Zaffar Nawaz Khan vs The State Of Telangana
2022 Latest Caselaw 4367 Tel

        HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

                     CRL.R.C.No.3171 OF 2018
ORDER:

This criminal revision case is directed under Sections 397

and 401 Cr.P.C. assailing the conviction and sentenced imposed

in Crl.A.No.321 of 2015 dated 26.09.2018 on the file of VIII

Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar

partly confirming the conviction and sentence imposed in

C.C.No.819 of 2011 on the file of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/A-1

and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the

respondent/State. Perused the material on record.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the then Sub-Inspector

of Police, B Section, Immigration Wing, RGI Airport,

Shamshabad lodged a report on 18.09.2008 stating that the

petitioner/A-1 arrived at RGI Airport by flight No.EK 524 from

Dubai with passport bearing No.E-9432257 on the name of

passport holder Vajrapu Mahalakshman (A-3) and on

verification it is found that the said passport was issued to A-3

on 23.08.2004 valid up to 22.08.2014.

                                    2                              ASR,J
                                                        Crlrc_3171_2018

4. It is further alleged that on verification of the same under

UV lamp found that, there are no security features and upon

questioning, the petitioner/A-1 revealed his particulars and

stated that in Dubai, he approached one Abdullah (A-2) and

obtained forged passport by paying 4000 Dirhams and came to

India on the said fake passport. The S.I. of police seized the

documents i.e. passport, original identity card of the

petitioner/A-1 and produced him before the Station House

Officer, Shamshabad Police Station. On the basis of report, a

case in crime No.355 of 2008 under Sections 419, 420, 468,

471 IPC and Sections 12 (1) (a) (b) (d) (e) of the Passports Act,

1967 (for short "the Act, 1967).

5. The investigating officer recorded the confession-cum-

seizure panchanama of the petitioner/A-1 and seized forged

passport and other travel documents in the presence of

mediators. After completion of investigation, the SI of police,

RGI Airport filed charge sheet against A-1 to A-3 for the

aforesaid offences by showing A-2 and A-3 absconding.

6. In support of their case, the prosecution examined

P.Ws.1 to 6 and marked Exs.P-1 to 10. The petitioner/A-1 did

not adduce any oral or documentary evidence.

                                3                               ASR,J
                                                     Crlrc_3171_2018

7. On a consideration of the evidence on record, the learned

Magistrate found the petitioner/A-1 guilty of the offences under

Section 419 IPC and Section 12 (1) (a) (b) and (d) of the

Passports Act, 1967 and convicted him for the same and

imposed the sentence of Simple imprisonment for three months

and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence under Section

419 IPC and to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of three

months and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence under

Section 12 (1) (a) (b) and (d) of the Passports Act, 1967. In

default of payment of total fine of Rs.6,000/- to suffer Simple

Imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved by the same, the

petitioner/A-1 preferred an appeal and the learned Sessions

Judge by the impugned judgment partly allowed the appeal and

confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed in C.C.No.819

of 2011 dated 10.04.2011 by the trial Court against the

petitioner/A-1 for the offence punishable under Section 419 IPC

and conviction and sentence recorded against him for the

offence under Section 12(1) (a) (b) (d) of the Passports Act,

1967, is set aside and the fine amount paid for the said offence,

if any, should be refunded to him. Feeling dissatisfied, the

present revision is filed.

                                  4                                 ASR,J
                                                         Crlrc_3171_2018

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

seizure of Exs.P.3 to P.5 documents from the petitioner/A-1 has

not been proved by the prosecution, since the mediators

Pws.3 and 4 for seizure panchanama turned hostile and did not

support the case of prosecution. He also submits that there is

no cogent evidence to convict the petitioner/A-1 for the offence

under Section 419 IPC. Therefore, the Courts below erred in

convicting the petitioner and prayed to allow the revision.

9. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the

respondent/State would submit that since the concurrent

findings of both the Courts below in convicting the

petitioner/A-1 is based on cogent and convincing evidence, no

interference is called for.

10. PW.1 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, PW.2 is the

constable, PWs.3 and 4 are mediators, who were present at the

time of seizure of passport and other relevant documents. Pws.5

and 6 are the Investigating Officers.

11. P.W.1 testified to the fact that he was on duty at

Immigration Court of Airport along with PW.2 and at that time

the accused came from Dubai to his counter for verification and

on verification found that the passport was not having security 5 ASR,J Crlrc_3171_2018

features and on suspicion, he has taken his passport and

identity card and handed over to ACP, in-charge Immigration

and found that the petitioner/A-1 was travelling in the name of

passport of A-3 and that the photograph on the passport was

that of petitioner/A-1, but passport was in the name of A-3.

PW.1 lodged Ex.P.1 report. PW.1 collected Exs.P.2 to 5

documents i.e. passport, arrival card, travel view trip and

identity card of A-1. PW.2 corroborated the evidence of PW.1. It

is the evidence of PW.5 the SI of Police, RGI Airport that on the

basis of Ex.P.1, he registered the case and in the presence of

Pws.3 and 4 seized the passport and other documents.

However, the mediators Pws.3 and 4 did not support the case of

prosecution. But there is other evidence on record to show that

Exs.P.2 to P.5 were seized from the petitioner/A-1. The

evidence of PW.1 is corroborated the evidence of PW.2 and

PW.5. The undiscredited testimony of PWs.1, 2 and 5,

therefore, clearly establish the fact that the Exs.P.2 to P.5 were

seized at the instance of petitioner/A-1. Nothing material was

elicited to discredit their testimony.

12. The petitioner/A-1 has offered explanation whatsoever as

to how his photograph came to be annexed in Ex.P.2 passport.

However, PW.1 in Ex.P.1 stated that the petitioner himself has 6 ASR,J Crlrc_3171_2018

stated that A-2 has taken Rs.4,000/- Dirhams and given fake

passport Ex.P2 by affixing the photograph of petitioner on the

passport of A-3. It is, therefore, clear from the evidence on

record that the petitioner/A-1 impersonated himself as Vajrapu

Mahalakshman (A-3) on the basis of Ex.P.2 forged passport.

In view of the testimony of P.Ws.1, 2 and 5, which is not

discredited in any manner, the trial Court has rightly found the

accused guilty of the offences under Sections 419 IPC and

Sections 12 (1) (a) (b) (d) (e) of the Act, 1967.

13. However, the appellate Court on careful evaluation of

evidence came to conclusion that the prosecution has not

properly proved the sanction proceedings Ex.P.10 were issued

on proper application of mind and thereby, held that the

conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner/A-1

under Sections 12 (1) (a) (b) (d) of the Act, 1967 was set aside

and confirmed the conviction and sentence of the petitioner/A-1

for the offence under Section 419 IPC.

14. Since the testimony of Pws.1, PW.2 and Exs.P.2 to P.5

would establish the fact that Ex.P.2 passport was used by the

petitioner/A-1 impersonating himself as Vajrapu

Mahalakshman (A-3) and he undertook the travel, the 7 ASR,J Crlrc_3171_2018

conviction of the petitioner/A-1 for the offence under Section

419 IPC, as recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the

appellate Court, does not call for any interference by this Court,

as the same is not vitiated by any illegality or material

irregularity leading to any miscarriage of justice.

15. Learned counsel for the petitioner/A-1 submits that the

petitioner/A-1 already suffered incarceration for about one

month in connection with this case. Therefore, he prays to take

lenient view.

16. What would now survives for consideration is, the

question regarding adequacy or otherwise of the sentence

imposed on the petitioner/A-1.

17. Having regard to the submissions made by learned

counsel for the revision petitioner/A-1 and in the facts and

circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that

interest of justice would be adequately met by maintaining the

conviction recorded against the petitioner/A-1 for the offence

under Section 419 IPC. The substantive sentence and

imprisonment by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate

Court is reduced to the period of imprisonment already

undergone by him. The sentence of fine imposed on him for the

said offence is not interfered with.

                               8                              ASR,J
                                                   Crlrc_3171_2018

18. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of

confirming the conviction entered, but modifying the sentence

as indicated above.

________________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY,J 05.09.2022 Nvl