DILSHER SINGH Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision is directed against an order dated 7.1.1984 of Mr. Subhash Wason, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, directing the framing of charges under Sections 420 and 120-B I.P.C. against him and his partners Ms. Bela Shamsher Singh and Mr. Shamsher Singh in 8 challans submitted before him which had arisen from a common F.I.R. No. 969 of 1976.

(2.) 2: Briefly stated the prosecution cases have been that there was a firm known as Saheb Singh & Sons in which late Shamsher Singh, his wife Mrs. Shamsher Singh, his daughter Bela Shamsher Singh and his sisters son Dilsher Singh were partners. There was another firm known as Saheb Singh Interna *For a short analysis of this decision see article A Case se of Judicial Fatigue-Dilsher Singh v. State at p.1031. tional in which late Shamsher Singh, his Hindu Undivided Family, and two companies Saheb Singh Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and Saheb Singh Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. were partners. The directors of both these companies were late Shamsher Singh and Bhai Mohan Singh.

(3.) Both these firms publicised widely that they were financially very sound and, therefore, people could deposit their amounts with them and get them doubled by accumulation of interest after a period of five years. Allured by these publications several persons deposited different amounts with them. Lacs were thus collected. However, when nothing was paid back to the depositors, and even yearly interest payments did not case, some of the depositors felt greatly perturbed, and, therefore, lodged reports with the police. The one on the basis of which the case was registered, was by S.S. UjIa who had deposited Rs. 8,500/. Four cases were then registered against each of the two firms. The investigation revealed that the representations made by the two firms while inviting deposits were false about their financial position, and in this manner a fraudulent rosy picture was represented before the people luring them to make deposits. The income-tax returns of those years showed that - these firms were running into losses. In fact the firms later became defunct and no money was paid to any of the depositors.