Delhi District Court
Court Of India In Case Titled As Sushil ... vs . Cbi & Anr. on 30 September, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUDESH KUMAR
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE01,
NEW DELHI DISTRICT:
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS: DELHI
FIR NO.: 542 OF 2001
POLICE STATION: IGI AIRPORT
U/S: 419/420/468/471/120 B IPC & 12 PASSPORT ACT
IN THE MATTER OF
STATE
VS
DALIP SOHAL ETC.
(i) Sukhchain Singh
S/o Sh. Balwinder Singh
R/o Village Jasowal, PO Sidhowal,
PS Sadar Patiala, District Patiala, Punjab (Already convicted)
(ii) Dalip Sohal
S/o Sh. Sampuran Singh
R/o House No. 12/138, Geeta Colony, Delhi31 (Convicted)
FIR NO.: 542 OF 2001
POLICE STATION: IGI AIRPORT
U/S: 419/420/468/471/120 B IPC & 12 PASSPORT ACT 1 of 19
(iii) Farhat Khan
S/o Sh. Safat Khan
R/o Village Kairana,
PS Kairana, District Muzaffar Nagar, U.P. (Convicted)
Date of institution:05.06.2003
Date of reserving Judgement/Order:30.08.2013
Date of Pronouncement of Judgement/Order:30.09.2013
Brief statement of reasons for such decision :
1.The present case was registered on a complaint lodged by SI Dinesh Kumar, Clearing Officer Immigration at IGI Airport. It was alleged that on the intervening night of 20/21.12.2001 at Counter No. 7 at the departure wing of Immigration, during the clearance of Flight No. AF147, one passenger holding passport bearing no. B5776943 in the name of Shahid Hassan S/o Sh. Choudhary Munawar Hasan approached his counter for immigration clearance. His passport was scrutinized and he was questioned keeping in view his profile as he was speaking in Punjabi accent about his personal particulars and he was totally ignorant of any Muslim Customs or religion though his name was Muslim as per his passport particulars. On questioning, he revealed that his real name was Sukhchain Singh S/o Sh. Balwinder Singh and he pointed out towards another passenger standing behind him in the line for immigration clearance namely Dalip Sohal and disclosed that he is being taken to Paris by him and the said Dalip Sohal had also managed his passport, visas and tickets for which he had paid Rs. 2.75 Lakhs. The other passenger namely Dalip Sohal was also questioned. He revealed FIR NO.: 542 OF 2001 POLICE STATION: IGI AIRPORT U/S: 419/420/468/471/120 B IPC & 12 PASSPORT ACT 2 of 19 that he alongwith Arun Kumar Sharma who was also escorting the other passenger namely Gurjit Singh S/o Sh. Harvinder Singh in the name of Nahid Hasan had arranged his passport and visa through one Mr. Farad to whom they had paid Rs. 1.5 Lakh for arranging passport and visa for Sukhchain Singh in the name of name of Sahid Hassan. On the basis of this complaint, the present case was registered.
2. After investigations, charge sheet in the matter was filed against all accused for the offences u/s 419/420/468/471/120 B IPC & 12 Passport Act.
3. A formal charge for the offences U/s 419/120 B IPC and 471/120 B IPC was settled against accused Sukhchain Singh on 01.04.2004 by my Ld. Predecessor to which he pleaded guilty and was convicted vide separate Judgement passed by my Ld. Predecessor on the said date.
4. A formal charge for the offences U/s 419/471/120 B IPC was settled against accused Dalip Sohal and Farhat Khan on 01.04.2004 by my Ld. Predecessor to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Thereafter, prosecution in order to prove its case against accused Farhat Khan and Dalip Sohal has examined all the nine witnesses as mentioned in the list of witnesses.
(i) Duty Officer HC Ashok Kumar has been examined as PW 1. He proved rukka Mark A and travel documents as Ex. P1 to Ex. P 10. He also proved copy of FIR as Ex. PW 1/A and his endorsement on same as Ex. PW 1/B and seizure memo of travel documents as Ex. PW 1/C. FIR NO.: 542 OF 2001 POLICE STATION: IGI AIRPORT U/S: 419/420/468/471/120 B IPC & 12 PASSPORT ACT 3 of 19
(ii) Sh. K. Ram, Additional Commissioner, Department of Cabinet Secretariat, Government of Bihar, has been examined as PW 2. He deposed that on 04.10.2001, he was working as Additional Commissioner and on that day, he received a telephone call from Mr. Chaudhary, Hon'ble Member of Parliament who stated that two persons namely Sahid Hasan and Naid Hasan were intending to go abroad, so he asked him to verify the VC (verification certificate), so that the passports for the above persons can be obtained urgently or immediately. He further deposed that one Mr. Farhat Khan, PA to Mr. Chaudhary came to him alongwith application forms of the said persons and showed his Icard and after verifying, he signed on the verification certificate for Sahid Hasan and Naid Hasan and handed over the said certificate to PA Farhat Khan. He also received a thanks call from Mr. Chaudhary. Later, he came to know from PS IGI Airport that the said persons namely Sahid Hasan and Naid Hasan were not sons of MP Mr. Chaudhary. It was also revealed that it was Mr. Farhat Khan who on his own got the above said work done for the issuance of VCs for obtaining the passport and hence cheated PW 2. The witness also correctly identified the accused Farhat Khan present in the Court. He also proved his signatures on the said VCs Ex. PW 2/A and Ex. PW 2/A1.
In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel for accused Farhat, he deposed that he had signed the above verification certificates on the asking of Mr. Manvar Hasan Chaudhay and he had not spoken with Mr. Farhat on telephone. Accused Farhat came to him with verification certificates but he did not ask him for doing anything.
The witness was not cross examined by accused Dalip Sohal despite opportunity for the same being given.
(iii) PW 3 Ct. Padam Singh proved the arrest of accused Dalip Sohal and Sukhchain Singh vide memo Ex. PW 3/A and Ex. PW 3/B and their personal search vide FIR NO.: 542 OF 2001 POLICE STATION: IGI AIRPORT U/S: 419/420/468/471/120 B IPC & 12 PASSPORT ACT 4 of 19 memo Ex. PW 3/C and Ex. PW 3/D and their disclosure statements vide memo Ex. PW 3/E and Ex. PW 3/F.
(iv) PW 4 SI Diwan Singh is the investigating officer. He deposed that on 21.12.2001, investigation was assigned to him and he was handed over all the documents alongwith passengers Sukhchain Singh and Dalip Sohal. He proved their arrest, personal search memo and disclosure statements. He verified the address of accused Sukhchain and recorded the statement of PW Balwinder, father of passenger Sukhchain Singh. It was also disclosed by the accused that one Kala, resident of Punjab has directed accused Sukhchain Singh to contact the accused Dalip Sohal for getting his passport and arranging his journey. During PC remand, they went to Punjab in search of agent Kala however, he could not be traced out. Accused Dalip Sohal disclosed that the passports and visas were got prepared by accused Farhat Khan who was PA to Sh. Manvar Hasan Chaudhary, Hon'ble MP. He tried to find out the accused Farhat Khan. His premises were pointed by both the accused, however, the same was found locked. The witness was also accompanied by SI Rajesh Kumar who was the IO of case FIR No. 543/01 PS IGI Airport in which, the accused Dalip Sohal was involved and acted as a carrier. He further deposed that on 26.12.2001, he alongwith SI Rajesh Kumar visited the bunglow of Hon'ble MP Sh. Manwar Hasan Chaudhary and met him. Facts were told to him. He produced the accused Farhat Khan who was identified alongwith his Icard Ex. PW 4/A1 and gave a letter Ex. PX to him. Thereafter, he recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr. PC. He interrogated the accused Farhat Khan and proved his arrest vide memo Ex. PW 4/A2, personal search as Ex. PW 4/A3 and his disclosure statement as Ex. PW 4/A4. His police remand was conducted vide application Ex. PW 4/A5 for two days. During investigations, he collected the copies of application forms and passports mark A1 to A7, Ex. PW 2/A and Ex. PW 2/A1. He applied for verification reports of passports and obtained reports vide memo Ex. PW 4/A6 and Ex. PW 4/A7.
FIR NO.: 542 OF 2001 POLICE STATION: IGI AIRPORT U/S: 419/420/468/471/120 B IPC & 12 PASSPORT ACT 5 of 19 In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel for accused Farhat Khan, he deposed that he recorded the disclosure statement of accused Sukhchain Singh and Dalip Sohal at the police station. Firstly, he recorded the statement of accused Sukhchain Singh and then accused Dalip Sohal. He admitted that name of accused Farhat has not been specifically mentioned in the disclosure statement of accused Sukhchain Singh but it is mentioned that one person has met him on the way and the passport was obtained on the basis of letter head of MP. He denied that no disclosure was given either by accused Sukhchain Singh or Dalip Sohal or that he himself recorded their statements. He had not recorded the statement of Mr. Chaudhary U/s 161 Cr. PC in his presence but he voluntary stated that he reduced into writing the statement of Mr. Chaudhary u/s 161 Cr. PC on the basis of letter Ex. PX and this fact has been mentioned in his case diary. During his investigations, he did not sent any application form to FSL for expert opinion. He denied that no ICard of accused Farhat Khan was handed over to him by Mr. Chaudhary or that accused Farhat Khan has not given any disclosure statement or the same has been recorded by the witness on his own on which, he later on, forcibly obtained his signatures.
The witness was not cross examined by accused Dalip Sohal despite opportunity for the same being given.
(v) The complainant SI Dinesh Kumar, Clearing Officer has been examined as PW 5. He deposed that on the intervening night of 20/21.12.2001, he was posted as Clearing Officer at departure left wing of immigration and during clearance of flight no. AF 147, one passenger in the name of Sahid Hasan approached his counter for clearance. On questioning, the passenger was replying in Punjabi Accent and he was ignorant about the Muslim religion. On questioning, he revealed his real name as Sukhchain Singh and disclosed that passport had been arranged by Dalip Sohal for consideration of Rs. 2.75 Lakhs. He had also taken the name of Arun Kumar Sharma and FIR NO.: 542 OF 2001 POLICE STATION: IGI AIRPORT U/S: 419/420/468/471/120 B IPC & 12 PASSPORT ACT 6 of 19 one Farad for arranging his passport and journey. He lodged his complaint Ex. PW 5/A on the basis of which, FIR was registered. He proved the travel documents as Ex. P 1 to Ex. P 10.
Ld. APP for State was allowed to cross examine the witness on the point of identity of accused.
In his cross examination by Ld. APP for State, the witness correctly identified the accused Dalip Sohal. He admitted that the accused Dalip Sohal was apprehended at IGI Airport alongwith accused Sukhchain. He stated that he could not identify the accused at the first instance due to lapse of time.
In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel for accused Farhat Khan, he stated that he had not recorded any separate disclosure statement of accused Dalip Sohal. He denied that accused Dalip had not taken the name of Farhat Khan for arranging his journey. He denied that "asal tehrir" was prepared by him on his own or that accused Farhat had no concern with this case. He denied that he was deposing falsely.
The witness was not cross examined by accused Dalip Sohal despite opportunity for the same being given.
(vi) PW 6 Sh. Balwinder Singh, father of accused Sukhchain Singh deposed that his son namely Sukhchain Singh wanted to go abroad and he had met with one person by name of Kala who had given the name of one Dalip Sohal @ Inderjit of Karol Bagh for arranging his journey. They reached at Karol Bagh Arya Samaj Road and met the accused Dalip Sohal who assured that he would send his son abroad and demanded Rs. 6 lakhs for the same. He had assured in regard to the passport and visa. Thereafter, Rs. 1 Lakh was given for the same and later on, Rs. 5 Lakhs were also given. As per the programme, they reached at Airport on 20.12.2001. There, they met accused FIR NO.: 542 OF 2001 POLICE STATION: IGI AIRPORT U/S: 419/420/468/471/120 B IPC & 12 PASSPORT ACT 7 of 19 Dalip Sohal, his associates Arun and Gurjit. Thereafter, they all went inside and they came to know later on that his son had been apprehended. The witness stated that he had arranged the money for giving the same to accused by selling his land.
In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel for accused Dalip Sohal, he stated that he had met Kala in respect of journey when process of selling land was in progress and the total consideration for selling the land was around Rs. 12.5 Lakhs. Only Rs. 6 Lakhs were paid and rest of the money was utilized by him. He admitted that prior to the dealing, accused Dalip Sohal was not known to them and the mediator was Kala. Rs. 1 Lakh was given at Karol Bagh and Rs. 5 Lakhs were taken from their village. Kala was present at the time of giving the money. He had come to accused Dalip Sohal at his office at Karol Bagh around two times. He denied that accused had told that his son would be sent by illegal means. His statement was recorded by the police. He denied that in his statement, he had told that his son would be sent on a passport issued to someone else or that same would be having the photograph of his son. He was confronted with his statement. He stated that except the accused Dalip Sohal, he did not know any other agent and he did not remember whether his son was to be taken to Paris first and thereafter to England or not. He denied that accused Dalip Sohal had not arranged the journey of the passenger by illegal means or that never received any amount of money for the same. He denied that accused Dalip Sohal had never assured for sending Sukhchain Singh abroad or that he had not arranged any of the travel documents. He denied that he had taken the name of accused Dalip in connivance with police official.
The witness was not cross examined by accused Farhat Khan despite opportunity for the same being given.
(vii) PW 7 Sh. R.S. Dagar, UDC, Regional Passport Office, Delhi has proved the report alongwith documents pertaining to passport bearing no. A8479213 dated 09.12.1999 and B5776943 in the name of Dalip Sohal and Sahid Hasan Ex. PW 4/A7 FIR NO.: 542 OF 2001 POLICE STATION: IGI AIRPORT U/S: 419/420/468/471/120 B IPC & 12 PASSPORT ACT 8 of 19 alongwith documents Mark A collectively.
In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel for accused Farhat Khan, he stated that he had deposed only on the basis of record and Sh. D.P. Ghosh had retired from the office.
(viii) PW 8 Ct. Ishwar Singh deposed that on 21.12.2001 at 2.35 AM, he took travel documents alongwith two passengers namely Dalip Sohal and Sukhchain Singh alongwith original rukka to the police station which were given to him by the Clearing Officer and handed over the same to Duty Officer. He deposed that the duty officer seized the travel documents Ex. PW 1/C. In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel for accused Dalip Sohal, he deposed that he did not remember the name of duty officer and his statement was not recorded by the IO.
The witness was not cross examined by accused Farhat Khan despite opportunity for the same being given.
(ix) PW 9 Inspector Rajesh Kumar deposed that only accused Farhat Khan was arrested in his presence by IO Diwan Singh vide arrest memo Ex. PW 4/A2, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW 4/A3 and his disclosure statement was recorded vide memo Ex. PW 4/A4. He collected the reports from RPO and he also recorded the statement of Resident Commissioner of Bihar at Bihar Bhawan alongwith other witnesses. He also identified both the accused present in the Court.
In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel for accused Dalip Sohal, he deposed that accused Dalip was introduced to the family members of the passengers through Kala who was absconding.
In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel for accused Farhat FIR NO.: 542 OF 2001 POLICE STATION: IGI AIRPORT U/S: 419/420/468/471/120 B IPC & 12 PASSPORT ACT 9 of 19 Khan, he deposed that he had not collected any opinion regarding the handwriting of the accused Farhat Khan and not obtained any specimen signatures either of Chaudhary Manvar Husan or his wife Smt. Tabassum. He further stated that he had not obtained any opinion regarding the handwriting from FSL relating to accused Farhat Khan. He denied that no disclosure statement was given by accused Farhat Khan or his signatures were obtained on blank papers during his police custody. He denied that no statement was given by Resident Commissioner of Bihar or the same was recorded by him on his own. He denied that he was deposing falsely.
6. No other witness was examined in PE and PE hence was closed and the matter was fixed for SA.
7. The entire aforesaid incriminating evidence produced by the prosecution was put to both accused namely Dalip Sohal and Farhat Khan and their respective statements u/s 313 Cr. PC were also recorded separately. In their statements u/s 313 Cr. PC, they denied all the allegations levelled against them. They stated that they are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the present case. They declined to lead DE and DE hence was closed and the matter was fixed for final arguments.
8. I have heard final arguments on behalf of parties and perused the record.
9. The prosecution to bring home conviction against both accused has to prove that all the accused persons entered into a conspiracy to facilitate the journey of their co accused Sukhchain Singh by arranging the passport fraudulently and in furtherance of their conspiracy, they acted together to reach destined object. First of all, the prosecution has to prove as to how the accused persons came into contact with each other and how they agreed towards their object and indulged into a concerted action in FIR NO.: 542 OF 2001 POLICE STATION: IGI AIRPORT U/S: 419/420/468/471/120 B IPC & 12 PASSPORT ACT 10 of 19 furtherance of their common intention. In pursuance to that conspiracy all the acts took place and the consequences ensued.
The essence of a conspiracy is that there should be an agreement to do an illegal act or to do a legal act by illegal means. The said agreement may be proved by direct evidence or may be inferred from the acts and conduct of parties. There is no difference between the proof of mode of conspiracy and that of any other offence. It can be established by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. However as per Provisions of Section 10 of the Evidence Act which introduces the Doctrine of Agency, if the conditions laid down therein are satisfied the act done by one accused is admissible against co conspirators. The evidentiary value of the said act is limited by two circumstances namely the acts shall be in reference to the common intention and in respect of the period after such intention was entertained by anyone of them. The expression in reference to common intention is very comprehensive and appears to have been designedly used to give it a wider scope than the words "in furtherance of". In English law with the result, anything said, done or written by co conspirators the conspiracy was formed, will be evidence against the other before he entered the field of conspiracy or after he left it. Another important limitation implicit in the language is indication by the expressed scope of its relevancy. Anything so said, done or written is a relevant FIR NO.: 542 OF 2001 POLICE STATION: IGI AIRPORT U/S: 419/420/468/471/120 B IPC & 12 PASSPORT ACT 11 of 19 fact as against each of the persons believed to be so in conspiry as well as for the purpose of proving the existence of conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it.
It was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Sushil Suri Vs. CBI & Anr. JT 2011 (5) SC 480 that: "It will suffice to observe that on a conspectus of the factual scenario, noted above, prima facie, the Chargesheet does disclose the commission of offences by the appellant under the aforenoted Sections. The essential ingredients of the offence of "criminal conspiracy", defined in Section 120A IPC, is the agreement to commit an offence. In a case where the agreement is for accomplishment of an act which by itself constitutes an offence, then in that event, unless the Statute so requires, no overt act is necessary to be proved by the prosecution because in such a fact situation criminal conspiracy is established by proving such an agreement. In other words, where the conspiracy alleged is with regard to commission of a serious crime of the nature as contemplated in Section 120B read with the proviso to subsection (2) of Section 120A IPC, then in that even mere proof of an agreement between the accused for commission of such crime alone is enough to bring about a conviction FIR NO.: 542 OF 2001 POLICE STATION: IGI AIRPORT U/S: 419/420/468/471/120 B IPC & 12 PASSPORT ACT 12 of 19 under Section 120B and the proof of any overt act by the accused or by any one of them would not be necessary."
Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Badri Rai & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1958 SC 953 observed that : "The statement made by the first appellant on August 31, that he had been sent by the second appellant to make the offer of the bribe in order to hush up the case which was then under investigation, is admissible not only against the maker of the statement the first appellant - but also against the second appellant, whose agent the former was, in pursuance of the object of the conspiracy. That statement is admissible not only to prove that the second appellant had constituted the first appellant his agent in the perpetration of the crime, as also to prove the existence of the conspiracy itself. The incident of 24th August is evidence that the intention to commit the crime had been entertained by both of them on or before that date. Anything said or done or written by any one of the two conspirators on and after that date until the object of the conspiracy had been accomplished, is evidence against both of them."
It was further observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that : "A consipracy is hatched in secrecy, and executed in FIR NO.: 542 OF 2001 POLICE STATION: IGI AIRPORT U/S: 419/420/468/471/120 B IPC & 12 PASSPORT ACT 13 of 19 darkness. Naturally, therefore, it is not feasible for the prosecution to connect each isolated act or statement of one accused with the acts or statement of the others, unless there is a common bond linking all of them together. Ordinarily, specially in a criminal case, one person cannot be made responsible for the acts or statement of another. It is only when there is evidence of a concerted action in furtherance of a common intention to commit a crime, that the law has introduced this rule of common responsibility, on the principle that every one concerned in a conspiracy is acting as the agent of the rest of them. As soon as the Court has reasonable grounds to believe that there is identity of interest or community of purpose between a number of persons, any act done, or any statement of declaration made, by any one of the co conspirators, is, naturally, held to be the act or statement of the other conspirators, if the act or the declaration has any relation to the object of the conspiracy. Otherwise, stray acts done in darkness in prosecution of an object hatched in secrecy, may not become intelligible without reference to the common purpose running through the chain of acts or illegal omissions attributable to individual members of the conspiracy."
Also In AIR 1940 Privy Council 176, it was observed that: FIR NO.: 542 OF 2001 POLICE STATION: IGI AIRPORT U/S: 419/420/468/471/120 B IPC & 12 PASSPORT ACT 14 of 19 "the words of S. 10 must be construed in accordance with it and are not capable of being widely construed so as to include a statement made by one conspirator in the absence of the other with reference to past acts done in the actual course of carrying out the conspiracy, after it has been completed. The common intention is in the past. In their Lordships' judgment, the words "common intention" signify a common intention existing at the time when the thing was said, done or written while the conspiracy was on foot are relevant as evidence of the common intention, once reasonable ground has been shown to believe in its existence."
10. In the present case, conspiracy itself was hatched with a view to secure a fake passport for the accused Sukhchain Singh in the name of Shahid Hassan in order to enable him to travel abroad in other name. To achieve this purpose, first of all, the verification certificates were obtained from PW 2 Sh. K. Ram, Additional Commissioner, Government of Bihar by the accused Farhat Khan who was in contact/conspiracy with accused Dalip Sohal and was working as a PA to Mr. Munawar Chaudhary, MP. It has been categorically stated by PW 2 that the accused Farhat Khan had get the said VCs from him on his own and cheated him. The accused Farhat Khan had not impeached or rebutted that he had collected the verification certificates only on behalf of MP or that he was not known to accused Dalip Sohal. He no where denied about his meeting with PW
2. He was arrested in pursuance to the facts disclosed by co accused Dalip Sohal and Sukhchain Singh.
Also, PW 4 SI Diwan Singh has deposed in regard to the letter Ex. PX FIR NO.: 542 OF 2001 POLICE STATION: IGI AIRPORT U/S: 419/420/468/471/120 B IPC & 12 PASSPORT ACT 15 of 19 given by Munawar Chaudhary wherein he specifically alleged that his PA Mr. Farhat Khan misusing his position has forged his signatures and get the passports and visas prepared. He accused Farhat Khan for obtaining passports in the name of his son fraudulently. None of the accused has denied the contents of the said letter placed on record.
The complainant PW 5 SI Dinesh Kumar who was the Clearing Officer had corroborated the prosecution story and the other testimonies about the act done/executed by the accused persons in pursuance to their criminal conspiracy. He deposed that the passenger Sukhchain Singh was travelling on the passport in the name of Shahid Hassan which was fraudulently obtained from RPO, Delhi by Dalip Sohal and Farhat Khan for unlawful consideration. At the pointing out of passenger Sukhchain Singh, accused Dalip Sohal was apprehended who was present at the Airport and he was arrested in case FIR No. 543/01 PS IGI Airport. They also disclosed the name of accused Farhat Khan who had also arranged and facilitated the journey.
One public witness i.e. PW 6 Sh. Balwinder Singh had specifically named accused Dalip Sohal who agreed for arranging the passport and visa for unlawful consideration for Sukhchain Singh. In his cross examination by accused Dalip Sohal, a suggestion has been made to the witness that the son of witness was told by the accused that he would be sent by illegal means. The suggestion is itself an admission on the part of the accused that they have conspired to arrange the journey of accused Sukhchain Singh by illegal means. It reflects that there was some agreement between Dalip Sohal and Sukhchain for the journey. Even a question was put to the witness that the amount of Rs. 6 Lakhs was paid only in regard to journey to Paris. The same also reflects that there was an agreement between Dalip and Sukhchain through Kala for sending accused Sukhchain abroad against illegal consideration.
FIR NO.: 542 OF 2001 POLICE STATION: IGI AIRPORT U/S: 419/420/468/471/120 B IPC & 12 PASSPORT ACT 16 of 19
11. The IO SI Rajesh Kumar has taken no steps to send the specimen writing of accused Farhat Khan to FSL for comparison with the application forms and the letters of MP so as to confirm that the forgery was committed by the accused Farhat Khan. Even he did not place the specimen writing on record which was stated to be taken by SI Diwan Singh and no explanation of SI Rajesh Kumar has come on record as to where were those documents and why he did not send these specimen writing to CFSL. However, this lapse of investigation is not going to benefit the accused persons owing to the unrebutted testimony of PW 2, PW 4 & PW 6. The accused persons have failed to impeach the testimony of the witnesses on the point of arranging the verification certificates for procuring the passports in the name of the sons of MP Munawar Hassan Chaudhary. They have never tried to rebut the said testimony. The accused Farhat Khan has never tried to point out that the application form for which he had come to get the verification certificate was not having the photograph of the son of MP Munawar Hassan Chaudhary while he was working as PA and it was well within his knowledge that the photograph appearing on the application form does not belong to the son of MP and belonged to co accused persons in the present case and the other one in case FIR No. 543/01 PS IGI Airport. He has never tried to dispute the testimony of PW 2 Sh. K. Ram.
12. The involvement of both the accused is clearly evident as all the three accused were involved in pre passport application arrangements at the threshold and even before the preparation of the application seeking the passport in other name. They all are found involved when they submitted the application before the passport authorities.
The PW 7 has proved the report Ex. PW 4/A7 with the documents including the passport application submitted in the name of Shahid Hassan which contains the photograph of accused Sukhchain. One of essential requirement for FIR NO.: 542 OF 2001 POLICE STATION: IGI AIRPORT U/S: 419/420/468/471/120 B IPC & 12 PASSPORT ACT 17 of 19 obtaining the passport is the verification certificate urgently or immediately. How the verification certificates were obtained for the benefit of Sukhchain has been clearly brought on record through a number of witnesses whose evidence remained unimpeached on the basic material facts.
13. From the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, it is clear that the accused persons were well aware and knew that the certificates Ex. PW 2/A and Ex. PW 2/A1, so obtained by co accused Farhat Khan would be used for securing the passports in the name of Sahid Hasan and on the basis of that certificate, the passport Ex. P 1 was obtained. PW 6 ha proved the conspiracy hatched between Dalip Sohal and Sukhchain through Kala. He had stated that the accused Dalip Sohal had demanded Rs. 6 Lakhs and Rs. 1 Lakh was given for arranging passport and visa and later on, Rs. 5 Lakhs were also given to him. On 20.12.2001, he alongwith his son Sukhchain Singh reached IGI Airport where accused Dalip Sohal met them. In his cross examination by the accused, nothing has come up on record to discard his testimony.
Further, PW 4 had proved the facts disclosed by the accused persons and also the goal achieved by them in pursuance to their conspiracy and as the PW 2 has also proved one of the material mode of achieving the target by obtaining the verification certificate for procuring the passports in the name of Shahid Hassan.
14. The accused persons have failed to bring on record anything to show a possibility of false implication in the present matter. They had not brought any justified evidence or ground on record to disprove or impeach the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. The acts of the accused persons which have been proved by the testimony of witnesses clearly established a common bond which links all of them together. Their acts show a concerted action in furtherance of their common intention to commit a crime. The obtaining of VCs by the accused Farhat Khan, the receiving of money by the accused FIR NO.: 542 OF 2001 POLICE STATION: IGI AIRPORT U/S: 419/420/468/471/120 B IPC & 12 PASSPORT ACT 18 of 19 Dalip Sohal, the arrest of accused Dalip Sohal with accused Sukhchain Singh clearly established that there is an identity of interest or community of purpose between the accused persons and hence their acts naturally are a result of a conspiracy hatched to reach the object of sending the accused Sukhchain Singh abroad illegally.
15. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances, in my considered view, the prosecution has established its case against both accused namely Dalip Sohal and Farhat Khan beyond reasonable doubts. Both accused hence stand convicted for the offences alleged against them.
(ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN SUDESH KUMAR COURT ON 30th September, 2013) ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE01 This Judgment contains 19 pages NEW DELHI DISTRICT and each paper is signed by me. PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,DELHI FIR NO.: 542 OF 2001 POLICE STATION: IGI AIRPORT U/S: 419/420/468/471/120 B IPC & 12 PASSPORT ACT 19 of 19