Allowed

P.M. Shaji, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Mar 2025Crl.MC/408/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Case allowed. High Court of Kerala quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner (1st accused) for cheating, holding that mere employment status and domestic recovery of the missing pass are insufficient; lack of eyewitness evidence and prior exonerating departmental report proved innocence.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Misc. Case allowed; Final Report and all further proceedings in C.C No.870 of 2018 as against the petitioner are quashed.

P.M. Shaji, Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

2025:KER:19621

¶3

CRL.MC NO. 408 OF 2021

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶7

WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2025/14TH PHALGUNA, 1946

¶8

CRL.MC NO. 408 OF 2021

¶9

CRIME NO.424/2017 OF KANNAVAM POLICE STATION, KANNUR

¶10

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC NO.870 OF 2018
OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,KUTHUPARAMBA

¶11

PETITIONER:

¶12

P.M. SHAJI,
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O. NARAYANAN,
PALERI HOUSE,
DHARMADOM (P.O.),
VIA THALASSERY,
KANNUR DISTRICT,
PIN-670106

¶13

BY ADVS.
M.M.DEEPA
P.MAYA

¶14

RESPONDENTS:

¶15

1STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,

¶16

2025:KER:19621

¶17

CRL.MC NO. 408 OF 2021

¶18

¶19

ERNAKULAM, PIN- 682031

¶20

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KANNAVAM POLICE STATION, KANNAVAM, KANNUR DISTRICT-670650

¶21

3SAVEEN SUNDER P.,
RANGE FOREST OFFICER, NACHAD RANGE,
THRISSUR FOREST DIVISION CENTRAL CIRCLE,
THRISSUR, PIN-680 554 (THEN DEPOT OFFICER,
GOVERNMENT TIMBER DEPOT KANNAVAM)

¶22

BY SR .PP.PUSHPALATHA M.K.

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 05.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

¶25

2025:KER:19621

¶26

CRL.MC NO. 408 OF 2021

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.424 of 2017, registered at the Kannavam Police Station for the offence under Section 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC, now pending as C.C No.870 of 2018 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kuthuparamba.

¶29

The crime is registered on the allegation that, during 03.09.2016 to 05.09.2016, while the petitioner was working as Section Forest Officer in the Kannoth Timber Depot, the original, duplicate, and triplicate of pass No.82 went missing from the Timber Release Passbook for the period 14.06.2016 to 19.10.2016. It was alleged that the petitioner with the aid of accused No.2, who was then working as Forest Watcher, had torn off pass No.82 to cause problems for some other officials. The crime was registered on the basis of a statement filed by the then Depot Officer of Kannoth Timber Depot. Later, the Depot Officer gave an additional statement that on 02.06.2017 he had been informed by the petitioner that the second accused had

¶30

2025:KER:19621

¶31

CRL.MC NO. 408 OF 2021

¶32

¶33

entrusted the pass with the Baby Bakery in Kuthuparamba. Accordingly, a person was deputed and the missing pass was collected from the bakery.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, except the petitioner being the Section Forest Officer at the relevant point of time, there is absolutely no evidence to connect him with the alleged offence. It is submitted that the petitioner was exonerated in the departmental enquiry conducted with respect to the same allegations, finding the prosecution to have failed in proving the charge against him. It is the contention of the learned counsel that, even if the allegations are accepted to be true, the ingredients for attracting the offence under Section 420 are not made out. Moreover, having got back the missing pass, continued prosecution of the petitioner is an abuse of process of court.

¶35

Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there

¶36

are allegations to the effect that, the petitioner along with the 2^nd accused, is responsible for removing the pass from the passbook and the pass was recovered based on information given by the

¶37

2025:KER:19621

¶38

CRL.MC NO. 408 OF 2021
5

¶39

petitioner, which itself proves his complicity in the crime.

¶40

After hearing the learned counsel on either side

¶41

and on careful scrutiny of the materials on record, I find substantial merit in the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner. Merely because the petitioner was working as a Section Forest Officer and was responsible for releasing the pass, he cannot be implicated for the missing pass. None of the prosecution witnesses has stated that he had seen the petitioner remove the pass from the passbook. Being so, petitioner cannot be prosecuted based on assumptions alone. Exoneration of the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings and receipt of the missing pass are factors indicative of his innocence.

¶42

For the aforementioned reasons, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure D final report and all further proceedings in C.C No.870 of 2018 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, as against the petitioner, Kuthuparamba is quashed.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN

JUDGE

SPV

2025:KER:19621

¶49

CRL.MC NO. 408 OF 2021

¶50

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 408/2021

¶51

PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES

¶52

ANNEXURE ATRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
08-0-32017 SUBMITTED BY VISWAN K V
BEFORE THE DIVISIONAL FOREST
OFFICER, TIMBER SALES DIVISION,
KOZHIKODE ALONG WITH PHOTOCOPY OF
THE LOST PASS

¶53

ANNEXURE BTHE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR DATED
17-08-2017 IN CRIME NO. 424/2017 OF
KANNAVAM POLICE STATION, KANNUR
DISTRICT

¶54

ANNEXURE CTRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT
DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT
CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (SIP) NORTH
ZONE, KANNUR

¶55

ANNEXURE DTHE CEERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL
REPORT IN CRIME NO. 424/2017 OF
KANNAVAM POLICE STATION, KANNUR
DISTRICT.

¶56

RESPONDENTS’ ANNEXURES : NIL

¶57

//TRUE COPY//

¶58

PA TO JUDGE

P.M. Shaji, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.M. Shaji, 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

Raghav Nair, Vs the State of Kerala

Pradeep Kumar L S Vs George Paulose

M. Shajideen, Vs K.M. Ashraf

A.C.Baby, Vs State of Kerala

The Bishop House Foundation No. 88, Vs K. Bovas

Rasheed M., Vs State of Kerala