Disposed

M.T.Anilkumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Jan 2014Crl.MC/387/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Crl.MC.No. 387 of 2014, the High Court of Kerala disposed of the criminal miscellaneous case without prejudice to the petitioner's right to apply for discharge. The court noted arguments that the charge sheet did not disclose guilt regarding corruption charges and issued directions for a future discharge application timeline.

What did the court decide?

The Crl.M.C is disposed of without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file an application for discharge within three weeks, subject to specific disposal timelines for the magistrate.

M.T.Anilkumar Vs State of Kerala — Corruption | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2014/1ST MAGHA, 1935

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 387 of 2014 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 49/2012 of ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE, KOTTAYAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/1ST ACCUSED:

¶8

M.T.ANILKUMAR, SPECIAL REVEDNUE INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), THODUPUZHA, (FORMER VILLAGE OFFICER, ARAKKULAM).

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN

¶10

SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN SRI.SEBIN THOMAS SRI.A.G.GIRISH KUMAR SRI.VIVEK V. KANNANKERI SMT.J.KASTHURI

¶11

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT SAREENA GEORGE

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-01-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Crl.MC.No. 387 of 2014 ()

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

ANX.A1: TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 13-6-2012 BEARING NO. 6/2012/A, WHICH IS NUMBERED AS CC 49/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSION AND SPECIAL JUDGE, KOTTAYAM.

¶19

ANX.A2.: TRUE COPY OF THE FILE NO. 17-12312-97 OF TALUK OFFICE, THODUPUZHA RELATED TO ISSUANCE OF VILLAGE CERTIFICATE TO CUT AND REMOVE ROSE WOOD TREE CONTAINING 20 PAGES.

¶20

ANX.A3.: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21-8-1997 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR TO THE PETITIONER/VILLAGE OFFICER.

¶21

ANX.A4. : TRUE COPY OF THE FAX MESSAGE DATED 30-8-2008 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI TO THE COMMISSIONER LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶22

ANX.A5.: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11-12-2008 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC NO. 27660/2006.

¶23

ANX.A6.: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 31-1-2009OF THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER TO THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶24

ANX.A7.: TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF CW1. ANX.A8.: TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENTS OF CW4.

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A TO JUDGE

LSN

HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.

¶30

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl. M.C No. 387 of 2014

¶31

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

¶32

Dated this the 21^st day of January 2014.

¶33

Petitioner is the first accused in C.C No. 49/2012 on the file of the Court of Enquiry Commission and Special Judge, Kottayam. The charge was submitted on 13.06.2012 against the petitioner and others. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 409, 466 and 120B of IPC. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the materials produced by the prosecution as part of the charge sheet would show that the Tahasildar had right to issue pass for cutting and removing of Rose wood tree on the basis of survey sketch dated 19.08.1997 prepared by the Taluk Surveyor and not on the basis of the report dated 08.08.1997 of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the report of the petitioner in his capacity as Village Officer dated 08.08.1997 only recommends identification of the property by survey by the Taluk Surveyor as there was a doubt as to the exact position of the Rose Wood tree. It is further contended that even if charge sheet is accepted as true, there is no culpable act disclosed on the part of the petitioner and therefore no offence will lie against the petitioner. It is also contended that

¶34

¶35

Crl. M.C No. 387 of 2014

¶36

Annexure-A1 charge sheet as against the petitioner will not disclose the ingredients of the offences under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act or the ingredients of Sections 409, 466, 120 B of IPC since there is no allegations that the petitioner had given pass for cutting Rose Wood tree on the basis of his report .

¶37

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Crl.M.C is disposed of without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file an application for discharge within a period of three weeks from today. In the event petitioner filing a discharge application within the time stated above, the learned Magistrate shall consider and dispose of the discharge application within a period of two months from the date of filing of such application. The personal appearance of the petitioner shall be dispensed with during the pendency of application for discharge.

¶38

HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE.

¶39

lsn

M.T.Anilkumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.T.Anilkumar 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

K.C.Sreelal Vs Sub Inspector

Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Mustaffa Vs State of Kerala

Riyas Vakakkundan Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Mohammed Ali Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Nissamudheen @ Choondi Nissam Vs Sub Inspector of Police