Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE2D DAY OF DECEMBER201411TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1921 of 2014 () -------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER
IN C.C.NO.432/2010 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, MANANTHAVADI DATED1510-2014 REVISION PETITIONER(S)/SOLE ACCUSED:- ---------------------------------------------------------------- N.VASU, AGED71YEARS S/O.LATE NARAYANAN, AMBATTYVAYALIL HOUSE VELLATHOOVAL KARA, DEVIKULAMM TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/STATE OF KERALA AND THE COMPLAINANT:- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD INVESTIGATION DIVISION, PADINJARETHARA THARIYODU NORTH P.O., VITHIRI TALUK WAYANAD - 673 001. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON,SC,KSEB ADV. SRI.JAICE JACOB,SC,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0212-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Bb K. Ramakrishnan, J.
============================== Crl.R.P.No.1921 of 2014 ============================== Dated this, the 02nd day of December, 2014. ORDER
Accused in C.C.No.432/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-II, Mananthavadi is the revision petitioner herein.
2. The case was originally taken on file on the basis of a protest complaint filed by the complainant - The Kerala State Electricity Board through its Executive Engineer alleging offences under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code as the complaint filed by the Board before the police which was registered as Crime No.561/2009 of Mananthavadi police station was referred by the police as mistake of fact and on getting the refer notice, the protest complaint was filed and on the basis of the complaint, the case was taken on file as C.C.No.432/2010 by the learned magistrate and summons was issued to the revision petitioner and on his appearance, evidence under Section 244 of Code of Criminal Procedure was taken and after hearing both sides, the court below under Section 245 of Code of Criminal Crl.R.P.No.1921 of 2014 :
2. : Procedure decided to frame charge against the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 417 and 471 of of Indian Penal Code holding that there is no material to frame charge under Section 465, 468 and 420 of Indian Penal Code. This order is being challenged by the revision petitioner by filing the above revision.
3. The Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that there is inordinate delay in filing the case though it was mentioned in the complaint that they came to know about the fraud committed by the revision petitioner in the year 2001 on the basis of a complaint received from one Jose and conducted a Vigilance enquiry and came to know that the complaint is true, but they did not produce the Vigilance report which is the basis for the Board to initiate criminal action against the petitioner. That delay has not been considered. Further, according to the Counsel for the revision petitioner, since the offence under Section 468, 465 and 420 have not been made out as found by the court below, the court below was not justified in proceeding against the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 417 and 471 of Indian Penal Code. So, according to him, the lower court had committed irregularity in Crl.R.P.No.1921 of 2014 :
3. : deciding to frame charge for the above said offence.
4. On the other hand, the Standing Counsel for the Board Shri.Sathyanatha Menon had submitted that there is no time limit provided for filing of complaint for the offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code as the punishment provided for is more than 3 years and also for Section 471 also the punishment is more than 3 years. Further, at the time of framing charge, court need only consider about the allegations made and even if there is suspicion regarding the allegations of commission of the offence that is sufficient to proceed with the complaint.
5. On going through the order passed by the court below, this court felt that there is no illegality committed by the court below in framing charge for the offence under Section 417 and 471 of Indian Penal Code as the allegation was that he had produced some false or forged document as genuine document for the purpose of getting employment and induced the Board to provide employment and on that basis he enjoyed the benefit for more than 10 years than he was really entitled to hold the post and caused loss to the Board. Further, the case of the complainant was that his younger Crl.R.P.No.1921 of 2014 :
4. : brother one Rajan was also employed in the Board and he retired one year prior to the revision petitioner. That also shows that the document proving his date of birth produced by the revision petitioner is not genuine and knowing that it is false, he had produced the same as genuine and obtained benefit. However, certain documents have been produced before the court below and it was marked through PW1 - the complainant. The genuineness or admissibility of those documents or relevancy of those documents are not to be considered by the court at the time of considering the question as to whether charge will have to be framed or not as those are matters to be considered at the time of trial. Court is also need not at this stage to go into the question as to whether the allegations or the documents produced or evidence adduced is sufficient for conviction also. Unless the court is satisfied that the allegations are groundless, court is not expected to allow the plea for discharge. If there is any suspicion regarding the commission of the offence, that will be sufficient for the court to proceed with framing of charge. So, under the circumstances, this court feels that there is no necessity to interfere with the finding of the order passed by Crl.R.P.No.1921 of 2014 :
5. : the court below decided to proceed against the revision petitioner for the offence alleged. This court is not expressing any opinion regarding the defence taken by the revision petitioner to be agitated before the court below as well. Those are all matters to be considered by the court below while considering the evidenciary value of the documents produced to form an opinion as to whether that is sufficient for conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence alleged. So, this court does not feel any reason to interfere with the order passed by the court below.
6. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the incident alleged to have happened in the year 2001 and he has already retired and the terminal benefits could not be obtained on account of the pendency of the case and he wanted an early disposal of the case. So, considering these aspects, this court feels that the revision can be disposed of directing the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-II, Mananthavadi to expedite disposal of the case as expeditiously as possible at any rate within 5 months from the date of receipt of this order. The revision petitioner is at liberty to raise all the contentions raised by him before this court before the trial court and the Crl.R.P.No.1921 of 2014 :
6. : court below is at liberty to consider those aspects untrammeled by any observation made by this court in the order and come to an independent conclusion on the basis of the evidence available on record in accordance with law. With the above direction and observation, the revision petition is disposed of. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately. Sd/- K.Ramakrishnan, Judge. Bb [True copy] P.A to Judge