Delhi District Court
State vs Rajeev Kardam on 20 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presided over by - Ms. Medha Arya, DJS
Cr. Case No. : 2031289/2016
FIR No. : 493/2013
Police Station : Saket
Section(s) : 420/467/471/174A IPC
In the matter of -
STATE
Vs.
Rajeev Kardam
S/o Sh. Ramesh Kumar
R/o H. No. 19, Gali No. 8
South Anarkali Extension
Delhi .... Accused
1.Name of Complainant : Sh. Trilok Chand 2. Name of Accused : Rajeev Kardam
3. Offence complained of or proved : 420/467/471/174A IPC 4. Plea of Accused : Not guilty 21.10.2013 5. Date of commission of offence : 03.09.2019 (174A IPC) 6. Date of Filing of case : 08.02.2014 7. Date of Reserving Order : 30.01.2025 8. Date of Pronouncement : 20.03.2025 Convicted u/s 420/465/471/ 9. Final Order : 174A IPC Argued by - Ld. APP for the State. Ld. Counsel for the accused. State vs. Rajeev Kardam FIR No. 493/2013, PS: Saket Page 1 of 32
"We must all face the consequences of our actions, and those who refused to do so will be forced to confront them eventually"
Fyodor Dostoevsky The subject FIR was registered against accused in the year 2013. Though it took time, the actions of accused have finally caught up to him. A lot of victims who were defrauded by the accused testified against him in no uncertain terms. As such therefore, he stands convicted.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION FACTUAL MATRIX -
1. The subject proceedings were lodged on the basis of the complaint of the complainant Trilok Chand dated 11.11.2013. As per the same, the complainant had purchased certain airline tickets of Go Air Airlines for travel from New Delhi to Srinagar, Kashmir from accused Rajeev Kardam through his cousin Lakhan Singh. It is stated in the complaint that the said Lakhan Singh had informed the complainant that he works at a travel agency called 'Skytravel.com', which is owned by the accused. It is further stated in the complaint that through the agency of Lakhan Singh, complainant purchased the aforesaid airline tickets against payment of Rs.44,000/-. The said payment was made on 21.10.2013, for air travel on 09.11.2013. It is the case of prosecution that certain office colleagues of complainant's son also subsequently purchased air tickets from the accused through the complainant for the same destination and date. Airlines tickets were duly issued to all of them, but they were all found to be fake. When the complainant and other victims reached the airport on 09.11.2013, it was informed to them by the concerned officials of Go Air Airlines that the State vs. Rajeev Kardam FIR No. 493/2013, PS: Saket Page 2 of 32 tickets issued to them are not valid. As such, the subject FIR for the offences punishable u/s 420/467/471 IPC was registered against the accused.
2. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused. Cognizance was taken, and he was summoned to face trial. Copy of charge- sheet was supplied to him in compliance of Section 207 CrPC. Thereafter, charge was framed against him under Section 420/467/471 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty, and claimed trial. Proceedings then progressed to the stage of PE.
2.1 It is pertinent to mention that during the pendency of the trial, the accused stopped appearing in Court. Despite repeated issuance of bailable and non-bailable warrants, his presence could not be procured by the Court. Thereafter, process u/s 82 CrPC was issued against the accused vide order dated 25.06.2019, which was duly executed on 20.07.2019. Since the accused did not enter appearance in Court, he was declared a proclaimed offender vide order dated 25.10.2019. The subject proceedings were consigned to the record room. Upon subsequent apprehension of the accused, the proceedings were revived and a supplementary charge sheet for the offence punishable u/s 174A IPC was filed against the accused. Additional charge for the offence punishable u/s 174A IPC was also framed against the accused vide order dated 23.01.2021. He pleaded not guilty to the same as well, and claimed trial.
3. In support of its version, prosecution has examined 22 witnesses.
State vs. Rajeev Kardam FIR No. 493/2013, PS: Saket Page 3 of 32 PW Name Nature of Testimony PW1 Sh. Trilok Chand Complainant/victim PW2 Sh. Ajay Kumar Son of complainant PW3 Sh. Charan Singh Victim PW4 Sh. Ramesh Dutt Victim PW5 Sh. Ramesh Kumar Victim PW6 Sh. Vinod Kumar Witness to recovery of laptop of accused. PW7 Sh. Harish Chander Victim PW8 Sh. Dharambir Singh Victim PW9 ASI Om Prakash Duty Officer/Formal witness. Proved the registration of the subject FIR PW10 HC Ajeet Singh Formal witness. Proved the arrest of the accused. PW11 Ct. Rahul Bedi Formal witness. Proved seizure of laptop of accused. PW12 Sh. Lakhan Singh Employee of the accused PW13 HC Ashok Kumar Formal witness/MHC(M), PS Saket PW14 Inspector Proshun IO PW15 Sh. Mahendra Singh Jr. Forensic/Asstt. Chemical Examiner, Niranjan FSL PW16 Ms. Jigyasa Asstt. Ahlmad in the Court of Ld. CMM concerned. Proved the order of Court dated 25.06.2019 and 25.10.2019. PW17 HC Ram Kishan Formal witness PW18 HC Umesh Formal witness. Proved the arrest of accused subsequent to him being declared as PO. PW19 SI Jai Kishan Formal witness. Proved the formal arrest of accused after his apprehension as a PO. PW20 HC Manoj Formal witness State vs. Rajeev Kardam FIR No. 493/2013, PS: Saket Page 4 of 32 PW21 SI Shiv Kumar Second IO. Filed the supplementary charge sheet. PW22 ASI Murari Lal Process server to prove execution of process u/s 82 CrPC.
4. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, separate statement of accused was recorded under Section 281/313 CrPC, wherein he claimed to be innocent and denied the allegations levelled against him. He stated that complainant Trilok Chand and others who were going to travel with him had made an advance payment of Rs.3000/- per head, which he received through Lakhan Singh. He further stated that since he did not receive any other payment from the above, he never issued any air tickets for them. He also stated that when he was arrested, he had in his possession Rs.45,000/-, which he wanted to return to Trilok Chand, but did not get an opportunity to do so. Accused opted not to lead any DE in the affirmative.
5. Proceedings then progressed to the stage of final arguments. Arguments heard. Record perused. Considered.
6. The accused has been charged for the offence of forgery as punishable u/s 467/471 IPC. The essential ingredients of the offence of forgery were elaborated upon by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Md. Ibrahim & Ors vs State of Bihar & Anr, 2010 AIR SCW 405 as under -
"The condition precedent for an offence under sections 467 and 471 is forgery. The condition precedent for forgery is making a false document (or false electronic record or part thereof). This case does not relate to any false electronic record. Therefore, the question is whether the first accused, in executing and registering the two sale deeds purporting to sell a property (even if it is assumed that it did not belong to him), can be said State vs. Rajeev Kardam FIR No. 493/2013, PS: Saket Page 5 of 32 to have made and executed false documents, in collusion with the other accused.
10. An analysis of section 464 of Penal Code shows that it divides false documents into three categories:
10.1) The first is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently makes or executes a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by some other person, or by the authority of some other person, by whom or by whose authority he knows it was not made or executed.
10.2) The second is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part, without lawful authority, after it has been made or executed by either himself or any other person.
10.3) The third is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, execute or alter a document knowing that such person could not by reason of (a) unsoundness of mind; or (b) intoxication; or (c) deception practised upon him, know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration.
11. In short, a person is said to have made a `false document', if (i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorised by someone else; or (ii) he altered or tampered a document; or (iii) he obtained a document by practicing deception, or from a person not in control of his senses."
7. Section 467 IPC provides for offence of forgery of a valuable security, and Section 471 IPC provides for offence of using as genuine a forged document. As per the conspectus of legal position enunciated above, a forged document is defined in Section 464 IPC, and for the offence of forgery, it is also essential that the forgery must have been done with an intention of defrauding another, as per Section 463 IPC. As such, to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/s 467 IPC, the prosecution is required to establish:
a) that the accused issued forged air tickets to the complainant as State vs. Rajeev Kardam FIR No. 493/2013, PS: Saket Page 6 of 32 well as other victims.
b) that the tickets so issued by the accused were forged by him.
c) that the forged tickets were issued by the accused with an intent to defraud the complainant.
d) that the airline tickets constitute valuable security.
8. For the offence punishable u/s 471 IPC, it has to be additionally proved by the prosecution that such document was used by the accused.
9. The accused has also been charged for the offence of cheating. Explaining the contours of the said offence, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment titled Md. Ibrahim (Supra) observed as under:
"13. Let us now examine whether the ingredients of an offence of cheating are made out. The essential ingredients of the offence of "cheating" are as follows: (i) deception of a person either by making a false or misleading representation or by dishonest concealment or by any other act or omission; (ii) fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to either deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce that person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and
(iii) such act or omission causing or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. To constitute an offence under section 420, there should not only be cheating, but as a consequence of such cheating, the accused should have dishonestly induced the person deceived (i) to deliver any property to any person, or (ii) to make, alter or destroy wholly or in part a valuable security (or anything signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security)."
(Emphasis supplied).
10. In the context of the case instant, to prove the charge for the offence punishable u/s 420 IPC, the prosecution is required to prove:
a) that the accused dishonestly induced the complainant, and the colleagues of complainant's son, Ajay, by giving them fake travel tickets.
State vs. Rajeev Kardam FIR No. 493/2013, PS: Saket Page 7 of 32
b) that by so dishonestly inducing them, the accused obtained money from them.
c) that accused caused wrongful gain to himself, and wrongful loss to the victims.
11. Facts of the case shall be analyzed in view of the legal position enunciated above.
12. PW1/complainant Trilok Chand testified that his son had planned an excursion to Srinagar, J&K, and for that purpose, he contacted one Lakhan Singh, with whom he was previously acquainted, who told him that he will help him arrange air tickets, through his acquaintance, Rajeev Kardam, being the owner of a travel agency called Sky Travel. PW1 further testified that on 21.10.2013, he went to a cinema hall situated near Saket Courts Complex, where he met Lakhan, who introduced him with the accused Rajeev Kardam. He testified that he paid Rs.44,000/- to Lakhan, who handed it over to Rajeev Kardam in his presence, being the consideration amount of seven air tickets for the journey scheduled on 09.11.2013. He testified that accused assured him that the air tickets would be delivered to him by 07.11.2013. He further testified that his son then told him that his colleagues also wished to visit Srinagar, and needed help for arranging the travel tickets. He testified that in all, eight families gave money for booking of air tickets to Sky Travels owned by accused Rajeev Kardam to the tune of Rs.3,22,000/- in instalments, which he handed over to accused Rajeev Kardam. He testified that air travel tickets were duly handed over to him, belonging to Go Air Airlines, which was scheduled to depart on 09.11.2013 State vs. Rajeev Kardam FIR No. 493/2013, PS: Saket Page 8 of 32 at 11:30 am. He further testified that all of them reached the airport in time on 09.11.2013, but came to know that the air tickets which were issued to them were fake. He testified that in this manner, accused Rajeev Kardam had cheated all of them for a sum of Rs.3,22,000/-. In his testimony, he relied upon his complaint Ex PW1/A. In his cross examination, he testified that Lakhan Singh was working with somebody engaged in the business of air tickets, and the office address of the said person was mentioned on the air tickets itself. He further stated that he had paid the money to both Lakhan Singh as well as accused, but admitted that he had not stated so in his complaint Ex PW1/A. He also testified that his son Ajay Kumar, had accompanied him at the time of handing over Rs.44,000/- to accused Rajeev Kardam, whereas even this fact is not stated in the aforesaid complaint Ex PW1/A. He testified that he cannot name all the colleagues of his son who had also paid money to accuse Rajeev Kardam allegedly, although one of them was named Charan Singh. He also testified that a receipt for a sum of Rs.44,000/- was duly handed over to them against the payment made by them, but conceded that the same was never handed over to the IO. He volunteered that the receipt is in the possession of his son. In his cross examination, the witness further stated that he does not know the price of each individual air ticket purchased by him, but stated that the amount of Rs.44,000/- was paid by him for a total of five people. He also testified that out of this total sum of Rs.3,22,000/-, some instalments were also paid to the accused in his absence. It was directly put to the witness that since certain instalments were paid in his absence, he has no way of saying if the same were paid to Lakhan or any other person, upon which the witness stated that he had been informed about receipts being issued for payment of State vs. Rajeev Kardam FIR No. 493/2013, PS: Saket Page 9 of 32 such amount by his son Ajay. The witness further stated that they had reached the airport at about 12.00 noon on the day of their scheduled departure, and then they were informed that the air tickets that had been issued to them were forged and fake. It was suggested to the witness that he had never paid any amount to the accused. It was also suggested to the witness that the alleged air tickets were prepared by Lakhan at his instance, and not by the accused. The said suggestions were duly denied by the witness. The witness admitted that accused Rajeev Kardam was arrested at his instance.
13. PW2 Ajay testified that after they had planned their trip to Srinagar, one person, Lakhhan, who is the resident of their native village, and was working with Sky Travel, had told his father that he would arrange the travel tickets from his office through his boss, Rajeev Kardam. He testified that it was told to them that each air ticket would cost Rs.18,000/-, and accordingly his father had paid Rs.45,000/- to accused Rajeev Kardam. He testified that his office colleagues had also given money to accused Rajeev Kardam through his father. He testified that air tickets were duly received by them on 08.11.2013, but when they reached the airport on 09.11.2013, it was revealed to them that the air tickets that were issued to them were fake. He testified that he had then spoken to accused Rajeev Kardam to make an enquiry, and the latter told him that few PNR number of the air tickets had been cancelled. He testified that he then contacted the relevant officials of Go Air Airlines, who informed them that all the tickets issued to him and his colleagues were fake. He testified that accused Rajeev Kardam told them that other air tickets between 12.11.2013 and 15.11.2013 would be arranged by him, but even the same was not done. He testified that he then State vs. Rajeev Kardam FIR No. 493/2013, PS: Saket Page 10 of 32 visited the address mentioned on the pamphlet of Skytravel.com, but did not find any office situated there. He also testified that he then contacted Lakhan who led them to the house of accused Rajeev Kardam, but the latter was not found present in this house. He testified that the accused cheated them for an amount of Rs.3,22,000/-. In his cross examination, he testified that Lakhan Singh had provided one pamphlet of Sky Travels to his father, on which some address of Sukh Vihar was mentioned, and that he still has the said pamphlet in his possession. He testified that his father had informed him that he had paid Rs.45,000/- to Rajeev Kardam on 21.10.2013, but accepted as correct the suggestion that the payment was not made in his presence. He testified that he had telephonic conversations with accused Rajeev Kardam as well as Lakhan Singh prior to 21.10.2013, and also volunteered to specify their phone numbers from the record, but the same was not insisted upon by the accused. He testified that a total sum of Rs.3,22,000/- had been paid to the accused, through the agency of Lakhan, by his father, although he does not remember the individual amount given by each of his colleagues. He testified that six families consisting of 20 individuals had consented to purchase tickets from accused Rajeev Kardam and had made payments there-for. He testified that the tickets were handed over to them on 08.11.2013, and on the day of the scheduled departure, they had all reached the airport one hour prior to the departure time of the flight. He testified that when he was informed about the tickets being issued to them being fake, he had called Lakhan Singh to verify the fact from his employer, Rajeev Kardam. He also testified that he tried to contact accused Rajeev Kardam over the phone, but was unable to do so. He testified that he could contact accused Rajeev Kardam much later. It was suggested to the State vs. Rajeev Kardam FIR No. 493/2013, PS: Saket Page 11 of 32 witness that no receipt was issued towards the payment made by them to the accused by his father, and that Lakhan had instead grabbed the money by cheating his father. The said suggestions were duly denied by the witness.
14. PW3 Charan Singh testified that his colleague Ramesh Chand Kaushik informed that some colleagues in the office had planned a trip to Kashmir, and he also consented to join the same. He testified that it was informed to him that the tickets for travel would be booked by their colleague Ajay Kumar through one Lakhan Singh. He testified that upon his request, accused Rajeev Kardam, and Lakhan Singh had come to their office and was introduced to him by PW Ajay. He testified that he was also informed that each air ticket would cost Rs.18,000/-. He testified that he was inclined to make the payment for the tickets via cheque, and only on the condition that the same would be issued either through 'Balmer Lawrie & Co.' or through 'Ashoka Travels'. He testified that Lakhan Singh and accused Rajeev Kardam assured him that the tickets would be issued through Balmer Lawrie & Co. only, but the payment would be required to be made in cash. He testified that on 24.10.2013, he paid a sum of Rs.16,000/- to his colleague Ajay Kumar, to be paid ahead to accused Rajeev Kardam and Lakhan Singh against the air tickets. He testified that on 30.10.2013, he paid a further sum of Rs.20,000/- to his colleague Ajay Kumar to be paid ahead to accused Rajeev Kardam and Lakhan Singh. He testified that he informed the accused persons that he would pay the remaining sum of Rs.40,000/- after receiving the advance money from the concerned department where he was employed. He testified that receipts qua the payments made by him for the sum of Rs.16,000/- and Rs.20,000/- were issued to him, and after he assured the accused that he would make State vs. Rajeev Kardam FIR No. 493/2013, PS: Saket Page 12 of 32 them the payment for the balance amount, the accused had handed over air tickets to him issued through Balmer Lawrie & Co. for four passengers. He testified that on 09.11.2013, when he, along with his family, reached the airport at about 09.00 am, they were told by the concerned persons at the counter where the boarding pass is issued that the tickets issued in their name were not valid. He testified that Ajay Kumar then contacted Lakhan Singh, who said that he would then contact accused Rajeev Kardam, and both of them kept making excuses. He testified that they had also assured that alternate air tickets would be provided by them after two days, but the same was also not done. He testified that he then accompanied Ajay Kumar and Harish Chand to go to the office of the accused at the address mentioned on the pamphlet, but no such office of any travel agency was found to be present. He testified that the air ticket issued to him is Ex PW3/A, and its Annexure-4 is Ex PW3/B. He also testified that the payment receipts issued to him are Mark A, and volunteered to produce the said receipts in original as well. He correctly identified accused Rajeev Kardam in Court. The witness was not cross examined despite opportunity.
15. PW4 Ramesh Dutt also similarly testified that he had agreed to travel to Kashmir along with his colleagues, and to purchase air tickets at the rate of Rs.16,000/- per head through one Lakhan Singh, who was introduced to him by his colleague, Ajay. He testified that since he wanted to meet Lakhan Singh, he had come to his office and was introduced to him by his colleague, Ajay. He testified that he made an advance payment of Rs.8,000/- on 21.10.2013 to Lakhan Singh for booking two air tickets, and receipt Mark B was issued in his favour by Lakhan Singh on the receipt book of skytravels.com. He testified that he made further payments of State vs. Rajeev Kardam FIR No. 493/2013, PS: Saket Page 13 of 32 Rs.28,000/- to his colleague Ajay for the purpose of booking tickets on the LTC tour, and later on, the said Ajay handed over two receipts dated 30.10.2013 and 06.11.2013 for the said amount being Mark C and Mark D. He testified that on 08.11.2013, the air ticket was also handed over to him by his colleague Ajay. He testified that on 09.11.2013, when he reached the airport for the purpose of flying to Srinagar, he was told at the relevant counter that the ticket that he possessed was not valid. He testified that thereafter, Ajay Kumar contacted Lakhan Singh, who kept making excuses, and at one point also said that alternate air tickets could be arranged for them, but failed to do so, and also failed to refund his payment of Rs.36,000/-. He testified that the air ticket which was provided to him is Ex PW4/A, and Annexure-3 thereof is Ex PW4/B. When cross examined by Ld. APP for State, the witness accepted as correct the suggestion that Ajay had called accused Rajeev Kardam from the airport, who told him that the tickets issued by him were genuine, but the flight had been cancelled, and later enquiry from the counter revealed that no such flight was ever cancelled. The said witness was not examined by the accused despite the opportunity.
16. PW5 victim Ramesh Kumar also similarly testified that he agreed to travel to Srinagar, and also agreed to purchase air tickets through Lakhan Singh, relative of his colleague, Ajay. He also testified that he had met Lakhan Singh outside his office in October 2013, and had paid him a sum of Rs.8,000/- as advance for air tickets. He also testified that a further sum of Rs.28,000/- was paid by him to his colleague, Ajay, with the direction to hand over the same to Lakhan Singh. He testified that on a day prior to the State vs. Rajeev Kardam FIR No. 493/2013, PS: Saket Page 14 of 32 date of the scheduled departure, Lakhan Singh had come to their office and had provided air tickets to him through Ajay. He further testified that when he reached the airport along with his family members, it was revealed to them that the air tickets issued to them were all forged and fabricated. He correctly identified the tickets which were issued to him, being Ex PW5/A. In his cross examination by Ld. APP for State in terms of Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, he accepted as correct the suggestion that Ajay had told him that the consideration amount for the air tickets would be paid to the owner of skytravel.com through Lakhan Singh. He also accepted as correct the suggestion that he had told Rajeev Kardam, being the owner of skytravel.com, regarding the fact that the air tickets issued in their favour were all fake, but the latter told them that the PNR number of the said tickets were cancelled. He stated that they then verified this information at the counter of Go Air Airlines, where it was informed to them that no PNR was cancelled, and in fact, the tickets issued to them were all fake. The witness also produced the photocopy of receipt no. 121 and 128 against the payments made by him for a sum of Rs.8,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively being Mark YX1 and and Mark YX2. He also produced in original the cash receipts dated 22.10.2013 for the sum of Rs.8,000/-, 31.10.2013 for a sum of Rs.10,000/-, and 06.11.2013 for the payment of Rs.8,000/- made by him, issued in his favour by Lakhan Singh for skytravel.com, being Ex PW5/B (Colly). Even this witness was not cross examined by the accused despite opportunity.
17. PW7 Harish Chander also similarly testified that he had paid Rs.15,000/- to Lakhan Singh against receipt, Ex PW7/A (OSR) as advance payment for five air tickets to Srinagar. He testified that a further sum of State vs. Rajeev Kardam FIR No. 493/2013, PS: Saket Page 15 of 32 Rs.25,000/- was paid by him to Lakhan Singh on 01.11.2023 against the receipt, Ex PW7/B, and a sum of Rs.40,000/- was given by PW Ajay, who handed over him the receipt, Ex PW7/C against the said payment. He testified that air ticket, Ex PW7/D (OSR) was issued to him, but on 09.11.2013, the same was found to be forged. He also testified that PW Ajay tried to contact accused Rajeev Kardam, who stated that he would provide them fresh tickets for a subsequent date, but failed to do so. In his cross-examination, the witness accepted as correct the suggestion that he met accused Rajeev Kardam through PW Ajay. He testified that he had paid Rs.27,000/- to accused Rajeev Kardam on 01.11.2023, and at the instance of the latter, the receipt was signed in his favour by Lakhan. In his cross- examination, the witness remained steadfast and stated that PW Ajay had also been duped by the accused, and that he had not taken any action against Lakhan, since the latter was merely an agent of accused Rajeev Kardam.
18. PW8 Dharambir Singh similarly testified that in three tranches, he had made certain payments to Lakhan Singh for booking of air tickets and latter had issued receipts Ex PW8/A to PW8/C (OSR) to him against the payment. He testified that the air tickets issued to him are Ex PW8/D. He also testified that the tickets were discovered to be fake on 09.11.2013, and when contacted, accused Rajeev Kardam assured PW Ajay that he would issue fresh tickets for all of them, but not to be. The said witness was also not cross-examined despite opportunity.
19. All the above witnesses have consistently deposed that they were issued tickets of Go Air Airlines, for travel from Delhi to Srinagar State vs. Rajeev Kardam FIR No. 493/2013, PS: Saket Page 16 of 32 scheduled on 09.11.2013, and when they reached the airport, it was discovered by them that the travel tickets are not valid. They have also consistently deposed that when the issuance of boarding pass was denied to them, victim Ajay contacted the accused, who said that the flight has been cancelled, but when they made necessary enquiries at the airport, the concerned staff of Go Air Airlines informed them that the tickets that had been issued to them were not valid, and no flight had been cancelled. It is seen that during the cross-examination of PW1/Complainant Trilok Chand or PW2 Ajay, the accused did not take the defence that in fact valid air tickets had been issued to the complainant and other witnesses/victims. Further, the accused in no manner controverted the case of the prosecution to the extent that invalid/fake air tickets were issued to several persons. In fact, suggestions were given by accused to PW Trilok Chand that the forged tickets were prepared by Lakhan Singh at his instance, and this suggestion implies his admission that fake air tickets were indeed issued to complainant and others. The remaining witnesses i.e. PW3 to PW5 were not cross-examined at all. As such, from the testimonies of these witnesses as well, it stands established that fake air tickets were issued in their names. The testimony of PW7 to the effect that the air tickets issued to them were forged was not also controverted, and testimony of PW8 was not challenged by way of any cross-examination. The testimonies of these witnesses also support the case of prosecution. Pertinently, despite efforts, the prosecution was unable to procure the presence of any witness from the concerned airlines company, who could depose that the air tickets issued to the aforesaid witnesses were fake. However, the said fact does not detract from the credibility of the prosecution case to the extent that fake air tickets had State vs. Rajeev Kardam FIR No. 493/2013, PS: Saket Page 17 of 32 indeed been issued to the aforesaid witnesses in view of their unimpeached testimonies in this regard. Thus, it stands established that fake air tickets were issued to the complainant and other witnesses.
20. The case of prosecution is that fake air tickets were issued by the accused, who accepted payments from several persons including the aforesaid witnesses, against the air tickets. The defence set forth by the accused is that he had not received any payment, and that the payment, if any, may have been received by Lakhan Singh instead. It is seen that all the above witnesses have consistently deposed that the payment was made by them under the understanding that the same would be forwarded to accused Rajeev Kardam, in exchange of air tickets. PW1 Trilok Chand testified that he had paid Rs.44,000/- to Lakhan, who handed it over to accused Rajeev Kardam, in his presence, on 21.10.2023. In his cross-examination, the witness said that the payment was made by him to accused as well as Lakhan. Ld. counsel for accused waxed eloquent that this constitutes a contradiction in the testimony of the witness. This court is not in agreement with this argument. The import of the testimony of the witness as contained in his examination in chief, as well as that contained in his cross- examination, is that when he had paid Rs.44,000/-, accused Rajeev Kardam was also present, and that he had made the payment under the impression that it is being made to the owner of 'Skytravel.com'. In whose hand the money was given is not relevant, since the payment was made for air tickets to be issued by the concern of which the accused is the owner.
21. It is observed that there is another slight contradiction in the testimony of the witness in as much as that he testified that his son was also State vs. Rajeev Kardam FIR No. 493/2013, PS: Saket Page 18 of 32 present when the payment of Rs.44,000/- was made by him, whereas his son/PW2 Ajay testified that he had never accompanied his father for making such payment. However, this contradiction is not of such a magnitude as would discredit the testimony of the witness in its entirety. Certain gaps are natural in the testimonies of witnesses. It has to be borne in mind that more than two years had lapsed from the day of the incident as aforesaid, when PW1 was examined. Making an allowance for natural lapses in human memory, the version of PW1 cannot be disbelieved on account of the minor contradiction as aforesaid. PW1 further stated that he had made further payments to the tune of Rs.3,22,000/- to Lakhan, who had issued receipts against the same. He categorically testified that he was informed by the other witnesses that receipts were so issued to them. PW2 Ajay testified that his father as well as his colleagues had paid money to accused Rajeev Kardam through his father as consideration for air tickets, and in total, accused Rajeev Kardam duped them to the tune of Rs.3,22,000/-. His colleagues deposed as PW3 to PW5. PW3 Charan Singh testified that he had paid money to PW Ajay, which was to be paid ahead to accused Rajeev Kardam and Lakhan Singh. He also testified that the air ticket issued to him is Ex PW3/A, and the receipts issued to him are Mark A (Colly). His testimony remains uncontroverted and, therefore, can be accepted as correct. His testimony proves that money was accepted by accused Rajeev Kardam himself. PW4 Ramesh Dutt also testified that he had made certain payments to Lakhan Singh, who issued the receipt Mark B to him, on the receipt book of Skytravel.com. From his testimony, it can be deduced that the payment was made by him to Skytravel.com, and it is not in dispute that the said concern was purportedly owned by accused Rajeev State vs. Rajeev Kardam FIR No. 493/2013, PS: Saket Page 19 of 32 Kardam. As such, it is clear that PW4 also made payments for air tickets under the impression that the same were not made to Lakhan Singh individually, but to the owner of Skytravel.com. PW5 Ramesh Kumar testified that against the payments made by him, receipts Ex PW5/B (Colly) were issued to him. Even these receipts have been signed by Lakhan Singh for Skytravel.com, and they give rise to the conclusion that the payment was made by PW5 as well to the owner of Skytravel.com. PW7 categorically testified that the payment of Rs.27,000/- was made by him to accused Rajeev Kardam directly, and the receipt qua such payment was signed by Lakhan at the behest of accused. No material gaps could be shown in the testimony of this witness by the accused, and his testimony further strengthens the prosecution case that the payment for the tickets was received by the accused. PW8 Dharambir Singh also proved the receipts issued on the receipt book of skytravel.com, indicating that Lakhan had signed as agent of accused Rajeev Kardam, and his testimony was also not controverted in any manner. From the testimonies of the witnesses, it is further clear that when no boarding pass was issued to them, PW Ajay had contacted accused Rajeev Kardam for clarification, which shows that all of them were ad-idem qua the fact that they had purchased tickets from accused Rajeev Kardam.
22. The defence of the accused is the money that was collected by Lakhan Singh was misappropriated by him. While testifying as PW12, Lakhan Singh deposed that he was working as a field boy with Skytravels.com at the relevant time, and the said firm was owned by accused Rajeev Kardam. He further testified that in August-September 2013, his uncle Trilok Chand told him that he was planning a family trip to State vs. Rajeev Kardam FIR No. 493/2013, PS: Saket Page 20 of 32 Srinagar. He testified that after consulting with accused Rajeev Kardam, he assured the complainant that he would provide air tickets for LTC tour to them. He testified that in October 2013, in his presence, complainant gave an amount of Rs.44,000/- in cash to accused Rajeev Kardam in his presence. He further testified that 10-15 days later, a further payment of Rs.2,80,000/- was received by him from various colleagues of PW Ajay, who also wanted air tickets for LTC tour to Srinagar. He testified that on 07.11.2013, accused Rajeev Kardam handed over certain air tickets to him, which he gave ahead to the victims. He testified that on 09.11.2013, he received a call from PW Ajay that the said tickets were fake and had already been used by other passengers in the year 2012. He testified that he verified this fact at a cyber cafe as well. He further testified that thereafter, accused Rajeev Kardam was arrested at his instance from Jagatpuri bus stand. The witness stated that air tickets Ex PW8/D in the name of Dharambir, Ex PW4/A, in the name of Ramesh Chand, Ex PW3/A in the name of Charan Singh, Ex PW5/A, in the name of Ramesh Kumar, Ex PW7/B in the name of Harish Chand, and Ex P1 in the name of Ajay Kumar, were all collected by him from the accused and delivered to the aforesaid persons. He also testified that the various cash receipts issued to the aforesaid persons were signed by him after the payments against receipts were received by accused Rajeev Kardam. In his cross-examination, the witness categorically testified that while he had signed the aforesaid receipts, no payment was received by him, and all the money was received by accused Rajeev Kardam himself. In his cross-examination, the witness also deposed that one receipt reflecting the payment by the complainant bears his signatures and the remaining ones bears the signatures of the accused. When confronted with the receipts Ex State vs. Rajeev Kardam FIR No. 493/2013, PS: Saket Page 21 of 32 PW5/B (Colly), the witness confirmed that except for two receipts bearing no. 121 and 128, the remaining do not bear the signatures. From this testimony, it stands established that accused Rajeev Kardam had also signed certain receipts against payments made for air tickets. When the witness testified that certain receipts bear the signatures of the accused, no contrary suggestion was given to the witness. It can easily be inferred that accused Rajeev Kardam signed the receipts only upon receiving the payment of the air tickets. This fact further strengthens the prosecution case.
23. Pertinently, in his statement recorded u/s 313 CrPC, the accused stated that he had received payment of Rs.3000/- each from various people through the complainant, as advance for air tickets. This statement shows that the accused was aware of the transaction that took place with all the victims. He has also accepted receiving money from many people. He stated that only advance payment was received by him, and he did not receive the balance consideration from any person. It appears absurd that each of the witnesses only paid Rs.3000/-, and all of them failed to make the balance payment. While the witnesses have proved the receipts issued to them, the accused did not advert to any receipt issued by him to the witnesses above for a sum of Rs.3000/- to substantiate his version. From the statement of the accused as well, the prosecution case receives fortification, and it can be inferred that the accused had duly received payment from all the above witnesses. Reliance at this juncture can be placed on Md. Aslam vs State, CRL. A. No. 214/2016, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi (DOD 25.04.2016), wherein it was held as under:
"6.47 Answers given in statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. have also some relevance. Though, such statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. is not a State vs. Rajeev Kardam FIR No. 493/2013, PS: Saket Page 22 of 32 substantive piece of evidence since it is not recorded on oath nor it is subjected to any cross examination, yet such statement can, be taken into consideration, at the trial, against the accused for the purpose of arriving at the guilt or otherwise of the accused. Since no oath is administered to the accused, the statements made by the accused will not be, strictly speaking, evidence. Sub-section (3) also says that the accused shall not render himself liable to punishment if he give false answer. But, then comes sub-section (4), which provides that answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial, and put in evidence for or against him in any other inquiry into, or trial for, any other offence which such answers may tend to show he has committed. Thus, the answers given by the accused, in response to his examination, under Section 313, can be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial. This much is clear on a plain reading of the above sub-section. Therefore, though not strictly construed as evidence, sub-section (4) permits that it may be taken into consideration in the said inquiry or trial. However, such self- incriminating statement indicting co-accused cannot be said to be sufficient in itself. The court can rely on a portion of the statement of the accused and find him guilty but such statement should not be considered in isolation but always in conjunction with evidence adduced by the prosecution. Reference be made to SANATAN NASKER VS. STATE OF BENGAL AIR 2010 SC 3570."
Further, in N.V. Subba Rao vs. State, through Inspector of Police, CBI/SPE, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, 2013 (2) SCC 162, it was held as under:
"44. Finally, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for A-1 that the statement or answers to the questions under Section 313 of the Code cannot be the basis for conviction of the accused. We have already noted that the prosecution has not only relied on the answers given by the accused but also placed acceptable oral and documentary evidence on record to substantiate the charge. We hold that the statement under Section 313 of the Code can be a relevant consideration for the courts to examine, particularly, when the prosecution has been able to establish the chain of events."
24. There is another aspect to the matter. The defence of the accused is that he never received any payment. However, it stands established that air tickets were indeed issued to various people. Prosecution could successfully State vs. Rajeev Kardam FIR No. 493/2013, PS: Saket Page 23 of 32 prove that the said tickets were generated on the laptop of the accused. In this regard, the testimonies of PW10 HC Ajeet and PW12 IO Inspector Proshun are instructive. Both of them testified, in tandem with each other, that the accused was arrested on 11.11.2013 vide arrest memo Ex PW10/A, at the pointing out of the complainant near Gyan Bharti Public School, Saket, and from possession of the accused, one air ticket of Go Airways was seized vide seizure memo, Ex PW10/B. They testified that the other forged ticket was seized from the complainant vide seizure memo, Ex PW1/D. Nothing damaging was elicited from the witnesses qua this testimony. PW10's admission that at the time of seizure of the air tickets from the accused at the time of the arrest, the same were not verified does not dent the prosecution case in any manner, for the IO could not have been expected to verify the tickets instantly, and in any event, the arrest was made basis the fact that it had already been established that the tickets previously issued to complainant and various others were forged.
25. PW14 further testified that during the course of investigation, the laptop of the accused was seized from his house vide memo, Ex PW11/A. PW14/IO testified that the seizure was made in the presence of Sh. Vinod and Ct. Rahul, and that he recorded the statement of Sh. Vinod at the spot. From the perusal of the testimony of the witness, it is clear that the accused did not controvert the fact that the laptop, Ex PX1 belongs to him. PW14 was not cross-examined by the accused, and his uncontroverted testimony can be deemed to have been admitted by the accused. From the testimony of this witness, it stands established that the laptop was indeed seized from the house of the accused, and that the same belongs to him. Testimony of the witness is duly corroborated by the testimony of PW11 Ct. Rahul Bedi State vs. Rajeev Kardam FIR No. 493/2013, PS: Saket Page 24 of 32 as well. He testified that he had accompanied the IO when the laptop of the accused was seized vide seizure memo, Ex PW11/A. In his cross- examination, the witness was asked if any departure entry was made by the IO, but the witness stated that he does not remember the same. Given the fact that the IO was never cross-examined, it can safely be presumed that the accused has no serious disagreement with the prosecution case that the recovery of laptop was indeed effected from his testimony. While certain questions were put to the witness as to how he could identify the laptop to be the one belonging to the accused, and it was also suggested to him that no laptop was recovered from the house of the accused, during the testimony of PW14, the identity of the laptop was not disputed, and further, at the cost of reiteration, the testimony of PW14 to the effect that the laptop belongs to the accused was not controverted by any cross-examination. Pertinently, PW6 Vinod Kumar, the second recovery witness, failed to support the prosecution version as regards the seizure of the laptop. He testified that his signatures were obtained by the IO on certain documents by the police officials, but was never informed of the contents of the said documents. Even in his cross-examination by Ld. APP for State, the witness stated that no laptop was recovered in his presence. While the witness has failed to support the prosecution version regarding the seizure of the laptop in his presence, it is seen that he has not disputed his presence at the spot. He categorically testified that he was present outside the house of the accused, and that he had also signed the seizure memo of the laptop. This portion of the testimony of the witness supports the prosecution version to the extent that the IO had taken the accused to his house during PC remand. It is further clear from the testimony of the witness that he is related to the State vs. Rajeev Kardam FIR No. 493/2013, PS: Saket Page 25 of 32 accused. Therefore, he is an interested witness and as such, the fact that he turned hostile to the prosecution does not detract from the credibility thereof. From the testimonies of remaining witnesses examined by prosecution, it stands established that the laptop, Ex PX1 belongs to the accused, and was recovered from his house by the IO.
26. PW13 HC Ashok Kumar testified that the aforesaid laptop of the accused was deposited by IO SI Proshun with PS vide entry at Sl. no. 2484/13 dated 12.11.2013 in register no. 19 for year 2013, being Ex PW13/A (OSR). The said witness was not cross-examined by the accused. From the unrebutted testimony of the witness, it stands established that the laptop Ex PX1 was duly deposited by the IO at the PS immediately after its seizure, and it was not tampered with in any manner.
27. As per the case of prosecution, the laptop was sent to FSL, Rohini for examination. PW21 SI Shiv Kumar deposed that on 20.07.2014, the result from the FSL was received at the PS, and the investigation of the present case was marked to him. During investigation, he collected the result from the MHC(M), CP, prepared the supplementary charge sheet, and filed it before the Court.
28. PW15 Sh. Mahender Singh Niranjan, Jr. Forensic Examiner, FSL, Rohini proved the FSL report, Ex PW15/A. He testified that the report itself, as well as the annexures, Ex PW15/B to PW15/J bear the signatures of Dr. Narayan Waghmare at point A thereof. He also testified that the tickets on the basis of which the report has been prepared are Ex PW8/D, PW3/A, PW5/A, PW7/D and PW4/A. While the witness accepted as correct State vs. Rajeev Kardam FIR No. 493/2013, PS: Saket Page 26 of 32 the suggestion given to him during his cross-examination that he has no personal knowledge qua the report, Ex PW15/A, the said suggestion is of little support. The witness duly proved the signatures of the author of the document, and the FSL report as well the annexures stand duly proved. As per this report, the forged tickets as above were all generated from the laptop of the accused. Since the laptop belonged to the accused, was seized from his residence, and at his instance, the only possible conclusion that can be arrived at is that the fake tickets were forged by the accused himself.
29. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses receive further support from the uncontroverted testimony of PW9 ASI Om Prakash, who proved the registration of the subject FIR, Ex PW9/A as well as endorsement on the rukka, Ex PW9/B. The testimony of this witness provides the link evidence, which helps keep the prosecution case well-rounded.
30. In view of the above discussion, it stands established that some air tickets were forged by the accused, and that they were issued to the complainant as well as other victims, who made payments for the same to the accused, and thus sustained wrongful loss. Wrongful gain was caused to the accused. Charge for the offence punishable u/s 420 IPC stands proved against the accused.
31. Now, it is to be examined if the air tickets constitute valuable security. As per Section 30 of IPC, a valuable security is a document vide which a legal right is created or extinguished or vide which document, any person acknowledges that he is under a liability. Ld. APP for State fairly submitted that the airline tickets do not constitute valuable security, being a State vs. Rajeev Kardam FIR No. 493/2013, PS: Saket Page 27 of 32 contractual document granting the holder thereof the right to travel, instead of being a security acknowledging the legal liability. This court is in agreement with the submissions made by Ld. APP for State. Since airline tickets do not qualify to be a valuable security, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable u/s 467 IPC. However, in terms of Section 222 CrPC, which provides that in case a charge for major offence has been framed, the accused can be convicted for a minor offence although ingredients of major offence are not satisfied, the accused can be convicted for the offence punishable u/s 465 IPC. At this juncture, the Court seeks guidance from the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shriniwas Pandit Dharamadhikari Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1980) 4 SCC 551, where in a similar situation, since the forged document was held not to be a valuable security, accused was convicted for offence u/s 465 IPC, although he was charged u/s 467 IPC.
32. Since it also stands established that the air tickets were used by the accused to dupe the complainant and other victims, and he obtained money from them against the forged air tickets, he is also liable to be convicted for the offence punishable u/s 471 IPC.
174A IPC
33. The offence punishable u/s 174A IPC prescribes punishment for non- appearance of an accused in a Court in pursuance to a proclamation issued u/s 82 CrPC. Whenever the Court comes to a conclusion that a person is concealing himself or has absconded, despite warrants being issued against him, a written proclamation can be issued by the Court requiring the State vs. Rajeev Kardam FIR No. 493/2013, PS: Saket Page 28 of 32 appearance of the accused before the Court. In order to ensure the publication of the proclamation, certain requirements have been stipulated in the provision itself,
i) The proclamation is to be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town/village.
ii) It has to be affixed at the house or homestead of the person, and a copy thereof has to be affixed on the courthouse.
iii) A clear period of thirty days has to be given to the accused from the date of the publication to appear in the Court.
34. With the aforesaid legal position in mind, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses shall now be scrutinized. The fulcrum of the case is the testimony of process server, ASI Murari lal who deposed as PW22. In his examination in chief, he testified that on 20.07.2019, he had gone to the house of the accused, where he met his mother, who informed him that the accused had gone out of Delhi for an unspecified period of time, and that she was not aware of the whereabouts of the accused. He testified that he then recorded the statement of Smt Kamlesh Ex PW22/A, gathered the public persons present there and loudly read out the proclamation u/s 82 CrPC in presence of all of them. He testified that he also pasted a copy of proclamation at the main gate of the house of the accused and pasted another copy upon the notice board of the court. He relied upon his report Ex PW22/B bearing his signatures at point A.
35. It is seen that the testimony of the witness is duly corroborated by his report, a part of which is the statement of the mother of the accused, Ex PW22/B. The same bears the left hand impressions of the mother of the State vs. Rajeev Kardam FIR No. 493/2013, PS: Saket Page 29 of 32 accused and is accompanied by a copy of her ID proof. From the perusal of the same, it stands duly proved that the witness had gone to the house of the accused for due execution of the process u/s 82 CrPC. It is stated in the said statement that the proclamation was made in the presence of the residents of the area, and that a copy of the proclamation has also been affixed on the main gate of the house of the accused. Now, nowhere in the cross examination of the witness was it suggested to him that the said statement is not that of his mother, or that the statement does not bear the thumb impressions of the mother of the accused. The witness categorically specified the address of the accused in his cross examination. While he admitted that he did not either do any photography or videography of the execution of the process u/s 82 CrPC, nor did he join any independent witnesses to the process, the due execution of the process u/s 82 CrPC cannot be doubted in view of the statement of the mother of the accused that is accompanied with the report of the process server and which has not been impeached by the accused in any manner. The said statement is also duly accompanied by the DD entry Ex PW22/C by which the witness had gone to the house of the accused. All of these circumstances reflect the due execution of the process u/s 82 CrPC against the accused. It is seen that even in a statement recorded u/s 313 CrPC, the accused never really denied the due execution of the process u/s 82 CrPC. He even admitted that the process was executed at his correct address. He merely stated that he was not informed of the proceedings u/s 82 CrPC by his mother. The said submission also constitutes an admission of the fact by the accused that the process was duly executed against him. In any event, it is seen that the accused absconded during the pendency of the trial knowing fully well that State vs. Rajeev Kardam FIR No. 493/2013, PS: Saket Page 30 of 32 trial for grave offences of cheating and forgery is pending against him. He deliberately absented himself, and the process u/s 82 CrPC has been proved to be duly executed against him.
36. PW16 Ms. Jigyasa, Assistant Ahlmad from the Court of Ld. CMM, South District, Saket Courts duly proved the order dated 25.06.2019, Ex PW16/A, by which the process u/s 82 CrPC was issued against the accused as well as the order dated 25.10.2019, Ex PW16/B, by which order the accused was declared to be a proclaimed offender.
37. PW17 HC Ramkishan testified that he had received the order dated 25.10.2019 from the concerned Court and had duly handed over the same to the Reader of the SHO for necessary action. His testimony, while not adding anything incriminating on the record against the accused, provides the link evidence to the prosecution case.
38. PW18 HC Umesh testified that he had arrested the accused on 13.10.2010, after he received information from a secret informer that the accused is PO in the subject FIR. He proved the arrest memo of the accused Ex PW18/A as well as his personal search memo Ex PW18/B. The testimony of the witness is merely of a formal nature, and does not prove anything inculpatory against the accused. Even so, the witness was cross examined at length and various questions and suggestions to the effect that the accused was actually not arrested at the spot mentioned in the arrest memo were put to the witness. The said suggestions were duly denied. Given the fact that it is not the case of the accused that he surrendered himself to Court custody, and that he was actually arrested, the questions State vs. Rajeev Kardam FIR No. 493/2013, PS: Saket Page 31 of 32 put to the witness disputing the place where the accused was actually arrested has no effect on the merits of the case. It was also suggested to the witness that the accused had no idea about the fact that he had been declared an absconder u/s 82 CrPC, which suggestion was denied by the witness. Given the fact that the witness had only testified to prove the apprehension of the accused, such a suggestion put to the witness is neither here nor there.
39. PW19 SI Jai Kishan and PW20 HC Manoj proved the formal arrest of the accused w.r.t. the subject FIR. Their evidence is formal in nature and lends the sense of completeness to the case of prosecution.
40. All in all, it is seen that the essential ingredients of the offence punishable u/s 174A IPC have also been proved against the accused.
41. In conclusion, accused Rajeev Kardan S/o Sh. Ramesh Kumar is convicted for the offences punishable u/s 465/471/420/174A IPC. Copy of the judgment be given to the convict free of cost. Let him be heard separately on the point of sentence Pronounced in open Court on Digitally signed 20.03.2025 in the presence Medha by Medha Arya Date:
of accused. Arya 2025.03.22 16:16:11 +0530 (Medha Arya) Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi 20.03.2025 State vs. Rajeev Kardam FIR No. 493/2013, PS: Saket Page 32 of 32