77-year-old fraudster posing as Army Colonel nabbed by Delhi Police
New Delhi: A 77-year-old man who posed as a Colonel in the Indian Army to dupe people was traced to an old-age home in Punjab by
Delhi Police
's Crime Branch. The accused, Sitaram Gupta alias Sitaram Singla, had been on the run for over a decade after jumping bail in a 2007 cheating case in Vivek Vihar.
Gupta, a resident of Mansa, Punjab, allegedly took Rs 56,000 from a bank employee, offering a fake Army Welfare Housing Organisation flat and shop. "He handed over forged receipts. When the victim grew suspicious, a complaint was filed," a senior officer said.
Declared a proclaimed offender, Gupta was found hiding in Patiala on May 31. "He changed his identity and appearance to avoid arrest," the officer said.
Gupta told police he cut ties with his family and used knowledge of Army procedures to run frauds. He was earlier convicted in three fake Army job offer cases.
Legal proceedings are underway.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
40 minutes ago
- News18
TMC''s P V Anvar declares assets worth over Rs 52 crore in election affidavit
Last Updated: Malappuram(Kerala), Jun 3 (PTI) Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader P V Anvar, who is contesting in the Nilambur assembly bypoll, has declared assets, including both movable and immovable, of over Rs 52 crore and liabilities of Rs 20 crore in the election affidavit filed with his nomination papers on Monday. Anvar has in his affidavit disclosed movable assets of over Rs 18 crore and immovable property worth over Rs 34 crore. In 2021, he had declared assets worth over Rs 64 crore and liabilities of around Rs 17 crore. According to his affidavit, his two wives have total assets, including 1.2 kgs of gold each, worth over Rs 8 crore and Rs 3 crore, respectively. Anvar, who completed his pre-degree (class 11 and 12) education from Kozhikode University in 1985, also has liabilities of around Rs 20 crore, which includes loans of Rs 9 crore from various banks, his affidavit stated. Besides these, he is also facing 10 criminal cases for various offences including destruction of government property, leaking phone calls of government officials, leaking official secrets, defamation and making provocative speeches aimed at inciting violence, according to his affidavit. In none of these cases, mostly initiated between 2024 and 2025, charges have been framed against him, it said. Anvar, whose resignation as a Left-backed independent MLA paved the way for the by-election, filed his nomination after launching a new political front — Janakiya Prathipaksha Prathirodha Munnani (JPPM) — after the Congress-led UDF declined him a spot in the front. He, on Sunday, announced his decision to contest the bypoll, a day after he claimed he does not have the funds for it. PTI HMP HMP ADB First Published: June 03, 2025, 11:15 IST
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
Court Rejects Patanjali Ayurved's Petition Against Rs 273.5 Crore GST Penalty
Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has dismissed Patanjali Ayurved Limited's petition challenging Rs 273.50-crore goods and service tax (GST) penalty. A division bench comprising Justices Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit rejected Patanjali's argument that such penalties constitute criminal liability and can be imposed only after a criminal trial. The bench was of the view that tax authorities can impose penalties under Section 122 of the GST Act through civil proceedings without requiring criminal court trials. The court clarified that GST penalty proceedings are civil in nature and can be adjudicated by proper officers. "After detailed analysis, it is clear that the proceeding under Section 122 of the CGST Act is to be adjudicated by the adjudicating officer and is not required to undergo prosecution," the bench said. Patanjali Ayurved operates three manufacturing units at Haridwar (Uttarakhand), Sonipat (Haryana) and Ahmednagar (Maharashtra). The company came under investigation following information received by authorities about suspicious transactions involving firms with high Input Tax Credit (ITC) utilisation but no income tax credentials. The investigation led to allegations that Patanjali "acting as a main person indulged in circular trading of tax invoices only on paper without actual supply of goods". The Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Ghaziabad issued a show cause notice on April 19, 2024 to Patanjali Ayurved, proposing a penalty of Rs 273.51 crore under Section 122(1), clauses (ii) and (vii) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017. Later, the DGGI dropped tax demands under Section 74 through an adjudication order dated January 10, 2025. The department found that "for all the commodities, the quantities sold were always more than the quantities purchased from the suppliers, thereby making the observation that all the ITC which was availed in the impugned goods was further passed on by the petitioner". Despite dropping the tax demand, authorities decided to continue with penalty proceedings under Section 122, prompting Patanjali to challenge this before the high court. After hearing both sides, the court in its judgment dated May 29 dismissed the petition.
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Allahabad HC rejects Patanjali Ayurved's plea against Rs 273.5 crore GST penalty
PRAYAGRAJ: The Allahabad High Court has dismissed Patanjali Ayurved Limited's petition challenging Rs 273.50-crore goods and service tax (GST) penalty. A division bench comprising Justices Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit rejected Patanjali's argument that such penalties constitute criminal liability and can be imposed only after a criminal trial. The bench was of the view that tax authorities can impose penalties under Section 122 of the GST Act through civil proceedings without requiring criminal court trials. The court clarified that GST penalty proceedings are civil in nature and can be adjudicated by proper officers. "After detailed analysis, it is clear that the proceeding under Section 122 of the CGST Act is to be adjudicated by the adjudicating officer and is not required to undergo prosecution," the bench said.
