Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Suraj @ Suraj Ratra @ Sukhdyal Suraj on 5 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. JYOTI MAHESHWARI,
ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-05,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT, NEW DELHI
CBI vs. SURAJ RATRA & Ors.
FIR No. RC10(S)/2004/SIU.I/CBI/SCR-I/New Delhi
Branch : SCU-I/New Delhi
Under Section: 120B r/w 420, 468 & 471 of IPC and 120B r/w Section
12(1) (a) & (b) of the Passports Act, 1967.
Case No : CBI/457/2019
Date of Institution : 20.08.2004
Date of Reserving : 29.07.2025
Date of Pronouncement : 05.08.2025
JUDGMENT
a) Serial number of the case : CBI/457/2019
b) Period of commission of : 1998 to 2003
offence
c) Name of the complainant : Sh. Vijay Vir Singh, Inspector,
CBI/SCR-I/New Delhi
d) Name, parentage and : 1. Suraj Ratra, S/o Sh. Heera
address of the accused Nand, R/o. 3D/59, NIT,
Faridabad.
2. Badloo Khan, S/o Sh.
Abdullah, R/o. Village Maina
Mauzpur, PS Khurja Junction,
Bulandshahr, U.P.
3. Pramod Kumar Sharma, S/o Sh.
Goverdhan Das Sharma, R/o.
A-463, Shastri Nagar, New Delhi.
4. Naresh Arora, S/o Late Sh. K L
Arora, R/o. 124, Promise
Apartments, New Delhi.
5. Rockin R, ASI (Retd.), S/o Sh.
Roseman R/o. Alankar Bhawan,
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 1 of 59
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05
17:23:22
+0530
Kaniangalam, Elevampadam, PO
district Palghat, Kerala.
6. Mohan Lal , S/o Sh. Heera
Nand, R/o. 2E/167, NIT
Faridabad (ABSCONDER).
e) Offence complained of : Sections 120B r/w 420, 467, 468
& 471 of IPC and Section120B,
IPC r/w Sections 12(1) (a) & (b)
of the Passport Act,1967.
f) Plea of the accused : Accused persons pleaded not
guilty.
g) Final Order : ACQUITTAL
h) Date of Decision : 05.08.2025
INDEX OF THE JUDGMENT:
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION………………………………..4
CHARGE………………………………………………….7
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE…………………………..8
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED U/S 313 CrPC……22
FINAL ARGUMENTS………………………………………..22
A. Arguments raised by the Prosecution………………………….22
B. Arguments raised qua A-2 Badloo Khan and A-5 Rockin R…..27
C. Arguments raised qua A-4 Naresh Arora…………………….28 JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
D. Arguments raised qua A-3 Pramod Kumar Sharma………….29
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
Date:
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS…………………………………..29 2025.08.05
17:23:27 +0530
A. Absence of Sanction u/s 140, Delhi Police Act, 1978 r/w S. 197,
CrPC, qua A-2 and A-5 and its effect thereof……………………….29
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 2 of 59
B. Admissibility of the documents furnished in evidence……..36
C. Deficiencies in the investigation conducted and the case of
prosecution………………………………………………………42
i. Verification regarding the change of names of A-1 and
A-6……………………………………………………………………………………..44
ii. Verification regarding the addresses mentioned in the passport
application forms……………………………………………………………..47
D. The angle of criminal conspiracy in the present
case……………………………………………………………..49
E. Contentions regarding the specific liability of the accused
persons…………………………………………………………..54
CONCLUSION………………………………………………58
1. Vide this Judgment, the Court shall determine whether the
accused persons, namely, Badloo Khan (A-2), Pramod Kumar Sharma
(A-3), Naresh Arora (A-4) and Rockin R (A-5) are guilty of the
offences, which they are charged with, in the present case. The present
Judgment shall also deal with the applications on behalf of Badloo
Khan (A-2) and Rockin R (A-5) for dropping the proceedings against
them, on account of lack of sanction u/Section 140 of the Delhi Police
Act, 1978 r/w Section 197, CrPC.
JYOTI
2. During the course of trial, A-1 Suraj Ratra pleaded guilty to the
MAHESHWARI
Digitally signed
offences and was convicted by Order dated 01.12.2011, for offences by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
Date:
2025.08.05
punishable u/S 120B/420/468/471 IPC and Section 12(1)(b) of 17:23:30 +0530
Passports Act. Further, the accused Mohan Lal (A-6), was absconding
since investigation and was declared as a Proclaimed Offender (PO),
by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide Order dated 24.05.2006.
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 3 of 59
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
3. The factual matrix of the present case, outlined briefly, is that the
instant RC was registered on 20.08.2004, against accused Suraj Ratra
(A-1), S/o Sh. Eera Nand, unknown officials of Delhi Police and other
persons u/S 120-B r/w 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Sections 12(1) (a) and
(b) of Passports Act, 1967 and the substantive offences thereof, on the
complaint of Sh. Vijay Vir Singh, Inspector, CBI/SCR-I/New. Delhi. It
is alleged that Sh. Eera Nand @ Hira Nand, S/o Sant Ram (an Afghan
National), father of accused Suraj Ratra (A-1) and Mohan Lal (A-6)
came to India as a refugee and got himself registered as an Afghan
National at FRRO, New Delhi 1989, on the strength of passports
issued from Kabul, Afghanistan. The accused persons, namely Suraj
Ratra (A-1) and Mohan Lal (A-6), had been residing at 3D/59 NIT,
Faridabad for some years and resided at 2E/167 B NIT, Faridabad for a
certain duration. The Foreigners Regional Registration Office
(hereinafter, referred to as “FRRO”) records mentioned that accused
Mohan Lal (A-6) was registered as an Afghan National vide
Registration Certificate No. 4661/97 on the strength of passport issued
from Kabul and had been overstaying in India since 21.12.1997.
4. The accused Suraj Ratra (A-1) had applied for Indian Passport
vide passport application No. 503522 dated 29.05.1998, wherein he
falsely claimed himself to be a resident of E-88/12, Jagjeet Nagar,
Seelam Pur, Delhi. This application was accompanied by a false and
forged copy of ration card No. 263103, allegedly issued by the Office
of Food & Supply Officer (FSO), Bhajanpura Delhi (FSO-50) in the
name of Eera Nand as Head of the family and also mentioned the name
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 4 of 59
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05
17:23:39
+0530
of the accused Suraj (A-1) and an affidavit, in respect of his place of
birth. The said application was forwarded to Dy. Commissioner of
Police, Special Branch, New Delhi, vide reference No. B-018706 dated
29.05.1998, for the purpose of police verification.
5. The police verification for the purpose of issuance of Passport,
qua A-1 Suraj Ratra, was assigned to ASI Badloo Khan (A-2) by the
Special Branch, Delhi Police. It is alleged that ASI Badloo Khan (A-2),
entered into criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons to falsely
verify Suraj (A-1) S/o Eera Nand, as resident of E-88/12, Jagjeet
Nagar, Delhi. It is also alleged that he attested the bogus ration card
and mentioned the name of two fictitious witnesses in his report.
Thereafter, on the basis of this police verification report and false and
forged documents, accused Suraj Ratra (A-1) was issued an Indian
Passport bearing No. A-5804114 dated 07.07.1998, which was valid
upto 07.07.2008.
6. It is further alleged that in the year 2000 and 2003, accused Suraj
Ratra (A-1) and Mohan Lal (A-6), both sons of Hira Nand i.e Afghan
Nationals, entered into a conspiracy with accused persons, namely
Pramod Kumar Sharma (A-3) and Naresh Arora (A-4), and further got
the Passports issued, on the basis of forged documents. A-3 Pramod
Kumar Sharma had filled in the passport application from no. 0219249
of A-1 Suraj Ratra and had allegedly arranged a forged copy of ration
card, for the accused. Similarly, A-3 had also got the passport
application form no. 817990, filled up in the name of A-6 Mohan Lal,
wherein he allegedly submitted false information regarding the
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. JYOTI Page no. 5 of 59
MAHESHWARI
Digitally signed by
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
Date: 2025.08.05
17:23:45 +0530
nationality and residential address of accused Mohan Lal (A-6). A-4
Naresh Arora was running a travel agency in the name of U-Tel Travels
and Cargo (P) Ltd. and had filled in the passport application form No.
01416594, of Suraj Ratra (A-1), for issuance of additional passport
booklet. On the strength of these application forms and annexed forged
documents, accused Suraj Ratra (A-1) was issued Passport No.
D-1700556 dt. 02-05-2000 and additional passport booklet No.
E-4871464 dt. 01-05-2003, while A-6 Mohan Lal was issued Passport
No. B-2323353 dt. 22-08-2000, of Indian Nationality. It is submitted
that the forged Ration Cards and Voter ID Cards qua both the accused
were prepared by A-3 Pramod Kumar Sharma, under his own
handwriting.
7. The police verification regarding the above mentioned passports
were marked to ASI Badloo Khan (in case of A-1) and ASI Rockin
R(in case of A-6), who purportedly in connivance with the accused
persons, gave a false verification report, although, the Ration Cards
which were the subject matter of verification, were never issued to the
accused persons by the concerned FSO and the accused persons were
not found residing at the given addresses. It was also revealed during
investigation that on the strength of these passports, A-1 and A-6
travelled abroad on multiple occasions. On this basis, it is alleged that
the accused persons committed offences U/s 120-B/420/468/471 of
IPC and section 12(1) (a) and (b) of Passports Act as well as
substantive offences, thereof.
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. 2025.08.05 Page no. 6 of 59
17:23:50
+0530
8. The Court took cognizance of the offences as disclosed in the
charge sheet, and accordingly, all the accused persons were summoned
in 2005.
CHARGE
9. A-1 Suraj Ratra had moved an application for pleading guilty
and vide Order dated 24.11.2011, Suraj Ratra was convicted of the
offences punishable u/S 120B r/w Sections 420/468/471 IPC and
Section 12(1) (b) of the Passports Act, 1967. A-1 Suraj Ratra was also
sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him
(12 days in custody) and a cumulative fine of Rs. 30,000/- for the
above-mentioned offences. The convict Suraj Ratra was also directed
to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- to CBI. After deposit
of fine and compensation amount, Suraj Ratra (A-1), was discharged
from the present case.
10. As regards the other accused, vide Order dated 23.08.2011, the
aspect of charge was adjudicated, and it was held that the charges be
framed against the accused persons (A-2 to A-5) u/s 120-B r/w Section
420/468/471 IPC and Section 12 (1) (b) of the Passports Act, 1967, as
well as the substantive offences. The charges were framed against the
accused persons, on 18.10.2012, as mentioned below:
S. No. Name of the accused Charges framed
1. Badloo Khan (A-2) U/s 120-B r/w 420/468/471
of IPC and Section 12(1) (a)
& (b) of the Passports Act
and substantive offences u/s
420/468/471, IPC and
Section 12 (1) (b) of the
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 7 of 59Digitally signed
by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05
17:23:56
+0530
Passports Act.
2. Pramod Kumar Sharma U/s 120-B r/w 420/468/471
(A-3) of IPC and Section 12(1) (a)
& (b) of the Passports Act
and substantive offences u/s
420/468/471, IPC and
Section 12 (1) (b) of the
Passports Act.
3. Naresh Arora (A-4) U/s 120-B r/w 420/468/471
of IPC and Section 12(1) (a)
& (b) of the Passports Act
and substantive offences u/s
420, IPC and Section 12 (1)
(b) of the Passports Act.
4. Rockin R. (A-5) U/s 120-B r/w 420/468/471
of IPC and Section 12(1) (a)
& (b) of the Passports Act
and substantive offences u/s
420/468/471, IPC and
Section 12 (1) (b) of the
Passports Act.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
11. Thereafter, the matter was listed for prosecution evidence. The
prosecution, in order to prove and substantiate its case, examined 52
witnesses in total, whose details are provided below:
PW1 Sh. Vijay Veer Singh: He was posted as Inspector of Police
in SCR-I Branch of CBI and is the complainant in the present case. He
deposed that during investigation of another case, raids were conducted
at the premises of M/s U Tel & Travels, Connaught Place, New Delhi
owned by Naresh Arora (A-4) and Deepak Arora. Around 90 passportsDigitally signed
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. by JYOTI Page no. 8 of 59
MAHESHWARI
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05
17:24:00
+0530
including the passport of Suraj Ratra were recovered during the raid.
He also exhibited the following documents, in his deposition:
S. No. Exhibit No. Document No. Description
1. Ex. PW1/A D-2 Complaint of the present case.
2. Ex. PW1/B D-1 RC of the present case
3. Ex. PW1/C D-9/1 Passport of Suraj Ratra, bearing No.
E-4871464
4. Ex. PW1/D D-3/1 Search list dated 01.09.2004.
5. Ex. PW1/E D-4 Ration Card in the name of Sukhdayal
Suraj
6. Ex. PW1/F D-5 Birth Certificate of Sukhdayal Suraj
(A-1)
7. Ex. PW1/G D-8 Handing/ Taking Over Memo dated
03.09.2004
8. Ex. PW1/H D-9/2 Passport of Suraj Ratra bearing No.
B-1700556.
9 Ex. PW1/J D-21 Handing/ Taking Over Memo dated
11.10.2004
10. Ex. PW1/K D-22 Passport of Mohan Lal bearing No.
B-2323353
11. Ex. PW1/L D-23/2 Attested Scanned copy of passport
Application Form of Mohan Lal (A-6)
12. Ex. PW1/M D-23/8 Attested scanned copy of ration Card
of Hira Nand.
13. Ex. PW1/N D-23/9 Attested scanned copy of affidavit of
Mohan Lal.
PW-2 Sh. S.P. Kothari: The witness was Superintendent
(Administration) at Regional Passport Office, R.K. Puram, New
Delhi. The witness explained the procedure for issuance of
ordinary passports and exhibited the following documents, in his
deposition:
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05
Page no. 9 of 59
17:24:06
+0530
S. No. Exhibit No. Document No. Description
1. Ex. PW2/A D-28 Receipt Memo dated 28.10.2004.
2. Ex. PW2/B D-29 Attested scanned copy of circular no.
VI/401/13/2004 dated 14.03.2002
3. Ex. PW2/C D-17/1 Passport Application Form of Suraj.
4. Ex. PW2/D D-17/7 Ration Card of Eera Nand
5. Ex. PW2/E D-17/8 Affidavit of Suraj
6. Ex. PW2/F D-16 Attested Scanned copy of Passport no.
A-5804114 (in the name of Suraj).
7. Ex. PW2/G D-16/6 Scanned copy of ration card in the
name of Suraj
8. Ex. PW2/H D-18 Original passport application no.
01416594 of Suraj Ratra.
9. Ex. PW2/J D-18/6 Copy of passport no. B1700556
10. Ex. PW2/K D-18/13 Application of Suraj Ratra to RPO,
R.K. Puram, New Delhi.
11. Ex. PW2/L D-18/14 Newspaper cutting showing the
change of name from Suraj to Suraj
Ratra.
12. Ex. PW2/M D-18/16 Deed Poll dated 16.04.2003.
13. Ex. PW2/O D-13 Seizure memo dated 30.09.2004
14. Ex. PW2/P D-14 Letter dated 23.09.2004
15. Ex. PW2/Q D-15 Enclosures of letter dated 23.09.2004.
PW-3 (Sh. Shamsuddin Abbasi), PW-4 (Sh. Mohd. Usman),
PW-5 (Sh. Sushil Kumar), PW-8 (Sh. Ziaul Rehman @ Mohd. Gulam)
and PW-9 (Sh. Sri Niwas Sharma): All the above-mentioned witnesses
were residents of Jagjit Nagar, New Delhi and deposed regarding the
non-existence of address i.e. E-88/12, Jagjit Nagar, New Delhi. The
witness PW-3 also exhibited the Passport Application Form of Suraj as
Ex. PW3/A.
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. 17:24:11 Page no. 10 of 59
+0530
PW-6 (Chander Bhan Arya): He was posted as Notary Public
since 20.04.1992 till 2006. He identified the document D-33/2, which
was regarding his renewal of Certificate of Practice as Notary and the
same was exhibited as Ex. PW6/A. The witness further denied his
signatures and seal impressions on the deed poll, Ex. PW2/M. PW-7 (Naresh Kumar Sharma): He was the owner of the
premises bearing No. 313/71-E, Anand Nagar, Inderlok, Delhi and he
had been residing at the above-mentioned premises since 1972, along
with his family. The witness deposed to the effect that A-1 Suraj Ratra
was neither his tenant nor resided at the above-mentioned property.
PW-22 (Jaipal Gupta) also deposed to the effect that Hira Nand as well
as Suraj Ratra did not reside at the above-mentioned property.
PW-10 (Gauri Shanker Raheja): He was Officiating Assistant
Food and Supply Officer at Faridabad, NIT. He had issued letter dated
29.09.2004 (D-12) to CBI, which pertained to issuance of duplicate
ration card to Sh. Hira Nand. He exhibited the letter dated 29.09.2004
as Ex. PW10/A. PW-11 (D.R. Saini) and PW-23 (Satish Saini): The witness
PW-11 is the father of witness PW-23. Both the witnesses were
residents of 3-D/12, NIT, Faridabad, Haryana and they deposed to the
effect that Hira Nand was residing at 3D/59, NIT, Faridabad.
PW-12 (Sanjay Kumar Arora): He was posted as the Food
Supply Officer at Circle 50, Ghonda, Bhajanpura, Delhi, during 2004-
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 11 of 59
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05
17:24:15
+0530
05 and deposed regarding the issuance of ration card bearing no.
263103 (Ex. PW2/D), to Ms. Mazda Begum. He exhibited the
following documents in his deposition:
S. No. Exhibit No. Document Description
No.
1. Ex. PW12/A D-20 Letter to FSO, Bhajanpura
2. Ex. PW12/B D-42/1 Application for addition/ deletion in
the ration card of Mazda Begum.
3. Ex. PW12/C D-20/3 Photocopy of master register of FPS
no. 6421.
4. Ex. PW12/D D-20/4 Photocopy of FDR “A”
5. Ex.PW12/B1 D-42/1 Receipt memo attested copy of Ration
Card no. 125991 (Bhu Devi) and
187347 (Usha Devi).
6. Ex. PW12/B2 D-43/1 Application form of Mazada Begum
for issuance of ration card.
7. Ex. PW12/B3 D-43/2 Electricity bill in the name of Tej Pal
8. Ex. PW12/B4 D-43/3 Ration Card of Bhu Devi
9. Ex. PW12/B5 D-43/5 Ration Card of Raju Kashyap
10. Ex. PW12/B6 D-43/6 Affidavit of Mazada Begum
11. Ex. PW12/F D-20/6 Photocopy of FDR “B” of Mazada
Begum.
PW-13 (Sh. Gurbax Singh): He was posted as AFRRO, East
Block, Delhi and deposed about the status of Hira Nand and Mohan
Lal, being Afghan Nationals. He exhibited the following documents in
his deposition:
S. No. Exhibit No. Document Description
No.
1. Ex. PW13/A D-37 Verification for nationality of Hira
Nand.
2. Ex. PW13/B D-37/2 Photocopies of the registration
certificates of Hira Nand.
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 12 of 59
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05
17:24:21
+0530
PW-14 (Ms. Saroj Bala): She was posted as In-charge (Record-
Afghan Cell), FRRO, Delhi. She deposed about the seizure of original
registration certificates of Hira Nand and Mohan Lal, by the IO and
exhibited the following documents in her deposition:
S. No. Exhibit No. Document Description
No.
1. Ex. PW14/A D-38 Seizure memo of original registration
certificates of two Afghan Nationals,
namely, Hira Nand and Moon Lal.
2. Ex. PW14/B D-39/1 Registration Certificate no. 22304 in
the name of Hira Nand
3. Ex. PW14/C D-39/2 Registration Certificate no.
46741/AFG/DLI/97 in the name of
Hira Nand
4. Ex. PW14/D D-39/3 Registration Certificate no.
46611/AFG/DLI/97 in the name of
Moon Lal
PW-15 (Sh. Ravinder Kumar): He was posted as In-charge, APP
Branch, Special Branch, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. He deposed about
the verification reports of the applications for issuance of passports and
exhibited the following documents in his deposition:
S. No. Exhibit No. Document Description
No.
1. Ex. PW15/A D-31/1 Seizure memo of verification of
passport applications form in the
name of Mohan Lal.
2. Ex. PW15/B1 D-32/1 Verification Report of Mohan Lal
3. Ex. PW15/B2 D-32/2 Performa for inquiry in passport
verification case of Mohan Lal and
Rockin R
4. Ex. PW15/B3 D-32/3 Certification form of Mohan Lal and
Rockin R.CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 13 of 59
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05
17:24:25
+0530
5. Ex. PW15/B4 D-32/4 Visit Form of Rockin R to PS Sarai
Rohilla
6. Ex. PW15/B5 D-32/5 Ration Card of Mohan Lal and
Rockin R
7. Ex. PW15/B6 D-32/6 Election Card of Mohan Lal
8. Ex. PW15/B7 D-32/7 Affidavit of Mohan Lal
9. Ex. PW15/B8 D-32/8 Handing over memo related to
documents/ reports relating to
verification of passport application
form in the name of Mohan Lal.
10. Ex. PW15/B9 D-32/9 Personal particular form of Mohan
Lal
11. Ex. PW15/C D-10 Seizure Memo of Ravinder Kumar,
ASI.
12. Ex. PW15/C1 D-11/1 Verification of passport application
form of Suraj
13. Ex. PW15/C2 D-11/2 Passport Verification Form of Suraj
14. Ex. PW15/C3 D-11/3 & Verification report of Badloo Khan
& Ex. D-11/4
PW15/C4
15. Ex. PW15/C5 D-11/5 Verified Ration Card of Badloo
Khan
16. Ex. PW15/C6 D-11/6 Personal particulars form of Suraj,
marked for verification.
PW-16 (Sh. Dharam Raj) and PW-19 (Sunil Kumar): Both the
witnesses deposed that the specimen signatures of Advocate Chander
Bhan Arya and specimen seal impression of attestation stamps of
Chander Bhan Arya were taken in their presence and the documents
containing the specimen signatures (D-53) and specimen seal
impressions (D-54) were identified as Ex. PW16/A and Ex. PW16/B
respectively.
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05
17:24:30
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. +0530 Page no. 14 of 59
PW-17 (Sh. Ramesh Chand): He was posted as Zonal
Inspector, North-East District and North Zone. He identified the
signatures and official stamps of ASI Badloo Khan and ASI Rockin R,
on the passport verification reports, i.e. Ex. PW15/C2 and Ex.
PW15/B2, respectively. He also testified regarding both the reports
being counter verified by him and identified his signatures on both the
above documents. PW-32 (Ravi Dutt Kaushik), who was posted as
ACP in Special Branch, Delhi Police deposed that he had forwarded
the verification report of Mohan Lal (Ex. PW15/B2) after the remarks
of PW-17, Inspector Ramesh Chand, as “Satisfied” on both the reports.
PW-18 (Sh. Pankaj Bhardwaj): He was working as a Stamp
Vendor at Parliament Street, New Delhi. He exhibited the Certified
Copy of Stamp Vending Register as Ex. PW18/1 in his deposition, as
per which stamp paper bearing serial no. 4498 of Rs. 10/- was sold to
Suraj Ratra.
PW-20 (Pradeep Kumar Bansal), PW-21 (Vinod Kumar), PW-25
(Manoj Sharma) and PW-28 (Sukhdev Singh): The witnesses were
residents of Shastri Nagar and deposed to the effect that Mohan Lal as
well as Hira Nand, never resided at A-463, Shastri Nagar, Delhi.
PW-24 (Raj Singh): The witness deposed to the effect that in
September 2004, CBI officials visited the RPO office, where he was
working and seized the documents in his presence which were seized
vide seizure memo already Ex.PW2/O. He also identified the
Digitally
signed by
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
Page no. 15 of 59
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05
17:24:34
+0530
signatures of Sh. Umed Singh Lingwal, who had passed away in 2011
and who handed over the documents to the IO in the present case.
PW-26 (Sh. Kuber Singh): The witness deposed that the
specimen signatures of accused Suraj Ratra were taken in his presence
and the documents containing the specimen signatures (D-49), was
exhibited as Ex. PW26/A (colly), in his deposition.
PW-27 (Sh. O. Venkateswarlu): He was posted as Assistant
Legal Advisor and Competent Authority, Ministry of Law and Justice,
Government of India, Delhi and deposed that Notarial Acts done by a
notary are required to be maintained in the Notarial Register and not by
his department. He also exhibited the letter dated 02.11.2004 (D-33) as
Ex. PW27/1 in his deposition.
PW-29 (Atul Mathur): The witness deposed to the effect that A-4
Naresh Arora was running his office under the name and style of M/s U
Tel Travels, and Naresh Arora (A-4) used to place advertisements with
his advertising agency. The witness deposed to the effect that the
advertisement Ex. PW2/L was placed by A-4 Naresh Arora.
PW-30 (Sh. Anand Vats): The witness testified that the
disclosure statement of A-1 Suraj Ratra was recorded in his presence
and the same was identified as Ex. PW30/1 (D-27), in his deposition.
PW-31 (Charanjit Singh Arora) and PW-35 (Rajender Kumar
Verma): Both the witnesses deposed to the effect that the GeneralCBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 16 of 59
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05
17:24:39
+0530
Power of Attorney (GPA) (Ex. PW1/H) and Will (Ex. PW1/G) was
executed by Sukh Dayal Suraj, in favour of his father Hira Nand.
PW-33 (Sh. Bal Kishan Sharma) and PW-48 (S.K. Sharma): The
witnesses deposed to the effect that the specimen signatures and
handwriting of A-3 Pramod Sharma and A-4 Naresh Arora were taken
in their presence. The witness PW-33 also exhibited the specimen
signatures and handwriting of accused Naresh Arora (D-52) as Ex.
PW33/A (from S-87 to S-152) and specimen signatures of accused
Pramod Sharma (D-60) as Ex. PW33/B (from S-68 to S-86) in his
deposition.
PW-34 (Rajeev Bhatnagar): He was a witness to the search
conducted on 01.09.2004 at the alleged residence of Suraj Ratra at 3-
D/59, NIT, Faridabad and deposed that the search memo Ex. PW1/D
was prepared in his presence.
PW-36 (Sh. R.B Ram) and PW-37 (Sh. P. Vijay Kumar): Both
the witnesses deposed that the specimen handwriting and signatures of
A-2 Badloo Khan were taken in their presence and exhibited the
document as Ex. PW36/A. PW-38 (Sh. Tek Chand Singhal): The witness deposed that the
letter Ex. PW38/A (D-36), (letter regarding the election card no.
066354) was written in his own handwriting, on the instructions of Sh.
C.L. Agnihotri, the-then AERO (Assistant Electoral Registration
Officer), AC-63, Kamla Nagar.
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 17 of 59
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05
17:24:43
+0530
PW-39 (Pramod Kumar Sharma): The witness deposed that he
was an employee of A-3 Pramod Kumar Sharma, S/o Sh. Govardhan
Das Sharma and filled the passport application form at the instance of
A-3. He also identified the handwriting of A-3 Pramod Kumar Sharma
on Ex. PW2/F and Ex.PW2/G. PW-40 (Sh. B.V. Gopinath): The witness deposed about the
report of MHA, regarding the Nationality of 5 Nationals, which was
sought by CBI and exhibited the said report as Ex. PW40/1, in his
deposition. The witness deposed that as per the report, none of the 5
Afghan Nationals, including, Hira Nand, Jaswant Kaur and Manau
Chand, had applied for Indian citizenship.
PW-41 (Sh. Kamal Singh): He was posted as HC in SSP office,
Faridabad and deposed regarding the letter dated 18.10.2004, about
Hira Nand as well as Manak Chand. He exhibited the letter of SP,
Faridabad regarding Afghan national register (D-30) as Ex. PW41/1 in
his deposition.
PW-42 (Sh. Satyendra Pandey) and PW-46 (Himanshu
Khanduri): Both the witnesses deposed that the specimen signatures
and handwriting of A-5 Rockin R were taken in their presence and the
document containing the same, was identified as Ex. PW42/A (colly)
(D-51).
JYOTI
MAHESHWARIDigitally signed by
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
Date: 2025.08.05
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. 17:24:49 +0530 Page no. 18 of 59
PW-43 (Sh. Amar Singh): He was posted as Constable (on
deputation) in CBI. He exhibited the following documents in his
deposition:
S. No. Exhibit No. Document Description
No.
1. Ex. PW43/1 D-46/1(6) Summon Order of Suraj Ratra
2. Ex. PW43/2 D-46/2(6) Summon Order of Hira Nand
3. Ex. PW43/3 D-46/3(6) Summon Order of Mohan Lal
PW-44 (Sh. Mohinder Singh): He was posted as SDM and
Collector of Stamps in Divisional Commissioner Office, GNCTD, 5,
Shamnath Marg, Delhi. He exhibited the following documents in his
deposition:
S. No. Exhibit No. Document Description
No.
1. Ex. PW44/1 D-55/1 Certified copies of stamp vendor
register of non-judicial stamp paper, in
the name of Pankaj Bhardwaj.
2. Ex. PW44/2 D-55/2 License of Pankaj Bhardwaj
PW-45 (Sh. Ashok Kumar Amrohi): The witness deposed
regarding the Sanction Order dated 13.06.2005, u/s 15 of Passports
Act, 1967, which was issued by him, when he was posted as Chief
Passport Officer. The sanction order was exhibited as Ex. PW45/A, in
his deposition.
PW-47 (Sunil Sharma): The witness deposed regarding the
handwriting of his brother A-3 Pramod Sharma on various documents
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 19 of 59
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05
17:24:53
+0530
i.e. Ex. PW2/F, Ex.PW2/G and Ex. PW1/M. The witness also testified
that A-4 Naresh Arora and his brother Deepak Arora, used to visit A-3
Pramod Sharma at his home.
PW-49 (Shyam Sunder Sharma): The witness deposed that he
was the resident of E-188, Jagjit Nagar, New Delhi from 1978 and no
person by the name of Manoj Kumar, lived in his neighbourhood.
PW-50 (Ms. Seema Pahuja): She was posted as Inspector in CBI,
Special Crime-1 Branch, CBI, New Delhi and was the Investigating
Officer of the present case. She exhibited the following documents in
her deposition:
S. No. Exhibit No. Document Description
No.
1. Ex. PW50/1 D-9 Search list vide which passport no.
B1700556, issued to Suraj, was seized.
2. Ex. PW50/2 D-19 Report by Sub-Registrar (Births &
Deaths), Faridabad
3. Ex. PW50/3 D-26 Report of FSO-63 Kamla Nagar, FPS
no. 294
4. Ex. PW50/4 D-25 Report of FSO-63 Kamla Nagar, FPS
no. 396
5. Ex. PW50/5 D-34/1 Report of leave application of Badloo
Khan
6. Ex. PW50/6 D-35/1 Report of Permanent Address of Rockin
R
7. Ex. PW50/7 D-44/1 Letter forwarded to CFSL, New Delhi.
8. Ex. PW50/8 D-44/7 Specimen signatures of Rockin R, vide
which letter dated 08/09.12.2004 was
sent to CFSL
9. Ex. PW50/9 D-45 Report of CFSL
10. Ex. PW50/10 D-47 Receipt memo dated 17.02.2005.
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 20 of 59
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05
17:24:58
+0530
11. Ex. PW50/11 D-57 Seizure-cum-Superdari Memo
12. Ex. PW50/12 D-58 Report of Election Officer of NIT,
Faridabad
13. Ex. PW50/13 D-59 Application form of Ration Card No.
263103
14. Ex. PW50/14 D-60 Specimen handwriting and signatures of
and Ex. A-3 Pramod Sharma
PW50/15
15. Ex. PW50/16 D-24 Letter dated 11.10.2004 by the Sub-
Registrar (Births & Deaths), Faridabad.
PW-51 (Sh. Jeet Singh): He was posted as Sr. Scientific Officer,
Grade-II, Assistant Chemical Examiner, Government of India,
CFSL/CBI, New Delhi. He exhibited the report of CFSL (D-45) as Ex.
PW51/A in his deposition.
PW-52 (Sh. Shielender Kumar): He was posted as Food Supply
Officer of Circle No. 31, Vikas Puri, Delhi and was called as a witness
in lieu of the deceased witness, PW Krishan Singh (LW-28). The
witness also identified the signatures of PW Krishan Singh. The
witness also furnished the following documents, in his deposition.
S. No. Mark No. Description 1. Mark PW 52/1 Certified copy of order dated 16.03.1995. 2. Mark PW52/2 List of FPS running at Shastri Nagar. 3. Mark PW52/3 Photocopy of notification dated
23.07.2009, containing the list of circles,
with its main areas.
12. Subsequently, the prosecution evidence was closed on
07.03.2025 and the matter was listed for recording the statement of the
accused persons, u/s 313, CrPC.
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 21 of 59
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05
17:25:03
+0530
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS U/S 313 CrPC
13. The statement of accused A-4 Naresh Arora was recorded on
28.03.2025, wherein he stated that he did not fill the passport
application form for any person and was falsely implicated in the
present case. Similarly, the statement of A-5 Rockin R was recorded on
23.04.2025, wherein he denied the allegations levelled against him.
A-3 Pramod Sharma denied living at the address A-463, Shastri Nagar,
Delhi, in his statement u/S 313, CrPC. The written statement u/S. 313,
CrPC was furnished on behalf of A-2 Badloo Khan, by his grandson,
Suhail, as A-2 was unable to appear before the Court, on account of his
medical condition and was bed-ridden. A-2 stated that the CFSL
opinion was a biased one and he was falsely implicated in the present
case.
14. The accused persons did not wish to lead any evidence in their
defence and thus, the matter was fixed for final arguments.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
A. Arguments raised by the Prosecution:
15. Detailed final arguments were advanced on behalf of both the
prosecution and the acc used. Ld. PP for CBI has submitted that during
the course of trial, the case of the prosecution has been proved beyond
reasonable doubt. The prosecution has based its case on the alleged
forgery and fabrication of documents, resorted to by the accused
persons, in order to facilitate the issuance of passports to A-1 Suraj
Ratra and A-6 Mohan Lal. The passports in question and the details
thereof, are as follows:
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Digitally signed
Page no. 22 of 59
by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05
17:25:08
+0530
SURAJ RATRA @ SURAJ (A-1)
Passport Passport Supporting Address in Names of Names of the Address
Application No., Documents the witnesses in allegedly verified by
No. Validity and application the fictitious
issued to application witnesses
503522 dated A-5804114, Ration E-88/12, (a) Manoj (i) Raj Rani, ASI Badloo
29.05.1998 valid from Card no. Jagjit Kumar, R/o R/o E-87/5, Khan (A-2)
(Ex. PW2/C) 07.07.98 to 263013 and Nagar, New E-189/13, Jagjit Nagar,
(D-17) 07.07.08 in Date of Delhi-1100 Jagjit Delhi
the name of Birth 53 Nagar,
Suraj. S/o affidavit Delhi.
Sh. Eera (ii) Ram
Nand. (b) Rajinder Prasad, R/o
Kumar, R/o 87/2, Jagjit
183/15, Nagar, Delhi.
Jagjit
Nagar,
Delhi.
0219249 B-1700556, Ration 313/71E, - -
(Ex.PW 2/F) valid from Card no. Anand
(D-16) 02.05.2000 013460, Nagar,
Application to 06.07.08 Circle No. Inderlok
form for in the name 68, New
miscellaneous of Suraj. S/o FPS-396. Delhi-35
services on Sh. Eera (Applicatio
Indian Nand n form
Passport. filled, for
change of
address)
01416594 (Ex. E-4871464, Name 313/71E, (a) Sarwan _ _
PW2/H) valid from changed to Anand Sharma,
(D-18) 01.05.2003 Suraj Ratra Nagar, R/o
[Passport to 06.07.08 through Inderlok 321/14A,
Application in the name newspaper New Inderlok
Registration of Suraj publication Delhi-35 Delhi.
Form (for Ratra. S/o (Ex.
issuance of Sh. Eera PW2/L) & (b) Naresh
additional Nand (b) Deed Verma, R/o
passport Poll dt. 311/12-E,
booklet)] 16.04.2000 Inderlok,
(Ex. Delhi.
PW2/M)
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 23 of 59
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
Digitally signed by
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
Date: 2025.08.05
17:25:13 +0530
MOHAN LAL @ MON LAL (A-6)
Passport Passport No., Supporting Address in Names of Names of Address
Application validity and Documents the witnesses in allegedly verified by
No. issued to application the fictitious
application witnesses
A023603 B-2323353 Ration A-463, (i) Harsh (i) Seva ASI Rockin
(Ex. PW1/L) valid from Card no. Shastri Kaushik, Singh, R/o R. (A-5)
(D-23) 21.08.2000 to 817990, Nagar, New R/o A-466, A-473,
(Passport 21.08.2010 in FPS- 294, Delhi Shastri Shastri
Application the name of FSO-63 Nagar, New Nagar, New
Form) Mohan Lal (D-23/8) Delhi Delhi
S/o Sh. Hira and
Nand. Election ID (ii) Sunil (ii) Pramod
card no. Sharma, Kumar
DL/06/063/ R/o A-465, Sharma, R/o
066354 of Shastri A-466,
Mohan Lal. Nagar, New Shastri
Delhi. Nagar, New
Delhi.
16. With regard to the first passport application of A-1 Suraj Ratra, it
is alleged by the prosecution that a forged ration card no. 263103 [ Ex.
PW2/D (D-17)] was submitted in support of the Passport Application
Form, but a Ration card, bearing the same number was issued to one
Ms. Mazda Begum, W/o Hafizur Rehman, R/o A3/1130 Gamrhi,
Bhajanpura, Delhi and the same is proved by the testimony of PW-12
along with the documents [(Ex. PW12/A (D-20) and Ex. PW12/B
(D-43)]. It is submitted that A-2 Badloo Khan verified this ration card
to be belonging to Sh. Eera Nand, (father of A1), Suraj Ratra and
provided the addresses of two fictitious witnesses, namely, Smt. Raj
Rani and Sh. Ram Prasad as neighbours of A-1 Suraj, but these
witnesses did not reside at the addresses as mentioned and this is
proved by the testimonies of PW-3, PW-5, PW-8 and PW-9.
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Digitally
signed by Page no. 24 of 59
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05
17:25:18
+0530
17. As regards the second passport application of A-1 Suraj Ratra,
the address of A-1 was changed from Jagjit Nagar to Anand Nagar, and
it is submitted that the particulars of the application form were filled by
accused A-3 Pramod Kumar Sharma and the same stands proved by the
testimony of PW-39. The prosecution has also relied on the testimony
of two witnesses, namely, PW7 Naresh Kumar Sharma and PW22
Jaipal Gupta, to show that neither A-1 Suraj Ratra nor any of his family
members ever resided in Anand Nagar, contrary to the particulars filled
in his application form.
18. It is additionally contended, qua A-3 Pramod Kumar Sharma,
that he had also filled in the particulars in the passport application form
of A-6 Mohan Lal and furnished a forged Ration Card bearing No.
132936 (FPS No. 294, FSO-63) as a supporting document, wherein he
himself had provided the details recorded therein. The prosecution has
sought to prove this fact through the testimony of PW-52. Additionally,
in the passport application form of A-6 Mohan Lal, the address was
stated as A-463, Shastri Nagar, Delhi, whereas the said address, in fact,
pertained to A-3 Pramod Kumar Sharma, as per the investigation
conducted by the IO. It is, thus, the case of the prosecution that A-3
facilitated the issuance of a passport to A-6 Mohan Lal on the basis of
false particulars and a forged Ration Card. To substantiate this
allegation, the prosecution has relied upon the testimonies of PW-39
Pramod Kumar Sharma and PW-47 Sunil Sharma.
19. It is further alleged that the application form no. 01416594 [Ex.
PW2/H (D-18)] for issuing additional booklet of passport to A-1 Suraj
Ratra was filled in the handwriting of A-4 Naresh Arora, in connivance
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 25 of 59
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05
17:25:28
+0530
with the accused. The prosecution has relied upon the CFSL report in
this regard and has also examined the expert from CFSL as PW-51 who
deposed about the authenticity and genuineness of the report, so
prepared.
19. As regards the liability of A-5 Rockin R, it is the case of the
prosecution that A-5, who was assigned the task of police verification
of the passport application form of A-6 Mohan Lal, falsely verified the
details therein, to facilitate the issuance of a passport to A-6. It is
further submitted that the Ration Card No. 132936 (FPS-294, FSO-63),
allegedly used as a supporting document by A-6, was forged, as
substantiated by the testimony of PW-52. Moreover, the Election
Identity Card (EPIC) [Ex. PW-38/A (D-36)], also furnished as a
supporting document by A-6 Mohan Lal, stood issued in the name of
one Ms. Banita, resident of A-303, Shastri Nagar, New Delhi, which
fact is borne out from the testimonies of PW-38 and PW-20. It is
alleged that this document too was falsely verified by A-5 Rockin R, in
conspiracy with A-6, to facilitate the issuance of the said passport.
20. On this basis, it is alleged by the prosecution that A-2 to A-5 had
acted in connivance with A-1 and A-6 for the issuance of passports and
have committed the offences which they are charged with, in the
present case. The prosecution has also submitted that based on the
testimony of the witnesses as discussed above and the documents
furnished in support of the present case, the commission of alleged
offences by A-2 to A-5, stand proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. JYOTI MAHESHWARI Page no. 26 of 59
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05
17:25:34
+0530
21. Per contra, Ld. Counsels for accused have vehemently opposed
the version of the prosecution and submitted that there are glaring
deficiencies in the case of the prosecution, which entitle the accused
persons to an acquittal. The specific grounds raised qua each accused
are mentioned as follows:
B. Arguments raised qua A-2 Badloo Khan and A-5 Rockin R.
22. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel that both A-2 and A-5 were
working as Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police (ASI) in Delhi Police,
during 1998-2001 and were entrusted with the responsibility of
verification of the passport application forms. Ld. Counsel has moved
separate applications u/s 140 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 (hereinafter,
“the DP Act“) r/w Section 197 CrPC, praying for dropping of
proceedings/ discharge of both the applicant/ accused persons, for want
of requisite sanction. Both the applications shall also be decided and
disposed of, by way of the present Judgment, as the same also
constitute a ground for acquittal of A-2 and A-5. The major contentions
raised by Ld. Counsel for A-2 and A-5, are encapsulated below:
(a) No prior sanction as stipulated u/s 140 of the Delhi Police Act,
1978 r/w Section 197 CrPC was taken, which is a statutory prerequisite
for prosecution of a public servant. It is submitted that the task of
verification of passport application forms, which was assigned to A-2
and A-5, has a reasonable nexus/ connection with the official duty and
thus, the proceedings against both the accused persons are rendered
unsustainable in law, for want of prior sanction, which is mandated
u/S. 140 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978.
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 27 of 59
Digitally signed by
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
Date: 2025.08.05
17:25:39 +0530
(b) The documents relied upon by the prosecution, in order to prove
its case, are scanned copies and are not accompanied with the requisite
certificate u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act and hence, the evidence,
which is relied upon by the prosecution, is itself inadmissible in law.
(c) There are material contradictions in the testimony of various
prosecution witnesses, which entitle the accused persons, to an
acquittal.
(d) It is the case of prosecution, that both A-2 and A-5 had submitted
the respective verification reports on the basis of forged and fabricated
documents, false declarations and fictitious witnesses, in conspiracy
with the other accused persons. However, the prosecution has
miserably failed to prove or adduce any evidence of conspiracy, in the
present case. Ld. Counsel for the applicants has also placed reliance on
the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kehar Singh vs. Delhi
Administration (1988) 3 SCC 609 and Sanjeev Kumar vs. State of
Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1999 SC 782.
C.Arguments raised qua A-4 Naresh Arora
23. Ld. Counsel for A-4 has addressed the following submissions,
qua the liability of A-4 in the present case:
(a) It is submitted that the documents produced by the prosecution
are inadmissible in evidence, as they are electronic documents, filed
without the mandatory certificate u/S. 65 B of Indian Evidence Act.
(b) The alleged verification of the address of Hira Nand, Suraj
Ratra (A-1) and Mohan Lal (A-6), is fraught with inconsistencies and
contradictory testimonies of the witnesses.
Digitally
signed by
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. JYOTI Page no. 28 of 59
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05
17:25:43
+0530
(c) The prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt,
that the ration cards and addresses of Hira Nand, A-1 Suraj Ratra and
A-6 Mohan Lal were forged and fabricated.
(d) The prosecution has admitted that A-1 Suraj Ratra is an Indian
National on account of the documents, Ex. PW1/F and Ex. PW 50/16.
(e) The prosecution has failed to prove the alleged criminal
conspiracy, on the part of the accused persons and failed to collect any
material evidence to show that A-4 Naresh Arora had conspired with
any of the accused persons.
(f) Valid passports were issued to A-1 Suraj Ratra and there is no
evidence on record to show that there was any fault, found in the
passports issued to A-1 Suraj Ratra.
D. Arguments raised qua A-3 Pramod Kumar Sharma
24. A-3 Pramod Kumar Sharma has addressed arguments on similar
lines and additionally submitted that he was never a resident of A-463,
Shastri Nagar, Delhi, as alleged by the prosecution. Moreover, he has
also stated that no documents have been produced by the prosecution
to substantiate the same and the case of the prosecution cannot be
based on mere conjectures or speculations.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
A. Absence of Sanction u/s 140, Delhi Police Act, 1978 r/w S. 197,
CrPC, qua A-2 and A-5 and its effect thereof:-
25. The present discussion shall deal with the applications moved on
behalf of A-2 and A-5, seeking dropping of proceedings/discharge of
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Digitally signed
Page no. 29 of 59
by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05
17:25:48
+0530
both the accused, on the ground of lack of prior sanction u/S. 140 of
Delhi Police Act, 1978.
26. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for both the above-mentioned
accused that A-2 and A-5 being Police Officials, the prosecution was
duty bound to take mandatory sanction u/S 140 of the Delhi Police Act
r/w Section 197 CrPC. However, for reasons best known to the
prosecution, the requisite sanction was not obtained, and this omission,
according to the defence, entitles the accused to have the proceedings
against them dropped. It is the admitted case of the prosecution that the
accused persons, being police officials, were assigned the duty of
verification of passport applications and of submitting verification
reports pursuant thereto. The prosecution alleges that the verification
reports in question were false (Ex. PW15/B2 & Ex. PW15/C2) and that
the attested documents (Ex. PW15/B3 to Ex. PW15/B7; Ex. PW15/C3
to Ex. PW 15/C5) were false and fabricated. It is, therefore, contended
that the alleged acts attributed to A-2 and A-5 had a reasonable nexus
with the discharge of their official duties, and as such, sanction under
Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 was mandatory. Ld. Counsel
for A-2 and A-5 has also relied on the following decisions of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Delhi High Court, in support of
his contentions:
a) Rakesh Kumar Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Crl.M.C.No.2881/2007,
dt. 18.03.2009, Delhi HC.
b) S.I. Manoj Pant Vs. State of Delhi, 76 (1998) DLT 571, Delhi HC.
c) Virupaxappa Veerappa Kadampur vs. State of Mysore, AIR 1963 SC
849.
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Page no. 30 of 59
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05
17:25:53
+0530
d) Gurmeet Kaur Vs. Devender Gupta, 2024 SCC Online SC 3761.
e) G.C. Manjunath & others Vs. Seetaram, 2025 INSC 439.
f) D.T. Virupaksha Vs. C.Subash, (2015) 12 SCC 231.
g) Om Prakash Yadav &Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2012) 12 SCC
72.
h) Sardool Singh through Sewa Singh Vs. Shiv Dayal & Anr., Crl.
M.C. 3027/2009 dt. 13.09.2023, Delhi HC.
27. Per contra, it is submitted by Ld. PP for CBI that the acts alleged
against the accused persons, had no nexus with the official duty of A-2
and A-5 and thus, there was no requirement of sanction. Ld. PP for CBI
has submitted that both A-2 and A-5 were admittedly working as
Assistant Sub-Inspectors (ASIs) and since they can be removed by the
Commissioner of Police, Additional Commissioner of Police etc. as per
Section 21 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978, there was no requirement of
prior sanction, as the requirement of prior sanction is limited only to
acts done by police officers and not the acts done by police officials of
subordinate ranks. Moreover, Ld. PP for CBI has also stated that this
contention regarding the lack of sanction could not have been raised at
the belated stage of final arguments and should have been raised
earlier. Ld. PP for CBI has also relied upon the following decisions, in
support of his contentions:
a) Prakash Singh Badal & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, (2007)1 SCC 1.
b) Station House Officer, CBI, ACB Bangalore Vs. B.A Srinivasan and
another, (2020) 2 SCC 153.
c) Omprakash Yadav Vs. Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay, 2024 INSC 979.
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Digitally Page no. 31 of 59
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05
17:25:58
+0530
d) CBI Vs. Mrs. Pramila Virendra Kumar Agarwal & Anr., 2020 (17)
SCC 664.
e) Dinesh Kumar Vs. Chairman, Airport Authority of India & Anr.,
2012 (1) SCC 532.
28. For a better appreciation of the contentions raised, Section 140
of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 and Section 197, CrPC are reproduced
here as follows:
“140,. Bar to suits and prosecutions:
In any case of alleged offence by a police officer
or other person, or of a wrong alleged to have
been done by such police officer or other person,
by any act done under colour of duty or authority
or in excess of an such duty or authority, or
wherein it shall appear to the Court that the
offence or wrong if committed or done was of
the character aforesaid, the prosecution or suit
shall not be entertained and if entertained shall
be dismissed if it is instituted, more than three
months after the date of the act complained of:
Provided that any such prosecution against a
Police Officer or other person may be entertained
by the Court, if instituted with the previous
sanction of the Administrator, within one year
from the date of the offence”.
Section 197, CrPC
“197. Prosecution of Judges and public
servants.
(1)When any person who is or was a Judge or
Magistrate or a public servant not removable
from his officer save by or with the sanction of
the Government, is accused of any offence
alleged to have been committed by him, while
acting or purporting to act in the discharge of
his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance
of such offence except with the previous
sanction-
(a)in the case of a person who is employed or,
as the case may be, was at the time of
commission of the alleged offence employed, in
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 32 of 59
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05
17:26:02
+0530
connection with the affairs of the Union, of the
Central Government;
(b)in the case of a person who is employed or,
as the case may be, was at the time of
commission of the alleged offence employed, in
connection with the affairs of a State of the
State Government”.
29. Ld. PP for CBI has argued that an ASI is not a Police Officer, as
per the Delhi Police Act, as he is removable in terms of Section 21, DP
Act and thus, there is no requirement of sanction u/S. 140, Delhi Police
Act. The word “Police Officer” has been defined in Section 2 (m) of
the DP Act and states that a Police Officer means any member of the
Delhi Police. Therefore, it is evident that any member of the Delhi
Police is a Police Officer as per DP Act and Section 140, DP Act is
applicable to a Police Officer. Thus, it is clear that Section 140 DP Act
is independent of the post or designation held by such Police Official
and solely depends, as to whether the delinquent official is a member
of the Delhi Police and whether the act alleged against him falls, within
the “colour of duty”.
30. The next contention on behalf of CBI is that the question of
absence of sanction cannot be raised at such a belated stage and has to
be raised during trial. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
recent case of Directorate of Enforcement Vs. B.P Acharya & Ors.,
2024 INSC 843 has held that the question of sanction can be raised
any time after cognizance and even at the time of conclusion of trial
and categorically observed as follows:
“It is well settled that question of sanction under
Section 197 of the Code can be raised any time after
the cognizance; maybe immediately after cognizance
or framing of charge or even at the time of conclusion
of trial and after conviction as well. But there may be
certain cases where it may not be possible to decide
the question effectively without giving opportunity toCBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 33 of 59
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05
17:26:08
+0530
the defence to establish that what he did was in
discharge of official duty. In order to come to the
conclusion whether claim of the accused that the act
that he did was in course of the performance of his
duty was a reasonable one and neither pretended nor
fanciful, can be examined during the course of trial by
giving opportunity to the defence to establish it. In
such an eventuality, the question of sanction should be
left open to be decided in the main judgment which
may be delivered upon conclusion of the trial.
31. It is therefore apparent that the question of lack of sanction can
be raised at any stage of trial and need not necessarily be raised at the
inception of trial. Therefore, the only question which remains to be
adjudicated by this Court is whether the alleged offence committed by
A-2 and A-5 was done “under colour of duty or authority or in excess
of such duty or authority”, as mandated under Section 140 of DP Act.
As far as the issue of sanction is concerned, Section 197 CrPC is the
general law and Section 140 DP Act is the more specific law. The
phrases “while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official
duty” in Section197 CrPC and “under colour of duty” stipulated in
Section 140 of the DP Act have been given parallel judicial
interpretations [D. Devaraja v. Owais Sabeer Hussain, (2020) 7 SCC
695, paras 67 to 71] and thus, both the provisions are in pari materia.
33. As regards the scope of interpretation of the above phrases and
their applicability to the present case, it is pertinent to note the
observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prakash
Singh Badal (supra) , wherein it was held as follows:
“50. The offence of cheating under Section 420 or for
that matter offences relatable to Sections 467, 468, 471
and 120B can by no stretch of imagination by their very
nature be regarded as having been committed by any
public servant while acting or purporting to act in
discharge of official duty. (Emphasis supplied). In such
cases, official status only provides an opportunity for
commission of the offence.”
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Digitally
signed by
Page no. 34 of 59
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05
17:26:13
+0530
32. The above position of law has been reiterated in the recent
decision of Omprakash Yadav Vs. Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay, 2024
INSC 979, wherein it was held as follows:
” 66. At the cost of repetition, we say that the position of
law on the application of Section 197 CrPC is clear – that
it must be decided based on the peculiar facts and
circumstances of each case. This Court has held in a
legion of decisions that any misuse or abuse of powers by
a public servant to do something that is impermissible in
law like threatening to provide a tutored statement or
trying to obtain signatures on a blank sheet of paper;
causing the illegal detention of an accused; engaging in a
criminal conspiracy to create false or fabricated
documents; conducting a search with the sole object of
harassing and threatening individuals, amongst others,
cannot fall under the protective umbrella of Section
197 CrPC.(Emphasis supplied)
67.In light of the same, it follows that when a police
official is said to have lodged a false case, he cannot claim
that sanction for prosecution under Section 197 CrPC was
required since it can be no part of the official duty of a
public official to lodge a bogus case and fabricate
evidence or documents in connection with the same. On
examining the quality of the act, it is evident that there
exists no reasonable or rational nexus between such an act
and the duties assigned to the public servant for the claim
that it was done or purported to be done in the discharge
of his official duty. The mere fact that an opportunity to
register a false case was furnished by the official duty
would certainly not be sufficient to apply Section
197 CrPC. Allowing so, would enable the accused to use
their status as public servants as a facade for doing an
objectionable, illegal and unlawful act and take undue
advantage of their position. If the Case Crime No. 967 of
2007 registered at the Murar Police Station, Gwalior, by
respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 respectively, was a false case,
then there is no doubt that the refusal to grant sanction
would not operate as a bar for their prosecution.”
33. It is thus evident, from a perusal of the above decisions that the
offence of cheating and use of forged documents for the purpose of
cheating, has no nexus either with the official discharge of duty or any
act purported to be done in the discharge of official duty. Thus, the
alleged acts of A-2 and A-5 do not come within the purview of “colour
of duty” as mandated u/S 140 of DP Act. Therefore, this Court is of the
considered opinion that there was no requirement of prior sanction,
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 35 of 59
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05
17:26:22
+0530
before initiation of prosecution against A-2 Badloo Khan and A-5
Rockin R.
34. Accordingly, the applications moved on behalf of A-2 Badloo
Khan and A-5 Rockin R., for discharge/dropping of proceedings
against them, due to lack of prior sanction u/S. 140 of the DP Act,
1978, stand dismissed.
35. The Court shall now deal with the other contentions and
determine whether the accused persons can be held liable for the
offences alleged against them, in the present case.
B. Admissibility of the documents furnished in evidence:
36. It is submitted on behalf of all the accused persons that the
prosecution has failed to furnish original documents and has only
furnished scanned copies of the passport application forms of A-1 and
A-6. It is contended that since scanned copy is an electronic document
and the process of scanning is done using electronic devices, it was the
duty of the prosecution to furnish the mandatory certificate u/s 65 B of
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, duly issued by a person authorized to
produce the same and under whose lawful control, the computer
system was being operated. It is urged that in the absence of the
mandatory certificate, the said documents are inadmissible in evidence
and cannot be relied upon, for proving the case of the prosecution.
37. A perusal of the record shows that PW-24 Raj Singh has deposed
about the alleged scanned copies, obtained from the Regional Passport
Office. During the course of his testimony, the witness testified that the
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 36 of 59
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05
17:26:26
+0530
originals of documents were routinely destroyed and therefore, scanned
copies were attested and handed over by Sh. Umed Singh Lingwal to
the IO. Sh. Umed Singh Lingwal had unfortunately passed away and
could not be examined by the prosecution and accordingly, PW-24 Raj
Singh was examined, who had worked with Sh. Umed Singh Lingwal
and could identify his signatures.
38. During the course of his testimony, he further deposed that on
account of the circular [Ex. PW2/Q (D-15)], the original documents i.e.
the original passport application forms of A-1 and A-6, which were
prepared prior to the year 2000, were weeded out and destroyed as per
the instructions of Ministry of External Affairs and as a result, all the
documents which were destroyed in the process, were retained by way
of scanned copies. However, the witness deposed that he had no
knowledge as to who had scanned the documents and he the said
witness had only obtained the documents from the C.D. Section.
Further, during his cross-examination, he further deposed that the
documents were scanned on the first floor and the seizure memo was
prepared on second floor. He also deposed that at the time of scanning
of the documents, Sh. Umed Singh Lingwal, did not visit the first floor,
where the documents were being scanned.
39. The factum of weeding out and destruction of records, pertaining
to the passport application forms, is also evident from the testimony of
PW-2 and the documents Ex. PW2/P (D-14) and Ex. PW2/Q (D-15). A
perusal of the record shows that out of the four passport application
forms, the original documents pertaining to only one passport
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 37 of 59
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05
17:26:32
+0530
application form (Ex. PW2/H) could be made available and as regards
the rest of the application forms, only the scanned copies were seized
by the IO. As per Ex. PW2/P, the original documents, pertaining to the
case file 01416594 (Ex. PW2/H) (D-18), for issue of Passport No.
E-4871464, valid from 01.05.2003 to 06.07.08 in the name of Suraj
Ratra. S/o Sh. Eera Nand were provided by the RPO to the IO.
However, for the other two passport application forms of A-1 Suraj
(Ex. PW2/C and Ex. PW2/F) and the passport application form of A-6
Mohan Lal (Ex. PW1/L), only the scanned copies were provided.
Therefore, it is evident that the prosecution has placed heavy reliance
on the scanned passport application forms of A-1 Suraj Ratra and A-6
Mohan Lal, to prove its case.
40. In such circumstances, it was incumbent on the prosecution to
have furnished the mandatory certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence
Act for the evidence to be admissible, but unfortunately, this exercise
was not undertaken. The question regarding the lack of mandatory
certificate u/s 65 B IEA was also posed to the IO, who in her testimony
as PW-50, admitted to the non-furnishing of above certificate.
41. Ld. PP for CBI has submitted that the objection regarding the
lack of certificate u/s 65 B IEA, should have been raised during the
initial stage of trial, so that the prosecution would have a chance to
rectify the deficiency, but since the same was not done by the Ld.
Counsels for accused persons, they cannot raise this objection
belatedly. Ld. PP for CBI has placed reliance on the decision of the
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 38 of 59
Digitally signed by
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
Date: 2025.08.05
17:26:38 +0530
Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Sonu Alias Amar vs. State of Haryana
(2017) 8 SCC 570″, wherein, it was stipulated as follows:
“That an electronic record is not admissible unless
it is accompanied by a certificate as contemplated
under Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act is no
more res integra. The question that falls for our
consideration in this case is the permissibility of an
objection regarding inadmissibility at this stage.
Admittedly, no objection was taken when the
CDRs were adduced in evidence before the trial
court. It does not appear from the record that any
such objection was taken even at the appellate
stage before the High Court. In Gopal Das v.
Thakurjig, it was held that: (SCC OnLine PC) “…
Where the objection to be taken is not that the
document is in itself inadmissible but that the
mode of proof put forward is irregular or
insufficient, it is essential that the objection should
be taken at the trial before the document is marked
as an exhibit and admitted to the record. A party
cannot lie by until the case comes before a Court
of Appeal and then complain for the first time of
the mode of proof……
It is nobody’s case that CDRs which are a form of
electronic record are not inherently admissible in
evidence. The objection is that they were marked
before the trial court without a certificate as
required by Section 65-B(4). It is clear from the
judgments referred to supra that an objection
relating to the mode or method of proof has to be
raised at the time of marking of the document as an
exhibit and not later. The crucial test, as affirmed
by this Court, is whether the defect could have
been cured at the stage of marking the document.
Applying this test to the present case, if an
objection was taken to the CDRs being marked
without a certificate, the Court could have given
the prosecution an opportunity to rectify the
deficiency. It is also clear from the above
judgments that objections regarding admissibility
of documents which are per se inadmissible can be
taken even at the appellate stage. Admissibility of a
document which is inherently inadmissible is an
issue which can be taken up at the appellate stage
because it is a fundamental issue. The mode or
method of proof is procedural and objections, if not
taken at the trial, cannot be permitted at the
appellate stage. If the objections to the mode of
proof are permitted to be taken at the appellate
stage by a party, the other side does not have an
opportunity of rectifying the deficiencies……
CDRs do not fall in the said category of
documents. We are satisfied that an objection that
CDRs are unreliable due to violation of theCBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 39 of 59
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05
17:26:43
+0530
procedure prescribed in Section 65-B(4) cannot be
permitted to be raised at this stage as the objection
relates to the mode or method of proof”.
42. A perusal of the above decision shows that the objection
regarding the admissibility of documents, was taken during the
appellate stage and thus, there was no opportunity for the opposite
party to rectify the defect. In the present case, however, the objection
regarding the lack of a certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act has
been taken during the trial itself, when the testimony of the IO, i.e.
PW50 was being recorded. Therefore, the prosecution, if it wanted to,
could have taken steps to make good the deficiency, but this exercise
was not undertaken by the prosecution, for reasons best known to it.
43. Moreover, the question of furnishing the requisite certificate u/s
65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is no more res integra and has
been amply clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision of
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Ors.,
(2020) 7 SCC 1, wherein the requirement of furnishing the certificate
u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act has been re-affirmed and it has been
held that the same is a mandatory requirement of law and it was
stipulated as follows:
“31. The non-obstante clause in sub-section (1)
makes it clear that when it comes to information
contained in an electronic record, admissibility
and proof thereof must follow the drill of Section
65B, which is a special provision in this behalf
Sections 62 to 65, being irrelevant for this
purpose. However, Section 65B(1) clearly Digitally
differentiates between the “original” document – signed by
JYOTI
which would be the original “electronic record” JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
contained in the “computer” in which the original 2025.08.05
information is first stored – and the computer 17:26:47
+0530
output containing such information, which then
may be treated as evidence of the contents of the
“original” document. All this necessarily shows
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 40 of 59
that Section 65B differentiates between the
original information contained in the “computer”
itself and copies made therefrom – the former
being primary evidence, and the latter being
secondary evidence….
59. We may reiterate, therefore, that the certificate
required under Section 65B(4) is a condition
precedent to the admissibility of evidence by way
of electronic record, as correctly held in Anvar
P.V. (supra), and incorrectly “clarified” in Shafhi
Mohammed (supra). Oral evidence in the place of
such certificate cannot possibly suffice as Section
65B(4) is a mandatory requirement of the law.
Indeed, the hallowed principle in Taylor v. Taylor
(1876) 1 Ch.D 426, which has been followed in a
number of the judgments of this Court, can also be
applied. Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act
clearly states that secondary evidence is
admissible only if led in the manner stated, and
not otherwise. To hold otherwise would render
Section 65B(4) otiose” (Emphasis supplied).
44. Thus, the furnishing of the certificate u/s 65 B of Indian
Evidence Act is not an empty formality, but a necessary pre-requisite
which forms the very basis of admissibility of such evidence, to ensure
the genuineness of the same. A perusal of the record shows that the
objection regarding admissibility of document was taken at the
appropriate stage by Ld. Counsels for the accused persons, but nothing
was done in furtherance of the said objection by the prosecution and
thereby, the prosecution ended up weakening its own case. The
documents furnished by the prosecution are scanned documents and
their admissibility was subject to the certificate u/s 65 B IEA, being
furnished. In the absence of the same, the documents could not have
been made admissible. Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05
17:26:51
+0530CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 41 of 59
45. In light of the above, the scanned application forms i.e. Ex.
PW2/C (D-16), Ex. PW2/F (D-17) and Ex. PW1/L (D-23), cannot be
read in evidence and as a result, all the particulars filled in the alleged
form cannot be read in evidence. Therefore, the allegations qua A-3
that he filled in the particulars in the application form D-16 (Ex.
PW2/C) and in the application form D-23 (Ex. PW1/L) alongwith the
forged Ration Card, have not been proved in accordance with law.
46. In light of the above, the Court shall now look into the question,
as to whether there is any other admissible evidence on record, which
proves the commission of offence, by accused persons.
C. Deficiencies in the investigation conducted and the case of prosecution:
47. It is contended on behalf of the accused that the investigation
conducted by the IO, is lacking on various material aspects and, as
such, the benefit thereof should enure to the accused persons.
48. The case of the prosecution is that Eera Nand @ Hira Nand,
S/o Sh. Sant Ram (Afghan National) is the father of accused Suraj
Ratra (A-1) and Mohan Lal (A-6). The prosecution has attempted to
establish that Eera Nand @ Hira Nand came to India as a refugee and
got himself registered as an Afghan National at FRRO, New Delhi in
the year 1989, vide Registration Certificate Nos. 22304/89 and
46741/97 on the strength of passports issued from Kabul. To establish
the same, the IO obtained the Registration Certificates which are
Ex.PW 14/B and Ex. PW14/C.
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. MAHESHWARI Date: Page no. 42 of 59
2025.08.05
17:26:56
+0530
49. The prosecution has further relied on the ration card (Ex.
PW1/E) in the name of Sh. Hira Nand wherein, his address has been
mentioned as 3D-59, NIT, Faridabad, Haryana. Further, in the details
of the family members, the names of both Sukhdayal Suraj (at no.6)
and Mon Lal (at no.4) are mentioned. On this basis, the prosecution has
claimed that both A-1 and A-6, are the sons of Hira Nand @ Eera
Nand.
50. Going by the case of the prosecution itself, since the said Hira
Nand @ Eera Nand is an Afghan National and came to India as a
refugee, in the year 1989, both his sons (who are born earlier than
1989), must have been born in Afghanistan and not in India. However,
this claim is itself rendered suspicious, through the original birth
certificate of Sukhdayal Suraj, issued by Municipal Corporation of
Faridabad (Ex. PW1/F) wherein, it is shown that Sukhdayal Suraj was
born in Faridabad on 28.07.1977. This is further buttressed by the
testimony of PW-50 wherein, he exhibited the document Ex. PW50/2
as per which the Register of Records show that Sukhdayal Suraj (A-1)
was born in Faridabad on 28.07.1977. Thus, there is clear evidence to
the fact that A-1 Sukhdayal Suraj was born in India in 1977 and thus,
by virtue of the Section 3A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, A-1 would be
a ctizen of India by birth.
51. However, for the second brother A-6 Mohan Lal, on the strength
of document Ex. PW2/P (D-14), it is submitted that he is an Afghan
National and was over staying in India since 1997. The same is also
supported by the testimony of PW-13 Gurbax Singh, the-then AFFRO,
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 43 of 59
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05
17:27:01
+0530
East Block, Delhi, who proved the documents, Ex. PW13/A and Ex.
PW13/B. As per the communication received from AFFRO (Ex.
PW13/A), it was categorically stated that Mon Lal was overstaying in
India since 21.12.1997. Therefore, what emerges from the above is that
while Suraj Ratra (A-1) was born in India in 1977, his brother Mohan
Lal was born in Afganistan in 1970 and has been overstaying in India.
This also puts into question the Ration Card (Ex. PW1/E) issued in the
name of Sh. Hira Nand (Ex.PW1/E), as per which Mon Lal is only two
years elder to A-1 Sukhdayal Suraj.
52. Thus, based on the above, it can be stated that the fulcrum of the
case of the prosecution, which is that the Afghani Nationals got Indian
passports issued, on the strength of bogus documents, is itself
questionable.
(i) Verification regarding the change of names of A-1 and A-6:
55. It is pertinent to note that certain names i.e. Suraj and
Sukhdayal Suraj were used interchangeably qua A-1 and the names
Mohan Lal and Mon Lal were used qua A-6, but the necessary
investigation into the said aspect is found wanting. A perusal of the
passport application forms of A-1 and A-6 also bring to the fore, the
inherent contradictions, in the case of the prosecution.
Passport Application Forms of A-1 Suraj Passport Application Forms of A-6
@ Suraj Ratra Mohan Lal
Ex. PW2/F (D-16) Suraj S/o Eera Nand
and Ms. Jaswant Kaur
Ex. PW2/C (D-17) Suraj S/o Eera Nand Ex. PW1/L (D-23) Mohan Lal S/o Hira
and Ms. Jaswant Kaur Nand and Ms. Santosh Devi
Ex. PW2/H (D-18) Suraj Ratra S/o Eera
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 44 of 59
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05
17:27:06
+0530
Nand and Ms. Jaswant Kaur
56. A bare perusal of the details mentioned in the above Passport
Application Forms show that the parentage of both A-1 Suraj@ Suraj
Ratra and A-6 Mohan Lal are different. While, A-1 is shown to be the
son of one Mr. Eera Nand and Ms. Jaswant Kaur, A-6 Mohan Lal is
shown to be the son of Sh. Hira Nand and Ms. Santosh Devi. In light of
such apparent differences in the passport application forms of A-1 and
A-6, this Court is surprised to see as to how the prosecution has shown
A-1 and A-6 to be brothers and not conducted necessary investigation
on the same.
57. The prosecution has collected evidence to the effect that Suraj,
S/o Sh. Eera Nand, got his name changed to Suraj Ratra, but no
evidence has been collected by the prosecution to show that Sukhdayal
Suraj and Suraj are the same persons. The prosecution has relied on the
newspaper advertisements Ex. PW1/L (D-18) and on the deed poll i.e.
Ex. PW1/M (D-18/6), to show that the said Suraj fraudulently changed
his name to Suraj Ratra and got a new passport issued in the name of
Suraj Ratra, but the Court need not delve into this, as A-1 is no longer
an accused in this Court. However, investigation is found wanting on
the aspect of how the name Sukhdayal Suraj was changed to Suraj on
the passport application forms (Ex. PW2/C and Ex. PW2/F).
58. Moreover, this Court is in agreement with the arguments raised
on behalf of the accused that no verification has been undertaken to the
effect that A-6 Mohan Lal and Mon Lal are the same persons. This isDigitally
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. signed by Page no. 45 of 59
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05
17:27:10
+0530
evident from the fact that the ration card no. 3842456 (Ex. PW1/E)
shows Mon Lal to be the son of said Sh. Hira Nand.
59. A perusal of the passport application form of accused Mohan Lal
(Ex. PW1/L) (D-23) shows Mohan Lal, S/o Sh. Hira Nand and the
affidavit submitted by the applicant Mohan Lal in support of his Date
of Birth (Ex. PW15/B7) also shows that he is the son of Hira Nand.
This is in contrast to the passport applications of applicant Suraj @
Suraj Ratra (Ex. PW2/F, Ex. PW2/C and Ex. PW2/H,), wherein, it is
stated that he is the son of Eera Nand. However, no verification has
been undertaken by CBI to ascertain whether Hira Nand and Eera
Nand are the same persons. Consequently, the prosecution has not been
able to establish that both Suraj Ratra (A-1) and Mohan Lal (A-6) are
brothers and rather, the prosecution seems to have been caught in a
confusion of its own making.
60. Any criminal case cannot be based on conjectures or
assumptions and clear evidence must be adduced by the prosecution,
to show that the case of the prosecution, stands independently on its
own footing. However, collection of evidence on the following aspects
is found to be severely wanting thereby, jeopardizing the case of the
prosecution:
(a) Whether Hira Nand and Eera Nand are the same persons.
(b) Whether Mohan Lal and Mon Lal are the same persons.
(c) Whether Suraj and Sukhdayal Suraj are the same persons.
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05
17:27:15
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. +0530 Page no. 46 of 59
(ii) Verification regarding the addresses mentioned in the passport
application forms:
61. The prosecution has relied on the testimony of witnesses to show
that A-1 Suraj was neither residing at E-88/12, Jagjit Nagar, Delhi nor
residing at 313/71 E, Anand Nagar, Inderlok, New Delhi-35. The
testimony of the said witnesses is also fraught with inconsistencies and
no documents/ address proofs were furnished by the said witnesses to
support the case of the prosecution. Furthermore, the witnesses could
not even depose as to whether Jagjit Nagar was authorised or an
unauthorised colony. The examination of PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-8
and PW-9 is a case in point, which shows that the testimony of the
witnesses could not withstand the test of cross-examination and the
witnesses pleaded ignorance, on many aspects. Similarly, the
testimonies of witnesses PW-7 and PW-22 with regard to A-1 nor
residing at Anand Nagar address could not withstand the scrutiny of
cross-examination. The witness PW-7 deposed that he is the owner of
property bearing no. 313/71E, Anand Nagar, Inderlok, Delhi (the
address used by A-1 in passport application form Ex. PW2/F) and A-1
neither stayed as a tenant nor resided there. But the said witness did not
furnish any identity card or anything on record to show that he is the
owner of above-said premises.
62. The witnesses did not even furnish any residential proof, to show
that they are residents of Jagjit Nagar and Anand Nagar and thus, their
assertion of being residents of these localities, is itself shrouded in
suspicion. It is a matter of ordinary prudence that any person,
notwithstanding his level of intellect and his long period of stay, would
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 47 of 59
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05
17:27:21
+0530
not be aware of all the residents of his colony or locality. Despite the
same, the prosecution has relied solely on the witness testimonies to
show that A-1 was not a resident of Jagjit Nagar or Anand Nagar.
63. In such circumstances, it was incumbent on the prosecution to
produce either Municipality records or other relevant documentary
evidence, to show the topography of the area, the existence/ non-
existence of the alleged address i.e. E-88/12, Jagjit Nagar and 313/71-
E, Anand Nagar, Inderlok, Delhi, but even this basic exercise was not
undertaken by the prosecution, for reasons best known to it. The
testimony of PW-50 becomes relevant in this regard wherein during
her cross-examination on 07.03.2025, she deposed that ” I had not
collected either ration card or Election card from public persons,
though they were examined by me, when I visited the Jagjit Nagar
area, regarding investigation of witnesses i.e. Raj Rani and Ram Prasad
mentioned on witness slip by accused Badloo Khan and same is
answered regarding verification of witnesses, mentioned on the
passport application (D-11/17). It is correct that the area chart which
included number of houses with their numbers are available with the
SDM office. I had not collected any such document from SDM office
to ascertain the house number etc of Jagjit Nagar and other area which
surfaced in the investigation.”
“I had visited localities of the witnesses mentioned over witness slip of
police verification documents. I cannot say whether in Jagjeet Nagar
area, any particular community or mixed community was residing at
that time. I do not remember how many blocks were situated in Jagjit
Nagar area (Vol. There were some street numbers). I do not recollectCBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 48 of 59
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05
17:27:27
+0530
how many galis/ streets were there. I cannot say, whether the area was
approved or unapproved. As far as I remember, the house numbers
were in sequence. As far as I remember, I made enquiry/ verification
from the neighbours only”.
64. Furthermore, even to show that A-3 Pramod Sharma was
actually a resident of A-463, Shastri Nagar, Delhi and A-6 Mohan Lal
used the said address as his own, in his passport application form, no
documentary evidence has been collected by the prosecution, in this
regard. Instead, the prosecution, to the utter surprise of this Court has
submitted that since A-3 has never disputed his address, the address i.e.
A-463, Shastri Nagar, Delhi, belonged to him. This unfortunately
cannot be the basis for concluding that A-3 is a resident of A-463,
Shastri Nagar, Delhi, in the absence of any other supporting evidence
or documents. Moreover, the testimonies of PW-21, PW-25 and
PW-28, are also full of inconsistencies and cannot lead to the inference
that A-6 Mohan Lal was not a resident of A-463, Shastri Nagar, Delhi.
65. Thus, the claim of the prosecution that incorrect addresses were
mentioned by A-1 and A-6, to fraudulently obtain passports has not
been proved, let alone being proved beyond reasonable doubt.
D. The angle of criminal conspiracy in the present case
66. The main stay of the case of the prosecution is that A-2 and A-5
acted in conspiracy with A-1 and A-6 respectively, and conducted false
verification, in order to facilitate the issuance of Passport to A-1 Suraj
Ratra and A-6 Mohan Lal respectively. To show the existence of
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 49 of 59
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
Digitally signed by
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
Date: 2025.08.05
17:27:32 +0530
criminal conspiracy, it was incumbent on the prosecution to show not
just false verification carried out by A-2 and A-5, but to also show that
they acted in concert and connivance with the accused persons to
enable the issuance of Passports.
67. It is indeed true that conspiracy is usually hatched in secrecy and
more often than not, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible to obtain
direct evidence. Thus, in most cases, the element of conspiracy is
proved by circumstantial evidence, taking into account, the cumulative
effect of circumstances, which points towards the guilt of the accused.
[State (NCT) of Delhi Vs. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru, (2005) 11
SCC 600]. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Kehar
Singh v. Delhi Administration, (1988) 3 SCC 609, has observed,
“….. No doubt, it may not be possible to prove a meeting
of minds, by way of any direct proof, and more often than
not, a conspiracy is to be inferred from the surrounding
circumstances, including the conduct of the accused.
Having said that, the incriminating circumstances must
also form a chain of events, from which a conclusion of
guilt could be drawn.
68. The prosecution should have adduced some evidence, in the
form of either call records or meeting of A-2 and A-5 with A-1 and A-6
respectively, to show that they conspired to commit the present
offence. However, for reasons best known to it, the prosecution has
miserably failed to show, any iota of evidence or even a whisper of
these two officials, acting in concert with the accused persons to
facilitate the issuance of Passports. There is no evidence on record,
whatsoever, to draw any inference of meeting of minds in the present
case. This is further buttressed by the deposition of the IO, who in her
cross-examination specifically stated, “I cannot say, if there was any
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 50 of 59
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05
17:27:36
+0530
contact between Naresh Arora, Badloo Khan and Rockin R, during the
period 1998 to 2003…… During investigation, no call records had
been collected by me, against the accused persons to bring on record,
the meeting of minds between the accused persons….” Thus, no
evidence has been collected by the prosecution to show the element of
criminal conspiracy.
69. Moreover, it is the admitted case of prosecution that the
application forms by which A-2 and A-5 were assigned the task of
verification were received by them, through official channel (Ex.
PW15/B2 and Ex. PW15/C2). These forms had first reached the office
of DCP directly from the Regional Passport Office (RPO) and
thereafter, assigned to A-2 and A-5, through proper channel. Thus,
there is nothing on record to show that A-2 and A-5 had ever met any
of the other accused persons, prior to the allocation of such verification
to them, during the process of verification or even after, the exercise of
verification was carried out. Thus, nothing has surfaced on record to
show that there was any complicity (direct or indirect) of A-2 or A-5
with the other accused persons.
70. In such a situation, the Court is compelled with no other option,
but to reach the inference that the incorrect verification carried out by
A-2 and A-5, was nothing more than an act of negligence or casual
approach towards the duty assigned to them, instead of being a pre-
meditated effort to commit the offences, as alleged against them.
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. 2025.08.05
Page no. 51 of 59
17:27:41
+0530
71. As regards the angle of criminal conspiracy qua A-3 and A-4,
there is no evidence on record again, to show any evidence of meeting
of minds between these accused persons, so as to facilitate the issuance
of passports to A-1 and A-6, on the basis of forged documents. The
prosecution has merely relied on the statements of certain witnesses,
namely, PW-39 Pramod Kumar Sharma and PW-47 Sunil Sharma to
show the element of conspiracy between A-3 and A-4 but their
testimonies are also not reliable, as they were working with A-3
Pramod Sharma and are interested witnesses. It is a settled proposition
of law that the testimony of interested witnesses, has to be read with
circumspection and their testimony alone, cannot form the basis of
conviction. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the testimony of these
witnesses is also inconsistent and does not withstand the scrutiny of
cross-examination.
72. PW-39 Pramod Kumar Sharma, who was himself working as an
employee of A-3 Pramod Sharma deposed to the effect, that he had
seen A-4 Naresh Arora in the house of A-3 Pramod Sharma. However,
during the course of his cross-examination, he wavered from his
testimony. Moreover, Sunil Sharma, the brother of A-3, was also
examined as PW-47 to show that A-4 Naresh Arora used to visit A-3
Pramod Sharma, but he also could not depose as to whether A-3 and
A-4 had any conversations related to Passport application forms, in his
presence. PW-47 in his cross-examination deposed that no
conversation between A-3 and A-4 regarding passport or any payment
pertaining to the same took place in his presence. Therefore, even his
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. JYOTI MAHESHWARI Page no. 52 of 59
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05
17:27:45
+0530
testimony as regarding the element of criminal conspiracy as alleged
by the prosecution cannot be placed reliance on.
73. The prosecution has submitted that the fact that the passport of
Mohan Lal and Suraj Ratra were seized from the office premises of
A-4 Naresh Arora is sufficient to show the element of conspiracy. This
argument itself falls flat, on the premise that A-4 was running M/s U
Tel Travels and Cargo Pvt Ltd., and was working as an agent for
facilitating the issuance of passports and visas. PW-50 in her
deposition has herself admitted that no evidence has been collected on
record to show that A-4 Naresh Arora had gone to Faridabad during the
period 1998 to 2003 to meet the accused Suraj Ratra or his brother. The
prosecution has also placed reliance on the disclosure statement of A-1
Suraj Ratra (Ex. PW30/1) wherein he had mentioned the name of
Naresh Arora. However, the same is insufficient to draw any adverse
inference against A-4 Naresh Arora, without independent evidence to
substantiate the same.
74. This Court deems it apposite to refer to the observations of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Parveen @ Sonu Vs. The State of Haryana
(07.12.2021) wherein, it was held as follows:
“It is fairly well settled, to prove the charge of
conspiracy, within the ambit of Section 120-B, it
is necessary to establish that there was an
agreement between the parties for doing an
unlawful act. At the same time, it is to be noted
that it is difficult to establish conspiracy by direct
evidence at all, but at the same time, in absence
of any evidence to show meeting of minds
between the conspirators for the intended object
of committing an illegal act, it is not safe to hold
Digitally
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. signed by Page no. 53 of 59
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05
17:27:50
+0530
a person guilty for offences under Section 120-B
of IPC. A few bits here and a few bits there on
which prosecution relies, cannot be held to be
adequate for connecting the accused with the
commission of crime of criminal conspiracy
(emphasis supplied)”.
75. Thus, in view of the legal propositions discussed above, no
element of criminal conspiracy could be proved by the prosecution, as
regards A-2 Badloo Khan and A-5 Rockin R, even through
circumstantial evidence. Even with regard to adducing evidence as to
the existence of criminal conspiracy qua A-3 and A-4, the prosecution
has mostly relied on witness testimonies, which by themselves are
inconsistent and do not aid the case of prosecution.
76. Therefore, it is evident that the prosecution has not been able to
prove the element of conspiracy between accused persons which was a
pre-requisite for proving the offence against A-2 to A-5.
E. Contentions regarding the specific liability of the accused persons:
77. As far as the liability of A-3 Pramod Sharma and A-4 Naresh
Arora is concerned, it is alleged that both the accused persons filled the
Passport Application Forms of A-1 and A-6. However, filling the
details in the passport application form, can by no stretch of
imagination, be construed to be an offence. Moreover, the passport
application form [Ex. PW2/H] (D-18) which was alleged to be filled by
A-4 Naresh Arora was an application filed only to get the change of
name of A-1 recorded and it was based on the particulars already filled
in the previous passport application forms of A-1. There is no evidence
brought on record, to show that A-4 Naresh Arora was aware of, or had
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 54 of 59
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05
17:27:54 +0530
any knowledge, whatsoever, regarding the alleged Afghan nationality
or Afghan roots, of A-1 Suraj.
78. Additionally, the prosecution has examined PW-29 Atul Mathur
to demonstrate that A-4 Naresh Arora had placed an advertisement (Ex.
PW2/L), in respect of change of name of Suraj to Suraj Ratra but his
testimony also could not withstand the test of cross-examination and it
could not be proved that A-4 Naresh Arora had actually placed the
advertisement for change of name of A-1. Even otherwise, placing an
advertisement for change of name or furnishing an affidavit in this
regard, does not ipso facto amount to an offence, unless it can be
shown by the prosecution that the above exercise was intentionally
carried out by A-4, after knowing the particulars of Suraj (A-1) and his
fraudulent activities, for obtaining passports. Thus, the prosecution has
not been able to prove that A-4 knowingly filled false particulars in the
Passport Application Form of A-1 Suraj Ratra. Therefore, no liability
of A-4 Naresh Arora, is made out in the present case.
79. As far as the liability of A-3 Pramod Sharma is concerned, it is
contended that he not only filled the passport application forms of A-1
and A-6, but also provided false documents in support of the said
Passport Applications. However, the said documents Ex. PW2/G
(D-16/6) which are furnished on record are mere photocopies and the
opinion of handwriting expert on the photocopy of a document, cannot
be said to be a conclusive evidence of the same. The Hon’ble High
Court of Andhra Pradesh in the decision of Bheri Nageshwara Rao Vs.
Mayuri Veerabhadra Rao & Ors., AIR 2006 AP 314, has held that a
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 55 of 59
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05
17:28:00
+0530
handwriting expert would be in a position to render his opinion, only
when the original of the document containing the disputed signature is
forwarded to him. It was further observed that it is rather
incomprehensible that an expert would be able to undertake analysis of
the imprint of a signature or handwriting on a xerox copy. This position
was further re-affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the recent
decision of C. Kamalakkannan vs. The State of Tamil Nadu (2025
INSC 309). Therefore, the prosecution has not been able to prove the
allegations levelled against A-3 Pramod Kumar Sharma.
80. As far as the liability of A-2 Badloo Khan is concerned, his role
is limited to the alleged false verification report in respect of passport
application no. 503522, dated 29.05.1998 (Ex. PW2/C). However,
nothing has been brought forth on record, by the prosecution to suggest
that the verification report was prepared falsely with an intention to
benefit himself and A-1 in the process. Even, the person in whose
name the ration card was issued i.e. Ms. Mazda Begum was not
examined as a witness by the prosecution. The prosecution has also
failed to show that the witnesses Raj Rani and Ram Prasad, whose
names were mentioned in the list of witnesses (Ex. PW15/C4) (D-11/4)
were not actually residing there or were fictitious witnesses.
81. Even with regard to A-5, his role is limited to the false
verification report in respect of passport application no. A023603 (Ex.
PW1/L) of A-6 Mohan Lal. However, as has been discussed above, the
prosecution has failed to prove that A-6 Mohan Lal was not residing at
the address mentioned in his application. Moreover, no evidence has
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Digitally signed Page no. 56 of 59
by JYOTI
MAHESHWARI
JYOTI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05
17:28:15
+0530
been collected to show that Seva Singh and Pramod Kumar Sharma,
whose names were mentioned in the list of witnesses in Ex. PW15/B3
were not actually residing there and no address proof was collected in
this regard. The prosecution has attempted to show that the ration card
which was relied upon as a supporting document, was a fictitious one,
through the testimony of PW-52 Shielender Kumar. However, his
testimony is completely irrelevant, as he was never involved in the
process of issuance of the letter Ex. PW50/14 (D-25) and Ex. PW50/3
(D-26) and the documents produced by him were mere photocopies, on
which no reliance can be placed. Therefore, it is evident that the
prosecution has not been able to prove that A-5 intentionally prepared a
false verification report.
82. Additionally, the verification conducted by A-2 and A-5 was
given the stamp of approval by Inspector Ramesh Chand (PW-17) and
the-then ACP Ravi Dutt Kaushik (PW-32) and the same is also evident
from a perusal of their testimonies as well as the documents Ex.
PW15/C2 and Ex. PW15/B2. Thus, at the most, it appears to be a case
of A-2 and A-5, performing their duties negligently and without due
care, but the evidence on record is insufficient to reach the conclusion
that the same was done intentionally by A-2 Badloo Khan and A-5
Rockin R.
83. It is also pertinent to observe that 4 separate passport application
forms give rise to four distinct causes of action. Consequently, it would
have been appropriate if four separate charge-sheets were filed in the
process. However, for reasons not discernible from the record and
Digitally
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. signed by Page no. 57 of 59
JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05
17:28:19
+0530
unknown to this Court, the IO has chosen to amalgamate all these
separate causes of action into a single charge-sheet. As a result, the
lapses in investigation qua one accused, have automatically benefited
the other accused persons and severely undermined the case of the
prosecution.
84. It is a settled proposition of criminal law, that it is for the
prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt. It is for
the prosecution to travel the entire distance from ‘may have’ to ‘must
have’. If the case of the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks
credibility, the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused,
which is the case, in the matter at hand. Further, in a case pertaining to
circumstantial evidence, where two views are possible, one pointing to
the guilt of the accused and the other towards his innocence, the one
which is favourable to the accused, must be adopted. These principles
have also been reiterated in the recent decision of Pradeep Kumar vs.
State of Chattisgarh, 2023 SCC Online SC 275. In the present case, the
case of the prosecution is fraught with inconsistencies and various
lapses, all of which accrue in favour of the accused persons and thus,
the benefit of doubt is extended to the accused persons.
CONCLUSION
85. Considering the entire conspectus of facts and circumstances and
the evidence on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
prosecution has completely failed to prove the offences, which the
accused persons are charged with, in the present case. As a result, the
accused persons, namely, Badloo Khan (A-2), Pramod Kumar Sharma
Digitally
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. signed by
JYOTI Page no. 58 of 59
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
2025.08.05
17:28:24
+0530
(A-3), Naresh Arora (A-4) and Rockin R. (A-5), are acquitted of the
offences punishable under Sections 120 B r/w 420/ 468/ 471 of IPC
and Sections 12 (1) (a) & (b) of the Passport Act, 1967 and the
substantive offences thereof.
86. Before parting, this Court would like to underscore its
appreciation for the Ld. Counsels for accused persons as well as Ld. PP
for CBI, for the superlative assistance rendered, during the trial and
arguments of the present case.
87. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
JYOTI MAHESHWARI
MAHESHWARI Date:
(Jyoti Maheshwari) 2025.08.05
17:28:28 +0530
Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-05
Rouse Avenue Courts Complex
Announced in the open Court
on 5th August, 2025.
CBI vs Suraj Ratra & Ors. Page no. 59 of 59