Delhi District Court
State vs Ranbir Singh Kharb & on 31 January, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. HARJEET SINGH JASPAL:
LD. ACMM-04, ROUSE AVENUE COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CNR No.DLCT12-001406-2019
Cr.C. No.:124/2019
FIR No.55/2014
PS : EOW (Uttam Nagar)
U/s :409/420/120-B IPC
State Vs Ranbir Singh Kharb &
Another
JUDGMENT
1. Date of the commission of offence : From 1997 to 2002
2. Name & address of the Complainant:Sh. Kishan Singh R/o WZ-100, Hari Singh Park, New Multan Nagar, New Delhi-110063
3. Name of the accused and address : i)Ranbir Singh Kharb S/o Kartar Singh Kharb R/o V & P.O. Mundela Khurd, Najafgarh, Delhi
ii)Anita Kharb W/o Ranbir Singh Kharb R/o V & P.O. Mundela Khurd, Najafgarh, Delhi
4. Offence complained of :.409/420/120-B IPC
5. Plea of accused :Pleaded not guilty
6. Final order :Acquittal Cr.C. No.:124/2019; FIR No.55/2014; State Vs Ranbir Singh Kharb & Others Page : 1 of 27
7. Date of such order :31.01.2023 Date of Institution of case : 22.12.2015 Date of decision of the case : 31.01.2023 Date of conclusion of final arguments: 23.12.2022
1. Vide this judgment I shall decide the matter at hand i.e. FIR No.55/14, PS EOW (Uttam Nagar).
2. The prosecution story, in brief is that the accused persons namely Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb have committed various offences of cheating, misappropriation and criminal breach of trust. As per the case of the prosecution, the accused persons hatched a criminal conspiracy to commit the alleged offences and in pursuance of the same, during the period of 1997 to 2002 induced various persons to invest money in the company called M/s Jyoti Fair Finance Company (hereinafter referred to as the company), without having any intention to returning the money. It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb who was sitting MLA from Najafgarh region, abused his authority as public Cr.C. No.:124/2019; FIR No.55/2014; State Vs Ranbir Singh Kharb & Others Page : 2 of 27 servant and duped various victims by alluring them into his fictional finance scheme.
3. After the completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed in the court. On the basis of charge sheet and annexed documents, cognizance of offences was taken and the accused persons were summoned to face trial. After hearing the parties, charge of offences under section 420/409 IPC r/w 120-B IPC was framed against accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined ten witnesses. Before proceeding further I deem it appropriate to take on record the gist of testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
5. PW1 Sh. Krishan Singh, being the complainant deposed that he invested Rs. 28.5 lakhs, between the period of 1997 to 2002 by way of cheque and cash in the company, on the allurement of the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb. The said accused promised that he would give him double of the Cr.C. No.:124/2019; FIR No.55/2014; State Vs Ranbir Singh Kharb & Others Page : 3 of 27 invested amount and will also give interest @ 2% per month. He further deposed that out of 28.5 lacs, 11 lacs were of his elder son Ajit Singh, 4 lacs of younger son Kanwar Singh, 9.5 lacs of his daughter Satwanti Dahiya and 4 lacs of Sh. R.P. Dahiya, who is father in law of his grand daughter and accused Ranbir Singh Kharb paid him some interest but afterwards he never paid him the principal amount or the interest.
6. As per the said witness i.e. PW1/complainant he made a complaint on 24.06.2009 to EOW, the same is on record as Ex.PW1/A and submitted the photocopies of payments made to Ranbir Singh Kharb. The said witness correctly identified the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb before the court. He further deposed that receipts and other original documents were not seized from his possession rather the same were seized from the possession of his sons.
7. PW-2 Sh. Ajit Singh deposed that he invested an amount of Rs.11 lakhs in the company upon an assurance given by accused Ranbir Singh Kharb that he will get handsome returns @ 2% per month. As per him, the accused issued Cr.C. No.:124/2019; FIR No.55/2014; State Vs Ranbir Singh Kharb & Others Page : 4 of 27 him receipts qua the said payment. He correctly identified the accused before the court. PW-2 proved the seizure memo vide which the statement of account was seized as Ex. PW2/A and proved the photocopy of bank account statement as Mark PW2/A1 (colly.). He further proved the photocopy of the receipt dated 11.03.1997 as Ex.PW2/C (original is in FIR No.329/06, pending under trial before the undersigned), the same was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/B.
8. PW-3 Sh. Kanwar Singh deposed that he knows the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and he is from the village of his mother. As per the said witness, on the asking of his father, he gave a sum of Rs.2.5 lakhs to the said accused through cheque. PW-3 further deposed that one cheque of Rs. 2 lakhs was of SBI Bank and another cheque of Rs.50,000/- was of Central Bank of India. He further gave a sum of Rs.1.5 lakhs in cash to the said accused. Thus, in total he gave a sum of Rs.4 lakhs to the accused however, no amount has ever been returned.
Cr.C. No.:124/2019; FIR No.55/2014; State Vs Ranbir Singh Kharb & Others Page : 5 of 27
9. PW-3 proved his bank account statements as Ex. PW3/B and Ex. PW3/C and further proved the seizure memo vide which said statements/passbooks were seized as Ex. PW3/A.
10. PW-4 Smt. Satwanti Dahiya deposed on the lines of deposition of the complainant (her father) and PW2 and PW3 (her brothers). She does not know accused Anita Kharb. As per her, she handed over a sum of Rs. 9.5 lakhs to accused Ranbir Singh Kharb on various occasions, by way of cheque and cash however, no money was ever been returned. She proved her bank account statement as Ex. PW4/A and proved the seizure memo vide which the documents were seized as Ex. PW4/B (original is on record in connected matter FIR No.761/07 PS EOW, pending before the undersigned). The receipts of payment to the accused persons were proved by her as Ex. PW4/C, PW4/D and Ex. PW4/E. She correctly identified both the accused persons before the court.
11. PW-5 Sh. N.L. Paite, Scientist B (documents), CFSL, Kolkata, West Bengal proved the FSL result i.e. DXC-
Cr.C. No.:124/2019; FIR No.55/2014; State Vs Ranbir Singh Kharb & Others Page : 6 of 27 192-193/2008/1071 dated 31.07.2008, the original of which is lying in case FIR No.329/2006 PS Uttam Nagar.
12. PW-6 SI Mohan Singh (retired) deposed that he registered the present FIR, the same is on record as Ex.PW6/A and made endorsement on the rukka (Ex.PW6/B). He proved his certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW6/C.
13. PW-7 Col. Ram Parkash Dahiya deposed that the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb told him that if he invests money in the company, he would get 2% per month interest and alternatively the money would be doubled in three years. He further deposed that he handed over a total sum of Rs.4 lakhs to the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb for investment in the company, in various installments, through cash and cheque. As per him, the accused did not return the invested amount.
14. PW-8 Inspector Madhukar Rakesh deposed that the present FIR was registered upon the orders of the court (Ex. PW8/A). As per him, in the course of investigation it was Cr.C. No.:124/2019; FIR No.55/2014; State Vs Ranbir Singh Kharb & Others Page : 7 of 27 discovered that another FIR bearing No.761/07 PS Uttam Nagar, EOW) has already been registered and in the said case, complainant and his family members were already interrogated and examined u/s 161 Cr.PC. The said witness categorically deposed that all the documents were already seized during the said interrogation from the complainant which were also sent to the FSL, Calcutta for forensic examination and the report was received and filed in the said investigation.
15. PW-8 IO Inspector Madhukar Rakesh further deposed that the IO of FIR No.761/07 Inspector Manoj Kumar had already concluded the investigation qua the present complainant/victims and had filed supplementary charge sheet no.4 in the said case. He procured the certified copy of the said supplementary charge sheet no.4 after taking permission of the Ld. Trial Court, which is Ex.PW8/B (running into 76 pages) and in view of the said supplementary charge sheet there was no scope left for the purpose of investigation in the present case, thereafter he filed the charge sheet in the present case and subsequently, a supplementary charge sheet was filed whereby statement Cr.C. No.:124/2019; FIR No.55/2014; State Vs Ranbir Singh Kharb & Others Page : 8 of 27 of one Sh. Vijay Solanki was recorded. He correctly identified both the accused persons in the court.
16. PW-9 Sh. Shiv Goyal, Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Nangloi Branch, New Delhi was summoned to produce the statement of accounts of the saving account no.11591001101 for the period dated 01.08.2002 to 31.01.2008. He deposed that as per the banking policy, the bank can produce the transaction details for the previous ten years. He placed on record a report, Ex.PW9/A, in support of his submissions. The account statement of the above mentioned saving bank account was shown to witness from the judicial record qua which the said witness submitted that the said statements are of the same bank account number for the period dated 01.08.2002 to 31.01.2008. The same is on record as Ex.PW9/B (colly.) .
17. PW-10 Sh. Ajay Kumar, Ahlmad posted in the present court, was called to produce the record i.e. the judicial record of FIR No.761/07 PS Uttam Nagar, EOW). He produced the original record i.e. the copy of charge sheet and supplementary charge sheet in case FIR No.761/07 Cr.C. No.:124/2019; FIR No.55/2014; State Vs Ranbir Singh Kharb & Others Page : 9 of 27 and the copy of charge framed in the FIR No.761/07. The copy of the charge sheet i.e. original charge sheet in FIR No.761/07 alongwith charge sheet no.4 in the same FIR are Ex.PW10/A (colly. 25 pages) (OSR) and copy of charge framed in FIR No. 761/07 is Ex.PW10/B (colly.13 pages) (OSR). This witness was called again to produce the record i.e. the case pertaining to CC no. 60/01 PS EOW u/s 200 Cr.PC case titled as Kishan Singh Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb and Ors. He also proved the copy of the complaint u/s 200 Cr.PC Ex.PW10/C (colly, 7 pages) and copy of the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC as Ex.PW10/D (colly. 5 pages). He was also directed to produce the order dated 27.04.2013 and the copy of the same is proved as Ex.PW8/A (all original seen and returned).
18. No other witness was examined in PE and after examination of all prosecution witnesses the PE was closed.
19. As is mandated by Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused persons were given due opportunity to personally explain circumstances appearing against them in evidence, in the Cr.C. No.:124/2019; FIR No.55/2014; State Vs Ranbir Singh Kharb & Others Page : 10 of 27 matter at hand. They were questioned generally on the case. All the incriminating facts and circumstances were put to them, as appeared in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the corresponding documents.
20.In the course of examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. the accused persons stated that they are being falsely implicated and that they do not even know the complainant or the victims in the present matter. They denied inducing any person to invest money in the accused company.
21. Accused Anita Kharb stated, without oath, in the course of examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. that she falsely implicated and that she does not even know the prosecution witnesses . As per her, her husband accused Ranbir Singh Kharb had no connection with the company and even though she was the director of the company, she never worked in the company and always remained as a housewife. She stated, without oath, that the prosecution witnesses in collusion with the IO had filed false cases. She denied executing document Ex. PW2/C and said that the said document is forged and fabricated. She said that neither she nor her husband ever Cr.C. No.:124/2019; FIR No.55/2014; State Vs Ranbir Singh Kharb & Others Page : 11 of 27 accepted any money on behalf of the company. Lastly she said that her husband was MLA in the year 2003, a lot of people including, her relatives helped them in elections however, these people wanted illegal grativications and on refusal these people falsely implicated her.
22. Similarly, even accused Ranbir Singh Kharb stated that he is innocent and that he has been falsely implicated due to political rivalry. He stated that he does not even know the complainant and the other victims. As per him, the company was started by his relative Satyaprakash's son and that he doe snot know anything about the company.
23. The defence chose not to lead DE, despite grant of opportunity.
24. As is the norm, the matter was then taken to the stage of final arguments. Due opportunity was given to both the sides. Oral arguments were heard at length, however, despite grant of time and opportunity, neither side filed written arguments.
Cr.C. No.:124/2019; FIR No.55/2014; State Vs Ranbir Singh Kharb & Others Page : 12 of 27
25. In the course of final arguments Ld. counsel Mr. Aggarwal, representing both the accused persons argued that the case at hand is nothing but abuse of process of law and is a clear violation of the fundamental rights provided under article 20 of the constitution i.e. Freedom against double jeopardy. Ld. Counsel argued that the allegations in the case at hand are exactly identical to the allegations in FIR No.761/.07, PS EOW, Uttam Nagar and the complainant and the victims and even the documentary record is identical in both the cases. As per him, the present FIR i.e. FIR No. 55/14 was registered in the year 2014, by that time investigation was already complete in FIR No. 761/07 and all the aspects were already gone into and investigated by the police. Lastly Mr. Aggarwal argued that since these submissions were put before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 28.10.2015 directed that both the cases (FIR No. 55/14 and FIR No. 761/07) be tried together.
26. Pointing at Section 300 Cr.PC, Ld. counsel for the accused argued that in view of the legislative mandate contained u/s 300 Cr.PC and in view of the fact that the accused Cr.C. No.:124/2019; FIR No.55/2014; State Vs Ranbir Singh Kharb & Others Page : 13 of 27 persons have already been convicted in FIR No. 761/07, the present trial is in itself bad in law.
27. Ld. APP representing the state, argued that the accused persons are habitual criminals, having many cases of cheating and criminal breach of trust pending against them. As per Ld. APP, there is sufficient material on record to convict the accused persons.
28.Having heard the arguments at length and having considered the record in its entirety I shall now proceed to decide the matter on its merits.
29. To begin with it is necessary to take on record that vide order dated 28.10.2015 the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi directed that both the cases (FIR No. 55/14 and FIR No. 761/07) be tried together and vide order dated 22.09.2022 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi gave a direction that the said two FIRs be de-tagged however, further the defence moved an application requesting the matter at hand be decided alongwith or subsequent to FIR No.761/07. Since Cr.C. No.:124/2019; FIR No.55/2014; State Vs Ranbir Singh Kharb & Others Page : 14 of 27 there was no objection by the prosecution, the said application was allowed in the interest of justice.
30. It is further pertinent to mention that FIR No. 761/07 has already been decided vide judgment dated 22.12.2022 however, the matter is pending for arguments on sentence.
31. At this juncture, it is essential to understand the law on double jeopardy.
32.Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India provides fundamental right of protection from double jeopardy. The same is also codified in form of legislative mandate under section 300 CrPC. For better understanding, the said provision of law is taken on record as under:
"Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence.
(1) A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under sub- section (1) of section 221, or for which he might have been convicted under sub- section (2) thereof.
(2) A person acquitted or convicted of any offence may be afterwards tried, with the consent of the State Government, for any Cr.C. No.:124/2019; FIR No.55/2014; State Vs Ranbir Singh Kharb & Others Page : 15 of 27 distinct offence for which a separate charge might have been made against him at the former trial under sub- section (1) of section 220.
(3) A person convicted of any offence constituted by any act causing consequences which, together with such act, constituted a different offence from that of which he was convicted, may be afterwards tried for such last- mentioned offence, if the consequences had not happened, or were not known to the Court to have happened, at the time when he was convicted.
(4) A person acquitted or convicted of any offence constituted by any acts may, notwithstanding such acquittal or conviction, be subsequently charged with, and tried for, any other offence constituted by the same acts which he may have committed if the Court by which he was first tried was not competent to try the offence with which he is subsequently charged.
(5) A person discharged under section 258 shall not be tried again for the same offence except with the consent of the Court by which he was discharged or of any other Court to which the first-
mentioned Court is subordinate.
(6) Nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 , (10 of 1897 ) or of section 188 of this Code. Explanation.- The dismissal of a complaint, or the discharge of the accused, is not an acquittal for the purposes of this section. Illustrations
(a) A is tried upon a charge of theft as a servant and acquitted. He cannot afterwards, while the acquittal remains in force, be charged with theft as a servant, or, upon the same facts, with theft simply, or with criminal breach of trust.
(b) A is tried for causing grievous hurt and convicted. The person injured afterwards dies. A may be tried again for culpable homicide.
(c) A is charged before the Court of Session and convicted of the culpable homicide of B. A may not afterwards be tried on the same facts for the murder of B. Cr.C. No.:124/2019; FIR No.55/2014; State Vs Ranbir Singh Kharb & Others Page : 16 of 27
(d) A is charged by a Magistrate of the first class with, and convicted by him of, voluntarily causing hurt to B. A may not afterwards be tried for voluntarily causing grievous hurt to B on the same facts, unless the cage comes within sub- section (3) of this section.
(e) A is charged by a Magistrate of the second class with, and convicted by him of, theft of property from the person of B. A may subsequently be charged with, and tried for, robbery on the same facts.
(f) A, B and C are charged by a Magistrate of the first class with, and convicted by him of, robbing D. A, B and C may afterwards be charged with, and tried for, dacoity on the same facts.
33. Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence. A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under sub section (1) of section 221, or for which he might have been convicted under sub section (2) thereof. A person acquitted or convicted of any offence may be afterwards tried, with the consent of the State Government, for any distinct offence for which a separate charge might have been made against him at the former trial under sub section (1) of section Cr.C. No.:124/2019; FIR No.55/2014; State Vs Ranbir Singh Kharb & Others Page : 17 of 27
220. A person convicted of any offence constituted by any act causing consequences which, together with such act, constituted a different offence from that of which he was convicted, may be afterwards tried for such last mentioned offence, if the consequences had not happened, or were not known to the Court to have happened, at the time when he was convicted.
34. This section lays down that a person once convicted or acquitted cannot be subsequently tried for the same offence. It is based on the maxim nemo debet bis vexari, which means that a person cannot be tried a second time for an offence which is involved in the offence with which he was previously charged. In order to bar the trial of any person already tried, it must be shown:
(1) that he has been tried by a competent court for the same offence or one for which he might have been charged or convicted at that trial, on the same facts, (2) that he has been convicted or acquitted at the trial, and (3) that such conviction or acquittal is in force.
Cr.C. No.:124/2019; FIR No.55/2014; State Vs Ranbir Singh Kharb & Others Page : 18 of 27
35. The whole basis of this section is that the first trial should have been before a court competent to hear and determine the case and to record a verdict of conviction or acquittal. Second trial is barred when the accused is convicted or acquitted, that is, the cause must have been heard and determined.
36. Coming to the matter at hand, it has vehemently argued by the Ld. Counsel for the defence that in the matter at hand, the allegations are identical to another matter which is FIR No. 761/07(Uttam Nagar, EOW), which has already been decided and the accused persons have already been convicted.
37.Ld. APP has denied the said above arguments of the defence and has argued that both the FIRs represent distinct offences and thus, there is no application of section 300 CrPC in the matter at hand.
38. Having considered the testimony of the prosecution witnesses in utmost detail and having considered the Cr.C. No.:124/2019; FIR No.55/2014; State Vs Ranbir Singh Kharb & Others Page : 19 of 27 documents on record, I find merits in the submissions of Ld. Defence counsel.
39. FIR No. 761/07 is pending before the undersigned at the stage of orders on sentence for today itself. Previously, accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb have already been convicted in the said case. It will be correct to put on record that the court is in knowledge of the entire proceedings/ facts/documents etc. in the said case.
40. The complainant in the present matter, i.e., Sh. Kishan Singh and other victims, i.e., Ajit Singh, Satwanti Dahiya, Col. Ram Prakash Dahiya, Kanwar Singh have already been examined at length in the connected matter. Even their documents have been considered and observations of the court have already come on record. It is correct to say that in both the cases, the allegations qua the accused persons are identical and are based on same set of documents. The alleged cheated amount in both the matters is same i.e. about Rs. 28,00,000/- approx.
41. At this juncture, I deem appropriate to take on record the contextually relevant portion from the testimonies of Cr.C. No.:124/2019; FIR No.55/2014; State Vs Ranbir Singh Kharb & Others Page : 20 of 27 prosecution witnesses. In the course of cross-examination at the hands of defence counsel, PW-1 Kishan Singh has stated that his separate statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. was not recorded in the matter at hand, i.e., statement was recorded only once in FIR No. 761/07 and not in the matter at hand. The same has also been said by PW-2 Ajit Singh. The documents on which PW-3 has relied, i.e., cheque no. 00355158 (document Ex. PW 3/B OSR), cheque no. 174899(document Ex. PW 3/C OSR), etc. have already been considered against the accused persons in FIR No. 761/07. The same is the case with documents of PW-4 Satwanti Dahiya. The FSL report is common in both the matters.
42.The testimony of the IO Insp. Madhukar Rakesh requires attention, the contextually relevant portion of the said testimony is as under:
"The court of Sh. Ajay Pandey, Ld. CMM (West) ordered the registration of FIR upon the complaint filed by the complainant Kishan vide order dated 27.04.2013 Ex. PW 8/A. During the investigation it was found that there is another FIR No. 761/07 has already been registered. In the said case, complainant and his family members were already interrogated and their Cr.C. No.:124/2019; FIR No.55/2014; State Vs Ranbir Singh Kharb & Others Page : 21 of 27 statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. was already recorded.
All the documents were already seized during the said interrogation from the complainant. Same documents were also sent to FSL Calcutta for forensic examination and the report was received and filed in the said investigation. Then IO of FIR no. 761/07 Insp. Manoj Kumar has concluded the investigation qua the present complainant and others and filed supplementary charge sheet no. 4 in the said case. I had perused the said case file after taking due permission of the Ld. Trial Court and subsequently procured certified copy of the said supplementary charge sheet no. 4. Same is PW 8/B (Colly-running in 76 pages). In view of the said supplementary charge sheet there was no scope left for the purpose of investigation in the present case. I have then filed the charge sheet in the present case before the court."
43. The aforementioned testimony of the IO clearly supports the submissions of the defence counsel that both the cases, the matter at hand and the FIR No. 761/07, are based on exactly same allegations and the police report in the present FIR is nothing but reiteration of the police report in FIR No. 761/07 and thus the present trial clearly falls within the ambit of embargo contained under section 300 Cr.P.C.
Cr.C. No.:124/2019; FIR No.55/2014; State Vs Ranbir Singh Kharb & Others Page : 22 of 27
44. The law provides that a person once convicted or acquitted cannot be subsequently tried for the same offence. A person cannot be tried a second time for an offence which is involved in the offence with which he was previously charged. In order to bar the trial of any person already tried, it must be shown:
(1) that he has been tried by a competent court for the same offence or one for which he might have been charged or convicted at that trial, on the same facts, (2) that he has been convicted or acquitted at the trial, and (3) that such conviction or acquittal is in force.
45. In the matter at hand, the accused persons, namely Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb have been charged and tried by the court of the undersigned, for the same offences i.e., offences under section 120B/409/420 IPC in both the matters and the allegations are qua the same victims, concerning same transactions. It is safe to say that the court of the undersigned is competent court within meaning of Section 300 Cr.PC. In both the cases, the victim Kishan Singh has alleged that he gave a sum of Rs.
Cr.C. No.:124/2019; FIR No.55/2014; State Vs Ranbir Singh Kharb & Others Page : 23 of 27 28,50,000/- to accused persons for investment in the company called Jyoti Fair Finance (allegedly owned by the accused persons) and the said sum was never returned. Similarly, victims Ajit Singh, Kanwar Singh, R.P. Dahiya and Satwanti Dahiya have alleged that they gave a sum of Rs. 11,00,000/-, Rs. 4,00,000/-, Rs. 4,00,000/- and Rs. 9,50,000/- respectively to accused persons for investment in aforesaid company. Most of the documents which are being relied by the prosecution are in fact forming the part of FIR No. 761/07 and another connected matter, i.e., FIR No. 329/06. The ahlmad of this court was examined as PW-10 so as to exhibit the record of FIR No. 761/07 in the matter at hand.
46.The matter can be summed up as under :
a) the complainant in the present matter, PW Kishan Singh is also a witness in the connected matter i.e., FIR No. 761/07. His testimony qua the alleged cheating has already come on record in the said connected matter and the same has undergone the test of trial in that matter and Cr.C. No.:124/2019; FIR No.55/2014; State Vs Ranbir Singh Kharb & Others Page : 24 of 27 consequently, the trial has been concluded with the conviction of the accused persons.
b) the FIR in the matter at hand was registered after many years of the FIR in the connected matter, that is to say, the present FIR was registered in the year 2011 whereas FIR in 761/07 was registered in the year 2007.
c) by the time the present FIR was registered, the investigation in the connected matter was already complete, statements of prosecution witnesses were already recorded, documents were seized and FSL opinions were already sought and thus, as is apparent from the testimony of IO Inspector Madhukar Rakesh, it can be said that no fresh investigation has been made and only the investigation of FIR No. 761/07 has been reiterated.
d) all prosecution witnesses in the present matter have already been examined in FIR No. 761/07, except for formal witnesses such as IO, DO etc. Cr.C. No.:124/2019; FIR No.55/2014; State Vs Ranbir Singh Kharb & Others Page : 25 of 27
e) all prosecution witnesses in the present matter are relying upon the documents which have already been considered/exhibited/examined in FIR No. 761/07 and no new document has come on record.
f) the IO himself has admitted, in the course of his cross-examination, that in the matter at hand, he did not conduct any fresh investigation and rather the investigation of FIR No. 761/07 was reiterated in the present matter as well. The IO has categorically deposed that in view of investigation and police report in FIR No. 761/07, there was no scope left for the purpose of investigation in the present case.
g) FSL report in both the matters is common, meaning thereby there is no fresh angle to investigation or to scientific examination of documents.
47. Having considered the entire record, the facts and circumstances, it can be said that both the matters, i.e., the matter at hand and FIR No. 761/07 are based on same transaction and thus, this court is guided by the law under Cr.C. No.:124/2019; FIR No.55/2014; State Vs Ranbir Singh Kharb & Others Page : 26 of 27 section 300 Cr.P.C. Since accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb have once been tried by the court of competent jurisdiction i.e., the court of the undersigned, for the offences in question and were convicted thereon and since the said conviction is still in force, the accused persons Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb are not liable to be convicted on the same facts. Ergo, accused persons Anita Kharb and Ranbir Singh Kharb are hereby acquitted.
48. Bail bonds u/s 437A Cr.P.C. shall remain in force for the statutory period.
49.Record be consigned.
Announced in open court
on 31.01.2023 (Harjeet Singh Jaspal)
ACMM04, RADC, New Delhi
Cr.C. No.:124/2019; FIR No.55/2014; State Vs Ranbir Singh Kharb & Others Page : 27 of 27