Vijay Khanna vs State Of Nct Of Delhi
2003 Latest Caselaw 572 Del

JUDGMENT

B.N. Chaturvedi, J.

1. Chargesheeted for offences punishable under Sections 406/420/467/468/471/506/120-B IPC, the petitioner, Vijay Khanna, by moving instant petition, seeks his release on bail.

2. In response to an advertisement emanating from the petitioner-accused, one Tarsem Goyal came in contact with the petitioner-accused who claimed himself to be the proprietor of M/s. Viva Vision , E-224, Sanik Farm, New Delhi. Misrepresenting himself as an agent of a USA based buyer and also as consultant and agent of certain London based companies, the petitioner-accused promised to secure orders for export of carpet, durries, bed covers, worth Rs.1.2 crores to USA based buyer in connivance with his co-accused Kirpal Singh, General Manager of M/s. International Trade Factors Limited(ITFL), New Delhi. He got letters of credit opened with an intent to make said Tarsem Goyal(complainant) believe that he was there to help him in supply of his goods and in securing his payments. He is alleged to have cheated the complainant of Rs.31 lakhs on the pretext of arranging letters of credit for export of aforesaid goods. He approved the samples and entered into three memoranda of understanding one after the other and charged 40% of the commission from the complainant between January, 2001 to March, 2001. The complainant, on execution of memoranda of understanding and receipt of Lcs, undertook production by investing a huge sum to the extent of Rs.70 lakhs. Before shipment of the goods, the same were to be inspected. The petitioner-accused got an inspection carried out in April, 2001, on repeated requests, of the complainant by an unauthorised person and in the course of that inspection, a bulk potion of the goods were rejected. Later, the petitioner-accused got an inspection report on the letterhead of City Europe London but the same was found to be a forged one. On complainant insisting for another inspection, the same was got done by the petitioner-accused in May, 2001. However, no goods could be exported. To assure the complainant that there was no foul-play, the petitioner-accused provided the complainant with fake E-mail messages of the so called buyer and fabricated a cheque of 80,000/- UK Pounds to show transfer of payment.

3. On failing to export the goods, the complainant made enquiries about the so called US based buyer and the other foreign based companies and found that there was actually no buyer company, as named by the petitioner-accused, in existence at the given address. The complainant-Tarsem Goyal eventually lodged a complaint with the police against the petitioner-accused for having cheated him of Rs.31 lakhs.

4. On investigation, it was gathered that the petitioner-accused was appointed as consultant by his co-accused Kirpal Singh, General Manager of ITFL for providing financial services to his exporters. Several LCs were arranged by ITFL for him through which, barring one LC, the goods were to be sent to M/s. Hillcrest International, USA. In terms of conditions of LCs, the goods were to be inspected by one Manek Deboo of M/s. First Discount Limited, London. The LCs were opened by ITFL acting as agent of City Europe after charging commission to the tune of approximately 3% of the LC amount from the petitioner-accused. His co-accused Kirpal Singh had accepted the proposal of the petitioner-accused without verifying the genuineness of the orders and existence of the buyer at the given address. LCs were opened by M/s. City Europe, a leading company in London.

5. According to the prosecution, in the course of investigation, it was gathered that the petitioner-accused was a notorious cheat involved in various cases of cheating in connivance with his co-accused Kirpal Singh. The applicant-accused was arrested on 13th of July, 2002 and several incriminating documents relating to the present case as well as other cases of cheating, are claimed to have been recovered from his possession. He is alleged to have had forged the letterhead of the City Europe and ITFL and fabricated fake E-male messages of the non-existent buyers as well as their cheques. The incriminating documents/articles recovered from his possession included false inspection reports and rubber stamps of inspecting agencies.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused, referring to the order dated 13.12.2002 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi rejecting the bail application of the petitioner-accused, pointed out that even the learned Additional Sessions Judge noted that the Lcs opened in favor of the complainant were found to be authenticated. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused argued that the fact that the LCs were found to be authenticated shows that he had no intention of cheating the complainant, as alleged. It was stressed that with the opening of LCs, the payments against export of goods by the complainant were secured. According to the learned counsel, it was not for the petitioner-accused to have got the goods inspected before shipment thereof to the overseas buyer.

7. One of the requisite conditions for shipment was to get an inspection certificate in duplicate issued by M/s. First Discount Limited, Morrell House, 98 Curtain Road, London, Manek Deboo, whose signature was to be authenticated by their bank. This was, however, never done. As a result, there could be no shipment of the goods manufactured by the complainant on the basis of fake orders supplied to him by the petitioner-accused. The investigation reveals that it was the petitioner-accused who had to approach the First Discount Limited for inspection of goods and issuance of an inspection certificate in duplicate. However, the petitioner-accused instead of acting in terms of conditions of LCs, got the goods inspected by an unauthorised person only, as a result the complainant could not export his goods against facility of LCs provided by the petitioner-accused in connivance with his co-accused Kirpal Singh. The inspection report on the letterhead of City Europe and a cheque for 80,000 UK pound from the so called prospective buyer, according to the prosecution, were found to be forged and fabricated ones. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, noticing that the same modus operandi has been adopted by the petitioner accused in a number of cases of cheating, ruled against granting him bail.

8. Counsel for the petitioner-accused, referring to a decision of the Supreme Court in "Ashok Dhingra Vs. NCT of Delhi", 2001(1) JCC SC 178, pleaded that the petitioner-accused has already spent about nine months in jail and as the trial is likely to take considerable time, to detain him jail may not be in the interest of justice.

9. From the side of respondent-State, on the other hand, a reference was made to another decision of the Supreme Court in "Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs. Sudarshan Singh & Others", AIR 2002 SC 475, to stress the point that the placement of accused in society by itself cannot be a guiding factor for grant of bail and other relevant considerations enumerated therein were also to be kept in view while considering the case of a particular accused for release on bail. It was argued by learned APP that in view of the fact that the petitioner-accused by indulging in criminal acts of cheating has made it a part of his avocation by cheating a number of unsuspecting law abiding persons, his continuance in jail pending trial would rather be in the larger interest of the society. It was pointed out that the criminal instinct of the petitioner-accused has found its manifestation in as many as 18 cases ranging from electricity theft, cheating, forgery, fabrication and false documentation. He furnishes the details of such cases which are as under:-

   FIR  No.      Sections           Date/Year  Police Station    Status
0077/93  379 IPC & 39 Ele. Act   30.3.1993   Ambedkar Ngr     Traced   
0324/93  379 IPC & 39 Ele. Act   18.8.1993   Ambedkar Ngr     Traced
0196/94  420/467/471/34 IPC      02.4.1994   Cont. Place      Traced   
0200/94  420/467/471/120-BIPC    07.4.1994   R.K. Puram       Traced   
0138/94  420/467/471/120-BIPC    22.4.1994   H. Nizamuddin    Traced 
0137/94  406/420/468/471 IPC     22.4.1994   Lajpat Nagar     Traced
0079/94  420/120-B IPC          23.2.1994   Karol Bagh       Traced
0097/97  420 IPC   23.2.1997   Chitranjan Pk.   Traced
0079/97  380/411/468/471 IPC     06.3.1997   Vasant Vihar     Traced      
0388/02  420/468/471 IPC         14.3.1997   Cont. Place      Traced 
0248/97  420/468/471 IPC         11.6.1997   Pr. Street       Traced
0159/02  406/420/468/47/         01.4.2004   Ambedkar Ngr     Traced
         596/120-B IPC
0445/02  406/420/468/47/              2002   Ambedkar Ngr     Traced
         596/120-B IPC
0196/02  406/420/468/47/              2002   Brahampuri       Traced
         596/120-B IPC               Jaipur
0274/02  406/420/468/47/              2002   Makrana Raj.     Traced
         596/120-B IPC
0218/02  406/420/468/47/              2002   Shiprapath       Traced
         596/120-B IPC  
0036/02  406/420/468/47/              2002   Bahi Park        Traced
         596/120-B IPC               Jaipur
0509/02  420/467/471/            3.12.2002   Ambedkar Ngr     Traced
         120-B IPC 
 

10. No doubt liberty of an individual is precious, however the larger public interest is paramount. As held in Ram Govind Upadhyay(supra), the nature of the offence, apart from other factors, is one of the basic considerations for grant of bail. It is not a singular act of criminal conspiracy cheating and forgery which comes into focus in the instant case rather the petitioner-accused is alleged to be perpetrator of such criminal acts in a number of cases over a period of time beginning from 1994 onwards giving an impression that the larger public interest may perhaps be better served by letting him continue in jail. Reluctance of the learned Additional Sessions Judge to admit the petitioner-accused to bail would thus appear to have been justified on taking an overall view of the matter. I am not persuaded to take a different view.

11. The application is, therefore, dismissed.