Kerala High Court
P. Vijayan vs Central Bureau Of Investigation, ... on 1 August, 2025
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024
1
2025:KER:57463
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
ST
FRIDAY, THE 1 DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024
CRIME NO.RC-06 (A)/14/CB/2014 OF CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, KOCHI,
Ernakulam
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 31.08.2024 IN CC NO.22 OF 2016 OF
SPECIAL C SPE/CBI-I&3 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT / I ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.5:
P. VIJAYAN
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, MAYRAM HOUSE, POONKULAM, VELLAYANI.
P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695522
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD
SHRI.VARGHESE PARAMBIL
SMT.SETHULEKSHMI PRABHA
SHRI.ASHOK K.V.
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, COCHIN
REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR CBI HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
BY ADV SHRI.SREELAL N.WARRIER,SREELAL N.WARRIER, SPL.PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.07.2025, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.1125/2024, 1137/2024, THE COURT ON
01.08.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024
2
2025:KER:57463
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
ST
FRIDAY, THE 1 DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1125 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 31.08.2024 IN CC NO.22 OF 2016 OF
SPECIAL C SPE/CBI-I&3 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT / I ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/6TH ACCUSED :
SHAJI.A
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O ASSANARU PILLAI AZAR MANZIL, A.V.STREET, MANALI, BALARAMAPURAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND FORMERLY WORKING AS ARMED POLICE INSPECTOR,
SPECIAL ARMED POLICE, PEROORKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695501
BY ADVS.
SHRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE
SMT.AMRITHA.J
SHRI.KURUVILLA MATHEW
SHRI.VIPIN C. VARGHESE
SRI.P.J.JOSE
RESPONDENT/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
KOCHI, PIN - 682031
2 THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
KOCHI, PIN - 682031
3 INSPECTOR
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
BY ADV SHRI.SREELAL N.WARRIER,SREELAL N.WARRIER, SPL.PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.07.2025, ALONG
WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.1198/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 01.08.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024
3
2025:KER:57463
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
ST
FRIDAY, THE 1 DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1137 OF 2024
CRIME NO.RC-06(A)CBI TVM/2014 OF CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, Thiruvananthapuram
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 31.08.2024 IN CC NO.22 OF 2016 OF
SPECIAL C SPE/CBI-I&3 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT / I ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/7TH ACCUSED:
KOSHY.P.T
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O LATE P.T.THOMAS, FORMERLY WORKING AS ARMED POLICE SUB
INSPECTOR, SPECIAL ARMED POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT
ZION, TC 14/79, AKKULAM AVENUE, ANAYARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695029
BY ADVS.
SHRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE
SMT.AMRITHA.J
SHRI.KURUVILLA MATHEW
SHRI.VIPIN C. VARGHESE
RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
KOCHI-682031
2 INSPECTOR
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,CBI, PIN - 695001
BY ADV SHRI.SREELAL N.WARRIER,SREELAL N.WARRIER, SPL.PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.07.2025
ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.1198/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 01.08.2025
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024
4
2025:KER:57463
A. BADHARUDEEN, J
============================
Crl.Rev. Petition Nos. 1198, 1125, & 1137 of 2024 ============================== Dated 1st day of August 2025 COMMON ORDER [Crl.Rev.Pet Nos.1198/2024, 1125/2024, 1137/2024] Criminal Revision Petition No. 1198 of 2024 has been filed by the 5th accused in C.C. No. 22 of 2016 pending before the Special Judge (SPE/CBI) - I, Ernakulam, challenging the order dated 31.08.2024 in Crl. M.P. No. 104 of 2022, whereby the discharge plea at the instance of the 5th accused was dismissed.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024 5 2025:KER:57463
2. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1125 of 2024 has been filed by the 6th accused in the same case, aggrieved by the dismissal of his discharge petition viz Crl. M.P. No. 103 of 2022, also as per the order dated 31st August 2024.
3. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1137 of 2024 has been filed by the 7th accused in the same case, who also is aggrieved by the dismissal of his discharge petition viz Crl. M.P. No. 265 of 2024, by order dated 31st August 2024.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in detail. Perused the orders impugned. CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024 6 2025:KER:57463
5. The allegations against accused Nos. 5, 6, and 7 as per the charge filed by the CBI are as follows:-
"A1 A.P.Ajeeb, a Public Servant employed in Kerala Police as Civil Police Officer, while working at Cochin International Airport immigration Wing during 2010-11, together with A-4 Shri. MK Babu, Armed Police Sub Inspector of Kerala Police, (Retired), A-6 Shri. A. Shaji, Armed Police Sub Inspector of Kerala Police, A-7 Shri. PT Koshy, Armed Police Sub Inspector of Kerala Police, A-8 Shri. P. Mohanan, Armed Police Sub Inspector of Kerala Police (Retired), who was functioning as Immigration officer at Cochin CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024 7 2025:KER:57463 International Airport Limited, Nedumbassery, Ernakulam, during the same period entered into a criminal conspiracy with A-3 Shri. KM Nazeer Babu @ Shaji Prop. M/s. Air Travel Associates, SNDP Building, Kodungallur, Thrissur, A-9, Shri. CM Sohal, Prop. M/s Mariha Tours & Travels, Narangapuram, Thalassery, Kannur, A-10 Shri. V V Antony Prop. M/s National Air Travels, Thrissur, to issue illegal emigration clearance to passengers proceeding abroad without valid travel documents, by abusing the official position of the public servants employed as counter officers, and to obtain pecuniary advantage for themselves. In pursuance of the CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024 8 2025:KER:57463 said criminal conspiracy, A-3 Shri. KM Nazeer Babu @ Shaji, A-9 Shri. CM Sohal and A-10 Shri. VV Antony forwarded their passengers without valid travel documents to A-1 Shri.AP Ajeeb and he, with the undue influence exerted on his senior officers on counter duty, abusing their official position, cleared the passengers to travel abroad without valid travel documents. In furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy, A-1 collected bribes from the passengers through the travel agents, and the same was deposited in the SB A/c.No. 11640100075688 of Shri. AS Pareeth A-2 held at Federal Bank Kottapady Branch. Shri.AS Pareeth A-2, CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024 9 2025:KER:57463 father of A-1, knowingly allowed A-1 and other accused persons to use his account for depositing illegal gratification to be withdrawn and paid to concerned counter officers, and accordingly, A-1 withdrew the bribe amounts and distributed the bribe amount in cash to the concerned counter officers who illegally cleared the passengers. A-5 Shri. P. Vijayan, Armed Police Sub Inspector of Kerala Police, joined the conspiracy during June 2011 and illegally cleared two passengers, Shri. K Rajesh and Shri. MA Subair, through Trivandrum International Airport, on 13.6.2011, who could not proceed through Cochin Airport on 11.6.2011. CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024 10 2025:KER:57463 A-3 Shri.KM Nazeer Babu, @ Shaji Prop. M/s. Air Travel Associates, SNDP Building, Kodungallur, offered to arrange air tickets and emigration clearance to several passengers, including Shri. M.A. Subair, who was holding ECR passport No.H5701532 and an employment visa to Qatar, in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy with A-1, purchased flight ticket for M.A.Subair's travel from Cochin to Qatar on 11.06.2011, and thereafter Shri. M.A.Subair was illegally cleared by A-4, MK Babu, APSI on duty to travel to Qatar on 11.06.2011 without emigration clearance issued by the Protector of Emigrants. The above CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024 11 2025:KER:57463 passenger could not proceed due to some technical problems in the aircraft, and during exit, he, along with some other passengers, was intercepted by other officers on duty and reported the matter to superior officers. Thereafter, A-1 arranged the travel of the above-said passenger on 13.06.2011 through Trivandrum Airport in conspiracy with Shri. P. Vijayan APSI (A-5) then functioned as counter officer at Trivandrum Airport. For the illegal facilities provided by A-1, including the illegal clearance to Shri.M.A.Subair, A-3 Shri. Naseer Babu @ Shaji paid illegal gratification of Rs.17,000/- on 13.6.2011 to A-1 by remitting to the account of A-10 CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024 12 2025:KER:57463 held at Federal Bank Kottapady branch from Federal Bank Kodungallur branch. Shri. Naseer Babu @ Shaji A-3 in pursuance of the conspiracy, had illegally sent several other passengers to travel abroad through CIAL, and as a reward for the above illegal facilities arranged by A-1, A-3 had habitually paid illegal gratification to A-1 through remittances made in the account of Shri. AS Pareeth (A-2) held at Federal bank Kottapady branch and the total amount of illegal gratification so paid by A3 KM Nazeer Babu @ Shaji was Rs.1,01,000/- remitted in 13 installments between 15.05.2010 to 15.03.2012 from Federal Bank Kodungalloor branch. CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024 13 2025:KER:57463 A-6 Shri. A Shaji, APSI, in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy with A-1 Shri. AP Ajeeb, on 15.4.2011, by abusing his official position illegally cleared 3 other state passengers named Smt. Jamalma Mahibub Nadaf of Solapur (S), Maharashtra, Smt. Shamabi Hameed Shaikh of Mumbai and Smt. Zoharra Hasanabba of Mangalore all, holding ECR passports to travel abroad with employment visas without emigration clearance issued by the Protector of Emigrants.
A-7 Shri. PT Koshy APSI, in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, with A-1 Shri. AP Ajeeb, on 15.04.11, by abusing his official position, illegally cleared the other CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024 14 2025:KER:57463 state passenger, Smt. Kausarbanu Nagarabaudi holding ECR passport to travel abroad with employment visa without emigration clearance issued by the Protector of Emigrants. In furtherance of the said conspiracy, on 30.05.11, also by abusing his official position as Counter Officer at the Cochin International Airport, Shri.PT Koshy APSI illegally cleared a passenger named Shri. T.P.Khalid holding an ECR passport to travel to Kuwait on a job visa without clearance issued by the Protector of Emigrants. Shri.TP Khalid was one among the 8 passengers referred by A-9 Shri. CM. Sohal, Prop. M/s Mariha Tours and Travels, Thalassery, for which a total CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024 15 2025:KER:57463 amount of Rs.88,750/- was deposited in the account of A-2 Shri. AS Pareeth, Father of A-1 Shri. AP Ajeeb, Civil Police Officer."
6. While challenging the order refusing discharge sought for by the 5th accused, the learned counsel for the 5th accused submitted that no materials were collected during the investigation by the CBI to implicate the 5th accused in this crime. It is specifically contended that the prosecution witnesses, CW16 Sri K. Rajesh and CW26 Sri M.A. Subair, not stated anything against the 5th accused, particularly in relation to the allegation that they were permitted to go abroad without Emigration Clearance Certificate as on 13.06.2011. That apart, CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024 16 2025:KER:57463 no materials have been collected to show that the 5th accused received any amount as alleged by the prosecution. Therefore, the prosecution case against the petitioner, who was working as APSI on 13.06.2011, is without support of sufficient materials to frame charge and proceed against him.
7. While canvassing interference in the orders refusing discharge at the instance of the 6th and 7th accused, the learned counsel submitted that, in so far as the 6th and 7th accused are concerned, although passengers by name - Smt.Jamalma Mahibub Nadaf of Solapur (S), Maharashtra, Smt. Shamabi Hameed Shaikh of Mumbai, and Smt. Sohara Hasanabba of Mangalore, holding Emigration Check Required (ECR) CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024 17 2025:KER:57463 passports, were cleared to travel abroad, the prosecution has not produced the visas to establish whether such visas were employment visas or tourist visas. Similarly, with regard to the 7th accused, the learned counsel for Accused No. 7 submitted that there is no material on record to show that the visa was issued to Kausarbanu Nagarabaudi, who holds an Emigration Check Required (ECR) passport, to travel abroad without obtaining the requisite emigration clearance.
8. According to the learned counsel for the 6th and 7th accused in C.C. No.18 of 2016, in a similar case arising out of the same allegations, the same CBI Judge discharged the accused S.Samjith, where the allegations are substantially similar to those CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024 18 2025:KER:57463 in the present case. The learned counsel for the 6th and 7th accused further submitted that the observations made in the order of discharge in that case also to be taken into consideration while deciding the present petitions.
9. Referring to the arguments tendered by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, as far as witness Nos. 16 and 26 cleared by the 5th accused are concerned, who worked as Armed Police Sub-Inspector/Counter Officer from 12.07.2014 to 13.07.2015, the prosecution relies on Document No. 2 - the service book of A5. This document proves that he was on departure duty on 12.06.2023, which was assigned as D35 Seal. CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024 19 2025:KER:57463 Additionally, Document No. 10, the departure card, also records the use of D35 Seal. Apart from that, the prosecution relies on Document Nos. 22 and 38 pertaining to Rajesh and Subair, which bear the endorsement 'ECR' (Emigration Clearance Required). Similarly, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, as against Accused No. 7 (A7), apart from Document No.2, his service book, Document No. 5-- a complaint filed before the Superintendent of Police, Emigration Special Branch, CID Headquarters--states that three passengers were cleared without ECR endorsement by the 7th accused. In support of this, the prosecution also relies on Document No. 48, the departure card of the said passengers, as well as Document No. CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024 20 2025:KER:57463 13, the passport of Smt. Jamalma Mahibub Nadaf, which indicates ECR status. The statement of CW36, Assistant Director, Bureau of Emigration, also highlights the general misconduct of the accused persons. Furthermore, as against A7, Document No. 5--another complaint filed is relied upon, in addition to Document No. 14, being the departure card of Kauser Banu. It is further pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the CBI that the 1st accused, who is the prime accused in this matter, as part of conspiracy hatched with the other accused, collected amounts from travel agents in the bank account of his father, who has been arrayed as the 2nd accused. Document Nos. D17 to Annexures (q) to (m) obtained from CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024 21 2025:KER:57463 Federal Bank, Kodungallur Branch, would show the receipt of money by the 2nd accused from Accused Nos. 4 and 5.
10. While appraising the rival submissions, it is relevant to refer to the reasons stated by the learned Special Judge in relation to the plea for discharge raised by the 5th accused, insofar as the offence under Section 120B of the IPC is concerned, as well as the offences under Sections 11, 12, and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, where the learned Special Judge discharged the plea of the 5th accused for the offence under Section 24 of the Emigration Act. In paragraphs 32 to 37 of the impugned order, the learned trial court observed as under:
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024 22 2025:KER:57463 "32. The facts and evidence stated above will show that the petitioner was not made an accused as he illegally cleared passengers holding ECR passports and permitted them to travel abroad for employment purposes, in furtherance of the conspiracy with the first accused and others for illegal gratification. So, such a contention is not sustainable.
33. The prosecution alleges offence u/s.120B of IPC and Section 11, 12, 13(2) r/w.s.13(1)(a) and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. It is alleged that the petitioner conspired with the first accused and others, and in furtherance of the same, he illegally cleared the passengers. As rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, as the conspiracy will be hatched in secrecy, it is difficult to get direct evidence to prove the same. In a given case, from the available evidence and the circumstances proved, the CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024 23 2025:KER:57463 Court has to infer that the alleged acts were done in furtherance of the conspiracy. ln this case, it is specifically contended that the first accused, who was employed as a Civil Police Officer and was working in the immigration wing during 03 06-2003 to 15-12-2003 and 13-12-2007 to 05-07-2011 was the king pin of the conspircy and he had conspired with the other accused at different points of time and have facilitated illegal human trafficking as stated above.
The prosecution has produced evidence to show that the passengers who were permitted to go abroad for employment purpose without emigration clearance from PoE. The statement of witnesses and documents produced from the side of the prosecution prima facie show that money was collected illegally from the passengers. The money thus collected were being CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024 24 2025:KER:57463 remitted to the account of the 2nd accused, who is none other than the father of the first accused. It is specifically alleged that the first accused used to withdraw the money and distribute the same to the counter officers and other persons who facilitated the travel of such passengers. It is true that the investigating officer could not collect direct evidence to show that the money thus collected or part of the same was given to the petitioner. But, that does not mean that the petitioner is entitled to a discharge in the case.
34. Section 11 of the PC Act prescribes punishment for a public servant, who accepts or obtain or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain, for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing without consideration, or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate, from any person whom he knows to have been, or to be, or to be CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024 25 2025:KER:57463 likely to be concerned in any proceedings or business transacted or about to be transacted by such public servant, or having any connection with the official functions of himself or his subordinate. In this case, there are materials to prima facie show that the first accused illegally collected money from passengers through the account of his father for the illegal emigration clearance. The other accused were also aided him for their benefit as well as the benefit of the first accused.
35. Section 12 of the Act prescribes punishment for abetment of offences defined in S.7 or 11 of the Act. I have already found that there are prima facie materials to make out the offence u/s.11 of the Act. The materials on record show that the petitioner and other accused, who were officiating as counter officers at the emigration CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024 26 2025:KER:57463 desk, were bound to verify the documents and to clear the passengers only on satisfying that they are entitled to travel. The fact that they permitted the passengers to travel abroad illegally itself points towards the conspiracy and shows that they abetted the crime. Without their aid and connivance, the passengers could not have gone abroad without emigration clearance. So, this suggests that the counter officers, including the petitioner, had abetted the commission of the offence.
36. Section 13(2) of the Act prescribes punishment for criminal misconduct of a public servant. The term 'criminal misconduct' is defined in S.13(1) of the Act. Clauses (a) to (e), as then stood, explain the circumstances in which a public servant can be said to have committed criminal misconduct. Section 13(1)(a) states that if a public servant habitually accepts or CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024 27 2025:KER:57463 obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person, any gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward, such is mentioned in S.7 Is Said to have committed criminal misconduct. seètion13(1)(d) states that obtaining for himself or for any other person any valuable thing of pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means, or obtains any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest or accumulates assets disproportionate to his known income, is said to have committed criminal misconduct. In this case, the materials on record show that the first accused had been collecting money by way of illegal gratification from various persons over a long period of time, for the purpose of illegal emigration clearance to them. He has utilized the service of the other accused, CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024 28 2025:KER:57463 who were officiating as counter officers at the immigration wing of the airport. So, it can be seen that the first accused was habitually accepting money from the passengers, for which he is not entitled. There is an allegation that the counter officers, including the petitioner, had received benefits from the amount thus collected illegally, as part of the conspiracy. On going through the materials on record, I am satisfied that there are sufficient materials to prima facie prove such an allegation.
37. The prosecution has also alleged that the petitioner has committed the offence punishable u/s.24 of the Emigration Act. The provision prescribes punishment for a person who emigrates except in conformity with the provisions of the Act or contravenes the provisions of section 10 or section 16 or by intentionally furnishing CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024 29 2025:KER:57463 any false information or suppressing any material information obtains a certificate or a permit or an emigration clearance under the Act or disobeys or neglects to comply with any order of the Protector of Emigrants under the Act, etc. In this Case, the prosecution has no case that the petitioner has done any of the acts mentioned in clauses (a) to (g) in Section 24 of the Act. Only because there is prima facie material to show that the petitioner cleared the journey of the ECR passengers, it is not possible to come to a conclusion that he committed the offence u/s.24 of the Act."
11. Similarly, while considering the application for discharge filed by the 6th accused, the learned Special Judge dismissed the same, except for the offence under Section 24 of the Emigration Act, as observed in Paragraphs 24 to 28 of the CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024 30 2025:KER:57463 impugned order. Out of which the observation in Paragraph No.24 is extracted as under, since the other observations in paragraphs 23 to 28 are similar to that of the order passed against the 5th accused.
"24. The prosecution alleges offence u/s.120B of IPC and Section 11, 12, 13(2) r/w.s.13(1)(a) and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. It is alleged that the petitioner conspired with the first accused and others, and in furtherance of the same, he illegally cleared the passengers. As rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, as the conspiracy will be hatched in secrecy, it is difficult to get direct evidence to prove the same. In a given case, from the available evidence and the circumstances proved, the Court has to infer that the alleged acts were done in CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024 31 2025:KER:57463 furtherance of the conspiracy. ln this case, it is specifically contended that the first accused, who was employed as a Civil Police Officer and was working in the immigration wing during 03 06-2003 to 15-12-2003 and 13-12-2007 to 05-07-2011 was the king pin of the conspircy and he had conspired with the other accused at different points of time and have facilitated illegal human trafficking as stated above. The prosecution has produced evidence to show that the passengers who were permitted to go abroad for employment purpose without emigration clearance from PoE. The statement of witnesses and documents produced from the side of the prosecution prima facie show that money was collected illegally from the passengers. The money thus collected were being remitted to the account of the 2nd accused, who is none CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024 32 2025:KER:57463 other than the father of the first accused. It is specifically alleged that the first accused used to withdraw the money and distribute the same to the counter officers and other persons who facilitated the travel of such passengers. It is true that the investigating officer could not collect direct evidence to show that the money thus collected or part of the same was given to the petitioner. But, that does not mean that the petitioner is entitled to a discharge in the case.
12. Similarly, in the impugned order as against the 7th accused, the observations and findings are contained in paragraphs 28 to 32. Out of which paragraph 28 is extracted as under, since the observations in paragraphs 29 to 32 are similar to that of the order passed against the 5th accused. CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024 33 2025:KER:57463 "28. The prosecution alleges offence u/s.120B of IPC and Section 11, 12, 13(2) r/w.s.13(1)(a) and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. It is alleged that the petitioner conspired with the first accused and others, and in furtherance of the same, he illegally cleared the passengers. As rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, as the conspiracy will be hatched in secrecy, it is difficult to get direct evidence to prove the same. In a given case, from the available evidence and the circumstances proved, the Court has to infer that the alleged acts were done in furtherance of the conspiracy. ln this case, it is specifically contended that the first accused, who was employed as a Civil Police Officer and was working in the immigration wing during 03 06-2003 to 15-12-2003 and 13-12-2007 to 05-07-2011 was the king pin of the conspircy and he had conspired with the CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024 34 2025:KER:57463 other accused at different points of time and have facilitated illegal human trafficking as stated above. The prosecution has produced evidence to show that the passengers who were permitted to go abroad for employment purpose without emigration clearance from PoE. The statement of witnesses and documents produced from the side of the prosecution prima facie show that money was collected illegally from the passengers. The money thus collected were being remitted to the account of the 2nd accused, who is none other than the father of the first accused. It is specifically alleged that the first accused used to withdraw the money and distribute the same to the counter officers and other persons who facilitated the travel of such passengers. It is true that the investigating officer could not collect direct evidence to show that the money thus CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024 35 2025:KER:57463 collected or part of the same was given to the petitioner. But, that does not mean that the petitioner is entitled to a discharge in the case.
13. Insofar as the order granting discharge in favour of Samjith is concerned, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI submitted that the said order has been challenged in Crl. R.P. No. 1392 of 2024, which is presently pending before this Court. In view of the above, the said order cannot be relied upon at this stage. In this contention, it is held that the reasons for the discharge of an accused in a different case based on the prosecution records therein cannot be considered while exercising plea of discharge in respect of an accused in a totally different case as the consideration while considering plea of CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024 36 2025:KER:57463 discharge is the prosecution records where the plea of discharge has been raised. Therefore, this contention is rejected.
14. On appraisal of the rival contentions, the question that arises for consideration in these matters is whether the Special Court was justified in finding that there are sufficient materials produced by the prosecution to prima facie establish the offences alleged against the revision petitioners. To put it otherwise, the issue is whether the materials on record would go beyond mere suspicion to a strong suspicion to indicate that the accused Nos.5, 6, and 7 have involvement in commission of the offences, for which plea of discharge was disallowed. CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024 37 2025:KER:57463
15. It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Accused Nos. 6 and 7 that the prosecution has failed to produce any document to establish the nature of the visa possessed by the alleged emigrants, specifically whether the said visa was for employment or for tourism purposes. It is contended that in the absence of such documentary evidence, no inference can be drawn regarding the requirement of emigration clearance. The learned counsel further submitted that, in the event the visa in question was of a tourist nature, the necessity for obtaining emigration clearance would not arise.
16. In response to the above arguments, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024 38 2025:KER:57463 submitted that the embarcation cards would clearly indicate that the visas used by the travellers involved in this crime who were permitted to travel by Accused Nos. 5, 6, and 7 are employmnet visas as they voluntarily entered so into the embarkation cards. It is specifically pointed out that the embarkation cards filled up by the travellers explicitly would state that the purpose of their travel was 'employment'. The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that during the period 2010-2011, it was permissible for agencies to issue paper visas, and after their use, such visas or copies thereof were not retained, the same could not be collected by the Investigating Agency.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024 39 2025:KER:57463
17. In fact the question that arises for consideration is whether the allegation against the revision petitioners as to commission of the offences is justified from the prosecution records. The prosecution records would reveal the fact that money was deposited in the account of the 2nd accused, who is the father of the 1st accused and the prosecution case is that the amount so deposited is the amount received from various travel agencies as part of conspiracy hatched between the accused, and thereby petitioners herein, facilitated passengers who are cited as witnesses to go abroad for employment purpose without emigration clearance. The prosecution has another allegation CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024 40 2025:KER:57463 that the money collected by the 2nd accused on behalf of the 1st accused was also distributed among them.
18. On scrutiny of the prosecution allegations, including the documents relied upon by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI, in particular it could be seen that prima facie, the prosecution materials would show commission of the offences alleged by the prosecution by the accused as found by the special court while disallowing the plea of discharge at the instance of the petitioners. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the orders impugned. Accordingly, these petitions are dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to raise these contentions during trial.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024 41 2025:KER:57463
19. The interim order of stay granted in these matters stands vacated, and it is specifically made clear that the observations in this common order have been made for the purpose of deciding the legality of the orders impugned and the same have no binding effect during trial.
The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the trial court for information and compliance.
Sd/-
A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE
RMV
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024
42
2025:KER:57463
APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 1125/2024
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
30.08.2024 IN CRL.M.P.NO.17/2023 IN
C.C.NO.18/2016 ON THE FILES OF SPECIAL
JUDGE'S COURT SPE/CBI-I, ERNAKULAM
Annexure A2 PHOTO COPY OF THE CHARGE IN C.C.NO.22/2016 ON
THE FILES OF SPECIAL COURT (SPE/CBI)-1, ERNAKULAM DATED 04.02.2025 CRL.REV.PET NO. 1198 OF 2024 43 2025:KER:57463 APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 1137/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.08.2024 IN CRL.M.P.NO.17/2023 IN C.C.NO.18/2016 ON THE FILES OF SPECIAL JUDGE'S COURT SPE/CBI-I, ERNAKULAM Annexure A2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE CHARGE IN C.C.NO.22/2016 ON THE FILES OF SPECIAL COURT (SPE/CBI)-1, ERNAKULAM DATED 04.02.2025