Dismissed

Sri.G.Sasidharan v. the State of Kerala & Others

Kerala HC29 Nov 2023Crl.Rev.Pet/816/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Crl.Rev.Petition, the High Court refused to interfere with the acquittal of accused persons charged with corruption and forgery. The Court held that the Special Judge failed to find evidence of falsification and dismissed the revision as lacking merits based on established revisional principles.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Petition stands dismissed without any order of the day.

Sri.G.Sasidharan Vs the State of Kerala & Others — Corruption | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945

¶5

CRL.REV.PET NO. 816 OF 2009

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 39/2005 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER &
SPECIAL JUDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER:

¶8

SRI.G.SASIDHARAN
S/O.GANGADHARAN, PULLARATHALA MELEPUTHEN
VEEDU,PUNNAKADE, PERUMPZAHUTHOOR P.O.,NEYYATTINKARA.
BY ADV SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE STATE OF KERALA & OTHERS REP. BY THE DY.S.P., V.A.C.B.,, SOUTHERN RANGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶11

2 RAVEENDRAN FORMERLY SECRETARY PERUMPAZHUTHOOR HANDLOOM WEAVERS, CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD. NO.3422.

¶12

3 S.GOPALAKRISHNAN FORMERLY PRESIDENT, PERUMPAZHUTHOOR HANDLOOM WEAVERS CO-OP. SOCIETY, LTD. NO.3422.

¶13

4 SMT.RADHAMONY SENIOR INSPECTOR,TALUK INDUSTRIES OFFICE, NEYYATTINKARA.

¶14

BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SMT.REKHA SR.PP,
RAJESH A (SPL.G.P.VIGILANCE)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 29.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

CRL.REV.PET NO. 816 OF 2009

¶18

K.BABU, J.

¶19

CRL.REV.PET.No.816 of 2009

¶20

Dated this the 29^th day of November, 2023

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

The Challenge in this Crl.Rev. Petition is to the judgment dated 12.11.2008 passed by the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in C.C.No.39/2005. The defacto complainant is the Revision Petitioner.

¶23

The defacto complainant filed a complaint before the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge alleging the following:

¶24

Accused Nos.1 and 2 were working as Secretary and President respectively of Perumpazhuthoor Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society Ltd.No.3423, Chemparthivila, Neyyatiinkara during the period from 1995 to 1999. They were public servants. They entered into a criminal conspiracy with accused No.3, who was then working as Senior Inspector, Taluk Industries Office, Neyyattinkara for obtaining rebate subsidy for handloom cloths by illegal means and in pursuance of such criminal conspiracy they falsified the Invoice Register of the

¶25

¶26

CRL.REV.PET NO. 816 OF 2009

¶27

society showing inflated figures relating to production and incorporated names of non-existing persons and non weavers as members of the Society and based on the falsified and fabricated entries they claimed and had drawn an amount of Rs.62,860/- as rebate subsidy. Accused No.3 dishonestly concealed the real state of affairs and allowed the Society to obtain undue pecuniary advantage by illegal means causing loss to the Government. The accused thus committed offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d)of the P.C. Act, 1988 and Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code.

¶28

The learned Special Judge, forwarded the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau. The VACB registered a crime. After completing the investigation the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau submitted final report against the accused.

¶29

The accused appeared on summons. They denied having committed any offences as alleged. The court below proceeded with the trial. PWs 1 to 24 were examined and Exts.P1 to P46 were marked on the side of the prosecution. In the examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied

¶30

¶31

CRL.REV.PET NO. 816 OF 2009

¶32

the incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence. On the side of the accused, DWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exts.D1 and D2 were marked. The court below found the accused not guilty of the offences alleged and they were acquitted. The said judgment acquitting the accused is under challenge in this Criminal Revision Petition at the instance of the defacto complainant.

¶33

Heard both sides.

¶34

The prosecution case is essentially on the basis of the following allegations:-

¶35

(i) Accused Nos. 1 to 3 dishonestly entered into a criminal conspiracy for the purpose of obtaining rebate subsidy by illegal means and thereby obtained subsidy to the extent of Rs.62,860/- during the period 1995-96.

¶36

(ii) The accused in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy falsified and fabricated the invoice register of the Perumpazhutoor Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society for the period from 1995-96 by showing inflated figures of production and incorporating the names of non existing persons and non weavers as members.

¶37

¶38

CRL.REV.PET NO. 816 OF 2009

¶39

(iii) A3 dishonestly concealed the real state of affairs and allowed the Perumpazhuthoor Handloom Weavers Cooperative Society to obtain undue pecuniary advantage to the tune of Rs.62,860/- by illegal means and thus resulting in corresponding loss to the Government.

¶40

PW1 is the defacto complainant. PW1 gave evidence that he was a member of the society. He deposed that non-weavers’ claims were falsely incorporated to the invoice registers and bonus was granted to them. It is the case of PW1 that the names of many persons who were not in existance were included in the invoice registers as beneficiaries. PW2 was the Assistant Registrar Audit, Cooperative Department. The prosecution examined PWs 3 to 11, 16, 18 and 19 to establish that the claims made in their favour were false. PWs 3 to 11, 16, 18 and 19 were proved to be members of the Co-operative Society and that they were weavers. PW1 gave evidence to the effect that one Smt.Bhargavi, the mother-in-law of PW8, is not a weaver and claim was falsely made for and on behalf of her. The trial court noted that the evidence of PW2, who supported the prosecution, proved that Smt.Bhargavi was a

¶41

¶42

CRL.REV.PET NO. 816 OF 2009

¶43

weaver by profession. The trial court therefore rejected the solitary evidence of PW1 that Smt.Bhargavi was not a weaver and member of the Co-operative Society. The trial court has carefully gone through the oral evidence of PW1 and the other materials relied on by the prosecution and recorded a finding that the prosecution failed to bring forth any convincing evidence to show that any registers, records or bills were falsified, fabricated or forged by the accused so as to get the rebate claim of Rs.62,860/-. The trial court also had taken into account the fact that a sum of Rs.32,835/- obtained as rebate was utilized for purchasing yarn. It has also come out in evidence that the remaining amount of Rs.30,000/- was drawn by the Society on 08.02.2000 and utilized for paying wages to the labourers. On a careful analysis of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is to be concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the alleged offences.

¶44

There is nothing to show that the findings recorded by the Special Judge are perverse or the view taken by the Court is wholly unreasonable or there is non-

¶45

CRL.REV.PET NO. 816 OF 2009

¶46

¶47

consideration of any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records. The revisional power of court while exercising jurisdiction under Sections 397 to 401 Cr.P.C. was considered by the Apex court in Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke [(2015) 3 SCC 123] . The Apex court held that Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is nonconsideration of any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records, the Revisional Court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because another view is possible. The Revisional Court is not meant to act as an appellate court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. The revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 CrPC is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored

¶48

¶49

CRL.REV.PET NO. 816 OF 2009

¶50

or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction.

¶51

In the absence of any material to show that the findings recorded by the trial court are perverse or untenable in law or grossly erroneous, this Court is not expected to interfere with it. This Criminal Revision Petition lacks merits and it stands dismissed.

¶52

K.BABU, JUDGE

¶53

saap

Sri.G.Sasidharan v. the State of Kerala & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.G.Sasidharan v. the State of Kerala & Others

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

Elambilan Nani Amma, Vs Mulavana Antony, (Died Lrs Impleaded)

M.S.Jayaprakash Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Venkitagiri Vs State of Kerala

Thottasseri Venugopala Kurup & Others Vs Thottasseri Balakrishna Kurup,(Died) (Lrs Impleaded)

N. Sreekumar Vs State of Kerala

Prince Joy Vs State of Kerala