Dy Commissioner Eow-06

Dy Commissioner of Delhi Police -EOW 22-23 Kutab Institutional Area New Delhi 31/03/2006 Sub: - Points discussed in meeting on 27/03/06 regarding my latest e-mail complaint against EOW-police persons, Mr.B.R.Arora, Mr. Anil Thukral And Managing director M/s Sunglow Capital Services ltd. This has reference to telephonic directions given to me to meet you personally & subsequent meeting I had with you on 27/03/2006, wherein I was asked to give the points in support of my allegations against investigating officers of EOW- Delhi Police and my complaint against accused. In this regards, I put forward following points in favour of my allegations with details attached as annexure and Exhibits:1. Police cannot sit as judge to give any judgment. Copy enclosed as EXH-1 1. Supreme Court of India and Delhi High Court in number of orders directed that police has to register FIR; if complaint is made regarding any cognizable offence without any reservation regarding correctness of complaint and Police cannot sit as judge to give any judgment. Copy enclosed as EXH-1. As such once the complainant has given the complaint regarding committement of a cognizable offence, EOW should have registered FIR and investigated the case, which was not done and investigations not carried out properly to favour accused. 2. Instructions are verbal and not the transactions, transactions were carried out at NSE. According to NSE, all transactions whether materialised or not, are registered in computer which gives all details eg (a)date, time, price, qty, script for which bid is placed, (b) if bid is cancelled or modified it gives date time when cancelled/modified (c) if bid materialises it gives e number, date, time , qty & price. THESE DOCUMENTS ARE VITAL TO ESTABLISH ANY DEAL, SINCE ACCUSED INSPITE OF REPEATED NOTICES FAILED TO GIVE THESE DOCUMENTS, IT CAN BE CONCLUDED THAT ACCUSED WERE NOT BUYING OR SELLING SHARES FOR COMPLAINANT BUT EXTORTING MONEY. WHICH IS COGNIZABLE OFFENCE? EOW Delhi Police intentionally to favour accused has not seized the contract notes/ details of deals alleged to have been carried out in name of Mr. Anil Thukral, which police could easily had from NSE or M/s Sunglow and could have investigated allegation of fraudulent deals.

3. In Status report EOW Delhi Police had said that Mr. Anil Thukral was “Client” of M/S Sunglow without verifying that he was ‘Client” Now it has come to notice that M/s Sunglow and Mr. Anil Thukral fabricated memberclient agreement PLACED AS EXH-2. As this is not on stamp paper as per

SEBI/NSE rules & no signature of any witness, Client ID cm-70 alleged to have been allotted to Mr.Anil Thukral belongs to some Mr. Mouz Malik. IO should have seized records of M/s Sunglow to know whether M/S Sunglow was having client-member agreement with all clients on plain paper with court fee stamps affixed on it. Further instead of sending file to NSE, Police should have sought following clarifications from NSE :a) Transaction records in name of Mr. Anil Thukral/Mr. Mouz Malik showing date from which started, bank and account details from where shares/cheques were received/ issued into this Client ID. b) Find out details of these persons and record their statents regarding deals, payments, whether all these persond knew that Mr.anil Thukral is not agent/sub-broker of M/s Sunglow. MY ALLEGATION THAT ACCUSED HAVE FABRICATED THIS DOCUMENT, IS DEFINITELY A COGNIZABLE OFFENCE, AND EOW-DELHI POLICE HAD TO REGISTER FIR AND THEN PROCEED WITH INVESTIGATIONS. The letter written by NSE to SEBI, copy of which was forwarded by SEBI to me, at page -2 (copy enclosed) states as follow:“ vide letter dated January 18, 2005 the trading member furnished copies of contract notes in the name of Mouz Malik for shares transferred by complainant. On perusal of said contract notes it is observed that the shares transferred by complainant have been sold in the account of Mr. Mouz Malik (CM70) operated by Mr. Anil Thukral. It was also observed that the purchases of shares of POLYPLEX, in client account number CM70 were transferred to complainants account by trading member. It may be noted that a limited inspection in respect of the matter was conducted at Delhi and fine of was also levied on him for dealing with unregistered intermediary. From above statement it is clear that (a) Mr Anil Thukral was dealing under fictitious name of Mouz Malik or Mr. Mouz Malik was a dummy name for illegal activities of M/s Sunglow or Mr Mouz Malik some other person was actual client and name of Mr. Anil Thukral has been superimposed to show him as “client” whereas he was agent of M/s Sunglow. Further this letter clearly reveals that NSE has not recognised Mr. Anil Thukral as “Client” It is why they levied fine for dealing with unregistered intermediary. So M/s sunglow and Mr Anil Thukral/B.R.Arora gave false statement to police, that Mr. Anil Thukral was client, which itself is an offence. Client-member document is dated April 2001, whereas M/S Sunglow transferred shares of Polyplex Corporation into my d-mat account in Feb-2001, it means that Mr. Anil Thukral was dealing with M/S Sunglow much earlier than April-2001.

IF ID CM-70 WAS ASSIGNED TO MR ANIL THUKRAL ON 01/04/2001, HOW THEN SHARES WERE TRANSFERRED FROM THIS ID TO COMPLAINANT IN FEB-2001? THIS CLEARLY SPEAKS THAT ACCUSED FABRICATED DOCUMENT TO SHOW MR. ANIL THUKRAL AS CLIENT WHEREAS HE WAS AGENT OF M/S SUNGLOW It means that Mr. Anil Thukral was having two accounts one in name of Mr. Mauz Malik and another in name of Mr. Anil Thukral, which is an offence and amounts to be operating under fictitious name. POLICE HAD TO TAKE NOTE AND REGISTER CASE AGAINST ACCUSED INCLUDING M/S SUNGLOW, SINCE M/S SUNGLOW KNEW THAT MR. ANIL THUKRAL IS OPERATING UNDER FICTITIOUS NAME AND THEY ALLOWED HIM TO DO SO, HENCE THEY ARE ACCOMPLICE IN CRIME. BUT IN SPITE OF BRINGING THESE NEW FACTS BEFORE OFFICIALS OF DELHI POLICE, DELHI POLICE OFFICIALS HAVE NOT TAKEN ANY ACTION. (Copy of letter of NSE enclosed EXH-2) Basic purpose of seeking proof of identification is defeated if a person identifies him in one identity and operated in another identity. 4. Concerned police officials have given false information to Delhi High Court that during investigations, I had given statement that I had requested for transactions in client ID of Mr. Anil Thukral or voluntary gave consent to deal in ID of Mr Anil Thukral. This is totally fabricated statement which itself proves malafides of police persons. Any sensible and honest man will try to understand, when I say that I was registered with three brokers before coming into contact with accused persons, WHEN I WAS PURCHASING SHARES FROM INITIAL OFFERS SINCE LAST 30 YEARS USING MY OWN NAME, WHY I SHOULD HAVE REQUESTED TO TRANSACTIONS IN OTHER PERSONS CLIENT ID? ACCUSED WERE DEALING WITH DOZENS OF OTHER PERSONS; DID ALL PERSONS REQUESTED FOR DEALING IN CLIENT ID OF ACCUSED? IF SO, WHY? POLICE HAD TO INVESTIGATE AND RECORD STATEMENT OF OTHER PERSONS. AFTER SEIZING ALL RECORDS OF TRANSACTIONS. Relevant Para of my letter dated 08/01/2004 referred by respondent in Status Report is reproduced below: “ Mr. Anil Thukral’s statement that complaint requested him for trading in his client ID as he was Govt Servant and could not have his client ID is false. Complainant before coming in touch with accused had client ID with Three brokers. There is no restriction on Govt Servants on purchasing and selling shares. Fact that complainant transferred more than 10000 (Ten thousand) shares of 24-25 companies from his d-mat account is exclusive proof that complainant did not have any such restriction of using his name ID. This is false statement to cover up there misrepresentation that they were sub-brokers.”

Investigating Officer should have seized records of all transactions in name of Mr. Anil Thukral. From these records he should have noted the account numbers of persons for whom Mr Anil Thukral was doing transactions, recorded their statement. 5. I have alleged since beginning that Mr. Anil Thukral/B.R.Arora introduced themselves as Sub-broker of M/S Sunglow Capital services and now Mr. Anil Thukral and Mr. B.R.Arora have given statement that they were not sub-broker of M/S Sunglow. THIS ACT AMOUNTS MISREPRESENTATION WHICH IS SURELY cognizable OFFENCE AND HENCE EOW HAD TO REGISTER FIR AND INVESTIGATE ALLEGATION. 6. It has been admitted by accused before me that they sold my shares of at their own without my knowledge & consent, this act amounts to cheating and criminal breach of trust. M/s sunglow also confirmed so. This could have been easily proved by seizing D-mat accounts of M/S Sunglow and hand written statements of Mr. B.R.Arora giving details of deals; in these he has mentioned the NSE settlement number and name S.K.Kapoor, and balance shares in my account on date, FROM THESE STATEMENTS AND D-MAT ACCOUNTS OF ACCUSED, IO COULD HAVE VERIFIED THAT (A) Whether my allegation that accused were trading in my shares without my knowledge and consent is correct or not, as by comparing the d-mat statement & hand written statement of shares shown as balance in my account. IN CASE THE HAND WRITTEN STATEMENT SHOW SHARES AS BALANCE IN MY ACCOUNT AND D-MAT STATEMENT DOES NOT SHOW THE SHARES LYING IN D-MAT ACCOUNT, MEANS THAT THE SHARES WERE SOLD WITHOUT MY KNOWLEDGE AND INSTRUCTIONS, SIMILARLY SHARES SHOWN AS SOLD, IF LYING IN D-MAT ACCOUNTS OF ACCUSED, MEANS OF FRAUDULENT DEALS, WHICH IS COGNIZABLE OFFENCE. (B) HAVE THESE DEALS BEEN ACTUALLY CARRIED OUT AT ALL (C) IF CARRIED, WERE THESE CARRIED OUT AT THE PRICES SHOWN IN STATEMENT? IF NOT, THIS ACT AMOUNTS TO CHEATING AND CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST. 7. I have given hand written statement of Mr. B.R. Arora showing certain shares with qty shown as balance in my account, as on 31/03/2003, IO did not intentionally verify to harm & injure me that these were actually balance in my account on date specified. If not, this act amounts to cheating and criminal breach of trust BY MR. B.R.ARORA & MR. ANIL THUKRAL. Where these shares have gone? Merely telling by the accused that complainant suffered loses is no ground, accused should be asked to give statements of deals as required under rules of NSE/SEBI. 8. EOW of Delhi Police registered a case against a vendor on complaint by an exporter that vendor intentionally did not supply items in time so that the LC of exporter expires. IF CASE CAN BE REGISTERED ON SUCH AN ALLEGATIONS, WHY NOT IN MY CASE? BECAUSE I HAVE NOT BRIBED POLICE?

9. Although similar case against M/s Times Capital Pvt Ltd with office at South Ext. was registered by Delhi Police on complaint by Mr. Debashis Roy Chowdhry. How police could smell that Mr. Devashish Roy Chowdhary’s case is a case of fraud and petitioner’s case is not? The different behaviour of police with two petitioners on similar type of case clearly speaks of police’s mind. Why the concerned Police station has not registered FIR in petitioner’s case? Petitioner produces below comparative study of both the cases on the basis of information gathered by him to show that case is of similar nature. MR. DEBASHISH CASE Instructions were verbally/telephonically complainant to broker.

Roy’s

PETITIONER’S CASE

given by

Instructions were given verbally/telephonically to subbroker.

Allegations of fraudulent transactions leveled by complainant against accused.

Allegations of fraudulent transactions leveled by complainant against accused.

Police station registered FIR

Police station did not Register FIR. Accused alleged that complainant suffered losses

Accused alleged that complainant suffered losses Police seized transaction records of accused and compared with deals on NSE to find out the fraud.

Police did not seize the transaction records of accused to establish the fraud, Perhaps to favour accused.

10. FALSE STATEMENTS OF ACCUSED IGNORED TO FAVOUR ACCUSED

iii)

i)

Mr Anil Thukral stated that complainant during first 4 months of deal suffered losses to tune of Rs 4 lakhs, I had given handwritten statements of first four months to IO as evidence that this statement is false, BUT THIS VITAL EVIDENCE HAS BEEN IGNORED.

ii)

Mr B.R.Arora stated that he introduced me to Mr Anil Thukral during travelling in car pool. I started dealing in Feb-2001, whereas I joined Car pool with Mr B.R.Arora in April-2002. IO intentionally to favour accused did not investigate the case and made false report for which I intend to file criminal complaint. Mr Anil Thukral alleged that shares were given in lieu of losses suffered by complainant, this false statement could have easily been established from the hand written statement of deals given by Mr B.R.Arora which indicate

These shares as balance in my account after months of transfer. I had given hand written statements of accounts given by Mr B.R.Arora from Feb 2001 in support of petitioner’s allegation that Mr B.R.Arora was the main accused in cheating scandal and petitioner was buying/selling shares thru him. EOW Delhi police has intentionally ignored the vital evidence to favour him. IF HE WAS NOT DEALING WITH PETITIONER, HOW AND WHY HE WAS GIVING HIS HAND WRITTEN STATEMENTS? EOW-Delhi Police to favour accused have not recorded statements of other copassengers of accuse and petitioner to establish the facts and did not investigate to find out for how many other persons he was working. Mr B.R.Arora fraudulently took blank cheque of Rs 10000/= on 7th August’2002 from petitioner on false pretext that M/S Sunglow has to make immediate payments to some one. and if cheque is given in Sunglow’s account it will take time. He deposited this cheque No 114616 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Shakurbasti into his minor son’s account Mr. Subash Arora. This itself proves his involvement in transactions, but Investigating authorities have ignored this to help accused. 11. Mr Vyas Addl DCP, sent file to NSE against directions of law, and EOW Delhi Police falsely to mislead Delhi High Court stated that “ --- Acordingly complaint of Sh. S.K.Kapoor was referred to NSE to ascertain whether any fraudulent means were adopted or otherwise” Letter written to NSE placed as EXH-3 clearly speaks that EOW Delhi Police did not seek any clarification or asked NSE to investigate that any fraudulent means have been adopted or not. More this is work of Police to seize the records and ascertain whether fraudulent means have been adopted or not. In status report EOW-DELHI Police stated that there is no evidence that accused induced complainant to deal with them, IN SUCH A CASES ONLY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CAN BE PROVIDED, BASIC FACT THAT COMPLAINANT FROM 25 YEARS WAS ONLY BUYING SHARES FROM PRIMARY MARKET AND HIS SELLING WAS HARDLY 2% OF HOLDINGS IN 25 YEARS, HOW SUCH A BIG DEALINGS STARTED? Mr. B.R.Arora in statement stated that he introduced Mr Anil Thukral to complainant & he requested for dealing with Mr. Anil Thukral. Concerned police officers did not apply mind and ask Mr. B.R.arora in what capacity he introduced mr anil thukral to complainant? As a sub-broker or as client? Only dishonest and corrupt police officers will say that if a person discloses that he is not sub-broker, any body will deal with him. Mr anil thukral was dealing with dozens of persons, did all of them requested mr anil thukral to deal in his client id and after introducing himself as a client of m/s sunglow, requested for dealing with him? in Status report to Delhi High Court has given number of false statements, which will be argued before High Court and Court prayed to take action against the concerned Delhi Police Officials. S.K.Kapoor 3, Sunshine Apartment

A-3, Paschim Vihar New Delhi-110063