Delhi District Court
State vs . Rakesh Bansal Etc. on 25 August, 2022
1/24
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK KUMAR-1
ACMM (NORTH-WEST) ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
FIR No. 27/1995
PS: Ashok Vihar (Crime Branch)
U/s. 406/420/120B IPC
State Vs. Rakesh Bansal etc.
Date of Institution of case: 16.10.1996
Date of Judgment reserved: 18.08.2022
Date on which Judgment pronounced: 25.08.2022
JUDGMENT
Unique ID no. of the case : 6527/2017 Date of commission of offence : In the year 1992.
Name of complainant : Sh. Hari Singh S/o Sh. Suraj Pal Singh R/o E-2/103, Shastri Nagar, Delhi.
Name and address of accused : 1. Praveen Kumar Jain S/o- Mahavir Prasad R/o- D-62, Ashok Vihar, Phase I, Delhi.
2. Sohan Lal Jindal S/o Bashesher Nath R/o- A-2/67, Varun Apartments, Sector 9, Rolhini, Delhi.
3. Ram Bilas Jain S/o- R.S. Jain, R/o- HD-50, Vishakkha Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi.
Digitally signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK KUMAR 4. Satpal Garg KUMAR Date:
2022.08.25 17:28:02 +0530 FIR No. 27/1995 PS Ashok Vihar (Crime Branch) State Vs. Rakesh Bansal Etc. 2/24 S/o- K.R. Garg R/o- O-52, Lajpat Nagar, Delhi.
5. Rakesh Bansal S/o K.K. Bansal, R/o 583, Pocket- C Madhuban Chowk, Delhi.
6. Rakesh Kansal S/o Sunder Lal R/o Vishwas Apartment, Flat no. A-23, Plot No. 46, Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi.
7. Susheel Bansal S/o- S.L. Bansal R/o- C-479 F, Majlish Park, Azad Pur Delhi.
Offence complained of : U/s 120-B/420 IPC, R/w Section 3/4/5/6 of the Prize Chits Money Circulation (Prohibition) Act.
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Date of order : 25.08.2022
Final order : Acquitted for offence U/s
420/120-B IPC, R/w
Section 3/4/5/6 of the
Prize Chits Money
Circulation (Prohibition)
Act. Accused Praveen
Kumar Jain is acquitted
for the offence U/s 420 r/w
Digitally
signed by
DEEPAK
120B IPC.
DEEPAK KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2022.08.25
17:28:08
+0530
FIR No. 27/1995 PS Ashok Vihar (Crime Branch) State Vs. Rakesh Bansal Etc.
3/24
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION
1. The accused persons have been sent to face trial under Section 420/120-B of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called as IPC) R/w Section 3/4/5/6 of the Prize Chits Money Circulation (Prohibition) Act, on the allegations that in the year 1992 and thereafter, all the above said accused persons, in pursuant to the criminal conspiracy to cheat the public at large, issued pamphlets in the name of M/s Goodworth Investment and Leasing Ltd and induced about 500 persons for contributing Rs. 1500/- per month. All the accused persons being director of the Company, promised the members that a draw shall be declared every month and the prize winner shall receive Rs. One Lakh, but the prizes were not paid and thus aforesaid accused persons committed an offence punishable U/s 420/120-B IPC R/w Section 3/4/5/6 of the Prize Chits Money Circulation (Prohibition) Act. On the basis of the above allegations, the present FIR bearing No. 27/1995 was registered at police station Ashok Vihar and the accused persons have been charged with the above offence.
2. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the aforesaid accused persons. Copies of charge sheet was supplied to them in compliance of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called as Cr.P.C.) and charge U/s. Digitally signed by DEEPAK 420/120-B IPC R/w Section 3/4/5/6 of the Prize Chits Money DEEPAK KUMAR KUMAR Circulation (Prohibition) Act was framed against all the Date:
2022.08.25 17:28:14 +0530 FIR No. 27/1995 PS Ashok Vihar (Crime Branch) State Vs. Rakesh Bansal Etc. 4/24 aforesaid accused persons by my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 22.04.2002 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. A separate charge was also framed against the accused Parveen Kumar Jain for offence U/s 420 IPC R/w Section 120-B IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Vide order dated 11.03.2011, accused Praveen Kumar Jain was discharged for the offence U/s 4/5/6 f the Prize Chist & Money Circulation Scheme (Banking) Act by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court.
3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses. Thereafter, statement of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied the allegations levelled against them.
Appreciation of evidence in the light of settled legal propositions.
4. I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsels for the accused persons and also perused the record carefully.
5. PW1 SI Yash Pal deposed that on 19.01.95, he was posted as ASI at PS Ashok Vihar and working as a duty officer. At about 8.30p.m. he received rukka through SI Om Prakash Digitally signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2022.08.25 17:28:18 +0530 FIR No. 27/1995 PS Ashok Vihar (Crime Branch) State Vs. Rakesh Bansal Etc. 5/24 Crime Branch for the registration of the case. Accordingly, he registered the case FIR No. 27/95, U/s 3 to 6 Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act 1978 and U/s 406/420 IPC r/w Section 120-B IPC. He proved the copy of FIR as Ex.PW1/A.
6. PW2 Harsh Vardhan Asstt. Director (Documents) FSL, Haryana, Madhuban, Karnal, deposed that the documents of this case were forwarded by Inspector Anti-Tax Fraud Crime Branch to Udyog Sadan, Delhi vide memo number nil date 12.06.1995 and were received in his division on 12.06.95 in open condition (unsealed). There were four questioned writing/figures on four ruled sheets marked as Q-1 to Q-5 and alongwith specimen handwriting/figures/signatures marked as S- 1 to S-16 and S-26 to S-42 of Sh. Rakesh Bansal, as S-43 to S-95 of Sh. Sushil Kumar Bansal and S-96 to S-137 of Sh. Rakesh Kansal. He had examined the aforesaid questioned documents with the specimen handwriting/ signatures/ figures of aforesaid three persons and found that the person i.e., Sh. Rakesh Bansal who had written the documents S-1 to S-16 and S-26 to S-42 also wrote the questioned documents i.e., marked Q-1 to Q-3. However, he could give any opinion with respect to rest of specimen documents marked S-43 to S-95 pertaining to Sh. Sushil Kumar Bansal and documents marked as S-96 to S-137 Digitally signed by pertaining to Sh. Rakesh Kansal as it was not found possible to DEEPAK DEEPAK KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2022.08.25 17:28:23 +0530 FIR No. 27/1995 PS Ashok Vihar (Crime Branch) State Vs. Rakesh Bansal Etc. 6/24 express any opinion on the basis of material at hand (sic). He was not able to fix the authorship of the questioned documents marked as Q-4 and Q-5. He proved his detailed report as Ex.PW2/A.
7. PW3 Mukesh Dutt Sharma Asstt. Manager (Credit) Hotel Siddartha, New Delhi deposed that he is working in the aforesaid hotel since the year 1982. In the year 1996, police officials came to their hotel. He had given the carbon copy of bill No. 10813 dated 29.05.1993 in the name of Mr. Bansal. Same was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/A. The said bill was prepared by the then Cashier on duty and issued by Siddartha hotel. He could not identify the handwriting and signature of the Cashier who had prepared the aforesaid bill. The bill does not bear his signature. Carbon copy of the bill is Mark A. As per record reflected in the bill, the bill was raised for a dinner party of around 209 person which was organized in their hotel by Mr. Bansal.
8. PW4 ASI Om Parkash deposed that on 22.05.1995, he was posted as HC in EOW, Udyog Sadan. On that day, he joined the investigation of this case with SI Om Parkash. On that day, IO obtained the specimen handwriting and signature of accused Rakesh Bansal on 42 sheets and specimen handwriting and signature of accused Sushil Bansal on 53 sheets. He had signed Digitally signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK KUMAR Date: KUMAR 2022.08.25 17:28:27 +0530 FIR No. 27/1995 PS Ashok Vihar (Crime Branch) State Vs. Rakesh Bansal Etc. 7/24 as witness on all the specimen sheets of both the accused persons. Specimen sheets reflecting specimen handwriting and signature of accused Rakesh Bansal running into 42 pages are collectively as Ex.PW4/A and specimen sheets reflecting specimen handwriting and signature of accused Sushil Bansal running into 53 pages are collectively Ex.PW4/B. He identified both the accused persons in the court.
9. PW5 Sh. Inderjeet Magu, Junior Technical Assistant, Office of the Registrar of Companies Delhi and Haryana, deposed that he is working in the said office since December 1978. He did not remember as to whether he had joined the investigation of this cases at any stage or not. He had come before the court as he received summons to produce the record pertaining to file having the registration no. 48306 of M/s. Good Worth Investment and Leasing Ltd. He had brought the certificate of incorporation of the company and annual return filed by the aforesaid company in their office since 08.11.2001 onward. At this stage, the photocopy of annual return of M/s Good Worth Investment and Leasing Ltd. Pertaining to the year 1993 running into 8 pages was shown to the witness to which witness stated that the copy of return reflects the signature of Sh.
D.R. Chaturvedi, the then Assistant Registrar (Since expired). He Digitally signed by identified the signature of Sh. D.R. Chaturvedi in his official DEEPAK DEEPAK capacity. This annual return had been filed by the aforesaid KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2022.08.25 17:28:31 +0530 FIR No. 27/1995 PS Ashok Vihar (Crime Branch) State Vs. Rakesh Bansal Etc. 8/24 company in the office of Registrar in normal course. At that stage, Ld. APP for the State sought permission to lead secondary evidence in respect of annual return filed by the aforesaid company for the F.Y. 1993 on the ground that original of the said document has already been destroyed. The request was opposed by the Ld. Defence counsel for the accused persons on the ground that FIR was registered much prior to the date of destruction of the said documents and therefore, the said document ought not to have been destroyed and it was the duty of investigating agency to make request for preservation of said record.
After considering the submissions made on behalf of both the sides and keeping in view the relevancy of aforesaid document in the context of nature of allegations against accused persons as well as the charges framed against them, the court was of the view that the aforesaid document is relevant for the purpose of arriving at fair and just conclusion. During the course of submissions, the witness present before the court submitted that photocopy of the said document available on record, bears his signature. He proved the photocopy of annual return filed by the aforesaid company Ex.PW5/A. With the permission of the court, Ld. APP for the State cross examined the witness. During his cross-examination by Ld. APP for the State, the statement of witness Mark A was shown to the witness to which he stated that Digitally signed by he does not remember if he had given any such statement to the DEEPAK DEEPAK KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2022.08.25 17:28:35 +0530 FIR No. 27/1995 PS Ashok Vihar (Crime Branch) State Vs. Rakesh Bansal Etc. 9/24 police during investigation due to lapse of long time. He also did not remember as to whether during investigation, he had told the IO about the number and names of Directors and number of shares held by the Directors of the company at that time. Witness volunteered that as per form No. 32 dated 10.04.1992, I.e the date of incorporation of the company, Rakesh Kansal, Rakesh Bansal and Vinod Sharma were the three directors in the aforesaid company and as per Memorandum of Articles, there were seven share holders namely Rakesh Bansal, Rakesh Kansal, Ram Vilas, Sudharshan Bansal, Vinod Sharma, Umesh Kumar and Sunil Kumar Jindal.
10. PW6 ACP Zile Singh, PG Cell S/W District Sector-9 Dwarka, New Delhi, deposed that on 25.07.1996 he was posted as Inspector Tax Fraud in Crime Branch of Delhi. On 25.07.96, he took up the case file for further investigation. On that day, he received FSL report no. DP95 FSL dated 28.06.96. The same was placed on record. On 31.07.96, he prepared charge sheet of the present case against Rakesh Bansal, Rakesh Kansal and Sushil Bansal. Thereafter, charge sheet was submitted before the Hon'ble Court.
11. PW7 Sh. Rajender Prasad deposed that the incident took Digitally signed by DEEPAK place prior to 20 years from the date of his evidence. One Vinod DEEPAK KUMAR Date:
KUMAR 2022.08.25
17:28:39
+0530 Kumar who was known to him having office at Wazir Pur
FIR No. 27/1995 PS Ashok Vihar (Crime Branch) State Vs. Rakesh Bansal Etc.
10/24
Industrial Area, Delhi, used to visit his office occasionally. Vinod Kumar informed him about some lottery/ chit fund scheme. He did not know about the features of the aforesaid lottery scheme.
He and his son namely Vipin became the member of the lottery scheme. He gave membership fees of Rs. 1500/- per head for becoming the member of the said scheme to aforesaid Vinod Kumar. He further deposed that he did not remember as to how much money in total he invested in the said scheme due to lapse of long time. Police made inquiry from him prior to about 20 years and now he did not remember as to what he had stated before the police at that time. He did not remember as to whether his statement was recorded by the police or not. He was declared hostile. He was cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State but nothing incriminating has come out from his evidence.
12. PW8 Sh. Basant Kumar Chauhan has also deposed nothing in favour of the prosecution case. He was also cross examined by Ld. APP for the State and nothing incriminating has come out from his deposition.
13. PW9 Vipin Parsad deposed that he did not remember the exact date, month and year of the incident but about 13-14 years have passed when it took place. He was running a gas agency in Digitally the area of Tri Nagar, Delhi during the relevant period. He came signed by DEEPAK to know about scheme of lottery through Sh. Vinod Sharma and DEEPAK KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2022.08.25 17:28:43 +0530 FIR No. 27/1995 PS Ashok Vihar (Crime Branch) State Vs. Rakesh Bansal Etc. 11/24 one person namely Mr. Jain whose complete name he could not tell. It was told him that in case he invested certain amount per month in the scheme then one Maruti Car would be given to lucky draw winner every month in lucky draw to be conducted at some hotel as per regular feature. He further deposed that he came to know about the lottery scheme through his father who had already purchased two tickets of lottery. He did not know from whom his father had purchased those two lottery tickets. At that time, he was working in the gas agency being run by his uncle Sh. Ram Bhagat at Tri Nagar. He asked his father to get two lottery tickets for him also as he was working in the gas agency. The ticket number of one of the lottery was probably
150. He did not remember the number of other lottery ticket. He had to give Rs. 1500/- per month for each of the lottery tickets.
One person who was an employee of that group who was running the scheme used to visit the office of gas agency for collecting the monthly amount of Rs. 3000/- from him. Then he did not remember the name of that person to whom he used to hand over the amount of Rs. 3000/- per month. He deposited the required monthly installment amount for the whole duration required for the lottery tickets. However, he did not remember for how many months he deposited the amount. He did not remember even the total amount invested by him in the scheme. After the expiry of time a party was organized either in Samrat Digitally Hotel or in Richi Rich Hotel for announcement of the Lucky signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2022.08.25 17:28:47 +0530 FIR No. 27/1995 PS Ashok Vihar (Crime Branch) State Vs. Rakesh Bansal Etc. 12/24 Winner and for distribution of prices. In that party, he won third price but he did not remember as to what was the amount or articles won by him. However, he did not receive the winning price. He did not identify any of the accused persons. He was also cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State.
14. PW10 Retired SI Om Prakash deposed that on 19.01.1995, he was posted as SI at Crime Branch, Udyog Sadan, Delhi. On that day, one complaint of Sh. Hari Singh against Rakesh Bansal, Sushil Bansal and Rakesh Kansaal was marked to him for inquiry. He made inquiry from Hari Singh and Padam Chand who informed that above named persons were carrying business of chit fund Company. They alleged that under the scheme floated by the chit fund company, one was to deposit Rs. 1500/- per month for 15 months and the company used to make a draw every month in which an award of Rs. 1,00,000/- was to be announced to the members. They also informed that despite of their names having come in the draw, the amount was not given and the invested amount was also not returned to them and instead of them, the accused persons threatened them. They also informed that several other investors like Bhupender, Rajender etc. also invested amount in the company and they were also cheated. He made inquiry with the other investors who corroborated the allegations of complaint. He made endorsement Digitally on Ex.PW10/A of the complaint of Hari Singh and Padam Chand signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2022.08.25 17:28:51 +0530 FIR No. 27/1995 PS Ashok Vihar (Crime Branch) State Vs. Rakesh Bansal Etc. 13/24 and got registered FIR. During the investigation when he made search of accused Rakesh Bansal, Rakesh Kansal and Sushil Bansal, he came to know that they had applied for anticipatory bail. He interrogated all the three above named persons during which they disclosed that they had not floated any scheme as alleged by the complainant. He obtained their specimen handwriting of all the three accused persons on the sheets SA1 to SA41, SB1 to SB53 and SC1 to SC42 already exhibited as Ex.PW4/A to Ex.PW4/B and Ex.PW10/B respectively. He identified all the three accused persons with their names. On
20.03.96, he arrested all these three accused persons and they were released on police bail. Their personal bonds are Ex.PW10/C, Ex.PW10/D and Ex.PW10/E.
15. PW11 Sh. Krishan Kumar Sharma deposed nothing in favour of the prosecution case. He was declared hostile by the Ld. APP for the State but nothing incriminating has come out from his testimony.
15A. Record reveals that no prosecution witness has been given number as PW12 and PW13 after examination of PW11. PW14 have been examined after examination of PW11.
DEEPAK Digitally signed by DEEPAK KUMAR
16. PW14 S.K. Rathi Retd. ACP deposed that in the year KUMAR Date:
2022.08.25 17:28:56 +0530 1995, he was posted as Inspector in the Crime Branch. He FIR No. 27/1995 PS Ashok Vihar (Crime Branch) State Vs. Rakesh Bansal Etc. 14/24 received the case file on 09.09.97 as further investigation of the case was entrusted to him. On 23.09.97, he went to Bank of Rajasthan, Shalimar Bagh branch and recorded the statement of Branch Manager Sh. Roshan Lal. He handed over the copy of statement of account in the name of Goodworth Finance & Leasing Ltd. During investigation, he also recorded the statement of Sh. Umed Singh on 24.09.97 in his office. He also received the complaint of Sh. Rajiv Goswami through Dak.
17. PW15 Inspector Rajender Prasad deposed that on 17.12.97 he was posted as Inspector in CBT Section EOW, Crime Branch. On that day, he received the present case file as further investigation of this case was assigned to him. On 10.02.98, he recorded the statement of PW Raj Kumar Saini in his office. On 18.02.98 he recorded the statements of PWs Umed Singh and Padam Chand Jain in his office. On 19.02.98, PW Vir Singh, Radhey Shyam, Shiv Shankar and Sh. Jagmohan Mittal were called in the office and he examined these witnesses U/s 161Cr.P.C. On 14.04.98, he alongwith SI Jorawar Singh went to the office company namely M/s Goodworth Leasing & Finance Ltd. Situated at Wazir Pur Industrial Area and conducted the search of the office. However, no record / incriminating document were found. He prepared the search memo Digitally Ex.PW15/A. At the time of search, accused Rakesh Bansal was signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK also present and he identified him in the court. On the same day, KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2022.08.25 17:29:00 +0530 FIR No. 27/1995 PS Ashok Vihar (Crime Branch) State Vs. Rakesh Bansal Etc. 15/24 accused Rakesh took them to the other office of company situated at 506A to 511, Inderprasth Tower, Ashok Vihar. No incriminating document was recovered from this office also and he prepared search memo Ex.PW15/B. On the same day, accused Rakesh Bansal took them to his house situated at 303, New Swastik Cooperative Housing Society, Rohini. However, nothing incriminating was recovered. He prepared search memo Ex.PW15/C. On 12.06.98 he was transferred from CBT Section, so case file was deposited with reader ACP, CBT.
18. PW16 Radhey Shyam after having his memory refreshed, deposed that he does not know anything about the present case. He had not given any statement to the police. He did not know any of the accused persons and he had never participated/ contributed in any chit fund run by alleged accused persons. He has never been cheated by anyone. He denied the suggestion that he has been won over by the accused persons and that is why he is deposing falsely just to save the accused persons.
19. PW17 Umed Singh deposed that in the year 1989 he was working with accused Rakesh Bansal and Rakesh Kansal and both the said persons were partner in their steel work. On 30/31.05.92, all the accused persons present in the court, had Digitally signed by DEEPAK started luck draw scheme. Accused Rakesh Bansal told him to DEEPAK KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2022.08.25 17:29:04 +0530 FIR No. 27/1995 PS Ashok Vihar (Crime Branch) State Vs. Rakesh Bansal Etc. 16/24 invest in the scheme by paying Rs. 1500/- every month and he started paying the same amount w.e.f. May 1992 and paid till July 1993. The draw was made every month and one person used to win Rs. 1 lakh every month. In the last draw which was held at Hayat Hotel, there was a dispute of one Baniya namely Mam Chand Jain, had a dispute with the accused persons and subsequently the case started. He used to collect the lottery money from the parties on the saying of accused Rakesh Bansal. He several times also deposited the money in the bank alongwith the clerk of accused Rakesh Bansal. Accused also opened a company in the name of Goodworth. First party was given by accused person at Samrat Hotel and in the said party they also called the girls. Second party was given at Mohan Hotel, third party at Sidharth Hotel and two times in Richi Rich, two times also at Hyat Hotel.
Ld. APP for the State has cross examined this witness at length. In his cross examination by Ld. APP for the State, he deposed that in the year 1992 accused Rakesh Bansal, Rakesh Kansal, Sushil Bansal and Sohan Lal Jindal had stated to him that they had opened a chit fund company and Rs. 1500/-per month will be invested in the said company and further stated that one lucky draw of Rs. 1 lakh would be drawn every month. He further stated to have been told that after 15 months for next 60 months, Rs. 45000/- would be given to one member every Digitally signed by DEEPAK month. He denied that those members which were not given DEEPAK KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2022.08.25 17:29:08 +0530 FIR No. 27/1995 PS Ashok Vihar (Crime Branch) State Vs. Rakesh Bansal Etc. 17/24 either Rs. 1 lakh or Rs. 45000/- would be given Rs. 25000/- after the lapse of the aforesaid 75 months. The name of the chit fund company was stated by the accused persons as Goodworth Investment & leasing Ltd. B-77, Wazir Pur, Industrial Area. The accused persons also told him that the company was duly registered and assured that his investment would not run into losses. Witness admitted that the accused Rakesh Bansal owed him a sum of Rs. 16,500/- towards wages of labour employed by him with Rakesh Bansal and he did not pay this amount. He invested Rs. 22,500/- in the aforementioned chit fund business by way of Rs. 1500/- per month for 15 months. Witness further admitted that in the said chit fund his number was 10 and 500 members paid Rs. 1500/- per month for 15 months. Witness admitted that for the first 14 months draw of Rs. 1 lakh took place and the amount was given to the lucky winner. He further admitted that accused Rakesh Bansal, Rakesh Kansal, Sushil Bansal, Satpal Garg, Sohan Lal Jindal, Praveen Kumar Jain, Ram Vilas Jain and R.C. Garg @ A.P. Garg used to collect chit fund money from its members. He further admitted that one Bir Singh and Jagmohan also invested their money in the said chit fund company. He used to collect the money from them. He further deposed in cross examination of Ld. APP for the State that the lucky draws were conducted in the various hotels.
Digitally Witness further admitted that the lucky draws were organized in signed by Mohan Hotel near Post Office Ashok Vihar, Gola Banquet Hall, DEEPAK DEEPAK KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2022.08.25 17:29:12 +0530 FIR No. 27/1995 PS Ashok Vihar (Crime Branch) State Vs. Rakesh Bansal Etc. 18/24 GTK Road and one hotel in Punjabi Bagh also.
20. At the outset, it appears relevant to note that in the present case, it is the case of the prosecution, that all the accused persons, in pursuant to the criminal conspiracy to cheat the public at large, issued pamphlets in the name of M/s Goodworth Investment and Leasing Ltd, being their directors and induced about 500 persons for contributing Rs. 1500/- per month. It has been further alleged that all the accused persons being director of the Company, promised the members that a draw shall be declared every month and the prize winner shall receive Rs. One Lakh. Apparently, it is the case of the prosecution that accused persons issued pamphlets and induced the public at large to invest in the lucky draw scheme in the capacity of the directors of the M/s Goodworth Investment and Leasing Ltd. The pamphlets were also alleged to have been issued in the name of the said company. However, interestingly, the company was not charge-sheeted and arrayed as accused in the present case.
21. In Sushil Sethi vs The State Of Arunachal Pradesh, decided on 31 January, 2020, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 125 DEEPAK OF 2020 (Arising from SLP(Crl.) No. 590 of 2019), Hon'ble KUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPAK KUMAR Apex Court had held as follows: -Date: 2022.08.25 17:29:16 +0530
FIR No. 27/1995 PS Ashok Vihar (Crime Branch) State Vs. Rakesh Bansal Etc. 19/24 "7.5 In the case of Sharad Kumar Sanghi (supra), this Court had an occasion to consider the initiation of criminal proceedings against the Managing Director or any officer of a company where company had not been arrayed as a party to the complaint. In the aforesaid decision, it is observed and held by this Court that in the absence of specific allegation against the Managing Director of vicarious liability, in the absence of company being arrayed as a party, no proceedings can be initiated against such Managing Director or any officer of a company. It is further observed and held that when a complainant intends to rope in a Managing Director or any officer of a company, it is essential to make requisite allegation to constitute the vicarious liability."
22. In the present case also, the accused persons have been alleged to have issued pamphlets and induced the public at large to invest in the lucky draw scheme in the capacity of the directors of the M/s Goodworth Investment and Leasing Ltd.
The pamphlets were also alleged to have been specifically issued in the name of the said company. However, as noted above, for Digitally DEEPAK signed by DEEPAK KUMAR the reasons best known to the investigating authority, the KUMAR Date:
2022.08.25 17:29:20 +0530 FIR No. 27/1995 PS Ashok Vihar (Crime Branch) State Vs. Rakesh Bansal Etc. 20/24 company has not been arrayed as an accused in the present case. It is settled law that company is separate legal entity having its own identity distinct from its members. It is not the case of the prosecution that the alleged amount paid by the members of lucky draw scheme were deposited in the individual accounts of its directors. Neither, it is the case that the directors kept the company in dark while inducing public at large to invest in the lucky draw scheme being run and propagated in the name of the company. As such, the allegations are deemed to be primarily against the company. However, interestingly, the company was left out from the radar of investigating authority. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the legal position as stated above, this amounts to serious lacuna into the case of the prosecution.
23. Moving further, the original complainant Sh. Hari Singh remained unexamined in the present case. None of the public persons except PW-17 Umed Singh has supported the case of the prosecution in its material particulars and identified the accused persons as offenders of the case in question. Prosecution has heavily relied upon the deposition of PW-17. However, the testimony of PW17 suffers from various susceptibilities. During his cross-examination, this witness has admitted of having Digitally signed by financial disputes with accused persons namely Rakesh Kansal DEEPAK DEEPAK KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2022.08.25 17:29:24 and Rakesh Bansal. He also conceded to have filed police +0530 FIR No. 27/1995 PS Ashok Vihar (Crime Branch) State Vs. Rakesh Bansal Etc. 21/24 complaint and involved the police in getting the machine from Rakesh Bansal. He admitted that accused Sushil Bansal, Rakesh Kansal, S. P. Garg, R.B. Jain and Praveen Jain never obtained any amount of chit fund at any point of time from him. It is pertinent to note that this witness claimed to have invested Rs. 22,500/-in the alleged chit fund business of the accused persons by way of Rs. 1500/- per month for 15 months. During his cross- examination by Ld. Counsel for accused persons, PW-17 Umed Singh has stated to be working in the factory of Sh. Rakesh Kansal and Rakesh Bansal and earning around Rs.2,000/-3,000/- per month. He also conceded to have incurred losses sometimes. It has further come in his deposition that he was having his wife and three school going children in his family to be looked after. It appears highly implausible and discernably unbelievable for a person earning Rs. 2000/- 3000/- per month with occasional losses and having family consisting of wife and three school going children to invest Rs. 1500/- per month in the lucky draw scheme.
24. Moreover, PW-17 claimed to have handed over parchis of chit fund to the police to the effect that money would be doubled in 5 years. However, no such parchis were produced for the inspection of the court. It is also admitted fact that no Digitally signed by documentary evidence has been brought on record against the DEEPAK DEEPAK KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2022.08.25 17:29:28 proof that inducements were made to the public at large for +0530 FIR No. 27/1995 PS Ashok Vihar (Crime Branch) State Vs. Rakesh Bansal Etc. 22/24 investment in the lucky draw scheme as alleged by the prosecution. No pamphlets, as alleged, are on record. Neither, any written agreements, contracts, undertakings, receipts whatsoever is on record to add credibility and fuel the case of the prosecution. It appears unfathomable as to how the investigating authority could not lay hand on any single document worth to show the alleged inducement made by the accused persons to the public at large. It becomes more critical in view of the allegations of prosecution that a large number of people (which is around 500) were enrolled in the alleged lucky draw scheme floated by the accused persons.
25. The testimony of PW-17 bereft of any corroboration by independent witness is not reliable for the reason that this witness has admitted to have earlier financial disputes along with police with two of the accused persons. It is settled law that the depositions of the interested party needs to be examined with greater circumspection. Moreover, as noted above, the testimony of this witness also suffers from material contradictions and as such can not be relied upon to the extent of proving the guilt of accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
26. In the case of 'Kulwinder Singh Vs. Kafeel Ahmad' Cr.
L.P. No. 478 of 2011, decided on 04.01.2013 Hon'ble Delhi Digitally signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2022.08.25 17:29:33 +0530 High Court has held that the basic principle in criminal law is FIR No. 27/1995 PS Ashok Vihar (Crime Branch) State Vs. Rakesh Bansal Etc. 23/24 that the guilt of the respondent/accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and if there is any slightest doubt about the commission of an offence then the benefit has to accrue him.
27. Thus, in view of the totality of circumstances and the settled legal positions as discussed above, the case attempted to be built by the prosecution, appears to be suffering from fatal infirmities so much so that it goes directly to the root of the case and shakes the very edifice on which the case of the complainant rests. It appears also relevant to acknowledge and appreciate the fact that criminal conviction entails enigmatic and stigmatic experiences and exposures for the accused and thus it becomes of paramount importance to demand evidence of unimpeachable character and of unambiguous nature. From the above discussion and findings, in my considered view, all the accused persons deserve to be given benefit of doubt.
28. In view of the above analysis, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, all the accused persons are acquitted of the offence charged against them.
Digitally signed by DEEPAK KUMAR DEEPAK KUMAR Date:
29. Bail bond in terms of Section 437A Cr.PC has already 2022.08.25 17:29:37 +0530 been obtained from the accused persons ( since acquitted)in FIR No. 27/1995 PS Ashok Vihar (Crime Branch) State Vs. Rakesh Bansal Etc. 24/24 compliance of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in State Vs Virender Yadav & Anr. 2014 I A.D (Del.) 389.
30. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.Digitally signed by DEEPAK
DEEPAK KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2022.08.25 Announced in the open Court 17:29:41 +0530 on 25.08.2022. (DEEPAK KUMAR-I) ACMM (North-West) ROHINI COURTS DELHI FIR No. 27/1995 PS Ashok Vihar (Crime Branch) State Vs. Rakesh Bansal Etc.