Dismissed

Thomas Cherian v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Kerala HC26 Aug 2016Crl.MC/5596/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Crl.M.P. seeking discharge under Cr.P.C. 239 and quashing of the final report filed by CBI was dismissed. The High Court held that the present stage is too premature to conclude innocence as the report prima facie reveals possibility of offence allegations against the accused.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners are granted liberty to place contentions regarding serious allegations before the Court below during trial.

Thomas Cherian Vs Central Bureau of Investigation — Corruption | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/4TH BHADRA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 5596 of 2016

¶6

CRL.MP.38/2014 IN CC.NO.23/2011 OF SPECIAL COURT (SPE/CBI), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS.2 & 3:

¶8

1. THOMAS CHERIAN, S/O.CHERIAN, AGED 66 YEARS, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, ANGADISERRIL HOUSE, KOLLADU P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶9

2. ANU THOMAS, W/O.THOMAS CHERIAN, AGED 63 YEARS, ANGADISERRIL HOUSE, KOLLADU P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K. SRI.BIJO MATHEW JOY SMT.GAYATHRI KRISHNAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT:

¶12

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY STANDING COUNSEL, C.B.I., HIGH COURT OF KERALA,

¶13

BY SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI, SC

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

Crl.MC.No. 5596 of 2016

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEAXURE

¶19

ANNEAXURE 1:	COPY OF THE LEGAL SCRUTINY REPORT DATED 6/11/2002
ANNEXURWE 2:	COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE KOTTYAM MAIN BRANCH DATED 15/9/14 DULY NOTARISED
ANNEXURE 3:	COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET NO.CMS/3/2005 DATED 28/2/15 FILED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CBI/SPE, COCHIN-17
ANNEXURE 4:	COPY OF THE AGRICULTURE INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR 2000-2001 OF PETITIONER NO.1.
ANNEXURE 5:	COPY OF THE AGRICULTURE INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR 2001-2002 OF PETITIONER NO.1.
ANNEXURE 6:	COPY OF THE AGRICULTURE INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR 2001-2002 OF PETITIONER NO.2.
ANNEXURE 7:	COPY OF THE AGRICULTURE INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR 2001-2002 OF PETITIONER NO.2.
ANNEXURE 8:	COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.MP.38/14 IN CC.23/2011 OF SPECIAL JUDGE (SPE/CBI), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 28/7/16.

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEAXURE

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶26

................................................................ CRL.M.C. No. 5596 of 2016

¶27

............................................................... Dated this the 26^th day of August, 2016

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

Petitioners are A2 and A3 in C.C.No.23/11 of the Special Judge(SPE/CBI), Thiruvananthapuram. A final report has been filed against the petitioners and the other accused in the matter by the CBI alleging offences punishable under Section 120B read with Sections 471 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶30

Through Crl.M.P.No.38/14, the petitioners had approached the court below seeking discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. Through a well considered order, it seems that the court below has dismissed the Crl.M.P and

¶31

CRL.M.C.No. 5596 of 2016

¶32

-: 2 :-

¶33

has decided to proceed with the matter. Petitioners have come up with a prayer to get the impugned order passed by the court below, as well as the final report in the matter quashed.

¶34

On going through the matter and on hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Standing Counsel for the CBI, this Court is of the view that there is absolutely nothing to interfere with the well considered order passed by the court below. It seems that the final report filed by the CBI under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and the documents sent along with it prima facie reveal the possibility of the correctness of the allegations against the accused. The present stage is too premature to conclude that the accused have not committed any offence. At the same time, it seems that the petitioners have raised some serious contentions. Those contentions can be considered by the court below during the stage of trial.

¶35

CRL.M.C.No. 5596 of 2016

¶36

-: 3 :-

¶37

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed with liberty to

¶38

the petitioners to take up all the above said contentions before the court below during trial.

¶39

Sd/- B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE.

¶40

ul/-

¶41

// true copy //

¶42

P.S. to Judge.

Thomas Cherian v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thomas Cherian v. Central Bureau of Investigation

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

Davis Vs State of Kerala

Girija Vs State of Kerala

Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Riyas and Another Vs State of Kerala

Raju @ Koonan Raju Vs State of Kerala

Sharli Vs State of Kerala