Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Pramod Kumar Bhargava on 26 December, 2025
CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEETU NAGAR,
ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE -06,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT,
NEW DELHI
COVER-SHEET
IN THE MATTER OF:
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
VS.
PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA
The accused persons have been apprised about the Legal Aid
Facility and the details of legal aid facility which is as under:-
DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY
(ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT)
FRONT OFFICE, GROUND FLOOR,
ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
PHONE NO. 9810420894
E-MAIL ADDRESS : [email protected]
Digitally
signed by
NEETU
NEETU NAGAR
NAGAR Date:
2025.12.26
15:26:35
(Neetu Nagar) +0530
ACJM-06 RADC
Delhi26.12.2025 Page 1 of 72
CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEETU NAGAR,
ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-06,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT,
NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
VS.
PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA AND OTHERS
AGE OF THE CASE : 19 Years 3 Months 24 Days
CNR No. : DLCT120000032019
CASE No. : CBI/2/2019
FIR No. :RC5(s)/05/SCB-II
Under Section : 120-B read with 420 and
467,468, 471IPC
Name of Branch :SCB-II/CBI/DLI
Date of Commission of Offence : In the year 2005
Name of the Complainant : Source Information.
Name, Parentage and Address of accused:
(i) Pramod Kumar Bhargava
S/o Sh. Bhawar Lal Bhargav,
R/o Ward No. 1,
Maharana Pratap Chowk,
Sadulpur, District Churu,
Rajasthan.
(ii) Badal Kumar Nayak
Digitally
signed by
NEETU
NEETU NAGAR
NAGAR Date:
2025.12.26
15:26:51
(Neetu Nagar) +0530
ACJM-06 RADC
Delhi26.12.2025 Page 2 of 72
CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS
S/o Babaji Charan Nayak,
R/o Village and PO
Ardaulia Via-Ahiyas District
Jajpur, Orrisa.
Offence complained of : 120-B read with 420,
465,468, 471 IPC
Plea of Accused Persons : Not Guilty
Date of Institution of case : 02.09.2006
Date of Judgment : 26.12.2025
Final decision : CONVICTED
*****
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:-
For the Prosecution : Ms. Priya Gaur, Learned PP for
CBI.
For the Accused Persons : Sh. S.K. Atri, Learned Counsel
for accused persons.
*****
JUDGMENT
*****
1. Accused persons namely Pramod Kumar Bhargav and Badal Kumar Nayak have been sent by the CBI to face trial for the commission of the offences punishable under Section 120-B read with 420,465,468 and 471 IPC and substantive offence thereof.
Digitally
signed by
NEETU
NEETU NAGAR
NAGAR Date:
2025.12.26
(Neetu Nagar) 15:27:00
ACJM-06 RADC
+0530
Delhi26.12.2025 Page 3 of 72
CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS
FACTS
2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that M/s. Sreema Marine Services, 1681, Kotla Mubarkapur, New Delhi-110003 issued bogus Seamen Identity documents i.e. Continuation Discharge Certificates in favour of seven persons namely Harpreet Singh, Amarjeet Singh S/o Shri Revel Singh, Sanjay Kumar, Bhupinder Singh, Amarjeet Singh S/o Sh. Mohan Singh, Tarlochan Kumar and Gulzar Singh having passport no. E-9483563, E-8300006, F-0074013, E-4894680, E-3691406, E- 6358510, E-8608940 respectively and also their seamen's book having no. 0685039, 0634139, 0685086, 0685031, 0685038, 0685032, 0685087 respectively with a view to go abroad illegally.
2.1 It transpired during the course of investigation that the said seven persons reached accused Pramod Kumar Bhargava through various travel agents. Sh. Gulzar Singh and Sh. Harpreet Singh were in contact with one Rajender Kumar who was running a Placement and Travel Agency at Jalandhar who sent them to accused Pramod Kumar Bhargava and they reached Delhi on 19.03.2005 where they met the remaining persons at H-17, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi from where accused Pramod Kumar Bhargava was running his placement agency. 2.2 It also surfaced during investigation that Sh. Amarjeet Singh S/o Sh. Mohan Singh, Tarlochan Kumar and Bhupinder Singh were in contact with one Avtar Singh @ Bhullar who ran a Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.26 (Neetu Nagar) 15:27:10 +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi26.12.2025 Page 4 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS placement agency at Jalandhar and introduced them to accused Pramod Kumar Bhargava through Sh. Rajender Kumar. Similarly, Sh. Amarjeet Singh S/o Sh. Revel Singh and Bhupinder Singh were introduced with accused Pramod Kumar Bhargava for the job through Nirmal Singh who was running a placement Agency at Hoshiarpur (Punjab). Sanjay Kumar was in contact with one Raj Kumar, who was running a placement agency at Sonipat, Haryana who sent him to accused Pramod Kumar Bhargava.
2.3 It is alleged that all the said seven persons on reaching Delhi contacted accused Pramod Kumar Bhargava who told them that they would be sent to Caracas (Venezuela) as employees of a ship MT Olar under flag of Panama and they were shown the documents which were got completed by accused Pramod Kumar Bhargava including appointment letters dated 22.03.2005 supposedly written by M/s. Sreema marine Services wherein the said persons were shown to have been recruited as Attendant Boys in ship MT Olar and CDCs for the candidates showing that they had worked earlier on commercial ships. 2.5 It further transpired that both the accused persons came in contact with one Shri Tutal Das Gupta r/o Bangladesh who provided a letter of invitation to them with reference to appointment of the said persons from his principal M/s. Atlas Shipping Group located at Caracas, Venezuela. Accused Pramod Kumar Bhargava thereafter, contacted Sh. Sanjay Kumar, owner Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.26 (Neetu Nagar) 15:27:19 +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi26.12.2025 Page 5 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS of M/s. Maple Tour and Travels, Nehru Place, New Delhi for procurement of CDC who in turn directed him to one Rajender Singh, Ex-employee of Merchant Navy based at Mumbai. Accused Pramod Kumar Bhargava went to Mumbai in the month of February, 2005 and contacted said Rajender Singh who informed him about one Surjeet Singh. Accused Pramod Kumar Bhargava then contacted Surjeet Singh and told him about his requirement of experience certificate/CDC who agreed to provide the same to him for charge of Rs. 5,000/- per CDC. 2.6 It further surfaced during investigation that accused Pramod Kumar Bhargava handed over Rs. 35,000/- and copies of the passports to Surjeet Singh in Mumbai who provided him with CDCs in the name of all the mentioned seven persons. Accused Pramod Kumar Bhargava then returned back to Delhi.
Thereafter, accused Badal Kumar Nayak contacted Tutol Das Gupta by phone and on his directions the references/details of the CDC obtained from Mumbai were sent by e-mail to him by accused Badal Kumar Nayak from an Internet Cafe at Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi.
2.7 It is alleged that applications for issue of visas to the said seven persons alongwith with the required documents i.e. original passport, copy of CDC and copy of letter of invitation were prepared and managed by accused persons. It is further alleged that a letterhead of M/s. Sreema Marine Services, a non existing firm, was generated and used by both the accused Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR Date: NAGAR 2025.12.26 15:27:36 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi26.12.2025 Page 6 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS persons respectively for preparing appointment letters, certificates of employment and request letter for visa which along with the application forms of visa of the said seven persons and their original passports were submitted on 15.03.2005 by both the accused persons in Venezuela Embassy, Delhi to obtain visa which was issued for 10 days to the said seven persons. It is also alleged that on the basis of the documents submitted by the accused persons including the forged and false CDCs as well as the false letter of appointment and a request letter of M/s. Sreema Marine Services, the said seven persons were going to join service at the vessel MT Olar Panama flag of M/s. Atlas Shipping Group at Caracas. In the meanwhile, accused Pramod Kumar Bhargava purchased oneway Air tickets for the journey on 24.03.2005 from M/s. Moon Tours and Travels, Connaught Place, New Delhi for Delhi-Frankfurt-Caracas by Lufthansa Airlines by flight no. LH 761.
2.8 It transpired further that both the accused persons submitted another set of documents in respect of the seven applicants in German Embassy, Delhi separately on 21.03.2005 containing the false CDCs as well as letter from M/s. Sreema Marine Services dated 21.03.2005 requesting the visa officer of German Embassy to issue transit visas for 2 days for the said applicants along with transit visa of 10 days already granted by Embassy of Venezuela. Since the documents submitted by the accused persons had already been honoured by the Embassy of Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.26 15:27:46 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi26.12.2025 Page 7 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS Venezuela, German Embassy also issued a transit visa for two days from 24.03.2005 to 25.03.2005 for change of plane at Frankfurt for Caracas (Venezuela). 2.9 It surfaced further that armed with the transit visas from Embassy of Venezuela and Embassy of Germany, the said seven persons went to IGI Airport on 23.03.2005 at about 10.30 PM.
They tried to board Lufthansa Airlines LH 761 Departure for Frankfurt at 03.05 AM on 24.03.2005 when they were intercepted by the officer of Lufthansa Airlines and were not allowed to board as their documents were not matching with their passports and with the verbal journey prepared to be undertaken by them, during questioning by officials of Lufthansa Airlines. The said seven persons thereafter returned to Karol Bagh where they were staying and contacted accused Pramod Kumar Bhargava in the morning. Since they had been denied boarding in Lufthansa flight, accused Pramod Kumar Bhargava purchased another set of air tickets for them from M/s. Master Travel, Vikas Puri, New Delhi through M/s. Sattar Agro Private Ltd., H-17, South Ext. Part-I, New Delhi of Austrian Airline and the flight was scheduled on 25.03.2005 at 2.30 AM. In the intervening night of 24.03.2005 and 25.03.2005, six persons namely, Amarjeet Singh, Sanjay Kumar, Bhupinder Singh, Amarjeet Singh, Tarlochan Kumar and Gulzar Singh again reached IGI Airport at about 11:00 P.M. of 24.03.2005, New Delhi and boarded flight no. OS-034 which was bound for Vienna and were Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR Date: NAGAR 2025.12.26 15:27:55 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi26.12.2025 Page 8 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS deported back to Delhi (India) by the same flight i.e. OS-033 on 25.03.2005 at about 11:00 PM.
2.10. Investigation qua role of Tutal Das Gupta R/o Bangladesh and Surjeet Singh R/o Mumbai was also made but no Supplementary Chargesheet was filed by the CBI. 2.11. After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed in the court under Section 120-B read with 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC and substantive offence thereof.
COGNIZANCE AND CHARGE
3. Vide order dated 01.03.2006, cognizance of the offence was taken against the accused persons. Copy of the chargesheet and the accompanying documents were supplied to the accused persons free of cost under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Finding a prima facie case, charge for commission of offence punishable under Section 120-B read with 420/468/471 IPC and Section 468 and 471 IPC were framed against accused persons on 01.08.2008 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. To prove its case, the prosecution examined total 16 witnesses and they are categorized for the sake of convenience as under:-
S.No. Points Witnesses Proved PW Name During Trial
1. PWs who proved that they PW05 Sh. Rajender Kumar visited the office of ac- PW08 Sh. Harpreet singh cused Pramod Kumar. Fur PW09 Sh. Nirmal Singh they deposed that all the Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.26 (Neetu Nagar) 15:28:05 +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi26.12.2025 Page 9 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS formalities pertaining to job and visa were done by accused Pramod Kumar and Badal Kumar at their office.
2. PW who proved copies of PW07 Sh. Pervaiz Alamgir CDC, appointment letters, Khan certificates alleged to be forged and that 7 passen-
gers were not allowed to board flight on 24.03.2005
3. PW who proved documents PW03 Sh. Gurbagh Singh relating to deportation of 6 passengers except Sh.
Harpreet Singh on
25.03.2005 due to invalid
visa.
4. PWs who proved docu- PW06 Sh. Bharat Gupta
ments against accused PW13 Sh. Raj Kumar Jain
Badal Kumar regarding PW14 Sh. Suraj Prakash
forged letter heads of M/s. Bhakshi
Sreema Marine Services PW15 Sh. D.M Sharma
and TATA Tele Services (IO)
for phone number PW16 Sh. Amit Bhatia
55833262 mentioned on
the letter heads vide
Ex.PW15/H which bear the
photo of accused Badal
Kumar on the application
form.
5. PW who proved that no of- PW01 Sh. Narender Kumar
fice of Firm/ company
namely M/s. Sreema Ma-
rine Services functioning at
Shop No.1681 K M Pur,
Delhi
6. Scientific expert (CFSL) PW11 Sh. Deepak R.
Digitally
signed by
NEETU
NEETU NAGAR
NAGAR Date:
2025.12.26
(Neetu Nagar)
15:28:23
+0530
ACJM-06 RADC
Delhi26.12.2025 Page 10 of 72
CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS
Handa
7. IO who conducted investi- PW 15 Sh. D.M. Sharma gation.
4.1 Their testimonies in brief are as follows: -
PW-1 Narender Kumar :- He testified that he has never seen any company/firm in the name of M/s. Sreema Marian Services functioning at Shop No. 1681, Kotla Mubarkapur, Near Circle Gumbad Chaupal, New Delhi or nearby the complex of the said shop.
PW-2 Ashok Jha:- He worked with Master Travel as Accountant in the year 2003. He testified that he knew M/s. Sattar Agro Pvt. Ltd. from which, he used to buy air tickets through his firm. He testified that seven photocopies of return tickets from Delhi to Carcacus were issued from firm M/s. Austrian and Lufthansa in the name of Amarjit Singh, Trilochan Kumar, Amarjit Singh, Harprit Singh, Guljar Singh, Sanjay Kumar and Bhupender Singh. He further testified that he was shown the seven photocopies of the visas and passports of Amarjit Singh, Trilochan Kumar, Amarjit Singh, Harprit Singh, Guljar Singh, Sanjay Kumar and Bhupender Singh. He proved photocopy of invoice dated 28.03.2005 i.e. the bill of tickets vide Ex. PW 2/1 sold to seven persons amounting Rs. 3,84,265/- and Rs. 3,01,190/- which was handed over by him to CBI alongwith forwarding letter and photocopies.
PW-3 Gurbag Singh:- He worked as Assistant Foreigners
Digitally
signed by
NEETU
NEETU NAGAR
NAGAR Date:
2025.12.26
15:28:34
(Neetu Nagar) +0530
ACJM-06 RADC
Delhi26.12.2025 Page 11 of 72
CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS
Regional Registration Officer (AFRRO), Delhi in the year 2005 and supervised the staff posted at headquarters of AFRRO. He proved letter no. 9765 dated 27.09.2005 vide Ex. PW3/1 addressed to SP, CBI, Delhi through which he handed down the copies of deportation papers in respect of Sanjay Kumar and five others along with the copies of embarkation card, copies of deportation papers and record maintained at IGI Airport pertaining to Harpreet Singh. He proved photocopy of deportee/repatriated fax relating to Trilochan Kumar S/o Mangat Ram vide Ex. PW3/2, which was prepared by Inspector A.K. Pandey for the purpose of deportation of Trilochan Kumar from Vienna, Austria dated 25.03.2005 by flight number OS 033 of Austrian Airlines. He proved the dis-embarcation card dated 25.03.2005 vide Ex. PW3/2 pertaining to Trilochan Kumar, which was prepared by the Airlines Authority. He deposed that he had seen original documents of the above mentioned photocopies and proved the same vide Ex. PW-3/3 (colly), Ex.
PW-3/4 (colly), Ex. PW-3/5 (colly) and Ex. PW-3/6 (colly) relating to Amarjit Singh S/o Ravel Singh, Amarjit Singh S/o Mohan Singh, Guljar Singh, Santok Singh and Sanjay Kumar. PW-4 Sanjay Aneja:- He testified that he runs a travel agency namely Mapel Tours and Travels at Nehru Place, New Delhi since 2005 and that he is one of the Directors thereof. He deposed further that accused Parmod Kumar Bhargava went to his office for buying air tickets and asked him for some Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.26 15:28:43 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi26.12.2025 Page 12 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS information about shipping line in the year 2005 which he did not have and suggested him to contact Mr. Raj Singh @ Rajender Singh in Mumbai and provided him the telephone number. He deposed further that Sh. Raj Singh @ Rajender Singh confirmed him on telephone that Pramod Kumar contacted him on telephone.
PW-5 Sh. Rajender Kumar:- He used to run a travel agency (ticketing) in Jalandhar in the year 2005 and deposed about the role of accused persons in arranging job for suitable candidates at Caracus.
PW-6 Sh. Bharat Gupta:- He testified that he runs a cyber cafe at Kotla Mubarakpur under the name Dream Cyber Zone. He proved photocopy of the letter dated 22.03.2005 vide Mark PW 6/1 bearing the letterhead of M/s. Sreema Marine Services containing the details of the appointment of seaman which was downloaded from the net in his cafe. PW-7 Sh. Perveiz Alamgir Khan :- He deposed that he worked as station manager, Lufthansa German Airlines, IGI Airport-II, New Delhi in 2005. He testified that he was on night shift on 23.03.2005 starting from 8.00 PM to 8.00 AM. He deposed that officer on duty issues the boarding card for one side journey ticket. He proved letter dated 05.10.2005 issued by him to D.M. Sharma, Inspector CBI through which photocopies of passport and CDC booklets regarding Harpreet Singh, Amarjeet Singh, Sanjay Kumar, Bhupender Singh, Trilochan Kumar and Guljar Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.26 15:28:59 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi26.12.2025 Page 13 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS Singh along with photocopies of appointment letter and certificates of Harpreet Singh and Amarjeet Singh were submitted by him. He deposed that photocopies of passport of 7 persons did not contain the entry regarding the purpose of journey. He testified that all seven persons were carrying one side journey tickets from Delhi-Frankfurt-Caracus (Venezuela) by Flight no. LH-761 and departure time of their flight was 3.05 AM of 24.03.2005. He deposed next that after verification of documents officer on duty found the documents as suspicious and informed the officer of Lufthansa Airlines. He also made enquiries from the said 7 persons but they were unable to tell anything regarding their purpose of journey and did not give satisfactory reply. He deposed that when the enquiry was made regarding the purpose of visit to Caracus from them they told that they were appointed as seaman from M/s. Sreema Marine Services, Kotla Mubarak, New Delhi and produced the certificates CDC and appointment letters. He further testified that they did not have any knowledge for seaman work and never visited and worked in any country as it was observed from their passports and owing to the suspicion boarding pass was not issued to the said persons. He further testified that photocopies of relevant documents were taken from the original by him in the presence of those 7 persons when the documents were produced by them on 23.03.2005 at his counter for getting boarding cards for the journey. He proved letter dated 05.10.2005 and Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR Date: NAGAR 2025.12.26 15:29:09 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi26.12.2025 Page 14 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS photocopies of 7 passports and continuous discharge certificate (CDC) vide Mark PW7/A. PW-8 Sh. Harpreet Singh :- He is one of the victim and deposed about the role of accused persons in processing of his visa application.
PW-9 Sh. Nirmal Singh:- He is also an independent witness who knew accused persons and deposed about the same. PW-10 Sh. Ramesh Tek Chandani:- He was posted in the year 2005 as Section Officer, Extradition Section, CDC Division (Consular, Passport and Visa Division, New Delhi) which used to deal with the cases pertaining to Extradition as well as information sought by CBI and other investigation agencies from countries abroad through diplomatic missions in India. He proved letter dated 05.09.2005 to Embassy of Venezuela, New Delhi (DA) vide Ex.PW10/A and letter dated 05.09.2005 issued to Embassy of Federal Republic of Germany, New Delhi vide Ex.PW10/B seeking information and documents relating to Visa issued to persons mentioned in the letters. He also proved letter dated 23.09.2005 (D-10) vide Ex.PW10/C. PW-11 Sh. Deepak R. Handa:- He is the expert witness who worked in CFSL. He deposed that he received documents for examination in the office of CFSL through SP (CBI) (SCB) via forwarding letters dated 30.12.2005 and 18.10.2006. He proved Q1 to Q28 vide Ex. PW11/1 to Ex.PW11/28 and the specimen of accused B.K. Nayak numbered as S1 to S14 vide Ex. PW11/29 Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR Date: NAGAR 2025.12.26 15:29:23 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi26.12.2025 Page 15 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS (colly) and that of accused Pramod Kumar Bhargava from S-15 to S-36 vide Ex.PW11/30 (colly). He proved report of GEQD vide Ex.PW11/31 and forwarding letter of Sh. S. R. Singh, Joint Director through Ex. PW11/32 vide which Ex. PW11/31 was submitted. He also proved report of GEQD vide Ex PW11/33 and forwarding letter of Mr. S.S.R. Singh, Joint Director vide Ex. PW 11/34 through which Ex. PW11/33 was submitted. PW-12 Sh. Amit Jatana:- He used to run travel agency in the name of M/s. Moon Tour & Travels. He proved bill book belonging to his travel agency vide Ex. PW12/1 and invoice number 252 with regard to issuance of air tickets in the name of 7 persons vide Ex. PW12/2 pertaining to his company. PW-13 Sh. Raj Kumar Jain:- He proved affidavit of Naresh Chand Jain regarding Tutal Dass Gupta bearing the signatures of his father vide Ex. PW13/A and application form no. 004070105 bearing his father's signature and filled up in his handwriting vide Ex. PW13/B. He deposed that Tutal Dass Gupta never resided at the address 7A, Bhagwan Nagar, Hari Nagar Ashram, New Delhi and they purchased the premises brought from Pravesh Gupta. He deposed further that NOC was never issued in favour of Tutal Dass Gupta for the issuance of ration card at the said address.
PW-14 Sh. Suraj Prakash Bakshi:- He testified that he worked as Inspector Grade-II, Food and Supply Department, Delhi in 2007. He proved letter addressed to Sh. D.M. Sharma, Inspector CBI Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.26 15:29:33 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi26.12.2025 Page 16 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS dated 26.04.2006 vide Ex PW14/A through which Sh. Chander Mohan Food and Supply Officer, handed down the mentioned documents to CBI (D-15). He proved document mentioned in Ex. PW14/A vide Ex. PW14/B supplied by Mr. Chander Mohan to CBI. He proved letter dated 21.06.2006 vide Ex. PW14/C through which he handed down affidavit and ration card of Sh. Naresh Chand Jain to CBI, vide Ex. PW13/A and Ex. PW13/B respectively.
PW-15 Sh. D.M. Sharma:- He is the investigating office of the present case and proved the steps taken by him. He testified that present case was registered on source information against M/s. Sreema Marine Services and its Proprietor vide FIR Ex. PW15/A. He deposed that vide letter dated 05.09.2005 Ex. PW10/A addressed to Section Officer, Ministry of External Affairs informed regarding the Passport number and information of seven persons namely Harpreet Singh, Amarjeet Singh, Sanjay Kumar, Bhupinder singh, Amarjeet Singh S/o Sh. Mohan Singh, Trilochan Kumar and Gulzar Singh vide letter dated 23.09.2005 Ex. PW10/C. It was informed to CBI by Sh. D.K. Ghosh, Public Relation Officer, MOE, that CBI can obtain documents from Mr. Guido Buetler, Officer of Germany Embassy, Delhi. He proved production memo (D-11) vide Ex. PW15/B from Amit Jatana, Proprietor of Moon Tours and Travels through which Inspector Ajay Kumar seized documents from him. He proved letter dated 29.08.2005 (D-7) vide Ex. PW15/C of DIG M. Narayanan Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.26 15:29:44 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi26.12.2025 Page 17 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS addressed to Joint Secretary and Chief Passport Officer, for collecting information regarding mentioned seven persons. He proved letter dated 30.06.2005 (D-4) vide Ex. PW2/1 vide which Master Travels provided photocopies of passport, visa, tickets and sale bills of mentioned seven persons. He proved letter dated 15.10.2005 (D-3) vide Ex. PW7/1 addressed to him by Lufthansa Airlines through which photocopies of passports, CDC booklets, appointment letters and certificates of mentioned seven persons were provided. He proved production memo dated 15.10.2005 (D-2) vide Ex. PW15/D. He proved letter dated 27.09.2005 (D-6) Ex. PW3/I vide which Sh. Gurbax Singh, AF Head Quarter provided the photocopies of mentioned documents in the letter and letter dated 04.07.2005 (D-12) vide Ex. PW15/B, addressed to him by Passport Office Jalandhar through which he was provided the photocopies of the files (Mark A-4) of passport of Bhupinder Singh, Amarjeet Singh, Amarjeet Singh-II, Trilochan Kumar and Gulzar Singh. He proved seized bill book from invoice no. 251 to 300 (D-11) vide Ex. PW12/1 pertaining to Moon Tours and Travels. He proved letter dated 24.11.2005 vide Ex. PW15/F through which Mr. Guido Beutler, Police Liaison Officer Embassy of Germany handed down original record of Visa applications of aforementioned seven persons signed by him. He proved the original visa application forms and photocopy of other documents vide Ex. PW15/G. He proved Fax message dated 24.03.2005 vide Mark A-5 addressed to Visa Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.26 15:29:54 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi26.12.2025 Page 18 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS Officer, Embassy of Germany sent by Sh. T.D. Gupta, Director, Scaneast Marine Pvt. Ltd. New Park Building, Khatoon Ganj, Chita Gong, Bangladesh, alongwith the list of aforesaid seven persons. He proved letter dated 26.04.2006 (D-15) vide Ex. PW14/A pertaining to Mr. Tutul Das Gupta supplied by Food and Supply Officer. He proved letter Mark A-6 to Sh. Abhishek Kala, Bharti Airtel, pertaining to number of 51648951 of Sh. Abdul Sattar. He proved letter dated 16.03.2006 (D-17) vide Ex. PW15/H of Tata Tele Services through which record of telephone number 55833262 was issued in the name of Mr. Tutul Das Gupta, R/o 7A Bhagwan Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi. He deposed that the telephone connection form was having details of Sh. Tutul Dass Gupta but photographs of accused Badal Kumar Nayak was pasted at point X (D-17). He proved letter dated 21.06.2006 (D-18) vide Ex. PW14/C through which Sh. Chander Mohan, Food and Supply Officer handed over the documents namely affidavit, Rations Card, application form, electricity bill pertaining to Naresh Chander Jain to CBI showing his address as Bhagwan Nagar, New Delhi on all documents. He proved seizure memo dated 05.10.2006 of Sh. Harpreet Singh (D-19) vide Ex. PW15/1 who handed over his passport bearing no. E9483563, having visa of Venezuala for ten days and transit visit of Frankfurt, Germany. He obtained specimen handwriting of accused B.K. Nayak from S1 to S14 vide Ex. PW11/29 and specimen handwriting of accused Pramod Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.26 15:30:06 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi26.12.2025 Page 19 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS Kumar Bhargava vide Ex. PW11/30 in the presence of independent witness Sh. V.S. Dagar of FCI, Headquarter, Delhi and Ct. Sanjay Kumar Meena, 3rd Battalion, Delhi. He proved letter dated 31.10.2006 to S.P. CBI, SCB vide Ex. PW11/34 and Ex. PW11/33, through which he received CFSL report. He proved letter dated 27.10.2006 vide Ex. PW15/J through which MEA handed over the documents mentioned in the letters to Sh. S.J. M. Gilani, SP, CBI, SCB. He recorded statement of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C and examined the documents and relevant witnesses and filed the chargesheet after the completion of the investigation. PW16-Sh. Amit Bhatia:- He deposed that one Sh. Abhishek Kala, Senior Executive, Legal, Bharti Airtel, provided documents to CBI in 2006. He proved letter dated 09.03.2006 addressed to SP CBI, SCB vide which Sh. Abhishek Kala provided the documents to CBI vide Ex. PW16/1. 4.2 After conclusion of the list of witnesses, the prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 10.11.2025.
STATEMENTS OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 Cr.P.C
5. Statements of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
were recorded vide order dated 09.12.2025 wherein they denied all the allegations and wished to lead DE.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
6. Accused persons preferred to lead evidence in their Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR Date: NAGAR 2025.12.26 15:30:19 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi26.12.2025 Page 20 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS defence by moving application under Section 315 Cr. PC. which was allowed on 09.12.2025 and examined themselves. 6.1 Thereafter, the evidence on behalf of the accused persons was closed on 09.12.2025.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
7. I have heard learned PP for CBI and the learned Counsel for the accused persons.
7.1 Learned PP for CBI has argued that prosecution has led sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. She submitted that the oral and documentary evidence in the present case is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused persons. Hence, the accused are liable to be convicted. 7.2 Per contra, it was argued on behalf of learned counsel of the accused persons that principal allegations against the accused persons are false and baseless. Written submissions were also filed on behalf of accused persons. It was contended that there is delay in lodging the FIR as the offence was committed on 25.03.2005 but FIR was lodged on 29.06.2005 i.e. after a delay of three months. It was argued that the investigating officer could not recover a single penny or single piece of forged documents from the possession of the accused persons. It was further contended that the prosecution alleged that the accused persons procured forged documents of M/s. Atlas Shaping Group Caracas Venezuela and M/s. Scaneast Marine (Pvt) Limited Chittagong Bangladesh, but the investigating officer did not verify the Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.26 15:30:29 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi26.12.2025 Page 21 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS documents from the said companies, whether they have issued the certificates/documents, or not. Neither any independent person nor any victim/complainant of cheating or forgery, came forward to lodge the complaint or FIR in the police station or CBI office, then how unanimous body can lodge a complaint that someone has committed the offence of cheating against someone. It was further argued that no monetary loss or gain faced by anybody as to prove the cheating case someone should have faced monetary loss and other should have obtained monetary gain, but both facts i.e. loss and gain are missing in the present case. It was further contended that the alleged forged documents were not exhibited before this Hon'ble Court and the investigating officer failed to produce the original documents of the alleged forged documents. It was prayed for acquittal of the accused persons. Reliance was placed on case law titled as under:-
(i) State of NCT of Delhi V/s Navjot Sandhu(2005) II SCC 600 .
(Conspiracy cannot be inferred from mere suspicion or association.)
(ii). Kehar Singh v/s State AIR 1988 SC 1883 . (Agreement to commit offence is sine qua non for conspiracy.)
(iii). Rajiv Kumar v/s State of UP (2017) 8 SCC 791 ) (Absence of direct or circumstantial evidence under Section 120-B not made out.)
(iv) Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma V/S State of Bihar (2000) 4 Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.26 15:30:39 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi26.12.2025 Page 22 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS SCC168. ( Dishonest intention must exist at inception)
(v). V.Y.Jose v/s State of Gujrat (2009) 3 SCC 78 (Breach of contact not cheating)
(vi). Anil Mahajan v/s Bhor Industries (2005) 10 SCC 228 (Mere failure or dispute does not constitute offence under Section 420 IPC.) (victim/passenger admitted no loss no complaint)
(vii). Mohd Ibrahim v/s State of Bihar (2009) 8 SCC 751 (Execution of document not forgery unless false document proved. If forgery not proved, section 471 IPC automatically fails.)
(viii). S. Varadarajan v/s State of Madras AIR 1965 SC 942 (Forgery requires making of false documents).
(x). Rakesh Kumar v/s State (DHC) 2010 SCC online DEL 4315 . (Without original documents forgery cannot be proved and in the said case, neither alleged forged original document was produced before the Hon'ble court nor recovered at the instance of accused persons.
(x) Vijayee Singh v/s State of UP (1990) 3 SCC 190 (Conviction cannot be based on weak or unreliable evidence).
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
8. I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the case file carefully.
9. The points of determination in the present case are as follows :-
Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.26 (Neetu Nagar) 15:30:50 ACJM-06 RADC +0530 Delhi26.12.2025 Page 23 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS
(i) Whether the accused persons at any time prior to 25/03/05 agreed to do an illegal act and in pursuance thereof, they ille-
gally attempted to immigrate seven persons namely, Harpreet Singh, Amarjeet Singh, Sanjay Kumar, Bhupinder Singh, Amar- jeet Singh, Tarlochan Kumar, Gulzar Singh on the basis of forged and bogus continuation discharge certificates, appoint- ment letters and a letter of request of M/s. Sreema Marine Services, a non-existent firm and thereby cheated them by dis- honestly inducing them to deliver money to the accused persons ?
(ii) Whether both the accused persons generated/forged for the purpose of cheating the letter head of M/s. Sreema Marine Service, a non-existing firm for preparing appointment letters, certificate of employment and request letter and caused to be pre- pared for the purpose of cheating forged continuation discharge certificates and a letter of invitation from M/s. Atlas Shipping Group located at Caracas, Venezuela?
(iii) Whether the accused persons submitted another set of forged documents in respect of the seven applicants in German Embassy on 21.03.2005 requesting the German Embassy to issue the tran- sit visa for two days on the basis of transit visa of 10 days al- ready granted by Embassy of Venezuala?
(iv) Whether the accused persons used above said forged continuation discharge certificates, appointment letters and re-
Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR
Date:
NAGAR 2025.12.26
15:31:01
(Neetu Nagar) +0530
ACJM-06 RADC
Delhi26.12.2025 Page 24 of 72
CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS
quest letters as genuine which they knew at the time when the same were issued to be forged documents?
10. Before we delve into the facts of the case, let us first see the relevant legal provisions.
CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY
11. Criminal conspiracy is defined in section 120 A IPC. Same read as follows:-
"120A. Definition of criminal conspiracy. When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,- (1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy: Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
Explanation.-- It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object."
12. Further, the principle contained in Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that once a conspiracy to commit an illegal act is proved, act of one conspirator becomes the act of the other.
13. In case titled as Mohammed Usman Mohammed Hussain Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.26 (Neetu Nagar) 15:31:11 +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi26.12.2025 Page 25 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS Maniyar and others versus State of Maharashtra, (1981) Supreme Court Cases 443, it was observed as under:-
"For offence under section 120- B, the prosecution need not necessarily prove that the perpetrators expressly agreed to do or cause to be done the illegal act; the agreement may be proved by necessary implication."
14. In case titled as Shivnarayan Lakshminarayan Joshi and Others versus State of Maharashtra, (1980) 2 Supreme Court cases 465, it was observed as follows:-
"a conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy and it is impossible to adduce direct evidence of the same. The offence can be only proved largely from the inference drawn from act or illegal omission committed by the conspirators in pursuance of a common design."
15. Similarly, in case titled as Sudhir Shantilal Mehta v. CBI, (2009) 8 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed the provision of criminal conspiracy and reiterated that conspiracy ordinarily is hatched in secrecy. The court for the purpose of arriving at a finding as to whether the said offence has been committed or not may take into consideration the circumstantial evidence. While however doing so, it must bear in mind that meeting of the minds is essential; mere knowledge or discussion would not be. Reliance can also be placed on case titled as Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR Date: NAGAR 2025.12.26 15:31:28 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi26.12.2025 Page 26 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS Devender Kumar Singla v. Baldev Krishan Singla, (2005) 9 SCC 15, wherein it was observed that it is not necessary that a false pretense should be made in express words by the accused. It may be inferred from all the circumstances including the conduct of the accused in obtaining the property. In the true nature of things, it is not always possible to prove dishonest intention by any direct evidence. It can be proved by a number of circumstances from which a reasonable inference can be drawn.
16. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused forged the following documents:
(a). Continuation Discharge Certificates,
(b). Appointment Letters,
(c). Letter of request of M/s. Sreema Marine Services, a non-ex-
istent firm dated 21/03/05 requesting the visa officer of German Embassy to issue transit visas for 2 days for the said applicants.
(d). Letter of invitation from M/s. Atlas Shipping Group located at Caracas, Venezuela.
17. For proving forgery, it was required to be proved that the abovementioned documents are false.
18. The term "forgery" is defined in Section 463 of IPC and same reads as follows :-
"463. Whoever makes any false documents with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.26 (Neetu Nagar) 15:31:38 +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi26.12.2025 Page 27 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS enter into express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that the fraud may be committed, commits forgery."
19. Section 464 of IPC defining "making a false document" is extracted below:
"464. Making a false document.--A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record---
First - Who dishonestly or fraudulently (a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document; (b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record; (c) affixes any digital signature on any electronic record; (d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the digital signature, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or a part of document, electronic record or digital signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly- Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.26 15:31:47 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi26.12.2025 Page 28 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with digital signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alternation; or Thirdly- Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his digital signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration. xxxxxx"
20. An analysis of section 464 of IPC shows that it divides false documents into three categories as under:- (i) The first is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently makes or executes a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by some other person, or by the authority of some other person, by whom or by whose authority he knows it was not made or executed (ii) The second is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part, without lawful authority, after it has been made or executed by either himself or any other person.
(iii) The third is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR Date: NAGAR 2025.12.26 15:31:57 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi26.12.2025 Page 29 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS causes any person to sign, execute or alter a document knowing that such person could not by reason of (a) unsoundness of mind; or (b) intoxication; or (c) deception practised upon him, know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration.
21. In short, a person is said to have made a `false document', if (i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorised by someone else; or (ii) he altered or tampered a document; or (iii) he obtained a document by practicing deception, or from a person not in control of his senses
22. The condition thus precedent for forgery is making a false document (or false electronic record or part thereof) which is the main ingredient of offence under Section 467, 468 and 471 IPC. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery.
23. Further, Section 24 of the Indian Penal Code defines "dishonestly" as whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing dishonestly. "Fraudulently" is defined in section 25 IPC.A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise. The word "defraud" includes an element of deceit. Deceit is not an ingredient of the definition of the word "dishonestly" while it is an important ingredient of the definition of the word "fraudulently". The former involves a pecuniary or economic gain or loss while the latter by construction excludes that element. Further, the juxtaposition of the two expressions Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.26 (Neetu Nagar) 15:32:08 ACJM-06 RADC +0530 Delhi26.12.2025 Page 30 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS "dishonestly" and "fraudulently" used in the various sections of the Code indicates their close affinity and therefore the definition of one may give colour to the other.
24. It is now very well established that in all criminal cases, the prosecution has to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt through unimpeachable evidence.
25. This court is now required to critically examine the evi- dence in the present case against the accused persons facing the trial.
26. It is alleged by the prosecution that M/s. Sreema Marine Services, 1681, Kotla Mubarkapur, New Delhi-110003 issued bogus Seamen Identity documents/ papers i.e. Continuation Dis- charge Certificates in favour of seven persons namely Harpreet Singh, Amarjeet Singh S/o Shri Revel Singh, Sanjay Kumar, Bhupinder Singh, Amarjeet Singh S/o Sh. Mohan Singh, Tar- lochan Kumar and Gulzar having seamen's book bearing no. 0685039, 0634139, 0685086, 0685031, 0685038, 0685032, 0685087 respectively with a view to go abroad illegally. It is fur- ther contended that the appointment letters dated 22.03.2005 part of Mark PW7/1, are also forged documents purportedly signed by Authorized Signatory of M/s. Sreema Marine Services. It is vehemently contended that letterhead of M/s. Sreema Marine Services, a non-existing firm, was generated and used by both the accused persons respectively for preparing the appointment let-
Digitally
signed by
NEETU
NEETU NAGAR
NAGAR Date:
2025.12.26
15:32:18
(Neetu Nagar) +0530
ACJM-06 RADC
Delhi26.12.2025 Page 31 of 72
CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS
ters dated 22.03.2005, certificates of employment and request let- ter for visa.
27. Hence, the prosecution was required to prove that there did not exist Sreema Marine Services dealing in shipping and crew member and that the signature of Authorized signatory on letters dated 22.03.2005 are forged.
28. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that the prosecution has failed to place on record the original of the said documents i.e. Continuation Discharge Certificates and appointment letters. However, a careful perusal of the appointment letters dated 22.03.2005 shows that same are written on the letterhead of M/s. Sreema Marine Services bearing address 1681, K.M Pur, New Delhi-110003, India and telephone no. 011-55833262. In the said appointment letters, the persons mentioned therein have been shown to be recruited in the capacity as mentioned therein in ship MT Olar, Panama Flag. Further, photocopies of the CDCs for the candidates showed that they had worked earlier on commercial ships.
29. Learned PP for CBI brought the attention of this court to the passport of PW-8 Sh. Harpreet Singh vide Ex.PW15/I which did not contain any Immigration/Emigration stamp of any country proving that he had never gone to any country as claimed in the photocopy of CDC no. 0685039 and it was thus argued that visa were issued on the basis of forged, false and fictitious documents submitted by the accused persons including CDCs.
Digitally
signed by
NEETU
NEETU NAGAR
NAGAR Date:
2025.12.26
(Neetu Nagar) 15:32:27
ACJM-06 RADC
+0530
Delhi26.12.2025 Page 32 of 72
CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS
30. A perusal of Mark PW7/1 showed that CDC no. 0685039 was issued in the name of Harpreet Singh on 17.02.2002 from office of Dy. Commissioner of Maritime Affairs, R.L.Vienna, Virginia, USA. As per this document, Harpreet Singh was engaged on 25.10.2000 at Colombo and discharged on 11.05.2001 at Mumbai and was again engaged on 25.07.2001 at Cochin and discharged on 24.01.2002 at Mumbai. However, from the perusal of original passport Ex. PW15/I of Harpreet Singh, it has become crystal clear that PW8 Harpreet Singh had never visited USA or any other country. Meaning thereby that the photocopy of CDC bearing no. 0685039 which was used at the time of obtaining visa of Harpreet Singh was a false document.
31. Moreover, PW7 Pervaiz Alamgir also found the documents i.e. Mark PW7/1 suspicious after verification. This witness himself made inquiries from the mentioned seven persons (including PW8 Harpreet Singh) but they were not able to tell anything about the purpose of their journey and they could not give satisfactory reply. The said persons told that they were appointed as Seaman by M/s. Sreema Marine Services, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi and produced the certificates, CDC and appointment letters but they did not have knowledge for Seaman work and never visited and worked in any country as it was observed from their passports. This witness clarified during his testimony that CDC means Continuous Discharge Certificate which is an identity document issued to the Seaman to keep a Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR Date: NAGAR 2025.12.26 15:33:09 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi26.12.2025 Page 33 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS record for working on a ship. Hence, it has become manifest that CDC no. 0685039 (Part of Mark PW7/1) was forged as it did not corroborate with the entries in the passport of PW8 Harpreet Singh. Although, only passport of Harpreet Singh has been seized by the investigating officer PW15 D.M. Sharma and not of the others six persons as admitted by him during his cross- examination but same has not caused any material dent in the story of prosecution as it is the quality and not the quantity of evidence that is material. Hence, the prosecution has successfully proved that photocopy of CDC bearing no. 0685039 is a forged document.
32. It is next to be seen whether the CDCs (Part of Mark PW7/1) were forged by accused persons. It was argued by learned PP for CBI that accused Pramod Kumar Bhargava handed over Rs. 35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) and copies of the passports to one Surjeet Singh who provided him with CDCs in the name of all the seven persons. It is pertinent to note that no supplementary challan has been filed against Tutal Das Gupta resident of Bangladesh and Surjeet Singh who allegedly provided forged CDCs. Hence, the forgery of CDCs cannot be attributed to the accused persons as the same were provided by Surjeet Singh even as per the case of the prosecution.
33. It was contended by learned PP for CBI that both the accused persons came in contact with one Shri Tutal Das Gupta Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.26 15:33:21 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi26.12.2025 Page 34 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS resident of Bangladesh who provided a letter of invitation to them with reference to appointment of the said seven persons from his principal M/s. Atlas Shipping Group located at Caracas, Venezuela. She argued next that accused Badal Kumar Nayak contacted Tutol Das Gupta by phone and the references/details of the CDC obtained from Mumbai were sent by e-mail to Tutol Das Gupta by accused Badal Kumar Nayak from an Internet Cafe at Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi. In order to substantiate the same, learned PP for CBI brought the attention of this court to the testimony of PW-6 Sh. Bharat Gupta, who has been running a cyber cafe at Kotla Mubarakpur under the name Dream Cyber Zone. A perusal of the testimony of PW-6 Bharat Gupta shows that he identified the accused Badal Kumar Nayak in the court and stated that he visited Dream Cyber Zone cafe in 2005 regularly and he was shown to him by the CBI official. He further testified that accused Badal Kumar Nayak used to surf on the net, take print out from different sites and checked his e-mail and used to print out. He proved photocopy of the letter dated 22.03.2005 vide Mark PW6/1 bearing the letterhead of M/s.
Sreema Marine Services containing the details of the appointment of seaman which might have been downloaded from the net in his cafe. However, he deposed that coloured letter dated 21.03.2005 on the letterhead of M/s. Sreema Marine Services was not downloaded from his cafe as there was no coloured printer and same was removed in the year 2004. This Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR Date: NAGAR 2025.12.26 15:33:30 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi26.12.2025 Page 35 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS witness was declared hostile. He denied specifically during his cross-examination by learned PP for CBI that coloured letter dated 21.03.2005 was downloaded by accused Badal Kumar Nayak from his cafe. Hence, the said assertions made by learned PP for CBI could not be proved to the effect that the letters dated 21.03.2005 (i.e. letters for prayer for issuance of transit visa for Germany) were downloaded by accused Badal Kumar Nayak. However, it stands duly proved by this witness that the photocopies of appointment letters dated 22.03.2005 were downloaded from his cafe from net by accused Badal Kumar Nayak and same was not denied specifically by him as done with respect to letter dated 21.03.2005. There is no cross-examination with respect to the letters of appointment dated 21.03.2005 on behalf of learned defence counsel. Hence, the role of accused Badal Kumar Nayak becomes manifest by the testimony of PW6 thus showing his participation in procuring false letter of invitation dated 21.03.2005 Part of Mark PW7/1.
34. In order to substantiate that there did not exist any such firm namely M/s. Sreema Marian Services, the prosecution examined PW-1 Narender Kumar who testified that he was running a shop of general merchant at Shop No. 1681, Kotla Mubarkapur, near Circle Gumbad Chaupal, New Delhi for the last 25 years. He further testified that he has never seen any company/firm in the name of M/s. Sreema Marine Services functioning at Shop No. 1681, Kotla Mubarkapur, Near Circle Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR Date: NAGAR 2025.12.26 15:33:40 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi26.12.2025 Page 36 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS Gumbad Chaupal, New Delhi or nearby the complex of the said shop. It was argued by learned counsel of accused persons that PW1 admitted that he did not give any statement to CBI. To my mind, the said admission is not fatal to the case of prosecution as he has given a categorical deposition and there is no cross- examination on the points deposed by him in his examination-in- chief by learned counsel of the accused persons.
35. To prove that the said firm was genuine and was very much in existence, the burden shifted to the accused persons but same has not been discharged by the accused persons. It is simply suggested to the IO PW15 D.M. Sharma during his cross- examination that he had not done verification in this regard. At this stage, it is important to discuss the testimony of PW-15. During the cross- examination of PW 15, he deposed that he had gone to the office of M/s. Sreema Marine Services at South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi alone and that he did not seize any documents from there. It was suggested by learned counsel on behalf of the accused persons that the accused persons handed over documents to PW 15 to show that M/s. Sreema Marine service is a genuine company but he deliberately did not place them on record. It was further suggested and same was denied by PW 15 that the accused handed over the documents to him to show that M/s.Sreema Marine service is authorized representative of M/s.Scanest Merain Private Limited, Chittagong, Bangladesh that he deliberately did not get the Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.26 15:33:49 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi26.12.2025 Page 37 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS documents verified in order to implicate the accused person in the present case. However, the accused failed to place any documents on record in their defence also to prove that M/s.Sreema Marine service was genuine firm or authorised representative of M/s. Scanest Merain Private Limited, Chittagong, Bangladesh as suggested on behalf of the accused persons. Hence, taking into consideration the testimony of PW1 coupled with the suggestions given by learned counsel on behalf of the accused persons to PW15, it stands confirmed that that there did not exist any firm M/s. Sreema Marine Services functioning at Shop No. 1681, Kotla Mubarkapur otherwise the accused have deposed so in their defence or produced documents pertaining to the said firm. Surprisingly, no such defence taken by accused persons during their testimonies. Meaning thereby that the documents i.e. appointment letters dated 22.03.2005 and letter dated 21.03.2005 using the letterhead of M/s. Sreema Marine Services are also false documents.
36. It was next argued by learned PP for CBI that the phone number mentioned on the letterhead of M/s. Sreema Marine Services functioning at Shop No. 1681, Kotla Mubarkapur was also obtained fraudulently by the accused persons. Reliance in this regard was placed on the testimony of PW-13 Sh. Raj Kumar Jain.
37. A perusal of the testimony of PW-13 Sh. Raj Kumar Jain shows that he proved affidavit of Naresh Chand Jain regarding Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.26 15:33:59 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi26.12.2025 Page 38 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS Tutal Dass Gupta bearing the signatures of his father vide Ex.PW13/A and application form no. 004070105 bearing his father's signature and filled up in his handwriting vide Ex. PW 13/A. He deposed that Tutal Dass Gupta never resided at the address 7A, Bhagwan Nagar, Hari Nagar Ashram, New Delhi. He deposed further that NOC was never issued in favour of Tutal Dass Gupta for the issuance of ration card at the said address.
38. Learned PP for CBI argued that the telephone connection bearing no. 011-55833262 was applied by Tutal Dass Gupta however, same carried photograph of accused Badal Kumar Nayak. A perusal of the document Ex.PW15/H makes it manifest that the application carries the photograph of accused Badal Kumar Nayak. No explanation is forthcoming from accused Badal Kumar Nayak in this regard which confirms his active involvement and meeting of mind qua the offence alleged, else he would not have allowed to use his photograph in the said manner. No complaint regarding impersonation by use of his photograph has been lodged by him anywhere.
39. Learned PP on behalf of CBI brought the attention of this court to the original applications of the said seven applicants for Schengen Visa vide Ex.PW15/G (running into 112 pages i.e. from Page no.6 to 117). Perusal of same shows that each visa application is accompanied by original letter dated 21.03.2005 on the letterhead of M/s. Sreema Marine Services praying for issuance of Transit Visa for Germany bearing signatures of Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR Date: NAGAR 2025.12.26 15:34:07 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi26.12.2025 Page 39 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS authorized signatory of M/s. Sreema Marine Services, receipt of Moon Tours and Travels, photocopy of Visa of Venezuela, photocopies of passport of the applicant and photocopies of Seafarer's identity document/CDC.
40. From the testimony of PW-11 Sh. Deepak R. Handa, expert witness, it has transpired that the said applications for Schegen visa of the seven applicants were filled in by accused Badal Kumar Nayak and the same carried signature of accused Pramod Kumar Bhargav. A perusal of the CFSL report vide Ex. PW11/31 proves that handwriting points to the writer of the specimen English writings marked S-1 to S14 vide Ex.PW11/29 attributed to "Badal Kumar Nayak" being the person responsible for writing the questioned English writings marked Q.1 to Q.3 (Ex.PW11/1 to Ex.PW11/3), Q.5 to Q.7 (Ex.PW11/5 to Ex.PW11/7), Q.9 to Q.11 (Ex.PW11/9 to Ex.PW11/11), Q.13 to Q.15 (Ex.PW11/13 to Ex.PW11/15), Q.17 to Q.19 (Ex.PW11/17 to Ex.PW11/19), Q.21 to Q.23 (Ex.PW11/21 to Ex.PW11/23) and Q.25 to Q.27 (Ex.PW11/25 to Ex.PW11/27). Further, perusal of the CFSL report vide Ex. PW11/33 proves that handwriting points to the writer of the specimen English writings marked S-15 to S25, S-27, S-29 to S-33 vide Ex. PW11/30 attributed to "Pramod Kumar Bhargava" being the person responsible for writing the questioned English writings marked Q.4(Ex.PW11/4), Q.8(Ex.PW11/8), Q.12 (Ex.PW11/12), Q.16(Ex.PW11/16), Q.20(Ex.PW11204), Q.24 (Ex.PW11/24) Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.26 15:34:16 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi26.12.2025 Page 40 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS and Q.28(Ex.PW11/28).
41. Moreover, it is not denied by the accused persons that the said documents were produced from proper custody. Meaning thereby that the accused persons played an instrumental role in processing of the visa applications of the seven applicants/victims based on forged documents and very much aware of the forged nature thereof.
42. It has further transpired during investigation that a reference by E-Mail was made to M/s. Atlas Shipping Group Venezuela requesting them to confirm or deny the issuance of the letters of invitation but no response has been received from the Atlas Shipping Group. Learned counsel of the accused persons argued vehemently that the prosecution has miserably failed to examine anyone from M/s. Atlas Shipping Group located at Caracus, Venezuela to prove if the said firm is also fake and non- existent or if the vessel MT Olar Panama flag of M/s. Atlas Shipping Group located at Caracus exists or not. The contention raised in this regard is correct but it has not caused any dent in the story of prosecution as the prosecution has sufficiently proved that photocopies of Continuous Discharge Certificate attached with the Visa application of PW8 Harpreet Singh is not genuine but bogus and fabricated. Same fact is not even denied by the accused persons.
43. Moving further, a perusal of testimony of PW-12 Sh. Amit Jatana shows that he used to run travel agency in the name of Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.26 15:34:29 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi26.12.2025 Page 41 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS M/s. Moon Tour & Travels. He proved bill book belonging to his travel agency vide Ex. PW 12/1 and invoice number 252 with regard to issuance of air tickets in the name of 7 persons vide Ex. PW 12/2 pertaining to his company. During his cross- examination, he deposed that one Mr. D. M Sharma from CBI got his signatures forcibly on the blank papers. He admitted that his statement was not recorded by the IO at his instance. During his cross-examination by learned PP for CBI, he deposed that entire bill book is genuine. It has not come during his entire examination if the present accused persons got issued the air tickets from him as alleged by the prosecution. Even if the prosecution failed to prove that the tickets were purchased by the accused but the factum of purchase of air tickets for the mentioned seven persons stands proved and same were used along with visa applications by the accused persons and same is in name of the seven applicants, although issued in the name of Tarlochan Singh, dated 22.03.2005.
44. PW-2 Ashok Jha who worked with Master Travel as Accountant testified that he knew M/s. Sattar Agro Pvt. Ltd. from which, he used to buy air tickets through his firm. He testified further that seven photocopies of return tickets from Delhi to Carcacus were issued from firm M/s. Austrian and Lufthansa in the name of Amarjit Singh, Trilochan Kumar, Amarjit Singh, Harprit Singh, Guljar Singh, Sanjay Kumar and Bhupender Singh. He deposed next that he was shown the seven photocopies Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.26 15:34:43 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi26.12.2025 Page 42 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS of the visas and passports and return tickets from Delhi to Caracus issued by their firm M/s. Austrian and Lufthansa in the name of of Amarjit Singh, Trilochan Kumar, Amarjit Singh, Harpreet Singh, Guljar Singh, Sanjay Kumar and Bhupender Singh. He proved photocopy of invoice dated 28.03.2005 i.e. the bill of tickets vide Ex. PW 2/1 sold to seven persons amounting Rs. 3,84,265/- and Rs. 3,01,190/- which was handed over by him to CBI alongwith forwarding letter and photocopies. During his cross-examination, he deposed that the invoice did not carry his signature nor he can identify signature thereon. He deposed that he cannot identify persons who visited their office for getting the said tickets. Meaning thereby that this witness was not aware as to who bought the air tickets. Furthermore, mere photocopies have been placed on record and the original was not proved. The prosecution thus failed to prove the purchase of the air tickets from Master Travels. But it has not caused a dent in the story of prosecution as the said seven persons were intercepted by PW7 when they were trying to board the flight from Delhi- Frankfurt - Caracus (Venezuela) by flight no. LH-761 on 24.03.2005.
45. It was vehemently argued by learned PP on behalf of CBI that PW-4 Sanjay Aneja confirmed that the accused Pramod Kumar Bhargava was making enquiry with regard to shipping line from him in 2005 which shows planning or conspiracy as alleged. A careful perusal of testimony of PW-4 Sanjay Aneja shows that he runs a travel agency namely Mapel Tours and Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.26 15:34:58 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi26.12.2025 Page 43 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS Travels at Nehru Place, New Delhi since 2005 and one of the Directors of the said company. He correctly identified accused Parmod Kumar Bhargava in the Court. He deposed further that accused Parmod Kumar Bhargava went to his office for buying air tickets and asked him for some information about shipping line in the year 2005, he did not have and suggested him to contact Mr. Raj Singh @ Rajender Singh in Mumbai and provided him the telephone number. He deposed further that Sh. Raj Singh @ Rajender Singh confirmed him on telephone that Pramod Kumar contacted him on telephone. However, Raj Singh @ Rajender Singh has not been examined by the prosecution to confirm the same. Hence, contention of learned PP for CBI in this regard fails.
46. It is pertinent to mention that the prosecution has not examined Avtar Singh who introduced Amarjeet Singh son of Mohan Singh and Tarlochan Kumar to accused Pramod Kumar Bhargava and Rajkumar who sent Sanjay Kumar to Pramod Kumar Bhargava due to their death during the trial.
47. It is also noteworthy that out of seven persons namely Harpreet Singh, Amarjeet Singh S/o Shri Revel Singh, Sanjay Kumar, Bhupinder Singh, Amarjeet Singh S/o Sh. Mohan Singh, Tarlochan Kumar, Gulzar Singh, the prosecution has examined only Harpreet Singh.
48. Learned PP on behalf of CBI has argued that despite the above noted infirmities the witnesses PW5 Rajender, PW8 Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.26 (Neetu Nagar) 15:35:11 ACJM-06 RADC +0530 Delhi26.12.2025 Page 44 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS Harjeet and PW9 Nirmal have deposed elaborately about the role played by accused persons in the commission of the offence alleged and thus proved the version of the prosecution.
49. Hence, it is required to see the testimonies of the said three material witnesses in details.
49.1 PW-5 Sh. Rajender Kumar deposed that he used to run a travel agency (ticketing) in Jalandhar in the year 2005. He used to come to Delhi for purchasing air journey tickets for passenger from the office of M/s. Sattar Agro Pvt. Ltd. who was having its office at H-17, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi. He testified that accused Parmod Kumar Bhargava was running an office of man power export and a travel agency on the same floor and opposite the office of Abdul Sattar who told him that he can arrange job for suitable candidates at Caracus for expenditure of Rs.2 lakhs per candidate. He introduced Harpreet Singh and Guljar Singh to accused Pramod Kumar Bhargava who were in need of job at abroad and they provided photocopies of their passport and ten copies of photographs to accused Pramod Kumar Bhargava. He deposed further that Harpreet Singh and Guljar Singh came to meet accused Pramod Kumar Bhargava in Delhi for necessary formalities and he was with them. He testified further that Harpreet Singh and Guljar Singh told to accused Pramod Kumar Bhargava that Rs.2 lakhs will be given to him after getting the job by them in abroad. He deposed further that in March, 2005, accused Pramod Kumar Bhargava informed Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.26 (Neetu Nagar) 15:35:20 +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi26.12.2025 Page 45 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS that presence of Harpreet Singh and Guljar Singh was required for getting Visa of Caracus from Venuzuela Embassy, Delhi. He further testified that he knew Trilochan Kumar and Amarjeet Singh because they were having contact with Avatar Singh. He testified next that he knew accused Badal Kumar Nayak who was present in the office of accused Pramod Kumar Bhargava during the filling of the forms. Their photographs were pasted on the Visa forms and were signed by Harpreet Singh and Guljar Singh. He deposed further that he received phone call from accused Pramod Kumar Bhargava after few days who asked him for the presence of Harpreet Singh, Guljar Singh and two persons in his office for the Visa formalities of Frankfurt whereupon Harpreet Singh and Guljar Singh met with accused Pramod Kumar Bhargava in Delhi. He further testified that accused Pramod Kumar Bhargava told him that all the formalities will be done after getting transit Visa of Frankfurt and also asked the said persons to pay Rs.50,000/- as part payment for air journey ticket and the said amount was paid by them directly to Pramod Kumar Bhargava. He further testified that accused Parmod Kumar Bhagrava alongwith accused Badal Kumar Nayak attached appointment letter of the company along with the Visa application which were deposited in the Embassy. He testified next that accused Pramod Kumar Bhargava informed Harpreet Singh, Guljar Singh and others that they have to report for departure to Caracus by Lufthansa Flight no. LH4 dated Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.26 15:35:29 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi26.12.2025 Page 46 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS 24.03.2005 with departure time at 3.05 AM along with 6-7 persons including them. A transit Visa of Frankfurt for two days were issued to them by the Embassy. On the day of departure 24.03.2005, the said persons could not receive their boarding card and they did not board the flight as told to him by one of them. He further testified that he immediately contacted Pramod Kumar Bhargava and he told him that he would arrange journey to Caracus by other airlines for the said candidates. He deposed next that he told him they could not board the flight due to administrative reasons and lack of communication. He deposed further that accused Pramod Kumar Bhargava handed over air tickets with return journey of Austrian airlines for the said 7 candidates. He was informed that the said 7 candidates were reported back to India by the Immigration authority of Vienna.
He contacted accused Pramod Kumar Bhargava who told him that due to some reasons he could not reach at Caracus. He stated on oath that parents of Harpreet Singh and Guljar Singh requested him to get their money refunded from Pramod Kumar who told that amount given by them was spent for purchase of tickets and promised to return the money after sometime. 49.2 During his cross-examination, PW-5 deposed that he had handed over the photocopies of four candidates namely Harpreet Singh, Gulzar Singh, Trilochan Kumar and Amarjeet and at that time only Badal Kumar Nayak and Pramod Kumar were there. He deposed that the office of Pramod Kumar and Badal Kumar Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.26 15:35:39 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi26.12.2025 Page 47 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS Naik was situated at H-17, South Extn. Part -I, New Delhi and he had come along with the candidates twice. He has deposed categorically that the money of Rs. 50,000/- each was paid by them in his presence and that at the time of payment of ₹50,000 each, the candidates along with their parents were also present and there was no one except them. No receipt was prepared for the money given. He reiterated that the signatures were taken on the Visa form in his presence. He had stayed at Saluja Bhawan Karol Bagh, Delhi but he did not remember the date. 49.3 PW-8 Sh. Harpreet Singh testified that he knew PW5 Rajender Kumar who resides in his village and asked him for job in foreign country for Rs. 2 lakhs. He told the same fact to his grandfather. He identified accused Pramod Kumar Bhargava in the court. He deposed that on 15.03.2005, he visited Delhi office situated in South Extension where he met with accused Parmod Kumar Bhargava and handed him photocopies of his passport and 8 photographs. He deposed that Gulzar Singh, Trilochan Kumar, Amarjeet and Sanjay etc were also present at that time.
He testified that he put his signature on the visa form produced by accused Pramod Kumar Bhargava to him. He deposed that that day Guljar Singh, Trilochan kumar, Amarjeet and Sanjay were also there. He deposed further that after 3-4 days, he again visited New Delhi office of accused Pramod Kumar Bhargava and stayed at Saluja Bhawan, New Delhi. He went to German Embassy with accused persons. He testified that after reaching Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.26 15:35:48 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi26.12.2025 Page 48 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS from German Embassy, the accused persons produced some papers and asked him to sign along with 6 other persons on that day. He further deposed that accused Parmod Kumar Bhargava and accused Badal Kumar Nayak told him that he would get a job in Venezuela in ship and asked to buy the dress from Saluja Bhawan. Thereafter, he bought dress and went back to his hometown. His grandfather gave him Rs. 50,000/- for handing over the same to the accused persons. Thereafter, accused Pramod Kumar Bhargava told him to visit Delhi for collecting Visa form and journey ticket for Venezuela. On reaching Delhi, he paid Rs. 50,000/- to accsued Parmod Kumar Bhargava who handed over air tickets and visa for Venezuela. He deposed further that the flight was at 3:00 AM from IGI Airport, New Delhi on 24.03.2005 of Lufthanasa Airlines. He deposed further that when the air tickets were handed over to him other 6 persons were also present and informed that they will get the work at ship in Venezuela. He deposed next that when he reached at the counter of Lufthanasa Airlines, he produced his air ticket and passport for journey to Venezuela and asked to issue boarding pass. After checking the documents at counter, the documents were cross checked by the authorities which did not issue the boarding pass owing to suspicion. Thereafter, he reached Saluja Bhawan and discussed the issue with accused Pramod Kumar Bhargava and his grandfather who advised him to come back. Accused Pramod Kumar Bhargava told him that he would get Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.26 (Neetu Nagar) 15:35:58 +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi26.12.2025 Page 49 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS flight next day but he did not go. 49.4 During his cross-examination, he deposed that he did not remember the name and address of the office at South Extension Delhi. There were two persons in the office at the time of signing of documents. He deposed clearly that Rajendra Kumar was not present in the office. He deposed further that he stayed in the office around 1 to 2 hours during his stay and no other person visited the office except for him and the other six persons. He deposed further that he had paid Rs. 50,000/- to Pramod Kumar but he did not remember the date and time. He testified that he had paid the said amount during his second visit and nobody had come with him when he brought Rs.50,000/-. He deposed clearly that no other person was present in the office when he handed over Rs. 50,000/- to Mr. Pramod Kumar. He had signed papers at the German embassy during his second visit. He has further deposed that they had handed over to him the passport, journey tickets, training certificate, CDC book and other documents i.e. appointment letter. He deposed next that he did not take any receipt for the payment made by him for the purchase of uniform.
He admitted the suggestion of learned Counsel of the accused that he had received an amount of Rs. 50,000/- from the accused in the court. He has denied the suggestion that he has wrongly taken the said amount from the accused or that the accused had to pay him this amount under pressure, he being in judicial custody or that he was not liable to pay this amount. He has deposed Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.26 15:36:08 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi26.12.2025 Page 50 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS further that he had not lodged any complaint about the incident to any authority.
49.5 It was argued by learned counsel for accused persons that that there is no proof that PW8 Harpreet Singh paid an amount of Rs. 50,000/- for job and there is material contradiction in the testimonies of PW5 and PW8 as to whether payment of Rs.
50,000/- was made by PW8 in the presence of PW5. He highlighted that PW-8 Harpreet Singh deposed that he reached Delhi on 15.03.2005 and met with Parmod Kumar but in his cross-examination he said that he went to Delhi on 14.03.2005 and returned Punjab on the same day. During the examination-in- chief, he said that Rs. 50,000/- were given to the accused on his third visit to Delhi as on 15.03.2005 at first visit he gave photocopies of passport and eight photos and after 3-4 days visit again to sign the documents in the German Embassy for visa and on third visit gave the amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the accused but in cross-examination, he said that amount was given to accused no. 1 but he did not remember date and time and amount was paid on his second visit. To my mind, the said contradictions are not fatal to the case of the prosecution as the suggestion of learned counsel of the accused regarding the amount of Rs. 50,000/- received by PW8 Harpreet Singh from the accused confirms that same amount was given by PW-8 Harpreet to accused as deposed by him in his examination-in-chief otherwise there would not have arisen any question of making the payment Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date: 2025.12.26 (Neetu Nagar) 15:36:18 ACJM-06 RADC +0530 Delhi26.12.2025 Page 51 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS to him by the accused despite incurring no liability to pay the same. Hence, it stands duly proved that amount of Rs. 50,000/- was received by accused persons as consideration for Visa processing for job in a foreign country, thus leading to wrongful gain to accused persons and wrongful loss to PW-8 Harpreet. Moreover, the testimonies of PW5 Rajender and PW8 Harpreet Singh stand duly corroborated in material particulars. 49.6 Moving further to PW-9 Sh. Nirmal Singh, he testified that he knew accused Parmod Kumar Bhargava through one of his two relatives namely Amarjeet and Bhupender Singh, who resided near his house in Punjab. He deposed that father of both Mr. Amarjeet Singh and Bhupender Singh approached him regarding their son's job in Delhi. He accompanied them as he knew the route for Delhi. He deposed further that on 15.03.2005, they reached the office of accused Pramod Kumar Bhargava at South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi. He deposed that accused Pramod Kumar Bhargava had words with his relative Mr. Amarjeet Singh and Sh. Bhupender Singh inside the chamber and asked them to deposit Rs.2 lakhs that he will help them regarding the formalities in getting job in foreign country. He deposed further that he has no knowledge whether the said two persons deposited Rs. 2,00,000/- with accused Parmod Kumar Bhargava. However, father of Amarjeet had given the amount to accused Pramod Kumar Bhargava. He returned to his village on 15.03.2005. He deposed further that on 18.03.2005 they again Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.26 15:36:28 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi26.12.2025 Page 52 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS visited Delhi office of accused Pramod Kumar Bhargava regarding the Visa formalities and completion of documents for going abroad. He received call on 20.03.2005 regarding the formalities to be done for going abroad. He deposed that Bhupender and Amarjeet went inside the office of Pramod Kumar Bhargava and he remained outside and they signed some documents and told him about the same and that there were two persons inside including Parmod Kumar Bhargava. He deposed further that on 22/23-03-2005, father of Bhupender and Amarjeet received a phone call from accused Pramod Kumar Bhargava to visit the office at South Extension, New Delhi and to collect the tickets for the flight for Venezuela. He alongwith Bhupender, Amarjeet, Niranjan Singh (father of Bhupender) went in the office of accused Pramod Kumar Bhargava for collecting the tickets and the same were handed over. He deposed that flight was of 25th March in the morning at around 04:00 AM. They left Amarjeet and Bhupender at airport at around 12.00 clock. He deposed that Amarjeet and Bhupender both returned from the midway as their documents were not complete. He deposed further that father of Amarjeet Singh and Bhupender settled the matter with accused Pramod Kumar Bhargava. He correctly identified accused Parmod Kumar Bhargava in the court.
50. Learned counsel of accused has highlighted that this witness deposed during his cross- examination that he has no personal knowledge in this case. To my mind, learned counsel of Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.26 15:36:37 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi26.12.2025 Page 53 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS accused failed to elicit anything favorable to the defense as he has deposed whatever was in his knowledge during his examination-in-chief. There is absolutely no cross-examination on the said points. In fact, this witness also confirmed the modus operandi adopted by the accused persons even though Amarjeet Singh and Bhupender Singh have not been examined by prosecution.
51. The accused persons DW1 and DW2 deposed in common that in the year 2005, they were unemployed hence learning the work of tour and travel with M/s. Sattar Agro Pvt. Ltd., H-17, South Ext. Part-1 New Delhi, under the guidance and supervision of Mr. Abdul Sattar, the owner and Director of M/s. Sattar Agro Pvt. Ltd. During their training period, Mr. D.K Sharma called them in CBI Office and got them arrested in the present false and fabricated case on the basis of false allegations. Pertinently, no such suggestions were ever put to any of the prosecution witnesses and same has been made for the first time in the statements of accused persons recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C and their testimonies under Section 315 Cr.P.C. To my mind, same seems to be afterthought. Moreover, none has been examined by the accused persons from M/s. Sattar Agro Pvt. Ltd. in order to confirm the same.
52. Merely for the reason that PW15 admitted during his testimony that neither any victim nor any passenger or embassy has filed complaint to CBI with respect to the present case does Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.26 15:36:48 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi26.12.2025 Page 54 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS not mean that a crime cannot be reported on the basis of source information. Learned counsel of the accused persons argued that PW15 did not record statement of any employee of German embassy or Venezuela. But same is immaterial in view of a cumulative reading of the proved documents accompanied with the consistent and cogent oral testimonies of the material witnesses from which it has become manifest that the forged documents were used by the accused persons at the time of visa application. Moreover, the delay in lodging of FIR is also not fatal to the case of the prosecution.
53. Hence, it is clearly established that accused Pramod Kumar Bhargav and Badal Kumar Nayak committed the offense of conspiracy under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in order to cheat Harpreet Singh for Rs. 50,000/- in return to give him a job abroad. The cogent testimonies of PW5 Rajender Kumar, PW8 Harpreet Singh and PW9 Nirmal Singh were crucial in proving the modus operandi by which the accused obtained the cash from the victims (PW8 Harpreet Singh) for the purpose of their job abroad based on forged documents i.e CDCs, letter of invitation and appointment letters dated 22.03.2005 filed along with Visa Application Forms vide Ex. PW11/1 to Ex.
PW11/29 and thus visas were issued on the basis of said forged and false fabricated documents submitted by accused persons. The accused persons acted with the dishonest intention to cause wrongful gain to themselves and wrongful loss to the victims Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR Date: NAGAR 2025.12.26 15:37:04 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi26.12.2025 Page 55 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS (PW8). The forged documents were used to obtain genuine visa from Embassy of Venezuela as well as Germany. It is sufficiently established by the prosecution that the accused submitted Visa Application Form with forged documents. The handwritings and signature of the both accused persons is confirmed by expert testimony of PW11 Deepak Handa. Even though accused reaped financial benefits, the prosecution failed to prove if the forgery in question is committed by accused persons, hence, the ingredients of forgery for the purpose of cheating under Section 468 IPC are not fulfilled and remains unproved. Moreover, no specific charge under Section 420 IPC was framed vide order dated 03.08.2008. However, the offence under Section 471 IPC, which involves using a forged document as genuine, has been duly established by the prosecution. The accused persons with full knowledge of the forged nature of the CDCs, letters of invitations and appointment letters submitted the same before the German and Venezuela Embassy, thereby allowing the said forged documents to be used as genuine for obtaining visa for PW8 which duly establishes the offence under Section 471 IPC beyond reasonable doubts.
CONCLUSION
55. Therefore, upon a conspectus of the entire facts and circumstances and in view of the foregoing discussion, it is clear that the prosecution has successfully proved the commission of the offence under Section 120-B read with 420/468/471 IPC and Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.26 (Neetu Nagar) 15:37:20 ACJM-06 RADC +0530 Delhi26.12.2025 Page 56 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS Section 471 IPC by the accused persons, beyond reasonable doubt. Accused persons namely Pramod Kumar Bhargava and Badal Kumar Nayak are thus held guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 120-B read with 420/468/471 IPC and Section 471 IPC and are accordingly convicted for the same but stands acquitted for the commission of offence under Section 468 IPC.
56. List of exhibited documents and that of witnesses is approved at the conclusion of the judgment as Appendix-A and Appendix-B in compliance of judgment titled as Manojbhia Jethabhai Parmar (Rohit) Vs. State of Gujarat (Criminal Appeal No. (S) 2973 of 2023 decided on 15.12.2025.
57. Copy of judgment be given to the accused persons free of cost.
Announced in the open Digitally signed by NEETU court today i.e. 26.12.2025 NEETU NAGAR Date:
(This Judgment contains 72 pages NAGAR 2025.12.26 15:37:43 signed by the undersigned) +0530 (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06/RADC/New Delhi 26.12.2025 (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Delhi26.12.2025 Page 57 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS IN THE COURT OF MS. NEETU NAGAR, ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE -06, ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT, NEW DELHI ANNEXURE-A DETAILS OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED DURING TRIAL IN CBI VS RRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA AND ANR.
S.No. PARTICULARS EXHIBIT NO. WITNESS
1. FIR of Ex.PW15/A IO D M Sharma RC.5/S/2005/SCB.II/CBI/ (PW15) NEW DELHI, dated 29.6.2005
2. Production cum Seizure Ex.PW15/D IO D M Sharma Memo dated 15.10.05 (PW15)
3. One letter dated 15-10-05 Mark PW7 Sh. Pervaiz reference mentioned of PW7/1(Colly) Alamgir Khan documents duly signed by Sh.Pervaiz Alamgir Khan Mark PW6/1 PW6 Sh. Bharat Station Manager, Gupta Lufthansa Airlines I.G.I Airport and its enclosure i.e. Photo copies of passports (Mark A-2) having no.F-0074013-
E4894680, E-8300006, E-
6358510, E-8608940, E-
3691406 (total seven page in the name of Shri Sanjay Kumar, Bhupinder Singh, Amarjit Singh, Tarlochan Kumar, Gulzar Singh, Harpreet Singh, Amarjit Singh espectively alongwith Photocopies of Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.26 (Neetu Nagar) 15:37:57 +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi26.12.2025 Page 58 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS Seaman Book (Continuation Discharge Certificate) having no.0685086, 0685031-
634139-0685032 -
0685087 - 0685039- 0685038 and Photocopies of appointment letters dated 22-03-2005 issued by M/s.Sreema Marine Service 1681, K.M.Pur, New Delhi-110003, India (Mark PW6/1).
4. One letter dt.30.6.05 of Ex.PW2/1 PW2 Sh. Ashok Master Travels, A-302 Jha Vikas Tower, G-
9,Community Centre, near PVR Vikaspuri, New Delhi 18, under signature of Ashok Jha, Manager-
Accounts along with documents i.e. photocopy of passports of Shri Tarcholan Kumar, Amarjit Singh, Gulzar Singh, Sanjay Kumar, Amarjeet Singh, Bhupender Singh and Harpreet Singh, photocopies of visas, photocopies of air journey tickets (Mark A-1) and photocopies of sales bills of these passengers
5. One letter No.DEL119/05 Page No.1 as PW15 IO D M dated 24.11.05 issued Ex.PW15/F and Sharma under signature of Page No.2 Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR Date: NAGAR 2025.12.26 15:38:06 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi26.12.2025 Page 59 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS Mr.Guido Beutler, Police (Mark A-5 Liaison Officer, Embassy colly) of the Federal Republic of Germany. 6/50-G, Page No.6 as Shantipath, Chankyapuri, Ex.PW15/G(Co New Delhi-21 along with lly) visa application forms, request letters of Sreema Page No 01 to Marine Services 28 as dt.21.3.05, details of air Ex.PW11/1 to journey tickets, receipt of 11/28 air journey tickets issued by Moon Tours & Travels, photocopy of invitation letters dated 11.3.05 of Atlas Shipping Group, Caracas/Venezuela, photocopy of visa of Venezuela, photocopy of passport, photocopy of Continuation Discharge Certificates of seven persons namely Shri Tarcholan Kumar, Amarjit Singh, Gulzar Singh, Sanjay Kumar, Amarjeet Singh, Bhupender Singh and Harpreet Singh
6. One letter Ex.PW3/1, PW3 Sh. Gurbag No.9765/FOR(F-7) (Mark A-3) Singh dt.27.9.05 under signature Ex.PW3/2, of Gurbax Singh, AF/HQ, Ex.PW3/3, FOR FOREIGNERS Ex.PW3/4, REGIONAL REGN. Ex.PW3/5 and OFFICR, New Delhi, Ex.PW3/6 Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.26 (Neetu Nagar) 15:38:29 ACJM-06 RADC +0530 Delhi26.12.2025 Page 60 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS along with photocopy of embarkation card and disembarkation card, deportation and interrogation reports, photocopies of passport etc
7. Letter No. Ex.PW15/C PW15 IO D M 4428/3/5/S/05/SCB-I/DLI Sharma dt.29.8.05 addressed to Jt.Secy & Chief Passport Officer, MEA, Patiala House, New Delhi, under signature of Shri M.Narayanan, DIG/SCR.
8. Letter No.T- Ex.PW10/A PW10 Sh. Ramesh 4418/21/2005 dt.5/9/2005 Tekchandani addressed to the Embassy of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, N-114, Panchshila Park, New Delhi-17, under signature of Ramesh Tekchandani, Section Officer(Ext.) of MEA.
9. Letter No.T- Ex.PW10/B PW10 Sh. Ramesh 4418/21/2005 dt.5/9/2005 Tekchandani addressed to the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany, 6/50G, Shanthi Path, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi-21, under signature of Ramesh Tekchandani, Section Officer(Ext.) of MEA.
10. Letter Ex.PW10/C PW10 Sh. Ramesh No.T-4418/21-A/2005 Tekchandani Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.26 (Neetu Nagar) 15:38:37 ACJM-06 RADC +0530 Delhi26.12.2025 Page 61 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS dt.23/9/05 addressed to Shri M.Narayanan, DIG, SCR, CBI, Delhi, under signature of Shri D.K.Ghosh, PRO (Ext.), MEA, CPV Divn., Extradition Section, Patiala House Annexe, Tilak Marg, New Delhi-
110001 along with a
Verbal Note
No.Gz:RK516.33 Note N
366/05 issued by
Embassy of the Federal
Republic of Germany,
New Delhi addresed to
the MEA, Consular
Section, Patiala House,
New Delhi.
11. Production memo Ex.PW15/B PW15 IO D M
alongwith Bill Book no.6 Ex.PW12/1 and Sharma of M/s.Moon Tours & Ex.PW12/2 Travels, 42/B, Hanuman PW12 Amit Jatana Lane, Connaught Place, New Delhi 01 (relevant invoice No.252 dt.22.3.05)
12. Photocopy of the file of Ex.PW15/E PW15 IO D M passports containing Sharma pages 1 to 112 along with letter no.
343/MISC/05/POJ/PV.SE C.(B) dated 04.07.05 duly signed by officer of passport office, Jalandhar of Bhupinder Singh, Amarjit Singh s/o Shri Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.26 (Neetu Nagar) 15:38:44 ACJM-06 RADC +0530 Delhi26.12.2025 Page 62 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS Revel Singh, Tarlochan Kumar, Amarjit Singh s/o Shri Mohan Singh and Gulzar Singh F-0074013., E4894680, E-8300006, E-
6358510, E-3691406
respectively
13. CFSL Report Ex.PW11/31 Sh. Deepak R
Handa
14. Forwarding letter Ex.PW11/32 Sh. Deepak R
Handa
15. One letter no: FSO/C5/06 Ex.PW14/A PW14 Sh Suraj
dated 26.04.06 duly and Prakash Bakshi
signed by Food and Ex.PW14/B
Supply Officer, Circle 5,
Kasturba Niketan, Lajpat
Nagar, New Delhi, along
with one file containing 4
pages relating to a
consumer card no.
356003, having
photogram of Tutol Das
Gupta s/o Lt. Sh. Amrit
Lal Das Gupta, R/o 7-A,
Bhagwan Nagar Hari
Nagar Ashram, New
Delhi-14.
16. One file containing 10 Ex.PW16/1(Co PW16 Sh Amit
pages along with letter lly) Bhatia
dated 13.3.06 under
signature of Abhishek
Kalla, Senior Executive
(legal), Airtel, Bharti Tele
Ventures Ltd. Okhla
Industrial Estate, Phase-
III, New Delhi, relating to
telephone no 51648951
Digitally
signed by
NEETU
NEETU NAGAR
NAGAR Date:
2025.12.26
15:38:51
(Neetu Nagar) +0530
ACJM-06 RADC
Delhi26.12.2025 Page 63 of 72
CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS
17. One file containing 4 Ex.PW15/H PW15 IO D M
pages along with letter Sharma
dated 16.03.2006 duly
signed by M.N. Vijayan,
Nodal Officer, Tata Tele
Services Ltd. 2-A, Old
Ishwar Nagar, M Mathura
Road, New Delhi-65,
relating to telephone no.
55833262.
18. One file relating to Ex.PW14/C PW14 Sh. Suraj
Consumer Card No. Prakash Bakshi
266901 of Sh. Naresh
Chand Jain r/o 7-A,
Bhagwan Nagar, Hari
Nagar Ashram, New
Delhi-14 along with one
letter no. FSO/C5/2006,
dated 21.06.06 under sign
of Chandra Mohan, FSO
and affidavit duly signed
by Naresh Chand Jain
(Ex. PW13/A) and
declaration from Ex.
PW13/B.
19. Original Passport No.E- Ex.PW15/I PW15 IO D M
9483563 of Sh. Harpreet Sharma
Singh S/o Late Sh. Along
with seizure memo dt.
5.10.2006
20. CFSL report alongwith Ex.PW11/33 PW11 Sh. Deepak
letter and R Handa
No.2006/D/0002/5177 dt. Ex.PW11/34 31.10.2006 of Director Dr. S.R. Singh, CFSL/New Delhi and writings/signatures of Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR Date: NAGAR 2025.12.26 15:39:00 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi26.12.2025 Page 64 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS Badal Kumar Nayak and Pramod Kumar Bhargawa in pages to 1 to 36 from (S1-S14) and (S15-S36).
21. The documents Ex.PW15/J PW15 IO D M containing pages 1A to Sharma 1C and 01 to 64 partaining to issue of visa of India Nationals namely Harpreet Singh, Tarilochand Singh, Bhupender Singh, Amerjit Singh, Gulzar Singh, Sanjay Kumar, Amerjit Singh which were submitted in Embessy of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela by shipping Company M/s Sreema Marine Services, Delhi collected through Diplomatic Chennal of Govt. of India.
22. Statement of Harpreet Ex. PW8/D1 PW8 Harpreet Singh Singh Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
(Neetu Nagar) 2025.12.26
15:39:10 +0530
ACJM-06/RADC/New Delhi
26.12.2025
(Neetu Nagar)
ACJM-06 RADC
Delhi26.12.2025 Page 65 of 72
CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEETU NAGAR,
ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE -06, ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT, NEW DELHI ANNEXURE -B LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED:-
PW No. Name of Nature of Evidence Exhibit witness PW-1 Sh. Witness proved that no Narender company/firm namely M/s Kumar Sreema Marine services functioning at Shop No.1681 or nearby.
PW-2 Sh. Ashok Witness from Master Travels Ex. PW2/1 Jha who proved invoice of air (Pages 1 to tickets from Delhi to Caracus 22) and return tickets. alongwith handing over forwarded letter to CBI.
PW-3 Sh. Gurbagh The then AFFRO proved Ex.PW3/1 Singh documents relating to forwarding deportation documents of all 6 Letter to Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.26
(Neetu Nagar) 15:39:22
ACJM-06 RADC +0530
Delhi26.12.2025 Page 66 of 72
CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS
passengers except Harpreet CBI),
Singh on 25.03.2005. Ex.PW3/2
(Colly)
(photocopy
of deportee/
repatriated
pax relating
to Tarlochan
Kumar),
Ex.PW3/3
(Colly)
(photocopy
of deportee
relating to
Amarjit
Singh S/o
Ravel
Singh),
Ex.PW3/4
(Colly)
(photocopy
of deportee
relating to
Amarjit
Singh S/o
Digitally
signed by
NEETU
NEETU NAGAR
NAGAR Date:
2025.12.26
(Neetu Nagar) 15:39:30
ACJM-06 RADC
+0530
Delhi26.12.2025 Page 67 of 72
CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS
Mohan
Singh),
Ex.PW3/5
(photocopy
of deportee
relating to
Gulzar
Singh),
Ex.PW3/6
(Colly)
(photocopy
of deportee
relating to
Sanjay
Kumar)
PW-4 Sh. Sanjay Witness proved that accused Statement
Aneja inquired about shipping line u/s 161
business from him in 2005. CrPC vide
Ex.PW4/1
PW-5 Sh. He deposed that offer of job at
Rajender Caracas was given by accused
Singh Pramod Kumar and payment in
this regard received in his
presence from all 7 persons.
Further he deposed that forged
Digitally
signed by
NEETU
NEETU NAGAR
NAGAR Date:
2025.12.26
(Neetu Nagar) 15:39:37
ACJM-06 RADC +0530
Delhi26.12.2025 Page 68 of 72
CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS
CDC, appointment letters,
certificate were arranged by
accused Pramod Kumar and
visa forms were filled by
accused Badal Kumar Nayak
PW-6 Sh. Bharat Witness proved letter dated Mark
Gupta 22.03.2005 bearing the letter PW6/1 and
head of M/s. Sreema Marine Mark
Services containing the details PW6/2 of appointment of Seaman's (statement might had been downloaded under from his café by accused Badal Section 161 Kumar Nayak. (witness Cr.PC) hostile) PW-7 Sh. Pervaiz Witness the then station Mark Alamgir Manager, Lufthansa German PW7/1 Khan Airlines proved the copies of (Colly) CDC, Appointment letters, Certificates which were forged and deposed that all 7 passengers were not allowed to board for flight on 24.03.2005 PW-8 Sh. Harpreet Witness was one of the Singh passenger out of 7 and he deposed that Rs. 50,000/- was Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.26 (Neetu Nagar) 15:39:44 ACJM-06 RADC +0530 Delhi26.12.2025 Page 69 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS given by him to accused Pramod Kumar and proved that all visa formalities and job matters were attended by accused Pramod Kumar and Badal Kumar for all the passengers. He further deposed that he could not get boarding in flight including remaining 6 persons on 24.3.2005.
PW-9 Sh. Nirmal Witness deposed that he was Singh relative of Amarjeet Singh and Bhupinder Singh and visited the office of Pramod Kumar with aforesaid relatives along with their fathers. He further stated that Amarjeet Singh's father informed him that he paid amount to Pramod Kumar.
PW-10 Sh. Ramesh Witness, the then Section Ex.PW10/A Tekchandan Officer, Extradition Section, (D-8), i CPV Division proved Ex.PW10/B documents addressed to (D-9) and Embassy of the Republic of Ex.PW10/C Venezuela and Federal (D-10) Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.26 (Neetu Nagar) 15:39:53 +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi26.12.2025 Page 70 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS Republic of Germany and verbal notes PW-11 Sh. Deepak He proved the CFSL Report, Ex PW11/1 R Handa questioned documents, to 34 specimen handwritings and the forwarding letter sent to CFSL by CBI.
PW-12 Sh. Amit Witness from M/s Moon Tour Ex.PW12/1 Jatana and Travels who proved that and tickets for 7 passengers were Ex.PW12/2 booked from his company/firm. PW-13 Sh.Raj Witness proved his father Ex.PW13/ Kumar Jain affidavit and that Tutol Das A(D-18) Gupta never resided at address and bearing no. 7A, Bhagwan application Nagar, Hari Nagar, Ashram, form New Delhi Ex.PW13/B PW-14 Sh. Suraj Witness, the then Inspector Ex.PW14/A Kumar Grade-II, Food and Supply (D-15) and Bakshi Department, Delhi proved Ex.PW14/B documents mentioned in D-15 and D-18.
PW-15 Sh. D M Witness was the investigating Sharma officer and proved the investigation of the present Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date: 2025.12.26 15:40:01 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi26.12.2025 Page 71 of 72 CC No. 02/2019 CBI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHARGAVA & ORS case and documents collected during investigation PW-16 Sh. Amit Witness was senior manager in Ex.PW16/1 Bhatia Bharti Airtel Limited and (Colly) (D- proved documents mentioned 16) in D-16. Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR Date: NAGAR 2025.12.26 15:40:13 +0530 (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06/RADC/New Delhi 26.12.2025 (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Delhi26.12.2025 Page 72 of 72