Delhi District Court
State vs Vipin Sachdeva & Others on 20 August, 2011
State v Vipin Sachdeva & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF MS RAVINDER BEDI : A.C.M.M(WEST)
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
State V. Vipin Sachdeva & Others
FIR No. 437/99
P.S. Janak Puri.
U/S 420/120B IPC.
JUDGMENT
a. The serial no. of the case : 793/2
b. The date of commission of the : During the year 1998 & 1999.
offence
c. The name of the complainant : Sh Jitin Hans.
d. The name of the accused, their : 1.Vipin Sachdeva s/o Sh.Prem
parentage & addresses Nath Sachdeva, r/o 169,Vidhya
Vihar,West Enclave, Pitam
Pura, Delhi.
2.Renu Padam w/o Sh. S.S.
Padam r/o DB33A, Hari
Nagar, New Delhi.
e. The offence complained of : 420/120B/34 IPC.
f. The plea of the accused : Pleaded guilty
g. The final orders : Convicted.
h. Final arguments heard : 20.08.2011
i. The date of judgment : Not Reserved
reserved.
j. The date of order : 20.08.2011.
FIR No. 437/99 Page 1 of 9
State v Vipin Sachdeva & Ors.
Brief statement of the reasons for decision :
1. The prosecution case in brief is that accused Vipin Sachdeva & Renu Padam had fraudulently induced many victims during the period of November 1998 and September 1999 to give them amounts on different dates on the false assurances of providing them jobs in various Airlines and thus both the accused induced many victims (as specified in Charges dated 23.5.2001, in the manner narrated therein) with common intention to cheat them and thus committed the offence punishable under section 420/120B of Indian Penal Code ( in short IPC).
The facts as borne out from the charge sheet are as follows:
2. The prosecution machinery was set into motion on the complaint of complainant Sh Jitin Hans wherein he stated that he gave a sum of Rs.1.10 lacs, Rs.17,000/ and Rs.25,000/ respectively between 24.6.99 and 22.9.99 against an Advertisement published in newspaper of accused persons for providing him job in Singapore Airlines but nothing was done by them.
Another complainant Saurabh Sharma in his complaint stated that pursuant to the advertisement published from Revin Airways Pvt. Ltd, he contacted the accused persons. Accused demanded Rs.24,600/ from him for providing job in Singapore Airlines. The amount demanded was paid by the complainant Saurabh. Complainant Girish Chandra Binwal FIR No. 437/99 Page 2 of 9 State v Vipin Sachdeva & Ors.
similarly complained of cheating of Rs.60,000/ vide receipt no. 1581, Rs. 50,000/ in cash and Rs.10,000/ by cheque given on false inducements to accused persons. Complainant Sayyed Islaur Rehman complained that he was dishonestly induced to deliver Rs.10,000/ vide receipt no. 613 in cash on 28.7.99. Complainant Jeevan Ram Baijal stated that accused had cheated him by inducing him to pay Rs.48,000/ in cash on 29.9.99 against receipt no. 1018. Complainant Gaurav Dwivedi was induced to deliver Rs. 29,800/ in cash against receipt no.1143. Complainant Charanjeet Singh and Kapil Sharma were cheated of an amount of Rs.10,000/ and Rs. 24,600/ given by them to accused in cash against receipt no. 601 and 2064 respectively. Complainant Sushma Thapa and Saurabh Panul were induced dishonestly by accused persons to pay Rs.52850/ and Rs. 24,000/ in cash against receipts. Complainant Shantanu Roy Chaudhary and Anoop Kumar were induced to part with money in the sum of Rs. 30,000/ and Rs.24,600/ on 22.6.99 and 17.7.99/25.9.99 respectively. Complainant Amit Sahney and Henry Gangete were given false assurances of providing them job in Singapore Airlines and were induced to part with Rs.10,000/ on 5.9.98 and Rs.50,100 on 25.9.99 respectively. Complainant Tanveer Ali and Vasisht were induced to give Rs.46,000/ and Rs.24,600/ respectively for providing job of Flight Steward and Public Relation Executive respectively. Complainant Dorothy Saihlupvi FIR No. 437/99 Page 3 of 9 State v Vipin Sachdeva & Ors.
and Manpreet Dawar gave Rs.24,000/ and Rs.48,000/ respectively in August 99 to both the accused. Complainant Manoj Dobhal, Vivek Kr Singh and B.S Kuhar gave Rs.15,000/,Rs.40,000/and Rs.24,600/ respectively. Complainant Dipti Issar and Deepak Issar were induced to pay Rs.48,000/ and Rs.12,000/ respectively. Complainant Poonam Issar, Sadika Rehman and Sandeep Jailkhani pursuant to criminal conspiracy of accused persons were induced to pay Rs.14,000/, Rs.63,000/ and Rs. 50,000/ respectively. Similarly, Ms. Jainta Edweena, Dr. G C Gupta and Sh Gobind Singh were induced to pay Rs.50,000/, Rs.10,000/ and Rs. 15,000/ respectively. Complainant Guneet Singh, Dinesh Karna and Kanwaldeep Singh were induced by accused persons to pay Rs.25,000/ Rs.96,000/ and Rs.15,000/. Stephen Issac, Sanjay Kashyap and Roza Baby were induced to deliver the property i.e. Rs.48,800/, Rs.24,000/ and Rs.48,000/. Complainant Abadulla Khan and Harvinder Pal Singh had also paid Rs.48,000/ and Rs.12,300/ on 1.7.99 and 2.8.99 against receipt no. 1140 and 1431 respectively. The case of prosecution is that pursuant to the advertisements published in Newspaper "Times of India"
regarding vacancies of Air Hostesses/flight Stewards by Revin Airways Pvt. Ltd, many complainants (details of their complaints mentioned in Challans) had contacted accused persons, who apprised them of the extension of Airlines Industry and also their deep contacts with various FIR No. 437/99 Page 4 of 9 State v Vipin Sachdeva & Ors.
Airways Managements and promised to help in securing a job for them. After some time when the victims repeatedly contacted the accused persons on false assurances and promises of accused, it came to be known that they were not available at their addresses nor the jobs as assured to the victims, were provided to them. After registration of present case, the matter was investigated and statement of witnesses were recorded. Necessary documents were collected and after completion of formalities, challan was filed in the court. The presence of accused persons was procured as per law. On appearance of accused persons in the court, they were supplied documents in terms of section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code (in short Cr.P.C).
3. Arguments on charge were heard. Submissions of both the parties were considered. Prima facie case under section 420/120B/34 IPC was found to be made out against both the accused Vipin Sachdeva & Renu Padam. Accordingly, charges for the said offences were framed on 23.5.2001 against both the accused. The accusation was read over and explained to them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for prosecution evidence.
4. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution got examined as many as seventeen witnesses in all i.e. PW 1 Dharampal Singh, PW 2 Sh Vikas Kapoor, PW 3 Sh Avtar Singh, PW 4 Sh Farooq Mehendi, PW 5 Sh. Jatin FIR No. 437/99 Page 5 of 9 State v Vipin Sachdeva & Ors.
Hans, PW 6 Sh Sudeep Sehgal, PW 7 Manpreet Bansal, PW 8 Sh Ashok Kumar, PW 9 Sh Saurabh Sharma, PW 10 Raza Mustaba, PW 11 Sh Nitin Luthra, PW 12 Sh Kamal Pandey, PW 13 Ravinder Singh Rawat, PW 14 Sh J.R. Baijal, PW 15 Sh Vivek Kumar Singh, PW 16 Insp. S.S Hasan and PW 17 Sh Ashwani Puri. Thereafter prosecution evidence was closed.
5. Statement of both the accused persons recorded under section 313 Cr P.C r/w Section 281 Cr P.C in which they admitted all the incriminating evidence against them. They admitted that they had cheated all the complainants mentioned in different heads of Challan on the false assurances of providing them job in various Airlines. They admitted that victims used to contact them pursuant to the Advertisement published in newspaper from Revin Airways. They further admitted that they did not return the money on their failure of providing job to complainants. They have admitted the entire incriminating evidence put to them. They, therefore, requested for taking a lenient view against them and stated that they had feelings of remorse and repentance over their act.
6. I have heard learned APP for the State and learned counsel Sh K. B. Mehta for both the accused persons and have gone through the entire material available on record.
7. The prosecution has succeeded in proving its case against both the accused persons. Accordingly, both the accused Vipin Sachdeva and Renu FIR No. 437/99 Page 6 of 9 State v Vipin Sachdeva & Ors.
Padam are convicted for the offences punishable under section 420/120B/34 IPC. Let they both be heard on the point of sentence.
Announced in Open Court (Ms. Ravinder Bedi)
th
on this 20 day of August, 2011. Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
FIR No. 437/99 Page 7 of 9
State v Vipin Sachdeva & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF MS RAVINDER BEDI : A.C.M.M(WEST) TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI State V. Vipin Sachdeva & Others FIR No. 437/99 P.S. Janak Puri.
U/S 420/120B IPC. ORDER ON SENTENCE.
1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties on the quantum of sentence.
2. Ld. APP submitted that offence committed by convicts are serious offence and therefore, convicts be awarded maximum punishment as per law.
3. It is stated by learned counsel Sh K. B. Mehta that convict Renu Padam is aged about 53 years and her husband is a patient of Diabetes and Asthma and is also unemployed. It is stated that convict is taking private tuitions at home and is earning her livelihood. It is argued that convict Vipin Sachdeva who is aged about 55 years, is also a Teacher, besides taking home tuitions. Convict Vipin has two children and thus both convicts have families to support. It is stated that both convicts are religiously appearing before the court on each and every date since filing of the challan. Ld. counsel has, in brief prepared a synopsis showing the regular appearance of both the convicts. It is also argued by ld. counsel for convicts that convict Vipin Sachdeva has remained in custody in the present case since 8.10.99 to 23.4.2003 and convict Renu Padam has remained in custody from 8.10.99 to 19.2.2003 Ld. counsel states that convicts have feelings of FIR No. 437/99 Page 8 of 9 State v Vipin Sachdeva & Ors.
remorse and repentance over their act and they be given a chance to reform and assimilate themselves in the main stream of society. Ld counsel prays for taking a lenient view towards the convicts.
4. Sentencing is an act of judicial discretion and court should not shy away from sentencing, considering the nature of offence, the character of offender and the other circumstances. Both the convicts are appearing before the court religiously since 21.12.99 and have suffered incarceration for a period of more than 3 years. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made on both sides, convict Vipin Sachdeva is sentenced to undergo R.I for a period of 3 years, 6 months and 15 days. Convict Renu Padam is sentenced to undergo R.I for a period of 3 years, 4 months and 11 days for the offences alleged.
5. Benefit of section 428 Cr P.C be given to the convicts for the period of detention already undergone by them in custody.
6. Bail bonds discharged. Surety bonds cancelled. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in Open Court (Ms. Ravinder Bedi)
th
on this 20 day of August, 2011. Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
FIR No. 437/99 Page 9 of 9 State v Vipin Sachdeva & Ors.
FIR No. 437/99 Page 10 of 9