I

State

Versus 1.

CNR No: HRNR03-002278-2015 CIS No. CHI-724-2015

Criminal Case No. 125RT of 2015 Date of Institution: 04.11.2015 Date of Decision: 15.02.2020

Vishnu @ Mintu S/o Parbhati Lal, Caste Jogi, R/o village Khariwara, P.S. Ateli, District Mahendergarh
(Haryana).

State Vs. Vishnu

IN THE COURT OF ASHOK KUMAR-III, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE 1ST CLASS, NARNAUL UID-HR0329

Present:

2. Jogender Yadav S/o Mukesh Yadav, Caste Ahir, R/o House No. 773, Ward No. 21, Om Nagar, Gurgaon,
Haryana.

........Accused

FIR No.: 83 dated 10.03.2014 Under Section: 406, 420, 506 & 34 IPC

Police Station : City Narnaul.

Sh. Anshuman Siag, APP for the State assisted by Sh. Nitin Mehta, Advocate.

Accused Vishnu on bail with Sh. J.S. Dhillon, Advocate.

Accused Jogender on bail with Sh. V.K. Shandilya, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

Prosecution against the present accused persons for commission of offence punishable under Sections
420, 406, 506 and 34 IPC was launched by police of Police Station, City Narnaul.

Ashok Kumar - III

Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Anju SG-III) Narnaul.UID No. HR0329

15.02.2020

State Vs. Vishnu

2. Concisely, the matrix of facts culminating from the

application of complainants Rajender S/o Girdhari Lal, Surender S/o Gheesa Ram, Bhoop Singh S/o Ram
Narayan and Dashrath S/o Rohtash are that accused Vishnu received an amount of Rs. 66,00,000/- from
the complainants for securing the jobs for their wards in SSC, Constable, Patwari and NLIC. Accused No.
1 made the above-said amount available to the accused No. 2 and 3. They have obtained the above-said
amount in the name of one Deputy D.E.O., Mukesh Yadav, Gurugram. But the accused persons could not
secure any job for their children. When they asked for the refund of their amount or to secure them a
job anywhere, accused persons put off the matter on one pretext or the another and ultimately they
refused. They also threatened to kill them. Accused No. 2, Sumer Singh J.E. gave a cheque of Rs.
7,00,000/- to the complainant on 23.01.2014 and promised to repay the remaining amount within 2-4
days but he did not refund the same till date. On 19.02.2014, accused Sumer Singh Yadav, Vishnu Jogi,
Jogender and Mukesh Deputy D.O. called them in Rewari where they asked him to return the cheque of
Rs. 7,00,000/- as they will make the payment in cash. But the accused persons neither gave any cash nor
any cheque. At that time Rajender S/o Girdhari lal was also with complainant Surender. Accused persons
have committed cheating and fraud against them. Therefore, appropriate action be taken against them.

Ashok Kumar - III

Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Anju SG-III) Narnaul.UID No. HR0329

15.02.2020

State Vs. Vishnu

3. On the above-said application, FIR under Section

406, 420, 506 and 34 IPC was got registered. Investigation was carried on. During investigation,
supplementary statement of complainant Rajender Kumar was recorded. Statements of Bhoop Singh S/o
Ram Narayan, Surender S/o Gheesa, Dashrath S/o Rohtash were recorded. During investigation, it was
found that two sons of complainant Rajender had applied for Combined Graduate Level (CGL) and NLIC
tests. The son of complainant Surender alongwith his two brothers have applied for the post of Patwari
in Revenue Department, Rajasthan. The daughter-in-law of Bhoop Singh had also applied for the post of
AO in NLIC. The daughter-in-law and cousin of Dashrath had applied in Revenue Department, Rajasthan.
All the above-said complainants came in contact with accused Vishnu, who had opened a Saraswati
Coaching Center in the year, 2013 in Nangal Chaudhary and they all started working for securing jobs for
the relatives of the complainants. The test of the sons of Rajender and daughter-in- law of Bhoop Singh
for the post of AO was conducted in Hissar on 08.09.2013. The accused persons supplied then the solved
question paper on 07.09.2013. Since, the same question paper had come in examination on 08.09.2013,
on 09.09.2013 the complainants gave the amount to the accused persons out of their free Will.
Accordingly, the exam of the brothers of Surender was also arranged through a mobile chip by the
accused persons and

Ashok Kumar - III

Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Anju SG-III) Narnaul.UID No. HR0329

15.02.2020

State Vs. Vishnu

after that on 30.06.2013, he also gave the amount to the accused

person. When accused persons got conducted the examination of his relatives with the help of micro
chip and mobile phone. Similarly examination of son of Rajender was conducted on 29.09.2013. During
investigation contradictions arrived between First Investigation Report and the statement of the
complainant and witnesses regarding payment of amount to the accused persons at different places.
Complainants were also found involved in the offence with the accused persons. As per the statement of
complainant Surender, accused had given a cheque of Rs. 7,00,000/- to him at Gurugram on 23.01.2014
whereas it was found to be refunded to Surender on 19.02.2014 at Rewari. After that investigation was
carried on by ASI Jagdish. During investigation accused Vishnu S/o Parbhati Lal was arrested on
29.11.2014. During police remand accused Vishnu got recovered an amount of Rs. 20,000/-.
Supplementary statement of accused Bhoop Singh and complainant Surender were recorded in which
they stated that they have agreed to make the payment for securing jobs to accused Vishnu and
Jogender Yadav. After anticipatory bail of Jogender Yadav on 10.02.2015, he was joined in investigation.
Voice sample of accused Jogender Yadav was taken. On 08.04.2015, the same was sent to FSL
Madhuban for examination. Accused Neetu S/o Jitender and Mukesh Yadav, Deputy D.E.O. were found
innocent during investigation.

Ashok Kumar - III

Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Anju SG-III) Narnaul.UID No. HR0329

15.02.2020
State Vs. Vishnu

Accused Jogender Yadav was again joined in investigation on

14.10.2015. After completion of all other formalities of investigation, final report under Section 173
Cr.P.C. was submitted before the Court.

4. Copies of challan were supplied to the accused persons free of costs, as required under Section 207
Cr.P.C.

5. Finding a prima facie case, accused persons were charge-sheeted under Sections 420 & 506 IPC read
with Section 34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

6. Prosecution, to prove its case, examined Complainant Rajender S/o Girdhari as PW1, Surender S/o
Gheesa Ram as PW2, Bhoop Singh S/o Ram Narayan as PW3, SI Raj Kumar as PW4, SI Sube Singh No. 365
as PW5, SI Jagdish No. 513 as PW-6, Dashrath S/o Rohtash as PW-7, Sumer Singh S/o Manohar Lal as
PW-8, SI Abhay Singh No. 657 as PW-9, Madhu Bala W/o Anil Kumar as PW-10, SI Ashwini No. 612 as
PW-11, DSP Jai Pal Singh as PW-12, Rohtash S/o Phoola Ram as PW-13 and Bhajan Lal S/o Ram Kumar as
PW-14. Thereafter, Ld. APP for the State tendered FSL Report as Ex. PX and evidence of prosecution was
closed by Court order.

Ashok Kumar - III

Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Anju SG-III) Narnaul.UID No. HR0329

15.02.2020

State Vs. Vishnu

7. Statements of accused persons were recorded under

Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they denied all the allegations leveled against them and stated that the
case has been falsely planted against them. They opted to lead evidence in defence but they closed the
same vide their separately recorded joint statement, after tendering document Ex. DX i.e. cancellation
report in FIR No. 83 dated 10.03.2014.

8. I have heard learned APP for the State assisted by learned counsel for complainant as well as learned
defence counsel and the case file has been carefully perused.

9. To bring home the guilt of accused persons under Sections 420 & 506 read with Section 34 IPC,
prosecution examined Complainant Rajender S/o Girdhari as PW-1, who stated that for securing a job
for his son, he contacted accused Vishnu, Jogender Yadav, Mukesh Yadav and Neetu S/o Jitender.
Accused Jogender, Vishnu and Neetu secured all solved question paper one day before the date of
examination. Since, the same question paper had arrived in exam, Rs. 8,00,000/- was demanded from
him by accused Vishnu, Jogender and Neetu. He took the amount to Daya Nagar on 10.09.2013. After
that the call letter of his son arrived on 20.09.2013. On this accused Vishnu told him that they will also
arrange for the above-said exam. After that

Ashok Kumar - III

Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Anju SG-III) Narnaul.UID No. HR0329

15.02.2020

State Vs. Vishnu

accused Vishnu, Jogender and Neetu received another amount of

Rs. 15,00,000/- from his house at Daya Nagar on 10.01.2013. But after payment of the above-said
amount, the appointment was cancelled. When he demanded his amount of Rs. 23,00,000/- from the
accused persons, they promised that they will secure the job for his son in the next exam but till date
the amount of Rs. 23,00,000/- has not been returned by the accused persons. On being asked, he was
threatened with dire consequences. After that Surender and Sumer were given blank cheques by the
accused Vishnu. A cheque of Rs. 7,00,000/- was also given to Surender on 19.01.2014. But subsequently,
on 23.02.2014, the cheque was received back by the accused persons at the house of Surender with an
assurance to make the payment in cash but till date neither any cheque nor any cash was given to the
complainant. He moved an application in this regard to the police as Ex. PW-1/A, which bears his
signatures.

PW-2, Surender S/o Gheesa Ram, deposed that an application Ex. PW-1/A was given to the police for
taking appropriate action against the accused persons. Cheque of Rs. 7,00,000/- was given to him in
Gurugram on 23.01.2014. The same was dishonoured. Accused requested for 2-4 days time for making
the payment in cash. When they reached Rewari, Sumer Singh, J.E. and Vishnu asked for the cheque and
as they offered to

Ashok Kumar - III

Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Anju SG-III) Narnaul.UID No. HR0329

15.02.2020

State Vs. Vishnu

8

make the payment in cash. But still they did not make the

payment. They also threatened the complainant, if he dares to ask for the amount. After that he talked
to Jogender who told him that he has also given some cash to Vishnu. They both went to Gurugram,
where they were threatened with dire consequences by the accused persons.

PW-3, Bhoop Singh S/o Ram Narayan, deposed that exam of his daughter-in-law for the post of P.O in
LIC Office was scheduled on 08.09.2013. He had come in contact with accused Vishnu in June 2013. They
assured that they will get the exam cleared and ultimately a deal was settled in Rs. 8,00,000/-. On
07.09.2013, a solved question paper was provided to his daughter-in-law, Madhubala. The same
question paper came in the exam. After that he make the payment to the accused persons on
09.09.2013. Subsequently, the result was canceled and when they demanded their money back, accused
threatened them. When they contacted Vishnu, a blank cheque was given to Sumer. Sumer entered an
amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- and gave the cheque to Surender S/o Gheesa Ram at Gurugram. After that
they were called at Rewari for returning the cheque and receiving the payment in cash but till date the
payment was not made to them. Ultimately, the present FIR was got registered. Accused persons are
present in the Court.

Ashok Kumar - III

Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Anju SG-III) Narnaul.UID No. HR0329

15.02.2020

State Vs. Vishnu

PW-4, SI Raj Kumar, registered the formal FIR Ex. PW-4/A in the present case and made the
endorsement Ex. PW- 4/B over tehrir. He stated that the final report was submitted by INSP/SHO
Ramesh Chand and he identifies his signatures.

PW-5, SI Sube Singh No. 365, stated that on 15.03.2014, statements of witnesses Rajender, Surender,
Dashrath and Bhoop Singh were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

PW-6, SI Jagdish No. 513, submitted that on 27.11.2014, the charge of investigation in the present FIR
was handed over to him. During investigation, accused Vishnu was arrested on 29.11.2014. Disclosure
statements of accused Vishnu were recorded as Ex. PW-6/A and Ex. PW-6/B. On 03.12.2014, another
disclosure statement of accused Vishnu was recorded as Ex. PW-6/C and on the basis of the above-said
disclosure statement, accused Vishnu got recovered an amount of Rs. 20,000/-, which was taken into
police custody vide memo Ex. PW-6/D. Even on 04.12.2014, disclosure statement of accused Vishnu was
recorded as Ex. PW-6/E. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. Accused are present in the Court.
PW-7, Dashrath S/o Rohtash, stated that he came in

Ashok Kumar - III

Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Anju SG-III) Narnaul.UID No. HR0329

15.02.2020

State Vs. Vishnu

10

contact with accused Vishnu at his Coaching Center in 2013.

Accused assured him that he will get cleared the test of Patwari in Rajasthan. He had come in contact
with the accused Vishnu, Mukesh Yadav S/o Jogender Yadav. He gave an amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- to the
accused at the house of Rajender in Daya Nagar on 29.06.2013. After three months from the test, his
candidate failed. Accused had also received an amount of Rs. 12,00,000/- from him after two days from
the test. When he demanded his amount back from the accused, he did not return the same. Accused
are present in the Court.

PW-8, Sumer Singh S/o Manohar Lal, deposed that he came in contact with accused Vishnu S/o Parbhati,
who told him that he has given Rs. 59,00,000/- for securing jobs to Jogender and Neetu. He asked for his
help for recovering the above-said amount. On this he asked Jitender as to whether you know that
Vishnu has given Rs. 59,00,000/- to his nephew Neetu. Jogender gave three chqeues of Rs. 16,00,000/-
to Vishnu. Out of which one cheque of Rs. 4,00,000/- was in the name of Sarjit S/o Jai Narayan, a cheque
of Rs. 4,50,000/- in the name of Attar Singh and a cheque of Rs. 7,00,000/- in the name of Surender.
Jogender also told him that an amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- is still left to be paid. A written settlement was
also arrived in his presence and in the presence of Hirender and Dhan Raj. At that stage an

Ashok Kumar - III

Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Anju SG-III) Narnaul.UID No. HR0329

15.02.2020

State Vs. Vishnu

11

amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- was due against the accused persons.

Accused are present before the Court.

PW-9, SI Abhay Singh No. 657, stated that on 04.12.2014, he was part of investigation with I.O. ASI
Jagdish. On that day, they took accused Vishnu to village Khatiwara, P.S. Ateli. At that time accused
Vishnu suffered his disclosure statement Ex. PW-6/E. He handed over an amount of Rs. 20,000/- to the
police after taking it from one Kalu Mistry. The above-said amount was taken into police custody vide
memo Ex. PW-6/D. Accused are present in the Court.

PW-10, Madhu Bala W/o Anil Kumar, stated that she teaches in a private school. She had appeared in an
exam of LIC on 13.08.2015. Her father-in-law has contacted one Rohtash for procuring the answer sheet.
She does not know as to whom the amount was paid, which was Rs. 8,00,000/-. Her admit card is Ex.
PW-10/A. She stated that the amount be refunded.

PW-11, SI Ashwini No. 612, stated that on 04.01.2015, the charge of investigation was handed over to
him. During investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded. The photocopies of the
documents were taken into police custody vide memo Ex. PW-11/A. Roll number slip, question booklets

Ashok Kumar - III

Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Anju SG-III) Narnaul.UID No. HR0329

15.02.2020

State Vs. Vishnu

12

were also taken into police custody vide memos Ex. PW-11/B and

Ex. PW-11/C, respectively. On 12.02.2015 and 23.02.2015, accused Jogender was joined in investigation
as he was on interim anticipatory bail. His voice sample was taken by moving an application Ex. PW-
11/D. The voice sample was sent to FSL Madhuban. Bank account statement of accused Jogender was
taken into police custody vide memo Ex. PW-11/E. Bank record in this regard is 'Mark PA' to 'Mark PC'.
Documents regarding source of income were taken into police custody which are 'Mark PD' and 'Mark
PE'.

PW-12, DSP Jai Pal Singh, stated that on 03.05.2014, the charge of investigation was handed over to him
vide order No. 508 dated 02.05.2014. During investigation the call details of both the parties were
obtained. On 12.05.2014, Bhoop Singh S/o Ram Narayan was joined in investigation and photocopy of
the question paper for the post of EO was taken into police custody vide memo Ex. PW-12/A. On the
same date, statements of Bhoop Singh and Rajender were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On
17.05.2014, statement of Sumer Singh was recorded. On 20.05.2014, Surender S/o Gheesa Ram
produced an audio C.D. of his conversation with Jogender, which was taken into police custody vide
memo Ex. PW-12/B. Statement of Surender was recorded. After that charge of investigation was handed
over to
Ashok Kumar - III

Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Anju SG-III) Narnaul.UID No. HR0329

15.02.2020

State Vs. Vishnu

13 INSP/SHO, P.S. City, Narnaul on 31.05.2014.

PW-13, Rohtash S/o Phoola Ram, deposed that on 05.09.2013, Rajender S/o Girdhari borrowed a sum of
Rs. 2,00,000/- from him. The amount was given through a pro-note Ex. PW-13/A, which bears his
signatures at Mark 'A'. He stated that the amount has been refunded to him.

PW-14, Bhajan Lal S/o Ram Kumar, stated that on 25.05.2013, Rajender S/o Girdhari lal had borrowed
an amount of Rs. 8,50,000/- from him. On 24.12.2014, Rs. 7,50,000/- was returned to him under a
writing Ex. PW-14/A. He had given the cheque after selling his land. At the time of borrowing the
accused Rajender had told him that he had to give the amount to someone for securing a job.

10. It is argued by learned APP for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant that the
accused persons have committed cheating and fraud against the complainants. Accused persons have
received an amount of Rs. 60,00,000/- from the complainants for securing jobs for their kins. But since
the accused could not secure a job, complainants asked for refund of their payment. Accused persons
have not refunded the payment till date and they also threatened to kill the complainants if they

Ashok Kumar - III

Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Anju SG-III) Narnaul.UID No. HR0329

15.02.2020

State Vs. Vishnu

14

date to ask for the same. All the prosecution witnesses have

proved the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts. Hence, the accused be convicted
under Section 420, 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.

11. Learned counsel for the accused contended that first of all this Court is having no jurisdiction to try
and entertain the present FIR. Moreover, finding no truth in the allegations of the complainants, initially,
the FIR was canceled. All the complainants have made the payment to the accused persons out of their
free Will. They were never induced by the accused to make the payment. There was no intention of
cheat the complainants. Complainants have made the payment after examination only.

It is argued that during investigation accused Neetu has been found innocent by the police whereas
there are similar allegations against him. No wrongful loss has been caused to the complainants as per
Section 23 of IPC. Complainant were never legally entitled to receive the amount from the accused
persons and hence no illegal act of the complainants can be enforced. It is argued that allegations in the
complaint, Ex. PW-1/A are general in nature. The complainants have also failed to explain the source of
their income. No recovery was effected from the accused

Ashok Kumar - III

Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Anju SG-III) Narnaul.UID No. HR0329

15.02.2020

State Vs. Vishnu

15

persons. Moreover, no cheque allegedly given by the accused to

the complainant was produced before the Court. With respect to the Electronic evidence, no certificate
under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act is produced. The original instruments of recording was also
not sent to FSL for examination. PW-2, never stated that he had recorded the conversation between him
and Jogender. On the basis of the above-said arguments Ld. Counsel for the accused persons prayed for
acquittal of the accused persons.

In support of their case Ld. Counsel for accused relied upon:-

Rajinder Dutt Vs. State of Haryana 1993(1) RCR 236, Kanshi Ram Vs. State 2000(3) RCR (Criminal) RCR
557, Kerela Vs. A.P. Pillai AIR 1973 (SC) 326, Ram Avatar Vs. Hari Ram 1982 Cr.L.J. 266 (SC), B. Suresh
Yadav Vs. Sharifa Bee & Others 2007(13) SCC 107, New materials Vs. Nirma Cerglass Technique (P)
Limited 2015(4) RCR 883 (SC), Hira Lai Hari Lai Bhagwati Vs. CBC, New Delhi (2005) 3 SCC 670,
Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia Vs. State of Punjab (2009) 7 SCC 712, and V.Y. Jose Vs. State of Gujarat
(2009) 3 SCC 78 and Sharon Michael Vs. State of T.N. (2009) 3 SCC 375.

12. After hearing the rival contentions of learned APP assisted by learned counsel for the complainant as
well as learned

Ashok Kumar - III

Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Anju SG-III) Narnaul.UID No. HR0329

15.02.2020
State Vs. Vishnu

16

defence counsel and after going through the oral as well as

documentary evidence produced on record, I am of the view that though prosecution has examined as
many as fourteen witnesses in this case but it has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubts. There appeared various flows in the case of the prosecution, which cannot
be ignored.

13. First of all, it is the case of the prosecution that as per the complaint Ex. PW-1/A, the accused
persons received money from the complainants for securing Government jobs for their wards. But since,
the accused persons ultimately failed to secure the jobs, the complainants demanded their money back
from the accused persons and on their refusal to pay back the same, the present complaint was made
on which ultimately the present FIR was registered on 10.03.2014.

14. From the contents of the application Ex. PW-1/A itself, it has come up that the complainants have
contracted to do an illegal act with the accused persons. They also passed some consideration in this
regard. But when the above-said illegal object was not achieved, the present complaint was filed. It
means the complainants were also the part of the conspiracy to secure a Government job for their
wards and when they failed in their evil design, they started playing victims. The complainants entered

Ashok Kumar - III

Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Anju SG-III) Narnaul.UID No. HR0329

15.02.2020

State Vs. Vishnu

17

into an illegal agreement with the accused persons and hence, the

same cannot be enforced. The complainants were hands in gloves with the accused persons to secure
Government job for their kins/relatives. They have paid the amount to the accused persons when the
first promised act of supplying the solved question paper was performed by the accused persons.
Ultimately, the appointment or the result was cancelled by the authorities and only after that the
complainants filed the present complaint Ex. PW-1/A to demand back the amount paid to the accused
persons.
15. From the above-said circumstances, it has also become clear that the intention of the accused
persons was not to cheat the complainants at the time of making the promise of securing Government
jobs for their kins/relatives. In order to establish a case of cheating under Section 420 IPC, it is necessary
to prove that the accused was having a dishonest intention at the time of agreement/promise. Such
dishonest intention cannot be inferred from the mere fact that they could not subsequently fulfill the
promise. In the absence of dishonest and fraudulent intention at the time of agreement/promise, no
question of committing offence under Section 420 IPC arises.

In H.R.Verma Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2000, SC, 2341, Hon'ble the Supreme Court, while dealing with a
similar question has held:

Ashok Kumar - III

Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Anju SG-III) Narnaul.UID No. HR0329

15.02.2020

State Vs. Vishnu

18

“In determining the question, it has to be kept in

mind that the distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating is a fine one. In
depends upon the intention of the accused at the time of inducement, which may be judged by his
subsequent conduct but for this subsequent conduct is not the sole test. Mere breach of contract can
not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right
at the beginning of the transaction, that is the time when the offence is said to have been committed.
Therefore, it is the intention which is the gist of the fence. To hold a person guilty of cheating, it is
necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise.
From his mere failure to keep up promise subsequently, no intention to cheat can be inferred. Such a
culpable intention was present right at the beginning, that is when he made the promise, can not be
presumed”

The crux of the matter is the intention of person, who induces the victim by his representation and not
the nature of prosecution, which would be decisive in determining whether there was a commission of
offence or not ?

16. It is also the case of the prosecution that an audio C.D. containing the call record between Surender
and accused Jogender, was taken into police custody vide memo Ex. PW-12/B.

Ashok Kumar - III

Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Anju SG-III) Narnaul.UID No. HR0329

15.02.2020

State Vs. Vishnu

19

But in this regard no requisite certificate under Section 65-B of

the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has been produced by the person who had extracted the contents of the
C.D. out of his electronic instruments i.e. his mobile phone. In the absence of the above- said requisite
certificate, the electronic evidence cannot be read into evidence. (Anwar P.V. Vs. P.K. Basheer, AIR 2014
(SC) 834).

Even the original instrument was not sent to FSL for checking at the time of preparing the report
regarding the voice sample of the accused. Even the original C.D. containing the voices of Surender and
accused Jogender Singh is not produced on record. The link evidence regarding the voice sample and its
transportation to FSL is also missing.

17. In this case there came no instance to suggest any kind of inducement on part of the accused
persons to deliver any amount to them by the complainants. Moreover, no wrongful loss has caused to
the complainants as they are not legally entitled for the refund of the amount paid by them to achieve
an evil design of securing Government jobs for their kins through illegal means.

18. Moreover, no recovery has been effected in this case from the possession of the accused persons.
The recovery of Rs. 20,000/- effected through recovery memo Ex. PW-6/D, is not a

Ashok Kumar - III

Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Anju SG-III) Narnaul.UID No. HR0329

15.02.2020

State Vs. Vishnu

20

valid recovery in the eyes of law as the amount was recovered

from some other person I.e Kalu Mistry. There was no specific identification marks on the above-said
recovered cash amount of Rs. 20,000/-. Therefore, it cannot be said that it was the same cash which was
received by accused Vishnu from any of the complainant.

19. Even, the original cheque allegedly given by accused Jogender Singh to complainant Surender Kumar
S/o Gheesa Ram is not produced and proved on record.
20. As far as the criminal intimidation is concerned, there are no specific allegations of any threat to kill
in the complaint Ex. PW-1/A. The allegation are quite general in nature and have been made just to add
to the allegations regarding cheating and fraud by the accused persons. In order to make out a case
under Section 506 IPC, it is necessary that the alleged threat must cause an alarm in the mind of the
victim. The conditional threat is no threat in the eyes of law.

21. In view of the above-said discussion, I am of the considered view that no agreement to commit an
illegal act can be enforced. The complainants were equally involved with the accused persons in the act
of securing Government jobs through

Ashok Kumar - III

Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Anju SG-III) Narnaul.UID No. HR0329

15.02.2020

State Vs. Vishnu

21

illegal means and hence, any agreement or promise in this regard

is void. The prosecution has failed to establish that the accused persons are guilty of committing the
offences punishable under Section 420 and 506 IPC against the complainants.

22. Since, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubts, by giving benefit of doubt to the accused persons, they are hereby acquitted from
the charges levelled against them. Fresh bonds are furnished by the accused persons U/s 437-A Cr.P.C.
After due compliance, file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced in open Court. Ashok Kumar III Dated: 15.02.2020 Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,

Narnaul

Note: This judgment contains 21 pages and all the pages have been checked and signed by me.

Pronounced in open Court. Dated: 15.02.2020

Ashok Kumar III Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,

Narnaul UID-HR0329

Ashok Kumar - III

Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Narnaul.UID No. HR0329 15.02.2020

(Anju SG-III)

Present:

State Vs. Vishnu

22

Sh. Anshuman Siag, APP for the State assisted by Sh. Nitin Mehta, Advocate.

Accused Vishnu on bail with Sh. J.S. Dhillon, Advocate.

Accused Jogender on bail with Sh. V.K. Shandilya, Advocate.

No defence evidence is present. Accused persons closed their defence evidence vide their separately
recorded joint statement.

Thereafter, arguments are heard. Vide my separate judgment of the even date, accused persons are
acquitted from the charges leveled against them. Fresh bonds are furnished on file as per Section 437-A
Cr.P.C. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced: Dated. 15.02.2020

(Anju SGG-III)

Ashok Kumar III JMIC/Narnaul UID-HR0329

Ashok Kumar - III

Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Narnaul.UID No. HR0329 15.02.2020

(Anju SG-III)