JUDGMENT : C.S. DIAS, J. 1. The short point is whether an accused is entitled to a police clearance certificate. 2. The petitioner has applied for the post of Assistant Duty Manager in a Company that does ground handling services at the Cochin International Airport. By Ext.P1 letter, the Company requested the Superintendent of Police, Pathanamthitta (2nd respondent), to issue a police clearance certificate (PCC) in favour of the petitioner after verifying his character and antecedents. By Ext.P2 proceeding, the 2nd respondent has rejected Ext.P1 request, reporting that the petitioner is an accused in C.C. No. 1359/2022 on the file of the Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court-I, Thiruvalla. The implication of the petitioner in the above crime is not a reason to deny a PCC. This Court has considered this aspect in Ext.P3 judgment and several other decisions. The petitioner’s wife has falsely implicated him in the Crime, alleging him to have committed the offences under Sections 498A and 506 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Ext.P2 proceeding is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the respondents may be directed to issue a PCC in favour of the petitioner. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. The petitioner contends that his estranged wife has falsely implicated him in C.C. No. 1359/2022. In an identical situation, by Ext.P3 judgment, this Court had directed the Regional Passport Authority to issue a passport in favour of the petitioner therein, notwithstanding the pendency of a crime. The petitioner is also entitled to a PCC despite the pendency of the criminal prosecution. 5. Section 59 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 (‘Act’ for short) enables the Police to issue a Non-Involvement in offence certificate, which reads as follows: “59. Police to give certificates of non-involvement in offences - The District Police Chief or the Station House Officer may, on the application of any person, give a certificate to the effect that such person is not involved in any offence after suitable enquiries and after realising such charges as may be fixed by the Government in this regard.” 6. The above provision unequivocally empowers the District Police Chief or a Station House Officer to issue a certificate stating that such person is not involved in any offence, which is commonly known as a Non-Involvement in Offence (NIO) certificate @ Police Clearance Certificate. 7. The above provision unequivocally empowers the District Police Chief or a Station House Officer to issue a certificate stating that such person is not involved in any offence, which is commonly known as a Non-Involvement in Offence (NIO) certificate @ Police Clearance Certificate. 7. The question of whether a person involved in an offence is entitled to a certificate under Section 59 of the Act is no longer res integra in the light of the decision of this Court in Sasikumar v. State of Kerala, 2023 KHC 254 , where it is held as under: “7. Whether on the basis of such a clearance certificate containing a statement on the involvement of the petitioner in a particular crime, he would obtain any permission to ply the vehicle is a different matter. However, the certificate need not be denied merely due to the pendency of a criminal case, especially when criminal cases do take a long period to be disposed of. Coupled with the delay, the presumption of innocence of an accused, that continue until trial is completed and the judgment pronounced also compels this Court to adopt such a view. 8. Further, it is not the intention of S.59 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 that whenever a criminal case is pending against an accused, he should be denied the opportunity even to attempt to obtain an employment, if a certificate from the police is required. There would be cases of offences which may have no bearing on the nature of employment. 9. In the above view of the matter, I direct the 3rd respondent to issue a police clearance certificate as contemplated under S.59 of KP Act specifying the existence of the criminal case along with its number, the type of offences, and the name of the court. The needful shall be done, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.” 8. In Rajendraprasad T.V. v. Union Territory of Lakshadweep, 2023 KHC Online 10443, this Court has held as under: “3. I find substantial merit in the submission of the learned Government Pleader. A Police Clearance Certificate cannot be issued to a person involved in a crime. At the same time, there cannot be any objection in issuing a certificate showing that the petitioner is involved in only one crime. I find substantial merit in the submission of the learned Government Pleader. A Police Clearance Certificate cannot be issued to a person involved in a crime. At the same time, there cannot be any objection in issuing a certificate showing that the petitioner is involved in only one crime. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of, directing the 3rd respondent to issue certificate showing the petitioner's involvement is only in the crime now pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Tirur, as CC No. 29/2013........” 9. In light of the above declaration of law, a person who is accused of an offence is undoubtedly entitled to an NIO certificate, but by incorporating the details of the crime and the offence that he is charged with. 10. In the case at hand, the second respondent has issued Ext.P2 NIO Certificate with the details of the crime number, police station, the name of the court and the offences attributed against the petitioner, which is in line with the law laid down by this Court. 11. The petitioner cannot draw an analogy from the Ext.P3 judgment because that was a case where this Court had directed the Passport Authorities to issue a passport in favour of the petitioner therein as he had obtained permission from the jurisdictional court to travel abroad. 12. Whereas, in the present case the petitioner wants an NIO Certificate without mentioning the details of the case. The said course is impermissible in law because the petitioner is an accused in a crime. If the 2nd respondent issues a certificate as desired by the petitioner, he would be suppressing material facts and can be prosecuted for issuing a fabricated document. Hence, the petitioner's prayer for an NIO certificate without incorporating the details of the crime is only to be rejected. 13. Needless to state, it would be up to the petitioner to convince his prospective Employer regarding the nature and gravity of the criminal prosecution that he is facing and he would be at liberty to work out his remedies, in accordance with the law, to get himself exonerated of the above crime. 14. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed.