Kerala High Court
Suresh vs The State Of Kerala on 5 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
TUESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 15TH POUSHA, 1942
OP(Crl.).No.333 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 342/2016 OF COURT OF
ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE, EKM AT MUVATTUPUZHA
PETITIONER/S:
SURESH
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O. MARIYADAS, SANTHI NIVAS, COLONY ROAD,
MUNNAR P.O. KDH VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK,
IDUKKI DISTRICT 685 612.
BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH
COURT OF KERALA, AT ERNAKULAM, COCHIN 682 018.
2 THE VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU,
IDUKKI UNIT, MUTTAM P.O. REPRESENTED BY ITS
DEPUTY POLICE SUPERINTENDENCE, MUTTOM P.O.
IDUKKI DISTRICT 685 587.
3 THE SUB COLLECTOR,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE SUB COLLECTORATE REVENUE
DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DEVIKULAM P.O. IDUKKI
DISTRICT 685 612.
4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE PAINAVUP.O. IDUKKI DISTRICT 685
603.
5 THE TALUK TAHSILDAR,
DEVIKULAM TALUK OFFICE, DEVIKULAM P.O. IDUKKI
DISTRICT 685 612.
OP(Crl).333/2020 2
6 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
K D H VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM P.O. IDUKKI DISTRICT 685
612.
7 CHINATHA,
AGED 59 YEARS
W/O. THADES, COLONY ROAD, MUNNAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT
685 612.
8 ALAGAR SWAMI,
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O. SUBBADI, COLONY ROAD, MUNNAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT
685 612.
9 SUJA,
W/O. ALEX, COLONY ROAD, MUNNAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT 685
612.
R1 TO R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SR.PP.C.S.HRITHWIK
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.PP.C.S.HRITHWIK
THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(Crl).333/2020 3
V.G.ARUN, J.
-----------------------------------------------
O.P(CRL).No. 333 of 2020
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of January, 2021
JUDGMENT
Petitioner claims to be the owner of immovable properties in KDH
Village in Idukki District and to have purchased the properties from
three persons who acquired ownership on the strength of Pattas issued
in their favour by the revenue authorities. Later, there arose
allegations that the property for which Pattas were issued was
Government land and that the persons in whose favour the Pattas
were issued had not even submitted applications. This resulted in
vigilance cases being registered and the Pattas being cancelled.
Petitioner being an affected person, preferred Exhibits P13, P14 and
P15 appeals against canellation of the Pattas issued to his assignors.
In the appeals, the petitioner has raised a contention that the Pattas
were issued based on applications submitted by his assignors, which
fact had been stated by them during investigation of the vigilance
case. The petitioner submitted applications under the Right to
Information Act before the Vigilance Department, in his attempt to
obtain copies of the statements given by his assignors. As per Exhibit
P20, the petitioner was informed that the cases investigated by the
Vigilance is now pending as C.C.No.342 of 2016 on the files of the
Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Muvattupuzha
and that the statements required by him are produced in that case.
Faced with such a situation, petitioner submitted Exhibit P21
application before the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special
Judge (Vigilance), Muvattupuzha seeking copies of the statements.
The application was rejected stating that the witness statements are
not enclosed with the charge sheet in C.C.No.342 of 2016.
2. As directed by this Court, a report has been filed by the 2 nd
respondent, wherein it is stated as follows;
"4..... All original records inclusive of witness statements
(as applied by the petitioner vide RTI Act) with regard to the
final report are submitted before the Honourable Enquiry
Commissioner and Special Judge Court, Muvattupuzha. It is
ordered by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge Court,
Muvattupuzha vide VC No.10/03 (Part III Report) dtd.08/09/2016
that the final report Part-III will be kept along with original case
records of CC.342/16."
On a reading of the statement, it is evident that the witness
statements are available among the case records in C.C.No.342 of
2016.
3. As per Rule 226 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, application
for grant of copies of any proceedings or documents by a stranger to
the proceedings can be allowed by order of the court. Therefore, the
petitioner can be allowed to submit an application under Rule 226 and
that the learned Special Judge directed to consider the application.
In the result, the original petition is disposed of permitting the
petitioner to submit an application under Rule 226 of the Criminal
Rules of Practice, for obtaining copies of the statements produced in
C.C.No.342 of 2016. In such event, the Enquiry Commissioner and
Special Judge (Vigilance), Muvattupuzha shall consider the application
in the light of the statement of by the 2 nd respondent extracted above,
and pass appropriate orders within two weeks of submission of the
application.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN, JUDGE
vgs
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT IN THE NAME OF
THE PETITIONER DATED 10.8.12.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE
MUNNAR VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 5.6.18.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE IN
THE NAME OF THE SUJA DATED 12.11.03.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT IN THE
NAME OF SUJA DATED 28.10.03.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO SUJA
DATED 10.10.07.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX PAID RECEIPT IN THE
NAME OF SUJA DATED 2.6.18.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT IN THE NAME OF
THE PETITIONER DATED 25.8.12.
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX PAID RECEIPT ISSUED
BY THE MUNNAR VILLAGE OFFICER IN THE NAME
OF THE ALAGARSWAMI DATED 11.6.18.
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED CANCELING L
A NO. 94 OF 99 OF THE ADDL. TAHSILDAR,
DEVIKULAM IN THE NAME OF MUTHU DATED
26.9.19.
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF CANCELLING LA
NO. 96 OF 99 IN THE NAME OF ALAGARSWAMI
DATED 26.9.19.
EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF CANCELLATION OF
LA NO. 97 OF 99 IN THE NAME OF SUJA DATED
26.9.19.
EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN
WPC NO. 33484 OF 17 DATED 6.2.18 BY THIS
HONBLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM
NUMBERED AS APPEAL NO. C2 137063/19 DATED
10.10.19.
EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL NO C2 137065/19
DATED 10.10.19.
EXHIBIT P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM IN
APPEAL NO. C2 137058 OF 19 DATED 10.10.19
EXHIBIT P16 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED DATED
26.8.2020.
EXHIBIT P17 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPROT OF THE OFFICER OF
THE VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT DATED 7.1.2014.
EXHIBIT P18 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION OF THE
PETITIONER DATED 30.9.2020.
EXHIBIT P19 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION OF THE
PETITIONER DATED 22.9.2020.
EXHIBIT P20 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SERVED ON
THE PETITIONER DATED 28.9.2020.
EXHIBIT P21 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION AND THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE SAID APPLICATION DATED
30.9.2020.
