Safiya Malik

The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal challenging the conviction of an Indian Airlines official found guilty of forging airline tickets for pecuniary gain. The appellant, who was serving as a Traffic Superintendent at Jammu Airport, had been convicted by both the Trial Court and the High Court under Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Ranbir Penal Code, 1989, along with Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Supreme Court, upon examining the findings of the lower courts, held that there was no irregularity or illegality in the conviction and upheld the concurrent sentences of six months of simple imprisonment for each offense, with a fine of Rs. 5,000 per charge.

The case arose from an incident on November 19, 1997, when the appellant, who was manning the Indian Airlines ticket sale counter at Jammu Airport, allegedly prepared an infant ticket under a fictitious name and later altered it to reflect an adult ticket. This manipulation enabled an individual to travel from Jammu to Delhi on a forged ticket, resulting in a financial loss to Indian Airlines. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered the case following a complaint by an official from the vigilance department of Indian Airlines.

The complaint filed by Romesh Malhotra, Manager (Vigilance), Indian Airlines, stated that a travel agency, M/s. Blue Bird Tours & Travel, in connivance with certain Indian Airlines officials, procured infant tickets and fraudulently modified them into adult tickets by altering fare and sector details. During an internal audit, a ticket issued in the name of "Master Azim" for travel from Jammu to Srinagar was found to have been altered to reflect an adult ticket in the name of "Vikram" for the Jammu-Delhi sector. The investigation revealed that the appellant had deposited Rs. 102 with the cashier for the infant ticket but later altered the flight coupon to reflect an adult fare of Rs. 3,105, allowing Vikram to travel on Flight No. 422 on November 19, 1997.

During the trial, the prosecution examined nine witnesses, including airline officials and a handwriting expert. Key testimonies included those of Ashok Koul (Airport Manager, Indian Airlines, Jammu), Kewal Krishan (Cashier, Indian Airlines, Jammu), and J.P. Jaiswar (Station Manager, Jammu Station). The prosecution presented documentary evidence establishing that airline tickets comprised multiple components—an auditor coupon, a flight coupon, and an office coupon. The court found that the appellant had prepared both the auditor and flight coupons in his own handwriting, subsequently manipulating them to enable unauthorized travel.

The Trial Court relied on the opinion of a handwriting expert and the testimony of J.P. Jaiswar, who was familiar with the appellant’s handwriting. The court concluded that the fraudulent changes in the airline tickets were made by the appellant, as the documents remained in his possession at the time of issuance. Consequently, the Trial Court convicted him under the relevant provisions of the Ranbir Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, sentencing him to six months of simple imprisonment for each offense, to run concurrently, along with a fine.

The High Court, upon examining the evidence, upheld the Trial Court's findings, stating that the appellant, in his capacity as Traffic Superintendent, had forged the tickets, causing financial loss to Indian Airlines. The appellant's defense, which challenged the admissibility of evidence and relied on precedents such as Sait Tarajee Khimchand vs. Yelamarti Satyam (1971), Ram Narain vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1973), and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra (1984), was rejected. The High Court held that the prosecution had successfully established the appellant’s involvement in manipulating travel documents.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant stated the arguments raised in the lower courts, contending that the prosecution had failed to prove the forgery beyond reasonable doubt. However, the Supreme Court, after examining the evidence and findings of both the Trial Court and the High Court, held that there was no merit in the appeal. The court observed:

"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."

The Supreme Court held that the findings of the lower courts were based on cogent evidence, including documentary proof and expert testimony. Concluding that there were no grounds for interference, the court dismissed the appeal, thereby upholding the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower courts.

Case Title: Surinder Dogra vs. State Through Director CBI
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1020 of 2022
Bench: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

[Read/Download order]