ORDER : A. Badharudeen, J. The 5 th accused in C.C.No.21/2016 on the files of the Special Court (SPE/CBI)-I, Ernakulam, has filed this criminal revision petition under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ BNSS ’ for short), challenging order dated 06.02.2025 in Crl.M.P.No. 374/2024 in the above case, whereby the plea of discharge at the instance of the revision petitioner was disallowed by the Special Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Perused the prosecution records placed by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI and the relevant documents filed by the counsel for the revision petitioner to substantiate the case of the revision petitioner. 3. The prosecution case, as could be read out from the records, in a nutshell reads as under: The emigration wing of Cochin International Airport Ltd. (CIAL) and Trivandrum International Airport was being handled by the Kerala Police Department till it was taken over on 31.07.2012 by the Bureau of Immigration under the General Superintendent and Controller, Bureau of Immigration, New Delhi. The counter officers on duty at departure side of the airport should check passport of passengers by using swiping machine, comparing the photo in the passport with the person by using the Passport Registration and Identification System (PRIDE) or Passport Information Service on Net (PISON) or Ultra Violet Lamp for its genuineness, date of issue, date of expiry, photo substitution, page alteration etc., check visa for its genuineness, check for lookout circular (LOC), check for emigration clearance issued by the Protector of Emigrants (PoE), if the emigrant is with ECR passport and is travelling on employment visa. There were organized trafficking of people from India to Gulf. This was possible through a complicated nexus among various travel agents, employees of travel agents, emigration officials and also a few officials who were repatriated to Kerala Police from emigration duties. On getting such information, the Government of Kerala issued notification No.81/2014/Home dated 28.04.2014 and Government of India issued notification No.228/38/2013/AVD-II dated 27.06.2014 u/s.5 of the Delhi Special Establishment Act. On the basis of such notification, the Central Bureau of Investigation, Thiruvananthapuram, registered this case as RC 6/A/2014/CBI/SCB/TVM. Investigation was conducted against 45 persons allegedly involved in the racket. 4. On getting such information, the Government of Kerala issued notification No.81/2014/Home dated 28.04.2014 and Government of India issued notification No.228/38/2013/AVD-II dated 27.06.2014 u/s.5 of the Delhi Special Establishment Act. On the basis of such notification, the Central Bureau of Investigation, Thiruvananthapuram, registered this case as RC 6/A/2014/CBI/SCB/TVM. Investigation was conducted against 45 persons allegedly involved in the racket. 4. On investigation, it has been revealed that there existed organized collection of money by travel agents from passengers, especially those from weaker sections of the society, in the pretext of facilitating their emigration clearance. A share of this money was being paid to public servants for facilitating smooth emigration clearance. The extra amount collected by the travel agents helped the unauthorized passengers to travel illegally and also the genuine passengers to travel without the hassles of emigration check. The Immigration Officers at the counter (Counter Officers) had wide discretionary power to raise objection to travel of even a genuine passenger. On the other hand, the counter officers could illegally clear passengers with forged passports and 'Emigration Clearance Required' (ECR) category passengers on job visa without the clearance of Protector of Emigrants (PoE). The scope of detection of irregularities in travel documents is only at the emigration check point. The counter officers are duty bound to check the illegal travel. 5. In this case, the 3 rd accused is a Civil Police officer and was working at the emigration wing of CIAL from 22.03.2004 to 17.04.2007 and 26.05.2008 to 24.04.2009. The 2 nd accused is a Civil Police officer and the 1 st and 5 th accused are Armed Police Sub Inspectors. Accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 were functioning as Immigration Officers at CIAL on different periods. The 4 th accused is the father of the 3 rd accused. Accused Nos.6 to 14 are proprietors or representatives of different travel agencies and were engaged in the business of servicing of travel documents of emigrant workers proceeding to middle east countries. There were separate conspiracies between the above public servants, travel agents and passengers. 6. On completing the investigation, final report was submitted before the special court on 03.11.2016 against 14 persons for offence u/s. 120B lPC, Sections 11, 12, 13(2) r/w. Sections 13(1)(a), 13(1) (d) and 14 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PC Act’ for short) and Section 24 of the Emigration Act. 6. On completing the investigation, final report was submitted before the special court on 03.11.2016 against 14 persons for offence u/s. 120B lPC, Sections 11, 12, 13(2) r/w. Sections 13(1)(a), 13(1) (d) and 14 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PC Act’ for short) and Section 24 of the Emigration Act. It is reported that separate charge sheets are filed against 27 others and the other accused were absconding. 7. In this case, the learned counsel for the 5 th accused/revision petitioner argued at length and the crux of the argument is that, the 5 th accused is the counter officer, who is supposed to inspect the visa and also to ensure whether the emigration check is required or not required. On production of a tourist visa, for which no ECR is required, he permitted travel of CW94 (Chirayil Sivadas Rohini). The entire allegation of the prosecution arose on the subtractum that, Chirayil Sivadas Rohini (CW94) produced an employment visa instead of a tourist visa. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/5 th accused, if the visa, which was produced for verification by the 5 th accused, is an employment visa, there is no question of production of to-and-fro air tickets for arrival and departure on expiry of the tourist visa. It is also pointed out that, on forwarding the copy of the visa, the authorities in Dubai, through the Emirates Flight Agency, Dubai, issued an 'OK TO BOARD' (OTB) message, and 'OK TO BOARD' (OTB) message could be issued by the air travel authorities only when the original of the visa was produced. Accordingly, it is submitted that the 5 th accused/revision petitioner, who in no way committed any offence in the instant case since the visa produced and verified whereby CW94 travelled to Dubai is a tourist visa. Accordingly, he pressed for interference in the order impugned by granting discharge. 8. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI that, going by the prosecution records and based on the e-mail communication between Punnoose K.Chacko and Thomas Alexander (CW93), as on 10.06.2010 and 15.06.2010, the visa attached is an employment visa issued in the name of CW94, showing profession as servant, and the number of the said visa is 301/2010/07/0030253. Thereafter, another e-mail sent by Thomas Alexander to Ponnoose K.Chacko, a copy of visa bearing the same number was attached with the heading 'Tourist’, by manipulating the visa. The visa originally issued was an employment visa for which emigration clearance (ECR) is absolutely necessary. It is also pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that while generating a visa, a UID number will be provided and the same is a unique identification number and the same may vary when different visas are issued and it is generated differently. It is further pointed out that, in the instant case, going through the employment visa produced and referred as well as the tourist visa referred, the UID is one and the same, viz., 28271032. This would fortify the fact that the visa issued in the name of CW94 is an employment visa, for which emigration clearance is required. According to the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI, insofar as the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the 5 th accused/revision petitioner and the allegations of the prosecution are concerned, the matter can be decided only during trial after adducing evidence. Therefore, merely assuming that the 5 th accused/revision petitioner verified a tourist visa and permitted the travel of CW94, the plea of discharge cannot be considered. 9. Addressing the rival submissions on the issue, the precedents of the case as extracted in paragraph No.10 of the impugned order appears to be relevant and the same reads as under: “10. When the matter was posted for hearing on charge, the 5 th accused filed Crl.M.P, No.46/2021 claiming discharge. This court, as per order dated 24.12.2021 dismissed the petition. The order was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court in Crl.R,P. No.12/2022 The Hon'ble High Court dismissed the same as per order dated 16.11.2022. The 5 th accused challenged that order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No.2119/2013. The Apex Court as per order dated 29-03-2023 disposed the SLP with the following observations: "After some hearing, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that his rights to urge all contentions at the stage of charge framing may be reserved. All contentions are kept open. The special leave petition is dismissed subject to the above observations. " 10. The Apex Court as per order dated 29-03-2023 disposed the SLP with the following observations: "After some hearing, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that his rights to urge all contentions at the stage of charge framing may be reserved. All contentions are kept open. The special leave petition is dismissed subject to the above observations. " 10. In view of the observations of the Apex Court extracted hereinabove, when the matter was again considered by the Special Court, the 5 th accused filed the present Crl.M.P. to reconsider his plea of discharge and the 9 th accused also filed Crl.M.P.No.402/2022 claiming discharge. The trial court considered both petitions and dismissed both these petitions, disallowing discharge, after discharging the accused for the offence punishable under Section 24 of the Emigration Act. 11. The entire dispute in this case centers on the nature of the visa produced and examined by the 5 th accused while allowing travel of CW94. According to the learned counsel for the 5 th accused/revision petitioner, the visa produced is a tourist visa, for which emigration clearance is not required and according to the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI, the visa issued is an employment visa, as evident from the e-mail communications dated 10.06.2010 and 15.06.2010 and thereafter, there was manipulation in the original visa issued with the nomenclature 'Tourist visa.' According to the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI, the 5 th accused, being a counter officer who is empowered to verify the documents, could very well distinguish a tourist visa with that of an employment visa and despite that he permitted the travel of CW94, knowing fully well that the visa issued to CW94 is an employment visa, as the outcome of conspiracy. Subsequently, in her passport, an employment visa was also affixed for a period from 28.07.2010 to 27.07.2012, though she returned back from 12.07.2010 which would fortify that the visa verified by the 5 th accused is an employment visa. Thus, the visa verified, and the travel permitted by the 5 th accused is an employment visa, as part of conspiracy hatched between the accused. In this connection, it is relevant to note that as per the copy of the visa attached to the email communications dated 10.06.2010 and 15.06.2010, the employment visa as that of a servant was issued in the name of CW94. In this connection, it is relevant to note that as per the copy of the visa attached to the email communications dated 10.06.2010 and 15.06.2010, the employment visa as that of a servant was issued in the name of CW94. As per the e-mail communication dated 17.06.2010, the copy of the visa attached is one with the title ‘Tourist visa’ having the same number and the same UID.’ 12. On perusal of the copy of the employment visa and the copy of the tourist visa, the entry permit number is similar in both. That apart, the UID number is also similar. Insofar as the allegation against the 5 th accused/revision petitioner is concerned, the question centers on an issue as to whether he had occasion to verify an employment visa or a tourist visa or else, or whether having known fully well that the visa issued was an employment visa, he deliberately facilitated travel of CW94, so as to fasten the criminal culpability upon him. 13. It is relevant to note in this context that, in fact, the earlier discharge petition filed by the revision petitioner was dismissed by the Special Court and this Court also dismissed the challenge against the same. It is also relevant to note that when SLP (Crl.) No.2119/2013 was filed before the Apex Court, the Apex Court disposed of SLP (Crl.) No.2119/2013, with liberty to the petitioner to urge all contentions at the stage of charge framing. This is the context in which the present discharge petition was filed. 14. It is true that, if, based on the prosecution records, Court could find that the visa, whereby the revision petitioner permitted CW94 to travel abroad, is a tourist visa, the entire prosecution against him is unwarranted. But there is allegation by the CBI with specific contention that, the visa of CW94 is an employment visa for a job as that of a servant, and there was manipulation by the travel agency to make it as tourist visa bearing the same number and UID number with connivance of the revision petitioner and other accused persons and this contention is supported by the materials placed by the prosecution. In fact, whether the visa verified by the revision petitioner is an employment visa or a tourist visa is a matter to be decided based on the evidence adduced during trial. In fact, whether the visa verified by the revision petitioner is an employment visa or a tourist visa is a matter to be decided based on the evidence adduced during trial. Such an exercise cannot be undertaken by this Court at the pre-trial stage since the same is a matter of evidence. Otherwise, the allegations against the revision petitioner would show his involvement in this crime prima facie. Thus, reserving the right of the revision petitioner to raise all these contentions during trial, the order of the Special Judge disallowing discharge is only to be confirmed. The inevitable result thereof is dismissal of this revision petition. Accordingly, this criminal revision petition stands dismissed.