Police theory falls flat, Chandigarh court acquits 2 accused in 7-year-old cheating case
Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium
Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only BenefitsA Chandigarh court has acquitted Deepak Gupta, a native of Murena district in MP; and Piyush, from Kamal Vihar, Delhi, in a seven-year-old cheating case.
The police registered the FIR on a complaint filed by Mansa Ram, who works as a peon in the Ambala court, on June 19, 2018. He had submitted a complaint to the Registrar (Vigilance), Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. He reported that his friend Monu applied for the post of “chowkidar” in the Faridabad court. He received a phone call and the caller introduced himself as Om Parkash Gupta, an assistant registrar of the High Court.
Gupta informed Monu that his name was in the waiting list and assured him that he would get his selection confirmed in lieu of Rs 40,000. Thereafter, Monu informed him about the call. He contacted the caller, who again claimed to be a High Court assistant registrar.
He became suspicious because no such person was working as assistant registrar at the court. However, he continued the conversation and expressed willingness to pay the amount. The accused later told the complainant that it was too late for the post of “chowkidar” and offered a peon job in the Gurugram court instead. He told Mansa Ram to deposit Rs 40,000 in an account and that money would be withdrawn only after Monu was appointed in the Gurugram court.
During the course of investigation, Piyush and Deepak were arrested. Finding prima facie case charges were framed against both accused under Sections 420 and 419 of the IPC.
Abhinay Goel, counsel for the accused argued that the accused were falsely implicated in the case. After hearing of the arguments, the court acquitted both accused. The court observed the prosecution had failed to prove charges beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused impersonated High Court officials or dishonestly induced the complainants to part with money, or that they acted in furtherance of any common intention.