Prosecution failed to place any evidence to prove suppression of material information, accused acquitted by the Supreme Court, in a case of holding a second passport
Judgment dated 23rd September 2024
Cause title : YOGARANI VS STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 477 of 2017
A Bench of Supreme Court Hon'ble Justice Mr. Sanjay Kumar and Hon'ble Justice Aravind Kumar allowed the appeal filed by the accused in a case of issuing second passport as as the prosecution failed to place any evidence to prove that the appellant had prior information of accused was already possessing a passport or knowingly had furnished false information to the passport authorities namely after knowing that accused had possessed or holding a passport was applying for second passport or having known the fact of accused possessing the passport was applying for the second passport and thereby there has been suppression of material information.
Facts of the case are:
The allegation is that appellant had wrongfully and illegally
facilitated accused No. 1, for obtaining a second
passport, who was already holding an Indian passport. It was further
alleged that accused No.1 having deposited his passport with his
employer at Dubai had applied for second passport in order to have
better employment
opportunities and said application was forwarded/ routed through the
appellant. The prosecution alleged that second passport which was
issued and dispatched to Accused No.1 had been returned undelivered
to the Passport Office Trichy and was kept in safe custody and later
it was delivered to the appellant by accused No.3 who was in charge
of safe custody of the passports through accused No.4 who was
working as a casual labourer in the Passport Office. It was also
alleged that appellant had demanded payment of Rs.5,000/- from
accused No.1 for handing over the passport and he having refused
resulted in appellant returning the second passport to the Passport
Office by registered post.
Along with the appellant other accused persons Accused No.1, Accused
No.3 - in charge of safe custody of passports, Accused No.4 working
as a casual labour in the Passport Office, Trichy and Accused No.5
then working as an Upper Division Clerk in Passport Office, Trichy
who had made an endorsement that no passport had earlier been issued
in favour of Accused No.1 were also tried for the offences
punishable under Section120B read with Section 420 of IPC, Section
12(1)(b), 12(2) of Passports Act and Section 13(2) and Section
13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 before the Special
Judge for CBI cases, Madurai, which resulted in acquittal of all the
accused persons in respect of charge of conspiracy. Accused Nos.3
and 4 were acquitted of all other charges also.
The CBI did not prefer any appeal against acquittal of accused Nos.3 and 4. However, accused Nos.1 and 2 were convicted for offences punishable under Section 420 IPC and Section 12(1)(b) and Section 12(2) of Passports Act respectively. Accused No.5 was convicted under Section 12(2) of Passports Act and Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 preferred criminal appeals challenging their conviction and sentence and by impugned common judgment the High Court allowed the appeals filed by accused Nos.1 and 5 and acquitted them and said judgment has attained finality as it has not been challenged by the CBI. However, the appeal filed by accused No.2 came to be dismissed and as such she has filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Observation and Direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:
15. In the case on hand the prosecution failed to place any evidence
to prove that the appellant had prior information of accused No.1
was already possessing a passport or knowingly had furnished false
information to the passport authorities namely after knowing that
accused No.1 had possessed or holding a passport was applying for
second passport or having known the fact of accused No.1 possessing
the passport was applying for the second passport and thereby there
has been suppression of material information. In other words, the
prosecution had failed to place on record any evidence to prove that
appellant had any previous knowledge of accused No.1 was already
possessing a passport. In the absence of any cogent evidence placed
in this regard and accused Nos. 1 and 3 to 5 having been acquitted
of the offences alleged, the conviction and order of sentence
imposed against the appellant alone cannot be sustained or in other
words it has to be held that prosecution had failed to prove the
guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
16. For the reasons afore-stated the appeal succeeds and appellant
accused No.2 is acquitted of the offences alleged against her. The
judgment of the Trial Court passed in C.C. No.5 of 2007 as affirmed
in C.A.(Md) No.203 of 2008 by the High Court of Madras at Madurai
Bench dated 18.08.2011 are hereby set aside."
Download Judgment dated 23rd September 2024 in YOGARANI VS STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, Criminal Appeal No. 477 of 2017.