Case Note & Summary
The appellant, accused No.2, was convicted under Section 420 IPC read with Section 12(2) of the Passports Act, 1967 for allegedly facilitating the issuance of a second passport to accused No.1, who already held an Indian passport. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, through her travel agency, processed the application of accused No.1, and that the second passport, returned undelivered to the Passport Office, was illegally handed over to her by accused No.3 and No.4. The appellant allegedly demanded Rs.5,000 from accused No.1 for the passport, and upon refusal, returned it by post. The trial court convicted the appellant and accused No.1 and No.5, while acquitting accused No.3 and No.4 of all charges. The High Court acquitted accused No.1 and No.5, but upheld the appellant's conviction. The Supreme Court examined the evidence, noting that the prosecution relied on three witnesses: PW-3 (an employee of the appellant's firm), PW-15 (proprietor of another travel agency), and PW-16 (handwriting expert). PW-3 turned hostile and did not implicate the appellant; PW-15's testimony lacked documentary proof of payment or knowledge; and PW-16's opinion was inconclusive and uncorroborated. The Court held that the principle of parity applied, as the allegations against the appellant were similar to those against acquitted co-accused No.3 and No.4, and the evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Principle of Parity - Acquittal of Co-accused - When there is similar or identical evidence against two accused, the court cannot convict one and acquit the other; such distinction amounts to discrimination. (Para 10) B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Handwriting Expert Opinion - Section 45 - Corroboration - Opinion of handwriting expert cannot be solely relied upon to base conviction without independent and reliable corroboration. (Para 13) C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Hostile Witness - Testimony - Evidence of a hostile witness who does not support prosecution case is not reliable or trustworthy and cannot form basis of conviction. (Para 11) D) Passports Act, 1967 - Section 12(2) - Offence of Facilitating Illegal Passport - Conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt that accused had knowledge of prior passport and knowingly facilitated second passport; mere routing of application insufficient. (Paras 8-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant alone is sustainable when co-accused with similar allegations have been acquitted and the evidence against the appellant is insufficient.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges.
Law Points
- Principle of parity
- Acquittal of co-accused with similar evidence
- Handwriting expert opinion requires corroboration
- Hostile witness testimony not reliable
- Burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt
