Delhi District Court
State vs . Jagdish on 5 September, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. NABEELA WALI
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-01
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI DISTRICT:
NEW DELHI
FIR No. 153/11
PS : IGI Airport
U/s : 420 IPC & 12 Passports Act
State Vs. Jagdish
JUDGMENT
1. S. No. of the Case : 45817/16
2. Date of commission of offence : 26.03.2011
3. Name of the complainant : A. K. Sharma
A-II, PIS No-109610
Immigration, IGI Airport
New Delhi
4. Name, parentage & address : Jagdish Singh
S/o Sh. Karnail Singh
R/o Village Bambionwal
Post Kukarping
District-Jallandhar, Punjab
5. Offences complained of : U/s 420 IPC & Section
12 PP Act
6. Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty
7. Order reserved on : 25.07.2022
8. The final order : Accused is acquitted for all
offences.
9. The date of judgment : 05.09.2022
Digitally signed
by NABEELA
NABEELA WALI
WALI Date:
2022.09.05
18:08:27 +0530
CC No:- 45817/16 State v. Jagdish Singh Page No:- 1 of 11
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE CASE
1. The case adumbrated by the prosecution is that on the intervening night of 25/26.03.2011, at about 11:30 PM passenger namely Jagdish Singh S/o Karnail Singh was handed along with his travel documents i.e. PP No. E-2176390, for clearance as a deportee. On scrutiny no departure stamp corresponding to the present arrival was found on his passport. On questioning, accused had revealed that he departed from India to USA in the year 1996 on some body else's passport which was arranged by an agent namely Amit Patel, and on reaching USA the said passport was taken by the same agent. As per the complaint accused arranged a passport No. E-2176390 issued at Jalandhar on 22.10.2002 through same agent. Thus, as per prosecution, the accused could not produce any document showing his genuine departure from India. Hence, on receipt of complaint, the present FIR was registered. After investigation, charge sheet was filed by the State under Sections 420 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') & 12 Passport Act (hereinafter referred to as 'PP Act') against the accused namely Jagdish Singh on 26.02.2013.
2. On the basis of aforesaid charge sheet, Ld. Predecessor Court took cognizance of the offence. Accused appeared before the Court and was supplied with copy of charge sheet and documents under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
3. Arguments on the point of charge were heard and vide order dated 25.11.2016, Ld. Predecessor Court framed charges under Section 420 IPC and 12 PP Act against accused Jagdish CC No:- 45817/16 State v. Jagdish Singh Page No:- 2 of 11 Digitally signed by NABEELA NABEELA WALI WALI Date: 2022.09.05 18:08:34 +0530 Singh to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, matter was fixed for prosecution evidence.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. In support of its case, prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses. Sh. A. K. Sharma was examined as PW-1. He deposed that on 25.03.2011 he was posted at IGI Airport as ACIO- II and was on duty at the arrival wing. One passenger/accused namely Jagdish Singh was handed over to him as a deportee and on scrutiny of passport of the accused neither the departure stamp nor any USA arrival stamp on the passport was found. As per PW-1, accused informed him that he had gone to USA in 1996 on some other passport arranged by an agent and in the year 2002 he had arranged a passport from RPO Jalandhar. He further deposed that there was no record/entry on his passport to show that he had entered USA in 1996. The witness proved his compliant Ex. PW1/A bearing his signatures at point A. PW-1 further proved the passport of the accused as Ex. P-1, boarding pass and deportee form Ex. P-2(colly), deportation papers Ex. P-3 and arrival card of the accused bearing no. A09/97105550 as Ex. P-4. The witness was duly cross-examined by counsel for the accused, wherein he admitted the fact that his complaint Ex. PW 1/A does not mention about absence of arrival stamp on the passport no. E-2176390 of the accused. The witness PW-1 also could not mention about the reason for deportation of the accused during his cross-examination.
5. ASI Ajit Kumar was examined as PW-2. He deposed that in the intervening night of 25/26.03.2011, he was performing CC No:- 45817/16 State v. Jagdish Singh Page No:- 3 of 11 Digitally signed by NABEELA NABEELA WALI WALI Date: 2022.09.05 18:08:41 +0530 duty at the airport. He along with PW-1 had gone to Police Station IGI Airport. As per PW-2 entire travel documents and deportee papers were handed over to officials for registration of the case and the same were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/A bearing his signatures at point A. The witness was duly cross-examined by the accused.
6. SI Sunil Yadav was examined as PW-3. He deposed about his posting at Police Station IGI Airport as a duty officer and receiving the complaint from PW-1. He identified his signatures at point X at seizure memo Ex. PW 2/A. Witness also correctly identified the accused in the court. He proved the copy of the FIR as Ex. PW 3/A (OSR) and his endorsement on the rukka/complaint which is Ex. PW 3/B bearing his signatures at point X. Thereafter, PW-2 was cross-examined by Counsel for the accused.
7. Ct. Lalit Kumar was examined as PW-4. He deposed about joining the investigation in the present case with the IO. He proved the arrest memo Ex. PW 4/A, personal search memo Ex. PW 4/B and disclosure statement Ex. PW 4/C and identified his signatures on all documents at point A. PW-4 was duly cross- examined by Counsel for accused and denied the suggestions put by Counsel for the accused.
8. Sh. Hemant Bhardwaj, Junior Intelligence Officer-1 was authorized by Assistant Director, IB to prove the memorandum number 4/CFB/2011(14)-VI-1505 dated 02.06.2011 and was examined as PW-5. He proved the authority letter Ex. PW CC No:- 45817/16 State v. Jagdish Singh Digitally signed Page No:- 4 of 11 by NABEELA WALI NABEELA Date:
WALI 2022.09.05
18:08:48
+0530
5/A. He deposed that Sh. Rajesh Thakur issued the letter
4/CFB/2011(14)-VI-1505 dated 02.06.2011 and identified the signatures on the same. The memorandum was exhibited as Ex. PW 5/B and copy of arrival record of passport bearing no. E- 2176390 was marked as Mark-5A1. He has also brought the certified copies of said letter which was exhibited as Ex. PW 5/C and certified copy of travel record of passport no. E-2176390 which is Mark-5B. PW-5 during his cross-examination admitted that no record prior to 2002 has been sent to the authorities vide memo Ex. PW 5/B issued from the authority.
9. Sh. Anil Kumar, from RPO Jalandhar was examined as PW-6. He proved the authority letter which is Ex. PW 6/A and certified copy of record of complete passport file bearing J- 17060/02/POJ/PV.D dated 13.05.2011 issued to the accused which is Ex. PW 6/B. He also produced the certified copy of record of complete file which is Ex. PW 6/C (colly) and certificate under Section 65-B in respect of the record which is Ex. PW 6/D. The original letter dated 13.05.2011 issued from the office is mark-6A.
10. Investigating officer SI Bhoop Singh was examined as PW-7. He deposed that on 26.03.2011, he received the original rukka, copy of FIR along with the seizure memo of the travel documents of accused Jagdish. He proved the travel documents of pax which are Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-4. He further deposed that he arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW 4/A bearing his signatures at point X, personal search memo of accused Ex. PW 4/B bearing his signatures at point X and also recorded the CC No:- 45817/16 State v. Jagdish Singh Page No:- 5 of 11 Digitally signed by NABEELA NABEELA WALI WALI Date:
2022.09.05 18:08:56 +0530 disclosure statement of the accused which is Ex. PW 4/C bearing his signatures at point X. PW-7 further deposed that he searched for the said agent who was not traced. PW-7 further deposed that he got verified the passport of accused from RPO and obtained the arrival departure details of accused.
11. During cross-examination, PW-7 admitted that the passport of the accused seized in the present case is genuine. The witness also admitted that he had sought the details of arrival and departure of the accused on the passport from 2002 onwards as passport was issued in the year 2002. The witness admitted that he did not verify the deportation papers Ex. P2 and Ex. P3 and the grounds of deportation of the accused from any authority.
12. Sh. L. K. Gautam was examined as PW-8. He deposed that on 17.09.2015, he had received a request from Home Department, Delhi Secretariat, GNCT of Delhi for issuance of sanction under Section 15 of PP Act in the present case. The witness proved the sanction letter as Ex. PW 8/A (OSR) and identified his signatures at point A. During cross-examination, PW-8 admitted that he had no personal knowledge about the facts of the present case.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 Cr.P.C.
13. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed and the matter was fixed for recording of statement of accused. Statement of accused under Section 313/281 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein incriminating circumstances was put to the accused which he CC No:- 45817/16 State v. Jagdish Singh Page No:- 6 of 11 Digitally signed by NABEELA NABEELA WALI WALI Date:
2022.09.05 18:09:02 +0530 denied. Accused Jagdish Singh further choose to lead defence evidence.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
14. Accused examined himself as a witness under Section 315 Cr.P.C. He placed on record copy of judgment titled "United States of America v. Jagdish Singh @ Deshi" bearing no. CR03- 00540-003-PHX-DGC passed by Ld. District Judge David G Campbell dated 06.22.2005 as Ex. DW 1/A. The witness deposed that as per said judgment he was convicted and was in prison for a term of 60 months and 84 months respectively on grounds of committing felony, conspiracy and Bank fraud etc. As per DW-1, he was deported to India after completion of the sentence period. The accused was duly cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
15. Thereafter, matter proceeded for final arguments. Final arguments were heard on behalf of Ld. APP for State and the learned counsel for accused.
16. Ld. APP for the State argued that witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and accused is liable to be convicted. On the other hand, it is argued by Ld. Counsel for the accused that, no record of departure of the accused from the year 1996 onwards was taken by the IO during investigation. He further argued that as per the allegations in the charge-sheet, departure of the accused in the year 2002 could not be ascertained, however, prosecution has failed to produce any proof of the same.
CC No:- 45817/16 State v. Jagdish Singh Page No:- 7 of 11
Digitally signed
by NABEELA
NABEELA WALI
WALI Date: 2022.09.05
18:09:08 +0530
17. Arguments heard. Record perused.
18. It is settled principle of law that in criminal proceedings, prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, the accused is charged for the offfences punishable under Section 420 IPC and 12 of the Passport Act, 1967. Before recording any finding on the facts, it is imperative to discuss the essential ingredients of each of the offences:-
Section 420 IPC reads as under :-
420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.-
Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 12 (1) of Passport Act, 1967 reads as under:-
12. Offences and penalties.--
(1) Whoever--
(a) contravenes the provisions of section 3; or
(b) knowingly furnishes any false information or suppresses any material information with a view to obtaining a passport or travel document under this Act or without lawful authority alters or attempts to alter or causes to alter the entries made in a passport or travel document; or
(c) fails to produce for inspection his passport or travel document (whether issued under this Act or not) when called upon to do so by the prescribed authority; or
(d) knowingly uses a passport or travel document issued to another person; or
(e) knowingly allows another person to use a passport or travel document issued to him; shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 9 [two years or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees] or with both.Digitally signed by NABEELA
NABEELA WALI
WALI Date:
2022.09.05
18:09:14 +0530
CC No:- 45817/16 State v. Jagdish Singh Page No:- 8 of 11
FINDINGS
19. Let us now examine whether the prosecution has been able to discharge the burden of proof as required under the Evidence Act to prove the above.
20. The prosecution firstly is required to prove that the accused deceived the Immigration authorities in India as well as USA to illegally enter USA, without any departure stamp on his passport. None of the prosecution witnesses examined have deposed in support of the said charge. It is the case of the prosecution that during immigration clearance there was no departure stamp on the passport bearing no. E-2176390 of the accused and hence accused has travelled on the passport of some other person. It is the submission of PW-1 that during interrogation accused had disclosed that he went to USA in 1996 on some other passport arranged by an agent. Ex. PW 1/A also mentions the said fact. However, no such evidence has been placed by the prosecution to prove that accused had travelled on some body else's passport and hence deceived the immigration authorities during his departure to USA. IO i.e. PW-7 in his examination-in-
chief has also stated that despite searching for the agent, he could not be traced. Moreover, PW-5 has only placed on record arrival/departure record of passport bearing no. E-2176390 issued to the accused from the year 2002 and as per Ex. PW 5/B no departure of the accused could be traced on the said passport. However, no record of departure of the accused in the year 1996 has been placed on record and neither any evidence has been led to show that accused departed on some body else's passport. In the CC No:- 45817/16 State v. Jagdish Singh Page No:- 9 of 11 Digitally signed by NABEELA NABEELA WALI WALI Date: 2022.09.05 18:09:20 +0530 absence of such evidence there is nothing except the disclosure statement of the accused to show that he had travelled to USA on somebody else's passport. The prosecution has failed to show in what manner accused cheated and thereby dishonestly induced the immigration authorities to allow his departure to USA. Also, no evidence has been placed to show accused used a passport or travel documents issued to another person. Thus, no evidence has been put forth by the prosecution in support of the said allegations against the accused.
21. On the other hand, accused in order to rebut the submissions of the prosecution has proved that he was deported on grounds of Bank fraud and illegal use of credit cards and not on the ground of illegally entering USA. Ex P2 also mentions the same. Even otherwise, even if the argument that it was upon the accused to show his lawful departure to USA is considered than also onus upon the prosecution does not stand discharged. In the case of Sabitri Samntaray v. State of Odisha, (2022) Live Law (SC) 503, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:-
"... Although Section 106 is in no way aimed at relieving the prosecution from its burden to establish the guilt of an accused, it applies to cases where chain of events has been successfully established by the prosecution, from which a reasonable inference is made out against the accused..."
22. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. The burden of proof in a criminal trial is on the prosecution and it never shifts on to the accused. In a criminal trial all allegations need to be Digitally signed by NABEELA NABEELA WALI WALI Date:
2022.09.05 18:09:26 +0530 CC No:- 45817/16 State v. Jagdish Singh Page No:- 10 of 11 proved beyond all reasonable doubts that an ordinary man can have. There can be no doubt whether the accused is guilty or not. Even if slightest doubt is observed, accused is entitled to this benefit of reasonable doubt in the prosecution story.
23. In view of the above stated facts and discussion this Court is of the considered opinion that prosecution has failed to prove guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Jagdish Singh S/o Sh. Karnail Singh is hereby acquitted from the charges of offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and 12 PP Act.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT DATED: 05.09.2022 Digitally signed by NABEELA NABEELA WALI WALI Date: 2022.09.05 18:09:32 +0530 (NABEELA WALI) ACMM-01, NEW DELHI DISTRICT PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
This judgment contains Eleven pages and each page is signed by me. Digitally signed by NABEELA NABEELA WALI WALI Date:
2022.09.05 18:09:38 +0530 (NABEELA WALI) ACMM-01, NEW DELHI DISTRICT PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI CC No:- 45817/16 State v. Jagdish Singh Page No:- 11 of 11