Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Madu Sudan Bhargo S/O Sh. Brahm Dutt ... on 9 September, 2016
-1-
IN THE COURT OF SH. GURDEEP SINGH,
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT): CBI-05, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, NEW DELHI
CC No. :14/2015
Unique ID: 02403R0266152015
RC No. S18/2008/E0006/CBI/EOU-IV/New Delhi
U/s 120-B r/w S. 420 IPC and
S. 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of PC Act.
CBI
VERSUS
Madu Sudan Bhargo s/o Sh. Brahm Dutt Bhargo
R/o : Village Mirzapur Khadiala
P.O. Hussainpur Lalowal, PS Haryana
Dist. Hoshiarpur (Punjab)
....Accused
Date of assignment : 08.12.2015
Date of conclusion of final arguments : 09.09.2016
Date of pronouncement : 09.09.2016
09.09.2016
JUDGMENT
1. The accused Madu Sudan Bhargo is sent by CBI to stand trial for offences punishable u/s 120-B read with S. 420 IPC and S. 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of PC Act.
2. In brief, the prosecution case is that, in this case, charge-sheet was filed on 08.12.2009 against accused public servant, now convict CC No.:14/15, RC:S18-2008-E-0006 CBI v. Madu Sudan Bhargo Page 1 of 36 -2- Manjit Singh and private persons Madu Sudan Bhargo for offences punishable under Sections 120B read with Section 420 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It was alleged in the charge-sheet that case was registered on the basis of written complaint received from SI S.K Jha, who conducted preliminary enquiry on the basis of written complaint received from Sh. Debnath Shaw, Joint Secretary & Chief Vigilance Officer, Ministry of External Affairs, for alleged human trafficking for monetary or other consideration by Manjit Singh. It was alleged that in the year 2006, Manjit Singh, Section Officer, Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) disguised Madu Sudan Bhargo as his domestic assistant for monetary consideration of Rs.7 lacs to his place of posting, that is, High Commission of India at Suva, Fiji; while proceeding to Suva, Fiji in November, 2006, Manjit Singh deliberately left Madu Sudan Bhargo in New Zealand and Madu Sudan Bhargo did not reach Suva with Manjit Singh.
3. It is stated that in March/ April, 2006 Madu Sudan Bhargo along with one Varinder Singh came to Delhi and met Manjit Singh, who told them that he was expecting his posting in Suva, Fiji and agreed to help Madu Sudan Bhargo in going to New Zealand for which he demanded Rs.6 lacs plus Rs.1 lac for air tickets. Thereafter, father and mother of Madu Sudan Bhargo arranged Rs.7 lacs to give to Manjit Singh, who purchased air ticket of Madu Sudan Bhargo for Delhi-Singapore-Sydney-Wellington-Sydney-Singapore-Delhi.
CC No.:14/15, RC:S18-2008-E-0006 CBI v. Madu Sudan Bhargo Page 2 of 36 -3-Manjit Singh also purchased air tickets for himself and his son Amrinder Singh for Sector Sydney-Wellington-Sydney.
4. It was further alleged that Manjit Singh sought permission from MEA to take domestic assistant to his new place of posting at Suva, Fiji citing the human behavioral problem of his elder son which was refused by the Ministry. Subsequently, he again made a request giving undertaking that he would take the domestic assistant on private passport and would bear his to and fro airfare which was acceded to.
5. It was further alleged that on 10.11.2006 Manjit Singh along with his elder son Amarinder Singh and domestic assistant Madu Sudan Bhargo left New Delhi on 13.11.2006 by Air India. He reached Suva and joined High Commission of India on 01.12.2006. On reaching Suva, he did not inform the High Commission regarding his accompanying son Amarinder and servant Madu Sudan Bhargo's disappearance. His son Amarinder reached Suva from Wellington on 22.12.2006 by the efforts of High Commission of India at Wellington, but Madu Sudan Bhargo never reached Suva. It was further alleged that High Commission of India, Suva vide note dated 26.02.2007 asked Manjit Singh about disappearance of Madu Sudan Bhargo, to which he explained that his domestic assistant slipped away with his passport/ tickets during immigration check at Wellington, New Zealand.
6. It was further alleged that New Zealand High Commission vide CC No.:14/15, RC:S18-2008-E-0006 CBI v. Madu Sudan Bhargo Page 3 of 36 -4- note dated 20.08.2009 replied to MEA that Madu Sudan Bhargo was granted a visitor visa for New Zealand. Subsequent visa applications were made on shore. They also wrote that their records indicate that he was in New Zealand, but he was currently there unlawfully as his last permit expired in March 2008.
7. Thereafter, charge-sheet was filed; the cognizance was taken vide order dated 16.01.2010. Convict Manjit Singh appeared, but Madu Sudan Bhargo did not appear. Madu Sudan Bhargo was declared PO vide order dated 30.01.2012. The trial proceeded against Manjit Singh and vide judgment and order on sentence dated 30.11.2013 and 12.12.2013, he was convicted and sentenced.
8. It is further stated that while convicting co-accused Manjit Singh, the Hon'ble Court was pleased to direct CBI to conduct further investigation in respect of accused Madu Sudan Bhargo. In pursuance thereto, rogatory letter was got issued to High Commission of New Zealand for the purpose of investigation and collection of evidence, but execution report was not received till the filing of the supplementary charge-sheet qua accused Madu Sudan Bhargo. Thereafter, Madu Sudan Bhargo was arrested on 20.05.2015 when he was deported to India on the basis of an Emergency Certificate issued by the High Commission of India, Wellington, New Zealand from IGI Airport on the information of interpol that he was travelling to India. It is stated that at the time of his arrest incriminating documents regarding his travel to New CC No.:14/15, RC:S18-2008-E-0006 CBI v. Madu Sudan Bhargo Page 4 of 36 -5- Zealand and stay in New Zealand in the form of Emergency Certificate issued by the High Commission of India, Wellington, Letter of the Second Secretary addressed to Immigration Officer, Delhi were recovered. CFSL report was awaited. After completion of the investigation, the supplementary charge-sheet was filed against accused Madu Sudan Bhargo.
9. Vide order dated 15.01.2016, cognizance was taken and accused was summoned. Vide order dated 06.04.2016, the accused was charged for offences punishable u/s 120-B IPC read with Section 420 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Subsequently, vide order dated 01.06.2016, the accused was also separately charged for offence punishable u/s 420 IPC, to which he also pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
10. Prosecution in support of their case examined as many as 12 witnesses. There are two set of witnesses examined in this case, one in connection with departure of accused Madu Sudan Bhargo from India to abroad New Zealand or Suva, Fiji with accused Manjit Singh (now convict) by illegal means and other set is in connection with his departure from New Zealand to India on expiry of valid VISA.
First set of witnesses:-
11. PW-1 Sh. Johny Anil Kumar, UDC at Passport Office, Jalandhar proved passport bearing no.F2955690 issued in the name of CC No.:14/15, RC:S18-2008-E-0006 CBI v. Madu Sudan Bhargo Page 5 of 36 -6- accused Madu Sudan Bhargo on 05.05.2005 as Ex.PW-1/A which mentions his address as 'Village Mirzapur Khadiala, PO Husainpur, District Hoshiarpur.' It was observed by the court that "At page -17 of the passport, visa bearing no. 6672705 of New Zealand is pasted; at page-12, visa/ visitor's permit no. 6742420 dated 24.11.2006 of New Zealand is pasted; student visa no.7206345 dated 02.10.2007 of New Zealand is pasted at page - 19 of the said passport and there are other entries at page no.10, 11, 16 and 23. There is no document / stamp impression pasted or imposed which shows that accused Madu Sudan Bhargo entered Suva, Fiji"
12. PW-2 Smt. Gurvinder Kaur is wife of convict Manjit Singh, who is witness of handing over of diplomatic passports, that is, her own and her sons' namely Amrinder Singh and Harminder Singh to CBI. She proved Production-cum-Seizure Memo as Ex.PW-2/A, diplomatic passport no.D-1019718 alongwith old passport no.0141835 issued in her name as Ex.PW-2/B (Colly), diplomatic passport no.D-1019719 alongwith old passport no.0141837 issued in her son's name Amrinder Singh as Ex.PW-2/C (Colly) and diplomatic passport no.D-1019720 alongwith old passport no.0141838 issued in her son's name Harminder Singh as Ex.PW- 2/D (Colly).
13. PW-3 Sh. Harminder Singh son of convict Manjit Singh is witness in respect of travelling of accused Madu Sudan Bhargo with Manjit Singh and his brother Sh. Amarinder Singh to abroad. In addition CC No.:14/15, RC:S18-2008-E-0006 CBI v. Madu Sudan Bhargo Page 6 of 36 -7- to other, he proved, diplomatic passport no. D-1019717 and old passport no. 0141834 issued in his father name as Ex.PW-3/A (Colly).
14. PW-5 Sh. Surinder Katiyal from Aadi Satya Travels Pvt. Ltd is the witness, who on the asking of convict Manjit Singh, arranged the air ticket for Manjit Singh, his son and accused Madu Sudan Bhargo and also regarding money exchange. He proved the bill no.
5576, 5577, 5578 and 5579 already exhibited as Ex.PW-18/C, Ex.PW-18/B, Ex.PW-18/A and Ex.PW-18/D respectively (placed in main file) regarding money exchange. He also proved invoice (D-
7) Ex.PW-2/B (placed in main file), air ticket (D-7, page 4) Ex.PW- 2/A, invoice (D-7, page 3) Ex.PW-2/C, air tickets of Amrinder Singh and Manjit Singh (D-7, page 6 and 7) Ex.PW-2/D and Ex.PW-2/E respectively and invoice (D-7, page 5) as Ex.PW-2/F (all placed in main file).
15. PW-6 Sh. Guru Parsad, who used to give his premises on rent, is witness in respect of stay of accused in his room on rent and proved the photocopy of the register as Ex.PW-6/A.
16. PW-7 Sh. S. K. Jha is the witness who conducted preliminary enquiry against accused Manjit Singh (now convict) and recommended for necessary action. He proved the written complaint (D-2) Ex.PW-10/A (placed in main file), handing over memo (D-4) dated 18.12.2008 Ex.PW-10/C and handing over - taking over memo dated 19.12.2008 (D-6) Ex.PW-10/D (placed in CC No.:14/15, RC:S18-2008-E-0006 CBI v. Madu Sudan Bhargo Page 7 of 36 -8- main file).
17. PW-8 Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta from Ish Travel & Tours Pvt. Ltd. is the witness regarding issuance of air- ticket of accused Madu Sudan Bhargo on the asking of M/s Adi Satya Travel & Tours Ltd. He proved the seizure memo dated 22.01.2009 (D-9 in main file) as Ex.PW-1/A, computer generated copy of invoice bill dated 11.11.2006 for Rs.71,057/- raised on M/s Adi Satya Travel & Tours Ltd. (D-9, page 2) as Ex.PW-1/B, fax dated 11.11.2006 (D-9, page
3) as Ex.PW-1/C, agent coupon in original for air ticket of accused Madu Sudan Bhargo for Sector DEL-SIN-SYD (D-9, page 4) Ex.PW-1/D and another air ticket for sector SYD-WLG-SYD-SIN- DEL (D-9, page 5) as Ex.PW-1/E, computer generated copy of account statement as Ex.PW-1/F.
18. PW-09 Sh. Varinder Singh, is the independent witness, whose evidence was recorded by way of Video Conferencing from Dubai. He is witness who introduced accused Madu Sudan Bhargo with accused Manjit Singh (now convict) to take him along to New Zealand and handing over of part payment of Rs.3 lacs to accused Manjit Singh (now convict) by accused Madu Sudan Bhargo. He proved his statement recorded by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate as Ex.PW-15/A (in the main file).
19. PW-10 Sh. Anand Sarup, Inspector, is the part Investigation Officer (IO). In addition to other, he proved the search list Ex.PW-10/B (in the main file), cash memo seized from the house of convict Manjit CC No.:14/15, RC:S18-2008-E-0006 CBI v. Madu Sudan Bhargo Page 8 of 36 -9- Singh as Ex.PW-18/A to Ex.PW-18/D (in the main file), handing over-cum-receipt memo dated 31.07.2008 and file regarding posting of convict Manjit Singh as Ex.PW-18/E and PW-18/F respectively (in the main file), application for recording of statement of Varinder Singh u/s 164 Cr.PC as Ex.PW-18/G.
20. PW-11 Sh. Amit V. Bhardwaj, Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI is the subsequent Investigating Officer(IO). In addition to other, he proved seizure memo of documents from Sh. Bharm Dutt, father of accused Madu Sudan Bhargo (D-12, page 01 in the main file) Ex.PW-13/A, seizure memo (D-13, page 1 in the main file) as Ex.PW-19/A and documents Ex.PW19/B1 to Ex.PW19/16 (D-13, page 2 to 18 in the main file), production - cum - seizure memo dated 18.08.2009 (D-14, page 1 in the main file) as Ex.PW-19/C, original withdrawal slip / order dated 16.11.2006 (D-14, page 2 in the main file) as Ex.PW-14/A, certified photocopy of account opening form (D-14, page 3 and 4 in the main file), statement of account of Smt. Usha Rani (D-14, page 5 and 6) as Ex.PW-19/D and Ex.PW-19/E respectively, production - cum - seizure memo (D-15, page 1 in the main file) Ex.PW-19/F, original cheque (D-15, page 2 in the main file) Ex.PW-13/B, and certified copy of specimen signature card of Sh. Bhram Dutt (D-15, page 3 in the main file) Ex.PW-13/C, computer printout of statement of account of Sh. Brahm Dutt (D-15, page 4 in the main file) as Ex.PW-19/G, letter dated 17.04.2009 alongwith copy of purged data supplied by John Powell (D-16, page 1 to 5 in the main file) Ex.PW-19/H, letter CC No.:14/15, RC:S18-2008-E-0006 CBI v. Madu Sudan Bhargo Page 9 of 36 -10- dated 23.04.2009 alongwith copies of Embarkation Card three in number Ex.PW-19/J (D-17, page 1 and 5 in the main file), his letter Ex.PW-19/K (D-17, page 2 to 4 in the main file), letter dated 20.08.2009 (D-18, page 1 in the main file) and reply received from office of New Zealand High Commission (D-18, page 2 in the main file) as Ex.PW-19/L and Ex.PW-19/M respectively, letter dated 09.07.2008 (D-19, page 1 in the main file) and attested scanned copies of passport of accused Madu Sudan Bhargo (D-19, page 2 to 37 in the main file) as Ex.PW-19/N and Ex.PW-8/A1 to Ex.PW- 8/A37, handing over- taking over memo (D-4 in the main file) Ex.PW-10/C, order of MEA (D-10, page 1 in the main file) Ex.PW- 4/A alongwith Annexure -1 (D-20, page 2 in the main file) and other documents D-20, page 3 to 33 in the main file Ex.PW-4/C1- 31, letter dated 05.09.2008 of Under Secretary (Vigilance), MEA (D-21, page 1 in the main file) Ex.PW-5/A and other document (D- 21, page 2 to 9 in the main file) Ex.PW-5/B1 to 8 which were collected during preliminary enquiry.
Second set of witnesses:-
21. PW-04 Sh. Vijay Pal Singh, Assistant Central Intelligence Officer-
1, Bureau of Immigration (FRRO), IGI Airport, T-3, New Delhi is witness regarding detention of accused Madu Sudan Bhargo on arriving at AGI Airport, India on the basis of LOC (Lookout Circular Form) and Emergency Certificate and, personal search of accused and his arrest by CBI. He proved the LOC (D-34) as CC No.:14/15, RC:S18-2008-E-0006 CBI v. Madu Sudan Bhargo Page 10 of 36 -11- Ex.PW-4/A (Colly), emergency certificate as Ex.PW-4/B, boarding pass of Malasia Airline Flight No.MH0132 (D-27) and MH0172 (D-28) as Ex.PW-4/C, Ex.PW-4/D, the copy of e-ticket bearing booking reference no.Z34EV4 dated17.05.2015 (D-26) issued in the name of accused Madu Sudan Bhargo as Ex.PW-4/E and personal search memo as Ex.PW-4/F and his arrest memo as Ex.PW-4/G.
22. PW-12 Sh. K. L. Moses, Deputy Superintendent of Police is also Investigating Officer(IO) after the arrest of accused Madu Sudan Bhargo. In addition to other, he proved letter dated 18.05.2015 (D-
30) as Ex.PW-12/A, and other documents i.e. photocopy of passports and medical certificate (D-31, D-32, and D-33) as Ex.PW-12/B (Colly), letter (D-35) written by CBI to 2nd Secretary, High Commission of India for handing over of passport of accused Madu Sudan Bhargo Ex.PW-12/C and forwarding letter (D-36) alongwith passports of accused (D-37 and D-38) as Ex.PW-12/D and as Ex.PW-1A and Ex.PW-12/E respectively.
23. Posting of accused Manjit Singh (now convict) i.e. file No.Q/PB-
1/6612/90/06 titled 'Posting of Shri Manjit Singh, SO to HCI, Suva" (D-5) was admitted u/s 294 Cr.PC by the accused, which is Ex.A-1/A.
24. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused Madu Sudan Bhargo is also recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC wherein he denied the prosecution evidence and claimed innocence and he CC No.:14/15, RC:S18-2008-E-0006 CBI v. Madu Sudan Bhargo Page 11 of 36 -12- stated that Sh. Varinder Singh was the medicine supplier to his father who was doing medical practice. There he met Varinder Singh, and during the course of discussions, he expressed his desire that he is not doing any job and wants to go to abroad for doing some work and then Varinder Singh told him that he will talk to his uncle about his job. He did not know whether uncle of Sh. Varinder Singh was working in the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India. After two days, he told him that he has spoken to his uncle, who was in need of a person who can take care of his son who was mentally not stable and he is ready to take him as his employee to lookafter his son as he is going on the foreign assignment. Thereafter he did not have any contact with Varinder Singh. He denied that in March - April, 2006, he came alongwith Varinder Singh to Delhi. He alone contacted Manjit Singh as address was given by Sh. Manjit Singh and he offered him job to work as personal attendant of his son. He denied that he stayed at Sagarpur in Delhi and entry in the register has been falsely made in order to create false case against him. He denied that Manjit Singh had paid money in cash for e-tickets for himself, his son as well as for him (accused) and stated that only his ticket was handed over to him at the airport by Manjit Singh for taking him alongwith him.
25. He, however, admitted that passport is issued in his name from Jalandhar on 05.05.2005 and stated that VISAs pasted on his passport is matter of record. He admitted that he was introduced to wife and son of accused Manjit Singh at IGI Airport. He also CC No.:14/15, RC:S18-2008-E-0006 CBI v. Madu Sudan Bhargo Page 12 of 36 -13- admitted boarding pass of flight no. MH0132 and MH0172 dated 02.05.2015 of Malasia Airport, e-ticket to travel from Aukland to Delhi via Kuala Lampur and personal search and arrest memo and seizure of documents from him. As regards seziure regarding withdrawal of money, he stated that his father told him that they had taken his statement of account. The money withdrawn from the bank by his father and mother were utilized in purchasing a land in Punjab for which they had given the photocopies of the documents of the purchase of the land which has been exhibited as Ex.PW- 13/D1 to D3 but the same has not been intentionally produced by the prosecution in order to falsely implicate him.
26. As regards no VISA stamp of Suva, Fiji on his passport, he stated that he was asked by Manjit Singh to stay at New Zealand to take care of his son so that when he reached Suva, he would make arrangement for the stay then he would call him and his son. He stayed at New Zealand alongwith his son for 22 days and looked after him but he was very violent and it was difficult to control him and then he talked to Manjit Singh, who told him that if you cannot lookafter his son then you did not come to Suva, Fiji. That is why he was abandoned at New Zealand to fend for himself. His son left New Zealand on 22nd December, 2006 whereas Manjit Singh had left on 1st December, 2006 for Suva, Fiji. However, accused chose not to lead evidence in his defence.
CC No.:14/15, RC:S18-2008-E-0006 CBI v. Madu Sudan Bhargo Page 13 of 36 -14-27. I have heard Sh. K. P. Singh, Ld. PP for CBI and Sh. S. C. Chawla, Advocate for accused Madu Sudan Bhargo. I have gone through the record.
28. PW-9 Sh. Varinder Singh, whose evidence was recorded by way of Video Conferencing from Dubai. He testified that in the year 2009 he was doing the business of wholesale medicines. He identified the accused Madu Sudan Bhargo, in the court by seeing him in the video and stated that he knows accused as his father is doctor whom he used to supply medicines. During his visit to the shop of his father, he met him and he used to insist with him regarding his intention of going abroad to New Zealand. He knew Mr. Manjeet Singh, who was working as officer in the Ministry of External Affairs, Govt. of India. He discussed about the intention of accused Madu Sudan Bhargo of going to New Zealand. In March-April, 2006, he alongwith Madu Sudan Bhargo came to Delhi and met Mr. Manjeet Singh in this regard. He (Manjit Singh) assured that he will look into it. He further stated that in July, 2006, he received a phone call of Sh. Manjeet Singh who told him that he will take accused Madu Sudan Bhargo alongwith him as domestic servant. He told him that he will take permission from government for taking him along. Mr. Manjeet Singh was to go to Fiji and enroute to Fiji he will drop accused Madu Sudan Bhargo at New Zealand. Mr. Manjeet Singh told that it will cost Rs.6 lacs and ticket for travel would be extra. Mr. Manjeet Singh had said that there will be expenditure of Rs.6 lacs, again said he had asked to take Rs.6 lacs CC No.:14/15, RC:S18-2008-E-0006 CBI v. Madu Sudan Bhargo Page 14 of 36 -15- for himself. He further stated that in November, 2006, he received phone from Mr. Manjeet Singh who told him to bring part payment of Rs.3 lacs and thereafter he alongwith accused Madu Sudan Bhargo came to Delhi and Madu Sudan Bhargo gave Rs.3 lacs to Mr. Manjeet Singh in his presence. He stated that exactly does not remember the place where the money was given, however, it was at Guest House, Opposite to Police Station Janakpuri, Delhi. The venue was prefixed. Mr. Manjeet Singh further told that remaining payment would be received by him after the VISA. After 10-15 days, he received phone call from accused Madu Sudan Bhargo that he had reached New Zealand. He stated that his statement was also recorded before Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi in the year 2009, which was given voluntarily and without any pressure.
29. In his cross-examination, PW-9 Sh. Varinder Singh stated that he does not remember the dates when he came to Delhi in two-three times in March. During that time, on one occasion he stayed at Sheeshganj Gurudwara and on another occasion he stayed at another Gurudwara and on third occasion he stayed at hotel. They not make any entry in Gurudwara or at hotel as they stayed for two-three hours just for freshen-up. They met Mr. Manjeet Singh at Guest House near PS Janakpuri in the early morning i.e. approx. 6:00 / 7:00 a.m. They did not stay in the guest house and only visited to make the payment to Mr. Manjeet Singh. He does not know the name of the guest house near PS Janakpuri. He could not say whether Mr. Manjeet Singh had taken accused Madu Sudan CC No.:14/15, RC:S18-2008-E-0006 CBI v. Madu Sudan Bhargo Page 15 of 36 -16- Bhargo as his domestic servant to look after his son who was not mentally stable, however, he voluntarily stated that Mr. Manjeet Singh had told him that he is taking him as domestic servant. He admitted that Mr. Manjeet Singh had told him that he had taken all necessary permission from Govt. of India for taking accused Madu Sudhan Bhargo as his domestic servant. IO did not seize his mobile phone set to verify the call records. He denied the suggestion that accused Madu Sudan Bhargo had not given any money except for the ticket which was purchased by Mr. Manjeet Singh on his behalf or that Mr. Manjeet Singh had taken accused Madu Sudan Bhargo as domestic servant on salary basis.
30. PW-6 Sh. Guru Parsad testified that he has a premises at WZ-52-D, Vashisht Park, Sagar Pur, New Delhi consists of ground floor, first floor and second floor having three rooms each floor. The said premises is in the name of his mother, aged about 90 years. He used this premises for giving on rent to various customers since 2002-03. He maintains record of persons, to whom the rooms are given on rent, for his satisfaction. He produced the register maintained by him regarding record of persons to whom the rooms were given on rent. In the said register at page-37, there is an entry of person, namely, Madu Sudan, S/o Sh. Brahm Dutt, Village Mirzapur, Khadiyala, PO Hoshiarpur, Punjab (Phone: 0188623485) had stayed in the said premises from 07.11.2006 to 12.11.2006 and had paid an advance of Rs.600/-. He further stated that later on, on person, namely, Manjit Singh of Dwarka, having mobile no.
CC No.:14/15, RC:S18-2008-E-0006 CBI v. Madu Sudan Bhargo Page 16 of 36 -17-9958219595 came to him probably in the year 2012 and enquired about the period of stay of accused Madu Sudan Bhargo. He told him about the period of his stay after seeing the register. There is an entry regarding the same on the said register Ex.PW6/A. In his cross-examination, PW-6 admitted that he used to take photograph of tenant and used to paste on the register at the time of letting out the premises and used to paste the same on the register. He also admitted that photograph of accused is not pasted in the register. He denied the suggestion that entry in the name of Madu Sudan Bhargo was made later on at the instance of CBI to flasely implicate him. He did not hand over the receipt of advance received from accused. There is no CCTV installed in the said premises. He had not filed the form for police verification of accused at the time of giving premises to him on rent. He states that he does not have any licence for letting out the said premises on rent. He denied the suggestion that accused Madu Sudan Bhargo was not introduced to him by Manjit Singh and the said entry about Manjit Singh and his mobile number was made in the year 2012. He also denied the suggest that accused had never stayed in the abovestated premises.
31. PW-5 Sh. Surinder Katiyal testified that in the year 1990, he started Aadi Satya Travels Pvt. Ltd. but got registered with IATA in the year 1993 and he was one of the promoters/directors in this company. In the year 1997, He also started M/s Katiyal Forex Pvt. Ltd. and the company was doing money changing activities. He CC No.:14/15, RC:S18-2008-E-0006 CBI v. Madu Sudan Bhargo Page 17 of 36 -18- stated that he knows Sh. Manjit Singh (now convicted) since 2004-05 who was an employee of Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi. He stated that sometime in the first week of November, 2006, Sh. Manjit Singh met him in his office and told him to arrange air ticket for accused Madu Sudan Bhargo from New Delhi to Welington and also for himself and his son Amrinder Singh for the Sector Sydney-Welington-Sydney. After taking necessary passport details of the passengers, he arranged air ticket of accused Madhu Sudhan Bhargo for the sector New Delhi-Singapor-Sydney- Welington-Sydney-Singapore-Delhi from Ish Travels & Tours, 46, DDA Site-1, Shankar Road, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi on commission basis. The air ticket of Manjit Singh and his son Amrinder Singh for the sector Sydney-Welington-Sydney were booked by him through e-ticket from his firm Aadi Satya Travels Pvt. Ltd. He stated that accused Manjit Singh (now convict) had paid him money in cash towards purchase of air tickets for accused Madhu Sudhan Bhargo, himself and Amrinder Singh and he handed over all the air tickets to Manjit Singh personally. He proved the bills, invoices and air tickets etc.
32. In his cross-examination, PW-5 stated that he never met accused Madu Sudan Bhargo nor deliver the ticket to him nor spoken to him ever on telephone. He admitted that money towards payment of ticket of accused Madu Sudan Bhargo was not paid by accused Madu Sudan Bhargo. Manjit Singh did not take any exchange of currency in the name of accused Madu Sudan Bhargo from him.
CC No.:14/15, RC:S18-2008-E-0006 CBI v. Madu Sudan Bhargo Page 18 of 36 -19-33. PW-8 Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta corroborated PW-5 regarding arrangement of air ticket of accused Madhu Sudhan Bhargo from Ish Travels & Tours. He testified that he worked in Ish Travel & Tours Pvt. from 01.11.2005 to 15.12.2015. He had handed some documents to CBI vide Seizure Memo and proved them. He further stated that the above stated company i.e. Ish Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd. and Adi Satya Travels Pvt. Ltd. was registered with IATA. On 11.11.2006, M/s Adi Satya Travels Pvt. Ltd. sent requisition to M/s Ish Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd. for issuance of air ticket through fax No.EXO No.6363 in the name of accused Madu Sudhan Bhargo mentioning the passport number and travels details. Copy of passport was not forwarded. With the said fax, as it is in practice that while corresponding with IATA agents they communicate with the detail of passport.
34. PW-3 Sh. Harminder Singh, son of the convict Manjit Singh testified that on 13.11.2006, he alongwith his mother Smt. Gurvinder Kaur went to IGI Airport to see off his father Sh. Manjit Singh and his brother Sh. Amarinder Singh who were going to Fiji, Suva. They were going to Fiji as his father was working in Embassy and was transferred and posted to Embassy at Suva. He did not go to Fiji as he was pursuing B.CA (1st Year). At the IGI Airport on 13th November, 2006, they met a person who was introduced by his father as Sh. Madhu Sudan Bhargo for the first time and he correctly identified accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo, in the court as the person to whom his father has introduced to him.
CC No.:14/15, RC:S18-2008-E-0006 CBI v. Madu Sudan Bhargo Page 19 of 36 -20-He stated that his father told them that accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo is travelling with them and he stated that his father did not tell them that accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo was being taken as a servant at Fiji, Suva. He (convict) also did not tell him (witness) that accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo is being taken to Fiji Suva. His brother was going to Fiji, Suva with intention to study there. After the said meeting at IGI Airport on 13.11.2006, he never saw or met with accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo again. He stated that his elder brother Sh. Amarinder Singh can take care of himself but he cannot cook the food but can wash his clothes and take care of his hygiene and he sometimes got violent and likes to keep himself confined to in a room and used to avoid talking. He also used to rearrange the furniture in the house keep them upside down etc.
35. In his cross-examination, PW-3 Sh. Harminder Singh stated that he does not know whether his father has taken accused Madu Sudan Bhargo alongwith him as a domestic help to lookafter his elder brother who was not mentally sound. In reply to court question whether his brother was suffering from mental illness, he stated "Yes".
36. PW-7 Sh. S. K. Jha testified that he was posted as Sub Inspector in EO-II Branch of CBI, New Delhi since August 2006 to September 2012 and preliminary enquiry was registered on 24.06.2008 against Manjit Singh, the then Section Officer, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi on the basis of complaint received from Sh.
CC No.:14/15, RC:S18-2008-E-0006 CBI v. Madu Sudan Bhargo Page 20 of 36 -21-Deb Nath Shaw, Joint Secretary and CVO, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi. The said PE was entrusted to him to enquire into allegations mentioned in the said complaint. Accordingly, he conducted the enquiry. He stated that on conclusion of enquiry, prima facie revealed commission of offence punishable under Section 120B read with Section 417 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act by Manjit Singh and accused Madu Sudan Bhargo, S/o Sh. Braham Dutt, R/o Village Mirzapur Khadiyala, District Hoshiarpur, Punjab. After completion of enquiry, he submitted a written complaint dated 21.10.2008 addressed to S.P., CBI, EO-II/ EOU-IV, New Delhi for initiating necessary action as per law against both the accused persons and proved written complaint and memos. After the said complaint, he had handed over the documents to IO collected by him during preliminary enquiry. In his cross-examination, PW-7 stated that during PE, he had recorded statements of witnesses also, but the same are not part of the present charge-sheet. He had not given statement to IO, recorded during the PE by him.
37. PW-10 Sh. Anand Sarup, is the part investigating officer (IO). He testified that in the year 2008, he was posted as Inspector, CBI, EOU-IV, New Delhi. This case was entrusted to him for investigation by the then SP Sh. M.C. Joshi. During the course of investigation, he had examined the witnesses, namely, Brahm Dutt, Smt. Usha Rani, Sh. Varinder Singh, Sh. Surender Katyal, Sh. Bhaskar Bhatt, Sh. Guru Prasad, Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta and Sh.
CC No.:14/15, RC:S18-2008-E-0006 CBI v. Madu Sudan Bhargo Page 21 of 36 -22-Shivaji Sen and had recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He had also conducted search at the official residence of accused Manjit Singh at Dwarka and had seized documents. He also stated that he has also got recorded the statement of Sh. Varinder Singh under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Consequent upon his transfer, the case was entrusted for further investigation to Sh. A.V. Bhardwaj, Inspector, CBI and the Case Diary was handed over to Sh. A.V. Bhardwaj, Inspector, CBI.
38. In his cross-examination, PW-10 stated he did not go to any foreign mission to inquire about the issuance of Visa to Sh. Madu Sudan Bhargo. He does not know whether Sh. S.K. Jha conducted any inquiry from Sh. Varinder Singh and / or parents of Sh. Madhu Sudan Bhargo. He examined parents of Sh. Madhu Sudan Bhargo because accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo was not available so he thought that his parents must be examined.
39. PW-11 Sh. Amit V. Bhardwaj, testified that in the year 2008-09 he was posted as Inspector, CBI in EOU-IV, New Delhi and this case was initially investigated by Inspector Anand Swarup and thereafter, further investigation was entrusted to him by the then SP Sh. M.C. Joshi. During the further investigation he had examined various witnesses mentioned in the list of witnesses from serial no. 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 as per their version. He proved various seizure memos, handing over-cum-taking over memos and seized documents. After seeing the letter dated 23.04.2009 of Foreign CC No.:14/15, RC:S18-2008-E-0006 CBI v. Madu Sudan Bhargo Page 22 of 36 -23- Regional Registration Officer (FRRO), R. K. Puram, Delhi addressed to SP, CBI, he stated that the said letter was received in their office and was marked to him by the then SP, CBI. The copies of Embarkation Cards in respect of accused Manjeet Singh, Amrinder Singh and Madhu Sudan Bhargo were sent to SP, CBI by FRRO, R.K. Puram, Delhi in response to his letter dated 16.4.2009. He stated that another letter dated 20.8.2009 of Sh. Shrikant Chaterjeet, Section officer (PV-II), Ministry of External Affairs vide which is a reply which was received from office of New Zealand, High Commission in New Delhi, was sent to him by Sh. Shrikant Chatterjee. He stated that another letter dated 09.7.2008 sent to SP, CBI by Assistant Passport Officer, Passport office, Jalandhar, Punjab was received in their office vide which attested scanned copies of files related to Passport No. F-2955690 dated 05.5.2005 and Passport No. A-5903308 dated 22.7.1998 in respect of accused Madu Sudan Bhargo were sent to SP, CBI by Assistant Passport Officer. During the course of investigation, he had also taken specimen handwriting of accused Manjit Singh which was given by him voluntarily in the presence of witness Sh. Ram Gopal. The specimen handwriting were sent to GEQD for Expert Opinion. After examination of the questioned documents with comparison of specimen handwriting, the GEQD sent his report vide GEQD Report. After completion of investigation, the sanction for prosecution of accused Manjit Singh was obtained from the Competent Authority. Finally, on the direction of the then SP Sh.
CC No.:14/15, RC:S18-2008-E-0006 CBI v. Madu Sudan Bhargo Page 23 of 36 -24-P.K. Jacob, he had filed the Charge Sheet against accused Manjit Singh and Madhu Sudan Bhargo alongwith relied upon documents and statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C and Sanction for Prosecution. He also proved handing over-taking over memo (D-4 in the main file) already exhibited as Ex.PW-10/C and stated vide this handing over - taking over memo, the file mentioned therein were handed over by Sh. S. K. Jha, the then Sub-Inspector of Police which he had collected during preliminary enquiry to Sh. Anand Swarup, the then Inspector of Police, CBI, which bears signature of Sh. S. K. Jha and Sh. Anand Swarup at points A and B respectively. He has also proved order of Ministry of External Affairs (D-20, page 1 in the main file) already exhibited as Ex.PW-4/A alongwith Annexure-1 (D-20, page 2 in the main file) and other documents (D-20, page 3 to 33 in the main file) already exhibited as Ex.PW-4/C1-31, and letter dated 05.09.2008 of Sh. Vijay Khanduja, the then Under Secretary (Vigilance), Ministry of External Affairs (D-21, page 1 in the main file) already exhibited as Ex.PW-5/A and other documents (D-21, page 2 to 9 in the main file) already exhibited as Ex.PW-5/B1 to 8, which were collected by Sh. S. K. Jha during preliminary enquiry, and which were filed by him alongwith the chargesheet.
40. In his cross-examination, PW-11 stated that he does not remember whether he recorded the statement of Sh. Brahm Dutt and Smt. Usha Rani, parents of accused Madu Sudhan Bhargo, at the time when he had collected their bank details. In reply to question that CC No.:14/15, RC:S18-2008-E-0006 CBI v. Madu Sudan Bhargo Page 24 of 36 -25- when he collected the documents from the bank in respect of withdrawal of money, whether he enquired from them as to how did they spend that money, he stated that firstly he enquired and after that he collected documents from the bank. He denied the suggestion that the parents of Madu Sudhan Bhargo showed him the original documents of Ex.PW-13/D1 to Ex.PW-13/D3 in the main file that whatever money they had withdrawn from the bank had been spent from purchasing the land or that photocopy of these documents Ex.PW-13/D1 to Ex.PW-13/D3 were given to him and he intentionally did not place the same on record. He further denied the suggestion that in order to falsely implicate the accused Madu Sudhan Bhargo, he had intentionally not recorded statement of parents of accused Madu Sudhan Bhargo.
41. PW-4 Sh. Vijay Pal Singh testified on 20.05.2015, he was at duty on immigration section on the arrival side at IGI Airport, T-3, New Delhi as Counter Officer. He had prepared the said (Lookout Circular) LOC form pursuant to the detection of LOC subject Madu Sudan Bhargo who had arrived at IGI Airport. The LOC subject was detected on the basis of his name Madu Sudan Bhargo which is mentioned on the Emergency Certificate issued on 13.05.2015 by Sh. Sandeep Sood to Second Secretary, High Commission of India, Welingtom, New Zealand. On the said Emergency Certificate, it is mentioned that "Madu Sudan Bhargo without being on valid Visa in New Zealand is being deported from here". It is also mentioned that passport no.G3931359 issued to CC No.:14/15, RC:S18-2008-E-0006 CBI v. Madu Sudan Bhargo Page 25 of 36 -26- accused Madu Sudan Bhargo on 10.03.2008 and valid till 10.03.2009 was revoked in 16.02.2009 by the High Commission of India, Welington. This emergency certificate exhibited Ex.PW-4/B was issued only for travel from New Zealand to Delhi via Kaula Lumpur. The photograph and the signature of deportee of accused Madu Sudan Bhargo is also pasted on the emergency certificate. He further stated that documents, stated by him, were seized by CBI from the personal search of accused Madhu Sudhan Bhargo and personal search memo dated 20.05.2015 was prepared in this regard. Accordingly, he handed over the custody of accused Madhu Sudhan Bhargo to CBI team present at IGI Airport on 20.05.2015.
42. PW-12 Sh. K. L. Moses, Deputy Superintendent, CBI is the investigating officer who conducted the investigation after the apprehension of accused Madu Sudan Bhargo at IGI Airport, New Delhi. He testified that he had conducted further investigation in the present case as per order of Hon'ble Court. During the course of the investigation, he collected documents and examined witnesses and filed before this court alongwith supplementary chargesheet. He further stated that during the course of further investigation, he had arrested accused Madu Sudhan Bhargo from IGI Airport on the receipt of the information through interpol that he was travelling to India from New Zealand and conducted his personal search and recovered travel documents from his possession and proved the arrest memo and personal search memo apart from the documents which were recovered from his possessions such as emergency CC No.:14/15, RC:S18-2008-E-0006 CBI v. Madu Sudan Bhargo Page 26 of 36 -27- certificate, e-ticket, boarding passes, photocopy of passports, medical certificate etc. He stated that regarding accused Madu Sudan Bhargo, a Lookout Circular (LOC) was issued against him. Accordingly, when accused arrived at IGI Airport, India, he was detained by the Immigration Officer and detection of LOC subject was prepared which bears his signature in token of taking physical custody of accused Madu Sudan Bhargo. He also stated that during further investigation, CBI had sent request to 2nd Secretary, High Commission of India to hand over passport of accused Madu Sudan Bhargo alongwith relevant documents. In response to said letter, Sh. Sandeep Sood, the then 2nd Secretary had forwarded two passports of accused Madu Sudan Bhargo vide his letter dated 8.6.2015 and proved the letter and passport (D-37), already exhibited as Ex.PW-1/A and passport bearing No.G3931359 (D-
38), which were forwarded by Sh. Sandeep Sood to CBI as Ex.PW-12/E. He stated that passport Ex.PW-1/ was issued from Jalandhar on 05.05.2005 and there is no immigration stamp of Suva, Fiji which shows that accused Madu Sudan Bhargo had never visited Suva, Fiji. He stated that he had also seized laptop, mobile phone and sim cards which he had sent to CFSL for examination. He stated that they had also sent Letter of Rogatory (LR) to the New Zealand authority in pursuance to direction of Hon'ble Court. He also stated that he had also seized diplomatic passports of accused Manjit Singh's family members vide production-cum-seizure memo and the said diplomatic passports CC No.:14/15, RC:S18-2008-E-0006 CBI v. Madu Sudan Bhargo Page 27 of 36 -28- bear visitor VISA of New Zealand. The passport of accused Madu Sudan Bhargo, passport of Manjit Singh (now convicted) and his family members bears consecutive serial number of visitor's VISA No.6672701 to 6672705 issued on the same date which show that they had applied for VISA together. He stated that thereafter after satisfaction that there is sufficient evidence, he filed supplementary charge against accused Madu Sudan Bhargo.
43. In his cross-examination, PW-12 denied the suggestion that the Hon'ble Court was satisfied while passing the judgment that there was no evidence against accused Madu Sudan Bhargo, that is why, further investigation was directed to be conducted in this matter. He stated that even after getting the investigation of this case, he has not recorded statement of parents of accused Madu Sudan Bhargo and voluntarily stated that they had already been examined by earlier IO in the main case and he has also not taken documents Ex.PW-13/D1 to Ex.PW-13/D3 showing that the money they had withdrawn from the bank was spent in purchasing land. He also denied the suggestion that he intentionally had not collected these documents because they were damaging case of the prosecution.
44. PW-6 Sh. Guru Parsad proved record regarding stay of accused Madu Sudan Bhargo in Delhi.
45. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel on behalf of accused that document Ex.PW-6/A proved by PW-6 Sh. Guru Parsad is not reliable document as the entry in the said register in the name of accused CC No.:14/15, RC:S18-2008-E-0006 CBI v. Madu Sudan Bhargo Page 28 of 36 -29- Madu Sudan Bhargo is not made in usual course and appears to have been inserted subsequently. Further there is no photograph of accused pasted on the same, although the register finds pasted photographs of other persons who had stayed there. Apart from this document, there is no other document which suggest that accused Madu Sudan Bhargo had visited in the month of November and stayed there. Further, Ld. Counsel on behalf of accused submitted that there is no evidence on record to establish that there is prior meeting of mind or agreement between the accused Madu Sudan Bhargo and accused Manjit Singh (now convict) that he will accompany Manjit Singh as his domestic help upto New Zealand as he intended to go to New Zealand and accused Madu Sudan Bhargo had no knowledge that by doing so Manjit Singh would be abusing his official position as public servant as he was under
impression that he was being taken as domestic help to look after his son who was not mentally stable.
46. I agree with the contention of Ld. Counsel for accused that entry in the register Ex.PW-6/A appears to have been interpolated and has not kept in regular course of business. The witness moreover has not stated that the accused who was facing trial is the same person who has stayed in his premises. Therefore, the testimony, of this witness, that is, PW-6 does not lead us anywhere.
47. The most important witness of the prosecution case is Sh. Varinder Singh. He deposed regarding payment of Rs.3 lacs in his presence CC No.:14/15, RC:S18-2008-E-0006 CBI v. Madu Sudan Bhargo Page 29 of 36 -30- by accused Madu Sudan Bhargo to accused Manjit Singh (now convict). Although this witness is shaky about the places where they had stayed during the period. However, there is nothing in the cross-examination regarding period in the month of November when the alleged payment was made.
48. The only witness which the prosecution appears to have been relying upon to prove offence u/s 120-B IPC is Sh. Varinder Singh. He testified that during his visit to father of accused, the accused used to insist him regarding his intention to go abroad for job and therefore intention of accused Madu Sudan Bhargo was only to go to abroad and not to enter into any criminal conspiracy with Manjit Singh for the said purpose. Accused had no knowledge that he was abusing his position as public servant and thereby using the same for taking him to abroad alongwith him. The intention at the most one can prove that accused Madu Sudan Bhargo had paid money to accused Manjit Singh (now convict) for going abroad but that would not constitute criminal conspiracy to make Manjit Singh to abuse his position to help him to go abroad. Therefore there is no evidence on record which show that there was any criminal conspiracy between accused Madu Sudan Bhargo and accused Manjit Singh (now convict).
49. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that prosecution has failed to prove offences punishable u/s 120B read with Section 420 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of CC No.:14/15, RC:S18-2008-E-0006 CBI v. Madu Sudan Bhargo Page 30 of 36 -31- Corruption Act, 1988.
50. Now coming to the offence punishable u/s 420 IPC.
The prosecution has succeeded in proving that accused had intended to go to New Zealand and for that purpose he had paid on one occasion Rs.3 lacs to Manjit Singh (now convict) and had accompanied Manjit Singh from India to New Zealand from where he disappeared. Therefore the accused Madu Sudan Bhargo had cheated Indian Immigration Authorities and High Commission of New Zealand in believing that he is accompanying Manjit Singh as domestic help and obtained VISA and visited New Zealand and disappeared from there. It is also established on record that he could be brought to India only after revocation of his passport and reached India on Emergency Certificate. Thereby establishing that he had intention to stay illegal in New Zealand.
Thereby offence punishable u/s 420 IPC stands proved against accused Madu Sudan Bhargo.
51. Now coming to the defence of the accused Madu Sudan Bhargo.
He stated that he had asked Sh. Varinder Singh that since he is jobless and intends to go to New Zealand and Sh. Varinder Singh informed him that his uncle Manjit Singh offered him job as personal attendant to his son who is not mentally stable and thereafter he gone to New Zealand as employee of Manjit Singh. When they reached New Zealand, he was asked by Manjit Singh to stay at New Zealand to take care of his son so that when he reached CC No.:14/15, RC:S18-2008-E-0006 CBI v. Madu Sudan Bhargo Page 31 of 36 -32- Suva, he would make arrangement for the stay then he would call him and his son. He stayed at New Zealand alongwith his son for 22 days and looked after him but he was very violent and it was difficult to control him and then he talked to Manjit Singh, who told him that if he cannot lookafter his son then he did not come to Suva, Fiji. That is why he was abandoned at New Zealand to fend for himself. His son left New Zealand on 22nd December, 2006 whereas Manjit Singh had left on 1st December, 2006 for Suva, Fiji.
52. The defence of the accused does not stand in the face of documents on record. The emergency certificate mention that passport No.G3931359 issued on 10.03.2008, valid till 10.03.2009 issued from Wellington was revoked in 16.02.2009 by the High Commission of India, Wellington. Original passport of the accused on which VISA for New Zealand was pasted was valid upto 21.07.2008 whereas as per Emergency Certificate, he was issued new passport on 10.03.2008 from Wellington, which was revoked and then he came to India on the Emergency Certificate. Meaning thereby, that accused had full knowledge or consciously stayed at New Zealand not only on the passport which was earlier valid and got the same renewed in New Zealand itself and had not approached to Indian authority that he had been abandoned in New Zealand by Manjit Singh. Meaning thereby he had clearly intended to visit New Zealand and his visit was not as domestic help of convict Manjit Singh. Had accused Madu Sudan Bhargo been CC No.:14/15, RC:S18-2008-E-0006 CBI v. Madu Sudan Bhargo Page 32 of 36 -33- abandoned in this fashion, he would have approached Indian authority while applying for renewal of the passport and also would not have got issued Student VISA on the same passport.
53. Therefore, it is established on record that accused Madu Sudan Bhargo had not stayed at New Zealand on account of to take care of the son of convict Manjit Singh but accused wanted to visit New Zealand only.
54. Therefore, as per discussion above, I am of the opinion that prosecution has succeeded in proving offence punishable u/s 420 IPC against accused Madu Sudan Bhargo beyond any reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused is convicted for the offence punishable u/s 420 IPC.
55. Let the accused be heard on quantum of sentence. Announced in open court today i.e. on 09.09.2016 (GURDEEP SINGH) Special Judge (PC Act): CBI-05 New Delhi : 09.09.2016 CC No.:14/15, RC:S18-2008-E-0006 CBI v. Madu Sudan Bhargo Page 33 of 36 -34- IN THE COURT OF SH. GURDEEP SINGH, SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT), CBI-05, NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI.
C.C. No.:14/15 RC : S18-2008-E-0006 CBI VERSUS Madu Sudan Bhargo s/o Sh. Brahm Dutt Bhargo R/o : Village Mirzapur Khadiala P.O. Hussainpur Lalowal, PS Haryana Dist. Hoshiarpur (Punjab) ....Convict.
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 09.09.2016 Date of order on sentence : 09.09.2016 ORDER ON SENTENCE
1. The accused has been convicted for offences punishable u/s 420 IPC in the present case.
2. I have heard Sh. K. P. Singh, Ld. PP for CBI and Sh. S. C. Chawla, Ld. Counsel for convict Madu Sudan Bhargo. I have also gone through the record.
3. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for convict that the convict is not previous convict and he has clean antecedents. He is sole bread earner in the family. He has small child, aged about 02 years, wife and old aged parents to support. He had been in New Zealand CC No.:14/15, RC:S18-2008-E-0006 CBI v. Madu Sudan Bhargo Page 34 of 36 -35- where his wife and child are living alone and nobody is there to lookafter them. His wife is also not keeping well because of hyper tension and diabetes. It is further submitted that as per prosecution case itself, the convict is victim of circumstances whereby co- accused Manjit Singh, already convicted, had committed human trafficking by showing convict Madu Sudan Bhargo as his domestic help. Therefore lenient view is prayed for.
4. On the other hand, Ld. PP for CBI sought for maximum punishment.
5. S. 420 IPC provides punishment with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 7 years and shall also be liable to fine.
6. The accused in the present case has been convicted for offence punishable u/s 420 IPC wherein he had cheated the authorities in obtaining the VISA for New Zealand and staying in the New Zealand and getting the passport extended at the Embassy, New Zealand.
7. I am in agreement with Ld. Counsel for the convict that convict is victim of circumstances as he only wanted to go abroad for greener pastures for earning his livelihood. I am of the opinion that in different areas in our country particularly Kerala and Punjab, there are number of people wishing to go abroad for seeking job and earning livelihood and their quest to go abroad is more often then CC No.:14/15, RC:S18-2008-E-0006 CBI v. Madu Sudan Bhargo Page 35 of 36 -36- not used by unscrupulous persons in entrapping them. This appears to be one of the such cases, where convict is trafficked as an employee and therefore convict is entitled to lenient view.
8. Accordingly, in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be met in sentencing the convict to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for the period one month and 15 days which he has already undergone (20 May, 2015 to 3rd July, 2015) and fine of Rs.1 lacs and in default of payment of fine, convict shall further undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for a period of three (03) months for offence punishable u/s 420 IPC.
9. Benefit u/s 428 Cr.PC be given.
10. Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to convict free of cost.
11. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court today i.e. 09.09.2016 (GURDEEP SINGH) Special Judge (PC Act): CBI-05 New Delhi : 09.09.2016 CC No.:14/15, RC:S18-2008-E-0006 CBI v. Madu Sudan Bhargo Page 36 of 36