Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 46204
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.8430 OF 2025 -----------------------------------------
1Dated this the 21st day of October, 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.P.A.MUJEEB
For the Respondents: SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK
Prior sanction from the Central Government is necessary for prosecution under the Emigration Act.
Headnote:In this case, the petitioner contends that no prior sanction from the Central Government was obtained as required under Section 27 of the Emigration Act, thereby questioning the initiation of prosecution under the Act. The court noted the necessity of discussing sanctions in the trial court, allowing the petitioner to file their discharge application. While the State opposed the petition highlighting the applicability of sections under the IPC, the court permitted filing for discharge under the Emigration Act's provisions. The ruling directs the trial court to consider the discharge application accordingly.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of cheating related to employment visa. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. legal arguments regarding sanction for prosecution. (Para 3 , 4) |
ORDER
The petitioner is the 1st accused in C.C.No.89/2020 on the file of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, which arises out of Crime No.105/2020 registered by the Ernakulam Central Police Station, Ernakulam against the accused persons for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Section 10 read with Section 24 of the Emigration Act and Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code .
2. The gravamen of the prosecution case is that, the accused persons, without having any legal authority from the Protector of Emigrants and with an intention to cheat the defacto complainant, received Rs.1/- lakh from him on the assurance that they would arrange him an employment visa. However, the accused did not arrange the visa. Thus, they have committed the above offences.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is confining his relief to the question under Section 27 of the Emigration Act , which mandates that previous sanction of the Central Government is necessary to initiate prosecution for an offence under the . As there is no previous sanction from the Central Government in the case at hand, the offence under Section 10 read with Section 24 of the will not lie. The petitioner would be satisfied if this Court directs the Trial Court to consider the petitioner’s proposed discharge application. The learned Counsel relies on the decision of this Court in Aboobacker vs. State of Kerala ( 2020 (3) KLT 358 ) in support of his contention.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the Crl.M.C.
He submits that if the amount is received from an emigrant or an intending emigrant, there is no necessity to obtain prior sanction under Section 27 of the Emigration Act . Moreover, the accused have also been charged for committing the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code .
Nonetheless, there is no legal impediment in the Trial Court considering the question.
On a consideration of the materials on record and the rival submissions made across the Bar, without expressing anything on the merits of the matter, I dispose of this Crl.M.C. by permitting the petitioner to file an application for discharge in respect of the offence under Sections 10 and 24 of the Emigration Act , within three weeks from today. If such application is filed, with advance copy to the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the Trial Court shall consider the discharge application, if the charge has not already been framed, in accordance with law, untrammelled by any observations made in this order.
