MAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the order dated 14/07/1999, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, setting aside the order dated 1.3.1996, of the Metropolitan Magistrate and remanding back the case with a direction to reconsider the whole case and re-frame the charges in case FIR No.571/93 under Sections 420/468/471, IPC, P.S. Hauz Khas.

(2.) . In brief, prosecution allegations are that complainant was running a business of selling of sweets at Jodhpur and was looking for some alternative business- One Mr. D.L. Naida r/o village Singhora, District Jhunjhun, Rajasthan, a contractor, was known to the complainant. He mentioned the name of the accused and told him that petitioner can get a government supply contract through him. Mr. Naida also informed the complainant that he was getting such a big contract through the petitioner. The complainant became interested in the project and on 7.11.1993 he came to Delhi alongwith Mr. Naida. Both of them stayed at Uphar Guest House, Green Park, thereafter, the complainant was introduced to the petitioner by Mr. Naida. Accused at that time claimed himself to be the "Indian Defence Accounts Officer" and on deputation to the Ministry of Defence as Executive Officer. In order to inculcate faith in the complainant, petitioner showed his identity card. He represented that he can get a very big supply contract from Ministry of Defence at one percent commission. On this representation, the complainant became more interested in the project. On his own, petitioner gave a photocopy of classified letter dated 23.9.1993 to the complainant, in which the supply of goods worth Rs.17.20 crores was to be awarded. Petitioner Informed the complainant that a fee of half percent of the value which comes to Rs.8.0 lakh has to be deposited as security. Petitioner also told him that. everything has to be kept top secret and he is in charge of the whole project. He also asked the complainant to bring money on 12.11.1993 and promised that on the same day the contract will be signed and given to him. On this representation, the complainant went back to Jodhpur and arranged a sum of Rs.8.0 lakhs from his father-in-law and others. On 11.11.93 the complainant came back to Delhi and stayed with his brother Shri D.D. Singh. The petitioner had given a contact Number 3782609 Extn.2. This telephone was picked up by the petitioner himself. On telephone the complainant told him that he had arranged the money. Accordingly, the petitioner called the complainant at South Block, Main Gate towards North Block at 2:30 p.m. As per the instructions of the petitioner, the complainant alongwith his brother D.D. Singh went to South Block, Main Gate. The accused came out from South Block and met the complainant. The petitioner with the complainant and his brother sat in a car. They were told that the entry in the office was restricted. While sitting in car petitioner gave two typed letters on letter head of Govt. of India and asked the complainant to fill and signed the same. These letters were duly signed by the complainant and witnessed by his brother on the asking of the accused. In presence of the complainant and his brother the accused had signed both these documents as Executive Officer and endorsed "recommend". Thereafter, the petitioner went inside the office and came out after half an hour and gave photocopy of these two letters duly stamped with the endorsement "recommended'. The contract was to be allegedly signed by some other officer. Thereafter, the accused told the complainant that the tender has been informally accepted- The complainant was asked to deposit half percent security, at the residence of P.S. Badiala, director General at T-23, Green Park. The complainant and his brother, as per the Instructions of the accused went there. The petitioner took the brief-case containing Rs.8 lakhs from the complainant and went inside and came after half an hour and informed that the complaint would be receiving receipt on 16.11.93 at Room No.l7-B, South Block alongwith papers of the contact. The petitioner also congratulated the complainant and asked that his commission of Rs.17 lakhs should be given to him before the start of first payment, for which the complainant agreed. On 14.11.93, Mr.Naida came to Delhi. Thereafter, to meet Shri Naida the complainant came to Uphar Guest House where the petitioner was to meet but he did not turn up. When the petitioner did not meet the complainant and Mr.Naida, they got suspicious. Next day Mr.Naida informed the complainant that Mr.Mat Singh Choudhary had also cheated him for Rs.5 lakhs. At this the complainant tried to find out the petitioner at the given address.

(3.) . On the basis of the above allegations, the Metropolitan Magistrate by order dated 1.3.1996 ordered that the. charge for the offence under Section 420 IPC only is made out against the accused. Petitioner filed a revision petitionp which was dismissed and the matter was remanded back for reconsideration of the charges. It was also observed that prima facie offence under Sections 468/471, IPC is also made out. This order is under challenge. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.