Allowed

P.K.Meenambigal v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC31 Oct 2016Crl.MC/6391/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court quashed a criminal complaint filed by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau against two registration officers. Finding that the alleged failure to ascertain fair value constituted mere dereliction of duty rather than criminal corruption, the court held that the FIR did not disclose an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

What did the court decide?

Q uashed the FIR and all further proceedings pursuant to it against the petitioners.

P.K.Meenambigal 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

MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/9TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 6391 of 2016 ()

¶6

--------------------------FIR NO. 31/16/TSR OF VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:

¶8

P.K.MEENAMBIGAL, AGED 52, (PRESENTLY SUB REGISTRAR, MUNDUR), W/O.S.T.PARAMASIVAN, ASHWATHI NIVAS, MOTHER TERESA ROAD, KURIACHIRA, THRISSUR.

¶9

BY SRI.T.A.SHAJI,SENIOR ADVOCATE ADVS. SMT.NAMITHA JYOTHISH SRI.ATHUL SHAJI

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, (REPRESENTING THE DY. S.P. VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, THRISSUR)

¶12

BY SR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.ALEX M. THOMBRA

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31-10-2016,ALONG WITH CRL.MC.NO.6392 OF 2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

sts

¶15

Crl.MC.No. 6391 of 2016 ()

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶18

ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DAED 18.7.2016 IN FIR NO.31/2016/TSR OF THE VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, THRISUR ACCUSED
ANNEUXRE B TRUE COY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 22.9.2016 CONTAINING THE INFORMATION RECEIVED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT
ANNEXURE C TRUE COY OF THE FILE NOTES IN THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL REGISTRATION, ALONG WITH THE COMMUNICATION DATED 22.7.2016 FORWARDING THE SAME TO THE 1ST ACCUSED
ANNEUXRE D TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.3.2016 OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION

¶19

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

sts

B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶25

................................................................ CRL.M.C. Nos. 6391 & 6392 of 2016

¶26

............................................................... Dated this the 31^st day of October, 2016

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

Petitioners are A1 and A2 respectively in Crl.M.C.Nos.6392/16 and 6391/16 which have arisen from FIR No.31/2016/TSR of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Thrissur. The first accused was the Sub Registrar and the 2^nd accused was the Junior Superintendent attached to the Sub Registry Office, Nellayi.

¶29

The allegations against the petitioners is that on

¶30

an enquiry committed by the District Registrar of the Registration Department, it was revealed that in 15 cases wherein documents were registered at the said Sub Registry the fair value of the properties was not noted and thereby the petitioners have caused financial loss to the

¶31

CRL.M.C.Nos. 6391 & 6392 of 2016

¶32

-: 2 :-

¶33

Government.

¶34

It has been reported that within the said 15 cases, the irregularities in 13 cases were committed by the first accused and the irregularities in two cases were committed by the 2^nd accused. It is alleged that the said officers have violated Section 45(A) of the Kerala Stamp Act. It has also been pointed out that in fact, in the aforesaid 15 cases, there was no fair value fixed in respect of those properties in various survey numbers. The irregularity traced out is that in such a case the said officers ought to have ascertained the fair value of the adjacent properties and applied the said fair value.

¶35

On hearing either side and on perusing AnnexureA FIR it has clearly come out that this is not a case whereby fair value in respect of the said properties were suppressed. The only shortcoming alleged against the petitioners is that they have failed to ascertain the fair value of the available adjacent properties.

¶36

CRL.M.C.Nos. 6391 & 6392 of 2016

¶37

-: 3 :-

¶38

The statement filed by the VACB before this Court

¶39

clearly shows that the document writers or the vendees in respect of the said properties who had allegedly purchased and produced the stamp papers were not the beneficiaries of the said transaction; whereas the petitioners herein are the only beneficiaries. The vendees in respect of the properties concerned or the document writers who prepared the documents concerned, have not been arraigned as accused in the crime. Even if there were such shortcomings as pointed out in the FIR, it may not invite an offence under Section 13(2)read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act; and at the most, it may amount to mere dereliction from the part of the officers concerned, which could invite some departmental actions.

¶40

From all the above, this Court is satisfied that Annexure-A FIR 31/2016/TSR of the Vigilance and AntiCorruption Bureau, Thrissur, and all further proceedings pursuant to it as against the petitioners are liable to be

¶41

CRL.M.C.Nos. 6391 & 6392 of 2016

¶42

-: 4 :-

¶43

quashed.

¶44

In the result, these Crl.M.Cs. are allowed and Annexure-A FIR 31/2016/TSR of the Vigilance and AntiCorruption Bureau, Thrissur, and all further proceedings pursuant to it as against the petitioners herein, are hereby quashed.

¶45

Sd/- B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE.

¶46

ul/-

¶47

// true copy //

¶48

P.S. to Judge.

P.K.Meenambigal v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.K.Meenambigal 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

Biju Denson Vs the Sub Inspector

Kalikkotan Thamban Nair Vs State of Kerala

K.N.Babu Vs Sabu K.Eapen

Asokan Vs State of Kerala

Sivan Pillai Vs State of Kerala

C. Vijaya Mohanan Nair Vs State of Kerala