Delhi District Court
State vs Shah Nawab Akbar Khan on 29 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DR. RAJ KUMAR SINGH
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-05
CENTRAL DISTRICT AT TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
DLCT020001702002
FIR No. 600/2000
CIS No. 291857/2016
PS: Darya Ganj
State Vs. Shah Nawaz Akbar Khan
U/s: 420 IPC and 24 of Emigration Act, 1983
JUDGMENT
(a) CIS No. 291857/2016
(b) Date of offence In between September to October,
2000.
(c) Complainant Mr. Julfikar
(d) Accused Shah Nawaz Akbar Khan S/o
Sh.Showkat Ali, R/o H. No. 601,
Gali Hakim Elahi, Rajwada
Hospital Road, Rampur, UP.
(e) Offence 420 IPC and 24 of Emigration
Act, 1983
(f) Plea of accused Pleaded Not guilty
(g) Final Order Convicted for offence u/s 420 IPC
and acquitted for offence u/s 24 of
Emigration Act, 1983.
(h) Date of Institution 05.07.2002
(i) Date when judgment Not reserved
was reserved
(j) Date of judgment 29.01.2025
1. This case emanates from a grievance lodged by Julfikar before the concerned DCP, culminating in the registration of the FIR No. 600/2000 PS: Darya Ganj State v. Shah Nawaz Akbar Khan Page No. 1 of 11 Digitally signed by RAJ RAJ KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.01.29 SINGH 17:13:10 +0530 present FIR (originally numbered as FIR No. 600/2000 at PS Darya Ganj). The accused, Shah Nawaz Akbar Khan, stands charged under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 24 of the Immigration Act, 1983. The allegations revolve around a fraudulent scheme by which the accused purportedly duped multiple victims, including the complainant himself, under the pretext of arranging jobs abroad.
2. According to the prosecution, the complainant Julfikar came across an advertisement in the Dainik Jagran newspaper referencing an entity styled R.K. Gulf Export Services, operating at City Business Centre, 3603 Shyam Bhavan, Netaji Subhash Marg, Delhi. The accused, identified as Shah Nawaz Akbar Khan, initially demanded two lakhs rupees to secure an overseas job for the complainant's cousins (namely Arshad and Binyamin). Subsequently, the complainant tendered ₹70,000 and two passports (belonging to his cousins) to the accused. The accused then instructed the complainant to appear on October 5, 2000, purportedly to finalize matters, while claiming he would travel to Bombay in the interim. When the complainant arrived at the office on the specified date, he discovered not only was the office shuttered, but numerous other individuals were present, similarly complaining about having been deceived by the accused under a guise of overseas employment. All staff/associates of the accused
--Rupesh, Wahid, and Smt. Kanchan--were also missing.
3. It also transpired that the accused operated from another address at Aggarwal Business Centre in Laxmi Nagar under the FIR No. 600/2000 PS: Darya Ganj State v. Shah Nawaz Akbar Khan Page No. 2 of 11 RAJ Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.01.29 SINGH 17:13:16 +0530 banner Muskan Enterprises, which was likewise found closed. The complainant alleged multiple victims parted with substantial sums after being promised foreign placements by the accused. During the investigation, Paramjit Singh (the landlord of the Darya Ganj premises) confirmed having rented out the space to the accused. Meanwhile, the accused evaded arrest, prompting issuance of process under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On August 8, 2001, the accused was declared a proclaimed offender, and the police filed a chargesheet with the court, noting that a supplementary chargesheet would follow upon the accused's apprehension.
4. Ultimately, the accused secured anticipatory bail on February 19, 2002, purportedly after paying ₹70,000 to the complainant. The accused joined the investigation, and the investigating officer filed a supplementary chargesheet alleging offences under Section 420 IPC and Section 24 of the Immigration Act, 1983. The core contention was that the accused, lacking any recruitment license under Section 10 of the Act, unlawfully engaged in overseas job recruitment. On October 3, 2007, the court, in its order on charge, held that offences under Section 420 IPC read with Section 24 of the Immigration Act, 1983 appeared made out, and charges were so framed. The accused pleaded not guilty. It is pertinent to mention here that charge u/s 174A of IPC was never pressed by the Prosecution nor the concerned process server who executed the process u/s 82 CrPC was sought to be examined.
FIR No. 600/2000 PS: Darya Ganj State v. Shah Nawaz Akbar Khan Page No. 3 of 11 Digitally signed RAJ by RAJ KUMAR SINGH KUMAR Date: SINGH 2025.01.29 17:13:21 +0530
5. The prosecution examined a total of seven witnesses (PW1 to PW7) to establish the charges. Their depositions are as follows:
(a) PW1, Sonia, stated she had worked as a receptionist in 2000 at the City Business Centre (Paramjit Associates). She professed complete ignorance of the accused and the alleged activities. She explicitly denied knowledge of any travel or job placement business being conducted by the accused and asserted that the police had never recorded her statement. The prosecution attempted to confront her with a prior statement (Mark X), but she denied it outright. She failed to identify the accused in court, thus rendering her testimony unhelpful to the prosecution. In effect, she was treated as a non-supportive or hostile witness.
(b) PW2, Paramjit Singh, is the landlord of the City Business Centre, 3603, Shyam Bhawan, Darya Ganj. He testified unequivocally that around 10 years prior (approximately in 2000), he rented Cabins 24/25 in his property to the accused, who paid a monthly rent of ₹5,000/-. According to PW2, the accused stated his profession as "air ticketing." He recognized the accused in court and provided relevant documentation, including a form (Ex.P1) bearing the accused's photograph and an intimation to the SHO (Ex.P2). The police seized these documents vide a seizure memo (Ex.PW2/A). PW2 was not cross-examined. His unchallenged statement firmly established that the accused was in occupation of the specific office premises from which the alleged fraud took place.
(c) PW3, Mohammed Julfikar (the complainant), fully supported the prosecution's case. He recounted discovering the job advertisement in "Dainik Jagran," visiting the accused's FIR No. 600/2000 PS: Darya Ganj State v. Shah Nawaz Akbar Khan Page No. 4 of 11 Digitally signed RAJ by RAJ KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.01.29 SINGH 17:13:27 +0530 office, negotiating a fee of about ₹1,00,000/- per person (the figure originally demanded being around ₹2 lakhs, but eventually reduced for at least some partial payment), and paying ₹70,000/-
in cash to the accused for two of his cousins' overseas placements. He further handed over two passports to the accused. The accused then instructed him to come on October 5, 2000, at which time the complainant found the office locked and a crowd of about 50 persons gathered there, all claiming to have been cheated. PW3 lodged the initial complaint (Ex.PW3/A), which led to the registration of FIR No. 600/2000. He identified the accused in custody when the latter was eventually apprehended. PW3's testimony remained uncontested since no cross-examination was conducted on him; this lends a high degree of credibility and evidentiary value to his version.
(d) PW4, Subhash, was the duty officer (DO) on December 5, 2000, at Police Station Darya Ganj when he recorded FIR No. 600/2000 under Sections 406/420 IPC and Sections 10/24 of the Emigration Act, 1983. He proved the FIR (Ex.PW4/A) and his endorsement (Ex.PW4/B). He too was not cross-examined, confirming the formal aspect of FIR registration.
(e) PW5, Parvez Khan, stated that he had similarly read an advertisement in "Dainik Jagran," approached the accused at 3603, Shyam Bhawan, and paid ₹70,000/- on the promise of being sent abroad for employment. He described staff members Kanchan and Rori who were present at the office. Later, the office was locked, and the accused had disappeared. PW5 also joined other victims to report the matter to the authorities. He was not cross- examined, leaving his supporting account unshaken.
FIR No. 600/2000 PS: Darya Ganj
State v. Shah Nawaz Akbar Khan Page No. 5 of 11
RAJ Digitally signed
by RAJ KUMAR
KUMAR SINGH
Date: 2025.01.29
SINGH 17:13:31 +0530
(f) PW6, Retired Inspector Hukam Chand, took over the
investigation from May 1, 2001. By then, the accused had absconded, leading to proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC and his being declared a proclaimed offender on August 8, 2001. PW6 filed the chargesheet and, after the accused obtained anticipatory bail and was formally arrested in 2002, a supplementary chargesheet followed. His testimony outlined the investigative steps, including the eventual arrest of the accused at the complainant's identification. He was not cross-examined by the defense, thus his version stands uncontested.
(g) PW7, Bagul (or Bhagmal) Singh, served as a passport assistant from the Regional Passport Office, Bareilly. He produced records concerning the accused's passport application and related documents, confirming the authenticity and identity of the accused. He, too, was not cross-examined.
6. Evaluating the evidentiary worth of these witnesses, it transpires that PW1's testimony is a complete denial of any relevant knowledge. She effectively does not support the prosecution. The remaining key witnesses--PW2 (landlord), PW3 (complainant), and PW5 (another victim)--provide a coherent and mutually consistent account of events, specifically placing the accused at the scene (PW2) and demonstrating that PW3 and PW5 paid him significant sums for promised overseas jobs (PW3, PW5). Their testimonies, which are not undermined by cross- examination, are direct, specific, and cumulative in effect, painting a picture of a modus operandi wherein the accused collected money from job seekers, subsequently shut his office, and FIR No. 600/2000 PS: Darya Ganj State v. Shah Nawaz Akbar Khan Page No. 6 of 11 Digitally signed RAJ by RAJ KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.01.29 SINGH 17:13:36 +0530 absconded. The investigating officer's version (PW6) that the accused deliberately evaded arrest and was declared a proclaimed offender further supports the conclusion that the accused was engaged in dishonest practices.
7. Pertaining to the charge under Section 420 IPC, the essential elements of "cheating" are: (i) deception of any person, (ii) fraudulent or dishonest inducement, and (iii) delivery of property or harm caused. Here, PW3 and PW5 both testify they were deceived into paying large amounts (₹70,000/- each) upon the accused's promise of foreign employment, only to find that they had been cheated.
8. Multiple witnesses, particularly the complainant (PW3) and PW5, deposed that they saw newspaper advertisements placed by the accused promising lucrative employment abroad. This representation turned out to be untrue because, after collecting money, the accused abruptly shut his office and absconded. The prosecution's case is that the accused took substantial sums (₹70,000/- each from the complainant and PW5) on the false assurance of arranging jobs overseas. The subsequent conduct-- namely vanishing after receiving the amounts--shows that the accused never intended to honor his promises. This satisfies the requirement of mens rea (dishonest intention). The complainant and PW5 were convinced by the accused's statements and misleading advertisement to hand over money. There was, therefore, a direct causal link between the accused's false representation and the victims' delivery of funds. The victims FIR No. 600/2000 PS: Darya Ganj State v. Shah Nawaz Akbar Khan Page No. 7 of 11 Digitally signed by RAJ RAJ KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.01.29 SINGH 17:13:41 +0530 suffered wrongful loss, as they never got any overseas employment and lost their money in the process. Their testimony stands unchallenged in cross-examination, reinforcing the credibility of the prosecution case on this point. Their uncontested statements are sufficient to establish that the accused dishonestly induced them, resulting in financial loss and injury. Consequently, the ingredients of Section 420 IPC stand proved. Moreover, the accused's conduct in evading arrest (leading to his declaration as a Proclaimed Offender) further supports the inference of a dishonest intention.
9. As for the second charge under Section 24 of the Emigration Act, 1983 (for violation of Section 10), the prosecution was required to prove that the accused did not possess any valid recruitment or emigration license from the competent authority (Protector of Emigrants or similar). While the prosecution alleged that the accused was sending persons abroad without authorization, the record reveals that no official from the licensing authority was examined. Nor did PW6, the Investigating Officer, produce negative verification or a certificate conclusively stating that the accused lacked any such license. Indeed, the prosecution led no documentary or official evidence specifically addressing the accused's license status. The fact that the accused accepted money for overseas jobs--by itself--does not automatically prove he was unlicensed; the law demands concrete proof of the absence of such a license for a conviction under Section 24 of the Emigration Act. Since no such proof was tendered, the evidence FIR No. 600/2000 PS: Darya Ganj State v. Shah Nawaz Akbar Khan Page No. 8 of 11 Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR RAJ KUMAR SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.01.29 17:13:45 +0530 falls short of the threshold required for a criminal conviction on that count.
10. In a criminal case, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove every essential fact beyond reasonable doubt. In respect of Section 10 read with Section 24 of the Emigration Act, that burden includes establishing lack of a valid license. Since no documentary or testimonial proof from the relevant licensing authority was tendered, the prosecution's case on this point fails.
11. Although the accused's post-offense conduct (absconding) suggests consciousness of guilt regarding the cheating allegations, it cannot fill the evidentiary gap concerning the Emigration Act violation. The accused's having been declared a proclaimed offender also does not cure the lack of proof regarding his licensing status. Had the prosecution produced an official witness or documentary record conclusively stating "the accused had never been granted a recruitment license," it might have enabled a different conclusion. Absent such evidence, the court must give the accused the benefit of doubt on the Emigration Act charge.
12. Consequently, although the facts sufficiently demonstrate cheating (Section 420 IPC), they do not adequately prove which license, if any, the accused did or did not hold under the Emigration Act. Therefore, the charge under Section 24 of the Emigration Act is not sustained in law.
FIR No. 600/2000 PS: Darya Ganj
State v. Shah Nawaz Akbar Khan Page No. 9 of 11
RAJ Digitally signed
by RAJ KUMAR
KUMAR SINGH
Date: 2025.01.29
SINGH 17:13:51 +0530
13. In light of the unchallenged testimony of PW3 and PW5, corroborated by PW2 on the office tenancy, and by PW6 on the accused's subsequent evasion, there is ample reason to conclude that the accused, Shah Nawaz (Shahnawaz) Akbar Khan, committed the offense of cheating punishable under Section 420 IPC. However, due to the lack of any duly proved material from the competent authority under the Emigration Act, it cannot be concluded beyond reasonable doubt that the accused contravened Section 10 of the Emigration Act, thereby attracting punishment under Section 24 of that Act.
14. Therefore, the Court finds that:
(a) The prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused dishonestly induced the complainant (PW3) and PW5 (Parvez Khan) to part with money under a false promise of overseas employment. He is thus found guilty of the offense punishable under Section 420 of the IPC.
(b) The prosecution, however, has failed to establish that the accused did not hold a valid recruitment/emigration license required by Section 10 of the Emigration Act, 1983. Accordingly, he must be acquitted of the offense punishable under Section 24 of the Emigration Act.
15. In the result:
(i) The accused, Shah Nawaz (Shahnawaz) Akbar Khan, stands convicted for the offense punishable under Section 420 of the IPC.
FIR No. 600/2000 PS: Darya Ganj State v. Shah Nawaz Akbar Khan Page No. 10 of 11 Digitally signed RAJ by RAJ KUMAR SINGH KUMAR Date: SINGH 2025.01.29 17:13:57 +0530 (ii) He is acquitted of the charge punishable under Section 24 of the Emigration Act, 1983. Digitally signed RAJ by RAJ KUMAR SINGH Announced in open court KUMAR Date: on 29.01.2025 SINGH 2025.01.29 17:14:02 +0530 (DR. RAJ KUMAR SINGH)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-05/Central Delhi/29.01.2025 Note: This judgment contains Eleven (11) pages and having my signature on each page. Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR RAJ KUMAR SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.01.29 17:14:09 +0530 (DR. RAJ KUMAR SINGH) Judicial Magistrate First Class-05/Central Delhi/29.01.2025 FIR No. 600/2000 PS: Darya Ganj State v. Shah Nawaz Akbar Khan Page No. 11 of 11