Delhi District Court
State Through Cbi vs . Om Prakash & Others on 27 March, 2018
State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER BHAT
SPECIAL JUDGE, CBI-01, NORTH-WEST DISTRICT
ROHINI COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
CBI No. : 75/16 (Old No. 25/09)
CNR No. : DLNW01-000068-2008
FIR No. : RC-1(A)/2005/SCU-V/CBI/SCR-II/New Delhi
Police Station: CBI/SCU-V/SCR-II/New Delhi
U/Sec: 120B r/w 420/468/471/474 IPC and
Section: 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act 1988 and
Section: 12(1) (b) of Passport Act 1967
STATE
THROUGH
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
NEW DELHI
VERSUS
CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 1 of 171
State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others
1. Om Prakash
S/o Late Sh. Chet Ram
R/o H. No. 431, Sector-7
Urban Estate,
Gurgaon.
..........Accused No. 1
2. Bibianus Toppo
S/o Late Joseph Toppo,
R/o H. No. 770,
Block No. 11, Baba Kharak Singh Marg,
New Delhi-110001.
..........Accused No. 2
3. Tilak Raj Sachdeva
S/o Late Sh. Sada Ram Sachdeva
R/o A-33, First Floor,
Chander Nagar,
Ghaziabad.
..........Accused No. 3
4. Purshottam Lal
S/o Late Sh. Ghamandi Lal
R/o 581, Pocket-5,
Mayur Vihar-I
Delhi.
..........Accused No. 4
CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 2 of 171
State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others
5. Harbhajan Yadav
S/o Late Sultan Singh Yadav,
R/o H. No. 949/1, Gali No. 4,
Ashok Vihar, Gurgaon,
Haryana.
..........Accused No. 5
6. R.S. Dagar
S/o Late Sh. Layak Ram
R/o RZ-60, Lokesh Park,
Nazafgarh,
New Delhi.
..........Accused No. 6
7. Vinod Kumar Gupta
S/o Sh. Om Prakash Gupta
R/o J-7/2, West Jyoti Nagar
Loni Road,
Delhi.
..........Accused No. 7
8. Naresh Kumar Mathur
S/o Late Sh. Krishan Chand
R/o KD-21/C,
Ashok Vihar, Phase-I,
Delhi.
..........Accused No. 8
CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 3 of 171
State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others
9. Shakuntala Devi
W/o Sh. Amarjeet Singh,
R/o 55, Ground Floor,
Laxmi Nagar, Kishan Kunj,
Part-I, Delhi.
..........Accused No. 9
10. Sushma Bajaj
W/o Sh. Anil Bajaj,
R/o 1851, Outerm Line,
Kingsway Camp,
Delhi.
..........Accused No. 10
11. Ram Chander
S/o Sh. Maman Ram,
R/o J-624, Sardar Colony,
Sector-16, Rohini,
Delhi.
..........Accused No. 11
12. Monika Gupta
D/o Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta
R/o Flat No. A-204, Plot NO.. 8-B
Naintara Apartment,
Sector-7, Dwarka,
New Delhi.
(Discharged vide order dated 07.07.2012)
..........Accused No. 12
CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 4 of 171
State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others
13. Trapti Gupta
D/o Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta
R/o Apartment No. S-4,
Plot No. C-185, Ramprastha,
Ghaziabad.
(Discharged vide order dated 07.07.2017)
..........Accused No. 13
Date of Institution : 23.04.2008
Date of judgement reserved on : 13.03.2018
Date of pronouncement of judgement : 27.03.2018
Appearance : Sh. Neetu Singh, Ld. PP for CBI.
Sh. Ashok Kumar, Ld. Counsel for accused
Om Prakash (A1).
Sh. R. Ramachandran, Ld. Counsel for
accused Bibianus Toppo (A2).
Sh. Sukhvinder Singh, Ld. Counsel for
accused Tilak Raj Sachdeva (A3),
Harbhajan Yadav (A5), R.S. Dagar (A6) and
Ram Chander (A11).
Dr. Anil Gupta, Ld. Counsel for accused
Purushottam Lal (A4) and Sushma Bajaj
(A10).
Sh. Dalvinder Singh, Ld. Counsels for
accused Vinod Kumar Gupta (A7).
Sh. S.C. Buttan, Ld. Counsel for accused
Naresh Kumar Mathur (A8).
Sh. Ravinder Mann, Ld. Counsel for
accused Shakuntala Devi (A9).
CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 5 of 171
State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others
J U D G E M E N T :-
1. The above noted accused had been charge-sheeted by the CBI (investigating agency as well prosecuting agency in this case) for committing offence under Section 420/468/471/474/120B IPC and Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 12 (1) (b) of Passport Act, 1967. A1 Om Prakash and A2 Bibianus Toppo were posted as Passport Issuing Authority at the relevant time, A3 Tilak Raj Sachdeva, A4 Purushottam Lal, A5 Harbhajan Yadav and A6 R.S. Dagar were counter clerks in the passport office at the relevant time and A9 Shakuntala Devi, A10 Sushma Bajaj, A11 Ram Chander were posted in the HIT section of the passport office at the relevant time. The various passports issued in the name of A7 Vinod Kumar Gupta, A8 Naresh Kumar Mathur, A12 Monika Gupta and A13 Trapti Gupta are the subject matter of this case. A12 Monika Gupta and A13 Trapti Gupta are the daughters of A7.
2. A7, his wife namely Alka Gupta and his three daughters namely Shalini Gupta, Monika Gupta (A12) and Trapti Gupta (A13) (hereinafter referred to as A7 and his family) had applied for passport in their names in the month of May, 2000. Their applications were processed in the passport office between 22.05.2000 and 24.05.2000 and thereafter passports were issued in their names between 12.07.2000 to 25.07.2000, the details of which are given below:-
CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 6 of 171State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others File No. Date of File Name of the Exhibit Passport Date of Exhibit applicant number Number Issuance of number of the file the Passport of the file B-016423 24.05.2000 Vinod Kumar PW11/A B-23118967 20.07.2000 PW11/D Gupta B-016422 24.05.2000 Alka Gupta PW35/A B-2320745 25.07.2000 PW35/D B-016170 22.05.2000 Shalini Gupta PW34/A B-2317984 12.07.2000 PW43/D B-016420 24.05.2000 Monika PW43/B B-2318969 25.07.2000 PW12/B Gupta B-016168 22.05.2000 Trapti Gupta PW43/C B-5000898 22.07.2000 PW43/E
3. These five passports are hereinafter referred to as 'original passports'.
4. The case of the CBI which is discernible from the perusal of the charge-sheet is as under :
(i) That during investigation, all the above said passports were recovered during search conducted on 02.02.2005 at the residence of Vinod Kumar Gupta and scrutiny of the passports revealed that the said passports were damaged in water due to which same were unfit for further use. A7 explained that during their visit to Canada, said passports fell into water and got damaged in March, 2001.
(ii) That since the above said original passports had been damaged. A7 had applied for fresh passports in his name as well as in the name of his above said family members on 21.05.2001. Along with the applications, he had also annexed self-attested copy of the above said damaged passports. The applications were dealt within separate passport files. Perusal of the same revealed that the applicants had annexed a request letter along with their applications on the letter-head CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 7 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others of M/s Gupta International, J-7/2, West Jyoti Nagar, Loni Road, Delhi.
However, during investigation, it was revealed that the said firm had never functioned from the said address. In their applications, applicants had mentioned that the additional passport booklets were required to be issued as the pages of previous passports were all filled up which was not correct. Rather, they were required to mention that the additional passport booklets were to be issued in lieu of damaged passports. On the basis of their applications, new passports were issued in the name of A7 and his family members. The detail of the passport files, wherein their requests were dealt with and the details of the additional passport booklets which were issued in their names are mentioned as under:-
File No. Date of Name of Ex. no. Passport Date of Reasons given for File the of the Number Issuance issuance of applicant file of the additional Passport passport booklets D-004659/01 21.05.01 Vinod Kr. PW11/C B-5149133 30.05.01 Additional passport Gupta booklets were sought on the D-004663/01 21.05.01 Alka Gupta PW15/C B-5149132 30.05.01 ground that the D-004662/01 21.05.01 Shalini PW15/E B-5149129 30.05.01 pages of previous Gupta passports had been full whereas D-004664/01 21.05.01 Monika PW15/G B/5149131 30.05.01 number of pages Gupta were empty.
D-004660/01 21.05.01 Trapti PW15/J B-5149130 30.05.01 Applicants should
Gupta have mentioned
that they required
additional passport
booklets as the
original passports
had been damaged.
(iii) That A7 had lodged a complaint with Baghpat Police Station
on 10.06.2001 alleging that his bag containing documents including above said additional passports had been lost. The said complaint was got verified from SP, Baghpat. It was informed by SP that since A7 had CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 8 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others not alleged that his bag had been stolen, no FIR was registered and further clarified that the bag had not been recovered till date. As per complaint lodged by A7, the passport dated 30.05.2001 issued in his name as well as in the name of his family members were lost in the said bag. The passports issued on 30.05.2001 are hereinafter referred to as '1st Additional Passport Booklet'.
(iv) That on 03.10.2002, A7 had submitted another application before RPO, New Delhi for the issuance of Additional Passport Booklet in his name as well as in the name of his family members. It is alleged that A7 had filled-up the application form of himself, his wife Alka Gupta and daughter Trapti Gupta. But the forms qua two other daughters Shalini Gupta and Monika Gupta were not in his handwriting. In all the applications, residential address was mentioned as C-12, Meera Bagh, New Delhi-87. However, during investigation, it was revealed that the said address was not in existence. Along with the applications, applicants had also annexed the copy of ration card bearing No. 731619 dated 21.11.2000, which was found fictitious during investigation. Along with their applications, applicants had also annexed the copy of 1 st Additional Passport Booklets issued on 30.05.2001 despite the fact that as per complaint lodged by A7, the said additional passport booklets had been misplaced on 10.06.2001. On the basis of their applications, fresh additional passport booklets were issued in the name of A7 and his family members on 04.10.2002. All the said passports were collected by A7.
Though the application submitted in the name of A7 contained the photograph of A7, but the application forms in respect of his family members did not contain their photographs. Rather the same had the photographs of some other females. The details of the passport files CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 9 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others wherein their requests were dealt with and details of the additional passport booklets issued in the name of A7 and his family members are as under:-
File No. Date of Name of the Exhibit Passport Date of Document File applicant number Number Issuance annexed with of the of the application file Passport T-007625/02 03.10.02 Vinod Kr. PW11/F E-3063436 04.10.02 Copy of ration Gupta card No. 731619 dated 21.11.2000 T-007626/02 03.10.02 Alka Gupta PW18/C E-3063434 04.10.02 and copy of 1st T-007622/02 03.10.02 Shalini Gupta PW18/E E-3063439 04.10.02 Additional Passport Booklets T-007623/02 04.10.02 Monika Gupta PW18/G E-3063437 04.10.02 issued on T-007624/02 04.10.02 Trapti Gupta PW18/J E-3063438 04.10.02 30.05.2001
(v) All the said additional passport booklets are hereinafter referred to as 2nd Additional Passport Booklet.
(vi) That at the time of seeking 2nd Additional Passport Booklets, Trapti Gupta and Monika Gupta in their applications alleged that the pages of previous passport had been full and their signature had been changed whereas no specific reason was given by other applicants, namely Vinod Kumar Gupta (A7), Alka Gupta and Shalini Gupta in their applications.
(vii) That the above said application forms were received by accused Purshottam Lal (A4) being the counter clerk whereas accused Om Prakash (A1) had passed promise date on 03.10.2002 being the PRO. Since A1 was on leave on 04.10.2002, files were dealt with by Ms.Asia (Supdt.). Accordingly, she signed 2nd Additional Passport Booklets on 04.10.2002 and she categorically mentioned in the files that PRO proceeded on short-leave on 04.10.2002.CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 10 of 171
State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others
(viii) That on 30.01.2003, Naresh Kumar Mathur (A8) moved an application for the issuance of additional passport booklets in the name of Vinod Kumar Gupta and his family members. A8 had filled-up all the application forms in his own handwriting and along with applications, he had annexed the copy of 1st Additional Passport Booklets dated 30.05.2001 despite the fact the same had been lost on 10.06.2001. A8 had pasted his photograph on the form of A7. On the basis of their applications, additional passport booklets were issued in the name of Vinod Kumar Gupta (A7) and his family members on 31.01.2003. All the said additional passport booklets were received by A8 by signing in the name of A7. He received the passports of female showing himself as husband or father or as the case may be. The details of the passport files wherein the applications were dealt with and additional passport booklets issued in their names are as under:-
File No. Date of Name of the Exhibit Passport Date of Supporting File applicant number Number Issuance document of the of the file Passport T-001109/03 30.01.03 Vinod Kumar PW1/A E-4231814 31.01.03 Copy of 1st Additional Gupta/ photo Passport Booklets of A8 dated 30.05.2001, which were lost on T-001110/03 30.01.03 Alka Gupta PW1/C E-4231813 31.01.03 10.06.2001.
T-001111/03 30.01.03 Shalini Gupta PW1/E E-4231812 31.01.03 T-001112/03 30.01.03 Monika PW1/G E-4231819 31.01.03 Gupta T-001114/03 30.01.03 Trapti Gupta PW1/L E-4231815 31.01.03
(ix) At the time of seeking above said additional passport booklets, no specific reason was mentioned in the request letters.
CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 11 of 171State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others
(x) That during search conducted at the residence of A8 on 07.09.2005, a visiting card in the name of Vinod Kumar Gupta, Managing Director, Hotel Manali King was recovered besides the photograph of A8.
(xi) That A8 had already obtained the passport bearing No.E- 4716106 dated 04.03.2003 from RPO, New Delhi, thus there was no reason for him to obtain additional passport booklets in the name of A7 with his photograph. It was alleged that he had obtained passport with malafide intention knowingly well that he was not Vinod Kumar Gupta and the females in whose favour, he had obtained the passport in the name of family members of Vinod Kumar Gupta were not the family members of A7.
(xii) The said passports hereinafter referred to as 3rd Additional Passport Booklet.
(xiii) That the applications were received and dealt with by A4 being the counter clerk. A1 had passed the promise date and grant order being PRO.
(xiv) That A8 again on 04.04.2003 submitted applications in the name of A7 and his wife Alka Gupta for seeking additional passport booklets. Along with the applications, he annexed the copy of 1st Additional Passport Booklets dated 30.05.2001, which were allegedly lost on 10.06.2001. He pasted his photograph on the form in the name of A7 and pasted the photograph of another female on the form of Alka Gupta. On the basis of said applications, additional passport booklets were issued on 06.05.2003. For the convenience, the said passports CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 12 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others hereinafter shall be referred to as 4th Additional Passport Booklet. At the time of seeking additional passport booklets, it was mentioned in the request letter that they required fresh additional passport booklets as the pages of previous passports had been full. A8 had received both the additional passport booklets on 06.05.2003 by signing in the name of Vinod Kumar Gupta.
File No. Date of Name of Exhibit Supporting Passport Date of Rea-
File the number Number Issuance sons
applicant of the of the
file Passport
T-003524 04.04.03 Vinod PW18/R 1st Additional E-4871768 06.05.03 Pages of
Kumar Passport previous
Gupta/ passport
photo of A8 full
T-003523 04.04.03 Alka Gupta PW18/T 1st Additional E-4871767 06.05.03 Pages of
Passport previous
passport
full
5. That the applications were processed by Tilak Raj Sachdeva (A3) and he recommended for the issuance of additional passport booklets. The promise date was given by Mr. P.K. Kapoor, the then Superintendent (since deceased). Since, the file remained pending for about a month's time, same were marked to U.S. Lingwal on 06.05.2003. It was alleged that U.S. Lingwal had no opportunity to see the old passport of the applicants when he passed the grant order in the file on 06.05.2003.
(i) That A8 had obtained 4th Additional Passport Booklet with malafide intention.
CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 13 of 171State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others
(ii) That on 07.05.2003, A8 again submitted two applications in the name of Monika Gupta and Trapti Gupta, both daughters of A7 with the photographs of some other ladies stating that the additional passport booklets were required as the pages of previous passport had been full and along with applications, he had annexed the copy of 1 st Additional Passport Booklets dated 30.05.2001, which were allegedly lost on 10.06.2001. On the basis of their applications, additional passport booklets were issued in their names. For the purpose of convenience, same hereinafter shall be referred to as 5th Additional Passport Booklets. The detail of the passport files wherein the applications were dealt with and details of additional passport booklets issued on 08.05.2003 are as under:-
File No. Date of Name of Exhibit Supporting Passport Date of Rea-
File the number Number Issuance sons
applicant of the file of the
Passport
T-004860 07.05.03 Monika PW18/W 1st Additional E-4871925 08.05.03 Pages of
Gupta Passport previous
dated passport
30.05.01 full
T-004859 07.05.03 Trapti PW18/Y 1st Additional E-4871924 08.05.03 Pages of
Gupta Passport previous
dated passport
30.05.01 full
(iii) That both the additional passport booklets were obtained by
A8 by signing in the name of Vinod Kumar Gupta. It is alleged that A8 had obtained the passports with malafide intention.
(iv) That the applications were received by A3 being the counter clerk and promise date and grant order was passed by Mr. P.K. Kapoor (since deceased).CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 14 of 171
State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others
(v) That on 26.05.2003, A7 and his wife Alka Gupta submitted another set of applications for seeking additional passport booklets in their name on the ground that since their original passports had been damaged by water, they required additional passport booklets and along with their applications, they annexed the copy of the original passport booklets issued in their favour on 20.07.2000 & 25.07.2000 respectively. Along with their applications, they also filed an affidavit dated 24.05.2003 stating that their passports had been damaged on 14.05.2003. It was alleged that since A7 and his wife had already obtained 1 st Additional Passport Booklets in lieu of original passports, they were not supposed to annex the copy of said passports along with the applications. The details of the passport file wherein their applications dealt with and the detail of additional passport booklets, which were issued in their names are given as under:
File No. Date of Name of Exhibit Supporting Passport Date of Rea-sons File the no. of No. Issuance applicant the file of the Passport T-001427 26.05.03 Vinod Kr. PW20/T Copy of E-5516056 03.06.03 Damaged Gupta original in water Passport dated 20.07.2000 T-001426 26.05.03 Alka Gupta PW20/A Copy of E-5516055 03.06.03 Damaged original in water Passport dated 25.07.2000
(vi) For the sake of convenience, the above said booklets hereinafter shall be referred to as 6th Additional Passport Booklet.CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 15 of 171
State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others
(vii) Both the said additional passport booklets were received by Vinod Kumar Gupta.
(viii) That both the applications were dealt with by accused R.S. Dagar (A6) being the counter clerk and the promise date and grant order were passed by Krishan Kumar (Supdt.).
(ix) That though A7 has and his wife obtained the passports in their name, but they obtained with dishonest intention by annexing the copy of the original passport whereas on the basis of original passport, they had already obtained 1st Additional Passport Booklet on 30.05.2001.
(x) That on 25.02.2003, Monika Gupta had submitted an application for issuance of additional passport booklet on the ground that she had to go for honeymoon. Along with the applications, she had annexed the copy of her original passport dated 20.07.2000 whereas on the basis of said passport, she had already obtained 1st Additional Passport Booklet dated 30.05.2001. The detail of the file wherein the application dealt with and the detail of the passport is as under:-
File No. Date of Name of the Exhibit no. Supporting Passport Rea-
File applicant of the file Number sons
T-002076 25.02.03 Monika Gupta PW1/J Copy of original E-4714262 For
Passport dated Honey
20.07.2000 moon
(xi) For the convenience, the said additional passport booklets
hereinafter shall be referred to as 7th Additional Passport Booklet.
(xii) That the application form was dealt with by A4 being the counter clerk and the promise date was given by A1 being the PRO and CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 16 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others the grant order was passed by Mr. Y.K. Kaushal.
(xiii) That on 16.12.2003, A8 had again moved five applications in the name of Vinod Kumar Gupta and his family members for seeking additional passport booklets. Along with the applications, he had annexed the copy of his additional passport booklets dated 31.05.2001, which were allegedly lost on 10.06.2001. In the application form of Monika Gupta, it was alleged that she required additional passport booklet as pages of previous passport had been full whereas in other application, no specific reason was given for seeking additional passport booklet. The details of the passport files wherein the applications were dealt with and the additional passport booklets issued are given as under:-
File No. Date of File Name of Exhibit Supporting Passport Date of Rea-
the no. of Number Issuance sons
applicant the file of the
Passport
T-015959 16.12.03 Vinod Kr. PW19/B Copy of 1st E-7314592 18.12.03 No
Gupta Addl. Passport
dt. 31.05.01
which was lost
and report was
lodged on
10.06.01
T-015902 16.12.03 Alka PW19/D -do- E-7314597 18.12.03 No
Gupta
T-015901 16.12.03 Shalini PW20/N -do- E-7314598 18.12.03 No
Gupta
T-015960 16.12.03 Monika PW19/F -do- E-7314591 18.12.03 Full
Gupta
T-015961 16.12.03 Trapti PW19/H -do- E-7314596 18.12.03 No
Gupta
(xiv) For the sake of convenience, the above said additional
passport booklets hereinafter shall be referred to as 8th Additional Passport Booklet.CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 17 of 171
State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others
(xv) That all the additional passport booklets were received by A8 by signing in the name of Vinod Kumar Gupta.
(xvi) That all the applications were dealt with by accused Harbhajan Yadav (A5) being the counter clerk and promise date and grant order were passed by accused Bibianus Toppo (A2) being the PIA.
(xvii) That on 23.02.2004, A8 again submitted applications in the name of Vinod Kumar Gupta and his family members. Along with the application forms, he had annexed the photocopy of 1st Additional Passport Booklet dated 30.05.2001. In the application forms, no specific reason was given for getting additional passport booklets. On the basis of their applications, additional passport booklets were issued on 25.02.2004. The details of the passport files and additional passport booklets, which were issued are as under:-
File No. Date of Name of Exhibit no. Supporting Passport Dt. of Rea-
File the of the file Number Issuance sons
applicant of the
Passport
T-002744 23.02.04 Vinod Kr. PW20/W Copy of 1st E-7711488 25.02.04 No
Gupta Additional
Passport
dated
30.05.01
T-002748 23.02.04 Alka PW20/A-4 -do- E-7711489 25.02.04 No
Gupta
T-002747 23.02.04 Shalini PW20/A-6 -do- E-7711487 25.02.04 No
Gupta
T-002746 23.02.04 Monika PW20/A-18 -do- E-7711485 25.02.04 Full
Gupta
T-002745 23.02.04 Trapti PW20/A-12 -do- E-7711486 25.02.04 No
Gupta
CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 18 of 171
State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others
(xviii) For the sake of convenience, the above said additional
passport booklets hereinafter shall be referred to as 9th Additional Passport Booklet.
(xix) All the above additional passport booklets were collected by A8 by signing in the name of Vinod Kumar Gupta.
(xx) It was further alleged that A5 had dealt with the applications in the above said files and recommended for the issuance of additional passport booklets, whereas A2 passed the promise date and grant order.
(xxi) It was alleged that on 20.05.2004, Trapti Gupta had submitted an application requesting for issuance of additional passport booklet on the ground that she required to visit abroad urgently. Along with the application, she had annexed the copy of original passport dated 17.07.2000 whereas on the basis of said passport, she had already obtained 1st Additional Passport Booklet dated 30.05.2001. The detail of the passport file and additional passport booklet, which was issued is as under:-
File No. Date of Name of Exhibit Supporting Passport Date of Rea-
File the number of Number Issuance sons
applicant the file of the
Passport
T-009924 20.05.04 Trapti PW20/A15 Copy of original E-8580784 28.05.04 To visit
Gupta passport No. B- abroad
5000898 dated urgently
17.07.2000 instead
of copy of passport
dated 30.05.2001
CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 19 of 171
State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others
(xxii) For the sake of convenience, the abovesaid additional
passport booklets hereinafter shall be referred to as 10th Additional Passport Booklet.
(xxiii) A5 dealt with the application whereas A2 passed promise date and grant order being the PIA.
(xxiv) That A8 had visited the office of M/s Atlanta Travel Pvt. Ltd and introduced himself as Vinod Kumar Gupta and purchased air tickets in the name of Vinod Kumar Gupta and his family members by making payment in cash. Mr. Samresh Maggon, Sales Manager of the said company identified A8 as A7. He further informed the CBI that A8 visited the office of said company personally on all the occasions and purchased air tickets himself by claiming himself as Vinod Kumar Gupta.
(xxv) That It was alleged that Shakuntala Devi (A9), Sushma Bajaj (A10) and Ram Chander (A11) were working in the RPO office and posted at HIT section. It was alleged that in the HIT section, there was a facility in their computers to check photograph and signature of the applicants with the signatures of the passport holders and it was their duty to point out, if there was any dissimilarities in the photograph of the applicants and passport holders. It was also their duty to highlight whether any additional passport booklet had already been issued in the name of applicants.
(xxvi) That A9 had given HIT clearance in the files Ex.PW18/R (T-
2524/03), PW18/W (T-4857/03) and Ex.PW18/Y (T-4860/03) at the time of issuance 4th Additional Passport Booklet in the name of Vinod Kumar CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 20 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others Gupta and 5th Additional Passport Booklet issued in the name of Monika Gupta and Trapti Gupta.
(xxvii) That A10 had given HIT clearance in favour of Vinod Kumar Gupta at the time of issuance of 2 nd and 3rd additional passport booklets. She had also given HIT clearance in favour of Alka Gupta at the time of issuance of 2nd, 3rd and 4th additional passport booklets. She had also given the HIT clearance in favour Shalini Gupta at the time of issuance of 2nd and 3rd additional passport booklets. She had also given the HIT clearance in favour of Trapti Gupta at the time of 3rd additional passport booklets.
(xxviii) That A11 had given HIT clearance in favour of Vinod Kumar Gupta and Alka Gupta at the time of issuance of 8th and 9th additional passport booklets. He had also given the HIT clearance in favour of Shalini Gupta at the time of issuance of 9 th additional passport booklets. He had also given the HIT clearance in favour of Monika Gupta at the time of issuance of 7th, 8th and 9th additional passport booklets. He had also given the HIT clearance in favour of Trapti Gupta at the time of issuance of 8th, 9th and 10th additional passport booklets.
(xxix) That A8 had filled-up the embarkation and disembarkation cards in the name of A7 and his family members by mentioning details therein. He also signed embarkation card of Vinod Kumar Gupta by signing as Vinod.
(xxx) That from the GEQD report, it has been established that in the passport files, T-7625/02, T-7626/02 and T-7624/02, forms were filled CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 21 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others up by A7 and he obtained the passport of his wife as well as his daughters.
(xxxi) That as per GEQD report, A8 had filled-up the application forms in the passport files bearing No. T-1109/03, T-3524/03, T-15959/03, T-2744/04, T-1110/03, T-3523/03, T-15902/03, T-2748/04, T-1111/03, T- 15901/03, T-2747/04, T-1112/03, T-4860/03, T-15960/03, T-2746/04, T- 1114/03, T-4859/03, T-15961/03 and T-2745/04 which were filled-up by A8 and he had received the additional passport booklets by signing in the name of Vinod.
6. After completing investigation, challan was filed against accused No. 1 to 13 for the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC r/w Section 420/468/471/474 IPC and Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1)
(d) of PC Act, 1988 and Section 12 (1) (b) of Passport Act, 1967. It was further alleged that A1 to A5, A9 to A11 be also tried for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1)
(d) of PC Act, 1988. It was further alleged that A7 and A8 be tried for the offences punishable under Section 420/468/471/474 IPC.
7. No charge-sheet has been filed against P.K. Kapoor due to his death. For want of sufficient evidence, no charge-sheet has been filed against accused Mukesh Sharma, U.S. Lingwal and Anil Dhawan.
8. Sanction under Section 19 of PC Act was obtained qua public servants i.e. A1 to A6, A9 to A11 and separate sanction under Section 15 of Passport Act was obtained against all the accused persons.
CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 22 of 171State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others
9. Vide order dated 07.07.2012,charges were ordered to be framed and vide order dated October 10, 2012 charges against A1 to A11 for the offence punishable under Section 120-B r/w Section 420/468 & 471 r/w Section 468 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act 1988 and Section 12(1)(b) of PC Act and charges against A1 to A6 & A9 to A11 under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act were framed. Further, charges against A7 and A8 for the offence punishable under Section 419/420/468 & 471 r/w 468 IPC and Section 12 (1)(b) of Passport Act, 1967 were framed to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
10. Vide same order dated July 07, 2012, accused Monika Gupta (A12) & Trapti Gupta (A13) were discharged of all the charges.
11. To prove their case, prosecution has examined as many as 43 witnesses. For the purpose of our discussion and convenience, the said witnesses can be classified in the following categories:-
(a) Witnesses from RPO, New Delhi:- PW1 Ms. Anita Bhatnagar, RPO, Delhi PW11 Sh. Raj Singh Retired APO, RPO, New Delhi. PW12 Sh. Yogesh Kumar Kaushal, Retired APO, RPO, ND. PW15 Sh. Rohtash Kumar, LDC, RPO, New Delhi/posted in Printing & Scanning Section . PW16 Sh. Laxman Singh, LDC, RPO, New Delhi/posted in Detailed Entry Section. PW17 Sh. Bhopal Dutt, Superintendent, RPO, New Delhi/posted at HIT checking Section. CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 23 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others PW18 Sh. Rajender Singh Chauhan, Assistant Cashier, RPO, Delhi/Posted at Scanning Section. PW19 Sh. Tara Dutt Joshi, LDC, RPO, New Delhi/Posted at Detailed Entry Section. PW20 Sh. Suman Kumar Sehgal, PGO, RPO, New Delhi/ posted at passport number allotment Section. PW21 Sh. Ajai Gautam, Scientist C, Officer of NIC. PW22 Sh. Puran Chand, RPO, New Delhi/Scanning Section. PW24 Ms. Usha Saxena, Superintendent, RPO, New Delhi/Posted at Detailed Entry Section. PW25 Sh. Amit Kumar Sharma, Posted as casual labour in RPO. PW26 Sh. Arun Kumar Singh, LDC, RPO, New Delhi/posted at scanning and printing section. PW30 Ms. Asia, retired APO, RPO, New Delhi. PW31 Sh. Krishan Kumar, Deputy Passport Officer, RPO, New Delhi. PW36 Sh. S.P. Kothari, retired Asstt. Passport Officer, RPO, New Delhi. PW37 Sh. Brij Mohan, RPO, New Delhi/Posted at registration Section. PW38 Sh. Jeewan Singh, LDC, RPO, New Delhi/Posted at Scanning Section. PW39 Sh. Vishambar Datt, LDC, RPO, New Delhi/Posted at Detailed Entry Section. PW41 Sh. Govind Lal, APO, RPO, New Delhi/Posted as Counter Clerk. CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 24 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others PW42 Sh. I.M. Sabharwal, Superintendent, RPO, New Delhi. (b) Witness relating to non-existence of address C-12, Meera Bagh, New Delhi:- PW2 Sh. Rajiv Kumar, the then Postman, Sunder Vihar Post Office, ND. PW3 Sh. Mangat Ram, Retired Postman, Paschim Vihar Post Office. PW14 Sh. Harish Chander Goel, Postman, Paschim Vihar Post Office, New Delhi. PW33 Sh. Shankar Shah, Postmen, Sunder Vihar Post Office, New Delhi. (c) Witness related to forged ration card:- PW5 Sh. G.K.Sapra, Retired Grade-II Inspector, Food &
Supply Department, Circle No.69, Aaram Bagh, ND.
(d) Witnesses related to Air Tickets:-
PW4 Sh. Rakesh Kumar Awasthi, Director M/s Atlanta
Travels, ND.
PW32 Sh. Samresh Maggon, the then Sales Manager,
Atlanta Travels, ND.
(e) Witness related to search conducted at the house of
Sh. P.K. Kapoor (since deceased), Suptd. RPO, ND PW6 Smt. Shobha Kapoor, wife of Late P.K. Kapoor.
PW7 Sh. Anil Gupta, neighbour of Late P.K. Kapoor.
CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 25 of 171State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others
(f) Witness related to identity of accused No.7 V.K. Gupta:-
PW23 Sh. Vinod Kumar Jain.
PW29 Sh. Narinder Kumar Jain.
(g) Witness related to identity of accused No.8 Naresh Kumar
Mathur:-
PW27 Ms. Madhu Mathur, wife of accused no.8.
PW40 Sh. Kuldeep Sharma, one of the Directors, Manali
Inn.
(h) Witness related to embarkation and disembarkation:-
PW8 Ms. Archna Andley, Sub-Inspector, Licensing
Unit, PS Defence Colony, New Delhi.
PW9 Inspector Subhash Chand, PS: Nangloi,
Delhi.
PW10 SI Hemant Kumar, PS:Fatehpur Beri,
South District, New Delhi.
(i) Witnesses related to Sanction :-
PW13 Sh. R.Swaminathan, the then Joint Secretary,
CPV.
(j) Witnesses relating to specimen writing & GEQD Report:-
PW28 Dr. B. A. Vaid, GEQD.
(k) CBI officials:-
PW43 Sh. R.K.Aggarwal, the then DSP, SCR-II,
CBI/Investigating officer
CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 26 of 171
State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others
(l) Daughter and wife of A7 to the effect that their photographs
were not affixed on the fake passports in their names and they had not undertaken journey on the said passports:-
PW34 Ms. Shalini Gupta, D/o Vinod Kumar Gupta.
PW35 Ms. Alka Gupta W/o Vinod Kumar Gupta.
12. On culmination of prosecution evidence, accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C wherein they denied each and every incriminating evidence led by prosecution and submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the present case.
(i) A1 Om Prakash has not disputed his signatures on the passport files and other connected documents but stated that he had proceeded with his duty according to the rules and regulations of the department. He denied that the passports Ex.PW11/D, Ex.PW35/D, Ex.PW12/B, Ex.PW43/D and Ex.PW43/E were never cancelled by RPO at the time of issuance of first additional passport booklets in the name of A7 and his four family members. He further stated that he had no facility in the computer to see the photographs, signatures or old reference of applicants and in routine, if HIT was cleared, he used to check the remarks of subordinate official and if there was no adverse remark on application forms, passport was issued. He had to deal with more than 500 files a day, as such it was not possible for him to go through minute details of each and every file for which subordinate staff was employed in the office. He had seen the remarks of subordinate staff on the files and since there was no adverse remarks, he has ordered for issuance of passports as per rules and regulations. He also stated that some other PIOs had also granted order in the similar manner but none of them were CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 27 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others prosecuted nor were facing any departmental enquiry. He further stated that in another similar case bearing CC No. 47/08 vide judgment dated 29.09.2012 he had been acquitted and no appeal against the same was preferred by the prosecution. He stated that he was innocent and falsely implicated in the case.
(ii) A2 Bibianus Toppo stated that at the relevant period he was working as Superintendent and was conferred power of PIA. Co- accused/Sh. Harbhajan Yadav was working as Counter Clerk as well as Dealing Assistant. He had dealt with files Ex.PW20/N, Ex.PW19/D, Ex.PW20/A4, Ex.PW19/B, Ex.PW20/W, Ex.PW19/F, Ex.PW20/A18, Ex.PW19/H, Ex.PW20/A12m, Ex.PW20/A15 and Ex.PW20/A-6 and as per procedure, applicant used to sign in application form before submitting the same for checking at the counter. On such submission, the counter clerk used to check all documents and thereafter after his satisfication he used to affix relevant stamps and asked applicant to sign in the space availble in the undertaking stamp affixed on the request letter and on the cancelled and returned stamp affixed on the application form for miscelleneous services. The passport applicants does not sign before PIA and in the given situation PIA, in normal course, believed that the passport application form was signed by the same passport applicant in whose name the passport application was submitted and whose photograph was affixed in the application form. He stated that CBI had not led any evidence to show that the persons who had represented themselves as applicant and whose photographs were pasted in the aforesaid were not present in the Regional Passport office when the said applications were submitted in the passport office on the concerned dates. He was not having the facility to see the photograph and CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 28 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others signature of the passport applicant in his computer and old/previous passport file was also not put up with the application for addtional passport booklet. As such, in normal course of his duties, he believed the particulars to be correct and therefore, had ordered for issuance of passport booklets in the usual course of his duties. During the relevant period, procedure for issuance of additional passport booklet was liberalized to a great extent by MEA (vide circulars dated 06.03.2002, 26.05.2003 and 29.04.2004) to avoid harassment to the applicants. As per the same, RPO/concerned officials were required to implement the concerned instructions immediately and PIA (subject to HIT/index and PAC check) was directed to issue additional booklets to the applicants prefereably on the same day or at least within 3-5 days. In the present matter there was no adverse remarks of Hit, PAC or any other section of the passport office. During the relevant period, under the given set up, without the clearance of Hit and PAC section, passport number could not be allotted. The additional passports in the present case were complete in all respect and no adverse remarks were given by any subordinate official in the space available for official use in this regard. During the relevant period, he was also looking after the additional work of miscellaneous service as well as additional passport booklet which were very large in number and was also required to pass grant orders and sign on additional passport booklets. Thus, he being incharge of two sections and being bound to comply with the circulars of MEA, he could not have completed his work without believing his subordinate staff. He was absent on 05.02.2004 and on the said date PW-30/Ms. Asia had given promise date in Ex.PW-30/DB, Ex.PW-30/DD and Ex.PW-30/DE. Similarly on 15.04.2004 he was absent/not available in office and PW36 Sh.S.P. Kothari was deputed in his place on the said date and he had CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 29 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others dealt in the similar files and passed respective orders in those files. No departmental enquiry was initiated against the said S.P.Kothari or Ms.Asia. Further similarly placed official Sh.U.S. Lingwal, Sh.Y.K. Kaushal, PW-30/Ms. Asia, PW-31/Krishan Kumar, PW-36 Sh. S.P. Kothari had dealt with the files in the similar manner but neither they were made accused by the IO nor any departmental enquiry was initiated against them. He was thus also entitled for benefit of parity with the said officals.
(iii) A3 Tilak Raj Sachdeva stated that he was working as Assistant in RPO, New Delhi and had never worked as Counter Clerk. He had spent considerable time in Department of Tatkal Service (fresh). He stated that he had not processed the files for miscellaneous services (Ex.PW27/A). As per record, in applications (Ex.PW27/A, PW18/R, PW18/W (colly.), PW18/Y (colly.), on 04.04.2003 P.K. Kapoor had passed issuance order and matter remained pending for more than one month. On 07.05.2003, U.S.Lingwal, PIA asked for quick disposal of application but on that day G.D.Joshi, who had received the applications at counter, was absent. As such he was directed to put up the file before the PIA and as the files had already been passed and there was no adverse remarks, he had written notes Ex.PW28/29, Ex.PW28/62, Ex.PW28/154 and Ex.PW28/122 in the said files. He stated that he was innocent and falsely implicated in the present case.
(iv) A4 Purshottam Lal stated that he was deputed on temporary basis as Counter Clerk at the relevant period of time. He was not having facility to check the previous record/documents of the applicant on the computer provided to him. He had performed his duty in accordance with CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 30 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others the established practice in the RPO office and as per advice of the official & that he was falsely implicated in the present case.
(v) A5 Harbhajan Yadav stated that he was working as LDC in RPO during tenure of A1 and A2 as PIA but had not regularly worked as Counter Clerk. He stated that he had acted in bonafide manner in good faith and some lapses could have resulted due to oversight but the same were unintentional. He was not aware if PW15 had scanned or not scanned the files in question and the print outs could not be read in evidence as these have not been proved according to the provisions of Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. PW21 had identified the signature of Sh. I.M. Sabharwal in routine without any base. He contended that the certificate Ex.PW21/A given by PW21 is not inconformity with the provision of Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. He stated that he was intentionally and falsely implicated in the present case. There was no facility provided to check as to which was the relevant previous passport and even in the application, it was not mentioned as to whether the same was for issuance of first, second and third additional passport booklet and so on. Thus, the counter clerk had no means to ascertain the number of additional passport booklets and the lapse of not noticing the stamp on the previous passport was due to oversight and was unintentional.
(vi) A6 R.S. Dagar stated similarly that he was working as UDC RPO, New Delhi at the time when A1 & A2 were PIA and he was not aware, if PW15 had scanned or not scanned the file D-4659/2001 Ex. PW.11/C, file No. D-4663/2001 Ex. PW.15/C, file No. D-4662/2001 Ex. PW.15/E (colly), file No. D-4664/2001 Ex. PW.15/G (colly.), file No. D- 4660/2001 Ex. PW.15/J (colly), vide work done print out Mark PW.15/A, CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 31 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others Ex. PW.15/B, Mark PW.15/D, Mark PW.15/F, Mark PW.15/H. He stated that the abovementioned scanned documents could not be read in evidence as these have not been proved as per the provisions of Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. He stated that there was no facility or tool provided at RPO Counter to check the particulars of the applicant for issuance of additional passport booklets. There was every possibility that Counter Clerk himself could have been a victim of cheating committed by the applicant. The lapse, if any in not seeing copy of previous passport may have been due to oversight as there was pressure of work due to long queues. The applicant had not mentioned whether they were applying for first time or second or third, accordingly, it was presumed that the applicant had applied for first additional passport booklet. He stated he was innocent and falsely implicated in the present case.
(vii) A7 Vinod Kumar Gupta admitted that he and his family members i.e. wife Alka Gupta and three daughters Shalini Gupta, Monika Gupta and Trapti Gupta were got issued passport in the year 2000 (original passport) and also admitted scanned copies of the same. He stated that their original passport fell in the water and got damaged. They had applied for additional passport in the year 2001 (1 st additional passport) but denied that they had furnished false information that the pages of previous passport were full. He stated that their 1 st additional passport misplaced at Baghpat, UP and he had lodged written complaint regarding the same at PS: Baghpat, UP (Ex.PW43/G). He denied that he had applied for additional passport at the address C-12, Meera Bagh, New Delhi and stated that IO had pressurized him to sign the first page of passport application form (Ex.PW28/D). He denied that he had enclosed copy of ration card showing his residential address as C-12, Meera Bagh, CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 32 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others New Delhi. He stated that he was not having any concern with hotel Manali Inn, Naresh Kumar Mathur and Kuldeep Sharma. He was not having any visiting card and therefore, denied that his visiting card has been recovered from A8. He denied that he had filed copy of any fax invitation or request letter issued on the address M/s Gupta International, J-7/2, West Jyoti Nagar, Loni Road, Ghaziabad, UP as no such entity exists at his residence. He admitted that various additional passport booklets issued in his favour and in favour of his family members were not having their signatures and photographs. He denied that the five original passports (Ex.PW11/D, Ex.PW35/D, Ex.PW43/D, Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW43/E) were recovered from his residence during search. He denied that he had received second additional passport booklet from the passport office. In respect of specimen signatures and handwriting he stated that IO had made him sign and write on papers and had also sign on passport application forms. He also stated that Ex.PW18/C, Ex.PW1/C, Ex.PW19/D and Ex.PW20/A4 neither bear the photograph of PW35 nor her signatures. He admitted that the Photographs of PW-35 on the passport file bearing Nos. T-1426 Ex. PW20/A-1 contains application form for misc. services Ex. PW35/H and passport registration form Ex. PW.20/A-2. He further stated that he never visited the office of M/s Atlanta Travels Ltd. for issuance of any air tickets. He admitted that he had submitted the application in his name for issuance of passport booklet (Ex.PW11/B) but had never enclosed copy of invitation letter and had not applied for issuance of additional passport booklet on the ground that pages of previous passport booklet had been exhausted. He stated that he had lost his 1st additional passport for which he had already lodged a complaint at PS: Baghpat, UP. He stated that IO had forcefully asked to sign blank passport forms and other papers as directed. In CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 33 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others regard to his submission and question regarding writing and signatures he stated that the same was based on manipulation done by the IO. In regard to the search of his residence, he stated that he was at airport going to Lucknow and therefore, was not aware of the said search. He denied that the passport Ex.PW11/D, Ex.PW12/B, Ex.PW35/D, Ex.PW43/D and Ex.PW43/E were recovered during the search at his house but stated that the same were given by him to IO at CBI Head Quarter when the same was demanded. He stated that IO had manipulated the fact to shield the actual culprits and his name and name of his family members were misused by the actual culprits to implicate them. He stated that his role was identical to the other members of his family who had been discharged and therefore, entitled for the same relief.
(viii) A8 Naresh Kumar Mathur stated that he was falsely implicated in the present case by the IO. He denied that he had applied for any fake passport or received any such passport from RPO. He stated that IO had obtained his specimen signatures on Ex.PW28/B. He also stated that during business visits many persons used to leave their visiting card and therefore, during search of house, visiting card of V.K. Gupta was recovered. He denied that he had put his signatures in place of Vinod Kumar Gupta at documents containing point Q54, Q110, Q164, Q210 and Q267 respectively. He denied that he along with other females had taken journey by embarkation and disembarkation cards in question. He stated that the GEQD report was false and procured one. He denied that he had filled the application for additional passport booklets in the name of Vinod Kumar Gupta and his family members and also that he had taken the delivery of the same. In regard to questioned signatures, CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 34 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others handwriting and opinion of the Handwriting Expert, he stated that report was incomplete, biased and falsely procured to implicate him. In regard to the search he stated that some persons had come to his house but no incriminating material was found. He had himself produced visiting card (Ex.PW32/B) of Vinod Kumar Gupta, Managing Director, Hotel Manali King, Manali (Ex.PW32/B). He denied that he and his co-accused Sanjeev had produced the original passport but stated that Sanjeev was called in CBI office and was directed to collect his passport and the letter shown to be produced by Sanjeev Kumar to the IO.
(ix) A9 Shakuntala Devi admitted that she was working as Assistant at the RPO at the relevant time. She has not disputed her job and stated that file was dealt at her seat. She further stated that during the relevant time there was no facility available in computer in the HIT Section to check the photographs and other details of the passport holders. The work load was heavy and every employ of his section was dealing about 150 & more application daily. Since there was no facility provided in the HIT Section to see the photographs and signatures of the application, therefore, she could not point out any discrepancy regarding the photographs and signatures. They were manually tallying the details of applicant before giving HIT clearance. She stated that she had performed her duty diligently and honestly for more than 35 years. She stated that she is innocent and falsely implicated in the present case.
(x) A10 Sushma Bajaj deposed that she was appointed in the HIT Section of RPO on temporary basis. She denied that while giving the HIT clearance she had not pointed out the discrepancy regarding the photographs and variation in the signatures or issuance of previous CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 35 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others additional passport booklets. She stated that she had made various complaints to the higher official for misusing her P number and password. She had specifically made complaint against Mr. Charanjeet Singh, who was involved in Passport Scam Case and facing trial at Patiala House Court for misusing her P number and password. She stated that she was innocent and falsely implicated in the present case.
(xi) A11 Ram Chander stated that he was working as LDC at RPO, New Delhi but was not working regularly in the HIT section of RPO as his duties kept on changing from one seat to another. He stated that he does not know whether PW15 had scanned the files in question but printouts in question cannot be read in evidence as the same had not been proved according to the mandatory provisions contained in Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. He stated that no file was ever officially assigned to him for HIT clearance and no file contains any such endorsement or is signed by him. He stated that he had not given HIT clearance in any of the files and some vested interest had wrongly accessed his P Number and misused his password without his knowledge and misused the same and his P number was made to look as if the HIT clearance was given by him. He further stated that HIT Section of RPO was situated at open space and there was no restriction to general public or any other official of RPO to enter, even at the time of opening computer, number of personal used to be present near his seat. According to him, some vested interest had stolen his password by watching him while opening the computer and had misused the same along with his P number. He stated that he was innocent and falsely implicated in the present case.
CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 36 of 171State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others
13. Thus it is seen that the accused A1 to A6 and A9 to A10 do not dispute that they had handled the files for issue of additional passport booklets, involved in this case, in their respective capacities. Their contention is that they did their respective jobs in normal course without any dishonest or ulterior intention or motive. It is only A11 Ram Chander who disputed that he had given HIT clearance in any of the files in question and stated that someone may have misused his password and P number to show that HIT clearance was given by him. A10 also has stated that her password and P number was being misused regarding which she had made various complaints to higher officials. She took the name of one Charanjeet specifically alleging that he was misusing her password and P number.
14. During their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C, A1, A6, A9 to A11 submitted that they would lead evidence in their defence but did not produce any evidence on their behalf and only A2 examined five witnesses i.e. DW1 Sh. Prince Raushan, Junior Passport Assistant, RPO, Delhi, DW2 Sh. Lokendra Singh, JPA, CPV Division, DW3 Sh. Sonu Datt, Ahlmad of the present CBI Court, DW4 Sh. Manoj Pandey, SJA, High Court of Delhi and DW5 Sh. Vipin Kumar, JJA, High Court of Delhi. Accordingly, their defence evidence was closed on May 05, 2017.
15. I have heard Ld. Public Prosecutor as well as the Ld. Defence counsels. With their help, I have perused the entire oral as well as documentary evidence on record. I have also gone through the written submissions filed on behalf of the accused.
CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 37 of 171State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others Main issues arising for consideration:-
16. As per the case of prosecution, there were 38 passports in total issued in the present case which for the purpose of convenience have been categorised (supra) into original, 1st to 10th additional passports respectively. There is no dispute about original passports. A7 has also admitted and relied on the same stating that these bear his photograph and that of his family members as well as their address. In regard to the 1st, 6th, 7th and 10th additional passports (total 9 passports), it is stated that the same were issued to correct individuals but the same were obtained by material concealment of facts. In regard to the remaining passports, one passport in the name of A7 (part of 2 nd additional passport) was issued with the correct photographs of A7 but he had submitted a fake address and had also submitted forged Ration Card in support of the same. All the remaining passports were issued with the photographs of fake individuals. It is also admitted that all the additional passport forms i.e. 1st to 10th additional passports were applied under Tatkal Scheme and covered under miscellaneous service as per Section 2 (iii) and Schedule IV entry 10 of the Passport Rules 1980.
17. Similarly, A8 has also not disputed that he was residing at DK-21/C, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi, the address shown in his passport (released to him on his application) and. However, he stated that he was not connected with the residential address J-7/2, West Jyoti Nagar, Loni Road, Delhi or C-12, Meera Bagh, New Delhi in any manner.
18. Thus in the present case, there are two main sets of allegations against the accused persons i.e. CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 38 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others
(i) They, in connivance and conspiracy with each other, got issued 04 sets of passports (1st, 6th, 7th and 10th passports) in the name of A7 and his four family members by concealing material facts in contravention of Section 12 of Passport Act AND
(ii) Got issued 05 sets of fake passports i.e. 2 nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th additional passports in the name of A7 and his family members by affixing photographs of A7 on 2nd additional passport but with fake address and on the remaining passport applications, photograph of A8 and other unknown female person, using forged documents and thereby facilitated foreign trips of said fake persons. The accused A1 to A6 and A9 to A11 being the officials of RPO, New Delhi had connived and conspired with the other accused and issued passports to fake individuals.
Procedure for processing applications for Additional Passport Booklets:-
19. Before proceeding to discuss the evidence as well a rival contentions of the parties, it is necessary to understand the procedure for processing the applications for additional passport booklets. PW11, PW21 and PW36, have in their respective depositions, given a fair idea about such process. These three witnesses were posted as officers in the Regional Passport Office (RPO), New Delhi for a very long time and thus were quite familiar with such process. It would be useful to reproduce here the following portion of the cross-examination of PW11 in this regard:
CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 39 of 171State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others "It is correct that whenever a person requires additional booklet, firstly he approached the counter clerk and submit his application to him. It is correct that if the counter clerk found that the application is in order, he would forward the same for registration otherwise he would return the same for rectification. It is correct that when counter clerk is satisfied with the application, he would put his signature on the application and also write fee on the said application and also affix the stamp. Thereafter, the application will be sent to the concerned officer and then fee will be deposited. It is correct that registration clerk accept the fee and the application will be sent for further process.
It is correct that in case of additional passport, applicant is required to submit the application on the prescribed format i.e. EAP-2 form. It is correct that the said form is required to be submitted along with the photocopy of previous passport and original previous passport. It is correct that counter is required to check the detail of the previous passport. It is correct that an undertaking is also required from the applicant that he had already exhausted all the pages of previous passport. It is correct that applicant is also required to furnish the reason for seeking additional booklet. It is correct that counter clerk is required to cancel the previous passport by putting the stamp on the original passport to the effect that it has been cancelled and returned to the applicant. It is correct that PIA also re-check all the documents and also ensures that the previous CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 40 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others passport has been cancelled. It is correct that thereafter passport file is sent to tagging unit, then scanning unit then HIT section."
20. The following portion of the cross-examination of PW21 also is found relevant in this regard:-
"Only HIT Section had the facility to check the photograph, signature of the applicant and previous passport details. The HIT suspected list generated by the server was never sent to the PIA. As per the system prevalent, the promise date and grant date were entered in the computer by dealing assistant of respective group.
It is correct that in the relevant year there was no facility with the PIA to verify the photograph, signature and old references of the applicant. This facility was provided to PIA's/Superintendents from October, 2006. It is correct that before October, 2006, the PIA could not personally verify the multiplicity of passports in the name of an applicant as he was not having the facility of seeing the previous particulars and he was to depend upon HIT Section for such a report. In the present case additional passport was issued as the HIT was cleared. (Volunteered initially it was suspected and clear by the HIT officials. However, PIA will not be having the knowledge of this fact because suspected list was forwarded to HIT Section only. ) It is correct that the passport number can not be allotted unless CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 41 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others and until HIT check is done and the same shows cleared. The passport number can not be assigned unless HIT is clear. If HIT is not clear and the official in the allotment section is trying to generate the passport number, the computer will show that HIT is not clear and passport number can not be generated. The applicant's name, father's name, date of birth and sex are fed in the computer by the registration clerk and other details like mother's name, spouse's name, present address, old passport details etc are entered by the detail entry official. Except the registration clerk and detail entry clerk no other official in the RPO office enter the details of the applicants. It is correct that without clearance of PAC (Prior Approval Category) passport number can not be allotted. It is correct that in the present cases/files like HIT Check, PAC check is also done.
PAC and HIT are different and I do not know when PAC checking was started in RPO. (Volunteered PAC is done for checking the previous criminal antecedents of the applicant.) ...........
...........
Court Question: Can you tell what kind of computer was being used by the officials posted at HIT Section in the year 2002-2004?
Answer: Prior to 2002, there was four dump terminals (having no hard disk and RAM). Since July 2002, one window PC was installed in HIT Section specially for additional passport booklet cases and CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 42 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others said PC was having photograph facility.
Court Question: Can you tell what information was being displayed by the dump terminals and window PC during HIT clearance?
Answer: All personal particulars of the applicant and number of original passport and previous additional passport booklets, if any, used to be displayed on the screen of dump terminals. The photographs and signatures of the applicants also used to be displayed on the monitor of window PC including previous passport details and Index card of old passport details w.e.f July 2002."
21. I find it apposite to refer the following portion of the cross- examination of PW36 also in this regard:-
"It is correct that the file is dealt by different sections which are located at different cabins in the RPO. From the counter, after the application has been received and scrutinized by the counter clerk, the file is carried to the PIA by the applicant himself. It is not necessary that the counter clerk must put the time of having given the file to the applicant for taking the same to PIA. No index containing the details of the documents in the file, which is taken by the applicant to PIA is required. It is correct that the counter clerk after giving the file to the applicant for taking it to the PIA, have no control over the time to CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 43 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others be taken by the applicant for the same purpose. The such file is given to the applicant in a loose condition without putting it in some envelope or in a sealed condition.
HIT section for Tatkal service of additional passport booklets in the office of RPO is located on the second floor. At the relevant time, the employees posted in the HIT section used to sit in a cabin adjoining printing section. The HIT section for general (non-tatkal) was located separately in Hall no. 2 at second floor. There were two cabins for Tatkal service wherein one official used to sit in each cabin. There was no apparent restrictions on the entry of other officials in the HIT section. (vol. Public was not allowed to enter the HIT section). ............
............
Generally, the request letter is placed at the top of the file, but there is no hard and fast rule. It is correct that counter clerk used to affix three stamps on the file i.e. tatkal fee stamp, cancel and return stamp old passport number ----- and received old passport' and undertaking stamp. He also used to affix the stamp of reading as 'extended by the issue of a fresh booklet'.
It is correct that counter clerk used to fill up the amount of fee in the tatkal fee stamp. It is correct that counter clerk used to take the signature of applicant in the space of cancelled and returned stamp available at the form for misc. services and on the undertaking stamp affixed on the request letter. It CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 44 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others is correct that though space was available to fill up the old passport number in the stamp affixed by the counter clerk, but at that time, it was not in practice because applicant used to fill up old passport number in the column No. 4 in the misc. services form. Similarly, it was not in the practice at that time to put his signature in the space available in the above said stamps by the counter clerk.
It is correct that counter clerk did not use to retain old passport with him. Rather he used to return the same to the applicant after putting seal of 'extended by issue of fresh booklet'. Along with the application, applicant used to place the photostate copy of first two pages and last two pages of previous passport which contains his personal particulars. This practice is also followed in the cases where the applicants submit the application for issuance of additional passport booklet on the ground that the pages of previous passport had been full. It is correct that the counter clerk used to affix the above stated stamps only in those files where he did not find any deficiency or discrepancy otherwise he would raise objection in the file and return the same to the applicant to remove the same. It is correct that in those cases where counter clerk did not find any deficiency or discrepancy, he used to affix the above mentioned stamps and he was not required to put a detailed note what he had done or what he had seen in the said file. The stamps affixed by the counter clerk in the files used to show that counter clerk had done the respective work. Counter CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 45 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others clerk also used to make recommendation in the file by mentioning that the additional passport booklet may be issued.
It is correct that at the time of passing the promise date, PIA was not supposed to pass a detailed order. At that time, he used to an approximate date to the applicant when the passport booklet would be ready for delivery.
After getting the promise date, applicant was required to deposit fee and submit the file at the registration counter. If applicant had urgent work or he was not having fee, he could deposit the same on the next day directly at the registration counter and in that situation he used to keep the file with him. ............
............
Whenever there is any discrepancy or irregularity is found in the file by the PAC/INDEX/HIT section or any other section of the RPO office, they used to mention the same in the space provided in the file. In cases where there was no objection, in such files, no remark of clearance was made by the above said sections in the file, rather they used to send the file directly to the concerned section for further process. Whenever any objection is raised by any of the sections of the RPO, such files should be kept separately to seek clarification from the applicant. In cases where the applicant failed to remove the objection, the application used to be rejected after giving him proper opportunity for explanation. Where it was found that applicant had CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 46 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others violated any Rules and Regulations, suitable penalty also used to be imposed in appropriate cases. However, where applicant used to give satisfactory explanation, in such matters, passport used to be issued. Where there was no objection from any corners and there are positive notings/recommendation, in such matters, passport used to be issued.
22. From the submission made by Ld. PP as well as Ld. Defence counsels and the deposition of aforementioned three witnesses from RPO, it is evident that there are 14 stages which are required to be followed from the time of filing of application form for additional passport till the delivery of the same. These 14 stages are as under:
1st Stage: At the outset applicant would submit his application along with copy of original documents relating to his address and identity with the Counter Clerk, where the Counter Clerk would compare the same with the original passport & original documents with the copies annexed therewith and if found in order, he would accept the application from and put stamp of cancellation on the original passport and return the original passport to the applicant.
2nd Stage: In the 2nd stage, file would be sent to PIA, where the applicant would appear in person and produce his/her original passport and other related documents. PIA after satisfying himself/herself about the particulars of the applicant would give appropriate date for issuance of passport. Thereafter, the file would be sent to Registration Counter.CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 47 of 171
State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others 3rd Stage: In the Registration Counter, applicant would deposit the requisite fee for which receipt would be issued to him and thereafter the file would be sent to Tagging Section.
4th Stage: In the Tagging Section, tagging of file would be done and the file would be sent to Detailed Entry Section.
5th Stage: In the Detailed Entry Section, the details of applicant would be fed in the computer and the file would be sent to Scanning Section.
6th Stage: In the Scanning Section, scanning of photograph and signature of the applicant would be done and fed in the computer.
7th Stage: At the seventh stage PAC checking would be done, where RPO officials would check objections in the application and if found in order would put PAC clerk stamp and referred the file to HIT Section.
8th Stage: HIT Section would check the details of the old passport including the name, address, photographs, signatures as well as whether any additional booklet has been issued and after the HIT Clerk approval, the same would be sent back to Counter Clerk.
9th Stage: After checking the application, Counter Clerk would again forward the file for issuance of additional passport booklet to PIA, who would check the file and after checking if everything found in order, would pass grant order.CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 48 of 171
State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others 10th Stage: Thereafter, the file would be sent to Passport Allotment Centre, where passport number would be allotted and thereafter, file is sent to the Printing Section.
11th Stage: At this stage, the scanned photograph, signatures and other details of the applicant would be printed on the passport and thereafter, the passport would be put up before the PIA for final signatures and then the passport file would be sent to pasting and lamination Section.
12th Stage: In the Pasting & Lamination Section, pasting and lamination of passport would be carried out and the file would be sent for signatures.
13th Stage: In this stage, the file would be put up before the PIA, who would finally sign the passport for issuance. The file would thereafter be sent to dispatch section.
14th Stage: In this stage, passports would be dispatched as per specified mode and in case the same are to be delivered in person, signatures of the applicant/authorised person would be obtained in the dispatch register.
23. There was one more section where the file used to be sent for scanning. The complete file is scanned in the section which is kept for record. This may be termed as 15 stages.
Witnesses from RPO:-
24. PW1 Smt. Anita Bhatnagar in her examination-in-chief stated CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 49 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others that she had been working with RPO, New Delhi on her transfer from Chandigarh in the year 1997. She further stated that during her posting with RPO, Delhi, she worked in detail entry section, PAC (Prior Approval Category) and HIT Section etc. In PAC section she used to check the details of any adverse remarks of the applicant such as name, father's name, date of birth and in case of adverse remark, she used to make a report on the file and the file was held up and if there was no adverse remark, the file was cleared and she used to put the PAC stamp along with her initial. She stated that she had cleared passport files Ex.PW1/A to Ex.PW1/M except PW1/I which is not exhibited.
25. PW11 Raj Singh identified the signature of accused No. 1 to 6 and accused No. 9 to 11. He stated that he had worked with RPO, New Delhi from 1983 to December 2012 i.e. till his retirement. He was promoted as Superintendent in October 2005. He has proved the signatures of I.M. Sabharwal, Superintendent on scanned copy of passport file No.B-016423 dated 24.05.2003 of Sh. Vinod Kumar (Ex.PW11/A-collectively 12 pages). He averred that applicant Vinod Kumar Gupta S/o Sh. Om Parkash Gupta had submitted application for issuance of passport and had mentioned his address as J-7/2, West Jyoti Nagar, Loni Road, Delhi-94. Applicant had also enclosed copy of ration card with regard to his residential address and affidavit. The passport was dispatched on 25.07.2000.
26. He stated that as per passport file D-36, accused No. 7 had submitted an application for issuance of additional passport booklet for himself, his wife and three daughters on 21.05.2001 and the said file was bearing stamp of RPO for Tatkal service and with request to accept fee of CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 50 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others Rs.1,500/-. He also identified the signatures of U.S.Lingwal on the said documents. He has proved on record the said application as Ex.PW11/B and the file containing the application as Ex.PW11/C. It was also containing a copy of invitation letter received through fax of one Sh. Kalidas Naynar and the file was processed by Sh. Govind Sachdeva, Assistant on 30.05.2001 & passport No. B-2318967 dated 20.07.2000 was cancelled by him. He stated that passport D2 (Ex.PW11/D) was having most of the pages blank though the applicant had requested for issuance of fresh passport booklet on the ground of used pages which was incorrect. He stated that it was the duty of counter clerk to check and mention the ground of application was incorrect. In regard to passport file D12 (passport application Ex.PW11/E). He stated that again application dated 03.10.2002 was moved for issuance of additional passport in the name of Vinod Kumar Gupta, wife Alka Gupta and daughter Shalini Gupta and the same was cleared by Accused No. 1 Om Prakash by putting his signatures at point-B. He stated that the said file was processed by Accused No.4 Purshottam Lal (Dealing Assistant) and the passport No. B-5149133 dated 30.05.2001 was cancelled by the counter clerk by putting stamp at point-A of page no. 3 of the file. He also identified the signatures of Ms.Asia on the said documents. He further stated that on the file Ex.PW1/A Purshottam Lal had recommended for issuance of additional passport booklet with ECR and bears handwriting and signatures of accused No.1 Om Prakash. He stated that file Ex.PW27/A of the additional passport booklet file Ex.PW18/R in the name of Vinod Kumar Gupta portion Mark B to B was written in the handwriting of accused No.3, who had requested for issuance of additional booklet with ACR. He further stated that the file Ex.PW20/D containing additional booklet in the name of Accused No.7 was having handwriting and CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 51 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others signatures of accused No.6 R.S.Dagar, who had requested for issuance of additional booklet with ACR. He further stated that Ex.PW27/B from additional passport booklet file (Ex.PW19/B) bears the signature of accused No.5.Harbhajan Yadav at the portion Mark B to B (separately Ex.PW28/36), who had recommended for issuance of additional booklet with ECR and the portion mark-A and the Mark-C and in the handwriting/signature of accused No.2 Bibianus Toppo, who had granted and signed the additional passport booklet.
27. He stated that additional passport booklet (Ex.PW15/C) in the name of Alka Gupta portion mark A to A-page no. 4 bears handwriting/signature of Govind Sachdev and portion mark B and C contains handwriting/signature of U.S. Lingwal, wherein he had granted and signed the additional passport booklet.
28. He stated that additional passport booklet file Ex.PW18/C) which contains Ex.PW28/4 in the name of Alka Gupta writing portion mark C to C (Ex.PW28/5) was in the handwriting/signature of Purushottam Lal, who recommended to issue additional booklet with ECR.
29. He stated that Ex.PW1/D in additional passport booklet file (Ex.PW1/C) in the name of Alka Gupta, the writing portion Mark-C to C (Ex.PW28/57) contains handwriting/signature of R.S.Dagar, who had recommended to issue additional booklet with ECR. He stated that application (Ex.PW28/61) bears signature of Om Prakash at point A to A. CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 52 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others
30. He stated that Ex.PW28/62 in additional passport booklet file (Ex.PW18/T) in the name of Alka Gupta, the writing portion Mark-B to B contains handwriting/signature of accused Tilak Raj, who had recommended to issue additional booklet with ECR. He stated that page on which portion B to B is marked (Ex.PW28/63) bears signature of U.S.Lingwal.
31. He stated that Ex.PW28/67 in additional passport booklet file (Ex.PW19/D) in the name of Alka Gupta, the writing portion Mark-B to B contains handwriting/signature of accused Harbhajan Yadav, who had recommended to issue additional booklet with ECR. He stated that page on which portion B to B is marked (Ex.PW28/68) and the portion already marked A and C was in the handwriting/signature of accused Bibianus Toppo, who had granted and signed the additional passport booklet.
32. He stated that Ex.PW28/74 in additional passport booklet file (Ex.PW20/A4) in the name of Alka Gupta, the writing portion Mark-B to B contains handwriting/signature of accused Harbhajan Yadav, who had recommended to issue additional booklet with ECR and the page on which portion B to B was marked is Ex.PW28/75.
33. He stated that additional passport booklet (Ex.PW15/E) in the name of Shalini Gupta, writing portion Mark A to A contains handwriting/signature of Govind Sachdev, who had recommended to issue additional passport booklet with ECR and the portion Mark-B to B is in the handwriting/signature of U.S. Lingwal.
CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 53 of 171State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others
34. He stated that Ex.PW28/A from the additional passport booklet (Ex.PW18/E) in the name of Shalini Gupta, writing portion Mark D to D contains handwriting/signature of Purshottam Lal, who had recommended to issue additional passport booklet with ECR and the portion Mark-A was in the handwriting/signature of accused Om Prakash, whereby he had granted additional passport booklet.
35. He stated that Ex.PW1/E which is from additional passport booklet (Ex.PW1/E) in the name of Shalini Gupta, writing portion Mark C to C contains handwriting/signature of R.S.Dagar, who had recommended to issue additional passport booklet with ECR.
36. He stated that Ex.PW28/94 which is from additional passport booklet (Ex.PW20/N) in the name of Shalini Gupta, writing portion Mark B to B contains handwriting/signature of Harbhajan Yadav, who had recommended to issue additional passport booklet with ECR.
37. He stated that Ex.PW28/94 from the additional passport booklet file Ex.PW20/N in the name of Shalini Gupta states that writing portion Mark B to B was in the handwriting/signature of Harbhajan Yadav, who had recommended to issue additional passport booklet with ECR. He further stated Mark A & C was in the handwriting/signature of accused Bibianus Toppo, wherein he had granted and signed the passport.
38. He stated that Ex.PW28/94 from the additional passport booklet file Ex.PW20/N in the name of Shalini Gupta states that writing portion Mark B to B was in the handwriting/signature of Harbhajan Yadav, who had recommended to issue additional passport booklet with ECR.
CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 54 of 171State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others He further stated Mark A & C was in the handwriting/signature of accused Bibianus Toppo, wherein he had granted and signed the passport. He stated that Ex.PW28/101 which is from additional passport booklet file Ex.PW20/A6 in the name of Shalini Gupta, writing portion Mark B to B was in the handwriting/signature of Harbhajan Yadav, who had recommended for issuance of additional booklet with ECR and the application form bears the signatures of accused Bibianus Toppo at point- A. He stated that Ex.PW28/12 from additional passport booklet file Ex.PW18/G in the name of Monika Gupta, writing portion Mark D to D contains handwriting/signature of Purushottam Lal, who recommended to additional passport booklet with ECR and the writing portion Mark-A was in the handwriting/signature of accused Om Prakash, who had granted the passport. He stated that Ex.PW28/127 from additional passport booklet file (Ex.PW19/F) was in the name of Monika Gupta in which portion Mark B to B was in the handwriting/signature of accused Harbhajan Yadav, who had recommended to issue additional passport booklet with ECR.
39. PW21 Ajai Gautam posted as Scientist C at RPO, New Delhi from July, 1999 to July 2010 and was responsible for operational support and maintenance of passport server. He deposed that scanning of the photographs and signatures of the passport applicants was started in RPO, Delhi in May, 2000 and HIT checking system for checking the signatures and photograph along with details of the previous applications as well details of the previous passports already issued on the computer system of RPO, Delhi was started in August, 2002. He stated that HIT/Index system can be understood as PIRS (Passport Index Retrieval System) through which the previous details of the applicant can be gone CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 55 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others through alongwith his signature or photograph available on earlier passport applications. In August 2002 only one computer (PC) was provided at HIT Section for HIT checking of TATKAL cases and in April, 2004 all PCs in HIT Section were provided with the facility of checking the photograph, signatures and other details of the fresh/old passport holders and applicants. He stated that he had provided the computer generated processing sheet to IO containing the details of the officials, who dealt with the particular file along with certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act. He gave details in respect of individual passport files and stated that every file was having specific P-number which was allotted to a particular individual and the said person had to login with his ID as his P-number and with his password. Accordingly, there was to be unique p- number allotted to a particular employee and the same was used with the safeguard of a password. Therefore, the possibility of misusing the same by a 3rd person by mentioning P-number or the user ID of the concerned person was also ruled out. The same can be possible only when an employee voluntarily of his own discloses the password to a third person.
40. He has proved on record the computer generated sheet showing details of the officials, who dealt with the particular file as under:
41. In respect of 1st additional passport booklet in the name of V.K.Gupta Alka Gupta, Shalini Gupta, Monika Gupta and Trapti Gupta, entries were made as under:
Registration was done by Govind Lal with his user ID Number P-370. Detail entry was done by Laxman Singh by using log in ID as P-731. Scanning was done by Rohtash Kumar with his ID-P-777. HIT was checked by Bhopal Dutt with his user ID P-472.CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 56 of 171
State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others Passport no. allotment was done by A.K. Bhatia with his user ID P-357. File was promised and granted by U.S.Lingwal vide log in ID P-202. Passport was printed by Standard Trading Company (hereinafter referred as STC) by using log in ID as PSTC.
42. He has proved the relevant duty sheet as Ex.PW21/B, Ex.PW21/B6, Ex.PW21/B11, Ex.PW21/B15, PW21/B21 respectively.
43. In respect of 2nd additional passport booklets in the name of V.K. Gupta, Alka Gupta, Shalini Gupta, Monika Gupta, Trapti Gupta by mentioning the changed address as C-12, Meera Bagh, New Delhi, entries were made as under:
Registration was done by Brij Mohan with his user number P-371. Detail entry was done by Tara Dutt by using log In ID P-755. Scanning was done by Rajinder Singh Chauhan with his ID P-738. HIT checked by Sushma Bajaj with his user ID P-383. Passport number was allotted by S.K. Sehgal with his user ID P-380. File was promised and granted by Om Prakash vide log in ID P-201. Passport was printed by STC by using log in ID as PSTC.
44. He has proved the relevant duty sheet as Ex.PW21/B1, Ex.PW21/B7, Ex.PW21/B12, Ex.PW21/B16, Ex.PW21/B22.
45. In respect of the 3rd additional passport in the name of V.K.Gupta, Alka Gupta, Shalini Gupta, Monika Gupta, Trapti Gupta, the entries were made as under:
Registration was done by Brij Mohan with his user ID P-371. Detail entry was done by Tara Dutt by user log in ID P-755.CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 57 of 171
State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others Scanning was done by Rajendra Singh Chauhan by using ID P-738. HIT checked by Sushma Bajaj by using her user log in ID P-383. Passport number was allotted by S.K. Sehgal with his user ID P-380. File was promised and granted by Om Prakash vide log in ID P-201. Passport was printed by Standard Trading Company by using log in ID PSTC.
46. He has proved the duty sheet s Ex.PW21/B, Ex.PW21/B8, Ex.PW21/B13, Ex.PW21/B17, Ex.PW21/B23 respectively.
47. In respect of the 4th additional passport in respect of V.K.Gupta & Alka Gupta entries were made as under:
Registration was done by G.D. Joshi by his user ID P-452. Detail entry was done by Tara Dutt by his user ID P-755. Scanning was done by Rajinder Singh Chauhan by his user ID-738. HIT was checked by Shakuntala Devi by her user ID P-385. Passport no. allotment was done by S.K.Sehgal by user ID P-380. File was promised by Late P.K. Kapoor vide his log in ID P-221. File was granted by U.S. Lingwal vide his log in ID P-202. Passport was printed by STC vide log in ID PSTC.
48. He has proved the said duty sheets as Ex.PW21/B3 & Ex.PW21/B9 respectively.
49. In respect of the 5th additional passport in respect of Monika Gupta & Trapti Gupta entries were made as under:
Registration was done by G.D. Joshi by his user ID P-452. Detail entry was done by Tara Dutt by his user ID P-755.CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 58 of 171
State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others Scanning was done by Rajendra Singh Chauhan by his user ID-738. HIT was checked by Shakuntala Devi by her user ID P-385. Passport no. allotment was done by S.K. Sehgal by user ID P-380. File was promised and granted by Late P.K. Kapoor vide his log in ID P-
221.
Passport was printed by STC vide log in ID PSTC.
50. He has proved the said duty sheets as Ex.PW21/B19 & Ex.PW21/B24 respectively.
51. In respect of the 6th additional passport in respect of V.K. Gupta and Alka Gupta entries were made as under:
Registration was done by R.S.Dagar by his user ID P-464. Detail entry was done by Usha Saxena by her user ID P-460. Scanning was done by Arun Kumar Singh by his user ID-730. HIT was checked by R.S. Rawat by his user ID P-319. Passport no. allotment was done by S.K. Sehgal by user ID P-380. File was promised and granted by Krishan Kumar vide his log in ID P-
215.
Passport was printed by STC vide log in ID PSTC.
He has proved the said duty sheet as Ex.PW21/B4 & Ex.PW20/A3.
52. In respect of the 7th additional passport in favour of Monika Gupta entries were made as under:
Registration was done by G.D.Joshi by his user ID P-452. Detail entry was done by Tara Dutt by his user ID P-755. Scanning was done by Rajendra Singh Chauhan by his user ID-738. HIT was checked by Ram Chander by his user ID P-495.CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 59 of 171
State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others Passport no. allotment was done by S.K.Sehgal by user ID P-380. File was promised by Om Parkash vide his log in ID P-201. Passport grant was passed by Yogesh Kaushal vide his log in ID P-214. Passport was printed by STC vide log in ID PSTC.
53. He has proved the said duty sheet as Ex.PW21/B18.
54. In respect of 8th additional passport in respect of V.K.Gupta, Alka Gupta, Monika Gupta, Trapti Gupta, entries were made as under:
Registration was done by G.D.Joshi by his user ID P-452. Detail entry was done by Tara Dutt by his user ID P-755. Scanning was done by Puran Chand by his user ID P-514. HIT was checked by Ram Chander by his user ID P-495. Passport no. allotment was done by S.K.Sehgal by user ID P-380. File was promised and granted by B. Toppo vide his log in ID P-218. Passport was printed by Amit Kumar Sharma vide log in ID P-735. He has proved the said duty sheets as Ex.PW21/B5, Ex.PW21/B10, Ex.PW21/B20, Ex.PW21/B25, Ex.PW21/B14.
55. In respect of 9th additional passport in respect of V.K.Gupta, Alka Gupta, Monika Gupta entries were made as under:
Registration was done by G.D.Joshi by his user ID P-452. Detail entry was done by Rajesh Meena in respect of V.K.Gupta by his user ID P-558 and Vishmbar in respect of Monika Gupta and Trapti Gupta vide User ID P-753.
Scanning was done by Arun Kumar Singh by his user ID P-730. HIT was checked by Ram Chander by his user ID P-495. Passport no. allotment was done by S.K.Sehgal by user ID P-380.CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 60 of 171
State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others File was promised and granted by B. Toppo vide his log in ID P-218. Passport was printed by Amit Kumar Sharma vide log in ID P-735 He has proved the said duty sheet as Ex.PW20/J, Ex.PW20/A6, Ex.PW20/A8 Ex.PW20/A20, Ex.PW20/A14.
56. In respect of 10th additional passport in respect of Trapti Gupta entries were made as under:
Registration was done by R.S.Rawat by his user ID P-319. Detail entry was done by Tara Dutt by his user ID P-755. Scanning was done by Jeewan Singh by his user ID P-728. HIT was checked by Ram Chander by his user ID P-495. Passport no. allotment was done by S.K.Sehgal by user ID P-380. File was promised and granted by B. Toppo vide his log in ID P-218. Passport was printed by Amit Kumar Sharma vide log in ID P-735 He has proved the said duty sheet as Ex.PW20/A17.
57. In cross-examination he stated that NIC Coordinator used to give P Number to the employees of RPO which was provided to the employee through the Account Department. He denied that the Coordinator, who had issued P-Number to a particular employee of RPO, Delhi could access the computer by using P Number of any employee. He further stated that P Number could not be changed by anyone at any point of time. He deposed that when P Number was provided to an employee, a password was also required to operate it which was also given for the first time to the employee and he was asked to change the same immediately. He admitted that all the servers of Passport Office were under the operational control of NIC but NIC was only custodian of the data at passport office but not the owner of the same. He stated that CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 61 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others he has not provided any data or certificate to CBI which could show that the password of login ID/P Number of accused Sushma Bajaj was not changed on the date on which the HIT was shown as cleared by HIT Section. He stated that password could only be changed when concerned official approached NIC to reset the password or he or she himself/herself discloses his/her password to any other employee. He stated that he had no knowledge if any criminal proceedings or departmental inquiry was initiated against Charanjit Sharma and he was working at different seats of RPO and during the relevant period he was also working at HIT Section. He stated that any passport applicant related information stored in the server could be retrieved by the other sections in the RPO, New Delhi for granting, printing purposes by using concerned login ID and password. However, the information received in main server was not in PDF form and the same was stored in the server as it is. He stated that information could not be changed in server room and modifications of information could be possible at different locations by using login ID and password. He stated that RPO server was connected with local area network and the same was not connected with the internet, thus there was no possibility of hacking the server. He deposed that only HIT Section had the facility to check the photographs and signatures of the person, who had submitted the documents for issuance of additional passport booklet and the PIA did not have such facility on his computer to check the photographs and signatures. It was the duty of HIT section to verify further whether the case is adverse, suspected or not on the basis of other particulars of the applicant. He admitted that before October, 2006, PIA could not personally verify the multiplicity of passports in the name of applicant as they were not having the facility of checking the previous particulars and they were dependent CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 62 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others upon HIT Section for such a report. He stated that passport number could not be allotted unless and until HIT check was cleared.
58. PW36 Mr. S. P. Kothari, Assistant Passport Officer, RPO stated that he knows all the accused officials i.e. A1 to A6 and A9 to A11, who had worked with him in the RPO Office. He stated that with regards to Ex.PW28/2 in file Ex.PW11/F, Ex.PW28/5 in file Ex.PW18/C, Ex.PW28/9 in file Ex.PW18/E, Ex.PW28/13 in file Ex.PW18/G, Ex.PW28/17 in file Ex.PW18/J, Ex.PW1/B in file Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/D in file Ex.PW1/C, Ex.PW1/E in file Ex.PW1/E, Ex.PW1/H in file Ex.PW1/G, Ex.PW1/M in file Ex.PW1/L, Ex.PW31/B in file Ex.PW20/T, Ex.PW31/D in file Ex.PW20/A1, Ex.PW1/E in file Ex.PW1/J accused Purshottam Lal was the Counter Clerk, who had made recommendation for issuance of additional passport at point A, C and D respectively on the same. He also testified that in Ex.PW27/A in file Ex.PW18/R, Ex.PW28/62 in file Ex.PW18/T, Ex.PW28/122 in file Ex.PW18/W, Ex.PW28/155 in file Ex.PW18/Y accused Tilak Raj was the Counter Clerk, who had made the recommendation for issuance of passport. He has also stated that on Ex.PW28/36 in file Ex.PW19/B, Ex.PW28/42 in file Ex.PW20/W, Ex.PW28/68 in file Ex.PW19/D, Ex.PW28/75 in file Ex.PW20/A4, Ex. PW28/95 in file Ex.PW20/N, Ex. PW28/102 in file Ex.PW20/A6, Ex.PW28/128 in file Ex.PW19/F, Ex.PW28/135 in file Ex.PW20/A18, Ex.PW28/159 in file Ex.PW19/H, Ex.PW28/166 in file Ex.PW20/A12, on miscellaneous service form in file Ex.PW11/C (relevant page Ex. PW36/A) Accused No.5 Harbhajan Yadav was the Counter Clerk and he made recommendation to issue additional passport booklet. He further stated that Accused No.5 Harbhajan Yadav was also Counter Clerk for Ex.PW35/E in file Ex.PW15/C, Ex.PW34/E in file Ex.PW15/E, CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 63 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others miscellaneous service form Ex.PW15/G (Ex.PW36/B), Ex.PW15/J (relevant page Ex.PW36/C) and miscellaneous service form Ex.PW20/A15 (relevant page Ex.PW36/D) and had made recommendation for issuance of additional passport booklet in favour the applicant.
59. He also identified the handwriting and signatures of accused Om Prakash in file Ex.PW11/F, Ex.PW18/C, Ex.PW18/E, Ex.PW18/G, Ex.PW18/J, Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/C, Ex.PW1/E, Ex.PW1/G, Ex.PW1/L and Ex.PW1/J, wherein accused No.1 Om Prakash had given the promise date. Accused No. 1 had also passed grant order in Form Ex.PW28/2, Ex.PW28/5, Ex.PW28/9, Ex.PW28/13, Ex.PW28/17, Ex.PW28/20, Ex.PW28/57, Ex.PW28/88, Ex.PW28/116, Ex.PW28/148 and Ex.PW1/E.
60. He further deposed that in file Ex.PW19/B, request letter Ex.28/41, file Ex.PW20/W, request letter Ex.28/56, file Ex.PW19/D, request letter Ex.28/70, file Ex.PW20/A4, request letter Ex.28/87, file Ex.PW20/N, request letter Ex.29=8/97, file Ex.PW20/A6, request letter Ex.28/115, file Ex.PW19/F, request letter Ex.28/133, file Ex.PW20/A18, request letter Ex.28/147, file Ex.PW19/H, request letter Ex.28/164, file Ex.PW20/A12, request letter Ex.28/176, file Ex.PW20/A15, request letter Ex.PW36/E accused No.2 Bibinus Toppo had given the promise date and on form Ex.PW27/B, Ex.PW27/C, Ex.PW28/68, ex.PW28/75, Ex.PW28/95, Ex.PW28/102, Ex.PW28/128, Ex.PW28/135, Ex.PW28/159, Ex.PW28/166, Ex.PW36/D he had passed the grant order.
61. He stated that in file Ex.PW18/R, request letter Ex.28/34, file Ex.PW18/T, request letter Ex.28/66, accused P.K.Kapoor (since CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 64 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others deceased) had given the promise date and on form Ex.PW28/123, Ex.PW28/155 he had passed the grant order.
62. He also testified that in file Ex.PW18/W, request letter Ex.PW28/126, file ExPW18/Y, request letter Ex.28/157, file Ex.PW11/C, request letter Ex.11/B, file Ex.PW15/C, request letter Mark-PW35/1, file Ex.PW15/E, request letter Mark PW-34/A, file Ex.PW15/G, request letter Ex.PW36/H, file Ex.PW15/J, request letter Ex.PW36/I accused U.S.Lingwal (since deceased) had given the promise date and on form Ex.PW28/29, Ex.PW28/63, Ex.PW28/123, Ex.PW36/A, Ex.PW35/E, ExPW34/C, Ex.PW36/B, Ex.PW36/C he had passed the grant order.
63. He stated that in file Ex.PW28/T, request letter Ex.31/A, file Ex.PW20/A1, request letter Ex.31/C accused Krishan Kumar had given the promise date and he had also passed grant orders on form Ex.PW31/B and Ex.PW31/D.
64. He further stated that CBI had called him for the purpose of investigation and on 20.05.2005, CBI had taken specimen signatures of accused No.7 Vinod Kumar Gupta in his presence in the CBI office. He has proved on record specimen writing/signatures of Accused No. 7 as Ex.PW36/J (collectively). He has also proved on record printouts of scanned five passport files bearing No.B016423, B016422, B016170, B016420 and B016168 in the name of Vinod Kumar Gupta, Alka Gupta, Shalini Gupta, Monika Gupta and Trapti Gupta as Ex.PW36/K, Ex.PW36/L, Ex.PW36/M, Ex.PW36/N and Ex.PW36/O respectively and certificate U/s 65 B of Evidence Act for issuance of printouts of above mentioned scanned files as Ex.PW36/K1, Ex.PW36/L1, Ex.PW36/M1, CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 65 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others Ex.PW36/N1 and Ex.PW36/O1 respectively. He stated that all the documents were given to CBI with covering letter under the signature of Sh. Surender Avasthi, Passport Granting Officer. He stated that all the above mentioned additional passport booklets were handed over by him and some of the files were handed over by Sh. U.S. Lingwal to CBI in his presence. He has proved on record the receipt memo Ex.PW36/P, Ex.PW36/Q and Ex.PW36/R.
65. In cross-examination, he stated that he was not aware, if accused no.10 Sushma Bajaj had made a complaint to Sh.U.S.Lingwal that someone was misusing her password. He admitted that Charanjeet Sharma (since expired) had worked with RPO and was also chargesheeted in a passport scam case in Patiala House Courts. He stated that he was not aware, if Sushma Bajaj had made a complaint against Charanjeet Singh regarding misuse of her password or if Charanjeet Singh had good relations with U.S.Lingwal as a result thereof Sh.U.S.Lingwal had not taken any action on the complaint of Sushma Bajaj.
66. He further stated that accused Purshottam Lal had dealt with the files as per the prevalent procedure in the RPO Office and no special training was given to Purshottam Lal regarding the working on the computer while dealing with the files in the present case as counter clerk. He stated that the role of HIT Section was to point out the discrepancies in the application, if any and to point out whether the applicant had taken any additional passport booklet previously or not and as per the record, no objection was raised by the HIT sections in the files which were dealt with by Om Prakash. No instrument was provided to accused no.1 Om CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 66 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others Prakash at the relevant time to differentiate between the photograph of applicant and original passport holder and to tally their signatures. Accused Om Prakash used to deal with 150 to 200 files per day. He admitted that the Counter Clerk, after giving the file to the applicant for taking it to the PIA, had no control over the time to be taken by the applicant for the said purpose and such files were given to the applicants in loose condition without putting it in some envelope or in a sealed condition. He stated that HIT Section for Tatkal Service of additional passport booklets in the office of RPO was located on the second floor and HIT Section for general (non-Tatkal) was located separately in Hall No. 2 at second floor. There was no apparent restrictions on the entry of other officials in the HIT Section, however, public was not allowed to enter the HIT Section. Sh.Ajai Gautam was the Incharge of computer section. He admitted that in one of the instances, the HIT was shown to have been cleared by accused Ram Chander, while he was shown on leave as per attendance register.
67. In cross-examination on behalf of A2 Bibinus Toppo, he stated that Counter Clerk did not retain old passport with him, rather he used to return the same to the applicant after putting seal of 'extended by issue of fresh booklet'. Applicant used to place photostate copy of first two pages and last two pages of previous passport which contains his personal particulars and Counter Clerk used to affix the above mentioned stamp only in those files where he did not find any deficiency or discrepancy. He also admitted that at the time of passing promise date, PIA was not supposed to pass a detailed order and he used to give an approximate date. After getting the promise date, applicant was required to deposit fee and submit the file at the registration counter, he CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 67 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others could deposit the same on the next day directly at the registration counter and in that situation, he used to keep the file with him. Previous passport file was not used to be sent to PIA at any stage at the time of issuing/dealing with the additional passport files. He admitted that no facility was provided in the computer of PIA to see the photograph and signatures of the passport holder and no specific training was imparted to the PIA to differentiate between genuine and fake passport. Whenever, any discrepancy or irregularity was found in the file by the PAC/INDEX/HIT Section or any other section of the RPO Office, they used to mention the same in the space provided in the file and in case there was no objection in such files and no remarks of clearance were made by the above said sections, they used to send the file directly to the concerned section for further process. Whenever any objection was raised by any of the sections of the RPO, such files used to be kept separately to seek clarification from the applicant and in case the applicant failed to remove the objection, the application used to be rejected after giving proper opportunity for explanation. He admitted that Ministry of External Affairs had liberalized the procedure for issuance of additional passport booklet by issuing circulars and as per the said circulars, additional passport booklets and miscellaneous services to be provided to the applicant on the same day or preferably within 3-5 days. He stated that accused no. 2 had given the promise date within the time prescribed by MEA in its circulars and A2 used to deal with 150-200 file of additional passport services and besides that he also used to deal with 100-150 files for miscellaneous services or there was huge rush and work load in RPO, Delhi. He also admitted that without clearance from HIT and PAC, additional passport booklets could not be issued and computer would not generate additional passport booklet number. PIA CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 68 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others could not pass the grant order before the clearance from HIT/PAC Section. In the year 2002 Index Section was closed and since then previous particulars used to be checked from computer by HIT Section. Earlier, the previous particulars of the applicants used to be checked manually by the INDEX Section by seeing the index card. The particulars of previous passport used to be printed on the last page of the additional passport booklet.
68. In regard to court question about duty of Counter Clerk and PIA where the applicant sought additional passport booklet on the pretext that the pages of previous passport had been full, he replied that in such cases, Counter Clerk and PIA used to check the passport to ensure whether the pages of previous passport had been full or not and the Counter Clerk used to affix the stamp of cancelled & returned. The stamp of 'extended by fresh booklet' was used to be affixed in passport where there was a valid visa in the old passport. With regard to passport in question, he stated that additional passport had been sought by the applicant on the ground that the previous passport had been full. He also stated that if there was stamp of cancelled & returned or extended by fresh additional booklet on the copy of previous passport annexed with the application, the said stamp was sufficient to the Counter Clerk and PIA to make out that on the basis of said passport, applicant had already obtained an additional booklet. He also clarified that multiple additional passport booklets cannot be issued on the basis of same passport. He stated that at the relevant time, complete file used to be scanned after delivery of the passport and the same was not used to be scanned at the very initial stage. Now a days the file is scanned at the initial stage to avoid any kind of fraud after issuance of promise date. In regard to a CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 69 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others question that if after getting the previous passport cancelled and getting the promise date in his file, the applicant somehow misplaces the copy of previous passport annexed with the file inadvertently or replaces the same deliberately and encloses the copy of his cancelled passport, he replied that in such eventuality, it was the duty of registration clerk to seek clarification from the applicant and ask him to get it approved from PIA. He stated that he had never worked as Counter Clerk during his service tenure. He stated that besides the case of CBI in passport scam cases, he also joined the investigation conducted by EOW of Delhi Police in passport matters. He denied that since he committed numerous mistakes during his service tenure, CBI threatened him either to become a witness or otherwise they would implead him as an accused or that due to that reason he used to make a false statement at the behest of CBI.
Witness relating to non-existence of address C-12, Meera Bagh, New Delhi:-
69. PW2 stated that he was acquainted with the area of Meera Bagh, New as he remained posted as Postman in Sunder Vihar Post Office from 2003 to 2007 and there was only one block in Meera Bagh i.e. A-Block. He deposed that there was no C-Block in Meera Bagh Area and hence C-12, Meera Bagh, Delhi was a non-existing address.
70. PW3, Mangat Ram stated that he remained posted as Postman in the Paschim Vihar Post Office from 1992 to about 2010. He was assigned the area of Shubam Enclave, J Block, GS-2, Raksha Kunj, Pink Apartment, SB Nagar, Meera Bagh and GH-4 etc. He stated that only B-Block area of Meera Bagh falls within Paschim Vihar Post Office CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 70 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others and A-Block of Meera Bagh falls within the area of Sunder Vihar Post Office. He stated that there was no C-Block in Meera Bagh and therefore, C-12, Meera Bagh was a non-existing address.
71. PW14 Harish Chander Goel stated that he has been posted as Postman in the Paschim Vihar Post Office since 01.02.1993 and was assigned beat No.11 for distribution of dak which includes the area of Shubam Enclave, J-Block, GH-2, GH-3, Raksha Kunj, Pink Apartment, SB Nagar, Meera Bagh and GH-4 etc. He stated that only B-block area of Meera Bagh falls within Paschim Vihar Post Office and A-Block of Meera Bagh falls within the area of Sunder Vihar post office. He testified that there is no C-Block in Meera Bagh hence address C-12, Meera Bagh does not exist.
72. PW33 Shankar Shah stated that during the period 2001-05, he was posted at Sunder Vihar Post Office as postman and was assigned to distribute letters and parcels in the area of GH-6 and A- Block, Meera Bagh in Sunder Vihar Area. He further testified that in Meera Bagh, there were only two blocks i.e. A & B Block and there was no C-Block in Meera Bagh. He testified that C-12, Meera Bagh, New Delhi-87 was not in existence during the said period.
Witness relating to air tickets:-
73. PW4 Rakesh Kumar Awasthi, Director, M/s Antlanta Travels proved the invoice Nos.I-6899 to I-6902 which was issued by their travel agency in the names of V.K. Gupta, Alka Gupta, Monika Gupta and Trapti Gupta for date of travel as 21.05.2003 as Ex.PW4/A to Ex.PW4/D and CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 71 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others the ticket coupons as Ex.PW4/E to Ex.PW4/H, invoice Nos. I-7565 to I- 7569 along with ticket coupons for the travel date 16.09.2003 in the name of V.K. Gupta, Alka Gupta, Shalini Gupta, Trapti Gupta and Monika Gupta as Ex.PW4/J-1 to Ex.PW4/J5 and ticket coupons as Ex.PW4/K1 to Ex.PW4/K5. He also proved on record invoice Nos. I-7906 to I-7910 along with ticket coupons for the travel date 02.12.2003 in the name of V.K. Gupta, Alka Gupta, Shalini Gupta, Trapti Gupta and Monika Gupta as Ex.PW4/L1 to Ex.PW4/L5 and the ticket coupons as Ex.PW4/M1 to Ex.PW4/M5. He has also proved the invoice Nos. I-8330, I-8350, I-8349, I-8352 & I-8354 along with travel coupons for the travel date 23.03.2004 in the name of V.K. Gupta, Alka Gupta, Shalini Gupta, Trapti Gupta and Monika Gupta as Ex.PW4/N1 to Ex.PW4/N5 and ticket coupons as Ex.PW4/P1 to Ex.PW4/P5. He stated that the tickets were issued after receiving cash payment.
Witness relating to ration card:-
74. PW5 G.K. Sapra, stated that since the year 2001 till 2006 he remained posted as Grade II Inspector in Food & Supply Circle 69, Aaram Bagh, New Delhi and the address C-12 Meera Bagh, New Delhi did not fall in circle No.69 as circle 69 Aaram Bagh falls in Central District. He stated that copies of ration card marked as Mark-PW5/A to Ex.PW5/E showing the address H.No.C-12, Meera Bagh, New Delhi mentioned the Circle No.69, whereas Meera Bagh does not fall in Circle No.69 and shop No.8476 as mentioned in the photocopies of ration card does not fall in Circle No.69.
CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 72 of 171State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others Witness related to search conducted at the house of Sh.P.K.Kapoor (since deceased), Suptd. RPO, ND
75. PW6 Smt. Shobha Kapoor stated that her husband Sh.P.K. Kapoor was posted at RPO, New Delhi as Superintendent and has expired on 11.09.2001 due to heart attack. She has proved on record copy of death certificate of P.K.Kapoor as Ex.PW6/A She has proved on record the search list dated 20.07.2006 regarding search conducted by CBI at her house as Ex.PW6/B.
76. PW7 Anil Gupta, neighbourer proved the search list already exhibited as Ex.PW6/B in the house of Sh.P.K. Kapoor which bears his signature at Point-B. Witness related to identity of accused No.7 Vinod Kumar Gupta:-
77. PW23 Vinod Kumar Jain, who was resident of J-7/3, West Jyoti Nagar, Loni Road, Delhi testified that he knows Vinod Kumar Gupta and his family members since 1992. He stated that passport file bearing No.D-1427/03 Ex.PW.20/T (colly.) (D.37) contains personal particular form of Sh.Vinod Kumar Gupta & passport file bearing No.D-1426/03 Ex.PW.20/A.1 (colly.) (D.39) contains personal particular form of Smt. Alka Gupta (wife of Vinod Kumar Gupta) and on back side of both the forms reference of his father Sh.Ajit Prashad Jain has been mentioned given at point A along with correct address.
78. PW29 Narinder Kumar Jain, stated that A7 V.K. Gupta and his family members were his long time neighbourer. He identified the photographs of A7 and his wife Alka Gupta. He has proved on record CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 73 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others personal particular form of V.K. Gupta as Ex.PW29/A (colly.) and Shalini Gupta as Ex.PW29/B (colly.).
Witness related to identity of accused No. 8 Naresh Kumar Mathur:-
79. PW27 Madhu Mathur (Wife of A8) identified the photographs of her husband on Ex.PW1/A (Q47) (Passport application form Ex.PW20/F and misc. service form Ex.PW1/B), file Ex.PW18/R (passport application form Ex.PW20/S and Misc. Service Form Ex.PW27/A), file Ex.PW19/B (Passport application form Ex.PW20/L and misc. service form Ex.PW27/B), file Ex.PW20/W ((Passport application form Ex.PW20/X and misc. service form Ex.PW27/C) and copy of passport of her husband Naresh Kumar Mathur as Ex.PW27/D (D.74).
80. PW40 Sh. Kuldeep Sharma stated that he knows Naresh Mathur as he was one of the directors in The Manali Inn and he has proved on record photograph of A8 on Ex.PW28/21, passport registration form Ex.PW20/S, Miscellaneous application form Ex.PW27/A, copy of the passport Ex.PW28/30, passport registration form Ex.PW20/L, miscellaneous application form Ex.PW27/B, copy of the passport Ex.PW28/37 passport registration form Ex.PW20/X, Miscellaneous application form Ex.PW27/C, copy of the passport Ex. PW28/43, photocopy of passport of Naresh Kumar Mathur (Ex. PW27/D)
81. In cross-examination, he stated that he does not know Vinod Kumar Gupta and no such person had any association with their abovesaid hotel. There was no hotel in the name of Manali King in Rangari, Manali.
CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 74 of 171State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others Daughter and wife of A7 to the fact that their photographs were not affixed on the fake passports and they had not undertaken journey on the aforesaid passports:-
82. PW34 Shalini Gupta (daughter of A7 Vinod Kumar Gupta) has proved on record her passport application form bearing her photograph as Ex.PW34/A and copy of ration card as Ex.PW34/B, application for miscellaneous service Ex.PW34/C, passport application registration form Ex.PW34/D, copy of her previous passport bearing No. B-2317984 as Ex.PW34/E. She testified that form Ex.PW34/A was filled up by her father Vinod Kumar Gupta. She also deposed that passport bearing T-7622 (Ex.PW18/E), T-1111 (Ex.PW1/E), T-015901 (Ex.PW20/N) and T-002747 (Ex.PW20/A6) were never applied by her and also do not bear her photograph, signatures, request letter. She stated that embarkation card bearing No.0446756 (Ex.PW8/B6) was filled up by her husband and bears her signature and stated that embarkation cards bearing No.004345171 (Ex.PW8/B25) dated 16.09.2003, 0066302 (Ex.PW8/B23) dated 23.03.2004 were neither filled up by herself or her husband nor bears her signature.
83. In cross-examination, she stated that she never visited any other country except Nepal on the additional passport booklet bearing No.B-5149129 and again said even at the time of visiting Nepal, she did not use the above said passport.
84. PW35 Alka Gupta (wife of Vinod Gupta) has proved her photographs and signatures on Ex.PW35/A to Ex.PW35/H. She stated that form Ex.PW35/E and Ex.PW35/F were filled up by her husband and CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 75 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others submitted in the Regional Passport Office. She had herself collected the first additional passport booklet issued in her name. She proved the passport application form from the passport file bearing No.B-016422 as Ex.PW35/A & copy of Ration Card as Ex.PW35/B, affidavit dated 22.05.2000 executed by her as Ex.PW35/C. Witness relating to embarkation and disembarkation:-
85. PW8 to PW10 proved the embarkation and disembarkation procedure and also proved the embarkation & disembarkation cards of V.K. Gupta, Alka Gupta, Shalini Gupta, Monika Gupta and Trapti Gupta.
Witness related to sanction U/ s 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:-
86. PW13 Sh. R. Swaminathan stated that he was working as Joint Secretary (CPV) and Chief Passport Officer, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi at the relevant time and had accorded sanction under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 dated 05.03.08 Ex.PW13/A. He had accorded sanction for prosecution in respect of A1 to A6 and A9 to A11 under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act. He was satisfied that on the basis of reports and documents made available to him that a case under Section 120B IPC r/w Section 420/468/471/471 IPC and Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act and Section 12 (1) (b) of Passport Act was made against the aforesaid officials. He was competent to remove the public servants except A1 Om Prakash and A2 Bibianus Toppo, the then Superintendent. In respect of A1, it is stated that Minister of State, Ministry of External Affairs was competent to grant sanction and CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 76 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others in respect of A2, Additional Secretary, Administration and CPV were competent to grant sanction. Aaccordingly, approval of the competent authority was obtained on the file and thereafter he had signed the sanction order Ex.PW13/A. It is further stated that he had accorded another sanction order Ex.PW13/B vide which he had sanctioned prosecution of A7 Vinod Kumar Gupta, A8 Naresh Kumar Mathur, A12 Monika Gupta and A13 Trapti Gupta for commission of offence under Section 12 of Passport Act.
87. In his cross-examination, he denied that he had signed the draft sanction sent by CBI as directed by them or that he mechanically passed the sanction order.
88. In cross-examination on behalf of A2 Bibianus Toppo, he clarified that in the same sanction order it has been mentioned that sanction was granted for substantive offence also. He admitted that there was no Rule which prohibited the Additional Secretary to sign the sanction order himself after getting approval in the file. He denied that he was not competent to sign the sanction order after approval from the Additional Secretary and that the Additional Secretary himself was required to sign the sanction order. He admitted that in sanction order (Ex.PW13/A) it was not specifically mentioned that the Additional Secretary had accorded sanction for prosecution of accused A2 Bibianus Toppo. He further clarified that the sanction order was composite one including that of a Class-I Officer (A1) and in whose case the competent authority was Ministry of External Affairs, whose approval was obtained and Vigilance Commission was also consulted before issuance of composite sanction order. He denied that he was not aware of the fact CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 77 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others that he was not competent to accord sanction for prosecution of A2 Bibianus Toppo on the date of signing sanction order and that he was deposing falsely in order to cover up the case of the prosecution and justified his sanction order. In respect of A1, he denied that the approval of the competent authority was not obtained for the prosecution of the accused.
89. There is no dispute that PW13 was competent to remove the public servants except A1 and A2. Therefore, there is no dispute in regard to competency of PW13 to accord sanction in respect of other accused i.e. A3 to A6, A9 to A11.
90. In respect of A1 and A2, PW13, has clarified that Ministry of External Affairs and Additional Secretary were respectively competent and their sanction was obtained on the file and thereafter he had signed the sanction order. The sanction order itself clarifies the said position in as much as the words 'on behalf of competent authority' are found mentioned therein. However, these two accused chose not to examine any witness in this regard. On the contrary, the suggestion has been given on behalf of these accused that even after obtaining the sanction of competent authority, PW13 was not competent to sign the sanction order.
This proves that the fact that the issue of obtaining approval from the competent authority was not seriously disputed. Ld. Counsel placed reliance upon.
91. The second sanction order Ex.PW13/B relates to private individuals i.e. accused Vinod Kumar Khatri (A7), Naresh Kumar Mathur (A8), Monika Gupta and Trapti Gupta (who have been discharged). No CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 78 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others serious objection has been raised with regards to sanction on this account.
Registration of Passport:-
92. Prosecution has stated that there were 38 passports in total issued in the present case.
93. PW37 stated that files Ex.PW11/F, Ex.PW18/C, |Ex.PW18/E, Ex.PW18/G and Ex.PW18/J were registered by him and he had issued the receipt on the same i.e.Ex. PW37/A to PW37/D and all these file were registered in the year 2002. Files Ex. PW1/A to Ex.PW1/L were also registered by him and receipts for the same were separately Ex. PW37/E to PW37/I. He stated that all those files were registered in the year 2003 and his P number was P371 and work done by him also reflected in the work done sheets.
94. In cross-examination, he stated that at the time of registration, he was doing the work of feeding particulars of the applicant from the form produced by the applicant. He admitted that the Counter Clerk used to return the passport after cancelling the same. He also stated that he had registered the file (Ex.PW37/DA).
Counter Clerk:-
95. PW41 Sh.Govind Lal, APO, Regional Passport Office, New Delhi stated that he used to work as Counter Clerk in RPO, Delhi during the year 1991 to 2001. He testified that he had dealt with files Ex.
CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 79 of 171State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others PW36/A in passport file Ex.PW11/C (colly), Ex.PW35/E in passport file Ex. PW15/C (colly), Ex. PW34/C in passport file Ex. PW15/E (colly), Ex. PW36/B in passport file Ex. PW15/G (colly) and PW36/C in passport file Ex. PW15/J (colly). The duty of Counter Clerk was to obey the orders of his officers. He stated that he had cancelled the original passports Ex. PW11/D, Ex. PW35/D, passport booklet bearing no. B-2317984, Ex. PW12/B and passport booklet bearing No. B-5000898 by affixing seal of cancellation. He stated that when the abovesaid passports were produced before him, the same were in perfect condition and the additional passports were not sought on the ground that the previous passports had been damaged. At the time of issuance of additional passport booklet, applicant was required to produce the previous passport for cancellation and also to file copy of the same with the application.
96. In cross-examination, he admitted that all the aforesaid passport booklets were produced before Sh. U.S. Lingwal on 29.05.2001 and he had registered all the files and his P Number was P370. He admitted that as per the computer sheets/process sheets (Ex. PW21/B, Ex. PW21/B6, Ex. PW21/B11, Ex. PW21/B15 and Ex. PW21/B21), he had registered the applications on 21.5.2001. At the time of registration, he used to feed the name of applicant, his father's name and date of birth of the applicant in the computer. He also fed the old passport number at the time of registration. He admitted that it was his duty to point out any discrepancy, if noticed in the passport file during the period of registration to his superior. He also admitted that passport booklet B-2317984 was not bearing photograph of passport holder as on date. He denied that he was deposing falsely about the procedure.
CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 80 of 171State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others Granting Officer:-
97. PW12 (retired APO), RPO, Delhi has detailed the procedure which has been followed in RPO in regard to processing and grant of additional passport booklets. He stated that he had issued additional passport booklet No.E-4714262 dated 26.02.2003 to Ms.Monika Gupta on the ground that she had to go for honeymoon and not on the ground that previous passport booklet was damaged.
98. PW30 Ms.Asia stated that she had worked with RPO, New Delhi since 1981 till 2010 and her employee code number was P-316. She stated that passport file Ex.PW.11/F (D.12) in the name of Vinod Kumar Gupta (page no.4 of the said file Ex.28/2), passport file Ex.PW.18/C (colly.) (D.13) in the name of Alka Gupta (page no.4 of the said file which was Ex.28/5), passport file Ex.PW.18/E (Colly.) (D.14) in the name of Shalini Gupta (page no.4 of the said file which was Ex.28/9), passport file Ex.PW.18/G (colly.) (D.15) in the name of Monika Gupta (page no.4 of the said file which was Ex.28/13) and passport file Ex.PW.18/J (colly.) (D.16) in the name of Trapti Gupta (page no. 3 of the said file which was Ex.28/17) were signed by granting officer Sh.Om Parkash at point C & A respectively and her signatures for signing the passport was at point D. She stated that she had also written the remarks that PRO proceeded on short leave in green ink. She stated that she was also a Passport Granting Officer for fresh cases and since Sh.Om Prakash was on short leave, she had also checked the particulars of the passport applicant from copy of previous passport annexed with the application.
CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 81 of 171State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others
99. In cross-examination, she stated that computer print out of work done report of RPO, Delhi in respect of File No.00179304 (Ex.PW.30/DA) which reflects her P number 316 for passing of promise order in the said passport file. She has proved on record the certified copy of said passport file as Ex.PW.30/DB. She identified the signature of Sh.Bibianus Toppo, the then Suptd. Or APO at point A. She admitted that she had given the promise date of 05.02.2001 as on that day Sh.Bibianus Toppo was on leave or not available otherwise.
100. PW31 Sh. Krishan Kumar stated that he had worked in different capacities at RPO between 1999 to 2008. He stated that application for duplicate passport was deposited by applicant V.K. Gupta at the counter of RPO, Delhi on 28.05.2003 on the ground that the previous passport had been damaged. After 02-03 days i.e. on 30.05.2003, applicant had filed separate request letter for expediting the issuance of duplicate additional passport for himself as well as for his wife. He had directed the applicant to deposit Rs.2,500/- as fees and had given the promise date as 03.06.2003 at point-A. He has proved on record the request letter as Ex.PW31/A. He stated that the said file containing his noting at point A in his handwriting in respect of passing the order for issuance/granting of passport. He has proved the said page as Ex.PW.31/B. He had also signed on the file at point-C in token of having signed the passport. He stated that his P Number was 215 which was reflected on Ex.PW21/B4 (D67). Similarly, he identified his signatures at point-A on letter (Ex.PW31/C) on page of file Ex.PW31/D. He has also proved another passport file No.1426/03 Ex.PW.20/A.1 (colly.) (D.39) for issuance of duplicate passport in the name of Alka Gupta. He has proved the request as Ex.PW.31/C. He has proved on CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 82 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others record the page containing his handwriting and signatures for passing of grant order of passport as Ex.PW.31/D. He stated that both the passports were issued under his signatures and the passports were received by V.K. Gupta at the counter.
101. In cross-examination, he stated that before giving the promise date, he had assured himself that the file was complete in all respect. He stated that Sushma Bajaj (Accused No.10) had not given any representation to him regarding misuse of her P number and password by someone. He admitted that in Ex.PW21/B4, the promise date was mentioned as 03.06.2003 instead of 30.05.2003. He clarified that since information on the computer was fed on 03.06.2003, therefore, the date was being reflected as 03.06.2003. He admitted that applicant was required to ask and undertake that the information furnished was true and correct and was also to furnish the number of his last passport. He admitted that at the time of putting the stamp of cancellation and return on the booklet, he was not required to mention the date of cancellation but he cancelled the same on the date on which the stamp was put on the booklet. He admitted that at the relevant time there was no facility with him to show as to how many additional passports had been obtained by the applicant. He admitted that in the application in question V.K.Gupta had disclosed his father's name as Om Prakash Gupta, while in the annexed copy of passport, his father's name was mentioned as Amar Nath Goel while it should be Om Prakash Gupta. He admitted that when he had dealt with the file, he presumed in good faith that applicant had mentioned the correct information and since no adverse remarks had been received, he had granted the passport. He admitted that no departmental enquiry had been initiated against him. He CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 83 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others stated that there was heavy workload on PIA at the relevant time.
Detailed Entry:-
102. PW19 Sh.Tara Dutt Joshi, LDC, RPO stated that he had joined RPO, New Delhi in the year 1998 and worked on different seats of RPO office such as Detailed entry, scanning etc. and his P Number was P-755. He stated that in the files in which he used to do detailed entry, no signature or written remarks were made by him. However, some times the stamp DE was put on the file cover for doing detailed entry and some times due to rush of work, the stamp was not affixed on the file cover. He stated that he had made detailed entry in files Ex.PW11/F (colly D-12), Ex.PW18./C (Colly. D-13), Ex.PW18/E (colly. D-14), Ex.PW18/G (colly.D-
15), Ex.PW18/J (colly. D-16), Ex.PW1/A (D-17), Ex.PW1/C (Colly. D-21), Ex.PW1/E (colly.D-25), Ex.PW1/G (colly.D-28), Ex.PW1/L (colly. D-32), Ex.PW18/R (colly.D-18), Ex.PW18/T (colly.D-22), Ex.PW1/J (colly.D-42), Ex.PW18/W (colly.D-29), Ex.PW18/Y(colly.D-33), Ex.PW19/B (colly.D-
19), Ex.PW19/D (colly. D-23), Ex.PW19/F (colly. D-30), Ex.PW19/H (colly. D-34). He stated that he had done the detailed entry work in the abovesaid file as reflected at Mark-PW18/A, Mark-PW18/B, Mark- PW18/D, Mark-PW18/F, Mark-PW18/H, Mark-PW18/K, Mark-PW18/L, Mark-PW18/M, Mark-PW18/N, Mark-PW18/P, Mark-PW18/Q, Mark- PW18/S, Mark-PW18/U, Mark-PW18/V, Mark-PW18/X, Mark-PW19/A, Mark-PW19/C, Mark-PW19/E and Mark-PW19/G.
103. PW24 Smt.Usha Saxena stated that she had worked in detailed entry section of RPO, Delhi. She stated that she used to receive files in detailed entry section after the fee was deposited by the CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 84 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others application in Registration Section. The detailed entry was done in the computer and no remarks were required in the passport file except a stamp on file folder. She stated that her P Number was P-460 and if she had done the detailed entry in particular passport file, her P-Number was reflected in the computer database. She stated that she had dealt with file Ex.PW20/t (D.37), Ex.PW20/A1 (D.39). She stated that her P Number and name had been reflected in computer printouts Ex.PW20/V and Ex.PW20/A3.
104. PW16 Sh.Laxman Singh, LDC, RPO, Delhi stated that he worked at the seat of detailed entry, printing etc. and his P number was P731 when he was casual worker and P-587 when he promoted as Peon. He had dealt with file Ex.PW11/C, Ex.PW15/C, Ex.PW15/E, Ex.PW15/G, Ex.PW15/J. He stated that as per practice of RPO, they used to receive files from Scanning Section and after performing the work of detailed entry, they used to send the same to concerned section for further action. He stated that the printouts in the above said files reflect his P-Number as a person, who had done the detailed entry and stated that letter dated 09.05.2005 issued under the signature of Sh.I.M. Sabharwal, the then Superintendent, RPO, Delhi along with computer printouts showing work done by different official were forwarded. He has proved on record the above said letter as Ex.PW16/A.
105. PW39 Vishambhar Datt, LDC, Regional Passport Office stated that his P number was P753 and he used to perform the detail entry of the passport applications. He had performed detail entry of passport applications {Ex.PW20/A12 (colly.) and Ex.PW20/A18 (colly.)}.
CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 85 of 171State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others
106. In cross-examination stated that his P Number was never changed and he has also not changed his password. He stated that in the detailed entry, he used to feed the name of the applicant, mother's name, address, spouse name and place of birth and in case it was a case of reissue or additional passport, he used to feed passport number of the applicant.
Witness related to Printing of passport:-
107. PW25 Sh.Amit Kumar Sharma stated that he was working as casual labour with RPO and had resigned in the year 2006. He was doing the work of tagging, detailed entry, passport writing, scanning and dispatching according to the orders issued by Administrative Officer. He stated that files used to be received in Printing Section from respective sections like Tatkal and after printing the file, the same were used to be sent to Lamination Section. He had carried out the printing work of files Ex.PW21/H5 (D.67), Ex.PW21/B-10 (D.67), Ex.PW21/B-20 (D.67), Ex.PW20/A (D.67), Ex.PW20/Y (D.67), Ex.PW20/A6 (D.67), Ex.PW20/A8 (D.67), Ex.PW20/A-20 (D.67), Ex.PW20/A14(D.67). He stated that he was not required to sing or make any entry on the passport file but his work was to select the passport number as mentioned in the concerned file and to print the passport by obtaining data which is feeded in the computer. Thereafter, he used to send the same to Lamination Section for stamping and signatures of PIA/PRO/Superintendent.
108. In cross-examination, he stated that he did not notice any discrepancy in file dealt by him. He admitted that the work load and work pressure was very high in RPO office during his tenure. He admitted CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 86 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others that the volume of files pertaining to issue of additional booklet and miscellaneous services used to be very high i.e.150-200 per day. He stated that passport printing work could not be done without the help of computer. He stated that his name and P Number was shown in the computer record of RPO office as he had worked in the files.
109. PW20 Sh.Suman Kumar Sehgal, PGO in RPO Office stated that he was working in the printing section and his duty was to allot passport numbers only to the cases promised by PRO/RPO. He used to get issued the blank passport booklets from the strong room and used to deposit back the unused passport booklets on the same day in the evening.
Witness related to Scanning of passport:-
110. PW15 Rohtash Kumar, LDC, RPO, Delhi stated that he had worked at the seat of scanning of the passport files, dispatch of passport, passport allotment, detailed entry etc and his P-Number was P-777. He had dealt with files ExPW11/C (D-36), D-67, D-38, Ex.PW15/E, Ex.PW15/G, Ex.PW15/J. He stated that the passport files were received from the counter, where the application for passport was deposited and the staff of the filing section, put the file cover on the application and file number was also allotted at the counter. Thereafter, the files were sent to scanning section, where scanning work was done and after doing the scanning work, the files were sent by them to Detailed Entry Section. He stated that they do not keep records for doing scanning work in the files and the same were not required to be signed by them for having done the scanning work.
CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 87 of 171State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others
111. PW18 Sh.Rajender Singh Chauhan, Assistant Cashier, RPO, Delhi stated that he had joined RPO, New Delhi in 1998 and worked on different seats of RPO such as counters, passport writing, detail entry and scanning etc.
112. He stated that when he was working at Scanning Section, he used to receive passport files from Counters and his P Number was P-
738. He had performed the work of scanning in files Ex.PW11/F (colly.D-
12) at Mark-PW18/A, Ex.PW18/C (colly.D-13) at Mark-PW18/B, Ex.PW18/E at Mark-PW18/D, Ex.PW18/G (colly.D-15) at Mark-PW18/F, Ex.PW18/J at Mark-PW18/H, Ex.PW1/D (D-17) at Mark PW18/K, Ex.PW1/C at Mark PW18/L, Ex.PW1/E (colly.D-25) at Mark PW18/M, Ex.PW1/G (colly.D-28) at Mark-PW18/N, Ex.PW1/L at Mark PW18/P, Ex.PW18/R (colly.D-18) at Mark PW18/Q, Ex.PW18/T (colly.D-22) at Mark-PW18/S, Ex.PW1/J (colly.D-42) at Mark-PW18/U, Ex.PW1/W (colly.D-29) at Mark-PW18/V, Ex.PW1/Y (colly.D-33) at Mark-PW18/X.
113. In cross-examination, he stated that normally the work of scanning was performed by him on the same day on which the file used to be received by him but in the eventuality of work load the same was cleared on the next day. The files were received for scanning in bunch and were kept in open space in his section. He denied the suggestion that the files had been changed subsequently after the same were cleared by the Counter Clerk.
114. PW22 Sh.Puran Chand stated that he had joined RPO, Delhi as a casual labour with employee code P-711 and thereafter when he became permanent employee he was allotted employee code as P-514.
CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 88 of 171State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others He stated that he had worked with the record section, writing section, dispatch section, scanning section and pasting section of RPO, Delhi. He stated that while working in the scanning section, the passport files including Tatkal cases were received by him from the registration section or detailed entry section and after scanning of the files received by him he used to send the same to Index Section but he never used to put his signatures or any rubber seal on the file covers after scanning the same. In case of scanning only the first page of the passport registration form which contains the photograph and signature of applicant was scanned in the computer and the same was stored permanently in the computer. The photograph and signature of the candidate which was scanned appears on the passport of the applicant. He stated that he had done scanning work in file Ex.PW19/B, Ex.PW19/D, Ex.PW19/F, Ex.PW19/H and the computer sheet mark PW19/A, PW19/C, PW19/E, PW19/G reflected his P number regarding the scanning work done on these files.
115. In cross-examination, he stated that he used to scan 500 files per day, out of which 100-150 files used to be of additional passport booklets. He had never noticed any discrepancy on any of the file scanned by him.
116. PW26 Sh. Arun Kumar Singh stated that he was working with RPO, Delhi since 1992 and had worked at the seat of scanning, dispatching and printing of the passports. He stated that in case of scanning the first page of the Passport Application Registration Form containing the photographs and the signatures of the applicant was scanned on computer system and the same was stored and when the passport was printed after grant, the same photographs and signatures of CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 89 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others the applicant would appear on the passport issued to the applicant. He further stated that after scanning, the files were sent to detail entry section and after the detailed entry, the files were sent to Index Section for further action. He stated that his P Number was P-730 when he was casual worker and thereafter P-586, when he became LDC. He stated that he had carried out the scanning work of file Ex.PW20/W (colly.), Ex. PW-20/A-20 (D-67 Part) in respect of file no. T-00274604 (D-31) which is already marked as Ex. PW-20/A-18 (colly), Ex. PW-20/A-14 (D-67 Part) in respect of file no. T-00274504 (D-35) which is already marked as Ex. PW-20/A-12 (colly) and Ex.PW-20/V (D-67 Part) in respect of file no. D- 00142703 (D-37) which is already marked as Ex. PW-20/T (colly) wherein his P Number was reflected as P-730. He stated that he used to put a stamp 'scanned' on the file cover of the respective files which were scanned by him. However, some times due to rush of work the scanning stamp was not affixed in some cases.
117. In cross-examination, he stated that whenever the file came to him, the photographs were not laminated or embossed. After the fee was deposited by the applicant and the application was accepted, the same was collected at the place where file covers were put by Peon and thereafter the same were brought for scanning in bunches. He stated that he cannot comment that before the file was brought to him for scanning, the photograph could be changed by the Peon.
118. PW38 Jeewan Singh, stated that in the year 2004, he was working at RPO, Delhi and his P Number was P728. He stated that he had scanned the passport application form Ex.PW20/A15 (colly.) and the process sheet Ex.PW20/A17.
CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 90 of 171State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others
119. In cross-examination, he stated that his work was only to scan the photographs and signatures of applicants. He clarified that at the initial stage, there was no procedure to scan the complete file and the complete file used to be scanned after delivery of the passport.
Witness related to HIT Section:-
120. PW17 Sh. Bhopal Dutt, Superintendent, in the office of Joint Secretary, CPV Division, Ministry of External Affairs, Delhi stated that he had worked on different seats of RPO i.e. passport writings, HIT Section etc. He stated that he used to receive the files for HIT checking after the grant orders were passed and his P-Number was P-472, when he was posted at HIT Section. He further stated that HIT had been cleared by him in files Ex.PW11/C (colly.) at Mark-PW15/A, Ex.PW15/C at Mark- PW15/B, Ex.PW156/E (colly. D-40) at Mark-PW15/D, Ex.PW15/G at Mark-PW15/F, Ex.PW15/J at Mark-PW15/H.
121. He stated that at the time of HIT checking, the details of previous passport issued to the applicant, such as name of applicant, his/her father's name, previous passport number were reflected.
FINDINGS:-
122. As per the prosecution case, there were about 10 additional passport booklets issued under this conspiracy. The details of the same have been already noted in para No. 4 hereinabove and need not the repeated here again.
CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 91 of 171State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others
123. In regard to officers of RPO, it is stated that as per procedure to be followed regarding issuance of additional passport booklets, the applicants were required to submit the application forms along with the previous passports and after checking the same, if the same were found in order, the Counter Clerk would put the same before the Processing Clerk in the HIT Section
124. Upon analysis of 14 stages, through which an application for additional passport booklets was to pass, as mentioned in Paragraph No. 22 hereinabove, it is clear that there were three distinct counter/stage officials i.e. Counter Clerk, HIT Section & the PIA/Granting Officer (officials of 1st, 2nd and 8th stage), where the applicant would appear in person, produce his/her original documents/original passport for comparison and satisfaction of officials or the complete details of the applicant relating to his previous particulars, photographs, signatures, number of additional passport booklets would be available. Therefore, it is at these three stages that any kind of fraud, misrepresentation of fact, concealment relating to identity, signatures, address or the number of additional passport booklets would be immediately traced/found-out by the concerned officials of these three stages. At the other stages officials were merely performing their work but did not have any means to either know about the applicant or incorrect particulars etc.
125. Prosecution stated that the officials at the aforesaid three stages had connived and conspired to issue the passports to the fraudulent persons or in violation of rules and regulations of passport office.
CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 92 of 171State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others
126. It is stated that the Counter Clerk was duty bound to check the previous passports and affix the stamp of cancellation on the previous passport and photocopy of the passport attached with the applications.
127. The role of HIT Section was very crucial as they were required to verify the particulars of the applicants and match the photographs as well as signatures of the applicants with the previous passport and if found to be correct, give HIT clearance in the same.
128. Granting officers were required to check all the details and confirm the particulars to be correct and thereafter accordingly sanction for issuance of passport. Thus there are three stages which were directly involved in checking and responsible for checking the correct particulars of the applicants namely the Processing Clerks, HIT officials and Granting Officials.
129. In respect of the 2nd additional passport booklets, it is claimed that A1 was the granting officer, A4 was the Processing Clerk and A10 was the HIT official.
130. In respect of 3rd additional passport booklets, A1 was Granting Official, A4 was Processing Official and A10 was HIT Official.
131. In respect of 4th and 5th additional passport booklet, Granting Official was P.K.Kapoor (since deceased)/U.S.Lingwal, A3 was Processing Official and A9 was HIT official.
CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 93 of 171State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others
132. In respect of 6th additional passport booklet, the same was issued in the name of correct individuals. It is stated that A7 was responsible for concealment of vital facts. Similarly, 7 th additional passport booklet also was issued in the name of the correct individual but it is stated that A6 had processed the file without proper verification.
133. In respect of 8th additional passport booklet, A2 was the Granting Official, A5 was the Processing Official and A11 was HIT clearance Official.
134. With regards to the 9th additional passport booklets, it is stated that A5 was the counter clerk who had accepted the application, A11 was the HIT clearance official and the file was promised as well as granted by A2. In respect of the 10 th additional passport booklets, it may be noted that the same was issued in the name of the correct individual but there has been concealment of material facts.
Submissions made and findings of the Court:-
As regards accused No. 7:-
135. As per the prosecution case, A7 and his family members had applied 1st additional passports on 21.05.2001 which were issued on 30.05.2001. A7 received the same but applicants in the said passports had concealed the fact that the pages of their previous passports were empty and their original passports had been damaged in water in Canada in March, 2001 as stated by A7 in his statement U/s 313 Cr. P.C and also deposed by PW34 & PW35 (daughter and wife of A7 respectively) in their CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 94 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others evidence.
136. In respect of 2nd additional passport booklets, it is alleged that A7 applied for the same by mentioning fake address i.e. C-12, Meera Bagh, New Delhi and attached copy of 1 st additional passport which, according to him, had been lost and never recovered. However, the reason given for applying the 2 nd additional passport booklets was that the pages of 1st additional passport booklets in the name of Monika Gupta and Trapti Gupta were full and there was a change in signatures. However, no reason has been mentioned for applying 2 nd additional passport booklets in favour of other applicants. In the said passport booklets the photograph and signatures of A7 was correct but the photographs of other family members were of different persons than the actual persons. It is alleged that A7 had filled the form to obtain the said passport and also filed copy of forged ration card in proof of the unknown residential address mentioned in the passport application forms.
137. In respect of the 3rd additional passport booklets, it is stated that A8 applied for the same in the name of A7 & his family members by affixing photograph of himself in place of A7 and some other female individuals in place of wife and three daughters of A7. He also annexed copy of 1st additional passport booklets along with the applications. The signatures were also different from the 1 st additional passport booklets and the passports were obtained by A8 under his signatures by representing himself as A7 and husband/father of other applicants.
138. In respect of 4th & 5th additional passport booklets, it was alleged that A8 again submitted an application in the name of A7 and his CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 95 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others wife Alka Gupta for 4th additional passport booklets and application forms in the name of Monika Gupta and Trapti Gupta for 5 th additional passport booklets). Alongwith the applications he annexed copy of 1st additional passport booklets dated 30.05.2001 which were allegedly lost on 10.06.2001. It is stated that A8 used the same modus operandi and affixed his photograph in place of A7 and photograph of another female individuals on the form of Alka Gupta, Monika Gupta and Trapti Gupta.
139. In respect of 6th additional passport booklets, it is claimed that A7 and his wife applied for passports on the ground that their original passport booklets had been damaged in water. They annexed copy of the said original passports along with the application forms. Both the additional passport booklets were received by Vinod Kumar Gupta. It is claimed that they had concealed issuance of 1st additional passport as well as 2nd additional passport booklets.
140. In respect of 7th additional passport booklets, the same was applied by Monika Gupta on 25.02.2003 on the ground that she had to go for honeymoon. The same was issued in the name of correct individual but it is alleged that she had concealed the fact of damage of her original passport and the issuance of 1st additional passport.
141. In respect of 8th & 9th additional passport booklets, it is alleged that A8 used similar modus operandi as used in issuance of 1st and 4th additional passport booklets by affixing his photograph in place of A7 and other female individuals in place of family members of A7.
CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 96 of 171State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others
142. In respect of 10th additional passport booklet, it is stated that Trapti Gupta had submitted an application requesting for issuance of additional passport booklet on the ground that she required to visit abroad urgently and along with application she annexed copy of her original passport booklet. It is alleged that she concealed the fact that on the basis of this original passport, two additional passport booklets (1 st and 2nd) had already been issued in her name.
143. Counsel for A7 argued that in total there were 14 passports which are attributed to A7 and his family members. Out of which, 05 passports were the original passports which were issued in 2000 but damaged in water in March 2001 and the remaining 09 passports had been bonafidely issued to him. He stated that IO admitted in his cross- examination that there was no document to prove that he had received any information against A7 and his family members in RC No.2- 4(A)/2004. IO has mentioned that source information was received and FIR was lodged at the instance of Sh. B.N.P. Azad but Sh. B.N.P. Azad was not cited as a witness. There was nothing on record to show that any source information was received by IO or Sh. B.N.P. Azad. IO has failed to explain as to on what basis he had found that A7 was accused in the present case and why he had been arrested. At one place, he had admitted that on the basis of documents which were available, he had come to the conclusion that on the basis of forged documents, A7 had obtained additional passport booklets, which reveals that IO was in possession of relevant file and documents and even before any sample was taken and FIR was lodged, he had scope to manipulate the same.
CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 97 of 171State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others
(i) In regard to first additional passport, Ld. Counsel stated that there was no infirmity in the application or the passport and even if for the sake of arguments, it was presumed that A7 had furnished false information about the previous passport, then also only a minor offence of Passports Act could be made out.
(ii) In regard to second additional passport, prosecution has alleged that A7 had filled the form and had affixed his own photograph in his passport application and affixed photographs of different ladies in place of his wife and three daughters.
(iii) Learned counsel for A7 stated that A7 had not filled the same and that IO had forcibly made him to write the first page of the file (D-12, passport of V.K.Gupta). The affidavit filed along with the same (D-37) is not proved to have been signed by A7. There is no opinion of handwriting expert to this effect. There is no opinion on Q6 and Q7, PW28/1, PW28/4 and PW20/E relating to aforesaid documents on the basis of which prosecution claimed that A7 had applied the passports in his name and in the name of his family members by affixing the photographs of other individuals. There was no evidence on record to connect A7 with A8. He argued that the IO had admitted that he had conducted the search at the house of A7 but nothing incriminating had been found. IO had recovered the telephone book but also admitted that no incriminating material was found or otherwise he would have filed the same in the present case. There is no evidence to connect the accused with other accused namely P.K.Kapoor (since deceased) or any other accused either in the form of receiving gratification or had any contact with them either in the form of telephonic conversation or otherwise. He CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 98 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others stated that investigation in the present case was tainted and IO had not conducted the same in a fair manner. IO at one point stated that he had received secret information and that he had mentioned the information in some documents but claimed privilege for the same. IO has also given evasive reply in regard to the fact that how he came to know that A7 was involved in the present case before lodging of FIR, though at one place, he admitted that on the basis of documents, he had come to conclusion that A7 had obtained forged passports and had in one point of time stated that A7 had confessed about this fact but even on this account, IO had failed to produce any disclosure statement or any written documents to show /approve the said facts. Thus IO had conducted inquiry in suspicious manner and there was failure on his part to comply with rules as per CBI Manual. Thus, the investigation was neither fair nor proper. IO had falsely implicated A7 in the case and had also manipulated documents i.e. PW28/A, PW28/4, PW20/E.
(iv) There is no dispute in regard to description and photographs of accused No. 7 and his family members namely Alka Gupta, Shalini Gupta, Monika Gupta and Trapti Gupta in the original passports and it is also not disputed that accused No. 7 and his family members were issued original passports in July 2000 i.e. Ex.PW11/D, Ex.PW35/D, Ex.PW43/d, Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW43/E (in files Ex.PW11/A, PW35/A, PW34/A, PW43/B and PW43/C respectively). A7 had also taken specific defence that his residential address was J-7/2, West Jyoti Nagar, Loni Road, Delhi and he had never changed the same at any point of time.
(v) It is also not disputed that A7 and family had applied and got issued first additional passport booklet on 30.05.2001, 6th additional CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 99 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others passport booklets the name of A7 and his wife on 03.06.2003, 7 th additional passport booklet on 26.02.2003 in the name of Monika Gupta and 10th additional passport booklet in the name of Trapti Gupta on 28.05.2004. It is also not disputed that A7 had lodged a complaint dated 10.06.2001 with PS: Baghpat, UP regarding loss of his bag containing their 1st additional passports and the same were not recovered by the police. However, A7 disputed that he or his family members had applied for remaining additional passport booklets i.e. 2nd,3rd, 4th,5th, 8th or 9th additional passport booklets.
(vi) In this regard as per files of 1st additional passports (EX.PW11/C, PW15/C, PW15/E, PW15/G, PW15/G and PW15/J) A7 has not disputed the issuance of the same but stated that there was no concealment of facts. He has however not elaborated as to how there was no concealment of facts, when even according to him their original passports (05 in numbers) were damaged as those had fallen in water. PW34 & PW35, daughter and wife of A7 also testified that when they were in Canada i.e. in March 2001, their passports (05 in numbers) fell in water and got damaged. There was no cross-examination of the witnesses on this aspect on behalf of any of the accused.
(vii) If this was the correct position, then A7 and the other applicants of the original passports were duty bound to disclose this fact and should have applied for a fresh passport and not merely for additional booklets. The procedure for the same would have been different from the procedure followed for issuance of additional passport booklets.
CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 100 of 171State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others
(viii) Ld. Counsel for Accused No.1 & 2 argued that in fact the original passports had not got damaged in the year 2001 and the applicants had produced the original undamaged passport. The said passport was later manipulated and shown to be damaged due to water. They further stated that the record relating to the said passports (D2 to D6) clearly shows that the additional passports were not sought on the ground that the previous passports were damaged and IO also admitted the said fact. The passport (D3) of Alka Gupta bears the impression of "ed" below her name and another document (D38-Ex.PW35/G) also has the same image which means that the same document (D3) was used for applying additional passport file (Ex.PW35/G). The stamp of "cancelled and returned" old passport number and extended by the issue of a fresh booklet is available in D-44 (Ex.PW20/A15-colly.) dated 28.05.2004, wherein applicant had used the copy of D4 and when the same was compared with D-44, there is a specified difference of the stamp of PIA visible in the copy annexed with D-44 which is not visible on D-4 (original). Therefore, the passports were in good conditions till 20.05.2004 when the applicant used the copy of the same for obtaining new additional passport i.e. 10th additional passport. Further, as per the prosecution case, there was theft of first additional passport but only DD entry was found which proved that the said additional passport booklets were not lost as claimed. Similarly, A2 also contended that the original were produced at the time when the additional copies were applied and the fact of damage of the original passport was manipulated at a later date.
(ix) In this regard, it may be noted that the original passports (D2-D6) have impression of those being soiled or damaged by water like CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 101 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others substance but A7 and his family members had applied for 1 st additional passports on the ground of used up pages and not on the ground of their original passports being damaged. They had also annexed the copy of the original passports, wherein there are no sign of any damage to the passports. The said photocopy is clearly visible and the used up pages had not been filed with the same. The originals also show that large number of pages were blank in the passport and all the pages were not exhausted. The applicant Monika Gupta had not mentioned any reason for applying the additional passport but had also enclosed the copy of her original passport and one visa page with her application for the first additional passport. It is thus clear that none of the said applicants including A7 had mentioned the fact that their original passports were damaged when they had applied for their 1st additional passports on 21.05.2001. A7 and PW34 & PW35 have not disputed that they had applied for and got issued first additional passports. The facts and circumstances of the first passport applications and the 6th and 7th additional passport applications create a doubt as to whether the original passports were actually damaged before the application for 1 st additional passport.
(x) However, one thing is evident that A7 and his family members obtained the 1st additional passport booklets by giving false information that the pages of their original passports were filled up which was not true. The original passports D-2 to D-6 (Ex.PW11/D, Ex.PW35/D, Ex.PW43/D, Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW43/E), which are on Court record show that they have several empty/unused page. It is also manifest that these original passports had not been produced either before the counter clerk or before the PIA, be it in damaged condition or undamaged CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 102 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others condition. Had these original passports been produced, the counter clerk and PIA would have noticed unused pages in the same and would have rejected the application. It appears that only photocopies of used up pages of these original passports were annexed with the application and the production of the original passports for counter check was not insisted upon. This clearly indicates that the counter clerk as well as the PIA were in collusion with A7 and helped him in getting the additional passport booklets on the ground which did not exist at all. It was their duty to verify the correctness of the particulars/reasons given in the application for issue of additional passport booklets, which they did not do.
(xi) What also intrigues this Court is why did A7 and his family members conceal the original passports (or damage caused thereto, if any) at the time of applying for these 1 st additional passport booklets and why did they seek these additional booklets on the false grounds that pages of their passports had exhausted. This is indicative of the fact that these additional booklets were applied for and obtained for some ulterior objective.
(xii) In continuation of the same, A7 is alleged to have applied for 2nd additional passports (D12 file being Ex.PW11/F) on the ground of used up pages. Further, he and his wife had also applied for 6 th additional passport while Monika Gupta had applied for 7 th additional passport specifically on the ground that their original passports had been damaged.
CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 103 of 171State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others
(xiii) A7 has disputed that he had applied for the 2nd additional passport but there is no dispute that they had applied for 6th and 7 th additional passports. As per the relevant file, A7 and his wife PW35 had applied for 6th additional passports on the ground that their original passports were damaged by water and had also filed photocopy of their original passport, application form, affidavit and copy of fax message. A7 has disputed the affidavit as well the fax message but in any case there is no dispute that the said passports were applied on the ground that their original passports had been damaged.
(xiv) Perusal of concerned files Ex.PW11/F, PW18/C, PW18/E, PW18/G, PW18/J reveals that the passport application forms were filled by A7 and copy of ration card showing the address as C-12, Meera Bagh, New Delhi had been attached and a request letter was also filed along with the same. A7 represented that pages of previous passport was full. However, this fact was not correct. The ulterior intention of A7 is manifest from the fact that A7 had lodged a complaint with Baghpat police station that his first additional passport booklet had been lost in a bag at Baghpat and never claimed that the same had been recovered by him.
(xv) In his submission U/s 313 Cr. P.C., he admitted that he had lodged the said complaint. Despite said claim, he applied for second additional passport booklet by affixing copy of the said passport. The request letter of M/s Gupta International was also claimed to be forged. There is no dispute in regard to the specimen signatures [Ex.PW28/C (colly.)] of A7, though he claimed that IO had forcibly obtained his signatures and handwriting in some documents. Thus, the fact remains that the signatures and handwriting were not disputed. Though the CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 104 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others manner and mode in which these were obtained by IO is disputed. These were also proved by IO as well independent witness PW36 who deposed that A7 had given his handwriting and signatures in his presence. GEQD has given his opinion in regard to the aforesaid documents in report Ex.PW28/H. The reasons for the opinion are mentioned in Ex.PW28/J. As per the said opinion, the handwriting on the applications for issue of these 2nd additional passport booklets as well as the signature of the recipient on all these booklets matches with specimen writing and signatures S-54 to S-89 which are A7 Vinod Kumar Gupta.
(xvi) The relevant files of the 2nd additional passports are D12 to D16 (Ex.PW11/F, Ex,PW18/C, Ex.PW18/E, Ex.PW18/G and Ex.PW18/J). As per the same, A7 had applied for additional booklet stating that additional booklet was urgently required for business-cum-pleasure tour to Europe and USA but had not mentioned any valid reason for applying additional booklet as per Passport Rules/relevant Circulars. The passport application forms (Ex.PW20/A) and miscellaneous service form (Ex.PW28/I) bear photographs of A7 and it is alleged that A7 had signed as well as written the portion Q1 to Q6 of the same.
(xvii) PW28, Handwriting expert has given the opinion of the said portion stating that the same were written by the same person, who had written the specimen writing and signatures as S54 to S89 i.e. A7. At the cost of repetition, it is again noted here that A7 does not dispute that S54 to S89 are his handwriting and specimen signature but has taken a defence that the said writing and signatures were written by him under pressure of the IO at a later date. Thus it is clear that the said writing and signatures of the portion Q1 to Q4 are in the handwriting of A7. In this CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 105 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others regard, it is important to note that the passport application form also has an application of four pages for miscellaneous services. There is stamp of the RPO at point-A on the first page, stamp on second page and signatures and processing remarks of the various RPO officials at point-A to D and X on the third page. It also bears various stamps of computerized checking and other processing particulars on the same. Except A11, no other accused i.e. A1 to A6, A9 and A10 have disputed these documents or that they had dealt with the said files as visible on record. In this context, if the contention of A7 that IO had manipulated and obtained his writing and signatures on the second additional passport applications at a later date is accepted then it would be apparent that the other accused persons of the RPO, who had dealt with the said files would have also made the noting and their signatures on a later date. This is, however, not their stand. They would have certainly taken such defence, if the things had been manipulated by the IO that way. Further, the documents itself reveal the various stages and the dates when the said files were received, processed, allowed, and passports were delivered & accepted by A7. A7 had stated that IO had manipulated the said record but has not led evidence to prove the same. He even omitted to mention the date when the IO had allegedly forced him to write or sign the said documents. Accordingly, the contention of A7 in this regard is neither plausible nor proved on record.
144. Now coming to the aspect that A7 had manipulated and used forged documents to obtain the 2nd additional passport booklets. With regards to the same, the record itself is clear.
CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 106 of 171State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others
(i) A7 had mentioned his address as C-12, Meera Bagh, New Delhi-87 and had given the old passport details of his 1st additional passport. He had also annexed photocopy of the said passport and copy of ration card in support of the said address of Meera Bagh, New Delhi. An application for issue of additional booklet alongwith copy of fax message of M/s Gupta Enterprises, C-12, Meera Bagh, New Delhi was also annexed with the same.
(ii) In this regard, it is manifest from the testimonies of PW2, PW3, PW14 and PW33 that the address of C-12, Meera Bagh was not existing and the same was not available. PW5 also testified on the same lines and stated that address C-12, Meera Bagh, New Delhi-87 does not exist. As per his deposition, no ration card, copy of which was marked- PW5/A was ever issued from their department. In view of the fact that neither the address of C-12, Meera Bagh, New Delhi was existing nor the said ration card had been issued, it is proved that the said photocopy Mark-PW5/A was a forged and fabricated document. Similarly, the firm M/s Gupta Enterprises, C-12, Meera Bagh, New Delhi-110 087 (India) would be a non-existing entity/address.
(iii) PW36 stated that on 20.05.2005, CBI had taken specimen signatures and handwriting of A7 V.K. Gupta (marked S59 to S70) in his presence in the office of CBI and proved the same as Ex.PW36/J (colly.). He deposed that these bear his signatures on each page. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of A7. Thus A7 has not disputed his signatures and handwriting Ex.PW36/J. Even otherwise also, it is admitted that A7 that S59 to S70 are his specimen handwriting and signatures, though he disputes the manner in which these are stated to CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 107 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others have been given by him.
(iv) Counsel for A7 has further argued that PW28 had produced his opinion regarding the comparison of handwriting of A7 and other accused persons on the documents seized by the IO but the said opinion was a computer generated printout which requires certificate U/s 65B of Evidence Act which was not produced. PW28 has deposed in his cross- examination that he had used various scientific instruments for examination of documents i.e. hand magnifier, angle poise lamp, stereo microscope, VSC 2000, projectina comparison microscope alongwith filters etc. He also stated that he had used a computer for taking the printouts of the said result and had signed the same as original. This was therefore, not an electronic document but only a computer printout used for preparing the final result. The document in question was itself the original and therefore, no certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence was required.
(v) PW28 in his examination-in-chief identified certain following questioned writings as the writing of accused Vinod Kumar Gupta (A7) QUESTIONED NAME OF EXHIBITS WRITINGS DOCUMENTS Q1 to Q7 2nd additional passport Ex.PW20/A, Ex.PW28/1, application registration Ex.PW28/2, Ex.PW28/3, form and application form Ex.PW11/E of Misc. Services on Indian Passport in the name of V.K.Gupta CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 108 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others Q8, Q11, Q12, 2nd additional passport Ex.PW20/B, Ex.PW28/4, Q16 application registration Ex.PW28/7 form and application form of Misc. Services on Indian Passport in the name of Alka Gupta Q20, Q26 2nd additional passport Ex.PW28/8 and application registration Ex.PW28/11 form and application form of Misc. Services on Indian Passport in the name of Shalini Gupta Q30, Q36 2nd additional passport Ex.PW28/12, Ex.PW28/15 application registration form and application form of Misc. Services on Indian Passport in the name of Monika Gupta Q37, Q39, 2nd additional passport Ex.PW20/E, Ex.PW28/16, Q40, Q44 application registration Ex.PW28/19 form and application form of Misc. Services on Indian Passport in the name of Trapti Gupta Q310 Passport Delivery Ex.PW28/177 Register w.e.f. 04.09.02 to 02.01.03
(vi) It is thus clear from the report of PW28 that the application registration forms as well as the application forms for miscellaneous services relating to 2nd additional passport booklets in the name of A7 and his family members are in the handwriting of A7 Vinod Kumar Gupta. All these booklets have also been received by A7 which is manifest from his signature appearing at the relevant place in the aforesaid applications in CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 109 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others this regard.
(vii) Hence, it is established from the evidence on record that A7 had furnished forged documents and also gave his false as well as non existent address at the time of applying for these 2 nd additional passport booklets. It is further manifest from bare perusal of the applications for issuance of 2nd additional passport booklets that A7 had affixed photographs of different ladies in place of his wife and his daughters on the same and consequently their additional booklets were issued bearing the photographs of those different ladies.
(viii) There are documents on record in the form of embarkation cards which further prove that the 2nd additional passports were used by the women whose photographs were affixed in the additional passport booklets in the name of Alka Gupta, Shalini Gupta, Monika Gupta and Trapti Gupta. The embarkation card (Ex.PW8/B13) relates to Monika Gupta, embarkation card (Ex.PW8/B26) relates to Shalini Gupta, embarkation card (Ex.PW8/B15) relates to Alka Gupta and embarkation card (Ex.PW8/B2) relates to Trapti Gupta. They all had undertaken journey through Flight No. KL-872 dated 02.12.2003 to Amsterdam, Netherland. The same also contain details of the 2 nd additional passport of four family members of A7 i.e. his wife and three daughters which show that the 2nd additional passports were not only issued but also used for journey by the persons, whose photographs were appearing on the same.
(ix) PW9 & PW10 were the officials, who were on duty at FRRO, Indira Gandhi Internation Airport, New Delhi between 2001 to 2005 and CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 110 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others 2003-2012 respectively and their duties were to check the travel documents, passport, visa, boarding card etc. and also used to check the embarkation/disembarkation cards filled by the passengers. They described the procedure of embarkation/disembarkation and stated that after the boarding pass was issued by the concerned airline, the passenger had to fill up the embarkation card provided to him at the counter and the same was also signed by the passenger. Thereafter, the passenger goes to any immigration counter, where Clearing Officer after checking the documents puts his clearance stamp on the embarkation card and travel documents. The embarkation card used to be retained by the Immigration Officer and thereafter the card was collected by the Duty Officer and segregated airlines wise and kept in records. He further stated that the photograph of the passenger affixed on his passport used to be tallied with him at the time of embarkation and disembarkation and he had done so in the instant case also. He had tallied the photograph on the embarkation card with the passenger. Once the passenger goes inside the airport after embarkation, he was not permitted to come out. Similarly after disembarkation formalities used to be completed, the passenger would not be allowed to enter into the airport through the same counter.
(x) In cross-examination, he stated that it was not necessary that the passenger had to fill the embarkation/disembarkation card himself. However, he clarified that signatures on the passport are seen and prima facie tallied with the signatures on embarkation card. PW10 also deposed on the same lines and identified his signatures on the embarkation cards.
CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 111 of 171State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others
(xi) PW32 Samresh Maggon stated that the tickets Ex.PW4/L1 to Ex.PW4/L4 (D-58) were issued by Atlanta Travels Pvt. Ltd. in the name of Monika Gupta, Trapti Gupta, Shalini Gupta and Alka Gupta respectively for undertaking journey to Amsterdam, Netherland.
(xii) These facts sufficiently proved that the individual whose photograph was affixed on the 2nd additional passports relating to Alka Gupta, Shalini Gupta, Monika Gupta and Trapti Gupti had undertaken journey to Amsterdam on the basis of said forged 2 nd additional passport booklets. A7 was aware that the said passport could be used for the said purpose and, in fact, had obtained and delivered the same to the said individuals. Otherwise, there was no reason or occasion for him to obtain these passport booklets by affixing photographs of some other ladies in place of his wife and his daughters on the applications.
(xiii) So far as the 6th additional passport booklets and 7th additional passport booklets are concerned, these have been applied for an issue in the name of correct individuals. A7 had applied for 6 th additional passport booklets in his own name and in the name of his wife on the ground that their original passports issued in July, 2000 had got damaged in water on 14.05.2003. The additional passport booklets Ex.PW20/T and Ex.PW20/A were issued to them on 03.06.2003. It is very clear that they had concealed that they had earlier been issued 1 st additional passport booklets on 30.05.2001 for which they had applied on the ground that the pages of their original passports issued in July, 2000 had exhausted. They were required to disclose this fact and to produce the 1st additional passport booklets alongwith the application, which they did not do. This is for the reason that A7 had applied for and obtained 2 nd CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 112 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others additional passport booklets on the basis of 1st additional passport booklets, which bore the photographs of some other ladies who had travelled on those passports to Amsterdam Netherland.
(xiv) The reason given for issue of these 2nd passport booklets that the original passports of the year 2000 had got damaged in water on 14.05.2003 also appears to be false and concocted. It is for the reason that PW34 and PW35, who are the daughter and wife respectively of A7, have deposed that their original passports had got damaged in water in Canada in the year 2001. If that was the real situation, the damage passports should have been produced before the authorities at the time of applying for 1st as well as 2nd additional passport booklets.
(xv) Similarly, 7th additional passport booklets was applied by Ms. Monika Gupta, daughter of A7 in her own name. It was issued in the name of correct individual but again it was obtained on the basis of the original passport in the year 2000 while concealing that she had already obtained 1st additional passport booklets on 30.05.2001. Same can be said in respect of the 10th additional passport booklets which had been applied for and obtained in the name of another daughter of A7 Ms. Trapti Gupta. It was also obtained on the basis of the original passport of the year 2000 while concealing that she had already obtained 1 st additional passport booklets on 30.05.2001.
(xvi) The evidence on record, thus, establishes the fact that the 2nd additional passport booklets have been obtained by A7 in his name and in the name of his wife as well as daughters but by affixing the photographs of some other ladies in place of his wife and daughters.
CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 113 of 171State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others Photographs of fake individuals had been affixed on the applications for issue of these additional passport booklets in the name of wife and daughters of A7. A copy of forged ration card showing non existent address as C-12, Meera Bagh, New Delhi was also annexed with the applications. Hence, the prosecution has proved that A7 obtained these additional passport booklets for some fake individuals and also had given false particulars/documents regarding the place of the residence of himself as well as other applicants. It is also manifest that the forgery/falsehood was resorted to for the purpose of cheating and the false documents were used as genuine for obtaining these 2 nd additional passport booklets.
(xvii) It is also to be noted that these booklets had been applied for on the basis of the 1 st additional passport booklets issued on 30.05.2001. This is indicative of the fact that A7 had obtained the 1st additional passport booklets only to be used later on to facilitate the issue of 2nd additional passport booklets for some fictitious ladies who were sent abroad on those passports whereas he did not produce the original passports of the year 2000 at that time, which were later on produced to obtain 6th, 7th and 10th additional passport booklets.
(xviii) Thus charges under Section 420/468/471 IPC stand proved against A7 beyond any shadow of doubt. The accused is also liable to be held guilty under Section 12 of the Passport Acts, 1967 as he had furnished false information and had suppressed material information while applying for 1st and 6th additional passport booklets and had obtained 2nd additional passport booklets on the basis of forged documents.
CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 114 of 171State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others As regards accused Naresh Kumar Mathur (A8):-
145. It is argued by Ld. PP that A8 used the name and details of A7 and got issued 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th and 9th additional passport booklets in the name of A7 and his family members by using his photographs in place of A7 and the photographs of other unknown females in place of wife and three daughters of A7.
146. Ld. Counsel for A8 argued that prosecution has failed to produce the embarkation and disembarkation cards of A8 and the documents produced on record were relating to A7 and not to A8.
According to the Ld. Counsel, there was nothing on record to prove that A8 had actually travelled on the passports in question. He further argued that there was no evidence or circumstances proved on record to suggest that A8, at any point of time, had either met any other accused person or had influenced the officials of RPO for obtaining the passports in question. In regard to opinion of handwriting expert, the Ld. Counsel stated that there were specific directions in the CBI Manual that the documents should be sent to CFSL but IO had sent the same to GEQD which suggest that IO might have influenced GEQD officials.
147. In this regard, it is important to note that both CFSL and GEQD Institutions are independent bodies created by the Government and are different from the prosecuting agencies. GEQD is a specific entity created for examination of questioned documents while CFSL is a broader entity and analysis of questioned documents is a part of its activities. Both the institutions are well recognised and there is no reason to find any fault with the IO regarding the action that he chose GEQD CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 115 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others instead of CFSL for analysis of questioned documents. One of the obvious reasons might have been that CFSLs are overburdened with work of analysis of case properties on other aspects whereas GEQD has been specifically created only for the purpose of examining documents and therefore, as a special institution, particularly for the analysis of documents. PW28 has been cross-examined at length in this regard on behalf of the accused but nothing has come out in the cross-examination to doubt his integrity or veracity.
148. Accordingly, there is no force in these submissions of the Ld. Counsel for A8.
149. It is further argued by Ld. Counsel for A8 that PW43 in his cross-examination stated at one place that there were search warrants for conducting search in the premises of A8 but at another places stated that no search warrants were obtained. It is pointed out that the IO has neither produced any proposal for search qua A8 nor has complied with the provisions of Section 100 and Section 165 Cr. PC. It is submitted that consequently, the entire raid was illegal and any search qua A8 was also illegal and inadmissible in law.
150. It is also argued by the Ld. Counsel that PW32 Samresh Maggon had also failed to identify A8 to be the person who had approached him for the purchase of air tickets. He submitted that the IO did not apply for conducting the TIP for identification of A8 and instead he had shown A8 to PW32 in the CBI office but the witness did not identify A8 even then. Counsel for A8 argued that IO had neither obtained specimen signatures and handwriting of A8 with the permission of the CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 116 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others court nor in a proper manner and were in fact obtained in coercion and pressure. He also argued that IO was himself the complainant and therefore, could not further investigate the matter. It is submitted that the prosecution has produced only carbon copy of the search warrant for conducting search at the premises of A8 and has not explained as to why the original was not produced. He submitted that A8 was himself holding a valid passport and therefore there was no occasion for him to undertake any journey on the basis of forged passport as alleged by prosecution. He argued that in any case there is no proof to show that A8 had actually undertaken any journey on these forged passports or had used the same for any other purpose whatsoever.
151. As per record relating to 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th and 9th additional passport booklets in the form of files that have been produced and proved on record, the files pertaining to the 3 rd additional passport applications (D-17, D-21, D-25, D-28, D-32 and bearing exhibit numbers as Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/C, Ex.PW1/E, Ex.PW1/G and Ex.PW1/L) contained five applications for additional passport booklets in the name of V.K.Gupta, his wife and his three daughters. The application in the name of A7 V.K. Gupta mentions his particulars but bears the photograph of A8 Naresh Kumar Mathur. The applications in the name of wife and daughters of A7 mention their particulars but bear the photographs of some other unknown ladies. Each application form mentions the residential address J-7/2, West Jyoti Nagar. These passport booklets have been applied for on the basis of 1 st additional passport booklets which had been issued in the name of A7 and his family members on 30.05.2001. There are signatures of applicant on four points in each application.
CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 117 of 171State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others
152. It was vehemently argued by the Ld. Counsel for A8 that the photographs of A8, allegedly recovered during the search of the residence of the A8 by the CBI, have been latter on affixed on the applications for 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th and 9th additional passport booklets by the IO in order to implicate the said falsely in this case. The argument has been noted only to be rejected. Firstly, for the reason that photographs stated to have been recovered from the residence of A8 are only four in number and those have been kept separately on record, which have been perused by me. The photographs mentioned on the applications in the name of V.K. Gupta for issue of 3 rd, 4th, 5th, 8th and 9th additional passport booklets are five in number and are quite different from the photographs which have been recovered from the residence of A8.
153. Further, it is evident from the application for miscellaneous services forming part of Ex.PW1/A that the signature of the applicant and the seal of RPO appears partly on the application and partly on the photograph which rules out the possibility that the photograph may have been affixed later on, as argued by the Ld. Counsel for A8. The impression of the seal also does not indicate that it may have been affixed twice. Similarly, the signature of the applicant in the application for miscellaneous service forming part of file Ex.PW18/R in the name of V.K. Gupta for 4th additional passport booklet bears the signature partly on the application and partly on the photograph which too ruled out the possibility that the photograph might have been affixed later on. Same can be said with regards to the seal of RPO appearing on the photograph of A8 on the application for miscellaneous services forming part of file Ex.PW19/B relating to 8th additional passport booklets as well as the seal on the photograph of A8 on the application for miscellaneous service CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 118 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others forming part of the file Ex.PW20/W relating to 9 th additional passport booklets. None of these applications indicate that any photograph affixed thereupon initially has been removed and photograph of A8 has been affixed thereupon.
154. There is also a distinct variation / difference between the copy of the 1st additional passport booklets which was used by A7 for obtaining the 2nd additional passport booklets and that which has been used for obtaining 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th and 9th additional passport booklets in the name of A7 but with the photograph of A8. The copy of first page of the 1st additional passport booklets issued on 30.05.2001 annexed with the application for issue of 2nd passport booklet has the particulars typed thereupon whereas the copies of the same used for obtaining 3 rd, 4th, 5th, 8th and 9th additional passport booklets in the name of A7 but with photograph of A8 have the particulars not typed but handwritten. It also evident from these copies that the photograph of A7 has been removed and photograph of A8 has been affixed in its place and thereafter photocopy has been prepared.
155. It is thus limpid that the first page of the 1 st additional passport containing the photograph and other details of applicant i.e. A7 was changed and the photograph of A7 was replaced by the photograph of A8.
156. All the documents annexed alongwith the applications for issue of 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th and 9th additional passport booklets bear the signature of applicant. The applications for issue of these additional passport booklets in the name of V.K. Gupta but having the photograph CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 119 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others of A8 also bear the signature of applicant as "Vinod". It has been vehemently argued on behalf of A8 that he had not filled up the said forms/applications and the documents annexed with these forms/applications had not been signed by him. But there is no explanation as to how his photograph was affixed on the these applications/forms in the name of V.K. Gupta (A7).
157. PW28 in his examination-in-chief identified certain following questioned writings as the writing of accused Naresh Kumar Mathur (A8):-
QUESTIONED NAME OF EXHIBITS WRITINGS DOCUMENTS Q45 to Q46 3rd additional passport application Ex.PW20/F, Ex.PW1/B,
and Q48 to registration form and application Ex.PW28/W Q50 form of Misc. Services on Indian Passport in the name of V.K.Gupta Q59, Q60 and 4th additional passport application Q64 to Q67 registration form and application form of Misc. Services on Indian Passport in the name of V.K.Gupta Q70 to Q76, 8th additional passport application Ex.PW20/L, Ex.PW27/B, Q76/2, Q77 to registration form and application Ex.PW28/36, Ex.PW28/37, Q79 form of Misc. Services on Indian Ex.PW28/38, Ex.PW28/39, Passport in the name of Ex.PW28/40, Ex.PW28/41 V.K.Gupta Q80 to Q99 9th additional passport application Ex.PW20/X, Ex.PW27/C, registration form and application Ex.PW28/42, Ex.PW28/43, form of Misc. Services on Indian Ex.PW28/44, Ex.PW28/45, Passport in the name of Ex.PW28/46, Ex.PW28/47, V.K.Gupta Ex.PW28/48, Ex.PW28/49, Ex.PW28/50, Ex.PW28/51, Ex.PW28/52, Ex.PW28/53, Ex.PW28/54, Ex.PW28/55, Ex.PW28/56 CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 120 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others Q100, Q103, 3rd additional passport application Ex.PW20G, Ex.PW1/D Q104, registration form and application form of Misc. Services on Indian Passport in the name of Alka Gupta Q112, Q114, 4th additional passport application Ex.PW20/Z, Ex.PW28/62 Q115 registration form and application form of Misc. Services on Indian Passport in the name of Alka Gupta Q121, Q122, 8th additional passport application Ex.PW20/M, Ex.PW28/67, Q124, Q125, registration form and application Ex.PW28/68, Ex.PW28/69, Q128 to Q130, form of Misc. Services on Indian Ex.PW28/70, Ex.PW28/71, Q130/1, Passport in the name of Alka Ex.PW28/72, Ex.PW28/73 Q130/2 Gupta Q133, Q135, 9th additional passport application Ex.PW28/74, Ex.PW28/76, Q136, Q140, registration form and application Ex.PW28/87 Q151 form of Misc. Services on Indian Passport in the name of Alka Gupta Q153, Q155, 3rd additional passport application Ex.PW20/H, PW1/E Q156 registration form and application form of Misc. Services on Indian Passport in the name of Shalini Gupta Q166, Q167, 8th additional passport application Ex.PW20/P, Ex.PW28/94, Q169, Q170, registration form and application Ex.PW28/95, Ex.PW28/96, Q173, Q174, form of Misc. Services on Indian Ex.PW28/97, Ex.PW28/98, Q175/1 to Passport in the name of Shalini Ex.PW28/99, Ex.PW28/100 Q175/3 Gupta Q177, Q178, 9th additional passport application Ex.PW20/A7, Ex.PW28/101, Q180, Q181, registration form and application Ex.PW28/103, Ex.PW28/115 Q185 to Q197 form of Misc. Services on Indian Passport in the name of Shalini Gupta Q199, Q201, 3rd additional passport application Ex.PW20/J, Ex.PW1/H Q202 registration form and application form of Misc. Services on Indian Passport in the name of Monika Gupta Q212, Q214, 5th additional passport application Ex.PW20A10, Ex.PW28/122 Q215, registration form and application form of Misc. Services on Indian Passport in the name of Monika Gupta CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 121 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others Q223, Q225, 8th additional passport application Ex.PW20/Q, Ex.PW28/127, Q226, registration form and application Ex.PW28/128, Ex.PW28/129, Q227/1, Q230 form of Misc. Services on Indian Ex.PW28/130, Ex.PW28/131, to Q232, Passport in the name of Monika Ex.PW28/132, Ex.PW28/133 Q234, Q235 Gupta Q237, Q239, 9th additional passport application Ex.PW20/A19, Ex.PW28/134, Q240, Q243, registration form and application Ex.PW28/136, Ex.PW28/137 to Q245 to Q255 form of Misc. Services on Indian Ex.PW28/147 Passport in the name of Monika Gupta Q257, Q259 3rd additional passport application Ex.PW20/K,Ex.PW1/M, to Q261 registration form and application form of Misc. Services on Indian Passport in the name of Trapti Gupta Q270, Q272, 5th additional passport application Ex.PW20/A11, Ex.PW28/154 Q273 registration form and application form of Misc. Services on Indian Passport in the name of Trapti Gupta Q280, Q282 to 8th additional passport application Ex.PW20/R, Ex.PW28/158, Q284, Q287 to registration form and application Ex.PW20/28/159, Q291 form of Misc. Services on Indian Ex.PW28/160, Ex.PW28/161, Passport in the name of Trapti Ex.PW28/162 Ex.PW28/163 & Gupta Ex.PW28/164 Q293, Q295, 9th additional passport application Ex.PW20/A30, Ex.PW28/165, Q296, Q300 to registration form and application Ex.PW28/167, Ex.PW28/168, Q309 form of Misc. Services on Indian Ex.PW28/169, Ex.PW28/170, Passport in the name of Trapti Ex.PW28/171, Ex.PW28/172, Gupta Ex.PW28/173, Ex.PW28/174, Ex.PW28/175 & Ex.PW28/176 Q311 to Q315 Delivery register showing receipt Ex.PW28/178 to Ex.PW28/184 of delivery of passport Q316 to Q342 Embarkation & disembarkation Ex.PW8/B30, Ex.PW8/B34, cards of A7, Alka Gupta, Shalini Ex.PW8/B29, Ex.PW8/B33, Gupta, Monika Gupta and Trapti Ex.PW8/B31,Ex.PW8/B32, Gupta Ex.PW8/B27,Ex.PW8/B20, Ex.PW8/B19,Ex.PW8/B21, Ex.PW8/B15,Ex.PW8/B18, Ex.PW8/B19,Ex.PW8/B24, Ex.PW8/B25, Ex.PW8/B26, Ex.PW8/B23, Ex.PW8/B12, Ex.PW8/B8, Ex.PW8/B11, Ex.PW8/B12, Ex.PW8/B13, Ex.PW8/B9, Ex.PW8/B5, Ex.PW8/B3, Ex.PW8/B1, CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 122 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others Ex.PW8/B2 Ex.PW8/B6
158. From the above questioned writings, it is clear that the aforesaid documents were written by the same person, who had written the specimen handwriting and signatures S1 to S53 i.e. A8 Naresh Kumar Mathur. Even the embarkation as well disembarkation cards in the name of A7, his wife Alka Gupta and his three daughters Shalini Gupta, Monika Gupta and Trapti Gupta relating to the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th and 9th additional passport booklets bear the handwriting and signature of A8 Naresh Kumar Mathur. The report of PW28 also manifests that these additional passport booklets were received by A8.
159. As already noted hereinabove that the aforementioned 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th and 9th additional passport booklets bear the photograph of some unknown ladies in place of the wife and three daughters of A7 V.K. Gupta though their particulars have been mentioned therein. The aforementioned embarkation and disembarkation cards relating to these additional passport booklets show that some ladies have travelled out of India on these passports. Certainly those ladies were not the wife and daughters of A7. They were those ladies whose photograph are pasted on these additional passport booklets. An argument was sought to be raised on behalf of A8 that it cannot be said with certainty that some unknown ladies and not the A7 and his family travelled on the aforesaid passports as well as embarkation and disembarkation cards. The argument has no force at all. The procedure for filling up of embarkation cards has been mentioned by PW9 in his deposition, who was posted as Sub-Inspector at FRRO, IGI Airport, New Delhi. His duty was to check the travel documents such as Visa, Boarding Card, Look Out Circular (LOC) CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 123 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others and embarkation/ disembarkation cards. He has described the procedure in the following words.
"The procedure is that the embarkation card is required to be filled up by the passenger travelling abroad. Firstly he goes to the counter of concerned airline and shows his passport, visa and air ticket. At the counter of airline the official of the concerned airline will check the travel documents of the passenger and issue a boarding pass. The luggage of the passenger is retained at the counter by the airline staff. Thereafter the passenger has to fill up the embarkation card made available to him at the counter. The embarkation card is also signed by the passenger after filling up the same. With the embarkation card duly filled up, the passenger can go to any immigration counter before the clearing officer for checking who after checking the documents puts his clearance stamp on the embarkation card and travel documents. The embarkation card is retained by the Immigration Officer. The embarkation cards are collected by the duty officer in immigration who will segregate them airline wise. Thereafter they are kept in records.
The colour of the stamp put on embarkation card keeps on changing periodically. At that time, generally red colour stamp is used for departure and blue colour stamp is used for arrival.
The passenger who arrives at the airport from other countries is required to fill disembarkation card , which are provided to him by the concerned CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 124 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others airline or made available at the arrival counter. After filling the disembarkation card the passenger gives the same to the immigration counter which are checked alongwith travel documents of the passenger and LOC. The disembarkation cards are also retained by immigration office. During those days, the blue ink was used for putting the stamp on the disembarkation cards.
I have been shown embarkation cards already Ex.PW.8/B.3, B.8, B.19, B.29 in the names of Trapti Gupta dated 21.05.03, Monika Gupta dated 21.05.03, Alka Gupta dated 21.05.03 and Vinod Kumar Gupta dated21.05.03 and I identify my signatures thereon at points A on all these cards and I had put the seal on these cards at embarkation counter. The photograph of the passenger affixed on his passport is tally with him at the time of his/her embarkation/disembarkation. The passports of the passengers in this case were also seen and tallied with the passengers. Once a passenger goes inside the airport after embarkation is done, he is not permitted to come out and similarly when a passenger arrives at the airport and disembarkation formalities are completed he is not permitted to enter the airport again from the same counter.
160. In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of A8, he deposed that the signature available on the passport is seen and prima- facie tallied with the signature on the embarkation card.
CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 125 of 171State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others
161. It is clear from the deposition of PW9 that on that person whose photograph and signature is on the passport and tallies with the embarkation card would be allowed to pass through the immigration counter to board the flight. It is evident that in case the photograph and signature appearing on the passport does not tally with the passenger, he cannot be allowed to pass through the immigration counter. PW10, who was also posted as Sub-Inspector at FRRO, IGI Airport, New Delhi and used to check the travel documents including embarkation/ disembarkation cards of the passengers, has deposed that the photograph of the passenger affixed on his passport is tallied with him at the time of his/her embarkation/ disembarkation. He also deposed that the passports of the passengers in this case were also seen and tallied with the passengers. He also stated that once a passenger goes inside the airport after embarkation is done, he is not permitted to come out and similarly when a passenger arrives at the airport and his disembarkation formalities are completed, he is not permitted to enter the airport again.
162. It may also be noted here that the wife and one daughter of A7 have appeared as PW35 and PW34 respectively in this case. They have categorically deposed that they did not travel on aforesaid 3 rd, 4th, 5th, 8th and 9th additional passport booklets. They have not been cross- examined on behalf of A8 on this aspect.
163. Hence, the evidence on record establishes the case of prosecution that A7 and his family members did not travel on the 3 rd, 4th, 5th, 8th and 9th additional passport booklets as well as the aforesaid embarkation/ disembarkation cards relating thereto and in fact it was A8 Naresh Mathur and some unknown ladies who had travelled on these CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 126 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others travel documents.
164. It has, thus, been proved by the prosecution that A8 had applied for the aforesaid 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th and 9th additional passport booklets in the name of A7 and his family members but had affixed his own photograph in place of A7 and the photographs of unknown ladies in place of wife / daughters of A7 on the applications for issue of these passport booklets and that A8 alongwith those unknown ladies and travelled on those passports as well as embarkation/disembarkation cards relating thereto.
165. In regard to documents recovered in search at the premises of A8, he has not disputed the said raid in his examination U/s 313 Cr.PC. Even if it is assumed that IO had not complied with the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code in this regard, that won't make any difference as the only document which was recovered was a visiting card of A7.
166. In regard to identification of A8 by PW32 Samresh Maggon, PW32 stated that he could not identify A8 but signed on the seizure memo prepared during raid and stated that he was taken by CBI officials to some locality, where some documents were recovered. PW32 is a well qualified educated person. Therefore, it can be presumed that he had signed the documents prepared by CBI in his presence after going through the same. He was well aware of the contents of the same.
167. With regards to the arguments that there was no reason for A8 to use a fake passports as he himself was holding a valid passport is concerned, the said fact is apparently clear from the modus-operandi CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 127 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others used by A7 & A8 by using photographs of some unknown females in place of wife and three daughters of A7. The obvious reason for which A8 had used fake passports might be that he would have been conscious that in case the said illegality of holding the said fake passport by unknown female to depart from India on fake identity is caught, they would not be retraced and linked with true identity. These circumstances sufficiently suggest the guilty intention of A8 in this regard.
168. As to the contention that the specimen signatures of A8 were obtained in coercion, it may be noted that he has not denied that he had given these specimens. The only defence of coercion and not taking the same before a Magistrate is not tenable in the eyes of law. Even otherwise the expert is required to compare the questioned documents with the admitted signatures. It hardly makes any difference, if the specimens are obtained with or without coercion.
169. Hence, it stands established from the evidence led by the prosecution that A8 submitted false and forged documents on the basis of which he obtained various additional passport booklets for fake individuals and those fake ladies even travelled abroad on these passport booklets. The prosecution has proved that the false documents were made and produced for the purpose of cheating and also were used as genuine for obtaining passports for fake individuals.
170. The prosecution has, thus, proved the charges under Section 420/468/471 IPC against the accused A8. He is also liable to be held guilty under Section 12 of the Passports Act, 1967 as he had obtained and was holding a forged passport i.e. 2 nd, 3rd, 4th, 8th and 9th CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 128 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others additional passport booklets upon which he had pasted his own photograph in place of A7 Vinod Kumar Gupta.
As regards the accused A1 to A6 and A9 to A11, who were posted in the different capacities in the office of RPO at the relevant time :-
171. A1 and A2 were posted as Passport Issuing Authority (PIA) in the office of RPO. A3, A4, A5 and A6 were posted as Counter Clerks whereas A9, A10 and A11 were posted in the HIT section of the passport office. From the oral evidence and the document proved on record by the prosecution in this regard, it is manifest that :-
(i) With regards to 2nd additional passport booklets Applications were received by A4 (Counter clerk).
HIT clearance was given by A10 (ID P-383) Passport were promised and granted by A1 (PIA) on 03.10.2002.
Since, A1 proceeded on shortly on 04.10.2002, passport booklet was signed by Ms. Asia.
(ii) With regards to 3rd additional passport booklets Applications were received by A4 (Counter clerk). HIT clearance was given by A10 (ID P-383) Passport were promised and granted by A1 (PIA).
(iii) With regards to 4th additional passport booklets Applications were received by A3 (Counter clerk). HIT clearance was given by A9 (ID P-385) CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 129 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others Passport were promised by Late P.K. Kapoor and granted by U.S. Lingwal (PIAs).
(iv) With regards to 5th additional passport booklets Applications were received by A3 (Counter clerk). HIT clearance was given by A9 (ID P-385) Passport were promised and granted by Late P.K. Kapoor (PIA).
(v) With regards to 6th additional passport booklets Applications were received by A6 (Counter clerk). HIT clearance was given by R.S. Rawat.
Passports were promised and granted by Krishan Kumar (Superintendent).
(vi) With regards to 7th additional passport booklets Applications were received by A4 (Counter clerk). HIT clearance was given by A11 (ID P-495) Passports were promised by A1 Om Prakash and granted by Y.K. Kaushal (PIAs).
(vii) With regards to 8th additional passport booklets Applications were received by A5 (Counter clerk). HIT clearance was given by A11 (ID P-495) Passports were promised and granted by A2 (PIA).
(viii) With regards to 9th additional passport booklets Applications were received by A5 (Counter clerk).
CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 130 of 171State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others HIT clearance was given by A11 (ID P-495) Passports were promised and granted by A2 (PIA).
(ix) With regards to 9th additional passport booklets Applications were received by A5 (Counter clerk). HIT clearance was given by A11 (ID P-495) Passports were promised and granted by A2 (PIA).
172. These officials/officers (except A11) posted in RPO at the relevant time have not disputed that they had dealt with the aforementioned files relating to the issue of additional passport booklets in the name of A7 and his family members. This is evident from their statements under Section 313 Cr. P.C and also the arguments advanced by their Ld. Counsels. The defence raised by them is that they had done their respective jobs in relation to these files bonafidely and in normal course, without any criminal intent. It is submitted that any bonafide lapse or error that may have occurred during the course of the functioning of these officials/officers cannot be given colour of a criminal offence. It has been argued by their counsels that there is no evidence on record show that the acts attributed to them were deliberate and with criminal intent.
173. It is only A11 Ram Chander who has denied that he had given HIT clearance in any of the files in question and stated that somebody may have misused his password and P number to show that HIT clearance was given by him.
174. Having perused the files relating to the issue of 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th additional passport booklets and the evidence CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 131 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others with regards thereto, it cannot be said that the clearance of these files by the counter clerks, HIT officials and PIAs for issue of passports was only a bonafide lapse or error. The manner in which the files relating to issue of these additional passport booklets were cleared at each stage by these officials/officers without finding any fault in the application forms and the documents attached thereto or without raising any objection, indicates that they had deliberately ignored the forgery, impersonation and other illegalities in these application forms and the documents annexed therein. The forgery and impersonation was quite manifest and would have caught the eye of any official/officer, had he not made up his mind to clear the file without raising any objection for some ulterior reasons.
175. The 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th and 9th additional passport booklets had been applied for on the basis of the 1 st additional passport booklets issued to A7 and his family members on 30.05.2001. It is to be noted here that it was the duty of the counter clerk to check the original 1 st additional passport booklets at the time of receipt of the application for issue of these subsequent additional passport booklets and to verify the identity of the applicants. Had the counter clerk checked the original 1 st additional passport booklets, he would have come to know that the applicants in 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th and 9th additional passport booklets are the not persons to whom 1st additional passport booklets had been issued and thus would have easily pointed out the forgery. He would have also come to know that the address of the applicants mentioned in the application of these 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th and 9th additional passport booklets and their photographs does not match with the address and photograph of the individuals in whose name 1 st additional passport CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 132 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others booklets had been issued. It is also evident that the counter clerk did not check the identity documents of the applicants in 2 nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th and 9th additional passport booklets, which, if done, also would have exposed the illegal acts.
176. Same can be said with regards to Passport Issuing Authority i.e. A1 and A2. In the second stage of the entire process for issue of additional passport booklets, as described in para No. 22 hereinabove, the applicants were required to appear in person before the PIA and to produce their respective earlier original passport and other related documents. It is only after the PIA would have got satisfaction about the particulars of the applicants that he would have given the appropriate date for issuance of passports. The manner in which these two accused cleared the files for issuance of 2 nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th and 9th additional passport booklets in the name of fictitious persons with impunity clearly reveals that they neither checked the earlier original passport on the basis of which these additional booklets were applied for nor did they check the identity documents of the applicants. By no stretch of imagination can this be said to be a proper, reasonable or bonafide manner of working. It is manifest that A1 and A2 had a predetermined state of mind that these files have to be cleared without raising any objection.
177. So far as the officials posted in HIT section are concerned, it was their duty also to check the details of the previous passports including the names, addresses, photographs and signatures as well as the fact as to whether any additional passport booklets had been issued to the applicants earlier. The manner in which they have cleared these CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 133 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others files in question shows with certainty that they too were acting with pre disposed mind and it was not intended at all to check the particulars of the applicants and to raise any objection. Their Ld. Counsels laid much emphasis on the evidence which has come on record to the effect that only one computer was provided in HIT section in August, 2002 for checking the particulars of the applicants. It was argued that in the absence of the requisite number of computers in HIT section, verification of all the files was not possible. The argument is totally unacceptable. It is not their case that they could not have checked the credentials of the applicants in applications for issue of 2 nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th and 9th additional passport booklets in the said computer which was installed in HIT section in August, 2002 or manually from their own records maintained before the installation of the computer. Manifestly, a mechanism for checking the particulars of the applicants was in place but these officials did not resort to such checking for obvious ulterior reasons.
178. What is more intriguing that how could 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th and 9th additional passport booklets be issued on the basis of same very 1 st additional passport booklet on the basis of which 2 nd additional passport booklets had been issued. In fact, it is on six occasions in a span of about one year that additional passport booklets had been issued to fake individuals in which process A7 and A8 were instrumental. At no stage was the forgery or falsehood discover. Can it be said to be a matter of mere coincidence? Can it be said that RPO officials/officers were doing their jobs in routine manner and bonafidely? Can it be said to be a bonafide error on the part of these officials/officers? Was their job only to sign and approve these passport files? The answer to these questions would be a bold NO. They were holding very responsible and sensitive CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 134 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others post. They were discharging sovereign functions directly related to the security of the Nation. But they, for some ulterior petty gains, compromised with the safety and security of the entire Nation by issuing passports to fake individuals on six consecutive occasions. By every means, it is a case where these officers/officials were acting in hand in glove with these fake individuals and thus facilitated the issue of passports to them on the basis of forged documents.
179. So far as the 6th, 7th and 10th additional passport booklets are concerned, these have been applied for and obtained in the name of genuine individual but by providing wrong information. The booklets were applied for on the basis of the original passports issued in the month of July, 2000 while concealing that 1st additional passport booklets had been issued to these applicants on 30.05.2001. The false information as well as the concealment of true information could have easily been detected by the counter clerk or HIT section officials or the PIAs, if they had been dealing with these applications in normal course and bonafidely.
180. Since during the course of arguments, counsel for accused persons also referred to various circulars issued by the Ministry of External Affairs to press their contentions that the procedure for issuance of additional passport booklets was substantially liberalized by the Government of India, I deem it appropriate to refer to the said circulars. The said circulars are collectively exhibited as PW12/DX. First circular in this regard was issued on 24.06.1997 and same is reproduced as under:-
Ministry of External Affairs (CPV Division) CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 135 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others No. V.1/401/190 24.6.97 CIRCULAR With the introduction of MSP/MRP passport booklets, the personal particulars of the holder are entered in the inner portion of front and back cover of the passport booklet. It is no longer feasible to attach or seal the additional booklet to the previous old passport.
2. It has, therefore, been decided henceforth that while issuing additional booklet the practice of attaching and sealing the same with the old passport should be discontinued with immediate effect. The old passport should be cancelled and returned to the holder and suitable endorsement regarding old passport made in the new additional booklet. The validity of the additional booklet should be in continuation to the old passport of the holder.
3. In case second additional booklet is issued to the holder, the endorsement in the second additional booklet should carry the details of original passport and first additional booklet so that when asked by the appropriate authority, the holder should produce the same.
(Riva G. Das) Deputy Secretary (PV-I) All PIAs in India & Abroad
181. The said circular was modified by issuing another circular dated November 25, 1997 wherein it was directed that instead of cancelling the original passport having valid visa, to put a stamp across the first three pages of the used booklet. The relevant portion of said circular reads as under:-
CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 136 of 171State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others
2. In view of the feedback received from our missions abroad, it has been decided to review the earlier decision. Instead of cancelling the original passport having valid visa, it has been decided to put a stamp across the first three pages of the used up booklet which would reads as "extended by the issue of a fresh booklet'
3. In the additional booklet, observation would read as:
"Holder has previously travelled on passport No. ........ dated........ issued at ........ which holds valid visas. " (the details of the original passport may be included here, where there is a change of name, earlier name may be given).
4. This will be implemented with effect from December 15, 1997, in Missions abroad and with effect from December 1, 1997, in Passport Offices. In case of a subsequent passport booklet, details of the original passport as well as the previous additional booklet may be given.
6. Kindly confirm receipt.
182. Vide circular dated March 6, 2002, the condition of fresh police verification qua additional passport booklet and miscellaneous services was dispensed with. The relevant para are para 3 and 4, which read as under:-
3. Regrettably, we are noticing a reluctance among the PIAs to imbibe the spirit of the various people-friendly reforms being introduced by the Ministry. There is need to shake-off old and fossilised thinking and adopt a dynamic, creative CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 137 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others and positive approach. For instance, now that the requirement of fresh police verification has been dispensed with for re-issue cases and additional booklets, there is no reason why these services cannot be provided within 3-4 working days when the original passport was issued from the same Passport Office.
4. Please discuss the possibilities with your PIAs and staff and send your report as to what steps have you taken to ensure that the fruits of the reforms reach the general public. I expect your reply by March 15, 2002.
183. Vide circular dated May 26, 2003, charges for Tatkal services was dispensed with and it was directed to provide miscellaneous services within maximum 3-5 days without charging any additional fee. The relevant portion of the circular reads as under:-
As it has been decided to render all miscellaneous services on the same day or maximum within 3-5 days, Ministry has decided not to charge any additional fee for rendering miscellaneous services under the tatkal scheme and has therefore deleted sl. no. 23 of the Schedule IV of the Passport Rules, 1980, originally numbered as 35 in Gazette Notification dated 22.05.2000, which had been renumbered as 23 in Gazette Notification dated 28.03.02 at the time of revision of Passport fee last year.
2. It is therefore reiterated that all miscellaneous services should be provided on the same day or maximum within 3-5 days, without charging any additional fee under the tatkal scheme.
3. A revised Gazette Notification dated 23.05.2003 issued by the Ministry to this effect is enclosed.CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 138 of 171
State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others
184. Vide circular dated April 29, 2004, all PIAs were authorised to issue additional passport booklets irrespective of the fact whether they had issued original passport or not subject to the clearance of Index/PAC/ check within 3-5 days preferably on same day without charging additional fee. The relevant portion is reproduced as under:-
"In order to avoid any recurrence of such instances in future, which causes undue harassment to the applicants, it has, therefore, been decided to reiterate Ministry's instructions on issue of additional booklet that any PIA in India or abroad shall issue additional booklet to the applicants, irrespective of place of original issue of passport and their residential address, subject to index/PAC check within 3-5 days, preferably same day, without charging any additional fee as specified earlier under the Tatkal scheme, since the same has been discontinued vide Ministry's circular of even number dated 25.5.2003. In case of any doubt, the help of PISON may be taken to ascertain the details of original passport issued by other PIA.
It has been noticed that in the past, whenever revised instructions/circulars were issued by the Ministry, the same were not implemented, either fully or in part, by PIAs and staff of the Passport Offices as the revised instructions/circulars were not brought to their notice or as they were not appropriately briefed to by the Passport Officers concerned. Accordingly, all Passport Officers should ensure that the revised instructions and circulars are circulated amongst the all PIAs and staff and necessary briefing are conducted so that the passport services are rendered to the applicants according to the rules to avoid unnecessary harassment to the applicants.
It is also requested that signatures of all PIAs and staff may be obtained when the CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 139 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others instructions/circulars are circulated to them. A copy of the instructions/circulars with the signatures of the PIAs and staff may be forward to Ministry along with the acknowledgement.
185. Vide circular dated July 11, 2002, procedure for valid visa booklet was issued and relevant portion reads as under:-
Procedure for Valid visa Booklet Cases "The passport containing valid visas are accepted at a separate counter No.6 only. The counter clerk at the time of submission of form by the applicant for an additional booklet, checks old passport, scrutinizes the application form and returns the passport to the applicant after retaining the photocopy of the old passport. Thereafter, a computerized receipt in lieu of the fee charges is issued to the applicant. The files are then sent to the Index Section for Index checking who in turn puts their remarks on the files regarding old references. After that file moves for 'Hit' checking; there also, they check the old particulars and except photographs whether the applicant has obtained more than one passport, etc. if the file numbers are in sequence then it is presumed that the hit is clear. The file number of old references are noted in the existing file so as to ensure that no other passport is issued to the applicant. Thereafter, the file moves to the Dealing Assistant for putting up to the PIA for grant order. The PIA, in turn, checks the hit list and index report including any other remarks passed on the file by the Dealing Hand, Indexer and Hit List clerks. No police verification (whether prior or post) would henceforth be required even if there is a change in address.
Once all these reports are clear, the PIA passes the order on file for issue of an Additional Booklet."CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 140 of 171
State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others
186. From the combined reading of all the circulars, it becomes abundantly clear that the procedure for issuance of additional passport booklet was liberalised from 1997 to 2004. The stress of Ministry of External Affairs was to minimize the hardship of public at the time of getting additional passport booklet and miscellaneous services. However, simultaneously ample precaution was also taken to ensure that the said procedure be not misused by any unscrupulous person by directing that the additional passport booklets shall be issued subject to clearance of Index/PAC/HIT and in case of any doubt, officials of Passport office shall take the help of PISON to ascertain the details of original passport issued by other PIA. Simultaneously, at the time of dealing with the request for additional passport booklet, officials were also required to take the photocopy of previous passport also.
187. Further, from the circulars dated June 24, 1997 and November 25, 1997, it also becomes crystal clear that at the time of obtaining the additional passport booklet, officials of RPO are also required to affix a stamp of 'Cancellation and Returned' on the original/previous additional passport booklet, if any. Simultaneously, they are also required to affix a stamp on the new additional passport booklet as described in circular dated November 25, 1997.
188. Now coming to Rule 2 (iii) of the Passports Rules, 1980 wherein the circumstances under which additional passport can be issued is described. Rule reads as under:-
Issuing a fresh passport booklet when the pages in the booklet held are almost exhausted;CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 141 of 171
State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others
(i) Proviso to Rule 5 empowers the Passport Issuing Authority to compel the applicant to furnish additional information, documents or certificate which may be considered necessary by such authority for the disposal of the application. The proviso reads as under:-
Provided further that in the course of any inquiry under sub-section (2) of section 5, a passport authority may require an applicant to furnish such additional information, documents or certificates, as may be considered necessary by such authority for the proper disposal of the application.
(emphasis supplied)
(ii) Bare perusal of above provisions makes it clear that additional passport booklet can be issued when the pages of previous passport booklet are going to be exhausted and passport issuing authority has ample power to ask for further additional information/documents/certificate as may be considered necessary for issuance of such additional passport booklet.
189. It is true that the Ministry of External Affairs has, vide these circulars liberalised the procedure for issuance of the additional passport booklets and also prescribed time limit for the same. However, the circulars nowhere provide or suggest that any of the stages involved in the processing of the application for issue of additional passport booklets is to be bypassed. The circulars also nowhere indicate that the production previous original passport as well as other requisite original document is not to be insisted upon. The accused cannot take aid of these circulars to justify their illegal acts.
CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 142 of 171State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others
190. Coming to the contentions raised by A11 Ram Chander that he had not given HIT clearance in any of the files in question and that somebody may have misused his password and P number. The testimony of PW21 and PW26 is very relevant in this regard. They have, in their depositions, ruled out any possibility of misuse of P number and password of any employee of RPO. PW21 has stated in his cross- examination that the password of an employee cannot be used by some other employee and such use is only possible if he or she discloses his/her password to any other employee. He has also deposed that A11 has given HIT clearance in 8th, 9th and 10th additional passport booklets. No suggestions have been given to him in the cross-examination that A11 had not given HIT clearance in the aforesaid files.
191. To the same effect is the deposition of PW36. In view of the testimony of these two witnesses, onus is shifted to A11 to lead evidence to prove his aforesaid defence. However, he has chosen not to lead evidence in his defence. Therefore, it is difficult to say from the evidence on record that password of A11 was misused by some other employee and that he had not given HIT clearance on the aforesaid files.
192. A10 also had stated that her password and P number was being misused regarding which she had made various complaints to higher officials. She took the name of one Charanjeet specifically alleging that he was misusing her password and P number. In this regard, it may be noted that none of the officials of RPO examined as witnesses in this case have deposed that any complaint was received from A10 regarding misuse of her password and P number. A10 has neither produced any copy of such complaint nor has led any evidence in this regard. In the CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 143 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others absence of any evidence on record, it is difficult to believe that the password and P number of A10 was being misused.
193. An argument was raised on behalf of A1 and A2 (the two PIAs) that they were not required to check the particulars of the applicants in application forms and the original documents of the applicants and they were required to approve the issue of additional passport booklets in case the file had been cleared by counter clerk and the HIT section officials. It was submitted that PIAs cannot be held responsible for irregularities or illegalities committed by counter clerks and the HIT section officials. The argument has been noted only to be rejected. It does not appeal to one's reason that a senior officer in the office of RPO i.e. PIA would approve the issuance of passports blindfoldedly upon the file having been cleared by counter clerk as well as HIT section officials without cross checking the original documents as well as the credentials of the applicants. A PIA is the overall incharge to ensure that the process / stages for issue of additional passport booklets is/are duly followed. In fact, he is the supervising authority and it is his duty to cross check the credentials of the applicants and their original documents as well as the previous passports issued to them in order to ensure that the passport is not issued to a fake individual or on the basis of forged documents. It is his duty to keep a close eye upon his subordinates to ensure that they discharge their function properly and regularly without resorting to any illegal acts. PIA is not a mere signing authority. It is for this reason that when the file is sent to him in second stage (as mentioned in para No. 22 hereinabove), the applicant is required to appear in person before him and produce his/her previous original passports and other related documents in original. Therefore, A1 CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 144 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others and A2 cannot avoid their liability merely by saying that they acted upon the clearance of the files given by counter clerks and the HIT section officials. It is manifest that, in this case, A1 and A2 did not discharge their duties/functions as required of them which is indicative of the fact that they were acting in connivance with the other accused.
194. It was also argued on behalf of A1 and A2 that they have been selectively targeted in this case whereas the other PIAs who also had, at one time or the other, approved issuance of passports. It was pointed out that the evidence on record led by prosecution itself shows that Ms. Asia and U.S. Lingwal had also issued certain number of passports in this case but they had not been prosecuted at all. Ld. PP countered these arguments by pointing out that Ms. Asia and U.S. Lingwal were not involved at the second stage of the process of issuing the additional passport booklets where the applicant is required to appear in person before PIA alongwith the original documents for cross check. I find the explanation given by Ld. PP acceptable. It is manifest from the record that Ms. Asia and U.S. Lingwal had not approved the files in this case or had not issued the grant orders but had only signed the passports in the last stage. It is also evident that these two officers were involved only with the additional passport booklets wherein the applicants are genuine but only false information had been given in the applications. It is for this reason that the prosecution probably did not find it logical to prosecute these two officers.
195. The evidence on record, thus, establishes beyond doubt that these officials/officers were acting in collusion with A7 & A8 and thereby facilitated issue of additional passport booklets at their instance to fake CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 145 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others individuals on the basis of false and forged documents.
As regards sanction for prosecution of the officials posted in the office of RPO i.e. A1 to A6 and A9 to A11:-
196. It is argued on behalf of these accused that sanction accorded under Section 19 of PC Act is defective as the sanctioning authority had not applied its mind before according the sanction and the authority had acted in a mechanical manner just by signing the draft sanction placed before it without considering the relevant material. It is also argued that PW13, who has passed the sanction order was not competent to remove A1 and A2 from service and hence could not have accorded sanction for their prosecution.
197. Per contra, Ld. Public Prosecutor countered these contentions by arguing that there is no defect in the sanction.
198. There is no dispute that PW13 was competent to remove A3 to A6 and A9 to A11 from service and hence no fault can be found in his according sanction for their prosecution. In respect of A1 and A2, PW13 has clarified that Ministry of External Affairs and Addl. Secretary were respective competent to remove them from service and the approval of these two authorities were obtained on file before he had signed the sanction order. The sanction order itself clarifies the said position in as much as the words "on behalf of competent authority" are found mentioned therein. In cross-examination, no specific question was put to this witness regarding mode/date of the approval obtained by him from the competent authorities with regards to A1 and A2. Only a suggestion CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 146 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others has been given to the witness that even after obtaining approval from the competent authorities, he was not competent to sign the sanction order for A1 and A2, which she has denied. This suggestion itself signifies that the approval taken from competent authorities by PW13 before signing the sanction order is not seriously disputed. These two accused did not, at any point of time, insist for production of the approval file/notings. They could have got the said file summoned during the cross-examination of PW13 or during their own defence evidence but they did not do so. They have chosen not to examine any witness to establish their contentions.
199. With regards to non application of mind in according sanction for prosecution of the accused, the sanction order Ex.PW13/A is very clear. Its perusal reflects that all the facts constituting the offence have been elaborated therein. It is a well settled legal proposition that the sanction order must expressly show application of mind to the facts of the offence by the competent authority and it is not necessary that every evidence should be discussed or weighed like in a judicial proceedings. (See State of Maharashtra Vs. Mahesh G. Jain Crl. Appeal No. 2345/09 decided on 28th May, 2013).
200. In case Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, 1979 SCC (Crl.) 926, Apex Court held that an order of sanction or valid sanction can be proved by the Sanctioning Authority in two ways either:-
(a) By producing the original sanction which itself contains the facts constituting the offence and the grounds of satisfaction; or
(b) By adducing evidence aliuned to show that the facts were placed before the Sanctioning Authority and the satisfaction arrived at, by it.CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 147 of 171
State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others
(i) In the instant case, prosecution has not only examined the person who was competent to remove A3 to A6 & A9 to A11 and had accorded the sanction for their prosecution but also produced the original sanction order. Thus, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW13.
(ii) In respect of A1 and A2, PW13, has clarified that Ministry of External Affairs and Additional Secretary were respectively competent and their sanction was obtained on the file and thereafter he had signed the sanction order. The sanction order itself clarifies the said position in as much as the words 'on behalf of competent authority' are found mentioned therein. However, these two accused chose not to examine any witness in this regard. On the contrary, the suggestion has been given on behalf of these accused that even after obtaining the sanction of competent authority, PW13 was not competent to sign the sanction order. This proves that the fact that the issue of obtaining approval from the competent authority was not seriously disputed. Ld. Counsel placed reliance upon.
(iii) Though during the cross-examination of PW13, an attempt was made to cause a dent in their testimony on the ground that the investigating agency had not placed entire material before them at the time of seeking sanction or they had not applied their mind or they had accorded sanction at the behest of CBI, but all these suggestions were categorically denied by them.
(iv) Apex Court in the case title State of Maharashtra Vs Mahesh G. Jain, criminal appeal No. 2345 of 2009 decided on May 28, 2013 CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 148 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others summed up the Principles and guidelines which are required to be followed to decide the question which inundates the trial Court, challenging the sanction order. Hon'ble Apex Court after appreciating earlier precedents on the subject had culled out the guiding Principles in Para 13 of the judgements, which are reproduced as under:
(a) It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that valid sanction has been granted by Sanctioning Authority after being satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out.
(b) The Sanction Order may expressly show that the sanctioning authority has perused the material placed before him and after consideration of the circumstances, has granted sanction for prosecution.
(c) The prosecution may prove by adducing the evidence that the material was placed before the Sanctioning Authority and his satisfaction was arrived at, upon perusal of the material placed before him.
(d) Grant of Sanction is only an administrative function and the sanctioning authority is required to prima-facie reach the satisfaction that relevant facts would constitute the offence.
(e) The adequacy of material placed before the Sanctioning Authority cannot be gone into, by the Court, as it does not sit in Appeal over the Sanction Order.
(f) If the sanctioning authority has perused all the material placed before him and some of them have not been proved, that would not vitiate the order of sanction.
(g) The order of sanction is a pre-requisite, as it is intended to provide a safeguard to the public servant against frivolous and vexatious litigants, CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 149 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others but simultaneously an order of sanction should not be construed in a pedantic manner and there should not be a hyper technical approach to test its validity.
(v) In Bhagwan Jathya Bhoir Vs State of Maharashtra, 1992 Crl.
L. J. 1144 (Bombay), it was held by High Court of Bombay that procedure adopted by the investigating agency in forwarding a draft sanction order to the sanctioning authority after summarising all evidence and requesting him to examine the record and to accord sanction if satisfied, is not improper. Same view was taken by High Court of Madras in K. Nachimuthu Vs State 1994 Crl. L. J. 2760.
(vi) In view of the ongoing discussion, I do not find any merit in the contentions raised by counsel for the accused persons that the sanction accorded under Section 19 of PC Act is defective.
(vii) The second sanction order Ex.PW13/B relates to private individuals i.e. accused Vinod Kumar Khatri (A7), Naresh Kumar Mathur (A8), Monika Gupta and Trapti Gupta (who have been discharged). No serious objection has been raised with regards to sanction on this account.
As regards the charge under Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988:-
201. Ld. Public Prosecutor argued that the manner in which the files pertaining to issue of all the aforementioned additional passport booklets were processed and approved by A1 to A6 and A9 to A11 without following prescribed procedure and without checking/verifying the original documents as well as the credentials of the applicants, is certain CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 150 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others indicator of the fact that they did so as they had been bribed. He submitted that by reason of the deliberate lapses and inaction on the part of the aforesaid officials of the RPO, A7 and A8 were able to obtain passports for fake individuals, which is a valuable thing as it authorises and Indian citizen to travel abroad. According to Ld. Public Prosecutor, the charges under Section 13 (2) and Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act r/w Section 120B IPC stands proved against all the accused and the substantive offence under Section 13 (2) and 13 (1) (d) of PC Act also stand proved against the accused A1 to A6 and A9 to A11.
202. Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that the prosecution has not led evidence to show that the accused had done their respective acts dishonestly and that they had received any pecuniary gain from anybody.
203. Here, I find it appropriate to reproduce Section 7 and 13 (1)
(d) of the PC Act, 1988:-
Section 7. Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act. - Whoever, being or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person or CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 151 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of ay State or with any local authority, corporation or Government company referred to in clause (c) of section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant. -
(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct, -
(d) if he, -
...................................................
...................................................
(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage;
(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 152 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others valuable thing or pecuniary advantage;
(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest.
204. Perusal of the Section 13 (1) (d), reproduced herein above shows that the essential ingredients of the offence of criminal misconduct relating to the government officials are :-
(i) that the accused is a public servant;
(ii) he has obtained any valuable thing or
pecuniary advantage for himself or for any other person by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position as public servants (sub-section (1)
(d) (i) (ii) of Section 13);
(iii) he has obtained such valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for any other person without any public interest, while holding office as a public servant (sub-section (1) (d) (i) (iii) of Section 13);
205. Thus, in order to attract Section 13 (1) (d) (ii), the prosecution has to establish that the public officer has indulged in corrupt or illegal means or has abused his position as such officer to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary benefit for himself or any other person.
CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 153 of 171State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others However, for attracting Section 13 (1) (d) (iii), the prosecution has to prove merely that the public officer obtained a valuable thing or pecuniary benefit to any person without any public interest. Use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of official position or obtaining pecuniary advantage for himself is immaterial for applicability of sub clause (iii).
206. Analyzing the aforesaid sub clause (iii), the Hon'ble High Court in case of Runu Ghosh Vs. CBI, Criminal Appeal No. 482/2002 decided on 21.12.2011 has observed:-
"A new offence (or sub-species, of the existing offence) has been carved out, in Section 13 (1)
(d) (iii) which criminalizes, as "criminal misconduct" the act of a public servant, holding office, which results in someone else (any person) benefitting by getting a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, without any public interest.
There is no doubt that Parliament created this new offence of criminal misconduct, where abuse of office, or use of corrupt or illegal means by a public officer, is inessential to prove the crime. What the prosecution has to establish, in accordance with law, is that the public officer, obtained for someone else - not necessarily by abusing his office, or using corrupt or illegal means - pecuniary advance or a valuable thing
- without public interest."
CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 154 of 171State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others
207. Upon the detailed analysis of the said provision of law, Hon'ble High Court, in the aforesaid judgment, came to the conclusion that mens rea is inessential to convict the accsued for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (d) (iii) of PC Act, 1988. In this regard, it has been observed in Para No. 73 of the judgment is as under :-
Para No. 73. "Having regard to the previous history of the statute, the amendments to the 1947 Act, its avowed objects and the distinctive structure which Parliament adopted consciously, under the 1988 Act, despite being aware of the pre-existing law, as well as the decisions of the Court-the conclusion which this Court draws is that mens rea is inessential to convict an accused for the offence under Section 13 (1) (d)
(iii). It would be sufficient if the prosecution proves that the public servant "obtains" by his act, pecuniary advantage or valuable thing, to another, without public interest. The inclusion of public interest, in the opinion of the Court, tips the scale in favour of a construction which does not require proof of mens rea. There can be many acts of a public servant, which result in pecuniary advantage, or obtaining of a valuable thing to someone else; typically these may relate to payment of royalty, grant of license or concessions, issuance of permits, authorizations, etc. Yet, such grants, concessions, or other CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 155 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others forms of advantages to third parties would not criminalize the public servants actions, so long as they have an element of public interest. They (acts of the public servant) are outlawed, and become punishable, if they are "without public interest".
208. Explaining the concept of "public interest", there Lordship referred to the judgment of Supreme Court in LIC of India Vs. Consumer Education & Research Centre, (1995) 5 SCC 482 and reproduced following paragraph of the said judgment:-
"Public authorities or those whose acts bear insignia of public element, action to public duty or obligation are enjoined toe act in a manner i.e. fair, just and equitable, after taking objectively all the relevant options into consideration and in a manner that is reasonable, relevant and germane to effectuate the purpose for public good an in general public interest and it must not take any irrelevant or irrational factors into consideration or appear arbitrary in its decision. A recent judgment, has examined the concept, in NOIDA Entrepreneurs Associate."
209. There Lordships also referred to another judgment of the Supreme Court reported as NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association Vs. NOIDA (2011) 6 SCC 508 wherein it has been held in this regard as CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 156 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others under : -
The State or the public authority which holds the property for the public or which has been assigned the duty of grant largesse, etc. acts as a trustee and, therefore, has to act fairly and reasonably. Every holder of a public office by Crl. A. Nos. 482/2002, 509/2002 and 536/2002 Page 54 virtue of which he acts on behalf of the State or public body is ultimately accountable to the people in whom the sovereignty vests. As such, all powers so vested in him are meant to be exercised for public good and promoting the public interest. Every holder of a public office is a trustee.
xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx Power vested by the State in a public authority should be viewed as a trust coupled with duty to be exercised in larger public and social interest. Power is to be exercised strictly adhering to the statutory provisions and fact situation of a case. Public authorities cannot play fast and loose with the powers vested in them. A decision taken in an arbitrary manner contradicts the principle of legitimate expectation. An authority is under a CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 157 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others legal obligation to exercise the power reasonably and in good faith to effectuate the purpose for which power stood conferred.
210. Hence, even if the prosecution is unable to prove mens rea on the part of the accused public servants or the fact that they had received any pecuniary gain for themselves for their acts, the fate of the accused would be sealed if the prosecution succeeds in establishing that the public servant has obtained any pecuniary advantage or valuable thing to another without public interest. In other words, if the evidence on record shows that the acts of the concerned public servant are absolutely unfair, unreasonable, unjust, inequitable and not for the purpose of public good, he shall be considered to have acted without public interest.
211. It is true that the CBI, in this case, has not produced any evidence to show that A1 to A6 and A9 to A11 had received any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for themselves or that any such valuable thing or pecuniary advantage was offered to them by A7 and A8. However, it is manifest beyond doubt from the conduct of these accused, as discussed in detail hereinabove, that they had been acting in connivance with A7 and A8 to ensure that the object of the conspiracy i.e. the issue of the passport to the fake individuals is achieved. As already noted hereinabove, the passport is a valuable thing which entitles Indian citizens to visit abroad. An Indian citizen cannot leave the country in the absence of a valid passport issued by the Government of India. Evidence on record shows beyond doubt that A1 to A6 and A9 to A11 were dancing to the tune of A7 and A8 and assisted them to obtain passports for fake individuals on the basis of forged documents. Manifestly, therefore, CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 158 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others accused A1 to A6 and A9 to A11 have acted contrary to public interest. It cannot be gain said that no public interest is involved in assisting a person to get passport for fake individual. In fact, such an act is absolutely contrary to public interest for the reason that it endangers the safety and security of the whole Nation. These accused have abused their official position as public servants in order to ensure that the passports are issued to fake individuals at the instance of A7 and A8.
212. Hence, the charge under Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1)
(d) (iii) of PC Act also stands proved against the accused who were public servants whereas charge under Section 13 (2)/13 (1) (d) (iii) of PC Act r/w Section 120B IPC stands established against all the accused.
As regards the charge of conspiracy:-
213. It has been held in foregoing discussion that A7 and A8 had applied for and obtained additional passport booklets for fake individuals on the basis of forged documents. It has also been found that A1 to A6 and A9 to A11, who were working in different capacities in the office of the RPO at the relevant time and whose job included verification of original documents as well as credentials of the applicants, passed and approved the files relating to the issue of these additional passport booklets without insisting upon the production of previous original passports, without verifying the grounds/reasons given for issue of these additional passport booklets, without verifying the particulars of the applicant i.e. his/her identity etc. and without checking as to whether any additional passport booklets had been previously issued to these applicants.
CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 159 of 171State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others
214. It was vehemently argued on behalf of the accused that there is no evidence on record to link them with each other and the acts attributed to each of the accused are his/her independent acts, not connected, in any manner, with the acts done by remaining accused. It is contended that the prosecution has not led any evidence to show that A7 and A8 had met each other at any point or that these two accused had individually or jointly met the remaining accused to exert influence upon them. The Ld. Defence counsels also argued that the evidence on record does not show that A7 and A8 or any other person on their behalf had offered any gratification to the remaining accused or that A1 to A6 and A9 to A11 had demanded or received any gratification or any type of pecuniary benefit from A7 and A8. It is argued that in the absence of any such evidence, charge of conspiracy framed against all the accused must fail.
215. Ld. Public Prosecutor argued that the conduct of the accused, which is borne out from the record, itself shows that they were acting in collusion with each other and had agreed to assist each other in issuance of the additional passport booklets. He pointed out that in case the accused had not been a part of a larger conspiracy, A8 would not have been able to use the passport and the particulars of the family members of A7 and the file pertaining to these additional passport booklets would not have been passed and approved by A1 to A6 and A9 to A11 without discovering the fraud/forgery. He submitted that the evidence on record is sufficient to hold the accused guilty for the offence of conspiracy also.
CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 160 of 171State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others
216. As regards the charge of conspiracy framed against the accused is concerned, reference to Sections 120 A and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act is necessary. The definition of the offence of criminal conspiracy is found in section 120 A which provides that when two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done an act which is an illegal act, such an agreement amounts to criminal conspiracy. Section 120-B provides punishment for the offence of criminal conspiracy. The very nature of the offence of conspiracy i.e. an agreement to do or cause to be done an illegal act, indicate that it would never be entered into at a public place or on a high pedestal. Such agreements are always formed in privacy and away from the gaze of any other person. Therefore, it has always been found difficult to gather direct evidence to prove a conspiracy. Considering the said about the proof of conspiracy, Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act has been enacted which reads as under :
"10. Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design - Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in reference to their common intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring, as well as for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it."
217. The implications and ramifications of the Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act have been discussed in detail by the Supreme Court in Kehar Singh & Ors. Vs State (Delhi Administration) 1988 (3) SCC 609.
CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 161 of 171State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others It has been held that the section can be analyzed as follows :
(i) There shall be a prima facie evidence affording a reasonable ground for a court to believe that two or more persons are members of the conspiracy ;
(ii) If the said condition is fulfilled, anything said to be done or written by any one of them with regards to their common intention will be evidence against the other ;
(iii) Anything said, done or written by him should have been said, done or written by him after the intention was formed by any one of them ;
(iv) It would also be relevant for the said purpose against another who entered the conspiracy whether it was said, done or written before he entered the conspiracy or after he left it;
(v) It can only be used against co-conspiractor and not in his favour.
218. It has also been held by the Supreme Court in Nazir Khan Vs. State of Delhi (2003) 8 SCC 461 that the essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or circumstantial evidence or by both and it is a matter of common experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available. It has been further held that the circumstances proved before, during and after the occurrence have to be considered to decide about the complicity of the accused. Reiterating that it is not always possible to give affirmative evidence about the date of formation of criminal conspiracy, about the persons who took part in CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 162 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others the formation of the conspiracy, about the object, which the objectors set before themselves as the object of conspiracy and about the manner in which the object of conspiracy is to be carried out, the Supreme Court observed that all this is necessarily a matter of inference. The Hon'ble Judges also referred to the observations of British Judge Coleridge J. in R.V. Murphy (1837) 173 ER 502 which I find pertinent to reproduce herein :
"........ I am bound to tell you, that although the common design is the root of the charge, it is not necessary to prove that these two parties came together and actually agreed in terms to have this common design and to pursue it by common means, and so to carry it into execution. This is not necessary, because in many cases of the most clearly established conspiracies there are no means of proving any such thing, and neither law nor common sense requires that it should be proved. If you find that these two persons pursued by their acts the same object, often by the same means, one performing one part of an act, and the other another part of the same act, so as to complete it, with a view to the attainment of the object which they were pursuing, you will be at liberty to draw the conclusion that they have been engaged in a conspiracy to effect that object. The question you have to ask yourselves is, 'had they this common CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 163 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others design, and did they pursue it by these common means - the design being unlawful."
219. In the instant case also there is no direct evidence to show that there had been any agreement between A7, A8 and the remaining accused who were posted as officials/officers in the office of RPO at the relevant time. However, following circumstances need to be considered in this regard:-
(i) A7, his wife and his daughters applied for 1st addition passport booklets in the month of May, 2001 saying that pages of previous passports issued to them in July, 2000 were exhausted. This was a false information provided by them as it has come on record that several pages of their passports issued in the year 2000 were blank/unused. On the basis of all these false information, additional passport booklets were issued to them on 30.05.2001 (1st additional passport booklets).
(ii) A7 applied for issue of further additional passport booklets in his name and in the name of his wife and three daughters on 03.10.2002 saying that the copies of their 1st additional passport booklets issued on 30.05.2001 had exhausted. He did not say that he had already lost/misplaced those additional passport booklets in Baghpat. He also annexed forged documents with the applications as residence proof.
Importantly, applications for issue of additional passport booklets in the name of his wife and three daughters bore photographs of some other females. Nobody discovered the forgery and accordingly additional passport booklets were issued in their name on 04.10.2002 (2 nd additional passport booklets).
CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 164 of 171State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others
(iii) Thereafter, A8 applies for further additional passport booklets in the name of A7 and his family on as much as five occasions in the year 2003. However, he affixed his own photographs in place of A7 and the photographs of different females in place of photographs of the wife and daughters of A7 on each occasion. Nobody in the office of RPO checks/verifies the credentials of the applicants and ultimately additional passport booklets are issued in the name of A7 and his family members on 31.01.2003, 06.05.2003, 08.05.2003, 18.12.2003 and rd th th th th 25.02.2004 (3 , 4 , 5 , 8 and 9 additional passport booklets).
(iv) A7 applies for and obtains additional passport booklets in the name of himself, his wife and two daughters on the ground that the original passports issued in July, 2000 to them had got damaged in water. This does not disclose that they had already obtained 1 st additional passport booklets on 30.05.2001.
Nobody checks concealment of information and accordingly additional passport booklets are issued to them on 30.06.2003 and 28.05.2004) 6th, 7th and 10th additional passbook booklets.
220. Had there been no collusion or agreement between A7 and A8, it would not have been possible for A8 to use the copies of 1 st additional passport booklets issued to A7 and his family members for applying further additional passport booklets in the name of A7 and his family members. It has been very conveniently put forward on behalf of A7 that he had lost the bag containing 1 st additional passport booklets in Baghpat on 10.06.2001. It is true that the IO (PW37), has confirmed that A7 had lodged a complaint in PS Baghpat in this regard. However, A7 has failed to lead any evidence to prove the circumstances in which he had to take these additional passport booklets to Baghpat and the CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 165 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others circumstances in which he had lost the bag there. The logical conclusion which can be arrived at upon considering the overall evidence on record and the manner in which the additional passports were applied for and obtained by A8 in the name of A7 and his family members on the basis of 1st additional passport booklets issued to them by affixing the photographs of different ladies on the application, is that A7 and A8 were acting in connivance with each other.
221. Similarly, the applications for these additional passport booklets submitted by A7 and A8 would not have been processed and approved by A1 to A6 and A9 to A11 without checking/verifying the credentials of the applicants as well as the original documents annexed with the applications, had they not been in collusion and in agreement with A7 and A8.
222. It is manifest that all the accused did their respective job on the files related to the issue of these additional passport booklets with the same object i.e. to issue passports to fake individuals on the basis of forged documents. Each of them performed one part or the other required to complete the process with a view to ensure that the object is achieved. The individual acts done by all the accused as discussed hereinabove, lead to the irresistible conclusion that they have been engaged in conspiracy to attain the object of the conspiracy i.e. issue of passports to fake individuals. No other inference can be drawn from acts done by the accused in this regard.
223. Thus, the prosecution has been successful in establishing the charge of conspiracy under Section 120B/419/420/468/471 IPC CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 166 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others against all the accused.
As regards the conduct of the investigating officer:-
224. Allegations against the investigating officer that he has selectively picked up and targeted the accused herein and has left out other officials/officers of RPO who had passed/processed the passport files in the similar manner as that of the accused, have been already discussed and rejected in Para No. 194 hereinabove. So far the contention of the Ld. Counsel for A7 that the entire investigation is flawed for the reason that in this case the complainant himself has taken over the investigation and remained the investigating officer, is concerned, same is found to be without any force. It is submitted that since the complainant himself has been the IO of this case, the investigation cannot be said to have been fair and unbiased. It is a settled law that the prosecution case cannot be thrown out only for the reason that the complainant police officer is appointed the investigating officer of the case unless it is shown by the accused that serious prejudice has been caused to them by the conduct of the IO or that the investigation conducted by him has been biased. In the instant case, there does not appear anything on record to suggest that the investigation conducted by PW43 (IO) was not fair or impartial.
225. It is true that certain lapses and errors have been committed by the IO during the course of investigation of this case. However, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hema Vs. State through Inspector of Police, Madras (2017) 3 SCR 1, mere defects in the investigation and lapses on the part of the IO cannot be a ground for CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 167 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others acquittal. It has also been observed in this judgement that even there has been negligence on the part of the investigating agency or omissions etc, it is the obligation on the part of the Court to scrutinize the prosecution evidence de hors such lapses to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not and whether such lapses affect the object of finding out the truth.
226. In the instant case, I have scrutinized the evidence led by the prosecution painstakingly without being influenced, in any manner, by the errors and omissions committed by the IO during the course of investigation. The evidence has been discussed in detail hereinabove. The conclusion which has been arrived by this Court is that the evidence led by the prosecution establishes the guilt of A8 as well as the other accused beyond any doubt.
As regards the charge under Section 12 (1) (b) of Passports Act, 1967 and the conspiracy thereof:-
227. On this aspect, it is to be stated that the evidence led by the prosecution clearly manifests that A7 and A8 had obtained the additional passport booklets by supplying false information and by concealing material information in the applications submitted in the office of RPO in this regard. Accuseds A1 to A6 and A9 to A11 whose jobs was to scrutinize, process and approve the applications for issue of additional passport booklets, being in agreement and connivance with A7 and A8, processed and approved these applications without raising any objection in this regard. Therefore, all the accused are liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 120B IPC r/w Section 12 (1) (b) of the Passports CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 168 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others Act. Accused A7 and A8 are also liable to be convicted for the offence under Section under Section 12 (1) (b) of the Passports Act.
Conclusion:-
228. In view of the above discussion, all the accused are hereby convicted as under:-
(i) Accused Om Prakash, Bibianus Toppo, Tilak Raj Sachdeva, Purshottam Lal, Harbhajan Yadav, R.S. Dagar, Vinod Kumar Gupta, Naresh Kumar Mathur, Shakuntala Devi, Sushma Bajaj and Ram Chander are convicted under Section 120B IPC r/w Section 419/420/468/471 IPC and Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988 and Section 12 (1) (b) of Passports Act, 1967.
(ii) Accused Om Prakash is also convicted
under Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of PC
Act, 1988.
(iii) Accused Bibianus Toppo is also convicted under Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988.
(iv) Accused Tilak Raj Sachdeva is also convicted under Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 169 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others
(d) of PC Act, 1988.
(v) Accused Purshottam Lal is also convicted
under Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of PC
Act, 1988.
(vi) Accused Harbhajan Yadav is also
convicted under Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1)
(d) of PC Act, 1988.
(vii) Accused R.S. Dagar is also convicted under Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988.
(viii) Accused Shakuntala Devi is also convicted under Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988.
(ix) Accused Sushma Bajaj is also convicted
under Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of PC
Act, 1988.
(x) Accused Ram Chander is also convicted
under Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of PC
Act, 1988.
(xi) Accused Vinod Kumar Gupta and Naresh
Kumar Mathur are also convicted for the offences CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 170 of 171 State through CBI vs. Om Prakash & others under Section 419/420/468/471 IPC
(xii) Accused Vinod Kumar Gupta and Naresh Kumar Mathur are also convicted under Section 12 (1) (b) of the Passports Act.
Announced in the open Court on 27.03.2018 (Virender Bhat) Special Judge, CBI-01, North West Rohini Courts, Delhi CBI No. 75/16 (Old No. 25/09) Page No. 171 of 171