IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J
K.C.S. Prasanth, S/o. Late R. Chandrasenan Nair – Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau Of Investigation CBI/ACB, Kochi, Represented By Its Standing Counsel, High Court Of Kerala – Respondent
ORDER :
(P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.)
Accused No.1 in C.C.No.4 of 2012 on the files of the Special Court (SPE/CBI)-II, Ernakulam is the petitioner. There are nine more accused. They stand charged for the offences punishable under Section 120B read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC ) and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). The petitioner invoked the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code) by filing this petition to get Annexure A7 final report in C.C.No.4 of 2012 and further proceedings thereon quashed.
2. The petitioner was working as the Superintendent at the unaccompanied baggage section of Air Cargo Complex, Cochin International Airport Ltd (CIAL) during the period from August 2010 to October 2010. Accused Nos.2 and 3 were the Preventive Officers. Accused No.6 was dealing with electronic goods and had been running shops at Chennai. They hatched a conspiracy to import electronic goods by paying no/nominal customs duty. The petitioner involved a clearing agent at CIAL, Sri.Prince Joseph in the conspiracy. Services of other accused were availed to execute the said plot.
3. On 30.09.201




Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal
Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI
State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi
Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar
J.Sekar Alias Sekar Reddy v. Directorate of Enforcement
Exoneration in departmental proceedings does not bar subsequent criminal prosecution if evidence differs; High Court can consider materials from accused to prevent abuse of process.
Insufficient evidence to establish complicity in alleged offences led to the quashing of criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
Point of law : An application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is maintainable to quash proceedings which are ex facie bad for want of sanction, frivolous or in abuse of process of co....
The court ruled that if a petitioner is exonerated in a departmental inquiry on merit, the same allegations cannot be prosecuted further in criminal proceedings due to the higher standard of proof re....
Charges under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act require a substantive offence to be present and can be altered by the court before judgment, according to legal precedents.
A discharge petition is only granted if no prima facie evidence exists to support the charges; involvement is determined by the prosecution's presented evidence.
Scrap dealer not liable under Sections 411/120-B IPC for purchasing scrap from attached premises pursuant to custodian permission and cheque payment, absent knowledge of theft or conspiracy; FIR quas....
Point of law: Criminal proceedings cannot be initiated against a person who is not even a party to the entire transaction.
Facilitation by an official does not constitute criminal misconduct or conspiracy unless there is clear evidence of intent to evade legal obligations.
Statements of co-accused are relevant but not sufficient for establishing a charge in absence of independent evidence.
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.