Allowed

Mr Mohammed Haneef v. the State through the

Karnataka HC20 Feb 2023CRL.RP/60/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka set aside the conviction and sentence under Sections 419 and 511 IPC, acquitting the petitioner. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case as the passport application was filed by another person (PW-5) who admitted to filing it under his own details, despite the petitioner's photograph being used.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence set aside; Petitioner acquitted of offences under Sections 419 & 511 IPC.

Mr Mohammed Haneef Vs the State through the — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.RP No. 60 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶6

CRL.R.P. NO. 60 OF 2014

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. MOHAMMED HANEEF S/O IDINABBA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESIDING AT RAHAMATH MANZIL URUNDADI, GUDDE, PANJIMOGARU KULOOR, MANGALORE - 575 006.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI ANAND MUTTALLI., ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by B A KRISHNA KUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE STATE THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE BAJPE POLICE STATION BAJPE, D.K. DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

CRL.RP No. 60 of 2014

¶20

ORDER

¶21

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.

¶22

Heard the learned Amicus Curiae on behalf of the

¶23

petitioner and the learned HCGP on behalf of the respondent.

¶24

Brief facts of the case as revealed from the records

¶25

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,

¶26

¶27

CRL.RP No. 60 of 2014

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

¶31

CRL.RP No. 60 of 2014

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

¶35

CRL.RP No. 60 of 2014

¶36

I have carefully appreciated the arguments addressed on both sides and also perused the material available on record.

¶37

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 JameelPW-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.

¶38

¶39

CRL.RP No. 60 of 2014

¶40

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.

¶41

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

¶42

¶43

CRL.RP No. 60 of 2014

¶44

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:

¶45

This revision petition is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 24.06.2005 passed by

¶46

¶47

CRL.RP No. 60 of 2014

¶48

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.

¶49

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

¶50

SD/JUDGE

¶51

Mr Mohammed Haneef v. the State through the

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Mohammed Haneef v. the State through the

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Jamuna S Vs M/S Sree Gowri Ganesh

Mr.Nandish Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri K C Koragappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Amzad Khan Vs State by Panchanahalli

Murali Vs B v Ravikumar

Sri. Subramani Vs State of Karnataka