Delhi District Court
State vs Sonu Singh on 27 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF HARSHAL NEGI
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-02, DWARKA COURT, NEW
DELHI
FIR No.: 203/2022
PS: Mohan Garden
U/s: 188 IPC & 14C Foreigners Act
Case no. 5718/2022
State
Vs.
Sonu Singh
S/o Sh. Jagbir Singh
R/o H. NO. 10A, Gali No. 5C,
Vipin Garden, New Delhi. ..... Accused
S. No. of the case : 5718/2022
The date of offence : 15.03.2022
The name of the complainant : ASI Vinod Kumar
The name of the accused : Sonu Singh
The offence complained : 188 IPC & 14C Foreigners Act
The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Argument heard on : 27.01.2025
The date of order : 27.01.2025
The final order : Acquittal
Ld. APP for the State : Sh. Vinay Tehlan
Brief Facts
1. It is the case of the prosecution that on 15.03.2022, ASI Vinod Kumar received an information through ASI Om Prakash that five foreign nationals have been arrested under FIR No. 202/22 under Section 14A Foreigners Act and that foreign Nationals who are accused in FIR No. 202/22 PS Mohan Garden have disclosed their addresses i.e. H No. 6, Vipin Garden and the accused Sonu Singh has tenant the premises to the said foreign nationals without police verification. It is the case FIR No.: 203/2022 State versus Sonu Singh Page No. 1 of 8 of the prosecution that the accused Sonu Singh did not carry out the police verification of the abovesaid tenants who were residing in his house. An FIR bearing no. 203/2022 u/s 188 IPC and Section 14 C Foreigners Act came to be registered at PS Mohan Garden.
2. Investigation was set into motion and was conducted by IO ASI Vinod Kumar. Chargesheet was filed by IO ASI Vinod Kumar under Section 188 IPC and 14 C Foreigners Act.
3. After taking cognizance of the offence, the accused was summoned to face trial. On his appearance, a copy of chargesheet along with documents were supplied to the accused in terms of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC'). On finding a prima facie case against him, charge under Section 188 IPC and 14 C Foreigners Act was framed against the accused on 17.07.2023 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. During the course of the trial the accused admitted FIR No 202/2022 PS Mohan Garden along with certificate 65B IEA Ex P2, Complaint by ACP u/s 195 CRPC Ex P3. Thus, witnesses at serial no 2, 3 & 5 were dropped in furtherance of statement of the accused under Section 294 CRPC.
Prosecution Evidence
5. The prosecution examined only one witness:
i. ASI Vinod Kumar was examined as PW 1. He stated that on 15.03.2022, he received information through ASI Om Prakash that five foreign nationals under FIR No. 202/22 Ex PW 1/A under Section 14A Foreigners Act and after that he informed him that foreign Nationals who are accused in FIR No. 202/22 have disclosed their addresses i.e. H No. 6, Vipin Garden. Thereafter he along with Ct.
Santosh Kumar went to the alleged address where he asked the nearby persons who informed him that this house belongs to accused Sonu FIR No.: 203/2022 State versus Sonu Singh Page No. 2 of 8 Singh and he resides at H. No. 10A, North Block, Vipin Garden. After that he prepared rukka Ex PW 1/B bearing his signatures at pt X. Thereafter, he prepared site plan Ex. PW-1/C bearing his signature at point X. Thereafter, he got FIR registered against accused Sonu Singh. After that he called accused Sonu and informed him regarding the same, thereafter, he came at PS where he arrested him vide memo Ex. PW-1/D bearing his signature at point X, personal searched vide memo Ex. PW-1/E bearing his signature at point X and released him on bail bonds Ex. PW-1/F bearing his signatures at point X and Y. He collected copy of aadhar card of the surety Habid Ali marked as Mark C, copy of electricity bill of the alleged property marked as Mark D, Copy of aadhar card of accused Sonu marked as Mark E. After that, he collected permission u/s 195 Cr.P.C Ex PW-1/X (colly). During investigation, he recorded statement of witness's u/s 161 Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, he filed the chargesheet in the concerned court. Accused is present (correctly identified by the witness). ii. In his cross-examination PW 1 affirmed that he did not inspect the premises i.e. H. No. 6, Vipin Garden nor any belongings of foreign nationals who were arrested in FIR No. 202/22 found there. He affirmed that no rent agreement is placed on record as accused did not provide him any rent agreement. He also affirmed that no notice was served to accused to provide rent agreement. He affirmed that he never recorded any statement of neighbour of the alleged property regarding whether foreign nationals used to reside at the alleged property or not. He affirmed that no notice was served to public persons to join the investigation. He denied that all the investigation FIR No.: 203/2022 State versus Sonu Singh Page No. 3 of 8 was done while sitting at PS or that accused is falsely implicated in the present case or that he is deposing falsely.
6. The prosecution evidence was thereafter closed and the statement of accused u/s 313 CrPC was recorded on 02.12.2024 wherein all the incriminating evidence appearing on record against the accused was put to him but he denied the same. The accused chose not to lead any defence evidence.
7. Ld. APP for the State argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is contended that the witness has stated the case completely and the accused is liable to be convicted in this case.
8. Ld. counsel for the accused submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable ground, therefore, accused may be acquitted in present case.
9. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Defence counsel at length, perused the record, gone through the relevant provisions of law and given my thoughtful consideration to the matter.
Findings of the Court
10. Before embarking on the analysis and appreciation of the statements and evidences on record it is apposite to state that to bring home the guilt of the accused in any criminal matter beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt the burden rests always upon the prosecution. The burden of proof on the prosecution is heavy, constant and does not shift. The case of the prosecution needs to stand on its own footing failing which benefit of doubt ought to be given in favour of the accused. Needless to say, in this case also, with or without defense evidence, the prosecution has to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. On the touchstone of the above settled legal proposition the facts of the present case are to be analysed.
FIR No.: 203/2022 State versus Sonu Singh Page No. 4 of 8
11. In this case accused has been charged and being tried for offence under section 188 IPC & 14C of The Foreigner Act. Before dealing with the offence U/S 188 IPC, it is imperative to note that Section 14C of The Foreigners Act, 1946 states that:
14C. Penalty for abetment.--Whoever abets any offence punishable under section 14 or section 14A or section 14B shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence.
12. Therefore, in order to fulfil the ingredient of Section 14C, prosecution must prove that accused in this case has abetted an offence u/s 14/14A/14B of the act.
13. Section 14 of Foreigners Act is as under:
14. Penalty for contravention of provisions of the Act, etc.--
Whoever. -- (a) remains in any area in India for a period exceeding the period for which the visa was issued to him;
(b) does any act in violation of the conditions of the valid visa issued to him for his entry and stay in India or any part thereunder;
(c) contravenes the provisions of this Act or of any order made thereunder or any direction given in pursuance of this Act or such order for which no specific punishment is provided under this Act, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine; and if he has entered into a bond in pursuance of clause (f) of sub- section (2) of section 3, his bond shall be forfeited, and any person bound thereby shall pay the penalty thereof or show cause to the satisfaction of the convicting Court why such penalty should not be paid by him.
FIR No.: 203/2022 State versus Sonu Singh Page No. 5 of 8 Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, the expression "visa" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it under the Passport (Entry into India) Rules, 1950 made under the Passport (entry into India) Act, 1920 (34 of 1920).
14. The prosecution, thus, must prove that accused had let out his property to five foreign nationals namely Sandra, Ify, Ogochuwnu, Christian and Sima as tenants. Further, accused Sonu Singh has abetted this offence by allegedly allowing Sandra, Ify, Ogochuwnu, Christian and Sima to stay at his place as tenant without police verification. Prosecution version is that Sandra, Ify, Ogochuwnu, Christian and Sima were arrested in FIR No 202/2022 under Section 14A Foreigners Act and disclosed to ASI Om Prakash their address as H. No 6, Vipin Garden. It is to be noted that this whole case is initiated on the alleged statement of Sandra, Ify, Ogochuwnu, Christian and Sima, who allegedly stated to ASI Om Prakash in case FIR No. 202/2022 PS Mohan Garden that they were residing as tenant at the premises tenanted by accused Sonu Singh. Further, accused has also been charged u/s 188 IPC for violating the aforementioned order of the concerned ACP for non- verification of tenant.
15. During the course of the trial and on reading the testimonies of the witnesses, it is not clear as to whether the accused was actually found keeping Sandra, Ify, Ogochuwnu, Christian and Sima as tenant. It is significant to note that the present case is only based upon the hearsay of alleged persons Sandra, Ify, Ogochuwnu, Christian and Sima claiming to be the tenants of accused in present case. It is further to be noted that Sandra, Ify, Ogochuwnu, Christian and Sima have also not been included as witness in this matter by the IO and IO has not even examined the alleged tenants in the course of investigation. Mere statement of Sandra, Ify, Ogochuwnu, Christian and Sima, that too oral to ASI Om Prakash, that they was living as a tenant at some other property does not prove the sanctity of the statements given by Sandra, Ify, Ogochuwnu, Christian FIR No.: 203/2022 State versus Sonu Singh Page No. 6 of 8 and Sima. Besides, that particular statement will hit the bar of Sec.25 of Indian Evidence Act.
16. A major discrepancy in the present case is that ASI Om Prakash, to whom the alleged tenants informed about their place of residence as tenants, was never examined. Apart from the abovesaid lacuna, no statement under Section 161 CRPC of the tenants i.e. Sandra, Ify, Ogochuwnu, Christian and Sima was ever recorded by the IO during the course of investigation. In his examination in Chief PW 1 i.e. IO ASI Vinod Kumar stated that he recorded the statements under Section 161 CRPC, however, the perusal of the case record reflects that only the statement of one HC Santosh Kumar was recorded, who was the arrest memo witness. Apart from HC Santosh Kumar no other statements of any other witnesses including Sandra, Ify, Ogochuwnu, Christian, Sima i.e. tenants and of ASI Om Prakash was ever recorded by the IO. This court wonders what investigation has actually been conducted by the IO in the present matter where no statements under Section 161 CRPC of relevant witnesses was recorded by the IO and the chargesheet was filed by him. The IO only prepared the rukka, site plan, arrest memo, personal search memo and released the accused on bail bonds. Apart from the abovesaid nothing else worth its salt has been done by the IO in the present matter.
17. Therefore, prosecution was casted with a duty prove that Sandra, Ify, Ogochuwnu, Christian and Sima were staying at the said disclosed house as tenants of landlord/accused Sonu Singh. However, the same could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, prosecution has failed to prove that accused Sonu Singh had let out his property to Sandra, Ify, Ogochuwnu, Christian and Sima as tenants. Hence, the offences u/s 188 IPC and 14C of the Foreigners Act are not made out. Therefore, accused is bound to get to acquitted in this case.
FIR No.: 203/2022 State versus Sonu Singh Page No. 7 of 8
18. Hence, accused Sonu Singh S/o Jagbir Singh r/o H. No. 10A, Gali No. 5C, Vipin Garden, New Delhi stands acquitted of the offence under section 188 IPC & 14C of The Foreigners Act, 1946, he has been charged and tried with.
19. The copy of this judgment be also forwarded to the concerned DCP to bring into his notice the kind of investigation which was carried out by the IO in the present case and more specifically Para 16 of this judgment reflecting the lacunas and inherent defect in the investigation which was done by the IO.
20. Ordered accordingly. Digitally signed by HARSHAL HARSHAL NEGI Announced in the open court on 27.01.2025. NEGI Date: 2025.01.27 15:16:35 +0530 (Harshal Negi) JMFC-02/Dwarka Court, New Delhi, 27.01.2025 It is certified that the present judgment runs into 08 pages and each page bears my signature. HARSHAL Digitally signed by HARSHAL NEGI NEGI Date: 2025.01.27 15:16:41 +0530 (Harshal Negi) JMFC-02/DwarkaCourt, New Delhi, 27.01.2025 FIR No.: 203/2022 State versus Sonu Singh Page No. 8 of 8