Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Suraj @ Suraj Ratra @ Sukhdyal Suraj on 5 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. JYOTI MAHESHWARI,
ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-05,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT, NEW DELHI
CBI vs. SURAJ RATRA & Ors.
FIR No. RC10(S)/2004/SIU.I/CBI/SCR-I/New Delhi
Branch : SCU-I/New Delhi
Under Section: 120B r/w 420, 468 & 471 of IPC and 120B r/w Section
12(1) (a) & (b) of the Passports Act, 1967.
Case No : CBI/457/2019
Date of Institution : 20.08.2004
Date of Reserving : 29.07.2025
Date of Pronouncement : 05.08.2025
JUDGMENT
a) Serial number of the case : CBI/457/2019
b) Period of commission of : 1998 to 2003 offence
c) Name of the complainant : Sh. Vijay Vir Singh, Inspector, CBI/SCR-I/New Delhi
d) Name, parentage and : 1. Suraj Ratra, S/o Sh. Heera address of the accused Nand, R/o. 3D/59, NIT, Faridabad.
2. Badloo Khan, S/o Sh.
Abdullah, R/o. Village Maina Mauzpur, PS Khurja Junction, Bulandshahr, U.P.
3. Pramod Kumar Sharma, S/o Sh.
Goverdhan Das Sharma, R/o.
A-463, Shastri Nagar, New Delhi.
4. Naresh Arora, S/o Late Sh. K L Arora, R/o. 124, Promise Apartments, New Delhi.
5. Rockin R, ASI (Retd.), S/o Sh.
Roseman R/o. Alankar Bhawan, CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 1 of 59 Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI MAHESHWARI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05 17:23:22 +0530 Kaniangalam, Elevampadam, PO district Palghat, Kerala.
6. Mohan Lal , S/o Sh. Heera Nand, R/o. 2E/167, NIT Faridabad (ABSCONDER).
e) Offence complained of : Sections 120B r/w 420, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC and Section120B, IPC r/w Sections 12(1) (a) & (b) of the Passport Act,1967.
f) Plea of the accused : Accused persons pleaded not guilty.
g) Final Order : ACQUITTAL
h) Date of Decision : 05.08.2025
INDEX OF THE JUDGMENT:
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION......................................4 CHARGE..........................................................7 PROSECUTION EVIDENCE................................8 STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED U/S 313 CrPC......22 FINAL ARGUMENTS...............................................22 A. Arguments raised by the Prosecution...............................22 B. Arguments raised qua A-2 Badloo Khan and A-5 Rockin R.....27 C. Arguments raised qua A-4 Naresh Arora.........................28 JYOTI MAHESHWARI D. Arguments raised qua A-3 Pramod Kumar Sharma.............29 Digitally signed by JYOTI MAHESHWARI Date: ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS.........................................29 2025.08.05 17:23:27 +0530 A. Absence of Sanction u/s 140, Delhi Police Act, 1978 r/w S. 197, CrPC, qua A-2 and A-5 and its effect thereof............................29 CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 2 of 59 B. Admissibility of the documents furnished in evidence........36 C. Deficiencies in the investigation conducted and the case of prosecution...............................................................42 i. Verification regarding the change of names of A-1 and A-6..................................................................................................44 ii. Verification regarding the addresses mentioned in the passport application forms.......................................................................47 D. The angle of criminal conspiracy in the present case.......................................................................49 E. Contentions regarding the specific liability of the accused persons....................................................................54 CONCLUSION......................................................58
1. Vide this Judgment, the Court shall determine whether the accused persons, namely, Badloo Khan (A-2), Pramod Kumar Sharma (A-3), Naresh Arora (A-4) and Rockin R (A-5) are guilty of the offences, which they are charged with, in the present case. The present Judgment shall also deal with the applications on behalf of Badloo Khan (A-2) and Rockin R (A-5) for dropping the proceedings against them, on account of lack of sanction u/Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 r/w Section 197, CrPC.
JYOTI
2. During the course of trial, A-1 Suraj Ratra pleaded guilty to the MAHESHWARI Digitally signed offences and was convicted by Order dated 01.12.2011, for offences by JYOTI MAHESHWARI Date: 2025.08.05 punishable u/S 120B/420/468/471 IPC and Section 12(1)(b) of 17:23:30 +0530 Passports Act. Further, the accused Mohan Lal (A-6), was absconding since investigation and was declared as a Proclaimed Offender (PO), by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide Order dated 24.05.2006.
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 3 of 59 CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
3. The factual matrix of the present case, outlined briefly, is that the instant RC was registered on 20.08.2004, against accused Suraj Ratra (A-1), S/o Sh. Eera Nand, unknown officials of Delhi Police and other persons u/S 120-B r/w 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Sections 12(1) (a) and
(b) of Passports Act, 1967 and the substantive offences thereof, on the complaint of Sh. Vijay Vir Singh, Inspector, CBI/SCR-I/New. Delhi. It is alleged that Sh. Eera Nand @ Hira Nand, S/o Sant Ram (an Afghan National), father of accused Suraj Ratra (A-1) and Mohan Lal (A-6) came to India as a refugee and got himself registered as an Afghan National at FRRO, New Delhi 1989, on the strength of passports issued from Kabul, Afghanistan. The accused persons, namely Suraj Ratra (A-1) and Mohan Lal (A-6), had been residing at 3D/59 NIT, Faridabad for some years and resided at 2E/167 B NIT, Faridabad for a certain duration. The Foreigners Regional Registration Office (hereinafter, referred to as "FRRO") records mentioned that accused Mohan Lal (A-6) was registered as an Afghan National vide Registration Certificate No. 4661/97 on the strength of passport issued from Kabul and had been overstaying in India since 21.12.1997.
4. The accused Suraj Ratra (A-1) had applied for Indian Passport vide passport application No. 503522 dated 29.05.1998, wherein he falsely claimed himself to be a resident of E-88/12, Jagjeet Nagar, Seelam Pur, Delhi. This application was accompanied by a false and forged copy of ration card No. 263103, allegedly issued by the Office of Food & Supply Officer (FSO), Bhajanpura Delhi (FSO-50) in the name of Eera Nand as Head of the family and also mentioned the name CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 4 of 59 Digitally signed by JYOTI MAHESHWARI JYOTI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05 17:23:39 +0530 of the accused Suraj (A-1) and an affidavit, in respect of his place of birth. The said application was forwarded to Dy. Commissioner of Police, Special Branch, New Delhi, vide reference No. B-018706 dated 29.05.1998, for the purpose of police verification.
5. The police verification for the purpose of issuance of Passport, qua A-1 Suraj Ratra, was assigned to ASI Badloo Khan (A-2) by the Special Branch, Delhi Police. It is alleged that ASI Badloo Khan (A-2), entered into criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons to falsely verify Suraj (A-1) S/o Eera Nand, as resident of E-88/12, Jagjeet Nagar, Delhi. It is also alleged that he attested the bogus ration card and mentioned the name of two fictitious witnesses in his report. Thereafter, on the basis of this police verification report and false and forged documents, accused Suraj Ratra (A-1) was issued an Indian Passport bearing No. A-5804114 dated 07.07.1998, which was valid upto 07.07.2008.
6. It is further alleged that in the year 2000 and 2003, accused Suraj Ratra (A-1) and Mohan Lal (A-6), both sons of Hira Nand i.e Afghan Nationals, entered into a conspiracy with accused persons, namely Pramod Kumar Sharma (A-3) and Naresh Arora (A-4), and further got the Passports issued, on the basis of forged documents. A-3 Pramod Kumar Sharma had filled in the passport application from no. 0219249 of A-1 Suraj Ratra and had allegedly arranged a forged copy of ration card, for the accused. Similarly, A-3 had also got the passport application form no. 817990, filled up in the name of A-6 Mohan Lal, wherein he allegedly submitted false information regarding the CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. JYOTI Page no. 5 of 59 MAHESHWARI Digitally signed by JYOTI MAHESHWARI Date: 2025.08.05 17:23:45 +0530 nationality and residential address of accused Mohan Lal (A-6). A-4 Naresh Arora was running a travel agency in the name of U-Tel Travels and Cargo (P) Ltd. and had filled in the passport application form No. 01416594, of Suraj Ratra (A-1), for issuance of additional passport booklet. On the strength of these application forms and annexed forged documents, accused Suraj Ratra (A-1) was issued Passport No. D-1700556 dt. 02-05-2000 and additional passport booklet No. E-4871464 dt. 01-05-2003, while A-6 Mohan Lal was issued Passport No. B-2323353 dt. 22-08-2000, of Indian Nationality. It is submitted that the forged Ration Cards and Voter ID Cards qua both the accused were prepared by A-3 Pramod Kumar Sharma, under his own handwriting.
7. The police verification regarding the above mentioned passports were marked to ASI Badloo Khan (in case of A-1) and ASI Rockin R(in case of A-6), who purportedly in connivance with the accused persons, gave a false verification report, although, the Ration Cards which were the subject matter of verification, were never issued to the accused persons by the concerned FSO and the accused persons were not found residing at the given addresses. It was also revealed during investigation that on the strength of these passports, A-1 and A-6 travelled abroad on multiple occasions. On this basis, it is alleged that the accused persons committed offences U/s 120-B/420/468/471 of IPC and section 12(1) (a) and (b) of Passports Act as well as substantive offences, thereof.
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. 2025.08.05 Page no. 6 of 59
17:23:50
+0530
8. The Court took cognizance of the offences as disclosed in the charge sheet, and accordingly, all the accused persons were summoned in 2005.
CHARGE
9. A-1 Suraj Ratra had moved an application for pleading guilty and vide Order dated 24.11.2011, Suraj Ratra was convicted of the offences punishable u/S 120B r/w Sections 420/468/471 IPC and Section 12(1) (b) of the Passports Act, 1967. A-1 Suraj Ratra was also sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him (12 days in custody) and a cumulative fine of Rs. 30,000/- for the above-mentioned offences. The convict Suraj Ratra was also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- to CBI. After deposit of fine and compensation amount, Suraj Ratra (A-1), was discharged from the present case.
10. As regards the other accused, vide Order dated 23.08.2011, the aspect of charge was adjudicated, and it was held that the charges be framed against the accused persons (A-2 to A-5) u/s 120-B r/w Section 420/468/471 IPC and Section 12 (1) (b) of the Passports Act, 1967, as well as the substantive offences. The charges were framed against the accused persons, on 18.10.2012, as mentioned below:
S. No. Name of the accused Charges framed
1. Badloo Khan (A-2) U/s 120-B r/w 420/468/471 of IPC and Section 12(1) (a) & (b) of the Passports Act and substantive offences u/s 420/468/471, IPC and Section 12 (1) (b) of the CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 7 of 59 Digitally signed by JYOTI MAHESHWARI JYOTI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05 17:23:56 +0530 Passports Act.
2. Pramod Kumar Sharma U/s 120-B r/w 420/468/471 (A-3) of IPC and Section 12(1) (a) & (b) of the Passports Act and substantive offences u/s 420/468/471, IPC and Section 12 (1) (b) of the Passports Act.
3. Naresh Arora (A-4) U/s 120-B r/w 420/468/471 of IPC and Section 12(1) (a) & (b) of the Passports Act and substantive offences u/s 420, IPC and Section 12 (1)
(b) of the Passports Act.
4. Rockin R. (A-5) U/s 120-B r/w 420/468/471 of IPC and Section 12(1) (a) & (b) of the Passports Act and substantive offences u/s 420/468/471, IPC and Section 12 (1) (b) of the Passports Act.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
11. Thereafter, the matter was listed for prosecution evidence. The prosecution, in order to prove and substantiate its case, examined 52 witnesses in total, whose details are provided below:
PW1 Sh. Vijay Veer Singh: He was posted as Inspector of Police in SCR-I Branch of CBI and is the complainant in the present case. He deposed that during investigation of another case, raids were conducted at the premises of M/s U Tel & Travels, Connaught Place, New Delhi owned by Naresh Arora (A-4) and Deepak Arora. Around 90 passports Digitally signed CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. by JYOTI Page no. 8 of 59 MAHESHWARI JYOTI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05 17:24:00 +0530 including the passport of Suraj Ratra were recovered during the raid. He also exhibited the following documents, in his deposition:
S. No. Exhibit No. Document No. Description
1. Ex. PW1/A D-2 Complaint of the present case.
2. Ex. PW1/B D-1 RC of the present case
3. Ex. PW1/C D-9/1 Passport of Suraj Ratra, bearing No. E-4871464
4. Ex. PW1/D D-3/1 Search list dated 01.09.2004.
5. Ex. PW1/E D-4 Ration Card in the name of Sukhdayal Suraj
6. Ex. PW1/F D-5 Birth Certificate of Sukhdayal Suraj (A-1)
7. Ex. PW1/G D-8 Handing/ Taking Over Memo dated 03.09.2004
8. Ex. PW1/H D-9/2 Passport of Suraj Ratra bearing No. B-1700556.
9 Ex. PW1/J D-21 Handing/ Taking Over Memo dated 11.10.2004
10. Ex. PW1/K D-22 Passport of Mohan Lal bearing No. B-2323353
11. Ex. PW1/L D-23/2 Attested Scanned copy of passport Application Form of Mohan Lal (A-6)
12. Ex. PW1/M D-23/8 Attested scanned copy of ration Card of Hira Nand.
13. Ex. PW1/N D-23/9 Attested scanned copy of affidavit of Mohan Lal.
PW-2 Sh. S.P. Kothari: The witness was Superintendent (Administration) at Regional Passport Office, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. The witness explained the procedure for issuance of ordinary passports and exhibited the following documents, in his deposition:
Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI MAHESHWARI CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05 Page no. 9 of 59 17:24:06 +0530 S. No. Exhibit No. Document No. Description
1. Ex. PW2/A D-28 Receipt Memo dated 28.10.2004.
2. Ex. PW2/B D-29 Attested scanned copy of circular no.
VI/401/13/2004 dated 14.03.2002
3. Ex. PW2/C D-17/1 Passport Application Form of Suraj.
4. Ex. PW2/D D-17/7 Ration Card of Eera Nand
5. Ex. PW2/E D-17/8 Affidavit of Suraj
6. Ex. PW2/F D-16 Attested Scanned copy of Passport no.
A-5804114 (in the name of Suraj).
7. Ex. PW2/G D-16/6 Scanned copy of ration card in the name of Suraj
8. Ex. PW2/H D-18 Original passport application no.
01416594 of Suraj Ratra.
9. Ex. PW2/J D-18/6 Copy of passport no. B1700556
10. Ex. PW2/K D-18/13 Application of Suraj Ratra to RPO, R.K. Puram, New Delhi.
11. Ex. PW2/L D-18/14 Newspaper cutting showing the change of name from Suraj to Suraj Ratra.
12. Ex. PW2/M D-18/16 Deed Poll dated 16.04.2003.
13. Ex. PW2/O D-13 Seizure memo dated 30.09.2004
14. Ex. PW2/P D-14 Letter dated 23.09.2004
15. Ex. PW2/Q D-15 Enclosures of letter dated 23.09.2004.
PW-3 (Sh. Shamsuddin Abbasi), PW-4 (Sh. Mohd. Usman), PW-5 (Sh. Sushil Kumar), PW-8 (Sh. Ziaul Rehman @ Mohd. Gulam) and PW-9 (Sh. Sri Niwas Sharma): All the above-mentioned witnesses were residents of Jagjit Nagar, New Delhi and deposed regarding the non-existence of address i.e. E-88/12, Jagjit Nagar, New Delhi. The witness PW-3 also exhibited the Passport Application Form of Suraj as Ex. PW3/A. Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI MAHESHWARI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05 CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. 17:24:11 Page no. 10 of 59 +0530 PW-6 (Chander Bhan Arya): He was posted as Notary Public since 20.04.1992 till 2006. He identified the document D-33/2, which was regarding his renewal of Certificate of Practice as Notary and the same was exhibited as Ex. PW6/A. The witness further denied his signatures and seal impressions on the deed poll, Ex. PW2/M. PW-7 (Naresh Kumar Sharma): He was the owner of the premises bearing No. 313/71-E, Anand Nagar, Inderlok, Delhi and he had been residing at the above-mentioned premises since 1972, along with his family. The witness deposed to the effect that A-1 Suraj Ratra was neither his tenant nor resided at the above-mentioned property. PW-22 (Jaipal Gupta) also deposed to the effect that Hira Nand as well as Suraj Ratra did not reside at the above-mentioned property.
PW-10 (Gauri Shanker Raheja): He was Officiating Assistant Food and Supply Officer at Faridabad, NIT. He had issued letter dated 29.09.2004 (D-12) to CBI, which pertained to issuance of duplicate ration card to Sh. Hira Nand. He exhibited the letter dated 29.09.2004 as Ex. PW10/A. PW-11 (D.R. Saini) and PW-23 (Satish Saini): The witness PW-11 is the father of witness PW-23. Both the witnesses were residents of 3-D/12, NIT, Faridabad, Haryana and they deposed to the effect that Hira Nand was residing at 3D/59, NIT, Faridabad.
PW-12 (Sanjay Kumar Arora): He was posted as the Food Supply Officer at Circle 50, Ghonda, Bhajanpura, Delhi, during 2004- CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 11 of 59 Digitally signed by JYOTI MAHESHWARI JYOTI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05 17:24:15 +0530 05 and deposed regarding the issuance of ration card bearing no.
263103 (Ex. PW2/D), to Ms. Mazda Begum. He exhibited the following documents in his deposition:
S. No. Exhibit No. Document Description No.
1. Ex. PW12/A D-20 Letter to FSO, Bhajanpura
2. Ex. PW12/B D-42/1 Application for addition/ deletion in the ration card of Mazda Begum.
3. Ex. PW12/C D-20/3 Photocopy of master register of FPS no. 6421.
4. Ex. PW12/D D-20/4 Photocopy of FDR "A"
5. Ex.PW12/B1 D-42/1 Receipt memo attested copy of Ration Card no. 125991 (Bhu Devi) and 187347 (Usha Devi).
6. Ex. PW12/B2 D-43/1 Application form of Mazada Begum for issuance of ration card.
7. Ex. PW12/B3 D-43/2 Electricity bill in the name of Tej Pal
8. Ex. PW12/B4 D-43/3 Ration Card of Bhu Devi
9. Ex. PW12/B5 D-43/5 Ration Card of Raju Kashyap
10. Ex. PW12/B6 D-43/6 Affidavit of Mazada Begum
11. Ex. PW12/F D-20/6 Photocopy of FDR "B" of Mazada Begum.
PW-13 (Sh. Gurbax Singh): He was posted as AFRRO, East Block, Delhi and deposed about the status of Hira Nand and Mohan Lal, being Afghan Nationals. He exhibited the following documents in his deposition:
S. No. Exhibit No. Document Description No.
1. Ex. PW13/A D-37 Verification for nationality of Hira Nand.
2. Ex. PW13/B D-37/2 Photocopies of the registration certificates of Hira Nand.
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 12 of 59 Digitally signed by JYOTI MAHESHWARI JYOTI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05 17:24:21 +0530 PW-14 (Ms. Saroj Bala): She was posted as In-charge (Record- Afghan Cell), FRRO, Delhi. She deposed about the seizure of original registration certificates of Hira Nand and Mohan Lal, by the IO and exhibited the following documents in her deposition:
S. No. Exhibit No. Document Description No.
1. Ex. PW14/A D-38 Seizure memo of original registration certificates of two Afghan Nationals, namely, Hira Nand and Moon Lal.
2. Ex. PW14/B D-39/1 Registration Certificate no. 22304 in the name of Hira Nand
3. Ex. PW14/C D-39/2 Registration Certificate no.
46741/AFG/DLI/97 in the name of Hira Nand
4. Ex. PW14/D D-39/3 Registration Certificate no.
46611/AFG/DLI/97 in the name of Moon Lal PW-15 (Sh. Ravinder Kumar): He was posted as In-charge, APP Branch, Special Branch, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. He deposed about the verification reports of the applications for issuance of passports and exhibited the following documents in his deposition:
S. No. Exhibit No. Document Description No.
1. Ex. PW15/A D-31/1 Seizure memo of verification of passport applications form in the name of Mohan Lal.
2. Ex. PW15/B1 D-32/1 Verification Report of Mohan Lal
3. Ex. PW15/B2 D-32/2 Performa for inquiry in passport verification case of Mohan Lal and Rockin R
4. Ex. PW15/B3 D-32/3 Certification form of Mohan Lal and Rockin R. CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 13 of 59 Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI MAHESHWARI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05 17:24:25 +0530
5. Ex. PW15/B4 D-32/4 Visit Form of Rockin R to PS Sarai Rohilla
6. Ex. PW15/B5 D-32/5 Ration Card of Mohan Lal and Rockin R
7. Ex. PW15/B6 D-32/6 Election Card of Mohan Lal
8. Ex. PW15/B7 D-32/7 Affidavit of Mohan Lal
9. Ex. PW15/B8 D-32/8 Handing over memo related to documents/ reports relating to verification of passport application form in the name of Mohan Lal.
10. Ex. PW15/B9 D-32/9 Personal particular form of Mohan Lal
11. Ex. PW15/C D-10 Seizure Memo of Ravinder Kumar, ASI.
12. Ex. PW15/C1 D-11/1 Verification of passport application form of Suraj
13. Ex. PW15/C2 D-11/2 Passport Verification Form of Suraj
14. Ex. PW15/C3 D-11/3 & Verification report of Badloo Khan & Ex. D-11/4 PW15/C4
15. Ex. PW15/C5 D-11/5 Verified Ration Card of Badloo Khan
16. Ex. PW15/C6 D-11/6 Personal particulars form of Suraj, marked for verification.
PW-16 (Sh. Dharam Raj) and PW-19 (Sunil Kumar): Both the witnesses deposed that the specimen signatures of Advocate Chander Bhan Arya and specimen seal impression of attestation stamps of Chander Bhan Arya were taken in their presence and the documents containing the specimen signatures (D-53) and specimen seal impressions (D-54) were identified as Ex. PW16/A and Ex. PW16/B respectively.
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05
17:24:30
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. +0530 Page no. 14 of 59
PW-17 (Sh. Ramesh Chand): He was posted as Zonal
Inspector, North-East District and North Zone. He identified the signatures and official stamps of ASI Badloo Khan and ASI Rockin R, on the passport verification reports, i.e. Ex. PW15/C2 and Ex. PW15/B2, respectively. He also testified regarding both the reports being counter verified by him and identified his signatures on both the above documents. PW-32 (Ravi Dutt Kaushik), who was posted as ACP in Special Branch, Delhi Police deposed that he had forwarded the verification report of Mohan Lal (Ex. PW15/B2) after the remarks of PW-17, Inspector Ramesh Chand, as "Satisfied" on both the reports.
PW-18 (Sh. Pankaj Bhardwaj): He was working as a Stamp Vendor at Parliament Street, New Delhi. He exhibited the Certified Copy of Stamp Vending Register as Ex. PW18/1 in his deposition, as per which stamp paper bearing serial no. 4498 of Rs. 10/- was sold to Suraj Ratra.
PW-20 (Pradeep Kumar Bansal), PW-21 (Vinod Kumar), PW-25 (Manoj Sharma) and PW-28 (Sukhdev Singh): The witnesses were residents of Shastri Nagar and deposed to the effect that Mohan Lal as well as Hira Nand, never resided at A-463, Shastri Nagar, Delhi.
PW-24 (Raj Singh): The witness deposed to the effect that in September 2004, CBI officials visited the RPO office, where he was working and seized the documents in his presence which were seized vide seizure memo already Ex.PW2/O. He also identified the Digitally signed by CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. JYOTI MAHESHWARI Page no. 15 of 59 JYOTI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05 17:24:34 +0530 signatures of Sh. Umed Singh Lingwal, who had passed away in 2011 and who handed over the documents to the IO in the present case.
PW-26 (Sh. Kuber Singh): The witness deposed that the specimen signatures of accused Suraj Ratra were taken in his presence and the documents containing the specimen signatures (D-49), was exhibited as Ex. PW26/A (colly), in his deposition.
PW-27 (Sh. O. Venkateswarlu): He was posted as Assistant Legal Advisor and Competent Authority, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India, Delhi and deposed that Notarial Acts done by a notary are required to be maintained in the Notarial Register and not by his department. He also exhibited the letter dated 02.11.2004 (D-33) as Ex. PW27/1 in his deposition.
PW-29 (Atul Mathur): The witness deposed to the effect that A-4 Naresh Arora was running his office under the name and style of M/s U Tel Travels, and Naresh Arora (A-4) used to place advertisements with his advertising agency. The witness deposed to the effect that the advertisement Ex. PW2/L was placed by A-4 Naresh Arora.
PW-30 (Sh. Anand Vats): The witness testified that the disclosure statement of A-1 Suraj Ratra was recorded in his presence and the same was identified as Ex. PW30/1 (D-27), in his deposition.
PW-31 (Charanjit Singh Arora) and PW-35 (Rajender Kumar Verma): Both the witnesses deposed to the effect that the General CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 16 of 59 Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI MAHESHWARI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05 17:24:39 +0530 Power of Attorney (GPA) (Ex. PW1/H) and Will (Ex. PW1/G) was executed by Sukh Dayal Suraj, in favour of his father Hira Nand.
PW-33 (Sh. Bal Kishan Sharma) and PW-48 (S.K. Sharma): The witnesses deposed to the effect that the specimen signatures and handwriting of A-3 Pramod Sharma and A-4 Naresh Arora were taken in their presence. The witness PW-33 also exhibited the specimen signatures and handwriting of accused Naresh Arora (D-52) as Ex. PW33/A (from S-87 to S-152) and specimen signatures of accused Pramod Sharma (D-60) as Ex. PW33/B (from S-68 to S-86) in his deposition.
PW-34 (Rajeev Bhatnagar): He was a witness to the search conducted on 01.09.2004 at the alleged residence of Suraj Ratra at 3- D/59, NIT, Faridabad and deposed that the search memo Ex. PW1/D was prepared in his presence.
PW-36 (Sh. R.B Ram) and PW-37 (Sh. P. Vijay Kumar): Both the witnesses deposed that the specimen handwriting and signatures of A-2 Badloo Khan were taken in their presence and exhibited the document as Ex. PW36/A. PW-38 (Sh. Tek Chand Singhal): The witness deposed that the letter Ex. PW38/A (D-36), (letter regarding the election card no. 066354) was written in his own handwriting, on the instructions of Sh. C.L. Agnihotri, the-then AERO (Assistant Electoral Registration Officer), AC-63, Kamla Nagar.
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 17 of 59
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05
17:24:43
+0530
PW-39 (Pramod Kumar Sharma): The witness deposed that he
was an employee of A-3 Pramod Kumar Sharma, S/o Sh. Govardhan Das Sharma and filled the passport application form at the instance of A-3. He also identified the handwriting of A-3 Pramod Kumar Sharma on Ex. PW2/F and Ex.PW2/G. PW-40 (Sh. B.V. Gopinath): The witness deposed about the report of MHA, regarding the Nationality of 5 Nationals, which was sought by CBI and exhibited the said report as Ex. PW40/1, in his deposition. The witness deposed that as per the report, none of the 5 Afghan Nationals, including, Hira Nand, Jaswant Kaur and Manau Chand, had applied for Indian citizenship.
PW-41 (Sh. Kamal Singh): He was posted as HC in SSP office, Faridabad and deposed regarding the letter dated 18.10.2004, about Hira Nand as well as Manak Chand. He exhibited the letter of SP, Faridabad regarding Afghan national register (D-30) as Ex. PW41/1 in his deposition.
PW-42 (Sh. Satyendra Pandey) and PW-46 (Himanshu Khanduri): Both the witnesses deposed that the specimen signatures and handwriting of A-5 Rockin R were taken in their presence and the document containing the same, was identified as Ex. PW42/A (colly) (D-51).
JYOTI MAHESHWARI Digitally signed by JYOTI MAHESHWARI Date: 2025.08.05 CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. 17:24:49 +0530 Page no. 18 of 59 PW-43 (Sh. Amar Singh): He was posted as Constable (on deputation) in CBI. He exhibited the following documents in his deposition:
S. No. Exhibit No. Document Description No.
1. Ex. PW43/1 D-46/1(6) Summon Order of Suraj Ratra
2. Ex. PW43/2 D-46/2(6) Summon Order of Hira Nand
3. Ex. PW43/3 D-46/3(6) Summon Order of Mohan Lal PW-44 (Sh. Mohinder Singh): He was posted as SDM and Collector of Stamps in Divisional Commissioner Office, GNCTD, 5, Shamnath Marg, Delhi. He exhibited the following documents in his deposition:
S. No. Exhibit No. Document Description No.
1. Ex. PW44/1 D-55/1 Certified copies of stamp vendor register of non-judicial stamp paper, in the name of Pankaj Bhardwaj.
2. Ex. PW44/2 D-55/2 License of Pankaj Bhardwaj PW-45 (Sh. Ashok Kumar Amrohi): The witness deposed regarding the Sanction Order dated 13.06.2005, u/s 15 of Passports Act, 1967, which was issued by him, when he was posted as Chief Passport Officer. The sanction order was exhibited as Ex. PW45/A, in his deposition.
PW-47 (Sunil Sharma): The witness deposed regarding the handwriting of his brother A-3 Pramod Sharma on various documents CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 19 of 59 Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI MAHESHWARI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05 17:24:53 +0530 i.e. Ex. PW2/F, Ex.PW2/G and Ex. PW1/M. The witness also testified that A-4 Naresh Arora and his brother Deepak Arora, used to visit A-3 Pramod Sharma at his home.
PW-49 (Shyam Sunder Sharma): The witness deposed that he was the resident of E-188, Jagjit Nagar, New Delhi from 1978 and no person by the name of Manoj Kumar, lived in his neighbourhood.
PW-50 (Ms. Seema Pahuja): She was posted as Inspector in CBI, Special Crime-1 Branch, CBI, New Delhi and was the Investigating Officer of the present case. She exhibited the following documents in her deposition:
S. No. Exhibit No. Document Description No.
1. Ex. PW50/1 D-9 Search list vide which passport no.
B1700556, issued to Suraj, was seized.
2. Ex. PW50/2 D-19 Report by Sub-Registrar (Births & Deaths), Faridabad
3. Ex. PW50/3 D-26 Report of FSO-63 Kamla Nagar, FPS no. 294
4. Ex. PW50/4 D-25 Report of FSO-63 Kamla Nagar, FPS no. 396
5. Ex. PW50/5 D-34/1 Report of leave application of Badloo Khan
6. Ex. PW50/6 D-35/1 Report of Permanent Address of Rockin R
7. Ex. PW50/7 D-44/1 Letter forwarded to CFSL, New Delhi.
8. Ex. PW50/8 D-44/7 Specimen signatures of Rockin R, vide which letter dated 08/09.12.2004 was sent to CFSL
9. Ex. PW50/9 D-45 Report of CFSL
10. Ex. PW50/10 D-47 Receipt memo dated 17.02.2005.
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 20 of 59 Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI MAHESHWARI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05 17:24:58 +0530
11. Ex. PW50/11 D-57 Seizure-cum-Superdari Memo
12. Ex. PW50/12 D-58 Report of Election Officer of NIT, Faridabad
13. Ex. PW50/13 D-59 Application form of Ration Card No. 263103
14. Ex. PW50/14 D-60 Specimen handwriting and signatures of and Ex. A-3 Pramod Sharma PW50/15
15. Ex. PW50/16 D-24 Letter dated 11.10.2004 by the Sub-
Registrar (Births & Deaths), Faridabad.
PW-51 (Sh. Jeet Singh): He was posted as Sr. Scientific Officer, Grade-II, Assistant Chemical Examiner, Government of India, CFSL/CBI, New Delhi. He exhibited the report of CFSL (D-45) as Ex. PW51/A in his deposition.
PW-52 (Sh. Shielender Kumar): He was posted as Food Supply Officer of Circle No. 31, Vikas Puri, Delhi and was called as a witness in lieu of the deceased witness, PW Krishan Singh (LW-28). The witness also identified the signatures of PW Krishan Singh. The witness also furnished the following documents, in his deposition.
S. No. Mark No. Description 1. Mark PW 52/1 Certified copy of order dated 16.03.1995. 2. Mark PW52/2 List of FPS running at Shastri Nagar. 3. Mark PW52/3 Photocopy of notification dated
23.07.2009, containing the list of circles, with its main areas.
12. Subsequently, the prosecution evidence was closed on 07.03.2025 and the matter was listed for recording the statement of the accused persons, u/s 313, CrPC.
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 21 of 59 Digitally signed by JYOTI MAHESHWARI JYOTI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05 17:25:03 +0530 STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS U/S 313 CrPC
13. The statement of accused A-4 Naresh Arora was recorded on 28.03.2025, wherein he stated that he did not fill the passport application form for any person and was falsely implicated in the present case. Similarly, the statement of A-5 Rockin R was recorded on 23.04.2025, wherein he denied the allegations levelled against him.
A-3 Pramod Sharma denied living at the address A-463, Shastri Nagar, Delhi, in his statement u/S 313, CrPC. The written statement u/S. 313, CrPC was furnished on behalf of A-2 Badloo Khan, by his grandson, Suhail, as A-2 was unable to appear before the Court, on account of his medical condition and was bed-ridden. A-2 stated that the CFSL opinion was a biased one and he was falsely implicated in the present case.
14. The accused persons did not wish to lead any evidence in their defence and thus, the matter was fixed for final arguments.
FINAL ARGUMENTS A. Arguments raised by the Prosecution:
15. Detailed final arguments were advanced on behalf of both the prosecution and the acc used. Ld. PP for CBI has submitted that during the course of trial, the case of the prosecution has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has based its case on the alleged forgery and fabrication of documents, resorted to by the accused persons, in order to facilitate the issuance of passports to A-1 Suraj Ratra and A-6 Mohan Lal. The passports in question and the details thereof, are as follows:
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Digitally signed Page no. 22 of 59 by JYOTI MAHESHWARI JYOTI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05 17:25:08 +0530 SURAJ RATRA @ SURAJ (A-1) Passport Passport Supporting Address in Names of Names of the Address Application No., Documents the witnesses in allegedly verified by No. Validity and application the fictitious issued to application witnesses 503522 dated A-5804114, Ration E-88/12, (a) Manoj (i) Raj Rani, ASI Badloo 29.05.1998 valid from Card no. Jagjit Kumar, R/o R/o E-87/5, Khan (A-2) (Ex. PW2/C) 07.07.98 to 263013 and Nagar, New E-189/13, Jagjit Nagar, (D-17) 07.07.08 in Date of Delhi-1100 Jagjit Delhi the name of Birth 53 Nagar, Suraj. S/o affidavit Delhi.
Sh. Eera (ii) Ram
Nand. (b) Rajinder Prasad, R/o
Kumar, R/o 87/2, Jagjit
183/15, Nagar, Delhi.
Jagjit
Nagar,
Delhi.
0219249 B-1700556, Ration 313/71E, - -
(Ex.PW 2/F) valid from Card no. Anand
(D-16) 02.05.2000 013460, Nagar,
Application to 06.07.08 Circle No. Inderlok form for in the name 68, New miscellaneous of Suraj. S/o FPS-396. Delhi-35 services on Sh. Eera (Applicatio Indian Nand n form Passport. filled, for change of address) 01416594 (Ex. E-4871464, Name 313/71E, (a) Sarwan _ _ PW2/H) valid from changed to Anand Sharma, (D-18) 01.05.2003 Suraj Ratra Nagar, R/o [Passport to 06.07.08 through Inderlok 321/14A, Application in the name newspaper New Inderlok Registration of Suraj publication Delhi-35 Delhi.
Form (for Ratra. S/o (Ex.
issuance of Sh. Eera PW2/L) & (b) Naresh
additional Nand (b) Deed Verma, R/o
passport Poll dt. 311/12-E,
booklet)] 16.04.2000 Inderlok,
(Ex. Delhi.
PW2/M)
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 23 of 59
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
Digitally signed by
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
Date: 2025.08.05
17:25:13 +0530
MOHAN LAL @ MON LAL (A-6)
Passport Passport No., Supporting Address in Names of Names of Address
Application validity and Documents the witnesses in allegedly verified by
No. issued to application the fictitious
application witnesses
A023603 B-2323353 Ration A-463, (i) Harsh (i) Seva ASI Rockin
(Ex. PW1/L) valid from Card no. Shastri Kaushik, Singh, R/o R. (A-5)
(D-23) 21.08.2000 to 817990, Nagar, New R/o A-466, A-473,
(Passport 21.08.2010 in FPS- 294, Delhi Shastri Shastri
Application the name of FSO-63 Nagar, New Nagar, New
Form) Mohan Lal (D-23/8) Delhi Delhi
S/o Sh. Hira and
Nand. Election ID (ii) Sunil (ii) Pramod
card no. Sharma, Kumar
DL/06/063/ R/o A-465, Sharma, R/o
066354 of Shastri A-466,
Mohan Lal. Nagar, New Shastri
Delhi. Nagar, New
Delhi.
16. With regard to the first passport application of A-1 Suraj Ratra, it is alleged by the prosecution that a forged ration card no. 263103 [ Ex.
PW2/D (D-17)] was submitted in support of the Passport Application Form, but a Ration card, bearing the same number was issued to one Ms. Mazda Begum, W/o Hafizur Rehman, R/o A3/1130 Gamrhi, Bhajanpura, Delhi and the same is proved by the testimony of PW-12 along with the documents [(Ex. PW12/A (D-20) and Ex. PW12/B (D-43)]. It is submitted that A-2 Badloo Khan verified this ration card to be belonging to Sh. Eera Nand, (father of A1), Suraj Ratra and provided the addresses of two fictitious witnesses, namely, Smt. Raj Rani and Sh. Ram Prasad as neighbours of A-1 Suraj, but these witnesses did not reside at the addresses as mentioned and this is proved by the testimonies of PW-3, PW-5, PW-8 and PW-9.
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Digitally
signed by Page no. 24 of 59
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05
17:25:18
+0530
17. As regards the second passport application of A-1 Suraj Ratra, the address of A-1 was changed from Jagjit Nagar to Anand Nagar, and it is submitted that the particulars of the application form were filled by accused A-3 Pramod Kumar Sharma and the same stands proved by the testimony of PW-39. The prosecution has also relied on the testimony of two witnesses, namely, PW7 Naresh Kumar Sharma and PW22 Jaipal Gupta, to show that neither A-1 Suraj Ratra nor any of his family members ever resided in Anand Nagar, contrary to the particulars filled in his application form.
18. It is additionally contended, qua A-3 Pramod Kumar Sharma, that he had also filled in the particulars in the passport application form of A-6 Mohan Lal and furnished a forged Ration Card bearing No. 132936 (FPS No. 294, FSO-63) as a supporting document, wherein he himself had provided the details recorded therein. The prosecution has sought to prove this fact through the testimony of PW-52. Additionally, in the passport application form of A-6 Mohan Lal, the address was stated as A-463, Shastri Nagar, Delhi, whereas the said address, in fact, pertained to A-3 Pramod Kumar Sharma, as per the investigation conducted by the IO. It is, thus, the case of the prosecution that A-3 facilitated the issuance of a passport to A-6 Mohan Lal on the basis of false particulars and a forged Ration Card. To substantiate this allegation, the prosecution has relied upon the testimonies of PW-39 Pramod Kumar Sharma and PW-47 Sunil Sharma.
19. It is further alleged that the application form no. 01416594 [Ex. PW2/H (D-18)] for issuing additional booklet of passport to A-1 Suraj Ratra was filled in the handwriting of A-4 Naresh Arora, in connivance CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 25 of 59 Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI MAHESHWARI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05 17:25:28 +0530 with the accused. The prosecution has relied upon the CFSL report in this regard and has also examined the expert from CFSL as PW-51 who deposed about the authenticity and genuineness of the report, so prepared.
19. As regards the liability of A-5 Rockin R, it is the case of the prosecution that A-5, who was assigned the task of police verification of the passport application form of A-6 Mohan Lal, falsely verified the details therein, to facilitate the issuance of a passport to A-6. It is further submitted that the Ration Card No. 132936 (FPS-294, FSO-63), allegedly used as a supporting document by A-6, was forged, as substantiated by the testimony of PW-52. Moreover, the Election Identity Card (EPIC) [Ex. PW-38/A (D-36)], also furnished as a supporting document by A-6 Mohan Lal, stood issued in the name of one Ms. Banita, resident of A-303, Shastri Nagar, New Delhi, which fact is borne out from the testimonies of PW-38 and PW-20. It is alleged that this document too was falsely verified by A-5 Rockin R, in conspiracy with A-6, to facilitate the issuance of the said passport.
20. On this basis, it is alleged by the prosecution that A-2 to A-5 had acted in connivance with A-1 and A-6 for the issuance of passports and have committed the offences which they are charged with, in the present case. The prosecution has also submitted that based on the testimony of the witnesses as discussed above and the documents furnished in support of the present case, the commission of alleged offences by A-2 to A-5, stand proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Digitally signed by JYOTI CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. JYOTI MAHESHWARI Page no. 26 of 59 MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05 17:25:34 +0530
21. Per contra, Ld. Counsels for accused have vehemently opposed the version of the prosecution and submitted that there are glaring deficiencies in the case of the prosecution, which entitle the accused persons to an acquittal. The specific grounds raised qua each accused are mentioned as follows:
B. Arguments raised qua A-2 Badloo Khan and A-5 Rockin R.
22. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel that both A-2 and A-5 were working as Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police (ASI) in Delhi Police, during 1998-2001 and were entrusted with the responsibility of verification of the passport application forms. Ld. Counsel has moved separate applications u/s 140 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 (hereinafter, "the DP Act") r/w Section 197 CrPC, praying for dropping of proceedings/ discharge of both the applicant/ accused persons, for want of requisite sanction. Both the applications shall also be decided and disposed of, by way of the present Judgment, as the same also constitute a ground for acquittal of A-2 and A-5. The major contentions raised by Ld. Counsel for A-2 and A-5, are encapsulated below:
(a) No prior sanction as stipulated u/s 140 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 r/w Section 197 CrPC was taken, which is a statutory prerequisite for prosecution of a public servant. It is submitted that the task of verification of passport application forms, which was assigned to A-2 and A-5, has a reasonable nexus/ connection with the official duty and thus, the proceedings against both the accused persons are rendered unsustainable in law, for want of prior sanction, which is mandated u/S. 140 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978.
JYOTI MAHESHWARI CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 27 of 59 Digitally signed by JYOTI MAHESHWARI Date: 2025.08.05 17:25:39 +0530
(b) The documents relied upon by the prosecution, in order to prove its case, are scanned copies and are not accompanied with the requisite certificate u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act and hence, the evidence, which is relied upon by the prosecution, is itself inadmissible in law.
(c) There are material contradictions in the testimony of various prosecution witnesses, which entitle the accused persons, to an acquittal.
(d) It is the case of prosecution, that both A-2 and A-5 had submitted the respective verification reports on the basis of forged and fabricated documents, false declarations and fictitious witnesses, in conspiracy with the other accused persons. However, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove or adduce any evidence of conspiracy, in the present case. Ld. Counsel for the applicants has also placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kehar Singh vs. Delhi Administration (1988) 3 SCC 609 and Sanjeev Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1999 SC 782.
C.Arguments raised qua A-4 Naresh Arora
23. Ld. Counsel for A-4 has addressed the following submissions, qua the liability of A-4 in the present case:
(a) It is submitted that the documents produced by the prosecution are inadmissible in evidence, as they are electronic documents, filed without the mandatory certificate u/S. 65 B of Indian Evidence Act.
(b) The alleged verification of the address of Hira Nand, Suraj Ratra (A-1) and Mohan Lal (A-6), is fraught with inconsistencies and contradictory testimonies of the witnesses.
Digitally signed by CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. JYOTI Page no. 28 of 59 JYOTI MAHESHWARI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05 17:25:43 +0530
(c) The prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that the ration cards and addresses of Hira Nand, A-1 Suraj Ratra and A-6 Mohan Lal were forged and fabricated.
(d) The prosecution has admitted that A-1 Suraj Ratra is an Indian National on account of the documents, Ex. PW1/F and Ex. PW 50/16.
(e) The prosecution has failed to prove the alleged criminal conspiracy, on the part of the accused persons and failed to collect any material evidence to show that A-4 Naresh Arora had conspired with any of the accused persons.
(f) Valid passports were issued to A-1 Suraj Ratra and there is no evidence on record to show that there was any fault, found in the passports issued to A-1 Suraj Ratra.
D. Arguments raised qua A-3 Pramod Kumar Sharma
24. A-3 Pramod Kumar Sharma has addressed arguments on similar lines and additionally submitted that he was never a resident of A-463, Shastri Nagar, Delhi, as alleged by the prosecution. Moreover, he has also stated that no documents have been produced by the prosecution to substantiate the same and the case of the prosecution cannot be based on mere conjectures or speculations.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS A. Absence of Sanction u/s 140, Delhi Police Act, 1978 r/w S. 197, CrPC, qua A-2 and A-5 and its effect thereof:-
25. The present discussion shall deal with the applications moved on behalf of A-2 and A-5, seeking dropping of proceedings/discharge of CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Digitally signed Page no. 29 of 59 by JYOTI MAHESHWARI JYOTI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05 17:25:48 +0530 both the accused, on the ground of lack of prior sanction u/S. 140 of Delhi Police Act, 1978.
26. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for both the above-mentioned accused that A-2 and A-5 being Police Officials, the prosecution was duty bound to take mandatory sanction u/S 140 of the Delhi Police Act r/w Section 197 CrPC. However, for reasons best known to the prosecution, the requisite sanction was not obtained, and this omission, according to the defence, entitles the accused to have the proceedings against them dropped. It is the admitted case of the prosecution that the accused persons, being police officials, were assigned the duty of verification of passport applications and of submitting verification reports pursuant thereto. The prosecution alleges that the verification reports in question were false (Ex. PW15/B2 & Ex. PW15/C2) and that the attested documents (Ex. PW15/B3 to Ex. PW15/B7; Ex. PW15/C3 to Ex. PW 15/C5) were false and fabricated. It is, therefore, contended that the alleged acts attributed to A-2 and A-5 had a reasonable nexus with the discharge of their official duties, and as such, sanction under Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 was mandatory. Ld. Counsel for A-2 and A-5 has also relied on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in support of his contentions:
a) Rakesh Kumar Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Crl.M.C.No.2881/2007, dt. 18.03.2009, Delhi HC.
b) S.I. Manoj Pant Vs. State of Delhi, 76 (1998) DLT 571, Delhi HC.
c) Virupaxappa Veerappa Kadampur vs. State of Mysore, AIR 1963 SC
849. Digitally signed by JYOTI
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Page no. 30 of 59
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05
17:25:53
+0530
d) Gurmeet Kaur Vs. Devender Gupta, 2024 SCC Online SC 3761.
e) G.C. Manjunath & others Vs. Seetaram, 2025 INSC 439.
f) D.T. Virupaksha Vs. C.Subash, (2015) 12 SCC 231.
g) Om Prakash Yadav &Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2012) 12 SCC
72.
h) Sardool Singh through Sewa Singh Vs. Shiv Dayal & Anr., Crl. M.C. 3027/2009 dt. 13.09.2023, Delhi HC.
27. Per contra, it is submitted by Ld. PP for CBI that the acts alleged against the accused persons, had no nexus with the official duty of A-2 and A-5 and thus, there was no requirement of sanction. Ld. PP for CBI has submitted that both A-2 and A-5 were admittedly working as Assistant Sub-Inspectors (ASIs) and since they can be removed by the Commissioner of Police, Additional Commissioner of Police etc. as per Section 21 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978, there was no requirement of prior sanction, as the requirement of prior sanction is limited only to acts done by police officers and not the acts done by police officials of subordinate ranks. Moreover, Ld. PP for CBI has also stated that this contention regarding the lack of sanction could not have been raised at the belated stage of final arguments and should have been raised earlier. Ld. PP for CBI has also relied upon the following decisions, in support of his contentions:
a) Prakash Singh Badal & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, (2007)1 SCC 1.
b) Station House Officer, CBI, ACB Bangalore Vs. B.A Srinivasan and another, (2020) 2 SCC 153.
c) Omprakash Yadav Vs. Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay, 2024 INSC 979.
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Digitally Page no. 31 of 59 signed by JYOTI JYOTI MAHESHWARI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05 17:25:58 +0530
d) CBI Vs. Mrs. Pramila Virendra Kumar Agarwal & Anr., 2020 (17) SCC 664.
e) Dinesh Kumar Vs. Chairman, Airport Authority of India & Anr., 2012 (1) SCC 532.
28. For a better appreciation of the contentions raised, Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 and Section 197, CrPC are reproduced here as follows:
Delhi Police Act, 1978:
"140,. Bar to suits and prosecutions: In any case of alleged offence by a police officer or other person, or of a wrong alleged to have been done by such police officer or other person, by any act done under colour of duty or authority or in excess of an such duty or authority, or wherein it shall appear to the Court that the offence or wrong if committed or done was of the character aforesaid, the prosecution or suit shall not be entertained and if entertained shall be dismissed if it is instituted, more than three months after the date of the act complained of: Provided that any such prosecution against a Police Officer or other person may be entertained by the Court, if instituted with the previous sanction of the Administrator, within one year from the date of the offence".
Section 197, CrPC "197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants.
(1)When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his officer save by or with the sanction of the Government, is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him, while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction-
(a)in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 32 of 59 Digitally signed by JYOTI MAHESHWARI JYOTI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05 17:26:02 +0530 connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government;
(b)in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State of the State Government".
29. Ld. PP for CBI has argued that an ASI is not a Police Officer, as per the Delhi Police Act, as he is removable in terms of Section 21, DP Act and thus, there is no requirement of sanction u/S. 140, Delhi Police Act. The word "Police Officer" has been defined in Section 2 (m) of the DP Act and states that a Police Officer means any member of the Delhi Police. Therefore, it is evident that any member of the Delhi Police is a Police Officer as per DP Act and Section 140, DP Act is applicable to a Police Officer. Thus, it is clear that Section 140 DP Act is independent of the post or designation held by such Police Official and solely depends, as to whether the delinquent official is a member of the Delhi Police and whether the act alleged against him falls, within the "colour of duty".
30. The next contention on behalf of CBI is that the question of absence of sanction cannot be raised at such a belated stage and has to be raised during trial. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent case of Directorate of Enforcement Vs. B.P Acharya & Ors., 2024 INSC 843 has held that the question of sanction can be raised any time after cognizance and even at the time of conclusion of trial and categorically observed as follows:
"It is well settled that question of sanction under Section 197 of the Code can be raised any time after the cognizance; maybe immediately after cognizance or framing of charge or even at the time of conclusion of trial and after conviction as well. But there may be certain cases where it may not be possible to decide the question effectively without giving opportunity to CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 33 of 59 Digitally signed by JYOTI MAHESHWARI JYOTI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05 17:26:08 +0530 the defence to establish that what he did was in discharge of official duty. In order to come to the conclusion whether claim of the accused that the act that he did was in course of the performance of his duty was a reasonable one and neither pretended nor fanciful, can be examined during the course of trial by giving opportunity to the defence to establish it. In such an eventuality, the question of sanction should be left open to be decided in the main judgment which may be delivered upon conclusion of the trial.
31. It is therefore apparent that the question of lack of sanction can be raised at any stage of trial and need not necessarily be raised at the inception of trial. Therefore, the only question which remains to be adjudicated by this Court is whether the alleged offence committed by A-2 and A-5 was done "under colour of duty or authority or in excess of such duty or authority", as mandated under Section 140 of DP Act. As far as the issue of sanction is concerned, Section 197 CrPC is the general law and Section 140 DP Act is the more specific law. The phrases "while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty" in Section197 CrPC and "under colour of duty" stipulated in Section 140 of the DP Act have been given parallel judicial interpretations [D. Devaraja v. Owais Sabeer Hussain, (2020) 7 SCC 695, paras 67 to 71] and thus, both the provisions are in pari materia.
33. As regards the scope of interpretation of the above phrases and their applicability to the present case, it is pertinent to note the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Singh Badal (supra) , wherein it was held as follows:
"50. The offence of cheating under Section 420 or for that matter offences relatable to Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120B can by no stretch of imagination by their very nature be regarded as having been committed by any public servant while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duty. (Emphasis supplied). In such cases, official status only provides an opportunity for commission of the offence."
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Digitally
signed by
Page no. 34 of 59
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05
17:26:13
+0530
32. The above position of law has been reiterated in the recent decision of Omprakash Yadav Vs. Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay, 2024 INSC 979, wherein it was held as follows:
" 66. At the cost of repetition, we say that the position of law on the application of Section 197 CrPC is clear - that it must be decided based on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. This Court has held in a legion of decisions that any misuse or abuse of powers by a public servant to do something that is impermissible in law like threatening to provide a tutored statement or trying to obtain signatures on a blank sheet of paper; causing the illegal detention of an accused; engaging in a criminal conspiracy to create false or fabricated documents; conducting a search with the sole object of harassing and threatening individuals, amongst others, cannot fall under the protective umbrella of Section 197 CrPC.(Emphasis supplied)
67.In light of the same, it follows that when a police official is said to have lodged a false case, he cannot claim that sanction for prosecution under Section 197 CrPC was required since it can be no part of the official duty of a public official to lodge a bogus case and fabricate evidence or documents in connection with the same. On examining the quality of the act, it is evident that there exists no reasonable or rational nexus between such an act and the duties assigned to the public servant for the claim that it was done or purported to be done in the discharge of his official duty. The mere fact that an opportunity to register a false case was furnished by the official duty would certainly not be sufficient to apply Section 197 CrPC. Allowing so, would enable the accused to use their status as public servants as a facade for doing an objectionable, illegal and unlawful act and take undue advantage of their position. If the Case Crime No. 967 of 2007 registered at the Murar Police Station, Gwalior, by respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 respectively, was a false case, then there is no doubt that the refusal to grant sanction would not operate as a bar for their prosecution."
33. It is thus evident, from a perusal of the above decisions that the offence of cheating and use of forged documents for the purpose of cheating, has no nexus either with the official discharge of duty or any act purported to be done in the discharge of official duty. Thus, the alleged acts of A-2 and A-5 do not come within the purview of "colour of duty" as mandated u/S 140 of DP Act. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that there was no requirement of prior sanction, CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 35 of 59 Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI MAHESHWARI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05 17:26:22 +0530 before initiation of prosecution against A-2 Badloo Khan and A-5 Rockin R.
34. Accordingly, the applications moved on behalf of A-2 Badloo Khan and A-5 Rockin R., for discharge/dropping of proceedings against them, due to lack of prior sanction u/S. 140 of the DP Act, 1978, stand dismissed.
35. The Court shall now deal with the other contentions and determine whether the accused persons can be held liable for the offences alleged against them, in the present case.
B. Admissibility of the documents furnished in evidence:
36. It is submitted on behalf of all the accused persons that the prosecution has failed to furnish original documents and has only furnished scanned copies of the passport application forms of A-1 and A-6. It is contended that since scanned copy is an electronic document and the process of scanning is done using electronic devices, it was the duty of the prosecution to furnish the mandatory certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, duly issued by a person authorized to produce the same and under whose lawful control, the computer system was being operated. It is urged that in the absence of the mandatory certificate, the said documents are inadmissible in evidence and cannot be relied upon, for proving the case of the prosecution.
37. A perusal of the record shows that PW-24 Raj Singh has deposed about the alleged scanned copies, obtained from the Regional Passport Office. During the course of his testimony, the witness testified that the CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 36 of 59 Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI MAHESHWARI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05 17:26:26 +0530 originals of documents were routinely destroyed and therefore, scanned copies were attested and handed over by Sh. Umed Singh Lingwal to the IO. Sh. Umed Singh Lingwal had unfortunately passed away and could not be examined by the prosecution and accordingly, PW-24 Raj Singh was examined, who had worked with Sh. Umed Singh Lingwal and could identify his signatures.
38. During the course of his testimony, he further deposed that on account of the circular [Ex. PW2/Q (D-15)], the original documents i.e. the original passport application forms of A-1 and A-6, which were prepared prior to the year 2000, were weeded out and destroyed as per the instructions of Ministry of External Affairs and as a result, all the documents which were destroyed in the process, were retained by way of scanned copies. However, the witness deposed that he had no knowledge as to who had scanned the documents and he the said witness had only obtained the documents from the C.D. Section. Further, during his cross-examination, he further deposed that the documents were scanned on the first floor and the seizure memo was prepared on second floor. He also deposed that at the time of scanning of the documents, Sh. Umed Singh Lingwal, did not visit the first floor, where the documents were being scanned.
39. The factum of weeding out and destruction of records, pertaining to the passport application forms, is also evident from the testimony of PW-2 and the documents Ex. PW2/P (D-14) and Ex. PW2/Q (D-15). A perusal of the record shows that out of the four passport application forms, the original documents pertaining to only one passport CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 37 of 59 Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI MAHESHWARI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05 17:26:32 +0530 application form (Ex. PW2/H) could be made available and as regards the rest of the application forms, only the scanned copies were seized by the IO. As per Ex. PW2/P, the original documents, pertaining to the case file 01416594 (Ex. PW2/H) (D-18), for issue of Passport No. E-4871464, valid from 01.05.2003 to 06.07.08 in the name of Suraj Ratra. S/o Sh. Eera Nand were provided by the RPO to the IO. However, for the other two passport application forms of A-1 Suraj (Ex. PW2/C and Ex. PW2/F) and the passport application form of A-6 Mohan Lal (Ex. PW1/L), only the scanned copies were provided. Therefore, it is evident that the prosecution has placed heavy reliance on the scanned passport application forms of A-1 Suraj Ratra and A-6 Mohan Lal, to prove its case.
40. In such circumstances, it was incumbent on the prosecution to have furnished the mandatory certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act for the evidence to be admissible, but unfortunately, this exercise was not undertaken. The question regarding the lack of mandatory certificate u/s 65 B IEA was also posed to the IO, who in her testimony as PW-50, admitted to the non-furnishing of above certificate.
41. Ld. PP for CBI has submitted that the objection regarding the lack of certificate u/s 65 B IEA, should have been raised during the initial stage of trial, so that the prosecution would have a chance to rectify the deficiency, but since the same was not done by the Ld. Counsels for accused persons, they cannot raise this objection belatedly. Ld. PP for CBI has placed reliance on the decision of the JYOTI MAHESHWARI CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 38 of 59 Digitally signed by JYOTI MAHESHWARI Date: 2025.08.05 17:26:38 +0530 Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Sonu Alias Amar vs. State of Haryana (2017) 8 SCC 570", wherein, it was stipulated as follows:
"That an electronic record is not admissible unless it is accompanied by a certificate as contemplated under Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act is no more res integra. The question that falls for our consideration in this case is the permissibility of an objection regarding inadmissibility at this stage. Admittedly, no objection was taken when the CDRs were adduced in evidence before the trial court. It does not appear from the record that any such objection was taken even at the appellate stage before the High Court. In Gopal Das v. Thakurjig, it was held that: (SCC OnLine PC) "... Where the objection to be taken is not that the document is in itself inadmissible but that the mode of proof put forward is irregular or insufficient, it is essential that the objection should be taken at the trial before the document is marked as an exhibit and admitted to the record. A party cannot lie by until the case comes before a Court of Appeal and then complain for the first time of the mode of proof......
It is nobody's case that CDRs which are a form of electronic record are not inherently admissible in evidence. The objection is that they were marked before the trial court without a certificate as required by Section 65-B(4). It is clear from the judgments referred to supra that an objection relating to the mode or method of proof has to be raised at the time of marking of the document as an exhibit and not later. The crucial test, as affirmed by this Court, is whether the defect could have been cured at the stage of marking the document. Applying this test to the present case, if an objection was taken to the CDRs being marked without a certificate, the Court could have given the prosecution an opportunity to rectify the deficiency. It is also clear from the above judgments that objections regarding admissibility of documents which are per se inadmissible can be taken even at the appellate stage. Admissibility of a document which is inherently inadmissible is an issue which can be taken up at the appellate stage because it is a fundamental issue. The mode or method of proof is procedural and objections, if not taken at the trial, cannot be permitted at the appellate stage. If the objections to the mode of proof are permitted to be taken at the appellate stage by a party, the other side does not have an opportunity of rectifying the deficiencies...... CDRs do not fall in the said category of documents. We are satisfied that an objection that CDRs are unreliable due to violation of the CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 39 of 59 Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI MAHESHWARI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05 17:26:43 +0530 procedure prescribed in Section 65-B(4) cannot be permitted to be raised at this stage as the objection relates to the mode or method of proof".
42. A perusal of the above decision shows that the objection regarding the admissibility of documents, was taken during the appellate stage and thus, there was no opportunity for the opposite party to rectify the defect. In the present case, however, the objection regarding the lack of a certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act has been taken during the trial itself, when the testimony of the IO, i.e. PW50 was being recorded. Therefore, the prosecution, if it wanted to, could have taken steps to make good the deficiency, but this exercise was not undertaken by the prosecution, for reasons best known to it.
43. Moreover, the question of furnishing the requisite certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is no more res integra and has been amply clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Ors., (2020) 7 SCC 1, wherein the requirement of furnishing the certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act has been re-affirmed and it has been held that the same is a mandatory requirement of law and it was stipulated as follows:
"31. The non-obstante clause in sub-section (1) makes it clear that when it comes to information contained in an electronic record, admissibility and proof thereof must follow the drill of Section 65B, which is a special provision in this behalf Sections 62 to 65, being irrelevant for this purpose. However, Section 65B(1) clearly Digitally differentiates between the "original" document - signed by JYOTI which would be the original "electronic record" JYOTI MAHESHWARI MAHESHWARI Date:
contained in the "computer" in which the original 2025.08.05 information is first stored - and the computer 17:26:47 +0530 output containing such information, which then may be treated as evidence of the contents of the "original" document. All this necessarily shows CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 40 of 59 that Section 65B differentiates between the original information contained in the "computer"
itself and copies made therefrom - the former being primary evidence, and the latter being secondary evidence....
59. We may reiterate, therefore, that the certificate required under Section 65B(4) is a condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence by way of electronic record, as correctly held in Anvar P.V. (supra), and incorrectly "clarified" in Shafhi Mohammed (supra). Oral evidence in the place of such certificate cannot possibly suffice as Section 65B(4) is a mandatory requirement of the law. Indeed, the hallowed principle in Taylor v. Taylor (1876) 1 Ch.D 426, which has been followed in a number of the judgments of this Court, can also be applied. Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act clearly states that secondary evidence is admissible only if led in the manner stated, and not otherwise. To hold otherwise would render Section 65B(4) otiose" (Emphasis supplied).
44. Thus, the furnishing of the certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act is not an empty formality, but a necessary pre-requisite which forms the very basis of admissibility of such evidence, to ensure the genuineness of the same. A perusal of the record shows that the objection regarding admissibility of document was taken at the appropriate stage by Ld. Counsels for the accused persons, but nothing was done in furtherance of the said objection by the prosecution and thereby, the prosecution ended up weakening its own case. The documents furnished by the prosecution are scanned documents and their admissibility was subject to the certificate u/s 65 B IEA, being furnished. In the absence of the same, the documents could not have been made admissible. Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI MAHESHWARI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05 17:26:51 +0530 CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 41 of 59
45. In light of the above, the scanned application forms i.e. Ex. PW2/C (D-16), Ex. PW2/F (D-17) and Ex. PW1/L (D-23), cannot be read in evidence and as a result, all the particulars filled in the alleged form cannot be read in evidence. Therefore, the allegations qua A-3 that he filled in the particulars in the application form D-16 (Ex. PW2/C) and in the application form D-23 (Ex. PW1/L) alongwith the forged Ration Card, have not been proved in accordance with law.
46. In light of the above, the Court shall now look into the question, as to whether there is any other admissible evidence on record, which proves the commission of offence, by accused persons.
C. Deficiencies in the investigation conducted and the case of prosecution:
47. It is contended on behalf of the accused that the investigation conducted by the IO, is lacking on various material aspects and, as such, the benefit thereof should enure to the accused persons.
48. The case of the prosecution is that Eera Nand @ Hira Nand, S/o Sh. Sant Ram (Afghan National) is the father of accused Suraj Ratra (A-1) and Mohan Lal (A-6). The prosecution has attempted to establish that Eera Nand @ Hira Nand came to India as a refugee and got himself registered as an Afghan National at FRRO, New Delhi in the year 1989, vide Registration Certificate Nos. 22304/89 and 46741/97 on the strength of passports issued from Kabul. To establish the same, the IO obtained the Registration Certificates which are Ex.PW 14/B and Ex. PW14/C. Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI MAHESHWARI CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. MAHESHWARI Date: Page no. 42 of 59 2025.08.05 17:26:56 +0530
49. The prosecution has further relied on the ration card (Ex. PW1/E) in the name of Sh. Hira Nand wherein, his address has been mentioned as 3D-59, NIT, Faridabad, Haryana. Further, in the details of the family members, the names of both Sukhdayal Suraj (at no.6) and Mon Lal (at no.4) are mentioned. On this basis, the prosecution has claimed that both A-1 and A-6, are the sons of Hira Nand @ Eera Nand.
50. Going by the case of the prosecution itself, since the said Hira Nand @ Eera Nand is an Afghan National and came to India as a refugee, in the year 1989, both his sons (who are born earlier than 1989), must have been born in Afghanistan and not in India. However, this claim is itself rendered suspicious, through the original birth certificate of Sukhdayal Suraj, issued by Municipal Corporation of Faridabad (Ex. PW1/F) wherein, it is shown that Sukhdayal Suraj was born in Faridabad on 28.07.1977. This is further buttressed by the testimony of PW-50 wherein, he exhibited the document Ex. PW50/2 as per which the Register of Records show that Sukhdayal Suraj (A-1) was born in Faridabad on 28.07.1977. Thus, there is clear evidence to the fact that A-1 Sukhdayal Suraj was born in India in 1977 and thus, by virtue of the Section 3A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, A-1 would be a ctizen of India by birth.
51. However, for the second brother A-6 Mohan Lal, on the strength of document Ex. PW2/P (D-14), it is submitted that he is an Afghan National and was over staying in India since 1997. The same is also supported by the testimony of PW-13 Gurbax Singh, the-then AFFRO, CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 43 of 59 Digitally signed by JYOTI MAHESHWARI JYOTI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05 17:27:01 +0530 East Block, Delhi, who proved the documents, Ex. PW13/A and Ex. PW13/B. As per the communication received from AFFRO (Ex. PW13/A), it was categorically stated that Mon Lal was overstaying in India since 21.12.1997. Therefore, what emerges from the above is that while Suraj Ratra (A-1) was born in India in 1977, his brother Mohan Lal was born in Afganistan in 1970 and has been overstaying in India. This also puts into question the Ration Card (Ex. PW1/E) issued in the name of Sh. Hira Nand (Ex.PW1/E), as per which Mon Lal is only two years elder to A-1 Sukhdayal Suraj.
52. Thus, based on the above, it can be stated that the fulcrum of the case of the prosecution, which is that the Afghani Nationals got Indian passports issued, on the strength of bogus documents, is itself questionable.
(i) Verification regarding the change of names of A-1 and A-6:
55. It is pertinent to note that certain names i.e. Suraj and Sukhdayal Suraj were used interchangeably qua A-1 and the names Mohan Lal and Mon Lal were used qua A-6, but the necessary investigation into the said aspect is found wanting. A perusal of the passport application forms of A-1 and A-6 also bring to the fore, the inherent contradictions, in the case of the prosecution.
Passport Application Forms of A-1 Suraj Passport Application Forms of A-6 @ Suraj Ratra Mohan Lal Ex. PW2/F (D-16) Suraj S/o Eera Nand and Ms. Jaswant Kaur Ex. PW2/C (D-17) Suraj S/o Eera Nand Ex. PW1/L (D-23) Mohan Lal S/o Hira and Ms. Jaswant Kaur Nand and Ms. Santosh Devi Ex. PW2/H (D-18) Suraj Ratra S/o Eera CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 44 of 59 Digitally signed by JYOTI MAHESHWARI JYOTI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05 17:27:06 +0530 Nand and Ms. Jaswant Kaur
56. A bare perusal of the details mentioned in the above Passport Application Forms show that the parentage of both A-1 Suraj@ Suraj Ratra and A-6 Mohan Lal are different. While, A-1 is shown to be the son of one Mr. Eera Nand and Ms. Jaswant Kaur, A-6 Mohan Lal is shown to be the son of Sh. Hira Nand and Ms. Santosh Devi. In light of such apparent differences in the passport application forms of A-1 and A-6, this Court is surprised to see as to how the prosecution has shown A-1 and A-6 to be brothers and not conducted necessary investigation on the same.
57. The prosecution has collected evidence to the effect that Suraj, S/o Sh. Eera Nand, got his name changed to Suraj Ratra, but no evidence has been collected by the prosecution to show that Sukhdayal Suraj and Suraj are the same persons. The prosecution has relied on the newspaper advertisements Ex. PW1/L (D-18) and on the deed poll i.e. Ex. PW1/M (D-18/6), to show that the said Suraj fraudulently changed his name to Suraj Ratra and got a new passport issued in the name of Suraj Ratra, but the Court need not delve into this, as A-1 is no longer an accused in this Court. However, investigation is found wanting on the aspect of how the name Sukhdayal Suraj was changed to Suraj on the passport application forms (Ex. PW2/C and Ex. PW2/F).
58. Moreover, this Court is in agreement with the arguments raised on behalf of the accused that no verification has been undertaken to the effect that A-6 Mohan Lal and Mon Lal are the same persons. This is Digitally CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. signed by Page no. 45 of 59 JYOTI JYOTI MAHESHWARI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05 17:27:10 +0530 evident from the fact that the ration card no. 3842456 (Ex. PW1/E) shows Mon Lal to be the son of said Sh. Hira Nand.
59. A perusal of the passport application form of accused Mohan Lal (Ex. PW1/L) (D-23) shows Mohan Lal, S/o Sh. Hira Nand and the affidavit submitted by the applicant Mohan Lal in support of his Date of Birth (Ex. PW15/B7) also shows that he is the son of Hira Nand.
This is in contrast to the passport applications of applicant Suraj @ Suraj Ratra (Ex. PW2/F, Ex. PW2/C and Ex. PW2/H,), wherein, it is stated that he is the son of Eera Nand. However, no verification has been undertaken by CBI to ascertain whether Hira Nand and Eera Nand are the same persons. Consequently, the prosecution has not been able to establish that both Suraj Ratra (A-1) and Mohan Lal (A-6) are brothers and rather, the prosecution seems to have been caught in a confusion of its own making.
60. Any criminal case cannot be based on conjectures or assumptions and clear evidence must be adduced by the prosecution, to show that the case of the prosecution, stands independently on its own footing. However, collection of evidence on the following aspects is found to be severely wanting thereby, jeopardizing the case of the prosecution:
(a) Whether Hira Nand and Eera Nand are the same persons.
(b) Whether Mohan Lal and Mon Lal are the same persons.
(c) Whether Suraj and Sukhdayal Suraj are the same persons.
Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI MAHESHWARI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05 17:27:15 CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. +0530 Page no. 46 of 59
(ii) Verification regarding the addresses mentioned in the passport application forms:
61. The prosecution has relied on the testimony of witnesses to show that A-1 Suraj was neither residing at E-88/12, Jagjit Nagar, Delhi nor residing at 313/71 E, Anand Nagar, Inderlok, New Delhi-35. The testimony of the said witnesses is also fraught with inconsistencies and no documents/ address proofs were furnished by the said witnesses to support the case of the prosecution. Furthermore, the witnesses could not even depose as to whether Jagjit Nagar was authorised or an unauthorised colony. The examination of PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-8 and PW-9 is a case in point, which shows that the testimony of the witnesses could not withstand the test of cross-examination and the witnesses pleaded ignorance, on many aspects. Similarly, the testimonies of witnesses PW-7 and PW-22 with regard to A-1 nor residing at Anand Nagar address could not withstand the scrutiny of cross-examination. The witness PW-7 deposed that he is the owner of property bearing no. 313/71E, Anand Nagar, Inderlok, Delhi (the address used by A-1 in passport application form Ex. PW2/F) and A-1 neither stayed as a tenant nor resided there. But the said witness did not furnish any identity card or anything on record to show that he is the owner of above-said premises.
62. The witnesses did not even furnish any residential proof, to show that they are residents of Jagjit Nagar and Anand Nagar and thus, their assertion of being residents of these localities, is itself shrouded in suspicion. It is a matter of ordinary prudence that any person, notwithstanding his level of intellect and his long period of stay, would CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 47 of 59 Digitally signed by JYOTI MAHESHWARI JYOTI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05 17:27:21 +0530 not be aware of all the residents of his colony or locality. Despite the same, the prosecution has relied solely on the witness testimonies to show that A-1 was not a resident of Jagjit Nagar or Anand Nagar.
63. In such circumstances, it was incumbent on the prosecution to produce either Municipality records or other relevant documentary evidence, to show the topography of the area, the existence/ non- existence of the alleged address i.e. E-88/12, Jagjit Nagar and 313/71- E, Anand Nagar, Inderlok, Delhi, but even this basic exercise was not undertaken by the prosecution, for reasons best known to it. The testimony of PW-50 becomes relevant in this regard wherein during her cross-examination on 07.03.2025, she deposed that " I had not collected either ration card or Election card from public persons, though they were examined by me, when I visited the Jagjit Nagar area, regarding investigation of witnesses i.e. Raj Rani and Ram Prasad mentioned on witness slip by accused Badloo Khan and same is answered regarding verification of witnesses, mentioned on the passport application (D-11/17). It is correct that the area chart which included number of houses with their numbers are available with the SDM office. I had not collected any such document from SDM office to ascertain the house number etc of Jagjit Nagar and other area which surfaced in the investigation."
"I had visited localities of the witnesses mentioned over witness slip of police verification documents. I cannot say whether in Jagjeet Nagar area, any particular community or mixed community was residing at that time. I do not remember how many blocks were situated in Jagjit Nagar area (Vol. There were some street numbers). I do not recollect CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 48 of 59 Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI MAHESHWARI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05 17:27:27 +0530 how many galis/ streets were there. I cannot say, whether the area was approved or unapproved. As far as I remember, the house numbers were in sequence. As far as I remember, I made enquiry/ verification from the neighbours only".
64. Furthermore, even to show that A-3 Pramod Sharma was actually a resident of A-463, Shastri Nagar, Delhi and A-6 Mohan Lal used the said address as his own, in his passport application form, no documentary evidence has been collected by the prosecution, in this regard. Instead, the prosecution, to the utter surprise of this Court has submitted that since A-3 has never disputed his address, the address i.e. A-463, Shastri Nagar, Delhi, belonged to him. This unfortunately cannot be the basis for concluding that A-3 is a resident of A-463, Shastri Nagar, Delhi, in the absence of any other supporting evidence or documents. Moreover, the testimonies of PW-21, PW-25 and PW-28, are also full of inconsistencies and cannot lead to the inference that A-6 Mohan Lal was not a resident of A-463, Shastri Nagar, Delhi.
65. Thus, the claim of the prosecution that incorrect addresses were mentioned by A-1 and A-6, to fraudulently obtain passports has not been proved, let alone being proved beyond reasonable doubt.
D. The angle of criminal conspiracy in the present case
66. The main stay of the case of the prosecution is that A-2 and A-5 acted in conspiracy with A-1 and A-6 respectively, and conducted false verification, in order to facilitate the issuance of Passport to A-1 Suraj Ratra and A-6 Mohan Lal respectively. To show the existence of CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 49 of 59 JYOTI MAHESHWARI Digitally signed by JYOTI MAHESHWARI Date: 2025.08.05 17:27:32 +0530 criminal conspiracy, it was incumbent on the prosecution to show not just false verification carried out by A-2 and A-5, but to also show that they acted in concert and connivance with the accused persons to enable the issuance of Passports.
67. It is indeed true that conspiracy is usually hatched in secrecy and more often than not, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible to obtain direct evidence. Thus, in most cases, the element of conspiracy is proved by circumstantial evidence, taking into account, the cumulative effect of circumstances, which points towards the guilt of the accused. [State (NCT) of Delhi Vs. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru, (2005) 11 SCC 600]. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Kehar Singh v. Delhi Administration, (1988) 3 SCC 609, has observed, "..... No doubt, it may not be possible to prove a meeting of minds, by way of any direct proof, and more often than not, a conspiracy is to be inferred from the surrounding circumstances, including the conduct of the accused. Having said that, the incriminating circumstances must also form a chain of events, from which a conclusion of guilt could be drawn.
68. The prosecution should have adduced some evidence, in the form of either call records or meeting of A-2 and A-5 with A-1 and A-6 respectively, to show that they conspired to commit the present offence. However, for reasons best known to it, the prosecution has miserably failed to show, any iota of evidence or even a whisper of these two officials, acting in concert with the accused persons to facilitate the issuance of Passports. There is no evidence on record, whatsoever, to draw any inference of meeting of minds in the present case. This is further buttressed by the deposition of the IO, who in her cross-examination specifically stated, "I cannot say, if there was any CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 50 of 59 Digitally signed by JYOTI MAHESHWARI JYOTI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05 17:27:36 +0530 contact between Naresh Arora, Badloo Khan and Rockin R, during the period 1998 to 2003...... During investigation, no call records had been collected by me, against the accused persons to bring on record, the meeting of minds between the accused persons...." Thus, no evidence has been collected by the prosecution to show the element of criminal conspiracy.
69. Moreover, it is the admitted case of prosecution that the application forms by which A-2 and A-5 were assigned the task of verification were received by them, through official channel (Ex. PW15/B2 and Ex. PW15/C2). These forms had first reached the office of DCP directly from the Regional Passport Office (RPO) and thereafter, assigned to A-2 and A-5, through proper channel. Thus, there is nothing on record to show that A-2 and A-5 had ever met any of the other accused persons, prior to the allocation of such verification to them, during the process of verification or even after, the exercise of verification was carried out. Thus, nothing has surfaced on record to show that there was any complicity (direct or indirect) of A-2 or A-5 with the other accused persons.
70. In such a situation, the Court is compelled with no other option, but to reach the inference that the incorrect verification carried out by A-2 and A-5, was nothing more than an act of negligence or casual approach towards the duty assigned to them, instead of being a pre- meditated effort to commit the offences, as alleged against them.
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. 2025.08.05
Page no. 51 of 59
17:27:41
+0530
71. As regards the angle of criminal conspiracy qua A-3 and A-4, there is no evidence on record again, to show any evidence of meeting of minds between these accused persons, so as to facilitate the issuance of passports to A-1 and A-6, on the basis of forged documents. The prosecution has merely relied on the statements of certain witnesses, namely, PW-39 Pramod Kumar Sharma and PW-47 Sunil Sharma to show the element of conspiracy between A-3 and A-4 but their testimonies are also not reliable, as they were working with A-3 Pramod Sharma and are interested witnesses. It is a settled proposition of law that the testimony of interested witnesses, has to be read with circumspection and their testimony alone, cannot form the basis of conviction. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the testimony of these witnesses is also inconsistent and does not withstand the scrutiny of cross-examination.
72. PW-39 Pramod Kumar Sharma, who was himself working as an employee of A-3 Pramod Sharma deposed to the effect, that he had seen A-4 Naresh Arora in the house of A-3 Pramod Sharma. However, during the course of his cross-examination, he wavered from his testimony. Moreover, Sunil Sharma, the brother of A-3, was also examined as PW-47 to show that A-4 Naresh Arora used to visit A-3 Pramod Sharma, but he also could not depose as to whether A-3 and A-4 had any conversations related to Passport application forms, in his presence. PW-47 in his cross-examination deposed that no conversation between A-3 and A-4 regarding passport or any payment pertaining to the same took place in his presence. Therefore, even his Digitally signed by JYOTI CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. JYOTI MAHESHWARI Page no. 52 of 59 MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05 17:27:45 +0530 testimony as regarding the element of criminal conspiracy as alleged by the prosecution cannot be placed reliance on.
73. The prosecution has submitted that the fact that the passport of Mohan Lal and Suraj Ratra were seized from the office premises of A-4 Naresh Arora is sufficient to show the element of conspiracy. This argument itself falls flat, on the premise that A-4 was running M/s U Tel Travels and Cargo Pvt Ltd., and was working as an agent for facilitating the issuance of passports and visas. PW-50 in her deposition has herself admitted that no evidence has been collected on record to show that A-4 Naresh Arora had gone to Faridabad during the period 1998 to 2003 to meet the accused Suraj Ratra or his brother. The prosecution has also placed reliance on the disclosure statement of A-1 Suraj Ratra (Ex. PW30/1) wherein he had mentioned the name of Naresh Arora. However, the same is insufficient to draw any adverse inference against A-4 Naresh Arora, without independent evidence to substantiate the same.
74. This Court deems it apposite to refer to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parveen @ Sonu Vs. The State of Haryana (07.12.2021) wherein, it was held as follows:
"It is fairly well settled, to prove the charge of conspiracy, within the ambit of Section 120-B, it is necessary to establish that there was an agreement between the parties for doing an unlawful act. At the same time, it is to be noted that it is difficult to establish conspiracy by direct evidence at all, but at the same time, in absence of any evidence to show meeting of minds between the conspirators for the intended object of committing an illegal act, it is not safe to hold Digitally CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. signed by Page no. 53 of 59 JYOTI JYOTI MAHESHWARI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05 17:27:50 +0530 a person guilty for offences under Section 120-B of IPC. A few bits here and a few bits there on which prosecution relies, cannot be held to be adequate for connecting the accused with the commission of crime of criminal conspiracy (emphasis supplied)".
75. Thus, in view of the legal propositions discussed above, no element of criminal conspiracy could be proved by the prosecution, as regards A-2 Badloo Khan and A-5 Rockin R, even through circumstantial evidence. Even with regard to adducing evidence as to the existence of criminal conspiracy qua A-3 and A-4, the prosecution has mostly relied on witness testimonies, which by themselves are inconsistent and do not aid the case of prosecution.
76. Therefore, it is evident that the prosecution has not been able to prove the element of conspiracy between accused persons which was a pre-requisite for proving the offence against A-2 to A-5.
E. Contentions regarding the specific liability of the accused persons:
77. As far as the liability of A-3 Pramod Sharma and A-4 Naresh Arora is concerned, it is alleged that both the accused persons filled the Passport Application Forms of A-1 and A-6. However, filling the details in the passport application form, can by no stretch of imagination, be construed to be an offence. Moreover, the passport application form [Ex. PW2/H] (D-18) which was alleged to be filled by A-4 Naresh Arora was an application filed only to get the change of name of A-1 recorded and it was based on the particulars already filled in the previous passport application forms of A-1. There is no evidence brought on record, to show that A-4 Naresh Arora was aware of, or had CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 54 of 59 Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI MAHESHWARI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05 17:27:54 +0530 any knowledge, whatsoever, regarding the alleged Afghan nationality or Afghan roots, of A-1 Suraj.
78. Additionally, the prosecution has examined PW-29 Atul Mathur to demonstrate that A-4 Naresh Arora had placed an advertisement (Ex. PW2/L), in respect of change of name of Suraj to Suraj Ratra but his testimony also could not withstand the test of cross-examination and it could not be proved that A-4 Naresh Arora had actually placed the advertisement for change of name of A-1. Even otherwise, placing an advertisement for change of name or furnishing an affidavit in this regard, does not ipso facto amount to an offence, unless it can be shown by the prosecution that the above exercise was intentionally carried out by A-4, after knowing the particulars of Suraj (A-1) and his fraudulent activities, for obtaining passports. Thus, the prosecution has not been able to prove that A-4 knowingly filled false particulars in the Passport Application Form of A-1 Suraj Ratra. Therefore, no liability of A-4 Naresh Arora, is made out in the present case.
79. As far as the liability of A-3 Pramod Sharma is concerned, it is contended that he not only filled the passport application forms of A-1 and A-6, but also provided false documents in support of the said Passport Applications. However, the said documents Ex. PW2/G (D-16/6) which are furnished on record are mere photocopies and the opinion of handwriting expert on the photocopy of a document, cannot be said to be a conclusive evidence of the same. The Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the decision of Bheri Nageshwara Rao Vs. Mayuri Veerabhadra Rao & Ors., AIR 2006 AP 314, has held that a CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 55 of 59 Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI MAHESHWARI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05 17:28:00 +0530 handwriting expert would be in a position to render his opinion, only when the original of the document containing the disputed signature is forwarded to him. It was further observed that it is rather incomprehensible that an expert would be able to undertake analysis of the imprint of a signature or handwriting on a xerox copy. This position was further re-affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent decision of C. Kamalakkannan vs. The State of Tamil Nadu (2025 INSC 309). Therefore, the prosecution has not been able to prove the allegations levelled against A-3 Pramod Kumar Sharma.
80. As far as the liability of A-2 Badloo Khan is concerned, his role is limited to the alleged false verification report in respect of passport application no. 503522, dated 29.05.1998 (Ex. PW2/C). However, nothing has been brought forth on record, by the prosecution to suggest that the verification report was prepared falsely with an intention to benefit himself and A-1 in the process. Even, the person in whose name the ration card was issued i.e. Ms. Mazda Begum was not examined as a witness by the prosecution. The prosecution has also failed to show that the witnesses Raj Rani and Ram Prasad, whose names were mentioned in the list of witnesses (Ex. PW15/C4) (D-11/4) were not actually residing there or were fictitious witnesses.
81. Even with regard to A-5, his role is limited to the false verification report in respect of passport application no. A023603 (Ex. PW1/L) of A-6 Mohan Lal. However, as has been discussed above, the prosecution has failed to prove that A-6 Mohan Lal was not residing at the address mentioned in his application. Moreover, no evidence has CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Digitally signed Page no. 56 of 59 by JYOTI MAHESHWARI JYOTI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05 17:28:15 +0530 been collected to show that Seva Singh and Pramod Kumar Sharma, whose names were mentioned in the list of witnesses in Ex. PW15/B3 were not actually residing there and no address proof was collected in this regard. The prosecution has attempted to show that the ration card which was relied upon as a supporting document, was a fictitious one, through the testimony of PW-52 Shielender Kumar. However, his testimony is completely irrelevant, as he was never involved in the process of issuance of the letter Ex. PW50/14 (D-25) and Ex. PW50/3 (D-26) and the documents produced by him were mere photocopies, on which no reliance can be placed. Therefore, it is evident that the prosecution has not been able to prove that A-5 intentionally prepared a false verification report.
82. Additionally, the verification conducted by A-2 and A-5 was given the stamp of approval by Inspector Ramesh Chand (PW-17) and the-then ACP Ravi Dutt Kaushik (PW-32) and the same is also evident from a perusal of their testimonies as well as the documents Ex. PW15/C2 and Ex. PW15/B2. Thus, at the most, it appears to be a case of A-2 and A-5, performing their duties negligently and without due care, but the evidence on record is insufficient to reach the conclusion that the same was done intentionally by A-2 Badloo Khan and A-5 Rockin R.
83. It is also pertinent to observe that 4 separate passport application forms give rise to four distinct causes of action. Consequently, it would have been appropriate if four separate charge-sheets were filed in the process. However, for reasons not discernible from the record and Digitally CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. signed by Page no. 57 of 59 JYOTI JYOTI MAHESHWARI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05 17:28:19 +0530 unknown to this Court, the IO has chosen to amalgamate all these separate causes of action into a single charge-sheet. As a result, the lapses in investigation qua one accused, have automatically benefited the other accused persons and severely undermined the case of the prosecution.
84. It is a settled proposition of criminal law, that it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from 'may have' to 'must have'. If the case of the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility, the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused, which is the case, in the matter at hand. Further, in a case pertaining to circumstantial evidence, where two views are possible, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other towards his innocence, the one which is favourable to the accused, must be adopted. These principles have also been reiterated in the recent decision of Pradeep Kumar vs. State of Chattisgarh, 2023 SCC Online SC 275. In the present case, the case of the prosecution is fraught with inconsistencies and various lapses, all of which accrue in favour of the accused persons and thus, the benefit of doubt is extended to the accused persons.
CONCLUSION
85. Considering the entire conspectus of facts and circumstances and the evidence on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has completely failed to prove the offences, which the accused persons are charged with, in the present case. As a result, the accused persons, namely, Badloo Khan (A-2), Pramod Kumar Sharma Digitally CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. signed by JYOTI Page no. 58 of 59 JYOTI MAHESHWARI MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05 17:28:24 +0530 (A-3), Naresh Arora (A-4) and Rockin R. (A-5), are acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 120 B r/w 420/ 468/ 471 of IPC and Sections 12 (1) (a) & (b) of the Passport Act, 1967 and the substantive offences thereof.
86. Before parting, this Court would like to underscore its appreciation for the Ld. Counsels for accused persons as well as Ld. PP for CBI, for the superlative assistance rendered, during the trial and arguments of the present case.
87. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.
Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
(Jyoti Maheshwari) 2025.08.05
17:28:28 +0530
Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-05
Rouse Avenue Courts Complex
Announced in the open Court
on 5th August, 2025.
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 59 of 59