Kerala High Court
Padhmanabhan vs State Of Kerala on 31 July, 2018
Author: B. Sudheendra Kumar
Bench: B.Sudheendra Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2018 / 9TH SRAVANA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 1902 of 2018
C.C.NO.30/2016 OF COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND
SPECIAL JUDGE (VIGILANCE) MUVATTUPUZHA (DISTRICT)
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO:1
PADHMANABHAN, S/O. KESAVAMENON,
AGED:-78 YEARS 33/A1,SREELAKSMI,
OLD KAKKANADU ROAD,KOCHI.
BY ADVS.SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI (SR.)
SRI.R.ANIL
SRI.M.SUNILKUMAR
SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B.
SRI.T.ANIL KUMAR
SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM (NILACKAPPILLIL)
SRI.E.VIJIN KARTHIK
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT::
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031.
BY SHRI SURESH BABU THOMAS, ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-07-2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 1902 of 2018 ()
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
ANNEXURE A: A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF MEMO FILED BY VENUGOPAL
K.NAMBIAR.
ANNEXURE B: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF CMP 159/2018 IN C.C.NO.30/2016 OF
COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE
(VIGILANCE), MUVATTUPUZHA.
ANNEXURE C: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF OBJECTION IN CMP 159/2018 IN
C.C.MP.30/2016 OF COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER
& SPECIAL JUDGE (VIGILANCE), MUVATTUPUZHA.
ANNEXURE D: CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER DTD.22/2/2018 IN CMP
NO.159/2018 IN C.C NO.30/2016 OF COURT OF ENQUIRY
COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE (VIGILANCE),
MUVATTUPUZHA.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL
// True copy // PA to Judge
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.
--------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.1902 of 2018
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of July, 2018
ORDER
The petitioner is the first accused in C.C.No.30 of 2016 on the files of the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Muvattupuzha. The offences alleged are offences under Sections 13 (1) (c) and (d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 409, 468, 471 and 477 A r/w Section 120 B IPC.
2. After closing the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the accused was called upon to enter on Crl.M.C. No.1902 of 2018 -2- defence. However, no evidence was adduced on the side of the accused. During the course of final argument, the prosecution filed C.M.P.No.159 of 2018, praying for recalling PW6 stating that there was no identification of the accused by the witness. The court below as per Annexure D order, allowed the said petition, against which this Crl.M.C. has been filed.
3. Heard both sides.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in Vijayadas K.V. v. State of Kerala [2017 (4) KHC 91] and argued that the recalling and the re-examination of a witness cannot be done to fill up the lacuna or to cover up the defect or to rectify the mistake crept in the evidence and in the said circumstances, the court below was not justified in Crl.M.C. No.1902 of 2018 -3- recalling PW6 for the purpose of identification of the witnesses. In Vijayadas K.V.(supra), the trial court had re-opened the evidence suo motu after the final hearing and examined some witnesses who were already given up by the prosecution. Thereafter, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. After legal formalities, the case was posted for judgment. At that time, the court re-opened the case again suo motu by order under challenge in that case. In Vijayadas K.V. (supra), the court observed thus:
b