Delhi District Court
State vs . Pradeep Dutta And Ors. on 15 March, 2022
IN THE COURT OF DINESH KUMAR
THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (SOUTH-
EAST), SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF :
CNR number. DLSE02-0000091999
Cr. Cases Registration number. 85783/2016
State Vs. Pradeep Dutta and Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999
PS : Okhla Industrial Area
U/s: 406/420/120-B IPC
Date of Institution : 19.07.1999
Date of reserving the judgment : 28.02.2022
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 15.03.2022
JUDGMENT
1. Serial No. of the case : 85783/2016
2. Name of the Complainant : Sh. Sanjeev Kumar
Jain.
3. Date of commission of offence : Year 1998-99
4. Name of accused person :
Mr. Pradeep Dutta,
S/o Sh. Ashutosh Dutta,
R/o G-1395 C.R. Park, New Delhi.
5. Offence charged : S. 420&120-B
IPC
6. Plea of accused : Not guilty
7. Final Order : Acquitted
State Vs. Pardeep Dutta & Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999 P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Judgment dated: 15.03.2022 Page No. 1 of 57 (Dinesh Kumar/CMM/SED/ND) BRIEF REASONS FOR ORDER:
1. The accused in present case has been sent for trial for the offence punishable under Section 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (Act 45 of 1960) (herein after referred the 'IPC').
2. Brief facts of the case, as per prosecution, are that on 29.04.1999, a joint complaint was made by Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Jain and 30 other complainants to the police. It has been alleged that a company named Geosoft Technologies(Delhi) Pvt.
Ltd (hereinafter referred to as 'GTDPL') had advertised in the newspaper, Times of India dated 15.07.1998 inviting applications for the post of consultants. Various posts were advertised .i.e. 18 posts for FI&CO Consultants, 28 posts for MM&PP Consultants, 18 posts for SD Consultants, 18 posts for HRM Consultants and 10 posts for ABAP/ for programming. The complainant and the other candidates had applied against the aforesaid posts according to their qualifications. The GTDPL represented itself as an affiliate of Geosoft Technologies Ltd. Banglore (herein after referred to as GTPL). It was also represented that they were having license for SAP R3 Software implementation provider. The company was managed and controlled by Mr. Pradeep Dutta, Dr. Jayant Kuamr Dass, Mr. V. K. Juneja, Mr. Takao Fujisawa, Mrs. Ruma Mukherjee and Mr. Venkatesh. Various agreements were signed between the complainants and the company containing the terms of employment. As per the agreement, the complainants State Vs. Pardeep Dutta & Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999 P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Judgment dated: 15.03.2022 Page No. 2 of 57 (Dinesh Kumar/CMM/SED/ND) had to deposit Rs. 3 Lacs as security with GTDPL for particular posts and Rs. 2 Lacs in respect of post ABAP/4 consultant. The prospectus issued by the company contained the information that the company Geosoft had worldwide projects for SAP R3 implementation which included various companies e.g. Siemens Information Systems Ltd, Digital Equipment Corporation (India) Ltd, Ampersand Corporation USA etc. The complainants had deposited Rs. 3 Lacs or Rs 2 Lacs respectively against their respected jobs as security which were collected by the above- mentioned persons. The company had to provide all the equipment and infrastructure to start with the initial training for a period of 6 months. After completion of the initial training, the complainants were to be posted on various projects on regular basis on the salaries mentioned in their respective appointment letters.
3. It is further stated in the complaint that they joined the company on 09.11.1998. They were asked to report back on 16.11.1998. However, no infrastructure and facilities existed at the spot. The place of work was under construction. On 08.01.1999, some computer systems were installed and the training started. On 16.01.1999, Mr. Pradeep Dutta and Mr. Venketash promised for an interview from a company named Sigma Projects for projects of Los Angeles USA. The interview was conducted on 25.01.1999 however no confirmation was received. Despite various requests the accused persons did not provide adequate machine, equipment and infrastructure State Vs. Pardeep Dutta & Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999 P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Judgment dated: 15.03.2022 Page No. 3 of 57 (Dinesh Kumar/CMM/SED/ND) required for the training. The complainants formed an association and represented the company their grievances, however, nothing was done by the accused persons. Then they asked the accused persons to refund their securities of Rs. 3 Lacs and Rs. 2 Lacs respectively. After great persuasion, they agreed to refund their security deposits. Accused Pradeep Dutta signed various cheques to refund their securities as the instructions of other accused persons. They closed the institute on 09.03.1999. Some of the cheques issued by the accused persons were dishonoured on presentation. The complainants immediately approached the accused persons and informed about the dishonour of the cheques. The accused persons promised to make payment and to wait for sometime. On 16.04.1999, the complainants went to the residence of Mr. Dutta and made a complaint to the PCR. In the presence of police officials, Mr. Dutta gave in writing to refund the money of the complainants and other persons on or before 25.04.1999. On 24.04.1999, the complainants came to know that all the accused persons had absconded. They also came to know that the equipment and machinery placed in the institute were taken on rent. Some of the instruments were purchased from the amount collected from the complainants. The accused persons had dishonestly collected Rs. 5 Crores from the complainants and other persons by misrepresentation that they were licensed SAP R 3 implementation provider. When the accused persons could not be traced, the present complaint was made to the police at State Vs. Pardeep Dutta & Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999 P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Judgment dated: 15.03.2022 Page No. 4 of 57 (Dinesh Kumar/CMM/SED/ND) PS Okhla Industrial Area. The FIR was got registered. The investigation was later on transferred to Crime Branch.
4. The IO investigated the matter and filed the final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against accused Mr. Pradeep Dutta and Mr. V. K. Juneja for the offences punishable u/s 406/420/120B IPC. Accused Dr. Jayant Kumar Dass and Takao Fujisawa could not be arrested till filing of the chargesheet.
5. The cognizance of the offence under Section 406/420/120-B IPC was taken by Ld. Predecessor of this Court. The accused were summoned. After compliance of the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C, charge for the offence under Section 420/120-B IPC was framed against the accused persons to which the accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. As per the record, supplementary chargesheet was also filed against accused J. K. Dass and the matter was fixed for consideration of supplementary chargesheet as reflected in order dated 18.01.2000. Accused V. K. Juneja had expired during the trial. Accused J. K. Dass had also expired during the trial. Criminal proceedings against both of them were abated vide order dated 30.01.2021.
7. During the course of final arguments, it was noticed by Ld. Predecessor, as reflected in order dated 04.01.2021, that the supplementary chargesheet filed against accused J. K. Dass was not traceable. The matter was reported to the Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge (South-East). After receiving the State Vs. Pardeep Dutta & Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999 P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Judgment dated: 15.03.2022 Page No. 5 of 57 (Dinesh Kumar/CMM/SED/ND) directions from Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge for reconstruction of the record, an inquiry was initiated and efforts were made to reconstruct the supplementary chargesheet. However the record could not be reconstructed. Vide order dated 26.03.2021, the matter was fixed for final arguments.
8. The prosecution has examined 18 witnesses in support of its case.
9. PW1 N. Ansari is one of the victims. He would depose that he had submitted the application form for the post of SAP Consultant in the office of Geosoft Technology, Delhi alongwith payment of Rs.30,000/- towards which receipt was issued. The photocopy of receipt is Ex.PW1/A. The photocopy of Rs.200/- for purchasing the prospectus is Ex.PW1/B. Thereafter, he was called for an interview on 26.07.1998. After interview, accused J.K. Dass with other co-accused told him that he was selected for SAP Consultant. The accused alongwith other co-accused asked him to pay Rs.70,000/- before issuance of appointment letter. He deposited said amount by DD on 07.08.1998 against which receipt Ex.PW1/C was issued.
10. PW-1 would further depose that an appointment letter was sent by the Company which is ExPW1/D. In the said letter, he was asked to pay Rs. 2 lacs at the time of joining. On 09.11.1998 he deposited a sum of Rs. 2 lacs by demand draft to the company for which receipt Ex.PW1/E was issued. In the appointment letter it was promised that he would be given stipend of Rs. 12,500/- per month during training and that he State Vs. Pardeep Dutta & Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999 P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Judgment dated: 15.03.2022 Page No. 6 of 57 (Dinesh Kumar/CMM/SED/ND) would be paid Rs.45,000/- per month after training, if posted in India and $80,000/- if posted outside India. The training provided by the accused was not upto his satisfaction. Facilities were also not adequate. After feeling dissatisfied in the training and facility provided by the company, he, along with others, represented to accused Pardeep Dutta and informed about deficiency in infrastructure and training being imparted. However, no improvement was made. Finally, he demanded his Rs.3,00,000/- back which he had paid. Geo Soft Company agreed to refund the money. A cheque of Rs. 3 lacs in March, 1998 was given to him which was dishonoured with remarks "insufficient funds".Later he came to know that the company had made a complaint to the police that its cheque book was misplaced and gave direction to the bank to stop payment. The accused however assured him that the payment would be made soon. However, on 24.04.1999, when they visited the house of Pradeep Dutta, they came to know that accused Pradeep Dutta had left the city. The other officials of the company were also not traceable. The complaint was made to the police. All the payments were made by him through demand draft.
11. The witness has also relied upon the photocopy of the contract with the GTDPL is Ex.PW1/F. The photocopy of letter issued by the company informing the witness that he was selected and the demand of Rs.70,000/- is Ex.PW1/G. The letter issued by the company for interview is Ex.PW1/H.
12. PW2 Mukul Jain is also a victim. He would depose State Vs. Pardeep Dutta & Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999 P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Judgment dated: 15.03.2022 Page No. 7 of 57 (Dinesh Kumar/CMM/SED/ND) that after seeing the advertisement regarding the post of SAP Consultant in Geo Soft Technology Delhi Pvt. Ltd. he went to the office of Geo Soft and purchased a Brochure cum application form for Rs.200/- vide receipt Ex.PW2/A. He submitted the application in the office of Geosoft Technology, Delhi alongwith payment of Rs.30,000/- against which a receipt Ex.PW2/B was issued. Thereafter, he was called for an interview on 12.08.1998 by letter Ex.PW2/C. On 22.08.1998, he was interviewed and he got the selection letter Ex.PW-2/D for the post of management training. He paid Rs. 70,000/- to Geosoft Technology and receipt is Ex.PW2/E He received appointment letter dated 16.09.1998, photocopy of the same is Ex.PW2/F. It was mentioned in the letter that during the training period As per the terms of contract, it was stated that he would be given stipend of Rs. 7,500/- per month for 3 months, Rs. 12,500/- for next 3 months during training and that he would be paid Rs.45,000/- per month after training, if posted in India and $80,000/- if posted outside India. Rs.3 lac was to be given as a security deposi. He had already paid Rs. 1 lac. Balance payment was paid on 14.01.1999 (Rs. 1 lac) and 01.02.1999 (Rs. 1 lac). Receipts are Ex.PW2/H and Ex.PW2/I.
13. PW-2 would further depose that in December, when he went to the office of Geosoft Technologies, he found that there was no infrastructure, facility or the training. He contacted accused Pradeep Dutta and others. However, he did not get any relief. There was no proper training till March. State Vs. Pardeep Dutta & Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999 P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Judgment dated: 15.03.2022 Page No. 8 of 57 (Dinesh Kumar/CMM/SED/ND) Thereafter, he asked for refund of Rs.3 lacs. A cheque of Rs. 3 lacs drawn on Indian Bank was issued. He did not deposit the cheque as he had come to know that there was no money in their accounts. He again made a complaint regarding payment to accused Pradeep Dutta and he asked not to deposit the cheque as the accused persons were arranging funds from other Directors of the company. The accused also assured that the payment would be made by 24.04.1999. When he went to the office of the accused persons, they were not present in the office. He also went to the house of the accused but the accused was not found there also. Thereafter, he came to know that the accused had left the City. He went to the PS and submitted his grievance to Okhla Police.
14. The witness PW-2 was partly cross examined. However, he did not appear for his further cross examination.
15. PW3 Rakesh Kumar is also one of the victim. He has also deposed that after seeing the advertisement regarding the post of SAP Consultant in Geo Soft Technology (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd. in Times of India, he went to the office where he met accused J.K. Dass and Mrs. Ruma Mukherjee. Mrs. Ruma Mukherjee informed that they were subsidiary of Geo Soft Technology Banglore and they had lots of projects in SAP Worldwide. He purchased a prospectus cum application form for Rs.200/- and submitted the application form in the office of Geosoft Technology, Delhi alongwith payment of Rs.30,000/- on 13.08.1998. Thereafter, he was called for an interview. He State Vs. Pardeep Dutta & Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999 P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Judgment dated: 15.03.2022 Page No. 9 of 57 (Dinesh Kumar/CMM/SED/ND) again deposited Rs.70,000/- by pay order on 08.09.1998. Thereafter, he again paid Rs.2 lac vide pay order on 09.11.1998. When he went to the office for training, he found that there was no infrastructure, facility or the training. He asked to refund of Rs.3 lacs. He was issued a cheque of Rs.3 lacs signed by accused J.K. Dass as return of security deposit. On 24.04.199 when he went to the office, he found that the accused persons were not in the office. He went to house of the accused but they were not there also. Thereafter, he came to know that the accused had left the City. He made a complaint to the police, the complaint dated 28.04.1999 to DCP, Crime Branch is Ex.PW3/A(running into six pages). The witness has also relied upon the cheque issued by the GTDPL in his name which is Ex.PW3/B (OSR), the receipts of Rs.30,000/- 70,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- issued by GTDPL for the amount received from the witness are Ex.PW3/C to Ex.PW3/E. The letter of appointment issued by GTDPL to the witness along with annexure containing the terms of contract are Ex.PW3/F.
16. PW4 Ct. Jaiveer is the police official who had participated in the investigation. He would depose that on 20.05.1999, he alongwith SI Virender Singh reached at Kolkata for investigation of the present case. On 21.05.1999 accused Pradeep Dutta was arrested by IO from his house no. 245, Nagender Nath Road. He was brought to Delhi. After obtaining PC remand, he was taken to Bangalore in search of co-accused J K Dass, however, he could not be traced. They returned to Delhi State Vs. Pardeep Dutta & Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999 P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Judgment dated: 15.03.2022 Page No. 10 of 57 (Dinesh Kumar/CMM/SED/ND) on 29.05.1999. Mr Vinod Aggarwal, Accountant of M/s Geo Soft Technologies handed over various papers which were seized by the IO vide memo Ex.PW4/A. The 73 bills are Ex.PW4/B1 to Ex.PW4/B73. 210 Bills of Hamilton Hotels and other expenditure bills are Ex.PW4/C(colly). On 08.06.1999, accused V. K. Juneja (since deceased) was arrested from Hyatt Hotel. One agreement was recovered at the instance of the accused which was seized vide memo Ex.PW4/D. The agreement is Ex.PW4/E.
17. PW5 Sh. Vivek Bhatnagar is also one of the victims. He would also depose that after seeing the advertisement in the newspaper, he applied for the post of SAP SD Consultant. He was interviewed. He was also told that the company would offer an employment for 6 months of training and that during the training, he would receive Rs.7,500/- per month for 3 months and Rs.12,000/- per month for next 3 months. He was also told that after 6 months, the salary would become Rs.25,000/- per month, if based in India and $8,000/-, if sent abroad. It was also told to him that since SAP skills were in great demand and employees tend to leave the job for better money, he had to deposit security of Rs.3,00,000/- which was refundable after three years. He deposited the amount. He joined the training in November. However, the training was not conducted in ideal manner as there were not enough computers for everyone to use. However, later on the computers were arranged. He felt that something was not right as the stipends of State Vs. Pardeep Dutta & Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999 P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Judgment dated: 15.03.2022 Page No. 11 of 57 (Dinesh Kumar/CMM/SED/ND) the applicants were getting delayed. The applicants raised concern with the management and they were repeatedly assured that things would be set right. However, in March 1999 the company closed its premises and operation at Okhla. He demanded from the company represented by accused Pradeep Dutta and co accused Mrs. Ruma Mukherjee that security deposit be refunded as the company was no longer in operation. Since various demand of refund were not met, they lodged a complaint Ex.PW3/A. During investigation, he handed over copy of his offer letter dated 22.08.1998 Mark-PW5/A, copy of his appointment letter alongwith terms of contract Annexure-1 dated 14.09.1998 Mark-PW5/B (04 pages) and copy of receipts issued by GTDPL regarding deposit of fees Mark-PW7/X1, Mark-PW5/C and Mark-PW5/D. He was not in possession of originals of abovesaid documents.
18. PW6 Ajay Sharma is also a victim. He would also depose that after seeing the advertisement regarding the post of SAP Consultant in Geo Soft Technology Pvt. Ltd. in Times of India, he applied for the same. He appeared for personal interview. He also deposited an amount of Rs.2,70,000/- vide receipts Ex. PW6/A. He also received offer letter Ex.PW6/B. As the training was not conducted he made demand of refund of his money. A cheque was issued to him for Rs.3,00,000/- by the MD of the company. The said cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The Cheque and the memo are Ex.PW6/C and Ex.PW6/D. A formal complaint was made which is State Vs. Pardeep Dutta & Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999 P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Judgment dated: 15.03.2022 Page No. 12 of 57 (Dinesh Kumar/CMM/SED/ND) Ex.PW3/A.
19. PW7 Sh. Vinod Aggarwal is the accountant of the company M/s GTDPL. He would depose that he was accountant in the company. Accused Pradeep Dutta and J.K. Dass (since deceased) were the directors in the company. During investigation he had produced bills of PTC Travel and Tours Pvt. Ltd. submitted to the company and adjusted which are Ex.PW4/B1 to Ex.PW4/B73. He had also produced bill of Hamilton Hotel which are Ex.PW4/C (colly). The bills were seized by the IO vide memo Ex.PW4/A. He had also handed over to the IO print out of the ledger account of PTC Tours and Travel Pvt. Ltd. J.E. International and Cross Country Hotels Ltd. after taking out the print out from the hard disk of the computer in his office which were seized by the IO vide memo Ex.PW7/A. The ledger account details are Ex.PW7/B (colly). During his employment he used to receive cash or cheques from the trainees and issue receipts to them. He has identified his signatures on receipts Mark 7/X1 to Mark 7/X10, Ex. PW6/A, Ex.PW2/H, and Ex.PW2/I. He used to deposit the amount in the account of the company.
20. PW8 Sh. Arun Kumar Verma is one of the victims. He would depose that through advertisement in newspaper, he came to know about the SAP Training and Placement by the company. After his interview, he was selected for Materials Management, (MM-SAP) training. In the office of GTDPL, he met accused Pardeep Dutta who represented him as Managing State Vs. Pardeep Dutta & Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999 P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Judgment dated: 15.03.2022 Page No. 13 of 57 (Dinesh Kumar/CMM/SED/ND) Director of GTDPL. The accused asked him to pay fees of Rs. 3 Lacs for providing training. He was assured by accused Pardeep Dutta that for the first three months of the training, he would be paid Rs.7,500/- per month as stipend and for further three months Rs.12,500/- per month as a stipend. Accused Prdeep Dutta also assured that on completion of training, he will be paid Rs. 45,000/- per month or $80,000/- per annum irrespective of getting job or not. Initially, it was agreed that his training period would be of six months and thereafter either GTDPL would get him placed in a reputed company in India or abroad and on their failure to do so, they would pay him Rs. 45,000/- per month till his placement. Thereafter, he started obtaining training with GTDPL since November 1998. For initial three months, he was paid stipend as agreed. Thereafter the accused persons told that there was no market of SAP due to Y2K Software and they would not be able to respect their commitment of providing him further training and placement and advised him to look for job by himself. Thereafter, the training center was closed / locked and his training discontinued. Thereafter, he asked accused Pardeep Dutta to return amount of Rs. 3 Lacs paid as fees for training but he avoided. After sometime, the accused fled from Delhi after locking his house. At that time, there were around 35-36 trainees obtaining SAP training from accused Pradeep Dutta. In the month of April 1999, they all filed a joint complaint with DCP Crime Branch, New Delhi which is already Ex. PW3/A. State Vs. Pardeep Dutta & Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999 P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Judgment dated: 15.03.2022 Page No. 14 of 57 (Dinesh Kumar/CMM/SED/ND) Later on, he handed over three payment receipts of payment of fees to GTDPL to the IO and receipts are Ex. PW8/A and Ex. PW8/B(OSR). The third receipt dated 09.12.1998 is Mark 8/X. He have also brought one experience certificate/ recommendation letter given to him by accused Pradeep Dutta on his insistence to enable him to get job anywhere else. The copy of said letter is Ex. PW8/C. Later on, he was told that said experience certificate was an illegal training experience letter which was not considered for his job in SAP at any place. During investigation, he received Rs. 54,166/- through the IO vide receipt Ex. PW8/D. During the training, co accused used to visit them and used to counsel about the future prospect of SAP training and benefits of undergoing said training.
21. PW9 Arun Kumar Srivastava is also one of the victims. He would depose similar to other victims regarding newspaper advertisement, his interview, his selection for MM SAP training, meeting with accused Pradeep Dutta, demand of Rs.3,00,000/-, assurance of stipend of Rs. 7,500/- per month for initial three months, and Rs.12,500/- for next three months, promise about his salary in India or abroad. He would also depose that he started obtaining training with the company since November 1998. he obtained training till March 1999. He was paid stipend for initial 3 months. In the month of March 1999, his training was discontinued / stopped by GTDPL as representatives/ officers / training providers of GTDPL stopped coming to the office / institute. Thereafter, he alongwith other State Vs. Pardeep Dutta & Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999 P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Judgment dated: 15.03.2022 Page No. 15 of 57 (Dinesh Kumar/CMM/SED/ND) fellow trainees went to house of accused Pradeep Dutta in April 1999. However he was not present there. One person met there who told that the accused was not available. On one occasion, he saw some persons removing the computers and accessories. On inquiry, they informed that the computers and accessories were hired by GTDPL for three months only. Thereafter, some of his fellow trainees filed a joint complaint and present FIR was registered. He proved copy of letter dated 05.11.1998 sent by accused Pardeep Dutta as MD of GTDPL as Ex. PW9/A. The letter dated 14.11.1998 sent by accused Pradeep Dutta regarding terms and conditions of employment / training is Ex. PW9/B. GTDPL issued receipts Ex. PW9/C to Ex. PW9/E against payment made by him. After his persuasion, in the month of April 1999 he was issued a cheque of Rs. 11,875/- as his stipend for the month of March 1999 but on presentation the said cheque was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. The copy of said cheque with return memo is Ex. PW9/F.
22. PW10 Sh. Harish Kapoor is the Chartered Accountant of the Company. He would depose that in the year 1998-99, he was partner of Bhasin Raghavan & Company (Firm of Chartered Accountants). During that period, he was appointed as Auditor of Geosoft Technologies Delhi Pvt Ltd. However, audit could not be completed due to non availability of accounting documents. After 1999, he had no dealings with Geosoft Technologies Delhi Pvt Ltd.
23. The witness was cross examined by Ld. APP for State Vs. Pardeep Dutta & Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999 P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Judgment dated: 15.03.2022 Page No. 16 of 57 (Dinesh Kumar/CMM/SED/ND) the state. However he denied all the suggestions put to him by Ld. APP.
24. PW11 Sh. Bobby Aggrawal is one of the victim. He would depose similar to other victims regarding newspaper advertisement, his interview, his selection for MM SAP training, meeting with accused Pradeep Dutta. He opted for SAP R3 Module training. He filled application form and deposited Rs. 30,000/- vide DD No. 13385 dated 06.08.1998 for which he was issued receipt bearing no. 5395 dated 10.08.1998. He was interviewed and was selected for SAP Training with GTDPL. Thereafter, an appointment letter was issued. He deposited a further sum of Rs. 70,000/- vide DD No. 413581 dated 26.08.1998 against receipt no.5523 dated 27.08.1998. He was given training of SAP R3 Module for about 2 ½ months by GTDPL and later on their training was stopped. In between, office of GTDPL shifted from Saket to Okhla Phase-II, Delhi. Before starting training from 09.11.1998, he also deposited Rs. 2 Lacs i.e Rs. 1 Lac vide DD No. 004308 dated 12.10.1998 and Rs. 1 Lac vide DD No. 004318 dated 14.10.1998 and receipt was issued by GTDPL. When his training stopped, he asked from accused Pradeep Dutta and Ruma Mukherjee about its reason and they said that they were not having sufficient resources to continue their training. Thereafter, he asked accused Pradeep Dutta to return his training fees of Rs. 3 Lacs and accused Pradeep Dutta issued a cheque of Rs. 3 Lac bearing no. 731383 dated 08.03.1999. He did not present the same for State Vs. Pardeep Dutta & Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999 P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Judgment dated: 15.03.2022 Page No. 17 of 57 (Dinesh Kumar/CMM/SED/ND) encashment as he was told by accused Pradeep Dutta not to deposit the same and that he had got the payment stopped. After some time, the training center/office of GTDPL was locked and all the concerned persons ran away. He alongwith other candidates filed a joint complaint already Ex.PW3/A. During training period, he was paid Rs.7,500/- per month for two months as stipend but thereafter, he was not paid any money. He proved copy of his appointment letter and terms of contract as Mark-PW11/A (04 pages), copy of 04 receipts issued by GTDPL as Mark-PW11/B to Ex.PW11/E and copy of cheque issued by accused Pradeep Dutta for GTDPL as Mark-PW11/F.
25. PW12 Sh. Madhukar Mittal is also a victim. He would depose similar to other victims regarding newspaper advertisement, his interview, his selection for SAP R3 training, meeting with accused Pradeep Dutta. He would also depose that he was told by accused Pradeep Dutta and Ms. Ruma Mukherjee that GTDPL was affiliated with Geosoft Technologies Ltd, Bangalore and Dr. J K Dass was a Director of GTDPL. He opted for SAP R3 Module training. He filled application form and deposited total Rs. 2 Lacs against receipts. He was interviewed and appointment letter was issued by accused Pradeep Dutta. His training started from 09.11.1998 in the new office of GTDPL at OIA Phase-II, Delhi. He was given training for about 2 ½ months by GTDPL which was not proper as there was lack of infrastructure and training faculty. Later on their training was completely stopped and office of GTDPL was State Vs. Pardeep Dutta & Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999 P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Judgment dated: 15.03.2022 Page No. 18 of 57 (Dinesh Kumar/CMM/SED/ND) closed. After stoppage of his training, he asked accused Pradeep Dutta for return of his deposit/fees of training fees. After some time, the training centre/office of GTDPL was locked and all the concerned persons running GTDPL ran away. He alongwith some other candidates filed a joint complaint Ex.PW3/A. During training, he was paid Rs. 7,500/- per month for two months as stipend but thereafter, he was not paid any money. He proved copy of his appointment letter and terms of contract as Mark-PW12/A and copy of 05 receipts as Mark-PW12/B to Mark PW12/F. In April 1999, when he contacted accused Pradeep Dutta for the refund of his money, he handed over certificate dated 09.04.1999 regarding job training with GTDPL saying that it would help him in future. The copy of the same is Ex.PW12/X (OSR).
26. PW13 Smt. Ruma Mukherjee is the General Manager of the GTDPL, the company of the accused. She would depose that from 01.05.1998 to 31.03.1999 she worked as General Manager in Geosoft Technologies Delhi Private Ltd. (GTDPL). Accused Dr. J.K. Das was Director. GTDPL was subsidiary company of Geosoft Technologies Ltd., Bangalore which was having SAP Licence for implementation for business. In GTDPL they were imparting training to their own man power and thereafter they were placed in different projects where SAP software was used. After consultants were chosen, they had to enter into agreement with GTDPL that they would serve GTDPL for a period of three years and they were required State Vs. Pardeep Dutta & Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999 P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Judgment dated: 15.03.2022 Page No. 19 of 57 (Dinesh Kumar/CMM/SED/ND) to deposit a refundable security of Rs. 3 lacs which would be returned after serving complete period of three years having a forfeiture clause if consultant left the job early. During training period, the candidate / consultant used to be paid stipend as stipulated in their agreement. The consultants used to pay the security deposit through cheques / drafts in favour of GTDPL for which receipts were issued. From November 1998 to March 1999 office of GTDPL was operated from Okhla Phase II, Delhi. The computers installed there for use of consultant were hired from outside. Till August 1998, V.K. Juneja used to take care of accounts of GTDPL after which accountant Vinod Aggarwal used to look after financial activities. At that time, GTDPL was having two Maruti vans and one Opel Astra car for office use. Accused Dr. J.K. Dass also used to visit their office occasionally and used to have meetings with other Directors and staff regarding functioning of the company. From February 1999 some consultants raised the issues regarding the training/ infrastructure which he communicated to the Managing Director. As her salary for two months was also due, she resigned GTDPL in March 1999. Later, she came to know that the office of GTDPL was closed and GTPL was not functioning any more.
27. PW14 Sh. Rakesh Kapoor is one of the victims. He would depose similar to other victims regarding newspaper advertisement, his interview, his selection for SAP R3 training. He would depose that he had paid Rs.200/- for brochure and State Vs. Pardeep Dutta & Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999 P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Judgment dated: 15.03.2022 Page No. 20 of 57 (Dinesh Kumar/CMM/SED/ND) deposited Rs.30,000/- as advance payment. He paid Rs.3 lacs as training fees and in return GTDPL agreed to impart him training for 4 to 6 months with stipend and thereafter employment for a total period of three years. He was imparted training from GTDPL for two and a half months. Thereafter, accused Pradeep Dutta and Ms. Ruma Mukherjee said that they were not having sufficient resources to continue imparting training and even the cheques given by GTDPL as stipend dishonored on presentation. In the meantime they also came to know that GTDPL did not have any authorization for conducting SAP R-3 Training. The office of GTDPL was closed and accused persons were not traceable. He and other consultants, who were also similarly duped by the management of GTDPL, filed a joint complaint with police which is already Ex.PW3/A. Later on, he received amount of Rs.54,166.66/- through the IO from the amount deposited by him vide receipt Ex.PW14/A. He proved copy of his appointment letter as mark 14/X-1, the contract papers entered with GTDPL as Mark 14/X-2 and receipts issued by GTDPL as mark 7/X-3, Mark 7/X-4, Mark 14/X-3 and Mark 14/X-4.
28. PW15 Insp. Virender Dalal is the IO of the case. He would depose that on 14.05.1999, he was posted as SI at PS EOW. On that day, present case was marked to him for further investigation as the case was already registered at PS OIA. On 15.05.1999, he went to State Bank of Mysore, Nehru Place branch. He had given notice u/s 91 Cr.PC to the Chief Manager State Vs. Pardeep Dutta & Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999 P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Judgment dated: 15.03.2022 Page No. 21 of 57 (Dinesh Kumar/CMM/SED/ND) on 14.05.1999. The notice is Ex.PW15/A. In response to the notice, on 15.05.1999 the concerned Bank Manager handed over attested photocopies of current account no. 1448 including four account opening forms in the name of Vijay Kumar, Takao Fuji Sawa, Pradeep Dutta and J K Dass, photocopy of covering letter of memorandum of articles, photocopy of letter dated 23.09.1998 and 21.09.1998 for changing of authorised signatory, photocopy of letter from V K Juneja and Takao Fuji Sawa and bank statement for the period 17.04.1998 to 15.05.1998 (24 pages), photocopy of letter written by the State Bank of Mysore dated 23.09.1998 in respect of change of authorisation. He seized these documents vide memo Ex.PW15/B. The photocopies of the documents are Mark PW15/1 (colly. 55 pages). He also seized the other bank account no. 1437 vide memo Ex.PW15/C. The photocopies of those documents are Mark 15/2 (colly 42 pages). He recorded the statement of witnesses. On 14.05.1999, he issued notice for production of documents to the officials of ROC and the copy of notice is Ex.PW15/D. In reply, they handed over photocopy of incorporation certificate of Geosoft Technology Delhi Pvt Ltd and Form 18, Form 32 alongwith covering letter. The photocopies are Mark-PW15/4 (colly. 4 pages). On 14.05.1999 he issued notice u/s 91 Cr.PC to Chief Manager, Indian Bank, Nehru Place branch and the said notice is Ex.PW15/E. On 18.05.1999 the Senior Manager produced the documents i.e photocopy of account opening form of GTDPL, specimen State Vs. Pardeep Dutta & Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999 P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Judgment dated: 15.03.2022 Page No. 22 of 57 (Dinesh Kumar/CMM/SED/ND) signatures, letters of Pradeep Dutta for opening of current account of company, letter for stopping cheque payment and NCR regarding missing of chequebook of the company and photocopy of bank statement. These documents were seized vide memo Ex.PW15/F. The photocopies of the documents are Mark PW15/5 (colly. 32 pages). He recorded statement of Sh. A. Mukherjee, Senior Manager, Indian Bank, Nehru Place branch. On 18.05.1999 they searched office of GTDPL situated at Y-28, Okhla Phase-II, Delhi and seized the documents i.e copy of memorandum and articles of associations of GTDPL, copy of brochures of GTDPL, photocopy of agreement dated 16.03.1998, photocopy of MOU between GTL and GTDPL, photocopy of affiliation between GTL and GTDPL, photocopy of extract of meeting held on 03.09.1998, photocopies of letter given by State Bank of Mysore dated 23.09.1998, letter signed by accused Pradeep Dutta and V K Juneja regarding handing over of file on behalf of GTL and copy of service call slip from National Computer vide memo Ex.PW15/G. The photocopies of the documents are Mark-PW15/6 (colly 52 pages). On 14.05.1999 notice u/s 91 Cr.PC was served upon SAP India Ltd which is Ex.PW15/H. The concerned department replied vide letter dated 09.06.1999 Ex.PW15/I. On 16.05.1999 Mr. Manish Batra and Sunil Anand handed over photocopies of the selection agreement and term of contract, receipts regarding payment made to the company by 48 candidates which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW15/J. The photocopies of selection State Vs. Pardeep Dutta & Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999 P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Judgment dated: 15.03.2022 Page No. 23 of 57 (Dinesh Kumar/CMM/SED/ND) agreement/term of contract and 160 receipts inclusive of cheques are Mark-PW15/7 (colly). He recorded statement of all candidates on different dates.
29. PW 15 would further depose that on 21.05.1999 accused Pradeep Dutta was arrested from Calcutta. His disclosure statement was recorded and 07 days PC remand was obtained from the Court. During the course of PC remand, photocopy of some documents were recovered at his instance from his office which were seized vide memo Ex.PW15/K. The photocopies of the documents are Mark PW15/8. On 29.05.1999 Mr. Vinod Aggarwal, accountant of GTDPL had produced print out of the ledger accounts of PES Travel, JE International and Cross Country Hotels which were seized vide memo Ex.PW7/A. On the same day, Vinod Aggarwal has also produced expenditure bills which were seized vide memo Ex.PW4/A. On 08.06.1999, V K Juneja (since expired) was arrested and his one day PC remand was obtained and during PC remand, the original agreement dated 16.03.1998 between GTL and TSP International Pvt Ltd was recovered from his office at Okhla Phase-I at his instance which was seized vide memo Ex.PW4/D. He recorded statement of witnesses and filed the main chargesheet against accused Pardeep Dutta and V K Juneja. Thereafter, he carried out further investigation against accused J K Dass (since deceased) who was arrested later on and supplementary chargesheet qua him was filed.
30. PW16 Sh. Gonish Chawla is the Sr. Manager State Vs. Pardeep Dutta & Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999 P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Judgment dated: 15.03.2022 Page No. 24 of 57 (Dinesh Kumar/CMM/SED/ND) Indian Bank. He would depose that he could not produce the requisite documents as the same were not traceable in his branch and also in godown as the matter pertained to the year 1999.
31. PW17 Sh. Everlet Elias Hynniewta is the chief Manager, State Bank of India, Nehru Place. He would depose that he received summons to produce original documents of account no. CA1448 of Geosoft Technologies (Delhi) Pvt Ltd opened in State Bank of Mysore, Nehru Place branch which have now merged with State Bank of India, DDA Building, Nehru Place Branch since 01.04.2017. He searched the entire bank branch and record room but could not find original documents pertaining to account no. CA1448 of Geosoft Technologies (Delhi) Pvt Ltd as the said account was not in operation since long time. There were no records pertaining to said bank account in the computerized system (CBS) of their bank. Even they could not get account statement of the said account. The account opening form, documents for account opening and statement of account of said account number (55 pages colly) is already marked PW15/1 and each page of mark PW15/1 bears seal of his erstwhile bank branch i.e State Bank of Mysore, Nehru Place branch. The documents/copy of one more account bearing no. CA1437 of Geosoft Technologies Ltd mark PW15/2 (colly 42 pages) mark PW15/2 also bears seal of his erstwhile bank branch i.e State Bank of Mysore, Nehru Place branch. The abovesaid account no. CA1437 also appears State Vs. Pardeep Dutta & Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999 P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Judgment dated: 15.03.2022 Page No. 25 of 57 (Dinesh Kumar/CMM/SED/ND) to be contemporaneous with abovesaid account no. CA1448 and these accounts were maintained in manual format before computerization of the bank and there was no likelihood of tracing of original documents of the account no. CA1437 or its statement. He checked in CBS computer system of his branch which shows that now no account in the name of Geosoft Technologies is in the operation in the banking system. His report in this regard is Ex.PW17/A.
32. PW18 Ms. Aditi Mittal is the legal Counsel for SAP India Pvt. Ltd. She would depose she is an employee of SAP India Pvt Ltd and posted in the Delhi-NCR region since year 2017. The company received summons issued to Ms. Sunita Jagtyani, Contracts Administrator, SAP India Pvt Ltd regarding verification of Geosoft Technologies (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd having authorisation of implementation provider of SAP R-3. She verified from office record and as per her verification, Geosoft Technologies (Delhi) Pvt Ltd has not been authorised by SAP India Pvt Ltd as implementation and training partners to provide training in the use and implementation of its software "SAP R-3" at New Delhi.
33. The witnesses were duly cross-examined by Ld. counsel for the accused. Thereafter, on the submissions of Ld. APP for the State, PE was closed. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. r/w Section 281 Cr.P.C., after putting entire incriminating evidence against him, was recorded. The accused has denied commission of the offence and has stated State Vs. Pardeep Dutta & Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999 P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Judgment dated: 15.03.2022 Page No. 26 of 57 (Dinesh Kumar/CMM/SED/ND) that he had been been falsely implicated in the present case.
34. The accused entered into witness box and examined himself as DWI. He would state that he was the Managing Director of M/s Geosoft Technologies (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd. It was incorporated in the year 1998 (15.04.1998) with its registered office at D-16, OIA, Phase-I and this was 100 per cent subsidiary company of Geosoft Technologies LTd. Banglore (GTL). GTL was incorporated in December 1995 to carry out business in the field of GIS (satellite mapping) and SAPR/3 (ERP). SAPR/3 Enterprise Resource Planning Software was developed and owned by SAP Corporation, Germany and treated as world's best ERP software. However, for implementation of this software, it required customization and optimization. Siemens information Systems Ltd. an offshoot of Siemens, Germany, was the sole distributor and support service provider in India for SAP. The corporation approached GTL to provide training in India for customization and optimization of SAPR/3 on exclusive basis. GTL had two options i.e. either became a training institute or became service provider by employing right candidates and train them for customization and optimization. The GTL entered into an agreement with all the nine global companies. One of such agreements is Mark D1. In order to finance both the projects, GTL approached IDBI, the then central government financial institution and submitted a proposal for venture funding i.e. joint venture with IDBI. After examining the technical and marketing parameters and State Vs. Pardeep Dutta & Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999 P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Judgment dated: 15.03.2022 Page No. 27 of 57 (Dinesh Kumar/CMM/SED/ND) validating all the nine global marketing companies, IDBI approved Rs.600 lacs which comprises of promoter share of Rs.150 lacs, IDBI loan of Rs. 340 lacs. With the availability of fund, GTL entered into a license agreement with SAP India Systems, Applications and products in Data Processing Pvt Ltd. (100% subsidiary of SAP German) for 50 user SAPR/3 licences at a cost of Rs.193 lacs and support fee of about 30 lacs per annum. By procuring the hardware and software, GTL started its business activities of Bangalore and found that the operation of GIS and SAPR/3 are required to be independently carried out, and as such GTL decided to incorporate a 100% subsidiary in the name of GTDL and accordingly, started launching the project SAP R/3 in February 1998.
35. DW1 would further depose that the GTL managed an office with Mr. V. K. Juneja on profit sharing basis at D-16, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi. In March, 1998, recruitment process was launched and simultaneously order was placed for import of two high end servers and 50 computers from Digital Equipment Corporation, USA and a silent generator as the Center was to run round the clock. After incorporation of GTDL, a bank account was opened with the State Bank of Mysore (now State Bank of India) at Nehru Place Branch and Mr. Pradeep Dutta, V. K. Juneja, Mr. T. Fujisawa and Mr. J. K. Dass were signatories and subsequently operation of the account was given to me and Mr. V. K. Juneja. On 15.04.1998, GTDL was incorporated with its registered office at State Vs. Pardeep Dutta & Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999 P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Judgment dated: 15.03.2022 Page No. 28 of 57 (Dinesh Kumar/CMM/SED/ND) B-16, OIA, Phase-I, New Delhi. In the meantime, recruitment process was over and contracts with the employees were executed. All the employees were made aware regarding the training fee being Rs. 3 lacs and it was also disclosed that the same shall be shown as refundable security on completion of three years period from the date of signing of contract. The training in the first week of May, 1998 at the above address started. The SAP trainer who was trained in Singapore was deputed by the DTL for imparting the training to 102 employees of the company. There was no SAP programme available in India and the nearest station was Singapore. GTDL being 100 % subsidiary was authorized to use SAP licence of GTL, Bangalore as the SAP India entered a licence agreement for a product of SAP Corporation, Germany with GTL, however, as per clauses 1.1, 1.14, 2.2 and 2.3(b) of the agreement, GTL had executed an affiliation agreement with GTDL on 19.05.1998 original of which was submitted with SAP India, Germany. The copy of same is now Mark D2. As per the arrangement of affiliation agreement, all the employees of GTDL were be deemed to be employees to GTL and all the expenses of the employees of GTL and GTDL shall be liability of GTDL. GTDL being a subsidiary company of GTL was funded by GTL, Bangalore and out of the funds so provided GTDL used to pay the salaries of trainers appointed by GTL, stipend to employees and other expenses were also borne by GTDL. Due to paucity of space at the registered office of the GTDL, the administrative State Vs. Pardeep Dutta & Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999 P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Judgment dated: 15.03.2022 Page No. 29 of 57 (Dinesh Kumar/CMM/SED/ND) office of the GTDL was shifted to E-6, LSC, J.-Block, 1 st Floor, Saket, New Delhi, which was provided by Mr. V. K. Juneja as per the agreement with him. The training of the first batch of the trainees was to be over in October 1998 and the second batch was to commence from November, 1998, when the company appointed new Accountant namely Mr. Aggarwal, it was pointed out to him by him that the funds of the company were being misappropriated and accordingly the operations in the bank authorizing Mr. V. K. Juneja and Mr. Fujisawa were stopped and new bank account was opened with the Bank of India, Nehru Place branch wherein myself and Mr. J. K. Dass were the signatories of the account. For implementing the training programme for the second batch, 10 trainers from the first batch were selected for imparting the training to the second batch, all the emoluments and expenses so incurred were paid by cheque alongwith vouchers for receipt of the same. The batch which was undergoing training after getting training till February 1999, were sent for assignment. However, they refused to carry out the assignments with an excuse that company was getting much more than what they were being paid for carrying out the assignment and they refused to work with the company for want of sufficient emoluments in contravention of contract executed by them which was valid for three years. The employees demanded training certificates for the undergone training and the same was provided to them. After sometime, when they refused to work with the company on the assignments given to State Vs. Pardeep Dutta & Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999 P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Judgment dated: 15.03.2022 Page No. 30 of 57 (Dinesh Kumar/CMM/SED/ND) them, they demanded their security amount and wanted to leave the job. When the company told them regarding execution of the agreement which was valid for three years, the employees after getting training and certificate, vandalized the premises at Y028, OIA, Phase-II, New Delhi. During the vandalization of the office on 08.03.1999, the said employees under pressure and duress/threat got signed 50 cheques from him for which they were not entitled. The matter was reported to the police on 12.03.1999. The copy of the same is Mark D3. The report was made alongwith the photographs of the properties having been vandalized, the original file was kept in the office. On 25.04.1999, he had to leave to Calcutta for his in-laws house due to some family emergency. He stayed there for some time and he was arrested from the same place in the last week of May, 1999. He stayed in custody upto January 2000 for about 240 days. The documents pertaining to the imparting of training and their records regarding the employment record including the accounts of the company and the vouchers were kept in the office of the company and which were available at the time of registration of the FIR However, the prosecution has failed to place all the records alongwith the charge-sheet. There is a breach of contract by the complainants being some of the employees of the company i.e. being 35 people out of the 150 people who were imparted training and given employment and they have filed the false complaint just to get away for lucrative avenues abroad. The complainants had breached the valid State Vs. Pardeep Dutta & Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999 P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Judgment dated: 15.03.2022 Page No. 31 of 57 (Dinesh Kumar/CMM/SED/ND) contracts and concealed the payments made to them as stipend and a training imparted to them and even the amounts which are paid to them during the course of the investigation recovered from Mr. V. K. Juneja.
36. The DW1 was duly cross examined by Ld. APP for the State. The accused did not examine any other witness. Therefore, the DE was closed and the matter was fixed for final arguements.
37. Sh. Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Ld. APP for State would argue that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. It has been proved through the testimonies of the witnesses that the accused had entered in to criminal conspiracy with his associates, some of whom have already expired and some of whom could not be apprehended, to cheat the complainants and various other innocent persons. They had dishonestly induced them to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- or 3,00,000/- under the pretext of providing them training and a job after the training. However, they did not provide any training. There was no infrastructure of training at the place taken on rent by the accused. When the complainants demanded their money back, the accused had issued cheques to them. However, those cheques were dishonoured on presentation. The accused and his associates closed the office and left their residences. Therefore, they had dishonest intention since, beginning. Thus all the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 120B and 420 IPC have been proved State Vs. Pardeep Dutta & Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999 P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Judgment dated: 15.03.2022 Page No. 32 of 57 (Dinesh Kumar/CMM/SED/ND) against the accused. Hence, it is prayed, the accused may be convicted for the offences.
38. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sh. Desh Raj, Ld. counsel for the accused, that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. There are various contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses of the prosecution. It has been argued that the accused has been falsely implicated. None of the document produced by the prosecution is an original document. The documents are photocopies and, therefore, they are not admissible in evidence. There is no evidence to show that there was transfer of any funds illegally from the account of the company to any other company. The GTDL was having permission for user of the software as it was 100% subsidiary of GTL. If there was any dispute, it was civil in nature. None of the complainant / victim had completed the mandatory period of 3 years and, therefore, they had no right to ask for a refund of their security amount. The complainant / victims have stated that they had received the training initially. Hence, it is shown by the accused that there was no dishonest intention of the accused. The witnesses have not stated as to what was the deficiency in the training. They have made vague statements which cannot be relied upon by the Court. The DW1 has proved the defence. His testimony is sufficient to prove that there was no cheating or criminal conspirac and that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case to extort money from them. State Vs. Pardeep Dutta & Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999 P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Judgment dated: 15.03.2022 Page No. 33 of 57 (Dinesh Kumar/CMM/SED/ND) There is not even a single piece of evidence against the accused. Reasonable doubts have been created on the story of the prosecution. Hence, it is prayed, the benefit of doubts may be given to the accused and he may be acquitted. Ld. Counsel has relied upon the following judgments in support of his arguments:
1. Uma Shankar Gopalika Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (2005) 10 SCC 336.
2. V Y Jose & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. (2009) 3 SCC 78.
3. Vesa Holdings Pvt Ltd & Anr. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. (2015) 8 SCC 293.
4. Shakuntala Vs. State, Delhi High Court Criminal Appeal No. 836/2001 decided on 25.03.2011.
39. I have heard the submissions on behalf of both the parties and carefully perused the material available on record.
40. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that the prosecution is supposed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. The primary burden of proof for proving the offences in a criminal trial rests on the shoulders of the prosecution. Further, an accused is entitled to benefit of every reasonable doubt appearing qua the material facts.
41. The accused herein has been facing the trial for the offences punishable under Section 120B and Section 420, the IPC. Before, proceedings further, it would be relevant to discuss State Vs. Pardeep Dutta & Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999 P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Judgment dated: 15.03.2022 Page No. 34 of 57 (Dinesh Kumar/CMM/SED/ND) the law relating to these offences.
42. For the purpose of proving criminal conspiracy, the prosecution must establish the following:
1. that the accused agreed to do or caused to be done an act;
2. that such act was illegal or was to be done by illegal means; and
3. that some overt act was done by one of the accused in pursuance of the agreement.
43. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Baliya Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2012(9) SCC 696 has held that the offence of criminal conspiracy has its foundation in an agreement to commit an offence or to achieve a lawful object through unlawful means. Such a conspiracy would rarely be hatched in the open and, therefore, direct evidence to establish the same may not be always forthcoming. Proof or otherwise of such conspiracy is a matter of inference and the court in drawing such an inference must consider whether the basic facts i.e. circumstances from which the inference is to be drawn have been proved beyond all reasonable doubt, and thereafter, whether from such proved and established circumstances no other conclusion except that the accused had agreed to commit an offence can be drawn. Naturally in evaluating the proved circumstances for the purposes of drawing any inference adverse to the accused, the benefit of any doubt that may creep State Vs. Pardeep Dutta & Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999 P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Judgment dated: 15.03.2022 Page No. 35 of 57 (Dinesh Kumar/CMM/SED/ND) in must go to the accused.
44. Similarly the Hon'ble Apex Court, again in Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad Vs K. Narayana Rao, 2012(9) SCC 512 has held that the ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are that there should be an agreement between the persons who are alleged to conspire and the said agreement should be for doing of an illegal act or for doing, by illegal means, an act which by itself may not be illegal. In other words, the essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both and in a matter of common experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available. Accordingly, the circumstances proved before and after the occurrence have to be considered to decide about the complicity of the accused. Even if some acts are proved to have committed, it must be clear that they were so committed in pursuance of an agreement made between the accused persons who were parties to the alleged conspiracy. Inferences from such proved circumstances regarding the guilt may be drawn only when such circumstances are incapable of any other reasonable explanation. In other words, an offence of conspiracy cannot be deemed to have been established on mere suspicion and surmises or inference which are not supported by cogent and acceptable evidence.
45. Section 420, IPC provides punishment for cheating State Vs. Pardeep Dutta & Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999 P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Judgment dated: 15.03.2022 Page No. 36 of 57 (Dinesh Kumar/CMM/SED/ND) and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. In order to constitute, offence under Section 420 IPC, the prosecution has to establish that the accused had deceived the complainant/victim dishonestly inducing him to part with any property in his favour which he would not have parted but for the deception played on him. Thus, the essential ingredients of the offence is that there must be dishonest intention on the part of the accused at the time of making the representation to the complainant / victim on the basis which the complainant / victim part with his property. Intention must be dishonest and there must also be mens rea. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Samir Sahay v. State of U.P., (2018) 14 SCC 233 has discussed the ingredients and the law related to the offence of cheating under section 415 and 420, the IPC. It has been held as under:
"6.Before we proceed further to examine the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to notice the ingredients for establishing a charge under Section 420 IPC. Section 415 IPC defines "cheating" which is to the following effect:
"415.Cheating.--Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat"
State Vs. Pardeep Dutta & Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999 P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Judgment dated: 15.03.2022 Page No. 37 of 57 (Dinesh Kumar/CMM/SED/ND) "17. Section 420 IPC is with regard to the cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property which is to the following effect:
"420.Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.--Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a 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.
"18.According to Section 415 IPC, the inducement must be fraudulent and dishonest which depends upon the intention of the accused at the time of inducement. This Court had occasion to consider Sections 415 and 420 IPC in Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar [Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 168 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 786] . This Court after noticing the provisions of Sections 415 and 420 IPC stated the following in paras 14 and 15 : (SCC pp. 176-77) "14. On a reading of the section it is manifest that in the definition there are set forth two separate classes of acts which the person deceived may be induced to do. In the first place he may be induced fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver any property to any person. The second class of acts set forth in the section is the doing or omitting to do anything which the person deceived would not do or omit to do if he were not so deceived. In the first class of cases the inducing must be fraudulent or dishonest. In the second class of acts, the inducing must be intentional but not fraudulent or dishonest.
State Vs. Pardeep Dutta & Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999 P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Judgment dated: 15.03.2022 Page No. 38 of 57 (Dinesh Kumar/CMM/SED/ND) "15. In determining the question it has to be kept in mind that the distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating is a fine one. It depends upon the intention of the accused at the time of inducement which may be judged by his subsequent conduct but for this subsequent conduct is not the sole test. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, that is the time when the offence is said to have been committed. Therefore it is the intention which is the gist of the offence. To hold a person guilty of cheating it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. From his mere failure to keep up promise subsequently such a culpable intention right at the beginning, that is, when he made the promise cannot be presumed.
"19. Again in Dalip Kaur v. Jagnar Singh [Dalip Kaur v. Jagnar Singh, (2009) 14 SCC 696 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 223] , this Court noticed the ingredients of Section 420 IPC. In paras 9 to 11 the following was stated : (SCC pp. 699-700) "9. The ingredients of Section 420 of the Penal Code are "(i) Deception of any persons;
"(ii) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any property; or "(iii) To consent that any person shall retain any property and finally intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit.' "10. The High Court, therefore, should have posed a question as to whether any act of inducement on State Vs. Pardeep Dutta & Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999 P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Judgment dated: 15.03.2022 Page No. 39 of 57 (Dinesh Kumar/CMM/SED/ND) the part of the appellant has been raised by the second respondent and whether the appellant had an intention to cheat him from the very inception. If the dispute between the parties was essentially a civil dispute resulting from a breach of contract on the part of the appellants by non-refunding the amount of advance the same would not constitute an offence of cheating. Similar is the legal position in respect of an offence of criminal breach of trust having regard to its definition contained in Section 405 of the Penal Code.
(See Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P. [Ajay
Mitra v. State of M.P., (2003) 3 SCC 11 : 2003
SCC (Cri) 703] )
"11. There cannot furthermore be any doubt that the High Court would exercise its inherent jurisdiction only when one or the other propositions of law, as laid down in R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta [R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta, (2009) 1 SCC 516 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 567] is attracted, which are as under : (SCC p. 523, para 15) "(1) The High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding and, in particular, a first information report unless the allegations contained therein, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no cognizable offence.
"(2) For the said purpose the Court, save and except in very exceptional circumstances, would not look to any document relied upon by the defence.
"(3) Such a power should be exercised very sparingly. If the allegations made in the FIR disclose commission of an offence, the Court shall not go beyond the same and pass an order in favour of the accused to hold absence of any mens State Vs. Pardeep Dutta & Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999 P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Judgment dated: 15.03.2022 Page No. 40 of 57 (Dinesh Kumar/CMM/SED/ND) rea or actus reus.
"(4) If the allegation discloses a civil dispute, the same by itself may not be a ground to hold that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue.' "21. In the first information report even allegation of making assurance was not made against the appellant but was made against Major P.C. Sahay (Retd.), father of the appellant. There was no allegation that the appellant fraudulently or dishonestly induced the complainant to deposit money. This Court in Arun Bhandari v. State of U.P. [Arun Bhandari v. State of U.P., (2013) 2 SCC 801 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 21] , has held that it is necessary to show that a person had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. A mere failure to keep up promise subsequently cannot be presumed as an act leading to cheating. An earlier two-Judge Bench judgment of this Court in State of Kerala v. A. Pareed Pillai [State of Kerala v. A. Pareed Pillai, (1972) 3 SCC 661 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 705] , was quoted with approval in para 21.
Paras 21, 22, 23 and 24 which are relevant are to the following effect : (Arun Bhandari case [Arun Bhandari v. State of U.P., (2013) 2 SCC 801 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 21] , SCC pp. 811-12) "21. Before we proceed to scan and analyse the material brought on record in the case at hand, it is seemly to refer to certain authorities wherein the ingredients of cheating have been highlighted. In State of Kerala v. A. Pareed Pillai [State of Kerala v. A. Pareed Pillai, (1972) 3 SCC 661 :
1972 SCC (Cri) 705] a two-Judge Bench ruled that : (SCC p. 667, para 16) "16. ... To hold a person guilty of the offence of cheating, it has to be shown that his intention was dishonest at the time of making the promise [and] such a dishonest intention cannot be inferred State Vs. Pardeep Dutta & Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999 P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Judgment dated: 15.03.2022 Page No. 41 of 57 (Dinesh Kumar/CMM/SED/ND) from [a] mere fact that he could not subsequently fulfil the promise.' "22. In G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad [G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733] , this Court has held thus : (SCC pp. 696-97, para 7) "'7. As mentioned above, Section 415 has two parts. While in the first part, the person must "dishonestly" or "fraudulently" induce the complainant to deliver any property; in the second part, the person should intentionally induce the complainant to do or omit to do a thing. That is to say, in the first part, inducement must be dishonest or fraudulent. In the second part, the inducement should be intentional. As observed by this Court in Jaswantrai Manilal Akhaney v. State of Bombay [Jaswantrai Manilal Akhaney v. State of Bombay, AIR 1956 SC 575 : 1956 Cri LJ 1116] , a guilty intention is an essential ingredient of the offence of cheating. In order, therefore, to secure conviction of a person for the offence of cheating, "mens rea" on the part of that person, must be established. It was also observed in Mahadeo Prasad v. State of W.B. [Mahadeo Prasad v. State of W.B., AIR 1954 SC 724 : 1954 Cri LJ 1806] , that in order to constitute the offence of cheating, the intention to deceive should be in existence at the time when the inducement was offered.' "23. In S.W. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar [S.W. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar, (2002) 1 SCC 241 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 129] it has been laid down that : (SCC p. 250, para 21) "'21. ... In order to constitute an offence of cheating, the intention to deceive should be in existence at the time when the inducement was made. It is necessary to show that a person had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise, to say that he committed an State Vs. Pardeep Dutta & Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999 P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Judgment dated: 15.03.2022 Page No. 42 of 57 (Dinesh Kumar/CMM/SED/ND) act of cheating. A mere failure to keep up promise subsequently cannot be presumed as an act leading to cheating.' "24. In the said case while dealing with the ingredients of criminal breach of trust and cheating, the Bench observed thus : (S.W. Palanitkar case [S.W. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar, (2002) 1 SCC 241 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 129] , SCC p. 246, paras 9-10) "9. The ingredients in order to constitute a criminal breach of trust are : (i) entrusting a person with property or with any dominion over property, (ii) that person entrusted (a) dishonestly misappropriating or converting that property to his own use; or (b) dishonestly using or disposing of that property or wilfully suffering any other person so to do in violation (i) of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, (ii) of any legal contract made, touching the discharge of such trust.
"10. The ingredients of an offence of cheating are : (i) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him, (ii)(a) the person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property; or (b) the person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and (iii) in cases covered by, (ii)(b) the act of omission should be one which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property."
"23. We are, thus, of the considered opinion that in the present case ingredients of Section 420 IPC were not made out so as to frame any charge under Section 420 IPC against the appellant."
46. In view of the above discussed legal position, I State Vs. Pardeep Dutta & Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999 P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Judgment dated: 15.03.2022 Page No. 43 of 57 (Dinesh Kumar/CMM/SED/ND) shall proceed to decide the present matter.
47. It has been alleged in the complaint that accused Pradeep Dutta had entered into a criminal conspiracy with J.K. Das (since deceased), V.K. Juneja (since deceased), and some other persons to deceive public at large. In furtherance of the said conspiracy, they had got published an advertisement in a newspaper inviting application for employment and training for SAP consultants. The complainant and the victims, believing the said advertisement, approached the office of the company where accused Pradeep Dutta and some other persons, some of whom are already dead, had assured the complainant and the victims that they would be getting a stipend during training. It was also assured that they would be getting a very handsome salary after completion of the training. Under the said assurance, the victims had paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- or Rs.3,00,000/-, respectively, to the company of the accused, namely GTDPL. However, there was no adequate infrastructure for imparting the training. Therefore, they demanded their money back. Accused Pradeep Dutta had issued cheques to some of them. However, some of those cheques got dishonoured on presentation. The victims also came to know that the office of the company was closed and the accused and his associates had absconded. Therefore, the present complaint was made.
48. The case of the prosecution is not that the advertisement was got published by accused Pradeep Dutta. The copy of the news paper is brought on record by DW-1 which is State Vs. Pardeep Dutta & Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999 P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Judgment dated: 15.03.2022 Page No. 44 of 57 (Dinesh Kumar/CMM/SED/ND) Mark-X. Perusal of the copy of the advertisement would show that it was published by the company M/s Geosoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Some of the payment made by the victims is shown to be deposited in the name of Geosoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd. as reflected in the receipts produced and proved by the witnesses during their testimonies. There is nothing on record to show as to how accused Pradeep Dutta was related to the company Geosoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd. That company is a juristic personality separate from its directors. Similarly company M/s Geosoft Technologies (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd. is a juristic person. The remaining amount is shown to be deposited in the name of M/s GTDPL. However, none of the company has been made an accused in the present case. In the absence of the company being an accused their directors can not be prosecuted for criminal charges. I get strength from the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sharad Kumar Sanghi vs Sangita Rane, Criminal Appeal no.1584/2007, decided on 10.02.2015 . It has been held by the Court:
"11. In the case at hand as the complainant's initial statement would reflect, the allegations are against the company, but the company has not been made arrayed as a party. Therefore, the allegations have to be restricted to the Managing Director. As we have noted earlier, allegations are vague and in fact, principally the allegations are against the company. There is no specific allegation against the Managing Director. When a company has not been arrayed as a party, no proceeding can be initiated against it even where vicarious liability is fastened on certain State Vs. Pardeep Dutta & Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999 P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Judgment dated: 15.03.2022 Page No. 45 of 57 (Dinesh Kumar/CMM/SED/ND) statutes. It has been so held by a three-Judge Bench in Aneeta Hada v. Godfather travels and Tours Private Limited in the context of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
49. In the present case also, none of the company has been made an accused despite the fact that the entire security money has been deposited in the names of the companies. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the present criminal prosecution against the accused is not maintainable.
50. Be that as it may, even if the present complaint is considered maintainable in its present form, it has to be decided whether the material on record is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts.
51. It has been admitted by accused Pradeep Dutta in his examination in chief as DW-1 that he was Managing Director of the Geosoft Technologies (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd. It has also not been disputed that an advertisement was got published in the newspaper inviting applications. The accused has also not disputed that Rs.3,00,000/- or Rs.2,00,000/- respectively, were taken from each of the victim. The accused has stated, and it is also admitted by the victims, during their cross examination that the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was an interest free refundable security, which was to be refunded to the victims after completion of three years of service. It has also been proved on record that there was an agreement to pay stipend during the training.
State Vs. Pardeep Dutta & Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999 P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Judgment dated: 15.03.2022 Page No. 46 of 57 (Dinesh Kumar/CMM/SED/ND)
52. Perusal of the statement made by PW-2 Mukul Jain would show that he has admitted that after joining M/s. Geosoft Technologies Pvt Ltd., he started getting stipend of Rs.7,500/- after deduction for first 3 months. He has admitted that money which he had deposited with M/s. Geosoft Tech. as a guarantee /Security bond that he would work for them and his probation period was to continue till 30.04.1999.
53. PW-3 Rakesh Kumar has stated that he had been associated with GTDPL from 13.08.1998 till April 1999. Thus, he has also admitted that he had obtained training from the company. PW-5 Vivek Bhatnagar has also admitted in his evidence that he was appointed as consultant training for three years by GTDPL. He has also admitted that the deposit of Rs. 3 Lacs by him with GTDPL was for a period of three years. He has also admitted that the money was refundable after three years completion of service with GTDPL. PW-6 Ajay Sharma has also admitted that he had undergone training in GTDPL between the end of November 1998 to Mid of March 1999. PW- 7 Vinod Aggarwal, accountant of Geosoft Technologies (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd has also stated that during his tenure, the SAP training was imparted to two batches. He has admitted that during his tenure classes were being conducted by the company.
54. Perusal of the testimony of PW-8 Arun Kumar Verma would show that he has admitted that he worked outside Delhi after the episode of GTDPL. He has also admitted that he worked in foreign countries also as Program Manager. He has State Vs. Pardeep Dutta & Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999 P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Judgment dated: 15.03.2022 Page No. 47 of 57 (Dinesh Kumar/CMM/SED/ND) also admitted that the education received during training at the GTDPL was beneficial for the job of Program Manager. He has further voluntarily stated that after obtaining mentioned training from GTDPL, he also underwent same training for Vishu Consultancy in Noida.
55. PW-9 Aun Kumar Shrivastava has also admitted that as per the contract he had to complete three years service with the GTDPL including training period. He has also admitted that as per the terms of the agreement with GTDPL Rs. 3 Lacs were deposited by the trainee as interest free refundable deposit which the trainee was to be refunded by GTDPL after completion of three years of service. He has further voluntarily stated that their attention was never drawn by the accused or authorized persons of GTDPL towards the said clause that they were never told that it was mandatory. PW-11 Bobby Aggarwal has admitted in his evidence that he was appointed as consultant training for three years by GTDPL. He has also admitted that the deposit of Rs. 3 Lacs by him with GTDPL was for a period of three years. He has also admitted that the money was refundable after three years completion of service with GTDPL. PW-12 Madhukar Mittal has also stated that he started working as SAP consultant in 2001 in the company named as Osram India. He has also admitted that the deposit of Rs. 3 Lacs by him with GTDPL was for a period of three years. He has also admitted that he was receiving stipend during training which was for about 2-3 months.
State Vs. Pardeep Dutta & Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999 P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Judgment dated: 15.03.2022 Page No. 48 of 57 (Dinesh Kumar/CMM/SED/ND)
56. Perusal of the testimony of PW-13 Ruma Mukherjee would show that during training period, the consultant/candidates used to be paid stipend as stipulated in their agreement. She has admitted that the infrastructure provided by GTDPL for implementation of SAP projects was sufficient and work was smoothly being conducted by the company through the consultants.
57. PW-14 Rakesh Kapooor has also stated that he entered into agreement with GTDPL after getting appointment letter. He worked with GTDPL from from November 1998 till Mid January 1999.
58. PW-18 Aditi Mittal, in her cross examination has stated that she had seen the file of contract between Geosoft Technologies Ltd. and SAP India Systems Applications & Products in Data Processing Private Ltd. The witness was confronted with agreement dated 25.03.1996 Ex.PW-18/D1. She has stated in her cross examination that she could not say whether GTDPL was authorized to use the license being subsidiary company of GTDL. The testimony of PW-18 shows that she did not dispute execution of agreement Ex.Pw-18/D1. Thus, it has been proved by the accused that his company, being 100% subsidiary of Ms. GTPL, was having authority to impart training from SAP in India. No contrary evidence has been brought on record in this regad.
59. As discussed herein above, all the victims witnesses have admitted in their respective cross examinations State Vs. Pardeep Dutta & Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999 P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Judgment dated: 15.03.2022 Page No. 49 of 57 (Dinesh Kumar/CMM/SED/ND) that there were classes organised by the company of the accused and they had attended the classes. They have also stated that they had initially received the stipend as promised. However, they have stated that the infrastructure for training was not adequate. They have also stated that they did not receive stipend after three months.
60. Now, it has not come on record as to what infrastructure or facilities the victims were expecting during the training. Generally, computers are required and they are the most important equipment for training of a computer programme. It has been proved on record, from the testimonies of the victim witnesses that there were computers available for training. It has come in the testimonies of some of the victim witnesses that they had come to know that the computers were taken on rent by the company. However, it is not necessary that a company should purchase computers for training of its employees/ trainees. It is not the case of the prosecution that the computers were not equipped to provide the necessary training or that they were in damaged condition.
61. It has also come in the testimonies of the witnesses that they had attended initial training. Some of them had attended the training for three months. Thus, it is not the case of the prosecution that no training was ever provided to the victims by the company of the accused.
62. It is also noteworthy that the victims have stated that they had made their complaint to the police when they State Vs. Pardeep Dutta & Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999 P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Judgment dated: 15.03.2022 Page No. 50 of 57 (Dinesh Kumar/CMM/SED/ND) found that the accused had closed the office and they had absconded. The said complaint is shown to be made on 28.04.1999 which is Ex. PW3/A. However, during his examination as DW-1, the witness has brought on record a complaint dated 12.03.1999 in relation to an incident dated 08.03.1999. The same alongwith NCR receipt is Mark D-3. The prosecution has not disputed this document. In the said complaint, made by the manager of the GTDPL, the company of the accused, it has been stated that on 08.03.1999, a group of trainee consultants had forcibly entered into the office of the MD, Pradeep Dutta and started demanding their security amount. During discussion, the trainee consultants assaulted the MD. He was lifted from his chair and was thrown on the floor. Various instruments lying in the office were also broken by them. They also obtained blank cheques from the table of Accounts Executive and forcibly got them signed from the MD. They also took away the bank deposit slips and the blank letter heads of the company.
63. The above-mentioned complaint made on behalf the company of the accused is more than 45 days prior to the complaint made by the victims. It shows, on the preponderance of probability, that the company of the accused had approached the police prior to the victims.
64. It is settled position of law that every breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating unless there was any deception played at the very inception. I get State Vs. Pardeep Dutta & Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999 P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Judgment dated: 15.03.2022 Page No. 51 of 57 (Dinesh Kumar/CMM/SED/ND) strength from the judgment of Supreme Court of India in Uma Shankar Gopalika v. State of Bihar, (2005) 10 SCC 336 wherein it has been held:
"6.Now the question to be examined by us is as to whether on the facts disclosed in the petition of complaint any criminal offence whatsoever is made out much less offences under Sections 420/120-B IPC. The only allegation in the complaint petition against the accused persons is that they assured the complainant that when they receive the insurance claim amounting to Rs 4,20,000, they would pay a sum of Rs 2,60,000 to the complainant out of that but the same has never been paid. Apart from that there is no other allegation in the petition of complaint. It was pointed out on behalf of the complainant that the accused fraudulently persuaded the complainant to agree so that the accused persons may take steps for moving the Consumer Forum in relation to the claim of Rs 4,20,000. It is well settled that every breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating and only in those cases breach of contract would amount to cheating where there was any deception played at the very inception. If the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating. In the present case it has nowhere been stated that at the very inception there was any intention on behalf of the accused persons to cheat which is a condition precedent for an offence under Section 420 IPC."
65. Hon;ble Supreme Court of India in V.Y. Jose v. State of Gujarat, (2009) 3 SCC 78, and in Vesa Holdings (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (2015) 8 SCC 293 has also held similar views. In Vesa Holdings (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (2015) 8 SCC 293 it has been held:
State Vs. Pardeep Dutta & Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999 P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Judgment dated: 15.03.2022 Page No. 52 of 57 (Dinesh Kumar/CMM/SED/ND) "12.From the decisions cited by the appellant, the settled proposition of law is that every breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating and only in those cases breach of contract would amount to cheating where there was any deception played at the very inception. If the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating. In other words for the purpose of constituting an offence of cheating, the complainant is required to show that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise or representation. Even in a case where allegations are made in regard to failure on the part of the accused to keep his promise, in the absence of a culpable intention at the time of making initial promise being absent, no offence under Section 420 of the Penal Code, 1860 can be said to have been made out."
66. Thus, it is settled position of law, as discussed hereinabove, that for the purpose of constituting an offence of cheating, the prosecution is required to show that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise or representation. Even in a case where allegations are made in regard to failure on the part of the accused to keep his promise, in the absence of a culpable intention at the time of making initial promise being absent, no offence under Section 420 of the Penal Code can be said to have been made out.
67. In the present case also, in the light of the discussion hereinabove, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has failed to bring any evidence on record to prove beyond reasonable doubts that the accused had dishonest intention at the time of advertisement in the news paper. It has State Vs. Pardeep Dutta & Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999 P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Judgment dated: 15.03.2022 Page No. 53 of 57 (Dinesh Kumar/CMM/SED/ND) also failed to bring any evidence on record to prove beyond reasonable doubts that the accused had any dishonest intention when the victims were asked to deposit the security amount which was to be refunded after three years subject to the terms of the agreements. The prosecution has also failed to prove beyond reasonable doubts as to what was the deficiency in the infrastructure provided by the company of the accused for training purpose. The material on record, on the other hand, is sufficient to show, on the preponderance of probability, that the dispute, if any, regarding deficiency of service and refund of the security amount, between the parties might by civil dispute. The material on record is not sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubts that the accused had intention to cheat at the time of publication of the advertisement, or at the time of signing of the agreement with the victims. I get strength from the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Madras in G.V. Ramanigopal vs State Rep. by the Inspector of Police and Another. 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 26289. The facts of the case before Hon'ble High Court were that the son of the second respondent after having paid huge amount, as offered by the petitioner, admitted in Alternative Training Scheme for the academic year 2014-15. Thereafter, the petitioner also promised to avail on-board training opportunity at Mumbai based shipping company to all the students of the second year. Thereafter the petitioner did not arrange any training opportunity and all the students had gone to Mumbai at their own expenses and availed training in the State Vs. Pardeep Dutta & Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999 P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Judgment dated: 15.03.2022 Page No. 54 of 57 (Dinesh Kumar/CMM/SED/ND) Mumbai based company on payment of separate fees. Thereafter the recognization for the petitioner's institution was also cancelled. The petitioner also refused to return the past school certification of the second respondent's son and demanded further amount. It was alleged that the petitioner had induced the students by joining in their institution without any infrastructure and recognization from the Ministry of shipping and thereby cheated the students. Hon'ble High Court has held as under:
"20. It is settled law by a catena of decision that for establishing the offence of cheating, the complainant is required to show that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise or representation. From his making failure to keep promise subsequently, such a culpable intention right at the beginning that is at the time when the promise was made cannot be presumed.
"21. On perusal of entire allegations in the case on hand, the petitioner admitted the son of the second respondent during the year 2014-15 to pursue the course of Alternative Training Scheme. He successfully completed his first year and during the second year, the petitioner failed to provide training opportunity with Mumbai based company and thereafter on spending his own huge money, he had training. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner would not be attributed any mens-rea of cheating the second respondent's or any other student. Further during the year 2017, the recognition of the petitioner's institution had been withdrawn and the same was also challenged in W.P.No24916 of 2017 before this Court and it is pending.
State Vs. Pardeep Dutta & Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999 P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Judgment dated: 15.03.2022 Page No. 55 of 57 (Dinesh Kumar/CMM/SED/ND) "22. Insofar as the receipt of fees is concerned, the son of the second respondent herein accepted the terms and conditions that the fees paid by him is not refundable under any circumstances and the petitioner will not be held responsible for withdrawal of training from the institution on own and person reasons. The petitioner never induced the second respondent to deliver any property to him. Cheating is an essential ingredient to attract the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. The ingredient is not made out from the allegations of the complaint and as such no offence under Section 420 of IPC is made out. It is an attempt made by the second respondent to convert the civil dispute in to criminal nature despite the absence of ingredients necessary to constitute the offence. Therefore, the FIR registered as against the petitioner is nothing but clear abuse of process of law and it is liable to be quashed."
68. In the present matter also, in view of the discussion herein-above, it can be safely held that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubts that the accused had entered into any criminal conspiracy or that he had intention to deceive since beginning. The accused cannot be convicted on the basis of conjectures and surmises. The burden was on the prosecution to prove the ingredients of the offence punishable u/s 420 and 120 B IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. However, it has failed to discharge the burden. The accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubts. Hence, the accused is given benefit of reasonable doubts and he is hereby acquitted.
69. Bonds in terms of Section 437-A, Cr.P.C. have State Vs. Pardeep Dutta & Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999 P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Judgment dated: 15.03.2022 Page No. 56 of 57 (Dinesh Kumar/CMM/SED/ND) already been furnished by the accused and the same shall remain in force for a period of six months from today.
Pronounced in the open court on this 15 th day of March Digitally signed 2022. DINESH by DINESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2022.03.15 03:28:06 -0500 (Dinesh Kumar) Chief Metropolitan Magistrate South East, Saket Courts: New Delhi.
State Vs. Pardeep Dutta & Ors.
FIR No. 255/1999 P.S. Okhla Industrial Area Judgment dated: 15.03.2022 Page No. 57 of 57 (Dinesh Kumar/CMM/SED/ND)