JUDGMENT :

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1. The present is a reference received from the Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge- II, North-West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, Dr. Kamini Lau under Section 395 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short). The questions of law framed by the Ld. ASJ for determination of this Court, read as follows:

“a. Whether in a case of inducement, allurement and cheating of large number of investors/ depositors in pursuance to a criminal conspiracy, each deposit by an investor constitutes a separate and individual transaction or all such transactions can be amalgamated and clubbed into a single FIR by showing one investor as complainant and others as witnesses?

b. If in case the Hon’ble Court concludes that each deposit has to be treated as separate transaction, then how many such transactions can be amalgamated into one charge- sheet?

(Note: - As per the provisions of section 219 Cr.PC. and as observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Narinderjit Singh Sahni & Anr. Vs. Union of India &Ors. Only three transactions in a particular year can be clubbed in a single charge- sheet).

c. Whether under the given circumstances the concept of maximum punishment of seven years for a single offence can be pressed into service by the accused by clubbing and amalgamating all the transactions into one FIR with maximum punishment of seven years?

(Note: - If this is done, this would be in violation of concept of Proportionality of Punishment as provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the case of Narinderjit Singh Sahni vs. Union of India &Ors. it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that this cannot be done but in case if we go by the ratio laid down by the Delhi High Court in the case of State vs. Ramesh Chand Kapoor this is possible. Hence this aspect requires an authoritative pronouncement by a larger Bench)”.

2. The aforesaid questions have been framed by the referring Court in the background that the accused/ respondent-Khimji Bhai Jadeja (hereinafter referred to as “accused”) was allegedly one of the promoters of an investment scheme floated in and around Delhi. It is alleged that around 1,852 different victims were allured; induced and; cheated to invest different amounts of money, at different points of time, and at different places under the scheme, on the pretext that their money would be tripled within three days. The accused allegedly constituted a group, namely, “Bajrang Group” for collection of investments from the victims in the above scheme, and collected about Rs. 46.40 crores from these investors/ depositors. Since the accused was allegedly a beneficiary of the cheated amount, an FIR bearing No. 89/2009 under sections 420/406/120-B IPC was registered against him on the complaint of one Rajesh, with the Police Station- Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Crime Branch, Delhi. Insofar as the other 1,851 victims are concerned, they were made witnesses in this case, and all their complaints have been amalgamated into a single FIR bearing No. 89/2009.

3. During the hearing of regular bail application of the accused, the ld. ASJ was, prima facie, of the view that the aforesaid acts constituted separate and distinct offences, thereby necessitating the registration of separate FIR’s. In her order dated 22.02.2014, she relied upon the decision in Narinderjit Singh Sahni & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2002) 2 SCC 210 : AIR 2001 SC 3810 rendered by a 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, wherein it was observed that each deposit agreement between a victim and accused shall have to be treated as a separate transaction. Reference has also been made by the learned ASJ to the decision of another three-Judge Bench in State of Punjab & Anr. V. Rajesh Syal, AIR 2002 SC 3687, which reaffirms the view in Narinderjit Singh Sahni (supra).

4. She has also referred to Mohd. Shakeel vs. State, Crl. MC No. 3374/2008 decided by this Court on 17.12.2008 and Anil Kumar Jain vs. State (NCT) of Delhi,