Allowed

Sijo Mathew v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Feb 2018Crl.MC/671/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the order taking cognizance by the Special Judge against the petitioners accused of corruption offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC. The Court held that there was no evidence of acceptance of illegal gratification and no material to show misconduct under the relevant sections.

What did the court decide?

Annexure-IV order dated 25/11/2014 taking cognizance and all further proceedings against petitioners in C.C.No.51/2014 are quashed.

Sijo Mathew Vs State of Kerala — Corruption | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶3

TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1939

¶4

Crl.MC.No. 671 of 2018 CC 51/2014 of ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPL.JUDGE,THRISSUR CRIME NO. 10/2012 OF VACB, THRISSUR

¶5

PETITIONER(S)

¶6

1 SIJO MATHEW AGED 34 YEARS, MULLAKKARA HOUSE, VENDOOR P.O., ALAGAPPA NAGAR, THRISSUR.

¶7

2 SIJIL GEORGE AGED 35 YEARS, KALLINGAL HOUSE, VARAKKARA P.O., MANNAMPETTA, THRISSUR.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY SRI.D.FEROZE

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031 (VC NO.1012 OF VACB, THRISSUR) 2. FEBIN K. XAVIER S/O.K.K.XAVIER, KOONAMPLAVU HOUSE, P.O.THALORE, THRISSUR 680 306.

¶11

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. E.C. BINEESH FOR VACB

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-02-2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

Crl.MC.No. 671 of 2018 ()

¶14

APPENDIX

¶15

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶16

ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN VC NO.10/2012 OC VACB, THRISSUR ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN VC NO.10/2012 OF VACB, THRISSUR ANNEXURE III CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PROTEST COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ANNEXURE IV ORDER TAKING COGNIZANCE BY THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, THRISSUR, VIDE ORDER DATED 25/11/2014 ANNEXURE V TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL NO.1491/OLR/07-08 DATED 3801/16/1/2008 PASSED BY THE FIRST ACCUSED ANNEXURE VI TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27/07/2016 IN CRL.M.C NO.7909/15 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT ANNEXURE VII TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN CRL.M.C NO.1556/2016 AND 359/2017 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT

¶17

/TRUE COPY/

¶18

P.S. TO JUDGE

¶19

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶20

Crl.M.C. No. 671 of 2018

¶21

Dated this the 20^th day of February, 2018

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The petitioners are accused Nos.2 and 4 in C.C.No.51/2014 on the files of the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Thrissur.

¶24

The above case arose out of a private complaint filed by the second respondent herein alleging the offences under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 120B and 193 r/w Section 34 IPC.

¶25

The allegations in the complaint can be briefly stated as follows:-

¶26

On 23.08.2007, the Anti Power Theft Squad of Kerala State Electricity Board, Ollur, Electrical Section inspected the institution, namely, 'Miracle Gents and

¶27

Crl.M.C. No. 671 of 2018

¶28

-: 2 :-

¶29

Kids Beauty Parlour' and detected theft of electricity to the tune of Rs.2,02,260/- by committing alteration in the meter. The said building belonged to the 5th accused. Accused Nos.2 and 3 were the tenants in the said building. The second accused filed appeal against the said order before the first accused. The first accused as per order dated 16.01.2008 in G.B./Appeal/1491OLR/07-08 directed to issue a fresh bill. According to the second respondent, as per the above said order, the first accused granted a reduction of Rs.87,622/- from the bill amount given by the Anti Power Theft Squad, by misusing his official position as a public servant.

¶30

On the said allegations, the second respondent herein filed a complaint before the learned Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Thrissur. The learned Special Judge directed the Director, VACB, Trivandrum to conduct a preliminary enquiry. After preliminary enquiry, the Director, VACB, Trivandrum filed a report before the court, recommending no action. Thereafter, the learned Special Judge directed the Director, VACB, Trivandrum to register the crime and

¶31

Crl.M.C. No. 671 of 2018

¶32

-: 3 :-

¶33

investigate. Accordingly, Crime No.VC 10/12/TSR was registered. After completing the investigation, the final report was filed before the court treating the case as 'further action dropped'. Thereafter, the second respondent herein filed a protest complaint. The learned Special Judge after recording the sworn statement of the complainant and two other witnesses and considering the materials produced by the complainant, took cognizance for the offence under Section 13(1) (d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 120B and 193 r/w Section 34 IPC and issued process against the accused.

¶34

Aggrieved by the above said order of the learned Special Judge taking cognizance of the offences mentioned above, this Crl.M.C has been filed.

¶35

Service is complete. However there is no appearance for the second respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Special Public Prosecutor.

¶36

Crl.M.C. No. 671 of 2018

¶37

-: 4 :-

¶38

I have gone through the complaint and the sworn statement of the complainant. It is stated in the complaint that the first accused by reducing an amount of Rs.87,622/- from the bill amount given by the Anti Power Theft Squad, caused wrongful gain to the second and the third accused without having any public interest. However, there is absolutely no allegation that the first accused had accepted any illegal gratification from accused Nos.2 and 3 for granting the said order. As per SRO No.250/2005, the Deputy Chief Engineer of Electrical Circle concerned was designated by the Government of Kerala with the powers under Section 127(1) of the Electricity Act to act as appellate authority for the purpose of appeal under Section 127 of the Act. There can be no doubt that the appellate authority is vested with the power to reduce the amount imposed by the Anti Power Theft Squad, on the basis of evidence. It is not disputed that the order passed by the appellate authority is not yet challenged.

¶39

It is borne out from the records that the investigation conducted by the Vigilance and Anti-

¶40

Crl.M.C. No. 671 of 2018

¶41

-: 5 :-

¶42

Corruption Bureau, Thrissur revealed that no material could be collected to indicate the misconduct as contemplated under Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. No material could also be collected during the course of investigation to attract the ingredients of the other offences alleged against the accused persons. At this juncture, it may be noted that this Court had already quashed the proceedings against accused Nos. 1, 3 and 5 vide separate orders.

¶43

Having gone through the relevant inputs, I am satisfied that there is absolutely no material before the court to take cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 13(1) (d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 120B and 193 r/w Section 34 IPC. In other words, the materials produced by the complainant and the statement of witnesses are not at all sufficient to constitute the ingredients of the above said offences. In the said circumstances, the taking of cognizance for the above said offences by the court below, on the basis of the materials supplied by the complainant, cannot be said to

¶44

Crl.M.C. No. 671 of 2018

¶45

-: 6 :-

¶46

be legal, proper and correct. This being the situation, it is necessary to quash Annexure-IV order dated 25.11.2014 and further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.51/2014, in exeercise of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice. It is ordered accordingly.

¶47

In the result, this Crl.M.C. stands allowed and Annexure-IV order dated 25.11.2014 and all further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.51/2014 on the files of the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Thrissur stand quashed.

¶48

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶49

ani/

Sijo Mathew v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sijo Mathew 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

M.Sudarsana B Holla Vs State of Kerala

Annamma P.Daniel Vs Sml Finance Limited

Sreeram Vs Nowfal

Lubaina .J Vs Inspector of Police

Mohammed Abdul Hameed Vs M/S Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd.

Ambilimol Vs Station House Officer