Concurrent conviction of two accused for forging documents and passports to obtain visas upheld in revision. Court found evidence of seizure, hostile witnesses no bar, joint trial not prejudicial, and sanction not required for non-Passport Act offences. Revision dismissed.
Revision petitions dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.249 OF 2015 C/W
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.231 OF 2015
IN CRL.RP.NO.249/2015:
BETWEEN:
MR. SYED AKRAM, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O S. HAMEED, R/AT: NO.8, 2ND CROSS, BEHIND URDU SCHOOL, DR. TCM ROYAN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 053
….PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SATYANARAYANA CHALKE .S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICER IN CHARGE, SPECIAL CRIME BRANCH, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, A’WING, 3RD FLOOR, RAJAJI BHAVAN, BESANT NAGAR, CHENNAI-600 900.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL.PP)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 AND 401 CR.P.C, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 28.6.2014 AND SENTENCE DATED 30.6.2014 PASSED BY THE XVII ADDL. A.C.M.M. (SPL.
2
COURT FOR CBI CASES), BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.33938/2011 CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 419, 420, 468, 471 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION 12(1)(b) OF THE PASSPORTS ACT, 1967 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.2.2015 PASSED BY THE XXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J. AND PRL. SPL. JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.775/2014 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER.
IN CRL.RP.NO.231/2015:
BETWEEN:
SRI. SYEED IQBAL SANULLA, S/O SANAULLA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO.641, NEAR KGIS OFFICE, MADRAS, BENGALURU ROAD, KOLARA-563 101
….PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHARAN N. MAJAGE AND SRI. VENKATARAMAN NAIK, ADVOCATES)
AND:
STATE BY CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, SCB/CHENNAI, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH HEAD-600 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL.PP)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 AND 401 CR.P.C, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 28.6.2014 IN C.C.NO.33938/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE XVII-ACMM (SPL.COURT OF CBI CASES) AT BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCE P/UNDER SECTION 420, 468, 471 OF IPC AND ALSO ORDER CONFIRMED BY THE COURT OF THE XXI-ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND PRL. SPL. JUDGE FOR CBI CASES AT BENGALURU CITY ON 25.02.2015 IN CRL.A.NO.774/2014 AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT OF THE OFFENCE CHARGED AGAINST HIM.
3
THESE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 31.10.2023, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER’ THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
These revision petitions are filed by the accused challenging the judgment of conviction passed by XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, (Special Court for CBI cases) in C.C.No.33938/2011, which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.775/2014 and Crl.A.No.774/20144.
4
and told three other persons to go inside IBM and enquire
about persons who are in need of passports and visas. Then the raiding party apprehended suspicion, they surrounded the car and they have recovered passports, visa applications etc.
along with a letter of appointment dated 01.04.2008
5
issued by Overseasjobz Incorporation and a signature of Mohammed Younus was obtained on blank visa application form. However, Mohammed Younus never served in Overseasjobz Incorporation, Bangalore at any point of time and no such company was found existing in Bangalore. It is further asserted that accused No.1 had submitted a business meeting visa with Japanese Consulate, Chennai in January 2009 in the name of Abdul Rahim Sheikh wherein, he was shown as Business Development Manager in Overseasjobz Incorporation, Bengaluru. The letter of appointment was signed by accused No.1 himself. A firm by name overseasjobz.com.incorporation was registered in Toronto in Canada and accused No.1 and Kamothi Lehy were shown to be the directors of the firm. Accused No.1 had submitted for tourist visa in the name of Mohamed Younus and his wife Aiysha Kausar for Japan by blocking air tickets and hotel rooms, which was done in order to erase doubt in the minds of Consulate Officer.
6
submitted visa application during August 2007 for Syed Younus and Aiysha Kausar and the visa for Syed Younus was rejected and again in January 2009, the applications were submitted by the accused for the said persons wherein, Syed Younus was shown as employee of M/s Ming International, Bangalore and both applications were rejected. It is alleged that accused No.1 mentioned wrong fact about Syed Younus that he is an employee of M/s Ming International, wherein he never worked and no such company existed in Bangalore.
bearing No.E1703378 dated 29.04.2002 and again on 23.09.2008, he obtained another booklet vide passport No.Z1864256 dated 23.09.2008 from RPO, Bangalore including his wife’s name by canceling earlier passport. However, he was found in possession of another passport bearing No.A9437801 in the name of Manjunath wherein, the photo of accused No.2 was pasted. It is alleged that he
7
has obtained the passport in the name of Manjunath by showing the address as 1645, 17th main 1st stage 2nd block, Bangalore -5600050, but his address was No.8, 2nd Cross TCM, Royan Road, behind Urdu School, Chickpet, Bangalore. It is further asserted that accused No.2 at the time of submitting application before Regional Passport Officer, Bangalore in the fictitious name of Manjunath, enclosed letter head of company viz., G.P. Electronics, 8/8 J.C.Road, Bengaluru stating that he is working as an Accountant, but no such firm was found existing. Apart from that, it is also alleged that accused No.2 opened an account with UTI Bank, Bangalore by showing his name as Manjunath and he maintained this account in the fictitious name of Manjunath and fictitious address. He has also maintained another account in his own name in SBI Chamrajpet, Bangalore branch wherein, the photograph of accused No.2 was found and the photograph pasted in the account opening form in UTI Bank was that of accused
No.2.
8
Tajamul Ahmed resident of Chamarajpet, Bangalore approached accused No.2 for arranging employment in Japan and assuring the said Syed Tajamul Ahmed, he received his passport and a sum of Rs.3 Lakhs for arranging visa etc., but when Syed Tajamul Ahmed traveled Japan in August 2007, he found that he did not have any employment and he was cheated without any job by accused No.2. For obtaining the visa in the name of Syed Tajamul Ahmed, accused has shown him as a Sales Manager in S.R.Jewellery, but that was also found to be false. Accordingly, one C.C.Shivakumar has also approached accused No.2 for Tatkal passport and visa to Singapore, Malaysia and Senegal and he received a sum of Rs.5,000/- from him by obtaining signatures on blank visa applications along with photographs. The accused No.2 has also enclosed a letter of M/s Remix Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore for visa application of C.C.Shivakumar, but that was found to be false and fabricated document. While applying visa to visit Senegal, accused No.2 showed
9
himself as General Manager of M/s Remix Constructions
Pvt. Ltd., while, C.C.Shivakumar was shown as Technical Consultant, but that statement was found to be false.
has examined in all 34 witnesses at PW1 to PW34 and placed reliance on 174 documents marked at Ex.P1 to
10
P174. During the cross-examination, Ex.D1 to D3 were
also got marked by the defence counsel. M.O.1 to 3 were also marked.
prosecution, the statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded to enable the accused to explain the incriminating evidence appearing against them in the case of the prosecution. The case of the accused is of total denial and they did not choose to lead any oral and documentary evidence in support of their defence.
appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate has convicted accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Section 420, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 by imposing sentence of imprisonment as well as fine. The accused No.2 was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 419, 420, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 12(1)(b) of Passport Act, 1967 by imposing sentence of
11
imprisonment as well as fine. Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused No.1 filed Crl.A.No.774/2014 while, accused No.2 filed Crl.A.No.775/2014 on the file of XXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge / Principal Sessions Judge for CBI cases, Bangalore city.
12
landlords were not examined and regarding transactions,
there is no evidence and so called Shivakumar did not support the case of the prosecution. The records disclose that as on the date of mahazar, accused No.2 was in custody and mahazar witnesses have turned hostile. It is also asserted that charges against accused No.1 and accused No.2 are individual, but the joint trial was held, which has vitiated the trial. It is also asserted that under Section 15 of the Passport Act, 1967 , sanction was not obtained and sanction was only as against accused No.2 but not in respect of accused No.1. It is further asserted that the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded jointly and no specific questions were put to respective accused and forged documents were not at all exhibited. It is also contended that no person from passport office was examined and the so called Abdul Rehman was not cited as a witness and seizure itself is not proved and there is no charge of conspiracy. He would also assert that investigation can be continued only after registration and there is no evidence to show that accused
13
traveled and there is serious doubt regarding mahazar and recovery. It is also submitted that in respect of identification before the court, the witnesses have not properly identified and hence, it is asserted that both the courts below have failed to appreciate any of these aspects
in its proper perspective and sought for allowing the revisions by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction by acquitting the accused.
passports and there is no specific defence raised by the accused and both the accused were apprehended simultaneously and there is no evidence to show that they are prejudiced by joint trial and no objection was raised at the initial stage for joint trial. Hence, he would contend that the grounds now urged cannot be considered as the
14
scope of revision is limited. Hence, he would seek for
rejection of the revision petitions.
records, now the following point would arise for my consideration:
15
468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. When accused
No.1 was prosecuted for the offences punishable under the provisions of IPC only, question of obtaining sanction does not arise at all.
16
17
they have turned hostile. However, they admitted their signatures. Though they claimed that their signatures were obtained in Police Station and they never accompanied the raid, the said contention cannot be accepted since, they are not the laymen and educated persons having knowledge. It is not their case that their signature was obtained by any threat or coercion by the police. Hence, it is prima facie evident that the seizure mahazar witnesses have been won over by the accused, which has resulted in their hostility, but mere hostility of these witnesses does not amount that the prosecution has failed to prove the seizure and the evidence of PW1 to PW3 coupled with PW9 establish this aspect. There is no hard and fast rule that the evidence of the Investigating Officer or police officers cannot be trusted and if it is beyond suspicion there is no bar for accepting their evidence.
18
of the prosecution. PW4 and PW6 have been cheated by the accused No.1 and their evidence clearly disclose that
accused No.1 obtained passport under the guise of providing Visa and crated documents regarding the witnesses working in Overseasjobz, but the evidence of PW4 disclose that he never worked in Overseasjobz and no such company existed and it clearly establish that Ex.P4 and Ex.15 are fabricated documents. The signature of accused No.1 on Ex.P4 and Ex.P15 were marked as Q22 and Q21, which were sent to hand writing expert who was examined as PW29 and his evidence disclose that the specimen writing and signature of accused No.1 marked at S1, S18 to S26 in Ex.P117 are that of accused No.1 and they tally with Ex.P4, signature marked at Q22 and Ex.P15 signature marked at Q21. Hence, the evidence clearly discloses that accused No.1 has forged the signature of PW4. Further, this evidence is again corroborated by evidence of PW8 whose evidence clearly disclose that Overseasjobz Incorporation was not at all registered company in Bangalore and same is certified as per Ex.P14.
19
As such, the evidence of PW4, PW8 coupled with evidence
of PW29, it is evident that accused No.1 has forged the signature in Ex.P4 and Ex.P15 and tried to obtain Visa on the basis of forged documents and this evidence is again supported by the evidence of PW5 who is the father of PW4.
20
been to the address of M/s Ming international for delivery of the letter and it is revealed that no such company existed and it is further evident that from Ex.P9 and Ex.P11 that one Hidayathulla Khan has signed as managing partner. Though it is not the case of the prosecution that accused has forged the signature of said Hidayathulla, but accused has submitted Ex.P9 and Ex.P11 with an intention to obtain Visa though no such company existed. Apart from that the evidence of PW6 is again supported by the evidence of PW7.
21
corroborated by the evidence of PW19-post man that M/s Ming international is also a fictitious company as he is unable to deliver the letter to the company. Hence, the evidence on record clearly establish that accused No.1 forged some of the documents and signed himself in the name of the applicants and used them as genuine documents.
at his instance, but this aspect has been disputed by the defence. It is asserted that accused No.2 was arrested on 19.01.2009 itself, but to substantiate this contention, no material document has been produced.
22
23
documents showing that he was working as General Manager in Remix Construction Private Limited by drawing a salary of Rs.35,800/- and he has prepared salary slip and appointment order and letter was written to Visa officer in a letter head and created document of income tax returns. It is also evident that he has also created DL No.4826/1996-97 in the name of Manajunath by affixing the photograph of accused No.2. All these documents were seized from the custody of accused No.2 under Ex.P1 and the letter head, salary slips, account extract of ICICI bank, visa letters are marked at Ex.P20 to Ex.P33. As per the letter of M/s Remix Constructions Limited dated 11.08.2008 addressed to Visa Officer, Senegal Embassy, it is asserted that Chandregowda Shivakumar was their employee as per Ex.P34. The passport of Chandregowda Shivakumar is marked at Ex.P35, but the photograph affixed is that of accused to Ex.P35. The other passport found in possession of the accused is marked at Ex.P36 and DL in the name of Manajunath is marked at Ex.P37. All these documents were seized as per Ex.P40.
24
has also recorded the voluntary statement of accused No.2 as per Ex.P39 and recovered salary slip of Chandregowda as per Ex.P46 in six blank sheets of ICICI bank as well as Ex.P47 seal of Overseasjobz Incorporation marked at MO1 and all these documents were seized from the custody of accused No.2. Further on 25.01.2009, on the basis of voluntary statement of accused No.2, they all went to his house and 38 items marked at Ex.P51 were seized. The DL of Manjunath was seized from the possession of accused as per Ex.P3. Apart from that, the debit card bearing the photo of accused No.2 in the name of Manajunath is seized, which is marked at Ex.P54. Further, the air travel tickets in the name of Chandregowda Shivakumar were recovered as per Ex.P56 and Ex.P57.
25
him, but that cannot be a ground to ignore the material seizure .
26
per Ex.P81 and copy of the old passport is produced at
Ex.P85. On the basis of these documents, Ex.P36, passport came to be issued to accused No.2, but his evidence also clearly establish that accused No.2 has also obtained passport in the name of Manjunath, Son of Shanthappa and he identified the copy of the application submitted for issuance of passport in the name of Manjunath as per Ex.P88 and the photo of the accused No.2 is pasted and address given was that of BSK I Stage.
27
and thereby committed an offence under Section 12(1)(b)
of Passport Act, 1967.
28
tendered them in evidence to the competent authority having knowledge that they are forged documents.
29
evidence, it is evident that both the accused have committed offences by forging the documents and by using them as genuine documents and accused No.2 has committed an offence under Section 12 of Passport Act, 1967 also.
30
properly answered it by rejecting the said submission. Further, when no prejudice is caused to the accused and when they got ample opportunity to defend their case, now it cannot lie in the mouth of the accused that joint trial is bad or vitiated.
31
statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C was challenged and sought to be quashed by filing a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C on the ground that incriminating material and material questions were not posed. But in the instant case, no such petition was filed and after suffering conviction in two courts below without disclosing how accused are prejudiced, the issue has been raised. But in view of the decision reported in ‘SHIVAJI SAHARAO
BOBADE & ANR. VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA’, (1973) 2 SCC 793, ‘FAINUL KHAN VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS’, (2019) 9 SCC 549 , ‘DELHI SINGH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, AIR 2010 SCC 3594 and ‘STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) VS. DHARAMPAL’, (2001) 10 SCC 372 , it has not relevancy.
Even as observed above, the said citation was under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and in the instant case, no evidence is placed to show prejudice and hence, question of applicability of the said citation to the facts and circumstances of the present case does not arise at all.
32
33
‘FAINUL KHAN VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS’,
(2019) 9 SCC 549 , wherein it is held that inadequacy or omissions in questions to be put to accused in 313 Cr.P.C proceedings cannot be generalized by causing prejudice. In the instant case also, no evidence is placed that by recording joint statement, any prejudice has been caused to the accused.
77 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the recoveries need not always be proved through deposition of panchas
34
and it can even be supported through the testimony of Investigating Officer, which is exactly the case in hand. Further this view is again supported by the decision in ‘MALLIKARJUN & ORS. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA’,
(2019) 8 SCC 359 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the evidence of Investigating Officer can be relied on to prove recovery, even if the pancha witnesses have turned hostile. These citations would assist the prosecution completely as in the instance case, mahazar witnesses have turned hostile but the police officials PW1 to PW3 and PW9 have fully supported the case of the prosecution.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, AIR 2010 SCC 3594 relied by learned counsel for the respondent, it is observed that statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be treated as evidence and it is only an defence, which is required to be considered on the basis of other circumstances. Further in a decision in ‘STATE (DELHI
ADMINISTRATION) VS. DHARAMPAL’, (2001) 10 SCC
35
372 , the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 13 observed that failure to draw accused attention to inculpatary material to enable him to explain it in examination of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C itself will not vitiate the entire proceedings. Hence, it is evident that accused is required to prove that they have in fact prejudiced by such act and no such evidence is forthcoming in the instant case. Looking to these facts and circumstances, the grounds urged by defence counsels are untenable.
36
revisions. As such, the point under consideration is answered in the negative and hence, the revision petitions need to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petitions fail and
stand dismissed .
Sd/- JUDGE
SS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the concurrent judgments of conviction and sentence for offences under IPC and Passports Act were perverse, arbitrary, or erroneous warranting interference in revision?
Whether the joint trial of the two accused caused prejudice vitiating the proceedings?
Whether failure to obtain sanction under Section 15 of the Passports Act, 1967 for one accused is fatal?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Crl.P.No.2170/2021 dated 21.09.2021Referred¶39
Shivaji Saharao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State of MaharashtraRelied on¶39
SHIVAJI SAHARAO BOBADE & ANR. VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, (1973) 2 SCC 793 · Who else cites this
Fainul Khan Vs. State of Jharkhand & OrsRelied on¶39
FAINUL KHAN VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS, (2019) 9 SCC 549 · Who else cites this
Delhi Singh Vs. State of MaharashtraRelied on¶39
DELHI SINGH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, AIR 2010 SCC 3594 · Who else cites this
State (Delhi Administration) Vs. DharampalRelied on¶39
STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) VS. DHARAMPAL, (2001) 10 SCC 372 · Who else cites this
Iqbal Ahmed Vs. CBIReferred¶40
IQBAL AHMED VS. CBI, Crl.R.P.538/2014
Kripal Singh Vs. State of RajasthanRelied on¶43
KRIPAL SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN, (2019) 5 SCC 646 · Who else cites this
State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramlal Devappa Rathod & OrsRelied on¶44
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. RAMLAL DEVAPPA RATHOD & ORS, (2015) 15 SCC 77 · Who else cites this
Mallikarjun & Ors. Vs. State of KarnatakaRelied on¶44
MALLIKARJUN & ORS. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA, (2019) 8 SCC 359 · Who else cites this
6 provisions across 3 enactments
Mr. Syed Akram
The Union of India, represented by the Officer in Charge, Special Crime Branch, Central Bureau of Investigation
Sri. Syeed Iqbal Sanulla
State by Central Bureau of Investigation, SCB/Chennai, represented by its Branch Head
Rajendra Badamikar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
