Kerala High Court
Sam John T. Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 15 October, 2024
2024:KER:76456
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 23RD ASWINA, 1946
OP(CRL.) NO. 362 OF 2024
CRIME NO.02/14/ERK/2014 OF VACB, KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM
CC NO.1 OF 2023 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE,
KOTTAYAM / III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:
1 SAM JOHN T. THOMAS
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O. T.T. THANKACHAN, THOOLIMANNIL,
NALUNNAKKAL P.O., VAKATHANAM VILLAGE,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686538
BY ADVS.
RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL
ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW
NEENA ELISABATH ANTONY
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
UNIT-II, VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU,
EASTERN RANGE, KOTTAYAM THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
BY ADVS.
SRI.A.RAJESH, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (VIGILANCE)
SMT.REKHA S., SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY BEEN HEARD ON 15.10.2024,
ALONG WITH CRL.MC.6348/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:76456
O.P.(Crl.) No.362 of 2024 & Crl.M.C. No.6348 of 2023
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 23RD ASWINA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 6348 OF 2023
CC NO.1 OF 2023 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE,
KOTTAYAM ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.02/2014 OF VACB, KOTTAYAM
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.2 TO 8, 10 & 12:
1 SAM JOHN T. THOMAS
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O. T.T. THANKACHAN, THOOLIMANNIL, NALUNNAKKAL P.O.,
VAKATHANAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686538
2 ABRAHAM P GEORGE
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O. GEORGE, PUTHUPARAMPIL HOUSE, OLASSA P.O.,
AYMANAM VILLAGE, PIN - 686014
3 THANKACHAN C.K.
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O. CHACKO, CHALAPPURATHU HOUSE, PIRAVOM P.O.,
NEAR POLICE STATION PIRAVOM,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686664
4 PRIYA THOMAS
AGED 57 YEARS
W/O. PHILIP VARGHESE, PRIYA BHAVAN,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001
5 SHERLY K. THOMAS
AGED 57 YEARS
W/O. JOHNSY JOHN, AMBAKUZHY HOUSE,
CHENGALAM, SOUTH KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686585
2024:KER:76456
O.P.(Crl.) No.362 of 2024 & Crl.M.C. No.6348 of 2023
3
6 LEENA P. KURIAN
AGED 52 YEARS
D/O. ANIL P KURIAN, PALLIVATHUKKAL HOUSE,
OLASSA P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686014
7 RACHEL PHILIP
AGED 66 YEARS
W/O. THOMAS JOHN, VAHANATTU HOUSE,
THIRUNAKKARA P.O.,KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001
8 SOUMINI JOHN M.
AGED 56 YEARS
W/O. THANKACHAN, CHITTAKKTTU HOUSE,
MARIATHURUTHU P.O.,KUDAYAMPADY, PIN - 686017
9 VINCYKUTTY PAUL
AGED 58 YEARS
W/O. JOHN CHACKO, PALLITHAZHE HOUSE, CHALUKUNNU,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001
10 JESSY BENNY
AGED 53 YEARS
W/O. T.M. JOSEPH, THRAPPEL HOUSE, CHUNGAM,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001
BY ADVS.
RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL
ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW
ANJANA S.
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
UNIT-II, VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU,
EASTERN RANGE, KOTTAYAM REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADVS.
SRI.A.RAJESH, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (VIGILANCE)
SMT.REKHA S., SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
2024:KER:76456
O.P.(Crl.) No.362 of 2024 & Crl.M.C. No.6348 of 2023
4
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY BEEN HEARD ON
15.10.2024, ALONG WITH OP(CRL.).362/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:76456
O.P.(Crl.) No.362 of 2024 & Crl.M.C. No.6348 of 2023
5
"C. R."
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.6348 of 2023 & O.P.(Crl.) No.362 of 2024
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of October, 2024 ORDER/JUDGMENT The first Criminal Miscellaneous Case is preferred challenging Annexure-F Final Report, based upon which C.C. No.1/2023 is pending consideration of the Special Court, Kottayam. The Original Petition second above referred is one challenging Ext.P9 and P13 orders, the first of which permits the prosecution to conduct further investigation in C.C.No.1/2023 and another Calendar Case under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C; and the second, directing the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer to give the specimen signature and hand writing.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in both these matters and the learned Special Public Prosecutor (Vigilance).
3. Accused nos.2 to 8, 10 and 12 in Crime No.02/2014/ERK of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau 2024:KER:76456 O.P.(Crl.) No.362 of 2024 & Crl.M.C. No.6348 of 2023 6 Eastern Range, Kottayam are the petitioners in Crl.M.C. No.6348 of 2023. The prosecution case centers around the allegation that the accused persons have criminally conspired, with malafide intention, to manipulate the staff fixation done by the Education Department and fraudulently issued bogus transfer certificate in the name of twelve fictitious students, utilising which, the second accused fabricated twelve bogus admissions. In the name of twelve other students, who were studying in the K.G. Section, bogus admissions were created, thus creating 24 bogus/fictitious pupil altogether during the academic year 2009-2010. The whole exercise was to prevent the division fall, so as to enable accused nos.7 and 12 to continue in their job and to obtain pecuniary advantage illegally, thus committing the offences under Section 13(1)(d), read with Section 13(2), of the Prevention of Corruption Act ('P.C. Act', for short) and also, under Sections 465 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('Penal Code', for short).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would point out that in Annexure-F Final Report, the petitioners are 2024:KER:76456 O.P.(Crl.) No.362 of 2024 & Crl.M.C. No.6348 of 2023 7 charge sheeted only for offences punishable under Sections 465, 471, 120B and Section 34 of the Penal Code, whereas the first accused is charge sheeted for offences under Section 13(1)(d), read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act, along with other cognate offences under the Penal Code. The thrust of the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, in respect of offences under the Penal Code only, the petitioners cannot be prosecuted before the Special Court. Sanction sought for to prosecute the petitioners under Section 19 of the P.C. Act stands declined, vide Annexure-G. Learned counsel would emphasise that a sanction in terms of Section 19 of the P.C. Act is a sine qua non to prosecute the petitioners, who are admittedly public servants, at the time of commission of offences, wherefore, the present final report as against the petitioners only for offences under the Penal Code, but before the Special Court, is legally flawed. It was then pointed out that Annexure-H circular relied upon by the prosecution to file Annexure-F final report is applicable only in cases where sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is not required. In the instant case, 2024:KER:76456 O.P.(Crl.) No.362 of 2024 & Crl.M.C. No.6348 of 2023 8 learned counsel would rely upon Section 12(2) of the Kerala Education Act to argue that previous sanction from the Government is required for dismissal or removal of the petitioners, wherefore sanction under Section 197 is required. Annexure-H circular cannot therefore be relied upon to give a final report as Annexure-F, for which reason also, Annexure-F final report cannot be sustained. On such premise, Annexure-F final report is sought to be quashed.
5. In answer to the above contention, learned Special Public Prosecutor (Vigilance) would submit that, as per Ext.P9 order produced in the connected Original Petition, the Special Court has permitted to conduct further investigation in C.C.No.1/2023, wherefore, the investigation cannot be deemed to be complete and the technical infirmities with respect to Annexure-F final report cannot loom large, so as to entail quashment of the same.
6. Learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit that various courses are open before the Investigating Agency. Based on new materials collected during further investigation, a fresh application for sanction can be made 2024:KER:76456 O.P.(Crl.) No.362 of 2024 & Crl.M.C. No.6348 of 2023 9 before the sanctioning authority. In case, the petitioners are liable to be charged only for the offences under the Penal code, a report to that effect can be filed before the Special Court, with a request to transfer the matter to the jurisdictional Criminal Court. Necessary application for sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. can also be filed, if found required after further investigation. Therefore, the absence of prosecution sanction under Section 19 of the P.C. Act, or for that matter under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C, and the maintainability of Annexure-F final report as against petitioners in respect of offences under the Penal Code only before the Special Court is not a matter to be gone into and adjudicated at this point of time, inasmuch as further investigation has already been ordered, is the submission made.
7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court can only endorse the submission made by the learned Special Public Prosecutor (Vigilance). As per Ext.P9 order produced in the connected Original Petition, further investigation has already been 2024:KER:76456 O.P.(Crl.) No.362 of 2024 & Crl.M.C. No.6348 of 2023 10 ordered, wherefore, the finality of Annexure - F final report has been lost. The infirmities, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though relevant and significant, may be cured by adopting either of the courses suggested by the learned Special Public Prosecutor. As rightly pointed out by the learned Special Public Prosecutor (Vigilance), Annexure-F final report will merge with the final report to be filed after conducting further investigation, wherefore, the present exercise of considering the legality and the validity of Annexure-F final report is not going to be of any avail.
8. The answer to the contention based on Annexure-H circular also lies in the submission made by the learned Special Public Prosecutor (Vigilance) that Annexure-F final report has not become final in view of the further investigation order vide Ext.P9 order of the Special Court. The two courses suggested by the learned Special Public Prosecutor will take care of the present contention as well. The present contention will assume significance only if a final report is preferred, like Annexure-F, even after further investigation by maintaining offences only under the Penal 2024:KER:76456 O.P.(Crl.) No.362 of 2024 & Crl.M.C. No.6348 of 2023 11 Code against the petitioners, harping on Annexure-H circular. I am, therefore, not inclined to quash Annexure-F final report on that count as well.
9. In the circumstances, leaving open the grounds of challenge urged in this Criminal Miscellaneous Case, to the extent it applies to the final report to be filed after further investigation, and affording liberty to urge all contentions available in law as against that report, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case will stand dismissed. O.P.(Crl.) No.362 of 2024
10. Coming to the contentions in Original Petition (Criminal) challenging Ext.P9 order allowing further investigation, this Court will straight away observe that, the challenge against Ext.P9 order cannot be sustained. Ext.P9 order is sought to be challenged on the premise that further investigation is sought for and granted, only in the context of the offence under Section 465 of the Penal Code, for which, the Special Court is not competent to grant. This Court may refer to Section 4(3) of the P.C. Act, which enables a Special Judge to try any offence other than those specified 2024:KER:76456 O.P.(Crl.) No.362 of 2024 & Crl.M.C. No.6348 of 2023 12 in Section 3, for which the accused may be charged at the same trial under the Cr.P.C. In the instant case, the offence under Section 465, as also other offences under the Penal Code, are so inextricably interwoven with the substratum of the prosecution case and the offences sought to be canvassed under the P.C. Act. Needless to say that, the said offences are offences in which the accused may be charged at the same trial under the Cr.P.C. Therefore, the contention that the Special Court has no power to order further investigation, when it is sought for essentially in respect of the offence under Section 465 of the Penal Code, can hardly be sustained. Therefore, the challenge to Ext.P9 order will stand repelled.
11. Coming to Ext.P13 which directed the petitioner to give his specimen handwriting and signature, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Criminal Procedure (Identification Act, 2022) ('2022 Act', for short) can only be prospective, inasmuch as, it interferes with the rights of the accused persons in a crime. In other words, it creates new disability to the accused, for which 2024:KER:76456 O.P.(Crl.) No.362 of 2024 & Crl.M.C. No.6348 of 2023 13 reason, it is liable to be reckoned prospective; and not retrospective. As regards the enabling provision under Section 311A, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was never arrested in connection with the crime, wherefore he cannot be compelled to give his specimen signature, going by the proviso to Section 311A. In the absence of both these enabling provisions, the learned Special Judge could not have ordered the accused to give his specimen signature and handwriting, wherefore Ext.P13 order is bad in law. Based on the 2022 Act, it was pointed out that power of the Magistrate under Section 5 can only be subject to the requirements in Section 3. There also, the requirement of having been arrested in connection with an offence is seen specifically engrafted. Thus, the submission is that, even for exercise of powers under Section 5, the accused should have been arrested, which eventuality has not taken place in the instant facts, wherefore, the 2022 Act cannot apply, is the submission made.
12. The solitary answer offered by the learned 2024:KER:76456 O.P.(Crl.) No.362 of 2024 & Crl.M.C. No.6348 of 2023 14 Special Public Prosecutor to the above contention is that, inasmuch as further investigation has been ordered, even if 2022 Act is construed as prospective, the investigation is not complete and the procedure contemplated therein can be applied to the on-going investigation. Therefore, Ext.P13 order warranting the petitioner to give his specimen signature and handwriting is fully in accord with the 2022 Act. Learned Special Public Prosecutor would clarify that the above contention is raised in the peculiar facts, without prejudice to his contention that the 2022 Act is retrospective, the same being only procedural in nature.
13. Coming to the contentions based on Section 5, learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit that the same is not dependent on the parameters circumscribing Section 3 of the said Act.
14. Having heard the respective learned counsel, this Court can only endorse the submissions made by the learned Special Public Prosecutor. As rightly pointed out, the investigation is not yet complete. By virtue of Ext.P9 order, further investigation has been ordered. The Act came into 2024:KER:76456 O.P.(Crl.) No.362 of 2024 & Crl.M.C. No.6348 of 2023 15 force in 2022. Ext.P9 order was passed on 06.12.2022, admittedly after the coming into force of the 2022 Act. Therefore, there cannot be any legal impediment in the 2022 Act being made applicable to the on-going investigation.
15. Coming to the contention based on Section 3 and 5 of the 2022 Act, this Court notice that Section 3 makes a person obliged to allow his measurement to be taken, if he is arrested in connection with an offence punishable under any law for the time being in force. Whereas, Section 5 empowers the Magistrate to direct any person to give measurements under this Act for the purpose of any investigation or proceeding under the Cr.P.C. or any other law for the time being in force. Section 5 empowers the Magistrate to pass an order to that effect and the person to whom that order relates shall allow such measurements to be taken, in conformity with such direction. This Court notice the distinction between Section 3 and 5. Section 3 casts a duty on a person to allow his measurement to be taken in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government or State Government; whereas Section 5 2024:KER:76456 O.P.(Crl.) No.362 of 2024 & Crl.M.C. No.6348 of 2023 16 empowers the Magistrate to direct any such person to give measurements under the Act and the measurements in the latter case, has to be taken in conformity with the terms contained in the order. It is significant to note that for the application of Section 3, the person should have been arrested in connection with an offence, whereas no such condition is seen engrafted to Section 5, which deals with the power of the Magistrate. It is all the more so, when a similar stipulation is engrafted to Section 311A Cr.P.C. by virtue of a proviso. In the circumstances, it can only be construed that the omission of a condition in the lines of the proviso to Section 311A to Section 5 is a conscious one. The obvious intention of the Statute makers is not to fetter the power of the Magistrate to direct any person to give measurements, by any condition regarding his arrest or otherwise. It is noteworthy that the expression employed in Section 5 is 'any person', which is the expression employed in Section 3 as well, but saddled with a liability that such person should have been arrested in connection with an offence. This requirement is conspicuously absent in 2024:KER:76456 O.P.(Crl.) No.362 of 2024 & Crl.M.C. No.6348 of 2023 17 Section 5. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner based on Sections 3 and 5 of the 2022 Act also stands repelled.
16. In the circumstances, this Original Petition (Criminal) also fails. However, the contentions of the petitioner, except those which are concluded by virtue of this order/judgment, are left open to be appropriately agitated after the Investigating Officer files the final report, pursuant to the further investigation ordered.
The Criminal Miscellaneous Case and the Original Petition (Criminal) are disposed of as above.
Sd/-
C. JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE SKP/15-10 2024:KER:76456 O.P.(Crl.) No.362 of 2024 & Crl.M.C. No.6348 of 2023 18 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6348/2023 PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 19/12/2012 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE COURT OF THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, KOTTAYAM ANNEXURE B A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE DY.S.P., VACB EASTERN RANGE KOTTAYAM BEFORE THE COURT OF THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, KOTTAYAM ANNEXURE C A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21/03/2014 OF COURT OF THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, KOTTAYAM IN CRL.M.P. NO.1512/2012 ANNEXURE D CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN VC 2/14/ERK OF VACB/ER KOTTAYAM OF VACB EASTERN RANGE KOTTAYAM ANNEXURE E A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09/02/2017 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN CRIMINAL MC NO.3165/2014 ANNEXURE F CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.02/14/ERK OF VACB EASTERN RANGE, KOTTAYAM SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, KOTTAYAM ANNEXURE G A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE CORPORATE MANAGER OF CMS SCHOOLS TO DY.S.P., VACB EASTERN RANGE, KOTTAYAM ANNEXURE H A TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.7/2022 DATED 14/10/2022 OF THE DIRECTOR, VACB, THIRUVANTHAPURAM ANNEXURE I A TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.H2/35637/2014 DATED 09/10/2014 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT ANNEXURE J A TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER DATED 15/07/2009 ISSUED BY THE AEO, KOTTAYAM WEST IN RESPECT OF CNI LP SCHOOL, KOTTAYAM 2024:KER:76456 O.P.(Crl.) No.362 of 2024 & Crl.M.C. No.6348 of 2023 19 ANNEXURE K A TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER DATED 10/08/2010 ISSUED BY THE AEO, KOTTAYAM WEST IN RESPECT OF CNI LP SCHOOL, KOTTAYAM ANNEXURE L A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DEO, KOTTAYAM REGARDING FIXATION OF ESTABLISHMENT FOR 2010-2011 IN RESPECT OF CNI LP SCHOOL, KOTTAYAM RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURE: NIL 2024:KER:76456 O.P.(Crl.) No.362 of 2024 & Crl.M.C. No.6348 of 2023 20 APPENDIX OF OP(CRL.) 362/2024 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 19/12/2012 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE COURT OF THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, KOTTAYAM EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE DY.S.P., VACB EASTERN RANGE KOTTAYAM BEFORE THE COURT OF THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, KOTTAYAM EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 26/03/2014 IN VC 2/14/ERK OF VACB/ER KOTTAYAM OF VACB EASTERN RANGE KOTTAYAM EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09/02/2017 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN CRIMINAL MC NO.3165/2014 EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.02/14/ERK OF VACB EASTERN RANGE, KOTTAYAM DATED 09/01/2023 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, KOTTAYAM EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30/03/2021 ISSUED BY THE CORPORATE MANAGER OF CMS SCHOOLS TO DY.S.P., VACB EASTERN RANGE, KOTTAYAM EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 31/10/2023 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT INCRL.M.C.NO.6348/2023 EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 04/12/2023 SUBMITTED BY THE VACB BEFORE THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, KOTTAYAM ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.02/14/ERK OF VACB EASTERN RANGE, KOTTAYAM EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 06/12/2023 OF THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, KOTTAYAM IN CRL.M.P.NO.1342/2023 IN C.C.NO.1/2023 AND CRL.M.P.NO.1343/2023 IN C.C.NO.15/2023 2024:KER:76456 O.P.(Crl.) No.362 of 2024 & Crl.M.C. No.6348 of 2023 21 EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 08/01/2024 SUBMITTED BY DYSP, VACB EASTERN RANGE, KOTTAYAM BEFORE THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, KOTTAYAM ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.02/14/ERK OF VACB EASTERN RANGE, KOTTAYAM EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 23/03/2024 ISSUED BY THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, KOTTAYAM TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 11/04/2024 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, KOTTAYAM TO EXHIBIT P12 APPLICATION EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16/04/2024 OF THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, KOTTAYAM IN CRL.M.P.NO.52/2024 IN C.C.NO.1/2023 AND C.C.NO.15/2023 EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20/04/2024 ISSUED BY THE DYSP, VACB EASTERN RANGE, KOTTAYAM RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE