Dismissed

E.O.Lawrence v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Jun 2010Bail Appl./3377/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala refused anticipatory bail to the petitioner, owner of a ration depot, in a case involving violation of the Kerala Rationing Order and the Essential Commodities Act, citing discrepancies in seizure records and the need for further interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to surrender before the Investigating Officer without delay; petition dismissed.

E.O.Lawrence Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2010 / 27TH JYAISTHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3377 of 2010() ----------------------------(CRIME NO.635/2006 OF KODUNGALLUR POLICE STATION) PETITIONER -----------------------------E.O.LAWRENCE,AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.LATE SRI.OUSEPH,RESIDING AT EDAKULATH HOUSE, POONKUNNAM PO, THRISSUR 680 002. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR SRI.C.S.DIAS SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE FOR ADDL.R SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE FOR ADDL.R THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶2

K.HEMA, J

¶3

B.A No.3377 OF 2010

¶4

Dated this the 17^th day of June 2010

¶5

ORDER

¶6

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

¶7

The alleged offence is under Section 5A of the Kerala Rationing Order r/w Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. According to prosecution, on 28/09/2006, at about 7 p.m, a lorry carrying a load of 226 bags of wheat was intercepted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kodungalloor. The driver was arrested and it was revealed that the article was being transported from the whole-sale ration depot of first accused and that petitioner had promised the driver that he would wait at a particular point. Second accused who is the godown manager of the ration depot was also arrested.

¶8

After investigation, charge sheet was laid against them as accused numbers one and two in the year 2006 alleging above offences. Thereafter, further investigation was conducted and it is revealed that petitioner who is the owner and licensee of the ration depot is also involved in the offence. Fourth accused who is the proprietor of the “Star Traders” was also included as an accused, since he was instrumental for committing offence.

¶9

Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. He was brought

¶10

B.A No.3377 OF 2010

¶11

¶12

into the array of accused after about four years of the incident. It is true that petitioner is the licensee of the ration depot but on the very next day of the alleged seizure, stock was verified and it was found to be correct. It is also submitted that the articles seized did not belong to petitioner, but those were purchased by fourth accused and those were being transported for his purpose. It is also submitted that fourth accused also filed a petition for releasing of articles to him.

¶13

A Writ Petition was filed before this court stating that police was not including the owner of the ration depot and hence as per directions of this court, an enquiry was ordered by the Secretary and the Taluk Supply Officer. As per Annexure D, it is found that petitioner is the owner of the ration depot and hence the Taluk Supply Officer reported that criminal proceedings have to be initiated against petitioner by including him also in the array of accused. It is submitted that the Taluk Supply Officer has no business to direct inclusion of petitioner in the array of accused, it is submitted. The police had investigated the case and filed the final report. After filing of final report, it is for the court to decide whether further investigation is to be done and additional accused have to be included.

¶14

B.A No.3377 OF 2010

¶15

¶16

This petition is strongly opposed by Learned Public Prosecutor. A person in the locality who claims to be instrumental for bringing out the illegalities committed by petitioner to light has also filed a petition to hear him in the matter. He is also heard through his counsel. According to him, there were several complaints against petitioner that ration articles were not made available to people of the locality but those were distributed in black market. Petitioner is an influential person in the locality and he was managing to protect himself and indulge in various illegal activities bu not supplying ration through the ration depot. On 28/09/2006, the lorry belonging to petitioner was intercepted and its driver was found transporting ration article. Only the driver and godown manager were proceeded against. Petitioner, who is the licensee was exonerated under his influence.

¶17

Therefore, aggrieved by the action of the police, Writ Petition was filed and trial was stayed and Writ Petition is still pending. In such circumstance a petition was filed for further investigation. In the meantime, petitioner effected manipulations and made one Satheesan (A4) to claim the articles and e filed petition for release of articles to him. But, the articles had seals of Food Corporation of India and those can be distributed only through ration shop. There are clear indications on the articles to

¶18

B.A No.3377 OF 2010

¶19

¶20

show that those are ration articles, it is submitted.

¶21

A discrepancy in Mahazar was also pointed out. It is clearly stated in the first page of Mahazar that driver was questioned about bill or any other document for transport of the wheat but it was satisfied that he had no bill or documents. But, towards the end, on the next page of the Mahazar, an interpolation is made to make it appear that bill and its duplicates of “Star Traders” were also seized as per Mahazar. It is clear from the manner in which interpolation is effected that it was subsequently made to help petitioner, it is submitted. In such circumstances, anticipatory bail may not be granted to petitioner, it is submitted.

¶22

Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in light of pendency of the Writ Petition, matter was looked into by the authorities concerned and it was found that petitioner is also involved. Therefore, a further investigation was conducted and petitioner was also included as an accused in this case. The articles seized in this case are ration articles. Though the stock was verified and it was found to be in order, this could be another manipulation done by petitioner in this case, it is submitted. After transporting the ration article, he could have manipulated his own records to make it appear that the entire stock is distributed

¶23

B.A No.3377 OF 2010

¶24

¶25

through ration depot. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that investigation is not concluded and report is yet to be filed. Petitioner is required for interrogation in the nature of allegations made against him, it is submitted.

¶26

On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of the allegations made against petitioner, the discrepancy in Mahazar, interpolation made therein etc., I do not think that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. I am also satisfied that petitioner is required for interrogation and I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner. Petitioner has not made out any ground to invoke Section 438 Cr.P.C. The mere delay in implicating petitioner in the crime is not sufficient to grant anticipatory bail, in the peculiar facts and circumstances pointed out in this case.

¶27

Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer without any delay and co-operate with investigation.

¶28

Petition is dismissed.

Sd/K.HEMA JUDGE

//True Copy//

P.A to Judge

vdv

E.O.Lawrence v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.O.Lawrence v. State of Kerala

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

Ziad and Another Vs State of Kerala

Pavithran Vs State of Kerala

Vijayakumar Vs State of Kerala

Firos Khan and Another Vs State of Kerala

Sadhukuttan Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh Vs State of Kerala