Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Kundan Singh on 11 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF NISHANT GARG
ACJM-2-CUM-ACJ, ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS
NEW DELHI
CBI Vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS.
Case No. : CC No. CBI/309/2019
FIR No. : 6(A)/2002 dated
18.04.2002
U/s : 120-B r/w 420, 467, 468,
474 and 201 IPC and
Section 12 (1) (b) of the
Passports Act, 1967 as well
as substantive offences
punishable under Section
420, 467, 468, 474 and 201
IPC and Section 12 (1) (b)
of the Passports Act, 1967.
Name of Branch : SIU-V/SIC-II/CBI, New
Delhi.
Unique Case ID No. : 02401R6093972004
The date of commission : In the year 1998
of the offences
Name of the Complainant : The FIR was registered on
the complaint of Inspector
Karnail Singh.
Name, parentage & address : (i) Kundan Singh, S/o Sh.
Dharam Singh, the then
LDC, now UDC, Passport
Office, Ghaziabad, MEA,
Govt. of India.
R/o Village Kasanu, P.O.
Balikoti, Sirmour (HP).
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 1 of 57
RC-6A/2002
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS.
Digitally signed
by NISHANT
NISHANT GARG
GARG Date:
2025.03.11
16:03:36 +0530
Presently residing at H1-
1002, Tower-I, Classic
Residency, Raj Nagar
Extension, Ghaziabad.
(ii) Hemwant Kumar, S/o
Late Sh. Brij Mohan Bhatt,
the then Peon, now LDC,
Passport Office,
Ghaziabad, MEA, Govt. of
India.
R/o Village Jally, P.O.
Soligi, District Pauri
Garhwal
Presently residing at R/o
545, Kamla Nehru Nagar,
Ghaziabad.
(iii) Anita Umrao @ Annu
Agarwal @ Annu, W/o
Late Sh. Narender, R/o
21/10, Second Floor, Old
Rajender Nagar, New
Delhi and B-21, Suyog
Building, Varsova Link
Road, Plot No. 32-33,
Andheri West, Mumbai-
400058.
Permanent Address: 11-A,
Hussain Shah Road,
Mohimpur, Kolkatta-23.
The plea of the accused : Not guilty
Final Judgment : Acquitted
Date of institution of case : 30.09.2004
Date of Judgment : 11.03.2025
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 2 of 57
RC-6A/2002
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. Digitally signed
by NISHANT
NISHANT GARG
GARG Date:
2025.03.11
16:03:48 +0530
Counsels for the parties:
Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Ld. PP for the CBI.
Sh. Manoranjan, Ld. counsel for accused Kundan Singh (A-1).
Sh. Umesh Sinha, Ld. counsel for accused Hemwant
Kumar (A-2).
Sh. Subhash C. Datt, Ld. counsel for accused Anita Umrao (A-3).
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Kundan Singh (A-1), Hemwant Kumar (A-2) and Anita Umrao @ Anu Aggarwal (A-3) have been sent by CBI to face trial for commission of offences punishable u/s 120-B r/w 420, 467, 468, 474 and 201 IPC and Section 12 (1) (b) of the Passports Act, 1967 as well as offences punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 474 and 201 IPC and Section 12 (1) (b) of the Passports Act. Accused Anita Umrao @ Anu (A-3) was a proclaimed offender at the time of filing of the charge sheet. Names of Narang Joshi and Naram Bhai Verma were put in column no. (ii) of the charge-sheet as no such persons were found to exist. Requisite sanction order under Section 15 of the Indian Passports Act, 1967 was attached with the charge-sheet.
FACTS
2. Facts of the case, in brief are that during investigation of another RC-1/99-SIU.V/SIC.II/CBI, New Delhi in which Anita Umrao @ Anu was a suspect, certain passports were recovered from her locker no. 42 maintained at HDFC Bank, Old Rajender Nagar Branch, New Delhi on 09.11.2001. Two of the said CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 3 of 57 RC-6A/2002 CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. Digitally signed by NISHANT NISHANT GARG GARG Date:
2025.03.11 16:04:02 +0530 passports were found having photograph of the same person in different poses. Hence, after a preliminary enquiry, the present FIR no. 6(A)/2002 dated 18.04.2002 was registered on the complaint of Karnail Singh, the then Inspector, CBI on the allegations that accused Anita Umrao (A-3), Kundan Singh (A-1) and Hemwant Kumar (A-2) entered into a criminal conspiracy and forged and delivered two Indian passports with a view to defraud the Passport Office, Ghaziabad. It was further stated in the complaint that accused Kundan Singh (A-1) and Hemwant Kumar (A-2) forged passports no. A-5885047 and A-5885406 in the fictitious name of Naram Bhai Verma and Narang Joshi by interpolating the entries and pasting photographs of some unknown person in different poses, whereas the said passports were to be issued in the names of Prem Chand Singh and Bhupinder Singh, the actual applicants.
3. Investigation revealed that during search of locker no. 42 of accused Anita Umrao (A-3) on 09.11.2001 in RC-1/99-CBI- SIC.II by S.N. Saxena, Additional SP, CBI, two passports bearing nos. A-5885047 dated 07.08.1998 and A-5885406 dated 14.08.1998 in the name of Naram Bhai Verma and Narang Joshi respectively, issued from Passport Office, Ghaziabad were recovered. The photograph on both the passports was of the same person in different poses which led to a suspicion about the authenticity of the passports.
4. Investigation further revealed that one Prem Chand Singh had applied for a passport in Passport Office, Ghaziabad on CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 4 of 57 RC-6A/2002 CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. Digitally signed by NISHANT NISHANT GARG GARG Date: 2025.03.11 16:04:12 +0530 30.03.1998. File No. 402/3682/98 was opened in his name. After receipt of clearance from police, a decision was taken to issue a passport to Prem Chand Singh. Kundan Singh (A-1) was the passport writer who was entrusted with the task of writing the passport of Prem Chand Singh on 07.08.1998.
5. Accused Kundan Singh (A-1) was entrusted with 40 blank passports booklets from Sr. No. A-5885031 to A-5885070 by Hans Raj, Superintendent on 07.08.1998 for writing the passport on the basis of the files received by Kundan Singh (A-1) from the Grant Section. The said files included the file of Prem Chand Singh. Kundan Singh (A-1) wrote passport booklet no. A- 5885047 in the name of Prem Chand Singh and made corresponding entries in the Passport Writing Register (D-10) which contained details like name, address, place of birth, name of relatives etc. Kundan Singh (A-1) also affixed requisite rubber stamps, including the stamp of Daya Ram, Superintendent who was supposed to sign the passport. Thereafter, all the 40 passports alongwith their files, including the passport of Prem Chand Singh, were handed over to Hemwant Kumar (A-2), Incharge, Lamination and Pasting Section after obtaining acknowledgment.
6. Hemwant Kumar (A-2) was responsible for pasting photograph and signatures slip of the applicants after taking it out from the passport file which also contained the application form and police verification report, both having applicant's photograph on it. In pursuance of criminal conspiracy between CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 5 of 57 RC-6A/2002 Digitally signed CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. by NISHANT NISHANT GARG GARG Date:
2025.03.11 16:04:22 +0530 Kundan Singh (A-1) and Hemwant Kumar (A-2), Hemwant Kumar (A-2) instead of pasting the photograph of Prem Chand Singh (which was in black and white), pasted photograph of some other person. He also pasted the signature slip of N.K. Verma instead of Prem Chand Singh, the actual applicant. Accused Kundan Singh (A-1) and Hemwant Kumar (A-2) also managed to erase the name and particulars of Prem Chand Singh and 'got written' the name and particulars of Naram Bhai Verma on the passport. The accused also 'got changed' file no. 402/3682/98 of Prem Chand Singh to file no. 402/4127/98. Before laminating the passport, a bogus cross signature purported to have been affixed by Daya Ram, Superintendent was made on the top corner of the photograph though such a system of cross signatures had been discontinued. The passport no. A-5885047 was never dispatched and was never received by Prem Chand Singh.
7. Similarly, one Bhupinder Singh had also applied for passport in Passport Office, Ghaziabad on 23.04.1998; file no. 402/4522/98 was opened in his name; after receipt of clearance from police authorities, a decision was taken to issue a passport to him. Kundan Singh (A-1), Passport Writer, was assigned the task of writing the passport of Bhupinder Singh on 14.08.1998. Hans Raj, Superintendent entrusted 40 blank passport booklets from Sr. No. A-5885393 to A-5885432 to Kundan Singh (A-1) on 14.08.1998 on the basis of the files received from Grant Section which included the file of Bhupinder Singh. Kundan Singh (A-1) wrote the passport booklet no. A-5885406 in the CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 6 of 57 RC-6A/2002 Digitally signed CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. by NISHANT NISHANT GARG GARG Date:
2025.03.11 16:04:32 +0530 name of Bhupinder Singh and made corresponding entries in the Passport Writing Register. He also affixed requisite rubber stamps including the stamp of Hans Raj, Superintendent who was supposed to sign the passport. Thereafter, all 40 passports with their files including the passport of Bhupinder Singh, were handed over to Hemwant Kumar (A-2), Incharge, Lamination and Pasting Section after obtaining acknowledgment.
8. Hemwant Kumar (A-2) was required to paste the photograph and signature slip of the applicant after taking it out from the passport file which also contained the application form and police verification report, both having the photographs of the applicants. However, instead of pasting photograph of Bhupinder Singh (which was in black and white), Hemwant Kumar (A-2) pasted photograph of another person and signature slip of N. Joshi. Accused Kundan Singh (A-1) and Hemwant Kumar (A-2), in pursuance of criminal conspiracy, also managed to erase the name and particulars of Bhupinder Singh on the passport and wrote the name and particulars of Narang Joshi on it. They also changed the file no. 402/4522/98 of Bhupinder Singh to read as 402/2615/98. Before laminating the passport, a bogus cross signature purported to have been affixed by Hans Raj, Superintendent, was made on the top corner of the photograph, despite the fact that such practice had been dispensed with in the year 1997. The passport no. A-5885406 was never dispatched and was never received by the applicant Bhupinder Singh.
9. During investigation, expert of Central Forensic Science CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 7 of 57 RC-6A/2002 Digitally signed CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. by NISHANT NISHANT GARG GARG Date: 2025.03.11 16:04:42 +0530 Laboratory, New Delhi confirmed that the laminated portion of the two passports was never opened which confirmed that forgery was done within the Passport Office, Ghaziabad before lamination. Handwriting expert confirmed that signatures of Daya Ram and Hans Raj on the passports were forged. Handwriting expert further confirmed that writing on page no. 1 of passport no. A-5885406 was that of accused Kundan Singh (A-1). Writing of accused Kundan Singh (A-1) was also confirmed by the officials of Passport Office on both the passports.
10. Passport no. A-5885406 in the name of Narang Joshi was found to have been submitted in the US Embassy for obtaining visa of USA on 06.10.1998 and 15.10.1998. The visa was declined by US Embassy and thus, an attempt was made to use the forged passport no. A-5885406.
11. Original passport file no. 402/3682/98 of Prem Chand Singh and file no. 402/4522/98 of Bhupinder Singh could not be traced from the Passport Office, Ghaziabad; only the index card of the said files could be located from a separate section and thus, the said files were removed from the Passport Office, Ghaziabad with a view to cause disappearance of evidence.
12. Both the forged passports reached the hands of Anita Umrao @ Anu Aggarwal (A-3) and were found in her possession. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the court.
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 8 of 57RC-6A/2002 Digitally signed
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. by NISHANT
NISHANT GARG
GARG Date:
2025.03.11
16:04:53 +0530
CHARGE
13. Copy of the charge-sheet and accompanying documents were supplied to accused Kundan Singh (A-1) and Hemwant Kumar (A-2) on 31.05.2005. Finding a prima facie case, charge for commission of offences punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 474 and 201 IPC and Section 12 (1) (b) of the Passports Act, 1967 were framed against accused Kundan Singh (A-1) and Hemwant Kumar (A-2) vide order dated 16.10.2007.
14. During trial, accused Anita Umrao @ Anu Aggarwal (A-3) was arrested on 24.03.2015 and a supplementary charge-sheet for commission of offence punishable under Section 174-A IPC was filed against her. Copy of the charge-sheet and accompanying documents were supplied to accused Anita Umrao (A-3) vide orders dated 22.04.2015 and 15.07.2015. Vide order dated 02.06.2016, charge for offences under Section 120B IPC r/w Section 420/467/468/201 IPC, Section 474 IPC and Section 12 (2) r/w Section 12 (1) (b) of the Passports Act, 1967 were directed to be framed against her. She was, however, discharged for offence under Section 174 A IPC.
EVIDENCE
15. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses:-
i. PW1 Jeevan Lal- An official posted at Passport Office, Ghaziabad. He described the procedure for issuance of a passport. He proved his letters Ex. PW1/1 (D-13) and CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 9 of 57 RC-6A/2002 Digitally signed by NISHANT CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. GARG NISHANT Date:
GARG 2025.03.11
16:05:03
+0530
PW1/12 (D-25) vide which he provided various documents to CBI. He was also a witness to the specimen stamp impressions of the Passport Office and specimen handwriting of Dayaram.
ii. PW2 Prem Chand Singh- the original applicant with respect to whom file no. 402/3682/98 was opened. He deposed that he had applied for a passport; someone had come to his house for the purpose of verification but he did not get his passport.
iii. PW3 Bhupinder Singh- the original applicant with respect to whom file no. 402/4522/98 was opened. He deposed that he and his family members had applied for passports; while all other family members received their passports, he did not receive his passport; some police official had visited his house for the purpose of verification. iv. PW4 Subedar Singh- the official posted at the counter of Passport Office, Ghaziabad to receive the application forms and make its entry in the register. He proved diary no. 402/2615/98 on the application of Alok Punj Ex. PW1/2 and its corresponding entry in the diary register (D-
9) Ex.PW1/5. He informed that after receiving the application, the application is forwarded to Index Section, Administration Section and for police verification. He proved the relevant entry on the rubber stamp register Ex.
PW4/1 through which a stamp was issued to him. He informed that at the time of shifting of the Passport Office, one of the stamps had got lost; since he was posted at the Counter where stamp was not required, he did not get CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 10 of 57 RC-6A/2002 CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. Digitally signed by NISHANT NISHANT GARG GARG Date: 2025.03.11 16:05:13 +0530 another stamp issued.
v. PW5 Salauddin Faruqi- posted as Passport Officer at RPO, Ghaziabad at the relevant time. He proved the office orders Ex. PW5/A and Ex. PW5/B issued by him as per which accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2) was deputed to attend enquiries at the counter and pasting of passports. In his initial examination, he could not identify the signatures of Dayaram and Hansraj, Superintendents on the passports no. A5885047 Ex. PW6/A and no. A5885406 Ex. PW3/A. In his subsequent examination, he stated that the signatures of Dayaram and Hansraj appearing on these passports were forged.
vi. PW6 Krishan Kumar- LDC in RPO, Ghaziabad during the relevant time deposed that the signatures of Hansraj and Dayaram appearing on passports no. A5885047 Ex. PW6/A and no. 5885406 Ex. PW3/A were forged. He further deposed that round stamps were issued in the name of Subedar Singh and Hemwant Kumar (A-2). The witness, however, did not identify the handwriting in seven lines of passports no. A-5885047 Ex. PW6/A. The witness was declared hostile by the Ld. APP but in his cross- examination, he denied that the writings appearing at point 'X' to 'X1' (Q8 & Q14) on passport Ex. PW3/A and at point 'Y' to 'Y1' (Q1 & Q7) on passport Ex. PW6/A to be that of accused Kundan Singh (A-1).
vii. PW7 V.K. Verma- an official posted at RPO, Ghaziabad.
He deposed that he had worked in various sections of the Passport Office; he described the procedure for obtaining a CC No. CBI/309/2019 Digitally signed Page No. 11 of 57 RC-6A/2002 by NISHANT CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. NISHANT GARG GARG Date:
2025.03.11 16:05:21 +0530 passport; he proved the entry no. 4127 in the name of Harjinder Singh in the register Ex. PW1/5 (D-9), index card in the name of Harjinder Singh Ex. PW7/A (D-12) and other documents. He did not identify the handwriting of accused Kundan Singh (A-1) on points 'X' to 'X1' (Q8 & Q14) on passport Ex. PW3/A and at point 'Y' to 'Y1' (Q1 & Q7) on passport Ex. PW6/A. He was declared hostile by the Ld. APP but he denied that he ever gave such a statement to the CBI.
viii. PW8 Smt. Rajinder Kaur- She is the wife of Harjinder Singh, the original passport applicant with respect to whom file no. 402/4127/98 was opened. She deposed that her husband had applied for a passport but did not receive it; she alongwith her husband had come to the Passport Office, Ghaziabad where they were informed that the original application form was not traceable and they were advised to give a fresh application which they did. ix. PW9 Hansraj- The Superintendent, Passport Office, Ghaziabad at the relevant time. He deposed that his duty was to grant passport, signing of passport, dealing with the applicants, administration of the office and Drawing and Disbursing Officer of the office. He described the procedure for obtaining a passport. He denied his signatures on the passport no. A-5885406 Ex. PW3/A. He also stated that the passport no. A-5885047 Ex. PW6/A do not bear signatures of the other Superintendent Dayaram. He did not identify the initials/signatures appearing at point 'C' under the dates 07.08.1998 and 14.08.1998 in the CC No. CBI/309/2019 Digitally signed by Page No. 12 of 57 RC-6A/2002 NISHANT NISHANT GARG CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. GARG Date: 2025.03.11 16:05:30 +0530 Passport Distribution Section to Pasting Register Ex. PW1/7 (D-11). He was declared hostile and was cross- examined by the Ld. APP. However, he denied having identified the signatures at point 'C' to be that of Hemwant Kumar (A-2).
x. PW10 Majid Ali- an official from RPO, Ghaziabad. He proved the report Ex. PW10/A as per which it was stated that the original stock register of the year 1998 was not traceable.
xi. PW11 Prem Singh- an official posted at RPO, Ghaziabad at the relevant time. He deposed that the purported signature of Superintendents Hansraj and Dayaram appearing on the passports Ex. PW3/A and Ex. PW6/A were not their genuine signatures. He proved various office orders. He did not identify the handwriting on the passports no. A5885047 Ex. PW6/A and no. A5885406 Ex. PW3/A to be that of Kundan Singh (A-1). He was declared hostile by the Ld. APP and was cross-examined. He reiterated that he could not identify the handwriting of Kundan Singh (A-1) on passports Ex. PW6/A and Ex. PW3/A. xii. PW12 Krishan Kumar- an official of the RPO, Ghaziabad at the relevant time. He deposed that he had joined as a Casual Labour on 02.03.1998; accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2) was working as a Peon in the said office; he never worked with accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2). xiii. PW13 Anil Kansal- a resident of Village Muzaffra Bagarpur, District Hapur, UP. He proved the report Ex.CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 13 of 57
RC-6A/2002 Digitally signed CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. NISHANT by NISHANT GARG GARG Date: 2025.03.11 16:05:39 +0530 PW13/A of the then Pradhan, Gram Panchayat to the effect that no person in the name of Naram Bhai Verma was residing in the said village.
xiv. PW14 Parsoon Malviya- an official in the RPO, Ghaziabad. He proved seizure memo Ex. PW14/A vide which he had provided some documents to the CBI. xv. PW15 Sangeeta Saxena- the Branch Manager, HDFC Bank, Old Rajender Nagar, New Delhi where accused Anita Umrao (A-3) was maintaining her locker. She facilitated search of the locker and proved the inventory memo Ex. PW15/A (D-2).
xvi. PW16 Ashok Kumar Amrohi- Chief Passport Officer and Sanctioning Authority with respect to the offences committed under the Passports Act, 1967. He proved the sanction order Ex. PW16/A. xvii. PW17 G.M. Ansari- He proved his verification report Ex.
PW17/B (D-32) as per which he tried to ascertain the whereabouts of Narang Joshi but no such person was found to be living in the locality.
xviii. PW18 Sunit Kumar Sharma- Witness to specimen handwritings Ex. PW18/B of accused Kundan Singh (A-1). Proved seizure memo Ex. PW14/A through which documents were handed over to the CBI. xix. PW19 Anand Vats- Independent witness to the specimen handwriting of accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2) Ex. PW19/A. xx. PW20 Sant Pal- Independent witness to the specimen handwritings of accused Kundan Singh (A-1) and CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 14 of 57 RC-6A/2002 CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. Digitally signed by NISHANT NISHANT GARG GARG Date: 2025.03.11 16:05:46 +0530 Hemwant Kumar (A-2).
xxi. PW21 ASI Joginder Singh- Constable in CBI deputed to execute the processes in the name of Naram Bhai Verma and Narang Joshi.
xxii. PW22 Rajender Singh Gosain- proved inventory memo/search memo of locker no. 42 Ex. PW15/A and identified his signatures on it.
xxiii. PW23 S.L. Mukhi- Principal Scientific Officer, CFSL, New Delhi. He proved his reports Ex. PW23/E, Ex. PW23/G, Ex. PW23/I and Ex. PW23/K alongwith various other documents.
xxiv. PW24 Dr. Bibha Rani Ray- Director, CFSL, New Delhi conducted polygraph test of accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2) and gave her opinion Ex. PW24/B. xxv. PW25 Rajesh Monga- Surety for accused Anita Umrao (A-3).
xxvi. PW26 Karnail Singh- The complainant and first Investigating Officer.
xxvii. PW27 Anant Shankar Bawkar- Manager, Suyog Konkan Sahakari Vasahat Cooperative Housing Society where accused Anita Umrao was residing. He proved his letter Ex. PW27/A through which certain documents were handed over to the CBI.
xxviii. PW28 Javed Siraj- Investigating Officer. xxix. PW29 Ram Niwas Maharia- proved execution report Ex. PW29/1, proclamation notice Ex. PW29/2, execution report of notice under Section 82 CrPC Ex. PW29/3, report of the owner of the address of accused Anita Umrao (A-3) CC No. CBI/309/2019 Digitally signed Page No. 15 of 57 RC-6A/2002 CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS.
NISHANT by NISHANT
GARG
GARG Date: 2025.03.11
16:05:55 +0530
Ex. PW29/4, execution report of notice under Section 82 CrPC Ex. PW29/5, report of the Chairman, Konkan Sahakari Vasahat Cooperative Housing Society Ex. PW29/6 and his letter Ex. PW29/7 seeking assistance of Mumbai Police.
xxx. PW30 Bachu Singh- proved letter Ex. PW30/1 of the SP, CBI for attachment of the property of accused Anita Umrao (A-3). He also proved his report Ex. PW30/2 in this regard.
xxxi. PW31 Balbir Singh- filed supplementary charge-sheet against accused Anita Umrao (A-3) for offence under Section 174-A.
16. Thereafter, on an application moved by the Ld. PP, the prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 05.12.2024. Statements of the accused persons under Section 313 CrPC were recorded.
STATEMENTS U/S 313 CrPC
17. Accused Kundan Singh (A-1) in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, while denying the allegations against him, claimed that while handing over the 40 passports to the Superintendent, a covering letter in duplicate is attached to ensure that all 40 passports reach the Superintendent. He admitted that file no. 402/3682/98 of Prem Chand Singh and file no. 402/4522/98 of Bhupinder Singh had come before him for writing but no file of Alok Punj no. 402/2615/98 or Harjinder Singh no. 402/4127/98 was given to him for writing. He claimed CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 16 of 57 RC-6A/2002 CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. Digitally signed by NISHANT GARG NISHANT Date:
GARG 2025.03.11
16:06:03
+0530
that particulars in the passports of Prem Chand Singh and Bhupinder Singh had been correctly filled by him and the changes, if any, were made subsequent thereto. He further claimed that his specimen signatures were forcibly taken and neither PW- K.K. Verma or PW- Sant Pal were present at that time. He partially disputed the report of expert PW23 S.L. Mukhi and claimed that he had himself admitted his handwriting on the passport marked as 'Q5' and 'Q12'. He disputed his handwriting in the second, third, fourth and fifth line of portion marked 'Q8' in the passport no. A5885406 Ex. PW3/A.
18. Accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2), in his 313 CrPC statement denied the allegations against him and stated that being an official posted in the Lamination and Pasting Section, he was only required to paste the photograph and laminate the passport without going into the contents of the file. He denied having pasted photographs on the passports no. A5885047 Ex. PW6/A and no. A5885406 Ex. PW3/A. He claimed that since there was no evidence against him, he was subjected to a polygraph test and a biased report was filed at the instance of CBI.
19. Accused Anita Umrao (A-3), in her statement under Section 313 CrPC, also denied the allegations against her. She claimed that she did not know Naram Bhai Verma or Narang Joshi; the sanction order Ex. PW16/A is illegal and unlawful; she had no connection with accused Kundan Singh (A-1) and Hemwant Kumar (A-2); she never jumped bail; nothing incriminating was recovered from her or from her bank locker;
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 17 of 57 Digitally signedRC-6A/2002 by NISHANT
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. NISHANT GARG
GARG Date:
2025.03.11
16:06:11 +0530
the two passports in question were planted upon her; she has not been benefitted monetarily; she has no connection whatsoever with the Passport Office, Ghaziabad; her locker was operated in her absence; the bank log book has not been produced; she neither forged any passport nor used the passports in question.
20. In defence, accused Kundan Singh (A-1) examined DW1 Majid Ali, a Casual Labour (Peon) in the Passport Office, Ghaziabad during the year 1997. He detailed the procedure for issuance of a passport. Besides this, accused Kundan Singh (A-1) also examined an expert witness DW2 Devak Ram, who gave his opinion Ex. DW2/1 on the handwriting marked 'Q8/1' appearing on the passport Ex. PW3/A. Accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2) and Anita Umrao (A-3) did not lead any evidence in defence. Thereafter, the defence evidence was closed vide order dated 23.01.2025.
21. I have heard the Ld. PP for the CBI and the Ld. counsels appearing on behalf of the accused persons.
ARGUMENTS
22. Ld. PP for the CBI submitted that the prosecution has led sufficient evidence to establish criminal conspiracy between the accused persons pursuant to which forged passports were prepared by accused Kundan Singh (A-1) and accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2) at the behest of accused Anita Umrao (A-3). Accused Kundan Singh (A-1) was responsible for writing the passport and the report of GEQD categorically states that the CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 18 of 57 RC-6A/2002 CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. Digitally signed NISHANT by NISHANT GARG GARG Date: 2025.03.11 16:06:20 +0530 writing on the passport is his. He further urged that so far as accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2) is concerned, he was subjected to polygraph test and the report of polygraph test clearly shows that he gave false answers to the questions which could have implicated him in the present case. He submitted that the result of polygraph test is substantive evidence against accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2). With respect to accused Anita Umrao (A-3), Ld. PP for the CBI submitted that the passports were recovered from her locker in the presence of independent witnesses; one of the passports were deposited in US Embassy which shows that an attempt was made to send some person abroad on the basis of the said forged passport and thus, accused Anita Umrao (A-3) knowingly used the forged passport. Hence, all the accused persons are liable to be convicted. Reliance has been placed on Shadakshari vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2024, C. Muniappan & Ors. vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Leela Ram through Duli Chand vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (copies not placed on record).
23. Ld. counsel for accused Kundan Singh (A-1), on the other hand, argued that the sanction accorded for prosecution is not proper; that accused Kundan Singh (A-1) was merely a peon in the Passport Office, Ghaziabad at the relevant time; he was deputed to write the passports assigned to him; accused Kundan Singh (A-1) wrote the two passports in question in the normal course of his duties and filled in the details as mentioned in the files submitted to him and thereafter handed over the passports alongwith their files to the Lamination and Pasting Section; the forgery, if any, must have taken place after accused Kundan CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 19 of 57 Digitally signed RC-6A/2002 by NISHANT CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. NISHANT GARG GARG Date:
2025.03.11 16:06:28 +0530 Singh (A-1) had placed the file before the Pasting and Lamination Section or thereafter.
24. Ld. counsel for accused Kundan Singh (A-1) further submitted that accused Kundan Singh (A-1) had received the files, including the file of Prem Chand Singh and Bhupinder Singh alongwith several passports, including passport no. A5885047 Ex. PW6/A and passport no. A5885406 Ex. PW3/A; he had filled the requisite details in accordance with the files of Prem Chand Singh and Bhupinder Singh; he admits his handwriting on the portion marked 'Q5', 'Q12', first, sixth and seventh line of 'Q8' and the first and last line of 'Q1' on the passports Ex. PW3/A and Ex. PW6/A; he had informed this fact to the IO as well. However, the remaining forged portions of the passports were not written by him which is evident from bare comparison. Ld. counsel for the accused further submitted that the words "Modinagar" appearing in fifth line of 'Q8' though are in the handwriting of accused Kundan Singh (A-1), however, the words "Khanjarpur" were deleted from this portion. He further submitted that the report submitted by the GEQD is not proper and no conclusive findings have been given against accused Kundan Singh (A-1); the IO has carried out tainted investigation in order to shield the Sr. Officers of Passport Office; none of the witnesses examined by the prosecution have proved handwriting of accused Kundan Singh (A-1) on disputed portions of the passport.
25. Ld. counsel for accused Kundan Singh (A-1) further CC No. CBI/309/2019 Digitally signed Page No. 20 of 57 RC-6A/2002 by NISHANT CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. NISHANT GARG GARG Date:
2025.03.11 16:06:36 +0530 submitted that the IO has intentionally not seized the requisite file movement registers maintained at the Passport Office, Ghaziabad which would have shown that accused Kundan Singh (A-1) had received the files in the normal course of his duties and after filling the details, had handed over the passports and files to the next Section i.e. Lamination and Pasting Section. He further submitted that the passports in question never reached the Superintendent concerned and it was the duty of the Superintendent to ensure that all passports issued by him for the purpose of writing reached back to him for signing; the Superintendent was under an obligation to check the details mentioned in the passport with those in the file and only thereafter send the passport for dispatch. He further submitted that evidence has come on record that due receiving was taken by the Passport Writing Section, Lamination and Pasting Section as well as by the Superintendent before handing over the file to the next section but the same have not been seized by the IO deliberately. Reliance has been placed on the following judgments:-
(i) CBI vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (2014 Crl. L.L.J. 930);
(ii) Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan vs. State of Gujarat [1997 (7) SCC 622];
(iii) P.L. Tatwal vs. State of M.P. [(2014) AIR SC 2369];
(iv) State of T. N. vs. M.M. Rajendran: (1998) 9 SCC 268;
(v) Magan Bihari Lal vs. State of Punjab [1977] 2 S.C.R. 1007;
(vi) Padum Kumar vs. State of UP (2020) 1 SCR 57;
(vii) S.P.S. Rathore vs. CBI & Anr. [2016 (4) JCC 2687];
(viii) State of Maharashtra vs. Sukhdeo Singh & Ors. 1992 SCR (3) 480;
(ix) Vinod Kumar vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [2025 INSC 209];CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 21 of 57
RC-6A/2002 Digitally signed CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. NISHANT by NISHANT GARG GARG Date: 2025.03.11 16:06:44 +0530
(x) State of U.P. vs. Charles Gurmukh Sobhraj [AIR 1996 SC 3473];
(xi) Munshi Prasad & Ors. vs. State of Bihar AIR 2001 SC 3031 ;
(xii) State of Haryana vs. Ram Singh (Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 1999) [2002 Crl. L.J. 987];
(xiii) Tomaso Bruno & Anr. vs. State of U.P. (2015) 1 SCR 721;
(xiv) Mohanlal Shamji Soni vs. Union of India (AIR 1991 SC 1346);
(xv) State of Rajasthan through P.P. vs. Chandrabhan 2025;RJ-
JD: 6198.
26. Ld. counsel for accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2) submitted that he was merely responsible for pasting of photographs after taking it out from the file; he was not responsible for tallying the details from the file with those entered in the passport; on receipt of a passport and its file, he merely took out the photograph and signatures of the applicant from the file and pasted it on the passport and thereafter laminated it. After lamination, he placed the file before the Superintendent concerned and was left with no concern with the file or the passport. In the present case, accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2) did not paste the photographs or laminated the passports no. A5885047 Ex. PW6/A and no. A5885406 Ex. PW3/A. The polygraph test was conducted upon him as there was no other evidence against him; the report of polygraph test is biased and was prepared at the instance of the CBI; the said report cannot be made the sole basis of the conviction, hence, the accused is entitled to be acquitted. Reliance has been placed on:
(i) State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Sheetla Sahai & Ors. arising out of Cr. Appeal No. ...of 2009 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4130 of 2006 decided on 04.08.2009 (Supreme Court);CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 22 of 57
RC-6A/2002 Digitally signed
by NISHANT
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. GARG
NISHANT Date:
GARG 2025.03.11
16:06:53
+0530
(ii) Smt. Selvi & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka (AIR 2010 SC
1974) ;
(iii) Kailash Gour & Ors. vs. State of Assam (Crl. Appeal No.
1068 of 2006) decided on 15.12.2011 (Supreme Court);
(iv) Yogarani vs. State by the Inspector of Police 2024 INSC 721; and
(v) Dudh Nath Pandey vs. The State of U.P. 1981 SCR (2)
771.
27. Ld. counsel for accused Anita Umrao (A-3) submitted that the passports in question were not recovered from the locker of accused Anita Umrao (A-3) and were not in her possession; the passports have been planted upon her by the CBI; locker search was conducted in the absence of accused Anita Umrao (A-3) and this fact was admitted by the CBI while filing reply to her bail application; no evidence has been led to connect her with other accused persons; no conspiracy between her and other accused persons has been established; nothing has been shown if she ever deposited this passport in any Embassy or tried to use it at any time. Hence, she is entitled to the acquitted.
28. I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the case file. I have also gone through the judgments and the written submissions placed on record by the parties.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
29. To better appreciate the evidence, it is desirable to describe the procedure for issuance of a passport followed at the Passport Office, Ghaziabad during the relevant time, as culled out from the testimonies of various witnesses examined by the parties. It is CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 23 of 57 RC-6A/2002 Digitally signed CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. by NISHANT NISHANT GARG GARG Date:
2025.03.11 16:07:02 +0530 relevant to note here that as mentioned in the letter dated 21.06.2002 (D-25) Ex. PW1/12, no fixed procedure/guidelines were followed at the Passport Office, Ghaziabad.
30. An applicant desiring a passport was first required to submit the duly filled application form alongwith requisite documents and fee receipt at the counter at RPO, Ghaziabad. The application was assigned a unique file number. A corresponding entry was made in the register kept for this purpose at the counter (D-9). Thereafter, the personal particulars form of the applicant was sent for police verification. The passport file was sent to Index Section for screening/indexing/warning check etc. Thereafter, the file was sent to Dealing Section for linking of reports. After processing, the file was sent to Passport Issuing Authority (PIA). In case, a decision was taken to grant passport to an applicant, the file was sent to Dealing Section for further action. The Dealing Section sends the file to Passport Writing Section. The Superintendent concerned used to issue a lot of 40 passports to the Passport Writing Section for the purpose of writing the passports with respect to the approved files. The Passport Writing Section was required to fill in the details in accordance with the details available in the application/file and thereafter placed the file alongwith the passport before the Lamination and Pasting Section. The officials concerned at the Lamination and Pasting Section were required to take out the photograph and signatures of the applicant from their files and paste it in the passports. After pasting of the photographs and signatures, the passport used to be laminated at the Lamination CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 24 of 57 RC-6A/2002 Digitally signed CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. by NISHANT NISHANT GARG GARG Date: 2025.03.11 16:07:09 +0530 and Pasting Section. After this, the laminated passport alongwith its file used to be placed before the Superintendent concerned, who, after tallying the details filled in the passports from the file of the applicant used to sign the passports and thereafter send the passports for dispatch in the Dispatch Section.
Role of accused Kundan Singh (A-1)
31. The prosecution case is that the original applicants Prem Chand Singh and Bhupinder Singh had applied for passports at RPO, Ghaziabad; they were allotted files no. 402/3682/98 and 402/4522/98 respectively; after receipt of police verification, a decision was taken to grant passports to Prem Chand singh and Bhupinder Singh; thereafter, the files bearing no. 402/3682/98 in the name of Prem Chand Singh and file no. 402/4522/98 in the name of Bhupinder Singh were sent to accused Kundan Singh (A-1) for writing on 07.08.1998 and 14.08.1998 respectively. On 07.08.1998 and 14.08.1998, the Superintendent Hans Raj had issued 40 passport booklets to Kundan Singh (A-1) including passport no. A5885047 Ex. PW6/A and passport no. A5885406 Ex. PW3/A. Accused Kundan Singh (A-1) filled in the details in both the passports in the names of Prem Chand Singh and Bhupinder Singh and made corresponding entries in the Passport Writing Register (D-10). As per the prevalent practice, he also affixed the stamps of Superintendent Daya Ram and thereafter, handed over all the files and passports to accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2), Incharge, Lamination and Pasting Section after obtaining acknowledgment. At the Lamination and Pasting Section, pursuant to the criminal conspiracy, accused Hemwant CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 25 of 57 RC-6A/2002 CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. Digitally signed by NISHANT NISHANT GARG GARG Date:
2025.03.11 16:07:17 +0530 Kumar (A-2) instead of pasting the photographs and signatures of Prem Chand Singh and Bhupinder Singh, pasted the signatures of N.K. Verma and Narang Joshi and the photographs of some unknown person in different poses. Accused Kundan Singh (A-1) and Hemwant Kumar (A-2) managed to erase the name and particulars of Prem Chand Singh and Bhupinder Singh and "got written" the names of Naram Bhai Verma and Narang Joshi respectively. The files no. 402/3682/98 and 402/4522/98 were also changed to 402/4127/98 and 402/2615/98 respectively.
32. At the outset, it is relevant to note that the original files no.
402/3682/98 of Prem Chand Singh and file no. 402/4522/98 of Bhupinder Singh have not been traced. The prosecution case is that the said files have not been traced as they were removed from the Passport Office, Ghaziabad with a view to cause disappearance of evidence with an intention to screen the offenders. Thus, the files of original applicants Prem Chand Singh and Bhupinder Singh have not seen the light of the day. Despite a specific query, the Ld. PP or the IO were unable to point out as to what led the investigating agency to conclude that the passports no. A5885047 Ex. PW6/A and no. A5885406 Ex. PW3/A were originally written for Prem Chand Singh and Bhupinder Singh (even though, the conclusion appears to have been rightly drawn as the addresses of Prem Chand Singh and Bhupinder Singh, as mentioned on their index cards marked 'A' and Ex. PW1/4 respectively are mentioned in the passports). Similarly, it is not clear as to how the fact that file no. 402/3682/98 was changed to 402/4127/98 and file no.
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 26 of 57RC-6A/2002 Digitally signed
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. by NISHANT
NISHANT GARG
GARG Date:
2025.03.11
16:07:25 +0530
402/4522/98 was changed to 402/2615/98 came to the notice of the IO, particularly when as per the prosecution, the passports and files of Prem Chand Singh and Bhupinder Singh were placed neither before the Superintendent nor before the IO. These file numbers did not find mention on the passports Ex. PW6/A and Ex. PW3/A also. No document/register is on record to show that the passports Ex. PW3/A and Ex. PW6/A were originally allotted to be written for files no. 402/3682/98 and 402/4522/98. The entire charge-sheet is silent on this aspect.
33. A preliminary enquiry was conducted before the registration of the present FIR. Seemingly, these facts were determined during the preliminary enquiry itself. However, no preliminary enquiry report has been placed or proved by the prosecution. PW26 Karnail Singh, who had conducted the preliminary enquiry and was also the first investigating officer of this case, in his court statement, merely deposed that in the preliminary enquiry, it was found that two passports bearing similar photographs were recovered from the locker of accused Anita Umrao (A-3); the file reference numbers of Prem Chand Singh and Bhupinder Singh were changed while indexing and passports were issued in the name of fictitious persons Naram Bhai Verma and Narang Joshi. The witness was thus clearly aware that during the preliminary enquiry, it was ascertained by the investigating agency that manipulation had taken place in the files of original applicants Prem Chand Singh and Bhupinder Singh and the changes were made when the files were being "indexed". The meaning and purport of the term 'indexed' has CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 27 of 57 RC-6A/2002 Digitally signed CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. by NISHANT NISHANT GARG GARG Date:
2025.03.11 16:07:32 +0530 not been explained by any of the prosecution witnesses and it is not clear what procedure used to be carried out during "indexing" of the file. PW28 Javed Siraj in his cross-examination deposed that he did not know what was the role of the Index Section in the Passport Office and who was Incharge of this section. He volunteered to add that the Index Section was maintaining the index cards. The index cards of Prem Chand Singh mark 'A' and Bhupinder Singh Ex. PW1/4 does not contain any manipulation and bears the correct file numbers. Clearly, complete facts have not been brought before the court and material facts, to this extent have been concealed by the IO. Adverse inference is to be drawn against the prosecution for withholding the preliminary enquiry report, which was a material document.
34. Further, as per the charge-sheet, after receipt of clearance from the police authorities, a decision was taken for granting passports to Prem Chand Singh and Bhupinder Singh. Again, nothing is decipherable from the charge-sheet as to what led the IO to conclude that a police clearance was received with respect to Prem Chand Singh and Bhupinder Singh and a decision was taken in their favour to grant them the passports. Prem Chand Singh, in his statement under Section 161 CrPC as well as in his court statement merely deposed that he had applied for a passport and someone had come for the purpose of verification at his house. Similarly, PW3 Bhupinder Singh deposed that he and his family members had applied for passports; whereas his family members received their passports, he did not receive his. He further deposed that some police official had visited his house for CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 28 of 57 RC-6A/2002 Digitally signed CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. by NISHANT NISHANT GARG GARG Date:
2025.03.11 16:07:40 +0530 the purpose of verification. Thus, even though, it can be said that the personal particulars form of Prem Chand Singh and Bhupinder Singh were sent for police verification, there is nothing on record to show that a police clearance was infact received at the Passport Office, Ghaziabad with respect to these two persons. The charge-sheet is also silent as to who had taken decision about grant of passports to Prem Chand Singh and Bhupinder Singh and on what basis. Nothing is shown as to what material was placed and considered by the officer concerned before taking a decision to grant the passports. None of the witnesses in their statements under Section 161 CrPC has deposed about these facts.
35. Accused Kundan Singh (A-1) was issued 40 passports each on 07.08.1998 and 14.08.1998. PW5 Salauddin Faruqui, an official working in the Passport Office, Ghaziabad, deposed that the blank passport booklets were in the custody of Superintendent (Administration) and entries were made by the Superintendent (Administration) while giving blank passports to the clerk. PW9 Hans Raj, who was one of the Superintendents in the Passport Office, Ghaziabad at the relevant time, in the cross- examination admitted that the original 'stock register' vide which blank passport booklets were used to be sent to the Passport Writer has not been shown to him. PW28 Javed Siraj, the Investigating Officer, in response to a specific question during cross-examination stated that he did not remember if the register showing entries made in respect of the two passports by the Superintendent (Administration) to accused Kundan Singh (A-1) CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 29 of 57 RC-6A/2002 Digitally signed CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. by NISHANT NISHANT GARG GARG Date:
2025.03.11 16:07:50 +0530 was seized or not; he admitted that no such register was available on record. He could not identify the handwriting and signatures appearing in the entries under the dates 07.08.1998 and 14.08.1998 in the register (D-11). He admitted that passport being a valuable document, registers were maintained at every step detailing the movement of the passport from one section to another including details of the persons handing over and receiving the passport. Thus, from the testimonies of these witnesses, it is clearly established that at the time of issuing 40 passports to the Passport Writer, requisite entries used to be made in the 'stock register' specifically kept for this purpose. No such 'stock register' is on record.
36. The next allegation against accused Kundan Singh (A-1) as per the charge-sheet is that he initially wrote the passport booklet no. A5885047 in the name of Prem Chand Singh and passport booklet no. A5885406 in the name of Bhupinder Singh. He also made corresponding entries in the register Ex. PW1/6 (D-10).
37. Thus, as per the prosecution, initially, accused Kundan Singh (A-1) had correctly filled the particulars of Prem Chand Singh and Bhupinder Singh without any changes. Clearly, the alleged criminal conspiracy between the accused persons did not exist till this stage. Had there been any intention of forging the passports on the part of accused Kundan Singh (A-1) till this stage, he would not have filled the correct particulars of Prem Chand Singh and Bhupinder Singh. He could have straightaway CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 30 of 57 RC-6A/2002 Digitally signed CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. by NISHANT NISHANT GARG GARG Date:
2025.03.11 16:07:58 +0530 filled in the particulars of Naram Bhai Verma and Narang Joshi in order to obliterate the necessity of deleting the existing text from the passports and thereafter to fill the fresh names and details. Accused Kundan Singh (A-1) could have easily left the relevant columns blank instead of filling the correct particulars. Not only did accused Kundan Singh (A-1) filled up the passports correctly, he also made corresponding entries in the "Passport Distribution to Pasting Section Register" (D-10).
38. After filling up the passports and making requisite entry in the register D-10, the passports and their files were handed over to accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2). As per the prosecution case, signatures of the official of Lamination and Pasting Section were taken at the time of handing over of passports and the files in the "Passport Distribution to Pasting Section Register" (D-11) Ex. PW1/7.
39. This register was provided to the IO by PW1 Jeevan Lal through his letter Ex. PW1/1. Nothing is stated as to who used to maintain this register and in whose custody it remained. The writing at several places in this register under different dates is apparently of different persons. On the page bearing date 07.08.1998, there are three entries and these entries appear to be in the handwriting of two different persons. On the page under the date 14.08.1998, there are two entries in the name of two persons but they both appear to be in the handwriting of a single person. The entry at Sr. No. 2 under the date 07.08.1998 and the entry at Sr. No. 1 under the date 14.08.1998 are stated to be that CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 31 of 57 RC-6A/2002 Digitally signed CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. by NISHANT NISHANT GARG GARG Date:
2025.03.11 16:08:08 +0530 of 'admitted' writing of accused Kundan Singh (A-1). However, nothing is on record to show that accused Kundan Singh (A-1) ever admitted the writing on this register to be his. In fact, the entry at Sr. No. 2 under the date 07.08.1998 (portions marked 'A') and the entry at Sr. No. 1 under the date 14.08.1998 (portion marked 'A') are apparently in the handwriting of different persons. Thus, both the writings cannot be said to be the 'admitted' writing of accused Kundan Singh (A-1).
40. The contents of this register have not been proved as per law. The register allegedly contains signatures of accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2) against the entries in the name of Kundan Singh (A-1) under the dates 07.08.1998 and 14.08.1998.
However, none of the prosecution witnesses have identified the signatures appearing at portion marked 'C' in these registers under the dates 07.08.1998 and 14.08.1998. PW9 Hans Raj, the then Superintendent was shown the register Ex. PW1/7 (D-11). He merely described the entries appearing under the dates 07.08.1998 and 14.08.1998 without giving any details as to who used to make entries in this register, in whose custody this register used to remain and whose signatures appear at the right corner of the register against each entry. The witness did not identify signatures at point 'C' in this register against the entry in the name of Kundan Singh (A-1) under the dates 07.08.1998 and 14.08.1998. The witness was cross examined by the Ld. APP, however, in the cross examination, the witness was not able to recollect if he had told the CBI that the signatures appearing at point 'C' were that of accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2).
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 32 of 57RC-6A/2002 Digitally signed
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. by NISHANT
NISHANT GARG
GARG Date:
2025.03.11
16:08:16 +0530
41. The next allegation against accused Kundan Singh (A-1) is that after filling the details in the passports in the name of Prem Chand Singh and Bhupinder Singh, he handed over 40 passports and their files to accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2), the Incharge, Lamination and Pasting Section. There, pursuant to the criminal conspiracy, they both managed to erase the name and particulars of Prem Chand Singh and Bhupinder Singh and 'got written', the names of Naram Bhai Verma and Narang Joshi. To prove these allegations, the prosecution has placed strong reliance on the reports of the handwriting expert PW23 S.L. Mukhi.
Reports of Handwriting Expert
42. As already discussed above, the prosecution case is that initially both the passports were filled with the correct details of the actual applicants by accused Kundan Singh (A-1). It was only thereafter that accused Kundan Singh (A-1) and Hemwant Kumar (A-2) changed the names and particulars of the applicants to forge the passports. Thus, it was quite natural that the handwriting in both the passports, where no forgery was required to be committed, would be that was of accused Kundan Singh (A-1). The IO sought opinion of the handwriting expert to ascertain the handwriting, signatures, age of ink and stamps appearing on the passports.
43. Initially, a letter dated 03.08.2002 Ex. PW23/A was written to the CFSL containing 7 questions. In response to this letter, PW23 S.L. Mukhi, the Handwriting Expert gave his report Ex. PW23/E. As per this report, the signatures of Daya Ram and CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 33 of 57 RC-6A/2002 CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS.
Digitally signed
NISHANT by NISHANT
GARG
GARG Date: 2025.03.11
16:08:25 +0530
Hans Raj appearing on the passports no. A5885047 Ex. PW6/A and A5885406 Ex. PW3/A were not found to be that of Daya Ram and Hans Raj. The handwriting appearing on the portion marked 'Q5' and 'Q12' on the passports was found to be that of accused Kundan Singh (A-1). The report further stated that the word 'N' appearing before the word 'G' in the word 'NARANG' in 'Q8' was written after erasing the original letter at this place. It was further reported that the word "NARAMBHAI" in 'Q1' was written after physically erasing the original writing. The report further stated that same shade of black ball pen was used in writing 'Q1', 'Q5' and 'Q7' and same shade of black ball pen was used in the writings 'Q8', 'Q12' and 'Q14'.
44. Analysis of this report reveals that the writings on the portioned marked as 'Q5' and 'Q12' on both the passports was only attributed to accused Kundan Singh (A-1). The report does not say that the forged signatures on the passports of Dayaram and Hans Raj were put by accused Kundan Singh (A-1). With respect to the writings appearing on the portion marked as 'Q1', 'Q7', 'Q8' and 'Q14', these were not attributed to accused Kundan Singh (A-1) and it is only stated that the shade of black ball pen ink used in all these writings was the same.
45. Pertinent to note is that so far as writings on the portion marked as 'Q5' and 'Q12' are concerned, Kundan Singh (A-1) has himself admitted the said writings to be his in his statement under Section 313 CrPC. During arguments also, Ld. counsel for accused Kundan Singh (A-1) admitted the said portions to be in CC No. CBI/309/2019 Digitally signed Page No. 34 of 57 RC-6A/2002 by NISHANT CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. NISHANT GARG GARG Date:
2025.03.11 16:08:34 +0530 the handwriting of accused Kundan Singh (A-1). Even the prosecution case is that originally, the passports were filled with the correct details by accused Kundan Singh (A-1). The portions marked as 'Q5' and 'Q12' contain the correct particulars of original applicants Prem Chand Singh and Bhupinder Singh and it is not the case that any change was made in these writings after erasing the original writings.
46. Thus, the report dated 25.10.2002 Ex. PW23/E does not implicate accused Kundan Singh (A-1) to be the writer of the handwriting 'Q1' and 'Q8' where changes were made after erasing the original content. The report further also does not attribute the writing at 'Q7' and 'Q14' to accused Kundan Singh (A-1) where false particulars were filled.
47. The IO wrote another letter dated 30.10.2002 Ex. PW23/B to the CFSL raising further queries with respect to 'Q1' to 'Q7' and 'Q8' to 'Q14'. The Handwriting Expert PW23 S.L. Mukhi submitted his second report dated 31.01.2003 Ex. PW23/G. As per this report (Ex. PW23/G), the expert reiterated his earlier findings in the report Ex. PW23/E. In addition, it was stated that the handwriting appearing at 'Q8' (existing writing) was that of accused Kundan Singh (A-1). With respect to the handwriting appearing at 'Q1', no opinion was given by the expert.
48. I have carefully gone through the reports Ex. PW23/E and Ex. PW23/G of the expert PW23 S.L. Mukhi. The expert had not attributed the handwriting appearing at 'Q8' to accused Kundan CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 35 of 57 RC-6A/2002 Digitally signed CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. by NISHANT NISHANT GARG GARG Date:
2025.03.11 16:08:43 +0530 Singh (A-1). However, in his second report, he attributed all seven lines of 'Q8' to accused Kundan Singh (A-1). The reasons given by the expert for reaching this conclusion in both the reports are substantially the same, except that the letters appearing at several places in 'Q8' have been compared with the specimen and admitted/specimen writings of accused Kundan Singh (A-1).
49. The expert PW23 S.L. Mukhi refers to 'Q8' for the first time in para III (iii) of the report Ex. PW23/G. Here, the capital letter 'M' appearing in the word 'Modinagar' in 'Q8' and 'Q12' and the word 'Muzaffra' in 'Q5' are stated to be similar.
50. Next, the expert in para III (v) of the report compares the letter 'G' appearing in the word 'Ghaziabad' in 'Q5', 'Q8' and 'Q12' and states it to be similar with the admitted writings. In none of the other sub-paragraphs of para III is there any specific reference to comparison of any letter/alphabet with 'Q8'. The report further states that the capital letters 'V', 'U', 'P', 'N', 'O' and 'A' have similar manner of execution. Similarity was also observed in writing of numerals 9, 8 and 0. In rest of paragraph III of the report Ex. PW23/G, the expert has primarily compared a few small case letters appearing in the passport Ex. PW3/A.
51. Thus, it is seen that the expert PW23 S.L. Mukhi has connected the writings appearing in all seven lines of 'Q8' with accused Kundan Singh (A-1) primarily on the basis of capital letters 'M', 'G', 'N', 'A' and 'O' and several small case letters.
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Digitally signed Page No. 36 of 57
RC-6A/2002 by NISHANT
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. NISHANT GARG
GARG Date:
2025.03.11
16:08:53 +0530
52. Relevant to note here is that the forgery in the passport Ex. PW3/A in the portion marked as 'Q8' did not take place in all the seven lines of the said portion. Ld. counsel for the accused Kundan Singh (A-1) during arguments admitted the handwriting of accused Kundan Singh (A-1) in the first, sixth and seventh line of portion marked 'Q8'. He even stated that though the words "Modinagar" in fifth line of the portion marked 'Q8' were in the handwriting of accused Kundan Singh (A-1), but the words "Khanjarpur" were erased therefrom. As already stated, it is also the prosecution case that the passport was initially filled by accused Kundan Singh (A-1) with correct particulars. Thus, there was no occasion to commit forgery or to delete any existing text appearing in the first, sixth or seventh line of portion marked 'Q8' in the passport Ex. PW3/A or even in the words "Modinagar" in fifth line. The forgery took place in the second, third and fourth line of the portion marked 'Q8' where the words 'JOSHI' and 'NARANG' appear and in the numericals appearing under the head 'Date of Birth'. The report Ex. PW23/G does not connect the writings of the words 'JOSHI' and 'NARANG' with accused Kundan Singh (A-1). As per the report Ex. PW23/G, the capital letter 'G' appearing in the word 'Ghaziabad' only is stated to be similar to the admitted writings. No reference is made to the capital letter 'G' appearing in the word 'NARANG'. Further, even though, as per the report, similarity was observed in execution of capital letters 'N' and 'A', however, nothing was specified in the report as to from where these two letters were compared. In fact, perusal of the specimen handwriting of accused Kundan Singh (A-1) clearly shows that capital letters CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 37 of 57 RC-6A/2002 Digitally signed by NISHANT CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. NISHANT GARG GARG Date:
2025.03.11 16:09:03 +0530 'A', 'R', 'N' and 'S' nowhere matches with the words 'NARANG' and 'JOSHI' appearing in 'Q8'.
53. With respect to numerals, as per the report Ex. PW23/G, similarity was observed in the execution of numerals 9, 8 and 0. Again, the report is silent as to from which line of 'Q8', these numerals were compared with the specimen or admitted writings. The accused Kundan Singh (A-1) has admitted his writings in the seventh line of 'Q8' which contains these numerals. The report Ex. PW23/G is silent if the numerals 9, 8 and 0 were similarly executed in fourth line of the portion marked 'Q8' in passport Ex. PW3/A. The report Ex. PW23/A expressed no opinion with respect to the handwritings appearing at 'Q7' and 'Q14'.
54. The IO wrote another letter dated 24.04.2002 (could be 24.04.2003) again requesting the CFSL to provide its opinion on the queries raised under Sr. No. 7 and 14 of his earlier letters whereby opinion was sought with respect to the ink used in the writings and the author of writings/signatures marked 'Q1' to 'Q7'. The expert PW23 S.L. Mukhi, vide his report dated 20.05.2003 Ex. PW23/I gave the opinion that no efforts were made to open and refix the laminated sheets in the passports.
55. The IO wrote another letter dated 26.09.2003 Ex. PW23/D whereby he sought opinion with respect to the seal impressions appearing on the passports. In para no. E of this letter, the IO clarified that the portion marked 'Q8' contained seven lines and it was suspected that the different portions of 'Q8' were written CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 38 of 57 RC-6A/2002 Digitally signed CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. NISHANT by NISHANT GARG GARG Date: 2025.03.11 16:09:12 +0530 by different persons. He requested the CFSL to clarify and mark the portion which exactly tallies with the specimen writings of accused Kundan Singh (A-1). In response to this letter, the expert S.L. Mukhi gave his report dated 14.11.2003 Ex. PW23/K stating that the writer of standard writings (S16 to S41) and admitted writings (A1, A2, A22 to A32) was responsible for writing all seven lines in the portion marked 'Q8', for which detailed reasons have already been given in the report dated 31.01.2003 Ex. PW23/G.
56. Thus, it is seen that even the IO was not fully satisfied with the opinion expressed by the expert in para no. III of his report Ex. PW23/G whereby the writings in 'Q8' were attributed to accused Kundan Singh (A-1). He specifically clarified to the CFSL that the portion marked 'Q8' contained seven lines and different portions appeared to have been written by different persons. He specifically requested CFSL to clarify and mark the portion which exactly tallied with the specimen writings of accused Kundan Singh (A-1). The apprehension of the IO is in consonance with the prosecution case that initially the passport was filled with correct particulars by accused Kundan Singh (A-
1) and it was only thereafter that forgery took place in the name and particulars of the applicant appearing in second, third, fourth and fifth line of the portion marked 'Q8'. The apprehension of the IO also supports the stand of the accused whereby he admitted his handwriting in the first, sixth and seventh line of the portion marked 'Q8'.
Digitally signed CC No. CBI/309/2019 by NISHANT Page No. 39 of 57RC-6A/2002 GARG
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. NISHANT Date:
GARG 2025.03.11
16:09:22
+0530
57. The expert S.L. Mukhi was examined before the court as PW23. In his examination in chief, he proved his reports and the finding reached by him alongwith several other documents. In the cross-examination, to a specific question, he informed that the alphabets in the word 'NARANG' were compared with the capital letters appearing in other words like 'NAGAR' and 'GHAZIABAD' in the specimen writings. He admitted that his findings in para no. III (vi) of the report Ex. PW23/G with respect to execution of capital letters 'V', 'U' and 'P' did not appear in 'Q8' and he was not aware from where these letters were compared and made part of his report Ex. PW23/G. The witness on being asked to point out reference to the words 'JOSHI', 'NARANG' and 'Male' in his report Ex. PW23/G merely stated that these words and letters appeared at one place or the other but he did not remember their place/location. He denied the suggestion that he based his report only on the basis of words "Ghaziabad", "14.08.1998" and "13.08.1998" in 'Q8' which were the admitted writing of accused Kundan Singh (A-1).
58. The testimony of this witness before the court reveals that though he stated in the cross-examination that he had compared the capital alphabets of the word 'NARANG' with the individual capital alphabets appearing in other words i.e. 'NAGAR' and 'GHAZIABAD' appearing in the specimen writings marked 'S16, S17, S21, S25, S26, S30, S31' etc, however, this fact nowhere finds mention in any of his reports or in the reasons given by him for attributing the handwriting of all seven lines of 'Q8' to accused Kundan Singh (A-1). Further, perusal of the CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 40 of 57 RC-6A/2002 CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. Digitally signed NISHANT by NISHANT GARG GARG Date: 2025.03.11 16:09:31 +0530 specimen writings marked 'S16, S17, S21, S25, S26, S30, S31' etc show that only individual capital alphabets were taken as specimen and no words having capital letters 'R' or 'A' were taken as specimen.
59. Thus, the reports of the expert PW23 S.L. Mukhi cannot be relied upon to connect the writings in the second and third line of the portion marked 'Q8' as well as in the numerical figures in the fourth line of portion marked 'Q8' with the writing of accused Kundan Singh (A-1). In Magan Bihari Lal (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is extremely hazardous to condemn the accused merely on the strength of opinion evidence of a handwriting expert. It has been further observed that the expert opinion must always be received with great caution and perhaps none so with more caution than the opinion of handwriting expert.
60. The prosecution has relied on the testimonies of PW6 Krishan Kumar, PW7 V. K. Verma and PW11 Prem Singh to prove the handwriting of accused Kundan Singh (A-1) on the passports Ex. PW3/A and Ex. PW6/A. However, all these witnesses, in their court statements, denied that they were able to identify the signatures of accused Kundan Singh (A-1) on the passports. PW6 Krishan Kumar could not identify the handwriting in the seven lines of 'Q8' in the passport Ex. PW3/A. PW7 V.K. Verma did not identify the handwriting appearing at 'Q8' (portion marked 'X' to 'X1') and at 'Q1' (portion marked 'Y' to 'Y1') to be that of accused Kundan Singh CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 41 of 57 RC-6A/2002 Digitally signed CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. by NISHANT NISHANT GARG GARG Date:
2025.03.11 16:09:41 +0530 (A-1). PW11 Prem Singh did not identify any handwriting appearing on any of the passports. All these witnesses were cross examined by the Ld. PP for the CBI and were confronted with their earlier statements. However, in the cross-examination, they denied having told the CBI that the handwriting appearing at the relevant places was that of accused Kundan Singh (A-1).
61. Another important aspect relevant to note here is that accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2) was referred to the CFSL for polygraph test by the CBI vide letter dated 21.10.2003 Ex. PW24/A (colly) (6 pages). For determining the culpability of accused Kundan Singh (A-1), the contents of this letter are important. Before requesting for a polygraph test of accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2), the SP of CBI had given a gist of the allegations against accused Kundan Singh (A-1) and Hemwant Kumar (A-2) in this letter. The second paragraph of this letter states that accused Kundan Singh (A-1) had written the name and particulars of Prem Chand Singh and Bhupinder Singh on the passports and had handed over these passports to accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2) for pasting of photograph and lamination. The letter further reads as under:-
" It is suspected that Sh. Hemwant Kumar instead of doing so removed these two passport and passed on to some unauthorized person. Either that person or he himself erased the names and address etc. and wrote the name of Sh. Naram Bhai Verma and Narang Joshi respectively on the said passports. Thereafter the passport were again laminated by Sh. Hemwant Kumar in the Passport Office by putting lamination strip containing markings which was issued by the Ministry of External Affairs".CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 42 of 57
RC-6A/2002 Digitally signed CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. by NISHANT NISHANT GARG GARG Date:
2025.03.11 16:09:55 +0530
62. From the contents of the letter as reproduced above, it is clear that the investigating agency itself was of the opinion that the forgery in the passports was committed either by accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2) himself or by some unauthorized person to whom accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2) had handed over the passports. It was not the case of the CBI that the forgery in the passport was committed by the accused Kundan Singh (A-1) or that the handwriting appearing in the forged portion of 'Q8' was that of accused Kundan Singh (A-1).
63. In view of the above discussion, it cannot be said that the forgery in the passports Ex. PW3/A and Ex. PW6/A was committed by accused Kundan Singh (A-1).
Role of accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2)
64. The allegations against accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2) are that he was deputed as Incharge, Lamination and Pasting Section vide office order dated 18.06.1998; his duty was to paste the photograph and signature slip of the applicant after taking of the same from the file. However, he in conspiracy with accused Kundan Singh (A-1), instead of pasting the photograph of the original applicant, pasted the photograph of some other person in the passports no. A5885047 Ex. PW6/A and no. A5885406 Ex. PW3/A and also pasted signature slips in the name of N.K. Verma and N. Joshi. He also changed the file no. 402/3682/98 to 402/4127/98 and 402/4522/98 to 402/2615/98. Before laminating the passport, bogus signatures in the name of Superintendents Daya Ram and Hans Raj were put on the top corner of the CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 43 of 57 RC-6A/2002 CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS.
Digitally signed
NISHANT by NISHANT
GARG
GARG Date: 2025.03.11
16:10:04 +0530
photograph despite that such system of cross signatures at already been discontinued since 05.09.1997.
65. It has not been proved by the prosecution that the passports in question alongwith their files were handed over by accused Kundan Singh (A-1) to accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2). It has already been discussed above that the relevant entries under the dates 07.08.1998 and 14.08.1998 in the register (D-11) have not been proved. PW Hans Raj, in his court statement, has not identified the signatures appearing at point 'C' under the dates 07.08.1998 and 14.08.1998 of D-11 to be that of accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2) purportedly affixed in acknowledgment of the receipt of the passport booklets and their files from accused Kundan Singh (A-1). Admittedly, the file had changed several hands before it allegedly reached Hemwant Kumar (A-2). No evidence has been led by the prosecution to rule out the possibility that file no. 402/3682/98 of Prem Chand Singh and file no. 402/4522/98 of Bhupinder Singh already contained photographs of fictitious person (put by some other official) which accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2) affixed in the course of his normal duties. Nothing is shown as to what specific role was played by accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2) in erasing the names and particulars of Prem Chand Singh and Bhupinder Singh from the passports.
66. As already observed above, it has not been revealed by the prosecution as to how the information that files no. 402/3682/98 and 402/4522/98 were changed to 402/4127/98 and 402/2615/98 CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 44 of 57 RC-6A/2002 CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. Digitally signed NISHANT by NISHANT GARG GARG Date: 2025.03.11 16:10:12 +0530 respectively came to light when the original files no. 402/3682/98 and 402/4522/98 were never traced and were never seen by the IO. It is further not clear if only the file numbers were changed or the other particulars of the applicants contained in these files were also changed. Again, what object was sought to be achieved by changing the file number has not been revealed, particularly when these files were not supposed to be placed before the Superintendent concerned for signatures. So far as bogus signatures of the Superintendents appearing on these passports are concerned, though the prosecution case is that these signatures were put before lamination, however, it is not the prosecution case that these signatures were put by accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2). The reports of the CFSL no where points any accusing finger against accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2) as the person responsible for signing the passports as Superintendents Daya Ram and Hans Raj.
67. Since there was no evidence against accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2), the IO opted to get his polygraph test conducted. For this purpose, the IO wrote letter dated 21.10.2003 Ex. PW24/A (colly). Pertinent to note is that the said letter runs in two pages and the next three pages are the questionnaire forwarded to the CFSL by the IO. A separate page has been annexed alongwith the letter dated 21.10.2003 purportedly showing consent given by accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2) for subjecting himself to a polygraph test. The document D-49 is exhibited as Ex. PW24/A (colly) (6 pages) on the document whereas in the examination in chief of PW24 Bibha Rani Ray, CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 45 of 57 RC-6A/2002 Digitally signed CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. by NISHANT NISHANT GARG GARG Date:
2025.03.11 16:10:20 +0530 the document is exhibited as Ex. PW24/A (colly) (5 pages).
68. The letter dated 22.10.2003 purportedly written and signed by accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2) has not been referred to either by PW24 Dr. Bibha Rani Ray or by any of the investigating officers i.e. PW26 Karnail Singh and PW28 Javed Siraj. Even otherwise, the law is well settled that narco analysis, polygraph and brain mapping tests cannot be conducted on an accused if they have not expressly consented to such tests before the Magistrate concerned. Admittedly, in the instant case, purported consent of accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2) for subjecting himself to polygraph test was not obtained before a Magistrate.
69. As per the result of polygraph examination Ex. PW24/B, 18 questions were put to accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2) out of which he attempted to deceive while answering several questions. With respect to remaining questions, no meaningful inference could be drawn. In the cross-examination, PW24 Bibha Rani Ray informed that truthfulness or otherwise of the responses has been ascertained by using polygraph instruments which record the psychosomatic reactions of the person like changes in respiration, blood pressure, pulse rate and galvanic skin resistance.
70. The law with respect to evidentiary value of polygraph test is well settled. In 'Selvi & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka' (2010) 7SCC 263, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even when the subject has given consent to undergo any of the scientific CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 46 of 57 RC-6A/2002 CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. Digitally signed NISHANT by NISHANT GARG GARG Date: 2025.03.11 16:10:28 +0530 tests, the test results by themselves cannot be admitted in evidence. It has further been held that any information or material that is subsequently discovered with the help of voluntarily administered test results can be admitted in accordance with Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Admittedly, in the instant case, no recovery has been effected by or at the instance of accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2). The identity of the person whose photograph was affixed on the passports could not be ascertained. Nothing could be elicited if accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2) had any link with accused Anita Umrao (A-3) or with allegedly fictitious persons Naram Bhai Verma and Narang Joshi. Nothing could be ascertained if accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2) had handed over the files and passports to any third person for committing forgery. The answers given by accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2) to the questions put to him, have not been placed on record.
71. Thus, considering the fact that purported consent of accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2) for subjecting himself to polygraph test was not obtained before a Magistrate and that no recovery/discovery has taken place pursuant to the results of the polygraph examination, the polygraph examination conducted on accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2) cannot be made the sole basis to prove the allegations of conspiracy and forgery on him.
Role of accused Anita Umrao (A-3)
72. The allegations against accused Anita Umrao (A-3) are that she was having a locker bearing no. 42 at HDFC Bank, Old CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 47 of 57 RC-6A/2002 CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS.
Digitally signed
NISHANT by NISHANT
GARG
GARG Date: 2025.03.11
16:10:39 +0530
Rajender Nagar Branch, New Delhi. She was suspected to be involved in another case bearing RC-1/99-CBI SIC.II. She was arrested by the CBI and was subsequently released on bail by the court. During interrogation, on the strength of a search warrant, her locker was searched on 09.11.2001 whereby among other articles, two passports bearing no. A5885047 and A5885406 were recovered. The photograph on both the passports were of the same person in different poses which created a doubt regarding the authenticity of the said passports.
73. PW26 Karnail Singh, the complainant and the first investigating officer, deposed about these facts in his court statement. In the cross-examination on behalf of accused Anita Umrao (A-3), he admitted that the preliminary enquiry was conducted by him but the locker of accused Anita Umrao (A-3) was not operated by him.
74. PW15 Sangeeta Saxena was the Branch Manager, HDFC Bank, Old Rajender Nagar, New Delhi. In her testimony before the court, she deposed that two CBI officers R.S. Gosain and S. N. Saxena had visited her branch; at their request, the locker was operated by accused Anita Umrao (A-3) in the presence of Ms. Chitra Diwakar (Assistant Manager), R.S. Gosain, S. N. Saxena and herself. During the operation of the locker, 23 articles were seized and their inventory was prepared in her presence through memo Ex. PW15/A bearing her signatures and signatures of Chitra Diwakar.
Digitally signed by NISHANT NISHANT GARG CC No. CBI/309/2019 GARG Date: Page No. 48 of 57 RC-6A/2002 2025.03.11 16:10:48 +0530 CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS.
75. In the cross-examination, she informed that on the day of the locker operation, accused Anita Umrao (A-3) had come to her chamber with a request to operate her locker. After 5-10 minutes, CBI officers also visited and told her that they wanted to seize the contents of the locker; the CBI officials were accompanied by local police. She further deposed that at the request of CBI officials, she requested Ms. Chitra Diwakar and apprised her about operation of locker of Anita Umrao (A-3) by CBI officials. Chitra Diwakar brought the locker operation register and locker operation sheet which were got signed from accused Anita Umrao (A-3). Thereafter, accused Anita Umrao (A-3), Chitra Diwakar, S.N. Saxena, R.S. Gosain and she herself visited the vault where the locker was operated simultaneously by accused Anita Umrao (A-3) and Chitra Diwakar. The articles were taken out by R.S. Gosain and an inventory was prepared. She was not aware on which computer the said inventory was prepared.
76. She further deposed that no cash was recovered from the locker; a mangalsutra was recovered; tentatively 22-24 articles were recovered from the locker; total 10 passports were recovered; CBI had not called her at any point of time between the date of search and preparation of her affidavit Ex. PW15/B. She fairly admitted that no photographs or videography of the raid proceedings was done. She had not met accused Anita Umrao (A-3) in the preceedings ten days from the date of search. She volunteered to add that in case Anita Umrao (A-3) had operated the locker through the locker custodian, she has no knowledge of it. She denied the suggestion that before CBI CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 49 of 57 RC-6A/2002 CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. Digitally signed by NISHANT GARG NISHANT Date:
GARG 2025.03.11
16:10:57
+0530
officials could start with their search, the locker was already being operated by the accused.
77. From the testimony of this material witness, it is revealed that the locker of accused Anita Umrao (A-3) was operated by accused Anita Umrao (A-3) in her presence and in the presence of other CBI and bank officials. Despite lengthy cross- examination, nothing could be elicited to create a doubt in her testimony. The witness was the Branch Manager of the bank and had no concern either with accused Anita Umrao (A-3) or with the CBI officers. She had no motive to depose falsely against accused Anita Umrao (A-3) with whom she had no prior enmity or animosity. No suggestion was given to this witness that she was not present in the bank premises at the relevant time or that the locker was not operated by accused Anita Umrao (A-3) in her presence. Contradictory stands have been taken by the accused. On one hand, it was suggested to PW15 Sangeeta Saxena that accused Anita Umrao (A-3) was already operating her locker when the CBI officials arrived at the bank, on the other hand, in 313 CrPC statement, it was stated that the locker was operated in her absence. No reasonable grounds exist to doubt the testimony of this independent witness.
78. The testimony of this witness is corroborated with the testimony of PW22 Rajender Singh Gosain who was one of the CBI officers present at the time of operation of the locker. He identified his signatures on the inventory memo, search memo Ex. PW15/A as well as the signatures of S.N. Saxena, Sangeeta CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 50 of 57 RC-6A/2002 Digitally signed CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. by NISHANT NISHANT GARG GARG Date:
2025.03.11 16:11:06 +0530 Saxena and Chitra Diwakar. In the cross-examination, he deposed that he had not given any letter to the Bank Manager for opening locker no. 42; he admitted that all the articles were taken out from the bank locker and after preparing the inventory, the articles which were not required, were kept back in the locker. He informed that one key of the locker was with accused Anita Umrao (A-3) and the other key was with the Bank Manager. He did not remember if any further instructions were given regarding the operation of the bank locker. He denied the suggestion that the passports were planted on the accused. He did not remember whether the CBI officials had offered their search to the accused or not. He denied the suggestion that the accused Anita Umrao (A-3) was not present on the day when locker was operated.
79. Perusal of the testimony of this witness reveals that he has supported the prosecution case in all material particulars. Despite lengthy cross-examination, nothing material could be elicited to doubt his testimony. The witness gave details about the availability of one key with accused Anita Umrao (A-3) and the other with the Bank Manager. It was suggested to him that accused Anita Umrao (A-3) was not present in the bank on that day.
80. No doubt, the locker operation register and locker operation sheet were not seized by the CBI from the bank and signatures of accused Anita Umrao (A-3) did not appear on the inventory memo Ex. PW15/A, however, these irregularities are not sufficient to disbelieve the testimony of prosecution witness CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 51 of 57 RC-6A/2002 Digitally signed by NISHANT CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. GARG NISHANT Date:
GARG 2025.03.11
16:11:14
+0530
which otherwise show that locker was operated in the presence of the accused Anita Umrao (A-3) and forged passports were recovered therefrom. The accused Anita Umrao (A-3) did not seek production of locker operation register and locker operation sheet at the time of defence evidence.
81. From the testimonies of PW15 Sangeeta Saxena and PW22 Rajender Singh Gosain, its stands established that the passports no. A5885047 Ex. PW6/A and no. A5885406 Ex. PW3/A were recovered from the locker no. 42 of accused Anita Umrao (A-3). As per the charge-sheet, one of the passports Ex. PW3/A was submitted by Narang Joshi in the US Embassy for obtaining visa of USA on 06.10.1998 and 15.10.1998. The CBI had sought certain documents pertaining to use of this passport from the US Embassy, through the Ministry of External Affairs. In response, vide letter dated 14.11.2003 (Mark 'E'), the Ministry of External Affairs forwarded copies of computer record of applicant Narang Joshi alongwith a diplomatic note of US Embassy. The letter dated 14.11.2003, diplomatic note and the computer record have remained unproved during trial. Even as per the diplomatic note, the passport in question appeared to have been presented to the US Embassy twice but the visa was refused. No file pertaining to the said visa applications was available with the US Embassy. No witness from the US Embassy has been cited or examined. The stamps/sticker appearing on the passport has not been proved. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution have deposed anything about submission of this passport in the US Embassy. PW28 Javed Siraj, the Investigating Officer has merely CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 52 of 57 RC-6A/2002 Digitally signed by NISHANT CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. NISHANT GARG GARG Date:
2025.03.11 16:11:25 +0530 stated in one line that from enquiry made from the US Embassy, it was found that the passport was used for obtaining visa which was refused. Statement of no witness under Section 161 CrPC has been recorded in support of these allegations. Thus, it remains unproved that the passport no. A5885406 Ex. PW3/A was ever submitted in the US Embassy for the purpose of obtaining a US visa and if so, by whom.
82. Since the prosecution has failed to prove that the forged passports recovered from the locker of accused Anita Umrao (A-
3) have been used by her for any purpose at any time, no offence under the IPC or the Passports Act is made out against her. So far as the offence under Section 474 IPC is concerned, as already observed, nothing is shown if accused Anita Umrao (A-3) ever intended to fraudulently or dishonestly used this passport as genuine.
83. With respect to the allegations of conspiracy, nothing is shown if accused Anita Umrao (A-3) knew accused Kundan Singh (A-1) or accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2). Nothing is shown if she ever met them or made any telephone call to them. Nothing is on record to show that she ever visited the Passport Office, Ghaziabad or made any payment in any manner either to accused Kundan Singh (A-1) or to accused Hemwant Kumar (A-
2). In the cross-examination, PW28 Javed Siraj, the Investigating Officer admitted that no CDR or any letter or writing showing the link between accused Anita Umrao (A-3) and other accused persons was on record. He further admitted that during CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 53 of 57 Digitally signed RC-6A/2002 by NISHANT CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. NISHANT GARG GARG Date:
2025.03.11 16:11:33 +0530 investigation, it could not be ascertained if accused Anita Umrao (A-3) benefitted monetarily by the preparation of forged passports.
84. In view of the above discussion, the allegations of conspiracy between accused Anita Umrao (A-3) and the other accused persons have remained unproved. No other offence is made out against accused Anita Umrao (A-3) for being in possession of the two forged passports.
85. There are few other aspects for which no investigation has been carried out in this case. In the passport Ex. PW6/A, file no. 402/4127/98 is mentioned. This file was originally opened in the name of applicant Harjinder Singh. PW8 Smt. Rajinder Kaur, the wife of applicant Harjinder Singh deposed that her husband had applied for a passport and file no. 402/4127/98 was opened; her husband did not receive the passport; she alongwith her husband came to the Passport Office, Ghaziabad where they were informed that their original application was not traceable and they were advised to give a fresh application.
86. Perusal of the file Ex. PW1/2 (D-6) reveals that the applicant Harjinder Singh had made an enquiry regarding non receipt of his passport whereby a noting was made that the passport was not in safe custody. The Passport Office, Ghaziabad was thus aware of the loss of original file no. 402/4127/98 in July 2001. However, no efforts were made by the Superintendents concerned to locate the original file or the original passport.
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 54 of 57RC-6A/2002 Digitally signed
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS.
NISHANT by NISHANT
GARG
GARG Date: 2025.03.11
16:11:42 +0530
Nothing was ascertained during the investigation as to why the applicant Harjinder Singh was not issued the passport until he made the enquiries and gave a fresh application.
87. Similarly, file no. 402/2615/98 was opened in the name of applicant Alok Punj. Alok Punj was neither cited nor examined as a witness. It is thus not clear if he was issued a passport. However, it seems that he too was not issued a passport as his specimen signatures still appear alongwith the application form in the file. No investigation has been carried out if Alok Punj was issued a passport and if not, why.
88. Thus, it appears that not only the original files of applicant Prem Chand Singh and Bhupinder Singh were not traceable but there were files of other applicants as well which were not traceable. There were other applicants who were not issued the passports. The possibility that several other passports were forged cannot be ruled out. As rightly pointed out by the Ld. defence counsel, as per the entry at Sr. No. 3483 of the Dispatch Register Ex. PW9/D (D-62), the passport bearing no. A5885406 was dispatched in the name of Km. Minu Singh on 14.08.1998 against file no. 402/4520/98. Thus, the passport booklet bearing no. A-5885406 was issued in the name of at least two applicants. No investigation has been carried out by the CBI on this aspect as well.
89. Despite the fact that two out of several passports recovered from the locker of accused Anita Umrao (A-3) were found to be CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 55 of 57 RC-6A/2002 Digitally signed CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. by NISHANT NISHANT GARG GARG Date:
2025.03.11 16:11:51 +0530 forged, the IO did not try to ascertain if the remaining passports found in the locker of accused Anita Umrao (A-3) were forged or not.
90. The role of Superintendents concerned also requires discussion. It has come on record that the Superintendent used to issue a lot of 40 passport booklets to the Passport Writer which used to come back to him either on the same day or the next day in the morning for the purpose of signing. Being a valuable document, it was the duty of the Superintendent to ensure that all 40 passports came back to him and they contained correct particulars of the applicants. In the instant case, the investigation is completely silent as to how it was possible that the Superintendents concerned did not become aware of at least one missing passport on at least two occasions i.e. on 07.08.1998 and 14.08.1998. It has further come in the testimony of PW9 Hans Raj that registers were maintained at every step regarding movement of the passport and its file from one section to another which contained details of the person handing over and receiving the passports. PW9 Hans Raj in the cross-examination also deposed that record used to be maintained in triplicate regarding movements of the passports and he used to retain one of its copies. The other copies were retained by other sections. No such record has been seized by the IO in the instant case.
91. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has not been able to establish the guilt of any of the accused persons for commission of any offence CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 56 of 57 RC-6A/2002 Digitally signed CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. NISHANT by NISHANT GARG GARG Date: 2025.03.11 16:11:59 +0530 beyond reasonable doubt. Accused Kundan Singh (A-1), Hemwant Kumar (A-2) and Anita Umrao (A-3) are entitled to benefit of doubt and are accordingly acquitted of all charges.
Digitally signed NISHANT by NISHANT GARG GARG Date: 2025.03.11 16:12:09 +0530 Announced in Open Court (NISHANT GARG) on 11th of March, 2025 ACJM-2-cum-ACJ ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 57 of 57 RC-6A/2002 CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS.