Kerala High Court
Premarajan M.V vs State Of Kerala on 17 December, 2024
2024:KER:95960
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2024 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA,
1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 66 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.10.2021 IN CRMP 1235/2018 IN
CC NO.11 OF 2014 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER& SPECIAL
JUDGE,THRISSUR
CRIME NO.20/2010 OF VACB, THRISSUR
REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:
PREMARAJAN M.V.
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O.VELAYUDHAN, MAMBARAMBATH HOUSE, NHAMANGHAT,
VADAKKEKKAD, CHAVAKADU TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT
- 680 506.
BY ADVS.
SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY
SHAJIN S.HAMEED
AMJATH A.R
RESPONDENTS/STATE & ACCUSED:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH
COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
2024:KER:95960
2
Crl.R.P.Nos.66 of 2022 &
connected cases
2 V.K.FASALUL ALI
(FORMER PRESIDENT VADAKKEKADU SERVICE
CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.562) S/O.KUNJALAN
RESIDING AT VAKKAYIL HOUSE, KALLUR P.O.,
VADAKKEKADU - 680 302.
R1 BY SMT. REKHA S, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
R1 BY SRI A RAJESH, SPL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
(VIGILANCE)
R2 BY V.V.JOY
PREETHI RAMAKRISHNAN
T.C.KRISHNA
C.ANIL KUMAR
ASHA K.SHENOY
PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE
RAJIT
ARJUN S.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
FINAL HEARING ON 03.12.2024, ALONG WITH
Crl.Rev.Pet.437/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
17.12.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:95960
3
Crl.R.P.Nos.66 of 2022 &
connected cases
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2024 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA,
1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 120 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.10.2021 IN CRMP 1238/2018 IN
CC NO.14 OF 2014 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER& SPECIAL
JUDGE,THRISSUR
REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:
PREMARAJAN M.V.
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O.VELAYUDHAN, MAMBARAMATH HOUSE, NHAMANGHAT,
VADAKKEKKAD, CHAVAKADU TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT
- 680 317.
BY ADVS.
SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY
SHAJIN S.HAMEED
AMJATH A.R
RESPONDENTS/STATE & ACCUSED:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH
COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
2 V.K.FASALUL ALI
(FORMER PRESIDENT VADAKKEKADU SERVICE CO-
OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.562), S/O.KUNJALAN,
RESIDING AT VAKKAYIL HOUSE, KALLUR P.O.,
VADAKKEKADU - 680 317.
2024:KER:95960
4
Crl.R.P.Nos.66 of 2022 &
connected cases
R1 BY SMT. REKHA S, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
R1 BY SRI A RAJESH, SPL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
(VIGILANCE)
R2 BY P.RAMAKRISHNAN
R2 BY PREETHI RAMAKRISHNAN
R2 BY T.C.KRISHNA
R2 BY C.ANIL KUMAR
R2 BY ASHA K.SHENOY
R2 BY PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
FINAL HEARING ON 03.12.2024, ALONG WITH
Crl.Rev.Pet.437/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
17.12.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:95960
5
Crl.R.P.Nos.66 of 2022 &
connected cases
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2024 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA,
1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 121 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.10.2021 IN Crl.M.Appl
1240/2018 IN CC NO.16 OF 2014 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER&
SPECIAL JUDGE,THRISSUR
CRIME NO.20/2010 OF VACB, THRISSUR
REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:
PREMARAJAN M V.,
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O. VELAYUDHAN, MAMBARAMATH HOUSE, NHAMANGHAT,
VADAKEKKAD, CHAVAKADU TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY
SHAJIN S.HAMEED
AMJATH A.R
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH
COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM.
2024:KER:95960
6
Crl.R.P.Nos.66 of 2022 &
connected cases
2 V K FASALUL ALI,
(FORMER PRESIDENT VADAKKEKADU SERVICE CO
OPERATIVE BANK LTD, NO. 562), S/O. KUNJALAN
RESIDING AT VAKKAYIL HOUSE KALLUR P.O.,
VADAKKEKADU.
R1 BY SMT. REKHA S, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
R1 BY SRI A RAJESH, SPL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
(VIGILANCE)
R2 BY P.RAMAKRISHNAN
PREETHI RAMAKRISHNAN
T.C.KRISHNA
C.ANIL KUMAR
ASHA K.SHENOY
PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
FINAL HEARING ON 03.12.2024, ALONG WITH
Crl.Rev.Pet.437/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
17.12.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:95960
7
Crl.R.P.Nos.66 of 2022 &
connected cases
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2024 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA,
1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 124 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.10.2021 IN CRMP 1234/2018 IN
CC NO.19 OF 2014 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER& SPECIAL
JUDGE,THRISSUR
CRIME NO.20/2010 OF VACB, THRISSUR
REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:
PREMARAJAN M V
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O VELAYUDHAN, MAMBARAMATH HOUSE, NHAMANGHAT,
VADAKEKKAD, CHAVAKADU TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-
680302.
BY ADVS.
SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY
SHAJIN S.HAMEED
AMJATH A.R
RESPONDENTS/STATE & ACCUSED:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH
COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
2024:KER:95960
8
Crl.R.P.Nos.66 of 2022 &
connected cases
2 V K FAIZAL ALI
FORMER PRESIDENT VADAKKEKADU SERVICE CO-
OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.562, S/O KUNJALAN
RESIDING AT VAKKAYIL HOUSE KALLUR P O,
VADAKKEKADU-680302.
R1 BY SMT. REKHA S, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
R1 BY SRI A RAJESH, SPL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
(VIGILANCE)
R2 BY P.RAMAKRISHNAN
PREETHI RAMAKRISHNAN
T.C.KRISHNA
C.ANIL KUMAR
ASHA K.SHENOY
PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
FINAL HEARING ON 03.12.2024, ALONG WITH
Crl.Rev.Pet.437/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
17.12.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:95960
9
Crl.R.P.Nos.66 of 2022 &
connected cases
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2024 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA,
1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 127 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.10.2021 IN CRMP 1239/2018 IN
CC NO.15 OF 2014 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER& SPECIAL
JUDGE,THRISSUR
REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:
PREMARAJAN M V,
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O. VELAYUDHAN, MAMBRAMATH HOUSE, NHAMANGHAT
VADAKEKKAD, CHAVAKADU, TALUK THRISSUR DISTRICT-
680 302.
BY ADVS.
SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY
SHAJIN S.HAMEED
AMJATH A.R
RESPONDENTS/STATE & ACCUSED:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH
COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
2024:KER:95960
10
Crl.R.P.Nos.66 of 2022 &
connected cases
2 V.K.FASALUL ALI,
( FORMER PRESIDENT VADAKKEKADU SERVICE CO
OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.562) S/O. KUNJALAN
RESIDING AT VAKKAYIL HOUSE, KALLUR P.O.,
VADAKKEKADU-680 302.
R1 BY SMT. REKHA S, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
R1 BY SRI A RAJESH, SPL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
(VIGILANCE)
R2 BY P.RAMAKRISHNAN
PREETHI RAMAKRISHNAN
T.C.KRISHNA
C.ANIL KUMAR
ASHA K.SHENOY
PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
FINAL HEARING ON 03.12.2024, ALONG WITH
Crl.Rev.Pet.437/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
17.12.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:95960
11
Crl.R.P.Nos.66 of 2022 &
connected cases
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2024 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA,
1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 129 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.10.2021 IN CRMP 1241/2018 IN
CC NO.17 OF 2014 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER& SPECIAL
JUDGE,THRISSUR
REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:
PREMARAJAN M V
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O. VELAYUDHAN, MAMBARAMATH HOUSE, NHAMANGHAT,
VADAKEKKAD, CHAVAKADU TALUK THRISSUR DISTRICT -
680 506.
BY ADVS.
SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY
SHAJIN S.HAMEED
AMJATH A.R
RESPONDENTS/STATE & ACCUSED:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH
COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.
2024:KER:95960
12
Crl.R.P.Nos.66 of 2022 &
connected cases
2 V K FASALUL ALI,
(FORMER PRESIDENT VADAKKEKADU SERVICE CO
OPERATIVE BANK LTD, NO. 562), S/O. KUNJALAN
RESIDING AT VAKKAYIL HOUSE KALLUR P.O.,
VADAKKEKADU 680 302.
R1 BY SMT. REKHA S, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
R1 BY SRI A RAJESH, SPL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
(VIGILANCE)
R2 BY RAMAKRISHNAN
PREETHI RAMAKRISHNAN
T.C.KRISHNA
C.ANIL KUMAR
ASHA K.SHENOY
PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
FINAL HEARING ON 03.12.2024, ALONG WITH
Crl.Rev.Pet.437/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
17.12.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:95960
13
Crl.R.P.Nos.66 of 2022 &
connected cases
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2024 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA,
1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 134 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.10.2021 IN CRLMP 1236/2018 IN
CC NO.12 OF 2014 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER& SPECIAL
JUDGE,THRISSUR
REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:
PREMARAJAN M.V,
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O. VELAYUDHAN, MAMBARAMATH HOUSE,
NHAMANGHAT , VADAKEKKAD, CHAVAKADU TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 506.
BY ADVS.
SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY
SHAJIN S.HAMEED
AMJATH A.R
RESPONDENTS/STATE & ACCUSED:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH
COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.
2 V.K. FASALUL ALI (FORMER PRESIDENT VADAKKEKADU
SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. 562)
S/O. KUNJALAN RESIDING AT VAKKAYIL HOUSE KALLUR
P.O, VADAKKEKADU - 680 302.
2024:KER:95960
14
Crl.R.P.Nos.66 of 2022 &
connected cases
R1 BY SMT. REKHA S, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
R1 BY SRI A RAJESH, SPL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
(VIGILANCE)
R2 BY P.RAMAKRISHNAN
PREETHI RAMAKRISHNAN
T.C.KRISHNA
C.ANILKUMAR (KALLESSERIL)
ASHA K.SHENOY
PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
FINAL HEARING ON 03.12.2024, ALONG WITH
Crl.Rev.Pet.437/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
17.12.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:95960
15
Crl.R.P.Nos.66 of 2022 &
connected cases
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2024 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA,
1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 135 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.10.2021 IN CRMP 1242/2018 IN
CC NO.18 OF 2014 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER& SPECIAL
JUDGE,THRISSUR
REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:
PREMARAJAN M V
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O VELAYUDHAN, MAMBARAMATH HOUSE, NHAMANGHAT,
VADAKKEKKAD, CHAVAKADU TALUK THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN-680506.
BY ADVS.
SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY
SHAJIN S.HAMEED
AMJATH A.R
RESPONDENTS/STATE & ACCUSED:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH
COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
2024:KER:95960
16
Crl.R.P.Nos.66 of 2022 &
connected cases
2 V K FASALUL ALI
FORMER PRESIDENT VADAKKEKADU SERVICE CO-
OPERATIVE BANK LTD, NO.562) S/O KUNJALAN
RESIDING AT VAKKAYIL HOUSE, KALLUR P O,
VADAKKEKADU-680302.
R1 BY SMT. REKHA S, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
R1 BY SRI A RAJESH, SPL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
(VIGILANCE)
R2 BY P.RAMAKRISHNAN
PREETHI RAMAKRISHNAN
T.C.KRISHNA
C.ANIL KUMAR
ASHA K.SHENOY
PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
FINAL HEARING ON 03.12.2024, ALONG WITH
Crl.Rev.Pet.437/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
17.12.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:95960
17
Crl.R.P.Nos.66 of 2022 &
connected cases
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2024 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA,
1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 136 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.10.2021 IN CRMP 1237/2018 IN
CC NO.13 OF 2014 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER& SPECIAL
JUDGE,THRISSUR
CRIME NO.20/2010 OF VACB, THRISSUR
REVISION PETITIONER/THIRD PARTY/COMPLAINANT:
PREMARAJAN M.V
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O.VELAYUDHAN, MAMBARAMATH HOUSE, NHAMANGHAT,
VADAKEKKAD, CHAVAKADU TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT
- 680 506.
BY ADVS.
SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY
SHAJIN S.HAMEED
AMJATH A.R
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT & PETITIONER/STATE & ACCUSED:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH
COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
2024:KER:95960
18
Crl.R.P.Nos.66 of 2022 &
connected cases
2 V.K.FASALUL ALI
(FORMER PRESIDENT VADAKKEKADU SERVICE CO-
OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.562) S/O.KUNJALAN,
RESIDING AT VAKKAYIL HOUSE, KALLUR P.O.,
VADAKKEKADU - 680 302.
R1 BY SMT. REKHA S, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
R1 BY SRI A RAJESH, SPL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
(VIGILANCE)
R2 BY P.RAMAKRISHNAN
PREETHI RAMAKRISHNAN
T.C.KRISHNA
C.ANIL KUMAR
ASHA K.SHENOY
PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
FINAL HEARING ON 03.12.2024, ALONG WITH
Crl.Rev.Pet.437/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
17.12.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:95960
19
Crl.R.P.Nos.66 of 2022 &
connected cases
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2024 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA,
1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 412 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.10.2021 IN CR.MP NO.1242 OF
2018 IN CC NO.18/2014 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER& SPECIAL
JUDGE,THRISSUR
REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE , VIGILANCE &ANTI-
CORRUPTION BUREAU, THRISSUR UNIT, PIN - 680001.
SMT. REKHA S, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SRI A RAJESH, SPL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (VIGILANCE)
RESPONDENT/ACCUSED:
V.K.FASALUL ALI
S/O KUNJALAN, VAKKAYIL HOUSE , KALLUR P.O.
VADAKKEKADU (FORMER PRESIDENT ,VADAKKEKADU
SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.562),
PIN - 680302.
BY ADVS.
V.V.JOY
RAJIT
ARJUN S.
2024:KER:95960
20
Crl.R.P.Nos.66 of 2022 &
connected cases
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
FINAL HEARING ON 03.12.2024, ALONG WITH
Crl.Rev.Pet.437/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
17.12.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:95960
21
Crl.R.P.Nos.66 of 2022 &
connected cases
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2024 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA,
1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 413 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.10.2021 IN CR.MP NO.1239 OF
2018 IN C.C.NO.15 OF 2014 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER&
SPECIAL JUDGE,THRISSUR
CRIME NO.20/2010 OF VACB, THRISSUR
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ,HIGH
COURT OF KERALA ,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031.
SMT. REKHA S, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SRI A RAJESH, SPL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (VIGILANCE)
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
V.K.FASALUL ALI
S/O KUNJALAN , VAKKAYIL HOUSE ,KALLUR P.O ,
VADAKKEKADU (FORMER PRESIDENT , VADAKKEKADU
SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.562, PIN -
679562.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
FINAL HEARING ON 03.12.2024, ALONG WITH
Crl.Rev.Pet.437/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
17.12.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:95960
22
Crl.R.P.Nos.66 of 2022 &
connected cases
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2024 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA,
1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 417 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.10.2021 IN CR.MP NO.1237 OF
2018 IN C.C.NO.13/2014 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER& SPECIAL
JUDGE,THRISSUR
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN -
682031.
SMT. REKHA S, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SRI A RAJESH, SPL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (VIGILANCE)
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
V.K.FASALUL ALI
S/O KUNJALAN, VAKKAYIL HOUSE, KALLUR P.O
VADAKKEKADU (FORMER PRESIDENT,VADAKKEKADU
SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO 562), PIN -
680302.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
FINAL HEARING ON 03.12.2024, ALONG WITH
Crl.Rev.Pet.437/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
17.12.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:95960
23
Crl.R.P.Nos.66 of 2022 &
connected cases
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2024 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA,
1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 419 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.10.2021 IN CR.MP NO.1241 OF
2018 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER& SPECIAL JUDGE,THRISSUR
CRIME NO.VC/20/2010 OF VACB, THRISSUR
REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN -
682031.
SMT. REKHA S, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SRI A RAJESH, SPL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (VIGILANCE)
RESPONDENT/ACCUSED:
V.K.FASALUL ALI
S/O KUNJALAN, VAKKAYIL HOUSE,KALLUR.P.O.
VALDAKKEKADU (FORMER PRESIDENT,VADAKKEKADU
SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.562, PIN -
679562.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
FINAL HEARING ON 03.12.2024, ALONG WITH
Crl.Rev.Pet.437/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
17.12.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:95960
24
Crl.R.P.Nos.66 of 2022 &
connected cases
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2024 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA,
1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 420 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.10.2021 IN CR.MP NO.1240 OF
2018 IN CC NO.16 OF 2014 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER& SPECIAL
JUDGE,THRISSUR
REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:
THE STATE OF KERALA
THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031.
SMT. REKHA S, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SRI A RAJESH, SPL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (VIGILANCE)
RESPONDENT/ACCUSED:
V K FASALUL ALI
S/O KUNJALAN , VAKKAYIL HOUSE, KALLUR P.O,
VADAKKEKADU (FORMER PRESIDENT, VADAKKEKADU
SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.562), PIN -
679562.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
FINAL HEARING ON 03.12.2024, ALONG WITH
Crl.Rev.Pet.437/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
17.12.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:95960
25
Crl.R.P.Nos.66 of 2022 &
connected cases
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2024 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA,
1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 423 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.10.2021 IN CRMP NO.1238 OF
2018 IN CC NO.14 OF 2014 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER& SPECIAL
JUDGE,THRISSUR
CRIME NO.20/2010 OF VACB, THRISSUR
REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:
THE STATE OF KERALA
THE STATE OF KERALA REP BY ADDL. PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031.
SMT. REKHA S, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SRI A RAJESH, SPL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (VIGILANCE)
RESPONDENT/ACCUED:
V K FASALUL ALI
S/O KUNJAN, VAKKAYIL HOUSE, KALLUR PO,
VADAKKEKADU (FORMER PRESIDENT, VADAKKEKADU
SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO. 562), PIN -
680317.
2024:KER:95960
26
Crl.R.P.Nos.66 of 2022 &
connected cases
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
FINAL HEARING ON 03.12.2024, ALONG WITH
Crl.Rev.Pet.437/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
17.12.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:95960
27
Crl.R.P.Nos.66 of 2022 &
connected cases
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2024 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA,
1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 426 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.10.2021 IN CR.MP NO.1236 OF
2018 IN C.C.NO.12 OF 2014 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER&
SPECIAL JUDGE,THRISSUR
REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031.
SMT. REKHA S, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SRI A RAJESH, SPL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (VIGILANCE)
RESPONDENT/ACCUSED:
V.K.FASALUL ALIN
S/O. KUNJALAN, VAKKAYIL HOUSE , KALLUR P.O,
VADAKKEKADU (FORMER PRESIDENT ,VADAKKEKADU
SERVICE CO-OPERAIVE BANK LTD NO.562), PIN -
680302.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
FINAL HEARING ON 03.12.2024, ALONG WITH
Crl.Rev.Pet.437/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
17.12.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:95960
28
Crl.R.P.Nos.66 of 2022 &
connected cases
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2024 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA,
1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 429 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.10.2021 IN CR.MP NO.1243 OF
2018 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER& SPECIAL JUDGE,THRISSUR
REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF
POLICE,VIGILANCE & ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU,
THRISSUR UNIT, PIN - 680001.
SMT. REKHA S, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SRI A RAJESH, SPL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (VIGILANCE)
RESPONDENT/ACCUSED:
V.K.FASALUL ALI
S/O.KUNJALAN, VAKKAYIL HOUSE,
KALLUR(PO),VADAKKEKADU(FORMER PRESIDENT,
VADAKKEKADU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO
562, PIN - 680302.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
FINAL HEARING ON 03.12.2024, ALONG WITH
Crl.Rev.Pet.437/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
17.12.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:95960
29
Crl.R.P.Nos.66 of 2022 &
connected cases
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2024 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA,
1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 437 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.10.2021 IN CR.MP NO.1235 OF
2018 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER& SPECIAL JUDGE,THRISSUR
REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE ADDL. PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031.
SMT. REKHA S, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SRI A RAJESH, SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
(VIGILANCE)
RESPONDENT/ACCUSED:
V.K.FASALUL ALI
(FORMER PRESIDENT, VADAKKEKADU SERVICE CO-
OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO. 562) , S/O KUNJALAN ,
VAKKAYIL HOUSE, KALLUR P.O. VADAKKEKADU,
PIN - 679562.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
FINAL HEARING ON 03.12.2024, ALONG WITH
Crl.Rev.Pet.66/2022, 127/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 17.12.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:95960
30
Crl.R.P.Nos.66 of 2022 &
connected cases
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Crl.R.P.Nos.66, 120, 121, 124, 127, 129,
134, 135, 136, 412, 413, 417, 419, 420,
423, 426, 429 and 437 of 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of December, 2024
ORDER
A complaint was filed before the Enquiry Commissioner and
Special Judge, Thrissur by the petitioner in Crl.R.P. Nos.66, 120,
121, 124, 127, 129, 134, 135 and 136 of 2022 alleging that
common 2nd respondent and members of the Board of Directors of
Vadakkekkadu Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. committed
offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(c) & (d) read with
Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act)
and Sections 409, 420 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(IPC). The State has filed the other set of revision petitions. A
preliminary enquiry was directed. That ensued registration of a
crime and investigation. The investigation culminated in filing
final reports against the 2nd respondent alone. The members of
the managing committee were absolved. Since the period of
offence spilled over to many years, separate final reports
concerning each year were submitted. That resulted in institution
2024:KER:95960
31
Crl.R.P.Nos.66 of 2022 &
connected cases
of C.C.Nos.11 to 19 of 2014.
2. The accused entered appearance and filed petitions
under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(Code) in each of the said cases seeking discharge. The
investigating officer, Deputy Superintendent of Police, VACB,
Thrissur filed counters to the said petitions. The Special Court,
after considering the rival contentions and the submissions at
the Bar, held as per the common order dated 26.10.2021 that
there were no sufficient materials to frame charges against
the accused. Resultantly, he was discharged in all the cases.
Challenging the said order, the complainant as well as the
State filed these revision petitions involving the provisions
under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in
Crl.R.P. Nos.66, 120, 121, 124, 127, 129, 134, 135 and 136
of 2022, the learned Senior Pubic Prosecutor for the State
and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/accused.
4. V.C.No.20 of 2010 was registered on 01.11.2010
arraigning the accused and seven others, who were the
2024:KER:95960
32
Crl.R.P.Nos.66 of 2022 &
connected cases
President and members of the Managing Committee. The
allegation was that the Bank was collecting Rs.20/- or 4% of
the amount of loan from each of the ordinary loanees and the
amount so collected were deposited in an account opened in
the name of the accused. The amount so collected were
misappropriated by the accused and thereby the accused
obtained valuable and pecuniary advantage. The offence
alleged against them are under Section 13(1)(c) and (d) read
with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. Offences under Sections
409, 420 and 477A of the IPC were also alleged. After
investigation, it was concluded that the accused alone was
responsible and other members of the Managing Committee
did not have any role in the illegal collection of fund. That
resulted in submission of nine final reports splitting the
instances of misappropriation during each year. The accused
entered appearance and filed petition in all the cases seeking
discharge.
5. The allegations in all the cases are the same. The
instances of misappropriation each year are the subject
2024:KER:95960
33
Crl.R.P.Nos.66 of 2022 &
connected cases
matter of each of the final reports. The period and the
amounts vary. Subject to that elements of offences alleged
against the accused are the same. For an easy understanding
necessary facts are tabulated below:
Sl. Cr.R.P.No. C.C.No. Crl.M.P.No. Period of offence Amount
No. involved
1 66 of 2022 & 11 of 2014 1235 of 2018 04.02.1998 to Rs.9,093/-
437 of 2022 03.02.1999
2 134 of 2022 & 12 of 2014 1236 of 2018 04.02.1999 to Rs.11,332/-
426 of 2022 03.02.2000
3 136 of 2022 & 13 of 2014 1237 of 2018 04.02.2000 to Rs.13,270/-
417 of 2022 03.02.2001
4 120 of 2022 & 14 of 2014 1238 of 2018 04.02.2001 to Rs.11,412/-
423 of 2022 03.02.2002
5 127 of 2022 & 15 of 2014 1239 of 2018 04.02.2002 to Rs.9,671/-
413 of 2022 03.02.2003
6 121 of 2022 & 16 of 2014 1240 of 2018 16.12.2003 to Rs.12,020/-
420 of 2022 15.12.2004
7 129 of 2022 & 17 of 2014 1241 of 2018 16.12.2004 to Rs.10,176/-
419 of 2022 15.12.2005
8 135 of 2022 & 18 of 2014 1242 of 2018 16.12.2005 to Rs.5,820/-
412 of 2022 15.12.2006
9 124 of 2022 & 19 of 2014 1243 of 2018 16.12.2006 to Rs.4,044/-
429 of 2022 15.12.2007
6. The trial court after analysing the materials
produced by the prosecution held that Rs.20/- each was
collected from the loanees and the amount so collected were
deposited in the savings bank account opened in the name of
the accused. That was on the basis of a decision taken by the
2024:KER:95960
34
Crl.R.P.Nos.66 of 2022 &
connected cases
managing committee, and it was a unanimous resolution. The
materials further would show that the amount so collected
were distributed to various beneficiaries. Payment of premium
for the LIC policy of the accused and his son from the account
in question was found justifiable since sitting fees and other
payments to the accused were also credited in the same
account. It was accordingly held that there was no dishonest
or fraudulent intention behind the collection of such amounts
and disbursal of the same to the beneficiaries, and the
petitions for discharge were allowed.
7. The learned counsel for the complainant would
submit that the trial court appreciated the materials produced
by the prosecution as is being done at the trial, which is
impermissible. Section 239 of the Code envisages
consideration of a plea of discharge based only on the
materials produced by the prosecution and a prima facie
satisfaction that there exists a strong suspicion for presuming
that the accused has committed the offence is enough to
frame a charge. It is pointed out that when the amount was
2024:KER:95960
35
Crl.R.P.Nos.66 of 2022 &
connected cases
collected without sanction of law, the same was deposited in
the personal savings bank account of the accused and the
amounts were spent by him quite whimsically and only for his
personal advantage and not to the benefit of the Bank, that
amounted to an offence under Sections 13(1)(c) and (d) of
the PC Act. The accounts would show that from the same
account, LIC premium of the complainant and his son were
also paid and that would establish misappropriation of the
amounts collected from the loanees. When there are sufficient
materials to substantiate the facts, the trial court should not
have jumped into a conclusion that the charge would be
groundless. In the view of the learned counsel for the
complainant, there are enough materials to frame charges
against the accused.
8. The learned Special Public Prosecutor reiterated the
contentions of the complainant. It is further submitted that
even before the resolution by the Managing Committee
amounts were collected from the loanees. Without any criteria
the beneficiaries were selected and that indicated that the
2024:KER:95960
36
Crl.R.P.Nos.66 of 2022 &
connected cases
amounts collected were spent for the personal advantage and
political gain of the accused, which, at any rate, comes within
the mischief of Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. Also, it is
contended that the trial court far exceeded the powers
invested on it under Section 239 of the Code in order to
render a finding that the charge against the accused would
only be groundless. The impugned common order is
accordingly sought to be set aside.
9. What shall be the criteria for deciding a plea for
discharge has been subject of a catena of decisions by the
Apex Court. In State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh [AIR 1977
SC 2018] the Apex Court held that at the stage of framing
charge, the court is not to see whether there is sufficient
ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is
sure to end in his conviction. At that stage, the truth, veracity
and effect of the evidence, which the prosecution proposes to
adduce, are not to be meticulously judged. It is also
unnecessary to weigh the probable defence of the accused.
The view taken by the Apex Court in Stree Atyachar Virodhi
2024:KER:95960
37
Crl.R.P.Nos.66 of 2022 &
connected cases
Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia and another [(1989)
1 SCC 715] is that the court need not conduct an elaborate
enquiry in sifting and weighing the material at the time of
framing charge. It is also not necessary to delve into various
aspects. All that the court has to consider is whether the
evidentiary material on record, if generally accepted, would
reasonably connect the accused with the crime. That view was
reiterated in State of Maharashtra and others v. Som
Nath Thapa and others [(1996) 4 SCC 659] where the
Apex Court held that if on the basis of materials on record, a
court could come to the conclusion that commission of the
offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing of
charge exists.
10. In Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and
another [(1979) 3 SCC 4] the Apex Court held that where
the materials disclosed grave suspicion against the accused,
which has not been properly explained, the court would be
justified in framing a charge against the accused. In Soma
Chakravarty v. State through CBI [(2007) 5 SCC 403]
2024:KER:95960
38
Crl.R.P.Nos.66 of 2022 &
connected cases
the Apex Court reiterated the said view by holding that when
there exists a strong suspicion, a charge can be framed. It
was cautioned also that a mere suspicion as distinguished
from grave suspicion is not enough to frame a charge. This
view was reiterated by the Apex Court in State by the
Inspector of Police, Chennai v. S.Selvi and another
[(2018) 13 SCC 455].
11. The view taken by the Apex Court in Hem Chand
v. State of Jharkhand [(2008) 5 SCC 113] is that the
court at the stage of framing charge exercises a limited
jurisdiction. It would only have to see as to whether a prima
facie case has been made out. Whether a case of probable
conviction for commission of an offence has been made out on
the basis of the materials found during investigation should be
the concern of the court. A similar view was taken in Vijayan
P. v. State of Kerala and another [(2010) 2 SCC 398].
The Apex Court however proceeded to hold further that the
judge who considers a question whether a charge is liable to
be framed is not a mere Post office to frame the charge at the
2024:KER:95960
39
Crl.R.P.Nos.66 of 2022 &
connected cases
behest of the prosecution. The judge is expected to exercise
his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine
whether a case for trial has been made out by the
prosecution.
12. The Apex Court in Supdt. and Remembrancer of
Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja and
others [(1979) 4 SCC 274] held that at the stage of
framing charges, the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence
which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be
meticulously judged. In Om Wati (Smt) and another v.
State, through Delhi Admn. and others [(2001) 4 SCC
333] the Apex Court held that it is not obligatory for the
judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and
weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved,
would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or
not. It was held again in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv
Charan Bansal and others [(2020) 2 SCC 290] that at the
stage of framing charge there cannot be a roving enquiry into
the pros and cons of the matter. The evidence is not to be
2024:KER:95960
40
Crl.R.P.Nos.66 of 2022 &
connected cases
weighed as if a trial is being conducted. If there is strong
suspicion which leads the court to think that there is ground
for presuming that the accused had committed the offence,
then the court should proceed with the trial.
13. In State by Karnataka Lokayukta, Police
Station, Bengaluru v. M.R.Hiremath [(2019) 7 SCC 515]
the question was as to what should be consideration while
deciding an application for discharge. It was held that the
court must proceed on the assumption that material which
has been brought on record by prosecution is true and
evaluate material in order to determine whether the facts
emerging from the material, taken on its face value, disclose
the existence of ingredients necessary to constitute the
offence. In State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh
Rao (MANU/SC/1113/ 2023], the Apex Court took a
similar view. In Captain Manjit Singh Virdi (Retd.) v.
Hussain Mohammed Shattaf and others [(2023) 7 SCC
633] the Apex Court held that at the stage of hearing on the
charges entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be
2024:KER:95960
41
Crl.R.P.Nos.66 of 2022 &
connected cases
believed. In case no offence is made out then only an accused
can be discharged. Truthfulness, sufficiency and acceptability
of the material produced can be done only at the stage of
trial.
14. The facts that the accused was the President of
Vadakkekkadu Service Co-operative Bank during the period
from 26.11.1996 to 20.12.2002 and again from 03.11.2003 to
25.06.2008 and that Rs.20/- each was collected from the
persons who availed loan from the said Bank during the said
period are not in dispute. The prosecution alleges that
collection of such an amount is illegal and collected amounts
were expended by the accused for his personal gain. The view
taken by the trial court is that such collection of money was
based on a unanimous resolution adopted by the managing
committee, the collection was reflected in the day book and
ledger of the Bank and also the collected money was paid to
the beneficiaries. Insofar as the details as to the collection of
the amount, an account has been available in the Bank. A
prosecution witness Sri.Abdul Khader, who was the Secretary
2024:KER:95960
42
Crl.R.P.Nos.66 of 2022 &
connected cases
of the Bank, stated about such accounting. It is further seen
from the records of the prosecution that various amounts
were paid to the beneficiaries from the sum so collected.
Witnesses Nos.9, 11 to 15, 17 to 26, 28, 29, 31 and 32 gave
statements that they received financial aid.
15. The materials produced by the prosecution would
show that the amounts collected during 26.11.1996 to
20.12.2002 were remitted into account No.4344 at the same
Bank in the name of the accused. The collection during the
subsequent periods were remitted into account No.3194 at
the same Bank in the name of the accused. The main
allegation of the prosecution to substantiate that the accused
misappropriated amounts from the sum so collected is the
payment of the LIC premium of the accused and from his
account No.3194. The Secretary of the Bank gave a statement
that besides collection of Rs.20/- each from the loanees,
sitting fees and other amounts due to the accused were also
remitted into the same account. The materials produced by
the prosecution would not show that amount exceeding what
2024:KER:95960
43
Crl.R.P.Nos.66 of 2022 &
connected cases
was entitled by the accused was paid towards LIC premium.
16. A report of the officials from the Co-operative
Department was produced along with the prosecution records.
It is seen that during inspection, an anomaly was pointed out
concerning collection of Rs.20/- from the loanees. It was
essentially that without authorisation by the managing
committee, such collection was being made. It may be noted
that the managing committee vide resolution No.36 dated
06.12.2003 resolved to collect Rs.20/- each from loanees and
to remit the same in a savings bank account in the name of
the accused. It was further resolved to utilise the said amount
for helping needy people. Accounts in regard to the payment
of such amounts to various persons have been maintained in
the Bank. The allegation of the prosecution in that regard is
that the said accounts were maintained by the accused
himself and therefore favouritism in the matter of payment
could be inferred. And, there are no vouchers in that regard.
It is also alleged that having maintained such an account by
the accused himself, its accuracy cannot be inferred and that
2024:KER:95960
44
Crl.R.P.Nos.66 of 2022 &
connected cases
also incriminates him with the offence.
17. As held by the Apex Court in the aforementioned
decisions, the court is not expected to consider whether the
materials produced by the prosecution would necessarily lead
to a conviction. The court has to proceed on the assumption
that the materials brought on record by the prosecution are
true and act upon the same on its face value. The court
cannot go further for a meticulous analysis of the proposed
evidence by sifting and weighing the probative value of such
evidence.
18. Prosecution witnesses themselves stated that
collection of Rs.20/- each has been accounted for and
reflected in the day book and ledger maintained in the bank.
Regarding payment to the beneficiaries also, there is an
account book, but the same was maintained by the accused
himself and not by the officials of the Bank. The collection and
disbursal of the amount were supported by the resolution of
the managing committee, which was a collective decision. The
records would show that such collection was over and above
2024:KER:95960
45
Crl.R.P.Nos.66 of 2022 &
connected cases
the amount due to the Bank by way of interest and such other
charges. It was charged for inspection by the individual
members of the managing committee concerning the
identification of the loanees. When the same is reflected in the
materials produced by the prosecution, it cannot be said that
the bank sustained any loss on account of such collection and
disbursal of amounts. Of course, it may be possible to say
that such collection was not strictly in terms of the rules and
practices applicable to the Bank.
19. In State v. K. Mohanachandran [2017 (4) KHC
297] this court dilated the ingredients of various clauses in
Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. Section 13(1)(d) has three
components. What is punishable under clause (i) is the act of
a public servant in gaining any valuable thing or pecuniary
advantage for himself or any other person by some corrupt or
illegal means. What is made punishable under clause (ii) is
the act of a public servant in obtaining any valuable thing or
pecuniary advantage for himself or for any other person by
abusing his position as a public servant. An act of a public
2024:KER:95960
46
Crl.R.P.Nos.66 of 2022 &
connected cases
servant in obtaining any valuable thing or pecuniary
advantage for any other person without any public interest
while holding office as a public servant is made punishable
under clause (iii) of Section 13(1) (d) of the PC Act.
20. Going by the allegations in the final report the
offence that may be attributed to the petitioner is one coming
under clause (iii) of Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. In
Subash Parbat Sonvane v. State of Gujarat [(2002) 5
SCC 86] the Apex Court held that for convicting a person
under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act there must be evidence
that the accused “obtained” for himself or for any other
person, any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by either
corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position as a public
servant or he obtained for any person any valuable thing or
pecuniary advantage without any public interest.
21. In C.Surendranath and another v. State of
Kerala and another [2024 (2) KHC 134) this Court
considered a similar matter. It was held that dishonest
intention is sine qua non to attract the offence punishable
2024:KER:95960
47
Crl.R.P.Nos.66 of 2022 &
connected cases
under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. Mere conduct and action
of the accused contrary to rules and departmental norms
would not amount to criminal misconduct by a public servant.
Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the
aforementioned decisions, the materials produced by the
prosecution are insufficient to make out a grave suspicion that
the accused has committed offences under Section 13(1)(c)
or (d) of the PC Act or the offences under Sections 409, 420
or 477A of the IPC. Therefore, the view taken by the trial
court resulting in the discharge of the accused cannot be said
to be incorrect or improper. In exercise of the powers of
revision under Section 401 of the Code, no interference on the
impugned order is warranted. These revisions petitions are
accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE
dkr
2024:KER:95960
48
Crl.R.P.Nos.66 of 2022 &
connected cases
APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 412/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
26.10.2021IN CMP NO 1242/2018 IN CC
NO. 18/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT
OF THE ENQ. COMMISSIONER AND SPL.
JUDGE, THRISSUR.
2024:KER:95960
49
Crl.R.P.Nos.66 of 2022 &
connected cases
APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 413/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
26.10.2021 IN CRLMP NO.1239/2018 IN CC
NO.15/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF
THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL
JUDGE, THRISSUR.
2024:KER:95960
50
Crl.R.P.Nos.66 of 2022 &
connected cases
APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 417/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
26-10-2021 IN CMP NO.1237/18 IN CC
NO.13/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF
THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL
JUDGE, THRISSUR
2024:KER:95960
51
Crl.R.P.Nos.66 of 2022 &
connected cases
APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 419/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
26-10-2021 IN CRL M.P. NO.17/2014 ON
THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE ENQUIRY
COMMISIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE,
THRISSUR 1241/2018 IN CC
2024:KER:95960
52
Crl.R.P.Nos.66 of 2022 &
connected cases
APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 420/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED
26.10.2021 IN CRL.M.P NO. 1240/2018 IN
CC NO.16/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT
OF THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND
SPECIAL JUDGE, THRISSUR
2024:KER:95960
53
Crl.R.P.Nos.66 of 2022 &
connected cases
APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 423/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DTD
26-10-2021 IN CRL.MP 1238/2018 IN CC
14/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF
THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL
JUDGE, THRISSUR
2024:KER:95960
54
Crl.R.P.Nos.66 of 2022 &
connected cases
APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 426/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
26-10-2021 IN CMP .NO. 1236/2018 IN CC
NO . 12/2014 ON THE COURT OF THE
ENQURIY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL
JUDGE, THRISSUR .
2024:KER:95960
55
Crl.R.P.Nos.66 of 2022 &
connected cases
APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 429/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 26-
10-2021 IN CMP NO. 1243/18 IN CC NO.
19/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF
THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL
JUDGE, THRISSUR
2024:KER:95960
56
Crl.R.P.Nos.66 of 2022 &
connected cases
APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 437/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
26-10-2021 IN CRL M.P 1235/2018 IN CC
NO. 11/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT
OF THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND
SPECIAL JUDGE,THRISSUR
