Back
2018 Supreme(Ker) 569
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
B. Sudheendra Kumar, J.
Sreedevi - Appellant
Vs.
State of Kerala & Ors. - Respondent
W.P.(C). No. 35640 of 2017
Decided On : 15-02-2018
For the Appellant : D Kishore & Mini Gopinath, Meera Gopinath, R. Muraleekrishnan Advs.
For the Respondent: Suresh Babu (Addl GP) & T. A. Shaji Advs.
Headnote:
The T.P. Act- Section 55(4)(b);; The Constitution of India -Art. 20(3)-Indian Penal Code- Sections 379 and 411, Section 34 -The provisions of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India will be attracted if at all the accused persons in the other case come as witnesses against the petitioner in the enquiry before the Vigilance Tribunal.
Statement of facts:
The charge in favour of the buyer is converse of the seller's charge under Section 55(4)(b) of the T.P. Act- In many decisions, it has been held that the principle underlying this provision is a trite principle of justice, equity and good conscience
Finding of the court:
After getting new materials in the preliminary enquiry by the VACB, Palakkad, the Vigilance crime was registered on a different set of allegations. Thereafter, the investigation was conducted. It is true that the learned Magistrate, as per Ext.P8 granted formal permission to conduct further investigation on the basis of Ext.P7. In fact, the court was not requested as per Ext.P7 for granting formal permission for further investigation.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
B.Sudheendra Kumar, J.
1. The petitioner is the first accused in Crime VC 6/14/PKD of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (for short 'VACB'), Palakkad registered for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, 201 and 120B IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short 'the P.C. Act').
2. Somebody cut and removed two teak trees and other trees from the purambokku land (Government land) in Sy.No.71 of Ozhalappathy village. The matter was informed to some press people on 19.5.2009 and it was reported in a daily on 20.5.2009. The newspaper reports raised allegations against the Government officials in the matter. Accordingly, the Deputy Tahsildar Shri.Shaji Babu visited the spot and conducted enquiry and site inspection on 20.5.2009. He informed the matter to the petitioner, the then Village Officer and requested her to take necessary steps in the matter. As instructed by the superior officer, the petitioner filed a written complaint against Sri.Swami Appan before the police. Accordingly, the crime was registered on 20.6.2009 by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kozhinjampara police station as crime No.193/2009 under Section 379 I.P.C. After completing the investigation, the final report was filed by the police before the jurisdictional Magistrate against Sri.Swami Appan and Salim for offences under Sections 379 and 411 read with Section 34 I.P.C.
3. Mean while, an enquiry was conducted in the matter by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The Revenue Divisional Officer after the enquiry, submitted a report before the District Collector, Palakkad alleging the involvement of the petitioner, who was the then Village Officer in the theft. On receiving the report from the Revenue Divisional Officer, the District Collector, Palakkad sent a report to the Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram. Thereafter, the Director of VACB ordered to conduct a vigilance enquiry in the matter. Accordingly, a vigilance enquiry was conducted by the VACB, Palakkad unit. In the vigilance enquiry, it was primafacie revealed that the theft of two teak trees worth Rs.2.65 lakhs was committed by another person. Accordingly, a vigilance report was submitted to the Director of VACB. Thereafter, on the basis of the letter issued by the Director of VACB, the Government issued order to register the crime against the petitioner and three others. Accordingly, Crime No.VC 6/2014/PKD of VACB, Palakkad was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471 and 201 read with Section 120B IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of PC Act.
4. The petitioner is the first accused in the said crime. The Sub Inspector of Police, Kozhinjampara police station filed Ext.P7 report before the jurisdictional Magistrate stating that the Government ordered to conduct further investigation by the vigilance. Thereupon, Ext.P8 order was passed by the Magistrate court concerned granting formal permission to conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. After conducting the investigation pursuant to the registration of crime No.VC 6/2014/PKD of VACB, Palakkad, the Investigating Officer made a recommendation for enquiry by the Vigilance Tribunal. This aspect was informed to the Government as per Ext.P10. Thereafter, the final report was filed before the special court concerned treating the case as 'further action dropped'. Ext.P10 contains the factual report filed by the Investigating Officer. Thereafter, Ext.P11 order was issued by the Additional Chief Secretary directing the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department to take disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and other Government officers, if any.
5. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking for quashing Exts.P6 to P11.
6. This court has appointed Adv.Si A Shaji, as Amicus Curiae to assist the court.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Amicus Curiae and the learned Additional Dire
