Delhi District Court
State vs Sanjana Ravi Makhijja on 30 September, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHINAV AHLAWAT JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-09 (SOUTH-WEST) DWARKA
COURTS: DELHI
State Vs. : Sanjana Ravi Makhija
FIR No : 98/2018
U/s : 417/419/468/471 IPC
P.S. : Domestic Airport
1. CNR No. of the Case : DLSW020475622019
2. Date of commission of offence : 06.11.2018
3. Date of institution of the case : 12.09.2019
4. Name of the complainant : Sunil Kumar Sharma
5. Name of accused, parentage & : Sanjana Ravi Makhija
address W/o Ravi Kanyalal
Makhija
R/o Sat Narayan
Apatments, 4th Floor,
401-403, Near Ram
Japo Ashram, Ullahas
Nagar-01, Kalyan
West Mumbai.
6. Offence complained of : 417/419/468/471 IPC
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Final order : Acquitted
9. Date of final order : 30.09.2024
Argued by:- Mr. Pankaj Gulia, Ld. APP for the State
Mr. D. S. Chadha, Ld. Counsel for accused.
Digitally signed
by Abhinav
FIR No.98/2018, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Sanjana Ravi Makhija Page 1 of 32 Abhinav Ahlawat
Date:
Ahlawat 2024.09.30
15:59:17
+0530
JUDGMENT
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
FACTUAL MATRIX-
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 06.11.2018 at around 04:00 am at T-1, IGI Airport, New Delhi, accused cheated the complainant by fraudulently using the forged Aadhar card in the name of Karishma Bhisham Thakur and dishonestly induced the complainant to gain access to the T-1 IGI Airport, Delhi to board the flight no.63171 Indigo Airlines. Further, accused committed forgery of Aadhar Card no.875241525847 in the name of Karishma Bhisham Thakur, intending that the said document shall be used for the purpose of cheating and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 417/419/468/471 of IPC for which FIR no.98/2018 was registered at the police station Domestic Airport, New Delhi.
INVESTIGATION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED
2. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer (hereinafter called as, "IO") undertook investigation and on culmination of the same, the chargesheet against the accused person was filed. The Ld. Predecessor of this court took the cognizance against the accused person and summons were issued to the accused. On his appearance, a copy of the chargesheet was supplied to the accused in terms of section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC"). On finding a prima facie case against the accused person, charge under Sections 417/419/468/471 of IPC was framed against the accused on 05.04.2021. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Digitally signed by AbhinavFIR No.98/2018, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Sanjana Ravi Makhija Page 2 of 32 Abhinav Ahlawat Date:
Ahlawat 2024.09.30 15:59:24 +0530 PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt: -
ORAL EVIDENCE PW-1 Sunil Kumar Sharma PW-2 Ajay Singh Gahlot PW-3 Anmol Sood PW-4 Rati Kapoor PW-5 Vishal Sharma PW-6 SI/Ex. R. K. Mandal PW-7 Abhijit Angolkar PW-8 WHC Sudesh PW-9 Inspector Vipin Kumar PW-10 SI Arun Kumar DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex.PW1/A Gold was seized and information passed to SHO IGI Airport Ex.PW1/B Boarding pass of accused Ex.PW1/C Boarding pass of accused Ex.P1 Adhar card bearing no.875241525847 bearing photograph of accused in the name of Karishma Bhishma Thakur Ex.P2 Adhar card bearing no.366030941009 bearing photograph of accused Ex.P3 Adhar card bearing no.366030941009 bearing photograph of accused Ex.PW2/A Seizure memo qua boarding passes of accused Ex.PW3/A Letter of authorization alongwith board resolution Ex.PW3/B Letter dated 08.11.2018 alongwith certificate u/S 65 of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW3/C Letter dated 21.01.2019 Ex.PW4/A Letter dated 03.12.2018 Ex.PW4/B Record annexed with abovesaid letter Ex.PW4/C Certificate u/S 65 of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW5/A Reply dated 15.11.2018 Ex.PW5/B Certificate u/S 65 of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW5/C DVD containing CCTV footage Digitally signed by Abhinav FIR No.98/2018, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Sanjana Ravi Makhija Page 3 of 32 Abhinav Ahlawat Date: Ahlawat 2024.09.30 15:59:30 +0530 Ex.PW5/D Reply dated 29.04.2019 Ex.PW7/A Reply to notice Ex.PW7/B PNR details of two passengers Ex.PW8/A Arrest memo Ex.PW8/B Personal search memo Ex.PW10/A Disclosure statement of accused Ex.PW10/B Seizure memo qua mobile phone Ex.PW10/C Request letter for JC Ex.PW10/D Print out of adhar card bearing no.875241525847 Ex.PW10/D1 Certificate u/S 65 of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW10/E Notice u/S 91 r/w Section 160 Cr. P. C. given to Station Manager Indigo Airline Ex.PW10/F Notice u/S 91 r/w Section 160 Cr. P. C. given to Station Manager Indigo Airline Ex.PW10/G Notice u/S 91 r/w Section 160 Cr. P. C. given to Station Manager Jet Airways ADMITTED DOCUMENTS Ex.A1 FIR no.98/2018 dated 07.11.2018 alongwith certificate u/S 65 of Indian Evidence Act To prove its case, prosecution examined the following witnesses, the same are as follows:
4. PW1 Sunil Kumar Sharma deposed that on 06.11.2018, he was posted as Income Tax Officer (Investigation), Air Intelligence Unit, Delhi Airport. On that day, they had received information from the CISF officials that Smt. Krishma Thakur alongwith one more lady namely Divya were travelling with 1.3 Kg approximately of gold. On the basis of information, CISF officials handed over both the ladies to Income Tax Officers on duty and the Duty Inspector Ajay Singh Gehlot called him at the spot. Thereafter, he went to the spot and asked the accused for documents regarding gold but the accused persons could not show any valid documents regarding the possession of gold. He Digitally signed FIR No.98/2018, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Sanjana Ravi Makhija Page 4 of 32 by Abhinav Abhinav Ahlawat Date:
Ahlawat 2024.09.30 15:59:35 +0530 asked the accused persons to show their identity cards. He issued summons under Section 131 of Income Tax Act, 1961 to the accused persons to record their statements. He recorded their statements. During statement, accused Karishma stated that her correct name is Sanjana Ravi Makhija and produced another adhar card. She confessed that the adhar card which she showed at first instance was provided to her by one Krish Bajaj and she refused to give the details of said Krish Bajaj. Thereafter, the gold was seized by the Income Tax Department and the information was passed on to the SHO IGI Airport vide Ex.PW1/A. The custody of the accused Sajana Ravi Makhija alongwith the adhar cards and boarding pass in original were handed over to police officials through Sh. Ajay Singh Gehlot, Income Tax Inspector. The witness identified three adhar cards of accused as Ex.P1, Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 respectively and the accused present in the court and boarding passes of accused as Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C. In the cross-examination, he stated that the accused Sanjana was handed over to the police on 07.11.2018. However, he could not tell the exact time. He stated that he directed the accused to accompany Mr. Ajay Singh Gehlot to the police station. He had recorded the statement of accused after giving summons under Section 131 (1A) of Income Tax Act and that accused stated before him that she did not know anything about the person namely Krish Bajaj or the person who gave her the fake adhar card. PW1 further stated that accused Sanjana had stated that she used to converse with the person who gave her fake adhar card over whatsapp and that CISF officials had informed Sh. Ajay Singh Gehlot who was the Duty Inspector and he further informed him about the incident and he was not present at the time when the accused was firstly apprehended.Digitally signed by Abhinav
FIR No.98/2018, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Sanjana Ravi Makhija Page 5 of 32 Abhinav Ahlawat Date:
Ahlawat 2024.09.30 15:59:40 +0530
5. PW2 Ajay Singh Gahlot deposed that on 06.11.2018, he was posted as Income Tax Inspector at T-1, IGI Airport, Delhi. At about 04:00 am, two ladies namely Sanjana Ravi Makhija R/o Mumbai and Divya Kukreja R/o Kalyan West, Mumbai were apprehended and from the possession of Sanjana Ravi Makhija eight biscuit of gold were recovered. Thereafter, they initiated the proceedings against them and gave his complaint to the police, on which the present FIR was registered. Thereafter, he handed over the lady to the police and also gave them two Aadhar cards out of which one was fake belonging to Sanjana Ravi Makhija and also handed over boarding passes to the police and police took the same in their possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A. The witness correctly identified the accused present in the court, aadhar cards and boarding passes of accused. In the cross-examination, he stated that he handed over the accused to SI Arun Kumar on 07.11.2018 at 04:30 pm. He did not record the statement of accused under Income Tax Act. Accused stated before him in her statement that the fake aadhar card and ticket were handed over to her by someone else.
6. PW3 Anmol Sood deposed that he was working at Interglobe Aviation Limited as Legal Counsel since 2018. He had been authorized to depose before Hon'ble Court vide letter of authorization dated 23.02.2022 alongwith the Board Resolution dated 30.08.2018. He identified the signatures of Mr. Rahul Kumar who was the Associate General Counsel - Litigation. He proved the letter of authorization alongwith Board Resolution as Ex.PW3/A (colly) and letter dated 08.11.2018 alongwith the certificate under Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act and the relevant passenger manifest as Ex.PW3/B (colly) bearing the signatures of Mr. Rahul Digitally signed by Abhinav Abhinav Ahlawat FIR No.98/2018, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Sanjana Ravi Makhija Page 6 of 32 Date:
Ahlawat 2024.09.30 15:59:44 +0530 Kumar with the seal of Interglobe Aviation Limited (Indigo). Letter dated 21.01.2019 as Ex.PW3/C.
7. PW4 Rati Kapoor, deposed that on 03.12.2018, she was working as Assistant Manager (Flight Handling Unit) at Air India Limited, Delhi Airport. On that day, she had prepared and presented letter dated 03.12.2018 regarding the booking records of passengers namely, Mrs. Karishma Thakur and Ms. Divya Kukreja Ex.PW4/A and record annexed alongwith the abovementioned letter as Ex.PW4/B (colly).
8. PW5 Vishal Sharma deposed regarding providing DVD containing CCTV footage along with his reply bearing no.IC:17098(06)/CISF/IGI/INT/18-25774 dated 15.11.2018 Ex.PW5/A, certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act before the IO Ex.PW5/B, DVD containing CCTV footage as Ex.PW5/C and reply to the letter no.825/R/SHO/DOM.A dated 09.04.2019 vide reply letter bearing no.
IC:17098(06)/CISF/IGI/INT/POLICE/19-9902 dated 29.04.2019 Ex.PW5/D.
9. PW6 SI/Ex. R. K. Mandal deposed regarding preparation of DVD containing CCTV footage on the directions of Sh. Vishal Sharma, Assistant Commandant, CISF and had also prepared certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. In the cross-examination, he stated that CCTV footage was retrieved from the system by him and not by other persons. After taking the CCTV footage in the CD, he provided the CD to the PS 1-D Domestic Airport. He did not remember the exact date and time on which he handed over the CD containing the CCTV footage to the official at the PS Domestic Airport. He could not tell whether Digitally signed by Abhinav FIR No.98/2018, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Sanjana Ravi Makhija Page 7 of 32 Abhinav Ahlawat Date:
Ahlawat 2024.09.30 15:59:50 +0530 the original footage as recorded by the system installed at the said place can be tampered or altered by any software or any technique.
10. PW7 HC Abhijit Angolkar, MHC (M) proved reply to the notice issued to him by the IO Ex.PW7/A and PNR details of two passengers for the sector Mumbai to Chennai as Ex.PW7/B.
11. PW8 WHC Sudesh deposed that on 07.11.2018, accused Sanjana Devi Makhija was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW8/A and personally searched by her vide personal search memo Ex.PW8/B. In the cross-examination, she stated that she did not arrest the accused. Accused was arrested by the IO in her presence. She did not remember the name of the person who handed over the accused to her and she that accused was handed over to the IO by the Income Tax Officer in her presence and one lady from the Income Tax Office was present there at the time of handing over.
12. PW9 Inspector Vipin Kumar deposed that he prepared the charge-
sheet and presented the same before the Court. In the cross- examination, he stated that there was no material found during the investigation against one Krish Bajaj and some materials were found against Divya Kukreja which were part of the chargesheet as submitted by him.
13. PW10 SI Arun Kumar deposed that on 07.11.2018, he was on emergency duty at police station, when the complaint of Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma was received at the police station through Mr. Ajay Singh Gahlot, IT Inspector which was marked to him vide DD no.7A dated 07.11.2018 for necessary action. Mr. Ajay Digitally signed by Abhinav FIR No.98/2018, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Sanjana Ravi Makhija Page 8 of 32 Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date:
2024.09.30 15:59:54 +0530 Singh Gahlot came alongwith passenger Ms. Sanjana Ravi Makhijja and handed over the same alongwith the attached enclosures i.e. aadhar cards and boarding pass and he seized the same. Thereafter, he prepared the rukka and handed over the same to the Duty Officer for registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, the copy of FIR and original rukka were handed over to him. Further investigation of the matter was also marked to him. Thereafter, he in presence of WHC Sudesh interrogated the accused and her disclosure statement was recorded Ex.PW10/A and he also seized the mobile phone make Vivo, Rose Gold colour vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/B. Thereafter, he arrested the accused and was personally searched. During the personal search of the accused, one black leather purse containing Rs.2500/- and clothes, driving licence in the name of Sanjana Makhijja, four gold colour rings, one set earring, one bracelet, one mangal sutra, four papers (panchnama, jewellery bill, inventory) given by IT officer were found which were taken into police possession vide personal search memo. The information regarding the arrest of accused was given to her husband Ravi Kanayalal Makhijja. He stated that case property was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/B and he correctly identified mobile phone rose gold colour (Vivo) plus-7, Driving license of the accused, black leather purse containing Rs. 2500/-, jeweler bills, copy of panchnama. He further stated that the gold ornament which were seized from the personal search of the accused were released and on 08.11.2018, the accused was produced before the Hon'ble Court and was sent to JC by the order of Hon'ble Court and he proved request letter for JC as Ex.PW10/C and recorded the statement of witnesses. He further stated that during investigation, he had taken on record flight Digitally signed by Abhinav Page 9 of 32 Abhinav Date: Ahlawat FIR No.98/2018, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Sanjana Ravi Makhija Ahlawat 2024.09.30 15:59:59 +0530 manifest from Indigo Airlines, tickets details were received from Air India and Jet Airways, aadhar card in the name of Krishma Bhisham Thakur vide aadhar card no.875241525847 was online verified which was found to be a fake one and he proved printout of the same as Ex.PW10/D and certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW10/D1. Notice under Section 91 read with Section 160 Cr. P. C. given to Station Manager Indigo Airlines as Ex.PW10/E and Ex.PW10/F. Notice under Section 91 read with Section 160 Cr. P. C. given to Station Manager Jet Airways as Ex.PW10/G. In the cross-examination, he stated that he did not remember if accused was handed over to him after a period of 36 hours after the alleged incident. He further stated that accused was traveling with one Divya Kukreja at the time of alleged incident and said Divya Kukreja was also examined by him during the investigation of the present matter but he did not remember as to how he called or summoned Ms. Divya Kukreja during the investigation of the present case. He further stated that he did not arrest the said Divya Kukreja in the present case as he did not consider the same relevant. The alleged original aadhar card of the accused was handed over to him by Inspector Gahlot. He did not remember then if accused has also given him her original driving license. He further stated that accused during investigation stated to him that the alleged aadhar card was given to her by one person belonging to Krish Bajaj at Moral Naka Mumbai but he did not investigate regarding the person as stated by the accused from whom she had received the alleged aadhar card. He further stated that he did not proceed to Mumbai to investigate the facts as stated by the accused and he did not try to procure the CCTV footage of Moral Naka Mumbai. He further stated that accused Sanjana informed him during investigation Digitally signed by Abhinav Abhinav Ahlawat FIR No.98/2018, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Sanjana Ravi Makhija Page 10 of 32 Date:
Ahlawat 2024.09.30 16:00:04 +0530 that one Krish Bajaj handed over her forged document at T-3 Airport, Delhi and she was carrying gold from Bangkok Thailand. Witness also stated that after procuring the CCTV footage from the terminal building, the said Krish Bajaj was not identified or seen in the said footage. He did not know whether the said Krish Bajaj was charge sheeted or not as the further investigation and filing of the chargesheet was done by the other IO. Witness further stated that he did not get conducted the forensic analysis of the mobile phone of the accused and he had not investigated the fact as to how the accused got her tickets booked by the name of Karishma Bhisham Thakure and the same was part of record as he had received the documents from the Airlines Ticketing counter. He did not investigate the ticking agent from where the accused booked her tickets by the name of Karishma Bhisham Thakur. He also did not investigate regarding how the payment and by whom the payment for tickets were done by in the name of Karishma Bhisham Thakur. He did not investigate regarding how the aadhar card as shown by the accused was got prepared.
14. On account of admission of accused u/s 294 Cr.P.C, remaining witnesses in the prosecution list were dropped and the formal proof of the documents sought to be proved by them was dispensed with. No other PW was left to be examined; hence, PE was closed.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED AND DEFENCE
EVIDENCE
15. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence in order to allow the accused person to personally explain the incriminating Digitally signed by Abhinav FIR No.98/2018, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Sanjana Ravi Makhija Page 11 of 32 Abhinav Ahlawat Date: Ahlawat 2024.09.30 16:00:09 +0530 circumstances appearing in evidence against him, the statement of the accused person was recorded on 15.09.2023 without oath under section 281 r/w 313 CrPC, wherein she has stated that she is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case by Krish Bajaj who had given her the forged aadhar card alongwith the gold articles and she was not aware that the same would land her in trouble. Accused also stated that other passenger namely Divya was known to Krish Bajaj previously and both of them had cheated her by using her for their ulterior motives. Accused also stated that Divya travelled alongwith her but she handed over the gold articles to her before entering into the Airport premises. Accused further stated that she did not know any person by the name of Krishma Bhishma Thakur and she used the aadhar card in the name of Krishma Bhishma Thakur without knowing her. She further stated that he did not want to lead defence evidence.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
16. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
17. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the State that all the ingredients of the offence are fulfilled in the present case. He has argued that prosecution witnesses have categorically deposed about the commission of offence and there is no ground to disbelieve their testimony. He further contends that the documentary evidence has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt. As such, it is prayed that the accused be punished for the said offences.
Digitally signed by Abhinav Abhinav Ahlawat FIR No.98/2018, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Sanjana Ravi Makhija Page 12 of 32 Ahlawat Date:
2024.09.30 16:00:14 +0530
18. Per contra, the Ld. counsel for the accused person has argued that the accused is a victim in the present case and as she had misplaced her original aadhar card whereupon she requested one Krish Bajaj to get her the copy of her aadhar card for the purpose of travelling and said Krish Bajaj instead of giving copy of original aadhar card gave accused a fake aadhar card. It is further submitted by the Ld. Counsel that accused had no knowledge that the aadhar card given to her was fake and that she had no malafide intention to cause any harm to either complainant, airport officials or the airline staff and that her innocence could have been established if the IO had investigated regarding the said Krish Bajaj by doing the forensic analysis of the mobile phone of accused, Krish Bajaj and Divya Kukreja and also by procuring the CCTV footage of Terminal-3, where Krish Bajaj was seen.
Ld. Counsel for accused further submitted that accused has not committed any forgery and the basic ingredients of mens rea and intention is missing and prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Ld. Counsel further argued that the entire case of the prosecution is false and fabricated and the same is evident from the material inconsistencies and contradictions borne out from the material on record. It is argued that the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden cast upon it. As such, it is prayed that the accused persons be acquitted for the said offence. Ld. Counsel for accused also filed the written submissions in support of his arguments and also placed on record the following judgments:
(i) Ram Kumar Tiwari Vs. State, Crl. Revision no.202/16 Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts.Digitally signed by Abhinav
FIR No.98/2018, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Sanjana Ravi Makhija Page 13 of 32 Abhinav Ahlawat Date: Ahlawat 2024.09.30 16:00:18 +0530
(ii) Arun Wan Thambaro Vs. State, 119 (2005) DLT 433.
(iii) Zuber and another Vs. State of U. P., 2024, AHC, 23366.
(iv) Sudesh Kumar Rai Vs. State of Chhatisgarh, Cr.(R) no.30/2021.
INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE
19. The allegations levelled against the accused are segregated into two parts, firstly pertaining to offences related to section 417/419 IPC and second pertaining to offence related to section 468/471 IPC.
20. It is trite law that the burden always lies upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence and that the law does not permit the Court to punish the accused on the basis of moral conviction or on account of suspicion alone. Also, it is well settled that accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such doubt entitles him to acquittal.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
21. The first set of allegations against the accused revolves around commission of offence of cheating under Sections 417 and 419 IPC, in which prosecution has to prove that the accused cheated the complainant by fraudulently using the forged aadhar card in the name of Krishma Bisham Thakur and thereby dishonestly induced the complainant to gain access in T-1, IGI Airport for boarding the Indigo Flight and also accused represented herself to be some other person by the name of Karishma Bisham Thakur and thereby committed the offence.
Digitally signed by AbhinavAbhinav Ahlawat Date: FIR No.98/2018, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Sanjana Ravi Makhija Page 14 of 32 Ahlawat 2024.09.30 16:00:24 +0530
22. According to Section 415 of the IPC, cheating is defined as an act of deceiving an individual fraudulently or dishonestly in order to persuade that person to deliver or consent to keep the property. That when a person fraudulently, dishonestly, or knowingly encourages another person to do or omit something that he would not have done if he hadn't been misled, and the act causes damage to that person's body, mind, reputation, or property, that individual is said to cheat. Literal meaning of the word cheating is that it is done in order to gain profit or an advantage from another person by using some deceitful means. The person who deceives another knows for the fact that it would place the other person in an unfair situation.
23. The section is divided into two distinct clauses. Under the first clause, the person deceived must have been fraudulently or dishonestly induced to deliver property. The second clause does not require the inducement to be fraudulent or dishonest. But it requires that by reason of the intentional inducement, damage or harm in body and mind, reputation or property was caused to the person deceived. Thus, cheating may be committed in either of the two ways. Cheating is punishable under section 417 IPC.
24. For the purpose of the proving the offence of 417 IPC, prosecution was mandated to prove that accused deceived the complainant Sunil Kumar Sharma by producing a fake aadhar card and represented herself as some other person by the name of Karishma Bhisham Thakur and thereby gained access to the T-1 IGI Airport for boarding the Indigo Flight no.6E-171 dated 06.11.2018.
Digitally signed by AbhinavAbhinav Ahlawat Page 15 of 32 Date:
FIR No.98/2018, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Sanjana Ravi Makhija Ahlawat 2024.09.30 16:00:29 +0530
25. As per complainant/PW1, on 06.11.2018 he was posted as Income Tax Officer at Air Intelligence Unit, Delhi Airport and he received information from CISF official that one Karishma Bhishma Thakur along with another lady namely Divya was travelling with 1.3 kg approximately gold. PW1 further stated that on the basis of said information, CISF officials handed over both the ladies to Income Tax Officers on duty and thereafter, the Duty Inspector Ajay Singh Gahlot called PW1 at the spot. PW1 further stated that when he went to the spot and asked both ladies to show valid documents regarding the possession of gold but they both could not show any valid document and when he asked the accused to show her identity cards, accused who by then was representing herself as Karishma Bhishma Thakur stated her correct name as Sanjana Ravi Makhija and produced an aadhar card and thereafter, confessed that aadhar card she showed at the first instance was provided to her by one Krish Bajaj but she refused to give further details of said Krish Bajaj.
Here, it is pertinent to mention that PW1 stated that, initially accused had showed one aadhar card, but later on, when she disclosed that her correct name as Sanjana Ravi Mukhija, she produced another aadhar card and when the seized articles that is the aadhar cards of accused were brought and opened during her deposition in the Court, three adhar cards were recovered from the yellow envelope, which were marked as Ex. P1, P-2 and P-3. Before tallying the same with the seizure memo, it is important to scrutinise the deposition of PW2 who was with PW1 when the accused was apprehended along with the aadhar cards in question.
Digitally signed by AbhinavAbhinav Ahlawat Page 16 of 32 Date:
FIR No.98/2018, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Sanjana Ravi Makhija Ahlawat 2024.09.30 16:00:33 +0530
26. PW2 the Income Tax Inspector stated that he handed over accused to the police and also gave them two aadhar cards out of which one was fake as belonging to Sanjana Ravi Makhija alongwith the boarding passes which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A. During testimony of both PW1 and PW2, the seized aadhar cards were produced in a yellow envelop which were opened and out of which three aadhar cards were produced and marked as Ex.P1, Ex.P2 and Ex.P3.
As per seizure memo Ex.PW2/A, two aadhar cards and two boarding passes were seized. The details of two aadhar cards as seized are aadhar card no.366030941009 by the name of Sanjana Ravi Makhija and second aadhar card with aadhar card no.875241525847 by the name of Karishma Bhisham Thakur.
27. Before, proceeding ahead, it is relevant to state that it is well settled principle of the law that the investigating agency should join independent witnesses at the time of recovery of articles, if they are available and their failure to do so in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case. In the present case also admittedly, the independent witnesses were available at the time of recovery as the place of seizure is airport which is usually frequented by many persons but as evident no serious efforts were undertaken by the investigating agency to join them. As per seizure memo Ex.PW2/A which was prepared by PW10 SI Arun Kumar when the accused along with the aadhar cards and boarding passes were handed over to him by PW2 Ajay Singh Gahlot, Income Tax Inspector. The said seizure memo bears the signatures of PW2 Ajay Singh Gahlot at point A. Perusal of the seizure memo Ex.PW2/A reveals that only two aadhar cards alongwith two boarding passes of accused were Digitally signed by Abhinav Abhinav Ahlawat FIR No.98/2018, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Sanjana Ravi Makhija Page 17 of 32 Date:
Ahlawat 2024.09.30 16:00:38 +0530 seized which are Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. There is no mentioning of the detail of Ex. P3 which is the third aadhar card as produced when the seized articles were produced before the court having aadhar details as Sanjana Ravi Makhija date of birth 27.04.1988, aadhar no.366030941009.
28. Furthermore, there is no other seizure memo on record by which the third aadhar card was seized although, there are three aadhar cards Ex.P1, Ex.P2 and Ex.P3. Upon perusal of Ex.P1, Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 it is evident that Ex.P1 is the aadhar card no.875241525847 by the name of Karishma Bhisham Thakur. While Ex.P2 is aadhar card no.366030941009 by the name of Sanjana Ravi Makhija whereas Ex.P3 has the same details of aadhar number of Ex.P2 but with different date of birth mentioned. There is no explanation as to how third aadhar card Ex.P3 was seized in the present case as there is no other seizure memo on record.
Further, it is worthwhile to mention here that upon the personal search of the accused, the personal search memo Ex.PW8/B was prepared wherein one driving licence by the name of Sanjana Makhija Along with other articles were taken into police possession).
29. PW10 SI Arun Kumar, who had seized the aadhar cards and the boarding passes upon receiving the same from PW1 and PW2 prepared the seizure memo Ex.PW2/A who stated in his cross examination that accused was handed over to him by Inspector Gehlot and the alleged original aadhar card of the accused was handed over to him by Inspector Gahlot only. There is nothing on record to suggest as to how the third aadhar card having the Digitally signed by Abhinav Abhinav Ahlawat Date: FIR No.98/2018, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Sanjana Ravi Makhija Page 18 of 32 Ahlawat 2024.09.30 16:00:43 +0530 details of the accused was procured and seized. No explanation has been forthcoming, either in the testimony of the IO or the complainant PW1 and the official PW2. The presence of the third aadhaar card without any supporting evidence or material creates doubt to the entire prosecution case of seizing the same from the accused person.
30. Further, as it is the case of the prosecution that accused used the forged aadhar card in the name of Karishama Bhisham Tahkur for gaining access to the Airport for boarding the Indigo Airline and has cheated the complainant by representing herself to be some other person. It is a matter of fact that neither the Airline concerned is the complainant nor they moved any complaint against accused to show that they were deceived in issuing the boarding pass in favour of the accused. Further, it is not the case of the prosecution or the complainant that accused used the forged aadhar card for gaining entry into the terminal building, as no such evidence is brought on record by the prosecution. The CISF official who was manning the gate from were accused by showing her id card or the aadhar card gained entry was neither examined nor cited as a witness. The act of accused entering the terminal building by the alleged use of forged aadhar card along with the ticket cannot be said to have been established by the mere possession of forged aadhar card that too when it is not clear as to which aadhar card was used by the accused (especially when out of the alleged three aadhar card only two were seized) without procuring the evidence of the official before whom the accused had flashed the ticket and aadhar card to secure entry inside the building. The failure of IO in identifying and examining the said official leads to the only reasonable Digitally signed by Abhinav Abhinav Ahlawat FIR No.98/2018, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Sanjana Ravi Makhija Page 19 of 32 Ahlawat Date:
2024.09.30 16:00:49 +0530 conclusion that the accused managed to have a free ride into the terminal building on that day, oblivious of the agony that was destined for her in the form of criminal trial. The best evidence, in the form of oral testimony of said official, to prove the offence of cheating has not been adduced which adversely affects the credibility of prosecution case. Further, there is no allegation on record about the accused having pretended herself to be some other person. It is the version of the PW1 that he received information from CISF official that accused with another lady were travelling with 1.3 kg gold and based on the said information the CISF officla handed over both the ladies to him, therefore, it is clear that PW1 was not the person to whom the accused showed her alleged fake aadhar card for either entering into the terminal building or for securing the boarding pass. The third aadhar card ex.P3 as tendered in the evidence is not seized as per the seizure memo and there is explanation from either PW1, PW2 or IO as to how the third aadhar card was recovered. This is a glaring loophole in the prosecution case, which even casts doubt whether the alleged aadhar card was recovered from the accused or not.
31. Furthermore, PW1 complainant has not been able to establish that the accused Sanjana Ravi Makhija fraudulently, dishonestly, or knowingly encouraged him to do or omit to do something which he would not have done if he hadn't been misled, and that the act of the accused caused damage to that complainant's body, mind, reputation, or property.
The term personation is defined in section 416 of the Indian Penal Code. The charging section is section 419 IPC. To bring home an offence under section 419, The elements of Digitally signed by Abhinav Abhinav Ahlawat FIR No.98/2018, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Sanjana Ravi Makhija Page 20 of 32 Ahlawat Date:
2024.09.30 16:00:54 +0530 section 416 IPC are to be proved. The essential ingredients of section 416 IPC are;
(i) pretention by a person to be some other person,
(ii) knowingly substituting one person for another,
(iii) representation that he may or any other person is a person other than he is, or other person really is.
32. This, apart to bring home a charge under section 419 IPC. The person said to be deceived must be shown to have been cheated by the personation. This brings into the field, the necessity of establishing the ingredients for cheating, namely, that there should be deception or intentionally inducing the victim to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived. Therefore, there must be cheating in addition to personation and the personation must be for the purpose of cheating.
33. It is a settled law that there must be cheating in addition to personation and the personation must be for the purpose of cheating. Thus, cheating is an essential ingredient of the offence. It is no doubt true that under the explanation to section 415 of the Indian Penal Code, a dishonest concealment of facts, is a deception within the meaning of the section. But deception by itself does not amount to cheating unless the person who deceived is induced to do any act of the act specified in the section which he would not have done if he were not so deceived.
34. As already stated above the offence of cheating consists of two clauses and under the first clause, the person deceived must have been fraudulently or dishonestly induced to deliver property. The second clause does not require the inducement to be fraudulent or dishonest. But it requires that by reason of the intentional Digitally signed by Abhinav Abhinav Ahlawat FIR No.98/2018, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Sanjana Ravi Makhija Page 21 of 32 Date:
Ahlawat 2024.09.30 16:00:58 +0530 inducement, damage or harm in body and mind, reputation or property was caused to the person deceived. Thus, cheating may be committed in either of the two ways. Therefore, act or omission on the part of the accused, which causes, or it's likely to cause damage or harm to that other person in body, mind, reputation or property is an essential ingredient. The damage must be direct, natural or probable consequence of the induced act. The resulting damage or likelihood of damage may not be within the actual contemplation of the accused when the deceit was practised. The person deceived must have acted under the influence of the deceit and the damage must not be too remote.
In the present case, the gist of the complainant's case is that accused used a forged aadhar card to gain access into the T1 IGI airport, and thereby cheated the complainant by representing herself to be some other person. Also, the official who checked the accused and her identification card for letting her in the airport premises was never made part of the investigation nor such documents used by the accused were procured. Further, seeing from the perspective that although seizure memo was of two addhar cards of the accused but on record there being three aadhar cards, with no explanation as to how and who gave the said aadhar card to the seizing officer makes the entire seizing process of the aadhar cards under a shadow of doubt. Since there is no material to show as to how any damage or harm has been caused to the complainant by the alleged act of the accused person by having two aadhar cards, the basic ingredients of the offence of cheating are not made out.
35. As discussed hereinabove, there are no evidence on record to establish that deception or dishonest concealment of facts on the Digitally signed by Abhinav FIR No.98/2018, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Sanjana Ravi Makhija Page 22 of 32 Abhinav Ahlawat Date:
Ahlawat 2024.09.30 16:01:04 +0530 part of accused was qua the complainant and from the entire evidence on record there appears no element of cheating at all towards the complainant and thereby the ingredients of the offences of cheating under Section 417 and 419 IPC are clearly not made out against accused Sanjana Ravi Makhija. Accordingly, accused Sanjana Ravi Makhija is acquitted of the offences punishable under section 417/419 IPC.
36. The second set of allegations against the accused person revolves around commission of offences under Section 468/471 IPC, for which prosecution has to prove that the accused committed the forgery of the aadhar card no.875241525847 in the name of Karishma Bhisham Thakur, intending to use the same for the purpose of cheating and thereby accused used the said forged aadhar card in the name of Karishma Bhisham Thakur as genuine knowing the same to be forged.
37. The offence of Section 468 IPC shall be attracted by proving that accused forged the aadhar card no.875241525847 as used by her which was issued in the name of Karishma Bhisham Thakur for the purpose of cheating, whereas for section 471 IPC, it has be shown that the accused had fraudulently or dishonestly used said forged aadhar card as genuine knowing or having reason to believe that it was forged.
38. The making of false documents by a person is defined u/s 464 IPC. As far Section 465 IPC is concerned, this provision lays down the punishment for offence of forgery. The offence of forgery has been defined u/s 463 IPC as making of any false documents or electronic record or part thereof with an intent to cause damage or injury to public or any person, or to support any Digitally signed by Abhinav Abhinav Ahlawat FIR No.98/2018, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Sanjana Ravi Makhija Page 23 of 32 Date:
Ahlawat 2024.09.30 16:01:09 +0530 claim or title or to cause any person to part with the property or to enter into any express or implied contract or with the in-tent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed.
39. The basic elements of forgery are:
(a) The making of a false document or part of it and;
(b) Such making should be with such intention as is specified in section, viz.,
(i) To cause damage or infringe to the public or any person.
(ii) To support any claim or title.
(iii) To cause any person to part with any property.
(iv) To cause any person to enter into expressed or implied contract or;
(v) To commit fraud or that fraud may be committed.
A full bench of Supreme Court in Ram Narayan Popli v. CBI, (2003) 3 SCC 641, had occasion to deal with the ingredients of forgery and while dealing with this question, the court observed as follows:-
"The first essential is that the accused should have made a false document. The false document must be made with an intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any class of public or to any communities."
40. The Court further observed that "the definition of the offence of forgery declares the offence to be completed with a false document is made with specified intention. The questions are
(i) is the document false,
(ii) is it made by the accused and
(iii) is it made with an intent to defraud.
41. If at all the questions are answered in the affirmative, the accused is guilty. The aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court make it amply clear that in order to constitute forgery, the first ingredient, which requires to be established is making of a false document. While dealing with question of making of false Digitally signed by Abhinav Abhinav Ahlawat FIR No.98/2018, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Sanjana Ravi Makhija Page 24 of 32 Date:
Ahlawat 2024.09.30 16:01:13 +0530 document, Supreme Court in Mohd. Ibrahim & Ors. v. State of Bihar (2009) 8 SCC 751, held as under:-
"In short, a person is said to have made a false document, if (i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorized by someone else; or (ii) he altered or tempered a document; or (iii) he obtained a document by practicing deception, or from a person not in control of his sense."
42. The prosecution is relying on the testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW10 who all are the witnesses in whose presence the alleged forged aadhar card no.875241525847 in the name of Karishma Bhisham Thakur was recovered and seized from the accused person. After PW1 and PW2 who both were income tax officials at the airport handed over the accused along with allged fake aadhar cards to the IO PW10, the seizing process was initiated. IO PW10 stated in his cross examination that alleged aadahar card of accused was handed over to him by Inspector Gehlot. PW10 further stated that he did not investigate regarding the person as stated by the accused from whom she had received the alleged aadhar card. IO PW10 further stated that during the course of investigation, accused stated that one Krish Bajaj handed over the forged documents to at T-3 airport Delhi, and she was carrying gold from Bangkok, Thailand. IO further stated that he did not investigate the ticketing agent from where the accused booked the ticket in the name of Karishma Bisham Thakur, and that he had not conducted the forensic analysis of the mobile phone of the accused. IO further stated that he did not investigate regarding how the aadhar card as shown by the accused was got prepared.
Digitally signed by AbhinavFIR No.98/2018, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Sanjana Ravi Makhija Page 25 of 32 Abhinav Ahlawat Date:
Ahlawat 2024.09.30 16:01:18 +0530
43. During the course of investigation, PW10 IO got verified the aadhar card no. 875241525847 in the name of Krishma Bhisham Thakur verified which was found to be a fake one and he proved printout of the same as Ex.PW10/D and certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW10/D1.
44. As already discussed, there is no seizure memo mentioning all the three aadhar cards being seized from her as allegedly recovered from the accused Sanjana therefore, the entire allegation that accused showed and produced the alleged aadhar card for the purpose of her Id becomes suspicious and doubtful. Either this is major oversight committed by the IO during the course of investigation or it is evident that accused never that the driving license with her.
45. From the above discussion, it is evidently clear that the aadhar card no.875241525847 in the name of Karishma Bhisham Thakur in question was never issued in favour of the accused as there is no record of the said aadhar card with the UIDAI and thereby establishing the fact that the aadhar card no.875241525847 is a fake or forged document. However, it does not exonerate the prosecution to prove that same was recovered from accused prepared the same. There is no admissible evidence on record to establish the manner in which the accused forged the said aadhar card. Even if one were to assume the possession of forged said aadhar card by accused as true, it would fall short of entailing penal liability in respect of the offence of forgery for lack of compelling evidence on record to prove that the forged said aadhar card was prepared by the accused.
Digitally signed by AbhinavAbhinav Ahlawat FIR No.98/2018, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Sanjana Ravi Makhija Page 26 of 32 Date:
Ahlawat 2024.09.30 16:01:23 +0530
46. The investigation in this case appears to be fundamentally defective as by neglecting to mention all the alleged aadhar card as recovered from the accused in the seizure memo, the investigating agency has not only compromised the chain of custody but also deprived the Court of the opportunity to objectively assess the veracity of the allegations against the accused. This lapse casts serious doubt on the thoroughness of the investigation and weakens the prosecution's case, as it leaves significant gaps in the evidentiary record that cannot be overlooked.
47. Even if one were to assume that accusaed had possession of forged aadhar card, it would fall short of entailing penal liability in respect of the offence of forgery for lack of compelling evidence on record to prove that the forged aadhar card was prepared by the accused. Infact, investigation is completely silent on the said point as to how the aadhar card no.875241525847 in the name of Karishma Bhisham Thakur was got prepared. The first essential of the offence under section 468 IPC, that is accused made a false document is not established. Further, there is no admissible evidence on record to establish the manner in which the accused forged the aadhar card.
48. Further to bring home offence under section 471 of IPC the prosecution is to prove that the document concerned was forged and that accused used such document knowing and having reasons to believe that the same was forged and accused nevertheless used the same as genuine fraudulently or dishonestly.
Digitally signed by AbhinavFIR No.98/2018, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Sanjana Ravi Makhija Page 27 of 32 Abhinav Ahlawat Date:
Ahlawat 2024.09.30 16:01:30 +0530
49. The allegations against accused is that she had fraudulently or dishonestly used the forged aadhar card no.875241525847 which in the name of Krishma Bhisham Thakur Ex.P1 as genuine despite having the knowledge or reason to believe that it was a forged document.
It is defence version that accused provided the aadhar card no.875241525847 in the name of Krishma Bhisham Thakur when she was asked to produce her Identity card and that she never wanted to misuse the same and she had no malafide intention as she himself had produced the same before the custom officials. It is the argument of the counsel for accused that accused herself is a victim as she had misplaced her original adhar card and whereby requested one Krish Bajaj to get her another copy of her original adhar card for the purpose of travel and that it was Krish Bajaj who had given her the said forged adhar card. Ld. Counsel for accused had vehemently argued that the investigating officer deliberately did not investigate regarding the said Krish Bajaj which could have unearth as to how that person procured the said forged adhar card despite that person being present in the Airport premises.
50. As one of the main ingredient of Section 471 IPC is that accused person must know or must have reasons to believe that the document is forged. It is evident from the testimony of both custom officials PW1 and PW2 who had apprehended accused who had stated that accused herself produced adhar card in the name of Sanjana Ravi Makhija and Karishma Bhishm Thakur to them and also stated that the adhar card bearing the name of Karishma Bhisham Thakur which she had shown in the first instance was provided to her by one Krish Bajaj. As already Digitally signed by Abhinav FIR No.98/2018, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Sanjana Ravi Makhija Page 28 of 32 Abhinav Ahlawat Date:
Ahlawat 2024.09.30 16:01:36 +0530 stated in the proceeding paragraphs all the three adhar cards Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 bears the photograph of accused person. The investigation qua Krish Bajaj, who had allegedly given the forged adhar card to accused was not done. In all there appears to be no such evidence present given by any of the prosecution witness which shows that accused had prior knowledge about the forgery of the adhar card as found/ used by the accused or that there had been circumstances present which may have shown that accused had reasons to believe that the adhar card was forged. Admittedly, accused herself had provided adhar card to the custom officials. The prosecution has failed to show the requisite mens rea on the part of accused i.e. knowledge of accused as to the fact that the adhar card was not genuine. The allegation of the prosecution regarding intentionally creation of false document i.e adhar card in the name of Krishma Bhisham Thakur by accused is anyways not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
51. Here it is relevant to mention the findings given by Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Inder Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) (1978) 4 SCC 161, which are as follows: -
"A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case. If a case is proved perfectly, it is argued that it is artificial; if a case has some flaws inevitable because human beings are prone to err, it is argued that it is too imperfect. One wonders whether in the meticulous hypersensitivity to eliminate a rare innocent from being punished, many guilty persons must be allowed to escape. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish. Vague hunches cannot take place of judicial evaluation".
52. In B.N. Mutto & Another v. Dr. T.K. Nandi (1979) 1 SCC 361, the Court observed thus:
Digitally signed by AbhinavAbhinav Ahlawat FIR No.98/2018, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Sanjana Ravi Makhija Page 29 of 32 Date:
Ahlawat 2024.09.30 16:01:41 +0530 "It stems out of the fundamental principle of our criminal jurisprudence that the accused is entitled to the benefit of any reasonable doubt. If two reasonably probable and evenly balanced views of the evidence are possible, one must necessarily concede the existence of a reasonable doubt. But, fanciful and remote possibilities must be left out of account. To entitle an accused person to the benefit of a doubt arising from the possibility of a duality of views, the possible view in favour of the accused must be as nearly reasonably probable as that against him. If the preponderance of probability is all one way, a bare possibility of another view will not entitle the accused to claim the benefit of any doubt. It is, therefore, essential that any view of the evidence in favour of the accused must be reasonable even as any doubt, the benefit of which an accused person may claim, must be reasonable. "A reasonable doubt", it has been remarked, "does not mean some light, airy, insubstantial doubt that may flit through the minds of any of us about almost anything at some time or other, it does not mean a doubt begotten by sympathy out of reluctance to convict; it means a real doubt, a doubt founded upon reasons. [Salmond J. in his charge to the jury in R.V. Fantle reported in 1959 Criminal Law Review 584.]"
53. In our administration of criminal justice an accused is presumed to be innocent unless such a presumption is rebutted by the prosecution by producing the evidence to show him to be guilty of the offence with which he is charged. Further if two views are possible on the evidence produced in the case, one indicating to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view favourable to the accused is to be accepted. In cases where the Court entertains reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused the benefit of such doubt should go in favour of the accused. At the same time, the court must not reject the evidence of the prosecution taking it as false, untrustworthy or unreliable on fanciful grounds or on the basis of conjectures and surmises.
54. The case of the prosecution must be judged as a whole having regard to the totality of the evidence. In appreciating the evidence, the approach of the court must be integrated not Digitally signed by Abhinav Abhinav Ahlawat FIR No.98/2018, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Sanjana Ravi Makhija Page 30 of 32 Date:
Ahlawat 2024.09.30 16:01:48 +0530 truncated or isolated. In other words, the impact of the evidence in totality on the prosecution case or innocence of the accused has to be kept in mind in coming to the conclusion as to the guilt or otherwise of the accused. In reaching a conclusion about the guilt of the accused, the Court has to appreciate, analyse and assess the evidence placed before it by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic value and the animus of witnesses. It must be added that ultimately and finally the decision in every case depends upon the facts of each case.
55. In the present case, reasonable doubt has certainly arisen as to the version stated by the complainant. Seeing in the perspective that three adhar cards are on record despite only two being mentioned in the seizure memo, the evidence brought by the prosecution falls short of proving the offence with which the accused person is charged. These lacunas in cumulation with inconsistencies creeping into the oral evidence of the complainant as highlighted in the foregoing paragraphs gives rise to possibility of false implication of the accused person in the present case and these are sufficient grounds to raise reasonable doubt on the story of prosecution. Hence accused is entitled to benefit of doubt and is acquitted for charge u/s 468/471 IPC.
CONCLUSION
56. Accordingly, this Court hereby accords the benefit of doubt to the accused Sanjana Ravi Makhija for the offence punishable u/s 417/419/468/471 IPC and holds the accused not guilty of commission of the said offence. Accused Sanjana Ravi Makhija W/o Ravi Kanyalal Makhija is thus, acquitted of the offence u/s 417/419/468/471 IPC.
Digitally signed by Abhinav FIR No.98/2018, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Sanjana Ravi Makhija Page 31 of 32Abhinav Ahlawat Date:
Ahlawat 2024.09.30 16:01:52 +0530 Let the convict be heard separately on the quantum of sentence.
Copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the convicts.
Announced in the open court Digitally signed by Abhinav Abhinav Ahlawat on 30.09.2024 in the presence Ahlawat Date:
2024.09.30 of the accused. 16:01:58 +0530 (Abhinav Ahlawat) Judicial Magistrate First Class-09, Dwarka, Delhi/30.09.2024 Note:- This judgment contains 32 pages and each page has been signed by me. Abhinav Digitally signed by Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date: 2024.09.30 16:02:03 +0530 (Abhinav Ahlawat) Judicial Magistrate First Class-09, Dwarka, Delhi/30.09.2024 FIR No.98/2018, PS Domestic Airport State vs. Sanjana Ravi Makhija Page 32 of 32