Shahina Puthalath vs State Of Kerala
2025 Latest Caselaw 3476 Ker

Kerala High Court

Shahina Puthalath vs State Of Kerala on 14 August, 2025

                                              2025:KER:61554



        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                         PRESENT

        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1947

                 CRL.MC NO. 4795 OF 2025

             CRIME NO.1/2019 OF VACB, KANNUR

         CC NO.11 OF 2019 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND

          SPECIAL JUDGE (VIGILANCE), THALASSERY

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:
         SMITHA P M
         AGED 61 YEARS
         D/O P.V BALAN NAIR, CHIKKU,KOODALI,
         KANNUR,KERALA, PIN - 670592

         BY ADVS.
         SHRI.ATUL SOHAN
         SMT.R.REJI (ATTINGAL)
         SMT.SREEJA SOHAN K.
         SHRI.K.V.SOHAN

RESPONDENT/STATE:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031

2 SHO- VACB, KANNUR UNIT THAVAKKARA, CIVIL STATION P.O, KANNUR REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 670001

ADV.RAJESH.A SPL PP VACB,ADV.REKHA.S SRPP VACB.

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.08.2025, ALONG WITH OP(Crl.).272/2022, 5862/2025, THE COURT ON 14.08.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

2025:KER:61554

CRL.MC NOS.4795 & 5862 OF 2025 & OP(CRL) NO.272 OF 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1947

CRL.MC NO. 5862 OF 2025

CRIME NO.1/2019 OF VACB, KANNUR

CC NO.11 OF 2021 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND

SPECIAL JUDGE (VIGILANCE), THALASSERY

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:

SHAHINA PUTHALATH AGED 44 YEARS D/O SOOPPY, VENUS HOUSE, THUNERI P.O, NADAPURAM VIA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673505

BY ADVS.

SRI.P.JERIL BABU SRI.K.M.RAMADAS

RESPONDENTS/STATE:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031

2 SHO VACB, KANNUR UNIT THAVAKKARA, CIVIL STATION P.O, KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 SRI.RAJESH A, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA S, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.08.2025, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.4795/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 14.08.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

2025:KER:61554

CRL.MC NOS.4795 & 5862 OF 2025 & OP(CRL) NO.272 OF 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1947

OP(CRL.) NO. 272 OF 2022

CC NO.11 OF 2021 OF COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMNR. &

SPECIAL JUDGE, KANNUR AT THALASSERY

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3:

P.MURALIDHARAN AGED 53 YEARS MANAGER, KADAMBUR HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KADAMBUR, KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670663

BY ADVS.

SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) SMT.NISHA GEORGE SRI.A.L.NAVANEETH KRISHNAN

RESPONDENT/STATE:

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031

SRI.RAJESH A, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA S, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.08.2025, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.4795/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 14.08.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

2025:KER:61554

CRL.MC NOS.4795 & 5862 OF 2025 & OP(CRL) NO.272 OF 2022

CR COMMON ORDER/JUDGMENT Dated this the 14th day of August, 2025

Crl.M.C.No.5862/2025 has been filed under Section

528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to

quash Annexure A2 Final Report and all further proceedings in

Crime No.01/2019 of VACB, Kannur, now pending as

C.C.No.11/2021 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and

Special Judge, Thalassery. The petitioner herein is the 1 st

accused in the above case.

2. Crl.M.C No.4795/2025 has been filed by the

2nd accused in the above case seeking the following prayer:

"Quash the Final Report in Crime No.VC 01/2019/KNR dated 08.04.2019 in CC No.11/2019 before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thalassery and all further proceedings."

2025:KER:61554

CRL.MC NOS.4795 & 5862 OF 2025 & OP(CRL) NO.272 OF 2022

3. Similarly, O.P.(Crl.) No.272/2022 has been

filed by the 3rd accused in the above case under Article 227 of

the Constitution of India, seeking the following prayers:

"i. Allow this Original Petition (Criminal) by setting aside Exhibits-P1 & P2.

(i)(a) Issue an order declaring that in the absence of a valid sanction required to be obtained under section 19(1)(c) of the PC Act as against accused No.1 and 2, the final report as per Exhibit P2 is not valid in law and is required to be declared so.

ii. Issue such other appropriate order or direction that may be deemed to be just and equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, for which favor the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray."

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

and the learned Special Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused

the records, relevant statements and documents produced.

2025:KER:61554

CRL.MC NOS.4795 & 5862 OF 2025 & OP(CRL) NO.272 OF 2022

5. In this case, the prosecution alleges

commission of offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w

13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter

referred to as 'PC Act' for short) as well as under Sections

120B, 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter

referred to as 'IPC' for short) by accused Nos.1 to 3. The

allegation in a nutshell is that the 1st accused, who had been

working as a High School Assistant (Social Science) in Aided

Higher Secondary School, Kadambur, under the Education

District, Kannur, on the premise of getting an appointment to

the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher (History) in

M.I.M. Higher Secondary School, Perode, Kozhikode, without

doing the job of HSA (Social Science) in Kadambur school,

worked in M.I.M. H.S.S., Perode. Thereafter, records were

forged on the premise that she had worked in Kadambur

school with connivance of the 2nd accused, the Headmistress,

and the 3rd accused, the Manager of the school, as part of 2025:KER:61554

CRL.MC NOS.4795 & 5862 OF 2025 & OP(CRL) NO.272 OF 2022

conspiracy hatched between them and thereby, the 1 st

accused obtained Rs.1,84,212/- (Rupees one lakh eighty four

thousand two hundred and twelve only) as illegal pecuniary

gain.

6. While challenging the final report, it is pointed

out by the learned senior counsel for the 3 rd accused that, in

this case, sanction to prosecute accused Nos.1 to 3 was

issued by the Personal Assistant to the District Education

Officer, holding the additional charge of Kannur. According to

the learned counsel for accused Nos.1 to 3, the competent

authority to grant sanction under Section 19(1)(c) of the PC

Act is the District Education Officer, Kannur. Since the

sanction was granted by the Personal Assistant to the District

Education Officer, per se, the same is illegal and accordingly,

acting on the said sanction, cognizance taken by the Special

Court for the said offences is illegal. The learned senior

counsel for the 3rd accused argued further that insofar as the 2025:KER:61554

CRL.MC NOS.4795 & 5862 OF 2025 & OP(CRL) NO.272 OF 2022

maintenance of attendance and drawing of salary, the 3rd

accused, the Manager, has no role. Therefore, none of the

offences would attract as against the 3rd accused and the

entire proceedings as against the 3rd accused would require

quashment.

7. In response to this argument, the learned Public

Prosecutor fairly conceded that in the matter of sanction an error

was committed by the Investigating Officer and therefore, the

sanction, at the instance of the District Education Officer to be

obtained and he prayed for appropriate orders as per law.

8. The learned senior counsel for the 3rd accused

brought to the attention of this Court to Annexure A8, the order

in BA No.3268/2019 dated 21.06.2019, wherein this Court

considered the bail plea of the 1st accused. In paragraph No.2 of

the order, the learned Single Judge expressed some

reservations about the sustainability of the prosecution case on

the allegations raised. It was observed by the learned Single 2025:KER:61554

CRL.MC NOS.4795 & 5862 OF 2025 & OP(CRL) NO.272 OF 2022

Judge that, if at all the factual allegations were true, it was

possible to proceed with disciplinary action against the teacher

and if she received salary without working at the School, but

working somewhere else unauthorisedly, the salary received

by her would have to be recovered by way of appropriate

disciplinary action.That apart, it is submitted by the learned

senior counsel for the 3rd accused further that, as per the

prosecution allegations, during the period between June, 2016

to November, 2016, Snija V.P. was appointed on daily wages

in place of the 1st accused. However, Annexure P3 order

No.B4/2727/2016 dated 23.11.2020, in O.P(Crl)272/2022, would

show that the approval sought for by the Manager regarding

appointment of Snija V.P. was refused. Thus, the argument of

the learned senior counsel for the 3rd accused is that, in fact,

nobody was appointed in the place of the 1 st accused.

According to him, the 1st accused had taken only one day's

leave on the premise of attending interview in M.I.M. Higher 2025:KER:61554

CRL.MC NOS.4795 & 5862 OF 2025 & OP(CRL) NO.272 OF 2022

Secondary School, Perode and she continued to work in

Kadambur School itself, for which salary was drawn and

therefore, the entire prosecution allegations are baseless.

9. Similar argument has been advanced by the

learned counsel for the 2nd accused, who is the Headmistress

of HSS, Kadambur, and it is pointed out that, in this matter, to

the knowledge and understanding of the 2 nd accused, the 1st

accused did not work in any other school during the relevant

period. Therefore, merely relying on the statements of some

teachers, without support of any materials, it is difficult to

fasten criminal culpability on the 2 nd accused. The learned

counsel for the 1st accused also argued in similar terms,

referring to the allegations. According to him, the statements

of the previous Headmistress of Kadambur school and a

teacher therein, who now retired, and the students of

M.I.M.HSS itself would not suffice to meet the requirements of

the offences and there is no misappropriation of funds or there 2025:KER:61554

CRL.MC NOS.4795 & 5862 OF 2025 & OP(CRL) NO.272 OF 2022

is no allegation that the 1st accused worked in M.I.M.HSS and

received the salary thereof. Insofar as the contention raised

by the learned counsel for accused Nos.1 to 3 is concerned, it

is specifically pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor

that, the statement of CW17, the Principal of M.I.M. Higher

Secondary School, Perode, would go to show that the 1st

accused worked in the Higher Secondary Wing of

M.I.M.School in between June, 2016 to November, 2016 and

thereafter, during the said period, she reached the school on

almost all days and took classes for the students. Thereafter,

on 13.11.2016, the Manager of the said school appointed her.

Apart from the statement of CW17, the learned Public

Prosecutor given emphasis to the statement of CW22, who is

none other than the clerk of M.I.M.H.S.S., Perode. According

to CW22 also, the 1st accused informed her that she would

leave the school after the end of March, 2016 and according to

CW22, it is mandatory for the teachers to attend cluster 2025:KER:61554

CRL.MC NOS.4795 & 5862 OF 2025 & OP(CRL) NO.272 OF 2022

meeting and it is the duty of the Manager to inform absence

thereof. In the cluster meeting during the relevant period, the

1st accused did not attend, as she was permitted by the

Headmistress and the Manager to go to M.I.M.HSS, Perode. It

is pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor further that

CW9 to CW14 are the students of M.I.M.HSS and they gave

statements in support of the prosecution case, positing the fact

that the 1st accused worked in the school during the period

from June, 2016 to November, 2016. Referring to Section

13(1)(d), the penal provision regarding obtainment of undue

amount, it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that,

thus the prosecution records would go to show that the

allegations as to commission of the above offences are made

out, for which trial is necessary, and in such a case,

quashment on merit could not be considered.

10. In this case, as regards the sanction issued

by the Personal Assistant to District Education Officer to 2025:KER:61554

CRL.MC NOS.4795 & 5862 OF 2025 & OP(CRL) NO.272 OF 2022

prosecute accused Nos.1 to 3 is concerned, the same found to

have been issued by a totally incompetent authority. Since the

sanction issued was challenged at the earliest point of time,

after taking cognizance of the matter, before framing of

charge, the same is liable to be addressed by this Court. Thus,

it is held that the challenge raised by accused Nos.1 to 3 in

regard to the impropriety of the sanction issued by the

incompetent authority would succeed and therefore, for the

said reason, cognizance of the case by the special judge is

liable to be set aside.

11. Coming to the other allegations, whether the

prosecution materials would substantiate the commission of

offences under Sections 120B, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC as

well as under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act by

accused Nos.1 to 3, it is necessary to look into the prosecution

records in tune with the argument tendered by both sides.

2025:KER:61554

CRL.MC NOS.4795 & 5862 OF 2025 & OP(CRL) NO.272 OF 2022

12. In this connection, it is relevant to refer the

witness statements specifically pointed out by the learned

Public Prosecutor. CW17, in this case, is the Principal of

M.I.M.H.S.S. as on 29.05.2019 and he gave statement to the

police that he had been working as Principal in M.I.M.H.S.S.

starting from June, 2004. According to him, the 1st accused

was appointed to the school in the history department on

30.11.2016 and before that, she worked in the school in

between June, 2016 and November, 2016. Further, he stated

that it was so done as directed by the Manager, M.I.M.HSS,

Perode. But she started to sign in the attendance register only

from 30.11.2016, after her appointment. One Manoj Kumar.P.,

who worked as a clerk in Kadambur school, gave statement

that he prepared statement to adjust the PF arrears of UPSA

from June, 2016 onwards and the file was produced by the

Headmistress before the Vigilance. During 2016, the 1st

accused did not attend the cluster meeting. Apart from that, in 2025:KER:61554

CRL.MC NOS.4795 & 5862 OF 2025 & OP(CRL) NO.272 OF 2022

the place of the 1st accused, from June 2016, when the school

was opened, the Manager appointed Smt. Snija V.P. and the

said appointment was forwarded for approval to D.E.O.,

Kannur. According to him, the arrear bill from June 2006

pertaining to the 1st accused was delayed as instructed by

Smt. Smitha teacher (Headmistress of Kadambur School).

Further, the revised scale also not allotted to the staff,

including the 1st accused, as instructed by the Manager,

Muralidharan and the Headmistress, Smt. Smitha. Rs.4,000/-

was paid per month by the Manager to the teachers who did

not get approval. According to CW22, during the period

between June, 2016 and November, 2016, the class earlier

taken by the 1st accused was taken by Smt. Snija V.P. and

during this period, the 1st accused worked at M.I.M.H.S.S.

school, for which the Manager and Smt. Smitha P.M. gave

assistance to the 1st accused and in return the 1st accused

entrusted her half salary to Smitha teacher and it was done by 2025:KER:61554

CRL.MC NOS.4795 & 5862 OF 2025 & OP(CRL) NO.272 OF 2022

the 1st accused since she was permitted to mark attendance in

the register by the Manager and the Headmistress as they

received half of her salary. According to CW22, all deals of the

school could be possible only with the Manager's consent. It

is relevant to note that, apart from the statements of CW17

and CW22, the statements of CW9 to CW14, the students who

studied at M.I.M.H.S.S. Perode during the period between

June, 2016 to November, 2016 also were recorded by the

Investigating Officer. CW9 stated that while she was studying

for plus two course in M.I.M.H.S.S., Perode, the 1st accused

was her class teacher and the Principal in this school was one

Moidu. She stated further that starting from June 2016

onwards the 1st accused took history class for them and she

joined in the plus one course in the year 2016. Similar

statements were also given by witness Nos.10, 11, 12, 13 and

14, who attended the class taken by the 1st accused during the

period from June, 2016 to November, 2016. Even though it is 2025:KER:61554

CRL.MC NOS.4795 & 5862 OF 2025 & OP(CRL) NO.272 OF 2022

argued by the learned senior counsel for the 3rd accused in

particular that the Manager has no role in the matter of

granting leave and encashing salary, when the statement of

CW22 read along with the other statemetns, it would through

light on the fact that everything in the school would happen

only with the knowledge and consent of the Manger. In fact, in

this case, records would show that the 1 st accused did not

work in Kadambur school from June 2016 till November, 2016

and she was allowed by the Manager and the Headmistress to

work in M.I.M.H.S.S., Perode and she worked there. In

addition to that, the Manager appointed Smt. Snija.V.P. in the

place of the 1st accused and she worked there in the place of

the 1st accused, though later, her appointment was not

approved by the Government. In such a case, the role of the

3rd accused as well as the 2nd accused, along with the 1st

accused in obtaining salary without doing job by falsely signing

in the attendance register is well made out prima facie. In fact, 2025:KER:61554

CRL.MC NOS.4795 & 5862 OF 2025 & OP(CRL) NO.272 OF 2022

the said amount was not entitled by the 1 st accused and

therefore, the amount received was illegal gratification

provided under Section 13(1) (d) of the PC Act. It is true that,

in Annexure A8, the bail order passed by this Court, in

paragraph No.2, a learned Single Judge of this Court

observed, as argued by the learned senior counsel for the 3rd

accused. In fact, at the time, based on the FIR and preliminary

materials, the observation made by the learned Single Judge

has no bearing when the prosecution materials in toto, along

with the facts discussed would show commission of offences

by accused Nos.1 to 3 prima facie. That apart, the said

observations have no binding effect otherwise. Even I feel that

the observation was so made at the extreme preliminary

stage for the purpose of considering the bail plea alone and

such observations have no binding or deterrent effect in future

proceedings.

2025:KER:61554

CRL.MC NOS.4795 & 5862 OF 2025 & OP(CRL) NO.272 OF 2022

13. Having appraised the rival submissions, it is

held that on merits, quashment of the final report would not

succeed.

14. As I have already pointed out, for want of

sanction, the cognizance taken by the Special Court would not

sustain and therefore, the cognizance of this matter as against

all the petitioners is set aside and the matter relegated back to

the stage of pre-cognizance.

15. In the decision in State of Mizoram v.

C.Sangnghina reported in AIR 2018 SC 534, the Apex Court

considered the procedure when the accused was discharged

due to lack of proper sanction and in paragraph No.14 to 16,

the Apex Court held as under:

"14. In light of the above principles, considering the case in hand, even before commencement of trial, the respondent/accused was discharged due lack of proper sanction, there was no impediment for filing the fresh/supplementary charge sheet after obtaining valid sanction. Unless there is failure of justice on account of error, omission or irregularity in grant of sanction for prosecution, the 2025:KER:61554

CRL.MC NOS.4795 & 5862 OF 2025 & OP(CRL) NO.272 OF 2022

proceedings under the Act could not be vitiated. By filing fresh charge sheet, no prejudice is caused to the respondent nor would it result in failure of justice to be barred under the principles of "double jeopardy".

15. Under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. Section 300 CrPC lays down that a person once convicted or acquitted, cannot be tried for the same offence. In order to bar the trial of any person already tried, it must be shown (i) that he has been tried by a competent court for the same offence or one for which he might have been charged or convicted at that trial, on the same facts; (ii) that he has been convicted or acquitted at the trial; and (iii) that such conviction or acquittal is in force. Where the accused has not been tried at all and convicted or acquitted, the principles of "double jeopardy" cannot be invoked at all.

16. The whole basis of Section 300(1) CrPC is that the person who was tried by a competent court, once acquitted or convicted, cannot be tried for the same offence. As discussed earlier, in the case in hand, the respondent/accused has not been tried nor was there a full-fledged trial. On the other hand, the order of discharge dated 12-9-2013 passed by the Special Court was only due to invalidity attached to the prosecution. When the respondent/accused was so discharged due to lack of proper sanction, the principles of "double jeopardy" will not apply. There was no bar for filing fresh/supplementary charge sheet after obtaining a valid sanction for prosecution. The Special Court once it found that there was no valid sanction, it should have directed 2025:KER:61554

CRL.MC NOS.4795 & 5862 OF 2025 & OP(CRL) NO.272 OF 2022

the prosecution to do the needful. The Special Court has not given sufficient opportunities to produce valid prosecution sanction from the competent authority. The Special Court erred in refusing to take cognizance of the case even after production of valid prosecution sanction obtained from the competent authority and the High Court was not right in affirming the order of the Special Court. The Special Court and the High Court were not right in holding that the filing of the fresh charge sheet with proper sanction order for prosecution was barred under the principles of "double jeopardy".

16. The sum and substance of the decision in

C.Sangnghina' case (supra) is that even before

commencement of trial, the respondent/accused was

discharged due to lack of proper sanction, there was no

impediment for filing the fresh/supplementary charge sheet

after obtaining valid sanction. By filing fresh charge sheet, no

prejudice would be caused to the respondent nor would it

result in failure of justice to be barred under the principles of

"double jeopardy". Although under Article 20(2) of the

Constitution of India, no person shall be prosecuted and 2025:KER:61554

CRL.MC NOS.4795 & 5862 OF 2025 & OP(CRL) NO.272 OF 2022

punished for the same offence more than once and as per

Section 300 CrPC, a person once convicted or acquitted,

cannot be tried for the same offence, in order to bar the trial of

any person already tried, it must be shown (i) that he has been

tried by a competent court for the same offence or one for

which he might have been charged or convicted at that trial,

on the same facts; (ii) that he has been convicted or acquitted

at the trial; and (iii) that such conviction or acquittal is in force.

Where the accused has not been tried at all, neither convicted

nor acquitted, the principles of "double jeopardy" could not be

invoked at all. Thus when the accused was discharged due to

lack of proper sanction, the principles of "double jeopardy" will

not apply and there is no bar for filing fresh/supplementary

charge sheet after obtaining a valid sanction for prosecution.

On filing fresh report with sanction, the Special Court shall

proceed with the same and to take cognizance of the matter.

2025:KER:61554

CRL.MC NOS.4795 & 5862 OF 2025 & OP(CRL) NO.272 OF 2022

17. Going by the law laid down by the Apex

Court in the above decision, the investigating officer is at

liberty to re-file the final report after taking back the final report

from the Special Court along with proper sanction, and in such

event, the Special Court has to accept the same and proceed

further in accordance with law.

Accordingly, these petitions stand disposed of as

indicated above.

Registry is directed to forward a copy of this common

order/judgment to the special court forthwith.

Sd/-

A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE nkr 2025:KER:61554

CRL.MC NOS.4795 & 5862 OF 2025 & OP(CRL) NO.272 OF 2022

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE 1 (PART- PAGNATED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FROM I) 1-200 ANNEXURE 1 (PART- PAGNATED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FROM II) 201-415 2025:KER:61554

CRL.MC NOS.4795 & 5862 OF 2025 & OP(CRL) NO.272 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF CRL.M.C.NO.5862 OF 2025

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE A1 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR NO.

01/2019 OF VACB, KANNUR DATED 08-04-2019 ALONG WITH THE PRELIMINARY REPORT ANNEXURE A2 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT NO. 6/2021 DATED 07-05-2021 ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF EVIDENCE ANNEXURE A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENTS OF THE WITNESS'S U/S 161 OF CR.P.C ANNEXURE A5 A TRUE COPY OF THE SEZURE MAHAZERS IN FIR NO. 01/2019 OF VACB, KANNUR ANNEXURE A6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23-11-

ANNEXURE A7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KANNUR ANNEXURE A8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.06.2019 IN B.A. NO. 3268/2019 ANNEXURE A9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.

B4/2604/2019 DATED 16-04-2021 OF PERSONAL ASSISTANT HOLDING FULL EXTRA AUTHORITY OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, KANNUR.

2025:KER:61554

CRL.MC NOS.4795 & 5862 OF 2025 & OP(CRL) NO.272 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF OP(CRL.) 272/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 07.05.2021 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VACB, KANNUR EXHIBIT-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT NO.

6/2021 DATED 07.05.2021 ON THE FILE OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, THALASSERY EXHIBIT-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B4/2727/2016/ DATED 23.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE DEO, KANNUR EXHIBIT-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A4/1372/2019 DATED 20.02.2019 ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR (IN CHARGE), KANNUR.

EXHIBIT-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.

B2/11060/19/K.DIS DATED 21.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KANNUR EXHIBIT-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE VISIT BOOK OF THE PETITIONER'S SCHOOL BEARING THE DATE 25.08.2016.

EXHIBIT-P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, OBTAINED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DATED NIL EXHIBIT-P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF SMT. SHEEBA K., UPSA DATED 01.06.2017 EXHIBIT-P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.06.2019 IN B.A.NO. 3268/2019 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.