Delhi District Court
State vs Rajender Shokeen And Anr on 24 August, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. SAMIKSHA GUPTA
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate
South West District; Dwarka Courts: New Delhi
Date of Institution : 25.03.2017
Date of Reserving Judgment : 23.08.2024
Date of Judgment : 24.08.2024
In the matter of :
State Vs. Rajender Shokeen & Anr.
FIR No.144/2014
PS : Sector-23 Dwarka
U/s: 420/34 IPC & Section 4 Prize
Chits & Money Circulation Scheme
(Banning) Act , 1978
1. Regn. No. of Case : 2321/2017
2. CNR No. of Case : DLSW02-006893-2017
3. Name of Complainant : Anita Lakra
W/o Sh. Joginder Singh
R/o Flat No. 657, Metro View
Apartment, Sector 13 B, Dwarka,
Delhi.
4. Name of accused persons : 1. Rajender Shokeen
S/o Sh. Manphool
2. Poonam Shokeen
W/o Sh. Rajender Shokeen
Both R/o VPO Dichaon Kalan
Najafgarh, Delhi.
5. Offence charged under : 420/34 IPC &
State Vs. Rajender Shokeen & Anr.
FIR No.144/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.1 of 26
Sections Section 4 Prize Chits & Money
Circulation Scheme (Banning)
Act, 1978
6. Plea of accused persons : Not guilty.
7. Final Order : Acquitted under Section 4 Prize
Chits & Money Circulation
Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978
Convicted under Section 420 IPC
State represented by : Sh. Rohit Grewal, Ld. APP for State.
Accused represented by : Sh. Manmohan Yadav, Advocate.
JUDGMENT
1. It is the case of prosecution that accused persons were running a chit fund scheme. They induced complainant Anita Lakra to enroll as a member of chit fund on the basis of false assurances of high returns. During the period from unknown time till March 2013, accused persons dishonestly induced complainant in pursuance of chit fund scheme to pay Rs.7,45,000/- and thereby cheated her of the above said amount.
During the said period accused persons also induced other people to enroll as members of chit fund and received money in pursuance of the scheme in contravention of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 ("PCMC Act", hereinafter).
Thus, prosecution has set up a case under Section 420/34 IPC and under Section 4 of PCMC Act against both the State Vs. Rajender Shokeen & Anr.
FIR No.144/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.2 of 26 accused.
2. On the basis of investigation carried out by police, charge sheet was filed in Court and copy of the same was supplied to both accused.
3. On the basis of charge sheet, charge for committing offences punishable under Sections 420/34 IPC and under Section 4 of PCMC Act was framed against both accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined following witnesses:
Sr. No Name Nature of Evidence
1. PW-1/Anita Lakra Complainant
2. PW-2/Anita Public witness
3. PW-3/Kanta Public witness
4. PW-4/Amit Kumar Public witness
5. PW-5/Sudama Mishra Public witness
6. PW-6/Birma Public witness
7. PW-7/Inspector Arvind 2nd IO
Kumar
8. PW-8/SI Dharmender 1st IO
9. PW-9/SI Sunil Kumar 3rd IO
5. Prosecution has relied upon the following
documents:
State Vs. Rajender Shokeen & Anr.
FIR No.144/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.3 of 26
S.No Exhibits Documents
1. Ex.PW-1/A, Chits
B&C
2. Ex.PW-1/D Complaint dated 24.01.2014 made by
complainant
3. Ex.PW-1/E Details of committee and money given to IO by
complainant.
4. Ex.P1 FIR
5. Mark A Statement of PW4/Amit Kumar and PW6/Mrs.
Birma Devi recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC
6. Ex.PW-8/A Endorsement made on complaint dated 24.01.2014.
7. Ex.PW-9/A Arrest memo of accused Rajender
8. Ex.PW-9/B Disclosure statement of accused Rajender
9. Ex.PW-9/C Arrest memo of accused Poonam
10. Ex.PW-9/D Disclosure statement of accused Poonam
6. Thereafter, PE was closed and statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC, wherein they claimed that they were not running any chit fund scheme. They also denied taking any amount from complainant Anita Lakra on account of chit fund scheme. They did not lead evidence in defence.
7. Arguments heard. Record perused.
8. The evidence of prosecution witnesses in the present case is briefly discussed hereunder:
State Vs. Rajender Shokeen & Anr.
FIR No.144/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.4 of 26
(i) PW-1 Anita Lakra has deposed that accused Poonam Shokeen was her next door neighbour. She told this witness to become member of the committees run by her. She also assured this witness that she would earn good profit. In 2010, she became member of committee of Rs.50,000/-. After completion of tenure of committee, the said money was returned to her due to which she relied on the assurances given by accused Poonam Shokeen. She further invested in a committee of Rs.3 lakhs in June 2012. She paid her installments till March 2013 and was supposed to get Rs.2,84,500/-, which was not given by accused to her. In October 2012, she became member of another committee of Rs.6 lakhs in which she paid 6 installments till March 2013 of total amount of Rs.1,74,792/-. She further invested in another committee in October for Rs.20 lakhs where she had half share and paid Rs.2,86,400/-. In March 2013 amount of Rs.3 lakhs was not returned by accused persons. Accused Poonam told her in March/April 2013 that she was closing all committees. She further gave 3 chits (Ex. PW-1/A to Ex.
PW-1/C) to her on which accused Poonam had written some amount. Witness also stated that the said hand writing on aforesaid chits was of accused Poonam Shokeen. On complaint by other committee members, accused persons went in custody in November 2013. Later they assured her that they shall pay all her dues of Rs.7,45,751/- by 25th December. This witness, however later found that accused persons had locked their house and run away. Complaint was filed by this witness on 24.01.2014 and her State Vs. Rajender Shokeen & Anr.
FIR No.144/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.5 of 26 statement was recorded by IO.
During cross-examination, she stated that installments of committee were paid to accused persons in cash as accused had refused to accept cheques. She could not recall the consolidated income of her family in 2012. She stated that her salary in October 2012 was Rs.50,000/- approximately but there were other sources of income such as rental income, salary of her son and father-in-law and profits from business. She admitted that the hand written chits produced by her during evidence did not contain any date or sign. Receipts of payment were not issued by accused persons. She denied the suggestion that accused persons were not running any committee.
(ii) PW-2 Anita deposed that she came to know about the committees run by accused persons from her friend Anita Lakra who also invested in those committees. She also paid Rs.9 lakhs towards such committees. However, as promised by the accused persons, she did not get any money after closing of committee in February 2013. Thereafter, she filed a complaint and the same was settled after accused persons paid her Rs.4 lakhs. She also stated that some persons namely Sneh Lata and her daughter Jyoti had also invested in the committees run by accused persons.
During cross-examination, she stated that complainant Anita Lakra had paid some amount of committee in her presence. Some of the payments to be made by this witness State Vs. Rajender Shokeen & Anr.
FIR No.144/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.6 of 26 were also made to Anita Lakra to the accused persons. She admitted that there were no documents to show that accused persons were running chit fund/committees. She denied the suggestion that accused persons were not running any committee.
(iii) PW-3 Kanta deposed that she invested in the lucky draw/committees with accused Poonam Shokeen. She had invested Rs.3,18,000/- in the said committees. Both the accused persons thereafter left their residence and were not traceable. Case was filed against them by various victims as well as this witness. The said case was settled in mediation and this witness received Rs.2,40,000/-. Her friend Saroj Sharma also received Rs.2,40,000/-. She could not depose about any other facts of the present case. Her statement was recorded by IO in the present case.
During cross-examination, she stated that she did not have any record to show that accused persons were running any committees/lucky draw. She did not know the complainant and further stated that complainant did not give any amount to accused persons in her presence. She further stated that IO did not call her and also did not record her statement.
(iv) PW-4 Amit Kumar deposed that he became acquainted with accused Rajender Shokeen as he used to come to his shop for getting his mobile phone repaired. Accused Rajender Shokeen induced him to invest money in the committees run by State Vs. Rajender Shokeen & Anr.
FIR No.144/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.7 of 26 him and assured him of earning profit. He had invested in committees of Rs.3 lakhs and Rs.1.5 lakhs run by accused Rajender Shokeen. He could not recall the total amount invested by him in the said committees. When he used to visit the accused persons, he met complainant Anita Lakra who had also invested money in 3-4 committees. He received an amount of Rs.50,000/- but not the whole amount that he had invested.
During cross-examination, he stated that police had recorded his statement twice or thrice. He was confronted with his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Mark A where it was not recorded that he used to meet Anita Lakra at the house of accused persons. He admitted that he did not have any documents to show that accused persons were running committees. He also did not have any document/receipt to show that he had given money to accused persons. He denied the suggestion that accused persons were not running any committee.
(v) PW-5 Sudama Mishra stated about FIR No. 139/14 PS Dwarka North and further stated that the said case was settled and he had received an amount of Rs.1,25,000/-. He deposed that he had no relation with the facts of the present case. He further stated that his wife Urmila Mishra had given Rs.1,25,000/- to accused Poonam Shokeen for investment in committees, for which FIR No. 139/14 was registered.
During cross-examination, he stated that he did know the complainant of the present case and that he did not give State Vs. Rajender Shokeen & Anr.
FIR No.144/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.8 of 26 any statement to police officials in the present case. He further stated that no transaction qua the complainant occurred in his presence. He denied the suggestion that accused persons were not running any committee.
(vi) PW-6 Birma was cross-examined by Ld. APP since she did not depose about any fact of the present case.
During her cross-examination by Ld. APP, she stated that she did not give any statement to the police. When she was confronted with her statement under Section 161 CrPC Mark A, she stated that she did not give any such statement. She denied the suggestion that she had given Rs.3 lakhs to accused persons for investing in committees. She denied the suggestion that her version of giving interest free loan to accused Poonam Shokeen is false and fabricated.
She was not cross-examined by accused.
(vii) PW-7 Inspector Arvind Kumar conducted preliminary investigation of the present case after which he was transferred.
During cross-examination, he could not recall if he had conducted any inquiry from accused persons while the investigation remained with him. He could not recall whether accused persons had joined investigation in FIR No. 37/14 PS Dwarka North. He admitted that document containing the details of committee Ex. PW-1/E did not mention the name when the State Vs. Rajender Shokeen & Anr.
FIR No.144/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.9 of 26 same was given to him by complainant. He admitted that complainant did not give him any documents to show that accused persons were running any committees.
(viii) PW-8 SI Dharmender got the FIR registered upon receiving complaint vide DD No. 58B. He conducted preliminary investigation and recorded statements of complainant and witnesses. Accused persons were not found despite searching for them. Thereafter, he was transferred.
He was not cross-examined despite opportunity by accused persons.
(ix) PW-9 SI Sunil conducted further investigation and arrested accused Rajender Shokeen and recorded his disclosure statement. Charge-sheet was filed thereafter. Upon receiving information regarding surrender of co-accused Poonam, she was formally arrested and further investigation was conducted, after which supplementary charge sheet against her was filed. He correctly identified accused Rajender Shokeen (Identity of co-accused Poonam was not disputed by counsel for accused).
During cross-examination, he admitted that no documents to show that accused persons were running committees/chit fund were recovered. He also stated that there were statement of witnesses to the effect that accused persons were running chit fund schemes. He denied the suggestion that State Vs. Rajender Shokeen & Anr.
FIR No.144/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.10 of 26 all documents were prepared by him while sitting in PS.
9. Analysis & Findings:
Charge under Section 4, PCMC Act:
I. Charge under Section 4 of PCMC Act has been framed against both accused.
II. It is alleged against accused persons that they were running committees whereby they induced many people to enroll as members and invest various sums in pursuance of aforesaid committees. The prosecution has alleged that running of such committees is prohibited under PCMC Act and accused have committed offence punishable under Section 4 of PCMC Act.
Per contra, it is the version of accused persons that they were not running committees as alleged by the prosecution. They also denied that they induced people to invest in committees with assurances of high returns and denied receiving any money on that account.
III. Section 3 of PCMC Act prohibits any person from promoting and conducting any prize chit or money circulation scheme. Section 4 of this Act makes violation of Section 3 a punishable offence.
Section 2 is the definition clause . S. 2(e) defines 'prize chit' as 'any transaction or arrangement by whatever name State Vs. Rajender Shokeen & Anr.
FIR No.144/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.11 of 26 called, under which a person collects whether as a promoter, foreman, agent or in any other capacity, monies in one lump sum or in installment by way of contributions or subscriptions or by sale of units, certificates or other instruments or in any other manner or as membership fees or admission fees or service charges to or in respect to any savings, mutual benefit, thrift, or any other scheme or arrangement by whatever name called, and utilizes the monies so collected or any part thereof or the income accruing from investment or other use of such monies for:
(i) giving or awarding periodically or otherwise to a specified number of subscribers as determined by lot, draw or in any other manner, prizes or gifts in cash or in kind, whether or not the recipient of the prize or gift is under a liability to make any further payment in respect of such scheme or arrangement, or
(ii) refunding to the subscribers or such of them as have not won any prize or gift, the whole or part of the subscriptions, contributions or other monies collected, with or without any bonus, premium, interest or any other advantage by whatever name called, on the termination of the scheme or arrangement, or on or after the expiry of the period stipulated therein;
but does not include a conventional chit.' IV. The aforesaid definition of 'prize chit' specifically states that it does not cover 'conventional chit' which is defined as per Section 2(a) of the Act, to mean "..a transaction whether called chit, chit fund, kuri or by any other name by or under State Vs. Rajender Shokeen & Anr.
FIR No.144/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.12 of 26 which a person responsible for the conduct of the chit enters into an agreement with a specified number of persons that every one of them shall subscribe a certain sum of money by way of periodical installments for a definite period and that each subscriber shall, in his turn, as determined by lot or by auction or by tender or in such other manner as may be provided for in the chit agreement, be entitled to a prize amount."
V. Thus, the Act clearly prohibits the conduct of prize chits but conventional chits are excluded from the operation of Section 3/4/5 of PCMC Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Registrar of Firms, Societies and Chits, Uttar Pradesh vs. Secured Investment Company, Lucknow and Anr, 1988 AIR 492, that conventional chits are not prohibited under the Act as only prize chits are banned under Section 3 of the Act. The features of conventional chits have been explained as:
"It was meant for mutual benefit in which some people joined to save and others to borrow. What distinguishes the chit fund, however, from other financial transactions is that it connects the borrowing class directly with the lending class. The pooled saving is lent out to the same group of contributors. A chit fund collects the savings of the members by periodical subscriptions for a definite period. At the same time, it makes available the pooled savings to each member by turn as agreed by them, The collected fund may be State Vs. Rajender Shokeen & Anr.
FIR No.144/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.13 of 26 given either by drawing lots or by bidding. Lots are drawn periodically and the member whose name appears on the winning chit gets the collection without any deductions. He,however, continues to pay his subscriptions but his name is removed from subsequent lots. Thus every member gets a chance to receive the whole amount of the chit. This is generally the features of a conventional chit. It is operated without a professional promoter or manager and without any risk of loss of capital."
In the same judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has explained Prize Chit as:
"Leaving aside the verbiage, if we rewrite the definition which reeks of simplicity, it runs like this:
Prize chit includes a scheme by which a person in whatever name collects moneys from individuals for the purpose of giving prizes and refunding the balance with or with out premium after the expiry of a specified period."
VI. Thus, a conventional chit, as opposed to a prize chit, has a finite numbers of pre-determined members and each member has to contribute the subscription for the entire term, irrespective of the draw of lot in his favour at any stage of the State Vs. Rajender Shokeen & Anr.
FIR No.144/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.14 of 26 agreed term of the chit. All the members of the conventional chit subscribe the same amount for the entire duration and every member draws the lot in his favour only once during the term of the chit.
On the other hand, in a prize chit the members can join/subscribe the chit at an intermediate stage and may still win the prize chit without paying the same subscription amount as other members. A prize chit need not to be drawn in favour of all subscribers at least once, and after one or more draws of prize, the chit can be closed and the subscription money returned to the members. Further, once a members receives the prize chit in his favour he is under no obligation to continue to pay his part of the subscription and may opt out of the chit.
VII. In light of the aforesaid distinguishing features between conventional and prize chit, we come to the facts of the present case. In the present case, the prosecution was required to lead cogent evidence to show that the accused persons were running prize chits or money circulation schemes. They were further required to demonstrate by way of cogent evidence that acts of accused in running chit fund scheme were out of the purview of conventional chits.
VIII. The evidence of public witnesses and police witnesses along with material on record has to be analyzed in this State Vs. Rajender Shokeen & Anr.
FIR No.144/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.15 of 26 scenario.
The evidence of PW 1 Complainant Anita Lakra is to the effect that accused persons induced her by giving false assurances of high returns if she invested in committees run by them. Consequently, she became member of committee of 50,000/- in July 2010 and then became member of committee of 3,00,000/- in June 2012. She further became member of committee of 6 lakhs in March 2013 and member of committee of 20 lakhs in October 2013. She further stated that accused persons did not issue receipts of payment.
Similarly, the evidence of PW2 Anita is to the effect since her friend, Anita Lakra was investing in committees run by accused persons, she also invested Rs.9 lakhs. Further, after criminal case was filed against accused persons, same was settled for Rs.4 lakhs. She also admitted that she had no documents to show that accused persons were running a chit fund.
Evidence of PW3 Kanta is to the effect that accused persons were running lucky draw/committees and she had invested Rs.3,18,000/-. After criminal case was filed against accused, the matter was settled and she had received Rs.2,40,000/- in mediation settlement. She also admitted that she had no documents to show that accused persons were running a chit fund.
Evidence of PW 4 Amit Kumar is to the effect that he used to give some amount monthly for committees run by State Vs. Rajender Shokeen & Anr.
FIR No.144/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.16 of 26 accused persons and that he had invested in committee of 3 lakhs and 1,50,000/-. He also admitted that he had no documents to show that accused persons were running a chit fund or to show that he had made payments to the accused persons.
Evidence of PW5 Sudama Mishra is to the effect that his wife had given Rs.1,25,000/- to accused Poonam Shokeen for investment in committees. Criminal case was filed and same was settled in which his wife had received Rs.1,25,000/-. He also admitted that he had no documents to show that accused persons were running committees.
PW6 Birma did not support the case of prosecution and simply stated that she was not aware about any facts.
PW7 Insp Arvind Kumar deposed that he had conducted further investigation in the present case. He also stated that complainant did not give any documents during investigation to show that accused persons were running committees.
PW9 SI Sunil deposed that he had conducted further investigation in the present case. He also stated that nothing was recovered at the instance of accused persons to show that accused were indeed running chit funds/committees and that the witnesses/victims had invested therein. He also stated that there were statements of witnesses to show that accused persons were running committees.
IX. Perusal of evidence of public witnesses shows that State Vs. Rajender Shokeen & Anr.
FIR No.144/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.17 of 26 their testimonies are general in nature and are to the effect that accused persons were running committees and that they had invested in those. No public witness has deposed about the modus operandi of such committees and that how were members added and what was the mode of subscription. No PW/subscriber of the chit has deposed that the members of the chit could be added any time in between the continuance of one chit. None of the public persons/PWs has been able to depose the exact amount of money subscribed by them. All the PWs have merely deposed random amounts which they contributed towards various committees. None of the said witness has been able to show any document/receipt to show the exact payment made by them. Similarly, none of the witnesses has been able to depose the exact duration or exact number of members etc. pertaining to any committees. Further, IO has not conducted any investigation to show the nature of scheme allegedly run by accused persons. He has simply stated that nothing was recovered from accused persons.
Thus, while many public witnesses have deposed that accused were running committees in which they had subscribed and invested, there is no evidence to record to show that the said schemes were in the nature of conventional chits, prize chits or money circulation scheme. In view of the various ambiguities as to the nature of scheme run by accused persons, prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused persons were running schemes in the nature of prize State Vs. Rajender Shokeen & Anr.
FIR No.144/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.18 of 26 chits and money circulation schemes, which are banned as per PCMC Act. Thus, both accused persons are acquitted under Section 4 of PCMC Act.
Charge under Section 420 IPC:
I. Charge under Section 420/34 IPC has been framed against both accused. It is alleged against accused persons that they were running committees whereby they induced many people to enroll as members and invest various sums in such committees. It is further averred that complainant Anita Lakra was dishonestly induced by accused persons to invest Rs.7,45,000/- in the committees run by accused persons and thereby cheated by them.
II. To prove commission of offence under Section 420 IPC, prosecution is required to prove the following ingredients:
(i) a person must commit the offence of
cheating under Section 415; and
(ii) the person cheated must be dishonestly
induced to;
(iii) deliver property to any person; or
(iv) make, alter or destroy valuable security
or anything signed or sealed and capable
of being converted into valuable security State Vs. Rajender Shokeen & Anr.
FIR No.144/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.19 of 26 III. It is thus paramount that in order to attract the provisions of Section 420 IPC, the prosecution has to not only prove that the accused has cheated someone but also that by doing so, he has dishonestly induced the person who is cheated to deliver property.
There are, thus, three components of this offence:
(i) deception of any person,
(ii) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to
deliver any property to any person, and
(iii) mens rea or dishonest intention of the accused at the
time of making the inducement.
IV. It is also trite law that for the offence of cheating,
fraudulent and dishonest intention must exist from the inception when the promise or representation was made by accused. Further, a statement of fact is deemed 'deceitful' when it is false, and is knowingly or recklessly made with the intent that it shall be acted upon by another person, resulting in damage or loss.
V. The evidence brought on record in the present case has to be considered on the aforesaid parameters of law.
VI. Complainant Anita Lakra has deposed that accused State Vs. Rajender Shokeen & Anr.
FIR No.144/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.20 of 26 persons were her neighbours. Accused Poonam Shokeen induced her to invest in committees run by them with the assurance that she would never be in loss. On the basis of false promises of good return, complainant decided to invest in these committees. Infact, in 2010, she became member of committee for Rs.50,000/- and after completion of that committee, Rs.50,000/- were returned to her. This induced the complainant to be assured about the credibility of the representations made by accused.
Complainant subsequently invested in a committee of Rs.3 lakhs in June 2012, committee of Rs.6 lakhs in October 2012, committee of Rs.20 lakhs in October. Towards these committees, complainant had invested various sums but money was not returned as per assurances made by accused. Rather in March/April 2013, accused Poonam Shokeen told the complainant that she was closing all committees. Later, accused persons came to her house with the assurance of making payment on request of not filing criminal case. However, subsequently complainant found out that accused persons had locked their house and had run away and that they had switched off their mobile phones.
VII. PW4 Amit Kumar has also supported the prosecution version that accused persons used to run committees. He has also deposed that accused Rajender Shokeen induced him by making false assurances and fake promises of profits. He was State Vs. Rajender Shokeen & Anr.
FIR No.144/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.21 of 26 also misled by their fake promises to invest in these committees.
PW2 Anita, PW3 Kanta and PW5 Sudama Mishra have simply stated that they were members of committees run by accused persons. After their invested money was not returned by accused persons, criminal cases were filed which got settled in mediation and payments were made by accused persons.
VIII. In common parlance, deception implies intentionally leading someone to believe something that is not true. This deliberate inducement may be direct or indirect and by words or conduct. It may be expressed or implied in the nature of transaction.
IX. In the present case, complainant has categorically stated that accused Poonam Shokeen represented to her that investment in committees run by her would fetch the complainant good returns after which complainant became member of various committees. Further, public witnesses and police witnesses have deposed that despite these promises of high returns, accused persons did not return their money, left their addresses and switched off their phones. This subsequent conduct of accused persons further lends credence to the fact that their intention was to merely induce the persons to invest in committees without any intention of actually honouring this commitment. This shows that the intention of accused persons from the inception was to collect State Vs. Rajender Shokeen & Anr.
FIR No.144/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.22 of 26 the investments from people after giving false assurances. It is also evident from the testimony of witnesses and material on record that complainant was influenced by the representations made by accused persons leading her to subsequently invest in the committees.
X. To fasten culpability under Section 420, prosecution was further required to prove delivery of property/money by complainant to accused persons. As per record, complainant has stated to have paid all instalments till March 2013 of committee started in June 2012. She had further invested Rs.1,74,792/- towards six instalments for committee in October 2012 and an amount of Rs.2,86,400/- towards committee of Rs.20 lakhs.
During her testimony, witness had also produced two handwritten chits which she stated were in the handwriting of accused Poonam Shokeen. However, these documents were not sent to FSL for opinion and therefore much credibility cannot be attached to them.
During her cross examination, questions as to her expenses and income were put by counsel for accused and her answers supported her case. She stated during cross examination that she was working as school teacher since 1998 and her monthly salary in October 2012 was Rs.50,000/-. She also clarified that money for installments for committees used be from the income of her father in law, mother in law, her husband and State Vs. Rajender Shokeen & Anr.
FIR No.144/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.23 of 26 her son. She also stated that there were other sources of income such as rental income and profit from business. These statements have to considered along with the monthly amount supposed to be paid towards committees. As per her deposition, monthly amounts of Rs.25,000/- towards June 2012 committee, monthly amounts of Rs.50,000/- towards October 2012 committee and half share of October committee was Rs.83,000/-. Nothing prejudicial to this version could be elicited by the accused during her cross examination, except for general suggestions that no amount was ever given by the complainant.
She had also deposed as to the mode and manner of payment wherein she had stated that installments generally used to be paid before 15th day of each month and there used to be some penalty/fine for payment done later. She has also clarified that payment for committees used to be done in cash since accused persons refused to accept cheques, which further points to the culpable intention of accused persons. She has further clarified that accused persons did not give receipts of payments made by her. This appears a probable version of events since there is naturally not going to be any direct evidence of such modus operandi of the accused, considering that they were running many committees where investments were sought from a large number of people.
XI. Further, PW2 Anita has also deposed that she started State Vs. Rajender Shokeen & Anr.
FIR No.144/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.24 of 26 investing in committees run by accused as her friend, the complainant herein, Anita Lakra was also investing in those committees. Infact, she had also stated that she was also a member of committee of 6 lakhs in which present complainant had also invested. She has also deposed that complainant had paid the amount of committees in front of her.
Similarly, PW4 Amit Kumar has deposed that he met complainant Anita Lakra at the house of accused persons on several occasions. He was also aware that complainant had invested money in 3-4 committees.
Thus, the version of prosecution stands corroborated from the material brought on record and also from the testimony of various public witnesses. The constant refrain of Ld.counsel for accused was that no record whatsoever was brought on file regarding investments made by various people. However, as discussed earlier, such plans and modus operandi is usually done in secrecy and the very nature of this transaction was covert.
It was further contended on behalf of accused persons that the complainant did not have adequate financial means to invest in committees as alleged. However, complainant had satisfactorily explained about the means and sources of income used to invest in committees. No record was asked from the complainant to establish her financial means and for absence of such record, complainant cannot be put to trial. Having said that, it is pertinent to bring on record that as many as 3 public State Vs. Rajender Shokeen & Anr.
FIR No.144/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.25 of 26 witnesses in this case have stated that after filing of criminal cases against accused persons, their money was returned by them after matter was settled. It is also a matter of record that mediation had failed in the present case.
10. Thus, the prosecution has successfully proved the ingredients of deception and dishonest inducement and delivery of property/money to accused persons on account of such inducement for investment in committees. Accordingly, the charge under Section 420 IPC stands proved beyond reasonable doubt against accused persons.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, accused Rajender Shokeen & Poonam Shokeen are acquitted under Section 4 of Prize Chits & Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978. Further, both the accused are convicted under Section 420/34 IPC. Digitally signed by Samiksha Samiksha Gupta Pronounced in open Court Gupta Date:
2024.08.24 on 24th August, 2024 15:58:15 +0530 SAMIKSHA GUPTA Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Dwarka Courts: New Delhi 24.08.2024 State Vs. Rajender Shokeen & Anr.
FIR No.144/2014; PS Sector 23 Dwarka Page No.26 of 26