IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 4334 of 2010()
1. BABU,S/O.NARAYANAN,AGED 37 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :13/12/2010
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
---------------------------------------------
CRL.M.C.NO.4334 OF 2010
---------------------------------------------
Dated 13th December, 2010
O R D E R
Petitioner, the third accused in
Crime No.469/CR/S1/04 of Narcotic and
Economic Offences, Cell, Thiruvananthapuram
filed this petition under Section 482 of
Code of Criminal Procedure contending that
though the petitioner has been implicated
as an accused, he has nothing to do with
the offence and there is nothing to connect
the petitioner with the offence and in such
circumstances, it is not in the interest of
justice to continue the prosecution.
Petitioner would contend that he is a
building contractor and has been implicated
on the allegation that Renjitha Subramanian
was arrested by Emigration Authorities,
Crmc 4334/10 2
International Airport, Thiruvananthapuram on
19/11/2004 on the allegation of possessing a
forged emigration clearance endorsement in her
passport and the said Renjitha disclosed that
visa and air ticket were arranged by one Rafeeq
of National Travels and Vijay Nair of Shine
Associates and one Babu who is her neighbour.
It is on that basis the petitioner has been
implicated as an accused and though the
incident was in 2004, till this day final
report has not been submitted and nothing was
collected to implicate him and in such
circumstances, prosecution against the
petitioner is to be quashed.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were
heard.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner pointed out that even if the
Crmc 4334/10 3
statement of Renjitha is accepted, in the light
of her statement shown in Annexure-C,
petitioner cannot be implicated, as at best, it
could only be said that the petitioner
introduced Renjitha to a travel agency but he
did not take part further in the transaction
and in such circumstances, the case against the
petitioner is to be quashed.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor on
verifying the case diary submitted that nothing
was so far collected against the petitioner
except original statement that Renjitha
informed the petitioner that she needs a visa
and petitioner introduced her to Rafeeq of
National Travels. It is submitted that there is
nothing further to show apart from the said
statement that petitioner had anything to do
with the transaction or received any benefit.
5. Annexure-C communication sent by the
Crmc 4334/10 4
Port Registration Officer, Thiruvananthapuram
Airport to the Sub Inspector of Police based
on which Annexure-A FIR was registered shows
that on 19/11/2004 at 5.10 a.m Renjitha,
holding Indian passport No.E 9513105,
approached the Immigration counter for her
onward journey to Muscat by Oman Airways
Flight, for employment as housemaid. On
verification Sub Inspector got suspicion about
the genuineness of the Emigration clearance
endorsement, which is purported to be issued
by the Protector of Emigrance,
Thiruvananthapuram. It was verified with the
specimen available in the office to ascertain
whether it is genuine. Finding that it is not
genuine, Renjitha was questioned. She disclosed
that her air ticket and visa were arranged by
one Rafeeq of National Travels, East Nada,
Guruvayur and one Vijay Nair and Babu, her
Crmc 4334/10 5
neighbour by paying Rs.25,000/- and she is not
aware of anything about the forged Emigration
clearance. It is based on the said statement,
the petitioner was implicated as an accused.
The statement of Renjitha, recorded, reveals
that she contacted the petitioner, her
neighbour to know whether she could get visa
and he promised to introduce her to Rafeeq of
National Travels. Petitioner introduced her to
Rafeeq. There is nothing in the statement that
the petitioner had anything to do with either
the visa or the air ticket or the forged
Emigration clearance. For the sole reason that
the petitioner introduced Renjitha to a travel
agent, it cannot be said that the petitioner
was a party to the forgery committed. Learned
Public Prosecutor also submitted that case
diary does not contain anything to connect the
petitioner with the offence except the
Crmc 4334/10 6
statement of Renjitha referred to earlier. It
is to be born in mind that the case was
registered in 2004 and for more than six years,
it is being investigated. Still, nothing could
be collected to establish any connection for
the petitioner with the forged Emigration
clearance. In such circumstances, continuation
of the case against petitioner is only an abuse
of process of the Court.
Petition is allowed. Prosecution of the
petitioner in Crime No.469/CR/S1/04 of Narcotic
and Economic Offences Cell, Thiruvananthapuram
is quashed. But investigation against the other
can be proceeded.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE.
uj.