Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Second Passport Case: Prosecution Failed to Prove Prior Knowledge

In Yogarani v. State by the Inspector of Police, the Supreme Court set aside the concurrent conviction of the appellant, who had been arraigned as Accused No. 2, in a prosecution arising from the issue of a second passport to Accused No. 1.

Facts of the Case

The prosecution alleged that the appellant had wrongfully facilitated Accused No. 1 in obtaining another passport while Accused No. 1 was already holding an Indian passport. According to the prosecution case, the earlier passport had been deposited with an employer in Dubai and a further passport was sought for better employment opportunities.

The second passport was allegedly returned undelivered to the Passport Office at Tiruchirappalli and kept in safe custody. The prosecution further alleged that it was subsequently delivered through officials and staff connected with the Passport Office and that the appellant demanded ₹5,000 from Accused No. 1 for handing it over. When payment was refused, the passport was stated to have been returned to the Passport Office by registered post.

The accused persons were tried for offences including criminal conspiracy and cheating under the Indian Penal Code, offences under Section 12 of the Passports Act, 1967, and offences then alleged under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The trial resulted in acquittal of all accused on the conspiracy charge. Some accused were acquitted of the remaining charges, while Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 5 were convicted of specified offences.

On appeal, the Madras High Court acquitted Accused Nos. 1 and 5. Their acquittal was not challenged by the CBI and attained finality. The appeal of Accused No. 2 was dismissed, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court's Reasoning

The Supreme Court focused on whether there was evidence establishing that the appellant had previous knowledge that Accused No. 1 already possessed a passport. The Court found that this essential factual link had not been proved.

The Court also took note of the position of the other accused. With Accused Nos. 1 and 3 to 5 already acquitted of the relevant allegations, and no cogent evidence proving the appellant's prior knowledge, the conviction of the appellant alone could not be maintained.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, acquitted the appellant and set aside the Trial Court judgment in C.C. No. 5 of 2007 as affirmed against her by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in C.A. (Md) No. 203 of 2008 dated 18 August 2011.

Relevant Legal Provisions

Section 12 of the Passports Act, 1967

Section 12(1)(b) of the Passports Act penalises knowingly furnishing false information or suppressing material information with a view to obtaining a passport or travel document. Section 12(2) separately deals with abetment of offences punishable under Section 12(1). The element of knowledge was therefore central to the prosecution theory considered by the Supreme Court.

Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

The judgment concerns Section 420 IPC, which dealt with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. Although the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 came into force on 1 July 2024 and repealed the IPC, Section 358 of the BNS preserves liabilities, penalties, investigations and proceedings relating to offences committed under the repealed IPC. The IPC provisions therefore remain legally relevant to this historical prosecution.

Why the Judgment Matters

The judgment reinforces a basic criminal-law requirement: conviction cannot rest on inference alone where the prosecution must prove a specific mental element such as knowledge. Where the alleged offence depends on an accused knowingly facilitating false information or suppression, the prosecution must place evidence connecting that accused to the necessary knowledge and intention.

The case also illustrates that the evidentiary position of co-accused and the finality of their acquittals may become relevant when evaluating whether a remaining conviction can independently stand on the evidence.