THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.744 OF 2007

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed, aggrieved by the Judgment dated 04.06.2007 in Crl.A.No.214 of 2006 on the file of learned III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by learned XIV Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in C.C.No.143 of 1999 dated 19.05.2006. (for short “trial Court”).

2. Heard the submissions of Sri T. Srujan Kumar Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor, appearing for CBI. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to appear inspite of several adjournments.

3. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has submitted that the trial Court has convicted the accused under Sections 468, 420 and 471 of IPC, based on which the appeal was preferred vide Crl.A.No.222 of 2006 and in the said appeal, the accused No.4 was convicted for the offence under Sections 420 and 471 of IPC and set aside the order of the trial Court in C.C.No.1423 of 1999 for the offence under Section 468 of IPC, the sentence passed against him for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 471 of IPC were confirmed. Thus, a rigorous imprisonment of three years for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 471 of IPC, and a fine of Rs.5,000/- were imposed on accused No.4. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present revision is preferred by the accused No.4.

4. The grounds raised by the petitioner counsel are that there is no evidence against the petitioner herein to prove the offence under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code and thus, the case of forgery is not made out against the petitioner. That the statements of PW3, PW11 and PW19 are incorrect and that he never cheated them and that the appellate Court should have acquitted the petitioner under Sections 420 and 417 of IPC.

5. Perused the record.

6. Accused No.4 worked in Asian Travels. PW3 has deposed that in December 1993, after his return from abroad, since he lost his passport, he approached accused No.4 and asked him to get the duplicate passport and that accused No.4 has informed him that he would get it within a month on payment of Rs.7,500/- and has also asked PW3 to return his old passport if it is traced out and then he has given him the duplicate passport which is marked as Ex.P13 along with the PCC report.

7. PW11 also deposed that the son of his brother-in-law who is examined as PW19 approached him for passport and that he asked accused No.4 for issuance of passport for which accused No.4 has informed that he would get it done on payment of Rs.8,000/- and that initially they paid Rs.3,000/- and after the accused No.4 got it ready, they again paid an amount of Rs.5,000/- and took the passport.

8. PW19 has deposed that about seven years ago, he went along with his wife and son and met PW11 and then PW11 has informed him that Rs.8,000/- is required for obtaining a passport and that he took Rs.3,000/- initially from them and paid it to accused No.4 along with the application for passport and photographs and that subsequently, he has paid the remaining balance of Rs.5,000/- to his brother-in-law which in turn was given to accused No.4. Thus, the evidence of PW3 coupled with Ex.P13, the passport and the evidence of PW11 and PW19 coupled with Ex.P21/passport establishes the guilt against the accused No.4 that the accused No.4 has collected Rs.7,500/- for issuing duplicate passport/Ex.P13 and Rs.8,000/- for issuing passport/Ex.P2, to the son of PW19.

9. Further the evidence of PW25 the Investigating Officer discloses that on search in the house of accused No.4 on 07.07.2004, they could seize Ex.P88 to Ex.P93 which are nothing but the photographs and photostat copies of booklets used for preparing passports in his house. There is no reason for possessing such material at home by accused No.4. Thus, the evidence of PW3, PW11, PW19 and PW25 coupled wi