New Delhi [India], September 9 : Delhi's Rouse Avenue Court on Monday discharged former MP D P Yadav in a case of online gambling through a website. He was an accused in a case registered at Police Station Bhajanpura in 2015.
It was alleged that a gambling racket was running under the protection of D P Yadav and he used to charge Rs. 2 Lakh per day.
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Vaibhav Chaurasia discharged Dharmpal Yadav (DP Yadav) and six others in a case registered under sections for the offences of cheating etc.
"Accused Godhan Singh Rana, Vijay Kumar Sood, Bhupal Singh, Bunty alias Anil Kumar, Saurabh Sanghal, Bharat Singh and Dharampal Yadav are discharged from the present case," ACJM Vaibhav Chaurasia ordered on September 8.
However, the court has framed charges against 9 accused for the offence of cheating, Delhi Gambling Act, Information Technology Act.
"Accused Shahnawaz, Sunil Kumar alias Titttu, Hasan, Varun Verma, Shahrukh alias Rukshad Alam, Sakil Ahmed, Mohammad Imtiyaz Alam, Shebul and Mohammad Jamal are charged under Section 420, Section 120B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 3, Section 4, Section 5 of Delhi Public Gambling Act, 1955 and Section 66D of Information Technology Act, 2000," rhe court ordered on Monday.
Additionally, the court has framed charges against accused Yogheshwar Dayal Sharma alias Pandit under Section 419, Section 420, Section 120B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 3, Section 4, Section 5 of Delhi Public Gambling Act, 1955 and Section 66D of Information Technology Act, 2000.
While discharging D P Yadav, the court held, "This Court is of the opinion that no prima facie ground or material is on record which is enough to frame charges against accused D.P Yadav in present conspiracy and he stands discharged in the present case."
The court also perused the Record file and said that it is apparent that there is no material on record to prove the proximity of accused D.P. Yadav with respect to the gambling in the present case. There is not even a single eye-witness or a witness who have deposed that accused has himself appeared or represented, rather his name was taken up for protection and to inculcate fear to keep the rival out of the way.
The court also admitted the arguements of defence counsel Rajiv Mohan that that mere CDR will not suffice the framing of charge and that too, as this Court observes, that there is no recorded conversation on record to that effect.
"In absence of contents of the conversation, CDR alone cannot be sufficient to establish complicity in the crime," counsel argued.
During arguements on charge Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) for the State submitted that the CDR of mobile was used by accused D.P. Yadav and was well reflected in the CDR of 2 mobile number, which was used by accused Roshan Lal Verma, that D.P. Yadav used same mobile number as was disclosed before Election Commission, that he used to provide protection to the whole syndicate of gambling and used to charge Rs.2 lakh per day, that there were mediators who used to collect money from Roshan Lal Verma and others and used to hand it over to the D.P. Yadav.
On the other hand, it was argued by the defence counsel that though the complaint lodged on September 9, 2015 reveals the name of D P Yadav, however there is no contention that they had ever seen D P Yadav in person indulging in such activities, that the name of D P Yadav was disclosed by Roshan Lal Verma in his disclosure stating that Roshan Lal Verma used to work for D.P. Yadav, that the 40 percent share of the illegal money procured through gambling was shared to D.P. Yadav, and D.P. Yadav was charging Rs. 2 lakh per day has no basis in the eyes of law, that the whole case is based upon so called victims and their complaint was lodged only subsequent to the raid conducted by the police officials on the intervening night of August 26-27, 2015.