Kerala High Court
K.V.Abraham vs K.S.Prasad on 28 October, 2020
Author: T.V.Anilkumar
Bench: T.V.Anilkumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1942
Crl.MC.No.2757 OF 2013
AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC 18/2012 OF JUDL.M.F.C.-I,ERNAKULAM
AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC 181/2013 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
FIRST CLASS ,KOLENCHERRY
CRIME NO.337/2009 OF Kunnathunadu Police Station , Ernakulam
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2:
1 K.V.ABRAHAM,
KOCHUKUDIYIL HOUSE, PULICKAMALI P.O,
MULAMTHURUTHI.
2 LAILA,
W/O.K.V.ABRAHAM, KOCHUKUDIYIL HOUSE, PULICKAMALI
P.O, MULAMTHURUTHI.
BY ADVS.SRI.IEANS.C.CHAMAKKALA
SRI.BINU B.SAMUEL
SRI.P.M.ARUN DAS
RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANTS AND STATE:
1 K.S.PRASAD
S/O.SIVARAMAN, KADAYIKKAL HOUSE, PERUMPILLI P.O,
MULAMTHURUTHY.
2 NELVAYAL SAMRAKSHANA SAMITHY,
ER 310/2009, PERUMPILLI P.O, MULAMTHURUTHY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI.K.S.PRASAD,
S/O.SIVARAMAN, KADAYIKKAL HOUSE, PERUMPILLI
P.O., MULAMTHURUTHY.
3 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE P.CHACKO
OTHER PRESENT:
PP - SRI. BINEESH E.C.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
26-08-2020, THE COURT ON 28-10-2020 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.2757/2013
-:2:-
Dated this the 28th day of October, 2020
O R D E R
Petitioners seek to quash Annexure-A private complaint instituted against them by respondents 1 and 2 for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 464, 465 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(for short, 'the IPC').
2. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.181/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kolenchery. They are husband and wife and owners of 87.5 cents of paddy land purchased in their joint names on 12.06.2007. First respondent is the Secretary and second respondent is Nelvayal Samrakshana Samithy.
3. According to the respondents, the first petitioner is a leader of a real estate mafia and he purchased the paddy land for illegal conversion and sale of it for high profit. He fully realised that conversion of paddy land was not possible without sanction from concerned authorities and therefore, in conspiracy with his close associates and with joint efforts of all, he forged a Non-Objection Certificate No.162/2007 dated Crl.M.C.No.2757/2013 -:3:- 08.05.2007 purporting to be issued by the Secretary of Mining and Geology Department. He is, in fact, the beneficiary of the fake and bogus document dated 08.05.2007. The allegations in Annexure-A complaint proceed to state that making use of the false document, he illegally converted the paddy land defying stop memo issued by local Panchayat and Village Officer and all public protests made against the illegal reclamation. It is further averred in the complaint that in order to safeguard the illegal interests of the petitioners, they brought about a bogus registered association called as Mulanthuruthy Petrumpilly Nelvayal Samrakshana Samithy and with the help of the office bearers of the Samithy, they went ahead with illegal conversion and managed to complete the filling work.
4. The court below which recorded the sworn statement of the first respondent did not come across from the materials on record any prima facie case either in support of allegations made as against accused Nos.3 to 14 in Annexure-A complaint or charges of criminal conspiracy and unlawful assembly made against all the accused as alleged. It, therefore, passed an order taking Crl.M.C.No.2757/2013 -:4:- cognizance limited to commission of offences under Sections 465, 471 read with Section 34 of the IPC and to the petitioners alone. It is significant to note that neither commission of offence under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 was alleged in Annexure-A nor cognizance was directed by the court against the petitioners for commission of such offence.
5. The grounds taken by the petitioners for quashing Annexure-A complaint are threefold and as follows:
(i) The allegations in Annexure-A complaint are vague and false and further, on same set of allegations, the State already instituted C.C.No.700/2012 before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kolenchery on police report against real culprits and they were acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 420, 465 and 471 read with Section 34 of the IPC by judgment dated 03.04.2014. It was alleged by the prosecution that the first petitioner was duped by the accused in C.C. No.700/2012 after receiving an amount of Rs.1,10,000/-
from him and they created a bogus Non-Objection Certificate purporting to have Crl.M.C.No.2757/2013 -:5:- been issued by authorities. Since the prosecution in C.C.No.700/2012 was at the bequest of the first respondent as the de facto complainant, criminal prosecution on same set of allegation has no legal sanctity.
(ii) The prosecution itself is barred by Section 468(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973(for short,'the CrPC') since the complaint was not brought within three years from the alleged commission of forgery. The forged certificate was allegedly issued on 08.05.2007 and therefore, the court below was not justified in having taken cognizance of offences after expiry of the stipulated period from the date of the forged document.
and
(iii) The respondents instituted the complaint as joint complainants which is barred by law and in this respect, a decision reported in Thethavusamy v. Radhakrishnan [2007(1) KLT 226] was cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
6. Respondents 1 and 2 filed a detailed counter and produced 44 documents. The prayer for quashment was seriously opposed contending that Crl.M.C.No.2757/2013 -:6:- prosecution is not time barred inasmuch as the offences in question were continuing in character and limitation is saved by Section 473 of the CrPC. It is also contended that respondents 1 and 2 constituted a single entity and therefore, complaint cannot be dismissed as being instituted by joint complainants. Thirdly, it was contended that the allegations in C.C.No.700/2012 were different from those made in Annexure-A complaint and quite independent. Further, the judgment of acquittal of accused in C.C.No.700/2012 is the outcome of collusion between first petitioner and accused therein and is therefore vitiated.
7. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Public Prosecutor.
8. The main ground on which the petitioners seek to quash Annexure-A complaint is that there is an implied acknowledgement of the innocence of petitioners by virtue of prosecution of accused in C.C. No.700/2012 though it ended in acquittal by judgment dated 03.04.2014 following a mediation settlement arrived between parties. They relied on complaint dated 08.06.2008 filed by the first petitioner before Sub Inspector of Police, Crl.M.C.No.2757/2013 -:7:- Mulanthuruthy and the District Collector, Ernakulam, complaining that the accused in C.C.No.700/2012 obtained a bogus NOC duping the petitioners purporting to have been issued by the authorities sanctioning conversion of the paddy land.
9. The case of the petitioners is that accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.700/2012 Sri. Varghese and Pareeth respectively used to purchase marbles and granites from the shop run by first petitioner and became familiar with him. Knowing first petitioner's intention to purchase the paddy land in question, they approached him promising to obtain NOC from authorities provided he offered to pay an amount of Rs.1,10,000/-. The paddy land proposed to be purchased was already being used by the public at large and local Panchayat for dumping hospital and animal waste. The petitioners, therefore, had a bona fide belief that the paddy land being already unfit for cultivation, there would not be difficulty for obtaining legal sanction for conversion.
10. Believing the words of the accused Nos.1 and 2, the first petitioner parted with an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- and obtained Non-Objection Crl.M.C.No.2757/2013 -:8:- Certificate dated 08.05.2007 issued by the Secretary of Mining and Geology Department. Later, he found out that there was mistake in the mention of his father's name and therefore he returned the order to the accused for necessary correction. His further enquiry with the Department however revealed that the document dated 08.05.2007 was bogus and fabricated. It was in that context, he moved the local Sub Inspector on 08.06.2008 and a crime as No.337/2009 was registered against accused under Sections 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
11. The case was, however, referred as being a dispute of civil nature on 20.05.2009 whereupon the first petitioner filed a protest complaint before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kolenchery on 24.07.2010. During the course of pendency of the complaint, the police took over further investigation of crime No.337/2009 and submitted a final report implicating Sri. C.P.Varghese and Pareeth and also one Febin finding him also to be involved in the crime. All the three accused were prosecuted in C.C..No.700/2012 and in the course of the trial, the issues with parties were mediated and by Crl.M.C.No.2757/2013 -:9:- virtue of a mediated settlement agreement dated 29.08.2013, the court below acquitted all the three accused of all charges by judgment dated 03.04.2014.
12. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the allegations as to forgery and fabrication of document dated 08.05.2007 was investigated upon in Crime No.337/2009 and the issues were settled since the dispute was purely one of private nature and the trial court accepted the same also. Since the prosecution came to an end through legal means, the legal effect of the judgment dated 03.04.2014 meant implied acceptance of the petitioners' innocence.
13. The offences for which the accused were prosecuted in C.C.No.700/2012 were by all means non-compoundable. There are reasons to assume that C.C.No.700/2012 came to an end in the midst of public agitations against the petitioners that paddy land purchased was for their real estate business and reclamation was made on the basis of a bogus sanction order. It is also noteworthy that Annexure-A complaint was already filed by respondents 1 and 2 as early as on 15.09.2012. Crl.M.C.No.2757/2013 -:10:- The offences against petitioners were also taken cognizance of by order dated 04.02.2013 long before the acquittal of accused in C.C.No.700/2012. In spite of both proceedings pending before the same court, it is strange to notice that neither the details of Annexure-A complaint nor the ongoing prosecution against the first petitioner was brought to the notice of the court while C.C.No.700/2012 was mediated and the case was terminated by order of acquittal dated 03.04.2014. Nobody has a case that the order of acquittal was challenged by the State or anybody aggrieved thereby, in any higher forum. The judgment of acquittal shows that the first petitioner testified before the court that matter was settled in mediation. No prosecution witnesses were examined and State did not show any interest in proceeding further with the matter. On the sole basis that the issues were settled between parties notwithstanding that the offences were non-compoundable, the court acquitted the accused giving a quietus to the disputes between the parties.
14. One of the questions is whether Annexure-N order of acquittal dated 03.04.2014 can Crl.M.C.No.2757/2013 -:11:- be said to be obtained by collusion between the first petitioner as the de facto complainant and the accused in Crime No.337/2009. I do not want to express any view on this question in the nature of view, which I propose to take below. As per Section 44 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 a judgment or order whether civil or criminal obtained by fraud or collusion is vitiated under law. This is largely a mixed question which will have to be decided in this case by the Court based on evidence, facts and circumstances of the case.
15. Whatever that be, it is difficult to accept that the allegations in C.C.No.700/2012 are identical with the accusations made in Annexure-A complaint. The subject matter of prosecution in both cases cannot be said to be identical. In C.C.No.700/2012, the allegations of forgery and fabrication of false document were levelled against the accused in that case whereas allegation in Annexure-A complaint is against the petitioners that they were also parties to forgery and were acting in furtherance of their common intention with the accused in C.C.No.700/2012. Further, the allegations made against the petitioners in Annexure-A complaint were not the Crl.M.C.No.2757/2013 -:12:- subject matter of investigation in C.C.No.700/2012.
16. Nobody has a case that any legal question as to double jeopardy or bar based on autre fois acquit applies to the facts on hand. Double jeopardy under Section 300 of the CrPC applies only when there is trial of accused over again on same charges of which they were already convicted or acquitted. That is not the position which applies to the case on hand. Since the nature of grievance raised in Annexure-A is distinct from allegations raised and accepted by court in C.C.No.700/2012, Annexure-A complaint, in my view, cannot be assailed as amounting to abuse of process of law. The legal principles which ordinarily justify quashment of criminal proceedings as laid down in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others [2019(2) KHC 190] and relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners will not apply to the facts of this case. Therefore, the first ground taken in support of quashment is held to be not sustainable.
17. Second ground taken in support of plea for quashment is also not sustainable since Crl.M.C.No.2757/2013 -:13:- prosecution in the facts of the present case cannot be said to be time barred under Section 468(2) of the CrPC. It is true that the forged order of sanction is dated 08.05.2007 and Annexure-A complaint was filed after five years and only on 15.09.2012. The contention of the respondents 1 and 2 that the offences under Sections 464, 465 and 471 read with Section 34 of the IPC are continuing offences are not sound. The offence of forgery was completed on the very date on which the false document was issued. Nevertheless, in my view, the prosecution is not barred despite it not having been brought within the stipulated period under Section 468(2) of the CrPC.
18. Under Section 473 CrPC, court has power to take cognizance of an offence after expiry of the period of limitation, if it is satisfied on the facts and circumstances of the case that cognizance was necessary in the interest of justice. The court below has not entered a definite finding that the delay was condoned in the interest of justice. However, having regard to the fact that there were public agitations against the petitioners' alleged conversion of paddy land Crl.M.C.No.2757/2013 -:14:- and the legal authorities were faking legal steps for resisting the conversion etc., I am satisfied that this is a deserving case where delay is liable to be condoned in the interest of public justice. Therefore, attack on prosecution on the ground of limitation fails.
19. The third ground taken for quashment of Annexure-A complainant is that it was filed as a joint complaint. Though the complainants are two in number, as a matter of fact, the authorship of prosecution must be deemed to be at the instance of a single entity. The second respondent is a Samithy registered under the Travancore Cochin Charitable and Scientific Act, 1955 and it is represented by the Secretary. Functionally the aggrieved, who initiated the prosecution ought to be considered as a single entity notwithstanding the complainants being two in number. Therefore, the contention that Annexure-A complaint at the instance of more than one complainant is not maintainable is not sound. Further the facts of this case are clearly distinguishable from Thethavusamy's case supra cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contention attacking maintainability of complaint. Crl.M.C.No.2757/2013 -:15:- Thus, I hold that none of the grounds canvassed for quashing Annexure-A complaint is sustainable and Annexure-A complaint is not liable to be quashed.
In the result, Crl.M.C. fails and it is dismissed. This being an old case of 2013, the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kolenchery is directed to dispose of C.C.No.181/2013 on its file as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is, however, made clear that the court below will proceed to dispose of this matter on merits without being influenced or prejudiced by any of the observations made in this order.
Sd/-
T.V.ANILKUMAR,JUDGE
DST //True copy/
P.A.To Judge
Crl.M.C.No.2757/2013
-:16:-
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN CC
181/2013 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLENCHERY DATED 15.9.2012.
ANNEXURE B A TRUE COPY OF THE SWORN STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE IST RESPONDENT IN CRL.M.C IN CC 181/2013 OF JFCM COURT, KOLENCHERY.
ANNEXURE C A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER TAKING COGNIZANCE DATED 14.2.2013 IN CC 181/2013 OF JFCM COURT, KOLENCHERY. ANNEXURE D A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.3.2007 SHOWN TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. ANNEXURE E A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 8.5.2007 GIVEN TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. ANNEXURE F A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 11.5.2009 FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.
ANNEXURE G A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME 337/2009 OF KUNNATHUNADU POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE H A TRUE COPY OF THE REFER REPORT DATED 20.5.2009 IN CRIME 337/2009 FILED BEFORE THE JFCM, KOLENCHERY.
ANNEXURE I A TRUE COPY OF THE PROTEST COMPLAINT DATED 24.7.2010 FILED BEFORE THE JFCM, KOLENCHERY.
ANNEXURE J A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 20.4.2011 FILED BEFORE THE JFCM, KOLENCHERY.
ANNEXURE K A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 337/2009 FILED BEFORE THE JFCM, KOLENCHERY.
ANNEXURE L A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 4.6.2010 IN CC 18/2012 OF JFCM I, ERNAKULAM Crl.M.C.No.2757/2013 -:17:- ANNEXURE M COPY OF THE MEDIATION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN 700/2012 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLENCHERY.
ANNEXURE N PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN 700/2012 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLENCHERY.
ANNEXURE O PHOTOCOPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.98 OF 2014 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLENCHERY.
ANNEXURE P THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MULANTHURUTHY DATED 08.06.2008. ANNEXURE Q THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT GIVEN TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DATED 08.06.2008.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE R1(1) TRUE COPY OF THE NOC NO.162/07 DATED 08.05.2007 FORGED BY THE PETITIONERS, WHICH IS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN PASSED IN PROCEEDINGS M & G-SL-7645/07 BY THE SECRETARY, MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
ANNEXURE R1(2) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO.7056/M4/08 DATED 23.07.2008 ISSUED BY THE MINING AND GEOLOGY DIRECTORATE.
ANNEXURE R1(3) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 24.12.2007 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECRETARY MULLANTHURUTHY GRAMA PANCHAYATH ANNEXURE R1(4) TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO.II(10) DATED 09.01.2008 TAKEN BY THE MULANTHURUTHY GRAMA PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE.
ANNEXURE R1(5) TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2228/1/2007 DATED 12.06.2007 OF SRO MULANTHURUTHY.
ANNEXURE R1(6) TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO NO.357/07-08 DATED 25.03.2008 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE Crl.M.C.No.2757/2013 -:18:- OFFICER, MULANTHURUTHY.
ANNEXURE R1(7) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 03.06.2008 ISSUED BY THE MULANTHURTHURUTHY AGRICULTURAL OFFICER. ANNEXURE R1(8) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.357/07-08 DATED 03.04.2008 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MULANTHURUTHY.
ANNEXURE R1(8)(A) TRUE COPY OF ANNEXURE TO ANNEXURE R1(8) FILED BY THE MULANTHURUTHY VILLAGE OFFICER, TO THE KANAYANNUR TAHSILDAR. ANNEXURE R1(9) TRUE COPY OF INJUNCTION ORDER IN H3- 6721/08 DATED 24.05.2008 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK. ANNEXURE R1(10) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT AND PERFORMA DATED 27.05.2008 IN FILE NO.357/07-08 FILED BY THE MULANTHURUTHY VILLAGE OFFICER, BEFORE THE KANAYANNUR TAHSILDAR.
ANNEXURE R1(11) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ADDL.TAHSILDAR KANAYANNUR BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. ANNEXURE R1(11)(A) TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DATED 25.03.2008 ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, MULANTHURUTHY.
ANNEXURE R1(11)(B) TRUE COPY OF THE INJUNCTION ORDER DATED 24.05.2008 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK.
ANNEXURE R1(11)(C) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 27.05.2008 FILED BY THE TAHSILDAR KANAYANNUR TO THE HONOURABLE RDO FORT KOCHI ALONG WITH READABLE COPY.
ANNEXURE R1(11)(D) TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 26.05.2008 FILED BY THE TAHSILDAR KANAYANNUR BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR, MULANTHURUTHY.
ANNEXURE R1(11)(E) TRUE COPY OF THE INJUNCTION ORDER/NOTICE 29.05.2008 PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE RDO FORT KOCHI ANNEXURE R1(12) TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 15.07.2008 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS Crl.M.C.No.2757/2013 -:19:- BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN W.P(C)NO.16179/08.
ANNEXURE R1(13) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.07.2008 PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN W.P. (C)NO.16179/08.
ANNEXURE R1(14) TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 25.07.2008 FILED BY THE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT BEFORE THE MULANTHURUTHY VILLAGE OFFICER.
ANNEXURE R1(15) COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 25.07.2008 FILED BY THE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT BEFORE THE SECRETARY, MULANTHURUTHY GRAMA PANCHAYATH ANNEXURE R1(16) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.53/08 DATED 28.07.2008 FILED BY THE MULANTHURUTHY VILLAGE OFFICER, BEFORE THE KANAYANNUR TAHSILDAR.
ANNEXURE R1(17) TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 14.10.2008 FILED BY THE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT.
ANNEXURE R1(18) TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 14.10.2008 FILED BY THE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT BEFORE THE MULANTHURUTHY VILLAGE OFFICER.
ANNEXURE R1(19) TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 02.11.2008 FILED BY THE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT BEFORE THE SECRETARY, MULANTHURUTHY GRAMA PANCHAYATH. ANNEXURE R1(20) TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DATED 21.02.2009 ISSUED BY MULANTHURUTHY VILLAGE OFFICER.
ANNEXURE R1(21) COPY OF THE REPORT IN FILE NO.23/09 DATED 24.02.2009 FILED BY THE MULANTHURUTHY VILLAGE OFFICER TO THE KANAYANNUR TAHSILDAR.
ANNEXURE R1(22) TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DATED 31.03.2009 ISSUED BY THE MULANTHURUTHY VILLAGE OFFICER.
ANNEXURE R1(22)(A) TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED REPORT DATED 31.03.2009 FILED BY THE MULANTHURUTHY Crl.M.C.No.2757/2013 -:20:- VILLAGE OFFICER.
ANNEXURE R1(23) TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 21.02.2009 FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECRETARY MULANTHURUTHY GRAMA PANCHAYATH.
ANNEXURE R1(24) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 31.03.2009 ISSUED BY THE MULANTHURUTHY GRAMA PANCHAYATH TO THE PETITIONERS.
ANNEXURE R1(25) TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO.II(8), DATED 07.04.2009 TAKEN BY THE MULANTHURUTHY GRAMA PANCHAYATH. ANNEXURE R1(26) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2009 IN W.P.(C)NO.34608/08 PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. ANNEXURE R1(27) TRUE COPY OF THE UNDATED PETITION FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECRETARY MULANTHURUTHY GRAMA PANCHAYATH.
ANNEXURE R1(28) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 01.07.2009 FILED BEFORE THE RDO FORT KOCHI BY THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR ALONG WITH READABLE COPY. ANNEXURE R1(29) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 10.07.2009 ISSUED TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM BY THE RDO FORT KOCHI ANNEXURE R1(30) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL NEW GODOWN APPLIED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN ON 01.03.2010 BEFORE THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SALES TAX, ERNAKULAM.
ANNEXURE R1(30)(A) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION SHOWING A NEW GODOWN WITH EFFECT FROM 01.03.2010.
ANNEXURE R1(30)(B) TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE NO.A3-50/05 MULANTHURUTHY ISSUED AGAINST THE 2ND PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE R1(31) TRUE COPY OF THE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 28.05.2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN BEFORE THE MULANTHURUTHY GRAMA PANCHAYATH. Crl.M.C.No.2757/2013 -:21:- ANNEXURE R1(31)(A) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO ANNEXURE R1(31) I.E., A3 NO.3744/2011 DATED 30.06.2011 ISSUED BY THE MULANTHURUTHY GRAMA PANCHAYATH TO THE PETITIONERS ALONG WITH READABLE COPY.
ANNEXURE R1(32) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF A FAKE SAMITHI WHICH IS CREATED BY THE PETITIONERS.
ANNEXURE R1(33) TRUE COPY OF THE COPY OF NEWS PUBLISHED IN LOCAL DAILY ON 06.06.2009 REGARDING FORMATION OF A FAKE SAMITHI.
ANNEXURE R1(34) TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ARTICLE GIVEN BY THE PETITIONERS ALONG WITH THEIR ACCOMPLICES TO THE RASTRA DEEPIKA DAILY.
ANNEXURE R1(35) TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 17.04.2009 ISSUED BY THE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT TO THE PETITIONERS HEREIN ANNEXURE R1(35)(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD DATED 18.04.2009 EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF ANNEXURE R1.(35) BY THE RACKET MEMBER OF THE PETITIONERS.
ANNEXURE R1(35)(B) TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD 18.04.2009 EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF ANNEXURE R1.(35), BY THE RACKET MEMBER OF THE PETITIONERS.
ANNEXURE R1(35)(C) TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD 20.04.2009 EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF ANNEXURE R1.(35), BY THE RACKET MEMBER. ANNEXURE R1(35)(D) TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD 20.04.2009 EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF ANNEXURE R1.(35), BY THE RACKET MEMBER OF THE PETITIONERS.
ANNEXURE R1(35)(E) TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD 21.04.2009 EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF ANNEXURE R1.(35), BY THE RACKET MEMBER OF THE PETITIONERS.
ANNEXURE R1(35)(F) TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD DATED 20.04.2009 EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF ANNEXURE R1.(35), BY THE RACKET MEMBER. Crl.M.C.No.2757/2013 -:22:- ANNEXURE R1(35)(G) TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD 20.04.2009 EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF ANNEXURE R1.(35), BY THE RACKET MEMBER OF THE PETITIONERS.
ANNEXURE R1(35)(H) TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD 22.04.2009 EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF ANNEXURE R1.(35), BY THE RACKET MEMBER OF THE PETITIONERS.
ANNEXURE R1(35)(I) TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD 24.04.2009 DATED EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF ANNEXURE R1.(35), BY THE RACKET MEMBER OF THE PETITIONERS.
ANNEXURE R1(35)(J) TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD DATED 22.04.2009 EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF ANNEXURE R1.(35), BY THE RACKET MEMBER OF THE PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE R1(35)(K) TRUE COPY OF THE UNCLAIMED AND RETURNED DEMAND NOTICE I.E., ANNEXURE R1.(35), BY THE RACKET MEMBER OF THE PETITIONERS.
ANNEXURE R1(35)(L) TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD DATED 24.04.2009 EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF ANNEXURE R1.(35), BY THE RACKET MEMBER OF THE PETITIONERS.
ANNEXURE R1(36) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED 27.04.2009 ISSUED BY THE FAKE SAMITHI. ANNEXURE R1(36)(A) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED 02.05.2009 ISSUED BY THE ACCOMPLICE OF THE PETITIONERS TO THE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT.
ANNEXURE R1(37) TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 28.02.2009 FILED BY THE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT AGAINST THE PETITIONERS AND THEIR ACCOMPANIES BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MULANTHURUTHY. ANNEXURE R1(37)(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 28.02.2009 FILED BY THE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN AND THEIR ACCOMPLICES.
ANNEXURE R1(37)(B) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.106/PTN/09E2 DATED 28.02.2009 ISSUED BY SHO MULANTHURUTHY REGARDING RECEIPT Crl.M.C.No.2757/2013 -:23:- OF ANNEXURE R1(37) PETITION.
ANNEXURE R1(38) TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 04.03.2009 FILED BY THE FAKE SAMITHI BEFORE THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MULANTHURUTHY.
ANNEXURE R1(39) TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 04.05.2009 FILED BY THE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT BEFORE THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, ERNAKULAM.
ANNEXURE R1(39)(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 02.01.2012 FILED BY THE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT BEFORE THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, ERNAKULAM.
ANNEXURE R1(39)(B) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO.M1/RTI-7/2012 DATED 24.01.2012 ISSUED BY THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, DISTRICT REGISTRAR(GENERAL), ERNAKULAM. ANNEXURE R1(40) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.05.2012 IN W.P(C)NO.7990/12. ANNEXURE R1(41) TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE NO.ER 310/09 DATED 13.05.2009 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR(GENERAL), ERNAKULAM. ANNEXURE R1(41)(A) TRUE COPY OF THE RENEWAL OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DATED 22.06.2011 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR(GENERAL), ERNAKULAM. ANNEXURE R1(41)(B) TRUE COPY OF THE ENLISTMENT OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN AS ONE OF THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE MEMBER FOR THE MULANTHURTHY GRAMA PANCHAYATH. ANNEXURE R1(42) TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ARTICLE REPORTED ON 22.05.2008 AGAINST THE UNLAWFUL RECLAMATION OF PADDY FIELDS UNDERTAKEN BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN.
ANNEXURE R1(42)(A) TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ARTICLE REPORT IN MALAYALA MANORAMA.
ANNEXURE R1(42)(B) TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ARTICLE REPORTED IN MANGALAM DAILY ON 13.08.2008. ANNEXURE R1(42)(C) TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ARTICLE REPORTED Crl.M.C.No.2757/2013 -:24:- IN MANGALAM DAILY ON 25.05.2008 SEND TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE R1(43) COPY OF THE PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT MATTER PADDY FIELDS ADMEASURING 35.40 ARE COMPRISED IN RE.SY.NO.131/1 OF MULANTHURUTHY VILLAGE KANAYANNUR TALUK, OWNED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN. ANNEXURE R1(44) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2013 IN L10-30116/08 PASSED BY THE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT COLLECTOR.