Kerala High Court
Abbas T.P vs State on 23 July, 2012
Author: C.T. Ravikumar
Bench: C.T.Ravikumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2012/1ST SRAVANA 1934
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1137 of 2012 ()
-------------------------------
CRA.127/2010 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (AD HOC)-III,MANJERI
CC.39/2008 of J.M.F.C.-II(FOREST OFFENCES),MANJERI
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
----------------------------------------
ABBAS T.P.
S/O.SOOPI, AGED 42 YEARS, THALAPARAMBATH HOUSE
KOLAYAD AMSOM, PERUVA DESOM, KANNUR.
BY ADVS.SRI.C.KHALID
SRI.PHIJO PRADEESH PHILIP
RESPONDENTS(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE:
---------------------------------
1. STATE, BY DETECTIVE INSPECTOR
CBCID, SIG III, KOZHIKODE - 673001
CBCID CRIME NO.13/CR/SIII/O6
(KONDOTTY POLICE STATION CR.20/06).
2. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682031.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.BIJU MEENATTOOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
==========================
CRL.R.P. No.1137 OF 2012
==========================
Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2012
ORDER
Revision petitioner was the accused in C.C.No.39 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II (Forest Offences), Manjeri. This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc)-III, Manjeri in Crl.Appeal No.127 of 2010. The revision petitioner was tried for offences under sections 419, 468 and 471of the Indian Penal Code and under section 12(1)(b) and (d) of the Passport Act. The prosecution case in brief is as follows:-
The petitioner committed forgery in the passport bearing No.F 3533647 issued to Edampooradi Bhaskaran by affixing his photograph in place of the said Bhaskaran committing impersonation and knowingly used that forged passport as genuine and travelled from Abudabi to Calicut on 12.1.2006 at 20.10 hours by Flight No.IX
332. On the side of the prosecution, Pws 1 to 7 were examined and Crl.R.P.1137/12 2 Exts.P1 to P7 were marked. There was no oral or documentary evidence on the side of the defence. After closing prosecution evidence, the petitioner was questioned under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he denied all the incriminating circumstances brought against him in the evidence. After careful evaluation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial court found the petitioner guilty under sections 419 and 471 IPC and section 12(1)(d) of the Passport Act. Thereupon, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.2,500/- and in default of payment of the said amount to undergo simple imprisonment of one month by way of default sentence under section 419 IPC. Under section 471 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and directed to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. He was also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under section 12(1)(d) of the Passport Crl.R.P.1137/12 3 Act. All the sentences were directed to be run concurrently. Set off, if any, was allowed. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner took up the matter in appeal as Criminal Appeal No.127 of 2010. After considering the rival contentions and appreciating the evidence on record, the appellate court found no reason to interfere with the conviction as also sentence passed by the trial court against the accused, as per the impugned judgment. It is in the said circumstances that this revision petition has been filed.
2. The petitioner contends that there is absolute absence of ingredients to attract offence under sections 419 and 471 IPC and also under section 12(1)(d) of the Passport Act. The very case of prosecution is that the revision petitioner herein had committed forgery in passport bearing No.F 3533647 issued to one Edampooradi Bhaskaran by affixing his photograph in place of the said Bhaskaran. The further case was that after affixing his own photograph in place of the said Bhaskaran in whose favour the said passport was issued, the petitioner impersonated himself as Edampooradi Bhaskaran and Crl.R.P.1137/12 4 knowingly used that forged passport for the purpose of travelling from Abudabi to Calicut. The courts below concurrently found that the said passport was issued in the name of one Edampooradi Bhaskaran. The prosecution had succeeded in proving that using the said passport, the petitioner had travelled from Abudabi to Calicut in Flight No.IX 332. Ext.P2 was the passport used by the petitioner for the said travel. The name of the petitioner is Abbas T.P. Ext.P2 passport would undoubtedly show that it was issued in the name of one Kottan Bhaskaran and his address is shown as Edampooradi Bhaskaran. At the same time, in Ext.P2 passport, in place of the Kottan Bhaskaran, photograph of the petitioner was affixed. Ext.P10 and the oral testimony of PW5, the Superintendent of Passport Office, Kozhikode would go to prove that Ext.P2 was issued in the name of Kottan Bhaskaran. PW4, the Village Assistant of Kodayad and Ext.P8 would go to prove the identity of the address of the accused/ petitioner herein. There is no explanation whatsoever from the part of the revision petitioner as to how his own photograph came to be affixed in Ext.P2 passport. On a careful evaluation of the evidence, Crl.R.P.1137/12 5 the trial court found that the petitioner had committed offence of forgery by affixing his own photograph in Ext.P2. The prosecution has succeeded in proving all the ingredients to attract offence under section 471 IPC and section 12(1)(d) of the Passport Act against the accused. The action on the part of the petitioner in affixing his own photograph in Ext.P2 and using it as a genuine passport with full knowledge that it is a forged one would undoubtedly attract ingredients of section 471 IPC and section 12(1)(d) of the Passport Act. To attract an offence under section 419 IPC, it is imperative to prove an act of impersonation and also commission of an act of cheating. In other words, cheating was committed by impersonation has to be proved. The testimony of PW1 and PW2 and Exts.P2 to P5 would establish the fact that Ext.P2 passport was used by the petitioner and it is impersonating himself as Edampooradi Kottan Bhaskaran that the petitioner undertook the said travel. Evidently, the courts below have entered conviction against the revision petitioner upon such careful evaluation of the evidence. In the said circumstances, a revision is possible or permissible only on making Crl.R.P.1137/12 6 out of a case of perverse appreciation of evidence. In this case, the petitioner has failed to bring out a case that the courts below have appreciated the evidence in a palpable, perverse manner. In the said circumstances, the conviction of the accused for offences referred hereinbefore calls for no interference by invoking the revisional jurisdiction. Therefore, the conviction of the revision petitioner under sections 419 and 471 IPC and section 12(1) (d) of the Passport Act is hereby confirmed.
3. What now survives for consideration is the question regarding the adequacy or otherwise of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the revision petitioner deserves penal servitude by way of incarceration for the said conviction. I am of the considered view that interests of justice can be adequately met by imposing the following sentence on the revision petitioner. Accordingly, for his conviction under section 12(1)(d) of the Passports Act, the revision petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till Crl.R.P.1137/12 7 the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The sentence of the fine imposed on him under sections 419 and 471 IPC is not interfered with. The petitioner is given 45 days from today to deposit the fine amount before the trial court. He shall appear before the trial court on or before 20.8.2012 to receive the sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court.
In the result, this revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above.
C.T. RAVIKUMAR
(Judge)
spc/
Crl.R.P.1137/12 8
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
JUDGMENT
September, 2010
Crl.R.P.1137/12 9