IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
Chandrika Balan W/o Balan - Petitioner
Versus
Deputy Superintendent of Police Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Thrissur - Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 26589 of 2019
Decided On : 18-02-2025
(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13(1)
(C), 13(1)(d), 13(2) - Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 - Section 68B - Writ petition filed seeking mandamus for investigation update and completion of investigation into alleged malpractices by bank officials regarding auction of pledged gold. Court found that investigation revealed commission of offences, but prosecution sanction was denied by the bank's administrative committee. Court directed necessary steps for obtaining prosecution sanction from the competent authority, clarifying the Registrar's role in sanctioning prosecution. (Paras 1 , 7 , 11 )
(B) Judicial Review - The court emphasized that administrative decisions regarding prosecution sanction must adhere to statutory requirements and that decisions by incompetent authorities are invalid. (Paras 11 )
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner pledged 3239 grams of gold in various loan accounts in the 2nd respondent-Trichur Urban Co-operative Bank Limited No.87. Loans fell in arrears. Hence, the bank scheduled auction of the said gold ornaments. The petitioner had sent a notice on 27.06.2015 objecting to the auction and intention to redeem the pawns and participate in the auction. Ignoring objections of the petitioner the 2nd respondent proceeded with the auction. The petitioner went to participate in the auction, but she was not permitted to participate in the whole of the process. The 2nd respondent and its officials without conducting any auction made clandestine documents of an auction and gave major part of the petitioner’s ornaments to the proxies of the officials for a lower price. Moreover, the 2nd respondent made a false claim that an amount of Rs.20,33,127/- was still due from the petitioner.
2. Aggrieved by the said illegal acts and similar malpractices in the gold loans on the part of the 4th respondent who was the chairman of the Bank, and other officials of the Bank misusing their position as public servants, a complaint was submitted before the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur. A quick verification was conducted on the complaint as directed by the Special Court. A crime as V.C.No.13/17/TSR was later registered and an investigation was undertaken. However, no final report was filed even after two years, although offences under Sections 13(1)(C) and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) were found committed by the accused therein. Owing to the delay in completing the investigation and submitting the final report, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
1. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order direction commanding the 1st respondent to report the stage of investigation and the progress made as on date in V.C.13/17/TSR, in writing.
2. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to complete the investigation and submit the final report in V.C.13/17/TSR expeditiously.
3. A counter affidavit was filed by the 4th respondent justifying the auction and the procedure followed in that matter. He produced Exts.R4(A) to R4(E) together with the counter affidavit. A report of the investigating officer and later a statement were placed on record by the learned Government Prosecutor.
4. The petitioner has filed I.A.No.1 of 2022 producing therewith Exts.P9 to P11.
5. In terms of the order of this Court dated 09.09.2024 to report as to the present status of the investigation, the learned Senior Government Pleader filed a memo dated 21.01.2025 producing therewith a report of the investigating officer. Paragraph Nos.1 to 4 in the report submitted on 21.01.2025 are extracted below:
“1. It is most humbly submitted that based on a compliant as CMP 382/2016 filed by Sri.Krishnakumar A., Secretary, Janakeeyavedu, Attoor House, Puranattukara, Thrissur before the Hon'ble Court Commissioner & Special Judge Court, Thrissur, it was ordered to conduct a Preliminary Enquiry into the matter. Accordingly, an enquiry was conducted 2nd the enquiry report in this regard was submitted before the Hon'ble Court and disagreeing with the findings in the Preliminary Enquiry, the Hon'ble Court had ordered to register a FIR against the respondents and an FIR was registered at VACB, Thrissur Unit on 15.09.2017 as VC-13/17/TSR U/S 13(1)(c) & 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of PC Act, 1988 against A1-Paulson Alappatt, Chairman, Thrissur District Urban Co-operative Bank, Thrissur, A2-Satheedevi, General Manager, TDUC Bank, Thrissur, A3-Jerome P.Thomas, General Manager, TDUC Bank, Thrissur, A4-Babu Joseph V., Junior Accountant, TDUC Bank, Thrissur, A5- Prasad R., Gold Appraiser, TDUCB, Thrissur.
2. It is submitted that the approval from the Director of VACB sanct
The Registrar of Co-operative Societies is the competent authority for granting prosecution sanction under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, ensuring compliance with statutory procedures.
The court affirmed the necessity for banks to adhere to proper procedures in auctioning pledged assets and recognized the petitioner's right to seek redress for grievances regarding such actions.
Misconduct involving the misuse of authority and breach of trust warrants dismissal from service, upheld despite procedural challenges.
Granting prosecution sanction requires careful consideration of evidence, not merely formal compliance; relevant findings from prior inquiries can substantively justify the decision.
Mandatory requirement of previous sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the effect of retirement on prosecution when sanction is refused during the public servant's serv....
The Magistrate has the power to direct further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC, and such powers can be exercised suo moto as well.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the sanction must be accorded by the Competent Authority as per Sec. 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the material collected for on....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.