Sanction under the Passports Act is required for trial, not for taking cognizance, and the prosecution's actions are justified to ensure a fair trial.

O R D E R

The second accused in C.C.No.1212/2015 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyanur, is the petitioner in both these petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘Cr.PC’). The relief sought in Crl.M.C.No.3900/2019 is to quash the final report filed in the said case and all further proceedings initiated against the petitioner. Crl.M.C.No.3299/2020 is filed by the petitioner, aggrieved by the order passed by the Jurisdictional Magistrate, stopping the proceedings to enable the Investigating Officer to obtain sanction under Section 15 of the Passports Act, 1967 (in short, ‘Act’) for proceeding with the trial against the petitioner.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he assisted the first accused in the said case for forging a Secondary School Leaving Certificate to make it appear that the first accused had passed the SSLC examination in the month of March, 1995, for the purpose of enabling the first accused to get an endorsement in his passport that emigration clearance is not required. It is further alleged that accused Nos.1 & 2 forged such a bogus SSLC book and presented the same before the Passport authority, and managed to get the endorsement as stated above. Thus, the petitioner, along with the first accused, are alleged to have committed the offences under Sections 468 , 471 & 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 , and Section 12(1)(b) of the Passports Act, 1967 .

3. In the present petitions, the petitioner would contend that he is totally innocent, and that a false case has been foisted against him. In Crl.M.C.No.3900/2019, one of the main challenges raised is that the investigating agency had not obtained the requisite sanction as required under Section 15 of the Act. In Crl.M.C.No.3299/2020, the petitioner would contend that the attempt of the Investigating Officer was to fill up the lacuna in the prosecution case, and hence the learned Magistrate went wrong in stopping the proceedings to enable the Investigating Officer to get sanction as required under the relevant provisions of the Act.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

5. The final report and the accompanying records produced by the investigating agency would prima facie reveal that there had been an dubious attempt on the part of the petitioner and the first accused to manipulate the SSLC book of the first accused, and to mislead the passport authorities. Forgery is manifest from the records relied on by the prosecution. So also, the role of the petitioner herein is prima facie revealed from the prosecution records in the aforesaid crime of forging the Secondary School Leaving Certificate of the first accused. As regards the challenge that the attempt of the investigating agency to get sanction at this stage would amount to filling up the lacuna, I am of the view that the contention in the above regard is totally baseless. The sanction under Section 15 of the Act is not required for taking cognizance, but for the conduct of the trial against the offender. Therefore, there is absolutely nothing wrong, if the Investigating Officer preferred to get the sanction after the filing of the final report, and before the completion of the trial before the Jurisdictional Magistrate. The act of the investigating agency doing the needful for the successful conduct of the prosecution cannot be termed as filling up the lacuna to the prejudice of the accused. Therefore, the challenge raised by the petitioner in the above regard is prima facie unsustainable.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor has placed for my perusal the report of the Investigating Officer about the sanction already granted by the G