1

INTHECOURTOFSESSIONSFORGREATERBOMBAY SESSIONSCASENO.339OF2007 TheState(CBI) ..Complainant (CBICaseRCCY12004E0006EOUIXdated29.9.2004) (CCNo.115/CPW/06) vs.

AbdulKarimLadsabTelgi

)..Accused CORAM:H.H.THESPECIALJUDGE SMT.CHITRAK.BHEDI DATE:4THJULY2009. (COURTROOMNO.49)

SPPGharatfortheState. Adv.Koshefortheaccused. ORALJUDGMENT 1 TheaccusedAbdulKarimLadsabTelgistandschargedof

theoffencepunishableu/s420,465,466,468,471oftheIPCand u/s13(1)(b)ofthePassportAct.

Theprosecutioncaseinnutshellisthat, CBI, ACB has registered case No.CBI/EOUIX Branch,

NewDelhion29.9.2004u/s120Br/w420,467,471oftheIPC andSection12(1)(b)ofthePassportAct,1967,againstAbdulKarim

LadsabTelgi@ShaikhAbdulKarimLadsahebandotherunknown officials of the concerned departments on the basis of source informationtotheeffectthatPassportbearingNo.A068020dated 17.10.90 was issued byRegional Passport Office, Mumbai in the nameofAbdulKarimLadsabTelgi(DOB16.8.59)bytheRegional PassportOffice,Mumbai.AswellasPassportbearingNo.L464765 dated21.5.92wasalsoissuedbythesameofficeinfavourofAbdul KarimLadsabTelgi,inlieuofpassportbearingNo.A068020.

TheaccusedAbdulKarimTelgi,whowasinpossessionof

validpassportbearingNo.L464765 dated21.5.1992,appliedfor issuance of another fresh passport vide file No.B05373 dated 6.2.1996 at Regional Passport Office, Mumbai, in the name of Shaikh Abdul Karim Ladsaheb (DOB 15.8.60), by concealing his realidentityandmisrepresentationoffacts.

The investigation revealed that while applying for fresh

passportvidefileNo.B05373theaccusedhadattachedphotocopy of the School Leaving Certificate (GR No.0238/L.C.6674) of Anjuman RiyazULIslam High School located at Two Tank, MaulanaShowkatAliRoad,Bombay8,inwhichdateofbirthof ShaikhAbdulKarimLadsahebismentionedas15.8.60.

It was also revealed that the Passport authorities

received a Police report dated 9.7.96 in favour of Shaikh Abdul KarimLadsahebfromtheOfficeofDeputyCommissionerofPolice & FRRO, Special BranchII, CID, Mumbai. While processing the said application vide file bearing No.B05373 dated 6.2.96, the PassportIssuingAuthorityremarkedthat,theapplicantshouldbe calledwithoriginals.ButtheaccusedAbdulKarimLadsabTelgi@ ShaikhAbdulKarimLadsahebdidnotturnupatRegionalPassport Office, Mumbai. Accordingly, the said application was closed withoutissuinganypassport.

During the course of investigation, it was revealed that

the said passport was obtained from S.B. Hire, Public Relation Officer, Regional Passport Office, Ministry of External Affairs, Mumbai,Maharashtra.

It is submitted that the Passport bearing No.A068020

dated17.10.90wasvalidupto16.10.2000.Andtheaccusedhas mentionedhisplaceofbirthasMiraj(Maharashtra). However,in thepassportbearingNo.L464765dated21.5.92theaccusedhas shownhisaddressasr/oA/2,SonaApartments,VileCoopSociety, Pipeline Road, Balkom, Thane, Maharashtra. This passport was issued in lieu of passport bearing No.A068020 dated 17.10.90 ,

whichwasreportedtobelost/stolen.

Thesecondpassportwasappliedthrough M/s.Ratna

International(GovernmentofIndiaApprovedTravelAgents)located at34,AgiaryLane,NearFortMarket,Fort,Mumbai andaccused issued authority letter dated 2.1.92 in favour of M/s.Ratna International. Intheapplicationtheaccusedmentionedthathis passport alongwith suitcase was stolen at Bombay in November 1990.Theaccusedattachedoriginalcertificatedated6.6.91issued bySI,GamdeviPoliceStation,Mumbai,whereinthereportabout lostofsuitcasealongwithcash,clothesanddocuments.

During the investigation, it was revealed that, Regional

PassportOffice,Bangalore,issuedPassportbearingNo.Q868831 dated 22.7.1981 in favour of Abdul Karim Ladsab Telgi (DOB 16.8.59) r/o House No.14/61, Vidya Nagar, Station Road, Khanapur, Belgaum, Karnataka. However, while applying for issuanceofpassport atRegionalPassportOffice,Mumbai dated 21.9.90, the accused suppressed the said fact that the passport wasissuedbytheRegionalPassportOffice,Bangloreon22.7.1981.

10

During the course of investigation, it transpired that

notice for revocation of passport bearing No.L464765 dated

21.5.92 u/s10(3)(b)ofthePassportsAct,1967 wasissued on 21.6.2004 to the accused at 411, Mistry Chambers, Opposite Strand Cinema, Colaba, Mumbai, by Regional Passport Office, Mumbai.However,noreplywasreceivedfromhimandsoboththe passportsdated17.10.90and21.5.92wererevoked.

11

Itwasalsorevealedthatnumberofcriminalcaseswere

registeredagainstaccusedAbdulKarimLadsabTelgiduring1993 to1996atGeneralBranch,GBCBCID,MumbaiandaccusedAKL Telgi concealed the information while applying for a passport in RegionalPassportOffice,Mumbai,during1996.

12

Itwasalsorevealedthatthecopyofrationcardsubmitted

by accused while applying for a passport at Regional Passport Office,MumbaivideFileNo.B05373dated6.2.96inthenameof ShaikhAbdulKarimLadsaheb,isbogusandaddressgiveninthe ration card doesnotexistat all. As well as no school byname AnjumanRiazUIIslamSchoolislocatedatTwoTanks,Maulana ShaukatAliRoad,Mumbai.Therefore,FIRwasregisteredagainst theaccusedatCBI,EOU,NewDelhi.

13

During the course of investigation, the Investigating

Officercollectedalltherelevantdocumentssuchascorrespondence

by contacting concerned officers. He also collected information regardingpendingcasesagainsttheaccusedAKLTelgiduring1993 to2003andrecordedstatementsofwitnesses.Aftercompletionof investigation,chargesheetwasfiledagainsttheaccused.

14

Charge (Ex.2) was framed against the accused. The

particularsofoffencewerereadovertohiminvernacular,towhich hedeniedthechargesandclaimedtobetried.Thestatementu/s 313(1)(b)ofCr.P.C.wasrecorded.Inwhich,hisdefencewasoftotal denialandfalseimplication.

15

The following points arise for my determination and I

recordmyfindingsonthem,forthereasonstofollow: POINTS FINDINGS

1Doestheprosecutionprovethat INTHEPOSITIVE. theaccused,duringtheperiodbetween February1996andAugust1996, atMumbai,attemptedtocheat thePassportOfficer,RegionalPassport Office,Mumbai,vizwhilemovingan applicationforissuanceofpassport, madebogusrepresentationsand therebycommittedoffencepunishable u/s420oftheIPC? 2Doestheprosecutionprovethat INTHEPOSITIVE.

theaccusedabovenamed,inor aboutFebruary1996,atMumbai, forgedphotocopyoftheschool leavingcertificatepurportedly issuedbyAnjumanRiyazUI IslamHighSchool,locatedat TwoTank,MaulanaShaukatAli Road,Mumbai8,withintentto commitfraudasaforesaid,and therebycommittedoffencepunishable u/s465oftheIPC? 3Doestheprosecutionprovethat INTHEPOSITIVE. theaccusedabovenamed,inor aboutFebruary1996,atMumbai, forgedcopyofrationcardbearing No.506941,showinghisbogus addressatRoomNo.248,Naidu Colony,PantNagar,Ghatkopar, Mumbai,intheyear1991,original ofwhichwaspurportedtobemade byapublicservantinhisofficial capacity,andtherebycommitted offencepunishableu/s466oftheIPC? 4DoestheprosecutionprovethatINTHEPOSITIVE. theaccusedabovenamed,inor aboutFebruary1996,atMumbai, forgedthedocumentssuchas photocopyoftheschool leavingcertificateandcopyof rationcard,intendingthatthesame shallbeusedforthepurposesof cheatingandtherebycommitted

offencepunishableu/s468oftheIPC? 5DoestheprosecutionprovethattheINTHEPOSITIVE. accusedabovenamedduringthe aforesaidperiodatMumbai, fraudulentlyordishonestlyusedas genuinethephotocopyofSchool LeavingCertificateandcopyofRation cardandpresentedthesamebefore thePassportOfficer,RegionalPassport Office,Mumbai,insupportofhis applicationforissuanceofpassport, andtherebycommittedoffencepunishable u/s471oftheIPC? 6DoestheprosecutionprovethatINTHEPOSITIVE. theaccusedabovenamed,during theaforesaidperiodatMumbai,in themanneraforesaid,knowingly furnishedfalseinformationor suppressedmaterialinformation withaviewtoobtainapassport underthePassportAct,andthereby committedoffencepunishableu/s 12(1)(b)ofthePassportAct,1967? 7WhatOrder? ASPERFINALORDER. REASONS

16

Tobringhomeguiltoftheaccused,12witnessesstepped

intothewitnessbox.Ihaveclassifiedthewitnesses,becausesome

witnesses have deposed about ration card, some about school leavingcertificateandsomeofthewitnessesfromPassportOffice havedeposedaboutissuanceofpassport,andonewitnessistravel agent.

17

Itistobenotedthattheaccusedhasadmittedalmostall

the documents though he has crossexamined the witnesses. Therefore, I find it proper to consider the evidence in that perspective.

EVIDENCEONRATIONCARD 18 First I take the evidence in respect of submitting fake

ration card. On this point, the prosecution has examined PW 1 SureshSalgaonkar,RationingInspector,PW2MohanMeshram Assistant Rationing Officer, PW 3 Smt. Asha Joshi, Acting RationingOfficer.Aspertheevidenceofallthesewitnesses,their officewasfunctioningforthepurposeofissuingrationcardforthe residentsofthelocalityatPantNagar,NaiduColony,SamtaNagar, Barrister Nath Pai Nagar, Vidyavihar, N.S. Road, Asalfa Village, SarvodayaHospitalandotherareas.

19

PW1toPW3havedeposedthatCBIofficershadcameto

theirofficeinApril2005 for thepurposeofinquiryinrespectof

10

rationcardofShaikhAbdulKarimLadsab,residentof248,Naidu Colony, Pant Nagar, Ghatkopar(E), Mumbai. Accordingly, as per direction of Rationing Officer PW 3 Smt. A.V. Joshi, PW 1 SalgaonkarandPW2Meshram verifiedrecordoftheyear1991. They could not find out the entry regarding the said name and address. Theyconveyed itto Smt. Joshi, on which she directed themtoverifyaddressbygoingtothespot.

20

Hence,bothi.e.PW1andPW2wenttothespotat248,

Naidu Colony. However, no such address was found on the spot verification.Oninquirytheyfoundthatthebuilding No.248was erectedinSamtaNagar.TheyinquiredoftooneSmt.Mehtaabout theresidenceofShaikhAbdulKarimLadsabandshetoldthatshe wasresidingtheresincelast20years,butshehadnotseensuch personasnamed.Accordingly,theypreparedreportandsubmitted it to Smt. Joshi. After submission of their report, Smt. Joshi preparedletteraddressedtoCBIdated6.4.2005whichisatEx.11.

21

During the crossexamination of all these witnesses by

theLd.Counselfortheaccused,itwasbroughtonrecordthatthey havenotbroughtoriginalrecordbeforetheCourtandtheyhadno concernwiththesaidrationcard.Itwasalsosuggestedthatthe saidrationcardwasnotinthejurisdictionoftheiroffice,andthese

11

witnesseshadnotparticipatedinpersonalverificationofthiscard. Theprosecutionwitnessesadmittedit.Theyneversentthisration cardforverificationtoanyotheroffice.PW3Mrs.Joshi,Assistant RationingOfficeradmittedthatsheneversentreportthatheroffice hadnoconcernwiththesaidrationcard,soitbesenttoconcerned officehavingjurisdictionoverthesaidrationcard.

22

In fact the prosecution has also examined PW 4

Chandrakant Vengurlekar, who was working as Acting Rationing OfficerintheofficeatDadar.Hestatedthatinthejurisdictionof their office, the areas Mahim, Matunga, Portuguese church upto PrabhadeviandentireDadarcame. Hisdutywastoissueration cardaftertheinquiry. Afterseeingthexeroxcopyofrationcard (Ex.9), he stated that the said ration card does not come within theirjurisdiction.

23

Duringthecrossexamination,PW4admittedthatasthe

saidrationcarddidnotcomeintheirjurisdiction,theydidnothave anyrecordofthesame.

24

However, after careful scrutiny of the report of the

rationingofficer,Ifind thatinthereport(Ex.10A)thereisclear mention ofthefactthatboththerationinginspectors visitedthe

12

spotat248,NaiduColony,PantNagar,buttheycouldnotfindthe saidaddress.TheyinquiredofwithSmt.RekhaMehta,residentof Room No.6341 in building no.248, but she told that she was residingtheresincelast20yearsandnopersonbynameShaikh AbdulKarimLadsabwasstayingthere.Itwasalsomentionedthat, afterinspectionofthesaidrationcard,thereismentionofaddress ofGhatkoparandtherationingshopislocatedinDadararea.So, they inquired of to Dadar office on telephone and they were informed that in their Dadar office shop no.18d43 was not in existenceandtheywerealsoinformedthatinnoneoftherationing shopcardno.21345wasinexistence. Therefore,theyinformed theCBIthatthesaidrationcardwasbogus.

25

Inthisrespect,the Ld.SPPMr.Gharathasvehemently

submittedthatthe prosecution hasprovedthattheaccusedhad preparedbogusrationcardforthepurposeofapplyingforpassport. The prosecution evidence clearly shows that the ration card was bogus. Theaddresswasalsobogus. Andsohehadcheatedby doingthesame.

26

Oncarefulexaminationof thexeroxcopyofrationcard

(admitted),Ifindthat thereis mention of nameofShaikhAbdul Karim Ladsab, resident of Room No.248, Naidu Colony, Pant

13

Nagar,Ghatkopar,Mumbai6. Thenumberoffamilymembersis shownbymathematicalcalculationas2+2=6. Thenamesof members are shown as Abdul Karim self, Sahida Begum Wife, AminsonandAltabson.Thenumberofrationcardisshownas 18C43.

27

IlendmyassuranceontheevidenceofPW1,2and3,

becausetheyareworkingasrationinginspectorsandofficer.They havecategoricallydeposedaboutgoingtothespot.Itappearsthat, theyinquiredatDadarOfficeandtheywereinformedthatthesaid ration card was not at all in existence as per their record. The accusedhasadmittedallthedocuments.He,infactpleadedguilty. However,hepleadedguiltyafterrecordingevidenceofmostofthe witnesses. I find that, the oral evidence coupled with the documentaryevidenceissufficienttoseethattherationcardwasa bogusdocumentandtheaccusedusedthesameandcheatedthe PassportOfficewhileapplyingforissuanceofpassport.SoIfindit propertoevaluatetheevidenceonrecordinsteadofacceptinghis pleaatthisstage.

EVIDENCEONFAKELEAVINGCERTIFICATE

14

28

Another limb of evidence is on the point of submitting

fakeSchoolLeavingCertificate.TheprosecutionhasexaminedPW 5SaeedaMapariandPW7BasantiRoy,withaviewtoprovethat the accused has submitted fake school leaving certificate while applyingforthepassporton6.2.1996.

29

PW5SaeedaMaparihasdeposedthatintheyear2005

shewasHeadMistressinAnjumanIslam AbdulSattarShauaib School, Two Tank, Maulana Shaukat Ali Road, Mumbai8. She jointedtheschoolintheyear1976asateacher. Shestatedthat this school was established in the year 1944. Since 1970 this schoolislocatedatMaulanaShaukataliRoad,Mumbaiandthe nameoftheschoolwasnotchangedsincethen.

30

PW5furtherdeposedthat inApril2005CBIcontacted

herinrespectofoneschoolleavingcertificate,whichwasnotofher school.Becauseonthesaidschoolleavingcertificate,nameofthe school was mentioned as Anjuman Riyazul Islam High School. ShestatedthatnosuchschoolwaslocatedatTwoTank,Maulana ShaukatAli Road,Mumbai. Sothe xeroxcopyofschoolleaving certificatewasmarkedasxforidentification.

31

Duringthecourseofcrossexamination,PW5wasgrilled

15

overonthefactthatshehadnotbroughttheschoolleavingregister fortheyear1987andCBIhadnotmadeinquiryinrespectofthe personwhowasnamedintheschoolleavingcertificate. Shehad nopersonalknowledgeaboutissuingschoolleavingcertificatesin theyear1987.

32

PW 7 Basanti Roy deposed that she was Educational

Inspector,SouthMumbai,intheyear2005.Thejurisdictionofher office is Mumbai City and all the secondary schools situated in Mumbai City. She stated that there is no school by name Anjuman Riyazul Islam High School, at Two Tank, Maulana ShaukataliRoad,Byculla,Mumbai8. Shestatedthatheroffice madeinquiryinthismatterandexaminedtherecordsofthelistsof school. They also spoke to the Principals of different schools locatedinthesamearea. Butnosuchschoolwasinexistencein thatarea.So,sheinformedthesaidfacttotheconcernedofficerby letter dated 11.4.2005. There is no crossexamination to this witness.

33

On this aspect, the Ld. SPP Mr.Gharat submitted that

theaccusedhassubmittedfakeleavingcertificateandprosecution hasprovedthesame. AndIfindsubstanceinthesubmissionof theLd.SPP. BecausePW5SaeedaMapariwasHeadMistressof

16

theschoolandsheisaresponsiblelady.PW7wasalsoEducation Inspectorandshewasalsoaresponsiblelady. Inabsenceofany damagingcrossexaminationofboththesewitnesses,Ithink,their evidencecanbereliedupon.

34

Truethattheprosecutionhasnotfiledonrecordoriginal

schoolleavingcertificate.Buttheprosecutioncaseitselfisthatthe accusedsuppliedxeroxcopyoftheschoolleavingcertificatetothe passportauthoritywhileapplyingforthepassportandthatSchool leavingcertificateitselfisafakedocument.Andforfakedocument, we cannot expect any original record. Therefore, even if PW 5 admittedthatshehadnotbrought theschoolleavingregister,it doesnotaffectthetenorofherevidence. Because the record is keptforissuinggenuinedocuments.However,bogusdocumentis inventionoftheculpritmindandrecordisinfactconcealedinthe mindoftheculprithimselfandnotintherecordroom.Therefore,I findtheoralevidenceofPW5andPW7isreliabletoseethatthe accused has submitted bogus School Leaving Certificate while applyingforpassport.

35

AboutthisfakeSchoolLeavingCertificate,thewitnesses

examinedbytheprosecutionareindependentwitnessesandtheir evidenceshowsthattheschoolleavingcertificateisfake. Inthis

17

regardtheprosecutionhasadducedevidenceofPW9ACPAshok Durape,whowasattachedtoNagpadaPoliceStationintheyear 2005asSr.PI..HeinquiredofaboutaddressofAnjumanRiyazul Islam High School situated at Maulana Shaukat Ali Road, Two Tanks, Mumbai 8 and find that the said school was not in existence.Accordingly,hesentreplytoCBI.Thereplywassentby PI Ashok Patil (Admin.) which is at Ex.23. There is no cross examinationtothiswitness.

36

So, from the evidence of this witness also, it is crystal

clearthatnosuchschoolbyname AnjumanRiyazulIslam High School wassituatedatMaulanaShaukatAliRoad,TwoTanks, Mumbai 8 between 1965 to 1987. Hence, the school leaving certificatesubmittedbytheaccusedwhileapplyingforpassport,is abogusdocument. Thus,hecommittedoffenceofcheatingand preparingforgeddocumentanduseditforthepurposeofgetting passport.

EVIDENCEOFPASSPORTAUTHORITIES 37 NowIturntothemainaspectofthiscase.Theaccused

while furnishing application for fresh passport (vide file No.B05373) dated 6.2.1996, submitted false information to the RegionalPassportOffice,Mumbai. Inthisregard, IfindthatPW

18

11JagannathAmbreandPW12ShrichandraHirearetheprime witnesses.

38

PW 11 Jagannath Ambre was attached to Nagpur

Passport Office from December 1994 to 1997 as Public Relation Officerandgrantofpassportwashismainjob.Hedeposedthathe used to issue the passport on the basis of application and the verificationreportfromthepolice. Hefurtherdeposedthatafter receipt of police report the passport application came to him for granting.Ifthepassportislostordamagedthepassportholderwill havetoapplyfortheduplicatepassportgivingearlierdetails.

39

PW 11 further stated that he received the passport

applicationformofaccusedTelgiandhereceivedincompletereport fromthepolice.SohemadeendorsementasI/R.Callapplicant withoriginals.However,theapplicanthadnotgivenanyresponse. Theoriginalsnevercametohimasperhisremark.Thereafter,he received clear report from the police. After receipt of the clear police report, he ordered Issue another letter for same query. However,therewasnoresponsefromtheapplicantandthematter was pending. Then, he was transferred to Ahmedabad. The applicationforissuingfreshpassportismarkedasEx.28.

19

40

Duringthecrossexaminationofthiswitness,headmitted

thatthesaidapplicationwasnotsubmittedinthenameofAbdul KarimLadsabTelgi,butitwassubmittedinthenameofShaikh AbdulLadsab. He statedthattheapplication(Ex.28)ofaccused came directly to their office. He admitted possibility of using photographofaccusedAKLTelgibysomebody,butinthenameof ShaikhAbdulLadsabTelgi. Heidentifiedphotographofaccused Telgiaspermediainformationhereceived.

41

It is to be noted that the accused AKL Telgi in his

statementu/s313(1)(b)oftheCr.P.C.hasstatedthathehadonly givenphotographtoRatnaInternationalforobtainingpassport.In view of this admission, it is difficult to say that photograph of accused AKL Telgi, which is an admitted fact, was used by somebodyandtheformwasfilledupwithanothername.

42

Moreover, it appears from the evidence of PW 11

Jagannath Ambre that along with the application (Ex.28) the accused had not supplied original documents. And therefore originalswerecalledbythePW11asPublicRelationOfficer.But theoriginalsnevercametohimduringhistenure.

43

Inmyview,theevidenceofPW12 ShrichandraHireis

20

alsoveryvital.BecauseheworkedinthePassportOfficesince1989 to2008intervallyindifferentsectionslikeIndexSection,Passport Writing Section, Billing Assistant Section, Public Relations and Police Section. He has deposed about the procedure of issuing passport. Accordingtohim,whentheapplicationforpassportis submittedtotheRegionalPassportOffice,filenumberusedtobe allottedtothatapplication.Apersonalparticularformusedtobe senttopolicedepartmentforverification.Thenthefileusedtobe senttoIndexSectionforscreening.InthisSectionitwasverified, whethertheotherpassportwasalreadyissuedtotheapplicantor whether there is adverse remark made against the applicant for issuanceofpassport. Thenameoftheapplicant,nameoffather, motherandwifeofapplicant,dateofbirth,addresswereverified. The photographs used to beattached to the application and one photographusedtobesenttothepoliceforverification. Ifthe policeverificationreportisclearthepassportusedtobeissued.If theadversepoliceverificationreportisthere,thentheapplicantis calledalongwiththedocuments.

44

PW12ShrichandraHireproved theletterissuedtoCBI

dated12.10.2004asperEx.30.Hesubmittedthatasperthis,the applicationwasfiledintheyear1990,andaccusedAKLTelgigot thepassportandhesignedthesame.Sotheindexcardismarked

21

as Ex.31. Moreover, PW 12 has also deposed that as per this application,theapplicantappliedforduplicatepassportintheyear 1992forlossofpassportissuedtohimin1990andonverification ofthisapplicationexceptchangeofaddresseverythingwassame. The said application is marked as Ex.32. The Loss of passport circularwasshowntoPW12andasperthiscircularPassportNo. A068020 dated17.10.90wasreportedlostin1992andduplicate passportwasissuedasperpassportNo.L464765dated21.5.1992.

45

PW12furthertestifiedthatKarnatakaGovernmenthas

sentalettertotheirofficethatthisapplicantwasalreadyissueda passportNo.Q868831dated22.7.1981fromtheRegionalPassport Office,Bangalore.Theapplicanthassuppressedthefactofholding passport issued by Regional Passport Office, Bangalore while applying for passport in 1990. So, he issued notice to him on 21.6.2004 u/s 10(3)(b) of the Passport Act, which bears his signature.ThenoticeisatEx.34.PW12statedthattheapplicant neverrepliedtothenotice.

46

ThenPW12duringhistestimonyprovedtheletterdated

23.6.2004addressedtoUnderSecretary,PV1Section,Ministryof External Affairs, Patiala House, Tilak Marg,New Delhi, atEx.35, priorapprovalcategorycircularatEx.36andsecondnoticedated

22

14.7.2004issuedtoapplicantAKLTelgitoenablehimtofileappeal againstthisorder(Ex.36)andthenoticeisatEx.37.

47

PW12furtherstatedthatintheyear1996applicantTelgi

again applied for passport by changing his name, his mother's name, his wife's name, his date of birth and his address. He applied in the name of Shaikh Abdul Karim Ladsaheb. Name of fatherwasshownasMohammedandnameofmotherwasshown as Sharifabi Mohammed. Name of wife was shown as Shahida Begum.PW12deposedthattheyreceivedtheinterimreportfrom policethattheapplicanthadnotgivenoriginaldocuments.Sothey called the originals and the applicants did not turn up. Hence, withoutissuingthepassporttheyclosedthefile. 48 PW 12 Hire further deposed that passport no.L464765

dated21.5.1992wasissuedbytheiroffice,whichisatEx.38. He statedthatthereisobservationonpageno.4ofthispassportthat, 'The holder previously hold the passport No.A068020 dated 17.10.1990issuedbyBombay,whichhasbeenreportedlost'. On 4.10.2004 he sent certified copies of passport register to CBI alongwithforwardingletterdated4.10.2004,asperEx.39Acolly.

49

Atthetimeofcrossexaminationofthiswitness,theLd.

23

SPP Mr. Gharat submitted that Adv. Koshe for the accused informedhimthatastheaccusedhadalreadysentapplicationfor pleading guilty, he is not going to crossexamine the witness. Hence, the evidence of PW 12 remain unchallenged. Resultantly, fromtheevidenceofPW12HireandPW11Ambreitiscrystalclear that the accused Telgi applied for passport by submitting bogus documents. 50 The prosecution has adduced evidence of PW 6 Umesh

Shetty,workingasTravelAgent,havinghisbusinessinthenameof RatnaInternationalat33/35,Firstfloor,RaghunathDadajiStreet, Fort,Mumbai.

51

PW 6 Shetty stated that he got the license from the

ExternalAffairsMinistryforauthorizing,collectingandsubmitting thedocumentsforthepurposeofissuanceofpassportatRegional Passport Office, Thane. He was shown forwarding letter dated 3.1.1992alongwithenclosuresi.e.i)letterofauthority,ii)affidavit dated29.10.91,iii)PassportapplicationformbearingNo.147079, iv) photocopy of passport bearing No.A068020 and v) Original indexcardofAKLTelgi.

52

PW 6 stated that the forwarding letter bears his

signature, letter of authority bears his signature as well as

24

signature of the customer, affidavit bears signature of customer. TheforwardingletterisatEx.17andenclosuresareatEx.17Ato 17E.PW6statedthatthesedocumentsweregivenbytheperson namedAbdulKarimLadsabTelgiandhehadbeentotheiroffice,so hecanidentifythepersonfromhisphotograph.PW6statedthat the application was submitted for duplicate passport and mistakenly he had made endorsement on the xerox copy of passport.Sincetherecordwasdestroyedbythetermites,hecould notproducetheoriginalpassportregistertoCBIOfficer.Hestated thatoneofhisrepresentativecollectedthepassportfrompassport officeanddeliveredtothecustomerTelgi. 53 Duringthecrossexamination,PW6Shettyadmittedthat

itisnotpossibletoremembereachandeverycustomervisitingto hisofficeandashehasnotbroughttheregister,,itisdifficultto identify the customer who handed over the documents. PW 6 furtheradmittedthatontheforwardingletterthereisnostampof theirofficeasRatnaInternationalandletterEx.17isaxeroxcopy. PW6furtherstatedthatthereisnostampofhisofficeonnoneof the photograph. It was suggested that AKL Telgi was not his customer and he affixed the stamps on the documents at the behestofCBI. Itwasalsosuggestedthatthosedocumentswere notproducedandhehadnoanydocumenttoshowthathisrecord wasdestroyed.

25

54

TheLd.SPPMr.GharatsubmittedthatPW6Shettyhas

proved the prosecution case and defence could not rebut his evidence.PW6identifiedphotographofaccusedTelgiandproved thefactthataccusedhimselfsubmitteddocumentsalongwiththe application.Therefore,theprosecutionhasproveditscaseagainst theaccused.

55

OnperusalofthesedocumentsasperEx.17andEx.17A

to E, I find that Ex.17 is letter on the letterhead of Ratna InternationalandthereissignatureofPartner/ManagingDirector/ ProprietoroftheRatnaInternational. Inthesaidletterthereis clearmentionofsubmissionofapplicationwiththedocuments,for processingintheofficeofpassport.Thedocumentsarementioned as1)photo8(2)Letterofauthority,(3)Lostreportattached,(4) Affidavit. The letter of authority (Ex.17A) shows signature of accusedAKLTelgiattwoplaces.AndasperreportofGovernment Examiner, these signatures were of accused AKL Telgi only. So letter of authority clearly shows that the accused AKL Telgi processedhis application through Ratna International and Ratna International collected passport and the accused had given authoritytoRatnaInternationalforcollectingthepassport.

26

56

Moreover,theaffidavit(Ex.17B)alsobearssignaturesof

accused AKL Telgi. This signature was also examined by the Government Examiner and admitted by the accused. The lost reportwasalsoattachedandonthisreportthereisphotographof accused Telgi. ThisreportalsobearssignatureofaccusedTelgi. ThexeroxcopyofpassportbearingNo.A068020ofaccusedisalso annexed. Thereisalsoindexcardwhichalsobearssignatureof accusedTelgi. So, allthesedocuments,exceptonEx.17D,bear signatureofaccused.

57OnEx.17Di.e.xeroxcopyofpassportbearingNo.A068020 thereisendorsementasoriginalseenandreturned.Asperevidence ofPW6Shetty,hehadnotseenoriginalsandmistakenlyhehad givenendorsementas'originalseenandreturned'. However,I find that this was negligence on the part of Ratna International. But still the subsequent conduct of accused AKL Telgi of not producingoriginaldocumentstopassportauthoritywhentheywere called,itselfshowsthat,theoriginalswerenotatallavailableand theaccusedgotpreparedthesedocuments. 58 ItappearsfromthesedocumentsthatRatnaInternational

processed the form of accused and took duplicate passport on behalfaccusedAKLTelgionthebasisofthesedocuments.

27

59

In fact, forthe purpose of processing application itself

false name i.e. Shaikh Abdul Karim Ladsab was used. The photographaffixedisthatofaccusedAKLTelgi.Thereisnodenial onthisaspect. TheaccusedAKLTelgiadmittedthisfactthathe handed over photographs to Ratna International. Now Ratna InternationalidentifiedtheaccusedasAKLTelgiandtheformwas processed inthenameofShaikhAbdulKarimLadsab.Sothisis alsooneoftheseriousaspecttobedealtwith.Andthereisnothing on record to see what the investigating agency had done against Ratna International, about making such false endorsement and processingfalseform.

60

Thenthethirdlimbisalsoverymuchimportant,which

gotcorroborationfromtheevidenceofPW8Sr.PISadashivPatil. TheevidenceofPW8showsthatwhenaccusedAKLTelgiapplied for passport, that time number of criminal cases were registered against him. PW 8 has given detail account of the same. He deposedthatintheyear 2005 hewasworkingasSr.PIinMRA MargPoliceStation.Byletterdated15.3.2005,CBIrequestedhim to supply certified copies of Crime No.524/91, 353/95, 55/95 registeredatMRAMargPoliceStation.ButthecopiesoftheseCRs werenotavailableinthepolicestationastheyweretransferredto DCBCIDforfurtherinvestigation.Accordingly,hesentreplytothe

28

CBIasperEx.21Aalongwiththreeannexuresgivingdetailsofthe cases.

61 declined.

Thereisnocrossexaminationtothiswitnessasitwas

62

Theprosecutionhasalsoadducedevidenceof PW10PI

PramodKhadewhohasdeposedaboutinvestigationinCrimeNo. 41/905.HestatedthatinresponsetotheletterofCBI,hehanded over copyofFIRandchargesheettoCBIOfficerPI Bassiunder handingoverandtakingovermemodated10.4.2005whichisat Ex.26.Thereisnocrossexaminationtothiswitnessalso.

63

Ihavecarefullyscrutinizedthehandingoverandtaking

overmemo(Ex.26)andchargesheet. Itappearsfromthecharge sheetofCRNo.41/95thatthiscrimewasregisteredatGBCBCID onthecomplaintofShriRadheshyamMopalwaragainstaccused SantoshSankpal. Andduringtheinvestigation,nameofaccused AKLTelgiwasrevealed. So,registrationofthisFIRitselfshows thatwhenaccusedAKLTelgiappliedforpassportintheyear1996, criminalcasewasregisteredagainsthim.

64

PW11Ambrehadshownsuspicionaboutthereportand

29

accordingly,hehadcalledtheapplicantwithoriginals.Hedeposed thathereceivedthetheclearreportfromthepolice.Stillhehad responsibility of verification being the competent authority and therefore he ordered for 'issue another letter for same query'. However,therewasnoresponsefromtheapplicant. Thereafter, thematterwaspendingandhewastransferredtoAhmedabad.

65

Soon2.2.1996theaccusedappliedforpassport.Actually

inthesaidapplicationform(Ex.28)thereisclauseatNo.15.Asper this clause, information u/s 6 of the Passport Act, 1967 was required to be given. And the applicant had shown that, no criminalcase/proceedingwaspendingagainsthim.However,when hefilledupthesaidform,thattimenumberofcriminalcaseswere pendingagainsthimanddetailaccountofthesamecanbeseen fromtheevidenceofPW8Sr.PIPatil.

66

The report (Ex.21A) addressed to the I.O. Ajay Kumar

BassibytheSr.InspectorofPolice,MRAMargpolicestationshows thatatMRAMargPoliceStationCrimeNos.524/91,353/95and 355/95wereregisteredandthesecrimesweretransferredtoCrime Branch,CID,Mumbaiforfurtherinvestigation.So,onthedateof applyingforpassporti.e.on2.2.1996notonlyasinglecrime,as CR No. 41/95, but all these crimes were also registered and

30

pendingagainsttheaccused.Andtheaccusedhassuppressedthe saidinformationfromthecompetentauthority.

67

Inthisregarditisverymuchnecessarytosee,whether

the accused is liable for the offence u/s 12 of the Passport Act. Section12ofthePassportActrunsasfollows:

12

Offencesandpenalties(1)Whoever

(a) contravenes the provisions of section 3;or (b) knowingly furnishes any false information or suppresses any material informationwithaviewtoobtainingapassport or travel document under this Act or without lawful authority alters or attempts to alter or causestoaltertheentriesmadeinapassportor traveldocument;or (c) fails to produce for inspection his passport or travel document (whether issued underthisActornot)whencalledupontodoso bytheprescribedauthority;or (d) knowingly uses a passport or travel documentissuedtoanotherperson;or (e) knowingly allows another person to useapassportortraveldocumentissuedtohim, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a termwhichmayextendto[twoyearsorwithfine which may extend to five thousand rupees] or

31

withboth.

68

Inthepresentcase,itiscrystalclearfromtheapplication

(Ex.28) itself that the accused had supplied totally false information.HeappliedinthefalsenameasShaikhAbdulKarim Ladsaheb. HehadgivennameoffatherasMohammed,nameof mother as Sharifabi Mohammed and name of wife as Shahida Begum. He had also given false date of birth as 15.8.1960 and addressasRoomNo.248,NaiduColony,PantNagar,Ghatkopar(W), Mumbai86.Allthisinformationwasfoundfalseandbogus.

69

The prosecution has adduced evidence in respect of all

these facets and proved that the accused had supplied false informationtothecompetentauthority. Hehasalsosuppressed thatRegionalPassportOffice,BangaloreissuedhimPassportinthe year1981andheappliedfourtimesintheyear1996inthefake nameandsuppressedtheinformationandfailedtosubmitoriginal documents.Heisalsoliableforfillingupfalseinformationabout criminalcases. Hispassportwasrevokedintheyear2004.He failedtorespondtonotice,failedtofileappeal.

70

Inviewofallthesefacts,theaccusedisalsoliablefor

punishmentunderthePassportAct. Forthepurposeofapplying

32

for passport, he cheated the Passport office and he used forged documentstosubmittopublicofficeforobtainingpassport.So,he isalsoliablefortheoffencesu/s420,466,468,471oftheIPC. Accordingly,Iholdtheaccusedguiltyforalltheseoffencesandstop theJudgmentheretoheartheaccusedonthepointofquantumof sentence.

4.7.2009

(CHITRAK.BHEDI) SPECIALJUDGEFORCBI

71

Heard the accused on the point of sentence. He

submittedthathishealthisdeterioratingdaybydayandleniency maybeshowntohim.

72

On the other hand, the Ld. SPP Mr. Gharat submitted

thatthisisaveryseriousoffence.Iftheaccusedwouldhavegot thepassport,hemightnothavebeenarrestedandfledawayfrom India. Hewouldnotbeavailableforallthesetrials.Somaximum punishmentbegiventohim.

73

AfterhearingtheaccusedandtheLd.SPPonthepointof

quantumofpunishment,Ifindthattheaccusedhascommittedthe offenceunderthePassportAct,whichisaseriousoffence.Hehas

33

also committed offence under Indian Penal Code. However, consideringthequantumofsentenceinothercasesandnatureof seriousnessofoffenceunderthePassportAct,Ithinkitproperto passthefollowingorder:

ORDER 1 Accused Abdul Karim Ladsab Telgi is convicted u/s

235(2)oftheCr.P.C.forthefollowingoffences.

Accusedisconvictedoftheoffencepunishableu/s420of

theIPCandsentencedtosufferRIfor3(Three)yearsandtopay fineofRs.5,000/i.d.tosufferfurtherRI15(Fifteen)days.

Accused isconvictedoftheoffencepunishableu/s465

oftheIPCandsentencedtosufferRIfor2(Two)yearsandtopay fineofRs.1,000/eachi.d.tosufferfurtherRIfor3(Three)days.

Accusedisconvictedoftheoffencepunishableu/s466

oftheIPCandsentencedtosufferRIfor2(Two)yearsandtopay fineofRs.1,000/eachi.d.tosufferfurtherRIfor3(Three)days. 5 Accused isconvictedoftheoffencepunishableu/s468

oftheIPCand sentencedtosuffer RIfor3(Three)yearsandto

34

payfineofRs.3,000/i.d.tosufferfurtherRIfor7(Seven)days.

Accused isconvictedoftheoffencepunishableu/s471

oftheIPCandsentencedtosufferRIfor2(Two)yearsandtopay fineofRS.1,000/i.d.tosufferfurtherRIfor3(Three)days.

Accusedisconvictedoftheoffencepunishableu/s12(1)

(b)ofthe PassportAct,1967,and sentencedtosuffer RIfor2 (Two)yearsandtopayfineofRS.5,000/i.d.tosufferfurtherRIfor 15(Fifteen)days.

The substantial sentences for all the offences shall run

concurrently alongwith conviction in Bundgarden Case, Pune in SpecialCaseNo.2/2003.

9 accused.

Benefitofsetofu/s428ofthe Cr.P.C. begiventothe

4.7.2009

(CHITRAK.BHEDI) SPECIALJUDGEFORCBI

35

INTHECOURTOFSESSIONSFORGREATERBOMBAY SESSIONSCASENO.339OF2007 TheState(CBI) ..Complainant (CBICaseRCCY12004E0006EOUIXdated29.9.2004) (CCNo.115/CPW/06) vs.

AbdulKarimLadsabTelgi

)..Accused CORAM:H.H.THESPECIALJUDGE SMT.CHITRAK.BHEDI DATE:4THJULY2009. (COURTROOMNO.49)

SPPGharatfortheState. Adv.Koshefortheaccused. FRSRfollowingorderispassed: OPERATIVEORDER

Accused Abdul Karim Ladsab Telgi is convicted u/s

235(2)oftheCr.P.C.forthefollowingoffences.

Accusedisconvictedoftheoffencepunishableu/s420of

theIPCandsentencedtosufferRIfor3(Three)yearsandtopay fineofRs.5,000/i.d.tosufferfurtherRI15(Fifteen)days.

36

Accused isconvictedoftheoffencepunishableu/s465

oftheIPCandsentencedtosufferRIfor2(Two)yearsandtopay fineofRs.1,000/eachi.d.tosufferfurtherRIfor3(Three)days.

Accusedisconvictedoftheoffencepunishableu/s466

oftheIPCandsentencedtosufferRIfor2(Two)yearsandtopay fineofRs.1,000/eachi.d.tosufferfurtherRIfor3(Three)days.

Accused isconvictedoftheoffencepunishableu/s468

oftheIPCand sentencedtosuffer RIfor3(Three)yearsandto payfineofRs.3,000/i.d.tosufferfurtherRIfor7(Seven)days.

Accused isconvictedoftheoffencepunishableu/s471

oftheIPCandsentencedtosufferRIfor2(Two)yearsandtopay fineofRS.1,000/i.d.tosufferfurtherRIfor3(Three)days.

Accusedisconvictedoftheoffencepunishableu/s12(1)

(b)ofthe PassportAct,1967,and sentencedtosuffer RIfor2 (Two)yearsandtopayfineofRS.5,000/i.d.tosufferfurtherRIfor 15(Fifteen)days.

37

The substantial sentences for all the offences shall run

concurrently alongwith conviction in Bundgarden Case, Pune in SpecialCaseNo.2/2003.

9 accused.

Benefitofsetofu/s428ofthe Cr.P.C. begiventothe

4.7.2009

(CHITRAK.BHEDI) SPECIALJUDGEFORCBI

38

39