Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

C.B.I. vs . Bibianus Topo Etc. on 30 January, 2010

                                      1

CBI No. 22/2009

C.B.I. Vs. Bibianus Topo Etc.

30-01-2010

Present : Sh. V.K. Sharma, Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI
          All the accused are present on bail except accused
          Anil Dhawan who is absent.
             An   application   for   exemption    from    personal
appearance has been moved on behalf of accused Anil
Dhawan. Heard. Perused the application. In the facts and
circumstances as mentioned in the application, the application
is allowed. Accused Anil Dhawan is exempted from personal
appearance for today only.


ORDER ON CHARGE


1.

Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that the accused persons in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy fraudulently and dishonestly got 4 passports in the form of additional passport booklet issued in the name of Sh. Jagbir Singh Dua with photographs of different persons having the similar personal particulars. In the applications for the issue of 4 passports in the form of additional passport booklet, the details of original passport number Z-041532 dated 3-8-1998 of Jagbir Singh Dua was mentioned and the photocopy of the Contd...

same was enclosed with the passport applications on each occasion.

2. It is further the case of the prosecution that as per the rules photocopy of the last booklet issued to Jagbir Singh Dua was required to be enclosed with the applications for the new booklet but this was not ensured by the officials of R.P.O.

3. I have heard Ld. Sr. PP on behalf of CBI and counsels for the accused persons.

4. Written arguments alongwith documents have been filed on behalf of accused R.S. Rawat and accused Bibianus Topo.

5. It is mainly contended by the counsels for the accused persons that they have been falsely implicated. The prosecution has failed to show any mens-rea on the part of the accused and the prosecution has failed to show exchange of gratification, money or bribe. It was further argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to show any meeting of mind against the accused persons to commit the alleged offences.

6. In addition to above, it was further argued on behalf of accused Bibianus Topo that at the maximum a mistake can only be attributed to him which could have occurred due to over burden of work. It has also been argued on Contd...

behalf of accused R.S. Rawat that there is not even an iota of evidence against him on the record and he had no role to play in the grant of additional passport booklets.

7. The counsels for the accused persons have relied upon : AIR 1960 S.C. 548, A.K. Jain Vs. State 2005 (124) DLT 16, Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and others AIR 1979 (3) S.C.C. 3, Sarbans Singh and others Vs. State of N.C.T of Delhi 2005 (1) JCC 255, Sambhaji Lal Surve Vs. CBI 2009 (4) AD (Delhi) 616, Rita Handa Vs. CBI 2008 (105) DRJ 331, CBI Vs. Someshwar and others 2005 (82) DRJ 246, L.K. Advani & Others Vs. CBI 1997 JCC 294.

8. In the present case 4 additional passport booklets were issued in the name of one Jagbir Singh Dua by using the photocopy of the original passport on each occasion. In all the 4 applications different photographs were used but the particulars of Jagbir Singh Dua were mentioned in all the 4 applications.

9. It is alleged against accused Harbhajan Yadav that he was posted as U.D.C in R.P.O and he had checked all the 4 passport applications and did not put on record that the photocopy of the last booklet in the name of Jagbir Singh Dua was required to be enclosed alongwith applications for the new booklet and did not point out that the photocopy of the original passport was enclosed each time an application Contd...

was moved for grant of additional booklet. He has also done hit check in respect of file number T 006465 dated 16- 4-2004 and he did not bring on record the discrepancy with regard to the photocopy of the passport as well as difference in the photographs.

10. It is alleged against accused Ram Chander that he was working as L.D.C in the R.P.O and he conducted hit check in respect of 3 files i.e T 006677, T-008885 dated 17- 5-2004 and T-009594 dated 24-5-2004. He did not put on record the required discrepancy about the requirement of the photocopy of the last additional booklet issued and he also ignored that though the photographs on the applications were of different persons having similar personal particulars as that of Jagbir Singh Dua as per his original passport No. Z-041532 dated 3-8-1998.

11. It is alleged against accused Anil Dhawan that he has filled all the 4 additional passport booklets by forging the signatures as Jagbir Singh Dua on various documents which has been confirmed by GEQD opinion. He also took delivery of two additional passport booklets bearing No. E- 8584879 dated 21-4-2004 and E-8585157 dated 22-4-2004.

12. It is alleged against accused Naieem Safi that he collected 2 additional passport booklets No. E-8578955 dated 19-5-2004 and E-8579978 dated 25-5-2004 by forging Contd...

the signatures of JS Dua on the delivery register which has been confirmed by GEQD opinion.

13. It is alleged against accused R.S. Rawat that he issued two additional passport booklets No. E-8584879 dated 21-04-2004 and E-8585157 dated 22-4-2004 to accused Anil Dhawan and ignored that the photographs in the booklets did not match with the person taking the delivery and this is against the procedure prescribed for the delivery of passport as stated by PW S.P. Kothari, Supdt.

14. As far as accused Dheeraj Bansal is concerned, it is alleged against him that he had arranged additional booklets with similar particulars of Jagbir Singh Dua but different photographs after obtaining the original passports of Jagbir Singh Dua and his wife Preeti Thakur.

15. PW S.P. Kothari working as Supdt. (Administration ) at the regional passport office in his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C has explained the rules, regulations and procedure for issuance and renewal of the passport and also for additional booklets.

16. He has deposed that after the scrutiny of the application and its enclosure by the counter clerk the file is sent to hit section to ensure whether the applicant has got any passport prior to the instant one. The hit section will disclose whether the applicant is having or applied for any Contd...

other passport in his name. As regards the dispatch of the passports, he stated that when the passports come to the dispatch section, for dispatch, they will be sent by speed post only, except promise cases which are to be delivered at the counter.

17. As regards the issuance of additional booklets, this witness has stated that additional booklets can be issued to the original existing passport holder only on the basis of the old passport with the same personal particulars and validity. For this purpose the applicant has to furnish a photocopy of the existing passport and in case second additional booklet is issued to the holder, the endorsement in the second additional book let should carry the details of original passport and first additional booklet.

18. He further stated that the P.I.A. signing the passport is required to go through the entire file regarding issue of additional passport before putting his signatures and he is required to go through the entire case file and to ensure that the details of the previous passport whether original passport of the previous additional booklet have been entered in the computer system by him and also that a reference in this regard is also available in the concerned file.

19. PW Ajay Gautam working as scientist B in N.I.C. in Contd...

his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C stated that the official in the hit section was also able to view on his computer screen the file number of any previous passport if issued with passport number, issue date and validity date, applicant's name, father's name, date of birth and present address and also the photograph as well as the signatures of the previous passport. He stated that Ram Chander L.D.C had excess to view the photographs and signatures of the applicant of previous passport issued to Jagbir Singh Dua.

20. PW Om Prakash working as L.D.C in the lamination / pasting section at Regional Passport Office stated that from period 1-1-2004 to 5-5-2004 he made the entires of passport No. E- 8584879, at page No. 196 on 21-4-2004 and entry of passport No. E-8585157 on 22-4-2004 was made by him. The entry in file No. T-6677/04 and T-6465/04 of respective passports were made by JS Rawat. He further stated that the said passports have been received by R.S. Rawat, assistant who was during the said period was working at the delivery counter and he identified signatures of R.S. Rawat.

21. PW Indermohan Sabarwal, Supdt. has stated that during the period of April, May 2004, G.D Joshi and RS Rawat were deployed at delivery counter.

22. PW GD Joshi has stated that Sh. Bibianus Topo the Contd...

then Supdt has passed an order for issue of additional passport booklet on 21-4-2004, thereafter additional passport booklet No. E-8585157 was issued in the name of J.S Dua against old passport No. Z-041532. He further stated that the responsibility was that of Harbhajan Yadav and Bibianus Topo who failed to check the particulars of old passport issued in the name of J.S Dua.

23. PW Sanjeev Dogra has deposed that Dheeraj Bansal was dealing with arranging visa from France embassy. He has stated that in the year 2004 one Shama Agnihotri had given him two passports one of Jagbir Singh Dua and other of Preeti Thakur his wife and their photographs for arranging schengener visa from France embassy. He applied for visa in France embassy which was refused and he accordingly informed Shama Agnihotri and asked him to take his passport back. As refusal stamp was affixed on passport by the Embassy of France, Shama Agnoihotri became angry. He then told him that his friend Dheeraj Bansal could arrange visa on refused passport. Shama Agnihotri agreed and passports of Jagbir Singh Dua and Preet Thakur were then given to Dheeraj Bansal for arranging the visa.

24. After one week Dheeraj Bansal told him that visa could not be arranged but he can arrange additional passport booklet to which Shama agreed. Thereafter Dheeraj Bansal Contd...

gave him old and new additional passport booklets of Jagbir Singh Dua for arranging the Schengener visa. PW Sanjeev Dogra observed that photograph of Jagbir Singh Dua was changed and someone else photograph was affixed in place of Jagbir Singh Dua and on the basis of tempered passport a new additional passport booklet in the name of J.S. Dua was issued.

25. The investigation has further revealed that PW Ashok Kumar @ Bittoo had given photographs of one Nishan Singh alongwith the application for issue of passport and visa to accused Dhiraj Bansal. Thereafter accused Dheeraj Bansal informed Ashok Kumar to ask Nishan Singh to come to Delhi for collecting visa and passport for U.K. Nishan Singh noticed that the passport was fake and refused to perform the journey. It is further revealed during the investigation that accused Amarjeet Singh traveled on additional passport booklet No. 8578955 in the name of Jagbir Singh Dua to France.

26. On inquiry Dheeraj Bansal told that additional passport booklets were issued with the help of Anil Dhawan and Harbhajan Yadav of Regional Passport Office. PW stated that original old passports of Jagbir Singh Dua and Smt. Preeti Thakur were given to Dheeraj Bansal who had not returned the same.

Contd...

27. Additional booklets were issued in the name of Jagbir Singh Dua and the passport number and other personal particulars were the same but the photographs on the application forms were absolutely different.

28. It is settled law that at the stage of framing of charge the court has to primafacie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The court is not required to appreciate the evidence and arrive at the conclusion that the materials produced are sufficient or not for conviction of the accused. If the court is satisfied that a primafacie case is made out for proceeding further then a charge has to be framed.

29. In the case of Kanti Bhadra Shaha Vs. State of West Bengal (2000) 1 SCC 722, the Supreme Court has even gone to the extent of holding that there is no legal requirement that the trial court should write an order showing the reasons for framing a charge. It is quite unnecessary to write a detailed order if the proceedings do not culminate. This was considered to be a measure to avert all roadblocks causing avoidable delays.

30. Reference may also be made to the case of State Vs. S Bangarappa 2001 Cri. L.J. page 111, where the Apex Court emphasized the need to have the limited exercise during the state of framing charge. The court held Contd...

that :-

"Time and again this Court has pointed out that at the stage of framing charge the Court should not enter upon a process of evaluating the evidence by deciding its worth or credibility. The limited exercise during that stage is to find out whether the material offered by the prosecution to be adduced as evidence are sufficient for the court to proceed further. (vide State of M.P. Vs. Dr. Krishna Chandra Saksena, (1996) 11 SCC

439)".

31. From the evidence appearing on the record, it is primafacie clear that a conspiracy existed between the accused persons and in pursuance to the conspiracy four additional passports booklets in the name of Jagbir Singh Dua with similar particulars but different photographs were issued by the Regional Passport Office. So in my opinion, there is primafacie material to frame charges against all the accused persons for the offence U/s 120 B IPC R/w Section 419/420/468/471 IPC and 13 (2) R/w section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act 1988 and section 12 (1) (b) of Passports Act 1967.

32. Charges against A-1 Bibianus Topo, A-2 Harbhajan Yadav, A-3 Ram Chander and A-4 Rajender Singh Rawat Contd...

be also framed for the substantive offences U/s 13 (2) R/w Section 13(1) (d) of the PC Act 1988.

33. Charge against accused A-5 Anil Dhawan, A-6 Dheeraj Bansal and A-7 Naieem Safi be also framed for the substantive offence U/s 420/468/471 IPC and 12 (1) (b) of Passport Act. Put up for framing of formal charge on 19-02-2010.

(Announced in the open Court on 30-01-2010.) (RAJNISH BHATNAGAR) SPECIAL JUDGE 01 CBI ROHINI COURTS : DELHI Contd...

Contd...