Dismissed

Joseph Joseph v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Jun 2012Bail Appl./2928/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a bail application by accused persons charged with forgery under the IPC. The court held that the petitioners could not produce the original Power of Attorney for comparison after a long delay despite being asked, indicating potential concealment. Considering the gravity of the offence, anticipatory bail was denied.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail denied; petitioners directed to surrender for interrogation before the Magistrate.

Joseph Joseph Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/18TH JYAISHTA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2928 of 2012 ()

¶6

CRIME NO.348/2012 OF ALAPPUZHA SOUTH POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

1. JOSEPH JOSEPH, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. P.A. JOSEPH, PALLIPPARAMBU VEEDU,

¶9

CHUNGAM WARD, ALAPPUZHA.

¶10

2. THANKAMMA JOSEPH, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O. JOSEPH JOSEPH, PALLIPPARAMBU VEEDU, CHUNGAM WARD, ALAPPUZHA.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRA KRISHNAN

¶12

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT(S)/STATE:

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM(CRIME NO. 348/2012 OF ALAPPUZHA

¶14

SOUTH POLICE STATION,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT) PIN-682 031.

¶15

2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA SOUTH POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT(CRIME NO. 348/2012 OF ALAPPUZHA

¶16

SOUTH POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT)- 688 001.

¶17

*ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED

¶18

*R3: LUCKOSE ZACHARIAH @ ZAK NEDUMCHIRA LUKE, AGED 59 YEARS,S/O.LATE ITTY ZACHARIAH, HOUSE NO.421A, ERIYIL KADAVU, VIJAYAPURAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT 6145,NORTH SHERIDAN ROAD, APARTMENT NO.14 D, CHICAGO,ILLINOIS-60660,U.S.A.

¶19

*ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 08/06/2012 IN CRL.M.A.NO.3304/12

¶20

R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SHIBU JOSEPH BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SRI.JAGAN GEORGE SRI.P.G.PRAMOD

¶21

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-06-2012, ALONG WITH BA.NO. 2933/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

sts

¶23

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶24

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 2928 & 2933 OF 2012

¶25

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶26

Dated this the 08^th day of June, 2012

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

Petitioners are the accused in Crime nos: 348/2012 and 255/2012 respectively of Alappuzha South Police Station. The offences alleged against them are under sections 120 (b), 406, 420, 447, 467, 468 and 471 r/w 34 of IPC.

¶29

Two crimes were registered when the complaints filed by the complainant were forwarded to the Police under sections 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The complainant was working in USA for about 20 years. A Power of Attorney was executed by him in favour of the 1^st accused on 3.6.2004 empowering him to look after the affairs of the property and the building situated in the property comprised in Old Survey No:788/63 of Alappuzha West Village. Another Power of Attorney purported to have been executed by him on 8.3.2011, empowering him to sell the property measuring 1.26 acres

¶30

B.A.No.2928/2012 -2-

¶31

in Survey Nos:875/6A/4 and 875/6A/3 of Mullackal Village was created by petitioners. The complainant submits that he has not executed any such Power of Attorney empowering the 1^st accused to execute the sale deed nor did he receive the sale consideration of Rs.3 lakhs as shown in the documents.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner argued with vehemence that the question whether any forgery has been, in fact, committed or not would be revealed only when the original Power of Attorney is examined by the expert and is certified that the signatures purported to be of the complainant found in the Power of Attorney are not that of his but were actually forged.

¶33

It is also argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the documents were executed long back and the complaint has been filed after years together and so it would show that the petitioners were aware of the fact that the documents were duly executed and that there was no forgery at all. But the learned counsel appearing for the

¶34

B.A.No.2928/2012 -3-

¶35

defacto complainant submits that the complainant was in U.S.A.; only recently he came to the native place and could come to know of the fraud played by the petitioners. It is pointed out that the first petitioner, who claims to have executed the documents on the strength of the Power of Attorney, did not care to produce the original Power of Attorney before the Investigating Officer or before this Court. The evasive answers that the Power of Attorney was also handed over to the assignee, appears to be an explanation trotted out. Since assignee is also arrayed as accused, the petitioners cannot feign ignorance regarding the same. The petitioners, therefore, cannot contend that the original Power of Attorney has not been seized for the purpose of comparison of the signature, thumb impression etc. Considering the gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Hence it is dismissed.

¶36

If petitioners surrender before the Police/Investigating Officer, after interrogation petitioners shall be produced

¶37

B.A.No.2928/2012 -4-

¶38

before the Magistrate and if petitioners apply for bail the learned Magistrate will dispose of the same in accordance with law, but after hearing the learned APP as well and also after perusal of the case diary, if so required and also after considering the facts and circumstances of the case. If the Investigating Officer files application for police custody for further interrogation that shall also be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with law.

¶39

Sd/- N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶40

¶41

//True copy//

¶42

P.A. to Judge

Joseph Joseph v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joseph Joseph 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

Praveen Vs State of Kerala

Deepan Vs State of Kerala

Vishnu Vs State of Kerala

George Alexander Vs State of Kerala

Anilkumar Vs State of Kerala

Manjula P.V. Vs State