Allowed

V.J.John v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Jul 2017Crl.MC/4341/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal reference under Section 482 CrPC, the Kerala High Court quashed proceedings against an accused in a split-up case of criminal breach of trust. Relying on Moosa, the Court held that since the trial court found the prosecution evidence sketchy and failed to link the accused, serving no useful purpose would result from ordering a new trial.

What did the court decide?

The instant petition was allowed and the final report and all proceedings pending as C.C. No.1641 of 2003 against the petitioner were quashed.

V.J.John Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2017/26TH ASHADHA, 1939

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 4341 of 2013 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 1641/2003 of J.F.C.-I MUVATUPUZHA DATED 06-11-2009 CRIME NO.80/2000 OF KOOTHATTUKULAM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

V.J.JOHN, S/O.ULAHANNAN, VELLALANKAL, THIRUMARADY KARA & VILLAGE.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

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

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.H.KAMAPPU

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Crl.MC.No. 4341 of 2013 ()

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶17

ANNEXURE-A A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED BY THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER. ANNEXURE-B A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 6.11.2009 IN C.C.1641 OF 2003 JUDICIAL IST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶18

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

VPS PS TO JUDGE

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J

¶23

Crl.M.C. No.4341 of 2013

¶24

Dated this the 17^th day of July, 2017

¶25

ORDER

¶26

1.The instant petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶27

2.The petitioner is the accused in C.C. No.1641 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Muvattupuzha. This is a split up case from C.C. No.1641 of 2003 pending on the files of the said court, wherein originally as many as 12 persons were arrayed as accused. They were charged by the Sub Inspector of Police, Koothattukulam for offences punishable under section 408, 477A read with 34 of the IPC.

¶28

3.The prosecution allegation is that the accused with intent to cause unlawful loss to the Thirumarady Milk Producers Cooperative Society E.152(D) forged documents, falsified the accounts and thus committed criminal breach of trust. The specific allegation against the petitioner herein, who was arrayed as the 1^st accused, was that while he was functioning

¶29

Crl.M.C. 4341/2013 2

¶30

as the President of the said society during the period 1996-97 and 1997-98, he had given cattle feed as loan against the terms of the bye-law and caused loss to the tune of Rs.70605.25 to the Society. Similar allegations were raised against the 2^nd accused, who was the Secretary during the period from 21.8.1993 to 19.11.1997, and the 3^rd accused, who was the Secretary during the period from 19.11.1997 to 10.10.1998. The accused No 4 to 12 are alleged to have aided and abetted the acts of the accused No 1 to 3.

¶31

4.It appears that all the accused except the petitioner herein, who was the 1^st accused, the 3^rd accused and the 7^th accused appeared before the learned magistrate and faced the trial. In so far as the 7^th accused is concerned he had expired in the course of proceedings and the case against him stood abated. The case against the petitioner herein and the 3^rd accused were split up.

¶32

5.In the trial which followed the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses as PWs 1 to 7. Exts.P1 to P10 were marked. The learned Magistrate after evaluation of the evidence

¶33

Crl.M.C. 4341/2013 3

¶34

adduced by judgment dated 6.11.2009 came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to bring home the guilt against the accused. None of the the prosecution witnesses had given any evidence to connect the accused with the crime. It was found that the prosecution had no case that the book of account kept in the course of business of the society was altered, mutilated or falsified by any of the accused persons so as to attract the offence under section 477 A of the IPC. The court below also noticed that the documents and registers including the audit report was kept away from the court, which conduct roused suspicion in the mind of the learned Magistrate.

¶35

6.The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the decision of this Court in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police (2006 (1) KLT 552), submitted that the substratum of the case of the prosecution has been shattered and no purpose would be served in directing the petitioner to undergo the ordeal of a trial.

¶36

7.The learned Public Prosecutor was also heard and I have gone through the materials on record.

¶37

Crl.M.C. 4341/2013

¶38

¶39

8.As rightly submitted by the learned counsel, the learned Magistrate had evaluated the materials in detail and came to the conclusion that the evidence tendered was sketchy and there was nothing to link the accused with the offence alleged. As held by a three Judge Bench of this Court in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police (2006 (1) KLT 552), though the reasoning of the judgment contained or appreciation of evidence in the case of a co-accused therein are not grounds to attract any relief under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a case where the substratum of the case is lost is an exception to the above rule.

¶40

9.I am of the firm view that no purpose is going to be served by directing the petitioner to face the trial at this stage. It can only be a futile exercise and will only serve to waste precious judicial time which can be used for more productive work. The prospects of conviction is extremely remote as no evidence of worth could be adduced by the prosecution during the previous trial. This Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code.

¶41

Crl.M.C. 4341/2013

¶42

¶43

10.In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-A final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner now pending as C.C. No.1641 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Muvattupuzha are quashed.

¶44

Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶45

vps 17.7.17

V.J.John v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.J.John 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinodkumar Vs State of Kerala

Reji.C.Moncy Vs the State of Kerala

Sugathan.R. Vs State of Kerala

Benny Paul P. Vs State of Kerala

Radhakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Vinu John Vs State of Kerala