Delhi District Court
State vs . Mohd Iqbal Qureshi on 21 April, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. BABRU BHAN,
ACMM (NORTH WEST), ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
STATE VS. MOHD IQBAL QURESHI
FIR NO. 408/2003
PS: JAHANGIR PURI
U/s: 24 of Immigration Act
U/s: 420/474 IPC
CASE ID : 535287/2016
Date of commission of offence : 20.06.2003
Name of the complainant : SI MAHIPAL SINGH
No. 3984-D, Special Team, Crime
Branch, Prashant Vihar, Delhi.
Name of accused and address : MOHD IQBAL QURESHI
S/o Gattu Miyan Qureshi,
R/o- D-862, Jahangir Puri,
Delhi.
Offence complained of or proved : U/s 24 of Immigration
Act & U/s 420/472 IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Date on which reserved for judgment : 22.12.2021
Date of pronouncing of judgment: 21.04.2022
Final Order : CONVICTED FOR
OFFENCE U/s 24 OF
IMMIGRATION Act &
U/s 420 OF INDIAN PENAL
CODE
Digitally signed
by BABRU
BABRU BHAN
BHAN Date:
2022.04.22
13:43:31 +0530
CASE No. 535287/2016
STATE VS. MOHD. IQBAL QURESHI
FIR NO. 408/2003
PS: Jahangirpuri page 1/13
JUDGMENT
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE FACTS FOR DECISION:
1. The case as projected by the prosecution is that in the month of June 2003, SI Mahipal Singh PW6 was posted as Sub-
Inspector in Special Team, Crime Branch, Prashant Vihar. One fine day, he received an information that one person namely Mohd Iqbal Qureshi (hereinafter referred as the accused) R/o- Jahangirpuri had cheated several persons on pretext of securing employment for them in foreign countries. This information was conveyed to Senior Officials.
2. On 20.06.2003, a raiding party consisting of HC Azad PW7, HC Hashim PW4, HC Satyawan (not examined), Ct Rajender (not examined) and SI Mahipal PW6 was constituted. At about 8.00 am, they reached D Block, Jahangirpuri. At about 8.40 am, they requested 7-8 public person to join the raiding party but none of them agreed. Without wasting further time, the raiding party entered H.No. D-862, Jahangirpuri where accused was found present. During search, one envelope containing passport of one Suresh Kumar Ex. P3 and several photocopies of other passports in name of different persons, one letter pad of M/s Saba Enterprises Ex. P4 and several photographs Ex. P5 (colly) of some persons were recovered. The raiding party also recovered the license/ permission (MARK A) in an envelope allegedly issued by Ministry of Labour, CASE No. 535287/2016 STATE VS. MOHD. IQBAL QURESHI FIR NO. 408/2003 PS: Jahangirpuri page 2/13 Government of India whereby accused was permitted to send manpower abroad. During course of investigation, IO made enquiries from the Labour Department and it was revealed that no such license or permission for recruiting manpower for sending abroad was issued in favour of accused Mohd Iqbal Qureshi. One rubber stamp of POE was also recovered. All these documents were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/A.
3. Thereafter, SI Mahipal PW6 prepared rukka Ex. PW6/A and handed over the same to Ct Rajender for registration of FIR.
4. On the basis of rukka, ASI Jor Singh PW2 registered FIR Ex. PW2/A and endorsed the rukka at Ex. PW2/B.
5. Further investigation of the case was handed over to ACP Ranbir Singh PW9. He arrested accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW4/B and personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW4/C. Body inspection memo Ex. PW9/A was also prepared. Thereafter, PW9 ACP Ranbir Singh recorded the disclosure statement Ex. PW4/D of accused. On 23.06.2003, he again recorded additional disclosure statement Ex. PW4/F of the accused. During further course of investigation, IO directed PW8 HC Hardesh to record the statement of witnesses, however, only one witness Suresh Kumar was available and his statement was recorded. At the instance of accused, one passport of Firasat Ali was recovered from his house.
CASE No. 535287/2016STATE VS. MOHD. IQBAL QURESHI FIR NO. 408/2003 PS: Jahangirpuri page 3/13 Same was seized vide memo Ex. PW4/E. Some computers recovered from the accused were also seized vide memo Ex. PW4/G.
6. On Completion of investigation, police presented the charge-sheet accusing the accused for the offences U/s 24 of Immigration Act & 420/474 IPC.
7. Formal charge for offences U/s 24 of Immigration Act & 420/474 IPC was framed against the accused on 15.04.2005 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
8. To prove its case, prosecution has examined nine witnesses. Some of the witnesses are police officials who had merely participated in the formal process of investigation. Brief roles of some of the police officials have already been delineated in the foregoing part of this judgment. For the sake of brevity, this Court does not deem it appropriate to again reproduce their statements in verbatim.
9. Firasat Ali PW1 is one of the victim. He has deposed in his Court statement that he was not having any permanent work. He was planning to go abroad for employment. His uncle Hazi Dufali said that he can help him with his plan to got abroad. Hazi Dufali gave one visiting card of an agent namely Iqbal Qureshi who used CASE No. 535287/2016 STATE VS. MOHD. IQBAL QURESHI FIR NO. 408/2003 PS: Jahangirpuri page 4/13 to reside in Jahangirpuri, Delhi. Witness alongwith his uncle came to met accused at Usman Hotel situated in Jahangirpuri. PW1 paid Rs. 50,000/- to the accused, who, in return, promised to send PW1 to Maldives for employment. After 3-4 days, he came to Delhi to go to Maldives via Trivandrum. Some other persons namely Raza, Suresh and Afsar also met the witness in Delhi who had also came for the same purpose. They reached Trivendrum where, at the port, they were told that their Visas were fake. They contacted the accused but he did not respond to their calls. He also stated that during investigation, police officials had shown him his passport which was recovered by them from the accused.
10. PW3 Pradeep Kumar has deposed that he was owner of the flat No. 407 in Usha Kiran Building, near Akash Cinema, Azadpur, Delhi. The said flat was given on rent to accused Iqbal Qureshi in 2001. Accused was running office in the name and style of D.M. International Export & Import for sending public persons to abroad and for arranging their Visas for the said purpose.
11. Pramod Kumar Sharma PW5 stated in his Court statement that he had let out his premises No. 105, Nitika Tower-II, Azadpur, Delhi to the accused in the month of January 2002. From said premises, accused had started business of supplying Visas etc to the public persons.
CASE No. 535287/2016STATE VS. MOHD. IQBAL QURESHI FIR NO. 408/2003 PS: Jahangirpuri page 5/13
12. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, entire incriminating circumstances and material on record was put to the accused as per mandate of Section 313 Cr.P.C. In his response, accused pleaded innocence stating that he was running his business of immigration from the aforesaid address but was not involved in illegal activities. Accused opted not to lead any defence evidence.
13. Final arguments from Ld APP for the State as well as Ld defence counsel heard. Now, this Court proceeds with judgment.
14. The first allegation leveled against the accused is that he was functioning as a recruiting agent without a valid certificate issued by Ministry of Labour, Government of India. To prove this allegation, prosecution is required to prove two facts, firstly, that accused was function as recruiting agent and secondly, he was functioning so without any valid certificate.
To prove the first fact, prosecution has firstly examined PW1 Firasat Ali who has stated in his Court statement that accused Iqbal Qureshi had obtained Rs. 50,000/- from him on pretext of sending him to Maldives for employment. In his brief cross- examination of three lines, Ld defence counsel merely gave formal suggestions to PW1 that he never gave any money/ passport to the accused and he (accused) never assured him to send him to Maldives. This Court is of the considered opinion that these formal CASE No. 535287/2016 STATE VS. MOHD. IQBAL QURESHI FIR NO. 408/2003 PS: Jahangirpuri page 6/13 suggestions would not be enough to impeach the credibility of PW1 Firasat Ali.
15. Accused neither explained in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C nor could bring anything material on record during cross-examination of PW1 Firasat Ali that why PW1 who was resident of Mohalla Rasoolpur, District Rampur, UP, who never met the accused before, would falsely implicate him in this case without any purpose or reason. Statement of PW1 is further corroborated by PW3 Pradeep Kumar Jindal who has stated that accused had taken his flat No. 407 in Usha Kiran Building, Azadpur on rent and from that building, accused was running business of export and import as well as for sending public persons abroad. No effective cross- examination of this witness too has been conducted.
16. Similar statement has been given by PW5 Pramod Kumar Sharma who had rented his premises No. 105, Nitika Tower-II, Azadpur to accused Iqbal Qureshi in month of January 2002. PW5 has also stated that accused had opened office in the said premises and many persons complained him that accused had promised them to send abroad but that promise was not fulfilled. The line of cross- examination of this witness would show that it has nowhere been disputed that accused had taken the property on rent from PW5 and he was running a business of sending the people abroad from there. Neither any suggestion was given nor any question was asked to CASE No. 535287/2016 STATE VS. MOHD. IQBAL QURESHI FIR NO. 408/2003 PS: Jahangirpuri page 7/13 PW5 whereby this business was disputed by accused. Infact, accused went to admit that he had taken the property on rent from PW5 via a suggestion that he had been regularly paying rent to PW5.
17. Moreover, accused has himself admitted during his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C that he was running business of immigration but he pleaded defence that he was not involved in illegal activities. The evidence discussed above is sufficient to prove that accused was functioning as an recruiting agent and was engaged in business of recruitment of people for working aborad. Atleast, he was projecting himself as an recruiting agent. Thus, the first ingredient of offence U/s 24 of Immigration Act stands proved.
18. Now, returning to the second ingredient i.e absence of requisite permission or certificate issued by the concerned Authority. PW6 SI Mahipal has deposed in his Court statement that although, the photocopy of license certificate MARK A1 issued by Ministry of Labour and Rehabillitation (Department of Labour) was recovered from the premises of accused and same was seized vide memo Ex. PW4/A but accused neither provided the original of the same to him nor purforth any reason for not providing the original to the IO. Further, PW6 has stated in his Court statement that he verified the genuineness of the said certificate from the Immigration CASE No. 535287/2016 STATE VS. MOHD. IQBAL QURESHI FIR NO. 408/2003 PS: Jahangirpuri page 8/13 Office and it was informed that no such certificate was issued to the accused from the concerned authority.
19. The cross-examination of PW6 would reveal that not even a single suggestion was given to him that accused was having the original certificate or permission for sending the labour abroad. Moreover, accused had an opportunity to explain during his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C regarding any permission obtained by him but no such explanation was given by him. Accused could have also produced the certificate in his defence evidence but he did not opt to lead any defence evidence. Thus, it stands proved against the accused that he was impersonating himself as a recruiting agent but he was not possessing any valid permission or certificate. The offence U/s 24 of Immigration Act, 1983 accordingly stands proved against the accused.
20. Next charge leveled against the accused is that of offence U/s 420 IPC. The main ingredient of offence U/s 420 IPC is fraudulent or dishonest misrepresentation and secondly, the purpose of fraudulent and dishonest misrepresentation is to induce somebody to deliver any property. In the given case, Firasat Ali PW1 has stated in his Court statement that he met with accused in Jahangirpuri. Accused promised him to facilitate his migration to Maldives for employment and in return demanded Rs. 50,000/-. The CASE No. 535287/2016 STATE VS. MOHD. IQBAL QURESHI FIR NO. 408/2003 PS: Jahangirpuri page 9/13 said amount was paid by PW1 but he was given a fake Visa and therefore, he could not go to Maldives.
Ld defence counsel has made a very feeble attempt to assail the credibility of this witness by putting two suggestions. Firstly, that PW1 never gave any money or passport to the accused and secondly, the accused never assured PW1 to send him to Maldives. Be that as it may, both of these suggestions were denied by PW1 Firasat Ali. No further suggestion or question was put to the witness regarding any probable motive or reason for false implication of the accused.
21. In his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C, accused could have explained the reasons for which PW1 Firasat Ali implicated him but no such explanation was given by him during that statement also. It is not disputed that PW1 was belonging to a small village namely Mohally Rasulpur, District Rampur, UP. There is no quarrel that he never met the accused prior to the offence in question was committed. Now the question would arise as to why a person would falsely implicate someone when that someone is not even known to him. In other words, no probable motive for the alleged false implication or false deposition has been brought on record. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that two formal suggestions would not be sufficient to impeach the credibility of PW1 Firasat Ali. The statement of PW1 is sufficient to prove that accused had fraudulently obtained an amount of Rs.
CASE No. 535287/2016STATE VS. MOHD. IQBAL QURESHI FIR NO. 408/2003 PS: Jahangirpuri page 10/13 50,000/- from him on pretext of sending PW1 Firasat Ali to Maldives. The offence U/s 420 IPC also stands proved against the accused.
22. The last offence against the accused is U/s 474 IPC. Before proceeding with the relevant discussion, it will be apt to look into the statutory language of offence U/s 474 IPC.
The statutory language of Section 474 IPC is as under:
"Whoever has in his possession any document or electronic record, knowing the same to be forged and intending that same shall be fraudulently or dishonestly be used as genuine, shall, if the document or electronic record is one of the description mentioned in Section 466 IPC be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to sever years......."
Further, the statutory language of Section 466 IPC is under:-
"Whoever forges a document or an electronic record, purporting to be a record or proceeding of or in a Court of justice, or a register of birth, baptism, marriage or burial, or a register kept by a public servant as such, or a certificate or document purporting to be CASE No. 535287/2016 STATE VS. MOHD. IQBAL QURESHI FIR NO. 408/2003 PS: Jahangirpuri page 11/13 made by a public servant in his official capacity, or an authority ................"
23. Taking reference of the statement given by PW6 SI Mahipal, APP for the State has argued that photocopies of many passports were recovered from the possession of the accused and same were seized vide memo Ex. PW4/A. The contention raised by Ld APP for the State is that passport is a document which is issued by a public servant in his official capacity. Since, accused was having possession of some photocopies of forged passports, therefore, he should be held liable for the offence U/s 474 IPC.
24. Firstly, the passports which were allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused were mere photocopies. The originals were never recovered. Secondly, neither the first IO SI Mahipal PW6 nor the second IO ACP Ranvir Singh PW9 have elaborated anywhere in their Court statements that these passports were verified from the concerned passport authority. No report in this regard has been filed on record. In absence of any such report, the Court cannot assume that the photocopies allegedly recovered from the accused vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/A were that of forged passports. Thus, mere oral testimony of IO would not be sufficient to prove the photocopies recovered from the accused were forged. Accordingly, offence U/s 474 IPC is not made out against the accused.
CASE No. 535287/2016STATE VS. MOHD. IQBAL QURESHI FIR NO. 408/2003 PS: Jahangirpuri page 12/13
25. In light of the aforenoted discussions, accused stands convicted for the offence U/s 24 of Immigration Act 1983 and U/s 420 IPC.
BABRU Digitally signed
by BABRU BHAN
Announced in the open Court BHAN Date: 2022.04.22
13:43:38 +0530
on 21.04.2022.
(BABRU BHAN)
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE (NORTH WEST)
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CASE No. 535287/2016
STATE VS. MOHD. IQBAL QURESHI
FIR NO. 408/2003
PS: Jahangirpuri page 13/13