S. Rajendran vs State

S. Tamilvanan, J.—All the appeals are preferred by the accused against the judgment of conviction, dated 28.07.2004 made in C.C. No.

38 of 1996 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai. In these appeals, for the sake of convenience the Appellants /

accused are referred to as A1, A2, A3 and A5, as stated in the judgment of the trial court in C.C. No. 38 of 1996, unless specifically stated as

Appellant of a particular appeal.

Crl.A. No. 36 of 2004 is preferred by S. Rajendran / A3, Crl.A. No. 37 of 2004 is preferred by Hema / A5, Crl.A. No. 39 of 2004 is

preferred by P. Dorai / A1 and Crl.A. No. 46 of 2004 is preferred by P.M. Rajendran / A2, respectively in C.C. No. 38 of 1996 on the file of the

Court below.

All the Appellants / accused and the co-accused, S. Naganathan were prosecuted by the Respondent herein. The co-accused / A4 was not

found guilty, hence, he was acquitted by the Court below. The Appellant / A3 was convicted under Sections 120-B, 420 r/w 511, 465 and 471

IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo further period of six months R.I under each

penal provision of the offence, and the total fine amount imposed on the Appellant / A3 is Rs. 15,000/-. The Appellant / A5 was convicted under

Sections 120-B, 420 r/w 511, 465 and 471 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo

further period of six months R.I under each penal provision of the offence, and the total fine amount imposed on the Appellant / A5 is Rs. 15,000/-

.

The Appellant / A1 was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to undergo further

period of R.I for three months for each of the offences, punishable u/s 120-B IPC, and Sections 13 (1) (d) r/w 15 of Prevention of Corruption Act

and the total fine amount imposed on the Appellant / A1 is Rs. 4,000/-. The Appellant / A2 was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I for two

years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to undergo further period of R.I for three months for each of the offences, punishable under

Sections 120-B, 420 r/w 511, 467, 468, 468 & 471 IPC and Sections 13 (1) (d) r/w 15 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the total fine

amount imposed on the Appellant / A2 is Rs. 12,000/-.

The case of the prosecution is that all the Appellants herein and the co-accused / A4 had entered into a criminal conspiracy during the year

1992 to cheat the Regional Passport Office, Trichy to obtain passports on the basis of creating antedated passport applications with duplicated file

numbers, so as to make them appear as old cases, accompanied by forged enclosures, such as police verification certificates etc., that in pursuance

of the conspiracy, A2 being the Lower Division Clerk in the office of the Regional Passport Office, Trichy, fraudulently received and processed the

42 numbers of forged passport applications filed by one Good Luck Travels, Trichy run by A3 with the assistance of A5, made false endorsement

of reference number, fee certification etc., that A1 being the Superintendent of the Regional Passport Office, Trichy, by abusing his official position

passed grant orders for the issue of passports in respect of the said 42 applications and that the accused thereby have committed offences,

punishable under Sections 120-B r/w 420, 467, 468 ad 471 IPC and under Sections 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

It is seen that the copies of documents relied on by the prosecution were furnished to the accused on free of cost, as per Section 207 Code of

Criminal Procedure It is further seen that charges under Sections 120-B IPC against A1 to A3 and A5 and specific charges under Sections 13 (1)

(d) r/w 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998 against A1 and under Sections 420, 467, 468, 468 and 471 IPC and Sections 13 (1) (d)

r/w 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against 2 and under Sections 420, 465 and 471 against A3 and under Sections 420, 465 and

471 IPC against A5 were framed and the respective charges were read over to the accused. As each one of the accused persons denied the

charges levelled against the accused, the case was posted for trial. On the side of prosecution, witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.32 were examined and

Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.216 and M.O.1 to M.O.3 were marked. No witness was examined, no document or Material Object was maked on the side of

the accused.

Mr. C. Muthu Saravanan, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant in Crl.A. Nos. 36 and 37 of 2004 submitted that the Appellants in the

said appeals are respectively A3 and A5 in the case in C.C. No. 38 of 1996 on the file of the Court below. According to him, prosecution has not

proved that the travel agency purported to have been run by the Appellant / A3 was an approved travel agency for the purpose of submitting

passport applications, Exs.P.2 to P.43, however, that was not properly considered by the Court below and further argued that there is no

evidence to show that Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.43 had been presented by Good Luck Travels run by A3. The envelope captioned Good Luck Travels in

Ex.P.2 was said to have been sent only by the said Appellant and A3 had not sent Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.43 to the passport office through A5. Similarly,

the police verification forms Exs.P.138 to 136 and Exs.P.161 to 202 were not proved to have been forged, in the light of the fact that the

specimen signatures of P. Ws. 16 and 29 (Exs.P.205 and 203) respectively are not sent to P.W.28 for the opinion of the hand writing expert.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant / A3 further submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge of forgery and that

Exs.P.138 to 147, in the light of the fact that the specimen signatures of P. Ws.18 and 20 have not been sent to P.W.28 for expert opinion and the

evidence of the Village Administrative Officers, P.W.s. 17, 19, 21 to 25 and 27 are hardly sufficient to prove the non-residency of the Appellants,

as per Exs.P.2 to P.43.

He has further submitted that the report of the Village Administrative Officers, Exs.P.137, 148 to 151, 153, 154 and 166 do not have any legal

sanctity in the absence of reasoning and certification by the Tahsildar and that the recovery of M.O.1 to M.O.3 are highly suspicious, in the light of

the contradictions with regard to the place of seizure in the evidence of P.W.15, witness for the recovery and the evidence of P.W.31, the

Inspector of Police, who is said to have effected seizure of M. Os.1 to 3 from A3. It is also stated that non-compliance of Section 100 (4) Code

of Criminal Procedure , while effecting the seizure of M. Os.1 to 3 renders the recovery itself unreliable. According to him, the Court below has

erred in relying upon the admission of the accused number 5 in her statement, while she was questioned u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure , as

evidence against the Appellant / A3.

On behalf of the Appellant / A5, it is argued that the Court below has not considered that the prosecution failed to establish anything in respect

of the seals, M. Os. 1 to 3 and that the statement recorder u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure , which contradicts the evidence of the witnesses

that the opinion of the hand writing expert became unreliable. He has further stated that the evidence of P.W.14, Sundaram, who was examined for

the purpose of proving the hand writing of A5 in the applications could not be relied on and it was further contended by the learned Counsel for the

Appellants that the trial court ought not have held that the passport applications have been filled up by A5 and further that does not mean that the

Appellant / A5 is a party to the conspiracy.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant in Crl.A. Nos. 39 and 46 of 2004 submitted that the Court below has committed error in

accepting the evidence of P.W.2 to P.W.6 and P.W.8, on the ground that they know the hand writings and signatures of the Appellants.

According to him, none of the prosecution Exhibits or the alleged forged passport applications was written by the Appellant / A1 and put his

signature. They also admitted that they did not see the Appellant put his signature in any of the alleged false document. According to the Appellant,

the evidence of P.W.28, hand writing expert would not be a proof that the alleged initials of the Appellants / A1 and A2, said to have been found

in all the passport applications were put by them, however, the same was not properly considered by the Court below.

According to the learned Counsel for the Appellant, the trial court has failed to consider the hand writing expert opinion marked as Exs.P.160

and that there is no acceptable proof to show that the Appellant / A1 had made any initial in the alleged fabricated passport applications marked as

Exs.P.2 to P.43. It is further contended that the prosecution has failed to examine the employees who actually worked in various sections of the

passport office at the particular period, hence, the Appellant / A1 could not be held liable for the offence punishable u/s 13 (1) (d) r/w Section 15

of Prevention of Corruption Act. Learned Counsel further contended that the Appellant has not issued grant order in the passport applications

marked as Exs.P.2 to P.43. Even as per the evidence given by the Hand writing expert, P.W.28, the investigating officer has not sent the signatures

of the attestor and the alleged documents like ration card, photos, personal proforma, copy of school certificate etc., of the applicants and the seals

affixed in the documents to the handwriting expert to prove the forgery in the said documents.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant / A2 submitted that there is no iota of evidence to prove the conspiracy against the Appellant /

A2, punishable u/s 120 (B) IPC and further, submitted that the Appellant / A2 had not processed or made any endorsement in the passport

applications, marked as Exs.P.2 to P.43, however, the Court below has failed to consider properly the evidence of P.W.28, handwriting expert.

Similar arguments were made for A1, A3 and A5 that prosecution has not established the guilt against the Appellants / accused beyond reasonable

doubt and requested this Court to allow the appeals and set aside the conviction and the sentence imposed by the Court below.

It is not in dispute that A1 was the Office Superintendent at the Regional Passport Office, Trichy during the relevant period, A2 was working

as Lower Divisional Clerk in the Diary Section of the said office. As per the prosecution case, A3 was running Travel Agency in the name of Good

Luck Travels at Trichy and A5 was working as Clerk in the Travel Agency run by A3 and was looking after the affairs of the Travel Agency run

by A3 at Trichy. A3 was also running another Travel Agency in the name and style of Green Land Travels at Karaikudi in the first floor at No.

48/9, MCT Building, near bus stand, Karaikudi belongs to P.W.11, Palaniappan, who had let out the first floor portion at No. 48/9, M.C.T

Building, Karaikudi to A3 for the purpose of running his travel agency in the name and style of Green Land Travels. As per the prosecution case,

A3 was occupying the aforesaid premises, belongs to P.W.11 from the year 1991 to 1993. P.W.9, Assistant, Ramnad District Registrar Officer,

deposed evidence that Green Land Travels was registered as a firm in the office of the District Registrar, Karaikudi. A4 is the brother of A3, after

the trial, he was acquitted by the court below.

As per the prosecution case, the Appellants / accused along with the other accused had entered into a conspiracy to cheat the passport office

of the Government of India and in pursuance of the conspiracy, A3, who was running the travel agency in the name and style of Good Luck

Travels, Trichy submitted the 42 passport applications in the Regional Passport Office, Trichy for his clients. In the said applications, the residence

of the applicants were shown in and around Thiruvadanai, Ramanathapuram District. In the photo copy of the school certificates, ration cards and

other documents filed in support of the passport applications, signatures of the attesting authorities were found to be forged and fabricated stamps

were affixed.

As per the evidence of Dr. Muthu (P.W.18) then Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Thiruvadanai and Sri. Vairavan (P.W.20)

Executive Officer, Town Panchayat, Thondi, signatures of the D.S.P, CRB, Ramnad District (P.W.16), Sub-Inspector of Police, P.W.29 etc., that

the xerox copy of the documents and the police reports were forged, so as to appear that the documents were properly attested and signed by

P.W.18, P.W.20 and P.W.16 and further, fabricated rubber stamps were also affixed for the respective signatures of the said officers. The old

reference numbers relating to the year 1991 were assigned to the said 42 passport applications so as to make them appear as if the applications

related to the year 1991, though they were filed subsequently with the conspiracy of the officials A1 and A2.

It is further stated by the prosecution that A2 was working as Lower Divisional Clerk in the Diary Section of the passport office, Trichy.

P.W.2 has deposed evidence on the usual procedure being followed in issuing passports. Accordingly, those who are in need of passport may

apply for the same in the prescribed form with necessary supporting documents, such as proof of domicile, residential address, age etc., and also

send passport size photos. The passport applications and the original documents are verified in the checking counter itself, then the applications are

sent to the cash counter for remitting the fees with the attested copies of the supporting documents and originals are returned to the parties. After

the fee is remitted, file number / reference number to the application is assigned and receipt for payment of fee is given to the applicant. In the case

of travel agency, submitting filled up passport applications, file number is assigned during diary stage in the diary section of the passport office,

where the applications are sorted out district wise, as per personal particulars furnished in the passport applications. Afterwards, the file goes to

the index section for verification where the index card is removed from the application and kept in the index cabin for future verification. Index

clearance will be given by affixing rubber stamp that is effected by index section, then the file is sent to the dealing assistant. Immediately after

police verification report is received, the dealing assistant put up the application along with the police verification application for the passport issuing

authority, for the passport being issued. The Superintendent of the office is passing the grant order, if every thing in the application is in order, then

the file goes for writing of passport and then to the pasting section, for pasting the specimen signature of the applicant in the passport. Then the file

is placed before the signing authority for signature and afterwards the same is sent for lamination and then passport number, date of issue are

recorded in the movement register. Afterwards, the passports are sent to the despatch section. In case of the passport applications sent through

travel agency, passports are sent to the counter for delivery to the Travel Agency. It is not in dispute that P.W.2, Ranganathan was working as

L.D.C, P.W.3, Pauldass was working as U.D.C and P.W.8 was the then Assistant Passport Officer, Trichy and A1 was the Superintendent,

issuing orders for the grant of passports during the relevant period. The procedure, as stated by P.W.2 has not been disputed by the Appellants /

accused.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants mainly submitted their arguments that the expert opinion given by P.W.28 cannot be relied on,

since the specimen signatures and handwritings of A1, A2 and A5 were not obtained in the presence of any Magistrate and sent through Court for

expert opinion. They further argued that M.O.1 to M.O.3 were not sent to forensic expert to verify the genuineness of the seal, said to have been

recovered from the Appellant / A3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants argued that the prosecution has not proved the guilt against the

Appellants beyond reasonable doubt.

It has been established that P.W.1, the Chief Passport Officer, being the appointing authority of A2, accorded sanction to prosecute him, as

per Ex.P.1 u/s 19 (1) (C) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After having perused the material papers pertaining to the case, P.W.1

accorded the sanction. So far as A1 is concerned, he was a retired Office Superintendent of the Regional Passport Office, Trichy, according to the

learned Special Public Prosecutor, no sanction is needed to prosecute A1, being a retired Government servant. So far as the accord of sanction is

concerned, there is no legal defence available to A1 and A2, as held by the Court below.

It is not in dispute that A1, who was the Office Superintendent and A2, Lower Divisional Clerk (LDC) in the Diary Section of the Passport

Office, Trichy during the relevant period, 1991-1992. P.W.2, Ranganathan, P.W.3, Paul Doss, UDC, working as cashier in the cash section,

P.W.4, Mohan, UDC, P.W.8, Ranganathan, Assistant Passport Officer of the Passport Office, Trichy have deposed clearly that they had personal

acquaintance with A1, Office Superintendent and A2, LDC working in the Diary Section and also conversant with their handwritings and

signatures. In this regard, P.W.2 has deposed in detail, on the procedure being followed in issuing passports by the Passport Office, Trichy. While

questioning u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure , A1 has also admitted the procedure, being followed in the Passport Office, Trichy, as spoken to

by P.W.2. He disputed only the other portion of the evidence adduced by P.W.2 against him.

As per the evidence of P.W.26, who was the Dy. Superintendent of Police, DCRB, Ramnad, on 05.02.1993, he received the original of

Ex.P.124, report from the Superintendent of Police along with his letter and also xerox copies of 42 passport applications with enclosures found

therein along with the report. The details of all the 42 applications were verified with the relevant registers maintained by the office of P.W.26 and

found that none of the 42 applications were referred earlier to his office and no police report had been sent towards issuing passports for the 42

applications. According to him, on verification, it was also found that no entry relating to the 42 passport applications had been made in the

registers of his office. It was seen that 32 out of the 42 passport applications referred in this case, the signatures of the witness (P.W.26), Dy.

Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram were found to be forged and similarly, the signatures in the other 10 applications relating to another

Dy. Superintendent of Police, Natarajan were also found to be forged. In all the signatures in the other 10 applications relating to another Dy.

Superintendent of Police, Natarajan were also forged. Similarly, in all the 42 applications, genuine seals were not affixed and the signatures of Sub-

Inspector of Police, Thiruvadanai were also forged. After the verification, P.W.26 sent a report to the Superintendent of Police, requesting further

action. Ex.P.155 series are copies of 32 applications, out of the 42 passport applications.

It is clear from the evidence of P.W.31, Inspector of Police, DCB, Ramanathapuram, that he had received a tapal on 09.02.1993 from the

Dy. Superintendent of Police, DCRB, Ramnad containing the complaint, Ex.P.204, relating to this case, given by Passport Officer, Trichy, along

with the copies of 2 letters written by the Passport Officer with the personal particulars of 42 passport applicants. The Inspector, P.W.31, based

on the complaint and other materials, registered a case in DCB, Ramnad in Cr. No. 1 / 1993 under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467 IPC, prepared

printed FIR, forwarded the complaint and FIR to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram, then took up the investigation of the case. As

per his evidence, A3, S. Rajendran,had given a confession statement, leading to recovery of material objects, M.O.1 to M.O.3 and the admissible

portion of the confession statement was recorded in the presence of witnesses, P.W.15, the then V.A.O, Thiruvadanai and another. Pursuant to

the confession statement given by A3, M.O.1, a fabricated seal of the Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram, for issuing no objection for

grant of passport, M.O.2, another seal of similar nature, M.O.3, seal of Sub-Inspector of Police, Thiruvadanai were recovered under the cover of

mahazar.

It is seen that P.W.15, Village Administrative Officer, Thiruvadanai has deposed that the statement given by A3 was reduced into writing and

he signed in the same as a witness. He has further stated that M.O.1 to M.O.3 were recovered under a cover of mahazar from A3 in his presence.

In this regard, the contradictions pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants are trivial in nature and hence, I am of the view

that the alleged trivial contradictions will not vitiate the admissible portion of the confession statement given by A3, marked as Ex.P.215. As there

was objection on the side of the accused, while marking the document, Ex.P.215, the same could be marked through I.O and he was also cross-

examined on behalf of the accused. P.W.15 has categorically stated that pursuant to the confession statement of A3, that was reduced into writing

and signed by him as a witness. M.O.1 to M.O.3 were recovered from the custody of A3 in his presence, under the cover of a mahazar.

While questioning A3 u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure , he has totally denied the prosecution evidence, even, he denied the Good Luck

Travel Agency run by him at Trichy as well as the Green Land Travels, Karaikudi. However, the evidence of P.W.11, Palaniappan would show

that A3, S. Rajendran was running his travel agency in the name and style of Green Land Travels in the first floor at No. 48/9, MCT Building,

nearby bus stand, Karaikudi belongs to P.W.11. As found by the Court below, there is no need for P.W.11, landlord of the building to depose

evidence that his said premises was let out to A3 for running his travel agency. According to P.W.11, Palaniappan, a resident of Karaikudi, A3

had paid rental advance of Rs. 1,200/-and was paying monthly rent at Rs. 400/-.

As per the evidence of P.W.12, Sheik Dawood, he had approached P.W.13, who was running Ameen Travels at Karaikudi for getting

passport for his brother''s son Abdul Abi Bakas and also paid Rs. 500/-. In the evidence, he has admitted that Ex.P.39, passport application that

was shown to him, relates to his brother''s son, the said Abdul Abi Bakas, given by him to P.W.13. It is seen that P.W.13, K. Dawood has

corroborated the evidence of P.W.12, that P.W.12 had approached him for getting passport to his brother''s son Abdul Abi Bakas. According to

P.W.13, he use to get passports for the needy through A3, S. Rajendran from the Passport Office, Trichy. P.W.13 has also identified, Ex.P.39 as

the unfilled, but signed passport application, that was entrusted to him by P.W.12 for the purpose of getting passport for the said Abdul Abi

Bakas. P.W.13 identified the signed unfilled passport application, Ex.P.39, as that was entrusted to him by P.W.12 and he (P.W.13) handed over

the same to A3 for getting passport. The evidence of P.W.12 and P.W.13 would clearly show that Ex.P.39, passport application was an unfilled,

but signed application of the applicant, Abdul Abi Bakas and the same was handed over to A3 with passport size photographs along with separate

paper containing particulars about the applicant. In the cross-examination, P.W.13 has clerly stated that he identified Ex.P.39, passport application

relating to Abdul Abi Bakas and was handed over by him to A3. The evidence of P.W.11, P.W.12 and P.W.13 would establish that Ex.P.39 is

one of the 42 passport applications, that was signed and handed over to A3, without filling up the form, as stated by the prosecution and that was

subsequently sent by the Passport Office, Trichy for getting passport.

In the aforesaid circumstances, the total denial of the prosecution case by A3 cannot be justified. There is no acceptable motive or enmity

attributed against P.W.11, P.W.12 and P.W.13 for adducing evidence against A3. The evidence of P.W.11, P.W.12 and P.W.13 and the

recovery of the fabricated seals of Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram for issuing no objection for grant of passport and the seal of Sub-

Inspector of Police, Thiruvadanai (Crime Branch), from A3, as per the evidence of P.W.15, Village Administrative Officer, Thiruvadanai would

substantiate the prosecution case and the involvement of A3 in the alleged offence, as stated by prosecution.

As per the evidence of P.W.2, it is clear that the filled up passport applications received through Travel Agency at the counter of the passport

office are being verified with the original supporting documents. The passport applications and the attested xerox copies alone are sent for making

payment of fee, as per the procedure being followed. After making payment, towards the required fee, endorsement is made with the seal for

making the payment. The said procedures were not followed by A1 and A2 with regard to the 42 passport applications. The prosecution case

reveals that no original document was produced for verification, only the filled up passport applications and the attested copies of the documents,

such as ration card etc., were sent and without making any payment, the 42 applications were cleared in the diary section, Index seal was also

affixed for the clearance with the conspiracy of some of the officials of the passport office.

As per the evidence of P.W.2, Ranganathan, Junior Assistant, P.W.3, Paul Dass, UDC, P.W.4, Mohan, UDC, P.W.8, Ramanathan, Assistant

Passport Officer of the Regional Passport Office, Trichy, A1 was the Office Superintendent and A2 was working as LDC in the Diary section of

the passport office during the relevant period, which is not in dispute. As per the evidence of the said witness, the endorsements were made in the

the Diary section, even without the receipt for payment of fees for the 42 passport applications, however, affixing Index seal, the endorsements

were made by A2 and the Office Superintendent, A1 passed grant orders for the 42 passport applications.

It is also relevant, as pointed out by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that all the 42 passport applications were relating to the year 1992

and that were not properly submitted at the counter of the passport office. Strangely bye-passing various procedural formalities, the applications

reached the Diary section where the work was attended to by A2 and numbers relating to the year 1991 was given fraudulently. Hence, it is made

clear that without the conspiracy of the concerned officials in the passport office, the scandal of attempting to issue 42 passports in a fraudulent

manner, could not be possible. As per the evidence of the aforesaid official witnesses working in the Passport Office, Trichy, relevant entries were

made in a fraudulent manner by A2, who was working as LDC in the Diary Section and that was approved by the Office Superintendent, A1, who

passed grant orders for issuance of passports for the 42 applications. Neither A2 nor A1 have stated, while they were questioned u/s 313 Code of

Criminal Procedure that any other official was entrusted with or attended to the aforesaid duty of verification and making necessary endorsement

with seal and issuing grant orders respectively. The officials who are in charge of certain duties must speak the truth, a total denial by such officials,

entrusted with the work cannot be justified, when there is evidence adduced by the prosecution against them.

As per the prosecution case, A1, Office Superintendent of the Passport Office, Trichy was the competent officer, entrusted with the duty of

issuing grant orders for the issuance of passport. Similarly, the passport applications, that are directly received from the Travel Agencies are sent,

after verification of the original supporting documents with the attested copies and payment of fees to the Diary section and A2 was incharge in the

Diary section for the applications relating to Ramanathapuram District. Neither A1 nor A2 has specifically stated any other officer or officials,

stating that they were entrusted with the said work.

The evidence of P.W.18, Dr. Muthu, the then Civil Asst. Surgeon, Government Hospital, Thiruvadanai, during 1986-1992 would clearly show

that the attested copies of supporting documents attached to the passport applications were found with forged signatures and containing fabricated

seal of his office and that were not the signature of P.W.18. The prosecution witness, P.W.18 has deposed that the signature and seal found in

Ex.P.3, passport application, xerox copy of the ration card, attached thereto and marked as Ex.P.139 are not his signatures and the seal affixed

therein were also fabricated one. Similarly, he has deposed that the signatures found in Ex.P.4, passport application, personal proforma, Ex.P.140,

copy of the ration card, Ex.P.141, attesting signatures in Ex.P.5, passport application, proforma to the passport application, Ex.P.142 and the

xerox copy of the ration card, Ex.P.143, do not contain his signature nor his seal. Similarly, Ex.P.6, passport application, personal proforma

attached, marked as Ex.P.144, xerox copy of the ration card, Ex.P.145, signature and seal in Ex.P.7, passport application, personal proforma

attached to the passport application, Ex.P.146 and the xerox copy of the ration card, Ex.P.147 do not contain his signatures and his seal, though

the documents were purported to have been attested by P.W.18 with his seal. The witness further deposed that the passport applications, Ex.P.8,

P.9, P.10, P.11, P.12, P.13, P.14, P.15, P.19, P.20, P.22, P.23, P.24, P.27. P.29, P.40, P.41, P.42 and the personal proformas and copy of the

ration cards attached to each of the passport applications do not contain his signature and seal. According to him, he was keeping his official seal

under lock and key. In the aforesaid circumstances, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants cannot raise a plea that the forgery of attestation

in all these passport applications, xerox copy of the supporting documents attached thereto have not been proved by the prosecution.

The evidence of P.W.17, Village Administrative Officer of Thalirmarugur Village, Thiruvadanai Taluk, would show that on verification it was

found that 1) Karunanithi s/o. Chinnaiah 2) Kalidas, s/o Balakrishnan, 3) Sesu Packiyaselan, s/o Caspar Fernando, 4) Raju, s/o Rabil robert and

5) Krishnan, s/o Muthiah Chettiar were not residing in the address stated in their passport applications and that P.W.17 issued certificate,

Ex.P.137 stating that none of the applicant was residing in Thalirmarugur village. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants have raised a

ground in the appeals that Ex.P.137 and other similar certificates issued by various Village Administrative Officers are not public documents, the

same could have been obtained only from the Tahsildar and the Court cannot rely on the certificates.

It is not in dispute that Ex.P.137, Ex.P.148, Ex.P.149, Ex.P.150, Ex.P.151, Ex.P.152, Ex.P.153 and Ex.P.156, certificates issued by various

Village Administrative Officers of Thiruvadanai Taluk are not public documents, however, the same could be marked through the concerned

V.A.O, who issued the certificate. In the instant case, the said documents were properly marked through the author of the documents, who were

the Village Administrative Officer of the concerned villages. In fact, the Tahsildar cannot speak directly anything about the residence of the said

applicants, he can rely only on the report of the concerned Village Administrative Officer. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in marking the

certificates, Ex.P.137, Ex.P.148 etc., through the V.A. Os, who issued the certificates.

P.W.19, Village Administrative Officer, Anjukottai group in Thiruvadanai Taluk has deposed that on verification, it was found that passport

applicants 1) Ravuthar Naina Mohamed Abdul Abubekar, 2) Habib Pakir Ali, 3) Rajendran, 4) Farooq Ali, 5) Jahir, 6) Sikkandar Kalith, 7)

Abdul Azeez, 8) Hajamohideen, 9) Latheef, 10) Aziza, 11) Sankar, 12) Jalaludheen, 13) Naina Mohameed and 14) Hajamohideen, as stated in

the application were not residing in Anjukottai Village, and hence, he gave certificate to that effect, marked as Ex.P.148

P.W.20, a retire d Executive Officer, Town Panchayat, Thondi, Ramanathapuram District during 1991 has deposed that the signatures and

seals found in the passport applications, the personal proforma and copy of the ration cards pertaining to Exs.P.2, P.16, P.17, P.18, P.21, P.25,

P.26, P.28, P.30, P.32, P.33, P.34, P.35, P.36, P.37. P.38 and P.39 purported to be signed by him do not contain his signatures, but they are

only forged signatures and the seal found in the said documents are also not his office seal.

As per the evidence of P.W.21, Village Administrative Officer, Ananthur, Thiruvadanai Taluk it is seen that applicants 1) Mohamed Sultan and

2) Mohideen Rawoothar were not residing in Ananthur village, for which he issued a certificate, Ex.P.149. P.W.23 has deposed that he was the

Village Administrative Officer, Athiyur village, Thiruvadanai Taluk. On 23.06.1993, police officials enquired him about one Ismail s/o Majeed and

after verification he gave statement that no such person was residing in the south street of Athiyur village and the certificate issued by him was

marked as Ex.P.150. P.W.24 has deposed that he was Village Administrative Officer, Pudupattinam village, Thiruvadanai Taluk. He has deposed

that none was residing the name of Mohideen s/o Sultan in Pudupattinam Village, as stated in the passport application and the certificate issued by

him was marked as Ex.P.151.

36 It is seen that P.W.25 is the Village Administrative Officer, Kadambakudi village, Thiruvadanai Taluk, who has deposed that 1) Pandi s/o

Ramu and 2) Ismail, s/o Ajees and 3) Karuppiah s/o Velayutham were not residing in Achangudi revenue Village, as stated in the passport

applications and issued certificate to that effect, that was marked as Ex.P.152 and 153.

As per the evidence of P.W.27, who was the Village Administrative Officer, S.P. Pattinam Village, Thiruvadanai Taluk, it came to light that no

one in the name of Banu w/o Jafer Sait was residing in S.P. Pattinam Village, to that effect he issued certificate, Ex.P.156.

The aforesaid evidence adduced by the concerned Village Administrative Officers and the Executive Officer, Town Panchayat, Thondi would

show that the address given in the 42 passport applications were false and bogus addresses. Without producing the original supporting documents,

forged attested copies of the alleged supporting documents were attached with the passport applications. With the conspiracy of the officials of the

passport office and without verifying the original documents, relating to address, age etc., the passport applications were processed and thereby

the forged attested copies of the supporting documents were accepted. Without making any payment, ''Index Cleared'' seal was affixed in all the

applications and after the clearance in the Diary section, the applications were sent to the Office Superintendent of the Passport Office and he

passed the grant orders to issue passports to the 42 applicants.

As contended by the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondent, without criminal conspiracy between the travel agency

and the concerned officers of the Passport Office, Trichy, the scandal could not have been hapenned and further, the offence is serious in nature

and there is every possibility for hardcore criminals and terrorist getting passports by adopting fraudulent ways and go out of the country for

committing any offence or in order to escape from the criminal cases pending against them.

40 The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab, reported in 1977 SCC (Cri) 313 has held that as per Section 45 of Indian

Evidence Act, 1872, opinion of hand writing expert cannot be the sole basis for conviction and that corroboration is necessary for convicting any

accused.

In Shashi Kumar Banerjee and Others Vs. Subodh Kumar Banerjee since deceased and after him his legal representatives and Others, ,

Constitutional Bench of the Hon''ble Supreme Court has laid down the ratio regarding the evidenciary value of hand writing expert, as

contemplated u/s 45 of the Indian Evidence Act.

As per the ruling, expert''s evidence in handwriting is only opinion evidence and it cannot take the place of substantive evidence. Before acting

on such evidence, they must see if it is corroborated either by clear direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence.

In Dhanasekaran v. State, reported in 2003 MLJ (Cri) 217, this Court (P.SATHASIVAM, J), has held as follows:

It is clear that in the light of the observation made in order to dispel suspicion as to its bona fides or to eliminate the possibility of fabrication of

evidence, it is desirable to get the specimen signatures from the accused before or under the order of a Magistrate. Admittedly, in our case, the

Inspector has not obtained permission or any order from the Magistrate concerned to get the signature from the accused as well as P.W.1 for

sending the same to expert''s opinion.

In Ishwari Prasad Mishra Vs. Mohammad Isa, , the Hon''ble Apex Court has held that the evidence given by experts of handwriting can never

be conclusive, because it is after all opinion evidence.

In the light of the aforesaid decisions rendered by the Hon''ble Apex Court and this Court, it is clear that as per Section 45 of Indian Evidence

Act, it is a settled proposition of law that expert opinion cannot be the sole basis for conviction. Unless the expert opinion is corroborated by some

other substantive evidence, based on the expert''s evidence, accused cannot be convicted.

In the instant case, the conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellants / accused is not merely on the basis of the expert''s opinion given by

P.W.28, Government Examiner of questioned documents. As found by the Court below, it is seen that the evidence of the expert and the expert

opinion given in detail by him, supports the case of the prosecution, in addition to the substantial evidence available on record and therefore, I am

unable to accept the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants that the case has been ended in conviction, merely

based on the expert''s opinion. As discussed earlier, there is cogency of evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses to establish that A3 was

running Travel Agencies in the name and style of Good Luck Travel Agency at Trichy and Green Land Travels at Karaikudi and he received

merely signed unfilled passport applications with passport size photographs without mentioning the address of the applicants. The recovery of

material objects from A3, viz, M.O.1 to M.O.3, seals of Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram and the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Thiruvadanai is established by the evidence of P.W.15 and other corroborative evidence. Similarly, the evidence of the concerned Village

Administrative Officers, who were examined as P.W.17, P.W.19, P.W.21, P.W.22, P.W.23, P.W.24, P.W.25 and P.W.27, Deputy

Superintendent of Police, P.W.16, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Thiruvadanai, P.W.18, Executive Officer of Town Panchayat,

Thondi, P.W.20 are sufficient to establish that forged attested supporting documents were created and enclosed for the purpose of getting

passports, in support of false address given in the applications and the recovery of the material objects, M.O.1 to M.O.3, the fabricated seals of

the police officers from A3 would also substantiate the prosecution case against A3, beyond reasonable doubt, as held by the learned Principal

Special Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai. It has been established that 42 passport applications were submitted through Good Travel Agency, Trichy

run by A3, through A5.

The official witnesses, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.8, who were working in the Passport Office, Trichy, have adduced evidence to

establish the contribution of A2, who was working as LDC in the Diary section, dealing with passport applications relating to Ramanathapuram

District and A1, the Office Superintendent, who passed grant orders for issuing passports.

As contemplated u/s 47 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, 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. The explanation reads as follows:

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.

In the instant case, it is seen that merely based on the expert''s opinion, conviction was not imposed on the accused.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant / A5 submitted that though the Appellant / A5 has admitted that she was working in Good Luck

Travel Agency at Trichy run by A3 and use to go to the passport office to hand over the filled up applications, while she was questioned u/s 313

Code of Criminal Procedure that would not be sufficient to establish any conspiracy against A5. It was also admitted by A5, while she was

questioned u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure that she had been working in Sugir Tours and Travels run by P.W.14 during 1987-1991.

It cannot be disputed that getting signed unfilled passport applications and filling the applications subsequently after getting the signature is

against law. In the instant case, as per the evidence available, filled up passport applications were submitted by A5 on behalf of A3 before the

passport office and that has been admitted by A5, while she was questioned u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure , however, she has not stated

any specific reason as to how the 42 applications alone were left out by her.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Ravichandran v. State, reported in 2010 (4) MLJ (Crl) 516 (SC), has laid down the following ratio decendi:

If the prosecution fails to prove and establish that the interpolation an forgery were done by the accused, or any link to prove and establish the said

allegations against the accused, they have to be acquitted.

In Devendran v. State, reported in 2006 1 LW 204, this Court, (K.N.BASHA, J), has held that the case against the Petitioner / accused

therein was based on Ex.P.6, so as to connect the accused in that case with the alleged offence of forgery and it was found that the prosecution

had failed to establish that the said letter, Ex.P.6 was written and signed by the accused. In such circumstances, this Court recorded acquittal,

hence, the decision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.

In the instant case, apart from the expert evidence, there are other material evidence available to show the involvement of A1, A2, A3 and A5

and to establish the criminal conspiracy of the said accused, hence, I am of the view that the aforesaid decision is not applicable to this case.

In this case, it has been established by examining P.W.16, Dy Superintendent of Police, CRB, Ramanathapuram, P.W.29, Sub-Inspector of

Police, Thiruvadanai (Crime Branch), P.W.18, Dr. Muthu, Civil Asst. Surgeon, Government Hospital, Thiruvadanai and other witnesses that all

attested xerox copies and the police reports were forged documents and fabricated seals were fraudulently affixed therein for getting passports,

based on the 42 passport applications.

The evidence available on record would show that directly without making any payment towards fee payable and without verifying the original

supporting documents, endorsement has been made by affixing index seal in the applications. File numbers relating to the previous year 1991 was

given. It is not the specific defence of A1 that some other office Superintendent passed the grant orders for the issuance of passports. Similarly, A2

has not specifically mentioned any other officials stating that the endorsement and index seal were made in the Diary section for the passport

applications, relating to Ramanathapuram District. The evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.8, employees of the Passport Office, Trichy,

have categorically deposed that the grant orders for the issuance of passports were passed only by the Office Superintendent, A1 and that was

routed through A2, LDC of the Diary section of the said office.

As found by the Court below, it has been proved by the prosecution that the 42 passport applications containing false addresses and other

details of the applicants enclosed with forged attested copies of documents were submitted by A3, through Good Luck Travel Agency, Trichy.

Similarly, the prosecution evidence is sufficient to establish the direct involvement and contribution of A5. As per the evidence of the official

witnesses, who were employed in the Passport Office, Trichy, P.W.2, Junior Assistant, P.W.3, UDC, cashier in the cash section, P.W.4, another

UDC, P.W.8, Assistant Passport Officer, expert opinion and other evidence are sufficient to establish the prosecution case that A2, who was

LDC in the Diary section of the passport office, Trichy dealing with the passport applications relating to Ramanathapuram District has given

clearance by making necessary endorsement and seal and A1, Office Superintendent, passed grant orders for all the 42 applications for issuance

of passports.

Considering the evidence available on record, in the light of various decisions rendered by the Hon''ble Apex Court and this Court, I am of the

view that the Court below has convicted the Appellants / accused, as the charges levelled against the accused have been proved beyond

reasonable doubt and that the conviction is not based on mere expert opinion, as argued by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants and

therefore, there is no need to interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed by the Court below, accordingly, the impugned judgment

rendered by the Court below is confirmed and all the appeals are liable to be dismissed.

In the result, all the criminal appeals are dismissed. The trial court is directed to take steps to secure the presence of the accused, in order to

undergo the remaining period of sentence.