Madras High Court
Kajan vs The State By on 12 June, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.A.No.278 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.A.No.278 of 2023
and Crl.M.P.No.3867 of 2023
Kajan ... Appellant
Vs.
The State by
The Inspector of Police,
Nagapattinam,
Q Branch, CID,
Nagapattinam.
(Crime No.2 of 2012) ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., to set
aside the judgment of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special
Court, Thiruvarur, made in Spl.C.C.No.01 of 2017 dated 26.12.2022
convicting the appellant for offences under Sections 120B, 468 and 471
of IPC and under Section 12(2) of the Passport Act.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Vijendran
For Respondent : Mr.S.Rajakumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 12:28:24 pm )
Crl.A.No.278 of 2023
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed as against the order
dated 26.12.2022, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/
Special Court, Thiruvarur, in Spl.C.C.No.01 of 2017, thereby convicting
the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 468 and
471 of IPC and under Section 12(2) of the Passport Act.
2. There are totally 11 accused persons in which, the appellant
was arrayed as A10. The case of the prosecution is that all the accused
were part of a network engaged in procuring Indian passports for
Srilankan nationals viz., A4, A5, A10, using forged documents. A1 viz.,
Indirajith, is the resident of Kooppachikottai, operated the passport
racket from the Passport Application Collection Centre at the Thiruvarur
District Collector Office. He was assisted by A2-Ayya @ Sundarrajan of
Padappaikadu village and A3-Prabhakaran of Thiruppur, his brother-in-
law. A4, A5, and A10 are Srilankan nationals who received the fake
passports through A1 to A3. A6-Ashokan, A1’s maternal uncle from
Chennai, instigated and guided the illegal operation. A7-Ravichandran,
working as an Assistant at the District Crime Records Bureau,
Thiruvarur, bypassed official procedures and handed the applications
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 12:28:24 pm )
directly to A8-Ashokkumar, data entry operator, who forwarded them to
A9-Loganathan, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Paravakkottai, who
forged the required police signatures. A11- Maharajan was working as a
postman of Alangottai Village who delivered the Indian Passports. After
completion of investigation the respondent filed final report and the same
has been taken cognizance in Spl.C.C.No.01 of 2017 of the file of the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvarur.
3. To bring the charges to home, the prosecution had examined
P.W.1 to P.W.38 and marked documents in Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.76. The
prosecution also produced material objects in M.O.1 to M.O.6. On the
side of the accused, D.W.1 was examined and marked documents in
Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.4. On perusal of oral and documentary evidences and
materials of records, the trial Court convicted the appellant for the
offences under Section 120(B), 468, 471 of IPC and Section 12(2) of the
Passport Act and sentenced him as follows :-
S.No. Conviction Sentence
1 Section 120(B) of to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
IPC period of two years and to pay fine of
Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple
imprisonment for two months.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 12:28:24 pm )
S.No. Conviction Sentence
2 Section 468 of IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of three years and to pay fine of
Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple
imprisonment for three months.
3 Section 471 of IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of three years and to pay fine of
Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple
imprisonment for three months.
4 Section 12(2) of to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
the Passport Act period of two years and to pay fine of
Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple
imprisonment for two months.
And also ordered to run the above sentence concurrently. Aggrieved by
the same, the appellant filed the present appeal.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted
that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charges. The appellant
was convicted without any evidence as against him. There is absolutely
no specific allegations as against the petitioner and he was convicted
only based on the confession of the co-accused. The confession
statement of the co-accused cannot be considered in conclusive nature or
convicting the another accused. He further submitted that the suspension
of sentence petition was not ordered and still the appellant is in the
special camp at Trichy. Therefore, more than the sentence, the appellant
is inside the camp.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 12:28:24 pm )
5. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent submitted that the appellant is arrayed as
A10 and some of the accused absconded and as such, the case has been
split up and separate trial has been conducted as against the appellant.
Though the suspension of sentence was not ordered, the appellant was
kept in special camp and the period in the special camp cannot be
considered as imprisonment. Further the prosecution proved its case
beyond any doubt. The appellant was convicted not only on the basis of
the confession statement of the co-accused but the appellant himself
submitted the false documents by forging the signature of the
government officials. Admittedly, the appellant is a Srilankan national
and he fabricated Aadhaar Card and other documents for obtaining
Indian passport. Therefore, the trial Court rightly convicted the appellant
and it doesn't warrant any interference by this Court.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials placed before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 12:28:24 pm )
7. After splitting up the case, the trial Court conducted
separate trial as against the appellant. The appellant is a Srilankan
national. The case of the prosecution is that he fabricated the documents
and forged the signature of the government officials and produced the
documents for passport. Accordingly, he obtained an Indian passport on
production of fabricated documents by committing forgery.
8. In support of the prosecution case, P.W.38 was examined
and on perusal of P.W.38's deposition, it is revealed that he was staying
along with his family in the first floor at Door No.262, 47 th Cross Street,
Thiruvallur Nagar, Chennai – 41, in which the appellant was residing in
the ground floor. The appellant also assisted him in the fast food stall
during the rush hours. The Aadhaar card of P.W.38 was marked as
Ex.P.74. However, his Srilankan identity card was marked as Ex.P.76.
He was also granted license to run road side fast food stall and the same
was marked as Ex.P.75.
9. Further, the appellant also gave statement under Section
164 of Cr.P.C., and the same was marked as Ex.P.65. On perusal of his
statement, it is revealed that the appellant's native place is No.17,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 12:28:24 pm )
Thiruvatkulam, Vavuniya District, Srilanka. In fact, his parents are still
living in Srilanka and he studied upto twelfth standard in Srilanka.
Therefore, the prosecution proved all the charges beyond any doubt. The
appellant himself was examined as D.W.1 and marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D.4.
He applied passport in the name of Murali by producing forged
document such as voter identity card, family card, transfer certificate
with the help of accused 1 to 3. Therefore, the prosecution proved the
charges under Sections 120B, 468 and 471 of IPC and under Section
12(2) of the Passport Act. Hence, this Court finds no infirmity or
illegality in the order of conviction passed by the trial Court.
10. Insofar as the sentences are concerned, at the time of the
registration of FIR, the appellant was arrested and remanded to judicial
custody for the period of 47 days. After conviction, the trial Court
suspended his sentence for the period of 30 days. Subsequently, he was
kept in special camp at Trichy, since he has no right to stay in India.
Though the appellant filed application for suspension of sentence in
Crl.M.P.No.3867 of 2023, it was pending till now, since the appellant
has been kept in special camp at Trichy. Even till today, the appellant is
in special camp at Trichy. However, those period cannot be considered as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 12:28:24 pm )
imprisonment, since the camp itself is designated for Srilankan refugee.
Therefore, the special camp is not a prison. At the same time, the
appellant is not allowed to go out from the special camp and his family
members can go and visit the camp.
11. Considering the above facts and circumstances, this Court
is inclined to modify the sentence imposed by the trial Court. According,
the sentence imposed on the appellant is modified to that extent of period
in which, the appellant already undergone imprisonment. The appellant is
set at liberty forthwith and the District Collector, Trichy is directed to
take steps to deport the appellant to his country viz., Srilanka, forthwith.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal stands partly allowed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
12.06.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 12:28:24 pm )
To
1. The Chief Judicial Magistrate/
Special Court, Thiruvarur.
2. The District Collector,
Trichy.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Nagapattinam,
Q Branch, CID,
Nagapattinam.
4. The Special Camp,
Srilankan Refugee,
Trichy.
5. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 12:28:24 pm )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
rts
12.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/06/2025 12:28:24 pm )
