E.K. Ravendranathan Nair v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA** **THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 28TH KARTHIKA, 1942** ## **Crl.MC.No.2838 OF 2017** **CC 944/2016 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III, TRIVANDRUM CRIME NO.548/2012 OF Cantonment Police Station , Thiruvananthapuram** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED** **E.K.RAVEENDRANATHAN NAIR AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. S. KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR, RESIDING AT SREEPADAM HOUSE, NILAMI, EANIKKARA, KARAKULAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, (SENIOR AUDITOR, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT)** **BY ADVS. SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW** ## **RESPONDENT/STATE** **THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CANTONMENT POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI - 682 031.** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SRI.D.CHANDRASENAN (P.P)** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 4.11.2020, THE COURT ON 19.11.2020 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Crl.M.C.2838/2017 2 ## **ORDER** ## Dated : 19[th] day of November, 2020 1. This Crl.M.C has been filed to quash charge Sheet/Final Report in C.C.No.944 of 2016 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. According to the petitioner, initiation of the criminal prosecution against him is to wreck the personal vendetta of the then chairman of the Kerala State Co-operative Union, Thiruvananthapuram (hereinafter referred as the Union), Sri. E.Narayanan. Petitioner was working as Junior Auditor in the office of Assistant Director, Thiruvananthapuram in the Department of Co-operation, Government of Kerala. Upon his willingness, he has been posted on deputation in the Union as Assistant Publicity Officer. On taking charge of the said post, Secretary of the Union entrusted duties of Editor of Kerala Co-operative journal upon the petitioner. The Union had issued Crl.M.C.2838/2017 3 an order detailing the manner in which Kerala Cooperative Journal to be published and the manner of determining the number of copies required etc. After his joining as Assistant Publicity Officer, he claims that Co-operative journal has improved tremendously. His wife is working in Drugs Testing Lab of the Government of Kerala. Petitioner and family are entitled for medical reimbursement and towards treatment of the wife, petitioner submitted application for reimbursement of medical On expenses. complying the procedure as usual, orders were issued granting medical reimbursement for Rs.29,497/- and also Rs.4,850/-. While so, the then chairman of the Union Sri. E.Narayanan asked the petitioner to prepare a bio data to obtain Padma award which was sent to the then Minister for Human Affairs. But the bio data was not considered. Thereafter E.Narayanan got his bio data prepared through somebody and handed over to the petitioner for forwarding it to the Government. On scrutiny by him, it was found Crl.M.C.2838/2017 **==> picture [7 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** that the honorary doctorate from Maithily University, Bihar is fake. So the petitioner refused to forward the second bio data got prepared by the chairman. Again another bio data was got prepared by E.Narayanan and submitted to the petitioner. In that he claimed to have obtained Ph.D from the Western Kennedy University. On verification by the petitioner it was also found to be an unrecognized University. So the petitioner refused to forward the said bio data also to the Government and the bio data was returned to E.Narayanan. He could not secure the award in 2012. From that period onwards E.Narayanan, the then chairman was maintaining an inimical attitude towards the petitioner and as an offshoot, he filed a complaint alleging that the petitioner submitted forged documents for claiming medical reimbursement for his treatment and file with respect to that was stolen by him. As instructed by E.Narayanan, the then General Manager submitted a complaint. On the basis of the same, out of political pressure, harassment started. Crl.M.C.2838/2017 5 Another allegation also raised as part of harassment to the effect that in respect of printing of co-operative journals, petitioner committed irregularity in giving orders for printing 11900 copies of the journal in the place of Rs.8,600/- and hence additional amount of Rs.35,000/- every month has to be paid to the printing press for 18 months. Raising all those the then chairman filed another complaint to the Director of vigilance and Anti Corruption. In spite of all these, the Managing committee extended the term of the petitioner in the Union for a further period of one year from 22.6.2012. On the basis of the complaint forwarded, a crime was registered as 548/2012 under Sec.420, 409, 468, 471, 380 IPC against the petitioner. Thereafter when there was attempt to arrest the petitioner, he filed Crl.M.C.5144/2014 and the arrest of the petitioner was stayed. From the very beginning, the police conducted a farce investigation and ultimately a charge sheet was filed which is now pending as C.C.944/2016 on the file of Judicial Crl.M.C.2838/2017 6 First Class Magistrate-III, Thiruvananthapuram. The allegations in the complaint are in respect of acts done by the petitioner in the course of discharge of his official duties. Hence sanction u/s.197 Cr.P.C is mandatory. Hence the case has been filed to quash Annexure-34 charge/final report in crime No.548/2012 of Cantonment police station. 3. Notice was issued to the respondent. Respondent appeared through the learned Senior Public prosecutor Sri.D.Chandrasenan. Statement of facts also filed by the Inspector of police, Cantonment police station. Heard both sides. 4. According to the learned public prosecutor, the crime was registered and the final report was filed against the petitioner on proper investigation conducted by the police. The signature of the doctor in the documents produced by the petitioner for the purpose of medical reimbursement is forged. He produced forged bills of Rs.15,000/- and misappropriated an amount of Rs.35,000/- under the guise of printing Crl.M.C.2838/2017 7 of journals. The statement of de facto complainant and the other employees of the Union have been recorded. The relevant documents for proving the offence against the petitioner were collected. During the course of investigation, he approached for anticipatory bail twice and also filed Crl.M.C.No.144/2014 to quash the FIR before this court. So according to him, the charges levelled against the petitioner for cheating, misappropriation of funds, forgery and theft are proved through the documents collected. The alleged offences are not committed by him while holding the post in discharge of his official duty. So sanction under Sec.197 Cr.P.C is not required. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand, would contend that though the prosecution alleges that the petitioner produced forged bills and prescription for claiming medical reimbursement, the documents produced from his side would show that he never claimed medical reimbursement and the application submitted by him and sanction obtained is for the medical Crl.M.C.2838/2017 8 reimbursement of his wife. With regard to the giving of excess orders for printing copies and thereby causing loss of Rs.35,000/- per month for 18 months, the contention of the petitioner is that he is no way connected with the printing and allied matters of the journal. 6. With regard to the allegation of theft of file containing the charge memo and letter to Registrar from the office, he would contend that there is no evidence collected by the prosecution to substantiate the said allegation. 7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, all the acts alleged to have been committed by the petitioner is during the course of the discharge of his official duty and hence Sec.197 Cr.P.C is a clear bar. With respect to the allegation of inflation of prints, the learned Public Prosecutor did not seem to have any serious objection with regard to the official nature of the duty. Moreover, to substantiate the duties of the petitioner, authorised staff for giving quotation etc, documents were produced from the side of Crl.M.C.2838/2017 9 the petitioner. 8. Petitioner produced several documents to substantiate the malice of the chairman towards him and further to substantiate that the alleged acts comes with in the purview of discharge of his official duties. No doubt for quashing a Charge Sheet/Final Report while exercising the powers under S.482 Cr.P.C. this court is not expected to evaluate the documents produced from the side of defence. 9. In Chand Dhawan v. Jawahar Lal and Ors. [1992 KHC 875 : AIR 1992 SC 1379] wherein while dealing with Section 482 Cr.P.C. it has been held that High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction of quashing a criminal proceeding only when the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute an offence. In that case Magistrate on having been satisfied of the statement of the complainant and evidence of witnesses examined and material on record come to a conclusion that cognisance should be taken and process was issued and in such situation Crl.M.C.2838/2017 10 quashing of complaint on additional materials filed by the accused is found to be not justified. So this Court is not actually expected to examine the documents produced from the side of the petitioner/accused at this stage to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner/ accused. 10. But at the same time in order to evaluate the genuineness of the allegation of malice and illwill of the Chairman and to find whether this is a case where sanction under S.197 Cr.P.C. is required or not this Court can very well look into the documents produced from the side of the petitioner. 11. Annexure A2 is the copy of the order of the Secretary of the Union stating the duties and responsibilities of the petitioner as the Editor of the journal. It would show that printing is not assigned to him. Annexure-A4 is the order of the Additional Registrar/Secretary of the Union which provides the guidelines with respect to the Crl.M.C.2838/2017 11 printing, distribution, collection of advertisements etc, of the journal. It would show that the responsibility with regard to the number of prints of the journal and collection of bills etc, is upon the Managing Editor, Additional Registrar and Secretary. Annexure-A35 is the copy of agreement executed between the owner of Navakerala Printers and the Secretary of the Union with respect to the printing works of the journal for the period from January 2010 to December 2010. Annexure-A29 is the copy of quotation called for from the printers with respect to the printing of the journal signed by Additional Registrar/Secretary. Annexure-A30 is the copy of letter addressed by the Chairman to the owner of the Navakerala Printers accepting the quotation submitted by him for the period January 2011 to December 2011. Annexure-A31 is the copy of the agenda No.4 submitted by the Additional Registrar/Secretary stating that an amount of Rs.2,66,240/- has been paid for printing 2000 copies of the journal '2011 November special' and Crl.M.C.2838/2017 12 submitted for the approval of the Publicity committee. The above documents produced from the side of the petitioner would prima facie show that petitioner has no role in the matter of calling for quotations or giving orders for printing of the journal of the Union. In spite of that, along with charge, a statement is recorded as that of the owner of the printer stating that there was intervention at the instance of the petitioner. It is also stated that the petitioner herein demanded bills for excess quantity of prints and he refused it. Further it is stated that petitioner threatened that if it is not given, he would cancel the agreement. He also stated that from 2010 September onwards bills were obtained stating more than 2500 copies than that has been actually printed, has been obtained and that was continued till February, 2012. So the allegation with regard to the inflation of bills raised against the petitioner seems to be prima facie baseless. More over giving orders for printing, calling for quotations etc, will come under the discharge of Crl.M.C.2838/2017 13 his official duties also. Hence sanction under S.197 Cr.P.C is necessary. 12. In this context the learned public prosecutor would place reliance on Satyabrat Gupta v. State of Jharkhand (2020 (4) KHC 372). In that decision it has been held while dealing with Sec.197 Cr.P.C that, charge for offence punishable under the IPC can continue irrespective of the fact that sanction in respect of offence punishable under the PC Act is not forthcoming. That decision was mainly relied upon by the public prosecutor to support his contention that even if the allegation against the petitioner with regard to the inflation of printing is an official act and sanction would be necessary, sanction will not be required in the case of other offence under IPC alleged against him. 13. As stated earlier, according to the petitioner, the entire proceedings initiated against him is only out of the personal vengeance of the de facto complainant, the then chairman of the Union. He Crl.M.C.2838/2017 14 has got a specific contention that the documents produced by the chairman along with the bio-data for forwarding to Padma award were found to be fake and hence he informed the same to the chairman and it is thereafter the entire attitude of the chairman changed and this complaint leading to the registration of a crime has been forwarded him. The of the FIR as by copy produced Annexure-A27 would prove that the crime was registered on 22.6.2012. The complaint of the chairman to DGP which is produced as AnnexureA27(c) would show that it was send on 15.6.2012 and received in the office of the Sub Inspector of police on 21.6.2012. 14. Annexure-A24 is a true copy of publication of Online Degree Reviews.org wherein it has been stated that Kennedy Western University ceased to operate in March 2009 and it is not accredited. Annexure-A23 which is a copy of the Degree Certificate attached with the bio data for forwarding to Padma Award of the Chairman state about the Doctorate from Kennedy Western Crl.M.C.2838/2017 15 University. It does not bear any date. He also produced a certificate conferring 'Sir' honour from ATHCOS as Annexure A22/2. The copy of the bio data for Padma Award 2012 is produced as Annexure-A22 in which it has been highlighted that he has got Ph.D from Western Kennedy University, USA and he is a recipient of numerous awards such as Shakarana Medhala Award, Swadeshabhimani Award, Nabard Award etc. Annexure-A21 is a of paper cutting Mathrubhoomy daily dated 02.07.2015 in which also a list of fake universities have been provided. Maithili University, Bihar is also reported to be a fake university in Annexure-A21. Anyway, Annexure-A25 would show that on 18.02.2012 the petitioner has refused to forward the application submitted by the de facto complainant, the then Chairman for Padma Award on the ground that some of the certificates produced by him are fake. Prima facie, there are materials to prove that the Doctorate obtained from Kennedy Western University is fake. It is after that on Crl.M.C.2838/2017 16 15.6.2012 that the complaint was forwarded by the de facto complainant to the D.G.P. So the above facts would probabilise the allegation of the petitioner that there are reasons for the de facto complainant to wreck vengeance upon the petitioner. He has got a specific contention that the medical reimbursement obtained by him is not for treatment undergone by him but towards the treatment of his wife and documents substantiating grant of medical reimbursement to him had been produced as Annexure-A13, A14 and A15. 15. But the complaint Annexure-A27 would show that the petitioner has produced new bills for Rs.15,000/- and those were fake documents. Doctor's signature, the OP tickets of hospital and the seal of the hospital, certificate etc., are fake, as reported by the Superintendent. Further allegation is that the file containing fake bills and the other documents produced by him in connection with the medical reimbursement has Crl.M.C.2838/2017 17 been stolen by him on 23.5.2012 at about 6.45 pm from the office. So on that account, the offence under Secs 420, 409, 488, 471 and 380 has been charged against the petitioner. 16. Petitioner has got a specific contention that this complaint was forwarded by the Chairman only out of his personal vendetta and if at all it had come in the usual course, it ought to have been forwarded by the Secretary of the Union. But as rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, on getting information about the commission of criminal offence, anybody can intimate the police. So he being the chairman of the Union, it cannot be said that he is not empowered to file the complaint. But the question is whether the allegations put forward against him can be taken as an official act and whether he is entitled for protection under Sec.197 Cr.P.C. 17. The petitioner strongly disputes that he has raised any medical claim on his behalf and all the medical reimbursement was on behalf of his wife. Allegation in the complaint is that the medical Crl.M.C.2838/2017 18 bills for Rs.15,000/- filed by him along with bills are fake by forging the signature of the doctor, seal of the hospital, O.P. tickets etc. Since the petitioner disputes the alleged act made by him, the prosecution case regarding the claim for Rs.15,000/- by the petitioner itself has to be viewed with suspicion, especially in the light of the prima facie baseless allegations raised against him with respect to the inflation of prints and loss of Rs.35,000/- each per month with respect to that. Subsequently the theft also is alleged with respect to that particular file containing the medical bills and the connected records. The counsel for the petitioner has got a specific contention that on verifying the personal register, it can very well be ascertained whether the alleged file relating to charge memo against the petitioner and other records have been reached at the General Manager. He would also contend that the Manual of Office procedure issued by the Government of Kerala other than Secretariat, mandates in Rule 21 that files received in each Crl.M.C.2838/2017 19 section should be registered in the personal register. Rule 23 also mandates that all communications whether official or unofficial should be registered in the personal register. But that matter has not been investigated and enquired into by the police. On perusing 'A Handbook on Manual of Office Procedure' Compiled & Edited by S. Seetharaman Potty (2018), such a procedure seen prescribed also in Rule 21 and Rule 23. But the copy of charge sheet produced does not reveal that, that aspect has been investigated by the investigating officer. The only material prima facie to prove the allegation of theft against him is the statement of CW3 Jayachandran who was the watchman in the office of the Union on 23.5.2012, the alleged date on which the particular file said to have been stolen. His statement is only that petitioner herein went to the office on 23.5.2012 at 6.45 pm for taking his spectacles. He also stated that the petitioner came out of his room and stood in front of the cabin. Then the watchman left the place and came Crl.M.C.2838/2017 20 after 30 minutes. He also stated that the petitioner left the office at 7.15 pm. I have already found that the complaint filed by the de facto complainant included prima facie baseless allegations like inflation of prints and misappropriation of funds by the petitioner .With respect to forging signature of the Doctor and seal etc. a statement of superintendent Govt. Hospital Peeroorkkada is enclosed with the final report. But there is no express statement by the Dr about the forging of seal or signature. 18. Petitioner produced Annexure-A26 decision of the committee of the Union on Managing 11.5.2012 by which his term of office has been extended for one year from 22.6.2012. It is on the alleged day of forwarding the complaint of the de facto complainant that his deputation period in the Union has been extended for one year. 19. So the allegations with regard to the forging of medical bills, office seal, signature of the doctor and also the theft of the file etc., also are bald allegations in view of the ill-will of the de Crl.M.C.2838/2017 21 facto complainant towards the petitioner in connection with the forwarding of the bio data for Padma award, the learned counsel contends. So prosecution initiated against him without prior sanction from Government is not substantiate in law according to the learned counsel. To support the contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on various authorities. He would drew my attention to State of Kerala v. Retnamma (1987 KHC 622) wherein it has been held by this Court while dealing with Sec.197 Cr.P.C that even if the act committed by the public servant is not sanctioned by the statute, if it has substantial connection with the official duty, it shall be considered to be done in furtherance of such duty. It has to the extent of that gone stating manipulating official records to misappropriate money has to be considered to be done in the course of duty. In that decision, Shreekantiah Ramayya v. State of Bombay (AIR 1955 SC 287) has been quoted which reads as follows : Crl.M.C.2838/2017 22 “Now it is obvious that if S.197 Crl.P.C is construed too narrowly it can never be applied, for of course it is no part of an official's duty to commit an offence and never can be. But it is not the duty we have to examine so much as the act, because an official act can be performed in the discharge of official duty as well as in dereliction of it”. 20. The learned counsel further relies on D.Devaraja v. Owais Sabeer Hussain (2020 7 SCC 695). In that decision a detailed discussion with regard to the scope of Sec.197 Cr.P.C has been made. It has been finally held that to decide whether sanction is necessary, the test is whether the act is totally unconnected with official duty or whether there is a reasonable connection with the official duty. In the case of an act of a policeman or any other public servant unconnected with the official duty, there can be no question of sanction. However, if the act alleged against a policeman is reasonably connected with discharge of his official duty, it does not matter if the policeman has exceeded the scope of his powers and/or Crl.M.C.2838/2017 23 acted beyond the four corners of law. It is also held if the act alleged in a complaint purported to be filed against the policeman is reasonably connected to discharge of some official duty, cognizance thereof cannot be taken unless requisite sanction of the appropriate Government is obtained under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C or under any Special Act provided therein. It is true that, that was a case in which the appellant/ police officer approached the Apex court on refusal of a petition filed by him under Sec.482 for quashing an order passed by the Addl. Metropolitan magistrate taking cognizance of a private complaint against the accused for offence punishable under Secs 120B, 328, 506 r/w 34 IPC. Paragraph 70 and 74 of the said judgment are highlighted by the learned counsel which read as follows : 70. To decide whether sanction is necessary, the test is whether the act is totally unconnected with official duty or whether there is a reasonable connection with the official Crl.M.C.2838/2017 24 duty. In the case of an act of a policeman or any other public servant unconnected with the official duty there can be no question of sanction. However, if the act alleged against a policeman is reasonably connected with discharge of his official duty, it does not mater if the policeman has exceeded the scope of his powers and/or acted beyond the four corners of law. 74. It is well settled that an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is maintainable to quash proceedings which are ex facie bad for want of sanction, frivolous or in abuse of process of court. If, on the face of the complaint, the act alleged appears to have a reasonable relationship with official duty, where the criminal proceedings is apparently prompted by mala fides and instituted with ulterior motive, power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code would have to be exercised to quash the proceedings, to prevent abuse of process of court. 21. In this case it has already been found that the allegation with regard to the inflation of prints made against the petitioner is in discharge of his official duties and that allegation also found to be prima facie baseless. Petitioner also produced documents to infer mala fides of the then Chairman of the Union in view of his refusal to Crl.M.C.2838/2017 25 forward the Bio Data of the Chairman for Padma Award. It is after his refusal to forward the biodata that the complaint was filed against him by the Chairman to the D.G.P. Hence the allegation of the petitioner regarding the mala fides of the chairman and charging him with criminal case with ulterior motive, appears to have some force. Claiming medical reimbursement is a procedure which arose in the course of official duty. In this case the petitioner strongly disputes the medical reimbursement on his behalf and the subsequent allegation of theft is also with regard to the same file containing the medical reimbursement, bills etc. Normally in a case when there is allegation of theft, the question of sanction under Sec.197 Cr.P.C may not arise. But in this case the forgery of documents and theft of documents etc., are all in connection with the records produced by him in the office during the course of his duty. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances of this case it cannot be found that the allegations made against the petitioner are totally unconnected with the Crl.M.C.2838/2017 26 discharge of his official duties. 22. It is true that the learned Public Prosecutor placed reliance on Raju C.R. v. State of Kerala and another (2020 (5) KHC SN 27 (page No.96) wherein the Sub Inspector of Police slapped on the cheeks of the complainant and his contention was that, that act was done in discharge of official duties. In the said circumstances it was held that it cannot be accepted that the conduct of summoning complainant to the police station and torturing him at police station has any relation to the discharge of the official duties of police. In such a case protection under Sec.197 Cr.P.C was held to be not available. That was a case in which a physical assault was made by the Sub Inspector against a complainant who appeared before him on summons. That cannot be compared with the facts and circumstances of this case since the entire allegation is with regard to the production of documents by the petitioner and theft of the relevant file by the petitioner from the office. 23. The learned counsel further placed reliance Crl.M.C.2838/2017 27 on State of Karnataka v. Muniswamy and others (1977 2 SCC 699), Chandrapal Singh & Others v. Maharaj Singh and Another (1982 1 SCC 466), Madhavrao Jivaji Rao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chadrojirao Angre ( 1988 1 SCC 692), State of Haryana & Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others ( AIR 1992 SC 604), Zandu Pharmaccutical Works Ltd & others v. Mohd.Sharaful Haque & Another ( 2005 1 SCC 122), Inder Mohan Goswami & Another v. State of Uttaranchal and others (2007 (4) SCC 360), Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of UP and others (AIR 2014 SC 187), Rajib Ranjan & Others v. R.Vijayakumar (2015 Cri.L.J. 267), Savitri Pandey v. State of U.P. (2015 13 SCC 95), Kurian V.V. v. Leelamma Sebastin (2015 4 KLT 476), Ramesh Rajagopal v. Devi Polymers (2016 6 SCC 310), Ajith Gopal Nambiar v. Jacob Raju (2016 5 KHC 162), in the context of exercise of powers under Sec.482 Cr.P.C by this court. In view of the findings already arrived at, a detailed discussion based on the above is not necessary. 24. In view of the discussions made above, I am Crl.M.C.2838/2017 28 of the considered view that the petitioner/accused is entitled for protection under Sec.197 Cr.P.C and hence the proceedings initiated against him without sanction from the Government is not sustainable in law and hence he is entitled for a discharge on that ground. Accordingly, petitioner/accused in C.C.No.944/2016 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate -III, Thiruvananthapuram is discharged for want of sanction u/s. 197 Cr.P.C. I make it clear that all the discussions made above is only for the disposal of the issue with regard to the sanction to be obtained under Sec.197 Cr.P.C. There will not be a bar in proceeding against the petitioner/accused in accordance with law on getting proper sanction as contemplated under Sec.197 Cr.P.C. The Crl.M.C is disposed of as above. Sd/- M.R.ANITHA Judge Mrcs/5.11. Crl.M.C.2838/2017 29 ## **APPENDIX** ## **ANNEXURES** - **ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08/06/2009 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25/6/2009 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** - **ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES DATED 09/10/1979 ISSUED BY THE JOINT REGISTRAR/SECRETARY OF THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE UNION.** - **ANNEXURE A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28/2/2005 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** - **ANNEXURE A5 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 28/3/2012 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR/SECRETARY.** - **ANNEXURE A6 A TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 22/12/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT WHICH WAS COUNTERSIGNED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER.** - **ANNEXURE A7 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 19/12/2009 ISSUED BY DOCTOR VINOD THAMPI.** - **ANNEXURE A8 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 22/7/2015 ISSUED BY OFFICER WHO WAS SERVING AS GENERAL MANAGER OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT AS ON 22/2/2009.** **ANNEXURE A9 A TRUE COPY OF THE OUTPATIENT RECORD IN RESPECT OF THE APPLICANT'S WIFE ISSUED FROM THE MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **ANNEXURE A10 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED** Crl.M.C.2838/2017 30 ||**01/08/2015 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC**| |---|---| ||**INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE MEDICAL**| ||**COLLEGE HOSPITAL THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.**| |**ANNEXURE A11**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED**| ||**BY THE APPLICANT FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF**| ||**MEDICAL EXPENSES IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM.**| |**ANNEXURE A12**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED**| ||**07/12/2009 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF GOVERNMENT**| ||**ANALYST, DRUGS TESTING LAB**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM**| |**ANNEXURE A13**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09/3/2010**| ||**ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL**| ||**REGISTRAR/SECRETARY OF THE KERALA STATE**| ||**CO-OPERATIVE UNION SANCTIONING MEDICAL**| ||**REIMBURSEMENT TO THE APPLICANT.**| |**ANNEXURE A14**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMISSION DATED**| ||**19/6/2010 MADE BY THE APPLICANT FOR**| ||**REIMBURSEMENT OF RS. 4850/-.**| |**ANNEXURE A15**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMISSION DATED**| ||**30/3/2011 MADE BY THE APPLICANT FOR**| ||**REIMBURSEMENT OF RS. 4926/-**| |**ANNEXURE A16**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD**| ||**DATED 12/10/2010.**| |**ANNEXURE A17**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE BIO-DATA/ALBUM**| ||**PREPARED FOR SECURING PADMASREE AWARD FOR**| ||**E. NARAYANAN.**| |**ANNEXURE A18**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF**| ||**DOCTORATE OF MYTHILI UNIVERSITY, BIHAR.**| |**ANNEXURE A19**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF UGC RECOGNISED**| ||**UNIVERSITIES IN THE STATE OF BIHAR.**| |**ANNEXURE A20**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT ABOUT THE 22**| ||**FAKE UNIVERSITIES FUNCTIONING IN INDIA.**| |**ANNEXURE A21**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY**| Crl.M.C.2838/2017 31 **ONLINE EDITION DATED 02/07/2015.** **ANNEXURE A22 A TRUE COPY OF THE BIO-DATA FOR PADMA AWARD 2012 OF E. NARAYANAN. ANNEXURE A23 A TRUE COPY OF THE PH.D CERTIFICATE OF E NARAYANAN FROM WESTERN KENNEDY UNIVERSITY, USA.** - **ANNEXURE A24 A TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLICATION OF ONLINE DEGREE REVIEWS. ORG.** - **ANNEXURE A25 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18/2/2012.** - **ANNEXURE A26 A TRUE COPY OF DECISION NO. 9 TAKEN BY THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE UNION ON 11/5/2012.** - **ANNEXURE A27 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 548/2012 OF CANTONMENT POLICE STATION.** - **ANNEXURE A28 A TRUE COPY OF THE OP TICKET DATED 2/1/2011.** - **ANNEXURE A29 A TRUE COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT DATED 09/11/2011 INVITING QUOTATIONS.** - **ANNEXURE A30 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23/12/2010 ISSUED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE UNION.** - **ANNEXURE A31 A TRUE COPY OF THE AGENDA NO. 4 SUBMITTED BY THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR/SECRETARY FOR APPROVAL OF THE PAYMENT MADE FOR PRINTING JOURNALS.** **ANNEXURE A32 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23/09/2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CANTONMENT POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A33 A TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED 3/5/2015 IN CRIME NO. 548/2012 OF CANTONMENT** Crl.M.C.2838/2017 32 **POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A34 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE IN CRIME NO. 548/2012 OF CANTONMENT POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A35 A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 01/1/2010 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PRESS OWNER AND THE SECRETARY OF THE UNION.**