Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . Vimal Dutt & Anr on 15 January, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANISH KHURANA,
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, SOUTHEAST DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Digitally signed
CBI Vs. Vimal Dutt & Anr
by MANISH
RC No: 31A/1994
MANISH KHURANA
U/s : 420/120B IPC KHURANADate:
2019.01.16
15:55:13 +0530
Date of institution of case : 05.07.1996
Date of reserving of judgment : 12.12.2018
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 15.01.2019
Unique ID No. : 32/2016
JUDGMENT
1. S. No. of the Case : 2/06/2012
2. Date of Commission of Offence : During the year 1994
3. Name of the complainant : Sh. S C Duggal, SED (Vig.),
South MTNL Office of CGM
K L Bhagwan, Janpath, New
Delhi.
4. Name,parentage & address of accused:(i) Vimal Dutt S/o Sh. Deen Dayal R/o 6/5771, New Chandrawal, Delhi.
(ii) Om Prakash Sharma S/o Sh. Babu Ram R/o H. No. 17, Gali No. 4, Molarbandh Extn., Badarpur, New Delhi.
5. Offence complained of : u/s 420/120B IPC RC No : 31A/94 CBI Vs. Vimal Dutt & Anr 1/34
6. Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty
7. Final Order : Accused Om Prakash Shama stands acquitted for the offence u/s 120B r/w s. 420 IPC & s. 420 IPC.
& Accused Vimal Dutt stands convicted u/s 420 IPC.
Case of the prosecution
1. Briefly stated the allegations against the accused Vimal Dutt and Om Parkash are that during the year 1994 they both entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat and they deceived MTNL by misusing telephone no. 6876595, which was not alloted to any subscriber, by getting the same connected to pair no. 30/3/8 allotted to other telephone number i.e. 670510 alloted to Smt. Usha W/o accused Vimal Dutt and thereby providing ISD/STD facility to various persons i.e their clients by using the conference facility and thereby caused loss to the tune of Rs. 6,33,924/ till 19.05.1994 to MTNL and thereby both the accused persons committed the offence u/s 120B read with section 420 IPC and u/s 420 IPC.
2. Investigation was conducted and the chargesheet u/s 120B r/w s. 420 IPC and s. 420 IPC was filed against accused Vimal Dutt and Om Parkash.
3. After the compliance of 207 Cr.PC, a primafacie case was found to be made out and charge u/s 120B r/w s. 420 IPC and u/s 420 IPC was framed against both the accused persons.
4. In order to substantiate and prove its case against the accused RC No : 31A/94 CBI Vs. Vimal Dutt & Anr 2/34 persons, prosecution examined as many as 21 witnesses.
5. PW1 Gokal Singh, SDE, Telephone Exchange, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi deposed that during the year 1990 he was posted as JTO on Nehru Place Telephone Exchange at E10B Switch Room and has stated that for the opening of telephone connection, OCS letter is sent by the Record Section to the Switch Room. He stated that in the record room, jumper letter is received from JTO Outdoor and on that basis the OCS letter is issued by the Record Section. He stated that the OCS letter contains telephone numbers, recruitment numbers and the category of telephone connection regarding STD facility or STD barred and the OB number with it. He stated that on receipt of OCS letter the JTO who had the necessary password used to give the command to the computer by entering ND number, NE number and type / category of telephone and on giving such command the telephone connection used to become alive. He further stated that he had seen the OCS letter dated 06.07.1990 which was prepared by Sh. U.S. Negi, Record Operator posted in Chankayapuri Record Room and he stated that the said OCS letter was received by him on the same day. He further stated that he opened the telephone connection mentioned in the said OCS letter including telephone no. 6876595 and noted the opening meter reading regarding the said telephone number and put his initials and returned the duplicate copy of said OCS letter to the record section. He has further stated that instruction regarding starting of bill was to be sent to the accounts section by the record section and the original of the OCS letter is retained in the switch room. This witness is shown the original letter Ex.PW1/A RC No : 31A/94 CBI Vs. Vimal Dutt & Anr 3/34 and he stated that signature of Sh. U.S. Negi appears on the said letter and that he had worked with Sh. U.S. Negi for number of years. He stated that the copy of this OCS Letter was handed over to CBI which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C. He also stated that two telephone connections could not be opened with the same N.E. number because the computer would not have accepted the command. But he stated that there could be two telephone connection with the same OB Number as OB number was not fed in the computer at the time of opening the telephone connection. He also stated that there was no mechanism to see at the time of opening the telephone connection against particular OB Number as to whether there was already an existing a telephone number against the same OB number. He also stated that there was no record as to whether the telephone connection was installed and in whose name the telephone connection stood. He was also shown the OCS register for the period 10.03.1990 to 03.09.1990 and the entry at Sr. no. 122 pertaining to OB no. 23060621 dated 18 th June but he could not tell about the entry in the register and he stated that OCS register used to be maintained in the section and whenever the telephone connection is opened the same had to be entered in the OCS register by the record section but he could not tell as to whether the same was done or not.
6. During his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel he could not identify the OCS register as the same was not maintained in his office. He also stated that the letter dated 06.07.1990 was not written or signed in his presence. He stated that the record section was located in Chankaya Puri which was situated at a distance of RC No : 31A/94 CBI Vs. Vimal Dutt & Anr 4/34 more than 12 kilometers from his office at Nehru Place. He could not tell as to who brought the letter dated 06.07.1990 to him. He stated that he sent back the duplicate copy of the said letter on the following day through dakman of the office but he could not tell his name. He stated that whenever any letter is received in the office the person who receives the same signed the book wherein the particulars of that letter are mentioned. At the time of the opening of the receipt of the letter similar procedure was adopted for sending the letter to the office. He stated that he was called by CBI twice and that CBI seized a document Ex.PW1/B from him but no seizure memo was prepared by CBI at that time. He also stated that CBI officials did not give any receipt in token of receipt of document Ex.PW1/B. He stated that the telephone connection in question pertain to the Chanakya Puri area but he is posted at Nehru Place Telephone Exchange. He did not know as to who was the concerned line man of the area and he also stated the he did not see the place whether the telephone connection in question was installed. He stated that he has no other personal knowledge regarding the incident in question and he stated that he opened the link for telephone as referred in his statement.
7. PW2 Sh. Rambir Singh stated that his house is adjacent to house no. 112B, Humayun Pur, Delhi which belongs to his uncle Kartar Singh and he stated that during the year 1994 some tenant used to stay in the said premises whom he could not identify. Ld. APP for State sought permission to cross examine this witness as he was stated to be resiling from his earlier statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC. During his cross examination by Ld. PP for CBI the accused RC No : 31A/94 CBI Vs. Vimal Dutt & Anr 5/34 persons were shown to other witnesses but he could not identify them. He stated that when the incident took place he was on rest and CBI only took his name and did not ask anything else. He denied that he was deposing falsely.
8. PW3 Sh. S.C. Duggal, Asstt. General Manager (Legal) MTNL, Khurshid Lal Bhawan, New Delhi deposed that during the year 1994, he was posted as SDE (Vigilance) MTNL and he received an information that one gang was operating which was allowing STD/ISD calls at cheap rate to their selected customers and they were having one telephone no. 6876595 which was closed as per MTNL record. He stated that on receipt of information the said number was kept under observation and it was noticed that huge number of STD/ISD calls were made from this number from morning till night and on checking the meter reading as on 18.05.1994 it was noticed that more than 4 lacs calls have been recorded and the complaint was made to the CBI for investigation and the print out of the calls made was also handed over to CBI. He stated that original complaint is Ex.PW1/A. He stated that the bills in respect of the said telephone number were not sent to anybody since the telephone number was closed and consequently loss was caused to MTNL. He stated that on 20.05.1994, CBI conducted raid and one party was sent to Chankaya Puri Telephone Exchange and second party in which he was associated was in the field duly in touch with the other party. He stated that the information was received from the raiding party which visited the MDF, Chanakya Puri Exchange that this number was operating at House no. 112, Humayun Pur. He stated that the second party comprising him RC No : 31A/94 CBI Vs. Vimal Dutt & Anr 6/34 raided the spot i.e. House no. 112, Humayun Pur and found that one attendant at the spot and two lines were working there which terminated on conference type instrument and number was 6876595 and other number was 607 something. The said number was confirmed as inter dialing the telephone number using parallel instrument. He stated that due to passage of time he could not identify the person who had found at the spot. He also stated that to confirm the availability of STD/ISD connection on the telephone number 6876595 test calls were made by some other number of other party. He stated that the CBI prepared the seizure memo Ex.PW3/C bearing his signature at point A. He stated that he also handed over the document Ex.PW3/D and the observation report of telephone number Ex.PW3/E.
9. During his cross examination conducted by Ld. Defence counsel he could not tell the exact date or time as to when the information was received in the department and he stated that the said information was oral and he did not know the name of informer nor did he meet him. He stated that the observation of the telephone was made through machine at Cannaught Placae Exchange and no written order was given for calls observation and only oral instructions were given to the concerned Incharge of the telephone exchange. He stated that he did not hold any vigilance inquiry to know the particulars of the persons involved in the case and he stated that said number were allotted afresh to new persons in due course. He stated that he did not hand over any record to CBI regarding the abovesaid closed telephone number. He stated that no departmental inquiry was done by him and he did not know if any inquiry was RC No : 31A/94 CBI Vs. Vimal Dutt & Anr 7/34 made by vigilance department. He stated that he alongwith raiding party went at the spot i.e. House no. 112, Humayun Pur at about 09:30 a.m. on 20.05.1994 and that there was about 7/8 persons and three of them were from the department. He could not tell as to how many floors were there in House no. 112, Humayun Pur and he stated that nobody met them on the ground floor of house and he stated that one person other than one attendant was present on the room at the second floor. He stated that they all remained present in the said house for about one or two hours and thereafter he came to CBI office and he did not remember as to whether the said attendant also accompanied to CBI office or not. He also stated that he never met Vimal Dutt or Manoj during the inquiry of this case. He voluntarily stated that he did not know as to whether name of attendant was Vimal Dutt or Manoj. He did not remember whether the sealed articles were seized or not.
10. PW4 Sh. Bharat Bhushan deposed that during the year 1994 he was employed with M/s Paras Photostat having shop at A25/5, Cannaught Place and the said shop was owned by Sh. Rajan Soni and the said shop had telephone connection number 3328370, 3326161 and 3328931 and the facility of Fax was available at telephone number 3328931 which had STD/ISD facility. He stated that during first week of April, 1994, one Vimal Dutt visited the said shop and gave the reference of an old employee Rajesh and stated that he had similar shop in South Delhi with similar facility like Fax machine, ISD, STD etc. and said Vimal Dutt told him that if the lines of his shop i.e. M/s Paras Photostat become busy or that there is an error in the transmission, STD/ISD facility etc. the RC No : 31A/94 CBI Vs. Vimal Dutt & Anr 8/34 facility of his (Vimal Dutt's) shop could be availed where the lines are new and likelihood of error is less. He also stated that if there was any heavy work load then the Fax facility at his (Vimal Dutt's) shop could be availed. He stated that he agreed to the proposal and sent Fax through the shop of said Vimal Dutt. He stated that such kind of work was got done from the shop of Vimal Dutt from first week of April to 20.05.1994. He stated that he used to collect payment from the customers for whom the Fax messages were sent. He stated that Sh. Vimal Dutt used to come to his shop and he was handed over the payments collected. He identified accused Vimal Dutt in the Court. He stated that apart from Vimal Dutt he did not know anybody else. He stated that CBI officials came to him and then he confirmed that he had sent Fax messages through the shop of Vimal Dutt and he stated that he did not know that Vimal Dutt was having any illegal facility.
11. During his cross examination conducted by Ld. Defence counsel he deposed that Sh. Rajesh Negi was not in employment when he joined the services at Cannaught Place shop. He stated that he took the concurrence of Proprietor Mr. Soni regarding the offer of Vimal Dutt. He stated that on the next day of visit of Vimal Dutt the first Fax was sent by Muradabad Firm to Foreign Country but he did not hand over any record of any Fax message which was sent through Vimal Dutt between April 1994 till 20.05.1994. He stated that he did not hand over any record regarding the communication, Fax message and the payments or bills regarding the transaction done by him with Vimal Dutt. He also stated that no cash vouchers was got signed by him from Vimal Dutt at the time of making the RC No : 31A/94 CBI Vs. Vimal Dutt & Anr 9/34 payments to him to him for the work done. He stated that he did not make any entry in any daily register or cash register regarding the payment which were made by him to Vimal Dutt. He stated that he do not give any record of parties for whom the business was done through Vimal Dutt and that CBI officials did not seize any material or document upon their visit to his shop on 20.05.1994. He stated that he he was employed at the monthly salary of Rs.2500/ per month in the shop since the month of January, 1994 and that the CBI did not obtain any proof of his employment or salary from him or his office. He denied that he was deposing falsely in connivance with telephone officials of Chankaya Puri and Nehru Place in order to save them.
12. PW 5 Sh. R.C. Julka, Regional Engineer, MTNL deposed that he was posted as SDO, Telephone at Chankaya Puri Telephone Exchange since 199495 and he handed over documents to CBI which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A. He stated that certified copies of OB register was attested by him under his signature which are Ex.PW5/B. He stated that the Divisional Manager was the competent authority to sanction the transfer of a telephone connection from one area to another and he stated that the telephone number 670510 was transferred on the request of subscriber.
13. PW6 Sh. A. K. Mishra, ExCBI Inspector deposed that on 20.05.1994 he alongwith two independent witnesses namely D.N. Rai, AGI, Vigilance, FCI HQ, N. Delhi and Suresh Kumar, LDC, Central Translation Bureau, Official Language Delhi and MTNL Technical Staff Sh. Krishan Kumar AE and Kewal Kishan, JTO RC No : 31A/94 CBI Vs. Vimal Dutt & Anr 10/34 visited and inspected 56X, Near NCC office, Safdarjung Enclave, N. Delhi from Cannaught Place Exchange informed that telephone number 6876595 was connected to the abovesaid pillar vide pillar no. 30/3/A. He stated that he inquired about the connectivity of the telephone line from pillar to the premises where it was installed and being used and it was found that abovesaid number was installed at house no. House no. 112, Second Floor, Humayun Pur, New Delhi and observation memo Ex.PW6/A was prepared and signed by him and other witnesses.
14. PW7 Sh. Kulbhushan Minocha did not support the case of the prosecution and he could not tell as to whether the telephone number installed at his residence was having STD facility of nor and during his cross examination by Ld. PP for CBI he denied that his statement was recorded by CBI officials on 29.07.1994. He also denied that he was called by IO in the CBI office or that the CBI had inquired from him as to whether the telephone number belonged to him. He denied that he was running M/s Aprna Boutique at his residence in the year 1994. He denied to have told the CBI officials that telephone number 5728913 was without STD/ISD facility. He denied that he told the CBI officials that one Vimal Dutt came to his house for taking money from him in lieu of providing ISD facility over his telephone. He could not identify the accused Vimal Dutt and stated that Vimal Dutt had never met him. He denied that he had been won over by accused or that he was deposing falsely.
15. PW8 Sh. M.R. Gupta, CAO, Office of General Manager, MTNL, Nehru place deposed that he was posted as Assistant RC No : 31A/94 CBI Vs. Vimal Dutt & Anr 11/34 Accounts Officer (Vigilance), MTNL and on 20.05.1994 he accompanied CBI team alongwith independent witness Sanjeev Kumar who was also present and he stated that he alongwith team reached at House no. 112, Second Floor, Humayun Pur, New Delhi and on the second floor of said premises one Om Parkash was present and one Panasonic instrument having two lines of one other instrument was also lying in the said room. He stated that technical staff of MTNL verified the telephone number with the help of another instrument and the telephone number was identified as "6876595" and "609744". He stated that thereafter Sanjeev Kumar who was independent witness from the department of MTNL made a test call to ascertain the ISD/STD facility with two foreign calls and all the calls were successfully made. He stated that the said calls were made from telephone number 6876595. He further stated that the Panasonic instrument was also having conference facility and CBI team seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PWE3/C bearing his signature at point B. During his further examination he deposed that the case property Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 was seized from the said premises of the accused before him and he stated that the case property Ex.P1 and Ex.P3 was available in the market, however, case property Ex.P2 was not available in the market as the same could not be procured from the market as it was only available in telephone exchange and a specific number used to be pasted on the telephone. This witness was not cross examined.
16. PW9 Sh. Anesh Kumar deposed that during the year 1994 he was posted as LDC, Central Translation Bureau, Official Language, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road and he was associated with the RC No : 31A/94 CBI Vs. Vimal Dutt & Anr 12/34 investigation of the present case as an independent witness with the CBI team and MTNL officers. He stated that he participated in the proceedings conducted at pillar no. 56, near NCL Office, Opposite Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi. He stated that the said proceedings were also participated by one independent witness whose name he could not tell but he stated that the said proceedings continued till 02:00 p.m. He stated that the observation memo was prepared by CBI in his presence which is Ex.PW6/A. He also stated that MTNL officials had made the test calls to ascertain the working of pairs and telephone connection and to trace out the place of installation of telephone. He stated that on the spot one rough sketch Ex.PW9/1 was also prepared.
17. PW10 Sh. D.N. Rai deposed that during the year 1994 he was posted in FCI as Vigilance officer, Asstt. GradeI and he joined the investigation and proceedings conducted by CBI on 20.05.1994 at pillar no. 56 Near NCL office, B5/32, Opposite Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi. He stated that the CBI team led by Insp. A.K. Mishra alongwith officials of MTNL and other independent witnesses reached at the spot at 08:20 a.m. and the search proceedings were conducted in his presence and some officials of MTNL had made some test calls at particular telephone number to assess and trace out that telephone number and thereafter proceedings memo alongwith search memo were prepared in his presence which are already Ex.PW76/A and Ex.PW9/1.
18. PW11 Insp. Ramesh Kumar deposed that in the year 1994 he was posted as Inspector, ACB, New Delhi and on 20.05.1994 he joined investigation of this case with the IO and he stated that he RC No : 31A/94 CBI Vs. Vimal Dutt & Anr 13/34 alongwith CBI staff, MTNL (Vigilance) staff and independent witnesses conducted search at MDF Room, Chankyapuri, Telephone exchange from 07:30 a.m. to 07:00 p.m. and during search it was found that telephone number 6876595 was connected to pair number 30/3/8. He stated that on verification from terminal record, it was found that pair no. 30/3/8 was allotted to telephone number 670510 installed at premises number 112, Humayun Pur, near Safdarjung Enclave through pillar no. 56 X 35 and it was seen from the record that telephone no. 6876595 was spare. He stated that he conveyed all these facts to IO Insp. Rajesh Kumar who send two teams, one at premises number 112, Humayun Pur, near Safdarjung Enclave and another at pillar no. 56 X 35 and after sometime one Shri Pal, AE, Vigilance confirmed that telephone number 6876595 was routed through that pillar. He stated that Insp. Sinha confirmed on phone from premises no. 112, Humayun Pur that telephone no. 6876595 was functioning from that premises. He stated that on his direction independent witness R.N. Gauskar made a telephone call at telephone number 6876595 which was received by Sh. Sanjeev Kumar an independent witness present at premises number 112, Humayun Pur, near Safdarjung Enclave. He also stated that Sh. S.C. Duggal, AE, Vigilance asked him on telephone as to which telephone number was alloted to pair number 30/3/21 and after seeing record, it was found that telephone number 609744 was connected to that pair. He stated that telephone number 670510 was connected to pair number 30/3/16 instead 30/3/8. He stated that he prepared observation/search memo Ex.PW11/A bearing his signature at point A. This witness was also RC No : 31A/94 CBI Vs. Vimal Dutt & Anr 14/34 shown the seizure memo dated 20.05.1994 Ex.PW11/B and he stated that vide said seizure memo he seized register/record etc. from Sh. Satya Pal, AE (FRS). This witness was cross examined by Ld LAC for both the accused persons.
19. PW12 Ashok Kumar Sanam, Manager, FCI, Head Quarter, 1620, Barakhamba, New Delhi deposed that he was posted as steno in FCI, Head Quarter and on 20.05.1994 he attended the CBI office on the direction of senior officers. He stated that one raiding team was formed in CBI office consisting of some MTNL officers and one other independent witness. He stated that the team went to conduct search at MDF Building, Chankaya Puri Exchange at 07:30 a.m. and the said search continued till 07:10 p.m in the evening. He stated that during the search one telephone number 6876595 was found connected to pair no. 30/3. This witness could not tell the rest of the digits of the pair number and he stated that test was conducted and the said pillar was found to be connected/allotted to another telephone number installed at premises number 112, Humayun Pur, near Safdarjung Enclave. He stated that on the request of Inspector Ramesh Kumar another witness made a test call at telephone number 6876595 which was received by other person with the team at premises number 112, Humayun Pur, near Safdarjung Enclave. He stated that all the proceedings were conducted in his presence. This witness stated that the observation cum search memo Ex.PW11/A and the seizure memo dated 20.05.1994 vide Ex.PW14/B were made in his presence.
20. PW13 Sh. Rajender Singh Yadav, Sub Divisional Engineer (MPG), Office of GMM, CGO Complex, New Delhi deposed that RC No : 31A/94 CBI Vs. Vimal Dutt & Anr 15/34 he was posted as Junior Telephone Officer in year 1993 and in the year 1994 he was posted in Vigilance Cell, MTNL, Khurshid Lal Bhawan. He stated that he visited CBI office, HQ, CGO Complex regarding the present case and on 20.05.1994, he accompanied the CBI team to premises number 112, Humayun Pur, near Safdarjung Enclave and on the second floor of the said premises telephone number 6876595 was found to be installed with STD/ISD facility regarding which a search cum seizure memo was prepared at the spot which is Ex.PW13/A bearing his signatures as a witness. He stated that the search proceedings had started at 10:00 a.m. and concluded at 03:45 p.m. and he was present during the search proceedings. He stated that CBI received call from telephone number 609744 and the caller identified him as Bunty and asked for Vimal and also at the same time he asked for Fax tone on his telephone as he wanted to fax someone. He stated that thereafter existence of STD/ISD was confirmed by making outstation calls. He stated that the articles mentioned in the said search memo Ex.PW13/A was also seized from the abovesaid spot i.e 112, Humayun Pur, Safdarjung Enclave, Delhi.
21. PW14 Sh. M. R. Gupta deposed that he alongwith CBI officials and MTNL officers went to Humayun Pur, New Delhi in connection with investigation related with CBI case and he was part of search team. He further deposed that on search it was found that an instrument was connected to one Panasonic two lines instrument which was found in working order. He stated that both the said numbers were tested by interdialing by using an extra telephone instrument. He stated that certain tests were done by Sh. Sanjeev RC No : 31A/94 CBI Vs. Vimal Dutt & Anr 16/34 Kumar, Inspector CBI alongwith other members of the search party and on testing it was found that telephone number was having STD/ISD facility and all the calls successfully matured. He also stated that the conference facility was also available and both numbers were in working condition as found by the search team and in one of the number STD/ISD facility was available. He also stated that during the search proceedings, a call from one person who identified himself as Bunty was received. He also stated that the said Bunty wanted to avail STD facility. This witness shown the search memo dated 20.05.1994 Ex.PW13/A bearing his signature at point B.
22. PW15 Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Manager (Vigilance), Airports Authority of India, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, Safdarjung, New Delhi deposed that on 20.05.1994 he was associated with the investigation of the present case and conducted search on that day in the MDF room of Chankayapuri Telephone Exchange in the presence of CBI staff and independent witness namely Sh. Ashok Kumar, R.N. Gaurkar and other team members. He further stated that during the search, it was observed that telephone number 6876595, which was spare telephone number, was connected to pair no. 30/3/8 and on checking of TTY Record, it was found that pair number 30/3/8 was allotted to telephone number 670510 installed at Humayun Pur, Near Dear Park, Safdarjung Enclave, Delhi through pillar number 56 X 35. He further deposed that these observations were conveyed to IO and two teams were deputed to visit 112, Humayun Pur and pillar number 56x35. Insp. S.K. Sinha confirmed that telephone no. 6876595 was functioning at 112, Humayun Pur, RC No : 31A/94 CBI Vs. Vimal Dutt & Anr 17/34 IInd floor. Independent witness Sh. R.N. Gaurkar dialed telephone number 6876595 which was picked up by an independent witness Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, present in that house, who confirmed that he was speaking from house no.112, Humanyu Pur and Asstt. Engineer, Vigilance, MTNL confirmed him on phone that telephone number 6876595 was routed through pillar number 56x35. On further checking, it was found that telephone number 670510 was connected to spare pair number 30/3/16, which was a spare pair, therefore, telephone number 670510 was not functioning. He stated that on checking he informed Asstt. Engineer, Vigilance, MTNL that telephone number 607944 was allotted to pair number 30/3/21. Jumper wire, pair of fuse, fuse carrier were seized vide separate seizure memos and were wrapped in the pieces of cloth and sealed with CBI seal which was handed over to Sh. Ashok Kumar Sanan an independent witness for its safe custody and search was conducted between 07:15 a.m to 7:30 p.m on 20.05.1994. He stated that about 15 registers/records were also seized. Witness relied upon memo Ex.PW15/A bearing his signature at point A.
23. PW16 Sh. R.N. Gaurkar, Store Clerk, General Section, DGHS, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi deposed that in the year 1994 he was a member consisting of team consisting of Insp. Ramesh Kumar and other CBI and MTNL officials and he alongwith team went to MDF, Chanakya Puri. In the premises they found two telephone numbers in working conditions. He stated that one of the telephone number was operating from Humayun Pur. He further stated that the number was tested from Chanakyapuri and reply was given from Humayun Pur and on inspection by the CBI team, they found RC No : 31A/94 CBI Vs. Vimal Dutt & Anr 18/34 that the number was connected to a certain pair instead of proper pair to which it should have been connected. He correctly identified his signature on the seizure memo Ex.PW15/A at point A.
24. PW17 Sh. Roop Singh Rana deposed that he was posted as Record operator in telephone exchange, Chanakya Puri and his duty was to maintain record of newly opened telephone and shifting of telephone numbers etc of level 611, 688, 687. He explained the procedure of taking new connection and of shifting of telephone connection and he stated that the commercial officer used to open the file for new telephone connection and his duty was to allot OB number and after that he used to send the same to SDO, outdoor of concerned exchange. He stated that thereafter, line used to be prepared by JTO, outdoor and the JTO, outdoor used to send a jumper letter to record section and then the file of the customer for new connection used to be prepared that contained OB number, name and address of customer and cable, thereafter, after checking the record available, telephone number used to be alloted to the customer. He deposed that message used to be conveyed to MDF, JTO so that he may instruct for the connection of new number and the line and another jumper letter used to be sent to Switch Room of the concerned exchange and then JTO outdoor used to confirm the operation of newly installed telephone connection with the subscriber. He stated that record of customer and his details was maintained by the office and in case of complaint, concerned JTO, outdoor used to redress the same.
25. PW18 Sh. Satya Pal deposed that he attended the CBI office as a witness and his statement was recorded. Witness also relied upon RC No : 31A/94 CBI Vs. Vimal Dutt & Anr 19/34 documents D4, D8 and D9 already Ex.PW11/A, Ex.PW18/A and Ex.PW18/B respectively.
26. PW19 Sh. D.S. Dabas deposed that he attended the CBI office as a witness and his statement was recorded. He identified the document D10 bearing his signature at point A which is Ex.W19/A.
27. PW20 Sh. Tota Ram deposed that during the investigation he was called by the CBI official Sh. Pawan Kumar at CBI office and he was shown one STD bill of telephone number 6876595 in response to which he confirmed that the STD details of above telephone number were of the same number i.e 6876595. He was shown STD details of abovesaid telephone number on which the name of the subscriber was not mentioned and he stated that in general practice name of the subscriber is always reflected on the bills. Witness was shown the telephone bills Ex.PW20/1 to Ex.PW20/6 and he stated that name of subscribers not mentioned over the STD details bill of aforesaid telephone number. He further stated that during the relevant period he was posted as PRO, south I, Bikaji Kama Place and his nature of duty were dealing with excessive billing complaints.
28. PW21 IO/Inspector Rajesh Kumar deposed that in the month of May 1994 he was posted as Inspector with ACB, CBI, Delhi and investigation of this case was initiated on the basis of complaint given by Sh. S C Duggal from Vigilance Department of MTNL with the allegation that a racket was being run to allow unauthorised STD calls etc on cheap rates due to which a loss of about Rs. 6 lacs was caused to MTNL and a corresponding gain to the accused persons who were running the said racket. He stated that on RC No : 31A/94 CBI Vs. Vimal Dutt & Anr 20/34 19.05.1994 the complaint of Sh. S C Duggal Ex.PW3/A was marked to him on the basis of which the present RC 31A/94 Ex.PW21/A was registered on 19.05.1994 and thereafter searches at various places were conducted by CBI team including the raid on 20.05.1994 at H. No. 112, 2nd Floor, Humayun Pur, New Delhi. He stated that the raid at Humayun Pur on 20.05.1994 was conducted under his leadership alongwith other members of the raiding team namely S C Duggal, Mr/ Gupta, G. Rajan and R S Yadav and during the search at this place Sh. Om Prakash Sharma was found present and during investigation it was revealed that said premises was in the possession of accused Vimal Dutt and Om Prakash Sharma. After refreshing his memory on perusal of document D3, this witness stated that during search two telephone lines were found terminated at this place and on checking their numbers were found to be 6876595 and 609744 and those numbers were checked by MTNL staff by making calls with the help of instruments available with them and the STD and ISD facility on telephone number 6876595 was found working and test calls were made to UK, Kuwait and Jorhat by team member and all the calls duly matured. He further stated that one Panasonic instrument having conference facility was also found at the premises. He stated that the search was conducted from about 11.00 till 3.304.00 pm. He stated that proceedings were signed by independent witnesses Sh. Sanjeev Kumar and R K Sharma and accused O P Sharma and he stated that the documents and articles seized during search proceedings were taken in possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/C. He further stated that investigation revealed that the telephone no. 6876595 RC No : 31A/94 CBI Vs. Vimal Dutt & Anr 21/34 was not officially allotted to anyone and that the accused persons had diverted this telephone number to their premises for making unauthorised ISD/STD calls on cheaper rates to their clients. He further stated that search proceedings were conducted at MDS room, Chanakya Puri Telephone Exchange by Inspector Ramesh Kumar under his directions and during the search proceedings it was confirmed that telephone no. 6876595, which was not allotted to any subscriber, was connected to pair no. 30/3/8 which was allotted to telephone no. 670510 located at H. No. 112, Humayun Pur, New Delhi via pillar no. 56X35. He stated that vide document Ex.PW5/A he seized six documents from R C Julka, SDO Chanakya Puri Exchange which relates to installation of telephone no. 670510 at H. No. 112, 2nd Floor, Humayun Pur, New Delhi. He further stated that vide document Ex.PW21/B bearing his signatures and official stamp he seized the documents supplied to him by Sh. V P Bhardwaj with respect to telephone no. 6876595. He further stated that Sh. Nanak Chand handed over the documents containing the OCS register of 687 level to him which were seized vide memo Ex.PW21/C. He further stated that he received the letter D16 from Commercial Officer, MTNL vide which he was informed that telephone connections bearing no. 609744 and 670510 in the name of Vimal Dutt and his wife Usha Sharma were shifted to H. No. 112, 2nd Floor, Humayun Pur, New Delhi. He further stated that Sh. D S Dabas, Vigilance Officer, MTNL provided the information/print out regarding the telephone no. 6876595 to CBI which was seized vide memo Ex.PW19/A and alongwith said letter the print out of aforesaid telephone numbers were also provided by MTNL to CBI RC No : 31A/94 CBI Vs. Vimal Dutt & Anr 22/34 which are Ex.PW20/1 (colly). He further stated that vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A dated 25.05.1995 now Ex.PW21/X (colly) he seized six documents from Sh. R C Julka, SDO Chanakya Puri. He further stated that he seized the certified true copy of O.B. Register of Chanakya Puri Exchange vide memo Ex.PW5/B. He further stated that he also seized two documents from Gokul Singh, JTO Chanakya Puri vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C dated 26.06.1995. He also stated that he seized the jumper letters from V P Bhardwaj. SDE, Nehru Place Exchange vide memo Ex.PW21/B and he also stated that he procured the meter reading of telephone number 6876595 vide Ex.PW21/1. He further stated that he also seized the OCS register of Chanakya Puri Exchange for the period between 10.03.1990 to 03.09.1990 which are Ex.PW21/Z (colly) and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW21/C. He further stated that vide letter dated 06.02.1995 files pertaining to telephone no. 609744 and 670510 were provided to him by MTNL officials which are Ex.PW21/Z2 and Ex.PW21/Z3. He stated that he completed the investigation and filed the chargesheet against the accused persons in the Court. This witness was cross examined at length by Ld LAC for the accused persons.
29. Thereafter, PE was closed and statement of accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC during which all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons and they denied the prosecution case and stated that they were falsely implicated in this case and the accused persons did not lead defence evidence.
30. I have heard Ld. PP for the CBI and Ld. LAC for accused persons and also gone through the record carefully.
RC No : 31A/94 CBI Vs. Vimal Dutt & Anr 23/34
Finding of the Court
31. As per the allegations, the accused Vimal Dutt and Om Parkash are that during the year 1994 they both entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat and they deceived MTNL by misusing telephone no. 6876595, which was not alloted to any subscriber, by getting the same connected to pair no. 30/3/8 allotted to other telephone number i.e. 670510 alloted to Smt. Usha W/o accused Vimal Dutt and thereby providing ISD/STD facility to various persons i.e their clients by using the conference facility and thereby caused loss to the tune of Rs. 6,33,924/ till 19.05.1994 to MTNL and thereby both the accused persons committed the offence u/s 120B read with section 420 IPC and u/s 420 IPC.
32. In the case in hand, as per the case put forth by the prosecution/CBI, the accused Vimal Dutt and Om Prakash entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the department of MTNL and pursuant to the criminal conspiracy they got connected on telephone no. 6876595, which was not allotted to any subscriber, to pair no. 30/3/8 which was allotted to telephone connection 670510 which was in the name of Smt. Usha Sharma w/o accused Vimal Dutt installed at premises no. 112, 2nd Floor, Humyun Pur, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi. One other phone number 609744 which was allotted to accused Vimal Dutt was also found installed at the abovesaid premises. Ld PP for CBI argued that so far as the role of accused Om Prakash Sharma is concerned, PW8 M R Gupta and the IO PW21 Inspector Rajesh Kumar deposed that accused Om Prakash Sharma was found present at the time of raid on 20.05.1994 at H. No. 112, 2nd Floor, Humayun Pur, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi RC No : 31A/94 CBI Vs. Vimal Dutt & Anr 24/34 and he also signed the proceedings prepared at the spot. Ld PP for CBI argued that on the basis of presence of accused Om Prakash Sharma on the spot of raid it should be presumed that accused Om Prakash Sharma was part of criminal conspiracy in order to cheat and cause pecuniary loss to MTNL.
33. Section 120A IPC defines criminal conspiracy as "when two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done (i) an illegal act, or (ii) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy". It also provides that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to an criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof. The criminal conspiracy is punishable u/s 120B IPC.
34. Section 10 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in reference to their common intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring, as well as for the purpose of proving the existence of conspiracy and for the purpose of showing that any such person was party to it.
35. In the judgment of Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2005 SC 716, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that if primafacie evidence of conspiracy is given and accepted, the evidence of acts and statements made by any one of the conspirators in furtherance of their common object is admissible against all.
RC No : 31A/94 CBI Vs. Vimal Dutt & Anr 25/34
36. In the case in hand, the evidence produced on record against accused Om Prakash Sharma is that he was present at the spot i.e premises no. 112, Humayun Pur, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi which was raided by CBI team during the investigation of present case. None of the witness has deposed anything about any act or agreement done by accused Om Prakash Sharma towards the commission of alleged offence nor any material is placed on record to prove the complicity or involvement of accused Om Prakash in the commission of alleged offences. None of the PWs examined by the prosecution deposed that accused Om Prakash Sharma contacted any person to avail the benefit of alleged cheaper STD/ISD calls to gain any pecuniary benefit. Further, the prosecution has not alleged that any telephone was installed in the name of accused Om Prakash Sharma nor has it been alleged that the premises bearing no. 112, 2nd Floor, Humyun Pur, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi belonged to accused Om Prakash Sharma. Mere presence of accused at the spot at the time of raid during the investigation is not sufficient to prove the case as alleged by the prosecution against the accused Om Prakash Sharma and consequently, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the allegations so far as accused Om Prakash Sharma is concerned.
37. Now let us deal with the case put forth by the prosecution against accused Vimal Dutt who has been chargesheeted for the offence u/s 120B r/w s. 420 IPC and u/s 420 IPC.
38. It is pertinent to mention that during the investigation it was revealed that one telephone no. 6876595, which was not allotted to any subscriber, was found connected to pair no. 30/3/8 which was RC No : 31A/94 CBI Vs. Vimal Dutt & Anr 26/34 allotted to Smt. Usha Sharma w/o accused Vimal Dutt against the telephone no. 670510 and as per the case of prosecution the STD/ISD calls were being provided to various clients by accused Vimal Dutt from the aforesaid telephone number for pecuniary benefit. The CBI has not chargesheeted any of the MTNL officials or Smt. Usha Sharma so as to substantiate the allegations of criminal conspiracy as alleged. It is pertinent to mention that the alleged offence in question could not have been committed without the active connivance of MTNL officials as the alleged offence requires technical knowhow regarding the connection of pairs with telephone numbers and the pair to which the abovesaid telephone number was found connected was on the telephone pole of MTNL and not in the premises where the raid was conducted. The prosecution has not explained as to why the MTNL officials or Smt. Usha Sharma were not chargesheeted in the present case. Therefore, there is no material available on record to suggest that accused Vimal Dutt conspired with anybody to commit the alleged offence of cheating.
39. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge u/s 120B IPC against accused Vimal Dutt as well.
40. Accused Vimal Dutt has also been charged for the offence u/s 420 IPC on the allegations that he was involved in the act of inducing various public persons for providing them facility of STD/ISD calls on cheaper rates by getting the telephone number 6876595, which was not allotted to any subscriber, connected to the pair no. 30/3/8 which was allotted to telephone no. 670510 and without paying any charges for the STD/ISD calls made from abovesaid telephone no.
RC No : 31A/94 CBI Vs. Vimal Dutt & Anr 27/34 6876595 to MTNL and he thereby caused wrongful gain to himself to wrongful loss to MTNL.
41. Section 420 IPC provides that "Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine".
42. In the case in hand, as per the allegations, the accused Vimal Dutt took the premises no. 112, 2 nd Floor, Humayun Pur, Safdarjung Enclave on rent and he was involved in commission of alleged offence of cheating by providing STD/ISD calls on cheaper rates through telephone no. 6876595, which was not allotted to any subscriber, by connecting the said telephone number with pair no. 30/3/8 allotted to another telephone no. 670510 which was issued in the name of his wife namely Usha Sharma and the accused did not make the payment of the said calls to MTNL as the telephone no. 6876595 was not allotted to anybody. Therefore, in the aforesaid manner pecuniary loss to the tune of Rs. 6,33,924/ was caused by the accused Vimal Dutt to MTNL.
43. I find force in the arguments raised by Ld PP for CBI that though PW2 Rambir Singh who was examined to prove the tenancy of accused Vimal Dutt in the aforesaid premises at Humayun Pur, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi. turned hostile yet the testimony of PW4 Bharat Bhushan proved that the accused Vimal Dutt was involved in the commission of alleged offence as accused Vimal Dutt RC No : 31A/94 CBI Vs. Vimal Dutt & Anr 28/34 visited his (PW4's) shop at Connaught Place, Delhi and gave reference of an old employee Rajesh Negi and induced him on the pretext that he (accused Vimal Dutt) had a shop in South Delhi having fax machine, fax transmission, STD/ISD facility etc and offered him to avail the said facility from his (accused Vimal Dutt's) shop. PW4 Bharat Bhushan categorically stated that accused Vimal Dutt visited him in the year 1994 and offered him to avail the STD/ISD facility through his (accused Vimal Dutt's) shop at South Delhi and PW4 Bharat Bhushan also deposed that he used the lines as offered by accused Vimal Dutt for the purpose of fax etc w.e.f April 1994 till 20.05.1994 and for the said facility the payment was collected from customers and later on handed over to accused Vimal Dutt. Further, perusal of the applications which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW21/Z2 and Ex.PW21/Z3 during the investigation reveals that the applications were furnished by Smt. Usha Sharma and accused Vimal Dutt with MTNL for shifting the telephone connections at premises no. 112, 2 nd Floor, Humayun Pur, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi and moreover the jumper notes containing the document seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW21/X (colly) reveals that telephone no. 670510 was allotted to Smt. Usha Sharma wife of accused Vimal Dutt and the same was connected to pair no. 30/3/8 and telephone no. 609744 was allotted to accused Vimal Dutt and both the said telephone connections were found installed at premises no. 112, Humayun Pur, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi at the time of raid by CBI as the accused Vimal Dutt and his wife were using the the aforesaid telephone numbers at premises bearing no. 112, Humayun Pur, Safdarjung Enclave, New RC No : 31A/94 CBI Vs. Vimal Dutt & Anr 29/34 Delhi. Further, during the raid the telephone numbers 6876595 was also found installed at the premises no. 112, 2 nd Floor, Humayun Pur, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi which was being used for the commission of alleged offence and the print out chart of the calls made from the aforesaid phone number reveals that various STD and ISD calls were made from the aforesaid telephone number, however, no payment against the said calls from the aforesaid telephone number was made to MTNL because the said number was not allotted to any subscriber. The factum of presence of telephone number 6876595 alongwith the telephone connections bearing no. 670510 and 609744 allotted to accused Vimal Dutt and his wife at premises no. 112, Humayun Pur, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi corroborates the testimony of PW4 Bharat Bhushan regarding the commission of alleged offence. Further, the documents seized by the IO during the investigation including the letter dated 06.08.1993 written by Smt. Usha Sharma to Divisional Engineers Phones (O/D), MTNL, New Delhi regarding change of address from Anand Niketan, New Delhi to H. No. 112, 2 nd Floor, Humayun Pur, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi and for shifting the telephone connection also reveals that the accused and his wife were in occupation of premises H. No. 112, 2nd Floor, Humayun Pur, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi which further corroborates the case put forth by the prosecution.
44. PW6 A K Mishra, then Inspector CBI, PW9 Anesh Kumar and PW10 D N Rai proved the observation memo Ex.PW6/A prepared by PW6 A K Mishra regarding the inspection conducted at pillar no. 56 near NCL office, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi vide which test call RC No : 31A/94 CBI Vs. Vimal Dutt & Anr 30/34 was made and it was found that the telephone no. 6876595 was installed at H. No. 112, 2nd Floor, Humayun Pur, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi. PW6, PW9 and PW10 were not cross examined by Ld defence counsel so as to dispute their testimony regarding installation of telephone no. 6876595 at premises no. 112, 2 nd Floor, Humayun Pur, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi. Further, PW8 M R Gupta, the then Assistant Accounts Officer (Vig.), MTNL, New Delhi who is also examined as PW14 deposed that on 20.05.1994 he accompanied S C Duggal, R S Yadav, G. Rajan and one Sanjeev Kumar to premises no. 112, 2nd Floor, Humayun Pur, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi where telephone no. 6876595 and 609744 were found installed and test ISD and STD calls were successfully made from telephone no. 6876595 and he also stated that one call was also received during the raid on telephone no. 690744 (allotted to accused Vimal Dutt) from one Bunty which was addressed to Vimal Dutt and said Bunty was asking for providing STD facility through accused Vimal Dutt and said telephone instrument was also having conference facility. Perusal of the record reveals that during the cross examination of PW Sh. M R Gupta the factum of telephone call made by Bunty for asking the STD facility is not disputed.
45. Further, PW13 Rajender Singh Yadav, MTNL official who joined the CBI team for the raid at premises no. 112, 2 nd Floor, Humayun Pur, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi deposed that on 20.05.1994 he accompanied the CBI team to the aforesaid premises where telephone no. 6876595 was found installed with STD and ISD facility and he also stated that during the search proceedings at the abovesaid premises he also received a call on telephone no. 609744 RC No : 31A/94 CBI Vs. Vimal Dutt & Anr 31/34 and the caller identified himself as Bunty and asked for accused Vimal and said Bunty asked for a fax tone on his telephone. It is pertinent to mention that the telephone connection 609744 was in the name of accused Vimal Dutt and no question was put to PW13 Rajender Singh Yadav during his cross examination by Ld defence counsel so as to dispute his testimony.
46. PW11 Ramesh Kumar, Retd. Inspector CBI who prepared the observationcumseizure memo Ex.PW11/A deposed that a surprise check was conducted at MDF Room, Chanakya Puri Exchange alongwith independent witnesses namely R N Gaurkar (examined as PW16), Ashok Kumar (examined as PW12) and other witnesses and it was found that telephone no. 6876595 (which was not allotted to any subscriber) was found connected to pair no. 30/3/8 and on verification of testing terminal record it was revealed that the aforesaid pair no. 30/3/8 was allotted to telephone no. 670510 located at premises no. 112, Humayun Pur, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi via pillar no. 56X35. The witnesses namely PW12 Ashok Kumar and PW16 R N Gaurkar have signed the aforesaid observationcumseizure memo Ex.PW11/A and no question was put to them by Ld defence counsel during their cross examination so as to dispute the facts stated by them.
47. Further, PW20 Tota Ram, who was posted as PRO, SouthI, Bhikaji Cama Place, MTNL and was having the duty to deal with the complaints regarding excessing billing, deposed that he was called by CBI official and was shown the telephone bill of number 6876595 and he found that the name of the subscriber was not mentioned over it and he stated that as per general practice the name of RC No : 31A/94 CBI Vs. Vimal Dutt & Anr 32/34 subscriber is always reflected on the bills issued regarding a telephone number. He was shown the statement of STD calls made from telephone no. 6876595 and the meter observation summary which are Ex.PW20/1 to Ex.PW20/6 on which the name of subscriber was not mentioned. The testimony of PW20 and STD call details of telephone connection 6876595 reveals that aforesaid telephone connection was being misused. PW21 Inspector Rajesh Kumar who was the IO of this case deposed in detail regarding the manner in which he conducted the investigation of this case and seized the documents in question.
48. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances and material placed on record, I am of the opinion that prosecution is able to prove that accused Vimal Dutt committed the offence of cheating and caused wrongful gain to himself and wrongful loss to MTNL by facilitating STD/ISD calls via telephone no. 6876595 which was found installed at premises no. 112, 2nd Floor, Humayun Pur, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi at the time of raid by CBI. Hence, accused Vimal Dutt is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable u/s 420 IPC.
49. As discussed above in para 36, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused Om Prakash Sharma and accordingly he is liable to be acquitted for the alleged offences. Further, as discussed above (in para 38 and 39) the accused Vimal Dutt is also liable to be acquitted for the offence u/s 120B IPC.
50. Accordingly, accused Om Prakash Sharma stands acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 120B r/w s. 420 IPC and u/s 420 IPC and accused Vimal Dutt stands acquitted for the offence punishable u/s RC No : 31A/94 CBI Vs. Vimal Dutt & Anr 33/34 120B IPC. However, accused Vimal Dutt stands convicted for the offence punishable u/s 420 IPC. Let the convict Vimal Dutt be heard separately on the point of sentence.
Announced in the open Court Today on 15.01.2019 (Manish Khurana) CMM/ District Court, Saket New Delhi/15.01.2019 RC No : 31A/94 CBI Vs. Vimal Dutt & Anr 34/34