Kerala High Court
K.N.Shibi vs State Of Kerala
Author: P. Bhavadasan
Bench: P.Bhavadasan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN
MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/17TH POUSHA 1934
Bail Appl..No. 9228 of 2012 ()
------------------------------
(CRIME NO.1538/2012 OF OTTAPPALAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT)
---------
PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED:
-----------------------
K.N.SHIBI, AGED 34 YEARS, W/O.SANKARANARAYANAN,
RESIDING AT KOOTHUPARAMBIL VEEDU
MANISSERY, OTTAPPALAM, PINCODE-679 521
PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM
SRI.BENNY VARGHESE (PALLIVATHUKKAL)
RESPONDENT/STATGE:
------------------
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
COCHIN-682 031
(INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN CRIME NO.1538/2012
OF OTTAPPALAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT)
ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED
-----------------
ADDL.R2. VINIYAMKULAM PANCHAYAT VANITHA
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY (P-1051),
MANASSERY, OTTAPPALAM POST,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,
V.SANTHA KUMARI, AGED 72 YEARS,
D/O.LATE VADAKKOTTU GOVINDAN,
EZHUTHASSAN, VADAKKOTTU HOUSE,
MANISSERY;
ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 07.01.13 IN
CRL.MA.8256/12 IN BA.9228/2012.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.S.SREEJITH
ADDL.2 BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV
SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 07-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
VK
P. BHAVADASAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A. No. 9228 of 2012
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 11th day of January, 2013.
ORDER
The petitioner, a daily collection agent attached to Vaniyamkullam Panchayath Vanitha Co-operative Society Ltd. No.P-1051 Manissery, who was accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 463 and 468 of Indian Penal Code, has approached this court seeking pre-arrest bail.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that she, without making proper entries in the ledgers concerned and having manipulated the details, has deprived the Society of a huge amount and thereby committed the offences mentioned earlier.
3. The petitioner would say that she is totally innocent and has been made a scape goat for the clandestine activities carried out by the higher officials of the Society. According to her, she was only a collection B.A.9228/2012. 2 agent and her only duty was to collect amounts from the clients and hand it over to the higher officials of the Bank. She had nothing to do with the entires made in the registers and her only duty was to collect the amounts and give receipts to the respective clients. She could not therefore have manipulated the records and misappropriated the amounts as alleged against her and she claims to be totally innocent.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor very vehemently opposed the application. It was pointed out by him that the claim of the petitioner that she is totally innocent is incorrect. According to him, the Society concerned had only very few employees and the practice that was being followed by the Society was that a daily collection agent, who collects the amounts, makes the relevant entires in the register and the Secretary supervises the same. It is pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner used to make wrong entries in the registers and used to misappropriate amounts and later after the entries were B.A.9228/2012. 3 verified by the Secretary, she used to correct the entires. It was therefore clear that amounts were collected from the clients. Learned Public Prosecutor would point out that in the internal audit conducted by the Society, it was revealed that a sum of Rs.56 Lakhs have been misappropriated causing considerable financial burden to the Society. It is pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that the investigation is at an infant stage and therefore granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioner would have considerable impact on the investigation and it may not be possible to have a fair and free investigation.
5. CD was made available for perusal. It is true that the petitioner was working as a daily collection agent. Her duty was to collect money from the clients and hand it over to the Society. If that alone was the duty of the petitioner, there would be some substance in the contention raised by the petitioner. But the records reveal that since there is paucity of staff in the Society, the practice that was being followed was that the daily collection agent, who B.A.9228/2012. 4 collects the amounts, used to make necessary entries in the registers and counter verified by the Secretary of the Society. Going by the records, it is seen that the petitioner had followed the same practice and she used to make entries in the registers and ledgers concerned. As per the allegations, she used to make wrong entries in the registers and after it was counter signed by the Secretary, she used to carry out corrections. It is seen from the records that the allegation is all that she used to show less amounts in the registers and misappropriated the balance amount and thereafter corrected the entires and when the money is returned to the clients, the amount more than that is deposited in his/her account is given to the client. Going by the internal audit conducted by the Society, it is seen that huge amounts have been misappropriated by the petitioner. It is true that the entries are to be counter signed and to be verified by the Secretary. But in view of the practice that was being followed in the Society, it is clear that the manipulations and corrections could have been done by the B.A.9228/2012. 5 daily collection agent. Any how, those are all matters for investigation and the truth can be ascertained only after all the records are verified. There may or may not be substance in the grievance voiced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that such a huge amount could not have been siphoned by the petitioner without the connivance of other staff in the Society. That contention does not enure to the benefit of the petitioner. As already noticed, the specific allegation against the petitioner is that she had made incorrect entires and corrected them at a later stage and thereby misappropriated the amounts.
6. It is seen that investigation is at a very infant stage. If the allegations are true, the matter is indeed very serious and the Society has incurred huge financial liability. Any how, these are all matters to be investigated into. In the nature of the allegations, it is felt that custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be absolutely necessary and if that be so, the question of exercising extraordinary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner does not arise. B.A.9228/2012. 6
This application is without merits and it is accordingly dismissed.
However, if the petitioner is so advised, she may surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 17.01.2013, who, after interrogation, shall produce her before the JFCM Court concerned, which court, on an application for bail being moved by the petitioner, shall dispose of the same in accordance with law.
P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.