Delhi District Court
State vs Ram Avadh Pandey on 30 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHISHEK KUMAR
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS
HAZARI COURT, DELHI
STATE Vs. Ram Avadh Pandey & Ors
FIR No. 56/2000
PS: Tilak Marg
U/S: 420/120B/34 IPC and 4/5 of Prize Chit Fund and Money
Circulation Act
JUDGMENT
New Case ID Number : 298402/2016
Date of commission of offence : on or before 07.07.2000
Date of institution of the case : 09.12.2000
Name of the complainant : Sh. Piyush (advocate)
Name of accused and address : 1. Ram Avadh Pandey
(Abated)
2. Vijay Pandey
S/o Ram Ashish Pandey
R/o A-1064,G.D colony
Mayur Vihar, Phase-3
New Delhi-96.
3. Bhubneshwar Pandey
(Abated)
Offence charged of : 420/120B IPC and 4/5
of Prize Chit Fund and
Money Circulation Act
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Acquitted
Date reserved for judgment : 23.04.2025
Date of judgment : 30.05.2025
FIR No.56/2000, PS: Tilak Marg State Vs Ram Avadh Pandey & Ors Page No. 1/24
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE FACTS FOR DECISION:
1. In the present case, the criminal machinery came into action on
the complaint of Sh. Piyush(Advocate), wherein he alleged that
accused Ram Avadh Pandey (Advocate), Bhuvenshwar Pandey and
Vijay Pandey induced him and were taking money from him on month
to month basis, for three years for various committees but never
produced the certificate that they were running registered chit
fund/committees and caused him loss of Rs. 25 lakhs by not returning
the money. Accordingly, FIR bearing number 56/2000 was registered
at PS Tilak Marg and investigation commenced.
2. During the course of investigation, it was found that the accused
persons have cheated other advocates in similar fashion. After the
filing of the chargesheet, cognizance of the offence was taken. Upon
the appearance of the accused persons, copy of the charge-sheet was
supplied in compliance of section 207 CrPC. After hearing the
accused persons on the point of charge, prima facie case 420/120B
IPC and 4/5 of Prize Chit Fund and Money Circulation Act was found
to be made out against the accused persons. Accordingly, charge was
framed against the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty
and claimed trial.
3. Thereafter, the matter was posted for prosecution evidence.
During the course of the trial, proceedings qua the accused Ram
Avadh Pandey and Bhuvneshwar Pandey abated due to their demise
and trial continued qua the present accused Vijay Pandey. For the sake
of clarity and ready reference, the testimony of the material witnesses
FIR No.56/2000, PS: Tilak Marg State Vs Ram Avadh Pandey & Ors Page No. 2/24
as recorded during the trial is being reproduced verbatim as follows:-
i). PW-1 HC Phool Chand: On 21.02.2000 I was posted at P.S. Tilak
Marg, Advocate Harvinder Singh came to the P.S. and I along with
Balbir Singh and SI Ravinder Malik went to Sarai Kale Khan Police
post. Accused Ram Awadh Pandey was present there and IO arrested
him. Accused was arrested in my presence. His personal search memo
is Ex. PW 1/A bears my signatures at point A. I have also singed on
arrest memo Ex. PW 1/B bears my signatures at pbint A. Thereafter, I
taken the accused to RML Hospital for medical examination.
Thereafter, I came back to P.S. Tilak Marg. I handed over the MLC to
IO in the police station. Accused was put up in lock up. Accused is
present in the court today, correctly identified. Cross Examination: I
have been informed by one Sardar Ji namely Balbir Singh Ranbhawa,
we reached Sarai Kale Khan in the evening. I cannot tell how many
persons were present in the chowk when we reached however, they
were in plain clothes. I cannot tell the exact time of arrest of accused
but it was evening time. The personal search of accused was
conducted in P.S. Tilak Marg. I went also in RML Hospital for
conducting the medical examination of R. A. Pandey but it was
evening time. It is incorrect to suggest that I have not been arrested
fromt Sarai Kale Khan or that I have arrested from my house. I have
stated in my statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC that comptt. Balbir
Singh Randhawa was present when arrest of R.S. Pandey was made. It
is wrong that I have been falsely implicated or that I am deposing
falsely.
ii). PW-2 Ct. Ramesh Kumar: On 27/6/2000 accused Vijay Pandey
and on 6/7/2000 accused Bhuweshwar both present today in the court
were arrested and their personal search was conducted by IO SI
Ravinder Tyagi vide memos Ext PW2/A-1 to A-4 all memos bears
my my signature at point A respectively. Cross Examination: Nil
opportunity given.
iii). PW-3 Piyush: I am practising advocate at chamber no.377 Patiala
House Court New Delhi. The accused persons present in the court
correctly identified by the witness induced me and they are running
duly registered Chit Fund Committee Business and had taken about
Rs. 3.25,000/- from me month by month of the alleged chit fund
committee for about three years. They represented to me that they
have duly authorised registration from the government which they
have never been shown to me till date. When I asked for them to show
the registration and other documents which they claim but accused
persons did not show the same they threatened to kill me nor return
money despite my demand/request. Accused persons threatened me to
kill me if I asked to returned the money. I have been giving money in
FIR No.56/2000, PS: Tilak Marg State Vs Ram Avadh Pandey & Ors Page No. 3/24
the hands of one or the other claiming for each other. I have been
cheated by the accused persons in their conspiracy with each other and
put to the wrongful loss to the tune of Is. 3.25 lacs approximately and
gain the same. All the accused use to collect the money by coming
together at their chamber at 353 Patiala House Court Delhi. I gave my
complaint which was typed at my insistence and Ex. PW3/A bears my
signature at point A. Cross Examination by accused R A Pandey: I do
not know if any case is pending/registered me at PS Kalkai under
section 397/398/379/506/34 IPC & 25 Arms Act vide FIR no.
585/2000, I do not know if the same case is pending trial in the court
of Sh SK Aggarwal, Ld. MM New Delhi and next date of hearing in
this case is 20/12/2004. It is correct that I had filed a civil suit against
all the accused persons present in the court vide suit no.203/2002
which has been dismissed by the original court and I had preferred an
appeal against the order of dismissal of my suit and the appeal is
pending. I do not know if any a complaint case is pending in this very
court under section 420 IP C8 4,5,6 M.C. Act against me. 1 do not
know if any complaint case is pending against me in this very court
also under section 420/467/468/471/506 IPC. I am aware that one SLP
has been filed by accused RA Pandey before Hon’ble, Apex ourt in
which I am of the respondent. It is correct that one criminal revision
petition is pending against me in Hon’ble High Court in which the
accused RA Pandey is the petitioner. I do not remember the names of
all the members of the committee. The committee in which I was the
member of the value of Rs. 32,000/,20,000/-,60,000/- and 80,000/-. It
is wrong that I had bribe SI Rajiv Ranjan to the tune of Rs. 20,000 for
lodging this case against me. I was not running any committee. vol
instead accused RA Pandey was running the committee alongwith the
other accused. I paid Rs.2000/ on 3/4/96 as the first instalment for two
committees run by the accused. I remained the member of the
committee as as I was induced for maximum profit or gain by the
accused persons. I was not given any receipt in lieu of the payment
made to the accused Vol.I did not asked for receipt as I was having
trust on accused being the colleague advocate. I had not received any
money in return from any of the a caused till date. Cross Examination
by Vijay Pandey: I do not remember the exact date of filing of
complaint. Police had recorded my statement during the
investigation. I do not remember exactly as to how many committees I
was member of, however, the said group of committee were of
20,000,32,000,60.000 and 80.000. I do not remember the exact
number of installments I paid for the committee of Rs. 60.000
however, whenever the committee was to be opened I used to pay the
amount promptly. It is correct that I do not have any receipt.
Volunteer, the accused persons never issued any receipt. I cannot tell
as to how many members were there of the committees in question. I
was told that accused Vijay Pandey is the nephew of accused RA
Pandey as well as worked with him as his Munshi. There were non-
advocate members also in the committees. It is correct that I have filed
the civil suit for recovery of the money. I have claimed approx. the
same amount I cannot tell the exact amount. I do not recollect the last
FIR No.56/2000, PS: Tilak Marg State Vs Ram Avadh Pandey & Ors Page No. 4/24
date of Rs. 80000 committee when the same was bid. I never picked
up any of the committee out of the four committees. My civil suit was
dismissed for want of limitation and appeal is pending. I never
referred the matter to the president or secretary, NDBA. I do not
remember if anybody’s statement was recorded in my presence out of
the member. I do not remember the tenure of the committee of Rs.
80000 as time elapsed. I also do not remember the last due date of the
said committee and also that who picked up the same. I cannot
differentiate between the chit fund and the committee. It is incorrect to
suggest that I am deposing falsely or that I implicated the accused
Vijay Pandey wrongly just for harassment or pressurise him to go for
the compromise or that he has nothing to do with the running of the
committee or that he was merely working as a Munshi. Cross
examination by RA Pandey and B Pandey: I knew the accused RA
Pandey prior to this incident as he is Advocate in Patiala House Court
and is a colleague. I had no personally intimacy with the accused.
Accused Bhunvesh and RA Pandey were together and use to run
committee together and to use to sit together. I am not income tax
payee. I do not keep any diary for my income and expenditure. I do
not know remember know the exact date when the committees in
question were started. Committee was running for so many years. I do
know know or remember the exact date of running of the committees
respectively. First committee was completed after some time
according to schedule of the committee. The money deposited in the
committee were paid from my own personal funds. I had asked the
accused RA Pandey and the co accused persons to produce the licence
but they were kept on pretending on one pretext or the other and did
not show the same. I paid the amount because RA Pandey was an
Advocate and the colleague and before him. I did not maintained any
record of payment to ine accused persons. I never demanded in written
return of the amount paid by me. I used to pay the amount in the
presence of the member of the committee. I do not remember the
names of the members now. The other members of the committee also
paid the installments of the committee to the accused RA Pandey, I
had filed two civil suits out of which one decreed and the other was
dismissed for want of limitation. The suit which was decreed was not
part of the same transaction, it was not exparte decree, I do not
remember the date of SLP pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased issue notice in the SLP of the
accused R A Pandey. I do not remember whether I had appeared in the
said SLP or not. However I have filed the counter affidavit in the said
SLP. It is wrong that I am deposing falsely for usurping the chamber
of accused RA Pandey or that I was not a member or that no
committee was run by accused RA Pandey or B Pandey.
iv). PW-4 Sh. Balbir Singh Randhawa: On 21.02.2000, I alongwith
Advocate Piyush had gone to Karkardooma Court where we had met
accused Ram Avadh Pandey who was wanted in case FIR No.
54/2000, 56/2000 and 587/1999. We had taken him to Police Post
FIR No.56/2000, PS: Tilak Marg State Vs Ram Avadh Pandey & Ors Page No. 5/24
Sarai Kale Khan and called the IO, who came to the PP and arrested
him vide arrest memo already Ex. PW1/A bearing my signature at
point B and his personal search memo was conducted vide memo
already Ex. PW1/B bearing my signature at point B. Accused Ram
Avadh Pandey and Vijay Pandey are present in the Court today
(correctly identified by the witness).Cross Examination by RA
Pandey: I am not aware of any FIR against me in PS Kalkaji u/s
395/397/398/506/120-B IPC. It is wrong to suggest that I did not go to
Karkardooma Court alongwith Adv. Piyush on the date of arrest. It is
wrong to suggest that the present case was registered against me under
the influence of the ACP concerned as he was my relative. It is wrong
to suggest that accused was not running any committee at any point of
time or that the present case has been registered against the accused to
grab his chamber. Cross examination by Vijay:Nil opportunity given.
v). PW-5 Advocate M. Ansari: At that relevant time I was practising
in Patiala House Courts. I do not know anything about this case. I
never invested my money in the Chit Fund. I can identify the accused,
if shown to me. Accused is present in the Court today and correctly
identified by the witness. At this stage, Ld. APP for the State seeks
permission to cross-examine the witness as witness is resiling from his
earlier statement. Heard. Allowed. I never invested Rs. 28,429/- in the
Chit Fund at the instance of accused Ram Avadh Pandey from
06.12.1996 to 18.10.1998. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing
falsely on this aspect. It is wrong to suggest that I demanded back my
money, however accused did not returned the same. It is wrong to
suggest that accused had cheated me. It is wrong to suggest that my
statement was ever recorded by the police. It is wrong to suggest that
accused Vijay Pandey was known to me and he was also involved in
the conspiracy with accused Ram Avadh Pandey. It is wrong to
suggest that I am deposing falsely as I have been won over by the
accused Cross Examination: Nil opportunity given.
vi). PW-6 Advocate S.Y Jamal: In the year 1999, I was practising
advocate at Patiala House. Late Mr. Ram Awadh Pandey, Adv. and
his associates one of whom is present in the court correctly identified
the accused Vijay Pandey, contacted me to invest money in chit fund
transactions being run by them. They allured me to invest in the said
scheme. I invested more than 3 lakhs in the said scheme. They never
returned my money. I came to know that they did not return money to
most of the investors. I also did not receive my money back. Cross
Examination by Vijay: I do not have any written document or receipt
qua said investment. Voluntarily, they never issued any receipt. I do
not have any written document qua scheme being proposed by the
accused person. I paid the sum of Rs. 3 lakhs in cash for a period of
two and a half year, as I used to pay in monthly installments. I do not
have any statement of account to show the money being paid by me
over a period of two and a half year. Accused Ram Awadh Pandey
was having camber on the ground floor of the new chamber building
FIR No.56/2000, PS: Tilak Marg State Vs Ram Avadh Pandey & Ors Page No. 6/24
in Patiala House Court and I had my chamber at first floor of that
building, accused person used to visit a no. of advocates including me
in their chamber. It is wrong to suggest that I was never being
approached by accused Vijay Pandey. It is wrong to suggest that
accused Vijay Pandey never visited or allured me. It is wrong to
suggest that I did not make the investments as stated above. It is
wrong to suggest that Vijay Pandey was not involved in that scheme.
vii). PW-7 Advocate Nirmal Singh: I know accused Ram Avadh
Pandey since he was chamber by the side of my chamber. I do not
know whether he was doing any business of chit and fund in the
chamber. I had not deposited any money to the accused. I do not know
anything about this. At this stage, Id. APP for the state seeks
permission to cross examine the witness as witness is resiling from his
earlier statement. Heard. Allowed. I had not made any statement to the
police official. It is wrong to suggest that I had made a statement to
the police official. It is wrong to suggest that I have made a
compromised with the accused that is why I am deposing falsely. It is
wrong to suggest that I had deposited Rs. 7055/- to the accused Ram
Avadh Pandey for chit fund. It is wrong to suggest that accused Ram
Avadh pandey stated to me that he had license of chit fund business
and there were 12 members in that business. It is wrong to suggest that
I had requested the police official to initiate the legal action against
the accused Ram Avadh Pandey. It is wrong to suggest that I have
been won over the accused. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing
falsely. Cross Examination by Vijay: Nil opportunity given.
vii). PW-7 Inspector Ravinder Malik: On 22.02.2000, I was posted at
PS Tilak Marg as SI. On that day file was marked to me for further
investigation as earlier IO was on leave. On that day, accused Ram
Avadh Pandey was arrested in the present case and his personal search
was conducted vide memos already Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW1/B, both
bearing my signature at point C. Accused was sent to the JC. I
recorded the statement of PWs, thereafter, file was handed over to IO
of the case. Cross Examination by Vijay: Nil opportunity given.
viii). PW-7 Inspector Ravinder Kumar Tyagi: On 18.05.2000, I was
posted at PS Tilak Marg as Sl. On that day, further investigation of the
present case was marked to me. I collected the case file and went
through the same. On 27.06.2000, accused Vijay Pandey of the
present case surrendered before the court concerned Ld. MM. I
arrested the accused formally in the concerned court vide arrest memo
already Ex. PW2/A-1 bearing my signature at point B. I also
conducted personal search of accused vide memo already EX.
PW2/A-2 bearing my signature at point B. During investigation I also
arrested co-accused Bhuvneshwar Pandey on 06.07.2000 at PS Tilak
Marg. Arrest memo of co-accused Bhuvneshwar is already Ex.
PW2/A3 bearing my signature at point B. I also conducted personal
FIR No.56/2000, PS: Tilak Marg State Vs Ram Avadh Pandey & Ors Page No. 7/24
search of co-accused Bhuvneshwar pandey vide memo already Ex.
PW2/A4 bearing my signature at point B. During the investigation I
recorded the statement of witnesses u /s 161 Cr.PC. After completion
of investigation, I filed the charge-sheet before the court. Accused
Vijay Pandey present in the court and correctly identified by the
witness. Cross Examination by Vijay: I had not received the original
documents of Ex. PW3/A during my tenure of investigation. Vol. This
case was registered on the basis of photocopy given by complainant
Advocate Sh. Piyush even the endorsement was made on the
photocopy by the then duty officer. Question: Whether you made any
enquiry regarding the original of document Ex. PW3/A? Ans: I had
enquired from the complainant about the original of Ex. PW3/A, the
complainant replied that he had sent the complaint through post. Even
the endorsement was made on the photocopy. I did not make any
further enquiry regarding the original of Ex.PW3/A. Vol. The said fact
can be informed by the previous IO of the case. The complainant had
not given to me any postal receipt about the complaint sent. The
witnesses during their examination informed about the transaction
done by accused Vijay Pandey. It is a matter of record if any
transaction took place between complainant and accused Vijay
Pandey. The said allegation is mentioned in complaint Ex. PW3/A.
There are no documents having specific signature of accused Vijay
Pandey on record. However, there are documents having signature of
co-accused Ram Awadh Pandey. The FIR has been registered on the
basis of complaint given by the complainant. However, during
investigation, no document came to knowledge of specific signature of
accused Vijay Pandey. Vol. However, there are statements of
witnesses also mentioning about implicity of accused Vijay Pandey in
the present case It is wrong to suggest that accused has been falsely
implicated in the present case. It is wrong to suggest that nothing has
been recovered from the possession of accused. It is wrong to suggest
that I am deposing falsely.
ix). PW-8 Advocate J B Malik: I know accused Ram Avadh Pandey
since he was chamber by the side of my chamber. I do not know
whether he was doing any business of chit and fund in the chamber. I
had not deposited any money to the accused. I do not know anything
about this. No police official contacted me with respect to the present
case to record my statement. At this stage, Id. APP for the state seeks
permission to cross examine the witness as witness is resiling from his
earlier statement. Heard. Allowed. I had not made any statement to the
police official. It is wrong to suggest that I had made a statement to
the police official. It is wrong to suggest that I have made a
compromised with the accused that is why I am deposing falsely. It is
wrong to suggest that I had deposited money to the accused Ram
Avadh Pandey for chit fund. It is wrong to suggest that accused Ram
Avadh pandey stated to me that he had license of chit fund business
and there were 12 members in that business. It is wrong to suggest that
I had requested the police official to initiate the legal action against
FIR No.56/2000, PS: Tilak Marg State Vs Ram Avadh Pandey & Ors Page No. 8/24
the accused Ram Avadh Pandey. It is wrong to suggest that I have
been won over the accused. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing
falsely. Cross Examination by Vijay: Nil opportunity given.
x). PW-8 Inspector Amul Tyagi: I received the present file for further
investigation after transfer of the SI Rajiv Ranjan. I did not conduct
any specific investigation in the present case. File was further
transferred to another IO /SI Ravinder Tyagi. Cross Examination by
Vijay: Nil opportunity given.
xi). PW-8 Advocate Jati Ram: During the period of September 2000 I
was practicing as an advocate and was working through chamber/seat
no. 971. I met with an advocate namely R. A. Pandey who used to
work with chamber no. 353 and used to sit over there alongwith his
associates namely Vijay Pandey. Advocate R. A, Pandey alongwith
associate Vijay pandey was running a committee to collect money. I
invested a sum of Rs. 23,000/- in the said committee. However, I did
not get the desired returns and thereafter, accused R. A Pandey closed
the said committee. The accused persons cheated me of a sum of Rs.
23000/- and did not give me a back with desired returns. Accused
Vijay Pandey present in the court and correctly identified by the
witness. Witness has been shown one list Mark B wherein his name is
mentioned S. NO. 7 of having made payment of Rs. 23000/-. Cross
Examination by Vijay: I had not signed my statement u/s 161 Cr.PC
recorded by the IO. The accused Vijay Pandey used to collect money
from the people participating in the committee. The money was given
at the time when all the three accused persons including Vijay Pandey
used to be present at the time of collection of money. There is no
specific receipt issued for the money collected, however, accused R.
A. Pandey used to submit that they would return back our money.
That is why I had not given any written complaint. I had not had any
conversation in specific with accused Vijay Pandey in regard to return
of money paid by me in the committee/It is wrong to suggest that
accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is wrong to
suggest that accused Vijay Pandey was not present at the time of
transaction between accused and complainant’s. It is wrong to suggest
that I am deposing falsely.
xii). PW-9 R.K Verma: I am practicing as an advocate in THC court
since 1992 onwards. Mr. B. S Verma, Advocate and Mr. Ram Avadh
Pandey used to visit my chamber. Accused Ram Avadh Pandey told
me that he was running chit fund and he was organizer of that chit
fund. He told me to become a member of the same. He visited my
chamber 3-4 times and induced me to become a member. At his
assurance, I deposited Rs. 1,20000/- for the duration of one year. Mr.
B. S. Verma advocate was also a member of that chit fund. He told me
that he is not able to run the committee and he gave me half share of
his chit. I regularly paid the chit to accused Ram Avadh Pandey. I paid
FIR No.56/2000, PS: Tilak Marg State Vs Ram Avadh Pandey & Ors Page No. 9/24
total sum of Rs. 47000 to accused Ram Avadh Pandey, out of which
22328/- were paid by cheque bearing No. 032531 dated 10.11.98 (for
Rs. 2,782/-) cheque No. 032533 dated 11.12.98 (for Rs. 2938) cheque
No. 032537 dated 09.01.1999 (for Rs. 2938), cheque No. 032539
dated 05.02.1999 (Rs. 3125/-), cheque no. 035241, dated 06.02.1999
(for Rs. 1560/-), cheque no. 035245, dated 06.03.1999 (for Rs. 3218),
cheque No. 035246, dated 06.03.1999 (Rs. 1609), cheque No. 035248
dated 08.04.1999 (Rs. 2812), cheque no. 035249 dated 08.04.1999 for
Rs. 1406), all of SBI, THC, issued in the name of Ram Avadh Pandey
and remaining amount was paid in cash. Accused Ram Avadh Pandey
not returned even a single penny to me. He had cheated me. Cross
Examination by Vijay: Nil opportunity given.
xiii). PW- 10 Inspector Rajeev Ranjan: On 09.12.1999, I was posted
at PS Tilak Marg as SI. On that day, the complaint of the present was
received in the PS and was marked to me. I collected the complaint
and conducted preliminary enquiry. On 07.02.2000, I got the present
case registered. I prepared the rukka, same is Ex. PW10/A bearing my
signature at point A. I handed over the tehrir to the then DO, PS Tilak
Marg and got the FIR registered. After one or two days of registration
of the case, I went on leave and thereafter, the case was transferred to
some other IO. I had handed over the case file to MHC (R).Cross
Examination by Vijay: I was handed over the complaint by the then
Reader to the then SHO, PS Tilak Marg for enquiry. I was handed
over only the complaint by the then Reader. It is wrong to suggest that
I am deposing falsely.
4. During trial accused admitted the factum of FIR No. 650/17 as
Ex. P-1 Thereafter, PE was closed and statement of accused U/s 313
Cr.P.C was recorded in which all incriminating material appearing in
evidence against accused was put to him to which he stated that he is
innocent and that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Accused
Vijay Pandey has examined himself as DW1 where he denied his
involvement and was cross examined at length by Ld. APP for the
state. The testimony of the material witnesses as recorded during the
trial is being reproduced verbatim as follows:-
i). DW1 Vijay Pandey: Ram Avadh Pandey was my uncle (chacha). I
do not know anything about the present case. I used to visit my uncle
Ram Avadh Pandey during the course of the day for some work. I
have nothing to do with present case. I was not even aware about theFIR No.56/2000, PS: Tilak Marg State Vs Ram Avadh Pandey & Ors Page No. 10/24
fact of the present case at that time. One day I received call from
police officials. When I came to know about the present case, I visited
the court concerned from where I was granted bail in the present case.
I do not have any other knowledge about the case but I have been
falsely implicated without any fault on my part. Cross Examination by
State: I have studied till class 10th. Presently, I am not working
anywhere. Earlier, I used to work in transport. In the year 1999 I was
having work of transport only. Accused Ram Avadh Pandey was my
chacha. Accused Ram Avadh was an advocate. The said Ram Avadh
Pandey was practicing at Patiala House court and was having his
office at Chamber no. 353. I used to visit him for the disposal of
challans pertaining to vehicles and at that time I used to sit in his
chamber. There was no fixed time of my visits to Ram Avadh Pandey,
whenever I used to get time, I paid visits to Ram Avadh Pandey. I was
not aware if the said Ram Avadh Pandey was having some other work
apart from practicing law. I am not having any knowledge about
finance specially about investments and making / investing of money
in some kind of schemes. When I used to visit him, I used to meet the
clerk who was sitting in the chamber and different peoples were used
to be there who were advocates or general public or litigants may be.
He never talked to me regarding investment in any scheme or running
of any committee. I have never invested in any investment scheme or
committee. I am also not aware whether Ram Avadh Pandey has
invested in any schemes or committee. I do not have professional
knowledge of law and never did diploma/ course qua the same. I did
not know B. S Randhawa during the period of year 1999 and neither
during the period of present offence. I came to know about this
alleged case filed by B. S. Randhawa from police officials. I have not
filed any case/ suit against thesaid B. S. Randhawa for the false case
allegedly filed against me. I have met him in the court itself during the
pendency of the case where he used to ask for settlement money. I had
never met B. S. Randhawa in the office of my uncle Ram Avadh
Pandey. I am not aware if my uncle Ram Avadh Pandey also knew B.
S. Randhawa or not. I had also never taken any money from B. S.
Randhawa. I never knew advocate Piyush earlier. I got to know about
advocate Piyush when I came to know from police officials about the
present case. I had not filed any complaint against advocate Piyush for
insituting the alleged present case against me to any police officials or
any higher authority. I do not know if my uncle Ram Avadh Pandey
knew advocate Piyush or not. I had never mer advocate Piyush in the
chamber of my uncle Ram Avadh Pandey. I am not aware if my uncle
Ram Avadh pandey also knew advocate Piyush or not. I had no
financial dealings with advocates Piyush. Advocate Piyush had never
given me any money in cash or cheque or kind. I do not know any
advocate R. K. Verma. I am not aware if advocate R. K Verma is a
witness in my case or not. I have never met advocate R. K. Verma. I
am not aware if my uncle Ram Avadh Pandey ever met advocate R.
K. Verma or not. I had never seen advocate R. K. Verma in the
chamber of my uncle Ram Avadh Pandey. I had no financial dealings
with advocate R. K. Verma as I never knew him. I had never received
FIR No.56/2000, PS: Tilak Marg State Vs Ram Avadh Pandey & Ors Page No. 11/24
any money from advocate from R. K. Verma through cash or cheque
at any point of time. I had never given any complaint to police or
higher authorities against advocate R. K. Verma for implicating me in
the alleged case. 1. I do not know any advocate by name M. Ansari. I
have never met Mr. M. Ansari either on my own or in the office of my
uncle Ram Avadh Pandey. I had not taken any money from the said
M. Ansari. It is also not in my knowledge, if my uncle Ram Awadh
Pandey had taken some money from Advocate M. Ansari. I do no
know any advocate S. Y. Jamal. I had not met advocate S. Y. Jamal
anywhere and neither I had met advocate S. Y. Jamal in the office of
my uncle Ram Awadh Pandey. 2. I am also not aware if my uncle
Ram Avadh Pandey knew or had met advocates M. Ansari and S. Y.
Jamal. I had not taken any money from advocate S. Y. Jamal. I am
also not aware if my uncle Ram Avadh Pandey had taken any money
from advocate S. Y. Jamal. I do not know any advocate J. B. Malik. I
have never met advocate J. B. Malik in my office or in the office of
my uncle Ram Avadh Pandey. I had not taken any money from
advocate J. B. Malik. It is also not in my knowledge if my uncle Ram
Avadh pandey knew advocate J. B. Malik or my uncle Ram Avadh
Pandey had taken money from J. B. Malik. 3. I do not know any
advocate Nirmal Singh. I had not met advocate Nirmal Singh at any
point of time. I am also not aware if my uncle Ram Avadh Pandey
also knew advocate Nirmal Singh or not. I had not taken any money
from advocate Nirmal Singh. I am also not aware if my uncle Ram
Avadh Pandey had taken any money from advocate. I had not given
any complaint to higher police official, court, bar council against
advocates M. Ansari, S. Y. Jamal, Nirmal Singh and J. B. Malik. I do
not know any advocate by name Jati Ram. I had not met advocate Jati
Ram at any point of time. 4. I am also not aware if my uncle Ram
Avadh Pandey also knew advocate Jati Ram or not. I had not taken
money from advocate Jati Ram. I am also not aware if my uncle Ram
Avadh Pandey had taken any money from advocate Jati Ram. I had
not given any complaint against advocate Jati Ram to any higher
police officials, higher authorities for implicating me in the alleged
case. I have no idea about scheme like chit fund or the system of
committee for investment of money. 5. Q: I put to you that advocate
B.S. Randhawa has given a complaint against you that you alongwith
your uncle Ram Avadh Pandey had started a committee of 20 persons
on 05.09.1997 and you took an amount of Rs. 3000/- each from each
of these committee members.6. A: I had not started any such
committee. I am not aware about any such meeting and neither I had
taken any money from anyone. It must have been done by my uncle
Ram Avadh Pandey. 7. Q: I put it to you that complainant B. S
Randhawa has given complaint against you that on your assurances
and suggestions, they invested different different amounts in various
installments as mentioned in the complaint and that you
misappropriated the said amount? 8 A: I had not taken any money
from anyone. I am not aware about any such proceedings and this is a
false case given against me. 9. I had not met advocate Neelam singh
and I do not know any person by name advocate Neelam Singh. I had
FIR No.56/2000, PS: Tilak Marg State Vs Ram Avadh Pandey & Ors Page No. 12/24
never met advocate Neelam singh. It is also not in my knowledge, if
my uncle Ram Avadh Pandey had ever met advocate Neelam Singh. I
had not met advocate B. S. Verma. I do not know any person by name
advocate B. S. Verma. It is not in my knowledge if my uncle Ram
Avadh Pandey had ever met advocate B. S. Verma. I have not taken
any money from advocate Neelam singh or advocate B. S. Verma. I
have not met advocate Urmila Nautiyal. I do not know any person by
name advocate Urmila Nautiyal. I had never advocate Urmila
Nautiyal. It is not in my knowledge, if my uncle Ram Avadh Pandey
had ever met advocate Urmila Nautiyal. I had not taken any money
from advocate Urmila Nautiyal. It is not in my knowledge if my uncle
Ram Avadh Pandey had taken any money from advocate Urmial
Nautiyal. 10. I had never met Mr. and Ms. Chaturvedi and neither I
have met Mr. Kamal Chaturvedi their clerk. I have never seen them in
the office of my uncle Ram Avadh Pandey. I have taken any money
from Mr. and Ms. Chaturvedi and neither from their clerk. I am not
aware if my uncle Ram Avadh Pandey had taken any money from Mr.
and Ms. Chaturvedi or from their clerk. I do not know any person by
name advocate Naseem. I have never met advocate Naseem. I am not
aware if my uncle Ram Avadh Pandey had ever met advocate
Naseem. I had not taken any money from advocate Naseem. I am not
aware if my uncle Ram Avadh pandey had taken any money from
advocate Naseem. I do not know any person by name advocate
Sarvesh. 11. I have not met advocate Sarvesh at any point of time. I
am not aware if my uncle Ram Avadh Pandey had ever met advocate
Sarvesh. I have not taken any money from advocate Sarvesh. I am not
aware if my uncle Ram Avadh Pandey had taken any money from
advocate Sarvesh. I do not know any person by name advocate S. D.
Sharma. I have never met advocate S. D. Sharma. I am not aware if
my uncle Ram Avadh Pandey had ever met advocate S. D. Sharma. I
have not taken any money from advocate S. D. Sharma. I am not
aware if my uncle Ram Avadh Pandey had taken any money from
advocate S. D. 12. I had not given any complaint to higher police
officials, court and bar council against advocate Urmila Nautiyal and
Mr. and Ms. Chaturvedi, Kamal Chaturvedi, advocate Naseem and
advocate S. D. Sharma. 13. Q I put it to you that on 08.06.99 that your
uncle Ram Avadh Pandey gave a list of payment due to be made
under the chit fund scheme started by you and your uncle to Sh. A. U.
Khan, advocate, Secretary Patiala House Bar Association. 14. A: I am
not aware about any such list. No such list was made by me. 15. I have
never lived with or worked with my uncle Ram Avadh Pandey at
TA-209, Gali No. 1, Tugalkabad Extension, Delhi. At this stage, one
list appended alongwith judicial file is shown to the witness, the said
list is Ex. DW1/P-1. It is submitted by the witness he is not aware
about the said list and the said list was never prepared by him. 16. At
this stage, a final list of payment was mark B is shown to witness, it is
submitted by the witness that he has never seen any such list and that
he had never prepared the said list. 17. At this stage, the DW/accused
is confronted with document Mark A appended alongwith judicial
record, the said document. contains the details of the committee
FIR No.56/2000, PS: Tilak Marg State Vs Ram Avadh Pandey & Ors Page No. 13/24
carried out by the accused alongwith his late co-accused R. A. Pandey.
It is submitted by the witness that he is not aware about any such
documents and neither the document was prepared by the witness. 18.
At this stage, witness is confronted with document Ex. PW6/E, the
witness submits that he is not aware about creation of such document
and the document was not prepared in his presence. Witness is
confronted with documents Ex. PW6/B, Mark C, Mark D and Mark E,
the said documents have been seized during the investigation of the
case from the possession of coaccused Ram Avadh Pandey. It is
submitted by the witness that he is not aware about the creation of said
document and that he never prepared any such documents. 19. During
the period of 1999 and 2000, I was also running a coaching centre
alongwith my transport business and I used to have a monthly income
of approximately of Rs. 20000/-. I also used to file ITR. I used to pay
income tax as per the assessment. Sometime it used to be Rs. 1000/-
and some it used to be Rs. 2000/-. 20. I had never taken an amount of
Rs. 96,588/- from advocate B. S. Randhawa neither in installments
and nor in one go. I had never taken an amount of Rs 3,25,000/- from
advocate Piyush and neither I knew him. I do not know anything
about the committee system and neither I am aware about the amount
collected through the same. 21. I had never collected different
different amounts by way of cheques from advocate B. S. Verma.
When I had never collected the cheques, no question arises of having
deposited the same in the acocunt of my uncle Ram Avadh Pandey, I
have no idea as to where in which bank account my uncle Ram Avadh
Pandey was maintaining his account. I had never collected any
amount or an amount of Rs. 28429/- from advocate M. Ansari. I do
not know advocate M. Ansari. I had never collected an amount of Rs.
3 lacs from advocate S. Y. jamal. I do not know advocate S. Y. Jamal.
22. I had never collected an amount of Rs. 36500/- from advocate J.
B. Malik and I am not aware if my uncle had taken any amount from
advocate J. B. Malik. I had never collected an amount of Rs. 7055/-
from advocate Nirmal singh and I am not aware if my uncle had taken
any amount from advocate Nirmal Singh. I had never collected an
amount of Rs. 23000/- from advocate Jati Ram and I am not aware if
my uncle had taken any amount from advocate Jati Ram. 23. QI put it
to you that PW-3, PW-4, PW-6, PW-7, PW-8, PW-9, PW-10, PW-13
have given evidence against you, it has been stated by you that you
had never met any of these advocate at any point of time, then why
did these advocates deposed against you? 24. A: I had never met any
of these advocates at any point of time and neither know any of them.
I cannot say as to why these advocates deposed against me in the
court. 25. Q I put it to you that as stated by you, you had never met
any of these advocates before then why did they identified you as the
person who informed about the scheme and also collected money from
them for investment in the said scheme. 26. A: I do not know any of
these advocates. I cannot say why they identified me. I have been
falsely implicated in this case by these advocates. I knew
bhuvneshwar Pandey as he was also my uncle. He is no longer in this
world. It is wrong to suggest that I alongwith Bhuvneshwar Pandey
FIR No.56/2000, PS: Tilak Marg State Vs Ram Avadh Pandey & Ors Page No. 14/24
had entered into a conspiracy to cheat the above referred advocates
and misappropriated their money and caused wrongful loss. 27. It is
wrong to suggest that I used to work with my uncle Ram Avadh
Pandey in his chamber at Patiala House court. It is wrong to suggest
that I had full knowledge about finance, investment opportunities and
committee system of putting money. It is wrong to suggest that I had
induced Advocate B. S. Randhawa, Piyush, R. K. Verma, B. S.
Verma, J. B. Malik, M Ansar, S. Y. Jamal, Nirmal singh, Jati Ram,
Neelam singh, Urmila Nautiyal, Mr. and Ms. Chaturvedi, Kamal
Chaturvedi, Naseem, Sarvesh and S. D. Sharma to invest the money in
committee system. It is wrong to suggest that I alongwith my uncle
Ram Avadh Pandey had initiated the committee system to collect
money from various advocates and misappropriate the same. It is
wrong to suggest that I used to meet the abovesaid advocates and
apprised them about the said committee system and further allured
them to make investments and further investments in the said
committee system. It is wrong to suggest that I was an active member
of this committee system and it is further wrong to suggest that I used
to open, close and also act in the ongoing activity of the committee. It
is wrong to suggest that I have collected different amount in different
installment and also in one go from advocates B. S. Randhawa,
Piyush, R. K. Verma, B. S. Verma, J. B. Malik, M Ansar, S. Y. Jamal,
Nirmal singh, Jati Ram, Neelam singh, Urmila Nautiyal, Mr. and Ms.
Chaturvedi, Kamal Chaturvedi, Naseem, Sarvesh and S. D. Sharma.
28. It is wrong to suggest that I activevly participated in the committee
alongwith my uncle Ram Avadh Pandey. It is wrong to suggest that I
alongwith my uncle Ram Avadh Pandey had entered into a conspiracy
to induced and to make the above referred advocates deliver the
various amounts in the committee system and also committed
wrongful loss to the various complainants. It is wrong to suggest that I
was very well aware about the chit fund scheme as well as money
circulation schemes. It is wrong to suggest that I had violated the
provision of chit fund and money circulation scheme while collecting
the money from various advocates as mentioned above and caused
wrongful loss to all of them. It is wrong to suggest that I deliberately
deposed falsey that I was not aware about the committee system and
money circulation scheme. It is wrong to suggest that I deliberately
deposed falsely that I never knew the above referred advocates or that
I never induced the above referred advocates to invest their money in
the committee system introduced by me along with my uncle Ram
Avadh pandey. It is wrong to suggest that I deliberately deposed
falsely that I never collected any money at any point of time in one go
or in various installments from the above referred advocates. It is
wrong to suggest that I deliberately deposed falsely that I never
misappropriated or never caused any wrongful loss to any of the
above referred advocates in the committee system run by me
alongwith my uncle Ram Avadh Pandey. It is wrong to suggest that I
have deliberately deposed falsely in order to save myself from the
clutches of law.
FIR No.56/2000, PS: Tilak Marg State Vs Ram Avadh Pandey & Ors Page No. 15/24
5. Thereafter, final arguments were addressed by the accused and
Ld. APP for the State. All the submissions were heard carefully and
all the record has been looked into.
6. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is
supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubt by
leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. In order to prove its
case on judicial file, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs
and it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if
any, of the defence of the accused. The burden of proof of the version
of the prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the trial is on the
prosecution and it never shifts on to the accused.
7.0 Before proceeding to analyze the facts and evidence on record,
it is pertinent to refer to the relevant provisions of law which form the
foundation of the present prosecution. The accused in the present case
has been charged for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and
120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as well as Sections 4 and 5 of
the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978.
A brief reference to the legal ingredients and purport of these
provisions is set out hereinafter.
7.1. The offence pertaining to cheating is covered under Chapter 17
of the IPC under the heading ‘of offences against property’ and is
covered from Section 415 to 420 IPC. Section 420 i.e ‘cheating and
dishonestly inducing delivery of property’ is an aggravated form of
cheating, which provides for enhanced punishment. This provision
penalizes any person who cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the
FIR No.56/2000, PS: Tilak Marg State Vs Ram Avadh Pandey & Ors Page No. 16/24
person so deceived to deliver any property. To constitute an offence
under this section, the prosecution must establish that:
• The accused deceived the complainant;
• Such deception led the complainant to deliver property;
• The accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the very
inception of the transaction.
7.2. In the case of Iridium India Tel oftenecom Ltd. v. Motorola Inc.,
(2011) 1 SCC 74, the Honble Supreme Court of India while refering to
Section 415 IPC has observed as follows:
“…68. A bare perusal of the aforesaid section would show that it can
be conveniently divided into two parts. The first part makes it
necessary that the deception by the accused of the person deceived,
must be fraudulent or dishonest. Such deception must induce the
person deceived to either: (a) deliver property to any person; or (b)
consent that any person shall retain any property. The second part also
requires that the accused must by deception intentionally induce the
person deceived either to do or omit to do anything which he would
not do or omit, if he was not so deceived. Furthermore, such act or
omission must cause or must be likely to cause damage or harm to that
person in body, mind, reputation or property. Thus, it is evident that
deception is a necessary ingredient for the offences of cheating under
both parts of this section…”
7.3. The criminal conspiracy is a punishable offence under Section
120 B IPC, which is defined under Section 120A IPC. In case titled as
Rajendra alias Rajesh alias Raju v. State of NCT of Delhi (2019) 10
SCC 623, the hon’ble Apex Court has observed that it is trite law that
the existence of three elements must be shown–a criminal object, a
plan or a scheme embodying means to accomplish that object, and an
agreement or understanding between two or more people to cooperate
for the accomplishment of such object’s.
7.4. Further in the case of Yogesh v. State of Maharashtra [(2008) 10
FIR No.56/2000, PS: Tilak Marg State Vs Ram Avadh Pandey & Ors Page No. 17/24
SCC 394], the honble Supreme Court of India in reference to criminal
conspiracy has observed as follows:
“…25. Thus, it is manifest that the meeting of minds of two or more
persons for doing an illegal act or an act by illegal means is sine qua
non of the criminal conspiracy but it may not be possible to prove the
agreement between them by direct proof. Nevertheless, existence of
the conspiracy and its objective can be inferred from the surrounding
circumstances and the conduct of the accused. But the incriminating
circumstances must form a chain of events from which a conclusion
about the guilt of the accused could be drawn. It is well settled that an
offence of conspiracy is a substantive offence and renders the mere
agreement to commit an offence punishable, even if an offence does
not take place pursuant to the illegal agreement…”
7.5. To summarize, criminal conspiracy is an independent offence,
which is punishable separately and can be proved either by way of
direct proof or circumstantial evidence, only if essential ingredients as
mentioned under Section 120A IPC are fulfilled. Also, upon the proof
of the same, the accused can be held liable for the commission of
other substantive offences.
7.6. The Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act,
1978 was enacted with the objective of prohibiting schemes which are
deceptive in nature and exploit the investing public by promising
quick or high returns. The Act prohibits all forms of prize chits,
money circulation schemes, and similar arrangements unless permitted
under law.
7.7. Section 3 of the act provides that no person shall promote or
conduct any prize chit or money circulation scheme, or enroll as a
member to such scheme, or participate in it in any manner whatsoever.
Section 4 of the act provides for the punishment for the contravention
FIR No.56/2000, PS: Tilak Marg State Vs Ram Avadh Pandey & Ors Page No. 18/24
of section 3 and whereas section 5 provides punishment for other acts
which includes printing, publishing etc of the scheme.
7.8. Prize Chit is defined under Section 2(e) of the act and states that
any scheme where money is collected periodically and refunds/returns
or prizes are made on the basis of draws or other methods. It includes
schemes where members contribute money, periodic draws decide
winners or prize-holders and money is returned based on such draws.
7.9. Money Circulation Scheme is defined under Section 2(c) of the
act as Any scheme, by whatever name, for making quick or easy
money or receiving money on promise of high returns, depending on
enrollment of further participants.
7.10. In Kurian Chacko v. State of Kerala, 2008 Cri LJ 2621 (Ker
HC), it was observed that When the accused collected money without
any legal registration and promised returns in a rotating fashion from
funds deposited by others, such a scheme was squarely covered under
Section 3 of the Act and punishable under Section 4.
7.11. In the context of the present case, the prosecution was obliged
to prove the following ingredients to bring home the charges against
the accused Vijay Pandey:
a). That accused Vijay Pandey, in furtherance of a
criminal conspiracy with co-accused Ram Avadh Pandey &
Bhubneshwar Pandey (since deceased), had entered into an
agreement to operate or assist in the running of a chit fund
or committee scheme which was unregistered and illegal in
nature.
FIR No.56/2000, PS: Tilak Marg State Vs Ram Avadh Pandey & Ors Page No. 19/24
b). That accused Vijay Pandey, in furtherance of
conspiracy with the co-accused, had dishonestly induced the
complainants to part with their money by representing that
the committee scheme was profitable and secure with
fraudulent intent from the very inception due to which the
complainants delivered their money on account of such
inducement; and suffered wrongful loss while the accused
persons derived wrongful gain.
c). That the accused in furtherance of conspiracy
participated in a money circulation scheme or prize chit
within the meaning of Sections 2(c) and 2(e) of the Prize
Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978,
without requisite certificate by collection of money from
multiple individuals with the promise of periodic returns.
8. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has placed heavy
reliance on the testimony of PW-3 Advocate Piyush, who is also the
complainant in the present case. However, on a close examination of
his deposition, it becomes evident that the allegations against accused
Vijay Pandey are vague and lacking clarity. While PW-3 broadly
alleged that the accused persons induced him to invest money in an
unregistered committee scheme, he did not attribute any clear,
independent, or identifiable act to Vijay Pandey which could
demonstrate direct inducement, participation, or receipt of funds.
PW-3 also admitted in his cross-examination that he did not receive
any receipt or maintain any written record of his payments. He stated
that he trusted the accused persons due to their professional standing
FIR No.56/2000, PS: Tilak Marg State Vs Ram Avadh Pandey & Ors Page No. 20/24
as fellow advocates, particularly Ram Avadh Pandey. Importantly, he
did not depose about any instance where money was handed over to
Vijay Pandey or that Vijay Pandey made any representation to him. In
this background, the testimony of PW-3 does not meet the threshold
required to sustain a charge of cheating against the present accused.
9. In addition to the above, the prosecution has examined several
other witnesses who were cited as victims in the alleged scheme.
However, PW-5 Advocate M. Ansari, PW-7 Advocate Nirmal Singh,
and PW-8 Advocate J.B. Malik did not support the prosecution case
during their examination. These witnesses either denied any
transaction with the accused or disowned their previous statements
recorded under Section 161 CrPC. Despite being declared hostile and
subjected to cross-examination by the Ld. APP, they remained firm in
their stand and did not implicate the accused Vijay Pandey in any
manner. Their depositions, therefore, not only fail to advance the
prosecution case but also create doubt regarding the genuineness and
consistency of the overall narrative.
10. Another aspect that significantly weakens the prosecution
version is the complete absence of documentary evidence. In a case
involving financial transactions spanning a considerable period and
allegedly involving multiple individuals, the prosecution has not
placed on record any receipts, written acknowledgments, registers,
bank records, or income tax declarations to substantiate the alleged
payments. The complainant and other witnesses have admitted that no
receipts were issued, and no list of members or statements of account
were maintained. It is a settled principle that while oral evidence can
form the basis of conviction, in cases involving financial dealings,
FIR No.56/2000, PS: Tilak Marg State Vs Ram Avadh Pandey & Ors Page No. 21/24
documentary corroboration becomes a crucial factor, particularly
when the defence has disputed the very existence of the transaction.
The absence of such material evidence, when coupled with
inconsistent oral depositions and non-specific allegations, creates a
vacuum that cannot be filled by conjectures or assumptions.
11. Further, the allegation of criminal conspiracy under Section
120B IPC also does not withstand scrutiny. In order to prove
conspiracy, the prosecution must demonstrate a meeting of minds,
agreement, or understanding between the accused persons to commit
an illegal act. As held in Yogesh v. State of Maharashtra [(2008) 10
SCC 394], the surrounding circumstances must form a clear and
unbroken chain pointing to the existence of a conspiracy. In the
present case, there is neither any direct evidence nor any
circumstantial material to show that Vijay Pandey entered into any
agreement with Ram Avadh Pandey to cheat the complainants. No
overt act attributable to Vijay Pandey has been proved, nor has any
conduct been demonstrated which would indicate his involvement in
furthering any unlawful design.
12. On the contrary, in his statement under Section 313 CrPC and
while deposing as DW1, accused Vijay Pandey consistently
maintained that he had no knowledge of the committee system or
financial dealings of his uncle. He denied having taken any money
from the complainants or being involved in any scheme. He was
extensively cross-examined by the prosecution but nothing material
could be elicited to falsify his stand. His mere identification in court
by a few witnesses, without any corresponding act or transaction on
FIR No.56/2000, PS: Tilak Marg State Vs Ram Avadh Pandey & Ors Page No. 22/24
his part, is insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
13. The Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of
Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, laid down that for a conviction based
on circumstantial evidence, the chain must be complete and point only
to the guilt of the accused. In the instant case, the chain is broken,
speculative, and insufficient to sustain the conviction of the accused.
The settled principle that suspicion, however grave, cannot take the
place of proof, becomes fully applicable in the present case
14. Furthermore, the burden of proof in a criminal trial rests entirely
on the prosecution, and the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt
if the evidence does not conclusively establish his guilt. In Hridaya
Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar , (2000) 4 SCC 168, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that cheating under Section 420
IPC requires proof of fraudulent or dishonest intention at the very
inception of the transaction. Similarly, in Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi
Administration), (1988) 3 SCC 609, it was held that a charge of
conspiracy must rest on clear evidence of agreement and common
intent, and not merely on association. In the present case, the
prosecution has failed to meet these well-settled standards. The
allegations against the accused remain broad and unspecific,
unsupported by documentary evidence, and uncorroborated by the
majority of the witnesses. In such circumstances, the benefit of doubt
must necessarily go to the accused.
15. In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges
FIR No.56/2000, PS: Tilak Marg State Vs Ram Avadh Pandey & Ors Page No. 23/24
under Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
Sections 4 and 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes
(Banning) Act, 1978 against the accused Vijay Pandey beyond
reasonable doubt. The evidence led by the prosecution does not reveal
any direct transaction, receipt, or communication on the part of the
accused, nor does it demonstrate his active role or fraudulent intent in
running the alleged scheme. The prosecution has primarily relied on
oral statements without any supporting documentary evidence and
several material witnesses have either turned hostile or failed to
implicate the accused specifically. The allegations levelled against the
accused remain unsubstantiated, and in the absence of any clear and
cogent proof, the benefit of doubt must necessarily go to the accused.
Accordingly, accused Vijay Pandey is hereby acquitted of all the
charges framed against him in the present case. He is directed to
furnish a personal bond in the sum of ₹10,000/- under Section 437A
CrPC to the satisfaction of the Court.
(Announced in the open court on this Digitally signed day of 30th May, 2025) by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.05.30 16:52:11 +0530 (ABHISHEK KUMAR) CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI FIR No.56/2000, PS: Tilak Marg State Vs Ram Avadh Pandey & Ors Page No. 24/24