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. 587/1999
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 : 298403/2016
Date of commission of offence : On or before 20.12.1999
Date of institution of the case : 09.12.2000
Name of the complainant : Sh.BalbirSingh
Randhawa (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
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.587/1999, PS: Tilak Marg State Vs Ram Avadh Pandey & Ors Page No. 1/29
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE FACTS FOR DECISION:
1. In the present case, the criminal machinery came into action on
the complaint of Sh. Balbir Singh Randhawa (Advocate), wherein he
alleged that accused Ram Avadh Pandey (Advocate), and Vijay
Pandey had induced him on 01.09.1997 at 4:00 PM in his chamber no.
353, Patiala House Court to become a member of Chit Fund
Committee organized by them in the sum of Rs. 3,000 per month w.e.f
05.09.97 having 20 members who are advocates/clerks of the
complex. They assured him of running the chit fund smoothly, to meet
family requirements of buying goods due to meager income. He was
also told that members can make their offer to take chit fund at
discounted price. The chit fund floated w.e.f 05.09.1997 and was
running smoothly till 05.05.1998. further, on 05.12.98, he offered to
take chit fund of Rs 60,000 at discounted price of Rs. 50,000 which
was accepted by the accused persons and agreed to pay him Rs.
50,000 on 20.12.1998 but it was never paid despite timely payments
of chit fund and repeated request. In the meantime, the accused
persons further induced him to become member of second chit fund of
Rs. 5000 per month w.e.f 03.07.1998 and 3rd chit fund of Rs. 2000 per
month w.e.f 13.11.1998. The accused persons used to collect
subscription of chit fund every month in cash. On 19.08.98, he paid an
amount of Rs. 7200 through cheque bearing number 519249 dated
19.08.98 to the accused persons against two chit fund subscriptions in
the month of August, 1998 and it was credited into the account of R.A
Pandey. However, all the chit funds were discontinued and accused
persons did not pay the amount of Rs. 96,588 to him despite repeated
requests and caused him wrongful loss. Accordingly, FIR bearing
FIR No.587/1999, PS: Tilak Marg State Vs Ram Avadh Pandey & Ors Page No. 2/29
number 587/1999 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 chargesheet 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 abated due to his demise and trial continued qua the
present accused Vijay Pandey. For the sake of clarity and ready
reference, the testimony of the material witnesses 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 point 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,
FIR No.587/1999, PS: Tilak Marg State Vs Ram Avadh Pandey & Ors Page No. 3/29
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. Naresh Kumar: On 07.11.2000 I was posted at PS Tilak
Marg as constable. ON the same day, I alongwith certain documents
pertaining to the instant case had gone to Calcutta office of the GEQD
to deposit the document with road certificate no. 207/21/2000. I had
left Delhi on 7.11.00 but the same could not be deposited there and I
returned to the police station. I handed back the documents to the IO
SI Ravinder Tyagi. Further examination is deferred for want of the
documents. Statement of IO Inspector ravinder Tyagi dated
19.09.2024 is relevant: I was one of the IO in the present case. I had
filed the charge-sheet of the present case. In the present case, certain
documents were sent to FSL for opinion on handwriting of accused
Ram Avadh Pandey. However, the said documents got returned back
by the FSL because of insufficient handwriting data to give any
opinion. No cheque has been seized in the present case during its
investigation. Forwarding letter to FSL as well as the documents
which was sent to FSL are attached with the judicial file. Same are
Mark X-1 (colly) for future reference. No documents/ specimen
writing and signatures pertaining to accused Vijay Pandey were sent
to FSL.
iii). PW-3 Piyush: I am a practicing advocate and having a chamber
no.377 at Patiala House Court, New Delhi. Three persons i.e. Ram
Avadh Pandey, B. Pandey and Vijay Pandey induced me by making a
member of the committees and took money month by month for three
years, total they have taken Rs. 3,25,000/- from me. Accused persons
made a representation to me before making me a member of the said
committee that the said chit fund committee is duly registered and
recognised by the Government of Delhi. On persistent demands they
have not shown with regard to the registration of the Chit fund
committee. I handed over the aforesaid money to all the aforesaid
accused persons as all the aforesaid accused persons were running the
said committee as sometime to one accused, sometime to other
accused etc. Accused persons did not return the money which I had
paid to them and the same was misappropriated by them. (Both the
accused persons are present in the court and correctly identified by the
witness). Whenever, I asked them to return money to me, every time
FIR No.587/1999, PS: Tilak Marg State Vs Ram Avadh Pandey & Ors Page No. 4/29
accused told me that your money is in the possession of third person.
They also threatened me for life or to kill me, if I ask money from
them. Accused persons also threatened me to implicate me in false
case if I ask them my money. Total Rs. 20-25 Lacs, accused persons
had collected from advocates in the said committees by cheated them.
At that time, accused used to stay at Kondli. Cross Examination by
accused R A Pandey:There were numbers of committees which were
being run by the accused persons but I do not remember the exact
numbers. There used to be 10/20 members in a single committee. I do
not remember the date and time since when these committees were
being run. The committee used to be held for picking prize chit at
04:15 PM at chamber number 353 Patiala House Courts, Chamber
Block. The prizechit used to be taken out every month in every
committee but the dates thereof were different. However, it used to be
from 02-12 of every English Calender Month. Almost, all the
members used to attend the committees. Sh. Balbir singh, Randhawa,
D. B. Chaturvedi, S.D. Sharma, Jati Ram and other two Vermas
including many other advocates were the members of the committees.
The committee was not registered. Q. Are you aware about any
original documents of committee. Ans. Since, the original documents
were never shown by the accused persons to me, therefore I am not
aware about this thing. I do not know whether any documents were
seized by the police with respect to the said committee. I used to
handed over the same amount as asked by the accused persons as the
same was settled by the bid. I do not receive any receipt with respect
to payment of money by me to accused. Q. In how many committees
Vijay Pandey and Bhuveneshwar Pandey were the members?. Ans.
They were the organizers of the committees and not members. I
remained a member of the said committee for the period of three years
prior to the registration of the FIR in the matter. I paid in all Rs 4000/-
to the accused for the committees but did not receive a single penny
from him in return. There was an oral agreement between me and the
organizers of the committee and no written agreement in this regard
was executed. It is correct that in a bogus criminal case being
complaint No. 302/1, filed by accused Ram Avadh Pandey is pending
against me wherein I am on bail. Sections invoked by the accused in
the said criminal complaint are 397/398/506 IPC. Volunteered, the
said complaint case was filed by the accused after the registration of
FIR against him in this case. The said complaint case stands
committed to the court of Sessions and is pending consideration of
Charge in the court of Sh V.K. Khanna, Ld. ASJ. It is correct that a
Suit for recovery filed by me against the accused in respect of this
committee was dismissed by Sh. Talwant Singh, Ld. ADJ, however
Appeal against the said Judgment and Decree is pending before the
Hon’ble High Court. It is wrong to suggest that no committee was
being run by the accused persons and no money was taken by the
accused either from me or from other similarly placed advocates. It is
wrong to suggest that I have falsely implicated the accused persons in
this case. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely. Cross
Examination by Vijay Pandey: Nil opportunity given.
FIR No.587/1999, PS: Tilak Marg State Vs Ram Avadh Pandey & Ors Page No. 5/29
iv). PW-4 R. K Verma: I am practising as an advocate in Tis Hazari
Court since 1992 onwards. Mr.B.S Verma, advocate and Mr.Ram
Awadh Pandey, advocate used to visit my chamber. Accused Ram
Awadh Pandey, who is present in court today and correctly identified,
told me that he is running a Chit Fund and he is Organiser of the said
chit fund. He told me to become a member of Chit Fund Company.
Accused had visited my chamber 3-4 times and induced me to become
a member of the Chit Fund company and told me that my money
would be in safe custody. At his assurance, I became member of the
said Chit Fund in the month of April’ 1998. The committee was for a
sum of Rs.1,20,000/- and its duration was for one year. Mr.B.S Verma,
Advocate was also one of the member in that chit fund. He told me that
he is not able to run that committee/chit fund and he gave me half
share of his chit. I regularly paid the amount of the chit to accused
Ram Awadh Pandey. I paid a total sum of Rs.47,000/- to accused Ram
Awadh Pandey, out of which Rs.22,328/- were paid by way of cheques
bearing Nos.032531, dated 10.11.98 (for Rs.2,782/-), cheque
No.032533, dated 11.12.98 (for Rs.2,938); cheque No.032537, dated
09.01.1999 (for Rs.2,938); cheque No.032539 dated 05.02.1999
(Rs.3,125); cheque No.035241, dated 06.02.1999 (for Rs.1,560/-);
cheque No.035245, dated 06.03.1999 (for Rs.3,218/-); cheque
No.035246, dated 06.03.1999 (Rs. 1,609); cheque No.035248, dated
08.04.1999 (for Rs.2,812/-); cheque No. 035249, dated 08.04.1999 (for
Rs.1,406/-), all of SBI, Tis Hazari, issued in the name of accused Ram
Awadh Pandey (A/c payee cheque) by me and remaining amount was
paid in cash. All cheques, except cheque No.032537 were encashed by
accused. In the month of April’ 1999, I made a bid and committee was
released to me for a sum of Rs.80,000/-, but accused did not pay the
said amount to me ever. I made several requests to accused pay the
said amount, but in vain. After 3-4 days of April’ 1999, I came to know
that accused had not paid amount of chit fund to any of the member(s),
who made a bid and committee was released to them. Thereafter,
present case was registered against the accused. Police met me and I
told all the facts to the police. Cross Examination: In the year 1998,
when I became the member of said chit, I didn’t know that the accused
persons did not have legal chit fund, but they had represented to me to
be legal and I believed them, being members from the same fraternity.
Although I had demanded papers of regn of chit company from the
accused persons, but they avoided showing the same to me. I am a
summoned witness in FIR No.56/2000, PS Tilak Marg, which is listed
today. I have no knowledge whether today copy of xerox copy of
statement U/s 161 CrPC of mine was placed on judicial record from
the record of case FIR No. 587/1999, PS Tilak Marg. I have been an
Income Tax payee till today. I had filled my ITR for the year 1998-99.
I do not remember the amount of taxable income and expenditure for
the aforesaid year shown by me in the said ITR and I can communicate
the court after referring to the said ITR. I had mentioned about the bad
debt of the said year in my ITR of the said year. It is wrong to suggest
FIR No.587/1999, PS: Tilak Marg State Vs Ram Avadh Pandey & Ors Page No. 6/29
that I did not approach the police rasing my grievance about being
cheated by the accused persons, as the FIR in this matter is not at my
instance. Q: How many committees were functioning in year 1998-99
in which you took part on behalf of your self as well as half share
purchased from Mr.BS Verma, advocate? Ans.: I only know about the
present committee, i.e for Rs.1,20,000/- + half purchased share of
Rs.60,000/-. I had never participated in any other committee. There
were around 20-22 members in the said committee and all were
advocates. Mr.BS Verma, Shri Jati Ram, Shri HD Sharma, Shri Nirmal
Singh, Shri BS Randhawa, Ms. Urmila were some of the advocates
whose names I could recollect today who were the members of the said
committee/chit. The said committee was being operated by the accused
persons from Lawyers’ Chamber No.353, Patiala House Courts. The
dates on which I participated in the chit proceedings have already been
given by me in my examination in chief. I didn’t become suspicious of
the conduct of the accused persons because they were from the same
fraternity. Why have you not alleged anything against accused Vijay
Pandey in your examination in chief and your statement U/s 161
CrPC? Ans.: Since I was induced in the matter by accused Ram Awadh
Pandey only, therefore, duly bound by my oath to speak truth, I have
not stated anything against accused Vijay Pandey. The payment by me
was made on different dates, as accused Ram Awadh pandey used to
come to my chamber to collect the same. He used to assure me
everytime, that he would ensure the payment of chit to me as and when
my bid becomes successful and he verbally pledged his chamber No.
353, Patiala House as a security in respect thereof. I did not take
receipts from the accused in r/o payments which I made to him in cash.
I did not fill up any form of the committee/chit. Voltd. My name was
added in the register maintained by the accused in this regard. I can
produce the copies of my ITRs for the relevant year/years, maintained
by me as my personal record in case the court directs me to do so. I
cannot produce any document w.r.t payment of cash to the accused
made by me on several dates, as the accused used to collect the same
from my chamber and I did not take any receipt in respect thereof. I
paid cash of Rs.12,000/- to Mr.BS Verma, Advocate on 11.12.1998 as
half share of the committee I purchased from Mr.BS Verma, Advocate.
This amount is in addition to sum of Rs.47,000/- which I paid to the
accused. I have no receipt about the payment I made to Mr.BS Verma,
Advocate. Although, I am acquainted with Mr.Piyush, Adv and Shri
BS Randhawa, Adv, but I did not know them prior to tius
committee/chit and I have definitely no friendship with them. I didn’t
see the aforesaid two persons participating in chit/committee, as I
myself never went to the spot of committee/chit. Accused used to
communicate me the chit amount on phone and used to collect
payment in respect thereof from me. I didn’t see any other
committee/chit member making payment to accused in my presence. I
used to receive call from accused on my landline phone No. 23982173
in my chamber. It is wrong to suggest that I have deposed in the matter
on the instructions of Mr.BS Randhawa and Mr.Piyush and I am not
appearing pursuant to the summons issued by this court. It is wrong to
FIR No.587/1999, PS: Tilak Marg State Vs Ram Avadh Pandey & Ors Page No. 7/29
suggest that I have deposed falsely.
v). PW-5 Ct. Ramesh: On 27/7/2000, I was posted as Niab/court in the
court of Sh. M.R. Sethi the then LD MM:ND:07.07.2006 and accused
Vijay Pandey present in the court has filed an application for
surrender and bail. SI Ravinder Tyagi was present in the court and
after formal arrest of accused Vijay Pandey documents were seized
vide seizure memo EX.PW3/A which bears my signature at point R.
Personal Search Memo of accused is EX.PW3/B and arrest memo
EX.PW3/C also bears my signature at point R. I identify the accused
Vijay on that day accused was released on personal bond. Cross
Examination by Vijay Pandey: Nil opportunity given.
vi). PW-6 B.S Randhawa: I am a practicing lawyer since 1988 and I
am operating from Chamber No. 485, Patiala House Court, Delhi.
Accused Ram Avadh Pandey is also a lawyer and is operating from
Chamber No. 353, Patiala House Court. Accused Vijay Pandey was
working as a Clerk of accused Ram Avadh Pandey and he is also his
nephew. Both accused is present in the court today (correctly
identified). I know the accused persons from 1993. On 01.09.1997
both accused persons came to my chamber in the evening at about
4.00 pm and they induced me to become a member of Chit Fund
Committee. Accused Ram Avadh Pandey informed that he is the
organizer of the Chit Fund Committee and he has already collected
twenty members out of them mostly advocates. Accused Ram Avadh
Pandey informed me that the chit fund committee is of Rs. 3,000/-per
month and for a period of twenty months starting from 05.09.1997.
Accused further informed that he is having a licence for running the
chit fund committee and would show the licence later on. Accused
again and again visited my chamber and when I demanded for licence,
he could not produce the same. Due to their inducement of the
accused persons to became a member of chit fund committee, I agreed
and became a member of the said committee.On 05.09.1997 the
accused persons started the committee and aken money as per the
offer of the committee every month. In the month of July, 1998, the
accused persons started a new committee of Rs. 2,000/- per month and
per member and in November, 1998 they started committee another
new committee of Rs. 5,000/- per member and per month. The
accused persons also induced me to became the member of the
aforementioned two new committees. I became the member of the
same. Till November, 1998 I had paid the offered money of the
aforementioned first committee i.e. of Rs. 3,000/- per month and per
members to the accused persons and I had also given the offered
money of the remaining two committees. The accused persons have
also given the list of members and rules of the committee, the same is
marked as mark A. (objected to by Ld. Defence counsel). In the month
of August 1998, I had given payment of Rs. 7,200/- by cheque to
accused Ram Avadh Pandey from my Account No. 445, UCO Bank,
Patiala House Court Branch, New Delhi and the same was encashed in
FIR No.587/1999, PS: Tilak Marg State Vs Ram Avadh Pandey & Ors Page No. 8/29
his account towards my contribution in the committee. On 05.12.1998,
I had given offer to the accused persons that I am ready to take the
committee of this month on discount price of Rs. 50,000/- in lieu of
Rs. 60,000/-and they agreed but the accused had not paid even a single
penny by one pretext or other. When I demanded my money back
from the accused persons, they refused to pay and the complaint was
lodged to the New Delhi Bar Association (NDBA). On the demand of
NDBA, Ram Avadh Pandey submitted a list of members to the
Secretary, NDBA is marked as mark B (objected to Ld. Defence
counsel) and money he has to pay to them but due to the intervention
of the NDBA, they never paid my due money to me. Accused persons
have accepted before the NDBA that Rs. 38,620/- has to be paid to
me. Finally, I lodged a complaint to PS Tilak Marg on 20.10.1999 and
the same is Ex. PW6/A bearing my signatures at point A and FIR No.
587/1999 was registered. Further examination in chief is deferred due
to paucity of time. I had given total Rs. 96,588/- in all the above said
three committees to the accused persons and accused Ram Avadh
Pandey had issued few cash receipts on his own handwritings. I had
given the aforementioned receipt to the IO and the same were seized
by the IO vide seizure already Ex. PW3/A bearing my signatures at
point A. The documents mentioned in the seizure memo already Ex.
Ex. PW3/A are Ex. PW6/B, mark C, mark D and E respectively.The
cheque of Rs. 7200/- in respect of aforementioned three committees
was given to accused in the month of August 1998 vide cheque No.
519249 dated 19.08.1998 from my account No. 445, UCO Bank,
Patiala House Court, Delhi and the same was encashed by the accused
Ram Avadh Pandey. When I had lodged complaint in PS Tilak Marg
both the accused persons present in the court today (correctly
identified) started threatening to kill and also threatened to implicate
me in false criminal cases and criminal complaint u/s 394/396/34 IPC
was filed against me, Advocate Piyush and Advocate D N Chaturvedi
at PS Tilak Marg and after ten years of trial Sh. V K Khanna, Ld.
ADJ, District Court Saket New Delhi acquitted all the three persons.
Further examination in chief is deferred due to paucity of time. On
one day i.e. 20.02.2000 (perhaps it was 21.02.2000), accused Ram
Avadh Pandey met me in the Karkardooma Court since accused had
already sold his chamber in the Patiala House. Advocate Sh. Piyush
was also with me in Karkardooma Court. We took the accused to
Sarai Kale Khan Chowki and called the IO from PS Tilak Marg. IO
came and arrested the accused Ram Avadh Pandey in our presence.
The arrest memo is Ex. PW6/C bearing my signature at point A. The
personal search memo was also prepared which is Ex. PW6/D bearing
my signature at point A.I had given the original cash receipts Ex.
PW6/E and Ex. PW6/B signed by accused Ram Avadh Pandey at
point A to the IO, however these receipts were not sent to FSL by the
10 for expert evidence. Both the accused persons are present in the
Court today (correctly identified by the witness). Accused persons had
cheated me as mentioned in my statement. I do not want to say
anything else. Cross Examination by RA Pandey: I have already
informed about the date when the committee started. Total three
FIR No.587/1999, PS: Tilak Marg State Vs Ram Avadh Pandey & Ors Page No. 9/29
committees were running of which I was a member. I have already
stated the list of members of committees in my examination in chief
and I was the member of all three committees. Advocate Piyush, Adv.
D N Chaturvedi, Adv. S D Sharma, Adv. Nirmal Singh, Adv. Neelam
etc. were the members of these committees. Due to lapse of time, I do
not remember the names of all the members but I have filed the list of
all the members alongwith my statement. I do not remember whether
the aforesaid members were the members of all the three committees
or not as 17 years have passed since then. I was introduced to other
members namely Adv. Piyush, Adv. DN Chaturvedi and others by the
accused Ram Avadh Pandey. Accused Ram Avadh Pandey had told
me that he had licence to run the committee but he had never shown
me the licence despite of demand. I have lodged the first complaint to
the police against the accused Ram Avadh Pandey etc. Accused Vijay
Pandey was associate of accused Ram Avadh Pandey. I did not
receive even a single penny from the committee despite of demanded
many times. The distance between my chamber and the chamber of
accused was about 50 metres as both were situated in new building
Patiala House Court Complex. The chamber number of the accused
was 353. My chamber was situated at the first floor whereas the
chamber of accused was situated at ground floor. The chamber of
Advocate Piyush was also situated at the ground floor which was
bearing No. 377. I do not wish to reply about my relations with
Advocates Piyush and DN Chaturvedi, as the same has no concern
with the present case. It is wrong to suggest that when the accused
Ram Avadh Pandey was arrested, my relative was posted as ACP in
PS Tilak Marg. It is wrong to suggest that the present case was
registered against the accused by me at the instance of my relative
ACP. It is wrong to suggest that I have lodged this false case against
accused Ram Avadh Pandey to grab the chamber of accused. It is
wrong to suggest that accused Vijay Pandey has been falsely
implicated in this case.Cross Examination by Vijay Pandey: Nil
opportunity given.
vii). PW-7 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
FIR No.587/1999, PS: Tilak Marg State Vs Ram Avadh Pandey & Ors Page No. 10/29
suggest that I am deposing falsely as I have been won over by the
accused Cross Examination: Nil opportunity given.
viii). PW-7 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
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.
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
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-9 Advocate Nirmal Singh: I know accused Ram Avadh
FIR No.587/1999, PS: Tilak Marg State Vs Ram Avadh Pandey & Ors Page No. 11/29
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.
xi). PW-10 Retd. SI Harbir Singh: On 20.12.1999, I was posted as
ASI in the PS Tilak Marg. I registered the FIR on the basis of rukka
which is Ex. PW-10/A bearing my signature at point A. Today, I have
brought the FIR register. I also made an endorsement on the rukka.
Cross Examination by Vijay: Nil opportunity given.
xii). PW-11 Inspector Ravinder Malik: On 21.06.2000, 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. Advocate Balbir Singh
Randhawa met me in the police station and he informed me that
accused Ram Avadh Pandey was already apprehended in the PP Sarai
Kalekhan. I alongwith ct. Harphool and Balbir Singh Randhawa went
over there. Advocate Piyush, another victim was also present over
there. Accused Ram Avadh Pandey was arrested and his personsal
search was conducted vide memos already Ex. PW6/C and Ex.
PW6/D, both bearing my signature at point B. 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.
xiii). PW-12 Inspector Ravinder Kumar Tyagi: On 27.06.2000, I was
posted at PS Tilak Marg as SI. On that day, further investigation of the
present case was marked to me. I collected the case file and inspected
the same. On the same day, 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.
PW3/D bearing my signature at point B. I also conducted personal
search of accused vide memo already EX. PW3/B bearing my
signature at point B. During the investigation I recorded the statement
of witnesses u /s 161 Cr.PC. I also seized documents from given by
advocate Sh. S. D. Sharma and B. S. Randhawa separately vide
FIR No.587/1999, PS: Tilak Marg State Vs Ram Avadh Pandey & Ors Page No. 12/29
seizure memo already EX. PW12/A and already Ex. PW3/A
respectively with seizure memo Ex. PW12/ bearing my signature at
point A and seizure memo already Ex. PW3/A bearing my signature at
point C. 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: 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. PW6/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.
xiv). PW-13 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.
FIR No.587/1999, PS: Tilak Marg State Vs Ram Avadh Pandey & Ors Page No. 13/29
xv). PW- 13 Inspector Rajeev Ranjan: On 20.10,1999, 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 and conducted enquiry from the
complainant advocates of the present case. On 20.12.1999, I got the
present case registered. I prepared the rukka, same is Ex. PW13/A
bearing my signature at point A. I handed over the tehrir to the then
DO, PS Tilak Marg and got the FIR registered. Thereafter I recorded
the statement under section 161 Cr. PC of Advocate Piyush. 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. 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 the
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
FIR No.587/1999, PS: Tilak Marg State Vs Ram Avadh Pandey & Ors Page No. 14/29
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
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.
FIR No.587/1999, PS: Tilak Marg State Vs Ram Avadh Pandey & Ors Page No. 15/29
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
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
FIR No.587/1999, PS: Tilak Marg State Vs Ram Avadh Pandey & Ors Page No. 16/29
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. Sharma 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 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
FIR No.587/1999, PS: Tilak Marg State Vs Ram Avadh Pandey & Ors Page No. 17/29
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 account 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 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
FIR No.587/1999, PS: Tilak Marg State Vs Ram Avadh Pandey & Ors Page No. 18/29
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.
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
FIR No.587/1999, PS: Tilak Marg State Vs Ram Avadh Pandey & Ors Page No. 19/29
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
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 veryFIR No.587/1999, PS: Tilak Marg State Vs Ram Avadh Pandey & Ors Page No. 20/29
inception of the transaction.
7.2. In the case of Iridium India Tel oftenecom Ltd. v. Motorola Inc.,
(2011) 1 SCC 74, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while referring
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
SCC 394], the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in reference to
criminal conspiracy has observed as follows:
FIR No.587/1999, PS: Tilak Marg State Vs Ram Avadh Pandey & Ors Page No. 21/29
“…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
of section 3 and whereas section 5 provides punishment for other acts
which includes printing, publishing etc of the scheme.
FIR No.587/1999, PS: Tilak Marg State Vs Ram Avadh Pandey & Ors Page No. 22/29
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.
b). That accused Vijay Pandey, in furtherance of
FIR No.587/1999, PS: Tilak Marg State Vs Ram Avadh Pandey & Ors Page No. 23/29
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 heavily placed
reliance on the testimony of PW-6 complainant Sh. Balbir Singh
Randhawa, wherein he stated that he was induced by accused Ram
Avadh Pandey and Vijay Pandey to become a member of three chit
fund committees commencing from 05.09.1997, with contributions
ranging from Rs. 3,000 to Rs. 5,000 per month. He deposed that the
accused persons, while assuring him of regular payouts and committee
benefits, failed to honour their commitments despite receiving
monthly contributions and even failed to return the amount when his
offer for discounted price was accepted in his favour. He further stated
that the payments were made partly in cash and partly by cheque, and
that some cash receipts were issued by co-accused Ram Avadh
Pandey. Significantly, PW-6 did not depose about any specific
transaction made with accused Vijay Pandey. While he identified the
FIR No.587/1999, PS: Tilak Marg State Vs Ram Avadh Pandey & Ors Page No. 24/29
accused in court and stated that he was the associate and nephew of
co-accused Ram Avadh Pandey, but testimony does not carry any
material to suggest that Vijay Pandey was individually responsible for
collecting funds or making representations to the complainant. The
testimony of the witness only implicates the accused RA Pandey
where the witness states that cheque towards installements was
enchased in the account of the accused RA Pandey. However, no such
cheque or record was produced to highlight the same. Further, it does
not implicate accused Vijay in any manner.
9. Likewise, PW-4 Advocate R.K. Verma deposed that he was
induced by Ram Avadh Pandey and that he paid an amount of Rs.
47,000, primarily by cheques drawn in the name of Ram Avadh
Pandey. His deposition does not disclose any interaction with accused
Vijay Pandey, nor does it attribute any act of inducement,
representation, or collection of funds to him. On being specifically
asked in cross-examination, PW-4 categorically admitted that he was
induced only by Ram Avadh Pandey and that his dealings were
restricted to him alone.
10. PW-13 Advocate Jati Ram made a general allegation that both
accused were present at the time of collection of funds, and that they
used to operate the committee together. However, his cross-
examination reveals that no specific conversation or transaction took
place between him and accused Vijay Pandey. He also stated that no
receipt was issued in his favour. Furthermore, PW-7 Advocate M.
Ansari, PW-8 Advocate J.B. Malik, and PW-9 Advocate Nirmal Singh
turned hostile and completely resiled from their earlier statements.
They denied any financial dealings or knowledge of any chit fund
FIR No.587/1999, PS: Tilak Marg State Vs Ram Avadh Pandey & Ors Page No. 25/29
scheme being run by the accused persons. Despite being cross-
examined by the prosecution, nothing came up on record to disbelieve
their statements. Therefore, these testimonies cannot be relied upon in
the absence of any corroborative evidence.
11. PW-3 Advocate Piyush also deposed about having invested
substantial sums in the alleged committee scheme and made general
allegations against both accused. However, he also admitted in cross-
examination that there was no documentary evidence such as receipts,
registers, or written agreements to support his claim. He did not recall
exact dates, the number of committees, or specific transactions
involving accused Vijay Pandey. The deposition of the witness
remained unsubstantiated qua the accused Vijay Pandey. .
12. It is a trite that while oral testimony can form the basis of
conviction but in financial matters involving repetitive transactions
and multiple parties, the absence of any receipts, registers, or
documentary proof plays a significant role when there are material
contradictions and uncorroborative evidence. The prosecution in the
present case has failed to produce any document bearing the signature,
handwriting, or acknowledgment of accused Vijay Pandey. The IO
himself admitted that no document was sent to FSL in respect of Vijay
Pandey for handwriting analysis and that no specimen signatures of
Vijay Pandey were obtained during investigation.
13. The evidence led by the prosecution, even if accepted on face
value, primarily implicates the deceased co-accused Ram Avadh
Pandey. The association of Vijay Pandey with him as a nephew or
FIR No.587/1999, PS: Tilak Marg State Vs Ram Avadh Pandey & Ors Page No. 26/29
occasional presence in the chamber does not by itself suffice to
establish his active participation or mens rea in the alleged
transactions. None of the prosecution witnesses, except vague
assertions by PW-6 and PW-13, have provided any conclusive link
demonstrating that Vijay Pandey had any independent role in running
the alleged scheme or misappropriating the funds. His mere presence
or relationship with the principal accused cannot be a substitute for the
proof of a substantive offence.
14. 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.
15. 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
FIR No.587/1999, PS: Tilak Marg State Vs Ram Avadh Pandey & Ors Page No. 27/29
could be elicited to falsify his stand. His mere identification in court
by a few witnesses, without any corresponding act or transaction on
his part, is insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
16. 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.
17. In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges
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
FIR No.587/1999, PS: Tilak Marg State Vs Ram Avadh Pandey & Ors Page No. 28/29
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
day of 30th May, 2025) Digitally signed
by ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.05.30
16:52:47 +0530
(ABHISHEK KUMAR)
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
FIR No.587/1999, PS: Tilak Marg State Vs Ram Avadh Pandey & Ors Page No. 29/29