In a pivotal ruling, the Supreme Court of India acquitted Yogarani, who had been convicted of facilitating a second passport for an individual, citing insufficient evidence. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Aravind Kumar, overturned the concurrent conviction by lower courts under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 12(2) of the Passports Act, 1967. The appellant, Yogarani, had been sentenced to one-year rigorous imprisonment, but the apex court set aside her conviction on the grounds of reasonable doubt and lack of corroborative evidence.
Background of the Case
The case dates back to the wrongful issuance of a second passport to one J. Joseph (Accused No. 1), who had already been issued an Indian passport. The prosecution alleged that Joseph sought a second passport after depositing his original passport with his employer in Dubai to explore better employment opportunities. The application for the second passport was reportedly processed through the involvement of the appellant, Yogarani, who ran Kamatchi Travels, a firm that facilitated passport services.
It was further alleged that Sasikala (Accused No. 3), responsible for safe custody of passports in the Passport Office, Trichy, delivered the second passport to the appellant through casual labourer P. Manisekar (Accused No. 4). The prosecution claimed that Yogarani had demanded a payment of ₹5,000 for handing over the passport to J. Joseph, which he refused, leading to her returning the passport to the Passport Office by registered post.
Legal Issues Raised
The primary legal issue before the court was whether Yogarani had knowingly facilitated the issuance of a second passport to J. Joseph, despite being aware that he already possessed a valid passport. The prosecution charged her with offences under:
– Section 420 IPC (Cheating)
– Section 12(2) of the Passports Act, 1967 (abetment in the unlawful obtaining of a passport)
Another key issue was whether the acquittal of Accused Nos. 3 and 4 (Sasikala and Manisekar), who had allegedly collaborated with the appellant, impacted the sustainability of Yogarani’s conviction.
Court’s Findings and Decision
In its ruling, the Supreme Court scrutinized the evidence presented against Yogarani, particularly the testimonies of key prosecution witnesses:
1. PW-3 (Selvi Sakila Begum): An employee of Kamatchi Travels, PW-3 admitted filling out the passport application for J. Joseph while the appellant was beside her. However, she turned hostile and did not support the prosecution’s theory that Yogarani was aware of the pre-existing passport.
2. PW-15 (Mr. Selvaraj): The proprietor of Eagle Travels, who testified that the appellant had submitted the passport application for Joseph. While he claimed that the registration fees were paid by the appellant, no documentary evidence was provided to substantiate this.
3. PW-16 (Mr. Ravi): A handwriting expert, PW-16, testified that there were similarities between the handwriting on a returned postal cover and the appellant’s handwriting. However, he could not conclusively affirm the appellant’s involvement in the process.
The court observed that the prosecution failed to provide direct or corroborative evidence that could establish beyond reasonable doubt that Yogarani was aware of J. Joseph’s existing passport or had intentionally concealed this information.
Key Observations of the Court
The bench referred to the principle that a court cannot convict one accused and acquit another when similar evidence is presented against both. Quoting a recent judgment in Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v. State of Gujarat, the court held:
“When there is similar or identical evidence of eyewitnesses against two accused by ascribing them the same or similar role, the Court cannot convict one accused and acquit the other. In such a case, the cases of both the accused will be governed by the principle of parity.”
The Supreme Court noted that since Accused Nos. 3 and 4 had been acquitted, there was no basis to convict Yogarani, given that the allegations against her were identical. The court emphasized that the prosecution had failed to demonstrate that the appellant had prior knowledge of the existing passport, nor was there sufficient evidence to prove her involvement in obtaining the second passport.
For these reasons, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted Yogarani of all charges. The bail bonds of the appellant were cancelled, and her conviction and sentence were set aside.
