Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2008CriLJ742
ORDERK. Hema, J.1. Can the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (hereafter referred to as 'the Special Judge'), on receipt of a complaint under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Court', for short), issue an order to the officers of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau ('VACB', for short) to conduct a 'preliminary enquiry' or 'vigilance enquiry' while forwarding a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code? Can such direction be issued, as per the provisions contained in the Code or the Vigilance Manual? Can such enquiry be ordered, following the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras . These are the main questions to be examined in this revision.Facts, Briefly:2. A complaint was filed by revision petitioner against respondents 1 to 4, under Section 190 of the Code, alleging offences under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act ('the P.C, Act', for short) and also under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC, fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2007]8STT33; (2007)7VST323(Ker)
K. Balakrishnan Nair J.1. The constitutional validity of Sub-section (16A) of Section 47 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and the sustainability of two circulars issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under the said provision are the points, that arise for decision in these writ petitions. Since same points arise for decision in all these writ petitions, they are heard and disposed of by this common judgment. W.P. (C) No. 2844 of 2007 is treated as the main case.W.P. (C) No. 2844 of 2007:2. The petitioner, which is a firm, is a dealer in glass sheets. It is an asses-see on the files of the third respondent, Sales Tax Officer, Manjeri, under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KVAT Act') and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The fourth respondent, Commissioner of Commercial Taxes issued Circular No. 50 of 2006, in exercise of his powers under Clause (c) of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 read with Sub-section (16A) of Section 47 of the KVAT A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2006(4)KLT166
V.K. Bali, C.J.1. Simple but significant question that arises in these three connected Writ Petitions is as to whether the Lok Ayukta, exercising powers under the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1999', has suo motu powers to conduct any investigation with respect to matters in its domain envisaged under the Act. Put in other words, whether the Lok Ayukta under the Act of 1999 would have jurisdiction to investigate grievance sought to be ventilated or projected in anonymous or pseudonymous letters, newspaper reports or a letter of complaint which may be received by him without complying with the necessary procedure as enshrined under the various provisions of the Act. Before we may, however, delve on the question as posed above in the context of rival contentions raised by the counsel representing the parties it would be useful to give a resume of the facts culminating into filing of the three petitions which the learned Counsel representing the parties a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : II(2007)BC534; 2006CriLJ3541; 2006(3)KLT418
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner in this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is one of the defendants in an Original Application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, 'DRT' for short, constituted under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. During the course of the said proceedings, the petitioner filed Ext.P6 petition requesting the DRT to conduct an enquiry against the second respondent therein, the Chief Manager of the Bank, under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and to make a complaint to the Magistrate of the First Class having jurisdiction to initiate proceedings. That petition was supported by an affidavit. The allegations in the said affidavit require to be referred to, without prejudice to the contentions before the DRT, for the sole purpose of noting the broad features of the allegations of the writ petitioner, which are as follows:Upon production of certain documents, the frau...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2006(1)KLT661
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J. 1. The petitioner, who was the Additional Private Secretary to the then Minister for Health and Family Welfare, has filed this Writ Petition, challenging Ext. Pl order issued by the Lok Ayukta and also Complaint No. 14/06, in which, the above said order has been passed. The brief facts of the case are the following :2. The Lok Ayukta received Ext. P2 petition, stated to have been filed by the President of the Kerala Government Medical Officers Association, Thiruvananthapuram dated 16.08.2005. The said forum instructed the 6th respondent, the Superintendent of Police, attached to it, to hold a discrete enquiry into the allegations contained in Ext. P2. The said Officer conducted an enquiry and filed Ext. P3 report, stating that the allegations contained in Ext. P2, against the petitioner, are substantiated by evidence. After considering the said report, the 1st respondent Lok Ayukta issued the impugned order Ext. Pl, which reads as follows:This is a complaint, f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2005(4)KLT685
ORDERM. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. First respondent filed a complaint before Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode alleging that the five accused shown therein committed offences under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption of Act, 1988 (for short PC. Act). First accused was the then Minister for Education and second accused, the then Principal Secretary, Education Department, State of Kerala: 5th accused was an Ex-MLA and accused 3 and 4 are leaders of Indian Union Muslim League, one of the ruling political parties in Kerala. Petitioners in Crl.R.P. 1215705 were the original accused 3 and 4 who are now arrayed as accused 1 and 2. Revision petitioner in Crl.R.P.1135/05 is the 5th accused who is now arrayed as third accused. They are challenging the order of Enquiry Commissioner for Special Judge, dated 14.2.05 whereunder charge for the offence under Section 9 of the Act read with Section 34 of IPC was framed against accused 1 to 3. The learned Special J...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2005Ker233; 2005(3)KLT891
ORDERK. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. Counter petitioners 1 to 3, 5 and 7 to 9 in O.P. (Trust) No. 129 of 2003, a petition filed under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking leave to file a suit in a representative capacity before the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram are the revision petitioners. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging an order passed by the I Additional District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram granting leave to the respondents 1 to 6, who were the petitioners therein, to institute a regular suit for the reliefs made in the petition.2. The 1st petitioner is a Society registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act (Act XII of 1955), (hereinafter referred to as 'Act XII of 1955') with registration No. 71 of 1986 and having registered office at 'Varada', Nandavanam, Thiruvananthapuram, 2nd petitioner is the President and the 3rd petitioner is the Secretary. Petitioners 4 to 8 are office bearers of the 1st pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2005CriLJ2944; 2005(2)KLT927
K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. W.A. No. 518 of 2004 is filed by the Joint Deputy Director, Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau, Trivandrum challenging an interim order passed by the learned Single Judge on 23.2.2004 in W.P.(C) No. 6259 of 2004 which was filed by the appellant challenging Ext.P1 notice by which he was called upon 'to produce all reports received or collected by him for the period from December, 2001 to 2.5.2003 in connection with the Marad Incidents' and also Ext.P2 order of the Commission of Inquiry (Marad Incidents) dated 16.2.2004 by which the Commission of Inquiry had rejected the privilege claimed by the petitioner-appellant under Sections 123 arid 124 of the Indian Evidence Act and directed him to produce the documents ordered to be produced under Ext.P1 in that Writ Petition.2. W. A.No. 628 of 2004 is filed by the Director General of Police and three others challenging the final judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge disposing of W.P.(C) No. 5006 of 2004. That Writ ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2005(2)KLT1
B. Subhashan Reddy, C.J.1. These three Writ Petitions have been filed as pro bono publico assailing the appointments of 12 members of Kerala Public Service Commission which were made by G.O.(P) No. 370/2004/GAD dated 30.12.2004. While in W.P.(C) Nos. 37726/2004 and 3279/2005 all the 12 newly appointed members of Kerala Public Service Commission are made respondents, in W.P.(C) No. 198/2005, only one new appointee, namely, Mr. P.R. Devadas, has been made a party. We refer the respondents as arrayed in W.P.(C) No. 37726/2004. The first respondent is the Government of Kerala, second respondent the Kerala Public Service Commission, third respondent the Chairman of the second respondent-Commission, while respondents 4 to 15 are the newly appointed members of the second respondent-Commission. Respondent No. 16 was impleaded as per order dated 12.1.2005 in I.A.No. 596/2005. He is the Principal Secretary to Government, General Administration Department and said to have handled files relating t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2005(1)KLT391
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Whether Secretary of the Vigilance Department can grant sanction under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for taking cognizance of offences against officers who are working under other departments is the question of law referred by the learned Single Judge in these appeals. In all these cases charge-sheets were issued before the introduction of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and charges were framed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Section 6 of the Act reads as follows:'6. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution.-- (1) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 161 or Section 164 or Section 165 of the Indian Penal Code or under Sub-section (2) or Sub-section (3A) of Section 5 of this Act, alleged to have been committed by a public servant except with the previous sanction,-(a) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of the Union and...
Tag this Judgment!