P. Muraleedharan vs State Of Kerala
2024 Latest Caselaw 29741 Ker

Kerala High Court

P. Muraleedharan vs State Of Kerala on 22 October, 2024

                                                 2024:KER:78422

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN

  TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 30TH ASWINA, 1946

                 CRL.REV.PET NO. 516 OF 2022

        CRIME NO.04/2015 OF VACB, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE
      AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 26.02.2022 IN CC NO.8
  OF 2018 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE,KOZHIKODE
REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:

         P. MURALEEDHARAN,AGED 59 YEARS,
         S/O. LATE T. GOPINATHAN NAIR,
         MURALIKA, PUTHUKKUDI, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM
         DISTRICT, PIN - 676 121.

         BY ADVS.
         SHAJI CHIRAYATH
         JIJI M. VARKEY
         M.K.SAFEELA BEEVI
         SAVITHA GANAPATHIYATAN
         M.M.SHAJAHAN
         BHOOMIKA SAJAN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

         STATE OF KERALA
         REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND
         ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY
         PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
         PIN - 682031.
OTHER PRESENT:

          SR. PP- .REKHA.S, SPL.PP - A. RAJESH

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 22.10.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                                 2024:KER:78422

CRL.REV.PET NO.516 OF 2022


                                      2


                               JUDGMENT

Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2024

The petitioner is the 2nd accused in CC No.08 of 2018

on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special

Judge, Kozhikode. The offences alleged are under

Section 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B read with

Section 34 of the IPC and also under Section 7, 8

and 13(1)(d) read with Sections 13(2) of the

Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1988. The

petitioner challenges Annexure A3 order, which

dismissed a discharge petition preferred by the

petitioner/A2 under Section 239 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the

records.

2024:KER:78422

CRL.REV.PET NO.516 OF 2022

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would first

submit that the petitioner is entitled to the

protection under the Judges Protection Act, 1985, in

as much as he was working as the presiding officer

of the Land Tribunal, Manjeri at the relevant time.

Secondly, it was pointed out that, in the absence of

an appeal against the purchase certificate issued in

terms of Section 102 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act,

the correctness of issuing a purchase certificate

cannot be called in position, especially when an

appeal under Section 102 can be preferred by any

person. Thirdly, it was urged that the petitioner is

also entitled to the protection under Section 124 of

the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, which poses an

embargo in initiating any suit or prosecution

against the presiding officer of the Land Tribunal,

more so, when issuance of purchase certificate is an 2024:KER:78422

CRL.REV.PET NO.516 OF 2022

act done in good faith. Neither the Investigating

Agency nor the Special Court has got the right to

address the merits and demerits of an order passed

under Section 101 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. As

regards the sanction obtained under Section 197

CrPC,the same is of no effect, since, the protection

under Section 124 has over riding effect over

Section 197 of the CrPC. Learned counsel would

finally submit that none of the grounds as taken

stock of by the learned Special Judge would indicate

any corrupt practice on the part of the petitioner.

On such premise, the petitioner seeks Annexure A3

order to be set aside and further seeks himself to

be discharged under Section 239 of the CrPC.

4. This application was seriously opposed by the

learned Senior Public Prosecutor. It was initially

pointed out that the protection under the Judges 2024:KER:78422

CRL.REV.PET NO.516 OF 2022

Protection Act is available only so long as a judge,

as defined in Section 2 of the said Act, has passed

an order/judgment only on relevant considerations.

If extraneous considerations in passing the

order/judgment is prima facie made out, the

protection is not available. At any rate, the ground

of protection under the Judges Protection Act cannot

be taken stock for the purpose of discharge. The

question as to whether the judge was acting in good

faith, is a matter to be decided after adducing

evidence, is the submission made. Secondly, it was

pointed out that the absence of an appeal under

Section 102 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act cannot

fetter the powers of the Investigating Agency in any

manner, once a cognizable offence is prima facie

disclosed in the investigation. Thirdly, it was

argued that the learned Special Judge has given 2024:KER:78422

CRL.REV.PET NO.516 OF 2022

adequate reasons for dismissing the discharge

petitions after addressing the facts, which are

prima facie disclosed in the investigation.

According to the Senior Public Prosecutor, there is

no reason for any interference with the said order.

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

the respective parties, this court can only endorse

the submissions made by the learned Senior Public

Prosecutor. Learned Senior Public Prosecutor rightly

placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in

Santhosh Kumar G. v. State of Kerala [2021 KHC 393],

wherein it was held in paragraph no.57 that, if

there exist prima facie material to show that the

judgment/order has been passed on extraneous

considerations, the protection under the Judges

Protection Act is no longer available. With this

prelude, this Court will look into the facts taken 2024:KER:78422

CRL.REV.PET NO.516 OF 2022

stock of by the learned Special Judge in rejecting

the discharge sought for. The following aspects are

enumerated in this regard.

(1) The proceedings originated by two suo

moto reports preferred by the first accused

Village Officer, based upon which action was

taken, culminating in the issuance of purchase

certificate within a very short span of 21 days,

which is contrary to the usual state of affairs

in the Land Tribunal.

(2) Accused no.5, in whose favour, the

purchase certificate was issued was aged only 14

years, in the year 2018. Therefore, the chance

of he being in possession of the property as a

tenant before 1.4.1964 is a practical

impossibility, which aspect was completely 2024:KER:78422

CRL.REV.PET NO.516 OF 2022

sidelined in issuing the purchase certificate in

favour of A5.

(3) No notice was issued to the Jenmi of the

property, who was shown as 'Keezhuveetil

Kalyaniyamma'.

(4) Public notice was issued only on

23.05.2009, whereas purchase certificate was

ordered on 21.5.2009. The affidavit which was

sworn to by Kodakadan Alavihaji claiming that he

had no claim on 1.50 acres and that he has no

objection in issuing the purchase certificate in

the name of accused no.5 itself would unearth

the criminal conspiracy, in as much as, purchase

certificate in respect of the remaining 2.25

acres have been issued in favour of the children

of the Kodakadan family. This is more so, when

none of the member of the Kodakadan tharavad is 2024:KER:78422

CRL.REV.PET NO.516 OF 2022

the jenmi of the property and the jenmi is shown

as 'Keezhuveetil Kalyaniyamma'.

(5) No notice was even issued to any member

of Kodakadan family.

(6) The purchase certificate was issued on

21.5.2009, based on a land tax receipt issued in

favour of accused no.5 which is also dated

21.5.2009.

(7) There was no enquiry, investigation or

inspection conducted by the Revenue Inspector as

provided under Section 105 A of the Kerala Land

Reforms Act and no such report has been obtained

before issuing purchase certificate.

(8) The documents created by accused no.5

prior to the issuance of the purchase

certificate and after the same, as between close 2024:KER:78422

CRL.REV.PET NO.516 OF 2022

members of the family, was taken as an

indication of criminal conspiracy.

(9) The request of A5 dated 21.5.2009 for

passing an order issuing purchase certificate in

his favour was readily acted upon by the

petitioner/A2 by passing an order on the very

same day, after holding that he was in

possession of the property as a tenant. The

Special Judge took note that A5 was so found to

be in possession 14 years prior to his birth.

6. The above telling circumstances would only

persuade this court to uphold Annexure A3 order

dismissing the discharge. No tangible grounds have

been stated or established before this Court

warranting interference to the well considered order

of the learned Special Judge. As rightly found by

the learned Special Judge, the parameters for 2024:KER:78422

CRL.REV.PET NO.516 OF 2022

discharge under Section 239 is to see whether the

offences alleged by the prosecution are prima facie

made out by the materials collected during the

course of investigation and produced along with the

Final Report. Going by that yardstick, it cannot be

said that the prosecution against the petitioner is

completely misconceived, so as to afford discharge.

In the circumstances, the Criminal Revision Petition

will stand dismissed.

Sd/-

C.JAYACHANDRAN,JUDGE

Pvv 2024:KER:78422

CRL.REV.PET NO.516 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 516/2022

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE A1 COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 08TH OCTOBER 2018 IN CRIME NO. VC.04/2015/MPM OF VIGILANCE & ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, MALAPURAM POLICE STATION.

ANNEXURE A2 COPY OF THE CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 26 OF 2022 DATED 13TH JANUARY 2022 IN CALENDAR CASE NO. 08 OF 2018 ON THE FILES OF THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE, KOZHIKODE FOR DISCHARGE.

ANNEXURE A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26TH FEBRUARY 2022 IN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 26 OF 2022 IN CALENDAR CASE NO. 08 OF 2018 ON THE FILES OF THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE, KOZHIKODE.