JUDGMENT G.Jayachandran, J. The appeal against conviction and sentence is preferred by the first accused in C.C.No.6 of 2007 on the file of the learned II-Additional Sessions Judge (CBI Cases), Madurai, vide judgment dated 29.10.2009. 2. The appellant herein is the first among nine accused tried by the trial Court. Pending appeal, one of the nine accused involved in the said crime of impersonation, forging documents and obtaining passport with false documents. One of the accused by name, Sagayamari @ Geetha have left the country using the Indian Passport issued based on the false and fake documents. She being a Srilankan national, with connivance of the accused persons, was able to get Indian passport and flee away from India to join her husband at London. Due to her abscondance, she has been split up and C.C.No.9 of 2007 has been arisen. This appellant is the first among the other eight accused being tried by the trial Court. 3. Before the trial Court, eight accused were charged. Among them, the eighth accused S.Ragupathy, IAS, Joint Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu died pending trial on 24.06.2009. Hence, charge against him got abated. The trial Court found this appellant-Kumar(A1) and Mohamed Ibrahim(A2) guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 420, 468, 471 IPC; Section 12(1)(b) and 12(2) of the Passports Act, 1967; Sections 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 420 IPC and Sections 120(B), 420, 468, 471 IPC; Section 12(1)(b) and 12(2) of the Passports Act, 1967; Sections 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, respectively. 4. The other accused(A2)-Mohammed Ibrahim, who was also found guilty by the trial Court had preferred Crl.A.(MD).No.376 of 2017. Pending appeal, died and hence, the appeal got abated. 5. The charge against this appellant is that he conspired with the other accused persons to do an illegal act to obtain Indian passport by using fake and forged documents such as ration card, school certificate, birth certificate and false verification certificate by illegal means. In pursuant to the said conspiracy, he obtained passport bearing Nos.E0669282 and E0669286 by submitting false documents and cheated the passport office by dishonestly inducing the passport office to deliver the passports. In pursuant to the said conspiracy, he obtained passport bearing Nos.E0669282 and E0669286 by submitting false documents and cheated the passport office by dishonestly inducing the passport office to deliver the passports. Further, he was charged for giving false information to get passport for Sagayamari, absconding accused and his daughter, Dharshini, who are Srilankan nationals to get Indian passport by furnishing details of his wife Smt.Geetha and his daughter Miss.Anusuya. Though the appellant had two Indian passports in his name, he had obtained another passport dishonestly by furnishing false information. The trial Court after considering the evidence let in by the prosecution convicted the appellant for the offence under Sections 120(B) r/w. 420, 448, 471 IPC; Section 12(1)(b) and 12(2) of the Passports Act, 1967; Sections 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 420 IPC and Sections 12(1)(b) and 12(2)of the Passports Act, 1967. The trial Court sentenced him to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to undergo two months Rigorous Imprisonment for the offences under Sections 120(B) r/w. 420, 448, 471 IPC; Section 12(1)(b) and 12(2) of the Passports Act, 1967; Sections 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to undergo two months Rigorous Imprisonment for the offences under Section 420 IPC., one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to undergo two months Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 12(1)(b) of the Passports Act, 1967; one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to undergo two months Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 12(2) of the Passports Act, 1967. Total fine amount imposed on the appellant is Rs. 4000/- and the period of sentence was ordered to run concurrently. 6. 1000/-, in default, to undergo two months Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 12(2) of the Passports Act, 1967. Total fine amount imposed on the appellant is Rs. 4000/- and the period of sentence was ordered to run concurrently. 6. The facts lead to this appeal is as follows: Based on reliable information the Inspector of Police/CBI/SCB, Chennai, Mr.G.Kalaimani registered First Information Report on 28.01.2005 to the effect that some of the officials of passport office, Trichy has entered into criminal conspiracy with travel agents and individuals, and in pursuant to the said criminal conspiracy, passport applications were submitted in fictitious names, accompanied with forged/fake family ration card, fake/false verification certificate and has obtained four passports in the name of Mr.Abdul Kadar Jamaludieen, Mr.J.Joseph, K.Geetha and Miss. K.Anusha. When the passports were sent to the address mentioned in the passport application form, they were returned to the passport office un-delivered since the addresses are false. However, the returned passports were kept under safe custody at the passport office, Trichy, which were later removed by the officials of the passport office and handed over to the individuals. 6.1. On completion of investigation final report was filed against this appellant and Others for specific act pursuant to the conspiracy to get passport for Sagayamari and minor Dharshini in the name of Geetha and Anusha (wife and daughter of this appellant) by affixing the photograph of Sagayamari and minor Dharshini respectively, by furnishing fake ration card and false address proof. Application for passport was made by the appellant for Sagayamari and Dharshini by enclosing forged and fabricated documents mentioned above. 6.2. For the said purpose, the appellant has contacted one Meeran-sub agent of Namakkal Lakshmi Travel Agency at Trichy and Chennai, who in turn introduced the accused/appellant to Senthil kumar-the proprietor of Namakkal Lakshmi Travel Agency, Trichy. When the police verification was sought by the passport office, Sri.R.Pandian(A5)-the Sub Inspector of Police, attached to Sayalkudi Police station has issued a clear police verification certificate in favour of the appellant as if the appellant is the resident of No.79, East Street, S.Mariyur Village, Kadaladi Taluk, Ramanathapuram. When the police verification was sought by the passport office, Sri.R.Pandian(A5)-the Sub Inspector of Police, attached to Sayalkudi Police station has issued a clear police verification certificate in favour of the appellant as if the appellant is the resident of No.79, East Street, S.Mariyur Village, Kadaladi Taluk, Ramanathapuram. As far as the passport application in the name of Geetha and Anusha, for Sahayamari and her daughter Miss.Dharshini, one Shenbagakumar has arranged school certificate, birth certificate and also a verification certificate obtained from S.Ragupathy, IAS-Joint Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu, Labour and Employment Department to get passport under tatkal scheme. 6.3. This appellant has enclosed his passport copy along with the application form of Miss.Anusha showing that she is his daughter. Infact, the photograph and other address were not that of Anusha, but it is of Miss.Dharshini, daughter of Sagayamari. 6.4. The trial Court tried eight accused in this case for various offences including offence of conspiracy against all of them. This appellant shown as the first accused. This appellant and the second accused Ibrahim were found guilty and other accused were acquitted of all charges. 7. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence both A1 and A2 preferred appeal in Crl.A.(MD).No.376 of 2009 and Crl.A.(MD).No.377 of 2009 respectively. Since A2-Ibrahim died pending appeal, his appeal in Crl.A.(MD).No.376 of 2009 is dismissed as abated on 11.09.2018. 8. Contention of the appellant in the appeal : The Prime contention raised by the appellant herein is that when A3 and A4 were not found guilty and acquitted by the trial Court for all the charges, this appellant cannot be held guilty for the offences under Sections 120(B) r/w 420, 468 and 471 of IPC. The prosecution has failed to prove forgery or using forged document as genuine as against this appellant. The ingredient of cheating to attract Section 420 IPC was not made out through any of the prosecution witnesses. While so, when the conspiracy charge fails and the public servants A5 and A7 being acquitted for all charges, the conspiracy charge for committing cheating, forgery along with public servants do not sustain. 9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence of PW.20 is unreliable. While the trial Court has disbelieved his evidence as against A4, the same benefit ought to have been extended to this accused. 9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence of PW.20 is unreliable. While the trial Court has disbelieved his evidence as against A4, the same benefit ought to have been extended to this accused. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence of PW.29 has been introduced by the prosecution at the fag end of the trial even without recording the previous statement during investigation. 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases. Discussion and decision: 11. This is one of the classic case to understand how vulnerable Indian Sovereignty at the hands of corrupt and dubious people, who occupy high public post. 12. Mrs.Sagayamari and her minor daughter Dharshini are Srilankan nationals. They have entered into Indian soil without valid document and residing at Chennai, Tamil Nadu. Indian passport carrying the photograph of Sagayamari and Anusha has been issued by Trichy Regional Passport Office, based on the application made in the name of Geetha, W/o.Kumar and Anusha, D/o.Kumar, residence of No.79, East Street, S.Mariyur (village ), Kadaladi (taluk), Ramanad District, Tamilnadu. 13. The application of Sagayamari under tatkal scheme has been enclosed with verification certificate issued by one S.Ragupathy, IAS, Joint Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu. In the said certificate the officer of IAS rank has attested the photograph of Sagayamari as Geetha, W/o.Kumar and also certified as a person residing at Ramnad District, S.Mariyur Village and known to him for one year. She carry good moral character and reputation. The other documents enclosed along with her applications are Photocopy of the family ration card in the name of Kumar, resident of 79, East Street, S.Mariyur, Kadaladi, which found to be a fake document. 14. The application in the name of the minor girl Anusha carrying the photograph of Dharshini is enclosed with an sworn affidavit of S.Kumar and Geetha duly notarized by an Advocate by name S.M.M.Hamid Hasan appointed by the Union Government of India under the Notary Act. In this affidavit, Kumar signed as father of the minor child Anusha and as mother of Anusha, Geetha has written her name in capital letters against the column deponents. 15. The applications were prepared and submitted through travel agent Senthil Kumar. In this affidavit, Kumar signed as father of the minor child Anusha and as mother of Anusha, Geetha has written her name in capital letters against the column deponents. 15. The applications were prepared and submitted through travel agent Senthil Kumar. The Sayalkudi police station Sub Inspector of Police- Pandian has recommended to issue passports to them, though there was no such persons residing in the said address, the passports despatched to the said address returned unclaimed and kept in the safe custody. The staff at Regional Passport Office at Trichy has removed the passports dishonestly from the safe custody and handed over to the travel agent Senthil Kumar. He in turn delivered the passports to Mrs.Sagayamari. Later, Sagayamari and her daughter Dharshini has left India with Indian Passport in the name Geetha and Anusha respectively. 16. The crime has came into light when 112 passports kept in the safe custody in the Regional Passport office, Trichy found missing. Out of 112 passports, 52 passports were unclaimed passports returned from S.Mariyur Post office. Hence the Passport officer Thiru.Pandurangan has lodged complaint to CBI. 17. The trial Court has found Kumar(A-1) and Mohamed Ibrahim (A- 2) the conduit, who facilitated to get passports with false documents. Sagayamari @ Geetha still absconding and case against her is split up. Rest of the accused were acquitted of all charges. The State has not filed appeal against acquittal. Pending trial Ragupathi, IAS, who gave verification certificate died. Pending appeal A.2-Mohamed Ibrahim died. As against other accused, who were acquitted by the trial court, CBI has not preferred appeal for reasons best known, though the records and evidence discloses concrete proof of their involvement in the crime. 18. In the said background of the facts, this court, while dismissing the appeal on considering the evidence available, is of the opinion that it is suffice to point out the incriminating evidence proved against this appellant to uphold the judgment of the trial court. (a) The applications for issuance of passports in the name of Smt.Geetha, in the name of K.Anusha and in the name of Kumar are exhibited as documents P-2, P-3 and P-16. The address of these applicants is mentioned as No 79, East Street, S.Mariyoor village, Kadaladi Taluk, Ramnad District. (a) The applications for issuance of passports in the name of Smt.Geetha, in the name of K.Anusha and in the name of Kumar are exhibited as documents P-2, P-3 and P-16. The address of these applicants is mentioned as No 79, East Street, S.Mariyoor village, Kadaladi Taluk, Ramnad District. The investigating officer Mr.Kalaimani (PW-31) during the investigation has written a letter(ExP-27) to the Branch Post Master S.Mariyoor (Post), Kadaladi to verify and inform whether the address No. 79, East Street, Mariyoor exist. If so, whether any passport in the name of Smt.Geetha and Miss.Anusha was delivered in that address. In response to this query, Karuppasamy (PW-14) has written a letter Ex P-28 informing that there is no such address and no such person. The passport sent to that address was returned to sender (Trichy Passport office). In his testimony, PW-14 has deposed that the passport of Kumar was received by one Allahudeen claiming himself as friend of Kumar. The other two passports sent to Geetha and Anusha was returned to sender for want of proper address and claimant. This establish the fact that the applications were made furnishing false address. PW.25-Geetha and PW.26-Anusha have deposed that they never applied for passport and the address is not their residential address. (b) Two passports Ex.P-53, bearing No.E1103830 in the name of Kumar with surname Ramachandran and Ex.P-54, bearing No.F3641492 in the name of Vijayakumar with surname Velusamy were recovered by the Investigation Officer-PW.31 from the accused. The scrutiny of these two passports discloses that both carry the photograph of the accused. The first passport Ex.P-53 was issued by the Passport office at Chennai on 10.04.2002 with expiry date 23.02.2005 and the second passport Ex.P-54 is issued at Passport office Trichy on 03.06.2005 with expiry date 02.10.2011. The address in the first passport is No.25, Bharathiyar II-Street, Pazavanthangal, St.Thomas Mount, Chennai-600 114, whereas the address in the second passport is No.37, Saveriyar Kovil Street, Ramnad Post and District, Tamilnadu. These two exhibits and the depositions of Geetha(PW.25), wife of the appellant, Thiru.Sendurpandian(PW.5)-VAO of the concern Village clearly proves that the accused has obtained the second passport showing false address. The evidence of PW-14 corroborates the case of the prosecution that the appellant with the help of his friend had received the passport. (c) The affidavit Ex. P-32 accompanied with the application of minor Anusha is signed by the appellant Kumar. The evidence of PW-14 corroborates the case of the prosecution that the appellant with the help of his friend had received the passport. (c) The affidavit Ex. P-32 accompanied with the application of minor Anusha is signed by the appellant Kumar. He has falsely declared that the person, who has applied for passport is his daughter and reside at No.79, East Street, S.Mariyoor Village, Kadaladi. PW-26 had deposed that eversince her birth, she is living at No.25, Bharathiyar II-Street, Pazavanthangal, Chennai-600 114. She never applied for passport. She has identified the photo found in the application Ex.P-3 and said it is not her photo. 19. Section 12 of the Passport Act 1967 reads as below:- "12. Offences and penalties: (1) Whoever- (a) contravenes the provisions of section 3; or (b) knowingly furnishes any false information or suppresses any material information with a view to obtaining a passport or travel document under this Act or without lawful authority alters or attempts to alter or causes to alter the entries made in a passport or travel document; or (c) fails to produce for inspection his passport or travel document (whether issued under this Act or not) when called upon to do so by the prescribed authority; or (d) knowingly uses a passport or travel document issued to another person; or (e) knowingly allows another person to use a passport or travel document issued to him, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to [two years or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees] or with both. [(1A) Whoever, not being a citizen of India,- (a) makes an application for a passport or obtains a passport by suppressing information about in nationality, or (b) holds a forged passport or any travel document, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but may extend to five years and with fine which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees but which may extend to fifty thousand rupees] (2) Whoever abets any offence punishable under [sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A)] shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, be punishable with the punishment provided in that sub-section for that offence. (3) Whoever contravenes any condition of a passport or travel document or any provision of this Act or any rule made thereunder for which no punishment is provided elsewhere in this Act shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both. (4) Whoever, having been convicted of an offence under this Act, is again convicted of an offence under this Act shall be punishable with double the penalty provided for the latter offence." 20. The Regional Passport office at Trichy has issued passport to the appellant though he already possess a valid passport issued by the Passport Office at Chennai. The documents furnished by the appellant to get a second passport are proved to be false and fabricated documents. He has dishonestly induced the passport authorities to issue passport by furnishing fabricated document like ration card and false information regarding his name, surname and address. 21. The appellant has abetted foreign national (Smt.Sagayamari and Miss.Dharshini) to get Indian passport by furnishing the documents of his wife and daughter such as mark-sheet and birth certificate. He has given a false sworn affidavit to the passport office regarding the identity and parentage of Dharshini. The fabrication of document and using it as genuine is well found through the exhibits in which the appellant has signed and deposed by the witnesses, more specifically by his own wife and daughter. 22. In the aforesaid circumstances, this court is unable to find any reason to interfere the trial Court finding. 23. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. The conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court in C.C.No.6 of 2007 dated 29.10.2009 is hereby confirmed. The trial Court is directed to secure the appellant/accused-R.Kumar and commit him to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence. The bail bond executed if any shall stand cancelled.