Kerala High Court
Abid vs State Of Kerala on 7 December, 2012
Author: K.Harilal
Bench: K.Harilal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL
MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/6TH PHALGUNA 1934
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 9 of 2013 (A)
----------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP.No.4164(A)/2012 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
COURT - I, PONNANI DATED 07-12-2012
CRIME NO. 350/2012 OF PERUMPADAPPU POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM
REVISION PETITIONER(S):
--------------------------------------------
ABID,S/O. MUHAMMED, KONCHODATHU HOUSE, KANHIRAMUKKU,
AINICHIRA, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM-679 584.
BY ADVS.SRI.SHEJI P.ABRAHAM
SRI.O.K.MURALEEDHARAN
RESPONDENT:
------------------------------
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI LIJU V STEPHEN
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
LSN
K.HARILAL,J.
--------------------
CRL.R.P.No.9 OF 2013
-------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of February, 2013
ORDER
The Revision Petitioner is the petitioner in C.M.P.No.4164 (A)/2012 of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ponnani. The impugned order was passed on an application filed by the Revision Petitioner for the releasing of his passport bearing No.J8844623 which was seized by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation in crime No.350/2012 of Perumpadappu Police Station. The Revision Petitioner is the accused in the above case. The allegation against him is that the he has two passports bearing Nos.F 9343455 and J 8844623 which were obtained in different names and thereby he committed the offence under Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act. In the memorandum of revision petition it is stated that petitioner is a resident of Ponnani in Malappuram District and passport No. A 7051259 was issued to the petitioner CRL.R.P.No.9 OF 2013 2 from the passport office Kozhikode on 14/01/1999. With that passport petitioner went to Abudabi after completing his 10th standard in the year 2005. While returning and checking out from the Cochin International Airport Revision Petitioner lost his luggage and passport. Immediately Revision Petitioner filed a complaint before the CIAL Police and applied for a duplicate passport. It is also stated that due to urgency to resume the job, without waiting for duplicate passport, the petitioner approached some other agents and obtained another passport No.F 9343455 from the passport office Kochi and again went abroad. In the meantime, petitioner obtained the duplicate of the original passport bearing No.J8844623 from Malappuram Passport Office. It is further stated that while on arrival here in the year 2012, knowing the consequences the petitioner destroyed passport No.F9343455. But in the meantime police had registered crime No.350/12 under section 12(1)
(b) of the Passport Act. The petitioner surrendered the CRL.R.P.No.9 OF 2013 3 duplicate of the original passport bearing number J8844623 before the police for verification. Now the Revision Petitioner has filed an application for returning the original passport from the court for entering into the job in the gulf country and that was rejected by the impugned order.
2. The respondent filed a statement stating that it is revealed from the investigation that Abid Muhammed, son ofMuhammed,KonchodathuHouse, Kanhiramukku,Ayinichira, Ponnani, Malappuram secured a passport from the Malappuram Passport Office vide application dated 31/05/2011 stating that his date of birth is 17/05/1980 and place of residence as Konchodathu House, Kanhiramukku, Ayinichira, Ponnani, Malappuram. The passport issued from Malappuram Passport office bears the Passport Number J8844623. When the said passport is valid, the said Abid Muhammed has applied and obtained another passport bearing No.F9343455 from Passport Office Kochi, stating a fake address as Hafees S/O Muhammed, Kizhakumtharayil CRL.R.P.No.9 OF 2013 4 House, Kochannur, Vadakkekad, Thrissur suppressing the original Passport, which the accused has obtained in his original name. The above act of the accused is an offence punishable under Section 12(1) (b) of Indian Passport Act and it is also revealed that Abid Muhammed has committed offence of impersonation for which Station House Officer is filing a report to the Court under the relevant section for further investigation. The superintendent of Police Malappuram has requested the Passport Officer, Ernakulam to furnish certified copies of all the relevant documents pertaining to the fake passport for the purpose of further investigation. Station House Officer is awaiting for the certified copies from that office.
3. I heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and the learned public prosecutor. The Revision Petitioner himself admitted that when his original passport bearing No.A7051259 was found missing from his luggage without waiting for a duplicate passport he approached CRL.R.P.No.9 OF 2013 5 some other agents and obtained another passport bearing No. F9343455 from Passport Office Kochi and again went abroad. But he suppressed the fact that the above passport was obtained in another name and address. The petitioner himself admitted that in the meantime he obtained the duplicate of the original passport bearing No.J8844623 from Malappuram passport office. Thus in disputably, he had two passports at a time but he further states that he destroyed one passport and no material is available either before the court or investigating agency to show that one passport was destroyed as alleged by the revision petitioner. Thus even according to the admissions of the Revision Petitioner himself he has two passports in different names. The way in which he obtained a second passport is illegal and punishable under law. The investigation is progressing and awaiting for certified copies of all the records from the Passport Office. At this stage the learned Magistrate rightly rejected the application. I am CRL.R.P.No.9 OF 2013 6 of the opinion that there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order under challenge. Therefore, this revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
In the result the revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-K.HARILAL, JUDGE MJL