Delhi District Court
State vs . Inderjeet Singh & Ors. on 1 March, 2008
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJ KUMAR
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:KARKARDOOMA COURTS:
SHAHDARA, DELHI
FIR NO. :117/94
P.S. : Krishna Nagar
U/s : 420406//34 IPC
State Vs. Inderjeet Singh & ors.
1. Sl. No. of the case : 136/2
2. Date of institution : 17.05.1995
3. Name of the complainant : Umesh Chand
Sharma
4. Date of commission of : After 21.06.1993
offence
5. Name of accused :i) Umesh Verma
S/o.Late
Sh.U. S. Verma,
R/o.B-15,
Derawala Nagar,
Delhi.
ii) Inderjeet Singh
S/o.Sh.Harbans
Singh,
R/o.H1A,
Mahindra Park,
Delhi.
iii) Namrata Verma
State vs. Inderjeet Singh & Ors. FIR No.117/94
2
W/o.Sh.Umesh
Verma,
R/o.B-15,
Derawala Nagar,
Delhi.
Iv) Satya Narayan
S/o.Ishwar Ram,
R/o.1/3441, Gali
No.1,Raghubar
Pura no.2,
Delhi-31.
6. Offence complained of or proved: 420/406/34 IPC
7. Plea of guilt : Accused pleaded
not guilty
8. Date of reserving the order : 27.02.08
9. Final order : Acquitted
10. Date of such Order : 01.03.2008
JUDGEMENT
1. In brief, the prosecution story was that accused i) Inderjeet Singh S/o. Harbans Singh, ii) Satya Narayan S/o. Ishwar Ram & iii) Smt. Namrata Verma being the proprietor of the firm under name and style of Roadways Enforcement Services and State vs. Inderjeet Singh & Ors. FIR No.117/94 3 Transport (REST) and accused Umesh Chand Verma S/o.Umrao Singh being controller of Administration and Finance of said firm established at 41, Main Road, Arjun Nagar within the jurisdiction of PS Krishna Nagar immediately after 21.06.1993 i.e. establishment of the firm, in furtherance of their common intentions cheated complainant Umesh Chand Sharma and others by dishonestly inducing each of them to deliver a security amount between between Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- to them and by inducing each of them to work for you against salary without intending to pay the same to them and thereby all of them committed offences punishable under section 420 r/w/s.34 IPC within the cognizance of this court.
2. For the above stated prosecution story, on finding prima facie case against all the accused persons for the allegations against them, vide its order dt. 11.06.1997, Sh.Kanwaljeet Arora, the then Ld. MM, Shahdara framed charges against all the accused State vs. Inderjeet Singh & Ors. FIR No.117/94 4 persons for the offences punishable u/s.420 r/w/s.34 IPC to which all the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and thus the trial has commenced.
3. When the case was at the stage of prosecution evidence accused Satya Narayan expired and due to that the proceedings against the aforesaid accused Satya Narayan were abated.
4. For proving its case, the prosecution has examined a total number of eighteen prosecution witnesses .
Out of these eight prosecution witnesses, PW1 Umesh Chand Sharma was the complainant in this case who deposed that he was the employee in the Roadways Enforcement Service & Transport and that Satya Narayan was the owner of the said firm. He further submitted that accused persons used to took Rs.5,000/- as security money and that a dispute had taken place after intervention by the senior citizen of the gali. He further deposed that State vs. Inderjeet Singh & Ors. FIR No.117/94 5 accused persons gave him the cash amount which was given by him as security amount but he also deposed that he do not want to proceed against the accused persons and on this he was turned hostile and subsequently cross-examined by the Ld. APP for the State.
Whereas, PW2 deposed that in the year 1993-94 was the owner of a building situated at 41, Arju Nagar, Main Road and that he gave the same building on rent in May & June, 1993 to Inderjeet Singh & Smt.Namrata Verma in which a company in the name and style of M/s.Roadways Enforcement Service & Transport was opened and that on 24.2.1994 accused persons had vacated the said building.
Whereas, PW3 Shiv Kumar deposed that he went at the Rest Company and gave Rs.7,000/- as a security and that on failure of providing him any job he was given a cheque of Rs.6,950/- by the company but the same was dishonoured and he further identified two accused persons Inderjeet Singh and State vs. Inderjeet Singh & Ors. FIR No.117/94 6 UmeshVerma in the court.
Whereas, PW4 Brij Lal deposed that in the year 1994 he worked in the Roadways Enforcement Services & Transport(REST) and he further deposed that he had deposited Rs.5000/- as a security money in the company. This witness has been declared hostile by the Ld. APP for the State.
Whereas, PW5 is also a witness examined by the prosecution who has stated that he had worked in the company formed by the accused persons. This witness has also been declared hostile by Ld. APP for the State.
Whereas, PW6 is also a witness examined by the prosecution who deposited Rs.5000/- as security in the company formulated by the accused persons but during cross-examination this witness has submitted that he does not recollect how many documents were signed by him and further that Rs.5000/- has been returned by the accused persons to him.
Whereas, PW7, PW9, PW10, PW11, PW12 & PW13 are State vs. Inderjeet Singh & Ors. FIR No.117/94 7 also the witnesses examined by the prosecution and declared hostile. These are the witnesses who had worked with the company formulated by the accused persons and who had deposited the security amount in that company. During cross- examination PW7 is not able to identify the accused Umesh Verma. He has further submitted that he cannot tell as to who had signed the receipt Ex.PW7/B. He has further submitted that he does not remember to whom he had paid Rs.5000/- as security money.
Prosecution has further examined PW14 who is a formal witness.
The next important examined by the prosecution is PW15 Inspector R. K. Sharma who is the IO of the case who had proved on record the FIR Ex.PW15/A, the personal search memos of the accused persons as Ex.PW14/A, Ex.PW15/B and Ex.PW15/C, the disclosure statement of the accused Inderjeet as Ex.PW14/B Whereas, PW16 the next witness examined by the prosecution is a formal witness.
State vs. Inderjeet Singh & Ors. FIR No.117/94 8 PW17 & PW18 are the witnesses examined by the prosecution who had turned completely hostile and they have submitted that they do not anything regarding the present case.
5. During the course of trial, number of documents were exhibited in the court to prove the documentary evidence. This list includes photocopy of the receipt of application form and receipt for Rs.7000/- in relation to PW3 Shiv Kumar as Mark-A and Mark-B, photocopy of the cheque as Mark-X, memorandum of the Canara Bank as Ex.PW3/A, clearing receipt of PNB as Ex.PW3/B, the receipt for the security money relating to PW5 Sh. Anil Kr. as Mark- X and the identity card as Mark-Y, the copy of the receipt of the security amount relating to PW6 Rajender Kumar as Mark-X6, the appointment letter of PW7 as Ex.PW7/A and the receipt as Ex.PW7/B, copy of the identity card of PW8 Ashok Kumar as Ex.PW8/A, personal search of the accused Inderjeet and his disclosure statement as Ex.PW14/A & Ex.PW14/B, the FIR as State vs. Inderjeet Singh & Ors. FIR No.117/94 9 Ex.PW15/A, the personal search memo of the accused persons as Ex.PW15/B & Ex.PW15/C. That is all for the prosecution evidence.
6. Statement of all the three accused persons was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein when all the incriminating evidence and documents put to them, one by one, they denied all the allegations,incriminating evidence and documents put to them and submitted that all the witnesses are interested witnesses and they were falsely implicated by the police officials in this case and that they were innocent.
7. During final submissions, Learned APP on behalf of State has argued that the accused persons in the case in hand had cheated the public at large. It has been further argued by Ld. APP for the State that PW3, PW6 and PW8 are the material witnesses who had supported the prosecution case and it has been argued State vs. Inderjeet Singh & Ors. FIR No.117/94 10 that on the basis of the testimony of the above said witnesses, the accused persons are to be held guilty.
Whereas, on the other hand Ld. defence counsel for the accused namely Umesh Chand Verma and Smt. Namrata Verma and the Ld. Defence counsel for the accused Inderjeet Singh (Ld. Defence counsel for the accused Inderjeet Singh has also filed written final arguments on record) have vehemently countered the prosecution case on many counts such as that the dispute was between the employer and employee and no element of section 420 or 406 IPC have been proved at all by the prosecution. It has been further argued by the Ld. Defence counsel that all the witnesses examined by the prosecution have turned hostile, thus, utterly failing in proving the guilt of the accused persons. It has been further argued that there are vital contradictions in the testimony of PWs with regard to the period of running of the company, identification of the accused persons, with regard to the ownership of the company allegedly floated by the accused State vs. Inderjeet Singh & Ors. FIR No.117/94 11 persons. It has been further argued that the investigation of the case has not been conducted in a fair manner and the prosecution has badly faltered on that count as well. It has been further argued that needless to mention that the prosecution has utterly failed in proving the guilt of the accused persons beyond any reasonable doubt and as such the accused person are to be acquitted.
Ld. Counsel for the accused persons also relied upon various authorities of the Hon'ble High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India which are as follows :
i)(2007) ACR 914 titled as Veer Prarkash Sharma vs. Anil Kumar Agarwal & Anr. wherein it was observed that :
"A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 190 & 482 - Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 405, 409, 417 and 420 - Quashing of cognizance - Civil dispute - Allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust - Contract of sale and purchase between parties - Cheques issued by accused-appellant towards price of goods, dishonoured on presentation - Complaint under NI Act not filed -
State vs. Inderjeet Singh & Ors. FIR No.117/94 12 Non-payment or under-payment of price of goods by itself would not amount to commission of offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust - Ingredients of said offences not made out - Witnesses revealing subsequent conduct of accused-appellant appearing to be wholly unnatural - Cause of action not cause in jurisdiction of Court concerned - Order taking cognizance, quashed.
B.Penal Code, 1860- Section 420 - Cheating- Ingredients of offence - Prosecution is required to prove - i) Deception of any person; ii) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any property; or iii) to consent that any person shall retain any property and finally intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit."
ii)1993(1) RCR 34 ( P & H) titled as Ghanshyam Dass vs. State of Haryana wherein it was observed that :
"IPC, Sections 420 & 406 - Criminal Procedure Code 1973, Section State vs. Inderjeet Singh & Ors. FIR No.117/94 13 482 - Money Saving Scheme - Accused forming Committee and collecting money from members and disbursing the amount to members who succeed in auction - Accused stopped payment as some members did not pay the amount - No dishonest intention established - No offence under section 420 & 406 IPC made out - Aggrieved person could proceed against accused for recovery of amount by filing civil suit 1990(1) Recent Criminal Reports 45 and 1966 (2) Recent Criminal Reports 559 relied."
iii)1986(2) RCR 586 ( P & H) titled as
iv)1996(3) RCR 708 ( P & H) titled as Amarjit Singh vs. State of Punjab wherein it was observed that :
"Indian Penal Code, Sections 420, 415, 120B - Criminal and Civil wrong - Accused floating a Scheme inviting deposits of Rs.5000 - Each depositor to get Rs.1000 P.M. as salary - Scheme did not succeed - Depositors were paid salary for two months only - Criminal offence under Section 420 IPC not made out - It is civil State vs. Inderjeet Singh & Ors. FIR No.117/94 14 liability - FIR quashed 1986(2) Recent Criminal Reports 559, 1993(1) Recent Criminal Reports 34 and AIR 1971 SC 1620 relied."
v)1991(1) RCR 262 ( P & H) titled as Ranjit Singh & ors. vs. State of Punjab wherein it was observed that :
"IPC, Section 420 - Accused getting deposit that he would make double the payment - Accused not paying the amount - It is civil liability - Case under Section 420 IPC not made out. AIR 1982 SC 949, 1986(2) Recent Criminal Reports 559 and 1987(2) Recent Criminal Reports 590 relied."
vi)1990(1) RCR 45 ( P & H) titled as Ashok Kalia & Anr. vs. State of Punjab wherein it was observed that :
"A.Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978, Sections 3 & 4 - Indian Penal Code, Section 406 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973, Section 468 - Accused collecting deposits but not returning on due dates - FIR launched after expiry of period State vs. Inderjeet Singh & Ors. FIR No.117/94 15 of limitation(3 years) - Prosecution quashed."
B.Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978, Sections 3 & 4 - Indian Penal Code, Section 406 - Civil liability - Accused collecting money under double money saving scheme but not returning the amount on due dates - It is civil liability - FIR quashed. 1986 (2) 1987 (2) and 1988 (2) Recent Criminal Reports 559, 590 and 155 relied."
vii)2004 Crl. L. J. 4564 titled as M. Cheluviah vs. Smt. Amruthamma wherein it was observed that :
"Penal Code (45 of 1860), Ss.420, 406 - Cheating or criminal breach of trust - Mere breach of contract, in absence of mens rea - Does not give rise to criminal prosecution" and "... The act of breach of trust involves a civil wrong, in which a person who is aggrieved, may seek redressal for damages in civil court...."
State vs. Inderjeet Singh & Ors. FIR No.117/94 16
viii)1997 Crl. L. J. 3997 titled as K. Srinivas vs. State of Andhra Pradesh wherein it was observed that :
"Cr. P. C. (2 of 1974), S. 482 - Quashing complaint - Oral understanding between complainant and accused that complainant would provide raw-materials to accused for purpose of moulding plastic containers - Allegations against accused that he failed to account for 8 metric tons of raw material supplied to him - No cheating or dishonest intention on part of accused alleged - Entrustment of raw material was also not on account of trust or safe custody but in pursuance of agreement between parties - Consequently, failure of accused to account for raw materials supplied - Would constitute civil wrong/breach of contract and not attracting ingredients of Ss.420 and 406 of Penal Code - Criminal complaint liable to be quashed/"
ix)1971 (2) S. C. C. 96 titled as State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Mr. Basit Ali Khan and Ors. wherein it was observed that :
"Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) - Section 420 - Snowball scheme State vs. Inderjeet Singh & Ors. FIR No.117/94 17
- Society registered - Use of expression " Government of India registered firm no.1468" - Working of scheme fully explained - Whether amounts to cheating." & "Held, The scheme is one of those snowball schemes which are speculative to the highest degree and unworkable but it was dishonest or fraudulent in the sense that it either represented to the public something which was not true or concealed from them something which should have been disclosed. At worst it was an appeal to the gambling instinct of humanity but this cannot per se amount to cheating."
x)1992 (1) RCR 384 ( P & H) titled as Hem Lata vs. State of Punjab & Anr. wherein it was observed that "IPC, Section 420 - Indian Partnership Act, Sections 25 - Criminal case against Partnership firm - Firm having two sleeping partners and not responsible for conduct of business - No case against sleeping partners made out - Section 25 of Partnership Act is not State vs. Inderjeet Singh & Ors. FIR No.117/94 18 applicable as there is no vicarious liability in criminal law unless statutes provides otherwise. 1989 (2) Recent Criminal Reports 494 and FIR 1977 SC 2229 relied."
xi)2002 (1) RCR (Crl.) 210 (P & H) titled as Maj General (Retd.) vs. State (UOI) wherein it was observed that :
"Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947, Section 5 - Indian Penal Code, Sections 420 and 120B - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482 - Partnership firm - Vicarious liability - Managing partner of the firm convicted under section 5 of Import and Export (Control) Actr - Prosecution launched against other partners quashed - Held, where offences were allegedly committed by a partnership firm, all individual partners would not be prosecuted - Only the person who was entrusted with the business of the firm and who was responsible for the conduct of business could be prosecuted. 1989(2) RCR (Crl.) 494 (SC) relied."
State vs. Inderjeet Singh & Ors. FIR No.117/94 19
xii)AIR 1981 SC 476 titled as Bhikalal Ramjibhai Zaveri vs. State of Maharashtra wherein it was observed that :
"Penal Code (1860), S. 420 read with section 34 - One of the partners procuring goods by practising fraud on complainant - Absence of evidence that another partner had any knowledge of this state of affairs - Goods stored in room hired by them - Not by itself sufficient to convict another partner under sec. 420 r/w. Sec.
34. Decision of Bombay H. C. Reversed."
xiii)1989(2) RCR 494 SC titled as Sham Sunder & Ors. vs. State of Haryna wherein it was observed that :
"Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Section 10 - Offence committed by a partnership firm - All individual partners are not to be prosecuted - The person who was entrusted with the business of the firm and was responsible for conduct of business, could not be prosecuted."
State vs. Inderjeet Singh & Ors. FIR No.117/94 20
xiv)2007(1) LRC 27 ( P & H) titled as Davinder Kaur & Ors. vs. State of Punjab wherein it was observed that :
"Penal Code Cheating - An essential ingredient of an offence of cheating is the existence of a dishonest or fraudulent intention that induces any person to deliver any property - Dishonest or fraudulent intention must be in existence at the inception of the transaction - Petitioners received a sum of money, which they were required to return with interest - Allegations levelled in the FIR do not disclose any allegation of dishonest intention at the time of taking money - No offence under s. 420 of the IPC is made out - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 420."
8. On going through the records, consisting of ocular as well as documentary evidence, in the light of the contentions of both the parties, it has to be seen by the court as to whether PW3, PW6 and PW8 have been able to prove the guilt of the accused persons State vs. Inderjeet Singh & Ors. FIR No.117/94 21 beyond any reasonable doubt because Ld. APP for the State during the course of arguments has relied upon the testimony of the above said three witnesses as rest of the witnesses turned hostile. Now let us examine the testimony of the abovsaid three witnesses examined by the prosecution. PW3 Shiv Kumar has submitted in his cross-examination that accused Satya Narayan never met him in the office situated in Arjun Nagar or any other place nor he demanded any money from him. He has further admitted it to be correct that he had never paid any money to Satya Narayan and further that he does not know as to who had signed the cheque which was given to him by the company and further that he was not given any appointment letter by the company. He has further submitted that he had given a complaint at police station but he does not remember whether the same was received at the police station or not.
PW6 has categorically stated in his cross-examination that he does not recollect how many documents were signed by him State vs. Inderjeet Singh & Ors. FIR No.117/94 22 and further that he had been returned Rs.5000/- paid by him as security amount to the company. It is pertinent to mention that he is unable to produce the original of the receipt of the document Mark- X6 i.e. the document by which the money was deposited by him with the company.
PW8 has categorical stated in his cross-examination that he had not made any complaint against the company and further that there are no dues on the date of his examination in the court against the company and further that the company had made his payment in full and final later on.
PW15 the IO of the case has submitted in the cross- examination that several public persons/witnesses were approached on different dates and all the witnesses had never come jointly on one date and further that no document was seized/recovered from the possession of the accused persons and further that no documents regarding the running of the company was recovered from the possession of the accused persons. PW15 State vs. Inderjeet Singh & Ors. FIR No.117/94 23 has further admitted it to be correct that the receipt Mark-15(colly) was given to him by the witnesses.
Except the testimony of PW3, PW6, PW8, PW7 and PW15 there is not even a single witness out of the total eighteen witnesses examined by the prosecution, on whose testimony the prosecution can rely. But the question to be considered by the court is as to whether even going by the testimony of the above said witnesses, the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond any reasonable doubt or not. In the light of the above said discussion, after going through the testimony of all the witnesses and the documents proved on record by the prosecution, after hearing the submissions of the Ld. APP for the State as well as the Ld. Defence counsels, to my mind, and in my considered opinion the answer is in the negative. I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has utterly failed in identification of the accused persons, in proving the period of running of the company, in proving the ownership of the company, State vs. Inderjeet Singh & Ors. FIR No.117/94 24 in proving that the investigation of the case was conducted properly in a fair manner and above all in proving the ingredients of the offence u/s.420/406 IPC. U/S.420 IPC, the prosecution was required to prove :
i) Deception of any person.
ii)Fraudlently or dishonstly inducing any person to delivery any property or
iii)To consent that any person shall retain any property and finally intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit.
But, the prosecution has utterly failed in proving the above said ingredients of the offence u/s.420 IPC. I have no hesitation to hold that the authorities of various Hon'ble High Courts and of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and as such the prosecution has badly failed to prove all the ingredients constituting the offences u/s.420/406/34 IPC.
State vs. Inderjeet Singh & Ors. FIR No.117/94 25
9. Thus, all the accused persons Inderjeet Singh, Umesh Verma & Namrata Verma are acquitted from the charges levied against them for the offence punishable under section 420/34 IPC. (one of the accused Satya Narayan has already expired).
Bail bonds/surety bonds of all the accused persons are hereby discharged.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court
On 1th Day of March 2008 ( RAJ KUMAR )
Metropolitan Magistrate
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
State vs. Inderjeet Singh & Ors. FIR No.117/94 26 FIR NO. :117/94 P.S. : Krishna Nagar U/s : 420406//34 IPC State Vs. Inderjeet Singh & ors.
01.03.2008 Present : Ld. APP for the State.
Accused Satya Narayan has expired and proceedings against him already abated.
Accused Umesh Verma and Namrata Verma are on bail with counsel Sh. M. U. Rehman.
Accused Inderjeet Singh with counsel Sh. B. Shekhar. Vide separate order/judgment all the accused persons Inderjeet Singh, Umesh Verma and Namrata Verma are acquitted from the charges levied against them for the offence punishable under section 420/34 IPC. Their bail bonds/surety bonds be discharged.
File be consigned to Record Room.
MM/01.03.2008 State vs. Inderjeet Singh & Ors. FIR No.117/94