Delhi District Court
N. K. Rajgarhia vs State ( Nct Of Delhi) on 31 March, 2010
Page No. 1
IN THE COURT OF SH. J. R. ARYAN,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE; NEW DELHI
Date of Institution : 22.04.2008
Date of judgment reserved on : 31.03.2010
Date of decision : 31.03.2010
Criminal Revision No. 49/ 2008
IN THE MATTER OF :
N. K. Rajgarhia
S/o Late Sh. C. M. Rajgarhia
R/o D-52, Defence Colony,
New Delhi. ..... Petitioner / Revisionist
Versus
1. STATE ( NCT of Delhi)
2. Ashok Rattan S/o Sh. H. K. Rattan
R/o 6/13, Sarvpriya Vihar,
New Delhi.16. ..... Respondents
ORDER:
Present revision petition has been filed by defecto complainant Shri N. K. Rajgarhia on whose report lodged with the police for offences u/s. 409/420/468/471/120B and 109 IPC case was investigated at Police Station Defence Colony and three accused persons namely Gurbachan Singh Saluja and his sister Ms. Punit Saluja and Shri Ashok Rattan were charge sheeted by the police. Ld. MM before whom three accused persons appeared for being tried, discharged accused Shri Ashok Rattan & passed order dt. 06.01.2007 with the findings and observations that accused Ashok Rattan had not played any active role in the aforesaid alleged offence and he remained as dormant director. There was no prima Page No. 2 facie case found made out against him. Charge for the offence was directed to be framed against rest of the two accused namely Shri Gurbachan Singh Saluja and his sister Puneet Saluja . The order dt. 6.10.2007 whereby Ashok Rattan has been discharged, has been challenged by complainant Sh. N. K. Rajgarhia through this revision.
On the notice in this revision issued to Shri Ashok Rattan that respondent Ashok Rattan appeared and today I heard Ld. Counsel Sh. G. D. Gandhi for the revisionist and respondent Sh. Ashok Rattan in person with advocate Sh. Rajesh Passi and Ld. Addl. PP for State. It has been argued by counsel Sh. Gandhi that where complaint allegations against accused was that they acted in a criminal conspiracy in the commission of offence, discharge of accused Ashok Rattan on a finding that he had played no active role could not be sustained and was illegal. Counsel argued that there was sufficient material prima facie showing involvement of accused Ashok Rattan as a criminal conspirator in the commission of offence and at this stage of charge trial court was to consider only a prima facie view of the material and it sufficiently justified framing of charge against accused Sh. Ashok Rattan by criminal conspiracy with other accused persons.
On the other hand Sh. Ashok Rattan himself as well his advocate Sh. Rajesh Passi argued that order impugned has taken a correct view of the material on record. There was no evidence or material collected by the police during investigation of this case if accused Ashok Rattan could be said to be a part of a criminal conspiracy. I have considered and appreciated both sides contentions.
Page No. 3The fact in brief are that revisionist / complainant Sh. N. K. Rajgarhia lodged a report at Police Station Defence Colony through his complaint dt. 8.3.1996 that " he was the proprietor of Texcomash Export, dealing in exports and import business since 1987. Accused Ms. Puneet Saluja was employed in his firm as families were known to each other for about 20 years & soon Puneet Saluja attained the position of General Manager and used to take care of the business activities of firm of complainant even in the absence of complainant.
Accused Puneet Saluja was alleged to have committed a breach of trust by forgery and other offences got an amount of Rs. 1 Crore and 15 Lakhs transferred from the bank account of the complainant by a cheque dt. 6.3.1996 and the amount was got credited in favour of Texcm Engineering and that company belonged to her brother i.e., co accused Gurbachan Singh Saluja. Since the cheque was got credited on 7.3.1996 by way of forgery, cheating and other offences, an amount of Rs. 60 Lakhs was got transferred from the account of Texcm Engineer in favour of Univen Systems Pvt. Ltd. and the director in the said company were Ms. Puneet Saluja, Gurbachan Singh Saluja and present respondent Sh. Ashok Rattan and that way accused persons were alleged to have acted as a criminal conspiracy in the commission of the offence. It was the case of the complainant himself that Ashok Rattan had been appointed as a consultant on the recommandation of Puneet Saluja in the firm of the complainant to look after the his custom matters and all these circumstances thereby suggested that accused persons were in a criminal conspiracy to commit the said offence".
Page No. 4As seen above these three accused persons were charge sheeted by the police and that finally Ld. MM has discharged accused Shri Ashok Rattan.
Question arises does the order impugned suffers illegality or that exercise of jurisdiction of Ld. MM has resulted in mis-carriage of justice. Respondent aruged and submitted that merely he happened to be a director in Univen Systems Pvt. Ltd. would not involve him in the offence alleged in the charge sheet. He challenges prosecution or the revisionist complainant to point out any document to show that he was in control of affairs of the Univen Systems Pvt. Ltd. . He submitted that police itself at page 8 of the charge sheet mentioned that Ashok Rattan was not the authorized signatory in bank account of Univen Systems Pvt. Ltd. Ld. Counsel Sh. Gandhi argued that once the amount was transfererd from Texcem Engineering to the company where accused persons were the directors then the offence was complete and withdrawal and misappropriation of the amount was not to be considered as essential ingredients for the offence and in this regard. Ld. Counsel relied upon Allahabad High Court judgment reported as AIR 1926 Allahabad 302 . Counsel submitted that Ashok Rattan by allowing other two directors in the company to transfer and retain money in the account of the company where he was one of the directors, he was involved in this offence and the necessary material for the inference of a criminal conspiracy was to be looked into and examined only at the stage of the trial.
This arguments and submission of Ld. Counsel could not convince me. It is the own case of the police as submitted in the charge sheet that respondent Sh. Ashok Rattan was not the Page No. 5 authorized signatory in the bank account wherein Rs. 60 Lakhs was transferred. No documentary evidence has been collected or referred to as to under whose writing and receipt that amount of Rs. 60 lakhs was transferred. It is a matter of record that immediately on credit of the cheque for Rs. 1 Crore and 15 Lakhs in the bank account under the control and supervision of accused Gurbachan Singh Saluja in the name of Techmo Engineering, Rs. 60 Lakhs was transferred next day. If the Ashok Rattan was not the authorized signatory in the bank account of the Univen Systems Pvt. Ltd. then he could not be even prima facie stated to be in the control of the amount credited to that company. Merely that he was one of the directors by itself would not suggest even prima facie that he was a part of conspiracy in any such act of transfer of Rs. 60 Lakhs to the company where he was director. Admittedly the amount of Rs. 1 Crore and 15 lakhs was got debited from the account of the firm of the complainant by Ms. Puneet Saluja and it was got credited into the account of firm of her brother Texcm Engineering and there by suggesting that accused Puneet Saluja and her brother co accused Gurbachan Singh Saluja were primarily involved in the alleged offence.
Scope of the revisional jurisdiction is limited. The revisional court is not expected to sit as appellate court and scrutinize the facts minutely. It's jurisdiction is of a limited and circumscribed nature and is more concerned with the approach of the court and regulatory of the proceedings 2007 (138) DLT page 30. Ld. MM when appreciated the evidence and material while holding that there was no sufficient material even to prima facie indicate respondent Ashok Rattan to be part of the conspiracy then in absence of any material referred to or pointed out by Ld. Revisionist counsel, mere Page No. 6 fact that he was one of the director in the company to whose account money was transferred but then he was not the authorized signatory of that bank account, he could not be considered liable to be put on trial for the said offence. Exercise of jurisdiction by Ld. MM is neither illegality nor a perversity resulting in miscarriage of justice. Revision is accordingly dismissed.
A copy of this order with TCR be sent back to trial court and revision file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the Open (J. R. ARYAN)
court on 31/03/2010. ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
NEW DELHI.