The High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging the refusal to discharge the respondent's second accused in a cheque fraud conspiracy case involving LIC officials and Syndicate Bank. The court held that the Special Judge was justified in framing charges.
The revision petition was dismissed; no discharge order was set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 23RD MAGHA 1929
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 145 of 2004()
----------------------------CC.2/2000 OF THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE (SPE/CBI)-II),ERNAKULAM.
REVISION PETITIONER: SECOND ACCUSED:
K.V. BALACHANDRAN, DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, L I C OF INDIA, BRANCH OFFICE, QUILANDY, R/O. PANCHAVADI, KAVUMBHAGAM P.O., TELLICHERRY.
BY ADV. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI
SRI.SALISH ARAVINDAKSHAN SRI.C.S.SUNIL
RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT:
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.PUZHAKARA MOHAMMED. R2 BY SRI.S.SREEKUMAR, SC FOR CBI.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 12/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Crl.R.P.No.145 of 2004-C
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 12th day of February, 2008.
O R D E R
CRRP145/2004 -: 2 :-
who had a savings bank account with the branch, of which the first accused was the manager, issued a cheque from that account in favour of one Mohammed Ismail towards consideration of a second hand vehicle purchased by the second accused, however that there was insufficiency of funds in that account. It is alleged that the cheque presented by Mr.Mohammed Ismail to his banker, on being placed with the branch, of which the first accused was the manager, was suppressed from the SB section by the first accused and later a credit advice was drawn by the first accused against that cheque knowing fully well that there was insufficiency of funds. That over drawal was allegedly replenished by the second accused paying amounts into the S.B.account on detection of the over drawal. Among those charges included in Annexure-A5, the petitioner, the second accused is covered by the charge of criminal conspiracy, which is the first among the charges. The other attendant charges, though put on the first accused, depend essentially on whether there was a
CRRP145/2004 -: 3 :-
criminal conspiracy hatched between the accused persons resulting in the alleged fraud on the Syndicate Bank.
CRRP145/2004 -: 4 :-
same is accordingly dismissed.
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
Sha/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere under Section 397 CrPC with the Special Court's refusal to discharge the second accused and framing of charges.
Whether the evidence on record justified the charges of criminal conspiracy against the appellant relating to cheque fraud.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
K.V. Balachandran
State of Kerala
CBI
Thottathil B. Radhakaran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
