LAWS(DLH)-2011-2-299

JANARDHAN SENGER Vs. STATE

Decided On February 23, 2011
JANARDHAN SENGER Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application for anticipatory bail has been made by the petitioner who is involved in a case under Section 120-B, 406, 420, 468, 471, 506, 511 read with Section 34 IPC.

(2.) ONE Sanjay Kumar Rajput and Rajender Singh Rajput, both of UP, opened an office in Atra Complex, Ratiya Marg, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi, a locality inhabited by poor class of persons and propagated amongst the people of locality that an NGO in the name of Annapurna Rationing Programme was being run by them. They encouraged people to become ration card holder of the programme ensuring them that they would provide them ration and other rationing goods at cheap rate on depositing ` 750/- and out of this, ` 500/- shall be returned to the Ration Card Holder by Government through this NGO. They also declared award for those persons who enrolled large number of persons as Ration Card Holders. Complainant was one of such persons who was awarded ` 15,000/- for promotion of this NGO by enrolling maximum number of ration card holders. Initially for about 2 months these persons distributed sugar, refined oil, tea leaves, atta and rice to the card holders at subsidized rates. Thereafter they started a "Cash Cards Scheme" and asked the poor people to deposit ` 2300/- for each cash card for a period of three months ensuring them that they would be returned ` 3900/- against the said deposit of ` 2300/- within a period of three months. This scheme was again for card holders and this lured a large number of people of the area to become ration card holders and cash card holders of the NGO. The accused persons started M/s. Good Career Management and Marketing Private Limited. This name was mentioned on the cards issued by the accused persons and the card was branded as Annapurna Card. In order to encourage people to enroll card holders, they initiated schemes of paying cash awards to agents who enrolled maximum number of cash card holders. Complainants were such persons who had benefited from the cash card scheme and had encouraged people of Sangam Vihar to become member of cash card scheme to deposit ` 2300/- against each card with the NGO. Being lured by high return, people obtained cards in own name as well as in the names of their family members and relatives and many people availed multiple cards and thus families invested their entire earnings with the NGO. When enough money was collected, in crores, the NGO disappeared from scene, office was closed, and no one was traceable.

(3.) I am surprised in the manner in which the cunning persons have started exploiting even the poor by luring them of high return in the name of NGOs. I consider that case needs thorough investigation.