Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 904 of 2012 Petitioner :- Bittoo Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Khalil Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Sri Mohd. Khalil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present writ petition has been filed quashing the proceedings in Case Crime No. 5 of 2011 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Meerut and allow the discharge application of the petitioner which is pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate – IX, Meerut.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no offence is made out against the petitioner under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC as Section 12 of the Passport Act, 1967 provides that whoever knowingly furnishes any false information or suppresses any material information shall be punishable with fine of rupees five thousand, therefore, the authority, if found the petitioner guilty of suppression of fact, might have imposed penalty of Rs. 5,000/-.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.
Section-12 of the Act, 1967 provides the offences and penalties. It says that whoever knowingly furnishes any false information or suppresses any material information with a view to obtaining a passport or travel document under this Act shall be punishable for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees or with both. Section-12 of the Act reads as under:
"12. Offences and penalties.---(1) Whoever---
(a) contravenes the provisions of section 3; or
(b) knowingly furnishes any false information or suppresses any material information with a view to obtaining a passport or travel document under this Act or without lawful authority alters or attempts to alter or causes to alter the entries made in a passport or travel document; or
(c) fails to produce for inspection his passport or travel document (whether issued under this Act or not) when called upon to do so by the prescribed authority; or
(d) knowingly uses a passport or travel document issued to another person; or
(e) knowingly allows another person to use a passport or travel document issued to him, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees or with both.
(1-A) Whoever, not being a citizen of India,---
(a) makes an application for a passport or obtains a passport by suppressing information about his nationality, or
(b) holds a forged passport or any travel document, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years and with fine which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees but which may extend to fifty thousand rupees.
(2) Whoever abets any offence punishable under sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, be punishable with the punishment provided in that sub-section for that offence.
(3) Whoever contravenes any condition of a passport or travel document or any provision of this Act or any rule made thereunder for which no punishment is provided elsewhere in this Act shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both.
(4) Whoever, having been convicted of an offence under this Act, is again convicted of an offence under this Act shall be punishable with double the penalty provided for the latter offence."
This Court has granted bail to the petitioner in the case crime no. 5 of 2011 on 24.5.2011 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3094 of 2011 and the petitioner is on bail. The order dated 24.5.2011 reads as under:
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA and perused the record.
The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that furnishing of false information or suppression of any material information knowingly for obtaining a pass port is an offence under section 12 of the Passport Act and the maximum punishment provided for that offence is of two years or fine to the extent of Rs. 5000/- or both, therefore, the offences under under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC are not made out. It was next submitted that the applicant is a labourer and had no mensrea. He is in jail from 01.01.2011.
The learned counsel for the applicant lastly submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated due to enmity and there is no reasonable ground to believe that the applicant has committed the alleged offences.
The learned AGA opposed the bail, but could not point out anything otherwise.
In my opinion, prima facie, the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant have substance, therefore, it is just and expedient to exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant.
Moreso, there does not appear to be any reasonable ground to believe that the applicant will tamper with the witnesses or abscond, if released on bail.
Keeping in view the nature of the offences, evidence, complicity of the applicant, the severity of the punishment and submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant Bittu involved in Case Crime No. 5 of 2011, under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Meerut be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned and also subject to the following conditions:
(a) The applicant shall attend the court according to the conditions of the bond executed by him;
(b) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;
(c) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above three conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail."
Having considered the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be subserved by issuing a direction upon the court below to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, without giving any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The court below shall pass the order independently and in accordance with law.
The writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 18.12.2019 Digamber