Dismissed

Dr.Vincent J v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Jul 2014Crl.MC/774/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner accused of accepting bribe under Prevention of Corruption Act sought quashing of proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. High Court held it was not a fit case to quash, allowing petitioner to argue for discharge at trial.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed by observation that it is not a fit case under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to terminate proceedings; interlocutory applications dismissed.

Dr.Vincent J Vs State of Kerala — Corruption | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2014/10TH ASHADHA, 1936

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 774 of 2013 ()

¶6

CRIME NO.4/2011 BY THE VIGILENCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, KANNUR.

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED :

¶8

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

¶9

DR.VINCENT J, VETERINARY SURGEON, GOVERNMENT VETERINARY DISPENSARY, P.O KARIPPAL, CHAPPARAPPADAVU, KANNUR, NOW WORKING AT VETERINARY SURGEON ADCP KASAGOD, P.O MADHUR KASARGOD - 671 124.

¶10

BY ADV.SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ.

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

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

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶14

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.

¶15

2. BIPIN THOMAS, S/O.M.K.THOMAS,

¶16

MATTATHIL HOUSE, PACHANI, KARIPPAL, VELLORA AMSOM, THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTICT – 690 001.

¶17

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SNT.BINDU GOPINATH.

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-07-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Crl.MC.No. 774 of 2013 ()

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :

¶22

ANNEXURE 1	TRUE COPY OF THE	COMPLAINT FILED BY MR.BIPIN THOMAS
ANNEXURE II	TRUE COPY OF THE KANUUR.	FIR NO 4/2011 OF THE VACB UNIT
ANNEXUREIII	TRUE COPY OF THE 23-08-11 ISSUED B DEPARTMENT.	ORDER NO X-1-24237/11/VIG DT Y THE DIRECTOR VETERINARY
ANNEXURE IV	TRUE COPY OF THE	PETITION DATED 18-04-2012.

¶23

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE

amk

A.HARIPRASAD, J.

Crl.M.C No.774 of 2013

¶29

Dated this the 1^st day of July, 2014.

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Petitioner is

¶32

the accused in Crime No.4/2011 registered by the Vigilance and

¶33

Anti Corruption Bureau (in short 'VACB') Kannur Unit. He is charged with offence punishable under Section 7 of the

¶34

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶35

Prosecution case in brief is that while the

¶36

petitioner/accused was working as a Veterinary Surgeon in Government Veterinary Hospital, Chapparaparambu, he demanded bribe from the defacto complainant. Later on 13-07-2011, the Vigilance Officers laid a trap wherein the petitioner was arrested for accepting bribe of `250/- from the defacto complainant.

¶37

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶38

learned Public Prosecutor.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted on the

¶40

Crl.M.C No.774 of 2013 2

¶41

basis of Annexure A5 that the petitioner, as a Veterinary Surgeon, is entitled to undertake private practice as per the instructions in AHD Manual. It is also submitted on the basis of

¶42

Dr.K.L.Anand v. The State (A.I.R 1956 Allahabad 673) that medical officer is entitled to do private practice and he is entitled to accept money for the professional service. Learned counsel for the petitioner, based on the ratio in State of Haryana v Bhajan Lal ( A.I.R 1992 SC 604), contended that the power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C should be invoked to do justice in this case. Further, it is argued on the basis of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation , Patiala v. Mangal Singh and Others ( (2011)11 SCC 702) that the departmental direction permitting the petitioner to do private practice cannot be disregarded and he cannot be prosecuted for accepting money for professional services beyond his office hours. Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that a full

¶43

Crl.M.C No.774 of 2013 3

¶44

fledged trap has been laid in this case and he was caught red handed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the stage of investigation in this matter, I am not satisfied that

¶45

this is a fit case wherein the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be invoked to terminate the proceedings. The petitioner is however free to raise appropriate contention before the trial court and argue for a discharge. The court will consider the contention untrammelled by any observation in this order. With this observation, the Crl.M.C is disposed.

¶46

All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.

¶47

Sd/A.HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.

¶48

amk

¶49

//True Copy//

¶50

P.A to Judge

Dr.Vincent J v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Vincent J 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Raju Vs State of Kerala and Another

T.R.Krishna Kumar Vs Anamika

Jayamohan Vs Fr. Dr. Abraham Thalothil

Shymesh Vs State of Kerala

M.V Abdul Latheef Vs Haseena

Leenamma Pious Vs State of Kerala