High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-11-20Criminal M.C. dismissed; charges to stand; tria...

K.G STEPHENA v. STATE OF KERALA

Case / Petition Number:CRL.MC NO. 9605 OF 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Babu
Judgment Date: 2023-11-20
Court Decision / Holding: The Criminal M.C. is dismissed; the High Court upholds the framing of charges and refuses to quash them. The trial is directed to be completed within six months from the copy of this order, with liberty to seek extensions if necessary.
Final Disposition: Criminal M.C. dismissed; charges to stand; trial to be completed within six months; no quashing of charges.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

K.G STEPHENA

Respondents

State of Kerala
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Kollam Unit, Kollam District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• M.KIRANLAL
• R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
• MANU RAMACHANDRAN
• SAMEER M NAIR
• GEETHU KRISHNAN
• SAILAKSHMI MENON

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (CRL.M.C. No. 9605 of 2022) before a Single Judge of the Kerala High Court challenging an order framing charges in CC 6/2015 before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner, K.G. Stephena, faces charges under Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 420, 468, 471 read with Section 120B of the IPC, in connection with forged applications for educational concessions submitted on 01.12.2003. The prosecution alleges a conspiracy between accused 1 and others to disburse Rs.1,55,515 without proper verification, thereby causing undue pecuniary advantage. The petitioner sought discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C., which the Special Court rejected. This Court previously set aside the discharge order and directed reconsideration; following further proceedings, the Trial Court framed charges on 06.06.2022, a decision challenged here. The core issue is whether there is a prima facie case against the accused, particularly whether the petitioner was a public servant at the relevant time. The defence maintains he was not a public servant; the prosecution contends he was a Block Level officer in the SC Development Department, entrusted with verifying applications. The High Court emphasizes that at discharge/framing stages the court’s focus is on prima facie grounds for proceeding, not a full trial appraisal, citing Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, Dr. Anup Kumar Srivastava, Amit Kapoor, and Virender Tripathi. The petition is dismissed; the trial is to proceed, with a six-month time limit, and without quashing the charges.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal CodeSection 239 of the Code of Criminal ProcedureSection 482 of the Cr.P.C.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Golden scales (weighing of evidence) doctrine
Prima facie test for proceeding at discharge/framing stage
Discharge standard under Section 239 Cr.P.C: discharge when there is no ground for proceeding
Sajjan Kumar v. CBI; State through CBI v. Dr Anup Kumar Srivastava; Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and another; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Virender Kumar Tripathi (doctrines cited)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that he was not a public servant during the relevant period, and therefore the charges framed against him, and the prior discharge orders, may not stand. He argues that the High Court’s intervention should set aside the discharge and refrain from continuing the prosecution unless a prima facie case is established. He relies on the lack of employment status to claim immunity from these charges and seeks discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. The defense also emphasizes that discharge is warranted when no legal evidence supports a charge, to avoid a dragging of the accused into an unfounded trial.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the petitioner was a public servant in the relevant period, pointing to Vigilance records showing his position as Block Level officer in the SC Development Department and his delegated duties to verify authenticity of student applications. They argue that these materials, if accepted, establish a prima facie case against the petitioner, justifying the charges. They maintain that the discharge jurisdiction under 239 Cr.P.C. is limited and that, at this stage, the court should not weigh the evidence in detail but merely determine whether a prima facie case exists for proceeding to trial.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation	(2010) 9 SCC 368	Mentioned Only	Cited to illustrate the standard for discharge at the pre-trial stage rather than as a binding ruling in this matter.
State through Central Bureau of Investigation v. Dr Anup Kumar Srivastava	AIR 2017 SC 3698	Mentioned Only	Cited in context of prima facie assessment at discharge; not treated as a binding distinction.
Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and another	(2012) 9 SCC 460	Mentioned Only	Cited to support the prima facie test at the discharge stage.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Virender Kumar Tripathi	(2009) 15 SCC 533	Mentioned Only	Cited as authority for prima facie evaluation at the stage of framing charges.

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 K.G STEPHENA v. STATE OF KERALA 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 K. BABU ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 20[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 29TH KARTHIKA, 1945 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 9605 OF 2022 ``` ``` CRIME NO.10/2008 OF VACB, KOLLAM, Kollam AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 6/2015 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & ``` ## **`SPECIAL JUDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` K.G STEPHENA AGED 65 YEARS W/O GEORGE RESIDING AT KOTTAPPURATHU HOUSE,SHOORANTHODU KAVANADU .P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691003 BY ADVS. M.KIRANLAL R.RAJESH (VARKALA) MANU RAMACHANDRAN SAMEER M NAIR GEETHU KRISHNAN SAILAKSHMI MENON ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, KOLLAM UNIT, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691013 ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` RAJESH A,SPL GP VIGILANCE;REKHA SR PP ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 9605 OF 2022 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **K.BABU, J** . -------------------------------------- ## Crl.M.C.No.9605 of 2022 --------------------------------------Dated this the 20[th ] day of November, 2023 ## **O R D E R** The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1 in C.C. No.6/2015 on the file of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. He faces charges under Section 13(1) (c) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 420, 468 and 471 r/w Section 120 B of the IPC. 2. The Prosecution case is as follows:- On 01.12.2003, accused No.3 submitted 35 forged applications for granting educational concession which was intended for parallel college students who belong to Scheduled Castes and Other Eligible Communities. The applications were forwarded to the District Scheduled Caste Development Office by the then Chavara Block Panchayat Scheduled Caste Development Officer. The amount sanctioned was ordered to be distributed to the eligible students. A specific order was given by the District Scheduled Caste Development Officer to the first accused that the amount shall be disbursed to the students ``` CRL.MC NO. 9605 OF 2022 ``` ``` 3 ``` only in the presence of a representative from the District Office and that the original eligibility certificate, hall ticket and mark list etc. in respect of the students shall be verified at the time of disbursing the amount. However, the first and the second accused, hatched a conspiracy with the third accused and disbursed an amount of Rs.1,55,515/- to the third accused, without verifying the details regarding the students who were eligible to get the amount and without ascertaining their identity. Thus, they allowed the third accused to get undue pecuniary advantage. Therefore, it is alleged that the accused committed the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120B of the I.P.C.. 3. The petitioner filed an application for discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Code’) before the Special Court. As per order dated 29.04.2021, the Special Court dismissed that application. The petitioner challenged this order In Crl.R.P.No.416/2021 before this Court. This Court as per order dated 03.09.2021 allowed the revision petition and directed the Special Judge to consider ``` CRL.MC NO. 9605 OF 2022 ``` ``` 4 ``` the application seeking discharge afresh and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law. 4. The learned Special Judge considered the application for discharge afresh pursuant to the direction of this Court in Crl.R.P.No.416/2021 and rejected the same. The petitioner again challenged the order rejecting the application seeking discharge by filing Crl.R.P.No.761/2021. This Court as per order dated 22.02.2022, after elaborately considering the contentions on both sides, recorded the finding that there is no illegality in the findings arrived at by the Court below. This Court specifically held that the discharge application was rightly dismissed by the Court below. After that, the Trial Court framed charges against the petitioner as per order dated 06.06.2022. The order framing charges is now under challenge in this Criminal M.C. 5. At the time of admission, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the relevant period the petitioner was not employed as a public servant in the office concerned and based on that submission, this Court admitted the criminal M.C. and granted an interim order directing the ``` CRL.MC NO. 9605 OF 2022 ``` ``` 5 ``` Court below to wait till 31.01.2023 for scheduling the case for trial. 6. In view of the dismissal of the revision petition filed by the petitioner on 22.02.2022 this Court is not in a position to entertain any of the arguments other than the question whether the petitioner was a public servant at the relevant time. 7. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor submitted that the materials produced by the Vigilance would show that during the relevant time the petitioner was employed as Block Level officer of the Scheduled Caste Development Department. The prosecution also produced documents showing that the District Development Officer has entrusted the petitioner to ensure the genuiness of the applications submitted by various students. The prosecution produced relevant materials to show that the petitioner was employed as a public servant as alleged by the prosecution at the relevant time. The petitioner failed to produce anything to refute the pleadings of the prosecution. It is relevant to note that the obligation to discharge the accused under Section 239 Cr.P.C. arises when the Magistrate/Special ``` CRL.MC NO. 9605 OF 2022 ``` ``` 6 ``` Judge considers the charge against the accused to be groundless that is, there is no legal evidence or when the facts are such that no offence is made out at all and no detailed evaluation of the materials or meticulous consideration of the possible defences need be undertaken at this stage nor any exercise of weighing materials in golden scales is to be undertaken. 8. At the stage of framing charge or while considering a petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.PC seeking to quash the charges, the Court is required to consider the records of the case and documents to satisfy that there is ground for proceeding against the accused. At this stage, the Court is expected only to examine the materials with a view to be satisfied that a prima facie commission of the offence alleged has been made out against the accused [vide: **Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation** [(2010) 9 SCC 368], **State through Central Bureau of Investigation v. Dr Anup Kumar Srivastava** [AIR 2017 SCC 3698], **Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and another** [(2012) 9 SCC 460], **State of Madhya Pradesh v. Virender Kumar Tripathi** [(2009) 15 ``` CRL.MC NO. 9605 OF 2022 ``` ``` 7 ``` SCC 533]. 9. In the present case, I find no material to interfere with the order framing charges by the Special Court. This court would not be justified in invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charges. Therefore, the Criminal M.C. lacks merits and it stands dismissed. The trial court is directed to complete the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the trial court is at liberty to approach this Court seeking extension of time, if required. **Sd/K.BABU, JUDGE** saap ``` CRL.MC NO. 9605 OF 2022 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 9605/2022`** ## `PETITIONER ANNEXURES` |`Annexure A1`|`A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED`| |---|---| ||`06.06.2022 IN C.C. NO. 6/2015 OF ENQUIRY`| ||`COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE,`| ||`THIRUVANANTHAPURAM`| |`Annexure A2`|`A TRUE COY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 10/2008`| ||`OF THE VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION`| ||`BUREAU, KOLLAM DATED 05.11.2008`| |`Annexure A3`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.07.2004`| ||`OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DIRECTOR OF`| ||`SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,`| ||`THIRUVANANTHAPURAM`| |`Annexure A4`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF TRANSFER OF`| ||`CHARGES DATED 07.07.2004`| |`Annexure A5`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 04.08.2004`| |`Annexure A6`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE`| ||`PRINCIPAL OF THE AXIS COLLEGE DATED`| ||`01.12.2003`| |`Annexure A7`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.08.2004`| ||`PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE`| ||`ASSISTANT DISTRICT SCHEDULED CASTE`| ||`DEVELOPMENT OFFICER`| |`Annexure A8`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07.03.2005`| |`Annexure A9`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY`| ||`VIGILANCE DATED 13.10.2008 AND TYPED COPY`| ||`OF THE SAME`| |`Annexure A10`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF OFFICERS SENT`| ||`TO THE C.I. OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI-`| ||`CORRUPTION BUREAU DATED 04.12.2008`| |`Annexure A11`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME`| ||`NO. 10/2008`| |`Annexure A12`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE 161 STATEMENTS OF THE`| ||`WITNESSES RELIED ON BY THE VIGILANCE JUDGE`| //True copy//PA to Judge