SANTHIRAN PRAGASHRAJ Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.383 of 2024, pending on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-XI, Thiruvananthapuram. The case originated with the registration of Crime No.249 of 2023 at the Valiyathura Police Station for offences under Ss. 465, 468, 471 and 419 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC, Ss. 12(1A) and 12(1)(b) of the Indian Passport Act, 1967 and Ss. 14(a) and 14(B) of Foreigners Act. The prosecution allegation is that the petitioner had entered India with a Srilankan passport and single entry tourist visa valid from 27/12/2021 to 26/2/2022, and over stayed the visa period by continuing in India after 26/2/2022. It is further alleged that, with the aid of the 2nd accused and by concealing the fact that he is a Srilankan citizen, the petitioner impersonated himself as one Nitesh M and obtained Aadhaar card, Pan card and an Indian Passport. Thereafter, the petitioner attempted to travel to France via Bahrain by duping the immigration officials.

(2.) From the discussions in court and the proceedings uploaded in the e-courts site, the petitioner and his counsel gathered the impression that charges were being framed for offences under Ss. 465, 468, 471 and 419 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC, Ss. 12(1A) and 12(1)(b) of the Indian Passport Act, 1967 and Ss. 14(a) and 14(b) of Foreigners Act. As the maximum punishment prescribed for the above offences is seven years, the petitioner decided to opt plea bargain and for that purpose filed petition under Sec. 290 of the BNSS. To the petitioner's dismay, the application for plea bargaining was dismissed on the premise that the offences are punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to eight years. Therefore, the petitioner obtained a copy of the court charge and surprised to find that one of the charges levelled against him is for the offence punishable under Sec. 14B of the Foreigners Act, which is punishable with imprisonment up to 8 years. Hence, this Crl.M.C.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to the proceedings of the court below dtd. 16/1/2025 to submit that the court itself had recorded that the charges are framed under Ss. 465, 468, 471 and 419 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC, Ss. 12(1A) and 12(1) (b) of the Indian Passport Act, 1967 and Ss. 14(a) and 14(b) of Foreigners Act. It is contended that, even if the prosecution allegations are accepted, only the offence under Sec. 14(b) of the Foreigners Act will be attracted. For attracting Sec. 14B, the accused should have knowingly used a forged passport for entering into India. Finally, it is contended that the use of brackets around the alphabet B in Annexure 2 charge indicates that the provision was wrongly quoted.