Delhi District Court
State vs Sameer Bhai Kishore Bhai Desai on 11 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. MANSI MALIK
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-02,
(CENTRAL DISTRICT), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
CNR No. DLCT020002782005
FIR No. 158/2004
PS -Partap Nagar
State Vs. Sameer Bhai Kishore Bhai Desai
JUDGMENT
(a) Case No. 292675/2016
(b) Date of offence 14.08.2004
(c) Complainant HC Pramod Kumar
(d) Accused (1) Sameer Bhai Kishore Bhai Desai, S/o
Sh. Kishore Bhai Desai, R/o 333/1, Ram
Nagar, Kabilpur, Dist. Nav Sari, Gujrat.
(2) Bimal Bhai Bharat Bhai Patel,
S/o Sh. Bharat Bhai Patel, R/o H.No.8386,
1st Floor, Shanta Smriti Manak Lal Road,
Navsari, Gujrat.
(3) Sukhdev Singh,
S/o Sh. Gurnam Singh, R/o Village
Bainswan, Tanda, District Hoshiarpur,
Punjab.
(e) Offence U/s 467/468 r/w 120B IPC
(f) Plea of accused Pleaded Not Guilty
(g) Final Order Acquittal
(h) Date of Institution 07.01.2005
(I) Date when judgment 09.03.2026
was reserved
FIR No. 158/2004 State Vs Sameer Bhai Kishore Bhai Desai PS Pratap Nagar Pg No. 1 of 28
Digitally
signed by
MANSI
MANSI MALIK
MALIK Date:
2026.04.11
15:32:36
+0530
(j) Date of judgment 11.04.2026
1. Vide this judgment, the court shall dispose of the present case
u/s 467/468 IPC r/w 120B IPC which has been in the judicial system for
more than 20 years.
2. The prosecution version of the case is that at unknown time
and place but before 14.08.2004 accused Sameer Bhai Kishore Bhai
Desai and Bimal Bhai Bharat Bhai Patel (since PO) alongwith one
another accused who is proclaimed offender entered into an agreement to
commit an offence or do an illegal act (forgery of fake Canadian visa)
which amounts to criminal conspiracy and thereby committed an offence
punishable u/s 120B IPC. Further, that on 14.08.2004 at about 8.10 PM
near Public Urinal, Railway Station, Subzi Mandi, Delhi, accused Sameer
Bhai Kishore Bhai Desai was giving a passport bearing no. D3191058 to
co-accused Sukhdev Singh s/o Gurnaam Singh (who is proclaimed
offender) on which a forged visa of Canada has been affixed intending
that the same shall be used for the purpose of committing the offence of
cheating and thereby the accused persons committed an offence u/s
467/468 r/w 120 B IPC. Further, accused Bimal Bhai Bharat Bhai Patel
(since PO) at the aforesaid time and place during his personal search was
found in possession of one passport bearing no. A046688219 which was
having a fake Canadian Visa affixed on it and thereby accused Bimal
Bhai Bharat Bhai Patel (since PO) committed an offence u/s 467/468 IPC.
3. On the basis of a complaint, FIR was registered. After carrying
out investigation, charge sheet was filed and the accused persons wereFIR No. 158/2004 State Vs Sameer Bhai Kishore Bhai Desai PS Pratap Nagar Pg No. 2 of 28 Digitally
signed by
MANSI
MANSI MALIK
MALIK Date:
2026.04.11
15:33:02
+0530
summoned. After compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C, charges u/s 467/468
read with 120B IPC were framed against accused persons on 29.08.2011.
Accused Bimal Bhai Patel and accused Sukhdev Singh have already been
declared Proclaimed Offenders by the Court vide order dated 18.05.2017
and 06.11.2007 respectively. Therefore, the evidence on record only has
to be appreciated qua accused Sameer Bhai Kishore Bhai Desai for the
charges framed against him.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined nine
witnesses in all.
5. PW-1/Ct. Surender Kumar deposed that on 18.09.2004, he
was posted as HC at AATS, North District and the present investigation
was marked to him regarding verification of passport of Hiran Kumar
Mahender Bhai Patel from Ahmadabad and on 19.09.2004, he alongwith
HC Jagbir Singh reached at Regional Passport Office, Ahmadabad,
Gujarat in order to verify passport bearing no. A-6799150 and report
(dated 20.09.2004) is Ex.PW1/A. PW-1 further deposed that he also
verified the addresses of accused Sameer Bhai and Vimal Bhai and also
verified the address of Hiran Kumar Mahender Bhai Patel at Vahera,
District Anand, Gujarat but whereabouts of Hiran Kumar could not be
traced out. PW-1 was not cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the
accused despite opportunity given.
6. PW-2/ASI Ashok Kumar deposed that on 14.08.2004, he was
posted as Head Constable at AATS, North District and that ACPFIR No. 158/2004 State Vs Sameer Bhai Kishore Bhai Desai PS Pratap Nagar Pg No. 3 of 28
MANSI
MALIK
Digitally signed
by MANSI MALIK
Date: 2026.04.11
15:33:12 +0530
Harender Singh received secret information regarding some persons being
involved in preparation of forged visa and passport and ACP gave
directions regarding the case. PW-2 deposed that he alongwith secret
informer left for Subzi Mandi Railway and HC Pramod and Ct. Anil also
came at the spot at about 07:05 pm and that he informed them regarding
the information. PW-2 further deposed that HC Pramod constituted a
raiding party consisting of himself, HC Pramod and Ct. Anil and that HC
Pramod requested 4 to 5 public persons to join the investigation but none
of them joined the investigation and left the spot without disclosing their
names and addresses. PW-2 deposed that at about 07:30 pm, one person
came near public toilet and after some time two other persons joined him
and one person took out the passport from right side pocket of his trouser
and handed over to another person. PW-2 further deposed that secret
informer pointed out towards one person namely Bimal Bhai and that
they apprehended abovesaid three persons and conducted formal search
of accused persons and that one passport was recovered from Bimal Bhai
Patel, same was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A and another
passport which was being handed over by accused Bimal Bhai to accused
Sukhdev was seized vide seizure memo, Ex.PW2/B and the same was
found to be carrying forged visa of Canada. PW-2 further deposed that
accused persons namely Bimal Bhai Patel, Sameer Kishore Bhai Desai
and Sukhdev were arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/C, Ex.PW2/D and
Ex.PW2/E respectively and the personal search of accused persons was
conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW2/F, Ex.PW2/G and
Ex.PW2/H and the disclosure statement of accused persons Bimal Bhai
Patel, Sameer Kishore Bhai Desai and Sukhdev was recorded by IO vide
disclosure memo, Ex.PW2/I, Ex.PW2/J and Ex.PW2/K respectively. The
abovesaid two passports were shown to the witness and the same areFIR No. 158/2004 State Vs Sameer Bhai Kishore Bhai Desai PS Pratap Nagar Pg No. 4 of 28 MANSI
MALIK
Digitally signed by
MANSI MALIK
Date: 2026.04.11
15:33:18 +0530
Ex.P1(colly). PW-2 further deposed that accused Sameer Bhai Kishor
was the person who handed over the passport in question having forged
Canadian visa to accused Sukhdev and that HC Pramod prepared the
rukka and handed over the same to Ct. Anil who got the FIR registered in
the PS. PW-2 further deposed that SI Gajender came at the spot and
thereafter Ct. Anil came at the spot alongwith copy of FIR and original
rukka and handed over the same to IO/SI Gajender, who put the FIR
number and other particulars of case on the seizure memo. PW-2 further
deposed that IO prepared the site plan at the instance of HC Pramod and
the case property was deposited in Malkhana and that IO recorded his
statement. Witness correctly identified accused Sameer Kishore Bhai
Desai in the court. PW-2 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for
the accused.
7. PW-3/SI Jarnail Singh Gill deposed that on 26.10.2004, he
was posted at Operation Cell, North as HC and on that day on direction of
IO, he took a letter addressed to Superintendent, Passport Office,
Jalandhar regarding the re-verification of the photographs of passport No.
B-3191058. PW-3 further deposed that he got the same verified from the
concerned Passport Office and handed over the verification report and
copy of personal particular form to the IO. PW-3 further deposed that IO
recorded his statement. PW-3 was duly cross-examined by the Ld.
counsel for the accused.
8. PW-4/Sh. Tek Chand deposed that he had brought the
summoned report i.e. record of passport bearing No. B-319058 in the
name of Sukhdev Singh S/o Sh. Gurnam Singh already Ex.PW4/A (colly)
and that the certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act qua the record is
Digitally
signed by
MANSI
FIR No. 158/2004 State Vs Sameer Bhai Kishore Bhai Desai PS Pratap Nagar Pg No. 5 of 28MANSI MALIK
MALIK Date:
2026.04.11
15:33:26
+0530
Ex.PW4/B. PW-4 was not cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the
accused despite opportunity given.
9. PW-5/SI Vidyadhar deposed that on 14.08.2004, he was
posted as Duty Officer at PS Gulabi Bagh and at about 9.50 PM, a rukka
was received by him through Ct. Anil Kumar sent by HC Pramod Kumar
for getting the case registered. PW-5 deposed that on the basis of rukka
he registered the case vide FIR No. 158/04 which is a carbon copy and
one original copy of FIR placed in the FIR register. PW-5 produced the
original FIR Register containing the original FIR and that the carbon copy
of FIR which placed in the judicial file is true and correct copy of the
original and the same is already Ex. PW5/A (OSR). PW-5 further
deposed that the carbon copy of FIR alongwith original rukka was handed
over to Ct. Anil Kumar to hand over the same to SI Gajender for further
investigation and that he also made endorsement on original rukka
already Ex. PW5/B and that the certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence
Act qua the FIR is already Ex.PW5/C. PW-5 was duly cross-examined by
the Ld. counsel for the accused.
10. PW-6/HC Pramod Kumar deposed that on 14.08.2004, he was
posted as HC with Operation Cell, North District, Delhi and on that day,
ACP, Operation Cell gave him instructions that some persons are taking
money on the strength of forged Visa and they will be coming to Subzi
Mandi Railway Station and at the spot he will be meeting with HC Ashok
alongwith secret informer. PW-6 deposed that he alongwith Ct. Anil went
to spot i.e. Subzi Mandi Railway Station where HC Ashok and secret
informer met him and that the secret informer gave the information thatFIR No. 158/2004 State Vs Sameer Bhai Kishore Bhai Desai PS Pratap Nagar Pg No. 6 of 28 Digitally
signed by
MANSI
MANSI MALIK
MALIK Date:
2026.04.11
15:33:35
+0530
the persons who are forging the Visa and taking money are bound to
come on the railway station. PW-6 further deposed that he constituted a
raiding party consisting of himself, HC Ashok and Ct. Anil alongwith
secret informer. PW-6 further deposed that he requested 4-5 public
persons to join the raiding team and investigation but none agreed and left
the spot without disclosing their names and addresses and due to paucity
of time, no notice could be served to those persons. PW-6 further deposed
that the raiding team took possession near a wall by hiding under the wall
and that at about 8.00 PM, one person came wearing glasses with medium
structure having a bag near the bathroom and started waiting for someone
and after about 10 minutes, two persons came from the side of Pratap
Nagar Metro Station, one of whom was holding a bag and the said two
persons went to the first persons and started talking. PW-6 further
deposed that the secret informer pointed out that the first person who
arrived at the spot is a person who will collect the fake passport and Visa
and the two persons are those who had come to hand over the same.
PW-6 further deposed that one of the persons from two persons took out
one passport from his pocket and handed over the same to waiting person
then the raiding team apprehended all the accused persons and their
names were revealed as Sukhdev (since PO), who came to spot first,
accused Sameer and accused Bimal Bahi (since PO). PW-6 deposed that
he seized the said passport which was in the name of Sukhdev Singh vide
seizure memo already Ex.PW2/B and also seized another passport
recovered from accused Bimal vide seizure memo already Ex.PW2/A and
on both the said passport, fake Visa of Canada was affixed. PW-6 further
deposed that he prepared the rukka Ex.PW6/A and handed over the same
to Ct. Anil for registration of FIR at PS Gulabi Bagh. PW-6 further
deposed that after sometime, Ct. Anil alongwith SI Gajender returnedFIR No. 158/2004 State Vs Sameer Bhai Kishore Bhai Desai PS Pratap Nagar Pg No. 7 of 28
Digitally
signed by
MANSI
MANSI MALIK
MALIK Date:
2026.04.11
15:33:42
+0530
with original rukka and copy of FIR and Ct. Anil handed over the same to
SI Gajender for further investigation. PW-6 deposed that he handed over
accused persons and recovered passports to SI Gajender, who prepared
site plan at his instance and that IO recorded his statement. The case
property i.e. two passports are already Ex.P1 (colly). PW-6 was duly
cross-examined by Ld. counsel for accused.
11. PW-7/Sh. Kunal deposed that he had brought the certified
copy of the record for the passport No. A6799150 issued on 18.12.1998
by RPO, Ahmadabad and the said passport was issued in the name of
Hiren Kumar Mahendrabhai Patel. Copy of the same is Ex.PW7/A and
that he had also produced the certified copy of Circular No.
VIII/885/06/06 dated 10.03.2008 and the copy of the same is Ex.
PW-7/B. PW-7 was not cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for the
accused despite opportunity.
12. PW-8/Sh. Rajpal deposed that he was summoned to produce
the record of Visa No. A-034335452 and A-046688219, however, the
record of said visas is not available in the office. PW-8 was not cross-
examined by the Ld. counsel for the accused despite opportunity given.
13. PW-9/Retd. ACP Gajender Kumar deposed that on
14.08.2004, he was posted as SI with Operation Cell, North Dist and on
that day, the present case was marked to him for further investigation.
PW-9 deposed that he reached the spot i.e. Railway Station, Subzi Mandi
where he met with HC Pramod, HC Ashok Kumar along with three
FIR No. 158/2004 State Vs Sameer Bhai Kishore Bhai Desai PS Pratap Nagar Pg No. 8 of 28 Digitally
signed by
MANSI
MANSI MALIK
MALIK Date:
2026.04.11
15:33:52
+0530
accused persons, namely, Sameer Bhai Kishore Bhai Desai, Bimal Bhai
Bharat Bhai Patel (already declared PO) and Sukhdev Singh (already
declared PO). PW-9 further deposed that Ct. Anil came to spot and
handed over him rukka and copy of FIR and that he prepared site plan
Ex.PW9/A, interrogated all the accused persons and arrested them vide
arrest memos already Ex.PW2/C, Ex.PW2/D and Ex.PW2/E respectively.
He further searched the accused persons vide Search Memos already
Ex.PW2/F, Ex.PW2/G and Ex.PW2/H respectively and he also recorded
disclosure Statements of accused persons Ex.PW2/K, Ex.PW2/J and
Ex.PW2/I respectively. PW-9 further deposed that he tried to find co-
accused persons but all in vain and that the accused persons were put
behind bars and on the next date, accused persons were produced before
the Hon’ble Court and were sent to JC. PW-9 further deposed that he got
Visas verified from Canada Embassy and collected the report Ex.PW9/B
wherein the Embassy that said Visas bearing No.A034335452 and
A046688219 purportedly issued to Hirenkumar Mahender Bhati Patel and
Sukhdev Singh respectively were found to be fraudulent and that the
passports of Hirenkumar Mahender Bhati Patel was verified from Gujarat
and of accused Sukhdev Singh from Jalandhar, Punjab and same were
found to be genuine, the said passports are already Ex.P-1 (colly). PW-9
further deposed that he recorded statement of witnesses and after
completing investigation, he filed the chargesheet before the Hon’ble
Court. Accused Sameer Bhai was correctly identified by the witness in
the court. PW-9 was duly cross-examined by Ld. counsel of accused.
14. The prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated
19.01.2024. Thereafter, statement of accused U/s 313 Cr. PC was
recorded on 06.05.2024 wherein the accused has pleaded innocence andFIR No. 158/2004 State Vs Sameer Bhai Kishore Bhai Desai PS Pratap Nagar Pg No. 9 of 28 Digitally
signed by
MANSI
MANSI MALIK
MALIK Date:
2026.04.11
15:34:00
+0530
opted not to lead DE.
15. Final arguments were heard from Ld. APP for state as well as
Ld. Counsel for the accused. Written Submissions were also filed on
behalf of the accused. The entire record including the written submissions
filed on behalf of the accused have been perused carefully.
REASONS FOR DECISION
16. Accused Sameer Bhai Kishore Bhai Desai is facing trial for
offence punishable u/s 467/468 IPC r/w 120B IPC on the allegations that
he gave a passport bearing no. D3191058 to one of the co-accused
persons namely Sukhdev Singh on which a forged visa of Canada was
affixed knowing that the same shall be used for the purpose of offence of
cheating and is thus alleged to have committed offence u/s 467/468 r/w
120B IPC. The other co-accused persons namely Sukhdev Singh and
Bimal Bhai have already been declared as proclaimed offenders by the
Court and hence, the evidence on record only needs to be appreciated qua
accused Sameer Bhai Kishore.
17. PW-2/ASI Ashok Kumar entered the witness box and gave
detailed account of the incident in question. He deposed that on
14.08.2004, secret information was received regarding some persons
being involved in preparation of forged visa and passport. Thereafter,
PW-2 alongwith secret informer left for Sabzi Mandi Railway Station and
HC Pramod and Ct. Anil also came to the spot at around 07:05 PM where
a raiding team consisting of the said persons was constituted. At 07:30
FIR No. 158/2004 State Vs Sameer Bhai Kishore Bhai Desai PS Pratap Nagar Pg No. 10 of 28
Digitally
signed by
MANSI
MANSI MALIK
MALIK Date:
2026.04.11
15:34:08
+0530
PM, one person came near the public toilet and two other persons joined
him. One of the said persons took out a passport from the right side
pocket of his trousers and handed it over to another person. Thereafter,
the said persons were apprehended and one passport was recovered from
accused Bimal Bhai Patel vide seizure memo Ex. PW-2/A and the other
passport which was being handed over to accused Sukhdev was seized
vide seizure memo Ex. PW-2/B. It was specified by PW-2 that it was
accused Sameer Bhai Kishore who handed over the passport in question
having a forged Canadian Visa to accused Sukhdev. The witness also
deposed that all the accused persons were arrested and were personally
searched in his presence. The said witness correctly identified accused
Sameer Kishore Bhai and also correctly identified the two passports
which are Ex. P-1(colly). PW-6/HC Pramod Kumar also corroborated the
testimony of PW-2. He deposed that at about 08:00 PM, at Sabzi Mandi
Railway Station, one person came wearing glasses and started waiting for
someone. After 10 minutes, two persons came from the said of Pratap
Nagar Metro Station and one of the said persons took out one passport
from his pocket and handed over the same to the person who was waiting
there. Thereafter, the raiding team apprehended all the three accused
persons and the two passports were seized vide seizure memos Ex.
PW-2/A and Ex. PW-2/B. PW-6 has further deposed that the accused
persons and the recovered passports were handed over to SI Gajender
who is the second IO in the present matter.
18. Retd. ACP Gajender Kumar, who is the second IO in the
instant case, has been examined as PW-9. He has deposed that on
14.08.2004, the present case was marked to him for further investigationFIR No. 158/2004 State Vs Sameer Bhai Kishore Bhai Desai PS Pratap Nagar Pg No. 11 of 28
MANSI
MALIK
Digitally signed
by MANSI MALIK
Date: 2026.04.11
15:34:17 +0530
and when he reached the spot i.e. Subzi Mandi Railway Station, he met
with HC Pramod and HC Ashok Kumar alongwith the three accused
persons. He prepared the site plan, arrested the accused persons,
personally searched them and also recorded their disclosure statements.
He further deposed that he got the visas in question verified from the
Canadian Embassy and the report qua the same is Ex. PW-9/B. He further
deposed that as per the report, Visa bearing no. A034335452 and
A046688219 allegedly issued to Hiren Kumar Mahender Bhai Patel and
Sukhdev Singh respectively were fraudulent but the said passports on
which the visa were affixed were found to be genuine on verification.
PW-1/SI Surender Kumar has deposed qua the verification of passport of
Hiren Kumar Mahender Bhai Patel bearing no. A-6799150 from Regional
Passport Office, Ahmedabad, Gujarat and the report qua the same is Ex.
PW-1/A. PW-7/Kunal, Junior Passport Assistant, Regional Passport
Office, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, also produced the certified copy of record
for passport number A-6799150 issued on 18.12.1998 by RTO,
Ahmedabad, and as per the record, the passport was issued in the name of
Hiren Kumar Mahender Bhai Patel and copy of the said record is Ex.
PW-7/A. Similarly, PW-4/Sh.Tek Chand, Senior Passport Office, RTO,
Jalandar, Punjab, produced the record of passport no. B-319058 in the
name of Sh. Sukhdev Singh, S/o Gurnam Singh and the same is Ex.
PW-4/A(colly).
19. From the testimonies as reproduced above, it is clear that the
seized passports bearing no. B-319058 in the name of Sukhdev Singh and
A-6799150 in the name of Hiren Kumar Mahender Bhai Patel were
genuine. However, the Canadian Visas which were affixed on the said
Digitally
FIR No. 158/2004 State Vs Sameer Bhai Kishore Bhai Desai PS Pratap Nagar Pg No. 12 of 28 signed by
MANSI
MANSI MALIK
MALIK Date:
2026.04.11
15:34:24
+0530
passports are alleged to be fake. However, the whereabouts of the said
Hiren Kumar Mahender Bhai Patel could not be traced. The prosecution
has contended that the report from the Canadian Embassy, which is Ex.
PW-9/B clearly states that the Canadian Temporary Resident Visas
bearing no. A034335452 and A046688219 purportedly issued to Hiren
Kumar Mahender Bhai Patel and Sukhdev Singh respectively were
fraudulent. The said report has been exhibited during the testimony of
IO/Retd. ACP Gajender Kumar who has been examined as PW-9.
However, it is contended by counsel for the accused that the Visa Report,
which is Ex. PW-9/B has not been proved in accordance with law as no
official from the Canadian High Commission who prepared the said
report has been examined in evidence. It is therefore argued by counsel
for the accused that the said visa report cannot be read in evidence.
20. A scrutiny of the judicial record shows that reply was filed by
the Canadian High Commission duly forwarded by the Ministry of
External Affairs, New Delhi that the High Commission of Canada, New
Delhi has immunity from Court Jurisdiction by virtue of the
privileges/immunities accorded to a foreign mission under the Diplomatic
Relations (Vienna Convention) Act, 1972. Further, Article 31(2) of the
Act provides that “a diplomatic agent is not obliged to give evidence as a
witness.” Due to the protection provided under the said convention, it is
argued by the State that no official appeared on behalf of High
Commission of Canada to depose as a witness in the present matter. Be
that as it may, the Court is of the considered opinion that the visa report
stands duly proved by relying upon Section 74 r/w 78(6) of the Indian
Evidence Act. Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act defines public
FIR No. 158/2004 State Vs Sameer Bhai Kishore Bhai Desai PS Pratap Nagar Pg No. 13 of 28 Digitally
signed by
MANSI
MANSI MALIK
MALIK Date:
2026.04.11
15:34:33
+0530
documents. Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act is reproduced below
for convenience:
74. Public documents.
The following documents are public documents :-
(1)Documents forming the acts or records of the acts –
(i)of the sovereign authority;
(ii)of official bodies and tribunals; and
(iii)of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, [of
any part of India or of the Commonwealth] or of a foreign country;
(2) Public records kept [in any State] of private documents.
Therefore, as per Section 74(1)(iii), all the documents forming
the acts or record of any of the acts of any sovereign authority are public
documents. In the instant case, there is no doubt that the Canadian High
Commission is a sovereign authority as it has no separate identity from
that of the Government of Canada. Further, the report on the verification
of the visas in question is a document forming the record of the acts of the
Canadian High Commission i.e. a sovereign authority thereby making it a
public document falling within the definition of public documents as
envisaged under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act. Further, Section
78(6) of the Indian Evidence Act states as to how public documents
maybe proved. The said section is reproduced below for convenience.
78. Proof of other official documents.
The following public documents may be proved as follows :
(6) Public documents of any other class in a foreign country – by the
original, or by a copy certified by the legal keeper thereof, with a
certificate under seal of a Notary Public, or of [an Indian Consul] or
diplomatic agent, that the copy is duly certified by the officer having the
legal custody of the original, and upon proof of the character of the
document according to the law of the foreign country.
FIR No. 158/2004 State Vs Sameer Bhai Kishore Bhai Desai PS Pratap Nagar Pg No. 14 of 28 Digitally
signed by
MANSI
MANSI MALIK
MALIK Date:
2026.04.11
15:34:41
+0530
Therefore, Section 78(6) of the Indian Evidence Act clearly
states that public documents of a foreign country can be proved by way of
the original document. In the case at hand, the original visa report issued
by the Canadian High Commission is on record and hence it can be said
to be proved in accordance with law. However, even if the visa report is
considered to have been proved as per law, it still has to be seen whether
the prosecution has been able to establish that the passports in question
bearing the fake visas of Canada were recovered from the possession of
the accused persons.
21. The recovery of the passport in question from accused Sameer
Bhai Kishore Bhai Desai is sought to be proved by the recovery memo
and testimony of the witnesses. But the manner of conducting inquiry,
seizure and search etc. on the spot at the time of arrest of the accused and
alleged recovery of the passport in this case, makes the prosecution
version highly doubtful. As per the testimony of PW-2/ASI Ashok Kumar
Kumar, accused Sameer Bhai Kishore Bhai Desai was arrested on
14.08.2004 at about 11:20 pm at Sabzi Mandi Railway Station at the
instance of a secret informer and that the passport in question was
recovered from him when he was handing it over to co-accused Sukhdev.
It is further stated in his testimony that HC Pramod requested 4-5 persons
to join the investigation but none of them joined the investigation and left
the spot without disclosing their names. PW-6/HC Pramod Kumar, who
was the first IO in the instant case, also reiterated the same and deposed
that he requested 4-5 persons to join the investigation but none of them
joined the investigation and left the spot without disclosing their names
FIR No. 158/2004 State Vs Sameer Bhai Kishore Bhai Desai PS Pratap Nagar Pg No. 15 of 28 Digitally
signed by
MANSI
MANSI MALIK
MALIK Date:
2026.04.11
15:34:48
+0530
and that due to paucity of time, no notice could be served to those
persons. In his cross-examination, he further states that there were
vendors at the spot and he did not ask them to join the investigation,
however, he deposed that he did request other public persons to join the
investigation. Further, PW-9/Retd. ACP Gajender Kumar to whom the
investigation was marked after registration of FIR, also deposed that he
requested 4-5 persons to join the investigation but none of them joined
the investigation citing their valid reasons. He also deposed that no notice
was given to the public persons. It is then quite clear that no public
witness was joined in the investigation at any point of time and no notice
was also served upon any of the public persons to join the investigation.
The failure of the any of the IO’s to issue notice to the public persons
cannot be accepted by the court since, they were under an obligation to
issue notice in writing to the public persons, who refused to join the
police investigation particularly in the background when the accused
persons had already been apprehended by the police and there was no
apprehension that the accused persons might escape. Moreover, the IO
has not even placed on record the names of the passerby who were asked
to join the investigation and neither have any reasons been mentioned by
the IO for refusal by the people who were approached to join the
investigation. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this court finds
that the police has not made any sincere effort to join independent public
witnesses during investigation. In this regard reliance is being placed on
the following judgments:-
In a case law reported as “Anoop V/s State”, 1992 (2) C.C.
Cases 314 (HC), Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has observed as
under:
“18. It is repeatedly laid down by this Court that in such cases it
FIR No. 158/2004 State Vs Sameer Bhai Kishore Bhai Desai PS Pratap Nagar Pg No. 16 of 28 Digitally
signed by
MANSI
MANSI MALIK
MALIK Date:
2026.04.11
15:35:18
+0530
should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made
to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evident that
no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find
that shops were open and one or two shop-keepers could have been
persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being
made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had
declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later on
taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not
have escaped the rigours of law while declining to perform their
legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is
an offence under the IPC“.
In a case law reported as “Roop Chand V/s The State of
Haryana”, 1999 (1) C.L.R 69, the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High
Court held as under:-
“3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the evidence with their help. The recovery of illicit liquor
was effected from the possession of the petitioner during noon time
and it is in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that some
witnesses from the public were available and they were asked to
join the investigation but they refused to do do so on the ground
that their joining will result into enmity between them and the
petitioner.
4. It is well settled principle of the law that the Investigation
Agency should join independent witnesses at the time of recovery
of contraband articles, if they are available and their failure to do
so in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution
case. In the present case also admittedly the independent witnesses
were available at the time of recovery but they refused to associateFIR No. 158/2004 State Vs Sameer Bhai Kishore Bhai Desai PS Pratap Nagar Pg No. 17 of 28 Digitally
signed by
MANSI
MANSI MALIK
MALIK Date:
2026.04.11
15:35:26
+0530
themselves in the investigation. This explanation does not inspire
confidence because the police officials who are the only witnesses
examined in the case have not given the names and addresses of
the persons contacted to join. It is a very common excuse that the
witnesses from the public refused to join the investigation. A
police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask
anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from
the public the Investigating Officer can take action against such a
person under the law. Had it been a fact that he witnesses from the
public had refused to to join the investigation, the Investigating
Officer must have proceeded against them under the relevant
provisions of law. The failure to do so by the police officer is
suggestive of the fact that the explanation for non-joining the
witnesses from the public is an after thought and is not worthy of
credence. All these facts taken together make the prosecution case
highly doubtful”.
In case law reported as “Sadhu Singh V/s State of Punjab”,
1997 (3) Crimes 55, the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court
observed as under:-
“5. In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case
beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the
entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution
appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt
necessarily has to go to the accused.
6. In the present case, the State examined two witnesses namely,
Harbans Singh ASI who appeared as PW1 and Kartar Singh PW2.
Both the witnesses supported the prosecution version in terms of
the recovery of opium from the person of the petitioner, but thereFIR No. 158/2004 State Vs Sameer Bhai Kishore Bhai Desai PS Pratap Nagar Pg No. 18 of 28 Digitally
signed by
MANSI
MANSI MALIK
MALIK Date:
2026.04.11
15:35:34
+0530
was no public witness who had joined. It is not necessary in such
recoveries that public witnesses must be joined, but attempt must
be made to join the public witnesses. There can be cases when
public witnesses are reluctant to join or are not available. All the
same, the prosecution must show a genuine attempt having been
made to join a public witness or that they were not available. A
stereo-type statement of non-availability will not be sufficient
particularly when at the relevant time, it was not difficult to
procure the service of public witness. This reflects adversely on
the prosecution version”.
22. Considering the aforesaid observations made by the Higher
Courts, the omissions/failure on the part of investigating agency to join
independent public witnesses create reasonable doubt in the prosecution
story especially as there were bound to be number of public witnesses
present at the spot, which was Sabzi Mandi Railway Station. Thus, the
recovery of the passport in question from accused Sameer Bhai Kishore
Bhai Desai is in doubt.
23. Arguendo, even if it is assumed that the passport bearing the
forged visa of Canada was recovered while the same was being handed
over by accused Sameer Bhai Kishore to co-accused Sukhdev, it still has
to be ascertained whether the ingredients of the offences u/s 467/468 IPC
are satisfied in the present matter. Both the said sections are being
reproduced below:
Section 467 IPC Forgery of valuable security, will, etc- Whoever forges a
document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an
Digitally
FIR No. 158/2004 State Vs Sameer Bhai Kishore Bhai Desai PS Pratap Nagar Pg No. 19 of 28 signed by
MANSI
MANSI MALIK
MALIK Date:
2026.04.11
15:35:40
+0530
authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person
to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal,
interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable
property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an
acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an
acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or
valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten
years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 468 IPC Forgery for purpose of cheating- Whoever commits
forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be
used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either de-scription for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall
also be liable to fine.
Therefore, for an offence to be made out u/s Section 467 IPC
as well as 468 IPC, it has to be proved that forgery of valuable
security/will was committed by the accused or forgery for the purposes of
cheating was done by the accused. For both the said offences, it is
essential that it be established that forgery was committed by the accused.
Forgery has been defined under Section 463 IPC as follows:
Section 463 Forgery- Whoever makes any false documents or false
electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, 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 fraud or that
fraud may be committed, commits forgery.
As stated in the aforesaid section, forgery is defined as the
FIR No. 158/2004 State Vs Sameer Bhai Kishore Bhai Desai PS Pratap Nagar Pg No. 20 of 28 Digitally
signed by
MANSI
MANSI MALIK
MALIK Date:
2026.04.11
15:35:48
+0530
creation of any false document or false electronic record with intent to
cause damage or injury to any third person. False document or false
electronic record has further been defined under Section 464 IPC, which
is reproduced below:
Section 464 Making a false document- A person is said to make a false
document or false electronic record
First-Who dishonestly or fraudulently
(a)makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;
(b)makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic
record;
(c)affixes any electronic signature on any electronic record;
(d)makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the
authenticity of the electronic signature,
with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part
of document, electronic record or electronic signature was made, signed,
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
electronic 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 hisMANSI
FIR No. 158/2004 State Vs Sameer Bhai Kishore Bhai Desai PS Pratap Nagar Pg No. 21 of 28
MALIK
Digitally signed
by MANSI MALIK
Date: 2026.04.11
15:35:56 +0530
electronic signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by
reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason
of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the
document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration.
It can then be inferred from the all the sections reproduced
above that forgery is creation of false document or false electronic record
by any person and a false document/electronic record has been defined
under Section 464 IPC. In the instant case, the fake Canadian visa stickers
are the false documents for which the accused is being tried for. Thus, for
proving the offences u/s 467/468 IPC it was then imperative for the
prosecution to establish that the accused Sameer Bhai Kishore forged the
fake Canadian visas found to be affixed on the passports in question.
However, not even an iota of evidence has come on record to show that it
was the accused Sameer Bhai Kishore who forged the fake Canadian visa
and affixed it on the passport of co-accused Sukhdev. At this juncture, it
is pertinent to refer to the landmark judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India on the aspect of cheating/forgery titled as Md. Ibrahim &
Ors vs State of Bihar & Anr (2010 AIR SCW 405). The relevant portion
is being reproduced below:
“……..The condition precedent for an offence under sections 467 and 471
is forgery. The condition precedent for forgery is making a false
document (or false electronic record or part thereof). This case does not
relate to any false electronic record. Therefore, the question is whether
the first accused, in executing and registering the two sale deeds
purporting to sell a property (even if it is assumed that it did not belong to
him), can be said to have made and executed false documents, in
collusion with the other accused.
10. An analysis of section 464 of Penal Code shows that it divides false
documents into three categories:
10.1) The first is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently
MANSI
FIR No. 158/2004 State Vs Sameer Bhai Kishore Bhai Desai PS Pratap Nagar Pg No. 22 of 28
MALIK
Digitally signed
by MANSI MALIK
Date: 2026.04.11
15:36:03 +0530
makes or executes a document with the intention of causing it
to be believed that such document was made or executed by
some other person, or by the authority of some other person, by
whom or by whose authority he knows it was not made or
executed.
10.2) The second is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently,
by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material
part, without lawful authority, after it has been made or
executed by either himself or any other person.
10.3) The third is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently
causes any person to sign, execute or alter a document knowing
that such person could not by reason of (a) unsoundness of
mind; or (b) intoxication; or (c) deception practised upon him,
know the contents of the document or the nature of the
alteration.
11. In short, a person is said to have made a `false document’, if
(i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone
else or authorised by someone else; or (ii) he altered or
tampered a document; or (iii) he obtained a document by
practicing deception, or from a person not in control of his
senses.”
In the case at hand, it was then necessary for the prosecution
to establish that the false document i.e. the fake Canadian visa found to be
affixed on the passport of co-accused Sukhdev was either
made/executed/altered/tampered with by the accused for the essential
ingredients of forgery to be made out. However, in the testimonies of all
the witnesses examined by the prosecution in evidence not a single
averment has been made that the fake visas found to be affixed on the
passports in question were created or made by the accused Sameer Bhai
Kishore. No witness has been examined by the prosecution who had seen
the accused in question forging the visa sticker or getting the visa sticker
forged from any third person. Infact, it is pertinent to observe here that
FIR No. 158/2004 State Vs Sameer Bhai Kishore Bhai Desai PS Pratap Nagar Pg No. 23 of 28 MANSI
MALIK
Digitally signed
by MANSI MALIK
Date: 2026.04.11
15:36:10 +0530
the investigation agency has conducted shoddy investigation as no
investigation has been conducted as to from where the said fake visas
stickers were obtained by the accused persons or if any other persons
were involved in the said process. The IO has merely stated that the
recovery of the passports was effected on the information of a secret
informer and no further efforts have been made to unravel the entire scam
and find out where the said fake visas were being created/obtained from.
Mere recovery of the fake visa stickers from the possession of any person
does not lead to the assumption that they were also forged by the person
from whom they were recovered. From the aforesaid discussion, it can be
said that the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused Sameer
Bhai Kishore committed forgery of the visa stickers found to be affixed
on the passports in question. Therefore, the charges u/s 467/468 IPC
framed against accused Sameer Bhai Kishore cannot be sustained.
24. It has already been held above that the charges u/s 467/468
IPC framed against accused Sameer Bhai Kishore cannot be sustained.
However, it still has to be seen whether any minor offence is made out
against accused Sameer Bhai Kishore on basis of the facts which have
already been proved by the prosecution. Ld. APP for the State submits
that the accused can be convicted for the offence u/s 471/474 IPC even
though the charge has been framed u/s 467/468 IPC as all the facts
required for proving the offence u/s 471/474 IPC have already been
proved by the prosecution. The relevant Section for the said purpose is
Section 222 Cr.P.C. which is being reproduced below:
Section 222. When offence proved included in offence charged.
(1)When a person is charged with an offence consisting of several
MANSI
FIR No. 158/2004 State Vs Sameer Bhai Kishore Bhai Desai PS Pratap Nagar Pg No. 24 of 28
MALIK
Digitally signed
by MANSI
MALIK
Date: 2026.04.11
15:36:17 +0530
particulars, a combination of some only of which constitutes a complete
minor offence, and such combination is proved, but the remaining
particulars are not proved, he may be convicted of the minor offence,
though he was not charged with it.
(2)When a person is charged with an offence and facts are proved which
reduce it to minor offence, he may be convicted of the minor offence,
although he is not charged with it.
(3)When a person is charged with an offence, he may be convicted of an
attempt to commit such offence although the attempt is not separately
charged.
(4)Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a conviction of
any minor offence where the conditions requisite for the initiation of
proceedings in respect of that minor offence have not been satisfied.
25. In the matter at hand, the charge has been framed u/s 467/468
IPC. As already discussed above, the ingredients for an offence to be
made out u/s 467 IPC are that it has to be proved that forgery of a
document has been committed, which purports to be a valuable security
or will. For an offence to be made out u/s 468 IPC, it has to be established
that forgery was committed for the purposes of cheating. Therefore, the
committing of forgery by the accused is imperative in both the said
sections. On the other hand, for an offence to be made out u/s 471 IPC, it
has to be established that the accused fraudulently or dishonestly used as
genuine any document or electronic record, which he knew or had reason
to believe was forged. Similarly, for an offence to be made out u/s 474
IPC, it has to be established that the accused had in his possession any
document or any electronic record described in section 466 or 467 IPC,
knowing the same to be forged and intending that the same shall be used
fraudulently or dishonestly as genuine. From a bare perusal of Sections
MANSI
FIR No. 158/2004 State Vs Sameer Bhai Kishore Bhai Desai PS Pratap Nagar Pg No. 25 of 28
MALIK
Digitally signed
by MANSI MALIK
Date: 2026.04.11
15:36:24 +0530
467/468 IPC on one hand and Sections 471/474 IPC on the other hand, it
is clearly discernible that the ingredients of section 471/474 IPC are not
the same as section 467/468 IPC. The key ingredient of section 471 IPC
is fraudulently or dishonestly using of any document or any electronic
record knowing the same to be forged. Similarly, Section 474 IPC is only
established when the accused has in his possession any document or
electronic record knowing it to be forged and intending that the same
shall be fraudulently or dishonestly be used as genuine. Using/intending
to use a forged document as genuine is therefore essential for the offences
to be made out u/s 471/474 IPC, which is not required for the offences u/s
467/468 IPC to be made out.
26. From the aforesaid discussion, it is amply clear that the
ingredients required to prove an offence u/s 467/468 IPC are different
from the ingredients required to establish an offence u/s 471/474 IPC.
However, as the accused Sameer Bhai Patel has not been charged with the
offences u/s 471/474 IPC, he cannot be now convicted of the said
offences even though they may be made out in the matter. The court is of
the view that the offences u/s 471/474 IPC are distinct offences from the
offences u/s 467/468 IPC and cannot be categorized as minor offences as
the ingredients required to make out these offences are different.
Therefore, Section 222 Cr.P.C. does not help the case of the prosecution
and the accused cannot be now convicted under Section 471/474 IPC
without charges under the said sections being framed against him. The
trial in the present matter has been ongoing since the past 20 years and
thus the Court is of the view that the present litigation be now taken to its
conclusion without further delay on basis of the charges already framed
MANSI
FIR No. 158/2004 State Vs Sameer Bhai Kishore Bhai Desai PS Pratap Nagar Pg No. 26 of 28 MALIK
Digitally signed
by MANSI MALIK
Date: 2026.04.11
15:36:31 +0530
and the material already on record..
27. In case of Sharada Birdhi Chand Sharda Vs. State of
Maharastra AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court had laid down the test
which are pre-requisites before conviction should be recorded, which are
as under:-
(1)The circumstances from which the conclusion of
guilt is to be drawn should be fully established;
(2)The circumstances concerned “must or should”
and not “may be” established;
(3)The facts so established should be consistent
only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused,
that is to say, they should not be explainable on
any other hypothesis except that the accused is
guilty;
(4)The circumstances should be of conclusive
nature and tendency;
(5) They should exclude every possible hypothesis
except the one to be proved; and
(6) There must be a chain of evidence so complete
as not to leave any reasonable ground for
conclusion consistent with the innocence of the
accused and must so that in all human probability
the act must have been done by the accused.
28. Considering the totality of the circumstances, I am of the
opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to substantiate the
FIR No. 158/2004 State Vs Sameer Bhai Kishore Bhai Desai PS Pratap Nagar Pg No. 27 of 28
MANSI
MALIK
Digitally signed
by MANSI MALIK
Date: 2026.04.11
15:36:38 +0530
allegations against accused Sameer Bhai Kishore Bhai Desai and he is
accordingly acquitted for the charges u/s 467/468 r/w 120-B IPC as
levelled against him. Ordered accordingly.
Digitally
signed by
MANSI MANSI MALIK
Date:
MALIK 2026.04.11
15:36:47
+0530
Announced in the open (MANSI MALIK)
Court on 11th April, 2026 Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-02
Central/Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
FIR No. 158/2004 State Vs Sameer Bhai Kishore Bhai Desai PS Pratap Nagar Pg No. 28 of 28