Kerala High Court
Unknown vs By Advs.Sri.K.Siju on 28 December, 2016
Author: B. Sudheendra Kumar
Bench: B.Sudheendra Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 22ND POUSHA, 1939
OP(Crl.).No. 238 of 2017
CRMP 441/2016 of ENQUIRY COMMR.& SPL.JUDGE,THRISSUR
CRIME NO. 6/2017 OF VACB, THRISSUR , TRISSUR
PETITIONER(S)
DR. K PRATHAPAN
S/O.KESAVAN PILLAI, AGED 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT SABARI,
KTC 17/809, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
FORMER MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA FEEDS LTD.,
KALLETTUMKARA P.O., IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680683.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.SIJU
SRI.PRATHEESH.P
SMT.S.SEETHA
RESPONDENT(S):
1. ADV. K.R AJITH BABU
S/O.RAPPAI, KANADI HOUSE, OLLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
2. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
3. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
VIGILANCE & ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, THRISSUR.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN
R2-R3 BY SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. A. RAJESH
THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-01-2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(Crl.).No. 238 of 2017 (Q)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 THE COPY OF COMPLAINT IN CRL.M.P.NO.441/2016 ON
THE FILE OF THE COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER
AND SPECIAL JUDGE, THRISSUR.
EXHIBIT P2 THE COPY OF THE QUICK VERIFICATION REPORT
SUBMITTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIGILANCE
AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, THRISSUR, DATED
28-12-2016.
EXHIBIT P3 THE COPY OF ORDER DATED 10-2-2017 IN
CRL.M.P.NO.441/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF
ENQUIRY COMMISSION & SPECIAL JUDGE, THRISSUR.
EXHIBIT P4 THE COPY OF THE FIR IN V.A.C.B. CRIME NO.6/17/TSR
DATED 25-2-2017.
EXHIBIT P5 THE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE
PETITIONER DATED 9-2-2016, G.O.(RT)NO.52/16/AHD.
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.
-------------------------------------------------
O.P. Crl. No. 238 of 2017
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of January, 2018
ORDER
The petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No. VC 06/17/TSR, registered for the offence under Section 13(1)
(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, ("the P.C. Act" for short) and Sections 420 and 120 B read with Section 34 IPC.
2. The first respondent herein filed a private complaint before the court below alleging corruption in the matter of appointments to various posts in M/s. Kerala Feeds Company Limited, Kallettumkara, Irinjalakkuda. It is alleged that the appointment to the post of Managers, O.P. Crl. No. 238 of 2017 -2- Office Assistants and Drivers had to be made through the Employment Exchange only. However, the first accused who was the then Minister insisted that appointments should be made by direct recruitment which was against the stand taken by the then Managing Director. When the Managing Director was not ready to heed to the demand of the Minister, he was removed from that post and the petitioner was appointed as the Managing Director. The idea behind such replacement was corruption. It is alleged that 12 persons were unauthorisedly appointed by the first and the second accused after receiving huge amount as bribe. On receipt of the said complaint, the learned Special Judge forwarded the complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, VACB, Thrissur for O.P. Crl. No. 238 of 2017 -3- preliminary enquiry. After the preliminary enquiry, Ext. P2 report was filed stating that no element of corruption could be detected in the preliminary enquiry. However, the learned Special Judge did not accept the said report. The learned Special Judge directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, VACB, to register Crime Under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. And investigate.
3. The petitioner has filed this Original Petition praying for setting aside Ext. P3 order passed by the court below and the consequent registration of Ext. P4 FIR in VC 06/17/TSR as against the petitioner.
4. Heard.
O.P. Crl. No. 238 of 2017 -4-
5. A statement has been filed by the Inspector of Police, VACB , Thrissur today. I have gone through the statement. It has been stated by the learned Sr. Special Public Prosecutor that no element of corruption could be detected against the petitioner or the other accused during the course of investigation. It is stated in the statement that the Board of Directors delegated the power of appointment to the Managing Director and the Managing Director had made the appointment only in accordance with the powers conferred upon him. It is reported that the petitioner held the post of Managing Director from 10-2- 2016 to 3-8-2016. During his tenure, three Management Trainees, 42 Apprentice Trainees, 35 Casual Workers/Technicians, 11 Daily Wages /consolidated staff and two Garden Workers were temporarily posted in the Company. Besides this, one Vipin .K. who was working as O.P. Crl. No. 238 of 2017 -5- Management Trainee in the Marketing Division, Kozhikode District was allowed to continue on daily wages by the petitioner. Altogether 12 Field Assistants were there on daily wages. Out of the 12 Field Assistants, 11 of them were appointed on daily wages by the former Managing Director, namely Sri. K.Venugopal, who held the post as Managing Director from 18-12-2014 to 9-2-2016. In the above said posting, the posting of Vipin.K., a daily wage alone was without advertisement and without conducting interview.
6. At this juncture it is relevant to mention the appointments made by the former M.D. Sri. K.Venugopal. During his tenure, 15 Management Trainees, 58 Apprentice Trainees, 132 temporary casual/worker/Technicians, 37 daily wages/ consolidates, one garden worker, were temporarily posted in the Company as per the statement O.P. Crl. No. 238 of 2017 -6- filed by the Inspector Vigilance, VACB, Thrissur. This would show that the allegation of the complainant that the former Managing Director Sri. K.Venugopal was replaced by the petitioner on the reason that the former Managing Director was not prepared to make appointments directly as suggested by the first accused who was the then Minister, cannot be said to be founded on factual matrix. The appointments made by the petitioner as well as the former Managing Director were in accordance with the authority given by the Board of Directors. The only reasonable allegation is that the posting of Vipin on daily wages was without advertisements. However, it is stated in the report that Vipin was not initially appointed by the petitioner and the said Vipin was only permitted to be continued by the petitioner. It has been submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that no element of corruption could be detected any where. It has been further O.P. Crl. No. 238 of 2017 -7- submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that the quick verification conducted and the investigation so far conducted did not reveal any cognizable offence. The Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari v. Government of U.P. and Others [AIR 2014 SC 187] held that the scope of preliminary enqiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence. Since quick verification did not reveal any cognizable offence, the learned Special Judge was not justified in directing the Deputy Superintendent of Police VACB to register the crime and investigate under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has submitted that the investigation is almost complete. It appears from the report that the investigation so far conducted has not also revealed any cognizable offence. In view of the above reasons, permitting to continue the investigation against O.P. Crl. No. 238 of 2017 -8- the petitioner will not serve any purpose. For the above said reasons, I am inclined to set aside Ext. P3 order passed by the learned Special Judge and the consequent registration of Ext. P4 FIR, to secure the ends of justice. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, this Crl.M.C. Stands allowed.
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE.
ani/