Common Judgment:

1. Crl.A.No.1612/2013 is at the instance of the first accused in C.C.No. 16/2011 on the files of the Special Court (CBI), Thiruvananthapuram. The second accused in the above case has preferred Crl.A.No.1627/2013. The respondent in both appeals is the Central Bureau of Investigation, represented by the Special Public Prosecutor.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI. Perused the relevant documents.

3. Here, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 120B r/w 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short) as well as under Section 13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'PC Act, 1988' for short) r/w. Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act, 1967 by the accused persons. The following overt acts, as extracted in the trial court judgment, are the allegations against the accused/ appellants.

                  “1) Sajin Frederick (the first accused), during the month of December, 2012, fraudulently and dishonestly submitted Passport Application to the Passport Office, Thiruvananthapuram in the name of Peter Antony by enclosing false and fabricated Ration Card, as if Peter Antony is residing at Puthuval Purayidom, 742, Koonayil, Paravoor P.O., Kollam, Kerala to prove the residential address and in order to prove the date of birth, he fraudulently and dishonestly submitted a photocopy of the fabricated extract of School Admission Register, as if, the said register was issued by the Head master, CF High School, Kottiyam, Kollam in the name of Peter Antony as his date of birth is 10.05.1976 and by making a false declaration in the Passport Application as if he is resident of the above address and the date of birth as mentioned in the fabricated records and knowing fully well produced the original of the fabricated Ration Card and School Admission Register extract for verification as genuine documents and by impersonating himself as Peter Antony fraudulently and dishonestly obtained a Passport in his impersonated name as Peter Antony bearing No.E 3882091 dated 04.03.2003 by the Passport Office, Thiruvananthapuram valid up to 03.03.2013 and he was found in possession of this passport as well as the original Passport taken in his original name as Sajin Frederick and these Passports are the property of Government of India.

                  2. In-pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, the second accused, knowing fully well that the first accused, Sajin Frederick is impersonating as Peter Antony and he is not residing at Puthuval, Purayidom, 742, Koonayil, Paravoor P.O., Kollam, Kerala and he never studied at CF High School, Kottiyam and in order to cheat Passport Office, Thiruvananthapuram and in order to get Passport in the name of Peter Antony by fraudulent means fabricated the Ration Card and School Admission Register extract in the name of Peter Antony and handed over the same to Sajin Frederick in order to submit the same to Passport Office, Thiruvananthapuram and further in order to get Passport by Sajin Frederick in his impersonated name as Peter Antony, knowing fully well the illegal acts committed by Sajin Frederick and in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy the second accused obtained Passport File Number from the first accused and has given the Passport File Number pertaining to Peter Antony (File No.B 049795/02) to Late Shri.Anil Kumar of M/s. Alisha Travels who in turn handed over Passport file Number to the third accused (M.R.Jayaprakash) who was working as Head constable, District Special Branch, Kollam and the third accused, by abusing or misusing his official position by illegal means, given false verification report without conducting police verification as if the photographed person in the application namely Peter Antony is residing at Puthuval Purayidom, 742, Koonayil, Paravoor P.O., Kollam as mentioned in Passport application and thereby recommended issuance of Passport to Peter Antony knowing fully well that Sajin Frederick (the first accused) is impersonating as Peter Antony and relying on the report the Passport authorities issued Passport in the name of Peter Antony.

                  3) In pursuance of the criminal conspiracy the second accused (Suresh) had filled up the application form in the impersonated name and address as Peter Antonny, Puthuval Purayidom, 742, Koonayil, Paravoor P.O., Kollam by affixing the photograph of Sajin Frederik obtained from the first accused and obtained the forged signature as “Peter” from the first accused and the above mentioned fictitious address was mentioned in the Passport application form by the second accused as his friend, Anil Kumar of Alisha Travels was residing at Paravoor, Kollam and he was having influence over the third accused and local Postman and in fact the Passport was collected from local Postman by Late Anil Kumar making the Postman believe that he is Peter Antony, Puthuval Purayidom, 742, Koonayil, Paravoor P.O., Kollam.

                  4) After obtaining Passport in the fictitious name Peter Antony, Sajin Frederick (the first accused) handed over money and bogus Passport obtained in the impersonated name to Riyas Usman, Proprietor, Universal Enterprises, Thiruvananthapuram for arranging VISA for Holy land tour.

                  5) Later Sajin Frederick filed a false complaint against Riyas Usman before Vattiyoorkavu Police Station by concealing his role in applying bogus Passport to visit Israel on Holy land tour in the fictitious name and address.”

4. The learned Special Judge, on getting the final report filed, completed the pre-trial formalities and recorded evidence. PW1 to PW29 were examined and Ext.P1 to P52 were marked on the side of the prosecution. Exts.D1 to D3 were tendered in evidence at the instance of the accused. On appreciation of the evidence, the Special Court found that accused Nos.1 and 2 committed offences punishable under Sections 120B r/w 419, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC r/w Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act, 1967 and accordingly, they were sentenced as under:

                  “95. Accordingly accused Nos. 1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and also to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each in default undergo simple imprisonment for six months each for their conviction U/S 120B r/w 419, 420, 468, 471 IPC r/w Section 12(1)(b) of Passport Act, 1967.

                  96. A1 is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and also to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each in default simple imprisonment for three months each for his conviction U/S 419, 471 IPC and Section 12(1)(b) of Passport Act, 1967. He is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default undergo simple imprisonment for six months for his conviction U/S 420 IPC.

                  97. The second accused is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default undergo simple imprisonment for six months for his conviction U/S 468 IPC.

                  98. Sentences shall run concurrently.

                  99. Set off, if any, allowed u/s.428 Cr.P.C."

5. The learned counsel for the first accused argued that, in this case, in order to prove the handwritings and signatures of the first accused in Ext.P21 passport file No.B/049795/02, specifically in Ext.P21(a), the passport application for Peter Antony, Ext.P21(c) and connected documents, his specific signatures were collected without opting the procedure under Section 311A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.; for short) and therefore, the expert opinion collected, without following the legal procedure, is illegal and in such view of the matter, Ext.P42 series, the specimen handwritings of the first accused, Ext.P43 series, the specimen handwritings of the second accused and the expert opinion marked as Ext.P45 could not be used against the accused. Same argument has been tendered by the learned counsel for the second accused as regards to Ext.P43 series specimen signatures taken as that of the second accused which culminated Ext.P45. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the first accused further that, in this case, apart from the opinion evidence, the evidence of PW15 have been given much emphasis by the Special Court to find commission of offences by the first accused. However, the same is insufficient to enter into conviction and the identification of the first accused also properly not proved. Accordingly, it is submitted that neither substantive nor corroborative evidence to support substantive evidence is available in this case to enter into conviction, and therefore, the entire verdict must fail. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the first accused that in this case, originally a complaint was lodged by the first accused against one Riyas Usman when he failed to arrange VISA to Israel. Thereafter, the complainant got arrayed as an accused in the present crime registered without support of convincing evidence.

6. The learned counsel for the second accused argued that in this case, even though the offence under Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act, 1969, is also alleged against the second accused, no sanction under Section 15 of the Passport Act was obtained. According to him, without the required sanction, no prosecution for the said offence would lie as against the second accused. In this connection, he has placed decisions of this Court in Oseela Abdul Khader and Another v. State of Kerala and Others, reported in 2012(4) KHC 346, and Shukur v. State of Kerala and Another, reported in 2022 KHC 708. The learned counsel for the second accused further submitted that, in this case, there is no direct evidence to find commission of the offences by the second accused with regard to the conspiracy hatched in between them. Though the prosecution relied on the circumstantial evidence, the circumstances relied on by the Special Court are not sufficient to find involvement of the second accused in this crime and therefore, the second accused is entitled to be acquitted.

7. The learned Special Public Prosecutor opposed the contentions and relied on the specific role of accused Nos.1 and 2 in this crime. According to him, as far as the contention raised by the learned counsel for the second accused regarding lack of sanction under Section 15 of the Passport Act is concerned, the same is sustainable. However, by convincing evidence, the other offences have been proved. Therefore, no interference with the verdict impugned otherwise is necessary.

8. Adverting to the rival contentions, the points arising for consideration are:

                  1. Whether the special court went wrong in holding that the accused committed offence punishable under Section 419 r/w 120B of IPC?

                  2. Whether the special court went wrong in holding that the accused committed offence punishable under Section 420 r/w 120B of IPC?

                  3. Whether the special court went wrong in holding that the accused committed offence punishable under Section 468 r/w 120B of IPC?

                  4. Whether the special court went wrong in holding that the accused committed offence punishable under Section 471 r/w 120B of IPC?

                  5. Whether the special court went wrong in holding that the accused committed offence punishable under Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act, 1967?

                  6. Whether prosecution of the 2nd accused alleging commission of offence under Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act, 1967, without sanction under Section 15 of the Act, is maintainable?

                  7. Whether the special court verdict requires interference?

                  8. Order to be passed?

 9. Point No.6.

The first contention raised by the second accused is pertaining to lack of sanction under Section 15 of the Passport Act to prosecute the second accused for the offence punishable under Section 12(1)(b) of Passport Act. Section 15 of the passport Act provides as under:

                  “15. Previous sanction of Central Government necessary No prosecution shall be instituted against any person in respect of any offence under this Act without the previous sanction of the Central Government or such officer or authority as may be authorized by that Government by order in writing in this behalf”

                  In fact, in the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the second accused, this Court categorically held that no prosecution alleging commission of offences under the Passport Act would lie without the prior sanction of the Central Government. In view of this legal position, the prosecution of the second accused for the offence punishable under Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act, without obtaining sanction mandated under Section 15 of the Passport Act, 1967, is non-est and for the said reason, the conviction and sentence imposed against the second accused for the offence under Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act are liable to be set aside.

10. Point Nos.1 to 5 and 7 and 8

Coming to the genesis of this case, in the verdict under challenge, the Special Court addressed the acceptable evidence in paragraphs 83 and 84 of the judgment and observed as under:

                  “83. Regarding the veracity of evidence tendered on the prosecution side proving the taking of specimen handwriting of A2 i.e., Ext.P43 series, the reasonings attributed to accept the evidence tendered by PW29 regarding the taking of specimen handwriting is squarely applicable in the case of A2. The non-examination of witness in whose presence the specimen handwriting was taken was also convincingly explained by the prosecution saying that the witness is at abroad and his presence cannot be secured without avoidable expenditure and delay.

                  84. From the acceptable portion of prosecution evidence it is established that the data required for filling up. Ext.P21(a) Passport application are derived from Exts.P21(c) & (d). The forged nature of the original of Exts.P21(c) & (d) are also established beyond all reasonable doubt. The evidence of handwriting expert which can be relied as corroborative evidence shows that Ext.P21(a) Passport application in the impersonated name and address of A1 has been filled up in the handwriting of A2. The evidence of PW20 indicate that A2 used to fill up Passport application of others. This telling circumstances pressed into service on the prosecution side gives reasonable ground to believe that A1 and A2 conspired together to commit cheating by personation, forgery for the purpose of cheating, using as genuine a forged document and cheating. If so, the court is justified in pressing into service the aid of Section 10 of Indian Evidence Act and anything said done or written by any of the conspirators in reference to common intention of all of them can be proved as relevant fact against co-conspirators for the purpose of proving both conspiracy and the offences committed pursuant thereto. The act of the first accused in presenting Ext.P21(a) Passport application prepared in his impersonated name and address before the Passport Office along with forged Ration Card and School Admission Register extract (of which Exts.P21(a) (b) & (d) are in the handwriting of A2), for obtaining bogus Passport is a relevant factor against A2 in proving his involvement in the commission of the crime and these telling circumstances are capable of proving his involvement in the fulcrum of conspiracy with A1 and accordingly I have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the role of A1 and A2 in the conspiracy alleged in this case beyond reasonable doubt.”

                  In order to enter into the said finding, the Special Court relied on the evidence of the witnesses.

11. As regards the allegation that accused Nos. 1 and 2 hatched a conspiracy and, in furtherance thereof, forged Ext.P21(d), the School Admission Register, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PW6, PW7, and PW8. PW6 was the Headmaster of CFHS, Kottiyam, Kollam District, during the year 2001. PW6 was examined to establish that he had not issued the extract of the School Admission Register relating to Admission No. 4013 in respect of Peter, produced by the prosecution and marked as Ext.P21(d).

12. PW7 examined in this case is the Head Master, CFHS, Kottiyam during the period 2004 – 2008. He was examined to establish that the student admitted in the school assigning admission No. 4013 was one Sabin. S and not Peter Antony, as shown in Ext.P21(d). PW7 produced the relevant portion of Admission Register maintained in the school (certified copy) which shows that a student by name S. Sabin was admitted assigning admission No. 4013 in the school and his date of birth was recorded as 12.04.1989. He had also given a certificate to the Investigating Officer certifying that the student admitted under admission No. 4013 was not Peter but Sabin.S. The certified copy of admission register and the certificate issued by this witness were marked as Exts.P9 and P10 respectively. He had also given Ext.P11 letter to the Investigating Officer.

13. PW8 was the Clerk attached to CFHS, Kottiyam, Kollam from 2001 onwards. He was examined to establish that he was the person who used to prepare certificates issued from the school and Ext.P21(d) is not in his handwriting and the signature found in Ext.P21(d) is not that of PW6.

14. In order to prove Ext.P21(c), the ration card in the name of Peter Antony, S/o Antony, Puthuval Purayidom, 742, Koonayil, Paravoor P.O., Kollam, the prosecution examined PW9. PW9 was the Assistant Taluk Supply Officer attached to Kollam Taluk Supply Office. He was examined to prove the prosecution case that the residents of 'Koonayil', Paravoor Village, Kollam had been given Ration Card from Kollam Supply Office and Ext.P21(c) Ration Card in the name and address of Peter Antony, Puthuval Purayidom, 742, Koonayil, Paravoor P.O., Kollam was not issued from Kollam Taluk Supply Office and the signature and seal found in it were not affixed from that office. He was also a signatory to Ext.P12 Receipt Memo prepared by the Investigating Officer while taking possession of Ext.P13 Certificate issued by Taluk Supply Officer namely, Vijayan and he identified his signature in the Receipt memo marked as Ext.P12. Through PW9, the certificate issued by the Taluk Supply Officer, Vijayan was marked as Ext.P13.

15. The prosecution has a specific case that Sajin Frederick, the first accused, impersonated him as Peter Antony, S/o Antony, Puthuval Purayidom, 742, Koonayil, Paravoor P.O., Kollam, and applied for a fresh passport in the name of Peter Antony using Ext.P21(b) - personal particular form, Ext.P21(c) - forged ration card and Ext.P21(d) - the extract of forged school admission register. In this connection, the prosecution examined PW15 and PW16. PW15, examined in this case, was working as U.D. Clerk in the Passport Office, Thiruvananthapuram during the relevant period. She was examined to prove that Ext.P18 passport was dispatched from the dispatch section of the Passport Office on 11.03.2003 to the address shown in Ext.P16 by speed post.

16. PW16 was working as a UD Clerk attached to Thiruvananthapuram Passport Office during the relevant period. She was examined to prove that she had carried out the 'hit clearance' in Ext.P21(a) application, which involved verification of applicant's name, father's name and date of birth. She further identified the first accused with the aid of photographs affixed on Exts.P18 and P19 passports.

17. PW10, the Superintendent attached to Thiruvananthapuram Passport Office during 2004 -2010 was examined to prove the procedure that was adopted in the Passport Office from the point of time of filing the Passport application till delivery of Passport. She had also produced certified copy of extract of Deployment Register maintained in the Passport Office, Thiruvananthapuram dated 11.03.2003 which was marked as Ext.P15. The certified copy of Passport details pertaining to Passport File No.B 049795/02 in the name of Peter Antony maintained in the Passport Office was also produced before the Investigating Officer (Ext.P16) along with the scanned copy of File No.B049795/02 in the name of Peter Antony (Ext.P17) and the Investigating Officer had taken possession of these documents by preparing Ext.P14 Receipt Memo which bore her signature.

18. In order to prove that there was no addressee as Peter Antony, S/o Antony, Puthuval Purayidom, 742, Koonayil, Paravoor P.O., Kollam, the prosecution examined PW2 to PW5. PW2 was the Village Officer, Paravoor during the period 2004 - 2007. The place known as "Koonayil" is within his jurisdiction and he was examined to prove the prosecution case that a person named Peter Antony never resided in that address. PW3 was the Postmaster attached to the Paravoor Post Office, Kollam District from May, 2004 to November, 2008. He was examined to prove the production of certified copy of delivery slip dated 20.03.2003, which had been prepared by Postman, Raveendran Pillai and produced before the Investigating Officer. The certified copy of that delivery slip was marked as Ext.P6 and the Receipt Memo prepared by the Investigating Officer while taking possession of the delivery slip was marked as Ext.P5. Ext.P6 was pressed into service to prove the delivery of bogus passport issued in the name of Peter Antony.

19. PW4 was the Postwoman attached to Paravoor Post Office from September, 2005 to June, 2008. PW4 was examined to prove the efforts she had made to deliver a registered postal article sent by the Investigating Officer, addressed to Peter Antony, S/o Antony, Puthuval Purayidom, 742, Koonayil, Paravoor P.O., Kollam. The postal envelop, bearing her endorsement that she could not deliver the postal articles as no such addressee was residing in her beat, was marked as Ext.P7.

20. PW5 was the Postman attached to Paravoor Post Office, Kollam District from March, 2005 to March, 2008. PW5 was examined to prove the prosecution case that Late Anil Kumar, along with his wife and children, had been residing in Kottappuram beat during his tenure as Postman in that beat and Anil Kumar who had been running a Travel Agency at Thiruvananthapuram, and further he had expired in 2005.

21. Apart from the substantive evidence, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of the expert, who was examined as PW25. He had stated that he had marked the specimen handwritings and signatures of the first accused in Ext.P42 series, giving the markings as S23 to S51 and had compared them with the questioned documents marked as Q9 to Q24. He had also identified Q9 to Q15 as Ext.P46 series i.e.. the documents seized from PW28 by the Investigating Officer while conducting search, bearing the signature put by the first accused in the impersonated name 'Peter Antony'. Q17 to Q19 were the signatures in page No. 5 & 6 in Ext.P21 series in the impersonated name. Q20 had been identified as Ext.P21(b) and Q21 and Q22 were in Ext.P21(c). Q23 is in Ext.P21(d) and Q24 is in Ext.P21(e). All these documents contain the signatures of the first accused in his impersonated name. After comparison, he had opined that the writer of specimen writing i.e., Ext.P42 series was responsible for writing the questioned writing/ signature in Ext.P21 series page Nos. 5, 6, Exts.P21(b), (c), (d), (e) and Ext.P46 series. He had given the reasons for arriving at this conclusion in Ext.P45 report. It was observed by the learned Special Judge that upon perusing the reasons given by PW25 in arriving at the conclusion and comparing the questioned writings with the specimen writings of the first accused, revealed that the questioned writings were in the handwriting of the first accused. Nothing had been brought casting any sort of doubt on the opinion evidence tendered by PW25. The evidence of PW29, Investigating Officer and PW26, the Central Excise Inspector who had witnessed the taking of specimen handwritings/signatures of the first accused, was also capable of instilling confidence in the mind of the court regarding the taking of specimen handwritings/ signatures of the first accusesd ie., Ext. P42 series.

22. Coming to the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants as regards to the failure to follow the procedure under Section 311A of Cr.P.C., the Special Court found that, in this case, there was no occasion for the Investigating Officer to arrest and to get the custody of the appellants. Therefore, the procedure contemplated under Section 311A of Cr.P.C.could not be insisted upon and the finding that this is a legal fiction created by the proviso to Section 311A of Cr.P.C. is maintained. Looking at Section 311A of Cr.P.C., it has been provided that if a Magistrate of the first class is satisfied that, for the purposes of any investigation or proceeding under this Code, it is expedient to direct any person, including an accused person, to give specimen signatures or handwriting, he may make an order to that effect and in that case the person to whom the order relates shall be produced or shall attend at the time and place specified in such order and shall give his specimen signatures or handwriting. Proviso to Section 311A of Cr.P.C. states that no order shall be made under this section unless the person has at some time been arrested in connection with such investigation or proceeding. So on a plain reading of Section 311A Cr.P.C. and its proviso, it is emphatically clear that a Magistrate of the first class is empowered to make an order to direct any person including an accused person to give specimen signatures or handwritings unless that person has some time been arrested in connection with such investigation or proceedings. Since none of the accused persons was arrested in connection with this crime at any point of time, Section 311A of Cr.P.C. would not apply and the finding of the learned Special Judge in this regard is legally perfect. As a necessary consequence thereof, this challenge is found to be untenable.

23. PW17 was the Dy.S.P., Special Branch, Kollam, who had produced extract of Passport Application Register and the Issue/Distribution Register before the Investigating Officer as per Ext.P22 letter. The extract of Passport Application Register and Issue/Distribution Register produced by PW17 were marked as Exts.P23 and P24 respectively. It was through him the procedure to be followed in Passport verification had been tendered in evidence.

24. PW18 was the Dy.S.P., Special Branch, Kollam, from March, 2001 to July, 2003. He was examined to prove that the second accused had been the Head Constable attached to Paravoor Police Station for Passport verification and he had been entrusted with the verification in respect of Ext.P21(a). Through PW18, Ext.P21(f) Police Verification Report sent to the Passport Office, was marked.

25. PW19 is one Shylaja, wife of late Anil Kumar (one of the co-conspirators in the plot). She was examined to prove the prosecution case that she and her late husband had been running 'Alisha Travels' at Kaithamukku, Thiruvananthapuram, near Passport Office and the familiarity of her late husband with the third accused. She was also examined to prove her acquaintance with the second accused and his frequent visits in their Travels in connection with passport related matters and the assistance rendered by her husband to the second accused regarding police verification matters in Paravoor area. However, she turned hostile to the prosecution. The Special Judge adverted to her evidence and observed that PW19 pretended ignorance regarding these aspects, giving a go-by to her previous statement given before the Investigating Officer and therefore, portions of her previous statement given before the Investigating Officer, intended to contradict her, were marked as Exts.P27 to P29. She also pretended ignorance regarding the role played by the third accused in aiding her husband in police verification matters at Paravoor area, giving a go-by to her previous statement alleged to have been given before the Investigating Officer, and the portion of her previous statement intending to contradict her was marked as Ext.P30. Through PW19, the Death Certificate of Anil Kumar and his photographs were marked as Exts.P25 and P26 respectively.

26. PW20 was the owner of the building wherein the second accused had occupied a room as a tenant during the relevant period. He was examined to prove the prosecution case that he had purchased the building from one Rajasekharan Nair, and at the time of purchase, the second accused had been a tenant in one room attached to the building, and the second accused had used to pay rent directly to him after he acquired ownership of the building.

27. PW26 was the Inspector, Central Excise Office, Thiruvananthapuram during the relevant period. He was examined to prove the taking of specimen handwritings and signatures of the first accused by the Investigating Officer and he had identified his signature in Ext.P42 series. PW27, another Inspector attached to Customs and Central Excise, head quarters, Thiruvananthapuram, was examined to prove the taking of specimen signatures of the third accused, marked as Ext.P44 series. Through him, the signature of Madhusoodhanan Nair, who had been working with him during that period and signed in Ext.P43 series (specimen signatures and handwritings of the second accused taken by the Investigating Officer), was also proved.

28. PW28, Riyaz Usman, Proprietor, Universal Thiruvananthapuram, was the tour operator, who used to arrange package tours to the needy upon entrustment of money and passport. He was examined to prove the entrustment of Ext.P18 passport and money with him by the first accused for arranging VISA to Israel. The receipt book maintained in the Travels was marked as Ext.P47 through PW28 and the carbon copy of receipt No. 15 issued in the name of Peter Antony was marked as Ext.P47(a). Ext.P46 series were the booking forms (Outboard) signed by the intending traveller (the first accused) presented in his Travels, bearing the signature of Peter Antony. That outboard booking form bearing the signature of Peter Antony was marked as Ext.P46(a). The release of exchange under basic travel quota for getting foreign exchange money, signed by Peter Antony given in the Travels, was marked as Ext.P46(b). Since he could not arrange tour, Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) was repaid to Peter Antony and for payment of balance amount, cheque for Rupees One Lakh and an undertaking in stamp paper were also given to Peter Antony. He had identified the signature in Ext.P48 stamp paper undertaking (certified photocopy) before the court. He had identified the first accused as the person who had entrusted passport and money with him in the name of Peter Antony.

29. On re-appreciation of evidence discussed hereinabove, it is decipherable that the first accused produced Ext.P21(a) passport application along Ext.P21(c) and Ext.P21(d), forged ration card and extract of forged school admission register before PW15, who was at the counter section of the Passport Office on 04.12.2002 (the date of submission of Ext.P21) directly. She deposed about the identification of the first accused as the person who filed Ext.P21 during the submission of application, and she also verified the originals of Exts.P21(c) and (d) and the originals returned to the accused. Thus, it appears that the evidence of PW15 itself is substantive evidence to prove that the first accused put up a false application by impersonating him as Peter Antony. Apart from that, PW16 deposed about the issuance of Ext.P18 in the name of Peter Antony and Ext.P19 in the name of Sajin Frederick. Thus, forgery of Ext.P21(c) and (d) as well as issuance of Ext.P18 fake passport in the name of Peter Antony is established by the evidence of PW15 and PW16, supported by the evidence of other witnesses discussed in detail as afore. It is true that, the prosecution relied on the expert evidence also to corroborate the versions of PW15, PW16 and other witnesses. In fact, no anomaly could be found in collecting the specimen handwritings and the signatures of the first accused as part of investigation, without arresting him, and therefore, the learned Special Judge is right in finding that the first accused committed the offences.

30. Coming to the role of the second accused, it is proved by the prosecution through the expert opinion that Ext.P21(a) passport application was filled up in the handwritings of the second accused and the evidence of PW20 would establish that the second accused used to fill up application of others by using the office room owned by PW20.

31. In this connection, the learned Special Judge considered the conspiracy hatched between accused Nos.1 and 2 with the aid of Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act and in paragraph No.82, it is found that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the role of accused Nos.1 and 2 in the alleged conspiracy in this case beyond reasonable doubts. The said finding appears to be absolutely correct. Therefore, the conviction imposed by the Special Court for the offences, except the offence under Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act, against the second accused, for want of sanction, is upheld while setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the second accused for the offence punishable under Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act, 1969.

32. Coming to the sentence, the same appears to be very reasonable in the facts of the case. Therefore, the sentence does not require any interference and the same is confirmed.

33. In the result, Crl.A.No.1612/2013, at the instance of the first accused, is dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Court. Crl.A.No.1627/2013, at the instance of the second accused, is allowed in part. The conviction and sentence imposed against the second accused for the offence punishable under Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act,1969, are set aside, while confirming the conviction and the sentence imposed for other offences.

                  The substantive sentence shall run concurrently and the default sentence shall run separately.

                  The orders suspending sentence and granting bail to the accused persons stand vacated, with direction to accused Nos.1 and 2 to appear before the trial court forthwith to undergo the sentence, failing which, the Special Court is directed to execute the sentence, without fail.

                   Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Special Court, forthwith for information and compliance