Kerala High Court
P.J.Sabu vs The Principal Secretary on 19 February, 2021
WP(C).No.2211 OF 2021(B)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 30TH MAGHA,1942
WP(C).No.2211 OF 2021(B)
PETITIONER/S:
P.J.SABU
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O. LATE JOHN, PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT POOVANTHARA
HOUSE, POLACHIRA, CHINGAVANAM POST, NATTAKOM VILLAGE,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 531.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB
SRI.A.K.ALEX
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF LAW, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
HOME (C) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
CHINGAVANAM POLICE STATION, CHINGAVANAM P.O., NATTAKOM
VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 531.
4 THE TRAVANCORE CREDIT CORPORATION
BAKER JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
KOTTAYAM-686 001.
5 THE MANAGER
(SRI.T.A.ABRAHAM, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS), THE TRAVANCORE
CREDIT CORPORATION, BAKER JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM-686 001.
6 BENNY KURIAKOSE
S/O. KURIAKOSE, THONDUKUZHIYIL HOUSE, POLACHIRA,
CHINGAVANAM POST, NATTAKOM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-
686 531.
OTHER PRESENT:
PP M.R.DHANIL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-02-
2021, THE COURT ON 19-02-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.2211 OF 2021(B)
2
V.G.ARUN, J.
-----------------------------------------------
W.P(C).No.2211 of 2021
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of February, 2021
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is the de facto complainant in Crime No.529 of 2008
registered at the Chingavanam Police Station for offences under
Sections 406, 420, 468 read with 120B of IPC, now pending as
C.C.No.617 of 2013 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,
Changanassery. Apprehending that the prosecution will not be
conducted in a proper and efficient manner, the petitioner had
approached this Court earlier, seeking appointment of a Special Public
Prosecutor. By Exhibit P4 judgment, that writ petition was disposed of,
directing the 1st respondent to consider the request made by the
petitioner, for appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor or an
Advocate to assist the APP, as the case may be, in accordance with
Circular No.264/C4/2017 dated 18.9.2017 of the Government (Home
Department). Accordingly, the Government considered the request and
passed Exhibit P8 order, which is under challenge in this writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the finding in
Exhibit P8 that, the case on hand does not come under any of the
WP(C).No.2211 OF 2021(B)
categories of cases mentioned in Clause 3(a) and (b) of the
Government circular. Drawing attention to the Circular produced as
Exhibit P5, learned counsel contended that the petitioner's case
squarely falls under Clause 3(b)(ii), which is extracted hereunder;
"3(b)(ii). Offences against property having wide
ramifications such as money chain delaings, cheating cases/land
grab cases, land mafia cases or other white collar crimes
involving fabrication of records, documents etc, apartment
frauds, investment fraud etc."
The other major contention urged is that the direction in Exhibit P4 to
consider the alternative request for appointment of an Advocate to
assist the APP has not been considered or even adverted to in Ext.P8.
3. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, who refuted the
contentions, by no stretch of imagination would the petitioner's case
fall within any of the categories in Exhibit P5.
4. A reading of Exhibit P1 complaint would show that the
grievance is essentially regarding illegal recovery of a vehicle
purchased by the petitioner under hire purchase agreement. Being so,
I find substantial merit in the contention of the learned Public
Prosecutor that no public interest is involved in the case and that it
does not fall among any of the categories mentioned in Exhibit P5. The
reliance placed on Clause 3(b)(ii) is found to be misplaced, since only
offences against property having 'wide ramifications' fall under that
category. As far as the contention based on the direction in Exhibit P4,
WP(C).No.2211 OF 2021(B)
to consider the request for appointment of an Advocate to assist the
APP is concerned, the petitioner will have to ventilate his grievance
regarding violation of the direction by initiating contempt action
against the respondents. It is settled law that this Court will not issue a
mandamus to implement the direction in an earlier judgment. For the
aforementioned reasons, I find no merit in the challenge against
Exhibit P8.
In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN, JUDGE
vgs
WP(C).No.2211 OF 2021(B)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF TRUE COPY OF C.M.P
NO.4821/2008 DATED 15.12.08 FILED BY THE
PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 156(3) OF THE
CR.P.C
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT DATED 26.11.10 OF
THE S.I OF POLICE, CHINGAVANAM STATION
FILED IN WPC NO.16301/2010 OF THE HON'BLE
HIGH COURT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER'S APPLICATION DATED
31.10.2019 FORWARDED TO FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 26.11.2019 IN
WPC NO.30528/2019 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH
COURT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO264/C4/2017/HOME
DATED 18.9.17 ISSUED BY THE ADDL. SECRETARY
OF THE HOME(C) DEPARTMENT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 5.12.19 OF THE
UNDER SECRETARY OF THE HOME DEPARTMENT OF
TRIVANDRUM COMMUNICATED TO PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER'S LETTER DATED
20.1.2020 FORWARDED TO THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME (C)
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 25.6.2020 OF THE
JOINT SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HOME
AFFAIRS AT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM COMMUNICATED
TO PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 18.1.21 IN
TR.P.(CRL) NO.54/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE HIGH
COURT.
