Delhi District Court
D/O Sh. Ollayar vs The State on 19 September, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. GULSHAN KUMAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE 03
SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS
NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF
Digitally
CNR NO. DLSE010013642014 signed by
GULSHAN
CR NO. 204313 of 2016
GULSHAN KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
Dilfuza Palvanova 2019.09.26
D/o Sh. Ollayar, 13:11:47
Uzbekistan National, +0530
Presently residing at-
R/o B17, 2nd Floor,
Dayanand Colony,
Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi. .......... Revisionist
Versus
The State .......... Respondent
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 03.12.2014 DATE OF RESERVING ORDER : 19.09.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.09.2019
1. Vide this order I shall dispose of criminal revision petition filed by the revisionist under Section 397 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 23.08.2014 passed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate (hereinafter referred to as impugned order).
2. Brief facts of this case are that on 02.02.2011 at about CR No. 204313/16 Dilfuza Palvanova Vs. The State Page 1 of 6 3:40PM, a secret informer came to the office of SIT, Crime Branch and informed SI Sharat Kohli that some foreign national girls were indulging in prostitution at CBlock, Lajpat Nagar, Part-I, New Delhi. The informer stated that if raid was conducted, they might expose a big sex racket in Lajpat Nagar area. Thereafter, the secret informer was produced before Dr. Joy Tirkey, Additional DCP/SIT and he after inquiring about the facts of information, directed to form a raiding party. On 02.02.2011, at about 6:30PM raiding party along with secret informer reached at the aforesaid address. On verification from the neighbours, the address of the house was found as C67, 2nd Floor, Lajpat Nagar, Part-I, Delhi. On the directions of Dr. Joy Tirkey, SI Sharat Kohli called Rajesh Singh, who is owner of the said house and told him to came at the spot. Rajesh Singh reached at the spot at 8:15PM and agreed to join raiding party. Thereafter, Rs.5,000/ in the denomination of Rs.1000 was given to HC Amit Tomar and he was directed to use the said currency notes to strike a sex deal with foreign national women. After finalizing of deal, SI Sharat Kohli informed the raiding party about the same. Thereafter, on the directions of Dr. Joy Tirkey whole raiding party along with owner of the flat reached at C67, 2nd Floor, Lajpat Nagar, PartI, New Delhi from where five foreign national girls were apprehended. The names of those five foreign national girls were revealed as Markobo, Sanobar, Dilfuza CR No. 204313/16 Dilfuza Palvanova Vs. The State Page 2 of 6 Palvanova, Arvaza Zulikha and Shusevgenia. After investigating the matter, it was found that the abovementioned five girls are indulged the prostitution and some were found staying in India without a valid visa and passport. Thereafter, all these girls were arrested under Section 3/4/5/7/8 IPT Act and 14 Foreigners Act and FIR was registered.
3. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed under Section 3/4/5/8 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and 14 Foreigners Act in the Court. Thereafter, Ld. Trial Court after hearing the arguments on the point of charge, framed charge against the revisionist under Section 3/7 of ITP Act on 23.08.2014 and hence, the present revision petition was filed.
4. In present appeal has been filed by the revisionist in the year 2014 and since 30.10.2015, revisionist has not appeared in the present criminal revision petition. Vide order dated 02.05.2017, NBWs were issued against the revisionist, however, NBWs were remained unexecuted. Thereafter, proceedings under Section 82/ 83 Cr.P.C. were initiated against the revisionist and vide order dated 08.02.2019, the revisionist was declared Proclaimed Offender. Thereafter, arguments on behalf of State/respondent were heard.
CR No. 204313/16 Dilfuza Palvanova Vs. The State Page 3 of 65. Ld. Additional PP for State/respondent submits that the order of Ld. MM does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality.
6. I have heard the submissions on behalf of Ld. Additional PP for State and perused the Trial Court Record.
7. Section 227 and 228 of the Criminal Procedure Code have a bearing on the contentions raised by the parties. While Section 227 requires the Court to discharge an accused if upon consideration of the case and documents submitted therewith and after hearing submissions of the accused and the prosecution in that behalf, the Judge considers that there was no sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused, Section 228 states that if after such consideration and hearing as mentioned under Section 227, the Judge is of the opinion that there were grounds for assuming that the accused had committed an offence, he may frame charges against the accused. Reading of two provisions together makes it clear that at the beginning and at the initial stage of trial, the Court is not required to meticulously judge the truth, veracity and effect of evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce nor any weight is attached to the probable defence of the accused. It is not obligatory for the Judge at that stage of trial to CR No. 204313/16 Dilfuza Palvanova Vs. The State Page 4 of 6 consider in detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The Court at that stage is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction or whether the trial is sure to end in the conviction of the accused and the only thing to be seen is whether there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there are grounds for presuming that the accused had committed an offence. However, the Judge while considering the question of framing of charges has undoubtedly the power to sift and weigh the evidence for limited purpose of finding out whether or not a primafacie case against the accused had been made out. The Court cannot act as a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. The primafacie would depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. However, if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him gives rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused.
8. A bare perusal of chargesheet reveals that accused/ CR No. 204313/16 Dilfuza Palvanova Vs. The State Page 5 of 6 revisionist had committed an offence under Section 3/7 ITP Act and Ld. MM has rightly framed charges under Section 3/7 ITP Act against the accused/revisionist.
9. Keeping in view the above discussion, I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in order dated 23.08.2014 passed by Ld. MM. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition stands dismissed.
Criminal Revision Petition Record be consigned to record room.
Trial Court Record, if any, be sent back to court concerned along with copy of order.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (GULSHAN KUMAR)
ON 19.09.2019 ASJ03, S.E., SAKET COURTS
NEW DELHI
CR No. 204313/16 Dilfuza Palvanova Vs. The State Page 6 of 6