AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
492 paragraphs · 5,121 wordsA. Badharudeen, J
Crl.R.P No.1035/2025 has been filed by one N.Satheesh Kumar, who is the 2nd accused in C.C.No.33 of 2024 on the files of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram arising out of Crime No.7 of 2011 of VACB, Thiruvananthapuram, challenging order dated 22.09.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.1030/2025 in the above case.
Crl.R.P.No1036/2025 is also at the instance of Sri N.Satheesh Kumar, who is the 2nd accused in C.C.29/2024 on the files of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram arising from Crime No.7/2011 of VACB, Thiruvananthapuram, challenging order dated 22.09.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.1032/2025 in the above case.
Crl.R.P.No1040/2025 is also one filed by Sri N.Satheesh Kumar, who is the 3rd accused in C.C.01/2016 on the files of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram arising from Crime No.7/2011 of VACB, Thiruvananthapuram, challenging order dated 22.09.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.1029/2025 in the above case.
Crl.R.P.No1041/2025 also has been filed by Sri N.Satheesh Kumar, who is the 3rd accused in C.C.28/2024 on the files of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram arising from Crime No.7/2011 of VACB, Thiruvananthapuram, challenging order dated 22.09.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.1031/2025 in the above case.
Thus all these Revision Petitions have been filed by the same revision petitioner, viz., Sri N.Satheesh Kumar in C.C. Nos. 33/2024, 29/2024, 01/2016 and 28 of 2024 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, arose out of Crime No.7/2011 of VACB, Thiruvananthapuram.
Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the VACB. Perused the records, including the impugned orders.
The prosecution case as per FIR No.7/2011 of SIU-I Unit, VACB, Thiruvananthapuram, is that the 1st accused, who worked as the Commercial Tax Officer and the 2nd accused who worked as Junior Superintendent of the Commercial Tax Office, Neyyattinkara during 2006 to 2008, abused their official position as public servants in between 07.05.2007 and 04.10.2008 by conspiring with the other accused persons and thereby misappropriated the advance tax amount. After investigation, 4 separate final reports were filed specifically alleging that, in pursuance of the conspiracy hatched between the accused, State exchequer sustained a pecuniary loss to the tune of Rs.26,58,595/-, Rs.2,03,150/-, Rs.2,03,150/-and Rs.5,64,115/- respectively in C.C.No.33/2024, C.C.No.29/2024, C.C.No.1/2016 and C.C.No.28/2024 and accused persons got corresponding undue gain therefrom. This is the base on which the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (`PC Act, 1988' for short) r/w Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) as well as under Sections 468, 471 and 120B of IPC, by the accused persons.
The revision petitioner herein, who is the 2nd accused in C.C.No.33/2024 and C.C.No.29/2024 and 3rd accused in C.C.No.28/2024 and C.C.No.1/2016, had filed separate discharge petitions in the above cases arose out of the same crime seeking discharge on the submission that he did not commit any of the offences alleged by the prosecution.
The learned Special Judge dismissed the discharge petitions on finding that prima facie materials are available to find the commission of the offences by the revision petitioner.
While canvassing interference with the orders impugned, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that in this matter, earlier the discharge pettions filed by the 1st accused and accused Nos.4 and 5 (CMP.No.605/2017 and 446/2017 in C.C.No.1/2016) were dismissed by the Special Court. Against the same, Crl.R.P.Nos.245/2020, 155/2020 and 468/2020 were filed by accused Nos.1, 4 and 5, respectively and this Court passed common order dated 12.04.2024 dismissing Crl.R.P.No.245/2020 filed by the 1st accused and allowing Crl.R.P.No.155/2020 and 468/2020 filed by accused Nos.4 and 5 respectively after setting aside the order and remanded the matter to the Special Court with direction to the learned Special Judge to consider Crl.M.P. Nos.446/2017 and 605/2017 afresh after giving opportunity to both sides and to take a decision within two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Later the learned Special Judge considered the discharge plea of accused Nos.4 and 5 and allowed the same holding that the charges against accused Nos.4 and 5 are groundless.
According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, in fact, the allegation of the prosecution is that the revision petitioner and one Mahesh were working as agents of accused Nos.4 and 5, the traders in the Commercial Tax Office, Neyyattinkara, they had remitted the amount of tax in the Sub Treasury, Neyyattinkara through SBT, Neyyattinkara, on different dates between June, 2007 and June, 2008 on behalf of accused Nos.4 and 5. Since accused Nos.4 and 5, the traders of the revision petitioner, were discharged on finding that prosecution case against them was groundless, there is no necessity to prosecute the revsion petitioner, who is one among the agents, who alleged to have remitted the amount before the 1st accused. It is submitted that the revision petitioner along with Mahesh used to remit tax for and on behalf of accused Nos.4 and 5 and they did not commit any offences, as alleged by the prosecution. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the Special Court failed to address the above points canvassed by the revision petitioner in its real sense and thus the impugned orders would require interference.
Whereas it is submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that, in these matters, the statements given by CW2 and CW11 would categorically show that the revision petitioner Satheesh Kumar and Mahesh were the persons who remitted a lesser amount of tax in bank and manipulated the remittance challans showing high amounts, while producing the same before the 1st accused (C.T.O). According to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, going through the prosecution records, the allegation of misappropriation after committing forgery of challans by the revision petitioner and Mahesh could be gathered. The learned Special Public Prosecutor produced a detailed statement showing the misappropriation in a tabular form to justify the contention of the prosecution that there are materials, prima facie, to show the involvement of the revision petitioner and Mahesh in these cases.
The details of the misappropriations with tabulaton placed by the Investigating Officer are extracted as under:
“Misappropriation and forgery committed by the Accused person (A1 & A2) in connection with the Advance Tax remittance by Shri. Ahemmed Kabeer, Proprietor, M/s A.K. Traders, Parassala.
Sri. Ahammed Kabeer, Age 53/2014, S/o Sayed Muhammed, Residing at Newfa Manzil, Inchivila, Parassala Village, Neyyattinkara Thaluk, Thiruvananthapuram District was the Proprietor of M/s A.K.Traders was given registration with TIN No. 32010923002 with effect from 24.04.2006 for dealing with the business of River sand, Bricks, Metal, metal dust etc... The registration was granted by the registering authority viz., Commercial Tax Officer, Neyyattinkara. The registration details are entered in (Ext.S, at page No. 86, 87). The accused persons (A1 & A2) misappropriated Government money of Rs.2,03,150/- for the month from 04/2008 to 06/2008.
The Tabular column below in List I shows the details of 11 remittance as per the Treasury remittance certificate (Exhibit X (Item No.25), shown in column No.2, 3, 4, 5. The misappropriated amount corresponding to each chalan is shown in the Advance Tax Register in Column No.7. Column No.8 showing the forged chalan of dealer available and Column No.9 shows the misappropriated amount.
To explain the modus operandi of the actual remittance and forgery committed is as follows:
In Sl. No.3 of the Tabular Column in List-I, the actual remittance in chalan No.297 was Rs.590/- shown in Column No.5 and in the dealer chalan, the amount was forged by inserting 10 before 590 as shown in column No.8 and that amount was entered in the Advance Tax Register (G1 (item No.8) shown in column No.7 and the misappropriated amount of Rs. 10,000/- is shown in column No.9. Hence, in such 11 remittance shown below the total misappropriated amount was Rs.1,32,900/-. List.l: Details as per the Treasury Remittance Certificate, Treasury Chalan Cor seized, IAC Register, Advance Tax Register and the misappropriated amount respect of M/s A.K. TRADERS, Parasala, explained above.
SI NO
SI. No. As
per try remittance certificate
Chalan No.
Date of chalan
Amount as per treasury remittance certificate
Amount as per IAC
register & Try challan copy
Amount as per advance tax register maintained by JS at CTO
Amount as per forged challan by dealer’s challan copy
Misappropr iation
amount balance
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
8
317
15.04.2008
4550
4550
6550
2000
2
10
452
29.04.2008
300
300
27300
27000
3
13
297
06.05.2008
590
590
10590
10590
10000
4
14
294
06.05.2008
60
60
6060
6060
6000
5
15
399
09.05.2008
350
350
9350
9000
6
16
400
09.05.2008
200
200
9200
9000
7
24
279
02.06.2008
7600
7600+
7600*
7600
7600
8
25
148
03.06.2008
600
600
5600
5000
9
31
429
13.06.2008
650
650
12650
12650
12000
10
32
427
13.06.2008
100
100
6100
6100
6000
11
34
233
18.06.2008
450
450
10450
10000
12
35
154
24.06.2008
900
900
18900+
18900
18900
18000+
18900
Total
140500
* Additionally entered in bricks register an amount of Rs.7600/-
* Additionally entered in bricks register an amount of Rs. 18900/-
List I: The evidence of misappropriation and forgery in respect of M/s A.K.TRADERS which is established and proved through the respective Exhibits and page number shown in the Tabular Column below.
The facts disclosed through the evidence laid in Exhibits, G1 (Item No.7), C (Item No.3), C1 (Item No.4), C2 (Item No.5), C3 (Item No.6) & J2 (Item No.9) proves of the misappropriation and forgery committed with regard to A.K. Traders.
Treasury Remittance Certificate SI No.(Ext.X,X1)
Chalan with date
Advance tax register exhibit
IAC as per register
Chalan copy with request exhibit
File for remittance
Dealers chalan
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
317
15.04.08
Ext.G1 Page No.93
Ext.J2 47(166)
Ext.C1 Page 47
10
452
29.04.08
”
Page No.4
Ext.J2 133(175)
Ext.C1 Page 61
13
297
06.05.08
”
Page No.92
Ext.J2 171(121)
Ext.C2 Page 21
Ext.C Page No.31
(1 to 116)
14
294
06.05.08
”
Page No.4
Ext.J2 171(120)
Ext.C3 Page 57
Ext.C Page No.39
(1 to 116)
15
399
09.05.08
”
Page No.92
Ext.J2 175(399)
Ext.C2 Page 25
16
400
09.05.08
”
Page No.5
Ext.J2 175(400)
Ext.C2 Page 23
24
279
02.06.2008
Ext.G1,
Page No.91
Page No.6
Ext.C3
Page 31
25
148
03.06.08
”
Page No.90
Ext.J2 239(148)
Ext.C3 Page 37
31
429
13.06.08
”
Page No.6
Ext.J2 253(429)
Ext.C3 Page 45
Ext.C Page No.81
(1 to 116)
32
427
13.06.2008
”
Page No.90
Ext.J2
253(427)
Ext.C3
Page 47
Ext.C
Page No.79 (1 to 116)
34
233
18.06.08
”
Page No.90
Ext.J2 281(79)
Ext.C3 Page 53
35
154
24.06.08
”
Page No.90
Ext.J2 289(70)
Ext.C3 Page 49
Ext.C Page No.85
(1 to 116)
In the Tabular Column below is shown the details of 2 remittance in which the chalan number is not entered in the Advance Tax Register. In the above 2 entries of Rs.12,600/- and Rs.7600/- amount is additionally entered in the Advance Tax Register without chalan number for the additional entry. The additional entry is shown in column No.6 and as such the misappropriated amount of Rs. 12,600/- is shown in column No.8.
List II. Details of the Advance Tax Remittance in respect of M/s A.K.Traders in which the Chalan number is not entered in the Advance Tax Register
SI.
No.
SI.No. as per treasury remittance
certificate
Chala n No.
Date of chalan
Amount as per treasury remittance certificate
As per IAC
register
Amount as per advance tax register maintained at CTO,Neyyattinkar
a
Misappro
-priation amount
Remarks
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
1
6
499
11.04.2008
12600
12600+
12600*
12600
Rs.12600/- is additionally entered in the advance tax register,but without challan
number
Total
12600
List II: The evidence of misappropriation and forgery in respect of M/s A.K.TRADERS relating to the above remittance in List III which is proved through the respective exhibits and page number shown in the Tabular column below:
Tresury
remittance SI No.
Chalan
with date
Advance
tax register exhibit
IAC As
per register
Chalan
copy with request exhibit
File for
remittance return
remarks
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
499
11.4.2008
Ext.G1
PageNo.94 itemNo.42
Ext.C1 PageNo.94 itemNo.30
List-III: In the Tabular column below is the details of 2 remittance in which the chalan number is falsely entered in the Advance Tax Register, which is mentioned in the remarks column. The total misappropriated amount in this 2 remittances is Rs.34050/-.
List III: Details of the Advance Tax Remittance In respect of M/s A.K.Traders in which the Chalan number in the Advance Tax Register is falsely entered.
SI
No
.
SI No. as per treasury remittance certificate
Chalan No.
Date of chalan
Amount as per treasury remittance certificate
As per IAC
Register
Amount as per advance tax register maintained at CTO
Neyyattinkara
Misappropriatin aount
remarks
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
1
11
685
30.04.2008
2250
2250
30300
28050
Entered as challan no.687 in the advance
tax register
2
26
03.06.2008
100
100
6100
6000
Entered as challan no.157 in
the advance tax register
Total
34050
List III- (Exhibits): The evidence of misappropriation and forgery in respect of M/s A.K.TRADERS relating to the above remittance in List III which is proved through the respective exhibits and page number shown in the Tabular column below:
Tresury remittance SI No.
Chalan with date
Advance tax register exhibit
IAC As
per register
Chalan copy with request exhibit
File for remittance return
remarks
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
11
685
30.04.2008
Ext.G1
PageNo.94 3
itemNo.42
Ext.J2
151(321)
itemNo.46
Ext.C1
PageNo.21 itemNo.30
Entered as
challan no.687 in the advance tax
register
26
50
03.06.2008
Ext.G1 PageNo.6 itemNo.42
Ext.J2 239(160)
item No.46
Entered as challan no.157 in the
advance tax register
List-IV: In the Tabular column below is shown the details of Advance Tax remittance in which the dates in the Advance Tax Register is falsely entered as mentioned in remarks column 9.
In the single remittance shown in List IV, the actual remittance is Rs.700/- as shown in Column No.4 and the forged amount is shown in column No.6 and the misappropriated amount is shown in Column No.8. In this instance, the total misappropriated amount is Rs. 16,000/-.
List IV- (Exhibits): Details of the Advance Tax Remittance In respect of M/s A.K.Traders in which the date in the Advance Tax Register is falsely entered.
Chalan No.
Date of chalan
Amount as per treasury remittance certificate
As per IAC
Register
Amount as per advance tax register maintained at CTO
Neyyattinkara
Misappropriati on amount
remarks
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
235
18.06.2020
08
700
700
16700
16000
In the
advance
tax
register the date is shown as 17.06.200
8
Total
16000
List IV: The evidence of misappropriation and forgery in respect of M/s A.K.TRADERS relating to the above remittance which is proved through the respective exhibits and page number is shown in the Tabular column below.
Through the Exhibits G1 (Item No.8), J2 (Item No.9, C3 (Item No.6) the facts are revealed relating to the above
Tresury remittan ce SI No.
Chalan with date
Advance tax register exhibit
IAC As
per register
Chalan copy with request exhibit
File for remittance return
remarks
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
33
235
Ext.G1
Ext.J2
Ext.C3
In the
advance tax register the
date is
shown as
17.06.2008
18.6.200
8
Page No.7
281(79)
Page No.51
During the time of the Vigilance Enquiry and thereafter in the FIR of this Vigilance Case, the amount of misappropriation arrived in respect of M/s A.K.Traders was Rs.2,01,150/- (Rupees Two lakhs One thousand one hundred and fifty only). But during the course of investigation, the amount of misappropriation arrived on the basis of the above discussion, in respect of Shri. Ahemmed Kabeer, M/s A.K.Traders, the misappropriated amounts in List-I is Rs. 1,40,500, List.ll is Rs. 12600, List III is Rs.34,050/- and List IV is Rs. 16,000/-. Hence the total misappropriation calculated in the 4 list is Rs.2,03,150/- (Rupees Two lakhs three thousand one hundred and fifty only). Investigation revealed that A1 used to countersign the filled up challan produced by M/s. A. K. Traders. A2 presented such challan by making entry of a mere amount such as Rs.300/- in the figures column and leave the first line of the words column blank with the knowledge of A1 and after getting it countersigned by A1 remit this mere amount at the SBT, Neyyattinkara and after receiving the counter foil of such challan, either triplicate or quadruplicate, accused A2 forged it mostly by inserting two digits for eg. '15' either before or after the original entry of amount making it as Rs.15,300/- and thereby resulting in misappropriation of huge amount and used it as genuine and presented to A1 who accepted it with the intention of obtaining undue pecuniary advantage to A2, got the bill book sealed for them corresponding to the misappropriated amount and entered such forged amount in the Advance tax registers of the dealers kept in A1's custody resulting in huge loss to the state exchequer in the form of Advance Tax. (Item No.3 to 9).
The one and only person of the Commercial Tax Office, Neyyattinkara who is aware of the original entries in the chalan at the time of countersigning and while receiving the forged triplicate or quadruplicate chalan is A1.
Therefore, the original entries in the chalan countersigned pertains only to Advance Tax for one or two loads of sand where as the corrected figure in the forged challan pertains to 16 to 100 loads, mainly inserting two digits either before or after the original entry as mentioned above, resulting in misappropriation of Government money of Rs.2,03,150/- (Rupees Two lakhs three thousand one hundred and fifty only) in respect of Advance Tax Remittance by A2. Also A1 is very much aware on what are the rate of tax for a single load of sand etc.. Many of the mere amount remitted as said above was not even enough for a single load. All the Chalan for the year 2007-08 excepting Nos. 96/2.2.2008, 179/03.02.2008, 170/18.01.08, 192/23-01.08, 660/21.01.08, 504/07.12.08, 208/27.12.08, 185/28.12.08, 623/29.11.08 are countersigned by A1.
Moreover, investigation revealed that A1 has received Rs.50/ - and above for the dealer as gratification from A2 according to the number of sale bill got sealed. That clearly indicate that A2 colluded with A1 and committed the offence resulting in a huge pecuniary loss to the Government of Kerala.
The Register of Daily collection (item No.29,30) which was in custody of A1, in which the daily collection are recorded in respect of a dealer in a chalan number, were purposely not maintained properly by A1, who failed to enter the corresponding chalan number for each Advance Tax remitted. This was an important register perused for the purpose of reconciliation.
Thereby A2 has cheated the Government by committing forgery and misappropriation of Rs.2,03,150/- (Rupees Two lakhs three thousand one hundred and fifty only) with the connivance and collusion of A1.
The Action of A1 and A2 by corrupt and illegal means was an unlawful or undue gain and corresponding loss to the Government. Forging the Advance Tax dealer's chalan copy by A2 was for the purpose of cheating the Government and these forged chalan copies were fraudulently or dishonestly used as genuine which the accused persons knew that the same is forged. The illegal action on the part of A2 clearly proves that A2 conspired with A1 for obtaining undue pecuniary advantage.
Investigations has revealed, A1 conspired with A2 who was private persons and remitted the advance tax in the Sub Treasury, Neyyattinkara through SBT, Neyyattinkara on different dates between 4/2008 to 6/2008, on behalf of M/s. A.K. Traders, committed forgery in the triplicate and quadruplicate challans by boosting up the actual amount intending that the forged challans shall be used for the purpose of cheating and fraudulently or dishonestly used it as genuine knowing it to be forged one.
The question poses herein is whether the allegation against the revision petitioner arrayed as the 2nd accused in C.C.No.29/2024 and 33/2024 and as 3rd accused in C.C.No.1/2016 and C.C.No.28/2024 in the matter of forgery of challans, remittance of the amount of tax and enhancement of the amount in the challans when produced before the 1st accused with a view to cause pecuniary loss to the tune of Rs.26,58,595/-, to the Government and consequently gain to himself and other accused persons could be seen prima facie warranting trial. On perusal of the separate orders passed by the learned Special Judge, the learned Special Judge observed in paragraphs 31 to 36 as under:
“31. This court verified the statements of witnesses and documents. The statement of CW3 Smt. Saliha Beevi, a former peon at the Commercial Tax office in Neyyattinkara, indicates that the prosecution's items Nos. 3, 21, 29 to 33 were handed over to the accused No. 1 by the accused No. 7. Furthermore, the statement of said witness shows that the advance tax relating to Dhanalekshmi Enterprises was produced by accused No.7.
The statement of CW12, Smt. K. Baby, a former Commercial Tax officer, also reveals the details of false VAT returns of all dealers, such as Dhanalekshmi Enterprises, A.K.Traders, Pec Pee Traders and Sree Mahadeva Enterprises, which were produced by accused Nos. 6 and 7. Furthermore, the statement of the said witness also indicates that the disputed documents were submitted by accused Nos. 2 to 5-the statement of CW14. Smt. Sudha C, formerly a peon and Commercial Tax officer, Neyyattinkara, indicates that upon verifying the documents, she noticed the offence committed by accused Nos. 2 to 7. Furthermore, the fabricated documents relating to Dhanalekshmi Enterprises, A.K. Traders, and Pee Pee Traders were produced by accused Nos. 6 and 7.
The statement of CW15 an employee of M/s. Dhanalekshmi Enterprises shows that accused Nos. 6 and 7 remitted the advance taxes, and accused No. 6 remitted the advance tax, after which the bill books were sealed. Furthermore, the accused Nos. 6 and 7 remitted the advance taxes of Dhanalekshmi Enterprises. The statement of CW17 shows that accused Nos. 6 and 7 remitted the advance tax and settled the bill book, which was sealed.
The prosecution records, statements of witnesses and documents proved that a prima facie case has been made out against the petitioner. The fact that there is no demand or acceptance of money, and the evidence is insufficient, cannot be considered at this stage. The statements of official witnesses show the role played by the petitioner while remitting the tax. Moreover, their statements indicate that the accused Nos. 6 and 7 are the agents of the dealers, accused Nos: 2 to 5, and they also used to bring documents on behalf of the dealers.
There is strong evidence against the petitioner to frame a charge, whether the statements of witnesses are reliable or not. Whether witnesses are trustworthy or not, and whether the statement has probative value, cannot be considered at this stage. Additionally, there is strong circumstantial and positive evidence to support the petitioner's involvement in framing the charge. So, the contentions raised by him cannot be entertained at this stage. Moreover, all the contentions raised by the petitioner are questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated at this stage without providing the prosecution an opportunity to prove their case. So, the discharge application is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
The materials produced by the prosecution to frame a charge against the remaining accused are sufficient and prima facie reliable to frame a charge. Going through the materials submitted before the court, a prima facie case has been made against all the accused to frame a charge under section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C.Act, 1988 r/w Section 120 (B) of IPC, Section 468, 471 and 120(B) of IPC.”
I have gone through the statements of CW3 and CW11. The statement of CW3 Saliha Beevi is that one Mahesh, the agent of Smt.Ajitha, had produced a challan before the C.T.O office along with an application for sealing the books. Then C.T.O (the 1st accused) had issued an order and entrusted the same to CW3 and CW14 Sudha. Soon Sudha had noticed correction in the bill receipts and informed the same to CW3. Sudha had told this aspect to the Pushparani, the Junior Superintendent also. Then Pushparani had directed CW3 to go to the SBT, Neyyattinkara branch and verify the same. Accordingly she had gone to the bank and enquired about the same. Then it was found that the amount actually remitted in the bank was less than the amount shown in the receipt and this had been intimated to Pushparani by CW3. But CW3 did not know what is the actual amount paid to the bank. According to CW3, advance tax of Dhanalaksmi Enterprises belonged to Ajitha; A.K.Traders belonged to Ahamed Kabeer; PPN Traders belonged to Christopher Raj had been remitted in the bank and the bill books were produced by Mahesh and Satheesh Kumar, who were the agents of them. CW3 had stated further that on further enquiry she understood on verifying the amount shown in the chalan and in the account folio that the amount remitted in the bank was Rs.250/- and the amount actually shown in the bill produced by the C.T.O was Rs.12,250/-, by enhancing Rs.12,000/-. CW12 also supported the prosecution regarding the statement given by the police that 4 dealers, as stated by CW3, used to remit their advance tax through their agents, who were Mahesh and Satheesh Kumar and the misappropriations were done in the challans produced by them before the C.T.O. CW11, the L.D Typist of District Rural Treasury Office, had given statement that she had worked as Peon in the Sub Treasury from 19.05.2008 and thereafter she got appointment as L.D Typist and she relieved and joined as L.D Typist at Sub Treasury, Vellayambalam. According to her, she was assigned the duty of affixing the office seal on the documents signed by the officer, as well as on other papers, including bill books. Further she had both Treasury as well as bank duties and she used to affix the office seal on the tapal received in the office. According to her, in order to pay advance tax, the dealers or their agents would approach the C.T.O and the C.T.O would issue an order permitting them to remit the same. Then the C.T.O would order “please affix the seal as request” by the C.T.O and the challans would be entrusted to her as well as Saliha Beevi. According to her, when Mahesh produced challan receipt for and on behalf of Dhanalakshmi Enterprises, the same should be sealed by her. Then she found that there was correction on the area where the amount was entered and she informed the same to Pushparani, the Superintendent and accordingly the Superintendent asked Saliha Beevi to go to the SBT bank, Neyyattinkara and enquire about the same. Later, on verification at the bank it was found that the amount remitted in the bank was much less than the amount written in the challan. Thus the statement of CW11 Sudha is in support of the statement of CW3, as already observed. In addition to this, CW2 also had given statement as already observed.
In this matter on remand of the dismissal order of discharge moved by accused Nos.4 and 5, the Special Court discharged accused Nos.4 and 5 holding that the charges against them were groundless. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, when the charges against the traders were found to be groundless, the charge against their agents also became groundless. Therefore, they are entitled for discharge on the same grounds. Going through the order in Crl.M.P.Nos.446/2017 and 605/17 in C.C.No.1/2016 dated 07.06.2024, the learned Special Judge while discharging accused Nos.4 and 5 found that the returns of the original challans had been submitted before the C.T.O (A1) by showing escalated amount which were alleged to be forged by the revision petitioner and Mahesh and had given the same to accused Nos.4 and 5. Further accused Nos.4 and 5, though got possession of the challans they could not be found as offenders and it was observed further that it was quite natural that the dealers might have believed the agents (the revision petitioner and Mahesh) and accordingly they submitted the returns. On perusal of the prosecution records referred herein above, it could be seen that the revision petitioner and Mahesh, being the agents, produced the challans after overwriting the same showing a higher sum to the C.T.O that the amounts remitted in the bank as could be seen from the records are less, that too, without the knowledge of the dealers. Thus the forgery and falsification of challans by showing higher amounts than what was actually remitted in the bank and misappropriation of an amount of Rs.26,58,555/-by the revision petitioner and Mahesh could be seen, prima facie, and the involvement of the revision petitioner and Mahesh in those overt acts are well made out, prima facie. Therefore, mere discharge of the dealers itself finding that they had believed their agents would not be sufficient to hold that the agents also did not commit any offences as alleged by the prosecution, when the forgery and misappropriation are specifically alleged against the dealers.
It is pertinent to note that while adverting to discharge plea raised by an accused or accused persons, a Court shall look into the prosecution materials alone with a view to find out as to whether the prosecution records would suggest prima facie the commission of offence/offences by the accused or accused persons. Once the trial court could find from the prosecution records that a prima facie case is made out or a strong suspicion regarding commission of the offences by the accused or accused persons, the Court shall not discharge the accused. But when the prosecution records do not depict a prima facie case or even a strong suspicion rather than a weak or trivial suspicion, the Court shall discharge the accused.
Applying the legal position in mind, when analysing the prosecution records, prima facie, the allegations against the revision petitioner could be found, as rightly observed by the Special Court. In such view of the matter, the learned Special Judge rightly dismissed the discharge petitions in all these cases. Accordingly, the said orders under challenge do not require any interference.
In the result, all the Revision Petitions stand dismissed.
Interim stay granted in these cases stand vacated. The learned Special Judge shall proceed with trial.
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the jurisdictional court for information and further steps.
Corrected today