Delhi District Court
State vs Anchit Suri on 1 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRANAV JOSHI, ADDITIONAL
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-01, NEW DELHI, PATIALA
HOUSE COURTS, DELHI
Cr. Cases No. 5506/2017
CNR No. DLND020204002017
STATE Vs. ANCHIT SURI
FIR No. 24/2007
PS IGI AIRPORT
U/S 420/468/471 IPC
1) The date of commission : 22.01.2017
of offence
2) The name of the complainant : Vinod Kumar
Singh, ACIO
3) The name & parentage of accused : Anchit Suri,
S/o Anil Kumar Suri,
R/o C-12, Green
Wood City,
Sector-45, Gurgaon,
Haryana.
4) Offence complained of : U/s. 420/468/471
IPC
5) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
6) Final order : Acquitted
7) The date of such order : 01.04.2026
Date of Institution : 04.08.2017
Reserved for Judgment : 26.02.2026
Date of Decision : 01.04.2026
Digitally
signed by
PRANAV
PRANAV JOSHI
JOSHI Date:
2026.04.01
17:36:10
+0530
Cr. Cases No. 5506/2017 State Vs Anchit Suri Page No. 1/26
JUDGMENT
1. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on 22.01.2017, a complaint was received at PS IGI Airport from immigration official to the effect that one passenger namely, Anchit Suri, the accused herein, holding one UN Laissez Passer passport and one Indian Passport having valid Schengen Visa approached Air India counter for boarding pass for Frankfurt. The Air India official suspected the said Lassez Passer passport to be fake and thereafter, the pax along-with his passports and travel documents was handed over to immigration officials. The Lassez Passer passport was examined under UV light and the same was found to be lacking security features. Thereafter, present FIR was registered.
2. During the course of investigation, the Lassez Passer passport was verified from UN Security Agency through Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) and as per the report received, the passport was not genuine. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused for the offences punishable under section 420/468/471 IPC.
3. Upon filing of the chargesheet, vide order dated 04.08.2017, cognizance of the offence was taken and accused Anchit Suri was summoned. After appearance of the accused, compliance with section 207 Cr.P.C was ensured. Vide order dated 04.09.2017, order on charge was passed and charges for the offences under section 420/468/471 IPC were directed to be framed on the accused. Against this order, the accused preferred revision petition and Ld. Sessions Court vide its order dated Digitally signed by PRANAV PRANAV JOSHI Cr. Cases No. 5506/2017 State Vs Anchit Suri Page No. 2/26 JOSHI Date:
2026.04.01 17:36:20 +0530 20.09.2017 allowed the petition and discharged the accused. The State challenged the order of Ld. Sessions Court in Criminal Revision Petition No. 941/2017 before Hon'ble Delhi High Court and Hon'ble Delhi High vide order dated 17.01.2025 allowed the petition and said aside the order of Ld. Sessions Court. As as consequence, order dated 04.09.2017 passed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court was restored.
4. Thereafter, on 15.05.2025 upon receipt of the order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 17.01.2025, the file was restored and trial of the accused began. Vide order dated 26.07.2025, charge for the offences under section 420/468/471 IPC was framed on the accused to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses. Prosecution examined Sh. Rakesh Kumar Ahir as PW1 who deposed that on 22.01.2017, he was posted as Manager Air India Security, Air India Departure check-in counter, T-3 IGI Airport. That on that day, he was on duty for travel documents checks of passenger for Air India Flight. That on that day between 10:00 am to 11:00 am, passenger namely Anchit Suri holding Indian passport approached to the check-in counter of Air India 121 Flight from Delhi to Frankfurt. That on scrutiny of documents of passenger Anchit Suri of the counter of G Row of Air India, the counter officer found something suspicious in the travel documents. That at that time, he was present at G Row and the counter officer also shown him all the documents. That he checked all the documents of the passenger Anchit Suri including UN laisser-passer passport. That on suspicion of US laisser- passer passport, he contacted ALO of Australian Embassy and Digitally signed by PRANAV PRANAV JOSHI Cr. Cases No. 5506/2017 State Vs Anchit Suri Page No. 3/26 JOSHI Date:
2026.04.01 17:36:28 +0530 handed over all the document details to verify the same including his laisser-passer passport. That the concerned ALO after verification of all the document, sent an e-mail to their office. That as per the report received from ALO Australian Embassy, he verified that the United Nation Laisser passer passport was fake. That thereafter, a complaint Ex. PW1/A was made by him to AFRRO, Bureau of Immigration, T-3 IGI Airport. That along- with his complaint, he also annexed photocopy of travel documents of pax including original boarding pass and UN laisser passer passport Ex. PW1/B (colly). That he also handed over passenger Anchit Suri to immigration official. That a person holding UN laisser-passer passport does not require visa of the concerned country in order to travel. That the passenger was issued boarding pass on the basis of his Indian passport. The witness identified the accused who had appeared during the proceedings through video conferencing. The witness was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
6. The prosecution examined Deputy Commandant Harish Singh Nayal as PW2 who deposed that on 17.02.2017, he was posted as Assistant Commandant, CIW at IGI Airport, New Delhi. That on requisition of SHO PS IGI Airport vide letter No.585-R/SHO/IG Airport dated 13.02.2017, the CCTV footage of terminal 3 of the day 22.01.2017 in connection with FIR No. 24/17 was given to Police official of IGI Airport vide CISF Unit IGI Airport No.17098(6)/CISF/CIW/Police/17-4062 dated 17.02.2017 Ex. PW2/A. That the CCTV footage of the relevant period was copied from the main computer in DVD/CD by Sh. Dhananjay Rai, SI/EXE/CCTV I/c, T-3, CISF Unit, IGI Airport, New Delhi and the same was forwarded by him under the official Digitally signed by PRANAV PRANAV JOSHI Cr. Cases No. 5506/2017 State Vs Anchit Suri Page No. 4/26 JOSHI Date:
2026.04.01 17:36:37 +0530 capacity of Asst. CO, CIW, CISF Unit, IGI Airport, New Delhi. That the certificate under section section 65B regarding the footage obtained from main computer which was produced and signed by Sh. Dhananjay Rai, SI/EXE/CCTV I/c, T-3, CISF Unit, IGI Airport, New Delhi and counter-signed by him Ex.PW-2/B was issued. The witness was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
7. The prosecution examined Sh. Vinod Kumar Singh as PW3 who deposed that in the month of January, 2017, he was posted as ACIO-I at Immigration, IGI Airport. Th witness did not remember the exact time, however, he deposed that on 22.01.2017, one passenger whose name was Anchit Suri brought to immigration by Air India staff to his counter. That the staff of Air India informed him that passenger Anchit Suri was holding two passports, i.e. one Indian passport and other Lassez Passer passport of UN. That the passport of Lassez Passer is issued to those Indian National who work with United Nation. That both of the passports of the pax were checked. That the Indian Passport, whose number he did not remember, was found to be genuine.
That the Lassez Passer passport was checked with the help of their device by using ultra violate ray and the same was found to be fake. That the said passport was also checked by their senior officers who also confirmed that the Lassez Passer was fake. That thereafter, on the directions of higher authorities, a complaint was prepared by him and thereafter, accused was taken to PS IGI Airport and complaint Ex. PW3/A alongwith passenger were handed over to PS IGI Airport. That alongwith the complaint, he also handed over all the documents to duty officer. That seizure memo of the documents were also prepared by duty officer vide PRANAV JOSHI Cr. Cases No. 5506/2017 State Vs Anchit Suri Page No. 5/26 Digitally signed by PRANAV JOSHI Date: 2026.04.01 17:36:44 +0530 memo Ex.PW3/B. That he handed over Indian passport having genuine Schengen Visa, one Lassez Passer passport, boarding pass, letter issued by Air India Staff and UCF details to duty officer Mark A1 (colly). The witness could not identify the accused who had joined the proceedings of the case through video conferencing. The witness stated that due to the lapse of time, he could not identify the accused. The witness was cross- examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as Ld. Counsel for the accused.
8. The prosecution examined Sh. Dhananjay Rai, ACIO as PW4 who deposed that in between May, 2012 to April, 2018, he was posted as SI (Executive), CISF, IGI Airport. That on 22.01.2017, he was posted as In-charge SOCC/CCTV. That on that day, police official of PS IGI Airport came to his office and asked to play CCTV footage of departure area of Immigration. The witness deposed that he did not remember the name and designation of police officials who came to his office. He deposed that the police officials were allowed to see the footage of the relevant/concerned area of departure, immigration. That on the request of the police officials, the relevant footage was saved. That thereafter, the police officials came with authority letter and the necessary footage was given to him in DVD/CD. That along- with DVD/CD, he also issued certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW2/B regarding genuineness of footage which was duly forwarded by the then Asst. Commandant. The CCTV footage was exhibited as Mark A1 (colly). The witness was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
9. The prosecution examined Sh. Rahul Yadav as PW5 who deposed that their office received summons from this Court PRANAV JOSHI Cr. Cases No. 5506/2017 State Vs Anchit Suri Page No. 6/26 Digitally signed by PRANAV JOSHI Date: 2026.04.01 17:36:52 +0530 as asked for production of original verification report No. VII/407/2003 dated 24.04.2017 of Laisser Passer pasport (diplomatic passport) bearing No. S93650420. He deposed that the original verification report pertaining to the said Lassez Passer passport was not traceable in the office of CPV Division, MEA. The witness was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
10. The prosecution examined HC Deen Dayal as PW6 who deposed that on 22.01.2017, he was posted as Constable at PS IGI Airport. That on that day, he had joined investigation in the present case with IO SI Manoj Kumar. That accused Anchit Suri was interrogated by the IO in his presence and thereafter accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW6/A. That personal search memo and disclosure statement of accused Anchit Suri was also prepared by the IO vide memo Ex.PW6/B and Ex.PW6/C. The witness identified the accused who had appeared during the proceedings through video conferencing. The witness was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
11. The prosecution examined SI Manoj Kumar as PW7 who deposed that on 22.01.2017, he was posted as Sub-Inspector at PS IGI Airport. That on that day, he was on emergency duty. That at around 07:30 pm, while he was present in the police station, the duty officer ASI Jagmal handed over to him pax Anchit Suri alongwith two passports i.e. one Indian passport and one Laisser-Passer passport along-with other travel documents of the pax. That ASI Jagmal also handed over to him copy of FIR, complaint and certificate of section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. That the Laisser Passer passport was bearing No. $93650420. That the custody of the accused was with Constable Deen Dayal. PRANAV JOSHI Cr. Cases No. 5506/2017 State Vs Anchit Suri Page No. 7/26 Digitally signed by PRANAV JOSHI Date: 2026.04.01 17:36:58 +0530 That pax was interrogated by him and thereafter, when sufficient evidence came out against the accused, he was arrested in the present case vide memo already Ex.PW6/A. That personal search memo of the accused was prepared vide memo Ex.PW6/B and his disclosure statement was recorded vide memo Ex.PW6/C. That on interrogation, the pax disclosed about preparation of forged laisser passer passport through one Jual Minah while studying in Water loo University, Canada, however, the pax did not disclosed the whereabouts of Jual Minah. That he also confessed that he had used the laisser passer passport for availing diplomatic facilities at IGI Airport while journey to frankfurt. That statements of ASI Jagmal, Ct. Deen Dayan and complainant were recorded bu him. That statement of Air India Staff Rakesh Ahir was also recorded by him in the police station on the same day. That thereafter, the accused was produced before the concerned court on the NDOH and he was sent to JC. That during the course of investigation, CCTV footage of concerned area of the relevant period was collected and placed in the file. That in the footage, presence of accused Anchit Suri was established. That during investigation of the case, the alleged Laisser Passer (Diplomatic) passport No. $93650420 was sent to concerned office through proper channel for verification. That during investigation of the case, verification report Ex. A1 of the Laisser Passer passport was received and as per the report, the office of United Nation Development Programme said, "our office in New York is unable to provide a definite response in the absence of clear, colored copy". That the report also stated that "it indicated that the number of LP is not keeping with their sequence of number and that the name is not present in the PRANAV JOSHI Cr. Cases No. 5506/2017 Digitally signed by State Vs Anchit Suri Page No. 8/26 PRANAV JOSHI Date: 2026.04.01 17:37:05 +0530 database". That thereafter, charge-sheet was prepared and the same was filed before the Court. The witness identified the accused who had appeared during the proceedings through video conferencing. The witness was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
12. During the trial, statement of Ld. Counsel for the accused was recorded under section 294 Cr.P.C and Ld. Counsel for the accused, on behalf of the accused, did not dispute the genuineness of FIR Ex. A1 and certificate under section 65B Indian Evidence Act Ex. A2. Therefore, the concerned witnesses were not examined.
13. Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed on 13.01.2026 and case was fixed for statement of accused. On the request of Ld. Counsel for the accused, vide order dated 05.02.2026, a questionnaire containing questions to be put to the accused was prepared and the same was handed over to Ld. Counsel for the accused and the accused was permitted to file a written statement in response to the questions as the accused is permanently settled in USA and at that time, he was unable to come to India to joined the proceedings physically. On 12.02.2026, the accused filed written statement to the questions for his examination in terms of section under section 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. The accused stated that he was innocent and falsely implicated in the case. He stated that he did not commit the offence as alleged against him.
14. I have heard the arguments from Ld. APP for the State and Ld. counsel for the accused.
15. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the Digitally signed by PRANAV JOSHI Cr. Cases No. 5506/2017 State Vs Anchit Suri Page No. 9/26 PRANAV JOSHI Date:
2026.04.01 17:37:12 +0530 prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kali Ram Vs. Himanchal Pradesh (1973 2 SCC 808) in para 23 and 25 which are reproduced as under:
" 23. Observations in a recent decision of this Court, Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (1973 2 SCC 793) to which reference has been made during arguments were not intended to make a departure from the rule of the presumption of innocence of the accused and his entitlement to the benefit of reasonable doubt in criminal cases. One of the cardinal principles which has always to be kept in view in our system of administration of justice for criminal cases is that a person arraigned as an accused is presumed to be innocent unless that presumption is rebutted by the prosecution by production of evidence as may show him to be guilty of the offence with which he is charged. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused is upon the prosecution and unless it relieves itself of that burden, the courts cannot record a finding of the guilt of the accused. There are certain cases in which statutory presumptions arise regarding the guilt of the accused, but the burden even in those cases is upon the prosecution to prove the existence of facts which have to be present before the presumption can be drawn. Once those facts are shown by the prosecution to exist, the court can raise the statutory presumption and it would, in such an event, be for the accused to rebut the presumption. The onus even in such cases upon the accused is not as heavy as is normally upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. If some material is brought on the record consistent with the innocence of the accused which may reasonably be true, even though it is not positively proved to be true, the accused would be entitled to acquittal. Leaving aside the cases of statutory presumptions, the onus is upon the prosecution to prove the different ingredients of the offence and unless it discharges that onus, the prosecution cannot succeed... PRANAV JOSHI Digitally signed by PRANAV JOSHI Cr. Cases No. 5506/2017 State Vs Anchit Suri Page No. 10/26 Date: 2026.04.01 17:37:19 +0530 xxxxxx
25. Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence. Rule has accordingly been laid down that unless the evidence adduced in the case is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with that of his innocence, the court should refrain from recording a finding of guilt of the accused. It is also an accepted rule that in case the 73 5 court entertains reasonable doubt regarding the, guilt of the accused, the accused must have the benefit of that doubt. Of course, the doubt regarding the guilt of the accused should be reasonable : it is not the doubt of a mind which is either so vacillating that it is incapable of reaching a firm conclusion or so timid that it is hesitant and afraid to take things to their natural consequences. The rule regarding the benefit of doubt also does not warrant acquittal of the accused by resort to surmises, conjectures or fanciful considerations. As mentioned by us recently in the case of State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh,(1974 2 SCC 227) a criminal trial is not like a fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight to one's imagination and fantasy. It concerns itself with the question as to whether the accused arraigned at the trial is guilty of the offence with which he is charged. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of interplay of different human emotions. In arriving at the conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged with the commission of a crime, the, court has to judge, the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. Every case in the final analysis would have to depend upon its own facts. Although the benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the accused, the courts should not at the same time reject evidence which is ex facie trustworthy, on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures."
16. The accused is charged with the offences punishable under section 420/468/471 IPC. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy and Anr v. Sudha Seetharam and Anr (2019) 16 SCC 739 has explained the ingredients of cheating defined under section 415 IPC as under:
Digitally signed by PRANAV PRANAV JOSHI Cr. Cases No. 5506/2017 State Vs Anchit Suri Page No. 11/26 JOSHI Date:
2026.04.01 17:37:25 +0530 "16. The ingredients to constitute an offence of cheating are as follows:
16.1. There should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him:
16.1.1. The person so induced should be intentionally induced to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or 16.1.2. The person so induced should be intentionally induced to do or to omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and 16.2. In cases covered by 16.1.2. above, the act or omission should be one which caused or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property.
17. A fraudulent or dishonest inducement is an essential ingredient of the offence. A person who dishonestly induces another person to deliver any property is liable for the offence of cheating.
xxxxx
19. The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 420 are as follows:
19.1 A person must commit the offence of cheating under Section 415; and 19.2 The person cheated must be dishonestly induced to:
(a) deliver property to any person; or
(b) make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security."
In AM Mohan v. State Represented by SHO & Anr. 2024 INSC 233, Hon'ble Supreme Court, in regard to offence under section 420 IPC, has observed as follows:
"13. It could be thus seen for attracting the provision of Section 420 of IPC, the FIR/complaint must show that the ingredients of Section 415 of IPC are made out and the person cheated must have been dishonestly induced to deliver the property to any person; or to make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security. In PRANAV other words, for attracting the provisions of Section 420 JOSHI Digitally signed byCr. Cases No. 5506/2017 State Vs Anchit Suri Page No. 12/26 PRANAV JOSHI Date: 2026.04.01 17:37:33 +0530 of IPC, it must be shown that the FIR/complaint discloses:
(i) the deception of any person;
(ii) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person; and
(iii) dishonest intention of the accused at the time of making the inducement."
17. In Vandana Vs. State Of Maharashtra, 2025 INSC 1098, Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the following observations in regard to offences under section 468 and 471 IPC under:
"5. The offences involved in the present appeal are section 420, 468, 471 of the IPC and for immediate reference they are extracted herein below:
"420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
468. Forgery for purpose of cheating. - Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
471. Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record. - Whoever fraudulently and dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record."
6. The offence of forgery and making of false document as defined under section 463 and section 464 of the IPC are extracted herein below for ready reference:
"463. Forgery.- Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or PRANAV JOSHI Cr. Cases No. 5506/2017 Digitally signed by State Vs Anchit Suri Page No. 13/26 PRANAV JOSHI Date: 2026.04.01 17:37:40 +0530 to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.
464. Making a false document. - A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record1:
First-- Who dishonestly or fraudulently--
(a) makes, sign, seals or executes a document or part of a document;
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;
(c) affixes any digital signature on any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the digital signature, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or digital signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority or a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly-- who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with digital signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly-- who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person, sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his digital signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practiced upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration."
7. It is apposite to note that to attract offence of Section 468 IPC, the prosecution must establish that the accused made a false document within the meaning of Section 464 IPC, with intent to cheat. Likewise, Section 471 IPC requires proof that the accused used a forged document as genuine, knowing or having reason to believe it to be forged at the time of its use."
18. In the present case, PW1 deposed that the accused presented the Lassez Passer passport at check-in counter of Air India and at that time, he was present at G Row at Air India Digitally signed by PRANAV PRANAV JOSHI Cr. Cases No. 5506/2017 State Vs Anchit Suri Page No. 14/26 JOSHI Date:
2026.04.01 17:37:47 +0530 counter at IGI Airport and the concerned counter official before whom the Lassez Passer passport was produced by the accused found something suspicious. He further deposed that the counter official also showed him the passport and other travel documents and thereafter, he contacted ALO of Australian Embassy and handed over all the documents details to verify the same. It is clear from the testimony of PW1 that he was not the one before whom the Lassez Passer was presented. The official of Air India before whom the Lassez Passer passport was presented by the accused was not examined by the prosecution. This fact is not insignificant and assumes importance because the accused was already issued boarding pass and he was having a valid Schengen Visa for his intended destination i.e. Frankfurt along-with a genuine work permit of Canada. Therefore, it is only the official to whom the accused has made the first approach at the airport who could have shed light on the purpose for which the accused presented Lassez Passer passport at the check-in counter and need for inquiry into the Lassez Passer passport. As per complaint Ex. PW1/A (colly) made to AFRRO prepared by PW1, the accused is alleged to be travelling on a "counterfeit Lassez Passer" passport, however, during cross-examination, PW1 stated that the accused presented the Lassez Passer passport for extra facilities. Not only the testimony of PW1 is contradictory to his own complaint but it makes no legal sense also because the accused had a valid Schengen Visa and he was already issued a boarding pass for travel. If the accused was not seeking travel on Lassez Passer passport, it was required to be explained as to why the inquiry into the alleged Lassez Passer passport was initiated. It is pertinent to mention that it is not the case of the prosecution PRANAV JOSHI Cr. Cases No. 5506/2017 State Vs Anchit Suri Page No. 15/26 Digitally signed by PRANAV JOSHI Date: 2026.04.01 17:37:55 +0530 that the accused was seeking immigration clearance on the basis of Lassez Passer passport. It also apparent from the record that from the Air India counter only the accused was detained and was not cleared for immigration clearance. Therefore, it could also not be said that though the accused was attempting to seek departure immigration clearance on the basis of Lassez Passer passport.
19. Further, the testimony of PW1 in regard to the report of ALO, Australian Embassy does not appear to be correct. The record shows that a report Ex. PW1/B (colly.) allegedly prepared by one Megdalena Kropatschek, Attaché, Republic of Austria in regard to the Lassex Passer pasport. First of all, the ALO has no concern with Australia rather she was representative of Austria. Secondly, the report Ex. PW1/B clearly show that it was prepared by the ALO at IGI Airport in the presence of accused. The report reads as under:
"Mr. SURI Anchit (DOB 18.04.1991) intended to travel with AI 121 DEL-FRA-YYZ. He approached the counter of Al and asked if there is a counter for diplomats. As the staff told him that there is no extra counter for diplomats, I asked MR. SURI where he is traveling and what the purpose of his travel is. After he said that he is traveling to FRA and then YYZ I asked Mr. SURI to show me his passport. As MR. SURI handed me over a fake "United Nations Laissez-Passer" he proved his identity with the fake document.
As I saw that the document is fake and started to use my magnifier, MR. SURI started to shout who I am and why I am checking his passport. As I explained him my profession, MR. SURI then tried to wrench the fake document from me away, but he did not succeed in his intention. Then MR. SURI said he has another document with a valid Schengen Visa and handed me over a valid Indian Passport with a valid German, Canadian and US Visa.
As Mr. SURI started to shout even more and explained his discontent after I told him that he identified himself with a fake document, I called Air India Security for help.
PRANAV The staff of Air India Security came to the supervisor counter JOSHI Cr. Cases No. 5506/2017 Digitally signed by State Vs Anchit Suri Page No. 16/26 PRANAV JOSHI Date: 2026.04.01 17:38:02 +0530 and explained then the situation to MR. SURI According to the booked flights MR. SURI wanted to stay in Frankfurt from 22.01.2017 until 08.03.2017. On the 08.03.2017 he booked a flight to Toronto as per him he is living and working in Canada.
As Mr. SURI is in possession of a valid Canadian working visa, the ALO from the Canadian High Commission was informed and after explaining the case, the Canadian ALO declared the Working visa as not valid anymore and cancelled it in the system. As well the Canadian ALO advised an offload of the passenger.
Additionally to that, the German ALO was also informed because of the valid German Visa. He as well declared the visa as cancelled in the system.
The fake of the "United Nations Laissez-Passer" was detected by me due to certain parameters. As Mr. SURI identified himself to me with the fake document, an Offload was advised to Air India.
Both documents were handed over to the Air India Security staff for further proceedings.
Pictures of the documents are attached.
Magdalena KROPATSCHEK, Attaché REPUBLIC OF AUSTRIA - FEDERAL MINISTRY OF THE INTERIOR Austrian Embassy New Delhi Document Adviser/Airline Liaison Officer Mob. +91 987 324 5334 Email: Magdalena.kropatschek polical.gv. at Austrian [email protected]"
The report is self explanatory and clearly show that the accused and the Lassez Passer Passport were brought before the ALO physically, however, none of the witnesses, especially, PW1 and PW2 have clarified this aspect as to how the accused and travel documents including Lassez Passer passport were produced before Ms. Magdalena Kropatschek. The report also negates the testimony of PW1 that this report Ex. PW1/B (colly) was received via e-mail as the report itself makes it clear that it PRANAV JOSHI Cr. Cases No. 5506/2017 Digitally signed by State Vs Anchit Suri Page No. 17/26 PRANAV JOSHI Date: 2026.04.01 17:38:08 +0530 was prepared on the sport. Further, the report was Ex. PW1/B (colly) was not proved since Ms. Magdalena Kropatschek was not examined. No certificate under section 65B Indian Evidence Act was produced in support of Ex. PW1/B if that was received via e-mail.
20. Further, PW3 deposed that on 22.01.2017, Air India staff brought the accused along-with his travel documents and he was informed by the Air India staff that the accused was holding two passport, i.e. one genune Indian Passport and other Lassez Passer passport. He deposed that he examined the Lassez Passer under UV light and found the same to be fake as it was lacking security features. The testimony of PW3 was derivative in nature as it also fails to clarify the issue i.e. when the accused was already issued a boarding pass and he had a valid Visa affixed on a genuinely issued Indian Passport, how could the accused be said to be traveling on the Lassez Passer passport which allegedly was fake. Further, PW3 admitted during the cross- examination that the incident did not take place in his presence. It is pertinent to mention that PW3 was complainant in the present case but during the trial, he fails to identify the accused. Failure of the complainant to identify the accused is a significant circumstance which cannot be ignored. It is therefore, clear that the testimonies of PW1 and PW3 fail to prove that there was a dishonest inducement on the part of the accused and on the basis of the inducement, he attempted to travel to Frankfurt or to obtain any other benefit either from the officials of Air India or Immigration.
21. It is relevant to observe that the verification report of United Nations in respect of Lassex Passer passport transmitted Digitally signed by PRANAV JOSHI Cr. Cases No. 5506/2017 State Vs Anchit Suri Page No. 18/26 PRANAV JOSHI Date:
2026.04.01 17:38:14 +0530 by MEA to the Office of Dy. Commissioner of Police, IGI Airport vide Letter No. VII/407/6/2003 dated 27.04.2017, was not proved. PW5, who was an official of PV-II, CPV Division, MEA, stated before the Court that the record pertaining to Letter No. VII/407/6/2003 dated 27.04.2017 was not traceable in their office. It is pertinent to mention that the verification report was produced by UN to PV-II, CPV Division, MEA and the said report could only be proved either by competent officer of UN or by PW5 or any other official of PV-II, CPV Division, MEA. PW5 also did not depose whether the report filed along-with the charge-sheet was valid. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the verification report obtained from UN.
22. The prosecution has relied upon CCTV footage of the airport to establish the presence the accused and to corroborate the complaint Ex. PW3/A. The footage being electronically produced copy obtained from original DVR was required to be proved in accordance with section 65A and 65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The certificate EX. PW2/B produced to prove CCTV footage is reproduced as under:
"CERTIFICATE U/s 65-B of Evidence Act It is certified that the computer used in CISF Control Room at IGI Airport, Tr-3 is under my control. The CCTV footage of dated 22.01.17 supplied in DVD/CD, in connection with FIR No. 24/17 U/S 420, 468, 471 of IPC, PS IGI Airport, New Delhi dated 05.11.2016 is copied from the Main Computer. The contents copied in the DVD/CD is true and correct (Dhananjay Rai) SI/Exe PRANAV CCTV I/C, Tr-3, JOSHI IGI Airport, New Delhi Digitally signed by PRANAV JOSHI Date: 2026.04.01 17:38:20 +0530 Cr. Cases No. 5506/2017 State Vs Anchit Suri Page No. 19/26 Assistant Commandant/CIW CISF Unit IGIA, New Delhi"
Further, section 65A and 65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 read as under:
"65A. Special provisions as to evidence relating to electronic record. --The contents of electronic records may be proved in accordance with the provisions of section 65B. 65B. Admissibility of electronic records.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer (hereinafter referred to as the computer output) shall be deemed to be also a document, if the conditions mentioned in this section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question and shall be admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production of the original, as evidence or any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible.
(2) The conditions referred to in sub-section (1) in respect of a computer output shall be the following, namely: --
(a) the computer output containing the information was produced by the computer during the period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of the computer;
(b) during the said period, information of the kind contained in the electronic record or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities;
(c) throughout the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly or, if not, then in respect of any period in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of the period, was not such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents; and
(d) the information contained in the electronic record reproduces or is derived from such information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities. (3) Where over any period, the function of storing or processing information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period as mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) was regularly performed by computers, whether--
(a) by a combination of computers operating over that period; or
(b) by different computers operating in succession over that period; or PRANAV (c) by different combinations of computers operating in JOSHI Digitally signed by Cr. Cases No. 5506/2017 State Vs Anchit Suri Page No. 20/26 PRANAV JOSHI Date: 2026.04.01 17:38:27 +0530 succession over that period; or
(d) in any other manner involving the successive operation over that period, in whatever order, of one or more computers and one or more combinations of computers, all the computers used for that purpose during that period shall be treated for the purposes of this section as constituting a single computer; and references in this section to a computer shall be construed accordingly.
(4) In any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate doing any of the following things, that is to say, --
(a) identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced;
(b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that electronic record as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was produced by a computer;
(c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) relate, and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) shall be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and for the purposes of this sub section it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it. (5) For the purposes of this section, --
(a) information shall be taken to be supplied to a computer if it is supplied thereto in any appropriate form and whether it is so supplied directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment;
(b) whether in the course of activities carried on by any official, information is supplied with a view to its being stored or processed for the purposes of those activities by a computer operated otherwise than in the course of those activities, that information, if duly supplied to that computer, shall be taken to be supplied to it in the course of those activities;
(c) a computer output shall be taken to have been produced by a computer whether it was produced by it directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section any reference to information being derived from other information shall be a reference to its being derived therefrom by calculation, comparison or any other process."
It is apparent from the certificate Ex. PW2/B that the certificate does not comply with the requirements of section PRANAV JOSHI Cr. Cases No. 5506/2017 State Vs Anchit Suri Page No. 21/26 Digitally signed by PRANAV JOSHI Date: 2026.04.01 17:38:34 +0530 65B(4) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal 2020 SCC OnLine SC 571, it was held that certificate required under Section 65B(4) is a condition precedent to the admissibility of electronic record. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove CCTV footage since it does not comply with section 65B of Indian Evidence Act.
23. Since, the prosecution has failed to prove that the passport Lassex Passer passport was a fake or a forged document, the charges for the offences under section 468 and 471 IPC must fail. The prosecution did not prove that the accused was attempting to travel on the Lassez Passer passport and he was issued the boarding pass on the basis of the said passport and therefore, there is also no ground presume that the accused used a fake document, more so, for the purposes of cheating.
24. In view of above discussion, it is quite apparent that the prosecution has not been able to prove that there was a dishonest inducement on the part of the accused. The prosecution further failed to prove that the Lassex Passer passport was a fake document and that the accused was attempting to travel on the said Lassez Passer passport. The CCTV footage was also remained unproven. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused Anchit Suri for the charge of the offences under section 420/468/471 IPC. Accordingly, the accused accused Anchit Suri is acquitted.
The Illustrative charts of the witnesses examined, exhibited documents and material objects/muddamals in compliance of the judgment in Manojbhai Jetabhai Parmar PRANAV JOSHI Cr. Cases No. 5506/2017 State Vs Anchit Suri Page No. 22/26 Digitally signed by PRANAV JOSHI Date: 2026.04.01 17:38:41 +0530 (Rohit) Vs State of Gujarat, 2025 INSC 1433 are annexed hereafter. Digitally signed by PRANAV PRANAV JOSHI JOSHI Date:
Announced in open Court 2026.04.01
17:38:47
On this 01st Day of April, 2026 +0530
(PRANAV JOSHI)
ACJM-01/NEW DELHI
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS
Cr. Cases No. 5506/2017 State Vs Anchit Suri Page No. 23/26
ANNEXURE I
Chart for Witnesses Examined
Prosecution Witness Name of the Witness Description
No.
1 Rakesh Kumar Eye Witness
Ahir/PW1
2 Dy. Comm. Harish Official Witness
Singh Nayal/PW2
3 Vinod Kumar Complainant
Singh/PW3
4 Dhananjay Rai/PW4 Official Witness
5 Rahul Yadav/PW5 Official Witness
6 HC Deen Dayal Police Witness
Pilana/PW6
7 SI Manoj Kumar/PW7 Investigating Officer
Digitally
signed by
PRANAV
PRANAV JOSHI
JOSHI Date:
2026.04.01
17:38:59
+0530
Cr. Cases No. 5506/2017 State Vs Anchit Suri Page No. 24/26
ANNEXURE II
Chart for Exhibited Documents
Exhibit No. Name of the Witness Proved by/Attested by
Ex. PW1/A Complaint made to PW1
immigration
Ex. PW1/B Report of ALO, PW1
Austrian Embassy
Ex. PW2/A Forwarding letter dated PW2
17.02.2017
Ex. PW2/B Certificate of section PW2
65B IEA in support of
CCTV footage
Ex. PW3/A Complaint PW3
Ex. PW3/B Seizure memo of travel PW3
documents of the
accused
Mark A1 (colly) Indian Passport with PW3
Schengen Visa, Lassex
Passer Passport,
boarding pass, letter of
Air India and UCF
details
Ex. PW3/A Authority letter dated PW5
09.05.2019 in favour of
PW5
Ex. PW5/B (colly) Verification report of PW5
passport No. E6808447
Ex. PW6/A Arrest memo of accused PW6
Ex. PW6/B Personal search memo PW6
of accused
Ex. PW6/C Disclosure statement of PW6
accused
Ex. A1` FIR Admitted Document
Ex. A2 Certificate under Admitted Document
section 65B IEA issued
by DO in support of
FIR
PRANAV
JOSHI
Digitally signed by
PRANAV JOSHI
Date: 2026.04.01 Cr. Cases No. 5506/2017 State Vs Anchit Suri Page No. 25/26
17:39:06 +0530
ANNEXURE III
Chart for Material Objects/Muddamals Material Object No. Description of the Proved by/Attested by Exhibit Nil Nil Nil Digitally signed by PRANAV PRANAV JOSHI JOSHI Date:
2026.04.01 17:39:14 +0530 Cr. Cases No. 5506/2017 State Vs Anchit Suri Page No. 26/26