MARY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners herein challenge the conviction and sentence against them under Sections 419 and 471 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, and also under Section 12(1) (b) of the Indian Passport Act, in C.C. No.132/2000 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Cherthala. They are close relatives. The prosecution case is that the 1st accused applied for a passport by affixing the photograph of the 2nd accused in the application form, and the 2nd accused thus obtained a passport. The prosecution would allege that the 1st accused used the photograph of the 2nd accused, and impersonated her for obtaining a passport. The police registered the crime, on a complaint made by the Regional Passport Officer, and after investigation submitted final report in court. The two accused appeared before the learned Magistrate, and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them.

(2.) The prosecution examined four witnesses, including the Regional Passport Officer, and marked Exts.P1 to P13 documents. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., both the accused denied the incriminating circumstances. They did not adduce any oral evidence, but Ext.D1 was marked on their side. This is the photocopy of the original marked as Ext.P4.

(3.) On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found both the accused guilty. On conviction, they were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each, and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each under Sections 419 and 471 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, and to undergo another term of simple imprisonment for 15 days each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each under Section 12(1) (b) of the Indian Passport Act. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 22.1.2005, the accused approached the Court of Session, Alappuzha with Crl.A. No.140/2005. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) -II, Alappuzha confirmed the conviction and sentence, and accordingly, dismissed the appeal. Now the accused are before this Court in revision, challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence.