SURINDER DOGRAversusSTATE THROUGH DIRECTOR CBI

                 [2025] 2 S.C.R. 696 : 2025 INSC 258

                             Surinder Dogra
                                   v.
                       State Through Director CBI
                     (Criminal Appeal No. 1020 of 2022)
                               21 February 2025
     [Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prashant Kumar Mishra,* JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Whether the concurrent conviction of the appellant under Sections
       420, 468 and 471, Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 and Section 5(1)(d)
       read with Section 5 (2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was
       justified.

                                   Headnotes†
       Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 – ss.420, 468 and 471 – Prevention of
       Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.5 (1) (d), 5 (2) – Appellant posted as
       Traffic Superintendent, Indian Airlines, Jammu at the relevant
       time prepared an infant ticket in a fictitious name and then
       tampered the flight coupon of the same ticket by way of
       forgery to make it an adult ticket causing loss to the Airlines
       and obtaining pecuniary advantage for himself – Convicted
       concurrently – Challenge to:
       Held: Impugned judgment of the High Court not interfered with –
       Report of the handwriting expert (PW-8) and that of PW-5, prove
       that on the date of offence the appellant was issuing air tickets at
       Jammu Airport of the Indian Airlines and under his handwriting the
       questioned auditor coupon and flight coupon were issued – It was
       the appellant who issued the auditor coupon and the flight coupon
       allowing Mr. ‘V’ to travel by paying fare of Rs. 102/- instead of the
       infant, who was issued the original ticket for Rs. 102/- – It was
       the appellant alone who could have manipulated the document
       because the subject coupons were in his possession on the relevant
       date – Appellant committed offence u/ss.420, 468 and 471, RPC
       and s.5 (1) (d) r/w s.5 (2), 1988 Act. [Paras 6-9]

                                Case Law Cited
       Sait Tarajee Khimchand v. Yelamarti Satyam, AIR (1971) SC 1865;
       Ram Narain v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1973] 3 SCR 911 : AIR
* Author
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                              697

              Surinder Dogra v. State Through Director CBI


     (1973) SC 2200; Kale & Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation &
     Ors. [1976] 3 SCR 202 : AIR (1976) SC 807; Sharad Birdhichand
     Sarda v. State of Maharashtra AIR (1984) SC 1622; State of
     Rajasthan v. Islam AIR (2011) SCW 1748; V.C. Shukla v. State
     Through CBI [1980] 2 SCR 380 : AIR (1980) SC 962 – referred to.

                                 List of Acts
     Ranbir Penal Code, 1989; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Code
     of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

                              List of Keywords
     Concurrent conviction; Traffic Superintendent; Indian Airlines; Infant
     ticket; Fictitious name; Tampered; Flight coupon; Forgery; Auditor
     coupon; Adult ticket; Loss to the Airlines; Pecuniary advantage;
     Handwriting expert.

                             Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
     1020 of 2022
     From the Judgment and Order dated 12.04.2019 of the High Court
     of J&K at Jammu in CRA No. 03 of 2006

                         Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellant:
     Ankush Manhas, P. D. Sharma.
     Advs. for the Respondent:
     Brijender Chahar, A.S.G., Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Anukalp Jain,
     Vvv. Pattabhi Ram, Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, Praneet Pranav, Digvijay
     Dam.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                 Judgment

     Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

1.   The appellant has been convicted concurrently by the Trial Court
     and the High Court, under the impugned judgment, for committing
     offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Ranbir
698                                                            [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


       Penal Code (RPC) of 19891 and Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5
       (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and has been sentenced
       to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for each
       of the offence and to pay a fine of Rs 5,000/- for each of the offence.
       The sentence has been directed to run concurrently.
2.     At the relevant time, the appellant was posted as Traffic Superintendent,
       Indian Airlines, Jammu. The allegation against the appellant is that on
       19.11.1997, while manning the ticket sale counter at Jammu Airport,
       he prepared an infant ticket in a fictitious name and tampered by way
       of forgery its flight coupon to make it an adult ticket, thereby obtaining
       pecuniary advantage for himself and causing loss to the Airlines.
3.     Shri Romesh Malhotra, Manager (Vigilance), Indian Airlines lodged
       a complaint on 27.12.1997 on which CBI registered the present
       crime. It was stated in the complaint that M/s. Blue Bird Tours &
       Travel in connivance with Shri Rattan Chand and some unknown
       officials of Indian Airlines, Jammu were able to procure infant tickets
       from Indian Airlines office, which were tampered from infant tickets
       to adult tickets, from shorter distance to longer distance, from infant
       fare to adult fare and sold to various persons. One flight coupon in
       favour of Mr. Vikram for sector Jammu to Delhi was issued by Indian
       Airlines for travel on 19.11.1997 but when the auditor coupon of this
       ticket number was checked up it was found that the auditor coupon
       was in favour of master Azim (infant) and the sector was Jammu
       to Srinagar mentioned therein. It was subsequently revealed that
       the appellant was manning the ticket sale counter on the said date,
       and he prepared the infant ticket in a fictitious name called Master
       Azim and deposited Rs. 102/- with the Cashier vide pay-in-slip dated
       19.11.1997. Subsequently, he tampered the flight coupon of the same
       ticket by way of forgery and made it an adult ticket in the name of one
       Vikram while changing the sector as Jammu-Delhi with fare at Rs.
       3105/-. Thus, the appellant enabled Mr. Vikram to travel to Delhi on
       the forged ticket by flight no. 422 dated 19.11.1997 on seat no. 14.
4.     On completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed and in course
       of trial the prosecution examined 09 witnesses. The appellant/accused
       having not pleaded guilty, was subsequently examined under Section
       313 Cr.P.C. but he did not lead any evidence in defence.


1    ‘RPC’
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                          699

              Surinder Dogra v. State Through Director CBI



5.   Basing on the evidence of PW-1 (Ashok Koul), Airport Manager,
     Indian Airlines, Jammu; PW-2 (Kewal Krishan), Cashier, Indian
     Airlines, Jammu; PW-3 (Romesh Malhotra), Manager, Vigilance,
     Delhi Region; PW-4 (J. Chandera Hassan), Sr. Assistant, Indian
     Airline, Vigilance Office, New Delhi; PW-5 (J.P. Jaiswar), Station
     Manager, Jammu Station; PW-8 (H.M. Saxena) Deputy Government
     Examiner of Questioned Documents, Shimla and PW-9 (SPS Dutta),
     Investigating Officer, the Trial Court recorded a finding that every
     ticket has three or four leaves. First leaf is called the Auditor coupon,
     second the flight coupon and third the office coupon. There are two
     flight coupons if the ticket is for more than one sector and that the
     same person issues the auditor coupon and the flight coupon. The
     auditor coupon has red carbon on its back and, therefore, whatever
     written on the auditor coupon is reflected on the flight coupon and
     the office coupon. The relevant coupons were prepared by the
     appellant on 19.11.1997 as it was, he who was operating the ticket
     sale counter at Jammu Airport and his duty was to prepare and sell
     the Indian Airlines tickets to the passengers. He first prepared infant
     ticket in the name of Master Azim and subsequently, he incorporated
     a false conjunction ticket and tampered the flight coupon of the
     same ticket by way of forgery showing it to be an adult ticket in the
     name of Mr. Vikram while changing the sector from Jammu to Delhi.
     In the result, the appellant enabled the said Vikram to travel from
     Jammu to Delhi.` Further basing on the opinion of the handwriting
     expert and that of PW-5 (J.P. Jaiswar) who was acquainted with
     the handwriting of the appellant, learned Trial Court recorded a
     categorical finding that the auditor coupon and the flight coupon
     available on record are in the handwriting and under signatures
     of the appellant. He has proved the auditor coupon issued in the
     name of infant Master Azim and conjunction number in the name
     of Mr. Vikram. Thus, the Trial Court held the appellant guilty for
     committing the charged offences.
6.   The High Court has affirmed the finding, upon reappreciation of
     evidence. Thus, it is concurrently held that the appellant was posted
     as Traffic Superintendent on the relevant date discharging duty
     of issuing air tickets to the passengers and it was he, under his
     handwriting, has issued the auditor coupon and the flight coupon
     allowing Mr. Vikram to travel by paying fare of Rs. 102/- instead of
     Master Azim, infant, who was issued the original ticket for Rs. 102/-.
700                                                        [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


7.     Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we have not found
       any such illegality or irregularity in the finding of guilt recorded
       by the Trial Court and the High Court holding the appellant guilty
       of committing the offence under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of
       the Ranbir Penal Code of 1989 and Section 5 (1) (d) read with
       Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
8.     Although, the learned counsel for the appellant has referred the
       judgments in the case of Sait Tarajee Khimchand vs. Yelamarti
       Satyam,2 Ram Narain vs. State of Uttar Pradesh,3 Kale & Ors. vs.
       Deputy Director of Consolidation & Ors.,4 Sharad Birdhichand
       Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra,5 State of Rajasthan vs. Islam6&
       V.C. Shukla vs. State Through CBI7 to contend that there is absolute
       lack of admissible evidence to prove that the appellant has committed
       the forgery by manipulating the ticket, yet in view of the report of
       the handwriting expert (H.M. Sexena/PW-8) and that of J.P. Jaiswar
       (PW-5), it is proved that on the date of offence the appellant was
       discharging the duty of issuance of air tickets at Jammu Airport of
       the Indian Airlines and under his handwriting the questioned auditor
       coupon and flight coupon were issued. We are in full agreement
       with the finding recorded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High
       Court that it was the appellant alone who could have manipulated
       the document because the subject coupons were in his possession
       on the relevant date.
9.     For the foregoing, we have not found any good ground to interfere
       with the impugned judgment of the High Court. The appeal being
       sans substance, it deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

       Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.



       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey



2    AIR (1971) SC 1865
3    AIR (1973) SC 2200
4    AIR (1976) SC 807
5    AIR (1984) SC 1622
6    AIR (2011) SCW 1748
7    AIR (1980) SC 962