LAWS(KER)-2015-3-89

KUMARESAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Decided On March 20, 2015
KUMARESAN Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First accused in C.C. No. 63/1998 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kozhikode is the revision petitioner herein. He along with two others were charge sheeted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kasaba police station in Crime No. 286/1996 under Sections 199, 419, 468 of Indian Penal Code and Section 12(1)(b) of Indian Passport Act.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in nutshell was that, on 03.10.1996, the revision petitioner who is a passport holder colluded with accused No. 2 falsely pretending as one Ramesh, Puthiyakovilakam Parambu, Kasaba amsom, desom submitted an application for passport before the Regional Passport Authority for getting a passport with forged certificates and documents containing false data's with a view to dishonestly induce the concerned authorities to issue a new passport and on 07.10.1996, he in collusion with accused Nos. 2 and 3 furnished a false declaration regarding his identity receivable as evidence before the Police Commissioner knowing to be false for getting an emergency passport and thereby, they have committed the offence punishable under Sections 199, 419, 468 of Indian Penal Code and Section 12(1)(b) of Indian Passport Act. After investigation, final report was filed and the case was taken on file as C.C. No. 63/1998 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kozhikode.

(3.) When the accused persons appeared before the court below, the particulars of offence were read over and explained to them and they pleaded not guilty. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 15 were examined and Exts. P1 to P20 and P19(a) were marked on the side of the prosecution. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were questioned under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure and they denied all the incriminating circumstances brought against them in the prosecution evidence. They have further stated that they have not committed any offence and they are innocent of the same. No defence evidence was adduced on their side.