A court may discharge accused individuals if the evidence presented only raises suspicion without sufficient grounds to proceed with the case.

O R D E R

Dated this the 31st day of May, 2023 Crl.R.P. Nos.230/2022, 410/2021, 165/2022, 389/2023, 390/2023, 414/2023, 483/2023, 588/2023, 589/2023, 590/2023, 591/2023, 592/2023, 593/2023, 594/2023, 595/2023, 596/2023, 597/2023, 598/2023, 599/2023, 600/2023, 601/2023, 602/2023, 603/2023, 604/2023, 605/2023 & 606/2023 All these criminal revision petitions have been filed by the State challenging two common orders passed by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge Kottayam (for short 'the court below') dated 30.11.2017 allowing the applications for discharge filed by the accused invoking Section 239 of the Cr.P.C.

2. Since all the revision petitions are connected, I am disposing of the same by the common order.

3. The offences alleged in all the cases are under Section

13(1) (c) and (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988 (for short 'the PC Act'), Sections 409 , 465, 468, 477 and 120B of the IPC .

4. The prosecution case in all the cases are identical. It runs as follows: The accused Nos. 1 to 3 were the Managing Director, Secretary and Administrative Officer respectively of the Kerala State Development Corporation for Christian Converts from the Scheduled Castes and Recommended Communities Limited, Kottayam (for short 'the Corporation'). The Corporation has been constituted mainly for giving loans to the members of the said castes and communities under the self employment scheme. During the period 1995-1996, the accused Nos. 1 to 3 hatched criminal conspiracy with the remaining accused and loanees for misappropriating the funds of the Corporation. In pursuance of the said conspiracy, the accused No.1 granted loans illegally to the loanees accepting forged documents and thereafter, they misappropriated the loan amount.

5. The respondent/accused in all the above Crl.R.Ps appeared at the court below. They filed applications in the respective cases for discharge under Section 239 of Cr.P.C on the ground that there was no sufficient ground to proceed against them. The court below on consideration of records of the cases and after hearing the submissions of the respondents as well as the prosecution formed an opinion that the charge against the respondents is groundless, allowed the applications and discharged them by the two common orders referred above.

These revisions petitions have been filed by the State challenging the said common orders.

6. I have heard Sri. A. Rajesh, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for VACB. I have also heard the counsel appearing for the respondents in all the cases.

7. The learned Special Public Prosecutor Sri. A. Rajesh submitted that there are materials to presume that the respondents have committed the alleged offences. The truthfulness or falsity of the allegations are question of fact and matters of evidence to be let at the time of trial and cannot be per-judged at this stage. When there are prima facie materials to show the involvement of the respondents in the crime, the court below should have framed charge against them, submitted the learned Special Public Prosecutor. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that a close reading of the FIR, statement of the witnesses and documents on record would reveal that none of the offences alleged against the respondents are made out. The counsel further submitted that since there are no sufficient grounds to proceed against the respondents, the court below rightly discharged them under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. There is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned orders warranting interference by this Court under the exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 397 of Cr.P.C, added the learned counsel.

8. It is settled that at the time of consideration of an application for discharge, the court is required to consider whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. The court is not to examine and assess in detail the materials on record produced by the prosecutio