Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J
A.K.THANKAPPAN S/o.kunjayyan – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
ORDER :
Accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.10 of 2022 pending before the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Muvattupuzha filed, respectively, Crl.M.C.No.471 of 2023 and Crl.M.C.No.2281 of 2023. C.C.No.10 of 2022 was instituted on the final report filed in Crime No.VC/3/2018/CRE of Vigilance and Anti-corruption Bureau, Central Range, Ernakulam. It is alleged that the petitioners committed the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and offence under Rule 51(A) of the Arms Rules, 1962 read with Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959. The petitioners contend that the allegations in the final report and the materials produced therewith would not make out commission of the said offences and therefore the final report is liable to be quashed, for which they have filed these petitions invoking the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code).
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in the respective petitions and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
3. Facts constituting the alleged offences narrated in the final report are extracted below:
“A1 while holding the charge of
Mere procedural violations by public servants do not constitute offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act without evidence of dishonest intention.
The court ruled that prior exoneration does not prevent prosecution if new evidence arises, validating the cognizance taken against the petitioner for violations under IPC and the Arms Act.
Renewal of an arms licence can be denied based on public safety concerns and the applicant's criminal conviction, emphasizing the need for timely applications.
Issuance of large number of fake arms licenses -There is no evidence with regard to the conspiracy as such the petitioner cannot be prosecuted in absence of any such evidence.
The subjective satisfaction in administrative decisions must be based on tangible evidence, not mere speculation, to ensure fair treatment under the law.
The court ruled that inherent powers to quash proceedings should be exercised cautiously, emphasizing that allegations must be substantiated to avoid misuse of judicial processes.
The court established that the refusal to renew an arms licence must be based on substantial evidence and proper application of discretion, not merely on pending criminal charges.
Threat perception is not a requirement for granting an arms license under the Arms Act.
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
