Delhi District Court
Rakesh Kumar vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 3 June, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANURADHA SHUKLA BHARDWAJ
ASJ02 (EAST) SPL. JUDGE (NDPS) KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
DELHI
Crl. (A) No. 21/13
1. Rakesh Kumar
S/o. Late Sh. Deep Chand Sharma
R/o. A/161B, Keshav Puram,
Delhi. ............ Revisionist
Versus
1. State (NCT of Delhi) ............ Respondent
1. ORDER
1. By this order, I shall dispose off the appeal filed against the judgment dt. 22.01.11 and order on sentence dt. 01.03.11 passed by Ld. MM.
2. Brief facts are that the accused alongwih Rajender Mittal and few others acquitted persons, had conspired with each other to cheat the general public at large. Several persons were cheated on the false assurance given by the appellant and others regarding allotment of flats.
CA No. 21/13 Page 1of 6 Rakesh Kumar Vs. State Money was taken from innocent public persons in the name of allotment of plot, however, the land which was allegedly to be alloted to the persons was acquired by Govt. and it did not belong to the appellant and his associates. The appellant and his associates thus cheated the complainant and others by inducing them to part off their hard earned money on the false assurance, which could not be fulfilled and thus causing unlawful profit for themselves and unlawful loss to the complainant and others.
3. Ld. Trial court after the trial convicted the accused and one more person u/s. 120B r/w 420 IPC and section 420 IPC. The evidence against the accused persons was testimony of several victims including one Donald examined as PW2. There were six persons, who had complained against the accused. During the pendency of appeal, four out of aforesaid six persons settled the dispute with the complainant. These persons are Rajender Prasad Gupta, Veena Mehta, Kantilal Mehta on 01.12.11 ( though he initially refused the settlement on 26.08.11) & Lal Chand Sajnani. The order dt. 23.01.12 says that out of the six complainants four had settled the matter, the fifth Anil Barman had settled the matter before the Ld. Mm on 20.07.06. Only Donald PW2 remained, with whom the matter was not settled. PW2 died during the CA No. 21/13 Page 2of 6 Rakesh Kumar Vs. State pendency of the matter. His legal heirs were summoned, however, the matter could not be settled and in between the appellant was taken in Judicial Custody in a case against him by an order of Consumer Forum.
4. It was argued by Ld. Counsel that the appellant has settled the matter with five out of six complainants. PW Donald had categorically stated that he was not aware, who had signed the receipts issued to him, thus creating a doubt on whether or not appellant Rakesh was the person, who took money from him. Appellant was a young boy and had joined the business of his brother inlaw Rajender mittal, he was not directly associated with the business.
5. Ld. Addl. PP on the other hand argued that there is categoric evidence against the appellant. There are documents which show that he had signed the receipts and also conveyed the public at large that he was the Director of the Company.
6. Arguments heard. Record Perused.
7. Leaving aside the testimony of other witnesses, who had settled the dispute with the complainant, I shall focus on the testimony of PW2.
CA No. 21/13 Page 3of 6 Rakesh Kumar Vs. State
PW2 deposed that in 1987, he had come to know from different
newspapers that plots of land were being sold by Rakesh Kumar and Ors. He met them at their office at Shakarpur and booked a plot of 200 sq. yards. He deposed of his son having booked a plot the same however, was H.C.Sharma and Kunti Sharma and not with the appellant. He produced the reciepts which were Ex.PW2/1 to PW2/17. the total amount being of Rs.58,000/. The land was acquired by the Govt. however, the accused persons did not disclose this fact to him nor did they return his money. Rakesh Kumar was identified by him in the Court and he it was stated that he alongwith others claimed to be the owner of the property. In his crossexamination he stated that the receipts of payment were signed by some authorised persons but he could not tell who that person was. No suggestion was given to this witness that none of the receipts had the signatures of appellant Rakesh Kumar.
8. Ld. Trial court while giving the judgment had considered the receipts individually to conclude that most of them were signed by Rakesh Kumar and he had signed the same in the capacity of Manager/Director of Tirupati Associates.
9. Since there is categoric evidence of one witness, who has CA No. 21/13 Page 4of 6 Rakesh Kumar Vs. State deposed that the money was taken from him by the appellant and others and who has tendered in evidence the receipts of payments, so made, the signatures on which documents have been concluded to be of appellant Rakesh Kumar without a challenge; there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the appellant was involved in the commission of offence. This is in addition to the conclusion of Ld. ACMM on the aspect of criminal conspiracy, which has been clearly explained with the role of the accused. There is, as such, no illegality in the judgment of Ld. Trial Court so far as judgment of conviction is concerned.
10. Coming to the aspect of sentencing. In the instant appeal, the appellant settled the matter in court with four out of six complainants; the fifth having settled it in the Ld.MM Court itself. The sixth complainant died and could not settle.
11. In view of above, maintaining the order of conviction, the orders on sentence is modified to the extent that substantive sentence awarded to the appellant is altered to the period already undergone, however, fine is enhanced from Rs. 50,000/ to Rs.75,000/, in default of payment of fine, appellant shall undergo SI for six months for offence u/s. 420 IPC. U/s. 120 r/w 420 IPC, the sentence shall be for the period already undergone. Out of the amount of Rs 75,000/ deposited by the CA No. 21/13 Page 5of 6 Rakesh Kumar Vs. State appellant, Rs 70,000/ shall be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased and 5000/ shall be retained as fine.
12. Trial Court record be sent back with a copy of this order. Appeal file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on 03.06.14 (ANURADHA SHUKLA BHARDWAJ) ASJ02, (EAST) SPL. JUDGE (NDPS) KKD COURTS, DELHI/03.06.14 CA No. 21/13 Page 6of 6 Rakesh Kumar Vs. State