Passports Act, 1967 – ss.12(1)(b) and 12(2) – Offences and penalties – Prosecution case that appellant illegally facilitated the issuance of second passport in favour of accused no.1 – Other accused persons connived with the appellant in procuring second passport to accused no.1 – Appellant and accused no.1 convicted for offences punishable u/s.420 IPC and s.12(1)(b) and s.12(2) of the 1967 Act, accused no.5 convicted u/s.12(2) of the 1967 Act and the Prevention of Corruption Act, however, acquitted accused no.3 and 4 of all the charges – In appeal, the High Court acquitted accused nos.1 and 5, however, the order of conviction and sentence of the appellant upheld – Sustainability:
Held: Court cannot convict one accused and acquit the other when there is similar or identical evidence pitted against two accused persons – Allegations against the appellant being the same as made against accused No.3 and 4, the courts below could not have convicted the appellant while acquitting the other two – Burden is cast on the prosecution to prove that the appellant had knowingly furnished false information or suppressing known material information with the intent of securing a passport or travel document to a person and thereby had abetted in the commission of offence punishable u/s.12(1) and thereby punishable u/s.12(2) – Prosecution failed to place any evidence to prove that the appellant had prior information of accused no.1 was already possessing a passport or knowingly had furnished false information to the passport authorities namely after knowing that accused no.1 had possessed or holding a passport was applying for second passport or having known the fact of accused no.1 possessing the passport was applying for the second passport and thereby there has been suppression of material information – Prosecution failed to place on record any evidence to prove that appellant had any previous knowledge of accused no.1 was already possessing a passport – In the absence of any cogent evidence and accused nos.1 and 3 to 5 having been acquitted of the offences alleged, the conviction and order of sentence imposed against the appellant alone cannot be sustained – Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt – Appellant acquitted of the offences alleged against her – Judgment of the trial court as affirmed by the High Court set aside – Penal Code, 1860. [Paras 10, 14-16]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.