Disposed

Jayamohan G.S v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC27 Sept 2016Crl.MC/2233/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, 6th accused in vigilance court, approached High Court challenging premature consideration of charges. Court observed the matter is too premature for current stage and directed petitioner to approach court below at Section 239 Cr.P.C. stage with liberty to repeat arguments.

What did the court decide?

Crl.M.C. disposed of with liberty to petitioner to take up arguments at Section 239 Cr.P.C. stage before court below.

Jayamohan G.S Vs State of Kerala — Corruption | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/5TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2233 of 2015 ()

¶6

CC 19/2014 of THE COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & VIGILANCE SPECIAL COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CRIME NO.VC 1/2004/SCT OF VACB, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.6:

¶8

JAYAMOHAN G.S., AGED 41 YEARS, S/O SASIKUMARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT “GAYATHRI”, MELARANOOR, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.AYYAPPAN SANKAR

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN:682031.

¶12

2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE & ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, SPECIAL CELL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

BY SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.ALEX M. THOMBRA

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

DSV/28/9/16

¶16

Crl.MC.No. 2233 of 2015 ()

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES:

¶19

ANNEXURE A1: COPY OF F.I.R. IN CRIME NO.1/2004 DATED 3.2.2004 OF VACB, SPECIAL CELL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶20

ANNEXURE A2: COPY OF REPORT DATED 14.7.2014 FILED BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VACB, SPECIAL CELL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAMIN VC-1/2004/SCT.

¶21

ANNEXURE A3: COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 3.9.2014 IN VC1/2004/SCT OF POLICE STATION, VIGILANCE SPECIAL CELL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PENDING AS C.C.19/2014 ON THE FILES OF THE COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & VIGILANCE SPECIAL JUDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶22

ANNEXURE A4: COPY OF VOUCHERS AND CASH RECEIPTS PRODUCED AS DOCUMENT NO.10 ALONG WITH ANNEXURE A3 FINAL REPORT.

¶23

ANNEXURE A5: COPY OF VOUCHERS AND CASH RECEIPTS PRODUCED AS DOCUMENT NO.11 ALONG WITH ANNEXURE A3 FINAL REPORT,.

¶24

ANNEXURE A6: COPY OF CHEQUE PRODUCED AS DOCUMENT NO.19 ALONG WITH ANNEXURE-A3 FINAL REPORT.

¶25

ANNEXURE A7: COPY OF CHEQUE PRODUCED AS DOCUMENT NO.20 ALONG WITH ANNEXURE -A3 FINAL REPORT.

¶26

RESPONDENTS’ ANNEXURES:

NIL

// True Copy //

P.S. To Judge

DSV/28/9/16

B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶32

................................................................ CRL.M.C. No. 2233 of 2015

¶33

............................................................... Dated this the 27^th day of September, 2016

¶34

O R D E R

¶35

Petitioner is the 6^th accused in C.C.19/2014 of the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Thiruvananthapuram, which has arisen from VC1/2004/SCT of the Vigilance Special Cell.

¶36

The petitioner was the Accounts Officer, who was working allegedly on contract basis, at the Kerala State Council for Child Welfare, Thiruvananthapuram, which is an autonomous body functioning under the Government of Kerala. An all India Children's Camp at Kanakakkunni was conducted for the period from 09.05.2000 to 13.05.2000 under the name and style 'Learn to Live Together'. It is alleged that the accused among themselves hatched a criminal conspiracy to commit criminal breach of trust for misappropriating public fund, and some of the accused

¶37

CRL.M.C.No. 2233 of 2015

¶38

-: 2 :-

¶39

managed to constitute a fictitious firm in the name and style as “Cafeteria” and a quotation for providing food to the children was furnished. The amount quoted in the quotation was ₹100/- only per day per child. Thereafter, it seems that amounts by way of installments totaling an amount of ₹2,64,700/- was disbursed to the fictitious firm. Even though the amount that could be disbursed on the basis of the quotation was ₹1,50,000/- only, overlooking the same, an amount of ₹2,64,700/- was disbursed.

¶40

According to the petitioner, he was not in any way concerned in the matter and he had never participated in the conspiracy. At this stage, those matters cannot be looked into. If so advised, the petitioner can approach the court below at the stage of Section 239 Cr.P.C. by placing reliance on the final report and the documents sent along with the final report. The present stage is too premature to consider the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. With liberty to the petitioner to take up the very

¶41

CRL.M.C.No. 2233 of 2015

¶42

-: 3 :-

¶43

same arguments before the court below at the stage of Section 239 Cr.P.C., this Crl.M.C. is disposed of.

¶44

Sd/- B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE.

¶45

ul/-

¶46

// true copy //

¶47

P.S. to Judge.

Jayamohan G.S v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayamohan G.S 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mathew George Vs State of Kerala

Parameswaran @ Thankachan Vs State of Kerala

Npr Finance Ltd. Vs Pious George

Babu Vs State of Kerala

Radhakrishnan @ Babu Vs State of Kerala

Ruby Enterprises Vs Jojo Mathew