Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, J.
N. Pavithran S/o Krishnan Gurukkal – Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala – Respondent
Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 642 of 2020
Decided On : 02-08-2021
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 239 and 245(1) - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7,9,12 and 13(1) read with 13(2) - Indian Penal Cod, 1860 - Sections 211, 465, 468, 471, 201 and 120B read with 109 and 114 - Appointment of persons to the posts of Clerk - conspiracy to manipulate recruitment process - Accused had hatched a conspiracy to manipulate the recruitment process conducted in Bank for appointment of persons to posts of Clerk, Typist and Peon and pursuant to such conspiracy, they committed forgery of documents, obtained illegal gratification from candidates and influenced members of interview board in the matter of appointment to the above posts.
Finding of the court: Power to discharge under Section 245(1) of Code can be exercised when, " Magistrate considers, for reasons to be recorded, that no case against accused has been made out which, if unrebutted would warrant his conviction". Notwithstanding the difference in language employed in these provisions, whichever provision is applicable, the court is required at this stage to see that there is a prima facie case for proceeding against the accused - Trial court has come to a conclusion that there is a prima facie case for proceeding against the petitioner. There is no sufficient ground to interfere with the aforesaid finding made by the trial court. There was no preliminary enquiry conducted before registration of the FIR in the case is not a sufficient ground to find that the entire investigation conducted was illegal.
Result: Revision petition dismissed
ORDER :
1. The petitioner is Accused No. 15 in the case C.C. No. 18/2016 on the file of the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thalassery.
2. The offences alleged against the accused in the above case are punishable under Sections 7, 9, 12 and 13(1) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) and also under Sections 211, 465, 468, 471, 201 and 120B read with 109 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
3. The persons initially arrayed as Accused 1 to 16 in the case were members of the Director Board of the District Cooperative Bank, Kasaragod (for short ‘the Bank’) Accused No. 17 was the General Manager, Accused No. 18 was the Superintendent of B-Section and Accused No. 19 was the Executive Officer of the Bank. The petitioner, who now figures as Accused No. 15 in the case, was initially arrayed as Accused No. 18.
4. The prosecution case is that the accused had hatched a conspiracy to manipulate the recruitment process conducted in the Bank for appointment of persons to the posts of Clerk, Typist and Peon and pursuant to such conspiracy, they committed forgery of documents, obtained illegal gratification from the candidates and influenced the members of the interview board in the matter of appointment to the above posts.
5. The petitioner filed an application under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Code’) for discharge. The trial court considered the aforesaid application along with similar applications filed by some other accused. The trial court found that there were sufficient grounds to frame charge against the accused and dismissed the application for discharge filed by the petitioner.
6. The petitioner has filed this revision petition challenging the aforesaid order passed by the trial court.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions in challenging the impugned order. (1) There was no preliminary enquiry conducted before registration of the first information report (FIR) in the case. Therefore, the entire investigation conducted pursuant to the registration of the FIR was illegal. (2) The investigation of the case was conducted by a police officer below the prescribed rank and therefore, the entire investigation conducted in the case was illegal. (3) The investigating officer had filed a report in the trial court deleting the name of the petitioner from the array of the accused. Subsequently, without the permission of the court, the petitioner was illegally implicated in the case as an accused. (4) There are no materials produced by the prosecution to prove that the petitioner had any role in the recruitment process or the interview conducted for appointment of staff in the Bank.
9. The investigation in the case had a chequered history. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, C-Branch, Kasaragod has filed a statement which contains the details of the investigation conducted in the case. It is necessary to briefly mention here some aspects with regard to the investigation conducted in the case.
10. The case was initially registered as Crime No. 81/1995 of the Kasaragod Police Station on 03.02.1995 under Sections 161, 409 and 465 read with 34 of the IPC against six accused persons on the basis of a complaint filed by the then Vice President of the Bank. The investigation of the case was then conducted by the Inspector of Police, Kasaragod. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Kasaragod on 17.10.1996, under Sections 409, 468, 471, 420 and 201 read with 120B, 109 and 114 of the IPC and also Sections 7 and 13(1)(b) read with 13(c) of the Act. The charge-sheet was returned by that court with a direction to file it before the proper court. The charge-sheet was then submitted before the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode but it was returned on 12.02.199
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
