Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota ... on 25 April, 2017
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL:
SPECIAL JUDGE03:(PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT)
CBI : PHC: NEW DELHI
CC No. 96/2016
RC - 07A/2015/SCU.V/SCII/CBI/ND
CBI Vs. 1. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan
S/o Sh. Sadashiv Sakharam Nikalje
R/o 6/192 and 6/120, Tilak Nagar Colony,
Chambur, Mumbai400089 and
Flat No. 1202, Ashutosh, Neelkhan Vihar,
Tilak Nagar, Chambur East, Mumbai PIN : 400089
Maharashtra, India and
Village & Post office : Giravi, Tehsil : Faltan,
District : Satara, Maharashtra.
2. Jayashree Dattatray Rahate
W/o Sh. Dattatray Pandurang Rahate
R/o Anand Vihar Complex 2/404 Anand Kunj
Near
Kharegoan Railway Fatak Kharegoan East Kalwa
Thana 400605.
3. Deepak Natvarlal Shah
S/o Sh. Natvarlal Maganlal
R/o 702 Mahan Terrance Opposite Bulka Bhawan
School Adajan Road, Surat, Gujarat.
4. Lalitha Lakshmanan
W/o Sh. S. Lakshmanan
R/o H. No. 715, "D" Block, 2nd Main,
Rajaji Nagar II Stage, Bangalore 560010.
CC No. 96/2016 Page 1 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
Date of filing of chargesheet : 02.02.2016
Date of completion of arguments : 28.03.2017
Date of judgement : 24.04.2017
Judgement
1. Prosecution alleges that during the period 1998
1999 accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Rajendra @ Nana
@ Chhota Rajan S/o Sadashiv Sakharam Nikalje, entered into
criminal conspiracy with accused Public Servants namely
Jayshree Rahete, Deepak Natvarlal Shah and Lalitha
Laxmanan, all officials of Regional Passport Office, Bangalore
(hereinafter referred as RPO Bangalore) and others in matter
of dishonest and fraudulent procurement of Indian passport
in the fictitious name of Mohan Kumar S/o Damodar R/o H.
No. 107/B, Old M. C. Road, Azad Nagar, Mandya, Karnataka
on the basis of fake and fabricated documents so as to
conceal the identity of accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @
Chhota Rajan, a wanted criminal in several cases.
INVESTIGATION
2. CBI registered RC 7(A)/2015/SCUV/SCII/New
Delhi on 31.10.2015 on the basis of source information and
the investigation was launched by Inspector Rajeev Kumar
Sinha, who received the information that Rajendra Sadashiv
Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan was detained by Indonesian
Authorities at Bali, Indonesia, who was brought to India by
CC No. 96/2016 Page 2 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
Interpol team headed by Sh. Sonal Agnihotri, S. P. CBI.
Accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan was
arrested, documents were seized, police remand of this
accused was taken, finger prints/palm prints and specimen
signatures/writings of accused were taken. Further
investigation was conducted at Mandya and Bangalore in
State of Karnataka by Sh. T. Rajashekhar, Inspector, CBI, ACB
Bangalore with a view to know as to how the passport was
issued to accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan
in the name of Mohan Kumar.
3. Investigation revealed that an individual desirous
of having an Indian Passport in his name is required to submit
Passport Application form, duly filled personal particulars
from (in duplicate) and index card bearing details,
photographs and signature of the applicant along with
enclosures such as identity proof, residence proof etc. The
personal particular form is used for police verification of the
individual.
4. Investigation revealed that the index card is the
permanent record of the passport office. This document
assumes greater significance, as at the time of reissue of
passport or for issue of duplicate booklet; the credentials of
the applicant are verified from this index card only. The
index card is kept alphabetically and the file number in which
CC No. 96/2016 Page 3 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
the application for passport was dealt earlier is mentioned on
it. This card proves that a particular individual with specific
details/photographs/signature had approached the passport
office previously and his application was dealt with particular
file bearing specific number and passport bearing unique
number was allotted to that particular individual.
5. The issue of a passport booklet bearing unique
perforated number is recorded in "Passport Writing Register"
with details that a specific passport (booklet) was issued to a
particular individual. As a matter of fact, the perforated
booklet number is a unique number and cannot be assigned
to two persons. This register is kept as a permanent record in
the passport office. The index card and the passport writing
register are only records kept by the passport office, from
which details pertaining to issue of previous passport can be
ascertained.
6. Investigation has revealed that one Enayath
Akmal Khan had obtained passport no. F004555 from
Regional Passport Office, Bangalore in the year 1988 by
making an application with the concerned authority. The
entry to this effect has been duly recorded in the "Passport
Writing Register" of the Regional Passport Office, Bangalore
on 20.01.1989.
7. Investigation also revealed that said Enayath
CC No. 96/2016 Page 4 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
Akmal Khan on 5.8.1998 had approached RPO Bangalore for
fresh issue of passport in his name on the basis of his old
passport no. F004555. His application was dealt vide file no.
BNGE00729498. The processing note on the application
revealed that the index card reference i.e. 19/51783/B/88
and 8/804/94 are specifically mentioned on the application.
This proves that the applicant had applied in the year 1988
for fresh passport and his application was dealt in file no.
19/51783/B/88 and again applicant had approached
Passport Office, Bangalore in the year 1994 for renewal of the
passport and his application was dealt in file no. 8/804/94.
The "passport writing register" confirms that old passport no.
F004555 was issued to the applicant Enayath Akmal Khan.
The new passport number allotted to him was A6007015 in
the name of Enyat Akmal Khan on 27.08.1998 against the old
passport no. F004555.
8. It is also confirmed by the officials of RPO
Bangalore that the booklet number F004555 is a unique
number and cannot be assigned to two persons and as per
records it was assigned to Enayath Akmal Khan.
9. Investigation revealed that accused Rajendra
Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan, in pursuance of criminal
conspiracy with Lalitah Laxamanan, Jayshree Rahete and
Deepak Natvarlal Shah; who were working in the RPO
CC No. 96/2016 Page 5 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
Bangalore, had submitted a passport application on
10.12.1998 at Regional Passport Office Bangalore for reissue
of passport in the name of Mohan Kumar. The application for
reissue was made in lieu of old and expiring passport
number F004555 knowing fully well that the passport
number F004555 was infact issued by RPO Bangalore on
20.01.1989 to one Enyat Akmal Khan S/o Enyatullha Khan.
With this application, he had also submitted enclosures such
as copy of Ration Card vide no. 5210812, copy of fake and
fabricated passport vide no. F004555 in the name of Mohan
Kumar, authority letter dated 10.12.1998 favouring
representative one R. Shekhar R/o No. 14/2, 1st Cross, 2nd
Main, RT Nagar, Bangalore. The address of R Shekhar as
mentioned in the authority letter has been found to be
nonexistent during investigation.
10. Investigation revealed that the application for re
issue of passport in the name of Mohan Kumar, of accused
Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan was accepted by
Smt. Lalitha Lakshmanan, the then Assistant (now retired)
RPO Bangalore. The photograph as available in the enclosed
fake and fabricated passport no. F004555 is of different
person from the photograph which is pasted on the
application. Further the date of birth of applicant in the old
passport did not match with date of birth as mentioned in the
CC No. 96/2016 Page 6 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
application form. Investigation revealed that Lalitha
Lakshmanan, in her capacity as public servant, while working
as Counter Staff for accepting application at RPO Bangalore,
by abusing her official position, in pursuance of the criminal
conspiracy extended undue favour to accused Rajendra
Sadashiv Nikalje. While accepting the aforesaid application
she deliberately suppressed the fact that passport no.
F004555 contained a photograph of a different person than
the applicant and the date of birth in application also did not
match with the old passport details. While accepting the
aforesaid application Lalitha Lakshmanan appended her
initials and made remarks "Rs.300/ and Checked" on the 1st
page of the application. She had also affixed the rubber
stamp "CANCELLED" on 10.12.1998 with initial at column
no.13 of the application. This action is taken by the counter
staff at the time of accepting the application when the
original old passport is required to cancelled and the counter
staff cancelling the old passport, had to see the original
passport and to affix the "CANCELLED" rubber stamp in both
column no. 13 of application form as well as first page of the
original old passport. Lalitha Lakshmanan has also appended
her initials on the copy of old passport and ration card no.
5210812 enclosed with the application establishing that she
made an impression as if had perused the originals of the old
CC No. 96/2016 Page 7 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
passport no. F004555 and ration card no. 5210812. During
investigation handwritings/ initials of Lalitha Lakshmanan on
the aforesaid documents were identified by staffs/officers of
RPO Bangalore, who have worked as colleague with Lalitha
Lakshmanan.
11. Investigation revealed that careful scrutiny of
original documents at the time of accepting applications is of
utmost importance at RPO office. In this regard, passport
officials used to sensitize all their staff members posted at the
counter to be quite vigilant and discharge their duties and
responsibility with due care and caution. The Passport
Manual has specific references in this regard and all the staff
posted at counter are required to follow the same in letter
and spirit.
12. Investigation revealed that after Lalitha
Laxamanan accepted the application of accused Rajendra
Sadashiv Nikalje (in the name of Mohan Kumar), fee of
Rs.300/ was deposited by cash on 10.12.1998 itself and a
computer generated cash receipt and a file number
"E/11935/98" on the 1st page of the application was
provided for further processing of the application.
13. Investigation revealed that during the course of
further processing of the aforesaid application, when index
card in the name of Mohan Kumar, was searched by the
CC No. 96/2016 Page 8 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
concerned dealing hand namely S. Bharanidharan, but he did
not find it in the record of office and hence he made
categorical submission on the file/application that no index
card is available in the name of applicant Mohan Kumar.
14. Investigation revealed that, despite the fact that
no index card in the name of Mohan Kumar was available at
RPO Bangalore, Smt. Jayashree Rahete, in her capacity as
public servant, while working as Superintendent and Passport
Granting Officer at RPO Bangalore, by abusing her official
position, in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy to extend
undue favour to accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje, ordered
for rescreening of date of birth as per the old passport
(enclosed with the application) and herself corrected date of
birth from 24.07.1969 to 24.07.1959 at page no.1 of the
application, knowing fully well that old passport number
F004555 as referred to in the application and its enclosure,
was in fact issued by RPO Bangalore to one Enyat Akmal
Khan S/o Enyathullha Khan and not to any Mohan Kumar.
15. The order of rescreening of date of birth as per
the old passport (enclosed with the application) of Smt.
Jayashree Rahete, was a direction for the other dealing
clerks, who were likely to process the file further and while
doing so they were required to consider details as mentioned
in the fake and fabricated copy of passport no. F004555
CC No. 96/2016 Page 9 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
enclosed with application as correct and authentic.
16. Accordingly, during the further processing of the
file, the date of birth of applicant was rescreened in the index
card as enclosed with the fresh i.e. instant application. The
remarks "Rescreened D/B and No Index" makes it clear that
the details of the applicant were rechecked in index section
and the index card in the name of Mohan Kumar was not
found and it was reported again and the new index card with
rescreened date of birth if kept in record for future reference.
With these facts, Smt. T. R. Leelavathi, the then LDC, RPO
Bangalore had put up a note "Rescreened d/b as per old
passport. If approved, may grant with ECR, C & R Old
Passport".
17. Investigation revealed that therefore Smt.
Jayshree Rahete, by abusing her official position as Passport
Granting Officer, knowingly extended undue favour to
accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje and granted her approval
for issue of new passport against the details furnished in the
application. During investigation, handwriting/initials of
Jayshree Rahete on the aforesaid documents were identified
by staffs/officers of RPO Bangalore who have worked as
colleague to said Jayshree Rahete.
18. Investigation revealed that in all cases of reissue,
with or without prior police verification, Passport Officers are
CC No. 96/2016 Page 10 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
to exercise normal vigilance, including internal checks of
index cards etc. During investigation, the officials of RPO
Bangalore have been examined and they have confirmed the
same. Investigation also revealed that process of exercising
normal vigilance by Passport Officer, refers to proper checking
of credentials of the applicant on the basis of records
available with passport office which include :
i) Careful scrutiny of the application and documents
submitted by the applicant.
ii) Verification of the contents of the application from
index card in case of reissue of the passport.
iii) Verifications from the passport writing register
whether or not the specific passport booklet was
issued to the applicant.
19. During investigation, the officers of the RPO
Bangalore have confirmed that by allowing the instant
application of accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje in the name
of Mohan Kumar and enclosed index card, Jayshree Rahete
has in fact regularized the mischief of Rajendra Sadashiv
Nikalje as in future at the time of renewal or reissue of
passport, the reference of new index card could be used to
prove the bonafide of Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje as Mohan
Kumar.
CC No. 96/2016 Page 11 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
20. Investigation revealed that thereafter this
application was sent for prepration of passport and Passport
No. A6705840 dated 01.01.1999 was allotted to this file and
handwritten passport was prepared. This passport was issued
by Shri Deepak Natvarlal Shah, the then Assistant RPO
Bangalore.
21. Investigation revealed that at the time of issue of
the passport No. A6705840, the entire file was placed before
Deepak Natvarlal Shah as he had to exercise his authority as
passport granting officer before issuing the passport.
Therefore, he was also required to go through the entire file
and the raise his observations if any discrepancy he noticed
before issue of the passport. But knowing fully well that no
index card was found in the name of applicant Mohan Kumar
and that as per the Passport Writing register passport no.
F004555 was not issued in the name of Mohan Kumar,
Deepak Natvarlal Shahj by abusing his official position as
Passport Issuing Authority, extended undue favour to accused
Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan has issued the
passport no. A6705840 in the name of Mohan Kumar.
22. Investigation further revealed that neither
Jayshree Rahete nor D. N. Shah has waited for receipt of
police verification from Mandya District Police. It is also
established during investigation that no police verification
CC No. 96/2016 Page 12 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
report was received in the said application, which also
establishes that no letter was actually issued to local police
for the purpose. This clearly indicates connivance of accused
Chhota Rajan with these public servants. The Mandya Police
has also confirmed that they have not made any verification
in respect of Mohan Kumar S/o Damodar R/o 107B, Old M.
C. Road, Azad Nagar, Mandya, Karnataka.
23. During investigation, vide another CFSL report
dated 31.12.2015, it is established that signature as Mohan
Kumar on application submitted with RPO Bangalore and
enclosed authority letter in the name of R. Shekhar is of
accused Chhota Rajan only.
24. Thus, investigation has established that accused
Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan, in criminal
conspiracy with Jayashree Rahete, Deepak Natvarlal Shah
and Lalitha Lakshmanan (all retired) fraudulently obtained
passport in the fake name of Mohan Kumar S/o Damodar R/o
No. 107/B, Old M. C. Road, Azad Nagar, Mandya after
submitting fake and fabricated documents including the fake
and fabricated copy of passport no. F004555. During
investigation, it is confirmed by the RPO Bangalore
Authorities that the passport no. F004555 submitted by
accused was fake and fabricated one.
25. During investigation, RPO Bangalore has
CC No. 96/2016 Page 13 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
informed that original or scanned copy of file pertaining to
passport no. F004555 have been weeded out and destroyed.
However, scanned copy extract of "Passport Issue Register" for
20.01.1989 along with certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence
Act has been provided. RPO Bangalore has also informed
that original file no. BNGE011193598 and BNGE00729498
have been weeded out and destroyed. However, scanned
copy of no. BNGE011193598 and BNGE00729498 along with
certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act has been provided.
Again Ministry of External Affairs Letter No.
VI/405/1/12/2015 dated 30.12.2015 have informed that
application form etc. pertaining to issue of passport no.
Z1017162 dated 19.12.2003 in the name of Mohan Kumar
from Indian High Commission at Harare, Zimbabwe could not
be traced. However, extract of passport issue register is
provided which shows that passport no. Z1017162 dated
19.12.2003 was issued in the name of Mohan Kumar on the
basis of passport no. A6705840 dated 01.01.1999.
26. Investigation revealed that accused Rajendra
Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan was wanted in several cases
of heinous crimes in India. Hence, in 1995, on the request of
Mumbai Police, interpol issued a Red Corner Notice (RCN)
No. A360/71995 on 05.06.1995 against Rajendra Sadashiv
Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan
CC No. 96/2016 Page 14 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
27. Investigation further revealed that accused
Chhota Rajan was detained at Indonesia on 25.10.2015 on
his arrival by Garuda Indonesia flight number GA715 from
Australia, travelling on Indian Passport No. G9273860 in the
name of Mohan Kumar. The detention was made against the
above referred Red Corner Notice No. A360/71995 issued
by Interpol.
28. Eventually, after due process, accused Rajendra
Sadashiv Nikalje alias Chhota Rajan was handed over to
Interpol India by NCBInterpol Indonesia vide Minutes of
Surrender dated 05.11.2015 for onward deportation to India.
List of belongings handed over by the Indonesian Authorities
has specific reference of Passport No. G9273860.
29. On deportation to India, acused Rajendra
Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan was arrested on 06.11.2015
and remained in police custody till 19.11.2015.
30. Accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota
Rajan was arrested by the Indonesian Police when found
travelling with passport number G9273860 in the name of
Mohan Kumar and the said passport was handed over to
them at the time of handing over of the accused by
Indonesian Authorities. The Consulate General of India,
Sydney, Ministry of External Affairs has confirmed that the
aforesaid passport was issued by them on 08.07.2008 to
CC No. 96/2016 Page 15 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
Mohan Kumar. The said passport bears the reference of old
passport no. Z1017162 dated 19.12.2003 issued from Indian
High Commission at Harare. The Ministry of External Affairs
has confirmed that the passport no. Z1017162 dated
19.12.2003 issued by High Commission of India at Harare is
issued on the basis of Passport No. A6705840 dated
01.01.1999, which was issued from Regional Passport Office,
Bangalore in the name of Mohan Kumar.
31. Investigation revealed that after the detention of
accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan at Bali,
Indonesia while he was travelling on passport number
G9273860 in the name of Mohan Kumar, the passport was
revoked by the Consulate General of India, Sydney on
01.11.2015.
32. During investigation, the original finger prints of
Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan, taken by Mumbai
Police on 01.12.1980 in Crime No. 653/1980 PS Tilaknagar,
Chembur, Bombay were collected. These along with finger
prints impressions of the accused taken on 12.11.2015 during
the police custody remand and finger prints impressions as
available in the RCN No. A360/71995 were sent to CFSL for
comparison. The CFSL vide its report dated 18.12.2015 has
confirmed the identity of Chhota Rajan.
33. Further, vide another CFSL report dated
CC No. 96/2016 Page 16 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
31.12.2015, it is established that signature as Mohan Kumar
on Indian passport no. G9273860, the arrest report in the
name of Mohan Kumar and confiscation report in respect of
passport number G9273860 (both of Indonesian Police) is of
accused Chhota Rajan only.
34. Investigation has revealed that Mohan Kumar S/o
Damodar DOB : 24.07.1959 as mentioned in the Passport No.
G9273860 is a nonexistent person. In this regard, following
evidence has surfaced during investigation :
i) The given address of Mohan Kumar as House No.
107/B does not exist in Old M. C. Road and Azad
Nagar areas of Mandya, Karnataka. Moreover, search
results in respect of property no. 107 situated in
Mandya also confirm this fact. Again a spot
memorandum (Mahazar) in this regard has also been
drawn by the revenue officials of the concern
municipality in the immediate presence of
independent witnesses including City Municipal
Councilor. Thus, investigation has established that the
address furnished in the passport no. G9273860, High
Commission at Harare, Zimbabwe and application
submitted at RPO Bangalore in the name of Mohan
Kumar is nonexistent.
ii) Postal workers of the area also confirmed in their
CC No. 96/2016 Page 17 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
statements that House No. 107/B does not exist in Old
M. C. Road and Azad Nagar area of Mandya and no
person in the name of Mohan Kumar S/o Damodar
DOB : 24.07.1959 ever resided there.
iii) Investigation has also revealed that no voters IDs etc.
have been issued in the name of Mohan Kumar S/o
Sh. Damodar, Smt. Parvathi W/o Sh. Damodar and
Smt. Sumathi W/o Sh. Mohan Kumar, all purported
residents of No. 107/B, Old M. C. Road, Azad Nagar,
Mandya. Further, no Ration Card is issued in the name
of Mohan Kumar S/o Sh. Damodar R/o Old M. C.Road
of Mandya, Karnataka.
iv) The local residents of the areas have confirmed the
facts mentioned above.
35. As per prosecution, investigation has established
that accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan has
used passport no. G9273860 in the name of Mohan Kumar
for the purpose of concealing his identity. CFSL report no.
CFSL2015/D1836 dated 31.12.2015 in respect of signature
on passport no. G9273860, on application submitted with
RPO Bangalore for issue of passport in the name of Mohan
Kumar along with authority letter enclosed with this
application, the arrest/confiscation report in respect of
CC No. 96/2016 Page 18 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
passport number G9273860 (both of Indonesia Police) visa
vis specimen writing of accused, has established that accused
Chhota Rajan was impersonating himself as Mohan Kumar.
Ministry of External Affairs have also informed that while the
process of deportation from Indonesia to India was going on,
accused Chhota Rajan through his counsel had submitted a
representation vide no. MK/DEPIND/BAL/1 dated
03.11.2015 with Consulate General of India at Bali that his
client Mohan Kumar (Passport No. G9273860) has no
objection in going back to India on deportation.
36. At the time of his arrest in India, documents
recovered in his personal possession viz Flybuys card, Bupa
card, BMW Roadside assistance card, Driver License Payment
receipt etc. also established that he was impersonating
himself as Mohan Kumar.
37. As per charge sheet, the above acts of accused
Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan, Jayashree
Rahete, Deepak Natvarlal Shah and Lalitha Laxamanan
constitute the offieces under Section 120B, 419, 420, 467,
468, 471 IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P. C. Act 1988 and
substantive offences thereof.
38. The sanction for prosecution under the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988 in respect of accused public servants
namely Jayashree Rahete, Deepak Natvarlal Shah and Lalitha
CC No. 96/2016 Page 19 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
Laxamanan are not required as they have already retired
from Government Service.
FILING OF CHARGE SHEET/ SUPPLEMENTARY CHARGE
SHEET/ SANCTIONS AND TAKING OF COGNIZANCE
39. This charge sheet was filed in the court on
2.2.2016. The cognizance of the offences was taken by this
court on 2.2.2016 itself and the accused persons were
summoned. In the charge sheet, permission to further
investigate under Section 173 (8) CrPC was also sought. CBI
filed supplementary charge sheet on 2.5.2016. Along with
this supplementary charge sheet, CBI filed a sanction order
dated 8.2.2016 (D78) issued in the name of President of
India vide which sanction was given under Section 15 of
Passport Act 1967 for prosecution of all the accused persons
under Section 12 of Passport Act 1967.
40. CBI also filed along with supplementary charge
sheet, an order issued on behalf of the Central Government
under the Proviso to Section 188 of Code of Criminal
Procedure 1973 vide which sanction was accorded for
enquiry and trial of A1 in the present case for the offences
occurred outside India by a court of competent jurisdiction of
Delhi in India. On filing of this supplementary charge sheet,
cognizance of the offences under Section 12 of the Passport
CC No. 96/2016 Page 20 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
Act 1967 against the accused persons was taken.
41. Thus, this court took the cognizance of the
offences after considering the necessary sanctions under
Section 188 IPC and under Section 12 of The Passport Act
1967.
42. A2, A3 and A4 are retired public servants.
Therefore, sanction under Section 19 of Prevention of
Corruption Act 1988 was not required to take cognizance of
the offences.
TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION
43. I may point out that the question of territorial
jurisdiction was strongly raised by Ld. Defence Counsels at
the stage of arguments on point of charge. Since, no new
point has been raised, I would reproduce the relevant portion
of the order on point of charge dated 8.6.2016 as under :
"It is argued by Ld. Counsels for the
accused persons that A1 applied for renewal
of the passport at Regional Passport Office,
Bangalore, where A2 to A4 processed the
said application for renewal of the passport.
Therefore, the entire cause of action arose at
Bangalore and not in Delhi. It is further
argued that allegations of criminal conspiracy
between A1 and A2 to A4 are also alleged to
have taken place in Bangalore and not in
Delhi. It is argued that A1 had fraudulently
procured the Indian Passport No. A6705840
dated 1.1.1999 and escaped from India but
there is nothing on record to show that he
CC No. 96/2016 Page 21 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
escaped from Delhi. It is further argued that
the aforesaid passport no. A6705840 was used
to procure a new passport no. Z101762 dated
19.12.2003 from Indian High Commission at
Harare, Zimbabwe and thereafter on the basis
of new passport, another passport no.
G9273860 dated 8.7.2008 was got issued by
A1 from Indian Consulate at Sydney,
Australia in the fake name of Mohan Kumar.
Thereafter, it is argued by Ld. Defence
Counsels that the passport no. G9273860
dated 8.7.2008, used by A1 when detained in
Indonesia by Indonesian Authorities, was
issued from Austrialia on the basis of
fraudulently procured Indian passport in the
name of Mohan Kumar from Harare, which in
turn was issued from Bangalore. It is
submitted that A1 was detained against Red
Corner Notice issued by Interpol and that the
jurisdiction of Delhi Court neither extend to
Bangalore nor to Zimbabwe nor to Australia
and nor to Indonesia. Ld. Defence Counsels
have strongly argued that simply because A1
was brought from Indonesia to Delhi by CBI,
will not create any jurisdiction of Delhi Courts.
I have considered the submissions of
Ld. Defence Counsels. From the perusal of the
facts described in the charge sheet, it is clear
that the A1 had been using the fraudulently
procured Indian Passports by concealing his
true identity in various countries like
Zimbabwe, Australia and Indonesia.
Therefore, it is clear that the chain of offences,
which started from Bangalore, continued in
foreign countries also. Section 3 of Indian
Penal Code specifically mentions that if any
person liable by Indian law to be tried for
an offence committed beyond India shall be
dealt with in accordance with the
provisions of this Code (i.e. IPC) for an act
committed beyond India in the same
manner as if such Act had been committed
CC No. 96/2016 Page 22 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
within India. Section 4 of Indian Penal Code
extends the sweep of Indian Penal Code to
extra territorial offences if committed by any
citizen of India in any place without or beyond
India. In the present case, whereas not only
forgeries were committed by A1 in India but
he had also cheated Indian High Commission,
Harare Zimbabwe as well as Indian Consulate
at Sydney Australia by fraudulently getting
issued/renewed passports. Therefore,
offences under Section 419, 420 and 471 IPC
were committed by him on foreign land.
Thus the sweep of Section 3 and 4 of
Indian Penal Code is global and empowers the
Indian law enforcing agencies to catch hold of
an Indian citizen if he commits offences
outside India. In such a situation, the
question would naturally arise as to which
court in India would be competent to try such
offences committed by an Indian citizen
outside India. Section 188 of CrPC takes care
of this situation. I would like to reproduce the
Section 188 CrPC as under :
"188. Offence commited outside India.
When an offence is committed outside India
(a) By a citizen of India, whether on the
high seas or elsewhere; or
(b) by a person, not being such citizen, on
any ship or aircraft registered in India,
he may be dealt with in respect of such
offence as if it had been committed at any
place within India at which he may be found:
Provided that, notwithstanding
anything in any of the preceding sections of
this Chapter, no such offence shall be inquired
into or tried in India except with the previous
sanction of the Central Government."
Perusal of this Section shows that when
an offence is committed by a citizen of India
outside India, such offence can be tried at any
place in India, where such accused was found.
CC No. 96/2016 Page 23 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
In the present case, accused was apprehended
in Indonesia and was brought by CBI to Delhi.
Therefore a court of competent jurisdiction in
Delhi has territorial jurisdiction to try A1 for
all offences committed by him outside India.
However, such offence can be tried in India
only with previous sanction of Central
Government. Government of India, though
belatedly, had accorded sanction under the
proviso to Section 188 CrPC of 1973 to try A1
for the offences committed by him outside
India to be tried by a court at Delhi.
Therefore, it cannot be said that this court
lack inherent territorial jurisdiction to try the
offences committed outside India. Of course
the sanction of Central Government under
Section 188 CrPC specifically empowers the
court to try the offences against A1.
The grievances of Defence Counsels are
that whereas A1 had committed offences
outside India, the acts alleged against A2 to
A4 had taken place in Bangalore. It is argued
that the role of A1 outside India and the role
of A2 to A4 inside India are detachable.
Hence, it is argued that A2 to A4 should be
directed to be tried at Bangalore, which not
only has a Special Court under Prevention of
Corruption Act but also an office of CBI is
located there.
I have considered the submissions of
Ld. Defence Counsels. The acts of A1 in
conspiracy with A2 to A4 in Bangalore are so
interconnected with his act of getting renewed
passports at Zimbabwe and Australia that the
same cannot be separated. I may point out
that unless prosecution proves that A1 got a
passport fraudulently at Bangalore, it will not
be able to prove the offence of cheating and
forgery under Section 419, 420 and 471 IPC
committed abroad by A1. Therefore, I am of
the considered opinion that the role of the
accused persons at Bangalore cannot be
CC No. 96/2016 Page 24 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
separated from the acts of A1 abroad. In
view of this situation, it is not possible to
separate the role of A2 to A4, who as per
prosecution have conspired with A1 in
procuring for him a passport in a fake name
fraudulently. Hence, the entire transactions
constituting various offences are required to
be tried at one place, which by virtue of
Section 188 CrPC is Delhi."
44. The said order was challenged before Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi and vide order dated 09.01.2017, it has been observed as
under :
"16. Thus, once an offence is committed within India, the
territorial jurisdiction vests in the Court to try the offence as per
Sections 177 to 184 Cr.PC. Whereas if the offence is committed
by a citizen of India outside India or by any person on an
Aircraft or ship registered in India then it has to be tried as per
Section 188 Cr.PC., that is, the Court where the accused has
been found will have the territorial jurisdiction to try the
offence. However, when offences are allegedly committed by a
citizen of India within the country and outside as well, boththe
Courts i.e. where the offence was allegedly committed in India
and also where the accused on being brought to India is found
would have territorial jurisdiction to try the offences so
committed, if the offences can be tried together as per Sections
219 to 223 Cr.P.C. Thus, though the Special Judge at Bangalore
has the territorial jurisdiction to try the offences however, the
Special Judge at Delhi also has territorial jurisdiction to try the
offences allegedly committed by the petitioner and coaccused."
and thereafter, the petition was dismissed.
CHARGE
45. After hearing the arguments, a charge under Section
419/420/468/467/471 IPC and under Section 120B r/w
CC No. 96/2016 Page 25 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
419/420/468/467/471 IPC r/w Section 12 of Passport Act
r/w Section 13(1)(d)/13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act
1988 as well as under Section 12 of The Passport Act 1967
was framed against accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @
Chhota Rajan (A1).
46. A separate charge under Section 13(1)(d) r/w
Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and
under Section 120B r/w 419/420/468/467/471 IPC r/w
Section 12 of Passport Act r/w Section 13(1)(d)/13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 as well as under Section
12 of The Passport Act 1967 was framed against accused
Jayashree Dattatray Rahate (A2).
47. A separate charge under Section 13(1)(d) r/w
Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and
under Section 120B r/w 419/420/468/467/471 IPC r/w
Section 12 of Passport Act r/w Section 13(1)(d)/13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 as well as under Section
12 of The Passport Act 1967 was framed against accused
Deepak Natvarlal Shah (A3).
48. A separate charge under Section 13(1)(d) r/w
Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and
under Section 120B r/w 419/420/468/467/471 IPC r/w
Section 12 of Passport Act r/w Section 13(1)(d)/13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 as well as under Section
CC No. 96/2016 Page 26 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
12 of The Passport Act 1967 was framed against accused
Lalitha Lakshmanan (A4).
49. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty
and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
50. Prosecution examined 26 witnesses in evidence in all.
Thereafter statement of all the accused persons were recorded
u/Sec. 313 of Cr.PC.
STATEMENTS U/S 313 CrPC OF RAJENDRA SADASHIV NIKALJE
@ CHHOTA RAJAN (A1)
51. I would like to reproduce the question no. 231 and 234
as well as their answers given by A1 as under :
"Q231 Why this case is against you?
Ans. In the year 1993 Mumbai blast took place as
a result of conspiracy hatched by Dawood Ibrahim
and his associates. I was greatly disturbed by the
sequence of events which led to huge number of
death of innocent persons. The bomb blast was
instigated by ISI which is always working against
our Country. At that period of time I decided to
take revenge and help our intelligence agencies
with all the informations which I possessed. Since
1993 I have been working constantly for my
country and fighting those persons who want to
damage our country. Unfortunately once a fight
starts there is no returning back and I have to keep
my identity secret so that I can help those persons
who are involved in the protection of our territory.
However I was not in the country when this
passport of Mohan Kumar was prepared so there is
no question of my signing on any application form.
I have never applied for any passport to be
CC No. 96/2016 Page 27 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
given in the name of Mohan Kumar at any period
of time. All the documents filed by the prosecution
containing my signature are incorrect. I have
neither committed any forgery or cheating."
"Q234 Do you want to say anything else?
Ans. I have committed no crime and I have
never filled any form on the basis of which the
passport of Mohan Kumar was issued. As already
stated above I have been involved in fighting
against terrorist and those anti India forces who
are bent upon to damage our country and kill
innocent citizens. In this fight I have to keep my
identity a secret. I cannot take the name of
persons who have help me or to whom I have
extended help in this fight against terrorism in
National interest. All I can say at this stage that
Court while deciding my case should also keep in
mind various factors which are well known to the
entire country including my fight against
perpetrators of Mumbai blast. When the
henchmen of Dawood Ibrahim came to know that I
am supplying information to Indian Agencies in
respect of Mumbai blast perpetrators, they
snatched my original passport from me in Dubai.
They tried to kill me but somehow I was able to
escape from Dubai and reached Malaysia.
Thereafter, I went to Bangkok, where an attempt
of my life was made in the year 2000 by the
henchmen of Dawood Ibrahim. That is why I was
provided with a passport in the name of Mohan
Kumar."
52. The above quoted answers sum up the entire stand of
accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1).
STATEMENT u/Sec. 313 CrPC OF JAYASHREE DATTATRAY
RAHATE (A2)
53. I would like to reproduce the answers of A2 in
CC No. 96/2016 Page 28 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
response to question no.104, 124, 220, 225, 226 and 234 as
under :
"Q104. PW 14 P. N. Nagendra Babu testified that
the duties of the Passport Officer or Granting
Officer is to verify the contents of the passport
submitted alongwith the application form and
cancel the passport and send the application for
fee collection. The Index Card will be checked and
the present file number will be noted from the
Index Card. What do you have to say about it?
Ans. It is absolutely wrong and contradictory to
his statement in chief regarding general duties of
any officer being posted at the counter of the
passport office. As PW 14 P. N. Nagendra Babu
testified in his chief that general duties of any
officer being posted at the counter of the passport
office is to verify the particulars given in the
application and the supporting documents such as
date of birth and address proof and the scrutiny is
done by the officer thoroughly and if any
deficiency is noted, the application is rejected. The
document on judicial file also disproves the said
statement. This is reiterated that these are
responsibility of official being posted at the
counter of the passport office."
"Q124. PW 14 P. N. Nagendra Babu testified that
Smt. Leelawathi being a subordinate officer does
not have the granting powers and she has put the
file as "may grant with ECR" which is not a
recommendatory note by Smt. Leelawathi as it
may or may not be issued as the power lies with
the passport granting officer. What do you have to
say about it?
Ans. As per document on judicial record it is true.
It is submitted that power of passport granting
officer is to be exercised as per rules. The power to
grant passport is not an arbitrary power. The said
application was processed as per established
procedure and there was not even a single adverse
entry or negative endorsement from any section. If
any official found any irregularity or shortcomings,
CC No. 96/2016 Page 29 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
same has to be mentioned with a proposal for
rejection. Here file was submitted with a proposal
for approval from my subordinate official and
same was accepted in good faith as I have to trust
my team and subordinates as it is their duty to
verify the truthfulness of documents and I have no
occasion to go through the original passport. It is
further submitted that the document related to
passport of Mr. Mohan Kumar, on judicial records
shows that the said passport of 1999 was issued
on the basis of Verification Certificate and as per
passport manual the applications with verification
certificates are required to be processed under
tatkal scheme as the name, address, and other
details are verified by a senior Government officer
on his letter head. In these circumstances the
passport granting officer has to grant the passport.
The witness himself in his cross admitted that the
document related to reissue of Mohan Kumar
shows that the application was processed as per
rule and there was no adverse comment from any
section and there is no ground for passport
granting officer to reject the application."
"Q220. PW 26 Insp. Rajeev Kumar Sinha further
testified that documents also revealed that during
the processing of aforesaid application, no index
card was found in the name of Mohan Kumar at
RPO, Bangalore. Also the extract of passport
writing register, exhibited as Ex.PW12/2, as
available in the RPO Bangalore office clearly
shows that passport no. F004555 was issued in
the year 198889 to Enayath Akmal Khan. Despite
all these facts, the passport was granted by Smt.
Jayashree Rahate, the then passport officer, RPO,
Bangalore, in favour of Mohan Kumar in lieu of
passport no. F004555 on 1.1.1999. Documents
further revealed that the passport no. A6705840
was issued by Sh. D. N. Shah in the said file after
going through the same. What do you have to say
about it?
Ans. It is correct that as per documents on
judicial record revealed that during the processing
of aforesaid application, no index card was found
in the name of Mohan Kumar at RPO, Bangalore
CC No. 96/2016 Page 30 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
and . Also the extract of passport writing register,
exhibited as Ex.PW12/2, as available in the RPO
Bangalore office clearly shows that passport no.
F004555 was issued in the year 198889 to
Enayath Akmal Khan, but this register is with
passport writing section. As per the established
procedure normally passport granting officer go
through the application form and in this case, as
per the documents on judicial record the file was
cleared from every section and forwarded for
approval. I have gone through the application and
relevant documents and observed a
anomaly/clerical error in the year of birth of
applicant in the application form and copy of old
passport, and I immediately issued directions for
rescreening of the date of birth as per the old
passport. As there was no adverse remarks on the
application form and a Verification Certificate was
annexed with application, hence as per the manual
and on the basis bonafide belief on documents and
trust on my subordinates, I had accepted the
proposal for approval for granting the passport."
"Q225. PW 26 Insp. Rajeev Kumar Sinha further
testified that it is also revealed that details in
respect of a reissue of passport case are verified
from the index card maintained by the passport
office. The index card consist of all previous
details including photograph, file number, date of
birth etc. of the applicant, who had approached
passport office previously. It is a permanent
record of the passport office. Investigation
revealed that during processing of application of
reissue of passport in the name of Mohan Kumar
at RPO Bangalore, no index card was found.
Therefore, the verification of issue of previous
passport in the name of Mohan Kumar was to be
made from passport writing register. What do you
have to say about it?
Ans. It is correct as per the document on record
that during processing of application of reissue of
passport in the name of Mohan Kumar at RPO
Bangalore, no index card was found. But it is
incorrect to suggest that the verification of issue of
previous passport in the name of Mohan Kumar
CC No. 96/2016 Page 31 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
was to be made from passport writing register. It is
submitted that as per record a verification
certificate as per the passport manual was annexed
with the application of Mohan Kumar. As per the
established procedure normally passport granting
officer go through the application form with
annexed documents and in this case, as per the
documents on judicial record the file was cleared
from every section and forwarded for approval. I
have gone through the application and relevant
documents and observed a anomaly/clerical error
in the year of birth of applicant in the application
form and copy of old passport, and I immediately
issued directions for rescreening of the date of
birth as per the old passport. As there was no
adverse remarks on the application form and a
Verification Certificate was annexed with
application, hence as per the manual and on the
basis bonafide belief on documents and trust on
my subordinates, I had accepted the proposal for
approval for granting the passport. The passport
writing register is always with passport writing
section and generally referred by that section only.
"
"Q226. PW 26 Insp. Rajeev Kumar Sinha further
testified that Smt. Jayashree Rahte, Passport
Granting Officer, despite knowing the fact that no
index card was found in the name of Mohan
Kumar and that the passport writing register
clearly reflect that passport no. F004555 was
actually issued to Mohan Kumar, had ordered for
rescreening of date of birth of the applicant Mohan
Kumar as per old passport, the copy of which was
attached with the application. This order was
made by Smt. Jayashree Rahate in her own hand
writing. Subsequently, the file went to Sh. D. N.
Shah for issue of passport, who after going
through the entire file, had issued the passport no.
A6705840 in the name of Mohan Kumar on
1.1.1999. What do you have to say about it?
Ans. It is submitted that it is a wrong
interpretation of documents. As per the
established procedure normally passport granting
officer go through the application form with
CC No. 96/2016 Page 32 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
annexed documents and in this case, as per the
documents on judicial record the file was cleared
from every section and forwarded for approval. I
have gone through the application and relevant
documents and observed a anomaly/clerical error
in the year of birth of applicant in the application
form and copy of old passport, and I immediately
issued directions for rescreening of the date of
birth as per the old passport considering it a
genuine document as I have no occasion to see
original passport. It is further submitted that the
passport writing register is always with passport
writing section. As there was no adverse remarks
on the application form and a Verification
Certificate was annexed with application, hence as
per the manual and on the basis bonafide belief on
documents and trust on my subordinates, I had
accepted the proposal for approval for granting the
passport."
"Q234 Do you want to say anything else?
Ans. It is submitted that in the year 2000, I had
been transferred from RPO Banglore to RPO
Mumbai. It is submitted that the matter of reissue
of passport Mr. Mohan Kumar is very old matter
and I am unable to recall things as we had to
dispose of, approximately 250 to 350
applications/day and not seen any file of RPO
Bangalore since 2000. It is also submitted that I
am also unable to identify signatures on
application. For confirmation of the same I have
given my specimen signature to IO. It is further
submitted that as per the established procedure
normally passport granting officer go through the
application form and documents annexed with it.
In this case, as per the documents on judicial
record the file was cleared by official from every
section and forwarded for approval. I have gone
through the application and relevant documents
and observed an anomaly/clerical error in the year
of birth of applicant in the application form and
copy of old passport (1969 in place of 1959), and I
immediately issued directions for rescreening of
the date of birth as per the old passport
considering it a genuine document as I have no
CC No. 96/2016 Page 33 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
occasion to see the original old passport. As there
was no adverse remarks on the application form
from any section or official and a Verification
Certificate was annexed with application in favor
of applicant Mr. Mohan Kumar, hence as per the
manual and on the basis bonafide belief on
documents and trust on my subordinates, I had
accepted the proposal for approval for granting the
passport. I am Innocent and wrongly framed in
this matter."
STATEMENTS U/S 313 CrPC OF ACCUSED DEEPAK NATVARLAL
SHAH (A3)
54. I would like to reproduce the answer of A3 in response
to question no. 234 as under :
"Q234 Do you want to say anything else?
Ans. In the present case while signing the
passport for the issuance I had followed process
and procedures as described to me by the officials
RPO Bengaluru as well as through the various
orders from the Ministry. It is stated that I have
not connected in any manner whatsoever in the
process of the file for the granting of the passport
in the name of Mohan Kumar. I state that being a
public servant I had followed my duty cast upon
me to sign the passport being issuing authority.
The issuing / signing of passport by an officer, has
only to go through the application form and order
of grant by the granting officer. After the writing
and pasting of the passport the concerned office
used to send the passport for signing to the issuing
officer only with the copy of the application and
passport in bulk. The concerned officer only
required to match the specimen signature and
photo on the Passport with signature and photo on
the application.
I neither involved in any type of conspiracy
to grant passport nor I obtained any advantage
CC No. 96/2016 Page 34 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
from any persons at any point of time during the
course of signing the Passports and I am not
concerned any document annexed by the form by
the applicant. I am innocent and there is no
misconduct by me while discharging my official
duty. Whatever I had done in the course of the
signing of the Passport, was my duty cast to
discharge my official duty and I have not done
anything by my own."
STATEMENTS U/S 313 CrPC OF LALITHA LAKSHMANAN (A4)
55. I would like to reproduce only relevant portion of the
the answer of A4 in response to question no. 234 as under :
"Q234 Do you want to say anything else?
Ans. ...................
During that relevant period, in the window, I was
receiving more than 300 applications per day of
about 67 hours and I was hardly getting about 12
minutes to look in to the each application. It is an
admitted case of RPO Bangalore that there was
shortage of staff during 1998 at RPO Bangalore
and I was doing manual work because during that
period there was no computer system. Even I had
no excess to the record of the RPO, Bangalore.
There was no specific duties and mechanism was
assigned to me about the methodology of
accepting and forwarding the passport
applications during the year 1998 and everything
was in manual methods.
I have replied to the IO/PW26 during the course
of the enquiry and investigation on two occasions
that, without the production of the originals I
cannot be able to answer or comment of the
photocopies of the alleged documents which were
of blurred, unclear, hazy manner. And they are
said to be of 1718 years old, as such, I could not
CC No. 96/2016 Page 35 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
remember.
I also told to the IO/ PW26 during the course of
the enquiry and investigation on two occasions
that, I was not entrusted with the duty of detailed
verifications of passport applications and its
enclosed documents at the time of accepting the
applications at the application receiving counter.
I also told to the PW26 during the course of the
enquiry and investigation on two occasions that, I
could not makeout any difference of features of
two photographs in its blurred state of photocopies
which are of more than 10 years apart, as they
look similar, and requested him to send both of
them for scientific examination by experts, which
was not done by him.
I also told to the PW26 during the course of the
enquiry and investigation on two occasions that, I
was not entrusted the duty of Verification of Index
Card, Verification of Passport writing register,
Verification of genuinity of ration card, Verification
of genuinity of old passport copy.
I also told to the PW26 during the course of the
enquiry and investigation on two occasions that, I
used to put cancelled seal on the col.No.13 of
application and on the old passport
simultaneously. (Its visible on col.No.13 of PW
12/9). And I used to return the old cancelled
passport in original to the applicant or his
representative with CANCELLED SEAL.
I further state that, looking to the prosecution
exhibited documents which are inadmissible
under the law:
i. That, date of birth which received and indicated
as 24.7.1969 on the alleged document
(photocopy ) PW12/9 is the same and still visible
on the alleged document. Ex. PW12/4. (Status
report).
ii. As on 10.12.1998, I had no other document
containing the photograph of Enayath Akmal Khan
in my hand, which is contrary to the photograph
CC No. 96/2016 Page 36 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
appearing in the application of Mohan Kumar, for
comparison.
iii. I had no other document on 10.12.1998, of
Enayath Akmal Khan in my hand which is contrary
to the date of birth of Mohan Kumar.
iv. Based on the details of name of applicant and
his parents name, his old passport No. and some
what similar likeliness of the photographs I used to
accept the applications and forward the same.
v. The DOB on PW12/9 is matching with the DOB
on PW12/4 which is a latest computer status -
report.
1. Date is matching,
2. month is matching.
3. Year could be confused as 69 to 59.
vi. Photo on Ex.PW12/9 is similar to photo on
oldpassport copy PW12/11 which is of 10 years
apart/old.
vii. Details on the ration card copy are matching
with the details entered in the application PW
12/9.
viii. Address on the old passport matching with
the address on the application.
ix. Signature on Col.No.18 was matching with
signature visible on old passport with photo.
2. That, I was not the passport
processing person, nor I was not the passport
granting officer.
3. Only based on Index Card and
Passport Writing register the passport will be
processed.
4. Once the application passes from
me the same does not come back to me for re
scrutiny.
............................."
CC No. 96/2016 Page 37 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
56. One defence witness has also been examined by
accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1) as DW1.
FINDINGS QUA THE OFFENCES CHARGED AGAINST THE
ACCUSED PERSONS
57. According to the case of the prosecution, accused
Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1) has been
charged for offences under IPC i.e. by impersonating himself
as Mohan Kumar to procure an Indian Passport and
ultimately got issued an Indian Passport No. A6705840 dated
01.01.1999 and committed offence u/Sec. 419 IPC; by
moving such fake application and by procuring an Indian
Passport in the fictitious name of Mohan Kumar, he had
cheated Govt. of India and committed offence u/Sec. 420
IPC; in order to procure an Indian Passport he attached the
copy of forged Ration Card and forged copy of old Passport
along with his Passport application form and provided fake
address therein and signed as Mohan Kumar, he had done an
act of forgery intending that forged documents shall be used
for the purpose of cheating Govt. of India and committed
offence u/Ss. 468/467 IPC; by forging or using forged
documents he procured an Indian Passport No. A6705840
dated 01.01.1999 in the fake name of Mohan Kumar for
concealing his identity and later used the same for issuance of
CC No. 96/2016 Page 38 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
Passport No. Z1017162 dated 19.12.2003 from Indian High
Commission at Harare, Zimbabwe and by using this Passport,
he procured Passport No. G9273860 dated 08.07.2008 from
Indian Consulate at Sydney, Australia in the fake name of
Mohan Kumar thus committed an offence u/s 467 IPC; he
after procuring this forged Indian Passport A6705840
dated01.01.1999 in the fake name of Mohan Kumar used the
same as genuine and subsequently got issued another
Passport vide No. Z1017162 dated 19.12.2003 from Indian
High Commission at Harare, Zimbabwe and by using this
Passport, he procured Passport No. G9273860 dated
08.07.2008 from Indian Consulate at Sydney, Australia and
he travelled by using the above forged Passports despite
knowing the same to be forged, thus he committed an offence
u/s 471 IPC; he entered into Criminal conspiracy with the
officials of RPO Bangalore namely Jayashree Rahete (A2),
Lalitha Laxmanan (A4) and Deepak Natvarlal Shah (A3),
who being public servants, had abused their official position,
to get issued an Indian Passport on fake and forged
documents by cheating and impersonation and using the
same as genuine and committed the offences u/s 120B IPC
and 419/420/467/468/471 IPC r/w Sec. 12 Passport Act r/w
13(1)(d)/13(2) of P. C. Act; and he got issued the Indian
Passport A6705840 dated 01.01.1999 in the fake name of
CC No. 96/2016 Page 39 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
Mohan Kumar for concealing his identity by using fake and
forged documents and by suppressing the material
information and used the said passport for travelling and
committed an offence u/s 12 of the Passports Act, 1967.
58. According to the deposition of PW1 Sh. Sonal
Anihotri, IPS Officer of 2004 batch. He was informed on
30.10.2015 by Sh. Sai Manohar, Deputy Director in IPCC
(International Police Coordination Centre), who had received
information from Interpol Indonesia about one Indian
national with passport no. G9273860 in the name of Mohan
Kumar resident of Mandia, Karnataka, who was detained in
furtherance of a red corner notice A360/7 of 1995. PW1
was directed to lead the team and he met the team in the
Interpol Unit, CBI and studied the Indonesian Immigration
Law, out of which Article 75 of the Indonesian Immigration
Law was applicable for cases of deportation. PW1 has also
proved photocopy of the red corner notice (three pages) as
Ex.PW1/2 (D9). He also proved the photocopy of request
for provisional arrest, as Ex.PW1/3 (D19). He was given a
letter by Joint Secretary (CPV) (Counselor Passport and Visa)
Services Division of the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA)
dated 30th October 2015 for the Indian Ambassador in the
Indian Embassy at Jakarta, Indonesia, and proved the photo
copy of the same as Ex.PW1/4 (D20).
CC No. 96/2016 Page 40 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
(i) PW1 Sh. Sonal Agnitori has further deposed that he
reached Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia on 1st November 2015. He
had also carried with him copy of the red corner notice,
request for provisional arrest by Mumbai Police and other
documents. He handed over the letter of JS(CPV Division),
MEA to Sh. Amarjeet Singh Takhi, Counsul General Bali, who
further processed the letter and transmitted the request of
deportation to the Indonesian Immigration, Police and
Interpol Authorities located both, at Jakarta as well as Bali.
The photo copy of the said letter is Ex.PW1/5 (D23). He has
further deposed that Sh. A. S. Takhi further introduced him to
Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal, First Secretary Counselor, who
was deputed as a liason officer from the Indian Embassy. Sh.
Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal further introduced him to one lady
interpreter Mrs. Widya Probandari to help him with
translation issues with the local language.
(ii) PW1 has further deposed that on 2nd November 2015,
he headed for the regional police office in Denpasar, Bali
along with Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal and the translator,
where he met the officials of the Crime Branch of the regional
police office. He has deposed that the regional police
authorities wanted to ascertain the identity of the accused
Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan for which they
provided the finger prints of the accused, which were taken
CC No. 96/2016 Page 41 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
by Mumbai Police during a criminal investigation of a case of
the year 1980. The saidfinger prints were handed over to a
finger print expert of the regional police office at Denpasar,
Bali and were got compared. The finger print expert
returned back after sometime i.e. after about one hour on
that very day and informed that the finger prints provided by
them matched with the finger prints of the Indian National
detained by them with the Indian passport G9273860 in the
name of Mohan Kumar.
(iii) PW1 has further deposed that on 3rd November 2015,
a deportation order was issued by the concerned Indonesian
Immigration Authorities, a certified copy of which was
procured by him and translated by the translator Mrs. Widya
Prabandari, copy of which is Ex.PW1/6 (D34). Copy of the
translated version of the same is Ex.PW1/7 (D25). He has
identified the signatures of Mrs. Widya Prabandari, the
interpreter at point A on Ex.PW1/7. He also made request to
the regional police authorities to get the medical check up of
the accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1)
done in order to ascertain his fitness for air travel. He was
informed that the medical was done and the accused was fit
to undertake air travel. Certified copy of the medical report of
the detainee was obtained by him is Ex.PW1/8 (D35). The
English version of the same as translated by Mrs. Widya
CC No. 96/2016 Page 42 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
Prabandari is Ex.PW1/9 (D27), which bears the signatures
of the interpreter at point A.
(iv) PW1 also came to know that the passport bearing no.
G9273860 in the name of Mohan Kumar has been revoked.
He requested Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal to provide him a
copy of revocation order of the passport, which is Ex.PW1/10
(D22). On his request, the Interpol Wing of CBI sent the
print out of the revoked passport. The said print out is
proved as Ex.PW1/11 (D22).
(v) PW1 has further deposed that he requested Sh. Sanjeev
Kumar Aggarwal to issue an emergency certificate to facilitate
the deportation of the accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @
Chhota Rajan. He was informed that the "Personal Particular
Form" was required to be signed by Rajendra Sadashiv
Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan, which accused has refused to sign
and this fact was recorded by Sanjeev Aggarwal, FS
Counsellor, on the "Personal Particular Form" itself, hence, an
emergency certificate was issued by the Consulate General
Officer, which was handed over to him (PW1) and was
bearing the number X0695380, in the name of Rajendra
Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan. Photograph, which was
brought by Mumbai Police was also affixed on the form,
which is Ex.PW1/12(D39). The emergency
certificate/emergency passport in original is Ex.PW1/13 (D
CC No. 96/2016 Page 43 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
42).
(vi) PW1 Sh. Sonal Agnihotri further deposed that he then
obtained the copy of the police report of Indonesian Police,
which is equivalent to the FIR in India. The certified copy of
the same is Ex.PW1/14 (D28) and its translated copy is
Ex.PW1/15 (D10). The police report was containing the
details of the Indian passport no. G9273860 along with
mention of the red corner notice A360/7 of 1995, in
pursuance of which the accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @
Chhota Rajan was detained at the arrival terminal of Ngurah
Rai International Airport, Denpasar, Bali on 25th October
2015 at 13:50 WITA. He also collected certified copy of arrest
report of the Indonesian Police dated 25th October 2015 of
the accused, which is Ex.PW1/16 (D29), containing the
signatures of Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan as
"Mohan Kumar" depicted as "M. Kumar" at point A. He also
got it translated by the above mentioned translator and found
that the passport number was mentioned as G9273860,
which had the residential address as Mandiya, Karnataka,
which is Ex.PW1/17 (D11) and has identified the signature
of the interpreter at point A. He also collected the order for
confiscation dated 25th October 2015, which is in Bahasa
language, certified copy of which is Ex.PW1/18 (D30). He
got the same translated by the aforesaid translator, who
CC No. 96/2016 Page 44 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
signed at point A. The translated version is Ex.PW1/19 (D
12). The Indonesian Authorities had confiscated the Indian
passport no. G9273860 in the name of Mohan Kumar. He
also collected the confiscation report (running into 2 pages),
certified copy of which is Ex.PW1/20 (D31) having the
acknowledgement signatures of Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @
Chhota Rajan as Mohan Kumar, bearing signatures as "M.
Kumar" at point A. He got this document also translated by
the aforesaid translator, who signed on the translated copy at
point A and the copy of the same is Ex.PW1/21 (D13). He
also collected a certified copy of the finger prints report dated
26th October 2015, certified copy of which is Ex.PW1/22 (D
32) and also got the certified copy interpreted (running into
3 pages) and the same is Ex.PW1/23 (D14), which is signed
by the aforesaid interpreter at point A.
(vii) PW1 Sh. Sonal Agnihotri has further deposed that a
request was made to the head office for arrangement of
return chartered flight from Bali to India and he was
informed that an aircraft, Gulf Stream G3 has been detailed
for getting the entire escort team along with the accused
Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan back to India. On
05.11.2015 at 21:55 hours (local time) at Ngurah Rai
International Airport, Denpasar, Bali, the handing over and
taking over of the accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @
CC No. 96/2016 Page 45 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
Chhota Rajan along with the seizures of personal belongings
of the said accused was done and a minutes of surrender of
person was signed, which is Ex.PW1/24 (D36), between
Ahmad Yanuari Insan, the head of the Legal Aid Unit of
Interpol Jakarta, International Relations Division, at point B,
which bears signatures of PW1 at point A and signature of
Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal at point C. PW1 has also
identified the accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota
Rajan (A1), while deposing in the court, who was appearing
in the court through video conferencing.
(viii) PW1 has further deposed that Ahmad Yanuari Insan
provided him with the copy of the seizure list of the
belongings, as seized from Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @
Chhota Rajan, which contains the passport no. G9273860
runs into 2 pages along with his signatures at point A on each
page along with the signatures of Ahmad Yanuari Insan at
point B on both the pages and after these formalities,
Inspector Rahul conducted the search of the person of
Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan thoroughly and
directed other team members to cross check the seizure of the
material/belongings as mentioned in the list. On personal
search, no significant material was recovered and no
significant fresh injuries were found on his person.
(ix) PW1 has further deposed that he checked the
CC No. 96/2016 Page 46 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
Immigration Stamp on 25.10.2015 at Ngurah Rai Airport,
Denpasar, Bali and got the immigration officer to append the
entry of the emergency certificate bearing no. X0695380
dated 03.11.2015 in order to show the departure to India on
05.11.2015 due to deportation. The aforesaid passport
bearing no. G.9273860 is Ex.PW1/25 (D41). The entry by
immigration of Indonesian is at point A and the exit remark
of immigration of Indonesian mentioning the emergency
certificate number is at point B.
(x) PW1 has further deposed that on completion of the
immigration formalities, he along with the escort team,
accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan, seized
belongings, which included the Indian passport No. G
9273860 and the travel itinerary depicting his arrival to Bali,
Indonesia by Garura Flight GA715 dated 25th October 2015,
Ngurah Rai International Airport by the chartered flight, Gulf
Stream G3 for New Delhi on 5th November 2015 around
10:00 pm local time, copy of itinerary is Ex.PW1/26 (D40).
The said flight clearance is marked as Ex.PW1/27 (D37).
On 6th November 2015, the entire team along with accused
and the seized material/belongings landed at Delhi
International Airport around 5:30 am in the morning. After
due immigration process at the Delhi International Airport, a
stamp of which has been appended in the emergency
CC No. 96/2016 Page 47 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
certificate, which is already exhibited as Ex.PW1/13, the
accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan along
with the seized material was taken under proper escort to the
CBI Head Quarters, New Delhi.
(xi) PW1 has further deposed that on reaching the CBI
head quarters, he was informed by Interpol Division in the
CBI head office that a case RC No. 7(A)/15 was registered in
SCUV, SCII Branch and he handed over the accused
Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan along with the
seized material to the IO Inspector R. K. Sinha, vide the
handing over and taking over note Ex.PW1/28 (D2), which
bears his initials on page 1 and 2 at point A and bears his
signatures at point C on page 3. He also handed over all the
documents collected by him and the entire file available with
him to the IO Inspector R. K. Sinha vide production cum
seizure memo Ex.PW1/29 (D43) dated 7.11.2015.
59. In the statement recorded u/Sec. 313 Cr.PC, regarding
certain facts of red corner notice and constitution of team for
deportation of accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota
Rajan (A1), he has replied that these facts are not in his
knowledge. However, accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @
Chota Rajan (A1) admitted that he was medically checked
up in Indonesia and has also admitted his medical report
CC No. 96/2016 Page 48 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
Ex.PW1/8 (D35). Accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @
Chota Rajan (A1) has denied that he refused to sign
"Personal Particulars Form" at Bali, Ex.PW1/13. However, all
the proceedings conducted regarding deportation, the
accused has stated that these facts are not in his knowledge.
He has stated that handing over and taking over of his
personal belongings were kept in a bag and were not done in
his presence. The list, which he has seen now, does not
contain the correct details of the articles, which were in his
bag. The list has been interpolated. He was carrying only one
iphone and one ipad and rest of the articles could not be
relied upon.
60. In respect of the issuance of passport no. G9273860,
Ex.PW1/25 in the name of Mohan Kumar, issued from Sydney
and his photograph with the previous passport history from
Harare on 19.12.2003 bearing No. Z 1017162, accused
Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1) has stated
that he does not remember but he has admitted that he was
deported vide immigration certificate Ex.PW1/13 (D42) and
reached at Delhi Airport on 06.11.2015. He has also admitted
his arrival at Bali by Garuda Flight dated 25.10.2015 and also
his deportation from there to Delhi. Accused Rajendra
Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1) has also admitted
about his identification by PW1 through video conference, so
CC No. 96/2016 Page 49 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
as such the arrest and deportation is not disputed by accused
in any manner and witness has also not been crossexamined
at length on any material point.
61. The crossexamination of PW1 is not relevant as
conducted on behalf of the other coaccused persons.
62. PW26 Sh. R. K. Sinha has stated that the case RC
7(A)/2015/SCUV/SCII/New Delhi was registered on
31.10.2015 on the basis of source information against
Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan (A1) and
unknown public servants & others. Investigation in this case
was handed over to him. The allegations were of obtaining
passport in the fake name of Mohan Kumar S/o Damodar R/o
107B, Azad Nagar, old M. C. Road, Mandya, Karnataka by
accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan (A1) on
the basis of fake and fabricated documents in connivance
with unknown public servants. The FIR is Ex.PW26/A (colly)
(D1). He identifies the signatures and official seal at point A
of Sh. Basil Kerketta, ASP (Incharge SP), CBI, SCII and his
initials at points A in the said FIR.
(i) PW26 has further deposed that after registration of FIR, he
received information to the effect that accused Rajendra
Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan (A1) was detained by
Indonesian Authorities at Bali, Indonesia and a team of
Interpol is going to Indonesia for his deportation to India.
CC No. 96/2016 Page 50 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
Since as per FIR allegations, interrogation of accused
Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan was necessary, on
his submission with higher officers of the branch, a letter was
issued to Deputy Director Interpol for handing over said
Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan once he is
brought to India on deportation from Indonesia. The said
letter dated 5.11.2015 is Ex.PW26/B (D38). He has also
identified the signatures of Sh. Basil Kerketta, ASP, SCII, CBI,
New Delhi at point A.
(ii) PW26 has further deposed that on deportation of
accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1) to
India by Interpol team headed by Sh. Sonal Agnihotri, SP CBI
on 6.11.2015 and pursuant to letter dated 5.11.2015,
accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan was
handed over to him on 6.11.2015 vide Handing over Taking
over of accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan
and his belongings, which is already exhibited as Ex.PW1/28
(colly) (D2). Thereafter, he conducted examination of said
accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan and after
brief interrogation, accused was arrested by him vide arrest
memo, which is exhibited as Ex.PW24/A in the presence of
independent witnesses namely Sh. A. K. Pandey and Sh. Bhim
Kohli. The arrest memo were signed by accused Rajendra
Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan at point B on each page
CC No. 96/2016 Page 51 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
and also the independent witnesses and also his signatures on
each page at point D. Personal search of accused Rajendra
Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan was also conducted in the
presence of independent witnesses and articles recovered
from his possession were seized through a personal search
memo, which is exhibited as Ex.PW24/B and the same also
was signed by the aforesaid independent witnesses and by
accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan at point B
and also by him at point D on each page. The articles seized
vide aforesaid memo were duly initialed by aforesaid
independent witnesses (D5 to D8) in his presence at the
time of seizure.
(iii) PW26 Sh. R. K. Sinha has further deposed that he also
seized the documents collected by Interpol vide production
cum seizure memo dated 7.11.2015, Ex.PW1/29 and has
identified the signatures of PW1 Sh. Sonal Agnihotri at point
A on each page and his signatures at point B on each page.
(iv) PW26 Sh. R. K. Sinha has further deposed that during
police custody remand of accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje
@ Chhota Rajan, he had requested CFSL experts to take
finger prints/palm prints impression of accused Rajendra
Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan which was required for the
purpose of establishing his identity. Accordingly, Sh. B.
Magesh K. Ratnam, the finger print expert, CFSL, New Delhi,
CC No. 96/2016 Page 52 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
visited CBI office on 12.11.2015 and had taken finger
print/palm print impressions of the said accused in his
presence (S1 to S15), which have been exhibited as
Ex.PW9/A (colly) and these were signed by the said CFSL
expert at point A on each page, also of accused Rajendra
Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan at point B on each page
and he had also signed at point C. PW26 Sh. R. K. Sinha has
further deposed that he had also taken specimen writings of
accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan in the
presence of independent witnesses namely Sh. Mehar Chand
and Sh. Premanand Sonowal on 14.11.2015, which are
already collectively Ex.PW2/A (S1 to S6). The said
specimen were signed by the aforesaid witnesses, accused
Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan at point B and he
had also signed at point C on each page. He had also
obtained specimen writings of accused Rajendra Sadashiv
Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan in the presence of independent
witnesses namely Sh. Raj Kumar and Sh. Budhi Singh on
18.11.2015, which are collectively Ex.PW10/A (S7 to S14).
These were signed by the aforesaid witnesses, accused
Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan at point B and he
had also signed at point C on each page.
63. PW2 Sh. Mehar Chand has deposed that on
CC No. 96/2016 Page 53 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
13.11.2015, his superior Sh. K. Ganeshia, AGM (HRM)
directed him to attend the CBI office. On 14.11.2015, he
went to CBI office and met Sh. R. K. Sinha, the Investigating
Officer, SCII, New Delhi. One official of Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd. Sh. Prema Nand Sonowal was also present.
Both of them were taken to the lock up area of CBI in a room
and introduced to one Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota
Rajan. PW2 has identified accused Rajendra Sadashiv
Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1) appearing through video
conferencing in court. Insp. Sh. R. K. Sinha, IO, had asked for
the specimen writings of the said Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje
@ Chhota Rajan and he voluntarily gave the specimen
writings. The specimen hand writings of Rajendra Sadashiv
Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan were taken in his presence and the
same are Ex.PW2/A (D66) running into six pages (S1 to S
6) and each page bears his signatures at point A and also
bears the signatures of Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota
Rajan at point B on each page.
64. This witness has not been crossexamined on behalf of
any of the accused, hence prosecution has been able to prove
beyond reasonable doubt that the specimen handwriting of
accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1) has
been taken in the office of the CBI, which was given by
accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1)
CC No. 96/2016 Page 54 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
voluntarily.
65. PW10 Sh. Raj Kumar has deposed that he was
informed by his superior officer on 18.11.2015 to report Insp.
Sh. R. K. Sinha at CBI Head Quarters. In the evening on the
same day, he went to CBI Head Quarters and met Sh. R. K.
Sinha. Mr. Budhi Singh of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. was
also present there. Then Mr. R. K. Sinha took them to lock up
room and they were introduced to Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje
@ Chhota Rajan (A1). Then Sh. R. K. Sinha had asked
Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan to give his
specimen hand writings to which he agreed and voluntarily
gave his specimen hand writings in their presence. The said
specimen hand writings are collectively Ex.PW10/A (D67)
(S7 to S14, which are 8 pages), which bears his signatures
at point A on each page and of accused Rajendra Sadashiv
Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan at point B on each page. He has
identified accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan
(A1), who was appearing on the video screen in the court,
who had given his specimen hand writings voluntarily on
18.11.2015 before him.
66. This witness has also not been crossexamined in any
manner on behalf of any accused.
67. PW9 Sh. B. Magesh Krishna Ratnam has deposed that
presently he is posted as Senior Scientific Officer, GradeII
CC No. 96/2016 Page 55 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
(Finger Print) in Central Forensic Science Laboratory, CGO
Complex, New Delhi since 2012. He joined the CFSL on
5.9.2003 as a Lab. Assistant in Fingerprint Division. He is
M.Sc., M.A. (Criminology) & Police Science, Diploma of
Associateship Institution of Chemistry and undergone training
in Foundation Course in Forensic Science, NI CFS, Rohini
Delhi and proficiency course in Fingerprint Science from
Central Finger Print Bureau, Kolkata (NCRB Unit). He is
having about 12 years experience in the field of Fingerprint
examination, comparison and identification in respect to
crime investigation. He had reported more than 90 cases,
assisted in 120 cases involving comparison of about 23000
fingerprints and visited more than 50 scene of crime.
(i) PW9 has further deposed that a letter of SP CBI, SCII, New
Delhi dated 9.11.2015 addressed to Director, CFSL, CBI, New
Delhi was received thereby requesting to depute a fingerprint
expert to take the fingerprint and palm print of accused
Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan. He was deputed
by Head of the Department Sh. A. D. Shah, SSO1,
Fingerprint. Then on 12.11.2015, he reported to Inspector
Sh. R. K. Sinha, who was Investigating Officer of the case at
CBI Head Quarters, New Delhi. Then, he took him to the cell,
where accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan
was lodged. Then the Investigating Officer asked Rajendra
CC No. 96/2016 Page 56 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan to give his fingerprints of
both hands and palm prints to which he voluntarily agreed
and offered his fingerprints and palm prints. The fingerprints
of accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan are
collectively Ex.PW9/A (D63) (S1 to S3), which bears his
signatures and official seal at point A on each page.
Ex.PW9/A also bears the signatures of accused Rajendra
Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan at point B on each page.
(ii) PW9 has further deposed that he had also taken the
palm prints of accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota
Rajan, which are collectively Ex.PW9/B (D63) (S4 to S11)
and it bears his signatures and official seal at point A on each
page and also bears the signatures of accused Rajendra
Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan at point B on each page.
He had also obtained the left hand thumb impression of
accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan, which
are collectively Ex.PW9/C (D63) (S12 & S13), which
bears his signatures and official seal at point A on each page
and it was signed by accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @
Chhota Rajan at point B on each page. He had also obtained
the right hand thumb impression of accused Rajendra
Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan, which are collectively
Ex.PW9/D (D63) (S14 & S15), which bears his signatures
and official seal at point A on each page and it was signed by
CC No. 96/2016 Page 57 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan at point
B on each page.
(iii) PW9 has further deposed that the fingerprints and
palm prints were handed over to Investigating Officer Sh. R.
K. Sinha. A forwarding note dated 14.12.2015 having list of
exhibits and certificate of authority in favour of Director
CFSL, CBI, New Delhi to conduct examination and
comparison and expert opinion from admitted and specimen
fingerprints and palm prints of accused Rajendra Sadashiv
Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan in a sealed condition. The said
forwarding note is Ex.PW9/E (D64), the said certificate of
authority is Ex.PW9/F (part of D64) and the sample seal is
Ex.PW9/G (part of D64).
(iv) PW9 has also identified accused Rajendra Sadashiv
Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1) appearing in the court through
video conferencing.
(v) PW9 has also deposed that CBI had sent the
fingerprints in original of accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje
@ Chhota Rajan taken at PS Tilak Nagar, Chambur, Bombay
on 01.12.1980 in Crime No. 653/1980, which is already
exhibited as Ex.PW5/2 and marked as A1 (admitted
thumb/finger impressions). His fingerprints were further
marked by him as A1 and A1/a to A1/i. CBI had also sent
photo copy of RC No. A360/71995 issued by Interpol
CC No. 96/2016 Page 58 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
against Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan, which is
already exhibited as Ex.PW1/2 and marked as A2 (admitted
thumb/finger impressions). His fingerprints were further
marked by him as A2 and A2/a to A2/i. He had compared
admitted thumb/finger impressions of accused Rajendra
Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan marked A1 and A2 with S
1 to S15. Every document was stamped by the stamp of
Finger Print Division, CFSL, CBI, New Delhi with his initials
within the stamp on each document.
(vi) PW9 has further deposed that after thorough
examination/comparison the admitted thumb/finger
impressions and specimen thumb/finger/palm impressions,
he found the admitted thumb/finger impressions i.e. A1 are
identical with the specimen thumb/finger print impressions
of accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan. The
photo copy of admitted thumb/finger impressions i.e. A2 is
unfit for comparison because the same do not contain
sufficient number of ridge characteristics for comparison with
specimen impressions. His report dated 18.12.2015 is
Ex.PW9/H (3 pages) (D65) bearing his signatures at point
A on each page and his official seal on the last page. His
detailed reasons for his report in 10 annexures are
collectively marked as Ex.PW9/J (D65), which bears his
signatures and official seal on each page at point A.
CC No. 96/2016 Page 59 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
Thereafter, a forwarding letter dated 21.12.2015 along with
the report was forwarded by Dr. Rajinder Singh, Director
CFSL, CBI, New Delhi to S. P. CBI, SCII, New Delhi. The said
letter is Ex.PW9/K (D65) and identified the signatures of Dr.
Rajinder Singh at point A.
68. Again this witness has not been crossexamined
on behalf of any accused. Accordingly, his deposition also
remained unrebutted.
69. PW5 Sh. Dhananjay Kulkarni has stated that he
jointed the Mumbai Police as a Deputy Commissioner in
2011. He got the information about the arrest of Rajendra
Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan (A1) while he was posed
as DCP, Crime Branch, Mumbai. He got this information
through television news that accused was arrested at Bali,
Indonesia. He discussed the issue with his senior officers.
Subsequently they got official communication from the CBI
Interpol. He has seen the letter dated 27.10.2015 Ex.PW5/1
(D17) vide which it was communicated that Rajendra
Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan had been arrested and it
was also asked in the letter as to whether accused was still
wanted. They were also asked by CBI Interpol to prepare a
request of provisional arrest.
(i) PW5 Sh. Dhananjay Kulkarni has further deposed that
CC No. 96/2016 Page 60 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
accordingly he prepared the request for arrest of accused
Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan @ Mohan Kumar
and his deportation to India. The said request is already
exhibited as Ex.PW1/3, which bears his signarures and
official seal at point A on each page. He had given the
history of cases pending against the accused in the
provisional request for arrest. He had also enclosed the true
copy of warrants of arrest (annexure A) and descriptive role
of accused (annexure B) along with the provisional arrest of
request.
(ii) PW5 Sh. Dhananjay Kulkarni has further deposed
that every true copy of warrant of arrest issued against the
accused in annexure A bears his signatures and official seal at
point A and copy of the information regarding the identity of
accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan bears his
signatures at point A.
(iii) PW5 Sh. Dhananjay Kulkarni has further deposed that
one team of seven members was formed by the CBI Interpol
Wing for escorting of the fugitive Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje
@ Chhota Rajan from Bali, Indonesia to India in which from
Mumbai Police he was involved and one Inspector Vasts were
the member. They left for Bali, Indonesia on 31.10.2015 and
reached there on 1.11.2015.
(iv) PW5 Sh. Dhananjay Kulkarni has further deposed that
CC No. 96/2016 Page 61 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
he was carrying with him provisional arrest request
Ex.PW1/3 and original finger prints of accused Rajendra
Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan, which were taken in the
year 1980 in a case PS Tilak Nagar, Mumbai in CR No.
653/80, which are collectively Ex.PW5/2. Photographs of
the accused were taken from the official record of Crime
Branch and red corner notice file was also taken by him
having RCN No. A360/71995 Ex.PW1/2.
(v) PW5 Sh. Dhananjay Kulkarni has further deposed that
after reaching at Bali Police, they had handed over the said
finger prints and his descriptive role and photographs of the
accused to the Bali Police, which were matched with the
finger prints taken by them and after establishing identify of
accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan the
process of immigration got completed and at the time of
surrender of the fugitive, some documents including FIR,
arrest memo, his medical examination report and a list of
seized articles were handed over to them. Police report was
also handed over to them, the certified copy of which is
already exhibited as Ex.PW1/14, D28 and its translated
version is Ex.PW1/15 (D10).
(vi) PW5 Sh. Dhananjay Kulkarni has further deposed that
the said police report mentioning the passport number G
9273860 in the name of Mohan Kumar. The certified copy of
CC No. 96/2016 Page 62 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
arrest report is already exhibited as Ex.PW1/16 (D29) in
which accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan
signed as M. Kumar at point A and the translated version of
the arrest report is already exhibited as Ex.PW1/17 (D11).
An order for confiscation was also made. The certified copy
of the same is already exhibited as Ex.PW1/18 (D30) and its
translated version is already exhibited as Ex.PW1/19 (D12).
A confiscation report was also prepared, certified copy of
which is already exhibited as Ex.PW1/20 (D31), which also
bears the signatures of Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota
Rajan as Mohan Kumar depicted as M. Kumar at point A and
its translated version is already exhibited as Ex.PW1/21 (D
13).
(vii) PW5 Sh. Dhananjay Kulkarni has further deposed that
Bali police also handed over to them the finger prints taking
report. The certified copy of which is already exhibited as
Ex.PW1/22 (D32) and its translated version is already
exhibited as Ex.PW1/23 (D14). The certified copy of
medical report of Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan
@ Mohan Kumar is already exhibited as Ex.PW1/8 (D35)
was also handed over to them and its translated version is
already exhibited as Ex.PW1/9 (D27). According to the
report accused was fit for travel by air. All the documents
were got translated by Ms Widya Prabandari having identity
CC No. 96/2016 Page 63 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
no. 5171 0441 0584 0001 in his presence and she signed on
each translated page at point A.
(viii) PW5 Sh. Dhananjay Kulkarni has further deposed that
the passport in the name of Mohan Kumar was also taken
during the proceedings having no. G9273860 in which
accused had signed as M. Kumar, which is already exhibited
as Ex.PW1/25 (D41). They had also obtained the
emergency certificate for the travel of Rajendra Sadashiv
Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan @ Mohan Kumar from Bali,
Indonesia to India, which is already exhibited as Ex.PW1/13
(D42). One personal particular form of Rajendra Sadashiv
Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan was filled, which is already exhibited
as Ex.PW1/12 (D39) but he refused to sign the same. This
certificate form bears the signatures of Sh. Sanjeev Aggarwal
at point A, who was First Secretary of Indian Embassy at
Jakarta, Indonesia and photograph taken by him was also
pasted therein.
(ix) PW5 Sh. Dhananjay Kulkarni has further deposed that
Minutes of surrenders of accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje
@ Chhota Rajan @ Rajan Nikalje was also prepared at
International Airport, Ngurah Rai, Bali, which is already
exhibited as Ex.PW1/24 (D36) and the same is signed by
Mr. Sonal Agnihotri at point A. The personal search of
accused was also conducted and some articles were
CC No. 96/2016 Page 64 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
recovered, which includes the passport bearing no. G
9273860.
(x) PW5 Sh. Dhananjay Kulkarni has further deposed that
On 6th of November 2015, they came to Delhi and reached
the CBI Head Quarters. On 10th of December 2015, he had
submitted some documents vide annexures to Sh. S. S.
Kishore, SP, CBI, SCII, New Delhi vide letter Ex.PW5/3 (part
of D62). This letter was enclosed with the copy of
provisional arrest request (annexure A), which is already
exhibited as Ex.PW1/3 (D19 and part of D62) and also a
copy of letter Ex.PW5/4 (part of D62) under the signatures
of Sh. Atul Chandra Kulkarni, Joint Commissioner of Policed
addressed to Sh. Anup Yadav, Deputy Legal Adviser, MHA,
New Delhi.
(xi) PW5 Sh. Dhananjay Kulkarni has further deposed that
he can identify his signatures at point A as he has worked
with him and well acquainted with his writing and
signatures. He had also handed over copies of 14 red notice
forms of accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan
with standing NBWs, which are collectively Ex.PW5/5 (part
of D62). The annexure C of D62 i.e. the correspondence
with CBI, NCB Interpol is collectively Ex.PW5/6 (part of D
62). The copy of correspondence of Central Authority with
Indonesian Authority, vide annexure D is collectively
CC No. 96/2016 Page 65 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
Ex.PW5/7 (part of D62) and the original finger prints vide
annexure E, which is already exhibited as Ex.PW5/2.
(xii) PW5 Sh. Dhananjay Kulkarni has identified the accused
Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan before the court
appearing through video conferencing.
70. PW7 Sh. Muktesh K. Pardeshi has deposed that he joined as
an officer of Indian Foreign Service in 1991. Prior to his
posting as Ambassador of Mexico, he was posted as a Joint
Secretary and Chief Passport Officer in Ministry of External
Affairs, New Delhi. Being Chief Passport Officer, he was
approached by CBI regarding the passport case of Rajendra
Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan. Thereafter, they received
some details in writing from the CBI sources and actions were
taken by him requesting Consulate General of India, Bali to
issue a show cause notice and take follow up actions such as
issuance of an emergency certificate if the situation so
warranted vide email, which is Ex.PW7/A (D21), which
bears his signature at point A.
(i) PW7 Sh. Muktesh K. Pardeshi has deposed that he was
approached by the CBI first to share details about passport
numbers mentioned in the course of investigation and later
on to issue sanction for prosecution after the investigation
report was presented to Ministry in February 2016. From
CC No. 96/2016 Page 66 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
October onwards, different passport issuing authorities were
approached to ascertain the case histories of different
passports issued to the accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @
Chhota Rajan. Information was obtained and collected from
Passport Offices in Mumbai, Bangalore and missions abroad
in Sydney, Harare and Dubai. Thereafter, these details were
shared by them with the CBI.
(ii) PW7 Sh. Muktesh K. Pardeshi has deposed that In
February 2016, the Investigating Agencies completed its
report and presented the same to the Ministry of External
Affairs for grant of sanction of prosecution against the
accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan and some
other officials under the relevant sections of The Passport Act
1967. The same was granted after careful perusal of
documents and material presented to the Ministry.
(iii) PW7 Sh. Muktesh K. Pardeshi has deposed that he has
seen the original sanction order issued by him on 8th
February 2016. The same bears his signatures with official
seal at point A and the sanction order is Ex.PW7/B (D78).
Accordingly to the order, sanction was accorded for
prosecution against Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota
Rajan and three former officials of passport offices namely
Smt. Jayashree Rahate, Sh. Deepak Natvarlal Shah and Smt.
Lalitha Laxmanan under Section 12 of The Passport Act. He
CC No. 96/2016 Page 67 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
was competent to issue the sanction being the Chief Passport
Officer of the country.
71. PW16 Sh. Subhash Kumar has deposed that he was posted
as Vice Consul at Consulate General of India, Sydney,
Australia from February 2006 to February 2009. He retired in
September 2012, after 35 years of service. He used to deal
with the issuance of visa, passport and other consular
services. Consul General of India, Consul and Vice Consul are
the passport issuing officers in the office of Consulate General
of India. Since he was Vice Consul from February 2006 to
February 2009 at Consulate General of India, Sydney,
Australia, so he was functioning as a Passport Issuing Officer
in the said office.
(i) PW16 Sh. Subhash Kumar has further deposed that once the
application for reissue of passport is received at the
Consulate office regarding Indian national, the personal
particulars of the applicant are thoroughly checked with the
original passport of the applicant. Then they check the
particulars from the data base and also send a message to the
previous passport issuing office for verification of details
whether situated in India or abroad and wait for a period of
minimum 30 days. In case the information is not received,
they also used to send the reminders.
CC No. 96/2016 Page 68 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
(ii) PW16 Sh. Subhash Kumar has further deposed that on
seeing the document already Ex.PW1/25, i.e. the said
passport bearing no. G9273860, in the name of one Mohan
Kumar, was issued by him on 08.07.2008, from Consulate
General of India, Sydney, Australia, in the capacity of a Vice
Consul, which bears his signatures and official seal at points
'T' and 'T1'. Two Australian Visas were pasted in the said
passport at points 'T3' and 'T4'. The said passport was
issued by him on the basis of previous passport bearing no.
Z1017162, issued from Harare on 19.12.2003 and old
passport was cancelled and returned. They made inquiries
about the particulars of applicant Mohan Kumar from Indian
High Commission at Harare, Zimbabwe regarding the said
previous passport bearing no. Z1017162 and they contacted
Indian High Commission at Harare to verify the details of said
passport bearing no. Z1017162 and then they were informed
that they had issued an additional booklet. Thereafter, they
contacted RPO Bangalore, from where original passport was
issued.
(iii) PW16 Sh. Subhash Kumar has further deposed that he
had seen the document Ex.PW12/6 i.e. personal particulars
of Mohan Kumar, which were sent by RPO, Bangalore vide
FAX no. 26/CON/00170/08, dated 04.07.2008 and vide that
FAX details of original passport bearing no.A6705840 issued
CC No. 96/2016 Page 69 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
on 01.01.1999 from RPO, Bangalore vide File No.
BNGE01193598 was given. On receipt of this information
from RPO, Bangalore, they had reissued the passport of
Mohan Kumar on 08.07.2008 from the Consulate General of
India, Sydney. According to which the stamp of Immigration
at point 'T5' in the passport of Mohan Kumar, Mohan Kumar
arrived at Sydney Airport on 12.02.2015.
72. PW17 Sh. Sankara Subbu has deposed that during the
investigation of this case, a letter dated 16.12.2015 addressed
to Sh. Sai Manohar, DIG, CBI (IPCC) was sent by him
informing that the Ministry of External Affairs had received a
reply from Indian Consulate at Sydney, in respect of passport
no. G9273860 in the name of Mohan Kumar, issued on
08.07.2008 from Sydney. The said letter is Ex.PW17/A (D
72, two pages) bears his signatures at points 'A', on each
page.
(i) PW17 Sh. Sankara Subbu has further deposed that vide this
letter it was also intimated that one passport bearing no.
E792821 was issued on 27.11.1988 from Dubai, in the name
of Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje, son of Sadashivsakharan
Nikalje having place of birth at Bombay on 05.12.1959 and
resident of Chikoowadi, North Gate, Zopadpatti, Mankhur,
Bombay88 and an additional passport booklet was issued
CC No. 96/2016 Page 70 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
against passport no. W508224, issued by RPO, Bombay on
11.07.1984.
(ii) PW17 Sh. Sankara Subbu has further deposed that he
wrote a letter dated 30.12.2015, addressed to Sh. Sai
Manohar, DIG, CBI (IPCC), vide which it was intimated that
High Commission of India at Harare had intimated that as per
their record available at Mission (Passport Register), passport
no. Z1017162 was issued to Mohan Kumar on 19.12.2003
and applications and enclosures could not be found.
However, details from the passport register was received from
the Mission at Harare, which bears his signature at point 'A'.
(iii) PW17 Sh. Sankara Subbu has further deposed that a
reply of the Consulate General of India, Sydney with respect
to the passport no. G9273860 issued to Mohan Kumar was
intimated to CBI, wherein CGI, Sydney had furnished the
details of original revocation order dated 01.11.2015 thereby
revoking the passport no. G9273860. In addition to that, the
passport details of Mohan Kumar were taken from the
database, alongwith the certificate of 65B (4)(c) of Evidence
Act duly signed by the Vice Consul, CGI, Sydney, were also
enclosed.
(iv) PW17 Sh. Sankara Subbu has further deposed that the
Chief Passport Officer Sh. Arun Kumar Chatterjee had sent a
egram to Ambassador of India, Harare, requesting him to
CC No. 96/2016 Page 71 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
send certified copies of the first page of the passport issuing
register being maintained at Indian Embassy at Harare, along
with the passport details of passport no. Z1017162 issued in
the name of Mohan Kumar, he has received the sealed letter
from the Ambassador of India, Harare, which was opened in
the court. After opening the same letter, it is deposed that the
information has been sent by Sh. S. Rajendran, Second
Secretary, Head of Chancery, Embassy of India at Harare.
Alongwith it, certified copy of the passport writing register's
extract and the certified copy of the first page of the register's
front cover, which shows the period of the entries from
24.04.2003 to 12.09.2005, are annexed. These are
collectively exhibited as Ex.PW17/C (Colly.) (part of D73).
Each page of certified copy also bears the official stamp of Sh.
S. Rajendran as well as seal of Embassy of India, Harare, at
points 'A'.
73. PW18 Sh. Virendra Kumar Jatav has deposed that he
was posted as Section Officer in Ministry of External Affairs,
Jawahar Lal Nehru Bhawan, New Delhi, since February 2016.
He was posted as Vice Consul in Consulate General of India,
at Bali, from May 2012 to February 2016. He had issued
Emergency Certificate, Ex.PW1/13 (D42), in the name of
Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje on 03.11.2015, vide EC No.
CC No. 96/2016 Page 72 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
X0695380 for his travel from Bali to India, which bears his
signatures and official seal at point 'X'.
(i) PW18 Sh. Virendra Kumar Jatav has further deposed
that he had issued the Emergency Certificate on the basis of
the email sent by PW7 Sh. Muktesh K. Pardeshi, the then
Chief Passport Officer and Joint Secretary (PSP), which is
already Ex.PW7/A (D21) and vide that email, he had
instructed Consulate General of India at Bali to issue
Emergency Certificate in the name of accused Rajendra
Sadashiv Nikalje and also he had seen the personal particular
form of Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje, which is already
Ex.PW1/12 (part of D73/D39). Accused had refused to
sign the same. He has identified the signatures of Sh. Sanjeev
Aggarwal, First Secretary, Embassy of Jakarta, at point 'A'.
(ii) PW18 Sh. Virendra Kumar Jatav has further deposed
that a letter of Sh. Anshuman Sinha, Advocate dated
03.11.2015, addressed to Consulate General of India, Bali,
Indonesia Ex.PW18/A (par of D73), was written to the
extent that he has no objection in the deportation of his client
Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan to India after
issuing the stamp on the documents Ex.PW1/25.
(iii) PW18 Sh. Virendra Kumar Jatav has stated that on the
basis of his own experience that there is a stamp of Visa on
Arrival, dated 25 Oct. 2015, at Bali.
CC No. 96/2016 Page 73 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
74. PW20 Sh. Arindam Banerjee has deposed that he was
posted as Vice Consul in the office of Consulate General of
India, Sydney, Australia from 01.05.2013 to 08.07.2016. He
has identified the letter dated 1st November 2015 regarding
revocation of passport no. G9273860 issued in the name of
Mohan Kumar from the office of Consulate General of India,
Sydney as Ex.PW20/A. This letter was addressed to all the
passport issuing authorities at Indian Missions/post abroad
and also other authorities. He had provided the print out of
passport issuance details of Mohan Kumar, which were taken
from the database, which is already exhibited as Ex.PW11/H
and bears his signatures and official seal at point A on each
page. He had also issued one certificate under Section 65B
of the Evidence Act as an authentication to the said
document, which is Ex.PW20/B. He had provided these
documents to the official of Ministry of External Affairs in
response to their query regarding issuance of passport in the
name of Mohan Kumar.
75. PW24 Sh. Bhim Kohli has deposed that he joined
National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC), Lodhi Road,
New Delhi, as a Secretarial Assistant in 2010 and since then
he is posted in the same capacity in NTPC, New Delhi, till
date. In view of the confidential letter of CBI, he was
deputed by Additional General Manager, Vigilance of his
CC No. 96/2016 Page 74 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
Department to report CBI Head Quarters in connection with
the investigation of the present case. On 06.11.2015, in the
morning, he reported to Sh. R. K. Sinha, Inspector, CBI, New
Delhi. He was taken to the lockup of CBI Head Quarters,
situated at the ground floor, wherein he was told by Sh. R. K.
Sinha that he wanted to arrest a person Rajendra Sadashiv
Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan (A1). Then, he was introduced to
accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan (A1) and
he was arrested by the IO and Arrest Memo was prepared.
He was also accompanied by Mr. A. K. Pandey, who was an
employee of NBCC, New Delhi. The said arrest memo is
Ex.PW24/A (D03), which bears his signatures at points 'A',
on each page. Thereafter, accused also signed the same at
points 'B', on each page. The arrest memo was also signed by
Sh. A. K. Pandey and IO, Sh. R. K. Sinha.
(i) PW24 Sh. Bhim Kohli has further deposed that the
personal search of the accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @
Chhota Rajan (A1) was conducted by the IO Ex.PW24/B (D
04), which bears his signatures at points 'A', on each page. It
was also signed by accused at points 'B', on each page and
some documents were recovered i.e. a Temporary Card
bearing no. 6008947671090018 in the name of Mohan
Kumar Ex.PW24/C (D05), one Bupa Card in the name of
Mohan D. Kumar, Ex.PW24/D (D06), one BMW Roadside
CC No. 96/2016 Page 75 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
Assistance Card in the name of Mohan Kumar of Queensland,
Australia, Ex.PW24/E (D07) and one driver's license
payment receipt of New South Wales, Government, Australia,
in the name of Mohan Kumar, Ex.PW24/F (D08).
(ii) PW26 Sh. R. K. Sinha has further deposed that in
respect of investigation required to be conducted at Mandya,
Karnataka and also Bangalore, he had requested his senior
officers for conducting part investigation by an officer of CBI,
Bangalore Branch. A request in this regard was made to
Head of Branch, CBI Bangalore along with pointers of part
investigation. This part investigation of this case was
entrusted to Sh. T. Rajashekhar, Inspector CBI, ACB,
Bangalore. The part investigation records were received in
CBI, SCII, New Delhi Branch on 21.12.2015.
76. PW25 T. Rajashekhara has deposed that in the month
of November 2015, his head of Branch had entrusted the part
investigation of this case to him, who directed him to collect
the documents from Regional Passport Officer, Bangalore,
pertaining to issue of passport in the name of Mohan Kumar
and to verify the address mentioned in the passport of Mohan
Kumar i.e. 107/B, Azad Nagar, Mandya and also to examine
and record the statements of the concerned officials. He was
also directed to collect the documents pertaining to Enayath
CC No. 96/2016 Page 76 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
Akmal Khan, if any.
(i) PW25 T. Rajashekhara has further deposed that he had
written a letter dated 11.11.2015 to Commissioner, Mandya
Municipal Corporation, Mandya during the investigation of
this case to provide the original file in respect of house no.
107/B, Old MC Road, Azad Nagar, Mandya. The said letter is
Ex.PW25/A (D47), which bears his signatures at point 'A'
and he visited Mandya in Karnataka State. He visited the
office of City Municipal Council, Mandya and collected the
documents, which are Ex.22/A, Ex.PW22/B and
Ex.PW21/A, vide Seizurecumproduction Memo dated
11.11.2015 from Sh. Basavaraju, which is already
Ex.PW22/C (D46) and bears his signatures at point 'B'.
From these documents, he came to know that the house no.
107/B is not existing at Old MC Road of Azad Nagar, Mandya.
He has further stated that in this regard, Smt. Jayasheela,
Revenue Inspector was deputed to visit the spot and to draw
a Mahazar with regard to existence of the said address. She
visited and drawn Mahazar dated 11.11.2015 after making
thorough enquiry, which is already Ex.PW21/A. He also
examined and recorded statements of Sh. Basvaraju and Smt.
Jayasheela S., who confirmed the contents of the above
documents in their respective statements.
(ii) PW25 T. Rajashekhara has further deposed that on
CC No. 96/2016 Page 77 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
10.11.2015, he had written a letter to SP, Mandya, wherein
he had requested to direct the concerned official to verify
from the records maintained in their office about police
verification conducted in respect of Mohan Kumar, son of
Damodar, resident of 107/B, Old MC Road, Azad Nagar,
Mandya, Karnataka, having date of birth 24.07.1959 for the
period 01.01.1999 to 31.12.2009. The said letter is already
Ex.PW13/A and it bears his signatures at point 'B'. In
consequence of that letter, the SP. Mandya had sent a report
of Sh. K. Prabhakar, Police Inspector, Special Branch, DPO,
Mandya District, dated 11.11.2015, which is already
Ex.PW13/C and it was intimated that no police verification
with regard to passport verification of Mohan Kumar, son of
Damodar, date of birth 24.07.1959, resident of No. 107/B,
Old MC Road, Azad Nagar, Mandya, was conducted and sent
to Regional Passport Office, Bangalore and no record was
found.
(iii) PW25 T. Rajashekhara has further deposed that during
investigation, he visited the office of Deputy Director, Food &
Civil Supply Department, Mandya and inquired about
issuance of ration card in the name of Mohan Kumar, son of
Damodar, resident of House No. 107/B, Old MC Road, Azad
Nagar, Mandya. The Deputy Director had deputed Sh. H. J.
Rajanna to verify from the records whether any ration card
CC No. 96/2016 Page 78 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
had been issued in the abovesaid name. After verification
from the record and otherwise, he filed a report which is
already Ex.PW3/A and vide that report he had submitted that
no ration card had been issued to the said Mohan Kumar, son
of Damodar, resident of House No. 107/B, Old MC Road,
Azad Nagar, Mandya, in the said record. He also mentioned
that he visited the spot alongwith Revenue Officers and made
local inquiries with the residents and found that the said
address was not existing.
77. PW3 Sh. H. J. Rajanna has deposed that on
11.11.2015, he was deputed by Deputy Director, Food & Civil
Supply Department, Mandya for enquiring the address having
no. 107/B of Old M. C. Road, Azad Nagar, Mandya, at which
a ration card was purported to have been issued in the name
of one Mohan Kumar. He had visited Azad Nagar, Mandya
and then inquired from the locals of Azad Nagar area and he
came to know that the said address does not exist in Azad
Nagar, Mandya. Then he met Jayasheela, who was the
Revenue Inspector and Satish Kumar, who was bill collector
of City Municipal Council, Mandya pertaining to area under
their jurisdiction. Azad Nagar also comes within their
jurisdiction. They told him that No. 107/B of M. C. Road,
Azad Nagar, Mandya does not exist in Mandya. He had
CC No. 96/2016 Page 79 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
submitted his report dated 11.11.2015, in this regard to Sh.
Rajshekhar, Inspector CBI. He submitted his report to Inspl.
Rajshekhara, which is Ex.PW3/A (D48), and the translation
of the same is Ex.PW3/B (part of D48).
78. This witness has been crossexamined on behalf of
accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1) only
to the extent that he did not visit the spot and a false report
has been given, whatsoever it may be. Accused Rajendra
Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1) has not admitting that
he got issued passport in the name of Mohan Kumar from the
address 107/B, Old M. C. Road, Azad Nagar, Mandya,
Karnataka, so this witness has visited the spot or not for
investigation or not is of no consequence. Accused Rajendra
Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1) is not claiming that he
had applied for passport at RPO, Bangalore with the
supporting documents i.e. ration card in the name of Mohan
Kumar and other documents also in the name of Mohan
Kumar. This witness has not deposed anything about the
forgery of the documents by accused Rajendra Sadashiv
Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1) or by any other person.
79. PW25 T. Rajashekhara has further deposed that during
investigation, on 11.11.2015, he had written a letter to the
Tehsildar and Assistant Electoral Registration Officer,
Mandya, thereby requesting to verify from their records
CC No. 96/2016 Page 80 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
whether any Voter Identity Cards were issued in the name of
Mohan Kumar, Damodar, Sumathi and Parvathi. The said
letter is Ex.PW4/A, which bears his signatures at point 'A'. In
response to the said letter, Tehsildar. Mandya had furnished a
report dated 13.11.2015 to him, wherein he submitted that
after verification, no Voter ID were found issued in the
abovesaid names and their names are not included in
electoral rolls.
(i) PW25 T. Rajashekhara has further deposed thathe
visited Regional Passport Office, Bangalore and collected
documents from Smt. R. Amarjothi, Assistant Passport Officer,
RPO, Bangalore vide Seizurecumproduction memo dated
09.12.2015, which is already Ex.PW12/1 and bears his
signatures at points 'B' on each page. He had obtained
scanned copies and computer print outs of the documents as
per Seizure Memo alongwith the certificate under Section
65B of Indian Evidence Act as an authentication and each
scanned copy and said certificate under Section 65B of
Evidence Act were signed by Smt. R. Amarjothi and also
appended her official seal on each document. There were
some copies of computer print outs, which were also
authenticated by Smt. R. Amarjothi.
(ii) PW25 T. Rajashekhara has further deposed that he had
also received a letter dated 08.12.2015 from Sh. P. S.
CC No. 96/2016 Page 81 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
Karthigeyan, RPO, Bangalore, which is already Ex.PW12/13,
addressed to him, wherein he had deputed Ms. R. Amarjothi
to submit the relevant documents pertaining to the passport
no. A6705840 dated 01.01.1999, issued in the name of
Mohan Kumar and also the documents pertaining to issue of
passport no. F004555 dated 20.01.1989, issued in the name
of Sh. Enayath Akmal Khan, etc. and he also intimated that
original files have been weeded out and destroyed. He further
deposed that from Smt. R. Amarjothi, he received the
documents Ex.PW12/2 to Ex.PW12/9, Ex.PW11/G,
Ex.PW12/11, Ex.PW12/12 and Ex.PW12/14 to
Ex.PW12/21.
(iii) PW25 T. Rajashekhara has further deposed that after
examination of officials of RPO, Bangalore, he came to know
that the passport no. F004555 was issued in the name of
Enayath Akmal Khan and not in the name of Mohan Kumar
from RPO, Bangalore. He also came to know that as regards
Mohan Kumar, the passport reissue application alongwith
enclosures, such as ration card and old passport, were
verified by Smt. Lalitha Laxmanan. Smt. Jayashree Rahate
ordered for rescreening the date of birth of Mohan Kumar.
Then passport was signed/ issued by Sh. D. N. Shah. He also
came to know during investigation that the purported
passport issued in the name of Mohan Kumar was issued on
CC No. 96/2016 Page 82 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
the basis of fabricated copy of the passport issued in the
name of Enayath Akmal Khan.
80. PW21 Ms. Jayasheela S. has stated that Azad Nagar
and Old MC Road area comes under her jurisdiction as a
Revenue Inspector. On seeing the Mahazar dated 11.11.2015,
she states that she was deputed by her Revenue Officer, Sh.
M. Basavaraju, to conduct the search regarding address
107/B in Old MC Road, Azad Nagar area of Mandya. Then
she alongwith M. S. Sathish Kumar, Bill Collector of CMC,
Mandya, went to the Old MC Raod, Azad Nagar Area and
searched house number 107/B at Old MC Road in Azad
Nagar Area, but, could not find any such address there. Then,
she inquired from Sh. K. T. Madhusudhan, Ward Councilor
and Sh. R. Keshava (local resident) also, but they told that
the said address i.e. 107/B, does not exist in the said area. On
the basis of the said inquiry and her personal visit to the spot,
she prepared the Mahazar dated 11.11.2015, which is
Ex.PW21/A (D45), which bears her signatures at point 'A'
and signature of Sh. M. S. Sathish at point 'B', signatures of
Sh. R. Keshava at point 'C' and that of K. T. Madhusudhan at
point 'D' (on second page). Sh. H. J. Rajanna, who was Food
Inspector, also inquired from her about the said address and
she told him that house number 107/B does not exist in Old
CC No. 96/2016 Page 83 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
MC Road, Azad Nagar, Mandya.
81. During the crossexamination also she confirmed that
she visited the spot personally and searched for the address
and also made inquiries from the local residents. So nothing
came out to disbelieve her testimony. Even PW25 Sh. T.
Rajashekhara had stated that he had also personally visited
Old M.C. Road and found that address no. 107B was not
existing.
82. PW22 Sh. Basavaraju has deposed that he was posted
as a Revenue Officer in City Municipal Council, Mandya,
since 02.06.2015. In response to the letter issued by CBI, to
Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Mandya, he had
searched from the computer database about the entire
property bearing no. 107 in the area of Mandya City. The said
search extract in Kannada language was given by him to the
CBI, which is Ex.PW22/A (D44) and it bears his signatures
and official seal at point 'A'. He had issued a certificate under
Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as an authentication
to the said search extract dated 11.11.2015, which is
Ex.PW22/B (part of D44). It bears his signature and official
seal at point 'A'. According to his report about 10 persons
were residing in different houses bearing no. 107, in Mandya,
but none of them was Mohan Kumar. He has further deposed
that he had also gone through the Municipal Assessment
CC No. 96/2016 Page 84 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
Record (MAR) register and also Karnataka Municipal Form
(KMF) register for the areas Old MC Road and Azad Nagar,
Mandya, maintained in their office and found that there is no
property bearing no. 107/B at Old MC Road, Azad Nagar,
Mandya. MAR register is the record of Municipal Assessment
of the house tax of a particular property, which was
maintained upto the year 2001. Thereafter, Self Assessment
Scheme was introduced in Karnataka and the same data was
transferred to KMF register in 20022003 onwards.
(i) PW22 Sh. Basavaraju has further deposed that he had
directed Smt. Jayasheela S., Revenue Inspector to search for
the house no. 107/B, Old MC Road, Azad Nagar, Mandya.
She visited the site and prepared a Site Inspection Report i.e.
Mahazar, and gave it to him and then he handed over the
same alongwith the said certified copy of the computer
extract of search result of property bearing no. 107 alongwith
the certificate of Section 65B Indian Evidence Act, to the CBI
vide SeizurecumProduction Memo dated 11.11.2015, which
is Ex.PW22/C (D46), which bears his signature and official
seal at point 'A'.
83. In crossexamination, PW22 has stated that as soon as
they enter house no. 107, their computer system will show
results in respect of 107, ABC etc. automatically.
CC No. 96/2016 Page 85 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
84. PW22 has also been crossexamined on behalf of
accused persons and in the crossexamination conducted on
behalf A4, it is suggested on behalf of CBI that a wrong
report has been submitted. If it was so, then A4 could have
produce the documents showing about the existence of the
said address but no such witness has been examined nor any
record had been brought on record. Only a suggestion has
been given that witness has given a false report at the
instance of CBI on behalf of A1 and nothing more has been
brought on record. Noone is claiming that the said address
was existing. Moreover, the documents allegedly submitted in
the name of Mohan Kumar, as per allegations of the CBI, were
on behalf of A1, who is not claiming anything about this
address. So, from the evidence of these witnesses, it is proved
that the address 107B, Old M.C. Road, Mandya, was not
existing and false address was given in the documents and
application form submitted in RPO, Bangalore, while applying
for reissue of the passport in the name of Mohan Kumar.
85. PW12 Ms. R. Amarjothi has deposed that she is posted
as Assistant Passport Officer in Regional Passport Office,
Bangalore since 2014. In the year 1982, she joined Regional
Passport Office, Bangalore as an LDC and since then she is
working in RPO, Bangalore on various posts. During the
investigation of the case, she had handed over certain
CC No. 96/2016 Page 86 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
documents to CBI on the directions of Sh. P. S. Karthigeyan,
IFS, Regional Passport Officer, Bangalore, vide seizure cum
production memo dated 9.12.2015, Ex.PW12/1 (D60),
which bears her signatures at point A on each page. She has
further deposed that she provided the scanned copies of the
documents to the CBI officials as originals were not there and
she had also provided the certificates under Section 65B of
the Evidence Act as an authentication to those documents.
The originals were not available because as per their
retention policy/period, non scanned copies used to be
retained for a period of five years and the scanned copies are
kept for a period of one year. These scanned documents,
which she had provided, were scanned around the year 2000.
After the retention period was over for the scanned/non
scanned copies, the originals were destroyed.
(i) She has further deposed that she had been shown the
extract of the passport writing register for the date 20.1.1989
and vide serial no. 3355 in file no. 19/51783 of 1988, the
passport number F004555 was issued to Enayath Akmal Khan
S/o Enayath Ulla Khan R/o 35, 2nd Cross, Wahab Garden,
Bensoi Town, Bangalore. This entry was made by Ms K. S.
Shobha, the then LDC at point A. She has identified her
writing as she had worked with her and acquainted with her
writing. The said print out of the scanned copy of passport
CC No. 96/2016 Page 87 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
writing register extract is Ex.PW12/2 (D53) along with the
said scanned copies, she had provided one certificate under
Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW12/3 (D53) and
it bears her signatures and official seal at point A.
(ii) PW12 Ms. R. Amarjothi has further deposed that she
vide computer print out status of file no. BNGE01193598, the
passport no. A6705840 dated 1.1.1999 was issued in the
name of Mohan Kumar S/o Sh. Damodar R/o 107/B, Old M.
C. Road, Azad Nagar, Mandya, Karnataka, which was valied
upto 31.12.2008 and pre verification is mentioned therein.
The said print out is Ex.PW12/4 (D54) and the PVR status
data was not available. The said document bears her
signatures and official seal at point A. She had provided one
certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act along
with the said scanned copies, which is Ex.PW12/5 (D54) and
it also bears her signatures and official seal at point A.
(iii) PW12 Ms. R. Amarjothi has further deposed that she
has seen the certified/scanned copy of the FAX regarding
confirmation of passport particulars sent on 4.7.2008 vide
no.26/CON/00170/08, vide which the said FAX was sent to
Indian Consulate Sydney, Australia and the details of passport
no. A6705840 in the name of Mohan Kumar S/o Sh.
Damodar vide file no. BNGE01193598 issued from Bangalore
on 1.1.1999. The said scanned copy is Ex.PW12/6 (2 pages)
CC No. 96/2016 Page 88 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
(D55) and it bears her signatures and official seal at point A
on each page. Along with the said document, she had
provided the certificate under Section 65B of Indian
Evidence Act, which is Ex.PW12/7 (D55) and it bears her
signatures and official seal at point A.
(iv) PW12 Ms. R. Amarjothi has further deposed that she
has seen the scanned and attested copy of passport
application of Mohan Kumar, vide which on 10.12.1998
applicant Mohan Kumar S/o Sh. Damodar R/o 107/B Old. M.
C. Road, Azad Nagar, Mandya, Karnataka had filed one
passport application form. The mother's name is mentioned
as Parvathi and wife's name is written as Sumathi. Sh.
Nagender Babu, the then LDC, had received the fee in cash in
file no. E11935 of the year 1998 in the name of Mohan
Kumar, which is already exhibited as Ex.PW11/G (D56) and
she has identified the initials of Sh. Nagender Babu on the
said cash receipt at point A as she has worked with him and
well acquainted with his signatures/initials. The said scanned
receipt also bears her signatures and official seal at point B.
(v) PW12 Ms. R. Amarjothi has further deposed that the
passport application form dated 10.12.1998 was filed by one
Sh. Rajashekhar R/o 14/2, First Cross, 2nd Main, R. T. Nagar,
Bangalore on 10.12.1998 under the authority, which was
given by Mohan Kumar vide authority letter dated
CC No. 96/2016 Page 89 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
10.12.1998, which is Ex.PW12/8 (part of D56), which bears
her signatures and official seal at point A. The said passport
application form is Ex.PW12/9 (running into 4 pages)
(part of D56), which bears her signatures and official seal at
point A on each page. Along with the passport application
form, there were certain documents enclosed with it i.e. one
ration card having no. 5210812 in the name of Mohan and
the family members were shown as Mohan, Damodar
(father), Parvathi (mother), Sumathi (wife), Sudarshan
(younger brother), Sumana (sister) and Akshata (daughter).
The said ration card is Ex.PW12/10 (part of D56) (running
into 2 pages), which bears her signatures and official seal at
point A. Along with the said passport application form, one
passport no. F004555 in the name of Mohan Kumar S/o Sh.
Damodar R/o 107/B, Old. M. C. Road, Azad Nagar, Mandya,
Karnataka was also attached. The same is Ex.PW12/11 (part
of D56) (running into 4 pages), which bears her signatures
and official seal at point A. She had provided the scanned
copies of the ration card no. 5210812 and old passport vide
no. F004555, an authority letter dated 10.12.1998 and copy
of passport application form vide file no. BNGE01193598 in
respect of Mohan Kumar and to authenticate these scanned
copies, she had provided a certificate under Section 65B of
Indian Evidence Act and the same is Ex.PW12/12 (part of D
CC No. 96/2016 Page 90 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
56), which bears her signatures and official seal at point A.
(vi) On perusal of Ex.PW12/9, PW12 Ms. R. Amarjothi has
further deposed that the said passport application form was
checked by Smt. Lalitha Lakshmanan, the then Assistant at
Regional Passport Office, Bangalore. Her initials along with
her remarks as Rs.300/ and checked are mentioned at point
B on first page.
(vii) PW12 Ms. R. Amarjothi has further deposed that
during the course of checking, the contents of the passport
application form, she had checked the same with the
enclosures attached with the passport application form and
she had made her initials regarding the same on ration card
exhibited Ex.PW12/10 on page 2 at point C. On perusal of
the document Ex.PW12/11, she has stated that Smt. Lalitha
Lakshmanan, the then Assistant had also put her initials at
point B on the passport at page 1. She had also appended the
cancelled stamp and put her initials at point B on Ex.PW12/9
at page 2. The duty of the assistant, who received and
checked the passport application forms and enclosure may
again check the originals of the enclosed documents and
verify the contents of the same with the enclosures and the
details of passport application forms as mentioned therein.
(viii) PW12 Ms. R. Amarjothi has further deposed that in
case passport is being applied for the first time, an index card
CC No. 96/2016 Page 91 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
is maintained in which his photographs, signatures, personal
particulars etc. are mentioned. These cards are kept in
alphabetic order of the name of the applicant like dictionary
so that it is easily located. When the applicant applies again
for the passport or renewal/reissue of the passport, as per
procedure, first of all the index card is checked as to whether
the same tallies with the photographs and particulars of the
applicant mentioned therein.
(ix) PW12 Ms. R. Amarjothi has further deposed that
according to Ex.PW12/9 at page 4, in the present case, when
the index card was not available as per the noting of Mr. S.
Bharnidharan, the then LDC. The noting is encircled at point
B, which bears signatures of S. Bharnidharan at point C. She
identified his signatures being his colleague. After this
noting, the file, containing the bunch of such applications,
was sent to Suspect Index Section for checking prior approval
category. In those days, file used to contain the bunch of
documents. Prior approval category means that the said
section should check as to whether there is any warning card
like criminal cases etc. pending against the applicant. She
had conducted prior approval category check in the present
matter. She did not find any warning card against the
applicant Mohan Kumar and she put a stamp "no adverse".
Her signatures and stamp noting are at point D.
CC No. 96/2016 Page 92 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
(x) PW12 Ms. R. Amarjothi has further deposed that
then the file was sent to Passport Issuing Authority i.e. Smt.
Jayashree Dattatray Rahate, who directed to "Rescreen DOB
as per old PPT". DOB means date of birth and PPT means
passport. The said noting is at point E on Ex.PW12/9 (page
4) and initials of Jayashree Dattatray Rahate are at point F.
On perusal of Ex.PW12/9, she had made a change in date of
birth column in column no.3 in her own hand writing, which
is at point A1. PW12 has identified the signatures of A2 as
she has seen her writing and signing during the official course
of duty.
(xi) PW12 Ms. R. Amarjothi has further deposed that on
her direction, Smt. T. R. Leelavathi, the then LDC, had made a
noting "rescreened d/b as per old ppt. If approved, May
grant with ECR C & R old ppt". D/b means date of birth and
ppt means passport and ECR means Immigration Check
Required. C & R means cancelled and returned. The said
noting is at point G on Ex.PW12/9 (page 4) and initials of
Smt. T. R. Leelavathi are at point H. She has also identified
the writing and signatures of T. R. Leelawathi as she had
worked with her.
(xii) PW12 Ms. R. Amarjothi has further deposed that
according to Ex.PW12/9 at page 4, there is a stamp of
"checked with ordinary index/no card available" and there is
CC No. 96/2016 Page 93 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
noting that "rescreened d/b noted" at point J. Hence a new
card was placed by Sh. S. Bharanidharan since the old one
was not available. Thereafter the file was sent to Passport
Writing Section for writing the passport and the passport no.
A6705840 on 1.1.1999 was assigned to the applicant and it
was written by Sreenivasaiah, the then LDC and then it was
sent for lamination. The noting and initials of Sreenivasaiha
are at point K & L respectively. The said passport was signed
by Sh. D. N. Shah (A3), who was the Assistant at that time
but he was given signing powers to sign the passports due to
shortage of officers. The signatures of Sh. D. N. Shah (A3)
are at point M.
(xiii) PW12 Ms. R. Amarjothi has further deposed that D. N.
Shah (A3) was required to see the photograph on the
application form and the details on the first page of the
application and approval of granting officers. However, once
the concerned sections had processed the file, he was
required to sign the passport. At that time, the passport
writing register was with section head of the Passport Writing
Section and was used to be kept in a cupboard. After one
year, it used to be consigned to record room.
(xiv) PW12 Ms. R. Amarjothi has further deposed that she
does not remember if there was any police verification or not
in this matter. Ex.PW12/4 is a downloaded print out of status
CC No. 96/2016 Page 94 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
of the passport no. A6705840 issued in the name of Mohan
Kumar showing the pre verification mode but subsequently
showing that no data regarding the status of pre verification
report was available, which means that although the matter
was sent for police verification but no police verification was
received in the office.
(xv) During the examination of this witness, objection was
raised that she was identifying the signatures of accused
persons on the basis of the names written under the
signatures with the pencil on Ex.PW12/9, to which the
witness has explained that she had written the names when
IO/Insp. T. Rajashekhar asked her and other officials as to
who had signed at the relevant notings at page no.4 and she
wrote the names in pencil at Bangalore office itself.
(xvi) PW12 Ms. R. Amarjothi has further deposed that
during the course of investigation, Sh. P. S. Karthigeyan, IFS,
Regional Passport Officer, Bangaluru vide letter dated
8.12.2015, addressed to Sh. T. Rajashekhar (PW125),
Inspector of Police, ACB, Bangaluru, had directed her to
appear and submit the documents with PW25. The original
file pertaining to issue of passport no. A6705840 dated
1.1.1999 issued to Mohan Kumar vide file no.
BNGE01193598 had been weeded out and destroyed. So the
entire scanned copy of the said file (duly attested along with
CC No. 96/2016 Page 95 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
all the documents) was required to be given. The file of
passport no. F004555 dated 20.1.1989 vide file no.
19/51783/88 was not available as said file was weeded out
and destroyed and the scanned copy of the extract of passport
writing registered (duty attested) was required to be given.
The said letter is Ex.PW12/13 (D59). The witness has
identified the signatures of Sh. P. S. Karthigeyan at point A as
she had worked with him and had seen him writing and
signing. She had also identified the attested copy of the
status print out of file no. BNGE00729498 vide which the
passport no. A6007015 was issued in the name of Enayath
Akmal Khan S/o Enayathulla Khan R/o 35, Wahab Garden,
2nd Cross, First Floor, Benson Town Post, J. C. Nagar Police
Station, Bangalore560046, on 27.8.1998 from RPO
Bangalore. Enayath Akmal Khan had applied for the same on
5.8.1998. P. V. Mode mentioned in the said document as PRE
VERIFICATION and PVR status was shown as clear. The said
document is Ex.PW12/14 (D57), bearing her signatures and
official seal at point A. She also had given a certificate under
Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, which is
Ex.PW12/15 (D57).
(xvii) PW12 Ms. R. Amarjothi has further deposed that
Enayath Akmal Khan had applied for the passport on 5th
August 1998 through Mars Tours & Travels and the letter of
CC No. 96/2016 Page 96 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
Mars Tours & Travesl addressed to Passport Officer, Bangalore
and the authority letter are collectively Ex.PW12/16 (part
of D58), bearing her signatures and official seal at point A
on each page and the certificate under Section 65B of the
Indian Evidence Act, which is Ex.PW12/17 (part of D58).
The scanned copy of receipt Ex.PW12/18 is in respect of fee
of Rs.300/ received with the application of Enayath Akmal
Khan on 05.08.1998 in file no. E07294, which was taken by
Sh. Nagender Babu, the then LDC. He had also filed copy of
ration card in the name of Ms Rashida Begum. The scanned
copy of said ration card is Ex.PW12/19 (part of D58)
bearing her official seal and signatures at point A. She has
further deposed that he had submitted the copy of previous
passport having perforated passport no. F004555 issued on
20.1.1989 from RPO, Bangalore. The said scanned copy of
passport is Ex.PW12/20 (part of D58), bearing her
signatures and official seal at point A on each page. The
scanned copy of the passport application form of Enayath
Akmal Khan is Ex.PW12/21 (part of D58) (running into 4
pages), bearing her signatures and official seal at point A. She
has also given certificate under Section 65B of the Indian
Evidence Act, which is already exhibited as Ex.PW12/17.
(xviii) PW12 Ms. R. Amarjothi had further deposed that
Ex.PW12/21 was checked by M. A. Nalinakshan, the then
CC No. 96/2016 Page 97 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
UDC and PW12 has identified his writing and initials at point
A. In column 12 & 13, Mr. Nalinakshan had written "C & R
Old PPT". On page 4 of Ex.PW12/21, Smt. Krupajyothi, the
then LDC, had checked the particulars of the passport
application form and document from the index card and had
made the noting and stamp at point A and her initials are at
point B. She had mentioned the file number as
19/51783/B/88 and 8/804/94. The previous file number
was also mentioned on the copy of passport of Enayath
Akmal Khan, which is already Ex.PW12/20. Smt. Saramma
Jacob, the then LDC, had searched the warning index card to
ascertain any criminal case against the applicant and she
appended the stamp of "no adverse" at page 4 of Ex.PW12/21
and initials were made at point A. The said stamp and initials
are at point A1. Sh. S. Y. Chauhan, the then Superintendent,
had made a noting "grant with ECR CR, old PPT" at point A.
The said noting and initials of Sh. S. Y. Chauhan at point C.
PW12 has also identified his hand writing and signatures as
she had worked with him and has seen him writing and
signing. The noting regarding the passport no. A6007015
allotted to Enayath Akmal Khan was made by Smt. S. Geetha,
the then LDC, at point D. PW12 has also identified her
writing and signatures.
(xix) During crossexamination, PW12 Ms. R. Amarjothi was
CC No. 96/2016 Page 98 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
asked to point out the difference between the scanned copy
of the passport issued in the name of Enayath Akmal Khan
and also in the name of Mohan Kumar, on which she has
stated that passport no. F004555, which was allotted to
Enayath Akmal Khan could not be allotted to two persons.
She has also pointed out that contents of Ex.PW12/11 and
Ex.PW12/20 were entirely different, but the photographs are
same and further opined that Ex.PW12/11 is a false and fake
document. She has also deposed that the photograph pasted
on Ex.PW12/19 is different from the photograph pasted on
Ex.PW12/11. She has further deposed that Ex.PW12/11 is
the tampered version of Ex.PW12/20.
(xx) PW12 Ms. R. Amarjothi had further deposed that at the
time of applying for reissue of the passport, particulars of the
passport used to be checked, however, due to rush they did
not go deeply in the same.
86. PW25 Insp. T. Rajashekhara has further deposed that
during the investigation from the statements of Sh. R.
Cheluvaraja, Sh. Prabhuswami and Sh. Swamigowda, he
came to know that the address i.e. 107/B, Old MC Road,
Azad Nagar, Mandya, furnished in the passport issued in the
name of Mohan Kumar, son of Damodar is not existed. He
had also personally visited Old MC Road, Azad Nagar,
CC No. 96/2016 Page 99 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
Mandya and found that the said house i.e. House No. 107/B
was not existed. He examined one Sh. P. Mohan, resident of
Mandya and he had stated that he was residing in the said
locality for the last 20 years and did not have any passport.
He approached Smt. Rasheeda Begum, mother of Sh. Enayath
Akmal Khan. She identified and confirmed that the ration
card bearing no. 680813 was her. He also recorded the
statement of Sh. Enayath Akmal Khan, who told that the
passport No. F004555 was issued in his name by the RPO,
Bangalore. He has stated that the said original passport was
produced before the Passport Authority at the time of
renewal/ reissue and after cancelling and affixing the
"CANCELLED" stamp by the concerned officials of the RPO,
Bangalore, returned to him. He had stated that due to family
dispute, he shifted his family from Benson Town to Arabic
College Area of Bangalore and while shifting, he lost the said
passport no. F004555. He also received a letter dated
11.12.2015, Ex.PW19/DA from Sh. P. S. Karthigeyan, RPO,
Bangalore. He had also stated that the passport number is a
unique number and it cannot be allotted to two persons. The
Index Card is used to be maintained at the passport office, to
verify the previous details of the passport, personal details,
etc. During investigation, PW25 also came to know that the
passport entry register was also maintained in the RPO
CC No. 96/2016 Page 100 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
concerned at the relevant period and there was an entry in
the passport writing register of passport bearing no. F004555,
in the name of Enayath Akmal Khan. He also issued notices
under Section 160 Cr.PC to Sh. Rajashekhar, resident of
House No. 14/2, 01st Cross, Second Main, R.T. Nagar,
Bangalore. The said notice dated 12.12.2015, Ex.PW6/A and
deputed Sh. T.V. Somasunder and Sh. N. Kumaraswami
Shankar, Head Constables to serve the said notice. They
visited the said locality, made inquiries and furnished the
report Ex.PW6/B. Thereafter, on completion of part
investigation, he forwarded the collected documents,
statements, to Sh. R. K. Sinha, Inspector, CBI, through Sh. S.
C. Dandriyal, Additional SP, CBI, BS&FC, Bangalore.
87. To corroborate about the scanned documents of
Enayath Akmal Khan and of Mohan Kumar, PW14 Sh. P. N.
Nagendra Babu has also been examined, who has deposed
that he joined Regional Passport Office, Bangalore, as LDC on
06.04.1998 and since then he has been working in Regional
Passport Office, Bangalore on different posts. He worked in
Policy Section, Counter & Passport Writing Section and
Report Section. He has deposed that in case of reissue of
passport, the old passport has to be submitted alongwith the
application form. Two personal particulars form are the part
and parcel of the application form, which the applicant is
CC No. 96/2016 Page 101 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
required to submit to conduct police verification. Index Card
is a part of the application form, which contains the entire
details of the applicant alongwith his photograph and kept by
the passport office. These details are filled up by the
applicant himself and the applicant takes oath about the
correctness of the particulars given therein. The previously
issued passport number is required to be quoted in the Index
Card at the time of reissue of the passport. In the Passport
Writing Register, the sequence of the passport number are
entered alongwith the name and other particulars. In 1998,
the Passport Writing Register and Index Card were used to be
maintained. In 2010, computerized system was installed in
the office and since then the aforesaid documents are being
maintained in soft form.
(i) PW14 Sh. P. N. Nagendra Babu has further deposed
that role of the Passport Officer or Granting Officer is to
verify the contents of the passport submitted alongwith the
application form and cancel the passport and send the
application for fee collection. In case of reissue of passport,
the alphabet generated is 'E', which is understood as reissued
and the application will be processed based on the contents
of the application. The Index Card is to be checked and the
file number is to be noted on the Index Card.
(ii) PW14 Sh. P. N. Nagendra Babu has further deposed
CC No. 96/2016 Page 102 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
that he has seen Ex.PW12/2, the passport bearing no. F
004555 which was issued to Sh. Enayat Akmal Khan.
According to Ex.PW12/14, passport bearing no. A6007015
was issued to Mr. Enayath Akmal Khan on 27.08.1998 vide
file no. BNGE00729498 from RPO, Bangalore. The
application was submitted by Enayath Akmal Khan through
an authorized representative from Mars Tours & Travels
alongwith an authorization on behalf of Enayath Akmal Khan
to issue the passport, which are collectively Ex.PW12/16
(Colly.). PW14 has further deposed that after collection of
fee, the file used to be sent for checking of index card to
make the reference of the present application on the Index
Card kept by the office and the previous file number and any
other service taken by the applicant are quoted on the present
application form and warning cards are also checked if
available.
(iii) PW14 Sh. P. N. Nagendra Babu has further deposed
that Smt. Saramma Jacob, the then LDC, had put the stamp
of 'No Adverse' after verifying the Warning Card at point 'A1'
of Ex.PW12/21. PW14 has identified her initials and
signatures. He has also identified the initials at point C of Sh.
S. Y. Chavan, the then Superintendent, wrote "grant with ECR
CR, old PPT" and appended his initials, which means that the
file is sent for passport writing with ECR status i.e.
CC No. 96/2016 Page 103 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
immigration check required and the old passed is cancelled
and returned to the holder.
(iv) PW14 Sh. P. N. Nagendra Babu has further deposed
that thereafter file was sent to Passport Writing Section after
the grant, the passport was written by Smt. S. Geetha bearing
no. A6007015 at point D on Ex.PW12/21. He has also
identified writing and signatures of Smt. S. Geetha at point D.
He has also identified the notings of M. A. Nalinakshan at
point A on Ex.PW12/21, page 2, serial no.13, who had
cancelled and returned old passport to the authorized
representative. He had not put the stamp of the
"CANCELLED" due to shortage of the stamps. The file no.
BNGE011935 was initially checked by Smt. Lalitha Laxmanan
(A4) on application form exhibited as Ex.PW12/9 at point B.
PW14 has identified the initials and hand writing of Smt.
Lalitha Laxmanan (A4) at point B. Thereafter, a fee of
Rs.300/ was collected by him and his initials are at point A
on Ex.PW11/G. The application was filed by authorized
representative Mr. Rajashekahar duly authorized by Sh.
Mohan Kumar vide authority letter Ex.PW12/8.
(v) PW14 Sh. P. N. Nagendra Babu has further deposed
that file bearing no. BNGE011935 of 1998 was generated
with the application of Mohan Kumar. The ration card was
submitted by Mohan Kumar vide Ex.PW12/10 contained the
CC No. 96/2016 Page 104 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
family particulars of Mr. Mohan at point Z. Copy of passport
no. F004555 in the name of Mohan Kumar, dated 20.1.1989
issued by the RPO, Bangalore, Ex.PW12/11, initialed at first
page by Smt. Lalitha Laxmanan at point B. The signatures of
Lalitha Laxmanan at points B and C mean that the passport
was verified and signed with original documents. It also
means that any signatures done on the enclosures of the
passport application were verified with originals. Smt.
Lalitha Laxmanan had put a cancelled stamp on page 2 of
Ex.PW12/9 at point B along with the initials. He has also
identified her signatures.
(vi) PW14 Sh. P. N. Nagendra Babu has further deposed
that after verifying the index, Sh. Bharanidharan had put a
stamp, no card available and hence, no previous file numbers
were noted on the application B. Thereafter, the file was sent
for granting of the application to Superintendent Smt.
Jayashree Rahate (A2), who had written to rescreen the
date of birth as per old passport copy submitted along with
the application at point E. The application was further sent to
the Dealing Section for the screening of date of birth and the
file was further put up by Smt. T. R. Leelawati at point G with
a noting "rescreen DOB as per old passport. If approved, may
grant with ECR, cancelled and returned old passport".
Thereafter, the file was initialed by Smt. Jayashree Rahate (A
CC No. 96/2016 Page 105 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
2) at point Y and sent for Passport Writing Section. The
passport bearing no. A6705840 was written by Mr.
Srinivasaiah dated 1.1.1999. He has identified the writing
and initials of Mr. Srinivasaiah at point K and L. As a usual
procedure, after writing of the passport, the passport is sent
to the signatory authority. In this case, initials have been
made by Mr. D. N. Shah (A3) at point M, who had signed the
passport.
(vii) PW14 Sh. P. N. Nagendra Babu has further deposed
that the number C15123 at point Z1 on Ex.PW12/9 signifies
that the passport was dispatched to Sh. Mohan Kumar with
the address mentioned in the application. Similarly on
Ex.PW12/21, no. B11037 at point X1 is the speed post
number pertaining to Mr. Enayath Akmal Khan, which was
the passport being posted to his address as per the
application. The speed post and registered numbers are
generated by the system itself.
(viii) PW14 Sh. P. N. Nagendra Babu has further deposed
that according to the instructions received from Ministry, they
have to only check the name, photograph and passport being
prepared and the signing authority also has to check if the file
is granted or not. PW14 has deposed that during the
investigation by the CBI, he was also present along with Smt.
K. N. Usha and Sh. Sharanappa H. Talwar while the passport
CC No. 96/2016 Page 106 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
manual 2001 was seized by the CBI authorities in his
presence from Smt. K. N. Usha, Passport Granting Officer,
RPO, Bangalore vide production cum seizure memo dated
19.1.2016, Ex.PW14/A (D75). He has identified the
signatures of Smt. K. N. Usha at point A and Sh. Sharanappa
H. Talwar, Passport Granting Officer, RPO, Bangalore at point
B. The passport manual 2001 is collectively Ex.PW14/B (D
74). They used to follow the passport manual and
instructions given therein.
88. PW4 is Sh. Maruthi Prasanna B. V.. He is working as
Tehsildar. He was asked to produce the details of election I
card in the name of Mohan Kumar S/o Damodar, Damodar,
Parvathi W/o Damodar and Sumathi W/o Mohan Kumar,
residing at 107/B, Old M. C. Road, Azad Nagar, Mandya,
Karnataka, by PW25, Sh. T. Rajshekhar, Inspector, CBI vide
letter dated 11.11.2015, Ex.PW4/A (D51). He gave his
report on 13.11.2015, according to which the above referred
persons names do not appear in the electoral rolls for the
period 1995 to 2005 and also in 2015 electoral roll. His
report is Ex.PW4/B (D52).
89. PW6 Sh. M. Kumaraswamy Shankar has deposed that
during investigation, IO, T. Rajashekhara CBI, ACB, Banglore,
gave one notice under Section 160 CrPC dated 12.12.2015 to
CC No. 96/2016 Page 107 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
be served on Sh. Rajashekhar at 14/2, First Cross, 2nd Main,
R. T. Nagar, J. C. Nagar, Bangalore32, Ex.PW6/A (D77),
bearing the signatures of Inspector T. Rajshekhar at point A.
He alongwith Head Constable Soma Sundaram was deputed
for the service of the said notice. They went personally for
verification and found that R.T. Nagar and J. C. Nagar are
two different localities. They had also verified from the
concerned post offices of R. T. Nagar and J. C. Nagar, who
stated that the above said address was not available in the
aforesaid localities. They went to the Indane Gas distributor
also. He also told that such address was not available in their
records/computer system. Then on 22.12.2015, they
prepared a report in this regard, Ex.PW6/B (D77), which
bears his signatures.
90. PW13 Insp. K. Prabhakar has deposed that he is posted
as an Inspector in District Special Branch, Mandya, O/o The
Superintendent of Police, Mandya District, since 16.09.2015.
Sh. T. Rajashekhar, Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Bangalore
had addressed the letter dated 10.11.2015 to SP, Mandya
with a request to direct the concerned official to verify from
the records maintained in the office about police verification
conducted with regard to passport of Mohan Kumar, son of
Damodar, resident of 107/B, Old MC Road, Azad Nagar,
Mandya, Karnataka. The letter was received in his office by
CC No. 96/2016 Page 108 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
the concerned clerk. The said letter is Ex.PW13/A (D49,
two pages), bearing the signatures of concerned Clerk and
official seal of SP, Mandya at point 'A'.
(i) PW13 has further deposed that on receipt of said letter,
SP, Mandya deputed him for the passport verification of
Mohan Kumar. He verified from the record the passport
verification details of Mohan Kumar, son of Damodar, DOB
24.07.1959, resident of 107/B, Old MC Road, Azad Nagar,
Mandya. On verification of the registers of his Branch, it was
found that no police verification was conducted about said
person at the said address and issued any report. As per
record, during the period 01.01.1999 to 31.12.2009, their
Branch had not received any requisition from RPO, Bangalore
for conducting any passport verification. He submitted his
report in this regard to SP, Mandya, dated 11.11.2015,
Ex.PW13/B (D50, running into 05 pages), bearing his
signature at points 'A', on each page. This report is also
mentioning the names of the persons, whose passport
verification was done by their Branch yearwise from 1999 to
2009. This report Ex.PW13/B was forwarded by Sh. Gulabrao
Bhushan G. Bhorase, IPS, SP, Mandya to Police Inspector, CBI,
ACB, Bangalore, vide forwarding letter dated 11.11.2015,
Ex.PW13/C (D50) and he has identified the signatures and
official seal of SP, Mandya at point 'A'.
CC No. 96/2016 Page 109 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
91. PW15 is Sh. Prabhaswamy. He was posted as Postman
in Mandya Head Post Office since 1991. He joined the postal
department as a temporary postman in the year 1978. From
2001 to 2003, he worked as a postman in beat no.1, which
consisted of Azad Nagar, Old M. C. Road, Shankar Pura etc.
He has seen the scanned copy of passport, Ex.PW12/11 and
stated that the address mentioned at point B pertaining to
Mohan Kumar S/o Damodar at no. 107/B, Old M. C. Road,
Azad Nagar, Mandya is a false address as no such address
exists in Azad Nagar area of Mandya nor any person in the
name of Mohan Kumar exists in that area.
92. PW19 is Sh. P. S. Karthigeyan. He is posted at RPO,
Bengaluru since 2013. He joined the IFS in September 2004.
After seeing Ex.PW12/13, he has stated that vide letter dated
08.12.2015, he had directed the Assistant Passport Officer
PW12 Ms. R. Amarjothi, posted at RPO, Bengaluru to hand
over the entire scanned copies of the documents pertaining to
file no. BNGE01193958, for issue of passport bearing no.
A6705840, dated 01.01.1999 issued in the name of Mohan
Kumar and also scanned copy of passport no. F004555 dated
20.01.1989, vide file no. 19/51873/88, which was issued to
Enayath Akmal Khan and reissued on 27.08.1998, vide file
no. BNGE00729498 and other related documents. She was
asked to give the scanned copies as the originals of the same
CC No. 96/2016 Page 110 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
were weeded out and destroyed. He has identified his
signatures at point 'A' on Ex.PW12/13. He directed PW12
Ms. Amarjothi to go to the Policy Section to take out the
scanned copies of the said documents and to handover the
same to the CBI. All the files relating to the passports are
being maintained in digitalized format in the computers,
whereas, he had assigned the job of supplying scanned copies
of the documents to the Policy Section.
93. PW23 is Sh. Enayath Akmal Khan. After seeing the
copy of passport Ex.PW12/20, he has stated that he had
applied for the passport in the year 1988 in RPO, Bangalore.
Alongwith the application form, he had submitted copy of
ration card in the name of his mother Smt. Rashida Begum
and an affidavit. Thereafter, he was issued a passport bearing
no. F004555 on 20.01.1989. He has also identified his
photograph at points 'E' on each page and also his signatures
at points 'S' on the second page on the scanned copy of the
passport Ex.PW12/20. The said passport was issued for a
period of five years. He got the same renewed in 1994 for
further five years. Then, in the year 1998, he had applied for
the reissue of the passport in RPO, Bangalore. At the time of
reissue, he had submitted copy of the said ration card,
Ex.PW12/19 and copy of old passport, Ex.PW12/20.
(i) He has seen the scanned copy of passport Ex.PW12/21,
CC No. 96/2016 Page 111 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
and he has identified his photographs appearing at points 'E
1' and 'E2', at page nos. 1 & 3. He has also identified his
signatures on the said documents at page nos. 1, 3 & 4, at
points 'E3', 'E4' & 'E5'. At the time of reissue of the
passport, he had taken with him the original passport bearing
no. F004555 and had showed it to the concerned officer of
RPO, Bangalore, who had cancelled the said passport by
appending the "cancelled" stamp after verifying the
particulars. After completion of the formalities, he was
informed that passport would be sent to him through post,
but he did not receive the same. The said cancelled passport
No. F004555 was lost when he had shifted his house in the
year 1999. He was not knowing any person in the name of
Mohan Kumar.
94. PW26 Insp. R. K. Sinha has further deposed that part
investigation of this case was entrusted to Sh. T. Rajashekhar,
Inspector CBI, ACB, Bangalore. From the documents it was
revealed that tempered version of passport no. F004555 was
produced by accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan
(A1) alongwith the application for reissue of the passport
claiming that the said passport was issued in the name of Mohan
Kumar. The application was accepted by Smt. Lalitha Laksamanan
(A4), the then Assistant, RPO, Bangalore. The copy of passport
CC No. 96/2016 Page 112 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
bears photograph of different person than those pasted on the
application. There was a difference of date of birth appearing in
the tempered version of old passport no. F004555 enclosed with
the said application. However, this application was accepted by
Smt. Lalitha Lakshmanan (A4) despite these discrepancies. PW26
has further deposed that no index card was found in the name of
Mohan Kumar at RPO, Bangalore. Also the extract of passport
writing register, Ex.PW12/2, clearly shows that passport no.
F004555 was issued in the year 198889 to Sh. Enayath Akmal
Khan. Despite all these facts, the passport was granted by Smt.
Jayashree Rahate (A2), the then passport officer, RPO, Bangalore,
in favour of Mohan Kumar in lieu of passport no. F004555 on
01.01.1999. Accused D. N. Shah (A3) issued passport no.
A6705840 after going through the file. It is further deposed that
request was made with RPO, Bangalore for deputing their officials
for explaining the procedure involved in the issue of passport no.
A6705840 from RPO, Bangalore. Also the relevant passport manual
was requested from them. From examination of the witnesses, it
was revealed that accused Smt. Lalitha Lakshmanan (A4) had
accepted the application for reissue of passport in the name of
Mohan Kumar despite the fact that the photograph pasted on the
application is different from the photograph appearing on the
photocopy of the passport no. F004555 attached with the
application. Smt. Lalitha Lakshmanan (A4) was required to see
CC No. 96/2016 Page 113 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
the original passport bearing no. F004555 and to check the
details/photograph mentioned in the said passport, which was
actually issued in the name of one Enayath Akmal Khan and the
said number could not be issued to two persons. It is further
deposed that during the reissue of the passport at RPO, no Index
Card was found, so the verification was to be made from Passport
Writing Register. Further, accused Smt. Jayashree Rahate (A2),
Passport Granting Officer, despite knowing the fact that no index
card was found in the name of Mohan Kumar and that the passport
writing register was reflecting that passport no. F004555 was
actually issued to Mohan Kumar, had ordered for rescreening of
date of birth of the applicant Mohan Kumar as per old passport, the
copy of which was attached with the application. This order was
made by Smt. Jayashree Rahate (A2) in her own hand writing.
Subsequently, the file went to Sh. D. N. Shah (A3) for issue of
passport, who after going through the entire file, had issued the
passport no. A6705840 in the name of Mohan Kumar on 1.1.1999.
ARGUMENTS
95. Ld. Counsel Sh. Anshuman Sinha, for A1 has
contended that arrest of accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje
@ Chhota Rajan and deportation from Indonesia is not in
dispute. It is further contended that the documents, on which
the prosecution is relying upon, are computer generated
CC No. 96/2016 Page 114 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
supported with the certificate issued u/Sec. 65B of Indian
Evidence Act. It is further contended that the documents
proved by PW12 Ms. Amarjothi and replied upon by the
prosecution are scanned documents, scanning of which was
done by the NIC and according to the evidence of PW12, the
computers which were used by the NIC were discarded in the
year 2010. It is further contended that PW12 Ms. Amarjothi
has not taken the print outs from the computers herself and
these were taken out by the same person from the Policy
Section, which were handed over to PW12 Ms. R. Amarjothi
for submitting before the CBI. So, the certificate given by PW
12 Ms. R. Amarjothi u/Sec. 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is
of no consequence as neither the record was scanned in her
presence nor the print outs were taken in her presence and
she has submitted the print outs to the CBI only. It is further
contended that according to the certificate issued u/Sec.65B
of Indian Evidence Act (D58), it is not mentioned therein
that the documents were scanned in presence of the witness
and further they were maintained in the same computers or
in other computers in the ordinary course of business and
further the witness had taken out the print outs from the
records maintained in the computers.
96. It is further contended that electronic record can be
easily tampered with due to which, the witness has to prove
CC No. 96/2016 Page 115 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
the entire record from the date when the record was created/
produced in the system till it was maintained and further
lastly it was printed from the said system.
97. It is further contended that PW19 had directed
PW12 Ms. R. Amarjothi to obtain the documents from the
Policy Section and in consequence of the same she obtained
the documents from the Policy Section and handed over the
same to the CBI during investigation. It is further contended
that according to crossexamination of PW26, no
investigation was done as to when the scanning of the
documents was conducted and by whom. It is further
contended that PW26 has himself admitted in the cross
examination dated 30.08.2016 at page 05 that they did not
receive any evidence during investigation to the extent that
A1 namely Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan was in
communication with A2, A3 and A4, which itself shows
that there was no meeting of mind to enter in criminal
conspiracy between A1 on one part and A2, A3 & A4 on
the other part.
98. It is further contended that prosecution has not been
able to examine an expert giving any opinion on the
handwriting of the word "M. Kumar" as appearing on
Ex.PW12/9 at points Q2 & Q3. It is further contended that
even according to the case of the prosecution, A1 was out of
CC No. 96/2016 Page 116 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
India long back and even was not present in India when the
alleged application for issuance of passport was given in the
year 1998, so there could not be any possibility of signatures
of A1 on the alleged form vide which passport was applied in
the name of Mohan Kumar. It is further contended that PW11
Sh. Anil Sharma has been examined as Senior Scientific
Officer from Documents Section, CFSL, Delhi, and in the
crossexamination at page 06 of 21.07.2016, Pw11 has
stated that after seeing the questioned signatures marked as
Q3, Q4 & Q5 as well as specimen signatures, it is not
possible to express his opinion due to quality of the aforesaid
reproduced signatures. It is further contended that in view of
the same, A1 cannot be held guilty of cheating, forgery, etc.
99. Ld. Counsel Sh. Anshuman Sinha for A1 has
further relied upon Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act,
which is as under:
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 of any contents of the original or of any fact
stated therein of
which direct evidence would be admissible.
CC No. 96/2016 Page 117 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
(2) The conditions referred to in subsection (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 subsection (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
(c) by different combinations of computers operating in
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.
CC No. 96/2016 Page 118 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
(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 subsection (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 subsection 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.]
CC No. 96/2016 Page 119 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
100. Ld. Counsel Sh. Anshuman Sinha for A1 has further
draws the attention of the court towards electronic record u/Sec.
2(1)(t) , which is as under :
"(t) "electronic record" means data, record or data generated,
image or sound stored, received or sent in an electronic form
or micro film or computer generated micro fiche"
101. Ld. Counsel for A1 has further relied upon Dharamvir
Vs. CBI, Crl.M.C. 1775, 1980 and 6476/2006 (decided on
11.03.2008) and Anwar P. V. Vs. P. K. Basheer, Civil Appeal No.
4226 of 2012 (decided on 18.09.2014).
102. It is further contended that in view of the above settled
proposition of law, the electronic record produced i.e. scanned copy
of the passport application form allegedly given as M. Kumar by A
1 is not duly proved in terms of Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act.
It is further contended that the certificate given and proved by PW
12 is not in compliance of Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act.
Hence, the scanned copy of the passport form with other
documents cannot be stated to be proved against accused A1 in
any manner.
103. Ld. Counsel Sh. Vijay Kr Sharma for A2 Jayashree Rahate
has contended that atleast 56 persons were involved in issuing the
CC No. 96/2016 Page 120 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
passport in the name of M. Kumar on the application given in the
year 1998, but only this accused and other two accused i.e. Deepak
Natwarlal Shah and Lalita Laxmanan have been made accused in
this case, although, PW12 Ms. R. Amarjothi and PW14 P. Nagendra
Babu had also dealt with the application form and besides this Sh.
Barnidharan and Sh. T. R. Leelawathi had also dealt with the
application form given in the name of M. Kumar, but they have not
been examined as witness not called by the CBI. It is further
contended that the file alongwith the documents was produced
before each official, so only this accused A2 Jayshree Rahate
cannot be held responsible for the offences as charged against her.
104. It is further contented that according to Column 3 of
the charges, the period of specified offence is from September 2003
to October 2015, whereas, the alleged scanned copy of the
application form alongwith the documents, which is stated to be
submitted in the passport office Bengaluru is of 1998 and the
passport was issued thereafter. It is further contended that this
accused A2 was one of the official, who according to her duty had
dealt with the passport application form as the other persons had
dealt according to their duties. Ld. Counsel Sh.Vijay Kr. Sharma has
further contended that the accused persons, except A1, who is a
private person, have dealt with the application in the normal course
of business according to their duties, hence are protected u/sec.
CC No. 96/2016 Page 121 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
197 of the Cr.PC and also u/Sec. 16 of the Indian Passport
Act,1967, which is as under :
"197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants.
When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a
public servant not removable from his office save by or with the
sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to
have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in
the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance
of such offence except with the previous sanction
(a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case
may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence
employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the
Central Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case
may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence
employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State
Government: 1 Provided that where the alleged offence was
committed by a person referred to in clause (b) during the period
while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of
the Constitution was in force in a State, clause (b) will apply as
if for the expression" State Government" occurring therein, the
expression" Central Government" were substituted.
(2) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence alleged to
have been committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the
Union while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his
official duty, except with the previous sanction of the Central
Government.
(3) The State Government may, by notification, direct that
the provisions of sub section (2) shall apply to such class or
category of the members of the Forces charged with the
maintenance of public order as may be specified therein,
wherever they may be serving, and thereupon the provisions of
that sub section will apply as if for the expression" Central
Government" occurring therein, the expression" State
Government" were substituted.
(3A) 1 Notwithstanding anything contained in sub section (3),
no court shall take cognizance of any offence, alleged to have
been committed by any member of the Forces charged with the
CC No. 96/2016 Page 122 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
maintenance of public order in a State while acting or
purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty during the
period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article
356 of the Constitution was in force therein, except with the
previous sanction of the Central Government.
(3B) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this
Code or any other law, it is hereby declared that any sanction
accorded by the State Government or any cognizance taken by a
court upon such sanction, during the period commencing on the
20th day of August, 1991 and ending with the date immediately
preceding the date on which the Code of Criminal Procedure
(Amendment) Act, 1991 , receives the assent of the President,
with respect to an offence alleged to have been committed during
the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of
article 356 of the Constitution was in force in the State, shall be
invalid and it shall be competent for the Central Government in
such matter to accord sanction and for the court to take
cognizance thereon.]
(4) The Central Government or the State Government, as the
case may be, may determine the person by whom, the manner in
which, and the offence or offences for which, the prosecution of
such Judge, Magis trate or public servant is to be conducted,
and may specify the Court before which the trial is to be held.
Section 16 of Indian Passport Act, 1967 is reproduced as
under :
16. Protection of action taken in good faith.--No suit,
prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against the
Government or any officer or authority for anything which is in
good faith done or intended to be done under this Act."
105. It is further contended by Ld. Counsel for A2 that
according to Ex.PW12/4 (D54), a report was given by Passport
Sewa Kendra about the details of passport issued in the name of
Mohan Kumar, according to which preverification data was not
CC No. 96/2016 Page 123 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
available. It is further contended that according to another
documents Ex.PW12/6 (D55) titled as Prior Approval Category /
Policy details at page 2, it has been mentioned in the heading of
Action2 that "ppt issued on the basis of VC, no PV received". It is
further contended that according to this document Ex.PW12/6, it is
clear that passport was issued on the basis of verification certificate
and no police verification received, which shows that in fact no
police verification was sent and the passport was issued on the
basis of verification certificate. It is further contended that during
the course of investigation neither it is disclosed as to who had
issued the verification certificate nor any police verification report
has been brought on record.
106. It is further contended that according to the case of the
prosecution, application form was given for issuance of passport on
behalf of A1 submitting with the copy of old passport, ration card
and photographs, which were given in the passport office,
Bengaluru through authorized person R. Shekharan. The scanned
copy of the same is Ex.PW12/18. It is further contended that during
investigation this person R. Shekharan could not be traced out and
PW12 failed to give any opinion on the signatures appeared as
"M.Kumar". It is further contended that in the application form
Ex.PW12/9, the file number of previous passport was given as
19/51783/88, whereas, while issuing the passport another file no.
CC No. 96/2016 Page 124 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
E/11935/98 has been given. It is further contended that if it was
the case of the reissue of the passport, then the file number could
not be changed. It is further contended that Index Card has not
been produced by the prosecution either of M.Kumar's previous
passport or Index Card of Sh. Inayat Akmal Khan.
107. Ld. Counsel Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma for A2 has
contended that according to Ex.PW1/10 (D22), search result
Ex.PW1/11 was given in respect of the revocation of passport no.
G9273860, issued at CGI, Sydney, according to which, this revoked
passport was issued to M. Kumar i.e. A1 on 07.07.2008, whereas
VC was called on 04.07.2008, which itself shows that the officials
at CGI, Sydney were knowing prior in hand that accused A1 will
apply passport on 07.07.2008, but they have not been made a
party. It is further contended that this search result Ex.PW1/11 is
having the photograph of A1, whereas, the particulars is given of
Mohan Kumar and it is admitted fact that accused A1 was never
known as Mohan Kumar nor his address is found to be existing at
the location given i.e. 107/8, Old MC Road, Azad Nagar, Mandya,
Karnataka.
108. Ld. Counsel Sh. S.P.M. Tripathi for A3 has contended
that in view of above arguments addressed on the part of A1 and
A2, there was no meeting of mind in between A1 on one part and
CC No. 96/2016 Page 125 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
A2, A3 & A4 on other part. Hence, there could not be any
criminal conspiracy between the accused persons and offence
u/Sec. 120B of IPC is not proved. It is further contended that
according to PW14, Index Card is not a permanent document. It is
further contended that T. R. Leelawati and Barnidharan have not
been examined as witness, although, they both had dealt with the
application form for issuing passport submitted on behalf of M.
Kumar. It is further contended that according to the statements
recorded u/Sec. 161 Cr.PC, new Index Card was prepared as old
one was not found and this new Index Card has not been produced
before the court in any manner. It is further contended that duty of
A3 was to sign the passport only after it was prepared by the other
officials. It is further contended that the original documents have
not been produced nor the documents are certified so the scanned
copies of the documents with the help of certificate given u/Sec.
65B of Indian Evidence Act cannot be relied upon and are not
admissible in evidence. It is further contended that according to
crossexamination of PW12, even she is not aware about
requirement of Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act and according
to the examinationinchief of PW19, the official from Policy
Section got printed the scanned documents and handed over to PW
12 Ms. R. Amarjothi, who further submitted the same to the CBI.
The person, who had scanned the documents in the system and
who had taken the print outs of the same have not been examined.
CC No. 96/2016 Page 126 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
It is further contended that accused no. 3 is the last official in the
chain of officials, who had dealt with the application for issuing
passport and he was not having any power not to sign the passport
once it was sanctioned and was prepared. It is further contended
that A3 had discharged his official duties during the normal course
of business and his acts are protected u/Sec. 197 of Cr.PC and
Section 16 of the Indian Passport Act.
109. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the
judgement "A. Sivaprakash vs. State of Kerala, 2016 CRI.L.J.
2654", wherein it has been held as under :
"18. It was not even the case set up by the prosecution that
appellant had taken that money from some person and had
obtained any pecuniary advantage thereby. It was the obligation
of the prosecution to satisfy the aforesaid mandatory ingredients
which could implicate the appellant under the provisions of
Section 13(1)(d)(ii). The attempt of the prosecution was to
bring the case within the fold of clause (ii) alleging that he
misused his official position in issuing the certificate utterly fails
as it is not even alleged in the chargesheet and not even iota of
evidence is led as to what kind of pecuniary advantage was
obtained by the appellant in issuing the said letter.
19. In C. Chenga Reddy & Ors. v. State of A.P., (1996) 10 SCC
193, this Court held that even when codal violations were
established and it was also proved that there were irregularities
committed by allotting/ awarding the work in violation of
circulars, that by itself was not sufficient to prove that a criminal
case was made out. The Court went on to hold:
"22. On a careful consideration of the material on the
record, we are of the opinion that though the prosecution
has established that the appellants have committed not
only codal violations but also irregularities by ignoring
CC No. 96/2016 Page 127 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
various circulars and departmental orders issued from
time to time in the matter of allotment of work of jungle
clearance on nomination basis and have committed
departmental lapse yet, none of the circumstances relied
upon by the prosecution are of any conclusive nature and
all the circumstances put together do not lead to the
irresistible conclusion that the said circumstances are
compatible only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
appellants and wholly incompatible with their innocence.
In Abdulla Mohd. Pagarkar v. State (Union Territory of
Goa, Daman and Diu), (1980) 3 SCC 110, under
somewhat similar circumstances this Court opined that
mere disregard of relevant provisions of the Financial
Code as well as ordinary norms of procedural behaviour
of government officials and contractors, without
conclusively establishing, beyond a reasonable doubt, the
guilt of the officials and contractors concerned, may give
rise to a strong suspicion but that cannot be held to
establish the guilt of the accused. The established
circumstances in this case also do not establish criminality
of the appellants beyond the realm of suspicion and, in
our opinion, the approach of the trial court and the High
Court to the requirements of proof in relation to a
criminal charge was not proper...."
20. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the prosecution has
miserably failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt
and the courts below have not looked into the matter in a proper
perspective. We, thus, allow this appeal and set aside the
conviction of the appellant. The appellant is already on bail. His
bail bonds shall stand discharged."
110. It has been contended on behalf of Ms. Lalitha
Laxmanan (A4) by Ld. Counsel Sh. Guru Raj Joshi that photo of
Inayat Akmal Khan, which was found in scanned copy of previous
passport allegedly issued in the name of Mohan Kumar could not be
tallied because of old one and there are always possibilities of
CC No. 96/2016 Page 128 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
change of features in a person over a period of 1015 years. It is
further contended that the accused acted in good faith, hence, her
act is protected u/Sec. 16 of the Passport Act. It is further
contended that if any information was given on which basis the
alleged passport in the name of Mohan Kumar was issued, then the
applicant is responsible and not A4 or the officials of RPO,
Bangalore. It is further contended that according to the case of the
CBI passport No. F004555 was cancelled in the year 1998 when
Inayat Akmal Khan himself applied for passport and according to
his evidence later on he lost the same in the year 1999 when he
had changed the house.
111. It is further contended that there are contradictions in
the depositions of the witness as according to PW23 Inayat Akmal
Khan, he had applied the passport every time individually, whereas,
according to the case of the CBI, Inayat Akmal Khan had applied
the passport through Mars Tours and Travels, which shows that the
documents produced on record and exhibited in respect of
authority letter of M/s Mars Tours and Travels stated to be signed
by Inayat Akmal Khan is false documents. It is further contended
that the application which CBI is relying upon and is exhibited as
Ex.PW12/21 given by Inayat Akmal Khan for issuance of passport
was incomplete, whereas the application given on behalf of Mohan
Kumar was complete in all respect, so, there was no reason to
CC No. 96/2016 Page 129 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
suspect the application given in the name of Mohan Kumar for
issuance of passport. It is further contended that under
circumstances either PW23 has falsely deposed before the court or
he had facilitated the scanned copy of the passport or ppt no.
F004555 was forged one, which might have been produced before
the RPO, Bangalore at the time of giving the application because
according to PW23, the passport no. F004555 was cancelled when
he applied for the issuance of the passport or there is possibility for
copy of the scanned passport no. F004555 was taken from the
record of the RPO, Bangalore and then it was forged and fabricated
in the name of Mohan Kumar and was annexed as a document with
the application form, which was given for issuance of passport in
the name of Mohan Kumar. It is further contended that A4 was
merely a Window Clerk. Her duty was to receive the application
form and to check and tally the particulars only and thereafter
before granting the passport, the documents were required to be
checked with the Index Card and/or with the Passport Writing
Register and in this case Index Card could not be found and also it
has been come on record that Index Card was prepared, but no
such Index Card has been produced on record nor any witness in
this respect has been examined.
112. It is further contended that the Passport Manual 2001 is
being relied upon by the CBI, whereas, the case of issuance of
CC No. 96/2016 Page 130 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
passport in the name of Mohan Kumar is of 1998.
113. It is further contended that according to the CBI, the
passport issued in the name of Mohan Kumar was sent through post
and simultaneously it had been brought on record in the evidence
that the address was not existing, which was given in the passport
application form, so how the passport was delivered and to whom
and when, is not on record.
114. It is further contended that according to the documents
placed on record, A1 was out of India since 198485, then how
CFSL report dated 31.12.2015 can be given establishing the fact
that signatures of Mohan Kumar appearing on the application
submitted with the RPO, Bangalore and also on enclosed authority
letter given in the name of R. Shekharan are of accused Chota
Rajan only.
115. It is further contended that even according to Red
Corner Notice placed on record, accused fled away from India since
1995, whereas, the passport in the name of Mohan Kumar had
been applied in the year 1998. It is further contended that in the
year 1998, the work of issuing of passport after seeing the
application form was being done manually and also it has come in
the evidence of the witness examined from the RPO, Bangalore and
CC No. 96/2016 Page 131 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
according to the witness examined from RPO, Bangalore, there
used to be 300 to 400 applications per day being received with the
RPO, Bangalore for issuance of the passport, so, if at all the photo
could not be tallied, then it was not criminal misconduct in any
manner.
116. Written arguments have also been filed on behalf of A4
Smt. Lalitha Laxmanan. It is contended by Ld. Counsel Sh. Gur Raj
Joshi that PW23 Inayat Akmal Khan did not receive the fresh
passport, which he had applied in the year 1998 from RPO,
Bangalore. He was not knowing A1, so there could not be any
possibility of having copy of his passport no. F004555 with the
application form, which was given for issuance of passport in the
name of Mohan Kumar. It is further contended that according to the
notings appearing on the scanned copy of the application form
given on behalf of Mohan Kumar, shows that the old original
passport was cancelled and returned at the counter i.e. by A4. On
the basis of the same, passport was issued with No. A6705840 by
RPO, Bangalore and was dispatched at the address of Mohan
Kumar by registered post, which must have been received as the
same was not returned back by the postal authority.
117. It is further contended that according to the status
report Ex.PW12/4, Ex.PW12/6, this passport was issued on VC and
CC No. 96/2016 Page 132 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
the said VC has not been produced on record.
118. It is further contended that the said passport issued
from RPO, Bangalore was renewed at Harare, Zimbabwe in the year
2003 and a fresh passport no. Z1017162 was issued. Again this
passport was renewed at Sydney, Australia and again a fresh
passport was issued having no. G9273860, which A1 was found
using at Indonesia, Bali.
119. It is further contended that according to Red Corner
Notice, Ex.PW1/2, earlier a passport was issued in the name of A1
in the year 1984 with no. W508224 and in the year 1998 with no.
E792821 and according to Ex.PW1.3, A1 fled from India in 1985 -
1986.
120. It is further contended that although A1 was
apprehended at Indonesia, Bali having passport in the name of
Mohan Kumar having no. G9273860, but the facts sent by
Indonesia Police were referred to the origial name of A1 i.e.
Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje, whereas the fact should have been
mentioned that Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje was apprehended
having passport in the name of Mohan Kumar. It is also contended
that neither Arrest Memo nor Personal Search Memo of A1
Ex.PW24/A and Ex.PW24/B are mentioning about passport in the
CC No. 96/2016 Page 133 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
name of Mohan Kumar being used by A1.
121. It is further contended that vide order dated
08.06.2016, the question of sanction for prosecution under Section
197 Cr.PC was kept open because A4 Smt. Lalitha Laxmanan, who
was working as an Assistant in the RPO, Bangalore, upto 2000, and
could not be prosecuted without prior sanction.
122. It is further contended that the documents produced by
the CBI i.e. photocopies through PW12 are inadmissible in
evidence as the originals of the same could not be produced.
Certain documents are blurred being 18 years old and are without
any clarity. Some documents are also not proved as per Section 65B
of Evidence Act. It is also contended that Pw12 was not a
custodian of the computer so the witness was not competent to
issue certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
123. It is further contended that as A1 had already fled from
India prior to 1995, so there could not be any conspiracy in the
year 1998 while issuing passport to A1 through M/s Mars Tours
and Travels in the name of Mohan Kumar, so the accused persons
cannot be held guilty under Section 120B of IPC.
124. It is further contended that the prosecution has
CC No. 96/2016 Page 134 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
withheld many witnesses pertaining to RPO, Bangalore, so the
inference can be drawn to the extent that if the witness would have
produced and examined then they must have deposed against the
prosecution.
125. On the other hand, Ld. Public Prosecutor Sh. Kumar
Rajat has contended that the documents as relied upon by the
prosecution are sound and authentically proved. The documents
are admissible in evidence. It is further contended that the
certificate issued under Section 65B of Evidence Act fulfills all the
conditions as set out under the provisions of Section 65B and other
provisions of Evidence Act. It is further contended that the
judgements relied upon by the Ld. Defence counsels for A1 to A4
are not applicable to these documents.
126. In support of his contentions, Ld. Public Prosecutor Sh.
Kumar Rajat has relied upon Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act,
which deals with the presumption as to documents are 30 years old
and further Section 90 A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1987, which
runs as under :
"Section 90A in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
[90A. Presumption as to electronic records five years old.
--Where any electronic record, purporting or proved to be five
years old, is produced from any custody which the Court in the
particular case considers proper, the Court may presume that
the 2[electronic signature] which purports to be the
CC No. 96/2016 Page 135 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
2
[electronic signature] of any particular person was so affixed
by him or any person authorised by him in this behalf.
Explanation. --Electronic records are said to be in
proper custody if they are in the place in which, and under the
care of the person with whom, they naturally be; but no
custody is improper if it is proved to have had a legitimate
origin, or the circumstances of the particular case are such as
to render such an origin probable.
This Explanation applies also to section 81A.]
127. It is further contended that in view of these provisions,
the documents relied upon and proved by prosecution are
admissible in evidence.
128. To prove Section 120B of IPC, Ld. Public Prosecutor Sh.
Kumar Rajat has relied upon Sections 6, 8 and 10 of the Evidence
Act. It is contended that in view of these provisions, there was no
need to prove that accused A2, A3 and A4 were required to be
known to A1. Ld. Public Prosecutor Sh. Kumar Rajat has also
relied upon Section 22A of Evidence Act, which is in respect of oral
admissions as to the contents of the electronic records are relevant.
129. Ld. Public Prosecutor Sh. Kumar Rajat further relied
upon Section 85B of Evidence Act, which deals with presumption as
to electronic records and electronic signatures.
130. Ld. Public Prosecutor Sh. Kumar Rajat further
CC No. 96/2016 Page 136 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
contended that possession of the passport in the name of Mohan
Kumar recovered from A1 is to be explained by A1 himself. He has
further relied upon the testimonies of Pw7, PW12, PW14, PW16
and PW23, which are supporting the case of the prosecution.
131. In support of his contentions, Ld. Public Prosecutor Sh.
Kumar Rajat has relied upon the following judgements :
1. Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Solanki vs. State of Gujarat 2012 (8)
SLT 392;
2. Rama Shankar Lal & Ors. vs. State of U.P., 1972 SCC (Cri.)
153;
3. Vinayak Narayan Deosthali vs.CBI, AIR 2015 SC (supp.) 546;
4. Punjab State Warehousing Corp. vs. Bhushan Chander & Anr.,
IV (2016) SLT 548;
5. Shyamal Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal, 2013 (1) R.C.R.
(Criminal) 770;
6. Gulzar Alishri Raj Mohammad and State of Himachal Pradesh
decided on 21.10.1997 (SC) and
7. Chaman & Anr vs. State of Uttarakhan 2016 (2) RCR
(Criminal) 1017.
132. In Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Solanki vs. State of Gujarat
2012 (8) SLT 392, it has been held that :
"23. In the said case it has been highlighted that in the case of
conspiracy there cannot be any direct evidence. The ingredients of
CC No. 96/2016 Page 137 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
offence are that there should be an agreement between persons
who are alleged to conspire and the said agreement should be for
doing an illegal act or for doing by illegal means an act which
itself may not be illegal. Therefore, 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 by
circumstantial evidence or by both, and it is a matter of common
experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely
available. Therefore, the circumstances proved before, during and
after the occurrence have to be considered to decide about the
complicity of the accused."
133. In Vinayak Narayan Deosthali vs.CBI, AIR 2015 SC
(supp.) 546, it has been held that :
"Penal Code (45 of 1860), Ss. 120B, 467, 471 Prevention of
Corruption Act (49 of 1988), S.13 - Fraudulent Diversion of
public funds - Council, EEPC deposited public funds in Bank -
Accusedappellant unauthorisedly credited said amount to
account of 'M' Sharebroker, private party by abusing his position
in conspiracy with 'M' - Also issued bank receipts for security
transactions without physical existence of securities - Diversion
of said public funds by accused amounted to criminal breach of
trust by committing forgery/ use of forged documents as well as
offence under provisions of Corruption Act - Mens rea established
- Accused whether deprived any benefit or caused loss to bank,
need not be proved - Conviction of accused for offences of
conspiracy, forgery, misappropriation and corruption - Not liable
to be interfered with - However, sentence of imprisonment
reduced to period already undergone."
134. In Punjab State Warehousing Corp. vs. Bhushan
Chander & Anr., IV (2016) SLT 548, it has been held that :
"Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 197 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Section 409, 467, 468, 471 - Sanction for
prosecution of public servant - Requirement of - Sine qua non
for the applicability of section 197 is that offence charged, be it
one of commission or omission, must be one which has been
CC No. 96/2016 Page 138 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
committed by public servant either in his official capacity or
under colour of office held by him - No sanction is needed to
launch prosecution for offence punishable under Section 409, IPC
- Whether an offence had been committed in course of official
duty or not, colour of office cannot be answered hypothetically
and would depend on facts of each case - An act must bear a
relation to duty that accused could lay a reasonable claim that
act has been in exercise of official duty or duty that has been
done has colour of office - Performance of official duty under
colour of public authority cannot be camouflaged to commit
crime - There has to be reasonable connection between omission
or commission and discharge of official duty or act committed
was under colour of office or act committed was under colour of
office held by official - If acts of omission or commission are
totally alien to discharge of official duty, question of invoking
Section 197, Cr.P.C. does not arise - Offences relatable to Sections
467, 468, 471 and 120B, IPC cannot be regarded as having been
committed by any public servant while acting or purporting to
act in discharge of official duty - In obtaining factual matrix,
sanction under Section 197, Cr.PC was not necessary - High
Court erred in setting aside conviction and sentence on the
ground that trial is vitiated in absence of sanction - Matter
remitted to high Court to decide revision petition in accordance
with law."
135. Chapter III deals with general guidelines relating to
issue of ordinary passports, relevant portion of the same is
reproduced as under :
"CHAPTER III
........
........
4.1 The "Verification Certificate" forms an optional part of the prescribed Passport application form. It is not a prerequisite for obtaining a passport. The certificate verifies the good moral character of the applicant and the place or places of his/her continuous residence for the last one year. It also verifies that in respect of the specified applicant, the contingencies listed under Section 6(2) of the Passport Act 1967 which would call for a CC No. 96/2016 Page 139 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 refusal of passport, are not attracted. Verification Certificates in the prescribed test (Appendix 11) are required to be submitted by those applicants who need a passport urgently and outofturn. These applications submitted with Verification Certificates will be processed under the Tatkaal Scheme for outofturn issue of passports on payment of an additional fee as notified from time to time in Schedule IV of the Passport Rules. Details of the Tatkaal Scheme may be found in Chapter XIII.
4.2 The Verifying Authority is required to sign not only the certificate but also across a photograph of the applicant which should be attached to the certificate. He is required to give both his official and residential telephone numbers and the PIA has the discretion to verify in writing the authenticity of the document from the official who has signed it. As a large number of applications are submitted with verification certificates, Passport Authorities are required to satisfy themselves about the genuineness of the signatures of the verifying authorities and that there are no other deficiencies.
4.3 In respect of such applications received with Verification certificates under the Tatkaal Scheme, the Passport Officer after satisfying himself with the grounds of urgency, can issue the passport without prior police clearance but post police verification shall be carried out in all cases. In case of receipt of any adverse police report, action shall be taken to cancel, revoke or impound the passport.
5. The following categories of persons have been declared as Verifying Authorities :-
(a) a Deputy Secretary/ Director/ Joint Secretary/ Add.
Secretary Special Secretary/ Secretary/ Cabinet Secretary to Govt. of India;
(b) a Jt. Secy/ Add. Secy/ Spl. Secy/ Secretary/ Chief Secy to State Govt;
(c) a SubDivisional Magistrate/ Additional DM/DM of the District of residence of the applicant;
(d) a District Superintendent of Police/Range, DIG/IG/DGP of the district of residence of the CC No. 96/2016 Page 140 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 applicant;
(e) a Colonel and above in the Army and equivalent ranks in the Air Force & Navy; in the case of Armed Forces personnel serving in area/ installations whose location is classified and is not to be revealed, verification certificates are acceptable from a Brigadier for the Armed Forces personnel serving under him and a Naval Commodore or Air Force Air Commodore as the case may be; (Reference letter No.V.I/401/12/90 dated 24.7.1996);
(f) the General Manager of a Public Sector Undertaking of the Central Government (Reference letter dated 24.7.1996 cited above).
Only these officials who are actually deployed as Deputy Secretary, SDM, DSP etc. are competent to sign verification certificates. Equivalent officers posted in other formations are not competent to sign the certificates. (Reference letter No. V.I/401/12/90 dated 27.7.1990).
6. ............
............
VERIFICATION BY POLICE AUTHORITIES
7. Under Section 5(2) of the Passports Act, 1967 the Passport Authorities may make such enquiry, as deemed necessary, prior to the issue of passport. In the absence of any other independent source at its disposal, such inquiries are usually made through the Police authorities. Points to be noted in this connection are :-
(a) The Passport Officer should ensure that the police verification forms (Personal Particulars Form) are detached from the application form on the day the application is submitted and they should be sent to the local District Police the same day;
(b) Instead of calling for separate CID and district police reports, the Passport Officer would normally send the Personal Particulars (PP) forms only to the Superintendent of Police who would obtain the comments CC No. 96/2016 Page 141 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 of the State CID and forward a consolidated police report to the Passport Office, combining both security (CID) and identity report (confirmation of personal particulars) of the applicant. The prescribed format of letter to the police for obtaining the consolidated report may be seen in Appendix 12.(Reference letter No. V.I/401/12/90 dated 25.5.1993).
(c) The report is to be called for a period of one year only before the date of the application. The requirement of police verification has from October 1999, been reduced from two years to one year; the inquiry is to be conducted from all places of residence during this period.
(References paragraph 3.i of letter no. V.I/401/38/98II dated 13.10.1999).
(d) If the police verification report is not received within a period of 30 days and all documents are in order, the passport may be issued without waiting for the report on 'Police report overdue basis'. The Passport Authority will be guided by the instructions of the Chief Passport Officer in this regard issued from time to time. If such a passport is issued, the PIA would ensure the appropriate action is taken in case an incomplete or adverse police report is received (Reference paragraph (I) of letter No. V.I/401/20/99 dated 28.7.1999).
(e) The police report should not be treated as adverse unless it clearly negative. Incomplete reports stating for example, that the "applicant is out of station", or "residing at the specified address for less than one year", etc. should not immediately be treated as negative and the Passport Officer should not take action to refuse, revoke or impound a passport merely on this basis;
(f) In the above cases, the police should be requested to leave behind at the address of the applicant a slip intimating the date and time of his visit and asking the application to report at specified police station. This would help to keep the applicant informed and give him an opportunity to sort out the matter with the police;
(g) Passport may not be refused on a negative police/CID CC No. 96/2016 Page 142 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 report unless it is supported by evidence which can be defended in court of law. The PO may therefore ask the applicant to submit the Personal Particulars Form which would be sent again to the concerned security authorities for reverification. In case no reply or an unsatisfactory reply is received from the applicant, then a notice of refusal of passport is to be issued and further action taken after following normal procedures.
CHAPTER IV EXAMINATION OF APPLICATION
1. The issue of passport/travel document or any other service involves a great responsibility on the Passport Authority. It is, therefore, necessary that they should follow a prescribed procedure, which assists them in promptly issuing passports, while at the same time screening those applicants, who are ineligible to hold a passport or travel document in terms of the Passports Act. Various stages involved in the issue of a passport are listed below, although the Passport Authorities may vary these stages, depending upon local requirements.
SUPPLY OF APPLICATION FORMS
2. All passport services are to be rendered on receipt of applications in the prescribed application forms, as given in the Passport Rules. Each Passport Authority is required to maintain a sufficient stock of such forms by getting them printed locally. Presently 13 Passport Officers have been authorised as Nodal Offices for printing and supply of passport application forms for their own needs and for others designated in their zones. The list of Zonal Passport Offices athorised to print the passport application may be seen in Appendix 13. Supply of passport application forms can also be made through Postal Store Depots in the jurisdiction of each office for sale to general public through post offices at a price notified through post offices will be got printed through govt. of India Press at New Delhi and will be distributed to the respective passport offices by CPV Division of the Ministry on submission of indents. Sale of forms through CC No. 96/2016 Page 143 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 selected booksellers has also been authorised by the Ministry. M/s. Jaina Book Agency, New Delhi have been authorised by the Ministry to print and distribute passport applications. Passport authorities also supply forms at the rate specified by the Government from time to time based on the cost of production and distribution.
INSTANT SCRUTINY OF APPLICATION FORMS
3. All Passport Offices are required to scrutinise applications, when submitted at the counters and have the deficiencies rectified by the applicant, prior to acceptance of the forms. Only after such scrutiny the fees should be accepted. As far as possible once an application is accepted at the counter duly scrutinised, no further requirements should be called for. The applicant should be asked to submit two photostat copies of the required documents for verification at the counter by the counter staff. After verification, the originals can be returned at the counter. In respect of applications sent by post, the applicant should furnish two copies of the required documents duly attested by a Gazetted Officer with the officer's name and office seal. Documents attested by Notaries can also be accepted on the same basis. In case of any deficiency in documentation, the applications received by post should be returned immediately, the applications received by post should be returned immediately to the applicant under Certificate of Posting with suitable advice. A standard acknowledgementcumdeficiency slip has been devised for the use of Passport Offices and this can be seen at Appendix 14.
FAKE DOCUMENTS
4. (a) There have been a number of instances where fake documents have been submitted with the application. It is not practical for Passport Officers to call for the originals in each and every case. It is, therefore, reiterated that selfattested copies can be accepted at the counter only if the original is also produced simultaneously. Again at the cost of repetition, it is emphasised that copies of documents sent by post should not be accepted unless they have been duly attested by a gazetted officer with his official stamp and seal (Reference letter No. V.I/401/10/2000 dated CC No. 96/2016 Page 144 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 22.2.2000).
(b) Careful scrutiny of original documents at the time of accepting applications is of utmost importance. Passport Officers should sensitize all their staff members posted at the counter to be very vigilant. While they should exercise their responsibility with care and caution, this should not result in any harassment or delays. In respect of selfattested copies of documents produced at the counter, the counter personnel should insist only upon production of the originals and not any further attestation being done by a gazetted officer or a Notary.
(c) In case, Passport Officers have any doubt about the authenticity on the information submitted by the applicant they have always the discretion to refuse a passport on police report overdue basis (Reference letter No. V.I/401/10/2000 dated 28.1.2000).
(d) Applications should also be accepted only when submitted (I) directly by the applicant; or (ii) by his/her close immediate family member (parents/ children/ brother/sister). If they are submitted by anyone else, including Travel Agents, then it should be done only on the basis of a written letter of authority from the applicant in which the identity of the authorized representative is clearly indicated by reference to an identity card number, voter's identity card, driving license etc. This letter of authority should be taken on file and the counter personnel should write on the application form; "Submitted by ...." (Reference letter No. V.I/401/10/2000 dated 28.1.2000).
ACCEPTANCE PROOF OF RESIDENCE
5. i) Passport Officers may accept as proof of residence self attested photocopies of any of the following documents:-
Ration card, Voter's identity card, water tax bill, telephone bill, electricity bill, running bank account, CC No. 96/2016 Page 145 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 income tax assessment order of the last three years or Income Tax return of the last three years, duly stamped by the IT Department, since assessment orders are not issued in time, appointment letter of reputed companies on their letterhead (Reference letter No. V.I/401/1/96 dated 18.11.1997).
ii) Passport Officers must not insist upon attestation of copies of above documents by a gazetted government servant or notary public. However, the counter personnel should vigilantly scritinise the originals when the applicant presents the documents at the counter.
REFERENCE TO POLICE FOR VERIFICATION
6. After receipt of the passport application, the Personal Particulars Form attached to the application (as notified in the Schedule to the Passport Rules) should be removed and sent to the Office of the Commissioner of Police/ District Superintendent of Police concerned for Identity and Security Verification report. One copy of each documents submitted with the passport application should be attached with the Personal Particulars Form (PPF). The PPF should be sent to the police authorities not later than the second working day of receipt of passport application. While forwarding the PPF, three copies of covering letters are to be prepared of which one copy is to be retained on file in the passport office and two copies forwarded to the police; the latter are to return one copy to the passport office by way of acknowledgement of receipt. At present, a period of four weeks is being allowed for receipt of reports from the police. If no reports are received after this fourweek wait period, the Passport Issuing Authority may decide to issue passport if the documents submitted by the applicants are in order. This is done on 'police report overdue basis'. It is simultaneously emphasised that PIA's enjoy the discretion not to issue passport on 'police report overdue basis' if they have any doubt about the authenticity of the information submitted by the applicant. The police reports received after issue of passport should be added to the passport application and sent to records. No file should be sent to records without linking the police report. If police reports are not received within two months from the date of reference, the authorities concerned should be reminded. Reports received from the police should be immediately updated on the computer and prompt follow up action should be taken. If adverse CC No. 96/2016 Page 146 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 reports have been received, then action should be taken under the relevant provisions of Passports Act for refusal/ impounding or revocation of passport after serving due showcause notice to the passport applicant/ passportholder both at the time of calling for the applicant's explanation and before the action is taken to refuse/ impound/ revoke the passport, as the case may be.
OTHER FORMALITIES
7. The Passport Offices are required to complete other formalities such as updating the details of the applicant in the computer, checking of the Suspect List and indexing and linking of reports received from the police authorities. Unless the applicant is considered for issue of passport on outoftun basis under the Tatkaal Scheme, passports will be issued on first come first served basis. Before the application is indexed, the photograph affixed on the passport application should be defaced either by affixing the office rubber stamp or by the embossing over the photograph in order to avoid replacement of photograph subsequently.
SUBMISSION TO PASSPORT AUTHORITY FOR ORDERS
8. After completing all these formalities and allowing a time of four weeks for receipt of the police verification report, the application should be examined and put up to the Passport Authority with a note for orders as to whether the passport should be issued or refused. The Passport Authority should carefully scrutinise the application and pass orders keeping in mind the instructions issued by the Ministry from time to time on issue of passports. In case passport facilities are to be refused, the PIA should record a speaking order on the application form. The details procedure regarding refusal of passports is given in Chapter XIV. In case any deficiency is noticed in the passport application, it should be immediately communicated to the applicant keeping a copy of the deficiency letter on the file. If no reply is received within 21 days from the applicant, he should be reminded through a registered letter keeping a copy of the communication on file. If there is no response from the applicant within 21 days from the date of dispatch of the registered letter, the file may be closed under intimation to the applicant.
PROCEDURE REGARDING OTHER SERVICES ON THE PASSPORT CC No. 96/2016 Page 147 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
9. The procedure regarding grant of other services on the passport is similar to the one outlined above except with regard to verification by police authorities. It should be noted that whenever a passport is presented for any service, checking of indices (warning and regular) must be done before taking any action. The passports issued by other offices should undergo check of security features through Ultra Violet Equipment. It should not be assumed that because a passport has already been granted to the person, there is nothing against the passport holder which would attract the provisions of Section 19(3) of the Passports Act, 1967.
10. ................
11. ...............
12. ...............
PAGE 1: SIGNING OF PASSPORTS
13. Only the authorised official whose specimen signature has been circulated to all check posts and other authorities should sign on this page over the official stamp showing the PIA's name and designation. Passports should not be signed as "for Passport Officer". A round seal giving details of the office of issue with the National Emblem should be affixed on the place provided at the left corner of this page.
14. ..............
15. ..............
16. ..............
DELIVERY OF PASSPORTS (Reference letter No. V.I/405/1/Misc/96 dated 19.6.1996)
17. i) As per the Passports Act, 1967, a passport applicant is expected to be staying at the present address given in the application form. However, in a substantial number of cases, applicants apply with the wrong or incomplete address in order to procure additional passports, sometime in connivance with local postman, who are redirecting these passports to their new addresses. In order to prevent this, it has been decided that henceforth the passport should be sent only by Registered Post in specially printed envelopes on the left hand corner of which the following CC No. 96/2016 Page 148 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 should be clearly printed in English and Hindi in bold letters :
PASSPORT TO BE DELIVERED TO THE ADDRESSEE ONLY :
NOT TO BE REDIRECTED
ii) As per Standing Instructions, first issue passports must either be handed over to applicants at the counter or sent by Registered Post A.D. First issue passports are not to be handed over to third persons or Travel Agents (Reference letter no. V.I/401/42/92 dated 20.4.1995).
CHAPTER VI REISSUE AND RENEWAL OF PASSPORTS DISTINCTION BETWEEN REISSUE & RENEWAL
1. a) Passports are reissued on the expiry of their full term (10 or 20 years as the case may be).
b) Passports issued for initial validity of 5 years under the erstwhile system are renewed to their normal term of 10 years on payment of the prescribed fees.
c) On several occasions when applicants apply for fresh passports of 10years validity, they may be issued with short validity passports (svp's) by PIA's for some reason or the other. They may have applied for outoftun issue on police verification report overdue basis on the strength of verification certificates or the PIA's may have restricted the validity for some other reasons. These passports are subsequently renewed to their normal term of ten years without charging any additional fee on receipt of the police report etc.
d) When passports are lost or damaged, duplicate passports are generally issued with restricted validity of one year, pending confirmation of the particulars from the original PIA. In these cases also, the short validity, duplicate passports are renewed to their 'full validity' (that is, the remaining period of validity of the lost or damaged passport) but on payment of a renewal fee in addition to CC No. 96/2016 Page 149 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 the fee for duplicate passport.
ELEGIBILITY TO REISSUE OF PASSPORTS WITHOUT PRIOR POLICE VERIFICATION:
2. All persons who apply for reissue of their passports at the same Passport Office where the original expired/ expiring passport was issued would be eligible to automatic reissue of their passports without prior police verification. This is subject to the condition that
(i) the residential address of the applicant remains unchanged; (ii) the application for reissue is made up to one year prior to or within five years of the date of expiry of the existing passport; and (iii) further provided that nothing adverse against the holder has come to notice [Reference paragraph 3(iii) of circular fax message dated 27.1.2000 from JS (CPV) read with paragraph 7(iii) of letter No.V.I/401/22/99 dated 15.6.1999].
3. In respect of application for reissue of passport issued by another PIA, or where the address of the holder has changed, the exemption from prior police verification and receipt of prior confirmation of details of the existing passport can be extended to the following : -
i) All verifying authorities, their spouses and minor children (a list of the prescribed verifying authorities may be seen in Chapter III, paragraph 5);
ii) Persons who apply for reissue of passports supported by Verification Certificates signed by the approved verifying authorities; and
iii) Minor children, at least one of whose parents holds a valid Indian passport.
PERIOD OF VALIDITY FOR REISSUE/RENEWAL
4. In these cases covered by paragraph 2 and paragraph 3(i) above, the passports can be reissued for full term of ten years at a stretch. In respect of persons covered by paragraph 3(ii) above, the passports can be reissued initially for a period of (a) five years in respect of government servants and employees of public sector CC No. 96/2016 Page 150 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 undertaking; and (b) two years in respect of others. The validity in both cases can be renewed up to the full term of ten years on receipt of the police verification report and the confirmation of details from the previous PIA. In the case of minor children covered in paragraph 3(iii) above, the passports can be reissued up to a maximum of 5 years or till the minor children attain the age of 15 years, whichever is less.
5. In all other cases where either the application for reissue is not made at the same Passport Office where the original passport was issued and/or where the application for reissue is made more than five years after the expiry of the previous passport, police verification and confirmation of details from the previous PIA should be obtained before reissue of the passport. The waiting time for obtaining these reports is 30 days from the date of making the reference after which the passport can be reissued.
GENERAL 6.1. The application for reissue of passports is to be made in the same Form No. 1 as the application for issue of first passport.
6.2. The previous passport should accompany the applications and presented for scrutiny. It should be canceled and returned to the holder/his authorized representative. An attested/ selfattested photocopy of the old passport should be kept with the fresh passport application. Care should be taken not to cancel those pages of the old passport which contain valid visas.
6.3. Proof of residence is required only if the present address is different from that given in the previous passport.
6.4. As mentioned in Chapter III on 'verification', the requirement of police verification from all places of residence of the applicant has now been reduced to one year from the previous period of two years.
6.5. When making a reference to another PIA or mission abroad for confirmation of details of the previous passport, it should be ensured that along with the details, a copy of the photograph of the holder is also sent to facilitate verification.
6.6. In all cases of reissue, with or without prior police verification, CC No. 96/2016 Page 151 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 passport officers should exercise normal vigilance, including internal checks of index cards etc. 6.7. In all cases, post verification would be necessary and in those cases where adverse/ negative reports are received from the police authorities, necessary action to impound/ revoke the passport may be taken as per the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967.
6.8. In the case of Government servants & public sector employees working in sensitive establishments and in respect of Armed Forces personnel, No Objection Certificate should be obtained from their prescribed authorities before reissue of passports. NOC's would also be required in respect of reissue of passports to Government servants/ public sector employees against whom vigilance cases are pending. Passport Officers may take an undertaking/ declaration from the applicants covering the above points in case they seek an exemption from production of NOC on the occasion of reissue of their passports (Reference letter No. V.I/401/40/83 dated 5.10.1990).
6.9. Whenever passports issued initially for five years, are renewed to their full term of 10 years, the word "Final" should be added in the relevant observations.
6.10. The facility of reissue of passports up to 1 year before the expiry of their validity is to enable the holder to obtain longterm visas.
6.11. Passports can be reissued any time after the expiry of their validity, provided there is no objection under Section 10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967.
136. According to the record, the scanned copy of the application form collected during the investigation is Ex.PW12/9. It is bearing the photograph of accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan (A1), however, name of accused is shown as Mohan Kumar, father's name is shown as Damodar, mother's name is CC No. 96/2016 Page 152 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 Parvati and spouse name is Sumati and date of birth has been shown as 24.07.1969, address is given as 107B, Old M.C. Road, Azad Nagar, Mandya. The first page is bearing noting of receipt of Rs.300/ and checked. Date of birth has also been corrected as per old passport as 24.07.1959. The second page is bearing the cancelled noting of passport office Bangalore and previous file no. 19/51783/88, previous passport number has been shown as F 004555, issued on 20.01.1989 at Bangalore. The third page is also having photograph of A1 and signatures at point X10 as of Mohan Kumar. At page 04, the stamp is appearing of no adverse. The documents annexed with as mentioned at X2 are old passport copy, ration card and photographs. Again the address has been mentioned as 107B, Old M. C. Road, Azad Nagar, Mandya. Signatures appearing at X3 are that of Mohan Kumar. Then there are noting in the space mentioned for office use. The date of birth mentioned as per old passport, noting about Index Card, which was not found and noting about grant of passport with ECR old passport C&R. With these one copy of the ration card was also given in local language. In the scanned copy of ration card, the photograph is not identifiable. Alongwith this, the scanned copy is of passport No. F004555. The first page of the scanned copy of the passport Ex.PW12/11 is showing the file no. 9/51783/88 in the name of Mohan Kumar. The second page is showing the particulars of Mohan Kumar with father's name as Damodar, address is of 107 CC No. 96/2016 Page 153 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 B, Old M.C. Road, Azad Nagar, Mandya, wife's name Sumati with the same address and date of birth has been shown as 24.07.1959. Now signatures are appearing at point Q4 as Mohan Kumar at the bottom of a photograph and the photograph does not seem to be of Mohan Kumar, which was given with the application, but was of Enayath Akmal Khan.
137. The scanned copy of passport issued in the name of Enayath Akmal Khan is Ex.PW12/20 and is having the photograph of Enayath Akmal Khan on the first page left side. The file number is same as of 9/15793/88 and second number is 3255/89. This scanned copy is also showing the perforated number of passport F 004555. The second page is having the passport of Enayath Akmal Khan with his name, address and particulars. The third page is similar to the third page of scanned copy given with the application submitted on behalf of accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan (A1) and fourth page is also the same as of Ex.PW12/11. The photograph appearing in Ex.PW12/11 i.e. the scanned copy, which was submitted on behalf of A1 and the scanned copy of the photocopy submitted by Enayath Akmal Khan are the same of Ex.PW12/20. So the photograph on the first page appearing on Ex.PW12/20, is missing in Ex.PW12/11. The particulars have been changed but the photograph has been left as the same in Ex.PW12/11 as of Ex.PW12/20 i.e. of Enayath Akmal CC No. 96/2016 Page 154 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 Khan. The application was submitted through one R. Shekhar vide Ex.PW12/8 bearing signatures in the name of Mohan Kumar.
138. From the deposition of PW23, it is clear that the copy which was submitted by Enayath Akmal Khan is of passport no. F 004555 was forged and fabricated with the particulars of Mohan Kumar and rest of the entries, signatures and photograph are similar, whereas, the photograph on the application is entirely different from the photograph appearing in the scanned copy Ex.PW12/11, on which basis passport was applied in the name of Mohan Kumar. File Number was given of passport no. F004555, which actually was issued in the name of Enayath Akmal Khan. In the photocopy Ex.PW12/11 given at the time of application in the name of Mohan Kumar was showing the date of birth of Mohan Kumar as 24.07.1959, whereas, in the application form, it was shown as 24.07.1969 and in fact this was not even date of birth of Enayath Akmal Khan, but because the date of birth appearing in the copy of previous passport F004555 was showing the date of birth as 24.07.1959, so the date of birth in the application was corrected as 24.07.1969 to 24.07.1959. However, while processing the application neither the record was found in the Passport Writing Register nor Index Card was found because the actual file number given to passport no. F004555 issued in the name of Enayath Akmal Khan was 9/51783/88, whereas in the application form CC No. 96/2016 Page 155 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 given in the name of Mohan Kumar Ex.PW12/9, file number has been shown as 19/51783/88, however, the passport number was shown as F004555 and date of issue as 20.01.1989. It has also come in evidence that Index Card was prepared , however, the said Index Card has also not been produced before the court so it is not known on what basis the passport was granted and issued because it was a case of reissue and not a case of fresh issuance of passport. At page 2 of the application form given in the name of Mohan Kumar Ex.PW12/9, the date of issue has been mentioned as Passport No. F004555, on which Mohan Kumar has relied upon was shown as 20.01.1989 and according to the Ex.PW12/2 (D53) scanned copy of the passport register on 20.01.1989 the passport no. F004555 was issued in the name of Enayath Akmal Khan, date of birth as 08.05.1970 with the file no. 9/51783/88.
139. So under these circumstances, it is clear that the application form given was given for reissue of passport was fake as neither the particulars were traceable in the Passport Writing Register nor Index Card was found and the file number of passport number given in the application form was belonging to Sh. Enayath Akmal Khan. There was a lot of differences in the photograph of accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan (A1) given with the application form and found affixed on the photocopy of the passport No.F004555 given in the name of CC No. 96/2016 Page 156 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 Mohan Kumar after fabricating the same. So, it could have easily be noticed that the photographs were not tallying in any manner. Moreover, there is noting in the application form C&R that the old passport was cancelled and returned, which show that the old passport was also forged and fabricated, which according to PW23 was lost in the year 1999 and this application was also allowed on 01.01.1999. On the basis of the passport issued in the name of Mohan Kumar on application Ex.PW12/9, and got issued another passport from Harare, Zimbabwe and thereafter on the said passport, another passport was issued from Sydney, Australia and the same was used and recovered Ex.PW1/25, when he was arrested at Bali, Indonesia and was deported to India. From the deposition of the witness, during investigation and as deposed before the court, the scanned copy of ration card Ex.PW12/10 could not be verified as no such address was existing. The particulars given of the Mohan Kumar in the application form and in the previous passport were also not existing. The authority letter Ex.PW12/8 given in the name of Mr. Raj Shekhar, resident of 14/2, First Cross, Second Main, RT Nagar, also could not be traced out and there was no person in the name of Raj Shekhar.
140. On this application passport No. A6705840 was issued dated 01.01.1999 in the name of Mohan Kumar with date of birth 24.07.1959. The personal particulars form in this respect is CC No. 96/2016 Page 157 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 Ex.PW12/6. According to further details, passport was issued on the basis of VC and no PV received, which means the passport was issued on the basis of verification certificate and police verification was not received, however, according to the deposition of PW13 Insp. K. Prabhakar, no such police verification request was received during the period 01.01.1999 to 31.12.2009, which shows that no police verification was got done and the passport was issued on the basis of verification certificate only. The said verification certificate is not produced before this court nor is available in the record.
141. Chapter VI of Passport Manual 2001 deals with reissue and renewal of passport. According to Rule II in case of reissue of passport at the same passport office, where the original passport was issued would be eligible to automatically reissue their passport without prior police verification subject to the conditions (i) the residential address of the applicant remains unchanged; (ii) the application for reissue is made up to one year prior to or within five years of the date of expiry of the existing passport; and (iii) further provided that nothing adverse against the holder has come to notice.
142. According to the further general Rule 6.6, in all cases of reissue, with or without prior police verification, passport officers should exercise normal vigilance, including internal checks of index CC No. 96/2016 Page 158 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 cards etc.
143. According to Rule 6.7, in all cases, post verification would be necessary and in those cases, where adverse/ negative reports are received from the police authorities, necessary action to impound/ revoke the passport may be taken as per the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967.
144. It has been argued by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that the passport was issued in the year 1999, so the Manual of 2001 is not applicable, however, except denying this Manual, no other manual has been bought on record, which was applicable in the year 1999 nor anything has been suggested contrary to the witnesses in comparison to the procedure as set out in the Manual of year 2001.
145. Ld. Public Prosecutor has contended that according to this Passport Manual 2001, the last passport Manual was published in the year 1983 and during the 17 years since this publication, a number of circulars have been issued. So it was become necessary to bring out the present publication, which updates the instructions for the use of passport office in India and Consulate office abroad. It is further contended that this fact itself shows that after 1983 whatever the changes have taken place, have been incorporated in CC No. 96/2016 Page 159 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 the Manual and this Manual in the year 2001 has been published so in between there was no other contrary instructions except as included in this Passport Manual 2001. In view of the same, the contentions of the accused persons are not forceful in any manner.
146. From the deposition of the witnesses and after considering their crossexamination conducted at length on behalf of accused persons, it is clear that the application given in the name of Mohan Kumar Ex.PW12/9 was having major discrepancies and it was processed even without any record available in the RPO, Bangalore as neither the previous entry of this passport was found recorded in the Passport Writing Register nor Index Card was found and fresh Index Card was prepared, which also has not been produced before the court. Moreover, the Index Card is to be given by the applicant with the application form, but this application was projected as reissue of the passport so that too was also not required, but in absence of both the records i.e. Passport Writing Register and Index Card, the application should not have been processed in any manner.
147. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons have heavily relied upon the admissibility of the documents submitted by PW12 Ms. R. Amarjothi, at the instance of PW19 Sh. P. S. Karthigeyan. The documents had been submitted with the certificate under Section CC No. 96/2016 Page 160 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 65B of Indian Evidence Act. It is contended that the complete details have not been given and as it has come in the evidence that the documents had been taken from the Policy Section by PW12 Ms. R. Amarjothi, so she was not competent to give certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, in support of the scanned documents.
148. On the other hand, Ld. Public Prosecutor Sh. Kumar Rajat on behalf of CBI has contended that the certificates given under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act are in order. The record was maintained in the normal course of official work/duty. So the documents are admissible in evidence.
149. Ld. Counsels for the accused persons and Ld. Public Prosecutor, Sh. Kumar Rajat for CBI have relied upon different judgments on this aspect.
150. According to PW12 Ms. R. Amarjothi, she had taken the scanned documents from Policy Section and handed over to the Inspector of CBI. According to her crossexamination, in the year 1994, some computers were installed and they used to take the help of NIC persons. Thereafter, Passport Sewa Project was introduced in the year 2010 and prior to that NIC persons were posted, who were taking care of technical problems. The staff CC No. 96/2016 Page 161 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 members used to be posted on rotation for the purpose of scanning so, it is not possible to tell, who had scanned the documents in question. The NIC computers were condemned in the year 2012 and in the year 2012, the entire data was transferred to Passport Sewa Project.
151. This crossexamination itself shows that the record was maintained in the normal course of the official business of the RPO, Bangalore and neither the computer system nor a particular person can work for an indefinite period. The officials are used to be changed and so the computers at the time of upgradation or when they become nonfunctional. The print outs of the scanned documents were taken by the officials of Policy Section at the RPO and the same were given by her to the CBI officers. In the office, one person cannot be Incharge of all the different sections and the employees of a particular office work as a team. The scanned copy of the documents were taken out from the computer as per directions of the RPO. These were given to PW12, who handed over the same to Inspector CBI with the certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. In the certificates given Ex.PW12/3, Ex.PW12/5 and Ex.PW12/7, it has been mentioned that the electronic record was printed out from the relevant data created in the usual and ordinary course of business and has been retrieved from the computer system installed in the office of the RPO, CC No. 96/2016 Page 162 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 Bangalore, by using Samsung Layer ML258 printer and further that the reproduction of the original data. So, it is a sufficient compliance of section 65B of Indian Evidence Act and the contentions of Ld. Counsels for the accused persons are not forceful in any manner.
152. In support of the above, I relied upon Kundan Singh vs. State, DOD 24.11.2015 in CRL.A. 711/2014, wherein it has been held that :
"38. The certificate under subsection (4) to Section 65B must state the following:
(a) Identify the electronic record by identifying the statement, i.e., "computer output" in form of paper print out or copied, recorded or stored optical or magnetic media.
(b) Particulars of the device involved in the production of that electronic record to show that the electronic record was produced by the computer; and
(c) State that the computer output contains information, which was stored or fed into the computer over the stated period when computer was regularly used to store or process information, and that the computer output consists of information or data or is derived from information regularly fed into the computer in ordinary course of such activities.
(d) The certificate should also state as required by sub clause (c) to subsection (2) that the computer was during the relevant periods was operating properly and if it was not operating properly during the period or a part of the said period, it had not affected the electronic record or accuracy thereof."
Admission of accused persons in their SA
153. In the statement recorded u/Sec. 313 Cr.PC, accused CC No. 96/2016 Page 163 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1) has admitted in response to question no. 23 that emergency certificate Ex. PW 1/13 (D42) was stamped for deportation and exit and also there is stamp of Delhi International Airport showing the arrival at Delhi Airport on 06.11.2015. So, deportation of accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1) is not in dispute.
(i) In response to question no. 24, it was put to accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1) that from his seized belongings included the Indian passport No. G 9273860 and the travel itinerary depicting his arrival to Bali, Indonesia by Garura Flight GA715 dated 25th October 2015, Ngurah Rai International Airport by the chartered flight, Gulf Stream G3 for New Delhi on 5th November 2015 around 10:00 pm local time, the print out copy of itinerary is Ex.PW1/26 (D40) and flight clearance Ex. PW 1/27 (D37) was obtained for traveling to India from Bali. This fact has also been admitted.
(ii) In response to question no. 56, accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1) has admitted that PW 10 Raj Kumar along with Mr. Budhi Singh of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. reached at CBI, HQ., New Delhi on 18.11.2015 and before him, he had voluntarily given his specimen handwriting collectively Ex.PW10/A (D67) (S7 to S14).
CC No. 96/2016 Page 164 of 205CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
(iii) In response to question no. 143, accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1) has admitted that his advocate Sh. Anshuman Sinha had written a letter dated 03.11.2015, Ex.PW18/A (par of D73) addressed to Consulate General of India, Bali, Indonesia, to the extend that his client Mohan Kumar (A1) has no objection being deported to India.
(iv) In response to question no. 234, it is explained by accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1) that in India he has been fighting against terrorism and in this fight, he has to keep his identity a secret and he cannot disclose the names of the persons, who had helped him and he has also stated that he was able to escape from Dubai and reached Malaysia. Thereafter, he went to Bangkok, where an attempt of his life was made in the year 2000 by the henchmen of Dawood Ibrahim. That is why he was provided with a passport in the name of Mohan Kumar. So, as such accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1) has not denied the issuance and user of the passport by him in the name of Mohan Kumar.
154. Accused Jayashree Dattatray Rahate (A2) in response to question no. 65 has stated that the part of the deposition of PW 12 Ms. R. Amarjothi is a matter of record to the extent about the CC No. 96/2016 Page 165 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 print out of the scanned copy of the Passport Writing Register dated 20.01.1989, Ex.PW12/2 (D53), which shows that passport number F004555 was issued to Enayath Akmal Khan S/o Enayath Ulla Khan R/o 35, 2nd Cross, Wahab Garden, Benson Town, Bangalore at serial no. 3355 in file no. 19/51783 of 1988 and this entry was made by Ms K. S. Shobha, the then LDC, who had provided one certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW12/3 (D53).
(i) In response to question no. 72, accused Jayashree Dattatray Rahate (A2) in respect of the part deposition of PW12, who has testified that duty of the assistant, who received and checked the passport application forms and enclosures is required to check the originals of the enclosed documents and verify the contents of the same with the details of passport application forms, has been admitted.
(ii) Similarly, in response to the question no. 73, in respect of the part investigation of PW12 Ms. R. Amarjothi, who has deposed that at the time when a person applies for the passport for the first time, an index card is maintained in alphabetical order in which his photographs, signatures, personal particulars etc. are mentioned and when the applicant applies again for the passport or renewal/reissue of the passport, as per procedure, first of all the index card is to be seen to check out whether the same tallies with the CC No. 96/2016 Page 166 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 photographs and particulars of the applicant, which has been admitted.
(iii) In response to question no. 92, accused Jayashree Dattatray Rahate (A2) has admitted the part of deposition of PW12 Ms. R. Amarjothi to the extent that copy of passport Ex. PW 12/11 issued on 20.1.1989 from RPO, Bangalore in the name of Mohan Kumar and Ex.PW12/20 issued on 20.1.1989 from RPO, Bangalore in the name of Enayath Akmal Khan has same perforated passport no. F 004555. It is also stated by accused Jayashree Dattatray Rahate (A2) that however the same passport no. cannot be allotted two persons on the same day from the same passport office.
(iv) In response to question no. 95, accused Jayashree Dattatray Rahate (A2) has admitted that as per the documents on record both the scanned passports Ex. PW 12/11 & Ex. PW 12/20 are same and the fourth page of both the scanned passports are also same and that the document exhibited as Ex.PW12/11 is a false and fake document and copy of Ex. PW 12/11 is the tampered version of Ex.PW12/20.
(v) In response to question nos. 101 & 102, accused Jayashree Dattatray Rahate (A2) has admitted the significance of Index Card and Passport Writing Register. In response to question no. 103, accused Jayashree Dattatray CC No. 96/2016 Page 167 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 Rahate (A2) has admitted that according to the general duties of any officer posted at the counter, the officer has to verify the particulars in the application with the supporting documents and if any deficiency is noted, the application is to be rejected.
(vi) In response to question no. 121, it is admitted by accused Jayashree Dattatray Rahate (A2) that the passport application of Mohan Kumar Ex.PW12/9 was sent to the Dealing Section for the screening of date of birth and the file was again put up by Smt. T. R. Leelawati at point G. It is also stated that Dealing Section had to rectify the mistake, it is the dealing section who has to verify all other contents of application and submit the case with their observation. As the file was submitted for approval, the same was accepted in bonafide belief that application is in order.
(vii) In response to question no. 220, accused Jayashree Dattatray Rahate (A2) has admitted that during the processing of the Passport Application Form given in the name of Mohan Kumar, no index card was found in the name of Mohan Kumar at RPO, Bangalore and extract of passport writing register, Ex.PW12/2, also clearly shows that passport no. F004555 was issued in the year 198889 to Enayath Akmal Khan, but this register was with the Passport Writing Section. She has further stated that as there was no CC No. 96/2016 Page 168 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 adverse remarks and verification certificate was annexed and as per Manual and bonafide belief the application was accepted.
(viii) In response to question no. 189, accused Deepak Natvarlal Shah (A3) has admitted the part of evidence of PW25 Insp. T. Rajashekhara to the extent that passport no. F 004555 was issued in the name of Enayath Akmal Khan and the said passport was produced before the RPO, Bangalore, at the time of renewal/ reissue and the same was cancelled and returned to Enayath Akmal Khan, who lost the same when shifted his house from one area to another.
155. It is admitted fact that application Ex.PW12/9 alongwith Ex.PW12/10 and Ex.PW12/11 was given at the office of RPO through one Rajshekhar having authority letter in his favour vide Ex.PW12/8. It is also proved that Ex.PW12/9 is having photograph of accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1) on first and third page for which no explanation has been given on behalf of accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1). While recording the statement under Section 313 Cr.PC, accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1) has stated that the passport was given by the Indian Authority, but he has not disclosed the name. The old passport copy and ration card annexed with the application are forged and fabricated. Page 3 of CC No. 96/2016 Page 169 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 Ex.PW12/11 bearing the signatures in the name of Mohan Kumar at Q4 i.e. at the bottom of photograph of Enayath Akmal Khan and page 3 of the application form is also bearing signatures of Mohan Kumar at Q2/ X10. As the photographs appearing on page 01 and 03 of the application Ex.PW12/9 have not been disputed by accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1) through authority letter in the name of Raj Shekhar Ex.PW12/8, who also could not be found at the address given, so in this manner accused entered into a criminal conspiracy with authorized person Raj Shekhar and application for reissue of passport was given with forged and fabricated names and addresses, which were not existing. Further, remaining accused A2, A3 & A4 acted in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy and accepted the application for reissue of the passport on the basis of forged and fabricated documents in the name of Mohan Kumar.
156. According to the guidelines given in the Passport Manual 2001, which were applicable since 1983 and from time to time, accused Lalitha Lakshmanan (A4) was required to check the application form and the supporting documents vigilantly and the photographs given at the first and third page of the application of A1 were entirely different from the photograph appearing on the copy of the passport No. F004555. After the checking of the application by Lalitha Lakshamanan (A4), fee of Rs.300/ was CC No. 96/2016 Page 170 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 accepted and then A2 processed the application form. Even date of birth was corrected and altered in the application form as per old passport and noting was made regarding issuance of passport, although, neither record of previously issued passport was found in the Passport Writing Register nor Index Card was found. So under these circumstances, the passport could not be reissued in the name of the applicant Mohan Kumar as applied for. Even police verification was not called, which shows that all the accused persons A2, A3 & A4 were involved in reissuing the passport in the name of Mohan Kumar on the basis of forged and fabricated documents, without any verification.
157. It has been contended hotly by the Ld. Counsels for the accused persons that according to the record of the CBI and Red Corner Notice when the application form was given, accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1) was not available in India and had already escaped from India. If it was so, then Mr. Raj Shekhar, authorized person could not lay his hands on the photograph of accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1) as affixed on page 1 and 3 of the application form Ex.PW12/9.
158. In this reference, Ld. Public Prosecutor Sh. Kumar Rajat has relied upon Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Solanki vs. State of CC No. 96/2016 Page 171 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 Gujarat 2012 (8) SLT 392, wherein it has been held as under :
"23. ............ ................ ...............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 by circumstantial evidence or by both, and it is a matter of common experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available. Therefore, the circumstances proved before, during and after the occurrence have to be considered to decide about the complicity of the accused."
159. In Vinayak Narayan Deosthali vs.CBI, AIR 2015 SC (supp.) 546, it has been held that :
"Penal Code (45 of 1860), Ss. 120B, 467, 471 Prevention of Corruption Act (49 of 1988), S.13 - Fraudulent Diversion of public funds - Council, EEPC deposited public funds in Bank - Accusedappellant unauthorisedly credited said amount to account of 'M' Sharebroker, private party by abusing his position in conspiracy with 'M' - Also issued bank receipts for security transactions without physical existence of securities - Diversion of said public funds by accused amounted to criminal breach of trust by committing forgery/ use of forged documents as well as offence under provisions of Corruption Act - Mens rea established
- Accused whether deprived any benefit or caused loss to bank, need not be proved - Conviction of accused for offences of conspiracy, forgery, misappropriation and corruption - Not liable to be interfered with - However, sentence of imprisonment reduced to period already undergone."
160. On the other hand, it has been contended on the part of accused Jayashree Rahate (A2) and D. N. Shah (A3) that the act of these accused persons while issuing the passport on these documents, was done in food faith, so all the three accused persons i.e. A2, A3 and A4 are protected u/Sec. 16 of the Indian Passport Act. In support of the same, Ld. Counsels have relied upon General Officer Commanding vs. CBI and Another, Criminal Appeal No. CC No. 96/2016 Page 172 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 257 of 2011, wherein it has been held that :
"(iii) Good Faith
44. A public servant is under a moral and legal obligation to perform his duty with truth, honesty, honour, loyality and faith etc. He is to perform his duty according to the expectation of the office and the nature of the post for the reason that he is to have a respectful obedience to the law and authority in order to accomplish the duty assigned to him. Good faith has been defined in Section 3(22) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, to mean a thing which is, in fact, done honestly, whether it is done negligently or not. Anything done with due care and attention, which is not malafide, is presumed to have been done in good faith. There should not be personal illwill or malice, no intention to malign and scandalize. Good faith and public good are though the question of fact, it required to be proved by adducing evidence."
161. Ld. Defence Counsels for the accused A2 to A4 have further contended that there is no sanction under Section 197 Cr.PC, hence, the accused persons could not be prosecuted and in support of the same further relied upon General Officer Commanding vs. CBI and Another, Criminal Appeal No. 257 of 2011, wherein it has been held that :
"55. Thus, in view of the above, the law on the issue of sanction can be summarised to the effect that the question of sanction is of paramount importance for protecting a public servant who has acted in good faith while performing his duty. In order that the public servant may not be unnecessarily harassed on a complaint of an unscrupulous person, it is obligatory on the part of the executive authority to protect him. However, there must be a discernible connection between the act complained of and the powers and duties of the public servant. The act complained of may fall within the description of the action purported to have been done in performing the official CC No. 96/2016 Page 173 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 duty. Therefore, if the alleged act or omission of the public servant can be shown to have reasonable connection inter relationship or inseparably connected with discharge of his duty, he becomes entitled for protection of sanction. If the law requires sanction, and the court proceeds against a public servant without sanction, the public servant has a right to raise the issue of jurisdiction as the entire action may be rendered void abinitio for want of sanction. Sanction can be obtained even during the course of trial depending upon the facts of an individual case and particularly at what stage of proceedings, requirement of sanction has surfaced. The question as to whether the act complained of, is done in performance of duty or in purported performance of duty, is to be determined by the competent authority and not by the court. The Legislature has conferred "absolute power" on the statutory authority to accord sanction or withhold the same and the court has no role in this subject. In such a situation the court would not proceed without sanction of the competent statutory authority.
56. The present case stands squarely covered by the ratio of the judgments of this Court in Matajog Dobey (Supra) and Sankaran Moitra (Supra). Thus, we have no hesitation to hold that sanction of the Central Government is required in the facts and circumstances of the case and the court concerned lacks jurisdiction to take cognizance unless sanction is granted by the Central Government."
162. On the other hand, Ld. Public Prosecutor Sh. Kumar Rajat has relied upon Punjab State Warehousing Corp. vs. Bhushan Chander & Anr., IV (2016) SLT 548, wherein it has been held as under :
"Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 197 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 409, 467, 468, 471 - Sanction for prosecution of public servant - Requirement of - Sine qua non for the applicability of Section 197 is that offence charged, be it one of commission or omission, must be one which has been committed by public servant either in his official capacity or under colour of office held by him - No sanction is needed to CC No. 96/2016 Page 174 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 launch prosecution for offence punishable under Section 409, IPC - Whether an offence had been committed in course of official duty or not, colour of office cannot be answered hypothetically and would depend on facts of each case - An act must bear a relation to duty that accused could lay a reasonable claim that act has been in exercise of official duty or duty that has been done has colour of office - Performance of official duty under colour of public authority cannot be camouflaged to commit crime - There has to be reasonable connection between omission or commission and discharge of official duty or act committed was under colour of office held by official - If acts of omission or commission are totally alien to discharge of official duty, question of invoking Section 197, Cr.P.C. does not arise - Offences relatable to Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120B, IPC cannot be regarded as having been committed by any public servant while action or purporting to act in discharge of official duty - In obtaining factual matrix, sanction under Section 197, Cr.P.C. was not necessary - High Court erred in setting aside conviction and sentence on the ground that trial is vitiated in absence of sanction - Matter remitted to High Court to decide revision petition in accordance with law."
163. In view of above, the contentions of Ld. Public Prosecutor Sh. Kumar Rajat are forceful and the judgements relied upon by Ld. Defence counsels are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. All accused entered into criminal conspiracy to do an illegal act by illegal means i.e. application for reissue of the passport in the name of Mohan Kumar was given on behalf of accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1) having his photograph on page 01 & 03 containing false names and addresses, date of birth and particulars in Ex.PW12/9. Copy of ration card was also relied upon while giving the passport CC No. 96/2016 Page 175 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 application Ex.Pw12/10, which was also found false and fabricated and copy of the passport no. F004555, Ex.PW12/11, which was allotted to Enayath Akmal Khan, has also been used by forging and fabricating the same to support the application for reissue of the passport in the name of Mohan Kumar.
164. The purpose of giving this application Ex.PW12/9 in fake name with all false and fabricated particulars including the file number and passport number, which was actually issued to Enayath Akmal Khan was given to cheat the Government of India for procuring a passport in the name of Mohan Kumar, which accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1) has stated that it was provided by the Government officials, but the application Ex.PW12/9 is bearing the photographs at page 01 & 03 to accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1) and also signatures at Q2 and Q3.
165. According to the report of PW11, Sh. Anil Sharma, Senior Scientific Officer, posted in the CFSL Divison Delhi, since 1998, the signatures marked as Q1, Q3 and Q5 to Q7 are similar to the specimen writing of A1 marked as S1 to S14.
166. Q1 is the signatures appearing in the passport Ex.PW1/25, Q2 & Q3 are appearing on the application form Ex.PW12/9 as "M.Kumar". Q4 appearing at the bottom of CC No. 96/2016 Page 176 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 photograph of Enayath Akmal Khan in the forged and fabricated copy of the passport no. F004555 and Q5 is appearing on the authority letter stated to be given in name o Raj Shekhar.
167. In the crossexamination, PW11 has stated that he is unable to express his view on the point that Q2, Q3, Q4 and Q5 are different from the specimen signatures due to the quality of the reproduced signatures.
168. Ld. Defence counsel has contended that in the examinationinchief, PW11 has stated that Q1, Q3 and Q5 to Q 7, are the same as of S1 to S14, that is, of accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1), which is contrary with the crossexamination. It is further contended that the signatures appearing at Q2, Q3, Q4 and Q5 are entirely different from the specimen signatures, so it cannot be said that the application form Ex.PW12/9 and forged and fabricated copy of the passport Ex.PW12/11 alongwith the authority letter were signed by the accused.
169. In defence, on behalf of A1, DW1 Sh. V. C. Mishra has been examined, who was working as Forensic Handwriting and Finger Print Expert for the last 28 years. He has given his report dated 12.09.2016 Ex.DW1/A. He has compared the signatures CC No. 96/2016 Page 177 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 appearing on Ex.PW12/8 treated by him as D1 (Q5) and on Ex.PW12/9 treated by him as D2 (Q3) with the specimen signatures S1 to S14 and according to his opinion the disputed signatures D1 and D2 had not been written by the writer of the specimen signatures i.e. accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1).
170. It is further contended by Ld. Defence counsel for accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1) that the signatures appearing in the application form Ex.PW12/9 at Q2 and Q3 and also on forged and fabricated copy of the passport Ex.PW12/11 at point Q4 and on Ex.PW12/8 i.e. authority letter having signatures at point Q5 are stated to be of 1998 and the specimen signatures of the accused have been taken in the year 2015, so there is a gap of 17 years in signatures and the signatures are used to be changed from time to time according to the place, habit and working position of a particular person. It is further contended that moreover the specimen signatures were not taken in the same manner in which these are appearing at point Q2, Q3, Q4 and Q5. So, there could not be any comparison of the signatures of accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A
1) with the specimen signatures obtained in the year 2015. It is further contended that the signatures appearing on Ex.PW12/9, Ex.PW12/11 and Ex.PW12/8 are scanned copies of the original CC No. 96/2016 Page 178 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 documents, which even otherwise, could not be compared with the specimen signatures obtained in the year 2015 because PW11, the handwriting expert was not having any occasion to see the pressure and flow of the pen in which the signatures were made on these documents because of the scanned copies of the same with the specimen signatures. So, PW11 cannot be relied upon to the extent that the signatures appearing at Q2, Q3, Q4 and Q5 are of accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1).
171. Ld. Public Prosecutor Sh. Kumar Rajat for CBI has contended that report of the Government expert has to be preferred upon the report of the private expert and has relied upon Gulzar Alishri Raj Mohammad vs. State of Himachal Pradesh decided on 21.10.1997 (SC).
172. Ld. Public Prosecutor Sh. Kumar Rajat for CBI has further contended that an expert can opine on photostats and relied upon Laxmipat Choraria vs. State of Maharashtra, 1968 SCR (2) 624, wherein it has been held as under :
"......... Even if the originals be not forthcoming, opinions as to handwriting can be formed from the photographs. It is common knowledge that experts themselves base their opinion on enlarged photographs. The photos were facsimiles of the writings and could be compared with the enlargements of the admitted comparative (1) [1908]2 I.R. 194."
173. In view of the same, the report of DW1 cannot be relied CC No. 96/2016 Page 179 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 upon. PW11, Sh. Anil Sharma, Senior Scientific Officer, CFSL, New Delhi has fairly given his report and has not opined about Q2 and Q4 to be similar to the specimen handwriting of accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1) as S1 to S14. Q2, are the signatures appearing on the application form as Mohan Kumar and Q4 is appearing at the bottom of photograph of Enayath Akmal Khan in the forged and fabricated photocopy of passport no. F004555 and with the reason given for this is due to quality of the reproduced signatures.
174. In view of the judgements relied upon by Ld. Public Prosecutor Sh. Kumar Rajat for CBI, the report of DW1 cannot be relied and from the report of PW11 Sh. Anil Sharma, Senior Scientific Officer, CFSL, prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the signatures i.e. Q1 on the passport Ex.PW1/25, which accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1) got issued from Consulate General of India, Sydney, Australia, Q3 are the signatures of accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1) appearing on page 3 of the application form given for reissue of the passport to the RPO, Bangalore and Q5 is appearing on the authority letter given in the name of Raj Shekhar.
175. In view of the above, it has been proved beyond doubt CC No. 96/2016 Page 180 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 that the application form was given in the name of Mohan Kumar at RPO, Bangalore for reissue of the passport of accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1), which was signed as Mohan Kumar having genuine photographs with false and fabricated particulars supporting with the documents.
176. According to the deposition of the witnesses and admission of the accused persons A2, A3 and A4, passport was issued in the name of Mohan Kumar, which was used by accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1) and he got issued again passport/ additional booklet from Harare, Zimbabwe on the basis of the record maintained in India. During the course of investigation, extracts of Passport Writing Register had been collected from Harare and have been proved on record, which is Ex.PW17/C and the same name and address has been mentioned on which basis the passport was issued from RPO, Bangalore. The photo in the register is of accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1). Passport number has also been shown therein as A6705840. It is the same passport number, which was issued in favour of accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1) in the name of Mohan Kumar on basis of forged and fabricated documents.
177. On the basis of the same particulars, accused Rajendra CC No. 96/2016 Page 181 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1) got issued another passport no. G9273860 from Consulate General of India, Sydney, Australia, which later on was revoked, when accused was apprehended and arrested at Bali, Indonesia while using this passport Ex.PW1/25 issued by the Consulate General of India, Sydney, Australia. The signatures appearing at Q1 on this passport are similar to the signatures appearing in the specimen handwriting. So, the details, which were prepared at RPO, Bangalore, when application for re issue of the passport in the name of Mohan Kumar was given , by way of preparing fresh Index Card, were used later on for issuing passport/ additional book in favour of accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1) in the name of Mohan Kumar by the Consulate General of India, Harare, Zimbabwe and further by Consulate General of India, Sydney, Australia. So, knowingly intentionally, the application for reissue of the passport was given in the name of Mohan Kumar with false particulars supported with the forged and fabricated documents for getting issued passport in the name of Mohan Kumar, which accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1) used and also got issued passport/ additional book on the basis of the same from Consulate General of India, Harare, Zimbabwe and thereafter from Consulate General of India, Sydney, Australia.
178. This passport Ex.PW1/25 is bearing signatures of CC No. 96/2016 Page 182 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1) at point Q 1 while getting issued passport no. G9273860. According to the report of PW1 Sh. Anil Sharma, Senior Scientific Officer, CFSL, Delhi, the signatures mark Q1 are similar to the specimen writing of accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1) marked as S1 to S14. Moreover, accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1) travelled from Australia to Bali on this passport Ex.PW1/25 in the name of Mohan Kumar and the said passport was recovered from his possession, which he was using impersonating as Mohan Kumar issued on the false name and particulars. Possession of the passport no. G9273860 issued by Consulate General of India, Sydney, Australia, in favour of A1 and use of the same by accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1) while travelling from Australia to Bali is not in dispute in any manner and from Bali, Indonesia to India when he was deported to India. In view of the above, the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that all the accused persons had entered into criminal conspiracy to do an illegal act by illegal means and while doing so application for reissue of passport was given on behalf of A1 and the remaining accused persons accepted and processed having false name and particulars for reissue of the passport supported with the forged and fabricated documents having photographs of accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1) on the same and in furtherance of the same without CC No. 96/2016 Page 183 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 any record i.e. Passport Writing Register and/or Index Card, issued the passport No. A6705840 in favour of Mohan Kumar for the use of accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1) and in this manner Indian passport being a valuable security was obtained in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy and cheated the Government of India and delivered the same to accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1).
179. So, twice accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1) got issued passport in the name of Mohan Kumar on false and fabricated documents, firstly from RPO, Bangalore and lastly from Consulate General of India, Sydney, Australia and signatures appearing in the application form for reissue of the passport given at RPO, Bangalore, and appearing on the passport Ex.PW1/25 at Q1 issued by Consulate General of India, Sydney, Australia, on the basis of the same particulars, are the same and are tallying with specimen signatures of accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1) i.e. S1 to S14.
180. In view of the above, it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that all the accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy to do an illegal act by illegal means and in consequence of the same accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1) applied for reissue of the passport at RPO, CC No. 96/2016 Page 184 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 Bangalore with false particulars supported with the forged and fabricated documents and A2, A3 and A4 accepted and processed the said application and issued passport no. A6705840 in the name of Mohan Kumar i.e. accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1).
181. In this manner, accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1) by giving genuine photograph with application for reissue of the passport at RPO, Bangalore, impersonating himself as Mohan Kumar and false particulars, address, etc. supported with the false and fabricated documents and cheated the Government of India by obtaining an Indian Passport in his fake name Mohan Kumar, and thereafter also obtained the delivery of the passport No. A6705840 issued in the name of Mohan Kumar having his passport. Not only this, the copy of the ration card in false name and copy of the previously issued passport in the false name, on which name of accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1) was impersonating, were also forged and obtained the passport in the name of Mohan Kumar for the purpose of cheating the Government of India and used these documents and genuine and also had shown passport in the name of Mohan Kumar previously issue no. F004555, which was cancelled and returned by accused Lalitha Lakshmanan (A4), so, in this manner, the forged and fabricated documents were also used as genuine while CC No. 96/2016 Page 185 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 applying for reissue of the passport at RPO, Bangalore.
182. Accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1) also got issued the passport no. A6705840 issued from RPO, Bangalore, as genuine, containing false name and particulars and on the basis of the same, he also got issued additional booklet from Consulate General of Harare, Zimbabwe and further got issued passport in the same name and particulars from Consulate General of India, Sydney, Australia i.e. passport no. G9273860, which is containing the photograph and signatures of accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1), which according to PW11, the signatures appearing on Ex.PW1/25 at point Q1 are similar to specimen signatures S1 to S14.
183. So, twice accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1) committed these offences, firstly with rest of the accused persons and secondly at Consulate General of India, Sydney, Australia.
184. Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, runs as under :
"13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant.--
(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,--
(a) ........
(b) ........CC No. 96/2016 Page 186 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
(c) ........
(d) if he,--
(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest; or
(e) ..............."
185. Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, runs as under :
"(2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine."
186. From the above evidence, it has been proved that A2, A3 and A4 in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy with accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan (A1) accepted the application of A1 for reissue of the passport Ex.PW12/9 having false name and particulars, but genuine photographs of accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan (A1) suppoted with the forged and fabricated copy of ration card Ex.PW12/10 and also forged and fabricated copy of the previously issued passport Ex.PW12/11. The photograph appearing in Ex.PW12/11 i.e. copy of previously issued passport was not of accused Rajendra Sadashiv CC No. 96/2016 Page 187 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan (A1), but was entirely different from the photographs given with the application Ex.PW12/9, on which photograph of accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan (A1) are affixed on page 01 and 03. While processing the application neither the reference of the previous file no. 19/51783/88 nor previous passport no. F004555 was found in date 20.01.1989 in the name Mohan Kumar. In fact this passport number was issued to one Enayath Akmal Khan, whose passport copy was used in support of this application by forging the same. The application was given through one Raj Shekhar vide authority letter Ex.PW12/8 and the said Raj Shekhar could not be traced. It was found and has been proved in evidence that the address of accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan (A1) was not existing as given. Index card was also not available. So, it was not an application for reissue of passport as claimed, hence in absence of any entry in the Passport Writing Register and Index Card, this application for reissue of passport could not be entertained in any manner, but the application was process by the accused persons i.e. A2 to A4 in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy and not only this a fresh Index Card was also prepared as deposed by the witnesses, on which basis accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan (A1) got issued passport/ additional booklet from the Consulate General of India, Harare, Zimbabwe and thereafter, also got issued passport from Consulate General of India, Sydney, CC No. 96/2016 Page 188 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 Australia and used the same with the same false name and address with particulars.
187. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for A2, A 3 and A4 contended that these accused persons have not obtained any pecuniary advantage from accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan (A1) or from any other person on behalf of accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan (A1) or from said authorized person Raj Shekhar, so the offence u/SEc. 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988 is not proved against A2, A3 and A4. It is also contended that there is no allegation that A2, A3 and A4 obtained any illegal gratification from Raj Shekhar, authorized person of accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan (A
1), who had applied for reissue of the passport vide Ex.PW12/9.
188. Section 13 (1)(d) of the PC Act deals with three situations. Section 13(1)(d)(i) is that the advantage is obtained from corrupt or illegal means; or (ii) the advantage is obtained by abusing his position as a public servant; or (iii) while holding office as a public servant. There is no dispute that the accused persons i.e. A2, A3 and A4 were holding office i.e. RPO, Bangalore as a public servant and they abused their position as a public servant while accepting application for reissue of the passport Ex.PW12/9 having false name, address and particulars of a person showing accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan (A1) as the said person CC No. 96/2016 Page 189 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 Mohan Kumar supported with the forged and fabricated copy of the ration card and previously issued passport no. F004555, which actually was issued to one Enayath Akmal Khan. There was no reference in the Passport Writing Register of Mohan Kumar nor any Index Card was found even then the application was accepted and processed and passport was issued in the name of Mohan Kumar, so in this manner A2, A3 and A4 obtained for A1 a valuable thing i.e. passport of Government of India in the name of Mohan Kumar, a nonexisting person with false address and particulars, etc.
189. It has also been contended that at that time, the work of issuing of passport at RPO, Bangalore, was being done manually and there used to be rush of work as 200 to 300 applications were being received in the RPO, Bangalore, per day, but this contention is not acceptable in any manner because in this case neither the reference of previously issued passport in the name of Mohan Kumar was found in the Passport Writing Register nor Index Card was found so this was not a case of reissue of passport. But, in this case, passport was issued without the reference of Passport Writing Register or Index Card, so this act of the accused persons cannot be taken to be done in good faith in the normal course of the duty.
190. According to the Passport Manual 2001 applicable since 1983, published and updated again in the year 2001, containing CC No. 96/2016 Page 190 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 General Rules. Even if the passport was issued on the basis of verification certificate then police verification was required to be got conducted in all manner and in this case, no police verification was called for as has come in the evidence from the concerned police office, who used to do the verification of the persons in respect of the issuance of the passport. In respect of the fake documents it has been mentioned in Passport Manual 2001 that thorough scrutiny of the original documents at the time of accepting applications is of utmost importance and staff should be sensitized about the same to be remained very vigilant. In this case, the copy of the forged and fabricated previously issued passport no. F004555, which actually was issued in the name of Enayath Akmal Khan was used and shown to be issued in the name of Mohan Kumar having the photograph of Enayath Akmal Khan. According to the application, original passport was also shown and returned so, the difference between the photograph of Enayath Akmal Khan and of the photograph on the application Ex.PW12/9 could easily be noticed, but this fact knowingly and intentionally was over looked.
191. It has also been mentioned in the Passport Manual 2001 that if Passport Officer has any doubt about the information submitted by the applicant they have always the discretion of refusing the passport on police report over due basis. In this case CC No. 96/2016 Page 191 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 neither any reference was found in Passport Writing Register nor Index Card was found so the passport should have been refused. No police verification was asked for so there could not be any over due police report and intentionally knowing these facts, the application was accepted, processed and passport was issued in the name of Mohan Kumar, so in this manner all the accused persons A2, A3 and A4 abused their position while holding the office of RPO, Bangalore, as a public servant obtained valuable thing i.e. Indian Passport in the name of Mohan Kumar, which was false one with false particulars and address for accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan (A1).
192. Section 12 of the Passport Act, 1967 runs as under :
"12. Offences and penalties.--
(1) Whoever--
(a) contravenes the provisions of section 3; or
(b) knowingly furnishes any false information or suppresses any material information with a view to obtaining a passport or travel document under this Act or without lawful authority alters or attempts to alter or causes to alter the entries made in a passport or travel document; or
(c) fails to produce for inspection his passport or travel document (whether issued under this Act or not) when called upon to do so by the prescribed authority; or
(d) knowingly uses a passport or travel document issued to another person; or
(e) knowingly allows another person to use a passport or travel document issued to him; shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 9 [two years or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees] or with both. 10 [(1A) Whoever, not being a citizen of India,--
(a) makes an application for a passport or obtains a passport CC No. 96/2016 Page 192 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 by suppressing information about his nationality, or
(b) holds a forged passport or any travel document, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years and with fine which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees but which may extend to fifty thousand rupees.] (2) Whoever abets any offence punishable under 11 [subsection (1) or subsection (1A)] shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, be punishable with the punishment provided in that subsection for that offence. (3) Whoever contravenes any condition of a passport or travel document or any provision of this Act or any rule made thereunder for which no punishment is provided elsewhere in this Act shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both. (4) Whoever, having been convicted of an offence under this Act, is again convicted of an offence under this Act shall be punishable with double the penalty provided for the latter offence."
193. During the course of arguments, it has also been contented on behalf of accused persons A2, A3 and A4 that according to the application Ex.PW12/9 for reissue of the passport in the false name of Mohan Kumar with false address and other particulars, the declaration was to be given by the applicant himself to the extent that the information given by him in the application form is true and he is solely responsible for its accuracy. He is aware that it is an offence under the Passport Act 1967 to furnish any false information or to suppress any material information with a view to obtain passport or any other travel document. This declaration was given by accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan (A1) as the original photographs were placed with CC No. 96/2016 Page 193 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 the application form. Accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan (A1) was the beneficiary of the passport, so the offence u/Sec. 12 of the Passport Act, 1967 is not proved against A2, A3 and A4, who in good faith accepted, processed the application and issued the passport in the normal course of duty.
194. It has already been held that accused all had entered into a criminal conspiracy to do an illegal act by illegal means. Accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan (A1) intentionally and knowingly furnished false information with false address and other particulars, whereas in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy. Application was accepted by A4 and it was processed by A2, not only this, date of birth was also corrected as per old passport. Copy of which was also forged and fabricated. Passport was signed and issued by A3 and in such manner without lawful authority altered the date of birth in the application for re issue of the passport Ex.PW12/9 to allow the application for re issue of the passport in the false name, address and other particulars.
195. To sum up, in view of above, the documents, i.e. passport application form in the name of Mohan Kumar Damodar Ex.PW12/9, copy of ration card Ex.PW12/10, copy of passport no. F004555 Ex.PW12/11, authority letter dated 10.12.1998 CC No. 96/2016 Page 194 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 Ex.PW12/8, copy of receipt of Rs.300/ Ex.PW12/18, copy of the passport application form of Enayath Akmal Khan Ex.PW12/21, copy of ration card in the name of Ms. Rashida Begum Ex.PW12/19, copy of previous passport having perforated passport no. F004555, issued on 20.01.1989 Ex.PW12/20, authority letter of Mars Tours & Travels in reference to the passport application form of Enayath Akmal Khan Ex.PW12/16 and copy of FAX regarding confirmation of passport particulars sent on 04.07.2008 Ex.PW12/6, which are scanned copies of the documents provided by PW12 Ms. R. Amarjothi, to the CBI, are admissible in evidence, on which basis passport No. A6705840 in the name of Mohan Kumar in the year 1998 was issued from RPO, Bangalore in the fake name and on the basis of fake address and particulars and as the acts committed by accused Jayashree Dattatray Rahate (A2), Deepak Natvarlal Shah (A3) and Lalitha Lakshmanan (A4) were not the part of the official duty, hence, there was no need for sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of Cr.PC and accused Jayashree Dattatray Rahate (A2), Deepak Natvarlal Shah (A3) and Lalitha Lakshmanan (A4) are also not having any protection of Section 16 of the Passport Act as their act of issuing passport in the fake name, address and particulars was done intentionally and knowingly in absence of any reference in Passport Writing Register and/or Index Card because it was a case of reissue of passport and hence, the previous particulars musts be in the passport office, CC No. 96/2016 Page 195 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 which were not there. So, prosecution has been able to prove offence u/Sec. 120B of IPC against all the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and consequently offences u/Ss 419/420/467/468 and 471 IPC have been proved against accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1) beyond reasonable doubt, for which he is held guilty and convicted for the same.
196. Accused Jayashree Dattatray Rahate (A2), Deepak Natvarlal Shah (A3) and Lalitha Lakshmanan (A4) are also held guilty for committing offences u/Ss 419/420/467/468 and 471 IPC r/w Sec. 120B IPC and are convicted for the same.
197. Accused Jayashree Dattatray Rahate (A2), Deepak Natvarlal Shah (A3) and Lalitha Lakshmanan (A4) are also held guilty for committing offences u/Sec. 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, punishable u/Sec. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1) is also convicted u/Sec. 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, punishable u/Sec. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w Sec. 120B IPC.
198. Accused Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1) is also held guilty and convicted for the offences punishable u/Sec. 12 of Passport Act and accused Jayashree Dattatray Rahate (A2), CC No. 96/2016 Page 196 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 Deepak Natvarlal Shah (A3) and Lalitha Lakshmanan (A4) are also held guilty for committing offence u/Sec. 12 of Passport Act r/w Sec. 120B of IPC and convicted for the same.
Announced in the open court on 24th April 2017.
(Virender Kumar Goyal) Special Judge03, CBI PC Act, PHC, New Delhi CC No. 96/2016 Page 197 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL:
SPECIAL JUDGE03:(PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT) CBI : PHC: NEW DELHI CC No. 96/2016 RC - 07A/2015/SCU.V/SCII/CBI/ND CBI Vs. 1. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan S/o Sh. Sadashiv Sakharam Nikalje R/o 6/192 and 6/120, Tilak Nagar Colony, Chambur, Mumbai400089 and Flat No. 1202, Ashutosh, Neelkhan Vihar, Tilak Nagar, Chambur East, Mumbai PIN : 400089 Maharashtra, India and Village & Post office : Giravi, Tehsil : Faltan, District : Satara, Maharashtra.
2. Jayashree Dattatray Rahate W/o Sh. Dattatray Pandurang Rahate R/o Anand Vihar Complex 2/404 Anand Kunj Near Kharegoan Railway Fatak Kharegoan East Kalwa Thana 400605.
3. Deepak Natvarlal Shah S/o Sh. Natvarlal Maganlal R/o 702 Mahan Terrance Opposite Bulka Bhawan School Adajan Road, Surat, Gujarat.
4. Lalitha Lakshmanan W/o Sh. S. Lakshmanan R/o H. No. 715, "D" Block, 2nd Main, Rajaji Nagar II Stage, Bangalore 560010.CC No. 96/2016 Page 198 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 25.04.2017 Present: Sh. Kumar Rajat Ld. Public Prosecutor for CBI.
Inspector R. K. Sinha, Investigating Officer. Convict Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1) is appearing through video conferencing with Sh. Anshuman Sinha, adv. and Sh. Vijay Kumar Pandey, adv. Convict Jayashree Dattatray Rahate (A2) with Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma, adv.
Convict Deepak Natvarlal Shah (A3) with Sh. S. P. M. Tripathi, adv.
Convict Lalitha Lakshmanan (A4) with Sh. Satya Narayan, adv.
Order on sentence :
Ld. Counsel Sh. Anshuman Sinha for convict Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1) has contended that in the statement recorded u/Sec. 313 Cr.PC, convict Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1) has already stated that the passport was given by someone on behalf of State as he was fighting against terrorism and helping the State. It is further contended that convict Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1) has also threat to his life from Dawood Ibrahim and has also undergone bypass surgery. It is also contended that he is having three daughters, who are studying. It is further contended that considering the above facts and mitigating circumstances, minimum sentence may be awarded.
Ld. Counsel Sh. Anshuman Sinha for convict Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota Rajan (A1) has relied upon Monica Bedi CC No. 96/2016 Page 199 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 Vs. State of A.P., MANU SC 0934 2010 and also on Jasbir Singh Vs. Tara Singh & Ors., MANU SC 1045 2015.
Ld. Counsel Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma for convict Jayashree Dattatray Rahate (A2) has contended that convict Jayashree Dattatray Rahate (A2) is a senior citizen and aged about 65 years. She is retired from services. She is dependent upon her son. Her husband is also retired. She is suffering from various ailments.
Ld. Counsel Sh. S.P. M. Tripathi has contended on behalf of convict Deepak Natvarlal Shah (A3) that he is aged about 65 years. His wife is also retired. Both of them have no children. Photocopy of medical record of convict Deepak Natvarlal Shah (A3) is also filed. It is contended that he is suffering from various ailments.
Ld. Counsel Sh. Satya Narayan for convict Lalitha Lakshmanan (A4) has contended that she is 64 years. She has two daughters, both are married. Her husband is also senior citizen. She is also suffering from various ailments. Photocopies of medical treatment papers are also filed.
In support of his contentions, Ld. Counsel Sh. Satya Naraya for convict Lalitha Lakshmanan (A4) has relied upon Mohammad Giasuddin vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1977) 3 SCC
287. CC No. 96/2016 Page 200 of 205
CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 Section 120B of IPC is as under :
"120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.--
(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, 2[imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both."
Section 109 of IPC is as under :
"109. Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment.--Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence."
Offence u/Sec. 419 IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine or with both.
Offence u/Sec. 420 IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Offence u/Sec. 467 IPC is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
CC No. 96/2016 Page 201 of 205CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 Offence u/Sec. 468 IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Offence u/Sec. 471 IPC is punishable in the same manner as if the document has been forged.
Offence u/Sec. 12 of Passports Act, 1967 is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees or with both.
Offence u/Sec. 13(1)(d) r/w Sec. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than four years but which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.
Considering the nature and gravity of offences, arguments addressed on behalf of the convicts, their medical conditions and mitigating circumstances, I proceed to award the sentences as under :
(1) Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan (A1) Sr. Offence Punishable Sentence of Fine (Rs.) Sentence in No. u/S. simple/ Rigorous default of Imprisonment fine
1. u/s. 419 IPC 03 years SI 1,000/ 09 months SI
2. u/s. 420 IPC 03 years SI 1,000/ 09 months SI CC No. 96/2016 Page 202 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
3. u/s. 467 IPC 07 years SI 1,000/ 1½ years SI
4. u/s. 468 IPC 03 years SI 1,000/ 09 months SI
5. u/s. 471 IPC 03 years SI 1,000/ 09 months SI
6. u/s.13(1)(d) punishable 04 years SI 5,000/ 1¼ year SI u/s. 13(2) PC Act r/w Sec. 120B IPC
7. u/s. 12 of Passport Act 02 years SI 5,000/ 06 months SI (2) Jayashree Dattatray Rahate (A2) Sr. Offence Punishable Sentence of Fine (Rs.) Sentence in No. u/S. simple/ Rigorous default of fine Imprisonment
1. u/s. 419 IPC r/w Sec. 03 years SI 1,000/ 09 months SI 120B IPC
2. u/s. 420 IPC r/w Sec. 03 years SI 1,000/ 09 months SI 120B IPC
3. u/s. 467 IPC r/w Sec. 07 years SI 1,000/ 1½ years SI 120B IPC
4. u/s. 468 IPC r/w Sec. 03 years SI 1,000/ 09 months SI 120B IPC
5. u/s. 471 IPC r/w Sec. 03 years SI 1,000/ 09 months SI 120B IPC
6. u/s.13(1)(d) punishable 04 years SI 5,000/ 1¼ year SI u/s. 13(2) PC Act
7. u/s. 12 of Passport Act 02 years SI 5,000/ 06 months SI r/w Sec. 120B IPC (3) Deepak Natvarlal Shah (A3) Sr. Offence Punishable Sentence of Fine (Rs.) Sentence in No. u/S. simple/ Rigorous default of Imprisonment fine
1. u/s. 419 IPC r/w Sec. 03 years SI 1,000/ 09 months SI 120B IPC
2. u/s. 420 IPC r/w Sec. 03 years SI 1,000/ 09 months SI 120B IPC CC No. 96/2016 Page 203 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017
3. u/s. 467 IPC r/w Sec. 07 years SI 1,000/ 1½ years SI 120B IPC
4. u/s. 468 IPC r/w Sec. 03 years SI 1,000/ 09 months SI 120B IPC
5. u/s. 471 IPC r/w Sec. 03 years SI 1,000/ 09 months SI 120B IPC
6. u/s.13(1)(d) punishable 04 years SI 5,000/ 1¼ year SI u/s. 13(2) PC Act
7. u/s. 12 of Passport Act 02 years SI 5,000/ 06 months SI r/w Sec. 120B IPC (4) Lalitha Lakshmanan (A4) Sr. Offence Punishable Sentence of Fine (Rs.) Sentence in No. u/S. simple/ Rigorous default of Imprisonment fine
1. u/s. 419 IPC r/w Sec. 03 years SI 1,000/ 09 months SI 120B IPC
2. u/s. 420 IPC r/w Sec. 03 years SI 1,000/ 09 months SI 120B IPC
3. u/s. 467 IPC r/w Sec. 07 years SI 1,000/ 1½ years SI 120B IPC
4. u/s. 468 IPC r/w Sec. 03 years SI 1,000/ 09 months SI 120B IPC
5. u/s. 471 IPC r/w Sec. 03 years SI 1,000/ 09 months SI 120B IPC
6. u/s.13(1)(d) punishable 04 years SI 5,000/ 1¼ year SI u/s. 13(2) PC Act
7. u/s. 12 of Passport Act 02 years SI 5,000/ 06 months SI r/w Sec. 120B IPC All the sentences mentioned above shall run concurrently.
The bail bonds and surety bonds are hereby cancelled and sureties are discharged and convicts are taken to custody to suffer sentences.
It is stated that convict Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chota CC No. 96/2016 Page 204 of 205 CBI Vs. Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan & Ors. Judgement dt. 24.04.2017 Rajan (A1) is in custody since 06.11.2015 and convict Jayashree Dattatray Rahate (A2), convict Deepak Natvarlal Shah (A3) and convict Lalitha Lakshmanan (A4) are in custody since 24.04.2017.
Benefit of Section 428 Cr.PC be also given.
Fine, as imposed on each convict, has been deposited. Copy of order on sentence be supplied free of cost to all the convicts.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court on 25th day of April 2017 (Virender Kumar Goyal) Special Judge03, CBI PC Act, PHC, New Delhi CC No. 96/2016 Page 205 of 205