Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . Om Prakash & Ors. on 7 July, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH.R P PANDEY; SPECIAL JUDGE01 (CBI)
ROHINI COURTS:DELHI
CBI No.25/09
RC 1(A)/05/SCUV/SCRII/CBI/DELHI
U/S 120B,419/420/467/468/471/474 &
12 (2)/ 13(1) PC ACT
ID NO.02404R0001812008
CBI
Vs.
1.Om Prakash son of Late Chet Ram r/o H.No.431, Sector7, Urban Estate, Gurgaon
2. Bibianus Toppo s/o Lat Joseph Toppo r/o 14G, DIZ Area, Raja Bazar, New Delhi
3. Tilak Raj Sachdeva son of Late Sh.Sada Ram Sachdeva r/o WB 146A, Ganesh NagarII, Shakarpur Delhi92
4. Purshottam Lal s/o Late Sh.Ghamandi Lal CBI No.25/09 Page No.1 of 53 CBI Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
r/o 581, Pocket5, Mayur ViharI, Delhi
5. Harbhajan Yadav s/o Late Sh.Sultan Singh Yadav r/o H.No.949/1, Gali No.4, Ashok Vihar, Gurgaon, Haryana
6. R.S.Dagar son of Late Layak Ram r/o RZ60, Lokesh Park, Najafgarh, New Delhi
7. Vinod Kumar Gupta s/o Sh.Om Prakash Gupta r/o J7/2, West Jyoti Nagar, Loni Road, Delhi
8. Naresh Kumar Mathur s/o Late Sh.Krishan Chand r/o KD21/C, Ashok Vihar, PhaseI, Delhi
9. Shakuntala Devi w/o Sh.Amarjit Singh r/o 889/20, Durga Colony, Rohtak, Haryana presently residing at Block38/2D, SectorII, DIZ Area, Gole Market, New Delhi CBI No.25/09 Page No.2 of 53 CBI Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
10.Sushma Bajaj w/o Sh.Anil Bajaj r/o 1851, Outerm Line, Near Kingsway Camp,New Delhi
11.Ram Chander s/o Sh.Maman Ram r/o J624, Sardar Colony, Sector16, Rohini, Delhi
12.Monika Gupta d/o Sh.Vinod Kumar Gupta r/o Flat No.A204, Plot No.8B, Naintara Apartments, Sector7 Dwarka, New Delhi
13.Trapti Gupta d/o Sh.Vinod Kumar Gupta r/o Apartment No.S4, Plot No.C185, Ramprastha, Ghaziabad, U.P. Date of filing charge sheet : 23.04.08 Reserved for Order : 31.05.12 Date of Order : 07.07.12 CBI No.25/09 Page No.3 of 53 CBI Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
ORDER ON CHARGE:
1. As borne out of record, passports Nos. B2318967 dated 20.07.2000, B2320745 dated 25.07.2000, B2317987 dated 12.07.2000, B2318969 dated 25.07.2000 and B5000898 dated 22.07.2000 were issued by Regional Passport Office (RPO), Delhi to Vinod Kumar Gupta (A.7), Smt.Alka Gupta, Ms.Shalini Gupta, Ms.Monika Gupta (A.12) and Ms.Trapti Gupta (A.13) respectively. On 02.02.05, during search conducted by CBI all the five passports were recovered from residence of Vinod Kumar Gupta.
On scrutiny, it revealed that said passports were damaged in water and thus were unfit for further use. Accused/Vinod Kumar Gupta explained to CBI that sometime in March, 2001, aforesaid passports fell into water and got damaged.
2. On 21.05.01, accused/Vinod Kumar Gupta had applied for issue of Passports in the form of additional passport booklets in his name as well in the names of his aforesaid family members. On scrutiny of passport file nos.D004659/01, D004663/01, D004662/01, D004664/01 and CBI No.25/09 Page No.4 of 53 CBI Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
D004660/01 all dated 21.05.01, it was revealed that a request letter was found in all the five files under the letterhead of M/s Gupta International, J7/2, West Jyoti Nagar, Delhi, wherein V K Gupta had requested for issuing of passports for himself as well as for his family members. However, M/s Gupta International never functioned at the aforesaid address, reveals the investigation. Factum of filing applications for issuance of additional passports booklets, was found incorrect, since V K Gupta was required to submit application for issue of fresh passports in lieu of damaged passports. However, on the basis of applications made by V K Gupta, he and other members of his family were issued passport nos.B5149133, B5149132, B5149129, B5149131 and B5149130, all dated 30.05.01, in the names of V K Gupta, Smt.Alka Gupta, Ms.Shalini Gupta, Ms.Monika Gupta and Ms.Trapti Gupta respectively.
3. On 10.06.01, V K Gupta lodged a complaint with Baghpat Police Station about loss of a bag, containing documents including aforesaid passports. However, Superintendent of Police, Baghpat confirmed that V K Gupta had lodged a complaint on 10.06.01 at Baraut PS about loss of a bag. Since there was no mention in the complaint about theft of bag, no case was CBI No.25/09 Page No.5 of 53 CBI Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
registered. His bag, so lost, was not yet recovered. After loss of passports dated 30.05.01, V K Gupta submitted passport application forms on 03.10.02 for issue of passport in the form of second additional passport booklets for himself as well as his family members. All the application forms detail C12, Meera Bagh, New Delhi as residential address of applicants, which address was found nonexistent. Said applications were processed in passport file nos.T007625/02, T007626/02, T0007622/02, T007623/02 and T007624/02 of Vinod Kumar Gupta, his wife Smt.Alka Gupta, his daughters, namely, Ms.Shalini Gupta, Ms.Monika Gupta and Ms.Trapti Gupta. Copy of ration card no.731619 dated 21.11.2000 showing address C12, Meera Bagh, New Delhi attached with application forms were found fictitious. The copies of passports dated 30.05.01 (which were already lost in the bag in Baraut, Meerut on 10.06.01) were attached with the applications. On the basis of applications filed on 03.10.02, passport Nos.E3063436, E3063434, E3063439, E3063437 and E3063438 all dated 04.10.02, were issued in favour of V K Gupta and his family members, which were received under signatures of V K Gupta.
4. Ms.Asia, Superintendent stated that in all passport file CBI No.25/09 Page No.6 of 53 CBI Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
Nos.T7622 to T7626/02, Om Prakash, PRO had passed grant orders for issue of passports in the name of aforesaid applicants. She signed those passports with observation that "PRO proceeded on shortleave" with date 04.10.02. After signing passports and passport files, it were taken by concerned clerk for delivery and thereafter she had not dealt with the files. All the passport files were processed by Purshottam Lal, UDC, on 03.10.02 and Om Prakash, PRO, passed grant orders for issue of passports on that very day.
5. Investigation further reveals that Naresh Kumar Mathur, R/oKD21/C, Ashok Vihar, PhaseI, Delhi, submitted passport application forms for issue of passport in the form of additional passport booklets in the names of Vinod Kumar Gupta, Smt.Alka Gupta, Ms.Shalini Gupta, Ms.Monika Gupta and Ms.Trapti Gupta, on 30.01.03. His applications were processed in passport file nos.T001109/03, T001110/03, T001111/03, T001112/03 and T001114/03 respectively. He filled up all application forms in his own handwriting and enclosed photocopies of passports dated 30.05.01, which were reported lost at Baraut (Meerut) on 10.06.01. He pasted his own photograph in the passport application form of Vinod Kumar CBI No.25/09 Page No.7 of 53 CBI Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
Gupta. He was issued passport No.E471606 dated 04.03.03. However passport no.E4231813 dated 31.01.03 issued in the name of Ms.Alka Gupta, was received by Naresh Kumar Mathur by signing as Vinod Kumar Gupta, husband of Ms.Alka Gupta. Similarly, he received passport nos.E4231812, E4231819 and E4231815 of Ms.Shalini Gupta, Monika Gupta and Trapti Gupta respectively, showing himself as father of the girls. Passport application forms were received by Purshottam Lal, UDC, RPO, New Delhi on 29.01.03 under his signatures and he mentioned amount required to be paid to obtain additional passport booklets on the request letters, which were accepted by Om Prakash, PRO, RPO Office, New Delhi and ordered for issue of additional passport booklets on 31.01.03. Om Prakash passed grant orders in this regard also on 30.01.03 and passports were issued to Naresh Kumar Mathur. Thus, Naresh Kumar Mathur had obtained these passports on 31.01.03 with a malafide intention and in criminal conspiracy with passport officials of RPO, New Delhi with his full knowledge that he was not Vinod Kumar Gupta and that said lady/girls were not his wife/daughters.
6. Again on 04.04.03, Naresh Kumar Mathur submitted two sets of passport applications for issue of passports in the form of additional CBI No.25/09 Page No.8 of 53 CBI Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
passport booklets in the name of Vinod Kumar Gupta and Smt.Alka Gupta. He adopted the same procedure as has been mentioned above. Passport file was processed by Tilak Raj Sachdeva, Asstt.RPO, New Delhi, who had recommended for issue of passport. Naresh Kumar Mathur obtained passport nos.E4871768 and E4871767 both dated 06.05.03 in the names of Vinod Kumar Gupta and Smt.Alka Gupta by signing as Vinod in respective passport files and passport delivery register. Thus, Naresh Kumar Mathur obtained these passports on 06.05.03 with a malafide intention and in criminal conspiracy with officials of RPO, New Delhi, knowing well that he was not Vinod Kumar Gupta and Smt.Alka Gupta was not his wife.
7. Similarly, Naresh Kumar Mathur submitted passport forms on 07.05.03 in the names of Ms.Monika Gupta and Ms.Trapti to obtain passports in the form of additional passport booklets by adopting aforementioned modus operandi. Passport file was processed by Tilak Raj Sachdeva, Asstt., and Passport Nos.E4871925 and E4871924, both dated 08.05.03, were issued in the names of Ms.Monika Gupta and Ms.Trapti Gupta under signatures of P K Kapoor, Superintendent. Thus, Naresh Kumar Mathur again obtained aforesaid passports by impersonating himself CBI No.25/09 Page No.9 of 53 CBI Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
as Vinod Kumar, father of aforesaid girls.
8. On 26.05.03, Vinod Kumar Gupta (A.7) and Smt.Alka Gupta submitted applications for issue of passports in the form of additional passport booklets in their names. They had enclosed with application forms, copies of original passport Nos.B2318968 dated 20.07.2000 and B2320745 dated 25.07.2000 and an affidavit dated 24.05.03, stating therein that their passports were damaged on 14.05.03, which were their first passport. They did not mention about first additional booklets issued to them on 30.05.01. Their files were processed by Sh.R S Dagar on 03.06.03, who noted that applicant be granted duplicate passport on account of damaged passports, which was granted by Sh.Krishan Kumar, Superintendent, on 03.06.03. Thus, Vinod Kumar (A.7) and his wife Smt.Alka Gupta were issued passport nos.E5516056 and E5516055, both dated 03.06.03, under signatures of Sh.Krishan Kumar, Superintendent.
9. Ms.Monika Gupta had also adopted aforesaid modus operandi to get issued a passport in the form of additional passport booklet in her name. Her passport file was processed by Sh.R S Dagar on 25.02.03 CBI No.25/09 Page No.10 of 53 CBI Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
and granted by Sh.Y K Kaushal, Superintendent/RPO Office, on 26.02.03. Sh.Om Prakash accepted said application on 25.02.03 and marked for 26.02.03 for issue of booklet. Thus, Ms.Monika was issued passport No.E4714262 dated 26.02.03.
10. Investigation further reveals that Sh.Naresh Kumar Mathur again submitted fresh applications on 16.12.03 for issue of passports in the form of additional passport booklets in the names of Vinod Kumar Gupta, Smt.Alka Gupta, Ms.Shalini Gupta, Ms.Monika Gupta and Ms.Trapti Gupta and enclosed first passport booklets Nos.B5149133, B5149132, B5149129, B5149131 and B5148130, all dated 30.05.01. These passport applications were processed by Sh.Harbhajan Yadav, UDC, on 16.12.03 in passport file nos.T015959, T015902, T015901, T015960 and T015961. Orders for issue of passports were granted by accused/Bibianus Toppo, Superintendent, on 17.12.03 and signed by him, on 18.12.03. Thus, passport nos.E7314592, E7314597, E7314598, E7314591 and E7314596, all dated 18.12.03 were issued in the name of Sh.Vinod Kumar Gupta, Smt.Alka Gupta, Ms.Shalini Gupta, Ms.Monika Gupta and Ms.Trapti Gupta respectively, under signatures of accused/Bibianus Toppo, which were acknowledged by Sh.Naresh Kumar CBI No.25/09 Page No.11 of 53 CBI Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
Mathur by signing the respective passport application files and passport delivery registers. Similarly, Sh.Naresh Kumar Mathur again submitted passport applications on 02.02.04 in the names of aforesaid persons. However, in the application Sh.Vinod Kumar Gupta, he affixed his own photograph. Thereafter, passport applications were processed by accused/Harbhajan Yadav and accused/Bibianus Toppo granted orders for issue of passport nos.E7711488, E7711489, E7711487, E7711485 and E7711486, all dated 25.02.04, issued in the name of Sh.Vinod Kumar Gupta, Smt.Alka Gupta, Ms.Shalini Gupta, Ms.Monika Gupta and Ms.Trapti Gupta respectively, under signatures of accused/Bibianus Toppo. Sh.Naresh Kumar Mathur acknowledged issuance of said passports by signing respective passport files and delivery registers. However, investigation reveals that accused/Harbhajan Yadav and Bibianus Toppo did not ensure cancellation of previous passports i.e dated 18.12.03, before issuing fresh passports to Sh.Naresh Kumar Mathur.
11. Ms.Trapti Gupta had also got issued passport no.E8580784 dated 28.05.04 in her name by adopting aforementioned modus operandi. Her passport application was also processed by CBI No.25/09 Page No.12 of 53 CBI Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
accused/Harbhajan Yadav and order for grant of issue of passport was issued by accused/Bibianus Toppo, who put up his signatures on the said passport. Accused/Harbhajan Yadav did not sign at the space, which was required to be signed by him in token of having cancelled and returned the old passport of applicant.
12. During investigation, it is revealed that accused/Naresh Kumar Gupta was identified as Sh.Vinod Kumar Gupta by Sh.Samresh Maggon, Sales Manager of Ms.Atlanta Travels Pvt. Ltd. When statement of Sh.Samresh Maggon was recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC, he clearly mentioned that accused/Naresh Kumar Mathur visited M/s Atlanta Travels Pvt Ltd., M23, Connaught Circus, New Delhi and introduced himself as Vinod Kumar, who purchased air tickets in the names of Sh.Vinod Kumar Gupta, Smt.Alka Gupta, Ms.Shalini Gupta, Ms.Monika Gupta and Ms.Trapti Gupta. He further stated that photographs pasted on the passport files nos.T1109/03, T3524/03, T15959/03 and T2744/04 of Sh.Vinod Kumar Gupta, were in fact of accused/Naresh Kumar Mathur, who had come to his office to purchase air tickets. He also unfolds that on every occasion, accused/Naresh Kumar Mathur had visited him personally and purchased air tickets, for which he CBI No.25/09 Page No.13 of 53 CBI Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
had issued invoices on 20.05.03, 15.09.03, 01.12.03 and 22.03.04.
13. It is also revealed during investigation that Smt.Shakuntala Devi, Asstt., had cleared passport file no.T3524/03 of Vinod Kumar Gupta, T4857/03 of Ms.Trapti Gupta and T4860/03 of Ms.Monika Gupta in HIT Section, without mentioning details of earlier passports issued to said applicants. Smt.Sushma Bajaj, Asstt., had cleared passport file nos.T007625/02, T003523/03 and T001109/03 of Vinod Kumar Gupta, T007626/02 and T001110/03 of Smt.Alka Gupta, T007622/02 and T001111/03 of Ms.Shalini Gupta, T007623/02 and T001112/03 of Ms.Monika Gupta, besides passport file nos.T007624/02 and T1114/03 of Ms.Trapti Gupta in HIT Checking Section, without pointing out about issue of earlier passports and additional passport booklets in their favour. Accused/Ram Chander, LDC had cleared passport file nos.T015959/03, T002744/04 of Vinod Kumar, T015902/03, T002748/04 of Smt.Alka Gupta, T002747/04 of Ms.Shalini Gupta, T002076/03, T015960/03, T002746/04 of Ms.Monika Gupta and passport file nos.T015961/03, T002745/04 and T009924/04 of Ms.Trapti Gupta in HIT Checking Section, without raising any objection about issue of earlier passport in the name of aforesaid applicants. CBI No.25/09 Page No.14 of 53
CBI Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
14. Since HIT Section had a facility in computer system to see photographs and signatures of passport holders and in case of dissimilarity of particulars, it was required to be pointed out by officials working in it. Thus accused/Sushma Bajaj, Shakuntala Devi and Ram Chander had performed their duties in HIT Section, but did not mention dissimilarity of particulars in respect of aforesaid applicants. Embarkation and disembarkation cards prepared in the names of aforementioned applicants establish that same were filled by accused/Naresh Kumar Mathur in his own handwriting. However, in case of accused/Vinod Kumar Gupta, he had signed as Vinod on such cards. GEQD has also opined that passport application forms available in passport files were written by accused/Naresh Kumar Mathur and passports were acknowledged by him as "Vinod" in the passport delivery register as well as respective passport files.
15. I have heard arguments advanced by Ld. Public Prosecutor for CBI and the Ld. Counsels for the accused persons and also perused the written arguments filed on behalf of accused Bibianus Toppo (A.2) alongwith the records of the case including the statement of witnesses recorded by CBI CBI No.25/09 Page No.15 of 53 CBI Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
u/s 161 of Cr.PC and the documents relied upon by CBI for proving the case.
16. Sh.Vipin Sanduja, Ld. Counsel for Om Parkash (A.1) has submitted that accused Om Parkash is not involved in the act of forgery or cheating. He has submitted that since HIT Section did not make any adverse remarks in the file and therefore, there was no tool available to accused Om Parkash to check the genuineness of the application.
17. On the other hand, it has been submitted by Ld. Public Prosecutor that accused Om Parkash had granted the passport despite the fact that the address of the applicants had changed and their address of C12, Meera Bagh, New Delhi was non existing address which was not even got verified by him. Ld. Public prosecutor has submitted that the involvement of accused Om Parkash (A.1) is clear as he deliberately ignored these facts and conspired with private persons and other officials of RPO, Delhi in issuing the passports in the form of additional booklets on the basis of forged documents and false informations.
18. Mr.Sanduja has further submitted that for cheating and CBI No.25/09 Page No.16 of 53 CBI Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
forgery, some wrongful gain or loss to someone is necessary and, therefore, if someone goes abroad on a fake passport it does not cause any loss to anyone. In this respect, I am in consonance with the submission of Ld. Public Prosecutor that the wrongful gain was caused to the person who may have unauthorizedly travelled abroad on a fake passport so that he may not return back to India and wrongful loss was caused to Govt. of India as it suffers in its reputation when a citizen of India goes abroad by concealing his real identity and does not return back.
19. Mr.Sanduja, has then submitted that there is no document or evidence to show that there is conspiracy in the terms as defined u/s 120 A of IPC. In this respect the court is of the view that the conspiracy has to be deduced and found out from circumstances which the prosecution seeks to establish against the accused persons and there may not be any direct evidence of entering into conspiracy between accused persons. It has been further submitted by him that sanction for prosecution of offences under various sections of IPC was also required to be obtained by the CBI u/s 197 Cr.PC, besides sanction for prosecution of accused u/s 19 of PC Act. In this respect it is settled position of law that once the sanction u/s 19 of PC CBI No.25/09 Page No.17 of 53 CBI Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
Act is available for prosecuting a public servant and the main offence alleged against such a public servant is one under PC Act, the separate sanction u/s 197 of Cr.PC for prosecuting such a Govt. servant may not be required. He has also pointed out that in the sanction order for prosecution of accused, the competent authority has not only granted sanction for prosecution for the offences under P.C.Act but he has also granted sanction to prosecute for any other offences. He has submitted that such a sanction is not a valid sanction . I find that while granting the sanction for prosecution of accused public servants, sanctioning authority has not only sanctioned prosecution of accused for the offences under the provisions of P.C.Act but also for the offences punishable under any other provisions of law in respect of the acts alleged. In my considered opinion use of such words in the sanction order do not per se vitiate the sanction granted for prosecution of an accused public servant u/s 19 of PC Act as the sanction order is otherwise well reasoned and prima facie shows the application of mind by the sanctioning authority. However, if in the eventuality, trial of accused public servants takes place, and therein it is found in the evidence that accused public servants were performing their duties in routine or normal course of official business, then the validity of sanction granted for prosecuting them CBI No.25/09 Page No.18 of 53 CBI Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
will be considered at that stage in the light of the evidence which may surface during the trial.
20. Ld. Counsel for accused Om Parkash has also submitted that the act of commission or omission on the part of accused Om Parkash at the best, may result into violation of provisions of Passport Act for which he could be liable to be prosecuted u/s 12 (3) of Passport Act, 1967 but he is not liable to be prosecuted for the offences u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 but the sanction for prosecution of accused Om Parkash and other accused public servants under the provisions of Passport Act, 1967 has not been obtained. In this respect I find that same ingredients of an offence may also entrench upon the ingredients of offences punishable under different provisions of law but it does not exonerate the accused from his liability from facing trial for the offence which is made out on the basis of acts committed by him. The acts committed by accused Om Parkash may constitute an offence u/s 12 of Passport Act but when the alleged acts also constitute an offence of criminal misconduct u/s 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(d) of P.C.Act, 1988, he certainly cannot claim that he should not be prosecuted for the offences committed by him under P.C.Act.
CBI No.25/09 Page No.19 of 53
CBI Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
21. Sh.R.Ramachandran, Ld. counsel for accused Bibianus Toppo (A.2) has filed written arguments as well as made oral submissions. He has submitted that prosecution has failed to show any mens rea on the part of accused in the commission of alleged offences. In this respect, the mens rea (guilty mind) of the accused or requisite mental element has to be found out from the facts and circumstances which are to be proved by the prosecution. He has also submitted that no motive has been shown by CBI as to why Bibianus Toppo (A.2) had benefited the private persons. In this respect it suffice to say that motive is not required to be proved by the prosecution to constitute an offence. However, the facts discussed above disclose that he and other public servants had abused their position in order to obtain a valuable thing i.e.passport for private persons without there being any public interest involved in it.
22. Sh.Ramachandran has then submitted that prosecution has merely alleged certain acts of omission on the part of Bibianus Toppo (A.2) which, even if proved, would only give rise to a conclusion that he had done so only due to negligence or oversight and certainly would not CBI No.25/09 Page No.20 of 53 CBI Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
constitute an offence. He submitted that at the best it could be termed as breach of his official duties. An offence can be committed, not only by an act of commission, but it can also be done by an act of omission as well. Therefore, there is no force in the submissions of Ld. Counsel for accused Bibianus Toppo (A.2) that mere an act of omission cannot constitute a criminal offence. He has then submitted that Bibianus Toppo has worked as PIA and he has granted passport on the remarks put up by Dealing Assistant Harbhajan Yadav (A.5) who had remarked " may issue additional passport booklet valid upto (date)ECR/ECNR, observed old passport C (Cancelled) and R (returned)". He has then submitted that whatever had been done by Bibianus Toppo (A.2) was done on the basis of file put up to him by Dealing Assistant and on the basis of fact that no adverse remarks was put up by HIT Section. The officer particularly one having the power to grant a passport, cannot absolve himself with the responsibility saying that on the note, which was put up to him ,he had acted merely in mechanical manner. He cannot disown his responsibility for acts of his commissions and omissions. He has also submitted that the prosecution has failed to show any prior meeting of mind between Bibianus Toppo (A.2) and other accused persons. The meeting of mind has to be seen from the CBI No.25/09 Page No.21 of 53 CBI Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
circumstances which have to be proved by prosecution, as there could hardly be any direct evidence of conspiracy, which is usually hatched in secrecy.
23. Sh.Suresh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for accused No.3 Tilak Raj Sachdeva has also submitted that Tilak Raj Sachdeva has simply processed the application for grant of additional passport booklet. He has submitted that when the file comes to him he has no occasion to compare the photograph or signatures of the applicant with previous passport as only the photocopy of the previous passport is put up.
24. Ld. Public Prosecutor has submitted in this respect that not only the photograph and signatures of different persons were affixed on the application for additional passport booklet but even the address was also changed which was processed without any verification. The Dealing Assistant, before putting up the application for grant of additional booklet to the PIA, is required to verify everything and it was not the act to be done in mechanical manner. The lapses on the part of accused Tilak Raj Sachdeva prima facie shows a deliberate act on his part so that the passport in the form of additional passport booklet is issued to the applicants with different CBI No.25/09 Page No.22 of 53 CBI Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
photographs, signatures and address but with the same personal particulars of the previous applicants.
25. Dr.Anil Gupta, counsel for accused Purshottam Lal (A.4) and accused Smt.Sushma Bajaj (A.10) has conceded for framing of charge against them.
26. Sh.Vijay Bishnoi, Ld. counsel for accused Harbhajan Yadav (A.5) has simply stated that accused Harbhajan Yadav is being falsely implicated in this case and there is no adequate evidence to prove the acts alleged to have been committed by him and accordingly he be discharged.
27. Sh.Lalit Yadav, ld. counsel for accused R.S.Dagar (A.6) has submitted that accused R.S.Dagar has only processed one application (D.
28) which was for issuance of third additional passport booklet in the name of Monika Gupta which was accepted by him as a counter clerk. He has submitted that on the application the photograph of previous applicant is also of the same person i.e.Monika Gupta and her address was also of Jyoti Nagar and not of Meera Bagh and therefore, he is not involved in the case. CBI No.25/09 Page No.23 of 53
CBI Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
He has submitted that at the counter the formality was that the application was to be received complete in all respect and it was only the HIT Section which was having the facility of comparing the photograph and signatures of applicant. The duty of R.S.Dagar as counter clerk was to ensure that the applicant must have attached the copy of second additional passport. Not only this, he also processed the files pertaining to the application of Vinod Kumar Gupta and his wife Smt.Alka Gupta dated 26.05.03 for issuance of additional passport booklets in their names, with which they had enclosed the copies of their original passports dated 20.07.2000 and 25.07.2000 respectively although they were already issued first additional passport booklets on 30.05.01. But still R.S.Dagar recommended issuing new passport booklets to them.
28. As regards accused Vinod Kumar Gupta (A.7), his Ld. Counsel Sh.Yatinder Sharma has conceded for framing of charge against him but as regards accused Ms.Monika Gupta (A.12) and accused Trapati Gupta (A.13) he has submitted that these accused persons are daughters of accused Vinod Kumar Gupta (A.7) and although their role was similar to their mother Ms.Alka Gupta and sister Shalini Gupta but whereas they have CBI No.25/09 Page No.24 of 53 CBI Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
made witnesses in this case, accused Ms.Monika Gupta and Trapti Gupta have been implicated and charge sheeted for the similar acts. He has submitted that there is no clinching evidence to attribute criminality on the part of Monika Gupta and Trapati Gupta, as on the subsequent additional passport booklets, their names and particulars have been correctly used and they are not involved in getting the same issued with the photographs and signatures of different persons. We will see their role in subsequent paragraphs while discussing the fact in the light of evidence .
29. As regards accused Naresh Kumar Mathur (A.8) , Sh.S.C.Bhuttan, Ld. Counsel for accused, has submitted that only an offence of impersonation u/s 419 is made out against him as he had pasted photographs of some persons on the passport application and represented himself as Vinod Kumar Gupta and as husband of Ms.Alka Gupta and father of Ms.Shalini, Monika and Trapati Gupta. He has submitted that other offences are not attracted against him. We will see the actual facts and evidence to find as to charge of which offences is made out against accused Naresh Kumar Mathur.
CBI No.25/09 Page No.25 of 53
CBI Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
30. As regards accused Smt.Shakuntala Devi (A.9) it has been submitted by her Ld. Counsel Ms.Priyanka Gupta, Advocate that in the computer, the facility of looking at photographs of previous applicants was available in HIT Section only and whereas PW.15 Gopal Dutt who had cleared the HIT in respect of three passports,he has not been charge sheeted, but Smt.Shakuntala Devi has been charge sheeted for clearing HIT.
31. On the other hand, Ld. Public Prosecutor for CBI has submitted that role of PW.15 Gopal Dutt was different from accused Shakuntala Devi (A.9) as he had cleared HIT at the time of issuance of original passports and not the additional passport booklets with different photographs and signatures. He has also shown to the court the passport file (D.18) and the statement of PW S.P.Kothari who has stated that she was required to mention as to whether any passport in the same name was issued or not but she has failed to do so.
32. Ld.Public Prosecutor has also extensively agitated the statement of PW.8 S.P.Kothari to show as to what role the officials of HIT Section are required to perform. He has submitted that had she not cleared CBI No.25/09 Page No.26 of 53 CBI Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
the HIT on the file, the passport in the form of additional booklets would not have been issued to the applicants.
33. As regards accused Ram Chander (A.11) it has been submitted by his Ld. counsel Sh.R.K.Verma that accused Ram Chander has been falsely implicated in this case although he has no role in the alleged criminal conspiracy or criminal misconduct. Accused Ram Chander had cleared the files in HIT Section like accused Smt.Sushma Bajaj and Smt.Shakuntala Devi as discussed above.
34. Ld. Public Prosecutor has taken the court through the entire charge sheet, the documents and the statements of witnesses recorded by IO u/s 161 of Cr.PC. The passport files Nos.B016423 dated 24.05.2000, B016422 dated 24.05.2000, B016170 dated 22.05.2000, B016420 dated 24.05.2000 & B016168 dated 22.05.2000 pertaining to Regional Passport Office, Delhi of Vinod Kumar Gupta (A.7), his wife Smt.Alka Gupta, daughters Ms.Shalini Gupta, Ms.Monika Gupta (A.12) and Ms.Trapti Gupta (A.13) related with the issue of original passports in their respective names wherein their address is given as J7/2, West Jyoti Nagar, CBI No.25/09 Page No.27 of 53 CBI Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
Loni Road, Delhi94. On the basis of these applications they were issued Passport Nos.B2318967 dated 20.07.2000, B2320745 dated 25.07.2000, B2317984 dated 14.07.2000, B2318969 dated 25.07.2000, B5000898 dated 22.07.2000 respectively. Their passports are D.2 to D.6 and the scanned copies of their passport files are D.7 to D.11 as per the list of documents. The aforesaid original passports were recovered from the residence of Vinod Kumar Gupta (A.7) and on scrutiny it is found that the same are damaged in the water and hence unfit for further use.
35. Since the original passports were damaged, Vinod Kumar Gupta (A.7) applied on 21.05.01 for issue of passport in the form of first additional passport booklet in his name and in the name of his aforesaid family members. The Passport application registration forms were filled in by him in his own handwriting but the application for Misc. Services were not filled in by him. He had enclosed the self attested copies of old damaged passport Nos. B2318967 dated 25.07.2000, B2320745 dated 25.07.2000, B2317984 dated 14.07.2000, B2318969 dated 25.07.2000, B5000898 dated 22.07.2000 (D.2 to D.6) issued in their respective names alongwith the applications. The scrutiny of the Passport file Nos. D004659/01, CBI No.25/09 Page No.28 of 53 CBI Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
D004663/01, D004662/01, D004664/01 and D004660/01 all dated 21.05.01 revealed that a request letter was found in all the five files on the letter head of M/s Gupta International, J7/2, West Jyoti Nagar, Loni Road, Delhi requesting for issue of passport for himself and for his family members. These passport files are D.36, D.38, D.40, D.41 & D.43 respectively. It was found that M/s Gupta International had never functioned at the given address. Whereas applicants have mentioned that the additional passport booklets were required to be issued due to used up pages, the same was not found to be true since many of the pages of their old passports issued in the month of July ,2000 were lying unused. On the basis of these applications Vinod Kumar Gupta (A.7) and his family members were issued passport Nos.B5149133, B5149132, B5149129, B5149131 & B5149130 all dated 30.05.01 in the names of Vinod Kumar Gupta, Smt.Alka Gupta, Ms.Shalini Gupta, Ms.Monika Gupta and Ms.Trapti Gupta respectively.
36. Vinod Kumar Gupta (A.7) had lodged complaint with Baghpat Police Station on 10.06.01 about the loss of a bag which contained documents including the passports of his family members. Complaint of Vinod Kumar Gupta (A.7) is D.69. After loss of passports dated 30.05.01 CBI No.25/09 Page No.29 of 53 CBI Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
Vinod Kumar Gupta (A.7) had submitted further passport application forms nd on 03.10.02 for issue of passports in the form of 2 additional passport booklets for himself and his wife and aforesaid daughters which were written by him in his own handwriting but the passport application forms of his daughters Ms.Shalini Gupta and Ms.Monika Gupta were not written by him. On all the five passport application forms, the residential address was mentioned as C12, Meera Bagh, New Delhi87 and during the investigation the said address was found nonexisting. The said passport applications were processed in the passport file Nos. T007625/02, T007626/02, T007622/02, T007623/02 & T007624/02 . The copy of ration card No. 731619 dated 21.11.2000 showing to have been issued at the address C12, Meera Bagh, New Delhi and photo copies of the passport Nos. B5149133, B5149132, B5149129, B5149131 and B5149130, all dated 30.05.01 which were submitted alongwith the application dated 03.10.02 are shown as fictitious because the copies of the passports dated 30.05.01, could not be enclosed as it were already reported lost on 10.06.01 as per complaint lodged with PS Baghpat and therefore, there was no reason for there being the photo copies of those passports available to accused Vinod Kumar Gupta (A.7) to enclose the same with the passport applications dated CBI No.25/09 Page No.30 of 53 CBI Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
30.10.02. These passport files are available as D.12 to D.16. On the basis of applications filed on 03.10.02 , passport Nos. E3063436, E3063434, E3063439, E3063437 & E3063438 all dated 04.10.02 were issued in favour of Vinod Kumar Gupta, his wife and three daughters as above said, which were received by him under his signatures. It is noteworthy that the passport applications of his wife Smt.Alka Gupta and his daughters Ms. Shalini Gupta, Ms.Monika Gupta and Ms.Trapti Gupta do not contain their genuine photographs and signatures and these passport application forms were received by Pushottam Lal, UDC (A.4) posted in RPO, Delhi on 03.10.02 and he had noted the amount required to be paid to obtain the passports in the form of additional passport booklet on the request letter, which were accepted by Om Parkash (A.1), PRO in the office of RPO Delhi who had ordered for issuance of additional passport booklets on 04.10.02 and all the five passport files were processed by Purshottam Lal UDC (A.4) on 03.10.02. On 03.10.02 itself Om Parkash (A.1) had passed the grant order for issue of passport whereupon Smt. Asia, Suptd., had signed the five passports on 04.10.02 with the remarks that the PRO has proceeded on short leave.
CBI No.25/09 Page No.31 of 53
CBI Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
37. Smt.Asia has been examined as PW.30 by IO of CBI U/s 161 of Cr.PC in this respect. S/Sh.Mangat Ram, Harish Chander Goel, Rajeev Kumar & Shankar Shah have been examined by CBI u/s 161 of Cr.PC who state that there is no CBlock in Meera Bagh, New Delhi and address mentioned as C12, Meera Bagh, New Delhi on various passport applications of Vinod Kumar Gupta and his family members is not existing.
38. Sh.G.K.Sapra, GradeII Inspector, Food and Supply department, Circle No.69 has been examined as PW.35 to prove that ration card No.731619 , FPS No.8476 shown to has been issued in the name of Vinod Kumar Gupta is a fake document as it was never issued from his office. Postmen (PW.9, 10, 11 and 12) have been examined u/s 161 Cr.PC who said that there is no 'C' block in Meera Bagh. During the investigation it was discovered that Naresh Kumar Mathur (A.8) resident of KD21/C, Ashok Vihar, PhaseI, Delhi submitted passport application forms for issue of passport in the form of additional passport booklets in the names of Vinod Kumar Gupta, Smt.Alka Gupta, Ms.Shalini Gupta, Ms.Monika Gupta and Ms.Trapti Gupta on 30.01.03 and the applications were processed in the passport file Nos. T001109/03, T001110/03, T001111/03, T001112/03 & CBI No.25/09 Page No.32 of 53 CBI Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
T001114/03 respectively. These application forms were filled in by accused Naresh Kumar Mathur (A.8) in his own handwriting and alongwith these passport application forms the photo copies of passports dated 30.05.01 (which were reportedly lost on 10.06.01) were enclosed.
39. As per rule, the photocopies of previous passport were required to be enclosed with the fresh application for issue of passports in the form of additional passport booklets and therefore, in this case the photocopies of the passports dated 04.12.02 were required to be enclosed and the instant applications were submitted on 30.01.03 Accused Naresh Kumar Mathur (A.8) has pasted his own photograph in passport application form in the name of Vinod Kumar Gupta (A.7) and during search conducted at his residence on 07.09.05, visting card in the name of Vinod Kumar Gupta (A.7) showing himself as Managing Director, Hotel Manali King, Rangree, Manali and some photographs of Naresh Kumar Mathur (A.8) were recovered. These photographs of Naresh Kumar Mathur (A.8) are the same which were pasted by him on the passport application form dated 30.01.03 issued in the name of Vinod Kumar Gupta. The passport dated 30.01.03 issued in the name of Smt.Alka Gupta was received by accused Naresh CBI No.25/09 Page No.33 of 53 CBI Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
Kumar Mathur (A.8) by signing as Vinod Kumar Gupta. Similarly he has also acknowledged the passport Nos. E 4231812, E4231819 & E4231815 of Ms.Shalini Gupta, Monika Gupta & Trapti Gupta respectively by showing himself as father of these girls and he had signed as Vinod Kumar Gupta in the respective passport files and passport delivery register.
40. Naresh Kumar Mathur (A.8) was already issued a passport in his own name vide No.E 4716106 dated 04.03.03 by RPO, Delhi and there was no reason for him to obtain a passport in the name of Vinod Kumar Gupta by pasting his own photograph on the passport application form prepared in the name of Vinod Kumar Gupta. Accused Naresh Kumar Mathur (A.8) had obtained these passports on 31.01.03 with a malafide intention and in criminal conspiracy with accused Vinod Kumar Gupta (A.7) and officials of RPO, Delhi which can be derived from these facts, which have to be proved by CBI in the trial. These passport application forms were received by accused Purshottam Lal (A.4) who was UDC in RPO, Delhi on 29.01.03 under his signatures. He had mentioned the amounts required to be paid to obtain additional passport booklets on the request letters which were accepted by his coaccused Om Parkash (A.1), the then PRO, posted CBI No.25/09 Page No.34 of 53 CBI Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
at RPO Delhi, who ordered for issue of additional passport booklets on 30.01.03 and the passports were issued under his signatures on 31.01.03.
41. Naresh Kumar Mathur (A.8) had again submitted passport application forms on 04.04.03 for the issue of passports in the form of additional passport booklets in the names of Vinod Kumar Gupta and Smt.Alka Gupta and again the photocopies of their passports dated 30.05.01 were enclosed with the passport application forms and not the previous passports issued on 31.01.03 whereas accused Naresh Kumar Mathur (A.8) had used his own photographs in the name of Vinod Kumar and he had pasted photograph of one different lady in the application form in the name of Smt.Alka Gupta. Both the applications were accepted by Sh.P.K.Kapoor, Suptd., RPO, Delhi (since dead) on 04.04.03 and marked for 08.04.03 for issue of passport booklets. The issue of additional passport booklet was pending for about one month and again the file was marked for issue of booklet on 06.05.03 by Sh.U.S.Lingwal after striking out the previous date of 08.04.03. As per rule, the previous passport is required to be cancelled at the time of acceptance of the passport application form which was already done by Sh.P.K.Kapoor.
CBI No.25/09 Page No.35 of 53
CBI Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
42. Sh.U.S.Lingwall had no opportunity to see the old passports of Vinod Kumar Gupta and Smt.Alka Gupta when he passed order on 06.05.03 for issue of additional passport booklets. Since the passport No.B 5149133 & B5149132 both dated 30.05.01 were already cancelled when application was filed on 30.10.02 and , therefore, there could not be any occasion for cancelling the same passport again and again. The file was processed by Sh.Tilak Raj Sachdeva (A.3) who was posted as Assistant in RPO, Delhi who has recommended for issue of passport. Accused Naresh Kumar Mathur obtained passport Nos. E4871768 and E4871767 both dated 06.05.03 issued in the name of Vinod Kumar Gupta and Smt.Alka Gupta by signing as Vinod Kumar Gupta in respective passport file and passport delivery register. He had obtained these passports on 06.05.03 with malafide intention and in criminal conspiracy with officials of RPO, Delhi and accused Vinod Kumar Gupta which is clear and can be established by prosecution on the basis of documents and witnesses arrayed by CBI to prove the case.
43. Naresh Kumar Mathur (A.8) submitted passport application CBI No.25/09 Page No.36 of 53 CBI Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
forms on 07.05.03 in the names of Ms.Monika Gupta and Ms.Trapti Gupta to obtain passports in the form of additional passport booklets in their names and the basis of request for issue of additional passport booklets was that the pages are exhausted in the previous passport booklets due to various entries. These applications were processed in passport file Nos. T004860/03 and T004859/03 both dated 07.05.03 respectively. Sh.Naresh Kumar Mathur (A.8) had enclosed copies of first additional passport booklet Nos.B5149131 and B5149130 both dated 30.05.01 available in file No.T007623/02 of Ms.Monika Gupta is different with file No.T002076/03 (additional passport booklet) because first and last cover of the passport are different to the extent that they are typed and handwritten respectively which is not possible under any circumstances. In fact the applicants were required to enclose photocopies of their previous passports issued in the form of additional passport booklet with the applications instead of photocopies of the passport dated 30.05.01 which show the complicity of staff who processed the file. The file was processed by Sh.Tilak Raj Sachdeva (A.3),Assistant and Passport Nos. E 4871925 and E4871924 both dated 08.05.03 were issued in the names of Ms.Monika Gupta and Ms.Trapti Gupta under the signatures of Sh.P.K.Kapoor, Suptd. Naresh CBI No.25/09 Page No.37 of 53 CBI Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
Kumar Mathur (A.8) obtained the said passports by signing as Vinod in the respective passport file and passport delivery register showing himself to be the father of these girls.
44. Vinod Kumar Gupta and Smt.Alka Gupta again submitted applications on 26.05.03 for the issue of passports in the form of additional passport booklets in their names on the ground that their earlier passports were damaged by water and they enclosed copy of original passport Nos. B2318968 dated 20.07.2000 and B2320745 dated 25.07.2000 respectively alongwith and an affidavit stating therein that there passports were damaged on 14.05.03 which were their first passports but they did not mention about the issue of Ist additional passport booklet Nos. B5149133 and B5149132 both dated 30.05.2001 issued in their names on the basis of their original passports. Their original passports had already been cancelled when they were issued passports on 30.05.01. They could not have enclosed copies of the passports dated 30.05.01 with their passport applications as the same had already been lost on 10.06.01. These files were processed by R.S.Dagar (A.6), UDC on 03.06.03 who noted that the applicant could be granted duplicate passport on account of damaged CBI No.25/09 Page No.38 of 53 CBI Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
passport and the request was granted by Sh.Krishan Kumar, Suptd., on 03.06.03. These passport application forms were accepted by Sh.Krishan Kumar, Suptd., on 30.05.03 and marked for 03.06.03 for the issue of additional passport booklets. On the basis of these applications, Vinod Kumar Gupta (A.7) and Smt.Alka Gupta were issued passport Nos. E5516056 & E5516055 dated 03.06.03 under the signatures of Sh.Krishan Kumar, Suptd. These passports contained genuine photographs and signatures of Vinod Kumar Gupta and Smt.Alka Gupta but they had concealed material information about the issue of passports in their names on 30.05.01 because obtaining another additional booklet on the basis of same passport was misrepresentation of facts and moreover the passport officials deliberately ignored this fact and issued the additional booklet without proper verification from the record.
45. Ms.Monika Gupta had then requested for issue of passport in the form of additional passport booklet in her name and she enclosed copy of her original passport No.B2381969 dated 20.07.2000 whereas she was required to enclose the photocopies of the additional passport booklet No.B5149131 dated 30.05.01. She has suppressed the fact about the issue CBI No.25/09 Page No.39 of 53 CBI Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
of passport No.B5149131 dated 30.05.01 or the subsequent passports. She was issued the passport dated 30.05.01 on the basis of passport No.B2381969 dated 20.07.2000 lost by her father. Moverover when the passport dated 30.05.01 was issued, previous passport dated 20.07.2000 was cancelled and at the time of submitting application on 25.02.03 she had again enclosed the copy of the original passport No.B2381969 dated 20.07.2000 which could not have been possible because the said passport was already cancelled on 21.05.01. The file was processed by R.S.Dagar, (A.6) UDC and accepted by Om Parkash (A.1) on 25.02.03 and marked for 26.02.03 for issue of booklet and on the basis of the application, Ms.Monika Gupta was issued passport No.E4714262 dated 26.02.03.
46. Naresh Kumar Mathur had submitted fresh applications on 16.12.03 for the issue of passports in the form of additional passport booklets in the names of Vinod Kumar Gupta, Smt.Alka Gupta, Ms.Shalini Gupta, Ms.Monika Gupta and Ms.Trapti Gupta and alongwith the applications photocopies of the first additional passport booklet dated 30.05.01 were enclosed but photocopies of their passports dated 30.05.01 could not have been enclosed because the said passports were already lost on 10.06.01 as CBI No.25/09 Page No.40 of 53 CBI Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
per the complaint registered with Meerut Police. As per rule photocopies of the previous passports were required to be enclosed. Moreover the photocopies of the passports dated 30.05.01 enclosed with the applications, are hand written, whereas they were originally printed and signatures and photographs of the applicants are entirely different and do not match with their original signatures and photographs of passports issued to them during July , 2000. These passport application forms were accepted by Bibianus Toppo (A.2) on 16.12.03 and marked for 18.12.03 for the issue of additional passport booklets. All the five passport files were processed by Harbhajan Yadav (A.5), UDC on 16.12.03. The orders for the issue of passports were granted by Bibianus Toppo (A.2), Suptd. on 17.12.03 and passports were signed by him on 18.12.03. On the basis of the applications, the passports to impostors in the names of Vinod Kumar Gupta, Smt.Alka Gupta, Ms.Shalini Gupta, Ms.Monika Gupta and Ms.Trapti Gupta were issued bearing passport Nos. E7314592, E7314597, E7314598, E7314591 and E7314596 all dated 18.12.03 respectively under the signatures of Bibianus Toppo(A.2). The passports issued in their names were acknowledged by accused Naresh Kumar Mathur on 18.12.03 by signing the respective passport application files and passport delivery register as 'Vinod', who had CBI No.25/09 Page No.41 of 53 CBI Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
impersonated himself as Vinod Kumar Gupta to cheat RPO Office.
47. Accused Naresh Kumar Mathur again submitted fresh applications on 23.02.04 for issue of passports in the form of additional passport booklets in the names of Vinod Kumar Gupta, Smt.Alka Gupta, Ms.Shalini Gupta, Ms.Monika Gupta and Ms.Trapti Gupta and copies of their first additional passport booklet Nos. B5149133, B5149132, B5149129, B5149131 & B5149130 all dated 30.05.01 were enclosed with the passport application forms instead of photocopies of immediate previous passport booklet Nos. E7314592, E7314597, E7314598, E7314591 and E7314596 all dated 18.12.03. Photocopies of their passports dated 30.05.01 could not have been available because the said passports were already lost on 10.06.01. Signatures and photographs of the applicants are entirely different and do not match with their original passports on first additional passport booklets. On the application of accused Vinod Kumar Gupta (A.7), the photograph of accused Naresh Kumar Mathur was pasted in the name of Vinod Kumar Gupta. These application forms were accepted by Bibianus Toppo (A.2) on 23.02.04 and marked for 25.02.04 for the issue of additional passport booklets. Before accepting the applications for the issue of CBI No.25/09 Page No.42 of 53 CBI Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
passports in the form of additional passport booklets, Bibianus Toppo (A.2) and Harbhajan Yadav (A.5) did not ensure cancellation of previous passports dated 18.12.03. The files were processed by Harbhajan Yadav (A.5) on 23.02.04 and granted by Bibianus Toppo (A.2) on 24.02.04 and signed by him on 25.02.04. On the basis of applications, passport Nos. E7711488, E7711489, E7711487, E7711485 and E7711486 all dated 25.02.04 were issued in the names of Vinod Kumar Gupta, Smt.Alka Gupta, Ms.Shalini Gupta, Ms.Monika Gupta and Ms.Trapti Gupta respectively, under the signatures of Bibianus Toppo (A.2). Naresh Kumar Mathur had filled the said passport application forms of all the five applicants but their signatures were not made by him except the signatures made in the name of Vinod Kumar Gupta. The passports issued in their names were also acknowledged by him on 25.02.04 by signing the respective passport application files and passport delivery register.
48. Accused Trapti Gupta submitted a hand written application dated 20.05.04 with a request for issuance of new passport booklet as she was to travel abroad soon. Though she was required to enclose photocopies of the previous additional passport booklet No.B5149130 dated 30.05.01 to CBI No.25/09 Page No.43 of 53 CBI Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
obtain fresh additional passport booklet, she had enclosed self attested copies of original passport No.B5000898 dated 17.07.2000 alongwith the application. She had already been issued passport No.B5149130 dated 30.05.01 on the basis of damaged passport No.B5000898 dated 17.07.2000. She suppressed the fact of issue of passport on 30.05.01 on the basis of damaged passport dated 17.07.2000. The passport application was accepted by Bibianus Toppo (A.2) on 26.05.04 and marked for 28.05.04 for the issue of the additional passport booklet. The application was processed by Harbhajan Yadav (A.5) and ECR was granted by Bibianus Toppo (A.2) on 27.05.04 and passport was signed by Bibianus Toppo on 28.05.04. On the basis of the application, Ms.Trapti Gupta was issued passport No.E8580784 dated 28.05.04 under the signature of Bibianus Toppo (A.2) . Harbhajan Yadav (A.5) did not sign the space which was required to be signed by him in token of having cancelled and returned the old passport. He also did not mention the details of the passport cancelled by him, the photocopies of which were enclosed with the passport application form. Passport of Ms.Trapti Gupta was already cancelled when she had submitted an application on 21.05.01 for issue of passport in her name on the basis of damaged original passport and the same passport could not be cancelled CBI No.25/09 Page No.44 of 53 CBI Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
again.
49. Accused Naresh Kumar Mathur visited M/s Atlanta Travels Pvt.Ltd. M23, Connaught Circus, New Delhi and he introduced himself as Vinod Kumar Gupta and purchased air tickets in his name and in the names of Alka Gupta, Shalini Gupta, Monika Gupta and Trapti Gupta. Sh.Samresh Magon, Sales Manager, Atlanta Travels Pvt. Ltd. who has been examined by IO has identified Naresh Kumar Mathur as Vinod Kumar Gupta and stated that the photographs pasted on the passport files of accused Vinod Kumar Gupta were in fact of accused Naresh Kumar Mathur. He has stated that he had issued invoices on 20.05.03, 15.09.03, 01.12.03 and 22.03.04 for issue of tickets in the names of above said persons and payments were received in cash and Naresh Kumar Mathur had come personally on all occasions and purchased the air tickets claiming himself to be Vinod Kumar Gupta.
50. In HIT Section, there was a facility in the computer system to see the photographs and the signatures of the earlier passport holders and in case of similarity, it was required to be pointed out by the officials working in HIT section. Smt.Sushma BajajAssistant, Smt.Shakuntala Devi CBI No.25/09 Page No.45 of 53 CBI Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
Assistant and Ram Chander LDC were working in HIT section during that period.
51. Smt.Shakuntala Devi, Smt.Sushma Bajaj and Ram Chander had cleared the passport files of Vinod Kumar Gupta, Smt.Alka Gupta, Ms.Shalini Gupta, Ms.Trapti Gupta and Ms.Monika Gupta in HIT Section without pointing out about issue of earlier passports and passports issued in the form of additional passport booklets, as seen earlier. The officials of RPO, Delhi including Bhopal Dutt (PW.15), Ajay Kumar Gautam (PW.21), S.P.Kothari (PW.8) and I.M.Sabharwal (PW.41) have been examined by IO who have not only described the procedure and facility available in RPO, Delhi but also about specific roles of each of the public servant accused in this case.
52. Embarkation and disembarkation cards prepared in the names of above mentioned applicants established that the same were filled up by accused Naresh Kumar Mathur in his own handwriting in which he had mentioned the details of journey such as name of passenger, date of birth, place of birth, country of birth, nationality, passport number, place of issue, CBI No.25/09 Page No.46 of 53 CBI Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
date of issue, address, flight number, date of journey, port of disembarkation etc. and the cards were signed by him as Vinod.
53. The report of GEQD is D.78. It has been opined by handwriting expert that the passport application form of Vinod Kumar Gupta, Smt. Alka Gupta and Trapti Gupta were filled up by Vinod Kumar Gupta and he himself obtained the passports issued on 04.10.02 in his name and also in the names of his wife and three daughters by signing the passport delivery register and also the respective passport files.
54. GEQD has further opined that the passport application forms of above named applicants were also written by Naresh Kumar Mathur and receiving of passports were acknowledged by him by signing as Vinod in the passport delivery register as well as respective passport files. The request letters were also signed by him as Vinod.
55. Sanction to prosecute Om Prakash, PRO, Bibianus Toppo, Superintendent, Tilak Raj Sachdeva, Asstt., Purshottam Lal, UDC, Harbhajan Yadav, UDC, Smt.Shakuntala Devi, Asstt., Smt.Sushma Bajaj, CBI No.25/09 Page No.47 of 53 CBI Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
Asstt., R S Dagar, UDC, Ram Chander, LDC, have been obtained, as contemplated by Section 19 of P.C. Act. Sanction as contemplated by Section 15 of the Passport Act, 1957 for prosecution of Vinod Kumar Gupta, Naresh Kumar Mathur, Ms.Monica Gupta and Ms.Trapti Gupta was also obtained.
56. The sanction orders are available with charge sheet. D.1 is copy of FIR, D.2 to D.6 are the passports issued to accused Vinod Kumar Gupta, his wife and three daughters for the first time in July, 2000. D.7 to D. 11 are scanned copies of the passport files pertaining to aforesaid passports, D.12 to D.44 are the files of RPO Delhi vide which all the subsequent passports in the names of accused Vinod Kumar Gupta, his wife and three daughters, were processed and got issued, D.45 to D.47 are passport delivery registers of RPO, Delhi vide which passports in the names of Vinod Kumar Gupta and his family members were delivered, D.48 are their embarkation/disembarkation cards, the invoices for issuance of air tickets in names of Vinod Kumar Gupta and his family members on various dates are D.49 to D.59, complaint of Vinod Kumar Gupta with U.P.Police about loss of his bag containing passports is D.69. Search list of house of accused CBI No.25/09 Page No.48 of 53 CBI Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
Naresh Kumar Mathur is D.71. His visiting card as M.D. Of Hotel Manali King is D.72, his passport size photographs are D.73 and passport is D.74. Besides bringing on record the documents as per list of documents submitted by CBI alongwith charge sheet, CBI has examined various witnesses u/s 161 of Cr.PC to prove the allegations. In fact statements of 48 witnesses are available on record which have been perused carefully. Sh.Samresh Maggon has been examined as PW.1 who has stated accused Naresh Kumar Mathur had introduced himself as Vinod Kumar Gupta and purchased air tickets on four occasions from his travel agency M/s Atlanta Pvt. Ltd. on the passports issued in the names of Vinod Kumar Gupta, Smt.Alka Gupta, Ms.Shalini Gupta, Ms.Monika Gupta and Ms.Trapti Gupta against payments in cash. The passport officials namely S/Sh.Krishan Kumar, Raj Singh, Charanjit Sharma, Yogesh Kumar Kaushal, S.P.Kothari, Rohtash Kumar, Laxman Singh, Bhopal Dutt, Rajinder Singh, Brij Mohan, Tara Dutt Joshi, Suman Kumar Sehgal, Arun Kumar Singh, Ajay Gautam, Ashok Kumar Bhatia, Puran Chand, Amit Kumar Sharma, Rajesh Meena, Vishamber Dutt, Jeevan Singh, Om Parkash Ghanshala, Usha Saxena, Asia, Anita Bhatnagar, Govind Lal Sachdev, G.D.Joshi, I.M.Sabharwal have been examined by CBI to prove processing the files in RPO, Delhi and other facts CBI No.25/09 Page No.49 of 53 CBI Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
including the rules and procedure for issuance of passport/additional passport booklet. Sh.Sanjiv Jain has been examined as PW.31 who is partner of accused Naresh Kumar Mathur to identify the photograph of accused Naresh Kumar Mathur and to prove that Ms.Alka Gupta is not wife of Naresh Kumar Mathur and that Ms.Shalini Gupta, Ms.Monika Gupta and Ms.Trapti Gupta are also not his daughters. Sh.Ravi Kant Gupta has been examined as PW.36 who is younger brother of Vinod Kumar Gupta to prove passport files and embarkation and disembarkation cards in respect of Vinod Kumar Gupta and his family members. Sh.Rakesh Awasthi will prove the sale of air tickets in the name of Vinod Kumar Gupta and his family and he will also identify Vinod Kumar Gupta and Naresh Kumar Mathur. PW.39 Anil Gupta will prove the search conducted at the residence of Sh.P.K.Kapoor and PW.40 Smt.Shobha Kapoor will prove death of her husband on 11.09.04. Ms.Sheena Mathur wife of Naresh Kumar Mathur has been examined as PW.44. She will prove the photographs of Naresh Kumar Mathur pasted in the name of Vinod Kumar Gupta on the passport application forms available in passport file Nos.T1109/03, T3524/03, T15959/03, T2744/04. PW.45 Ms.Neema Mathur and Smt.Madhu Mathur are also with respect to the same facts. GEQD Dr.B.A.Vaid is PW.50 who gave opinion on the questioned CBI No.25/09 Page No.50 of 53 CBI Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
documents and PW. 51 Mr. R.Swaminathan is sanctioning authority who has given sanction under the Passport Act, 1967 and under PC Act, 1988.
57. Out of facts and available evidence detailed above, it is prima facie clear that accused Om Prakash, PRO, Bibianus Toppo, Superintendent, P K Kapoor, Superintendent, Tilak Raj Sachdeva, Asstt., Purshottam Lal, UDC, Harbhajan Yadav, UDC, Vinod Kumar Gupta, Naresh Kumar Mathur, Smt.Shakuntala Devi, Asstt., Smt.Sushma Bajaj, Asstt., R S Dagar, UDC, and Ram Chander, LDC entered into a criminal conspiracy to obtain fresh passports and additional passport booklets fraudulently from RPO, New Delhi by impersonation, cheating and forgery. Aforesaid passport officials in conspiracy with accused/Vinod Kumar Gupta and Naresh Kumar Mathur did not ask the applicants to produce their previous passport booklets for observation and cancellation, on each occasion. Passport dated 30.05.01 was shown to have been cancelled, which was reportedly lost on 10.06.01. However, same passport could not be cancelled again and again and could not be made basis for issue of several passports in the same name. The aforesaid public servants were legally bound to protect the interest of RPO, New Delhi. Despite that legal obligation, they cheated RPO, New Delhi.
CBI No.25/09 Page No.51 of 53
CBI Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
58. As regards accused Monika Gupta (A.12) and Ms.Trapti Gupta (A.13), I am in agreement with their Ld. Defence counsel that their role is not different from their mother Smt.Alka Gupta and another sister Ms.Shalini Gupta who have been made witnesses in this case whereas they have been implicated as accused. They are the daughters of accused Vinod Kumar Gupta (A.7) who was instrumental in the conspiracy of cheating and forgery and even if they have filled the application forms for passports dated 03.10.02 with wrong address, it can be understood that it must have been done by them at the asking of their father accused Vinod Kumar Gupta (A.7). To my mind , it would not make them the part of criminal conspiracy or forgery and therefore, in my considered opinion, they also deserve parity with their mother Smt.Alka Gupta and sister Shalini Gupta whose role are more or less similar to their role, who have not been arrayed as accused in this case. Therefore, I direct that Ms.Monika Gupta (A.
12) & Trapti Gupta (A.13) be discharged. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties stand discharged.
59. It is ordered that as against remaining accused persons i.e.Om Parkash (A.1), Bibianus Toppo (A.2), Tilak Raj Sachdeva (A.3), CBI No.25/09 Page No.52 of 53 CBI Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
Purshottam Lal (A.4), Harbhajan Yadav (A.5), R.S.Dagar (A.6), Vinod Kumar Gupta (A.7), Naresh Kumar Mathur (A.8), Shakuntala Devi (A.9), Sushma Bajaj (A.10) & Ram Chander (A.11), the formal charge be framed against them u/s 120B r/w section 420/468 & 471 r/w section 468 IPC, Section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 and section 12 (1)(b) of Passport Act, 1967. As regards accused Om Parkash (A.1), Bibianus Toppo (A.2), Tilak Raj Sachdeva (A.3), Purshottam Lal (A.4), Harbhajan Yadav (A.5), R.S.Dagar (A.6), Smt.Shakuntala Devi (A.9), Sushma Bajaj (A.10) & Ram Chander (A.11) charge be framed against them for substantive offence u/s 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(d) of PC Act. The charge for substantive offences be also framed u/s 419/420/468 & 471 r/w 468 IPC and section 12 (1)(b) of Passport Act, 1967 against accused Vinod Kumar Gupta (A.7) and Naresh Kumar Mathur (A.8)
60. It is clarified that nothing in this order shall tantamount to adjudication of any fact or be taken as comment on the merits of the case.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (R.P.PANDEY )
COURT ON 07.07.12 SPL.JUDGECBI(01)
ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
CBI No.25/09 Page No.53 of 53
CBI Vs. Om Prakash & Ors.