Delhi District Court
State vs . Sunil Kumar Jain Etc. on 20 April, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRAYANK NAYAK, MM-01, NEW DELHI,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS/NEW DELHI.
State Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain etc.
FIR No. 576/1997
PS: Connaught Place
U/S: 406/420/467/468/471/120B IPC
ID number of the case : 39316/16
Date of commission of offence : 27.03/1995 to 31.08.1995
Date of institution of the case : 31.05.2002
Name of the complainant : Mr. Anish Mahajan
Name of accused and address : 1) Sunil Kr. Jain, S/o Sh. Banwari Lal Jain
R/o 30, Gautam Nagar, New Delhi.
2) Manoj Kr. Rawal, S/o Sh. Jagdish Lal
R/o 76, Govind Khand, Vishkarma Ngar,
New Delihi.
3) Rakesh Aggarwal,
S/o Sh. Prahlad Chandra,
R/o 818, Kundewalan, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi.
4) Peeyush Aggarwal, S/o sh. J.R. Aggarwal,
R/o 96-97, Meena Aparatment, 78 IP Extn.,
Patpar Ganj, New Delhi.
Offence complained of or proved : U/s 406/420/467/468/471/120B IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Acquitted
Date of judgment : 20.04.2022
Digitally signed
by PRAYANK
NAYAK
PRAYANK Date:
NAYAK 2022.04.20
State Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain etc. 1 16:49:14
+0530
JUDGMENT
1 The story projected by the prosecution is that between 27.03.1995 to 31.08.1995 all the four accused persons conspired with each other to commit criminal breach of trust of the 8000 shares of various companies which were entrusted by the complainant to accused Peeyush Aggarwal. It is further alleged that later all the four accused mis-led the complainant that the said shares were lost and mis-appropriated them for their own use. It is also the case of the complainant that between 27.03.1995 to 31.08.1995 all the accused conspired to cheat Mr. O.P. Karnany, Director, Quick Fin Ltd. and dishonestly induced him to purchase 1600 shares of Morepen Laboratories Ltd. The aforesaid 1600 shares were the onces which have been mis-appropriated and it was represented to Mr. O.P. Karnany that the shares are being transferred by the authorities and signatures of the complainant by showing authority letter dt. 27.03.1995.
2 Apart from this, it is also alleged by the prosecution that the signatures of the complainant Anish Mahajan has been forged and the forged forms have been used for transfer of 600 shares of Morepen Laboratories Ltd. in favour of Mr. O.P. Karnany. On the basis of aforesaid allegations accused persons have been tried for offence u/s 406/420/467/468/471/120B IPC. Digitally signed by PRAYANK
State Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain etc. 2 NAYAK
PRAYANK Date:
NAYAK 2022.04.20
16:49:30
+0530
3 Ld. APP for the State has argued that the testimony of PW1 clearly establishes
the entrustment of the shares to Mr. Peeyush Aggarwal and the various documents produced by the prosecution during the course of trial for establishing the criminal conspiracy amongst the accused persons by proving their common intention/meetings of mind. It is further stated that FSL report has clearly established that the share documents,alleged to have been forged, do not bear the signatures of the complainant and hence prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. He has further argued that defence has not produced any witness to disprove that entrustment of shares to Mr. Peeyush Aggarwal nor has defence been able to impeach the credit of any prosecution witness.
4 On behalf of the accused Peeyush Aggarwal, it has been argued that Peeyush Aggarwal, it has been argued that accused not having been retained by the company at any point of time for any matter, has not derived any monetary benefit from M/s AEMA Investments Pvt. Ltd. or received any consideration from the company in any way. He has further argued that accused Peeyush Aggarwal is not named in the complaint or FIR and prosecution has failed to establish any connection of accused with the alleged crime. It is further stated that complainant and prosecution have deliberately omitted to mention that the Digitally signed State Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain etc. 3 by PRAYANK NAYAK PRAYANK Date:
NAYAK 2022.04.20
16:49:44
+0530
complainant had filed a civil suit for Injunction and Declaration before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi which was dismissed in default in which the complainant had stated that the shares were contained in a bag in possession of the complainant and that the bag had been picked up from car of the complainant.
5 Ld. counsel has further stated that complainant has lodged three police complaint in respect of same shares i.e. PS Tilak Marg, PS Vikas Puri and PS Connaught Place and accused is not named in any of the complaint and complainant has been consistently changing his version as to possession of shares in question after, upon investigation, the previous statement of the complainant had turned out to be false. The complainant had also filed a petition before Hon'ble Company Law Board and also filed an appeal against the order of Hon'ble Company Law Board. The appeal was apparently withdrawn by the complainant. He has further stated that accused has even tendered his specimen hand-writing for investigation and the same could not be connected with any of the documents in evidence with the prosecution. Ld. Defence counsel further stated that prosecution has clearly stated in the supplementary charge-sheet dt. 14.10.2003 that accused cannot be connected to the alleged crime of forgery, but have omitted to remove name of the accused Digitally signed by PRAYANK PRAYANK NAYAK State Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain etc. 4 NAYAK Date:
2022.04.20 16:49:57 +0530 from the array of accused.
6 Ld. counsel for the other accused persons have argued that complainant has filed the complaint without any resolution/authority letter in his favour on behalf of the company. They have further submitted that the complainant has not made the accused persons a party in the Compromise Deed and hence it is clear that the accused persons had no involvement in the present case. 7 Ld. Counsel for the accused Sunil Kumar Jain has relied upon three judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled Chet Singh v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, CrW 698 of 1996 & CrM 508 of 1997; Cogent Silver Fibre PTE Ltd. vs. State, CrRP No. 276/2006; Sonali Verma vs. Ranbir Sharma, CrM(M) 1756/1999 in support of his contention.
8 The first limb of allegations against the accused persons are with respect to criminal breach of trust. In this regard the story of the prosecution is that 8000 shares of various companies were entrusted by the complainant Anish Mahajan to accused Peeyush Aggarwal and later all those shares were mis-appropriated by the accused persons in furtherance of criminal conspiracy. In this regard the the complainant has been examined by the prosecution as PW1. He has deposed that "In the year 1995, I was one of the directors in AEMA Investment Digitally signed by PRAYANK NAYAK PRAYANK Date:
State Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain etc. 5 NAYAK 2022.04.20 16:50:27 +0530 Pvt. Ltd. The said company had its office at Preet Vihar Commercial Complex. Peeyush Aggarwal who was chartered accountant was looking after that company and his father Sh. J.R. Aggarwal was used to sit in the office of company. I had another company in the name of SRM Holding which had its registered office at F-84, Vikaspuri, Delhi. In the office of AEMA Investment, my personal shares of various companies which were in my name and in the name of SRM Holding were kept. The shares of about 13 companies were in my name and the shares of about five companies were in the name of SRM Holding. The shares which were purchased in the name of AEMA Investment were also kept in that office at Preet Vihar complex. In the beginning of 1996, I told Peeyush Aggarwal to sell the shares which were in my name and in the name of SRM Holding. Peeyush Aggarwal kept delaying the matter on one pretext or other and after many days, he told me that the shares which are in my name and in the name of SRM Holding were gone missing."
9 As seen above, the complainant has not specifically deposed that he had entrusted the shares in question to Mr. Peeyush Aggarwal or any other accused persons. Apart from this, even in the complaint filed with the police by the complainant, it is merely stated that he had lodged complaint with PS Vikas Puri with respect to loss of certain shares and has received information that Digitally signed by PRAYANK NAYAK PRAYANK Date:
NAYAK 2022.04.20
State Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain etc. 6 16:50:46
+0530
said shares have been transferred on the basis of forged signatures 10 Further in the complaint given to PS Vikas Puri, it has been stated that the shares in question were lost from the possession of the complainant. PW1 has not been able to explain as to why he had not mentioned about the factum of entrustment of shares to Mr. Peeyush Aggarwal even in his later complaint given to PS Connaught Place on the basis of which the present FIR has been registered.
11 Moving further, it is important to note that the complainant came to know about the transfer of shares lost/stolen mis-appropriated on the basis of letter dt. 22.11.1996. However, the complaint has been lodged with the police on 10.02.1997. This delay in informing the police/lodging of FIR also adversely affects the credibility of PW1/complainant. Not only this, there is no material to show mis-appropriation of shares by accused persons. In light of aforesaid discussion, this court is of the view that the allegations of criminal breach of trust and criminal conspiracy in this regard does not stand proved against the accused persons.
12 The second limb of allegations against the accused persons are that they had criminally conspired to cheat Mr. O.P. Karnany by dishonestly inducing him to State Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain etc. 7 Digitally signed by PRAYANK NAYAK PRAYANK Date:
NAYAK 2022.04.20
16:51:01
+0530
purchase 1600 shares of Morepen Laboratories Ltd. In this regard, Mr. O.P. Karnany was also examined by the prosecution and he has nowhere stated in his testimony about being dishonestly induced by any of the accused persons for purchasing 1600 shares. On the contrary, his testimony does not mention the name of any of the accused persons nor does it mention any dealings between the accused person and O.P. Karnany.
13 No other witness has been examined by the prosecution to prove the offence of cheating or any fraudulent mis-representation made to Mr. O.P. Karnany. Hence, the prosecution version with respect to criminal conspiracy to cheat Mr. O.P. Karnany is also rendered doubtful.
14 The last limb of allegations against the accused persons are with respect to forgery of the transfer deed for transfer of 1600 shares of Morepen Laboratories Ltd. In this regard, it is alleged by the prosecution that the said transfer deeds bears the forged signatures of the complainant and they also contain the signature of Mr. Manoj Rawal.
15 In this regard no witness has been examined by the prosecution to prove that the transfer deed has been forged by the accused persons nor has any witness seen the accused persons forging the signatures of the accused persons on the Digitally signed State Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain etc. 8 by PRAYANK NAYAK PRAYANK Date:
NAYAK 2022.04.20
16:51:32
+0530
said deeds. Apart from this, there is no material on record to prove that the said transfer deeds were signed by Mr. Manoj Rawal. In this regard, it is important to note that FSL report has not been able to connect any of the accused persons with the forged signatures of the complainant. Hence, the allegations of forgery also do not stand proved against accused persons. 16 It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution is to prove the guilt of the accused beyond the possibility of any reasonable doubt. It is also a settled principle that thought there may be an element of truth in the prosecution story against the accused but considered as a whole there is invariably a long distance to travel and whole of this distance must be covered by the prosecution by legal, trustworthy and unimpeachable evidence before an accused can be convicted. This principle of law has been reiterated by the Hon'ble apex court in the following cases : Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 637; Anil W. Singh v. State of Bihar, (2003) 9 SCC 67; Reddy Sampath W. v. State of A.P, (2005) 7 SCC 603 and Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy v. State of A.P, (2006) 10 SCC 172. 17 In light of the aforesaid discussions, it can be safely concluded that case of the prosecution does not stand beyond reasonable doubt with respect to the charge Digitally signed by PRAYANK PRAYANK NAYAK State Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain etc. 9 NAYAK Date:
2022.04.20 16:51:58 +0530 framed upon the accused persons. As a consequence, benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused persons. Accordingly, all the accused persons namely Sunil Kumar Jain, Peeyush Aggarwal, Rakesh Aggarwal and Manoj Rawal are hereby acquitted for the commission of offences punishable U/s 406/420/467/468/471/120B IPC This judgment consists of 10 pages and all pages bear my signature.
Digitally signed by PRAYANK PRAYANK NAYAK NAYAK Date:
2022.04.20 16:52:08 +0530 Dictated directly into the computer (Prayank Nayak) and announced in the open Court, MM-01 (New Delhi)/ On 20th April, 2022. Patiala House Courts, N.Delhi 20.04.2022 State Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain etc. 10