9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 681X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n (hereafter the CBI ) alleged offences under Sections 120-B read with 420, 468 and 471 IPC and substantive offences against M/s Juniper Jewellery Pvt. Ltd, Shri. Vijay Kumar Jha and Mrs. Nandita Bakshi both Directors of the first accused company and against other unknown persons. The alleged that directors of the company, in connivance with others had submitted forged property documents as collateral security to cheat the Canara Bank, and gained undue pecuniary benefit to the tune of Rs. 596.11 lakhs from the bank. 3. According to allegations of CBI, in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy accused Ms. Shreya Jha, daughter of Shri V.K. Jha, proprietor of M/s Anamika Enterprises and M/s Nupur Enterprises aided and abetted the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner lacked the basic essential ingredients to hold a person guilty of the offences punishable Under Section 120-B read with Sections 409/419/420/468/471 IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 5. Counsel for the petitioner argued that to hold an accused guilty of committing an offence of criminal conspiracy Under Section 120-B of IPC, there must exist some agreement, link or nexus between the petitioner and the other accused. Yet, the chargesheet completely failed to establish such vital link. It was submitted that a charge could validly have been framed, if there existed something beyond the opening of accounts, and issuance of some cheques, pointing to dishonest intention or motive of the petitioner. The peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence in revision. 7. The question is regarding the charge under Section 120-B of the IPC. To draw a case under the said section, it must be shown that there was an agreement, link, nexus between the petitioner and the accused. The chargesheet filed by CBI mentions the petitioner Ms. Shreya Jha but once where it states as follows: Investigation has revealed that in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy accused Shreya Jha d/o V.K. Jha r/o B-180, Sector-31, NOIDA, prop. of M/s Anamika Enterprises and M/s Nupur Enterprises aided and abetted the commission of offences as an amount of Rs. 5, 50,000/- and Rs. 39, 95,000/- were transferred in the respective accounts of the above said firm maintained at Canara Bank, Chandni Chowk and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of one person with another, maybe as a partner was insufficient to show inducement practiced by one of them. A more active role, with positive pointer to the involvement in regard to the inducement, has to be shown. Similarly, in in Devender Kumar Singla v. Baldev Krishan Singh AIR 2004 SC 3084, the Supreme Court observed: Deception is the quintessence of the offence. The essential ingredient to attract Section 420 are: (i) cheating; (ii) dishonest inducement to deliver property or to make, alter or destroy any valuable security or anything which is sealed or signed or is capable of being converted into a valuable security and (iii) the means read of the accused at the time of making the inducement.... 11. A fundamental princip ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
