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

1995 Supreme(Ker) 227

Judges : N.DHINAKAR
State of Kerala - Appellant
Versus
Sajeev Mathew - Respondent
Case No : Crl. M.C. 1470 of 1995
Decided On : 08/31/1995
Advocates Appeared :
Public Prosecutor (K.I. Abdul Rasheed) for Petitioner K. Ramakumar For Respondent

The discretion to grant bail should be exercised with great caution, and the magistrate erred in granting bail without proper examination of the investigating officer's request for police custody.

Headnote:

Bail - Criminal Offense - S.420, S.341 P.C. - The judgment discusses the propriety of granting bail to the accused in a case involving allegations of cheating and collecting crores of rupees from various individuals. The court found that the allegations made out an offense punishable under S.420 I.P.C. The court also held that the magistrate erred in granting bail without considering the request for police custody, and that the bail granted suffered from total non-application of mind. The bail granted to the accused was subsequently cancelled.

Fact of the Case:

The accused were alleged to have falsely advertised goat farms and swindled crores of rupees from various individuals. The 1st accused was released on interim bail without considering the request for police custody, and the final bail was granted without proper examination of the investigating officer's request.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the allegations made out an offense punishable under S.420 I.P.C. The court also held that the magistrate erred in granting bail without considering the request for police custody, and that the bail granted suffered from total non-application of mind.

Issues: The issues involved the propriety of granting bail to the accused without considering the request for police custody and the sufficiency of the allegations to make out an offense punishable under S.420 I.P.C.

Ratio Decidendi: The magistrate erred in granting bail without considering the request for police custody, and the bail granted suffered from total non-application of mind. The allegations made out an offense punishable under S.420 I.P.C.

Final Decision: The bail granted to the 1st accused was cancelled, and he was ordered to surrender to his bail bonds for consideration of the plea of the investigating officer for his police custody. The anticipatory bail petition filed by accused 2 to 4 was dismissed.

Judgment :-

Cr. M.C. 1470/95 is by the State, to set aside the order of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, releasing the respondent, first accused, in Crime No. 118/95 on the file of the Hi 11 Palace Police Station, on bail and to order his police custody for the purpose of investigation in the said crime number,

2. Crl.M.C.1458/95 is a petition filed by accused 2 to 4 for anticipatory bail in the same number.

3. Crl.R.C. 9/95 is taken suo mote by the High Court, on the orders of My Lord The Chief Justice, to consider the propriety of the orders of the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, in granting bail to the 1st accused.

4. As the issue to be decided in all the above matters is the same, the following common order is being passed.

5. Shorn of all unnecessary details, few facts do need mentioning. On a complaint given by a Sam Joseph, Cochin, on 8-8-1995, a case i n Crime No. 118/95 was registered at Hill Palace Police Station against the accused 1 to 4 (the respondent in Crl.M.C.1470/95, and the petitioners in Crl.M.C.1458/95 respectively and they will be referred to as accused in this order for the sake of convenience) for an offence punishable under S.420 read with S.341.P.C. The sum and substance of the complaint, is that the first accused is the Managing Trustee of Alagananda Farm Trust and accused 2 to 4 are the trustees. Accused 1 to 4 are related to each other. The 2nd accused is the wife of the 1st accused and Accused 3 and 4 are his cousin brothers. They have advertised in various newspapers, that the trust has started goat farms at various places such as Pollachi, Tirunelveli and Kodaikanal, all situate in the State of Tamilnadu, and those who purchase sponsorship certificate valued at Rs. 1,000/-, will get back rupees twenty thousand on the invested amount after a period of five years. It was also informed that on such purchases of the sponsorship certificate, an Indira Vikas Patra, whose sale value is at Rs. 500/-, but whose maturity value is Rs. 1,000/-, will also be given, to the purchase of the sponsorship certificate. In short, the purchasers of the sponsorship certificates were assured a return of forty times in five years, on their original investment of Rs. 1,000/-, as the amount of Rs. 500/- out of the amount of Rs. 1,000/-, is returned to the purchaser immediately in the form of an Indira Vikas Patra and only Rs. 500/- is retained.

6. The complainant Sam Joseph, lured by these advertisements, purchased 2 units of sponsorship certificates of Rs. 1,000/- each and was given 2 certificates, one in the name of his mother and the other in his name. He was also given two Indira Vikas Patras, The certificates were dated 28-10-1994, On 26-6-1995, the complainant went to the office of the Alagananda Farm Trust and returned the two Indira Vikas Patras, by way of reinvestment and obtained sponsorship certificates, whose maturity value was to be at Rs. 40,000/-. Later, the complainant grew suspicious, as some of the advertisements later published, showed that the farm has completed 3 years of successful service, whereas the Trust was said to have been registered only in the year 1994 and also because, the two certificates dated 28-10-1994 were in the name of Alagananda Farm Enterprises and the later certificates received by him on 26-6-1995 were issued in the name of Alagananda Farm Trust. The complainant, went and met, the 1st accused who told him that they have a farm only at Tirunelveli and not at other places as advertised by them. The complainant, on verification and enquiry came to know, that the accused have not purchased any property anywhere and were not running any goal farm at all. On the above allegations, a complaint was laid with the Hill Palace Police Station which was registered as a crime as stated above.

7. The 1st accused was arrested on 9-8-1995 and was produced before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, on 10-8-1995 with a remand report. A petition was also fil












Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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