Delhi District Court
Lamber Singh Pabla vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 25 September, 2010
1
IN THE COURT OF SH.SURESH CHAND RAJAN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT,
(New Delhi & South East District)
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Criminal revision no. 06/2010
1. Lamber Singh Pabla
S/o Sh. Dalip Singh Pabla,
R/o 1117, First ST, Living stone,
CA95334-1003
presently at New Delhi
2. Arjun singh,
S/o Sh. Gurbachahn Singh
R/o H. No. 400, Mohali Phase II,
District Mohali, Punjab. .......... Revisionist
versus
State (NCT of Delhi) .......... Respondent
JUDGMENT
This revision has been filed against the order dated 17.07.2010 passed by Sh. Pritam Singh, Ld. MM, Patiala House court, New Delhi thereby framing the charge against the petitioners U/s 420/511/120 B IPC and also U/s 471/120 B IPC.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case for giving rise to this present revision petition are that on 02.07.2008 sixteen applicants had applied for non immigrant visa under P-3 Cultural Performance category at US Embassy New Delhi and during interview of these applicants it was uncovered that the 2 promoter of the group Mr. L.S. Pabla, A united State Citizen was facilitating fake documents and smuggling peoples to United State as fake performers, some of the applicant / performers disclosed certain facts to the US Embassy and one of such performer namely Rajwinder Kaur stated that she was not a performer and has not performed since 2002 and that she wanted to enter US illegally by posing as a performer in L.S. Pabla Group. Her father arranged with accused L.S. Pabla for a price to be part of group through other co accused Arjun Singh. Photographs of her performing were staged to lead the counselor officer , to believe that she was a performer and her performance certificate was supplied by L.S. Pabla in order to her performance as fake. Another fake performer Sukhdeep Singh stated that he was not performer and the entire scheme was arranged by Sh. L.S. Pabla and he paid Rs. 5 lacs to Mr. Pabla in two installments and Mr. Pabla arranged photos to be taken which would depict him as being married yet these marriage photographs were staged to make it appear as if he was married, the woman shown in the photo was not his wife but she was his friend. Another performer namely Arjun Singh stated that Mr. L.S. Pabla told him and other group member to misrepresent themselves to the US Embassy and Arjun singh 3 another performer stated that only 11 peoples performed in the United States during their 24 shows and other five peoples did not return to India and Mr. L.S. Pabla told him and the other group members to misrepresent themselves to the US Embassy. The other accused Sukhdeep Singh, Hoshiar Singh, Harpal Singh, Devender Singh, Rajvender Kaur and Jaskaran Singh have already been pleaded guilty and on the complaint of Richard R. Seipert the present case was registered against these two revisionist alongwith the six other accused persons have been pleaded their guilt before the ld. Trial court and the accused persons were arrested and after completion of investigation the challan was prepared and filed in the court for judicial verdict and after supplying the copies of challan to each of the accused persons, the case was fixed for consideration of charge and after hearing the arguments from the ld. Counsel of each accused person, the ld. Trial court passed an order on charge on 17.07.2010. Feeling aggrieved by the said order on charge, out of the eight accused two accused persons who is the revisionist / petitioner in this revision petition has preferred to file this revision petition for setting aside the charge order.
3. The present revision petition was received by this court on 13.08.2010 and after registering of this revision petition, 4 notice was issued to state as well as trial court file was summoned and after receiving the trial court file I, therefore, heard the arguments on this present revision petition.
4. During the course of arguments the ld. Counsel for revisionist has drawn the attention of the court on some case facts as well as case law 2005 (2) JCC 830 and stated that it is similar case to the present revision petition and the prosecution has not brought any material witness as to how these two revision petitioners smuggled the human being and he has also drawn the attention of the court on the relevant para of this judgment.
5. On the other hand ld APP on behalf of state has also drawn the attention of the court on the complaint made by Richard R. Seipert Asst. Security officer, Investigator Regional Security office, US Embassy, New Delhi and in which he has made the sufficient allegations against the accused persons and on the basis of material available on file the ld. Trial court passed an order and framed the charge as per order. So, the present revision petition in the present form is not maintainable and same may kindly be dismissed.
6. In consideration of the submissions and rival contentions of both the ld. Counsels as well as the ld. APP, I also perused the 5 trial court record received today and particularly the allegations against these two accused persons. There are allegations that accused L.S. Pabla had arranged the documents of the other co accused and presented them in the US Embassy for procuring non immigrant visa alongwith some photographs of the performers while those were not the real performer. I also given by thoughtful consideration on the case law relied by the ld. Counsel. It is stated in the head note ''Cr.P.C 1973 Section 482 Quashing of order framing charge U/s 419/420 and 471 /120B IPC - two co accused pleaded guilty and convicted accordingly -petitioner , the third co accused challenged order framing charge - earlier application for discharge was rejected by the ld. Trial court - alleged confessional statement of co accused do not implicate the petitioner in any offence - no evidence that the petitioner was facilitator or people smuggler - no role played by the petitioner in the conspiracy related to the forging of passport or visa of the other co accused - the alleged Disclosure statement do not disclose how the petitioner was carrying the co accused with her - even if everything relied upon by the prosecution is proved , it will not be sufficient to bring home the charge - hence the impugned order is set 6 aside and petitioner is discharge and prayer granted.''
7. It is also stated in the head note. Third :- ''Section 25 and 27 of the Evidence Act that Disclosure statements of two co accused - the statements were recorded after arrest by police - there was no discovery of any article following the two disclosure - such statements were hit by Section 25 and 27 of the Act.''
8. It is stated in the last head note that :- '' Section 120 B IPC - conspiracy - Basis of - A meeting of mind is essential to constitute an offence of conspiracy''.
9. With the observation of above case law and the material available on file and the allegations which have already been discussed by the ld. Trial court in his order, I am of the opinion that at the time of framing the charge the court has to be consider the materials available against each of the accused persons or that whether it is prima facie evidence against each of the accused persons either to frame charge or not, if court found no material or prima facie evidence he may have right to discharge the accused otherwise to frame the charge against the accused person. In view of the above discussion and the material available on file and the document i.e. Non immigrant visa application of each of the performer 7 who were later on not found the real performer and the present facts and circumstances, the present case law with due respect is not applicable to the present case circumstances. I am of the opinion that the ld. Trial court has not committed any error in framing the charge and passing the charge order. Resultantly, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed. The Trial court file be sent back with the copy of this order and the revision file be consigned to the record room. Order dictated and announced in the open court.
Announced in the open Court on 25.09.2010.
(SURESH CHAND RAJAN) ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE (Fast Track Court-New Delhi and South East District) NEW DELHI