Dismissed

P.a.Dinesh Babu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Nov 2023Crl.MC/5926/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the petitioner's challenges regarding asset assessment and family inclusion are triable issues requiring evidence at trial. Consequently, the matter was not fit for quashing under Article 482 Cr.P.C., and the petition was dismissed, directing the trial court to proceed expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Miscellaneous Case was dismissed; the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter within six months.

P.a.Dinesh Babu Vs State of Kerala — Corruption | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

¶4

MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 29TH KARTHIKA,

¶5

¶6

CRL.MC NO. 5926 OF 2020

¶7

CRIME NO.2/2013 OF VACB, THRISSUR, Thrissur
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 3/2016 OF ENQUIRY
COMMISSIONER& SPECIAL JUDGE,THRISSUR

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶9

P.A.DINESH BABU
AGED 55 YEARS

¶10

JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, TIRURANGADI,
(S/O.APPU, RESIDING AT PARAKKATTU HOUSE,
AVINISSERI, ANAKKALLU, THRISSUR) (FORMER MOTOR
VEHICLE INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY
TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, NORTH ZONE KOZHIKODE).
BY ADVS.
P.SAMSUDIN
SRI.M.ANUROOP

¶11

RESPONDENT/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031.

¶13

2 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, SPECIAL CELL, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682017.

¶14

BY RAJESH A SPL GP VIGILANCE;REKHA SR PP

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 20.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Crl.M.C.No.5926 of 2020

¶17

..2..

¶18

K. BABU, J

¶19

Crl.M.C.No.5926 of 2020

¶20

Dated this the 20^th day of November, 2023

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The petitioner, the sole accused in C.C.No.3/2016 on the file of the Court of Enguiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Thrissur, seeks to quash the final report and all further proceedings pursuant to it.

¶23

The petitioner faces charge under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. The petitioner was employed as Motor Vehicles Inspector in the office of the Deputy Transport Commissioner, North Zone, Kozhikode.

¶24

The prosecution case is that, during the check period from 01.12.2004 to 09.01.2013, the petitioner acquired assets worth Rs.70,21,823.38+360.100gms of gold ornaments and incurred expenditure to the tune of Rs.26,02,671.26 making a total of Rs.96,24,494.64

¶25

Crl.M.C.No.5926 of 2020

¶26

..3..

¶27

+360.100gms of gold ornaments, whereas his known source of income during the above period was Rs.66,87,369.75/- and thus as on 09.01.2013, he was found to be in possession of pecuniary resources and properties worth Rs.29,37,124.89 disproportionate to his known sources of income, which is 43.92% more than his known source of income+360.100gms of gold ornaments, for which he could not satisfactorily account for.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader (Vigilance).

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the charge on the following grounds:-

¶30

(1)The Vigilance has included the income acquired by the petitioner’s mother and wife as the assets of the petitioner at the end of the check period.

¶31

(2)The Investigating agency has not included the assets the petitioner had prior to the check period.

¶32

(3)While assessing the value of the residential building owned by the petitioner, the investigating agency has not

¶33

..4..

¶34

Crl.M.C.No.5926 of 2020

¶35

considered the date of construction of the same.

¶36

The learned Special Government Pleader submits that the challenges raised by the petitioner are only triable issues and they cannot be considered while dealing with the question whether the final report is to be quashed or not.

¶37

The assets of the petitioner at the beginning of the check period as assessed by the Investigating Agency is Rs.1,79,623.18 +156 gms of gold ornaments. The Investigating Agency assessed the assets of the petitioner at the end of the check period as Rs.72,01,446.56+516gms of gold ornaments. The petitioner acquired Rs.66,87,369.75 as income during the check period. The investigating agency assessed the expenditure during the check period as Rs.26,02,671.26. Therefore, the conclusion of the Investigating Agency is that the acquired assets of the petitioner is Rs.70,21,823.38+360.100 gms of gold ornaments. The income disproportionate to his known sources of income

¶38

..5..

¶39

Crl.M.C.No.5926 of 2020

¶40

is assessed as Rs.29,37,124.89+360.100 grams of gold ornaments.

¶41

The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Annexure-A24, a copy of the valuation report of the residential building owned by the petitioner, produced along with the charge sheet. The learned counsel submits that the date of commencement of the construction of the residential building has not been recorded in the report and therefore the value of the building assessed by the Investigating Agency may not reflect the true value of the building. It is further submitted that the prosecution could not produce any material to show that the building was constructed during the check period. It is further submitted that a series of assets owned by the petitioner prior to the check period were also included as the assets acquired by him in the check period. The learned counsel submits that the vehicles owned by petitioner’s wife are also included as assets of the petitioner. The learned Special Government

¶42

..6..

¶43

Crl.M.C.No.5926 of 2020

¶44

Pleader submits that even if the grounds noted by the petitioner are accepted, the total assets shown as disproportionate to his known assets would come around Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs for which the petitioner could not satisfactorily account for. The learned Special Government Pleader further submits that the questions raised by the petitioner are only to be considered during the trial and at this stage, this Court is not in a position to consider the veracity of the evidence collected and produced by the prosecution. The learned Special Government Pleader relied on State through Deputy Superintendent of Police v. R. Soundirarasu [2022 KHC 6920] and State of M.P. v. Virender Kumar Tripathi [2009 KHC 6147] in support of his contentions.

¶45

The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Natesan T.G. v. Dy. Supdt of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau [2012(4) KHC 64] to substantiate his contentions. Relying on Natesan T.G., the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

¶46

Crl.M.C.No.5926 of 2020

¶47

..7..

¶48

prosecution has to establish that the members of his family, including wife and mother, own the assets for and on behalf of the petitioner. In the absence of any material to show that the other members of his family hold the assets for and on behalf of the petitioner, the same cannot be used to conclude that he has acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.

¶49

In R. Soundirarasu (Supra), the Apex Court held that it is for the prosecution to establish that the accused was in possession of properties disproportionate to his known sources of income, but the term “known sources of income” would mean the sources known to the prosecution and not the sources known to the accused and within the exclusive knowledge of the accused. The Apex Court held that it is for the accused to account satisfactorily for the money/assets in his hands. The Apex Court held that those questions are triable issues and the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 is not expected to go into the veracity of those rival

¶50

..8..

¶51

Crl.M.C.No.5926 of 2020

¶52

issues. In State of M.P. v. Virender Kumar Tripathi , on the non-exclusion of certain alleged income of the relatives, the Apex Court held that these are matters of evidence and the High Court cannot consider those aspects while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶53

I am of the considered view that the issues projected by the petitioner, that is some of the assets he had acquired prior to the check period were not taken into account and the prosecution has not produced any materials to show that the petitioner’s relatives including wife and mother possess certain assets for and on behalf of him, are to be considered at the time of trial. The petitioner is at liberty to produce evidence in support of his contentions. This Court finds that this is not a fit case where this Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Article 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the final report. Therefore, the Crl.M.C. lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed.

¶54

The Trial Court shall dispose of the matter as

¶55

Crl.M.C.No.5926 of 2020

¶56

..9..

¶57

expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period not less than six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. It is made clear that the trial Court is at liberty to approach this Court seeking extension of time, if required.

¶58

Sd/- K.BABU, JUDGE

¶59

kkj

¶60

Crl.M.C.No.5926 of 2020

¶61

..10..

¶62

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5926/2020

¶63

`PETITION`	`ER ANNE`	`XURES`
`ANNEXURE`	`A1`	`CERTIFIED COPY OF` `VC 02/2013 OF THE` `ERNAKULAM DATED 7`	`THE FIR AND FIS IN` `VACB SPECIAL CELL` `.1.2013.`
`Annexure`	`A24`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `DATED 09-10-2013` `BUILDING OF THE P`	`VALUATION CERTIFICATE` `OF THE RESIDENTIAL` `ETITIONER`
`ANNEXURE`	`A2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `STATEMENT SUBMITT`	`SPECIAL PROPERTY` `ED BY THE PETITIONER.`
`ANNEXURE`	`A3`	`CERTIFIED COPY OF` `VC 02/2013 OF THE` `ERNAKULAM DATED 3`	`THE FINAL REPORT IN` `VACB SPECIAL CELL` `.1.2016.`
`ANNEXURE`	`A4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `ISSUED BY THE SEC` `SERVICE CO-OP BAN`	`FIXED DEPOSIT DETAILS` `RETARY AVINISSERI` `K.`
`ANNEXURE`	`A5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `ISSUED BY THE PUN`	`FIXED DEPOSIT DETAILS` `JAB NATIONAL BANK.`
`ANNEXURE`	`A6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `ISSUED BY SECRETA` `OP BANK.`	`FIXED DEPOSIT DETAILS` `RY URAKOM SERVICE CO-`
`ANNEXURE`	`A7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `SCHEME (A/C NO.16` `SERVICE CO-OP BAN`	`MONTHLY DEPOSIT` `9) IN AVINISSERI` `K.`
`ANNEXURE`	`A8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `SCHEME (A/C NO.19` `SERVICE CO-OP BAN`	`MONTHLY DEPOSIT` `24) IN AVINISSERI` `K.`
`ANNEXURE`	`A9`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `A/C NO.537.`	`KSFE SUGAMA DEPOSIT`
`ANNEXURE`	`A10`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `UNION BANK OF IND`	`SB A/C NO.9323 IN` `IA.`
`ANNEXURE`	`A11`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `SCHEME (A/C NO.20` `SERVICE CO-OP BAN`	`MONTHLY DEPOSIT` `) IN AVINISSERI` `K.`
`ANNEXURE`	`A12`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `A/C NO.218.`	`KSFE SUGAMA DEPOST`
`ANNEXURE`	`A13`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `SCHEME (A/C NO.54` `SERVICE CO-OP BAN`	`MONTHLY DEPOSIT` `) IN AVINISSERI` `K.`

¶64

..11..

¶65

Crl.M.C.No.5926 of 2020

¶66

`ANNEXURE A14`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `NO.2971 OF AVINIS` `BANK.`	`PASS BOOK IN A/C` `SERI SERVICE CO-OP`
`ANNEXURE A15`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `PARTICULARS OF TH` `2727.`	`REGISTRATION` `E VEHICLE KL-08-W`
`ANNEXURE A16`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `PARTICULARS OF TH` `3788.`	`REGISTRATION` `E VEHICLE KL-08-P`
`ANNEXURE A17`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `NO.5043/1/2004 (E` `SHEET).`	`DOCUMENT` `B-28(A) IN THE CHARGE`
`ANNEXURE A18`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `(EXB-28(D) IN THE`	`DOCUMENT NO.3484/2004` `CHARGE SHEET).`
`ANNEXURE A19`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `INDUS MOTORS COCH` `REPORT).`	`LEDGER ACCOUNT OF` `IN (EXBT-26 IN FINAL`
`ANNEXURE A20`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `FROM TVS TO INSPE` `(EXBT 27 IN FINAL`	`E-MAIL COMMUNICATION` `CTOR OF VIGILANCE` `REPORT).`
`ANNEXURE A21`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `OF GOLD ORNAMENTS` `REPORT).`	`SALE INVOICE FOR SALE` `(EXBT-14 IN FINAL`
`ANNEXURE A22`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `4(III) IN THE FIN`	`SEARCH MAHASAR (EXBT-` `AL REPORT).`
`ANNEXURE A23`	`CERTIFIED OF THE` `22.11.2018 IN CC` `COURT OF ENQUIRY` `SPECIAL JUDGE THR`	`ORDER DATED` `NO.03/2016 OF THE` `COMMISSIONER AND` `ISSUR.`

P.a.Dinesh Babu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.a.Dinesh Babu 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

The Punnamoodu Handloom Weavers Co-Operative Society Limited No.H 179, Vs State of Kerala

Kuriakose Vs Shaji

Peter Vs Kuriakose

Saiby Jose Kidangoor Vs the State Police Chief

V.C.Haridasan Vs State of Kerala

K.G Stephena Vs State of Kerala