STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. MOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT respondents Mohan Singh and Chajju Ram were prosecuted for offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegations as contained in the FIR No. 211 dated 28.10.1982, lodged with Police Station Sirhind by Kuldip Kumar (PW-19). The allegations in the FIR are that the accused floated a Janta Bhalai Scheme at Sirhind under which the General Public was induced to deposit with them money with the promise that after lapse of three months, the depositor would be entitled to the supply of goods of the value of three times of the amount deposited. The said scheme was given due publicity by way of circulation of pamphlets and proclamation through loud speakers. On such representations, the complainant and many others deposited lacs of rupees with the accused but without fulfilling their promise, they ran away with the money. On such like allegations in writing (Ex. PW-19/A) the complainant approached the police who lodged the formal FIR (Ext. PW-19/B).

(2.) THE police investigated the case. All the records in the possession of the accused were taken into possession alongwith the goods lying in their shops. It is relevant to mention that most of the persons who had paid any money to the accused, were examined by the Investigating Officer under section 161 Cr.P.C. After collection of documentary and oral evidence, in the present case challan was put in Court against both the present accused respondents for offences under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) DURING the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses namely; Nirmal Singh (PW-1), Ram Singh PW-2, Rama Kanta PW-3, Bakshish Singh, PW 4, Chand Singh PW-5, Kulwant Kaur Pw-6, Manjit Kaur PW-7, Angrej Kaur PW-8, Kapur Singh PW-9, Joinder Singh PW-10, Kartar Kaur PW-11, Baldev Singh PW-12, Baldev Singh s/o Pakher Singh PW-13, Sham Lal PW-14, Jagjit Singh PW-15, Karnail Singh PW-16, Karam Singh PW-17, Santokh Singh PW-18, and complainant Kuldeep Kumar PW-19 who had lodged the FIR in question. The Investigating Officer has not been examined by the prosecution inspite of numerous opportunities granted by the trial Court. It is pertinent to mention here that only three persons namely, Karam Singh PW-17, Santokh Singh PW-18 and Kuldeep Singh PW-19 have been examined in the court out of the persons whose names are mentioned in the aforesaid charge framed on 27.10.1984. In other words, the trial court framed no charge against the accused qua the amount deposited by PW-1 to PW-16. In the absence of any charge regarding the amount paid by PW 1 to 16, their statements in the court are of no evidentiary value. It is quite surprising that the charge has been framed in a cryptic manner. The conduct of prosecution is equally astonishing as to why statements of PW-1 to PW-16 were got recorded without any charge covering the amount deposited by these prosecution witnesses. It is cardinal principle of criminal law that charge has to be specific in nature particularly when entrustment of money which is embezzled and breach of trust is involved in the case.