Delhi District Court
2. Title Of The Case : State vs Akhilesh Singh on 7 December, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI MANISH YADUVANSHI
ACMM0I (CENTRAL) : TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
1. Case No. : 09/06
Unique I.D. No. : 02401R0108362006
2. Title of the Case : State Vs Akhilesh Singh
FIR No. 614/05
PS : I.P. ESTATE
U/s : 419/420 IPC
4. Date of Institution : 14.02.2006
5. Date of reserving judgment : 06.12.2012
6. Date of pronouncement : 07.12.2012
J U D G M E N T :
a) The Sl. No. of the case : 09/06o
b) The date of commission
of offence : 16.12.2005
c) The name of complainant : Sh. Megh Singh, Asstt. Manaer,
Fraud Control Unit, Standard Chartered
Bank, Express Building, ITO
Delhi
d) The name of accused : Akhilesh Singh, S/o Sh. Rajdev Singh
S/o Sh. Rajdev Singh, R/o B44/1B,
Rajpur Khurd, Chattarpur, Mehrauli,
New Delhi
e) The offence complained of : U/s : 419/420 IPC
e) The offence charged with : U/s : 420/511 IPC
g) The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
FIR NO. 614/05 State Vs. Akhilesh Singh Page 1 of 6
h) The final order : Acquitted
i) The date of such order : 07.12.2012
j) Brief facts of the decision of the case :
1. It is the case of the prosecution that accused committed offence
punishable u/s 419/420 IPC by attempting purchases on the basis of credit cards not belonging to him.
2. The case came up to be the registered on complaint dated 16.12.2005 (Ex. PW2/A) made by one Megh Singh, Fraud Control Unit, Standard Chartered, Delhi to the ACP, EOW, Delhi. Standard Chartered Bank received a call from Indiatimes.com to check validity of transaction of Rs. 3137/ incurred on credit card No. 4129058687196341 dated 12.12.2005. The address and phone number of card holder did not match with delivery address provided to Indiatimes.com.. One Samson Peter of Indaitimes.com confirmed the transaction. The card holder was not in India at the time of transaction. His wife denied any such transaction. Samson Peter called the person who used the card on the website to collect the goods. On 16.12.2005, the accused Akhilesh Singh came to their office to collect the goods. Staff of Standard Chartered Bank was also there. It was found that accused had fraudulently misused the credit card. He informed that he had also used other credit card of City Bank also. A rukka was sent through HC Samraj Singh (PW5). The case was registered. The investigation was made over to SI Subhash Chand (now inspector/ PW2). The investigation revealed that the accused used his email ID's for making purchases. He had placed an order for FIR NO. 614/05 State Vs. Akhilesh Singh Page 2 of 6 on line ticket at irctc co.in website through credit card of one Ms. Nisha Kapoor ( not examined) for booking railway ticket on a consideration of Rs. 1505/ which was delivered at the address of accused. It was further revealed that on 12.12.2005, the accused placed an order to indiatimes.com from his email I.D. for purchasing one Nokia Mobile Phone for Rs. 10,185/ on the credit card of Ms. Nisha Kapooor (not examined)
3. On the same day, accused placed an order to indiatimes.com from his email ID for purchasing one Aiptec 5 in 1 Digital Handicam + Digital Camera with LCD for Rs. 3,317/ by using credit card one of Sunil Kumar Arora ( not examined) and given delivery address by the name of Mithlesh Singh. On the same day, he also placed an order to indiatimes.com from his email ID for purchasing of one diamond ring for Rs. 9199/ on the credit card of one Ms. Meena Chopra ( PW1).
4. During the investigation, the IO examined Megha Singh/ Complainant, Assistant Manager, Fraud Control Unit, Samson Peter, Logistic and Fraud Control Executive at indiatimes.com and Pradeep Singh, Fraud Control Unit, Standard Chartered Bank. The accused was arrested. He got recovered large number of filled and unfilled credit cards forms of various bank. The IO had also examined Meena Chopra and Smt. Nisha, W/o Sunil Kumar Arora. She had identified the photograph of the accused. The IO also collected application form of Meena Chopra from Sh. Deepak Karan, (PW3) AR, Fraud Control Unit Citygroup. He also collected the relevant documents pertaining to Nisha Kapoor. He also FIR NO. 614/05 State Vs. Akhilesh Singh Page 3 of 6 examined one Anand Parkash (PW5) owner of Krishna Computer Education from where the accused had done computer course. The IO also examine one Ajay Raghi, owner of Ajay Internet Practice Centre ( not examined) where the accused used to visit for using internet. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was before the court. Accordingly accused was summoned and on his appearance in the court, he was supplied copies of charge sheet and other documents.
2. On 10.11.2006 a charge for commission of offence punishable u/s 420/511 IPC only was framed against the accused. The accused was charged to have committed said offence on 12.12.2005 at 6.16 pm to the effect that he had attempted to cheat indiatimes.com by dishonestly inducing them to deliver one Aiptec 5 in 1 digital handicam plus one digital camera with LCD which was purchased on line by him by procuring credit card belong to Sh. Sunil Kumar Arora and also ordered on line purchase on the basis of credit card belonging to Nisha Kapoor and Meena Chopra without having no authority to use the same credit cards. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution had cited list of 12 witnesses including MHC (R) I.P. Estate. However, the prosecution could examine only six witnesses namely Meena Chopra ( PW1), Inspector Subhash Chand (PW2), Deepak Karan (PW3), SI Raghubir Singh, (PW4), Anand Parkash (PW5) and ASI Samrat Singh (PW6). No further witness could be examined.
FIR NO. 614/05 State Vs. Akhilesh Singh Page 4 of 6
4. The incriminating material was explained to the accused under Section 281 Cr.P.C. He denied the case of the prosecution and claimed false implication submitting that nothing was delivered to him. He did not opt for leading defence evidence.
5. I have heard the arguments by the Ld. APP for State and the counsel for the accused Sh. Anil Kumar Mishra, Advocate. It is in the charge sheet that accused had used credit card belonging to Nisha Kapoor for procuring railway ticket of Vaishali Express from Delhi to Hazipur. There is nothing to that effect in the testimony of IO/ Inspector Subhash Chand/ PW2. The only charge against the accused is in respect of having attempted to commit the offence of cheating. As per the charge, accused had attempted to cheat indiatimes.com. The present case was registered on the basis of Ex.PW2/A which is a complaint made by the AR Megh Singh,Asstt. Manaer, Fraud Control Unit on beahlf of Standard Chartered Bank. However, the said witness Megh Singh has not been examined. The IO collected the intimation regarding misuse of credit cards belonging to card members namely Ms. Nisha Kapoor and Meena Chopra. The intimation was given to the EOW by Deepak Karan/ PW3/ AR of the Citygroup. The said Deepak Karan is PW3. He proved the said complaint Ex. PW2/I, however, in his entire testimony there is nothing that the accused had placed the order on the said credit card.
6. In para 3 of Ex. PW2/I it is mentioned that the customers namely FIR NO. 614/05 State Vs. Akhilesh Singh Page 5 of 6 Nisha Kapoor and Meena Chopra had informed them that a person called Akhilesh contacted them. This is hearsay evidence which needed to have been corroborated. The prosecution did not examine Nisha Kapoor whereas prosecution had examined Meena Chopra (PW1). However, she had remained totally hostile to the prosecution and despite her cross examination nothing useful emerged in favour of the State. Further, prosecution did not examine any official of indiatimes.com. It is noteworthy that even Mr. Samson Peter, Logistic & Fraud Control Executive of Indiatimes.com was not examined.
7. In the given circumstances, there is absolutely nothing against the accused which could prove the case of the prosecution regarding his attempt to have cheated the official of indiatimes.com.
8. Now since the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts, the only plausible finding which can be given against the accused is that of not guilty. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted in the present case. Bail bond of accused is extended in terms of section 437A Cr.PC . File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (MANISH YADUVANSHI) on 07.12.2012 ACMM01 DELHI.
It is certified that this judgment contains six (6) Pages and each page bears my signature.
(MANISH YADUVANSHI) ACMM01 DELHI.
FIR NO. 614/05 State Vs. Akhilesh Singh Page 6 of 6 FIR NO. 614/05 State Vs. Akhilesh Singh Page 7 of 6