In its order, the Court had noted that the original MoUs were handed over by the complainant, as per her complaint, to the police. (Representational Image)
The Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMIC) Court of Chandigarh acquitted a city woman of immigration fraud charges, over a decade after she was booked by the Chandigarh police. The case was registered at the Sector 3 police station under the various sections of the IPC and the Emigration Act for allegedly forging approval letters, memorandum of understanding and other documents.
“In order to prove the forgery or the preparation of false and forged documents, the prosecution first of all has to bring on record the originals of the forged documents, but in the present case none of the alleged forged documents in the shape of MOUs, cheques or the false appointment letters have been produced in original in the court nor the same were ever taken into possession in original by the IO,” read the judgement, adding that the originals were not recovered from possession of the accused.
In 2009, Amrit Gill had filed a complaint against accused Shilpa Aggarwal that all the documents supplied by the accused were false and fabricated and she had cheated them of Rs 6 lakh.
Aggarwal had allegedly assured in 2008 that she assist Sukhpal Singh and Gurjit Singh to get a work permit for Australia. She had allegedly also signed an MoU for sending another person Jagjit Singh Kular to Canada.
In its order, the Court had noted that the original MoUs were handed over by the complainant, as per her complaint, to the police.
However, it added that there was no such memo on the judicial record to prove that the police took them into possession. The Court also said that none of the duped persons were examined by the prosecution to prove the case of cheating.
“As per the case of the prosecution, the MoUs were executed in between the accused and Jagjit Singh Kullar, Gurjit Singh and Sukhpal, respectively, but none of the said witnesses were examined by the prosecution,” read the ruling, adding the persons were not even joined in the investigation by the Investigating Officer and there was no statement under the Section 161 of the CrPC.
The Court had said that it was sufficient to prove that there was a serious lacuna in the police investigation.
The prosecution had argued that the money was taken from the complainant and her husband Baldev Singh on the pretext of sending their known persons Kullar, Sukhpal and Gurjit abroad, however, as she did not possess the valid license, she committed an offence under the Emigration Act.
However, the Court rejected the charges.