Jose.T.Paul vs State Of Kerala

A. Badharudeen, J

Crl.M.C. No.2435 of 2024 has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C. No.27 of 2014 on the files of the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur, arose out of Crime No.VC-21/2010 of VACB, Thrissur, seeking quashment of Annexure-XXIV charge sheet and Annexure-XVII FIR in the above case.

Crl.Rev.Pet. No.671 of 2024 has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. by the same petitioners, challenging the order dated 08.11.2022 in Crl.M.P. No.533(A)/2018, whereby the learned Special Judge dismissed the discharge petition filed by the petitioners under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. in the above case.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the relevant records and the impugned order.

The prosecution case is that, A1, A2 and A3 in the F.I.R., the President of Choondal Gramapanchayat, Gramapanchayat Member cum Development Standing Committee Chairman and officiating as the Secretary of Choondal Gramapanchayat and A3 the present accused, the M.K. Surendran Convener of Chiraparambu road renovation committee, conspired together with the intention to misappropriate the funds allotted under SGRY project for the renovation work of Chira parambu road in Choondal Panchayat and forged documents including minutes of the beneficiary committee, inducting fictitious persons as members in the list of the beneficiary committee and conveners under work arrangement and having placed the forged documents before the Secretary to obtain sanction for the release of food grains as the mobilization advance for the work and A1, A2 and A3, who lifted 18145 kilograms of rice from Food Corporation of India, Thrissur, neglected to execute the work and sold the rice in open market, misappropriating an amount of Rs.2,37,699.50 and thereby caused pecuniary loss of Rs.2,37,699.50 to the Government. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(c) and (d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred as ‘P.C. Act’ for short] and under Sections 465, 471, 409 read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

While seeking quashment of the entire proceedings and also interference in the order dated 08.11.2022 in Crl.M.P. No.533(A)/2018, the learned counsel for the petitioners argued for three days, at length, based on Annexures produced in Crl.M.C. No.2435/2024. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, in this matter, the 1st petitioner/1st accused is now no more and therefore, the case of the 2nd petitioner alone need to be considered. It is specifically pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, as per Annexure-I order dated 20.10.2024 issued by the District Collector to run SGRY project by allotting 3000 metric tone of food grains for creating employment days, the name of the 2nd petitioner is not there. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the 2nd petitioner that, Annexure-II is the agreement executed in between the Secretary and Beneficiary Committee Convener and in the same also the name of the 2nd petitioner is not shown and in Annexure-III agreement also the 2nd accused/2nd petitioner is not a signatory. The point argued by the learned counsel for the 2nd petitioner further is that, even though forgery is alleged by the prosecution, who committed forgery is not disclosed in the Final Report. Even though, the rice was released by the 2nd petitioner with an intention to complete the work and provide the same to the beneficiaries, the tenure of the 2nd petitioner got over and the persons responsible for carrying out the work did not execute the work. Therefore, the prosecution materials, in no way would indicate that the 2nd petitioner individually or as part of the conspiracy hatched between the other accused done anything, so as to prosecute him. Thus, these petitions are liable to be allowed. It is also pointed out that, 164 statements given by the witnesses, produced as Annexures-XIX, XX, XXI, XXIIm XXIII, nothing stated regarding the role of the 2nd petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the 2nd petitioner, there must be specific allegation against the accused, highlighting the essential ingredients to sustain a charge, in order to prosecute him. In this connection, the learned counsel placed decision of this Court in Anoop v. State of Kerala reported in [2024 KHC OnLine 997 : 2024 KER 73985 : 2024 KLT OnLine 2595], with reference to paragraph No.9, wherein this Court held that, the essential ingredients to sustain a charge when not stated by the prosecution, the charge would not sustain and for the said reason and in the said case this Court found in favour of the petitioner therein.

Whereas, it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that, in this matter, the entire allegation is on the basis of conspiracy hatched in between the accused, with the intention to misappropriate the rice allotted under SGRY project for the renovation work of Chira parambu road in Choondal Panchayat, forged documents including minutes of the beneficiary committee, inducting fictitious persons as members in the list of the beneficiary committee and conveners under work arrangement and having placed the forged documents before the Secretary to obtain sanction for the release of food grains as the mobilization advance for the work, lifted 18145 kilograms of rice from Food Corporation of India, Thrissur, neglected to execute the work and sold the rice in open market, misappropriating an amount of Rs.2,37,699.50 and thereby caused pecuniary loss of Rs.2,37,699.50 to the Government. As per the minutes dated 07.11.2004, the 2nd petitioner written things in support of claiming the rice and also in the minutes fictitious persons were signatories, so as to allot rice, without doing any job.

It is also pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that, when conspiracy is alleged along with the materials available, there is no reason to read the complicity of the accused in segregation, since his overt acts would be understood with the aid of Section 120B of IPC. The learned Public Prosecutor placed report of the Investigating Officer dated 12.04.2024 highlighting the role of the 2nd petitioner in this case. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor further that, when the documents were sent for expert opinion regarding forgery of the minutes, the same was found to be in support of the prosecution.

In this connection, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, finding No.10 in Annexure-XVIII FSL Report would show that, no definite conclusion could be arrived regarding the authorship of certain questioned signatures with that of the admitted or standard signatures.

But, as rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that, item No.7 of the report is pertaining to this case, alleged to be put by the 2nd petitioner as Q7, Q8, Q16 and Q33, for which the opinion of the handwriting expert is that the person who wrote the blue enclosed standard writings and signature stamped and marked as A1 to A12, S16 to S31 and S80 to S103 also wrote the red enclosed questioned writings and signature similarly stamped and marked Q7, Q8, Q16 and Q33. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, in this case, the rice was allotted to do the renovation work of Chira parambu road in Choondal Panchayat. Even though, the rice was collected and supplied by forging documents, no work carried out and the rice were sold in open market and the sale proceeds were misappropriated by the accused including the 2nd petitioner. Thus, the allegations of the prosecution are well made out prima facie, warranting trial. Noting this aspect, the learned Special Judge dismissed the discharge petition.

On perusal of the records, it could be noticed that, the 1st accused Sri.Jose Paul T., who is now no more, while he was working as the President of Choondal Gramapanchayat and the 2nd accused, Sri.C.C.Sreekumar (the 2nd petitioner herein), while working as the Member of Choondal Gramapanchayat and Developing Standing Committee Chairman along with accused Nos.3 and 4, obtained sanction from the 3rd accused for the release of rice as mobilization advanced for the work, lifted 18145 kilogram of rice from Food Corporation of India, Thrissur. But, they failed to execute the work. Thereafter, they sold the rice in open market and thereby, they misappropriated Rs.2,37,699.50 and caused pecuniary loss of Rs.2,37,699.50 to the Government. Even though, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the 2nd petitioner, in Annexures-I to IV, the name of the 2nd petitioner is not shown. Admittedly, the 2nd petitioner, while he was working as the Developing Standing Committee Chairman for the SGRY project, obtained sanction and got released the rice. The prosecution allegation is that, the minutes, the signatures in the agreement and relevant documents were forged by the 2nd accused/2nd petitioner.

It is relevant to note that, as per Annexure-XVIII FSL Report, when forgery alleged against the 2nd accused/2nd petitioner was further investigated by getting his standard and admitted signatures in the minutes for comparison with the questioned ones, the report is as pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, supporting the prosecution.

It is true that, in Anoop's case (supra), this Court while dealing with a case involving offences under Section 498(A) as well as Section 405 of IPC, discussed the ingredients for the said offences and held that in order to succeed prosecution for the said offences, the ingredients to be alleged specifically. In fact, in the said decision, the offence under Section 120B of IPC was not involved and in cases involving the offence under Section 120B of IPC, when there is materials prima facie to show some meeting of mind as part of conspiracy, individual role of the accused need not be alleged or proved specifically. Therefore, the ratio in Anoop's case (supra) has no application in the present case.

According to the learned counsel for the 2nd petitioner, the 2nd petitioner's role is not established in this case. But, he has no definite answer why the FSL report would say that alleged forged minutes of the beneficiary committee and preparation of fictitious list of conveners, work agreements etc. are in the handwriting of the 2nd petitioner, as reported by the FSL.

Summarizing the discussion, it could be gathered from the prosecution records that, 18145 kilograms of rice were released from the Food Corporation of India, Thrissur, by forging signature of one Balan and also after forging signatures in the minutes for the same, including fictitious persons as beneficiaries. The FSL report as discussed herein above would go to show that the forged handwriting and signatures are that of the 2nd accused. Thus, in the instant case, involving misappropriation of 18145 kilograms of rice meant for supply to the workers engaged in renovation work of Chira Parambu road in Choondal Panchayat by the accused herein, the 2nd accused/2nd petitioner is having an active role, prima facie. In such a case, quashment as well as the interference in the impugned order sought for by the 2nd accused/2nd petitioner could not succeed as the prosecution material warrants trial of the accused, after framing charge. In view of the above discussion, these petitions deserve dismissal.

Accordingly, these petitions stand dismissed.

The interim order stands vacated. Since the case is of the year 2014, the Special Court is directed to expedite the trial and finish the same, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of the order and report compliance.

Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Special Court, forthwith, for information and compliance.