Delhi District Court
Ramesh Arora vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 21 February, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI:DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 13/13
Unique case ID No. 02404R0027152013
Ramesh Arora
S/o Shri Meghraj
R/o House no. A8, C.C. Colony
Delhi
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
.....Respondent
Date of institution of the case: 01/02/2013
Arguments heard on: 21/02/13
Date of Decision: 21/02/2013
ORDER
This is a revision petition filed u/s 397 of Cr.PC against order of ld Trial court dated 13/12/12 on charge.
In brief, in a case filed vide FIR no. 719/03 u/d 420/468/471 of IPC, after hearing the arguments, Ld Trial court found that charges u/s 468/471 of IPC were not made out and further that charge u/s 420 of IPC is made out. The impugned order has been challenged on various grounds.
I have heard Ld counsel for revisionist and Ld APP for State and have gone through the TCR.
Ld counsel for revisionist has contended that according to the CA No. 13/13 1/4 complaint dated 06/10/03, initially one floor was sold to the complainant, who had further sold the same to his father and obtained the Special Power of Attorney of his father in his name. It is further contended that sale deed was executed by the complainant in the name of his father of the said floor on the basis of NOC given by accused. Ld counsel has further contended that this NOC has not been placed on record at any time, so on the basis of these documents, Ld MM discharged the revisionist u/s 468/471 of IPC. It is further contended that according to the documents placed on record, the complainant has further sold the said property to one Rishipal and has not produced the original documents before the IO during investigation. Ld Counsel has further contended that complainant has given statement u/s 161 of Cr.PC contrary to the complaint, hence he could not have been relied upon by Ld Trial Court to reach at prima facie view that section 420 of IPC is made out against revisionist, at this stage.
In support of the same, Ld counsel for revisionist has relied upon the following judgments:
1. Criminal Revision no. 173/1995 titled as Ajay Malik Vs State, wherein it has bee held that if evidence is suspicious, Court can discharge the accused.
2. 2002 AIR (SC) 564 titled as Dilawar Balu Kurane Vs State of Maharashtra , wherein it has been held that if there are two views equally possible and the evidence produced before the Court is giving rice to suspicion then accused could be discharged.
3. 1986 (2) Crimes 113 (eq. Citations) titled as Rama Devi Vs Delhi Administration wherein it has been held that supplementary statement CA No. 13/13 2/4 has no value.
4. 2001 (5) AD(Del) 154 titled as Raj Kumar Singhal Vs State, wherein it has been held that supplementary statement cannot be treated as FIR nor it can be relied upon on by the prosecution.
5. 1979 AIR (SC) 1408 Suraj Mal Vs State (Delhi Administration), wherein it has been held that if testimony of one witness whose testimony in respect of same transaction had been rejected in one part cannot be relied for the conviction of the other accused.
6. L. K. Advani Vs Central Bureau of Investigation.
According to the complaint, the revisionist had sold one floor in House no 199, Old Gupta Colony, village of Rajpura, Chhaoni, Delhi to the complainant on the basis of the General Power of Attorney etc. According to the photocopies of the documents placed on record, revisionist executed GPA, Special Power of Attorney, Will, Agreement to Sell, undertaking, affidavit and receipt. The Agreement to Sell is dated 01/12/2000, according to which the property under sale was free from all sorts of encumbrances, charge or lien such as sale, mortgage, gift, litigation, notification, legal flaws, family disputes etc. It has also been mentioned so in the undertaking and according to the documents placed on record, MCD has also booked this property for unauthorised construction and notices were issued since 1998 onwards and the property was demolished by MCD being unauthorised/unapproved construction. This itself shows that revisionists while knowing that the property has unauthroised construction for which show cause notices has been issued since 1998, knowingly and willingly signed the Agreement to CA No. 13/13 3/4 sell and undertaking mentioning that the said property was free from legal flaws, litigation etc. So, this itself was cheating. The original documents in whosoever possession it may be can be summoned by the Court, during the trial. The second transaction was entered into with NOC for which the revisionist has already been discharged u /s 468/471 of IPC, hence in such circumstances, on the basis of the complaint itself, prima facie offence u/s 420 of IPC is made out against the revisionist, so the judgments as relied upon by the counsel for revisionist are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
There is not ambiguity or impropriety in the observations of Ld Trial Court while holding that the prima facie case u/s 420 of IPC is made out against the revisionist. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed being meritless.
TCR be sent back with the copy of order.
Revisionist is directed to appear before the Court concerned on 23/02/13.
Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in Open Court on (Virender Kumar Goyal) dated 21st of February, 2013 Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court /Rohini : Delhi CA No. 13/13 4/4 CA No. 13/13 5/4 CA No. 13/13 6/4