Back
1991 Supreme(P&H) 1075
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
J.S. Sekhon and S.S. Rathor, JJ.
State of Punjab - Appellant
Versus
Mohan Singh and anr. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 237-DBA of 1987.
Decided On : 18 November, 1991
For the Appellant : Mr. G.S. Cheema, AAG, Punjab.
For the Respondent No. 1:Mr. G.C. Bhanda, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 2:Sh. J.S. Choudhry, Advocate.
The prosecution must prove all the essential ingredients of an offence beyond reasonable doubt in order to secure a conviction.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - CHEATING - SECTION 420 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE - ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS - PROOF - BURDEN OF PROOF - DUTY OF THE PROSECUTION - FAILURE TO PROVE ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS - ACQUITTAL OF THE ACCUSED.
Fact of the Case:
The accused were charged with cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly floating a scheme to induce people to deposit money with them with the promise of delivering goods worth three times the amount deposited after three months. The accused ran away with the money without fulfilling their promise.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had failed to prove the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, namely, that the accused had induced the witnesses to deposit the money with them and that they had dishonestly misappropriated the amount of the depositors after receiving the money.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code? 2. Whether the accused had induced the witnesses to deposit the money with them? 3. Whether the accused had dishonestly misappropriated the amount of the depositors after receiving the money?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused had induced the witnesses to deposit the money with them. The court also held that the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused had dishonestly misappropriated the amount of the depositors after receiving the money. The court further held that the accused were rendered incapacitated to fulfill the alleged promises made to the depositors due to the looting of their shops by miscreants.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the State's appeal and upheld the acquittal of the accused.
S.S. Rathor,J. - Present respondents Mohan Singh and Chajju Ram were prosecuted for offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegations as contained in the FIR No. 211 dated 28.10.1982, lodged with Police Station Sirhind by Kuldip Kumar (PW-19). The allegations in the FIR are that the accused floated a Janta Bhalai Scheme at Sirhind under which the General Public was induced to deposit with them money with the promise that after lapse of three months, the depositor would be entitled to the supply of goods of the value of three times of the amount deposited. The said scheme was given due publicity by way of circulation of pamphlets and proclamation through loud speakers. On such representations, the complainant and many others deposited lacs of rupees with the accused but without fulfilling their promise, they ran away with the money. On such like allegations in writing (Ex. PW-19/A) the complainant approached the police who lodged the formal FIR (Ext. PW-19/B).
2. The police investigated the case. All the records in the possession of the accused were taken into possession alongwith the goods lying in their shops. It is relevant to mention that most of the persons who had paid any money to the accused, were examined by the Investigating Officer under section 161 Criminal Procedure Code After collection of documentary and oral evidence, in the present case challan was put in Court against both the present accused respondents for offences under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. When they appeared before the trial court, after complying with the formalities on furnishing of relevant documents, the trial Court framed a charge against the accused under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 27.10.1984 and the charge so framed runs as under :-
"That during the month of August/September and October, 1982 you both the accused formed a Public Bhalai Scheme and you cheated Kuldip Kumar, Kehar Singh, Santokh Singh, Gurdev Singh, Jugesh Kumar, Gurumukh Singh, Subash Chand, Kuldip Kumar s/o Kundan Lal, Karam Singh for Rs. 800, 560/-, 560/-,480, 760, 160, 3840, 1800/- respectively and number of other persons to the tune of Rs. 35 lacs dishonestly inducing them to deliver the above said money you both and which was the property of above-said money you both and which was the property of above-said persons and you both thereby committed an offence punishable under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance."
4. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses namely; Nirmal Singh (PW-1), Ram Singh PW-2, Rama Kanta PW-3, Bakshish Singh, PW 4, Chand Singh PW-5, Kulwant Kaur Pw-6, Manjit Kaur PW-7, Angrej Kaur PW-8, Kapur Singh PW-9, Joinder Singh PW-10, Kartar Kaur PW-11, Baldev Singh PW-12, Baldev Singh s/o Pakher Singh PW-13, Sham Lal PW-14, Jagjit Singh PW-15, Karnail Singh PW-16, Karam Singh PW-17, Santokh Singh PW-18, and complainant Kuldeep Kumar PW-19 who had lodged the FIR in question. The Investigating Officer has not been examined by the prosecution inspite of numerous opportunities granted by the trial Court. It is pertinent to mention here that only three persons namely, Karam Singh PW-17, Santokh Singh PW-18 and Kuldeep Singh PW-19 have been examined in the court out of the persons whose names are mentioned in the aforesaid charge framed on 27.10.1984. In other words, the trial court framed no charge against the accused qua the amount deposited by PW-1 to PW-16. In the absence of any charge regarding the amount paid by PW 1 to 16, their statements in the court are of no evidentiary value. It is quite surprising that the charge has been framed in a cryptic manner. The conduct of prosecution is equally astonishing as to why statements of PW-1 to PW-16 were got recorded without any charge covering the amount deposited by these prosecution witnesses. It is cardinal principle of criminal law that charge has to be specific in nature particularly when e
