Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Kundan Singh on 11 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF NISHANT GARG
ACJM-2-CUM-ACJ, ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS
NEW DELHI
CBI Vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS.
Case No. : CC No. CBI/309/2019
FIR No. : 6(A)/2002 dated
18.04.2002
U/s : 120-B r/w 420, 467, 468,
474 and 201 IPC and
Section 12 (1) (b) of the
Passports Act, 1967 as well
as substantive offences
punishable under Section
420, 467, 468, 474 and 201
IPC and Section 12 (1) (b)
of the Passports Act, 1967.
Name of Branch : SIU-V/SIC-II/CBI, New
Delhi.
Unique Case ID No. : 02401R6093972004
The date of commission : In the year 1998
of the offences
Name of the Complainant : The FIR was registered on
the complaint of Inspector
Karnail Singh.
Name, parentage & address : (i) Kundan Singh, S/o Sh.
Dharam Singh, the then
LDC, now UDC, Passport
Office, Ghaziabad, MEA,
Govt. of India.
R/o Village Kasanu, P.O.
Balikoti, Sirmour (HP).
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 1 of 57
RC-6A/2002
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS.
Digitally signed
by NISHANT
NISHANT GARG
GARG Date:
2025.03.11
16:03:36 +0530
Presently residing at H1-
1002, Tower-I, Classic
Residency, Raj Nagar
Extension, Ghaziabad.
(ii) Hemwant Kumar, S/o
Late Sh. Brij Mohan Bhatt,
the then Peon, now LDC,
Passport Office,
Ghaziabad, MEA, Govt. of
India.
R/o Village Jally, P.O.
Soligi, District Pauri
Garhwal
Presently residing at R/o
545, Kamla Nehru Nagar,
Ghaziabad.
(iii) Anita Umrao @ Annu
Agarwal @ Annu, W/o
Late Sh. Narender, R/o
21/10, Second Floor, Old
Rajender Nagar, New
Delhi and B-21, Suyog
Building, Varsova Link
Road, Plot No. 32-33,
Andheri West, Mumbai-
400058.
Permanent Address: 11-A,
Hussain Shah Road,
Mohimpur, Kolkatta-23.
The plea of the accused : Not guilty
Final Judgment : Acquitted
Date of institution of case : 30.09.2004
Date of Judgment : 11.03.2025
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 2 of 57
RC-6A/2002
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. Digitally signed
by NISHANT
NISHANT GARG
GARG Date:
2025.03.11
16:03:48 +0530
Counsels for the parties:
Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Ld. PP for the CBI.
Sh. Manoranjan, Ld. counsel for accused Kundan Singh (A-1).
Sh. Umesh Sinha, Ld. counsel for accused Hemwant
Kumar (A-2).
Sh. Subhash C. Datt, Ld. counsel for accused Anita Umrao (A-3).
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Kundan Singh (A-1), Hemwant Kumar (A-2) and
Anita Umrao @ Anu Aggarwal (A-3) have been sent by CBI to
face trial for commission of offences punishable u/s 120-B r/w
420, 467, 468, 474 and 201 IPC and Section 12 (1) (b) of the
Passports Act, 1967 as well as offences punishable under Section
420, 467, 468, 474 and 201 IPC and Section 12 (1) (b) of the
Passports Act. Accused Anita Umrao @ Anu (A-3) was a
proclaimed offender at the time of filing of the charge sheet.
Names of Narang Joshi and Naram Bhai Verma were put in
column no. (ii) of the charge-sheet as no such persons were
found to exist. Requisite sanction order under Section 15 of the
Indian Passports Act, 1967 was attached with the charge-sheet.
FACTS
2. Facts of the case, in brief are that during investigation of
another RC-1/99-SIU.V/SIC.II/CBI, New Delhi in which Anita
Umrao @ Anu was a suspect, certain passports were recovered
from her locker no. 42 maintained at HDFC Bank, Old Rajender
Nagar Branch, New Delhi on 09.11.2001. Two of the said
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 3 of 57
RC-6A/2002
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. Digitally signed
by NISHANT
NISHANT GARG
GARG Date:
2025.03.11
16:04:02 +0530
passports were found having photograph of the same person in
different poses. Hence, after a preliminary enquiry, the present
FIR no. 6(A)/2002 dated 18.04.2002 was registered on the
complaint of Karnail Singh, the then Inspector, CBI on the
allegations that accused Anita Umrao (A-3), Kundan Singh (A-1)
and Hemwant Kumar (A-2) entered into a criminal conspiracy
and forged and delivered two Indian passports with a view to
defraud the Passport Office, Ghaziabad. It was further stated in
the complaint that accused Kundan Singh (A-1) and Hemwant
Kumar (A-2) forged passports no. A-5885047 and A-5885406 in
the fictitious name of Naram Bhai Verma and Narang Joshi by
interpolating the entries and pasting photographs of some
unknown person in different poses, whereas the said passports
were to be issued in the names of Prem Chand Singh and
Bhupinder Singh, the actual applicants.
3. Investigation revealed that during search of locker no. 42
of accused Anita Umrao (A-3) on 09.11.2001 in RC-1/99-CBI-
SIC.II by S.N. Saxena, Additional SP, CBI, two passports
bearing nos. A-5885047 dated 07.08.1998 and A-5885406 dated
14.08.1998 in the name of Naram Bhai Verma and Narang Joshi
respectively, issued from Passport Office, Ghaziabad were
recovered. The photograph on both the passports was of the same
person in different poses which led to a suspicion about the
authenticity of the passports.
4. Investigation further revealed that one Prem Chand Singh
had applied for a passport in Passport Office, Ghaziabad on
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 4 of 57
RC-6A/2002
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. Digitally signed
by NISHANT
NISHANT GARG
GARG Date: 2025.03.11
16:04:12 +0530
30.03.1998. File No. 402/3682/98 was opened in his name. After
receipt of clearance from police, a decision was taken to issue a
passport to Prem Chand Singh. Kundan Singh (A-1) was the
passport writer who was entrusted with the task of writing the
passport of Prem Chand Singh on 07.08.1998.
5. Accused Kundan Singh (A-1) was entrusted with 40 blank
passports booklets from Sr. No. A-5885031 to A-5885070 by
Hans Raj, Superintendent on 07.08.1998 for writing the passport
on the basis of the files received by Kundan Singh (A-1) from the
Grant Section. The said files included the file of Prem Chand
Singh. Kundan Singh (A-1) wrote passport booklet no. A-
5885047 in the name of Prem Chand Singh and made
corresponding entries in the Passport Writing Register (D-10)
which contained details like name, address, place of birth, name
of relatives etc. Kundan Singh (A-1) also affixed requisite rubber
stamps, including the stamp of Daya Ram, Superintendent who
was supposed to sign the passport. Thereafter, all the 40
passports alongwith their files, including the passport of Prem
Chand Singh, were handed over to Hemwant Kumar (A-2),
Incharge, Lamination and Pasting Section after obtaining
acknowledgment.
6. Hemwant Kumar (A-2) was responsible for pasting
photograph and signatures slip of the applicants after taking it out
from the passport file which also contained the application form
and police verification report, both having applicant’s
photograph on it. In pursuance of criminal conspiracy between
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 5 of 57
RC-6A/2002 Digitally signed
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. by NISHANT
NISHANT GARG
GARG Date:
2025.03.11
16:04:22 +0530
Kundan Singh (A-1) and Hemwant Kumar (A-2), Hemwant
Kumar (A-2) instead of pasting the photograph of Prem Chand
Singh (which was in black and white), pasted photograph of
some other person. He also pasted the signature slip of N.K.
Verma instead of Prem Chand Singh, the actual applicant.
Accused Kundan Singh (A-1) and Hemwant Kumar (A-2) also
managed to erase the name and particulars of Prem Chand Singh
and ‘got written’ the name and particulars of Naram Bhai Verma
on the passport. The accused also ‘got changed’ file no.
402/3682/98 of Prem Chand Singh to file no. 402/4127/98.
Before laminating the passport, a bogus cross signature purported
to have been affixed by Daya Ram, Superintendent was made on
the top corner of the photograph though such a system of cross
signatures had been discontinued. The passport no. A-5885047
was never dispatched and was never received by Prem Chand
Singh.
7. Similarly, one Bhupinder Singh had also applied for
passport in Passport Office, Ghaziabad on 23.04.1998; file no.
402/4522/98 was opened in his name; after receipt of clearance
from police authorities, a decision was taken to issue a passport
to him. Kundan Singh (A-1), Passport Writer, was assigned the
task of writing the passport of Bhupinder Singh on 14.08.1998.
Hans Raj, Superintendent entrusted 40 blank passport booklets
from Sr. No. A-5885393 to A-5885432 to Kundan Singh (A-1)
on 14.08.1998 on the basis of the files received from Grant
Section which included the file of Bhupinder Singh. Kundan
Singh (A-1) wrote the passport booklet no. A-5885406 in the
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 6 of 57
RC-6A/2002 Digitally signed
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. by NISHANT
NISHANT GARG
GARG Date:
2025.03.11
16:04:32 +0530
name of Bhupinder Singh and made corresponding entries in the
Passport Writing Register. He also affixed requisite rubber
stamps including the stamp of Hans Raj, Superintendent who was
supposed to sign the passport. Thereafter, all 40 passports with
their files including the passport of Bhupinder Singh, were
handed over to Hemwant Kumar (A-2), Incharge, Lamination
and Pasting Section after obtaining acknowledgment.
8. Hemwant Kumar (A-2) was required to paste the
photograph and signature slip of the applicant after taking it out
from the passport file which also contained the application form
and police verification report, both having the photographs of the
applicants. However, instead of pasting photograph of Bhupinder
Singh (which was in black and white), Hemwant Kumar (A-2)
pasted photograph of another person and signature slip of N.
Joshi. Accused Kundan Singh (A-1) and Hemwant Kumar (A-2),
in pursuance of criminal conspiracy, also managed to erase the
name and particulars of Bhupinder Singh on the passport and
wrote the name and particulars of Narang Joshi on it. They also
changed the file no. 402/4522/98 of Bhupinder Singh to read as
402/2615/98. Before laminating the passport, a bogus cross
signature purported to have been affixed by Hans Raj,
Superintendent, was made on the top corner of the photograph,
despite the fact that such practice had been dispensed with in the
year 1997. The passport no. A-5885406 was never dispatched
and was never received by the applicant Bhupinder Singh.
9. During investigation, expert of Central Forensic Science
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 7 of 57
RC-6A/2002
Digitally signed
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. by NISHANT
NISHANT GARG
GARG Date: 2025.03.11
16:04:42 +0530
Laboratory, New Delhi confirmed that the laminated portion of
the two passports was never opened which confirmed that
forgery was done within the Passport Office, Ghaziabad before
lamination. Handwriting expert confirmed that signatures of
Daya Ram and Hans Raj on the passports were forged.
Handwriting expert further confirmed that writing on page no. 1
of passport no. A-5885406 was that of accused Kundan Singh
(A-1). Writing of accused Kundan Singh (A-1) was also
confirmed by the officials of Passport Office on both the
passports.
10. Passport no. A-5885406 in the name of Narang Joshi was
found to have been submitted in the US Embassy for obtaining
visa of USA on 06.10.1998 and 15.10.1998. The visa was
declined by US Embassy and thus, an attempt was made to use
the forged passport no. A-5885406.
11. Original passport file no. 402/3682/98 of Prem Chand
Singh and file no. 402/4522/98 of Bhupinder Singh could not be
traced from the Passport Office, Ghaziabad; only the index card
of the said files could be located from a separate section and thus,
the said files were removed from the Passport Office, Ghaziabad
with a view to cause disappearance of evidence.
12. Both the forged passports reached the hands of Anita
Umrao @ Anu Aggarwal (A-3) and were found in her
possession. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet
was filed in the court.
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 8 of 57
RC-6A/2002 Digitally signed
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. by NISHANT
NISHANT GARG
GARG Date:
2025.03.11
16:04:53 +0530
CHARGE
13. Copy of the charge-sheet and accompanying documents
were supplied to accused Kundan Singh (A-1) and Hemwant
Kumar (A-2) on 31.05.2005. Finding a prima facie case, charge
for commission of offences punishable under Section 420, 467,
468, 474 and 201 IPC and Section 12 (1) (b) of the Passports Act,
1967 were framed against accused Kundan Singh (A-1) and
Hemwant Kumar (A-2) vide order dated 16.10.2007.
14. During trial, accused Anita Umrao @ Anu Aggarwal (A-3)
was arrested on 24.03.2015 and a supplementary charge-sheet for
commission of offence punishable under Section 174-A IPC was
filed against her. Copy of the charge-sheet and accompanying
documents were supplied to accused Anita Umrao (A-3) vide
orders dated 22.04.2015 and 15.07.2015. Vide order dated
02.06.2016, charge for offences under Section 120B IPC r/w
Section 420/467/468/201 IPC, Section 474 IPC and Section 12
(2) r/w Section 12 (1) (b) of the Passports Act, 1967 were
directed to be framed against her. She was, however, discharged
for offence under Section 174 A IPC.
EVIDENCE
15. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined the
following witnesses:-
i. PW1 Jeevan Lal- An official posted at Passport Office,
Ghaziabad. He described the procedure for issuance of a
passport. He proved his letters Ex. PW1/1 (D-13) andCC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 9 of 57
RC-6A/2002 Digitally signed
by NISHANT
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. GARG
NISHANT Date:
GARG 2025.03.11
16:05:03
+0530
PW1/12 (D-25) vide which he provided various documents
to CBI. He was also a witness to the specimen stamp
impressions of the Passport Office and specimen
handwriting of Dayaram.
ii. PW2 Prem Chand Singh- the original applicant with
respect to whom file no. 402/3682/98 was opened. He
deposed that he had applied for a passport; someone had
come to his house for the purpose of verification but he did
not get his passport.
iii. PW3 Bhupinder Singh- the original applicant with respect
to whom file no. 402/4522/98 was opened. He deposed
that he and his family members had applied for passports;
while all other family members received their passports, he
did not receive his passport; some police official had
visited his house for the purpose of verification.
iv. PW4 Subedar Singh- the official posted at the counter of
Passport Office, Ghaziabad to receive the application
forms and make its entry in the register. He proved
diary no. 402/2615/98 on the application of Alok Punj Ex.
PW1/2 and its corresponding entry in the diary register (D-
9) Ex.PW1/5. He informed that after receiving the
application, the application is forwarded to Index Section,
Administration Section and for police verification. He
proved the relevant entry on the rubber stamp register Ex.
PW4/1 through which a stamp was issued to him. He
informed that at the time of shifting of the Passport Office,
one of the stamps had got lost; since he was posted at the
Counter where stamp was not required, he did not get
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 10 of 57
RC-6A/2002
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. Digitally signed
by NISHANT
NISHANT GARG
GARG Date: 2025.03.11
16:05:13 +0530
another stamp issued.
v. PW5 Salauddin Faruqi- posted as Passport Officer at RPO,
Ghaziabad at the relevant time. He proved the office orders
Ex. PW5/A and Ex. PW5/B issued by him as per which
accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2) was deputed to attend
enquiries at the counter and pasting of passports. In his
initial examination, he could not identify the signatures of
Dayaram and Hansraj, Superintendents on the passports
no. A5885047 Ex. PW6/A and no. A5885406 Ex. PW3/A.
In his subsequent examination, he stated that the signatures
of Dayaram and Hansraj appearing on these passports were
forged.
vi. PW6 Krishan Kumar- LDC in RPO, Ghaziabad during the
relevant time deposed that the signatures of Hansraj
and Dayaram appearing on passports no. A5885047 Ex.
PW6/A and no. 5885406 Ex. PW3/A were forged. He
further deposed that round stamps were issued in the name
of Subedar Singh and Hemwant Kumar (A-2). The
witness, however, did not identify the handwriting in seven
lines of passports no. A-5885047 Ex. PW6/A. The witness
was declared hostile by the Ld. APP but in his cross-
examination, he denied that the writings appearing at point
‘X’ to ‘X1’ (Q8 & Q14) on passport Ex. PW3/A and at
point ‘Y’ to ‘Y1’ (Q1 & Q7) on passport Ex. PW6/A to be
that of accused Kundan Singh (A-1).
vii. PW7 V.K. Verma- an official posted at RPO, Ghaziabad.
He deposed that he had worked in various sections of the
Passport Office; he described the procedure for obtaining a
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Digitally signed Page No. 11 of 57
RC-6A/2002 by NISHANT
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. NISHANT GARG
GARG Date:
2025.03.11
16:05:21 +0530
passport; he proved the entry no. 4127 in the name of
Harjinder Singh in the register Ex. PW1/5 (D-9), index
card in the name of Harjinder Singh Ex. PW7/A (D-12)
and other documents. He did not identify the handwriting
of accused Kundan Singh (A-1) on points ‘X’ to ‘X1’ (Q8
& Q14) on passport Ex. PW3/A and at point ‘Y’ to ‘Y1’
(Q1 & Q7) on passport Ex. PW6/A. He was declared
hostile by the Ld. APP but he denied that he ever gave
such a statement to the CBI.
viii. PW8 Smt. Rajinder Kaur- She is the wife of Harjinder
Singh, the original passport applicant with respect to
whom file no. 402/4127/98 was opened. She deposed that
her husband had applied for a passport but did not receive
it; she alongwith her husband had come to the Passport
Office, Ghaziabad where they were informed that the
original application form was not traceable and they were
advised to give a fresh application which they did.
ix. PW9 Hansraj- The Superintendent, Passport Office,
Ghaziabad at the relevant time. He deposed that his duty
was to grant passport, signing of passport, dealing with the
applicants, administration of the office and Drawing and
Disbursing Officer of the office. He described the
procedure for obtaining a passport. He denied his
signatures on the passport no. A-5885406 Ex. PW3/A. He
also stated that the passport no. A-5885047 Ex. PW6/A do
not bear signatures of the other Superintendent Dayaram.
He did not identify the initials/signatures appearing at
point ‘C’ under the dates 07.08.1998 and 14.08.1998 in theCC No. CBI/309/2019 Digitally signed by Page No. 12 of 57
RC-6A/2002 NISHANT NISHANT GARG
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. GARG Date: 2025.03.11
16:05:30 +0530
Passport Distribution Section to Pasting Register Ex.
PW1/7 (D-11). He was declared hostile and was cross-
examined by the Ld. APP. However, he denied having
identified the signatures at point ‘C’ to be that of Hemwant
Kumar (A-2).
x. PW10 Majid Ali- an official from RPO, Ghaziabad. He
proved the report Ex. PW10/A as per which it was stated
that the original stock register of the year 1998 was not
traceable.
xi. PW11 Prem Singh- an official posted at RPO, Ghaziabad
at the relevant time. He deposed that the purported
signature of Superintendents Hansraj and Dayaram
appearing on the passports Ex. PW3/A and Ex. PW6/A
were not their genuine signatures. He proved various office
orders. He did not identify the handwriting on the
passports no. A5885047 Ex. PW6/A and no. A5885406
Ex. PW3/A to be that of Kundan Singh (A-1). He was
declared hostile by the Ld. APP and was cross-examined.
He reiterated that he could not identify the handwriting of
Kundan Singh (A-1) on passports Ex. PW6/A and Ex.
PW3/A.
xii. PW12 Krishan Kumar- an official of the RPO, Ghaziabad
at the relevant time. He deposed that he had joined as a
Casual Labour on 02.03.1998; accused Hemwant Kumar
(A-2) was working as a Peon in the said office; he never
worked with accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2).
xiii. PW13 Anil Kansal- a resident of Village Muzaffra
Bagarpur, District Hapur, UP. He proved the report Ex.
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 13 of 57
RC-6A/2002 Digitally signed
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. NISHANT by NISHANT
GARG
GARG Date: 2025.03.11
16:05:39 +0530
PW13/A of the then Pradhan, Gram Panchayat to the effect
that no person in the name of Naram Bhai Verma was
residing in the said village.
xiv. PW14 Parsoon Malviya- an official in the RPO,
Ghaziabad. He proved seizure memo Ex. PW14/A vide
which he had provided some documents to the CBI.
xv. PW15 Sangeeta Saxena- the Branch Manager, HDFC
Bank, Old Rajender Nagar, New Delhi where accused
Anita Umrao (A-3) was maintaining her locker. She
facilitated search of the locker and proved the inventory
memo Ex. PW15/A (D-2).
xvi. PW16 Ashok Kumar Amrohi- Chief Passport Officer and
Sanctioning Authority with respect to the offences
committed under the Passports Act, 1967. He proved the
sanction order Ex. PW16/A.
xvii. PW17 G.M. Ansari- He proved his verification report Ex.
PW17/B (D-32) as per which he tried to ascertain the
whereabouts of Narang Joshi but no such person was
found to be living in the locality.
xviii. PW18 Sunit Kumar Sharma- Witness to specimen
handwritings Ex. PW18/B of accused Kundan Singh (A-1).
Proved seizure memo Ex. PW14/A through which
documents were handed over to the CBI.
xix. PW19 Anand Vats- Independent witness to the specimen
handwriting of accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2)
Ex. PW19/A.
xx. PW20 Sant Pal- Independent witness to the specimen
handwritings of accused Kundan Singh (A-1) andCC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 14 of 57
RC-6A/2002
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. Digitally signed
by NISHANT
NISHANT GARG
GARG Date: 2025.03.11
16:05:46 +0530
Hemwant Kumar (A-2).
xxi. PW21 ASI Joginder Singh- Constable in CBI deputed to
execute the processes in the name of Naram Bhai Verma
and Narang Joshi.
xxii. PW22 Rajender Singh Gosain- proved inventory
memo/search memo of locker no. 42 Ex. PW15/A and
identified his signatures on it.
xxiii. PW23 S.L. Mukhi- Principal Scientific Officer, CFSL,
New Delhi. He proved his reports Ex. PW23/E,
Ex. PW23/G, Ex. PW23/I and Ex. PW23/K alongwith
various other documents.
xxiv. PW24 Dr. Bibha Rani Ray- Director, CFSL, New Delhi
conducted polygraph test of accused Hemwant Kumar
(A-2) and gave her opinion Ex. PW24/B.
xxv. PW25 Rajesh Monga- Surety for accused Anita Umrao
(A-3).
xxvi. PW26 Karnail Singh- The complainant and first
Investigating Officer.
xxvii. PW27 Anant Shankar Bawkar- Manager, Suyog Konkan
Sahakari Vasahat Cooperative Housing Society where
accused Anita Umrao was residing. He proved his letter
Ex. PW27/A through which certain documents were
handed over to the CBI.
xxviii. PW28 Javed Siraj- Investigating Officer.
xxix. PW29 Ram Niwas Maharia- proved execution report
Ex. PW29/1, proclamation notice Ex. PW29/2, execution
report of notice under Section 82 CrPC Ex. PW29/3, report
of the owner of the address of accused Anita Umrao (A-3)CC No. CBI/309/2019 Digitally signed Page No. 15 of 57
RC-6A/2002
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS.
NISHANT by NISHANT
GARG
GARG Date: 2025.03.11
16:05:55 +0530
Ex. PW29/4, execution report of notice under Section 82
CrPC Ex. PW29/5, report of the Chairman, Konkan
Sahakari Vasahat Cooperative Housing Society
Ex. PW29/6 and his letter Ex. PW29/7 seeking assistance
of Mumbai Police.
xxx. PW30 Bachu Singh- proved letter Ex. PW30/1 of the SP,
CBI for attachment of the property of accused Anita
Umrao (A-3). He also proved his report Ex. PW30/2 in this
regard.
xxxi. PW31 Balbir Singh- filed supplementary charge-sheet
against accused Anita Umrao (A-3) for offence under
Section 174-A.
16. Thereafter, on an application moved by the Ld. PP, the
prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 05.12.2024.
Statements of the accused persons under Section 313 CrPC were
recorded.
STATEMENTS U/S 313 CrPC
17. Accused Kundan Singh (A-1) in his statement under
Section 313 CrPC, while denying the allegations against him,
claimed that while handing over the 40 passports to the
Superintendent, a covering letter in duplicate is attached to
ensure that all 40 passports reach the Superintendent. He
admitted that file no. 402/3682/98 of Prem Chand Singh and file
no. 402/4522/98 of Bhupinder Singh had come before him for
writing but no file of Alok Punj no. 402/2615/98 or Harjinder
Singh no. 402/4127/98 was given to him for writing. He claimed
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 16 of 57
RC-6A/2002
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. Digitally signed
by NISHANT
GARG
NISHANT Date:
GARG 2025.03.11
16:06:03
+0530
that particulars in the passports of Prem Chand Singh and
Bhupinder Singh had been correctly filled by him and the
changes, if any, were made subsequent thereto. He further
claimed that his specimen signatures were forcibly taken and
neither PW- K.K. Verma or PW- Sant Pal were present at that
time. He partially disputed the report of expert PW23 S.L. Mukhi
and claimed that he had himself admitted his handwriting on the
passport marked as ‘Q5’ and ‘Q12’. He disputed his handwriting
in the second, third, fourth and fifth line of portion marked ‘Q8’
in the passport no. A5885406 Ex. PW3/A.
18. Accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2), in his 313 CrPC
statement denied the allegations against him and stated that being
an official posted in the Lamination and Pasting Section, he was
only required to paste the photograph and laminate the passport
without going into the contents of the file. He denied having
pasted photographs on the passports no. A5885047 Ex. PW6/A
and no. A5885406 Ex. PW3/A. He claimed that since there was
no evidence against him, he was subjected to a polygraph test
and a biased report was filed at the instance of CBI.
19. Accused Anita Umrao (A-3), in her statement under
Section 313 CrPC, also denied the allegations against her. She
claimed that she did not know Naram Bhai Verma or Narang
Joshi; the sanction order Ex. PW16/A is illegal and unlawful; she
had no connection with accused Kundan Singh (A-1) and
Hemwant Kumar (A-2); she never jumped bail; nothing
incriminating was recovered from her or from her bank locker;
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 17 of 57
Digitally signed
RC-6A/2002 by NISHANT
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. NISHANT GARG
GARG Date:
2025.03.11
16:06:11 +0530
the two passports in question were planted upon her; she has not
been benefitted monetarily; she has no connection whatsoever
with the Passport Office, Ghaziabad; her locker was operated in
her absence; the bank log book has not been produced; she
neither forged any passport nor used the passports in question.
20. In defence, accused Kundan Singh (A-1) examined DW1
Majid Ali, a Casual Labour (Peon) in the Passport Office,
Ghaziabad during the year 1997. He detailed the procedure for
issuance of a passport. Besides this, accused Kundan Singh (A-1)
also examined an expert witness DW2 Devak Ram, who gave his
opinion Ex. DW2/1 on the handwriting marked ‘Q8/1’ appearing
on the passport Ex. PW3/A. Accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2) and
Anita Umrao (A-3) did not lead any evidence in defence.
Thereafter, the defence evidence was closed vide order dated
23.01.2025.
21. I have heard the Ld. PP for the CBI and the Ld. counsels
appearing on behalf of the accused persons.
ARGUMENTS
22. Ld. PP for the CBI submitted that the prosecution has led
sufficient evidence to establish criminal conspiracy between the
accused persons pursuant to which forged passports were
prepared by accused Kundan Singh (A-1) and accused Hemwant
Kumar (A-2) at the behest of accused Anita Umrao (A-3).
Accused Kundan Singh (A-1) was responsible for writing the
passport and the report of GEQD categorically states that the
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 18 of 57
RC-6A/2002
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. Digitally signed
NISHANT by NISHANT
GARG
GARG Date: 2025.03.11
16:06:20 +0530
writing on the passport is his. He further urged that so far as
accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2) is concerned, he was subjected
to polygraph test and the report of polygraph test clearly shows
that he gave false answers to the questions which could have
implicated him in the present case. He submitted that the result of
polygraph test is substantive evidence against accused Hemwant
Kumar (A-2). With respect to accused Anita Umrao (A-3), Ld.
PP for the CBI submitted that the passports were recovered from
her locker in the presence of independent witnesses; one of the
passports were deposited in US Embassy which shows that an
attempt was made to send some person abroad on the basis of the
said forged passport and thus, accused Anita Umrao (A-3)
knowingly used the forged passport. Hence, all the accused
persons are liable to be convicted. Reliance has been placed on
Shadakshari vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2024, C. Muniappan
& Ors. vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Leela Ram through Duli
Chand vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (copies not placed on record).
23. Ld. counsel for accused Kundan Singh (A-1), on the other
hand, argued that the sanction accorded for prosecution is not
proper; that accused Kundan Singh (A-1) was merely a peon in
the Passport Office, Ghaziabad at the relevant time; he was
deputed to write the passports assigned to him; accused Kundan
Singh (A-1) wrote the two passports in question in the normal
course of his duties and filled in the details as mentioned in the
files submitted to him and thereafter handed over the passports
alongwith their files to the Lamination and Pasting Section; the
forgery, if any, must have taken place after accused Kundan
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 19 of 57
Digitally signed
RC-6A/2002 by NISHANT
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. NISHANT GARG
GARG Date:
2025.03.11
16:06:28 +0530
Singh (A-1) had placed the file before the Pasting and
Lamination Section or thereafter.
24. Ld. counsel for accused Kundan Singh (A-1) further
submitted that accused Kundan Singh (A-1) had received the
files, including the file of Prem Chand Singh and Bhupinder
Singh alongwith several passports, including passport no.
A5885047 Ex. PW6/A and passport no. A5885406 Ex. PW3/A;
he had filled the requisite details in accordance with the files of
Prem Chand Singh and Bhupinder Singh; he admits his
handwriting on the portion marked ‘Q5’, ‘Q12’, first, sixth and
seventh line of ‘Q8’ and the first and last line of ‘Q1’ on the
passports Ex. PW3/A and Ex. PW6/A; he had informed this fact
to the IO as well. However, the remaining forged portions of the
passports were not written by him which is evident from bare
comparison. Ld. counsel for the accused further submitted that
the words “Modinagar” appearing in fifth line of ‘Q8’ though are
in the handwriting of accused Kundan Singh (A-1), however, the
words “Khanjarpur” were deleted from this portion. He further
submitted that the report submitted by the GEQD is not proper
and no conclusive findings have been given against accused
Kundan Singh (A-1); the IO has carried out tainted investigation
in order to shield the Sr. Officers of Passport Office; none of the
witnesses examined by the prosecution have proved handwriting
of accused Kundan Singh (A-1) on disputed portions of the
passport.
25. Ld. counsel for accused Kundan Singh (A-1) further
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Digitally signed Page No. 20 of 57
RC-6A/2002 by NISHANT
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. NISHANT GARG
GARG Date:
2025.03.11
16:06:36 +0530
submitted that the IO has intentionally not seized the requisite
file movement registers maintained at the Passport Office,
Ghaziabad which would have shown that accused Kundan Singh
(A-1) had received the files in the normal course of his duties and
after filling the details, had handed over the passports and files to
the next Section i.e. Lamination and Pasting Section. He further
submitted that the passports in question never reached the
Superintendent concerned and it was the duty of the
Superintendent to ensure that all passports issued by him for the
purpose of writing reached back to him for signing; the
Superintendent was under an obligation to check the details
mentioned in the passport with those in the file and only
thereafter send the passport for dispatch. He further submitted
that evidence has come on record that due receiving was taken by
the Passport Writing Section, Lamination and Pasting Section as
well as by the Superintendent before handing over the file to the
next section but the same have not been seized by the IO
deliberately. Reliance has been placed on the following
judgments:-
(i) CBI vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (2014 Crl. L.L.J. 930);
(ii) Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan vs. State of Gujarat [1997
(7) SCC 622];
(iii) P.L. Tatwal vs. State of M.P. [(2014) AIR SC 2369];
(iv) State of T. N. vs. M.M. Rajendran: (1998) 9 SCC 268;
(v) Magan Bihari Lal vs. State of Punjab [1977] 2 S.C.R.
1007;
(vi) Padum Kumar vs. State of UP (2020) 1 SCR 57;
(vii) S.P.S. Rathore vs. CBI & Anr. [2016 (4) JCC 2687];
(viii) State of Maharashtra vs. Sukhdeo Singh & Ors. 1992 SCR
(3) 480;
(ix) Vinod Kumar vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [2025
INSC 209];
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 21 of 57
RC-6A/2002 Digitally signed
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. NISHANT by NISHANT
GARG
GARG Date: 2025.03.11
16:06:44 +0530
(x) State of U.P. vs. Charles Gurmukh Sobhraj [AIR 1996 SC
3473];
(xi) Munshi Prasad & Ors. vs. State of Bihar AIR 2001 SC
3031 ;
(xii) State of Haryana vs. Ram Singh (Criminal Appeal No. 78
of 1999) [2002 Crl. L.J. 987];
(xiii) Tomaso Bruno & Anr. vs. State of U.P. (2015) 1 SCR 721;
(xiv) Mohanlal Shamji Soni vs. Union of India (AIR 1991 SC
1346);
(xv) State of Rajasthan through P.P. vs. Chandrabhan 2025;RJ-
JD: 6198.
26. Ld. counsel for accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2) submitted
that he was merely responsible for pasting of photographs after
taking it out from the file; he was not responsible for tallying the
details from the file with those entered in the passport; on receipt
of a passport and its file, he merely took out the photograph and
signatures of the applicant from the file and pasted it on the
passport and thereafter laminated it. After lamination, he placed
the file before the Superintendent concerned and was left with no
concern with the file or the passport. In the present case, accused
Hemwant Kumar (A-2) did not paste the photographs or
laminated the passports no. A5885047 Ex. PW6/A and no.
A5885406 Ex. PW3/A. The polygraph test was conducted upon
him as there was no other evidence against him; the report of
polygraph test is biased and was prepared at the instance of the
CBI; the said report cannot be made the sole basis of the
conviction, hence, the accused is entitled to be acquitted.
Reliance has been placed on:
(i) State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Sheetla Sahai & Ors. arising
out of Cr. Appeal No. …of 2009 arising out of SLP (Crl.)
No. 4130 of 2006 decided on 04.08.2009 (Supreme Court);
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 22 of 57
RC-6A/2002 Digitally signed
by NISHANT
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. GARG
NISHANT Date:
GARG 2025.03.11
16:06:53
+0530
(ii) Smt. Selvi & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka (AIR 2010 SC
1974) ;
(iii) Kailash Gour & Ors. vs. State of Assam (Crl. Appeal No.
1068 of 2006) decided on 15.12.2011 (Supreme Court);
(iv) Yogarani vs. State by the Inspector of Police 2024 INSC
721; and
(v) Dudh Nath Pandey vs. The State of U.P. 1981 SCR (2)
771.
27. Ld. counsel for accused Anita Umrao (A-3) submitted that
the passports in question were not recovered from the locker of
accused Anita Umrao (A-3) and were not in her possession; the
passports have been planted upon her by the CBI; locker search
was conducted in the absence of accused Anita Umrao (A-3) and
this fact was admitted by the CBI while filing reply to her bail
application; no evidence has been led to connect her with other
accused persons; no conspiracy between her and other accused
persons has been established; nothing has been shown if she ever
deposited this passport in any Embassy or tried to use it at any
time. Hence, she is entitled to the acquitted.
28. I have considered the rival submissions and have gone
through the case file. I have also gone through the judgments and
the written submissions placed on record by the parties.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
29. To better appreciate the evidence, it is desirable to describe
the procedure for issuance of a passport followed at the Passport
Office, Ghaziabad during the relevant time, as culled out from
the testimonies of various witnesses examined by the parties. It is
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 23 of 57
RC-6A/2002 Digitally signed
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. by NISHANT
NISHANT GARG
GARG Date:
2025.03.11
16:07:02 +0530
relevant to note here that as mentioned in the letter dated
21.06.2002 (D-25) Ex. PW1/12, no fixed procedure/guidelines
were followed at the Passport Office, Ghaziabad.
30. An applicant desiring a passport was first required to
submit the duly filled application form alongwith requisite
documents and fee receipt at the counter at RPO, Ghaziabad. The
application was assigned a unique file number. A corresponding
entry was made in the register kept for this purpose at the counter
(D-9). Thereafter, the personal particulars form of the applicant
was sent for police verification. The passport file was sent to
Index Section for screening/indexing/warning check etc.
Thereafter, the file was sent to Dealing Section for linking of
reports. After processing, the file was sent to Passport Issuing
Authority (PIA). In case, a decision was taken to grant passport
to an applicant, the file was sent to Dealing Section for further
action. The Dealing Section sends the file to Passport Writing
Section. The Superintendent concerned used to issue a lot of 40
passports to the Passport Writing Section for the purpose of
writing the passports with respect to the approved files. The
Passport Writing Section was required to fill in the details in
accordance with the details available in the application/file and
thereafter placed the file alongwith the passport before the
Lamination and Pasting Section. The officials concerned at the
Lamination and Pasting Section were required to take out the
photograph and signatures of the applicant from their files and
paste it in the passports. After pasting of the photographs and
signatures, the passport used to be laminated at the Lamination
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 24 of 57
RC-6A/2002
Digitally signed
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. by NISHANT
NISHANT GARG
GARG Date: 2025.03.11
16:07:09 +0530
and Pasting Section. After this, the laminated passport alongwith
its file used to be placed before the Superintendent concerned,
who, after tallying the details filled in the passports from the file
of the applicant used to sign the passports and thereafter send the
passports for dispatch in the Dispatch Section.
Role of accused Kundan Singh (A-1)
31. The prosecution case is that the original applicants Prem
Chand Singh and Bhupinder Singh had applied for passports at
RPO, Ghaziabad; they were allotted files no. 402/3682/98 and
402/4522/98 respectively; after receipt of police verification, a
decision was taken to grant passports to Prem Chand singh and
Bhupinder Singh; thereafter, the files bearing no. 402/3682/98 in
the name of Prem Chand Singh and file no. 402/4522/98 in the
name of Bhupinder Singh were sent to accused Kundan Singh
(A-1) for writing on 07.08.1998 and 14.08.1998 respectively. On
07.08.1998 and 14.08.1998, the Superintendent Hans Raj had
issued 40 passport booklets to Kundan Singh (A-1) including
passport no. A5885047 Ex. PW6/A and passport no. A5885406
Ex. PW3/A. Accused Kundan Singh (A-1) filled in the details in
both the passports in the names of Prem Chand Singh and
Bhupinder Singh and made corresponding entries in the Passport
Writing Register (D-10). As per the prevalent practice, he also
affixed the stamps of Superintendent Daya Ram and thereafter,
handed over all the files and passports to accused Hemwant
Kumar (A-2), Incharge, Lamination and Pasting Section after
obtaining acknowledgment. At the Lamination and Pasting
Section, pursuant to the criminal conspiracy, accused Hemwant
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 25 of 57
RC-6A/2002
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. Digitally signed
by NISHANT
NISHANT GARG
GARG Date:
2025.03.11
16:07:17 +0530
Kumar (A-2) instead of pasting the photographs and signatures of
Prem Chand Singh and Bhupinder Singh, pasted the signatures of
N.K. Verma and Narang Joshi and the photographs of some
unknown person in different poses. Accused Kundan Singh (A-1)
and Hemwant Kumar (A-2) managed to erase the name and
particulars of Prem Chand Singh and Bhupinder Singh and “got
written” the names of Naram Bhai Verma and Narang Joshi
respectively. The files no. 402/3682/98 and 402/4522/98 were
also changed to 402/4127/98 and 402/2615/98 respectively.
32. At the outset, it is relevant to note that the original files no.
402/3682/98 of Prem Chand Singh and file no. 402/4522/98 of
Bhupinder Singh have not been traced. The prosecution case is
that the said files have not been traced as they were removed
from the Passport Office, Ghaziabad with a view to cause
disappearance of evidence with an intention to screen the
offenders. Thus, the files of original applicants Prem Chand
Singh and Bhupinder Singh have not seen the light of the day.
Despite a specific query, the Ld. PP or the IO were unable to
point out as to what led the investigating agency to conclude that
the passports no. A5885047 Ex. PW6/A and no. A5885406 Ex.
PW3/A were originally written for Prem Chand Singh and
Bhupinder Singh (even though, the conclusion appears to have
been rightly drawn as the addresses of Prem Chand Singh and
Bhupinder Singh, as mentioned on their index cards marked ‘A’
and Ex. PW1/4 respectively are mentioned in the passports).
Similarly, it is not clear as to how the fact that file no.
402/3682/98 was changed to 402/4127/98 and file no.
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 26 of 57
RC-6A/2002 Digitally signed
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. by NISHANT
NISHANT GARG
GARG Date:
2025.03.11
16:07:25 +0530
402/4522/98 was changed to 402/2615/98 came to the notice of
the IO, particularly when as per the prosecution, the passports
and files of Prem Chand Singh and Bhupinder Singh were placed
neither before the Superintendent nor before the IO. These file
numbers did not find mention on the passports Ex. PW6/A and
Ex. PW3/A also. No document/register is on record to show that
the passports Ex. PW3/A and Ex. PW6/A were originally allotted
to be written for files no. 402/3682/98 and 402/4522/98. The
entire charge-sheet is silent on this aspect.
33. A preliminary enquiry was conducted before the
registration of the present FIR. Seemingly, these facts were
determined during the preliminary enquiry itself. However, no
preliminary enquiry report has been placed or proved by the
prosecution. PW26 Karnail Singh, who had conducted the
preliminary enquiry and was also the first investigating officer of
this case, in his court statement, merely deposed that in the
preliminary enquiry, it was found that two passports bearing
similar photographs were recovered from the locker of accused
Anita Umrao (A-3); the file reference numbers of Prem Chand
Singh and Bhupinder Singh were changed while indexing and
passports were issued in the name of fictitious persons Naram
Bhai Verma and Narang Joshi. The witness was thus clearly
aware that during the preliminary enquiry, it was ascertained by
the investigating agency that manipulation had taken place in the
files of original applicants Prem Chand Singh and Bhupinder
Singh and the changes were made when the files were being
“indexed”. The meaning and purport of the term ‘indexed’ has
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 27 of 57
RC-6A/2002 Digitally signed
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. by NISHANT
NISHANT GARG
GARG Date:
2025.03.11
16:07:32 +0530
not been explained by any of the prosecution witnesses and it is
not clear what procedure used to be carried out during “indexing”
of the file. PW28 Javed Siraj in his cross-examination deposed
that he did not know what was the role of the Index Section in
the Passport Office and who was Incharge of this section. He
volunteered to add that the Index Section was maintaining the
index cards. The index cards of Prem Chand Singh mark ‘A’ and
Bhupinder Singh Ex. PW1/4 does not contain any manipulation
and bears the correct file numbers. Clearly, complete facts have
not been brought before the court and material facts, to this
extent have been concealed by the IO. Adverse inference is to be
drawn against the prosecution for withholding the preliminary
enquiry report, which was a material document.
34. Further, as per the charge-sheet, after receipt of clearance
from the police authorities, a decision was taken for granting
passports to Prem Chand Singh and Bhupinder Singh. Again,
nothing is decipherable from the charge-sheet as to what led the
IO to conclude that a police clearance was received with respect
to Prem Chand Singh and Bhupinder Singh and a decision was
taken in their favour to grant them the passports. Prem Chand
Singh, in his statement under Section 161 CrPC as well as in his
court statement merely deposed that he had applied for a passport
and someone had come for the purpose of verification at his
house. Similarly, PW3 Bhupinder Singh deposed that he and his
family members had applied for passports; whereas his family
members received their passports, he did not receive his. He
further deposed that some police official had visited his house for
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 28 of 57
RC-6A/2002 Digitally signed
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. by NISHANT
NISHANT GARG
GARG Date:
2025.03.11
16:07:40 +0530
the purpose of verification. Thus, even though, it can be said that
the personal particulars form of Prem Chand Singh and
Bhupinder Singh were sent for police verification, there is
nothing on record to show that a police clearance was infact
received at the Passport Office, Ghaziabad with respect to these
two persons. The charge-sheet is also silent as to who had taken
decision about grant of passports to Prem Chand Singh and
Bhupinder Singh and on what basis. Nothing is shown as to what
material was placed and considered by the officer concerned
before taking a decision to grant the passports. None of the
witnesses in their statements under Section 161 CrPC has
deposed about these facts.
35. Accused Kundan Singh (A-1) was issued 40 passports
each on 07.08.1998 and 14.08.1998. PW5 Salauddin Faruqui, an
official working in the Passport Office, Ghaziabad, deposed that
the blank passport booklets were in the custody of
Superintendent (Administration) and entries were made by the
Superintendent (Administration) while giving blank passports to
the clerk. PW9 Hans Raj, who was one of the Superintendents in
the Passport Office, Ghaziabad at the relevant time, in the cross-
examination admitted that the original ‘stock register’ vide which
blank passport booklets were used to be sent to the Passport
Writer has not been shown to him. PW28 Javed Siraj, the
Investigating Officer, in response to a specific question during
cross-examination stated that he did not remember if the register
showing entries made in respect of the two passports by the
Superintendent (Administration) to accused Kundan Singh (A-1)
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 29 of 57
RC-6A/2002 Digitally signed
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. by NISHANT
NISHANT GARG
GARG Date:
2025.03.11
16:07:50 +0530
was seized or not; he admitted that no such register was available
on record. He could not identify the handwriting and signatures
appearing in the entries under the dates 07.08.1998 and
14.08.1998 in the register (D-11). He admitted that passport
being a valuable document, registers were maintained at every
step detailing the movement of the passport from one section to
another including details of the persons handing over and
receiving the passport. Thus, from the testimonies of these
witnesses, it is clearly established that at the time of issuing 40
passports to the Passport Writer, requisite entries used to be made
in the ‘stock register’ specifically kept for this purpose. No such
‘stock register’ is on record.
36. The next allegation against accused Kundan Singh (A-1)
as per the charge-sheet is that he initially wrote the passport
booklet no. A5885047 in the name of Prem Chand Singh and
passport booklet no. A5885406 in the name of Bhupinder Singh.
He also made corresponding entries in the register Ex. PW1/6
(D-10).
37. Thus, as per the prosecution, initially, accused Kundan
Singh (A-1) had correctly filled the particulars of Prem Chand
Singh and Bhupinder Singh without any changes. Clearly, the
alleged criminal conspiracy between the accused persons did not
exist till this stage. Had there been any intention of forging the
passports on the part of accused Kundan Singh (A-1) till this
stage, he would not have filled the correct particulars of Prem
Chand Singh and Bhupinder Singh. He could have straightaway
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 30 of 57
RC-6A/2002 Digitally signed
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. by NISHANT
NISHANT GARG
GARG Date:
2025.03.11
16:07:58 +0530
filled in the particulars of Naram Bhai Verma and Narang Joshi
in order to obliterate the necessity of deleting the existing text
from the passports and thereafter to fill the fresh names and
details. Accused Kundan Singh (A-1) could have easily left the
relevant columns blank instead of filling the correct particulars.
Not only did accused Kundan Singh (A-1) filled up the passports
correctly, he also made corresponding entries in the “Passport
Distribution to Pasting Section Register” (D-10).
38. After filling up the passports and making requisite entry in
the register D-10, the passports and their files were handed over
to accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2). As per the prosecution case,
signatures of the official of Lamination and Pasting Section were
taken at the time of handing over of passports and the files in the
“Passport Distribution to Pasting Section Register” (D-11) Ex.
PW1/7.
39. This register was provided to the IO by PW1 Jeevan Lal
through his letter Ex. PW1/1. Nothing is stated as to who used to
maintain this register and in whose custody it remained. The
writing at several places in this register under different dates is
apparently of different persons. On the page bearing date
07.08.1998, there are three entries and these entries appear to be
in the handwriting of two different persons. On the page under
the date 14.08.1998, there are two entries in the name of two
persons but they both appear to be in the handwriting of a single
person. The entry at Sr. No. 2 under the date 07.08.1998 and the
entry at Sr. No. 1 under the date 14.08.1998 are stated to be that
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 31 of 57
RC-6A/2002 Digitally signed
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. by NISHANT
NISHANT GARG
GARG Date:
2025.03.11
16:08:08 +0530
of ‘admitted’ writing of accused Kundan Singh (A-1). However,
nothing is on record to show that accused Kundan Singh (A-1)
ever admitted the writing on this register to be his. In fact, the
entry at Sr. No. 2 under the date 07.08.1998 (portions marked
‘A’) and the entry at Sr. No. 1 under the date 14.08.1998 (portion
marked ‘A’) are apparently in the handwriting of different
persons. Thus, both the writings cannot be said to be the
‘admitted’ writing of accused Kundan Singh (A-1).
40. The contents of this register have not been proved as per
law. The register allegedly contains signatures of accused
Hemwant Kumar (A-2) against the entries in the name of Kundan
Singh (A-1) under the dates 07.08.1998 and 14.08.1998.
However, none of the prosecution witnesses have identified the
signatures appearing at portion marked ‘C’ in these registers
under the dates 07.08.1998 and 14.08.1998. PW9 Hans Raj, the
then Superintendent was shown the register Ex. PW1/7 (D-11).
He merely described the entries appearing under the dates
07.08.1998 and 14.08.1998 without giving any details as to who
used to make entries in this register, in whose custody this
register used to remain and whose signatures appear at the right
corner of the register against each entry. The witness did not
identify signatures at point ‘C’ in this register against the entry in
the name of Kundan Singh (A-1) under the dates 07.08.1998 and
14.08.1998. The witness was cross examined by the Ld. APP,
however, in the cross examination, the witness was not able to
recollect if he had told the CBI that the signatures appearing at
point ‘C’ were that of accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2).
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 32 of 57
RC-6A/2002 Digitally signed
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. by NISHANT
NISHANT GARG
GARG Date:
2025.03.11
16:08:16 +0530
41. The next allegation against accused Kundan Singh (A-1) is
that after filling the details in the passports in the name of Prem
Chand Singh and Bhupinder Singh, he handed over 40 passports
and their files to accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2), the Incharge,
Lamination and Pasting Section. There, pursuant to the criminal
conspiracy, they both managed to erase the name and particulars
of Prem Chand Singh and Bhupinder Singh and ‘got written’, the
names of Naram Bhai Verma and Narang Joshi. To prove these
allegations, the prosecution has placed strong reliance on the
reports of the handwriting expert PW23 S.L. Mukhi.
Reports of Handwriting Expert
42. As already discussed above, the prosecution case is that
initially both the passports were filled with the correct details of
the actual applicants by accused Kundan Singh (A-1). It was only
thereafter that accused Kundan Singh (A-1) and Hemwant
Kumar (A-2) changed the names and particulars of the applicants
to forge the passports. Thus, it was quite natural that the
handwriting in both the passports, where no forgery was required
to be committed, would be that was of accused Kundan Singh
(A-1). The IO sought opinion of the handwriting expert to
ascertain the handwriting, signatures, age of ink and stamps
appearing on the passports.
43. Initially, a letter dated 03.08.2002 Ex. PW23/A was
written to the CFSL containing 7 questions. In response to this
letter, PW23 S.L. Mukhi, the Handwriting Expert gave his report
Ex. PW23/E. As per this report, the signatures of Daya Ram and
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 33 of 57
RC-6A/2002
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS.
Digitally signed
NISHANT by NISHANT
GARG
GARG Date: 2025.03.11
16:08:25 +0530
Hans Raj appearing on the passports no. A5885047 Ex. PW6/A
and A5885406 Ex. PW3/A were not found to be that of Daya
Ram and Hans Raj. The handwriting appearing on the portion
marked ‘Q5’ and ‘Q12’ on the passports was found to be that of
accused Kundan Singh (A-1). The report further stated that the
word ‘N’ appearing before the word ‘G’ in the word ‘NARANG’
in ‘Q8’ was written after erasing the original letter at this place. It
was further reported that the word “NARAMBHAI” in ‘Q1’ was
written after physically erasing the original writing. The report
further stated that same shade of black ball pen was used in
writing ‘Q1’, ‘Q5’ and ‘Q7’ and same shade of black ball pen
was used in the writings ‘Q8’, ‘Q12’ and ‘Q14’.
44. Analysis of this report reveals that the writings on the
portioned marked as ‘Q5’ and ‘Q12’ on both the passports was
only attributed to accused Kundan Singh (A-1). The report does
not say that the forged signatures on the passports of Dayaram
and Hans Raj were put by accused Kundan Singh (A-1). With
respect to the writings appearing on the portion marked as ‘Q1’,
‘Q7’, ‘Q8’ and ‘Q14’, these were not attributed to accused
Kundan Singh (A-1) and it is only stated that the shade of black
ball pen ink used in all these writings was the same.
45. Pertinent to note is that so far as writings on the portion
marked as ‘Q5’ and ‘Q12’ are concerned, Kundan Singh (A-1)
has himself admitted the said writings to be his in his statement
under Section 313 CrPC. During arguments also, Ld. counsel for
accused Kundan Singh (A-1) admitted the said portions to be in
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Digitally signed Page No. 34 of 57
RC-6A/2002 by NISHANT
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. NISHANT GARG
GARG Date:
2025.03.11
16:08:34 +0530
the handwriting of accused Kundan Singh (A-1). Even the
prosecution case is that originally, the passports were filled with
the correct details by accused Kundan Singh (A-1). The portions
marked as ‘Q5’ and ‘Q12’ contain the correct particulars of
original applicants Prem Chand Singh and Bhupinder Singh and
it is not the case that any change was made in these writings after
erasing the original writings.
46. Thus, the report dated 25.10.2002 Ex. PW23/E does not
implicate accused Kundan Singh (A-1) to be the writer of the
handwriting ‘Q1’ and ‘Q8’ where changes were made after
erasing the original content. The report further also does not
attribute the writing at ‘Q7’ and ‘Q14’ to accused Kundan Singh
(A-1) where false particulars were filled.
47. The IO wrote another letter dated 30.10.2002 Ex. PW23/B
to the CFSL raising further queries with respect to ‘Q1’ to ‘Q7’
and ‘Q8’ to ‘Q14’. The Handwriting Expert PW23 S.L. Mukhi
submitted his second report dated 31.01.2003 Ex. PW23/G. As
per this report (Ex. PW23/G), the expert reiterated his earlier
findings in the report Ex. PW23/E. In addition, it was stated that
the handwriting appearing at ‘Q8’ (existing writing) was that of
accused Kundan Singh (A-1). With respect to the handwriting
appearing at ‘Q1’, no opinion was given by the expert.
48. I have carefully gone through the reports Ex. PW23/E and
Ex. PW23/G of the expert PW23 S.L. Mukhi. The expert had not
attributed the handwriting appearing at ‘Q8’ to accused Kundan
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 35 of 57
RC-6A/2002 Digitally signed
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. by NISHANT
NISHANT GARG
GARG Date:
2025.03.11
16:08:43 +0530
Singh (A-1). However, in his second report, he attributed all
seven lines of ‘Q8’ to accused Kundan Singh (A-1). The reasons
given by the expert for reaching this conclusion in both the
reports are substantially the same, except that the letters
appearing at several places in ‘Q8’ have been compared with the
specimen and admitted/specimen writings of accused Kundan
Singh (A-1).
49. The expert PW23 S.L. Mukhi refers to ‘Q8’ for the first
time in para III (iii) of the report Ex. PW23/G. Here, the capital
letter ‘M’ appearing in the word ‘Modinagar’ in ‘Q8’ and ‘Q12’
and the word ‘Muzaffra’ in ‘Q5’ are stated to be similar.
50. Next, the expert in para III (v) of the report compares the
letter ‘G’ appearing in the word ‘Ghaziabad’ in ‘Q5’, ‘Q8’ and
‘Q12’ and states it to be similar with the admitted writings. In
none of the other sub-paragraphs of para III is there any specific
reference to comparison of any letter/alphabet with ‘Q8’. The
report further states that the capital letters ‘V’, ‘U’, ‘P’, ‘N’, ‘O’
and ‘A’ have similar manner of execution. Similarity was also
observed in writing of numerals 9, 8 and 0. In rest of paragraph
III of the report Ex. PW23/G, the expert has primarily compared
a few small case letters appearing in the passport Ex. PW3/A.
51. Thus, it is seen that the expert PW23 S.L. Mukhi has
connected the writings appearing in all seven lines of ‘Q8’ with
accused Kundan Singh (A-1) primarily on the basis of capital
letters ‘M’, ‘G’, ‘N’, ‘A’ and ‘O’ and several small case letters.
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Digitally signed Page No. 36 of 57
RC-6A/2002 by NISHANT
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. NISHANT GARG
GARG Date:
2025.03.11
16:08:53 +0530
52. Relevant to note here is that the forgery in the passport Ex.
PW3/A in the portion marked as ‘Q8’ did not take place in all the
seven lines of the said portion. Ld. counsel for the accused
Kundan Singh (A-1) during arguments admitted the handwriting
of accused Kundan Singh (A-1) in the first, sixth and seventh line
of portion marked ‘Q8’. He even stated that though the words
“Modinagar” in fifth line of the portion marked ‘Q8’ were in the
handwriting of accused Kundan Singh (A-1), but the words
“Khanjarpur” were erased therefrom. As already stated, it is also
the prosecution case that the passport was initially filled by
accused Kundan Singh (A-1) with correct particulars. Thus, there
was no occasion to commit forgery or to delete any existing text
appearing in the first, sixth or seventh line of portion marked
‘Q8’ in the passport Ex. PW3/A or even in the words
“Modinagar” in fifth line. The forgery took place in the second,
third and fourth line of the portion marked ‘Q8’ where the words
‘JOSHI’ and ‘NARANG’ appear and in the numericals appearing
under the head ‘Date of Birth’. The report Ex. PW23/G does not
connect the writings of the words ‘JOSHI’ and ‘NARANG’ with
accused Kundan Singh (A-1). As per the report Ex. PW23/G, the
capital letter ‘G’ appearing in the word ‘Ghaziabad’ only is
stated to be similar to the admitted writings. No reference is
made to the capital letter ‘G’ appearing in the word ‘NARANG’.
Further, even though, as per the report, similarity was observed
in execution of capital letters ‘N’ and ‘A’, however, nothing was
specified in the report as to from where these two letters were
compared. In fact, perusal of the specimen handwriting of
accused Kundan Singh (A-1) clearly shows that capital letters
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 37 of 57
RC-6A/2002 Digitally signed
by NISHANT
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. NISHANT GARG
GARG Date:
2025.03.11
16:09:03 +0530
‘A’, ‘R’, ‘N’ and ‘S’ nowhere matches with the words
‘NARANG’ and ‘JOSHI’ appearing in ‘Q8’.
53. With respect to numerals, as per the report Ex. PW23/G,
similarity was observed in the execution of numerals 9, 8 and 0.
Again, the report is silent as to from which line of ‘Q8’, these
numerals were compared with the specimen or admitted writings.
The accused Kundan Singh (A-1) has admitted his writings in the
seventh line of ‘Q8’ which contains these numerals. The report
Ex. PW23/G is silent if the numerals 9, 8 and 0 were similarly
executed in fourth line of the portion marked ‘Q8’ in passport
Ex. PW3/A. The report Ex. PW23/A expressed no opinion with
respect to the handwritings appearing at ‘Q7’ and ‘Q14’.
54. The IO wrote another letter dated 24.04.2002 (could be
24.04.2003) again requesting the CFSL to provide its opinion on
the queries raised under Sr. No. 7 and 14 of his earlier letters
whereby opinion was sought with respect to the ink used in the
writings and the author of writings/signatures marked ‘Q1’ to
‘Q7’. The expert PW23 S.L. Mukhi, vide his report dated
20.05.2003 Ex. PW23/I gave the opinion that no efforts were
made to open and refix the laminated sheets in the passports.
55. The IO wrote another letter dated 26.09.2003 Ex. PW23/D
whereby he sought opinion with respect to the seal impressions
appearing on the passports. In para no. E of this letter, the IO
clarified that the portion marked ‘Q8’ contained seven lines and
it was suspected that the different portions of ‘Q8’ were written
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 38 of 57
RC-6A/2002 Digitally signed
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. NISHANT by NISHANT
GARG
GARG Date: 2025.03.11
16:09:12 +0530
by different persons. He requested the CFSL to clarify and mark
the portion which exactly tallies with the specimen writings of
accused Kundan Singh (A-1). In response to this letter, the expert
S.L. Mukhi gave his report dated 14.11.2003 Ex. PW23/K stating
that the writer of standard writings (S16 to S41) and admitted
writings (A1, A2, A22 to A32) was responsible for writing all
seven lines in the portion marked ‘Q8’, for which detailed
reasons have already been given in the report dated 31.01.2003
Ex. PW23/G.
56. Thus, it is seen that even the IO was not fully satisfied with
the opinion expressed by the expert in para no. III of his report
Ex. PW23/G whereby the writings in ‘Q8’ were attributed to
accused Kundan Singh (A-1). He specifically clarified to the
CFSL that the portion marked ‘Q8’ contained seven lines and
different portions appeared to have been written by different
persons. He specifically requested CFSL to clarify and mark the
portion which exactly tallied with the specimen writings of
accused Kundan Singh (A-1). The apprehension of the IO is in
consonance with the prosecution case that initially the passport
was filled with correct particulars by accused Kundan Singh (A-
1) and it was only thereafter that forgery took place in the name
and particulars of the applicant appearing in second, third, fourth
and fifth line of the portion marked ‘Q8’. The apprehension of
the IO also supports the stand of the accused whereby he
admitted his handwriting in the first, sixth and seventh line of the
portion marked ‘Q8’.
Digitally signed
CC No. CBI/309/2019 by NISHANT Page No. 39 of 57
RC-6A/2002 GARG
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. NISHANT Date:
GARG 2025.03.11
16:09:22
+0530
57. The expert S.L. Mukhi was examined before the court as
PW23. In his examination in chief, he proved his reports and the
finding reached by him alongwith several other documents. In
the cross-examination, to a specific question, he informed that
the alphabets in the word ‘NARANG’ were compared with the
capital letters appearing in other words like ‘NAGAR’ and
‘GHAZIABAD’ in the specimen writings. He admitted that his
findings in para no. III (vi) of the report Ex. PW23/G with
respect to execution of capital letters ‘V’, ‘U’ and ‘P’ did not
appear in ‘Q8’ and he was not aware from where these letters
were compared and made part of his report Ex. PW23/G. The
witness on being asked to point out reference to the words
‘JOSHI’, ‘NARANG’ and ‘Male’ in his report Ex. PW23/G
merely stated that these words and letters appeared at one place
or the other but he did not remember their place/location. He
denied the suggestion that he based his report only on the basis of
words “Ghaziabad”, “14.08.1998” and “13.08.1998” in ‘Q8’
which were the admitted writing of accused Kundan Singh (A-1).
58. The testimony of this witness before the court reveals that
though he stated in the cross-examination that he had compared
the capital alphabets of the word ‘NARANG’ with the individual
capital alphabets appearing in other words i.e. ‘NAGAR’ and
‘GHAZIABAD’ appearing in the specimen writings marked
‘S16, S17, S21, S25, S26, S30, S31’ etc, however, this fact
nowhere finds mention in any of his reports or in the reasons
given by him for attributing the handwriting of all seven lines of
‘Q8’ to accused Kundan Singh (A-1). Further, perusal of the
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 40 of 57
RC-6A/2002
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. Digitally signed
NISHANT by NISHANT
GARG
GARG Date: 2025.03.11
16:09:31 +0530
specimen writings marked ‘S16, S17, S21, S25, S26, S30, S31’
etc show that only individual capital alphabets were taken as
specimen and no words having capital letters ‘R’ or ‘A’ were
taken as specimen.
59. Thus, the reports of the expert PW23 S.L. Mukhi cannot be
relied upon to connect the writings in the second and third line of
the portion marked ‘Q8’ as well as in the numerical figures in the
fourth line of portion marked ‘Q8’ with the writing of accused
Kundan Singh (A-1). In Magan Bihari Lal (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held that it is extremely hazardous to
condemn the accused merely on the strength of opinion evidence
of a handwriting expert. It has been further observed that the
expert opinion must always be received with great caution and
perhaps none so with more caution than the opinion of
handwriting expert.
60. The prosecution has relied on the testimonies of PW6
Krishan Kumar, PW7 V. K. Verma and PW11 Prem Singh to
prove the handwriting of accused Kundan Singh (A-1) on the
passports Ex. PW3/A and Ex. PW6/A. However, all these
witnesses, in their court statements, denied that they were able to
identify the signatures of accused Kundan Singh (A-1) on the
passports. PW6 Krishan Kumar could not identify the
handwriting in the seven lines of ‘Q8’ in the passport Ex.
PW3/A. PW7 V.K. Verma did not identify the handwriting
appearing at ‘Q8’ (portion marked ‘X’ to ‘X1’) and at ‘Q1’
(portion marked ‘Y’ to ‘Y1’) to be that of accused Kundan Singh
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 41 of 57
RC-6A/2002 Digitally signed
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. by NISHANT
NISHANT GARG
GARG Date:
2025.03.11
16:09:41 +0530
(A-1). PW11 Prem Singh did not identify any handwriting
appearing on any of the passports. All these witnesses were cross
examined by the Ld. PP for the CBI and were confronted with
their earlier statements. However, in the cross-examination, they
denied having told the CBI that the handwriting appearing at the
relevant places was that of accused Kundan Singh (A-1).
61. Another important aspect relevant to note here is that
accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2) was referred to the CFSL for
polygraph test by the CBI vide letter dated 21.10.2003 Ex.
PW24/A (colly) (6 pages). For determining the culpability of
accused Kundan Singh (A-1), the contents of this letter are
important. Before requesting for a polygraph test of accused
Hemwant Kumar (A-2), the SP of CBI had given a gist of the
allegations against accused Kundan Singh (A-1) and Hemwant
Kumar (A-2) in this letter. The second paragraph of this letter
states that accused Kundan Singh (A-1) had written the name and
particulars of Prem Chand Singh and Bhupinder Singh on the
passports and had handed over these passports to accused
Hemwant Kumar (A-2) for pasting of photograph and lamination.
The letter further reads as under:-
” It is suspected that Sh. Hemwant Kumar
instead of doing so removed these two passport
and passed on to some unauthorized person.
Either that person or he himself erased the
names and address etc. and wrote the name of
Sh. Naram Bhai Verma and Narang Joshi
respectively on the said passports. Thereafter
the passport were again laminated by Sh.
Hemwant Kumar in the Passport Office by
putting lamination strip containing markings
which was issued by the Ministry of External
Affairs”.
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 42 of 57
RC-6A/2002
Digitally signed
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. by NISHANT
NISHANT GARG
GARG Date:
2025.03.11
16:09:55 +0530
62. From the contents of the letter as reproduced above, it is
clear that the investigating agency itself was of the opinion that
the forgery in the passports was committed either by accused
Hemwant Kumar (A-2) himself or by some unauthorized person
to whom accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2) had handed over the
passports. It was not the case of the CBI that the forgery in the
passport was committed by the accused Kundan Singh (A-1) or
that the handwriting appearing in the forged portion of ‘Q8’ was
that of accused Kundan Singh (A-1).
63. In view of the above discussion, it cannot be said that the
forgery in the passports Ex. PW3/A and Ex. PW6/A was
committed by accused Kundan Singh (A-1).
Role of accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2)
64. The allegations against accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2) are
that he was deputed as Incharge, Lamination and Pasting Section
vide office order dated 18.06.1998; his duty was to paste the
photograph and signature slip of the applicant after taking of the
same from the file. However, he in conspiracy with accused
Kundan Singh (A-1), instead of pasting the photograph of the
original applicant, pasted the photograph of some other person in
the passports no. A5885047 Ex. PW6/A and no. A5885406 Ex.
PW3/A and also pasted signature slips in the name of N.K.
Verma and N. Joshi. He also changed the file no. 402/3682/98 to
402/4127/98 and 402/4522/98 to 402/2615/98. Before laminating
the passport, bogus signatures in the name of Superintendents
Daya Ram and Hans Raj were put on the top corner of the
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 43 of 57
RC-6A/2002
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS.
Digitally signed
NISHANT by NISHANT
GARG
GARG Date: 2025.03.11
16:10:04 +0530
photograph despite that such system of cross signatures at
already been discontinued since 05.09.1997.
65. It has not been proved by the prosecution that the passports
in question alongwith their files were handed over by accused
Kundan Singh (A-1) to accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2). It has
already been discussed above that the relevant entries under the
dates 07.08.1998 and 14.08.1998 in the register (D-11) have not
been proved. PW Hans Raj, in his court statement, has not
identified the signatures appearing at point ‘C’ under the dates
07.08.1998 and 14.08.1998 of D-11 to be that of accused
Hemwant Kumar (A-2) purportedly affixed in acknowledgment
of the receipt of the passport booklets and their files from
accused Kundan Singh (A-1). Admittedly, the file had changed
several hands before it allegedly reached Hemwant Kumar (A-2).
No evidence has been led by the prosecution to rule out the
possibility that file no. 402/3682/98 of Prem Chand Singh and
file no. 402/4522/98 of Bhupinder Singh already contained
photographs of fictitious person (put by some other official)
which accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2) affixed in the course of
his normal duties. Nothing is shown as to what specific role was
played by accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2) in erasing the names
and particulars of Prem Chand Singh and Bhupinder Singh from
the passports.
66. As already observed above, it has not been revealed by the
prosecution as to how the information that files no. 402/3682/98
and 402/4522/98 were changed to 402/4127/98 and 402/2615/98
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 44 of 57
RC-6A/2002
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. Digitally signed
NISHANT by NISHANT
GARG
GARG Date: 2025.03.11
16:10:12 +0530
respectively came to light when the original files no.
402/3682/98 and 402/4522/98 were never traced and were never
seen by the IO. It is further not clear if only the file numbers
were changed or the other particulars of the applicants contained
in these files were also changed. Again, what object was sought
to be achieved by changing the file number has not been
revealed, particularly when these files were not supposed to be
placed before the Superintendent concerned for signatures. So far
as bogus signatures of the Superintendents appearing on these
passports are concerned, though the prosecution case is that these
signatures were put before lamination, however, it is not the
prosecution case that these signatures were put by accused
Hemwant Kumar (A-2). The reports of the CFSL no where points
any accusing finger against accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2) as
the person responsible for signing the passports as
Superintendents Daya Ram and Hans Raj.
67. Since there was no evidence against accused Hemwant
Kumar (A-2), the IO opted to get his polygraph test conducted.
For this purpose, the IO wrote letter dated 21.10.2003 Ex.
PW24/A (colly). Pertinent to note is that the said letter runs in
two pages and the next three pages are the questionnaire
forwarded to the CFSL by the IO. A separate page has been
annexed alongwith the letter dated 21.10.2003 purportedly
showing consent given by accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2) for
subjecting himself to a polygraph test. The document D-49 is
exhibited as Ex. PW24/A (colly) (6 pages) on the document
whereas in the examination in chief of PW24 Bibha Rani Ray,
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 45 of 57
RC-6A/2002 Digitally signed
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. by NISHANT
NISHANT GARG
GARG Date:
2025.03.11
16:10:20 +0530
the document is exhibited as Ex. PW24/A (colly) (5 pages).
68. The letter dated 22.10.2003 purportedly written and signed
by accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2) has not been referred to either
by PW24 Dr. Bibha Rani Ray or by any of the investigating
officers i.e. PW26 Karnail Singh and PW28 Javed Siraj. Even
otherwise, the law is well settled that narco analysis, polygraph
and brain mapping tests cannot be conducted on an accused if
they have not expressly consented to such tests before the
Magistrate concerned. Admittedly, in the instant case, purported
consent of accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2) for subjecting himself
to polygraph test was not obtained before a Magistrate.
69. As per the result of polygraph examination Ex. PW24/B,
18 questions were put to accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2) out of
which he attempted to deceive while answering several
questions. With respect to remaining questions, no meaningful
inference could be drawn. In the cross-examination, PW24
Bibha Rani Ray informed that truthfulness or otherwise of the
responses has been ascertained by using polygraph instruments
which record the psychosomatic reactions of the person like
changes in respiration, blood pressure, pulse rate and galvanic
skin resistance.
70. The law with respect to evidentiary value of polygraph test
is well settled. In ‘Selvi & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka‘ (2010)
7SCC 263, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that even when
the subject has given consent to undergo any of the scientific
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 46 of 57
RC-6A/2002
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. Digitally signed
NISHANT by NISHANT
GARG
GARG Date: 2025.03.11
16:10:28 +0530
tests, the test results by themselves cannot be admitted in
evidence. It has further been held that any information or
material that is subsequently discovered with the help of
voluntarily administered test results can be admitted in
accordance with Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
Admittedly, in the instant case, no recovery has been effected by
or at the instance of accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2). The identity
of the person whose photograph was affixed on the passports
could not be ascertained. Nothing could be elicited if accused
Hemwant Kumar (A-2) had any link with accused Anita Umrao
(A-3) or with allegedly fictitious persons Naram Bhai Verma and
Narang Joshi. Nothing could be ascertained if accused Hemwant
Kumar (A-2) had handed over the files and passports to any third
person for committing forgery. The answers given by accused
Hemwant Kumar (A-2) to the questions put to him, have not
been placed on record.
71. Thus, considering the fact that purported consent of
accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2) for subjecting himself to
polygraph test was not obtained before a Magistrate and that no
recovery/discovery has taken place pursuant to the results of the
polygraph examination, the polygraph examination conducted on
accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2) cannot be made the sole basis to
prove the allegations of conspiracy and forgery on him.
Role of accused Anita Umrao (A-3)
72. The allegations against accused Anita Umrao (A-3) are
that she was having a locker bearing no. 42 at HDFC Bank, Old
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 47 of 57
RC-6A/2002
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS.
Digitally signed
NISHANT by NISHANT
GARG
GARG Date: 2025.03.11
16:10:39 +0530
Rajender Nagar Branch, New Delhi. She was suspected to be
involved in another case bearing RC-1/99-CBI SIC.II. She was
arrested by the CBI and was subsequently released on bail by the
court. During interrogation, on the strength of a search warrant,
her locker was searched on 09.11.2001 whereby among other
articles, two passports bearing no. A5885047 and A5885406
were recovered. The photograph on both the passports were of
the same person in different poses which created a doubt
regarding the authenticity of the said passports.
73. PW26 Karnail Singh, the complainant and the first
investigating officer, deposed about these facts in his court
statement. In the cross-examination on behalf of accused Anita
Umrao (A-3), he admitted that the preliminary enquiry was
conducted by him but the locker of accused Anita Umrao (A-3)
was not operated by him.
74. PW15 Sangeeta Saxena was the Branch Manager, HDFC
Bank, Old Rajender Nagar, New Delhi. In her testimony before
the court, she deposed that two CBI officers R.S. Gosain and S.
N. Saxena had visited her branch; at their request, the locker was
operated by accused Anita Umrao (A-3) in the presence of Ms.
Chitra Diwakar (Assistant Manager), R.S. Gosain, S. N. Saxena
and herself. During the operation of the locker, 23 articles were
seized and their inventory was prepared in her presence through
memo Ex. PW15/A bearing her signatures and signatures of
Chitra Diwakar.
Digitally signed by NISHANT NISHANT GARG CC No. CBI/309/2019 GARG Date: Page No. 48 of 57 RC-6A/2002 2025.03.11 16:10:48 +0530 CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS.
75. In the cross-examination, she informed that on the day of
the locker operation, accused Anita Umrao (A-3) had come to her
chamber with a request to operate her locker. After 5-10 minutes,
CBI officers also visited and told her that they wanted to seize
the contents of the locker; the CBI officials were accompanied by
local police. She further deposed that at the request of CBI
officials, she requested Ms. Chitra Diwakar and apprised her
about operation of locker of Anita Umrao (A-3) by CBI officials.
Chitra Diwakar brought the locker operation register and locker
operation sheet which were got signed from accused Anita
Umrao (A-3). Thereafter, accused Anita Umrao (A-3), Chitra
Diwakar, S.N. Saxena, R.S. Gosain and she herself visited the
vault where the locker was operated simultaneously by accused
Anita Umrao (A-3) and Chitra Diwakar. The articles were taken
out by R.S. Gosain and an inventory was prepared. She was not
aware on which computer the said inventory was prepared.
76. She further deposed that no cash was recovered from the
locker; a mangalsutra was recovered; tentatively 22-24 articles
were recovered from the locker; total 10 passports were
recovered; CBI had not called her at any point of time between
the date of search and preparation of her affidavit Ex. PW15/B.
She fairly admitted that no photographs or videography of the
raid proceedings was done. She had not met accused Anita
Umrao (A-3) in the preceedings ten days from the date of search.
She volunteered to add that in case Anita Umrao (A-3) had
operated the locker through the locker custodian, she has no
knowledge of it. She denied the suggestion that before CBI
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 49 of 57
RC-6A/2002
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. Digitally signed
by NISHANT
GARG
NISHANT Date:
GARG 2025.03.11
16:10:57
+0530
officials could start with their search, the locker was already
being operated by the accused.
77. From the testimony of this material witness, it is revealed
that the locker of accused Anita Umrao (A-3) was operated by
accused Anita Umrao (A-3) in her presence and in the presence
of other CBI and bank officials. Despite lengthy cross-
examination, nothing could be elicited to create a doubt in her
testimony. The witness was the Branch Manager of the bank and
had no concern either with accused Anita Umrao (A-3) or with
the CBI officers. She had no motive to depose falsely against
accused Anita Umrao (A-3) with whom she had no prior enmity
or animosity. No suggestion was given to this witness that she
was not present in the bank premises at the relevant time or that
the locker was not operated by accused Anita Umrao (A-3) in her
presence. Contradictory stands have been taken by the accused.
On one hand, it was suggested to PW15 Sangeeta Saxena that
accused Anita Umrao (A-3) was already operating her locker
when the CBI officials arrived at the bank, on the other hand, in
313 CrPC statement, it was stated that the locker was operated in
her absence. No reasonable grounds exist to doubt the testimony
of this independent witness.
78. The testimony of this witness is corroborated with the
testimony of PW22 Rajender Singh Gosain who was one of the
CBI officers present at the time of operation of the locker. He
identified his signatures on the inventory memo, search memo
Ex. PW15/A as well as the signatures of S.N. Saxena, Sangeeta
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 50 of 57
RC-6A/2002 Digitally signed
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. by NISHANT
NISHANT GARG
GARG Date:
2025.03.11
16:11:06 +0530
Saxena and Chitra Diwakar. In the cross-examination, he
deposed that he had not given any letter to the Bank Manager for
opening locker no. 42; he admitted that all the articles were taken
out from the bank locker and after preparing the inventory, the
articles which were not required, were kept back in the locker.
He informed that one key of the locker was with accused Anita
Umrao (A-3) and the other key was with the Bank Manager. He
did not remember if any further instructions were given regarding
the operation of the bank locker. He denied the suggestion that
the passports were planted on the accused. He did not remember
whether the CBI officials had offered their search to the accused
or not. He denied the suggestion that the accused Anita Umrao
(A-3) was not present on the day when locker was operated.
79. Perusal of the testimony of this witness reveals that he has
supported the prosecution case in all material particulars. Despite
lengthy cross-examination, nothing material could be elicited to
doubt his testimony. The witness gave details about the
availability of one key with accused Anita Umrao (A-3) and the
other with the Bank Manager. It was suggested to him that
accused Anita Umrao (A-3) was not present in the bank on that
day.
80. No doubt, the locker operation register and locker
operation sheet were not seized by the CBI from the bank and
signatures of accused Anita Umrao (A-3) did not appear on the
inventory memo Ex. PW15/A, however, these irregularities are
not sufficient to disbelieve the testimony of prosecution witness
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 51 of 57
RC-6A/2002 Digitally signed
by NISHANT
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. GARG
NISHANT Date:
GARG 2025.03.11
16:11:14
+0530
which otherwise show that locker was operated in the presence of
the accused Anita Umrao (A-3) and forged passports were
recovered therefrom. The accused Anita Umrao (A-3) did not
seek production of locker operation register and locker operation
sheet at the time of defence evidence.
81. From the testimonies of PW15 Sangeeta Saxena and PW22
Rajender Singh Gosain, its stands established that the passports
no. A5885047 Ex. PW6/A and no. A5885406 Ex. PW3/A were
recovered from the locker no. 42 of accused Anita Umrao (A-3).
As per the charge-sheet, one of the passports Ex. PW3/A was
submitted by Narang Joshi in the US Embassy for obtaining visa
of USA on 06.10.1998 and 15.10.1998. The CBI had sought
certain documents pertaining to use of this passport from the US
Embassy, through the Ministry of External Affairs. In response,
vide letter dated 14.11.2003 (Mark ‘E’), the Ministry of External
Affairs forwarded copies of computer record of applicant Narang
Joshi alongwith a diplomatic note of US Embassy. The letter
dated 14.11.2003, diplomatic note and the computer record have
remained unproved during trial. Even as per the diplomatic note,
the passport in question appeared to have been presented to the
US Embassy twice but the visa was refused. No file pertaining to
the said visa applications was available with the US Embassy.
No witness from the US Embassy has been cited or examined.
The stamps/sticker appearing on the passport has not been
proved. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution have
deposed anything about submission of this passport in the US
Embassy. PW28 Javed Siraj, the Investigating Officer has merely
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 52 of 57
RC-6A/2002 Digitally signed
by NISHANT
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. NISHANT GARG
GARG Date:
2025.03.11
16:11:25 +0530
stated in one line that from enquiry made from the US Embassy,
it was found that the passport was used for obtaining visa which
was refused. Statement of no witness under Section 161 CrPC
has been recorded in support of these allegations. Thus, it
remains unproved that the passport no. A5885406 Ex. PW3/A
was ever submitted in the US Embassy for the purpose of
obtaining a US visa and if so, by whom.
82. Since the prosecution has failed to prove that the forged
passports recovered from the locker of accused Anita Umrao (A-
3) have been used by her for any purpose at any time, no offence
under the IPC or the Passports Act is made out against her. So far
as the offence under Section 474 IPC is concerned, as already
observed, nothing is shown if accused Anita Umrao (A-3) ever
intended to fraudulently or dishonestly used this passport as
genuine.
83. With respect to the allegations of conspiracy, nothing is
shown if accused Anita Umrao (A-3) knew accused Kundan
Singh (A-1) or accused Hemwant Kumar (A-2). Nothing is
shown if she ever met them or made any telephone call to them.
Nothing is on record to show that she ever visited the Passport
Office, Ghaziabad or made any payment in any manner either to
accused Kundan Singh (A-1) or to accused Hemwant Kumar (A-
2). In the cross-examination, PW28 Javed Siraj, the Investigating
Officer admitted that no CDR or any letter or writing showing
the link between accused Anita Umrao (A-3) and other accused
persons was on record. He further admitted that during
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 53 of 57
Digitally signed
RC-6A/2002 by NISHANT
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. NISHANT GARG
GARG Date:
2025.03.11
16:11:33 +0530
investigation, it could not be ascertained if accused Anita Umrao
(A-3) benefitted monetarily by the preparation of forged
passports.
84. In view of the above discussion, the allegations of
conspiracy between accused Anita Umrao (A-3) and the other
accused persons have remained unproved. No other offence is
made out against accused Anita Umrao (A-3) for being in
possession of the two forged passports.
85. There are few other aspects for which no investigation has
been carried out in this case. In the passport Ex. PW6/A, file no.
402/4127/98 is mentioned. This file was originally opened in the
name of applicant Harjinder Singh. PW8 Smt. Rajinder Kaur, the
wife of applicant Harjinder Singh deposed that her husband had
applied for a passport and file no. 402/4127/98 was opened; her
husband did not receive the passport; she alongwith her husband
came to the Passport Office, Ghaziabad where they were
informed that their original application was not traceable and
they were advised to give a fresh application.
86. Perusal of the file Ex. PW1/2 (D-6) reveals that the
applicant Harjinder Singh had made an enquiry regarding non
receipt of his passport whereby a noting was made that the
passport was not in safe custody. The Passport Office, Ghaziabad
was thus aware of the loss of original file no. 402/4127/98 in July
2001. However, no efforts were made by the Superintendents
concerned to locate the original file or the original passport.
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 54 of 57
RC-6A/2002 Digitally signed
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS.
NISHANT by NISHANT
GARG
GARG Date: 2025.03.11
16:11:42 +0530
Nothing was ascertained during the investigation as to why the
applicant Harjinder Singh was not issued the passport until he
made the enquiries and gave a fresh application.
87. Similarly, file no. 402/2615/98 was opened in the name of
applicant Alok Punj. Alok Punj was neither cited nor examined
as a witness. It is thus not clear if he was issued a passport.
However, it seems that he too was not issued a passport as his
specimen signatures still appear alongwith the application form
in the file. No investigation has been carried out if Alok Punj was
issued a passport and if not, why.
88. Thus, it appears that not only the original files of applicant
Prem Chand Singh and Bhupinder Singh were not traceable but
there were files of other applicants as well which were not
traceable. There were other applicants who were not issued the
passports. The possibility that several other passports were
forged cannot be ruled out. As rightly pointed out by the Ld.
defence counsel, as per the entry at Sr. No. 3483 of the Dispatch
Register Ex. PW9/D (D-62), the passport bearing no. A5885406
was dispatched in the name of Km. Minu Singh on 14.08.1998
against file no. 402/4520/98. Thus, the passport booklet bearing
no. A-5885406 was issued in the name of at least two applicants.
No investigation has been carried out by the CBI on this aspect
as well.
89. Despite the fact that two out of several passports recovered
from the locker of accused Anita Umrao (A-3) were found to be
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 55 of 57
RC-6A/2002
Digitally signed
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. by NISHANT
NISHANT GARG
GARG Date:
2025.03.11
16:11:51 +0530
forged, the IO did not try to ascertain if the remaining passports
found in the locker of accused Anita Umrao (A-3) were forged or
not.
90. The role of Superintendents concerned also requires
discussion. It has come on record that the Superintendent used to
issue a lot of 40 passport booklets to the Passport Writer which
used to come back to him either on the same day or the next day
in the morning for the purpose of signing. Being a valuable
document, it was the duty of the Superintendent to ensure that all
40 passports came back to him and they contained correct
particulars of the applicants. In the instant case, the investigation
is completely silent as to how it was possible that the
Superintendents concerned did not become aware of at least one
missing passport on at least two occasions i.e. on 07.08.1998 and
14.08.1998. It has further come in the testimony of PW9 Hans
Raj that registers were maintained at every step regarding
movement of the passport and its file from one section to another
which contained details of the person handing over and receiving
the passports. PW9 Hans Raj in the cross-examination also
deposed that record used to be maintained in triplicate regarding
movements of the passports and he used to retain one of its
copies. The other copies were retained by other sections. No such
record has been seized by the IO in the instant case.
91. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered
view that the prosecution has not been able to establish the guilt
of any of the accused persons for commission of any offence
CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 56 of 57
RC-6A/2002 Digitally signed
CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS. NISHANT by NISHANT
GARG
GARG Date: 2025.03.11
16:11:59 +0530
beyond reasonable doubt. Accused Kundan Singh (A-1),
Hemwant Kumar (A-2) and Anita Umrao (A-3) are entitled to
benefit of doubt and are accordingly acquitted of all charges.
Digitally signed NISHANT by NISHANT GARG GARG Date: 2025.03.11 16:12:09 +0530 Announced in Open Court (NISHANT GARG) on 11th of March, 2025 ACJM-2-cum-ACJ ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI CC No. CBI/309/2019 Page No. 57 of 57 RC-6A/2002 CBI vs. KUNDAN SINGH & ORS.