ORDER

The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.1167 of 2018 on the files of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (Economic Offences), Ernakulam. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 10 read with Section 24 (1) (a)(b) of the Emigration Act, 1983.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was running an establishment conducting overseas recruitment process without any permission or license . It was alleged that, as part of the said activities, the petitioner received passports and the certificates from the candidates and demanded amounts ranging from Rs 75,000 to Rs one Lakh.

3. On the basis of the above allegation, a suo moto case was registered by the Police as Crime No.352/2016 of Ernakulam Town South Police Station and after completing the investigation Annexure A2 final report was submitted. This petition is submitted to quash all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure A2 final report.

4. Heard Manu Ramachandran learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Aravind .V Mathew learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the prosecution on the basis of Annexure A2 is not legally sustainable in view of the fact that no previous sanction as contemplated under Section 27 of Emigration Act, 1983 has been obtained. On the other hand learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same and seeks for dismissal of the petition.

6. The specific case of the petitioner is that going by the stipulation contained under Section 27 of Emigration Act, no prosecution can be instituted without any previous sanction of the Central Government. The only circumstance contemplated therein for initiating prosecution without sanction is in respect of cases where the crime is registered on the basis of a complaint submitted by an emigrant or intending emigrant or in his behalf, by his father, mother, husband, wife, son daughter, brother, sister or guardian. On going through the Annexure A FIR in this case, it can be seen that the case has been registered suo moto and no such complaint has been referred to. The position of law in this regard is settled by this Court in Oseela Abdul Khadher and Another v. Sate of Kerala [2012 (4) KHC 346]. In the said case a similar question was considered in the light of section 15 of the Passports Act which is similar to that of Section 27 of Emigration Act. In Aboobacker v.State of Kerala [2020 (30 KLT 358], the impact of section 27 of the Emigration Act was considered by this court and held that, in the absence of sanction by the Central Government, no cognizance can be taken. Since the previous sanction is a mandatory requirement as contemplated under Section 27(4) of the Act for initiating the prosecution, the failure in obtaining the same could vitiate the entire proceedings against the petitioner. It is evident from the records that no such sanction has been obtained from the Government in this case and hence the further proceedings pursuant to Annexure B are not legally sustainable. In Annexure A2 final report, the police incorporated offence under section 420 of IPC as well. However on going through the allegations contained in Annexure A2, it can be seen that, the basic allegation against the petitioner is regarding the conduct of recruitment agency, for providing employment abroad, without license, and hence the offence attracted is under section 24 read with section 10 of Emigration Act. The very basis of charging the offence under section 420 of IPC is also the same allegations. Similarly, Annexure A1 FIR was registered only for the offences under the provisions of Emigration Act. Moreover, from the statements of the witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C, it can be seen that none of them have actually paid any amount to the petitioner. In such circumstances, I am of the view that, lack of sanction as contemplated under Section 27 of the Emigration Act, vitiates the entire proceedin