Dismissed

Sreeprakash.B., v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Mar 2024Crl.MC/6570/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged FIRs alleging corruption and bribery regarding illegal vehicle registration alterations. The Court held that allegations disclosed cognizable offences and refused to quash proceedings, allowing investigation to continue.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's prayer to quash the First Information Reports was rejected. Criminal Miscellaneous Cases stood dismissed.

Sreeprakash.B., Vs State of Kerala — Money Laundering | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1945

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 6570 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.5/2021 OF VACB, THRISSUR, Thrissur

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

SREEPRAKASH.B.,
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, VENATTU HOUSE,
KANDIYOOR, THATTARAMBALAM P.O., MAVELIKKARA,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 690 103.

¶9

BY ADVS.
S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
P.MARTIN JOSE
P.PRIJITH
THOMAS P.KURUVILLA
S.K.SAJU

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

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

¶12

2 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, THRISSUR 620 680.

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

RAJESH A SPL GP VIG..REKHA SR PP

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 15.03.2024, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.6575/2021, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

..2..

¶17

Crl,M.C.No.6570 & 6575 of 2021

¶18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶19

PRESENT

¶20

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

¶21

FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1945

¶22

CRL.MC NO. 6575 OF 2021

¶23

CRIME NO.06/2021 OF VACB, THRISSUR, Thrissur

¶24

PETITIONER/S:

¶25

SREEPRAKASH. B.,
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, VENATTU HOUSE,
KANDIYOOR, THATTARAMBALAM P.O., MAVELIKKARA,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
P.MARTIN JOSE
P.PRIJITH
THOMAS P.KURUVILLA
S.K.SAJU

¶26

RESPONDENT/S:

¶27

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

¶28

2 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, THRISSUR 620 680.

¶29

RAJESH A SPL GP VIG..REKHA SR PP

¶30

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD

¶31

ON 15.03.2024, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.6570/2021, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

Crl,M.C.No.6570 & 6575 of 2021

¶33

..3..

¶34

K. BABU, J

¶35

------------------------------------------------Crl M.C. Nos. 6570 & 6575 of 2021 ------------------------------------------------Dated this the 15^th day of March, 2024

¶36

O R D E R

¶37

The petitioner, a former Joint Regional Transport Officer is accused No.1 in FIR Nos. 5 of 2021 and 6 of 2021 of VACB, Thrissur. He is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 7(b) and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act for short) r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in FIR No.5/2021 and Sections 7(b) and 8(i) (ii) of the PC Act r/w Section 34 of the IPC in FIR No.6/2021. He seeks to quash FIR No.5/2021 in Crl M.C.No.6570 of 2021 and FIR No.6/2021 in Crl.M.C.No. 6575 of 2021.

¶38

Since the allegations in both the crimes are of the similar nature and the grounds urged are common, these Crl.M.Cs are analogously disposed of.

¶39

Prosecution case in FIR No.5/2021:-

¶40

Crl,M.C.No.6570 & 6575 of 2021

¶41

..4..

¶42

The petitioner while officiating as Joint Regional Transport Offier of Thrissur RTO dishonsestly issued the Registration Certificates of 32 prototype “open vehicles” altering the specifications cited in Sale Certificates (Form No.21), to “closed vehicles” violating Section 52(1) of the MV Act, the decision of the Apex Court in Regional Transport Officer v. K. Jayachandran [2019 KHC 6032] and Circular No.11036/06/2019 MVL dated 28/2/2019 by accepting bribe from Accused No.2, Tenny C.L. in between 25.04.2019 and 30.04.2019. The alteration of the vehicles was approved by the petitioner who was the registering authority even without collecting the fee for the alteration of the vehicles.

¶43

Prosecution case in FIR No.6/2021:-

¶44

The petitioner while officiating as Joint Regional Transport Offier of Thrissur RTO dishonsestly issued the registration certificates of 25 prototype “open vehicles” altering the specifications cited in Sale Certificates (Form

¶45

Crl,M.C.No.6570 & 6575 of 2021

¶46

..5..

¶47

Number-21), to “closed vehicles” violating Section 52(1) of the MV Act, the decision of the Apex Court in Regional Transport Officer v. K. Jayachandran [2019 KHC 6032] and Circular No.11036/06/2019 MVL dated 28/2/2019, by accepting bribe from Accused No.2, Sudhin C.M. through Sijith @ Kuttayi and Thomas in between 17.08.2019 and 18.12.2019. The alteration of the vehicles was approved by the petitioner who was the registering authority even without collecting the fee for the alteration of the vehicles.

¶48

The crux of the allegations is that the petitioner dishonestly issued Registration Certificate to 57 vehicles with prototype “open vehicle” altering the specifications cited in Form No.21 to “closed vehicle” after obtaining bribe from the owners of the vehicles in violation of Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the directions of the Supreme Court in Regional Transport Officer v. K.

¶49

Crl,M.C.No.6570 & 6575 of 2021

¶50

..6..

¶51

Jayachandran [2019 KHC 6032] and the circulars issued by the competent authority in this regard.

¶52

In FIR No.5/2021, the prosecution specifically alleges that the petitioner obtained bribe from Sri. Tenny C.L. (Accused No.2) and the alteration was approved by him without even collecting the fee for alteration of the vehicles. In FIR No.6/2021, the prosecution alleges that he received bribe from Sri. Sudhin C.M. and approved alteration without collecting fee for alteration of the vehicles.

¶53

Heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri. S. Sreekumar and the learned Special Government Pleader (Vigilance) Sri.A. Rajesh.

¶54

The learned Senior Counsel made the following submissions:-

¶55

(1)The vehicles were used as Cash Van for the purpose of transporting cash for bank and other financial institutions. There is no approved

¶56

Crl,M.C.No.6570 & 6575 of 2021

¶57

‘prototype’ for such vehicles. The only option available to the customers is to convert the commercial vehicles to Cash Van in accordance with the specifications stipulated by the Ministry of Home Affairs.

¶58

(2).There are only few manufacturers producing the vehicles adhering to the stipulations issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs. In order to accommodate five passengers, the vehicle must have dual cab.

¶59

(3)The ratio in Jayachandran’s case is not applicable to the present facts, as there is no material alteration leading to structural changes of the vehicles.

¶60

The learned Special Government Pleader made the following submissions:-

¶61

Crl,M.C.No.6570 & 6575 of 2021

¶62

..8..

¶63

(1)Many goods carrier vehicles altered in violation of Section 52(1) of the MV Act have been issued registration illegally.

¶64

(2)The specification of class of vehicle and type of body in the Form No.21 in respect of those vehicles are “Goods Carrier and Open” and the petitioner illegally issued Registration Certificates changing the class of vehicle and type of body to “Cash Van and Closed”.

¶65

(3)The petitioner issued registration certificates illegally to the vehicles by accepting bribe. (4) The investigating agency recorded statements of witnesses which would show that the petitioner had received bribe. The investigation of the case is in a preliminary stage and it is premature to seek a relief to quash the FIR.

¶66

Crl,M.C.No.6570 & 6575 of 2021

¶67

..9..

¶68

It is profitable to extract Section 52 of the

¶69

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which reads thus:-

¶70

“ 52. Alteration in motor vehicle. - (1) No owner of a motor vehicle shall so alter the vehicle that the particulars contained in the certificate of registration are at variance with those originally specified by the manufacturer:

¶71

Provided that where the owner of a motor vehicle makes modification of the engine, or any part thereof, of a vehicle for facilitating its operation by different type of fuel or source of energy including battery, compressed natural gas, solar power, liquid petroleum gas or any other fuel or source of energy, by fitment of a conversion kit, such modification shall be carried out subject to such conditions as may be prescribed:

¶72

Provided further that the Central Government may prescribe specifications, conditions for approval, retrofitment and other related matters for the alteration of motor vehicles and in such cases, the warranty granted by the manufacturer shall not be considered as void for the purposes of such alteration or retrofitment.

¶73

Provided also that the Central Government may grant exemption for alteration of vehicles in a manner other than specified above, for any specific purpose.

¶74

(1A) A manufacturer of a motor vehicle shall on the direction issued by the Central Government, alter or retrofit safety equipment, or any other equipment in

¶75

..10..

¶76

Crl,M.C.No.6570 & 6575 of 2021

¶77

accordance with such standards and specifications as may be specified by the Central Government.

¶78

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), any person may, with the subsequent approval of the registering authority, alter or cause to be altered any vehicle owned by him to be converted into an adapted vehicle:

¶79

Provided that such alteration complies with such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

¶80

(3) Where any alteration has been made in motor vehicle without the approval of registering authority[xxx], the owner of the vehicle shall, within fourteen days of the making of the alteration, report the alteration to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he resides and shall forward the certificate of registration to that authority together with the prescribed fee in order that particulars of registration may be entered therein.

¶81

(4) A registering authority other than the original registering authority making any such entry shall communicate the details of the entry to the original registering authority.

¶82

(5) Subject to the provisions made under sub-sections ( 1 ), ( 2 ), ( 3 ) and ( 4 ), no person holding a vehicle under a hire-purchase agreement shall make any alteration to the vehicle except with the written consent of the registered owner.

¶83

Crl,M.C.No.6570 & 6575 of 2021

¶84

..11..

¶85

Explanation .--For the purposes of this section, "alteration" means a change in the structure of a vehicle which results in a change in its basic feature.

¶86

The very object of Section 52(1) amended by Act 27 of 2000 is to prohibit alteration of a vehicle as provided including the change of tyres of higher capacity.

¶87

The provision has specified the extent to which vehicle cannot be altered. The provision makes it clear that no vehicle can be altered in a manner where particulars in the Certificate of Registration are at variance with those originally specified by the manufacturer. The proviso to Section 52(1) permits modification of the engine or any part thereof of a vehicle for facilitating its operation by a different type of fuel or source of energy including battery. The second proviso to Section 52(1) empowers the Central Government to prescribe specifications, conditions for approval, retrofitment and other related matters for such conversion

¶88

..12..

¶89

Crl,M.C.No.6570 & 6575 of 2021

¶90

kits. The Central Government has power to grant an exemption for alteration of vehicles for any specific purpose. The explanation to Section 52 says that “alteration” means a change in the structure of a vehicle which results in a change in its basis structure.

¶91

The manufacturer issues Sale Certificate in Form 21 as per Rule 47(1)(a) of the Central Rules. The object of Section 52 is that the vehicle cannot be so altered that the particulars contained in the Certificate of Registration are at variance with those originally specified by the manufacturer.

¶92

In Jayachandran’s case (Supra), the Supreme Court while interpreting Section 52 held that no vehicle can be altered so as to change the original specification made by the manufacturer. The Court held that such particulars cannot be altered which have been specified by the manufacturer for the purpose of entry in the Certificate of Registration. The Apex Court made it clear

¶93

Crl,M.C.No.6570 & 6575 of 2021

¶94

..13..

¶95

that the vehicle has to be in conformity with the Rules also but Rules cannot be so interpreted so as to permit alteration as prohibited under Section 52(1) of the Act. The alteration under the Rules is permissible except as prohibited by Section 52.

¶96

Following the verdict in Jayachandran’s case, the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways issued a Circular on 28.02.2019 and communicated to the competent authorities to follow the directions in Jayachandran’s case. The circular also clarified the permissible alterations. As early as on 28.09.2006, the Transport Commissioner, Kerala had issued Circular No.07/2006 directing registering authorities to ensure that the vehicles which are built in accordance with the prescribed specifications alone are registered.

¶97

Now I come to the facts of the case. The VACB conducted a surprise check as per the orders of the Director regarding various irregularities committed by

¶98

Crl,M.C.No.6570 & 6575 of 2021

¶99

..14..

¶100

the officials of the Regional Transport Offices. In the surprise check, the VACB found that many goods carrier vehicles were altered in violation of Section 52(1) of the MV Act, 1988 and the judgment in Jayachandran ’s case.

¶101

The VACB conducted a preliminary enquiry after obtaining approval under Section 17A of the PC Act from the competent authority.

¶102

In the preliminary enquiry, it was revealed that the petitioner who was officiating as Regional Transport Officer had issued Registration Certificates of 57 prototype ‘Open Vehicles’ altering the specification cited in Form No.21 as ‘Closed Vehicles’ by violating Section 52 of the MV Act. The specification of class of vehicle and type of body in form No.21 (Sale Certificate issued by the manufacturer) was “Goods Carrier & Open” whereas the petitioner issued Registration Certificate changing it as “Cash Van & Closed”.

¶103

Crl,M.C.No.6570 & 6575 of 2021

¶104

..15..

¶105

The VACB in the preliminary enquiry further found that the petitioner accepted bribe from the owners of the vehicle. The VACB submitted preliminary enquiry report before the Director of Vigilance who ordered registration of FIR.

¶106

The impugned FIRs prima facie reveal that the petitioner accepted bribe from the owners of the vehicle. In the investigation the experts reported that illegal alterations were done on the prototype vehicles. The VACB has placed statement of witnesses Sri. Sijith and Sri.Thomas who deposed that bribe money was handed over by them to the petitioner.

¶107

It is settled by a long course of decisions of the Apex Court that for the purpose of exercising its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings, the High Court would have to proceed entirely on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint or the documents accompanying the same per se . It has been

¶108

Crl,M.C.No.6570 & 6575 of 2021

¶109

..16..

¶110

further held that the High Court has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations {Vide: State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha [(1982) 1 SCC 561], Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar [(1985) 2 SCC 370]}.

¶111

In State of Kerala v. O.C. Kuttan [(1999) 2 SCC 651], the Apex Court held that while exercising the power, it is not possible for the Court to sift the materials or to weigh the materials and then come to the conclusion one way or the other. In State of U.P v. O.P.Sharma [(1996) 7 SCC 705] a Three Judge Bench of the Apex Court observed that the High Court should be loath to interfere at the threshold to thwart the prosecution exercising its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C or under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, as the case may be, and allow the law to take its own course. This view was reiterated by another Three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar

¶112

Crl,M.C.No.6570 & 6575 of 2021

¶113

Bhada [(1997) 2 SCC 397], wherein the Apex Court held that such power should be sparingly and cautiously exercised only when the Court is of the opinion that otherwise there will be gross miscarriage of justice. It is trite that the power of quashing criminal proceedings should be exercised with circumspection and that too, in the rarest of rare cases and it was not justified for this Court in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the Final report or the complaint. A finding on the veracity of a material relied on by the prosecution in a case where the allegations levelled by the prosecution disclose a cognizable offence, is not a consideration for the High Court while exercising its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This view is fortified by the decision of the Apex Court in Mahendra K.C. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (AIR 2021 SC 5711).

¶114

..18..

¶115

Crl,M.C.No.6570 & 6575 of 2021

¶116

While dealing with the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the criminal proceedings the Apex Court in M/s.Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd v. State of Maharashtra and others (AIR 2021 SC 1918) concluded thus in paragraph 23 of the judgment:

¶117

In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or "no coercive steps to be adopted", during the pendency of the quashing petition Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure and/or Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the Accused or "no coercive steps to be adopted" during the investigation or till the final report/chargesheet is filed Under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure, while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure and/or Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under:

(i) xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx

..19..

Crl,M.C.No.6570 & 6575 of 2021

¶122

(xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;

¶123

(xiii) xxx xxx xxx

¶124

(xiv) xxx xxx xxx

¶125

(xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged Accused and the court when it exercises the power Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on

¶126

Crl,M.C.No.6570 & 6575 of 2021

¶127

..20..

¶128

merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR;”

¶129

In the given case, the petitioner fails to convince the Court that the allegations levelled against him in the prosecution records do not disclose the ingredients of the offences alleged. The correctness or otherwise of the allegations levelled in the FIR is a matter to be tested during the course of investigation. However, it is made clear that this Court has not made any observation on the merits or otherwise of the allegations levelled in the FIR.

¶130

The Crl.M.Cs. lack merit and accordingly they stand dismissed.

¶131

Sd/- K.BABU, JUDGE

¶132

kkj

¶133

Crl,M.C.No.6570 & 6575 of 2021

¶134

..21..

¶135

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6575/2021

¶136

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶137

Annexure 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 06/2021/TSR REGISTERED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15.07.2021.

¶138

Annexure 2 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 08.08.2018 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS.

¶139

Annexure 3 A TRUE COPY OF THE CMVR CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VEHICLE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, ESTABLISHMENT CERTIFYING THE PARAMETERS OF THE PROTOTYPE OF THE VEHICLE INVOLVED IN THE CASE.

¶140

Annexure 4 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION PAPERS OF ONE OF THE VEHICLES INVOLVED IN THE CASE.

¶141

Annexure 5 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 7/2006 TO ALL RTOS ISSUED BY THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, KERALA.

¶142

Annexure 6 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 5/2014 DATED 26.06.2014 ISSUED BY THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, KERALA.

¶143

Annexure 7 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO. 11036/06/2019 MVL DATED 28.02.2019 ISSUED CENTRAL GOVERNMENT.

¶144

Annexure 8 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO. 407/2021/TRANS DATED 22.11.2021.

¶145

Annexure 9 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR DATED 19-9-2022 ISSUED BY THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER

¶146

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES ANNEXURE R2(A) COPY OF THE JUDGMENT RENDERED BY THE APEX COURT IN SLP(C) NOS.13228-13231 OF 2013

¶147

ANNEXURE R2(B) COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.11036/06/2019 MVL DATED 28.02.2019

¶148

ANNEXURE R2(C) COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.7/2066 DATED 28.09.2006

¶149

Crl,M.C.No.6570 & 6575 of 2021

¶150

..22..

¶151

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6570/2021

¶152

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶153

`Annexure`	`1`	`CERTIFIED COPY` `05/2021/TSR`	`OF THE FIR IN CRI` `REGISTERED BY TH`	`ME NO.` `E 2ND`
		`RESPONDENT DAT`	`ED 15.07.2021.`
`Annexure`	`2`	`TRUE COPY OF`	`THE NOTIFICATION`	`DATED`
		`08.08.2018 IS` `HOME AFFAIRS.`	`SUED BY THE MINIS`	`TRY OF`
`Annexure`	`3`	`A TRUE COPY` `ISSUED BY TH` `DEVELOPMENT,` `THE PARAMETERS` `VEHICLE, INVOL`	`OF THE CMVR CERTI` `E VEHICLE RESEARC` `ESTABLISHMENT CERT` `OF THE PROTOTYPE` `VED IN THE CASE.`	`FICATE` `H AND` `IFYING` `OF THE`
`Annexure`	`4`	`TRUE COPY OF` `OF ONE OF THE` `CASE.`	`THE REGISTRATION` `VEHICLES INVOLVED`	`PAPERS` `IN THE`
`Annexure`	`5`	`TRUE COPY OF`	`THE CIRCULAR NO.`	`7/2006`
		`TO ALL RTOS` `COMMISSIONER,`	`ISSUED BY THE TRA` `KERALA.`	`NSPORT`
`Annexure`	`6`	`TRUE COPY OF` `DATED 26.06.` `TRANSPORT COMM`	`THE CIRCULAR NO.` `2014 ISSUED BY` `ISSIONER, KERALA.`	`5/2014` `THE`
`Annexure`	`7`	`TRUE` `COPY` `11036/06/2019` `ISSUED CENTRAL`	`OF` `CIRCULAR` `MVL DATED 28.02` `GOVERNMENT.`	`NO.` `.2019,`
`Annexure`	`8`	`TRUE COPY` `407/2021/TRANS`	`OF G.O. (RT)` `DATED 22.11.2021.`	`NO.`
`Annexure`	`9`	`TRUE COPY OF` `ISSUED BY THE`	`CIRCULAR DATED 19-` `TRANSPORT COMMISSIO`	`9-2022` `NER`
`RESPONDEN`	`TS ANNE`	`XURES`
`ANNEXURE`	`R2(A)`	`COPY OF THE` `APEX COURT IN` `OF 2013`	`JUDGMENT RENDERED` `SLP(C) NOS.13228`	`BY THE` `-13231`
`ANNEXURE`	`R2(B)`	`COPY OF THE C` `MVL DATED 28.0`	`IRCULAR NO.11036/0` `2.2019`	`6/2019`
`ANNEXURE`	`R2(C)`	`COPY OF THE` `28.09.2006`	`CIRCULAR NO.7/2066`	`DATED`

Sreeprakash.B., v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreeprakash.B., 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

Baby @ Ambarappy Vs State of Kerala & Another

Vasu Vs State

Baby P.M., Vs Sudha Nandanan

Sunil Kumar Vs the Excise Inspector , Manjeri

Sudheer Vs State of Kerala

Sreeprakash. B., Vs State of Kerala