IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Tushar Rao Gedela, J.
Prem Bhutani & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Central Bureau Of Investigation - Respondent
W.P.(CRL) 1607 of 2019 & CRL.M.A. 11731 of 2019
Decided On : 30-11-2023
Conspiracy - Criminal Conspiracy - 120-B, 419, 420, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act - The court discussed the alleged conspiracy involving fraudulent allotment of land to a liquidated society, involvement of petitioners in arranging funds, and their employees' roles as office bearers. The court found grave suspicion of the petitioners' complicity in the conspiracy, leading to the dismissal of the petition challenging the framing of charges.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a petition challenging the framing of charges under 120-B, 419, 420, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act. The petitioners were accused of arranging funds for fraudulent land allotment to a liquidated society and their employees' involvement as office bearers.
Finding of the Court:
The court found grave suspicion of the petitioners' complicity in the conspiracy based on their acts of arranging funds, opening a bank account, and nominating their employees as office bearers. The court dismissed the petition challenging the framing of charges.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged conspiracy, the petitioners' role in arranging funds, and their employees' involvement as office bearers in the fraudulent land allotment to a liquidated society.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle that a strong suspicion founded on material, which can be translated into evidence at trial, is sufficient to maintain an order on charge. The court also affirmed the jurisdiction of the Special Judge under the PC Act to try the offences alleged against the petitioners.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition challenging the framing of charges, finding grave suspicion of the petitioners' complicity in the conspiracy.
JUDGMENT
Tushar Rao Gedela, J. -
[ The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode ]
1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") challenging the impugned orders on charge dated 31.10.2018 and framing of charges dated 04.12.2018 by the learned Special Judge (PC Act), North-West District, Rohini in CBI Case No. 53/2016 titled "CBI vs. Sri Chand & Ors".
2. The brief facts as per the case of prosecution culled out from the Status Report of the respondent is extracted hereunder:-
"2.1 That the instant case was registered by the Respondent-CBI on 25.10.2006 upon directions issued by this Hon'ble Court passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 10066 of 2004. This case was registered in SCR-II branch, CBI against Srichand (A-1) Anna Wankhede (A-2), Mohan Lal (A-3) Prahald Kumar Thirwani (A-4) and other unknown persons for the commission of offences u/s 120-B r/w 419, 420, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.
2.2 That Arvind Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited was registered on 31.03.1973 with 53 promoter members vide registration No. 158-(GH) having registered address at 38, Ram Nagar, New Delhi. As the Society was not striving towards the purpose for which it was formed and it was not functioning in accordance with the provisions of Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, the Rules framed thereunder and the bye-laws of the Society, an order dated 16.09.1979 was issued under the signature of Sh. Ashok Bakshi, the then Dy. Registrar of Cooperative Societies, New Delhi for winding up the Society and the said Society was accordingly wound up and subsequently the Society was put under liquidation. Thereafter, Srichand, Anna Wankhede, President of Arvind CGHS Limited, Mohan Lal, Section Officer, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and Prahald Kumar Thirwani, Senior Auditor, Registrar Cooperative Societies (RCS), New Delhi and other unknown persons entered into a criminal conspiracy and in pursuance thereof cheated Govt. of NCT Delhi by committing the offences of impersonation, forgery, cheating, use of forged documents as genuine and by abuse of official position fraudulently got allotted the land in the name of the Society from DDA on 24.05.2004 at Dwarka, New Delhi, at a cheaper rate.
2.3 That the investigation revealed that Sh. Anna Wankhede (A-2), had forged a signature as M.L. Sharma (non existing person) Secretary of the Arvind CGHS Limited, made an application on 16.12.2002 to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, New Delhi after getting hold of the documents of the Society for audit of Arvind CGHS Ltd. and forged the documents in the form of proceedings register, election of General Body Meeting, resignation and enrolment applications for new members, affidavits etc. On the basis of the letter of M.L. Sharma Secretary of the Society, Sh. J.S. Sharma (A-6), Assistant Registrar (Audit) wrote a letter to the Assistant Registrar (South Zone), Office of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, New Delhi mentioning therein that the Secretary of the Society had applied for the Audit of the said Society for the period from 01.07.1973 to 31.03.2002 which was pending since long. Sh. J.S. Sharma requested the Assistant Registrar (South) to confirm the present status of the Society from office records.
2.4 That the investigation revealed that based on office records, Sh. Prasad Kumar P. (A-5), Dealing Assistant, office of RCS, Delhi wrote a note sheet in which he mentioned the present status of the Arvind Society, but he did not mention in the note sheet regarding the liquidation of the said Society vide order No. 47/158/78/H/CO/1993-99 dated 16.09.1979. As such, after winding up of any Cooperative Society, the same could be revived u/s 63(3) of Delhi Cooperative Society Act, 1972 for which there was a set procedure as per Delhi Cooperative Society Act, 1972 and the Rules (1973) thereunder.
2.5 That the i
Essar Teleholdings Limited vs. Registrar General
Kanchan Kumar vs. State of Bihar reported as (2022) 9 SCC 577
Sushil Ansal vs State reported in (2014) 6 SCC 173
State of Orissa vs Debendra Nath Padhi reported in (2005) 1 SCC 568
UOI vs Prafulla Kumar Samal & Others reported in (1979) 3 SCC 4
Point of law: As per the requirement of Section 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C., the learned Judge shall consider whether “sufficient grounds” exist or not and such consideration shall be supported by mat....
Investigation into offence and elaborate appreciation of evidence is not required, and is rather discouraged, at stage of framing of charges and only material prima facie establishing a case against ....
Participation in a conspiracy includes subsequent involvement in acts that further the conspiracy's objectives; the court relies on prima facie evidence when framing charges.
In its revisional jurisdiction will not proceed into the enquiry of the records, documents and other evidence in consideration before the learned Special Judge, but shall constrain itself to the find....
A public servant cannot be prosecuted for IPC offences without prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C., especially when no evidence substantiates allegations of conspiracy or dereliction of duty.
At the stage of framing charges, the court is required to evaluate whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed, without delving into the probative value of the materia....
At the stage of framing charges, the court is required to evaluate the material on record to determine whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed, and not whether a g....
Point of Law : Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that at stage of framing of charge, trial court is not to examine and assess in detail material produced by prosecution nor to consider sufficiency o....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that at the stage of consideration of charge, an accused cannot rely on materials by way of defense, and the power under Section 482 of the Code of....
Conspiracy consists in the agreement of two or more persons to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means. It is an indictable offence at common law. The essence of the offence of co....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.