Summary
The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent conviction of an Indian Airlines Traffic Superintendent for cheating, forgery and criminal misconduct, holding that the handwriting expert's report and the testimony of a witness familiar with his handwriting proved that he alone prepared and tampered the auditor and flight coupons of a ticket converted from an infant ticket to an adult one.
Issues
- Whether there was admissible evidence proving that the appellant forged the flight coupon of an infant ticket to make it an adult ticket for a different sector.
- Whether the concurrent conviction under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Ranbir Penal Code and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act called for interference.
Provisions considered
- Sections 420, 468 and 471, Ranbir Penal CodeThe concurrent findings that the appellant issued an infant ticket in a fictitious name, then forged the flight coupon into an adult Jammu-Delhi ticket and enabled a passenger to travel on it, were upheld as establishing cheating, forgery for the purpose of cheating and use of the forged document. (¶¶ 1, 5, 7, 8)
- Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as in force in Jammu and Kashmir)The conviction for criminal misconduct by a public servant obtaining pecuniary advantage and causing loss to the Airlines was affirmed, the Court finding no illegality or irregularity in the finding of guilt. (¶¶ 1, 2, 7)
Held
- The opinion of the handwriting expert, together with the evidence of a witness acquainted with the appellant's handwriting, proved that the questioned auditor coupon and flight coupon were written and signed by the appellant, who was manning the ticket counter on the date of the offence. (¶¶ 5, 8)
- Since the coupons were in the appellant's possession on the relevant date, the Courts below were right to conclude that he alone could have manipulated them; the plea of total absence of admissible evidence was rejected. (¶ 8)
- No illegality or irregularity was found in the concurrent finding of guilt, and the sentence of six months' simple imprisonment with fine on each count, running concurrently, was left undisturbed. (¶¶ 1, 7, 9)
Result
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed.