others. It claims safety and security of the investment with maximum returns. It also mentions in rules, Terms and Conditions at page no. 21 that the policy holder is to consult agent/field officer.
104 PW-21,22,23,27,36 and 53 are the agents of the accused companies. These witnesses have categorically stated that they were working on the directions of accused Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman, Habib-Ur-Rehman, Shaista Nusrat and Rahat Fazal (PO). They had stated that after collection, they deposited the amount with the accused persons. These witnesses have produced their identity cards to show that they were the agents appointed by accused Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman and Habib-Ur-Rehman alongwith Shaista Nusrat. PW-21 categorically stated that State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 185 of 199 accused persons distributed the pamphlets of the schemes. He also stated that she got opened 16 accounts in the company and money collected was deposited with accused Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman and Rahat Afzal. She proved her identity card Ex. PW21/C and list of accounts Ex. PW21/B and denied the suggestion put by the defence to challenge the genuineness of Ex. PW21/B. Similarly, PW- 22 explained in details the schemes of the company and commission offered to him being agent. Even though PW- 22 failed to give exact amount on the commission received but had stated that he used to receive Rs. 1000/- to 2000/- at the rate of 9%. He also stated that accused Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman, Shaista Nusrat, Abdul Rehman, Rahat Afzal and Aziz Fatima have preferred him to join the company. PW-36 also proved that he was an agent of accused company and produced his I-Card of investors Ex. PW36/B1 and Ex. PW36/B3. PW-53 also stated that he was worked an agent and deposited the amount of investors with accused Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman. The testimony of these witnesses have shown that accused companies were accepting deposits through their agents who have worked on commission basis.
105 PW-35 proved the seizure of receipt books of Habib Mercantile ltd. vide Ex. PW35/A and Ex. PW35/P7.
State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 186 of 199 He stated that police has seized the documents in his presence and he had opened the premises whose keys handed over to him by accused Abdul Rehman. Similarly, PW-39 proved the seizure of record from office of accused company situated at 1388, Ballimaran vide seizure memo Ex. PW39/A and Ex. PW39/B1 to Ex. PW39/B4 as well as other documents which includes cash book, passbooks, Memorandum of Association, Articles of Association, prospectus of Habib Mercantile Ltd., application of fixed deposits, files of field officer, slips of deposit schemes and other documents. These seizures of documents shows that accused companies have camouflaged their working as being of a regular bank in order to mislead the investors as well as the agents into believing them that their investments are safe as they being made with a regular bank.
106 PW-28 proved the documents submitted by the accused persons with Bombay Mercantile Cooperative Bank for opening an account which includes the form, resolution signed by accused Mujeeb Ur Rehman, Saista Nusrat and other directors. He stated that on 28.11.1998, he had handed over to the IO certified copies of account opening form for the account No. 15700 and Certified photocopy of specimen signature card of Mujeeb-ur-
State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 187 of 199 Rehman Ex. PW28/F and Ex. PW28/G(OSR). He further stated that on same day, he also handed over to the IO certified copies of account opening form for the account No. 14395 and Certified photocopy of specimen signature card of Mujeeb-ur-Rehman and Shaista Nusrat alongwith certified copies of Resolution which are now Ex. PW28/H and Ex. PW28/I (OSR) and Ex. PW28/N respectively. He further stated on he had also handed over to the IO certified copies of account opening form for the account No. 16468 and Certified photocopy of specimen signature card of Mujeeb-ur-Rehman and Rahat Afjal alongwith certified copies of Resolution which are now Ex. PW28/J and Ex. PW28/K (OSR) and Ex. PW28/O respectively and also handed over to the IO certified copies of account opening form for the account No. 16469 and Certified photocopy of specimen signature card of Mujeeb-ur- Rehman and Rahat Afjal alongwith certified copies of Resolution which are now Ex. PW28/L and Ex. PW28/M (OSR) and Ex. PW28/P. Moreover, PW-19 senior manager Sh. S.L. Verma Canara Bank Nagina Bijnor, U.P. has proved that account of accused company was operated by accused Habib Ur Rehman on behalf of Habib Investment Ltd. He stated that as per resolution Ex. PW19/B2, the said account was operated by accused Habib Ur Rehman from 15.06.96 to 12.02.1999. Hence, the argument that State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 188 of 199 accused Habib Ur Rehman has no concern with the deposit of complainants is fallacious. PW-32 Avnish Kumar Srivastava proved the record Ex. PW-32/A i.e. account opening form of account no. 11543 in respect of Habib Mercantile Ltd, copy of resolution, letter of thanks, certificate of incorporation, memorandum of association and article of association. The submissions of these documents is not disputed by the accused persons which shows that accused persons are looking after the financial affairs of Habib Mercantile Ltd.
107 PW-1 to PW17, PW-20,22,24,25,26,27,29,30,36 and PW50 are the victims of the cheating who have been examined in the present case. All these witnesses have categorically stated that they had invested their hard earned money in the various schemes of floated by the accused Mujib ur Rehman, Habib Ur Rehman and Shaista Nursat through their companies. It has been stated by these witnesses that they have been assured by the accused Mujib ur Rehman, Habib ur Rehman and Shaista Nursat and Rahat Afjal(PO) of handsome returns in the amount invested, but without giving back the returns on the invested money, accused persons have absconded. These witnesses have stated that when they visited the office, it was found locked. All these witnesses have State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 189 of 199 identified the accused Mujib ur Rehman, Habib ur Rehman and Shaista Nursat as the one who have explained and assured the returns on schemes. Despite detailed cross-examination, no material contradictions absolving the accused Mujib-Ur-Rehman, Habib ur Rehman and Shaista Nursat have come on record. There are some variations with respect to dates of visit to the office of accused persons which are not material as otherwise, these witnesses have taken a categorical stand that they had invested different sums of money with the accused persons who have not returned the same. These witnesses have denied the suggestion put forth by the defence. All these witnesses have stated that at times they had deposited the money through the agents of the company which is the stand of the accused persons also. All these witnesses have identified their complaints and seizure of documents by the police.
108 Accused Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman claimed that the companies are registered with ROC and incorporated as per law. However, he had not stated whether he was having any permission from the Reserve Bank of India for accepting the deposit from general public as accepting of deposits from the general public can only be undertaken with the prior permission/sanction from the Reserve Bank State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 190 of 199 of India which is the Nodal agency to grant such permission. Admittedly, none of the companies incorporated by the accused persons have any sanction/permission from the Reserve Bank of India to either act as Bank or as Non Banking Financial Companies (NBFC). The accused persons have not stated that under which provision of law they were accepting the deposits after promising handsome returns on the amounts invested.
109 In terms of Section 45-IA of RBI Act, 1934 no company can carry on business of a Non Banking Financial Institution without obtaining a Certificate of Registration from Reserve Bank of India and without having Net Owned Funds (NOF) of Rs. 25,00,000/- limit which was raised to Rs. 2 crores since April, 1999. The companies of the accused persons are not covered under the venture capital fund/merchant banking companies/stock broking companies registered with SEBI, Insurance Companies, registered with IRDA, Nidhi companies notified U/s 620A of Companies Act 1956, Chit companies as defined u/s 2(b) of Chit Fund Act 1982, National Housing Bank, Stock Exchange or mutual benefit company.
State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 191 of 199 110 The witness from RBI examined as PW-48 Sh. R.C.P. Singh Retired GM (PP), RBI have categorically stated that the application of M/s Habib Mercantile Ltd. for registration as Non Banking Financial Company was pending with the Reserve Bank of India. This implies that the said company was not having any permission/sanction to accept deposits from the general public. He had further stated that the company M/s Habib Investment Ltd. has not applied with registration with RBI. His testimony has not been challenged by any accused. Hence, the claim of accused persons that they have required permission to take deposits is aimed at misleading the general public. Admittedly, the companies of the accused have not filed any quarterly or annual returns with the Reserve Bank of India to qualify as a Non Banking Financial Company. All the investors/complainants who have deposed before the Court are members of general public who are earning their livelihood by doing petty jobs of carpenter, embroidery worker etc. and they are not expected to make prior verification of the legality of deposits taken. All the witnesses have stated that on assurances given by accused persons, particularly by accused Mujeeb Ur Rehman, who was also operating as doctor in the area, they have no reason to suspect that they have been illegally induced to open their deposit accounts with the State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 192 of 199 companies of accused persons. The incorporation of the company with ROC ipso facto does not allow the said incorporated company to accept deposit from general public unless it is registered with RBI as NBFC.
111 PW54 and PW55 are the IO of the case. Both these witnesses have explained in detail the investigation conducted by them. They have proved on record not only the seizure of the documents from the premises of the accused company but also they recording the statement of witnesses. They also proved on record he received the reply from ROC regarding incorporation of the accused company and the directorship of the accused persons. He also proved on record the bank account details of accused companies being operated by the Habib Ur Rehman, Mujeed-Ur-Rehman and Shaista Nusrat. He also proved on record the property documents seized by him as well as arrest of accused persons. PW54 also proved on record the reply received RBI regarding the registration of accused company as accused companies are the Non Banking Financial companies. He had categorically stated that on the basis of investigation done by him it has come to notice that accused Mujeeb Ur rehman despite his resignation was looking after the work of company and accepting money. He had also admitted that accused State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 193 of 199 Saeed Ahmed Qaeed had not played any role in the formation of working of the company.
112 The argument of Ld. Counsel that no criminality is involved and at the most a civil liability of refund of the amount invested will be made out is humbly rejected as a distinction must be made between a civil wrong and a criminal wrong. When a dispute between the parties constitute only a civil wrong and not a criminal wrong, the Courts would not permit a person to be harassed, although no case for taking cognizance of the offence has been made out (Devender v. State of U.P. : 2009(7) SCC 495). The case of breach of trust or cheating are both, a civil wrong and a criminal offence, but under certain situations, where the act alleged would predominantly be a civil wrong, such an act does not constitute a criminal offence (GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust v. India Infoline Ltd. : (2013) 4 SCC
505. However, in the present case there was an inducement by the accused persons by dishonest concealment of facts of companies having no locus standi to receive deposits. Had the complainants/victims known the fact of companies not having any authority to accept deposits, they would have not invested their money with the accused persons.
State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 194 of 199 113 The arguments of counsel for accused Saista Nusrat that she was a housewife having no active role in the affairs of Habib Mercantile Ltd. is belied by form no. 29 filed by accused Saista Nusrat for change of registered office of the company, on behalf of the company having her signatures which is forming part of documents filed on behalf of company shows her active participation in the affairs of the company. The certified copies of account opening form for the account No. 14395 and Certified photocopy of specimen signature card of Mujeeb-ur- Rehman and Shaista Nusrat alongwith certified copies of Resolution Ex. PW28/H and Ex. PW28/I (OSR) and Ex. PW28/N also proves the active involvement of accused Saista Nusrat in the affairs of Habib Mercantile Ltd.
114 All the public witnesses who are investors have identified the accused Habib Ur Rehman as the person who has also explained the schemes of the company and was found present at the office of the company by almost all the complainants. PW-19 senior manager Sh. S.L. Verma, Canara Bank Nagina Bijnor, U.P. has proved that account was operated by accused Habib Ur Rehman on behalf of Habib Investment Ltd.
State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 195 of 199 115 Accused Mujeeb Ur Rehman and Saista Nusrat are directors of Habib Mercantile Ltd. and accused Habib Ur Rehman was operating the account of Habib Investment Ltd. The complainants/ investors have clearly mentioned that Habib Mercantile Ltd. and Habib Investment Ltd. Have cheated them through their directors Mujeeb Ur Rehman, Shaista Nusrat and accused Habib Ur Rehman who claimed himself as promoter/directors of the company. The offence committed by the accused persons by entering into a conspiracy to induce the general public in making deposits with the false promise of handsome returns by making investments in Real Estate, Agro Plantation etc. the conspirators have committed the offences by indulging in various overt acts by presenting themselves as having due sanction/permission in receiving the deposits.
116 In this background of law and on an appreciation evidence, it can be seen that witnesses PW1 to 17, 20,22,24,25,26,27,29,30,33,36 and 50 invested in various schemes of accused companies on the assurance of accused persons namely Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman, Habib-Ur- Rehman, Rahat Afzal (PO), Shaista Nusrat, that they have the necessary authorization to receive deposits from State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 196 of 199 public proves the essential ingredients of cheating as accused persons namely Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman, Habib-Ur- Rehman and Shaista Nusrat committed deception and induced the investors in parting with their money. At the time of extracting such money in the name of investment by promising higher returns, accused persons Mujeeb-Ur- Rehman, Habib-Ur-Rehman and Shaista Nusrat were aware that there is no authorization from RBI to accept money from public by the accused companies. Further, it is also proved through such evidence of investors that but for such deception and fraudulent claims they were induced to part with their money and deliver the same to accused companies being managed by accused namely Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman, Habib-Ur-Rehman, Shaista Nusrat and Rahat Afzal (PO).
117 As far as accused no. 1 and 2 are concerned, they are limited Company registered under Companies Act, 1956. PW-47 is a witness from ROC, Delhi and he proved the factum of incorporation of accused companies under the Companies Act as well as the directorship of accused Mujibur Rehman, Habibur Rehman and Shaista Nusrat and Rahat Afjal (PO) in the said companies as reflected in Ex.PW47/A to PW47/T. As such, accused no.1 and 2 are juristic person and not a natural person. It is created by State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 197 of 199 law and is a legal entity. The liability of accused companies is to be fastened on such persons who conspired together in committing the cheating with the investors. It has to act through some natural person and accused Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman, Shaista Nusrat and accused Habib-Ur-Rehman being actively involved in accepting deposits from the investors on behalf of the accused companies have committed the offences.
118 The prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the allegations against the accused Sayed Sikandar Javed, Maqsood Khan, Saeed Ahmed Qaeed, Fahim Ahmed, Anis Shezad, Ahmad Naseem, Rahmat-Un-Nisha, Yasmin Bano, Khairun Nisa, Nikhat Parveen, Arsad Mirza and accused Kamal Mahajan as no witness/investors has stated and these accused persons committed any cheating with them or destroyed any evidence.
119 Hence, accused Sayed Sikandar Javed, Maqsood Khan, Saeed Ahmed Qaeed, Fahim Ahmed, Anis Shezad, Ahmad Naseem, Rahmat-Un-Nisha, Yasmin Bano, Khairun Nisa, Nikhat Parveen, Arsad Mirza and accused Kamal Mahajan are acquitted from the offences under section 120B/201/420 IPC.
State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 198 of 199 120 However, in view of above discussions and the evidence on record, I am satisfied that prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused M/s Habib Investment Ltd., M/s Habib Mercantile Ltd. acted through accused Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman, Saista Nusrat and accused Habib-Ur-Rehman have entered into criminal conspiracy with the aim to cheat the general public by dishonestly inducing complainants in making deposits with accused persons with the false promise of giving handsome returns, even though, accused persons were aware that they have no authority to accept deposits from general public and thereby committed criminal conspiracy and cheating with the investors.
121 Hence, accused M/s Habib Investment Ltd., M/s Habib Mercantile Ltd., accused Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman, Shaista Nusrat and accused Habib-Ur-Rehman are convicted for offence U/s 120-B/420 IPC.
122 Copy of the judgment be given free of cost to the convicts and also uploaded on the server with digital Digitally signed by PAWAN PAWAN SINGH signature. SINGH RAJAWAT Date: 2019.09.18 RAJAWAT 15:05:21 +0530 (PAWAN SINGH RAJAWAT) ACMM(Special Acts): CENTRAL TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI Announced in open Court on 16th September, 2019 State Vs. Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman CC No. 292366/16 199 of 199