IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.BADHARUDEEN, J.
Sajin Frederick @ Peter Antony S/o Frederick – Appellant
Versus
SPE/CBI EOW Chennai Inspector of Police – Respondent
Crl. Appeal Nos. 1612, 1627 of 2013
Decided On : 12-03-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of forgery and conspiracy. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 10) |
| 2. proving the usage of forged documents. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. witness testimony regarding the lack of an actual peter antony. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. procedural validity of evidence collection. (Para 22 , 30) |
| 5. final judgement confirming conviction. (Para 33) |
JUDGMENT :
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
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, Di
Circumstantial evidence and expert testimony can establish conspiracy and individual roles in fraudulent activities, while lack of required sanction under relevant laws invalidates prosecution for ce....
Court cannot convict one accused and acquit other when there is similar or identical evidence pitted against two accused persons.
Point of Law : Article 21 applies when personal liberty of a person is deprived without following the procedure.
Point of Law; In case of acquittal, it is settled law that if two views are possible, the appellate court should adopt the view which is favourable to the accused
The prosecution failed to prove the charges of forgery and conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt due to irregularities in evidence collection.
Anticipatory bail may be granted where the prosecution fails to demonstrate the necessity for custodial interrogation or present sufficient evidence of ongoing criminal activity.
The conviction of a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act is upheld based on established evidence of bribery, reaffirming the necessity of fair procedure in trial.
The main legal point established is that the necessity of custodial interrogation and the presence of evidence linking foreign travel to illegal activities are crucial factors in determining the gran....
Court should not normally take upon itself the responsibility of comparing the disputed signature with that of the admitted signature or handwriting and in the event of the slightest doubt, leave the....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.