STATE Vs. KHIMJI BHAI JADEJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present is a reference received from the Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge- II, North- West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, Dr. Kamini Lau under Section 395 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short). The questions of law framed by the Ld. ASJ for determination of this Court, read as follows:

(2.) The aforesaid questions have been framed by the referring Court in the background that the accused/ respondent-Khimji Bhai Jadeja (hereinafter referred to as "accused") was allegedly one of the promoters of an investment scheme floated in and around Delhi. It is alleged that around 1,852 different victims were allured; induced and; cheated to invest different amounts of money, at different points of time, and at different places under the scheme, on the pretext that their money would be tripled within three days. The accused allegedly constituted a group, namely, "Bajrang Group" for collection of investments from the victims in the above scheme, and collected about Rs. 46.40 crores from these investors/ depositors. Since the accused was allegedly a beneficiary of the cheated amount, an FIR bearing No. 89/2009 under sections 420/406/120-B IPC was registered against him on the complaint of one Rajesh, with the Police Station- Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Crime Branch, Delhi. Insofar as the other 1,851 victims are concerned, they were made witnesses in this case, and all their complaints have been amalgamated into a single FIR bearing No. 89/2009.

(3.) During the hearing of regular bail application of the accused, the ld. ASJ was, prima facie, of the view that the aforesaid acts constituted separate and distinct offences, thereby necessitating the registration of separate FIR's. In her order dated 22.02.2014, she relied upon the decision in Narinderjit Singh Sahni & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2002 2 SCC 210 : AIR 2001 SC 3810 rendered by a 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, wherein it was observed that each deposit agreement between a victim and accused shall have to be treated as a separate transaction. Reference has also been made by the learned ASJ to the decision of another three-Judge Bench in State of Punjab & Anr. V. Rajesh Syal, 2002 AIR(SC) 3687, which reaffirms the view in Narinderjit Singh Sahni (supra).