Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Title: State (Cbi) vs . Manjit Singh And Another on 12 December, 2013

IN THE COURT OF MS. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, SPECIAL 
    JUDGE, CBI­05, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI


CC No: 03/12

RC No: S18/2008/E0006/CBI/EOU­IV/NEW DELHI

Unique Case ID No: 02403R0426012009

Title: State (CBI) Vs. Manjit Singh and Another

U/s: 120­B IPC r/w Section 420 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 

Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988


                Date of Institution              :  18.12.2009
                Date of reserving order          :  29.11.2013
                Date of pronouncement            :  30.11.2013

(Appearances)


Sh. Akshay Gautam, Ld. Senior PP for CBI. 
Sh. S.K. Sahijpal, Ld. Counsel for accused Manjit Singh. 

JUDGMENT

1. Brief facts of the case are that Sh. Manjit Singh (Accused No. 1) while functioning as Section officer, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi had entered into a criminal conspiracy during the year 2006 with accused No. 2 Madu Sudan Bhargo (private person) the object of which was to facilitate accused No. 2 Madu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) to CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 1 of 98 reach Wellington (New Zealand) illegally in the disguise of his domestic assistant for a monetary consideration of Rs. 7 lakh.

2. It is further alleged that in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy, accused Manjit Singh in March­April, 2006 had met one Varinder Singh whom he knew along with accused Madu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) in Delhi outside his office at Akbar Bhawan, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi. Accused Manjit Singh had told him that he was expecting his posting in Suva (Fiji) and had agreed to help accused Madu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) in going to New Zealand for which he had demanded Rs. 6 Lakh plus Rs. 1 Lakh for air­ tickets. Thereafter, in the first week of November, 2006 Varinder Singh had accompanied accused Madu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) to Delhi and had met accused Manjit Singh when accused Manjit Singh while abusing his official position had obtained from accused Madu Sudan Bhargo the first installment of Rs. 3 Lakh in cash at a guest house at Vashistha Park, New Delhi. The remaining Rs. 4 lakh (including Rs. 1 lakh for tickets) were obtained by him in the second week of November, 2006 after visa was arranged for CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 2 of 98 accused Madu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder).

3. It is further alleged that in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy, accused Manjit Singh vide his letter dated 11.07.2006 and 21.08.2006 had sought permission of his Ministry deceitfully to take a domestic assistant to Suva, Fiji, stating that his elder son was undergoing treatment pertaining to human behavioral problem. The Ministry, based on his repeated requests and dishonest inducement had granted permission vide order dated 03.11.2006 to take along with him accused Madu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) as domestic assistant on an ordinary passport subject to certain conditions which included that ''the officer will have to arrange for the requisite visa / transit visa and work permit, if required under local laws, himself in respect of the domestic assistant''. Thereafter accused Manjit Singh after issuance of his transfer order for Suva (Fiji) vide letter dated 11.07.2006, had applied for 15 days ex­India leave to be spent in Wellington (7 days) and Sydney (8 days) for making admission formalities of his two sons. He was to leave India on 13.08.2006 and reach Suva on 31.08.2006 after availing Ex­India leave. However, he had rescheduled his travel CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 3 of 98 programme to September, 2006, then October, 2006 and finally to November, 2006.

4. It is further alleged that in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy, accused Manjit Singh had purchased air­tickets of accused Madu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) for Delhi­Singapore­Sydney­Wellington­Sydney­Singapore­Delhi in November, 2006 through M/s Aadi Satya Travel Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi and had paid Rs.73,102/­ in cash. He had also purchased air­tickets for himself and his son Amarinder Singh for the sector Sydney­Wellington­Sydney through M/s Aadi Satya Travel Pvt. Ltd and had paid a sum of Rs. 55,598/­ in cash. Accused Manjit Singh had also requested for booking of his air tickets for the sector Delhi­Singapore­ Wellington­Sydney­Suva whereas the approved journey Sector was New Delhi­Singapore­Sydney­Suva. Accused Manjit Singh had also got exchanged US$ 8000 from M/s Katyal Forex Pvt. Ltd in his own name as well as in the name of his wife, Gurvinder Kaur, and his two sons, Amarinder Singh and Harminder Singh, vide cash memo Nos. 5578, 5577, 5576 and 5579 on 10.11.2006 and had paid Rs. 3,68,000/­ in cash towards this.

CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 4 of 98

5. Further, investigation had revealed that accused Manjit Singh was relieved from MEA, New Delhi on 10.11.2006. Thereafter, he along with his elder son, Amarinder Singh, and domestic assistant, accused Madu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) had left New Delhi on 13.11.2006 by Air India Flight No. AI­480. Investigation had also revealed that Accused Manjit Singh along with his son and accused Madu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) had travelled to Singapore from New Delhi on 13.11.2006 after they were issued consecutive Boarding Passes for Air India Flight No. AI 480.

6. Investigation has further revealed that accused Madu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) had traveled on Qantas Airlines on 16.11.2001 from Singapore to Sydney and further from Sydney to Wellington on 17.11.2006. Thereafter, accused Madu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) was granted a visitor visa for New Zealand in November, 2006. He had made subsequent visa applications on shore and the New Zealand High Commission records indicated that he was still in New Zealand and was currently living there unlawfully as his last CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 5 of 98 permit had expired in March, 2008. Accused Manjit Singh had reached Suva and had joined High Commission of India on 01.12.2006. Upon reaching Suva, he had not informed the High Commission regarding his accompanying son, Amarinder, and servant, accused Madu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder). Investigation had further revealed that the High Commission at Suva had come to know in February, 2007 through some outside source that accused Madu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) had not reached Suva along with Sh. Manjit Singh. The High Commission vide a note dated 26.02.2007 had asked accused Manjit Singh about the present whereabouts of the domestic assistant brought from India who had been left behind in New Zealand and accused Manjit Singh vide note dated 06.03.2007 addressed to the Counsellor, had explained that his domestic assistant had slipped away with his passport and tickets during immigration check at Wellington (New Zealand), when he had come to know through local Fiji Indians in New Zealand that there would be problem to get long term visa in Fiji. Thereafter, Sh. A.K. Sarkar, the then Head of Chancery (HOC), had confirmed that accused Manjit Singh had not reported to him either orally or in writing about the CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 6 of 98 disappearance of his domestic assistant during the relevant time.

7. After completion of investigation, charge­sheet was filed. Accused Manjit Singh had appeared in the Court and copies of documents, as required by Section 207 Cr.P.C., were supplied to him to his satisfaction.

8. The charge against accused Manjit Singh under Section 120­B IPC r/w Section 420 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was framed to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

9. CBI has examined 19 witnesses in support of its case.

10. PW­1 Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta has stated that he was working as a Senior Manager with Ish Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd. during the year 2005­06. He proved the Seizure Memo Ex.PW1/A and stated that documents mentioned therein were seized in his presence. He stated that documents Ex. PW1/B to Ex. PW1/F bear his signatures at Point­A and on the basis of the same, Air Tickets were issued in the name of CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 7 of 98 accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) for sector Delhi­ Singapore­Sydney which is Ex. PW1/F and for sector Sydney­Wellington­Sydney­Singapore. He stated that an amount of Rs.71,057/­ was charged for the tickets issued in the name of accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) by Aadi Satya Travels. He stated that details of the tickets of accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) are mentioned in Ex. PW1/C.

11. PW­2 Sh. Surender Katyal stated that he was running Aadi Satya Travels Pvt. Ltd. since the year 1991 and M/s Katyal Forex Pvt. Ltd. in the year 2005­06. He stated that he knew accused Manjit Singh who was an employee of Ministry of External Affairs. He stated that he had arranged ticket for accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) for the sector New Delhi­Singapore­Sydney­Wellington and for section Sydney­Singapore­New Delhi. He stated that he had also arranged 8000 US Dollars on the asking of accused Manjit Singh and proved the copy of ticket Ex. PW2/A. Original of the same was shown to the witness which is Ex. PW1/D and PW1/E. He stated that the bill for the tickets issued in the name of accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 8 of 98 (Absconder) was for an amount of Rs.73,102/­ including the service tax which is Ex. PW2/B. He stated that the bill also included commission of his firm. The tickets were purchased by him for an amount of Rs.71,057/­. The bill was proved as Ex. PW2/C. He also stated that he had also arranged tickets for Sh. Amrinder Singh, son of accused Manjit Singh, and for accused Manjit Singh as well. The tickets of Sh. Amrinder Singh and accused Manjit Singh were proved as Ex. PW2/D and PW2/E respectively. The bill amounting to Rs.55,598/­ for the tickets was proved as Ex. PW2/F. He stated that the documents were seized from him vide Ex. PW2/G by Inspector Anand Sarup, CBI.

12. PW­3 Sh. R.K. Tyagi stated that he was working as Joint Secretary and Chief Vigilance Officer, Ministry of External Affairs during the year 2009­11. He stated that the Sanctioning Authority for granting sanction for prosecution of Section Officer in the Ministry of External Affairs is the President of India. He stated that in this case, sanction for prosecution of accused Manjit Singh was given for and on behalf of the President of India which was conveyed by him vide Sanction Order Ex. PW3/A. He identified his signatures CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 9 of 98 at Point­A on all the pages. He stated that the file was put up before the Minister concerned along with the documents and report of CBI which were perused by the Minister concerned for approving the sanction for prosecution. He stated that the Minister concerned after due application of mind had given approval of sanction for prosecution of accused Manjit Singh for and on behalf of the President of India. He stated that on the basis of approval of the Minister concerned, the Sanction Order was prepared and conveyed under his signatures.

On being cross­examined by learned Counsel for accused, he stated that he had perused the documents and forwarded them, since Joint Secretary is the competent Authority to grant sanction in the cases of officials below the rank of Assistant i.e. Non­Presidential appointees. He stated that for the officials of the rank of Assistant upto Deputy Secretary, the Minister of State for External Affairs is competent to grant sanction. Therefore, in the present case, the Minister of State was competent to grant sanction for prosecution. He further stated that when the sanction was granted, the accused was under suspension. The accused had never reported to him during the course of his CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 10 of 98 employment. He stated that the Sanction Order was drafted by Mr. Shivaji Sen, Section Officer, Vigilance.

13. PW­4 Sh. Shivaji Sen, Section Officer, Ministry of External Affairs stated that during July 2008, he was posted as Section Officer in Ministry of External Affairs. Sh. Debnath Shaw was the Joint Secretary at that time. He stated that the letter Ex. PW4/A i.e. D­20 contains the personal details of accused Manjit Singh which had been sent to Sh. M.C. Joshi, Superintendent of Police. The details of the documents mentioned in the annexure Ex. PW4/B to the said letter Ex. PW4/A bear the signatures of Sh. Debnath Shaw. He stated that the documents sent vide letter Ex. PW4/A are collectively Ex. PW4/C­1 to C­31 which have been attested by him. The documents Ex. PW4/C­1 is the Transfer Order of accused Manjit Singh as Attache in the High Commission of India, Suva. Vide Ex. PW4/C­23, accused Manjit Singh had submitted his itinerary for Delhi to Suva. Vide Ex. PW4/C­6, accused Manjit Singh had requested for permission to take domestic assistant along with him. Vide Ex. PW4/C­7, he was given permission to take accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) as his CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 11 of 98 domestic assistant.

On being cross­examined by learned counsel for the accused, he stated that he had no personal knowledge of this case. He had only handed over the documents as mentioned in his examination in chief.

14. PW­5 Sh. Vijay Khanduja, Under Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs stated that during September 2008, he was posted as Under Secretary, Vigilance. He stated that vide letter Ex. PW5/A (D­28), the documents running into 8 pages were sent to CBI which are collectively Ex. PW5/B­1 to B­8. He stated that the case was still at the stage of investigation when he was working as Under Secretary, Vigilance. There were allegations against accused Manjit Singh of inter alia having taken accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) as his domestic assistant who went missing at the transit point in Wellington, New Zealand. In the Ministry of External Affairs, it was decided to refer the matter to CBI for investigation.

On being cross­examined by learned counsel for accused Manjit Singh, he stated that his source of information was the administration file received in the CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 12 of 98 Communication, NGO Section and Vigilance Division (CNV Division), Vigilance Unit from the Administrative Division

15. PW­6 Sh. Trilok Singh stated that he knows Sh. Brahm Dutt who is also a resident of his village. He has three children, two sons and one daughter. The name of his sons are Vikas and Madhu Sudan and the name of his daughter is Ritu. All the children are settled abroad. Madhu Sudan is settled in New Zealand and Vikas in Australia whereas Ritu is settled in Canada. He stated that he had not seen Madhu Sudan for the last six years. He stated that Sh. Brahm Dutt is having agricultural land of about 7­8 acres and he is also doing the practice of Vaid. He is engaged in agricultural produce of Kinoos on his agricultural land.

16. PW­7 Sh. Paramjeet Singh also stated similar facts as stated by PW­6.

17. PW­8 Johny Anil Kumar, Assistant, Passport Office, Jalandhar, Punjab stated that he had been working in Passport Office, Jalandhar since 1993. During year 2008, Ms. Neeraj Mittal was Assistant Passport Officer and he was CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 13 of 98 working as UDC at that time. As per the order of Ministry dealing with passports, the file of passport is destroyed after one year of issuance of passport. He had seen documents in respect of passport issued to accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) which were attested by Neeraj Mittal, Assistant Passport Officer, Jalandhar under her signatures. The said documents are Ex. PW8/A from Page No. 1 to 37. The file of the passport was weeded out after one year of issuance of the passport after the documents were scanned in the computer. The scanned copies of the documents of the passport issued to Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) were taken from the computer. The original of the same had been weeded out.

18. PW­9 Sh. Guru Prasad stated that during November 2006, he used to let out the room of premises No. WZ­52­D, Vashisth Park, Sagarpur, New Delhi. He produced the register maintained in this regard by him. He stated that from the said register, he had given the record to CBI. He stated that as per the record given by him to CBI, Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) had stayed in the said premises from 07.11.2006 to 12.11.2006 on rent. One person in the CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 14 of 98 name of Manjit Singh had come to enquire about Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) and had also enquired about his period of stay. He identified accused Manjit Singh correctly.

19. PW­9 Sh. Abhimanyu Kumar, Asstt. Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, CFSL, Chandigarh has also been examined as PW­9 inadvertently. He proved the handwriting report Ex. PW9/11. He also proved the reasons in detail in support of his opinion running into two pages vide Ex. PW9/12. He stated that the opinion, documents and reasons given by him were sent to the Superintendent of Police, CBI on 01.9.2009 vide letter Ex. PW9/13.

20. PW­10 Inspector S.K. Jha stated that on 24.06.2008, the investigation of the present case was entrusted to him by the Superintendent of Police, CBI for conducting the inquiry. He stated that he had conducted inquiry into the matter and had submitted the complaint Ex. PW10/A to the Superintendent of Police concerned. On the basis of the inquiry, he was satisfied that the case was made out against accused Manjit Singh, Section Officer, Ministry of External Affairs and Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder), a private CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 15 of 98 person resident of District Hosiyarpur, Punjab. He further stated that on the basis of the complaint, the present case was registered and searches were made at the residence of accused Manjit Singh. He was member of the search team and proved Ex. PW10/B which is search­cum­seizure memo. He stated that the documents were seized in his presence. He stated that after registration of the case, the documents collected by him during preliminary inquiry were handed over to Inspector Anand Sarup. The handing over and taking over memo dated 18.12.2008 was proved by the witness vide Ex. PW10/C. On being cross­examined by learned counsel for accused Manjit Singh, he stated that he had not received the complaint. The complaint was received in the branch on the basis of which a preliminary inquiry was registered and entrusted to him. He stated that he had examined parents of accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) i.e. Sh. Brahm Dutt and Smt. Usha Rani, Sh. Varinder Singh, officials of the Passport Office, Jalandhar as well as officers from Vigilance Cell, Ministry of External Affairs and had recorded their statements. He stated that he does not remember the height and complexion of the witnesses. He stated that he had CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 16 of 98 made complaint of cheating apart from the other sections. In his opinion, the Government of India had been cheated because the reputation of India was likely to be harmed as accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) had illegally stayed back in New Zealand which was facilitated by accused Manjit Singh. He stated that accused Manjit Singh has abused his official position being a public servant to facilitate Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) illegally entering New Zealand.

21. PW­11 Sh. A.K. Sarkar stated that in the year 2007, he was posted as First Secretary in High Commission of India, Suva, Fiji. He stated that he had e­replied to the e­mail of Sh. Anil K. Anand, Minister, HOC, HCI, Suva regarding disappearance of domestic assistant of accused Manjit Singh who was posted as Attache in the Mission. He proved the e­mail vide Ex. PW11/A and reply to the e­mail vide Ex. PW11/B. On being cross­examined by learned counsel for accused Manjit Singh, he stated that he does not remember the date of arrival of accused Manjit Singh at Fiji on his posting, however, it was possibly in the month of December CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 17 of 98 2007. Accused Manjit Singh might have given his joining report on his reaching at Fiji. He stated that, however, he had not reported that his domestic help was missing. He further stated that he had personally not received any intimation regarding accused Manjit Singh being posted at Fiji as it is dealt with by the Administrative Department. He further stated that the General Assistant would have received the intimation about posting of accused Manjit Singh at Fiji. He stated that the General Assistant in Chancery must have verified the documents of accused Manjit Singh regarding posting and joining.

22. PW­12 Sh. Bhaskar Bhatt, Under Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, Jawahar Lal Nehru Bhawan, New Delhi stated that he was posted as Administrative Officer in PB­I and PB­III Section in Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi from July 2007 to March 2009. He stated that PB­I Section deals with administrative matters including transfer / posting of Section Officers. The procedure with regard to the transfer or posting of a Section Officer is decided by Senior Establishment Board. The passport of the officer concerned is prepared by PB­II Section after clearance by PB­I. The CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 18 of 98 officer has to undergo various training programmes before proceeding to the foreign posting. Normally, the officer concerned has to follow an approved route prescribed by the Ministry to travel to his place of posting. However, this condition can be relaxed, if the officer concerned is ready to pay extra expenditure involved in following a different route than the approved route with prior approval of the concerned Authority.

After reaching the place of posting the officer concerned has to submit his TA/DA claim within a period of 6 months with all the relevant travel documents i.e. Air Tickets, Boarding Pass etc. In case of loss of tickets, he has to inform the Administration in the Mission about the same and seek relaxation.

Section Officers are not normally allowed to take India based servants with them to the foreign place of posting. However, with the permission of the Ministry, in view of the special circumstances of the case, the permission can be granted but the entire expenditure on his travel and his stay in the place of posting has to be incurred by the officer concerned. Also, the Passport and Visa for him has to be arranged by the officer concerned. In this CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 19 of 98 procedure, however, with the permission of the Ministry, official Passport can be provided to the India based servant concerned and also for obtaining Visa for the country posted. The officer concerned has to give an undertaking for the aforesaid i.e. taking care of the servant. After completion of period of posting, the officer concerned has to bring back the servant to India on his own expenses. The witness was shown the file containing correspondences pertaining to the posting of Sh. Manjit Singh, Section Officer to High Commission of India, Suva (Fiji) in the year 2006 and his recall in the year December, 2007. After going through the same the witness stated that Sh. Manjit Singh, Section Officer was transferred as Attache in the High Commission of India in Suva vide Order No. Q/PB­I/6612/90/2006 dated 05.7.2006 already Ex. PW4/C1 (D­20) under the signature of Sh. Jaladhi Mukherjee, the then AO, PB­I and III Section, Ministry of External Affairs.

Attention of the witness had also been drawn to request letter dated 21.8.2006 already Ex. PW4/C­6. After going through the same the witness stated that permission to take a domestic assistant was sought by accused Manjit Singh on the ground of medical treatment of his elder son CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 20 of 98 pertaining to Human Behavioral Problem. The matter was processed and the permission was granted by the Ministry of External Affairs vide order dated 03.11.2006 already Ex. PW4/C­17 mentioning the terms and conditions therein.

Attention of the witness had been drawn to the request of accused Manjit Singh dated October 11/13, 2006 already Ex. PW4/C­8. After going through the same the witness stated that accused Manjit Singh had requested for issuance of Visa in favour of his domestic assistant Madu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder). On the basis of his request, clarification was sought from the Fijian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and accordingly, while giving permission to take Madu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) as domestic assistant, accused Manjit Singh was asked to arrange for Passport/Visa of his servant on his own.

Attention of the witness had been drawn to Office Order dated 13.11.2006. After going through the same, the witness stated that accused Manjit Singh was relieved of the post of Section Officer from the Ministry of External Affairs in the afternoon of 10.11.2006 vide order already Ex. PW4/C­2.

The witness after being shown a note submitted by accused Manjit Singh already Ex. PW4/C­23 stated that as CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 21 of 98 per the note, Manjit Singh had commenced his journey for Suva on 13.11.2006 and had reached there on 01.12.2006. After reaching Suva, accused Manjit Singh had not disclosed about the whereabout of his domestic assistant i.e. accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) till the mission came to know in February, 2006 through outside source that Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) had not reached Suva along with accused Manjit Singh.

When the Mission had asked about accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) from accused Manjit Singh, accused Manjit Singh had informed the Counselor and explained vide his message dated 06.3.2007 that on the day of his departure to Suva while he was getting emigration check for boarding the flight, accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) slipped away. The note of Commission dated 27.02.2007 is Ex. PW12/A and the message of accused Manjit Singh dated 06.3.2007 is Ex. PW12/B. Attention of the witness had been drawn to memorandum dated 29.3.2007 of Sh. Anil Kumar Anand, Counselor/HOC. After going through the same, the witness stated that the said memorandum was issued to accused Manjit Singh asking him to explain various details about CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 22 of 98 missing of domestic assistant Madhu Sudan Bhargo including the reasons for not reporting the matter for about three months. Accused Manjit Singh was asked to explain as to whether the matter relating to missing of Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) was reported to the High Commission of India in Wellington with a view to communicate the facts to the Authorities concerned in New Zealand to avoid any adverse reaction as the domestic assistant Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) had become an illegal alien there after his entry into New Zealand was facilitated by accused Manjit Singh. The said memorandum was proved by the witness vide Ex. PW12/C. Accused Manjit Singh had replied to the memorandum on 22.6.2007. Attention of the witness had been drawn to the reply of accused Manjit Singh. After going through the same, the witness stated that accused Manjit Singh had admitted in his reply that he did not inform the High Commission of India in Wellington regarding missing of his domestic servant. However, he claimed that on reaching Suva, he had reported the matter to Sh. A.K. Sarkar, the then acting Head of Chancery who had brought the matter to the notice of the High Commissioner. The reply of accused CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 23 of 98 Manjit Singh has been proved vide Ex. PW12/D. Attention of the witness had been drawn to E­mail dated 22.10.2007. After going through the same, the witness stated that after being verified by Sh. A.K. Sarkar, he had denied to have received any verbal/written information in this regard. The said e­mail of Sh. A.K. Sarkar is already Ex. PW11/B. Attention of the witness had been drawn to letter dated 08.5.2007 of the then High Commissioner of India, Suva addressed to the then Joint Secretary (AD), Ministry of External Affairs. After going through the same, the witness stated that in this letter there is mention of recommendation regarding recall of accused Manjit Singh from Suva. The said letter was proved vide Ex. PW12/E. After due examination in the Ministry, accused Manjit Singh was recalled prematurely vide order dated 19.11.2007. The said letter was proved vide Ex. PW12/F. He stated that accused Manjit Singh had joined Ministry of External Affairs, Delhi on 10.12.2007 vide letter issued under his signature.

On being cross­examined by learned counsel for accused Manjit Singh, he stated that there is provision for issuance of special passport for domestic servants also upto CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 24 of 98 the level of Section Officer. The officials are not entitled to take domestic servants in foreign posting in normal circumstances. The officer going on posting abroad is required to fill the passport application form for his family members and servants. Such form is forwarded by Administration to the CPV Division which issues the passport. The entitled family members and the domestic servants are issued a visa note from the CPV Division to the concerned foreign mission for obtaining visa who issues the required visa to the family members and the domestic servants. He stated that according to IFS PLCA Rules, the family members and the domestic help are the responsibility of the diplomat. The diplomat posted abroad is also entitled to hire domestic help in the country of his posting. The IFS PLCA Rules do not say anything about the responsibility of the diplomat with regard to domestic help locally hired by him in the country of posting. The local help hired by the diplomat can be Indian or Foreign origin. He stated that, however, he should be a legal resident of that country of posting. He stated that document D­11/10 is the application made by accused Manjit Singh for permission to travel abroad with his wife and his domestic assistant which is CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 25 of 98 already Ex. PW9/4. He stated that he does not remember whether the official passport was given to accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder).

He stated that the passport as mentioned above which is issued for the diplomat and diplomatic assistant was not given to the domestic help suggested by accused Manjit Singh and he was not issued the visa note which is given to the foreign mission for issuance of visa. He stated that the information regarding issuance or otherwise of official passport to the domestic assistant of accused Manjit Singh will be available in the concerned file. Attention of the witness had been drawn to letter issued by the Security and Personnel Officer Mr. M.P. Singh dated 01.11.2006 which is already Ex. PW4/C­18. After going through the same, the witness stated that the diplomatic passport and visa note were not issued for domestic assistant of accused Manjit Singh. He stated that he was not aware whether accused Madhu Sudhan Bhargo (Absconder) travelled on work visa or tourist visa. He also stated that he was not aware whether Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) was entitled to work in the foreign country or not.

He further stated that he was not aware whether any CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 26 of 98 application was made to the competent authority of Suva to permit accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) to work in that country or not.

After going through the record, the witness stated that as per accused Manjit Singh request dated 03.11.2006, he himself, his wife and his two sons were issued diplomatic passport on 11.8.2006 and he had also requested for visa notes for his family members. The said request was forwarded to SO (PV­II) for issue of visa to his family members only. It was also mentioned that no visa note should be issued for the domestic assistant who was travelling on ordinary passport. The said request of accused Manjit Singh dated 03.11.2006 was proved vide Ex. PW12/DB. As per fax message dated 14.11.2006 of AO (TG) Sh. Sushil Kumar to HOC HCI, Suva, accused Manjit Singh accompanied by his son were to reach Suva on 01.12.2006. The said fax was proved vide Ex. PW12/DC. As per the message of High Commissioner of India, Suva dated 08.5.2007 to Joint Secretary (Administration), Ministry of External Affairs, only accused Manjit Singh had arrived in Suva on 01.12.2006. However, his son had reached Suva on 22.12.2006. The said message was proved vide Ex. CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 27 of 98 PW12/E. He further stated that he cannot say whether Mr. Ajay Singh was carrying personal grudge against accused Manjit Singh due to past official conduct of accused Manjit Singh. He denied that it was other activities of accused Manjit Singh which led to his recall and not the case of a missing of domestic assistant.

23. PW­13 Sh. Bhram Dutt stated that Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) is his youngest son and Vikas Bhargava is his elder son. He stated that his son Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) is presently residing in New Zealand. He stated that he does not know as to whom Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) had accompanied while going to New Zealand. However, he stated that he knew Varinder Singh who is in medical line and used to come to him in connection with supply of of bandage, cotton etc. at his clinic. He stated that Virender Singh had managed Visa for Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) for New Zealand. He stated that he had not paid any amount for procuring the said said Visa. He stated that CBI Inspector had made inquiry in this case but his statement was not recorded by CBI, as far as he CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 28 of 98 remembers. He stated that he was called several times by CBI Inspector and had made inquiries. He stated that he has no address or contact number of his son Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) of New Zealand. He denied that his statement was recorded on 17.11.2008 and that Rs.7 Lakh were paid to accused Manjit Singh for procuring Visa for New Zealand on the pretext of taking him as domestic servant.

The witness was declared hostile and on being cross­ examined, the witness after being shown his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Mark X­13 at the portion A to A, he stated that he had not stated the facts mentioned in the statement before CBI Inspector. He also denied portion B to B of the said statement. He stated that perhaps Madhu Sudan had informed about his safe arrival to Singapore and Wellington along with the accused on landline. He stated that as far as he remembers, perhaps Madhu Sudan after reaching Wellington had spent 2­3 days in a hotel with accused Manjit Singh. He stated that thereafter accused Manjit Singh went with him to the residence of witness's daughter­in­law Mini Sharma and after spending about a week at the residence of his daughter­in­ law Mini Sharma, accused Manjit Singh had left Madhu CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 29 of 98 Sudan (Absconder) there and had further proceeded to Suva. He stated that he had never heard any such information about missing of his son Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) from Wellington Airport. He denied that he had told CBI about the telephone numbers of his son Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) in New Zealand. He admitted that his elder son Vikas had gone to Australia sometime in June­July 2007 and subsequently his wife Ms. Mini Sharma also joined him there from New Zealand. He admitted that in his statement Mark X­13, he had got correctly recorded to CBI the facts mentioned from Portion D to D of statement Mark X­13. However, he denied that he had mentioned in his statement Mark X­13 from portion E to E that he had paid Rs. 7 lakh to accused Manjit Singh in November 2006. He stated that Rs. 2 lakh were withdrawn by him and his wife Smt. Usha Rani from their bank accounts maintained with Punjab and Sind Bank for executing the Sale Deed for purchase of some land. He stated that the same was executed prior to taking Visa for his son Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder). However, he stated that he does not know as to whether the Sale Deed was executed after taking Visa or not. He stated that he is illiterate person. His CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 30 of 98 attention was drawn to seizure memo dated 20.3.2009. After going through the same, he stated that the seizure memo was prepared in his presence in connection with providing original Affidavit in his own name. The said seizure memo along with the original Affidavit were collectively proved as Ex. PW13/A. He admitted the cheque dated 06.11.2006 Ex. PW13/B amounting to Rs.67,000/­ which bears his signatures on front and reverse side of the cheque. The certified copy of the specimen signature of account No. 3671 in his name were proved as Ex. PW13/C. He denied that Rs. 7 Lakh were paid to accused Manjit Singh as demanded by him for taking his son Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) to New Zealand as his domestic assistant and Rs. 6 lakh out of Rs. 7 lakh were meant for accused Manjit Singh as demanded by him and Rs. 1 lakh towards Air Tickets and other expenses of Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) were demanded by accused Manjit Singh. He also denied that amount of Rs. 7 lakh were paid in two installments of Rs. 3 lakh and Rs. 4 lakh which was agreed earlier to be paid in the first and second week of November, 2006. He denied that he was deposing falsely.

The witness had produced one Affidavit dated CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 31 of 98 30.11.2006, one sale deed dated 19.01.2007 and copy of Agreement dated 31.7.2006 claiming that he had purchased land situated at Daulat Pur Gill from Smt. Pushpa Rani and had also claimed that the amount of Rs. 7 lakh as mentioned above were used in paying the same to the seller. Copies of the documents were placed on record. Originals were seen and returned and the same are Ex. PW13/D1 to PW13/D3.

24. PW­14 Smt. Usha Rani stated similar facts during her examination­in­chief as stated by PW­13. She was declared hostile by Ld. Senior PP for CBI. On being cross­examined by Ld. Senior PP for CBI, she stated the same facts as stated by PW­13. She denied her statement Mark X­14 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. at various portions, however, she admitted the various portions of the said statement. She proved the withdrawal slip dated 06.11.2006 amounting to Rs.1,52,668/­ which is Ex. PW14/A.

25. PW­15 Sh. Varinder Singh stated that in the year 2009, he was engaged in the business of whole sale Medicine. He knew Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) and used to supply medicines to his father. He stated that CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 32 of 98 Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) had expressed his desire to visit Newzeland. He stated that he had told Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) that his uncle i.e. accused Manjeet Singh serves in the Ministry of External Affair. He stated that he had advised Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) to discuss the matter with accused Manjeet Singh. Thereafter, he had met accused Manjit Singh along with Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) in the month of March­April, 2006.

He stated that in the month of July, 2006 accused Manjit Singh had telephonically told him that he will take Madhu Sudan as Domestic Assistant since he had taken permission to take one person as Domestic Assistant. Accused Manjit Singh was officially scheduled to go to Fiji and it was decided that he will drop accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) at New Zealand. For this, accused Manjit Singh had demanded Rs. 6 lakh and in addition to that the ticket expenses were also to be paid for taking Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) to New Zealand. In the first week of November, 2006 accused Manjit Singh had demanded Rs. 3 lakh as a part payment over telephone.

He stated that thereafter, he along with Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) had visited Delhi and Madhu Sudan CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 33 of 98 Bhargo (Absconder) had paid Rs. 3 lakh to accused Manjit Singh in cash in his presence. The said amount of Rs. 3 lakh were handed over to accused Manjit Singh in a guest house which was situated opposite Police Station Janak Puri. The said venue was pre­fixed by accused Manjit Singh. It was also instructed by accused Manjit Singh that remaining amount of Rs. 3 lakh was to be paid after taking Visa. He stated that after about 10 days, Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) had given him a telephonic call informing that he had reached New Zealand.

On 02.02.2009, the statement of witness was recorded by Sh. Pritam Singh, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi and the same was given by him voluntarily and without any pressure.

The witness was shown his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. along with order dated 02.02.2009 of Sh. Pritam Singh, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. After going through the same, the witness identified the said statement and stated that he had given the said statement voluntarily and without any pressure. The said statement is Ex. PW15/A. CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 34 of 98 On being cross­examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Manjit Singh, he stated that he had come to Delhi on 31.8.2013 (night). He stated that he had received the summons by e­mail. The e­mail was sent by CBI requiring his appearance before the court.

He stated that he can identify the signatures of his father. The witness had been shown a letter dated 07.3.2013 sent to CBI along with his father's Handicapped Certificate dated 22.4.2009 Mark PW15A. The witness identified the signatures of his father. He stated that his father is handicapped. He stated that he was aware that CBI officials were troubling his father to ensure his appearance before the Court. He stated that he does not know as to whether CBI had threatened to issue warrants against his father in case he (witness) refused to appear before this Court. He stated that he is living in Dubai since 31.3.2011 and prior to going to Dubai, he was doing business of wholesale dealership of medicines. He denied that any criminal case is pending against him in any Court. He stated that he does not know any officer who issues Visas in the Ministry of External Affairs except accused Manjit Singh. He stated that he had visited Delhi 3­4 times to meet accused Manjit Singh. He CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 35 of 98 stated that he had no intention of settling abroad but he had received an offer from Dubai and he had gone and joined that company. The salesman of the company was known to him.

He denied that he had persuaded accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) to come to meet accused Manjit Singh who will help him to get a Visa for migrating to a foreign country. CBI had never made him an accused in this case. He denied that he was part of the conspiracy. CBI officials had told him to give his statement before Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate. CBI had called him to their office in the year 2009 for getting his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

He stated that two CBI officials and his father had accompanied him to the Court to tender his statement in Patiala House Courts. He stated that he does not know the locality but it was CBI office from where he had come to the court of Ld. Magistrate in Patiala House Courts to give his statement. He had reached CBI office at about 9:00 am on that day. After that, they had come together to tender his statement before Ld. MM in Patiala House Courts. Prior to that, once CBI officials had come to Jalandhar when he had CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 36 of 98 met them. Mr. Jha had met him in Jalandhar. After that, Mr. Jha was never in contact with him over telephone. Mr. Jha had not contacted him in any other manner also before his giving statement in the Court of Ld. Magistrate at Patiala House Courts. He stated that he had received the summons from CBI to appear in their office.

He stated that CBI officials were also not in contact with his father. He stated that he does not remember as to how many summons were received by them before making the statement to CBI officer.

He stated that accused Manjit Singh is his distant relative. He himself and accused Madhu Sudhan Bhargo (Absconder) had come to Delhi to meet accused Manjit Singh. Accused Manjit Singh had called him outside his office in a restaurant in March/April, 2006.

He stated that CBI had paid for his travel to Delhi from Dubai. He had received his tickets through e­mail. He had spoken to CBI officials over telephone regarding arrangement of his Air Tickets from Dubai to Delhi. He had spoken to them on their landline. He stated that he does not remember the landline number. He stated that he had received phone calls from CBI officers from their landline CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 37 of 98 and, therefore, he knew the number. He had not made any telephone calls to CBI officers. One Mr. Moses used to speak to him from CBI office. He stated that he will return to Dubai on 10.9.2013 and his return air ticket had also been arranged by CBI.

He stated that he does not not remember the name of the restaurant where they had met with accused Manjit Singh in Chanakya Puri. It was a small restaurant. He met accused Manjit Singh for the first time in the restaurant and thereafter, he had met accused Manjit Singh at Shish Ganj Gurudwara near Lal Quila, Delhi. The money was paid to accused Manjit Singh in a guest house situated opposite Janak Puri Police Station. He denied that he had made false statement under the pressure of CBI.

26. PW­16 Sh. Pritam Singh, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate proved the statement of Sh. Varinder Singh recorded by him under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The certificate appended at Page No. 3 of the statement is Ex. PW16/A and the order dated 02.02.2009 which was passed by him is Ex. PW16/B. CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 38 of 98

27. PW­17 Sh. M.C. Joshi, Retired Senior Superintendent of Police, CBI, New Delhi stated that on 21.10.2008, the present case was registered on the basis of complaint dated 21.10.2008 submitted by Sh. S.K. Jha, Sub­Inspector, CBI. He proved the FIR Ex. PW17/A. The case was entrusted to Inspector Anand Sarup, CBI for investigation.

28. PW­18 Inspector Anand Sarup stated that in the year 2008, he was posted as Inspector, CBI, New Delhi. Sh. M.C. Joshi was the Superintendent of Police of branch EOU­ IV, New Delhi. The present case was entrusted to him for investigation. During the course of investigation, he had recorded the statement of witnesses, namely, Sh. Brahm Dutt, Smt. Usha Rani, Sh. Varinder Singh, Sh. Surender Katyal, Sh. Bhaskar Bhatt, Sh. Guru Prasad, Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta and Sh. Shivaji Sen under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He had also conducted the search at the official residence of accused Manjit Singh at Dwarka and had seized documents.

Attention of the witness had been drawn to the search list Ex. PW10/B. After going through the same, the witness stated that the search list was prepared on his dictation by Sh. S.K. Jha, Sub­Inspector, CBI.

CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 39 of 98 Attention of the witness had been drawn to four Cash Memos dated 10.11.2006. After going through the same, the witness stated that apart from the other documents as mentioned in search list Ex. PW10/B, the said cash memos were also seized through search list from the official residence of accused Manjit Singh. The said cash memos bear the initial of independent witness. The said cash memos were proved collectively vide Ex. PW18/A to PW18/D. He also proved the other documents i.e. seizure memo and handing over memo which were already proved by other witnesses. He stated that he had also got recorded the statement of PW Sh. Varinder Singh under Section 164 Cr.P.C. vide an application Ex. PW18/G which was moved in the Court of ACMM, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. He also stated that he had recorded the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. correctly. Further investigation of the case was entrusted to Sh. A.V. Bhardwaj, Inspector, CBI.

On being cross­examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Manjit Singh, he stated that the case was handed over to him on 21.10.2008 on the direction of Sh. M.C. Joshi, the then Superintendent of Police. He denied that no independent CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 40 of 98 witness was present when he had conducted raid at the official residence of accused Manjit Singh. He denied that he had falsely implicated accused Manjit Singh.

29. PW­19 Sh. Amit V. Bhardwaj, Inspector, CBI stated that in the year 2008­09, he was posted as Inspector, CBI in EOU­IV, New Delhi. Further investigation of this case was entrusted to him by the then Superintendent of Police Sh. M.C. Joshi. He had examined various witnesses mentioned in the list of witnesses at Serial No. 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and

16. He had recorded statement of the said witnesses correctly.

Attention of the witness had been drawn to Ex. PW13/A. After going through the same, the witness stated that the document as mentioned in the memo were seized by him from Sh. Bharam Dutt. He also proved Ex. PW19/A vide which the documents mentioned in the said memo were seized from Ms. R.G. Marwaha, Senior Manager. He also proved seizure memo Ex. PW19/C vide which he had seized the documents from Sh. R.K. Rakheja. He also proved the certified copy of account opening form of account No. 18720 along with specimen signatures slip seized by him vide CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 41 of 98 memo Ex. PW19/C which is collectively Ex. PW19/D. The certified photocopy of statement of account of the aforesaid account number in the name of Smt. Usha Rani was seized by him vide seizure memo Ex. PW19/C. He also proved the documents seized by him from Sh. Surjeet Singh vide Ex. PW19/F. He stated that the original cheque, and certified copy of specimen signatures card of Sh. Bharam Dutt are already exhibited as Ex. PW13/B and Ex. PW13/C respectively. The computer printout of account statement of Sh. Bharam Dutt for the period 01.8.2005 to 31.12.2006 of account No. 43671 showing debit entry of Rs. 67,000/­ on 06.11.2006 is Ex. PW19/G. The witness had seen a letter dated "nil" from Sh. John Powell, Sales Manager, North and East India of Qantus Air Lines which was sent to him in response to order under Section 91 Cr.P.C vide which Sh. John Powell had sent copy of purged data dully highlighted flights flown by passenger Bhargo/Mr. on the out bound leg of the journey. Through this letter Sh. John Powell had furnished information as required by the witness through his letter dated 16.4.2009. The said letter along with copy of purged data is collectively Ex. PW19/H. CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 42 of 98 The witness was shown another letter dated 23.4.2009 from FRRO, R.K. Puram, Delhi addressed to SP, CBI. He stated that the said letter was received in their office vide diary No. 186 dated 27.4.2009. He stated that this letter 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 (Absconder) were sent to SP, CBI by FRRO, R.K. Puram, Delhi. The said letter along with the copies of Embarkation Cards, three in number, are collectively exhibited as Ex. PW19/J. The witness also proved the letter dated 20.8.2009 issued by Sh. Shrikant Chaterjeet, Section Officer (PV­II), Ministry of External Affairs vide which a reply which was received from office of New Zeland, High Commission in New Delhi, was sent to him by Sh. Shrikant Chatterjee. The said letter is Ex. PW19/L and the reply received from office of New Zealand High Commission is Ex. PW19/M. The witness stated that 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. F­2955690 dated 05.5.2005 and Passport No. A­5903308 CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 43 of 98 dated 22.7.1998 in respect of Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) were sent to SP, CBI by Assistant Passport Officer. The said letter was proved vide Ex. PW19/N. The said attested scanned copies are already Ex. PW8/A1 to Ex. PW8/A37.

He stated that 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 handwritings of accused Manjit Singh are already collectively Ex. PW9/10 which consist of 40 pages. The specimen handwritings were sent to GEQD for expert opinion. After examination of the questioned documents with comparison of specimen handwritings, the GEQD had sent its report vide GEQD Report already Ex. PW9/11.

After completion of the investigation, the sanction for prosecution of accused Manjit Singh was obtained from the competent Authority. The Sanction Order for prosecution of accused Manjit Singh is already Ex. PW3/A. He stated that he had filed the charge­sheet against accused Manjit Singh and Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) along with the documents, statement of CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 44 of 98 witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C and Sanction for prosecution.

30. PE was closed. Statement of accused Manjit Singh was recorded in which he expressed his willingness to lead defence evidence. Therefore, the case was listed for defence evidence and three defence witnesses were examined.

31. DW­1 Sh. Bhupender Kumar, Assistant Public Health Inspector, West Zone, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi stated that he does not know as to where Janak Puri police station is located and for how long. He further stated that there are many hotels and restaurants opposite the said police station. He stated that he does not know as to for how long the hotels and restaurants have been situated there. He stated that Janak Puri police station falls under the West Zone, Rajouri Garden, New Dlehi area. There is authorized parking of MCD in front of Janak Puri police station as well.

32. DW­2 Head Constable Pramod Kumar, No. 701/W, PS Janak Puri, New Delhi stated that as far as he knows CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 45 of 98 Janak Puri police station is situated at the same place since 1978. Janak Puri police station is near Regional Transport Authority. There is District Center opposite Janak Puri police station. There is no lodge opposite Janak Puri police station, however, there is authorized parking of MCD. On the left side of Janak Puri police station, there is Regional Transport Authority. On the right side of Janak Puri police station, there are residential quarters of Delhi Police.

On being cross­examined by Ld. Senior PP for CBI the defence witness stated that he is working in Janak Puri police station for almost last one year and three months. He stated that he had been posted in various police stations from time to time. He stated that he does not remember the exact sides of various police stations and constructions thereupon. He could not say as to whether in November 2006, what was constructed opposite Janak Puri police station and as to when the District Centre was constructed. However, he stated that the District Centre was constructed before the year 2006. He admitted that since 2006, new constructions have also taken place opposite Janak Puri police station and some old constructions have been demolished.

CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 46 of 98

33. DW­3 Manjit Singh (Accused No. 1) stated that he was working as Section Officer in Ministry of External Affairs till 28.3.2013. He had been posted at Suva in July 2006 by his Department. One of his relatives Sh. Varinder had introduced him to accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) who wanted to go abroad to work. When told about accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder), he told Mr. Varinder Singh that his son was not well and he will be in need of some medical assistance. He produced the medical treatment record of his son master Amarinder Singh which showed that he is suffering from a disease and his behaviour becomes violent and disorganized due to this ailment. The medical treatment record running into 27 pages is collectively Ex. DW3/A which was objected to by Ld. Senior PP for CBI regarding mode of proving the documents. He stated that he had been informed that accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo's (Absconder) father was a medical practitioner and as such he also had knowledge about patient care. He had written to his Department for permission to take accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) as an attendant for his son to Suva since he could not have afforded a local medical CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 47 of 98 assistant in Fiji.

Initially, the Ministry had granted him permission to take the attendant with him but when it came to issuance of the official passport and visa, the Ministry declined his request for the same. He accordingly informed accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) about the same. He informed accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) that he will not be responsible for getting the work visa for Suva because the Ministry had declined the same. He also told him that it will be his responsibility to obtain work visa at Suva. Sh. Varinder Singh and accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) told him that they will manage their visa by themselves and requested him to take accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) along with him since accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) had not travelled abroad earlier. He further stated that his main interest was taking care of his son and had thought that in case accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) will manage to reach Suva on his own, he (DW­3) will be able to take care of his son. He stated that his mother had gifted a flat No. 94­FF, Phase­II, Tigri Khanpur, New Delhi which he had sold for consideration of Rs.3,90,000/­. He had informed his CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 48 of 98 Department about the sale. The photocopies of the documents in this regard running into 6 pages are Ex. DW3/B which was objected to by Ld. Senior PP for CBI regarding mode of proving the documents.

He stated that the allegation of Sh. Varinder Singh is completely false. The allegation that he met him (DW­3) in a lodge opposite Janakpuri police station cannot be true because there does not exist any lodge opposite Janakpuri police station. There is a five star hotel in the name of Hilton which is situated on the left hand side across Janakpuri police station. DDA complex and Jaina Tower are situated opposite Janakpuri police station. There is no guest house in that building. He (DW­3) had applied to Delhi Police through RTI to provide him information regarding the guest house / hotels opposite Janakpuri police station in which Dy. Commissioner of Police had categorically stated that there is no hotel situated opposite Janakpuri police station. He stated that the reply received is Ex. DW3/C which confirms that Sh. Varinder Singh's statement was false. He stated that Sh. Varinder Singh may have made statement against him under pressure of CBI who may have intimidated him by threatening to make him an accused in the present case. CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 49 of 98 On being cross­examined by Ld. Senior PP for CBI he admitted that in Ex. DW3/C there is no reference of the year 2006 regarding constructions of hotels, guest house etc. opposite to Janakpuri police station. He denied that he had made a request to his Department for taking domestic assistant only after meeting and discussions with Sh. Varinder Singh and accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder), however, he had requested Sh. Varinder Singh one year prior to 21.8.2006 that he needed a person to look after his son. He admitted his request Ex. PW4/C6 which is dated 21.8.2006 in which he had himself undertaken to take accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) on an ordinary passport and also to bear his to and fro air fare to take him as a domestic assistant. He admitted that in March­April 2006, Sh. Varinder Singh along with accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) had met him at Delhi outside his office at Akbar Bhawan, Chankyapuri, New Delhi. He denied that he had told them that he was expecting his posting in Suva (Fiji). He also denied that during that meeting he had agreed to take accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) in going to New Zealand for which he had demanded Rs.6 Lakh plus Rs.1 Lakh for air ticket.

CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 50 of 98 He stated that in the first week of November 2006, Sh. Varinder Singh and accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) had met him at Delhi. He again said that he had met only Sh. Varinder Singh. He denied that Sh. Varinder Singh and accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) both had met him in the first week of November 2006 in Delhi. He also denied that he was paid Rs.3 Lakh in cash by accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) in presence of Sh. Varinder Singh in that meeting. He also denied that the said amount was paid to him in a guest house at Vashistha Park, New Delhi. He also denied that in that meeting it was decided that the remaining amount of Rs. 4 Lakh including Rs.1 Lakh for tickets was to be paid soon after the issuance of Visa.

He stated that he did not meet accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) in the second week of November 2006. He denied that remaining Rs.4 Lakh as aforesaid were paid to him by accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) after Visa was arranged by him. He admitted that on 13.11.2006, he along with his son Amarinder Singh and accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) left Delhi for Suva. He volunteered that accused Madhu Sudan CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 51 of 98 Bhargo (Absconder) had, however, reached the Airport to go to Fiji despite his (DW­3) refusal to take him along and despite informing him that official permission to take him along had been declined by his office.

He stated that he had reached Suva on 01.12.2006 alone. He along with his son had reached Wellington either on 17th or 18th November 2006. Accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) had also reached Wellington along with them. He and his son had stayed in a Gurudwara in Wellington for about 9­10 days. He stated that he does not know as to where accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) had gone from Wellington Airport. He had reported that accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) had been missing from Wellington Airport on 04.12.2006 in writing to his Department. He had brought a copy of the said letter dated 04.12.2006 addressed to FS(Cons/Coml)/HOC. The same is Mark­DW3/DA. He stated that the original of the same can be produced by his Department on orders of the court. He had also brought a copy of e­mail dated 05.9.2006 received by him from High Commission of India, Suva vide which in is official capacity he had informed him that the matter regarding grant of long term Visa to his CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 52 of 98 domestic assistant had been taken up with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The same is Mark­DW3/DB. The authenticity of the same can be ascertained from High Commission of India, Suva by the court.

As per Mark DW3/DA, he had informed on 04.12.2006 to First Secretary (Consular & Commerce), Head of Chancery. At that time, Sh. A.K. Sarkar was officiating First Secretary (Consular & Commerce), Head of Chancery in High Commission of India, Suva. On reaching at Wellington on 17.11.2006 or 18.11.2006, he along with his son stayed in local Gurudwaras upto 28.11.2006. There was no interaction between him and accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) since 17.11.2006 or 18.11.2006 to 28.11.2006. He stated that on 28.11.2006, accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) had met him again at Wellington Airport. Accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo had followed him upto immigration check but thereafter he had disappeared. In Mark DW3/DA, he had not mentioned the fact that accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) had disappeared from the airport of Wellington on 17.11.2006 or 18.11.2006. He did not feel it necessary to inform because he had no responsibility to inform the same. Volunteered, on 17.11.2006, CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 53 of 98 at the airport Wellington itself, accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) had told him that he will come on 28.11.2006. The fact that accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) had told him on 17.11.2006 at airport Wellington to come on 28.11.2006 was not mentioned by him in Mark DW3/DA because he did not feel it necessary.

He denied that on 04.12.2006, he had not informed to First Secretary Sh. A.K. Sarkar about disappearance of accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) vide Mark DW3/DA. He admitted that he was asked by High Commission of India, Suva to furnish full details of the case along with the present whereabouts of the domestic assistant vide Commission note Ex. PW12/A dated 26.02.2007. His reply Ex. PW12/B was not voluntary and had been drafted by his seniors, namely, Mr. Anil Kumar Anand, Head of Chancery and Mr. A.K. Sarkar under threat. He stated that his signatures at Point­A on the said reply were taken forcibly by his aforesaid seniors. Since he was under threat of being sent back to India, he had not lodged any complaint with anyone regarding either the threat or that the reply Ex. PW12/B had been drafted by Mr. Anil Kumar Anand, Head of Chancery and Mr. A.K. Sarkar and was not CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 54 of 98 voluntary. Volunteered, he was also disturbed due to medical condition. He had till date not lodged any complaint with anyone that his signatures had been forcibly obtained on Ex. PW12/B. He is still under threat. He had not lodged any complaint against Mr. A.K. Sarkar and Mr. A.K. Anand that the reply Ex. PW12/B had not been drafted by him and was neither tendered voluntarily. He denied that he had tendered his reply Ex. PW12/B only after Commission note Ex. PW12/A. He admitted that on 29.3.2007, High Commission of India had issued to him one Memorandum Ex. PW12/C wherein he was asked to explain various details about missing of accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) including the reasons for not reporting the matter for about three months. The said Memorandum was replied by him vide Ex. PW12/D. He volunteered that the said reply was also drafted by Mr. A.K. Sarkar and Mr. A.K. Anand and his signatures at Point­A were taken forcibly. Till date, he has not lodged any complaint against both of his aforesaid seniors to any Authority. He stated that in reply Ex. PW12/D, the contents mentioned at Serial No. 6 from portion 'B' to 'B' are correct. He denied that after reaching Wellington, he CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 55 of 98 along with accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) had spent 2­3 days in a hotel and thereafter they (DW­3 and accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo) went to the residence of Ms. Mini Sharma who is daughter­in­law of Sh. Brahm Dutt and after spending about a week at her residence, he (DW­3) had left accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) there and he had alone proceeded to Suva. He stated that he does not know Usha Rani and Brahm Dutt who are parents of accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder). He denied that he knows Usha Rani and Brahm Dutt. He stated that there is no enmity between him and Sh. Varinder Singh. He denied that he was deposing falsely.

34. Defence evidence was closed. Final arguments were heard on behalf of Ld. Senior PP for CBI and Ld. Defence Counsel.

35. Ld. Counsel for accused Manjit Singh has stated that as per the statement of PW­15 Sh. Varinder Singh, there is a restaurant and guest house in front of Janakpuri police station where money had exchanged hands. He has stated that the statement of PW­15 Sh. Varinder Singh has to be CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 56 of 98 looked at with suspicion since DW­2 HC Pramod Kumar has stated that there is no lodge, restaurant or guest house opposite police station Janakpuri.

36. Ld. Counsel for accused Manjit Singh has also stated that the higher officer of accused Manjit Singh i.e. PW­11 Sh. A.K. Sarkar, who was Head of the Chancery at Fiji, already knew that domestic servant Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) of accused Manjit Singh had gone missing and has drawn my attention to a letter written to PW­11 Sh. A.K. Sarkar in this regard which finds mention in the statement of accused Manjit Singh in this regard. He states that the same must be considered and the testimony of PW­15 Sh. Varinder Singh and PW­11 Sh. A.K. Sarkar be discorded. It is also stated that PW­15 Sh. Varinder Singh has given statement under intimidation and threat of CBI as CBI had threatened to make him an accused in this case.

37. It is also stated that the permission granted to accused Manjit Singh for taking accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) as his domestic help was given to accused Manjit Singh as an exceptional case on account of CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 57 of 98 medical problem of his son. It is, therefore, stated that since it was an exceptional case since he was not entitled as per rules to take a domestic servant to his foreign posting, even the other conditions imposed by Indian Foreign Service (Pay, Leave, Compensatory Allowances and Other Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961 (As amended) will not be applicable regarding the domestic servant. It is, therefore, stated that since accused Manjit Singh had taken accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) on an ordinary passport, he had no control over him. He stated that only in case a diplomatic passport would have been issued to accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) as a domestic help, accused Manjit Singh would have had control over him.

38. Ld. Senior PP for CBI on the other hand stated that accused Manjit Singh seeks to prove Mark DW3/DA as intimation to the Head of Chancery at Fiji which cannot be taken into consideration as the entire record which was called from the Department of accused Manjit Singh does not mention any such letter. He stated that it is a fake and forged document and action be taken against accused Manjit Singh for filing fake document on record when he was CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 58 of 98 examined in the court.

39. Ld. Senior PP for CBI also stated that the statement of accused Manjit Singh as DW­3 is also contrary to his own stand taken by him in his statement which was recorded by this court on oath on 06.11.2013 & 07.11.2013. It is stated that the testimony of DW­2 HC Pramod Kumar and DW­1 Sh. Bhupender Kumar is also of no help to accused as even they have not stated as to whether at the relevant time, any hotel or guest house was situated in front of Janakpuri police station. He has drawn my attention to the cross­examination of DW­2 HC Pramod Kumar and has stated that DW­2 HC Pramoad Kumar has admitted in his cross­examination that new construction has taken place opposite Janakpuri police station and old construction has been demolished. It is thus stated that the statement of DW­2 HC Pramod Kumar and DW­1 Sh. Bhupender Kumar, Assistant Public Health Inspector, West Zone, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi need to be considered to prove that there was a guest house / restaurant opposite Janakpuri police station. He also stated that statement of PW­15 Sh. Varinder Singh cannot be looked at with suspicion since accused Manjit Singh has CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 59 of 98 nowhere stated either in his statement or when he examined himself as DW­3 that PW­15 Sh. Varinder Singh has any personal grudge against him.

40. Ld. Counsel for accused Manjit Singh also states that there are discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses which make the prosecution case doubtful and, therefore, accused Manjit Singh be given benefit of doubt on that account. He states that even otherwise the prosecution is to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, but in the present case the prosecution has failed to discharge this burden.

The Ld. Senior PP on the other hand has stated that discrepancies, if any, in the statements of the witnesses are minor in nature and, therefore, do not entitle accused Manjit Singh to benefit of doubt.

41. I have heard arguments addressed by Ld. Senior PP for CBI as well as Ld. Counsel for accused Manjit Singh.

42. Let me examine the testimony of the material witnesses and the other documents filed before me in light of law and the case law to decide whether charges are proved CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 60 of 98 against accused Manjit Singh or not.

43. Section 120­B IPC provides as under:

(1) "Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, [imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence...".

(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 61 of 98 months, or with fine or with both..."

Section 420 IPC provides as under:

"Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine..."

Section 13 of the P.C. Act provides as under:

                                        (1)       A         public  




CC No. 03/12               CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another         Page No. 62 of 98 
                         servant   is   said   to   commit   the  

                        offence                 of                   criminal  

misconduct .................................. ..................................................... ...................................(d) if he­

(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantages; or

(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or

(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 63 of 98 interest....."

(2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine."

44. I am of the opinion that to prove charge against accused Manjit Singh, CBI was required to prove that he had abused his official position for wrongful gain of Rs. 7 Lakh to facilitate accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) leave India and settle in a foreign country without any lawful visa by taking him as domestic help by misleading his Department.

CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 64 of 98

45. The witnesses examined by CBI i.e. PW­11 Sh. A.K. Sarkar and PW­12 Sh. Bhaskar Bhatt have proved the official record of Ministry of External Affairs which clearly shows that accused Manjit Singh had applied for permission to take a domestic help to look after his son who is suffering from human behavioral problem. It has been proved by these witnesses that accused Manjit Singh had been permitted as exceptional case to take a domestic help along with him to the place of his foreign posting on humanitarian ground, however, following conditions had been imposed upon him as per Ex. PW4/C­17:

i) Permission for domestic assistant to accompany Sh. Manjit Singh does not entail any financial liability to the Government.

ii) All expenses including cost of passage from India to Suva and back in respect of the domestic assistant will be borne by the officer.

CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 65 of 98

iii) No facility / concession such as Home Leave Fares, Additional accommodation, additional baggage and AMA facilities will be admissible to the domestic assistant.

iv) In case, officer / family have to be evacuated from Suva, the officer will have to bear the cost of evacuation of the domestic assistant.

v) The said domestic assistant will come back to India with the officer after completion of his posting at High Commission of India, Suva.

vi) The officer will have to arrange for the requisite visa / transit visa and work permit, if required under local laws, himself in respect of the domestic assistant.

CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 66 of 98

46. The testimony of another witness who has been examined by the prosecution i.e. PW­15 Sh. Varinder Singh has proved that accused Manjit Singh had been approached by accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) to go abroad and accused Manjit Singh had agreed to take him abroad as a domestic help for a consideration of Rs. 7 Lakhs. After this meeting which had taken place in Delhi, a deal was struck between accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) and accused Manjit Singh. Accused Manjit Singh had written a request letter to his Department to take accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) as his domestic help. The testimony of PW­15 Sh. Varinder Singh further proves that part payment in this case had been made as per the demand of accused Manjit Singh at Delhi in a guest house situated in front of Janakpuri police station and accused Manjit Singh had assured accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) that he will arrange his passport and visa. Thereafter, in pursuance of this criminal conspiracy that he had hatched with accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder), he had written letter of requests to his Department for issuance of passport and visa which was denied to him. However, he had been permitted to take accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 67 of 98 (Absconder) along with him on an ordinary passport and visa. Thereafter PW­2 Surender Katyal proved that tickets for accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) and for the family of accused Manjit Singh were purchased by accused Manjit Singh which show that the defence of accused Manjit Singh that he had no knowledge about the intention of accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) going to Wellington or any other country has no merit.

47. PW­2 Sh. Surender Katyal has stated that he had arranged tickets for accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) on the asking of accused Manjit Singh. Therefore, if accused Manjit Singh had told accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) as he states in his testimony in defence that he cannot take him along, why had he bought his tickets? If accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) had gone on his own, where was the need of accused Manjit Singh paying for the tickets or buying tickets of accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder).

48. Accused Manjit Singh seeks to prove that accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) had not accompanied CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 68 of 98 him but had met him by chance at the airport, had also travelled along with him by chance and had on his own got down at Wellington from where he had disappeared. Accused Manjit Singh also seeks to prove in his defence that accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) was not travelling with him as his domestic help as he had conveyed to accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) that permission to take him as domestic help and for issuance of passport and visa had been turned down by his Department. Despite such warning, accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) had made his own arrangement for passport and visa and had been travelling in his own individual capacity. It is, therefore, stated that accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) was independent passenger and there was no question of accused Manjit Singh having control over him. However, this deposition of defence of accused Manjit Singh is contrary to the record.

49. It is pertinent to mention that accused Manjit Singh stated vide Mark DW3/DA that he had informed his Department soon after his arrival at Suva that his domestic help is missing to Sh. A.K. Sarkar, officiating First Secretary CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 69 of 98 (Consular & Commerce), Head of Chancery in High Commission of India, Suva.

50. The official witnesses of Ministry of External Affairs have proved that permission to take accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) as domestic help had not been turned down but only for issuance of passport and visa had been turned down by the Department. Moreover, if this is the defence of accused Manjit Singh, where was the question of accused Manjit Singh informing his Department soon after his arrival at High Commission of Suva that his domestic help had disappeared.

51. PW­11 Sh. A.K. Sarkar had categorically denied that he was informed on 04.12.2006 and had rather put up the case on the strength of official record that accused Manjit Singh had not informed to the Department about the disappearance of accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) and when the Department had on its own come to know about it, they had issued a Memo to him. If the defence of accused Manjit Singh is that accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) had not been taken by him at all CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 70 of 98 and he had travelled on his individual capacity, why did he if at all had informed the Chancery that his domestic help was missing. Moreover, if his own version of this fact is taken to be true that accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) had not travelled with him as domestic help, he had not given any explanation as to why as per the reply to the Memo issued by his Department Ex. PW12/D had again reiterated that accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) was his domestic help who had travelled along with him till Wellington and had thereafter disappeared on 17.11.2006. His further defence is falsified by the fact that as per his testimony accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) again met him at Wellington Airport on 28.11.2006 which he seeks to project as another chance meeting after the alleged disappearance of accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) on 17.11.2006 and thereafter meeting him on 28.11.2006 and again disappearance on 28.11.2006. It casts shadow on the defence of accused Manjit Singh as other documents too speak to the contrary.

52. Accused Manjit Singh further states in his defence that he had helped accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 71 of 98 (Absconder) as a friend on the asking of parents of accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) and Sh. Varinder Singh since accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) was travelling to a foreign country for the first time. However, the parents of accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) have not stated so and have to the contrary denied that they even knew whom accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) was accompanying to go to New Zealand. If accused Manjit Singh had helped accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) on asking of parents of accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder), why had he not informed them that he had gone missing at Wellington. On the contrary, the parents of accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) stated in their testimony that they had never heard that their son had gone missing and deposed that he is presently residing in New Zealand. They also go on record to say that as far as they remember, they were informed about his safe arrival at Wellington with accused Manjit Singh and that they were also informed that accused Manjit Singh and accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) had stayed at Mini Sharma's home who is the daughter­in­law of the witness and sister­in­law of accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 72 of 98 (Absconder) where he was left by accused Manjit Singh when he had proceeded to Suva.

53. PW­15 Sh. Varinder Singh stated in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that in July 2006, accused Manjit Singh had called him that he has got permission to take accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) to Suva. He also stated that accused Manjit Singh hatched conspiracy that he will leave accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) at New Zealand. PW­15 Sh. Varinder Singh has also categorically stated that accused Manjit Singh had demanded Rs. 6 Lakh for taking accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) to Suva as domestic help and Rs. 1 Lakh for air tickets. As per the statement of PW­15 Sh. Varinder Singh, accused Manjit Singh had asked him to bring accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) to Delhi along with Rs. 3 Lakh which was handed over to accused Manjit Singh in his presence. The first permission to accused Manjit Singh by his Department was granted on 01.11.2006 to take accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) as domestic help and certain conditions were imposed upon accused Manjit Singh on 03.11.2006. CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 73 of 98

54. As far as contention of Ld. Counsel for accused is concerned that the statement of PW­15 Sh. Varinder Singh cannot be believed for the fact that there is no guest house in front of PS: Janak Puri as on date, I do not find any merit in this submission since DW­1 Head Constable Pramod Kumar has clearly stated in this cross examination that between 2006 till date many buildings have come up before PS:

Janak Puri and many have been demolished. Even otherwise, this discrepancy does not demolish the entire case of the prosecution as the testimony of PW­15 Sh. Varinder Singh before Sh. Pritam Singh, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C is also specifically and categorically in nature and he has not only given sequence of events, but also the specific dates when he had met accused Manjit Singh along with accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) and the amount of Rs. 7 lakhs was agreed between to be paid by accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) to accused Manjit Singh as demanded by him in consideration for taking him to Suva as domestic help and thereafter, leaving him at New Zealand. CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 74 of 98

55. I have already mentioned above that nothing has been brought on record by accused Manjit Singh as to whether PW­15 Sh. Varinder Singh had any enmity with accused Manjit Singh to give him a reason for falsely implicating accused Manjit Singh.

56. Though the testimony of the prosecution witnesses could not be shaken or proved false by the accused by his cross examination, defence taken by accused Manjit Singh casts a shadow of doubt on his defence and was rather falsified also on several accounts. Accused Manjit Singh has stated that upon reaching Wellington accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) had slipped away on 17.11.2006 without informing him, however, he again stated in his statement that accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) again appeared from nowhere on 28.11.2006 at Wellington Airport when he was leaving for Suva and had again disappeared. This does not appeal to rational mind and it casts doubt not only on the testimony of the accused as defence witness, but also upon his conduct. If after slipping away on 17.11.2006, accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) had slipped away why had accused Manjit Singh not informed the concerned CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 75 of 98 authorities at New Zealand that he had brought him along as domestic help and when he had re­appeared on 28.11.2006 accused Manjit Singh had an opportunity to do so again. As a innocent rational person he should have handed over accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) to the authorities on 28.11.2006 which he did not do.

57. To the contrary he not only remained silent till March, 2007 as per official record, but also made no efforts to trace accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder). Accused Manjit Singh also states that he had no idea as to how and where accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (absconder) had slipped away, whereas the testimony of parents of accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) mentioned that as far as they remember they had received a phone call from their son that accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) along with accused Manjit Singh had reached Wellington safely and were staying at the house of their daughter­in­law who stays there. Accused Manjit Singh, however, states that he had gone to Gurudwara where he had stayed for the intervening 10 days, but has failed to prove any record of his stay in Gurudwara during that period which, therefore, leads to the CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 76 of 98 conclusion that accused Manjit Singh was an active participant in the conspiracy hatched between himself and accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) that he will be taken along with him as domestic help by cheating his department with false representation that due to behavioral problem of his son, he was taking accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) to his place of foreign posting, where as prior to doing that he had already hatched conspiracy with accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) about which PW­15 Sh. Varinder Singh has specifically deposed. This conclusion becomes stronger as conduct of accused Manjit Singh thereafter is also suspicious and points out to the conspiracy as he did not inform his department which he was duty bound to, that his domestic help and son had also arrived along with him. Though the son of accused Manjit Singh was traced and brought to Fiji by the High Commission of India, accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (absconder) could not be traced.

58. The intimation that accused Manjit Singh seeks to prove with Mark DW3/DA vide which he had allegedly informed PW­11 Sh. A.K. Sarkar, Head of Chancery CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 77 of 98 regarding disappearance of his domestic help does not bear the receipt or diary number and is not a part of the file pertaining to this issue by the officials of the High Commission of India. PW­11 Sh. A.K. Sarkar has already denied that such a letter was received by him at any point of time or that accused Manjit Singh had informed them about disappearance of accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) on his own. He categorically states that the Commission had come to know about disappearance of accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) through outside source and this misconduct and misrepresentation by accused Manjit Singh became ground for his recall to India.

59. Moreover, accused Manjit Singh has not been able to give any justification as to why he had bought tickets for accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) along with tickets for himself and his family. Had accused Manjit Singh not been a part of conspiracy with accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder), he should have been careful and vigilant about accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) and his disappearance, as the conditions imposed by his Department vide Ex. PW4/C17 in response to his request for CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 78 of 98 taking accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) as domestic help specifically mention that:

"The said domestic assistant will come back to India with the officer after completion of his posting at High Commission of India, Suva."

60. Therefore, accused Manjit Singh was duty­bound to ensure not only that accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) as a domestic help will reach the place for which he had been granted permission i.e. Suva but also to ensure that he reaches back to India with him. His conduct of non­reporting the matter despite being aware of this condition when accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) allegedly disappeared at Wellington on 17.11.2006 and thereafter he again appeared on 28.11.2006 proves that accused Manjit Singh was part of conspiracy with accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder).

61. The conduct of accused Manjit Singh on the other hand proves that the deposition of PW­15 Sh. Varinder Singh CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 79 of 98 is true as it was pre­decided between accused Manjit Singh and accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) that accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) will be left at Wellington.

62. Another factum which points out towards the role of accused Manjit Singh in this case is that in case accused Manjit Singh is to be believed that he had decided not to take accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) as domestic help and had also informed accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) that he will not be taking him as domestic help and he will have to manage his own passport and visa, why he had not informed his own Department that despite being granted permission to take accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) as domestic help he was not taking him along. It is not clear as to why accused Manjit Singh failed to inform his High Commission that accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) had not been brought by him as domestic help as they had refused to issue a diplomatic passport and visa to him. It is also not clear that if that was so, why accused Manjit Singh filed reply before his Department that his domestic help i.e. accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 80 of 98 (Absconder) had slipped away in transit at Wellington. Accused Manjit Singh would have proved his innocence had he informed his Department that he was not taking accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) as a domestic help since diplomatic passport and issuance of visa had been denied to him.

63. As per document D­20, accused Manjit Singh had intimated his Department in October 2006 the details of the family and the domestic assistant that he had sought to take along with him to Suva. This letter also includes attestation form in respect of the servant. Therefore, vide the Ministry of External Affairs' Sanction Order No. Q/PB­I/6612/81/2003 dated 03.11.2006, permission was accorded to accused Manjit Singh to take along with him accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) as domestic servant to Suva and other conditions were imposed upon him. Therefore, since accused Manjit Singh himself had given to his Department the attestation form in respect of accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder), it was his duty that in case he did not want to take him along as domestic help, he should have informed his Department accordingly. Therefore, his defence CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 81 of 98 now to take shelter under that he had not taken accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) as domestic help but accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) had gone on his own as he had refused to take him along has no merit.

64. Ld. Senior PP for CBI has drawn my attention to document i.e. D­20 Ex. PW4/C6 which is an undertaking of accused Manjit Singh to his Department whereby he had undertaken to take accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) as domestic assistant on an ordinary passport and had agreed to bear his air fare. If this undertaking is co­ related to the statement of PW­15 Sh. Varinder Singh who has stated that in July 2006, accused Manjit Singh had called him and accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) to Delhi and had demanded Rs. 6 Lakhs and in addition to that, the expenses of air tickets were also to be paid for taking accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) to New Zealand, it points out to the truthfulness of PW­15 Sh. Varinder Singh and the case of CBI.

65. Ld. Senior PP for CBI has also drawn my attention to document i.e. D­20 Ex. PW4/C7 dated 16.10.2006 whereby CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 82 of 98 Sh. J. Mukherjee who was the Administrative Officer of the Ministry of External Affairs had granted permission to accused Manjit Singh to take accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) as domestic assistant and that the domestic assistant will travel on ordinary passport. In this note, it was ordered that accused Manjit Singh will be responsible for arranging long­term visa for his domestic assistant. This note also mentions that accused Manjit Singh had given undertaking to his Department to repatriate his domestic help at his own cost. The undertaking of accused Manjit Singh in this regard is Ex. PW4/C­12 to Bureau of Security (BOS).

66. It is pertinent to mention that an order dated 03.11.2006 was issued in favour of accused Manjit Singh to take along with him domestic assistant accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) to Suva on ordinary passport and as per the statement of PW­15 Sh. Varinder Singh, a meeting had been arranged in November 2006 between accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) and accused Manjit Singh after accused Manjit Singh had made a telephone call to PW­15 Sh. Varinder Singh for payment of CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 83 of 98 the remaining amount.

67. Accused Manjit Singh has not been able to give any defence as to why he had also left one of his sons at New Zealand who had become destitute and had to be repatriated to Suva by Indian High Commission in Wellington after a few days of his stay there. His conduct is also to be seen with suspicion that though accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) was his responsibility as he had taken him along with him as domestic assistant, he conveniently handed over to him his passport as well as all the air tickets which he could not later on produce before his own High Commission when asked for and thus assisted him to disappear. It is noteworthy that he did not bring this to the notice of his High Commission either.

68. A perusal of D­5 also shows that as per Director, Immigration, Suva, Fiji, the Acting High Commission of India, accused Manjit Singh and his son Amarinder Singh were given back their documents before they had checked out. Therefore, the contention of accused Manjit Singh that he had handed over all the documents to accused Madhu CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 84 of 98 Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) who had disappeared while they were busy with the immigration formalities is also false.

69. His dishonest intention and criminal conspiracy became clear when he had changed the route of journey from New Delhi­Singapore­Sydney­Suva to New Delhi­ Singapore­Wellington­Sydney­Suva since he had intended to leave Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) at Wellington.

70. I have heard arguments on the aspect of discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses addressed by Ld. Senior PP for CBI as well as Ld. Defence Counsel and after going though their arguments as well as the testimony of the material witnesses, I do not find any discrepancy which either discredits the substantial testimony of the material witnesses and goes to the root of the charged offence or makes the case of prosecution doubtful.

71. As observed in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Smt. Kalki and Anr. {1981 (2) SCC 752}, "normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 85 of 98 of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and those are always there however, honest and truthful a witness may be.

Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy may be categorized.

While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party's case, material discrepancies do so."

72. Accused has led defence evidence, however, none of the witnesses who have been examined, have deposed on the aspect that accused Manjit Singh had not been a part of the conspiracy to take accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) as domestic help or that he had not taken Rs. 7 Lakhs from him for consideration to take him to New Zealand on false pretext of a domestic help having misrepresented to CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 86 of 98 his Department in this regard. Therefore, the evidence that he has led in his defence including his own evidence on both the aspects i.e. of there being no guest house in front of police station Janakpuri and in this aspect as discussed above, is of no help to him.

73. To prove the allegation of Section 420 IPC, the prosecution was to prove that there was dishonest intention from the very beginning and accused Manjit Singh by his acts had induced his Department to pass an order which they would not have otherwise passed, had the accused not induced them by his misguiding. In the present case, the dishonest intention of the accused was clear from the very beginning in the month of April 2006 when he had met PW Sh. Varinder Singh in Delhi and they had decided that accused Manjit Singh will take accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) to New Zealand on false pretext of an attendant for his son. Therefore, the prosecution has succeeded in proving the present case under Section 420 IPC. I find support in my opinion from the following cases:

74. In the case of Joseph Salvaraj Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2011 SC 2258: (2011) 7 SCC 59: JT 2011 (7) SC 53:

(2011) 6 SCALE 731, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that:

"There has to be a dishonest intention from the very beginning, which is sine qua non to hold the accused guilty for commission of the said offence".

CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 87 of 98

75. In the case of Mahadeo Prasad Vs. State of Bengal, AIR 1954 SC 724, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that:

"The offence of cheating is established when the accused thereby induced that person to deliver any property or to do or to omit to do something which he would otherwise not have done or omitted".

76. Having said so, I am thus of the opinion that prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that accused Manjit Singh had during the year 2006 had entered into a criminal conspiracy with accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) and in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy, he had abused his official position and facilitated his co­accused to reach New Zealand in the disguise of his domestic assistant by dishonestly and deceitfully obtaining permission from his Department to take his co­accused to Suva as his domestic assistant and instead of taking him to Suva dishonestly left accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) at New Zealand and for this purpose obtained a pecuniary advantage to the tune of Rs. 7 Lakh from his co­accused.

77. In view of the above, accused Manjit Singh stands convicted for the offences punishable under Section 120­B of Indian Penal Code read with Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 88 of 98

78. To come up for arguments on the quantum of sentence on 07.12.2013 at 10:30 AM.

79. As far as accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) is concerned, I am of the opinion that further investigation qua him needs to be carried out for the reasons that CBI has failed to file on record the visa issued to accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) that he had travelled along with accused Manjit Singh, and if he had become an illegal alien as he did not have the permission or visa to stay at New Zealand, how he had managed to stay in that country till 2008 on the strength of work permit which expired in March 2008. It also needs to be investigated as to what were the grounds taken and considered by the High Commission, New Zealand while granting him visitors visa in the year 2006, when he had travelled with accused Manjit Singh.

80. The Director, CBI is, therefore, directed to ensure that further investigation in this case qua accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) is carried out and status report in this regard is filed within six months.

81. Meanwhile, the file be consigned to Record Room after expiry of time of filing appeal. However, the file will not be destroyed till further order as one of the accused i.e. accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo is absconder and further investigation qua him has been ordered to be filed within six months.

Announced in the open Court on 30.11.2013.

(SWARANA KANTA SHARMA) SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI­05), NEW DELHI/ 30.11.2013 CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 89 of 98 IN THE COURT OF MS. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, SPECIAL JUDGE, CBI­05, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI CC No: 03/12 RC No: S18/2008/E0006/CBI/EOU­IV/NEW DELHI Unique Case ID No: 02403R0426012009 Title: State (CBI) Vs.

1. Manjit Singh S/o Late Sh. Sardar Khem Singh R/o 53/11, First Floor, Ashok Nagar, Near Tilak Nagar, New Delhi­110 018

2. Madhu Sudan Bhargo (Absconder) U/s: 120­B IPC r/w Section 420 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. (Appearances) Sh. Akshay Gautam, Ld. Senior PP for CBI.

Sh. Manoj Tomar, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for convict Manjit Singh along with convict.

Accused No. 2 Madhu Sudan Bhargo is absconder. ORDER ON SENTENCE

1. Vide my separate judgment dated 30.11.2013, accused Manjit Singh has been convicted.

CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 90 of 98

2. I have heard arguments on the point of sentence and have carefully gone through the case file.

3. Ld. Senior PP for CBI states that the allegations against convict Manjit Singh are serious in nature since it not only involve human trafficking but also bring bad name to our country. It is prayed that he be punished severely.

4. Ld. Counsel for convict Manjit Singh on the other hand states that a lenient view be taken while sentencing the convict as he is 60 years of age and has otherwise not been charged with any offence during his tenure of service. It is also stated that son of the convict is suffering from Schizophrenia. There is no dispute regarding the fact of serious medical condition of son of the convict either by his Department or by CBI.

5. After hearing both the sides, I am of the opinion that while dealing with the question of sentence in an authority reported as State of UP Vs. Sattan @ Satyendra and Others 2009 III AD (SC) 492, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in para 14 as under:

CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 91 of 98 "Proportion between crime and punishment is a goal respected in principle, and in spite of errant notions, it remains a strong influence in the determination of sentences. The practice of punishing all serious crimes with equal severity is now unknown in civilized societies, but such a radical departure from the principle of proportionality has disappeared from the law only in recent times. Even now for a single grave infraction drastic sentences are imposed. Anything less than a penalty of greatest severity for any serious crime is thought then to be a measure CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 92 of 98 of toleration that is unwarranted and unwise. But, in fact, quite apart from those considerations that make punishment unjustifiable when it is out of proportion to the crime, uniformly disproportionate punishment has some very undesirable practical consequences."

6. Similarly, in a recent authority reported as Surain Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2009­II AD (SC) 589, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in paragraphs 7 and 8 as under:

(7) "Day in and day out the gigantic problem of corruption in the public servants is on the increase.

Large scale corruption retards the nation­building activities and everyone has to suffer on CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 93 of 98 that count. Corruption is corroding like cancerous lymph nodes, the vital veins of the body politics, social fabric of efficiency in the public service and demoralizing the honest officers. The efficiency in public service would improve only when the public servant devotes his sincere attention and does the duty diligently, truthfully, honestly and devotes himself assiduously to the performance of the duties of his post".

(8) "Considering the peculiar facts of the case, we are of the view that the custodial sentences of one year, which is minimum prescribed, would meet the CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 94 of 98 ends of justice".

7. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the submissions made by Ld. Defence Counsel, I am of the opinion that the son of convict Manjit Singh as per medical record filed by him which has not been disputed by CBI needs continuous medical attention and frequent hospitalization. There is no doubt that the offence alleged against the convict is serious in nature since such acts bring bad name to the country by indulging in human trafficking by abusing their position of power. Another aspect of the seriousness of this offence is that due to such cases, even deserving persons at times are declined permission to take the attendant along. However, considering the fact that convict is about 60 years of age, has a sick son to take care of and the fact that in the past he has not been accused or convicted of any criminal offence, I am inclined to take a lenient view and sentence him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 120­B IPC read with Section 420 IPC along with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/­ (Rupees One Lakh Only), in default of which to Rigorous imprisonment for one month.

CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 95 of 98

8. I also sentence convict Manjit Singh to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 along with fine of Rs.1,00,000/­ (Rupees One Lakh Only), in default of which to Rigorous Imprisonment for one month.

9. All the sentences shall run concurrently as they arise from the same transaction of offence.

10. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. be given to convict Manjit Singh as per law.

11. Bail Bond of convict Manjit Singh is hereby cancelled and his surety stands discharged. The documents, if any, of the surety be returned against proper receipt after getting the endorsement, if any, cancelled.

12. Documents seized in the case be returned to the concerned Department on proper receipt by the IO after the time of filing of appeal is over.

CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 96 of 98

13. Fine of Rs.2,00,000/­ (Rupees Two Lakh Only) has been deposited by convict Manjit Singh.

14. At this stage, an application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is moved by Ld. Counsel for convict Manjit Singh. Copy supplied to Ld. Senior PP for CBI.

15. Heard on the application moved. It is stated that applicant/convict Manjit Singh would be preferring an appeal against the judgment of this court and it is requested that order on sentence may be suspended and the convict may be granted bail till filing of appeal.

16. Considering the fact that he has been regularly appearing during the trial, the application is allowed and sentence is suspended till 22.01.2014 subject to applicant/convict Manjit Singh furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/­ (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount. Bail bonds are furnished and accepted.

CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 97 of 98

17. Copy of the Judgment and Order on Sentence be given to convict Manjit Singh free of cost immediately.

18. File be consigned to Record Room after expiry of time of filing appeal. However, the file will not be destroyed till further order as one of the accused i.e. accused Madhu Sudan Bhargo is absconder and further investigation qua him has been ordered to be filed within six months. Announced in the open Court on 12.12.2013 (SWARANA KANTA SHARMA) SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI­05) NEW DELHI / 12.12.2013 CC No. 03/12 CBI Vs Manjit Singh & Another Page No. 98 of 98