Delhi District Court
State vs . Suhaib Ilyasi on 12 November, 2013
Page 1 of 11
IN THE COURT OF MS. NAVITA KUMARI BAGHA: MM, NEW DELHI
State Vs. Suhaib Ilyasi
FIR No. : 175/2000
P.S. : Tilak Marg
U/Sec. : 201/420/468/471 IPC & Sec.12 of Passport Act
JUDGMENT :
a) Srl. No. of the case & Date of institution : 687/2 & 05.05.2001
b) Date of commission of offence : From year 1982 to 1995
c) Name of the complainant : State through Mr. Rajiv Ranjan
d) Name of the accused : Suhaib Ilyasi S/o Maulana Jamil Ahmad Ilyasi R/o B13 IFS Apartment, Mayur Vihar, PhaseII, New Delhi
e) Nature of offence complained of : U/Sec.201/420/468/471 IPC & Sec.12 of Passport Act
f) Plea of the accused person : Accused pleaded not guilty
g) Date reserved for order : 30.11.2013
h) Final Order : Acquitted
i) Date of order : 11.12.2013 BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE:
1. In brief, Chargesheet was filed against accused Suhaib Ilyasi for the offences punishable under Sec.201/420/468/471 IPC & Sec.12 of Passport Act on the allegations that he had obtained four passports from Regional Passport Office, New Delhi bearing No. S654753 dated 13.07.1982, Passport No. S219601 dated 28.10.1994, Passport No. B014581 dated 22.07.1991 and Passport No. State Vs. Suhaib Ilyasi FIR No. 175/2000 P.S. Tilak Marg Page 2 of 11 U625668 dated 20.07.1995 by giving false information and cheated the authorities by inducing them to deliver the said passports to him which were valuable security of Govt. of India and thus caused wrongful loss to the authorities and wrongful gain to himself and further that he had knowingly used fake documents as genuine to obtain the said passports and knowingly given false information to the authorities in respect of the said passports and further destroyed or removed the same with intention to screen himself from legal punishment.
2. After supplying copies to the accused U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C., the Ld. Predecessor Court held vide order dated 29.03.2008 that prima facie a case under Sec.12 of Passport Act & Sec.420/471/201 IPC was made out against him and accordingly charge was framed against him for the said offences to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution had cited 9 witnesses, out of which only 6 witnesses were examined.
4. Statement of accused was recorded U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. on 04.01.2013 wherein he denied the case of the prosecution and pleaded innocence. He said that the instant case was filed at the instance of his sisterinlaw Rashmi Singh who had wanted the custody of his child baby Aaliya Ilyasi and when he refused to part away the custody of his child after his wife's death, his sisterinlaw Rashmi in collaboration with some police officers implicated him falsely in this case. However, he opted for not leading any evidence in his defence. State Vs. Suhaib Ilyasi FIR No. 175/2000 P.S. Tilak Marg Page 3 of 11
5. I have heard the final arguments from Ld. APP Sh. Honey Goel and Ld. Defence Counsels Sh. K.K. Manan and Sh. Tarun Goomber and perused the record.
6. Let us first examine the evidence led by the prosecution. The first witness of the prosecution i.e. PW1 is Hari Ram Khatumria, Retd. Assistant Passport Officer who deposed that on 31.03.2000 he had prepared a Verification Report in respect of inspection of passport files of Mohd. Suhaib and Mohd. Suhaib Ilyasi and on checking, he had found that the passport no.S654753 dated 13.07.82 was issued to Mohd. Sohaib S/o Jamil Ahmed Ilyasi R/o Masjid Curzon Road, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi born on 15.11.1966 at New Delhi. He further deposed that on inspection it was found that the Passport No.S219601 dated 28.10.94 was issued in lieu of his old passport no.S654753 dated 13.07.1982 in favour of Mohd. Suhaib S/o Jamil Ahmed Ilyasi R/o Maszid Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, born on 15.11.1966 at New Delhi. He further deposed that the papers for the said passport were not sent for reverification of CID report as it was a case of reissue of passport. He further deposed that after the expiry of 10 years of validity, passport no.B014581 dated 22.07.1991 was issued in favour of Suhaib Ahmed Ilyasi S/o Maulana Jamil Ahmed Ilyasi R/o Maszid Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi born on 08.09.1966 at New Delhi. He further deposed that the relevant file pertaining to the issuance of passport of the year 1991 had been destroyed as per rules and therefore the particulars of CID report and name of the CID Office could not be registered. He further deposed that on receipt of clear CID report no.10670A pass dated 17.05.1995 from the DCP, CID State Vs. Suhaib Ilyasi FIR No. 175/2000 P.S. Tilak Marg Page 4 of 11 Spl. Branch, Delhi, the passport no.U625668 dated 20.07.1995 was issued in lieu of his lost passport no.B014581 dated 22.07.1991 in favour of Suhaib Ahmed Ilyasi S/o Maulana Jamil Ahmed Ilyasi R/o Maszid Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi born on 08.09.1966 at New Delhi, profession Journalist. He further deposed that the accused had obtained two passports by giving changed name and date of birth which attracted Sec.10(3)(b) of Passport Act, 1967. He further deposed that after preparation of his Verification and Inspection Report in this regard i.e. Ex.PW1/A, he had forwarded the photostat copies of the record to concerned SHO P.S. Tilak Marg alongwith the forwarding letter bearing no.13D/1831/95 i.e. Ex.PW1/B.
7. During his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel, the PW1 admitted it correct that he did not have any personal knowledge about the matter. He deposed that normally the CID report did not have any accompanying documents, etc. He further admitted it correct that the application for issuance of passport was accompanied with the proof of date of birth and permanent address as per the requirement of documents in the Application for Passport Form. He deposed that though at the time of sending the application for verification of details given by the applicant, CID was not supplied with the copies of annexures viz. copy of the date of birth certificate, identity card, etc., but the CID was still giving reports regarding all the particulars mentioned in the Passport Form. He further admitted it correct that the passport was issued only after the necessary verification of the documents and details received in the concerned form from the CID. He further deposed that they also did internal inquiry and only thereafter they issued the passport. When the defence counsel State Vs. Suhaib Ilyasi FIR No. 175/2000 P.S. Tilak Marg Page 5 of 11 asked him if he could show the original Form filled up for issuing the passport no.S654553 dated 13.07.1982, the PW1 said that the file of the concerned department having details of the said passport was not traceable. He further deposed that the file of passport no.B014581 dated 22.07.1991 could also not be produced as the same was destroyed. He further deposed that even the file of passport No.S219601 dated 28.10.94 could also not be produced as the same was also destroyed. He admitted it correct that he had prepared his Verification Report merely on seeing the index which was lying in his office. He further admitted it correct that he had not even verified about the correctness of index from the person who had made the index. He further admitted it correct that he could not say when or by whom the index was prepared. He further admitted it correct that he did not have any personal knowledge regarding the Verification Report except the index he had seen. He further admitted it correct that he had not filed the copy of the index/report in this matter.
8. PW2 is S.I. Pratap Singh who deposed that on 04.04.2000 he was posted as A.S.I. at P.S. Tilak Marg and on that day he was working as Duty Officer from 4.00 p.m. to 12 a.m. and on that day at about 8.35 p.m. he had recorded the FIR Ex.PW2/B on the basis of rukka Ex.PW2/A. During his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel, he admitted it correct that he had not made any endorsement on the rukka. He said that the endorsement on the rukka was already made by the Duty Officer, P.S. Trilok Puri. He admitted it correct that neither the name of the Duty Officer Bishwender nor the DD No.19A was mentioned on the FIR.
State Vs. Suhaib Ilyasi FIR No. 175/2000 P.S. Tilak Marg Page 6 of 11
9. PW3 is Ct. Anil who deposed that on 08.04.2000 he was posted as Constable at P.S. Tilk Marg and on that day he had accompanied S.I. Ravinder Malik to the Court presided over by Sh. M.R. Sethi, the then Ld. MM where accused Suhaib Ilyasi was formally arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/B and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW3/A.
10. PW4 is DCP Rajiv Ranjan who deposed that during investigation of case FIR No.94/2000, P.S. Trilok Puri it was revealed that the accused had got issued four passports from Regional Passport Office, Delhi by using different names/parentage/address/date of birth which was in violation of Passport Act and IPC and therefore he, on 04.04.2000, while posted as ACP, Operation Cell, East District, Delhi had given written complaint Ex.PW4/A to SHO, P.S. Trilok Puri for registration of Zero FIR. During his crossexamination by the accused, PW4 deposed that no passport was recovered from the custody of accused during interrogation.
11. PW5 is Ct. Lalji Ram who deposed that on 04.04.2000 he was posted as Constable at P.S. Trilok Puri and on that day he was handed over one Zero FIR for registration of case at P.S. Tilak Marg and he got the FIR No.175/2000 registered at P.S. Tilak Marg and returned back to P.S. Trilok Puri with the carbon copy of FIR.
12. PW6 is S.I. Ravinder Malik who deposed that on 04.04.2000 he was posted as SubInspector at P.S. Tilak Marg and on that day, Zero FIR P.S. Trilok Puri Ex.PW6/A was registered and same was sent to P.S. Tilak Marg for further State Vs. Suhaib Ilyasi FIR No. 175/2000 P.S. Tilak Marg Page 7 of 11 proceedings and on its basis, FIR No.175/2000 was registered in the present case. He further deposed that alongwith the Zero FIR, copy of letter of Rashmi Singh i.e. Mark A and report of RPO i.e. Ex.PW1/A was also annexed. He further deposed that the investigation of the case was handed over to him on 04.04.2000 and he had moved production warrants against accused Suhaib and on 08.04.2000 the accused was formally arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/B and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW3/B. He further deposed that he had moved application for police custody of accused which was rejected by the Court and the specimen signatures of the accused were also not allowed to be obtained by the Court. He further deposed that he had procured certified copies of all the four passports from Passport Office which were provided vide letter Ex.PW1/B. He further deposed that he had recorded the statements of witnesses and moved application for sanction U/Sec.12 of Passport Act and on 30.01.2001 he received the Sanction Order Ex.PW6/B and thereafter he had prepared the Challan and filed the same in the Court.
13. During his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel, PW6 deposed that he had never seized any passport in the present case. He further deposed that he had not seized the original Passport Forms of those passports for which the present case was going on. He admitted it correct that the original Forms for applying for passports were not seized by him during the investigation and hence he could not say whether those Passport Forms were filled up by the accused or not. He further admitted it correct that the attested copies of the Forms were never attested by the Officer concerned in his presence. He further admitted it correct that after obtaining the attested copies of the Passport State Vs. Suhaib Ilyasi FIR No. 175/2000 P.S. Tilak Marg Page 8 of 11 Forms, he had not compared them with the original Passport Forms. He denied the suggestion that he had not investigated the matter properly or that he had not verified the authenticity of the Passport Forms before arresting the accused or that the accused had never obtained the passport by giving wrong date of birth.
14. The Ld. Defence counsels have argued that the accused is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated at the instance of his sisterinlaw Ms. Rashmi Singh. They have further argued that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case as neither the main witness Rashmi Singh has been examined nor the originals of alleged passports brought on record nor the original Passport Application Forms for applying for said passports brought or proved on record.
15. The accused has been charged in this case under Sec.420/471/201 IPC & Sec.
12 Passport Act. In order to prove these offences, the prosecution was required to prove that the accused had obtained four passports i.e. bearing No. S654753, S219601, B014581 & U625668 from Regional Passport Office, New Delhi by giving false information and cheated the authorities by inducing them to deliver the said passports to him which were valuable security of Govt. of India and further he had knowingly used fake documents as genuine to obtain the said passports and further destroyed or removed the same with intention to screen himself from legal punishment. For proving its case, the prosecution has examined material witness i.e. PW1 Hari Ram Khatumria, Retired Asstt. Passport Officer from Regional Passport Office to prove the record of abovesaid alleged Passports viz. Application Forms for applying for State Vs. Suhaib Ilyasi FIR No. 175/2000 P.S. Tilak Marg Page 9 of 11 those passports and Verification Report given by him in respect of inspection of abovesaid passports. His verification report dated 31.03.2000 in this regard is Ex.PW1/A wherein he has mentioned that the two passports were obtained by the accused by giving changed name and date of birth which was attracting the provision of Sec.10(3)(b) of Passport Act, 1967. But during his crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel, he deposed that the original Application Form for issuing of passport no. S654753 could not be produced as the same was not traceable and further that the files concerning passports bearing nos. S219601 & B014581 were destroyed. He further deposed that he had prepared the Verification Report merely on seeing the index lying in his office and that he had not even verified about the correctness of the said index from the person who had made it. He admitted it correct that he was not having any personal knowledge regarding the said verification report except that he had prepared it on the basis of the index. He also admitted it correct that he had not filed the said index also. Thus the evidence of this witness is no good than a hearsay evidence.
16. The accused has been booked in this case for the offence punishable U/Sec.
471 IPC also for using a forged document as genuine. Though as per the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as Shashi Lata Khanna Vs. State of Delhi & Ors., 2005 (121) DLT 522, for the offence of forgery of a document, it is necessary that the original document should be produced in the Court, but the prosecution has failed to produce the original files containing record of the alleged fake passports viz. the Passport Application Forms, annexures of said forms, etc. It has also failed to prove that the said forms were State Vs. Suhaib Ilyasi FIR No. 175/2000 P.S. Tilak Marg Page 10 of 11 filled in and applied by the accused. The I.O./S.I. Ravinder Malik deposed that during the course of investigation, he had obtained the certified copies of all the four Passport Forms from the RPO which were provided vide letter Ex.PW1/B. But in his crossexamination, he deposed that neither he had seized the original Forms for applying for alleged passports nor he could say that those Passport Forms were filled in by the accused. He further deposed that even the attested copies of Passport Application Forms filed on record were not attested in his presence. He admitted it correct that after obtaining the said attested copies, he had not compared them with the original Passport Application Forms. There is no evidence on record that the handwriting or signatures on the alleged Passport Application Forms or their annexures are of the accused. There is no evidence to prove that the accused had ever applied for the alleged passports on the basis of alleged false information and that he had induced the passport authorities to deliver him the alleged passports. Thus the prosecution has failed to prove that the alleged Passport Application Forms were filled in and applied by the accused and that he had obtained the abovesaid passports by cheating the Passport Authorities. Since the prosecution has failed to prove the forgery in this case, so the question of using the forged documents as genuine does not arise. Further there is no cogent evidence on record from which it could be inferred that the accused had ever possessed the alleged passports and destroyed thereafter in order to screen himself from legal punishment. Hence in view of the aforesaid, it is clear that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the accused is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sec.420/471/201 IPC & Sec.12 of Passport Act. His State Vs. Suhaib Ilyasi FIR No. 175/2000 P.S. Tilak Marg Page 11 of 11 bail bond is cancelled. His surety is discharged. Endorsement on the documents of the surety, if any, be cancelled.
17. File be consigned to Record Room (Announced in open Court on 11.12.2013) (Navita Kumari) MM, New Delhi.
State Vs. Suhaib Ilyasi FIR No. 175/2000 P.S. Tilak Marg Page 12 of 11 FIR No. 175/2000 U/Sec. 201/420/468/471 IPC & 12 of Passport Act P.S. Tilak Marg 11.12.2013 Present : APP for state.
Accused Sohaib Ilyasi with counel Sh. Tarun Goomber. Vide separate judgment the accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under Sec.420/471/201 IPC & Sec.12 of Passport Act. His bail bond is cancelled. His surety is discharged. Endorsement on the documents of the surety, if any, be cancelled.
Fresh Bail bond is furnished by accused U/Sec.437A Cr.P.C. which shall be valid for six months from today.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Navita Kumari) MM/ND/11.12.13 State Vs. Suhaib Ilyasi FIR No. 175/2000 P.S. Tilak Marg