IMPORTANT POINT
(1) Section 188 of Cr.P.C. gets attracted when entirety of offence is committed outside India and grant of sanction would enable such offence to be enquired into or tried in India.

JUDGMENT :

UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.

1. This appeal under Section 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 is directed against the judgment and order dated 07.12.2017 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Government Appeal No.139 of 2016.

2. The case of the prosecution as set out in the judgment under appeal was as under:

“2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that at 11:00 AM, S.I. Manju Pandey, In-charge Human Trafficking Unit Shadra Bairaj, Banbasa along with other police officials reached at Sharda Bairaj near Indo-Nepal border towards eastern side to check the illicit human trafficking. One volunteer namely Meera Sauda was also with them. They were checking the people coming from Nepal border. At about 13:30 hours, a secret information was received that an Indian boy was trying to import a minor girl of Nepal origin for the purpose of exploitation. The information was acted upon and one girl was noticed near a cart selling snacks towards the eastern side of Sharda Barrage. The name of the girl was ascertained. She disclosed her name “X X X” ¹[Identity of the prosecutrix/victim is not being disclosed.] R/o Village Koteshwar, District Kathmandu, Nepal, aged about 15 years. The investigation was carried out by maintaining all decency through Meera Sauda, who was well conversant with Hindi and Nepali languages. She disclosed to the police party that on 10.04.2015, she came all alone to see her uncle namely Arjun Sharma, who was a teacher in Lamki (Nepal). On 11.04.2015 at about 10:00 AM, she was having ice-cream from a cart at Atariya Bus stand. A boy came and stood by her side. He also started having the ice-cream. He tried to entice her. He allured her that he would take her to Banbasa in India where she can do shopping. They would stay in a hotel at Banbasa and in the morning, he would send her back to Atariya, Nepal. She trusted him. The boy brought her from Atariya, Nepal to Mahendra Nagar. He started pressing her breast in the bus. She told him not to do so. Thereafter, at Mahendra Nagar, he made her to sit on a horse cart, which was going towards India. They reached Banbasa bridge at about 13:45 hours. The gate was closed. Many horse carts and vehicles were parked. There was lot of rush. The boy got down from the horse cart and told her that there was police checking. He tutored her to tell the police that she was going to Banbasa for shopping. He started walking ahead. He told her that he would see her after some distance. Thereafter, they searched the boy. They reached near canal gate. The boy was standing near the tree facing towards bridge. “X X X” recognized the boy and told that he was the same boy, who has enticed her to come from Nepal. The boy was arrested. He disclosed his name Sartaj Khan, S/o Sardar Khan, R/o Mohalla Bhure Khan, P.S. Khakhra, District Pilibhit, Uttar Pradesh. He was aged 30 years. He admitted his guilt. The respondent and girl were brought to the office for counseling. Other police officials also reached the spot. It was, prima facie, found that the boy had brought the girl to India for exploitation. The personal search of the respondent was carried out. One pocket diary, one packet of condom, two man force tablets, Indian and Nepal currency and two mobile phones were found from his possession. The seizure memo was prepared. One copy of the same was handed over to the respondent. PW2 “X X X” was medically examined by PW4 Dr. Vinod Kumar Joshi.

3. The FIR was registered. The investigation was carried out and the challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities.

4. The prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses in its support.

5. Thereafter, the statement of respondent was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He denied the case of the prosecution. According to him, he was falsely implicated.”

3. The appellant was tried in the Court of Special Sessions Ju