Final Order 2

Order Details: Order
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (FIRST CLASS),
66th COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI
ORDER BELOW APPLICATION EXHIBIT – 04
IN C. C. NO. 543/PW/2018
The accused has filed present application for discharge
under section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
2] It is submitted by the accused that the informant is working in
Spice Jet Company as Customer Service Executive. On 10.08.2017 at
about 2.30 p.m. to 12.00 a.m., he was on duty at domestic airport. On
that day, he was working at Boarding Gate No.A/5, he was doing
supervising for passenger’s check-in at the gate. On that day, at about
5.40 a.m., one passenger Kashif Abid who had done web check-in was
asked to show his identify proof but he gave evasive answers to avoid
showing his Id proof, when was said that he would not be allowed to
abroad the flight, then he told that he did not have photo Id. After his
search, in his pocket, one Adhar Card was found on which his name was
mentioned as Mohsin Pasha Mohd. Baig resident of 735, 9 main, third
stage, near Farid Masjid, Pilana Garden, Benglore North, Arabic College,
Karnataka – 560045. His photo was there on Adhar Card, but as per
Boarding pass, the name was mentioned as Kashif Abid. That time, he
came to know that the said passenger was trying to travel on another
person’s flight ticket via flight No.SG-415 Mumbai to Benglore. Hence,
informant took the said passenger and approached to the police station
and registered FIR No.38/2017 under section 419 of Indian Penal Code
at Airport police station.
3] It is further submitted that the accused has not cheated the
employee of the Spice Jet by impersonation. The prosecution failed to
-- 1 of 2 --
produce any concrete evidence on record which can prove that the
accused was intending to travel on other person’s flight ticket. There is
no concrete evidence to show that the accused has cheated the
informant by impersonation. The accused is relied upon several
authorities of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and argued that on
hearsay evidence the accused has been implicated in the present
offence.
4] The Ld. APP filed say and objected the application on the ground
that the offence is serious. There is prima facie evidence against the
accused. The case of prosecution is based upon documentary evidence.
Therefore, application be rejected.
5] Heard, both sides. Perused charge-sheet. It appears that there is
prima facie evidence against the accused to frame the charge. Hence, I
pass the following order :-
ORDER
Application is rejected.
Sd/-
(A. G. Mhaskey)
Judicial Magistrate (First Class)
Date : 24/08/2026 66th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 2 of 2 --