Delhi District Court
State vs Lajja Ram on 11 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRANAV JOSHI, ADDITIONAL
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-01, NEW DELHI, PATIALA
HOUSE COURTS, DELHI
Cr. Cases No. 51731/2016
CNR No. DLND02-004456-2014
STATE Vs. LAJJA RAM
FIR No. 587/2011
PS IGI AIRPORT
U/S 420/468/471 IPC & 12 PP ACT
1) The date of commission : 20.12.2011
of offence
2) The name of the complainant : Constable Ajit Singh
3) The name & parentage of accused : Sh. Lajja Ram,
S/o Sh. Swarn Ram,
R/o Lasabad,
PO Muzafat Kalan,
Tehsil Chhachhrauli,
Distt. Yamunanagar,
Haryana.
4) Offence complained of : U/s. 420/468/471
IPC & 12 PP Act
5) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
6) Final order : Convicted
7) The date of such order : 11.08.2025
Cr. Cases No. 51731/2016 State Vs Lajja Ram Page No. 1/13
Date of Institution : 09.07.2014
Reserved for Judgment : 03.04.2025
Date of Decision : 11.08.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 20.12.2011, the accused arrived at IGI Airport from London as deportee and sought arrival clearance. During scrutiny of his documents, it was found that the student visa affixed on page 21 of the passport of the accused was tampered with. Upon the complaint of the concerned immigration officer, the present FIR was registered and the accused was arrested. During the course of investigation, the passport of the accuse containing the visa was sent for expert examination to Indian Security Press, Nasik. The expert opined that the year of validity on the UK visa was tampered with. During the course of investigation, the visa was also sent for verification to UK High Commission and the said visa was duly verified to be genuine. After completion of the investigation, the present charge-sheet was filed under section 420/468/471 IPC and section 12 Passport Act.
2. Upon filing of the present chargesheet, sanction for prosecution under section 15 PP Act and sanction under section 188 Cr.P.C was received on 30.04.2016. The Ld. Predecessor of this Court did not pass a specific order for taking cognizance but proceeded to hear arguments on charge upon receipt of the requisite sanctions for prosecution. After complying with the provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C, arguments on charge were heard and order on charge was passed on 06.12.2017. Thereafter, Cr. Cases No. 51731/2016 State Vs Lajja Ram Page No. 2/13 vide order dated 16.08.2018, charges for offences under sections 420 and section 471 read section 468 IPC & section 12 PP Act were framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the case was fixed for recording of the prosecution evidence.
3. The prosecution has examined as many as five witnesses. Prosecution examined W/SI Sunil Yadav as PW1 who deposed that on 20.12.2011, he was posted at PS IGI Airport as ASI. He further deposed that on that day, he was working as Duty Officer and his duty hours were from 08.00 am to 08.00 pm. That on that day at about about 6.55 pm, he received rukka/tehrir from ASI Saral Ram, IGI Immigration along-with Pax Lajja Ram. That he made endorsement on the rukka Ex. PW-1/A. That on the basis of rukka/tehrir, he got registered the present FIR Ex. PW-1/B(OSR). That the travel documents as per seizure memo Ex.PW1/C were seized by him. That after registration of FIR, copy of FIR, original rukka and travel documents with the pax Lajja Ram were handed over to SI Krishan Kumar for further investigation. The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
4. The prosecution examined Ct. Nagesh as PW2 who deposed that on 20.12.2011, he was posted as Constable at PS IGI Airport. He further deposed that on that day, he joined the investigation with the IO. That on that day, IO arrested the accused and conducted his personal search vide memos Ex.PW2/A and PW2/B. That the IO also recorded the disclosure statement of the accused vide memo Ex.PW2/C. That his statement was recorded by the IO U/s. 161 Cr. P.C. The witness correctly identified the accused in the Court. The witness was Cr. Cases No. 51731/2016 State Vs Lajja Ram Page No. 3/13 duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
5. The prosecution examined Sh. Om Prakash as PW3 who appeared on behalf of Mr. N.K. Sanyal to prove the letter no. ISP Stamp case No. 10676 (1106) dated 05.06.2012 in respect of letter No. 1886/R-SHO/PS IGIA, New Delhi dated 02.05.2012 received from IGI Airport. He brought the authority letter from Indian Security Press Ex.PW3/A. The witness deposed that he could identify N.K. Sanyal signatures as he had seen him signing during the course of his service tenure. The witness identified the report given by Sh. N.K. Sanyal Ex. PW3/B. He deposed that year of validity date on UK Visa No. 006652231 affixed on page No. 21 of passport No. E-2252193 has been tampered with. The witness was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
6. The prosecution examined HC Ajit Singh as PW 4 who deposed that on 20.12.2011, he was working as Counter Officer at Immigration. He further deposed that on that day, he was on duty as Counter Officer on counter No. 34 at Arrival Wing of immigration with a stamp No. A112. That one deportee pax namely Lajja Ram holding Indian Passport No. E-2252193 issued from RPO Chandigarh and valid from 30.05.2002 to 29.05.2012, arrived from London by Flight No. 9W-121 and was handed over to him by IC Wing for clearance. That on scrutiny of his deportation papers and travel documents, it was found that the pax was deported for overstay and UK Student visa affixed on page No. 21 of his passport was tampered. That he prepared a rukka/tehrir Ex.PW1/A. That he took the accused/pax along-with his travel documents and the original rukka to the PS IGI Airport and handed over the same alongwith accused to the DO at PS IGI Airport. The witness correctly identified the arrival card and Cr. Cases No. 51731/2016 State Vs Lajja Ram Page No. 4/13 PISON confirmation report Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B. The witness also correctly identified the passport No. E-2252193 Ex.PW4/C. The witness correctly identified the accused in the Court. The witness was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
7. The prosecution examined Inspector Krishan Kumar as PW 5 who deposed that on 20.12.2011, he was posted as SI at PS IGI Airport. He further deposed that on that day, the investigation of the present case was assigned to him. That he collected the rukka and the copy of FIR from the DO and the DO also handed over him the seizure memo of travel documents and travel documents. He further deposed that DO also handed over him the Pax / accused Lajja Ram. He further deposed that he interrogated ASI Saral Ram and also his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. That he also interrogated the pax/accused Lajja Ram and recorded his disclosure statement. That he arrested the accused and conducted his personal search vide memos Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B respectively. That he also recorded statements of the witnesses. He further deposed that U. K. Embassy provided the verification report Mark X of the visa pasted on accused's passport at Page No. 21. He deposed that as per the report, the visa was issued from the U.K. Embassy, however, it was tampered as the expiry date was altered. That thereafter, the passport was sent to Indian Security Press, Nasik for expert report whether there was any alteration on the visa and passport. That the Indian Security Press, Nasik has given its report Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B. That after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed. The identification of the travel documents was not insisted upon as their identification was Cr. Cases No. 51731/2016 State Vs Lajja Ram Page No. 5/13 not disputed by the accused. The witness correctly identified the accused in the Court. The witness was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
8. After, completion of the prosecution on 07.12.2024, the prosecution evidence was closed and the case was fixed for recording of the statement of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C.
9. On 10.01.2025, the statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded. The accused stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further stated that the visa in question was genuine and the alleged tampering was not done by him. The accused did not lead any defence evidence.
10. I have heard the arguments from Ld. APP for the State and Ld. counsel for the accused.
11. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kali Ram Vs. Himanchal Pradesh (1973 2 SCC 808) in para 23 and 25 which are reproduced as under:
" 23. Observations in a recent decision of this Court, Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (1973 2 SCC 793) to which reference has been made during arguments were not intended to make a departure from the rule of the presumption of innocence of the accused and his entitlement to the benefit of Cr. Cases No. 51731/2016 State Vs Lajja Ram Page No. 6/13 reasonable doubt in criminal cases. One of the cardinal principles which has always to be kept in view in our system of administration of justice for criminal cases is that a person arraigned as an accused is presumed to be innocent unless that presumption is rebutted by the prosecution by production of evidence as may show him to be guilty of the offence with which he is charged. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused is upon the prosecution and unless it relieves itself of that burden, the courts cannot record a finding of the guilt of the accused. There are certain cases in which statutory presumptions arise regarding the guilt of the accused, but the burden even in those cases is upon the prosecution to prove the existence of facts which have to be present before the presumption can be drawn. Once those facts are shown by the prosecution to exist, the court can raise the statutory presumption and it would, in such an event, be for the accused to rebut the presumption. The onus even in such cases upon the accused is not as heavy as is normally upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. If some material is brought on the record consistent with the innocence of the accused which may reasonably be true, even though it is not positively proved to be true, the accused would be entitled to acquittal. Leaving aside the cases of statutory presumptions, the onus is upon the prosecution to prove the different ingredients of the offence and unless it discharges that onus, the prosecution cannot succeed...
xxxxxx
25. Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence. Rule has accordingly been laid down that unless the evidence adduced in the case is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with that of his innocence, the court should refrain from recording a finding of guilt of the accused. It is also an accepted rule that in case the 73 5 court entertains reasonable doubt regarding the, guilt of the accused, the accused must have the benefit of that doubt. Of course, the doubt regarding the guilt of the accused should be reasonable : it is not the doubt of a mind which is either so vacillating that it is incapable of reaching a firm conclusion or so timid that it is hesitant and afraid to take things to their natural consequences. The rule regarding the benefit of doubt also does not warrant acquittal of the accused by resort Cr. Cases No. 51731/2016 State Vs Lajja Ram Page No. 7/13 to surmises, conjectures or fanciful considerations. As mentioned by us recently in the case of State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh,(1974 2 SCC 227) a criminal trial is not like a fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight to one's imagination and fantasy. It concerns itself with the question as to whether the accused arraigned at the trial is guilty of the offence with which he is charged. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of interplay of different human emotions. In arriving at the conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged with the commission of a crime, the, court has to judge, the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. Every case in the final analysis would have to depend upon its own facts. Although the benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the accused, the courts should not at the same time reject evidence which is ex facie trustworthy, on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures."
12. In the present case, the allegation against the accused was that visa on page No. 21 of the passport of the accused was found to be tampered with. The date of the validity of the said visa has been stated to be tampered with. PW4/complainant deposed that the when the accused arrived as deportee on 20.12.2011 at IGI Airport, the passport in question was in his possession. Even the accused has not disputed the seizure of the passport from his possession. PW4 also deposed that when the documents of the accused were inspected, the visa on page No. 21 of his passport was found to be tampered with. There is also no dispute on the fact that the visa which was found on the passport of the accused was tampered with subsequently. No suggestion was given to PW4 that the visa when inspected from the possession of the accused was not so tampered and the tampering was done subsequently. Hence, it is established that during the custody of the passport with the police and immigration official, no tampering was done with the visa affixed on page No. 21 of the passport of the accused.
Cr. Cases No. 51731/2016 State Vs Lajja Ram Page No. 8/1313. To prove the tampering on the visa, the prosecution has relied upon the report of the expert Ex. PW3/B. The author of the report Sh. N.K. Sanyal has not examined by the prosecution and to prove the said report, the prosecution has examined PW3 Sh. Om Prakash, Asst. Manager, TO, Forgery Detection Cell, India Security Press, Nasik. PW3 has not prepared the report but has identified the signatures of Sh. N.K. Sanyal who was the author of the said report. In Ikramuddin Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, Crl. A. No. 110/2007, dated 31.05.2017, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has observed that MLC can be proved by other medical officers if the author of the report is not available. The relevant observations of Hon'ble Delhi High Court read as under:
"15. Noticeably, the cases cited related to civil disputes, the documents in question being in the nature of acknowledgement in writing or a deed of transfer of title. In contrast, nearer home, the view taken in Gaya Prasad Pal Vs. State, 235 (2016) DLT 264; Anil Kumar & Ors. Vs. State, 233 (2016) DLT 645; Crl. Appeal No.649/2014, Ram Sagar Vs. State, decided on 25.08.2015; and Crl. A. Nos.802 & 571/2011, Wasim Hassan and Ors. Vs. State, decided on 06.04.2016 upholds the approach adopted by the trial court in the matter at hand. With the author of MLCs not being available, the prosecution legitimately relied on other medical officers to prove the relevant records."
Therefore, the report Ex. PW3/B cannot be thrown out of consideration merely because the author of the report was not examined.
14. In Murari Lal v. State of M.P (1980) 1 SCC 704, Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the principles with regard to the extent to which reliance can be placed on the evidence of an expert witness and when corroboration of such evidence may be sought. The relevant observations read as under:
"4. We will first consider the argument, a stale argument often heard, particularly in Criminal Courts, that the opinion-Cr. Cases No. 51731/2016 State Vs Lajja Ram Page No. 9/13
evidence of a handwriting expert should not be acted upon without substantial corroboration. We shall presently point out how the argument cannot be justified on principle or precedent. We begin with the observation that the expert is no accomplice. There is no justification for condemning his opinion-evidence to the same class of evidence as that of an accomplice and insist upon corroboration. True, it has occasionally been said on very high authority that it would be hazardous to base a conviction solely on the opinion of a handwriting expert. But, the hazard in accepting the opinion of any expert, handwriting expert or any other kind of expert, is not because experts, in general, are unreliable witnesses -- the quality of credibility or incredibility being one which an expert shares with all other witnesses -- but because all human judgment is fallible and an expert may go wrong because of some defect of observation, some error of premises or honest mistake of conclusion. The more developed and the more perfect a science, the less the chance of an incorrect opinion and the converse if the science is less developed and imperfect. The science of identification of finger-prints has attained near perfection and the risk of an incorrect opinion is practically non-existent. On the other hand, the science of identification of handwriting is not nearly so perfect and the risk is, therefore, higher. But that is a far cry from doubting the opinion of a handwriting expert as an invariable rule and insisting upon substantial corroboration in every case, howsoever the opinion may be backed by the soundest of reasons. It is hardly fair to an expert to view his opinion with an initial suspicion and to treat him as an inferior sort of witness. His opinion has to be tested by the acceptability of the reasons given by him. An expert deposes and not decides.
6. Expert testimony is made relevant by Section 45 of the Evidence Act and where the Court has to form an opinion upon a point as to identity of handwriting, the opinion of a person "specially skilled" "in questions as to identity of handwriting"
is expressly made a relevant fact......... So, corroboration may not invariably be insisted upon before acting on the opinion of an handwriting expert and there need be no initial suspicion. But, on the facts of a particular case, a court may require corroboration of a varying degree. There can be no hard and fast rule, but nothing will justify the rejection of the opinion of an expert supported by unchallenged reasons on the sole ground that it is not corroborated. The approach of a court while dealing with the opinion of a handwriting expert should be to proceed cautiously, probe the reasons for the opinion, consider all other relevant evidence and decide f inally to accept or reject it.
11. We are firmly of the opinion that there is no rule of law, nor any rule of prudence which has crystallized into a rule of law, that opinion evidence of a handwriting expert must never be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated. But, having due regard to the imperfect nature of the science of identification of handwriting, the approach, as we indicated earlier, should be one of caution. Reasons for the opinion must be carefully probed and examined. All other relevant evidence must be Cr. Cases No. 51731/2016 State Vs Lajja Ram Page No. 10/13 considered. In appropriate cases, corroboration may be sought. In cases where the reasons for the opinion are convincing and there is no reliable evidence throwing a doubt, the uncorroborated testimony of an handwriting expert may be accepted. There cannot be any inflexible rule on a matter which, in the ultimate analysis, is no more than a question of testimonial weight. We have said so much because this is an argument frequently met with in subordinate courts and sentences torn out of context from the judgments of this Court are often flaunted."
15. The report of the expert Ex. PW3/B clearly states that the year of validity date on the UK visa affixed on page No.21 of the passport has been tampered with. Even on a bare bare perusal of the visa in question, the year 2011 is clearly appearing to be tampered with. Thus, the report Ex. PW3/B appears to be correct and can be acted upon without any further corroboration.
16. Now, the burden was upon the accused to show that the visa was either not tampered with or the same was not done by him. The cross-examination done on behalf of the accused suggest that the accused was trying to take a stand that the said tampering had taken place when the passport was in custody of UK authority. However, the accused has not been able to prove the same. In his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused did not offer any explanation as to how the visa got tampered. The accused merely stated that the said visa was genuine and he personally did not tamper the same. It is pertinent to mention that the accused has not disputed that he was deported back from UK on the ground of overstay after expiry of his visa. The accused has not been to explain either of the circumstances i.e. why was he deported back if his visa was valid and how the visa got tampered with. In the absence of any proof, there is nothing to even presume the innocence of the accused on the touchstone of Cr. Cases No. 51731/2016 State Vs Lajja Ram Page No. 11/13 preponderance of probabilities.
17. The accused has been charged with the offences under section 420 IPC, section 471 read with section 468 IPC and section 12 Passport Act. The ingredients of section 420 IPC are not attracted in the present case as neither there is any allegation that the accused deceived the Indian immigration authorities or UK authorities on the basis of the visa for departing from India or to enter UK nor has there been any proof as to when the tampering with the visa took place. As per report Mark X, the visa granted to the accused was genuine. Further, no delivery of property etc, took place in favour of the accused. It is also not proved whether the accused used the said visa for his stay. As per the report Mark X, the validity of the said visa was up till 28.02.2011 which after the tampering was same. Even the report Mark X which was read by this Court in favour of the accused was not proved by the prosecution as the same is merely a copy and no witness was examined to prove the said report. Further, the accused cannot be said to have used the said visa for his deportation as the act of deportation was forceful. There are also no allegation on the passport of the accused otherwise so that it can be said that the accused used a forged document as genuine to travel back to India. Therefore, charge under section 471 read with 468 IPC has also not been proven.
18. However, the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused for the charge under section 12 Passport Act. As per section 12(1)(b) of Passport Act, 1967, a person is said to commit an offence under the said provision if he alters or causes to alter the entries made in the passport without lawful authority. In the present case, the visa on the passport of the Cr. Cases No. 51731/2016 State Vs Lajja Ram Page No. 12/13 accused was found to be tampered with and the accused has not been able to explain as to how the same got tampered with. The accused has failed to discharge his burden to show that the said tampering was not done by him even though the passport was found in his possession. Hence, charge under section 12 Passport Act has been proved against the accused.
19. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused Lajja Ram for the offence under section 12 Passport Act beyond reasonable doubt. However, the case of the prosecution for the charges under section 420 and section 471 read with section 468 IPC fails. Accordingly, the accused Lajja Ram is convicted of the offence under section 12 Passport Act.
The accused be heard separately on sentence.
Digitally
signed by
PRANAV
PRANAV JOSHI
Announced in open Court JOSHI Date:
2025.08.11
On this 11th Day of August, 2025 15:36:12
+0530
(PRANAV JOSHI)
ACJM-01/NEW DELHI
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS
Cr. Cases No. 51731/2016 State Vs Lajja Ram Page No. 13/13