Delhi District Court
State vs Subhash Chander on 24 December, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. KATYAYINI SHARMA KANDWAL: CJ-03:
SHAHDARA: KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
STATE VS. SUBHASH CHANDER AND ANR.
FIR NO. 479/96
PS: KAROL BAGH
U/S: 420/34 IPC
Cr. Case No. 290193/16
JUDGMENT
Date of commission of offence : Year 1993-1995
Offence complained of 406/420/120B IPC
Offence charged with 420/34 IPC
Plea of accused Not guilty and claimed trial
Final Order (qua accused Puneet Anand) Acquitted
JUDGMENT
1. The present charge sheet has been filed with the allegations that accused
persons namely Subhash Chander and Puneet Anand @ Chintu had
induced certain persons to invest in a scheme floated by them and later
neither did they return the money nor did they give any gold jewellery to
the investors/customers. The accused persons had accordingly committed
cheating with various customers/investors. KATYAYINI Digitally signed by
KATYAYINI
SHARMA SHARMA KANDWAL
Date: 2024.12.24
KANDWAL 16:19:36 +0530
FIR No. 479/96 State v. Subash Chander and Anr. Page 1 of 31
2. The prosecution story in brief is that the accused Subhash Chander and
his son Puneet@Chintu were running business of selling gold ornaments
in the name and style of M/s Subhash Jewellers at shop no. 2640, Bank
Street, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. M/s Subhash Jewellers floated a scheme
of selling ornaments against advance amount. The scheme was such that
if a person deposits Rs.10,000/-, he will get gold jewellery worth
Rs.12,700/- after one year and the amount would increase as the year
increases. The scheme further had provision that in case the person is not
interested in getting the jewellery, then the person can take money along
with 26% interest. In this scheme, as per the police, 62 persons deposited
gold ornaments or money. The amounts were deposited sometime in the
year 1992 to 1993. The receipts of the amounts deposited with M/s
Subhash Jewellers were issued by Subhash Chander. The accused persons
failed to repay the amount to the complainants as per the scheme and they
ran away in the year 1996. Hence, 62 persons/complainants filed
complaints with the police wherein FIR under section 406/420/120B IPC
was registered and accused persons were summoned.
3. On the basis of the charge-sheet and after compliance of Section
207 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as
“CrPC“), vide order dated 19.03.1999, the accused persons namely
Subhash Anand and Puneet @ Chintu were charged under section 420/34
of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC“) wherein
they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the course of trial,
accused Subhash Chander was declared PO vide order dated 22.04.2006
and the trial proceeded qua accused Puneet Anand.
Digitally signed
KATYAYINI by KATYAYINI SHARMA SHARMA KANDWAL KANDWAL Date: 2024.12.24 16:19:44 +0530 FIR No. 479/96 State v. Subash Chander and Anr. Page 2 of 31
4. Since, accused Subhash Chander was declared proclaimed offender, the
presence judgment only deals with the trial qua accused no. 2 / Puneet
Anand @ Chintu.
5. 31 witnesses were examined on behalf of prosecution. Perusal of record
shows that inadvertently, two witnesses have been examined as PW-2 and
three witnesses have been examined as PW-18. Accordingly, for the sake
of clarity, testimony of Ms. J.L. Gandhi is referred to as testimony of
PW-2 and testimony of Ms. Asha Rani is referred to as testimony of PW-
2A. Similarly, testimony of Ms. Tanu is referred to as testimony of PW-
18, testimony of Ms. Surjeet Chatwal is referred to as testimony of PW-
18A and testimony of Ms. Arpana Bhardwaj is referred to as testimony of
PW-18B.
6. The list of prosecution witnesses is as follows:
PW-1: Surender Kumar,
PW-2: J.L. Gandhi
PW-2A: Asha Rani
PW-3: Suvarna Sharma,
PW-4: C.K. Jaggi,
PW-5: Sujata Jaggi
PW-6: Mohan Lal Sethi
PW-7: Meenakshi
PW-8: Neha Bajaj
PW-9: SI Rekha
PW-10: Veena Rani
PW-11: Rajni Gopal
PW-12: S. Ahuja
PW-13: Krishna Arora KATYAYINI by
Digitally signed
KATYAYINI
SHARMA
SHARMA KANDWAL
KANDWAL Date: 2024.12.24
16:19:52 +0530
FIR No. 479/96 State v. Subash Chander and Anr. Page 3 of 31
PW-14: Smt. Nirmal
PW-15: Lalit Taneja
PW-16: Geeta Aggarwal
PW-17: Nanak Singh
PW-18: Tanu
PW-18A: Surjeet Chatwal
PW-18B: Arpana Bhardwaj
PW-19: Vinod Bhandari
PW-20: Ashwani Khosla
PW-21: Sunil Kant Bhandari
PW-22: Bimla Bhandari
PW-23: Darshan Dargan
PW-24: Vandana
PW-25: Lokesh Bhandari
PW-26: Devender Singh
PW-27: Dara Singh
PW-28: ACP Balwant SinghThe prosecution also exhibited large number of documents at the time of
examination of aforesaid witnesses but their details are not being
mentioned herein for the sake of brevity and they will be mentioned with
complete description and exhibit marks in subsequent paragraphs
wherever necessary.
7. Statement under section 313 CrPC of accused Puneet Anand was
recorded on 10.04.2019. He denied all the allegations and stated that he
had been falsely implicated in this case as he is son of accused Subhash
Chander. He further stated he had no concern with M/s Subhash Jewellers
Digitally signed by
KATYAYINI KATYAYINI SHARMA
SHARMA KANDWAL
Date: 2024.12.24
KANDWAL 16:20:04 +0530
FIR No. 479/96 State v. Subash Chander and Anr. Page 4 of 31
and did not launch or induce anyone to invest in any scheme. He further
stated that he did not also issue any receipts to anyone.
8. Thereafter, defence evidence was led on behalf of accused
Puneet@Chintu and he examined five witnesses on his behalf who are as
follows:
DW-1: Puneet Anand
DW-2: Abhinav Vyas,
DW-3: Kamal Dixit,
DW-4: Arun Kumar,
DW-5: Arun Singh Parihar
9. At the stage of defence evidence, vide order dated 03.08.2019, Ld.
Predecessor had observed that certain documents filed and duly exhibited
on behalf of the accused on 04.05.2019 were not traceable. Accordingly,
Ahlmad was directed to place the same on record. However, since the
Ahlmad was not able to trace the given documents, file was put up before
Ld. District & Sessions Judge (HQs) for further directions. In compliance
with directions as received from Ld. District & Sessions Judge (HQs), a
fact finding inquiry was initiated and report on the same was also
submitted by Ld. Predecessor of this Court on 29.10.2021.
10. Final arguments have been heard. Record carefully perused.
11. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to
prove its case by leading cogent, convincing reliable and trustworthy
evidence beyond reasonable doubts. The case of prosecution has to fall or
stand on its own legs and it cannot drive any benefit from the weakness if
any, in the defence of the accused. It is not for the accused to disprove the
case of the prosecution and onus to prove the case against the accused
beyond reasonable doubts never shifts and it always remains on the
KATYAYINI Digitally signed by
KATYAYINI SHARMA
SHARMA KANDWAL
Date: 2024.12.24
KANDWAL 16:20:11 +0530
FIR No. 479/96 State v. Subash Chander and Anr. Page 5 of 31
prosecution. Further, benefit of doubt in the prosecution story always
goes to the accused and it entitles the accused to acquittal.
12. Since the accused were charged u/s 420/34 IPC, for the sake of clarity,
the contents of relevant sections are being reproduced below:
“420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.–
Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person
deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or
destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything
which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted
into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and
shall also be liable to fine
13. The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 420 are as follows:
a. A person must commit the offence of cheating under Section 415;
and
b. The person cheated must be dishonestly induced to:
i. deliver property to any person; or
ii. make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed
or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable
security.
Therefore, cheating is an essential ingredient for an act to constitute an
offence under Section 420. Cheating has been defined in section 415 of
IPC which states as follows:
415. Cheating.–Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or
dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any propertyFIR No. 479/96 State v. Subash Chander and Anr. Page 6 of 31
KATYAYINI Digitally
KATYAYINI
signed bySHARMA SHARMA KANDWAL
Date: 2024.12.24
KANDWAL 16:20:21 +0530
to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any
property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or
omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not
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, is said to “cheat”.”
14. The essential ingredients of the offence of cheating are as follows :-
i. deception of a person either by making a false or misleading
representation or by dishonest concealment or by any other act
or omission;
ii. fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to either
deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any
person to either deliver any property or to consent to the
retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce the
person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would
not do or omit to do if he was not so deceived; and
iii. such act or omission causes, or is likely to cause damage or harm
to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. (In Mohd.
Ibrahim vs. State of Bihar 2009 (8) SCC 751)
15. The IPC defines “fraudulently”, an adjective form of the word “fraud”, in
section 25, as follows : “A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he
does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise”.
The term “fraudulently” is mostly used with the term “dishonestly” which
is defined in section 24 as follows: “Whoever does anything with the
intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to
another person is said to do that thing dishonestly”.
Digitally signed by
KATYAYINI KATYAYINI SHARMA SHARMA KANDWAL KANDWAL Date: 2024.12.24 16:20:27 +0530 FIR No. 479/96 State v. Subash Chander and Anr. Page 7 of 31
16. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy and Another
v. Sudha Seetharam and Another (2019) 16 SCC 739 has culled out the
ingredients to constitute the offence under Sections 415 and 420 of IPC,
as under:
a) There should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person
by deceiving him:
i. The person so induced should be intentionally induced to
deliver any property to any person or to consent that any
person shall retain any property, or
ii. The person so induced should be intentionally induced to
do or to omit to do anything which he would not do or
omit if he were not 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, is said
to “cheat”.”
b) In cases covered by (ii) above, the act or omission should be
one which caused or is likely to cause damage or harm to the
person induced in body, mind, reputation or property.
17. Ld. APP for the State argued that in this case, accused Puneet@Chintu
alongwith accused Subhash Chander cheated many innocent
customers/investors/victims who invested their hard-earned money in an
investment scheme floated by the accused persons. It is, thus, argued that
the accused Puneet@Chintu has committed the criminal offences for
which he is charged. For the sake of clarity, it is stated that prosecution
witnesses have referred to accused Subhash Chander as Subhash
Chander, Subhash Chand, Subhash Anand and Subhash and the reference
Digitally signed by
KATYAYINI KATYAYINI
SHARMA
SHARMA KANDWAL
KANDWAL Date: 2024.12.24
16:20:33 +0530
FIR No. 479/96 State v. Subash Chander and Anr. Page 8 of 31
to the given accused is made as per the contents of testimonies of the
witnesses.
18. PW-1 Sh. Surender Kumar has deposed that M/s Subhash Jewellers was
run by its owner Subhash Anand and he used to purchase jewelery from
accused Subhash Anand. He further deposed that he came to know about
the scheme that if the customer deposited Rs. 10,000/- for one year, he
could get gold jewelery worth Rs.12,700/- or cash of Rs. 12,600/- if he
invested the money for two years. It was further deposed that on
16.09.1995, accused persons told him to participate in this scheme and
under their inducement, he invested Rs. 70,000/- for which receipt was
issued by accused Subhash Anand which is Ex.PW1/A (OSR). It was
further deposed that in March 1996, Subhash Anand gave him assurance
to return the money back within one week, but both the accused had
escaped from the shop when he later visited the shop. It was further
deposed that he was informed that accused Subhash Anand had gone to
South Africa after which he lodged a police complaint as the accused did
not return the money on his demand and had cheated the public.
Complaint Ex.PW1/B was placed on record and photocopy of scheme
was placed on record as Mark A.
19. PW-2 Sh. J.L. Gandhi deposed that M/s Subhash Jewellers was run by its
owner Subhash Anand who he knows for last 15 years as he used to
purchase jewelery from the accused. He further deposed that he came to
know about the scheme regarding investment of money prior to
03.09.1995 wherein he was informed that after investment the customer
could get either gold or interest as per table Mark Z. He invested Rs.
50,000/- on 03.09.1995 against which Subhash Anand issued receipt
whose photocopy is Ex.PW2/A. It was further deposed that in March
KATYAYINI Digitally signed by
KATYAYINI
SHARMA SHARMA KANDWAL
Date: 2024.12.24
KANDWAL 16:20:42 +0530
FIR No. 479/96 State v. Subash Chander and Anr. Page 9 of 31
1996, the witness was in need of some money and accused Subhash
Anand gave assurance to give the money back after some time. The
witness further deposed that when he went to shop in April 1996, accused
Subhash Anand had gone to South Africa and that despite repeated
attempts, accused Subhash Anand remained absconding and did not
return the money after which he lodged a police complaint which is
Ex.PW2/B.
20. PW-2A Ms. Asha Rani also deposed that she used to purchase jewelery
from M/s Subhash Jewelers and is known to accused Subhash Chander
and his son Chintu who were also present in the Court. She further
deposed that in the year 1995, accused persons started an investment
scheme that if one deposits Rs.10,000/-, he would get Rs.12,700/- cash or
jewelery of the same amount after one year. The amount would increase
as the number years increases. She further deposed that after going
through the scheme on 14.11.1995, she deposited Rs.1,00,000/- with
accused Subhash Chand who also issued receipt Ex.PW2/A. It was
further deposed by her that in the month of April, 1996, accused Subhash
Chand and his son escaped from their shop and house and did not return
her money pursuant to which she filed a complaint Ex.PW2/B.
21. PW-3 Ms. Suvarna Sharma deposed that she knew Subhash Jewelers for
last 15 years and was their regular customer. In 1994, she handed over
Rs. 5000/- and in 1995, she handed over Rs. 10,000/- to accused Subhash
Anand who had undertaken to get benefit either in form of interest or
jewelery. She further deposed that after expiry of two years, when she
went to meet accused Subhash Anand in March, 1996, he refused to
return the money and later ran away from the shop. She placed on record
KATYAYINI Digitally
KATYAYINI
signed by
SHARMA SHARMA KANDWAL
Date: 2024.12.24
KANDWAL 16:20:48 +0530
FIR No. 479/96 State v. Subash Chander and Anr. Page 10 of 31
original receipts Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B which were issued by
Subhash Jewelers on 10.06.1994 and 13.09.1995.
22. PW-4 Sh. C.K. Jaggi deposed that he was regular customer of M/s
Subhash Jewelers for 15-20 years and had good relations with accused
Subhash Anand. He deposed that in May 1995, when he visited the shop
of M/s Subhash Jewelers, Subash Chander and Puneet@Chintu
introduced him to an investment scheme against which he was to get cash
or jewelery of equivalent amount and that he was at liberty to withdraw
the same at any time. It was deposed that he was induced to invest an
amount by accused persons stating that they were trustees of the money
and had goodwill in the market. On 21.05.1995, the witness had given
Rs. 1 lac to accused Subhash Anand who issued receipt Ex.PW4/A (OSR)
in his own name and Rs. 1 lac in the name of his wife against which
receipt Ex.PW4/B (OSR) was issued. He also deposed that he further
deposited Rs. 9 lacs on behalf of his sister Seema Sarin on 21.05.1995
and also deposited Rs. 15,000/- on her behalf on 13.06.1995 with accused
Subhash Chander. Receipts of the same are Ex.PW4/C and Ex.PW4/D.
He further stated that on 13.06.1995 he further deposited Rs.3 lacs in the
name of his daughter Ms. Aprami and was issued receipt Ex.PW4/E
(OSR). He further deposed that when he went to meet accused Subhash
in 1996, he also met accused Puneet but they did not make any payment
and lingered it on one pretext or another that he later came to know that
both accused had disappeared. He further deposed that he met wife of
accused Subhash in May 1996, who assured of return of money, but
nothing was returned to him, after which he made complaint Ex.PW4/F.
He further stated that on 09.12.1998, after he got to know that the
accused persons had obtained bail, he went to his shop of M/s Subhash
Digitally signed by
KATYAYINI KATYAYINI SHARMA
SHARMA KANDWAL
Date: 2024.12.24
KANDWAL 16:20:57 +0530
FIR No. 479/96 State v. Subash Chander and Anr. Page 11 of 31
Jewelers, where accused Puneet took him inside a room, and threatened
him and his wife of dire consequences with a dagger, if money is
demanded.
23. PW-5 Ms. Sujata Jaggi deposed that she was selling and buying gold
ornaments from the shop of M/s Subhash Jewelers for last 15 years and
deposited Rs. 10,000/- with the accused persons in 1995. It was stated
that upon inducement by accused persons, her husband made payment of
Rs. 1 lac on his behalf, Rs. 1 lac on her behalf and Rs.3 lacs on their
daughter’s behalf against which receipts Ex.PW5/B (OSR) were issued.
However, the said amount was never returned to them and both accused
had disappeared against which complaint Ex.PW5/A was lodged. It was
deposed that later accused Puneet threatened them of dire consequences if
money is demanded.
24. PW-7 Ms.Meenakshi, deposed that in the year 1994, accused persons had
introduced her to a scheme regarding investment against which gold
jewelery or money as per demand was paid to the customers. She
deposed that on 17.08.1994, she had invested Rs. 50,000/- with accused
Puneet and receipt for the same was issued by accused Subhash which is
Ex.PW7/A. She further deposed that he continued with the scheme upon
insistence of accused persons who guaranteed benefit from this scheme,
to her. She deposed that in 1995, despite repeated visits at the shop, she
could not obtain any information regarding accused persons and later got
to know that accused had absconded after which he made complaint with
PS Karol Bagh which is Mark B. She identified both the accused persons
present in the court.
25. PW-8 Ms. Neha Bajaj deposed that she used to purchase jewelery from
M/s Subhash Jewelers and was lured into investment upon insistence of
KATYAYINI Digitally signed by
KATYAYINI SHARMA
SHARMA KANDWAL
Date: 2024.12.24
KANDWAL 16:21:03 +0530
FIR No. 479/96 State v. Subash Chander and Anr. Page 12 of 31
accused Subhash Chand. She deposed that she handed over Rs. 11,000/-
to accused Subhash Chand on 16.05.1993 and that his son accused Puneet
@ Chintu was also present in the shop at the time when the money was
handed over. Receipt Ex.PW8/A (OSR) was stated to have been issued by
accused Subhash Chand against the aforesaid investment. She deposed
that she later got to know that both accused had absconded and on
15.08.1996, she made a police complaint for cheating against the accused
persons which is Mark C.
26. PW-9 SI Rekha deposed that she was posted at PS Karol Bagh as Duty
Officer on 15.08.1996 and at 03.30 pm, a rukka was brought to her for
registration of FIR on the basis of which she registered FIR no. 479/1996
which is Ex.PW9/A.
27. PW-10 Ms. Veena Rani deposed that she had invested Rs. 20,000/- with
accused Subhash Chand in 1995 against which receipt Mark V1 was
issued to her. She further deposed that in 1996, she visited the shop of
accused Subhash Chander who was not present there and no information
regarding his whereabouts were provided by his wife. It was deposed that
accused Subhash Chander was later arrested by the police, but even after
being released on bail, he did not return Rs. 20,000/-.
28. PW-11 Ms. Rajni Gopal deposed that accused Puneet Anand was running
M/s Subhash Jewelers from where she used to purchase jewelery. That in
1995, when she visited the shop of accused, she was introduced to a
scheme that if she deposited Rs. 10,000/-, she would get Rs. 12,700/- in
cash or in gold jewelery of equivalent amount. She further deposed that
accused had informed her about several other persons like C.K. Jaggi,
Sujata Jaggi, Asha Sikri and Surender Kumar Sikri, who had also
invested in the scheme. On 11.04.1995, she deposited Rs. 80,000/- with
Digitally signed by
KATYAYINI KATYAYINI SHARMA
SHARMA KANDWAL
Date: 2024.12.24
KANDWAL 16:21:10 +0530
FIR No. 479/96 State v. Subash Chander and Anr. Page 13 of 31
the accused and was issued receipt Ex.PW11/A ( OSR ). She further
deposed that a copy of scheme Ex.PW11/B was also published by the
accused. She further deposed that 6-7 months later, when she was in need
of money, the accused did not return it on one pretext or another and in
August 1996, they had shut the shop, after which complaint was made by
her and several other persons who had also invested in the scheme.
29. PW-12 Ms. S. Ahuja deposed that accused Subhash Chander was running
M/s Subhash Jewelers from where she used to purchase jewelery. That in
1995, when she visited the shop of accused, she was introduced to a
scheme that if she deposited Rs. 10,000/-, she would get Rs. 12,700/-
after one year and Rs.16,100/- after two years or in gold jewelery of
equivalent amount. In 1993, she deposited Rs. 90,000/- with accused
Subhash and was issued three receipts of Rs. 30,000/- each in the name of
her daughter Ms. Richa, son Mr. Mukesh Kumar and herself which are
Ex.PW12/A, Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C respectively. She further
deposed that accused Subhash Chander agreed to let her purchase
jewelery with the aforesaid money in 1994 for wedding of her daughter in
1995-96. She further deposed that in April-May 1995, when she was in
need of money, the accused did not return it on one pretext or another.
She also deposed that she got to know that accused had not return money
to several persons. She further deposed that accused Puneet present in
court was also present in shop when she had demanded return of the
amount which was never returned to her despite repeated efforts. Written
complaint made by her with police against accused persons is Ex.PX.
30. PW-13 Sh. Krishna Arora deposed that in April 1993, he was introduced
to an investment scheme by accused Subhash Chand after which she
deposited Rs. 24,000/- in cash with accused Subhash Chand in his own
Digitally signed by
KATYAYINI KATYAYINI SHARMA
SHARMA KANDWAL
Date: 2024.12.24
KANDWAL 16:21:18 +0530
FIR No. 479/96 State v. Subash Chander and Anr. Page 14 of 31
name and Rs. 20,000/- in the name of his daughter. The witness relied on
copy of scheme Ex.PW13/A and receipt Ex.PW13/B. However, during
the course of trial, the witness compromised the matter with accused
Puneet and prayed that it be compounded qua him.
31. PW-14 Smt. Nirmal deposed that both accused were running jewelery
shop at Karol Bagh and that she was informed by her husband about an
investment scheme run by accused persons. On 21.05.1995, she visited
M/s Subhash Jewelers and handed over Rs. 1,20,000/- in cash to son of
accused Subhash Chander against which accused Subhash Chander
issued receipt Ex.PW14/A (OSR). She further deposed that her husband
met with untimely demise, after which accused persons refused to return
the money and subsequently, she made a complaint at PS Karol Bagh
Ex.PW14/B.
32. PW-15 Sh. Lalit Taneja deposed that he had visiting terms with M/s
Subhash Jewelers since 1993 and accused persons were running shop of
which accused Subhash was proprietor and accused Puneet was son of
accused Subhash. He deposed that in 1995, accused persons launched a
scheme under which interest @ 26% p.a. was to be given to the investors.
He deposed that believing upon accused persons, he deposited cash of
Rs.1 lac and was issued receipt Ex.PW15/B (OSR). He deposed that he
was paid interest by accused persons for approximately 3 months, but
after 3 months, no amount was paid to him on one pretext or another,
after which he lodged a written complaint with SHO PS Karol Bagh
which is Ex.PW15/A. He identified accused Puneet present in the court.
33. PW-16 Ms. Geeta Aggarwal deposed that in November 1993, she gave
640.900 gm of 22 carat gold jewellery for making new jewellery to
accused Subhash Chander and his son Punit Anand. Her husband also
Digitally signed by
KATYAYINI KATYAYINI SHARMA
SHARMA KANDWAL
Date: 2024.12.24
KANDWAL 16:21:25 +0530
FIR No. 479/96 State v. Subash Chander and Anr. Page 15 of 31
gave old gold jewellery for making new jewellery for the marriage of her
daughter total gold jewellery about Rs. 6-7 lacs. The receipt vouchers of
the old gold jewellery in favour of her and her husband are Ex.PW16/A
and Ex.PW16/B respectively. After sometime when they demanded their
old gold jewellery back, both accused told them that they have melted the
entire old gold jewelery and assured them that they will return new
jewellery as per their choice. After sometime her husband visited the shop
and asked about the jewellery but accused told them they will pay in cash
for the old gold jewellery and subsequently, accused paid Rs.50,000/- in
cash and issued cheque of Rs.1,50,000/-. She further deposed that the
accused persons stated that the remaining Rs.4-5 lacs will be paid later on
but after several visits and demands, the accused persons did not return
the remaining amount and therefore she made a complaint Ex.PW16/C.
34. PW-17 Sh. Nanak Singh deposed that he and his family used to purchase
gold jewellery from M/s Subhash Jewellers. He further deposed that both
accused introduced scheme to him that if he deposited money, he would
get interest @ 28% per annum or that they would give the jewellery items
of the same value with interest on old rate of gold. On believing the
same, he deposited Rs.1,00,000/- in cash with accused persons on
19.02.1996 and was issued a receipt vide Ex.PW17/A and original receipt
is Ex.PW17/C. In the year 1996, the witness reached at the shop of
accused persons for purchasing of gold articles against the invested
money and interest thereon but accused persons were not found.
Thereafter, he visited the shop several times but accused persons were not
traceable. He further deposed that he also visited Aligarh to meet the
accused but accused did not return the money. Thereafter, a complaint
Digitally signed
KATYAYINI by KATYAYINI
SHARMA
SHARMA KANDWAL
KANDWAL Date: 2024.12.24
16:21:31 +0530
FIR No. 479/96 State v. Subash Chander and Anr. Page 16 of 31
was made by him vide Ex.PW17/B. Photocopy of agreement dated
07.10.1996 is Mark-X-1. He also identified accused Punit in court.
35. PW-18 Ms. Tanu deposed that accused persons were family jewellers and
used to prepare jewelery on various occasions as per her demand. She
further deposed that accused Subhash Chand introduced her to a scheme
and also gave brochure pertaining to scheme which is Mark-A. She
further deposed that as per the scheme, if customer deposited Rs.10,000/-
for one year, they would get Rs.12700/- after one year. She deposed that
she deposited Rs.50,000/- in cash to accused Subhash Chand on
21.05.1995 and accused persons gave receipt regarding this investment
vide receipt Ex.PW-18/A. She deposed that she visited accused persons
several time but they avoided meeting her on one pretext or another. She
stated that she demanded money back but accused did not return the
money. She identified accused Punit, present in the court on the given
date.
36. PW-18A Ms. Surjeet Chatwal deposed that accused Subhash alongwith
his son Puneet Anand @ Chintu used to ran M/s Subhash Jeweler where
she was informed about a scheme that if money is deposited with them,
they return it with interest of 28% per annum or give jewelery items of
the same value with interest on old rate of gold. She further deposed that
believing the accused persons, she deposited Rs.1,50,000/- in cash with
the accused persons on 03.10.1995 and receipt Ex.PW18/A was issued to
her. However, when she later tried to get her investment back, the
accused persons could not be found at the stationed and she later got to
know that they have fled with the invested money of several victims
amounting to crores of rupees, after which she complaint Ex.PW18/B.
Digitally signed by
KATYAYINI KATYAYINI
SHARMA
SHARMA KANDWAL
KANDWAL Date: 2024.12.24
16:21:36 +0530
FIR No. 479/96 State v. Subash Chander and Anr. Page 17 of 31
37. PW-18B Arpana Bhardwaj deposed that her parents used to deal with M/s
Subhash Jewllers and had invested some money with the aforesaid
jewellers after her marriage solemnized in the year 1990. She stated that
she was not aware of the exact amount invested with them but that her
mother had recovered some part of the invested money till her death in
1993. The witness was cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State on the
ground that she is resiling from her statement given earlier.
38. PW-19 Sh. Vinod Bhandari deposed that that he was a regular customer
of M/s Subhash Jewellers situated at corner of Bank street, Karol Bagh,
Delhi and that the said firm was being run by accused Subhash Chand.
He deposed that accused Subhash Chand launched a scheme under which
he assured him to give 26-27% interest or gold jewelery of same amount
on invested money. On believing the same, witness invested Rs.2.5 lakhs
with accused Subhash Chand in the name of Geeta, his wife, himself, his
daughters Monika and Priyanka. Accused Subhash Chand issued a receipt
to him dated 14.11.1994 vide Mark-19. Accused Subhash Chand paid
interest to him four times upto the month of February, 1996. He further
deposed that in the last payment, accused Subhash Chand paid
Rs.10,000/- in the form of gold tops worth Rs.10,000/-. He further
deposed that he met both accused at the shop and enquired about rumours
regarding non-payment of money which they denied. He further deposed
that when he later visited the shop, both accused were not present there
and no satisfactory answers regarding their whereabouts were received
from the employees of the shop. Since he could not contact the accused
persons, he made a complaint vide Ex.PW19/A. Original receipt
Ex.PW19/B. He correctly identified accused Punit Kumar @ Chintu
Digitally signed by
present in the Court. KATYAYINI KATYAYINI
SHARMA
SHARMA KANDWAL
KANDWAL Date: 2024.12.24
16:21:43 +0530
FIR No. 479/96 State v. Subash Chander and Anr. Page 18 of 31
39. PW-20 Sh. Ashwani Khosla deposed that he did not remember the facts
of the case after he was cross-examined by Ld. APP for State wherein he
stated that accused Subhash Chander and Punit @ Chintu made a Yojna
(scheme) to the effect that if any customer had deposited Rs.10,000/- or
in multiply of Rs.10,000/- he would obtain in return Rs.12700/- in one
year or Rs.16100/- in two years or can purchase jewelery of the amount
Rs.16100/-. On believing this, he deposited Rs.60,000/- with accused
Subhash Chander on 22.11.1995 and was issued a receipt vide
Ex.PW20/A. In the year 1996, he demanded his money back but the
accused persons refused to return his money. He further deposed that in
the month of April 1996, he came to know that the accused persons had
left Delhi for uncertain period. He further deposed that PW-20/D1 is not
a correct receipt and he did not hand over the same to the IO.
40. PW-6, PW-21 to PW-25 became hostile during trial and did not depose
anything against the accused persons.
41. PW-26 Devender Singh deposed that on 30.09.1994, his brother gave him
Rs.40,000/- which he deposited with accused Subhash Chand, owner of
M/s Subhash Jewellers on 01.10.1994 under a fixed deposit scheme and
on 16.10.1994, he again deposited Rs.60,000/- under the same scheme
vide receipt Mark-A and B respectively. On 23.03.1996, he again
deposited Rs.1,00,000/- with accused Subhash Chand, owner of M/s
Subhash Chander Jewellers, Karol Bagh, Delhi vide receitp Mark-C. He
deposed that accused Subhash did not return the aforesaid money and had
cheated of the same. He deposed that he filed police complaint vide
Ex.PW26/A.
42. PW-27 Retd. Inspector Dara Singh deposed that in the month of August,
1996, he was posted as SI at P.S. Karol Bagh. In August 1996, complaint
KATYAYINI Digitally
KATYAYINI
signed by
SHARMA SHARMA KANDWAL
Date: 2024.12.24
KANDWAL 16:21:50 +0530
FIR No. 479/96 State v. Subash Chander and Anr. Page 19 of 31
alongwith receipt and scheme document was assigned to him vide
Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW1/A and Mark-A. He prepared rukka vide Ex.PW27/A
and got FIR registered. It was further deposed that during this period, he
was also assigned several other complaints alongwith receipts. All the
complaints are already on record vide Ex.PW27/B-1 to Ex.PW27/B-
18(colly.), Ex.PW26/A, Ex.PW24/A, Ex.PW17/B, Ex.PW18/BX. He also
recorded the statement of complainant and witnesses vide Ex.PW27/C-1
to Ex.PW27/C-32 and Mark-A to E. Thereafter, he searched for
accused Subhash Chand and arrested him from Ganga Vihar, Ghaziabad.
He prepared personal search memo vide Ex.PW27/D and brought the
accused to the police station and recorded his disclosure statement
Ex.PW27/E after inquiry from him. He further deposed that he recorded
disclosure statement vide Ex.CW27/F and also obtained five days police
custody of accused Subhash Chand. He, thereafter, went to the house of
accused Subhash Chand and searched his house vide search memo
Ex.PW27/G. Thereafter, he seized some articles vide seizure memo
Ex.PW27/H. As the accused disclosed that the given items were
purchased from the money of complainant and the witnesses. Thereafter,
he went to the house of accused Subhash Chand in Lajpat Nagar and
searched the same vide search memo Ex.PW27/I. He, thereafter,
submitted the case file at MHC( R ) after he was transfer to District
Investigation Unit for further investigation.
43. PW-28 Retd. ACP Balwant Singh deposed that on 03.10.1996, he was
posted at District Crime Cell, Central District as Inspector. The present
case was marked to him by ACP, DCC for further investigation. He called
all the witnesses in present case and recorded the statement u/s 161
Cr.P.C. On 24.04.1997, he seized two rent receipts vide seizure memo
Digitally signed by
KATYAYINI KATYAYINI SHARMA
SHARMA KANDWAL
Date: 2024.12.24
KANDWAL 16:21:57 +0530
FIR No. 479/96 State v. Subash Chander and Anr. Page 20 of 31
Ex.CW28/A. On 06.03.97, accused Punit got anticipatory bail from the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. Thereafter, he formally arrested accused
Punit and released him on bail after furnishing bail bond. Thereafter, he
completed the investigation and prepared charge sheet and filed the same
against against accused persons in the Court. He identified accused Punit
in the Court.
44. Thereafter, the matter was listed for defence evidence wherein five
witnesses were examined on behalf of accused Puneet Anand. Accused
Puneet Anand examined himself as DW-1. He placed on record
documents Ex.DW1/1 to Ex.DW1/5 to prove that M/s Subhash Jewelers
is proprietorship firm of Mr. Subhash Chander and that accused never had
any right or interest in said business. He further stated that he was
working under Mr. Ramesh Dua in a shop in the name and style of M/s
Maharani Jewelers. He deposed that he had never met any of the
complainant, had not taken any money from them on his own behalf or
on behalf of Mr. Subhash Chander and that he never participated in any
scheme as alleged by the complainants in their complaints. He further
stated that he was working with Mr. Ramesh Dua from 1992-93 to 2000-
01. In his cross-examination, Ld. APP for the State did not put any
question denying or questioning the fact that accused Mr. Subhash
Chander was the proprietor of M/s Subhash Jewelers. Certain suggestions
regarding the role of accused Puneet i.e. DW-1 have been put to him,
which have been denied by the witness. Witness DW-2 to DW-5 are
formal witnesses who have also brought on record certain documents
which have been relied upon by Ld. Counsel for accused to state that M/s
Subhash Jewelers which had floated the alleged scheme was a sole
Digitally signed by
KATYAYINI KATYAYINI
SHARMA
SHARMA KANDWAL
KANDWAL Date: 2024.12.24
16:22:04 +0530
FIR No. 479/96 State v. Subash Chander and Anr. Page 21 of 31
proprietorship concern of accused Subhash Chander and that accused
Puneet Anand did not have anything to do with given firm.
45. From the perusal of testimonies of prosecution witnesses and the
documents placed on record along with arguments advanced by ld. APP
for the State and Ld. Counsel for accused, this court is of the view that
the prosecution has not been able to prove the case beyond reasonable
doubt qua accused Puneet @ Chintu for the following reasons.
46. PW-1 Surender Kumar in his examination in chief has stated that on
16.09.1995, both accused persons had told him to participate in the
scheme for investment. However, a contradictory statement was made by
him in his cross-examination wherein he stated that he was approached
by some persons to make deposit with M/s Subhash Jewelers and that he
did not know accused Subhash or his son. He further stated that he was
only acquainted with one of the employees of the aforesaid firm namely
Mr. Anil. This is in clear contradiction with his testimony wherein he
stated that he knew accused Subhash for last 15 – 20 years. Further, he
has also stated that receipt Ex.PW1/A was issued by Subhash Anand only
and as per his testimony, it was only accused Subhash Anand who had
given him assurance regarding return of the invested amount. Moreover,
even if the entire testimony is taken on its face value, apart from the
allegations that accused Puneet Anand told him to participate in this
investment scheme, no cogent evidence regarding involvement of
accused Puneet has been placed on record. In fact, the receipt Ex.PW1/A
(OSR) has also been signed only by accused Subhash and does not bear
any acknowledgment or signatures of accused Puneet Anand.
47. Similarly, PW-2 J.L. Gandhi, PW-3 Suwarna Sharma, PW-12 S. Ahuja,
PW-13 Krishna Arora, PW-18 Tanu, PW-19 Vinod Bhandari Digitally
in their signed by
KATYAYINI KATYAYINI
SHARMA SHARMA KANDWAL
Date: 2024.12.24
KANDWAL 16:22:11 +0530
FIR No. 479/96 State v. Subash Chander and Anr. Page 22 of 31
examination in chief itself have stated that accused Subhash Anand told
them about the investment scheme. It was deposed by them that they
invested certain amounts with accused Subhash Anand and even the
receipts brought on record by them admittedly bears signatures of only
accused Subhash Anand. Even on prima facie reading of their
testimonies, no role whatsoever of accused Puneet Anand has been stated
therein and in view of the same, the testimonies of the aforesaid
witnesses cannot be stated to have disclosed anything qua accused Puneet
Anand.
48. PW-4 C.K. Jaggi, in his examination in chief has stated that both accused
introduced him to the investments scheme. However, it is also stated by
him that all invested amounts were handed over by him to accused
Subhash Chander against which receipts Ex.PW4/E had been issued by
accused Subhash Chander only. Therefore, no independent / cogent
evidence regarding involvement of accused Punnet Anand in giving
inducement to the witness to invest in the alleged scheme has been
brought on record. Further, the witness did not remember the details of
the scheme, for instance the date of scheme, whether the scheme was for
selling the ornaments against advance amount. Though, he has also
alleged that accused Puneet at one point of time had also threatened him
and his wife with dagger and warned of dire consequences, if money is
demanded back. However, apart from bald assertions regarding
statements made by accused Puneet @ Chintu, no cogent evidence
regarding his role in the transaction in question has been brought on
record. Further, nothing has been brought on record by the said witness
regarding any complaint lodged against accused Puneet@Chintu
regarding threats given by him. In fact, the witness admitted that
KATYAYINI Digitally signed by
KATYAYINI
SHARMA SHARMA KANDWAL
Date: 2024.12.24
KANDWAL 16:22:17 +0530
FIR No. 479/96 State v. Subash Chander and Anr. Page 23 of 31
complaint Ex.PW4/F was not signed by him despite stating in his
examination in chief that the complaint bears his signature.
49. Similarly, PW-5 Sujata Jaggi has also attributed role of both accused in
the scheme and has stated in her cross examination that accused Puneet
@ Chintu used to sit at the shop. However, she also admitted that she was
aware of the fact that accused Subhash was the main proprietor of the
scheme and even the alleged invested amount was deposited by her with
accused Subhash Anand against which a receipt was issued to her by the
aforesaid accused. From the reading of a cross examination, it is clear
that she has not made any statement against accused Puneet@ Chintu
apart from the fact that he was sitting at the shop.
50. During the course of trial PW-6, became hostile and did not give any
statement qua any of the accused persons.
51. Similarly, PW-7 Meenakshi has also attributed roles of accused Subhash
and accused Puneet in the scheme. However, she has also admitted that
she was aware of the fact that M/s Subhash Jewelers was a proprietorship
concern of accused Subhash Chander only. She further admitted that she
has invested alleged amount with accused Subhash Chander. Though,
she also stated that she had included the name of accused Puneet @
Chintu in her complaint Mark-B as he was also involved with accused
Subhash Chander, no independent evidence to this effect has been led by
her. She has admitted that receipt Ex.PW7/A was also issued to her only
by accused Subhash Chander and that she has personally made deposits
with only accused Subhash.
52. In the testimony of PW-8, Neha Bajaj, the only role attributed to accused
Puneet @ Chintu was that he was present at the shop at the time of
handing over of money to accused Subhash. However, it has been
Digitally signed by
KATYAYINI KATYAYINI SHARMA
SHARMA KANDWAL
Date: 2024.12.24
KANDWAL 16:22:23 +0530
FIR No. 479/96 State v. Subash Chander and Anr. Page 24 of 31
admitted previously that the introduction to scheme as well as deposits
qua alleged scheme were only made with accused Subhash. Moreover, it
is also stated that accused Subhash Chander had sent for a letter stating
that he had opened a shop with the name Sona Chandi and that the
jewelry could be purchased from the given shop. Therefore, it is clear that
even if the entire testimony of PW-8 is admitted to be correct, the only
role of accused Puneet @ Chintu in the given transaction is that he was
present in the shop at the time of handing over of the alleged investment
to accused Subhash. In fact, the witness during her cross-examination has
admitted that she had named accused Puneet @ Chintu in the complaint
as he used to sit at the shop. In the absence of any independent evidence,
led to prove the active role allegedly played by accused Puneet @ Chintu
in the entire transaction, the same cannot be presumed.
53. PW-10 Veena Rani in her examination in chief did not state anything
about accused Puneet @ Chintu in the alleged cheating. However, when
she was cross examined by Ld. APP for the State, she stated that both
accused had made an offer for deposit of money after which she
deposited sum of Rs.20,000/- with them but she failed to place on record
any receipt to show the aforesaid deposit and had also admitted that the
receipt which has been lost by her was only issued by accused Subhash
Chander. In her cross examination dated 08.09.2006, she further admitted
that she did not make any payment to accused Puneet @ Chintu.
Therefore, it is clear from the testimony of the witness that conclusive
role of accused Puneet @ Chintu has nowhere been made out.
54. PW-11 Rajni Gopal identified the accused Puneet in the court and stated
that she had deposited sum of Rs.18,000/- in the alleged scheme and was
issued a receipt in this regard which is Ex.PW11/A. However, it was
Digitally signed by
KATYAYINI KATYAYINI SHARMA
SHARMA KANDWAL
Date: 2024.12.24
KANDWAL 16:22:29 +0530
FIR No. 479/96 State v. Subash Chander and Anr. Page 25 of 31
admitted by her in the cross-examination that neither receipt Ex.PW11/A
nor pamphlet Ex.PW11/B bears signature of accused Puneet @ Chintu.
Further, though she assigned to role to accused Puneet Anand in the given
transaction, no document to prove that either money was handed over to
Puneet Anand or that it was upon his inducement that investment in the
alleged scheme was made has been brought on record.
55. PW-14 Smt. Nirmal, PW-15 Mr. Lalit Taneja, PW-16 Ms. Geeta
Aggarwal and PW-17 Mr. Nanak Singh in their testimonies have stated
that both accused had issued new scheme for investment of money
against which they had invested certain amounts. However, the receipts
placed on record Ex.PW14/A and Ex.PW17/A by PW-14 and PW-17
respectively have admitted been issued by accused Subhash Chander.
Though, the complaints placed on record states that both accused had
taken the money from the complainants, no independent evidence to
prove the allegations have been placed on record by the witnesses.
56. PW-18 Tanu, PW-18A Surjeet Chatwal and PW-18B Aparna Bahrdwaj
have tried to show involvement of accused Puneet @ Chintu by stating
that investments were made by them in the alleged schemes at the
instance of accused Subhash Chander as well as accused Puneet,
however, like previous witnesses, the receipts placed on record by them
only bear signatures of accused Subhash Chander and nothing has been
brought on record to show involvement of accused Puneet. In fact, PW-
18B Ms. Arpana Bhardwaj also stated that IO did not record her
statement in the present case and also stated that complaint Ex.PW18/PX
do not bear her signatures and rather bear signature of her father. Original
receipts of Mark D1 and D2 were never produced by PW-18B.
Digitally signed
KATYAYINI by KATYAYINI SHARMA SHARMA KANDWAL KANDWAL Date: 2024.12.24 16:22:35 +0530 FIR No. 479/96 State v. Subash Chander and Anr. Page 26 of 31
57. During the course of trial PW-21 to PW-26 turned hostile and did not
depose anything against any of the accused persons.
58. PW-27 Retired Inspector Dara Singh in his testimony exhibited various
documents related to the investigation of the present case. Further,
accused Subhash Chander was also arrested by PW-27 who had also
obtained police custody of the given accused and investigated the present
case. However, in his cross examination, the witness admitted that he did
not receive any document bearing signatures or name of accused Puneet
prior to registration of the FIR and that even after lodging of the FIR as
well as during investigation, he could not find any document bearing
name or signatures of accused Puneet which shows his involvement in
the alleged transaction. Similar, testimony of PW-28, Retired ACP
Balwant Singh was also recorded wherein in his cross examination, he
admitted that he could not find any document showing involvement of
accused Puneet during the course of investigation.
59. PW-20 in his testimony stated that both accused had started the
investments scheme and that the money was not repaid by the accused
persons despite repeated requests. However, in his cross examination, he
admitted that he did not file any police complaint against the accused
persons and neither he give any statement to the police / IO in this regard.
He further stated that he does not have any document to show that Puneet
@ Chintu was involved in M/s Subhash Jewelers. Further, he admitted
that brother in law of his brother in law used to take money from him and
handed over to Mr. Subhash Chander and that he used to take receipt on
the particular date. He further stated that he does not know the details of
the scheme and neither did he want to go into the details of the said
scheme during his cross examination. The fact that the witness has not
Digitally signed by
KATYAYINI KATYAYINI SHARMA
SHARMA KANDWAL
Date: 2024.12.24
KANDWAL 16:22:42 +0530
FIR No. 479/96 State v. Subash Chander and Anr. Page 27 of 31
been forthcoming regarding the details of scheme and has not been able
to place on record anything to show that either the amount was handed
over to the accused Puneet or any receipt was issued by him or that he
had any evidence to prove involvement of accused Puneet, his testimony
is not sufficient to prove involvement of accused no.2 in the alleged
offence.
60. For attracting the provision of Section 420 of IPC, the FIR/complaint
must show that the ingredients of Section 415 of IPC are made out and
the person cheated must have been dishonestly induced to deliver the
property to any person; or to make, alter or destroy valuable security or
anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable
security. In other words, as has been categorically stated in Prof. R.K.
Vijaysarthi (supra), a fraudulent or dishonest inducement is an essential
ingredient of the offence. A person who dishonestly induces another
person to deliver any property is liable for the offence of cheating.
Therefore, for the purpose of holding the accused guilty, the evidence
adduced must establish, beyond reasonable doubt, mens rea on his part
(Anil Kumar Bose vs. State of Bihar AIR 1974 SC 1962). It is hence
clear that for proving commission of offence u/s 420 IPC, it is necessary
to show that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time
of making the promise. From his mere failure to subsequently keep a
promise, one cannot presume that all along, he had a culpable intention to
break the promise from the beginning. It is sine qua non of offence u/s
420 IPC that dishonest intention of the accused must be present at the
time when the other party parted with the money on the inducement made
to him. It is for the prosecution to show clinchingly that at the time when
the accused entered into the transaction, he had no intention to pay the
Digitally signed by
KATYAYINI KATYAYINI SHARMA
SHARMA KANDWAL
Date: 2024.12.24
KANDWAL 16:22:47 +0530
FIR No. 479/96 State v. Subash Chander and Anr. Page 28 of 31
money and that he was actuated by dishonest intention to cheat the
complainant.
61. Therefore, the burden upon the prosecution was to establish that accused
Puneet@ Chintu had fraudulent or dishonest intention from the very
inception of the scheme and the complainants parted with their money
because of the inducement and fraudulent intention of the accused.
62. However, perusal of testimonies of all prosecution witnesses shows that
though some of them have expressly stated that accused Puneet was
involved along with accused Subhash Chander in commission of offence
punishable under Section 420 read with 34 IPC by inducing them to
invest in a scheme being run by the accused persons, nothing was brought
on record to show involvement of accused Puneet @ Chintu apart form
the statements made by them. It is pertinent to note that it has been
proven by the defence and has also been admitted by multiple
prosecution witnesses that Subhash Chander was the sole proprietor of
M/s Subhash Jewelers.
63. Even for the sake of argument, if the testimonies of prosecution witnesses
are considered to be correct and truthful, all of them, who have not turned
hostile, have deposed that the receipts against the payments were issued
by accused Subhash Chander only. It has been admitted that the receipts
do not bear any signatures of accused Puneet @ Chintu. In the
testimonies where allegation of inducement qua accused Puneet Anand
have been made, no cogent evidence in support of the same has been
brought on record. Further, most of the witnesses had stated that they had
approached only accused Subhash Chander for re-payment of the amount
allegedly invested by them with M/s Subhash Jewelers. It is not
consistent case of prosecution witnesses that both accused Subhash
Digitally signed by
KATYAYINI KATYAYINI SHARMA
SHARMA KANDWAL
Date: 2024.12.24
KANDWAL 16:22:52 +0530
FIR No. 479/96 State v. Subash Chander and Anr. Page 29 of 31
Chander and accused Puneet Anand had induced them to invest in the
investment scheme run by M/s Subhash Jewelers. Though PW-7
Meenakshi has deposed that she has invested Rs.50,000/- with Puneet @
Chintu and PW-14 has deposed that she has handed over Rs.1,20,000/- to
Puneet @ Chintu, no proof of the aforesaid deposits with accused Puneet
@ Chintu have been brought on record. Even the receipts exhibited
admittedly bear the signature of accused Subhash Chander. Further, in the
cross-examination, PW-7 has stated that she indicated the name of
Subhash Chand in her complaint because she invested the amount with
Subhash Chand and that she had mentioned the name of Puneet @ Chintu
as he was involved with the Subhash Chander. No statement regarding
handing over of any amount to accused Puneet has been made during
cross-examination.
64. Arguendo, even if accused Puneet Anand was present at the shop when
the invested amounts were allegedly handed over to accused Subhash
Chander or he had taken one amount from one of the
customers/complainants, the same is not sufficient to establish that he had
dishonest intention to induce delivery of the money and that such person
acted on the inducement so offered. The prosecution, by cogent evidence,
has failed to prove involvement of accused Puneet Anand in the
investment scheme. In fact, from the testimonies of prosecution witnesses
as well, it is glaringly clear that while the role of accused Subhash
Chander has more or less remained consistent in their testimonies, the
role of accused Puneet Anand has not been sufficiently made out from the
same.
65. Further, the prosecution has failed to examine any independent witness
for instance, any worker in the shop M/s. Subhash Jewelers to prove that
Digitally signed by
KATYAYINI KATYAYINI SHARMA
SHARMA KANDWAL
Date: 2024.12.24
KANDWAL 16:22:59 +0530
FIR No. 479/96 State v. Subash Chander and Anr. Page 30 of 31
even if the alleged scheme was floated by the proprietor of M/s. Subhash
Jewelers, namely, accused Subhash Chander, accused Puneet @ Chintu
was also involved in the said scheme and had cheated the subscribers. In
fact, both IOs of the case, namely, Retd. SI Dara Singh and ACP Balwant
Singh have admitted that during the course of investigation, they were not
able to find anything to prove that accused Puneet was also involved in
commission of the said offence.
66. In the absence of any cogent evidence regarding the role of accused
Puneet @ Chintu, he cannot be held liable for committing an offence
under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC. In the opinion of this Court,
the guilt of accused Puneet @ Chintu has not been conclusively
established.
67. Accordingly, accused Puneet Anand @ Chintu is acquitted of all charges
in the present case.
68. Let copy of this judgment be placed on the official website of Delhi
District Court.
KATYAYINI Digitally
KATYAYINI
signed by
SHARMA SHARMA KANDWAL
Date: 2024.12.24
KANDWAL 16:23:06 +0530
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT KATYAYINI SHARMA KANDWAL
ON 24.12.2024 CJ-03, SHAHDARA
KKD COURTS, DELHI/24.12.2024
(THIS JUDGMENT CONTAINS 31 PAGES AND EACH PAGE IS
DIGITALLY SIGNED BY ME)
FIR No. 479/96 State v. Subash Chander and Anr. Page 31 of 31
[ad_1]
Source link