Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Surjit Singh Chopra on 8 December, 2025
CBI 420/2019 CBI VS. SURJIT SINGH CHOPRA & ORS
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEETU NAGAR,
ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE -06,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT,
NEW DELHI
COVER-SHEET
IN THE MATTER OF:
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
VS.
SURJIT SINGH CHOPRA & ORS
The accused persons have been apprised about the Legal Aid
Facility and the details of legal aid facility which is as
under:-
DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY
(ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT)
FRONT OFFICE, GROUND FLOOR,
ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
PHONE NO. 9810420894
E-MAIL ADDRESS : [email protected]
Digitally signed
by NEETU
NEETU NAGAR
Date:
NAGAR 2025.12.08
16:33:55
(Neetu Nagar) +0530
ACJM-06 RADC
Delhi:08.12.2025 Page 1 of 41
CBI 420/2019 CBI VS. SURJIT SINGH CHOPRA & ORS
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEETU NAGAR,
ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-06,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT,
NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
VS.
SURJIT SINGH CHOPRA & ORS
AGE OF THE CASE :21 years, 4 Months, 15 days
CNR No. : DLCT12-001249-2019
CASE No. : 420/2019
FIR No. : RC-DAI-2001-A-0041
Under Section : 511 IPC, 120-B
read with 420 IPC,
Section 132 and 135
of Customs Act, 120 B IPC
read with 13 (2) and 13 (1)
(d) of PC Act
Name of Branch :CBI/SPE/New Delhi
Date of Commission of Offence :January 2001 onwards
Name of the Complainant : Source Information.
Name, Parentage & Address of : (i) Surjit Singh Chopra
accused S/o Uttam Singh Chopra
R/o A-228, Derawal
Digitally
signed by
NEETU
NEETU NAGAR
NAGAR Date:
2025.12.08
16:34:19
(Neetu Nagar) +0530
ACJM-06 RADC
Delhi:08.12.2025 Page 2 of 41
CBI 420/2019 CBI VS. SURJIT SINGH CHOPRA & ORS
Nagar, Delhi-110009.
Proprietor of M/s. Unicorn
Studio and Director of M/s.
Chopra Exim (P) Ltd., 53,
WTC, Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi.
(ii) Harpal Singh Chopra
S/o Uttam Singh Chopra
R/o A-228, Derawal
Nagar, Delhi-110009.
Proprietor of M/s. Silver
Oak Exports and Director
of M/s.Chopra Exim (P)
Ltd.,53,WTC, Barakhamba
Road, New Delhi.
(iii) Sh. Rawail Singh
Chopra S/o Sh. Uttam
Singh Chopra R/o A-228,
Derawal Nagar, Delhi-
110009.
Proprietor /Director of M/s.
Chopra Exim (P) Ltd., 53,
WTC, Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi.
Offence complained of : 120-B read with 420 IPC
and Section 132 and 135 of
Customs Act and
substantive offence thereof.
*****
Plea of Accused Persons : Not Guilty
Date of institution of case : 23.07.2004
Digitally
signed by
NEETU
NEETU NAGAR
NAGAR Date:
2025.12.08
(Neetu Nagar) 16:34:33
+0530
ACJM-06 RADC
Delhi:08.12.2025 Page 3 of 41
CBI 420/2019 CBI VS. SURJIT SINGH CHOPRA & ORS
Date of Judgment : 08.12.2025
Final Decision : ACQUITTAL
*****
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:-
For the Prosecution : Mr. Navneet Jawa, Ld. PP for
CBI.
For the Accused : Sh. S.C. Puri, Ld. Counsel for
all accused persons.
*****
JUDGMENT
*****
1. Accused persons namely Surjit Singh Chopra, Harpal Singh Chopra and Rawail Singh Chopra have been sent by the CBI to face trial for the commission of the offences punishable under Section 120-B read with 420 IPC and Section 132 and 135 of Customs Act and substantive offence thereof. 2 Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that private persons namely Surjeet Singh Chopra, Harpal Singh Chopra and Rawail Singh Chopra were regularly and illegally sending foreign currency, particularly US dollars to Hongkong through speed post parcels from Connaught Place Post Office under the name of M/s. AERO Exports, Bhikaji Kama Place, New Delhi in criminal conspiracy with custom officials namely Ravi Sharma, C.S. Sharma, both Inspectors of Central Excise & Customs and K.P. Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.08 16:34:46 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:08.12.2025 Page 4 of 41 CBI 420/2019 CBI VS. SURJIT SINGH CHOPRA & ORS Singh, Dy. Commissioner of Customs and in charge of Foreign Post Office as well as others.
2.1 Investigation has disclosed that as per surprise check memo dated 08.06.2003 conducted at International E.M.S. section, Speed Post Centre, Market Road, New Delhi in the presence of independent witnesses and postal officials, 22 parcels have been detained by the Customs and sent to RMS Delhi. As per manifests issued by Connaught Place P.O., a total of 11 parcels, six at 1430 hrs and five at 1800 hrs were booked by them. Out of the said 11 parcels, two parcels booked for Hong Kong were also detained and sent to RMS Delhi. 2.2 Another surprise check was conducted at the R.M.S old Delhi Mail Agency-1 on 09.06.2001. It was revealed during the checking that out of 10 bags which contained detained 22 parcels, one bag contained the suspicious parcels booked for Hongkong from Connaught Place, P.O. Accordingly, the said two parcels were detected/opened which contained US $ 25,000 each.
2.3 It surfaced during investigation that the first envelope/parcel bearing manifest No. EE 23832600 showed the printed address of sender as M/S AERO Exports (P) Ltd. 408, Ansal Chamber-2, 6 Bhikhaji Cama Place, New Delhi-66.
addressed to Sh. Chung Hung Choi Norman, 36 44 Nathan Road, Chung King Arcade, Shop no. 85, Ground Floor, Tsim, Dha Tsui, Kawloon, Hong Kong, Ph. 23680084. As per booking slip, Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR Date: NAGAR 2025.12.08 16:34:56 +0530 (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:08.12.2025 Page 5 of 41 CBI 420/2019 CBI VS. SURJIT SINGH CHOPRA & ORS the said parcel was booked at 16:41:45 hrs on 08.06.2001 from Connaught Place P.O. for Hong Kong and the custom declaration slip showed the contents to be "documents". The said parcel contained 227 USD of 100 denomination each and 46 USD of 50 dollar denomination each totalling to USD 25000. Similarly, the second envelope/ parcel bearing manifest No. EE 23832601 was also booked by M/S AERO Exports (P) Ltd. addressed to Mr. Fung Kaw of same address. As per booking slip pasted on the envelope, the said parcel was booked on 08.06.2001 at 16:42:03 hrs. from C.P. for HK and again the custom declaration slip showed the contents as "documents". The parcel contained 230 USD of 100 dollar denomination each and 40 USD of 50 dollars denomination which were recovered and seized. Thus, a total of 50,000 US $ were recovered and seized during the two surprise checks.
2.4 During investigation, it was found that all export parcels booked at various post offices are sent to International EMS section, Speed Post Centre, Market Road, New Delhi where the parcels are examined manually by the Custom Inspectors and sorted out by the postal staff. The suspected parcels are segregated/detained and are sent to the foreign post offices at Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi through R.M.S., Old Delhi. The remaining unsuspected parcels are sent to the Airport for onward destination. The detained parcels are opened/examined by the custom officials at foreign post office for taking necessary Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.08 16:35:07 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:08.12.2025 Page 6 of 41 CBI 420/2019 CBI VS. SURJIT SINGH CHOPRA & ORS action under the Customs Act, if something incriminating is found. Investigation has revealed that the aforesaid two parcels were already eliminated/detained as suspected parcel by the Custom Inspector Shri. C.S. Sharma at Speed Post Centre, Market Road, and also sent to RMS, Delhi on 08.06.2001, the date when the surprise check was conducted by CBI but the custom officials did this exercise before the surprise check. It also transpired during investigation that accused Surjeet Singh Chopra used to visit Speed Post Centre for getting his parcel cleared.
2.5 Investigation further revealed that M/s. AERO Exports Pvt. Ltd. did not exist at address i.e. 408, Ansal Chamber-II, 6 Bhikaji Kama Place, New Delhi-66 and the said address has been allotted to one Sh. J.C. Sachdeva, director of M/s. Saphire Innovators (P) Ltd. since 1989. It has further transpired during custody of Rawail Singh, a printing press by name and style of M/s. Grover Print Arts at 5553/4 Kolhapur Road near Kamla Nagar was located where address particulars of M/s. AERO Export Pvt. Ltd. were got printed on the envelopes by accused Rawail Singh as per the directions of accused Surjit Singh. The specimen print out of the aforesaid address was also seized from Shri Vinod Kumar Grover of M/s. Grover Print Arts. Likewise M/s. Walia Communication Network Ltd. was located at 23 Basement, Centre Market, Ashok Vihar-1, Delhi-52 on pointing out of accused Rawail Singh where the stickers containing Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR Date: NAGAR 2025.12.08 16:35:19 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:08.12.2025 Page 7 of 41 CBI 420/2019 CBI VS. SURJIT SINGH CHOPRA & ORS address particulars of Hong Kong party M/s Kin Shin in question were printed.
2.6 It has been revealed by Interpol enquiries made during investigation that Mr. Chung Hong Choi Norman (CHEUNG) of M/s. Kin Shig Money Exchange Co. Ltd. located at ground floor No. 85, Chung King Mansion, 36-44 Nathan Road, Tsim Sha Tsui, Kowloon, Hong Kong knew accused Surjeet Singh Chopra since early 2000 and there was an agreement between them that he would mail US $ to CHEUNG to exchange it into Hong Kong Dollar and further distribute the same to the persons/companies instructed by him. Chopra was mailing cash US Dollars via speed post parcels and contacting CHEUNG at his company telephone no. 23680084 to give him the names of persons to whom the HKD were to be distributed. Thus, there were about 70-80 transactions (each about US $ 10,000 to 30,000) that took place.
The print out of mobile phone No. 9868107295 of accused Surjeet Singh Chopra confirms that long distance calls were made to Hong Kong on several occasions i.e. on 09.06.2001 at 11.08 AM and at 1248 hrs, on 08.06.2001 at 1300 hrs, on 07.06.2001 at 1321 hrs, on 05.06.2001 at 1222 hrs, on 01.06.2001 and on 01.05.2001.
2.7. However, no evidence was available to connect the custom officials with the substantive offence, hence their names were dropped though they were named in the FIR. Investigation further revealed that a total no. of 42 parcels have been booked Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.08 16:35:30 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:08.12.2025 Page 8 of 41 CBI 420/2019 CBI VS. SURJIT SINGH CHOPRA & ORS by M/s. Aero Export(D) Ltd. at Connaught Place P.O., during September, 2000 to June, 2001 addressed to Hong Kong and also from GPO, Kashmere Gate.
2.8 Thus, accused persons have knowingly indulged themselves in illegal smuggling of foreign currency specially US dollars to Hong Kong under the garb of a non-existing company by way of speed post parcels giving false declaration that the parcels contain documents and thereby caused wrongful loss to the Government and wrongful gain for themselves. 2.9 After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed in the court.
COGNIZANCE AND CHARGE
3. Vide order dated 23.07.2004, cognizance of the offence was taken against the accused persons. Copy of the chargesheet and the accompanying documents were supplied to the accused persons free of cost under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Finding a prima facie case, charge for commission of offence punishable under Section 120-B read with 420/468/471 IPC and 132/135 Customs Act and 420/468/471 IPC and 132/135 Customs Act read with Section 511 IPC were framed against accused persons on 13.03.2015 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. To prove its case, the prosecution examined twenty one witnesses in total. Details of prosection witnesses with details of Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.08 16:35:43 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:08.12.2025 Page 9 of 41 CBI 420/2019 CBI VS. SURJIT SINGH CHOPRA & ORS documents exhibited are as under:-
Sr. PW Date of Name & parentage of Documents exhibited
No. number evidence witness
1. PW-1 11.03.2016 Mr. Shrikant Rai Ex. PW1/A: recovery memo
Ex. PW1/B: Seizure memo of
typewriter
2. PW-2 02.06.2016 Mr. Tejpal Singh, Office No documents exhibited. Proved
Superintendent, Northern Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW1/B.
Railway, Baroda House,
New Delhi
3. PW-3 17.10.2017 Mr. Chander Mohan Formal witness. No documents
[wrongly Sehgal, Superintendent, exhibited. Only procedure adopted
mention as Customs Foreign Post Office in FPO informed.
PW-8]
4. PW-4 08.11.2017 Mr. Rajmal, retired from Ex. PW-4/A: Envelop D-9
Central Excise, Ex. PW-4/B: another envelope of
Faridabad D-9 [speed post parcel being sent
by M/s Arrow Export Pvt. Ltd.
Addressed to Hong Kong]
5. PW-5 27.11.2017 Mr. Vinod Kumar Ex. PW-5/A: Butter paper
Grover
6. PW-6 05.12.2017 Mr. Mukesh Bhardwaj No documents exhibited.
Not supported case of prosecution.
SPP for state put leading question
to witness. Witness denied
suggestion.
7. PW-7 15.12.2017 Mr. Vishnu Kumar Mark P-7/A.
Gupta, Speed Post Witness resiled form his alleged
Centre employee, Gole previous statement. Cross
Market examined by learned APP for
CBI.
8. PW-8 15.12.2017 Mr. Ishwar Singh Yadav, Mark P-8/A.
Digitally
signed by
NEETU
NEETU NAGAR
NAGAR Date:
2025.12.08
(Neetu Nagar) 16:35:53
+0530
ACJM-06 RADC
Delhi:08.12.2025 Page 10 of 41
CBI 420/2019 CBI VS. SURJIT SINGH CHOPRA & ORS
Speed Post Centre Witness resiled form his alleged
employee previous statement. Cross-
examined by learned APP for
CBI.
9. PW-9 16.01.2018 Mr. Pratap Singh, Deputy Deposed about the role of
Commissioner, Foreign Inspectors.
Post Office. Retired from
Central Excise
Department, Delhi
10. PW-10 16.01.2018 Mr. Hargobind Walia Identified signature of his
employee Dhanbir Singh on Ex.
PW1/B.
11. PW-11 16.01.2018 Mr. Mahender Singh, Formal in nature. No documents
Department of post, exhibited.
Speed Post Centre
12. PW-12 16.02.2018 Mr. Jagat Mohan Sarvari, Ex. PW-12/A [Collectively]:
retired from Punjab & specimen handwriting of accused
Sind Bank. Surjeet Singh Chopra
13. PW-13 16.02.2018 Mr. S.N. Bansal [retired Ex. PW-13/A: Document D-15
from postal department] [production cum seizure memo
vide which witness given record
of post office to CBI]
Ex. PW-13/B: Document D-14
[from page 241 to 413 is a
booking record of speed post]
14. PW-14 16.02.2018 Mr. Rajender Yadav, Ex. PW-14/A: statement of
painter by profession witness under section 161 of Cr.
P.C.
15. PW-15 23.08.2018 Mr. C.S. Kapoor, Ex. PW-15/A: Document D-20
employee of MTNL Ex. PW-15/B: Document D-21
Ex. PW-15/C: Document D-22
Ex. PW-15/D: Document D-19
16. PW-16 24.02.2023 Mr. Ram Khelawan, Ex. PW-16/A [Collectively]:
RMS staff Document D-3 (surprise check
Digitally
signed by
NEETU
NEETU NAGAR
NAGAR Date:
2025.12.08
16:36:05
(Neetu Nagar) +0530
ACJM-06 RADC
Delhi:08.12.2025 Page 11 of 41
CBI 420/2019 CBI VS. SURJIT SINGH CHOPRA & ORS
cum seizure memo)
17. PW-17 24.03.2023 Mr. Ashish Kumar, Mark-A: statement under section
Postal Department 161 of Cr. P.C.
employee
18. PW-18 27.09.2023 Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Witness shown document Ex.
Photostat operator PW-1/B: Document D-6
[recovery memo dated
15.06.2001]
19. PW-19 02.02.2024 Mr. M.S. Juneja, witness Ex. PW-19/A [Collectively]:
from speed post centre Document D-2, surprise check
memo dated 08.06.2021 and
identified his signature on Ex.
PW41/A and Ex. PW 41/B.
20. PW-20 24.04.2024 Mr. Ajay Kumar, Ex. PW-20/A [Collectively]:
Investigating officer Document D-7, disclosure
statement dated 15.06.2001 of
Ravel Singh]
Ex. PW-20/B [Collectively]:
Document D-8, disclosure
statement dated 15.06.2001 of
Surjeet Singh Chopra]
Ex. PW-20/C: [Page no. 45 of
document D-10]
Ex. PW-20/D: [Page no. 49 of
document D-10]
Ex. PW-20/E: [Page no. 56 of
document D-10]
Ex. PW-20/F [Collectively]:
Document D-11, seizure memo
dated 09.06.2001
Digitally
signed by
NEETU
NEETU NAGAR
NAGAR Date:
2025.12.08
16:36:16
(Neetu Nagar) +0530
ACJM-06 RADC
Delhi:08.12.2025 Page 12 of 41
CBI 420/2019 CBI VS. SURJIT SINGH CHOPRA & ORS
Ex. PW-20/G [Collectively]:
Document D-12 [letter no. 1793
dated 08.06.2004 of SP, CBI,
ACB, New Delhi to GEQD,
Shimla for opinion on writings
on seized envelops Q1 and Q2.
Ex. PW-20/H: Document D-16
[seizure memo dated 15.03.2004]
Ex. PW-20/I [Collectively]:
Document D-18 [photocopy of
attested agreement]
Ex. PW-20/J [Collectively]:
Document D-18 [photocopy of
receipt no. 133727 dated
03.02.2004]
Ex. PW-20/H: Document D-26
Ex. PW-20/I: Duty Roster
register
Ex. PW-20/J: Copy of FIR
21. PW-21 Mr. Rajeev Tandon, This witness was summoned after
Commissioner, Customs CBI filed an application under
Air Cargo Export, New section 311 of Cr. P.C.
Customs House Proved sanction order dated
21.06.2012
4.2. After conclusion of the list of prosecution witnesses, the prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 11.11.2025.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 Cr.P.C.
Digitally signed by NEETUNEETU NAGAR Date: NAGAR 2025.12.08 16:36:28 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:08.12.2025 Page 13 of 41 CBI 420/2019 CBI VS. SURJIT SINGH CHOPRA & ORS
5. Statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded vide order dated 18.11.2025 wherein they denied all the allegations.
5.1 Accused persons submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the present case and are innocent. Neither the envelopes nor the currency were connected to them. They did not know anything about the envelopes or the currency. Nothing contraband or incriminating was recovered from them, their house or office.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE 6 Accused persons have not preferred to lead evidence in their defence. Thereafter, the evidence on behalf of the accused was closed on 18.11.2025.
FINAL ARGUMENTS 7 Learned PP for CBI has contended that there is sufficient oral and documentary evidence on record and submitted that the accused are liable to be convicted for the offences in question.
7.1 Per contra, learned counsel on behalf of accused persons contended that there are various lapses in the case of the prosecution. He argued that the CBI merged the criminal proceedings and warrant trial (complaint) cases which was absolutely illegal and unwarranted. He strenuously argued that sanction under section 137 of the Customs Act has to be Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.08 16:36:40 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:08.12.2025 Page 14 of 41 CBI 420/2019 CBI VS. SURJIT SINGH CHOPRA & ORS accorded before filing of the charge-sheet/complaint and not afterwards. It was pressed upon that the main persons named in the FIR were let off by the department. No proceedings under section 111 and 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 were initiated for confiscation of impugned currencies nor penalty was imposed on the accused persons. No Show Cause Notice under section 122- 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 was issued for adjudication proceedings against any of the accused persons. It was highlighted that in the cases covered for violation in the foreign exchanges cases under section 56 of FERA Act, an opportunity notice under section 61(2) of FERA Act has to be given and received by accused persons. Reliance was placed on case law of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case numbered as Criminal Revision Petition 642/2017 in case titled United India Airways Limited and another versus Chief Enforcement Officer, Enforcement Directorate' wherein Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 05.04.2018, observed that:
"Para 16: The subject complaint was filed on 29.05.2002. Since petitioners were never granted an opportunity, as mandated by Section 61(2) of FERA, there is clearly a breach of the mandate of law. Since the requirements of Section 61(2) of FERA have not been complied with, reliance placed by the respondent on the statement recorded at the time when proceedings under Section 40 of FERA were being undertaken and reliance on the same in the Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.08
(Neetu Nagar) 16:36:50
+0530
ACJM-06 RADC
Delhi:08.12.2025 Page 15 of 41
CBI 420/2019 CBI VS. SURJIT SINGH CHOPRA & ORS
impugned order as sufficient compliance of Section 61(2) of FERA, is clearly misplaced.
Para 17. Since respondents have failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of Section 61(2) of FERA, the Trial Court clearly erred in taking cognizance. Para 18. In view of the above, the impugned order on charge dated 11.07.2017 cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. The impugned order dated 11.07.2017 is, accordingly, quashed. The present petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to cost."
7.2 It was thus contended on behalf of accused persons that section 61(2) of FERA is equivalent to section 137 of the Customs Act, 1962. Since the CBI has failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of section 137 of the Customs Act, 1962, cognizance taken was bad in law. Reliance was also placed on citation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal appeal number 1097 of 2003 in case titled "Radhey Shyam Kejriwal versus State of West Bengal and another" vide its order dated 18.02.2011. 7.3 It was vehemently argued by learned defence counsel that no statement of accused persons were recorded under section 161 and 164 of Cr. P.C. as well as under section 107-108 of the Customs Act, 1962. No recovery is affected from accused persons as such from their person, office or residence etc. It was highlighted that the witnesses are hostile in nature and there is Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.08 16:37:00 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:08.12.2025 Page 16 of 41 CBI 420/2019 CBI VS. SURJIT SINGH CHOPRA & ORS nothing on record to connect the accused with the alleged offences. Further, there is otherwise no statement of the Postal Department officials or the Customs officers nor any complaint by them against the accused persons.
7.4 It was lastly contended that there are many contradictions in the testimonies of witnesses and benefit of the same should be given to accused persons. It was prayed for acquittal of the accused persons.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
8. I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the case file.
8.1. The points of determination in the present case are as follows:-
1. Whether the accused persons hatched a criminal conspiracy on or before 08.06.2001/09.06.2001 with the object to cheat the Customs Department, Government of India, to illegally export/send foreign currency i.e. US dollars to Hong Kong by keeping US Dollars in parcels/envelopes booked through Connaught Place, Post Office while knowingly/ intentionally making false declarations that the parcels contained "documents"
and knowingly or having reasons to believe that the currency notes comes under prohibited goods which cannot be exported?
2. Whether the accused persons fraudulently or dishonestly booked two parcels bearing no.EE238326002IN and EE238326016IN addressed to Chung Hung Choi Normal, 36-44, Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.08 16:37:10 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:08.12.2025 Page 17 of 41 CBI 420/2019 CBI VS. SURJIT SINGH CHOPRA & ORS Nathan Road, Chung King Arcade Shop no. 85, Ground Floor, Tsim, Sha Tsui, Kawloon, Hong Kong containing 25000 US $ in each envelopes while declaring the contents to be "documents" and thereby attempted to cheat C.P. Post Office, Government of India, Customs Department ?
3. Whether the accused persons fraudulently used as genuine the forged envelopes which were got prepared by accused Rawail Singh Chopra in the name of fictitious/non-existing company i.e.M/s. AERO Exports Pvt. Ltd.?
4. Whether the accused declared the contents of the parcels as documents knowingly that such declaration is false in material particulars ?
5. Whether the accused persons knowingly and fraudulently attempted to export prohibited goods (currency notes) liable to be confiscated ?
9. Let us first discuss the relevant legal provisions attracted in the present case. Section 420 IPC deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. It is reproduced as under :-
"420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.--Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.08 (Neetu Nagar) 16:37:20 +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:08.12.2025 Page 18 of 41 CBI 420/2019 CBI VS. SURJIT SINGH CHOPRA & ORS liable to fine."
9.1 The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 420 are as follows:-
(i) a person must commit the offence of cheating under Section 415; and
(ii) the person cheated must be dishonestly induced to (a) deliver property to any person; or (b) make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or seal and capable of being converted into valuable security.
9.2 Cheating is an essential ingredient for an act to constitute an offence under Section 420 and is defined under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 415 of Indian Penal Code reads as under:-
"Section 415. Cheating - Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property or intentionally induces the persons so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation, property, is said to "cheat".
9.3. A fraudulent or dishonest inducement is an essential ingredient for the offence punishable under section 420 IPC. To constitute the offence of cheating, it is not necessary that the deception should be by express words, but it may be by conduct or implied in the nature of transactions itself.
Digitally signed by NEETUNEETU NAGAR Date: NAGAR 2025.12.08 16:37:33 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:08.12.2025 Page 19 of 41 CBI 420/2019 CBI VS. SURJIT SINGH CHOPRA & ORS
10. The accused persons have also been charged under section 132 and 135 of Customs Acts. Same reads as under:
"132. False declaration, false documents, etc.--Whoever makes, signs or uses, or causes to be made, signed or used, any declaration, statement or document in the transaction of any business relating to the customs, knowing or having reason to believe that such declaration, statement or document is false in any material particular, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to [two years], or with fine, or with both.
XXXXX
135. Evasion of duty or prohibitions.--[(1) Without prejudice to any action that may be taken under this Act, if any person-- (a) is in relation to any goods in any way knowingly concerned in misdeclaration of value or in any fraudulent evasion or attempt at evasion of any duty chargeable thereon or of any prohibition for the time being imposed under this Act or any other law for the time being in force with respect to such goods; or (b) acquires possession of or is in any way concerned in carrying, removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing or in any other manner dealing with any goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under Section 111 or Section 113, as the case may be; or (c) attempts to export any goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under Section 113; or (d) fraudulently avails of or attempts to avail of drawback or any exemption from duty provided under this Act in connection with export of goods, he shall be punishable,-- (i) in the case of an offence relating to,-- (A) any goods the market price of which exceeds one crore of rupees; or (B) the evasion or attempted evasion of duty exceeding 4 [fifty lakh] of rupees; or (C) such categories of prohibited goods as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify; (D) fraudulently availing of or attempting to avail of drawback or any exemption from duty referred to in clause (d), if the amount of drawback or exemption from duty exceeds 1 [fifty lakh] of rupees, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and with fine: Provided that in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.08 (Neetu Nagar) 16:37:44 +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:08.12.2025 Page 20 of 41 CBI 420/2019 CBI VS. SURJIT SINGH CHOPRA & ORS to be recorded in the judgment of the court, such imprisonment shall not be for less than one year; (ii) in any other case, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.] 2 [(2) If any person convicted of an offence under this section or under sub-section (1) of section 136 is again convicted of an offence under this section, then, he shall be punishable for the second and for every subsequent offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and with fine: Provided that in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be recorded in the judgment of the court such imprisonment shall not be for less than [one year]. (3) For the purposes of sub-sections (1) and (2), the following shall not be considered as special and adequate reasons for awarding a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than 3 [one year], namely:
-- (i) the fact that the accused has been convicted for the first time for an offence under this Act; (ii) the fact that in any proceeding under this Act, other than a prosecution, the accused has been ordered to pay a penalty or the goods which are the subject matter of such proceedings have been ordered to be confiscated or any other action has been taken against him for the same act which constitutes the offence; (iii) the fact that the accused was not the principal offender and was acting merely as a carrier of goods or otherwise was a secondary party to the commission of the offence; (iv) the age of the accused.]"
11. Let us now discuss the relevant legal provisions relating to forgery. The term "forgery" is defined in section Section 463 of IPC and same reads as follows:
"463. Whoever makes any false documents with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that the fraud may be committed, commits forgery."
11.1 Section 464 of IPC defining "making a false document" is Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.08 16:37:56 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:08.12.2025 Page 21 of 41 CBI 420/2019 CBI VS. SURJIT SINGH CHOPRA & ORS extracted below :
"464. Making a false document.--A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record--- First.--Who dishonestly or fraudulently (a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document; (b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record; (c) affixes any digital signature on any electronic record; (d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the digital signature, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or a part of document, electronic record or digital signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly.--Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with digital signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alternation; or Thirdly.--Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his digital signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration.
xxxxxx Explanation 1 - A man's signature of his own name may amount to forgery.
xxxxxx Explanation 2 - The making of a false document in the name of a fictitious person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by a real person, or in the name of a deceased person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by the person in his lifetime, may amount to forgery."
11.2 An analysis of section 464 of IPC shows that it divides Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR Date: NAGAR 2025.12.08 16:38:06 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:08.12.2025 Page 22 of 41 CBI 420/2019 CBI VS. SURJIT SINGH CHOPRA & ORS false documents into three categories:
(i) 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.
(ii) 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.
(iii) 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. The condition thus precedent for forgery is making a false document.
12. Having discussed the relevant provisions and the case laws, let us now see whether the testimonies of the witnesses in the present case inspire confidence or not.
i) PW-1 Sh. Shrikant Rai is the attesting witness to the recovery memo and recovery of typewriter. He accompanied the team of Inspector Sh. B.K. Singh in their vehicle to a shop in gali dealing in printing work at Kamla Nagar. He proved recovery memo Ex.PW1/A. He further testified that CBI team went to Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR Date: NAGAR 2025.12.08 16:38:15 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:08.12.2025 Page 23 of 41 CBI 420/2019 CBI VS. SURJIT SINGH CHOPRA & ORS Ashok Vihar at shop in the basement where typing work was going on and typewriter was seized by the CBI team vide memo Ex.PW1/B. PW1 informed a wrong date of visiting the premises i.e. of May, 2001, in his examination-in-chief which was not as per the recovery memo Ex. PW1/A dated 15.06.2001.
ii) PW-2 Tej Pal Singh is another attesting witness to the recovery memo and deposed that he went with CBI in their jeep to Kamla Nagar at shop/hall where some printing machine etc. were lying in the basement and few persons were there including one Sikh person. He testified that one typewriter and few envelopes were seized by the CBI. He proved the recovery memo already exhibited as Ex.PW1/A and Ex. PW1/B which were prepared in the basement where he had visited. This witness was cross-examined by learned PP for the CBI as he was not deposing all the facts as per the case of CBI. He did not remember if he had accompanied CBI team to the premises of M/s. Walia Communication Private Limited in Ashok Vihar on that day. He did not remember if they had visited there at the instance of accused Rawel Singh who had disclosed that 50 stickers had been got printed from there.
iii) PW3 Chander Mohan Sehtal is a formal witness who testified as to the procedure of export and import of parcels.
iv) PW4 Rajmal deposed that CBI called him in the month of July 2002 for the purpose of knowing the procedure with respect to procedure of export and import of parcel and also to verify Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.08 16:38:25 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:08.12.2025 Page 24 of 41 CBI 420/2019 CBI VS. SURJIT SINGH CHOPRA & ORS some cover of the parcels. He testified that it is mentioned on the two cover parcels (D9) that it is sent by AERO EXPORT P. LTD. 408 Ansal Chamber-2, 6, Bhikamaji Palace, New Delhi-66 to Chug Hung Choi Norman, 36-44, Nathan Road, Shop No. 85, Ground Floor, Hong Kong and further stated that it is shown on the cover that D-9 contained document in it, which were sent through speed post bearing no. EE238326002IN and on the backside of the envelope, the seal of his office was affixed and it was written "detained." He deposed that the Custom Office put the seal of detained on the envelope if there is a suspicion regarding the contents of the envelope. He identified the stamp/seal of the office used by Custom on the envelope D-9 vide Ex.PW4/A. During his cross-examination, he deposed that there is no ID number of the officers. Witness further admitted that the stamp Mark A and B do not bear the date, time and place and do not show the name of the officer, who has scrutinized the parcel. He then deposed that he did not know from where his department used to procure rubber stamps. He admitted to the suggestion that the general rubber stamps can be made from anywhere in the market.
v) PW-5 Sh. Vinod Kumar Grover was the proprietor of Grover Print Pack dealing in the business of printing. He deposed that envelopes Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B were brought by one Sardar Ji who asked him to print 50 such envelopes and he printed the matter X to X1 on 50 envelopes for price of Rs.60/-.Digitally signed by NEETU
NEETU NAGAR Date: NAGAR 2025.12.08 16:38:41 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:08.12.2025 Page 25 of 41 CBI 420/2019 CBI VS. SURJIT SINGH CHOPRA & ORS
He deposed that process of printing was through butter paper and he prepared the butter paper Ex.PW5/A. He also identified his signatures on the recovery memo Ex.PW1/A. He deposed next that at the time of visiting the CBI office, they brought Sardar Ji who got the aforesaid envelope printed from him and he identified him at that time as a person who has given the order and taken the prints. A perusal of the cross- examination of PW5 makes it manifest that he failed to identify the person who came for alleged printing. He further stated that he has not issued any bill for alleged work. He denied the leading question put by learned APP for CBI stating that he did not remember whether the CBI has disclosed the name of that person who has come for printing as Rawail Singh Chopra.
vi) PW-6 Sh. Mukesh Bhardwaj deposed that he joined the post office in the year 1989 as Shorting Assistant and he was assigned the work of sorting the letters, parcels etc. He further deposed that their department used to get parcel/letters pertaining to India as well as foreign countries sometimes. He deposed next that the authority to check the contents of the parcel lied only with Department of Custom. He further deposed that the documents Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B were the booking of Connaught Place Post Office as per the receipt affixed on it. He deposed next that he never dealt with parcels Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B. This witness denied the suggestion to the leading question asked from him by learned PP for CBI if he knows Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR Date: NAGAR 2025.12.08 16:38:51 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:08.12.2025 Page 26 of 41 CBI 420/2019 CBI VS. SURJIT SINGH CHOPRA & ORS whether the parcels Ex.PW4/A and Ex. PW4/B were given by Surjit Singh. He deposed clearly that he can not identify Surjit Singh. He deposed that he did not remember about the parcel and who had booked the parcel due to lapse of 17 years. Meaning thereby that this witness has failed to establish any connection of the accused with the parcels in question.
vii) PW-7 Sh. Vishnu Kumar was also working with Speed Post Centre, Gole Market as Sorting Assistant in the year 2001 and his job was to sort the letters and parcels.
viii) PW-8 Sh. Ishwar Singh Yadav deposed that in June 2001, he was also working with Speed Post Centre, Gole Market as Dak Assistant and his job was to sort the letters and parcels.
Both, PW-7 Vishnu Kumar Gupta and PW-8 Ishwar Singh Yadav resiled from their previous statements due to which they were cross-examined by learned APP for CBI. However, PW-7 Vishnu Kumar Gupta and PW-8 Ishwar Singh denied giving any such statement Mark P-7/A and Mark P-8/A respectively to CBI during investigation. They further denied the suggestion of learned APP for CBI that they deposed falsely at the instance of accused or with respect to identity of the accused. Learned PP for CBI failed to elicit anything favourable to the case of the prosecution during cross-examination of the said two witnesses.
ix) PW-9 Sh. Pratap Singh was posted at Foreign Post Office in Custom's Department as Deputy Commissioner during the year 2001. He deposed that during the aforesaid period, day-to-
Digitally signed by NEETUNEETU NAGAR Date: NAGAR 2025.12.08 16:39:02 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:08.12.2025 Page 27 of 41 CBI 420/2019 CBI VS. SURJIT SINGH CHOPRA & ORS
day working Inspectors were deputed who used to work with his approval and they used to go to the Speed Post Office, Foreign Post Office to see the parcels and declarations. He deposed that the name of sender and its destination were written on the envelopes Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B and same were meant for sending the document as per declaration therein. He further deposed that if there was some suspicion regarding the parcels, inspectors were authorized to open it, seize and the Custom Department also used to take action as per Custom Act.
x) PW-10 Sh. Hargobind Walia deposed that during the year 2001, he was running a shop of photostat and one employee Dinesh used to work in his shop. He deposed that it is difficult for him to identify the signature of Dinesh as he left his shop around 10-12 years back. He identified signatures of Dhanbir Singh on Ex.PW1/B and deposed that Dhanbir Singh was one of his employee working during the year 2001.During his cross- examination, he deposed that he only identified signatures of his ex-employee on basis of address mentioned on document Ex.PW-1/B. However, witness further stated that he cannot accurately tell whether the signatures are of Dhanbir Singh and that he has not seen the document Ex.PW-1/B earlier. Hence, not much reliance can be placed upon the testimony of the said witness due to material contradiction in his testimony.
xi) PW-11 Sh. Mahender Singh deposed that he retired from the Department of Post, Speed Post Centre as Superintendent. He Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR Date: NAGAR 2025.12.08 16:39:12 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:08.12.2025 Page 28 of 41 CBI 420/2019 CBI VS. SURJIT SINGH CHOPRA & ORS deposed that during the year 2001, he was in Speed Post Centre. He deposed that letter D-13 was written by SPM to CBI. He did not remember who was the SPM, Connaught Place post office during the year 2001. Witness further admitted in his cross- examination that there is no diary mentioned on document D-13 and he identified the document D-13 on basis of logo of department.
xii) PW-12 Sh. Jagat Mohan deposed that he retired from Punjab & Sind Bank. He deposed that during the year 2004, he was working in the said bank at Rajendra Place Branch, Delhi. He proved D-24 vide Ex.PW12/A containing the specimen handwriting of accused Surjeet Singh Chopra. He deposed further that due to lapse of time it will be very difficult for him to identify Mr. Surjeet Singh Chopra. He told the name of the person who gave specimen writing only by reading document Ex.PW12/A.
xiii) PW-14 Sh. Rajender Yadav stated in his examination-in- chief that he did not know who had given the order for printing of Ex.PW-5/A. During his cross-examination by learned APP for CBI, he stated that he did not remember the name of that person who had placed the order. Witness also could not identify the Rawail Singh. Hence, this witness also failed to support the case of prosecution.
xiv) PW-15 Sh. C.S.Kapoor deposed that during the year 2004, he was working as Chief Account Officer in MTNL Mobile Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR Date: NAGAR 2025.12.08 16:39:23 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:08.12.2025 Page 29 of 41 CBI 420/2019 CBI VS. SURJIT SINGH CHOPRA & ORS Service at Idgah, Near Jhandawala Delhi. He proved document D-20 vide Ex.PW15/A. He had given the documents D-21 and D-22 to the CBI vide Ex.PW15/B and Ex.PW15/C. He proved D- 19 bearing the signature of his predecessor Sh J.C Jain vide Ex.PW15/C. He deposed that the said documents might have been given by Sh. J.C.Jain to CBI pertaining to mobile No. 9868107295 and 9868101560. He deposed that the original bill was given to customers. This witness had no personal knowledge of the present case.
xv) PW-16 Sh. Ram Khelawan:- was as posted as Assistant Superintendent, RMS at Old Delhi Railway Station, Delhi in the year 2001, when a surprise check was conducted by the Superintendent of RMS, Old Delhi Railway Station, Delhi during which some suspicious articles/object were found. He proved document D-3 i.e. surprise check cum seizure memo dated 09.06.2001 vide Ex.PW16/A. Learned APP for CBI put leading question to witness but he denied the suggestion while stating in his examination-in chief that he did not remember whether CBI called him to join surprise check. This witness did not identify anyone. He deposed clearly that he did not know the accused persons in the present case and could not say whether they were present or not at the spot at the time of surprise check. He further deposed that he did not read document Ex.PW-16/A prior to his signing on it due to other duties. He could not tell as to what suspicious articles/ objects were found during the surprise check.
Digitally signed by NEETUNEETU NAGAR Date: NAGAR 2025.12.08 16:39:43 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:08.12.2025 Page 30 of 41 CBI 420/2019 CBI VS. SURJIT SINGH CHOPRA & ORS
He further could not say about whether the customs officials/ officers were also present during the surprise check. Clearly, this witness also has not supported the case of prosecution. xvi) PW-17 Sh. Ashish Kumar deposed that he was posted as Sorting Assistant at Speed Post Centre, Gole Market, New Delhi. He deposed that his job was to sort out the letters, speed post articles according to their respective destinations and to make bags. He deposed that during investigation of the present case, he was called by the CBI only once and told CBI about the nature of his work. Learned APP for CBI put leading question to him to which he replied that he did not know any person by the name of Surjit Sardar. Thereafter, he was cross- examined by Learned APP for CBI. Witness denied all suggestions of Learned APP for CBI. During his cross-examination by learned defense counsel, he admitted that that he had not done any work for accused persons in the present case. Witness further admitted that he had not taken any money from any of the accused persons in the present case. Witness further admitted suggestion that he had not seen any of the three accused persons present in the court at any point of time prior to date of deposition. Hence, this witness also failed to support the prosecution.
xvii) PW-18 Sh. Dinesh Kumar deposed that in the year 2001, he was working as Photostat Operator with M/s. Walia Communication Network Pvt. Ltd. He deposed that he used to receive payments from the customers and used to do the Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.08 (Neetu Nagar) 16:40:01 +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:08.12.2025 Page 31 of 41 CBI 420/2019 CBI VS. SURJIT SINGH CHOPRA & ORS photostate work. He deposed further that in the firm, along with him, one Mr. Prakash and Mr. Dhanvir used to work in the shop. He deposed that on 15.06.2001, a team of CBI had brought one Sardarji as he had got certain material typed from their shop during that period. He deposed that he was not aware of the material which was got typed by the said Sardarji from their shop. He further deposed that Sardarji had given the payment of Rs. 120/- to him for the work done from their shop. He testified further that he had not seen that Sardarji who was brought by the CBI team on 15.06.2001 prior to that. He deposed next that CBI team had noted something and had seized a typing machine of their shop. He further deposed that the CBI team also obtained his signatures on a note running into 1-2 pages. He proved D-6 i.e recovery memo dated 15.06.2001 bearing his signatures, prepared at M/s. Walia Communication Network Pvt. Ltd., Delhi already Ex. PW1/B. During his cross-examination, he admitted that he might have not given the receipt for the payment of Rs. 120/- made by the sardarji. No identification of the accused or of "Sardarji" was done by this witness.
xviii) PW-19 Sh. M.S. Juneja deposed that in the year 2001, he was working as Manager in Speed Post Center, Market Road, New Delhi. He deposed that on 08.06.2001, CBI team had come to the Speed Post Center, Market Road, New Delhi on the suspicion that some wrong doing was going on there for which Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR Date: NAGAR 2025.12.08 16:40:10 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:08.12.2025 Page 32 of 41 CBI 420/2019 CBI VS. SURJIT SINGH CHOPRA & ORS they required to search the Speed Post Center, Market Road, New Delhi. He further deposed that a search was conducted at the center there upon an inventory was prepared on which his signatures were obtained. He proved document D-2 i.e. surprise check memo dated 08.06.2001 vide Ex.PW19/A. He deposed that on 09.06.2001, he went to RMS, Delhi for search along with CBI team. He deposed that on envelopes being opened during the search proceedings, some dollars were found which were seized and his signatures were obtained on the papers prepared. He proved document D-3 Ex.PW-16/A i.e. surprise check cum seizure memo dated 09.06.2001 and document D-9 (Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B respectively) i.e. two envelopes (speed post parcel being sent by M/s. Arrow Export Pvt Ltd. addressed to Hong Kong). During his cross-examination by learned defence counsel, he stated that he did not remember whether any public person was also accompanying the CBI team or not. He further did not know as to who was the officer In-charge in which he was working. In his presence, there was no public witness accompanying the CBI Team for the proceedings conducted on the next date i.e. 09.06.2021. Witness further stated that due to the lapse of time, he did not remember who the owner was of envelopes in question and from where they had come. xix) PW-20 Sh. Ajay Kuma is the investigation officer of the present case and proved the steps of investigation taken by him.
He deposed that the original IO was the then inspector late S.K. Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.08 16:40:19 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:08.12.2025 Page 33 of 41 CBI 420/2019 CBI VS. SURJIT SINGH CHOPRA & ORS Lal. He completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet. He proved D-2(Ex.PW19/A Colly.) i.e. surprise cheque memo dated 08.06.2001 prepared by the Jayant Kashmiri. He deposed that D-3(Ex.PW16/A Colly.) i.e. surprise check-cum-seizure memo dated 09.06.2001 was prepared by Jayant Kashmeri. He proved D-7 (Ex.PW20/A Colly.) i.e. Disclosure Statement dated 15.06.2001 of Ravel Singh and D-8 (Ex.PW20/B Colly.) i.e. Disclosure Statement dated 15.06.2001 of accused Surjit Singh Chopra, by identifying the signatures of S.K. Lal, the then IO. He proved Page No. 45 (Ex.PW20/C), Page No. 49 (Ex.PW20/D ) and Page No. 56 (Ex.PW20/E) of D-10 i.e. Interpol reference file. He deposed that during the course of investigation of the present case, it had come forth that two parcels which had been intercepted and seized by CBI were actually containing cash to the tune of 50,000/- USD in total and not any document as was mentioned on the pasted slip of the envelope. He deposed that the said two parcels were addressed to Hong Kong therefore, it was imperative for them in the investigation to correspond with authorities concerned in Hong Kong in order to ascertain the details of addressee and other transactions, if any, which could have taken place between them and accused persons. He deposed further that during the course of the investigation it was found out that apart from the said two parcels, on early occasion there were around 8-10 parcels of similar nature which had been sent to addressee located at Hong Kong, therefore, the investigation Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR Date: NAGAR 2025.12.08 16:40:28 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:08.12.2025 Page 34 of 41 CBI 420/2019 CBI VS. SURJIT SINGH CHOPRA & ORS with the Hong Kong Authorities was also be carried out in this respect and an LR was also got issued for the same. He proved D-11 vide Ex.PW20/F i.e. Seizure Memo dated 09.06.2001 and D-12 (Ex.PW20/G) i.e. letter no. 1793 dated 08.06.2004 of SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi sent to GEQD, Shimla for opinion on writings on seized two envelopes (Q1 & Q2) vide which questioned documents, namely Q1 and Q2 (Annexure 1) alongwith the specimen handwriting of accused Surjit Singh Chopra (S1 to S20 mentioned in Annexure 2) were obtained by him in the presence of two independent witnesses and were sent to GEQD, Shimla for obtaining their opinion in terms of questionnaire given under Annexure III thereof. He proved D-15 (Ex.PW13/A) i.e. Production-cum-Seizure Memo dated 12.10.2001, D-16 (Ex.PW20/H) i.e. Seizure Memo dated 15.03.2004 vide which he seized two documents i.e. D-17 (Ex.PW20/I Colly.) and D-18 (Ex.PW20/J Colly.). D-17 was attested photocopy of agreement dated 21.02.1989 between M/s.
Ansal Properties and Industries Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Saphire Innovators Pvt. Ltd. D-18 was photocopy of the receipt no. 133727 dated 03.02.2004 of Star States Management Ltd. alongwith the copy of bill no. AC2/03-04-Q-4-1973 dated 14.01.2004 for flat no. 408 Ansal Chambers. He deposed that J C Sachdeva had certified the said documents (D-17 and D-18) in his presence and handed over to him. He proved D-20 (Ex.PW15/A) i.e. Seizure Memo dated 21.07.2004 vide which he Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.08 (Neetu Nagar) 16:40:42 +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:08.12.2025 Page 35 of 41 CBI 420/2019 CBI VS. SURJIT SINGH CHOPRA & ORS seized two original documents i.e. D-21 (Ex.PW15/B) and D-22 (Ex.PW15/C) pertaining to purchase of mobile connections for mobile no. 9868101560 in the name of accused Harpal Singh and no. 9868107295 in the name of accused Surjit Singh Chopra. He proved D-24 (Ex.PW12/A Colly.) i.e. specimen writing of Surjit Singh Chopra from Mark S1 to Mark S20. He deposed that the specimen signatures were sent to GEQD, Shimla vide Ex.PW20/G Colly. He proved D-25 (Ex.PW20/H) i.e. a letter bearing no. SP/Vig./Stt/Corr/02-03 dated 04.06.2002 to Manager, Speed Post Centre, New Delhi enclosing the document i.e. D-26 (Ex.PW20/I) i.e. Duty Roster Register from 01.01.2001 to 30.06.2001 with forwarding letter to Sh. S.K. Lal, IO of the case by Manager, Speed Post Centre, New Delhi-110001. He deposed further that the document was received by Sh. H.K. Lal and duly submitted in Malkhana. He proved Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW5 which were opened in the court containing 25000$ USD each which was issued to him for sending the same to CFSL and the words "documents" were mentioned thereon to identify the authorship. He proved D-1 (Ex.PW20/J) i.e. FIR of the case RC41A2001/CBI/ACB/New Delhi dated 09.06.2001.
During his cross-examination, PW20 admitted that he did not search the firm M/s. Chopra Exim. He could not recall what document were seized during search by previous IO of case. He admitted that the customs officers have not been made accused in the present case. He admitted that he did not search the firm M/s.
Digitally signed by NEETUNEETU NAGAR Date: NAGAR 2025.12.08 16:40:54 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:08.12.2025 Page 36 of 41 CBI 420/2019 CBI VS. SURJIT SINGH CHOPRA & ORS
Aero Export Pvt. Ltd. He admitted that he did not see any of the accused persons at the premises of M/s. Aero Exports. He admitted further that no seal was recovered from the house of accused persons. He next admitted that there was no complaint of customs department/ officer regarding the present accused persons. He admitted further that at the time of filing the charge sheet there was no sanction of prosecution from customs department. He has not got recorded the statement of accused persons under section 107and 108 of the Customs Act or under section 161 of Cr. P.C. He admitted that he had not made any recovery from any of the accused persons. He admitted further that he had not got recorded the statement under section 40 of the FERA, 1973.
13. Thus, from a careful perusal of the testimonies of the above witnesses, it has transpired that witnesses namely PW2, PW5, PW6, PW7, PW8, PW14, PW16 and PW 17 have not supported the case of the prosecution. There is nothing on record to connect the accused persons with the offence in question or the seized parcels. It was required to be proved on behalf of the prosecution that contents on the envelopes have been forged by the accused persons but there is nothing on record to prove the same. Statement of Additional SP Sh. Ajay Kumar, AC-II, New Delhi who was the IO in the present case was recorded on 22.01.2015.He stated that during the course of investigation, specimen handwriting of accused Surjit Singh was obtained and Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR Date: NAGAR 2025.12.08 16:41:05 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:08.12.2025 Page 37 of 41 CBI 420/2019 CBI VS. SURJIT SINGH CHOPRA & ORS the same along with envelopes seized during the investigation was sent to GEQD, Shimla for opinion however, no opinion could be expressed by GEQD/handwriting experts. He stated further that the GEQD requested for admitted handwritings which were not collected during the course of investigation and no occasion arose for collecting them after the charge sheet was filed. The GEQD returned the documents without any opinion and the documents were filed in the Hon'ble Court. He further submitted that as far as seized accounts are concerned nothing could be established during the course of investigation to connect the money trail from Hong Kong to those accounts. In the absence of any expert opinion with regard to the contents of parcels, there is thus absolutely nothing on record to prove the charge of forgery under section 468 and 471 IPC.
14. Furthermore, there is no direct evidence in the present case. The circumstantial evidence placed on record by the prosecution is not sufficient as there are various missing links therein. Nothing has been recovered from the accused connecting them to the offence in question. Simply on the basis of disclosure statement of accused Surjit Singh Chopra i.e. D-8 Ex.PW20/B and that of Rawail Singh Chopra i.e. D-7 Ex.PW20/A, the guilt of the accused is not established. There is no material or evidence available on record, to establish that the accused had given false declaration with regard to the parcels on question to make out any case covered under the offences under sections 132 and 135 Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2025.12.08 (Neetu Nagar) 16:41:17 +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:08.12.2025 Page 38 of 41 CBI 420/2019 CBI VS. SURJIT SINGH CHOPRA & ORS of the Customs Act, 1962. Further, there is no statement of persons who had allegedly accepted the parcels, declaration or who cleared the said parcels naming the accused persons or that the alleged parcels were prepared or booked by the accused persons, as rightly argued by learned defense counsel.
15. Learned PP on behalf of CBI has highlighted D-22 i.e. application form along with copy of PAN card and bill for allotment of mobile number 9868107295 in the name of accused Surjit Singh Chopra vide Ex. PW15/C and his call details vide Ex. PW15/D and D-21 i.e. application form along with copy of PAN card and driving license for allotment of mobile number 9868101560 in the name of accused Harpal Singh Chopra vide Ex. PW15/B and his call details Ex. PW15/D in order to argue that calls were made by the accused internationally to Hong Kong during the period of offence but the said piece of evidence is not sufficient as the prosecution has miserably failed to connect the money trail from Hong Kong to the account of the accused persons. There is nothing on record to prove the meeting of minds of the accused persons to prove conspiracy or cheating as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the charges under sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471 of IPC or charges under section 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962.
16. It is a settled law that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and burden to prove the same is Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR Date: NAGAR 2025.12.08 16:41:27 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:08.12.2025 Page 39 of 41 CBI 420/2019 CBI VS. SURJIT SINGH CHOPRA & ORS solely on the prosecution. Cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence are that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt. On the collective reading of all the material available on record, deposition of witnesses summoned by prosecution and material/ documents exhibited/ marked in their testimonies, it nowhere connects the accused to the same. There are many inconsistencies in evidence and contradictions in the testimonies of witnesses and benefit of the same is liable to be given to the accused persons.
CONCLUSION
17. Therefore, upon conspectus of the entire facts and circumstances and in view of the following discussion, it is clear that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the commission of the alleged offence by the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused namely Surjit Singh Chopra, Harpal Singh Chopra and Rawail Singh Chopra stand acquitted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 120-B read with 420/468/471 IPC and 132/135 Customs Act and 420/468/471 IPC and 132/135 Customs Act read with Section 511 IPC.
18. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties stand discharged. Accused to furnish bail bonds under Section 481 BNSS 2023 (437-A Cr.P.C). Case property be disposed of as per rules.
Digitally signed by NEETUNEETU NAGAR Date: NAGAR 2025.12.08 16:41:37 (Neetu Nagar) +0530 ACJM-06 RADC Delhi:08.12.2025 Page 40 of 41 CBI 420/2019 CBI VS. SURJIT SINGH CHOPRA & ORS
19. Copy of this judgment be given to learned PP for CBI as well as to the accused persons free of cost.
Announced in the open Digitally signed
court today i.e. 08.12.2025 NEETU
by NEETU
NAGAR
(This Judgment contains 41 pages NAGAR
Date:
2025.12.08
16:41:54
signed by the undersigned) +0530
(Neetu Nagar)
ACJM-06/RADC/New Dehi
08.12.2025
(Neetu Nagar)
ACJM-06 RADC
Delhi:08.12.2025 Page 41 of 41