Mr. Syed Akram and Sri. Syeed Iqbal Sanulla V. The Union of India, represented by the Officer in Charge, Special Crime Branch, Central Bureau of Investigation and State by Central Bureau of Investigation, SCB/Chennai

CRL.RP/249/2015

AI Insights

The case involves two accused, Syed Akram and Syed Iqbal Sanulla, who were charged with multiple offenses including forgery, use of forged documents, and offenses under the Passports Act, 1967, related to human trafficking activities. The prosecution presented evidence that the accused had fabricated documents to obtain visas and passports under false pretenses. The trial court convicted both accused, and their appeals were dismissed by the Sessions Court. The High Court, upon reviewing the evidence and the arguments presented, found no grounds to interfere with the lower courts' decisions and dismissed the revision petitions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 698463 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 19-12-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: SHIVAJI SAHARAO BOBADE & ANR. VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, FAINUL KHAN VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS, DELHI SINGH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) VS. DHARAMPAL, IQBAL AHMED VS. CBI, KRIPAL SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN, STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. RAMLAL DEVAPPA RATHOD & ORS, MALLIKARJUN & ORS. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA
• Laws Referred To: Indian Penal Code, 1860, Passports Act, 1967, Code of Criminal Procedure
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: P KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SATYANARAYANA S; SHARAN MAJAGE; VENKATARAMAN NAIK
• Keywords: Forged documents; Human Trafficking; Joint trial; Visa application; Passport fraud; Sanction under Passport Act
• Section: 15; 401; 468; 420; 471; 120B; 465; 419; 397; 12(1)(b)

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.249 OF 2015 C/W CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.231 OF 2015 IN CRL.RP.NO.249/2015: BETWEEN: MR. SYED AKRAM, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O S. HAMEED, R/AT: NO.8, 2ND CROSS, BEHIND URDU SCHOOL, DR. TCM ROYAN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 053 ….PETITIONER (BY SRI. SATYANARAYANA CHALKE .S, ADVOCATE) AND: THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICER IN CHARGE, SPECIAL CRIME BRANCH, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, A’WING, 3RD FLOOR, RAJAJI BHAVAN, BESANT NAGAR, CHENNAI-600 900. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL.PP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 AND 401 CR.P.C, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 28.6.2014 AND SENTENCE DATED 30.6.2014 PASSED BY THE XVII ADDL. A.C.M.M. (SPL. 2 COURT FOR CBI CASES), BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.33938/2011 CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 419, 420, 468, 471 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION 12(1)(b) OF THE PASSPORTS ACT, 1967 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.2.2015 PASSED BY THE XXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J. AND PRL. SPL. JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.775/2014 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER. IN CRL.RP.NO.231/2015: BETWEEN: SRI. SYEED IQBAL SANULLA, S/O SANAULLA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO.641, NEAR KGIS OFFICE, MADRAS, BENGALURU ROAD, KOLARA-563 101 ….PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHARAN N. MAJAGE AND SRI. VENKATARAMAN NAIK, ADVOCATES) AND: STATE BY CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, SCB/CHENNAI, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH HEAD-600 001. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL.PP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 AND 401 CR.P.C, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 28.6.2014 IN C.C.NO.33938/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE XVII-ACMM (SPL.COURT OF CBI CASES) AT BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCE P/UNDER SECTION 420, 468, 471 OF IPC AND ALSO ORDER CONFIRMED BY THE COURT OF THE XXI-ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND PRL. SPL. JUDGE FOR CBI CASES AT BENGALURU CITY ON 25.02.2015 IN CRL.A.NO.774/2014 AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT OF THE OFFENCE CHARGED AGAINST HIM. 3 THESE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 31.10.2023, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER’ THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER These revision petitions are filed by the accused challenging the judgment of conviction passed by XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, (Special Court for CBI cases) in C.C.No.33938/2011, which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.775/2014 and Crl.A.No.774/20144. 2. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are that on 22.01.2009 the Inspector of Sampangihalli Police station on the basis credible information regarding some persons involving in creation and fabrication of forged documents for purpose of human trafficking and they will be approaching IBM Manyata Tech Park Bangalore for preparation of documents in the name of fictitious person, he formed a raiding team and secured the panchas and went to the place at 4.00 p.m. There they saw 4 persons alighting from red color maruthi zen car. They have also noticed another person sitting inside the car who got down 4 and told three other persons to go inside IBM and enquire about persons who are in need of passports and visas. Then the raiding party apprehended suspicion, they surrounded the car and they have recovered passports, visa applications etc. 3. That the accused No.1 submitted application forms to four different persons before Visa Officer, Consulate General of Japan, Chennai. During 2007, Mohammed Younus was searching for a job in foreign country and his father Abdul Majid requested accused No.1 to send his son to any foreign country. Thereafter, as per advise of accused No.1, Mohammed Younus had applied for tourist visa to visit Japan and he handed over his passport to accused No.1 for production of the same before consulate of Japan, but his application came to be rejected. Again, during the month of January 2009, accused No.1 had submitted visa application in the name of Mohammed Younus for business meeting Visa to Japan along with a letter of appointment dated 01.04.2008 5 issued by Overseasjobz Incorporation and a signature of Mohammed Younus was obtained on blank visa application form. However, Mohammed Younus never served in Overseasjobz Incorporation, Bangalore at any point of time and no such company was found existing in Bangalore. It is further asserted that accused No.1 had submitted a business meeting visa with Japanese Consulate, Chennai in January 2009 in the name of Abdul Rahim Sheikh wherein, he was shown as Business Development Manager in Overseasjobz Incorporation, Bengaluru. The letter of appointment was signed by accused No.1 himself. A firm by name overseasjobz.com.incorporation was registered in Toronto in Canada and accused No.1 and Kamothi Lehy were shown to be the directors of the firm. Accused No.1 had submitted for tourist visa in the name of Mohamed Younus and his wife Aiysha Kausar for Japan by blocking air tickets and hotel rooms, which was done in order to erase doubt in the minds of Consulate Officer. 6 4. Apart from that, accused No.1 has also submitted visa application during August 2007 for Syed Younus and Aiysha Kausar and the visa for Syed Younus was rejected and again in January 2009, the applications were submitted by the accused for the said persons wherein, Syed Younus was shown as employee of M/s Ming International, Bangalore and both applications were rejected. It is alleged that accused No.1 mentioned wrong fact about Syed Younus that he is an employee of M/s Ming International, wherein he never worked and no such company existed in Bangalore. 5. The accused No.2 had obtained passport bearing No.E1703378 dated 29.04.2002 and again on 23.09.2008, he obtained another booklet vide passport No.Z1864256 dated 23.09.2008 from RPO, Bangalore including his wife’s name by canceling earlier passport. However, he was found in possession of another passport bearing No.A9437801 in the name of Manjunath wherein, the photo of accused No.2 was pasted. It is alleged that he 7 has obtained the passport in the name of Manjunath by showing the address as 1645, 17th main 1st stage 2nd block, Bangalore -5600050, but his address was No.8, 2nd Cross TCM, Royan Road, behind Urdu School, Chickpet, Bangalore. It is further asserted that accused No.2 at the time of submitting application before Regional Passport Officer, Bangalore in the fictitious name of Manjunath, enclosed letter head of company viz., G.P. Electronics, 8/8 J.C.Road, Bengaluru stating that he is working as an Accountant, but no such firm was found existing. Apart from that, it is also alleged that accused No.2 opened an account with UTI Bank, Bangalore by showing his name as Manjunath and he maintained this account in the fictitious name of Manjunath and fictitious address. He has also maintained another account in his own name in SBI Chamrajpet, Bangalore branch wherein, the photograph of accused No.2 was found and the photograph pasted in the account opening form in UTI Bank was that of accused No.2. 8 6. It is also alleged that in June 2007, one Syed Tajamul Ahmed resident of Chamarajpet, Bangalore approached accused No.2 for arranging employment in Japan and assuring the said Syed Tajamul Ahmed, he received his passport and a sum of Rs.3 Lakhs for arranging visa etc., but when Syed Tajamul Ahmed traveled Japan in August 2007, he found that he did not have any employment and he was cheated without any job by accused No.2. For obtaining the visa in the name of Syed Tajamul Ahmed, accused has shown him as a Sales Manager in S.R.Jewellery, but that was also found to be false. Accordingly, one C.C.Shivakumar has also approached accused No.2 for Tatkal passport and visa to Singapore, Malaysia and Senegal and he received a sum of Rs.5,000/- from him by obtaining signatures on blank visa applications along with photographs. The accused No.2 has also enclosed a letter of M/s Remix Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore for visa application of C.C.Shivakumar, but that was found to be false and fabricated document. While applying visa to visit Senegal, accused No.2 showed 9 himself as General Manager of M/s Remix Constructions Pvt. Ltd., while, C.C.Shivakumar was shown as Technical Consultant, but that statement was found to be false. 7. The Investigating Officer after investigation, submitted charge sheet against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 120B, 420, 419, 465, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 12(1)(b) of Passports Act, 1967. The accused were arrested and were produced before the learned Magistrate and subsequently, they were enlarged on bail. The prosecution papers were furnished to the accused as contemplated under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C' for short). The charge for the above said Sections is framed against both the accused and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tired. 8. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined in all 34 witnesses at PW1 to PW34 and placed reliance on 174 documents marked at Ex.P1 to 10 P174. During the cross-examination, Ex.D1 to D3 were also got marked by the defence counsel. M.O.1 to 3 were also marked. 9. After conclusion of the evidence of the prosecution, the statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded to enable the accused to explain the incriminating evidence appearing against them in the case of the prosecution. The case of the accused is of total denial and they did not choose to lead any oral and documentary evidence in support of their defence. 10. After hearing the arguments and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate has convicted accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Section 420, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 by imposing sentence of imprisonment as well as fine. The accused No.2 was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 419, 420, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 12(1)(b) of Passport Act, 1967 by imposing sentence of 11 imprisonment as well as fine. Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused No.1 filed Crl.A.No.774/2014 while, accused No.2 filed Crl.A.No.775/2014 on the file of XXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge / Principal Sessions Judge for CBI cases, Bangalore city. 11. The learned Special Judge after hearing the arguments and after re-appreciating the oral and documentary evidence dismissed both the appeals by confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Magistrate. Against these concurrent findings, these revision petitions are filed. 12. The learned counsels for the revision petitioners would contend that PW9 - SHO on credible information is said to have raided the spot and he has done major investigation, but later on, the investigation was transferred to CBI. He would contend that original passports and original documents were not produced. He would also contend that to ascertain fake address, the 12 landlords were not examined and regarding transactions, there is no evidence and so called Shivakumar did not support the case of the prosecution. The records disclose that as on the date of mahazar, accused No.2 was in custody and mahazar witnesses have turned hostile. It is also asserted that charges against accused No.1 and accused No.2 are individual, but the joint trial was held, which has vitiated the trial. It is also asserted that under Section 15 of the Passport Act, 1967, sanction was not obtained and sanction was only as against accused No.2 but not in respect of accused No.1. It is further asserted that the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded jointly and no specific questions were put to respective accused and forged documents were not at all exhibited. It is also contended that no person from passport office was examined and the so called Abdul Rehman was not cited as a witness and seizure itself is not proved and there is no charge of conspiracy. He would also assert that investigation can be continued only after registration and there is no evidence to show that accused 13 traveled and there is serious doubt regarding mahazar and recovery. It is also submitted that in respect of identification before the court, the witnesses have not properly identified and hence, it is asserted that both the courts below have failed to appreciate any of these aspects in its proper perspective and sought for allowing the revisions by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction by acquitting the accused. 13. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent / CBI would support the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by both the courts below. He would contend that Ex.P36 and Ex.P58 are passports and there is no specific defence raised by the accused and both the accused were apprehended simultaneously and there is no evidence to show that they are prejudiced by joint trial and no objection was raised at the initial stage for joint trial. Hence, he would contend that the grounds now urged cannot be considered as the 14 scope of revision is limited. Hence, he would seek for rejection of the revision petitions. 14. Having heard the arguments and perusing the records, now the following point would arise for my consideration: (i) Whether the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Magistrate and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge are perverse, arbitrary and erroneous so as to call for any interference by this court? 15. At the first instance, let us consider the argument regarding sanction. The contention of the revision petitioners is that there is no sanction obtained as against accused No.1 for prosecuting under the provisions of Passport Act, 1967 and sanction is only as against accused No.2 and under Section 15 of the Passport Act, 1967, sanction is mandatory. However, the records disclose that accused No.1 was not prosecuted under the provisions of Passport Act, 1967 and he was only prosecuted for the offences punishable under Section 420, 15 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. When accused No.1 was prosecuted for the offences punishable under the provisions of IPC only, question of obtaining sanction does not arise at all. 16. However, accused No.2 was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Section 419, 420, 468, 471 and Section 12(1)(b) of Passport Act, 1967, 1967. Hence, it is evident that only the provisions of Passport Act, 1967 were incorporated as against accused No.2 and sanction was obtained as against accused No.2. There is no serious dispute regarding sanction and hence, the said ground urged does not have any relevancy. 17. The allegations against the accused are that they forged and fabricated documents such as passports, Visas for the purpose of human trafficking in order to have an unlawful gain. According to the prosecution, on 22.01.2009 Police Inspector, Sampangihalli Police Station arrested accused No.1 along with other accused and recovered certain documents. 16 18. PW1 to PW3 are police witnesses and they deposed regarding they accompanying PW9 on 22.01.2009 for raiding Manyata Tech Park, IBM at 4.00 pm and subsequently, apprehending accused No.1 and seizure of relevant documents from his custody. PW9 has led the raiding party and the evidence of PW1 to PW3 is in consonance with the evidence of PW9. The evidence of these witnesses also disclose that the mahazar was also drawn as per Ex.P1 at the spot and subsequently, as per voluntary statement of accused No.1 as per Ex.P38 again accused No.1 led them to his house wherein 29 documents were seized under mahazar Ex.P40. It is also evident from the records that subsequently the office of the Consulate General of Japan, Chennai produced the documents through HC No.4400 and the same were seized by PW9 under Ex.P59. 19. The main contention of the defence is that all the seizure panchas have turned hostile. The seizure panchas were examined as PW22 to PW27 and PW32 and 17 they have turned hostile. However, they admitted their signatures. Though they claimed that their signatures were obtained in Police Station and they never accompanied the raid, the said contention cannot be accepted since, they are not the laymen and educated persons having knowledge. It is not their case that their signature was obtained by any threat or coercion by the police. Hence, it is prima facie evident that the seizure mahazar witnesses have been won over by the accused, which has resulted in their hostility, but mere hostility of these witnesses does not amount that the prosecution has failed to prove the seizure and the evidence of PW1 to PW3 coupled with PW9 establish this aspect. There is no hard and fast rule that the evidence of the Investigating Officer or police officers cannot be trusted and if it is beyond suspicion there is no bar for accepting their evidence. 20. Apart from that PW4-Mohammed Younus, PW5 Abdul Majeed, PW6-Syed Younus and PW7-Aiysha Kausar are material witnesses and they have supported the case 18 of the prosecution. PW4 and PW6 have been cheated by the accused No.1 and their evidence clearly disclose that accused No.1 obtained passport under the guise of providing Visa and crated documents regarding the witnesses working in Overseasjobz, but the evidence of PW4 disclose that he never worked in Overseasjobz and no such company existed and it clearly establish that Ex.P4 and Ex.15 are fabricated documents. The signature of accused No.1 on Ex.P4 and Ex.P15 were marked as Q22 and Q21, which were sent to hand writing expert who was examined as PW29 and his evidence disclose that the specimen writing and signature of accused No.1 marked at S1, S18 to S26 in Ex.P117 are that of accused No.1 and they tally with Ex.P4, signature marked at Q22 and Ex.P15 signature marked at Q21. Hence, the evidence clearly discloses that accused No.1 has forged the signature of PW4. Further, this evidence is again corroborated by evidence of PW8 whose evidence clearly disclose that Overseasjobz Incorporation was not at all registered company in Bangalore and same is certified as per Ex.P14. 19 As such, the evidence of PW4, PW8 coupled with evidence of PW29, it is evident that accused No.1 has forged the signature in Ex.P4 and Ex.P15 and tried to obtain Visa on the basis of forged documents and this evidence is again supported by the evidence of PW5 who is the father of PW4. 21. PW6-Syed Younus is another witness who was also cheated by accused No.1. His evidence discloses that he has handed over his passport and passport of his wife to accused to obtain tourist visa as per Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 and submitted an application Ex.P8. It is evident that accused No.1 had submitted Ex.P9 letter said to have been issued by Ming International and Ex.P10 is the confirmation letter, while Ex.P11 is the letter of appointment of PW6 said to have been issued by M/s Ming International, while Ex.P12 is the salary slip. The evidence of PW8 coupled with Ex.P14 clearly reveal that M/s Ming international was not registered company in Bangalore. PW15-the post man and PW17 have stated that they have 20 been to the address of M/s Ming international for delivery of the letter and it is revealed that no such company existed and it is further evident that from Ex.P9 and Ex.P11 that one Hidayathulla Khan has signed as managing partner. Though it is not the case of the prosecution that accused has forged the signature of said Hidayathulla, but accused has submitted Ex.P9 and Ex.P11 with an intention to obtain Visa though no such company existed. Apart from that the evidence of PW6 is again supported by the evidence of PW7. 22. Further, the evidence of PW14-Syed Kareem is also important as he is the landlord of accused No.1 and he clearly deposes that accused No.1 was not his tenant from 2006 till 01.03.2009 and no company by name Overseasjobz was functioning in his building. Further, it is not the case of the accused that any such company Overseasjobz Inc. and M/s Ming International are existing, but it is the specific assertion of the prosecution that the said companies are fictitious companies. This is again 21 corroborated by the evidence of PW19-post man that M/s Ming international is also a fictitious company as he is unable to deliver the letter to the company. Hence, the evidence on record clearly establish that accused No.1 forged some of the documents and signed himself in the name of the applicants and used them as genuine documents. 23. As regards accused No.2, the allegation is that he has created and fake and fabricated documents in order to get Visa and passport from the competent authority. According to the prosecution, accused No.2 has obtained a passport in the fictitious name of one Manjunath though he had a regular passport in his name. 24. As per the case of the prosecution, the accused No.2 was arrested on 22.01.2009 and recovery was made at his instance, but this aspect has been disputed by the defence. It is asserted that accused No.2 was arrested on 19.01.2009 itself, but to substantiate this contention, no material document has been produced. 22 25. The evidence of PW1 to PW3 clearly disclose that they had accompanied PW9 to MTP wherein they caught hold of accused No.2 and a mahazar was drawn as per Ex.P1. Though it is suggested that the accused were arrested at Chennai on 19.01.2009, but no such evidence is placed by the defence in this regard. The evidence of PW1 to PW3 is again corroborated by the evidence of PW9 who led the raid. 26. PW9 has specifically deposed that ASI- Gangadhar and PW2 arrested the accused at the spot who was standing outside the car and he was found in possession of passport bearing No.Z1864256 and another passport bearing No.E1703378 was also found. It is also evident from the passport that he had visited Malaysia, Singapore, Japan New Zealand and Thailand. These Visas were taken on account of false certification issued by fake companies of Ming International Migration Consultancy Cosmo International Business Centre and Universal S.R.Jewellery. The accused No.2 has also produced 23 documents showing that he was working as General Manager in Remix Construction Private Limited by drawing a salary of Rs.35,800/- and he has prepared salary slip and appointment order and letter was written to Visa officer in a letter head and created document of income tax returns. It is also evident that he has also created DL No.4826/1996-97 in the name of Manajunath by affixing the photograph of accused No.2. All these documents were seized from the custody of accused No.2 under Ex.P1 and the letter head, salary slips, account extract of ICICI bank, visa letters are marked at Ex.P20 to Ex.P33. As per the letter of M/s Remix Constructions Limited dated 11.08.2008 addressed to Visa Officer, Senegal Embassy, it is asserted that Chandregowda Shivakumar was their employee as per Ex.P34. The passport of Chandregowda Shivakumar is marked at Ex.P35, but the photograph affixed is that of accused to Ex.P35. The other passport found in possession of the accused is marked at Ex.P36 and DL in the name of Manajunath is marked at Ex.P37. All these documents were seized as per Ex.P40. 24 27. The evidence of PW9 further disclose that he has also recorded the voluntary statement of accused No.2 as per Ex.P39 and recovered salary slip of Chandregowda as per Ex.P46 in six blank sheets of ICICI bank as well as Ex.P47 seal of Overseasjobz Incorporation marked at MO1 and all these documents were seized from the custody of accused No.2. Further on 25.01.2009, on the basis of voluntary statement of accused No.2, they all went to his house and 38 items marked at Ex.P51 were seized. The DL of Manjunath was seized from the possession of accused as per Ex.P3. Apart from that, the debit card bearing the photo of accused No.2 in the name of Manajunath is seized, which is marked at Ex.P54. Further, the air travel tickets in the name of Chandregowda Shivakumar were recovered as per Ex.P56 and Ex.P57. 28. The evidence also clearly disclose that there are number of cases filed against this accused and it is simply asserted that lot of persons were having animosity against 25 him, but that cannot be a ground to ignore the material seizure . 29. The evidence of PW10 disclose that the passport application submitted in the name of Manjunath is at Ex.P88 and the specific address is given as Manjunath, son of Shanthappa, 1645, 17th Main, BSK I Stage, II Block Bangalore – 50. PW11 who is the owner of property bearing No.1645 i.e., the address shown pertaining to Manjunath and his evidence clearly disclose that Manjunath never resided in his premises and though this witness admits address in Ex.P30, Ex.P53 and Ex.37, he specifically asserts that no such person stayed in his premises on rent. 30. The evidence of PW10 further disclose that accused No.2 has submitted an application for duplicate passport at Ex.P79 and address was given as #8, 2nd Cross TCM Royan Road, Chickpet, behind Urdu school, Bangalore. Along with Ex.P79 he had submitted personal particulars as per Ex.P80 and police investigation report as 26 per Ex.P81 and copy of the old passport is produced at Ex.P85. On the basis of these documents, Ex.P36, passport came to be issued to accused No.2, but his evidence also clearly establish that accused No.2 has also obtained passport in the name of Manjunath, Son of Shanthappa and he identified the copy of the application submitted for issuance of passport in the name of Manjunath as per Ex.P88 and the photo of the accused No.2 is pasted and address given was that of BSK I Stage. 31. Ex.P91 is a letter, which disclose that Manajunath was working as an Accountant in G.P.Electronics and Ex.P93 is the true coy of visa, while Ex.P58 is the passport issued in the name of Manjunath, but it is evident that the passport issued as per Ex.P36 and Ex.P58, the photograph of accused No.2 were found. Hence, it is evident that accused No.2 having obtained passport in his name, has illegally in a fictitious name of Manjunath, son of Shanthappa obtained another passport 27 and thereby committed an offence under Section 12(1)(b) of Passport Act, 1967. 32. Apart from that the G.P.Electronics is a fictitious company as per the case of the prosecution. This is again evident from the evidence of PW8 and Ex.P14, but while obtaining passport in the name of Manjunath, accused No.2 produced the letter of G.P.Electronics at Ex.P91 asserting that Manjunath is working there as an Accountant. Hence, it is evident that Ex.P91 is a fabricated document. 33. Further, the driving licence at Ex.P53 and Ex.P37 were obtained and the DL obtained in the name of Manjunath, but photograph of accused No.2 has been pasted on Ex.P37 as well as Ex.P53. Hence, it is evident that accused No.2 has obtained two DL, one in his own name and another in the name of fictitious person viz., Manjumath. Hence, it is evident that the accused has impersonated and created fabricated documents and 28 tendered them in evidence to the competent authority having knowledge that they are forged documents. 34. Further from the evidence of PW12 and PW34, it is evident that accused while opening an account in his name as well as in the name of fictitious person viz., Manjunath used the DL at that time for address proof. 35. Further, it is the specific assertion of the prosecution that accused No.2 has also obtained Visa for Shivakumar i.e., PW13 and while obtaining Visa it is shown that he was working in M/s Remix Construction which is a fictitious company. The evidence of PW13 discloses that he had handed over the passport marked at Ex.P96 to accused No.2 in order to obtain visa to visit Senegal and he has also filled the application as per Ex.P73, but he specifically asserts that he never worked in M/s Remix Construction at any point of time and this document is created by accused No.2. 29 36. On assessment of this oral and documentary evidence, it is evident that both the accused have committed offences by forging the documents and by using them as genuine documents and accused No.2 has committed an offence under Section 12 of Passport Act, 1967 also. 37. Much arguments have been advanced regarding both the accused are unconnected and they have been prosecuted in a common case, but raid was conducted commonly and both the accused were apprehended simultaneously. Further in what way it has prejudiced the accused is not at all forthcoming. Further, while matter was posted for trial, no such defence was raised and the accused could have raised this issue and matter could have been split up there itself, but that was not done. Even before the learned Magistrate no such arguments were advanced and for the first time, before the appellate court the arguments were advanced in this regard and the Learned Sessions Judge has dealt this issue and has 30 properly answered it by rejecting the said submission. Further, when no prejudice is caused to the accused and when they got ample opportunity to defend their case, now it cannot lie in the mouth of the accused that joint trial is bad or vitiated. 38. The other contention is that the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded jointly and no specific questions were put to the respective accused, but again the fact remains in what way it has prejudiced the accused and it is not the case of the accused that they were prejudiced by joint recording of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Hence, the arguments in this regard are not at all sustainable. 39. The learned counsel for revision petitioners has placed reliance on a decision of the coordinate bench of this court in Crl.P.No.2170/2021 dated 21.09.2021 regarding statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and setting aside the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C recorded thereunder. But in the said case, recording of the 31 statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C was challenged and sought to be quashed by filing a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C on the ground that incriminating material and material questions were not posed. But in the instant case, no such petition was filed and after suffering conviction in two courts below without disclosing how accused are prejudiced, the issue has been raised. But in view of the decision reported in ‘SHIVAJI SAHARAO BOBADE & ANR. VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA’, (1973) 2 SCC 793, ‘FAINUL KHAN VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS’, (2019) 9 SCC 549, ‘DELHI SINGH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, AIR 2010 SCC 3594 and ‘STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) VS. DHARAMPAL’, (2001) 10 SCC 372, it has not relevancy. Even as observed above, the said citation was under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and in the instant case, no evidence is placed to show prejudice and hence, question of applicability of the said citation to the facts and circumstances of the present case does not arise at all. 32 40. The learned counsel appearing for respondent- CBI has placed reliance on a decision rendered by coordinate bench of this court in ‘IQBAL AHMED VS. CBI’, Crl.R.P.538/2014. On perusal of the said decision, it is evident that in respect of same raid conviction order was passed against other accused and similar defence was raised, which was negativated by this court. 41. Further, he placed reliance on a decision reported in ‘SHIVAJI SAHARAO BOBADE & ANR. VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA’, (1973) 2 SCC 793, wherein it is observed that it is the duty of the court to offer opportunity to the accused to explain every circumstances established against him and it is for the accused to show that he was prejudiced by failure on the part of the prosecution in this regard. The said principles are directly applicable to the case of the prosecution in this case as accused have not shown any material to show how they are prejudiced. 33 42. He has further placed reliance on a decision ‘FAINUL KHAN VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS’, (2019) 9 SCC 549, wherein it is held that inadequacy or omissions in questions to be put to accused in 313 Cr.P.C proceedings cannot be generalized by causing prejudice. In the instant case also, no evidence is placed that by recording joint statement, any prejudice has been caused to the accused. 43. The learned counsel for the respondent further placed reliance on a decision in ‘KRIPAL SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN’, (2019) 5 SCC 646 wherein it is held that there is no legal proposition that the evidence of police officials is required to be supported by independent witnesses which is relevant regarding evidence of PW1 to PW3 and PW9. 44. Further, in ‘STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. RAMLAL DEVAPPA RATHOD & ORS’, (2015) 15 SCC 77, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the recoveries need not always be proved through deposition of panchas 34 and it can even be supported through the testimony of Investigating Officer, which is exactly the case in hand. Further this view is again supported by the decision in ‘MALLIKARJUN & ORS. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA’, (2019) 8 SCC 359, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the evidence of Investigating Officer can be relied on to prove recovery, even if the pancha witnesses have turned hostile. These citations would assist the prosecution completely as in the instance case, mahazar witnesses have turned hostile but the police officials PW1 to PW3 and PW9 have fully supported the case of the prosecution. 45. Further, in the decision in ‘DELHI SINGH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, AIR 2010 SCC 3594 relied by learned counsel for the respondent, it is observed that statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be treated as evidence and it is only an defence, which is required to be considered on the basis of other circumstances. Further in a decision in ‘STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) VS. DHARAMPAL’, (2001) 10 SCC 35 372, the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 13 observed that failure to draw accused attention to inculpatary material to enable him to explain it in examination of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C itself will not vitiate the entire proceedings. Hence, it is evident that accused is required to prove that they have in fact prejudiced by such act and no such evidence is forthcoming in the instant case. Looking to these facts and circumstances, the grounds urged by defence counsels are untenable. 46. Both the courts below have appreciated the oral and documentary evidence in its proper perspective and have in detail analyzed these aspects and by proper reasoning have convicted the accused by imposing reasonable sentences. Under such circumstances, the question of interfering with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Magistrate and confirmed by the Learned Sessions Judge does not arise at all. Therefore, I find that no reasons for interfering with the judgments passed by both the courts below in these 36 revisions. As such, the point under consideration is answered in the negative and hence, the revision petitions need to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petitions fail and stand dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE SS "