Rajiv Kumar Arora and Rajat Chhabra, both facing cheating charges for selling a ‘radioactive’ antique urn and luring a resident of Sector 44 to purchase it, have moved a revision petition in the sessions court challenging the orders of chief judicial magistrate (CJM) Akshdeep Mahajan. On February 1 this year, the chief judicial magistrate Akshdeep Mahajan had directed to frame charges of cheating against all the accused, which have been challenged in the revision petition. The matter is now slated to come up for hearing on March 8.
WATCH WHAT ELSE IS IN THE NEWS
On the complaint of Rajinder Kumar Thakur, a property dealer, a case was registered against six accused — Inderpreet Singh, Rakesh Chauhan, Kuldeep Singh, Amit Malhotra, Rajiv Arora and Rajat Chhabra — for duping Thakur (the complainant) of Rs 52 lakh.
In 2013, Inderpreet Singh, Rakesh Chauhan and Kuldeep Singh had convinced Thakur (the complainant) that Chauhan’s friend Shiv Kumar had a radioactive and antique urn which was priced at Rs 10,000 crore in the international market and could be sold through one company only.
The urn was to be first scientifically examined at Pokharan in Rajasthan before the deal was to be materialised. For transporting the urn to the laboratory in Pokhran, a kit was required according to Chauhan (the accused) as it was radioactive. The kit was priced at Rs 28 lakh. He also informed Thakur (the complainant) that the company would charge Rs 12 lakh for conducting the test, and the scientist would charge Rs 10 lakh for unlocking the kit and testing the article.
The defense lawyer, advocate Munish Dewan, said, “The court said that charges are made out against my clients (Rajiv Kumar Arora and Rajat Chhabra), however, the two had no role to play in signing the memorandum of understanding (MoU) for purchasing the urn.”
As per the MoU, the urn was to be sold at Rs 9,000 crore, in which Rs 7,000 crore would go to Shiv Kumar and the remaining was the commission. However, when the urn was to be taken to Pokhran for testing on December 9, 2013, Shiv Kumar informed that he would not come along.
In October 2016, the court had also asked the investigating officer (IO) that no cogent investigation appeared to ascertain the role of said accused, Shiv Kumar. The court directed the police to conduct further investigation to establish Shiv Kumar’s role but the police has been unsuccessful in tracing Shiv Kumar.