Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

A Nizam Ali vs State on 15 May, 2026

DLND01007290202587                                                  Page 1 of 21
Cr Rev/519/2025

A NIZAM ALI Vs. STATE




       IN THE COURT OF SAURABH PARTAP SINGH LALER, ASJ-05, NEW DELHI
                 DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI

                                                                    Cr. Rev. Pet. No. 519/2025
                                                                              FIR No. 87/2007
                                                                           P.S. Chanakya Puri
       1. A. NIZAM ALI
       S/O SH. ABBAS ALI
       R/O 1/6, WEST STREET, ERVADI,
       RAMANATHAPURAM, TAMIL NADU-623515

       2. VEERAPPAN MANGADI
       S/O SH. VEERAPPAN,
       R/O 24C, VALARAMANICKAM, THIRUMAYAN TALUK,
       DISTT. PUDUKKOTTAI, TAMIL NADU-622202

                                                                     ... Revisionists
            (represented by Sh. Ghanshyam Sharma. Adv., and Sh. Vikas Sharma, Adv.)
       VERSUS

       STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)
                                                                             ..... Respondent
                                                   (represented by Sh.Mukul Kumar, Addl. PP)

       Date of filing    :          12.09.2025
       Date of arguments :          13.04.2026
       Date of order     :          15.05.2026

                                                 ORDER

1. The present revision petition raises questions of considerable legal importance touching upon the ingredients of three distinct criminal provisions -- Section DLND01007290202587 Page 2 of 21 Cr Rev/519/2025 A NIZAM ALI Vs. STATE 467 IPC and Section 468 IPC. In the context of a case where accused persons are alleged to have used forged documents to apply for business visas from the British High Commission, the following three legal questions require determination:

1.1. On Section 467 IPC: Whether the documents alleged to have been forged -- salary slips, appointment letters, bank statements, and letters purporting to be issued by the management of HPCL -- constitute "valuable security" as defined under Section 30 of the IPC, so as to attract the gravest provision of the IPC's chapter on forgery, which prescribes imprisonment for life;

1.2. On Section 468 IPC: Whether, in the absence of any positive forensic or evidentiary proof that the revisionists themselves committed the act of forgery, a charge under Section 468 IPC (Forgery for the purpose of cheating) -- which by its essential ingredients demands proof of personal authorship of forgery -- can be lawfully framed against them; 1.3. On Section 12, Passport Act: Whether section 12 of Passport Act would be applicable for submission of forged documents / fake information to British High Commission.

2. Factual Background:

2.1. On 27.07.2006, a complaint was filed by Sh. Ajit Singh, DGM (Co-

ordination), HPCL, with the Commissioner of Police, PHQ, New Delhi, alleging use of fabricated and forged HPCL letterheads and forging of the DLND01007290202587 Page 3 of 21 Cr Rev/519/2025 A NIZAM ALI Vs. STATE signature of the then Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation, to cheat the Corporation and the British High Commission. 2.2. Investigation revealed that the three accused persons -- A. Nizam Ali (Revisionist No. 1), Veerappan Mangudi (Revisionist No. 2), and R.G. Kodhandaraman -- impersonated themselves as HPCL employees and applied for business visas at the British High Commission, Chanakya Puri, New Delhi. They submitted a bundle of supporting documents comprising:

a letter purportedly from the CMD of HPCL recommending business visa issuance; pay-slips; appointment letters; a business expansion program meeting invitation to London; taxpayers' counterfoils; and bank statements.

2.3. Upon verification by the British High Commission with HPCL, all documents purportedly issued by HPCL were found to be forged and fabricated. Bank statements, taxpayers' counterfoils, and residential addresses in the visa forms were similarly found to be bogus or non-

existent. FIR No. 87/2007 was accordingly registered at P.S. Chanakya Puri on 17.04.2007.

2.4. Revisionist No. 1 and co-accused Kodhandaraman were arrested during investigation. Revisionist No. 2, V. Mangudi, was declared a Proclaimed Offender on 04.08.2009 and was arrested only on 22.05.2019 -- approximately thirteen years later. After the completion of investigation, a charge-sheet and supplementary charge-sheets were filed for offences DLND01007290202587 Page 4 of 21 Cr Rev/519/2025 A NIZAM ALI Vs. STATE under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/120B IPC, Section 12 of the Passport Act, and Section 174A IPC (against Revisionist No. 2 only).

3. The Impugned Order:

3.1. The Ld. Trial Court (Ld. ACJM-02) passed the order on charge on 23.07.2025, followed by formal framing of charges on 12.08.2025. The operative portion of the order on charge dated 23.07.2025 is reproduced verbatim hereunder:

"The case of the prosecution, in brief is that all the three accused persons namely V. Mangudy, A. Nizam Ali and R.G. Kodhandaraman impersonated themselves as the employees of HPCL (Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.) and applied for business visa in British High Commission...documents like one letter from HPCL purported to be issued by the then Chairman and MD of HPCL for issuing business visas to all the accused persons, pay-slips, appointment letters showing them to be employees of HPCL, copy of letter of business expansion program meeting inviting accused persons to London, tax payers counterfoils and bank statements..."

"Ld. Counsel for accused V. Mangudy and A. Nizam Ali submit that they are conceding to all the aforementioned charges except the charge for offence punishable u/s 467 IPC. They further submit that instead of Section 467 IPC, charge for offence punishable u/s 471 r/w Section 468 IPC is made out as the forged documents are not falling in the definition/category of 'valuable security'".

Cr Rev/519/2025 A NIZAM ALI Vs. STATE "Per contra Ld. APP for the State submits that the forged documents fall into the definition of valuable security, on account of which section 467 is also made out in the instant matter."[ "Before discussing further, it is essential to reproduce Section 30 of IPC which reads as follows, 'the words "valuable security" denote a document which is, or purports to be, a document whereby any legal right is created, extended, transferred, restricted, extinguished or released, or whereby any person acknowledges that he lies under legal liability, or has not a certain legal right.' "In my opinion, aforementioned documents like salary slips, account statements and purported letter of MD of HPCL seeking business visas for the accused persons, etc. are creating rights in the favour of the accused persons. Therefore, the forged supporting documents are 'valuable security'...Considering the aforementioned material on record, I am of the opinion that charge for offences punishable u/s 419/420/467/468/471/120B IPC and Section 12 Passport Act is made out against all the three accused persons."

4. Grounds of Revision:

4.1. The revision petition has been filed under Section 438/440 BNSS (old Sections 397/399 CrPC) on the following principal grounds:

a) The Ld. Trial Court did not properly appreciate the material on record and framed charges on insufficient material, contrary to the law on grave suspicion as settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Cr Rev/519/2025 A NIZAM ALI Vs. STATE

b) No evidence was collected to show that the revisionists personally filed the alleged forged documents; the alleged agent "Murgan" who actually submitted the applications was never investigated.

c) No charge under Section 120B IPC is made out as the two revisionists reside approximately 150 km apart with no evidence of any prior acquaintance or meeting of minds.

d) The FSL report does not attribute any forgery to the revisionists; no forged document was recovered from their possession at the time of arrest -- hence Sections 467/468 IPC are not made out.

e) The documents do not constitute "valuable security" under Section 30 IPC; Section 467 IPC cannot be attracted.

f) The passports of the revisionists were found genuine upon scrutiny, further undermining the Section 12 of Passport Act charge.

5. Arguments of the Parties:

5.1. For the Revisionists: The learned counsel pressed, with particularity, three submissions: (i) the supporting documents are not "valuable security"

under Section 30 IPC and their mere use to apply for a visa does not give them that character -- only the visa itself, if granted, could have constituted a valuable security; (ii) Section 468 IPC requires proof of personal authorship of forgery, which is wholly absent on the record, and the proper section, at most, is Section 471; and Section 12 of Passport Act DLND01007290202587 Page 7 of 21 Cr Rev/519/2025 A NIZAM ALI Vs. STATE is not made out as the alleged false information / false document was never submitted to Passport authorities in India.

5.2. For the State: The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and submitted that all charges have been duly framed after due consideration of the material, that the threshold of prima facie case is met, that the forged documents created rights in favour of the accused and hence constitute valuable security, and that compliance with Section 15 of the Passport Act has been made as reflected in the charge-sheet. It was urged that the revision be dismissed in its entirety.

6. Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction:

6.1. The revisional court does not sit as an appellate court on an order on charge -- it does not re-evaluate the weight of material. However, where the framing of a particular charge is legally unsustainable, where an essential ingredients of the offence are missing or where the provision invoked does not apply to the facts as alleged, the revisional court is competent and duty-bound to intervene to prevent an unwarranted trial. It is in exercise of this limited but important jurisdiction that this Court proceeds.

7. Charges Upheld:

7.1. Section 120B IPC (Criminal Conspiracy): The material prima facie discloses a concerted scheme -- multiple accused persons from different districts, with no visible connection to HPCL, simultaneously applying for DLND01007290202587 Page 8 of 21 Cr Rev/519/2025 A NIZAM ALI Vs. STATE business visas under a similar package of forged HPCL documentation.

The pattern is too systemic to be coincidental, and the prima facie threshold for conspiracy at the stage of charge is satisfied. The charge is upheld.

7.2. Section 419 IPC (Cheating by Impersonation): The accused projected themselves as HPCL employees -- a corporation with which they had no connection -- and submitted employment documentation to that effect. This constitutes prima facie impersonation within the meaning of Section 419 IPC. However, as they failed to 'cheat' the British High Commission by doing so, hence, they can only be charged for an attempt I.e, 419 IPC r.w. 511 IPC.

7.3. Section 420 IPC (Cheating and Dishonest Inducement): The accused induced the British High Commission through fabricated documents to act upon a belief that they were legitimate HPCL employees. There was inducement for the purpose of obtaining visa, which they could not get. Thus, there is attempt to commit cheating i.e. 420 IPC as the visa was never delivered. The falsity of their claim and documents was found, before the visa was issued. Thus charge modified to 420 r.w. section 511 IPC.

7.4. Section 471 IPC (Using a Forged Document as Genuine): Section 471 IPC does not require that the accused was the author of the forgery -- it is sufficient that the accused knowingly used a forged document as genuine.

Cr Rev/519/2025 A NIZAM ALI Vs. STATE The use of forged documents before the British High Commission is precisely the mischief Section 471 targets. This is, in fact, the provision that most accurately captures the role attributed to the revisionists on the present record. Upheld.

7.5. Section 174A IPC (against Revisionist No. 2): Revisionist No. 2 was declared a Proclaimed Offender on 04.08.2009 and evaded justice for nearly a decade. The record clearly supports the charge. Upheld.

8. Charges Set Aside:

8.1. Section 467 IPC -- Forgery of Valuable Security: Charge Not Made Out

a) The Statutory Test: Section 30 IPC defines "valuable security" as a document that, by its own operative force and content, creates, extends, transfers, restricts, extinguishes, or releases a legal right, or acknowledges a legal liability or the absence of a legal right. The definition is statutory, precise, and admits of no expansion. A document that is merely evidentiary -- one that records a state of affairs or provides information -- does not satisfy this definition merely because it was used to obtain something of value.

b) Nature of Each Document:

i Salary slips -- purely evidentiary records of remuneration paid; they create no legal right and impose no obligation on any person.

Cr Rev/519/2025 A NIZAM ALI Vs. STATE ii Appointment letters -- record terms of employment between genuine parties; the forged versions in this case created no genuine employment relationship and therefore no legally enforceable right. iii Bank statements -- accounting records; they create no legal right and transfer or extinguish no obligation.

iv Taxpayers' counterfoils -- receipts of payment; evidentiary in character, not instruments of legal right.

v HPCL CMD's letter -- a recommendation/request to a foreign authority; even if genuine, it confers no legally enforceable right upon its bearer against any person.

c) The critical distinction is between (i) documents that are valuable security -- i.e., whose own legal force creates, extends, transfers, restricts, extinguishes or releases a legal right; and (ii) documents that are used as instruments to obtain something that may itself be a valuable security. The documents here fall squarely in the second category. The thing of legal value being sought was the visa itself. A business visa, once granted by a foreign state's competent authority, would have conferred upon its holder a legal right to enter and remain in that state -- a forged visa would therefore directly attract Section 467 IPC. But the supporting application documents do not acquire the character of "valuable security" merely by being used in pursuit of a DLND01007290202587 Page 11 of 21 Cr Rev/519/2025 A NIZAM ALI Vs. STATE visa. The chain -- forged document → application → grant of visa --

does not transform each link into a valuable security.

d) Section 467 IPC prescribes the most severe punishment in the IPC's forgery chapter -- imprisonment for life. The principle of strict construction of penal statutes is well settled: where the language of a penal provision admits of two constructions, the one more favourable to the accused must be adopted. The definition of "valuable security" in Section 30 IPC must be applied strictly and cannot be expanded by inference to cover documents that merely serve as tools for obtaining something valuable.

e) Second Independent Ground -- Forgery Not Proved Against Accused:

Section 467 IPC requires that the accused himself "forged" the document in question. The FSL/handwriting expert's report does not positively attribute the forgeries to the revisionists. No forged document was recovered from their possession at arrest. The alleged author of the forged documents -- agent "Murgan" -- was never investigated or prosecuted. Accordingly, the charge under Section 467 IPC is not made out on this second ground as well.

f) Result: Charge under Section 467 IPC is set aside. Both revisionists are discharged of this offence.

8.2. Section 468 IPC -- Forgery for Purpose of Cheating: Charge Not Made Out:

Cr Rev/519/2025 A NIZAM ALI Vs. STATE

a) Section 468 IPC punishes whoever "commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating." Its essential ingredients are: (a) the accused personally committed forgery (within the meaning of Sections 463-465 IPC), and

(b) the accused did so intending the forged document to be used for cheating. Both ingredients are mandatory.

b) The Critical Distinction Between Sections 468 and 471 IPC: The IPC deliberately and carefully distinguishes between two categories of persons:

i Section 468 targets the forger -- the person who makes or creates the false document with the intent that it be used for cheating. ii Section 471 targets the user -- the person who knowingly uses a forged document as genuine, whether or not they authored it. These are separate offences with separate elements. A person who only used a forged document without having authored it attracts Section 471, not Section 468. To frame a charge under Section 468 against a person who is only alleged to be a user of a forged document is to conflate the roles of forger and user -- a conflation the statute explicitly rejects by providing separate provisions.

c) The FSL/handwriting expert's report does not establish that the revisionists authored the forged documents. The agent "Murgan," who DLND01007290202587 Page 13 of 21 Cr Rev/519/2025 A NIZAM ALI Vs. STATE allegedly procured and submitted the visa applications, was never investigated. No forged document was recovered from the revisionists.

In this matrix, the prosecution's case is not that the revisionists forged the documents -- it is that they used or facilitated the use of documents that were forged by someone else. Section 471 IPC (upheld above) is the provision that addresses this conduct. Section 468 IPC is not attracted.

d) Result: Charge under Section 468 IPC is set aside. Both revisionists are discharged of this offence.

8.3. Section 12 of the Passports Act, 1967 -- Charge Not Sustainable: The Ingredients of the Section Are Not Made Out on the Facts of This Case

a) The Statutory Architecture of Section 12: Section 12(1) of the Passports Act, 1967 creates offences in the following relevant terms:

i contravenes the provisions of Section 3; or ii knowingly furnishes any false information or suppresses any material information with a view to obtaining a passport or travel document under this Act or without lawful authority alters or attempts to alter or causes to alter the entries made in a passport or travel document; or iii fails to produce for inspection his passport or travel document when called upon to do so by the prescribed authority; or DLND01007290202587 Page 14 of 21 Cr Rev/519/2025 A NIZAM ALI Vs. STATE iv knowingly uses a passport or travel document issued to another person; or v knowingly allows another person to use a passport or travel document issued to him...

b) Section 3 of the Act prohibits any person from departing from India without holding a valid passport or travel document issued or deemed to be issued under the Act.

c) The Scope and Object of the Passports Act:

i The Passports Act, 1967 is a legislation that exclusively regulates the issuance, variation, impounding, and revocation of passports and travel documents by competent Indian authorities. The term "passport authority" is defined in Section 2(b) of the Act as a person authorised by the Central Government to issue passports or travel documents under the Act. The entire regulatory scheme governs the relationship between an applicant seeking a passport or travel document and the Indian passport authority -- not between an applicant and any foreign embassy, consulate, or high commission. The Passports Act has no application to applications for visas made by Indian citizens to foreign missions. A visa is not a "travel document" within the contemplation of the Passports Act, 1967; it is a permission granted by a sovereign foreign state allowing a foreign national to enter or remain in its territory.

Cr Rev/519/2025 A NIZAM ALI Vs. STATE

d) The Essential Ingredient: False Information Must Be Before the Indian Passport Authority-

i The key phrase in Section 12(1)(b) is: "with a view to obtaining a passport or travel document under this Act." This phrase is the jurisdictional cornerstone of the offence. It is not merely descriptive

-- it defines the territory of the provision. The furnishing of false information must be: (a) before the Indian passport authority; and

(b) for the purpose of obtaining a passport or travel document under the Passports Act, 1967 itself. Section 12(1)(b) does not, in its terms, cover the submission of false information to a foreign mission, embassy, consulate, or high commission for the purpose of obtaining a visa or entry permit. The legislation simply does not extend so far.

e) The Facts of This Case Do Not Attract Section 12: In the present case, the prosecution's allegation is that the accused persons submitted forged and fabricated documents -- salary slips, appointment letters, bank statements, and the HPCL letter -- to the British High Commission, Chanakya Puri, New Delhi, for the purpose of obtaining a business visa to travel to the United Kingdom.

f) There is a complete absence of any allegation -- much less any evidence -- that the accused persons:

Cr Rev/519/2025 A NIZAM ALI Vs. STATE i Submitted any forged or false documents to the Indian passport authority;

ii Furnished any false information before the Indian passport authority in connection with an application for a passport or travel document under the Passports Act, 1967;

iii Altered or attempted to alter any passport or travel document issued under the Act; or iv In any other manner violated the provisions of the Passports Act in relation to the Indian passport-issuing authority. v Indeed, the investigation itself revealed the contrary: upon scrutiny, the passports of both revisionists were found to be genuine. The passports were validly issued to them by the competent Indian passport authority. No false information was alleged to have been furnished before the Indian passport authority.

g) A Visa Is Not a "Passport or Travel Document" Under the Act:

i What the accused are alleged to have done is to submit forged documents to a foreign high commission for the purpose of obtaining a business visa -- a document entirely outside the scope and contemplation of the Passports Act, 1967. A visa issued by a foreign state is not a "passport or travel document" within the meaning of the Act. The Passports Act does not create a general criminal offence in respect of every act of deception involving DLND01007290202587 Page 17 of 21 Cr Rev/519/2025 A NIZAM ALI Vs. STATE travel; its reach is limited to the sphere of obtaining, altering, and using Indian passports and travel documents issued under its own authority. Conduct of the nature alleged in this case -- submission of forged documents to a foreign mission for the purpose of obtaining a foreign visa -- falls, if criminal at all, under the general provisions of the IPC, under which the remaining charges have been framed.

ii The invocation of Section 12 of the Passports Act in the present case therefore suffers from a fundamental legal error: the section simply does not apply to the facts alleged. To permit the charge to stand would be to stretch the provisions of the Act beyond their natural language and legislative intent, so as to impose criminal liability under a statute that was never designed to address the alleged conduct. A penal provision cannot be applied by analogy or extension to conduct that falls outside its clear and specific terms. iii The facts also do not fall under section 3 of the Passport Act as there was no departure or attempt to depart from India using a false / forged travel document [as defined in Section 3 Explanation (b)]

h) Conclusion on Section 12:

i Section 12 of the Passports Act, 1967 targets the furnishing of false information or suppression of material information before the Indian passport authority for the purpose of obtaining an Indian passport or DLND01007290202587 Page 18 of 21 Cr Rev/519/2025 A NIZAM ALI Vs. STATE travel document under the Act. No such allegation has been made, nor does any such allegation find support in the material on record. The passports of the revisionists were themselves found to be genuine; the conduct alleged against them -- however reprehensible in its alleged purpose -- falls entirely outside the scope and sweep of the Passports Act, 1967.

ii The charge under Section 12 of the Passports Act, 1967 is accordingly not made out and is SET ASIDE. Both revisionists are hereby DISCHARGED of the offence under Section 12 of the Passports Act, 1967.

i) Result: Charge under Section 12 of the Passports Act, 1967 is set aside.

Both revisionists are discharged of this charge.

9. Summary of Findings:

         Section             Reason                                           Status

         Sec.        120B    Systemic use of forged documents by              UPHELD
         IPC                 multiple accused; prima facie conspiracy

         Sec. 419 IPC        Impersonation as HPCL employees, prima           Modified to 419
                             facie established. Cheating however not          r.w. 511 IPC.
                             complete.
 DLND01007290202587                                                    Page 19 of 21
Cr Rev/519/2025

A NIZAM ALI Vs. STATE




         Sec. 420 IPC           Deception of British High Commission,           Modified to 420
                                prima facie established. However, Visa never    r.w. 511 IPC.
                                issued.

         Sec. 471 IPC           Use of forged documents as genuine;             UPHELD
                                authorship of forgery not required

         Sec.        174A       V. Mangudi declared PO in 2009;                 UPHELD
         IPC         (R-2
         only)

         Sec. 467 IPC           Documents not "valuable security" u/s 30        SET ASIDE /

IPC; forgery not attributed to accused by FSL DISCHARGE Sec. 468 IPC Accused must personally commit forgery; not SET ASIDE / established; Section 471 is the applicable DISCHARGE provision Sec. 12, No false information or forged document SET ASIDE / Passports ever submitted to Indian Passport Authorities DISCHARGE Act for obtaining passport or travel document under Passport Act, 1987.

10. Order 10.1. The present Criminal Revision Petition is PARTLY ALLOWED as follows:

Cr Rev/519/2025 A NIZAM ALI Vs. STATE

a) CHARGES UPHELD: The impugned order on charge dated 23.07.2025 and charges framed on 12.08.2025 are upheld insofar as they relate to Sections 120B, 419, 420, and 471 IPC against both revisionists, and the additional charge under Section 174A IPC against Revisionist No. 2, Veerappan Mangudi.

b) CHARGES SET ASIDE AND DISCHARGE ORDERED:

i Section 467 IPC -- Set aside on two independent grounds: (a) the forged documents do not constitute "valuable security" within the meaning of Section 30 IPC; and (b) the forgery has not been attributed to the revisionists by any credible forensic evidence. Both revisionists are hereby discharged of the offence under Section 467 IPC.

ii Section 468 IPC -- Set aside for the reason that Section 468 requires proof that the accused personally committed forgery, which has not been established on the material on record. The acts attributed to the revisionists are addressed by Section 471 IPC, which stands. Both revisionists are hereby discharged of the offence under Section 468 IPC.

iii Section 12 of the Passports Act, 1967 -- Set aside for the reason that no false information or false document was submitted before any authority under the Passports Act so as to obtain a passport or travel document that can be issued under the Act. The charge DLND01007290202587 Page 21 of 21 Cr Rev/519/2025 A NIZAM ALI Vs. STATE framed under Section 12 of the Passports Act is therefore set aside. Both revisionists are hereby discharged of this charge.

c) DIRECTIONS:

i The Ld. Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial in respect of the surviving charges in accordance with law.

ii The trial record be returned forthwith.

11. Revision file be consigned to Record Room. Pronounced in open Court on this the 15th day of May, 2026.

(SAURABH PARTAP SINGH LALER) ASJ-05/New Delhi District PHC / New Delhi / 15.05.2026