The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent conviction of a Traffic Superintendent accused of forging Indian Airlines tickets thereby obtaining pecuniary advantage for himself and causing loss to the Airlines.

The Appeal before the Apex Court was filed by the appellant 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 Penal Code (RPC) of 1989 and Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for each of the offence.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra held, “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.”

AOR P. D. Sharma represented the Appellant while ASG Brijender Chahar represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The appellant was posted as a Traffic Superintendent at Indian Airlines, Jammu. It was alleged that in the year 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. The Manager (Vigilance) of Indian Airlines lodged a complaint on which CBI registered the present crime.

It was stated in the complaint that M/s. Blue Bird Tours & Travel in connivance with one Rattan Chand and some unknown officials of Indian Airlines, Jammu were able to procure infant tickets from the Indian Airlines office, which were tampered with from infant tickets to adult tickets, from shorter distances to longer distance, from infant fare to adult fare and sold to various persons. By forging the ticket in question, the appellant enabled one Vikram to travel to Delhi on the forged ticket. 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. Thus, the Trial Court held the appellant guilty of committing the charged offences and the High Court affirmed the same findings. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Bench discarded the submission that there was an absolute lack of admissible evidence to prove that the appellant had committed the forgery. “...in view of the report of the handwriting expert (H.M. Sexena/PW8) 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”, the Bench said.

The Bench supported the view that the appellant alone could have manipulated the document because the subject coupons were in his possession on the relevant date. On a perusal of the submissions on record, the Bench did not find any 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.

Thus, finding no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgments, the Bench dismissed the Appeal.

Cause Title: Surinder Dogra v. State Through Director CBI (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 258)

Appearance:

Appellant: AOR P. D. Sharma

Respondent: ASG Brijender Chahar, AOR Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advocates Anukalp Jain, VVV. Pattabhi Ram, Aakanksha Kaul, Praneet Pranav, Digvijay Dam

Click here to read/download Judgment






Justice Sudhanshu DhuliaJustice Prashant Kumar MishraPrevention of Corruption Act

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.