Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs . Sunny Methew on 7 April, 2014

    IN THE COURT OF Ms. CHETNA SINGH:MM-02(SOUTH DISTRICT)
                        SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI

STATE Vs. Sunny Methew
FIR No.590/98
U/s : 420 IPC r/w 24 of Emigration Act
P.S. : Malviya Nagar

Date of institution of case                         :       05.09.1998
Date on which case reserved for judgment            :       07.04.2014
Date of judgment                                    :       07.04.2014


                                  JUDGMENT

1.FIR No. of the case             :    590/98

2.Date of the Commission          :    September 1997 to July 1998
of the offence
3.Name of the accused             :    Sunny Methew S/o Sh. T.R. Methew
                                  :    R/o H. No. 7D/1, Main Road, Saket,
                                  :    New Delhi.

4.Name of the complainant         :    Sh. Jai Prasad S/o Sh. Vasudevan
                                  :    R/o Pattan Paranpali, Karivatta
                                  :    Allepey, Kerala.

5.Offence complained of           :    420 IPC r/w 24 of Emigration Act

6.Plea of accused                 :    Pleaded not guilty

7.Final order                     :    Acquitted


State Vs Sunny Methew                                         FIR No. 590/98   1/13
                                  BRIEF FACTS

1. The story of the prosecution is that in between September 1997 to July 1998 at unknown time at 70/1, Main Road, Saket, opposite Modi Hospital, New Delhi, accused Sunny Methew cheated complainant Jai Prasad and other PWs whose name are listed on complaint by dishonestly inducing them to deliver Rs. 55000/- each i.e. from 12 persons belonging to them which is a valuable security and thereby accused also violated the provision of Section 10 of Emigration Act 1983 which is punishable u/s 24 of this Act and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 420 IPC r/w section 24 of Emigration Act.

2. On the basis of the said allegations and on the basis of the complaint of the complainant, an FIR bearing number 590/98 under section 420 IPC r/w section 24 of Emigration Act was lodged at Police Station Malviya Nagar.

3. After investigation, charge-sheet under section 173 Cr.P.C was filed on 05.09.1998.

4. On the basis of the charge-sheet, a charge for the offence punishable under section 420 IPC r/w section 24 of Emigration Act was framed against accused Sunny Methew and read out to the said accused person, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial on 18.02.2002.

APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE

5. To prove its case, prosecution examined the following witnesses:

6. PW-1 Ct. Anar Singh being police witness was examined on 03.01.2003 and deposed that on 09.07.98 being posted as Ct. at PP Pushp Vihar, PS Malviya Nagar, he along with SI Om Parkash was on patrolling duty in the area of PP Pushp Vihar and they reached at Press Enclave Road near Salim Kabab Corner and accused Sunny Methew was standing few steps ahead of Salim Kabab Corner against whom the case had been registered. He further deposed that SI Om Parkash talked to the accused and he was brought to PP Pushp Vihar and accused was arrested and his personal search memo was conducted vide memos Ex. PW-1/B and A respectively. The disclosure statement of the accused was recorded vide Ex. PW-1/C in which he disclosed that he was cheating the people on the pretext of sending them to Saudi Arabia. He further deposed that the PC of the accused was sought from the court and on the next date i.e. 10.07.98 accused took him and IO of the case to his house from where he got recovered certain documents relating to the case. He further deposed that he had seen the seizure memo vide Ex. PW-1/D and he had also seen the seizure memo of the passport vide Ex. PW-1/E.

7. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for the accused wherein he stated that he does not remember where he signed Ex. PW-1/D on 09.07.98. He further deposed that similarly Ex. PW-1/E was signed by him on 10.07.98 but he does not remember whether he signed the same at PP or anywhere else. He denied the suggestion that all the documents were got signed from him by the IO and he obliged IO without reading them and signed.

8. PW-2 SI Sheela Devi being DO was examined on 31.03.2003 and proved FIR vide Ex. PW-2/A (OSR).

9. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for the accused despite opportunity given.

10. PW-3 Jai Parsad being the complainant was examined on 31.03.2003 and deposed that he was a resident of Kerala and he wanted to go to Saudi Arabia for employment purposes. He further deposed that in September, 1997 Mr. Sunny Methew visited Kerala and he assured him to send to Saudi Arabia for consideration of Rs. 55000/- and he paid the amount to Sunny Methew by way of Rs. 10,000/-, one DD of Rs. 25,000/- and another DD of Rs. 23,000/- on various dates. He further deposed that he had passport but accused had to arrange the Visa and journey. The money was paid to the accused in 1998 and accused had also charged the same amount from other 16 persons, one girl Zeenat had also paid the money. Then on 09.07.98 he along with other aggrieved persons gave a complaint to the police which is Ex. PW-3/A. The photocopy of demand draft dated 16.01.98 and 26.03.98 are mark A and B respectively.

11. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for the accused wherein he stated that police recorded his statement once in the year 1998 but he does not remember date. He further stated that he had signed the complaint when it was read over to him and he did not make any statement to the police except one supplementary statement but he does not remember the date when he made this statement to the police which is Ex. D-1. He further deposed that he never gave the original draft to the police as he had given the same to the accused. He further deposed that he did not give any written request to the bank to issue him a draft. He had brought the amount of the draft from his house but he does not have any proof of source of collection of the amount. No other person at any stage gave money to accused Sunny in his presence. He further deposed that he went to the State Vs Sunny Methew FIR No. 590/98 4/13 police station on the same year ¾ times as was called by the police and accused Sunny was also called to the police for those four times along with the persons who had signed the complaint. He further deposed that he did not give either his passport or Visa application to the police to show that he applied for a Visa. However, one copy of Visa was given by him to the police. The visa copy contained a visa for going to Saudi Arabia for two years and was valid for 2 years. He had not gone to the Embassy along with the Air ticket. He further deposed that he had taken the passport from the court. He denied the suggestion that he had deposed falsely and that at no stage he gave any money to the accused as stated by him. He further denied the suggestion that he declined to go to Saudi Arabia even after receipt of the valid Visa as he could not arrange for passage to Saudi Arabia or that is why he did not produce any Air ticket either to the police or to the embassy.

12. PW-4 Santosh being public witness was examined on 31.03.2003 and deposed that he had come to Delhi in 1998 and came to know that one Mr. Sunny Methew can send him to Saudi Arabia and he met Sunny in Delhi and Sunny assured him to send Saudi Arabia and Sunny charged Rs. 55,000/- from him. He further deposed that he paid the money through DD of Rs. 10,000/-, Rs. 20,000/-, Rs. 20,000/- and cash of Rs. 5000/- on different dates but accused never sent him anywhere nor arranged the Visa. He further deposed that he had given his passport to the accused and then he made a complaint to the police along with cheated persons. The complaint is Ex. PW-3/A. The photocopy of demand draft of Rs. Rs. 10,000/-, Rs. 20,000/-, Rs. 20,000/- are marked C, D and E respectively.

13. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for the accused wherein he stated that he had not known that accused Sunney Methew was having a licence from Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India for manpower export. He further stated that he had not given any written request to the bank or pay in slip for getting the draft issued. He had not given the original to the police. He further deposed that he did not give either the original passport or the visa to the police. Neither the police collected it from him. It was either 4/5 month of the 1998 when he gave his statement to the police. He further deposed that he gave his statement only once but he was called 2/3 times to the PS. He further deposed that he does not know the name of the person but perhaps he was from police department to whom he made statement and then he dictated it to the IO. He further deposed that the statement which he gave to the interpreter was by him. He admitted that the statement recorded by the IO does not bear his signature. He further stated that when he signed the document Ex. PW-3/A, he did not go through the contents of the said himself as he could not read English. He voluntarily stated that the list of document was explained to him before he signed it. He further deposed that he does not have any proof of giving the money to the accused. He further deposed that he does not know if any police personnel also signed the statement made by them. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely or that no money as stated by him was ever paid to the accused for getting a job outside the country.

14. PW-5 Sh. Ramanand being public witness was examined on 31.03.2003 and deposed that In the year 1998 he came to know that one Mr. Sunny Methew of Delhi used to send persons to Saudi Arabia by receiving money and then he came to Delhi and met Sunny and Sunny assured him to arrange his journey to Saudi Arabia for employment and State Vs Sunny Methew FIR No. 590/98 6/13 Sunny charged Rs. 55,000/- from him. He further deposed that he paid the money through DD of Rs. 40,000/- and cash of Rs. 15000/- but accused neither sent him anywhere nor arranged the Visa on his passport which was given by him to the accused and then he made a complaint to the police. The complaint is Ex. PW-3/A. The photocopy of demand draft is mark F.

15. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for the accused wherein he stated that he did not receive any money of the draft from any bank. He admitted that the draft was in his name and he did not give anything in writing by way of pay in slip or a requisition to the bank to issue him a draft. He further stated that he does not know if at any stage he gave the passport containing valid visa to the police. He further deposed that he does not have the passport or the visa with him and he does not have any proof with regard to the arranging of money or with regard to paying the same to the accused. He further deposed that police recorded his statement once and police collected the statement only once at PS. He further deposed that he does not remember the date or month of the statement given by him however, it was in the 1998. He denied the suggestion that at no stage the accused promised him to get a job out of the country. He further denied the suggestion that at any stage, he never gave any money to the accused for arranging a job or that he never gave any air ticket either the embassy or the police. He further denied the suggestion that he did not make any statement to the police.

16. PW-6 Sh. Murudesh being public witness was examined on 31.03.2003 and deposed that In the year 1998 he came to know through his friends that one Mr. Sunny Methew of Delhi used to send persons to Saudi Arabia and then he came to Delhi and met Mr. Sunny and Sunny assured him to arrange his journey to Saudi Arabia and Sunny charged Rs. 55,000/-

from him. He further deposed that he paid the money through DD of Rs. 40,000/- and cash of Rs. 15000/-. The photocopy of DD is mark G and accused received the amount of draft from him by getting the DD encashed through him as he was asked to bring the DD in his name. Then he made a complaint to the police. The complaint is Ex. PW-3/A.

17. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for the accused wherein he stated that he never gave the draft of Rs. 40,000/- to the police and he never gave either his passport or any application for sending to the embassy to the police. He further deposed that police never recorded any statement. Again said, he does not remember. He further deposed that he knew the accused since he belongs to his village. Police never called him after 1998. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely or that the statement made by him in his examination in chief is altogether incorrect and he had been tutored the same. He further denied the suggestion that the accused never promised any such thing as he had stated in his examination in chief.

18. PW-7 Dr. Preety Sanghi was examined on 23.10.08 and deposed that she was running a clinic by the name and style of Sangi Medical Center and she was authorized to do medical checkup for people going to Saudi Arabia by the Embassy and the Ministry of Health of Saudi Arabia. She further deposed that on 14.04.98, Abdul Hakim Mohammad Kunju and Abdul Mazid Sayed Mohammad Kunju came to his clinic for medical checkup and she conducted the same. The medical report of Abdul Hakim Mohammad Kunju is Ex. PW-7/A which bears his signature at point A and the medical report of Abdul Mazid Sayed Mohammad Kunju is Ex. PW-7/B which bears his signature at point A. They gave medical fitness to both of them.

19. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for the accused wherein she stated that she does not remember whether police had recorded her statement in this regard. She admitted that the authorization letter of Saudi Arabia is not on file. However, she can bring the same if asked to produce the same. She further deposed that she does not remember the exact time when both the above mentioned persons approached them for medical checkup. She denied the suggestion that the report is incomplete since it does not bear the signature of Dr. M.L. Sanghi. She voluntarily stated that they both are authorized to sing the same. She admitted that the medical report bears the signature of Dr. Preeti Sanghi only although name of Dr. M.L. Sanghi is also mentioned. She further deposed that she examined both the persons personally with the assistance of other staff.

20. PW-8 Dr. M.L. Sanghi was examined on 05.07.2010 and deposed that he was authorized to do medical examination for candidates going to Saudi Arabia for employment. He further deposed that he had done medical examination of Mr. Abdul Hakim Mohammad Kunju on 14.04.98 and report to that effect was already exhibited as Ex. PW-7/A which bears the signature of his wife Dr. Preety Sanghi at point A. He further deposed that on 14.04.98 he also medically examined Abdul Majid Saeed Mohammad Kunju vide Ex. PW-7/B which bears the signature of his wife Dr. Preeti Sanghi at point A. He further deposed that on 23.06.98 Seena Subeda was also examined at their center by Dr. K.K. Bajpayee vide report Ex. PW-8/A which bears his signature at point A. He further deposed that he can identify the signature of Dr. K.K. Bajpayee as he had seen Dr. K.K. Signing and writing during course of duties at their center of which his wife and himself are directors.

21. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for the accused despite opportunity given.

22. PW-9 Dr. K.K. Bajpayee was examined on 21.01.2011 and deposed that on 23.06.98 he had examined and given report in respect of one Seena which is on record already Ex. PW-2/A bearing his signature at point A.

23. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for the accused despite opportunity given.

24. PW-10 Rajendran was examined on 21.01.2011 and deposed that he does not know anything about this case or he had to say anything.

25. On resiling from his earlier statement, this witness was cross examined by Ld. APP for State wherein he stated that he had not given any statement to the police. He denied the suggestion that the accused T.M. Methew had taken Rs. 55,000/- and passport regarding arranging Visa and journey to Saudi Arabia. He further denied the suggestion that thereafter accused never given any Visa whatsoever, nor returned the money. He further denied the suggestion that the accused had cheated him on account of assurance of sending him to the Saudi Arabia. He further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely being won over by the accused.

26. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for the accused despite opportunity given.

27. PW-11 Ct. Naresh Kumar was examined on 28.01.2012 and deposed that on 11.07.98 he was posted at PP Pushp Vihar and he had joined the investigation with SI Om Prakash and on that day during investigation they reached the office at TD/1, Main Road, Hauz Rani near Kabab corner along with accused Sunny Mathew and from where the State Vs Sunny Methew FIR No. 590/98 10/13 accused got recovered the 15 passports from the drawer of his office and certain documents. The said documents were taken into possession and seized the same vide Ex. PW-11/A and the list of the said Visa passports and medical papers is Ex. PW-11/B. Thereafter, they went to Vijay Bank, Hauz Khas where they took the statement of account of T.M. Associates, the account number he does not remember, but they got the statement of account and the said account was seized. Thereafter, they went to Indian Overseas Bank where the three accounts were maintained in the name of accused, in the name of T.M. Associates, the statements of those accounts were obtained and the said accounts were also seized. Thereafter, they went to T-71, Khirki Extension, where the lady J.M. Silver Raj had given the passport of one Seema and also Visa form of Saudi Arabia Embassy and those documents vide Ex. PW-11/C. The seizure memo of Vijaya Bank Account along with the statement of account is Ex. PW-11/D. The seizure memo of statement of account of Indian Overseas Bank along with the statement of account is Ex. PW-11/E. The medical papers are Ex. PW-11/F colly.

28. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for the accused wherein he stated that he went along with the Chowki Incharge Om Prakash and they reached the office of accused during lunch hours but he does not remember the exact time. He further deposed that he was not aware that the accused was doing the work of Manpower. He further deposed that all the documents were seized in front of him. After the completion of formal investigation, they returned back to PP Pushp Vihar in the evening, but he does not remember the exact time. He denied the suggestion that he had not joined the investigation and no documents were seized in front of him. He further denied the suggestion that he was giving State Vs Sunny Methew FIR No. 590/98 11/13 the statement at the instance of the IO to implicate the accused falsely or that he was deposing falsely.

29. Apart from these eleven witnesses, no other witness was examined by the prosecution despite opportunities given. Hence, PE was ordered to be closed on 10.03.2014. The statement of accused person under section 313 r/w section 281 Cr.P.C was recorded on 07.04.2014 wherein he stated that he does not want to lead any defence evidence.

30. Final arguments were advanced by Ld. Counsel for accused person and Ld. APP for state. Heard.

Reasons for Decision

31. In the present matter, prosecution has examined eleven witnesses in total. Five public witnesses including complainant namely Jai Prasad have been examined by the prosecution but they have not supported the version of the prosecution and their testimonies do not inspire confidence. Summons upon remaining witnesses at serial no. 6, 8, 9, 12, 15, 16 and 18 being eye/material witness received back unexecuted through the office of the DCP with the report that they are not traceable. Hence, no purpose would have been served in examining remaining witnesses. Thus, there is nothing on record to bring on the guilt of the accused u/s 420 IPC r/w section 24 of Emigration Act.

32. Hence, no grounds are found to hold the accused guilty of the offences as charged. The accused namely Sunney Mathew is hereby acquitted of the offences u/s 420 IPC r/w section 24 of Emigration Act.

Previous bail bond in compliance of section 437-A Cr.P.C. to remain in force for a period of 6 month from today. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in the Court
on 07.04.2014                                   (CHETNA SINGH)
                                             MM-02(SD)/07.04 2014

Certified that this judgment contains 13 pages and each page bears my signatures.

(CHETNA SINGH) MM-02(SD)/07.04.2014 State Vs Sunny Methew FIR No. 590/98 13/13