IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2009 / 28TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2016 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.296/2000 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, TRIVANDRUM CC.176/1996 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MADHAVAN, S/O.KANNAN, MADANTHAKODE VEEDU, KULATHOOR P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER SRI.K.A.JIBIN JOSEPH RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.P.R.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2016 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 19th day of August 2009 ORDER On 04-01-1996 petitioner came to Thiruvananthapuram Airport from Ras-Al-Khaima by Gulf Air. He presented himself before PW2 for emigration checking. He produced before PW2 the passport (Ext.P2) which he was carrying. PW2 realised that though the photograph of petitioner was affixed on the passport, it was actually issued to Sukumara Achutha from Bangalore passport office. Petitioner was immediately produced before PW1 along with the relevant documents which PW2 took to custody from petitioner. On checking up the matter with the passport office at Bangalore it was confirmed that petitioner had affixed his photograph on the passport issued to the said Sukumara Achutha, forged the passport accordingly used it as genuine and cheated the emigration authorities. A complaint was given to the Sub Inspector of Police who registered a case, investigated and submitted final report for offences punishable under sections 465, 468, 471 and 419 of the Penal Code (for short, “the Code”). Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram tried petitioner in C.C.No.176 of 1996 found him guilty under section 465, 471 of the Code, convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for various periods. He was acquitted of other charges. Petitioner preferred an appeal, Criminal Appeal No. 296 of 2000. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Crl.R.P.No.2016 of 2009 2 (Fast Track No-2), Thiruvananthapuram dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision. It is contended by learned counsel that there is no evidence to show either that petitioner committed forgery or, used the forged document as genuine knowing the same to be forged document. 2. Evidence of PWs.1 and 2, officials at the Airport, Thiruvananthapuram shows that on 04-01-1996 petitioner landed in that airport from Ras-Al-Khaima using Ext.P2, allegedly forged passport. Exts.P4 and P5 are the boarding passes, and Ext.P6, air ticket used by petitioner which along with Ext.P2 were seized by PW2 as per Ext.P3, inventory. PW3 is an attestor in Ext.P3 and has supported the prosecution. It is also the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 that Ext.P2 photograph of petitioner was actually issued to Sukumara Achutha from Bangalore passport office. That evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is confirmed by Ext.P9, letter issued from the passport office at Bangalore. It is stated in Ext.P9 that photograph of the real holder of that passport (Sukumara Achutha) was replaced in Ext.P2 with the photograph of petitioner. Thus, the forgery has been committed with respect to the Ext.P2, the passport. 3. Then the question is whether petitioner has committed that forgery. True, there is no direct evidence regarding that and on the facts and circumstances of the case, direct evidence regarding that Crl.R.P.No.2016 of 2009 3 was also not possible. Reason persuade me to think that atleast without the connivance and knowledge of petitioner his photograph would not have come in Ext.P2 which was actually issued to Sukumara Achutha. Therefore, the only interference possible is that forgery was committed by petitioner or, done with his connivance. He is therefore liable for offence punishable under section 465 of the Code. It is also in evidence that petitioner has used the forged photograph as if it is genuine which amounted to offence under section 471 of the Code. Conviction of petitioner therefore required no interference. 4. Learned counsel has made a fervent plea for modification of sentence. Learned counsel states that petitioner is not involved in any other case and submitted that he is leading a peaceful, normal family life. It is submitted by learned counsel that sponsor of petitioner at Ras-Al-Khaima had subjected him to all sort of harassment including providing no job, occupation or even food and that the original travel documents of petitioner were in the custody of the sponsor and he did not return it. In such a situation, petitioner was constrained to somehow return to his native place. 5. As per instruction from this court, learned Public Prosecutor has collected information about petitioner through Valiyathura Police station which registered the case against the petitioner. Information received is that petitioner is now residing within the local limits of Crl.R.P.No.2016 of 2009 4 Kasaragod police station and engaged in agricultural activities. It is also reported that petitioner is not shown to be involved in any other case. 6. The above being the situation in which petitioner is now placed, I have given an anxious consideration of the request of learned counsel for leniency in the matter of sentence. It is true that petitioner has committed offences which cannot be viewed lightly. At the same time I am also to look into the circumstance under which the offence was committed. May be, inability of petitioner to stay on at Ras-Al-Khaima and the necessity to return to his native place somehow at a time when his travel documents were in the custody of his sponsor. could have persuaded him to reach his native place in whatever possible manner. I do not find reason to disbelieve the statement of learned counsel that the travel documents of petitioner were detained by his sponsor. Considering these aspects and also the fact the petitioner is not shown to be involved in any other case and further that prosecution has no case the Ext.P2 was used by petitioner for any nefarious activities, I am inclined to think that fine of Rs.3000/- each is sufficient in the ends of justice. Resultantly this revision is allowed in part to the extent that sentence awarded to the petitioner is modified as fine of Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) each and in case of non payment, to Crl.R.P.No.2016 of 2009 5 undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. Petitioner is granted time till 19-11-2009 to deposit the fine in the trial court. In case of default, he shall appear in the trial court on 21-11-2009 to receive the default sentence. Execution of warrant if any against the petitioner will stand in abeyance till 21-11-2009. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/