Delhi District Court
Roc vs Trilok Chand Gupta on 27 August, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDRA KUMAR SHARMA
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATES (Spl. Acts) CENTRAL
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
ROC vs Trilok Chand Gupta
CC No.1403/03
U/s 63/628 of Companies Act, 1956
JUDGMENT
(a)Serial no. of the case : 02401R0329132002
(b)Date of commission of offence : During the year 199495
(c)Name of complainant : Registrar of Companies,
NCT of Delhi & Haryana
(d)Name, parentage, residence: 1)Trilok Chand Gupta (now expired)
Kankhal, Haridwar
2)Arun Kumar Lila (MD)
E4/132 Arora Colony, Bhopal
3)Sudhir Gupta, Kankhal, Haridwar
4)Krishan Lal Lila (now expired)
Lila Chowk, Purana Ahadi,
Sri Ganga Nagar, Rajasthan.
5)Dharam Kumar Lila
E4/132, Arora Colony, Bhopal
6)Devesh Bhargava,
C10, Pamposh Enclave, New Delhi
7)Krishan Kumar, 11/2A Pusa Road,
New Delhi
8)Subash Chandra Gupta,
AM73, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi
9)Ramesh Kumar, (already PO)
Block No.A, Sector3, Kh. No.138/15,
Sangam Vihar, New Delhi
(e)Offence complained of/ proved : U/s 63/628 of Companies Act, 1956 ROC vs Trilok Chand Gupta CC No.1403/03 1 of 18 (f)Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty (g)Final order : Acquitted (h)Date of such order : 27.08.2014 Date of institution: 07.06.02 Arguments heard/order reserved: 22.08.2014 Date of Judgment: 27.08.2014 Brief statement of the reasons for the decision:
1 Initially, the complainant Sh. JK Jolly, the then Deputy Registrar of Companies NCT of Delhi & Haryana filed two complaints bearing CC No.1403/3 (old No. 806/2) for the offence u/s 63/628 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short the 'Act') and CC No.1402/2 (old No.805/2) for the offence u/s 62/68 of the Act against the above mentioned accused persons.
2 Vide order dated 08.04.2011 complaint case No.1402/2 (old No.805/2) u/s 62/68 of the Act was dismissed in view of the order dated 23.09.2010 by the Hon'ble High Court. Now complaint case No.1403/3 for the offence u/s 63/628 of the Act is left to be adjudicated upon.
3 In fine, the facts of the case are that accused no.1 to 9 were allegedly signatory of prospectus dated 28.04.1994 and are/were responsible for conduct of affairs of the company M/s Hariparwat Merryland & Resort Limited at the relevant period. The said company came up with the public issue of 21 lacs equity shares of Rs.10/ each aggregating to Rs.210 lacs. In the said prospectus, the accused made an offer to the public issue with following objects of the issue: ROC vs Trilok Chand Gupta CC No.1403/03 2 of 18
(a) To part finance the cost of the project under taken by the company for putting up an amusement park with myriad recreational facilities and amusement rides at Rampur, Haridwar.
(b) To meet the capital issue expenses and
(c) To get the equity shares listed at the stock exchange. 4 It is further alleged that the from the prospectus and post issue Balance Sheets filed by the company for the year 199495 to 199899, it was observed that the company collected Rs.210 lacs from public issue but the company failed to utilize the funds received through public issue for the objects of the issue mentioned in the prospectus. It is further alleged that the company has diverted the public funds in the shape of capital working process (Fixed Assets), Loans & Advances and preoperative expenses. The company failed to install plant and Machinery and start commercial activity as per projection. The company had no capital work in progress prior to issue. The company has invested Rs.157.88 lacs in the year 199495 and continued to raise it to the tune of Rs.388.75 lacs in the year 199899. The company has not earned profit as per projection and during the year 199798 and 199899 the company suffered losses. Making false statement in the prospectus is punishable u/s 63/628 of the Act. Hence, present complaint.
5 Accused no.1 and 4 expired during pending proceedings as per order sheet dated 30.09.2011 and 03.08.2005 respectively. Accused no.9 Ramesh Kumar is/was absconding since beginning and ultimately on 11.03.2012 he was declared Proclaimed Offender. Now this judgment is directed against the ROC vs Trilok Chand Gupta CC No.1403/03 3 of 18 accused no.2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 who are facing trial.
6 Notice was framed against the accused on different dates. Firstly, notice was framed against the accused no.2 Arun Kumar Lila, no.3 Sudhir Kr. Gupta and no.6 Devesh Bhargava for the offence punishable u/s 63 & 628 of the Act on 19.07.2012. Thereafter, notice was framed against the accused no.5 Dharmendera Kr. Lila through counsel Pradeep Kumar Kar on 21.08.2012 and against the accused no.7 Krishan and accused Subhash Chander Gupta on 27.01.2014. All accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7 In order to substantiate its allegations made in the complaint, the complainant Sh. JK Jolly examined himself as PW1.
PW1 Sh. JK Jolly, the complainant who filed the present complaint, reiterated the facts of the complaint and stated that during the relevant year, he was looking after various duties and assignment that of the vanishing companies including the company in question. The company M/s Hari Parvat Merry Land & Resorts Limited was incorporated vide incorporation certificate Ex.PW1/1 and accused were the principal officers of the company responsible for day to affairs and compliance of the provisions of Companies Act on behalf of the company accused. The company came out with the public issue mentioned in the prospectus dated 28.04.1994. The witness proved on record photo copy of the prospectus as Ex.PW1/2 as well as certified copy of the prospectus obtained from Delhi Stock Exchange and the certified copy of the Listing Agreement obtained from DSE of the company as Ex.PW1/3 and ROC vs Trilok Chand Gupta CC No.1403/03 4 of 18 Ex.PW1/4. The witness also stated that he examined the prospectus and the balance sheets for the year 199495 to 199899 and noticed that the company has not utilized the funds raised through public issue as per their projection given in the said prospectus and they have utilized the said amount in other fields other than given in the prospectus. The witness further stated that the details of projections and comparative table of actual deployment and proved the relevant portion of the complaint as Ex.PW1/5. He further deposed that the company also projected for a provision of contingency to the tune of Rs.25.13 lacs but did not make any such provision and due to nonutilization of funds in the projection given in the prospectus, the company has suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.11.14 lacs and 22.49 lacs in the year 199798 and 199889 respectively. The witness also proved on record other relevant documents i.e photocopies of five years balance sheets for the year 199495 to 199889 Ex.PW1/6 to Ex.PW1/9, sanction for launching prosecution Ex.PW1/10, show cause notice Ex.PW1/11 and its reply Ex.PW1/12.
8 The statements of accused were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C r.w.s. 281 Cr.P.C separately.
In his statement, accused no.2 Arun Kumar Lila denied the allegations and stated he has been falsely implicated in this case.
In his statement, accused no.3 also denied all the material allegations and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case.
In his statement accused no.5 denied the allegations stating that he joined the company in the professional capacity and resigned the company on ROC vs Trilok Chand Gupta CC No.1403/03 5 of 18 15.01.1998. He had not participated in day to day affairs of the company nor received any renumeration or any benefit from the company at any point of time. He had not signed the prospectus nor had given any power of attorney to anybody to sign on his behalf.
Accused no.6 also denied the allegations stating that he joined the company in the professional capacity and resigned from the company on 01.09.1999. He had never participated in the day to day affairs of the company, nor signed the prospectus nor given power of attorney to anyone.
Accused no.7 and 8 also denied the allegations stating that they joined the company in professional capacity and resigned from the company on 26.11.1996. They had not participated in day to day affairs of the company nor received any renumeration or any benefit from the company at any point of time. They had not signed the prospectus nor had given any power of attorney to anybody to sign on their behalf. None of the accused opted to lead any defence evidence.
9 I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced on behalf of both the parties and gone through the relevant records. I have also gone through the written arguments filed on behalf of accused persons and considered the relevant provisions of law.
10 Relevant provisions of section 63/628 of the Act are reproduced below for ready reference:
63. Criminal liability for misstatement in prospectus. (1) Where a ROC vs Trilok Chand Gupta CC No.1403/03 6 of 18 prospectus issued after the commencement of this Act includes any untrue statement, every person who authorized the issue of the prospectus shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to [fifty thousand rupees], or with both, unless he proves either that the statement was immaterial or that he had reasonable ground to believe, and did up to the time of the issue of the prospectus believe, that the statement was true.
628. Penalty for false statements. If in any return, report, certificate, balance sheet, prospectus, statement or other document required by or for the purpose of any of the provisions of this Act, any person makes a statement
(a) which is false in any material particular, knowing it to be false; or
(b) which omits any material fact knowing it to be material, he shall, save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine.
A) (i) Learned company prosecutor argued that the case of the prosecution has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. She further argued that the complaint was filed within limitation as the limitation period commenced from the date the Central Government gave its approval for sanction. Therefore, accused may be convicted for the alleged offence.
(ii) On the other hand, accused no., 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 have denied the allegations and had taken specific defence that they have joined the company in the professional capacity and had not participated in day to day affairs of the company nor received any renumeration or any benefit from the company at any point of time. Accused no.5 stated that he resigned the company on 15.01.1998. Accused no.6 stated that he resigned the company on 01.09.1999. Accused no.7 and 8 also stated that they resigned the company on 26.11.1996.
ROC vs Trilok Chand Gupta CC No.1403/03 7 of 18 B) (i) In the present case, allegation is that the company came out with a
public mentioned in the prospectus Ex.PW1/3 and accused persons being directors/responsible for looking after the affairs of the company, failed to utilize the funds raised through public issue as per objects as mentioned in the prospectus. Accused no.3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 have taken almost similar defence that they were appointed in the company in their professional capacity and they were not actively involved in day to day affairs of the company and therefore, they are not liable for compliance of the Companies Act on behalf of company.
(ii) Perusal of prospectus Ex.PW1/3 shows the status of accused no. 2 Anil Kumar Lila as Managing Director, accused no.2 Sudhir Kumar Gupta as Joint Managing Director who will look after the timely implementation and commissioning of project, accused no.6 Devesh Bhargava as the Chairman of the company, who would be giving professional guidance to the company and accused no.5 and 7 as Chartered Accountant who would be giving professional guidance to the company.
(iii) Present case is a criminal proceedings and criminal responsibility cannot be fastened on a particular partner/director unless he/she was knowingly party to the default. For holding a particular partner/director liable, it has to be proved on record that he/she was knowingly party to the default and was also liable to comply with the provisions of the Act and in the absence of any such evidence, the complaint has to fail against that particular partner/director. This court does not find any evidence on record which could ROC vs Trilok Chand Gupta CC No.1403/03 8 of 18 show that accused no.3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 were knowingly party to the default and were responsible for complying of the provisions of Companies Act on behalf of the company at the relevant time.
(iv) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following case which was a case u/s 10 of Essential Commodities Act that in the absence of any proof, no partner can be convicted and in this regard relevant para of the judgment reads as under: AIR 1989 SC 1982 Sham Sundar and others vs State of Haryana "9. It is, therefore, necessary to add an emphatic note in this regard. More often it is common that some of the partners of a firm may not even be knowing of what is going on day to day in the firm. There may be partners, better known as sleeping partners who are not required to take part in the business of the firm. There may be ladies and minors who were admitted for the benefit of partners. They may not know anything about the business of the firm. It would be a travesty of justice to prosecute all partners and ask them to prove under the proviso to subsection (1) that the offence was committed without their knowledge. It is significant to note that the obligation for the accused to prove under the proviso that the 'offence took place without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent such offence arises only when the prosecution establishes that the requisite condition mentioned in subsection (1) is established. The requisite condition is that the partner was responsible for carrying on the business and was during the relevant time in charge of the business. In the absence of any such proof, no partner could be convicted".
(v) Further, vicarious liability cannot be imputed merely on the ground that accused was director of the company. Law in this regard has been summarized by our own High Court in case titled as "Sudeep Jain vs M/s ECE Industries Ltd in Cri. M.C. No. 1822/2013", order dated 06.05.2013. While discussing the vicarious liability of the director, it was observed that ROC vs Trilok Chand Gupta CC No.1403/03 9 of 18 vicarious liability on the part of a person must be pleaded and proved and not inferred. Same view has been taken by the Hon'ble Apex court in "National Small Industries Corp. Ltd. vs. Harmeet Singh Paintal and Anr., 2010 (2) SCALE 372". Relevant para of the judgment is reproduced below: "24. ... if the accused is not one of the persons who falls under the category of "persons who are responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company" then merely by stating that "he was incharge of the business of the company" or by stating that "he was incharge of day to day management of the company" or by stating that "he was incharge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company", he can not be made vicariously liable under Section 141(1) of the Act. To put it clear that for making a person liable under Section 141(2), the mechanical repetition of the requirements under Section 141(1) will be of no assistance, but there should be necessary averments in the complaint as to how and in what manner the accused was guilty of consent and connivance or negligence and therefore, responsible under Subsection (2) of Section 141 of the Act". C) Thus, it is clear that for holding a director responsible for a criminal offence, it has to be established by the prosecution that he/she was the person incharge for the day to day affairs of the firm during the relevant time. It is also clear from the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a partner/director cannot be made personally liable for the offences committed on behalf of the firm/company and the criminal liability can not be extended to another partner/director merely by virtue of his being partner in the firm/company unless something concrete is proved on record to show that he/she was the person incharge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm/company.
D) Now let me see the case qua the accused no.2 Arun Kumar Lila and other ROC vs Trilok Chand Gupta CC No.1403/03 10 of 18 accused on merit. Learned defence counsel argued that the present complaint is prospectus based prosecution, however, the prosecution has miserably failed to produce and prove on record original prospectus dated 28.04.1994 nor was able to produce any power of attorney allegedly executed in favour of accused Arun Kumar Lila who is alleged to have signed the prospectus on behalf of the accused persons. The prosecution has produced on record only printed copy of the prospectus which does not bear signature of any of the accused. It is further argued that the present complaint is hopelessly time barred as limitation prescribed u/s 468(2) r/w section 63 & 628 is three years. The prospectus dated 28.04.1994 was filed and registered with the ROC on the same day. However, the present case has been filed on 07.02.2002. There is no explanation as required u/s 470 Cr.P.C. for exclusion of limitation period on record. Thus, present complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment reported in "(2005) Vol. 123 Com. Case 139; 2009 (III) DRJ 204 and 2009 (109) DRJ 545". E) (i) The plea of the learned defence counsel appears to have force. In this case, the prospectus was published on 28.04.1994 and present complaint was filed on 07.06.2002 after expiry of almost seven years. The maximum punishment for the offence u/s 63 & 628 of the Act is two years or fine which may extend to five thousand rupees or both. In his statement, PW1 has simply stated that on checking the prospectus and balance sheets for the years 199495 to 199899, he noticed the aforesaid violations. But neither in the ROC vs Trilok Chand Gupta CC No.1403/03 11 of 18 complaint nor in his entire evidence, PW1 has disclosed as to when the balance sheets Ex.PW1/6 to Ex.PW1/9 were filed with the office of ROC and when he started checking the prospectus and the balance sheets. PW1 has deposed that as soon as the default was noticed and based on the sanction for prosecution which was received from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs vide letter dated 13.03.2002 Ex.PW1/10, he issued show cause notice to the accused. As per section 469 Cr.P.C, the period of limitation commences on the date of commission of offence or where commission of the offences was not known to the aggrieved, the first date on which such offence comes to the knowledge of such person, which ever is earlier.
(ii) Neither in the complaint nor in his evidence, complainant/PW1 has disclosed as to on which date he gained knowledge about the aforesaid violation. In his cross examination, PW1 has clearly admitted that no notice was ever sent to any of the accused relating to misstatement in the prospectus, prior to issuance of show cause notice Ex.PW1/11. Thus, it is clear that the complainant department came into motion only after receipt of letter/sanction Ex.PW1/10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is clear that the complainant department kept mum till sanction letter Ex.PW1/10 was received from the Ministry of Law, Justice & Company, Department of Company Affairs, New Delhi. The contention of learned company prosecutor that the complaint was filed within the period of limitation as the limitation period starts from the date the Central Government accords sanction, can not be accepted as there is no embargo u/s 234 of the Act for ROC vs Trilok Chand Gupta CC No.1403/03 12 of 18 the complainant to seek approval from the Central Government before initiating the prosecution against the accused. The period of limitation commences when the knowledge of the commission of offence is gained by the prosecuting agency.
F) From the aforesaid discussions, it appears that the present complaint was filed merely on the basis of sanction letter Ex.PW1/10. Had, the ROC not been received the sanction letter, present complaint would have not been filed. No explanation for delay in filing the present complaint has been given in the complaint nor any condonation of delay application was filed. It is no where mentioned in the complaint as to when the alleged offence came to the knowledge of the complainant for the first time. The complaint also no where mentions as to when the limitation period stars. It is held in the judgment (supra) relied upon by the learned defence counsel that however, when in the complaint, it is not stated as to from which date the limitation starts so as to bring the complaint within limitation nor it is stated as to when they applied for obtaining sanction of the competent authority to file the complaint and when the sanction was granted, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondents to submit that the complaint was within limitation. In this case also, the prospectus was issued on 28.04.1994 and present complaint was filed on 07.06.02. In view of the aforesaid discussions, it is held that present complaint is liable to be dismissed being barred by limitation.
ROC vs Trilok Chand Gupta CC No.1403/03 13 of 18 G) Learned defence counsel further argued that the sanction letter Ex.PW1/10 is not a proper sanction in the eyes of law as it does not mention the name of accused company or name of any of the accused nor role played by the accused in commission of offence, if any. I have perused the sanction letter dated 13.03.2002 Ex.PW1/10 in which it has been mentioned that 70 companies are still not traceable and 229 companies are vanishing companies but name of none of those 70 companies and 229 vanishing companies are mentioned therein. The sanction letter does not mention the name of the company involved in this case. Prima facie, sanction letter Ex.PW1/10 appears to be not a proper sanction as it does not mention the name of the company in question. The list of tabular name of those companies is a vital piece of document. In the sanction letter Ex.PW1/10, it is mentioned that permission to launch prosecution in such cases is hereby accorded, in respect of all the 229 vanishing companies identified originally. But complainant has not filed any list of those companies on record to establish that the company in question falls either in the category of 70 untraceable company or 229 vanishing company. In their statements, all accused have stated that company is not a vanishing company. It is admitted position of fact that the company was regular in filing its balance sheets and annual returns from the year 199495 to 199899. PW1 himself has proved copy of the balance sheets Ex.PW1/6 to Ex.PW1/9 for the year 199495 to 199899. In absence of any such document as referred in the sanction letter Ex.PW1/10 regarding the names of 220 vanishing companies identified originally, the complainant would never be in a position to clarify as ROC vs Trilok Chand Gupta CC No.1403/03 14 of 18 to in which category the company in question falls. Consequently, sanction Ex.PW1/10 is not a proper sanction in absence of list of aforesaid companies. H) (i) It is further argued that the present case is prospectus based prosecution. However, the prosecution has failed to produce original prospectus dated 28.04.1994. The prosecution has also failed to prove that the prospectus Ex.PW1/2 was signed by any of the accused persons and vicarious liability can not be fastened merely on the basis of printed or certified copy of prospectus which does not bear signature of any of the accused. In support of claim and contentions, reliance is placed upon the judgment reported in "(2005) Vol. 123 Com. Case 319 (Ramakrishna Raja vs ROC)".
(ii) The plea of the learned defence counsel appears to be correct. Bare perusal of cross examination of PW1 shows that in his cross examination, PW1 has admitted that original copy of the prospectus dated 28.04.1994 filed with the office of ROC is not available. PW1 further admitted that original power of attorney as stated to be given to Mr. Arun Kumar Lila on behalf of all other accused is not available on the record of ROC. Even photo copy of the same is not available on record of ROC. PW1 also admitted that the prospectus Ex.PW1/3 filed on court record is a printed copy of the original prospectus and same does not bear signature of any of the accused. I) (i) Further, mere issuance of prospectus or authorization of its issuance itself is not sufficient to constitute the offence. There must be something more i.e there must be authorization as well as some untrue ROC vs Trilok Chand Gupta CC No.1403/03 15 of 18 statement in the prospectus. It can be inferred only if it is proved that something had been done which was contrary to the objects stated in the prospectus or prospectus contains such statement which is against public policy or object which can not be executed or achieved or it was untrue regarding any other material aspects.
(ii) Thus, it is clear that the present complaint was filed on behalf of complainant without proper verification of facts and without proper investigation of the case. My view pertaining to utilization of funds is supported by the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in "Criminal MC No.1759 of 2005 in case titled as Manju Yadav vs. ROC dated 02.05.05".
(d)The complainant was required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is held in the following case laws: "JT 2001 (4) SC 92".
"10. The presumption under Section 4(1) in reference to an offence under section 161 IPC is, as already noticed, a rebuttable presumption. The only evidence led in this case is to establish charge under Section 161 IPC, of appellant having received gratification other than legal reward, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act in the exercise of his official functions to favour the prime mover is the statement of the contractor, PW2. As already noticed, the contractor has given different versions of the occurance in his statement before the vigilance wing and in the court. At the trial, he has not supported the prosecution case fully. On the other hand, the explanation given by the appellant both during the crossexamination of prosecution witnesses and in his own statement, recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. is quite plausible. Where an accused sets up a defence or offers an explanation, it is well settled that he is not required to prove his defence beyond a reasonable doubt but only by preponderance of probabilities. On prosecution's own showing, in this case, that ROC vs Trilok Chand Gupta CC No.1403/03 16 of 18 onus can be said to have been duly discharged by the appellant, more particularly, when the prosecution did not lead any evidence to show as to who made the payment to Kamalasanan who had removed the bump from the road which bump was otherwise required to be removed by PW2 for getting refund of his earnest money and security. May be, the allegation that the appellant accepted the amount as bribe to process his refund application is true but the court can not convict an accused only on such probability or suspicion, howsoever strong it may be. 'Between may be true and must be true, there is a long distance to travel' and in this case the prosecution has failed to travel that distance through any unimpeachable evidence. The case of the prosecution has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt".
2003 [3] JCC 1358 "It is no doubt a matter of regret a foul coldblooded and cruel murder should go unpunished. There may also be an element of truth in the prosecution story against the accused. Considered as a whole, the prosecution story may be true; but between 'may be true' and must be true' there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by the prosecution by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence before an accused can be convicted." 2007(1) Crimes 181 (SC)
15..."153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established.
(c) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned "must or should" and not "may be" established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between "may be proved" and must be or should be proved" as was held by this court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade vs. State of Maharashtra where the observations were made:[SCC para 19, p.807: SCC (Cri) p.1047] "Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions".
J) In view of the aforesaid discussions and facts and circumstance of the case, this court is of the considered opinion that accused no.2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are not liable for any offence allegedly committed on behalf of the company and present complaint is not maintainable being barred by limitation as well as ROC vs Trilok Chand Gupta CC No.1403/03 17 of 18 there is no merit in the case. Accordingly, accused no.2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are acquitted of charges leveled against them. Their bail bonds stand cancelled. Surety stands discharged. Original documents, if any, be returned to the rightful claimant after endorsement cancelled thereupon. They are directed to furnish fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000/ in terms of section 437A Cr.P.C.
File be consigned to the record room and be taken up as and when accused no.9 Ramesh Kumar (who is PO) is apprehended/arrested or produced before the court.
Judgment be sent to the server www.delhidistrictcourt.nic.in.
(DEVENDRA KUMAR SHARMA) ACMM(Special Acts) CENTRAL TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI Announced in open court on 27th August, 2014 (Total number of page 18) (One spare copy attached) ROC vs Trilok Chand Gupta CC No.1403/03 18 of 18