Mr Mohammed Haneef vs The State Through The
2023 Latest Caselaw 1418 Kant

                                              -1-

                                                        CRL.RP No. 60 of 2014




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                        DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
                                            BEFORE
                       THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
                                    CRL.R.P. NO. 60 OF 2014
                BETWEEN:
                MR. MOHAMMED HANEEF
                S/O IDINABBA
                AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
                RESIDING AT RAHAMATH MANZIL
                URUNDADI, GUDDE, PANJIMOGARU
                KULOOR, MANGALORE - 575 006.
                                                                  ...PETITIONER
                (BY SRI ANAND MUTTALLI., ADV.)
                AND:
                THE STATE THROUGH THE
Digitally       SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
signed by B A
KRISHNA         BAJPE POLICE STATION
KUMAR
Location:       BAJPE, D.K. DISTRICT
High Court of
Karnataka
                REPRESENTED BY THE
                STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
                HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                BANGALORE.
                                                                 ...RESPONDENT
                (BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)


                       THIS CRL.R.P. IS FILED U/S.397 AND 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
                SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:24.6.2005 AND THE ORDER OF
                SENTENCE DATED:11.09.2007 PASSED BY THE JMFC (II COURT),
                MANGALORE, D.K., IN C.C.NO.2342/2003 AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT
                DATED:4.09.13 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. DIST AND SESSIONS
                JUDGE, D.K., MANGALORE IN CRL.A.NO.215/2007, DISMISSING THE
                APPEAL OF THE PETR. HEREIN.


                       THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
                COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                   -2-

                                             CRL.RP No. 60 of 2014




                                ORDER

This criminal revision petition is filed challenging the

judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated

24.06.2005 passed by the Court of JMFC-II, Mangaluru, D.K., in

C.C.No.2342/2003 and the judgment and order dated

04.09.2013 passed by the Court of IV Addl. District & Sessions

Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, in Crl.A.No.215/2007.

2. Heard the learned Amicus Curiae on behalf of the

petitioner and the learned HCGP on behalf of the respondent.

3. Brief facts of the case as revealed from the records

that may be necessary for the purpose of disposal of this

petition are, the petitioner had filed an application for issuance

of passport and PW-1 - Police Head Constable had come for

verification of passport application and found that the petitioner

had affixed his photograph to the application for passport and

had given the name and address of CW-2/PW-5 who is his

brother-in-law and it is in this background, PW-1 had lodged a

complaint before the jurisdictional police who had registered a

case against the petitioner in Crime No.126/2002 for the

offence punishable under Section 419 IPC. After investigation,

CRL.RP No. 60 of 2014

the police had filed charge sheet against the petitioner for the

offences punishable under Sections 419 & 511 IPC and upon

service of summons on the petitioner in the said case, he had

appeared before the Trial Court and claimed to be tried.

4. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution had

examined five witnesses as PWs-1 to 5 and had got marked

seven documents as Exs.P-1 to P-7. The petitioner, during the

course of his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC had denied

the incriminating material available on record. However, he has

not chosen to lead any evidence nor had produced any

document in support of his case. The Trial Court, thereafter,

heard the arguments on both sides and by judgment and order

dated 24.06.2005 convicted the petitioner of the offences under

Sections 419 & 511 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in

default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo rigorous

imprisonment for three months. The appeal filed by the

petitioner as against the said judgment and order, in

Crl.A.No.215/2007 was dismissed by the Appellate Court on

04.09.2013. It is in this background, the petitioner is before

this Court in this revision petition.

CRL.RP No. 60 of 2014

5. Learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioner submits that

the courts below have erred in convicting the petitioner for the

alleged offences. He submits that the prosecution has failed to

prove the alleged offences against the petitioner beyond

reasonable doubt. He also submits that the Trial Court which

had called for the Probation Officer report, had failed to extend

the benefits of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, only on the

ground that the petitioner had remained absent before the Trial

Court after an order of conviction was passed against him. He

submits that having regard to the report that is available on

record, the petitioner may be released on probation.

6. Per contra, learned HCGP has argued in support of the

impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence and

submits that the petitioner had remained absent before the

Trial Court after the order of conviction was passed for nearly a

period of two years and it is in this background, the Trial Court

has convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for one year which is just and proper, and

accordingly, prays to dismiss the revision petition.

CRL.RP No. 60 of 2014

7. I have carefully appreciated the arguments addressed

on both sides and also perused the material available on

record.

8. The prosecution in order to establish its charges

against the petitioner has, in all, examined five witnesses and

has placed on record seven documents. PW-1 - Raju is a Police

Head Constable attached to Bajpe Police Station who had

lodged a complaint after having found that the petitioner had

attempted for impersonation while filing the application for

issuance of passport. PW-2 who is the Police Sub-Inspector of

Bajpe Police Station has deposed that on enquiry, he came to

know that the petitioner had submitted the passport application

in the name of respondent no.5 who is his brother-in-law. He

has produced Ex.P-2 which is a report with regard to

verification of passport relating to one Mohammed Jameel-

PW-5. From the perusal of Ex.P-2, it is evident that PW-1 had

gone for the purpose of verification of passport application of

PW-5 - Mohammed Jameel and not the petitioner - Mohammed

Haneef.

CRL.RP No. 60 of 2014

9. It is the specific case of PW-1 that PWs-3 & 4 who are

the neighbourers of the petitioner had informed him that the

name and address found in the application do not tally with the

photograph. PW-1, after verification from PWs-3 & 4 having

found that the photograph found in the application does not

relate to the applicant, has proceeded to lodge a complaint as

against the petitioner.

10. Ex.P-3 is the identity verification of the passport

application. From the perusal of the said document, it is seen

that it relates to PW-5 - Mohammed Jaleel. The applicant,

therefore, before the passport authority was Mohammed Jaleel

and not petitioner - Mohammed Haneef. Therefore, even if the

photograph found in the application belonged to the petitioner,

since the applicant of passport was PW-5, the police ought to

have proceeded against the applicant who had submitted that

application. PW-5 was examined before the Trial Court and he

has deposed that the application for passport was filed by him

and the contents found in the application was in his handwriting

and the signature found in the application was also his. When

PW-5 had admitted before the Trial Court that he was the

applicant before the passport authority who had filed the

CRL.RP No. 60 of 2014

application seeking passport and the contents found in the said

application was filled by him and the signature found in the said

document was also of his, it was for the prosecution to proceed

against him in accordance with law as he was the person who

had committed the alleged crime. For the reason that the

photograph of the petitioner was found in the application, when

the application itself was not filed him and that too in the

background of the evidence of PW-5 who had admitted before

the Trial Court that the application seeking passport was filed

by him and the signature found in the application was his, the

Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court could not have

proceeded against the petitioner for the alleged offences and

they could not have convicted the petitioner for the alleged

offences. Therefore, in my considered view, the Trial Court as

well as the Appellate Court have erred in convicting the

petitioner for the offences under Section 419 & 511 IPC, and

therefore, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and

sentence passed by the courts below cannot be sustained.

Accordingly, the following order:

11. This revision petition is allowed. The judgment and

order of conviction and sentence dated 24.06.2005 passed by

CRL.RP No. 60 of 2014

the Court of JMFC-II, Mangaluru, D.K., in C.C.No.2342/2003

and the judgment and order dated 04.09.2013 passed by the

Court of IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, in

Crl.A.No.215/2007, are set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of

the offences under Sections 419 & 511 IPC.

12. The fee of Amicus Curiae is fixed at Rs.7,500/-.

SD/-

JUDGE

KK