Delhi District Court
State vs Ranbir Singh Kharb And Others on 13 December, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. HARJEET SINGH JASPAL:
LD. ACMM-04, ROUSE AVENUE COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CNR No.DLCT12-001403-2019
Cr. No. 122/2019
FIR No.329/2006
PS EOW
State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors.
JUDGMENT
1. Date of the commission of offence :1998 to 2004
2. Name & address of the Complainant:Sh. Pravin Kumar S/o Sh. Ranbir Singh Dahiya R/o H.No.84, Ishwar Colony, Bawana, Delhi
3. Name of the accused and address : i)Ranbir Singh Kharb S/o Ch. Kartar Singh R/o Village Mundhela Khurd, PS Jaffarpur, Delhi
ii)Anita Kharb W/o Ranbir Singh Kharb R/o Village Mundhela Khurd, PS Jaffarpur, Delhi
iii)Satparkash S/o Sh. Rajinder Singh R/o G-1/589, Dal Mill Road, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
4. Offence complained of :409/420/506/120-B IPC Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 1 of 203
5. Plea of accused :Pleaded not guilty
6. Final order : Convicted
7. Date of such order :13.12.2023 Date of Institution of case : 17.08.2009 Date of decision of the case : 13.12.2023 Date of conclusion of final arguments: 30.11.2023 Be not deceived;
God is not mocked;
for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
Galatians Bible, 6:7 Chapter-1 FACTS
1. At the outset it is worth mentioning here that this is a special court constituted by the orders of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide Circular No.68/DHC/Gaz./G-7/VI.E.2(A)/2020, dated 03.10.2020, to try the cases only of Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assemblies. In the matter at hand, the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb was the sitting MLA of the area from 1998 to 2003. The allegations of the prosecution also largely pertain to the same period.
2. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the aforementioned matter, which has remained a pendency for 17 long years, starting from the registration of FIR. The matter at hand alleges that the Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 2 of 203 accused persons namely Ranbir Singh Kharb, Anita Kharb and Satprakash have inter-alia committed offences of cheating, criminal breach of trust, criminal conspiracy and have defrauded various innocent investors, who largely are their kith and kin of the accused persons, in the name of 'investments' in the company called M/s Jyoti Fair Finance Company.
3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the accused persons, as aforementioned, during the period of 1998 to 2004 hatched a criminal conspiracy to cheat the general public, by way of a scheme floated through a finance company called M/s Jyoti Fair Finance Company (hereinafter referred to as the company).
4. As per the prosecution, the accused persons, in the furtherance of their criminal conspiracy, induced the general public to invest money in the company by alluring them with high interest rates and monetary gains, however, the accused persons never had the intention to return the money. Whatever payments, if at all made, were made to further lure/induce the innocent investors to make further investments. As per the prosecution, most of the victims are kith and kin of the accused persons.
5. It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused persons, despite repeated demands and requests never returned the money and eventually they closed the entire business, made false promises and commitments and even threatened the victims, if they asked Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 3 of 203 for the return of the money.
6. The accused Anita Kharb was the Director of the aforementioned company. She gave receipts in the name of company and often induced the general public and her acquaintances to invest money in the company.
7. Accused Satprakash was not holding any position of responsibility in the company however, as per the prosecution, he too, like accused Anita Kharb, gave receipts in the name of company and often induced the general public and his acquaintances to invest money in the company.
8. Accused Ranbir Singh Kharb is an alleged king pin of the entire matter, even though he did not hold any position in the company however, as per the prosecution, he latently used to run the said company, without wearing any hat of Director/employee etc. Almost every victim has alleged inducement at the hands of the said accused.
9. Further, as per the prosecution story, the accused persons, in the course of their criminal conspiracy, fraudulently and dishonestly induced the complainant Sh. Pravin Kumar, to invest money in the company and in consequence thereof, the said complainant invested a sum of Rs.23 lakhs, without getting any return or refund.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 4 of 203
10. Similarly, victims Ranbir Singh Dahiya, Girdhari, Om Prakash, Smt. Raj Bala, Ranbir Singh Dalal, Jaipal Malik, Kuldeep Singh, Vinod Kumar, Rajesh, Bijender, Akshay, Rajwati, Beena, Attar Singh, Smt. Omwati, Sh. Gajender Singh and Gyan Singh were also defrauded by the accused persons and they too, in the course of aforementioned criminal conspiracy, were made to deliver various sums of money to the accused persons.
11. For the sake of convenience, I deem it appropriate to take on record a tabulation of various investments, allegedly made by the victims, as apparent from the police report and the testimonies:
Sl. No. Name of the Victim/PW Alleged cheated amount 1 PW-2 Sh. Pravin Kumar Rs. 23,00,000/- 2 PW-3 Sh. Ranbir Dahiya Rs.1.34 Crores 3 PW-4 Sh. Attar Singh s/o Rs.10,00,000/-, this sum is already Lal Singh covered under the sum averred by PW-3 Ranbir Dahiya 3 PW-5 Sh. Girdhari Rs.15,00,000/- 4 PW-6 Randhir Singh Rs. 6,00,000/-, this sum is already covered under the sum averred by PW-2 Praveen Dahiya 5 PW-8 Baljeet Singh Rs. 5,00,000/-, this sum is already covered under the sum averred by PW-2 Praveen Dahiya 6 PW-29 Parmila Rs. 9,00,000/-, this sum is already covered under the sum averred by PW-2 Praveen Dahiya 7 PW-35 Om Prakash Rs.16,00,000/- 8 PW-36 Ranbir Singh Dalal Rs.5,00,000/-
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 5 of 203 9 PW-37 Jaipal Malik Rs.25,00,000/-, this sum includes the following :
i) Rs. 5,00,000/- of Master Lal Chand (PW-38);
ii) Rs. 6,00,000/- of PW-39 Sukhbir Singh;
iii) Rs. 2,00,000/- of Devender Dalal (PW-63);
iv) Rs.5,00,000/- of Chander Singh Malik (not examined, as deceased);
v) Rs. 2,00,000/- of Rajender Singh (not examined, as deceased);
vi) Rs. 2,00,000/- of Om Prakash (not examined, as deceased).
10 PW-40 Bal Kishan Rs. 2,00,000/-
11 PW-41 Kuldeep Singh Rs.20,20,000/-
12 PW-42 Vinod Kumar Rs.16,50,000/-
13 PW-44 Smt. Raj Bala Rs.6,00,000/-
14 PW-45 Gajender Singh Rs.4,50,000/-
15 PW-46 Gyan Singh Rs.4,00,000/-
16 PW-50 Smt. Rajesh Rs.2,50,000/-
17 PW-52 Rajwati Rs.6,00,000/-
18 PW-53 Bijender Rs.3,15,000/-
19 PW-54 Beena Rs.4,20,000/-
20 PW-55 Omwati Rs.5,00,000/-
21 PW-61 Attar Singh Rs.19,00,000/-
22 PW-64 Akshay Rs. 21,10,000/-, this sum is covered under the amount invested by PW-49 Phool Kaur and PW-62 Jasbir Singh
12. As per the prosecution, the police investigation has revealed that the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, in course of criminal conspiracy with other accused persons, abused his position as local MLA and induced people to invest money in the aforesaid company.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 6 of 203 Chapter-2 Charge
13. Vide various orders, the following charges were framed against the accused persons :
Sl. Name of the accused Charge No.
1. Ranbir Singh Kharb Section 420/506/409 IPC r/w 120-B IPC
2. Anita Kharb Section 420/409 IPC r/w 120- B IPC
3. Satprakash Section 420/506(1) IPC r/w 120-B IPC
14. The Accused persons pleaded not guilty to the aforementioned charges and claimed trial
15. Accused Rakesh Lakra and Hoshiyar Singh were discharged vide order dated 08.01.2013 passed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court.
Chapter-3 Prosecution Evidence
16. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined in total 65 witnesses. For the sake of convenience, a list of prosecution witnesses is being produced herein :
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 7 of 203 1 PW-1 W-HC Seema 2 PW-2 Sh. Pravin Kumar 3 PW3 Sh. Ranbir Singh Dahiya 4 PW-4 Sh. Attar Singh 5 PW-5 Sh. Girdhari Lal Khetan 6 PW-6 Sh. Randhir Singh 7 PW-7 Sh. Baldhari Saini 8 PW-8 Sh. Baljeet Singh 9 PW-9 Sh. Dinesh Kumar 10 PW-10 Sh. J.K. Sharma 11 PW-10A Sh. Naresh Kumar Garg 12 PW-11 Sh. Sudhir Kumar Sharma 13 PW-12 Sh. Mahesh Kumar 14 PW-13 Sh. SrinivasanV.
15 PW-14 Sh. Robin Davis 16 PW-15 Sh. Gangadharan 17 PW-16 Sh. Rajiv Ranjan 18 PW-17 Sh. Hardeep 19 PW-17A Sh. Ravinder Kumar 20 PW-18 Sh. Vivek Yadav 21 PW-19 Sh. Sunit Prakash 22 PW-21 Sh. B.D. Joshi 23 PW-22 Sh. Naveen Kumar 24 PW-23 ASI Tanvir Ahmed 25 PW-24 Sh. N.L. Paite 26 PW-25 ASI Surender Singh Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 8 of 203 27 PW-26 ASI Prem Singh 28 PW-27 SI Sneh Lata 29 PW-28 Sh. Ravinder Kumar 30 PW-29 Smt. Parmila 31 PW-30 Sh. Sagar Gopal Kakkad
32. PW-31 Inspector Anil Kumar
33. PW-32 Inspector Manmohan Singh
34. PW-33 Inspector Vivek Maheshwari
35. PW-34 Inspector Sher Singh
36. PW-35 Sh. Om Prakash
37. PW-36 Sh. Ranbir Singh Dalal
38. PW-37 Sh. Jaipal Malik
39. PW-38 Sh. Master Lalchand
40. PW-39 Sh. Sukhbir Singh
41. PW-40 Sh. Bal Kishan
42. PW-41 Sh. Kuldeep Singh
43. PW-42 Sh. Vinod Kumar
44. PW-43 Smt. Premwati
45. PW-44 Smt. Rajbala
46. PW-45 Sh. Gajender Singh
47. PW-46 Sh. Gyan Singh
48. PW-47 Inspector Pawan Singh
49. PW-48 ACP Rajesh Kumar
50. PW-49 Smt. Phool Kaur
51. PW-50 Smt. Rajesh
52. PW-51 Sh. Randhir Singh Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 9 of 203
53. PW-52 Smt. Rajwati
54. PW-53 Sh. Bijender
55. PW-54 Smt. Beena
56. PW-55 Smt. Omwati
57. PW-56 Sh. Ram Chander
58. PW-57 Inspector Mahendra Kumar Mishra
59. PW-58 Sh. Sanjay Kanhaiya
60. PW-59 Sh. Vikram Kumar
61. PW-60 Sh. Shyam Lal Goel
62. PW-61 Sh. Attar Singh
63. PW-62 Sh. Jasbir Singh
64. PW-63 Sh. Devender
65. PW-64 Sh. Akshay Beniwal
66. PW-65 ACP Sanjay Kumar
17. Before proceeding further, I deem appropriate to take on record the gist of testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
3.1 - Summary of the testimonies of the PWs
18. PW1 W-HC Seema proved the registration of FIR, being the duty officer of PS Uttam Nagar. The present FIR was proved as Ex.PW1/A and she also proved the endorsement on rukka as Ex.PW1/B. Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 10 of 203
19. PW-2 Sh. Pravin Kumar is the complainant and is a star prosecution witness. He deposed that the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb are his close relatives (real nephew of accused Anita Kharb) and they used to often visit his house and used to tell him to invest in the company.
20. As per him, the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb alongwith the accused Anita Kharb visited his house on 4/5 th January 2001 and upon their allurement he collected various sums of money from his various relatives from January 2001 to December 2002 and gave, in total, a sum of Rs.23,00,000/- to the accused persons Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb.
21. He further deposed that after some time when he demanded interest on the invested money, so that he can repay the interest to his relatives and friends from whom he had taken the loan, however, the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb told him that he will make the payment after becoming MLA.
22. Thereafter, PW-2 (Pravin Kumar) told this fact to his father, as well as to his relatives like his Mama etc. As per him, when the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb was elected as MLA, the said witness went to his house with his father and his Mama (maternal uncle) and on demanding their money, the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb told them that he needs some time and the accused Anita Kharb told them that she will give receipts in Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 11 of 203 writing, as acknowledgment of payments received by them.
23. As per PW-2 Pravin Kumar, the accused Anita Kharb told his father PW-3/Sh. Ranbir Singh Dahiya to write a receipt and thereafter, she signed the said receipt, which is on record as Ex. PW2/A. It was deposed that despite giving the said receipt and despite repeated assurances the accused persons Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb did not return the amount paid by him, as well as the amount which was paid by his father and his mama separately.
24. It is further a deposition of PW-2 that the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb refused to return his money by saying that nobody can harm him as the said accused is/was an MLA of the area and furthermore, the said accused threatened him.
25. The complaint of PW-2 to the police/EOW, Crime Branch is on record as Ex.PW2/B. The said witness correctly identified the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and the accused Anita Kharb. He categorically stated that the accused persons Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb induced him to invest money with them.
26. PW3 Sh. Ranbir Singh Dahiya, is the real brother of accused Anita Kharb and is the father of complainant (PW-2). He deposed that the accused persons are his close relatives.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 12 of 203
27. He deposed further that the said two accused persons i.e. Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb, were running a finance company by the name of Jyoti Fair & Finance Company from property bearing no. G1/589, Dal Mill Road, Uttam Nagar, Delhi and they both induced him to invest money in their firm, on the allurement that they both will pay high rate of interest and the invested money will be doubled in 2 ½ years.
28. As per PW-3, upon the said inducement, in January 2000, he handed over Rs.50,000/- in cash to the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb and they both made payment of Rs.1000/-, as one month's interest upon his investment of Rs.50,000/-.
29. As per him, the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb further induced him to invest in the company by withdrawing his savings from the bank and by arranging the money from his family and relatives.
30. He deposed on oath that between 2002 to 2003, he handed over Rs.22,00,000/- to the accused persons Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb, out of which Rs.12,00,000/- belongs to him and Rs.10,00,000/- belongs to his brother-in-law PW-Attar Singh.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 13 of 203
31. In the words of PW-3 Ranbir Singh Dahiya, the accused persons Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb used to visit his house often and used to tell the relatives and friends to invest money in their firm and in consequence thereof, a total sum of Rs.1 Crore 78 lakhs was handed over to the accused persons Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb by his friends and relatives and he always accompanied them at the time of handing over the aforesaid money to both the accused persons.
32. He further deposed that when his friends and relatives asked for receipt of handing over the money to the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and the accused Anita Kharb they both did not provide the same by saying "Hum Rishteydar Hain aur rasid vagraha kya hoti hai, Jaban hi Kafi Hain". As per him, when he asked for interest, the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb told him that they both have further invested the interest amount in the committee (chit fund). As per him, the said accused persons did not pay the interest amount to him or to his friends and relatives.
33. He further deposed that the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb stopped making payment to his friends and relatives and told them that company was running in losses and that the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb has to contest an election of MLA from Delhi Assembly and after election, he will return the invested money with interest.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 14 of 203
34. As per PW-3, when he asked for a proof of their payment to the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb, they both gave him a receipt-cum-declaration of Rs.1 Crore 78 lakhs signed by them, the same is on record as document Ex.X1. As per him, when they asked separate proof for separate investments made by him as well as his relatives and friends, the said accused persons told them that "agar aap ko iss per bhee yakeen nahi hota to mai property key papers i.e. property bearing no.G1/112, Uttam Nagar Dey Deta Hoo, as a security" and they both handed over him the papers of the aforesaid property.
35. PW-3 further deposed that on showing the said property papers to his friends, he was told that the said documents are not original and are rather a coloured copy. Thereafter, the said witness again went to the house of the accused persons and told them that they are trying to cheat him by giving coloured copies of the title deeds. In the meanwhile, the said witness visited the said property at Uttam Nagar i.e. G-1, 112, Uttam Nagar, Delhi and he was informed by one A.S. Dagar that the said person has already purchased the aforesaid property from the accused persons. He deposed that he and other investors, who invested the money in the company asked the accused persons to return their money, however, the accused persons instead issued 4 cheques.
36. PW-3 has deposed the description of the aforesaid four cheques as under :
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 15 of 203
i) Two cheques of amount of Rs. 45,00,000/- each
ii) Two cheques of amount Rs. 44,00,000/- each.
Thus, making the total cheque amount as Rs.1.78 crores.
37. As per PW-3, despite insistence of all the investors, the said accused persons issued cheques in the name of the said witness himself i.e. Ranbir Singh Dahiya and refused to issue separate cheques in their names.
38. It is also deposed by PW-3 that two investors namely Smt. Suman and Smt. Santosh insisted upon the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb to issue cheques in their name and therefore, upon their persistence the said accused took back a cheque of Rs. 44,00,000/- and issued a cheque each to smt. Suman and Santosh, amounting to Rs. 22,45,000/- and Rs. 18,60,000/- respectively.
39. As per PW-3, all the aforementioned cheques, dishonoured on presentation to the bank and thereafter Smt. Suman filed a case for dishonour of cheque against the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb at Rohtak Court and Smt. Santosh filed a similar case against the said accused at Patiala House Court.
40. It has further come in the testimony of PW-3 that the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb entered into a settlement with Smt. Santosh and Smt. Suman and returned the money to both of them.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 16 of 203 As per him, he too had filed a complaint case against the said accused Ranbir Singh Kharb in Tis Hazari Courts, in which the accused was convicted for two years imprisonment and Rs.50,000/- fine was imposed upon him, however despite this he did not return the money.
41. PW-3 proved the following documents:
a) His typed complaint to EOW as Ex.PW34/D.
b) The colored photocopies of the sale deed, agreement to sell, GPA etc. of the property number G1/112, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, given to him by the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb as Mark PW34/Y1.
c) The self-attested photocopy of receipt-cum-
declaration dated 15.05.2003 executed by the accused Anita Kharb and Ranbir Singh Kharb as Mark 29/A.
d) The photocopy of three cheques amounting to Rs.1,34,00,000/- and the report from Cooperation bank as Mark-PW34/Y2 (colly.).
e) Seizure memo of the aforesaid coloured copies etc. as Ex. PW 34/Y.
f) The original receipt-cum-declaration in respect to the amount of Rs. 1,78,00,000/-, which he handed over to the police, as Ex. X1 (exhibited on 31.08.2021).
42. As per PW-3, the said document was handed over to him at the house of the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 17 of 203 and the said documents i.e Ex.X1 was signed by the said accused persons in his presence and was further signed by Smt. Hira Devi w/o PW Ranbir Singh Dahiya and one Smt. Parmila w/o Ajit Singh as witnesses.
43. The said witness correctly identified all the accused persons before the court.
44. PW-4 Sh. Attar Singh s/o Sh. Lal Singh deposed that PW-3 Ranbir Singh Dahiya is his brother-in-law (Jija ji).
45. As per him, in the year 2002, the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb told him about his finance company namely M/s Jyoti Fair Finance Company and also told him that the money invested in the said company can be doubled in three years.
46. PW-4 deposed that in the year 2002 he received an amount of Rs.38,00,000/- from the Government, as his land was acquired and thereafter the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb started visiting him several times and told him to invest money in their company, with the allurement as aforesaid.
47. As per him, his brother-in-law Ranbir Singh Dahiya took Rs.10,00,000/- as a loan from him and he invested the same in the company of the accused persons.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 18 of 203
48. PW-4 deposed on oath that the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb told him that he should invest money through PW-3 Ranbir Singh Dahiya, as it is convenient for the purpose of maintaining the accounts and therefore, as per PW-4, Ranbir Singh Dahiya gave aforesaid Rs.10,00,000/- to the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb in cash.
49. As per him, the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb told him that he will return the money after the elections and when his brother-in-law PW-3 Ranbir Singh Dahiya demanded Rs.10,00,000/- from the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, the said accused refused.
50. In proof of his financial capacity to invest a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs, PW-4 placed on record the copy of cheque which was deposited by him at ICICI bank, amounting to Rs.37,62,419/-.
51. The said witness correctly identified the accused Anita Kharb and Ranbir Singh Kharb before the court.
52. PW-5 Sh. Girdhari Lal Khetan deposed that the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and PW-3 Ranbir Singh Dahiya convinced him to invest money in the company namely M/s Jyoti Fair Finance Company on the allurement of high returns and on the allurement that the money will be doubled in three years.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 19 of 203
53. As per him, on 22.11.2002, he gave an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and on 05.12.2002, he gave an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb.
54. PW-5 further deposed that the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb told him that after elections he will return the money however, it was never done.
55. PW-5 deposed that the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb handed over to him two receipts Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW5/B, as acknowledgment of the money taken by him. The said witness handed over the said receipts to the police vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/C. It was deposed that the said receipts were witnessed by PW-3 Ranbir Singh Dahiya and Rajesh Kumar Sharma.
56. As per PW-5, the stamp papers, on which the aforesaid receipts were executed, were procured by the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb himself. He further proved the photocopy of visiting card of the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and the company as Mark 5X. He correctly identified the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb before the court.
57. PW-6 Sh. Randhir Singh deposed that accused Ranbir Singh Kharb is fufa of his son-in-law Pravin Dahiya and Pravin Dahiya asked him to invest money in the firm of the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb. Therefore, he gave a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- to Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 20 of 203 accused Ranbir Singh Kharb at the house of PW Pravin Dahiya at village Bawana, in the presence and at instance of his son-in-law i.e. PW-2 Pravin Dahiya.
58. As per the said witness, till date he has not received back the invested amount of Rs.6,00,000/- or the interest thereof. As per him, in the year 2003, he got to know from PW-2 Pravin Dahiya that Ranbir Singh Kharb has refused to return any money.
59. He correctly identified all the accused persons before the court.
60. PW-7 Sh. Baldhari Saini deposed that he never handed over his PAN card or its copy to any person, except police and that he handed over the copy of PAN card and IT returns to the police vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/A. He proved the copy of his PAN card as documents Ex.PW7/B (OSR) and copy of IT returns as Mark 7/A to 7/F. As per him, he never gave the copy of PAN card to the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb.
61. PW-8 Sh. Baljeet Singh deposed that the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb is his relative and is having good relations with him. As per him, the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb was running a finance company in the name of M/s Jyoti Fair Finance Company and the said accused visited his place several times and told him to make investment in the said company, against promised Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 21 of 203 returns of good interest and double amount in 2.5/3 years, however, he did not make any investment in the company.
62. As per the said witness PW-8, in December 2002, he gave a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to PW-2 Pravin Dahiya, as he needed the said amount for investment in the company.
63. As per PW-8, the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb gave a receipt of Rs.23 lakhs to Pravin Dahiya and the said witness put his signatures therein as witness. He identified the said receipt as document Ex.PW2/A.
64. To explain the source of money, PW-8 deposed that he arranged Rs.5,00,000/-, as aforementioned, from his account as he had received Rs.43 lakhs from the Government on land acquisition. He identified the signature of the accused Anita Devi at point A on Ex.PW2/A and also proved the copy of cheques received from Land Acquisition Collector as Mark 8/A and Mark 8/B.
65. PW-9, Sh. Dinesh deposed that from July 1998 to 2003, he used to work at the company i.e. Jyoti Fair Finance Pvt. Ltd. at G-1/589, Uttam Nagar, Dal Mill Road, Delhi and apart from him one Bablu, Chhotu and Veer Singh were also working with him. As per him, he was called to the office of Crime Branch where he identified a letter head belonging to the company. He identified Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 22 of 203 document Ex.PW2/B as letter head of the company.
66. As PW-9 Dinesh turned hostile and thus he was cross examined by the Ld. APP.
67. PW-10, Sh. J.K. Sharma, Joint Chief Electoral Officer, office of Chief Electoral Office, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi, proved the documents relating to candidature and election of accused Ranbir Singh Kharb as MLA.
68. PW-10-A, Sh. Naresh Kumar Garg, Deputy Manager, SBI proved the reply to letter no.PBD/167 dated 15.07.2006 as Mark PW10/A-1. As per him, the cheque nos. 540749 and 540750 (mark A) were cleared by their bank which were collected by ICICI Bank on behalf of Baljeet Singh and Attar Singh and said cheques were issued by Land Acquisition Collector. The said cheques are on record as Mark A.
69. PW-11, Sh. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Deputy Commissioner, Civic Center proved on record the letter Mark PW11/A1 vide which EOW sought information regarding PAN card no.AMRPS1095G and other income tax details and also proved the reply dated 08.02.2006 as Ex.PW11/A. He deposed that as per office record, PAN card no.AMRPS1095G belongs to Baldhari Saini.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 23 of 203
70. PW-12 Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Leading Fireman, Fire Station, Shankar Road, New Delhi proved on record the certified copies of service record and character role of Ranbir Singh Kharb which were provided to office EOW vide letter no.HO/DFS/ShRd/06/48 dated 08.02.2006 under the signature of the then Chief Fire Officer as Ex.PW12/A and Ex.PW12/B.
71. PW-13, Sh. Srinivsan V., Chief Manager, Corporation Bank, Manglore, Karnataka deposed that he was posted as Manager, Cooperation Bank, Palam Branch from 2004 to 2007. He handed over the original account opening form of a/c no.SB-9555 pertaining to the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/A and also proved the true copy of account opening form as Ex.PW13/B (original in judicial file having FIR No. 95/11, EOW).
72. PW-14, Sh. Robin Davis, Manager, Bhopal Zonal Office, Corporation Bank, Delhi deposed that he was posted at Cooperation Bank, Vasant Vihar from 2006 to 2007. On 19.05.2006, he handed over the original account opening form of the account number SB900 pertaining to the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and the same was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/A. Further he proved the original account opening form of account no.SB900 dated 29.09.1999 alongwith nomination form in the name of Ranbir Singh Kharb is on record as Ex.PW14/B. Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 24 of 203
73. PW-15, Sh. Gangadharan, Superintendent, Treasury, THC brought on record the original record of non judicial stamp issuing register of 05.07.2001 to 26.07.2001. The photocopy of entry number 14365 mentioning that the said non-judicial stamp paper has been issued to the accused Anita Devi r/o village Mundaka Khurd, New Delhi, was proved by him as document Ex. PW15/A (OSR) and he also proved the document Mark PW15/A1 vide which same was given to Crime Branch.
74. PW-16, Sh. Rajiv Ranjan, UDC, Stamp and Registration Branch, Divisional Commissioner Office, 5, Shyam Nath Marg, Delhi brought on record the original record of non judicial stamp issuing register of Smt. Urmila Tyagi from the period 27.08.2002 to 04.12.2002. He proved the photocopy of entry number 17676 as Ex.PW16/A mentioning therein that non judicial stamp paper of Rs.10/- was issued to the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb on 22.11.2002. The said information, as per him, was given to Crime Branch vide letter Mark PW16/A1. He further proved on record the letter no. F.2(01)/Stamp Branch/DT/HQ/2017/288 dated 06.07.2017 as Ex.PW16/B.
75. PW-17, Sh. Hardeep, Patwari, Tehsil Badali, District Jhajhar, Haryana brought on record the original intkal register for the period from 15.03.2000 to 19.01.2007, in respect of seller and purchaser of the land situated in Village Lukshar, Tehsil Badali, District Jhajhar, Haryana. He proved :
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 25 of 203
i) Entry no. 1875 wherein the seller sold the land to Anita Kharb, Sandeep and Manjeet.
ii) Entry no. 1927 wherein the land was sold to Ranbir Singh Kharb
iii) Entry no. 1914 where the land was sold to Sandeep Kumar (son of Ranbir Singh Kharb)
iv) Entry no. 1915 where the land was sold to Manjeet Singh (son of Ranbir Singh Kharb)
v) Entry no. 1932 where the land was sold to Anita
vi) Entry no. 2005 wherein the land was sold to Kuldeep Singh
vii) Entry no. 2031 where Sandeep Kumar as afore- mentioned sold the land to Indira Kumari
viii) Entry 2044 where the land was sold to Ranbir Singh Kharb, however it was cancelled later. These entries were proved as document as Ex.PW17/A (OSR) to Ex.PW17/H (OSR).
76. PW17-A Ravinder Kumar, Clerk, Corporation Bank, Branch Bawana, Delhi brought the original account opening form of account no.1175 in the name of one Ranbir Singh. He deposed that the photocopy of the account opening form and the statement of the said account, from January 2000 to December 2004, were provided to the Investigating Authority vide letter no.BWA/5/OD dated 10.06.2006, which is Mark P1. Photocopy of the account opening form alongwith supportive documents are Ex.PW17/A. Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 26 of 203
77. PW-18, Sh. Vivek Yadav, LDC, Office of Sub- Registrar-II, Basaidara Pur, New Delhi brought on record the following documents :
i) Sale deed Registration no.7410 dated 27.07.2001
ii) Sale deed registration no. 15718 dated 27.10.2003
iii) GPA registration no.47860 dated 14.08.1998
iv) Will registration no.50196 dated 14.08.1998
v) GPA registration no.15814 dated 08.04.2003
vi) GPA registration no. 17018 dated 23.03.2000
vii) Will registration no.11452 dated 01.03.1999
viii) Will registration no. 2676 dated 15.01.1999
ix) GPA registration no.12223 dated 01.03.1999
x) GPA registration no. 2702 dated 15.01.1999.
He proved the aforesaid documents as Ex.PW18/A (OSR) to Ex.PW18/J (OSR). He further proved the document Mark P.1 vide which aforesaid documents were provided to investigating agency.
78. PW-19, Sh. Sunit Prakash, Chief Manager, Canara Bank, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Circus, New Delhi proved the seizure memo vide which the account opening form of account no.6322 of M/s Jyoti Fair Finance Company, alongwith its enclosures, were seized by the IO, as Ex.PW19/A. Further he proved the photocopy of the original account opening form as Ex.PW19/B. Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 27 of 203
79. Inadvertently, there is no PW-20 is on record.
80. PW-21, Sh. B.D. Joshi, UDC, Office of Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi & Haryana placed on record the documents regarding registration, certificate of incorporation of M/s Jyoti Fair Finance Company as Ex.PW21/A (colly. running from page 388 to 448 of judicial record), Ex.PW21/B i.e letter written by Assistant Registrar of Companies to ACP, Anti Forgery Section, EOW, Crime Branch and certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act as Mark PW21/C.
81. PW-22, Sh. Naveen Kumar, Assistant Manager, Corporation Bank, Bawana Branch, Delhi proved on record the account statement of account no.1175 i.e. account of Ranbir Singh Kharb, at Corporation Bank pertaining to period 01.01.2004 to 31.03.2004 wherein the factum regarding bouncing of cheques is mentioned, as Ex.PW22/A and the said record is also accompanied by a certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act, as Ex.PW22/B.
82. PW-23, ASI Tanvir Ahmed deposed that he alongwith ASI Sneh Lata were present during interrogation of Ranbir Singh Kharb and co-accused Anita Kharb by SI Sher Singh, EOW. As per him, the specimen signatures of the accused persons were taken in his presence and the same are on record as Ex.PW23/A and Mark PW23/B (colly.). He correctly identified the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb before the court and stated that he can identify Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 28 of 203 the accused Anita Kharb as well however, on the day of his testimony the accused Anita Kharb was not present in the court and an exemption application was moved vide which the identity of the said accused was not disputed.
83. PW-24 N.L. Paite, Scientist-B, CFSL, that he proved the FSL results, i.e., document Ex. PW 24/A to Ex. PW 24/H. Further he was recalled on 06.04.2023 (subsequent to an order u/s 311 Cr.P.C.) wherein he proved document Ex. PW 24/A1 (OSR), Ex. PW 24/A2 (OSR), Ex. PW 34/AQ, Ex. PW 24/A3 (OSR), Ex. PW24/ A4, Ex. PW AB1/AD.
84. PW-25, ASI Surender Singh deposed that on 25.04.2006, he handed over a rukka at PS-Uttam Nagar to the DO concerned and got the present FIR registered.
85. PW-26, ASI Prem Singh deposed that on 17.06.2009, after having received DD entry no. 32, he along with SI Ashu Gehrotra, SI Vijay Semwal, Const. Rajender and Const. Alka, went to Tis Hazari metro station and IO/SI Anil Jindal arrested Ranbir Singh Kharb vide memo Ex. PW 26/A. As per him, Ranbir Singh Kharb was searched vide memo PW 26/B. He proved the inspection memo as Ex. PW 26/C and correctly identified the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb before the court.
86. PW-27, Snehlata deposed that she was present when Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 29 of 203 specimen signatures of the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and the accused Anita Kharb were taken. She identified the same as document Ex. PW 23/A (colly 4 pages). On the day of the examination of the said witness, the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and the accused Anita Kharb were not present and their identity was not disputed by the defence counsel.
87. PW-28, Ravinder Kumar placed on record account statement of account number 1175, showing entry of cheque number 4041, 4042 and 4043 as Ex. PW 28/B.
88. PW-29, Parmila w/o Ajit Singh deposed that the complainant/PW-2 Pravin is her brother-in-law (devar) and as per her, the said PW-2 Pravin introduced her to the accused Anita Kharb and told her that the Anita Kharb is running a company called M/s Jyoti Fair Finance Company.
89. She further deposed that she was told that the money, if invested in the company, will get 2% interest per month and will get doubled in three years. She further deposed that the accused Anita Kharb told her to give money through PW-2 Pravin, therefore, she agreed.
90. As per her, she invested Rs. 9 lakhs in cash (Rs. 5 lakhs + Rs. 4 lakhs) and the accused Anita Kharb confirmed the said investment of Rs. 9 lakhs.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 30 of 203
91. PW-29 further stated that for few months, she got the interest but it was stopped later. She deposed that she along with PW-2 Pravin went to the house of the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb and demanded her money back, however the accused Anita Kharb told her that the aforementioned invested amount was handed over to her by PW Pravin and that the receipt will also be given to PW-Pravin only and therefore, the accused Anita Kharb handed over a receipt of Rs. 23 lakhs to PW Pravin.
92. As per her, despite repeated requests, the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb did not return her the invested amount.
93. PW-29 Parmila further deposed that she signed an affidavit, dated 15.05.2003, as a witness, wherein the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb admitted to a liability of Rs. 1.78 crores(document Ex.PW2/A). She correctly identified the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb in the court, however on the day of her testimony, the accused Anita Kharb was not present, an exemption application was moved by the defence, wherein her identity was not disputed.
94. PW-30 Sh. Sagar Gopal Kakkad, Senior Manager (Branch Incharge), Punjab & Sind Bank, Roshanpura (Najafgarh) Branch, Delhi brought on record the copy of account opening form in the name of Sh. Randhir Singh S/o Sh. Nawal Singh as Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 31 of 203 Ex.PW30/1 and certified copy of bank account statement for the period from 01.10.2000 to 31.03.2003 as Ex.PW30/2 and the corresponding certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, Ex.PW30/3.
95. PW-31 IO/Inspector Anil Kumar was the IO of the present case and that he conducted raids to arrest the accused persons Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb however, they could not be found. As per him, on 17.06.2009, he prepared a raiding team to arrest the said accused persons and accordingly he proceeded to the local area within the jurisdiction of PS Jaffar Pur however, despite efforts the accused persons could not be found. He further deposed that after raiding the house of the accused persons, he, alongwith his team, went to the office of M/s Jyoti Fair Finance Company situated at Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
96. PW-31 further deposed that he apprehended the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb at Tis Hazari Court and interrogated him. After interrogation, he arrested the said accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW26/A, his personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW26/B, his physical inspection memo is on record as Ex.PW26/C. PW-31 deposed that the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb was again interrogated in detail at EOW office and thereafter, his medical examination was conducted and he was shifted to PS Hauz Khas Lockup.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 32 of 203
97. It is the deposition of PW-31 that on 18.06.2009, a seven days PC remand of the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb was granted by the court and during the police custody, the said accused was interrogated in respect of utilization of money taken from the victims and also qua the whereabouts of the accused Anita Kharb. He collected the original documents from the victims and also recorded their statements u/s 161 Cr.PC and seized the documents vide seizure memo Ex.PW31/A (Ex.X1).
98. PW-31 deposed that during interrogation it came to the knowledge of the said witness that five persons were working for the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb namely Dinesh, Rajesh, Bablu and two more, where Dinesh was his accountant. As per said witness, said Dinesh disclosed that the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb used to collect money through Rajesh and two more persons (their names could not be recollected by the witness). As per the said witness, Rajesh used to sign the receipts on behalf of the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb. As per him, he examined the cousin of the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb namely Surender and his Chacha Sahib Singh. He was informed that the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb has purchased various properties from the money of the victims, in different names.
99. PW-31 deposed that he seized documents from the victims i.e. document Ex.X1, vide seizure memo Ex. PW31/A. As Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 33 of 203 per him, he collected documents from victims namely Kishan Singh, Ajeet Singh, Satwanti and Satbir Singh. He correctly identified Ranbir Singh Kharb before the court.
100. PW-32 Inspector (Vigilance) Manmohan Singh deposed that he filed an application before the court for obtaining the search warrant for three properties belonging to the accused persons Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb, which is Ex.PW32/A and in pursuance thereof the order Ex.PW32/B was passed by the court and search warrant was also issued, on record as Ex.PW32/C and the report regarding proceedings conducted in respect of all the three search warrants is Ex.PW32/D.
101. PW-33 ACP Vivek Maheshwari deposed that he was the IO of the present case, as IO Inspector Anil Jindal was on medical leave. As per the said witness, he recorded the statement of eight victims on 07.07.2009 and thereafter, the file was handed over to IO SI Anil Jindal.
102. PW-34 Inspector Sher Singh deposed that in the month of June 2005, he received the complaint of one Pravin Dahiya (i.e. PW2) and ten more complaints of other victims. As per him, he examined them and collected the supporting documents. The complaint of Pravin Dahiya inclusive of the other ten complaints was proved on record as Ex.PW2/B. Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 34 of 203
103. PW-34 further deposed that at his instance, the Inspector Anti Forgery Section, EOW issued a notice to the Corporation Bank to provide the details regarding the banking details of the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb. He proved the said notice as Ex.PW34/A and further proved the reply received from the bank as Ex. PW13/B. (colly. seven pages).
104. As per him, at his instance Inspector Anti Forgery Section, EOW issued notice Ex.PW34/B to SHO, PS Jaffarpur to provide the details regarding missing report of cheque book given by the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and certified copy of missing report is proved on record as Ex.PW34/C. A notice Mark PW11/A1 was also issued to Income Tax Officer to provide the details of PAN card and ITR of the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and said report is proved on record as Ex. PW11/A.
105. As per him, he received two more complaints against the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and other the accused persons upon which he again conducted the preliminary inquiry on the complaints of all the victims as Ex. PW34/D to Ex.PW34/O. As per him, he received the reply Ex.PW34/P from MLO Office regarding the vehicle details of Ranbir Singh Kharb. Notice Ex.PW10/A was also issued to the Election Commission Office to provide details regarding the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and also received the reply Ex.PW10/B to Ex.PW10/M filed by Chief Electoral Office.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 35 of 203
106. As per him, notice Ex.PW34/Q was also issued to the Fire Department to provide the details regarding the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and in response to the notice, the documents Ex.PW34/R (colly. 167 pages) were received. He deposed that after the initial inquiry, the case was registered and he made the endorsement on the complaint Ex.PW2/b and prepared the rukka Ex.PW34/S and after the registration of the FIR the present case was marked to him for the investigation.
107. He further deposed that he examined all the victims and recorded their statements u/s 161 Cr.PC and also collected the documents from the victims. As per him, he issued notice Ex.PW34/T to Bank Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Branch u/s 91 Cr.PC to provide details of the account holder namely Baljeet Singh and others who are the victims in the present case through Inspector, EOW and in reply documents Ex.PW10/A1 received. He per said witness, notice Ex.PW34/U was also served u/s 91 Cr.PC to Sub Registrar, Janak Puri to provide information regarding the various properties owned by accused persons to which reply Mark P.1 was received alongwith documents Ex.PW34/V (colly. 22 pages) from Sub Registrar-II, Janak Puri and notice Ex.PW34/W was also issued u/s 91 Cr.PC to Tehsildar, Bahadurgarh, Jhajjar, Haryana to obtain the details regarding the agricultural land owned by accused persons to which reply Ex.PW34/X (colly. three pages). was received from Tehsildar, Bahadurgarh.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 36 of 203
108. As per said witness, he examined the victims, witnesses and bank officials and also collected the concerned documents from the victim namely Ranbir Singh Dahiya and seized them vide seizure memo Ex.PW34/Y. As per him, vide said seizure memo he collected the coloured photocopies of the sale deed, agreement to sell, GPA etc. of the property no.G-1/112, Uttam Nagar, Delhi which documents are proved as Mark PW34/Y1 (running into 42 pages). He also collected the self attested photocopy of the receipt cum declaration dated 15.5.2003 executed by the accused persons Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Devi and the said photocopies are Mark 29/A. As per him, he seized the photocopy in respect to the three cheques amounting to Rs.1,34,00,000/- alongwith the report of insufficient funds from Corporation Bank, Palam, Delhi and said documents are proved as Mark 34/Y2 (running into 7 pages). He collected the documents i.e. original receipt cum declaration dated 5.12.2002 and receipt dated 22.11.2002 Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW5/B from the victim namely Girdhari Lal vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/C. He seized the photocopy of the visiting card of M/s Jyoti Fair Finance Company which was in the name of the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb which was handed over to him by PW Sh. Girdhari Lal and said document is on record as Mark 5X.
109. He collected the documents from the victim namely Pravin Dahiya (PW-2) and seized the said documents vide seizure memo Ex.PW34/Z. Vide said seizure memo, he seized the original hand written receipt of Rs.23,00,000/- signed by the accused Anita Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 37 of 203 Devi, Ex.PW2/A and also seized the schedule Ex.PW34/Z1 of Rs.23,00,000/- given to Anita Devi by Pravin Dahiya.
110. As per the said witness, notices were issued u/s 91 Cr.PC to the various bank officials to provide the documents relating to the present case and vide said notices he seized the original account opening form of the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb bearing account no.SB-9555 which was maintained at Corporation Bank vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/A. The original records which was seized in the present case is attached in the judicial file of FIR No.95/11, PS EOW.
111. The account opening form of the above mentioned account number of the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/A is proved on record as Ex.PW34/AB (collectively two pages) in this case. He also seized the original account opening form of account no.SB-900 pertaining to the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb which was maintained at Corporation Bank, Vasant Vihar vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/A. The original records which was seized in the present case is attached in the judicial file of FIR No.95/11, PS EOW.
112. As per the said witness, the account opening form of the above mentioned account number of the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/A is on Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 38 of 203 record as Ex.PW14/B (collectively two pages) in this case. Notice Mark PW34/AB1 u/s 91 Cr.PC was served to Delhi Treasury to provide the details relating to non judicial stamp paper which was used for execution of sale deed of the property no.G-1/112, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi to which reply was received alongwith the photocopy of the register which are Mark 15/A1 and Ex.PW15/A.
113. As per said witness, he seized the document from one witness namely Baldhari Saini vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/A. He also seized the document i.e. the original account opening form of account no.6322 which was in the name of Jyoti Fair Finance Pvt. Ltd. which was maintained at Canara Bank, Uttam Nagar from the Manager, Canara Bank vide seizure memo Ex.PW19/A. The original records which was seized in the present case is attached in the judicial file of FIR No.95/11, PS EOW. The account opening form of the above mentioned account number is proved as Ex.PW34/AC.
114. PW/IO Inspector Sher Singh deposed that he interrogated the accused persons Anita Kharb and Ranbir Singh Kharb and prepared the questionnaire documents to which the reply was given by both the accused persons and said questionnaires are on record as Ex.PW34/AD (running into six pages) and Ex.PW34/AD1 (running into six pages).
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 39 of 203
115. PW-34 deposed that he took specimen signature of the accused persons Anita Kharb and Ranbir Singh Kharb (original specimen signatures obtained in the present FIR is attached in the judicial file of FIR NO. 95/2011, PS EOW and in the said judicial file the said documents is exhibited as Ex.PW22/I in FIR No. 761/07, PS Uttam Nagar). The photocopy of the specimen signature of the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb is Ex.PW34/AE (running into 17 pages) and specimen signature of the accused Anita Devi (running into 10 pages) (the four pages of original specimen signature of the accused Anita Devi is already exhibited as Ex.PW22/K1 in FIR No.761/07, PS Uttam Nagar and six pages of original specimen signature of Anita Devi is in the judicial file of FIR No.95/11 and the same are exhibited as Ex.PW22/K, in case FIR No.761/07). The photocopy of the specimen signature of the accused Anita Devi which is running into 10 pages is Ex.PW34/AF (the photocopy of Ex.PW22/K in case FIR No.761/07 are already available in this case file and photocopy of Ex.PW22/K1 are taken from the original and placed in the present case file).
116. PW-34 Inspector Sher Singh further deposed that he collected the documents from the victims in respect to the source of investment and documents executed by the accused persons and prepared the seizure memos in respect of the said documents, seized from the victim namely Kuldeep Singh vide seizure memo Ex.PW34/AI. As per him, in respect to the said seizure memo, he Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 40 of 203 seized the original sale deed dated 14.10.2004 of agricultural land at village Luksar, Tehshil Bahadurgarh, Jhajjar executed by the accused Anita Devi in favour of Kuldeep Singh. The photocopy of the said sale deed is Ex.PW34/AJ (running into six pages) (the original sale deed is attached in FIR No. 95/11, PS EOW alongwith the FSL result and same is seen from said file, as the said record is still available with the Ahlmad of this court, though the matter has already been decided). He also seized the original payment receipt made to Kuldeep Singh in respect to the selling of the agricultural product of grains at Krishi Upaj Mandi, Narella, Delhi and Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Najafgarh, Delhi. The said receipt is Ex.PW34/AK (running into 22 pages). He also seized the photocopy of bank account statement of account pertaining to Kuldeep Singh Mark PW34/AK1.
117. As per PW-34, notice was also served to Manager, SBI, Kanjawala Branch to provide the necessary information in respect to the documents pertaining to Kuldeep Singh and in respect to the said notice documents were provided by the said bank which are Ex.PW34/AL (running into five pages). He seized the documents provided by Randhir Singh (husband of Smt. Rajesh, who is one of the victim in the present case) vide seizure memo Ex.PW34/AM and in respect to the said seizure memo Sh. Randhir Singh provided the payment receipt for selling the agricultural product (grains) from the year 2000-2002 which is running into seven pages and said documents are Ex.PW34/AN (running into seven Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 41 of 203 pages). Randhir Singh also provided the other documents pertaining to the present case and the same was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW34/AO and in respect to the said seizure memo, he seized the photocopies of bank pass book of account no.9040, account no.3047 and copy of GPA in respect to Khasra no. 729/1/2. The said documents are Mark PW34/AO1 (colly. running into nine pages). Notice was issued to Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank, Najafgarh to provide details pertaining to account number 9040 pertains to Randhir Singh and in respect to the same the documents were provided by the said bank which are Mark PW34/AO2 (colly. running into six pages).
118. He also seized the document provided by the victim Bijender Singh in respect to form no. 30, form 29, survey report and photocopy of registration certificate of vehicle no.DL 2FB D0010 which is in the name of Ranbir Singh Kharb and also seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW34/AP. In respect to the said seizure memo, he seized the above mentioned documents and same are marked as Mark PW34/AP1 (colly. running into six pages). He sent the documents which were collected during investigation from victims, the specimen and admitted signatures of the accused persons to GEQD for the examination and in respect to the same the report was received which is Ex.PW34/AQ (colly. running into five pages).
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 42 of 203
119. PW-34 Inspector Sher Singh deposed that he recorded the statements of the victims and other witnesses in the present case u/s 161 Cr.PC.
120. The said witness identified the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and deposed that he can identify the accused Anita Kharb, however, the said accused was not present on the day of deposition of the said witness and her identity was not disputed by the defence.
121. PW-35 Om Prakash s/o Swaroop Singh deposed that he retired from CISF, as an Inspector in 2002 and his wife Smt. Krishna Devi was a teacher in Delhi Cantonment Board and she is the real sister of the accused Anita Devi.
122. As per him, the accused persons Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb used to come to his house, being close relatives and they told them about the company namely M/s Jyoti Fair Finance Company and that the accused Anita Kharb is the Director of the said company. The accused persons Anita Kharb and Ranbir Singh Kharb induced them to invest money in the company and lured them with good profits and also told them that other friends and relatives have also invested in the company and have made good profits.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 43 of 203
123. As per PW-35 Om Prakash, being close relatives they trusted upon the accused persons Anita Kharb and Ranbir Singh Kharb and on 06.03.1998 they gave Rs. 50,000/-, on 10.10.1999 they invested Rs.76,000/-, on 15.06.2000 they invested a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in the company.
124. PW-35 further deposed that on 26.03.2001, his wife withdrew Rs.50,000/- from her GPF account and invested in the company. On 02.06.2001, they again invested a sum of Rs.24,000/- in the company from their savings.
125. He further deposed that on 08.08.2001, his cousin (chacha ji ka ladka) gave him a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- i.e. Rs.51,000/- in cash and a cheque of Rs.49,000/- for the purpose of investment in the company, which he handed over to the accused persons, at his house, in the presence of the said cousin i.e. Dilbagh Singh s/o late Sh. Kali Ram. As per him, the said cheque was drawn from ICICI bank dated 08.08.2001 and it was a bearer cheque, no name was mentioned on the cheque because the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb told them that he will write the name himself. His cousin Dilbagh was also induced by the accused persons Anita Kharb and Ranbir Singh Kharb. As per him, they invested following amounts in the accused company :
On 15.02.2002 - Rs.1,00,000/-
On 18.05.2002 - Rs.1,00,000/-
On 16.01.2003 - Rs.2,50,000/-
On 03.02.2003 - Rs.2,50,000/-
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 44 of 203 On 11.03.2003 - Rs.2,00,000/-
On 17.04.2003 - Rs.20,000/-
On 19.05.2003 - Rs.2,00,000/-
On 09.07.2003 - Rs.30,000/-
In October 2003 - Rs.50,000/-
126. PW-35 Om Prakash further deposed that from March 1998 to October 2003 he and his wife invested a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- in the company. As per said witness, between 1998 and 2003 he did not get anything in return of their investments i.e interest etc. and despite that they were investing because they had trust in the accused persons, being close relatives.
127. He deposed that the accused persons promised them 2% per month interest or double the amount in three years. In the year 2003, he demanded their money from the accused persons to which the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb told him that he will return the entire money, as promised, after he has won the MLA elections however, despite repeated demands the accused persons never returned the money.
128. In the words of PW-35 Om Prakash, the accused Anita Kharb came to their house and assured them that the money will be returned, as promised and the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb executed an agreement on Rs.50/- stamp paper and also gave them documents of two plots which were in the name of the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and his father and the accused Anita Kharb Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 45 of 203 gave them in writing on the letter head of the company, a receipt of receiving of Rs.16,00,000/-, bearing all the details of all the transactions and at that time, in his house he himself, his son Naveen and wife Smt. Krishna Devi were present.
129. In December 2003, as per PW-35, the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb won the election of MLA but accused persons never returned anything to them. In the year 2009, they got to know that the accused persons have been arrested by EOW and thereafter, they also filed a complaint in EOW.
130. As per PW-35, the documents of the two plots of the accused persons are still with him. He identified his signatures on documents Ex.PW1/DT (Exhibited on 28.01.2021) i.e complaint to DCP and Ex.PW1/DS i.e. seizure memo, (exhibited on 28.01.2021). He also proved on record his bank account statement from State Bank of India, Najafgarh Road, Karampura, Moti Nagar, Delhi Mark PW35/A (colly. running into three pages), bank account statement of his wife Mark PW35/B, GPF account statement of his wife Mark PW35/C. He identified the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, however, on the day of the testimony of this witness, the accused Anita Devi was not present and her identity was not disputed by the defence.
131. PW-36 Ranbir Singh Dalal deposed that his wife Smt. Prem Wati used to work with Smt. Krishna Devi, sister-in-law of Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 46 of 203 the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb (sister of accused Anita Kharb) As per him, Smt. Krishna Devi told them to invest money in the finance company of the accused persons.
132. PW-36 deposed that his wife Smt. Prem Wati alongwith Krishna Devi went to their house where the accused persons told his wife to invest money in the finance company namely M/s Jyoti Fair Finance Company, in terms that they will get 2% per month interest and/or in three years time the money will be doubled. As per him, on being induced by the accused persons, they invested a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from February 2000 to October 2003. As per him, on 01.02.2000 they invested Rs.1,00,000/-, on 02.04.2001 they invested Rs.2,00,000/-, on 15.02.2002 they made a payment of Rs.1,00,000/- by cheque. The said cheque, that they handed over to the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb was a bearer cheque and no name was written on it and later it was encashed in the name of one Krishan, who is the son of brother of the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb.
133. PW-36 deposed that in October 2003, his wife once again took a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from her PF and the said money was given by her, in cash, to the accused Anita Kharb, at her house. As per him, against the aforesaid payments of Rs.5,00,000/-, no receipt etc. was ever given by the accused persons, as it was given in good faith.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 47 of 203
134. He further deposed that in the year 2003, he asked for his payment but the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb refused and thereafter, he gave his complaint exhibit PW 2/X at PS EOW. He also identified his signatures on document Ex.PW1/DS. As per him, the police also seized the document from Rajbala vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/B and copy of GPF account statement (Mark PW 36/A) of his wife Mrs. Premvati which is Ex.PW2/Y. He identified the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, however, on the day of recording of testimony of this witness, the accused Anita Devi was not present and her identity was not disputed by the defence.
135. PW-37 Sh. Jaipal Malik deposed that the accused Anita Kharb is the real sister of his wife and thus the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb is his brother-in-law and both the accused persons used to frequently visit their house, being close relatives.
136. As per the said witness, the accused persons Anita Kharb and Ranbir Singh Kharb started a finance company by the name of M/s Jyoti Fair Finance Company and induced him and his wife to invest money in the company and they both lured them with 2% per month interest or double in 3 years.
137. He stated on oath that from the year 2000-2003, he invested about Rs. 25 lacs in the company at the instance of the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and the said money included the money which he invested on behalf of other persons as well and all Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 48 of 203 the money was in cash and was handed over to the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb in various installments.
138. As per him, he took Rs. 5,00,000/- from PW Chandar Singh Malik, Rs. 5,00,000/- from PW-38 Master Lalchand, Rs. 6,00,000/- from PW-39 Sukhbir Gulia, Rs. 3,00,000/- from Master Bheem Singh, Rs. 2,00,000/- from Rajinder Singh s/o Khushi Ram, Rs. 2,00,000/- from Om Prakash, Rs. 2,00,000/- from Devender Dalal and invested all these sums of money in the company, at the instance of the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb.
139. In the year 2003, as per PW-37, the accused persons Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb were supposed to return the money, however, the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb after becoming MLA started threatening them and refused to return the money.
140. He deposed that despite many requests, the accused persons did not return their money and thus he filed a complaint before EOW which is Ex.PW34/F (exhibited on 17.12.2021). His statement was recorded by the IO of the case. He identified the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, however, on the day of the testimony of this witness, the accused Anita Devi was not present and her identity was not disputed by the defence.
141. PW-38 Master Lalchand and PW-39 Sukhbir Singh deposed on the lines of the testimony of PW-37.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 49 of 203
142. PW-40 Bal Kishan deposed that he knows the accused Satprakash and on 14.11.2002 he invested Rs.2,00,000/- in the Company at the instance of the accused Satprakash as he told him that the company will give 2% per month interest or double the amount in 3 years.
143. As per PW-40, the accused Satprakash on behalf of the company gave him interest for 2-3 months but later on stopped giving the interest. As per him, he filed a complaint against Satprakash before EOW and in the year 2016, the accused Satprakash told him that the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb had taken all his money and that only the principal amount can be returned by the said the accused Satprakash, without interest.
144. As per him, in May 2016, the accused Satprakash gave him Rs. 2,00,000/- on the condition that he will withdraw his complaint.
145. He further deposed that he gave money to the accused Satprakash for investment in the company and he was given a receipt of the company, showing investment of Rs.2,00,000/-. The said receipt is Ex.PW-40/A bearing the signature of the accused Satprakash at point A1.
146. The copy of the complaint of the said witness is on record as Mark 40/A2, bearing his signatures at point A2. The Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 50 of 203 Said witness correctly identified the accused Satprakash and the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, before the court.
147. PW-41 Kuldeep Singh. He deposed that the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb is son of his distant chacha and the said accused, alongwith the accused Anita Kharb, used to frequently visit their house, being close relatives.
148. As per PW-41, the said accused persons induced him to invest money in their company i.e. M/s Jyoti Fair Finance Company. As per him, both the accused persons lured him with 2% per month interest or double amount in 3 years.
149. As per the testimony of PW-41, in April 2001, he invested Rs. 70,000/- by way of cash in the company, at the instance of both the accused persons i.e. Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb but no receipt was given to him.
150. As per him, from the year 2001-2003, he invested about 20.20 lakhs money in the company at the instance of the aforesaid accused persons.
151. It has further come in the testimony of PW-41 that in the end of the year 2003, he received back about Rs. 40,000/- and from 2001 to 2003, he used to receive monthly interest but after 2003, both accused persons stopped giving interest. As per him, in Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 51 of 203 the year 2004, the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb gave him papers of one plot of land which was valued at 2.41 lakhs and said amount was in lieu of the interest. As per him, with the permission of the accused persons, he sold off that land and recovered Rs.2.41 lakhs.
152. He further deposed that in the year 2003, the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb were supposed to return the money but after becoming MLA the said accused Ranbir Singh Kharb started threatening them and refused to return the money and also threatened him with death. Against the said threats, the said witness filed a police complaint, on record as Mark 41/A. As per him, since the accused persons refused to pay the money despite persistent requests, he filed a complaint Ex.PW34/G before EOW.
153. PW-41 further deposed that during investigation, the IO recorded his statement and he handed over original sale deed Ex.PW34/AJ of agricultural land, which the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb gave him, to the IO. As per him, he handed over the various receipts Ex.PW34/AK (exhibited on 18.04.2022) as a proof of his financial condition to the IO and he also handed over his account statement Mark 34/AK1 to the IO and said documents were seized vide seizure memo Ex.34/AI. The witness correctly identified the accused persons Ranbir Singh Kharb and Satprakash, the accused Anita Devi was not present on that day and her identity was not disputed by the defence.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 52 of 203
154. PW-42 Sh. Vinod Kumar deposed that the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb used to frequently visit their house being friend of his father and he started a finance company by the name of M/s Jyoti Fair Finance Company. As per him, the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb induced his father to invest money in the said company on the allurement of 2% per month interest or double the amount in 3 years. As per him, between 2001 and 2003, his father invested Rs.16.50 lakhs in the company, at the instance of the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb. As per him, money was given in cash and no receipt was given to him or his father, by the said accused as he was close friend of his father and used to sit with him frequently.
155. PW-42 further deposed that his father got interest for one or two months only and thereafter, the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb refused to return the money. The said witness correctly identified the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb but failed to identify the accused Satprakash, the accused Anita Devi was not present on that day and her identity was not disputed by the defence.
156. As per PW-42, even though the money which was given by him to the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb belonged to his father, it was him who gave a complaint in writing to the police qua the non return of the money. He further deposed that after some time he again gave a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs and later Rs. 4 lakhs to the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb for investment in the company. He Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 53 of 203 further deposed that the accused Anita Kharb also came to their house when money was being handed over to the accused persons. He further deposed that in March 2003, he gave Rs. 3.5 lakhs to the accused persons for investment in the company. As per him, the accused persons threatened him when he asked for the money.
157. PW-43 Smt. Premwati w/o Sh. Ranbir Singh Dalal, deposed that her husband is one of the complainant in the present case and she alongwith her husband visited the EOW, Crime Branch where she handed over the document i.e. her GPF account statement which was seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/Y (exhibited on 14.12.2020). She also handed over the account statement mark PW36/A to the IO (the original of document Mark PW36/A is on record in FIR No.95/11, PS EOW). The witness correctly identified the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb but failed to identify the co-accused Satprakash, the accused Anita Devi was not present on that day and her identity was not disputed by the defence.
158. PW-44 Smt. Rajbala w/o late Sh. Kashi Ram deposed that the accused Anita Kharb is the real sister of her sister-in-law (jethani) Krishna Devi and being relatives, both the accused persons used to visit their house and induced them to invest money in their company M/s Jyoti Fair Finance Company. As per her, consequent to the inducement by the said accused persons, on 10.05.1998 her husband invested Rs.25,000/- in cash and on Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 54 of 203 09.09.1999, Rs.50,000/- was handed over in cash and both the accused persons told them that they will give 2% per month interest or in the alternative, they will double the money in 3 years but no amount was given to them.
159. PW Rajbala further deposed that the accused Anita Kharb also told her that Krishna Devi has also invested in their company. As per her, after death of her husband both the accused persons started visiting her house more frequently and both the accused persons started asking her to invest more money in the company, thereafter, she withdrew the amount of Rs.1,90,000/- from her saving account on 20.12.2001, Rs.1,80,000/- on 16.01.2002, an amount of Rs.80,000/- on 05.02.2002 and Rs.75,000/- on 23.09.2002 and in total, she and her husband invested a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- in the finance company at the instance of the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and the accused Anita Kharb.
160. She further deposed that on 30.06.2003, both the accused persons came to her house and handed over her a receipt Ex.P.1 (exhibited on 26.02.2021) on a 10 rupees stamp paper of amount of Rs.6,00,000/- and the accused Anita Kharb also handed over a receipt Ex.P.2 (exhibited on 26.02.2021) on the company's letterhead in the presence of her Jethani, Krishna and her son Parveen Kumar. As per her, both the documents were already printed and were signed in her presence by the accused Ranbir Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 55 of 203 Singh Kharb and the accused Anita Kharb and her son namely Pravin Kumar and her sister in law Krishna Devi were witnesses to the above mentioned documents.
161. As per her, despite repeated demands both the accused persons refused to return the money and thereafter, she gave her complaint Ex.PW4/A, to the police alongwith the above mentioned receipts and her bank statement, on record as Mark X2 (colly 3 pages). She handed over the receipts Ex. P1 and P2, Mark X2 to the police which were seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/B and Ex.PW4/C bearing her signature at point A. She failed to identify the co-accused Satya Prakash however, on the day of testimony of the said witness, the accused Anita Kharb and the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb were not present and their identity was not disputed by the defence. She further deposed that she alongwith complainant Om Prakash and Premwati filed a complaint u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. in the Tis Hazari Court which is proved as Mark X.
162. PW-45 Sh. Gajender Singh deposed that the accused Satprakash and he used to work at Hari Nagar DTC Depot-I and during their tenure at DTC, the said accused Satprakash induced him to invest money in the company i.e. Jyoti Finance Company. As per him, on 02.08.2000 he invested Rs.1,50,000/-, on 23.03.2001 Rs.2,00,000/- by way of cash and on 10.08.2002 he further invested Rs.1,00,000/- in the company by way of cash and Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 56 of 203 he handed over the aforesaid sums of money to the accused Satprakash at his residence, where he started the office of company as well i.e. at Dalmil Road, Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
163. He deposed that the accused Satprakash told him that he will give the interest of 2% per month on the money invested. PW-Gajender Singh categorically deposed that his relations and transactions were with the accused Satprakash only.
164. PW-45 Gajender Singh further deposed that when he gave the first installment of Rs.1,50,000/- he received a receipt under the signature of the accused Satprakash however, when he invested the second installment i,.e Rs.2,00,000/-, the accused Satprakash took back the first receipt of Rs.1,50,000/- and gave a receipt of Rs.3,50,000/- similarly, at the time of third installment i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- the second receipt was also taken back and the son of the accused Satprakash i.e Rakesh Lakra issued a receipt of Rs.4,50,000/- under his signatures, as he was the Director of the company. As per him, every time when he used to invest money, the accused persons used to take back the previous receipt and thus he has only one receipt Ex.PW-45/A1 which is of Rs.4,50,000/-. He deposed that the accused Satprakash told him that he will return his money after two three months. As per him, he used to continuously get interest from the year 2000 to the starting of the year 2003 and then it stopped and after two three months, when he started demanding money from the accused Satprakash, he kept Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 57 of 203 delaying on one pretext or the other, by saying that he will give the money to the said witness when the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb will pay money to him i.e. to the accused Satprakash.
165. PW Gajender Singh further deposed that the accused Satprakash told him that he gave money to the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb. As per him, the accused Satprakash told him that he will commit suicide if the said witness demanded his money back from him and once the accused Satprakash and his son Rakesh Lakra threatened to thrash him if he demanded his money back. He further deposed that his complaint to EOW is Ex.PW-45/A2 bearing his signature at point A. The witness correctly identified the accused Satprakash.
166. PW-46 Sh. Gyan Singh deposed that he invested Rs.3,00,000/- on 10.04.2002 and Rs.1,00,000/- on 10.08.2002. As per him, the aforesaid sums were handed over to the accused Satprakash at his residence, where he started the office of the company as well i.e. at Dalmil Road, Uttam Nagar, Delhi and the accused Satprakash handed over to him a receipt Ex.PW-46/A1 on the letterhead of the company i.e. M/s Jyoti Fair Finance Company in respect to his investment i.e. Rs.3,00,000/- and in respect to his investment i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- the accused handed over to him the receipt cum declaration Ex.PW-46/A2 on the letter head of M/s Jyoti Fair Finance Company. The witness further deposed that he used to continuously get interest till the year 2003 i.e. upto the two Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 58 of 203 month prior to the elections and then it stopped and after two three months, when he started demanding money from the accused Satprakash, as he did not know any other person, the accused Satprakash kept delaying on one pretext or the other and also told him that he will commit suicide if he demanded money back from him. As per him, once the accused Satprakash and his son Rakesh Lakra threatened to thrash him if he demanded his money back. He proved his complaint to EOW on the record as Ex.PW-46/A3 (running into three pages) bearing his signature at point A. He further deposed that during investigation, he handed over some documents to the IO which were seized by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW-46/A4 which bears his signature at point A1 and he handed over photocopy of his bank account statement, bank statement of Sh. Bal Kishan and one photocopy of cheque issued in his favour which was issued from GPF account branch and photocopies of all the documents are Mark PW-46/A1, Mark PW-46/A2 and Mark PW-46/A3. On the day of testimony of the said witness, the accused Anita Devi and the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb were not present and their identity was not disputed by the defence however, the said witness correctly identified the accused Satprakash.
167. PW-47 Insp Pawan Singh deposed that in the year 2014, during investigation, he prepared supplementary chargesheet no.8 and filed the same in the court. He correctly identified the accused Satprakash before the court.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 59 of 203
168. PW-48 ACP Rajesh Kumar deposed that in the year 2014, the CFSL result was collected by him through HC Naresh and he handed over the CFSL report to SI Pawan.
169. PW-49 Smt. Phool Kaur w/o Sh. Jasbeer Singh deposed that she and her family invested Rs. 21,10,000/- in the company i.e Jyoti Finance Company, from the year 2001 to 2003 and the said amount was handed over to the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb through her son, namely Akshay. She deposed on oath that the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb told them that he will give 2% interest per month or he will double the amount in three years.
170. She further deposed that she was a teacher and her husband was Bank Manager and together they were in possession of 16 kille land and having enough to make investment of Rs. 21,10,000/-. As per her, she and her husband gave the said money to the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb upon an assurance that the money will be doubled in three years but the said accused never returned the money, except the interest for two three months.
171. As per her, they never got any receipt of investment from the accused persons. On the day of testimony of the said witness, the accused Anita Devi and the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb were not present in the court and their identity was not disputed by the defence.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 60 of 203
172. PW-50 Smt. Rajesh w/o Sh. Randhir Singh deposed that being distant relative, the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and the accused Anita Kharb used to frequently visit their house and they both told her that they have started a company namely M/s Jyoti Finance Company, Dalmil Road and money will be doubled in three years and they will give good interest.
173. As per her, upon inducement of both the accused persons, she invested a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in October 2000, Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- total amounting to Rs.7,00,000/- by way of cash and later on at the time of marriage of her daughter, she took Rs.4,50,000/- from the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and the accused persons neither gave any interest nor returned the remaining amount. She identified her complaint on record as Ex.PW34/N (already exhibited on 17.12.2021) and also identified her signatures thereof at point A.
174. She further deposed that she gave the first installment of Rs.2,00,000/- on 10.10.2002 and the last installment was given in July 2003. On the day of testimony of the said witness, the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and the accused Anita Kharb were not present in the court, their identity was not disputed by the Defence.
175. PW-51 Sh. Randhir Singh (SI, retired) s/o Sh. Nawal Singh deposed that the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and the Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 61 of 203 accused Anita Kharb started a company namely M/s Jyoti Finance Company, Dalimil Road, Uttam Nagar, Delhi. As per him, his wife was the middle person in the marriage of the accused persons and that is why the accused Anita Kharb used to frequently visit their house and his wife also used to go to the house of the accused persons.
176. He deposed that the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and the accused Anita Kharb told them to invest money in M/s Jyoti Finance Company and also told that they will give good interest and will also double the money in three years. As per him, in total they invested Rs.7,00,000/- through his wife by way of four installments i.e. two installments of Rs.2,00,000/- each and two installments of Rs.1,50,000/- each, starting from October 2002 and last installment was in July 2003. His further testimony is on the lines of the testimony of his wife PW 50. He identified his signatures at point B on the documents Ex.PW34/AM and Ex.PW34/AO (both exhibited on 18.04.2022) and also deposed that he handed over the documents mentioned in the seizure memo to police which are Ex.PW34/AN and Mark PW34/AO1 (colly.). On the day of the testimony of the said witness, the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and the accused Anita Kharb were not present in the court and their identity was not disputed by the Defence.
177. PW-52 Smt. Rajwati w/o Sajjan Singh deposed that she is buaa (Aunt) of the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and deposed Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 62 of 203 that the said accused Ranbir Singh Kharb started a company by the name of Jyoti Finance at Dalmil Road, Uttam Nagar and that he told her to invest money in the said company and promised returns of double the amount in three years or good interest. As per her, upon the inducement of the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, in September 2002, she invested Rs. 1,50,000/- in cash and said money was handed over to the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb at her residence, in the presence of her husband. She deposed that in total, she invested Rs. 6,00,000/- in the company at the instance of the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb which was given in four installments, from 2002 to 2003 i.e. Rs. 1,50,000/-, Rs. 2,00,000/-, Rs. 1,50,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- but despite requests, the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb did not issue any receipt.
178. She further deposed that after becoming MLA, despite demands, the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb refused to return any money and once when she was sitting in the office of the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb to seek her money, one Rajender, the nephew of the said accused, slapped her and thereafter, she made a complaint against him i.e. his nephew Rajender at PS-Najafgarh.
179. In the words of PW-52 Smt. Rajwati, the accused Anita Kharb also used to accompany the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb when he used to come to their house and despite efforts and despite repeated requests, both the accused persons did not return her money, therefore, she filed a police complaint Ex PW34/J at Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 63 of 203 Crime Branch, EOW. She proved her complaint given to PS Najafgarh against Rajender as Mark PW 52/A1. On the day of her testimony the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and the accused Anita Kharb were not present in the court and their identity was not disputed by the defence.
180. PW-53 Sh. Bijender s/o Sh. Munshi Ram deposed that on 22.06.2004, he gave a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb at his residence, at his instance and the money was given as loan to the said accused. As per him, on 15.11.2004, he again gave Rs. 1,15,000/- to the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb as friendly loan but the said accused never returned his money and upon asking about the return of money, the said accused told him to take his Ambassador car, but he never handed over the papers of the car and thus the car remained with the said accused only. He further stated on oath that he can identify all the accused persons, however, on the day of his testimony the accused persons were not present in the court, their identity was not disputed by the defence.
181. He further deposed that he was cheated by the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and that is why he gave a police complaint Ex.PW34/O (exhibited on 17.12.2021), which was drafted at his instance by his Counsel. As per him, the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb runs a finance company at Dalmil Road, Uttam Nagar, by the name of M/s Jyoti Fair Finance Company and that he gave Rs. 1,50,000/- to the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb on 22.06.2004, after Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 64 of 203 his election as an MLA, later he gave Rs. 50,000/- on 15.11.2004 and then Rs. 1,15,000/-.
182. As per the said witness, the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb promised that he will get him a liquor license, as he knows certain people, being the MLA and he alongwith Sunil together arranged Rs. 1,15,000/-, as the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb promised to get them a liquor license, for shop of Sunil at Najafgarh Road. He deposed that Sunil along with cousin of the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb went to the liquor department many times, however, Sunil did not get liquor license and many times the said witness demanded Rs. 3,15,000/- from the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, however, he denied.
183. He further deposed that the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb told him to take his car against aforementioned amount of Rs.3,15,000/- and thereafter, he got the valuation of the car done, which came out as Rs. 3.80 lakhs and Ranbir Singh Kharb told him to take his car and give him Rs. 65,000/- i.e. the balance of Rs. 3,80,000/- after deducting Rs. 3,15,000/- but Ranbir Singh Kharb never gave him RC of the said car and hence he could not sell the car however, Ranbir Singh Kharb gave Form 29 and Form 30 in reference to aforementioned sale of car. The said forms are Ex. PW 53/A1 (colly 2 pages) and Ex. PW 53/A2 (colly 2 pages), bearing signature of Ranbir Singh Kharb at point Q4 to Q7. The valuation report is Ex. PW 53/A4 and the said documents were Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 65 of 203 seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex. PW 34/AP, bearing his signatures at point B. He demanded receipt of aforementioned payment of Rs. 3,15,000/-, however, Ranbir Singh Kharb refused and threatened him with dire consequences if he demanded his money back and that he will get beaten up by his musclemen. His statement was recorded by the police as Ex. PW 53/A3.
184. PW-54, Smt. Beena w/o Dharambir deposed that the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb is her cousin and that he told her to invest money in his company, in the name of Jyoti. As per her, the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb told her that he will give 2% per month interest or double the amount in three years. As per the said witness, she gave Rs.1,80,000/- in the month of January, 2003 to the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb at her residence and again after 2- 3 months, she gave Rs. 45,000/- at the house of the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb. Again she gave Rs. 27,000/- and Rs. 28,000/- to the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb at his residence and finally in the month of September, 2003, she gave Rs. 1,40,000/- to the said accused at her residence.
185. As per PW-54, the accused Anita Kharb also used to accompany the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb. The witness further submitted that she invested a total sum of Rs. 4,20,000/- and both the accused persons paid the interest on her invested money for about three months. As per her, she made several demands to return her money along with the interest, but every time the Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 66 of 203 accused persons refused. It is her deposition that all the money was given in cash and no receipts were issued by the accused persons.
186. She further deposed that in the year 2005, she again requested the accused persons to return her money but both the accused persons refused, thereafter, she gave her complaint to the police at EOW. Her complaint is proved on record as Ex.PW 34/K bearing her signature at point A. On the day of her testimony the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and the accused Anita Kharb were not present in the court and their identity was not disputed by the defence.
187. PW-55 Smt Omwati w/o Ram Chander deposed that she and the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb are from the same village and that the said accused told her that she should invest money in his company by the name of Jyoti company and in return he will give double the amount in three years. As per her, upon the inducement of the accused persons, in the year 2002, she handed over Rs. 2,00,000/-, Rs. 90,000/-, Rs. 1,10,000/- and Rs. 1,50,000/- to the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb in cash, for investment in the company but the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb did not issue any receipt or any documentation.
188. She further deposed that the accused Anita Kharb is from the same village as her bhabhi (sister in law) and that she too told her to invest money in the company. She made a complaint to Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 67 of 203 the EOW Cell which is Ex.PW34/M (already exhibited on 17.12.2021), which bears her signature at point A. The witness correctly identified the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb before the court however, on the day of her testimony, the accused Anita Kharb was not present in the court, her identity was not disputed by the defence.
189. PW-56 Sh. Ram Chander s/o Sh. Surat Singh deposed that he knows the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb as his wife the accused Anita Kharb and his wife's sister in law are from the same village i.e. Village Rohana, Haryana. He deposed that the said accused used to frequently come to their house and his wife used to tie rakhi to him. As per him, his wife (i.e. the wife of the said witness) told him about Jyoti Finance company and that if they invest money they will get double the amount in three years. He further deposed that the aforesaid fact was informed to her by wife of his brother-in-law, Randhir.
190. It has come in the testimony of PW-56 that he invested Rs. 5.5 lakhs in cash in the company but no receipt was issued as it was a transaction between relatives and also stated that money was given from his savings. As per him, the money was given by his wife Omwati between 2002 and 2003 and it was handed over to the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and the accused Anita Kharb. the witness correctly identified the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and the accused Anita Kharb before the court.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 68 of 203
191. The said witness further deposed that in the year 2002, the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb came to his house and told him that he started a company called Jyoti Fair Finance Company and told him to invest in the said company by saying that he will get good return and the money will get doubled in three years. As per him, his wife sold one plot situated at Dinapur and the proceeds of the same were given by his wife to the accused persons to invest the same in the finance company. He handed over the photocopy of the passbook of his son and his daughter-in-law to the police. As per him, at several times his wife requested the accused persons to return the money however, the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb told her that he will return the money after Delhi Assembly Elections and that his wife went to his house on 27.05.2005 where the accused persons refused to return the invested money.
192. PW-57 Mahender Kumar Mishra, Addl, CP (Western Range) Janak Puri, Delhi deposed that on 31.01.2011 he was posted at Anti Forgery Section of EOW and he collected specimen signature of Satprakash, on five pages which are on record as Ex.PW57/A1.
193. PW-58 Sh. Sanjay Kanhaiya s/o Sh. Pratap Singh deposed that he was appearing on behalf of Rakesh Kumar, DTO- NZ/MR, vide authority letter Ex.PW58/A. He proved on record the documents pertaining to vehicle no.DL-2FBD-0010 i.e. Ex.PW58/B (colly. running into two pages). As per him, the said Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 69 of 203 vehicle was registered in the name of the accused Ranbir Singh and ownership of the same was transferred in the name of PW Sh. Gyan Singh on 21.04.2014.
194. PW-59, Sh. Vikram Kumar. He proved on record the statement of account number 9040 from 11.09.2011 to 07.09.2022 as Ex. PW 59/A1 alongwith the copy of account opening form, Ex.PW59/A (OSR). He placed on record the certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW59/A2. He also proved on record the account opening form of account number 9040, Punjab and Sind Bank, in the name of PW Randhir Singh S/o Nawal Singh as Ex.PW 59/A which a joint account in the name of PW Rajesh, W/o Randhir Singh.
195. PW-60 Sh. Shyam Lal Goel, Branch Manager, SBI Kanjhawla, placed on record the report Ex.PW34/AL vide which EOW sought the details of the inquiry of saving account no.01170012112 and other documents related to the said account. He further proved on record the certified copy of the account opening form of the abovementioned account which is in the name of PW Kuldeep s/o Sh. Ram Chander as Ex.PW60/A (colly. running into two pages). He further proved on record the account statement of the said account from the period 01.01.2003 to 31.12.2003 as Ex.60/B (colly. two pages).
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 70 of 203
196. PW-61 Sh. Attar Singh s/o Sh. Deep Chand deposed that he gave Rs.19,00,000/- to the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb to invest the same in the Company. As per the said witness, the money was taken on the pretext that it will be doubled in three years and alternatively there will be 2% per month interest on the investment.
197. In the words of PW Attar Singh, he initially invested Rs. 1,00,000/- and the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb gave him interest @2% per month for three months and thereafter, he invested an amount of Rs.19,00,000/- in 5-6 installments and thereafter, the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb did not return any money and stopped paying interest to him. He further deposed that the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb continuously assured him that he will return money after becoming MLA but despite repeated demands, he continuously made excuses and never gave his money back.
198. As per PW Attar Singh, he gave one signed complaint, against the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, to PW Kuldeep, to file the same on his behalf. The complaint is on record as Ex. PW34/L, bearing his signature at point A.
199. As per him, when he asked his money from the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, he threatened him and refused to give his money back. He deposed that he cannot identify the accused Anita Kharb but can identify the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, if shown Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 71 of 203 to him, however, on the day of the testimony of the said witness the said accused, Ranbir Singh Kharb was not present, the defence filed an exemption application.
200. PW-62 Sh. Jasbir Singh s/o Deep Chand deposed that the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb is his relative. As per him, in the year 2001, the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb started a company called Jyoti Finance and in the year 2001 the said accused told him that he will double his money in three years or will give 2% interest per month, if the said witness invested money in the company of the accused persons.
201. As per PW-62, he handed over an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- to the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, at the house of the said witness and thereupon the said accused gave him interest for two months.
202. It has further come in the testimony of PW 62 that the said witness, in total gave an amount of Rs.19,90,000/- to the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, in 9-10 installments of different amounts, through his son Akshay, at his house. As per the said witness, when the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb stopped paying any interest, then in the year 2003, his wife Smt. Phool Kaur went to the house of the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and he gave her an assurance that he will return the entire money after elections. However, after elections when his wife went to the house of the Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 72 of 203 accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, he refused to give his money and at that time the accused Anita Kharb was also present. As per him, the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb threatened him of dire consequences, thereafter, his son PW Akshay made a complaint against the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and the accused Anita Kharb. As per him, the said accused persons cheated him and committed a fraud against him. He deposed that police also recorded his statement.
203. He deposed that he cannot identify the accused Anita Kharb but can identify the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, if shown to him, however, on the day of the testimony of the said witness the said accused, Ranbir Singh Kharb was not present, the defence filed an exemption application.
204. PW-63 Sh. Devender deposed that his friend PW Jaipal told him that his relative has a finance company and if he invests money in the said company, he can get good returns. He gave Rs. 2,00,000/- in cash, in the year 2002, to Jaipal for investment in the finance company of the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, who was contesting MLA elections at that time. No receipt etc. was given to him against the aforesaid payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- and he got interest for 3-4 months. The said witness correctly identified the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb before the court however, qua the accused Anita Kharb and Satprakash, the said witness deposed that he cannot identify them.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 73 of 203
205. PW-64 Sh. Akshay Beniwal deposed that in the year 2001, his uncle (phoopa namely Sh. Kuldeep Singh) introduced him to the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb as he was his relative. As per him, in the month of June 2001, the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb told him that he formulated a finance company namely Jyoti Fair Finance Company which was named on the daughter's name of the accused persons. As per him, the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb allured him to invest in the said company and in return he promised to give high interest and also told him that he will double his amount, if he invest in the same company for the period of three years.
206. As per PW-64, the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb also told him that many of the villagers of the village Mundelha Khurd invested in the same company and were earning high returns and also informed him that the office of the said company was situated at Dal Mill Road, Uttam Nagar.
207. PW Akshay Beniwal deposed further that on the allurement of the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, he initially invested Rs.1,20,000/- in cash on 15.06.2001 on which the accused paid monthly interest for few months, thereafter, the accused again asked him to invest more money and on the inducement of the said accused the said witness again invested Rs.3,00,000/-, Rs.4,50,000/- and Rs.2,50,000/- on different occasions.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 74 of 203
208. As per him, when he invested Rs.2,50,000/-, the accused Anita Kharb was also present and she also induced him to invest in the above named company and deposed that the accused Anita Kharb used to be present alongwith the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb when he used to come to their house.
209. PW Akshay categorically stated on oath that whenever he used to demand the interest from the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, he used to suggest him to invest the said interest in the company, so that he could earn interest as well. As per him, in the year 2005, the accused persons refused to return his money and in total he invested around Rs.21,00,000/-. He gave his complaint to the police which is Ex.PW34/I. The witness correctly identified the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and the accused Anita Kharb, however, he failed to identify the accused Satprakash.
210. PW-65, ACP Sanjay Kumar deposed that he was posted in the EOW cell from the year 2008 to 2021 and in the month of September, 2010, the present case was marked to him for the investigation, as the previous IO/SI Anil Jindal had gone on medical leave. As per him, during investigation, three complaints of victims, namely Om Prakash, Rajbala and Ranbir Singh Dalal were marked to him and during investigation, he examined the abovementioned victims. He deposed that PW Ranbir Singh Dalal filed the complaint on behalf of his wife, namely Premwati.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 75 of 203
211. He further deposed that on 30.10.2010, the abovementioned victims came to the EOW cell and handed over him the documents which were seized by him. As per him, he seized the documents of victim Om Prakash vide seizure memo Ex.PW65/A. He seized the documents from victim Rajbala vide seizure memo Ex. PW 65/B and also seized the documents from victim Premwati vide seizure memo Ex. PW 65/C. He recorded their statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Witness correctly identified Ranbir Singh Kharb, Anita Kharb and Satprakash.
212. The accused Satprakash vide his statement 08.06.2022 admitted the CFSL report Ex.AB1/AD (colly. two pages) and account opening form of Syndicate bank as Ex.AB2/AD (colly. two pages).
213. No other witness was examined in PE and PE was closed and the matter was proceeded to the stage of examination of the accused persons u/s 313 Cr.PC.
Chapter-4 Statement of the accused persons U/s 313 Cr.PC
214. 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 matter at hand. They were questioned generally on the case. All the incriminating facts and circumstances were put to them, as Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 76 of 203 appeared in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the corresponding documents.
215. 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 most of the prosecution witnesses in the present matter. They denied inducing any person to invest money in the company.
216. Accused Anita Kharb stated, without oath, in the course of examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. that the present case against her is false. She said that she knows the PW3 and PW2, being her real brother and his son respectively, however, the allegations levelled by them are false. She admitted to being the Director of the company however, she stated that she never used to go to the office of the company and her brother PW Ranbir Singh Dahiya used to look after the work of the company. She denied receiving any money from any persons in the name of investment in the company.
217. Upon being questioned about any document executed in favour of complainant/victims, she denied any such execution and categorically stated that neither she nor her husband have ever executed any document in the favour of the complainant/ victims/any other person. She stated that she does not even know most of the prosecution witnesses and they were able to identify Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 77 of 203 her only because her husband was MLA and people have seen her with him. She denied signing any of the documents put forth by the prosecution. Lastly she stated that people have falsely implicated her and her husband due to political rivalries.
218. Similarly, even the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb stated that he does not even know most of the prosecution witnesses and that all prosecution witnesses have deposed falsely. He deposed that he never took any money from anyone and even the accused Anita Kharb and the accused Satprakash have never taken any money from anyone. He was local MLA and that is why he have political rivalry with lot of persons and that he has been falsely implicated.
219. He denied inducing anyone for investing money in the company. Qua PW Kuldeep he stated (without oath) that he sold a piece of land to said witness and the consideration was paid in cash. As per him, PW Randhir Singh Dahiaya filled false cases of dishonor of cheques, after stealing cheques from him.
220. He stated that he was a Government servant and have never participated in the affairs of the company. He denied executing any document in favour of any other victim/prosecution witnesses. He denied receiving any cheque/cash from any of the victims. He further stated that the investigation is false and frivolous and the IO was guided by the political rivals, all Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 78 of 203 recoveries were planted to falsely implicate him. He denied threatening any person ever and further denied having any connection with the company. He denied owing any money to any person and stated that he has been falsely implicated because of political rivalries and that the victims are merely trying to extort money out of them.
221. Similarly, the accused Satprakash deposed that he does not know why prosecution witnesses have deposed against him. He deposed that he has never taken any money from anyone, and if taken, he already returned the same. He further deposed that all the prosecution witnesses are deposing falsely and everything was done by the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb. He admitted that he used to sit at the office of M/s Jyoti Fair Finance Company but has not done anything. As per him, the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb used to run a committee (chit fund), however, he does not know anything further.
222. The accused persons Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb chose to lead DE and the accused Satprakash did not opt for the same.
Chapter-5 Defence Evidence
223. In toto, the defence called seven witnesses in support of their defence. It is appropriate to take on record their testimonies.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 79 of 203
224. DW-1, Sh. Sanjay Upreti, Judicial Assistant, Record Room (Criminal), Patiala House Courts, brought the original record of case titled as Santosh vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb, 314/04, Goshwara no. 10573/ 08, Ct. Misc. Further he placed on record the following documents:
i) Statement of Sh. Rakesh Kumar, s/o Satprakash, r/o G-
1/589, Dalmil Road, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, dated 09.03.2007, as DW-1/A1(OSR).
ii) Statement of Smt. Santosh w/o Kuldeep Kumar, r/o House No. 273, Mangolpur Kalan, Delhi,dated 06.12.2005, as DW-1/A2(OSR).
iii) Copy of legal notice to the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, exhibited under the signatures of then MM concerned, exhibited on 10.06.2004,dated 13.05.2004, as Mark DW-1/A3.
225. DW-2 W/Ct. Babita, PS - Jaffarpur Kalan appeared placed on record the copy of FIR bearing no. 150/07, PS - Jaffarpur Kalan, u/s 380/467/468/471/420/209/120B IPC as Ex. DW2/A1 (OSR) (colly. 6 pages).
226. DW-3 Sh. Jaideep Kreshan, JA/Ahlmad from the court of Ms Deepika Singh, Ld. SCJ/RC, Rohini Courts brought the original record of the Complaint Case No. 910/09 from the court of Sh. Ashutosh Kumar, the then Ld. SCJ-cum-RC. He also placed on record the following documents :
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 80 of 203
i) Copy of judgment dated 27.01.2011, passed by SCJ-cum-RC, North-West Distt., Rohini, Ex. DW3/A1(OSR).
ii) Complaint of the complainant, namely, Ranbir Singh Dahiya, Ex. DW3/A2(OSR)
iii) Legal notice under the signatures of S.K. Gulati, addressed to Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb, Ex. DW3/A3(OSR)
iv) Reply of aforesaid legal notice,Ex.DW3/A4 (OSR).
He also brought the original record of Complaint Case No. 911/09 from the court of Sh. Ashutosh Kumar, the then Ld. SCJ-cum-RC and also placed on record the following documents :
i) Order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 13.01.2009, Ex. DW3/A5(OSR).
ii) Judgment dated 14.02.2011, passed by SCJ-cum-
RC, North-West Distt., Rohini, Ex. DW3/A6(OSR).
iii) Copy of complaint, Ex. DW3/A7(OSR).
iv) Legal notice to accused Anita Kharb and Ranbir Singh Kharb, Ex. DW3/A8(OSR).
v) Reply to the said legal notice,Ex. DW3/A9(OSR).
227. DW-4 Sh. Dilbar Singh, JA/Ahlmad in the court of Sh. Ajay Gulati, Ld. ADJ, Tis Hazari Courts brought the record of Suit No. 14767/16, from the court of Ld. ADJ-01, Central Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 81 of 203 District. He placed on record the following documents:
i) Copy of judgment dated 26.03.2018 passed by Ld. ADJ-01, Central Tis Hazari, Ex. DW4/A1(OSR).
ii) The decree sheet of the aforementioned judgment, Ex. DW4/A2(OSR)
iii) Receipt-cum-declaration which is referred to as document Ex. PW1/1 in the aforesaid judgment dated 26.03.2018, Ex. DW4/A3(OSR)
iv) Receipt-cum-declaration which is referred to as document Ex. PW1/2 in the aforesaid judgment dated 26.03.2018, Ex. DW4/A4(OSR)
v) FSL report dated 29.10.2010 which is referred to as document Ex. DW3/1 in the aforementioned judgment dated 26.03.2018, Ex. DW4/A5(OSR)
228. DW-5 HC Praveen Kumar, PS-Bawana brought the copy of FIR No. 430/2006, PS-Bawana, under the seal of the Police Station and he proved the same on record as Mark D5/A1.
229. DW-6 HC Ranbir Singh, PS-Baroda, Sonepat, Haryana brought the copy of FIR No. 99/95, PS-Baroda, Sonepat, Haryana under the seal of the Police Station and same is proved as Mark D6/A1.
230. DW-7 Rajesh Kumar, Record Keeper (S.R.R), Office of District & Sessions Judge, Rohtak, Haryana brought the Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 82 of 203 original record of Complaint Case No. 118 dated 10.03.2004, titled as Mrs. Suman Sapra & Ors. Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb, from the court of Ms. Manisha Batra, CJM, Rohtak and the record of the court of Sessions i.e. Crl. Appeal No.36/2007, titled as Ranbir Vs. Suman Sapra & Ors. from the court of Sh. R.C.Godara, Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Rohtak. He placed on record the following documents :
i) Copy of complaint u/s 138-142 of NI Act is Ex. DW7/A1(OSR) (colly. running into four pages)
ii) Legal notice dated 24.01.2004 under the signatures of B.B. Batra, Advocate, Ex.DW7/A2.
iii) Reply of the legal notice is Ex.DW7/A3.
iv) Copy of judgment of the court of Ld. CJM, dated 23.03.2007 Ex.DW7/A4 (OSR).
v) Copy of the judgment of Ld. ASJ, dated 22.04.2008 as Ex.DW7/A5 (OSR).
231. No other defence witness was examined and thereafter, the mater was proceeded to the stage of final arguments.
Chapter-6 Final arguments
232. Due opportunity was given to both the sides. Oral arguments were heard at length. The arguments commenced on 07.08.2023 and on 23.11.2023 the matter was reserved for orders. Despite grant of time and opportunity, neither side filed written arguments.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 83 of 203
233. Whereas the Prosecution has argued that through witnesses examined and through the documents placed on record, the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubts and thus the accused persons ought to be convicted and punished, the defence on the other hand, has argued that the accused persons are innocent and deserve acquittal.
234. Ld. APP argued that the defence has failed to point out any irregularities/contradictions in the testimonies of the Prosecution Witnesses and the said testimonies do inspire confidence and thus, they ought to be believed in entirety. To the contrary, the defence argued on behalf of the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb that there are umpteen contradictions in the testimonies of the Prosecution Witnesses, none of the testimony is supported by documentary evidence and wherever there is any document, it has no verification from the FSL and thus, as per the defence counsels, no case is made out.
235. Ld. Counsels representing the accused Satprakash argued that there is hardly any role attributable to the said accused. As per him, most of the prosecution witnesses have failed to identify the said accused and thus, he ought to be acquitted.
236. Ld. LAC representing the accused Satprakash has further argued that whereas on one hand there are no merits in the testimonies of PW-45 and PW-46, on the other hand PW-40 has Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 84 of 203 already given a clean chit to accused Satprakash and therefore, no case is made out against accused Satprakash.
237. Considering the enormous volume of the record and the number of PWs, at request of Ld. Counsels for the accused persons and Ld. APP, the final arguments were addressed separately qua each victim and each witness. The said arguments were duly noted and due opportunity was given to all the Counsels to rebut. Individual arguments qua each PW have also been noted in the individual discussion under Chapter-8.
238. At this juncture, this court places on record its appreciation for Ld. APP for the state and the Ld. Defence Counsels for their cooperation in taking this trial to its logical end.
Chapter-7 Background of connected matters & the applicable law
239. Having considered the entire record and having heard at length arguments, I shall now proceed to decide the matter on its merits, however, before that the background of the matter at hand must be mentioned.
240. In the matter at hand, in total eight supplementary charge sheets have been filed and accordingly separate charges were framed on 04.11.2009, 13.12.2011, 22.03.2012, 21.06.2014 and 05.10.2015. These subsequent charge sheets are in nature of Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 85 of 203 supplementary chargesheets and not separate chargesheets and therefore, there was no order of separation of trial qua each chargesheet.
241. It may further be noted that in total four connected matters concerning the same accused persons were being tried simultaneously i.e. the present FIR, FIR No.761/07, FIR No.55/14 and FIR N.95/11. Certain record/certain documents which formed the part of connected matters were also relied upon and were duly put to the accused persons in their personal examination as well (u/s 313 Cr.PC). These documents were relied upon in their original form, as filed by the investigating agency, from the connected matters themselves as all the said connected matters were pending trial before this court.
242. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused persons, in pursuance of their criminal conspiracy, cheated the innocent investors by inducing them to invest money in the company, against huge returns of 2% per month interest and double amount in 3 years, without having intention of ever repaying the investment money or the interest thereof. As per the prosecution, the accused persons acting in course of criminal conspiracy, being directors of the company and committed offences u/s 506/409/ 420/120 B IPC.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 86 of 203
243. Before moving to the appreciation of the evidence and the adjudicatory discussion, I deem it appropriate to take on record the relevant law on the subject. The law on conspiracy is abundantly clear and for a refresher I deem it appropriate to cite a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled Firozuddin Basheeruddin & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala (Supreme Court of India on 20 th August 2001) it has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court that :
Interpreting the provisions in Section 120A and 120B of the IPC, this Court in the case of Saju vs. State of Kerala, (2001) 1 SCC 378 held:
To prove the charge of criminal conspiracy the prosecution is required to establish that two or more persons had agreed to do or caused to be done, an illegal act or an act which is not legal, by illegal means. It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such crime or is merely incidental to that object. To attract the applicability of Section 120-B it has to be proved that all the accused had the intention and they had agreed to commit the crime. There is no doubt that conspiracy is hatched in private and in secrecy for which direct evidence would rarely be available. It is also not necessary that each member to a conspiracy must know all the details of the conspiracy. This Court in Yash Pal Mittal v. State of Punjab (1977) 4 SCC 540 held: (SCC p.543-44, para 9) The offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-A is a distinct offence introduced for the first time in 1913 in Chapter V-A of the Penal Code. The very agreement, concert or league is the ingredient of the offence. It is not necessary that all the conspirators must know each and every detail of the conspiracy as long as they are con-
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 87 of 203 conspirators in the main object of the conspiracy. There may be so many devices and techniques adopted to achieve the common goal of the conspiracy and there may be division of performances in the chain of actions with one object to achieve the real end of which every collaborator must be aware and in which each one of them must be interested. There must be unity of object or purpose but there may be plurality of means sometimes even unknown to one another, amongst the conspirators. In achieving the goal several offences may be committed by some of the conspirators even unknown to the others. The only relevant factor is that all means adopted and illegal acts done must be and purported to be in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy even though there may be sometimes misfire or overshooting by some of the conspirators. Even if some steps are resorted to by one or two of the conspirators without the knowledge of the others it will not affect the culpability of those others when they are associated with the object of the conspiracy. The significance of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-A is brought out pithily by this Court in E.G.Barsay v. State of Bombay (1962) 2 SCR 195 (SCR at p.228) thus:
The gist of the offence is an agreement to break the law. The parties to such an agreement will be guilty of criminal conspiracy, though the illegal act agreed to be done has not been done. So too, it is not an ingredient of the offence that all the parties should agree to do a single illegal act. It may comprise the commission of a number of acts. Under Section 43 of the Indian Penal Code, an act would be illegal if it is an offence or if it is prohibited by law. Under the first charge the accused are charged with having conspired to do three categories of illegal acts, and the mere fact Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 88 of 203 that all of them could not be convicted separately in respect of each of the offences has no relevancy in considering the question whether the offence of conspiracy has been committed. They are all guilty of the offence of conspiracy to do illegal acts, though for individual offences all of them may not be liable.
We are in respectful agreement with the above observations with regard to the offence of criminal conspiracy.
244. It has thus to be established that the accused charged with criminal conspiracy had agreed to pursue a course of conduct which he knew was leading to the commission of a crime by one or more persons to the agreement, of that offence. Besides the fact of agreement, the necessary mens rea of the crime is also required to be established.
245. The law regarding cheating has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in number of cases. In case titled Hridaya Rangan Pd. Verma & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & another (Supreme Court of India on 31st March 2000) it has been held that:
Cheating is defined in Section 415 of the Code as, "Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 89 of 203 property, is said to "cheat".
Explanation - A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section. The section requires - (1) Deception of any person. (2) (a) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person (i) to deliver any property to any person; or
(ii) to consent that any person shall retain any property; or
(b) intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body mind, reputation or property.
On a reading of the section it is manifest that in the definition there are set forth two separate classes of acts which the person deceived may be induced to do. in the first place he may be induced fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver any property to any person. The second class of acts set forth in the section is the doing or omitting to do anything which the person deceived would not do or omit to do if he were not so deceived. In the first class of cases the inducing must be fraudulent or dishonest. In the second class of acts, the inducing must be intentional but not fraudulent or dishonest. In determining the question it has to be kept in mind that the distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating is a fine one. It depends upon the intention of the accused at the time to inducement which may be judged by his subsequent conduct but for this subsequent conduct is not the sole test. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, that is the time when the offence is said to have been committed. Therefore it is the intention which is the gist of the Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 90 of 203 offence. To hold a person guilty of cheating it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. From his mere failure to keep up promise subsequently such a culpable intention right at the beginning, that is, when he made the promise cannot be presumed.
246. In Ram Jas v State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court enumerated the essential ingredients required to constitute the offence of cheating as follows:
(1) There should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person deceiving him; (2) (a) the person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property; or
(b) the person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and (3) in cases covered by (2) (b), the act or omission should be one which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property.
247. It is necessary to consider that for the offence of cheating to be made out, the inducement by the accused to the complainant must have been in the initial or early part of the transaction itself. Here too, what is important is to prove that at or about the time that the person induced was made to part with money, the respondents (ie, alleged accused persons) ought to have known that their representation was false and that the representation was Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 91 of 203 made with the intention of deceiving the other person. if this is not shown, then the dispute is only civil in nature. Thus, in Hari Prasad Chamaria v Bhisun Kumar Surekha (AIR 1974 SC 301), the Supreme Court held that the fact that subsequent to the transaction, the respondents did not honour their promises would only create a civil liability, and criminal liability cannot be fastened on the accused.
248. Section 420 deals with certain aggravated forms or specified classes of cheating. Thus, s 420 deals with cases of cheating, whereby, the deceived person is dishonestly induced:
(a) To deliver any property to any person; or
(b) To make, alter or destroy:
(i) the whole or any part of a valuable security; or
(ii) anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security.
249. Qua the offence of criminal breach of trust what is most important is 'entrustment' of the property and a subsequent misappropriation at the hands of the accused. As the title to the offence itself suggests, 'entrustment' of property is an essential requirement before any offence under this section takes place. The language of the section is very wide. The words used are 'in any manner entrusted with property'. So, it extends to 'entrustments' of all kinds, whether to clerks, servants, business partners or other persons, provided they are holding a position of 'trust'. In common parlance, it embraces all cases in which a thing handed over by one person to another for specific purpose.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 92 of 203
250. In respect of criminal breach of trust by public servants, a much more stringent punishment of life imprisonment or imprisonment up to 10 years with fine is provided. This is because of the special status and the trust which a public servant enjoys in the eyes of the public as a representative of the government owned enterprises. Under Sec. 409, IPC, the entrustment of property or dominion should be in the capacity of the accused as a public servant, or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, broker, etc. The entrustment should have nexus to the office held by the public servant as a public servant.
251. The prosecution dealing with cases of criminal breach of trust by a public servant is required to prove not only that the accused was a public servant but also was in such a capacity entrusted with property or with domination over the same and he committed breach of trust in respect of that property.
Chapter - 8 Appreciation of evidence
252. Keeping in mind the enormity of the trial (the first PW was examined on 19.12.2009 and the last DW was examined on 02.08.2023), the volume of the record, the number of witnesses and the complexity of the matter, in my considered opinion, it will be best suited if the appreciation of the evidence is done qua each victim separately.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 93 of 203
253. Following are the victims as per the prosecution story:
Sl. No. Name of the Victim/PW Alleged cheated amount 1 PW-2 Sh. Pravin Kumar Rs. 23,00,000/- 2 PW-3 Sh. Ranbir Dahiya Rs.1.34 Crores 3 PW-4 Sh. Attar Singh s/o Rs.10,00,000/-, this sum is already Lal Singh covered under the sum averred by PW-3 Ranbir Dahiya 3 PW-5 Sh. Girdhari Rs.15,00,000/- 4 PW-6 Randhir Singh Rs. 6,00,000/-, this sum is already covered under the sum averred by PW-2 Praveen Dahiya 5 PW-8 Baljeet Singh Rs. 5,00,000/-, this sum is already covered under the sum averred by PW-2 Praveen Dahiya 6 PW-29 Parmila Rs. 9,00,000/-, this sum is already covered under the sum averred by PW-2 Praveen Dahiya 7 PW-35 Om Prakash Rs.16,00,000/- 8 PW-36 Ranbir Singh Dalal Rs.5,00,000/- 9 PW-37 Jaipal Malik Rs.25,00,000/-, this sum includes the following :
i) Rs. 5,00,000/- of Master Lal Chand (PW-38);
ii) Rs. 6,00,000/- of PW-39 Sukhbir Singh;
iii) Rs. 2,00,000/- of Devender Dalal (PW-63);
iv) Rs.5,00,000/- of Chander Singh Malik (not examined, as deceased);
v) Rs. 2,00,000/- of Rajender Singh (not examined, as deceased);
vi) Rs. 2,00,000/- of Om Prakash (not examined, as deceased).
10 PW-40 Bal Kishan Rs. 2,00,000/-
11 PW-41 Kuldeep Singh Rs.20,20,000/-
12 PW-42 Vinod Kumar Rs.16,50,000/-
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 94 of 203 13 PW-44 Smt. Raj Bala Rs.6,00,000/-
14 PW-45 Gajender Singh Rs.4,50,000/-
15 PW-46 Gyan Singh Rs.4,00,000/-
16 PW-50 Smt. Rajesh Rs.2,50,000/-
17 PW-52 Rajwati Rs.6,00,000/-
18 PW-53 Bijender Rs.3,15,000/-
19 PW-54 Beena Rs.4,20,000/-
20 PW-55 Omwati Rs.5,00,000/-
21 PW-61 Attar Singh Rs.19,00,000/-
22 PW-64 Akshay Rs. 21,10,000/-, this sum is covered under the amount invested by PW-49 Phool Kaur and PW-62 Jasbir Singh 8.1 - PW-2 Pravin Singh
254. PW-2 Sh. Pravin Singh is amongst prime prosecution witnesses and it will not be incorrect to say that the entire case of the prosecution primarily hinges upon the testimony of the said witness and his father, PW-3 Ranbir Singh Dahiya. The accused Anita Devi is his bua (Aunt) and the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb is his fufa (Uncle).
255. As per him, both the aforesaid accused persons allured him to invest money in the company, against high returns. In total, he invested Rs.23 lakhs, by way of cash, the money was handed over to the said accused persons, in various installments from January 2001 to December 2002.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 95 of 203
256. He has deposed on oath that the accused Anita Kharb, against the aforesaid sum, issued a receipt Ex.PW2/A. As per him, the accused persons have not returned the invested amount nor they have paid the accrued interest.
257. The said witness correctly identified both the accused persons namely Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb before the court, but there is no identification qua accused Satprakash. The allegations of inducement are also against the said two accused persons only and not against accused Satprakash.
258. For the sake of convenience, a tabulation of the testimony of PW-2 is being produced hereunder:
Name of the victim & amount PW-2 Sh. Pravin Dahiya Amount : Rs.23,00,000/-
Ranbir Singh Anita Kharb Satprakash
Kharb
Identified or not Yes Yes No
Inducement or not Yes Yes No
Documents of No Yes, i.e. No
acknowledgment/Receipts of document
payment Ex.PW2/A
FSL opinion on No Yes, positive No
documents/receipts qua the
signatures of the
accused Anita
Kharb
Money Trail None
Money Handover by victims Yes Yes No
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 96 of 203
259. The document sought to be proved by the said witness i.e. document Ex.PW2/A (hand written receipt, under the signature of accused Anita Kharb), finds due corroboration from the FSL report, which certifies that the signatures at point Q1 on the said document i.e. Ex.PW2/A are that of the accused Anita Kharb.
260. Ld. APP has argued that the testimony of the aforesaid witness i.e. PW2 is clear and coherent and is categorically supported by the documentary evidence i.e. Ex.PW2/A, the scientific evidence in the form of the FSL report and also by the testimonies of other PWs namely PW-6, PW-8 and PW-29.
261. As per Ld. APP, the testimony of PW2 establishes inducement at the hands of the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb, the delivery of property i.e. a sum of Rs.23 lakhs to the said accused persons and also establishes the intention of the accused persons towards committing the offences of criminal breach of trust, cheating and criminal conspiracy.
262. In the words of Ld. Prosecutor, the said witness Pravin Dahiya has clearly explained the source of money and there are no major contradictions in his cross examination.
263. Accordingly, Ld. APP has suggested that the said testimony is entitled to be believed in its entirety and said two accused persons can be convicted on the basis thereof.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 97 of 203
264. On the other hand, Ld. Defence Counsel Sh. A.N. Aggarwal has argued that there is no money trail in the form of bank entries/cheques etc. and merely because there is an FSL report in the favour of a document, it does not mean that the document is genuine. It was argued that the document Ex.PW2/A i.e. the receipt in amount of Rs.23 Lakhs, dated 30.06.2003, under the signature of the accused Anita Devi, is forged and fabricated and the signatures of accused Anita Devi on the said document have been obtained by fraud. As per Ld. Defence Counsel, the said receipt is in the hand writing of PW3 and is in favour of PW2; the said two PWs share a relationship of father and son and it is not a matter of surprise that the said document bestows a wrongful benefit of Rs.23 lakhs in the favour of PW2.
265. Further, it was argued, qua Ex.PW2/A, that the said document merely shows liability of the accused Anita Kharb however, it does not per se prove the offence of cheating or any other offence.
266. Ld. Defence Counsel argued further that in his cross- examination, PW-2 has stated that a total amount of Rs.2.5 Crores was given by him to the accused persons. This, as per the Ld. Defence Counsel, is in clear contradiction to the previous statement that a sum of Rs.23 lakhs was given. Pointing out at the said two statements, the defence counsel has argued that PW-2 is unworthy of being believed and his testimony is full of Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 98 of 203 contradictions.
267. It was further argued that despite saying that the money was borrowed from the relatives, no documentations have been placed on record to show what money was borrowed from which relative and similarly the said borrowed amount has not been shown in the ITR of the witness PW2.
268. The defence counsel has argued that all the aforesaid pointers, taken together, impeach the credit of the witness and make his testimony unacceptable.
269. Having heard both the sides and having carefully gone through the testimony of PW2 and the corresponding documents thereof, I am of the considered opinion that the said testimony is worthy of acceptance and being believed.
270. The testimony of PW2 clearly establishes inducements at the hands of the accused persons namely Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb. It clearly shows that the said two accused persons, on multiple occasions, induced PW2 to invest money in the company, against promised unrealistic returns of 2% per month interest or double the amount in three years.
271. The court finds merits in the submissions of Ld. APP that the testimony of PW-2 is clear and coherent and is categorically Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 99 of 203 supported by the documentary evidence i.e. Ex.PW2/A, the scientific evidence in the form of the FSL report and is also corroborated by the testimonies of PW-6 Randhir Singh, PW-8 Baljeet and PW-29 Parmila.
272. PW2, through his testimony has established inducements at the hands of the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb, the delivery of property i.e. a sum of Rs.23 lakhs to the said accused persons and also establishes the intention of the accused persons towards committing the offence of cheating. There are no major contradictions in the testimony, contradictions, if any, are minor and do not affect the merits thereof.
273. This court finds no merits in the arguments of Ld. Defence Counsel that the source of money has not been explained.
274. The prosecution has categorically examined PW-6 Randhir Singh, in support of the testimony of PW2. PW-6 Randhir Singh has deposed that it is he who gave Rs.6 lakhs to accused Ranbir Singh Kharb at the instance of his son-in-law, PW2 Pravin Dahiya.
275. Similarly, the prosecution has also examined PW8 Baljeet Singh who is Mama (Uncle) of PW2 Pravin Dahiya. PW Baljeet Singh has deposed that he gave a sum of Rs.5 lakhs to PW Pravin Dahiya for investment in the company. The contextually Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 100 of 203 relevant portion of the testimony of the said witness is quoted hereunder:
"I did not make investment in the company of the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb. I had given Rs. 5 lakh to Praveen Dahia as he needs to invested in the firm of Jyoti Fair & Finance of accused Ranbir Singh Kharb in December 2002. Accused Ranbir Singh Kharb gave receipt of Rs.23 lakhs to Praveen Dahia s/o Ranbir Singh Dahia & I made signature on the same receipt as witness at point B on Ex.PW2/A."
276. It is important to mention here that PW Baljeet Singh is also one of attesting witnesses on document Ex.PW2/A, his signature appears at point B on the said document. Furthermore, the testimony of PW-8 Baljeet is additionally corroborated by the testimony of PW-10A, Naresh Kumar Garg, Deputy General Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari, Delhi, qua the financial capacity of the said witness PW-8.
277. On similar lines PW-29 Ms. Parmila w/o Ajeet Singh has deposed that she gave Rs. 9 lakhs to PW Pravin, consequent to the inducement by the accused Anita Kharb. The contextually relevant portion of the testimony of the witness is quoted here :
"Accused Anita told me to give the money through my dever Praveen and I agreed for the same. Firstly, I invested Rs.5,00,000/- in cash and again I handed over Rs.4,00,000/- in cash. Thereafter, accused Anita confirmed me that she has received Rs.9,00,000/- which was given by me to Praveen. I received interest from the Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 101 of 203 accused for few months but after few months they stopped paying me the interest. Thereafter, I asked Praveen for the same and I alongwith Praveen went to the house of accused Anita and I demanded to give back my money and I also asked her to give some proof for the amount which I had invested. Accused Anita told me that as the above mentioned amount was handed over to her by Praveen so she will give the receipt in the name of Praveen only. Accused Anita handed over a receipt to Praveen for an amount of Rs.23,00,000/- and she told me that my amount is mentioned in the same receipt."
278. It is pertinent to mention here that PW-29 Ms. Parmila has clearly explained the receipt Ex.PW2/A and the amount mentioned therein by stating that the accused Anita Kharb told her that the amount of Rs.23 lakhs, mentioned on the receipt, is inclusive of her amount (Rs.9 lakh) as well and the receipt is issued in the name of PW-2 Pravin Dahiya only because the said money was handed over to the accused persons through PW-2 Pravin Dahiya.
279. Furthermore, in the considered opinion of this court, the absence of loan entries in ITR does not per se become a reason to disbelieve the testimony.
280. Document Ex.PW2/A i.e. receipt, under the signature of accused Anita Kharb, clearly shows an admission of liability of Rs.23 lakhs on the part of the said accused. The argument put forth Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 102 of 203 by the defence that the said document merely shows liability of the accused Anita Kharb however, it does not per se prove the offence of cheating, is liable to be rejected in toto, because cheating is attempted to be proved by the testimony of the witness i.e. PW2 and document Ex.PW2/A is merely a supporting document, adding weight to the said testimony. A document cannot be assumed to be pedantic enough so as to en-capsule the entire facts and even the intention, it can, at best, capture the factual proceedings, which document Ex.PW2/A does.
281. The FSL report the document Ex.PW34/AQ clearly establishes that the questioned signature at point Q1 on document Ex.PW2/A are that of accused Anita Kharb. The executing witness on the said document i.e. PW8 Baljeet Singh has also deposed that the receipt was executed by the accused Anita Kharb. Similarly, PW- 29 Parmila has also deposed that a receipt of Rs.23 lakhs was handed over to PW Pravin by the said accused, after having confirmed that amount of Rs.9 lakhs was received by her from PW Pravin Dahiya. In these circumstances, merely because the said document Ex.PW2/A is in the handwriting of PW3, does not warrant rejection of the said document, nor it is suggestive of fraud.
282. In the considered opinion of this court there is no contradiction qua the invested amount, as PW2 Pravin Dahiya has clearly stated that the amount that he invested is Rs.23 lakhs Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 103 of 203 (which includes Rs.9 lakhs of PW 29 Parmila, Rs.6 lakhs of PW6 Randhir Singh and Rs.5 Lakh of PW-8 Baljeet Singh) and the other amounts/other sums of money which were invested by his father or other relatives are distinct and separate. Thus, the court finds no merits in the argument of the Ld. Defence Counsel that there is a clear contradiction to the previous statement that a sum of Rs.23 lakhs was given, against statement in the cross examination that a sum of Rs.2.5 crores was given.
283. The witness has very well explained himself and has clarified qua the amount of Rs.23 lakhs. The contextually relevant portion from the cross examination of PW-2 is being produced herehunder:
"Total amount of Rs. two & half crore was given by me to accused persons. Again said this amount was given by me and my father but I have given Rs.23 lakhs to the accused persons. I had given this amount in different occasions. In first instance I gave Rs.9 lakhs, then Rs.6 lakhs, then Rs.5 Lakhs, then Rs.3 Lakhs. I do not remember dates of these payment but I had noted down the dates and the said document is with me at my house. I had not stated in FIR that the payment was made in 4 installments as stated above."
284. It is settled law that a testimony cannot be disbelieved on account of minor contradictions, fractions of the testimony cannot be read in isolation, for the court is obligated to read the entire testimony as a whole in its spirit and the defence cannot escape Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 104 of 203 from liability merely by pointing out at ambiguities. It is also settled law that it is the duty of the court to separate grain from chaff.
285. To conclude the discussion on PW2, this court holds that the said testimony inspires confidence and is worthy of being believed, specially on account of its corroboration from document Ex.PW2/A, testimony of PW-6, PW-8 and PW-29.
8.2 - PW-3 Ranbir Singh Dahiya and PW-4 Attar Singh
286. PW-3 Ranbir Singh Dahiya is real brother of the accused Anita Kharb and is the father of the complainant PW-2. As per him, the accused persons Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb induced him to invest money in the company, on the allurement of higher returns. He stated that in January 2000, he handed over Rs.50,000/- in cash to the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb and they both made payment of Rs.1000/-, as one month's interest.
287. PW-3 deposed on oath that between 2002 to 2003, he handed over Rs.22,00,000/- to the accused persons Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb, out of which Rs.12,00,000/- belongs to him and Rs.10,00,000/- belongs to his brother-in-law Attar Singh.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 105 of 203
288. In the words of PW-3 Ranbir Singh Dahiya, the accused persons Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb used to visit his house often and used to tell his relatives and friends to invest money in their firm/the company and in consequence thereof, a total sum of Rs.1 Crore 78 lakhs was handed over to the accused persons Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb, by his friends and relatives and he always accompanied them at the time of handing over the aforesaid money to both the accused persons.
289. In support of his statement PW-3 has relied upon document Ex.X1 (Exhibited on 31.08.2021), which a receipt cum declaration in the amount of Rs.1.78 crores, under the signature of accused Ranbir Singh Kharb (bearing his signature at point Q-17), accused Anita Kharb (bearing her signature at point Q-16) and PW-29 Pramila has signed as an attesting witness.
290. He has explained the absence of the intermittent receipts of the various sums of money, handed over to the accused persons, by stating that the accused persons did not provide any receipts by saying "Hum Rishteydar Hain aur rasid vagraha kya hoti hai, Jaban hi Kafi Hain", however he stated that the accused persons provided one consolidated receipt in form of document Ex. X1.
291. As per him, the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb issued four cheques with below mentioned description :
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 106 of 203
i) Two cheques of amount of Rs. 45,00,000/-
each
ii) Two cheques of amount Rs. 44,00,000/- each.
292. Thus, making the total cheque amount as Rs.1.78 crores. however, on presentation, all the cheques were dishonoured.
293. As per PW-3, despite insistence of all the investors, the said accused persons issued cheques in the name of the said witness himself i.e. PW-Ranbir Singh Dahiya and refused to issue separate cheques in their respective names. It is also deposed that two investors, namely Smt. Suman and Smt. Santosh, insisted upon the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb to issue cheques in their respective names and therefore, upon their persistence the said accused took back a cheque of Rs. 44,00,000/- and issued a cheque each to Smt. Suman and Santosh, amounting to Rs. 22,45,000/- and Rs. 18,60,000/- respectively.
294. It has further come in the testimony of PW-3 that the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb entered into a settlement with Smt. Santosh and Smt. Suman and returned the money to both of them, after they filed individual cases in different courts at Rohtak and Delhi.
295. As per him, he too had filed a complaint case u/s 138 NI Act against the said accused Ranbir Singh Kharb in Tis Hazari Courts, in which the accused was convicted for two years Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 107 of 203 imprisonment and Rs.50,000/- fine was imposed upon him, however despite this, he did not return the money.
296. PW-3 proved the following documents:
a) His typed complaint to EOW as Ex.PW34/D.
b) The colored photocopies of the sale deed, agreement to sell, GPA etc. of the property number G1/112, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, given to him by the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb as Mark PW34/Y1.
c) The self-attested photocopy of receipt-cum-
declaration dated 15.05.2003 executed by the accused Anita Kharb and Ranbir Singh Kharb as Mark 29/A.
d) The photocopy of three cheques amounting to Rs.1,34,00,000/- and the report from Cooperation bank as Mark-PW34/Y2 (colly.).
e) Seizure memo of the aforesaid coloured copies etc. as Ex. PW 34/Y.
f) The original receipt-cum-declaration in respect to the amount of Rs. 1,78,00,000/-, which he handed over to the police, as Ex. X1 (exhibited on 31.08.2021).
297. The said witness correctly identified all the accused persons before the court.
298. As per his testimony, he was induced by the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb to invest money in the name Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 108 of 203 of the company, however, he has leveled no allegations against accused Satprakash.
299. He is in possession of acknowledgment/receipt against accused Anita Kharb and Ranbir Singh Kharb i.e. document Ex.X.1, on which the FSL has given positive opinion, by affirming that the signatures on the said document, at point at Q-16 and Q- 17, are that of the accused persons. There is no money trail showing any ingress/egress of money from/to the bank accounts of accused persons/the company etc. For the sake of convenience, a tabulation of testimony of PW-3 is being produced as under :
Name of the victim & PW-3 Ranbir Singh Dahiya amount Amount : Rs.1.34 Crores, out of which it is specified that 12 lakhs belong to PW-3 himself and 10 lakhs belongs to PW-4 Attar Singh.
Ranbir Singh Anita Kharb Satprakash
Kharb
Identified or not Yes Yes Yes
Inducement or not Yes Yes No
Documents of Yes Yes No
acknowledgment/
Receipts of payment
FSL opinion on Yes Yes No
documents/receipts
Money Trail None
Money Handover by Yes Yes No
victims
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 109 of 203
300. Qua PW-3, Ld. APP argued that like PW2, the testimony of PW3 too is supported by documentary evidence i.e. Ex.X.1, the scientific evidence in the form of FSL report, which verifies and validates the authenticity of the document Ex.X.1 and is also supported by the testimonies of PW 4 Attar Singh, PW-29 Pramila etc.
301. Ld. APP has argued that the testimony of the aforesaid witness i.e. PW3 is clear and coherent and there are no material contradictions. As per Ld. APP, the said witness has clearly explained his financial capacity and has also explained the genesis and basis of document Ex.X.1 and thus as per Ld. APP, the testimony of PW-3 inspires confidence and is liable to be accepted in toto.
302. Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that PW-3 is in fact the king-pin of the present matter. As per the defence counsel, it is PW-3 i.e. Ranbir Singh Dahiya who used to look after the daily affairs of the company and who used to run the company on behalf of its Directors, including the then Director, the accused Anita Kharb. It has been argued that accused Anita Kharb is illiterate lady and knows nothing about the affairs of the company and similarly accused Ranbir Singh Kharb too, being Government Servant, knows nothing about the company. The defence has alleged that the said witness stole cheques belonging to the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and falsely issued them in his own Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 110 of 203 name and in the name of his kith and kin, so as to implicate the said accused and his wife.
303. Ld. Defence Counsel has further argued that there are unexplained gaps in the story of PW-3, who on one hand says that he gave Rs.23 lakhs to the accused persons, on the other hand, he says that he gave Rs.1.78 crores to the accused persons and in the same breath, he says that the liability of the accused persons towards him is only Rs.12 lakhs.
304. Pointing at the document Ex.X.1, it is argued that the said document is false and fabricated and that there is no mention of the said document in the complaint of PW-3 i.e. document Ex.PW34/D. In the words of the defence counsel, PW-3 used to run a chit-fund and simply passed the liability on the accused persons, once the chit-fund failed.
305. Further, as per the defence counsel, there is no money trail or any documentary proof in the form of receipts, diary entries, ledger entries, etc. which could demonstrate the aforesaid payments, as are alleged by PW-3.
306. The defence has further argued that PW-3 filled a sum of Rs.1.78 crores on stolen cheques of the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb to justify his fabricated document i.e. document Ex.X.1.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 111 of 203
307. Pointing at document Ex.X.1, Ld. Defence Counsel argued that the said document has many blanks which are filled by hand, including the amount therein i.e. the amount of Rs.1.78 crores. This, as per the Ld. Defence Counsel, shows misuse of blank document, belonging to the accused persons, by PW-3. It was argued that being brother of the accused Anita Kharb, PW-3 had complete access to the house and the office of the accused persons and thus, at the right opportunity, he stole blank documents and blank signed cheques and misused them to his advantage.
308. It was further pointed out by the defence that whereas the 'Declarant' at the end of the document Ex.X.1 is accused Anita Kharb, the said document is a declaration in the name of the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb. This too, as per the defence, shows infirmities of the document and supports the fact that it was indeed a stolen blank page.
309. Pointing at the executing witnesses on the document Ex.X.1, the defence has argued that the executing witness, Ms. Hira Devi has not been brought to the witness box, because she refused to support the false story of the prosecution.
310. In conclusion, the defence has argued that the testimony of PW-3 is full of lies and is liable to be rejected.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 112 of 203
311. Having heard the entire set of arguments qua PW-3, this court is of the considered opinion that there are merits in the testimony of PW3, it has withstood the test of cross examination, there are no material contradictions and the document Ex.X.1 read in the light of the testimonies of PW-3 Ranbir Singh Dahiya, PW- 29 Pramila, PW-4 Attar Singh, PW-24 Hand Writing Expert N.L. Paite etc. inspires confidence and lends a concrete and credible support to the prosecution's story.
312. The testimony of PW-3 clearly establishes inducement at the hands of the accused persons, namely Anita Kharb and Ranbir Singh Kharb and highlights their dishonest intention in making false promises of unrealistic returns. The said testimony establishes deliveries of various sums of monies to the said accused persons. The intention of the accused persons, at the very inception of the transactions/at the time of making false promises, becomes clear from the fact that the promised returns were quixotic, unrealistic and unheard of in general business and therefore, are impossible to abide. It only shows that the accused persons wanted people to handover their hard-earned savings, in return of magical returns which were never destined to fall in their kitty.
313. Document Ex.X.1 requires attention. The said document is a 'receipt-cum-declaration' in the name of Ranbir Singh Kharb, who has signed at point Q-17 under the head 'Witnesses' and the Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 113 of 203 accused Anita Kharb has signed under the head 'Declarant'. It is not difficult to understand that, for the obvious reasons, the accused persons, deliberately or otherwise, inter-changed the places of their respective signatures. This exchange, in the considered opinion of this court, does not by itself belittles or negates the very validity of the said document. Accordingly, arguments put forth by Ld. Defence Counsel in this regard are liable to be rejected.
314. The said document finds validation in the FSL report document Ex.PW24/A4 and in the testimony of the handwriting expert, PW-24, Dr. N.L. Paite. The said witness has opined(being handwriting expert) that the signatures that point Q16 and Q17, on document Ex. X1, belong to the accused persons, Anita Kharb and Ranbir Singh Kharb, respectively.
315. The argument of the Ld. Defence Counsel qua absence of periodic receipts of payments to the accused persons and that PW- 3 has not maintained any record, despite being an educated, ex- Navy Officer, of the huge sums of money that he paid to the accused persons, appears meritorious on the first blush, however keeping in mind the explanations given by the said witness, the presence of document Ex.X1 as consolidated receipt of all the monies received by the accused persons and also considering the closeness of relationship between the said witness and the accused persons, the merits of the said argument diminish.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 114 of 203
316. The testimony of PW-4 Attar Singh also needs to be considered at this stage. The said witness has specifically deposed that PW-3 Ranbir Singh Dahiya is his jeejaji(brother-in-law), upon the inducement of the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, the said witness, i.e., PW-4 Attar Singh, gave a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- in cash to PW-3 for the purpose of investment in the company. The said witness has duly explained his financial capacity by stating that he received a sum of Rs.37,62,419/- from the government as compensation for a land acquisition. In proof of the said financial capacity, PW-4 placed on record a copy of cheque of ICICI Bank on record as Mark A.
317. A tabulation of the testimony of the said witness is being produced hereunder:
Name of the victim PW-4 Attar Singh s/o Lal Singh & amount Amount : Rs.10,00,000/-
Ranbir Singh Anita Kharb Satprakash
Kharb
Identified or not Yes No No
Inducement or not Yes No No
Documents of No separate document apart from document Ex.
acknowledgment / X1, as per PW-4, the accused persons Ranbir receipts of payment Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb issued a common receipt for all investors, in the name of PW-3 Ranbir Singh Dahiya.
FSL opinion on Yes Yes No
documents / receipts
Money trail None
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 115 of 203 Money handover by No, as per PW-4, No No victims money was handed over to his brother-in-
law, PW-3 Ranbir Singh Dahiya, who further handed over the said amount to the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb.
318. PW-4 has clearly stated in his testimony that he invested money through his brother-in-law, PW-3 Ranbir Singh Dahiya. Admittedly, there was no inducement from the accused persons Anita Kharb and Satprakash and also there was no delivery of property/money to any of the accused persons. As per PW-4, money was handed over to his brother-in-law, PW-3 Ranbir Singh Dahiya, who further handed over the said amount to the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb. There is no separate document apart from document Ex. X1, which could show liability of accused persons towards PW Attar Singh. As per PW-4, the accused persons Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb issued a common receipt for all investors, in the name of PW-3 Ranbir Singh Dahiya.
319. The testimony of PW-4, read as a whole, leads a corroborative support to the testimony of PW-3. PW-4 has reaffirmed the fact that a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- was given by him to PW-3, which was further given to the accused Ranbir Singh Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 116 of 203 Kharb for investment in the company, against promised high returns.
320. At the cost of repetition, it may be mentioned here that as such, the amount invested by PW-4 Attar Singh is not separate from the amount invested by PW-3 Ranbir Singh Dahiya. The said two witnesses have made it abundantly clear that the money which was handed over by PW-3 to the accused persons Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb, includes Rs. 10,00,000/- belonging to the victim Attar Singh.
321. Next, the testimony of the attesting witness, on document Ex.X1, PW-29 Ms. Pramila, must also be considered. The said witness has categorically deposed that she signed an affidavit dated 15.05.2003, wherein sum of Rs. 1.78 crores was mentioned, i.e., document Ex. X1 (photocopy thereof is Mark 29/A) and she identified her signatures on the said document.
322. The testimonies of PW-4 and PW-29 are corroborative to the testimony of PW-3 and together they further corroborate the existence and execution of document Ex.X1.
323. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances and in view of the discussion herein above, it appears that the testimonies of PW-3, PW-4 and PW-29 are worthy of acceptance.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 117 of 203
324. The court finds no force in the arguments of the Ld. Defence Counsel that there are unexplained gaps in the story of PW-3. Whereas, the defence counsel has argued that PW-3 on one hand says that he gave Rs.23 lakhs to the accused persons, on the other hand, he says that he gave Rs.1.78 crores to the accused persons and in the same breath, he says that the liability of the accused persons towards him is only Rs.12 lakhs, the court finds no merits in the said submissions.
325. In the considered opinion of this court, PW-3 has sufficiently explained the liability of the accused persons towards his own self and has also explained, beyond reasonable doubts, the document Ex.X.1. It has been explained that the said document was initially drawn qua sum of Rs.1.78 crores however, two cheques of Rs.20.45 lakh and Rs.18.60 lakhs were handed over to other victims namely Smt. Suman and Santosh respectively, after taking back one cheque of Rs.44 lakhs.
326. This portion of the testimony of PW-3 also gets affirmed from the documents produced by the defence witnesses particularly DW-1 and DW-7.
327. Through the documents placed on record by DW-1 and DW-7, the defence has endeavored to show that accused Ranbir Singh Kharb settled the matter i.e. the complaint case u/.s 138 NI Act with Suman Sapra and Santosh. This has never been disputed Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 118 of 203 by the prosecution and infact PW-3 has always affirmed the same. As per the testimony of PW-3, accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, in acknowledgment of his liability issued four cheques and thereafter, of the four cheques one cheque of Rs.44 Lakh was taken back by the said accused and instead he issued two cheques of Rs.22.45 lakhs and Rs. 18.60 lakhs to Suman and Santosh respectively.
328. In the considered opinion of this court, the defence does not stand to benefit anything out of the testimonies/documents of DW-1 and DW-7, as the stand qua Ms. Santosh and Ms. Suman has never been disputed by the prosecution. It has always be averred by PW-3 that the said two victims Santosh and Suman took separate cheques of Rs.22.45 lakhs and 18.60 lakhs out of the consolidated sum of Rs.1.78 crores.
329. The perusal of the judgment Ex.DW7/A4, in light of the prosecution story, further strengthens the testimony of PW-3 and corroborates the explanation given qua document Ex.X.1.
330. Ergo, it can be concluded that the testimony of PW-3 does not suffer from material contradictions and inspires the confidence of the court. The said testimony gets corroborative support from PW4 as well.
331. The question on the quantum of liability is to be decided separately and shall be done at the appropriate stage.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 119 of 203 8.3 - PW-5 Girdhari Lal Khaitan
332. He deposed that upon inducement by the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, he handed over a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- to the said accused. In support of his testimony, he relied upon document Ex. PW 5/A and Ex. PW 5/B, i.e., two receipt-cum-declarations dated 22.11.2002 and 05.12.2002, both under the signatures of the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, in sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- and Rs. 5,00,000/-, respectively.
333. The said witness has not stated anything against the accused Anita Kharb or the accused Satprakash. For the sake of convenience, the testimony of the said witness is being produced hereunder:
Name of the victim & PW-5 Girdhari Lal Khaitan account Amount : Rs.15,00,000/-
Ranbir Singh Anita Kharb Satprakash
Kharb
Identified or not Yes No No
Inducement or not Yes No No
Documents of Yes No No
acknowledgement/Receipts Ex.PW5/A &
of payment
Ex.PW5/B
FSL opinion on FSL has not No No
documents/receipts given any
opinion for want
of more sample/
specimen
signatures
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 120 of 203 Money trail None Money handover by Yes No No victims
334. It is pertinent to point out here that the aforesaid two documents of PW-5 i.e. Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW5/B, were sent for FSL examination, however there is no FSL opinion qua the authorship or genuineness of the signatures, at point Q9 and Q10, as alleged by the victim/PW-5.
335. Ld. APP has argued that the oral testimony of PW5 by itself is sufficient and even in the absence of corroborative FSL opinion, the aforesaid documents Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW5/B can be relied upon.
336. Ld. APP has further pointed out that it has come clearly in the testimony of PW-16, stamp vendor Rajeev Ranjan, that the non-judicial stamp paper of Rs. 10 bearing number 17676 was issued in the name of one Ranbir Singh s/o Kartar Singh. It was further pointed out that PW-16 vide letter Ex.PW16/A1, gave information in writing to the Crime Branch, along with the corresponding entries in the register of Smt. Urmila Tyagi, the stamp vendor (the said copies are on record as Ex.PW 16/A OSR) that the aforesaid stamp paper bearing number 17676 was issued in the name of Ranbir Singh s/o Kartar Singh, r/o Mundhela Khurd i.e. accused Ranbir Singh Kharb. The record of the other non-
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 121 of 203 judicial stamp paper on which document Ex.PW-5/B is executed, i.e., stamp paper bearing number 18506, could not be traced.
337. It was argued by Ld. APP that even though there are no FSL results, on account of lack of material, to validate the signatures of the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb on document Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW5/B, however still the testimony of PW-5 Girdhari Lal and the execution of document Ex.PW5/A at hands of accused Ranbir Singh Kharb gets verified from the fact that document Ex.PW5/A is executed on a stamp paper which was purchased by the said accused.
338. Ld. Defence Counsel, on the other hand, has argued that there is no sum and substance in the testimony of PW-5. As per the defence, there is no independent witness or documentation in support of the said testimony and hence it cannot inspire any confidence.
339. As per the Ld. Defence Counsel, even the FSL has refused to acknowledge the genuineness of the alleged signatures of the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb on the documents brought by PW-5, i.e., Ex. PW5/A and Ex.PW5/B. It was further pointed out that the record pertaining to stamp paper bearing number 18506, i.e., Ex.PW5/B could not be traced, which, as per the defence counsel, appears suspicious and thus, it was pleaded that the benefit ought to be given in the favour of the accused persons.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 122 of 203
340. The defence has further argued that merely because the stamp vendor's record shows that a particular stamp paper was issued in the name of a particular person, does not by itself actually mean that the said person himself went to the vendor and purchased it. As per the defence counsel, it is very well possible that some person has purchased the aforesaid stamps in the name of the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb so as to falsely implicate him, for there is no verification qua the identity of the purchaser of the stamps.
341. Lastly, the defence argued that in absence of incriminating FSL results and in absence of a clear testimony of the stamp vendor that he himself saw the accused purchasing the alleged stamp papers; the testimony of PW-5 cannot be relied onto.
342. Having gone through the material on record and the arguments made, I find merits in the submissions made by Ld. Defence Counsel.
343. The absence of corroboration, qua the genuineness of signatures at point Q9 and Q10 on document Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW5/B respectively, by the FSL, gives a benefit of doubt to the accused persons, for the said documents cannot be said to be proved.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 123 of 203
344. It may not be forgotten that Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW5/B were sent to FSL along with many other documents, such as document Ex.PW2/A, Ex.PW53/A2 etc. vide IO's letter Ex.PW24/A1. Whereas, positive results have come for document Ex.PW2/A and document Ex.PW53/A2 (on comparison with same specimen signatures of the accused persons) absence of opinion on Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW5/B gives benefit of doubt to the defence.
345. Further, the submissions of the Ld. Defence Counsel that the notary public or the stamp vendor have not seen as to who purchased/received the aforesaid stamp papers and absence of a cogent explanation qua the financial capacity of PW-5 to hand over a sum of Rs.15 lakhs, once again raise an opportunity for giving benefit of doubt to the defence. Additionally, there is no cogent explanation as to the financial capacity of PW-5 to pay huge sum of money to the tune of Rs.15 lakhs, this further creates doubts.
346. Accordingly, in conclusion it can be said that the testimony of PW-5 has failed to inspire the confidence of the court.
8.4 - PW-6 Randhir Singh
347. He is the father-in-law of the complainant, Pravin Dahiya. As per him, he gave a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- to the accused Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 124 of 203 Ranbir Singh Kharb in the presence of his son-in-law, PW-2 Pravin Dahiya, which the said accused has not returned till date.
348. A tabulation of the testimony of the said witness is being produced hereunder:
Name of the victim & PW-6 Randhir Singh
amount Amount : Rs.6,00,000/-
Ranbir Singh Anita Kharb Satprakash
Kharb
Identified or not Yes Yes No
Inducement or not No No No
Documents of No No No
acknowledgement/Receipts
of payment
FSL opinion on No No No
documents/receipts
Money trail None
Money handover by Yes No No
victims
349. Ld. APP has submitted that the testimony of PW-6 is merely corroborative in nature and the money invested by him is already covered under the sum invested by the complainant/PW-2.
350. Ld Defence Counsel has argued that the testimony of PW-6 is unworthy of being relied upon as he himself has stated that he had no interaction with the accused persons.
351. The court finds merits in the submissions of Ld. APP that Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 125 of 203 the testimony of PW-6 has merely corroborative value qua the testimony of PW-2.
352. In the course of cross examination, the defence has itself suggested that the money was not handed over to the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb rather it was given to the complainant/PW-2 and the said suggestion has been answered in affirmative by the witness.
353. In the considered opinion of this court, even though the testimony of PW-6 does not suggest inducement at the hands of the accused persons, it does corroborate the statement of PW-2 that he (PW2) took a sum of Rs.6,00,00/- from his father-in-law (PW6), for the investment in the company.
8.5 - PW-8 Baljeet Singh
354. Already discussed hereinabove, under the head 8.1.
8.6 - PW-29 Pramila w/o Ajeet Singh
355. Already discussed hereinabove, under the head 8.1 and under separate head 8.2.
8.7-PW-35 Om Prakash, PW-36 Ranbir Singh Dalal, PW-43 Prem Wati and PW-44 Raj Bala Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 126 of 203
356. These witnesses too are a family member to the accused persons. They too have deposed that they were induced by the accused persons, Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb and in consequence thereof they handed over their hard earned money to the said accused persons without having obtained any receipt acknowledgment etc.
357. To begin with, it is pertinent to mention here that these witnesses were also the victims/witnesses in FIR no. 95/11, EOW against the same accused persons. The said matter i.e. FIR No. 95/11 has already been decided and the accused persons have already been acquitted by this court.
358. It is the admitted case of the prosecution that the aforesaid witnesses have been joined in the present case to corroborate and highlight the conduct of the accused persons and also to prove the character of the accused persons, not per-se as victims.
359. Ld. Defence Counsels have argued that the testimonies of the said PWs i.e PW-35 Om Prakash, PW-36 Ranbir Singh Dalal, PW-43 Prem Wati and PW-44 Raj Bala cannot be read in evidence in the present matter because by re-examining the said witnesses in the present FIR, as against FIR No. 95/11 (which has already been decided), the prosecution is trying to prosecute the accused persons qua the same offence twice.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 127 of 203
360. This, as per the Ld. Defence Counsel, amounts to double jeopardy and is impermissible as per the law.
361. Ld. APP has conceded to the fact that the aforementioned witnesses were witnesses in FIR No.95/11 and has argued that in the matter at hand, the testimonies are not for the purpose of proving them as victims of cheating but it is only for adding weight to the case of the prosecution.
362. It is pressed upon that their testimonies be considered for the purpose of proving the character and conduct of the accused persons.
363. In view of the submissions made by Ld. APP the testimonies have limited value and purpose.
364. It is worth mentioning that a separate charge dated 13.12.2011 was framed against the accused person in reference to PW-35 Om Prakash, PW-36 Ranbir Singh Dalal, PW-43 Prem Wati and PW-44 Raj Bala.
365. The exact same was also the contention in FIR No. 95/2011, therefore, I find merits in the contentions of Ld. Defence Counsel that re-examination of the same witnesses, making same allegations, amounts to double jeopardy.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 128 of 203
366. As far as the argument qua the characters is concerned, it is settled law that no evidence as to bad character can be given unless evidence as to good character is given by defence. Since, in the matter at hand, no evidence as to character of accused persons has been lead by the defence, the prosecution's contention and its examination of the aforesaid witnesses has no value.
367. Ergo, this court does not deem appropriate to reconsider and re-appreciate the testimonies of PW-35 Om Prakash, PW-36 Ranbir Singh Dalal, PW-43 Prem Wati and PW-44 Raj Bala. Even otherwise the testimony of PW-35 Om Prakash cannot be considered as the said witness has not been put to cross examination by accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb, though he has been cross examined by accused Satprakash.
8.8 - PW-37 Jai Pal Malik, PW-38 Master Lal Chand, PW-39 Sukhbir Singh and PW-63 Devender
368. PW-38, PW-39 and PW-63 are connected to the accused persons through PW-37 Jai Pal Malik. The said witness, Jai Pal Malik is the brother-in-law of accused Anita Kharb and Ranbir Singh Kharb i.e. the wife of Jai Pal Malik is real sister of accused Anita Kharb.
369. He too has complained that the accused persons Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb induced him to invest money in the Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 129 of 203 company and consequent thereto he invested Rs.25,00,000/-, in cash, in the company. As per the said witness, this sum of Rs.25,00,000/- included the money which was handed over to the said accused persons on behalf of other victims/witnesses including Master Lal Chand (Rs.5,00,000/-), Sukhbir Singh (Rs.6,00,000) and Devender (Rs.2,00,000/- etc.).
370. A tabulation of his testimony is as under :
Name of the victim & PW-37 Jai Pal Malik
amount Amount : Rs.25,00,000/-, which includes
the following:
Chander Singh Malik - Rs.5,00,000/-
Master Lal Chand - Rs.5,00,000/-
Sukhbir Singh - Rs.6,00,000/-
Bhim Singh - Rs.2,00,000/-
Rajender Singh - Rs.2,00,000/-
Omprakash - Rs.2,00,000/-
Devender Dalal - Rs.2,00,000/-
Ranbir Singh Anita Kharb Satprakash
Kharb
Identified or not Yes Yes No
Inducement or not Yes Yes No
Documents of No No No
acknowledgement/Receipts
of payment
FSL opinion on No No No
documents/receipts
Money trail None
Money handover by Yes No No
victims
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 130 of 203
371. Testimonies of PW-38 Master Lal Chand, PW-39 Sukhbir and PW-63 Devender are on the same lines as that of PW- Jai Pal Malik. All of them have uniformly deposed that they were told about the company by PW-Jai Pal Malik and that they handed over their respective money to him.
372. A common tabulation of their testimonies is as under :
Name of the victim & PW-38 Lal Chand, Amount Rs.5,00,000/- amount PW-39 Sukhbir, Amount Rs.6,00,000/-
PW-63 Devender, Amount Rs.2,00,000/-
Ranbir Singh Anita Satprakash
Kharb Kharb
Identified or not Yes, however, Yes No
PW-63
Devender
deposed that he
cannot identify
any accused
Inducement or not No No No
Documents of No No No
acknowledgement/Receipts
of payment
FSL opinion on No No No
documents/receipts
Money trail None
Money handover by No No No
victims
373. PW-38, PW-39 and PW-63 have deposed that they handed over their respective sums of money to Jai Pal Malik for investment in the company.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 131 of 203
374. Neither PW-37 Jai Pal Malik nor anyone connected to the accused persons through the said witness i.e. PW-38, PW-39 and PW-63 are in possession of any document which shows that any payment was made to the accused persons by the said witnesses.
375. Upon careful perusal of the testimonies of the said witnesses, this court is of the considered opinion that the said testimonies are insufficient to prove the offence of cheating/criminal breach of trust against the accused persons, beyond reasonable doubts.
376. To begin with, the testimony of PW-38 Master Lal Chand is discussed. In his cross-examination the said witness has categorically stated that he was never induced by the accused persons nor he ever handed over any money to the accused persons. The contextually relevant portion from the testimony is being produced hereunder:
"It is correct that I never visited the accused company before investing the money. It is correct that I never got any receipt from the accused company or from the accused persons. It is further correct that I handed over the entire money to Sh. Jaipal Malik. It is further correct that I never saw Jaipal Malik handing over any money to accused persons."
377. Whereas, it has come in the testimony of PW-37 Jai Pal Malik that even though he was induced by the accused persons to Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 132 of 203 invest money in the company, he personally never invested any money and also that the money that was handed over to the accused persons by him, actually belonged to his friends and acquittance. He has further stated that the money was given in the presence of PW-Lal Chand on multiple occasions.
378. The contextually relevant portion from the testimony of witness PW-37 is produced hereunder :
"It is correct that I do not have any receipt or any other document which shows that I ever invested any money in the accused company or I handed over any money to the accused persons. Vol. Money was given in good faith.
.....
The money was given in presence of PW- Lalchand once or twice.
.....
It is correct that I have personally never invested any money in the accused company because I was always hand to mouth. It is correct that I collected money from other persons in the name of the accused company by telling them about huge returns. People were already aware of the accused company and I also told them subsequently."
379. Similar to the stand of PW-38, PW-39 too states that he handed over the money to PW-37 Jai Pal Malik for handing over the same to the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, however, in the cross-examination, the said witness categorically deposed that the two accused persons Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb never induced him to invest any money in the company and he never saw Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 133 of 203 PW-Jai Pal Malik handing over any money to the accused persons. He is not in possession of any receipt or any documentation which can be titled as proof of payment.
380. Once again the testimony of PW-63 is very much similar to the testimony of PW-38 and PW-39. PW-63 too has categorically stated that a sum of Rs.2 lakh was handed over to PW-Jai Pal Malik and infact the inducement to invest also came from PW-Jai Pal Malik only. As per the said witness, i.e. PW-63 Devender he never met the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb or accused Anita Kharb, nor he can identify them and no receipt was given to him by the accused persons. He further deposed that he never saw PW-Jai Pal Malik handing over any money to the accused persons.
381. Upon a joint reading of the testimonies of the aforesaid four PWs it appears that PW-38, PW-39 and PW-63 were never induced to invest any money in the company by the accused persons and the inducement, if any, came from PW-Jai Pal Malik. None of these witnesses i.e. PW-38, PW-39 and PW-63 saw any money being handed over to the accused persons, nor are they in possession of any receipt etc. which would entitle them to any claim against the company or the accused persons.
382. It is worth mentioning here that these witnesses are teachers by profession and are Government servants, in this Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 134 of 203 background, the argument raised by the Ld. Defence Counsel appears meritorious that absence of receipts and continue payment of heavy sums of money and that too in cash, without any written documentation etc., raises serious questions to the credibility of these witnesses.
383. It may be noted that as per the definition of term 'proved' in Section 3 of Indian Evidence Act, a fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matter before, the court either believes it to exists or consider its existence so probable that a prudent main ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exits. Applying the principle laid down in the said section to the facts of the present case, it is difficult for a prudent man to believe that the aforesaid victims/witnesses PW-37, PW-38, PW-39 and PW-63 made cash payments, running into lakhs of rupees on various occasions, but not even on a single occasion, they pressed for any receipt from the accused persons/the company.
384. The Defence has also raised a reasonable doubt qua payment of aforementioned sums of money to accused Ranbir Singh Kharb by PW-37 Jai Pal Malik by raising a contradiction in the testimony of PW-37 qua the testimony of PW-38 Lal Chand, as discussed hereinabove.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 135 of 203
385. None of the aforementioned prosecution witnesses apart from PW-37, has stated any thing against accused persons which can be called incriminating towards the accused persons.
386. To conclude the discussion qua PW-37, PW-38, PW-39 and PW-63, it can be said that the defence has raised reasonable doubts and therefore, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused persons.
8.9 - PW-40 Bal Kishan, PW-45 Gajender Singh and PW-46 Gyan Singh
387. Whereas, most of the prosecution witnesses have made depositions against accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb, the aforementioned three witnesses have specifically deposed against the accused Satprakash only.
388. PW-40 Bal Kishan has deposed that he does not even know accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb, that they never induced him to invest any money in the company and that he invested a sum of Rs.2 lakhs in the company at the instance of accused Satprakash, against promised returns of 2% per month interest.
389. Against the said payment a receipt Ex.PW40/A was also issued, under the signatures of accused Satprakash, to PW-40.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 136 of 203
390. A tabulation of the testimony of the said witness is being produced hereunder:
Name of the victim & PW-40 Bal Kishan
amount Amount : Rs.2,00,000/-
Ranbir Singh Anita Kharb Satprakash
Kharb
Identified or not Yes No Yes
Inducement or not No No Yes
Documents of No No Yes, document
acknowledgement/Receipts Ex.PW40/A
of payment
FSL opinion on No No Yes
documents/receipts
Money trail None
Money handover by victims No No Yes
391. It has further come in the evidence of said witness that in May 2016, accused Satprakash returned the principle amount. The witness PW-40 has categorically deposed that in his opinion accused Satprakash did not have any intention to defraud and that the said accused (Satprakash) returned the money out of his own pocket.
392. In the cross-examination, conducted at the hands of the accused Satprakash himself, PW-40 deposed as under :
"It is correct that you (Satprakash) never had any bad intention towards me. It is correct that you never made any inducement with intention of defrauding me. It is correct that you returned money out of your own pocket."
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 137 of 203
393. The aforementioned statement given by PW-40 in the course of cross-examination exonerates the accused Satprakash qua the offence u/s 420 IPC however, whether or not the said statement diminishes the offence of criminal conspiracy, is a matter of separate discussion, the same has been done herein below, under Chapter -10.
394. Similar to the stand of PW-40 Bal Kishan, PW-45 Sh. Gajender Singh and PW-46 Gyan Singh have also deposed against the accused Satprakash only.
395. As per PW-45, he was colleague of accused Satprakash and it was the said accused who induced him to invest money in the company. As per PW-45, he invested a sum of Rs.4.5 lakh in the company, in various installments and handed over the said sums of money to the accused Satprakash at his residence.
396. A receipt of sum of Rs.4.5 lakhs was given to the said witness, under the signatures of one Rakesh Lakra, who is son of the accused Satprakash, the same is on record as Ex. PW45/A1.
397. In the words of PW-45 he has never met accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and he could not identify accused Anita Kharb before the court. He correctly identified the accused Satprakash before the court.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 138 of 203
398. PW-45 and PW-46 are brothers. Similar to the deposition of PW-45, PW-46 Gyan Singh too has deposed that his brother, PW-45 Gajender Singh, was induced by the accused Satprakash to invest money in the company, against promised high returns. PW-46 handed over a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs to the accused Satprakash in two installments, against receipts Ex.PW46/A1 and Ex.PW46/A2, both under the signatures of aforementioned Rakesh Lakra.
399. To sum the testimonies of aforementioned three PWs i.e. PW-40, PW-45 and PW-46, none of them have deposed anything against accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb.
400. A tabulation of the testimony of the said witnesses is being produced hereunder:
Name of the victim & PW-45 Gajender Singh & PW46- Gyan amount Singh Amount : Rs.4,50,000/- &4,00,000/-
respectively
Ranbir Singh Anita Kharb Satprakash
Kharb
Identified or not Yes No Yes
Inducement or not No No Yes
Documents of No No Yes, document
acknowledgement/Receipts Ex.PW.45/A,
of payment PW46/A1 and
PW46/A2
FSL opinion on No No No
documents/receipts
Money trail None
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 139 of 203 Money handover by victims No No Yes
401. Whereas PW-40 in a way has given a clean chit to the accused Satprakash; PW-45 and PW-46 have specifically deposed that the accused Satprakash induced them to invest money in the company, he has not returned money as yet and his son i.e. Rakesh Lakra issued receipts on the letterhead of the company.
402. The perusal of the testimonies of PW-45 and PW-46 allege that the said two witnesses handed over various sums of money to accused Satprakash, consequent to inducement by the said accused however, neither of the two witnesses have placed on record any receipt or documentation to show the said payment to the accused Satprakash. There is no independent witness who would have testified that the accused Satprakash received any money from the said two witnesses. The two witnesses have failed to prove the financial capacity and/or the source of money, allegedly given to accused Satprakash.
403. It is worth mentioning here that these witnesses are DTC employees by profession and are Government servants, in this background, the argument raised by the Ld. Defence Counsel appears meritorious that absence of receipts and continue payment of heavy sums of money and that too in cash, without any written documentation etc., raises serious questions to the credibility of these witnesses.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 140 of 203
404. It may be noted that as per the definition of term 'proved' in Section 3 of Indian Evidence Act, a fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matter before, the court either believes it to exists or consider its existence so probable that a prudent main ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exits.
405. Applying the principle laid down in the said section to the facts of the present case, it is difficult for a prudent man to believe that the aforesaid victims/witnesses made cash payments, running into lakhs of rupees on various occasions, but are not in possession of a single receipt. They could have at least maintained a record for themselves, by way of diaries etc.; absence of such record creates suspicion.
406. Their submissions qua return of receipts to Satprakash, against accumulative receipt, under the signature of Rakesh Lakra, also appears doubtful in the absence of any photocopy etc. of the said previous receipt.
407. The documents placed on record by the said two witnesses i.e. Ex.PW45/A1, Ex.PW46/A1 and Ex.PW46/A2 cannot be said to be proved. These documents are under the signature of Rakesh Lakra, the said person has already been discharged by the orders of Ld. Predecessor Court. Furthermore, the FSL report has not confirmed the signatures, allegedly by Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 141 of 203 Rakesh Lakra, on the aforesaid documents and thus it can be said that there is no clinching evidence against the said person so as to warrant a summoning u/s 319 Cr.PC.
408. Next the allegations of criminal intimidation, levelled by PW-45 and PW-46, against accused Satprakash need to be dealt.
409. PW-45 and PW-46 have categorically stated that the said accused, accompanied by his son, threatened to thrash the said witnesses and also threatened to commit suicide.
410. A careful perusal of these testimonies shows that even though there is an allegation of threat, nothing has been stated which would show that the witnesses were 'alarmed' because of the said threats. It has not come on record that because of the threat to commit suicide the said witnesses did not take or commence any legal proceedings against the said accused.
411. As discussed hereinabove, in order to establish the offence u/s 506 IPC, what needs to be shown is that the accused threatened someone with injury, with intent to cause alarm to the victim and did so to cause the victim to perform any act which he was not legally bound to do or omit him to do something which he otherwise would have done. In the matter at hand, the testimonies of PW-45 and PW-46 do not show the ingredient of alarm.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 142 of 203
412. To conclude it can be said that prosecution has fallen short in proving the allegations of criminal intimidation.
413. Therefore, to sum up the discussion qua PW-40, PW-45 and PW-46, this court holds that the said testimonies do not prove the offence of cheating/criminal breach of trust and criminal intimidation.
414. The testimony of PW-40 indicts the accused Satprakash qua the offence of criminal conspiracy, the detailed discussion is covered under Chapter-10 hereinbelow.
8.10 - PW-41 Kuldeep Singh
415. To begin with, it is absolutely essential to mention here that PW-41, despite grant of time and opportunity has not been cross examined by the defence. The perusal of record reveals that the examination of said witness was conducted on 25.05.2022 and on the same day he was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Satprakash, however, qua accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb the cross examination was partly done and the further cross examination was deferred at request.
416. For the reasons best known to the defence, despite an enormously lengthy final arguments, till date the defence has not made any request for recalling and examination of PW-41. Even Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 143 of 203 though the defence counsel Sh. A.N. Aggarwal kept arguing that the testimony of PW-41 is unworthy of being believed as the character of the said witness has been impeached in view of the judgment of Ld. ADJ (Ex.DW4/A1), he never argued that the testimony cannot be read in evidence as the said witness has not been examined. This shows that perhaps the defence did not want to cross examine the said witness. Albeit, the testimony of the said witness or the absence of the cross-examination does not cause any prejudice to the defence, in view of the discussion herein below. For the below mentioned reasons this court holds that the testimony of PW-41 does not inspire confidence.
417. PW-41 Kuldeep Singh deposed that the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb is the son of his relative and upon the inducement by accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb the said witness invested a sum of Rs.20,20,000/- in the company, between 2001 and 2003.
418. As per him, the money was given in cash to the accused persons, Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb. He has further deposed that in the year 2004, the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb handed over the title deeds of one plot of land, valued at 2.41 lakhs, which was sold by the said witness to recover the aforesaid sums. He proved the said sale deed as Ex.PW34/AJ. He has categorically deposed that he has nothing to say against the accused Satprakash.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 144 of 203
419. A tabulation of the testimony of the said witnesses is being produced hereunder:
Name of the victim & PW-41, Sh. Kuldeep Singh amount Amount : Rs.20,20,000/-
Ranbir Singh Anita Kharb Satprakash
Kharb
Identified or not Yes Yes No
Inducement or not Yes Yes No
Documents of No No No
acknowledgement/Receipts
of payment
FSL opinion on No No No
documents/receipts
Money trail None
Money handover by Yes No No
victims
420. Ld. APP argued that the testimony of PW-41 is clear and coherent and brings home the guilt of the accused persons.
421. On the other hand, Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that the said witness is unworthy of being believed. Ld. Counsel has relied upon the document Ex.DW4/A1 (OSR) i.e. the judgment passed by Addl. District Judge, Central, Tis Hazari Court wherein the court has made following observations in the judgment dated 26.03.2018:
"Before parting with the present suit, the court would also like to dispose off application under section 340 Cr.PC which was filed by defendant no.1 and 2 for prosecution of the plaintiff on Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 145 of 203 the ground that he has forged and fabricated receipt-cum-declaration Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/2.
The court has gone through the application and reply thereto and is of the opinion that though the plaintiff in the present case could not prove the execution of receipt-cum-declaration Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/2, but it would not be expedient in the interest of justice to initiate proceedings against him, more so when the alleged forgery was committed before filing of the present suit. It may be noted that the alleged forgery was not committed while the documents were custodial legis. In view of judgment titled Iqbal Singh Marwaha Vs. Meenakshi Marwaha AIR 2006 SC 2119, as the alleged documents Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/2 were allegedly forged and thereafter produced before the court, hence the aggrieved parties i.e. defendant no.1 and 2 can file a criminal complaint with respect to the said alleged forgery and the bar under section 195 (1)(b)(ii) Cr.PC will not apply to the said complaint."
422. Ld. Defence counsel has relied upon Section 155 of Indian Evidence Act to argue that the testimony of PW-41 is unworthy of any credit.
423. Submissions qua PW-41 heard and the corresponding record perused.
424. To begin with, I deem it appropriate to take on record Section 155 of Indian Evidence Act:
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 146 of 203 Impeaching credit of witness.
The credit of a witness may be impeached in the following ways by the adverse party, or, with the consent of the Court, by the party who calls him:
(1) By the evidence of persons who testify that they, from their knowledge of the witness, believe him to be unworthy of credit; (2) By proof that the witness has been bribed, or has 1[accepted] the offer of bride, or has received any other corrupt inducement to give his evidence; (3) By proof of former statements inconsistent with any part of his evidence which is liable to be contradicted;
425. For Section 155 of IEA to apply, what must be shown is that there is evidence on record which establishes that the witness is unworthy of credit or that he is under some corrupt inducement or that there are material contradictions in the testimony.
426. In the matter at hand, the Defence Counsel has argued that the Ld. ADJ in his judgment (document Ex.DW4/A1) has specifically observed that the document sought to be proved by the said witness in the civil matter before the Ld. ADJ are forged, however, in the considered opinion of this court, there is no such finding given by Ld. ADJ.
427. The observations of the Ld. ADJ, as quoted herein above do not specifically impute forgery on PW-41, the term used is "alleged forgery". A careful reading of the entire judgment i.e. Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 147 of 203 document Ex.DW4/A1 shows that PW-41 in the said matter before ADJ failed to prove the receipt of payment of Rs.19.80 lakhs, however, the same cannot be placed on the same pedestal as 'forgery' and therefore, the court finds no merits in the submissions of the Ld. Defence Counsel, as mentioned herein above.
428. Taking the discussion further on the merits of the testimony of PW-41, qua the guilt of the accused persons; what needs to be seen is whether the said testimony of PW-41 establishes the guilt of the accused persons, beyond reasonable doubts.
429. In the considered opinion of this court, having taken into account the testimony and the documents placed on record by the prosecution and the defence, the answer to the said question is a resounding no. That is to say, the testimony of PW-41 does not bring home the guilt of the accused persons.
430. In PW-41's own words, he invested about Rs.20 lakhs in the company at the instance of accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb. The payments were made in cash.
431. It is settled position of law, as propounded by Hon'ble higher courts that whenever it is alleged that payment is made in cash and the said fact is denied by the opposite party, the onus to prove that the said payment was actually made, lies heavily upon Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 148 of 203 the person who alleges that he made cash payment. In the matter at hand, most prosecution witnesses have alleged cash payments. PW-41 too has alleged the same, however, in the considered opinion of the court, the prosecution (speaking through PW-41 Kuldeep) has failed to discharge the said onus.
432. At the outset, the said witness i.e. PW-41 has failed to show from where he arranged the said amount of Rs. 20,20,000/-, that too in the year 2001-2003, when the annual incomes were grossly less as compared to today. Even today this amount is huge. It is hard to believe that he made payment of the said amount in cash to the accused persons, over a continuous period of three years , without getting any returns that too without any receipt.
433. The Court does finds merits in the submissions of the Ld. Defence Counsel that in the civil case (document Ex.DW4/A1) the said witness PW-41 did produce a receipt, allegedly signed by the accused persons however, in the present matter no such receipt was produced nor was it handed over to the IO. In the civil matter before the Ld. ADJ, as it apparent from Ex.DW-4/A1, the said receipt could not be proved. There is no explanation on record why PW-41 did not hand over the said receipt to the IO, in the course of the investigation and why he did not mention it in his chief examination before the court. This does create suspicion.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 149 of 203
434. Accordingly, in the considered opinion of this court, the court is bound to give benefit of doubt to the defence.
435. The allegations of PW-41 qua criminal intimidation are being discussed herein below under Chapter 10.3.
8.11 - PW-42 Vinod Kumar
436. To begin with, it is absolutely essential to mention here that PW-42, despite grant of time and opportunity has not been cross examined by the defence. The perusal of record reveals that the examination of said witness was conducted on 25.05.2022, he was declared a hostile witness by the prosecution. On the same day he was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Satprakash, however, qua accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb the cross examination was deferred at request.
437. For the reasons best known to the defence, despite an enormously lengthy final arguments, till date the defence has not made any request for recalling and examination of PW-42. This shows that perhaps the defence did not want to cross examine the said witness. Albeit, the testimony of the said witness or the absence of the cross-examination does not cause any prejudice to the defence, in view of the discussion herein below. For the below mentioned reasons this court holds that the testimony of PW-42 does not inspire confidence.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 150 of 203
438. The said witness has deposed that the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb was friend of his father, who is no more and upon the inducement of the said accused, his father invested a sum of Rs.16.50 lakhs in the company, in cash.
439. The witness correctly identified the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb but failed to identify the accused Satprakash. On the day of testimony of recording of this witness, accused Anita Kharb was not present and an exemption application was moved by which her identity was not disputed.
440. A tabulation of the testimony of the said witness is being produced hereunder:
Name of the victim & PW-42 Vinod Kumar
amount Amount : Rs.16,50,000/-
Ranbir Singh Anita Kharb Satprakash
Kharb
Identified or not Yes Not No
disputed
Inducement or not Yes No No
Documents of No No No
acknowledgement/Receipts
of payment
FSL opinion on No No No
documents/receipts
Money trail None
Money handover by victims Yes No No
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 151 of 203
441. With the permission of the court, the Ld. APP cross examined the said witness after declaring him hostile.
442. Ld. APP has argued that PW-42, though hostile, clearly establishes the guilt of accused Ranbir Singh Kharb in taking Rs.16.50 lakhs from the said witness by way of cheating.
443. Per-contra Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that there are no merits in the testimony of PW-42, there are multiple contradictions and the entire testimony is hearsay in nature.
444. Upon careful consideration, I find merits in the submissions of Ld. Defence Counsel.
445. The testimony of PW-42 suffers from multiple contradictions. To begin with, it is not clear whether the alleged payments of Rs.16.50 lakhs were made to the accused persons by the said witness or by his deceased father.
446. PW-42 has not produced any documentary evidence to show the payment of an enormous sum of Rs.16.50 lakhs in the year 2001. Absence of documentation does create a doubt.
447. The source of money and even the financial capacity of the said witness have not been established by the prosecution.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 152 of 203
448. In these circumstances, the court is bound to disbelieve the said testimony and is bound to give benefit of doubt to the accused persons.
8.12-PW-49 Phool Kaur, PW-62 Jasbir & PW-64 Akshay Beniwal
449. As per PW-49, she and her family invested Rs. 21,10,000/- in the company, from the year 2001 to 2003 and the said amount was handed over to the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb through her son, namely PW-64 Akshay Beniwal.
450. As per her, accused Ranbir Singh Kharb was introduced to her by her relative Kuldeep Kharb. She is not in possession of any documentation to show the aforesaid payment to the accused persons or to the company.
451. PW-62 is the husband of PW-49 and is father of PW-64. He retired as Senior Accountant from Jhajjar Co-operative bank. His testimony is on the lines of PW-49and PW-64.
452. Like most other prosecution witnesses they too have deposed that the accused persons lured them with high rate of interest, however, till date they have neither received the principal amount nor they have received the interest.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 153 of 203
453. PW-49 and PW-62 have deposed that they made complaint against the accused persons through their son PW-64.
454. PW-64 Akshay Beniwal too has deposed on the lines of testimony of his mother, PW-49 Phool Kaur.
455. All the three witnesses have deposed that the money was paid from agricultural income and from the savings and some money was arranged by borrowing from the relatives.
456. PW-Phool Kaur and PW-Jasbir Singh deposed that they can identify the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb. PW-Jasbir failed to identify accused Anita Kharb. However, PW-Phool Kaur deposed that she can identify her, but on the day of testimony of the said witness, the accused Anita Kharb was not present and exemption application was moved, which did not dispute the identity. Both of them failed to identify the accused Satprakash.
457. PW-Akshay Beniwal correctly identified the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb before the court but failed to identify the accused Satprakash.
458. For the sake of convenience, the testimony of the said witness is being produced hereunder:
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 154 of 203 Name of the victim & PW-49 Smt. Phool Kaur, PW-62 account Jasbir Singh & PW-64 Akshay Amount : Rs.21,10,000/-
Ranbir Singh Anita Kharb Satprakash
Kharb
Identified or not Yes Yes No
Inducement or not Yes Yes No
Documents of No No No
acknowledgement/
Receipts of payment
FSL opinion on No No No
documents/receipts
Money trail None
Money handover by Yes No No
victims
Remarks PW-49 Smt. Phool Kaur has not directly
handed over the money to accused Ranbir
Singh Kharb.
PW-64 Akshay Beniwal has handed over the
money to accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and his father PW-62 Jasbir Singh has also hand over the money to accused Ranbir Singh Kharb.
459. Whereas the defence has argued that the testimonies of three witnesses i.e. PW-49, 62 and 64.. are unworthy of being believe on account that there are no independent witnesses to corroborate their testimonies and that there is no documentation to substantiate the claim of payment of about Rs.20 lakhs. On the other hand, Ld. APP has argued that the three witnesses have sufficiently explained the absence of receipts/ documentations qua the aforesaid payment of Rs.20 lakhs and the three witnesses have corroborated each other testimonies. In the words of Ld. APP, there are no contradictions and the testimonies of PW-49, PW-62 and Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 155 of 203 PW-64 are sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused persons.
460. Coming to the appreciation of evidence, in the considered opinion of this court, the testimonies of the aforesaid three witnesses, do not inspire confidence.
461. To begin with, there is no explanation as to why all the alleged investments were made in cash, when PW-49 and PW-62 are Government servants. It is admitted case that PW-64 was a college student at the time of alleged transactions with the accused persons and therefore, it can be safely assumed that he did not have financial capacity to make payments to the tune of Rs.20 lakhs.
462. PW-62, who himself is a banker, can be expected to keep a written record of payments and it is also not an illegitimate expectations to expect that a banker would press for written documentation against the payments made. Absence of receipts/ any other documentation does create a doubt.
463. As noted hereinabove, whenever it is alleged that payment is made in cash, and the said fact is denied by the opposite party, the onus to prove that the said payment was actually made, lies heavily upon the person who alleges that he made cash payment and in the present case, in the opinion of the Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 156 of 203 court, the prosecution (speaking through the said PWs i.e. 49,62 and 64) have failed to discharge the said onus. The source of money has not been explained properly and the same is the case with the financial capacity.
464. The alleged payment of about Rs.20 lakh was made in the year 2001-2003. The court can take the judicial notice of the fact that in that period the average salaries of Govt. servants were grossly less than what they are today. Even today an amount of Rs.20 lakhs is a huge amount for any Govt. servant. Unless the PWs clearly prove the sources from which they arranged the said amount, it is hard to believe that they made payment of the said amount in cash to the accused persons, that too without receipt.
465. Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act allows the court to draw a presumption on the existence of any fact, regard being had to common course of natural events, human conduct etc. For ready reference the said Section is produced hereunder :
Section 114. Court may presume existence of certain facts. --The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case.
466. In the matter at hand, the fact that the accused persons Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb are not close relatives of Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 157 of 203 PW-49, PW-62 and PW-64 (in the words of PW-49 Phool Kaur, accused Ranbir Singh Kharb is uncle of her sister's husband) and still they gave huge sums of money to the accused persons and that too without written documentation, does create a doubt.
467. Therefore, this court is bound to disbelieve the testimony of PW-49, PW-62 and PW-64.
8.13 - PW-50 Smt. Rajesh and PW-51 Randhir Singh
468. PW-50 and PW-51 are husband and wife. Accused Anita Kharb is distant relative of PW-50. Like all other PWs, they too have alleged that the accused persons induced them to invest in the company and in consequence thereof, they invested a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs, in cash, in the company. In their own words, out of Rs. 7 lakhs, a sum of Rs. 4.50 lakhs has already been returned by the accused persons, though without interest.
469. Both the accused persons failed to identify accused Satprakash, however they stated on oath that they can identify accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb.
470. For the sake of convenience, a joint tabulation of their respective testimonies is being produced hereunder:
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 158 of 203 Name of the victim & PW-50 Smt. Rajesh & PW-51 Randhir amount Amount : Rs.7,00,000/-
Received back Rs.4,50,000/-
Ranbir Anita Kharb Satprakash
Singh Kharb
Identified or not Yes Yes No
Inducement or not Yes Yes No
Documents of No No No
acknowledgement/Receipts
of payment
FSL opinion on No No No
documents/receipts
Money trail None
Money handover by victims Yes No No
471. They are not in possession of any document/receipt to show the aforementioned payment to the accused persons.
472. Whereas PW-50 has claimed herself to be illiterate, PW-51 is a retired Sub-Inspector from Delhi Police.
473. A careful perusal of the testimonies of the aforementioned two witnesses and the documents placed on record by the prosecution, reveals that the said testimonies do not inspire confidence.
474. There is no explanation as to cash payments and as to absence of receipts/documentation. The accused persons are not close relatives of PW-50 and 51, there is no sufficient explanation Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 159 of 203 as to why the said witnesses blindly believed the accused persons with their hard-earned money. Cash payments by a government servant further create doubt.
475. The case of PW-50 and PW-51 is comparable to previously discussed case of PW-49 and PW-62. In both the cases, the husband's are Government servants and huge payments have been made in cash, without any documentation or acknowledgement. Therefore, the reasoning applied qua the latter set of witnesses (i.e. PW-49 and PW-62) under Chapter 8.12, as discussed hereinabove, can be applied to the former set of witnesses i.e. PW-50 and PW-51.
476. In conclusion, it can be said that in the light of the discussion hereinabove, this court is bound to disbelieve the testimonies of PW-50 and 51.
8.14 - PW-Rajwati
477. PW-Rajwati, like most other PWs, has deposed that she was lured to handover money to accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and was duped in the name of high returns. Apart from the allegations of cheating at the hands of the accused persons she has also levelled allegations that she was slapped by one Rajender, who is the nephew of accused Ranbir Singh Kharb. Qua the said allegations of slapping she has separately registered a FIR and Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 160 of 203 therefore, that is a separate matter.
478. For the sake of brevity, a tabulation of her testimony is being produced hereunder:
Name of the victim & PW-52 Smt. Rajwati
amount Amount : Rs.6,00,000/-
Ranbir Anita Kharb Satprakash
Singh
Kharb
Identified or not Yes Yes No
Inducement or not Yes No No
Documents of No No No
acknowledgement/Receipts
of payment
FSL opinion on No No No
documents/receipts
Money trail None
Money handover by Yes No No
victims
479. PW-Rajwati is a govt. school teacher. Her deposition prima facie only implicates accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and there is nothing against accused Satprakash and Anita Kharb.
480. She does not have any receipt or document to show the payment to the accused persons. The payments were made in cash.
She has not explained her financial capacity to make such payments, since she herself and her husband are both govt. servants, this obligation to prove documentary evidence, becomes even more necessary, in the view that payments were made in cash.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 161 of 203
481. Once again, there is no explanation on record as to why despite being educated teacher, she herself did not maintain any record/diary etc. Accused Ranbir Singh Kharb is not her close relative (they are from same village and the said accused calls her bua), in such case, absence of written receipt does create a serious doubt.
482. For the sake of brevity, the reasoning discussed in Chapter no.8.12 and 8.13 qua cash payments and qua absence of documentation is not being repeated here.
483. To conclude, this court holds that the testimony of PW- 52, Rajwati does not inspire confidence.
8.15 - PW-53 Bijender
484. This PW deposed that he gave a sum of Rs. 3.15 lakhs to accused Ranbir Singh Kharb as a friendly loan.
485. He was cross-examined at the hands of Ld. APP. In his cross-examination, in answer to the suggestions/questions of Ld. APP, he stated that he was induced by accused Ranbir Singh Kharb to handover a sum of Rs. 3.15 lakhs and he promised to get a liquor license against the said money.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 162 of 203
486. In the words of PW-53, when he asked for the return of the aforesaid money, accused Ranbir Singh Kharb offered his car to the said witness and handed over form no.29 and 30 of the said car.
487. By the testimony of PW-53, the prosecution has sought to prove the following documents:
1) PW-34/O, i.e., his police complaint
2) PW-53/A1 and PW-53/A2, i.e., from no. 29 and form no. 30 of the car of the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb.
3) PW-53/A4, i.e., the valuation report of the aforesaid car.
488. The said documents were seized by the IO vide seizure memo PW-34/AP.
489. Ld. APP has argued that document Ex. PW-53/A1 and PW-53/A2 were sent for FSL examination and the FSL results document Ex. PW-34/AQ have affirmed that the signatures on point Q4 and Q7, on the said documents, belong to the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb.
490. A tabulation of his testimony is being produced hereunder:
Name of the victim & PW-53 Bijender amount Amount : Rs.3,15,000/-
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 163 of 203 Ranbir Singh Anita Kharb Satprakash Kharb Identified or not Yes No No Inducement or not Yes No No Documents of No No No acknowledgement/Receipts of payment FSL opinion on No No No documents/receipts Money trail None Money handover by Yes No No victims
491. As per Ld. APP, the testimony of ,PW-53 is corroborated by the scientific opinion and therefore, it is sufficient to prove the guilt of accused Ranbir Singh Kharb beyond reasonable doubts.
492. Per contra, the defence has argued that documents Ex. PW-53/A1 and PW-53/A2 only prove that there were monetary transactions between the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and PW-53 but these documents do not prove, even remotely, that the said accused cheated the said witness.
493. A careful perusal of the testimony of the said witness reveals that this witness has not alleged any inducement at the hands of any accused person for investment in the company.
494. He was put to cross examination by Ld. APP whereas, initially he has stated that he gave a friendly loan to accused Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 164 of 203 Ranbir Singh Kharb, in his cross-examination at the hands of Ld. APP, he has stated that the money was given to the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb for getting liquor license. In the opinion of the court, the contradictions in the testimony create serious doubts and make it unworthy.
495. The court finds merits in the argument that documents Ex. PW-53/A1 and PW-53/A2 only prove that there were monetary transactions between the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and PW-53 but these documents do not prove that the said accused cheated the said witness, specially considering that PW-53 has himself stated that he was not 'induced' by the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb.
496. In conclusion, the court holds that the testimony of PW-53 does not inspire confidence.
8.16 - PW-54 Smt. Beena w/o Dharambir
497. Her testimony highlights inducement at the hands of accused Anita Kharb and Ranbir Singh Kharb and delivery of a sum of Rs.4,20,000/- in cash. The money was handed over in the name of investment in the company and despite repeated demands, it was never returned.
498. She has not deposed anything against accused Satprakash.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 165 of 203
499. A tabulation of the testimony of this witness is being produced hereunder :
Name of the victim & PW-54 Smt. Beena
amount Amount : Rs.4,20,000/-
Ranbir Anita Kharb Satprakash
Singh Kharb
Identified or not Yes Yes No
Inducement or not Yes Yes No
Documents of No No No
acknowledgement/Receipts
of payment
FSL opinion on No No No
documents/receipts
Money trail None
Money handover by victims Yes No No
500. Like most of the prosecution witnesses, PW-54 too has no money trial, receipt or documentation or even an independent witness to prove her claim of payment of Rs.4,20,000/- to the accused persons.
501. There is no explanation as to the source of money, nor has it been explained as to why no receipt of payment was taken from the accused persons. Accused Ranbir Singh Kharb is her neighbour and not particularly a close relative, therefore, unexplained absence of receipts of payment/documents and absence of money trail, do create a doubt.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 166 of 203 8.17 - PW-55 Omwati & PW-56 Ram Chander
502. PW-Omwati, in her own words, is Rakhi sister of accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, however, at the commencement of her testimony in the court she stated that she cannot remember the name of the accused. The contextually relevant portion of her testimony is produced hereunder:
"The accused who is sitting in the court today, whose name I do not know, used to come to my house at Ladpur.
Again said: The name of the accused is Ranbir Singh Kharb.
Court Observation: The witness has pointed out towards accused Ranbir Singh Kharb.
Accused Ranbir Singh Kharb is from village Mundela Khurd, even I am from the same village i.e. Bada Mundela Khurd. The accused is from Chota Mundela Khurd. Accused Ranbir Singh Kharb has come to my house many times to get rakhi tied."
503. Her testimony highlights inducement at the hands of accused Anita Kharb and Ranbir Singh Kharb and delivery of a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- in cash. The money was handed over in the name of investment in the company and despite repeated demands, was never returned. She has not deposed anything against accused Satprakash.
504. PW-56 Ram Chander is husband of PW-55 Omwati. His deposition is on the lines of the testimony of his wife. He has Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 167 of 203 explained the absence of receipts of payment to the accused persons by saying that they (PW-55 and PW-56) did not ask for the receipts as it was transactions between relatives.
505. In his examination in chief he has conceded that no money was ever given to the accused persons in his presence. He failed to identify accused Anita Kharb and Satprakash.
506. He was put to cross-examination by Ld. APP, as he was digressing from his statement.
507. In the cross-examination, at the hands of Ld. APP, PW-56 deposed that the aforementioned payments were made after making withdrawals from the bank account of his son and daughter -in-law. He further deposed that his wife sold a plot of land, situated at Dinapur, to invest money in the company.
508. A tabulation of the testimony of these witnesses is as under :
Name of the victim & PW-55 Smt. Omwati &
amount PW-56 Ram Chander
Amount : Rs.5,50,000/-
Ranbir Singh Anita Kharb Satprakash
Kharb
Identified or not Yes Yes No
Inducement or not Yes Yes No
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 168 of 203 Documents of No No No acknowledgement/Receipts of payment FSL opinion on No No No documents/receipts Money trail None Money handover by victims Yes No No PW-56 has stated that no money was ever handed over to accused persons in his presence.
509. Having carefully read the testimonies of PW-55 and PW- 56, in the background of the documents placed on record by the prosecution, this court is of the opinion that the said testimonies suffer from multiple infirmities and thus do not inspire confidence. Like most of the prosecution witnesses, PW-55 and PW-56 have no money trial, receipts or documentation or even an independent witness to prove their claim of payment of Rs.5,50,000/- to the accused persons.
510. PW-56 has categorically admitted that he never saw any money ever being handed over to the accused persons. Whereas, on one hand he has deposed that the money was arranged by selling a plot of land and by taking the same from the bank accounts of his son and daughter in law, on the other hand, PW-55 Omwati has stated that the money was arranged after selling milk Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 169 of 203 and from income from cultivation. The testimony of PW-55, in contradiction with the testimony of PW-56, has no whisper of any plot being sold or money being taken from son and daughter-in- law. This does create a doubt.
511. The prosecution has not produced any document to corroborate the sale of the aforesaid plot or to show payment by the aforesaid son and his wife. This does create a doubt.
512. It must also be noted that whereas PW-56 says that the money was paid from the bank account of his son and daughter-in- law, there is no explanation as to why it was handed over in cash, as opposed to it being given through banking channels.
513. There is no explanation as to the source of money, nor has it been explained as to why no receipt of payment was taken from the accused persons. Accused Ranbir Singh Kharb is her neighbour and not particularly a close relative, therefore, unexplained absence of receipts of payment and absence of money trail, do create a doubt.
514. To sum up the discussion, in view of the pointers discussed hereinbaove, the testimony of PW-55 and PW-56 do not inspire confidence and hence disbelieved.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 170 of 203 8.18 - PW-61 Attar Singh
515. PW-Attar Singh deposed that he gave Rs.19,00,00/- to the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb for investment in the company. As per him, he was induced by accused Ranbir Singh Kharb to invest in the company, against promised high interest of 2% per month or double amount in three years. He does not have any documentation etc. to support his claim.
516. PW-61 has deposed nothing against accused Anita Kharb and accused Satprakash.
517. A tabulation of the testimony of these witnesses is being produced hereunder :
Name of the victim & PW-61 Attar Singh
amount Amount : Rs.19,00,000/-
Ranbir Singh Anita Satprakash
Kharb Kharb
Identified or not Yes No No
Inducement or not Yes No No
Documents of No No No
acknowledgement/Receipts
of payment
FSL opinion on No No No
documents/receipts
Money trail None
Money handover by victims Yes No No
518. Ld. APP has argued that PW-61 Attar Singh is an Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 171 of 203 illiterate man infarct he has put his thumb impressions on the testimony. This, as per the Ld. APP, shows that the said witness was incapable of maintaining any records and his testimony cannot be doubted merely on account of absence of proof of payment.
519. Ld. Defence counsel on the other hand has argued that no one can simply hand over a sum of Rs.19,00,000/- that too without a proof of payment or a receipt thereof. The defence has casted doubts on the said testimony. It is pointed out that accused persons are not close relatives of the said witness and therefore, the burden becomes higher.
520. In PW-61's own words he invested a sum of Rs.19 lakhs in the company at the instance of accused Ranbir Singh Kharb. The payments were made in cash. There is no written documentation/receipt/proof of payment to substantiate the claim of the said witness. the prosecution has not produced any independent witness, apart from PW-61 himself who could say that he saw PW-61 handing over any money to the accused.
521. It is a settled position of law, as propounded by Hon'ble higher courts that whenever it is alleged that payment is made in cash and the said fact is denied by the opposite party, the onus to prove that the said payment was actually made, lies heavily upon the person who alleges that he made cash payment. In the matter at hand, most prosecution witnesses have alleged cash payments.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 172 of 203 PW-61 too has alleged the same, however, in the considered opinion of the court, the prosecution (speaking through PW-61 Kuldeep) has failed to discharge the said onus.
522. At the outset, the said witness i.e. PW-61 has failed to show from where he arranged the said amount of Rs. 19,00,000/-, that too about 20-22 years ago, when the annual incomes were grossly less as compared to what they are today. Even today this amount is huge. It is hard to believe that he made payment of the said amount in cash to the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, over a continuous period, in five-six installments, without getting any returns after three months. The absence of receipts/ documentation/proof of payment to substantiate the claim of the said witness and absence of any independent witness, apart from PW-61 himself, who could say that he saw PW-61 handing over any money to the accused, further creates doubts in the testimony of the said witness.
523. It may be noted that admittedly PW-61 and the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb are not close relatives. In his own words, he knows the said accused as his sister got married in the same village as that of the accused. By no stretch of imagination, this relationship can be assumed to be a compelling factor to dispense off the proof of payment such as receipts etc. Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 173 of 203
524. To conclude, this court disbelieves the testimony of the said witness.
8.19 - Police witnesses
525. At this juncture, it is equally important to consider and appreciate, on scales of 'beyond reasonable doubts' the testimonies of police witnesses and other prosecution witnesses.
526. The prosecution has heavily relied upon the testimonies of the two IOs namely PW-34 Inspector Sher Singh and PW-31 Inspector Anil Kumar. These two PWs have done the majority of investigation. Through their testimonies, they have proved the investigation conducted, the seizures made, the statements recorded etc. The other police witnesses namely PW-23 ASI Tanvir Ahmed, PW-25 ASI Surender Singh, PW-26 ASI Prem Singh, PW- 27 SI Sneh Lata, PW-32 Inspector Manmohan Singh, PW-33 Inspector Vivek Maheshwari, PW-47 Inspector Pawan Singh, PW- 48 ACP Rajesh Kumar, PW-57 Inspector Mahendra Kumar Mishra and PW-65 ACP Sanjay Kumar have proved their respective roles in the investigation.
527. It is settled law that the case of the prosecution cannot be demolished on account of a one-off minor contradictions, however, major contradictions do hit the matter at its root. Minor contradictions too, based on their volume and frequency of Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 174 of 203 repetition, affect the merits of the matter and bound the court to have a suspicious eye towards the prosecution.
528. The aforesaid police witnesses were cross-examined at length by Ld. Defence Counsel however, in the considered opinion of this court, no material contradictions could be highlighted which would hit the matter at its roots and which would make the court disbelieve their testimonies.
8.20 - Bank Witnesses
529. The prosecution has examined in total 10 witnesses from various banks, namely PW-10A Naresh Kumar Garg, PW-13 Sh. SrinivasanV., PW-14 Sh. Robin Davis, PW-17A Sh. Ravinder Kumar, PW-19 Sh. Sunit Prakash, PW-22 Sh. Naveen Kumar, PW-28 Sh. Ravinder Kumar, PW-30 Sh. Sagar Gopal Kakkad, PW- 59 Sh. Vikram Kumar and PW-60 Sh. Shyam Lal Goel.
530. It is the case of the prosecution that these witnesses have been examined to prove the banking transactions between the victims/PWs and the accused persons/the company.
531. The perusal of record reveals that none of the prosecution witnesses has asserted any banking transaction between himself/herself and the accused persons or the company. In such situation, there is hardly any relevance to the testimonies of the Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 175 of 203 aforesaid bank witnesses.
Chapter - 9 Defence Evidence
532. The defence has examined seven witnesses. A gist of their testimonies is as under:
533. Through DW-1 the defence has placed on record judgment titled as Santosh Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb, 314/04, Goshwara No.10573/08.
534. DW-2 has placed on record copy of FIR no.150/07, PS Jafarpur Kalan.
535. DW-3 has placed on record original record of complaint case no. 910/09, decided by the court of Ld. SCJ-Cum-RC, North- West, Rohini.
536. DW-4 has placed on record judgment passed by Ld. ADJ-01, Central District in Suit no. 14767/16.
537. DW-5 and DW-6 have placed on record copy of FIR no. 430/2006, PS Bawana and FIR no.99/95 PS Baroada, Sonipat respectively.
538. DW-7 Rajesh Kumar has brought on record, the record of Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 176 of 203 complaint case no.118, titled as Mrs. Suman Sapra & Ors. Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb, from the court of Ld. CJM, Rohtak and the record of the court of Sessions i.e. Crl. Appeal No.36/2007, titled as Ranbir Vs. Suman Sapra & Ors. from the court of Ld. Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Rohtak.
539. No evidence was led by accused Satprakash.
540. Through the documents placed on record by DW-1 and DW-7, the defence has endeavored to show that accused Ranbir Singh Kharb settled the matter i.e. the complaint case u/.s 138 NI Act with Suman Sapra and Santosh. This has never been disputed by the prosecution and infact PW-3 has always affirmed the same. As per the testimony of PW-3, accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, in acknowledgment of his liability issued four cheques and thereafter, of the four cheques one cheque of Rs.44 Lakh was taken back by the said accused and instead he issued two cheques of Rs.22.45 lakhs and Rs. 18.60 lakhs to Suman and Santosh respectively.
541. In the considered opinion of this court, the defence does not stand to benefit anything out of the testimonies of DW-1 and DW-7 as the stand qua Ms. Santosh and Ms. Suman has never been disputed by the prosecution.
542. The perusal of the judgment Ex.DW7/A4, in light of the prosecution story, further strengthens the testimony of PW-3 and Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 177 of 203 corroborates the explanation given qua document Ex.X.1.
543. DW-2 has placed on record copy of the FIR bearing no.150/07 PS Jafar Kalan. The said FIR is perused. It is an FIR registered by the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, u/s 380/467/468/471/420/209/120-B IPC against PW-3 Ranbir Singh Dahiya and it is alleged that the said PW stole the cheques of the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and handed over the same to various persons, including the aforementioned Suman and Santosh etc. The FIR is dated 12.10.2007. The present case was registered in the year 2006, therefore, the possibility of the FIR No.150/07 being a counter blast to the present FIR cannot be denied. Accordingly, in the considered opinion of this court, FIR No.150/07 does not prove the defence of the accused persons that PW-3 Ranbir Singh Dahiya stole the signed cheques and signed documents of the accused persons and used them in the matter at hand.
544. DW-3 has brought on record inter-alia the judgment passed by the Court of Ld. SCJ-cum-RC/North West/Rohini, u/s 138 NI Act, in a matter titled as Ranbir Singh Dahiya Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb. The said judgment has convicted the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb for an offence u/s 138 NI Act.
545. It has been argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that since the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb has already been convicted in the complaint case u/s 138 NI Act, the present proceedings are bad in Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 178 of 203 law, for the same amounts to double jeopardy.
546. Keeping the applicable law in mind, this court finds no merits in the submissions of ld. Defence Counsel. The proceedings u/s 138 NI Act are independent and distinct proceedings than the one in the matter at hand. Whereas, the proceedings u/s 138 NI Act are in reference to dishonour of cheque, the present proceedings are qua the offence of cheating/criminal breach of trust etc. There can be no logical connection between the two except for the fact that the same victim can allege both, though distinctly.
547. Accordingly, this court holds that DW-3, who has brought on record the judgment from the court of Ld. SCJ, convicting the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb u/s 138 NI Act, is of no help to the defence alleged by the accused persons.
548. DW-4 has brought on record the judgment from the court of Ld. ADJ, Tis Hazari, Delhi. The same has already been discussed hereinabove under the head 8.10, Kuldeep Singh.
549. DW-5 and DW-6 have brought on record FIR No. 430/2006, PS Bawana u/s 25/54 Arms Act and FIR No.99/95, PS Barodra, Sonipat u/s 394/34 IPC, respectively, against PW-Pravin Dahiya.
550. It has been argued by the defence that the said FIRs show Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 179 of 203 the character of PW-2 and hence the said witness is totally unreliable. Ld. Defence counsel has relied upon Section 155 of Indian Evidence Act to argue that the testimony of PW-2 is unworthy of any credit.
551. Ld. APP on the contrary has argued that in the FIR No.430/06, PW-2 has already been acquitted and the same has been stated by DW-5. Similarly, in FIR No.99/95 PS Barorda, it is submitted by ld. APP that the accused persons have already been acquitted.
552. Having heard both the sides, I do not find merits in the submissions of Ld. Defence Counsel.
553. As discussed hereinabove, for Section 155 of IEA to apply, what must be shown is that there is evidence on record which establishes that the witness is unworthy of credit or that he is under some corrupt inducement or that there are material contradictions in the testimony.
554. In the matter at hand, the Defence Counsel has merely argued that there is an FIR against PW-2. This does not per se discredit a witness nor does it impeach his character. Even otherwise it has come on record that the said witness (PW2) has already been acquitted in both the aforesaid FIRs. The submissions of Ld. Defence Counsel are thus rejected.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 180 of 203 Chapter - 10 What offences are made out?
555. Whereas, the prosecution has alleged offences u/s 120- B/409/420/506 IPC against accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, offence u/s 120-B/409/420 IPC against accused Anita Kharb and u/s 120- B/420/506 IPC against accused Sat Prakash, the question that arises here is that which of these offences can be said to be proved and that too beyond reasonable doubts.
556. As discussed hereinabove, qua the offence of cheating, the testimonies of PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-6, PW-8 and PW-29 only, inspire confidence. Of these witnesses too, only PW-2 and PW-3 are considered as separate victims and PW-4, PW-6 and PW- 29 have lent a supporting hand to the said victim's testimonies.
557. What needs to be seen now is whether these testimonies prove the aforementioned charges, and if yes, to what extent.
558. In the interest of justice, I deem it appropriate to individually discuss each of the aforementioned allegations.
10.1 - Section 420 IPC r/w Sec.120B IPC
559. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused persons, Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 181 of 203 in pursuance of their criminal conspiracy, cheated innocent investors by inducing them to invest money in the company, against huge returns of 2% per month interest and double amount in 3 years, without having intention of ever repaying the investment money or the interest thereof. As per the prosecution, the accused persons, acting in course of criminal conspiracy, being directors of the company and/or being ostensible representatives of the company committed offences u/s 420/120 B IPC.
560. It is further alleged by the prosecution that the accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy and in pursuance thereof each of the accused persons individually as well as vicariously for each other, induced the members of the general public including the victims/PWs to invest money in the company.
561. The accused persons, in order to lure the general public, promised unrealistic high returns and it is alleged that the accused persons never had intention to repay the money, which as per the prosecution, is also apparent from the fact that no investor has ever got the entire money with interest.
562. To prove the charge of criminal conspiracy the prosecution is required to establish that two or more persons had agreed to do or caused to be done, an illegal act or an act which is not legal, by illegal means. It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such crime or is merely incidental to that Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 182 of 203 object. To attract the applicability of Section 120-B it has to be proved that all the accused had the intention and they had agreed to commit the crime.
563. There is no doubt that conspiracy is hatched in private and in secrecy for which direct evidence would rarely be available. It is also not necessary that each member to a conspiracy must know all the details of the conspiracy.
564. The very agreement or the concert is the necessary ingredient of the offence. It is not necessary that all the conspirators must know each and every detail of the conspiracy as long as they are co-conspirators in the main object of the conspiracy.
565. There must be unity of object or purpose but there may be plurality of means sometimes even unknown to one another, amongst the conspirators. In achieving the goal several offences may be committed by some of the conspirators even unknown to the others. The only relevant factor is that all means adopted and illegal acts done must be and purported to be in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy.
566. Even if some steps are resorted to by one or two of the conspirators without the knowledge of the others it will not affect the culpability of those others when they are associated with the Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 183 of 203 object of the conspiracy.
567. The significance of criminal conspiracy, under Section 120-A, was brought out pithily by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in E. G. Barsay (Supra), the same is reiterated as under :
"The gist of the offence is an agreement to break the law. The parties to such an agreement will be guilty of criminal conspiracy, though the illegal act agreed to be done has not been done. So too, it is not an ingredient of the offence that all the parties should agree to do a single illegal act. It may comprise the commission of a number of acts. Under Section 43 of the Indian Penal Code, an act would be illegal if it is an offence or if it is prohibited by law. Under the first charge the accused are charged with having conspired to do three categories of illegal acts, and the mere fact that all of them could not be convicted separately in respect of each of the offences has no relevancy in considering the question whether the offence of conspiracy has been committed. They are all guilty of the offence of conspiracy to do illegal acts, though for individual offences all of them may not be liable."
568. In the matter at hand, it has sufficiently come on record that even though accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and accused Satprakash did not hold any post or position in the company, these accused persons too made promises on behalf of the company and issued receipts etc. on the letterhead of the company, thus making ostensible representations for a member of general public to believe that the said persons hold a clout over the company.
569. Furthermore, it too has sufficiently come on record, as is apparent from the testimonies, as aforementioned, that the accused Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 184 of 203 persons worked in harmony with each other to induce the general public to invest money in the company. The very fact that the accused persons promised unrealistic returns, which are unheard of in general business, speaks volumes about their intention.
570. It gets established, beyond reasonable doubts, that the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb canvassed himself as the owner of the company, whereas on paper he never held any post of Director or any other position of responsibility in the company and induced the general public, more particularly his kith and kin to invest money in the company against fictitious lucrative claims of 2% per month interest or double the amount in three years that is to say a whopping 24% per annum interest was offered by the accused persons, whereas the standard interest rates are 6 to 8% per annum. This is 3-4 times higher than the market rates and thus the court is bound to be suspicious about it. It may be added here that not even one witness from prosecution or the defence has stated that he ever got the promised returns. This too highlights the intention of the accused persons in making fruitless promises.
571. It will not be an over statement to say that accused Ranbir Singh Kharb was in fact the face of the company for all intends and purposes.
572. Accused Anita Kharb on the other hand, acted in the background and was the Director of the company on the papers.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 185 of 203 She issued acknowledgments, receipts and other documentation under her signatures on the letter-head of the company to make people believe of her claims and to lend support to the promises made by accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, her husband. She signed in English language and admittedly used to canvas for her husband for political purposes. In her own words she is a known figure in the area; merely saying that she is an illiterate lady does not exonerate her from the liability specially considering the documents issued by her to the victims i.e. document Ex.PW2/A, which bears her signature at point Q1 and the same has been corroborated by the FSL itself and document Ex.X.1 which bears her signature at point Q-16 and the same has been corroborated by the FSL itself.
573. The testimonies of various PWs have indicted accused Anita Kharb too as the one who made inducements to invest money.
574. As discussed hereinabove, the prosecution has successfully proved the document Ex.PW2/A and document Ex.X1.
575. The said two accused persons i.e. Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb issued receipts/acknowledgment under the title called receipt-cum-declaration on letter-heads of the company and on non judicial stamp papers and freely gave them to the victims as Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 186 of 203 acknowledgment of their liability, this shows audacious nature of the accused persons and scant regard for law and its consequences.
576. Accused Satprakash too is on comparable pedestal, which shows his active involvement in the criminal conspiracy, alongwith co-accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb.
577. The document Ex.PW40/A, which is a receipt on the letterhead of the company, has been sufficiently proved against accused Satprakash.
578. Accused Satprakash, much like the other accused persons, issued a receipt-cum-declaration in favour of PW-40 Bal Kishan i.e. document Ex.PW40/A, which is on the letter-head of the company.
579. Document Ex.PW40/A has been corroborated by the FSL report. The expert opinion has confirmed the signatures of accused Satprakash at point Q-33 on the said document. This document is a letter head of the company and is duly typed in the name of the accused Satprakash. To enunciate better, I deem appropriate to take on record the contents thereof :
"RECEIPT-CUM-DECLARATION I, Satya Parkash Lakra s/o Sh. Rajinder Singh R/o 1/589, Dal Mill Road, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-
1. That I have received Rs.2,00,000/-
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 187 of 203 (Two Lac only) in cash, as a loan from Sh. Bal Kishan son of Sh. Partap Singh r/o C-1/40, Mohan Garden, Main Najafgarh Road, New Delhi, on 14.11.02, for my personal requirement.
2. That I will pay the interest every month on 14th.
3. That I have signed on this receipt cum declaration as acknowledgment and true evidence.
(Signed by Satprakash) DEPONENT/DECLARANT"
580. The perusal of the document Ex.PW40/A leaves no iota of doubt qua the intention of the accused Satprakash and qua his participation in the affairs of the company. One cannot issue typed and signed declarations on the letter-head of the company and still claim ignorance about its affairs.
581. Even though the defence has argued that PW-40 has given clean chit to the said accused, in the considered opinion of this court, merely because a victim has been paid back his money, does not by itself absolve the accused of his liability, specially considering that a charge of criminal conspiracy is also under consideration. It is not an exclusive trial on Section 420 IPC, so as to cause compounding. The statement of PW-40 though perhaps exonerates the offence u/s 420 IPC, it is sufficient to indict the accused Satparkash qua criminal conspiracy.
582. For better understanding qua the testimony of PW-40, I Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 188 of 203 deem appropriate to take on record the contextually relevant portion of the testimony of PW-40:
"I do not know Accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and accused Anita Kharb. I know accused Satya Prakash. I invested Rs. 2 lacs in Finance Company at the instance of accused Satya Prakash, on 14.11.2002.
He told me that the accused company will give 2% per month interest or double the amount in 3 years.
Accused Satya Prakash on behalf of the accused company gave me interest for 2-3 months, he later told me that the company is having difficult time and thus stopped giving the interest.
I filed a complaint against accused Satya Prakash before EOW."
583. Later in his cross-examination the said witness has deposed :
"It is correct that you (i.e. accused Satparkash) never had any bad intention towards me. It is correct that you never made any inducement with intention of defrauding me. It is correct that you returned money out of your own pocket."
584. The aforesaid statements in the cross-examination may be sufficient to compound the offence u/s 420 IPC, however, the same does not take away the role and participation of the accused in the criminal conspiracy to cheat and defraud the innocent investors by promising 24% per annum returns.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 189 of 203
585. The magnanimity of the promised interest rates i.e. 24% per annum interest, against the prevalent banking rates of interest of 6 to 8% per annum, speaks volumes about their correctness and also about the intention of the accused persons in fulfilling their promises, thus paving a path for conviction u/s 420 IPC r/w Sec.120 B IPC against accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, Anita Kharb and Satprakash.
586. It is settled law that offence of cheating is established when it is proved that the accused have dishonestly induced a person to deliver any property or to do or omit to do something, which he would have otherwise not done or omitted. In the matter at hand, there is clear evidence that the accused persons dishonestly induced the victims to invest money in the name of the company by promising extremely high, fictional returns and in consequence they (accused persons) received huge sums of money from the victims. But for the aforementioned dishonest inducements by the accused persons, no one would have handed over their hard earned money to the accused persons. Thus it can be said that the ingredients of offence of cheating are duly fulfilled and proved.
587. The testimonies of PW2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-6, PW-8 and PW-29, etc. and the documents produced by them particularly document Ex.PW2/A, Ex.X1, Ex.PW40/A etc. (duly corroborated Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 190 of 203 by FSL) are clinching evidences against the accused persons and these evidences taken together prove the offence of cheating and criminal conspiracy by the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb, Anita Kharb and Satparkash, beyond reasonable doubts.
588. One more argument qua accused Satprakash which needs to be dealt at this juncture is that the said accused is on the same footing as PW-Jai Pal Malik and he ought to have been made a victim rather than a accused.
589. The court finds no merits in the said argument. Ld. Defence Counsel/DLSA Counsel is mistaken in comparing the roles of the said two persons i.e. Jai Pal Malik and accused Satprakash. The fact that the accused Satparkash issued receipts on the letterhead of the company under his own signatures (as discussed hereinabove, this shows his active participation and the culpable mens-rea), puts him squarely in the category of accused persons, far away from the league of witnesses/victims.
10.2 - Section 409 IPC
590. Since the charge of criminal misappropriation (u/s 409 IPC) was framed in alternative to the charge of cheating and since the charge of cheating has been proved beyond reasonable doubts, the later charge is of no avail. Even otherwise, it does not stand proved for none of the prosecution witnesses have deposed that Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 191 of 203 they handed over money to the accused persons in view of the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb being an MLA. In fact all prosecution witness deposed that money was given to the accused persons prior to the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb becoming MLA.
591. Section 409 IPC provides as under :
"Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent.--Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
592. In order to sustain a conviction under sec. 409 IPC, the prosecution is to prove the following:
i) accused, a public servant was entrusted with property of which he was duty bound to account for, and
ii) the accused has misappropriated the said property.
593. As discussed hereinabove, none of the prosecution witnesses have deposed that they entrusted money to the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb on account of his position as MLA. The aforesaid monies were handed over from the year 1998 to 2003, the said accused become an MLA in the year 2003, however, no witness has deposed that any money was handed over after 2003 and therefore, any discussion on Section 409 IPC is infructuous Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 192 of 203 exercise.
10.3 - Section 506 IPC
594. There are no allegations u/s 506 IPC against accused Anita Kharb. These allegations are only against accused Ranbir Singh Kharb and Satprakash. It is the case of the prosecution that victims were threatened by the said accused persons, when they demanded their money back.
595. It is worth mentioning here that the charge of Section 506 IPC is separate from the aforementioned charges including the charge of criminal conspiracy u/s 120B IPC and therefore, it ought to be discussed separately.
596. PW-2 Pravin, PW-41 Kuldeep and PW-37 Jai Pal Malik have alleged criminal intimidation against accused Ranbir Singh Kharb. PW-45 and PW-46 have alleged the same against accused Satprakash.
597. For the sake of convenience, I deem appropriate to take on record the language of Section 503 IPC :
"Criminal intimidation.--Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 193 of 203 avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation."
598. In Ramesh v State [AIR 1960 SC 154: 1960 Cr LJ 177], the Supreme Court has held that the section 503 IPC consists of two parts, the first part referring to the act of threatening another with injury to his person, reputation or property or to the person or reputation of anyone in which that person is interested, and the second part referring to the intent with which the threatening is carried out and it is also of two categories, one to cause alarm to the person threatened and the second to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of threat.
599. The threat must be communicated or uttered with the intention of its being communicated to the person threatened with the object of influencing his mind.
600. The essential ingredients of the offence under sec. 506 IPC are as follows:
(1) The accused threatened someone with injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person, reputation or property of another in whom the former was interested; (2) The accused did so with intent to cause alarm to the victim of offence;
(3) The accused did so to cause the victim to perform any act which he was not legally bound to do.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 194 of 203
601. Coming to the matter at hand, the charge u/s 506 IPC qua against accused Ranbir Singh Kharb is being discussed first. As per the prosecution, the said accused intimidated the complainant Pravin Kumar, PW-41 Kuldeep and PW-37 Jai Pal Malik.
602. In their testimonies PW-3 and PW-37 have stated that they were threatened by the accused Ranbir Singh Kharb however, it is not specified as to what was the nature of the threat or what consequences followed thereafter. Merely saying that a person was threatened, does not by itself, constitute the offence u/s 506 IPC.
603. PW-41 Kuldeep has stated that he too was threatened by accused Ranbir Singh Kharb. The said accused, in the words of PW-41, gave death threats to the said witness and in consequence thereto a separate complaint was made to SHO PS Jafarpur Kalan. The said complaint Mark PW41/A is perused. It does not bear any allegation which can be covered under the bracket death threat. What it says is that the MLA Ranbir Singh Kharb told the said witness that the former will teach a lesson to him and will show him the power of a MLA.
604. This contradiction in the testimony before the court and in the written complaint to the SHO does create a reasonable doubt and thus binds the court to disbelieve the said testimony. Even otherwise the testimony of PW-41 cannot be considered on account of reasoning given under the head "8.10."
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 195 of 203
605. To sum up the prosecution has failed to prove its charge u/s 506 IPC against accused Ranbir Singh Kharb.
606. Next the allegations of criminal intimidation against accused Satprakash need to be dealt. PW-45 and PW-46 have categorically stated that the said accused, accompanied by his son, threatened to thrash the said witnesses and also threatened to commit suicide.
607. A careful perusal of these testimonies shows that even though there is an allegation of threat, nothing has been stated which would show that the witnesses were alarmed because of the said threats. It has not come on record that because of the threat to commit suicide the said witnesses did not take or commence any legal proceedings against the said accused.
608. As discussed hereinabove, in order to establish the offence u/s 506 IPC, what needs to be shown is that the accused threatened someone with injury, with intent to cause alarm to the victim and did so to cause the victim to perform any act which he was not legally bound to do or omit him to do something which he otherwise would have done. In the matter at hand, the testimonies of PW-45 and PW-46 do not show the ingredient of alarm.
609. To conclude it can be said that prosecution has fallen Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 196 of 203 short in proving the allegations of criminal intimidation against all the accused persons.
Chapter - 11 Conclusion
610. Since the discussion on each individual victim, the defence evidence and the offences made out is complete; for a sake of convenience a tabulation of the findings of the court qua each witness are being produced hereunder:
Sl. Name of the Alleged cheated Alleged investment No victim amount whether proved or not .
1. PW-2 Pravin Rs.23,00,000/- Proved Kumar
2. PW-3 Ranbir Rs.1.34 Crores out of Proved Singh Dahiya which Rs.10 lakh are that of PW-3
3. PW-4 Attar Rs.10,00,000/- Proved.
Singh s/o Lal Already covered The testimony of PW-4 Singh under the amount of is corroborative in PW-3, Ranbir Singh nature and the Dahiya and prosecution has used it therefore, cannot be to substantiate the claim considered separately of PW-3 and PW-4 is not per-se a separate victim, beyond PW-3.
4. PW-5 Rs.15,00,000/- Not proved Girdhari Lal Khetan Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 197 of 203
5. PW-6 Rs.6,00,000/- Proved.
Randhir The testimony of PW-6
Singh is corroborative in
nature and the
prosecution has used it
to substantiate the claim
of PW-2 and PW-6 is not
per-se a separate victim,
beyond PW-2.
6. PW-8 Baljeet Rs.5,00,000/- Proved.
The testimony of PW-8
is corroborative in
nature and the
prosecution has used it
to substantiate the claim
of PW-2 and PW-8 is not
per-se a separate victim,
beyond PW-2.
7. PW-29 Smt. Rs.9,00,000/- Proved.
Parmila The testimony of PW-29
is corroborative in
nature and the
prosecution has used it
to substantiate the claim
of PW-2 and PW-29 is
not per-se a separate
victim, beyond PW-2.
8. PW-35 Sh. Rs.16,00,000/- Not considered
Om Prakash
9. PW-36 Rs.5,00,000/- Not considered
Ranbir Singh
Dalal
10. PW-37 Jai Pal Rs.25,00,000/- Not proved
Malik
11. PW-38 Lal Rs.5,00,000/- Not proved
Chand
12. PW-39 Rs.6,00,000/- Not proved
Sukhbir
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 198 of 203
13. PW-40 Bal Rs.2,00,000/- Not proved for cheating.
Kishan The testimony of PW-40
proves criminal
conspiracy qua
Satprakash.
14. PW-41 Rs.20,20,000/- Not considered &
Kuldeep otherwise too not
proved.
15. PW-42 Vinod Rs.16,50,000/- Not considered &
Kumar otherwise too not
proved.
16. PW-43 Nil Not considered
Premwati
17. PW-44 Raj Rs.6,00,000/- Not considered
Bala
18. PW-45 Rs.4,50,000/- Not proved
Gajender
Singh
19. PW-46 Gyan Rs.4,00,000/- Not proved
Singh
20. PW-49 Phool Rs.21,10,000/- Not proved
Kaur, PW-62
Jasbir and
PW-64
Akshay
Beniwal
21. PW-50 Rs.7,00,000/- Not proved
Rajesh and It is admitted that she
PW-51 has received back
Randhir Rs.4,50,000/-
Singh
22. PW-52 Rs.6,00,000/- Not proved
Rajwati
23. PW-53 Rs.3,15,000/- Not proved
Bijender
24. PW-54 Smt. Rs.4,20,000/- Not proved
Beena
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 199 of 203
25. PW-55 Smt. Rs. 5,50,000/- Not proved Omwati & It is admitted that PW-56 Sh. they have received Ram Chander back an amount of Rs.50,000/-
26. PW-61 Sh. Rs.19,00,000/- Not proved Attar Singh
27. PW-63 Sh. Rs.2,00,000/- Not proved Devender
611. Having considered the case in its entirety, the testimonies of the witnesses, the cross conducted, the documents put forth by the prosecution, their scientific evaluation, the testimony of the defence witness, the statement of the accused persons u/s 313 Cr.PC and the arguments advanced by all the counsels from both the sides, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been successful in proving the guilt of accused Satprakash, Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb beyond reasonable doubts.
612. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses (particularly PW-2 and PW-3 etc.) establishes deliveries of various sums of monies to the said accused persons. The intention of the accused persons, at the very inception of the transactions/at the time of making false promises, becomes clear from the fact that the promised returns were quixotic, unrealistic and unheard of in general business and therefore, are impossible to abide. It only shows that the accused persons wanted people to handover their hard-earned savings, in return of magical returns which were never Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 200 of 203 destined to fall in their kitty.
613. As defined by Halsbury's law, a criminal conspiracy consist of an agreement of two or more persons to do an unlawful act. The essence of the offence of conspiracy is the fact of combination by agreement. The agreement may be express or implied, or in part express and in part implied. The actus reus in a conspiracy is the agreement to execute the illegal conduct, not the execution of it.
614. A man may join a conspiracy by word or by deed. However, criminal responsibility for a conspiracy requires more than a merely passive attitude towards an existing conspiracy. One who commits an overt act with knowledge of the conspiracy is guilty. And one who tacitly consents to the object of a conspiracy and goes along with other conspirators, actually standing by while the others put the conspiracy into effect, is guilty though he intends to take no effective part in the crime. The same is the case with accused Satprakash. Reliance is placed on observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State vs Nalini (1999) 5 SCC 253.
615. It is wrong to think that every one of the conspirators must have taken active part in the commission of each and every one of the conspiratorial acts. The offence of criminal conspiracy consists in a meeting of minds of two or more persons for agreeing Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 201 of 203 to do or causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means, and the performance of an act in terms thereof. If pursuant to the criminal conspiracy the conspirators commit several offences, then all of them will be liable for the offences even if some of them had not actively participated in the commission of the offences. Reliance is placed on observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State v Krishan Lal AIR 1987 SC 773.
616. Coming back to the matter at hand, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses clearly establish that the accused persons namely Satparkash, Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb acted in the course of common design to cheat innocent investors by painting a picture of lucrative interest scheme. It can be said that they never had any intention of paying back the money of the investors.
617. They acted in the course of this criminal conspiracy and induced investors/victims, took money from them and executed written acknowledgments. The execution of documents such as document Ex.PW2/A, Ex.X1, Ex.PW40/A etc. by the accused persons show a clear and common path taken by the accused persons to defraud the general public and from these, the existence of an agreement or a conspiracy can be inferred, beyond reasonable doubts. Thus, paving a path for conviction u/s 420 IPC r/w section 120B IPC against accused persons namely Ranbir Singh Kharb, Anita Kharb and Satprakah.
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 202 of 203
618. The prosecution has fallen short qua the allegations of criminal intimidation. The said allegations i.e. offence u/s 506 IPC could not be proved against any accused persons.
619. Ergo, in conclusion it can be said that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against accused Satprakash, Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb beyond reasonable doubts for offences u/s 420 r/w Sec. 120-B IPC. Accordingly, these three accused persons namely accused Satprakash, Ranbir Singh Kharb and Anita Kharb are hereby convicted for the offences u/s 420 r/w Section 120-B IPC.
620. For the sake of convenience an Index of the Judgment is being attached herewith, as Annexure-A.
621. Copy of the order be given free of cost to the convicted persons.
Announced in open court
on 13.12.2023 (Harjeet Singh Jaspal)
ACMM-04, RADC, New Delhi
Cr. No. 122/2019; FIR No.329/2006; PS EOW State Vs. Ranbir Singh Kharb & Ors. Page : 203 of 203