[ad_1]
Kerala High Court
Shaji.A vs State Of Kerala on 1 August, 2025
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024
1
2025:KER:57463
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
ST
FRIDAY, THE 1 DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024
CRIME NO.RC-06 (A)/14/CB/2014 OF CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, KOCHI,
Ernakulam
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 31.08.2024 IN CC NO.22 OF 2016 OF
SPECIAL C SPE/CBI-I&3 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT / I ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.5:
P. VIJAYAN
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, MAYRAM HOUSE, POONKULAM, VELLAYANI.
P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695522
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD
SHRI.VARGHESE PARAMBIL
SMT.SETHULEKSHMI PRABHA
SHRI.ASHOK K.V.
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, COCHIN
REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR CBI HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
BY ADV SHRI.SREELAL N.WARRIER,SREELAL N.WARRIER, SPL.PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.07.2025, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.1125/2024, 1137/2024, THE COURT ON
01.08.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024
2
2025:KER:57463
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
ST
FRIDAY, THE 1 DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1125 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 31.08.2024 IN CC NO.22 OF 2016 OF
SPECIAL C SPE/CBI-I&3 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT / I ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/6TH ACCUSED :
SHAJI.A
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O ASSANARU PILLAI AZAR MANZIL, A.V.STREET, MANALI, BALARAMAPURAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND FORMERLY WORKING AS ARMED POLICE INSPECTOR,
SPECIAL ARMED POLICE, PEROORKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695501
BY ADVS.
SHRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE
SMT.AMRITHA.J
SHRI.KURUVILLA MATHEW
SHRI.VIPIN C. VARGHESE
SRI.P.J.JOSE
RESPONDENT/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
KOCHI, PIN - 682031
2 THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
KOCHI, PIN - 682031
3 INSPECTOR
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
BY ADV SHRI.SREELAL N.WARRIER,SREELAL N.WARRIER, SPL.PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.07.2025, ALONG
WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.1198/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 01.08.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024
3
2025:KER:57463
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
ST
FRIDAY, THE 1 DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1137 OF 2024
CRIME NO.RC-06(A)CBI TVM/2014 OF CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, Thiruvananthapuram
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 31.08.2024 IN CC NO.22 OF 2016 OF
SPECIAL C SPE/CBI-I&3 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT / I ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/7TH ACCUSED:
KOSHY.P.T
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O LATE P.T.THOMAS, FORMERLY WORKING AS ARMED POLICE SUB
INSPECTOR, SPECIAL ARMED POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT
ZION, TC 14/79, AKKULAM AVENUE, ANAYARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695029
BY ADVS.
SHRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE
SMT.AMRITHA.J
SHRI.KURUVILLA MATHEW
SHRI.VIPIN C. VARGHESE
RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
KOCHI-682031
2 INSPECTOR
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,CBI, PIN - 695001
BY ADV SHRI.SREELAL N.WARRIER,SREELAL N.WARRIER, SPL.PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.07.2025
ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.1198/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 01.08.2025
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024
4
2025:KER:57463
A. BADHARUDEEN, J
============================
Crl.Rev. Petition Nos. 1198, 1125,
&
1137 of 2024
==============================
Dated 1st day of August 2025
COMMON ORDER
[Crl.Rev.Pet Nos.1198/2024, 1125/2024, 1137/2024]
Criminal Revision Petition No. 1198 of 2024 has been
filed by the 5th accused in C.C. No. 22 of 2016 pending before
the Special Judge (SPE/CBI) – I, Ernakulam, challenging the
order dated 31.08.2024 in Crl. M.P. No. 104 of 2022, whereby
the discharge plea at the instance of the 5th accused was
dismissed.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024
5
2025:KER:57463
2. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1125 of 2024 has been
filed by the 6th accused in the same case, aggrieved by the
dismissal of his discharge petition viz Crl. M.P. No. 103 of 2022,
also as per the order dated 31st August 2024.
3. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1137 of 2024 has been
filed by the 7th accused in the same case, who also is aggrieved by
the dismissal of his discharge petition viz Crl. M.P. No. 265 of
2024, by order dated 31st August 2024.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners
and the learned Standing Counsel for the Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI) in detail. Perused the orders impugned.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024
6
2025:KER:57463
5. The allegations against accused Nos. 5, 6, and 7 as per
the charge filed by the CBI are as follows:-
“A1 A.P.Ajeeb, a Public Servant employed in Kerala
Police as Civil Police Officer, while working at Cochin
International Airport immigration Wing during
2010-11, together with A-4 Shri. MK Babu, Armed
Police Sub Inspector of Kerala Police, (Retired), A-6 Shri.
A. Shaji, Armed Police Sub Inspector of Kerala Police,
A-7 Shri. PT Koshy, Armed Police Sub Inspector of
Kerala Police, A-8 Shri. P. Mohanan, Armed Police Sub
Inspector of Kerala Police (Retired), who was
functioning as Immigration officer at Cochin
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 20247
2025:KER:57463
International Airport Limited, Nedumbassery,
Ernakulam, during the same period entered into a
criminal conspiracy with A-3 Shri. KM Nazeer Babu @
Shaji Prop. M/s. Air Travel Associates, SNDP Building,
Kodungallur, Thrissur, A-9, Shri. CM Sohal, Prop. M/s
Mariha Tours & Travels, Narangapuram, Thalassery,
Kannur, A-10 Shri. V V Antony Prop. M/s National
Air Travels, Thrissur, to issue illegal emigration
clearance to passengers proceeding abroad without valid
travel documents, by abusing the official position of the
public servants employed as counter officers, and to obtain
pecuniary advantage for themselves. In pursuance of the
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 20248
2025:KER:57463
said criminal conspiracy, A-3 Shri. KM Nazeer Babu @
Shaji, A-9 Shri. CM Sohal and A-10 Shri. VV Antony
forwarded their passengers without valid travel
documents to A-1 Shri.AP Ajeeb and he, with the undue
influence exerted on his senior officers on counter duty,
abusing their official position, cleared the passengers to
travel abroad without valid travel documents. In
furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy, A-1 collected
bribes from the passengers through the travel agents, and
the same was deposited in the SB A/c.No.
11640100075688 of Shri. AS Pareeth A-2 held at
Federal Bank Kottapady Branch. Shri.AS Pareeth A-2,
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 20249
2025:KER:57463
father of A-1, knowingly allowed A-1 and other accused
persons to use his account for depositing illegal
gratification to be withdrawn and paid to concerned
counter officers, and accordingly, A-1 withdrew the bribe
amounts and distributed the bribe amount in cash to the
concerned counter officers who illegally cleared the
passengers. A-5 Shri. P. Vijayan, Armed Police Sub
Inspector of Kerala Police, joined the conspiracy during
June 2011 and illegally cleared two passengers, Shri. K
Rajesh and Shri. MA Subair, through Trivandrum
International Airport, on 13.6.2011, who could not
proceed through Cochin Airport on 11.6.2011.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 202410
2025:KER:57463
A-3 Shri.KM Nazeer Babu, @ Shaji Prop. M/s. Air
Travel Associates, SNDP Building, Kodungallur,
offered to arrange air tickets and emigration clearance to
several passengers, including Shri. M.A. Subair, who was
holding ECR passport No.H5701532 and an
employment visa to Qatar, in pursuance of the criminal
conspiracy with A-1, purchased flight ticket for
M.A.Subair’s travel from Cochin to Qatar on
11.06.2011, and thereafter Shri. M.A.Subair was
illegally cleared by A-4, MK Babu, APSI on duty to
travel to Qatar on 11.06.2011 without emigration
clearance issued by the Protector of Emigrants. The above
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 202411
2025:KER:57463
passenger could not proceed due to some technical
problems in the aircraft, and during exit, he, along with
some other passengers, was intercepted by other officers on
duty and reported the matter to superior officers.
Thereafter, A-1 arranged the travel of the above-said
passenger on 13.06.2011 through Trivandrum Airport
in conspiracy with Shri. P. Vijayan APSI (A-5) then
functioned as counter officer at Trivandrum Airport. For
the illegal facilities provided by A-1, including the illegal
clearance to Shri.M.A.Subair, A-3 Shri. Naseer Babu @
Shaji paid illegal gratification of Rs.17,000/- on
13.6.2011 to A-1 by remitting to the account of A-10
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 202412
2025:KER:57463
held at Federal Bank Kottapady branch from Federal
Bank Kodungallur branch. Shri. Naseer Babu @ Shaji
A-3 in pursuance of the conspiracy, had illegally sent
several other passengers to travel abroad through CIAL,
and as a reward for the above illegal facilities arranged
by A-1, A-3 had habitually paid illegal gratification to
A-1 through remittances made in the account of Shri. AS
Pareeth (A-2) held at Federal bank Kottapady branch
and the total amount of illegal gratification so paid by
A3 KM Nazeer Babu @ Shaji was Rs.1,01,000/-
remitted in 13 installments between 15.05.2010 to
15.03.2012 from Federal Bank Kodungalloor branch.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 202413
2025:KER:57463
A-6 Shri. A Shaji, APSI, in pursuance of the criminal
conspiracy with A-1 Shri. AP Ajeeb, on 15.4.2011, by
abusing his official position illegally cleared 3 other state
passengers named Smt. Jamalma Mahibub Nadaf of
Solapur (S), Maharashtra, Smt. Shamabi Hameed
Shaikh of Mumbai and Smt. Zoharra Hasanabba of
Mangalore all, holding ECR passports to travel abroad
with employment visas without emigration clearance
issued by the Protector of Emigrants.
A-7 Shri. PT Koshy APSI, in pursuance of the criminal
conspiracy, with A-1 Shri. AP Ajeeb, on 15.04.11, by
abusing his official position, illegally cleared the other
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 202414
2025:KER:57463
state passenger, Smt. Kausarbanu Nagarabaudi holding
ECR passport to travel abroad with employment visa
without emigration clearance issued by the Protector of
Emigrants. In furtherance of the said conspiracy, on
30.05.11, also by abusing his official position as Counter
Officer at the Cochin International Airport, Shri.PT
Koshy APSI illegally cleared a passenger named Shri.
T.P.Khalid holding an ECR passport to travel to Kuwait
on a job visa without clearance issued by the Protector of
Emigrants. Shri.TP Khalid was one among the 8
passengers referred by A-9 Shri. CM. Sohal, Prop. M/s
Mariha Tours and Travels, Thalassery, for which a total
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 202415
2025:KER:57463
amount of Rs.88,750/- was deposited in the account of
A-2 Shri. AS Pareeth, Father of A-1 Shri. AP Ajeeb,
Civil Police Officer.”
6. While challenging the order refusing discharge sought
for by the 5th accused, the learned counsel for the 5th accused
submitted that no materials were collected during the
investigation by the CBI to implicate the 5th accused in this
crime. It is specifically contended that the prosecution witnesses,
CW16 Sri K. Rajesh and CW26 Sri M.A. Subair, not stated
anything against the 5th accused, particularly in relation to the
allegation that they were permitted to go abroad without
Emigration Clearance Certificate as on 13.06.2011. That apart,
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024
16
2025:KER:57463
no materials have been collected to show that the 5th accused
received any amount as alleged by the prosecution. Therefore, the
prosecution case against the petitioner, who was working as APSI
on 13.06.2011, is without support of sufficient materials to
frame charge and proceed against him.
7. While canvassing interference in the orders refusing
discharge at the instance of the 6th and 7th accused, the learned
counsel submitted that, in so far as the 6th and 7th accused are
concerned, although passengers by name – Smt.Jamalma
Mahibub Nadaf of Solapur (S), Maharashtra, Smt. Shamabi
Hameed Shaikh of Mumbai, and Smt. Sohara Hasanabba of
Mangalore, holding Emigration Check Required (ECR)
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024
17
2025:KER:57463
passports, were cleared to travel abroad, the prosecution has not
produced the visas to establish whether such visas were
employment visas or tourist visas. Similarly, with regard to the
7th accused, the learned counsel for Accused No. 7 submitted
that there is no material on record to show that the visa was
issued to Kausarbanu Nagarabaudi, who holds an Emigration
Check Required (ECR) passport, to travel abroad without
obtaining the requisite emigration clearance.
8. According to the learned counsel for the 6th and 7th
accused in C.C. No.18 of 2016, in a similar case arising out of the
same allegations, the same CBI Judge discharged the accused
S.Samjith, where the allegations are substantially similar to those
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024
18
2025:KER:57463
in the present case. The learned counsel for the 6th and 7th
accused further submitted that the observations made in the
order of discharge in that case also to be taken into consideration
while deciding the present petitions.
9. Referring to the arguments tendered by the learned
counsel for the revision petitioners, the learned Public
Prosecutor submitted that, as far as witness Nos. 16 and 26
cleared by the 5th accused are concerned, who worked as Armed
Police Sub-Inspector/Counter Officer from 12.07.2014 to
13.07.2015, the prosecution relies on Document No. 2 – the
service book of A5. This document proves that he was on
departure duty on 12.06.2023, which was assigned as D35 Seal.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024
19
2025:KER:57463
Additionally, Document No. 10, the departure card, also records
the use of D35 Seal. Apart from that, the prosecution relies on
Document Nos. 22 and 38 pertaining to Rajesh and Subair,
which bear the endorsement ‘ECR’ (Emigration Clearance
Required). Similarly, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted
that, as against Accused No. 7 (A7), apart from Document
No.2, his service book, Document No. 5– a complaint filed
before the Superintendent of Police, Emigration Special Branch,
CID Headquarters–states that three passengers were cleared
without ECR endorsement by the 7th accused. In support of
this, the prosecution also relies on Document No. 48, the
departure card of the said passengers, as well as Document No.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024
20
2025:KER:57463
13, the passport of Smt. Jamalma Mahibub Nadaf, which
indicates ECR status. The statement of CW36, Assistant
Director, Bureau of Emigration, also highlights the general
misconduct of the accused persons. Furthermore, as against A7,
Document No. 5–another complaint filed is relied upon, in
addition to Document No. 14, being the departure card of
Kauser Banu. It is further pointed out by the learned Standing
Counsel for the CBI that the 1st accused, who is the prime
accused in this matter, as part of conspiracy hatched with the
other accused, collected amounts from travel agents in the bank
account of his father, who has been arrayed as the 2nd accused.
Document Nos. D17 to Annexures (q) to (m) obtained from
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024
21
2025:KER:57463
Federal Bank, Kodungallur Branch, would show the receipt of
money by the 2nd accused from Accused Nos. 4 and 5.
10. While appraising the rival submissions, it is relevant to
refer to the reasons stated by the learned Special Judge in relation
to the plea for discharge raised by the 5th accused, insofar as the
offence under Section 120B of the IPC is concerned, as well as
the offences under Sections 11, 12, and 13(2) read with Section
13(1)(a) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
where the learned Special Judge discharged the plea of the 5th
accused for the offence under Section 24 of the Emigration Act.
In paragraphs 32 to 37 of the impugned order, the learned trial
court observed as under:
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024
22
2025:KER:57463
“32. The facts and evidence stated above will show that
the petitioner was not made an accused as he illegally
cleared passengers holding ECR passports and
permitted them to travel abroad for employment
purposes, in furtherance of the conspiracy with the first
accused and others for illegal gratification. So, such a
contention is not sustainable.
33. The prosecution alleges offence u/s.120B of IPC and
Section 11, 12, 13(2) r/w.s.13(1)(a) and 13(1)(d) of the
PC Act. It is alleged that the petitioner conspired with
the first accused and others, and in furtherance of the
same, he illegally cleared the passengers. As rightly
pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, as the
conspiracy will be hatched in secrecy, it is difficult to get
direct evidence to prove the same. In a given case, from
the available evidence and the circumstances proved, the
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 202423
2025:KER:57463
Court has to infer that the alleged acts were done in
furtherance of the conspiracy. ln this case, it is
specifically contended that the first accused, who was
employed as a Civil Police Officer and was working in
the immigration wing during 03 06-2003 to
15-12-2003 and 13-12-2007 to 05-07-2011 was the
king pin of the conspircy and he had conspired with the
other accused at different points of time and have
facilitated illegal human trafficking as stated above.
The prosecution has produced evidence to show that the
passengers who were permitted to go abroad for
employment purpose without emigration clearance from
PoE. The statement of witnesses and documents
produced from the side of the prosecution prima facie
show that money was collected illegally from the
passengers. The money thus collected were being
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024
24
2025:KER:57463
remitted to the account of the 2nd accused, who is none
other than the father of the first accused. It is specifically
alleged that the first accused used to withdraw the
money and distribute the same to the counter officers
and other persons who facilitated the travel of such
passengers. It is true that the investigating officer could
not collect direct evidence to show that the money thus
collected or part of the same was given to the petitioner.
But, that does not mean that the petitioner is entitled to
a discharge in the case.
34. Section 11 of the PC Act prescribes punishment for a
public servant, who accepts or obtain or agrees to accept
or attempts to obtain, for himself or for any other person,
any valuable thing without consideration, or for a
consideration which he knows to be inadequate, from
any person whom he knows to have been, or to be, or to be
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024
25
2025:KER:57463
likely to be concerned in any proceedings or business
transacted or about to be transacted by such public
servant, or having any connection with the official
functions of himself or his subordinate. In this case,
there are materials to prima facie show that the first
accused illegally collected money from passengers
through the account of his father for the illegal
emigration clearance. The other accused were also aided
him for their benefit as well as the benefit of the first
accused.
35. Section 12 of the Act prescribes punishment for
abetment of offences defined in S.7 or 11 of the Act. I
have already found that there are prima facie materials
to make out the offence u/s.11 of the Act. The materials
on record show that the petitioner and other accused,
who were officiating as counter officers at the emigration
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024
26
2025:KER:57463
desk, were bound to verify the documents and to clear the
passengers only on satisfying that they are entitled to
travel. The fact that they permitted the passengers to
travel abroad illegally itself points towards the
conspiracy and shows that they abetted the crime.
Without their aid and connivance, the passengers could
not have gone abroad without emigration clearance. So,
this suggests that the counter officers, including the
petitioner, had abetted the commission of the offence.
36. Section 13(2) of the Act prescribes punishment for
criminal misconduct of a public servant. The term
‘criminal misconduct’ is defined in S.13(1) of the Act.
Clauses (a) to (e), as then stood, explain the
circumstances in which a public servant can be said to
have committed criminal misconduct. Section 13(1)(a)
states that if a public servant habitually accepts or
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024
27
2025:KER:57463
obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any
person for himself or for any other person, any
gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive
or reward, such is mentioned in S.7 Is Said to have
committed criminal misconduct. seètion13(1)(d) states
that obtaining for himself or for any other person any
valuable thing of pecuniary advantage by corrupt or
illegal means, or obtains any valuable thing or
pecuniary advantage without any public interest or
accumulates assets disproportionate to his known
income, is said to have committed criminal misconduct.
In this case, the materials on record show that the first
accused had been collecting money by way of illegal
gratification from various persons over a long period of
time, for the purpose of illegal emigration clearance to
them. He has utilized the service of the other accused,
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024
28
2025:KER:57463
who were officiating as counter officers at the
immigration wing of the airport. So, it can be seen that
the first accused was habitually accepting money from
the passengers, for which he is not entitled. There is an
allegation that the counter officers, including the
petitioner, had received benefits from the amount thus
collected illegally, as part of the conspiracy. On going
through the materials on record, I am satisfied that
there are sufficient materials to prima facie prove such
an allegation.
37. The prosecution has also alleged that the petitioner
has committed the offence punishable u/s.24 of the
Emigration Act. The provision prescribes punishment
for a person who emigrates except in conformity with the
provisions of the Act or contravenes the provisions of
section 10 or section 16 or by intentionally furnishing
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024
29
2025:KER:57463
any false information or suppressing any material
information obtains a certificate or a permit or an
emigration clearance under the Act or disobeys or
neglects to comply with any order of the Protector of
Emigrants under the Act, etc. In this Case, the
prosecution has no case that the petitioner has done any
of the acts mentioned in clauses (a) to (g) in Section 24 of
the Act. Only because there is prima facie material to
show that the petitioner cleared the journey of the ECR
passengers, it is not possible to come to a conclusion that
he committed the offence u/s.24 of the Act.”
11. Similarly, while considering the application for
discharge filed by the 6th accused, the learned Special Judge
dismissed the same, except for the offence under Section 24 of the
Emigration Act, as observed in Paragraphs 24 to 28 of the
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024
30
2025:KER:57463
impugned order. Out of which the observation in Paragraph
No.24 is extracted as under, since the other observations in
paragraphs 23 to 28 are similar to that of the order passed against
the 5th accused.
“24. The prosecution alleges offence u/s.120B of IPC and
Section 11, 12, 13(2) r/w.s.13(1)(a) and 13(1)(d) of the
PC Act. It is alleged that the petitioner conspired with
the first accused and others, and in furtherance of the
same, he illegally cleared the passengers. As rightly
pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, as the
conspiracy will be hatched in secrecy, it is difficult to get
direct evidence to prove the same. In a given case, from
the available evidence and the circumstances proved, the
Court has to infer that the alleged acts were done in
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 202431
2025:KER:57463
furtherance of the conspiracy. ln this case, it is
specifically contended that the first accused, who was
employed as a Civil Police Officer and was working in
the immigration wing during 03 06-2003 to
15-12-2003 and 13-12-2007 to 05-07-2011 was the
king pin of the conspircy and he had conspired with the
other accused at different points of time and have
facilitated illegal human trafficking as stated above.
The prosecution has produced evidence to show that the
passengers who were permitted to go abroad for
employment purpose without emigration clearance from
PoE. The statement of witnesses and documents
produced from the side of the prosecution prima facie
show that money was collected illegally from the
passengers. The money thus collected were being
remitted to the account of the 2nd accused, who is none
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 202432
2025:KER:57463
other than the father of the first accused. It is specifically
alleged that the first accused used to withdraw the
money and distribute the same to the counter officers
and other persons who facilitated the travel of such
passengers. It is true that the investigating officer could
not collect direct evidence to show that the money thus
collected or part of the same was given to the petitioner.
But, that does not mean that the petitioner is entitled to
a discharge in the case.
12. Similarly, in the impugned order as against the 7th
accused, the observations and findings are contained in
paragraphs 28 to 32. Out of which paragraph 28 is extracted as
under, since the observations in paragraphs 29 to 32 are similar to
that of the order passed against the 5th accused.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024
33
2025:KER:57463
“28. The prosecution alleges offence u/s.120B of IPC and
Section 11, 12, 13(2) r/w.s.13(1)(a) and 13(1)(d) of the
PC Act. It is alleged that the petitioner conspired with
the first accused and others, and in furtherance of the
same, he illegally cleared the passengers. As rightly
pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, as the
conspiracy will be hatched in secrecy, it is difficult to get
direct evidence to prove the same. In a given case, from
the available evidence and the circumstances proved, the
Court has to infer that the alleged acts were done in
furtherance of the conspiracy. ln this case, it is
specifically contended that the first accused, who was
employed as a Civil Police Officer and was working in
the immigration wing during 03 06-2003 to
15-12-2003 and 13-12-2007 to 05-07-2011 was the
king pin of the conspircy and he had conspired with the
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024
34
2025:KER:57463
other accused at different points of time and have
facilitated illegal human trafficking as stated above.
The prosecution has produced evidence to show that the
passengers who were permitted to go abroad for
employment purpose without emigration clearance from
PoE. The statement of witnesses and documents
produced from the side of the prosecution prima facie
show that money was collected illegally from the
passengers. The money thus collected were being
remitted to the account of the 2nd accused, who is none
other than the father of the first accused. It is specifically
alleged that the first accused used to withdraw the
money and distribute the same to the counter officers
and other persons who facilitated the travel of such
passengers. It is true that the investigating officer could
not collect direct evidence to show that the money thus
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024
35
2025:KER:57463
collected or part of the same was given to the petitioner.
But, that does not mean that the petitioner is entitled to
a discharge in the case.
13. Insofar as the order granting discharge in favour of
Samjith is concerned, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for
the CBI submitted that the said order has been challenged in Crl.
R.P. No. 1392 of 2024, which is presently pending before this
Court. In view of the above, the said order cannot be relied upon
at this stage. In this contention, it is held that the reasons for the
discharge of an accused in a different case based on the
prosecution records therein cannot be considered while
exercising plea of discharge in respect of an accused in a totally
different case as the consideration while considering plea of
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024
36
2025:KER:57463
discharge is the prosecution records where the plea of discharge
has been raised. Therefore, this contention is rejected.
14. On appraisal of the rival contentions, the question that
arises for consideration in these matters is whether the Special
Court was justified in finding that there are sufficient materials
produced by the prosecution to prima facie establish the offences
alleged against the revision petitioners. To put it otherwise, the
issue is whether the materials on record would go beyond mere
suspicion to a strong suspicion to indicate that the accused
Nos.5, 6, and 7 have involvement in commission of the offences,
for which plea of discharge was disallowed.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024
37
2025:KER:57463
15. It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of Accused Nos. 6 and 7 that the prosecution has failed
to produce any document to establish the nature of the visa
possessed by the alleged emigrants, specifically whether the said
visa was for employment or for tourism purposes. It is contended
that in the absence of such documentary evidence, no inference
can be drawn regarding the requirement of emigration clearance.
The learned counsel further submitted that, in the event the visa
in question was of a tourist nature, the necessity for obtaining
emigration clearance would not arise.
16. In response to the above arguments, the learned Special
Public Prosecutor for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024
38
2025:KER:57463
submitted that the embarcation cards would clearly indicate that
the visas used by the travellers involved in this crime who were
permitted to travel by Accused Nos. 5, 6, and 7 are employmnet
visas as they voluntarily entered so into the embarkation cards. It
is specifically pointed out that the embarkation cards filled up by
the travellers explicitly would state that the purpose of their travel
was ’employment’. The learned Standing Counsel further
submitted that during the period 2010-2011, it was permissible
for agencies to issue paper visas, and after their use, such visas or
copies thereof were not retained, the same could not be collected
by the Investigating Agency.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024
39
2025:KER:57463
17. In fact the question that arises for consideration is
whether the allegation against the revision petitioners as to
commission of the offences is justified from the prosecution
records. The prosecution records would reveal the fact that
money was deposited in the account of the 2nd accused, who is
the father of the 1st accused and the prosecution case is that the
amount so deposited is the amount received from various travel
agencies as part of conspiracy hatched between the accused, and
thereby petitioners herein, facilitated passengers who are cited as
witnesses to go abroad for employment purpose without
emigration clearance. The prosecution has another allegation
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024
40
2025:KER:57463
that the money collected by the 2nd accused on behalf of the 1st
accused was also distributed among them.
18. On scrutiny of the prosecution allegations, including
the documents relied upon by the learned Special Public
Prosecutor for CBI, in particular it could be seen that prima
facie, the prosecution materials would show commission of the
offences alleged by the prosecution by the accused as found by
the special court while disallowing the plea of discharge at the
instance of the petitioners. Therefore, there is no reason to
interfere with the orders impugned. Accordingly, these petitions
are dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to raise these
contentions during trial.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024
41
2025:KER:57463
19. The interim order of stay granted in these matters
stands vacated, and it is specifically made clear that the
observations in this common order have been made for the
purpose of deciding the legality of the orders impugned and the
same have no binding effect during trial.
The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment
to the trial court for information and compliance.
Sd/-
A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE
RMV
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024
42
2025:KER:57463
APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 1125/2024
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
30.08.2024 IN CRL.M.P.NO.17/2023 IN
C.C.NO.18/2016 ON THE FILES OF SPECIAL
JUDGE'S COURT SPE/CBI-I, ERNAKULAM
Annexure A2 PHOTO COPY OF THE CHARGE IN C.C.NO.22/2016 ON
THE FILES OF SPECIAL COURT (SPE/CBI)-1,
ERNAKULAM DATED 04.02.2025
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024
43
2025:KER:57463
APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 1137/2024
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
30.08.2024 IN CRL.M.P.NO.17/2023 IN
C.C.NO.18/2016 ON THE FILES OF SPECIAL
JUDGE’S COURT SPE/CBI-I, ERNAKULAM
Annexure A2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE CHARGE IN C.C.NO.22/2016 ON
THE FILES OF SPECIAL COURT (SPE/CBI)-1,
ERNAKULAM DATED 04.02.2025
[ad_2]
Source link