CRA No. 03/2006 Page 1 of 25

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR

AT JAMMU

CRA No. 03/2006 &

IA Nos. 01/2017, 08/2006, 02/2018

Date of order: 12.04.2019

Surinder Dogra Vs. State through CBI, Bahu Plaza,

Jammu

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Gupta, Judge

Appearing counsel:

For petitioner (s) : Mr. Ankush Manhas, Advocate

For respondent(s) : Mrs. Monika Kohli, Advocate

i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No

Law Journals etc.:

ii) Whether approved for publication in Press: Yes/No

1. This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant against the

judgment dated 16.02.2006 passed by the learned Special Judge,

(Anti-Corruption) Jammu whereby the appellant has been convicted

for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 468

& 471 RPC read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption

Act and has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a

period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under each of

the above four Sections. Period of imprisonment in all the offences

has been ordered to run concurrently.

2. The impugned judgment dated 16.02.2006 has been challenged by

the appellant on the following grounds:-

That the impugned judgment is against the facts of the case

and the accepted principles of law.

That the prosecution had alleged the tampering of the flight

coupon (EXPW-JP/l) by way of forgery against the

appellant herein in the challan. It was alleged that on

19.11.1997, the appellant was operating the ticket sale

counter at Jammu Airport when he committed the said

CRA No. 03/2006 Page 2 of 25

criminal act. In order to prove this allegation, the

prosecution had placed on record the log book of the

Jammu Airport allegedly containing the duty schedule of

the various employees including the appellant. The said log

book was in the shape of a carbon copy only. The contention

of the defense is that the said carbon copy is not an

admissible piece of evidence particularly when the 1.O. had

made no effort to seize the original log book and had not

cited Sh. S.Z. Ali, the scribe thereof, as a witness in the case,

has been accepted by the learned Trial Court and no

reliance has been placed on the said carbon copy of the log

book. Similarly, the learned Trial Court has also refused to

accept the carbon copy of pay-in-slip as evidence to prove

the duty of the appellant at ticket sale counter of Jammu

Airport on19.11.1997 observing that the same has not been

even shown in the court to PW- Ashok Kumar Koul or for

that matter to any other witness. Therefore, though the

leaned Trial Court did not place any reliance on these two

documents for the purpose of proving the duty of the

appellant at the ticket sale counter of Jammu Airport

on19.11.199, yet he adopted a novel approach of the

appreciation of evidence and held the appellant guilty of the

offences mentioned above. Even in his examination under

Section 342 Cr.P.C, the appellant was not put any question

regarding his duty at the ticket sale counter of Jammu

Airport on 19.11.1997.

That the learned trial Court has further committed an

error in relying upon the evidence of PW-J.P. Jaiswar for

the purpose of identification of the handwriting / signatures

of the appellant on the audit coupon (EXPW-JP) and the

flight coupon ((EXPW-JP/1) and holding that the appellant

had prepared both these coupons.

That the learned Trial Count has wrongly held that the

appellant has not challenged the said witnesses, i.e., PW J.P.

Jaiswar and PW -Kewal Krishan in their cross -

examinations with respect to their acquaintance character.

It is a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that

the burden of proof in a criminal ease always lies on the

prosecution unless a statute prescribes otherwise. But in the

present case, the learned Trial Court has opined at page 7 of

the judgment that the burden of proof lies heavily on the

accused. In the present case, when these prosecution

witnesses had not deposed anything regarding one or the

other of the manners prescribed under Section 47 of the

Evidence Act in which they were claiming to be acquainted

with the signature /handwriting of the appellant, there was

absolutely no necessity or or requirement under law for the

appellant to put any question to the effect to those witnesses.

Otherwise also, if the cross-examination of these prosecution

witnesses are read in between the lines, it will be found that

they have been sufficiently cross-examined on this aspect as

CRA No. 03/2006 Page 3 of 25

a matter of fact. The judgment of the learned Trial Court is

bad on this score as well.

3. I have considered the rival contentions of parties. Counsel for

appellant has reiterated all grounds taken in memo of appeal,

whereas counsel for respondent has supported the judgment.

4. Brief facts of the case are that appellant/accused, Surinder Dogra,

was posted as Traffic Superintendent, Indian Airlines, Jammu at

relevant time. The case of prosecution is that on 19.11.1997, the

accused, while manning the ticket sale counter at Jammu Airport,

prepared an infant ticket in a fictitious name and tampered by way of

forgery its flight coupon to make it an adult ticket, thereby obtaining

pecuniary advantage for him and causing loss to Airlines.

Accordingly CBI case, RC 3(A)/98-Jammu dated 08.01.1998 was

registered and investigation taken up on a complaint dated

27.12.1997 lodged by Sh. Romesh Malhotra, Manager (Vigilance)

Indian Airlines. The allegation to be investigated was that M/s Blue

Bird Tours & Travel in connivance with Sh. Rattan Chand and some

unknown officials of Indian Airlines, Jammu were able to procure

infant tickets from Indian Airlines office, which were tampered from

infant tickets to adult tickets, from shorter distance to longer

distance, from infant fare to adult fare and had sold them to S/Sh.

K.K. Gupta and R.K. Kohli, officials

of J&K Bank, Jammu. During the course of investigation of this

case, Vigilance Deptt. of the Indian Airlines Delhi sent a flight

coupon bearing No.0853549 in favour of Mr. Vikram for sector

Jammu to Delhi who had traveled on 19.11.97 but when the auditor

coupon of this ticket number was checked up it was found that the

auditor coupon was in favour of master Azim (infant) and the sector

was Jammu to Srinagar on it. Investigation revealed that accused,

Surinder Dogra, was manning the ticket sale counter at Jammu

CRA No. 03/2006 Page 4 of 25

Airport and his duty was to prepare and sell the Indian Airlines

tickets to the passengers. On 19.11.97 he

prepared an infant ticket No.0581/0853549 in a fictitious name,

called Master Azim, for Jammu-Srinagar Sector Incorporating

therein-false conjuction ticket No.4362009 and also deposited

Rs.102 with the Cashier vide pay-in-slip dated 19.11.97.

Subsequently, he tampered the flight coupon of the same ticket by

way of forgery and made it an adult ticket in the name of one Mr

Vikram. Also changing the sector as Jammu-Delhi and fare to

Rs.3105. The accused, thus, enabled Mr. Vikram to travel to Delhi

on this forged ticket by flight No. 422 dated 19.11.97, seat No. 14.

The accused by his act, it is alleged, abused his official position as a

public servant and obtained pecuniary loss of Rs.3003 to the

department.

5. After producing charge sheet, accused denied allegations when

charges were put to him and prosecution was directed to produce

evidence. During course of trial, prosecution examined nine

witnesses namely Ashok Koul, Kewal Krishan,

Romesh Malhotra, J. Chanderera Hassan, J.P. Jaiswar, Anil Kumar,

Suresh Chander Phullar, M.H. Sexena and S.P.S. Dutta.

6. The statements of witnesses as recorded by trial court in his

judgment reads as under:-

PW-1, Ashok Koul in the year 1997 he was posted as Airport

Manager, Indian Airlines, Airport, Jammu. He has stated that in

Nov. 1997 accused was posted at the said Airport as Traffic

Superintendent, Indian Airlines. He is conversant with the

procedure of Air Travel. Infant tickets are issued for travel of

children, less than two years. As the infant is not provided seat, so

infant ticket is required to be accompanied with an ticket. Sector of

CRA No. 03/2006 Page 5 of 25

journey is also written on the ticket. In order to change the sector, a

new ticket replaces old ticket and reference of the former is given to

the latter. In order to change the name of passenger, old ticket is to

be cancelled and it has no connection with the new ticket. While

proving contents of a memo as EXPW-AK, he has stated that he

had handed over documents to the CBI. Copy of the logbook dated

19.11.97 was seized by the CBI under this memo and in this log

book the name of accused figures at Sr. No. 3. As per the log book,

on 19.11.97 accused was deputed for luggage delivery and cash

transaction log k was written by shift In-charge S.Z. Ali. The

original logbook is deposited with the head office whereas carbon

copy is retained which was given to the CBI. In cross-examination

he has stated that the Air travel procedure is given in the Airport

Handling Manual, though he cannot refer to its sanction, rule or

clause. He had obtained the logbook from the shift in- charge and

shown it to the CBI. Also he has admitted that in December 1997 a

case was registered against Rattan Chand, Traffic Assistant, with

allegation that he in connivance with a private agency was

converting infant tickets to adult tickets.

PW-2 Kewal Krishan, has stated that he was posted as Cashier in

the office of Indian Airlines, Jammu from 04.06.97 to 1998. He can

identify the signatures of Rattan Chand and the accused, if shown to

him. Coupon of a ticket, he has stated that is retained for the entry

in the official accounts is called the auditor coupon. Referring to

the Flight coupon and the coupon No.0853945 in the file, he has

failed to identify their scribe but has identified as that of the accused

the signature dated 19.11.97 marked as Q26/1. This ticket according

to him was issued in the name of Master Azim for Jammu-Srinagar

Sector. Referring to the carbon copy, RM/2, he has stated that,

given its number, it can be said that is should be the copy of the

CRA No. 03/2006 Page 6 of 25

same ticket but in it name of the passenger is written as Mr.

Vikram. In cross-examination he has stated that the audit coupon

and the flight coupon have been seen for the first time in the court

only. The investigating officer had enquired from him about ¾

cases relating to conversion of infant tickets to adult tickets,

including that of the accused. There is no tampering in adult flight

coupon is given to the passengers.

PW-3, Romesh Malhotra, has stated that in the year 1997, he was

posted as Manager Vigilance in Delhi Region. On 27.12.97 he had

received a complaint, alleging that M/s Blue Bird Co. have

converted by tampering infant ticket to adult tickets, also changing

the flight sectors thereof. Before referring case to CBI, a

departmental enquiry was held. In the course of enquiry, one infant

auditor coupon issued in the name of Master Azim for Jammu-

Srinagar Sector issued from Indian Airlines, Airport, Jammu was

verified details of its flight coupon, obtained from the computer. It

was found that the corresponding flight coupon issued with this

auditor coupon was tampered in the manner that the name of one

Mr. Vikram was written in place of Master Azim and flight sector

was changed from Jammu-Srinagar to Jammu-Delhi. Rs.120 as fare

was tampered to Rs.3105.In the result in place of Master Azim, Mr.

Vikram was allowed to travel by the plane from Jammu to Delhi

against payment of Rs.102 who had undertaken the journey thereby

causing a loss of about Rs.3000 to the Airlines. He had, therefore,

reported the mater to SP CBI vide his report dated 04.03.1998. The

witness in the course of statement has produced photocopy of the

report that has been marked as RM. Further he has stated that in the

course of investigation he had handed over to Dy. SP, CBI, Mr.

S.P.S. Dutta the original or coupon and the flight coupon against

seizure memo dated 23.03.98, which he has proved as EXPW-RM.

CRA No. 03/2006 Page 7 of 25

Also he has identified both the said coupons as documents No. 43

and 44 on the file. About the auditor coupon, he has stated that it

was issued on 19.11.97 in the name of Master Azim, showing him

as an infant, against payment of Rs.102 as fare. Saying that he

having retired as Sr. Manager Vigilance from Indian Airlines as

acquainted with all its procedure, he has stated that a child less than

two years cannot travel without a guardian so ticket number of the

person with whom the infant has to travel is also written on the

infant ticket. On the infant ticket issued in the name of Master Azim

was written a conjunction ticket also but no such ticket was issued

by the Indian Airlines. On enquiry it was found that none had

travelled on such ticket from Jammu to Srinagar or Jammu to Delhi.

This makes it clear that the ticket in the name of Master Azim was

issued with malafide intention and fictitious conjunction ticket

number was shown in it. On enquiry from Jammu station, it was

found that auditor coupon in the name of master Azim was issued

by Surinder Dogra, who at that time was posted as Traffic

Superintendent at Indian Airlines, Airport, Jammu. Giving the

structure of Indian Airlines tickets, he has stated that every ticket

has four or three leaves. First leaf is called auditor coupon, second

the flight coupon and third the office coupon. There are two flight

coupons if the tickets are more than one sector. It could not be

ascertained in the enquiry as in whose hand the adult coupon was

written but during investigation by him, it was found that accused

Surinder Dogra as the Airport Manager signed it, Ashok Kumar

Koul had identified his signatures. (The auditor coupon marked as

RM/1 for identification). Further he has stated that the Station

Accountant collects the sale amount as per the auditor coupon from

the In-charge and accounts for the same. Adverting to the flight

coupon No. 0853549 dated 19.11.97 i.e, document No.44 marked as

CRA No. 03/2006 Page 8 of 25

RM/2, he has stated that it should have been in the name of Master

Azim too. On this coupon the fare has been written as Rs.3105,

which as per auditor coupon should have been Rs.102/. Llikewise

the sector has been written as Jammu-Delhi, which should have

been Jammu-Srinagar. The existence of utilization stamp on the

flight coupon proves that the journey was conducted on its basis.

Coupon wise entries made in the auditor coupon are not reflected in

the flight coupon. The fare and tax columns in the auditor coupon

have not been filled as it has been done in the flight coupon. The

auditor and flight coupons are issued by the same person and not by

the different persons. Both, the auditor and the flight coupons bear

signatures of the same i.e accused Surinder Dogra. He did not

enquire as in whose hand the flight coupon was written. Expressing

his opinion, the witness has stated that the auditor coupon on its

back is painted with red carbon and therefore, whatever written on

the auditor coupon is reflected on the flight coupon and the office

coupon. In order to commit mischief, the auditor coupon would

have been written with light strokes and in the result the writing

would have been reflected faintly on the flight coupon. Thereafter,

the light reflection on the flight coupon would have been erased and

dark reflection would have been arranged by placing an old coupon

on it and writing on that. In alternative some paper would have been

kept below the auditor coupon and in the result whatever written on

the auditor coupon was not reflected on the flight coupon. In cross-

examination he has stated that he had not named Surinder Dogra in

his complaint. He had lodged the complaint on 07.12.97 and had

also informed the Director Vigilance of the Airlines who had

ordered scrutiny of the documents. About ten complaints were

detected during scrutiny, one of them being the flight coupon of

Master Azim. The tampering in the ticket of master Azim was

CRA No. 03/2006 Page 9 of 25

detected in January or February, 98. He had stated in his statement

before CBI about tampering in the ticket of Master Azim but had

not stated anything about Surinder Dogra.

PW-4, J. Chandera Hassan has stated that in 1998, he was posted

as Sr. Assistant in Indian Airlines, Vigilance Office, New Delhi. He

had assisted Sh. Ramesh Malhotra Sr. Manager Vigilance during

enquiry. After enquiry, CBI had registered the case on complaint of

Ramesh Malhotra. The complaint in fact was against M/s Blue

Birds Travels. Expressing knowledge about procedure of ticking

and boarding in Indian Airlines, he has stated that status of infant

ticket cannot be changed to that of an adult ticket. Infant ticket

cannot be independent of conjunction ticket. In cross-examination

he has reiterated his personal knowledge about the above-mentioned

procedure.

PW-5 J.P. Jaiswar has stated that in the year 1997 he was posted

as Station Manager, Jammu Station whereas the accused was posted

as Superintendent, Indian Airlines. Job of the accused was to handle

the passenger. No infant ticket is issued independent of adult ticket

and both tickets are in conjunction. No adult is allowed to travel

against infant ticket. Coupon No.0853549 is auditor coupon in the

name of master Azim. This has been issued for travel from Jammu

to Srinagar against payment of Rs.102. This is infant ticket on

which only 10% of the fare is charged and 90% is exempted. On it

conjunction number is written as 4362009. This coupon is in the

handwriting and under signature of the accused. This has been

marked as exhibit PW-JP. Further he has stated that the other

coupon is flight coupon of ticket No.0581/0853549. Exhibit PW-JP

and No.0581/0853549 is the same thing, though on it the name is

different. This ticket is issued in the name of Vikram. On it sector

has been shown as Jammu-Delhi and charges as Rs.3105. Flight

CRA No. 03/2006 Page 10 of 25

number is written as 421 and flight date as 19.11.1997. This is not

an adult ticket but is a part of Ex.-JP. This ticket is also in the

handwriting and under the signature of accused though he cannot

say who has tampered the sector in it. This coupon has been marked

as exhibit PW-JP/1. The witness has further stated that by issuing

Ex.-JP and Ex.PW-JP/1financial loss has been caused to the Indian

Airlines. Flight coupon and auditor coupon etc. are sent to Central

Revenue Account Headquarters New Delhi. In cross-examination

he has stated that in the year 1997 Rattan Chand was posted as

Traffic Assistant and Permod Kumar as Sr. Traffic Superintendent.

He had never received a complaint saying that Rattan Chand and

Permod Kumar were involved in preparing infant tickets and

changing their status and sector. The Blue Bird Agency was

affiliated with Indian Airlines and used to operate for Srinagar. A

challan involving 7/8 tickets against Blue Bird Agency is pending in

the Ist Addl. Court, in which his statement has been recorded.

Exhibits JP and JP/1 were issued from the counter. As per the

tickets shown to him, the accused should have been deputed at the

counter, though, he cannot say, in absence of the roster as to where

other employees on that day were posted. Exhibit JP is auditor

coupon and JP1 is flight coupon. Flight coupon and jacket of

auditor coupon remain with the passenger. By the term handling the

passenger is meant every service connected with the passengers.

Further he has stated that he is acquainted with handwriting and

signature of all those employees of Indian Airlines who were posted

at Jammu station. Also that he cannot say as to whether the Blue

Bird Agency had tampered exhibits JP and JP/I. However, both of

them are in the hand writing and under the signatures of the

accused, though he cannot say who has changed sector and name in

them.

CRA No. 03/2006 Page 11 of 25

PW-6 Anil Kumar Verma Deputy General Manager Personnel

Indian Airlines, has stated that in the year 1999 be was posted as Sr.

Manager Personnel, Palm Airport. Kumari Sushma Chawla those

days was posted as Regional Director and was competent to

terminate services of the accused. He has worked under her for

about one year and is acquainted with her signatures and hand

writing. The witness has proved as exhibit AKV. The sanction order

dated 29.01.1999 issued by the Regional Director Sushma Chawla.

His statement has not been challenged in cross-examination. Only

question asked in cross-examination is that Kumari Sushma Chawla

is alive and posted as Director Finance.

PW 7 Suresh Chander Phullar has stated that on 19.11.1997 he

was posted in Indian Airlines at Jammu. Accused Surinder Dogra

was his senior and had worked with him at Jammu. He is not much

acquainted with the signature of the accused. Infant ticket is not

issued independent of adult ticket. In cross-examination he has

refused a particular portion of statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. attributed

to him. Further he has stated that the ticket shown to him by Mr.

Dutta were in the handwriting of Rattan Chand. Mr. Dutta had not

recorded his statement in his presence. He had denied knowledge as

to who had issued the infant ticket and adult ticket bearing

No.0853549.

PW-8 H.M. Sexena, Deputy Govt. Examiner of Questioned

Documents, Shimla has stated that the documents of case RC No.3

(A)/98/Jammu were received from CBI/ACB through letter No.

5361/3/3(a)/98/CBI/Jammu dated 16.07.98. He and his colleague

M.L. Sharma Deputy GEQD examined the documents. The witness

has proved a copy of the expert opinion given by him and M.L.

CRA No. 03/2006 Page 12 of 25

Sharma has marked as HMS and the reasons for his opinion as

exhibit PW-HMS.

PW-9 SPS Dutta is an investigating officer. He has referred to the

steps taken by him in the course of investigation and has in addition

stated that he had obtained specimen handwriting of the accused in

presence of witness Y.P. Sharma.

7. Court after recording the statement of accused/appellant under

section 342 Cr.P.C. and appreciating the evidence on record,

convicted the accused and sentenced him as narrated above.

8. Accused/appellant was charge sheeted under section 420, 467, 468,

471 R.P.C and section 5(2) r/w 5(1) (d) of PC Act with allegations

that on 19.11.1997 he prepared an infant ticket no.0581/0853549 in

the name of fictitious person Master Azim for sector

Jammu/Srinagar incorporating therein false conjunction ticket

no.4362009 and amount of Rs.102 deposited with the cashier vide

pay-in slip dated 19.11.1997; subsequently accused tampered the

flight coupon of the same ticket by way of forgery and made it an

adult in the name of Mr. Vikram and sector was changed to Jammu

-Delhi and fare was also changed to Rs.3105 /-; accused also made

said Vikram to travel to Delhi on this forged ticket by flight no.422

dated 19.11.1997 seat no. 14; with above said Act accused caused

loss of Rs.3003/- to the department.

9. Forgery is defined under Section 463 RPC.

“463. Forgery.

Whoever makes any false document or part of a document, with intent

to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person, or to support

any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to

enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit

CRA No. 03/2006 Page 13 of 25

fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.”

10. Making of false document is defined in Section 464 of RPC.

“Sec.464. Making a false document.

[A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record-

First- who dishonestly or fraudulently- makes, signs seals or executes a

document or a part of a document; makes or transmits any electronic

record or a part of any electronic record; affixes any digital signature

on any electronic record; makes any mark denoting the execution a

document or the authenticity of the digital signature; with the intention

of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document,

electronic record or digital signature was made, signal, sealed,

executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by

whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed,

sealed, executed or affixed; or

Secondly- who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently,

by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record

in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed

with digital signature either by himself or by any other person,

whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or

Thirdly- Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign,

seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his

digital signature on an electronic record, knowing that such person by

reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by

reason of deception practiced upon him, he does not know the contents

of the document or the nature of the alteration].”

11. As per sections 463/464 RPC, the person who is charged with offence

of forgery has to make sign, seal and to execute a document, which he

knows that it is false. To attract sections 468 there has to be alteration

of document dishonestly and fraudulently. Further if the document is

to be altered, it has to be some gain or with such objective on the part

of the accused. For attracting section 471 RPC this forged document

should have been used as genuine document. Dishonestly means doing

any act in order to cause wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss

CRA No. 03/2006 Page 14 of 25

to another; fraudulently means act done with intent to defraud.

12. In present case as held by court below, firstly one has to see structure

of an air-travel ticket and the meaning and procedure of issuing of an

infant-ticket. PW-Romesh Malhotra the retired senior Manager,

Indian Airlines, has stated about this fact; he has stated that a child less

than two years cannot travel without a guardian and therefore, the

ticket number of the person with whom the child has to travel is written

on the infant ticket. He has further stated that every air ticket has three

or four leaves. First leaf is called the Auditor coupon, second the

flight coupon and third the office coupon. There are two flight

coupons, if the ticket is for more than one sector. Further, that the same

person issues the auditor coupon and the flight coupon. The Station

Accountant collects from the in-charge the sale amount as per the

auditor coupon and accounts for the same. That the auditor coupon

has red carbon on its back and therefore, whatever written on the

auditor coupon is reflected on the flight coupon and the office coupon.

PW-Ashok Koul, the then Airport Manager, has stated that the infant

tickets are issued for travel of children less than two years. As a seat is

not provided to the infant, so the infant ticket is required to be

accompanied with an adult ticket.

PW-Kewal Krishan has stated that the coupon of the ticket that is

retained for official accounts is called the auditor coupon and that

while issuing the ticket the flight coupon is given to the passenger.

PW JP Jaiswar, the then Station Manager, Jammu Station has stated

that no infant ticket is issued independent of adult ticket and both the

tickets are issued in conjunction. No adult is allowed to travel against

the infant ticket. In addition, he has stated that the infant-ticket has

90% concession in fare and only 10% of the fare is charged.

CRA No. 03/2006 Page 15 of 25

Thus, it is clear that the air-travel ticket of the Indian Airlines is in

three counterparts i.e. first Auditor coupon, second the flight

coupon and third the office coupon and these are prepared by one

uniform process by the same person at the same time.

The auditor coupon has red carbon on its back and the person

issuing the ticket whatever writes on the auditor coupon, is reflected

on the other counterparts under it i.e. flight coupon and the office

coupon. That is how the same uniform process; all the three parts

are prepared by person issuing the tickets. Further from the

evidence it is apparent that at the time of issuing a ticket the

auditor coupon is retained by the Airlines for maintaining official

accounts and the flight coupon is given to the passenger. Infant-

ticket is issued for the travel of a child, below two years on payment

of the 10% of the normal fare and on that ticket is written the

number of that adult's ticket, with whom the minor has to travel.

That adult's ticket vis-à-vis the infant ticket is called the conjunction

ticket.

13. Auditor coupon and flight coupon have been seized during

investigation as No.43 and 44 respectively and apparently it looks

that both these coupons bear numbers 0581 & No.0853559; auditor

coupon bears name of master Azim and destiny as from Jammu-

Srinagar at cost at Rs.102/- and conjunction Ticket number also,

whereas Flight coupon bearing number 0581 -no 0853559 would

reveal that it bears name of passenger Vikram, destiny as Jammu-

Delhi and amount as Rs.3105 and no conjunction Ticket number

has been given; during investigation handwritings on these coupons

have been marked as Q-26,Q-26/1 and Q-27, Q-27/1 respectively;

admitted handwriting and specimens signatures of appellant

CRA No. 03/2006 Page 16 of 25

/accused were obtained during investigation and sent to FSL for

examination.

14. Seizure of these coupons has been proved by PW-Romesh

Malhotra, the then Manager Vigilance, Indian Airlines, who has

stated that he had given these coupons to the CBI Inspector,

S.P.Dutta, vide memo Ex.PW-RM. PW-S.P.S, Dutta, the

Investigating officer, has also stated that both these coupons were

provided by Romesh Malhotra during investigation of FIR No.3/98

and were seized by him vide memo Ex.PW-RM.

15. Next prosecution was to prove that, appellant/accused was posted at

that relevant time at Airport on 19.11.1997, and was operating the

ticket sale counter at Jammu and his duty was to prepare and sell

the Indian Airlines tickets to the passengers and he was author of

these coupons.

16. From the perusal of evidence on record, it is evident that PW-Ashok

Koul has stated that in November 1997 accused was posted as

Traffic Superintendent, Indian Airlines at Jammu. PW-J.P Jaiswar

has stated that the accused in 1997 was posted as Superintendent,

Indian Airlines at Jammu and his duty was handling of the

passengers. Elaborating in the cross-examination, he has stated that

handling of the passengers means every service connected with the

passengers. PW-Kewal Krishan, the then Cashier. Indian Airlines,

Jammu, has stated that in 1997 the accused was posted at Jammu

Airport.

17. This fact has not been denied by accused as no cross examination in

this regard was done from these two witnesses; the I.O. has

contented with seizure from PW-Ashok Koul, the then Airport

CRA No. 03/2006 Page 17 of 25

Manager, of a carbon copy of the logbook of airport. It has been

marked as EXPW-AK.

18. Counsel for appellant has contended that original log book has not

been seized, so no reliance can be placed on this carbon copy of

logbook. This contention is without any force as carbon copy is

made at the same time when original is made.

19. Section 62 of Evidence Act deals with primary evidence and which

is relevant for the present purpose, runs as follows:

"62. Primary evidence:--Primary evidence means the document

itself produced for the inspection of the Court.

Explanation 1 :--Where a document is executed in several parts,

each part is primary evidence of the document.

Where a document is executed in counterpart, each counterpart

being executed by one or some of the parties only, each

counterpart is primary evidence as against the parties executing

it.

Explanation 2 :--Where a number of documents arc all made by

one uniform process, as in the case of printing, lithography, or

photography, each is primary evidence of the contents of the rest,

but where they are all copies of a common original they are not

primary evidence of the contents of the original."

20. Explanation 2 is relevant for present case. It says that where a

number of documents are made by one uniform process, each is

primary evidence of the contents of the rest. Under Explanation 2,

all the documents must be taken at a time under one uniform

process in which case, each of such documents is a primary

evidence of the contents of the rest. Printing, cyclostyle, lithography

are some mechanisms which are recognized under law through

which documents can be obtained under a uniform process. Thus,

documents prepared under the uniform process of either printing or

cyclostyle or lithography cannot be mere copies in strict legal sense

CRA No. 03/2006 Page 18 of 25

of the term, in fact, they are all counterpart originals and each of

such documents is a primary evidence of its contents.

21. Next prosecution is to prove that; it is accused who was author of

these two coupons.

22. Court below in order to find out this aspect of the matter has held as

under:-

“To prove that the accused had prepared both the coupons i.e, the

auditor coupon and the flight coupon on 19-11-1997, the prosecution, in

absence of the direct evidence, has relied upon the opinion evidence,

that is relevant u/ss 45 and 47 of the Evidence Act. Hon'ble Supreme

Court, AIR 1967 S.C.1326, has laid down that:-

“(10) Evidence of the identity of handwriting receives

treatment in three sections of the India Evidence Act. They

are sections 45, 47 and 73. Handwriting may be proved on

admission of thewriter, by the evidence of some witness in

whose presence hewrote. This is direct evidence and if it is

available the evidenceof any other kind is rendered

unnecessary. The Evidence Actalso makes relevant the

opinion of a handwriting expert (S.45)or of one who is

familiar with the writing of a p erson who is

said to have written a particular writing. Thus besides direct

evidence that is of course the best method of proof, the law

makes relevant two other modes. A writing may be proved

to be in the handwriting of a particular individual by the

evidence of a person familiar with the handwriting of that

individual or by the testimony of an expert competent to the

comparison of handwritings on a scientific basis. A third

method (S.73) is comparison by the court with a writing

made in the presence of

the court or admitted or proved to be the writing of the

person."

As regards the opinion based on familiarity, Sr.P.P. CBI has referred

mainly to the statement of PW-J.P.Jaiswar, who at the relevant time

was posted as Station Manager, Indian Airlines, Jammu Station. In

addition, he has referred to the statement of PW- Kewal Krishan, who

was posted as Cashier in the office of theIndian Airlines at Jammu.

PW-J.P. Jaiswar has said that in the year 1997 he wasposted as Station

Manager of Jammu Station whereas the accused was posted as

Superintendent. He is acquainted with the signature of the accused. In

cross-examination, he has reaffirmed that he is acquainted with the

handwriting and signatures of all the employees of Indian Airlines

CRA No. 03/2006 Page 19 of 25

posted at the Jammu Station in

the year 1997. Referring to the auditor coupon and the flight coupon

on the file he has stated that they are in the handwriting and under

signatures of the accused though he cannot say as to who has tampered

the sector in the flight coupon. In his statement, these coupons have

been marked as exhibits PW-JP and PW-JP/1.As regards the auditor

coupon, exhibit JP, he has further explained that it is an infant-ticket

for Rs.102, issued in the name of master Azim for Jammu-Srinagar

sector. On it a conjunction number is shown as 43662009. As regards

the flight coupon, he has stated that this and the exhibit PW-JP is the

same thing but the flight coupon is issued in the name of one Vikram

for Jammu-Delhi sector and the charges have been shown as Rs.3105.

In it, the flight number is also given as421. Nothing as regards the

above statement of the witness has been asked to him in the cross-

examination so it is to be believed that the defense has not disputed this

part of his statement. The cross/examination is focused on his

knowledge and information about cases of tampering in the Air-tickets

against a travel agency, namely, Blue Bird Agency. On the other hand,

even in the cross-examination he has stated that in face of the tickets

shown to him, the accused on that should have been deputed on the

counter. Again, he has reaffirmed that exhibits PW-JP and PW-JP/1

are both in the hand writing and under the signatures of the accused

but has also said that he cannot say as to who has changed the sector

and the name in it.

PW-Kewal Krishan has stated that from June 1997 to 1998 he was

posted as cashier in the office of Indian Airlines at Jammu whereas the

accused, whom he knows, was posted at the Airport. He can identify

the signature and hand writing of the accused, if shown to him. While

referring to the flight coupon and auditor coupon on the file he has

stated that the signature, Q26/1 dated 19- 1-97isof the accused. Q 26/1,

as would be noted hereinafter, while appreciating statements of the

handwriting expert and the I.O. is said to be the mark given to the

signature of the person having issued the flight coupon. Nothing, as

regards his competence to identify signature at Q 26/1, has been asked

to this witness in cross-examination.”

23. The court below has also repelled the argument of counsel for

accused that both of these two witnesses used to operate from city

office of the Indian Airlines, whereas the accused, as per the

prosecution case was operating at the airport so they were not

acquainted with the hand writing and signature of the accused. The

court below has said that competence of the witnesses to identify

signatures or the handwriting of the accused was not challenged in

the cross-examination. Court below has relied upon AIR 1967

Mysore 210, has observed as under:-

CRA No. 03/2006 Page 20 of 25

“The Sessions Judge has accepted the evidence of PW-6 as

he (PW-6) was the person who was the superior of the

accused. He was the post-master of Head Post Office of

Sedam and the accused was the Branch Post Master of

Chintapalli, which was under Sedam Head Post Office. Being

the immediate superior he had the occasion to see the

handwriting and the signature of the accused and there is no

reason why due weight should not be attached to his

evidence. He has deposed that he knows the hand writing of

the accused very well. He has not been questioned in this

regard in the cross-examination. Therefore his evidence in

examination-in-chief remained unchallenged. Having regard

to all these circumstances I am unable to accept contention

urged on behalf of appellant-accused that the Sessions Judge

was wrong in having reached the conclusion that the

disputed writing and the signatures on these documents were

of accused...."

24. The court below has also held that there was sufficient evidence to

prove that the accused is the author of the auditor coupon Ex.PW-

JP, as also the flight coupon Ex.PW-JP/1. The court below also

held that contents of flight coupon was proved by relying upon

judgment of Apex Court reported in AIR 1957 SC 857, wherein it is

held:

“ (11).... The proof of the genuineness of the document is

proof of the authorship of the document and his proof of a

fact like that of any other fact. The evidence relating thereto

may be direct or circumstantial. It may consist of a

directevidence of a person who was the document being

written or

the signature being affixed. It may be the proof of the

handwriting of the contents, of the signature, by one of the

mode provided by ss . 45 and 46 of the Indian Evidence Act.”

25. Further, Sections 45, 47, 67 and 73 of Evidence Act jointly

prescribe the following methods of proving handwriting;-

1. By evidence of the writer himself (Section 67).

2. By expert opinion (Section 45).

3. By evidence of person who is acquainted with handwriting

(Section 47).

CRA No. 03/2006 Page 21 of 25

4. By comparison of the handwriting in question with the

handwriting of an alleged writer (Section 73).

26. Section 47 of Evidence Act reads as under:-

“Opinion as to handwriting, when relevant.- When the Court has

to form an opinion as to the person by whom any document was

written or signed, the opinion of any person acquainted with the

handwriting of the person by whom it is supposed to be written or

signed that it was or was not written or signed by that person, is a

relevant fact.

Explanation.-A person is said to be acquainted with the

handwriting of another person when he has seen that person

write, or when he has received documents purporting to be

written by that person in answer to documents written by himself

or under his authority and addressed to that person, or when, in

the ordinary course of business, documents purporting to be

written by that person have been habitually submitted to him.”

27. When the Court has to form an opinion as to the person by whom

any document was written or signed, the opinion of any person

acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom it is

supposed to be written or signed that it was or was not written or

signed by that person, is a relevant fact. A person is said to be

acquainted with the handwriting of another person when he has seen

that person writes, or when he has received documents purporting to

be written by that person in answer to documents written by himself

or under his authority and addressed to that person, or when, in the

ordinary course of business, documents purporting to be written by

that person have been habitually submitted to him. In terms of

section 47 of Evidence Act, court may form opinion on the basis of

evidence of person/witness; 1. Who has seen the person writes, or

2. Who has received documents purporting to have been written by

that person in answer to document written by the witness, or 3. Who

has in ordinary course of business received documents purporting to

have been written by that person or such documents have been

habitually submitted to him. According to Section 47, the opinion

CRA No. 03/2006 Page 22 of 25

of person who is acquainted with the handwriting of another is

relevant. Thus, the statement of person in whose presence the

writing was made or the person who is habitually receiving letters

from that person is relevant. If a person is familiar with this writing

is also relevant. In present, it is admitted fact that PW5 J.P. Jaiswar

was head of Indian Airline at, Jammu and accused was subordinate

to him; so definitely he would be receiving communication from

accused and so was familiar with handwriting of accused; similarly

PW Kewal Krishan was colleague of accused, thus has ample

opportunity to be acquainted with handwriting of accused.

28. Further, court below has relied the evidence of PW-H. M. Sexena-

expert witness, who has stated that in RCNo.3(A) 98/Jammu

documents were received for opinion of GEQD from CBI/ACB

Jammu vide letter No.5361/3(a)98/CBIL/Jammu dated 16.07.98.

The disputed documents were marked in Q series from Q 12 to

Q27, Q26/1 and Q27/1. Also were received specimen and admitted

writings and signatures of eight persons that were marked Sl to

S114, S115, S115 (A) and S 115 (B). The witness has then stated

that he and his colleague M.L. Sharma, Deputy GEQD had

examined those documents independently and had reached at the

same conclusion and both of them had signed the opinion. The

witness has identified his signature as also that of his colleague

M.L.Sharma on a photocopy of the opinion placed on record of this

file that has been marked as HMS. Also he has proved as Ex-HMS,

his written reasons in support of his opinion. In this report, he has in

particular referred to two paras that has been marked as A and A/1.

In addition he has stated that Q26 and Q26/1 are exhibits Ex -JP and

Q 27 and Q27/1 are the exhibits Ex.PW-JP/1. Also he has referred

on the file to the specimen writing/signatures of accused that have

CRA No. 03/2006 Page 23 of 25

been marked as exhibits HMS/1 to HMS/9. The witness has in

particular referred to Para 5 of his opinion that reads as under;

"5. The persons who wrote the enclosed writings and

signatures stamped and marked S 55 and S 63 also wrote the

red enclosed writings and signatures similarly stamped and

marked Q26, Q26/,027 and Q27/1”

Para marked as A in the written reasons of the witness reads as

under: -

"My opinion that, "the person who wrote the enclosed

writings and signatures stamped and marked S 55 to S 63

also wrote closed writings and signatures similarly stamped

and markedQ26, Q26/1, Q27 and Q27/1", is based on the

cumulative consideration of various similarities observed

between the questioned and standard writings both in their

individual and in general writing habits of moment, speak,

skill, slant, spacing, alignment, relatives size and proportion

of character as well as nature of their commencement,

combination, simplification and termination of various

strokes."

29. The argument of counsel for appellant that specimen

writings/signatures of the accused have not been sufficiently proved

inasmuch as the available independent witness, M.L.Sharma, has

neither been cited nor produced as witness. This argument is not

tenable as prosecution has to prove the case on preponderance of

probability of facts. There is no rule of law that court while

appreciating the evidence of prosecution has to see quantity of

witnesses. In terms of section 134 of Evidence Act only quality of

witness matter. Once a criminal court comes to conclusion that

only witness to certain relevant fact in issue, inspires confidence,

then court can believe existence of that fact. Another argument that

opinion sought from the handwriting expert has not been proved, as

letter under which the documents were sent to the expert has not

been placed on record, is also not tenable. By not placing that letter

by virtue of which specimen handwriting of accused during course

of trial, I am of view that no prejudice has been caused to accused,

CRA No. 03/2006 Page 24 of 25

because, accused has stated in his statement recorded under section

342 Cr.P.C that his specimen handwriting was not obtained by I/O

during investigation. Court below in this regard has relied on 2003

Cr.L.J 2021 in case titled Karamjit Singh Vs. State (Delhi

Administration), wherein it has been held as under:-

"8.... The testimony of police personnel should be treated in

the same manner as testimony of any other witness and there

is no principle of law that without corroboration by

independent witness their testimony cannot be relied upon.

The presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much

in favor of police personnel as of other persons and it is not a

proper judicial approach to distress and suspect them

without good grounds. It will all depends upon the facts and

circumstances of each cash and no principle of general can be

laid down.”

30. Another argument that specimens handwriting of accused were not

obtained, in presence of magistrate, so investigation in the matter

suffers from basic infirmity of laws, is also not tenable because it is

not a universal law that specimens handwriting of accused during

the course of investigation have to be obtained before magistrate; it

is only a rule of caution that generally the specimens handwriting

of the accused should be obtained in presence of Magistrate in order

to conduct fair investigation; but mere not obtaining the specimens

of handwriting of accused in presence of magistrate, it does not

make whole prosecution case unbelievable, when there is sufficient

reliable evidence against accused available in file that he has

committed forgery.

32. Further, Flight coupon EXPW-JP/1 shows stamp as utilized; PW

Romesh Malhotra, who was posted as Manager Vigilance in

Delhi Region has stated that during the course of enquiry, one

infant auditor coupon issued in the name of Master Azim for

Jammu-Srinagar Sector issued from Indian Airlines, Airport,

Jammu was verified details of its flight coupon, obtained from the

computer. It was found that the corresponding flight coupon issued

CRA No. 03/2006 Page 25 of 25

with this auditor coupon was tampered in the manner that the

name of one Mr. Vikram was written in place of Master Azim and

flight sector was changed from Jammu-Srinagar to Jammu-Delhi.

Rs.120 as fare was tampered to Rs.3105. He is also witness to

seizure memo dated 23.03.98 of coupons EXPW-RM. The

existence of utilization stamp on the flight coupon proves that

the journey was conducted on its basis. The auditor and flight

coupons are issued by the same person and not by the different

persons. The credibility of this witness was not shaken during cross

examination. No animosity of this witness was proved by defense

against accused. Therefore, findings of court below are neither

perverse nor suffer from any infirmities of law and facts.

33. In view of what has been discussed above, I am of considered

opinion that judgment of conviction passed by court below does not

suffer from any infirmity of law and facts. It is upheld accordingly.

So far as sentence for undergoing simple imprisonment for six

months for the commission of offences punishable under each

Sections 420, 468 & 471 RPC read with Section 5(2) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- , are

concerned, these are quite appropriate in present set of case. These

are also upheld accordingly.

34. The instant appeal stands dismissed. Record of court below be sent

back with direction to court to issue process against accused for

undergoing rest of imprisonment.

( Sanjay Kumar Gupta )

Judge

Jammu:

12.04.2019 *Bir*