Delhi District Court
Jigme Norbu vs The State on 2 February, 2011
IN THE COURT OF PRAVEEN KUMAR, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE: DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI. Crl. Appeal No. 58.10 FIR No. 546/2004 PS IGI Airport U/s420/468/471 IPC r/w S 12 of Passport Act In the matter of : JIGME NORBU S/O LATE SH. WANGDU R/O VILLAGE LIMQUIM DISTT. LAHOUL & SIPTI, HIMACHAL PRADESH. ......Appellant Versus THE STATE .......Respondent Date of institution of the appeal: 23.12.2010 Date of reserving judgment : 31.1.11 Date of pronouncement of order: 02.02.2011 JUDGMENT:
1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 22.11.2010 passed by Ld. A.C.M.M.02, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi whereby the appellant was convicted for committing offence punishable Crl. Appeal No. 58.10 Page 1/5 under Section 420 IPC. Vide separate order dated 23.11.2010 appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone by him along with fine of Rs.10,000/. In default of payment of fine, appellant was sentenced to further undergo SI for one month.
2. Briefly stating, the case of the prosecution is that appellant was arrested in case FIR No. 546/2004 Under Section 420/468/471 IPC r/w Section 12 of the Passport Act, PS IGI Airport on the allegation that on 7.12.2004 at about 8.45 a.m at departure left wing of immigration IGI Airport, appellant produced passport No. F 0078927 (Ex. P1) which was procured by him by giving false information regarding his father's name and address and by suppressing the facts regarding existence of his old passport No. A 0334844 (Ex. P5) which was seized by the police in case FIR No. 60/03 PS Lodhi Colony. As per prosecution, appellant obtained Ex.P1 by concealing the material facts and, thus, the appellant cheated the immigration authorities as well as Govt. of India. After completing investigation chargesheet was filed in the court for the offences punishable u/s 420/468/471 IPC and Section 12 of the Passport Act.
3. On 28.4.2005 charge was framed against the appellant for Crl. Appeal No. 58.10 Page 2/5 committing offence punishable under Section 420 IPC only. Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Prosecution in order to substantiate its case examined six witnesses before the trial court.
5. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the appellant. Ld. Counsel for the appellant contended that passport Ex.P1 is a genuine passport regarding which the verification report was filed by the prosecution (Ex.PW2/D1) (Ex. PX) and the said admission is also reflected in the bail order dated 22.12.2004. According to him no wrong information was given by the appellant at the time of procuring passport Ex.P1 and, therefore, no offence u/s 420 IPC can be said to have been proved against the appellant by the prosecution. Ld. Counsel further contended that the prosecution has not brought on record any document/application vide which appellant had applied for the issuance of passport Ex.P1 to show that wrong information was given by the appellant for procuring passport Ex.P1. Lastly, Ld. Counsel contended that it is for the prosecution to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and not for the defence to prove its defence. In support of his contention he has relied upon judgment State Vs. Smt. Kuldeep Kaur, 129 (2006) Crl. Appeal No. 58.10 Page 3/5 DLT 481 (DB).
6. I have gone through the trial court record. I have also gone through the written submission filed on behalf of the appellant. From the perusal of evidence on record it has been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt that two passports Ex.P1 and P5 were issued to the appellant and they were also recovered from his possession. The appellant in his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC has not disputed the existence of passports Ex.P1 and Ex.P5, both issued in his name. From the testimony of PW2 it has been established that a passport Ex.P1 was got issued from Chandigarh by the appellant by changing his father's name and also by suppressing the material information regarding the old passport Ex.P5. The credibility of PW2 could not be shaken in his crossexamination by the appellant. The testimony of PW4 SI Vikram Singh has remained unrebutted as PW4 was not crossexamined by the appellant though opportunity was granted to him. Trial court rightly took judicial notice of the fact that a passport is issued on the basis of the application submitted by an applicant and the applicant is supposed to furnish all the information correctly for the issuance of the passport. From the evidence on record it has been established that appellant knowingly and dishonestly cheated the Crl. Appeal No. 58.10 Page 4/5 passport/immigration authorities by concealing material facts as discussed hereinabove. There is no dispute regarding the legal proposition as laid down in judgment Kuldeep Kaur (supra). In my opinion, prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
8. In these circumstances and for the abovesaid reasons, I am of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity in the judgment and order on sentence passed by the trial court. The appeal has no merit and, hence, the same is hereby dismissed in limine. Trial court record be sent back with a copy of the judgment and appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced today (PRAVEEN KUMAR) in open court on 2.2.11. ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE:DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI Crl. Appeal No. 58.10 Page 5/5 Crl. Appeal No. 58.10 Page 6/5