MOHAMMED HUSSAIN PANGADAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the accused in the impugned Annexure-B FIR in Crime No. 119/2012 of Wandoor Police Station for alleged offence punishable under Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act, 1967. The gist of the allegations against the petitioner in the instant crime is that the petitioner during the currency of a passport obtained by him in the year 1990 had obtained yet another passport vide No. V 594787 by furnishing false address and date of birth and later on, renewed the same and thus committed offence under Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act, 1967. It is common ground that the offence under Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act is a non-cognizable offence as envisaged in the Code of Criminal Procedure. After the registration of Annexure-B Crime and during the pendency of the investigation it is seen that the Investigating Officer concerned had subsequently added the offence under Sections 420, 465,468 and 471 of the IPC apart from the original offence under Section 12(1)(b) of the Indian Passport Act in the aforementioned Crime No. 119/2012 of Wandoor Police Station, Malappuram District. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was in fact in possession of two passports simultaneously and had surrendered both the passports before the Consulate General of India at Jeddah and applied for re-issue of passport. That the Consulate General of India at Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, being a competent Court of passport authority as envisaged under the Passport Act, 1967 and after following statutory procedure imposing a fine of Saudi Riyal of 475/-(equivalent to Indian Rupee Rs. 5,000/-) and other charges as provided under Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act and on remittance of the same issued a new passport to the petitioner. The petitioner contends that on remittance of the aforementioned fine, the Consulate General of India at Jeddah, Saudi Arabia issued new passport to him numbered as K8726745 on 01/12/2012 after receiving the fine amount in that regard and the passport was valid till 30/11/2013 as borne out by Annexure-F that the competent officer at the Office of the Consulate General of India at Jeddah has issued a letter dated 10/12/2012 addressed to the Director General of Passports, Passport Officer, Makkah Al Mukarrakah Region, Ministry of Interior, Jeddah intimating the issuance of passport under the provisions of Passport Act etc. as evident from Annexure-G produced on page 21 of the paper book which reads as follows:

(2.) The petitioner has raised several contentions in support of his prayer for interdiction with the impugned criminal proceedings. It is contended that the payment of the aforementioned penalty amount of Rs. 5,000/- as certified in Annexure-G and Annexure-I as certified by the Consulate General of India at Jeddah, Saudi Arabia is a payment of fine amount envisaged in Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act and therefore it should be lawfully treated as compounding the criminal offence as envisaged under Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act on payment of penalty amount of Rs. 5,000/- as envisaged in the provision of the Passport Act and therefore, the impugned criminal proceedings in respect of factual incidents herein stand lawfully terminated and so the authorities cannot resurrect any criminal proceedings based on these set of factual incidents by the present impugned criminal proceedings. Since very same factual incidents were considered and the competent passport authority has imposed a maximum fine amount of Rs. 5,000/- as envisaged in Section 12(1)(b) as certified in Annexures-G and I by the Consulate General of India at Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, the registration of the impugned crime for the same set of factual incidents would amount to compelling the petitioner to face double jeopardy which is constitutionally barred in view of the protection provision contained in Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and provisions in Section 300 of the CrPC. The next contention is that the impugned Annexure-B FIR in Crime No. 119/2012 was registered by the Wandoor Police solely for the offence under Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act which is exclusively non-cognizable offence in which the police has no jurisdiction for registration of the crime and investigation. Further that the additional offence under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the IPC was only subsequently added by the police much after the investigation of Crime No. 119/2012. Though those additional offence are cognizable offence, police will not get any jurisdiction for registration of the initial crime for non-cognizable offence so long as no prior permission for such purpose has been obtained from the jurisdictional Magistrate as mandated under Section 155(2) of the CrPC. It is further strongly urged by the petitioner that the impugned criminal proceedings are vitiated due to the reason that there is a fragrant violation of the statutory bar contained under Section 15 of the Passport Act, insofar as the impugned prosecution in the instant case has been instituted against the petitioner without the prior sanction of the Central Government or the authorised authority as mandated under Section 15 of the Passport Act. It is also contended that as the very factual basis for additionally including cognizable offences are inextricably connected to factual incidents which give rise to the offence under Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act, the lack of previous sanction as mandated under Section 15 of the Passport Act is a bar for institution of any prosecution.

(3.) Further it is contended by the petitioner that as the said cognizable offences were not disclosed and registered in the impugned Annexure-B FIR at its inception along with non-cognizable offence under Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act, the benefit available to the investigation as envisaged in Section 155(4) of the CrPC is not available in the instant case and that for these reasons, the impugned criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed. Further, it is contended that the respondent-police authorities will not have the liberty to re-initiate any further criminal proceedings arising out of these factual incidents after its quashment by this Court, by including the cognizable offences and non-cognizable offences simultaneously in any such proposed subsequent criminal proceedings etc. As all the alleged cognizable offences are inextricably interlinked and interconnected with the allegations arising out of alleged commission of offence under Section 12(1)(b) of the Act, which is a non-cognizable offence and as the basic factual incidents which constitute the foundation for alleged offence under Section 12(1)(b) stands lawfully terminated in view of imposition of maximum fine amount of Rs. 5,000/- as envisaged under Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act, there is no question of re-initiating these impugned criminal proceedings even by simultaneously including the non-cognizable offence and the above said cognizable offences after its quashment etc.