DHANESH KUMAR NISHAD Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 07.07.2018 passed in Special Case No.11/2018 by Special Judge, North Bastar, Kanker, whereby the learned Special Judge has framed charges against the petitioner under Sections 420/34 IPC, Sections 4, 5, 6 of the Prize Cheats and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 (for short 'the Act, 1978) read with section 34 IPC and 6 & 10 of The Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act, 2005) read with section 34 IPC.

(2.) At the time of framing of charges, the petitioner objected the same on the ground that the prosecution has not followed the prescribed procedure of Section 10 of the Act, 2005, and therefore, no case is made out against him, but the learned Court below framed the charges under Sections 420/34 IPC, Sections 4, 5, 6 of the Act, 1978 read with section 34 IPC and 6 & 10 of the Act, 2005 read with section 34 IPC. Hence, this revision.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the finding of the learned Special Judge is erroneous, illegal and contrary to the law, which is liable to be set aside. He also submits that statement of witnesses recorded during the course of investigation is not sufficient to frame charges against the petitioner and it nowhere shows that the petitioner with intent to cheat Devraj Patel and other persons whose names find place in charge No.1 incited any person alluring them after the investment made by them in JSB Real Infra Limited in the different scheme of the company. He further submits that the petitioner never allured or cheated the complainants that their money would be doubled or tripled in five years or in seven years, grant land and also not forced them to purchase the certificate (Bond Paper), and as such, his act do not fall within the ambit of Section 420 IPC, which the Special Court failed to appreciate. He also submits that generally the charge is framed on the basis of prima-facie evidence against the accused but in the present case it has not been established that the petitioner was involved while the investment was being made by the complainants, therefore, the order of framing of charges is not in accordance with law. It is next submitted that there is no evidence that the petitioner compelled or propelled the complainant for investment in the company on false promise by the working agent of the company and prima-facie, no offence is made out against the petitioner. He also submits that the petitioner himself was the investor in the company and fraudulently he has been made Director of the company from 15.03.2015 to 16.07.2015, and he resigned from the post of Director of the company on 16.07.2015 when he came to know about the irregularity and fraud being committed by other members of the company. It has been also submitted that the incident is said to have taken place in the year 2014 and the FIR has been lodged on 21.03.2017 i.e. after three years and there is no proper explanation with regard to delay. Next submission is that the petitioner himself submitted a notice before the Registrar and Firm Company, Bilaspur and New Delhi on 02.05.2016, on the basis of which, Joint Director (Enquiry) wrote a letter to Registrar of Company-cum-Official Liquidator for deletion of name of Director from M/s JSB Infra Limited Company. The petitioner being the Investor, has also filed a civil suit before the Court of 2nd Civil Judge, Class-II, Durg for declaration of injunction and compensation. Thus, the impugned order dated 07.07.2018 may kindly be set aside.