ORDER : The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.723/2012 of Palode Police Station registered under Sections 419, 465, 468, 471, 474 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code r/w.10(3)(b), 12(b) of Indian Passport Act, pending as C.C.No.911/2012 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Forest Offence Court, Nedumangad. 2. The allegation against the petitioner is that in the year 1999, when he was 17 years of age, he obtained a passport by submitting forged document. There is no evidence to prove the alleged case. The petitioner was neither arrested for the alleged use of passport nor the same was recovered from the petitioner. The alleged passport was issued in the name of another person i.e. to one Shanavas Muhammed, S/o. Muhammed Basheer. Annexure-A1 is the certified copy of C.C.No.911/2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Forest Offence Court, Nedumangad. 3. The allegation is that in the year 1999, when the petitioner was 17 years of age, he used his brother's school certificate and affixed his photograph in the application and had committed impersonation, obtained a passport, further used it and went abroad and obtained a job. The case was registered in the year 2012 when the petitioner was aged 30 years and had applied for passport, i.e. after thirteen years of the alleged offence. There is no evidence to the effect that the petitioner had affixed his photograph or he had obtained the aforesaid alleged passport. As per the records, one Shanavas Muhammed, S/o. Muhammed Basheer, obtained the alleged passport in the year 1999. The alleged offence was registered against the petitioner only on the basis of inference. The prosecution could not establish a case as alleged against the petitioner. The pendancy of the aforesaid alleged case has caused waste of public exchequer and judicial time. Further, it will cause irreparable loss to the family of the petitioner as he is restrained to go abroad and attain a job. Annexure A1 charge is absolute abuse of the process of court. According to the petitioner's counsel, he had not submitted any application during 1999 and had obtained any passport or that the petitioner had used the same, as alleged by the prosecution. Now the petitioner has approached this Court to quash the final report filed by the Sub Inspector of Palode Police Station. 4. According to the petitioner's counsel, he had not submitted any application during 1999 and had obtained any passport or that the petitioner had used the same, as alleged by the prosecution. Now the petitioner has approached this Court to quash the final report filed by the Sub Inspector of Palode Police Station. 4. The main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the charge would not lie against him. The Sub Inspector of Palode Police Station has filed a report to the effect that the petitioner in this case named Shereef applied for passport with Thiruvananthapuram Passport Office and obtained passport numbered as B 0521209 on 06.08.1999 through impersonation by making fake records. For the said purpose, his elder brother Shanavas's 9th standard certificate and brother's name was used. Then he has gone to Gulf countries. During the stay in Gulf country, the accused has renewed the said passport and the passport number has been changed to J 4248114 from B 5221209. Again the petitioner has reported that the petitioner applied for a new passport with Thiruvananthapuram Passport Office. 5. At the time of police verification, the enquiry officer understood that the petitioner has already in possession of another passport, so that he did not recommend the passport application of the petitioner. It is reported that the Passport Officer of Thiruvananthapuram Passport Office compounded the offence by imposing a fine of Rs.5,000/- on the request of the petitioner. The petitioner then submitted another application for getting a new passport as file No.TV 2061508277112. After police verification, the Enquiry Officer submitted a detailed report before the District Police Chief. On receiving the report, the District Police Chief, Palode registered a case in the name of passport applicant. Accordingly, Crime No.723/2012 under Section 419, 465, 468, 471 IPC & Section 10(3)(b) r/w.12(b) of Indian Passport Act was registered. As per the record, the petitioner was arrested on 14.11.2012. From his statement and further investigation, it was revealed that an officer in Special Branch, Thiruvananthapuram Rural conducted police verification regarding the passport application and helped the petitioner. Hence he became the 2nd accused in this case and charge sheet was submitted on 30.11.2013. As per the investigation, it is revealed that the petitioner and other accused has committed a grave offence. 6. Hence he became the 2nd accused in this case and charge sheet was submitted on 30.11.2013. As per the investigation, it is revealed that the petitioner and other accused has committed a grave offence. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that if the petitioner's application for quashing is allowed, it will give wrong message to the society. Hence, he has opposed the application. Now the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the charge as levelled against the petitioner is not sustainable due to lack of sanction obtained from the Central Government. Now, the charge levelled against the petitioner is that he has used the school certificate of his brother and applied for a passport by affixing his passport. It is true that the offence will definitely come under Section 10(3)(b) r/w.12(b) of the Passport Act. As per the Order issued by the Government, it is specifically stated that if the investigation is completed as per the Passport Act, the factual report has to be prepared and send to the Collector for obtaining prosecution sanction and in the light of Section 15 of the Passport Act, it is specifically stated that before filing the charge sheet, prosecution sanction from the Central Government has to be obtained and this power is entrusted with effect from 01.12.1978. He has also produced the Order issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, CPV Division, New Delhi dated 13.03.2008 for the purpose of the procedure to be implemented for the double/multiple passports and penalties. 7. In that Order No.VI/401/61/2001 dated 13.03.2018, item (ii) would say that “the procedure is to be followed while rendering miscellaneous service in cases where the applicant has/ had in possession of two passports at any point of time with similar particulars as mentioned. In this case, the passport with correct particulars as evidenced by the notarized affidavit will be serviced and returned to the applicant, on the basis of post-police verification. The other passport will have to be revoked with imposition of a fine of Rs.5,000/-. This power also has to be exercised only by Regional Passport Officer/ other Passport Officer, including Acting RPO/ PO”. 8. Here, the investigating officer reported that the Passport Officer has already imposed Rs.5000/- as fine to the petitioner. He has also cited the decision held in Crime No.384/2011 of Kottarakkara Police Station, Kollam passed by this Court in Crl.M.C.No.3351/2013. This power also has to be exercised only by Regional Passport Officer/ other Passport Officer, including Acting RPO/ PO”. 8. Here, the investigating officer reported that the Passport Officer has already imposed Rs.5000/- as fine to the petitioner. He has also cited the decision held in Crime No.384/2011 of Kottarakkara Police Station, Kollam passed by this Court in Crl.M.C.No.3351/2013. In that case also, the petitioner therein had secured a passport from the Passport Office, Thiruvananthapuram. In the said passport, he had furnished his date of birth as 16.05.1976 and father's name as George Kutty Kizhakkekara. He had travelled abroad using the earlier passport during the period 1996-2000. Since he had misplaced the passport, he had applied for a fresh passport by providing his school leaving certificate on 09.02.2001. In the said passport, the same details as furnished in the earlier passport were submitted. Using the said passport, which was obtained from Mumbai, he had gone to Dubai and had returned back on 2005. While he was abroad, it appears that his passport was traced out and if the prosecution records are to be believed, the petitioner had surrendered the said passport before the Passport Officer in the year 2010. The Passport Officer, who had taken note of the various aspects of the case decided to impose penalty under Section 12(1)(b) of the Passports Act in terms of the Circulars issued by the Ministry of External Affairs. 9. The punishment provided for violating Section 12(1)(b) of the Passports Act is imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to Rs.5,000/- or with both. The petitioner has been ordered to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- which has been remitted by the petitioner. It was thereafter that the crime was registered on the basis of re-verification. 10. Considering all these facts, petitioner prays that this Court has to invoke extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings. 11. It is very important to note Section 15 of the Passports Act, which reads as follows :- “No prosecution shall be instituted against any person in respect of any offence under this Act without the previous sanction of the Central Government or such officer or authority as may be authorised by that Government by order in writing in this behalf”. 12. 12. This fact has also been stated in the Order dated 13.03.2008 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs. It has held in Shine Elezabeth Augustine v. State of Kerala in Crl.M.C.No.4904/2013 wherein the petitioner has suppressed the factum of her marriage and obtained a passport under Tathkal Scheme, by showing her as spinster. This Court took a view that “it seems that prior sanction of the Central Government has not been obtained in the matter for launching the prosecution against the petitioner. The offence under Section 12 of the Passport Act is the only offence alleged in the case. In such case, for want of sanction under Section 15 of the Act, the prosecution is not legally sustainable. On that ground alone, the prosecution proceedings are liable to be quashed. Matters being so, all further proceedings in C.C.No.599 of 2013 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Kottayam, as against the petitioner, based on Annexure-A2 Final Report in Crime No.4 of 2013 of Manarcad Police Station, can be quashed”. 13. It has held in Shymesh v. State of Kerala (2014 KHC 3684) in Crl.M.C.No.971 of 2013 that the petitioner was implicated as accused alleging an offence punishable under Section 12(1)(b) of the Passports Act, 1967. It has stated that the petitioner wilfully changed his name and educational qualification in the application for passport with a view to obtain a passport with fictitious identity and this Court held that “Learned Public Prosecutor has no case that before launching the prosecution against the petitioner, the Officers had obtained sanction required under Section 15 of the Act. Therefore, considering the fact that the offence alleged against the petitioner under Section 12(1)(b) of the Act is not made out and also that the sanction under Section 15 of the Act was not obtained before initiation of prosecution, it has held that the criminal proceedings is a futile exercise. Therefore, it has to be terminated in the interest of justice”. 14. In Noufal M.H. v. State of Kerala (2017 (4) KFC 74) in Crl.M.C.No.4265 of 2017 this Court held that “to recapitulate, mere absence of declaration in a statute that an offence under it is cognzable is no reason to hold that offence is non cognizable. Therefore, it has to be terminated in the interest of justice”. 14. In Noufal M.H. v. State of Kerala (2017 (4) KFC 74) in Crl.M.C.No.4265 of 2017 this Court held that “to recapitulate, mere absence of declaration in a statute that an offence under it is cognzable is no reason to hold that offence is non cognizable. The phrase 'or under any law for the time being in force' used in Section 2(c) Cr.P.C. refers to offences which are punishable with imprisonment for less than three years, but for which police have been empowered to arrest without warrant because all offences punishable with imprisonment for three years and above are cognizable offences as specified in list 2 in Schedule 1 Cr.P.C. Even if only a class of police officers has been empowered to arrest without warrant for an offence under an Act which is punishable with imprisonment for less than three years, it is a cognizable offence. The offence under Section 12(1)(b) of the Passports Act, or for that matter any offence under Section 12 is a cognizable offence because Section 13 of the Act empowers police officers of and above the rank of Sub Inspectors to arrest without warrant”. 15. Here in this case, his allegation is that the petitioner has submitted the school certificate of his brother and affixed his photograph and obtained passport while he was 17 years and went to abroad for job. As per the allegation, it is the suppression of material fact at the time of verification of the application before the passport office and the charge was laid, which was definitely come under Section 10(3)(b), 12(b) of the Indian Passport Act. Since there is a specific provision enacted under the Passport Act, all other Sections quoted under the Indian Penal Code will not lie. As per the report of the prosecution, the Passport Officer has invoked his power obtained as per the Circular issued by the Ministry of External Affairs and imposed Rs.5,000/- and closed the file and obtained new application from the petitioner. Only after closing of the final report, after obtaining Rs.5000/- towards fine, the crime was registered against the petitioner and final report has been filed against the petitioner. So, accordingly charge sheet has been filed and the petitioner has already been penalised for the commission of the alleged offence by the Passport Officer. 16. Only after closing of the final report, after obtaining Rs.5000/- towards fine, the crime was registered against the petitioner and final report has been filed against the petitioner. So, accordingly charge sheet has been filed and the petitioner has already been penalised for the commission of the alleged offence by the Passport Officer. 16. Over and above, the Prosecution has no case that they have obtained sanction under Section 15 of the Passports Act before filing charge sheet before this Court. For the purpose of Section 15 of the Act, institution of the prosecution takes place only when cognizance is taken by the court having jurisdiction. It is true that the sanction is not required for registration of the case or investigation of the same. But, before filing charge sheet, it is mandatory on the part of the prosecution to obtain sanction from the Central Government and others. 17. In this case, the prosecution has not obtained sanction from the Central Government as per Section 15 of the Act. Therefore, I find that the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner is turned futile exercise as has held in 2014 KHC 3684 (cited supra). Therefore, the charge sheet which was filed without obtaining sanction under Section 15 of the Passport Act vitiated the trial. Therefore, it has to be terminated in the interest of justice. In the result, the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner is hereby terminated by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This Crl. M.C. is disposed of accordingly.