Allowed

Jacob George v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Aug 2016Crl.Rev.Pet/1042/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed the revision petition and set aside the Special Judge's order rejecting a corruption complaint. The High Court held that the rejection was premature and ordered fresh disposal with immediate preliminary inquiry following Lalita Kumari guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; complaint revived and remitted to court below for fresh disposal with immediate preliminary inquiry.

Jacob George Vs the 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

THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/27TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1042 of 2016 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRL.MP. NO.888/2016 OF COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE (VIGILANCE), MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 02/07/2016.

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:

¶8

JACOB GEORGE, S/O.T.V. GEORGE, THEKKINEDATH HOUSE, JEWS STREET, NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR.

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI -682 031.

¶12

2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, ERNAKULAM, PIN- 682 016.

¶13

BY SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.S. HRITHWIK.

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

rs.

¶16

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1042 of 2016

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-

¶19

ANNEXURE A COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SPECIAL JUDGE AS CRL.MP. NO.888/2016.

¶20

ANNEXURE B COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DATED 26/03/2015.

¶21

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

B.KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶26

................................................................ CRL.R.P. No. 1042 of 2016

¶27

............................................................... Dated this the 18^th day of August, 2016

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

Petitioner has preferred Crl.M.P.No.888/2016 before the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Muvattupuzha thereby detailing serious allegations of corruption. The court below has taken the view that there are no specific allegations in the complaint to invite an offence under Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention Corruption Act. The court below has lost sight of the other offences coming under the P.C. Act. Further, the said stage was too premature for the court below to enter into a finding that the allegations do not bring out an offence under Section 13(1)(c) of the P.C.Act. Specific allegations are

¶30

Crl.R.P. No. 1042 of 2016

¶31

-: 2 :-

¶32

there in the complaint. Serious allegations have been raised also. Instead of forwarding the complaint for preliminary enquiry, the court below has chosen to reject the complaint by finding that it is not maintainable. The said decision taken by the court below has resulted in substantial miscarriage of justice. The court below should have been more vigilant in dealing with matters of corruption, and also when the complainant levelling serious allegations of corruption was preferred. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶33

In the result, this Crl.R.P. is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The complaint is revived and the same is remitted to the court below for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The court below shall follow the guidelines laid down in the decision in Lalita Kumari v.

¶34

Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others [2013 (4) KLT 632 (SC) = (2014) 2 SCC 1] and shall initiate immediate steps for having a preliminary inquiry in the matter. The

¶35

Crl.R.P. No. 1042 of 2016

¶36

petitioner shall appear before the court below on

¶37

-: 3 :-

¶38

05.09.2016.

¶39

Sd/- B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE.

¶40

ul/-

¶41

// true copy //

¶42

P.S. to Judge.

Jacob George v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jacob George v. the 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kumar @ Kelan Kumar Vs State of Kerala

T.Hamza Vs State of Kerala

Sundaran Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Indira Sivaraman Vs State of Kerala

Baby Mathew and Another Vs State of Kerala

Sabu and Others Vs State of Kerala