HEMAversusSTATE, THR. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MADRAS

                       [2013] 3 S.C.R. 1


                             HEMA                                    A
                                v.
      STATE, THR. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MADRAS
             (Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2013)

                       JANUARY 7, 2013
                                                                     B
          [P. SATHASIVAM, RANJAN GOGOi AND
                 V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.]

     Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 120B and 420 rlw. ss. 511, 465   I

and 471 - Prosecution under - For offence of criminal C
conspiracy to cheat Passport Office, in order: to obtain
passports on the basis of ante-dated passport applications
with duplicate file numbers accompanied by forged
enclosures - Conviction by courts below - Held: Prosecution
proved its case - Supreme Court not to interfere with D
concurrent findings offacts by courts below except where there
is serious infirmity in the appreciation of evidence and the
findings are perverse - Conviction confirmea ...:. -However, in
view of the fact that the accused has a small child, sentence
reduced to six months from two years - Constitution of India, E
1950 - Article 136.

     Investigation - Parallel investigation - By State Police
and by CBI - Permissibility - Held: In the instant case
investigation was initiated by State Police and subsequently
taken over by CBI considering the volume and importance of F
offence - There is no infirmity in continuing the investigation
by CBI in view of s. 5 (3) of Delhi Special Police
Establishment Act - Delhi Special Police Establishment Act,
1946 - s_ 5(3).
                                                                     G
      Criminal Trial - Defective investigation - Effect of - Held:
  Mere defect in investigation and lapse on the part of
. Investigating Officer cannot be a ground for acquittal - It is

                                1                                    H
    2        SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2013] 3 S.C.R.


A for the Court to scrutinize the prosecution evidence de hors
    such lapses.

       Appellan·t-accused No. 5, alongwith four other
  accused persons i.e. A-1 to A-4 was prosecuted u/ss.
8 120B, 420, 465 and 471 IPC. It was alleged that A-5, an
  employee of a travel agency run by A-3, along with other
  accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy to
  cheat the Regional Passport office to obtain 42 passports
  on the basis of ante-dated passport applications with
  duplicate file numbers and forged enclosures such as
C police verification certificates etc. Initially the case was
  investigated by the State Police, but subsequently the
  investigation was taken up by CBI. Thereafter the Special
  court for CBI cases convicted the appellant-accused No.5
  u/ss. 120B, 420 r/w ss. 511, 465 and 471 IPC. She was
D sentenced to R1 for 2 years with a default clause. A-1 to
  A-3 were· also convicted. High Court confirmed the order
  of the Special Court.

       Instant appeal was filed by A-5. She contended that
E the entire investigation needed to be thrown out, as the
  parallel proceedings by the State Police and the CBI are
  not permissible; that original seals and rubber stamps
  were not produced to prove that the seals and stamps
  were forged; that prosecution failed to exhibit the FSL
F report with regard to the impression of seals of MOs. 1
  to 3 recovered at the instance of A-3; that specimen
  signatures of PW-16 and PW-29 were not sent to the hand-
  writing expert; that the seal and specimen signatures of
  attesting officer (PW 18) was not collected by CBI to prove
G them to be forged; that there was no document or
  indication in Ex. P-3 to P-43 to show that they were sent
  by the travel agency of A-3; and that certificates issued
  by Village Administrative Officers that the applicants were
  not the residents of the place mentioned in the
H
   HEMA v. STATE, THR. INSPECTOR OF POLICE,                 3
                    MADRAS
application form, have no legal sanctity in the absence of A
certification by Tehsildar.

     Disposing of the appeal, the Court

     HELD: 1.1 It is settled law that not only fair trial, but
fair investigation is also part of constitutional rights B
guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution
of India. Accordingly, investigation must be fair,
transparent and judicious and it is the immediate
requirement of rule of law. In the instant case, though the
State Crime Branch initiated investigation, subsequently, C
the same was taken over by the CBI considering the
volume and importance of the offence. [Para 8] [12-B-E]

     Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. 2010 (12) SCC
254: 2010 (10) 'scR 651 - distinguished.                         D
      1.2. Mere defects in the investigation and lapse on
 the part of the 1.0., cannot be a ground for acquittal.
 Further, even if there had been negligence on the part of
 the investigating agency or omissions etc., it is the
 obligation on the part of the court to scrutinize the           E
 prosecution evidence de hors such lapses to find out
 whether the said evidence is reliable or not and whether
 such lapses affect the object of finding out the truth. [Para
'13] [21-B-C]
       -~

                                                             F
     C. Muniappan and Ors. vs. State of Tamil Nadu 201 O (9)
SCC 567: 2010 (10) SCR 262; Dayal Singh and Ors. vs. State
of Uttaranchal 2012 (8) SCC 263: 2012 (10) SCR 157; Gajoo
vs._ State of Uttarakhand 2012 (9) SCC 532: 2012
(7) SCR 103.3.:- relied on.                                  G
    2.1. It is nof correct to say that the prosecution has
not proved that the travel agency was purported to have
been run by A-3 for the purpose of submitting passport
applications. ltJs clear from the evidence of PWs 11, 13
                                                                 H
    4       SUPREME COURT REPORTS           f2013J 3 $.C.R.

A and 9 that A-3 was occupying the premises pertaining to
  PW-11 during the relevant period and he was running a
  travel agency in that place. [Para 14] [21-E; 22-A-B]

      2.2. It is also wrong to say that there was no
  evidence to show that Exh.P-2 to P-43 had been
8
  presented by the travel agency of A-3. A-5, who was
  working as a clerk in the said travel agency of A-3, has
  admitted in her statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. that at the
  relevant time she was working with that travel agency and
C she used to submit the passport applications in the
  passport office and receive the passports from the office.
  The above statement makes it clear that she was assisting
  A-3 in preparing applications and filing them before the
  passport office and dealing the affairs connected
  therewith. This fact is also evident from Exh. P-2. [Para
D 15] [22·8-D]

      2.3. The admissible portion of the confessional
  statement of A-3 which is marked as Exh.P-215 and
  which led to the recovery of forged/fabricated rubber
E stamp seals, M.Os 1 to 3 seized at his behest under
  Exh.P-216, the Mazahar, in the presence of Village
  Administrative Officer (PW-15) and Village Menial also
  prove the prosecution case and disprove the stand of the
  appellant. [Para 16] [22-E-F]
F      2.4. The plea that the police verification forms,
  namely, Exh.128 to 136 and 161 to 202 were not proved
  to have been forged in the light of the fact that the
  subsequent signatures of PWs 16 and 29 were not sent
  to PW-28, the hand writing expert, for his opinion, is not
G acceptable. In view of the categorical statement of PW-
  26, PW-16, and PW-29, it is clear from their statements and
  assertions that the verification forms of the said 42
  applications have not been dealt with by the concerned
  officials and the trial Judge was right in concluding that
H
  HEMA v. STATE, THR. INSPECTOR OF POLICE,               5
                   MADRAS
they were forged. Mere non-production of registers A
maintained in the office of DSP, DCRB, cannot be
construed to be an infirmity in this case in the light of the
evidence of PWs 16, 26 and 29 who are relevant officers
concerned with those documents. [Para 18] [23-B-C, G-
H; 24-A]                                                      B

    2.5. The specimen signatures of PW-18 and PW-20,
who are all independent witnesses, were forged in the .
applications. This is evident from their evidence. There is
no reason to disbelieve their evidence and the trial Judge
has rightly accepted the same. [Para 19] [24-B-C]           C

    2.6. There is no legal infirmity regarding the evidence
of Village Administrative Officers and the certificates
issued by them. The documents were properly marked
through Village Administrative Officers of the villages       o
concerned and also by the officers who made a field
enquiry for the same. [Para 20] [24-C-D]
      2.7. There is no infirmity in recoveries of M.Os 1 to 3.
The evidence of the concerned Village Administrative
Officers, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Civil Surgeon E
(PW-18), Government Hospital, Executive Officer (Retired)
of Town Panchayat (PW-20) are sufficient to establish that
the forged attested documents were created and
enclosed for the purpose of getting passports in support
of false addresses given in the applications by the F
appellant. The above fact is also evident from the
evidence of PW-15, the confessional statement given by
A-3 which was recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence
Act in his presence arid M.Os 1 to 3 which were recovered
under a cover of mazahar (Exh. P-216) at the behest of G
A-3 and the admissible portion of the evidence leading to
recovery which is marked as Exh. 215. The
contradictions as pointed out by the appellant are only
trivial iil ;nature as found by the trial court as well as the
High Court, I
                accordingly, it cannot be construed to be a H
    6       SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2013] 3 S.C.R.

A material one so as to affect the version of the
  prosecution. [Para 21] [24-E-H; 25-A]

       2.8. PWs 16, 26 and 29 DSPs and S.I. of Police have
  categorically denied the genuineness of the seals M.Os.
  1 to 3, and thus the absence of expert opinion by its'elf
8
  does not absolve the liability of the appellant. The failure
  of the prosecution to exhibit the report of FSL, with regard
  to the impression of the above seals is not fatal to the
  prosecution. [Para 22) [25-B-C]

C        2.9. The evidence of PW-14, who identified the
    writings available in Exhs.P-2 to P-43 as that of A-5 is
    admissible u/s. 47 of the Evidence Act. The same was
    rightly acted upon by the trial court and the High Court
    while holding the charge against the accused-appellant
o   as proved to have committed in pursuance of the
    conspiracy. [Para 23) [25-E-FJ
        2.10. Simply because the applications were filled up
  by a person does not automatically lead to the inference
  that a person is a party to the conspiracy. But, in the
E instant case, it is very well established by the prosecution
  that the filled up passport applications were submitted
  by A-5 on behalf of her employer A-3. Further, in majority
  of passport applications (Exh. P-2 to P-43), bogus
  particulars were filled by her. The prosecution has also
F established that A·5 has given false particulars regarding
  the place of residence of applicants' in the passport
  applications in view of her admission in 313 statement
  that she was working in the travel agency of A-3 and
  assisting him in preparing applications and filing them
G before the Passport Office as well as handling the affairs
  connected therewith which clearly prove that A-5 has
  filled up the said passport applications (Exh.P-2 to P-43).
  Thus, the prosecution has clearly established that false
  documents were made for the purpose of cheating and
H
  HEMA v. STATE, THR. INSPECTOR OF POLICE,                  7
                   MADRAS
those documents were used as genuine for obtaining              A
passports. [Para 24] [25-F-H; 26-A-C]

     2.11. In the light of the overwhelming evidence
placed by the prosecution, analyzed by the trial court and
affirmed by the High Court, interference by this Court with
                                                                8
concurrent findings of fact by the courts below is not
warranted except where there is some serious infirmity
in the appre~iation of evidence and the findings are
perverse. Further, this Court will not ordinarily interfere
with appreciation of evidence by the High Court and re-
appreciation is permissible only if an error of law or          C
procedure and conclusion arrived are perverse. [Para 25]
[26-C-E]

    3. However, taking note of the fact ,that the appellant
is having a small child, while confirming the conviction,       D
the sentence is reduced to six months from two years.
[Para 26] [26-E]
                    Case Law Reference:
    2010 (10) SCR 651        Distinguished        Para 8        E
    2010 (10) SCR 262        Relied on            Para 10
    2012 (10) SCR 157        Relied on            Para 11
    2012 (7) SCR 1033        Relied on            Para 12
                                                                F
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 31 of 2013.

      From the Judgment & Order dated 29.04.2011 of the High
Court of judicature at Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in    G
Cr.I. A. (MD} No. 37 of 2004.

    S. Prabhakaran, S. Palanikumar, P. Soma Sundaram,
Rajakumar, R.S. Krishna Kumar, Mahadevan for the Appellant.

  · H.P. Raval, ASG, Shriniwas Khalap, Anando Mukherji,         H
    .8       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 3 S.C.R.

A   Prakriti Purnima, B.V. Bairam Das, Arvind Kumar Sharma for
    the Respondent.

         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

         P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. Leave granted.
B
        2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and
    common order dated 29.04.2011 passed by the Madurai
    Bench of the Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal (MD) No.
    37 of 2004 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed
c   by the appellant herein (A-5 therein) while confirming the
    judgment dated 28.07.2004, passed by the Court of Principal
    Special Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai.

         3. Brief fact$:

D      (a) According to the prosecution, during the year f992, the
  appellant herein (A-5), along with other accused persons (A-1
  to A-4 therein) had entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat
  the Regional Passport Office, Trichy in order to obtain
  passports on the basis of creating ante-dated passport
E applications with duplicate file numbers, so as to make them
  appear as old cases, accompanied by forged enclosures such
  as police verification certificates etc. In pursuance of the said
  conspiracy, A-2 being the Lower Division Clerk in the Regional
  Passport Office, Trichy fraudulently received and processed 42
F forged passport applications filed by one Goodluck Travels,
  Trichy run by A-3 with the assistance of A-4 and A-5 (the
  appellant herein) and made false endorsement of reference
  numbers, fee certifications etc. and A-1, being the
  Superintendent of the Regional Passport Office, Trichy, by
G abusing his official position, granted orders for the issue of
  passports in respect of the said 42 applications.

       (b) In pursuance of the same, on 09.02.1993, the District
  Crime Branch at Ramanathapuram, Tamil Nadu received a,
  letter from Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), DCRB
H Ramanad, containing a complaint given by the Passport Officer,
    HEMA v. STATE, THR. INSPECTOR OF POLICE,                      9
            MADRAS [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

Trichy. On the basis of the same, a case was registered by the         A
District Crime Branch, Ramanad as Criminal Case No. 1 of
1993 under Sections 419, 420, 465 and 467 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (in short 'the IPC').

       (c) When the Inspector of Police, DCB, took up the              B
  investigation, the CBI intervened and filed a First Information
  Report being RC-21(A)/93 on 11.05.1973 under Section 120-
  B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC and
  Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
  Corruption Act, 1988 (in short 'the PC Act'). After investigation,   C
  the case was committed to the Special Court for CBI Cases,
  Madurai and numbered as CC No. 38 of 1996. On 01.08.1996,
  the Special Court, framed charges under Section 120-B of IPC
  against A-1 to A-5 and under Sections 420, 465 and 471 of
 .IPC against the appellant herein (A-5) and specific charges
  under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act         D
  against A-1 and under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC
. and under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC
  ~g_against A-2 and under Sections 420, 465 and 471 of IPC
  against A-3.
                                                                       E
       (d) By order dated 28.07.2004, the Principal Special ·
 Judge convicted and sentenced A-1 to A-3 and A-5. In the
 present appeal, we are concerned only with A-5 who was
 convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years along with
 a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for 6 months F
 for each of the offences under Sections 120-B, 420 read with
 Sections 511, 465 and 471 of IPC. (Total fine of Rs. 15,000/-).

     (e) Aggrieved by the said order of conviction and sentence,
the appellant herein filed Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2004
before the. Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. By                 G
impugned order dated 29.04.2011, the High Court dismissed
the same along with other set of appeals filed in respect of other
accused and confirmed their conviction and sentence awarded
by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the High
                                                                       H
    10         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2013] 3 S.C.R.

A   Court, A-5 alone has preferred this appeal by way of special
    leave before this Court.

      4. Heard Mr. S. Prabhakaran, learned counsel for the
  appellant and Mr. H.P. Rawal, learned Additional Solicitor
B General for the respondent-CBI.

    Contentions:
          5: Mr. S. Prabhakaran, learned counsel for the appellant,
    after taking us through the entire materials including the order
c   of the trial Court and the High Court submitted that the initial
     proceedings by the State Crime Branch and the subsequent
     proceedings by the CBI cannot be permitted, hence, the entire
     investigation is to be thrown out. In other words, according to
     him, parallel proceedings by the State Crime Branch and the
0   CBI are not permissible. In addition to the same, he submitted
    that the original seals and rubber stamps have not been seized
    from the police officials and those were not produced by the
    1.0. to prove that the seals and stamps were forged. He further
    submitted that the prosecution has failed to exhibit the FSL
E   report with regard to the impression of seals of M.Os 1 to 3
    alleged to have been recovered by the prosecution at the
    instance of A-3 despite the same were being sent by Shri
    Madavanan (PW-30), Inspector of Police. According to him, the
    specimen signatures of Shri Natarajan (PW-16), DSP, and R.
    Muniyandi (PW-29), Sub-Inspector of Police, have not been
F   sent to the hand writing expert for his opinion. Further, the seal
    and specimen signature of attesting officer, viz., Dr. Muthu (PW-
    18) were not collected by the CBI to prove that the seal and
    specimen signature were forged. There is no document or
    indication found in Exh.P-3 to P-43 to show that they were sent
G   by M/s Goodluck Travels to the Passport Office at Trichy.
    Finally, he submitted that inasmuch as the certificates issued
    by the Village Administrative Officers that the applicants were
    not the residents of the place mentioned in the application form,
    their reports have no legal sanctity in the absence of certification
H   by the Tahsildar.
   HEMA v. STATE, THR. INSPECTOR OF POLICE,                     11
           MADRAS [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
     6. Mr. Rawal, learned ASG appearing for the CBI, met all         A
the contentions. He submitted that the claim that parallel
proceedings by the District Crime Branch (DCB) and the CBI,
though not urged before the trial Court, High Court and even in
the grounds of appeal, however, there is no legal basis for such
claim. Even otherwise, according to him, if there is any defect       B
in the investigation, the accused cannot be acquitted on this
ground. By taking us through the evidence relied on by the
prosecution, findings by the trial Court and the High Court,
learned ASG submitted that in view of concurrent decision of
two courts, in the absence of any perversity, interference by this    c
Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 is not warranted.

Discussion:

      7. With regard to the main objection as to parallel
proceedings as claimed by Mr. Prabhakaran, learned counsel            D
for the appellant, as stated earlier, this objection was not raised
either before the trial Court or before the High Court and even
in the grounds of appeal before this Court, however,
considering the fact that we are dealing with a matter pertaining
to criminal prosecution, we heard the counsel on this aspect.         E
He pointed out that the first FIR dated 09.02.1993 was
registered at the instance of the complaint by Shri V.A. Britto,
Passport Officer, Trichy. The said FIR has been marked as
Exh.P-214. He also pointed out that the second FIR, at the
instance of the Special Police Establishment, Madras Branch,          F
was lodged on 11.05.1993 against three persons, namely, (1)
P. Durai, Superintendent, Passport Office, Trichy (2) P.M.
Rajendran, LDC, Passport Office, Trichy and (3) M/s Goodluck
Travels, Thiruvadanai, Ramanad District, Tamil Nadu. By taking
us through the said reports, particularly, the second FIR, the        G
counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the said report
proceeds on the basis of credible information from a reliable
source. The same was entertained and registered as RC.No.
21(A)/93 by S. Arulnadu, Inspector of Police,

                                                                      H
    12        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2013] 3 S.C.R.


A   SPE:CBl:ACB:Madras. By pointing out these details, it is
    contended by the counsel for the appellant that the course
    adopted by the prosecution in examiriing certain persons by the
    DCB, namely, the State Police and the remaining persons by
    the CBI is not permissible.
B
       8. It is settled law that not only fair trial, but fair investigation
  is also part of constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles
  20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly,
  investigation must be fair, transparent and judicious and it is
C the immediate requirement of rule of law. As observed by this
  Court in Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat and Others, 2010 (12)
  SCC 254, the Investigating Officer cannot be permitted to
  conduct an investigation in a tainted and biased manner. It was
  further observed that where non-interference of the Court would
  ultimately result in failure of justice, the Court must interfere.
D Though reliance was placed on the above decision by the
  appellant, it is not in dispute that in that case, the High Court
  has concluded by giving detailed reasons that the investigation
  has been totally one-sided based on malafide. Further, in that
  case, the charge-sheets filed by the Investigating Agency in
E both the cases were against the same set of accused. This
  was not the situation in the case on hand. Though the State
  Crime Branch initiated investigation, subsequently, the same
  was taken over by the CBI considering the volume and
  importance of the offence.
F
       9. In this regard, Mr. Rawal, learned ASG by drawing our
  attention to the relevant provisions of the Delhi Special Police
  Establishment Act, 1946 submitted that the course adopted by
  the CBI is, undoubtedly, within the ambit of the said Act and
G legally sustainable. Section 5 of the said Act speaks about
  extension of powers and jurisdiction of special establishment
  to other areas. Section 5 of the Act is relevant for our purpose
  which reads as under:-

         "5. Extension of powers and jurisdiction of special
H        police establishment to other areas.-(1) The Central
   HEMA v. STATE, THR. INSPECTOR OF POLICE,                       13
           MADRAS [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

     Government may by order extend to any area (including               A
     Railway areas), in a State, not being a Union Territory the
     powers and jurisdiction of members of the Delhi Special
     Police Establishment for the investigation of any.offences
     or classes of offences specified in a notification under
     Section 3.                                                          B

     (2) When by an order under sub-section (1) the powers and
     jurisdiction of members of the said police establishment
     are extended to any sueh area, a member thereof may,
     subject of any orders which the Central Government may
     make in this behalf, discharge the functions of a police            C
     officer in that area and· shall, while so discharging such
     functions, be deemed to be a member of a police force
     of that area and be vested with the powers, functions and
      privileges and be subject to the liabilities of a police officer
      belonging to that police station.                                  D

     (3) where any such order under sub-section (1) is made
     in relation to any area, then, without prejudice to the
     provisions of sub-section (2) any member of the Delhi
     Special Police Establishment of or above the rank of Sub-           E
     Inspector may subject to any,orders which the Central
     Government may rriake in this behalf, exercise the powers
     of the officer in charge of a police station in that area and
     when so exercising such powers, ~hall be deemed to be
     an officer in charge of a police station discharging the            F
     functions of such an officer within the limits of his station."

Sub-section (3) which was inserted with effect from 18.12.1964
by Act 40 of 1964 makes it clear that on the orders of the
Central Government, any member of the Delhi Special Police
Establishment is permitted to exercise the powers of the officer         G
in charge of a police station in that area and while exercising
such powers, he shall be deemed to be an officer in charge of
a police station concerned discharging the functions of such
officer within the limits of his station. In the light of the mandates
as provided in sub-section (3), we-are of the view that learned          H
    14         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 3 S.C.R.


A   ASG is right in contending that there is no infirmity or flaw in
    continuing the investigation by the officers of the CBI in spite
    of the fact that the State Crime Branch registered a complaint
    and proceeded with the investigation to a certain extent.

B      10. It is also settled law that for certain defects in
  investigation, the accused cannot be acquitted. This aspect
  has been considered in various decisions. In C. Muniappan
  and Others vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2010 (9) SCC 567, the
  following discussion and conclusion are relevant which are as
C follows:-

         "55. There may be highly defective investigation in a case.
          However, it is to be examined as to whether there is any
          lapse by the 10 and whether due to such lapse any benefit
         should be given to the accused. The law on this issue is
D        well settled that the defect in the investigation by itself
         cannot be a ground for acquittal. If primacy is given to such
         designed or negligent investigations or to the omissions
         or lapses by perfunctory investigation, the faith and
         confidence of the people in the criminal justice
E        administration would be eroded. Where there has been
          negligence on the part of the investigating agency or
         omissions, etc. which resulted in defective investigation,
         there is a legal obligation on the part of the court to
         examine the prosecution evidence dehors such lapses,
F        carefully, to find out whether the said evidence is reliable
         or not and to what extent it is reliable and as to whether
         such lapses affected the object of finding out the truth.
         Therefore, the investigation is not the solitary area for
         judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial. The conclusion of the trial
         in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the
G
         probity of investigation.

        11. In Dayal Singh and Others vs. State of Uttaranchal,
    2012 (8) sec 263, while reiterating the principles rendered in
    C. Muniappan (supra), this Court held thus:
H
  HEMA v. STATE, THR. INSPECTOR OF POLICE,                      15
          MADRAS [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
    "18 .... Merely because PW 3 and PW 6 have failed to                  A
    perform their duties in accordance with the requirements
    of law, and there has been some defect in the
    investigation, it will not be to the benefit of the accused
    persons to the extent that they would be entitled to an order.
    of acquittal on this ground .... "                                    B·
                                                                      /   ',


     12. In Gajoo vs. State of Uttarakhand, 2012 (9) SCC 532,
while reiterating the same principle again, this Court held that
defective investigation, unless affects the very root of the
prosecution case and is prejudicial to the accused should not
be an aspect of material consideration by the Court. Since,               C
the Court has adverted to all the earlier decisions with regard
to defective investigation· and outcome of the same, it is useful
to refer the dictum laid down in those cases:

     20. In regard to defective investigation, this Court in Dayal D
     Singh v. State of Uttarancha/while dealing with the cases·
     of omissions and commissions by the investigating officer,
     and duty of the court in such cases, held as under: (SCC
     pp. 280-83, paras 27-36)

            "27. Now, we may advert to the duty of the court in           E
            such cases. In Sathi Prasad v. State of U.P this
            Court stated that it is well settled that if the police
            records become $Uspect and investigation
            perfunctory, it becomes the duty of the court to see
            if the evidence given in court should be relied upon          F
            and such lapses ignored. Noticing the possibility of
            investigation being designedly defective, this Court
            in Dhanaj Singh v. State of Punjab, held: (SCC p.
            657, para 5)
                                                                          G
            '5. In the case of a defective investigation the court
            has to be circumspect in evaluating the evide.nce.
            But it would not be right in acquitting an accused
            person solely on account of the defect; to do so
            would tantamount to~playing into the hands of the             H
    16         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2013] 3 S.C.R.


A               investigating officer if the investigation is designedly
                defective.'

         28. Dealing with the cases of omission and commission,
         the Court in Paras Yadav v. State of Biharenunciated the
         principle, in conformity with the previous judgments, that if
B
         the l<ij>se or omission is committed by the investigating
         agency, negligently or otherwise, the prosecution evidence
         is required to be examined dehors such omissions to find
         out whether the said evidence is reliable or not. The
         contaminated conduct of officials should not stand in the
c        way of evaluating the evidence by the courts, otherwise the
         designed mischief would be perpetuated and justice would
         be denied to the complainant party.

         29. In Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) v. State of Gujarat,
D        the Court noticed the importance of the role of witnesses
         in a criminal trial. The importance and primacy of the
         quality of trial process can be observed from the words of
         Bentham, who states that witnesses are the eyes and ears
         of justice. The court issued a caution that in such situations,
E        there is a greater responsibility of the court on the one hand
         and on the other the courts must seriously deal with
         persons who are involved in creating designed
         investigation. The Court held that: (SCC p. 398, para
         42)
F               '42. Legislative measures to emphasise
                prohibition against tampering with witness, victim
                or informant have become the imminent and
                inevitable need of the day. Conducts which
                illegitimately affect the presentation of evidence in
G               proceedings before the courts have to be seriously
                and sternly dealt with. There should not be any
                undue anxiety to only protect the interest of the
                accused. That would be unfair, as noted above, to
                the needs of the society. On the contrary, efforts
H               should be to ensure a fair trial where the accused
HEMA v. STATE, THR. INSPECTOR OF POLICE,                        17
        MADRAS [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
        and the prosecution both get a fair deal. Public              A
        interest in the proper administration of justice must
        be given as much importance, if not more, as the
        interest of the individual accused. In this courts have
        a vital role to play.' (emphasis in original)
                                                                      B
 30. With the passage of time, the law also developed and
 the dictum of the court emphasised that in a criminal case,
 the fate of proceedings cannot always be left entirely in the
 hands of the parties. Crime is a public wrong, in breach
 and violation of public rights and duties, which affects the         C
 community as a whole and is harmful to the society in
 general.

 31. Reiterating the above principle, this Court in NHRC
 v. State of Gujarat held as under: (SCC pp, 777-78, para
 ~                                                                    D
        '6 .... "35 .... The concept of fair trial entails familiar
        triangulation of interests of the accused, the victim
        and the society and it is the community that acts
        through the State and prosecuting agencies.                   E
        Interest of society is not to be treated completely
        with disdain and as persona non grata. The courts
        have always been considered to have an overriding
        duty to maintain public confidence in the
        administration of justic~ften referred to as the
                                                                      F
        duty to vindicate and uphold the 'majesty of the law'.
        Due administration of justice has always been
        viewed as a continuous process, not confined to
        determination of the particular case, protecting its
        ability to function as a court of law in the future as
        in the case before it. If a criminal court is to be an        G
        effective instrument in dispensing justice, the
        Presiding Judge must cease to be a spectator and
        a mere recording machine by becoming a
        participant in the trial evincing intelligence, active
       ·interest and elicit all relevant materials necessary          H
    18       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (2013] 3 S.C.R.


A               for reaching the correct conclusion, to find out the
                truth, and administer justice with fairness and
                impartiality both to the parties and to the community
                it serves. The courts administering criminal justice
                cannot turn a blind eye to vexatious or oppressive
B               conduct that has occurred in relation to
                proceedmgs, even if a fair trial is still possible,
                except at the risk of undermining the fair name and
                standing of the Judges as impartial and
                independeAt adjudicators." (Zahira Habibullah case,
c               sec p. 395, para 35)'
         32. In State of Kamataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy this Court
         occasioned to consider the similar question of defective
         investigation as to whether any manipulation in the station
         house diary by the investigating officer could be put against
D        the prosecution case. This Court, in para 19, held as
         follows: (SCC p.720) ·
                  I

                '19. But can the above finding (that the station
                house diary is not genuine) have any inevitable
E               bearing on the other evidence in this case? If the
                other evidence, on scrutiny, is found credible and
                acceptable, should the court be influenced QY the
                machinations demonstrated by the investigating
                officer in conducting investigation or in preparing
F               the records so unscrupulously? It can be a guiding
                principle that as investigation is not the solitary area
                for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial, the conclusion
                of the court in the case cannot be allowed to
                depend solely on the probity of investigation. It is
G               well-nigh settled that even if the investigation is
                illegal or even suspicious the rest of the evidence
                must be scrutinised independently of the impact of
                it. Otherwise the criminal trial will plummet to the
                level of the investigating officers ruling the roost.
                The court must have predominance and pre-
H
HEMA v. STATE, THR. _INSPECTOR OF. POLICE,                 19
        MADRAS [P. SATHASIVAM, J.].
                                          I

       · eminence in criminal trials over the action taken by A
         the investigating officers. The criminal justice should
         not be made a casualty for the wrongs committed
         by the investigating officers in the case. In other
         words, if the court is convinced that the testimony
         of a witness to the occurrence is true the court is B
         free to act on it albeit the investigating -0fficer's
         suspicious role in the case.'

  33. In Ram Bali v. State of U.P. the judgment in Kamel
- Singh v. State of M.P. was reiterated and this Court had
  observed that: (Ram Bali case 15·, SCC p. 604, para C
  12)

        '12 .... In case of defective investigation the co'urt
        has to be circumspect [while] evaluating the
        evidence. But it would not be right in acquitting an     D
        accused person solely on account of the defect; to
        do so would tantamount to playing into the hands
        of the investigation officer if ·the investigation is
        designedly defective.'
                                                                 E
 34. Where our criminal justice system provides safeguards
 of fair trial and innocent till proven guilty to an accused,
 there it also contemplates that a criminal trial is meant for
 doing justice to all, the accused, the society and a fair
 chance to prove to the prosecution. Then alone can law          F.
 and order be maintained. The courts do not merely
 discharge the function to ensure that no innocent man is
 punished, but also that a guilty man does not escape. Both
 are public duties of the Judge. During the course of the
 trial, the learned Presiding Judge is expected to work
 objectively and in a correct perspective. Where the             G
 prosecution attempts to misdirect the trial on the basis of
 a perfunctory or designedly defective investigation, there
 the court is to be deeply cautious and ertsure that despite
 such an attempt, the determinative process is not
                                                                 H
    20        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 3 S.C.R.


A        subverted. For truly attaining this object of a 'fair trial', the
         court should leave no stone unturned to do justice and
         protect the interest of the society as well.
         35. This brings us to an ancillary issue as to how the court
B        would appreciate the evidence in such cases. The
         possibility of some variations in the exhibits, medical and
         ocular evidence cannot be ruled out. But it is not that every
         minor variation or inconsistency would tilt the balance of
         justice in favour of the accused. Of course, where
         contradictions and variations are of a serious nature, which
c        apparently or impliedly are destructive of the substantive
         case sought to be proved by the prosecution, they may
         provide an advantage to the accused. The courts, nonnally,
         look at expert evidence with a greater sense of
         acceptability, but it is equally true that the courts are not
D        absolutely guided by the report of the experts, especially
         if such reports are perfunctory, unsustainable and are the
         result of a deliberate attempt to misdirect the prosecution.
         In Kamaljit Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court, while
         dealing with discrepancies between ocular and medical
E        evidence, held: (SCC p. 159, para 8)
         '8. It is trite law that minor variations between medical
         evidence and ocular evidence do not take away the
         primacy of the latter. Unless medical evidence in its tenn
F        goes so far as to completely rule out all possibilities
         whatsoever of injurie~taking place in the manner stated
         by the eyewitnesses, the testimony of the eyewitnesses
         cannot be thrown out.'\
         36. Where the eyewitness account is found credible and
G        trustworthy, medical opinion pointing to alternative
         possibilities may not be accepted as conclusive. ·
                '34 .... The expert witness is expected to put before
                the court all materials inclusive of the data which
H               induced him to come to the conclusion and
  . HEMA v. STATE, THR. INSPECTOR OF POLICE,                       21
            MADRAS [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
             enlighten the court on the technical aspect of the          A
             case by [examining] the terms of science so that the
             court although, not an expert may form its own
             judgment on those materials after giving due regard
             to the expert's opinion, because once the expert's
             opinion is accepted, it is not the opinion of the           B
             medical officer but [that] of the court."'

      13. It is clear that merely because of some defect in the
investigation, lapse on the part of the 1.0., it cannot be a ground
for acquittal. Further, even if there had been negligence on the
part of the investigating agency or omissions etc., it is the            C
obligation on the· part of the Court to scrutinize the prosecution
evidence de hors such lapses to find out whether the said
evidence is reliable or not and whether such lapses affect the
object of finding out the truth. In the light of the above principles,
as· noticed, we reject the main contention of the learned counsel        D
for the appellant, however, as observed in the above decisions,
let us examine the material relied on by the prosecution and
find out whether a case has been made out against the
appellant.
                                                                         E
Discussion as to the merits of the prosecution case:

     14. It is the claim of the appellant that the prosecution has
not proved that the travel agency was purported to have been
run by S. Rajendran (A-3) for the purpose of submitting passport
applications. According to the appellant, Exh.P-2 to P-43 is             F
incorrect. The said contention is liable to be rejected since
Palaniappan (PW-11), who is the owner of the building bearing
No.48/9, MCT Building, near Bus Stand, Karaikudi has leased
out the first floor of the said building to S. Rajendran (A-3) for
the purpose of running a travel agency in the name and style             G
of Goodluck Travels. Even in the cross-examination, PW-11,
the owner of the said building, admitted that A-3 was a tenant
under him. In addition to the same, it is also clear from the
evidence of one gawood (PW-13) that Rajendran (A-3) was
running ;a travel agency at Karaikudi in the name and style of           H
                                                                                     /




          22                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS        (2013) 3 S.C.R..


   A Goodluck Travels. It is also relevant to point out that as per the
       evidence of Assistant Registrar, Ramanad District (PW-9),
       Goodluck Travels was registered as a firm in the Office of the
     · District Registrar, Karaikudi. It is clear from the above materials
     ·that A-3 was occupying the said premises pertaining to PW-
   8 11 during the period from 1991-93 and he was running a travel
       agency in.that place. :                                                  '
                                                                                '
    ·.'   '
                                                                                l
             · · 15. The Claim of the appellant that there is no evidence to    l
                                                                                I
          show that Exh.P.:2 to P-43 had been·presented by the
          Goodluck Travels is incorrect since Her:na (A-5), who was             I
    C working as a clerk in the said travel agency of A-3 has admitted
                                                                                I
                                                                                i.
         ·in the sta~ement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
                                                                                !'


          Proi:edure that at the relevant time she was working with the
       ' Gocidluck Travels and she used to submit the passport
                                                                                i
  .·. • . applications in the' passport office and receive the passports
  'D ··'from the office. The above statement makes it clear that she
                                                                                I
                                                                                \   ...
  ·:::'.·\was assisting S. Rajendran (A-3) in preparing apj)lications and
  ·. · filing them before the passport office and dealing the affairs
        ' connected therewith .. This fact is also evident from Exh. P-2,
          which is a folder marked on the side of the prosecution and
    E r captioned as "Goodluck Travels".

            . 16.. The other relevant aspect is the admissible portion of .
      . the confessional statement of A-3 which is marked as Exh.P-
    .. 215            and
                   which led to the recovery of forged/fabricated rubber
   F    stan;ip seals; M.Os 1 to 3 seized at his behest under Exh.P-
        216, the Mazahar, in the presence of Village Administrative
       ·Officer (PW~15) and Village Menial also prove the prosecution
        case arid disprove. the stand of the. appellant. .
              •   -         ••-   •   >   •




       . :. ·. ·' 17; The trial Court, on.verification and perusal of Exh.P-2
     G to P-43; passport applications, noted that the same were filed
        by Goodluck Travels. ·ins pointed outthat the applicant
· · .· ·concerned in Exh.P-2'(passport application) namely,· Shri
        Rasool, authorized M/s Goodluck Travels to deal with the
        matter relating to his passport and to receive the same on his
     H behalf. The evidence of PW-12 and PW-13 also lends credence
 ·HEMA v. STATE, THR. INSPECTOR OF POLICE,                      23
          MADRAS [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
to the above aspect. Further, we have already noted that the         A
appellant (A-5) has admitted in her examination under Section
313 that she was working with Goodluck Travels and she used
to submit the applications in the passport office and receive
the passports from the office.·
                                                                       B
       18. Next, it is contended by the appellant that the police
 verification forms, namely, Exh.128 to 136 and 161 to 202 were
 not proved to have been forged in the light of the fact that the
 subsequent signatures of PWs 16 and 29 were not sent to PW-
 28, the hand writing expert, for his opinion. The said contention C
 is liable to be rejected in view of the categorical statement of
 Shri Selvin (PW-26), DSP, DCRB, Ramanad who has stated
 that as soon as the personal particulars, forms of passport
 applications were received from the Passport Office for police ·
 verification, they were entered in the register maintained for the
,purpose and each application was given a number and all the D
 applications were sent to the respective Police Stations for
 report. He further explained that after verification by the officials
 concerned, the paper would again come to the office of DSP,
 DCRB for forwarding the same to the concerned Passport
 Offices. He asserted that 42 application forms, viz., Exh. P-2 E
 to P-43 were not received at the office of DSP, DCRB,
 Ramanad. He also highlighted that these forms were neither
 sent to the sub-Inspector of Police Thiruvadanai for verification
 nor received back from the S.I. Police and not dispatched to
 the Passport Office, Trichy for recommendation for issue of F
 passports. A perusal of the evidence of Shri Natarajan (PW-
 16), DSP, R. Muniyadi (PW-29), Sub-Inspector of Police clearly
 shows that they did not sign the verification forms. PW-29
 specifically stated that during the relevant time, passport
 applications (Exh.P-2 to 43) were not received by his office and G
 he did not sign the verification forms Exh.P-161 to P-202. It is
 clear from their statements and assertions that the verification
 forms of the said 42 applications have not been dealt with by
 the concerned officials and the trial Judge was right in
 concluding that they were forged. Mere non-production of H
    24        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 3 S.C.R.

A registers maintained in the office of DSP, DCRB, Ramanad
  cannot be construed to be an infirmity in this case in the light
  of the evidence of PWs 16, 26 and 29 who are relevant officers
  concerned with those documents.

       19. Regarding the contention that the specimen signatures
8
  of Dr. Muthu (PW-18), Civil Surgeon, Government Hospital and
  Shri Vairavan (PW-20), Executive Officer (Retired), Town
  Panchayat, Thondi in Ramanad District, who are all
  independent witnesses, were not forged, it is very much clear
  from their evidence that their signatures were forged in the
C applications. There is no reason to disbelieve their evidence
  and the trial Judge has rightly accepted the same.
       20. Regarding the evidence of Village Administrative
  Officers and the certificates issued by them, it is relevant to point
D out that those documents were properly marked through Village
  Administrative Officers of the villages concerned and also by
  the officers who made a field enquiry for the same. We are
  satisfied that there is no legal infirmity as claimed.
E       21. Insofar as the contention relating to recoveries of M.Os
  1 to 3 - Seals of Superintendent of Police, Ramanad, as rightly
  concluded by the trial Court, the evidence of the concerned
  Village Administrative Officers, Deputy Superintendent of
  Police, Civil Surgeon (PW-18), Government Hospital, Executive
  Officer (Retired) of Town Panchayat (PW-20) are sufficient to
F establish that the forged attested documents were created and
  enclosed for the purpose of getting passports in support of false
  addresses given in the applications by the appellant. The above
  fact is also evident from the evidence of Village Administrative
  Officer (PW-15), Thiruvadanani, the confessional statement
G given by A-3 which was recorded under Section 27 of the
  Evidence Act in his presence and M.Os 1 to 3 which were
  recovered under a cover of mazahar (Exh. P-216) at the behest
  of A-3 and the admissible portion of the evidence leading to
  recovery which is marked as Exh. 215. The contradictions as
H pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant are only




                                                             ••
   HEMA v. STATE, THR. INSPECTOR OF POLICE,                   25
           MADRAS [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

trivial in nature as found by both the trial Court and the High      A
Court, accordingly, it cannot be construed to be a material one
so as to affect the version of the prosecution. We are satisfied
that there is no infirmity in the recovery and reject the argument
of the learned counsel for the appellant.
                                                                     B
     22. Coming to the next contention, namely, the failure of
the prosecution to exhibit the report of FSL, Chennai with regard
to the impression of seals M.Os 1 to 3 is fatal to the
prosecution, it is relevant to note that PWs 16, 26 and 29 DSPs
and S.I. of Police have categorically denied the genuineness         C
of the above seals since the same were recovered pursuant
to the confessional statement of A-3 and the absence of expert
opinion by itself does not absolve the liability of the appellant.

     23. The contention that the evidence of Sundaram (PW-
14), who was examined for the purpose of proving the D
handwriting of the appellant and whose competency to identify
the writing of the appellant itself is doubtful, as rightly pointed
out by the respondent that it was admitted by A-5 (appellant
herein), while questioning under Section 313 that she had been
working in Sugir Tours and Travels run by PW-14 during 1987- E
91 and, hence, the evidence of PW-14, who identified the
writings available in Exhs.P-2 to P-43 as that of A-5 is
admissible under Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act. We
are satisfied that the same was rightly acted upon by the trial
Court and the High Court while holding the charge against the . F
accused-appellant as proved to have committed in pursuance
of the conspiracy.

       24. Finally, the contention of the appellant that simply
  because the applications were filled up b,y a person does not      G
  automatically lead to the inference that a person is a party to
  the conspiracy. In the case on hand, it is very well established
  by the prosecution that the filled up passport applications were
· submitted by A-5 (appellant herein) on behalf of her employer
  A-3. Further, in majority of passport applications (Exh. P-2 to
  P-43), bogus particulars were filled by A-5 (appellant herein),    H
     26        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                f2013] 3 S.C.R.


A at Trichy. The prosecution has also established that A-5 f\as
  given false particulars regarding the place of residence of
  applicants' in the passport applications in view of her admission
  in 313 statement that she was working in Goodluck Travels and
  assisting Rajendran (A-3) in preparing applications and filing
B them before the Passport Office as well as handling the affairs
  connected therewith which clearly prove that A-5 has filled up
  the said passport applications (Exh.P-2 to P-43). We are also
  satisfied that the prosecution has clearly established that false
  documents were made for the purpose of cheating and those
c documents were used as genuine for obtaining passports.
       25. In the light of the overwhelming evidence placed by the
  prosecution, analyzed by the trial Court and affirmed by the High
  Court, interference by this Court with concurrent findings of fact
  by the courts below is not warranted except where there is som_e
D serious infirmity in the appreciation of evidence and the findings
  are perverse. Further, this Court will not ordinarily interfere with
  appreciation of evidence by the High Court and re-appreciation-
  is permissible only if an error of law or procedure and
  conclusion arrived are perverse.
E
       26. Taking note of the fact that the appellant is having a
  small child, while confirming the conviction we reduce the
  sentence to six months from two years.

F.        27. With the above modification i.e., reduction of sentence,
     the appeal stands disposed of.
     K.K.T.                                    Appeal disposed of.