Summary
The Supreme Court acquitted a travel-agency proprietor convicted of cheating and of abetting the obtaining of a second passport, because the prosecution led no evidence that she knew the applicant already held a passport, the hostile and uncorroborated testimony and an inconclusive handwriting opinion could not sustain conviction, and her co-accused facing the same allegations had been acquitted.
Issues
- Whether the appellant could be convicted while co-accused facing the same allegations on similar evidence had been acquitted.
- Whether the evidence of a hostile employee, the forwarding travel agent and a handwriting expert proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether the ingredients of abetment under Section 12(2) of the Passports Act, 1967 were proved.
Provisions considered
- Section 12(1)(b) and 12(2), Passports Act, 1967Read as requiring the prosecution to prove that the accused knowingly furnished false information or suppressed material information to obtain a passport and so abetted the Section 12(1) offence; with no evidence that the appellant knew accused No.1 already held a passport, the charge failed. (¶¶ 14, 15)
- Section 420, Indian Penal Code, 1860The concurrent conviction for cheating was set aside along with the Passports Act conviction, as guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. (¶¶ 1, 15, 16)
- Section 45, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Referred to through the quoted precedent: handwriting expert opinion is relevant, but here the expert admitted he could give no opinion on the questioned writing on the postal cover, and his evidence was uncorroborated, so it could not found a conviction. (¶ 13)
Held
- Where similar or identical evidence is led against two accused who are ascribed the same role, the principle of parity applies and the court cannot convict one and acquit the other. As the allegations against the appellant were the same as those against accused Nos.3 and 4, who were acquitted for want of evidence on how the passport left safe custody and reached her, her conviction alone could not stand. (¶¶ 9, 10)
- The appellant's employee who filled the application turned hostile and said nothing incriminating beyond the appellant sitting beside her and checking the form; her evidence was not reliable. The travel agent's bare statement that the appellant handed over the application and paid the fees, unsupported by documents and silent on her knowledge of the earlier passport, did not discharge the burden of proof. (¶¶ 11, 12)
- A handwriting expert who notes some similarities but admits he cannot give an opinion on the questioned writing does not help the prosecution; without independent and reliable corroboration, handwriting expert opinion cannot by itself form the basis of a conviction. (¶ 13)
- To prove abetment under Section 12(2) of the Passports Act the prosecution must show the accused knowingly furnished false information or suppressed material information to secure a passport. There was no evidence that the appellant knew accused No.1 already held a passport, and with accused Nos.1 and 3 to 5 acquitted, her conviction could not be sustained. (¶¶ 14, 15)
Result
Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence under Section 420 IPC and Section 12(2) of the Passports Act set aside and the appellant acquitted; bail bonds cancelled.