IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2011 / 14TH POUSHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 5067 of 2010() ------------------------- CC.188/2009 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... PETITIONER(S): A1 ----------------- ALEX BERGIN BINO, AGE 33, S/O.ALEX, HOUSE NO.3/30, SHIHABUDHEEN STREET, NAGERCOIL, PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT NO.17/133(B), NEAR KAMARAJ BUS STAND, KARINKAL VILLAGE, VILAVANCODE TALUK, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED RESPONDENT(S): STATE -------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY POLICE SUPERINTENDENT, CRIME BRANCH, C.I.D., S.I.G.-I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI K.J. MOHAMED ANZARI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2011 ALONG WITH CRL.M.C.NO.5068/2010 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. Nos.5067, 5068, 5069, 5070 & 5071 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of January, 2011. ORDER These petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code (for short, “the Code”) are filed by accused No.1 in C.C.Nos.188 of 2009, 86 of 2010, 226 of 2009, 204 of 2009 and 101 of 2010 respectively, of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram. Case against petitioner and accused Nos.2 to 4 is that making CW3 (different persons) in the above said cases believe that petitioner and other accused would arrange visa for CW3 in the said cases to get employment in the United Kingdom (for short, “the U.K.”), petitioner collected money from CW3 in the said cases along with their passports, petitioner and other accused in furtherance of their common forged visa for employment at U.K. and a seal, the forged seal was stamped on the passports of CW3, who attempted to go to U.K. But were arrested and detained, petitioner and other accused committed forgery for the purpose of cheating, cheated CW3 in the cases and thereby committed offences as alleged. In C.C.Nos.188 of 2009 and 204 of 2009 offences alleged are under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”) while in other cases, it is under Sections 468 and 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC which are attributed to the petitioner and other accused. Contention of petitioner in these petitions is that there is nothing on record to show that petitioner was a party to the alleged forgery of visa or seal or Crl.M.C.Nos.5067, 5068, 5069, 5070 and 5071/2010 2 that he shared common intention with the other accused in doing so or in cheating CW3 in the cases. According to the petitioner, on a bonafide belief and understanding with accused Nos.2 to 4 that if candidates are recruited to the U.K. for employment petitioner would be given commission, petitioner happened to collect money and passports from CW3 in the cases and those passports and money were given to accused Nos.2 to 4. In the circumstances, the final reports against petitioner and cognizance taken against him are not valid and liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for petitioner has contended that in the absence of anything to show that petitioner shared common intention with accused Nos.2 to 4 his implication in proceedings is illegal and is liable to be quashed. Learned Public prosecutor contended that there is sufficient materials to show that visa and seal were forged, the victims (CW3) attempted to travel abroad making use of the forged visa and the stamp on their passports but they were arrested on the respective dates and kept in custody. On questioning the victims and other witnesses involvement of petitioner and other accused was revealed. It is also pointed out by learned Public Prosecutor that there is sufficient materials on record to show that petitioner was a party to alleged forgery and other offences committed by accused Nos.2 to 4. 2. I have gone through the final reports in these cases as well as the relevant statements of the witnesses. It is seen from the final reports that the official witnesses are cited by the prosecution to prove that visas issued to the Crl.M.C.Nos.5067, 5068, 5069, 5070 and 5071/2010 3 victims in the case (CW3 in all the cases) and the seal affixed on their passports were forged. Witnesses are also cited to show that victims were taken into custody for using forged visa and seal. 3. In C.C.No.86 of 2010 CW8, the father of the victim is cited to prove that he gave money to the petitioner in the presence of accused Nos.2 to 4. CW3 is a witness for the said transaction. In C.C.No.226 of 2009 CW4, father of the victim (CW3) has given money to the petitioner. CWs 2, 3, 4 and 10 are cited to prove that. Money was given to the petitioner in the presence of respondent Nos.2 to 4. In C.C.No.188 of 2009 it is the version of CW5, father of the victim that he gave money to the petitioner in the presence of accused Nos.2 to 4. CWs 3, 4, 11 and 12 are cited to prove the said alleged transaction. In C.C.No.204 of 2009 CW6, father of CW3 has handed over the amount to the petitioner, again in the presence of accused Nos.2 to 4. CWs 3 to 7 are cited to prove the said fact and the alleged involvement of petitioner also in the incident. In C.C.No.101 of 2010, similar witnesses are cited to prove that money was handed over to the petitioner in the presence of accused Nos.2 to 4. 4. Contention raised is that it is not shown that petitioner was a party to the alleged forgery of visa and seal. But, I must bear in mind that the prosecution seeks the aid of Section 34 of the Penal Code to prove the alleged involvement of petitioner also in the said act. Prima facie there is material on record to show that money was collected by petitioner in the presence of Crl.M.C.Nos.5067, 5068, 5069, 5070 and 5071/2010 4 accused Nos.2 to 4 and, pursuant to that, forged visa was given to CW3 and their passports were stamped with forged seal. The question whether as contended by petitioner he had some other understanding with accused Nos.2 to 4 and that was only to the extent of arranging candidates on a promise to pay commission to him is a matter to be brought out in the course of trial of the case. It is not as if there is no material on record to prove the alleged involvement of petitioner in the alleged incidents involved in these cases. In the circumstances request of petitioner to quash the proceedings cannot be accepted. Resultantly these petitions fail and are dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks