Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs . Padam Raj Gupta Etc. on 2 March, 2020

 IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN
                 MAGISTRATE­02,
     CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI

PRESIDING OFFICER : SH. GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR.

STATE VS. PADAM RAJ GUPTA ETC.
FIR NO. 241/1988
PS: MOTI NAGAR
U/S: 420/120­B IPC

                                  JUDGMENT

CIS Number                             : 300454/16

Date of commission of offence          : In between 1984­87

Date of institution of the case        : 06.05.1991

Name of the complainants               : Sh. Sadhu Singh Gill & Ors.

Name of accused and address            : A­1 Nahidco Housing Pvt. Ltd.
                                         Registered No. 19799


                                        A­2 Padam Raj Gupta
                                        S/o Sh. Purshottam Das Gupta
                                        R/o H.No. 61­B, Jhang
                                        Apartment, Sector­13, Rohini.


                                        A­3 Rakesh Kumar Gupta
                                        S/o Sh. Purshottam Das Gupta
                                        R/o H.No. G­9/54, Sector­16,
                                        Rohini, Delhi­110085.


                                        A­4 Harvinder Kumar Gupta


FIR No. 241/1988, PS Moti Nagar                               Page 1/57
                                       @ Ravin Gupta
                                      S/o Sh. Purshottam Das Gupta
                                      R/o H.No. 1430, Sector­44­B,
                                      Chandigarh.
Offence complained of or proved      : 420/120­B IPC

Plea of the accused                  : Pleaded not guilty

Final order                          : Convicted

Date on which reserved for           : 28.02.2020
judgment
Date of judgment                     : 02.03.2020



BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE FACTS FOR DECISION:

1. This is the prosecution of accused persons namely M/s Nahidco Housing Pvt. Ltd., Padam Raj Gupta, Rakesh Kumar Gupta and Harvinder Kumar Gupta @ Ravin Gupta. Their co­accused and brother Mam Raj Gupta @ Mam Raj Jyoti @ M.R. Jyoti remained proclaimed offender, during investigation pursuant to charge sheets filed by PS Moti Nagar U/s 420/120­B IPC subsequent to the investigation carried out by them in FIR No. 241/88.

2. Brief facts of the case are that a written complaint dated 29.04.1988 was presented by one Sh. Sadhu Singh Gill, R/o Vikas Puri, Delhi to DCP, West Rajouri Garden, which later on form basis for FIR No. 241/88 registered at P.S. Moti Nagar. Subject matter of the complaint is that M/s National Housing and Industrial Development Corporation (Nahidco) having their office at 101, FIR No. 241/1988, PS Moti Nagar Page 2/57 Magnum House, Najafgarh Road, Delhi gave an advertisement in Hindustan Times in the month of March/ April, 1984 regarding a housing scheme to be brought and development by Nahidco in Village Nathupura, near DLF Qutub Enclave. Complainant attracted by that advertisement applied for a flat having area of 125 sq. ft. had an estimated cost of Rs. 55,600/­. Complainant deposited Rs. 9,750/­ towards registration vide registration letter dated 12.05.1984. Subsequently, he deposited another amount of Rs. 9,750/­ vide receipt dated 08.04.1985, another amount of Rs. 9,700/­ on 27.07.1985 and finally another amount of Rs. 2,350/­ on 12.05.1986. A receipt was issued for each and every amount deposited. As per terms and conditions of registration, second installment was to be paid at the time of registration of land in the name of individual, but it was found by the complainant that accused had indulged in fraud and cheating as they had neither land nor any license for construction of house. More than 384 people were cheated by accused. Terms and conditions had stipulated that if accused company failed to provide dwelling units within three years the company was bound to refund entire amount alongwith 10%. On completion of three years complainant Mr. Gill applied for refund and submitted original deposit receipts with Nahidco on 17.08.1987. He requested Mr. Jyoti many times to refund the amount, but no amount was refunded and accused Jyoti absconded since February 1988. This is in brief the complainant's case that he has been a victim of fraud and cheating at the hands of accused and he was deprived off Rs. 21,800/­ in this offence.

FIR No. 241/1988, PS Moti Nagar Page 3/57

3. It is to be noted that investigation initially taken by local police of P.S. Moti Nagar could not proceed and finally it was handed over to Crime Branch and was taken by SI Avtar Singh. SI could examine 47 people who gave similar statement as given by the complainant and these people were defrauded after being attracted by advertisement in the newspaper had deposited some amounts with the accused company were not provided either land or built up houses and they were cheated of the money which they had deposited to the company. Accordingly, after the investigation, 17 charge sheets under the same FIR were filed against the accused persons for commission of offence punishable U/s 420/120­B IPC. It is to be noted that each charge­ sheet includes upto three complainants.

4. Complete set of charge sheets and other documents were supplied to the accused persons namely Padam Raj Gupta, Rakesh Kumar Gupta and Harvinder Kumar Gupta @ Ravin Gupta. After hearing arguments, charges for offence punishable under section 420/120­B IPC were framed separately in respect of each charge­ sheets against the accused persons namely Padam Raj Gupta, Rakesh Kumar Gupta and Harvinder Kumar Gupta @ Ravin Gupta to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

MATERIAL EVIDENCE IN BRIEF:

5. The prosecution in support of the present case has examined following witnesses :­ FIR No. 241/1988, PS Moti Nagar Page 4/57

6. PW­1 Sh. Nirpender Kumar Roy has compounded the present matter with the accused persons stating that he has compromised the matter. He has filed an affidavit in the Court in this regard and stated that he has received full and final payment and nothing remains due now and he does not wish to take any further action against the accused persons. PW­1 Sh. Nutan Kumar Sharma (inadvertently mentioned as PW1) has compounded the present matter with the accused persons stating that he has made a compromise with the accused persons and has received full and final payment. It is stated that he has gave affidavit in the Court in this regard and he does not wish to take any further action against the accused persons. PW­3 Sh. Sadhu Singh has received a sum of Rs. 12,000/­ in cash in the Court and has compounded the present matter with the accused persons. He exhibited his application for permission to compound the offence as Ex. PW­3/B and compromise deed as Ex. PW­3/C. PW­5 Sh. T.N. Khanna on two dates deposed against the accused persons, however on third date he had compounded the present matter with the accused persons stating that he has compromised the present matter with the accused persons and has received full and final settlement amount from the accused persons and now he has no grievance against them. He exhibited his application for permission to compromise as Ex. PW­5/A and compromise deed as Ex. PW­5/A2. PW­6 Sh. Chander Prakash Verma has compounded the present matter with the accused persons FIR No. 241/1988, PS Moti Nagar Page 5/57 stating that he has voluntarily and without any dourest, compromise the matter with the accused persons. It is stated that he does not want to take any further action against the accused persons. It is stated that he has received the entire amount from the accused persons. He exhibited on record an affidavit dated 17.12.1998 filed by him as Ex. PW­6/B. PW­7 Sh. Bhagwati Prasad Mehra has compounded the present matter with the accused persons stating that he has compromised the matter with the accused persons and has received full and final settlement amount from the accused persons. It is stated that he does not wish to pursue the matter against the accused persons. He exhibited on record his application in this regard as Ex. PW­7/DA and compromise deed as Ex. PW­7/DB, both bearing his signatures at Point­A. PW­10 Sh. Kishalaya Roy has compounded the present matter with the accused persons present in the Court on that day and executed an affidavit Ex. PW­10/A on the condition that accused persons had paid him full and final amount after which he has left with no claim against the accused persons of any kind. It is stated that he is not interested to proceed with this case. This witness has been again examined as PW­23 and deposed that he has voluntarily compounded offences U/s 420/120B IPC with accused persons present in the Court on that day. He has received the entire amount. He exhibited on record his application for permission to compound the offence as Ex. PW­23/A. PW­11 Smt. Asha Singhal has compounded the present matter with the accused persons present in the Court on that day and executed an affidavit Ex. PW­11/A on the FIR No. 241/1988, PS Moti Nagar Page 6/57 condition that accused persons had paid him full and final amount after which she has left with no claim against the accused persons of any kind. It is stated that she is not interested to proceed with this case. PW­15 Sh. Gyan Singh was son­in­law of the complainant Sh. Sadhu Singh Gill who has already compounded the offence. PW­16 Sh. Rakesh Jain deposed that he has voluntarily compromised the present case with the accused persons present in the Court on that day and accused persons have paid him full and final settlement to his satisfaction. It is stated that in view of compromise, he does not wish to proceed further against the accused persons. PW­22 Sh. M.K. Banerji deposed that he has voluntarily compounded offences U/s 420/120­B IPC with the accused persons present in the Court on that day and has received the entire amount. He exhibited his application for permission to compound the offence as Ex. PW­22/A. It is stated that in view of compromise, he does not wish to proceed further against the accused persons. It is to be noted that the testimonies of these witness are not relevant to prove fraud committed with other persons. The offence committed with them have already been compounded, thus their testimonies recorded, if any are not reproduced here.

7. PW­2 Sh. Ashwani Kumar deposed that he had got registered with Nahidco Scheme in the year, 1984 and paid them Rs. 12,744/­ upto 1987, however till today no money has been refunded to him, nor any flat has been allotted to him. Thus, he made a complaint to P.S. FIR No. 241/1988, PS Moti Nagar Page 7/57 Moti Nagar on 04.08.1988. It is stated that office of the accused was sealed by that time. It is stated that in lieu of refund post dated cheques were issued to him. It is stated that the said post dated cheques were returned by him and has got acknowledgment qua same. In his cross­examination on behalf of accused Harvinder Kumar Gupta @ R.K. Gupta, it is stated by him that he has not brought the receipt of his registration with Nahidco Company. It is stated that he has supplied the copies of the said receipts to P.S. Moti Nagar at the time when he lodged the complaint. It is stated by him that he has mentioned only Nahidco Company in the said complaint, but pronoted M.R. Gupta and Nisha. It is stated that he does not know the names of the other accused persons. It is stated that he has not brought the copy of the said complaint. It is stated that in the year, 1988 he came to know that the office of the company has been seized by the Court. It is stated that on seeing the attachment of the said office he lodged the complaint against accused persons. It is stated that he got the cheque in lieu of refund before sealing of the company. It is stated that the cheques were post dated. It is stated that these cheques were of Rs. 8,000/­ only. It is stated that he got the cheques in the February, 1987 and the date of cheque was mentioned as June, 1987. It is stated that he could not get the allotment in time on his application. It is stated that he got the above­mentioned refund, however he did not produce or deposit the cheques in his bank account for encashment as he returned the same for increasing the amount of refund. It is stated that he wrote a letter to the company for doing so. It is stated that he only knew Mr. M.R. Jyoti by face to whom he contacted, however it is FIR No. 241/1988, PS Moti Nagar Page 8/57 stated that there were two three more persons whose name he could not tell. It is stated that he could not explain the situation of Nahidco Company, but he has address of the same. It is denied by him that he has not applied for any plot with the accused company and have any dealing for transaction with the accused persons. It is denied by him that he has deposited the amount mentioned in his statement with the accused company. It is denied by him that he has familiar with the whole transaction of the plot of allotment and lodged the complaint in the P.S. Moti Nagar.

8. PW­4 Sh. P.K. Sur deposed that he is working in Supreme Court. He came to know about M/s Nahidco from newspaper advertisement in the year, 1985. After reading the advertisement which were in the relation of flats/ colony which was colonised and developed by the said M/s Nahidco Company. He went to the office of M/s Nahidco at Magnum House, Moti Nagar, Delhi where he met Mr. M.R. Jyoti and accused persons present in the Court today who had shown him some papers relating to the land being allotted to them. Believing their assurance he booked a flat with them for which he had initially paid Rs. 6,013/­ on 30.03.1985 against receipt. Copy of the same is Ex. PW­4/A. Thereafter, on 26.09.1985 he paid further installment of Rs. 1,388/­ against which a receipt was issued to him, copy of which is Ex. PW­4/B. It is stated that M/s Nahidco did not gave any flat to him. It is stated that he demanded his money back from the accused persons. It is stated that in January­February, 1999 FIR No. 241/1988, PS Moti Nagar Page 9/57 the accused persons had paid him Rs. 5,000/­. In his cross­ examination on behalf of all the accused persons, this witness could not tell to whom he has made the payment, though it is stated that the payment was made at the counter of the accused company. It is stated that he has not seen Sh. P.R. Gupta at office on 30.03.1985 when he made payment to the above­said firm. It is stated that he has made payment through cheques and has also brought receipts with him. He could not tell to whom he had made the payment, though it is stated that he has not written the name of Nahidco Housing Private Ltd. He could not tell who has made the payment to him as none was present at the office. It is stated that he had verbally demanded his money at the counter. It is stated that Sh. M.R. Jyoti had shown him some papers like agreement etc. He could not tell whether those papers were genuine or not. It is stated that when he had made payment to Sh. M.R. Jyoti he did not realize that it was not fraud. It is stated by him that he has received the above­said amount from the accused who is not present in the Court today (i.e. on 16.11.2000 when this witness was cross­examined). It is stated by him that if accused persons would made balance amount to him, he would not proceed with the present matter. It is stated that when he could not found anyone in the office of M/s Nahidco he made complaint against M.R. Jyoti, proprietor of M/s Nahidco. It is denied by him that he had made payment to R.K. Gupta and Ravinder Kumar Gupta @ Ravinder, though it is denied by him that accused persons did not cheat with him.

FIR No. 241/1988, PS Moti Nagar Page 10/57

9. PW­8 Sh. G.L. Katiyal deposed that on 07.08.1990, IO of the present case had taken into possession the certified copies of Memorandum of Association and Articles of association and certificate of incorporation of Nahidco Housing Pvt. Ltd. which are Ex. PW­8/A, Ex. PW­8/A1 and Ex. PW­8/A2. The said documents were supplied to the police on the basis of a written request made by the police vide letter Ex. PW­8/A3. A list of company directors is Ex. PW­8/A4. It is stated that as per Ex. PW­8/A Memorandum of Association the promoters of the companies are mentioned at page no.8. Certified copy of Form No.18 giving the registered office of the company i.e. 101, Magnum House is Ex. PW­8/A5. Copy of declaration of Nahidco Housing given by Chartered Accountant of the company is Ex. PW­8/A6. Copy of annual return of Nahidco is Ex. PW­8/A7. Copy of notice of annual general meeting dated 06.03.1987 is Ex. PW­8/A8. It is stated by this witness that he signed these certified copies at Point­A. In his cross­examination by Ld. APP for the State, it is denied by this witness that he had stated to the IO that to get a license from Government of Haryana for Housing Construction Company, the company must have atleast 100 acres of land. It is denied by him if he would have stated to the police that the license is issued by Housing & Urban Development Ministry, Haryana. In his cross­examination on behalf of accused persons, it is stated by him that he has not brought the original of the above­said documents, though it is stated that the certified copies were issued by his office and all of them were bearing his signatures at Point­A. It is FIR No. 241/1988, PS Moti Nagar Page 11/57 stated that as per Ex. PW­8/A4 three directors of M/s Nahidco Housing Pvt. Ltd. namely P.R. Gupta, R.K. Gupta and H.K. Gupta had resigned from the company w.e.f. 05.11.1986. It is stated by him that they do not have any original record to show that proprietorship concern Nahidco converted into Nahidco Housing Pvt. Ltd. It is stated by him that as per their record Nahidco Housing Pvt. Ltd. was a new company incorporated on 09.01.1985.

10. PW­9 Sh. K.K. Taneja deposed that in the year 1984, he had deposited a sum of Rs. 19,500/­ with M/s National Housing & Industrial Development Corporation (Nahidco) having office at 111, Magnum House­I, Najafgarh Road, Opposite Milan Cinema, New Delhi, in order to get a dwelling unit in or around Gurgaon. It is stated that he had read an advertisement in the newspaper about a colony being developed in or around Gurgaon by the above company so he made the above deposit. He exhibited some of the advertisements published in the newspaper Hindustan Times dated 07.01.1985; 11.01.1985; 12.01.1985; 14.01.1985; 15.01.1985; 17.01.1985; 24.02.1985, 26.04.1985 etc. as Ex. PW­9/A (Colly) . He also exhibited brochure of company as Ex. PW­9/B which has stated about schemes of the company with respect to project in question. It is pointed out that there is list of Directors in the brochure at Point­A. It is stated that probably he had deposited the above­said money in the year, 1985 and not in 1984. It is stated that when he visited the company he met with accused M.R. Jyoti, one of the Director of the FIR No. 241/1988, PS Moti Nagar Page 12/57 company who usually dealt with him. It is stated that besides accused M.R. Jyoti, accused persons present in the Court on that day were also present there, but this witness was not introduced to them by accused M.R. Jyoti. It is stated that he deposited sum of Rs. 19,500/­ in different installments against receipts. It is stated that even after three years when no dwelling unit was given to him and he came to know that the company was likely to close, he went to the office of the company and demanded his dwelling unit or money back, on that he was asked to submit the deposit receipts in order to take the refund, so he deposited the original receipt with the company and had given the same to office receptionist available in the company. He was asked to come after sometime to collect refund cheques. After sometime when he visited the office of the company, five cheques dated 31.08.1987; 30.09.1987; 31.10.1987; 30.11.1987 and 31.12.1987 were given to him, out of which four were of Rs. 3,750/­ each and fifth was of Rs. 3,870/­, however all the said cheques were bounced for the reason "Funds Insufficient". It is stated that he again visited the company where he met with M.R. Jyoti, Director of the company who asked him to wait for sometime, on that he waited for long, but neither dwelling unit was allotted to him, nor his money was returned to him by the above­said company. It is stated that he is having photocopies of the receipts regarding money deposited by him as the originals were taken back by the above company. It is stated that besides the above receipts the company had also executed an agreement in his favour. It is stated that in the year, 1998 accused Harvinder Gupta @ Ravin Gupta came to him with the proposal to refund his money on a FIR No. 241/1988, PS Moti Nagar Page 13/57 condition that only 50% of the money would be refunded to him, if he would entered into a compromise. It is stated that accused Ravin Gupa had paid him only Rs. 5,000/­ in December, 1998. It is stated that in this regard an affidavit was given to him by accused Ravin Kumar Gupta. Photocopy of the affidavit is marked as PW­9/C. This witness was further examined as PW­21 and he again deposed that in the year, 1984 he read an advertisement published in the newspaper on behalf of Nahidco Housing Development. As per advertisement one dwelling unit was offered to the general public to be built at Gurgaon. He visited the office of Nahidco at 101, Magnum House, Opposite Milan Cinema where one brochure was issued to him. As per brochure, dwelling units i.e. built up houses were offered at Gurgaon. It is stated that on 16.03.1984 he visited the office of the promoters where he met one Jyoti Gupta alongwith the other accused persons present in the Court on that day. It was offered and assured to him that the flats built by them would be low cost flat and the possession would be given to him within three years. On the basis of assurance given by the accused persons, one Type­V flat having estimated cost of Rs. 97,000/­ was booked by him. On the same day, he issued a cheque of 2,300/­ as assured­cum­booking amount qua which receipt was issued to him. Thereafter, on 10.10.1984 he paid a sum of Rs. 9,700/­ qua which receipt was issued to him. On 10.10.1984 he again paid a sum of Rs. 1,750/­ and Rs. 6,000/­ on 05.01.1985. On 16.05.1984 a registration certificate was issued to him. It is stated that he paid a total sum of Rs. 19,750/­ and waited for three years and tried to know about the progress of the scheme.

FIR No. 241/1988, PS Moti Nagar Page 14/57

Thereafter, he wrote a letter for withdrawal/ refund of his deposit. The company issued five cheques of Rs. 3,750/­ approximately to him. It is stated that all the cheques were dishonoured on presentation due to reason "Insufficient Funds". He has brought copies of registration certificate; receipts of investments; copy of application for withdrawal/ refund of deposit; his application for refund; letter whereby registration certificate was issued; letter showing issuance of cheque to him and copies of cheque issued to him alongwith cheque returning memos. The same are collectively exhibited as Ex. PW­ 21/A (objected to being photocopy). It is stated that original of these documents were taken back by the promoters at the time of issuance of cheques to him. In his cross­examination, he could not tell if he had handed over documents produced by him in the Court to IO. It is stated that receipts were issued to him by National Housing and Industrial Development Corporation and the brochure provided to him was also of the same name. It is stated by him that he was apprised that National Housing and Industrial Development Corporation is a public limited company. He could not tell the name of drawer mentioned by him. He could not tell if the firm of M.R. Jyoti was proprietorship firm. It is stated that the cheques are bearing signatures of Mr. Jyoti. It is denied by him that accused persons present in the Court on that day had nothing to do with the case, or had no dealings with him. It is admitted by him that the letters/ cheque/ certificate were not signed by accused present in the Court on that day. It is stated that in or about in the year, 1998 accused Harvinder @ Ravin Gupta (correctly identified) visited his house and stated that he would FIR No. 241/1988, PS Moti Nagar Page 15/57 return back invested amount to this witness, on that this witness signed an affidavit, however despite that no such amount was returned to him. He could not tell against which company, he had lodged complaint. It is stated that he had not brought the complaint lodged by him. It is stated by him that when he made payments to the company and at that time, all the three accused persons present in the company were present there. This witness could not tell which one of the accused was issued receipts of investments to him. It is stated that receipts of investments were issued to him by the employees of the company.

11. PW­12 Ms. Vinod Sharma deposed that in the year, 1985, she deposited a sum of Rs. 19,500/­ as initial amount with M/s Nahidco for a plot. It is stated that no plot was allotted to her, therefore, she demanded her money back. She had submitted an application for allotment of plot and later on, she also submitted an application for refund of money in the year 1987, but her money was not returned nor any plot was alloted to her by M/s Nahidco. Thereafter, she reported the matter to the police in April 1988. It is stated that she applied for residential plot, however no development work was done as promised by the said concern and owner of M/s Nahidco ran away. In her cross­examination by accused P.R. Gupta, it is stated by her that she paid the amount through cheque issued in the name of M/s Nahidco. It is stated that she did not met owner of M/s Nahidco. It is stated that she had issued a receipt by the company in lieu of the amount paid by her. She marked copy of receipt as Mark­A. It is stated that in the FIR No. 241/1988, PS Moti Nagar Page 16/57 beginning when she applied for plot, she was not aware about the guilty intention, but slowly she came to know about the guilty intention when she was neither given his money back, nor any plot was allotted to her. It is stated that in December, 1998 she received a sum of Rs. 8,000/­ only from accused persons, but she could not tell from whom she took the amount as the matter is very old. It is denied by her if the matter was compromised by her with the accused persons. It is admitted that she never visit the office of the company. It is denied by her that she has received the whole amount i.e. Rs. 19,500/­. It is admitted by her that she never met any of the Directors of M/s Nahidco Housing Pvt. Ltd. It is admitted that she has not brought the original receipt of Rs. 19,500/­ as the same was taken back by the accused persons at the time of refund of Rs. 8,000/­. It is admitted that she does not know any person naming Padam Raj Gupta.

12. PW­13 Inspector Narender Gulati deposed that during his tenure as IO of the present matter he made efforts to arrest accused M.R. Gupta, but he could not succeed.

13. PW­14 Sh. Sanjay Kumar Jain deposed that he read an advertisement in the newspaper in the year, 1984 and thereafter, he booked a flat type T­10 measuring 300 sq. ft. with M/s Nahidco Housing, office of the same was situated at 101, Magnum House, Nazafgarh Road. It is stated that he deposited the money in two installments i.e. one of Rs. 4,334/­ and second of Rs. 3,404/­ by way of draft. It is stated that he was assured that he would get the FIR No. 241/1988, PS Moti Nagar Page 17/57 possession of flat within a period of three years, or he would be given his money back with interest, but company neither given him flat, nor returned his money. On that he visited the office of the company where he met M.R. Jyoti who told him to wait. After sometime, when he again went to the office of the company, company had fled away. Thereafter, he lodged a report with the police. In his cross­ examination, he could not tell at this stage whether he issued the draft in favour of M/s Nahidco Housing, or M/s Nahidco Pvt. Ltd. He exhibited photocopies of receipt issued to him as Ex. PW­14/A and Ex. PW­14/B (OSR).

14. PW­15A Sh. Shatanjiva Hooja (mistakenly numbered as PW­

14) deposed that in the year 1980­86 he was working in Saudi Arabia. He saw an advertisement in the newspaper from Nahidco Housing Pvt. Ltd. having office at 101, Magnum House, Opposite Milan Cinema, New Delhi regarding residential plots at Gurgaon, Qutub Enclave. He booked a flat vide registration no. Nahidco/ AR1557/ T­ 4/ P­II/ DL/ 84. At the time of booking i.e. on 19.11.1984 he had paid US $ 2463.67 and on subsequent dates i.e. 26.12.1984 US $ 842.82; 31.01.1985 US $ 1031.96; 07.03.1985 US $ 806.57; 11.07.1985 US $ 1822.31; 26.08.1985 US $ 1256.67; 30.01.1985 US $ 2349.62 and on 05.02.1986 US $ 425.40. It is stated that all the payments were made by him by way of drafts in favour of Nahidco Housing Pvt. Ltd. It is stated that the total amount in Indian currency at the time of examination of this witness is about Rs. 4,77,902/­ and at the time of payment it was around Rs. 1,36,474/­. It is stated that when he came FIR No. 241/1988, PS Moti Nagar Page 18/57 back from Saudi Arabia to India and visited office of the Nahidco Housing Pvt. Ltd., he came to know that all the persons responsible for the business of Nahidco Housing Pvt. Ltd. have absconded and the office premises was locked. It is stated that neither any flat was given to him, nor any money was refunded to him. He exhibited photocopy of receipt dated 10.02.1987 issued by Nahidco Housing Pvt. Ltd. in his favour as Ex. PW­14/A (OSR). In his cross­examination by accused P.R. Gupta, it is stated by him that at the time of booking he did not visit the office of accused company personally. It is stated that initially the office was in the name of Nahidco and later on, the name was changed to Nahidco Housing Pvt. Ltd. It is stated that he has not received any letter regarding information that company had changed its name, but he came to know from the letters received by him wherein the signatories were same. It is denied by him that on 19.11.1984 Nahidco Housing Pvt. Ltd. was not in existence, however it is voluntarily stated that he is having a counterfoil of draft dated 19.11.1984 in favour of Nahidco Housing Pvt. Ltd. and the same was encashed by the accused company. It is stated that he visited the office of accused company 5­6 times and on those visits he met accused persons namely P.R. Gupta and Rakesh Gupta who were present in the Court on that day. It is stated that all the drafts were handed over by his wife at the office of Nahidco as he was in Saudi Arabia. It is stated that in the year, 1998 he came to know about fraud played with him. He made a complaint dated 29.10.1988 to DCP, Crime. It is stated that complaint was against Nahidco Housing Pvt. Ltd. It is stated that he had named all the accused persons in his FIR No. 241/1988, PS Moti Nagar Page 19/57 complaints given at P.S. Moti Nagar and to DCP Crime, but on the insistence of IO in his statement he had mentioned the name of M.R. Jyoti only who was absconding. It is denied by him that he never met accused P.R. Gupta in the office. In his cross­examination on behalf of accused persons namely Rakesh Gupta and H.K. Gupta, it is stated by him that he does not know whether there were two companies in the name of Nahidco. It is stated that police had never shown him accused Rakesh Gupta and Harvinder after their arrest, however he received a telephonic message from police regarding their arrest. It is stated that he did not mention the names of present accused persons in his statement recorded by police as IO asked him to mention only one name and he was not ready to write down names of all the accused persons. It is denied that he never met accused Rakesh and Harvinder in connection with his dealing with the company, or that he had never seen them and that is why their names were not given by him in his statement. It is voluntarily stated that he has mentioned the names of all the accused persons in his complaints made to SHO, P.S. Moti Nagar and DCP, Crime. It is stated that he has not kept copy of complaint made to DCP and SHO, P.S. Moti Nagar with him.

15. PW­17 Sh. Puran Chand deposed that in the month of May, 1984, he read an advertisement wherein an offer was given by Nahidco Housing Scheme Co. and as per advertisement company assured flat within two years at nearest point to Maruti Udyog Ltd., Gurgaon. On that he visited the office of the company where he met FIR No. 241/1988, PS Moti Nagar Page 20/57 one M.R. Gupta who introduced himself to be Managing Director of the company. It is stated that he assured him that the land for building flat has already been possessed by the company and the cost of built­ up MIG Flat would be Rs. 1.25 lacs and possession would be given within two years. It is stated that he was also taken to the site, however there was no construction going on at that time. It is stated that he was apprised that the company was waiting approval scheme from Haryana Government. It is stated that on the assurance, he became interested in purchasing a flat and he deposited a sum of Rs. 23,898/­ in two installments and company issued him receipts bearing no. 1590 and 1674. It is stated that he waited for the scheme to come into existence, but even after 3½ of his investment same could not take off. It is stated that it was revealed to him that no such land found possessed or owned by the accused company and no construction was there in progress, or started at all, on that he contacted the company and it was stated to him that they would return his investment amount. It is stated that on their assurance he deposited the original documents to them for refund of his money, but the company has not paid any amount since his application for refund. On that he approached the investigation agency and after February, 1988 even the office of company found locked. The accused persons who were present in the Court on that day were Board Members of the company. It is stated that after absconding of M.R. Jyoti, he contacted accused persons namely Ravinder Kumar Gupta and Padam Raj Gupta, they assured him that they have enough money and they would return his money back. In his cross­examination, it is stated by him FIR No. 241/1988, PS Moti Nagar Page 21/57 that accused persons present in the Court on that day were having shops in the complex near the office of accused company. It is stated that accused persons namely Padam Raj and Ravinder Kumar were running shop of electronics parts. It is stated that they were having separate shop with that of office of accused company. It is admitted by him that at the time of visit of site or at the time of making investment, accused persons present in the Court on that day had not made any assurance to him. It is stated that he was given the brochure of the company alongwith booklet in the first meeting, but now the same is not in his possession. It is denied by him that if company had returned his investment amount, or that only on receiving investment amount, he has handed over the original receipts to the company. It is stated that he has not received his invested amount, though accused persons gave assurances to him time an again. He could not tell if he executed any affidavit. It is denied by him that affidavit dated 17.12.1998 was executed by him. On that copy of the same was shown to this witness on which he identified his signatures. It is stated by him that he might have signed this affidavit, but he had not returned his invested amount. The affidavit is Ex. PW­17/A (affidavit is not attested). It is denied by him that his invested amount has been returned, or that he executed the affidavit only after receipt of invested amount. It is denied by him that he has been falsely implicated the accused persons after knowing that they are brothers of M.R. Jyoti.

16. PW­18 Inspector Man Mohan Sharma deposed that he also FIR No. 241/1988, PS Moti Nagar Page 22/57 remained IO of the present matter, though no investigation was conducted by him.

17. PW­19 Sh. Yog Raj Dogra deposed that in the year, 1984 he read an advertisement in the pamphlet of Nahidco Housing Development Scheme for Delhi and Chandigarh wherein offers were made for the allotment of ready made flats and plots of different dimensions. It is stated that on reading the advertisement he contacted the office of Nahidco at 101, Magnum House, Opposite Milan Cinema and after negotiations he booked one flat measuring 580 sq. ft. to be built at Delhi. It is stated that on 03.07.1984 he made payment of Rs. 6,972/­ vide DD No. 482117/ 12284 and thereafter he paid a sum of Rs. 5,560/­ through draft, thus he paid total sum of Rs. 12,532/­ to Nahidco. Accordingly, a registration certificate was issued in his favour duly signed by Managing Director. Thereafter, he tried to know about the progress of scheme launched by Nahidco and he visited the office as prior to that he wrote two letters to Nahidco, however there were no response. It is stated that when he visited the office of the company, the office was found locked. He came to know that the office bearers of Nahidco had ran away after locking the office. Thereafter, he lodged a complaint to SHO P.S. Moti Nagar. It is stated that he had also read in a newspaper that the office bearers of the company had disappeared. He brought the original documents i.e. Letter of Registration; scheme showing mode of payment; letter dated 18.05.1984; letter dated 06.07.1984; receipt dated 05.07.1984 issued to him; schedule showing mode of payment; receipt showing issuance FIR No. 241/1988, PS Moti Nagar Page 23/57 of drafts; copies of drafts; letter showing issuance of registration certificate; original registration certificate; another receipt qua payment made by him and his complaint, copies of which are collectively exhibited as Ex. PW­19/A (OSR). In his cross­ examination, it is stated by him that upon reading advertisement he contacted one Mam Raj Sharma who stated to him that he was working on behalf of Mr. Gupta. It is stated that the registration certificate was signed by Managing Director M.R. Jyoti. It is stated that he issued draft in favour of Nahidco. It is stated that at the time of registration an impression was given to him that the flats would be ready within 1½ year and possession would be given to him. It is stated that after paying two installments when he tried to know about the progress of the scheme and sent two letters and thereafter when the office was found locked, he got suspicious. This witness recognize accused P.R. Gupta in the Court. It is stated that accused P.R. Gupta had taken him and his wife in his car and offered him two flats for booking. It is stated that accused P.R. Gupta took him to some guest house in Gurgaon. This witness could not tell the exact date, but it was in the month of June, 1984, he lodged the complaint to SHO, P.S. Moti Nagar. It is stated that receipts were issued to him after paying drafts. It is denied by him that he was aware that Nahidco was not owning any land, despite that he invested into the schemes of the company.

18. PW­20 R.P. Bhatt deposed that in the year, 1984 he read an advertisement in the pamphlet of Nahidco Housing Development FIR No. 241/1988, PS Moti Nagar Page 24/57 Scheme for Delhi and Chandigarh wherein offers were made for the allotment of flats and plots in Delhi and Chandigarh. On reading the same, he visited the office of the company at 101, Magnum House, Opposite Milan Cinema where he met all the three accused persons present in the Court on that day alongwith Jyoti Gupta. It is stated that all the three accused persons as well as Jyoti Gupta stated to him about the features of their scheme and shown him various scheme run by them and stated to him that the possession of the flats would be given within three years of registration. It is stated that after negotiations he got himself registered for Type­IX flats measuring 540 sq. ft. and his application no. 14249 was accepted by the promoters and a registration certificate letter was issued to him by the Manager of Nahidco. Thereafter, he paid a sum of Rs. 15,000/­ approximately to the company/ promoters. Thereafter, he waited for three years for allotment of flat and after three years he visited the office, but by that time the office was closed. In the meantime also, he visited many times to the office of promoters for knowing the progress of the scheme and he used to meet the accused persons present in the Court who used to give him assurance that the scheme is in progress. It is stated that he used to meet Jyoti Gupta who also assured him qua progress of scheme. It is stated that after about three years when he visited the office it was found locked. On that he went to P.S. Moti Nagar and lodged a written complaint. He brought the original documents i.e. complaint; registration certificate letter; development scheme; refund deposit letter and letter of acceptance, copies of which are collectively exhibited as Ex. PW­20/A (OSR). In his cross­ FIR No. 241/1988, PS Moti Nagar Page 25/57 examination by accused P.R. Gupta, he could not tell the exact date when he met the accused persons, though it is stated by him that it was on the date of registration i.e. 05.04.1984. It is stated that when he visited the office of the company on 05.04.1984 all the three accused persons alongwith Jyoti Gupta met him. It is denied by him that accused P.R. Gupta did not meet him on 05.04.1984 as he was in government job at Shimla. It is denied by him that he is deposing falsely in this respect. It is stated by him that in respect of payments made by him the receipts were issued to him, however those receipts are not traceable. It is stated that the receipt was issued by Nahidco as proprietorship concern. It is admitted by him that the correspondence was with proprietorship concern. In his cross­examination on behalf of other accused persons, it is stated by him that he has not made any statement to the IO. It is stated that today (i.e. on the date of examination of this witness) he does not remember the names of accused persons, but he has identified all the three accused persons as he met accused persons many times in the office of the company. It is stated that it was not within his knowledge, if accused R.K. Gupta and accused Harvinder Gupta were residing at Chandigarh at that time. It is stated that it was after three years when he moved an application for refund, accused persons time and again used to linger his payments, thus he felt cheated. It is stated that when he got himself registered, he was taken to Gurgaon and certain lands were shown to him at Gurgaon where plots were going to be build. It is stated that he wrote an application for refund on 18.04.1987. It is denied by him that he lodged a false report, or that he has not been cheated by the accused FIR No. 241/1988, PS Moti Nagar Page 26/57 persons, or that he had not met accused persons.

19. PW­24 Sh. Anil Kumar deposed that in the month of March, 1988 he read an advertisement published in Hindustan Times. The advertisement was published by Nahidco Development wherein offers were made for housing projects which was near DLF Enclave, Gurgaon. It is stated that as per advertisement, 25% of total was supposed to be given in advance. It is stated that on reading advertisement, he went to the office of company at Moti Nagar where he met Director of the company M.R. Jyoti Gupta who explained features of the project and this witness was given one form to be filled at the cost of Rs. 2,500/­. It is stated that he applied for a house ad­ measuring 200 sq. yds. Even number of house was given to him as D­

35. It is stated that on 13.03.1984 when he visited the office of the company at Moti Nagar, he paid a draft of Rs. 15,949/­ drawn on Punjab & Sind Bank, Jangpura. Thereafter, a demand was raised for the second installment on which he paid a sum of Rs. 12,875/­ through cross cheque dated 12.12.1984. Thereafter, he visited the office of the company 2­3 times about the progress of the project and on every time assurances were given to him that the project is under progress and sanction has been received from the government. Thereafter, about 3­ 4 years of making first investment, he again visited the office of the company and found the office to be closed down. Thereafter, he lodged a complaint at P.S. Moti Nagar. Till date, neither the invested amount, nor house as promised by the company has been given to him. In his cross­examination, it is stated by him that he never met FIR No. 241/1988, PS Moti Nagar Page 27/57 none of the accused persons present in the Court during his visit to the company, except M.R. Gupta. It is stated that so far as he is concerned, no inducement has been caused to him by the accused persons.

20. PW­25 Sh. Mohan Dutt Sharma deposed that in the year, 1983­84 he read an advertisement published in Hindustan Times and in the said advertisement published by Nahidco offers were made for the built up flats at Delhi border, Gurgaon on the new proposed highway at that time. Upon reading the same, he went to the office of the company at Magnum House, Karam Pura, Moti Nagar where he met Jyoti Gupta, accused Padam Raj alongwith one lady. During conversation, the details of the project were stated to him and one form alongwith brousher was given to him. He applied for one built up flat of 175 sq. yds. and the cost price of the said flat was stated to be about Rs. 1.5 lacs. Thereafter, he applied for the loan from office Siemens Ltd. and he paid two installments, one of Rs. 15,000/­ approximately and second of Rs. 13,000/­ approximately, thus he paid Rs. 28,000/­ in total. It is stated that prior to paying first installment, accused Jyoti Gupta took him to the site, however at that time no construction was started at the site. It is stated that after paying two installments, he visited the office of Nahidco a number of times. It is stated that he used to meet accused Padam Raj; Jyoti Gupta and one lady who kept on assuring that the project is under progress and proposal for approval before the Chief Minister and that before the next Diwali, the construction would be completed and possession FIR No. 241/1988, PS Moti Nagar Page 28/57 would be handed over to him. It is stated that second installment paid by him was in the shape of joint FD in his name as well as in the name of accused company with Central Bank of India, Kirti Nagar Branch, New Delhi. It is stated that Jyoti Gupta stated to him if the FD in joint name could be encashed the possession of the flat would be given to this witness earlier and on this representation he signed the documents and they got the FDR encashed. It is stated that he waited for two years, but he could not notice any progress in the project on that he approached the company and requested for return of his amount. On that he asked to fill up a form of withdrawal and accordingly he filled up that form. Upon submitting his form only a principal amount which too was not complete was given to him. Upon this, he asked for the interest for which company requested him for filing a new form. It is again stated by him that even the deposits made by him was never returned to him as the company stated to him that the same would be returned after 70 days. It is stated that after completion of three years, six cheques were issued to him by the company. Upon this he requested the company for issue him only one cheque. Accordingly, one cheque was issued to him on returning of six cheques. It is stated that on presentation, the cheque was dishonoured. It is stated that neither his invested amount, nor any allotment was made to him. It is stated that whenever he used to visit the office of the company he used to meet Padam Raj Gupta and R.K. Gupta and they used to assure him that the possession of the flat would be given to him and he need not to worry for the same. However, the accused persons do not used to issue documents as the documents were used to FIR No. 241/1988, PS Moti Nagar Page 29/57 be signed by the staff of the company. It is stated that he met accused Harvinder only once in the office, however no talks took place between Harvinder and him. He brought some of the documents i.e. application for withdrawal/ refund which is Ex. PW­25/A and Ex. PW­25/B; the receipts of invested amount are Ex. PW­25/C to Ex. PW­25/E; the calculation sheet is Ex. PW­25/F; cheque issued to him by the company is Ex. PW­25/G and bank memo is Ex. PW­25/H. In his cross­examination on behalf of accused persons namely Harvinder and Rakesh Kumar Gupta, it is denied by him that except M.R. Jyoti he does not met any other accused. It is admitted by him that the cheque, Ex. PW­25/G was issued in the capacity of Managing Proprietor. It is denied by him that accused persons never assured him about the soundness of the project. It is stated that infact after coming into contact with the company, he had attended the marriage of accused Padam. It is denied by him that he know the accused persons as he have seen them present in the office of the company. In his cross­examination by accused P.R. Gupta, it is stated by him that he read advertisement in the month of February/ March, 1984. He could not tell if the advertisement was on behalf of Nahidco Ltd. or Nahidco. It is denied by him that Nahidco was a proprietorship concern. It is voluntarily stated by him that accused P.R. Gupta was one of the Director. It is stated by him that he first visited the office of the company in the month of April, 1984. This witness could not tell if accused Padam Raj Gupta was posted at Shimla in a Government Job at the relevant time. It is stated that he FIR No. 241/1988, PS Moti Nagar Page 30/57 issued cheques in the name of Nahidco i.e. in the name of National Housing and Development Coporation. It is stated that receipts were issued by the National Housing and Development Corporation being issued for Nahidco. It is stated that he took the cheques for refund on 11.07.1987 i.e. post dated cheque. It is stated that he had not presented the six cheques. He could not tell as to which of the concern issued the cheques. It is denied by him that he know accused P.R. Gupta only being the brother of the accused M.R. Jyoti.

21. PW­26 Sh. Methew Verghese deposed that in the year 1985, he read an advertisement in the newspaper Hindustan Times published by Nahidco wherein offer was made for different plots in Gurgaon. Thereafter, he went to the office of the company at Moti Nagar where he met staff members of the company who briefed him about the schemes of the company and thereafter, he was even taken by one Ms. Gupta to the site. He became interested in a plot of 300 sq. yds. and paid a sum of Rs. 6,000/­ through cheque to the company and thereafter, he waited for about three years for allotment of the plot. IT is stated that since there was no response from the company side, he visited the office of the company in the year, 1988 and found the same locked. It is stated that till date neither plot was alloted to him, nor his invested money returned. It is stated that though he had met accused Padam Raj Gupta in the office of the company and accused P.R. Gupta at once explained him about the scheme, witness pointed out towards accused P.R. Gupta. In his cross­examination by accused P.R. Gupta, it is stated by him that he invested Rs. 6,000/­ only after FIR No. 241/1988, PS Moti Nagar Page 31/57 seeing the site in the year, 1985. It is stated that he could not produce the receipt in this regard before the Court. It is stated that he deposited the cheque in the office of the company, but he does not remember in whose favour cheques were issued by him.

22. PW­27 Retd. SI Ram Phal deposed that on 10.08.1988 he was posted at P.S. Moti Nagar as HC and Duty Officer. It is stated that on that day at about 7:50 pm he received a complaint of the complainant, Sh. Sadhu Singh Gill from Reader of SHO on the basis of which he recorded FIR No. 241/88, U/s 420 IPC and handed over the copy of FIR with original rukka to Ct. Jai Prakash for handing over the same to SI Amar Singh for investigation. He exhibited copy of FIR as Ex. PW­27/A (OSR). In his cross­examination, it is stated by him that the endorsement for registration of FIR was of SHO and not of DCP.

23. PW­28 Inspector Avtar Singh deposed that in the month of April, 1989 he was posted as SI with Crime Branch and investigation of the present matter was marked to him. During course of investigation, he recorded statement of witnesses U/s 161 Cr.P.C. It is stated that he made efforts to apprehend accused M.R. Jyoti @ M.R. Gupta and obtained his NBWs. It is stated that since accused M.R. Jyoti @ M.R. Gupta was absconding he attached one property bearing no. M2, 3 and 4 situated at Magnum House through concerned SDM.

24. PW­29 Inspector Ramesh Chand has been partly examined on 21.05.2010 and his further examination­in­chief was deferred, FIR No. 241/1988, PS Moti Nagar Page 32/57 however this witness has not came forward to complete his evidence. Thus, testimony of this witness cannot be read in evidence being incomplete.

25. PW­30 Sh. Rajbir Singh Gulia deposed that on 10.10.1988 he was posted at Crime Branch as SI. On that day, file of the present case was entrusted to him for investigation from SI Gulati. It is stated that during investigation he got some clue with respect to present accused persons namely Padam Raj Gupta; Rakesh Kumar Gupta @ R.K. Bharti and Harvinder Kumar Gupta @ Ravin Kumar Gupta. On 19.03.1989 he arrested all the three accused persons and conducted their personal search vide memos which are Ex. PW­30/A to Ex. PW­ 30/C. He identified all the accused persons correctly present in the Court. It is stated that on 21.03.1989 he conducted search at premises no.26, Shopping Centre, Karampura vide memo Ex. PW­30/D. He also conducted search of house bearing no. G61, Bali Nagar, Second Floor vide memo Ex. PW­30/E. He also conducted search of premises bearing no. 101, Magnum House (office of Nahidco) and seized documents vide memo Ex. PW­30/F. It is stated that he agreed with the contents of the document Ex. PW­30/F. It is stated that during course of investigation, he recorded statements of witnesses. It is stated that he had also visited the office of Registrar of Companies and had made inquiries from there. It is stated that as far as he remember on 29.03.1989 he handed over on going investigation to some other officer. This witness was able to recollect that during his visit to the office of Registrar of Companies, it was transpired that FIR No. 241/1988, PS Moti Nagar Page 33/57 accused persons had floated a number of companies. It is stated that there was some proprietorship firm also wherein accused M.R. Jyoti was acting. It is stated that the abovesaid documents are not traceable (separate departmental enquiry in this regard already initiated against erring official). In his cross­examination on behalf of accused P.R. Gupta, it is stated by him that the witnesses were examined U/s 161 Cr.P.C. who had stated that accused Padam Raj was involved in day to day affairs of the company/ firm and used to collect money from the various applicants in the office of the company situated at 101, Magnum House and used to assure them the desired properties/ property in return. This witness could not tell, if all the witnesses examined by him were not the victims. It is stated by him that so far as he recollect there was no such receipt/ document to show that accused Padam Raj Gupta used to issue receipts/ documents to the victims. It is again stated that factum of receiving money by accused Padam Raj Gupta from witnesses has come during their statements U/s 161 Cr.P.C. This witness could not recollect as to how many other companies of accused R.K. Gupta were floated.

26. Upon completion of Prosecution Evidence, statement of accused persons U/s 313 Cr.P.C were recorded.

27. During statement of accused Padam Raj Gupta U/s 313 Cr.P.C., it was stated by him that M/s Nahidco situated at Magnum House No. 101, Najafgarh Raod, Delhi was a proprietorship firm of M.R. Jyoti. He had never accepted any payment from any of the complainant/ FIR No. 241/1988, PS Moti Nagar Page 34/57 investor during the period 1984­87. It is stated that he was in government service in Shimla at Industries Department in HPPSC since 1980 to 1986 and was living in Shimla since 1980­86. It is stated by him that IO SI Rajbir Singh Gulia arrested him only on the basis of statements of 3­4 complainants recorded by him U/s 161 Cr.P.C. It is stated that these statements were recorded by IO of his own and no documents were recovered to corroborate the statements of the complainants. It is stated by him that accused M.R. Jyoti was his real brother who was running his business since 1980 at Chandigarh and Delhi in the name of M/s Nahidco (National Housing Industrial Development Corporation in short Nahidco) as proprietorship concern. It is stated that M/s Nahidco Housing Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated on 09.01.1985 as separate entity by the Registrar of Companies, Delhi and no assets and liabilities of Nahidco proprietorship firm was ever taken or transferred in the name of Nahidco Housing Pvt. Ltd. in the office of Registrar of Companies. It is stated that he was made a nominal Director of Nahidco Housing Pvt. Ltd. by his brother M.R. Jyoti on 14.06.1985 and he resigned from the company as Director on 05.11.1986. It is stated that he had no active role in the company or its day to day affairs as he was living in Shimla and was in government service. It is stated that he had been implicated in this case by the IO being the brother of M.R. Jyoti. It is stated that he had no shares in the company. It is stated that IO of the case never investigated about his residence and service in Shimla. This accused opted to lead defence evidence.

FIR No. 241/1988, PS Moti Nagar Page 35/57

28. During statement of accused Rakesh Kumar Gupta U/s 313 Cr.P.C., it was stated by him that M/s Nahidco situated at Magnum House No. 101, Najafgarh Raod, Delhi was a proprietorship firm of M.R. Jyoti. He had never accepted any payment from any of the complainant/ investor during the period 1984­87. It is stated by him that IO SI Rajbir Singh Gulia arrested him only on the basis of statements of 3­4 complainants recorded by him U/s 161 Cr.P.C. It is stated that these statement was recorded by IO of his own and no documents were recovered to corroborate the statements of the complainants. It is stated by him that accused M.R. Jyoti was his real brother who was running his business in the name of M/s National Housing Industrial Development Corporation in short Nahidco as proprietorship concern. It is stated that M/s Nahidco Housing Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated on 09.01.1985 as separate entity by the Registrar of Companies, Delhi and no assets and liabilities of Nahidco proprietorship firm was ever taken or transferred in the name of Nahidco Housing Pvt. Ltd. It is stated that he was Director of Nahidco Housing Pvt. Ltd. and he resigned from the company as Director on 05.11.1986. It is stated that he was residing at H.No. 1241, Sector­21, Chandigarh and he had no active role in the day to day affairs of the company as he was living in Chandigarh. It is stated that he had been implicated in this case by the IO being the brother of M.R. Jyoti. This accused opted to lead defence evidence.

29. During statement of accused Harvinder Kumar Gupta @ Ravin Gupta U/s 313 Cr.P.C., it was stated by him that he had nothing to do FIR No. 241/1988, PS Moti Nagar Page 36/57 with the company. It is stated by him that he has been falsely implicated by the police and later on all the witnesses have deposed at the instance of police. It is stated that he had nothing to do with the said company. It is stated that this is a false case. This accused opted to lead defence evidence.

30. The accused persons in their defence have examined following witnesses :­

31. DW­1 Sh. Kashi Ram posted as Superintendent­Gr­I at Directorate of Industries, Udhyog Bhawan, Bambloi, Shimla­1, Himachal Pradesh, brought the summoned record i.e. letter no. 16­ 5/93­Ind­I(Estt)­XII dated 13.12.2016 regarding the service record of Padam Raj Gupta S/o Sh. P.D. Gupta, which are Ex. DW­1/A (Colly) (comprising three pages) (OSR). In his cross­examination, it is accepted by him that they are unable to trace the personal record/ service record of Padam Raj Gupta. It is stated by him that two other pages of Ex. DW­1/A are photocopy documents only and original of the same are not available with their department. It is stated that he could not identify signatures of Deputy Director, Industries as mentioned in the letter dated 22.03.1983. It is stated that he could not say whether Padam Raj Gupta was ever employee with Directorate of Industries as in absence of record.

32. DW­2 Sh. Om Parkash Mehta, posted as Senior Assistant at Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, Nigam Vihar, Shimla­ FIR No. 241/1988, PS Moti Nagar Page 37/57 171002 brought the summoned record i.e. letter no. Ind­H 91 (c) 6­ LPC/79­80­Government of Himachal Pradesh, Directorate of Industries dated 22.03.1983 addressed to The Secretary, Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission received from Deputy Director of Industries (Admn.), Himachal Pradesh alongwith last pay certificate dated 18.03.1983 which is Ex. DW­2/A (Colly) (comprising of two pages) (OSR). He has also brought copy of application of Padam Raj Gupta dated 21.11.1994 vide which he requested for last pay certificate which is Ex. DW­2/B (OSR); copy of last pay certificate issued by Joint Secretary, HPPSC in lieu of notice period for the month of December 1986 is Ex. DW­2/C (Colly) (comprising three pages) (OSR); copy of office order no. 4­58/83­PSC dated 17.12.1986 vide which services of Padam Raj Gupta were terminated is Ex. DW­ 2/D (Colly) (comprising three pages) (OSR); copy of pay bill no. 452/86­PSC dated 20.12.1986 is Ex. DW­2/E (Colly) (comprising four pages) (OSR). In his cross­examination, it is stated by him that on the basis of these documents he can say that Padam Raj Gupta had worked with Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (HPPSC) from March, 1983 to 04.11.1985. It is stated that the period of job was continuous work. It is stated that the document, Ex. PW­2/A shows that Padam Raj Gupta had came from Directorate of Industries, Himachal Pradesh by appointment on transfer basis. It is stated that the records produced by him are not revealing father's name of Padam Raj Gupta and his residential address as per his application Ex. PW­ 2/B is V&PO Arki, District Solan, U.P. It is stated that as per record, FIR No. 241/1988, PS Moti Nagar Page 38/57 Padam Raj Gupta was absenting from his service after 04.11.1985 and his service was terminated vide office order dated 17.12.1986, Ex. DW­2/D. It is stated that the record of leave period of Padam Raj Gupta is not available with them.

33. DW­3 Sh. Dalip Kumar, Patwari, Halka Sarhaoul, Majra Nathupur, Tehsil & District Gurugram, Haryana brought the summoned record for the year 1985­86 for the jamabandi of year 1985­86 of the property, Khewat No. 140, Khata No. 266 of land in Village Nathupur. It is stated that the pages of relevant record are torn and its part is missing. However, he has also brought the original record of aforementioned property for the jamabandi year 2005­06 whereas Khewat No. 264/245, Khata No. 326 is recorded in the name of Nahidco Housing Pvt. Ltd., Magnum House, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi includes Khasra No. 113/2/2, measuring of 1 Biswa (1 Biswa is equal to 3025 sq. yds.), 2 Biswansi (1 Biswansi is equal to 7.5625 sq. yds.) 0­1­2, photocopy of which is Ex. DW­3/A (OSR). In his cross­ examination, it is stated by him that the jamabandi record is maintained on five yearly basis and the last jamabandi record prior to the record of 1985­86 is 1980­81 which includes mutation record and Khasra Girdawari. It is stated that he has not brought the jamabandi record of 1980­81. He could not tell in whose name the property Khewat No. 140, Khata No. 266 is recorded in the record of year, 1980­81. It is stated that since the record of year, 1985­86 is torn and missing, thus he could not say about the ownership of the property in the record. It is stated that the jamabandi record of year, 2000­01 FIR No. 241/1988, PS Moti Nagar Page 39/57 reveals that the property was registered vide Khatoni No. 326 (Khewat No. 245/208) under ownership of Nahidco Housing Pvt. Ltd., Magnum House, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi includes Khasra No. 113/2, measuring of 3 Biswa (1 Biswa is equal to 3025 sq. yds.), 12 Biswansi (1 Biswansi is equal to 7.5625 sq. yds.). It is stated that as per record vide mutation no. 1956 sanctioned date 25.02.2003 land measuring about 2 Biswa and 10 Biswansi out of the property was acquired by the government.

34. DW­4 Sh. Varinder Kumar posted as Tracer at Director General Town and Country Planning Department, Chandigarh brought the summoned record i.e. application alongwith documents submitted at Town and country Planning, Chandigarh by Nahidco Housing Pvt. Ltd. on 22.05.1986 and subsequent representation made by the company are collectively Ex. DW­4/A­1 (Colly) (OSR). It is stated that on this application, their department had made orders from time to time and the order­sheets from 22.05.1986 to 02.06.1987 are collectively Ex. DW­4/A­2 (Colly) (OSR). In his cross­examination, it is stated by him that file number of record of Nahidco Housing Pvt. Ltd. in their department is LC­72. He could not tell the name of the officials who prepared the proceeding sheets, Ex. DW­4/A­2. It is stated by him that the record brought by him includes the application on behalf of Nahidco Housing Pvt. Ltd. dated 22.05.1986 is not showing the name and address of Director. It is stated that this record is not maintained by their branch and he has brought this record from Colony Branch of their department. It is stated that he has no personal FIR No. 241/1988, PS Moti Nagar Page 40/57 knowledge about the record brought by him.

35. No other defence witness was examined and defence evidence was closed on statements of accused persons.

36. The undersigned has heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the record.

ARGUMENTS :

37. It is argued on behalf of accused Padam Raj Gupta that names of accused persons namely Padam Raj Gupta, Rakesh Kumar Gupta and Harvinder Kumar Gupta @ Ravin Gupta have not been mentioned even in challan no. 5, 8, 10, 13, 14 & 16, despite that charges were framed against them as well under same sections. It is argued that a number of complainants/ alleged investors did not turned up to depose before the Court. It is argued that a number of them have compounded the matter during the proceedings. It is argued that accused Padam Raj Gupta was inducted as Director in the company in place of Ms. Nisha Rani on 14.06.1985. There are no allegations against him in the FIR. There is no allegation that any overt act has been done by accused Padam Raj Gupta. It is stated that accused Padam Raj Gupta was in service in the office of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission from March, 1983 to 04.11.1985 on continuous basis. It is argued that since he was in service at the given time, hence he could not be called conspirator in launching this scheme in 1984. It is argued that accused Padam Raj Gupta cannot be FIR No. 241/1988, PS Moti Nagar Page 41/57 held vicariously liable for the act of the promoter/ company. It is argued that a person can be said to have done a thing dishonestly if he does so with intention of causing wrongful gain to a person or wrongful loss to another. It is argued that for such an act, an intention to commit cheating at the time of inception of the act is an essential ingredient, further no pecuniary advantage has been gained by any of the accused persons tried before the Court. It is argued that there is no material available on record to show that accused Padam Raj Gupta was incharge of or responsible for the conduct of company's business. It is argued that for the offence of criminal conspiracy there must be some evidence that accused Padam Raj Gupta named in the charge­ sheet had came together to form a conspiracy and in pursuit of the same duped investors by alluring them to invest in the project. It is argued that some kind of physical manifestations must be brought on record to bring home the charge of criminal conspiracy. To support his contention accused relied on certain case laws which are as follows :­

(i) Sharad Kumar Sanghi Vs. Sangita Rane, 2015 (2) Criminal Court Cases 127 (S.C.) wherein it was held that for the offence of cheating by a company, if a complainant intends to rope in Managing Director or any officer of a company, it is essential to make requisite allegations to constitute vicarious liability.

(ii) Kuljeet Singh alias Mintoo & Ors. Vs. Kailash Chand Agrawal & Anr., 2008 (3) Criminal Court Cases 148 (Allahabad) FIR No. 241/1988, PS Moti Nagar Page 42/57 wherein it was held that intention to cheat has to be shown from very inception.

(iii) Shyamal Saha & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal, 2014 (3) Criminal Court Cases 224 (S.C.) wherein it was held that considerable additions in the oral testimony in Court, than what was stated before IO during investigation by crucial witnesses creates doubt on prosecution version and accused persons are entitled to benefit of doubt in such case.

(iv) In Jitendra Vora Vs. Bhavana Y. Shah, Criminal Appeal No. 1001 of 2010, decided on 16.09.2015 there were two firms being run by accused, one M/s Shah Enterprises and another M/s Shah Agencies. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that since liability of Shah Agencies was never taken over by Shah Enterprises, hence Shah Enterprises could not be held liable for the act of M/s Shah Agencies.

(v) M.A.A. Annamalai Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 1504 of 2010, decided on 12.08.2010 wherein it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that vicarious liability in FIR against company U/s 420 IPC a Director of company who ceases to be Director on the date of offence cannot be held liable. It was also held that when there are no allegations in complaint that Director was incharge of or responsible for the conduct of the company's business which had given rise to the offence, the proceedings qua Director will FIR No. 241/1988, PS Moti Nagar Page 43/57 be quashed.

38. Similarly, argued on behalf of other accused persons namely Rakesh Kumar Gupta and Harvinder Kumar Gupta @ Ravin Gupta. It is further argued that they were residents of Chandigarh. It is argued that they had been falsely implicated in this case just because they are brothers of accused M.R. Jyoti. It is argued that they were not responsible for the day to day affairs of M/s Nahidco Housing Pvt. Ltd. It is argued that no overt act has been attributed to them by any of the witnesses. Accused M.R. Jyoti was running a proprietorship concern in the name of M/s National Housing Industrial Development Corporation in short Nahidco. On 09.01.1985 a registered company namely M/s Nahidco Housing Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated as a separate entity. It is argued that no assets and liabilities of Nahidco proprietorship firm was ever taken over or transferred in the name of Nahidco Housing Pvt. Ltd.

39. Ld. APP for the State has argued that the conspiracy need not be established by evidence of an actual agreement between the conspirators and the overt acts raise a presumption of an agreement and knowledge of the conspiracy. Direct evidence of conspiracy is almost an impossibility. In the present matter, from 101, Magnum House, Najafgarh Road, Delhi, accused M.R. Jyoti was running a firm in the name of M/s National Housing and Industrial Development Corporation (Nahidco) which was giving advertisement in the newspaper to allure investors. Thereafter, present accused persons, FIR No. 241/1988, PS Moti Nagar Page 44/57 except accused Padam Raj Gupta incorporated a company from the very same address with the name of M/s Nahidco Housing Pvt. Ltd. and later on, accused Padam Raj Gupta also became a Director in the same. A number of witnesses specifically stated role of accused Padam Raj Gupta and other accused persons which shows their indulgence in the conspiracy to cheat innocent persons. Further, there is specific allegations against them. It is argued that initially the company M/s Nahidco Housing Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated with the corpus of Rs. 10,000/­. Thereafter, as per auditor report and balance sheet of Nahidco, the said company took a huge loan of Rs. 19 lacs approximately from M/s Nahidco i.e. proprietorship concern of accused M.R. Jyoti. From this money some land was purchased. It is argued that even after creation of M/s Nahidco Housing Pvt. Ltd. accused persons used documents of M/s Nahidco (proprietorship concern) just in order to cheat the public persons/ investors. It is argued that on a combined reading of testimonies of prosecution witnesses, offence U/s 420/120B IPC are proved against the accused persons beyond any doubt.

FINDINGS :

40. Arguments adduced by Ld. APP for State and Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused persons have been heard. Evidences and documents on record perused carefully.

41. In order to bring home guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution was required to prove following facts :­ FIR No. 241/1988, PS Moti Nagar Page 45/57

(a) The accused persons hatched a criminal conspiracy to induce the public investors to invest money on the pretext of providing them a residential plots/ flats in a colony launched by the accused persons in Gurgaon.

(b) The accused persons in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy induced the victims to invest in the scheme launched by the accused persons.

(c) The accused persons since inception had no intention to provide residential plots/ flats to the investors, hence thereby they committed fraud with the investors.

42. It is well established principle of law that the conspiracy need not be established by evidence of an actual agreement between the conspirators, the overt acts done by the accused persons can give rise to raise a presumption of an agreement and knowledge of the conspiracy. Direct evidence of conspiracy is almost an impossibility. The conspiracy has to be proved by showing some overt act of the accused persons in persuasion of that conspiracy. In the present matter, the following facts shows that accused persons namely Padam Raj Gupta, Rakesh Kumar Gupta and Harvinder Kumar Gupta @ Ravin Gupta were part of conspiracy since inception :­ FIR No. 241/1988, PS Moti Nagar Page 46/57

(a) Accused M.R. Jyoti who is proclaimed offender is real brother of accused persons namely Padam Raj Gupta, Rakesh Kumar Gupta and Harvinder Kumar Gupta @ Ravin Gupta. The proprietorship firm of accused M.R. Jyoti was having name and title M/s National Housing and Industrial Development Corporation (Nahidco). Its office was at 101, Magnum House, Najafgarh Road, Delhi. The perusal of brochure, Ex. PW­9/B of "Nahidco Enclave" Scheme initiated by M/s Nahidco shows that on its first page it is mentioned that the firm was going to be registered shortly as company with Registrar of Company and accused persons namely M.R. Jyoti, Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Harvinder Kumar Gupta @ Ravin Gupta and one Ms. Nisha Rani would be the promoters of the same. As stated in this brochure the company M/s Nahidco Housing Pvt. Ltd. was registered with Registrar of Company on 09.01.1985. Its registered office was also at 101, Magnum House, Najafgarh Road, Delhi; its promoters were also the same as stated in the brochure.

(b) M/s Nahidco was giving regularly advertisement in the newspaper qua residential scheme which it was launching in Gurgaon with the name "Nahidco Enclave", despite that accused persons namely Rakesh Kumar Gupta and Harvinder Kumar Gupta @ Ravin Gupta became promoters and Directors of the company with the same name having same address and for the same purpose i.e. building residential localities etc. Infact, this Private Limited Company FIR No. 241/1988, PS Moti Nagar Page 47/57 incorporated by the accused persons applied to various Government departments of Haryana Government seeking license for building residential society on the very same place and with the very same name as advertised by M/s Nahidco proprietorship concern.

(c) It is not only that name of the proprietorship concern & company and its main office was same i.e. 101, Magnum House, Najafgarh Road, Delhi, rather logo of M/s Nahidco proprietorship concern as apparent on the registration certificate as well as logo of M/s Nahidco Housing Pvt. Ltd. company as apparent on its letter heads which were filed alongwith application for seeking licenses which are Ex. DW­4/A­1 and Ex. DW­4/A­2 are the same i.e. a hut/ house built in English style (slanting roof with chimney) with the words Nahidco at the bottom. Further, the company M/s Nahidco Housing Pvt. Ltd. also acquired land at the same place where M/s Nahidco proprietorship concern had proposed the residential locality. Infact, accused Harinder Kumar Gupta @ Ravin Gupta was also an active Director of M/s Nahidco company as he had also signed a number of documents submitted to the department of Director General Town & Country Planning for grant of license.

(d) IO of the present case has filed a receipt book no.1 of National Housing & Industrial Development Corporation (Nahidco) which has been numbered from 2001 to 2100 which was seized vide seizure memo, Ex. PW­30/F from the office premises of M/s Nahidco FIR No. 241/1988, PS Moti Nagar Page 48/57 proprietorship concern and M/s Nahidco Housing Pvt. Ltd. i.e. 101, Magnum House, Najafgarh Road, Delhi. This receipt book is very interesting document. Though, almost all the pages in the same are counterfoils, however page no. 2096, 2097, 2098, 2099 are having blank original and receipt no. 2025, 2045 and 2083 are also originals which were later on cancelled. From these blank originals, it is apparent that these are the receipt of National Housing & Industrial Development Corporation i.e. M/s Nahidco (proprietorship concern). However, counter foils at page no. 2003 shows that qua third quarterly installment money has been received from one S.B. Mathur on 17.01.1986 qua application no. 1663, Phase­II. From perusal of the back side of this page it appears that the said payment was received vide cheque bearing no. 2286816 which was in the name of Nahidco Housing (P) Ltd. Similarly, by page no. 2008 second installment was taken from one Jawahar Mam qua application no. 1558, Phase­II vide DD No. 1351661 which was also in favour of Nahidco Housing (P) Ltd. Again by page no. 2018 third quarterly installment was taken from one Promela Khan qua application no. 1687, Phase­II vide draft bearing no. 0217250 which was also in favour of Nahidco Housing (P) Ltd. This receipt book clearly suggest that qua registration made with M/s Nahidco proprietorship concern installments were being received by M/s Nahidco Housing Pvt. Ltd. company.

(e) PW­20 R.P. Bhatt deposed in the Court that all the accused persons i.e. Padam Raj Gupta, Rakesh Kumar Gupta and Harvinder FIR No. 241/1988, PS Moti Nagar Page 49/57 Kumar Gupta @ Ravin Gupta alongwith one Jyoti Gupta have told him about features of their scheme and ensure him that the possession of the flats would be given within three years of registration. He met the present accused persons in the office at 101, Magnum House, Opposite Milan Cinema, Delhi.

(f) PW­9 Sh. K.K. Taneja (also examined as PW­21) also stated that all three present accused persons were present at the office of Nahidco Company when he invested in the scheme.

(g) PW­15A Sh. Shatanjiva Hooja also stated that he met accused Rakesh Gupta 5­6 times when he visited the office of Nahidco company.

(h) PW­25 Sh. Mohan Dutt Sharma has specifically stated about accused Rakesh Kumar Gupta (R.K. Gupta) that he used to meet accused R.K. Gupta in the office of Nahidco who used to assure him about the project. It is further stated that he has also met with accused Harvinder once, however no talks had taken place between them.

(i) The accused persons were so clever that all the liabilities were incurred by them in the name of M/s Nahidco (proprietorship concern), while land at the site was purchased in the name of company i.e. liabilities of the firm and assets of the company only.

FIR No. 241/1988, PS Moti Nagar Page 50/57

43. All these facts shows active conspiracy between accused persons who are real brothers to dupe the innocent persons by running a proprietorship concern as well as a company with the same name, same address just in order to save themselves from future litigation, criminal cases and to avoid their liabilities by claiming separate legal entity or the company from the proprietorship concern M/s Nahidco.

44. All the above­stated facts further shows that accused persons namely Rakesh Kumar Gupta and Harvinder Kumar Gupta @ Ravin Gupta were very well aware that their brother accused Mam Raj Gupta @ Mam Raj Jyoti @ M.R. Jyoti running a proprietorship concern from very same address i.e. 101, Magnum House, Najafgarh Road, Delhi. He was giving regularly advertisement in the newspapers which are Ex. PW­9/A (Colly) started from year 1984 till 26.04.1985 i.e. till the time when company M/s Nahidco Housing Pvt. Ltd. had already came into existence, despite that they opened the company with the same name, at the same address with the same logo, for the same purpose and also applied for license of residential locality at the same place where the project was offered to public by M/s Nahidco proprietorship concern. All these facts clearly shows that there was active criminal conspiracy between accused persons namely Rakesh Kumar Gupta and Harvinder Kumar Gupta @ Ravin Gupta and accused Mam Raj Gupta @ Mam Raj Jyoti @ M.R. Jyoti to dupe innocent investors.

FIR No. 241/1988, PS Moti Nagar Page 51/57

45. In the present matter, M/s Nahidco (proprietorship firm) never had sufficient land at Gurgaon for executing the residential scheme launched by them, it never purchased the land and never applied for license for any such residential locality as proposed by them. Thus, an apparent fraud was committed with innocent persons who were induced by way of advertisement in the newspaper, brochure handed over to them and oral assurance made by the accused persons that the investors would get residential plot/ flat at good price. It is to be noted that this is a fit case wherein corporate veil has to be lifted as accused persons being Directors/ Promoters of M/s Nahidco Housing Pvt. Ltd. company committed large scale fraud with the various public persons.

Role of accused Padam Raj Gupta

46. Accused Padam Raj Gupta is also brother of other accused persons. He became Director of M/s Nahidco Housing Pvt. Ltd. on 14.06.1985 i.e. five months after incorporation of the company. Active role of this accused has been mentioned by a number of prosecution witnesses/ investors who have been duped by the accused persons.

47. PW­9 Sh. K.K. Taneja (also examined as PW­21) stated that all three present accused persons (including Padam Raj Gupta) were FIR No. 241/1988, PS Moti Nagar Page 52/57 present at the office of Nahidco Company when he invested in the scheme.

48. PW­15A Sh. Shatanjiva Hooja also stated that he met accused Padam Raj Gupta 5­6 times when he visited the office of Nahidco company.

49. PW­19 Sh. Yog Raj Dogra has specifically stated that accused Padam Raj Gupta had taken him and his wife for the site visit of project in June, 1984. Infact, an interesting suggestion was given to this witness that this witness invested in the scheme despite knowing that Nahidco was not owning any land. This suggestion clearly suggest that investment of this witness as well as the fact that Nahidco was not owning any land at that time is admitted by accused Padam Raj Gupta.

50. PW­20 Sh. R.P. Bhatt also stated that accused Padam Raj Gupta and all other accused persons met him and he had met them a number of times and they assured him about progress of work.

51. PW­25 Sh. Mohan Dutt Sharma had categorically stated that he met accused persons namely Padam Raj Gupta, Jyoti Gupta (i.e. accused Mam Raj Gupta @ Mam Raj Jyoti @ M.R. Jyoti), R.K. Gupta (Rakesh Kumar Gupta) and one lady at the office of Nahidco. They FIR No. 241/1988, PS Moti Nagar Page 53/57 used to assure him about progress of project.

52. PW­26 Sh. Methew Verghese has also stated that accused Padam Raj Gupta had met him in the office of the company and explained him about the scheme/ project, though this witness could not brought any document on record to show that he had invested in that scheme.

53. Accused Padam Raj Gupta got examined DW­1 Sh. Kashi Ram from Directorate of Industries, Udhyog Bhawan, Bambloi, Shimla­I, Himachal Pradesh and DW­2 Sh. Om Parkash Mehta from Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, Nigam Vihar, Shimla to show that he was in service of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission from March, 1983 till 04.11.1985. However, he was terminated from the office vide office order dated 17.12.1986 (Ex. DW­2/D) as he was continuously absenting from work after 04.11.1985. On the strength of these witness it was claimed by accused Padam Raj Gupta that he was not in Delhi at the time of fraud being committed by his brothers. However, this contention of accused Padam Raj Gupta is not tenable as he has not proved on record his attendance in the office during the period from March, 1983 till 04.11.1985. The sincerity and dedication of accused Padam Raj Gupta towards his job can be gathered from the fact that after a brief period of service from March, 1983 till 04.11.1985, he remained absent from the job due to which he was terminated.

FIR No. 241/1988, PS Moti Nagar Page 54/57

54. In such circumstances, in absence of attendance register, the contention of accused Padam Raj Gupta that he was regularly attending his office at Himachal Pradesh and was not available in Delhi at the relevant time cannot be proved on record. One more thing has to be considered in the present matter that despite remaining in service till 04.11.1985 and being terminated on 17.12.1986, accused Padam Raj Gupta became Director in the accused company in June, 1986 which shows that his first priority was business of M/s Nahidco Company and not his job.

55. It is to be noted that apart from PW­9, PW­15A, PW­19, PW­ 20, PW­25 and PW­26 a number of other witnesses who have compounded the offence after recording of their testimonies on 1­2 dates e.g. PW­1 have also stated that accused Padam Raj Gupta had shown them the site of project.

56. All these facts shows that accused Padam Raj Gupta was actively involved in duping the public persons by alluring them into the scheme and was actively committed the fraud conspired by him with his brothers.

57. In view of the above­stated discussions, it is hereby held that accused company i.e. M/s Nahidco Housing Pvt. Ltd. as well as all FIR No. 241/1988, PS Moti Nagar Page 55/57 other accused persons namely Padam Raj Gupta, Rakesh Kumar Gupta and Harvinder Kumar Gupta @ Ravin Gupta have committed offence punishable U/s 120­B r/w Section 420 IPC qua victims namely Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Sh. P.K. Sur, Sh. K.K. Taneja, Ms. Vinod Sharma, Sh. Sanjay Kumar Jain, Sh. Shatanjiva Hooja, Sh. Puran Chand, Sh. Yog Raj Dogra, Sh. R.P. Bhatt, Sh. Anil Kumar, Sh. Mohan Dutt Sharma and Methew Verghese. Thus, accused persons are convicted for commission of offences punishable U/s 120­B r/w Section 420 IPC.

58. Accused Padam Raj Gupta is also liable for offence punishable U/s 420 IPC against victims namely Sh. K.K. Taneja, Sh. Shatanjiva Hooja, Sh. Yog Raj Dogra, Sh. R.P. Bhatt, Sh. Mohan Dutt Sharma and Sh. Methew Verghese. Thus, accused Padam Raj Gupta is also convicted for commission of offences punishable U/s 420 IPC qua these victims.

59. Accused persons namely Rakesh Kumar Gupta and Harvinder Kumar Gupta @ Ravin Gupta are also liable for offence punishable U/s 420 IPC against victims namely Sh. K.K. Taneja, Sh. Shatanjiva Hooja, Sh. R.P. Bhatt and Sh. Mohan Dutt Sharma. Thus, accused persons namely Rakesh Kumar Gupta and Harvinder Kumar Gupta @ Ravin Gupta are also convicted for commission of offences punishable U/s 420 IPC qua these victims.

FIR No. 241/1988, PS Moti Nagar Page 56/57

60. Copies of the judgment be supplied to the accused persons free of cost. Digitally signed GAJENDER by GAJENDER SINGH SINGH NAGAR NAGAR Date: 2020.03.03 10:50:02 +0000 ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR) COURT ON 02.03.2020 ACMM­02 (CENTRAL)DELHI Containing 57 pages all signed by the presiding officer.

(GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR) ACMM­02 (CENTRAL)DELHI FIR No. 241/1988, PS Moti Nagar Page 57/57