Convictions upheld for Monica Bedi, sentences reduced; others convicted under Prevention of Corruption Act

Monica Bedi, Shaik Abdul Sattar, D. Gokari Saheb Versus State of A.P.

Monica Bedi, Shaik Abdul Sattar, D. Gokari Saheb Versus State of A.P. - 2010 (13) SCR 522, 2011 (1) SCC 284, 2010 (12) JT 239, 2010 (11) SCALE 629 Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Section 120-B IPC.
2. Conviction under Section 419 IPC.
3. Conviction under Section 420 IPC.
4. Conviction under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
5. Double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 Cr.P.C.
6. Interpretation of Section 428 Cr.P.C.
7. Admission of evidence under Section 78(6) of the Indian Evidence Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction under Section 120-B IPC:
The appellants were convicted under Section 120-B IPC for criminal conspiracy. The prosecution established that the appellants conspired to obtain a passport in the assumed name of Sana Malik Kamal for Monica Bedi (A-3). The trial court and the High Court found sufficient evidence to convict the appellants under this section. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, noting that the conspiracy was proved at both the pre-passport application stage and the post-passport application stage.

2. Conviction under Section 419 IPC:
Monica Bedi (A-3) was convicted under Section 419 IPC for cheating by personation. The evidence showed that she obtained a passport under a false name and used it to travel abroad. The trial court and the High Court found her guilty, and the Supreme Court upheld the conviction, noting that the sequence of events and the evidence clearly proved the charges.

3. Conviction under Section 420 IPC:
Monica Bedi (A-3) was also convicted under Section 420 IPC for cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. The courts found that she used false documents to obtain the passport. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, agreeing with the findings of the lower courts.

4. Conviction under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act:
Shaik Abdul Sattar (A-5) and D. Gokari Saheb (A-8) were convicted under these sections for their involvement in the conspiracy and for submitting false reports and documents to facilitate the issuance of the passport. The Supreme Court upheld the convictions but reduced the sentences to six months rigorous imprisonment while maintaining the fines imposed by the lower courts.

5. Double Jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 Cr.P.C.:
Monica Bedi (A-3) argued that her trial and conviction in India amounted to double jeopardy since she had already been convicted in Portugal for possessing a fake passport. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that the same set of facts can constitute offences under different laws, and the protection against double jeopardy applies only when the ingredients of both offences are the same. The Court found no factual foundation for the plea of double jeopardy and held that the punishment in India was not for the same offence.

6. Interpretation of Section 428 Cr.P.C.:
Monica Bedi (A-3) sought the benefit of set-off for the period of detention she underwent in Portugal. The High Court allowed the set-off for the periods of detention in Lisbon. The Supreme Court, while reducing her sentence to the period already undergone, did not find it necessary to delve into the interpretation of Section 428 Cr.P.C.

7. Admission of Evidence under Section 78(6) of the Indian Evidence Act:
Monica Bedi (A-3) contended that Exhibit P50, a Photostat copy of the passport, was inadmissible as it was not authenticated by a legal keeper as required under Section 78(6) of the Evidence Act. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, stating that Section 78(6) deals with public documents of a foreign country, and the original passport was issued by Indian authorities. The issuance of the original passport was proved, and the prosecution was not vitiated.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court confirmed the convictions of Monica Bedi (A-3) under Sections 120B, 419, and 420 IPC but reduced her sentence to the period already undergone. The convictions of Shaik Abdul Sattar (A-5) and D. Gokari Saheb (A-8) under various sections, including the Prevention of Corruption Act, were upheld, but their sentences were reduced to six months rigorous imprisonment. Mohd. Yunis (A-7) was acquitted of the offence under Section 465 IPC. The appeals were partly allowed or allowed accordingly.