The Court was dealing with a revision petition of the petitioner Iqbal Ahmed who was involved in a case of fabrication passports with the purpose of human trafficking. The Court of a Single - Judge Bench comprising Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar dismissed the revision petition by rejecting several contentions that were put forth by the Counsel for petitioner.
Brief facts of the case were that there was this racket of fake passports that was busted and the name of the petitioner also came to the forefront in the same. Petitioner had with him a passport bearing No.H1924155. However, he made a voluntary statement which led to recovery of another passport bearing No .F9608954 that he had kept in his house .CBI which filed the charge sheet against the petitioner. After trial, the XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate: (Special Court for CBI cases), Bangalore, convicted the petitioner for the offences aforesaid.
Case of the Petitioner
The petitioner moved an appeal before the Court of Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI cases, Bangalore, however the same was dismissed by an order dated April 3, 2014. In pursuant to the same, the petitioner instituted a revision petition. The contention of the petitioner pertaining to the entire investigation being vitiated and the registration of FIR is not done within the reasonable time. Case of Lalita Kumari vs Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others was relied upon.
Observation of the Court
However, this Court did not accept this contention by stating that the Council for petitioner shall comprehend the context of the Pradesh, wherein it was held that whenever there is any information pertaining to the disclosure of cognizable offence, registration of FIR is mandatory. The sentence in section 154(1) Cr .P.C commences thus, every information relating to commission of a cognizable offence ………… , meaning to say that by the time the information is given to the police officer, the offence should have already been committed.
Another case of Tasleem N.P. vs. State of Karnataka,a similar question of law was dealt with, wherein it was held that the moment a police officer receives any secret information about an offence to be committed, then the primary duty of police is to prevent an offence from happening; immediately after receiving the information, a police officer has to proceed to spot for averting the crime, and taking such other measures as the situation demands. Thus, the Court in the present case observed that the police officer did not receive the information that the offence was already committed before he went to take the action on the infromat’s message. Mere securing of panchas before going to spot does not lead to an inference that information was definite.
In another decision of Mukesh Singh vs State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi), the Supreme Court held, A cryptic message on telephone etc. which under the NDPS Act is similar to the information provided by a secret informer etc. cannot therefore constitute an FIR. It is only after recoveries are affected and/or arrests made, information regarding commission of cognizable offence crystallizes .Rather it is the duty of the police officer to take immediate measures to prevent the crime from happening, or if committed in his presence, to take action according to Section 41 of
Cr.P.C, FIR may be registered later on.
Thereafter the Court stated that in the case of revision petition there is no place for appreciation of evidence usually, therefore the contention of the Counsel for the petitioner that the PW8 turned hostile, therefore evidence of PW1 alone is not sufficient. . The Court rejected the same by observing that the testimony of the investigating
officer without corroborative evidence from the individual witness should not be considered as a rule of law, therefore the evidence of PW1 stands.
The Court further rejected the contention of the Counsel of petitioner with respect to the sanction that is to be obtained by the prosecution under Section 15 of the Passports Act for prosecuting the accused. The Court held that, it is true that a sanction under Section 15 of the Act is required, however the question whether it was issued by the competent authority or whether there was application of mind is a question of fact and its validity should have been challenged before the Trial Court. The same cannot be questioned in the revision petition. Heavy reliance was placed on the case of M.Srinivasulu Reddy vs. State Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau wherein it was held that, when the Government accords sanction, Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act raises a presumption that the official acts have been regularly performed. The burden is heavier on the accused to rebut that statutory presumption. Once that is done then it is the duty of the prosecution to produce necessary records to establish that after application of mind and consideration thereof to the subject and grant or refusing to grant sanction was made by the appropriate authority.
Another contention was pertaining to infringement of the personal liberty of the petitioner under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, stating that there was no due process of law followed from the time of filing of FIR to conclusion of investigation. The Court rejected this contention as well by observing that there is a huge difference between “ no procedure being followed” and “ infraction of procedure” . The latter shall not imply that there is deprivation of personal liberty. Next contention was concerning the investigation officer and the officer who lodged the FIR was the same and hence, the investigation is vitiated. The Court held that until and unless there is biasness shown on the part of the accused, the same cannot be assailed. Reliance was made to the case of Mukesh Singh vs. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi), wherein it was held that if there is no trace of biasness or prejudice, then the officer who lodged the FIR can carry forward the investigation as well.
Further the Counsel for the petitioner contended that while examining the petitioner under section 313 Cr.P.C, the evidence given by PW10 with regard to obtaining of sanction order as per Ex.P21 was not put to him for his explanation and therefore this part of the evidence is to be eschewed . The Court countered the same by submitting that if the law obligates the prosecution agency to obtain sanction, it is a statutory requirement. Lastly it was examined by the Court in
convicting the accused under Sections 419,420, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court observed that the prosecution has proved the same beyond reasonable doubt.
It was added that Shaikh Hussain is not the real name of the petitioner, however he applied for a passport under the same name by affixing his photograph thus this act makes him an offender under Section 415, 420 and 419 of the IPC. The passport was obtained by providing false information and it was used to travel to different countries then offences under Section 468 and 471 are also attracted. Thus, by making the above submissions and relying upon the findings of the cited cases, this Court dismissed the revision petition.
Case Details
Before: Supreme Court
Case Title: Iqbal Ahmed vs. CBI Chennai
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar
Picture Source :
