# Dr. Tanzeen Fatima Revisionist v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2024) 5 ILRA 2174
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-05-24
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 159 of 2024
- **Bench:** Sanjay Kumar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-tanzeen-fatima-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-52054
- **Pages:** 39

## Headnote

Sri J.K. Upadhyay, AGA, Sri Ajay Kumar
Mishra (A.G.), Sri P.C. Srivastava (A.A.G.),
Sri A.K. Sand (G.A.), Sri Sameer Srivastava,
Sri Sharad Sharma
5 All. Dr. Tanzeen Fatima Vs. State of U.P.
2175
(A) Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 - Sections 39, 161, 164, 311,
389(1), 397, 401 & 439 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 30, 120-B, 415,
420, 465, 467, 468 & 471 - Evidence Act,
1872 - Section 3, - The Registration of
Births and Deaths Act, 1969 - Sections
9(3) & 23 - Criminal Revisions - against
rejection their appeals - complaint - FIR -
investigation - Charge-sheeted - conviction and
sentence u/s 120-B, 420, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC
- Revision - prayer for Interim Relief, at this
stage, for suspension of their sentence and stay
of their conviction - court finds that, (i) Mohd.
Abdullah Azam khan have two birth certificates
having DoB 01.01.1993 issued by Nagarpalika
Parishad, Rampur & other with DoB 30.09.1990
issued by municipal Corporation, Lucknow, - as
per his all educational documents right from
beginning to 16.01.2015 his DoB is mentioned
as 01.01.1993, - (ii) on the application moved by
his mother Dr. Tanzeen Fatima Municipal
Corporation, Lucknow has issued second birth
Certificate having DoB 30.09.1990, - (ii) the
second birth certificate was used by Mohd.
Abdullah Azam khan in filing his nomination
paper in year 2017 for election of St. Assembly
Election 2017 and also for obtaining third
passport and a new PAN card, - later on his
aforesaid election contested on the basis of
second birth certificate has been cancelled by
high Court and affirmed by hon'ble Supreme
Court, - (iii) during investigation, IO has neither
recorded the St.ments of u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of the
concern officers of Nagarpalika Parishad,
Rampur, Municipal Corporation, Lucknow & the
SDM nor the prosecution produced them as PW
witnesses, - (iv) Despite availability of direct
evidence the prosecution, only tried to prove its
case through indirect evidence, - (v) The
documents filed by Dr. Tanzeen Fatima along
with an affidavit to get second Birth Certificate
of his son cannot be said to be forged
documents wherein she has also not disclosed
the material facts regarding first Birth Certificate
in her application, - (vi) prosecution could not
prove the fact that first Birth Certificate was
issued on the basis of affidavit filed by both
father and mother of Mohd. Abdullah Azam
khan, - (vii) nothing on record against Mohd.
Azam khan which indicate that for issuance of
the impugned second birth certificate any
information was given by him, - (viii) there is no
any material against Mohd, Azam khan
regarding cheating, furnishing false information
or forgery/fabricating document and forgery in
valuable security, - (ix) it is well settled law that
conjectures and suspicions should not be
allowed to take place of legal proof, - (x) there
is no evidence on record to established that nay
of the revisionist have forged the birth certificate
dated 21.01.2015 and similarly basic ingredient
of all the three offences is also not made out, -
(xi) alleged offences against the revisionist are
not a heinous offence, both Dr. Tanzeen Fatima
and Mohd. Azam khan are suffering from old
aged diseases, and there is no possibility of
absconding of the revisionist and they are on
bail during trial and they did not misused the
liberty - held, considering the case in totality,
nature of allegations, role of attributed to the
revisionists, material evidence on record, court
is of the view that during pendency of these
Revisions - (i) the application u/s 389(1) Cr.P.C.
is liable to be allowed, (ii) impugned sentence is
hereby suspended, (iii) all the revisionists be
released on bail, (iv) case of Mohd. Azam khan
is distinguishable from the case of other
Revisionists, (v) judgment & order of Conviction
of Mohd. Azam khan shall remain stayed but
prayer for stay of conviction against Dr. Tanzeen
Fatima & Mohd. Abdullah Azam khan is rejected

## Text

_Characters 0–39,958 of 96,886. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39958 for what follows._

2174 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and the likelihood of the offence being
repeated, reasonable apprehension of the
witnesses being influenced and danger, of
course, of justice being defeated by grant of
bail.

40. It is in the aforesaid backdrop,
considering the material available on record
including the flow charts which clearly
demonstrates the origin of funds and it also
explains how it finds its way into the
accounts of the applicant and its use by the
applicant, and there is material against the
applicant to link him with the movement
and trail of funds to and from the two firms
M/s. Vikas Construction and M/s. Aaghaaz.

41.

Considering
the
family
antecedents of the applicant including the
statement which is contained in the ECIR
that the applicant initially was not cooperative rather evaded the summons and
only when the lookout notice was issued
and in furtherance thereof the applicant was
apprehended and during custody he gave
his statements but nevertheless many of the
transactions could not be explained by him
by taking a plea that he did not know from
where the fund was coming rather
whenever he wanted the funds he asked his
mother and maternal uncle and grand father
who would arrange the funds. This plea
considering the fact that the applicant is a
member of the Legislative Assembly and a
national level sportsman yet not knowing
how the funds were being given to him
including the quantum of the funds given
by his relatives to pursue his own sporting
and political pursuits does not inspire
confidence.

42. Thus taking an overall view
including the gravity of offence including
the fact that the witnesses of fact are yet to
be examined also keeping in mind the
dictum of the Apex Court in Pavana
Dibbur (supra) and for all the reasons
aforesaid, this Court is unable to persuade
itself to form a, prima facie, satisfaction in
terms of Section 45 of the PMLA, at this
stage, that the applicant is not guilty or that
he may not commit an offecne on bail.
Thus, for all the aforesaid reasons, the bail
application is rejected.

43. However, it is also clarified that
any observations made by this Court may
not be taken as an expression of opinion on
merits. The trial court is directed to
expedite the trial to complete it as swiftly as
possible and the prosecuting agency shall
not seek any unnecessary adjournments on
the ground of examination of witnesses.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 2174
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
REVISIONAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.

Criminal Revision No. 159 of 2024
And
Criminal Revision No. 173 of 2024
And
Criminal Revision No. 194 of 2024

Dr. Tanzeen Fatima ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Imran Ullah, Sri Mohammad Khalid, Sri
Zubair Ahmad Khan, Sri Kapil Sibal (Sr.
Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri J.K. Upadhyay, AGA, Sri Ajay Kumar
Mishra (A.G.), Sri P.C. Srivastava (A.A.G.),
Sri A.K. Sand (G.A.), Sri Sameer Srivastava,
Sri Sharad Sharma
5 All. Dr. Tanzeen Fatima Vs. State of U.P.
2175
(A) Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 - Sections 39, 161, 164, 311,
389(1), 397, 401 & 439 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 30, 120-B, 415,
420, 465, 467, 468 & 471 - Evidence Act,
1872 - Section 3, - The Registration of
Births and Deaths Act, 1969 - Sections
9(3) & 23 - Criminal Revisions - against
rejection their appeals - complaint - FIR -
investigation - Charge-sheeted - conviction and
sentence u/s 120-B, 420, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC
- Revision - prayer for Interim Relief, at this
stage, for suspension of their sentence and stay
of their conviction - court finds that, (i) Mohd.
Abdullah Azam khan have two birth certificates
having DoB 01.01.1993 issued by Nagarpalika
Parishad, Rampur & other with DoB 30.09.1990
issued by municipal Corporation, Lucknow, - as
per his all educational documents right from
beginning to 16.01.2015 his DoB is mentioned
as 01.01.1993, - (ii) on the application moved by
his mother Dr. Tanzeen Fatima Municipal
Corporation, Lucknow has issued second birth
Certificate having DoB 30.09.1990, - (ii) the
second birth certificate was used by Mohd.
Abdullah Azam khan in filing his nomination
paper in year 2017 for election of St. Assembly
Election 2017 and also for obtaining third
passport and a new PAN card, - later on his
aforesaid election contested on the basis of
second birth certificate has been cancelled by
high Court and affirmed by hon'ble Supreme
Court, - (iii) during investigation, IO has neither
recorded the St.ments of u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of the
concern officers of Nagarpalika Parishad,
Rampur, Municipal Corporation, Lucknow & the
SDM nor the prosecution produced them as PW
witnesses, - (iv) Despite availability of direct
evidence the prosecution, only tried to prove its
case through indirect evidence, - (v) The
documents filed by Dr. Tanzeen Fatima along
with an affidavit to get second Birth Certificate
of his son cannot be said to be forged
documents wherein she has also not disclosed
the material facts regarding first Birth Certificate
in her application, - (vi) prosecution could not
prove the fact that first Birth Certificate was
issued on the basis of affidavit filed by both
father and mother of Mohd. Abdullah Azam
khan, - (vii) nothing on record against Mohd.
Azam khan which indicate that for issuance of
the impugned second birth certificate any
information was given by him, - (viii) there is no
any material against Mohd, Azam khan
regarding cheating, furnishing false information
or forgery/fabricating document and forgery in
valuable security, - (ix) it is well settled law that
conjectures and suspicions should not be
allowed to take place of legal proof, - (x) there
is no evidence on record to established that nay
of the revisionist have forged the birth certificate
dated 21.01.2015 and similarly basic ingredient
of all the three offences is also not made out, -
(xi) alleged offences against the revisionist are
not a heinous offence, both Dr. Tanzeen Fatima
and Mohd. Azam khan are suffering from old
aged diseases, and there is no possibility of
absconding of the revisionist and they are on
bail during trial and they did not misused the
liberty - held, considering the case in totality,
nature of allegations, role of attributed to the
revisionists, material evidence on record, court
is of the view that during pendency of these
Revisions - (i) the application u/s 389(1) Cr.P.C.
is liable to be allowed, (ii) impugned sentence is
hereby suspended, (iii) all the revisionists be
released on bail, (iv) case of Mohd. Azam khan
is distinguishable from the case of other
Revisionists, (v) judgment & order of Conviction
of Mohd. Azam khan shall remain stayed but
prayer for stay of conviction against Dr. Tanzeen
Fatima & Mohd. Abdullah Azam khan is rejected
- hence, interim Applications disposed of,
accordingly.
(Para -20, 21, 24, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33,
34)

Revision
is
pending,
but
-
Interim
Applications are disposed of. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Mohd. Ibrahim Vs St. of Bihar (2009) 8 SCC
751,

2. Ayodhya Prasad Sital Prasad Vs Emperor; AIR
1938 Sind 193

3. VR Venugopal Vs Miss T Pankajam; (1961) 1
CrLJ 804 •

4. Matilal Chakravarty Vs The King; AIR 1949 Cal
58 •

5. Mohammaed Ibrahim and Ors. Vs St. of Bihar
& anr; (2009) 8 SCC 751 •
2176 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
6. Sheila Sebastian Vs R. Jawaharaj & anr.;
(2018) 7 SCC 581 38 •

7. Sanjiv Ratanappa Ronad Vs Emperor; AIR
1932 Bom 545 •

8. Guru Bipin Singh Vs Chongtham Manihar
Singh (1996) 11 SCC 622 •

9. St. of U.P. Vs Sabir Ali; (1964) 7 SCR 435
•

10. Dr. S. Dutt Vs St. of U.P.; (1966) 1 SCR 493
•

11. Oseela Abdul Khader & anr. VS St. of Kerala;
2012 SCC Online Kerala 31803 •

12. Kiran Kanta Vs St. of Uttarakhand; 2019 SCC
Online Utt 1670 •

13. Krishna Kumari Vs St. of Punj., 2016 SCC
Online P&H 16199 •

14. Surineni Renukaiah Vs St. of A.P.; Crl. P. No.
6234/2022 •

15. Jullu Rehman Vs St. of Jharkhand; Crl. M.P.
No. 576/2012 •

16. Pardeep Singh Vs St. of Punj.; CRM.M,
48407/2018 •

17. Malcolm War Macleod Vs St. of W.B; 2010
SCC Online Cal 2115 •

18. St. of U.P. Vs Singhara Singh & ors.; (1964)
4 SCR 485 •

19. Noor Mohammad Vs St. of U.P.; 2010 SCC
Online All 823 •

20. Ravi Kant Sharma Vs St.; 2011 SCC Online
Del 4342 •

21. Amin & Anr. Vs St.; 1957 SCC Online All 331
•

22. Kishore Chand Vs St. of Himachal Pradesh;
(1991) 1 SCC 286 •

23. St. of A.P. Vs Punati Ramulu & Ors.; 1994
Supp (1) SCC 59 •
24. Vijender and Ors. Vs St. of Delhi; (1997) 6
SCC 171 •

25. Tomaso Bruno & Anr. Vs St. of U.P.; (2015) 7
SCC 178 •

26. Mohanlal Shamji Soni Vs U.O.I. & anr.; 1991
Supp (1) SCC 271 •

27.
Arjun
Panditrao
Khotkar
Vs
Kailash
Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1 39 •

28. Anvar P.VS Vs P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC
473 •

29. St. Vs Navjot Sandhu; (2005) 11 SCC 600,

30. M.N.G Bharateesh Reddy Vs Ramesh
Ranganathan & anr., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1061,

31. Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma Vs St. of Bihar,
(2000) 4 SCC 168,

32. Shriniwas Pandit Dharmadhikari Vs St. of
Mah. & ors. - 1980 SCC (Cri) 45.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar
Singh, J.)

1. All the above captioned Criminal
Revisions No. 159 of 2024, 173 of 2024 and
194 of 2024 under Section 397/401 of Code
of Criminal Procedure have been preferred
by the revisionists, namely Dr. Tanzeen
Fatima, Mohammad Azam Khan and
Mohammad Abdullah Azam Khan against
the judgment and order dated 23.12.2023
passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge / Special Judge (MP/MLA/E.C. Act),
Rampur in Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 2023
(Dr. Tanzeen Fatima vs. State of U.P.),
Criminal
Appeal
No.
76
of
2023
(Mohammad Abdullah Azam Khan vs.
State of U.P.) and Criminal Appeal No. 77
of 2023 (Mohammad Azam Khan vs. State
of U.P.) rejecting the appeals against the
judgment and order dated 18.10.2023
passed by Trial Court / learned Special
Judge (MP/MLA), ACJM-I, Rampur in
5 All. Dr. Tanzeen Fatima Vs. State of U.P.
2177
Criminal Case No. 312 of 2022 (State of
U.P. vs. Mohammad Azam Khan & Ors.)
arising out of Case Crime No. 04 of 2019,
under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471
IPC, Police Station Ganj, District-Rampur,
convicting and sentencing the accusedrevisionists as under:

 (a)
One
year's
simple
imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/- for the
offence under Section 120-B I.P.C. and in
default of payment of fine, one month's
additional simple imprisonment.
 (b)
Three
years'
simple
imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/- for
the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. and in
default of payment of fine, six months'
additional simple imprisonment.

(c)
Seven
years'
simple
imprisonment and fine of Rs. 15,000/- for
the offence under Section 467 IPC and in
default of payment of fine, one year's
additional simple imprisonment.

(d)
Three
years'
simple
imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/- for
the offence under Section 468 IPC and in
default of payment of fine, six months'
additional simple imprisonment.

(e)
Two
years'
simple
imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/- for
the offence under Section 471 IPC and in
default of payment of fine, three months'
additional simple imprisonment.

2. However, all the sentences were
directed to run concurrently.

3. Since all the revisionists namely Dr.
Tanzeen Fatima, Mohammad Azam Khan
and Mohammad Abdullah Azam Khan
have been convicted and sentenced by
common
judgment
and
order
dated
18.10.2023 and their separate Criminal
Appeals No. 75 of 2023, 77 of 2023 and 76
of 2023 have also been decided by the
common
judgment
and
order
dated
23.12.2023, therefore the issue with regard
to interim relief as sought in all the three
Criminal Revisions are heard and being
decided together.

Interim relief

4. In all the above mentioned Criminal
Revisions, interim relief has been sought to
suspend the execution of the sentence dated
18.10.2023 as affirmed by the order dated
23.12.2023 and enlarge the revisionists on
bail during pendency of the above
mentioned criminal revisions.

5. In addition to above, three separate
applications all bearing Application No.1
dated 23.02.2024 U/s 389(1) r/w 397/401
Cr.P.C. have also been filed in the above
mentioned Criminal Revisions with a
prayer to stay the impugned judgment and
order dated 18.10.2023 of conviction as
affirmed by appellate Court vide its
judgment and order dated 23.12.2023
during the pendency of the above Criminal
Revisions.

Brief Facts

6. The prosecution case is that on the
written complaint dated 17.12.2018 of
complainant /informant Akash Saxena,
Regional Convener, Bhartiya Janata Party
Small Scale Industry Cell, West U.P., a first
information report was registered on
03.01.2019 against Mohammad Azam
Khan s/o late Mohammad Mumtaz Khan,
Dr. Tanzeen Fatima w/o Mohammad Azam
Khan, Mohammad Abdullah Azam Khan
s/o Mohammad Azam Khan, all resident of
Gher-Mir-Baaz Khan, P.S. Ganj District
Rampur at Case Crime No. 4 of 2019, under
Sections 193, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC at
Police Station Ganj, District Rampur,
2178 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
wherein it is alleged that Mohammad Azam
Khan and Dr. Tanzeen Fatima by forgery
and hatching a well planned conspiracy for
their personal gain got two birth certificates
of their son Mohammad Abdullah Azam
Khan issued from two places. The first birth
certificate dated 28.06.2012 (Registration
No. RNPB2012-03857) was issued from
Municipal Corporation, Rampur on the
basis of affidavits given by Mohammad
Azam Khan and Dr. Tanzeen Fatima, in
which place of birth is shown as Rampur.
The
second
birth
certificate
dated
21.01.2015 (Registration No. NNLKO-B2015-292611) was issued from Municipal
Corporation, Lucknow on the basis of
duplicate birth certificate, serial No. 781,
dated 21.04.2015 issued by Queen Mary's
Hospital, Lucknow, in which place of birth
is shown as Lucknow. The first birth
certificate issued by Municipal Corporation,
Rampur was used by Mohammad Abdullah
Azam Khan in preparing his passport etc. and
he travelled abroad by wrongly using it. The
second birth certificate issued by Municipal
Corporation,
Lucknow
was
used
in
government documents and several degrees
of Jauhar University. Both the birth
certificates were made and used by
Mohammad Azam Khan, Dr. Tanzeen
Fatima and Mohammad Abdullah Azam
Khan for their personal gain by forgery and
well planned conspiracy.

7.

After
culmination
of
the
investigation, Investigating Officer submitted
Charge sheet No. 196 of 2019 dated
01.04.2019 (Ext. Ka-69) under Sections 420,
467, 468, 471 IPC against Mohammad Azam
Khan, Dr. Tanzeen Fatima and Mohammad
Abdullah Azam Khan.

8.

When
accused-revisionists
moved discharge applications with a stand
that there is no charge-sheet under Section
120-B I.P.C. against them, thereafter without
any order for further investigation by the Trial
Court, the supplementary charge sheet No.
196A of 2019 dated 10.08.2021 (Ext. Ka-70)
under Section 120B IPC was filed on
11.08.2021 in the Trial Court and same was
taken on record vide order dated 16.08.2021.

9. On 18.08.2021, charges were
framed against the revisionists under
Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471
IPC.

10. During the course of trial,
following fifteen prosecution witnesses
were produced to prove the charges against
the revisionists :

(i) PW-1 Akash Kumar Saxena,
first informant.

(ii)
PW-2
Manoj
Pathak,
Principal of St. Paul School, Rampur.

(iii) PW-3 Tejpal Verma, the
then Sub Registrar (Births and Deaths)
Rampur.

(iv) PW-4 Vijay Kumar, the
then Income Tax Officer, Rampur.
 (v)
PW-5
Mohd.
Naseem,
Passport Officer, Bareilly.

(vi) PW-6 Rai Singh, Pradhan
Sahayak,
District
Election
Office,
Rampur.

(vii) PW-7 S.K. Rawat, Health
Officer/Registrar (Birth and Death),
Lucknow.

(viii) PW-8 Rishi Pal, the then
Head Moharrir.

(ix) PW-9 Matloob Hussain,
Fire Brigade Officer.

(x) PW-10 Gajendra Singh,
Returning Officer.

(xi) PW-11 Mohd. Shaffiq,
Proposer
for
Mohammad
Abdullah
Azam Khan in the nomination form Suar
Assembly Election 2017.
5 All. Dr. Tanzeen Fatima Vs. State of U.P.
2179

(xii) PW-12 Mohd. Saleem,
Record Keeper of Nagar Palika Parishad,
Rampur.

(xiii) PW-13 Dinesh Kumar
Goel, Proposer of Mohammad Abdullah
Azam Khan in the nomination form for
Suar Assembly Election 2017.

(xiv) PW-14 Narendra Tyagi,
First Investigating Officer.

(xv) PW-15 Kishan Avatar,
Second Investigating Officer.

11. Following nineteen persons
were produced and examined as defence
witnesses:-

(i) DW-1 Mohd. Zafaruddin @
Zafar Khan, Advocate.

(ii) DW-2 Zahid Khan.

(iii) DW-3 Akhilesh Kumar.

(iv) DW-4 Asim Khan.

(v) DW-5 Anwar Khan.

(vi) DW-6 Javed Khan.

(vii) DW-7 Hargyan Singh.

(viii) DW-8 Firasat Khan.

(ix) DW-9 Khalid Ali.

(x) DW-10 Abdul Karim Khan.

(xi) DW-11 Tasleem Raza Khan,
Videographer.

(xii) DW-12 Farhan Ali Khan.

(xiii) DW-13 Zameer Ahmed
Khan.

(xiv)
DW-14
Mrs.
Nikhat
Akhlaque.

(xv) DW-15 Mrs. Fareeda Sultana.
 (xvi) DW-16 Dilip Shankar
Acharya, Expert.

(xvii) DW-17 Dr. Ranjeet Kumar
Singh, Expert

(xviii) DW-18 Mrs. Tanveer
Fatima.

(xix) DW-19 Mohd Hamid.

12. As per paragraph No. 4 of the
judgement of the Trial Court, on behalf of
the prosecution, total seventy documents
(Ext.1 to Ext.70) were produced and
exhibited before the trial Court. During
cross-examination
of
the
prosecution
witnesses total thirty seven documents were
produced by the defence side and exhibited
before the trial Court. On behalf of defence,
total thirteen material exhibits were
produced and exhibited as D-1 to D-13
before the trial Court.

Submissions
on
behalf
of
revisionists

13. Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned Senior
Counsel for the revisionists, at the outset,
primarily drawn the attention of this Court
focusing on following six documents,
namely :-

i-
F.I.R.
dated
03.01.2019
(Exhibit Ka-61).

ii-
Birth
certificate
dated
28.06.2012 (Registration No. RNPB201203857) of Mohammad Abdullah Azam
Khan issued by Nagar Palika Parishad,
Rampur (Exhibit Ka-11).

iii- Application dated 17.01.2015
(Exhibit Ka-55)
and
affidavit
dated
17.01.2015 (Exhibit Ka-53) of revisionistDr. Tanzeen Fatima given before City
Health Officer, Nagar Nigam Lucknow.

iv-
Birth
certificate
dated
21.01.2015 (Registration No. NNLKO-B2015-292611)
(Exhibit
Ka-59)
of
Mohammad Abdullah Azam Khan issued
by Municipal Corporation, Lucknow.

v- Duplicate Birth certificate,
Serial No. 696 dated 29.01.2015 issued by
Queen Mary's Hospital, Lucknow (Exhibit
Ka-54).

vi- Duplicate Birth certificate
dated 21.04.2015, serial No. 718 (Ext. Kha1/PW-7/10.11.2022) issued by Queen
2180 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Mary's Hospital, Lucknow produced by
PW-7 before the Trial Court.

14. Main substratum of argument of
Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel for
the revisionists is that it is not a case of
forgery or fabrication of any document on
the part of the accused-revisionists. Even
accepting the prosecution case for the sake
of argument only, no offence is made out
against Dr. Tanzeen Fatima, Mohammad
Azam Khan and Mohammad Abdullah
Azam
Khan.
Under
the
facts
and
circumstances of this case, criminal
prosecution of the revisionists, which is
based on malice is bad in law. The findings
recorded by the Trial Court as well as
Appellate Court are illegal and perverse on
the face of record. Impugned judgment and
orders dated 18.10.2023 and 23.12.2023 are
in complete disregard to the provisions of
Code of Criminal Procedure and Indian
Evidence Act, hence the same are not
sustainable in the eye of law. Revisionists
have been convicted on the basis of illegal
presumption without any legal evidence
sufficient to convict them. Both the courts
below failed to appreciate that ingredients
to constitute the offence punishable under
Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC
are lacking in this case.

15. Mr. Kapil Sibal in order to
strengthen
his
aforesaid
submissions
further argued that :-

15-1.
Mohammad
Abdullah
Azam Khan was born in Queen Mary's
Hospital, Lucknow on 30.09.1990, but at
the initial stage, date of birth of
Mohammad Abdullah Azam Khan was
recorded in the concerned record of
Nagar Palika Parishad, Rampur as
01.01.1993 and place of birth as Rampur
on the basis of information given by the
family friend of his father Mohammad
Azam Khan.

15-2. The birth certificate dated
28.06.2012
(Registration
No.
RNPB2012-03857)
of
Mohammad
Abdullah Azam Khan, in which his date
of birth is recorded as 01.01.1993 and
place of birth is recorded as Rampur
shows that same was issued under Section
12/17 of the Registration of Births and
Deaths Act 1969 and Rules 8/13 of the
Uttar Pradesh Registration of Births and
Deaths Rules, 2003 by the department of
Health/ Nagar Palika Parishad, Rampur,
as such birth certificate dated 28.06.2012
(Exhibit Ka-11) is neither a forged nor a
fabricated document.

15-3. The first allegation of the
complainant in the F.I.R. that the first
birth certificate dated 28.06.2012 of
Mohammad Abdullah Azam Khan was
issued by Nagar Palika Parishad, Rampur
on the basis of affidavits given by
Mohammad Azam Khan and Dr. Tanzeen
Fatima is completely false and against the
evidence on record. No affidavit was
given by Mohammad Azam Khan and Dr.
Tanzeen Fatima for issuance of first birth
certificate dated 28.06.2012. Nothing is
on record with regard to any kind of
forgery
or
fabrication
made
by
Mohammad Azam Khan and Dr. Tanzeen
Fatima in issuance of birth certificate
dated
28.06.2012
to
Mohammad
Abdullah Azam Khan. The prosecution
could not prove the said allegation in
accordance with law against them.
 15-4. The second allegation
against Mohammad Azam Khan and Dr.
Tanzeen Fatima and Mohammad Abdullah
Azam Khan are that they, for their personal
gain, by forgery and well planned
conspiracy,
got
issued
second
birth
certificate dated 21.01.2015 of their son
Mohammad Abdullah Azam Khan from
5 All. Dr. Tanzeen Fatima Vs. State of U.P.
2181
Municipal Corporation, Lucknow on the
basis of duplicate birth certificate, Serial
No. 718, dated 21.04.2015 (Exhibit Kha1/PW-7) issued by Queen Mary's Hospital,
Lucknow, is also wrong and false
allegation. In this regard, it is submitted that
in fact Dr. Tanzeen Fatima moved an
application dated 17.01.2015 (Exhibit Ka55) along with her affidavit dated
17.01.2015 (Exhibit Ka-53) before City
Health Officer, Nagar Nigam Lucknow for
issuance of birth certificate of her son
Mohammad
Abdullah
Azam
Khan
mentioning inter alia that Mohammad
Abdullah Azam Khan was born on
30.09.1990 in Queen Mary's Hospital,
Lucknow (King George University). There
is an urgent need of birth certificate of my
son and birth of my son can be confirmed
from the records of Queen Mary's Hospital,
Lucknow as required. Thereafter second
birth certificate dated 21.01.2015 was
issued by the Municipal Corporation,
Lucknow after due verification of record in
accordance with law.
 15-5. It is also pointed out that no
duplicate birth certificate of Queen Mary's
Hospital, Lucknow, was filed along with
application dated 17.01.2015 (Exhibit Ka55) of Dr. Tanzeen Fatima. The birth
certificate dated 29.01.2015 (Exhibit Ka54) and 21.04.2015 (Exhibit Kha-1/PW7/10.11.2022 ) Serial No. 718 of Queen
Mary's Hospital, Lucknow are of later date
of issuance of second birth certificate dated
21.01.2015, hence the case of the
prosecution in F.I.R. that second birth
certificate dated 21.01.2015 has been
issued on the basis of birth certificate dated
21.04.2015 of Queen Mary's Hospital,
Lucknow cannot be accepted. There is no
forgery in the application and affidavit
dated 17.01.2015 of Dr. Tanzeen Fatima.

15-6. Much emphasis has been
given by contending that second birth
certificate dated 21.01.2015 may be illegal
or wrong for civil consequences, but cannot
be said or treated as a forged document,
because the same has been officially and
validly issued following due procedure of
law under the genuine seal and signature of
officer competent to issue the same.
 15-7. The revisionists are neither
author of either of the birth certificates nor
there is a charge that they interpolated or
fabricated either of the birth certificates.

15-8. The prosecution has failed
to establish that any kind of alleged forgery
was committed by the revisionists in the
process of obtaining birth certificate issued
at Rampur or Lucknow.

15-9. The birth certificate would
not fall within the definition of 'valuable
security' as defined under Section 30 of
IPC, hence, the ingredients of Sections 467
and 471 IPC are also not satisfied.

15-10. It is also submitted that if
birth certificate dated 21.01.2015 is being
treated as a forged document by the State
government/prosecution, the appropriate
legal action should have been taken under
Section 23 of the Registration of Births and
Deaths Act, 1969 against all the concerned
officers and persons, who were involved in
the process of issuance of said birth
certificate dated 21.01.2015, but no action
has been taken by the State against any
authorities/officer concerned.

15-11. The issue involved in this
case attracts the provisions of the the
Registration of Births and Deaths Act,
1969, which is a Special Act. It is well
settled that special law prevails over
general law and things to be done in a
particular manner can only be done in that
manner, hence, under the facts of the case,
the provisions of Indian Penal Code is not
attracted against the revisionists.

15-12. If such kind of malicious
criminal prosecutions are allowed, then
2182 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
lakhs of people of this country will be
behind the bar in a civil wrong for no fault.

15-13. Mr. Sibal, learned Senior
Counsel, stretching his argument further
submits that it is not the case of the
complainant that any of accused tried to
deceive him and he has been cheated by
them or he is victim of this case. There is
no victim in the present case. The
complainant has made complaint on his
letter pad disclosing his identity as
Convener, Small Scale Industries Cell,
West U.P., Bhartiya Janata Party in order to
mount pressure upon the administrative
officers.
 15-14. On the complaint dated
17.12.2018 of the complainant, F.I.R. (Ext.
Kha-61) was lodged after 15 days on
3.01.2019 due to political malice.

15-15. In view of Section 39
Cr.P.C. applicant had no locus to lodge FIR
under section 420 IPC as he is not a person
deceived or victim.

15-16. It is simply a case of
correction of date of birth of Mohammad
Abdullah Azam Khan. No complaint was
filed by Municipal Corporation, Lucknow
regarding
the birth
certificate
dated
21.01.2015.

15-17. The investigating officer
did not record the statement under Section
161 Cr.P.C. of Rajeev Rajput, then SubRegistrar of Births and Deaths of Municipal
Council, Rampur who had prepared and
issued Birth Certificate dated 28.06.2012.
Even he was not produced by the
prosecution before the trial Court. In this
regard, it is further pointed out that though
on the application under Section 311
Cr.P.C. of the prosecution, Rajeev Rajput
was summoned, but later on prosecution
moved
another
application
for
not
summoning him as a prosecution witness
therefore, trial court has withdrawn its
previous order of summoning Rajeev
Rajput. Similarly Dr. Uma of Queen Mary's
Hospital, Lucknow was also summoned by
the Trial Court, but subsequently at the
request of prosecution, she was dropped.

15-18. Both the Courts below
failed to consider that there was no motive
or mens rea on the part of the revisionists to
commit
any
offence.
Even
several
documents, which have been exhibited,
have not been properly marked.

15-19. Similarly, the Trial Court
has also failed to appreciate the relevant
evidence produced and proved as genuine
by the revisionists. One such evidence is a
video
of
a
wedding
attended
by
Mohammad Abdullah Azam Khan on
16.12.1990, which proves beyond all
reasonable doubts that he could not have
been born on 01.01.1993, as alleged by the
prosecution.

15-20. The Trial Court has failed
to consider that Mohammad Abdullah
Azam Khan had already applied for
correction of his date of birth on 23.03.2015
before the St. Paul School, Rampur which
was forwarded to C.B.S.E. on 15.04.2015
much prior to election of Legislative
Assembly, 2017 and about three and half
years prior to complaint and registration of
FIR dated 13.01.2019.

15-21. After going through the
statement of PW-3, Tejpal Singh in totality,
clear inference can be drawn that he was
telling lie after lie as there are material
contradictions in his statement.

15-22. Referring to the relevant
part of statement of Dr. Sunil Kumar
Rawat, PW-7 whereby he had stated that
copy of birth certificate issued by Queen
Mary's Hospital, Lucknow was also
attached along with the affidavit dated
17.1.2015 of Dr. Tanzeen Fatima, it is
argued by Mr. Sibal that the said birth
certificate was issued on 29.1.2015,
therefore, the same could not be attached
5 All. Dr. Tanzeen Fatima Vs. State of U.P.
2183
along with the affidavit dated 17.1.2015 of
Dr. Tanzeen Fatima. In this regard, it is
further stated that the statement had been
given by Dr. Sunil Kumar Rawat, PW-7 in
order to implicate the accused.

15-23. Much emphasis has been
given by contending that the birth
certificate dated 28.6.2012 of Mohammad
Abdullah Azam Khan issued by Nagar
Palika Parishad, Rampur was filed in Civil
Appeal No. 104 of 2020 before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, on which there was no such
endorsement in Hindi that the same was
issued on the basis of affidavit. But when
same birth certificate dated 28.6.2012 (Ext.
Ka-11) has been filed by Investigating
Officer along with charge sheet before the
trial court of this case, on which there was
a stamp on the top of left side mentioning
that शपथ पत् के आिरर पर जररी. This fact clearly
goes to suggest that prosecution has filed
the birth certificate dated 28.6.2012 (Ext.
Ka-11) after making addition / interpolation
by putting stamp शपथ पत् के आिरर पर जररी in order
to support the prosecution case, which
amounts to forgery on the part of
prosecution. It is further pointed out that
said fact was also proved by the defence by
filing the correct birth certificate dated
28.6.2012 before the trial court as paper
No. A80/1 which has also been exhibited as
PW3/D1 on which there is no such
stamping. On putting query in this regard,
Mr. P.C. Srivastava, learned Additional
Advocate General and learned counsel for
complainant are speechless and they could
not address the court on the said issue.

15-24. DWs 11, 15, 16 and 17
were the expert witnesses and their
evidences have not been discussed by the
Trial Court.

15-25. During trial revisionist-
Mohammad Abdullah Azam Khan has also
filed a civil suit No. 925 of 2023 on
12.5.2023 in the Court of Civil Judge (SD),
which is still pending.

15-26.
Relying
upon
the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Mohd. Ibrahim vs. State of Bihar (2009)
8 SCC 751, it is argued that Section 467,
468 and 471 IPC cannot be applied in the
present case as there is no forgery in the
Birth Certificate dated 21.01.2015.

15-27. It is further submitted that
although accused persons did not furnish
false particulars, but even furnishing of a
false particulars does not amounts to
forgery, hence the birth certificate dated
21.01.2015 itself is not a forged document.

15-28.
Since
the
entry
of
information furnished by Queen Mary's
Hospital, Lucknow was already made on
30.9.1990 in births and deaths register of
Municipal
Corporation,
Lucknow,
therefore, provisions of Rule 9(3) Uttar
Pradesh Registration of Births and Deaths
Rules 2003 will not be attracted in the
present case.

15-29. So far as Section 420 IPC
is concerned, it is argued that nothing is on
record to establish a dishonest or fraudulent
intention of the revisionist and deceiving
any person by them.

15-30. The documents were
submitted before the Passport Authority by
Mohammad Abdullah Azam Khan were in
good faith considered to be correct
documents obviating any scope of fraud or
deceit, which is sine qua non for invoking
Section 420 IPC.

15-31. So far as alleged offence
against the revisionist under Section 120-B
I.P.C. is concerned, it is submitted that
initially revisionist was not charge-sheeted
for the alleged offence under Section 120B I.P.C. in charge-sheet No. 196 of 2019
dated 01.04.2019. On 10.3.2021 when
discharge applications were moved on
behalf of revisionists on which prosecution
2184 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
sought time to file objection, thereafter on
24.3.2021, 26.3.2021. 1.4.2021, 12.4.2021
prosecution took adjournment. On 3.8.2021
when it was argued on behalf of the
revisionists that they are liable to be
discharged as there is no evidence of
conspiracy, then again prosecution took
adjournment on 4.8.2021 and 5.8.2021 on
the ground to show some judgments and the
date was further fixed for 11.8.2021. On
11.8.2021 supplementary charge-sheet No.
196A of 2019 under Section 120-B I.P.C.
has been filed by the informant Akash
Kumar
Saxena
on
behalf
of
the
investigating officer, who was not present
at that time in the Trial Court. On 8.11.2021
the complainant/ informant has also filed an
application along with his affidavit seeking
prayer to take cognizance upon the
supplementary charge-sheet. It is also
submitted that no permission was sought by
the Investigating Officer from the trial
court for conducting further investigation
and even did not inform the trial court
regarding any further investigation.

15-32. The revisionists have been
falsely and maliciously implicated in
several cases including this case due to
political vendetta of the ruling party (BJP).

15-33. Revisionist-Dr Tanzeen
Fatima has been member of Legislative
Assembly from Rampur Constituency, U.P.
once and Member of Rajya Sabha once.
She retired from the post of Reader after
dedicated service of 34 years as a teacher.

15-34.
Revisionist-Mohammad
Azam
Khan
has
been
member
of
Legislative Assembly for nine terms and
was Cabinet Minister of State of U.P. He
has also been privileged to discharge public
democratic duty as a leader of the
opposition for 14th State Legislative
Assembly of State of U.P. He was Member
of Rajya Sabha once and was also a
Member of the 17th Lok Sabha.
16. Learned counsel for the
revisionists lastly, explaining the criminal
history of the revisionists, submits that
prior to this case, being, Case Crime No. 04
of 2019 (Case No. 312 of 2022), revisionist
Dr. Tanzeen Fatima was not having any
criminal history. Revisionist Mohammad
Azam Khan had criminal history of 06
pending cases and revisionist Mohammad
Abdullah Azam Khan had criminal history
of 01 case, when he was juvenile. The
details
of
criminal
history
of
the
revisionists are as follows :

A-List of 35 Criminal Cases
pending against Revisionist Dr. Tanzeen
Fatima

S.
No.
Case No.
Section(s)
Present
status
1.
Crime
No.
224/2019,
P.S. Azeem
Nagar,
District
Rampur, U.P.
U/s
447,
420, 120B
IPC
On
bail.
2.
Crime
No.226/2019,
P.S. Azeem
Nagar,
District
Rampur, U.P.
U/s 447, 420,
120B
IPC
On bail
3.
Crime
No.227/2019,
P.S. Azeem
Nagar,
District
Rampur, U.P.
U/s 447, 420,
120B
IPC
On bail
4.
Crime
No.228/2019,
P.S. Azeem
U/s 447, 420,
120B
IPC
On bail
5 All. Dr. Tanzeen Fatima Vs. State of U.P.
2185
Nagar,
District
Rampur, U.P.
5.
Crime
No.232/2019,
P.S. Azeem
Nagar,
District
Rampur, U.P.
U/s
447,
420,120B
IPC
On bail
6.
Crime
No.235/2019,
P.S. Azeem
Nagar,
District
Rampur, U.P.
U/s 447, 420,
120B
IPC
On bail
7.
Crime
No.236/2019,
P.S. Azeem
Nagar,
District
Rampur, U.P.
U/s 447, 420,
120B
IPC
On bail
8.
Crime
No.237/2019,
P.S. Azeem
Nagar,
District
Rampur, U.P.
U/s 447, 420,
120B
IPC
On bail
9.
Crime
No.238/2019,
P.S. Azeem
Nagar,
District
Rampur, U.P.
U/s 447, 420,
120B
IPC
On bail
10. Crime
No.239/2019,
P.S. Azeem
Nagar,
District
Rampur, U.P.

U/s 447, 420,
120B
IPC
On bail
11.
Crime
No.240/2019,
P.S. Azeem
Nagar,
District
Rampur, U.P.
U/s 447, 420,
120B
IPC
On bail
12. Crime
No.241/2019,
P.S. Azeem
Nagar,
District
Rampur, U.P.
U/s 447, 420,
120B
IPC
On bail
13. Crime
No.242/2019,
P.S. Azeem
Nagar,
District
Rampur, U.P.
U/s 447, 420,
120B
IPC
On bail
14. Crime
No.248/2019,
P.S. Azeem
Nagar,
District
Rampur, U.P.
U/s 447, 420,
120B
IPC
On bail
15. Crime
No.249/2019,
P.S. Azeem
Nagar,
District
Rampur, U.P.
U/s 447, 420,
120B
IPC
On bail
16. Crime
No.250/2019,
P.S. Azeem
Nagar,
District
Rampur, U.P.
U/s 447, 420,
120B
IPC
On bail
17. Crime
No.251/2019,
P.S. Azeem
Nagar,
District
Rampur, U.P.
U/s 447, 420,
120B
IPC
On bail
2186 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
18. Crime
No.252/2019,
P.S. Azeem
Nagar,
District
Rampur, U.P.
U/s 447, 420,
120B
IPC
On bail
19. Crime
No.253/2019,
P.S. Azeem
Nagar,
District
Rampur, U.P.
U/s 447, 420,
120B
IPC
On bail
20. Crime
No.254/2019,
P.S. Azeem
Nagar,
District
Rampur, U.P.
U/s 447, 420,
120B
IPC
On bail
21. Crime
No.255/2019,
P.S. Azeem
Nagar,
District
Rampur, U.P.
U/s 447, 420,
120B
IPC
On bail
22. Crime
No.256/2019,
P.S. Azeem
Nagar,
District
Rampur, U.P.
U/s 447, 420,
120B
IPC
On bail
23. Crime
No.257/2019,
P.S. Azeem
Nagar,
District
Rampur, U.P.
U/s 447, 420,
120B
IPC
On bail
24. Crime
No.260/2019,
P.S. Azeem
Nagar,
District
Rampur, U.P.
U/s 447, 420,
120B
IPC
On bail
25. Crime
No.261/2019,
P.S. Azeem
Nagar,
District
Rampur, U.P.
U/s 447, 420,
120B
IPC
On bail
26. Crime
No.262/2019,
P.S. Azeem
Nagar,
District
Rampur, U.P.
U/s 447, 420,
120B
IPC
On bail
27. Crime
No.295/2019,
P.S. Azeem
Nagar,
District
Rampur, U.P.
U/s 447, 420,
120B
IPC
On bail
28. Crime
No.004/2019,
P.S. Ganj,
District
Rampur, U.P.
U/s 420, 467,
468,
471,
120B,
34 IPC
Present
Case
29. Crime
No.312/2019,
P.S. Azeem
Nagar,
District
Rampur, U.P.
U/s 420, 447,
120B
IPC & u/s 3
PDPP Act
On bail
30. Crime
No.46/2020,
P.S. Azeem
Nagar,
District
Rampur, U.P.
U/s 447 IPC
& 2/3 of
PDPP Act
On bail
31. Crime
No.
53/2020, P.S.
Azeem
Nagar,
District
Rampur, U.P.

U/s 447 IPC
& 2/3 of
PDPP Act
On bail
5 All. Dr. Tanzeen Fatima Vs. State of U.P.
2187
32. Crime
No.
553/2019,
P.S. Kotwali,
District
Rampur, U.P.
U/s 447 IPC
and 2 &
3 PDPP Act
On bail
33. Crime
No.
943/2019,
P.S.
Civil
Lines,
District
Rampur, U.P.
U/s 420, 467,
468,
471,
120B IPC.
On bail
34. Crime
No.
70/2020, P.S.
Kotwali,
District
Rampur, U.P.
U/s
420,
120B IPC.
On bail
35. Crime
No.
543/2019, PS
Kotwali
U/s 135 of
Electricity
Act
On bail

16-A. Brief submissions of behalf of
Revisionist-Dr. Tanzeen Fatima about her
above mentioned criminal history are:

(i) Prior to F.I.R. dated 03.1.2019
of this case, she had no F.I.R. against her.

(ii) All the subsequent F.I.Rs. to
this case cannot be termed as criminal
history of revisionist Dr. Tanzeen Fatima.
 (iii) All the above mentioned
criminal cases were registered against her
only after change of State Government in
the year 2017.
 (iv) After registration of F.I.R.
being Case Crime No. 224 of 2019
(mentioned at Sl. No. 1), 26 successive
F.I.Rs. (Sl. Nos. 2 to 27) of same offences
were got registered separately by 26
farmers.

(v) The cases mentioned at Sl.
Nos. 29, 30 & 31 (similar in nature) were
filed due to the reason that she is a member
of Maulana Jauhar Trust.
B- List of total 92 pending criminal cases
against the revisionist Mohammad
Azam Khan

Sl.
No.
Case No.
Section(s) Present
status
1
Crime
No.224/2019,
P.S.
Azeem
Nagar,
District
Rampur, U.P.
U/s 342,
384, 386,
389,
420, 323,
447, 506
IPC

On bail
2
Crime
No.226/2019,
P.S.
Azeem
Nagar,
District
Rampur, U.P.
U/s 120B,
323,
347, 386,
389, 420,
447, 504,
506 IPC

On bail
3
Crime
No.227/2019,
P.S.
Azeem
Nagar,
District
Rampur, U.P.
U/s 120B,
323,
342, 386,
389, 420,
447, 504,
506 IPC