Bangalore District Court
The State vs Smt.Zarina Taj on 7 January, 2023
KABC030073512016
Presented on : 02.02.2016
Registered on : 02.02.2016
Decided on : 07.01.2023
Duration : 06y/11m/05days
IN THE COURT OF
XLI ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
AT : BENGALURU
PRESIDED OVER BY TATTANDA DAMAYANTI SOMAYYA
B.A.,LL.B.,
XLI Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate
Bengaluru
Dated on this 7th day of January 2023
C.C.No.2860/2016
COMPLAINANT : The State
by Koramangala Police Station
-V/s-
ACCUSED : Smt.Zarina Taj
W/o. Mehaboob Pasha,
Aged 34 years,
R/o. No.87, 3rd Cross,
Chalavadi Palya, Chikkapete,
Dr.T.C.M Rayan Road, Bengaluru.
Date of Commission of offence 07.10. 2014
Date of report 07.09.2015
Date of arrest On 12.11.2019 the accused
got enlarged herself on bail.
2 C.C.No.2860/2016
Name of the complainant Sri.Amarjothi.R
Date of commencement of 20.11.2021
recording Evidence
Date of closing evidence 24.11.2022
Offences complained of U/Sec. 420, 471 of IPC &
Sec.12[b] of Passports Act
Opinion of the Judge As per final orders
State Represented by Senior Asst.Public
Prosecutor
Accused Represented by Sri.K.N.Shashidar Advocate.
JUDGMENT
[Delivered on 07.01.2023] The P.S.I of Koramangala Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.420,471 of IPC and Sec.12[b] of Passports Act.
2. Brief facts of prosecution case is as follows:
On 07.10.2014, the accused applied for passport in her name before the Regional Passport Office, Koramangala, for which she fraudulently furnished fabricated school transfer certificate as a genuine document knowing fully well that, it is a fabricated document and thereby dishonestly induced and cheated the Government. On the basis of complaint given by the CW.1, the Koramangala Police have registered this case in Cr.No.545/2015.3 C.C.No.2860/2016
3. After the investigation, the IO filed charge sheet against the accused. This Court has taken cognizance of the offences punishable U/Sec. U/Sec. 420, 471 of IPC and Sec.12[b] of Passports Act.
4. On 12.11.2019, the accused appeared through her counsel and got enlarged herself on bail. This Court complied with Sec.207 of Cr.P.C and furnished charge sheet copy to the accused.
5. This Court heard both the parties. As there were no grounds to discharge the accused, this Court framed charges for the offences punishable U/Sec. U/Sec.471, 420 of IPC and Sec.12[B] of Passports Act. The accused did not plead guilty. She claimed to be tried.
6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution got examined 3 witnesses as PW.1 to 3 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 10 documents. With this, the prosecution closed its side of evidence. Thereafter, the statement of the accused U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C was recorded. The accused denied the incriminating evidence adduced against her. She did not chose to lead her defense evidence. 4 C.C.No.2860/2016
7. I have heard the arguments of Senior APP and Sri. KNS Advocate.
8. On the basis of the allegations made against the accused, the following points arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 07.10.2014, the accused fraudulently produced forged school transfer certificate to Regional Passport Office, Koramangala to obtain passport and thereby dishonestly induced and cheated the Government and thereby she has committed an offence punishable U/Sec.420 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused furnished fabricated school transfer certificate as a genuine document knowing fully well that, it is a fabricated document and thereby she has committed the offence punishable U/Sec.471 of IPC?5 C.C.No.2860/2016
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused knowingly furnished false information with a view to obtain passport and thereby committed an offence punishable U/Sec.12[b] of passports Act?
4. What order?
9. My answers to the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In Negative
Point No.2 : In Negative
Point No.3 : In Negative
Point No.4 : As per final orders for the following:
REASONS
Point No.1 to 3: As these three points are interrelated, I take all the points together for common discussion to avoid repetition.
10. The burden is casted on the prosecution to prove that, the accused in order to obtain Indian passport has fraudulently furnished fabricated school transfer certificate as a genuine document knowing fully well that, it is a fabricated document and thereby dishonestly induced and cheated the Government and 6 C.C.No.2860/2016 thereby committed the offences punishable U/Sec.471, 420 of IPC and U/Sec. Sec.12[b] of Passports Act.
11. In order to prove its case, the prosecution got examined the complainant CW.1 as PW.1, head mistress, Sevashrama school- CW.2 as PW.2 and investigating officer-CW.3 as PW.3 and got marked the complaint as Ex.P.1, report of PW.2 as Ex.P.2, Copy of online application as Ex.P.3, copy of school transfer certificate as Ex.P.4, FIR as Ex.P.5, covering letter as Ex.P.6 copy of election identity card as of the accused as Ex.P.7, copy of the aadhar card of the accused as Ex.P.8, Copy of ration card as Ex.P.9 and copy of joint marriage certificate as Ex.P.10.
12. CW.1/PW.1- Smt.Amarajyothi in her evidence has stated that, in the year 2014, the accused by name Zarina Taj had submitted online application to obtain passport. She had furnished school documents along with her application. As the name of the accused was not tallying with the school name, they had sent the document to school authorities for verification. As they received information from the school that, no such student 7 C.C.No.2860/2016 was studying in their school and hence no information is available, she gave Ex.P.1 complaint to the police. The letter/reply given by the head mistress of Sevashrama High School, Srirampura, Benglaluru is marked as Ex.P.2. Copy of online application submitted by the accused is marked as Ex.P.3. Copy of Fabricated school transfer certificate is marked as Ex.P.4. She can identify the documents submitted by the accused along with online application.
13. CW.2/PW.2-Tulasimani in her evidence has deposed that, the PSI of Koramangala police station visited their school on 08.09.2015 and asked her to verify the school transfer certificate whether it is a genuine document or fabricated document. On verification, she noticed that no document is available in the name of accused. Accordingly, she gave Ex.P.2 letter to the PSI. Ex.P.4 is the document, which was shown by the PSI for verification.
14. CW.3/PW.3-Rudrappa Gurikar, in his evidence has stated that, while he was working as PSI of Koramangala police station, he had received Ex.P.1 complaint through tapal on 07.09.2015. 8 C.C.No.2860/2016 On the basis of that complaint, he registered FIR as per Ex.P.5. On 20.09.2015, he received Ex.P.6 letter along with copies of online application submitted by the accused, school transfer certificate, election identity card, aadhar card, BPL-ration card and joint marriage affidavit. On 09.09.2015 he sent a requisition to furnish report regarding the genuineness of Ex.P.4. On 10.09.2015, he received Ex.P.2 report from the head mistress of Sevashrama Hgh school, Srirampura, wherein it was stated that, Ex.P.4 was not issued from their school. During the course of investigation the accused was not found. After the completion of the investigation, he submitted charge sheet against the accused.
15. In order hold the accused guilty of the offences alleged against him, the prosecution has to prove that, the accused has fraudulently furnished fabricated or false document-Ex.P.4 to Regional Passport Office with an intention to obtain passport knowing fully well that, it is a false document and thereby cheated the Government. In order to prove its case, the 9 C.C.No.2860/2016 prosecution has to prove that, Ex.P.4 is a false document and it was furnished by the accused.
16. As per Sec.15 of Passports Act, no prosecution shall be instituted against any person in respect of any offence under this Act without the previous sanction of the central Government or such officer or authority as may be authorized by that Government by order in writing in this behalf.
17. In the present case, neither the PW.1 obtained sanction to lodge complaint nor the PW.3 being IO obtained sanction to charge sheet the accused. It appears that, Sec.420 and 471 of IPC are inserted in the charge sheet in order to overcome the restriction of obtaining previous sanction. In order to take action against the accused U/Sec.12 of Passport act, the PW.1 ought to have taken prior sanction from the Government. The PW.3 being the investigating officer ought to have sought sanction from the Government or authorized officer for prosecuting the accused. But, no such sanction is taken by the IO or the complainant. 10 C.C.No.2860/2016
18. During the course of cross examination, the PW.1 pleaded ignorance when she was asked about the IP address from which Ex.P.3 application was submitted. According to PW.1, generally, the applicants who submit applications for the issuance of passport will approach their office for the verification of the documents. However, she admits that the accused did not approach their office for verification of documents.
19. During the course of cross examination the PW.1 admitted that the accused did not submit online application for the issuance of passport. She too admits that she has not called the accused to passport office for verification and comparison of documents submitted to their office with the documents available with her.
20. The PW.3 in his cross examination has stated that, he had enquired PW.1 at her office. To the contrary, the PW.1 in her cross examination has stated that, the Koramangala police have neither met her personally nor enquired about this case. The PW.3 being the IO in his cross examination pleaded ignorance when he was asked about the computer, IP address from which the online 11 C.C.No.2860/2016 application was submitted. He too pleaded ignorance when he was asked whether the accused submitted application for the issuance of passport.
21. The PW.3 in his cross examination admits that, he had not tallied the documents received from passport office with the documents available with the accused. He did not even enquire the person, who uploaded online application. He admits that, generally in cheating cases, they call the accused for enquiry. But, in the present case, the IO admits that, he had not called the accused for investigation and he has not arrested her.
22. From the contents of Ex.P.1, it appears that, the passport office itself called the report regarding the genuineness of the school transfer certificate and not the police. But, PW.2 stated that, the PSI of Koramangala police station visited their school to know the genuineness of school transfer certificate of the accused. To the contrary, the PW.3 stated that he had sent a requisition seeking report regarding the genuineness of Ex.P.4 to the head 12 C.C.No.2860/2016 master of Sevashrama High School on 09.09.2015. All these aspects are contrary to each other.
23. If the PW.3 had sent requisition seeking report regarding the genuineness of Ex.P.4, then the contents of Ex.P.1 complaint appears to be false. Because, in Ex.P.1, the PW.1 stated that, she is forwarding the reply given by the head master of Sevashrama High School, Srirampura. The PW.2 stated that the PSI, Koramangala visited their school to know the genuineness of Ex.P.4. Their version is contrary to each other. Moreover Ex.P.1 is dated: 20.08.2015. Ex.P.2 is dated: 09.09.2015. It means that, the contents of Ex.P.1 are not correct.
24. In order to ascertain the genuineness of Ex.P.4, the IO ought to have collected the original of Ex.P.4. But, he did not do so. The IO did not collect the necessary register from Sevashrama High School. Without verifying the school registers, how the PW.3 can say that, no entry is available in the name of the accused in their registers. It appears that, the PW.3/IO has filed charge sheet against the accused only on the basis of Ex.P.2. 13 C.C.No.2860/2016
25. In the present case the IO has not seized the original of Ex.P.4, he has not drawn any mahazar by visiting the office of PW.2 or at the Regional passport office. He has not enquired any witnesses nor recorded their statements. The PW.3 being an IO negligently filed charge sheet against the accused on the basis of Ex.P.2 report given by PW.2. It indirectly means that, the IO has not investigated the matter effectively.
26. In the present case, the IO has not collected any documents to know the maker of Ex.P.4. There are no materials on record to hold that the accused herself is the maker of Ex.P.4. Making of a document is different than causing it to be made. There is no evidence on record to hold that, Ex.P.4 school transfer certificate was furnished by the accused.
27. The PW.3 being an IO did not call upon the accused to produce her school transfer certificate, so as to say that Ex.P.4 is the copy of same document, which the accused possesses with her. Hence, it cannot be accepted that, the accused herself forwarded Ex.P.4 school transfer certificate along with Ex.P.3 14 C.C.No.2860/2016 application. If we read the evidence of PW.1 to 3 in comparison with each other, then it appears that, there is no evidence on record to show that, the accused has fabricated Ex.P.4 and furnished the same to Regional Passport office dishonestly by giving false information to obtain passport and thereby cheated the Government.
28. The oral evidence of PW.1 to 3 is not helpful to the prosecution to prove the charges leveled against the accused. The IO neither enquired the PW.1 and 2 nor any of the officials of the Regional Passport Office, Koramangala. There is no reference of list of enclosures found on Ex.P.3 application, so as to say that it was accompanied by Ex.P.4 school transfer certificate. There is no believable evidence on record to hold that, Ex.P.4 was furnished by the accused.
29. There is no basis on record to hold that Ex.P.4 is a forged and fake document because, the IO has not seized the registers from the concerned school. Hence, the allegations made against the accused appear to be baseless. In these circumstances, the 15 C.C.No.2860/2016 evidence of PW.1 to 3 is not helpful to the prosecution. From the evidence of PW.1 to 3, the charges leveled against the accused will not be proved. Thus, the prosecution has failed beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused has committed the offences alleged against her. In such circumstances, I answer the point No.1 to 3 in the Negative.
Point No.4: For the aforesaid reasons I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER By exercising the powers conferred U/Sec.248[1] of Cr.P.C., the accused is acquitted from the charges of Sec. 420, 471 of IPC and Sec.12[b] of Passports Act.
The bail bond executed by the accused stands cancelled.
07.01.2023 [TATTANDA DAMAYANTI SOMAYYA] XLI ADDL.METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE BENGALURU 16 C.C.No.2860/2016 ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
PW.1 : Amarjyothi.R PW.2 : Tulasi Mani PW.3 : Rudrappa Gurikar
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint
Ex.P.1[a] : Signature of PW.1
Ex.P.1[b] : Signature of PW.3
Ex.P.2 : Report given by PW.2
Ex.P.2[a] : Signature of PW.2
Ex.P.2[b] : Signature of PW.3
Ex.P.3 : Copy of online passport application
Ex.P.3[a] : Signature of PW.1
Ex.P.4 : Copy of School Transfer Certificate
Ex.P.4[a] : Signature of PW.1
Ex.P.5 : FIR
Ex.P.5[a] : Signature of PW.3
Ex.P.6 : Covering letter
Ex.P.7 : Copy of Election identity card
Ex.P.8 : Copy of aadhar Card
Ex.P.9 : Copy of BPL ration Card
Ex.P.10 : Copy of Joint Marriage Affidavit
17 C.C.No.2860/2016
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE ACCUSED :
NIL LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE ACCUSED :
NIL ....................................................................................
Dictated on : 04.01.2023
Transcribed on : 05.01.2023
checked on : 07.01.2023
Signed on : 07.01.2023
[TATTANDA DAMAYANTI SOMAYYA]
XLI ADDL.METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
BENGALURU
Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app "eCourts Services" from Android or iOS