Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN
M.L. Lenish S/o Lambodaran – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
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:
“
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.
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
