Dismissed

P. Aboobacker Haji v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC29 May 2023Crl.Rev.Pet/3390/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment is a criminal revision petition challenging an order dismissing a complaint under the Prevention of Corruption Act and Indian Penal Code. The High Court found the impugned order meritorious and lacking merit for interference, refusing the revision.

What did the court decide?

None; the criminal revision petition was dismissed as it did not warrant interference with the impugned order.

P. Aboobacker Haji Vs State of Kerala — Corruption | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 8TH JYAISHTA, 1945

¶5

CRL.REV.PET NO. 3390 OF 2004

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CRL.M.P.75/2004 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE,KOZHIKODE.

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT :

¶8

P. ABOOBACKER HAJI
S/O.SEEMAMU HAJI, DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION),
HILL TOP PUBLIC SCHOOL, PUTHIYARA, KOZHIKODE.
BY ADV SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM

¶9

RESPONDENTS/STATE & ACCUSED 1 AND 2, 4 TO 6 AND 3 :

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶11

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

¶12

2 K.P.VASU

¶13

RETIRED TAHSILDAR (LAND REFORMS),
KIZHAKKEPAT HOUSE, P.O. ERANHIPALAM,
NEAR PASSPORT OFFICE, CALICUT-20.

¶14

3 K.ABOOBACKER DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (LAND ACQUISITION), RAILWAY, CIVIL STATION, CALICUT-20 (FORMERLY WORKING AS, SPECIAL REVENUE INSPECTOR, LAND REFORMS, KOZHIKODE DURING 1997).

¶15

4 K.P.VINOD S/O. BHASKARAN KIZHAKKEPAT HOUSE, P.O. ERANHIPALAM, NEAR PASSPORT OFFICE, CALICUT-20.

¶16

5 K.V.SANKARANARAYANAN S/O. NARAYANAN NAIR, P.O. PALLIPARAMBU, CHELEMBRA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶17

6 K.P.MUSTAFFA, S/O. KILIYANNI ABU P.O. THIRUVAMBADI, VIA. THAMARASSERY.

¶18

7 K.P.BHASKARAN KIZHAKKEPAT HOUSE, P.O. CIVIL STATION, CALICUT-20. BY ADVS. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR C.N.PRABHAKARAN SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR.)

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 29.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶20

CRL.REV.PET NO. 3390 OF 2004

¶21

¶22

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J

¶23

......…..................................

¶24

Crl.R.P.No.3390 of 2004

¶25

…..................................

¶26

Dated this the 29^th day of May, 2023

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Petitioner is the complainant in Crl.M.P.No.75/2004 on the

¶29

files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Court, Kozhikode. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the aforesaid petition, by order dated 03.03.2004, this revision petition has been preferred.

¶30

Petitioner herein is the Director of a public school. Accused

¶31

Nos.1 and 2 are the Government servants, who had allegedly manipulated revenue records relating to 10 cents of property

¶32

purchased by the school and utilized those manipulated records to obtain certificates of purchase in their name and thereby committed various offences under the provisions of

¶33

the Prevention of Corruption Act and under the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶34

The Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode;

¶35

noticed that the certificate of purchase allegedly obtained by

¶36

CRL.REV.PET NO. 3390 OF 2004

¶37

¶38

accused Nos.3 to 6 had not been set aside and also that these certificates of purchase issued by the Land Tribunal was never questioned before any competent court, found them to be prima facie valid. It was also observed that the first accused

¶39

was the Land Tribunal at the relevant time and the second accused was the Revenue Inspector and that gazette publications, which are mandatory before issuing certificates of purchase also would have been carried out. Noticing that the complainant had no case that the certificates of purchase were issued without making a gazette publication. After finding that the certificate of purchase issued by the Land Tribunal cannot be presumed to be vitiated by illegality especially since the same was not challenged before any competent authority, the Enquiry Commissioner found that

¶40

the complaint was devoid of merit and not sufficient to proceed further.

¶41

On an appreciation of the contentions raised and also considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of

¶42

CRL.REV.PET NO. 3390 OF 2004

¶43

¶44

the view that the impugned order does not warrant any

¶45

interference.

¶46

Hence, I find no merit in this criminal revision petition, and

it is dismissed.

sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

JUDGE

AMV/01/06/2023

P. Aboobacker Haji v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Aboobacker Haji 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

Shafeeque Vs State of Kerala

Umaiba Vs Abdul Nazeer @ Rasheed

Liju Vs State of Kerala

K.v.George Vs State of Kerala

K.Prahladan Vs Babu

Muralledharan Pillai Vs State of Kerala