Surinder Dogra vs State Through Director Cbi

2025 INSC 258 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 1020 OF 2022

SURINDER DOGRA ... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE THROUGH DIRECTOR CBI ...RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.

1. The appellant has been convicted concurrently by the Trial

Court and the High Court, under the impugned judgment, for

committing offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and

471 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) of 19891 and Section 5 (1)

(d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988 and has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by

for a period of six months for each of the offence and to pay a SWETA BALODI Date: 2025.02.21 16:45:34 IST Reason:

1

‘RPC’ 2

fine of Rs 5,000/- for each of the offence. The sentence has

been directed to run concurrently.

2. At the relevant time, the appellant was posted as Traffic

Superintendent, Indian Airlines, Jammu. The allegation against

the appellant is that on 19.11.1997, while manning the ticket

sale counter at Jammu Airport, he 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 himself and causing loss to the Airlines.

3. Shri Romesh Malhotra, Manager (Vigilance), Indian

Airlines lodged a complaint on 27.12.1997 on which CBI

registered the present crime. It was stated in the complaint

that M/s. Blue Bird Tours & Travel in connivance with Shri

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 sold to various persons. One flight coupon in

favour of Mr. Vikram for sector Jammu to Delhi was issued by

Indian Airlines for travel on 19.11.1997 but when the auditor

coupon of this ticket number was checked up it was found that 3

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

the sector was Jammu to Srinagar mentioned therein. It was

subsequently revealed that the appellant was manning the

ticket sale counter on the said date, and he prepared the infant

ticket in a fictitious name called Master Azim and deposited Rs.

102/- with the Cashier vide pay-in-slip dated 19.11.1997.

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 Vikram while changing the sector as Jammu-Delhi with fare

at Rs. 3105/-. Thus, the appellant enabled Mr. Vikram to travel

to Delhi on the forged ticket by flight no. 422 dated 19.11.1997

on seat no. 14.

4. On completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed and

in course of trial the prosecution examined 09 witnesses. The

appellant/accused having not pleaded guilty, was subsequently

examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. but he did not lead any

evidence in defence.

5. Basing on the evidence of PW-1 (Ashok Koul), Airport

Manager, Indian Airlines, Jammu; PW-2 (Kewal Krishan),

Cashier, Indian Airlines, Jammu; PW-3 (Romesh Malhotra),

Manager, Vigilance, Delhi Region; PW-4 (J. Chandera Hassan), 4

Sr. Assistant, Indian Airline, Vigilance Office, New Delhi; PW-5

(J.P. Jaiswar), Station Manager, Jammu Station; PW-8 (H.M.

Saxena) Deputy Government Examiner of Questioned

Documents, Shimla and PW-9 (SPS Dutta), Investigating

Officer, the Trial Court recorded a finding that every 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 and

that the same person issues the auditor coupon and the flight

coupon. 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. The relevant

coupons were prepared by the appellant on 19.11.1997 as it

was, he who was operating the ticket sale counter at Jammu

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

tickets to the passengers. He first prepared infant ticket in the

name of Master Azim and subsequently, he incorporated a false

conjunction ticket and tampered the flight coupon of the same

ticket by way of forgery showing it to be an adult ticket in the

name of Mr. Vikram while changing the sector from Jammu to

Delhi. In the result, the appellant enabled the said Vikram to 5

travel from Jammu to Delhi.` Further basing on the opinion of

the handwriting expert and that of PW-5 (J.P. Jaiswar) who was

acquainted with the handwriting of the appellant, learned Trial

Court recorded a categorical finding that the auditor coupon

and the flight coupon available on record are in the handwriting

and under signatures of the appellant. He has proved the

auditor coupon issued in the name of infant Master Azim and

conjunction number in the name of Mr. Vikram. Thus, the Trial

Court held the appellant guilty for committing the charged

offences.

6. The High Court has affirmed the finding, upon

reappreciation of evidence. Thus, it is concurrently held that

the appellant was posted as Traffic Superintendent on the

relevant date discharging duty of issuing air tickets to the

passengers and it was he, under his handwriting, has issued

the auditor coupon and the flight coupon allowing Mr. Vikram to

travel by paying fare of Rs. 102/- instead of Master Azim,

infant, who was issued the original ticket for Rs. 102/-.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we have

not found any such illegality or irregularity in the finding of

guilt recorded by the Trial Court and the High Court holding the 6

appellant guilty of committing the offence under Sections 420,

468 and 471 of the Ranbir Penal Code of 1989 and Section 5

(1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988.

8. Although, the learned counsel for the appellant has

referred the judgments in the case of Sait Tarajee

Khimchand vs. Yelamarti Satyam2, Ram Narain vs. State

of Uttar Pradesh3, Kale & Ors. vs. Deputy Director of

Consolidation & Ors.4, Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs.

State of Maharashtra5, State of Rajasthan vs. Islam6&

V.C. Shukla vs. State Through CBI7 to contend that there is

absolute lack of admissible evidence to prove that the appellant

has committed the forgery by manipulating the ticket, yet in

view of the report of the handwriting expert (H.M. Sexena/PW-

8) and that of J.P. Jaiswar (PW-5), it is proved that on the date

of offence the appellant was discharging the duty of issuance of

air tickets at Jammu Airport of the Indian Airlines and under his

handwriting the questioned auditor coupon and flight coupon

2 AIR (1971) SC 1865 3 AIR (1973) SC 2200 4 AIR (1976) SC 807 5 AIR (1984) SC 1622 6 AIR (2011) SCW 1748 7 AIR (1980) SC 962 7

were issued. We are in full agreement with the finding recorded

by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court that it was

the appellant alone who could have manipulated the document

because the subject coupons were in his possession on the

relevant date.

9. For the foregoing, we have not found any good ground to

interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court. The

appeal being sans substance, it deserves to be and is hereby

dismissed.

………………………………………J. (SUDHANSHU DHULIA)

.......……………………………….J. (PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA) NEW DELHI;

FEBRUARY 21, 2025.