Kerala High Court
Dr.Vincent J vs State Of Kerala on 18 April, 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2014/10TH ASHADHA, 1936
Crl.MC.No. 774 of 2013 ()
--------------------------
CRIME NO.4/2011 BY THE VIGILENCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, KANNUR.
PETITIONER/ACCUSED :
------------------
DR.VINCENT J, VETERINARY SURGEON,
GOVERNMENT VETERINARY DISPENSARY, P.O KARIPPAL,
CHAPPARAPPADAVU, KANNUR, NOW WORKING
AT VETERINARY SURGEON ADCP KASAGOD,
P.O MADHUR KASARGOD - 671 124.
BY ADV.SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ.
RESPONDENT(S):
-------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM 682 031.
2. BIPIN THOMAS,
S/O.M.K.THOMAS,
MATTATHIL HOUSE,
PACHANI, KARIPPAL,
VELLORA AMSOM, THALIPARAMBA,
KANNUR DISTICT - 690 001.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SNT.BINDU GOPINATH.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
01-07-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 774 of 2013 ()
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :
ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY MR.BIPIN THOMAS
ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO 4/2011 OF THE VACB UNIT
KANUUR.
ANNEXUREIII TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO X-1-24237/11/VIG DT
23-08-11 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR VETERINARY
DEPARTMENT.
ANNEXURE IV TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 18-04-2012.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
amk
A.HARIPRASAD, J.
------------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C No.774 of 2013
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of July, 2014.
O R D E R
Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.4/2011 registered by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau (in short 'VACB') Kannur Unit. He is charged with offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Prosecution case in brief is that while the petitioner/accused was working as a Veterinary Surgeon in Government Veterinary Hospital, Chapparaparambu, he demanded bribe from the defacto complainant. Later on 13-07-2011, the Vigilance Officers laid a trap wherein the petitioner was arrested for accepting bribe of `250/- from the defacto complainant.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted on the Crl.M.C No.774 of 2013 2 basis of Annexure A5 that the petitioner, as a Veterinary Surgeon, is entitled to undertake private practice as per the instructions in AHD Manual. It is also submitted on the basis of Dr.K.L.Anand v. The State (A.I.R 1956 Allahabad 673) that medical officer is entitled to do private practice and he is entitled to accept money for the professional service. Learned counsel for the petitioner, based on the ratio in State of Haryana v Bhajan Lal (A.I.R 1992 SC 604), contended that the power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C should be invoked to do justice in this case. Further, it is argued on the basis of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala v. Mangal Singh and Others ((2011)11 SCC 702) that the departmental direction permitting the petitioner to do private practice cannot be disregarded and he cannot be prosecuted for accepting money for professional services beyond his office hours. Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that a full Crl.M.C No.774 of 2013 3 fledged trap has been laid in this case and he was caught red handed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the stage of investigation in this matter, I am not satisfied that this is a fit case wherein the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be invoked to terminate the proceedings. The petitioner is however free to raise appropriate contention before the trial court and argue for a discharge. The court will consider the contention untrammelled by any observation in this order. With this observation, the Crl.M.C is disposed.
All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.
Sd/-
A.HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
amk //True Copy// P.A to Judge