Delhi District Court
State vs . Mahesh G. Tanna on 30 September, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. AKASH JAIN, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE06, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
State vs. Mahesh G. Tanna
FIR No : 7/2000
U/s : 419/420/511 IPC
PS : Parliament Street
JUDGMENT
a) Sl. No. of the case : 291/02
b) Unique Case ID No. : 02403R0005592001
c) The date of commission of the
offence : 07.01.2000
d) Name of the complainant : Saiyed Asghar Abbas Rizvi
e) Name, parentage & address
of accused : Mahesh G. Tanna S/o late Sh. Gokul Dass
Tanna, R/o Flat no.5, Jyotsna Niwas, Thane
Maharashtra.
f) Offences complained of : 419/420/511 IPC
g) The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
h) Final Judgment : Convicted
i) Date of institution of case : 24.02.2001
j) Date of final arguments : 02.09.2014
k) Date of Judgment : 30.09.2014
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
1. In the present case chargesheet was filed by the State under Sections 419/420/511 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter mentioned as 'IPC') against the accused Mahesh G. Tanna on 24.02.2001. The case of prosecution is that on 07.01.2000, at about 09:00 PM and on before, at Hotel LeMeridian, accused cheated the complainant namely Saiyed Asghar Abbas Rizvi by pretending himself to be son in law of then Hon'ble Home CC NO.291/02 FIR No.7/2000 Page no. 1 of 9 Minister, Government of India Sh. Lal Krishan Advani. Further, it is the case of prosecution that on above said date, time and place accused attempted to cheat the complainant by dishonestly inducing him to deliver Rs.5,00,000/ for arranging meeting and taking tea with then Hon'ble Home Minister Government of India Sh. Lal Krishan Advani and thereby committed offences punishable u/s 419/420 IPC r/w Section 511 IPC.
2. On the basis of aforesaid chargesheet, Ld. Predecessor Court took cognizance of the offences under Section 419/420 IPC r/w Section 511 IPC against the accused. Accused had appeared before the court and documents were supplied to him in compliance of Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter mentioned as 'Cr.P.C.'). Arguments on charge were heard and vide order dated 30.07.2002, Ld. Predecessor Court ordered for framing of charge under Section 419/420 IPC r/w Section 511 IPC against the accused Mahesh G. Tanna to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for prosecution evidence.
3. In support of its case, prosecution examined eight witnesses. PW1 is SI Hira Lal, who deposed that on 07.11.2000, he was posted at police station Connaught Place and on the same day complainant had made a complaint regarding attempt to cheat by one Mahesh Tanna who had impersonated/ introduced himself as soninlaw of the then Hon'ble Home Minister Sh. L.K. Advani. It was also complained that Mahesh Tanna had demanded Rs.5 Lakhs for getting some work done. The complainant had reportedly CC NO.291/02 FIR No.7/2000 Page no. 2 of 9 verified from the office of Ministry of Home, Govt. of India that Mahesh Tanna is not the soninlaw of the Hon'ble Minister. PW1 further stated that the complainant had informed him that Mahesh Thana was staying in Room no.2228 of Hotel InterContinental. Accused was correctly identified by PW1 in the court. PW1 deposed that thereafter they brought accused to police station on 08.01.2000 where the complainant identified him. Interrogation of the accused was then conducted regarding his involvement.
4. PW2 is ASI Rambir Singh, who proved registration of FIR No.7/00 as Ex.PW2/A. He further stated that he handed over the copy of FIR and original complaint to Ct. Shyam Singh.
5. PW3 is SI Bhagwat Prasad, who deposed that on 25.10.2000, he was directed to go to Indore for verification of the address of Dharampal. He got his address verified from Indore, Madhya Pradesh and he returned the file to Addl. SHO and prepared the chargesheet of this case.
6. PW4 is complainant Saiyed Asghar Abbas Rizvi, who deposed that on December 1999, he was working as Chairman of Energy India Ltd.. He knew one Mr. Dharampal who introduced him to accused Mahesh Tanna at hotel Le Meridian. Accused told him that he is the soninlaw of Sh. L.K. Advani the then Home Minister (Centre). At that time Sh. Amit Goel, Director Energy India Ltd. was also with him. On being informed of the same, PW1 desired to have a cup of tea with him as he wanted to meet with Sh. Advani to which accused agreed. PW4 further deposed that on CC NO.291/02 FIR No.7/2000 Page no. 3 of 9 06.01.2000, he was informed by accused that he had come to Delhi from Bombay. PW1 thus went to hotel Le Meridian to meet accused where he also found Mr. Dharampal present in the hotel. Accused told him that he had spoken to Mr. Advani but since he was busy he could not meet him. On 07.01.2000, accused again called PW4 on telephone and asked him to pay Rs.5 lacs for arranging a meeting with Mr. Advani. PW4 thereafter deposed that he got suspicious and thus inquired from the office as well as residence of Mr. Advani and came to know that accused is not the soninlaw of Mr. Advani regarding which he also gave information to the police. On 07.01.2000, PW4 had given a complaint Ex. PW4/A to the police/ DCP New Delhi. On 08.01.2000, PW4 was called in the police station where his statement Ex. PW4/B was recorded. On the same day, accused was arrested in his presence in the police station where his personal search Ex. PW1/C was also conducted. PW4 correctly identified the accused in court.
7. PW5 is Inspector Raj Singh, who deposed that on 03.08.2000 he was posted as Addl. SHO at police station Parliament Street when further investigation of this case was handed over to him. He stated that on 01.09.2000 he sent SI Satya Prakash along with case file to Thane at residence of accused. He further stated that on 15.09.2000 he made inquiry from complainant qua address of coaccused namely Dharampal to which he stated that he is resident of Indore and working in company Soya and Ruchin in Indore. PW5 thereafter handed over the case file to ASI Bhagwati Prasad on 25.10.2000.
CC NO.291/02 FIR No.7/2000 Page no. 4 of 9
8. PW6 is SI Arun Kumar, who deposed on the lines of testimonies of PW1 and PW4. Identity of accused was not disputed by Ld. Defence Counsel. PW6 further deposed regarding recording of statement of complainant Ex.PW4/B and sending of Ct. Shyam Singh for registration of case. He further deposed that he interrogated the accused and arrested him vide memo Ex.PW2/B and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW2/C and recorded statements of witnesses and returned to police station Parliament Street. PW6 further deposed that during investigation he had visited the residence of Home Minister Sh. L.K. Advani for getting his statement but he could not get the same as he was not available. PW6 sent HC Jai Singh and Ct. Mohammad Ashraf for verification of address of accused but his address could not be verified as accused was not found residing there. PW6 further deposed that thereafter, he was transferred and case file was given by him to MHCM.
9. PW7 is SI Satya Prakash, who deposed that outstation investigation of this case was handed over to him by Inspector Raj Singh. On 02.09.2000 he along with HC Jai Singh proceeded to Mumbai for verifying the address of accused at Jyotsna Apartment, Andheri East, Mumbai and Kalwa Thane but he was not found residing at the given addresses. PW7 interrogated Naresh Tanna, brother of the accused and Harshda Dharmender Tanna, relatives of accused who confirmed that accused never resided on the above addresses. PW7 further deposed that he returned to police station on 09.09.2000 and came to know that accused was in Jam Nagar, Gujrat and notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. was thus sent by him to DSP, City Jam CC NO.291/02 FIR No.7/2000 Page no. 5 of 9 Nagar to be served upon the accused. On this notice, accused Mahesh Tanna reported at the police station Parliament Street on 11.09.2000 and was interrogated. PW7 thereafter returned the case file to Inspector Raj Singh.
10. PW8 is Ct. Shyam Singh, who deposed on the similar lines of testimony of PW6.
11. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed by Ld. Predecessor court on 21.11.2006. The matter was then proceeded for recording of statement of accused under Section 281 r/w Section 313 Cr.P.C. Statement of accused was duly recorded wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused. Accused disavowed all the allegations against him and stated that he is innocent and falsely implicated in the present case. The accused further wished to lead defence evidence.
12. Accused examined Harish Sharma as DW1 in his defence evidence. DW1 deposed that the accused is known to him as he used to visit the accused at his residence in Mumbai for business purposes. He further deposed that he knew accused since the year 1997. The accused used to purchase vehicles from him and had good relations with him. DW1 stated that neither he nor accused knew complainant or Dharampal. DW1 further denied any act of impersonation or cheating allegedly committed by the accused. No other defence witness was examined by the accused. Thereafter, the present matter was fixed for final arguments.
CC NO.291/02 FIR No.7/2000 Page no. 6 of 9
13. Final arguments were heard on behalf of both the parties and record perused in entirety. In order to bring home guilt of the accused for the offence u/s 419/420 r/w Section 511 IPC prosecution is required to prove following facts:
i) That the accused made false representation to the complainant that he is soninlaw of then Hon'nble Home Minister of India, Sh. Lal Krishan Advani;
ii) That the accused knew that the said representation was false at the time when he made the same;
iii) That the accused made the above said false representation with dishonest intention of deceiving the complainant;
iv) That the accused induced the complainant to deliver Rs.5 lacs for arranging meeting and taking tea with above mentioned minister;
v) That before actual delivery of above mentioned amount, accused was apprehended by the police.
14. For establishing the above mentioned ingredients of offences in question, prosecution primarily relied upon the testimony of PW4/ complainant Saiyed Asghar Abbas Rizvi who categorically deposed that the accused impersonated himself as soninlaw of then Hon'ble Home Minister of India Sh.L.K. Advani and promised to get arranged meeting with him in lieu of Rs.5 lacs from complainant. Accused was correctly identified by complainant in the court, as also his identity was never in dispute during trial. Moreover, testimony of PW4 remained unrebutted by the accused. Other prosecution witnesses also deposed in sync with PW4 / complainant and corroborated the factum of false representation made by accused to the complainant with dishonest intention to deceive the complainant for making payment of Rs.5 lacs to the accused.
CC NO.291/02 FIR No.7/2000 Page no. 7 of 9
15. It was argued on behalf of accused that material witnesses of the present case could not be crossexamined by the accused as he was in judicial custody then and was not represented by any counsel. It was thus prayed that accused cannot be held guilty due to unrebutted testimonies of said witnesses.
16. At this stage, it is pertinent to refer to the order dated 27.02.2007, passed by Ld. Predecessor Court wherein while deciding application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of accused for recalling the prosecution witnesses for their crossexamination, Ld. Predecessor Court noted that the counsel for accused was present when the prosecution witnesses were examined in this case. Moreover, it was noted that the accused had given up his claim to crossexamine all other prosecution witnesses except complainant Sayed Asghar Abbas Rizvi who was the material witness of the case. As such, while partly allowing the application of accused u/s 311 Cr.P.C., Ld. Predecessor Court permitted the accused to conduct crossexamination of complainant/ PW4 for just decision of the case. It was further clarified that only one opportunity would be granted to accused for crossexamination of the said witness. Thereafter, the matter was fixed on number of occasions before the court but the witness PW4/ complainant could not be cross examined for either non production of accused in the court or due to absence of the witness.
17. Finally, on 24.09.2013, one final opportunity was again granted to the accused by this court to crossexamine PW4. However, in the report of CC NO.291/02 FIR No.7/2000 Page no. 8 of 9 summons issued against the witness/ PW4, it was reported that the witness had already died on 02.09.2012. In these circumstances, testimony of PW4/ complainant already recorded would be read for the purpose of evidence.
18. In lieu of unrebutted, uncontroverted testimony of PW4/ complainant and other material prosecution witnesses, this court has no hesitation in holding accused guilty for attempting to cheat complainant as all the essential ingredients of offences in question are duly proved by the prosecution against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused Mahesh G. Tanna S/o Gokul Dass Tanna is thus convicted for the offences under Section 419/420 r/w Section 511 IPC.
Accused be heard separately on the point of sentence on 17.10.2014.
Announced in the open Court (Akash Jain)
on 30.09.2014 Metropolitan Magistrate06,
Patiala House Court,
New Delhi
CC NO.291/02 FIR No.7/2000 Page no. 9 of 9