1 C.C.No.308/2018
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::
RLY.KODUR
PRESENT:- Miss J.Sowmya Josphine
Judl. Magistrate of First Class, NANDALUR.
Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Rly. Kodur(FAC)
Monday, dated this the 9 th day of November, 2020
CALENDER CASE No.308/2018
The State of A.P. represented by Sub Inspector of Police,
Rly.Kodur PS… Complainant
Vs.
Akepati Prasad, aged about 28 years,
S/o Sreeramulu,
Dismissed Police Constable Gel.No.2554,
Kadapa District. Native of Viswanathapuram
Village, Mydukur Mandal,
Now residing at D.no.10/534-25,
Pagadalapalli, Rly.Kodur Town.
… Accused
This case is coming on 20-10-2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor C.Bhanu Kiranmai on behalf of the State and learned advocate B.Venkat Ramanaiah for the Accused through Bluejeans App video calling due to lockdown in view of COVID-19 as per the orders of Hon’ble High Court in R.O.C.No.192/SO/2020 dt.24.03.2020 to 01.09.2020 and upon hearing on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT
1.The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Railway Kokdur
P.S. filed the charge sheet in Cr.No.196/2017 against the accused for the offences under Sections. 177,182,465,468,471 IPC and Sec.12(1)(b) of
Indian Passport Act, 1967 alleging as follows:
Prior to this offence, the accused is worked as civil police constable as 2 C.C.No.308/2018
PC 2554 at Chinnachowk, Kadapa and later he was dismissed from his services. Later the accused came to Railway Kodur and residing one
Gopagani Sulochana by leaving his parents. Prior to 14.07.2017, the accused has given his personal particulars form in respect of Gopagani
Sudarshan Yadav of D.No.10/534-25, Pagadalapalli, Railway Kodur Mandal for issue of fresh passport. On verification of personal particulars by the defacto complainant being SBHC 518, Railway Kodur and detected that name, parents name, profession, address, educational qualifications etc., are different from Personal Particulars Form with his actual personal particulars, as it is particularly detected that the applicant worked as Civil
Police Constable in Kadapa District at Chinnachowk PS from 2012 to 2014 with General No.2554 with his original name Akapati Prasad and later dismissed. But he applied for passport with different name and particulars are found to be forged and false, thereby the accused has knowingly forged the documents for the purpose of cheating by using them as genuie and thereby furnished false information to obtain a passport. On 14.07.2017 memo received from the Superintendent of Police, District Special Branch,
Kadapa through tappal along with the verification of character and antecedents in respect of passport applicant Gopagani Sudharshan Yadav of
Kodur as he applied with false particulars along with connected documents through PC 377, basing on the same, the SI of Police registered a case in
Cr.No.196/2017 under Sections 177,182,465,468,471 IPC and Sec.12(1)(b) of Indian Passport Act, 1967 and investigated into. During the course of investigation, the Sub Inspector of Police arrested the accused on 27.07.2017 near Chitvel Bypass road, Railway Kodur and forwarded him to judicial remand. After completion of investigation, the SI of Police, Railway 3 C.C.No.308/2018
Kodur PS laid charge sheet.
2. This Court taken cognizance against the accused under sections 177,182,465,468,471 IPC and Sec.12(1)(b) of Indian Passport Act, 1967.
3. On appearance of accused before the court, copies of relevant case records were furnished to him as required U/s.207 Cr.P.C.
4. The accused was examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C. for the offences under section 177,182,465,468,471 IPC and Sec.12(1)(b) of Indian Passport Act, 1967. The contents of the charges were read over and explained to him in
Telugu. For which, he denied the offence by pleading not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW7 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. Ex.D1 marked on behalf of accused.
6. The accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. in respect of incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and reported for evidence on his behalf.
7. Heard both sides through Bluejeans app video call. Perused the record.
8.Now point for determination is:- "Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the offences under section 177,182,465,468,471 IPC and Sec.12(1)(b) of Indian
Passport Act, 1967 against accused beyond reasonable doubt?".
Point:
9. The case of the prosecution is that the accused furnished Personal
Particulars Form with false information like name, address, educational qualifications by knowingly with an intend to cause fraud for obtaining the passport.
4 C.C.No.308/2018
10. To prove the case of prosecution, prosecution examined PW1 to
PW7 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. PW1 is the defacto complainant. PW2 to
PW6 are the witnesses and PW7 is investigating Officer, who investigated the matter and filed charge sheet.
11. The evidence of PW1, who is defacto complainant is that as part of his duty on 22.06.2017 for verify the application of passport, he verified the application by name and address Gopigani Sudarshan Yadav, S/o
Nagarjuna, Pagadalapalli, Railway Kodur town. Accordingly, he went to said address for physical verification. They suspected the address in the said application and made enquiries in Chinnachowk P.S Kadapa, Kadapa District
Police Office and Viswanadhapuram in Mydukur. They came to know the details of applicant are false. On 08.07.2017 they collected the details of the applicant in said address as Akepati Prasad S/o Sreeramulu and
Lakshmidevi, Viswanadhapuram of Mydukur. The said Akepati Prasad was studied upto Intermediate and worked as Constable in Chinnachowk police station from 2012 to 2014 with number as 2554. He submitted report to
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kadapa by taking 1st page of Service
Register, 10th class Marksheet, Intermediate Marks sheet, PPF form of wrong address. The accused by furnishing false information intending to obtain passport by cheating the government. Inturn the Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Special Branch, Kadapa submitted the report to the Superintendent of Police, who inturn gave memo to the SI of Police, Railway Kodur to registered the case. Accordingly, on 14.07.2017, case was registered by the
SI of Police.
12. The evidence of PW2, who is the owner of Mee-Seva Centre that one Gopigani Sudarshan Yadav came to his Mee-Seva centre and asked for 5 C.C.No.308/2018 name correction in Aadhar card by producing proofs. Inturn they sent the proofs to MRO office and sent back after verification. Later he verified correctly and uploaded the details. Later aadhar card was issued. In the year 2017, during the examination by SI of Police, he came to know that the accused applied for passport by changing his name.
13. PW3 to PW6, who are independent witnesses stood hostile to the prosecution case and not supported its case and denied the suggestions put by the prosecution in the cross examination. It need not to say, mere suggestions to the witness are not evidence and there is no valid. It is well settled law that “suggestive questions cannot be held evidence of fact if denied.
14. PW7, who is investigated the case that, on 14.07.2017 he received
Ex.P1 report from the Superintendent of Police, Kadapa vide 19097/Passport/DSB-KDP/2017, dt.10.07.2017, which is filed by PW1 to the
Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Special Branch Kadapa. Basing on the same, he registered a case in Cr.No.196/2017 under Section 177,182,465,468,471 IPC and Sec.12(1)(b) of Indian Passports Act, 1967.
On the very same day, he examined PW1 in the police station itself and recorded his statement. On the very same , he visited PW2 Mee-Seva
Centre and examined and recorded the statement of PW2. On 27.07.2017 at about 8.00 AM, on receipt of credible information about the movement of accused, he reached to Chitvel Byepass road, arrested the accused and forwarded him to judicial remand. Pm 28.07.2017, he visited the accused parents house at Mydukur, examined the parents and recorded their statements. Then he proceeded to Badvel town, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements, he tried to secure more witnesses to 6 C.C.No.308/2018 examine but in vain. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.
15. The learned app argued that the accused has given his personal particulars form in respect of Gopagani Sudarshan Yadav of D.NO 10/534- 25, Pagadalapalli, Railway Kodur Mandal for issue of fresh passport. The complainant/PW1 during the enquiry it is detected that, name, parents name, profession, address, educational qualifications etc., as per PPF are different from his actual personal particulars. The accused by furnishing false information intending to obtain passport by cheating the government.
In turn, the DSP, Special Branch, Kadapa submitted the report to
Superintendent of Police. Who inturn gave memo to SI of police, Railway
Kodur to registered the case. PW2 who is a owner of Mee-Seva center also supported and corroborated with the version of PW1. PW7 who is an investigating officer in this case also supports the version of PW1.Ex.P1 and
Ex.P6 also supports the version of PW1 and prays to convict the accused.
16. The learned counsel for the accused argued that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt as there is no documents filed by the prosecution to prove their contents. The said Sulochana Yadav and the Superintendent of Police were not cited as witnesses in this case as they are crucial witnesses. The accused applied for changing of his name in his Aadhar Card at PW2 Mee-Seva center only and also got the same but not for passport purpose. PW2 admitted in his cross examination that
Ex.D1 is the genuine document. The accused never furnished false information and he never cheated the government. No independent witnesses were cited nor examined as witnesses on behalf of the prosecution in this case. PW3 to PW6 who were cited as a witnesses in this 7 C.C.No.308/2018 case were turned hostile did not supported the case of the prosecution. The report was submitted to the Superintendent of Police. To that effect only memo was given. Basing on the memo only case was registered. The SHO has no power to file a case basing on the memo, on the report only a case shall be registered, the adoption was made in the year 2017 after one year gap of adoption only he applied for passport.he is adopted by G.Sulochana and Nagarjuna and adoption ceremony was celebrated the accused. Name was changed as G.Sudarshan Yadav in the said ceremony. Ex.D1/Aadhar card of the accused also clearly reveals the same. Ex.D1 also supports the accused. The version of the prosecution is that the accused is dismissed from the service but he worked as a probation constable during the period 2012-2014 so he was not dismissed from the service. Dismissed from the service differs from the terminated from the service.
17. On analysing the evidence of PW1 to PW6 except the denying the adoption of accused only at the first instance but in the second instance i.e., at last page of the cross examination, he admitted the adoption of accused and all other aspects are admitted by PW1 in his evidence. The duty of PW1 is to attend the applications of passports, petitions, any job verifications and to send reports to higher authorities. As per the version of
PW1, he indirectly admitted that the fact by deposing that there were no mistakes in passport and he do not know whether there is any mistakes in the passport application. After confirming the passport applications is on correct lines, then only the passport authorities will send the applications for verification to their special branch as such their received the accused passport application from passport authorities. According to the version of
PW1, a doubt arises whether the accused forged the document knowingly 8 C.C.No.308/2018 and here, by furnished false information with a view to obtaining a passport. So, there is no conformity with regard to this aspect. PW1 clearly admitted in his cross examination that the name in the application was mentioned as Gopigani Sudarshan Yadav, S/o Nagarjuna of Pagadalapalli.
The aadhar card enclosed to the passport application of accused in the said aadhar card the name of accused was mentioned as Gopigani Sudharsan
Yadav mother Sulochana and father Nagarjuna and mentioned the pagadalapalli address. PW1 admitted that the aadhar card enclosed by the accused is genuine and Ex.D1 also belongs to the accused (his aadhar card). PW1 in the second instance i.e., at the end of his cross examination, he clearly admitted in his evidence that it is true that the accused being legal adopted son of Sulochana and Nararjuna and applied for aadhar card, enclosed the details to the passport authorities in turn on conforming the details furnished by accused sent his application to us for verification. so, from the evidence of PW1 accused did not furnished any false information.
In the beginning of the evidence he denied but after some time, he admitted all the contents which are in favour of the accused. As per the version of PW2 also name of the accused as Gopigani Sudarshan Yadav S/o
Nagarjuna. Ex.D1/Aadhar card was issued by PW2. As per the evidence of
PW2 also, the accused furnished correct documents for changing of name, surname, date of birth and address. So, the evidence of PW2 also supports the accused only. Generally if anybody got doubt with regard to the furnished documents by an individuals, the Mee-Seva will sent those documents to revenue authorities for cross checking and after cross checking by revenue authorities the details furnished by accused then only there will uploaded in AP Online portal. If all the details furnished by the 9 C.C.No.308/2018 individual are not correct uploaded in AP Online, the government will reject the request. After confirming the documents and details uploaded only
Aponline, government approved and will issue aadhar card number with changed details. So after adopting the above process it is proved as genuine then only aadhar card was issued in favour of accused. PW1 clearly admitted in his cross examination that it is true Ex.D1 is genuine one and accused not furnished any fabricated or fake or forged documents to obtain aadhart card. Here in this case PW2 is a crucial witness. There is no dispute with regard to Ex.D1. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 is in favour of the accused only. PW3 to PW6 who were witnesses in this case turned hostile and did not supported the case of the prosecution. On analysing the evidence of PW7, as per the evidence of PW7, PW1 did not directly submitted complaint to PW7, Ex.P1 report given by PW1 and same by received by PW7. PW7 did not filed documents such as Intermediate Marks sheet of accused or page 1 Service Register or 10th Class Marks list to him.
PW7 did not enquired the passport officer to know the real facts. The adopted parents were not examined or cited as witnesses in this case.
18. Discussing legal aspects pertaining to this case: Section 177 of
IPC is with respect to furnishing false information which a person is legally bound to furnish such information on any subject as sought for i.e., with respect to any offence or incident. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and even after considering the evidence and Ex.P1/Report, it cannot be said that a prima facie case is made out against the accused for the offences punishable 177 IPC.
19. To make out a case U/Sec.182 IPC, the following ingredients are to be proved:
10 C.C.No.308/2018
1) an information was given by a person to a public servant.2)the information was given by a person who knows or believes such statement to be false.3)such information was given with an intention to cause or knowing it to be likely to cause (a) such public servant to do not to do anything if the true state of facts respecting which such information is given were known by him, or b)to use the lawful power of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of any person. In the present case, the investigating agency failed to show that he has given information which knowing and believing to be false. Generally after confirming the passport applications is on correct lines, then only the passport authorities will send the applications for verification to the special branch of any individual. So, here in this case also after following the same procedure the special branch received the accused passport application from the passport authorities and same was admitted by PW1 in his cross examination and same aspect was not denied by the other witnesses who were examined in this case. So, how can we say that information was given by the accused to a public servant is false. No documentary and oral evidence supports this aspect.
Hence section 182 IPC also does not attract.
20. Section. 465, 468,471 IPC- to prove these offences the prosecution is required to prove the above said false documents were made by the accused with intent to cause damage or injury to the complainant. The prosecution miserably failed to prove the same through oral and documentary evidence also.
21. Sec.12(1)(b) of Indian passport act 1967, the prosecution failed to prove that the accused furnishes false information in view of obtaining a passport. Here we have to observe one thing. Generally, after confirming 11 C.C.No.308/2018 the passport applications is on correct lines, then only passport authorities will send the applications for verification. Here passport authorities plays an vital role. So here a doubt arises with regard to the same aspect that if the accused furnishes the false information in such case the passport authorities will return the applications to the applicants and applicant will resubmit with compliance. But here in this case this issue has not taken place. As per the version of PW1 everything is on correct lines so they send the application to the Special Branch. Oral and documentary evidence also did not supports this concept.
22. Coming to the conclusion, the prosecution failed to proved that the accused has committed an offence in all aspects. Ex.D1 is the aadhar card of the accused and the same was not denied by the prosecution at any point of time. PW1 and PW2 including PW7 who is an investigating officer supports the version of accused only. After taking into consideration of the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW7, the arguments submitted by learned APP and learned counsel for accused and discussions, it is clearly understood that adoption has taken place and in the said adoption name was changed as
G.Sudharshan Yadav to prove the same, Ex.D1 was filed. So the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.
23. In the result accused is found not guilty for the offences under section 177, 182,465,468,471 IPC and U/Section 12(1)(b)of Indian passport
Act, 1967, accordingly he is acquitted for the same u/sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused if any shall stands cancelled after lapse of appeal time and unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.
12 C.C.No.308/2018
Typed by me on my personal laptop , corrected and pronounced by me through the Bluejeans app video call this the 9th day of November, 2020.
Sd/-J.SOWMYA JOSPHINE
JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
NANDALUR
JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
FAC RAILWAY KODUR .
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED FOR
PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:
PW1: I.Ramakrishnayyya, Head Constable NIL PW2: M.Siva Sankar Reddy PW3: Akepati Sriramulu PW4: Akepati Lakshmidevi PW5: P.Prasanna PW6: B.Subba Rao PW7: P.Venkateswarlu, SI of Police
EXHIBITS MARKED
PROSECUTION: DEFENCE: Ex.P1:Written Report dated 08.07.2017Ex.D1: Xerox copy of Ex.P2: 161(3) Cr.P.C statement of PW3aadhar card of Ex.P3: 161(3) Cr.P.C statement of PW4accused Ex.P4: 161(3) Cr.P.C statement of PW5 Ex.P5: 161(3) Cr.P.C statement of PW6 Ex.P6: Memo of SP, Kadapa vide C.No.19097/Passport/DSB-KDP/2017, dt.10.07.2017 Ex.P7: F.I.R
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
-NIL-
Sd/-J.SOWMYA JOSPHINE
JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
NANDALUR
JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
FAC RAILWAY KODUR .