Delhi District Court
State vs Riyaz Ahmad on 27 October, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. AKSHAY SHARMA, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-02, SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS, DELHI. FIR NO. 238/2014 PS. OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA U/s. 420/34 IPC STATE VS RIYAZ AHMAD JUDGMENT
A. SL. NO. OF THE CASE : 222/2/2014 B. DATE OF INSTITUTION : 01.06.2014 C. NAME OF THE : Sh. Kamlesh Pandey COMPLAINANT S/o Sh. Ram Naresh Pandey D. NAME OF THE : Sh. Riyaz Ahmad ACCUSED S/o Kamruddin E. OFFENCE COMPLAINED OF : U/s 420/34 IPC F. PLEA OF ACCUSED : Pleaded not guilty.
G. FINAL ORDER : Convicted. H. DATE OF FINAL ARGUMENTS : 28.09.2022 I. DATE OF SUCH ORDER : 27.10.2022 BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE INSTANT CASE
1. The present case was registered on the complaint of one Sh. Kamlesh Pandey who in his complaint stated that since 10 years he knew accused Riyaz Ahmad whom the complainant helped in obtaining job at Bintron Company Pvt. Ltd. Riyaz had mentioned during the interaction with the complainant that how can he help the complainant in lieu of such a big favour. Riyaz himself offered that he has good connections in the Delhi Police and he can help the complainant in securing a job for the son of the complainant with the Delhi Police. Riyaz also started visiting the complainant along with the police officials in order to gain his trust.
:2:Accused had stated that the complainant has to give Rs.7,00,000/- to him for the purpose of securing job. Complainant was also told that money can be paid in installments. Thereafter, in September, 2012 complainant gave Rs.1,00,000/- to the accused from the money which he had saved for his daughters marriage. Thereafter, in January, 2013 the complainant sold his village land and gave Rs.1,30,000/- to the accused and in 2013 itself complainant made the complete payment. Complainant also alleged in his complaint that the accused on this false pretext had also duped other friends of the complainant. Complainant also mentioned that the accused had asked for a time of one year, however, the complainant stated that it has been one and a half years and accused is avoiding the complainant and further, stating that Delhi Police does not grant job on this basis, therefore, the present complaint was made in the concerned police station.
2. On this complaint, FIR u/s 420/34 IPC was registered and investigation was taken up. Statement of the accused Riyaz Ahmad was recorded wherein he disclosed the commission of the offence. Accused was arrested and his two days police custody was obtained, during custody accused got recovered the educational qualification documents of the son of the complainant from his parents house. However, after every possible effort accused did not provide any information regarding his co- accused Salim regarding whom the accused disclosed in his statement that Salim impersonated himself as Senior officer of the Delhi Police and visited the complainant. CDR of the accused was also analyzed and it was found that the complainant and the accused were in constant touch with :3: each other. However, CDR did not reflect communication with the co- accused Salim and therefore, no information regarding the co-accused Salim could be retrieved. Further, statements of Rajender, Paras Rai, Raj Kishor who were also cheated by the accused were recorded and they stated that they had given the money to Riyaz Ahmad for securing job for their sons. Bank statement of the accused was analyzed and seized which revealed that at periodic interval cash was deposited in the account of the accused. Accordingly, charge-sheet was filed before this court.
3. On 06.06.2014, the accused was produced from JC and copy of charge-sheet was supplied to him, further, on 03.12.2014 arguments on charge were heard and charge u/s 420,34 IPC was framed against the accused person, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Thereafter, case was put to trial and the prosecution examined the following witnesses in order to prove its case:-
4.1. PW1 Rajinder Singh was examined in chief and he deposed that he was working as an housekeeper and he used to do all the household works on daily wage basis. His son Vivek Singh is a graduate and he was trying for a government job. He further mentioned that accused Riyaz Ahmad approached one Pandit namely Kamlesh Pandey and himself, and promised that he can obtain a Delhi Police job for both of their sons. He stated that Riyaz Ahmad further demanded Rs.6 lacs from him to get the job in Delhi Police for his son. Part payment on various occasions were made by him to the accused. He deposed that he told the accused that he will deposit the cash accordingly in the bank :4: account of the accused but accused denied and demanded for cash instead. Further he stated that he had borrowed Rs.50,000/- from his employer and paid to the accused and again at another day he paid him Rs.1,00,000/-, and he paid again, Rs.50,000/-. Thus, a total amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid by him to the accused for getting a job for his son in Delhi Police. He further stated that for this purpose, his son's original academic certificate was given to Riyaz Ahmad which was still under his possession. He stated that for this purpose of giving money to Riyaz Ahmad, he had sold out many of his household utensils. Further, inspite of repeated request from him, Riyaz Ahmad was deviating from all of his earlier promises. PW1 correctly identified the accused who was present in the court on that day.
4.2. PW2 Kamlesh Pandey(complainant) was examined by the prosecution he stated that runs a tea stall near a factory at Okhla and he knows the accused since he got the job for the accused in the Bintron Company Pvt. Ltd.He stated that the accused used to meet him and one day accused offered that he wants to do something for PW2(complainant) for getting a job for him, upon this accused offered PW2(complainant) that he can secure a job for his son in Delhi Police as he has great influence. PW2(complainant) stated that Rs.7,00,000/- were demanded for this purpose. PW2(complainant) deposed that accused promised that he can secure a job for his son as well as his friend Rajinder Singh's son Vivek Singh as well. PW2(complainant) stated that he paid Riyaz Ahmad total amount to the tune of Rs.7,00,000/- for the said purpose and also his :5: friend Rajinder Singh paid for his son in his presence. PW2(complainant) mentioned that since, Riyaz Ahmad was deviating from his earlier promises and failed to get a job in Delhi Police he filed a complaint dated 28.02.2014 which is Ex. PW2/A bearing his signature at point A. Further, PW2 correctly identified the accused who was present in the court on that day.
4.3. PW3 Paras Nath Rai was examined by the prosecution and he deposed that on 20.03.2013, he had given Rs.1,10,000/- to Riyaz Ahmad, through Kamlesh Pandey(complainant) who is his friend. He stated that he had given the aforesaid amount to the accused Riyaz since the accused had told him that he can arrange job in Delhi police for his son Ajay. Thereafter, the accused had assured him that his son will get employment in the Delhi police within 6 months but nothing had been done in this respect. Thereafter, he tried to contact the accused many times but his mobile was switched off and he was not traceable. PW3 further stated that Police had recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C and correctly identified the accused who was present in the court on that day.
4.4. PW4 Sh. Raj Kishore was examined by the prosecution and he stated that he is a driver by profession. Further he stated that he had given Rs. 1 lac on 15.07.2013 and 60,000/- on 14.07.2013, further on 27.07.2013 he had given 19,000/- and on 02.09.2013 he had given 1,18,000/- to the accused Riyaz Ahmad, present in the court and correctly identified by the witness. Further, he had given the aforesaid amount to the accused since he had assured him that he will arrange job for his son :6: namely Om Prakash in Delhi police. He further stated that at once he had given the amount at his home further he had given Rs.1,18,000/- to the accused at Ashram Chowk near Nafed building and the other amount he had given to the accused at Aalli Mor, Mathura Road. He stated that he knew the accused Riyaz Ahmad through Paras Nath, who belongs to his matrimonial village and Paras Nath knows Sh. Kamlesh Pandey who introduced Riyaz Ahmad to them since they were working together.
However, his son did not get the job which the accused had assured. Further, PW4 correctly identified the accused who was present in the court on that day.
4.5. PW5 Sh. U.S Lakhera was examined by the prosecution and he deposed that in the year of 2007, accused Riyaz Ahmad joined the above-said company having office at F-90/1A, OIA-I and worked there till March, 2011. He further stated that Riyaz Ahmad started absenting himself from 2011 and despite many calls he did not come at work. Further, he used to reply that he would come after some days but he never came. PW5 further stated that in August, 2012 accused was terminated from the company because of not coming for a long time. He further submitted that he do not know anything else about the present case. PW5 correctly identified the accused.
4.6. PW6 Mahender Singh who was the duty officer on 03.04.2014 was examined by the prosecution and he proved the instant case FIR, copy of which is Ex.PW6/A,which bears his signature at point A. He also stated that he endorsed the rukka and the said endorsement is :7: Ex.PW6/B which bears his signature at point A. 4.7. PW7 ASI Rajesh, was examined by the prosecution and he deposed that on 03.04.2014, he was posted as HC at PS-OIA. On that day, he along-with SI Bhojraj went to C-336, near Reliance fresh, New Seemapuri, Delhi in the house of accused Riyaz Ahmad. They met accused Riyaz Ahmad in his house. Thereafter, they had taken accused Riyaz Ahmad to PS-OIA, there SI Bhojraj had interrogated the accused Riyaz Ahmad. He further stated that accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted. He further stated that the arrest memo and the personal search memo of the accused are Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW7/B respectively, both bearing his signatures at point A and accused was sent to the lock up and his remand was granted by the Court.
He further deposed that on 05.04.2014, he along-with SI Bhojraj and accused Riyaz Ahmad went to L-209, Sunder Nagar, Delhi in the house of the parents of accused Riyaz Ahmad. There accused had taken them to fourth floor of the said house and got recovered some documents which were kept on shelf in a room. Thereafter, he further stated that IO had seized these documents vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/C, bearing his signature at point A. 4.8 PW8 SI Bhojraj, IO in the instant case was examined by the prosecution and he deposed that on 28.02.2014, he was posted as SI at PS OIA. He submitted that on that day, a complaint was marked to him vide DD No. 52B and on the basis of complaint which is Ex PW-2/A, a case :8: was registered on 03.04.2014 on the basis of rukka prepared by him which is now Ex. PW-8/A bearing his signatures at point A. He further submitted that on the said date he along with HC Rajesh and complainant Kamlesh Pandey went to the house of Riyaz Ahmad i.e C-226, Seema Puri, Near Reliance Fresh Store where he found accused Riyaz Ahmad there and he brought him to the police station at about 10.30 pm. Thereafter he interrogated the accused and arrested him vide arrest memo already Ex. PW-7/A bearing his signature at point B and conducted his personal search vide Ex. PW-7/B bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter he got the medical of the accused conducted. He submitted that on the next day i.e. 04.04.2014, he produced the accused in the court and two days PC of the accused was granted to him. Thereafter on 05.04.2014, he along with accused went to L-209, Sundar Nagri, Fourth Floor from where he got recovered marksheet-cum-certificate of High School and Intermediate School of Sarvesh Pandey, photocopy of which is already marked as Mark 7/A and 7/B. He stated that the said documents were seized vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW-7/C bearing his signature at point B. Thereafter, accused was produced in the court on 06.04.2014. He further stated that he obtained the bank statement of Riyaz Ahmad and the CDR record of mobile of Riyaz Ahmad and he further examined three other persons namely Raj Kishore, Ajay Rai and Paras Nath recorded their statements U/s 161 Cr.P.C. Thus, after the completion of the investigation, he filed the chargesheet in the court. PW8 correctly identified the accused who was present in the court on that :9: day.
4.9. PW9 Sh. Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer, Vodafone-Idea Ltd was examined by the prosecution and he proved the CAF of mobile no.9582878039 which is Ex. PW9/B (OSR) bearing his signature at point A and stamp of Vodafone-Idea Ltd. at point B. Further, he proved the copy of the CDR of the above mentioned mobile no. for the period running from 01.06.2013 to 03.04.2014 which is Ex. PW9/C (running into 11 pages) bearing his signatures at Point A and stamp of Vodafone Idea Ltd at Point B. PW also brought on record, certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act with respect to the above said CDR which is PW9/D bearing his signatures at Point A and stamp of Vodafone Idea Ltd at Point B. Further, PW also filed copy of the power of Attorney regarding his authorization to produce the required documents which is Ex.PW9/A (OSR) (running into 4 pages).
4.10. PW10 Vikas Kumar was examined by the prosecution and he had brought the certified statement of accounts of Sh. Riyaz Ahmad having A/c No.629401525308, Branch Name ICICI Bank, Nehru Place Branch from date 23.07.2012 to 03.04.2014. He deposed that he had matched the certified statement of accounts from the account statement of Sh. Riyaz Ahmad as placed in the Judicial file and found it to be identical. The account statement of the accused for the aforesaid period as placed in the judicial file were proved by the PW and the said account statement is Ex.PW10/A(OSR).
5. After the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused u/s :10: 281 CrPC R/W 313 CrPC was recorded wherein accused stated that he has been falsely implicated. Though he admitted that the complainant and his son were known to him prior to the registration of the instant case and the complainant had got him employed in Bintron Informatics Ltd. F- 19/1A, OIA-I, New Delhi. He further stated that he do not know why complainant has initiated the criminal proceedings against him and why have the witnesses deposed against him. Accused denied that any recovery has been effected from him. Accused stated that he does not want to lead any Defence Evidence.
6. Final arguments were addressed by the Ld. APP and the Ld. Counsel for the accused. Ld. APP submitted that complainant and several other persons cheated by the accused have deposed against the accused and their testimonies corroborate with each other, further the account statement of the accused reflects cash deposit at periodic intervals during the course of the offence and therefore, submitted that case against the accused stands proved beyond reasonable doubt.
7. Per contra, Ld. Defence counsel contended that the purpose of the transaction is illegal, no receipt which shows that money was advanced to the accused have been produced by the complainant or the PWs. Ld. Counsel also brought to the notice of this court regarding contradictions in the testimony of the PWs as brought on record in their cross-examinations and the infirmities in the case of the prosecution. Further, it was submitted that the source of money is also not verified, therefore, prosecution has not been able to prove the case beyond :11: reasonable doubt and accused being entitled to benefit of doubt shall be acquitted.
8. The question to be decided in the present case is that whether the prosecution has been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt the essential ingredients of the offence u/s. 420 IPC for which the charge against the accused was framed. Prior to appreciating the evidence available on record, it is pertinent to discuss the law on the subject. Section 420 IPC is a serious form of cheating that includes inducement (to lead or move someone to happen) in terms of delivery of property as well as valuable securities.
9. In the case of Prof. R.K.Vijayasarathy & Anr Vs. Sudha Seetharam & Anr. It was held by Hon'ble Apex court that the ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 420 are as follows:-
i) a person must commit the offence of cheating under Section 415; and
ii) the person cheated must be dishonestly induced to;
a) deliver property to any person; or
b) make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security.
Thus, cheating is an essential ingredient for an act to constitute an offence under Section 420 IPC and the offence of cheating is defined in section 415 IPC 1860, as per the definition, the offence of cheating consists of the following essential ingredients.
:12:1. 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 no 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.
10. In the instant case the prosecution in order to establish the essential ingredients of the offence of cheating u/s. 420 IPC has adduced pre dominantly only oral evidence in form of testimonies of the persons cheated by the accused, however in the opinion of this court, not presenting any documentary evidence cannot be deemed to be fatal to the case of the prosecution as the transaction in question through which the offence has been committed does not involve documents as such. When documentary evidence does not exist as such it's non production does not have any adverse impact. However, one document pertaining to the account statement of the accused which reflects that at periodic intervals cash was deposited in his account during the duration in which offence was committed has been presented and duly proved by the prosecution.
11. This court now proceeds to analyze the oral testimony of the complainant and other victims of offence and to ascertain that whether any material contradictions have surfaced during cross-examinations. 11.1. PW-2 Kamlesh Pandey, complainant, in his testimony before :13: the court has clearly stated that the accused deceived him by making a false promise of securing job in the Delhi Police for his son and on that pretext he induced the complainant to part away with Rs.7,00,000. The testimony of the complainant corroborate with the complaint given by him to the police. Furthermore, the complainant was duly cross examined by the Ld Counsel for the accused, however no material contradictions which creates doubt qua the testimony of the complainant has come record. The defence through cross examination has asserted the fact that the complainant was given Rs.50,000/- by the accused and in order to avoid the same payment, false case has been filed by the complainant. This particular fact does not create any dent in the prosecution case as firstly apart from the complainant several other PW's who have been cheated by the accused have deposed against him, and this sole fact is not sufficient to doubt the consistent stand of the complainant. It is also important to point that in the cross examination as well complainant affirmed the fact that Rs.7,00,000/- was given by him. Further, it is admitted by the complainant that Ex. PW2/A which is the complaint was not written by him, though this fact does not falsify the claim of the complainant as complainant admits that the same was his complaint and bears his signature as well. Further complainant admits in cross examination that he does not remember the exact day, date, month and year when money was given to the accused however he voluntarily stated that it was in the year 2013 which conforms to assertions made in the complaint.
:14:11.2. PW-1 Rajinder Singh also deposed against the accused that on the false pretext of obtaining job for his son Vivek, total of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid by him to the accused. Further PW was duly cross examined on behalf of the accused. In his cross examination PW stated that he knew the accused through the complainant and he paid the amount to the complainant who paid the same to the accused, he also admitted that he does not remember the exact day and date when money was paid by him but stated voluntarily that it was in 2013. No material contradictions which shakes the root of the case of the prosecution has come on record, rather testimony of PW-1 is corroborated by the testimony of the complainant who in his cross examination has admitted that money was paid by PW-1 through him.
11.3. Further, PW-3 Parasnath Rai also deposed against the accused that on account of false promise of the accused for securing a job in Delhi police for his son he paid Rs.1,10,000/- to the accused through Kamlesh Pandey, in his cross examination he reiterated that money was advanced by him to the complainant. PW-3 also stated in his cross examination that he does not exactly remember the month and date but it was in 2014 when he went to the police station with regard to this case. Analysis of the testimony of PW-3 reveals that PW-3 is consistent with his testimony and no contradiction which casts a doubt on the case of the prosecution has come on record in the cross examination as well. 11.4. PW-4 Raj Kishore also deposed against accused, his testimony is very relevant as PW-4 exactly points out the dates on which :15: money was advanced and the places as well where the money was paid to the accused. In his cross examination as well nothing has come on record to doubt his testimony. In his cross examination, PW-4 has stated that no written complaint was given by him to the police and he has not disclosed the source of money to the police, and he had not taken receipt of the amount given to the accused, these facts are not itself sufficient to conclude that the testimony of PW-4 is false as the fact in issue is that whether money was advanced to accused or not and not that from where the money had come, moreover PW- 4 in his cross examination has stated that he borrowed the money from 4-5 persons. Further, stressing on proof of payment in the form of receipt in case of such transactions and consequently doubting the version of PW-4 or other PW's is not prudent as either party would resist executing any formal document when they would know that purpose of transaction is illegal.
12. In the instant case it is also pertinent to note that recovery of High school and intermediate certificate of Sarvesh Pandey s/o Kamlesh Pandey was also effected at the instance of the accused from his parents house bearing address L-209, 4th floor Sunder Nagri. The same were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/C, both the recovery witnesses i.e. PW 7 ASI Rajesh Kumar and PW-8 SI Bhojraj have deposed regarding the factum of recovery and proved the seizure memo. They were duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused but no fact which makes the recovery doubtful and planted has been surfaced, in cross examination both the PW's have admitted that no public person was made to join the :16: inquiry and the local police was not informed however since the recovery was made from a private place, non joining any member of the general public does not in itself falsify the recovery.
13. Further it is also important to discuss the evidence regarding cash deposits made in the account of the accused in between 23.07.2012 to 03.04.2014 as reflected vide Ex. PW10/A (OSR). No explanation regarding the same has been provided by the accused in his statement recorded under section 313 CrPC. Further, in the year 2013 there are several cash deposits in the account of the accused upto Rs 45000/- at regular intervals, such transactions which have taken place during the course of offence, in the absence of any explanation of the accused, necessarily compels this court to draw an adverse inference against the accused. A detailed analysis reveal cash deposits of Rs.24000/- on 15.07.2013 and Rs.45000/- on 02.09.2013, which as per the testimony of PW-4 are the exact dates on which money was advanced by him to the accused. Further, from 31.03.2013 to 05.03.2013 a total amount of Rs.2,30,000/- in cash vide 6 separate transactions was deposited by the accused in his account. Similarly, from 18.04.2013 to 21.05.2013, total of Rs.1,65,000/- was deposited in cash vide 4 separate transactions in the account of the accused. Deposit of such huge amounts in cash in such short durations certainly strengthens the case of the prosecution as it increases reliance upon the testimony of the complainant and the other PW's who have been cheated by the accused.
14. This court is of the opinion that no material contradictions :17: have been revealed in the testimonies of the PW's so as to doubt their veracity, merely because the source of money of the PW's has not been ascertained cannot compel this court to believe that no money was advanced by them to the accused at all. Rather the fact of recovery of educational qualification documents of the son of the complainant from the accused and cash deposits at periodic intervals in the bank account of the accused certainly points to the culpability of the accused.
15. It is important to understand that in the present case the purpose for which the complainant was deceived to give money was to secure a job in the Delhi police, the purpose of the said transaction was illegal and from this it can be construed that the representation made by the accused was false and it can be concluded safely that the accused had this knowledge that he is deceiving the complainant on a false pretext as such a promise cannot be deemed to have been fulfilled under any circumstance.
16. Moreover, the conduct of the accused to make the person allegedly Salim impersonating as police officer visit the house of the complainant to win over the trust of complainant and establish faith in his false promise clearly establishes the ingredients that the complainant parted with his money only upon the false promise and fake conduct of the accused and otherwise complainant would not have acted in such a manner. The purpose of the transaction furthermore strengthens the fact that the accused had the dishonest intention since the inception of the transaction, which is also an essential ingredient of an offence of :18: cheating. It is contended on behalf of the accused that both the parties knew the purpose for which money was being given is illegal and it is a settled law that a contract for an illegal purpose cannot be enforced therefore the accused has no liability. This court has no hesitation in accepting the contention of the accused in this regard however it must be understood that the present case is not a civil suit, and absolving the accused of criminal liability on a principle applicable to civil contracts will not be legally justified, rather doing so will give a wrong message to the society and also encourage such crimes.
17. It is important to understand that the burden of proof imposed upon the prosecution is to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt, this is not to be construed that the case of the prosecution has to be perfect. The evaluation or assessment of evidence which is brought on record by the prosecution would be guided by well settled principles best stated in the words of Hon'ble Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in (1978) 4 SCC 161 (page 162 para 2) in the case of Inder Singh & Anr. vs. The State (Delhi Administration ) as "Credibility of testimony, oral and circumstantial, depends considerably on a judicial evaluation of the totality, not isolated scrutiny. While it is necessary that proof beyond reasonable doubt should be adduced in all criminal cases, it is not necessary that it should be perfect. If a case is proved too perfectly, it is argued that it is artificial; if a case has some flaws, inevitable because human beings are prone to err, it is argued that it is too imperfect. One wonders whether in the meticulous hypersensitivity to eliminate a rare :19: innocent from being punished, many, guilty men must be callously allowed to escape. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish and guilty man cannot away with it because truth suffers some infirmity when projected through human processes. Judicial quest for perfect proof often accounts for police presentation of foolproof ."
18. In Bhag Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab (1997) 7 SCC 712, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed that "It is a general handicap attached to all eyewitnesses, if they fail to speak with precision their evidence would be assailed as vague and evasive, on the contrary if they speak to all the events very well and correctly their evidence becomes vulnerable to be attacked as tutored. Both approaches are dogmatic and fraught with lack of pragmatism. The testimony of a witness should be viewed from broad angles. It should not be weighed in golden scales, but with cogent standards."
19. In light of the above mentioned respected judgments, the laws on the subject and facts of the instant case this court is of the opinion that the prosecution has succeeded to prove it's case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the contradictions as pointed out by the defence are minor and trivial in nature which does not shake the edifice of the case against the accused. Furthermore, this court is of the opinion that all the essential ingredients of cheating stand proved in the instant case, the fraudulent inducement of the accused is proved, the fact that representation of the accused was false and accused knew about the same does not require any proof as the promise of the accused being :20: contrary to the law of the land could not have been fulfilled under any circumstance, the parting of money by the complainant and other PW's is also proved by their testimonies and further strengthened by the bank statement of the accused, further non return of the money by the accused establish wrongful gain by the accused. Therefore, in the opinion of this court, the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the accused hereby stands convicted for offence u/s 420 IPC, 1860.
Pronounced in the open court on 27.10.2022.
Judgment contains total 20 pages, each signed by the undersigned.
(AKSHAY SHARMA) MM-02/SE/Saket/ND 27.10.2022