Allowed

P.F. Lorence v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 May 2016Bail Appl./3048/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application implicating Commercial Tax Inspectors accused of cheating the Government via bounced cheques and forged drafts, the Court noted no material benefit accrued to them. Finding custodial interrogation unnecessary as evidence was collected, the Court granted pre-arrest bail with conditions to report and not obstruct investigation.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on executing a bond with two solvent sureties for Rs. 25,000/- each, subject to conditions of reporting to Investigating Officer and not obstructing investigation.

P.F. Lorence Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2016/5TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3048 of 2016 ()

¶6

CR. NO. 313/2013 OF CRIME BRANCH, PALAKKAD.

¶7

APPLICANTS/ACCUSED NOS.10, 13, 16, 17 & 18:

¶8

1. P.F. LORENCE, AGED 49 YEARS, COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR,

¶9

COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK-POST, VALARA.

¶10

2. V.V. HARIDASAN, AGED 48 YEARS,

¶11

COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR,

¶12

COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK-POST, WALAYAR.

¶13

3. K.S. BENNY, AGED 54 YEARS,

¶14

COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR,

¶15

COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK-POST, WALAYAR.

¶16

4. T. BALARAVI, AGED 57 YEARS, THEKKETHIL HOUSE, PARUTHIPARA,

¶17

SHORNUR.

¶18

5. K. RAMESH, AGED 50 YEARS,

¶19

COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR,

¶20

COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK-POST, WALAYAR.

¶21

BY SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU, SENIOR ADVOCATE. ADVS. SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN,

¶22

SMT.MITHA SUDHINDRAN.

¶23

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶24

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

¶25

BY SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C. RASHEED.

¶26

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

rs.

¶28

P.UBAID, J.

¶29

============================

¶30

B.A.No.3048 of 2016

¶31

============================ Dated this the 26^th day of May, 2016

¶32

ORDER

¶33

The petitioners seek pre arrest bail on the apprehension of arrest in Crime No.313 of 2013 of the Crime Branch, Palakkad. The petitioners happened to be implicated, and arraigned as accused while they were working in the Sale Tax Check Post, Neduppunni in various capacities. The facts and allegations need not be explained in so many words. In brief, the allegation is that in violation of a Government Order that cash shall not be received towards sales tax amounts the petitioners received either cheques or Demand Drafts. The cheques so received happened to be bounced, and the Demand Drafts were found to be forged, later. Then came a prosecution against the different Sales Tax Officers. The very short question is whether any of the accused was in any manner benefited by the alleged act. I find that what is

¶34

B.A.No.3048 of 2016 2

¶35

prominently alleged is only violation of the Government Order. Even the Demand Drafts received in compliance of the Government Circular were found to be forged. Thus ultimately the State lost a huge amount of Rs.13 Crores. It is submitted that proceedings are now going on to recover the amount of tax from the various persons who submitted false Demand Drafts or cheques. These petitioners are being prosecuted under Section 420 IPC on the allegation that they cheated the Government. The State must fairly concede that these petitioners are not in fact liable under Section 420 IPC. Admittedly, none of the accused was in any manner benefited by the alleged crime. Custodial interrogation of any of the petitioners is not necessary as part of investigation in this crime. The Investigating Officer has already seized the relevant documents including the questioned cheques and Demand Drafts. Interrogation of the petitioners in custody is not necessary, because even otherwise necessary materials have already been collected. I find that these petitioners can be granted pre arrest bail.

¶36

B.A.No.3048 of 2016 3

¶37

In the result, this application is allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their executing a bond with two solvent sureties for 25,000/-₹ (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction, as the case may be, in case of their arrest in connection with Crime No.313 of 2013 of

¶38

the Crime Branch, Palakkad. Bail is granted on condition that;

¶39

a) The petitioners shall report before the investigating officer as and when required by him for the purpose of interrogation as part of investigation, and that the petitioners shall not in any manner obstruct the investigation or tamper with any of the documents or registers involved in the case.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

rkj P.UBAID, JUDGE

¶42

//TRUE COPY//

¶43

P.A. TO JUDGE

P.F. Lorence v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.F. Lorence 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

Nazeer Manoli Vs State of Kerala

Shabeer Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Sajesh N. Vs State of Kerala

Shaijith.T Vs the State of Kerala

Akhil Vs State of Kerala

Biju K Vs Sub Inspector of Police Payyoli Police Station