Kerala High Court
K.Rajamohan vs State Of Kerala on 1 February, 2017
Author: P.Ubaid
Bench: P.Ubaid
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID
WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/12TH MAGHA, 1938
Crl.MC.No. 496 of 2017 ()
--------------------------
AGAINST C.C NO. 3/2004 OF THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL
JUDGE, THIRUVANATHAPURAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.8:
-----------------------
K.RAJAMOHAN,
AGED 71 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY,
ANJALY, TC.22/349, MANACADU P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
(FORMER HEAD CLERK, KIP LB SUB DIVISION NO.IV,
KOTTARAKKARA).
BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)
SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
----------------------
STATE OF KERALA.
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 01-02-2017, ALONG WITH CRL.M.C NO.525/2017 THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 496 of 2017
-----------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
-----------------------
ANNEXUREM A- COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN FIR NO.41/98/KLM
FILED BY THE VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, KOLLAM, NOW
PENDING AS C.C.NO.3/2004 OF THE COURT OF THE ENQUIRY
COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
ANNEXURE B- COPY OF RELEVANT RECORD SHEET WHICH IS MARKED IN
THE FINAL REPORT AS RECORD NO.60.
ANNEXURE C- COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT ALONG WITH THE COPY OF
THE STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER RECORDED UNDER 161 CR.P.C. IN
C.C.NO.1/2004 OF THE COURT OF THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND
SPECIAL JUDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
ANNEXURE D- COPY OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 161
CRL.P.C. OF CW29 IN C.C.NO.3/2004 OF THE COURT OF THE ENQUIRY
COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:
-----------------------
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
ab
P.UBAID, J.
-----------------------------------------
Crl.M.C Nos.496 & 525 of 2017
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of February, 2017
O R D E R
The petitioner is same in these two applications. He is the 8th accused in C.C No.3/2004 of the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram and the 7th accused in C.C No.4/2004 therein. The allegations in the final report in these two cases are concerning a contract and the supplemental contracts relating to some works agreed to be carried out in connection with the Kallada Irrigation Project. Those contracts were executed years back. The petitioner herein was the Head Clerk at the office of the Assistant Executive Engineer at the relevant time. What is alleged against him and others is some vicious role in preparation of escalation price list concerning some supplemental agreements. The case of the State is that the contractor was not in fact entitled for such benefits, but as part of a conspiracy with the contractor, this petitioner and the others including some Engineers wrongly prepared an Crl.M.C Nos.496 & 525 of 2017 2 escalation price list and got it passed for payment by the concerned Engineer. The definite contention of the petitioner is that he was only a ministerial staff at the office of the Engineer and he happened to put his initials in the escalation price list in his capacity only as a ministerial officer. He is definite that he had no role at all in the alleged vicious deal or transaction concerning the supplemental agreements. The petitioner seeks orders under Section 482 Cr.P.C quashing the prosecution as against him in the two cases.
2. It is submitted that some of the accused have already obtained orders from this Court in the revisions brought by them against the orders disallowing discharge by the trial court. One of the accused obtained orders in 2012, one obtained orders in 2014 and the other obtained orders in 2016. It appears that the petitioner did not opt to file application for discharge. Only after the others obtained orders, he brought these two applications to quash the prosecution. Of course, if there is merit in the contentions, it will have to be examined by the trial court. Now, it is submitted that the court below has already framed charge against the accused including the petitioner herein on 22.11.2016. The said fact is not seen revealed in the present Crl.M.C Nos.496 & 525 of 2017 3 Crl.M.C and the legality of the said charge is not seen challenged in this proceeding. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the charge framed by the court, he can bring appropriate proceeding challenging the court charge. Giving him such liberty, subject to the question of limitation, these two applications can be now closed.
3. The definite case of the petitioner is that he had no role at all in the alleged deal concerning the price escalation statement, relating to the some supplemental agreements, and that just because he happened to put his initials in the list, he was arraigned as accused by the VACB. In view of the orders passed by this Court in favour of some other accused, the contention raised by the petitioner will have to be seriously considered by the trial court. Whether there is any definite material to prove any conspiracy or vicious role as against him, will have to be seriously examined by the court below during the trial process. Just because, the petitioner happened to be a ministerial staff at the office of the Engineer, or just because he happened to put his initials in the report made by some others, or accepted by the Engineers, he cannot be held liable. All the material aspects will have to be thoroughly probed into by the Crl.M.C Nos.496 & 525 of 2017 4 trial court. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner is only a witness in some other prosecutions brought by the VACB in connection with the very same project. It will have to be examined how he happened to be arraigned as accused in these two cases, when he is a material witness in the other crimes.
4. In the above circumstances, I feel it appropriate to close these two Crl.M.Cs, giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the charge framed by the trial court appropriately, subject to the law of limitation. If he is not inclined to bring such proceedings, or if he is prepared to face trial, the observations made by me will have to be seriously considered by the trial court.
In the result, giving liberty to the petitioner to bring appropriate proceedings as regards the charge framed by the trial court, these two applications are disposed of.
Sd/-
P.UBAID, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab