Criminal Appeal No. 782 of 2007. Case: 1. Monica Bedi, 2. Shaik Abdul Sattar, 3. D. Gokari Saheb, 4. Mohd. Yunis Vs State of A.P., Alongwith Criminal Appeal Nos. 783, 784 and 1357 of 2007. Supreme Court (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal No. 782 of 2007 |
| Counsel | For Appearing Parties: P. P. Malhotra, ASG, I. Venkata Narayana, Sr. Advocate, Gaurave Bhargava, Niraj Gupta, V. Sridhar Reddy, V. N. Raghupathy, V. Sudeer, M.B.R.S. Raju, Ms. S. Sunita, Balaji Srinivasan, Ms. Madhu Smita Bora, Raghenth Basant, Balaji Subramanian, Arvind Kumar Sharma, D. Mahesh Babu, Ramesh Allanki, Advs. |
| Judges | B. Sudershan Reddy and Surinder Singh Nijjar, JJ. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Articles 20, 20(2), 31, 136; Prevention of Corruption Act - Section 13(1), 13(2); Indian Penal Code - Sections 109, 120B, 409, 419, 420, 463, 465, 468; Passports Act, 1967 - Section 12; Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973 - Sections 300, 313, 428; General Clauses Act, 1897 - Section 26; Sea Customs Act - Section 167(8);... |
| Citation | 2011 (1) ACR 17 (SC), 2011 (1) ALD (Cri) 411, 2011 1 AWC 22 SC, 2010 (58) BLJR 1526, (2011) 1 CALLT 80 (SC), 2011 CriLJ 427, JT 2010 (12) SC 239, 2010 (11) SCALE 629, 2011 (1) SCC 284, 2010 (10) UJ 5052 (SC) |
| Judgement Date | November 09, 2010 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Judgment:
B. Sudershan Reddy, J.
1. These criminal appeals which are to be disposed of by a common order are directed against the common judgment of the High Court whereunder the High Court confirmed the conviction of the appellants under Section 120B, 419 and 420 IPC and other provisions including under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. We shall later notice in detail the conviction and sentence as awarded by the courts below.
2. The Central Bureau of Investigation, SPE, Hyderabad, laid charge sheet against altogether 10 accused persons before the Special Judge for C.B.I. cases, Hyderabad in which Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari @ Abu Salem(A-1), Sameera Jumani w/o Abu Salem(A-2), Monica Bedi (A-3), Chamundi Abdul Hameed (A-6) and Faizan Ahmed Sultan (A-10) were shown as absconders. The learned Special Judge took the charge sheet on file as C.C. No. 3 of 2005 and issued non-bailable warrants against A-1, A-2, A-3, A-6 and A-10. Case against A-1, A-2, A-6 and A-10 came to be separated and case proceeded against A-3, A-4, A-5, A-7, A-8 and A-9.
3. The learned Special Judge upon consideration of the material made available framed the following charges against the accused persons:
i) for the offence under Section 120B IPC against A-3 to A-5, A-7 to A-9;
ii) for the offence under Section 419 IPC against A-3;
iii) for the offence under Section 419 read with 109 IPC against A-4, A-5 and A-7 to A-9;
iv) for the offence under Section 468 IPC against A-5;
v) for the offence under Section 420 IPC against A-8;
vi) for the offence under Section 468 IPC against A-7;
vii) for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against A-4, A-5, A-7 and A-8;
viii) for the offence under Section 12 of the Passports Act, 1967 against A-3;
ix) for the offence under Section 420 IPC against A-3;
x) for the offence under Section 420 read with 109 IPC against A-4, A-5, A-7 to A-9.
4. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charges examined altogether 38 witnesses and proved 79 documents. Exhibit D-1 to Exhibit D-4 were marked on behalf of the defence.
5. The learned trial judge upon appreciation of the evidence and material available on record found Monika Bedi (A-3) guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 419 and 420 IPC but acquitted of the charge under Section 12 of the Passports Act, 1967; Shaik Abdul Sattar (A-5) guilty of the offences under Sections 120B, 419 read with 109, 420 read with 109, 468 IPC and Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act; Mohammed Yunis (A-7) guilty of the offence under Section 468 IPC and D. Gokari Saheb (A-8) guilty of the offences under Section 120B, 420, 419 read with 109 IPC, 420 read with 109 IPC and under Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. A-3 was accordingly sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 120B IPC; rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 420 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month and for the offence under Section 419 IPC; A-5 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 120B IPC; rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 419 read with 109 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 420 read with 109 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 468 IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. A-7 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 468 IPC; A-8 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 120B IPC; rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 419 read with 109 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 420 read with 109 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 420 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.
6. On appeal the High Court of Andhra Pradesh upon re-appreciation of evidence available on record confirmed the conviction of A-3 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 419 and 420 IPC but reduced the sentence from three years rigorous imprisonment to two years rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC, from five years rigorous imprisonment to three years rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and from three years rigorous imprisonment to two years rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 419 IPC while maintaining the fine imposed by the trial court. The High Court also confirmed the conviction of A-5 under each count but reduced the quantum of imprisonment from three years to one year for offences under each count under Sections 120B, 419 read with 109, 420 read with 109, 468 IPC. However, his conviction and sentence imposed for the offences punishable under Section 13 (1)(d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was confirmed. That so far as A-7 is concerned the High Court while partly allowing the appeal modified the conviction from Section 468 IPC to that of one under Section 465 IPC and accordingly sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. That so far as A-8 is concerned the High Court confirmed his conviction under all counts but reduced the quantum of imprisonment from three years to one year for offences under each count under Section 120B, 420, 419 read with 109, 420 read with 109, 468 IPC. However, his conviction and sentence imposed for the offences punishable under Section 13 (1)(d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was confirmed. Hence, these appeals.
Case of Prosecution:
7. In order to consider as to whether the High Court committed any error in convicting and sentencing the appellants as noted herein above, it may be just and necessary to briefly notice the case of the prosecution. The allegation against Accused No. 3 (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 782/2007) is that she obtained a second passport in the assumed name of Sana Malik Kamal from the Regional Passport Office, Secunderabad by submitting false documents like residence certificate, educational certificate with the help of A-4 to A-9. She used the passport to travel Lisbon, Portugal. The owner of M/s. Faizan Enterprises, Mumbai (A-10) is involved in the business of recruiting people for jobs in foreign countries. He gave 10 passport size photographs of A-1 to A-3 and fake names and documents to A-9 to secure passports falsely showing them as residents of Kurnool in the State of Andhra Pradesh. A-9 has relatives in Kurnool. He visited Kurnool in the month of March, 2001 and entrusted the work of securing passports of A-1 to A-3, to A-6 an unauthorized passport agent. At the instance of A-6, A-7 Mohammed Yunis, Mandal Revenue Inspector of Mandal Revenue Office, Kurnool issued a false residential certificates in the assumed names intended for the benefit of A-1 to A-3. A-6 procured fake transfer certificates purported to have been issued by the Headmaster, Zila Parishad High Court, Peddapadu, Kurnool District in the name of Ramil Kamil Malik and two fake memorandum of marks sheets in the names of Neha Asif Jafari and Sana Malik, purported to have been issued by the Headmaster, Higher Elementary School, Kurnool, as a proof in support of date of birth. One Abdul Gaffar (PW-1) filled up three passport applications of A-1 to A-3 at the instance of A-6 and they were accordingly submitted in the Regional Passport Office, Secunderabad. The authorities accordingly sent the particulars mentioned in the forms to the office of Superintendent of Police, Kurnool which were received in the office on 16.5.2001 vide exhibit P-28 covering letter. A-5 (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 784/07) at the relevant time was working as Writer-Head Constable in special branch. He submitted fake verification reports along with statements of six persons in support of character and conduct of A-1 to A-3 by portraying them as if they were the neighbours of A-1 to A-3. On receipt of reports, A-4 dispatched them to Regional Passport Office, Secunderabad. It is on the basis of these reports, passports were accordingly issued to A-1 to A-3 in their assumed names and they were dispatched by speed post to their respective address at Kurnool as...
To continue reading
Request your trial