Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: Judgment 1 C.C.No. 548/PW/2019
C/S filed on : 08/02/2019
Decided on : 30/01/2024
Duration : 04 Y 11 M 22 D
Exh. 104 .
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
10TH COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
(PRESIDED OVER BY R. M. SHAIKH)
C. C. No. 548/PW/2019 (M.E.C.R.No. 02/2018)
(C.N.R.No. MHMM19-002238-2019)
J U D G M E N T
(u/Sec. 355 of Cr.P.C.)
(a) The serial number of the case. : C. C. No. 548/PW/2019.
(b) The date of the commission of
the offence.
: From April 2017 to February
2018.
(c) The name of the informant : The State (D.N. Nagar Police
Station in C. R. No.02/2018)
(Through Amrish Gopal Shah)
(d) The name of the accused
person and his parentage and
residence;
: Yashu Raja Chaddha,
Age : 36 Years,
R/o. 2103, Sejal Tower,
Goregaon (W), Mumbai.
(e) The offence complained of : Under Sections 406, 420, 467,
468, 471-A, 259, 260 of the
Indian Penal Code r/w 66(d) of
Information Technology Act
(f) The plea of the accused and
his examination.
: Accused pleaded not guilty.
(g) The final order : Accused is convicted.
(h) The date of such order : 30/01/2024.
(i) Brief statement of reasons : As recorded herein below.
-- 1 of 41 --
Judgment 2 C.C.No. 548/PW/2019
Ld. APP for the State : Shri. Sakpale
Ld.Advocate for the accused : Shri. Dinanath Tiwari
J U D G M E N T
(Delivered on 30/01/2024)
1. The accused is facing trial for the offence p/u/s. 406, 420,
467, 468, 471-A, 259, 260 of the Indian Penal Code r/w 66(d) of the
Information Technology Act on the basis of complaint filed by informant
Amrish Gopal Shah.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as under -
The informant Amrish Gopal Shah, resident of D.N.Nagar
Andheri, Mumbai narrated in his FIR that he got in contact with
accused Yashu Raja Chaddha in the year 2015 who informed him that
he is practicing as an Advocate for Intellectual Property work and
thereafter again in the year 2017, the informant asked him to do
registration of one agreement with one Purple Pebble Pithers, which
was verified by the accused through e-mail and after making some
suggestions he has again forwarded the correct copy of contract through
e-mail. Thereafter the informant started one company by name
Supermind Artificial Intelligence at Warden Road, Bele View and the
registration work of said company was also done by the accused Yashu
Raja Chaddha. He charged Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 60,000/- from the
informant for Copy Right and Trade Mark of said Intellectual property
and thereby gained confidence of the informant.
-- 2 of 41 --
Judgment 3 C.C.No. 548/PW/2019
3. It is further contended by the informant that, in the month
of April 2017, the accused informed through e-mail that he is doing
work of Intellectual Property Rights at USA, India and abroad and
informed on 05/04/2017, 13/04/2017, 17/04/2017, 19/04/2017 and
05/05/2017 that, e-mail registration work is going on. He also stated
that, he is the Agent of USPTO by name Jennie Vetnon who will do the
Intellectual Property Right work of the informant and that the
registration work of Copy Right and Trade Mark of the informant is in
progress at WIPO and Indian IP Office at Mumbai and sent e-mail
accordingly. However, on 09/03/2018 when the informant visited
Indian Intellectual Property office at Antop Hill, Mumbai he came to
know that the registration work of his company is not at all done and
certificate issued by the accused in that regard are false documents and
the name Jenny Vatnon as stated by the accused is also the false name.
Thereafter the accused obtained money from the informant from time
to time by sending e-mail in the month of April 2017 till July 2017 as
narrated by the informant in his FIR.
4. It is again contended by the informant that, the accused
told the informant that his Laptop is stolen and he need some amount
as hand loan. Therefore, the informant gave him Rs. 2,00,000/- out of
which he utilized Rs. 1,34,000/- for Trade Mark registration. Again for
the purpose of registration of Brain Help Training and Technique of 30
Trade Marks at WIPO, Indian IP Office and USPTO office, the accused
informed on 24/04/2027 on his Letter head about the valuation of 52
Trade Mark given for registration. However, only 10 Trade Marks were
registered at Indian IP office which came to the knowledge of informant
in the month of February 2018. That time the informant was paying
-- 3 of 41 --
Judgment 4 C.C.No. 548/PW/2019
amount as per instructions of accused from his HDFC Bank, Branch
Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mumbai to the HDFC Bank account of the
accused Branch- Nariman Point, Mumbai and accordingly he paid
Rs. 44,15,242/- and received only Rs. 71,00,000/- in return from
accused. Again on 26/04/2017 the accused sent e-mail and informed
that the registration work of informant at USA is going on and he
forwarded e-mail of American Attorney.
5. It is again contended by the informant in his FIR that, in
the month of June 2017 he borrowed amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- from
the informant and Rs. 2,20,000/- for doing course at Dubai. So also in
the month of July 2017 the accused for the purpose of doing
registration work at Washington USPTO asked informant to incur
expenses of flight and lodging abroad and lastly on 26/07/2017, he
sent e-mail that, the registration work of Copy Right and Trade Mark in
India and abroad is completed. So also in August 2017, he told
informant about having acquaintance in Indian Army and that the Brain
Health Project is selected by Indian Army. Further in the month of
September 2017, he asked informant to transfer amount for the work at
America and on 03/08/2017 he informed the informant to forward
Brain Science Training Application documents. So also he again stated
that, he is having friends in Indian Army who are on the post of
Brigadier and that he is having good acquaintance with Indian Defence
Minister Hon’ble Smt. Nirmala Sitaraman and again obtained amount of
Rs. 25,000/- for making plan in project and on 16/08/2017 accused
introduced the informant with Brigadier Shri. Gagandip Singh at JW
Marriot Hotel at New Delhi and incurred expenses of flight from Delhi
to Mumbai as well as hotel expenses. So also he pretended that the
-- 4 of 41 --
Judgment 5 C.C.No. 548/PW/2019
appointment is done with the Defence Minister and she discussed about
the project on the Brain Health of informant and for that purpose he
obtained Rs. 30,000/- from the informant.
6. Moreover, the accused sent 223 scanned acknowledgments
of Trade Mark of USPTO and WIPO on 05/11/2017 which later on
disclosed to be a false and fabricated documents when the informant
visited in the Indian IP office. Again on 06/11/2017 the accused sent
e-mail that, he applied for 475 Trade Mark of the informant and for that
purpose he demanded amount of Rs. 11,87,000/- and adjusted it for
amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- which was transferred by the informant in the
account of accused. So also, the accused also informed through e-mail
about IAS officer Shri. O.P. Gupta and asked informant to transfer
amount of Rs. 7,11,550/- for scrutiny of Trade Mark at IP office
Mumbai. Lastly the informant had doubt on the activities of the accused
and therefore, he engaged another Advocate Vishmay Shroff who asked
accused Yashu Raja Chaddha to sent remaining certificate and
acknowledgments and failed to do so and returned the amount to the
informant and lastly he issued cheque on 11/01/2018 at the address of
Advocate Vishmay Shroff for amount of Rs. 25,90,000/- which was
returned as dishonoured on 20/01/2018 for ‘Insufficient Funds’ in the
account of accused. Therefore, the informant visited the IP office at
Mumbai and on 09/03/2018 he came to know that all the 475 Trade
Mark certificates issued by the accused are false and fabricated
documents which was informed by the Clerk Tiwari and Satyendra
working in the office of Shri.O.P. Gupta and therefore, he went to Antop
Hill police station and lodged complaint.
-- 5 of 41 --
Judgment 6 C.C.No. 548/PW/2019
7. Thereafter, the informant firstly lodged private complaint in
this Court on the allegation that accused has deceived him with
assurance to do his Intellectual Property registration work and prepared
forged and fabricated documents as well as used forged logo of
Government of India and forged signature of Controller General
Shri. O.P. Gupta and thereby cheated the informant to the extent of
Rs. 44,14,242/-. In the said private complaint filed before this Court the
matter was sent for investigation u/s. 156(3) of Cr.P.C. by my Ld.
Predecessor on the basis of which MECR No. 02/2018 was registered by
D.N. Nagar police station and the FIR of the informant was recorded on
05/05/2018 against accused Yashu Raja Chadha for the offence p/u/s.
406, 420, 467, 468, 471(a), 259, 260 of I.P.Code r/w 66(d) of the
Information Technology Act.
8. The accused was arrested in connection with crime and he
is in jail since 01/12/2018. He was produced before this Court by Jail
Authority and I have framed charge against the accused at Exh.6 on
29/06/2022 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
Further the defence of accused as per the tenor of his cross examination
and the statement of accused recorded u/s. 313 of Cr.P.C. at Exh. 97
and his written statement at Exh.98 is that, the informant in collusion
with other witnesses have deposed against him and falsely filed this
case and he never cheated the informant and never did forgery of
documents but he obtained the amount from informant towards his
professional fees and charges.
9. On the basis of averment in the FIR and the case of the
prosecution as well as on the basis of evidence adduced by the
-- 6 of 41 --
Judgment 7 C.C.No. 548/PW/2019
prosecution, following points arose for my determination to which I
have given my findings alongwith reasons as under:-
Sr.
No.
Points for determination Findings
1. Does the prosecution prove that, the accused
during the period from April 2017 to February
2018 at 702, Saibaba Tower, N. Datta Marg, D.N.
Nagar, Andheri (W), Mumbai was entrusted with
the property i.e. amounts given by the informant
to the accused which the accused has dishonestly
misappropriated the same for his own use and
thereby committed an offence of criminal breach
of trust p/u/s. 406 of the I.P.Code ?
Proved
2. Does the prosecution prove that, on above said
period and place, the accused cheated the
informant by dishonestly inducing him to deliver
the amount of Rs. 44,14,242/- and by making
forged signature of Comptroller General Shri. O.P.
Gupta and by preparing forged e-mail IDs viz.
mod.app@gov.in - Defence Minister of India,
jennie.vernon@uspto.gov - US Attorney,
Mumbai_tmr@nic.gov.in - Control Guard Office,
roshan.ipmumbai@mum.nic.in - Control Guard
Office, cgoffice_mh@nic.gov.in - Government of
India Traders and also created Logo and used it as
genuine with intent to cheat the informant and
thereby committed an offence p/u/s. 420 of the
I.P.Code ?
Proved
3. Does the prosecution prove that, on above said
period and place, the accused forged certain
documents i.e. Deeds/Agreements and e-mail IDs
and Government Logo purported to be a valuable
security documents and e-mail IDs and thereby
committed an offence punishable u/Sec. 467 of
the I.P.Code ?
Not
Proved
4. Does the prosecution prove that, on above said
-- 7 of 41 --
Judgment 8 C.C.No. 548/PW/2019
period and place, the accused forged certain
documents and electronic record i.e. e-mail IDs
viz. mod.app@gov.in - Defence Minister of India,
jennie.vernon@uspto.gov - US Attorney,
Mumbai_tmr@nic.gov.in - Control Guard Office,
roshan.ipmumbai@mum.nic.in - Control Guard
Office, cgoffice_mh@nic.gov.in - Government of
India Traders and also created Government Logo ,
intending that it shall be used for the purpose of
cheating and thereby committed an offence
punishable u/Sec. 468 of the I.P.Code ?
Proved
5. Does the prosecution prove that, on above said
period and place, the accused fraudulently used
as genuine certain documents and electronic
record i.e. e-mail IDs and the Government Logo
mentioned above, which you knew at the time
when used it to be forged documents and
electronic record and thereby committed an
offence punishable u/Sec. 471 of the I.P.Code ?
Proved
6. Does the prosecution prove that, on above said
period and place, the accused were in possession
of Indian Government Logo/stamp which he knew
to be counterfeit of a stamp/logo issued by
Government for purpose of revenue, intending to
use it as a genuine stamp/logo and thereby
committed the offence punishable u/Sec. 259 of
the I.P.Code ?
Not
Proved
7. Does the prosecution prove that, on above said
period and place, the accused used as a genuine
stamp/Logo of Government knowing it to be
counterfeit of a stamp issued by Government for
purpose of revenue and thereby committed the
offence punishable u/Sec. 260 of the I.P.Code ?
Not
Proved
8. Does the prosecution prove that, on above said
period and place, the accused cheated the
informant by personation by means of
Proved
-- 8 of 41 --
Judgment 9 C.C.No. 548/PW/2019
communication device or computer resource and
thereby committed the offence punishable u/Sec.
66 (d) of the Information Technology Act 2000 ?
9. What order ? As per final
order.
R E A S O N S
AS TO POINT NOS.1 TO 9
10. In order to prove the guilt of accused, prosecution has
examined in all following 9 witnesses :
i) PW1 Amrish Gopal Shah Informant Exh.12
ii) PW2 Amit Harshalrai Desai Witness
(Chartered
Accountant)
Exh.51
iii) PW3 Satyanarayan Swaminath
Gupta
Witness
(Panch)
Exh.52
iv) PW4 Abbas Ramjan Ansari Witness
(Panch)
Exh.54
v) PW5 Suryakant Chandrakant
Magarumkhane
Witness
(Panch)
Exh.69
vi) PW6 Anshu Ranjan Manoranjan
Prasad
Witness
(Trade Mark
Examiner)
Exh.76
vii) PW7 Ravindra Premsingh Thakare Witness
(Police
witness)
Exh. 82
viii) PW8 Ajitkumar Dattatray Vartak Witness (I.O.) Exh.86
ix) PW9 Vismay Parimal Shroff Witness Exh.96
-- 9 of 41 --
Judgment 10 C.C.No. 548/PW/2019
(Advocate)
11. The prosecution has further relied upon the following
documents :
i) E-mail correspondence from March 2017 to
March 2018
Exh.17
(collectively)
ii) Printouts of e-mail correspondence between
accused and Adv. Vismay Shroff
Exh.18
(collectively)
iii) E-mail correspondence between the informant
and Shailendra Bhandare of Khaitan &
company
Exh.19
iv) The certificate u/Sec. 65(B) of Indian Evidence
Act of the informant
Exh.20
v) FIR/statement Exh.23
vi) Account statement of HDFC Bank account of
the accused
Exh.24
vii) Passport and Adhar Card of accused Article ‘A’ and
‘B’
viii) Cheque book of HDFC Bank of account of
accused
Article ‘C’
ix) Two cheque books of IDFC Bank of account of
accused
Article ‘D’ and
‘E’
x) One empty box of mobile of Samsung company
of accused
Article ‘F’
xi) One blue colour diary of accused Article ‘G’
xii) One brown colour leather bag of accused Article ‘H’
xiii) Documents of rent agreement and bank letters Article ‘I’
xiv) Production panchnama dated 02/12/2018 Exh.53
xv) Memorandum statement dated 19/12/2018 Exh.55
xvi) Panchnama dated 19/12/2018 below
Memorandum Panchnama
Exh.56
xvii) Memorandum statement dated 18/12/2018 Exh.57
xviii) Recovery panchnama dated 18/12/2018 below Exh.58
-- 10 of 41 --
Judgment 11 C.C.No. 548/PW/2019
memorandum statement
xix) Memorandum statement of accused dated
20/12/2018
Exh.70
xx) Panchnama dated 20/12/2018 below
memorandum statement
Exh.71
xxi) Printouts annexed along-with charge-sheet
from page Nos. 78 to 137
Exh.72
(Collectively)
xxii) E-mail dated 07/03/2018 Exh.77
xxiii) Letter along-with e-mail received on
09/03/2018
Exh.78
xxiv) Letter dated 08/03/2018 received by Antop
Hill P.S.
Exh.83
12. Heard Ld.APP for the State and Ld.Adv.Shri.Tiwari for
accused at length. I have perused the evidence on record very minutely
and carefully. Gone through the written notes of argument submitted by
accused at Exh.103 as well as the list of Authorities filed along-with list
at Exh.102. I have also gone through the written argument filed on
behalf of original informant Amrish Gopal Shah at Exh.100.
ADMITTED FACTS
13. Before proceeding to discuss with the merits of the case,
certain facts which are admitted by prosecution and accused can be
summarized as under :
i) It is an admitted fact that the accused is an Advocate by
profession and practicing in Mumbai and he is acquainted with
informant since the year 2017.
-- 11 of 41 --
Judgment 12 C.C.No. 548/PW/2019
ii) It is also an admitted fact that the informant and accused had
negotiation in respect of doing registration work of Trade Mark
and Patent and he has also rendered his service as an Advocate
in the writer agreement of informant in the year 2017 and it was
reviewed by the accused and he forwarded it back to the
informant and accordingly he gained confidence in the mind of
the informant ( as admitted by accused in his statement u/s. 313
of Cr.P.C. at Exh.97)
iii) Further it is also an admitted fact that the informant who is
working in Brain Health Practice and for Mental Health Practice
used to prepare mental Health applications and for its Trade
Mark and registration in India he approached the accused who
also admitted the said fact but denied that the informant also
asked for registration globally for other countries in WIPO and
USPTO.
iv) So also the fact to form registered company as per advise of the
accused and process for registration of Supermind Artificial
Intelligence company of informant is also an admitted fact.
v) Moreover, the expenses occurred in the traveling, tickets of the
accused by informant is also admitted (Statement of accused
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. at Exh.97 question No.19)
vi) Further making payment or transfer of amount in the HDFC
bank account of accused by informant is also admitted by the
accused but the stand taken by him is that those payments or
transfer of amount was part of his processing fees for
registration work at USPTO office globally and that he went
there only for research of global work of informant only.
vii) The accused also admitted that he along-with informant went to
the office of Ministry of Defence and according to him they went
there for professional work of informant and not his professional
work.
viii) Moreover in respect of introduction of one Gagandeep, the
accused admitted that he is his childhood friend and he came to
meet him only.
-- 12 of 41 --
Judgment 13 C.C.No. 548/PW/2019
ix) He also admitted about having e-mail correspondence with
informant which according to him was only with respect to
registration of Trade Mark in India and not USPTO or WIPO.
x) He again admitted about the registration of certificates and
Trade Marks within India which was registered by him.
xi) As far as issuance of cheque of Rs. 25,00,000/- and promissory
notes are concerned the accused admitted that it was issued
with his signature in favour of informant but according to him it
was forcibly and coercively obtained by Advocate Vismay Shroff.
EVIDENCE
14. Prosecution has examined informant as PW-1 namely
Amarish Gopal Shah who deposed that, after getting his trust, he
asked accused about trade mark and copy right registration work
and it’s process to which accused replied that the Trade Mark and
Copy Right work in India is done in Indian IP office at Mumbai and
for other foreign country, it is done through WIPO (World
Intellectual Property Rights Organization) and for the United
States it is done through USPTO (Untied States Patent Trade Mark
Organization).
15. He further deposed that for brain health practice and
for mental health issues, he used to prepare mental health
applications and he want to get it’s Trade Mark and Registration in
India and for other countries in WIPO and USPTO. He also used to
write books and stories for entertainment and media industries the
list of which, he also added to the brain health practice and metal
health issues and it was forwarded to accused Yashu Raja
-- 13 of 41 --
Judgment 14 C.C.No. 548/PW/2019
Chaddha. That time, as per the suggestion of accused he registered
company by name Super Mind Artificial Intelligence Company
OPC Pvt. Ltd at Warden Road, Bele View registered with the
Ministry of Corporate Affairs which is still in existence and he gave
cost of registration of company of Rs.60,000/-, and Rs.40,000/- to
accused.
16. PW-1 further deposed that thereafter accused
again informed him that he got email of USPTO of one Mr. Jenny
Vetnon and that for registration work for his company and Trade
Mark and Copy Right of the company at US he is required to travel
to USA. That time, informant obtained traveling tickets of accused
who also demanded amount of Rs.3-4 lacs for registration purpose
and for getting the Trade Mark and Copy Right, which informant
has transferred to accused. Thereafter in the month of July 2017
accused sent him email and informed that he went to USPTO and
done the registration work and he may need some more amount
for further process of registration. So accordingly, informant has
transferred lump-sum amount in HDFC account of the accused
from time to time. Thereafter, in the month of August 2017
accused also informed him in person that he is having contacts in
Indian Defence Ministry and he can introduce him to the Defence
Minster and Ministry at Delhi for the purpose of his Brain Science
Application and Training to the Indian Defence Personnel.
17. Thereafter, accused sent an email in the month of
-- 14 of 41 --
Judgment 15 C.C.No. 548/PW/2019
September 2017, thereby informing him about his appointment
with Indian Defence Ministry. According to informant said email
was a forged document prepared by accused. Thereafter, he
booked two Air tickets for traveling from Mumbai to Delhi.
Informant alongwith accused went to the office of Ministry of
Defence, where he was standing at ground floor and accused went
on the first floor with his proposal of Brain Science Training to
the office of Ministry of Defence and after 10 minutes, he returned
back and said that his proposal is submitted to the Hon’ble
Ministry of Defence Smt. Nirmala Sitaraman. That time, informant
alongwith accused stayed in J. W. Marriot Hotel at Delhi and there
informant met alongwith accused with one person namely
Gagandip Singh which accused represented to be Colonel from the
Indian Army. After submitting his proposal to Indian Defence
Ministry and after staying for one day at Delhi they both returned
back to Mumbai.
18. PW-1 again deposed that thereafter accused informed
him that the Trade Mark and Copy Right Work is in process and
registration of the Trade Mark and Copy Right will take 4-5
months time at the Indian office and at US office. He sent email
with the same communication which is produced on record and
all the Email correspondences made by accused with informant
since the month of March 2017 about the progress of work of
registration of Trade Mark and demand for money for traveling
abroad to USPTO are duly proved by PW-1 which is collectively
-- 15 of 41 --
Judgment 16 C.C.No. 548/PW/2019
marked at Exh.17 supported by his affidavit u/s. 65 (B) of Indian
Evidence Act at Exh.20. Similarly PW-1 has proved Email
correspondence with Adv. Vishmay Shroff (collectively marked at
Exh.18) to whom he engaged in order to verify the correctness of
documents supplied to him by accused in respect of registration of
Trade Mark and Copy Right for intellectual property assigned to
accused and Adv. Vishmay Shroff also had communication and
correspondence with accused Yashu Raja Chadda about the status
of registration of Trade Mark and Copy Right to which he replied
that the registration process particularly of foreign countries is
taking time.
19. PW-1 has also proved Email correspondence between
himself and Shailendra Bhandare of Khaitan and Company
(marked at Exh.19) in respect of verifying the validity of
registration certificates given by accused specially of USPTO and
WIPO and it was informed to him that the registration certificates
of India are genuine, however, the registration certificates of
intellectual property of USPTO and WIPO on the face value of it
are fake and bogus. Thereafter, he was advised by Adv. Vishmay
Shroff and Advocate of Khaitan and Company that he must visit
the Intellectual Property and Trade Mark office at Antop Hill,
Mumbai to get final validation of all certificates allegedly
registered by accused Yashu Raja Chadda and therefore he took
appointment of said office at Antop Hill, Mumbai and he was
informed by the officer of Shri. O. P. Gupta that the registration
-- 16 of 41 --
Judgment 17 C.C.No. 548/PW/2019
certificates of USPTO and WIPO allegedly issued by accused are
entirely fake documents. Therefore, the office at Antop Hill,
Mumbai contacted with Antop Hill Police Station to ascertain
validity and claim and thereafter informant came to know that he
was cheated by accused for amount of Rs.45 Lac by committing
forgery of the registration certificates of Trade Mark and Copy
Right. Accused Yashu Raja Chadda also informed him that he has
applied for 475 certificates for registration of Trade Mark and Copy
Right on the letter head of Comptroller General of India Shri. O. P.
Gupta and when informant got it verified from the Indian Trade
Mark and Copy Right Office, he came to know that only 20
certificates for registration of Trade Mark and Copy Right are
legally applied for and the total amount was Rs.1,00,000/-incurred
for registration.
20. Therefore informant filed complaint to D. N. Nagar
police station against the accused and also private complaint vide
No. 129/SW/2018 wherein order for directing investigation u/s
156 (3) of Cr. PC was passed on 25.04.2018 and accordingly, after
investigation MECR No.2/2018 came to be filed against present
accused which is bearing C.C.No.548/PW/2019. PW-1 proved his
FIR at Exh.23. He also produced HDFC bank account statement of
accused at Exh.24. Apart from this case the case u/s 138 of N. I.
Act is pending in the Girgaon Court, Mumbai against the accused
for issuing one cheque of Rs.25 lacs for returning amount of
-- 17 of 41 --
Judgment 18 C.C.No. 548/PW/2019
informant which was bounced twice.
21. PW-1 stood to a lengthy cross examination by Ld.
Adv.Mr.Dinanath Tiwari wherein it is brought on record that the
informant is Certified Brain Science Practitioner from Dr.Sarahmckay
Neuro Scientist from Oxford University and his business is Brain
Health Practice and Story Writing Cumulatively Intellectual Property
and since last 25 years, he is working in Entertainment and Media
Industry. He admitted that his HDFC Bank account statement of
Bhulabai Desai Road branch, Mumbai was not produced before the
Investigating officer nor it is filed alongwith charge-sheet and he was
not having access to the account of accused maintained with HDFC
Bank at Exh.24.
22. In his further cross examination it is brought on record
that Advocate Vishmay Shroff is practicing advocate at Mumbai and
Advocate Shailendra Bhandare is advocate in Khaitan and Company.
He do not know the full form of abbreviation ‘CGPDTM’. He again
stated that he is using his email ID-amrishone@gmail.com frequently.
He met with Mr. O. P. Gupta who is Controller General of Patent
Design and Trade Mark which is the post of IAS rank. Informant
further do not know anything about ‘Madrid’ which term is used for
the transaction where the money is paid towards search fees for
international registration work of Trade Mark.
23. PW-1 further admitted that, the services rendered by
-- 18 of 41 --
Judgment 19 C.C.No. 548/PW/2019
accused as an advocate were completed and finished on 12/02/2018.
But he denied the suggestions putforthe by Ld.Adv. For accused that he
has paid retainer fees of Rs. 2,50,000/- to accused on 01/07/2017, Rs.
2,85,000/- on 01/08/2017, Rs. 2,50,000/- on 01/09/2017. PW-1
admitted that, he has paid fees for registration of company of Rs.
2,48,000/- to accused on 16/04/2017 and also paid professional fees of
Rs. 2,80,000/- to accused on 24/06/2017 and fees for registration of
trademark of Rs. 2,00,000/- to accused on 30/04/2017. Rest of the
entire cross examination is that of denial suggesting the defence of
accused which is very well shattered by the informant.
24. Another witness examined by prosecution PW-2 Amit
Harshalrai Desai who is a Chartered Accountant, deposed that he
was called by D.N. Nagar police station in connection with present case
for recording his statement and he is acquainted with accused Yashu
Raja Chaddha who contacted him through business platform ‘Just Dial’
in the year 2017 and informed that, his client informant Amrish Shah
was intending to obtain loan and for that accused asked him for
preparing project report. The accused was intending to present said
project report before the Ministry of Defence in respect of Super Mind
Defence Project with brain science programming of informant.
Thereafter, he informed the accused to supply him the requisite data for
preparing project report, however, accused never contacted him and he
had not produced any data for preparing project report. Later on, he
came to know from police of D.N. Nagar Police station that, accused
obtained money from the informant for the expenses of project report in
his name. However, neither the amount was paid to him nor any data
-- 19 of 41 --
Judgment 20 C.C.No. 548/PW/2019
for preparation of project report was given to him. He identified
accused Yashu Raja Chaddha present before the Court.
25. During cross examination by Ld.Advocate for accused it is
brought on record that he has not produced any document to show that,
he is preparing project report for obtaining loan as per the requirement
of client as it was not called for to him. He further admitted that
accused has not done any financial transaction with me and he has not
prepared any project report for accused.
26. Prosecution has also examined panch witnesses PW-3 to
PW-5 whose testimony is required to be scrutinized. In this regard
panch witness PW-3 Satyanarayan Swaminath Gupta, deposed that
on 02/12/2018 he was called by PI Shri. Vartak at D.N. Nagar police
station for drawing panchanama as panch witness and that time
another panch Ismail Shaikh, PI Vartak, one Constable and one lady
were present there. Said lady present in the police station produced
passport, Adhar Card, cheque book of HDFC bank, two cheque books of
IDFC bank, one empty box of mobile, one leather bag, one diary of
accused Yashu Raja Chaddha in their presence. Police seized all the
articles belonging to accused and it was kept in one packet and sealed
on which his signature as panch witness was obtained. Accordingly the
seized muddemal vide M.R.No. 97/2018 i.e.sealed envelop containing
all the articles is identified by him which includes passport of accused at
Article ‘A’, Adhar card of accused at Article ‘B’, the cheque book of HDFC
bank of account of accused at Article ‘C’, two cheque books of IDFC
bank of account of accused at Article ‘D’ and Article ‘E’, one empty box
-- 20 of 41 --
Judgment 21 C.C.No. 548/PW/2019
of mobile of Samsung company of accused at Article ‘F, one blue
coloured diary of accused at Article ‘G’, one brown colour leather bag of
accused at Article ‘H’, some documents of rent agreement and bank
letters at Article ‘I’. PW-3 proved Production Panchanama dated
02/12/2018 at Exh.53 and identified his signature and signature of
another panch Ismail, signature of IO Shri. Vartak PI, and signature of
lady Lohita Sujit who produced all the articles in police station.
27. During cross examination of PW-3 on behalf of accused
nothing fruitful is brought on record.
28. Another panch witness examined by the prosecution PW-4
Abbas Ramjan Ansari, deposed that on 19/12/2018 he was called by
D.N. Nagar police station as panch witness for drawing panchanama.
That time another panch Ismail Shaikh, PI Shri. Vartak, other police
staff and accused Chaddha were present. Accused had given
Memorandum Statement before police that, he will show the Cyber Cafe
spot from where he has taken the printouts. Said Memorandum
Statement of accused Chaddha was recorded by PI Shri. Vartak in thier
presence and obtained his signature and signature of another panch
Ismail Shaikh on it which is proved at Exh.55.
29. He further deposed that, thereafter, he along-with another
panch Ismail Shaikh, accused Chaddha and police staff went to
Churchgate, near Court building in one room where accused Chaddha
has given one profile number and password of one file on computer
which was opened in their presence. There was ID of accused in said file
-- 21 of 41 --
Judgment 22 C.C.No. 548/PW/2019
on computer. Police drew panchnama on the spot in their presence and
obtained his signature on it as panch witness which is proved by him at
Exh.56.
30. He again stated that, on 18/12/2018 also he was called by
D.N. Nagar Police in police station as panch witness. Accordingly he
went to the police station and that time another panch, two constable,
PI Vartak and accused Chaddha were present there. Accused Chaddha
had given Memorandum Statement at Exh.57 before PI Vartak that, he
will produce his mobile which was kept by him at one place and
thereafter, he along-with PI Vartak, another panch and accused Chaddha
went to one flat in BEST Colony, on 21st Floor, Goregaon (W), Mumbai
where the accused shown his mobile and produced it before PI Vartak. It
was Samsung Company mobile seized and sealed by police in their
presence by drawing Recovery panchanama dtd. 18/12/2018 below
Memorandum Statement marked at Exh.58.
31. During cross examination of PW-4 on behalf of accused
nothing fruitful is brought on record.
32. Another panch witness examined by the prosecution PW-5
Suryakant Chandrakant Magarumkhane, it is brought on record
that on 20/012/2018 he was called by D.N. Nagar Police station to act
as panch for drawing panchnama and he went to D.N. Nagar police
station. That time Police Hawaldar Patil, PI Vartak, other panch Torley
and accused were present there. The accused gave memorandum at
Exh. 70 before police that, he will show the e-mail forwarded to
-- 22 of 41 --
Judgment 23 C.C.No. 548/PW/2019
informant from his mail account which he is ready to show. Thereafter,
in the police station accused on one computer device opened his mail
account by putting password and shown all the e-mail sent to the
informant Shah. The printout of said e-mail was taken by police and
panchanama was drawn which is marked at Exh. 71. The printouts
annexed along-with charge-sheet from page Nos. 78 to 237 was shown
to him bearing his signature as panch witness, along-with signature of
another panch, signature of IO PI Shri. Vartak and signature of accused
which are collectively marked at Exh.72.
33. During his cross examination conducted on behalf of
accused it is brought on record that, on the document at page No. 42 of
the charge-sheet it is not mentioned that it was forwarded by accused to
informant Shah and there is no mention of date of panchnama on the
said document as well as there is no mention of date of panchnama at
Exh.72. He further stated that, the documents at Exh. 72 are prepared
by the police officer of D.N. Nagar police station however the said
documents were not kept in envelop by police in their presence. When
he was shown panchanama dated 20/12/2018 at Exh. 70 on page No.
34 he stated that there is no signature of accused.
34. Prosecution has examined PW-06 Anshu Ranjan
Manoranjan Prasad, (Trade Mark Examiner) who deposed that in
the year 2018, he was working as Trade Mark Examiner in Trade Mark
Registry, Head Quarter, Mumbai from September 2017 till June 2019.
The Trade Mark registration certificates are issued from their office
under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. So also the opinion in respect of
-- 23 of 41 --
Judgment 24 C.C.No. 548/PW/2019
genuineness of Trade Mark certificate is also given by the office after
receiving complaint from any person. One E-mail was received from
informant Amrish Shah on 07/03/2018 along-with one letter bearing
signature of IAS officer Shri. O.P. Gupta and he asked about the
genuineness and authenticity of signature of Shri. O.P. Gupta on said
letter. When he was shown letter received through E-mail dated
07/03/2018 received on 09/03/2018 he stated that it bears seal of
office of Trade Mark registry as received and signature of informant
which is marked at Exh.77.
35. PW-6 further deposed that, it was informed by the
informant that, said letter was issued to the Ministry of Defence with
the signature of Shri. O.P. Gupta Controller General of CGPDTM and he
was shown letter annexed along-with E-mail received on 09/03/2018 at
Exh.78. He further stated that the letter at Exh.77 and Exh. 78 was sent
through E-mail to CGO office by informant Amrish Shah and it was
forwarded by CGO office to CG Shri. O.P. Gupta on his personal E-mail
ID to check the authenticity of letter and his signature on it. Thereafter,
CGO office informed Shri. S.K. Pandey Deputy Registrar of Trade Mark
and Geographical indications that, the signature is not of Shri. O.P.
Gupta and to take legal action in respect of letter at Exh.78. Thereafter,
Shri. S.K. Pandey sent letter on 08/03/2018 to Antop Hill police station
for taking action on letter at Exh.78. The E-mail correspondence was
annexed along-with letter dated 08/03/2018 which bears signature of
Shri. S.K. Pandey identified by PW-6 as he has worked under him.
-- 24 of 41 --
Judgment 25 C.C.No. 548/PW/2019
36. Lastly PW-6 stated that informant Amrish Shah filed
complaint in respect of which criminal case was registered at D.N.
Nagar Police Station against accused Yashu Raja Chaddha and in the
said case he was authorized by his office to give statement. According to
PW-6 the disputed letter at Exh.78 was not bearing true signature of
Shri. O.P. Gupta.
37. The Ld.Advocate for accused conducted cross examination
of PW-6 wherein it is brought on record that he had not stated before
police that, it was directed to Deputy Registrar Shri. S.K. Pandey to take
action on letter Exh.78. He admitted that, the informant Amrish Shah
has not forwarded E-mail to their office. When he was shown letter at
Exh.77, he stated that it is not original but a photocopy, which was
notarized. Similarly he stated that the letter at Exh.78 is not original but
a photocopy. He has not produced original authority letter by which he
was authorized to give statement in the case filed by informant Amrish
Shah at D.N. Nagar police station. He admitted that, the letter at Exh.
78 do not bear signature of Shri. O.P. Gupta and y stated that the letter
at Exh.77 and 78 were not sent on his personal E-mail ID.
38. In his further cross examination conducted on behalf of
Ld.Adv. for the accused he stated that, he was looking after the office
administration, legal matters relating to Trade Mark and assisting his
Senior officers. He again stated that he has not personally obtained
opinion on the genuineness or authenticity of signature of Shri. O.P.
Gupta.
-- 25 of 41 --
Judgment 26 C.C.No. 548/PW/2019
39. Prosecution has examined PW-07 Ravindra Premsingh
Thakare, API attached to Ghansawangi Police Station, Jalna who
deposed that, in the year 2018, he was attached to Antop Hill police
station as PSI and he was called by Sr. PI of D.N. Nagar police station
Shri. Vartak for recording statement in respect of crime registered
against Yashu Raja Chaddha and inquiry conducted by Antop Hill Police
station. In this regard he stated that , on 08/03/2018 Antop Hill P.S.
received one letter from the office of Deputy Registrar Bauddhik
Sampada Bhavan (ckSf/nd laink Hkou), Controller General Petant And
Design wherein it was informed to conduct inquiry in respect of one
letter through e-mail submitted by informant Amrish Shah along-with
one attachment letter thereby obtaining appointment of Controller
General CGPDTM at the office of Ministry of Defence. After receiving
letter, on next day on 09/03/2018, informant Amrish Shah came to
Bauddhik Sampada Bhavan (ckSf/nd laink Hkou) and he was called to
Antop Hill P.S. for inquiry. PW-7 proved letter dated 08/03/2018
received by Antop Hill Police Station bearing their endorsement which
is marked at Exh.83.
40. PW-7 further deposed that the letter annexed along-with
letter of informant was forged document and they were directed to
inquire into the matter wherein it was transpired that, prima facie the
accused has cheated the informant by dishonestly obtaining amount
from him without completion of registration work of his Patent and
Trademark and prepared forged document/letter of appointment.
Accordingly the informant informed that, he is going to file complaint to
local police station. Thereafter, the detail statement of informant Amrish
-- 26 of 41 --
Judgment 27 C.C.No. 548/PW/2019
Shah and Deputy Registrar Shri. Satyendra Pandey was recorded by
him. As the informant was intending to file the complaint to local police
station having jurisdiction, his application was filed to Antop Hill P.S.
Thereafter, he was called by D.N. Nagar P.S. for recording statement
where he went along-with the application of informant and letter from
Deputy Registrar Shri. Pandey and the forged letter prepared by
accused.
41. During the cross examination of PW-7 it is brought on
record that the original of letter at Exh.83 is not produced on record. He
also stated that he is not having any personal knowledge about the fact
that, the informant asked to accused about registration of Trademark.
He admitted that he do not know who has written the original letter
annexed along-with e-mail of the informant and on the basis of
information given by informant, he came to a conclusion that, he was
cheated by accused. He has not personally inquired with the concern
department to whom the forged letter was addressed about the
genuineness of the letter.
42. Prosecution has examined PW-08 Ajitkumar Dattatray
Vartak, (Investigation Officer) who deposed that, in the year 2018,
he was attached to D.N. Nagar police station as Sr. PI. At that time PSI
Lad registered MECR No. 02/2018 on 05/05/2018 on the basis of
complaint of informant Amrish Shah and on next day said matter was
handed over to him for investigation. Alongwith FIR, copy of complaint
of informant filed before the Court, statement of informant were given
to him for investigation. During investigation, he has verified the bank
-- 27 of 41 --
Judgment 28 C.C.No. 548/PW/2019
account statements at Exh.24 to find out amount paid by informant
from time to time to accused. He stated that the informant had lodged
complaint to Intellectual property office who in turn filed to Antop Hill
police station in respect of fake certificates of Intellectual property
registration prepared by accused. Therefore, he made inquiry in that
regard and recorded statement of PSI Kakde of Antop Hill police station
during investigation on 21/12/2018. He also recorded statement of
witness Anshu Ranjan Manoranjan Prasad, Examiner of Trade Mark &
GIE on 16/07/2018. He also stated that, only 6 certificates given by
accused were valid and rest of the certificates were fake certificates.
43. PW-8 further deposed that during his investgation he
issued notice to the friend of accused namely Rohita Suchit and called
documents of accused from her as the accused was not co-operating
during investigation. Accordingly after receiving notice, Rohita Suchit
produced Adhar Card, mobile, blue colour diary, cheque book of IDFC
bank of accused which was seized by drawing panchanama on
02/12/2018 at Exh.53. He also identified the seized articles at ‘A’ to ‘I’.
During investigation the mobile number of accused was traced out and
his location was found at Goa. Therefore, with the help of police staff
the accused was arrested at Goa. After arrest, the accused narrated
about the documents of correspondence through e-mail with informant
and gave memorandum statement at Exh.55.
44. PW-8 again deposed that thereafter, PSI Girwale along-with
police staff took accused with panch witnesses at Fort, Bora Bazar at
Cyber Cafe where accused opened his e-mail account and shown the
-- 28 of 41 --
Judgment 29 C.C.No. 548/PW/2019
e-mail correspondence with informant of which printouts were taken by
drawing panchanama in presence of panch witnesses. On 20/12/2018
again accused had given memorandum statement for showing e-mail
correspondence with informant in his Gmail account inbox. Therefore,
his memorandum statement was recorded in presence of panch witness
which is at Exh.70. Thereafter, accused opened his mail account in D.N.
Nagar police station on the computer and shown all the mail
correspondence between himself and the informant of which printouts
were taken and collected by him during investigation by drawing
panchnama at Exh.71. He identified the e-mail correspondence
collectively marked at Exh.72 (page Nos. 78 to 237 annexed with
charge-sheet) to be the same.
45. PW-8 further deposed that he also recorded statement of
witness Balkrishna Khanvilkar and on 18/12/2018 memorandum
statement of accused at Exh.57 was recorded in respect of mobile used
by him for sending e-mail which was kept at Goregaon and accordingly
accused he produced one Samsung mobile belonging to him which was
seized by me by drawing panchanama at Exh.58. The said mobile of
accused is sent to Forensic Lab for analysis and yet the report is not
received. Lastly he stated that after conclusion of his investigation, he
found sufficient evidence against accused and therefore, charge-sheet
was filed against him and it was transpired that, accused cheated the
informant by obtaining amount of Rs. 44 lacs for registration of
Intellectual property documents, however, he prepared fake documents.
-- 29 of 41 --
Judgment 30 C.C.No. 548/PW/2019
46. During the cross examination of PW-8 conducted on behalf
of Ld.Adv. for accused it is brought on record that, there is no date
mentioned at page Nos. 78 to 237 annexed along-with charge-sheet and
he stated that he never met Shri. O.P. Gupta personally for any time. He
admitted that there is no mention of document at Exh.77 in the
statement of witness Anshu Ranjan Manoranjan Prasad recorded by him
as well as witness Anshu Ranjan Manoranjan Prasad is not handwriting
expert and he is not certified handwriting expert. He further admitted
that by looking at the document at Exh.78, he cannot state whether it
bears genuine signature of O.P. Gupta or not.
47. PW-8 in his further cross examination stated that it was
stated by witness Anshu Ranjan Manoranjan Prasad before him while
recording his statement that, out of the documents prepared by the
accused, 6 documents are valid and genuine and the other documents
were forged, fabricated and bogus documents,. however, it was not
recorded by him. Lastly he stated that he has not given the documents
annexed along-with charge-sheet produced by informant and accused to
any Government Agency to verify the genuineness of the documents.
Except this rest of the cross-examination is that of denial.
48. Last witness examined by the prosecution PW-9
Vismay Parimal Shroff who is an advocate deposed that he was
acquainted with informant Amrish Shah who is a story writer and
he came in contact with him through common friend. PW-9 was
practicing as an Advocate and in the year 2018 the complainant
approached him for advise in respect of Intellectual Property
-- 30 of 41 --
Judgment 31 C.C.No. 548/PW/2019
Rights. That time he told him that, he is commercial lawyer and
asked him to consult advocate practicing in Intellectual Property
Rights. He further stated that he is not acquainted with accused
Yashu Raja Chaddha and he do not remember whether he had
issued any legal notices to accused Yashu Raja Chaddha on behalf
of informant Amrish Shah. Police had recorded his statement prior
to 7 years. He denied the suggestion of Ld.APP for State that ,
accused Yashu Raja Chaddha brought one cheque in his office issued in
favour of informant Amrish Shah for amount of Rs. 25,90,000/-.
Therefore Ld.APP for State was permitted to put questions in the nature
of cross-examination as the witness PW-9 has not supported the case of
prosecution wherein it is brought on record that, the e-mail
correspondence from record marked at Exh.18 is having his e-mail ID
vismay@shroff.info. But he do not remember whether he was having
e-mail correspondence with accused at that time. Rest of the cross-
examination by Ld.APP for State is that of denial.
49. During the cross examination of PW-9 conducted on
behalf of accused he admitted that, his statement recorded by police
is in Marathi language and he do not know what contents were written
by police in it. He also admitted that, the said e-mail correspondence at
Exh.18 was sent as per the instructions of the informant and he do not
have any occasion to check to whom it was sent.
50. After going through testimony of PW1 to PW-9, it appears
that, PW-1 informant Amrish Shah has deposed in accordance with
contents in his FIR at Exh.23 and there are no material variance or
-- 31 of 41 --
Judgment 32 C.C.No. 548/PW/2019
discrepancies found in the testimony of PW1 as compared to his FIR at
Exh.23, but he appears to be truthful and believable witness and he has
no reason to falsely implicate the accused in present crime. He is having
experience in Brain Health Practice and story writing as well as
connected with entertainment and media industry and it is nowhere
brought on record that there was any inimical relationship in between
informant and accused. On the contrary he is ordinary prudent man
who relied upon the words of accused being an Advocate who has
committed cheating and has done misappropriation of amount obtained
from the informant from time to time. Even though it is the defence of
accused that, he charged the said amount towards his professional fees.
However, absolutely no document is produced on record to show how
he charged the amount towards the fees as an Advocate for different
work assigned to him.
51. Again even though it is argued by Ld. Advocate Shri. Tiwari
on behalf accused that, there is no standard set for Advocates to charge
fees and there might be some difference in amount charged by the
accused. However, to prove this argument, there is nothing brought on
record by Ld. Advocate for accused. Therefore, I found not substance in
the defence of accused that whatever amount is transferred by the
informant to the account of accused was towards the professional fees
as an Advocate. On the contrary, the accused himself admitted that the
informant not only paid the Advocate fees but also incurred expenses
towards his flight, lodging boarding, dinner in the hotel etc. which will
certainly not come within the ambit of 'professional fees' and it shows
the motive and intention of the accused to solely commit cheating with
-- 32 of 41 --
Judgment 33 C.C.No. 548/PW/2019
the informant and misappropriate the amount transferred by him from
time to time to the extent of Rs. 44,14,242/- which is not a meager
amount but huge amount for the informant who believed the words of
the accused.
52. Now as far as the objection raised by the Ld. Advocate for
the accused in respect of production of bank statement of HDFC Bank of
informant is concerned, he has much emphasized on the yardstick of
Section 4 of Bankers Book Evidence Act and objected that Exh.24 which
is a Bank Statement of the accused cannot be read in evidence as it is a
mere production by the Investigating Officer.
53. Coming on this point admittedly Exh.24 is not produced by
the informant himself and it is collected during investigation by the
Investigating Officer showing clearly the name of the accused on the
statement. There are also relevant entries of making payment to the
accused in his account by the informant. Admittedly it was the
obligation on the part of prosecution to call the witness from concerned
bank to prove the genuineness of entries. However, merely because
there is some lacuna on the part of prosecution, it cannot be said that
bank account statement at Exh.24 cannot be taken into consideration in
it entirety. However, considering the admission of accused in his
statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. as well as considering the cross
examination conducted on behalf of accused, it appears that, he is
having knowledge about the said bank account statement at Exh.24 and
the amount transferred therein by the informant from time to time.
Moreover, the admission on the part of the accused about accepting
-- 33 of 41 --
Judgment 34 C.C.No. 548/PW/2019
amount towards his professional fees will suffice the purpose and
therefore Exh.24 i.e. HDFC Bank statement of the accused can be taken
into consideration for collateral purpose and it is admissible accordingly.
54. Again in respect of certificates filed by the informant under
Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act at Exh.20 to prove the electronic
evidence in respect of e-mail correspondence between the informant
and the accused, objection is raised by the Ld. Advocate for the accused
that, certificate is not written by the informant himself and it is also not
affirmed and does not speak of all the documents. However, after going
through relevant provisions of Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, it
appears that, there is no straight jacket formula prescribed for
Certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act and the words
used in the said Section are 'knowledge or belief' of the person giving
statement about the facts mentioned in the electronic
evidence/document and considering the evidence of PW1, I found that
the Certificate filed by him at Exh.20 is sufficient to prove e-mail
correspondence between himself and the accused and he is in receipt of
said alleged letter of Shri. O.P. Gupta through e-mail only by the
accused.
55. Further PW-2 has focused on the fact that the accused
was having intention to prepare project report for its presentation
before the Ministry of Defence in respect of Super Mind defence
project with Brain Science programming of informant. Moreover,
PW3 to PW5 who are the panch witnesses have also stood to their
veracity and their evidence is also not much shattered during the
-- 34 of 41 --
Judgment 35 C.C.No. 548/PW/2019
cross-examination and they have satisfactorily proved production
panchanama at Exh.53, Memorandum statement at Exh.55, 57, 70
and panchnama at Exh.56, Exh.58 and the panchnama in respect
of the e-mail printouts at Exh.71 and the printouts collectively
marked at Exh.72.
56. Further PW6 who is the employee in the Government
Office as Trade Mark examiner has duly focused on the fact of
receiving letter through e-mail at Exh.77 annexed along-with letter
at Exh.78 which is proved by the prosecution to be a forged and
fabricated document prepared by the accused with forged
signature of Controller General Shri. O.P.Gupta and forwarded to
informant through e-mail. He has also clearly focused on the fact
that, it was duly informed by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Mark
and Geographical indications Shri. S.K. Pandey that the signature
is not of Shri. O.P.Gupta at Exh.78 and accordingly he sent the said
letter to Antop Hill P.S. for taking action on 8/03/2018 for which
purpose the prosecution has examined PW7 who has also
corroborated the testimony of PW1 and PW6 in material
particulars and contended that forged letter was prepared by
accused. The investigating officer PW8 A.D. Vartak has rightly
carried the investigation in proper direction to prove the charges
levelled against the accused and he was not supposed to visit the
Foreign Countries for the purpose of investigation in respect of
Registration process done by accused at USPTO and WIPO as it
-- 35 of 41 --
Judgment 36 C.C.No. 548/PW/2019
was not at all done by accused as per his own tenor of cross-
examination. But with that contentions he deceived the informant
and induced him to deliver the amount to the extent of Rs. 44 lacs
with sole intention of committing cheating, misappropriation of
amount and forgery of the document/electronic record. PW8 has
collected all the material and relevant evidence which is annexed
along-with charge-sheet. Even though PW9 has not supported the
case of prosecution whole heartedly, but considering his role
narrated by the informant, sufficient evidence is brought on
record.
57. Further even though certain omissions and
contradictions have been brought on record during the cross
examination of the all the witnesses, but if it is not affecting the
root of the prosecution case then it is not fatal to the case of
prosecution.
58. In this regard I would like to go through the
observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the authorities reported
as under :-
i) AIR 2011 SC 567
(Nandylavenkaparamana Vs. State of AP)
Wherein it has been observed that, where a number of
witnesses appeared for the prosecution some discrepancies
are bound to occur in their statements.
ii) AIR 2000 SC 1608 (Joseph Vs. State of Kerala )
-- 36 of 41 --
Judgment 37 C.C.No. 548/PW/2019
Wherein it has been observed that unless the
discrepancies and contradictions are so material and
substantial and they are also in respect of the vitally or
relevant aspects of the facts deposed, the witnesses cannot
be straightway condemned and their testimony cannot be
discarded in its entirety.
59. In view of authorities cited supra and at the fag end of
my discussion made above I have come to a conclusion that, the
prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt guilt of
accused for the offence p/u/s. 406, 420, 468, 471 of IPC r/w 66
(d) of IT Act of I. P. Code. However prosecution has utterly failed
to prove the guilt of accused for the offences p/u/s. 467, 259, 260
of the I. P. Code and absolutely no evidence is placed on record in
that regard and prosecution witnesses have neither contended
about the above offence in their statements before police nor they
have deposed in their testimony before this Court. Accordingly I
answer point no.1, 2, 4, 5 & 8 as proved against accused and point
no.3, 6 & 7 as not proved against accused. Therefore I hold the
accused guilty for the above said charges and he is liable for
punishment.
60. As I have come to conclusion that, the accused is guilty for
the offences p/u/s. 406, 420, 468, 471 of IPC r/w 66 (d) of IT Act and
he is liable for punishment, I take a pause here to hear the accused on
point of sentence.
-- 37 of 41 --
Judgment 38 C.C.No. 548/PW/2019
61. Heard accused on the point of sentence who submitted
that, he has not committed any crime and he is not guilty and that he
had already spent five years one month and thirteen days in
custody/jail and that he believes in Justice system and prayed for
leniency. Heard Ld. Advocate Kartik Raj Shekhar for accused who also
submitted that, the accused is languishing in jail for more than 5 years
and therefore he also prayed for showing leniency. Informant Amrish
Shah is absent when called out. Heard Ld. I/c. APP for State who
submitted to impose maximum sentence on the accused.
62. In so far as sentencing is concerned, the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Shyam Narain -vs State (NCT of Delhi)
reported in 2013(7)SCC 77 has ruled that primarily it is to be born
in mind that sentencing for any offence has a social goal. Sentence
is to be imposed regard being had to the nature of offence and the
manner in which the offence has been committed. The
fundamental purpose of imposition of sentence is based on the
principle that accused must realize that the crime committed by
him has not only created a dent in the life of the victim but also a
concavity in the social fabric. The purpose of just punishment is
designed so that the individuals in the society which ultimately
constitute the collective do not suffer time and again for such
crimes.
63. I have carefully taken into consideration submission of both
sides and coming to the present case which is filed in the year 2019
-- 38 of 41 --
Judgment 39 C.C.No. 548/PW/2019
based on the crime registered in the year 2018 and considering the fact
that the accused being an Advocate is alleged to have committed crime
of cheating, forgery, misappropriation of amount etc. thereby damaging
the trust and belief of informant as a client and has shown his dishonest
intention while practicing as an Advocate. As well as after taking into
consideration the fact that he is in jail since 14/12/2018 and has
completed almost 5 years behind the bar, in answer Point No. 9, I
proceed to pass following order :
-: O R D E R :-
1. The accused Yashu Raja Chaddha is convicted for the
offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC vide Section 248 (2) of the
Criminal Procedure Code and he is sentenced to suffer Rigorous
Imprisonment for 3 (Three) years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-
(Rupees Five Thousand Only) and in default of payment of fine to suffer
Simple Imprisonment for 1 (One) month.
2. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 420 of IPC vide Section 248 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code
and he is sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 (Three) years
and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) and in
default of payment of fine to suffer Simple Imprisonment for 1 (One)
month.
3. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 468 of IPC vide Section 248 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code
and he is sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 (Three) years
and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) and in
-- 39 of 41 --
Judgment 40 C.C.No. 548/PW/2019
default of payment of fine to suffer Simple Imprisonment for 1 (One)
month.
4. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 471 of IPC vide Section 248 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code
and he is sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment for 2 (Two) years
and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) and in
default of payment of fine to suffer Simple Imprisonment for 1 (One)
month.
5. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 66(d) of Information Technology Act vide Section 248 (2) of the
Criminal Procedure Code and he is sentenced to suffer Rigorous
Imprisonment for 1 (One) year and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- ( Rupees
Ten Thousand only ) and in default of payment of fine to suffer Simple
Imprisonment for 1 (One) month.
6. The accused Yashu Raja Chaddha is acquitted for the
offence punishable under Sections 467, 259, 260 of IPC vide Section
248(1) of Cr.P.C.
7. All the above sentences shall run concurrently.
8. The accused be given set-off vide Section 428 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure for the period during which he is in custody i.e.
from 14/12/2018.
9. The accused be released forthwith immediately if not
required in any other crime.
-- 40 of 41 --
Judgment 41 C.C.No. 548/PW/2019
10. The accused is intimated about his right to prefer an appeal
against this Judgment and order.
11. Seized muddemal property i.e. Samsung mobile forwarded
for Chemical Analysis in the Forensic Lab at Kalina, Mumbai be returned
to the accused after receiving it from the Forensic Lab and after expiry
of period of appeal.
12. Seized muddemal property Article ‘A’ to ‘I’ i.e. Passport,
Adhar Card, Cheque book of HDFC Bank, Two cheque books of IDFC Bank,
One empty box of mobile of Samsung company, One blue colour diary, One
brown colour leather bag and documents of rent agreement and bank letters
of accused be returned to the accused after expiry of period of appeal.
13. Seized muddemal i.e. printouts at Sr. No.3 and 4 in charge-sheet
be kept with record.
14. Copy of judgment be given to the accused free of costs.
Sd/-
(R. M. Shaikh)
Metropolitan Magistrate,
Date: 30/01/2024. 10th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
Dictated on : 30/01/2024.
Transcribed on : 30/01/2024.
Signed on : 30/01/2024.
-- 41 of 41 --