Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

18. To prove the allegations relating to forgery, prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PW10 (Passport Officer),PW 29 (handwriting expert) and the reports of the handwriting expert, which are marked as Exts.P50 to P53. The case of the prosecution is that the seal of PW10 which was not in use at the relevant time, ie., in September 2002, was affixed by first accused on Ext.P4 to commit forgery. There is no direct evidence to prove this fact. But, PW10 was examined to prove that first accused might have used the said seal on Ext.P4. PW10 deposed that she was working as the Passport Officer during the relevant period and the first accused was working as an 'Assistant' in the passport writing section. She stated that the seal which is seen affixed on Extd.P4 was being used for issuing passports from passport office only till April, 2002.

24. Secondly, It was also pointed by learned counsel for the appellant, as per the evidence, if two different inks are used for writing the passport, it will be rejected and two different inks shall not be used for writing the same passport. This fact is brought out in evidence. As a staff who was working in the Passport Office for a long period (particularly in the 'passport writing section'), first accused must be aware of this fact. But, it is in evidence that two different inks are used in Ext.P4, the forged passport. According to learned counsel for appellant, it is highly improbable that any staff who knew this fact would use different inks in the same passport to forge the same, so also affix a seal which was not in current use in the passport office. So, the argument is that forgery, if any, could have been committed by somebody else out side the office, who would not have been aware of any of the above procedures. This may be the reason why the seal could not be seized nor produced from the passport office. This argument cannot be rejected lightly.

25. It has been brought out in evidence that a passport goes from hand to hand in the course of processing, and it will be accessible to many persons. It can never be in the exclusive possession of the accused. It was brought out in evidence that PW11, the peon in the passport office, who was engaged in laminating the passport, had allegedly removed during the lamination the original photograph and substituted it with another photograph and he is facing an enquiry in respect of the same. It is also in evidence that there were other instances of manipulations in the preparation of passport at the instance of other employees as well. According to learned counsel for the appellant, it is therefore likely that others who are not quite aware of the procedure involved in the issuance of passport would have committed forgery but it is highly improbable that first accused being posted in the writing-section would commit the offence by using different inks and also by using a seal which was not in current use.

68. If as a matter of fact, the date of birth in Ex P4 was corrected at the request of PW4, things would have been different. Any way, the conduct of PW1 does not tally with the case set up by the prosecution of an intentional act of forgery of passport, at the request of PW1. It is clear from Ext. P5 that PW1 had only stated therein that there is some overwriting in the name in his passport, as stated from the travel agency and he only requested that it may be rectified. In Ext. P6 letter dated 27.11.2002 given by him to the passport officer also, he had not expressed any doubt about any possibility of forgery. He only stated that he wanted to get the passport at the earliest and hence he had approached the travel agency. He stated in Ext. P6 itself that he came to know about the change in the age in Ext. P4 only from the passport office. He specifically stated in Ext. P6 that he had not told the travel agency to correct the age or get the passport issued enhancing the age.