Blogs about: Monica Bedi
Featured Blog
Monica Bedi's 'wait is over' with 'Saraswatichandra'
wrote 3 months ago: Actress Monica Bedi, who will be seen in Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s debut TV show, the grand … more →
Monica Bedi set to make a comeback with TV show
wrote 3 months ago: Actress Monica Bedi, the former companion of Abu Salem, says she has put her past behind and is read … more →
Ace filmmaker Sanjay Leela Bhansali to make his grand TV debut on Star Plus
wrote 3 months ago: ‘Saraswatichandra’ rekindles love, recreates cinema’s grandeur on television starting February 25th, … more →
Sambhavna Seth's Birthday Bash
wrote 5 months ago: Sambhavna Seth’s Birthday Bash Spotted: Sambhavna Seth, Saroj Khan, Monica Bedi, Ravi Kishan, … more →
Godrej Eon Tour de India 2012
wrote 5 months ago: Godrej Eon Tour de India 2012 Spotted: Chhagan Bhujbal, Monica Bedi, Murli Sharma Tags : Godrej Eon … more →
Monica Bedi official Video....
wrote 9 months ago: Watch more videos of Monica Bedi click here … more →
Monica Bedi Youtube Channel.....
wrote 9 months ago: Watch the latest Videos of Monica Bedi..click the Link Below Monica Bedi Monica Bedi Images … more →
SIRPHIRE - Monica Bedi Upcoming Punjabi Movie 2012
wrote 9 months ago: SIRPHIRE – Official trailer Punjabi Movie 2012 Watch more videos.. Click Here … more →
Monica Bedi in Bollywood
wrote 9 months ago: Indian cinema has always welcomed new faces, encouraged them and gave them the motivation to move fo … more →
Master Saleem & Sunidhi Chauhan - Patang Wali Dor [Official Video] [Punjabi Dance]
wrote 10 months ago: From the 2012 Punjabi movie ‘Sirphire’ starring Preet Harpal and Monica Bedi, who featur … more →
Sirphire
wrote 11 months ago: Release Date: 13th July 2012 Cast: Preet Harpal, Monica Bedi, Priyanshu Chatterjee, Gurleen Chopra, … more →
Jaanam Samjha Karo Songs,
wrote 1 year ago: Free Direct MP3 Links! To DownloadRight Click and choose ‘Save Target As’. Enjoy! 1. Cha … more →
Jaanam Samjha Karo Songs,
wrote 1 year ago: Free Direct MP3 Links! To DownloadRight Click and choose ‘Save Target As’. Enjoy! 1. Cha … more →
Jodi No.1 Songs,
wrote 1 year ago: Free Direct MP3 Links! To DownloadRight Click and choose ‘Save Target As’. Enjoy! 1. Akk … more →
Hira Manek Women’s Achievers Award felicitates women from Bollywood and other walks of life.
wrote 1 year ago: Hardik and Sunita Hundiya planned Women’s Achievers Award this year two days in advance at Sun … more →
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 120-B, 419, 420, 465 and 468 - Accused entering into a conspiracy with other co-accused, namely, Head Constable, Revenue Inspector and Postman, to secure passport in the assumed name to enable her to leave the country and travel abroad - Submission of false documents - Framing of charges - Plea of double jeopardy by accused that she was tried and convicted by Lisbon court for being in possession of fake passport - Conviction of accused for the offences punishable u/ss. 120-B, 419 and 420; Head Constable u/ss 120-B, 419/109, 420/109, 468 and ss. 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of the 1988 Act; Revenue Inspector u/s. 468; and Postman u/ss. 120-B, 420, 419/109, 420/109 and ss. 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of the 1988 Act - High Court upholding conviction of accused persons, however modifying the sentence - On appeal, held: Same set of facts can constitute offences under two different laws - Bar to punishment to the offender twice over for the same offence would arise only where the ingredients of both the offences are the same - On the basis of the judgment passed by the Constitutional Court, Lisbon and the facts of the case, plea of double jeopardy not sustainable - Accused was involved in conspiracy at both pre-passport application stage and post-passport application stage - Thus, her conviction is upheld, however sentence is reduced to the period already undergone while fine amount is maintained - Evidence on record established that the Postman participated in the conspiracy in securing the passport for accused in the assumed name; and the Head Constable submitted a false report in order to enable the accused to secure a passport for herself in the assumed name - Thus, their conviction is upheld however, the sentence is reduced while fine amount is maintained - As regards Revenue Inspector, ingredients for the offence of forgery not satisfied, thus, he is acquitted of the offence u/s. 465 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 20(2) - Rule of double jeopardy - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - s.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) - Sentence/Sentencing. Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 20(2) - Protection against a second trial and conviction for the same offence under Article 20(2) - When applicable - Explained - Rule of double jeopardy - General Clauses Act, 1897 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 300. Maxim - `Nemo delset bis vexari pro eadem causa' - Meaning of - No one should be put on peril twice for the same offence. According to the prosecution case, `M' (A 3) entered into a conspiracy with A 5 - Head Constable, A 7 - Revenue Inspector, Kurnool and A 8 - Postman, Head Post Office, Kurnool to secure second passport in the assumed name of `SM' from the Regional Passport Office, Secunderabad by submitting false documents like residence certificate, educational certificate. `M' entered Portugal with the aid of passport standing in the name of `SM', and was prosecuted and punished by a competent court of jurisdiction at Lisbon. In India, the charges were framed against the accused persons under various provisions of the Penal Code, 1860 and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. A-3 raised a plea of double jeopardy that she was tried and convicted by Lisbon court for being in possession of fake passport. The trial court convicted A 3 under sections 120-B, 419 and 420 IPC but acquitted her of the charge under Section 12 of the Passports Act, 1967. A 5 was convicted under Sections 120-B, 419 r/w 109, 420 r/w 109, 468 IPC and Sections 13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, A 7 under Section 468 IPC, and A 8 under Sections 120-B, 420, 419 r/w 109, 420 r/w 109 and Sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The High Court on re-appreciation of the evidence confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence. Therefore, the appellants filed the instant appeals. =Allowing the appeal filed by the Revenue Inspector and partly allowing the appeals filed by others, the Court HELD: 1.1 Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India, 1950 provides that no person would be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. It embodies a protection against a second trial and conviction for the same offence. The well known maxim `nemo delset bis vexari pro eadem causa' embodies the well established common law rule that no one should be put on peril twice for the same offence. The fundamental right guaranteed under Article 20 (2) has its roots in common law maxim nemo debet bis vexari. If a person is charged again for the same offence, he can plead, as a complete defence, his former conviction, or as it is technically expressed, take the plea of autrefois convict. The principle has been recognized in the existing law in India and is enacted in Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. [Paras 13, 14 and 15] [539-F-H; 540-A-E] 1.2 What is prohibited under Article 20 (2) is, the second prosecution and conviction must be for the same offence. If the offences are distinct, there is no question of the rule as to double jeopardy being applicable. The test to ascertain is whether two offences are the same, and not the identity of the allegations but the identity of the ingredients of the offences. Thus, it is clear that the same facts may give rise to different prosecutions and punishment and in such an event the protection afforded by Article 20 (2) is not available. A person can be prosecuted and punished more than once even on substantially same facts provided the ingredients of both the offences are totally different and they did not form the same offence. [Para 17] [541-D-E; 543-B-D] Maqbool Hussain vs. The State of Bombay (1953) SCR 730; S.A. Venkataraman vs. The Union of India & Anr. (1954) SCR 1150; Leo Roy Frey vs. Superintendent District Jail, Amritsar (1958) SCR 822; The State of Bombay vs. S.L. Apte (1961) 3 SCR 107; Bhagwan Swarup vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1965 SC 682; State of Rajasthan vs. Hat Singh and Ors. (2003) 2 SCC 152- referred to. United States vs. Rabinowith (1915) 238 US 78; T.W. Morgan vs. Alfonso J. Devine @ Ollie Devine (1915) 237 U.S.1153; United States vs. Vito Lanza (1922) 260 U.S. 314 - referred to. 1.3 The submission that the facts based on which `M' was prosecuted and punished by a competent court of jurisdiction at Lisbon and the facts based on which prosecution was initiated resulting in conviction are the same and, therefore, the conviction of `M' is in the teeth of Article 20 (2) of the Constitution and Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not well founded since the same set of facts can constitute offences under two different laws. An act or an omission can amount to and constitute an offence under IPC and at the same time constitute an offence under any other law. The bar to the punishment to the offender twice over for the same offence would arise only where the ingredients of both the offences are the same. [Para 21] [545-C-E] 1.4 There is no factual foundation laid as such by `M' taking the plea of double jeopardy before the trial court. Nothing is suggested to the Investigating Officer or to any of the witnesses that she is sought to be prosecuted and punished for the same offence for which she was charged and convicted by a competent court of jurisdiction at Lisbon. She did not even make any such statement in her examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The fundamental right guaranteed under Article 20 (2) of the Constitution is in the nature of an injunction against the State prohibiting it to prosecute and punish any person for the same offence more than once but the initial burden is upon the accused to take the necessary plea and establish the same. [Para 23] [545-H; 546-A-C] Halsbury's Laws of England, 2nd Edn, Volume-IX - referred to. 1.5 Having regard to the nature of the guaranteed right, the judgment passed by the Constitutional Court, Lisbon (a typed copy) was examined and the same does not support the plea of `M'. In the light of the findings and conclusions reached by the Constitutional Court at Lisbon and on a careful consideration of the entire matter and the facts, plea of double jeopardy is wholly untenable and unsustainable. [Paras 25 and 26] [547-A-B; 549-G-H] 2. This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India normally does not interfere with the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the courts below on proper appreciation of evidence. It is not the function of this Court to re-appreciate the evidence and substitute the findings for that of the courts below unless it is clearly established that the findings and the conclusions so arrived at by the courts below are perverse and based on no evidence. [Para 27] [550- B-C] 3.1 There is no controversy whatsoever that `M' travelled abroad on the strength of the passport secured by her in the assumed name. She entered Portugal with the aid of passport standing in the name of `SM' for which she had to face the prosecution and suffer conviction and sentence in Portugal. [Para 28] [550-E-F] 3.2 It is evident from the record that the involvement of the appellants is at two stages. Stage one is where `M' (A-3) and A-7 were involved in the pre-passport application at the threshold and even before the preparation of application seeking the passport in the assumed name. Stage two is the involvement of A-3, A-5 and A-8 after the submission of passport application before the authorities. The passport application was submitted in the assumed name of `SM' which contained the photograph of `M'. The essential requirements for obtaining the passport are: passport application; proof of residence; and date of birth certificate as spoken to by PWs. 2, 3, 21 and 31. The evidence of number of witnesses which remained unimpeached brought on record as to how these documents were obtained for the benefit of `M'. [Para 29] [550-F-H; 551-A-B] 3.3 A-7, Mandal Revenue Inspector verified the residence particulars of `SM' on the instructions of PW-5, Mandal Revenue Officer, Kurnool and submitted a false verification report based on which residence certificate was issued by PW-5. PW-37, Investigating Officer and PW-17 issued certificate to the effect that no person by name `SM' resided in the house as earlier submitted by A-7. It is based on the said evidence, the trial court and appellate court came to the right conclusion that the prosecution established its case that A-7 gave false verification based on which residence certificate was issued by PW-5 in the name of `SM'. The trial court convicted A-7 for the offence under Section 468 IPC. The High Court held that in submitting the false verification report in respect of residence of `SM' he may not have been aware and known that the certificate so obtained would be used for the purpose of securing the passport in the assumed name of `SM'. There is no evidence on that aspect. The High Court also concluded that by the time A-7 submitted a false verification there was nothing on record that he was hand in glove with the other accused for the purpose of cheating. The High Court upheld the acquittal of A-7 of the charge under Section 120-B IPC. The High Court found that the proper offence made against him would be one for making forged document simplicitor punishable under Section 465 IPC. The High Court was not justified in convicting A-7 at all for it had found no case against the appellant made out under Section 120-B IPC. There was no evidence that A-7 prepared false document with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud. The ingredients of Section 463 are not satisfied. In such an event the conviction of the appellant under Section 465 IPC is unsustainable. A-7 is acquitted for the offence under Section 465 IPC and sentence awarded is set aside. [Paras 29, 30 and 35] [551-A-E; 552-B-G; 557-B] 3.4 Regarding A-8, the Postman, Head Post Office, Kurnool, there is a clear evidence which was properly appreciated by the courts below that A-8 took the envelop containing the passport addressed to `SM' from PW-11 representing that he knew the addressee and would deliver the same. The said article was actually entrusted to PW-11 for its delivery but A-8 took the same from PW-11 for delivery to `SM' assumed name of `M'. The courts below found that A-8 was aware of the contents of the article. It is under those circumstances the courts below rightly concluded that the evidence available on record clearly established that he participated in the conspiracy in securing the passport for `M' in the assumed name of `SM'. Thus, the conviction of A-8 for the offences charged is upheld. There is no reason to interfere with the view taken by the High Court. However, the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment under each count awarded by the trial court is reduced to that of 6 months rigorous imprisonment under each count while maintaining the fine amount. [Paras 31 and 35] [552-G-H; 553-A- D; 557-D-E] 3.5 A-5, the Head Constable, submitted exhibit P15 report. PW-7, Junior Assistant in the District Police Office, Kurnool, PW-8, Inspector of Police, District Special Branch, Kurnool and PW-14, Sub-Inspector, District Special Branch, Kurnool were the material witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove the accusations leveled against A-5. The courts below held that the evidence of PW-7, PW-8 and PW-14 is cogent and consistent which in clear and categorical terms has proved the fact that A-5 is the person who verified the passport application particulars of `SM' and submitted exhibit P15 inquiry report along with exhibit P16 and exhibit P17 enclosures. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that A-5 submitted a false report in order to enable `M' to secure a passport for herself in the assumed name of `SM'. His conviction for the offences charged is upheld. However, the High Court reduced the sentence awarded by the trial court to one year rigorous imprisonment under each count while maintaining the fine imposed by the trial court. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the conviction of A-5 under Sections 120-B, 419 r/w 109, 420 r/w 109 and 468 IPC and as well as under Section 13 (1) (d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is upheld. However, the sentence is reduced to that of six months rigorous imprisonment under each count while maintaining the fine imposed by the trial court and the sentence to suffer imprisonment, in default, of payment of fine. The sentences are directed to run concurrently. [Paras 32 and 35] [553-E-H; 554-A-E; 556-F-H] 3.6 It is proved that `M' was involved in the conspiracy at both pre- passport application stage and post-passport application stage. The conspiracy itself was hatched only with a view to secure a passport for `M' in the assumed name of `SM'. It cannot be said that there was no evidence whatsoever against `M' to prove her involvement for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 419 and 420 IPC. It is for her benefit that the entire conspiracy was hatched involving more than one individual in order to secure a passport for her benefit enabling her to travel abroad in the assumed name of `SM'. There is no material on the basis of which this Court would differ with the findings and conclusions concurrently arrived at by the courts below. [Para 33] [554-F-H; 555-A-B] 3.7 The original of exhibit P50 is the passport issued by the competent authorities in India and, therefore, Section 78 (6) is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. The issuance of original of exhibit P50 passport is clearly proved. It is based on that passport that `M' travelled abroad and entered Portugal for which she had to face a prosecution and suffer conviction and sentence. The prosecution cannot be held to be vitiated. The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 419 and 420 IPC is upheld. However, the High Court reduced the sentence of imprisonment imposed on `M'. The High Court also held that she is entitled for set off of the periods of detention suffered by her in Lisbon, from 18.9.2004 to 4.6.2005 and 3.11.2005 to 10.11.2005. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that she has undergone more than 2 + years of sentence, the sentence awarded under each count directed to run concurrently is reduced to that of the period already undergone by her, while maintaining the sentence of fine awarded by the courts below. [Paras 33 and 35] [555-E-H; 556-A-B; 556-D-E] Case Law Reference: (1953) SCR 730 Referred to Para 16 (1954) SCR 1150 Referred to Para 16 (1958) SCR 822 Referred to Para 17 (1915) 238US 78 Referred to Para 17 (1961) 3 SCR 107 Referred to Para 17 AIR 1965 SC 682 Referred to Para 17 (2003) 2 SCC 152 Referred to Para 18 (1915) 237 U.S. 1153 Referred to Para 19 (1922) 260 U.S. 314 Referred to Para 20 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 782 of 2007. From the Judgment & Order dated 08.03.2007 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1434 of 2006. With Crl. A. Nos. 783, 784 & 1357 of 2007. P.P. Malhotra, ASG, I. Venkata Narayana, Gaurave Bhargava, Niraj Gupta, V. Sridhar Reddy, V.N. Raghupathy, V. Sudeer, M.B.R.S. Raju, S. Sunita, Balaji Srinivasan, Madhu Smita Bora, Raghenth Basant, Balaji Subramanian, Arvind Kumar Sharma, D. Mahesh Babu, Ramesh Allanki for the appearing parties.
wrote 1 year ago: Image by The Wide Wide World via Flickr REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE … more →
Hot Sexy Monica Bedi
wrote 1 year ago: … more →
Monica Bedi in Hot Saree
wrote 2 years ago: Monica Bedi in Hot Saree Picture Gallery … more →
Monica Bedi wants to act
wrote 2 years ago: Bollywood actress Monica Bedi who remains in lot of controversies is on cloud nine these days, for t … more →
