Quashed

V.I.Thankappan, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Jan 2019Crl.MC/193/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Crl. MC. No. 193 of 2019, the High Court of Kerala disposed of a petition filed by an accused in a corruption case aggrieved by a lower court observation requiring him to produce original documents. The Court held that since the documents were released upon furnishing a bank guarantee, the lower court's observation implying a mandatory direction to produce originals was incorrect and unnecessar

What did the court decide?

Modified the observation in the impugned order removing the implication of a direction to produce original documents.

V.I.Thankappan, Vs State of Kerala — Corruption | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2019/1ST MAGHA, 1940

¶5

Crl.MC.No.193 of 2019

¶6

ORDER IN Crl.M.P.899/2015 IN CC 33/2011 of ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPL.JUDGE, THRISSUR DATED 22.1.2016 ORDER IN Crl.M.C.3294/2016 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 7.10.2016

¶7

ORDER IN Crl.M.P.198/2017 IN C.C.33/2011 OF THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE, THRISSUR DATED 29.4.2017

¶8

---------------

¶9

PETITIONER/ACCUSED :-

¶10

V.I.THANKAPPAN, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.IYPE, VADAKKEPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHAKKAMTHARA, GANDHINAGAR, PALAKKAD.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR SMT.V.SHYLAJA

¶12

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE :-

¶13

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM – 682 031.

¶14

2 SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU SPECIAL CELL, ERNAKULAM – 682 011.

¶15

BY SRI.A.RAJESH (SPL.PP FOR VACB)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.MC.No.193/2019

-: 2 :-

O R D E R

The petitioner herein is the accused in

¶21

C.C.33/2011 of the Special Court (Vigilance), Thrissur. He has been facing charge under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (the PC Act)(as it stood prior to the amendment of 2018). During the investigation process, some vehicle documents and also the petitioner's title deed relating to a property were seized by the Investigating Officer. He approached the trial court with Crl.M.P.899/2015 with a prayer to release the documents. On 22.1.2016, the learned trial Judge ordered to release the documents on condition that the petitioner shall furnish bank guarantee for Rs.10 lakhs. The said order was modified by this Court as per the order dated 7.10.2016 in Crl.M.C.3294/2016, reducing the amount

¶22

of bank guarantee to Rs.5 lakhs. Later, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.198/2017 before the trial court for a clarification as to in whose favour the

¶23

Crl.MC.No.193/2019

¶24

-: 3 :-

¶25

bank guarantee should be furnished. The learned

¶26

trial Judge passed orders on 29.4.2017 in the said application clarifying that the bank guarantee shall

¶27

be furnished in favour of the State of Kerala represented by the District Collector, Thrissur. In paragraph 6 of the said order, the learned trial Judge has recorded that during enquiry, the learned counsel for the petitioner had volunteered that the petitioner would produce certified copies of the document, and that he would produce the originals as and when required by the court. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said observation, which may later be interpreted as a direction to produce the documents.

¶28

In the first order releasing the documents, the court has not made such a direction. The documents have been ordered to be released on furnishing bank guarantee. The petitioner has already furnished bank guarantee as modified by this Court. Of course, if the court requires the original documents later, the court can make such a direction.

¶29

That is within the powers of the court. At this

¶30

Crl.MC.No.193/2019

¶31

stage, there is no necessity of directing the

¶32

petitioner to produce the original documents. Such a direction, if felt necessary, can be made subject to the result of the trial. To that extent, the said

¶33

observation will stand modified.

¶34

This Crl.M.C. is disposed of as above.

Sd/P.UBAID JUDGE

Jvt/21.1.2019

Crl.MC.No.193/2019

-: 5 :-

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :-

¶41

ANNEXURE-A	THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED BEARING NO.3528/2003 OF CHITTOOR SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE.
ANNEXURE-B	TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED BEARING NO.1340/2004 OF CHITTOR SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE.
ANNEXURE-C	TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED BEARING NO.1341/2004 OF CHITTOR SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE.
ANNEXURE-D	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL. MP NO. 899/15 IN CC 33/11 ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SUB JUDGE, THRISSUR, DATED 22/01/2016.
ANNEXURE-F	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL MC NO.3294/2016 BEFORE HIGH COURT OF KEALA DATED 07/10/2016.
ANNEXURE-G	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL. MP NO.198/17 IN CC 33/11 BEFORE THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, THRISSUR DATED 29/04/2017.

¶42

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES :- NIL

¶43

//TRUE COPY//

¶44

P.A. TO JUDGE

V.I.Thankappan, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.I.Thankappan, 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

Thulasidharan Vs Jayasingh

Raju Vs State of Kerala

Sundaran Vs State of Kerala

Omanakuttan Vs S.I of Police, Paravoor

Shajimon Vs State of Kerala

Sivanandi Vs State of Kerala