High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeCr.M.C. Stands allowed; Ext. P3 set aside; FIR ...

Dr. K Prathapan v. State of Kerala and 1) Adv. K.R Ajith Babu, 2) State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, 3) Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance & Anti Corruption Bureau, Thrissur

Case / Petition Number:OP(Crl).No.238 of 2017

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • B. Sudheendra Kumar
Judgment Date
2018-01-12
Court Decision / Holding
OP(Crl). No. 238 of 2017 stands allowed. Ext. P3 order directing registration of FIR under 156(3) Cr.P.C. is set aside; Ext. P4 FIR is quashed to secure ends of justice. The petition is allowed.
Final Disposition
Cr.M.C. Stands allowed; Ext. P3 set aside; FIR quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Dr. K Prathapan

Respondents

  • Adv. Binoy Vasudevan
  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor
  • Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance & Anti Corruption Bureau, Thrissur

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • K. Siju
  • • Pratheesh P
  • • Smt. Seetha

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Binoy Vasudevan
  • • A. Rajesh (S.P.P.)

Case Synopsis & Summary

Dr. K Prathapan, the second accused in VACB Crime No. VC 06/17 TSR, challenged Ext. P3, an order by the Special Judge directing registration of an offence under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the consequent F.I.R. in VC 06/17 TSR. The private complaint alleged corrupt appointments in M/s Kerala Feeds Company Limited, Kallettumkara, Irinjalakkuda, including posts of Managers, Office Assistants and Drivers. It was alleged that a minister pressed for direct recruitment contrary to the Managing Director’s position, leading to Prathapan’s appointment as MD after the MD’s removal. The complaint claimed 12 unauthorised appointments were made after taking bribes. After preliminary enquiry, the VACB filed Ext. P2 report finding no element of corruption; nevertheless the Special Judge directed further investigation. The petitioner argued that the Board delegated appointment powers to the MD, and the quick verification did not reveal a cognizable offence, so directing registration under 156(3) Cr.P.C. was unjustified; Lalitha Kumari v. Government of U.P. was cited to define the scope of preliminary inquiry. The High Court, reviewing statements and reports, held that the alleged postings largely complied with authority delegated by the Board, save for Vipin.K.’s daily-wage posting without advertisement. No cognizable offence was established, and continuing the investigation would not serve ends of justice. Consequently, Ext. P3 and the FIR were set aside, and the petition was allowed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption ActSection 420 IPCSection 120B read with Section 34 IPCSection 156(3) Cr.P.C.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Scope of preliminary inquiry is to ascertain whether information reveals a cognizable offence, not to verify veracity (Lalitha Kumari v. Government of U.P. and Others, AIR 2014 SC 187)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that Ext. P3 directing registration under 156(3) Cr.P.C. was unjustified since the quick verification did not reveal a cognizable offence. The acts of appointment were largely within the authority delegated by the Board; the only aberration was Vipin.K.’s daily-wage posting without advertisement, which does not, by itself, establish corruption. Relying on Lalitha Kumari, the scope of the inquiry should be limited to whether a cognizable offence is disclosed, not to verify every aspect of the information. The petition seeks to quash the registration and investigation on ends-of-justice grounds.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that a prima facie case of corruption existed in the appointment process, including direct recruitment pressures by a minister and unauthorised appointments. They argue that the initial quick verification may not capture all elements, and that the Board’s delegation to the MD does not negate possible irregularities. They emphasize the need for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to ascertain the truth around the alleged bribes and appointment improprieties, and to secure ends of justice.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Lalitha Kumari v. Government of U.P. and OthersAIR 2014 SC 187PositiveQuoted for the principle that the scope of a preliminary inquiry is to determine if a cognizable offence is disclosed, not to verify all factual details.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Dr. K Prathapan v. State of Kerala and 1) Adv. K.R Ajith Babu, 2) State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, 3) Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance & Anti Corruption Bureau, Thrissur and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 22ND POUSHA, 1939 OP(Crl.).No. 238 of 2017 CRMP 441/2016 of ENQUIRY COMMR.& SPL.JUDGE,THRISSUR CRIME NO. 6/2017 OF VACB, THRISSUR , TRISSUR PETITIONER(S) DR. K PRATHAPAN S/O.KESAVAN PILLAI, AGED 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT SABARI, KTC 17/809, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, FORMER MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA FEEDS LTD., KALLETTUMKARA P.O., IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680683. BY ADVS.SRI.K.SIJU SRI.PRATHEESH.P SMT.S.SEETHA RESPONDENT(S): 1. ADV. K.R AJITH BABU S/O.RAPPAI, KANADI HOUSE, OLLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031. 3. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE VIGILANCE & ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, THRISSUR. R1 BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN R2-R3 BY SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. A. RAJESH THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-01-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(Crl.).No. 238 of 2017 (Q) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 THE COPY OF COMPLAINT IN CRL.M.P.NO.441/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, THRISSUR. EXHIBIT P2 THE COPY OF THE QUICK VERIFICATION REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, THRISSUR, DATED 28-12-2016. EXHIBIT P3 THE COPY OF ORDER DATED 10-2-2017 IN CRL.M.P.NO.441/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSION & SPECIAL JUDGE, THRISSUR. EXHIBIT P4 THE COPY OF THE FIR IN V.A.C.B. CRIME NO.6/17/TSR DATED 25-2-2017. EXHIBIT P5 THE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 9-2-2016, G.O.(RT)NO.52/16/AHD. ## **B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.** ------------------------------------------------- ## **O.P. Crl. No. 238 of 2017** ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12[th] day of January, 2018 ## **ORDER** The petitioner is the 2[nd] accused in Crime No. VC 06/17/TSR, registered for the offence under Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, (“the P.C. Act” for short) and Sections 420 and 120 B read with Section 34 IPC. 2. The first respondent herein filed a private complaint before the court below alleging corruption in the matter of appointments to various posts in M/s. Kerala Feeds Company Limited, Kallettumkara, Irinjalakkuda. It is alleged that the appointment to the post of Managers, ## **O.P. Crl. No. 238 of 2017** **==> picture [16 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** Office Assistants and Drivers had to be made through the Employment Exchange only. However, the first accused who was the then Minister insisted that appointments should be made by direct recruitment which was against the stand taken by the then Managing Director. When the Managing Director was not ready to heed to the demand of the Minister, he was removed from that post and the petitioner was appointed as the Managing Director. The idea behind such replacement was corruption. It is alleged that 12 persons were unauthorisedly appointed by the first and the second accused after receiving huge amount as bribe. On receipt of the said complaint, the learned Special Judge forwarded the complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, VACB, Thrissur for ## **O.P. Crl. No. 238 of 2017** **==> picture [16 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** preliminary enquiry. After the preliminary enquiry, Ext. P2 report was filed stating that no element of corruption could be detected in the preliminary enquiry. However, the learned Special Judge did not accept the said report. The learned Special Judge directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, VACB, to register Crime Under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. And investigate. 3. The petitioner has filed this Original Petition praying for setting aside Ext. P3 order passed by the court below and the consequent registration of Ext. P4 FIR in VC 06/17/TSR as against the petitioner. 4. Heard. ## **O.P. Crl. No. 238 of 2017** -4- 5. A statement has been filed by the Inspector of Police, VACB , Thrissur today. I have gone through the statement. It has been stated by the learned Sr. Special Public Prosecutor that no element of corruption could be detected against the petitioner or the other accused during the course of investigation. It is stated in the statement that the Board of Directors delegated the power of appointment to the Managing Director and the Managing Director had made the appointment only in accordance with the powers conferred upon him. It is reported that the petitioner held the post of Managing Director from 10-22016 to 3-8-2016. During his tenure, three Management Trainees, 42 Apprentice Trainees, 35 Casual Workers/Technicians, 11 Daily Wages /consolidated staff and two Garden Workers were temporarily posted in the Company. Besides this, one Vipin .K. who was working as ## **O.P. Crl. No. 238 of 2017** **==> picture [16 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** Management Trainee in the Marketing Division, Kozhikode District was allowed to continue on daily wages by the petitioner. Altogether 12 Field Assistants were there on daily wages. Out of the 12 Field Assistants, 11 of them were appointed on daily wages by the former Managing Director, namely Sri. K.Venugopal, who held the post as Managing Director from 18-12-2014 to 9-2-2016. In the above said posting, the posting of Vipin.K., a daily wage alone was without advertisement and without conducting interview. 6. At this juncture it is relevant to mention the appointments made by the former M.D. Sri. K.Venugopal. During his tenure, 15 Management Trainees, 58 Apprentice Trainees, 132 temporary casual/worker/Technicians, 37 daily wages/ consolidates, one garden worker, were temporarily posted in the Company as per the statement ## **O.P. Crl. No. 238 of 2017** -6- filed by the Inspector Vigilance, VACB, Thrissur. This would show that the allegation of the complainant that the former Managing Director Sri. K.Venugopal was replaced by the petitioner on the reason that the former Managing Director was not prepared to make appointments directly as suggested by the first accused who was the then Minister, cannot be said to be founded on factual matrix. The appointments made by the petitioner as well as the former Managing Director were in accordance with the authority given by the Board of Directors. The only reasonable allegation is that the posting of Vipin on daily wages was without advertisements. However, it is stated in the report that Vipin was not initially appointed by the petitioner and the said Vipin was only permitted to be continued by the petitioner. It has been submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that no element of corruption could be detected any where. It has been further ## **O.P. Crl. No. 238 of 2017** -7- submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that the quick verification conducted and the investigation so far conducted did not reveal any cognizable offence. The Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari v. Government of U.P. and Others [AIR 2014 SC 187] held that the scope of preliminary enqiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence. Since quick verification did not reveal any cognizable offence, the learned Special Judge was not justified in directing the Deputy Superintendent of Police VACB to register the crime and investigate under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has submitted that the investigation is almost complete. It appears from the report that the investigation so far conducted has not also revealed any cognizable offence. In view of the above reasons, permitting to continue the investigation against ## **O.P. Crl. No. 238 of 2017** -8- the petitioner will not serve any purpose. For the above said reasons, I am inclined to set aside Ext. P3 order passed by the learned Special Judge and the consequent registration of Ext. P4 FIR, to secure the ends of justice. It is ordered accordingly. In the result, this Crl.M.C. Stands allowed. ## **B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE** . ani/