Bangalore District Court
Vanamala, A.P.O vs Archana Poornima Pramanik on 18 March, 2026
KABC030281992020
Digitally
DEEPA signed by
VEERASWAMY DEEPA
VEERASWAMY
Presented on : 20-06-2020
Registered on : 20-06-2020
Decided on : 18-03-2026
Duration : 5 years, 8 months, 28 days
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Present: Smt. Deepa.V., B.A.L. LL B.
VIII ACJM, Bengaluru City
Date: this the 18th Day of March, 2026
C.C. No.6274/2020
(Crime No.235/2019)
State by R.T. Nagara Police Station,
Bengaluru. ... Complainant
(Represented by Sri Vishwanath, Senior APP)
Versus
Smt. Archana Poornima Pramanik,
Aged about 36 years,
W/o Sri. Rajashekar,
R/at No.22, Near Yallamma
Temple, Ganganagara,
R.T. Nagara, Bengaluru.
KABC030281992020 CC No.6274/2020
Native Place:
Fullbari Chandonocota,
P V Kalikair, Gazipura,
Bangladesh. ... Accused
(Rep by Sri. A.M. Iktear Uddin Adv for Accused)
1. Date of commission of 22-03-2003 -
offence 05-11-2019
2. Date of FIR 05-11-2019
3. Date of Charge sheet 20-05-2020
4.Name of Complainant Smt. N.Vanamala,
Regional Passport Officer
5. Offences complained of U/Sec.420 of IPC
6. Date of framing of 11-04-2023
charges
7.Charge Pleaded not guilty
8. Date of commencement 13-07-2023
of evidence
9. Date of Judgment is 18-03-2026
reserved
10. Date of Judgment 18-03-2026
2
KABC030281992020 CC No.6274/2020
11. Final Order Accused is acquitted
12. Date of sentence -
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub-Inspector of R. T. Nagara Police
Station submitted charge sheet against accused for
the offence punishable under Sec. 420 of IPC.
2. Prosecution Case: The accused was a
citizen of Bangladesh and came to India on 22-03-
2003 for studies with passport No.R 862337 and
studied at Seventh Day College in Ranchi,
Jharkhand. Later, she fell in love with CW8 namely
Sri Rajashekhar and got married on 12-04-2010 and
got registered their marriage. Thereafter, she obtained
Indian identity cards such as voter ID card, Aadhaar
card, PAN card by furnishing forged SSLC fail marks
card and also obtained Indian passport No.T 4527612
and resided illegally in India from 15-08-2011 to 01-
09-2018 at house No.208/1, J C Nagar Main Road,
Bangalore City and thereby cheated the Central and
State Governments.
3. First Information Report: Upon the receipt
of first information from CW1, CW13/PW7 Sri
Hanumantharayappa, PSI of R.T. Nagara Police
Station registered Crime No.235/2019 against
accused for the offences punishable under Section
3
KABC030281992020 CC No.6274/2020
465, 471, 468 of IPC and Sec. 5, 12, 14 of Foreigners
Act and Sec.3(1)(c) of the Citizenship of Indian Act,
1955, prepared FIR as per Ex.P11, drawn seizure
mahazar as per Ex.P8 from 10 a.m. to 11.30 am in
the presence of CW2 namely Sri Manish and CW3 Sri
Praveen.
4. Investigation: Thereafter, he recorded the
statements of requisite witnesses, secured the
documents as per Ex.P12 to Ex.P27 and submitted
charge sheet against accused for the offence
punishable under Section 420 of IPC by dropping out
Sec. 5, 12, 14 of Foreigners Act and Sec.3(1)(c) of the
Citizenship of Indian Act, 1955.
5. On receipt of charge sheet, this Court had
taken cognizance for the offence alleged against the
accused.
6. The accused was enlarged on bail by the
order dated 30-01-2020.
7. Copies of prosecution papers as required
U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C have been furnished to the
accused.
8. Charge: After hearing learned Sr.APP and
counsel for accused, charge for the offence
punishable U/Sec.420 of Indian Penal Code, has
4
KABC030281992020 CC No.6274/2020
been framed, read over and explained to the accused
in the language known to him, who, in turn, pleaded
not guilty and claimed to be tried.
9. Prosecution Evidence: The prosecution in
order to establish its case cited 13 witnesses,
examined 9 witnesses and exhibited 27 documents
and closed their side. The presence of CW7 and
CW10 could not be secured despite due execution of
proclamation and hence they were dropped out from
examination by the order dated 25-09-2025. During
the time of judgment it was observed that the
presence CW2 and CW3 were not secured however
the presences of CW2 and 3 are spot mahazar
witnesses and does not come in the embargo for
proving the guilt of the accused and hence issuance
of witness summon has been dispensed with.
10. Statement of Accused as per section 313 of
CrPC: After completion of evidence of prosecution,
the accused was examined as per section 313 of
Cr.P.C wherein she denied all incriminating evidence
appearing in the statement of prosecution witnesses
and led her defence evidence.
11. Accused herself examined as DW1 and got
marked three documents as per Ex.D1 to D3.
5
KABC030281992020 CC No.6274/2020
12. Heard the arguments. Perused materials on
the record.
13. The following point are arises for
consideration is as follows;
1. Whether the prosecution proved
beyond all reasonable doubt that
the accused being a citizen of
Bangladesh came to India on 22-
03-2003 for studies through
passport No.R 862337 and studied
at Seventh Day College in Ranchi,
Jharkhand and thereafter got love
marriage with CW8 namely Sri
Rajashekar on 12-04-2010 and
obtained voter ID card, Aadhar
card, PAN card by furnishing
forged SSLC marks card and
obtained Indian passport No.T
4527612 and resided illegally in
India from 15-08-2011 to 01-09-
2018 at house No.208/1, J C
Nagar Main Road, Bangalore City
and thereby cheated the Central
and State Governments and
thereby resulted in commission of
an offence punishable under
Section 420 of IPC?
2. What order?
6
KABC030281992020 CC No.6274/2020
14. The Court’s findings on the above points are
as under:
Point No.1 : In the negative
Point No.2 : As per final order
REASONS
15. Point No.1: In support of prosecution case
as narrated in paragraph 2 and the point for
consideration in paragraph 13 of this judgment, the
prosecution examined the witnesses which are as
follows
i. CW1 Smt. Vanamala, being informant
examined as PW1 deposed that the on 21-8-2019,
while she was in office, the FRO of Kolkata gave a
copy of a complaint that a woman named Archana
Purni Pramanik, a citizen of Bangladesh had entered
the immigration section of the airport from Kolkata to
Dhaka illegally. She had an Indian passport with her.
When she was questioned, she stated that she was
originally from Bangladesh and her parents were from
Bangladesh and she was the only one living in India
illegally and had obtained an Indian passport in that
regard. In this regard, a confessional statement, her
photograph, Indian passport, and Bangladeshi
passport were produced by the accused, then she had
filed a complaint as per Ex.P1 and identified two
photographs of accused as per Ex.P2, another
7
KABC030281992020 CC No.6274/2020
complaint as per Ex.P3, statement of accused as per
Ex.P4, copy of passport as per Ex.P5, copy of
residential permit as per Ex.P6, Indian passport as
per Ex.P7.
ii. CW5 Smt. Shilpa.M., WPC examined as
PW2 deposed that, the Aadhaar card, PAN card, Voter
ID, SSLC marks card, lease agreement, Bangla
Country’s passport were seized through Ex.P8
mahazar on 7-11-2019 from 10 to 11.30 am in the
presence of herself, CW4, CW11 and CW12.
iii. CW6 Sri Noorulla Khan, examined as PW3
identified his signature on Ex.P9 seizure mahazar as
Ex.P9(a) and deposed that 5 years ago he has affixed
his signature at the police station and pleaded
ignorance about the case of prosecution case. In this
regard, the learned Sr.APP has cross examined this
witness by treating him as hostile witness however no
favorable answer has been elicited from him to
support the prosecution case. His denial of statement
given before the police is marked as Ex.P10.
iv. CW4 Smt. Padma, WPC examined as PW4
deposed the same version of PW2.
v. CW8 Rajashekar, husband of accused
examined as PW5 deposed that he got married to the
accused in Ranchi, Jharkhand in April 2010 and she
8
KABC030281992020 CC No.6274/2020
was a nurse and he was working as a lab technician
at HDM Hospital in Ranchi. Later, he got a job at
Fortis Hospital in Bangalore and hence he rented a
house in Munireddy Palya and lived there for 9 years
and rented a house in R T Nagar, when he got
married, he did not know which country the accused
belonged, after this incident, he came to know about
that the accused was a citizen of Bangladesh. Further
deposed that, in Ranchi, the accused had studied as
a nurse at the Christian Medical Association, at the
time of marriage registration, she had given salary
slips and bank books related to himself and the
accused. He does not know what address is on the
Aadhaar card, similarly the accused has an account
in Syndicate Bank, an identity card, an annual
income tax payment receipt, which contains the
address where he and the accused are currently
residing, in 2018-19 the accused worked at Cloud-9,
Manipal Hospital and Fortis hospital.
vi. CW9/PW6 Sri Srinivasamurthy deposed that
the accused and her husband CW8 Rajashekar lived
in his house for five years about 15 years ago and
three years ago the police enquired about them
whether they had caused any trouble and he has not
given any statement in this regard. The learned
Sr.APP has cross examined this witness by treating
him as partly hostile witness and he admitted that he
came to know from the police that the accused was
citizen of Bangladesh and he has admitted that he
9
KABC030281992020 CC No.6274/2020
had given a statement to the police that he was not
aware of any criminal activities by the accused and
CW8 during the 9 years they had been living in their
house.
vii. CW13 Sri Hanumatharayappa, PSI,
examined as PW7 deposed that on 05-11-2019, on
the basis of a complaint received from the Passport
Office, registered FIR, seized documents through
mahazar as per Ex.P8, a passport No.1812441 and
visa No. AJ#014074 belonging to Bangladesh were
seized from the house of accused from 1-30 pm and
2-30 pm, the statements of witnesses were recorded
and identified the Passport as Ex.P12, original PAN
card as Ex.P13, electoral ID card, Aadhaar card,
another passport as Ex.P14 to Ex.P16, Lease
Agreement as Ex.P17, rental agreement as Ex.P18,
SSLC marks sheet as Ex.P19, report as per Ex.P27,
and correspondence letters as per Ex.P20 to 26 and
after completion of investigation submitted the
Charge sheet.
viii. CW11 Sri Nagarajaiah, HC examined as PW8
deposed the application was downloaded from the
Police Commissioner’s office and on inquiry accused
informed that she had been living with her husband
and children at the address given in Ganganagar for
the past 2 years at that time, she furnished Aadhaar
card, voter ID card, bank pass book, SSLC fail marks
card, marriage registration certificate, IT returns and
10
KABC030281992020 CC No.6274/2020
PAN card and the same were examined with original
and obtained her signatures on the copies. Further
deposed that, he enquired with the neighbors and
checked the documents at the station, it was found
that there were no criminal cases pending against
her, so her application was approved. Thereafter, he
came to know about that the accused had obtained a
passport by giving false documents as a Bangladesh
citizen and hence CW13 deputed, him, CW4 and 12
to trace out the accused, accordingly they produced
the accused before CW13 and submitted reported as
per Ex.P27.
ix. CW11 Sri Mallikarjun Naganoor, PC
examined as PW9 and deposed that, he along with
CW11 and 4 produced the accused before CW13 after
apprehended from her house bearing No.22, 1st
Cross, Yellamma Temple Road and CW13 submitted
report.
16. The necessary ingredients to constitute the
offence under Section 420 of IPC as under:
“420. Cheating and dishonestly
inducing delivery of property.–
Whoever cheats and thereby
dishonestly induces the person
deceived to deliver any property to
any person, or to make, alter or
destroy the whole or any part of a11
KABC030281992020 CC No.6274/2020valuable security, or anything
which is signed or sealed, and
which is capable of being
converted into a valuable security,
shall be punished with
imprisonment of either
description for a term which may
extend to seven years, and shall
also be liable to fine.”
The ingredients to constitute an offence under
Section 420 are as follows:
i. A person must commit the
offence of cheating under Section
415; and
ii. The person cheated must be
dishonestly induced to
(a) deliver property to any person;
or
(b) make, alter or destroy valuable
security or anything signed or
sealed and capable of being
converted into valuable security.
Cheating is an essential ingredient for an act to
constitute an offence under Section 420 and the said
principle is appreciated in the case of Archana Rana
v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another in (2021) 3
12
KABC030281992020 CC No.6274/2020
SCC 751, in the case of Deepak Gaba and Others v.
State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2021 INSC 135
and in the case of Mariam Fasihuddin & another v.
State by Adugodi Police Station & another reported in
2024 INSC 49.
17. It could thus be seen that in order to make
out an offence under cheating the intention to cheat
or deceive should be present right from the beginning.
18. In the case of Hridaya Ranjan Prasad
Verma vs. State of Bihar reported in (2000) 4 SCC
168, this Court held as under:
“15. In determining the question it
has to be kept in mind that the
distinction between mere breach
of contract and the offence of
cheating is a fine one. It depends
upon the intention of the accused
at the time of inducement which
may be judged by his subsequent
conduct but for this subsequent
conduct is not the sole test. Mere
breach of contract cannot give rise
to criminal prosecution for
cheating unless fraudulent or
dishonest intention is shown right
at the beginning of the
transaction, that is the time when13
KABC030281992020 CC No.6274/2020the offence is said to have been
committed. Therefore it is the
intention which is the gist of the
offence. To hold a person guilty of
cheating it is necessary to show
that he had fraudulent or
dishonest intention at the time of
making the promise. From his
mere failure to keep up promise
subsequently such a culpable
intention right at the beginning,
that is, when he made the
promise cannot be presumed.”
Further, in the case of Indian Oil Corporation v.
NEPC India Ltd. and Others reported in (2006) 6 SCC
736 this position was reiterated in the following
manner:
33. The High Court has held that
mere breach of contractual terms
would not amount to cheating
unless fraudulent or dishonest
intention is shown right at the
beginning of the transaction and
in the absence of an allegation
that the accused had a fraudulent
or dishonest intention while
making a promise, there is no
“cheating”.
14
KABC030281992020 CC No.6274/2020
Dishonest intention at the time of making the
promise/inducement is necessary, in addition to the
subsequent failure to fulfill the promise.
19. Initially the case was registered for the
offences punishable under Section 465, 471, 468 of
IPC and Sec.5, 12, 14 of Foreigners Act and Sec.3(1)
(c) of the Citizenship of Indian Act, 1955, however the
Sec.5, 12, 14 of Foreigners Act and Sec.3(1)(c) of the
Citizenship of Indian Act, 1955 was dropped out at
the time of filing the charge sheet. However this court
had gone through the bail order granted by the
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore in this
case for having reported in AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 61
wherein it was held that
9. Amended Section 2 of the
Citizenship Act, 1955 as amended
by the Citizenship (Amendment)
Act, 2019 provides that, any
person Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist,
Jain, Parsi or Christian
community from Afghanistan,
Bangladesh or Pakistan, who
entered into India on or before the
31st day of December, 2014 and
who has been exempted by the
Central Government by or under
clause (c) of sub-section (2) of
Section 3 of the Passport (Entry
into India) Act, 1920 or from the
15
KABC030281992020 CC No.6274/2020
application of the provisions of
the Foreigners Act 1946 or any
rule or order made thereunder,
shall not be treated as illegal
migrant for the purposes of this
Act
10. The allegations in the instant
case are that the petitioner has
fabricated and manipulated the
documents relating to her identity
namely Aadhar Card, PAN card
and Passport and on the strength
of these documents, she has been
claiming to be a citizen of India.
These allegations require to be
established during trial. Petitioner
has taken up a plea that all these
documents are lawfully obtained
by her after following due
procedure and under the said
circumstances, in view of the
Amendment to the Citizenship Act
and there being prima facie
material to show that the
petitioner has been residing in
India since 2002 with her
husband and child, until the
allegations made against the
petitioner are established in a
full-dressed trial, the petitioner is
16
KABC030281992020 CC No.6274/2020
entitled to be enlarged on bail. In
the light of the above facts and
circumstances, even the
applicability of the provisions of
the Foreigners Act 1946 may have
to be decided before proceeding
against the petitioner.
So the question has to be decided whether the
accused obtained Aadhaar Card, PAN card and
Passport by obtaining the documents by the accused
after following due procedure? However it is one of
the allegations that the accused has created the SSLC
Fails marks card as per Ex.P19 for obtaining the
passport amounts to cheating? It appears from
Ex.P19 (SSLC Fails Marks card), the accused alleged
to have appeared for SSLC Examination for the April
2017 as a private fresh candidate issued by the
Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board,
Malleshwaram, Bangalore on 07/03/2018 however IO
failed to secure the application form having submitted
by the accused to corroborate whether she furnished
the incorrect information to cheat the Central and
State government.
20. It appears from the record that the accused
did not dispute her identity and her residence at
Bangalore after her marriage with the PW5.
17
KABC030281992020 CC No.6274/2020
21. Prosecution has relied upon Ex.P9 (seizure
Mahazar ) wherein PW7/IO has seized the documents
from the house of accused No.22, Yallamma Temple
Street, 1st Cross, R. T. Nagar, Bangalore in the
presence of CW6 namely Sri Nooralla Khan and CW7
Sri Shankar who are resident of Mathikere and
Cholanayakanahalli, Bangalore and not in the
presence of local inhabitants for the alleged offence
under section 420 of IPC.
22. In addition to which, Aadhara card as per
Ex.P15 issued in the name of accused on
20/02/2019 with the care of Rajashekaran No.22, 1st
Cross, 1st Main, Yallamma Temple Road, Ganganagar,
Bengaluru North, R T Nagar Bengaluru, vide aadhara
number 9013 2075 7378 which is only proof of
identity and residence, but not nationality or of
citizenship.
23. As per Ex.P13 i.e.., PAN card number was
issued in the name of accused with number
AZBPP4881E are for tax purposes, even foreign
nationals can obtain the same, however IO failed to
secure the application form having submitted by the
accused to corroborate whether she furnished the
incorrect information.
18
KABC030281992020 CC No.6274/2020
24. As Far as election identity card in the name
of accused vide election ID card number
SOH4319166 having issued on 21/07/2012 by
Election commission of India as per Ex.P14, As per
Article 326 of Indian Constitution grants the right to
vote to every Indian citizen aged 18 years or above in
elections to the Lok Sabha and State/UT Assemblies.
25. As per section 16 of Representation of the
People (RP) Act, 1950- A person can be disqualified
from voter registration if they:
(i) are not a citizen of India.
(ii) are of unsound mind, as declared by a
competent court.
(iii) Are disqualified under any law related to
corrupt practices or election-related offences.
26. Form 6-the Election Commission of India’s
(ECI’s) form for registering new electors – is used for
registering new electors with the ECI by self-attested
documents as such Age proof, Address proof and no
separate citizenship proof is required however the
applicant must sign a declaration of citizenship.
27. Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) by
collecting forms and documents. The ERO may also
conduct hearings and investigations before finalizing
entries. The ERO must ensure that no ineligible
person, including non-citizens, is added to the
19
KABC030281992020 CC No.6274/2020
electoral roll. The ERO must independently verify the
applicant’s citizenship status, especially when a claim
or objection is raised. The ERO is expected to
evaluate all evidence presented during the inquiry
without external influence. Such being the case, the
IO/PW7 deposed that they have seized the Ex.P14
from the house of accused however IO/PW7 did not
secure the declaration of citizenship was signed by
the accused as she is an Indian or as she applied for
the voter identity card after she migrated from
Bangladesh or she has been still exercising the
citizenship of Bangladesh.
28. In the similar way, passport as per Ex.P12
was produced by IO however the same is of
Bangladesh and not the Indian Passport. The
evidence of PW7/IO has been reiterated as under
ಸೀಲ್ ಮಾಡಿರುವ ಎರಡು envelope
ಗಳನ್ನು ಆರೋಪಿ ಪರ ವಕೀಲರಾದ ಶ್ರೀ
ದೇವೇಂದ್ರ ಮತ್ತು ಆರೋಪಿಯ
ಸಮಕ್ಷಮದಲ್ಲಿ ತೆರೆದ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದಲ್ಲಿ
ಸದರಿ ಕವರ್ ಗಳನ್ನು ತೆಗೆದು ಅದರಲ್ಲಿರುವ
ಆರೋಪಿಯ ಪಾಸ್ ಪೋರ್ಟನ್ನು ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ
ನೋಡಿ ಗುರ್ತಿಸಿರುವುದರಿಂದ ಅದನ್ನು
ನಿಪಿ.12, ಮೂಲ ಪಾನ್ ಕಾರ್ಡನ್ನು ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ
ನೋಡಿ ಗುರ್ತಿಸಿರುವುದರಿಂದ ನಿಪಿ.13
ಎಂದು, ಮೂಲ ಚುನಾವಣಾ ಗುರುತಿನ
ಚೀಟಿಯನ್ನು ಮತ್ತು ಆಧಾರ ಕಾರ್ಡನ್ನು ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ
ನೋಡಿ ಗುರ್ತಿಸಿರುವುದರಿಂದ ನಿಪಿ.1420
KABC030281992020 CC No.6274/2020ಮತ್ತು 15 ಎಂದು ಮತ್ತು ಇನ್ನೊಂದು ಪಾಸ್
ಪೋರ್ಟನ್ನು ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ನೋಡಿ
ಗುರ್ತಿಸಿರುವುದರಿಂದ ನಿಪಿ.16 ಎಂದು
ಗುರ್ತಿಸಲಾಯಿತು. ಆರೋಪಿ ಮತ್ತು ಅವರ
ಗಂಡನಿಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ್ಟಿರುವ Lease
Agreement ಅನ್ನು ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ನೋಡಿ
ಗುರ್ತಿಸಿರುವುದರಿಂದ ನಿಪಿ.17 ಎಂದು
ಗುರ್ತಿಸಲಾಯಿತು. ಇನ್ನೊಂದು ಬಾಡಿಗೆ
ಕರಾರುಪತ್ರವನ್ನು ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ನೋಡಿ
ಗುರ್ತಿಸಿರುವುದರಿಂದ ನಿಪಿ.18 ಎಂದು
ಗುರ್ತಿಸಲಾಯಿತು. ಆರೋಪಿಗೆ
ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ್ಟಿರುವ ಎಸ್ ಎಸ್ ಎಲ್ ಸಿ
ಅಂಕಪಟ್ಟಿಯನ್ನು ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ನೋಡಿ
ಗುರ್ತಿಸಿರುವುದರಿಂದ ನಿಪಿ.19 ಎಂದು
ಗುರ್ತಿಸಲಾಯಿತು. ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಮುಂದೆ
ಇರುವ ಆರೋಪಿಯನ್ನು ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ನೋಡಿ
ಗುರ್ತಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ.
2. ಸಾಕ್ಷಿದಾರರಾದ ಚಾಸಾ 2, 3, 6
ಮತ್ತು 7 ರಿಂದ 12 ರವರ ಹೇಳಿಕೆಗಳನ್ನು
ದಾಖಲು ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ನಾನು Deputy
Secretary, Consular, New Delhi
ದಿ.15-11-2019 ಮತ್ತು Principal
Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Home
and Transport Department,
ADGP, Joint Secretary, Ministry of
Home Affairs, Assistant Director,
CFB, Commissioner of Police
ರವರಿಗೆ ಈ ಕೇಸಿನ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಪತ್ರಗಳನ್ನು
ಬರೆದಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಸದರಿ ಪತ್ರಗಳಲ್ಲಿರುವ
ಅವರ ಸಹಿಗಳನ್ನು ನೋಡಿ21
KABC030281992020 CC No.6274/2020ಗುರ್ತಿಸಿರುವುದರಿಂದ ಅವುಗಳನ್ನು ಕ್ರಮವಾಗಿ
ನಿಪಿ.20, ನಿಪಿ.21, ನಿಪಿ.22, ನಿಪಿ.23,
ನಿಪಿ.24, ನಿಪಿ.25, ನಿಪಿ.26 ಎಂದು, ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ
ಸಹಿಗಳನ್ನು ನಿಪಿ.20ಎ, ನಿಪಿ.21ಎ,
ನಿಪಿ.22ಎ, ನಿಪಿ.23ಎ, ನಿಪಿ.24ಎ,
ನಿಪಿ.25ಎ, ನಿಪಿ.26ಎ ಎಂದು
ಗುರ್ತಿಸಲಾಯಿತು.
3. ನಾನು ಆರೋಪಿಯನ್ನು ಪತ್ತೆ
ಮಾಡಲು ಸಿಬ್ಬಂದಿಗಳನ್ನು ನೇಮಕ
ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ದಿ.07-11-2019 ರಂದು
ಚಾಸಾ 11 ಮತ್ತು ಡಬ್ಲೂ ಪಿಸಿ- 15631
ರವರು ಆರೋಪಿಯನ್ನು ಕರೆದುಕೊಂಡು
ಬಂದು ಚಾಸಾ 11 ರವರು ವರದಿಯನ್ನು
ನೀಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಸದರಿ ವರದಿಯಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ
ಸಹಿಯನ್ನು ನೋಡಿ ಗುರ್ತಿಸಿರುವುದರಿಂದ
ಅದನ್ನು ನಿಪಿ.27 ಮತ್ತು ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಸಹಿಯನ್ನು
ನಿಪಿ.27ಎ ಎಂದು ಗುರ್ತಿಸಲಾಯಿತು. ನಂತರ
ಆರೋಪಿಯ ಸ್ವಇಚ್ಫಾ ಹೇಳಿಕೆಯನ್ನು ದಾಖಲು
ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ನಂತರ ತನಿಖೆಯನ್ನು
ಪೂರ್ಣಗೊಳಿಸಿ ದಿ.20-05-2020 ರಂದು
ಅಂತಿಮ ವರದಿಯನ್ನು ಆರೋಪಿ ವಿರುದ್ದ
ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯಕ್ಕೆ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ.
Cross examination of PW7/8
deposed that
2. ನಾನು ಅಸಲು ಆಧಾರ್ ಕಾರ್ಡ್,
ಪ್ಯಾನ್ ಕಾರ್ಡ್, ವೋಟರ್ ಐಡಿ,
ಆರೋಪಿಯ ಅಸಲು ಎಸ್ ಎಸ್ ಎಲ್ ಸಿ
ಅಂಕಪಟ್ಟಿ , ಜೆ ಸಿ ನಗರದಲ್ಲಿ ಆರೋಪಿತರು22
KABC030281992020 CC No.6274/2020ವಾಸವಿದ್ದ ಬಾಡಿಗೆ ಕರಾರು ಪತ್ರ , ಮತ್ತೊಂದು
ಲೀಸ್ ಅಗ್ರಿಮೆಂಟ್ ಮತ್ತು ಬಾಂಗ್ಲಾದೇಶದ
ಮೂಲ ಪಾಸ್ ಪೋರ್ಟ್ ಗಳನ್ನು ಜಪ್ತಿ
ಪಂಚನಾಮೆ ಮೂಲಕ ದಿ.07-11-
2019ರಂದು ಬೆಳಿಗ್ಗೆ 10-00 ರಿಂದ 11-30
ಗಂಟೆವರೆಗೂ ಯಲ್ಲಮ್ಮ ಟೆಂಪಲ್ ರೋಡ್
ಆರ್ ಟಿ ನಗರ, ಮನೆ ನಂ.22 ರ
ಮುಂಭಾಗದಲ್ಲಿ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿದಾರರಾದ ಪ್ರವೀಣ್
ಮತ್ತು ಮನೀಶ್ ಮತ್ತು ಬೆಂಗಾವಲು ಸಿಬ್ಬಂದಿ
ಡಬ್ಲ್ಯೂಪಿಸಿ ಸಮಕ್ಷಮದಲ್ಲಿ ಜರುಗಿಸಿ
ವಶಪಡಿಸಿಕೊಂಡು ಒಂದು ಕವರ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಹಾಕಿ
ಕೇಸಿನ ವಿವರಗಳನ್ನು ಸದರಿ ಕವರ್ ಮೇಲೆ
ಬರೆದಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ ಮತ್ತು ಸದರಿ ದಾಖಲಾತಿಗಳನ್ನು
ಠಾಣೆಯ ಪಿಎಫ್ ನಂ.118/2019ಕ್ಕೆ
ದಾಖಲು ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ಜಪ್ತಿ
ಪಂಚಸಾಕ್ಷಿದಾರರಿಗೆ ಮೌಖಿಕವಾಗಿ
ವಿಷಯವನ್ನು ತಿಳಿಸಿ ಜಪ್ತಿ ಪಂಚನಾಮೆಗೆ
ಸಾಕ್ಷಿದಾರರಾಗಿ ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ಆರೋಪಿಯ
ಬಾಂಗ್ಲಾದೇಶದ ಪಾಸ್ ಪೋರ್ಟ್
ನೈಜ್ಯತೆಯನ್ನು ತಿಳಿಯಲು ನಮ್ಮ ಕಮೀಷನರ್
ರವರ ಮೂಲಕ ಪತ್ರವನ್ನು ಬರೆದಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ.
ಆದರೆ ಸದರಿ ಉತ್ತರ ಬರದೇ ಇರುವ
ಕಾರಣದಿಂದ ಅಂತಿಮ ವರದಿಯನ್ನು
ಸಲ್ಲಿಸುವ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಮುಂದಿನ
ದಾಖಲಾತಿಗಳನ್ನು ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸಲು
ಅನುಮತಿಯನ್ನು ಕಲಂ 173(8) ಸಿ ಆರ್ ಪಿ
ಸಿ ಅಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ನೀಡಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ಸದರಿ ಉತ್ತರ
ಬಂದಿದೆಯೋ ಇಲ್ಲವೋ ಎಂದು ನನಗೆ
ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ. ನಾನು ನಂತರ ನಿವೃತ್ತಿಯನ್ನು
ಹೊಂದಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ.
23
KABC030281992020 CC No.6274/2020
3. ಅಸಲು ಆಧಾರ್ ಕಾರ್ಡ್,
ಪ್ಯಾನ್ ಕಾರ್ಡ್, ಚುನಾವಣಾ ಗುರುತಿನ
ಚೀಟಿಯ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನೈಜ್ಯತೆಯನ್ನು ತಿಳಿಯಲು
ನಮ್ಮ ಕಮೀಷನರ್ ರವರ ಮೂಲಕ
ಪತ್ರವನ್ನು ಬರೆದಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ಆದರೆ ಸದರಿ
ಉತ್ತರ ಬರದೇ ಇರುವ ಕಾರಣದಿಂದ ಅಂತಿಮ
ವರದಿಯನ್ನು ಸಲ್ಲಿಸುವ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ
ಮುಂದಿನ ದಾಖಲಾತಿಗಳನ್ನು
ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸಲು ಅನುಮತಿಯನ್ನು ಕಲಂ
173(8) ಸಿ ಆರ್ ಪಿ ಸಿ ಅಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ
ನೀಡಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ಸದರಿ ಉತ್ತರ ಬಂದಿದೆಯೋ
ಇಲ್ಲವೋ ಎಂದು ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ. ನಾನು
ನಂತರ ನಿವೃತ್ತಿಯನ್ನು ಹೊಂದಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ.
Thus, the oral testimony of PW7 makes it very
clear that he did not secure the authenticity report of
Exhibits as such aadhara card, pan card, SSLC fail
marks card from the competent authorities. However
he filed the charge sheet by reserving liberty under
section 173(8) of Code of Criminal procedure to
obtain further material from the concerned
authorities, which clearly depicts that investigation
remained incomplete and inconclusive at the time of
filing the charge sheet. In the absence of reply from
the concerned authorities that the documents relied
upon by the accused was forged or fraudulently
obtained, the question of cheating the authorities
does not arise.
24
KABC030281992020 CC No.6274/2020
29. It is significant to mention that Section 2 of
the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019 inserted a
proviso to Section 2(1)(b) of Citizenship Act 1955
reads as follows;
2 [(b) “illegal migrant” means
a foreigner who has entered into
India―
(i) without a valid passport or
other travel documents and such
other document or authority as
may be prescribed by or under
any law in that behalf; or
(ii) with a valid passport or
other travel documents and such
other document or authority as
may be prescribed by or under
any law in that behalf but
remains therein beyond the
permitted period of time;] 3
[Provided that any person
belonging to Hindu, Sikh,
Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian
community from Afghanistan,
Bangladesh or Pakistan, who
entered into India on or before the
31st day of December, 2014 and
who has been exempted by the
Central Government by or under
25
KABC030281992020 CC No.6274/2020
clause (c) of sub-section (2) of
section 3 of the Passport (Entry
into India) Act, 1920 (34 of 1920)
or from the application of the
provisions of the Foreigners Act,
1946 (31 of 1946) or any rule or
order made there under, shall not
be treated as illegal migrant for
the purposes of this Act;]
As per Section 6(B)(2)(2) of of the Citizenship
(Amendment) Act 2019
“xxx Subject to fulfillment of
the conditions specified in section
5 or the qualifications for
naturalization under the
provisions of the Third Schedule,
a person granted the certificate of
registration or certificate of
naturalization under sub-section
(1) shall be deemed to be a citizen
of India from the date of his entry
into India.
(3) On and from the date of
commencement of the Citizenship
(Amendment) Act, 2019, any
proceeding pending against a
person under this section in
respect of illegal migration or
26
KABC030281992020 CC No.6274/2020
citizenship shall stand abated on
conferment of citizenship to him:
Provided that such person
shall not be disqualified for
making application for citizenship
under this section on the ground
that the proceeding is pending
against him and the Central
Government or authority specified
by it in this behalf shall not reject
his application on that ground if
he is otherwise found qualified for
grant of citizenship under this
section:
Provided further that the
person who makes the application
for citizenship under this section
shall not be deprived of his rights
and privileges to which he was
entitled on the date of receipt of
his application on the ground of
making such application.
Thus, a plain reading of the above provisions
makes it very clear that once a person falls within the
protective framework of the citizenship (Amendment)
Act 2019, and is granted citizenship as per Ex.D3,
the law itself mandates that any proceedings in
respect of illegal migration or citizenship
automatically stands abated. In the case on hand, the
entire prosecution was that accused was a foreign27
KABC030281992020 CC No.6274/2020national residing in India illegally however once the
statutory protection under the amended provision of
the citizenship act applies and citizenship has been
recognized, the alleged offence under section 420 of
IPC does not arise.
30. The prosecution has dropped out the
offences under Section 5 and 14 of the Foreigners’
Act1946 and section 3 (1) (C) of the Citizenship Act,
1955 which had been invoked that the offence was a
foreign national Immigrants residing in India and
these offences were dropped after coming into force of
the citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019 with effect
from 10.01.2020 as Ex.D3 was granted by the
Central Government that she is a Indian nationality
from the date of her entry ie., 27/08/2003. Once the
statutory offences in respect of foreign nationality of
that person were given up, the question of cheating
does not arise. In the absence of any determination
by the competent authority under the Citizenship Act
or any adjudication under the Foreigners’ Act,
declaring the accused to be a foreign national, the
prosecution cannot rely on mere assumptions
regarding the citizenship status of the accused. In
such circumstances, the prosecution cannot sustain
a charge under Section 420 of IPC and isolation. The
offence of cheating requires proof of deception,
dishonesty and dishonest delivery of property. In the
present case, the alleged deception was entirely based
on the claim that accused used forged document to28
KABC030281992020 CC No.6274/2020obtain identity documents and the passport.
However, once the prosecution itself has dropped out
the offence for forgery as failed to establish that the
documents relied upon by the accused were forged or
fabricated; the very element of deception does not
arise. Consequently, the essential ingredients
required to constitute an offence of cheating under
Section 420 IPC were not proved.
31. The evidence /chief in examination of PW8
has been reiterated as under
ಪೊಲೀಸ್ ಇನ್ಸ್ ಪೆಕ್ಟರ್ ರವರಾದ ಅಜಯ್
ಸಾರಥಿ ಯವರು ಪಾಸ್ ಪೋರ್ಟ್ ಅರ್ಜಿಯ
ವಿಚಾರವಾಗಿ ನನ್ನನ್ನು ನೇಮಕ ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ.
ದಿ.15-03-2019ರಂದು ಪೊಲೀಸ್
ಕಮೀಷನರ್ ರವರಿಗೆ ಪಾಸ್ ಪೋರ್ಟ್
ಲಾಗಿನ್ ಐಡಿ ಬಂದಿರುತ್ತದೆ. ಅದರ ಮೇರೆಗೆ
ನಾನು ಆರೋಪಿಯ ಅರ್ಜಿಯನ್ನು ಡೌನ್ಲೋಡ್
ಮಾಡಿ ಅರ್ಜಿ ವಿಚಾರಣೆಗಾಗಿ ಆರೋಪಿ
ವಿಳಾಸವಾದ ನಂ.22, 1ನೇ ಕ್ರಾಸ್,
ಗಂಗಾನಗರ ಕ್ಕೆ ಹೋಗಿ ನೋಡಲಾಗಿ
ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಅಲ್ಲಿ ಇದ್ದರು. ಸದರಿ
ಆರೋಪಿಯನ್ನು ವಿಚಾರಿಸಿದಾಗ 2
ವರ್ಷಗಳಿಂದ ಮೇಲೆ ಹೇಳಿದ ವಿಳಾಸದಲ್ಲಿ
ಗಂಡ ಮತ್ತು ಮಕ್ಕಳ ಜೊತೆ ವಾಸವಾಗಿದ್ದೀನಿ
ಎಂದು ತಿಳಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಆ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ
ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಆಧಾರ್ ಕಾರ್ಡ್, ಚುನಾವಣಾ
ಗುರುತಿನ ಚೀಟಿ, ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್ ಪಾಸ್ ಪುಸ್ತಕವನ್ನು,
ಎಸ್ ಎಸ್ ಎಲ್ ಸಿ ಫೇಲ್ ಮಾರ್ಕ್ಸ್ ಕಾರ್ಡ್,29
KABC030281992020 CC No.6274/2020ವಿವಾಹ ನೊಂದಣಿ ಪತ್ರ, ಐಟಿ ರಿಟರ್ನ್ಸ್
ಮತ್ತು ಪಾನ್ ಕಾರ್ಡಗಳನ್ನು ಮೂಲ
ದಾಖಲಾತಿಗಳನ್ನು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದು ಪರಿಶೀಲನೆ
ಮಾಡಿ ನಕಲು ಪ್ರತಿಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಅವರ ಸಹಿಯನ್ನು
ಪಡೆದಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ಸದರಿ ವಿಳಾಸದ
ಅಕ್ಕಪಕ್ಕದವರನ್ನು ಆರೋಪಿ ವಾಸವಿರುವ
ಬಗ್ಗೆ ವಿಚಾರಿಸಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ಆರೋಪಿಯ
ಅರ್ಜಿಯ ಜೊತೆಗೆ ಅವರ ಗಂಡನ ಅರ್ಜಿಯ
ವಿಚಾರಣೆ ಕೂಡ ಬಂದಿತ್ತು. ಅವರ
ದಾಖಲಾತಿಗಳನ್ನು ಪಡೆದು ಅಕ್ಕ ಪಕ್ಕದವರನ್ನು
ವಿಚಾರಿಸಿಕೊಂಡು ಬಂದಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ಸದರಿ
ವಿಷಯವನ್ನು ಎಎಸ್ಐ ಮತ್ತು ಪಿಎಸ್ಐ
ರವರ ಗಮನಕ್ಕೆ ತಂದಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ.
ಠಾಣೆಯಲ್ಲಿರುವ ದಾಖಲಾತಿಗಳನ್ನು
ಪರಿಶೀಲನೆ ಮಾಡಿದಾಗ ಆಕೆಯ ವಿರುದ್ದ
ಯಾವುದೇ ಕ್ರಿವಿುನಲ್ ಪ್ರಕರಣಗಳು ಬಾಕಿ
ಇಲ್ಲದ ಕಾರಣ ಅವರ ಅರ್ಜಿಯನ್ನು
ಪುರಸ್ಕರಿಸುವಂತೆ ಮೇಲಾಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳಿಗೆ
ವರದಿಯನ್ನು ನನ್ನ ಮೇಲಾಧಿಕಾರಿಯವರ
ಅನುಮತಿ ಪಡೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಕಳಿಸಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ.
Thus, it emerges that the oral testimony of PW8
who conducted the passport verification prior to the
issuance of passport demolishes the prosecution
case. PW8 has deposed that he verified the original
documents produced by the accused including
Aadhara card, voter ID card, SSLC Marks card,
passport and marriage certificate conducted a local
inquiry by jurisdictional police and recommended for
issuance of passport to the accused. He has further
deposed that there is no criminal case against the30
KABC030281992020 CC No.6274/2020accused. So the evidence clearly proves that the
passport and other identity documents were issued
only after official verification by the competent
authorities themselves. The prosecution case reveals
a clear inconsistency.
32. In the instant case on hand, the offences
under special law were dropped out and such being
the case the prosecution could be maintained under
section 420 of IPC?
It is appropriate to quote the maxim “Generalia
specialibus non derogant” which means special law
prevails over the general law. In this regard, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held in the case of
Suresh Nanda vs C.B.I reported in AIR 2008
SUPREME COURT 1414 in paragraph 8 that
Where there is a special Act
dealing with specific subject,
resort should be had to that Act
instead of general Act providing
for the matter connected with the
specific Act. As the passports Act
is a special act, the rule that
general provision should yield to
the specific provision is to be
applied. (Emphasis supplied by
the counsel for the accused)
31
KABC030281992020 CC No.6274/2020
Thus, where the legislatures has enacted
specific statutory mechanisms under the Citizenship
Act, 1955 and the Foreigners Act 1946 to regulate
issues relating to Citizenship, migration and the legal
status of foreigner nationals, the invocation of general
penal provision as such section 420 of IPC does not
arise. Therefore, prosecution failed to prove the
ingredients of offence thereby the point No.1 is
answered in negative.
33. It appears from the written arguments filed
by the accused appears to have taken inconsistency
stand on one hand the accused claim that she was a
Citizen of Bangladesh whereas on the other hand
stated in the written argument that prosecution did
not prove the authenticity of passport of accused as
per Ex.P12.
34. Point No.2:- For the foregoing discussion an
the findings to the above point No.1, this court
proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused is found not guilty
and acquitted from the offence
punishable under Section 420 of
Indian Penal Code.
32
KABC030281992020 CC No.6274/2020
(ii) Accused is set at liberty.
(iii) In view of Section 437-A of
Cr.P.C her bail bond shall be in
force for 6 (six) months.
(iv) Ordered accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by steno, verified and corrected
by me in my laptop, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this the
18th day of March, 2026)
Digitally
DEEPA signed by
VEERASWAMY DEEPA
VEERASWAMY
(Deepa.V.),
VIII Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined for Prosecution :
PW1: Smt. Vanamala Informant
PW2: Smt. Shilpa.M. WPC
PW3: Sri Noorulla Khan Mahazar witness
PW4: Smt. Padma WPC
PW5: Sri Rajashekar Husband of accused
PW6: Sri Srinivasamurthy Owner
PW7: Sri Hanumatharayappa PSI
33
KABC030281992020 CC No.6274/2020
PW8: Sri Nagarajaiah Head constable
PW9: Sri Mallikarjun Naganoor Police constable
Documents marked on behalf of Prosecution:
Ex.P1: Complaint PW1 Ex.P2: Two Photos Ex.P3: Complaint from office of the
Foreigner’s Regional Registration
officer (copy)
Ex.P4: Confession statement of accused
(copy)
Ex.P5: Passport of Bangladesh (copy)
Ex.P6: Residential permit (copy)
Ex.P7: Passport of India (copy)
Ex.P8: Panchaname dtd: 7-11-2019
Ex.P9: Seizure mahazar dtd: 8-11-2019
Ex.P10: Statement of PW3
Ex.P11: FIR PW7
Ex.P12: Passport of accused
Ex.P13: Pan Card
Ex.P14: Election identity card
Ex.P15: Adhara card
34
KABC030281992020 CC No.6274/2020
Ex.P16: Passport of accused
Ex.P17: Lease agreement
Ex.P18: Lease agreement
Ex.P19: SSLC Marks Card
Ex.P20: Letter dtd: 15-11-19 addressed to PW7
Ministry of External Arrairs (CPV)
Division.
Ex.P21: Letter dtd: 15-11-19 addressed to ”
FRR Office
Ex.P22: Letter dtd: 15-11-19 addressed to
Home and Transport Department,
Govt. of Karnataka
Ex.P23: Letter dtd: 15-11-19 addressed to
State Intelligent and SRO
Ex.P24: Letter dtd: 15-11-19 addressed to ”
Ministry of Home affairs, New Delhi
Ex.P25: Letter dtd: 15-11-19 addressed to
Assistant Director, Central
Foreigner Burueau, New Delhi
Ex.P26: Letter dtd: 15-11-19 addressed to
Commissioner of Police, Bangalore
Ex.P27: Report ”
Material Objects marked on behalf of
Prosecution: Nil
35
KABC030281992020 CC No.6274/2020
Witnesses examined for the defence:
DW1: Smt Archana Pramanika Accused
Documents marked on behalf of the defence:
Ex.D1 Baptism Certificate DW1
Ex.D2 Son’s birth Certificate ”
Ex.D3 Citizenship Certificate ”Digitally
DEEPA signed by
VEERASWAMY DEEPA
VEERASWAMYVIII Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
36
KABC030281992020 CC No.6274/2020
Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separately
ORDER
Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused is found not guilty
and acquitted from the offence
punishable under Section 420 of
Indian Penal Code.
(ii) Accused is set at liberty.
(iii) In view of Section 437-A of
Cr.P.C her bail bond shall be in
force for 6 (six) months.
(iv) Ordered accordingly.
VIII ACJM, Bengaluru.
37
