SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ker) 2157

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
S.M. Shereef, S/o. P.M. Sulaiman - Appellant 
Versus 
State Of Kerala - Respondent 
Crl.Rev.Pet No. 1329 of 2023
Decided on : 01-08-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU, SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH, SHRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR, SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH, SRI.AJWIN P LALSON, SHRI.KARUKAPADATH WAZIM BABU, SMT.P.LAKSHMI, SMT.SHIFANA KAISE, SHRI.DENNIS BIJU
For the Respondent: RAJESH.A, SR PP VACB - REKHA.S

The prosecution must show a prima facie case with substantial evidence for charges of misappropriation and forgery; mere suspicion is not sufficient.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 397 and 401 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13(1)(d), 13(2) - Indian Penal Code - Sections 468, 477A, 120B - Discharge petitions against allegations of misappropriation and forgery dismissed by Special Court - Revision petitions by accused for discharge allowed - Dismissal of discharge petitions was found unjustifiable based on the evidence presented. (Paras 16, 25, 27)

(B) Criminal Procedure - Prosecution must demonstrate prima facie evidence to charge accused - Mere suspicion insufficient to sustain prosecution. (Paras 21, 25)

Facts of the case:
The accused were implicated in a case alleging corruption concerning improper funds allocation for school projects, where they allegedly conspired to forge documents and misappropriate public funds during 2004-2006.

Findings of Court:
The court noted deficiencies in the prosecution's case, finding that the evidence did not establish culpability on the part of the accused.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the prosecution had sufficient evidence to support charges of forgery and misappropriation against the accused.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the evidence presented by the prosecution was inadequate to establish a prima facie case against the accused, leading to the conclusion that they should be discharged.

Result: Revision petitions allowed; discharge orders set aside.

Table of Content
1. overview of revision petitions against discharge denial. (Para 1 , 2)
2. prosecution alleges corruption and forgery. (Para 5)
3. counterarguments claim no forgery or misappropriation. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. legal arguments surrounding eligibility for municipal aid. (Para 12 , 14 , 15)
5. court's evaluation of prosecution's evidence. (Para 16 , 19 , 20)
6. question raised about the prosecution's case strength. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
7. court allows revision petitions and discharges accused. (Para 26)

ORDER :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

Crl.Rev.Pet. No.1237/2023 has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE , 1973, by accused Nos.1 and 5 in C.C. No.40 of 2014 on the files of the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam, challenging the common order dated 13.10.2023 in Crl.M.P. No.145/2021 along with Crl.M.P. No.2414/2017, whereby the discharge plea at the instance of accused Nos.1 and 5 (earlier they were referred as accused Nos.1 and 4 and in the impugned order also their status is as that of accused Nos.1 and 4) was negatived by the Special Court.

2. Crl.Rev.Pet. No.1329/2023 is at the instance of accused Nos.4, 6, 7 and 8 in the above case (earlier they were arrayed as accused Nos.3, 5, 6 and 7 and and in the impugned order also their status is as that of accused Nos.3, 5, 6 and 7), being aggrieved by the dismissal of their discharge petition viz. Crl.M.P. Nos.2414/2017 along with Crl.M.P. No.145/2021, as per the common order dated 13.10.2023 in the above case.

3. Heard the respective counsel for the revision petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused the order impugned, relevant records as well as the decisions placed by both sides.

4. Parties in these criminal revision petitions shall be referred as ‘accused/revision petitioners’ and ‘prosecution’, hereafter.

5. In this matter, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 13 (1) (d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred as ‘P.C. Act’ for short] and under Sections 468 , 477A and 120B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . The prosecution case as per the Final Report reads as under:

That A1, A2, A3, and A5 while holding the charge as Municipal Secretary, Assistant Engineer, Municipal Chair Person and Superintendent of Planning section of Alappuzha Municipality and as such being public servants abused their official position with dishonest intention to obtain pecuniary advantage to Lajanathul Mohammediya Association, Lajanath Ward, Alappuzha during the period 2004-05 and 2005-06, conspired with A4, the General Secretary of Lajanathul Mohammediya Asociation, A6 -the Manager of Lajanathul Mohammediya Higher Secondary School, A7-Treasurer of Lajanathul Mohammediya Association and A8- former Head Master of Lajanathul Mohammediya Higher Secondary School and in furtherence of the said criminal conspiracy, the above Municipal officials forged the DPC Sanction Order, willfully and with intend to defraud, falsified the accounts by fabricating a false and fake bill without completing the work and the accused A4, A6, A7 and A8 obtained undeserving funds from the Municipality, fraudulently manipulated the two projects - Project No. S-026/2004-05 for constructing a basketball court for LMHSS with an estimated cost of Rs. 1,50,000/-, spending Rs. One lakh from plan fund and Rs. 50,000/- from other sources during 2004-05, and project No. S-32/05 for constructing play ground in LMHSS during 2005-06, spending Rs. 2 lakhs from the Own Fund by interpreting these two projects are one and same. Thereby the accused fraudulently and dishonestly misappropriated an amount of Rs. 1,96,911.90 between 28.03.05 to 10.08.2005 from plan fund of Alappuzha Municipality. Hence the accused committed the offences of criminal misconduct, forgery for the purpose of cheating, falsification of accounts and criminal conspiracy which are punishable u/s 13 (1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top