IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
M.L. Lenish S/o Lambodaran - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala - Respondent
Crl. Rev. Pet. Nos. 221, 235, 1113 of 2024
Decided On : 29-07-2025
ORDER :
1. Criminal Revision Petition No.221/2024 has been filed by accused Nos.1 and 9 in C.C.No.93/2016 on the files of the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PC Act’ for short), Muvattupuzha, challenging order in CMP No.766/2019 dated 16.11.2023 whereby the plea of discharge at their instance was negatived by the Special Court.
2. The 3rd accused in the above case, who had also filed CMP No.1145/2022 seeking discharge, filed Crl.R.P.No.235/2024, wherein his plea of discharge also was dismissed by the Special Court. By the same common order, the learned Special Judge allowed CMP No.835/2022 filed by the 6th accused and discharged the 6th accused. The prosecution has filed Crl.R.P.No.1113/2024, challenging the said discharge as illegal.
3. Heard the respective learned counsel for accused Nos.1, 3 and 9 as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, and the learned counsel for the 6th accused, who is the respondent in Crl.R.P.No.1113/2024 in detail. Perused the relevant documents.
4. The prosecution allegation as stated in paragraph No.16 of the final report is as under:
“That M.L.Lenish (A1), Age 30/12, S/o.Lambodharan Mundakal House, Pottankadu, Baison Valley (private person), N.N.Radhakrishnan Nair (A2), age 61/12, Naduviladathu House, (Lakshmi Nivas), Chalamkodukara, Muthalakkodam, Idukki Dist. (Former village Asst.Chinnakkanal village), P Gopinatha Pillai (A3) Age 60/12, S/o.Parameswaran Pillai, Aswathi Bhavanam, Pampumukku, Thookupalam, Nedukandam, Idukki Dist. (Formerly Thahsildar Devikulam), M.G.Sabu (A4) Age 46/12, S/o.Gopinathapillai, Mookallayil House, (Chaithram House), Chirakadavu Kottayam, (Formerly Village officer, Chinnakkannal Village, T.R.Prasad (A5), Age 47/12, S/o.Ramakrishnan Nair, Thaiparambil House, Poopara Estate, Idukki Dist (Formerly village Asst.Chinnakanal Village), Jaimon (A6), Age 33/12, S/o.Rajappan, Narivelil House, Baison Valley, Idukki Dist. (Document writer License No.140 and ISA 388), Biju N.B. (A7), Age 41/12, S/o.Balakrishnan, Nirapel House, Baisonvalley, Konnathady, Idukki Dist. (Asst.Document Writer), Biju V.V. (A8), Age 37/12, S/o.Velayudhan, Venooparampil House, Muttukadu, Idukki Dist. (Asst.Document writer, License No.SAP 561) and M.M.Lambodharan (A9), Age 68/12, S/o.Madhavan Mundakkal House, 20 Acre, Pottankadu, Baisonvalley, Idukki Dist. (Private person and father of A1) and among the above accused, A1 and A9 were encroached 3.77 Acre Govt.land in survey No.148/1 of Venadu thavalam in Chinnakanal Village and forged a bogus patta vide L.A.24/68 in the name of Kurian Mathew (W11), as if, it was issued from LA office Adimali and entered into criminal conspiracy with A2, A6 to A8 and in furtherance of it, A6 falsely prepared the document No.291/06 dtd.08.02.2006 as if the land is in Chinnakkanal Thavalam in Sy.No.20/1, A7 and A8 falsely identified somebody as K.M.Kurian Mathew (W11) and registered it at Sub Registrar Office, Rajakumari in favor of A1 and subsequently A2 effected the pokkuvaravu vide PV 93/05-06 on 14.02.06 by forging the PV register of Chinnakanal Village and assigned false TP No.3921 in favour of A1 by falsely showing that the land was transferred fron TP 870, which was not in existence. Then A1 sold a portion of the said land to W3 and W22 by using forged records as genuine. Thereafter A1 and A9 entered in to criminal conspiracy with A3, A4 and A5 in furtherance of this conspiracy, A3 furnished false report to Dist.Collector, Idukki as the land is patta land of W11 instead of Govt.land and issued possession and non attachment certificate to A1. A5 prepared the false sketches and certificates to the Govt.land as if the land is patta land and A4 signed and issued it to W3 and W22 on 06.02.2007 and 07.04.2007 respectively and thereby the accused A2 to A5 abused their official position as public servants and committed criminal misconduct and obtained pecuniary ad
The court affirmed that forgery and conspiracy were established, warranting trial against the accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC provisions.
The court upheld the necessity for prima facie evidence when framing charges, emphasizing that mere allegations are insufficient without supporting documentation.
Sufficient prima facie evidence exists for conspiracy and fraudulent transactions regarding temple land; discharge not warranted at this stage.
The court affirmed that prima facie evidence of a conspiracy and forgery necessitates proceeding with trial, emphasizing the narrow scope of quashing FIRs under Section 482.
The validity of documents, probative value, and admissibility of documents cannot be examined at the stage of framing charges and can be addressed during trial. The defense taken by the accused canno....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the continuation of proceedings against the petitioners would be an abuse of process, given the lack of evidence supporting the complainant....
The court affirmed that the efficacy of framing charges relies on the existence of sufficient prima facie evidence, without requiring deep merits assessment at the initial stage.
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.