Kerala High Court
A.Arumughan, S/O Late Azhappa Pillai vs Balakrishnan on 2 August, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2024 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1946
CRL.A NO. 1673 OF 2006
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.01.2006 IN CC NO.314 OF 2003
OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
(Crl.L.P.NO.432/2006 DATED 23/08/2006 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA)
APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT:
A.ARUMUGHAN, S/O LATE AZHAPPA PILLAI,
RETIRED ATTENDER, NEW INDIAN EXPRESS,
C/O.HOTEL ANAND, SASTHAMANGALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV SOJAN MICHEAL
RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED 1 & 2 & STATE:
1 BALAKRISHNAN,
GENERAL MANAGER, NEW INDIAN EXPRESS PUBLICATIONS,
HEAD QUARTERS, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU.
2 ANIL KUMAR,
ASSISTANT MANAGER,
NEW INDIAN EXPRESS PUBLICATION,
SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADVS.
M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
VIPIN NARAYAN, SERNIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING
ON 30.07.2024, THE COURT ON 02.08.2024 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2
Crl.A.No.1673 of 2006
C.S.SUDHA, J.
-----------------------------------------------
Criminal Appeal No.1673 of 2006
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of August 2024
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. has been filed by the
appellant/complainant in C.C.No.314/2003 on the file of the Court
of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram aggrieved by
the acquittal of the accused persons two in number by the
impugned judgment dated 31/01/2006. In this appeal the appellant
will be referred to as the complainant and respondents one and two
as the accused persons.
2. A complaint was filed alleging commission of the
offences punishable under Sections 464, 465, 466, 471 read with
Section 120B IPC. The complaint was forwarded under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. to the police for investigation and report on the basis
of which crime no.147/2001 of Museum Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram was registered. After investigation, the police
filed a refer report against which the complainant filed a protest
complaint which resulted in the impugned judgment.
3. In the compliant filed, three persons have been arrayed
as the accused persons, that is, (i) Balakrishnan, General Manager,
New Indian Express Publications, (ii) the clerk concerned in the
personal department of New Indian Express Publications during the
period February-March 2000 and (iii) Anilkumar, Assistant
Manager, New Indian Express Publications. According to the
complainant, he was working as an attender in the office of the
New Indian Express Publications at Sasthamangalam. He was
appointed as an unskilled labourer in the year 1989 and continued
in his employment till his retirement as attender. The first accused
was the Regional Manager of the Kochi office during the time the
complainant was due to retire from service on superannuation. The
first accused was in inimical terms with the complainant as the
latter had been a member of a trade union which had loyalty
towards a naxal group headed by Advocate A.X.Varghese. The
complainant as part of his rights as a labourer, used to protest
against the improper actions of the first respondent resulting in
soured relationship between the complainant and the first accused.
On the eve of superannuation, the complainant had submitted
Ext.P1 application for monthly pension. In column '9' of Ext.P1,
the complainant had opted for commutation of 1/3 rd of his pension
and he had tick marked the 'Yes' column and presented it to the 3 rd
accused for processing and onward transmission to the first accused
for sending it to the statutory authority concerned. The third
accused received Ext.P1 application and transmitted it to the Kochi
office for consideration. The first accused due to his enmity
towards the complainant entered into a criminal conspiracy with
the second and the third accused and in pursuance of the said
conspiracy, Ext.P1 application was tampered with. The tick mark in
the 'Yes' column in column no.9 was erased and a tick mark given
in the 'No' column. The act of the accused in erasing the tick mark
in 'Yes' column and inserting another tick mark in 'No' column
amounts to forgery. The accused were thus alleged to have
committed the offences punishable under Sections 464, 465, 466,
471, 468 read with Section 120B IPC.
4. After the case was taken on file, the procedure as
contemplated under Sections 244 and 247 was followed by the trial
court. Under Section 244 Cr.P.C., the complainant was examined as
PW1. Based on his deposition a charge under Section 465 read with
Section 420 IPC was framed under Section 246 (2) Cr.P.C. against
accused no.1 and 3 in the complaint. The charge was read over and
explained to the accused to which they pleaded not guilty. Two
more witnesses, that is, PW2 and PW3 were examined under
Section 246(6) Cr.P.C. and Exts.P1 to 4 were marked. After the
close of the complainant's evidence, the accused were questioned
under Section 313(1)(b)Cr.P.C. regarding the incriminating
circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the
complainant. The accused denied all those circumstances and
maintained their innocence. The accused though called upon to
enter on his defence did not adduce any evidence on his side.
5. The trial court on a consideration of the oral and
documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, acquitted the
accused under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable
under Section 465 read with Section 120 IPC. Aggrieved, the
complainant has come up in appeal.
6. The only point that arises for consideration in this
appeal is whether there is any illegality, infirmity or irregularity in
the findings of the trial court calling for an interference by this
Court.
7. On 17/06/2022 the first respondent was reported to be
no more. The second respondent is represented by a lawyer. There
was no representation for the appellant when the case was taken up
for hearing on 25/07/2024. In the interest of justice, an adjournment
was granted and the case adjourned. When the case was thereafter
taken up on 30/07/2024, there was still no representation for the
complainant. In such circumstances, this court is proceeding to
decide the matter on merits after going through the records of the
case. Heard the learned counsel for the second respondent.
8. Perused the entire records in the case including the oral
and documentary evidence. The specific case in the complaint is
that the complainant had tick marked the 'Yes' option in column
no.9 in Ext.P1 expressing his willingness for commutation of
pension. But the accused erased the same and marked the 'No'
option. This according to the complainant is forgery. The
complainant when examined as PW1 deposed that it was one
Narendran, who is no more, who had filled up Ext.P1 application
on his behalf. PW1 also deposed that apart from putting his
signature in Ext.P1 he had not filled up any columns in the same.
He has no case that he had seen the accused persons doing the
mischief. According to him he had taken part in several strikes
against the management of New Indian Express Publications and
therefore, the accused were in inimical terms prompting them to
tamper his Ext.P1 application. There is absolutely no evidence to
support the case of the forgery alleged against the accused persons.
In these circumstances, I find no infirmity in the findings of
the trial court calling for an interference by this Court. Hence the
appeal is liable to be dismissed and I do so.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
Sd/-
C.S.SUDHA
JUDGE
ak
