SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(SC) 638

2000(2) Supreme 618
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Kerala High Court)
G.B. Pattanaik & R.P. Sethi, JJ.
K. Karunakaran -Appellant
versus
State of Kerala & Anr. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 86 of 1998
Decided on 29-3-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : K.K. Venugopal, P.S. Poti, P.P. Rao, N. Natarajan, Kallada Sukumaran, Sr. Advocates, S.S.H. Rizvi, R. Sasiprabhu, John Verghese, Manish Garg, Anees Ahmed, Ms. Aditi Singh, K.M.K. Nair, Vipin Nair, Ms. Lansinglu Rongmei, Ms. Malini Poduval, Manu Krishnan, Anshu Mahajan, Advocates.

Headnote:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 482-Quashing of FIR-Accused Ex-Chief Minister-Allegation of corruption in importing Palmolein during his tenure as Chief Minister-Complaint filed while he was in power but vigilance department did not take action-Writ petitions thereagainst dismissed-Change of Government and Secretary Commissioner ordering Vigilance Department to conduct inquiry and submit report to Government-Vigilance department filing FIR on basis of material came to fore during preliminary enquiry-Accused seeking to quash FIR contending Government order was actuated by political rivalry to harass political opponent-Held: on facts, registration of FIR not result of mala fides or actuated by extraneous considerations-FIR on basis of new materials-Government order neither illegal nor unconstitutional-Petition dismissed.

       Held : From the contents of the letter (Government order) of Secretary Commissioner it cannot be inferred that any direction had been issued for registration of a criminal case against the appellant and others. What the Commissioner-Secretary had desired was the conducting of preliminary enquiry which could not be prayed to be shut because as apprehended it could lead to the registration of a case. The FIR indicates that while conducting a preliminary enquiry into the allegations of corruption in the matter of Palmolein directly by the State Government, various details were revealed which showed the commission of offences punishable under various provisions of law. The registration of the FIR against the appellant and others cannot be held to be the result of mala fides or actuated by extraneous considerations. The menance of corruption cannot be permitted to be hidden under the carpet of legal technicalities. In such matters probes conducted are required to be determined on facts and in accordance with law. The allegations of mala fides were, admittedly, not the basis for challenging the registration of the FIR in the High Court. If during the conduct of a preliminary enquiry the commission of an offence comes to light on the basis of new materials, the respondent-officials were obliged to register a case and present it in a competent court of jurisdiction for holding of trial and adjudication. The Government order (Annexure R-1) is not shown to have been used against the appellant in any way. The aforesaid order in fact protects the interests of the officials saving them from unnecessary harassment. Mere apprehension of the order being used against some persons is no ground to hold it illegal or unconstitutional particularly when its legality or constitutionality has not been challenged. Prima facie it does not hamper or interfere with the statutory functions of an investigating officer who has, otherwise, statutory rights to hold and complete the investigation in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Our observations with respect to the legality of the Government order are not conclusive regarding its constitutionality but are restricted so far as its applicability to the registration of the FIR against the appellant is concerned. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the aforesaid Government order has not been shown to be in any way illegal or unconstitutional so far as the rights of the appellant are concerned. (Paras 6 & 8)

       

JUDGMENT

Seth, J.-Referring to letter dated 18.6.1996 filed as Annexure R-2 with the counter-affidavit in this Court, terming it to be actuated by extraneous considerations and assailing the Government Order dated 12th May, 1992, (Annexure R-1) as illegal, Shri K.K. Venugopal, Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant has prayed for quashing of the FIR No. 1/97 (Annexure P-8) and subsequent proceedings initiated against the appellant. It is submitted that the source of power for registering the FIR referable to the aforesaid Government order being illegal and violative of the mandate of judgment of this Court in Vineet Narain & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.1, the appellant cannot be subjected to harassment of a criminal trial. The impugned FIR is stated to be amounting to overriding the judgments of the High Court of Kerala and this Court passed in earlier litigation praying for registration of the FIR against the appellant. The registration of the FIR has been termed to be amounting to contempt of court having been filed without any new material. Political rivalry is alleged to be the prime consideration for registration of the case against the appellant.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant was the Chief Minister of the State of Kerala for the period 1991-95. Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation is stated to have entered into a contract with M/s. Power & Energy Pvt. Limited, Singapore for the purchase of import of 15,000 MT of Palmolein. The Comptroller & Auditor General of India (CAG) is stated to have submitted his report dated 11.2.1994 for the year ending on 31st March, 1993. One Mr. M. Vijay Kumar who was the opposition MLA in the Kerala Assembly raised the allegation of corruption with regard to import of Palmolein in the Assembly. The State Government headed by the appellant is stated to have placed all the Government files relating to the transaction before the Assembly for the information of all the members. One Mr. Kallar Sukumaran, Chief Editor, Gulf India Times filed a petition in the High Court of Kerala under Article 226 of the Constitution, which was registered as OP No. 3813/94, praying therein for the issuance of appropriate direction directing the respondent-State to register appropriate crime in the matter of import of Palmolein allegedly on the ground that the aforesaid transaction was against the rules, regulations and guidelines fixed by the Government of India which resulted in giving heavy pecuniary advantage to foreign based company consequent to the agreement between the fourth respondent in the writ petition and the Singapore Company. An appropriate investigation was prayed to be conducted in the matter and a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act be registered against the guilty. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court vide order dated 4th April, 1994 holding that no case was made out for issuance of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the report submitted by the CAG had a definite purpose to achieve and that the said report by itself did not reveal the commission of any offence. It was further observed that :

"From the allegations in the original petition it is seen that the object of the petitioner is more political rather than anything else and the main target of attack seems to be the 3rd respondent-the Chief Minister of the State."

M. Vijay Kumar MLA of Thiruvanthapuram Constituency presented a First Information Report before the Superintendent of police, Vigilance (Hqrs.) (Annexure P-3) praying for registering a case for offences under Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 406, 409, 420, 201, 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against the persons named therein which included the appellant as one of the accused persons. The Superintendent of Police vide his letter informed Shri M. Vijay Kumar that no action could be taken in the report lodged by him in view of GO(P) No






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top