The Court, acting suo motu due to polling officers turning hostile by failing to identify the accused as the personated individual, dropped further proceedings against respondents 3 to 6. This decision was made considering the long pendency of the case and apprehensions of the officers facing threats.
Further proceedings against respondents 3 to 6 are dropped.
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 N.K.BALAKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/21ST BHADRA 1934
Crl.MC.No. 2280 of 2006 ( )
SUO MOTU CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS CASE REPORTED AS PER ORDER DATED 12.7.2006 IN CRL.R.P.2340/2006.
PETITIONER(S):
E. ANOOP, ENNAPARAMBATH HOUSE, PANOOR KANNUR.
RESPONDENTS :-
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM.
2. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA,
3. PAVITHRAN E., ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
4. VASANTHA K.,AGRICULTURE ASSISTANT,
5. P.G.GIREESH KUMAR, LDC,
6. T.K.GOPAKUMAR, UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY, THALASSERY.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
jvt
N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J.
Crl.M.C. No.2280 of 2006
Dated this the 12th day of September 2012
O R D E R
A suo motu action was initiated by this Court while disposing of Crl.R.P.No.2340/2006. Pursuant thereto notices were issued to respondent Nos.3 to 6. They have filed their counter statements. Heard both sides.
Crl.M.C. No.2280 of 2006
-: 2 :-
was taken into custody. After conducting investigation, charge sheet was laid against him. He was convicted for the offence punishable under Sec.171F of IPC. It was confirmed by the appellate court and also by this Court.
Crl.M.C. No.2280 of 2006
-: 3 :-
evidence was recorded about 1½ years after the incident. It is further submitted that the respondents did not actually speak against the prosecution but they actually deposed before the court that the person who came to the booth to exercise his franchise, personated himself as Pavithran and that when the police reached there that person was taken into custody and so, actually the question of identification of that person in court was not of that much relevance since based on the information passed on to the police by the Principal Polling Officer the accused was arrested on the spot and as such that itself would prove the identity of the person who went to the polling booth and personated himself as Pavithran.
Crl.M.C. No.2280 of 2006
-: 4 :-
taken into custody by the police. That submission is not acceptable. Being responsible officers, they should have been aware of the consequence and should not have been so wavering and vaccilating showing their disinclination to divulge the truth in court becoming loyal to the accused or his political party. The conduct of the witnesses (respondents) in resiling from the earlier statements and becoming disloyal to the prosecution in such circumstances is really condemnable.
Crl.M.C. No.2280 of 2006
-: 5 :-
was taken into custody by the police. So, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, that circumstance also may have to be borne in mind. The further fact that the respondents have been facing the proceedings for the last about 6 years is also requested to be taken note of. That itself may be a sufficient punishment for the respondents. At this distance of time, considering all the aspects, I find that it is just and proper that further proceedings against respondents 3 to 6 are dropped.
This Crl.M.C. is disposed of accordingly.
N.K.BALAKRISHNAN,
Jvt
1 issue framed by the court
Whether proceedings against polling officers who resiled from earlier statements should continue despite their lack of precise identification of the accused.
E. Anoop
State of Kerala
Election Commission of India
Pavithran E.
Vasantha K.
P.G. Gireesh Kumar
N.K. Balakrishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
