Delhi’s Patiala House Court has recently directed to frame charges against a person for allegedly selling the shares attached in the Harshad Mehta scam case of the 1990s.
The accused had signed the sale form without any authority. The shares belonged to his parents.
Metropolitan Magistrate Yashdeep Chahal directed to frame charges against the accused under Sections 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Complaint was filed by M/s. Share Shoppe against Rajendra Prasad Sharma for illegally selling preattached 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 the Harshad Mehta’s Scam and the accused dishonestly tried to sell preattached shares by purporting to be someone else’s.
The judge noted that the precharge evidence reveals that the accused had actually signed on the sale orders despite having no authority to do so.
The court said, “It is nowhere declined that the accused did not accept the payment.”

“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 judge said in the order of March 31.
The court observed, “Be that as it may, the unrebuttedprecharge evidence is not groundless and if duly proved in the trial, may establish the guilt of the accused.”
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 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 court noted in the order.
“In lieu of the sale orders, two cheques were issued to the accused by complainant which were duly encashed by him,” the complainant alleged.
It is also alleged that the Registrar of the said company had declined to transfer the said shares on the ground that the signatures of the seller on the spot sale order forms did not match with the specimen signatures on the record of the company.
The Counsel for the complainant submitted that the accused was not a layman and was aware that he was not the shareholder of the said shares. He further deposed that the accused encashed the said cheques despite not being the lawful owner of the shares. (ANI)