V.Radhakrishna Pillai vs State Of Kerala

Dr Kauser Edappagath, J

This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam (for short, 'the Court below') dismissing an application for discharge filed by the revision petitioner.

The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.9/2014 on the files of the Court below. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 13(1)(c) & (d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case, in short, is as follows:- During the period from 31/10/2007 to 13/10/2008, the accused was working as Shop Manager of Labham Market at Mannar. He was entrusted with the commodities and the sale proceeds of that shop. He by abusing his official position as public servant and with dishonest intention to cause wrongful loss to the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation and for obtaining pecuniary advantage for himself, misappropriated a total amount of ₹3,89,359/-. The aforesaid misappropriation was committed under two heads viz. an amount of ₹2,33,174/- as short remittance in bank and ₹1,56,185/- as shortage in stock.

The revision petitioner filed an application for discharge invoking Section 239 of Cr.P.C. before the court below as Crl.M.P.No.699/2017 on the ground that there are no sufficient grounds to proceed against him. The court below, after hearing both sides, dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the said order, this Criminal Revision Petition has been filed.

I have heard Sri.Dheerendra Krishnan, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Smt.S.Rekha, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

It is settled that at the time of considering the application for discharge, the court needs to consider whether any prima-facie case has been established for framing charge against the accused. The court below perused the entire records as well as the statements of the witnesses and found that there are grounds to proceed against the revision petitioner. I went through the records. I find no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order, warranting interference under the exercise of revsionary jurisdiction of this court.

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition stands dismissed giving liberty to the revision petitioner to raise all the contentions before the court below during trial.