Final Order 4

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: C.C.NO. 3499/PW/2018 1 of 11 JUDGMENT
MHMM190146062018
Received on :- 28.12.2018
Registered on :- 28.12.2018
Decided on :- 07.01.2026
Duration :- 07Ys. 00M. 10Ds.
Exh. :- 31
Part ‘A’
[Para 44(i) of Chapter VI of Criminal Manual]
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE,
(Presided over by : Dr.. G. D. Nirmale, Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Court No.22. Andheri, Mumbai)
Decided on :- 07.01.2026
Criminal Case No. 3499/PW/2018
FIR No.
Police Station
406/2018
Sahar Police Station
COMPLAINANT State of Maharashtra
Through :-
Sahar Police Station
REPRESENTED
BY
A.P.P. Mr. K. S. Jamdhade, for the State.
ACCUSED
1) Manishkumar Kedarnath Joshi
Age :- 46 years, Occupation :- Driver
R/o.: 19, Adeshwar Society, Near Canara
Bank, Saijpur Bogha, Ahmadabad City,
Ahmadabad, Gujarat.
-- 1 of 11 --
C.C.NO. 3499/PW/2018 2 of 11 JUDGMENT
2) Meena Manishkumar Joshi
Age :- 42 years, Occupation :- Housemaker
R/o.: 19, Adeshwar Society, Near Canara
Bank, Saijpur Bogha, Ahmadabad City,
Ahmadabad, Gujarat.
REPRESENTED
BY
Advocate Mr. Sanjay Tiwari for the accused.
Part ‘B’
[Para 44(ii) of Chapter VI of Criminal Manual]
Date of Offence 18.12.2018
Date of F.I.R. 18.12.2018
Date of Chargesheet 28.12.2018
Date of Framing of Charges 22.08.2025
Date of commencement of evidence 29.09.2025
Date on which Judgment is reserved 06.01.2026
Date of the Judgment 07.01.2026
Date of the Sentencing Order, if any --
Accused Details
Rank of
accused
Name of
accused
Date of
Arrest
Date of
Release on
Bail
Offences
charged
with
Whether
acquitted or
convicted
Sentence
imposed
Period of
Detention
Undergone
during Trial
for purpose
of Section
428, Cr.P.C.
1. Manishkumar
Kedarnath Joshi 18.12.
2018
28.12.
2018
465, 468,
471, 420, 34
of IPC
Acquitted -- --
2. Meena
Manishkumar
Joshi
Not
arrested
by police
28.12.
2018
465, 468,
471, 420, 34
of IPC
Acquitted -- --
-- 2 of 11 --
C.C.NO. 3499/PW/2018 3 of 11 JUDGMENT
Part 'C'
[Para 44(iii) of Chapter VI of Criminal Manual]
LIST OF PROSECUTION / DEFENCE / COURT WITNESSES
A. Prosecution :
RANK NAME NATURE OF
EVIDENCE
(EYE WITNESS, POLICE WITNESS,
EXPERT WITNESS, MEDICAL
WITNESS, PANCH WITNESS, OTHER
WITNESS)
PW1/Exh. 10 Rajesh Sambhaji Valunj Informant
PW2/Exh. 25 Deshraj S/o. Shri Siddhuram Police Witness
PW3/Exh. 27 Suhas Janardhan Chowdhary Investigating Officer
B. Defence Witnesses, if any :
RANK NAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE
(EYE WITNESS, POLICE WITNESS, EXPERT WITNESS,
MEDICAL WITNESS, PANCH WITNESS, OTHER WITNESS)
- - -
C. Court Witnesses, if any :
RANK NAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE
(EYE WITNESS, POLICE WITNESS, EXPERT WITNESS,
MEDICAL WITNESS, PANCH WITNESS, OTHER WITNESS)
LIST OF PROSECUTION / DEFENCE / COURT EXHIBITS
A. Prosecution :
Sr. No. Exhibit Number Description
1. Exhibit- 11 to 13 /PW -1 Three passports.
2. Exhibit- 14 to 21/PW - 1 Eight Boarding Passes
3. Exhibit- 22 and 23/PW-1 FIR and Printed FIR
B. Defence :
Sr. No. Exhibit Number Description
- - -
C. Court Exhibits :
Sr. No. Exhibit Number Description
- - -
D. Material Objects :
Sr. No. Material Object Number Description
- - -
-- 3 of 11 --
C.C.NO. 3499/PW/2018 4 of 11 JUDGMENT
J U D G M E N T
(Delivered on 07.01.2026)
1. The above named accused person stands charged for having
committed an offence punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420
read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for the sake of brevity
hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.').
Facts germane to the prosecution case are abridged thus :-
2. On 18.12.2018 accused along with their two children
arrived at CSMI Airport as they intended to travel from Mumbai to
Toronto(Canada) via London by flight No. 9W-116 & AC-859. When the
accused approached immigration counter, manned by the informant, their
passports and travel documents were scrutinized. Upon inspection of
their passports the informant found following discrepancies :-
1) No intaglio printing on visa stickers;
2) Security features are disturbed;
3) Font size is different from genuine one;
4) Micro printing are broken;
5) Visa sticker colour is different from genuine one;
6) Hologram is different from genuine one.
3. The informant conducted the preliminary inquiry with the
accused, wherein he found that accused procured fake Canadian visas
with the help of agents i.e. wanted accused and on the strength of same
attempted to travel to Toronto(Canada) via London by flight No. 9W-116
& AC-859. Hence the informant lodged report in respect of the aforesaid
incident at Sahar Police Station.
4. On the basis of report C.R. No. 406/2018 was registered
under sections 465, 468, 471, 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code against
-- 4 of 11 --
C.C.NO. 3499/PW/2018 5 of 11 JUDGMENT
the accused. Investigation of the case was carried out by P.I. Mr. S. J.
Chaudhari. After investigation he found sufficient evidence against the
accused, hence forwarded charge-sheet under supra sections.
Charge :-
5. Accused abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried when
charge (Exh-06) was read over and explained to her in vernacular by my
learned predecessor.
Evidence for Prosecution :-
6. To substantiate the charges levelled against the accused,
prosecution examined three witnesses. Mr. Rajesh Sambhaji Valunj (PW
No.1 Exh-10) is the informant, Mr. Deshraj S/o Shri. Siddhuram (PW
No.2 Exh-25) is the Wing-In-charge and Mr. Suhas Janardhan
Chowdhary (PW 3 Exh-27) is the Investigating Officer.
7. From the scrutiny of the cross examination and answers
given by the accused during the statement recorded under Section 313
Cr. P. C. (Exh-29 & 30), it appears that defence of accused is of denial
and false accusations. However, no evidence is led in defence.
Points for determination:
8. Perused the evidence on record. Heard learned advocate Mr.
K. S. Jamdhade for the prosecution and Mr. Sanjay Tiwari learned
counsel for the accused.
9. In view of offence charged against the accused, following
points arise for determination the finding and reasons for which are
recorded as under :-
-- 5 of 11 --
C.C.NO. 3499/PW/2018 6 of 11 JUDGMENT
Sr. No.
Points
Findings
1] Does the prosecution prove that, on above
date, time and place accused in
furtherance of your common intention
with wanted accused forged Canadian visa
for himself and for his children Devand
Joshi and Sheetal Joshi with intent to
commit fraud ? In the negative.
2] Does the prosecution prove that, on above
date, time and place accused in
furtherance of your common intention
with wanted accused forged Canadian for
himself and for his children, intending that
it shall be used for the purpose of
cheating? In the negative.
3] Does the prosecution prove that, on above
date, time and place accused in
furtherance of common intention with
wanted accused fraudulently or
dishonestly used as genuine his Canadian
visa and visa of his children, which he
knew at the time when used it to be forged
documents?
In the negative.
4] Does the prosecution prove that, on above
date, time and place accused in
furtherance of common intention with
-- 6 of 11 --
C.C.NO. 3499/PW/2018 7 of 11 JUDGMENT
wanted accused intentionally cheated
Immigration Authority by possessing
forged Canadian visa and on the strength
of it attempted to travel from London to
Toranto(Canada)? In the negative.
5] What order ? Accused stand
acquitted.
R E A S O N S
POINT NOs. 1 to 5 :-
10. In order to prove the charge leveled against the accused
prosecution has examined three witnesses. The informant (PW 1 Exh-
10) testified that while he was working as an Immigration Officer at
Immigration Counter No.8, Departure, CSMI Airport on 18.12.2018, at
about 08:30 a.m., two passengers along with two kids approached the
departure counter. They were travelling by flight No. 9W-116 of Jet
Airways, from Mumbai to London which was scheduled at 09:30 a.m.
and by flight No. AC-859 from London to Toronto. Upon verifying the
passports and visa under UV light, I found some discrepancies therein. I
found following discrepancies viz. :
a) Font size of visa was different from the original;
b) different security features;
c) Different Hologram;
d) Broken micro printing;
e) Intaglio printing was different.
11. The informant took them to Wing-In-charge, Mr. Deshraj,
-- 7 of 11 --
C.C.NO. 3499/PW/2018 8 of 11 JUDGMENT
who in turn forwarded their visa for verification to Delhi Embassy via e-
mail. Mr. Deshraj received the verification report which stated that the
visa was fake. Thereafter he handed over the accused along with their
passports, visa, boarding card, flight tickets diary report, statement of
accused recorded by Mr. Deshraj, to Sahar Police Station. He identified
the original passports at Exh-11 to Exh-13 and eight boarding passes at
Exh-14 to Exh-21. He also identified his signature and affirmed the
contents of the F.I.R. & printed F.I.R. at Exh-22 and Exh-23, to be true.
12. In the cross-examination it is admitted by the informant
(PW 1 Exh-10) that he did not compare the visa of the accused with any
other documents to arrive at the conclusion of the discrepancies found
therein. He denied the suggestion that he came to the conclusion
regarding discrepancies only on the basis of his experience. It is further
admitted by him that he did not file any documentary evidence regarding
the discrepancies found therein. He denied the suggestion that the
passports and the visa of the accused are genuine.
13. Mr. Deshraj (PW 2 Exh-25) testified that on 18.12.2018
while he was working as Wing In-charge at about 08:30 a.m. four Indian
passengers who were flying to Canada via London by flight No. 116 of
Jet Airways, were brought before him by the informant. Accused No.1
had approached Counter No. 8 for clearing immigration, which was
manned by the informant, Mr. S. A. Walunj. Upon scrutiny of his
passport the informant found that the Canadian visa on the passport was
fake. The informant then forwarded all four passengers to him. He also
checked the passports and found that visa was fake. He forwarded an e-
mail to High Commission of Canada, New Delhi along with the visas of
-- 8 of 11 --
C.C.NO. 3499/PW/2018 9 of 11 JUDGMENT
the passengers and received a reply mail from High Commission of
Canada stating that all four visas were counterfeit. He instructed the
informant for reporting the matter to the police. Police recorded his
statement.
14. Mr. Deshraj (PW 2 Exh-25)denied the suggestion of
genuineness of passports and travel documents of the accused during
cross-examination. He also denied suggestion regarding registration of
false F.I.R. against the accused on the basis of suspicion. He also denied
the suggestion that without any evidence he concluded that the visas
were counterfeit.
15. Mr. Suhas Chowdhary (PW 3 Exh-27) testified that while he
was working at Sahar Police Station, on 18.12.2018, crime No. 406/2018
was registered by WPSI Mrs. Savita Thombare, and he was handed over
the work of investigation in the said crime. He received the passports
(Exh. 11 to 13), visa and air ticket of the accused and his children. He
conducted the investigation and filed charge-sheet on 26.12.2018.
16. On going through the entire evidence the main allegations
against the accused is of forgery of travel document. Without touching
the evidence, it has to be seen whether the offence allegedly committed
by the accused is sustainable when there is special statute to deal with
the act allegedly committed. In order to prosecute accused under such
violation, there is a Special Act i.e. Passport Act under which the
authority is supposed to act upon. However, the authority has given a go
bye to Passport Act and booked the accused under I.P.C. When there is a
special statute to deal with such offences, then there is no point in
booking those accused under general law.
-- 9 of 11 --
C.C.NO. 3499/PW/2018 10 of 11 JUDGMENT
17. If the accusation in the instant case are assumed to be true, it
would at the most attract violation of section 12 of the Passport Act. To
rope accused for violation of Passport Act, the investigating agency
requires sanction from the Competent Authority, as mandated u/s. 15 of
the Passport Act. However, in order to give a go bye to sanction, the
prosecution agency invoked penal sections. It is settled position in law
that a special law shall prevail over the general laws. Any offence
surfaced in violation of mandatory provision renders it meaningless.
18. Be that as it may, the prosecution did not lead any cogent
evidence to prove the alleged forgery by the accused for the purpose of
cheating. Except bare words of the informant regarding forgery in the
passport nothing is brought on record to prove the alleged forgery. The
evidence adduced by the prosecution even if it is accepted as it is, does
not prove the charges of forgery and cheating by the accused. In this
backdrop, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charges levelled
against beyond reasonable doubt for want of evidence.
19. Since the seized property i.e. 4 Indian passports be
returned to the accused, 04 boarding passes, one common air ticket,
passport PISON copies, canadian visa verification report(e-mail print
copy) be destroyed, after appeal period is over. Therefore point Nos. 1
to 4 are answered in the negative and in answer to point No.5 the
following order is passed:-
O R D E R
1. Accused No.1) Manishkumar Kedarnath Joshi Age :- 46 years
and accused No.2) Meena Manishkumar Joshi Age :- 42 years
-- 10 of 11 --
C.C.NO. 3499/PW/2018 11 of 11 JUDGMENT
are hereby acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections
465, 468, 471, 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code,
1860, vide Section 248(1) of The Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973.
2. The earlier P.R. bond of accused stands cancelled.
3. The accused to furnish P.R. of Rs.7,500/- in compliance to
section 437(A) of of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
4. The seized muddemal property shown in the column No.9 of
the charge-sheet i.e. 4 Indian passports be returned to the
accused, 04 boarding passes, one common air ticket, passport
PISON copies, canadian visa verification report(e-mail print
copy) be destroyed, after appeal period is over.
Date.:- 07.01.2026
(Ms. G. D. Nirmale)
Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate
22nd Court, Andheri, Mumbai
-- 11 of 11 --