Dismissed

K.G Stephena v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Nov 2023Crl.MC/9605/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging the framing of charges, the Kerala High Court held that the Special Court acted correctly. Finding no material to interfere, the bench dismissed the petition and refused to quash the charges under Section 482 Cr.P.C., directing the trial to complete within six months.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal M.C. stands dismissed; the trial court is directed to complete the trial within six months.

K.G Stephena 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, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 9605 OF 2022

¶5

CRIME NO.10/2008 OF VACB, KOLLAM, Kollam

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 6/2015 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER &
SPECIAL JUDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

K.G STEPHENA
AGED 65 YEARS
W/O GEORGE RESIDING AT KOTTAPPURATHU HOUSE,SHOORANTHODU
KAVANADU .P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691003
BY ADVS.
M.KIRANLAL
R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
MANU RAMACHANDRAN
SAMEER M NAIR
GEETHU KRISHNAN
SAILAKSHMI MENON

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031

¶11

2DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, KOLLAM UNIT,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691013

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

RAJESH A,SPL GP VIGILANCE;REKHA SR PP

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

CRL.MC NO. 9605 OF 2022

¶17

K.BABU, J .

¶18

Crl.M.C.No.9605 of 2022

¶19

Dated this the 20^th day of November, 2023

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1 in C.C. No.6/2015 on the file of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. He faces charges under Section 13(1) (c) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 420, 468 and 471 r/w Section 120 B of the IPC.

¶22

The Prosecution case is as follows:-

¶23

On 01.12.2003, accused No.3 submitted 35 forged applications for granting educational concession which was intended for parallel college students who belong to Scheduled Castes and Other Eligible Communities. The applications were forwarded to the District Scheduled Caste Development Office by the then Chavara Block Panchayat Scheduled Caste Development Officer. The amount sanctioned was ordered to be distributed to the eligible students. A specific order was given by the District Scheduled Caste Development Officer to the first accused that the amount shall be disbursed to the students

¶24

¶25

CRL.MC NO. 9605 OF 2022

¶26

only in the presence of a representative from the District Office and that the original eligibility certificate, hall ticket and mark list etc. in respect of the students shall be verified at the time of disbursing the amount. However, the first and the second accused, hatched a conspiracy with the third accused and disbursed an amount of Rs.1,55,515/- to the third accused, without verifying the details regarding the students who were eligible to get the amount and without ascertaining their identity. Thus, they allowed the third accused to get undue pecuniary advantage. Therefore, it is alleged that the accused committed the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120B of the I.P.C..

¶27

The petitioner filed an application for discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Code’) before the Special Court. As per order dated 29.04.2021, the Special Court dismissed that application. The petitioner challenged this order In Crl.R.P.No.416/2021 before this Court. This Court as per order dated 03.09.2021 allowed the revision petition and directed the Special Judge to consider

¶28

¶29

CRL.MC NO. 9605 OF 2022

¶30

the application seeking discharge afresh and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law.

¶31

The learned Special Judge considered the application for discharge afresh pursuant to the direction of this Court in Crl.R.P.No.416/2021 and rejected the same. The petitioner again challenged the order rejecting the application seeking discharge by filing Crl.R.P.No.761/2021. This Court as per order dated 22.02.2022, after elaborately considering the contentions on both sides, recorded the finding that there is no illegality in the findings arrived at by the Court below. This Court specifically held that the discharge application was rightly dismissed by the Court below. After that, the Trial Court framed charges against the petitioner as per order dated 06.06.2022. The order framing charges is now under challenge in this Criminal M.C.

¶32

At the time of admission, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the relevant period the petitioner was not employed as a public servant in the office concerned and based on that submission, this Court admitted the criminal M.C. and granted an interim order directing the

¶33

¶34

CRL.MC NO. 9605 OF 2022

¶35

Court below to wait till 31.01.2023 for scheduling the case for trial.

¶36

In view of the dismissal of the revision petition filed by the petitioner on 22.02.2022 this Court is not in a position to entertain any of the arguments other than the question whether the petitioner was a public servant at the relevant time.

¶37

The learned Senior Public Prosecutor submitted that the materials produced by the Vigilance would show that during the relevant time the petitioner was employed as Block Level officer of the Scheduled Caste Development Department. The prosecution also produced documents showing that the District Development Officer has entrusted the petitioner to ensure the genuiness of the applications submitted by various students. The prosecution produced relevant materials to show that the petitioner was employed as a public servant as alleged by the prosecution at the relevant time. The petitioner failed to produce anything to refute the pleadings of the prosecution. It is relevant to note that the obligation to discharge the accused under Section 239 Cr.P.C. arises when the Magistrate/Special

¶38

¶39

CRL.MC NO. 9605 OF 2022

¶40

Judge considers the charge against the accused to be groundless that is, there is no legal evidence or when the facts are such that no offence is made out at all and no detailed evaluation of the materials or meticulous consideration of the possible defences need be undertaken at this stage nor any exercise of weighing materials in golden scales is to be undertaken.

¶41

At the stage of framing charge or while considering a petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.PC seeking to quash the charges, the Court is required to consider the records of the case and documents to satisfy that there is ground for proceeding against the accused. At this stage, the Court is expected only to examine the materials with a view to be satisfied that a prima facie commission of the offence alleged has been made out against the accused [vide: Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation [(2010) 9 SCC 368], State through Central Bureau of Investigation v. Dr Anup Kumar Srivastava [AIR 2017 SCC 3698], Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and another [(2012) 9 SCC 460], State of Madhya Pradesh v. Virender Kumar Tripathi [(2009) 15

¶42

¶43

CRL.MC NO. 9605 OF 2022

¶44

SCC 533].

¶45

In the present case, I find no material to interfere with the order framing charges by the Special Court. This court would not be justified in invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charges. Therefore, the Criminal M.C. lacks merits and it stands dismissed. The trial court is directed to complete the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is

¶46

made clear that the trial court is at liberty to approach this Court seeking extension of time, if required.

¶47

Sd/K.BABU, JUDGE

¶48

saap

¶49

CRL.MC NO. 9605 OF 2022

¶50

¶51

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 9605/2022

¶52

PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
06.06.2022 IN C.C. NO. 6/2015 OF ENQUIRY
COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶53

Annexure A2A TRUE COY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 10/2008
OF THE VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION
BUREAU, KOLLAM DATED 05.11.2008
Annexure A3A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.07.2004
OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DIRECTOR OF
SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Annexure A4A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF TRANSFER OF
CHARGES DATED 07.07.2004
Annexure A5A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 04.08.2004
Annexure A6A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE
PRINCIPAL OF THE AXIS COLLEGE DATED
01.12.2003
Annexure A7A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.08.2004
PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE
ASSISTANT DISTRICT SCHEDULED CASTE
DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
Annexure A8A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07.03.2005
Annexure A9A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY
VIGILANCE DATED 13.10.2008 AND TYPED COPY
OF THE SAME
Annexure A10A TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF OFFICERS SENT
TO THE C.I. OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI-
CORRUPTION BUREAU DATED 04.12.2008
Annexure A11A TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME
NO. 10/2008
Annexure A12A TRUE COPY OF THE 161 STATEMENTS OF THE
WITNESSES RELIED ON BY THE VIGILANCE JUDGE

¶54

//True copy//PA to Judge

K.G Stephena v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.G Stephena 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

P.a.Dinesh Babu Vs State of Kerala