Delhi District Court
State vs . Suraj Pal Sharma & Ors on 28 September, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. SONU AGNIHOTRI
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, DISTRICT SOUTH
SAKET COURTS, DELHI
FIR No. 394/98
PS R. K. Puram (EOW)
State Vs. Suraj Pal Sharma & Ors
JUDGMENT
UID No. 02403R0014631998 a. New Sl. No. of the case : 2031859/16 b. Date of commission of offence : On or about year 1997 c. Name of the complainant : D. P. Sundriyal d. Name of the accused, their parentage and addresses : 1) Suraj Pal Sharma S/o Late Dori Lal Sharma R/o B-20, Street No. 3, North Chajju Pur, Shahdra, Delhi.
FIR No. 394/98 PS R. K. Puram (EOW) Page-1/20
2) Osprey
Investments
GF-5, Ansal Chamber,
Bhikaji Kama Place,
New Delhi through
its proprietor Suraj
Pal Sharma S/o Dori
Lal Sharma,
R/o As above.
3) Osprey Agro
Herbals,
GF-5, Ansal Chamber,
Bhikaji Kama Place,
New Delhi through
its proprietor Suraj
Pal Sharma S/o Dori
Lal Sharma,
R/o As above.
e. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
f. Offence complained of or proved : 420/406 IPC
g. Final order : Acquitted
h. Date of Institution : 16.10.1998
i. Judgment reserved on : 19.09.2016
j. Judgment delivered on : 28.09.2016
FIR No. 394/98 PS R. K. Puram (EOW) Page-2/20
BRIEF FACTS:
1. As per prosecution version, one complaint sent by Mr. D. P. Sundriyal was received in Crime Branch. In the complaint, it was mentioned that Mr. D. P. Sundriyal is an investor and that Mr. Suraj Pal Sharma, Chairman, Osprey Group of Companies has cheated more than Rs. 3 crores from approximately 200 fixed deposit investors. It was mentioned that Suraj Pal Sharma promised investors that company will pay interest and principal amount in time on maturity and gave postdated cheques. It was mentioned that on maturity in the month of October, 1997, when investors deposited the cheques, they were dishonoured with remarks "insufficient funds". It was mentioned that Mr. Suraj Pal Sharma, Chairman, Mr. Chandresh Sharma, Director and Jai Prakash Tiwari, Finance Manager who collected the money from investors were underground since October, 1997. It was mentioned that company was having its computer stationary and offset printing plant at 11, Okhla Industrial Estate and now has shifted the same to Village Aali, Near Badarpur, Mathura Road. It was mentioned that Chairman promised the investors to pay the amount from profits of the plant but that plant was not functioning and no responsible person was available there. Address of Chairman, Director and Finance Manager was mentioned in the complaint. It was mentioned that Chairman of Osprey Group of Companies was related FIR No. 394/98 PS R. K. Puram (EOW) Page-3/20 to Chairman of Hoffland and JVG Group of Companies who have cheated their investors. It was mentioned that it appeared that company officials were trying to sell the plant and flee from the country. It was mentioned that Mr. D. P. Sundriyal opted for voluntary retirement from a company and invested his whole saving of Rs. 2.60 lacs in Osprey Group and he also forced his brother in law Subhash Sharma who invested Rs. 1.50 lacs. It was requested to help the poor investors to get refund of their hard earned money.
2. It is stated that FIR was lodged and investigation was carried out by Inspector V. P. S. Rana. It is stated that during investigation IO recorded statements of witnesses and procured relevant documents pertaining to present case from bank and ROC. It is stated that in the meanwhile, IO had to go for attending one course in Chandigarh whereupon further investigation was assigned to SI Ram Lal who during investigation arrested accused Suraj Pal Sharma on evidence being found against him. It is stated that IO took 7 days PC remand of accused who during interrogation disclosed that he is owner of Osprey Group of Companies and that he collected about Rs. 1 crore for his companies namely Osprey Investments and Osprey Agro Herbal from 100-125 people by offering them high rate of interest. It is stated that accused disclosed that he gave postdated cheques to investors by giving false assurances. It is stated that accused further disclosed that he purchased machines of printing press and other goods for Rs. 50- 60 lacs by diverting the said funds and put up a unit in Okhla FIR No. 394/98 PS R. K. Puram (EOW) Page-4/20 Industrial Area which he later on shifted in Aali Gaon, Near Badarpur, Delhi. It is stated that accused further disclosed that besides this, from the collected amount, he purchased some cars also. It is stated that IO during investigation seized three wheeler bearing No. DL-9C- 3234, Tempo 709 bearing No. HR-38-BG-4738 and one water cooler. It is stated that during investigation, IO also visited factory of accused in Aali Gaon where the same was found to be locked and sealed. It is stated that on inquiry it was found that the same has been sealed by order of Ld. DRT in proceedings undertaken by Oriental Bank of Commerce.
3. It is stated that further investigation was assigned to SI Jorawar Singh who during investigation recorded statements of witnesses. It is stated that during investigation, it transpired that documents pertaining to present case like cash books, ledgers, list of investors and audit report etc have been kept in sealed premises of factory of Osprey Print Packs Limited at Aali Gaon, Badarpur, Delhi. It is stated that IO filed an application for breaking open of the seal before Ld. DRT for taking possession of above-said documents and the application is pending for 22.10.1998.
4. It is stated that during investigation it has been found that accused Suraj Pal Sharma, proprietor of Osprey Investments and Osprey Herbals collected money from people by making false promise of high interest from 24% to 36% and issued postdated cheques to investors despite knowing that he does not have any money in his FIR No. 394/98 PS R. K. Puram (EOW) Page-5/20 account and thereafter closing the account without telling investors. It is stated that rest of accused are yet to be arrested and that supplementary charge sheet shall be filed as and when they are arrested.
5. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before court on 16.10.1998.
6. Provisions of Section 207 Cr. P. C. were complied on appearance of accused before court and prima facie case having been made out, charge u/s 420 IPC (though Section specifically has not been mentioned in the charge but the same is mentioned in order on charge and it appears that the same mistake occurred on account of typographical mistake and it does not appear that accused was prejudiced on account of the same) and in alternate U/sec 406 IPC was framed against accused on 07.01.2004 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. Prosecution examined following witnesses to prove its case:-
PW 1: ASI Sumer Singh
PW2: Erinius Tirkey
PW3: Amarjit Kaur
PW4: Prasannakumari P. R.
PW5: Indra Das
PW6: HC Uttam
PW7: Retd. ACP V. P. S. Rana
PW8: Smt. Pushp Lata Sharma
FIR No. 394/98 PS R. K. Puram (EOW) Page-6/20
PW9: Baldev Sahai
PW10: HC Inder Pal
PW11: Retd. Inspector Ram Lal
PW12: Inspector Jorawar Singh
PE was closed on 01.09.2016 by the order of court on submissions made by Ld. APP for the State.
Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr. P. C. was recorded on 19.09.2016 in which all incriminating evidence and circumstances appearing in evidence against accused were put to accused to which accused stated that the matter has already been compromised with PW-3 Amarjeet Kaur. He stated that he has been falsely implicated in present case. He stated that matter has already been compromised with PW-9 Baldev Sahai. He stated that witnesses produced by prosecution are interested witnesses and they have falsely deposed against him. He stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in present case.
No DE was led by accused.
I have heard final arguments addressed by respective counsels and perused the record.
Decision and Brief Reasons for the Same Before disclosing my opinion with respect to present case i.e. whether prosecution has been able to prove guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt or not, I will discuss evidence led by prosecution.
FIR No. 394/98 PS R. K. Puram (EOW) Page-7/20 PW-1 ASI Sumer Singh is Duty Officer who exhibited copy of FIR vide Ex. PW-1/A and endorsement on rukka vide Ex. PW-1/B. PW-2 Erinius Tirkey deposed that in the year 1998, he was posted as Assistant Registrar of Companies and during the above said period, he handed over some documents to police officials vide letter No. DC/40814/2542 dt. 23.07.1998 vide Ex.PW2/A. He deposed that Mr. R.D. Keshav, Assistant Registrar of Companies had also worked with him in the said office during that period. He identified the signatures of Sh. R. D. Keshav, Assistant Registrar on letter No.78118/2543 dt. 23.07.1998 vide Ex.PW2/B. PW-3 Mrs. Amarjit Kaur deposed that in the year 1997, she alongwith her husband Mr. Daljit Singh invested Rs.10 lacs in OSPREY, Agro Herbals on the promise of receiving the interest of 21 % per annum on the deposit. She deposed that the company had given post dated cheques to them for the interest however, on presentation, those cheques were dishonoured. She deposed that said company never returned their money and closed their office at GF-5, Ansal Chamber, Bhikajikama Place, New Delhi. She deposed that company cheated them for the amount of Rs.10 lacs. She exhibited her complaint vide Ex.PW3/A. She deposed that she also handed over the photocopy of cheques and other documents to the police with her complaint.
PW-4 Mrs. Prasannakumari P.R. deposed that she was posted as Manager at Federal Bank, Nehru Place Branch. She exhibited the certified copies of account opening forms alongwith the KYC documents of FIR No. 394/98 PS R. K. Puram (EOW) Page-8/20 OSPREY Agro Herbals, OSPREY Advertising Limited vide Ex.PW4/A (OSR) containing 88 pages. She exhibited the certified copies of statements of bank account No. 3087 of OSPREY Advertising Limited and 3098 of OSPREY, Agro Herbals vide Ex.PW4/B and Ex.PW4/C respectively. She deposed that the record of the cheque pertaining to year 1998 is not available with them as the same was destroyed as per the bank policy Section 1.9.5 of Chapter 9 (Preservation of Records) and copy of the same is Ex.PW4/D. PW-5 Smt. Indra Das deposed that she was posted as Chief Manager in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Safdarjung Enclave Branch, New Delhi. She exhibited letter dt. 30.07.1998 issued by Oriental Bank of Commerce vide Ex.PW5/A by the then Sr. Manager Sh. J. K. Katyal.
PW-6 HC Uttam deposed that on 21.08.1998, he was posted as Constable in Crime Branch, CBT Section, EOW, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi. He deposed on that day, he had joined investigation alongwith SI Ram Lal Gulati. He deposed that Inspector Anil Dureja brought accused in the custody and handed over accused to SI R.L. Gulati. He deposed that SI R.L. Gulati arrested accused and conducted his personal search vide personal search memo Ex. PW6/A. He correctly identified accused before court.
PW-7 Retd. ACP V.P.S. Rana deposed that on 02.07.1998, he was posted as Inspector in Crime Branch. He deposed on that day, one complaint from Sh. D.P. Sundriyal received through dak vide Mark 6/1. He deposed that he made endorsement on that complaint vide Ex.PW6/1 and on its basis FIR was registered. He deposed that he collected statement of FIR No. 394/98 PS R. K. Puram (EOW) Page-9/20 account of accused company Osprey Investment and its subsidiaries sent by bank vide letter dt. 10.07.1998 Mark 6/2. He deposed that he also obtained documents from ROC vide letter already Ex.PW2/A regarding Osprey Company. He deposed that thereafter the investigation was transferred to SI Ram Lal as he was proceeded to Chandigarh for training.
PW-8 Smt. Pushp Lata Sharma deposed that one Mr. S. P. Sharma was known to her husband. She deposed that Mr. S. P. Sharma was running an investment company at that time however, she does not remember exactly the name of that company. She deposed that on his assurance, they had invested a total amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs approx. in different names of Atul Kumar, Anuradha, Manoj Kumar and herself. She deposed that some post dated cheques were given by accused S. P. Sharma in this regard. She deposed that her husband used to visit office of accused S. P. Sharma and accused S. P. Sharma assured return of their money. She deposed that her husband had visited office of accused S. P. Sharma several times but returned after hearing misery of accused. She deposed that accused stated to her husband that whenever funds would be available with him, the money would be repaid. She deposed that on maturity the cheques, which were given by accused were deposited with the bank. She deposed that however, the cheques were dishonoured with the remarks "insufficient funds". She deposed that accused was again contacted regarding the payment and dishonour of cheques, however, accused gave false assurances to arrange the money and make payment within some time. She deposed that thereafter, accused was not found at FIR No. 394/98 PS R. K. Puram (EOW) Page-10/20 the given address. She deposed that thereafter, they felt cheated and they made a complaint to the police vide Ex.PW8/A. She deposed that she also handed over photocopies of cheques as well as the correspondence made by accused to pay the amount vide Mark A (colly). She deposed that matter is 18 years old and that is why she does not have the original receipts of those investments. She correctly identified accused before court.
PW-9 Baldev Sahai deposed that he had invested Rs.1 lakh in an investment firm and one Mr. Sharma was proprietor of that investment firm. He deposed that he had received only two cheques from the firm against his investment and thereafter, no cheques were given by him. He deposed that after 20-22 years of his investment, he came to know that Mr. Sharma was arrested and his property was confiscated. He deposed that he also approached the police and he was assured that his invested money would be refunded after auction sale of Mr. Sharma's confiscated property. He exhibited his complaint vide Ex.PW9/A. He marked copy of complaint under section 138 NI Act and copies of cheques vide Mark B (colly).
PW10 HC Inder Pal deposed that on 27.08.1998, he was posted in Crime Branch as Constable. He deposed on that date he accompanied IO SI Ram Lal Gulati in the investigation of this case. He deposed on that date he alongwith IO took accused to Okhla Industrial Area Phase-II at the factory of Kulwant Jain where one three wheeler bearing No. DL-9C-3234 was there. He deposed that accused identified three wheeler and claimed owner of that and accused also identified water cooler from the first floor of the factory. He deposed that both the items were seized vide FIR No. 394/98 PS R. K. Puram (EOW) Page-11/20 seizure memo Ex.PW10/A. PW-11 Retd. Inspector Ram Lal deposed that on 21.08.1998, he was posted as Sub-Inspector at EOW. He deposed that during investigation, accused was brought to P.S. EOW by Inspector Anil Dureja. He correctly identified accused before court. He deposed that accused was interrogated and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW11/A. He deposed that accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide Ex.PW6/A. He deposed that he sought three days police remand of accused. He deposed that as per disclosure statement of accused, he owed a house at A-35 Munirka Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. He deposed that he alongwith the staff went to aforesaid house but it was found to be sealed with the seal of SDM, Vasant Vihar. He deposed that on 23.08.1998, he alongwith accused and staff namely SI Jorawar Singh and Ct. Uttam Singh went to house of accused at A-9 Chhajupur, Shahdara, Delhi. He deposed that the house was found to be locked and no one met them over there. He deposed that the lock of the house was unlocked by a lock opener person namely Mehruf in the presence of local police personnel Ct. Rishi Pal. He deposed that the house was searched but nothing incriminating was found vide house search memo Ex.PW11/B. He deposed that on 23.08.1998, Mr. Nimish Prakash came to their office at Crime Branch office and produced the vehicle bearing No. HR-38BG-4738. He deposed that he seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW11/C. He deposed that he also seized documents of the vehicle from Mr. Nimish Prakash vide Ex.PW11/D. He exhibited these documents vide Ex.PW11/P1 to Ex.PW11/P3. He deposed FIR No. 394/98 PS R. K. Puram (EOW) Page-12/20 that on 24.08.1998, he again recorded disclosure statement of accused vide Ex.PW11/E. He deposed that at instance of accused, they went several places in search of a vehicle make Maruti 800 but to no avail. He deposed that on 25.08.1998, they went at factory of accused at Alipur but it was found to be sealed with the seal of Oriental Bank vide Ex.PW11/F. He deposed that on 26.08.1998, they went to Rampur, U.P. alongwith accused in the search of machineries of accused as accused had disclosed that the investors from Rampur had forcibly taken away his machineries with them. He deposed that accused failed to identify any of the house of the investors/machineries so they came back to Delhi. He deposed that on 27.08.1998, he again recorded disclosure statement of accused vide Ex.PW11/G. He deposed that on 27.08.1998, at instance of accused they went to house No. B-11 Maharani Bagh, New Delhi and one Kulwant Singh produced a three wheeler tempo bearing No. DL-9C-3234 and one water cooler. He deposed that he seized both the articles vide memo already Ex.PW10/A. PW-12 Inspector Jorawar Singh deposed that on 28.08.1998, this case was marked to him for further investigation. He deposed that he recorded the statement of the witnesses. He deposed that he applied DRT at Rajendra Place for de-sealing of factory of accused situated at Ali Gaon, Badarpur which was sealed by Oriental Bank of Commerce. He deposed that the order to that effect could not be obtained from DRT. He deposed that he prepared the charge sheet and submitted before the court.
FIR No. 394/98 PS R. K. Puram (EOW) Page-13/20 After going through evidence as adduced by witnesses examined by prosecution, I am of the view that prosecution has not been able to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt. The reasons as to why I have arrived at this conclusion are as follows:-
For proving offence u/sec 420 IPC or in alternate offence u/sec 406 IPC, prosecution in the present case was required to prove that investors were deceived by accused and accused with fraudulent or dishonest intention induced investors so deceived to deliver property to him (which in facts of present case is allegedly money invested by investors) or that accused was entrusted with property (allegedly money in present case) which accused dishonestly misappropriated to his own use.
Many of the investors compounded offences in present case with accused on accused making payment to them in terms of settlement arrived at with respective investor. Only three investors namely PW-3 Mrs. Amarjeet Kaur, PW-8 Smt. Pushp Lata Sharma and PW-9 Baldev Sahai entered into witness box and gave their statements.
Mr. Nirmaljeet Singh Suri on behalf of PW-3 Mrs. Amarjeet Kaur and Mr. Yogender Sahai on behalf of PW-9 Baldav Sahai compounded offences in the present case with accused (though in compounding statement of Mr. Yogender Sahai, offence u/sec 420 IPC has not been recorded which appears to be result of typographical mistake) but on merits, it does not appear that PW-3 and PW-9 have been able to prove guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt so far as their investment is concerned.
FIR No. 394/98 PS R. K. Puram (EOW) Page-14/20 PW-3 in her deposition before court deposed that in 1997, she alongwith her husband Mr. Daljeet Singh invested Rs. 10 lacs in Osprey Agro Herbals on promise of receiving interest to the tune of 21% per annum and that company had given postdated cheques to them for interest which were dishonoured and that the said company never returned their money and closed their office and cheated them for amount of Rs. 10 lacs. She exhibited her complaint given to police vide Ex. PW-3/A. Perusal of Ex. PW- 3/A has almost same contents as deposed by PW-3 in her deposition before court. I am of the view that Rs. 10 lacs in 1997 was a huge amount and it is not sufficient merely deposing that Rs. 10 lacs were invested in a particular company. No date of investment has been stated by PW-3 in Ex. PW-3/A or in her deposition before court nor cheques given allegedly on behalf of company Osprey Agro Herbals have been proved on record. Though statement of account of M/s Osprey Agro Herbals of Federal Bank of account No. 3098 has been proved on record by state but the same does not reflect any transaction more than Rs. 231/- in a single stroke. Account statement of Osprey Agro Herbals of account No. 102475 has not been proved on record by state though PW-5 Smt. Indra Dass, Chief Manager from OBC bank being examined by state. No receipt issued by Osprey Agro Herbals in favour of PW-3 for investment made by her and her husband has been proved on record by state. Name of accused even has not been taken by PW-3 nor accused has been identified by PW-3 before court. So in these circumstances, when no investment by PW-3 in Osprey Agro Herbals can be stated to have been proved by state, it cannot be said that state has been FIR No. 394/98 PS R. K. Puram (EOW) Page-15/20 able to prove its case against accused Suraj Pal Sharma and his proprietorship concerns so far as offences u/sec 420/406 IPC is concerned.
PW-8 Pushp Lata Sharma in her deposition before court deposed that one Mr. S. P. Sharma was known to her husband. She deposed that Mr. S. P. Sharma was running an investment company at that time however, she does not remember exactly the name of that company. She deposed that on his assurance, they had invested a total amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs approx. in different names of Atul Kumar, Anuradha, Manoj Kumar and herself. She deposed that some post dated cheques were given by accused S. P. Sharma in this regard. She deposed that her husband used to visit office of accused S. P. Sharma and accused S. P. Sharma assured return of their money. She deposed that her husband had visited office of accused S. P. Sharma several times but returned after hearing misery of accused. She deposed that accused stated to her husband that whenever funds would be available with him, the money would be repaid. She deposed that on maturity the cheques, which were given by accused were deposited with the bank. She deposed that however, the cheques were dishonoured with the remarks "insufficient funds". She deposed that accused was again contacted regarding the payment and dishonour of cheques, however, accused gave false assurances to arrange the money and make payment within some time. She deposed that thereafter, accused was not found at the given address. She deposed that thereafter, they felt cheated and they made a complaint to the police vide Ex.PW8/A. She deposed that she also handed over photocopies of cheques as well as the correspondence made FIR No. 394/98 PS R. K. Puram (EOW) Page-16/20 by accused to pay the amount vide Mark A (colly). She deposed that matter is 18 years old and that is why she does not have the original receipts of those investments. She correctly identified accused before court. PW-8 was cross examined on behalf of accused. PW-8 in her cross examination stated that she does not remember that her husband made payments to accused with which mode. She further stated that she does not remember that whether any receipts were issued by accused in lieu of money invested by her husband but that her husband used to keep record of all necessary documents. She stated that she cannot say whether signatures on Ex. PW- 8/A were made by her subsequently. She admitted that Ex. PW-8/A only bears fact of money, however it does not mention the manner of payment and date of payment. She stated that she does not remember exact amount of dishonoured cheques issued by accused. She admitted that original dishonoured cheques were not on record as matter pertains to year 1998 and she was unable to find original cheques. She further stated that she does not remember whether her husband had issued any legal notice to accused when cheques given by accused were dishonoured. She stated that she does not remember whether her husband sued accused u/sec 138 N. I. Act or had filed any recovery suit against accused.
PW-8 in her cross examination has not been able to state mode of payment by her husband to accused nor any date of investment has been stated by her. PW-8 in Ex. PW-8/A has stated total amount of investment with Osprey Group of Companies to be Rs. 2.92 lacs whereas in her deposition before court she has stated total amount to be FIR No. 394/98 PS R. K. Puram (EOW) Page-17/20 approximately Rs. 2.5 lacs. Cheques purportedly issued on behalf of accused have also not been proved on record by PW-8. No receipt issued by accused or by companies of accused aggregating to investment to the tune of Rs. 2.92 lacs or Rs. 2.5 lacs approximately has been brought and proved on record by state. There are mere oral allegations against accused and no documentary record so far as investment made by PW-8 or by her husband for that matter has been proved on record by state. No bank statement of group of companies of accused has been proved on record by state which could have shown and proved that accused received certain amount from PW-8 or her husband. It is well settled that payment of money is best evidenced by proof in writing or by way of an instrument. In the eventuality when nothing concrete has been proved on record by state, I am of the view that oral allegations of PW-8 are not sufficient to prove that PW-8 or her husband or other persons as reflected vide Ex. PW-8/A made any investment in Osprey Group of Companies or that accused issued postdated cheques to PW-8 or her husband for return of investment after enhacement as deposed by PW-8. So case of state against accused and proprietorship concerns of accused for PW-8 for offences u/sec 420 or in alternate U/sec 406 IPC cannot be sustained.
PW-9 Baldev Sahai deposed that he invested Rs. 1 lacs in an investment firm and one Mr. Sharma was proprietor of that firm. He deposed that he received only two cheques from the firm against his investment and thereafter no cheques were given. He deposed that after about 20-22 years of his investment, he came to know that Mr. Sharma was FIR No. 394/98 PS R. K. Puram (EOW) Page-18/20 arrested and his property was confiscated and then he also approached police and made complaint vide Ex. PW-9/A. PW-9 in his deposition before court has not even stated name of company in which he invested the amount of Rs. 1 lac though perusal of Ex. PW-1/A shows that PW-9 has mentioned collection of cheque of Rs. 50 thousand only by accused. He has not identified accused before court. No cheque has been proved on record by state vide which PW-9 made investment of Rs. 1 lac or for that matter Rs. 50 thousand in companies of accused nor any cheques which accused allegedly gave as enhanced return money has been proved on record by state. No bank statement of PW-9 or for that matter companies of accused showing any transaction worth Rs. 50 thousand or Rs. 1 lac has been proved on record by state for relevant period of time. No date of investment has been stated by PW-9 in his deposition before court. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that state has been able to prove its case against accused and his proprietorship concerns beyond reasonable doubt for offence u/sec 420 IPC or in alternate u/sec 406 IPC.
In view of my above-made discussion, I am of the view that state has not been able to prove its case against accused and his proprietorship concerns beyond reasonable doubt as no evidence in writing of investment by PW-3, PW-8 and PW-9 in companies purportedly owned by accused has been proved nor any corresponding entries in bank accounts of companies of accused for relevant period have been proved and in absence of the same, averments of public witnesses examined by state does not inspire sufficient confidence so as to convict accused.
FIR No. 394/98 PS R. K. Puram (EOW) Page-19/20
Accused and his proprietorship concerns are accordingly
acquitted for offence u/s 420 IPC and in alternate for U/sec 406 IPC.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (SONU AGNIHOTRI)
Dt. 28.09.2016 Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
District South
Saket Courts, Delhi.
FIR No. 394/98 PS R. K. Puram (EOW) Page-20/20