Delhi District Court
State vs . Inder Sharma on 24 January, 2020
IN THE COURT OF MS. RASHMI GUPTA, MM06, NORTH
DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, NEW DELHI
State v. Inder Sharma
FIR no. 341/05 Date of Institution 13.02.2009
Police Station Adarsh Nagar Judgment Reserved on 17.12.2019
Sections 420/34 IPC Date of Judgment 24.01.2020
JUDGMENT
a) Serial Number of the case 5289805/16
b) Date of offence 24.02.2005
c) Name of Complainant Ashok Anand
d) Name and address of the i) Inder Sharma S/o Mattu Ram, Prop.
accused persons M/s Haryana Punjab Roadways, S.D.
Road, Near Truck Stand, Tan Sukhia,
Assam786125
e) Offence complained of Section 420/407/34 IPC
f) Plea of accused persons Not guilty
g) Final Order Acquitted
h) Date of Order 24.01.2020
JUDGMENT:
1. Accused Inder Sharma has stood trial for offence under section 420/34 IPC and 407 IPC.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 24.02.2005 at unknown time at new Subji Mandi, the accused Inder Sharma along with his associates namely Krishan Ghatani and Deepak (who were declared P.O.) induced the complainant Ashok Chand to pay a sum of Rs. 2,80,000/ as consideration for State vs. Inder Sharma FIR No. 341/05 PS Adarsh Nagar Page 1 of 7 supply of 201 bags of ginger on 15.02.2005. The complainant was induced over phone on 15.02.2005 and paid the money to the accused as a result of such inducement on 24.02.2005. That he also committed criminal breach of trust with respect to transporter. Accused Deepak was declared PO during the investigation of the case and coaccused Krishan Ghatani was declared PO during the trial of the present case.
3. After taking the cognizance and compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C, charge against the accused was framed for offence under section 420/34 IPC and 407 IPC vide order dated 24.11.2015.
4. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for prosecution evidence. In support of its case the prosecution examined as many as 5 witnesses.
5. Complainant Ashok Kumar was examined as PW1. He deposed that he dealt in whole sale supply of ginger at Azadpur Subji Mandi. On 15.02.2005, he placed an order for supply of 201 bags of ginger to the accused. On 23.02.2005, he was informed by the accused that the ordered ginger has been loaded by him in a truck and would reach him shortly. The purchase amount was agreed to be Rs. 2,80,000/ . That all the conversation took place between him and the accused Inder Sharma on phone. The accused Inder Sharma also told him that he would be sending one Kishan Ghatani with a Rs. 10 note with a particular number on the note and the said number was also told by the accused Inder Sharma to him over phone. He was asked to make payment to that person on receipt of Rs. 10 note and after confirmation from the accused Inder Sharma on phone. He was also told the mobile number of Kishan Ghatani. On 24.02.2005, he contacted Kishan Ghatani on phone and he was told that Kishan Ghatani is sending one person namely Deepak along with the said 10 Rs. Note. He was directed to make the payment State vs. Inder Sharma FIR No. 341/05 PS Adarsh Nagar Page 2 of 7 of Rs. 2,80,000/ to Deepak. On 24.02.2005 Deepak came at his shop and presented the Rs. 10 note bearing the same number as was mentioned by the accused Inder Kumar and after confirmation over phone from the accused Inder he gave Rs. 2,80,000/ to Deepak. He kept the note with him. He was told that the goods would be delivered to him in 67 days. On the basis of trust and good faith as shown by the accused Inder he gave money to the Deepak. After that day, he was in regular touch with the accused Inder who repeated that he had loaded his consignment in a truck and also mentioned the number of the truck to the complainant when the goods did not reach him after one month he insisted the accused Inder to send the bilti of the truck in which the goods were loaded. The same was sent to him by the accused Inder by fax. The accused Inder neither sent the goods nor gave his money back. Upon his complaint to Ld. ACMM, the FIR of the present case was registered. During the investigation of the case, he handed over the 'Rs. 10 note' and one diary page bearing the entry regarding the deal with the accused to the IO of the case. He proved the seizure memos regarding them as Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW1/B both bearing his signatures. He identified the bilty as Ex. P1 and the diary page Ex. P2. The 'Rs. 10 note' containing the name of V.K. Sharma, amount of payment of Rs. 2,80,000/ and one phone number and containing some other details were produced in the court.
6. The PW1 Ashok Kumar (complainant) was crossexamined by Sh. N.K. Kaushik Ld. counsel for the accused Inder Sharma. In his cross examination, he admitted that his complaint given to the SHO written in Hindi language was not on record. He also admitted that his complaint given in the court was not signed and he stated that the same was filed by his advocate. He further admitted that he was known to the accused Inder Sharma for the past State vs. Inder Sharma FIR No. 341/05 PS Adarsh Nagar Page 3 of 7 45 years before the present complaint. That no dispute was pending between him and the accused before the filing of this case. He never visited Assam during the investigation of the case. IO did not seize any bill / bilti / challan in his presence from the accused. He made payment to the accused Inder Sharma at the instance of Kishan Bhatani. That he gave money to the accused Kishan Ghatani after having conversation with the accused Inder Sharma. That the money was physically handed over to one Deepak at the instance of Kishan Ghatani. He further admitted that the 'Rs. 10 note' was signed by Deepak and not by the accused Inder Sharma. That he did not obtain any call record of the conversation which took place between him and the accused Inder Sharma over phone. He also admitted that he never met the accused Inder Sharma during the said transaction. That he did not file any civil suit against the accused Inder Sharma. He stated that he had mentioned in his ITR of the relevant time regarding the transaction between him and the accused Inder Sharma, but, the copy of the same was not placed on record.
7. SI Mohd. Salim was examined as PW2. He deposed that on 14.07.2005, at about 05.05 PM, he registered the FIR Ex. PW2/A and his endorsement on the rukka is Ex. PW2/B.
8. HC Pradeep Kumar was examined as PW3. He deposed that on 24.10.2007 during investigation the diary page was seized in his presence vide memo Ex. PW1/B.
9. Retired SI Surender Singh was examined as PW4. He deposed that on 14.07.2005, he had carried out investigation of present case after registration of FIR. He seized the alleged 10 rupee note from the complainant vide memo Ex. PW1/A. He had verified the number of the truck i.e. UP15F6676 in which the accused Inder Sharma had stated to send the ginger but upon State vs. Inder Sharma FIR No. 341/05 PS Adarsh Nagar Page 4 of 7 verification the same was found that of hero honda motorcycle. PW4 arrested the accused vide memo Ex. PW4/C. The disclosure statement is Ex. PW4/D.
10. Smt. Urmila Devi Sr. Assistant, Registering Authority, Motor Vehicle Department, Meerut was examined as PW5. She deposed that vehicle bearing no. UP15F6676 was a motorcycle and was registered in the name of Indu Bhushan S/o late Sh. Sita Ram. The documents i.e. form no. 30, form no. 20, Form A, form no. 29, pollution certificate, copy of affidavit are Ex. PW5/A.
11. Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed and the matter was fixed for recording statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. The accused was questioned on the incriminating evidences which emerged out during the trial of the case. He stated that he did not know Krishan Ghatani and Deepak and the complainant had not placed any order on 15.02.2005 for supply of 201 bags of ginger. He also did not anything about the Rs. 10 note which was given by the complainant to the IO. He further stated that he was falsely implicated by the complainant as he had refused to enter into business transactions with the complainant.
12. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for final arguments.
13. Both the sides have been carefully heard and the record has been carefully perused.
14. I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the alleged business transaction between the complainant Ashok and the accused Inder Sharma. As per prosecution the business dealing / conversation between the complainant and the accused took place over telephone. No CDR or any other evidence has been placed on record, so as to prove the factum of the said telephonic conversation. Neither any document State vs. Inder Sharma FIR No. 341/05 PS Adarsh Nagar Page 5 of 7 viz. receipt, agreement etc. has been produced by the prosecution on record, so as to suggest earlier business transaction between the complainant and the accused Inder Sharma.
15. As per prosecution story money was handed over to the accused Krishan Ghatani who had sent accused Deepak on his behalf to collect the money. Both these accused persons namely Krishan Ghatani and Deepak had already been declared PO and only accused Inder Sharma has been left to fact trial before the court. There is no recovery from the accused Inder Sharma.
16. Apart from this, remaining evidence on record against the accused Inder Sharma is the photocopy of Rs. 10 note bearing no. '47V993677' which is mark X, page no. 33 from the diary of the complainant which is Ex. P2 and the builty allegedly sent to the complainant by the accused Inder Sharma through fax which is Ex. P1.
17. The builty which is Ex. P1 does not mention / bear the name or signature of the accused Inder Sharma. The Rs. 10 note which is mark X does not even finds mentioned of the name of the accused. The single page of the diary finds mention of the name of the accused Inder Sharma but it does not go to show or establish the alleged transaction between the accused Inder Sharma and the complainant.
18. The evidence available on record, it in my considered opinion does not prove / indicate/ show any inducement by the accused Inder Sharma and receiving of the cheated amount by him. It also does not prove the ingredients of criminal breach of trust. The prosecution has also failed to establish /prove the alleged business transaction between the complainant and the accused Inder Sharma.
State vs. Inder Sharma FIR No. 341/05 PS Adarsh Nagar Page 6 of 7
19. Only one page of the diary maintained by the complainant is on record. The complete diary maintained by the complainant in day to day course of the business has not been produced/ brought on record by the prosecution. Not much evidentiary value can be attached to a single page which is stated to be from a diary which is maintained in the course of business.
20. It is the bounden duty of the prosecution to prove its case and stand on its own legs. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. As per settled law, the benefit of doubt, if any, should be given to the accused.
21. The prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients which would make out the offence u/s 420/407 IPC. Thus, in view of the above accused Inder Sharma is acquitted for offence u/s 420/407 IPC.
22. Accused Inder Sharma is directed to furnish bonds u/s 437A Cr.P.C.
23. Bail bond stands cancelled. Surety stands discharged.
24. Original documents if any, be returned after due acknowledgment / verification / receipt.
25. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by RASHMI RASHMI GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2020.01.29 11:44:19 +0530 (Rashmi Gupta) MM06, North District Rohini Courts, Delhi/24.01.2020 State vs. Inder Sharma FIR No. 341/05 PS Adarsh Nagar Page 7 of 7