Harshad Mehta Scam: Delhi Court Directs To Frame Charges Against Accused For Selling Shares

Delhi’s Patiala House Court has recently directed to frame charges against a person for allegedly selling the shares attached in the 1990s Harshad Mehta scam case. The accused signed the sale form without any authority. The shares belonged to his parents.

Metropolitan Magistrate Yashdeep Chahal was directed to frame charges against the accused under Sections 420 & 468 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Therefore, The Complaint was filed by M/s. Share Shoppe against Rajendra Prasad Sharma for illegally selling pre-attached shares by signing the documents without any authority.

It was submitted by advocate Rishabh Jain, counsel for the complainant that hundreds of the said shares had already been attached by the Income Tax Department in light of Harshad Mehta’s Scam and accused dishonestly trying to sell pre-attached shares by purporting to be someone else’s.

The judge noted that the pre-charge evidence reveals that the accused actually signed the sale orders despite having no authority to do so. The court stated that “It is nowhere declined that the accused did not accept the payment.”

Judge said in the order of March 31 that “Upon a question by the Court, the accused submitted that the signatures on the alleged forms belong to him, although he reiterated that he signed at the instance of his parents.”

The court observed, “Be that as it may, the unrebutted precharge evidence is not groundless and if duly proved in the trial, may establish the guilt of the accused.”

Furthermore, the facts of the Complaint revealed that the accused filled two spot sale orders on July 5, 1995, and September 8, 1995, for the sale of certain shares of a Company, representing himself as the owner of the shares.

The court noted in the order, “The accused himself signed the said forms, whereas the names of the holders of shares mentioned in the said forms belonged to the parents of the accused.”

The complainant alleged that “In lieu of the sale orders, two cheques were issued to the accused by the complainant which was duly encashed by him.”

It also alleged that the Registrar of the said company declined to transfer the said shares on the ground that the signatures of the seller on the spot sale order forms didn’t match with the specimen signatures on the record of the company.