Parminder Singh Saini vs Cbi on 24 April, 2026

[Cites 35, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Parminder Singh Saini vs Cbi on 24 April, 2026

              IN THE COURT OF M.P. SINGH,
            SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT), CBI-02,
       ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
Cr. Rev. 59/2025

Parminder Singh Saini,
S/o Arjan Singh Saini
r/o Maple Leaf Complex,
Sector - 115, Mohali,
Punjab - 140307                                            ... Revisionist
                                     versus
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)                      ... Respondent

                   Revision instituted on - 23.12.2025
                 Arguments concluded on - 20.02.2026
                 Judgment pronounced on - 24.04.2026
                                JUDGMENT

1. The Revisionist impugns order dt. 06.12.2025 of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-02-cum-Administrative Civil Judge, Rouse Avenue District Courts, Delhi whereby and whereunder he was ordered to be charged for offences punishable under sections 419, 420, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').

2. Facts may now be taken note of.

2.1 In protest against the actions of the security forces at the Golden Temple, Amritsar, and specifically the 'Operation Bluestar', on 05.07.1984 the Revisionist along with eight other militants hijacked Indian Airlines Airbus A-300, Flight No. IC-405 enroute from Srinagar to Bombay via Delhi, carrying Cr Rev/59/2025 Parminder Singh Saini v. CBI Page 1 of 50 265 passengers, from Amritsar Airport and diverted it to Lahore. The police in Pakistan arrested the Revisionist and his associates on 06.07.1984 and put them to trial for offences relating to hijacking etc. Pakistan did not accede to India's request to return the hijackers, stating that it would prosecute them under its laws in line with International Convention against Hijacking. During the hijackers' trial in Pakistan, India assisted with evidence and witnesses. In India, the Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of External Affairs and the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short 'CBI') monitored the trial in Pakistan. Based on testimony of the crew members, a Special Court in Lahore, Pakistan convicted the hijackers in 1986. Revisionist was awarded death penalty, and he remained in Lahore Jail from 1984 to 1994.1 In appeal, in 1988 his death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment, and later in July 1994 Lahore High Court released him from custody for medical treatment. In January 1995 Pakistan Government granted him full parole. Later Punjab Government, Pakistan commuted his sentence and ordered his release with instructions to leave Pakistan for a country of his choice within a month.

2.2 Post-release, Pakistani authorities did not deport the 1 In relation to the said hijacking J&K Police had registered an FIR bearing no. 132/84 dt. 05.07.1984 at police station Badgaon, Srinagar. The case was later transferred to CBI, following which a case bearing no. RC-6/84-SIU-II/SIC-II/CBI/New Delhi was registered. Since the Revisionist had been tried and convicted by a Court in Pakistan for the offence of hijacking of the Indian Airlines flight, the said CBI case no. RC-6/84-SIU-II/SIC-II/CBI/New Delhi, registered for the same offence(s), was closed to avoid double jeopardy and the Closure/Final Report No. 3/91 dt. 02.07.1991 under section 173 CrPC was accepted on 16.11.1991 by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar.

Cr Rev/59/2025 Parminder Singh Saini v. CBI Page 2 of 50

Revisionist to India. He however allegedly managed forged travel documents i.e. passport through some unknown person. On 21.01.1995 he landed at Pearson International Airport, Toronto, Canada. When he reached Toronto Airport he had an Afghan passport (no. OR592884 dt. 09.07.1994) purportedly issued by 'Republic of Afghanistan', under an assumed identity of 'Balbir Singh, son of Manna Singh, born in Jalalabad'. He surrendered the said passport to the Canadian authorities at the airport.

2.3 CBI states that though the passport was in the name of 'Balbir Singh, son of Manna Singh', yet the photograph thereon was that of the Revisionist. And to buttress this, it relies on an opinion dt. 05.07.2012 of Central Forensic Laboratory (CFSL), Delhi, Delhi. For the purpose of examination of the photograph as appearing on the passport in question, CBI sent a photograph of the Revisionist to CFSL. CFSL opined that on the basis of visual examination and comparison of the two photographs with respect to their facial features, they appeared to be of the same person.

2.4 The passport in question also bears what appears to be a fingerprint/thumb impression in green ink. It is CBI's case that this fingerprint/thumb impression is not that of the Revisionist, relying on an opinion dt. 30.08.2011 of CFSL, Delhi. As per this opinion, the questioned fingerprint/thumb impression on the passport is different from the specimen finger/palm print slips of the Revisionist.

Cr Rev/59/2025 Parminder Singh Saini v. CBI Page 3 of 50

2.5 The CBI contends that, upon arriving at the airport in Toronto on 21.01.1995 with the said Afghan passport in his possession, the Revisionist falsely claimed to Canadian authorities that he had come from Afghanistan, deliberately suppressing his Indian identity in order to avoid deportation. It is averred that at the Toronto airport on 21.01.1995, he had presented himself before one Mr. Paul Gregory Blais 2, Border Services Officer/Immigration Examining Officer, who examined him. It appears from the record that immigration officer(s) examined him on 21.01.1995 and then on 03.021995. Revisionist's statement was recorded, wherein he allegedly gave false replies and informed Mr. Blais that he was Balbir Singh, an Afghan Citizen, and a resident of Aatamandi, Jalalabad, Afghanistan with his date of birth being 21.12.1962. He falsely claimed that his Afghan passport had been validly issued to him and incorrectly stated that he was coming from Afghanistan, which was in the throes of war. He claimed refugee status but, in response to a specific question about prior convictions, gave a wholly false answer and concealed his punishment in Pakistan in connection with hijacking of the Indian aircraft from India to Lahore. He also gave a false reply to a query whether he was a permanent resident of any country other than Afghanistan. He also falsely stated that he had no family in Canada, despite the fact that his parents, brother, and his brother's family were living there. He falsely stated that he got immigrant visa to live in Canada, but the person who had it 2 Mr. Paul Gregory Blais is a prosecution witness at serial number 12 in the list of witnesses.

Cr Rev/59/2025 Parminder Singh Saini v. CBI Page 4 of 50

ran away.3 2.6 On 13.09.1995 pursuant to some investigation in Canada, Revisionist's real identity came to be revealed and he was detained. Canadian Intelligence Services arrested him on 14.09.1995 for violation of section 27 of Immigration Act, 1976 (of Canada). On 27.10.1995 he was issued a Deportation Order after an inquiry under the said Immigration Act, which was then followed by the Minister of Immigration in June 1996 declaring him a danger to Canada and ordering his deportation on grounds of criminal conviction. He challenged the said Deportation Order before Federal Court, Canada, but later, pursuant to an out-of-court arrangement, the Department of Justice agreed not to deport him to India and he agreed not to press appeal. On 16.04.1997, the Minister of Immigration again determined4 him a danger to the Canadian public and issued a Deportation Order, which was later quashed by the Federal Court in Canada, leading to his release on 25.07.1998.

2.7 More than a decade later, on 27.01.2010 the Revisionist was deported to India via an Air Arabia airline flight. On his arrival at New Delhi, Delhi Police arrested him under National Security Act, 1980 (for short 'NSA') and he was lodged in Central Jail, Tihar, Delhi. Advisory Board of Delhi High Court revoked the invocation of NSA against him leading to his release on 24.03.2010. No sooner than he was 3 Copy of the document setting out the queries put forth by Mr. Paul Gregory Blais and the responses thereto of the Revisionist is at D-3 (and at D-6 as well) of the Trial Court Record.

Copy of this opinion dt. 16.04.1997 of the Minister of Immigration in Canada is at D-6 (9).

Cr Rev/59/2025 Parminder Singh Saini v. CBI Page 5 of 50

released, he came to be arrested in the instant case right outside Central Jail, Tihar, Delhi. He was then produced before learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House, New Delhi and was granted bail on 25.03.2010.

2.8 Now, during the course of his stay in Canada from 21.01.1995 till 27.01.2010, the Revisionist is alleged to have procured the following documents under the name of ' Balbir Singh', his assumed identity, and to have done so, according to the CBI, through dishonest and fraudulent means.

(a) SIN (Social Insurance Number) card no. 910694165.

(b) Driver Licence Card no. S 4490-07106-21221 dt.

09.05.1995 (valid with the photo card issued on 08.05.1995) issued by Province of Ontario, Canada.

(c) Photo Card no. 149 dt. 08.05.1995 of Driver's Licence no. S4490-07106-21221 issued by the Province of Ontario, Canada.

2.9 All the four documents of the Revisionist, including his Afghan passport5, issued under the assumed name of 'Balbir Singh', were handed over to Indian authorities through proper channel by two Canadian officials, namely, Sindi Pannu6 and Alex Ibrahim, Enforcement Officers of Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA), who handled his deportation case.

2.10 It is pertinent to mention that the SIN card, the Driver Licence Card, and the Photo Card that were issued to 5 All these four documents in original are at D-2 of the Trial Court record.

Sindi Pannu is a prosecution witness at serial number 13 in the list of witnesses.

Cr Rev/59/2025 Parminder Singh Saini v. CBI Page 6 of 50

the Revisionist in Canada under his assumed identity each bear the English signature 'Balbir Singh'. In this connection, the CFSL, Delhi in its opinion dt. 11.11.2011 states that specimen writings/signatures of the Revisionist match with the questioned writings/signatures on these three cards.7 2.11 Through proper channel, an affidavit8 of said Mr. Paul Gregory Blais, the officer at Toronto International Airport was received. In 1995, he served as Immigration Officer at the Toronto airport and had attended to the Revisionist upon his arrival there. He stated, inter alia, in his affidavit that in his capacity as Immigration Officer he was responsible for determining admissibility to Canada of immigrants etc.; that on or about 21.01.1995 after arrival in Canada, the Revisionist presented himself to a checkpoint for primary inspection by a Customs Officer; that in his primary inspection, he presented an Afghan Passport no. 592884, issued on 09.07.1994 in the name of 'Balbir Singh'; that he also presented a completed CBSA E 311 card identifying 21.01.1995 as date of his arrival in Canada; that he claimed to be an Afghan citizen and as such he required a visa to enter Canada, but presented no visa at the primary inspection and sought refugee status; that he was then referred to second inspection i.e. the immigration secondary; that immigration inspection was adjourned to 03.02.1995 due 7 In addition to this, Revisionist's Emergency Certificate (no. A 116698) bears the English signature 'Parminder Singh Saini'. This Emergency Certificate, issued by Consulate General of India (CGI), Toronto, was used to deport/bring him back to India. The CFSL, in its opinion dt. 11.11.2011, also states that the Revisionist's specimen writings/signatures match with the questioned writing/signature on the Emergency Certificate.

Document(s) at D-11 of the Trial Court record.

Cr Rev/59/2025 Parminder Singh Saini v. CBI Page 7 of 50

to lateness of the hour and requirement to locate a Punjabi speaking interpreter; that on 03.02.1995 he (Paul Gregory Blais) reviewed his Afghan passport and CBSA E 311 card. Along with Mr. Blais's affidavit, copy of the Afghan passport and copy of CBSA E 311 Card which the Revisionist had presented at the checkpoint at Toronto airport is also attached.

2.12 During investigation, a letter dt. 08.12.20149 was received from Canada, together with a copy of the application form submitted for obtaining the SIN card in the name of 'Balbir Singh'. The copy of the application form so received is faint; however, applicant's name can be discerned as ' Balbir Singh, son of Manna Singh'. His date of birth therein appears as '21.12.1962', and the address can be read as '4, Casper Crescent, Brampton, Ontario'. The entry 'Jalalabad, Afghanistan' is also legible therein.10 2.13 Also enclosed with the aforesaid letter dt. 08.12.2014 is an affidavit of one Ms. Monique Roy 11, a Canadian government employee, stating that it was not possible to produce the original SIN application form, as the only permanent record maintained by the Department is a photographic print (microfilm). She further states therein that, in accordance with operational procedures, the original document is destroyed after being photographed. She also 9 Document(s) at D-14.

The application form has no photograph of the applicant.

She is a witness at serial number 15 in the list of prosecution witnesses.

Cr Rev/59/2025 Parminder Singh Saini v. CBI Page 8 of 50

clarifies therein that it is not reasonably practicable to produce the said permanent record, as it is stored on a magnetic tape containing records of multiple individuals, and there is no means to isolate and produce a single application.

2.14 Later in December 2015 Canadian authorities sent to India the following12:

(i) Certified copy of the application form submitted by the Revisionist in the assumed name of 'Balbir Singh' on 18.04.1995 for Ontario Driver's Licence no. S4490-

07106-21221,

(ii) Certified copy of the Licence Replacement Application for Ontario Driver's Licence no. S4490-07106-21221 submitted by the Revisionist in the assumed name of 'Balbir Singh' on 08.05.1995.

(iii) Report dt. 26.11.2025 of Detective Constable Lou Copat.13 2.15 Affidavit of Sindi Pannu14, the Enforcement Officer in Ontario, Canada was also received. In his affidavit, he states that on 01.10.2010 he had obtained a letter from the Consulate General of India (CGI), Toronto15 confirming that: (i) Afghan passport used by Revisionist to enter Canada had been 12 These documents are there at D-13 of the Trial Court record.

Detective Constable Lou Copat had been tasked by the Canadian authorities with the responsibility of collecting the documents from the concerned agencies. He is a prosecution witness at serial number 14 in the list of witnesses.

Sindi Pannu is a prosecution witness at serial number 13 in the list of witnesses.

Affidavit of Mr. Sindi Pannu as also the letter dt. 01.10.2010 of Consulate General of India (CGI), Toronto are at D-12 of the Trial Court record.

Cr Rev/59/2025 Parminder Singh Saini v. CBI Page 9 of 50

provided to CGI, Toronto in August 1996, at its request, in connection with his deportation, and (ii) Driver's Licence and social insurance card of the Province of Ontario which the Revisionist had obtained under 'false identity' were provided to CGI, Toronto, at its request, for the purpose of renewal of Revisionist's Emergency Certificate in January, 2010.

2.16 Final Report for offences under sections 419, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC was filed on 31.05.2016. On 20.06.2016 the Central Government accorded the sanction for prosecution under section 188 of CrPC.

3. On above facts, learned Trial Court framed charges against the Revisionist for offences punishable under sections 419, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC. The relevant extract of the charges so framed is as under :

"Firstly, that on 21.01.1995 at Pearson International Airport, Toronto, Canada and during your stay at Canada thereafter, you falsely represented yourself to be Balbir Singh s/o Manna Singh which was an assumed/fake name and identity and that you also fraudulently managed to obtain Social Insurance Card no. 910694165 and Driving licence Card bearing no. S 4490-07106-21221 dated 08.05.1995 from the concerned Canadian authorities while impersonating yourself as Balbir Singh and at the same time hiding your real identity, and thereby, you have committed an offence punishable under Section 419 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and within my cognizance.

Secondly, that during the aforestated period and place, you dishonestly and fraudulently induced the concerned Canadian authorities to issue to you Social Insurance Card no. 910694165 and Driving licence Card bearing no. S 4490-07106-21221 dated 08.05.1995 on the basis of your assumed fake identity in the name of Balbir Singh, and Cr Rev/59/2025 Parminder Singh Saini v. CBI Page 10 of 50 thereby, you have committed an offence punishable under Section 420 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and within my cognizance.

Thirdly, that during the unknown period and at unknown place, you have fraudulently got prepared forged original Passport bearing no. OR 592884 purported to have been issued by the Republic of Afghanistan in the assumed name and identity of Balbir Singh s/o Manna Singh and this you got forged for the purpose of cheating the concerned Canadian authorities by falsely and dishonestly inducing them to believe that your real identity is that as mentioned on the aforesaid passport and also you have forged documents in the name of Balbir Singh, S/o Manna Singh and this you did with the purpose of cheating the concerned Canadian authorities by dishonestly inducing them to issue to you Social Insurance Card no. 910694165 Driving licence Card bearing no. S 4490-07106-21221 dated 08.05.1995 in the name of assumed/fake identity of Balbir Singh, and thereby, you have committed an offence punishable under Section 468 Indian Penal Code, 1860, and within my cognizance.

Lastly, that on 21.01.1995 at Pearson International Airport, Toronto, Canada and during your stay at Canada thereafter, you have dishonestly used fake and forged documents, to wit, original Passport bearing no. OR 592884, Social Insurance Card no. 910694165 and Driving licence Card bearing no. S 4490-07106-21221 dated 08.05.1995, all in the assumed/fake name and identity of Balbir Singh s/o Manna Singh, as genuine while knowing fully well that all the aforestated documents are either forged or have been procured on the basis of documents forged by you, and thereby, you have committed an offence punishable under Section 471 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and within my cognizance."

4. On behalf of the Revisionist following arguments were made.

4.1 Even if the entire case of the prosecution is accepted to be correct, yet it makes out no case against him due to Cr Rev/59/2025 Parminder Singh Saini v. CBI Page 11 of 50 inherent lack of jurisdiction under section 4 (1) of IPC.16 Indian criminal jurisdiction over offences committed abroad is conditional rather than inherent, depending on the accused possessing legal status of a 'citizen of India' at the precise temporal moment of commission of the alleged offence. At the material time in 1995, he had entered Canada possessing a passport issued by sovereign State of Afghanistan under the name of 'Balbir Singh'. It is prosecution's admitted case that it has no verification from Afghan authorities qua authenticity, issuance or validity of the passport in question. This is catastrophic to the prosecution case. In the absence of positive evidence proving that Afghan passport was forged, and which evidence can only originate from the issuing sovereign, the legal presumption of foreign nationality stands unrebutted. Consequently, he was, de jure and de facto, not a 'citizen of India' for purposes of section 4 of IPC . Sans this prerequisite status, Indian Courts lack subject matter jurisdiction ab initio. The IPC cannot reach into the territorial sovereignty of Canada to punish acts committed in 1995. The concept of extra-

Section 4 of IPC is as under:

4. Extension of Code to extra-territorial offences.--The provisions of this Code apply also to any offence committed by--

(1) any citizen of India in any place without and beyond India; (2) any person on any ship or aircraft registered in India wherever it may be; (3) any person in any place without and beyond India committing offence targeting a computer resource located in India.

Explanation.--In this section--

(a) the word "offence" includes every act committed outside India which, if committed in India, would be punishable under this Code;

(b) the expression "computer resource" shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (k) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000).

Illustration A, who is a citizen of India, commits a murder in Uganda. He can be tried and convicted of murder in any place in India in which he may be found.

Cr Rev/59/2025 Parminder Singh Saini v. CBI Page 12 of 50

territorial jurisdiction is an exception to the general rule of International Law that crime is local ( lex loci delicti). As an exception, statutes granting such jurisdiction, namely, section 4 of IPC and section 188 of CrPC, must be interpreted strictly. The prosecution is proceeding on erroneous presumption that his Indian origin (birth in India) grants it perpetual jurisdiction ignoring the fluid nature of citizenship, the legal effects of foreign travel documents and the specific temporal requirements as mandated by judgments of Supreme Court of India. Jurisdiction of an Indian Court does not attach to the 'person' of the accused generally, nor to his ' ethnicity', nor to his place of birth. It attaches strictly to his legal status as a 'citizen of India' at the specific moment the alleged crime was committed. Under section 4 of IPC and section 188 of CrPC if the individual committing the act outside India is not a ' citizen of India' at the time of the act, the act itself will constitute no 'offence' under the IPC, for the Code (IPC) has no application to foreigners in foreign lands (unless the act targets computer resources in India, which is not the case here). Therefore, the very first question that should be determined is - whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that he was a 'citizen of India' in January 1995. The prosecution often relies on retrospective application of citizenship, positing that because today (at the time of trial) he is a 'citizen of India', he can be tried for his past acts. This logic was rejected in Central Bank of India v. Ram Narain, AIR 1955 SC 36, a judgment whose following passage was relied upon by the Revisionist.

Cr Rev/59/2025 Parminder Singh Saini v. CBI Page 13 of 50

The language of the sections plainly means that if at the time of the commission of the offence, the person committing it is a citizen of India, then even if the offence is committed outside India he is subject to the jurisdiction of the Courts in India........ If, however, at the time of the commission of the offence the accused person is not a citizen of India, then the provisions of these sections have no application whatsoever .......The fact that after the commission of an offence a person becomes domiciled in another country, or acquires citizenship of that State does not confer jurisdiction on the Court of that country retrospectively for trying offences committed and completed at a time when that person was neither the national of that country nor was he domiciled there.

4.2 The aforesaid establishes the 'Synchronicity Principle', whereby the status of citizenship and the commission of the act must be synchronous. A person who was a foreign national, stateless, or in possession of foreign travel documents at the time of commission of the act cannot be retrospectively subjected to the IPC, even if he/she later acquires or regains Indian citizenship. The jurisdiction to try an offence is frozen at the time of commission of the act constituting the offence.

4.3 Under the principles of Private International Law and the Indian Evidence Act, a passport is the highest evidence of nationality. As noted in International Jurisprudence, including the United Kingdom Tribunal decision in Hussein and Another (Status of Passports : Foreign Law), [2020] UKUT 250 (IAC)17, "A person who holds a genuine passport, 17 It is a decision dt. 30.07.2020 rendered by a Tribunal in United Kingdom, namely the 'Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)'.

Cr Rev/59/2025 Parminder Singh Saini v. CBI Page 14 of 50

apparently issued to him, and not falsified or altered, has to be regarded as a national of the State that issued the passport ." The mere allegation of the prosecution that his passport is forged, is no evidence. The burden lies strictly on the prosecution to prove forgery beyond reasonable doubt, failing which the law must presume that it is genuine. And if it is genuine, he was an Afghan national (Balbir Singh) in 1995. And, if he was an Afghan national (Balbir Singh), section 4 of the IPC has no application and Indian Courts have no jurisdiction.

4.4 The legal consequences of non-verification of the passport in question from the Afghan authorities are the following :

(i) Absence of Best Evidence - To prove a document issued by a foreign country as forged, the best and the only conclusive evidence would be statement from that sovereign issuing authority.

(ii) Failure to Discharge Burden - The fact that CBI has no document to show any communication with the Afghan authorities in effect means that it has no direct evidence of forgery, and yet it asks the Court to presume that a document issued by a foreign State is fake without even a scintilla of evidence from that State.

(iii) Presumption of Regularity - Under section 114 of Indian Evidence Act, a Court may presume that official acts Cr Rev/59/2025 Parminder Singh Saini v. CBI Page 15 of 50 (issuance of passport) are regularly performed. Without evidence to the contrary from the Afghan Government, the passport must be presumed to be valid.

(iv) Resulting Jurisdictional Collapse - Since the passport remains legally unrebutted as a valid Afghan document, it follows that its holder, 'Balbir Singh', must be regarded as an Afghan citizen in 1995. As established in Fatma Bibi Ahmed Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2008) 6 SCC 789, acts committed by a foreign national in a foreign country are wholly outside jurisdiction of Indian Courts.

4.5 Prosecution is operating on a rigid and legally incorrect assumption that identity and citizenship are static; that because he was born in India, he remains an Indian citizen for life, and any other identity is necessarily fake. This ignores the actual reality of his life and the fluidity of legal status over a lifetime. If he acquired an Afghan passport in 1995 (a fact the CBI cannot disprove due to lack of verification), he effectively acquired Afghan nationality. At that moment, his Indian citizenship ceased by operation of law. Therefore, at the time of the alleged offence in Canada, he was not an Indian citizen. His subsequent deportation to India does not retroactively undo his status in 1995.

4.6 The charge of 'cheating by personation' under section 419 of IPC for using the name 'Balbir Singh', betrays a misunderstanding of law of identity. A name is a legal Cr Rev/59/2025 Parminder Singh Saini v. CBI Page 16 of 50 construct, and not a biological constant. If the sovereign State of Afghanistan issued a passport to him under the name of 'Balbir Singh', then for all legal purposes involving international travel and entry into Canada, his legal identity was 'Balbir Singh'. A sovereign State may make clerical errors or mask identities for security reasons. A child in conflict with law or a rape victim may be given fictitious name and identity by the sovereign State which is absolutely legitimate. One cannot 'impersonate' oneself. If he had presented himself as 'Balbir Singh', and had held valid title to that name via the Afghan passport, there was no deception regarding his identity as per the document bearing his signature and his photograph. People change names and citizenships over their lifetime. He had been expelled from Pakistan after a decade of incarceration. His identity in 1995 was that of a stateless expellee who had acquired Afghan papers. To criminally prosecute him thirty (30) years later for using the identity, which was legally bestowed by a passport and which the CBI failed to verify, is a miscarriage of justice.

4.7 Section 4 of IPC cannot be interpreted in a vacuum . It must be interpreted using the 'Mischief Rule' (or Rule of Purposive Construction) to align with the legislative intent, which is to prevent impunity for fugitives. In Om Hemrajani v. State of U.P., (2005) 1 SCC 617, the raison d'etre of section 188 CrPC was clarified by observing, "The scheme underlying Section 188 is to dispel any objection or plea of want of Cr Rev/59/2025 Parminder Singh Saini v. CBI Page 17 of 50 jurisdiction at the behest of a fugitive who has committed an offence in any other country.....The convenience of a person who is hiding after committing offence abroad and is fugitive from justice is not relevant." Applying this dictum to the present case, it is to be noted that he is no ' fugitive from justice', who escaped jurisdiction to avoid prosecution for a crime that he committed there. He did not flee Canada to avoid prosecution for forgery. He remained in Canada for fifteen (15) years with his family, studied Law, and litigated his immigration status. Canada chose not to prosecute him. Purpose of section 4 of IPC is to catch criminals who commit murders, frauds, or terror acts abroad and then run back to India to claim 'no jurisdiction'. This provision is not designed to prosecute an individual whom the foreign State (the victim/locus of the crime) deliberately exempted from prosecution. Since he was not charged in Canada and is not hiding in India to evade Canadian Law, the ' mischief' which section 4 of IPC seeks to remedy does not exist in this lis. Invoking this provision in the instant case would be a case of misapplication of the statute.

4.8 The prosecution claim to jurisdiction is further undermined by its own admission. In an April 1995 letter (Reference no. 95DEL-IP-038) of the CBI (Interpol Wing) to Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), CBI stated, " In terms of Article 20 of the Constitution of India, the hijackers cannot be tried in India for the same offence.....Even so, the Cr Rev/59/2025 Parminder Singh Saini v. CBI Page 18 of 50 hijackers illegally enter Canada, they are liable to be arrested by the Canadian authorities." This document forms part of the record in the bail hearing of the instant case. This document constitutes a formal admission by the Indian State that jurisdiction for the illegal entry and offences lay with Canada. It is an admission by the CBI of the territorial principle - that the sovereign on whose soil the act occurred is the proper authority to prosecute. For the CBI to reverse its position fifteen (15) years later, after the Canadian authorities decided not to prosecute him, is an arbitrary exercise of power violating the principles of fairness and legitimate expectation.

4.9 The prosecution relies on the Explanation to section 4 of IPC which reads, "....Offence includes every act committed outside India which, if committed in India, would be punishable under this Code." A literal reading of this Explanation suggests that if an act is a crime in India, it is punishable even if it is legal abroad. However, this would lead to absurd outcomes. For instance, it could lead to the prosecution of an Indian citizen for soliciting prostitution in Thailand or consuming cannabis in Amsterdam, where such acts are lawful, despite being offences under the Indian Law. To avoid this absurdity, the ' Golden Rule of Interpretation' must be applied. Therefore, 'offence' in the Explanation to section 4 of IPC must be interpreted to require mens rea. If an individual acts in accordance with law of the foreign country (lex loci), he cannot have 'fraudulent' or 'dishonest' states of Cr Rev/59/2025 Parminder Singh Saini v. CBI Page 19 of 50 mind required for the IPC offences.

4.10 The most fatal flaw in the prosecution case is the impossibility of proving mens rea. Under the Indian criminal jurisprudence, an act is not a crime unless accompanied by a guilty mind (Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea).

4.11 His actions in Canada were statutorily protected by specific statutory immunity. Section 133 of Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Canadian Law) reads, "A person who has claimed refugee protection, and who came to Canada directly or indirectly from the country in respect of which the claim is made, may not be charged with an offence under section 12218, paragraph 124(1)(a) or section 12719 of this Act or under section 5720, paragraph 340 (c)21 or section 35422, 36623, 36824, 37425 or 40326 of the Criminal Code, in relation to the coming into Canada of the person, pending disposition of their claim for refugee protection or if refugee protection is conferred." Canadian Law explicitly recognises that refugees often require false documents to escape persecution, and by immunising this conduct Canadian Parliament removed 18 Offence of forgery in relation to passport/ travel documents.

Offence of misrepresentation in relation to immigration into Canada.

Offence of forgery of or uttering forged passport, false statement in relation to passport, possession of forged, etc., passport.

Offence of destroying, cancelling, concealing or obliterating a judicial or official document.

Offence of possession of property obtained by crime.

Offence of forgery.

Offence of use, trafficking or possession of forged documents.

Offence of making, executing, drawing, signing, accepting or endorsing a document without authority.

Offence of identity fraud.

Cr Rev/59/2025 Parminder Singh Saini v. CBI Page 20 of 50

'criminality' from the act. To convict under sections 420 and/ or 468 of IPC, the prosecution must prove that the act was done 'dishonestly' or 'fraudulently'. He cannot be said to have acted 'dishonestly' when the Canadian Law permitted him to use assumed identities for the purpose of seeking asylum. He had acted in compliance with the lex loci provisions for refugees. He did not intend to cause ' wrongful loss' to anyone; he in fact intended to survive and seek legal protection.

4.12 The principle that extra-territorial jurisdiction should not criminalise acts lawful in a foreign country is supported by comparative law, which holds persuasive value for Indian courts. The 'Double Criminality Rule' in extradition in the United Kingdom requires that the offence be a crime in both the jurisdictions. United Kingdom does not extradite (or typically prosecute extra-territorially) if the act was legal where it occurred. In United States of America, extra- territorial jurisdiction is generally reserved for 'protective principle' crimes (terrorism, attacks or state security) or where the individual is a fugitive evading USA laws. It is violative of due process to prosecute an individual for conduct they reasonably believed was lawful in the jurisdiction where it was performed.

4.13 Even if the Court were to assume jurisdiction and ignore the mens rea issue, prosecution case is doomed to fail owing to lack of admissible evidence. The burden of proof lies on the prosecution, and in this case the evidence has either Cr Rev/59/2025 Parminder Singh Saini v. CBI Page 21 of 50 never existed or has been destroyed. Prosecution relies on documents obtained via Letters Rogatory. However, the core exculpatory evidence (the context of the refugee claim and the original applications) has been destroyed. The Department of Justice in Canada informed the Ministry of Home Affairs in India that 'records of refugee applications are retained for 10 years. Files stemming from the applications made in 1995 have been destroyed'. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) destroyed the investigation file created in 1996 as per the record-keeping policies. The original application for SIN, which forms the basis of forgery charge, was destroyed by the Canadian Employment Department. That apart, destruction of these records causes him prejudice by denying him an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses qua the contents of his declarations. He cannot prove what he told the Canadian Authorities (for example, if he admitted to using a false name for asylum purposes, which would negate the charge of cheating). Prosecuting an accused on the basis of secondary evidence, when primary evidence was destroyed due to delay on part of the State is violation of the right to fair trial. Prosecution will fail to prove the actus reus beyond reasonable doubt due to destruction of evidence on account of statutory limitation period.

4.14 His defence relies on 'Doctrine of Necessity/ Duress', for he was forced to leave Pakistan; was denied travel documents by India (India refused to issue him a passport in Cr Rev/59/2025 Parminder Singh Saini v. CBI Page 22 of 50 Pakistan); his father, who died in 2005, procured the Afghan passport in Pakistan while he was in custody over there. His late father's testimony was the only direct evidence of the circumstances under which the passport was obtained. Thirty years delay has killed this defence witness (Arjan Singh Saini). Continuing the trial would now amount to depriving him of his right to defend himself.

4.15 Right to speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of Constitution of India. Inordinate delay, especially when it prejudices the defence, is a ground for quashing the proceedings. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335, Apex Court listed 'unjustified delay' as a ground for quashing. In Noor Taki @ Mammu v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1987 Raj 52 : 1986 SCC OnLine Raj 11, it was held, "Reasonable expeditious trial is warranted... if it is not so, it will amount to violation of Article 21... Section 482 CrPC gives wide power to this Court...to secure the ends of justice ." In Vakil Prasad Singh v State of Bihar, (2009) 3 SCC 355, it was held that if the delay is not attributable to the accused, the proceedings could be quashed. In this case, CBI was aware of the alleged forgery as early as 1995, as reflected in its own letter from that year, yet it chose not to take any action and waited until his deportation in 2010. Even thereafter, it took the CBI seven (07) years to complete its investigation. This delay is wholly attributable to the State. It has resulted in loss of evidence (Canadian files destroyed) and witnesses (father Cr Rev/59/2025 Parminder Singh Saini v. CBI Page 23 of 50 died). Continuing with this trial at this stage amounts to persecution rather than prosecution.

4.16 The principle of International Judicial Comity requires Indian Courts to respect the findings of foreign Courts regarding the status and liability of individuals within their jurisdiction. In Parminder Singh Saini v. Minister of Public Safety, (2011 FC 153) Federal Court of Canada (Justice Mosley) addressed the issue of his liability for the false documents in the following words, "[38] I cannot conclude these reasons without observing that Mr. Saini was not removed from Canada for any actions that he committed on Canadian soil. The Minister's danger opinion was based on Mr. Saini's involvement in the 1984 aircraft hijacking in India for which he was convicted and sentenced in Pakistan. He served ten years of imprisonment for that offence. Mr. Saini was not prosecuted in this country for the use of a false passport and his misrepresentations about his true identity. But, that conduct has had repercussions on his efforts to demonstrate that he has been rehabilitated and to remain here as a law-abiding and productive member of society. In that sense, he has already been severely punished for those misguided actions." While technically not 'acquitted' (as he was not charged), Canada considered his culpability and decided that the administrative consequences (three years detention, deportation, loss of status) were sufficient punishment. Section 482 of CrPC exists to do 'real and Cr Rev/59/2025 Parminder Singh Saini v. CBI Page 24 of 50 substantial justice'. Since he has already been 'severely punished' in Canada where the offence occurred, imposing a second punishment in India for the same offence would be violative of Court's conscience. India should not prosecute an act which the host country (Canada) explicitly exempted from prosecution under its humanitarian laws (section 133 of IRPA). To do so would disrespect the legislative sovereignty of Canada regarding crime committed on its soil.

4.17 Before the Trial Court he was denied the fundamental right of audi alteram partem; he was not permitted to file detailed written submissions on the point of charge before the impugned order was passed, despite repeated attendance and prior requests. Learned Trial Court relied on irrelevant and rejected factors in passing the impugned order. Learned Trial Court in the impugned order made a mention of the opinion of the Minister in Canada that he was a danger to Canada. This opinion was based on historical matter (1984 hijacking) and has been expressly rejected by the Advisory Board of Delhi High Court while revoking the NSA detention. This shows that impugned order was improperly influenced by a perception of threat irrelevant to 1995 forgery charges. The order on charge proceeds on incorrect factual premise that the original incriminating documents had been seized from him when he was released from Central Jail, Tihar, Delhi after revocation of NSA against him. In fact, it is the CBI's own case that the original documents were provided by the Cr Rev/59/2025 Parminder Singh Saini v. CBI Page 25 of 50 Canadian Authorities.

4.18 On 17.04.2026, the Revisionist had pointed out that during the course of proceedings before the learned Trial Court on 09.04.2026/16.03.206 it came on record that the file/papers of Central Government relating to the proceedings under section 188 of CrPC had been weeded out.

5. CBI has vehemently deposed the present revision petition. In response to the Revision petition, CBI filed its reply dt. 02.02.2026. Submissions on behalf of CBI are as follows:

5.1 Mere possession of a forged foreign passport does not divest Indian citizenship. The Revisionist never lawfully acquired Afghan citizenship nor renounced Indian nationality as per law. In the investigation, it was not found that he had got citizenship of Afghanistan; on the contrary, his version of Afghan citizenship is not real. He was an Indian citizen at the time of commission of the offence and therefore section 4 of IPC is fully applicable to the case at hand. Sections 419, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC are continuing offences which commenced with creation and use of forged identity documents and continued till his detection and deportation to India in January, 2010. Section 4 of IPC read with section 188 of CrPC squarely applies to this case, for the Revisionist committed the said offences outside India while being an Indian citizen. Reliance by the Revisionist on Central Bank of India v. Ram Narain, (supra) is misplaced, for in the instant case he never legally Cr Rev/59/2025 Parminder Singh Saini v. CBI Page 26 of 50 acquired foreign citizenship. Investigation reveals that he dishonestly projected himself to be an Afghani national on the strength of forged documents, false declarations and impersonation. He continued to be an Indian citizen at the time of commission of the offence.

5.2 As held in Sajjan Kumar v CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 368 at the stage of framing of charge no detailed proof is required. From the material on record a 'grave suspicion' arises to frame charges. The plea that there is no verification from Afghan authorities is misleading, for the instant case is based on positive evidence of impersonation, false declarations and forensic evidence linking the Revisionist with the forged documents. The Revisionist's argument that section 4 of IPC applies only to fugitives is incorrect, for this provision merely requires that the person be an Indian citizen who has committed an offence outside India. Administrative or judicial actions by foreign authorities do not bar prosecutions under the Indian Law. There is no estoppel against criminal prosecution. The argument vis-à-vis lack of mens rea is misplaced. Mens rea is abstract in nature, and its presence can be inferred from accused's conduct as well as the facts and circumstances of the case. Acts and omissions of the Revisionist clearly show fraudulent and dishonest intention on his part to cheat. Due to material concealment of facts and suppression of his criminal antecedents, he was able to allegedly commit the offence(s). Whether certain acts were dealt with administratively under Cr Rev/59/2025 Parminder Singh Saini v. CBI Page 27 of 50 the Canadian Law is not relevant for prosecution under the IPC. The chargesheet explains the delay in prosecution, noting that the Revisionist remained abroad, contested proceedings in Canada, and that evidence had to be gathered through Letters Rogatory and diplomatic channels; any delay, if at all, is attributable to the Revisionist and cannot be relied upon to defeat the prosecution. The plea of violation of Article 21 of Constitution of India is baseless and premature and the rights guaranteed thereunder are not absolute, but subject to procedure established by law. At the stage of consideration on charge, the Court only has to see whether a prima facie case or grave suspicion exists {State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, (2023) 17 SCC 688}.

6. Arguments heard. Record perused. The court findings are as under.

7. Even if the Revisionist's submissions regarding the Afghan passport are accepted in their entirety, yet I find no basis to extend to him the benefit under section 4 (1) of IPC, which is reserved for a foreign citizen qua an offence committed on foreign soil. It is no doubt correct that CBI has no verification from the Afghan authorities qua authenticity, issuance or validity of the passport in question. However, what is of crucial importance is that the passport which is in the name of ' Balbir Singh, son of Manna Singh' has a photograph thereon of the Revisionist; however, the fingerprint/thumb impression in green ink thereon (on a sheet which is laminated) is apparently not of Cr Rev/59/2025 Parminder Singh Saini v. CBI Page 28 of 50 the Revisionist. For this, the CBI relies on expert opinions from CFSL, Delhi to state that while the photograph on the passport is that of the Revisionist, the fingerprint/thumb impression is not of the Revisionist.

8. That apart, what is also noticeable qua the passport is the following. In the instant Revision petition (at page 29) the Revisionist has the following to state, " The Accused's defense relies on the doctrine of Necessity/Duress. He was forced/ordered to leave Pakistan and was denied travel documents by India (who refused to issue a passport in Pakistan). His father, S. Arjan Singh Saini, procured the Afghan passport in Pakistan while the Accused was in prison." The point therefore is that the Revisionist himself has let out the Freudian Slip that the fingerprint/thumb impression on the passport is not his. This is because, by his own account, his father obtained the passport on his behalf while he was incarcerated in Pakistan; consequently, he could not have visited any office of the 'Republic of Afghanistan' to complete the issuance formalities, or at the very least to provide his fingerprint/thumb impression.

9. Next, while it is conceivable that a foreign State may, for security reasons, employ masked identities or even commit clerical errors in issuing travel documents, it strains credulity to suggest that the passport in question could bear Revisionist's photograph, yet contain the fingerprint or thumb impression of someone else. This gives rise to a grave suspicion that the passport is not genuine. This grave suspicion is de hors the fact Cr Rev/59/2025 Parminder Singh Saini v. CBI Page 29 of 50 that CBI has no verification from the Afghan authorities qua authenticity, issuance or validity of the passport in question. It is inconceivable that Indian citizenship could be relinquished on the basis of a passport that appears to be neither genuine nor issued by the competent authorities of the foreign State. Given this, it is futile to argue that evidence of forgery of passport can originate only and only from the issuing sovereign, and no other source. In this regard, in United Kingdom Tribunal decision of Hussein and Another (supra), which the Revisionist heavily relied upon in support of his case, there are few very pertinent observations:

12. It is simply not open to an individual to opt out of that system by denouncing his own passport; and it is not open to any State to ignore the contents of a passport simply on the basis of a claim by its holder that the passport does not mean what is says. It is considerations such as these that lie behind the passage in the UNHCR27 Handbook, paragraph 93:

"93. Nationality may be proved by the possession of a national passport. Possession of such a passport creates a prima facie presumption that the holder is a national of the country of issue, unless the passport itself states otherwise. A person holding a passport showing him to be a national of the issuing authority, but who claims that he does not possess that country's nationality, must substantiate his claim, for example, by showing that the passport is a so-called "passport of convenience" (an apparently regular national passport that is sometimes issued by a national authority to non-nationalists). However, a mere assertion by the holder that the passport was issued to him as a matter of convenience for travel purposes only is not sufficient to rebut the presumption of nationality. In certain cases, it might be possible to obtain information from the authority that issued the passport. If such information cannot be obtained, or 27 Acronym for 'United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees'.

Cr Rev/59/2025 Parminder Singh Saini v. CBI Page 30 of 50

cannot be obtained within the reasonable time, the examiner will have to decide on the credibility of the applicant's assertion in weighing all other elements of his story."

13. Of course the target of these observations is a passport that genuinely has been issued by the named State to the person named in it, and that is why, all over the world and particularly at international borders, such attention has to be given to the detection of forgeries and alterations in passports. A document detected as deceptive will not have the effect of a genuine passport. But the converse is also true: a document not detected as a forgery does have that effect, both at diplomatic level and in the way its holder is perceived in a country that is not his country of nationality."

(highlighted for emphasis)

10. The point therefore is that a passport detected as deceptive will not have the effect of a genuine passport. That apart, the UNCHR guidelines themselves (as extracted above) acknowledge that it may not be possible in every case to obtain information about a passport from the issuing authority. Such a situation can very much arise, for instance, when a country is in midst of serious internal civil and political strife, or where governance of a country has effectively collapsed and power is fragmented among warlords, leaving little to no functioning, rules-based civil order in place.

11. In Hussein and Another (supra) the appellant therein, a Somalian by birth, had entered United Kingdom using a Tanzanian passport; and to claim asylum in United Kingdom he denounced his own passport based on assertions about Tanzanian domestic law and that being a Somalian by birth he ought to be presumed to continue his Somalian nationality. On facts, it was Cr Rev/59/2025 Parminder Singh Saini v. CBI Page 31 of 50 found that appellant's passport had been seen and (presumably) inspected on at least ten occasions for his entry/exit through international airports, and twice by entry clearance officers. Therefore, it is to be noted that unlike the case of Hussein and Another (supra), which the Revisionist heavily relied upon in support of his case, the passport of the Revisionist herein, was not seen or inspected even once for entry/ exit through international borders. In Canada, Revisionist's passport was found to contain no Canadian visa. It appears to me that his entry into Canada was not granted based solely on examination/ inspection of his travel document (Afghan passport), but rather largely on his own claims of refugee status. Subsequently, Canadian authorities became aware of his past background, which led to a prolonged immigration dispute that lasted for years.

12. It is the prima facie view of this Court that, in terms of section 3 of the Citizenship Act, 195528, the Revisionist was at all material times, and continues to be, a citizen of India. In the 28 Section 3 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 is as under:

3. Citizenship by birth -- (1) Except as provided in sub-section (2), every person born in India--

(a) on or after the 26th day of January, 1950, but before the 1st day of July, 1987;

(b) on or after the 1st day of July, 1987, but before the commencement of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003 and either of whose parents is a citizen of India at the time of his birth;

(c) on or after the commencement of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003, where--

(i) both of his parents are citizens of India; or

(ii) one of whose parents is a citizen of India and the other is not an illegal migrant at the time of his birth, shall be a citizen of India by birth.

(2) A person shall not be a citizen of India by virtue of this section if at the time of his birth--

(a) either his father or mother possesses such immunity from suits and legal process as is accorded to an envoy of a foreign sovereign power accredited to the President of India and he or she, as the case may be, is not a citizen of India; or

(b) his father or mother is an enemy alien and the birth occurs in a place then under occupation by the enemy.

Cr Rev/59/2025 Parminder Singh Saini v. CBI Page 32 of 50

present case, it is prima facie doubtful that the Revisionist ever acquired Afghan citizenship. The sole material relied upon to establish even a semblance of his connection with Afghanistan is the passport in question. However, as noted hereinabove, there are grave reasons to doubt its genuineness.

13. In light of the foregoing, Revisionist's contention that he was not an Indian citizen in 1995 is prima facie devoid of merit. Prima facie, the Revisionist had not lost his citizenship on the strength of the passport in question which does not appear to be genuine. Inasmuch as, on prima facie considerations, he was a citizen of India at the time of commission of the alleged offences in 1995, he can very well be prosecuted in India on the strength of section 4 of IPC and section 188 of CrPC.

14. Given the above, Revisionist's contention that section 4 of IPC and section 188 of CrPC must be construed strictly, or should be construed in backdrop of several principles of the Interpretation of Statutes, is neither here nor there, and of utterly no consequence. Further, the other arguments about the fluid nature of citizenship and that name is only a legal construct too are of no avail. Arguendo that a foreign State in its wisdom may decide to issue its passport to an individual in some other name/ identity, yet this will not suffice to take the Revisionist out of the woods. Such an argument has to have a genuine passport, albeit in some other name or an assumed identity, as its foundation. It bears repetition to state that in the instant case the passport in question is apparently not genuine; and on the strength of such a Cr Rev/59/2025 Parminder Singh Saini v. CBI Page 33 of 50 passport the Revisionist cannot claim himself to be a foreign national at the time of the commission of the alleged offence(s). As a corollary, reliance by the Revisionist on the judgment of Central Bank of India v. Ram Narain (supra) is of no avail.

15. Next, it is futile for the Revisionist to argue that section 4 of IPC applies only and only to a ' fugitive'. From the arguments, what I could gather was that Revisionist interprets 'fugitive' to mean an individual who, after committing a crime abroad, escapes and returns to India. This argument, premised on the judgment of Om Hemrajani (supra), is misplaced for reasons more than one.

15.1 There is nothing in the language of section 4 of IPC and/or section 188 of CrPC to hold that section 4 of IPC would apply only qua a 'fugitive', in the sense in which the Revisionist interprets this term.

15.2 Secondly, my research informs me that term 'fugitive' is not defined in any Indian law. Section 2 (f) of the Extradition Act, 1962 defines 'fugitive criminal' to mean a person who is accused or convicted of an extradition offence 29 within the jurisdiction of a foreign State and includes a person 29 Section 2 (c) of the Extradition Act, 1962 defines 'extradition offence' as follows:

'Extradition offence' means:

(i) in relation to a foreign State, being a treaty State, an offence provided for in the extradition treaty with that State;

(ii) in relation to a foreign State other than a treaty State an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year under the laws of India or of a foreign State and includes a composite offence.

Cr Rev/59/2025 Parminder Singh Saini v. CBI Page 34 of 50

who, while in India, conspires, attempts to commit or incites or participates as an accomplice in the commission of an extradition offence30 in a foreign State. Further section 2 (f) of Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018 defines 'fugitive economic offender' to mean any individual against whom a warrant for arrest in relation to a scheduled offence has been issued by any Court in India, who -- (i) has left India so as to avoid criminal prosecution; or (ii) being abroad, refuses to return to India to face criminal prosecution. Now, when Om Hemrajani (supra) uses the word 'fugitive' at multiple places in the judgment, it does not use it strictly in the sense in which the terms 'fugitive criminal' and 'fugitive economic offender' have been defined in the said two Indian legislations.

15.3 The central question in Om Hemrajani (supra) was certainly not whether section 4 of IPC applied solely to a 'fugitive', in the sense in which the Revisionist understands this term. A bare reading of Om Hemrajani (supra) indicates that the issue involved therein was distinct from the point persistently emphasised by the Revisionist. A bare reading of the first two paragraphs of Om Hemrajani (supra) would suffice to show this and which read as follows:

"1. The interpretation of Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) falls for determination in this petition. The said section reads as under:

"188. Offence committed outside India.--When an offence is committed outside India--

Ibid.

Cr Rev/59/2025 Parminder Singh Saini v. CBI Page 35 of 50

(a) by a citizen of India, whether on the high seas or elsewhere; or

(b) by a person, not being such citizen, on any ship or aircraft registered in India, he may be dealt with in respect of such offence as if it had been committed at any place within India at which he may be found:

Provided that, notwithstanding anything in any of the preceding sections of this Chapter, no such offence shall be inquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government."

2. The sole question is about the interpretation of the expression "at which he may be found" in the aforesaid section.

On whom, under Section 188, does the responsibility to find the accused lie -- the complainant, the police or the court?........"

(underlined for emphasis) The said question arose in Om Hemrajani (supra) under the following facts. A Dubai-based bank filed a complaint against the petitioner and another in a Ghaziabad Court under sections 415, 417, 418 and 420 read with section 120B IPC, alleging, inter alia, that petitioner obtained loans, executed various documents in proof of his ability to discharge the bank liability and gave his personal guarantee, and without liquidating his liability absconded to India. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and issued processes against the person arraigned in the complaint and also issued non- bailable warrants. The petitioner challenged the said order and sought quashing of the complaint case by submitting that no cause of action or part thereof had occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the court at Ghaziabad; that he was not residing within the jurisdiction of that court nor the complainant had any office at Ghaziabad and, Cr Rev/59/2025 Parminder Singh Saini v. CBI Page 36 of 50 thus, Ghaziabad court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence; that he was actually residing in Mumbai and had business operations in Mumbai. It is under these facts that interpretation of the expression 'at which he may be found' as used in section 188 of CrPC had arisen in Om Hemrajani (supra). The facts of the instant lis differ in material respects, and the issues for determination are correspondingly distinct.

15.4 Next, the law is that ratio decidendi of a case has to be understood in the background of its factual matrix. In this regard, in Haryana Financial Corporation v. Jagdamba Oil Mills, (2002) 3 SCC 496 it was observed as follows:

19. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of courts are not to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of the statute. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear. Judgments of courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for Judges to embark upon lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes, their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. In London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. v. Horton [1951 AC 737 : (1951) 2 All ER 1 (HL)] (at p. 761) Lord MacDermot observed :

(All ER p. 14C-D) "The matter cannot, of course, be settled merely by treating the ipsissima verba of Willes, J., as though they were part of an Act of Parliament and applying the rules of interpretation appropriate thereto. This is not to detract from the great weight to be given to the Cr Rev/59/2025 Parminder Singh Saini v. CBI Page 37 of 50 language actually used by that most distinguished Judge."

20. In Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co. [(1970) 2 All ER 294 : 1970 AC 1004 (HL)] Lord Reid said (at All ER p.

297g-h), "Lord Atkin's speech ... is not to be treated as if it were a statutory definition. It will require qualification in new circumstances". Megarry, J. in (1971) 1 WLR 1062 observed: "One must not, of course, construe even a reserved judgment of even Russell, L.J. as if it were an Act of Parliament." And, in Herrington v. British Railways Board [(1972) 2 WLR 537 Lord Morris said : (All ER p. 761c) "There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or a judgment as though they were words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in the setting of the facts of a particular case."

21. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper.

22. The following words of Hidayatullah, J. in the matter of applying precedents have become locus classicus : (Abdul Kayoom v. CIT [AIR 1962 SC 680] , AIR p. 688, para 19) "19. ... Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect. In deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cardozo) by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide, therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive."

*** "Precedent should be followed only so far as it marks the path of justice, but you must cut the dead wood and trim off the side branches else you will find yourself lost in thickets and branches. My plea is to keep the path to justice clear of obstructions which could impede it."

Cr Rev/59/2025 Parminder Singh Saini v. CBI Page 38 of 50

15.5 It is my considered view that the interpretation sought to be placed by the Revisionist on section 4 of IPC, relying on Om Hemrajani (supra), so as to confine its application solely to a 'fugitive' (in the sense in which he understands 'fugitive'), is wholly misconceived. Upon a careful and considered reading of Om Hemrajani (supra), I am unable to discern any basis for the proposition that its ratio decidendi confines the application of section 4 of IPC exclusively to a 'fugitive', in the sense ascribed to this expression by the Revisionist. On the contrary, no such restrictive interpretation emerges, either expressly or by necessary implication, from the judgment.

15.6 If the interpretation sought to be given by the Revisionist to section 4 of IPC is accepted to be correct, then it may lead to few absurd outcomes. Going by his interpretation, the following categories of individuals would fall outside the ambit of section 4 of IPC, thereby denuding the Indian State of the authority/power to prosecute them in India for offences committed abroad, notwithstanding that they were, and continue to be, Indian citizens: first, persons deported to India by a foreign State on its own initiative; second, persons deported to India at the instance of the Indian authorities; and third, persons who arrive in India of their own accord, sans knowledge of any pending criminal proceedings against them in respect of offences committed abroad.

16. Next, the SIN card that was obtained by the Revisionist in Cr Rev/59/2025 Parminder Singh Saini v. CBI Page 39 of 50 Canada was done by way of misrepresentation. Prima facie, there are reasons to believe that the Revisionist was an Indian national; he was never an Afghan national. And from this perspective, the SIN card had been obtained by misrepresentation. For exactly similar reason, the Driving Licence and the photo card too were obtained by the Revisionist by way of misrepresentation. Given the fact that he was an Indian national, it is but obvious that his representation to the Canadian authorities about incorrect nationality, incorrect place of birth, incorrect date of birth and incorrect parentage were misleading. This is assuming that he could have changed his own name. However, he certainly could not have changed few fundamental facts like place of his own birth, date of his own birth and his parentage. A foreign government can very well mask identity of an individual for security purposes. However, the Revisionist, being an Indian national, of his own could not have without, the authority of law to which he was subject, changed his identity altogether.

17. Generally, the administrative or judicial acts of a foreign country will not and should not scuttle prosecution of an Indian citizen for an offence committed abroad. It is entirely the domain of the Indian State to decide whether or not to prosecute an Indian citizen for an offence committed abroad. If an Indian national has been tried by a foreign Court for an offence committed on the foreign soil, that may be a very relevant consideration in his prosecution in India for that very offence committed on the foreign soil. However, such is not the case Cr Rev/59/2025 Parminder Singh Saini v. CBI Page 40 of 50 here. The Revisionist was never prosecuted in Canada for the offences alleged against him. In fact, the judicial proceedings that had taken place in Canada were not prosecution for offences, but were in fact proceedings in relation to his immigration. In Prabodh K. Mehta v. Charuben K. Mehta, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 302, Bombay High Court observed, " We are of the considered view that, though the judgment and order of conviction of a foreign Court for the offence committed in that Country can be noticed/looked into and recognized by judicial and quasi judicial authorities in India, while exercising their judicial and quasi judicial powers, it cannot be said that the same will be ipso facto binding on such Courts and authorities. " Thus, the judicial and quasi-judicial powers in India in considering a foreign judgment of conviction will exercise its discretion considering facts of the case and variety of factors involved therein. Therefore, Revisionist's argument premised on the judgment of Justice Mosley of the Federal Court of Canada in Parminder Singh Saini v. Minister of Public Safety, (2011 FC

153) is of no avail, primarily for two reasons. Firstly, it was no trial for offences that alleged against him; it was in fact proceedings in relation to the immigration. Secondly, the observations by the Federal Court of Canada in the said judgment apparently favouring the Revisionist are not binding on the Criminal Courts in India which are tasked with the duty of executing the penal law in India and not the penal law of Canada.

18. In Prabodh K. Mehta (supra) there is an observation to the Cr Rev/59/2025 Parminder Singh Saini v. CBI Page 41 of 50 effect that India will execute its own penal laws and not the penal laws of a foreign State. The point therefore is that a Criminal Court in India will not be governed by the penal laws of a foreign country or the exceptions thereto. A penal law of a foreign country will have to be enforced by the concerned courts of the foreign State. To take an example, if an act constitutes an offence in India, it can be no defence that on the foreign soil where such act was committed was entirely legal and saved by the exceptions engrafted in the foreign penal law. By way of an illustration, consuming narcotic drug constitutes an offence in India; and in prosecuting such an offence in India, it can be no defence for an Indian national that the narcotic drug was consumed on foreign soil where it is legally permitted. To put it in simple words, the Criminal Courts in India will execute the penal law of India and not the penal law of the other 181 countries around the globe. And for this standpoint, the defence taken by the Revisionist that the acts for which he is being prosecuted in India are saved by the exceptions engrafted in the penal laws of Canada [section 133 of Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Canadian Law)]. The exceptions to the penal laws for prosecution in India have to be found and located in the Indian statutes and not in the statutes of a foreign country.

19. In view of the discussion in the preceding two paragraphs, the arguments of the Revisionist that his actions in Canada were statutorily protected by specific statutory immunity, namely section 133 of Immigration and Refugee Protection Act Cr Rev/59/2025 Parminder Singh Saini v. CBI Page 42 of 50 (Canadian Law) are neither here nor there. This argument is of absolutely no consequence. As a result, his other arguments that he cannot be said to have acted 'dishonestly' when the Canadian Law permitted him to use assumed identities for the purpose of seeking asylum and that he had acted in compliance with the lex loci provisions for refugees too are noted to be rejected. The point is that on prima facie considerations, the Revisionist was an Indian national and he can be prosecuted in India for the offences that are alleged to have been committed by him in Canada. It can be no defence for him in India that the Canadian Law permitted him to do the said acts for which he is being tried in India.

20. Revisionist relied on an April 1995 letter (Reference no. 95DEL-IP-038) of the CBI (Interpol Wing) to Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), wherein CBI is reported to have stated, "In terms of Article 20 of the Constitution of India, the hijackers cannot be tried in India for the same offence.....Even so, the hijackers illegally enter Canada, they are liable to be arrested by the Canadian authorities." On this basis, Revisionist's submission was to the effect that this letter constitutes a formal admission by the Indian State that jurisdiction for the illegal entry and offences lay with Canada. There is a basic flaw in this argument of the Revisionist. He is not being tried in India for the offence of 'illegal entry into Canada'. Rather he is being tried for the offences of cheating, cheating by personation, forgery for the purpose of cheating and use of forged documents as genuine under sections 419, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC.

Cr Rev/59/2025 Parminder Singh Saini v. CBI Page 43 of 50

21. The Revisionist's argument was that it would be impossible for the prosecution to prove mens rea; that the prosecution would be unable to prove actus reus beyond reasonable doubt. This argument is noted only to be rejected. At this stage, one cannot conjecture or surmise as to whether a particular ingredient of an offence will be proved in the trial or not. At the stage of consideration on charge, the criteria is not whether a certain ingredient of an offence may be proved or not in the trial. Rather the criteria at the stage of consideration of charge is whether a grave suspicion, on the basis of the prosecution material, arises or not.

22. It was his argument that by securing the documents that he did, he did not intend to cause 'wrongful loss' to anyone and that he in fact intended to survive and seek legal protection. This is a contention that is best left for the stage of trial. At the stage of consideration of charge, I am afraid that these considerations may not be really germane. As to what was his true intention/motive will have to be tried and tested at the time of trial. At this stage, this Court cannot without going into the evidence return a categorical finding that his mens rea was not what is required for the offences for which he is being prosecuted. Suffice it to note that there are witnesses from the Canadian Government in the list of prosecution witnesses. This Court cannot at this stage conjecture or surmise as to what will those witnesses from the Canadian Government depose. It may be quite possible that those witnesses from the Canadian Cr Rev/59/2025 Parminder Singh Saini v. CBI Page 44 of 50 Government may come and give evidence that, but for his past record and true identity, he might not have been granted refugee status in Canada. It may be noted here that Mr. Paul Gregory Blais is a Canadian Government officer who had examined and interviewed the Revisionist at the Immigration checkpoint at the airport in Toronto; and he has been cited as a prosecution witness.

23. It was contended by the Revisionist that he cannot prove what he told the Canadian Authorities (for example, if he admitted to using a false name for asylum purposes, which would negate the charge of cheating). This argument of the Revisionist is meritless. As already stated hereinabove, Mr. Paul Gregory Blais is the Canadian Government officer who had examined and interviewed the Revisionist at the Immigration checkpoint at the airport in Toronto; and he has been cited as a prosecution witness. He can very well give evidence as to what the Revisionist had stated at the time of his immigration, viz., whether at the time of his immigration he had used a false name or had hidden his past antecedents. It may also relevant to note that copy of the document setting out the queries put forth by Mr. Paul Gregory Blais and the responses thereto of the Revisionist at the time of his examination for immigration at the airport in Toronto is at D-3 (and at D-6 as well) of the Trial Court Record.

24. It was the argument that prosecuting an accused on the basis of secondary evidence, when primary evidence was destroyed due to delay on part of the State is violation of the right Cr Rev/59/2025 Parminder Singh Saini v. CBI Page 45 of 50 to fair trial. This argument is meritless. If the law of the land permits some fact to be proved by way of secondary evidence as well, I fail to comprehend as to how making use of such law of the land would be a violation of the right to fair trial. Admissibility of the secondary evidence can be no arbitrary exercise; it is circumscribed by well defined conditions and safeguards designed to ensure reliability so long as the court retains the discretion to assess its probative value, and the opposing party is afforded a fair opportunity to challenge its authenticity and credibility, the foundational requirements of the procedural fairness remain intact. In that light, the recognition of secondary evidence operates not as a dilution of fair trial rights, but as a pragmatic mechanism to advance the cause of justice where primary evidence is unavailable.

25. It was pointed out during the course of arguments that in this case, the evidence has either never existed or has been destroyed; that the Department of Justice in Canada informed the Ministry of Home Affairs in India that 'records of refugee applications are retained for 10 years. Files stemming from the applications made in 1995 have been destroyed'; that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) destroyed the investigation file created in 1996 as per the record-keeping policies; that the original application for SIN, which forms the basis of forgery charge, was destroyed by the Canadian Employment Department. This argument about lack of evidence is meritless. There are government officers from Canada who have been cited as Cr Rev/59/2025 Parminder Singh Saini v. CBI Page 46 of 50 witnesses in this case. Apart from the officer (Mr. Paul Gregory Blais) who had interviewed the Revisionist at the time of his immigration at the airport at Toronto, there are other officers of Canada who were witnesses in this case. Sindi Pannu, a Canadian Government officer, has been cited as a witness in this case. There is an affidavit of Sindi Pannu on the Court record and therein it is, inter alia, stated that Driver's Licence and social insurance card of the Province of Ontario which the Revisionist had obtained under 'false identity' were provided to CGI, Toronto, at its request, for the purpose of renewal of Revisionist's Emergency Certificate in January, 2010. That apart, Detective Constable Lou Copat is an officer of the Canadian Government and he too has been cited as a witness. He had furnished a report (at D-13 of the Trial Court Record) about setting out the exercise of collection of the documents (Driver Licence and Photo Card) on his part from the Ministry of Transportation, Ontario, Canada. There are also certified copy on record of the Driver Licence application form, certified copy of the Licence Replacement Application for the Driver's Licence; both in the assumed name of 'Balbir Singh'.

26. It was contended that Revisionist's late father's testimony was the only direct evidence of the circumstances under which the passport was obtained and as such continuing the trial would now amount to depriving him of his right to defend himself. This argument does not suffice to discharge him of the alleged offences. No individual exercises control over matters Cr Rev/59/2025 Parminder Singh Saini v. CBI Page 47 of 50 concerning life and death of a human being. The course of human life rests ultimately in the hands of the Almighty, beyond the control of any individual. Given this, this Court cannot possibly say that since his father, who may have given vital evidence favouring him, he ought to be discharged.

27. There were considerable arguments advanced at Bar by the Revisionist over his right to fair trial and that thirty years long delay has violated his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. On the strength of several judgments (that were separately filed in a compilation of judgments), it was contended on his behalf that invoking section 482 of CrPC this Court can quash/terminate the proceedings for host of reasons, particularly violation of his fundamental right to a speedy trial. This argument does not persuade this Court to take a different view of the matter. Suffice it to note that this Court is not vested with the power under section 482 CrPC. Consequently, there arises no question of quashing/terminating the proceedings using section 482 of CrPC for whatever reasons or factors that may come to the aid of the Revisionist.

28. On the strength of the judgment in Abasaheb Yadav Honmane v. The State of Maharashtra, 2008 (2) MhLj 856 : 2008 SCC OnLine Bom 271, it was contended that all Criminal Courts in India exercising jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure have inherent powers and can pass such order as may be necessary to achieve the ends of the objects stated in section 482 of CrPC. I have serious doubts as to whether the power Cr Rev/59/2025 Parminder Singh Saini v. CBI Page 48 of 50 vested under the law in a Court of Magistrate or in a Sessions Court can extend to quashing of a criminal case or terminating the ongoing proceedings by invoking section 482 of CrPC. A bare reading of language of section 482 of CrPC makes it clear that the power thereunder is vested in the High Court alone.

29. The Revisionist had pointed out that during the course of proceedings before the learned Trial Court on 09.04.2026/ 16.03.206 it came on record that the file/papers of Central Government relating to the proceedings under section 188 of CrPC had been weeded out. This is however not the complete picture. PW3 Manas Mandal, who under his signature had given the sanction under section 188 of the CrPC, gave oral evidence before the Trial Court. He deposed that after application of mind and after approval of the Union Home Minister, the said sanction was granted under his signature. In his oral evidence, he identified the sanction order under section 188 of the CrPC (Ex. PW3/A) as the very same sanction order that was granted under his signatures. Suffice it to note that as to what effect the weeding out of the administrative file relating to the sanction under section 188 CrPC will have on the ultimate outcome will be determined in the trial. This is not the appropriate stage to delve into the matter of appreciation of the oral evidence of PW3, and the sanction order exhibited by him coupled with the circumstance that the administrative file of section 188 CrPC has been weeded out. This is an exercise that will have to be undertaken by the Trial Court in the trial.

Cr Rev/59/2025 Parminder Singh Saini v. CBI Page 49 of 50

30. Conclusion: This Revision Petition stands dismissed. Copy of this judgment be sent to Ld. Trial Court. Revision file be consigned to Record Room. MURARI by Digitally signed MURARI PRASAD SINGH PRASAD Date:

SINGH 2026.04.24 17:24:17 +0200 Announced in the open Court (M.P. Singh) today i.e. 24.04.2026 Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-02 RACC/New Delhi/24.04.2026 Cr Rev/59/2025 Parminder Singh Saini v. CBI Page 50 of 50

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

Parminder Singh Saini vs Cbi on 24 April, 2026