Dilip Kumar Samria And Ors vs Prakash Chand Meena And Ors on 30 March, 2012
2. Briefly stated that the complainants are the members of HRC thrift
and Credit Society, Hans Raj College, Delhi University which is
registered under Delhi Co-operative Society Act. The society takes
compulsory deposit of Rs. 1125/- from each of its member and
gives loan up to the limit of Rs. 2,25,000/-. Complainant no. 1 Sh.
Dilip Kumar Singh is the President and complainant no. 2 Sh. Tikka
Ram is the Secretary of said society. Proposed accused no. 1
Satish Chand Ojha is accountant/clerk and proposed accused no.
2 Sh. Ajeet Kumar is Treasure of said society. After joining the post,
complainant no. 1 observed several financial irregularities
whereupon proposed accused no. 1 was called to produce all the
accounts, registers, receipts and other relevant documents,
however, he provided only three ledger accounts. Upon scrutiny of
aforesaid record, it was revealed that proposed accused no. 1
showed more deductions of loan in the society's account but
practically there was much less deduction. The total figure of
cheating by the manipulation of accounts is about Rs. 15 lakh.
Another fraud which was revealed was in the case of one Smt.
CC No. 72/1/15 Dilip Kumar v. Satish Chand & Ors. page 1 of 5
Veena Mathur wherein proposed accused no. 1 took a loan of Rs.
1.5 lakh in the year 2010-11 in the name of Smt. Veena Mathur but
proposed accused no. 1 destroyed her application form and
deposited the said amount in his own account. It is also alleged
that thereafter general body meeting was called to take action
against the proposed accused persons, however, proposed
accused no. 1 got the settlement done in the absence of
complainant no. 1 and without any authorisation to anybody by
complainant no. 1. Upon the complaint of complainant, proposed
accused no. 1 admitted his offence on 16.09.2014 and stated that
he had committed cheating and fraud in the society. On
17.09.2014, proposed accused no. 1 gave his resignation letter to
escape from his liability but the same was not accepted. Similarly,
proposed accused no. 2 requested for long leave but the same was
also declined. It is also alleged that ledger account and list of loan
does not tally with each other.