Kerala High Court
Chandrika Balan vs Deputy Superintendent Of Police on 18 February, 2025
2025:KER:15521
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 29TH MAGHA, 1946
W.P.(C) NO. 26589 OF 2019
PETITIONER:
CHANDRIKA BALAN
AGED 70 YEARS
W/O. BALAN, PUZHAKKADAVIL HOUSE, KANJANI ROAD,
CHUNGAM THRISSUR - 680 003.
BY ADVS.
RAJIT
SMT.PARVATHY MANOJ
RESPONDENTS:
1 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, THRISSUR
2 THE TRICHUR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO. 87,
MISSION HEAD QUARTERS, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER
3 THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL)
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, AYYANTHOLE THRISSUR 680 003
4 PAULSON ALAPPATT,
CHAIRMAN TRICHUR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED
NO. 87, MISSION HEAD QUARTERS, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SMT REKHA S, SR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SRI A RAJESH, SPL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (VIG)
SRI.C.D.DILEEP,SC,TRICHUR URBN CO-OP.BANK
2025:KER:15521
2
W.P.(C) No.26589 of 2019
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
FINAL HEARING ON 18.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:15521
3
W.P.(C) No.26589 of 2019
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J
-------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.26589 of 2019
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of February, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner pledged 3239 grams of gold in various loan
accounts in the 2nd respondent-Trichur Urban Co-operative
Bank Limited No.87. Loans fell in arrears. Hence, the bank
scheduled auction of the said gold ornaments. The petitioner
had sent a notice on 27.06.2015 objecting to the auction and
intention to redeem the pawns and participate in the auction.
Ignoring objections of the petitioner the 2nd respondent
proceeded with the auction. The petitioner went to participate
in the auction, but she was not permitted to participate in the
whole of the process. The 2nd respondent and its officials
without conducting any auction made clandestine documents of
an auction and gave major part of the petitioner's ornaments
to the proxies of the officials for a lower price. Moreover, the
2nd respondent made a false claim that an amount of
Rs.20,33,127/- was still due from the petitioner.
2025:KER:15521
2. Aggrieved by the said illegal acts and similar
malpractices in the gold loans on the part of the 4 th respondent who
was the chairman of the Bank, and other officials of the Bank
misusing their position as public servants, a complaint was
submitted before the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special
Judge, Thrissur. A quick verification was conducted on the
complaint as directed by the Special Court. A crime as
V.C.No.13/17/TSR was later registered and an investigation was
undertaken. However, no final report was filed even after two
years, although offences under Sections 13(1)(C) and 13(1)(d)
read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
(PC Act) were found committed by the accused therein. Owing to
the delay in completing the investigation and submitting the final
report, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
1. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order
direction commanding the 1st respondent to report the stage of
investigation and the progress made as on date in
V.C.13/17/TSR, in writing.
2. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order
or direction commanding the 1st respondent to complete the
investigation and submit the final report in V.C.13/17/TSR
expeditiously.
2025:KER:15521
3. A counter affidavit was filed by the 4 th respondent
justifying the auction and the procedure followed in that
matter. He produced Exts.R4(A) to R4(E) together with the
counter affidavit. A report of the investigating officer and
later a statement were placed on record by the learned
Government Prosecutor.
4. The petitioner has filed I.A.No.1 of 2022 producing
therewith Exts.P9 to P11.
5. In terms of the order of this Court dated
09.09.2024 to report as to the present status of the
investigation, the learned Senior Government Pleader filed a
memo dated 21.01.2025 producing therewith a report of the
investigating officer. Paragraph Nos.1 to 4 in the report
submitted on 21.01.2025 are extracted below:
"1. It is most humbly submitted that based on a compliant as
CMP 382/2016 filed by Sri.Krishnakumar A., Secretary,
Janakeeyavedu, Attoor House, Puranattukara, Thrissur before
the Hon'ble Court Commissioner & Special Judge Court,
Thrissur, it was ordered to conduct a Preliminary Enquiry into
the matter. Accordingly, an enquiry was conducted nd the
enquiry report in this regard was submitted before the
Hon'ble Court and disagreeing with the findings in the
2025:KER:15521
Preliminary Enquiry, the Hon'ble Court had ordered to
register a FIR against the respondents and an FIR was
registered at VACB, Thrissur Unit on 15.09.2017 as VC-
13/17/TSR U/S 13(1)(c) & 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of PC Act,
1988 against A1-Paulson Alappatt, Chairman, Thrissur
District Urban Co-operative Bank, Thrissur, A2-Satheedevi,
General Manager,k TDUC Bank, Thrissur, A3-Jerome
P.Thomas, General Manager, TDUC Bank, Thrissur, A4-Babu
Joseph V., Junior Accountant, TDUC Bank, Thrissur, A5-
Prasad R., Gold Appraiser, TDUCB, Thrissur.
2. It is submitted that the approval from the Director of VACB
sanctioning to prosecute T.C Premalatha, T.N.Aravindakshan,
and Sajith Thekkekara U/s 13(1)(c) (d)(ii) r/w 13(2) of PC
Act & 409 & 34 of IPC, the accused persons, in the second
count of allegation has been received and the prosecution
sanction order is to be obtained from the Administrative
Committee of the Thrissur Urban Cooperative Bank. The final
report for the both count of allegation in the Vigilance Case
will be submitted before the Hon. Court of Enquiry
Commissioner & Special Judge (Vigilance), Thrissur soon
after receiving the Prosecution Sanction Order.
3. It is submitted that on 21.03.2022, the request for
prosecution sanction was forwarded to the Administrative
Committee of Thrissur Urban Co-operative Bank, but it was
denied and hence sanction to charge sheet the case under
Sections 409 & 34 IPC before the Hon'ble Magistrate Court
having jurisdiction was accorded by the Director, Vigilance &
Anti-Corruption Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram. As such, a
request was submitted before the Hon'ble Enquiry
Commissioner & Special Judge (Vigilance), Thrissur, to
2025:KER:15521
transfer the FIR and connected documents to the Hon'ble
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court No. 1, Thrissur, on
08/11/2024.
4. It is submitted that the request for transfer the FIR was
orally denied by the Hon'ble Enquiry Commissioner & Special
Judge (Vigilance), stating that more efforts are to be done to
collect the prosecution sanction order from the concerned
authority. But in between this the Co-operative Society Act
was amended on 07.06.2024 and vide Section 68(2) of this
Act, the Registrar of Co-Operative Society can accord
prosecution sanction. Hence, steps have been initiated to
obtain the prosecution sanction order against the accused
persons under section 68(2) of Co-operative Societies
(Amendment) Act 2023 from the Registrar, Co-operative
Societies, Thiruvananthapuram, through the proper channel."
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
learned Senior Government Pleader, the learned Standing
Counsel for the 2nd respondent and the learned counsel for
the 4th respondent.
7. It is seen that in the preliminary enquiry, the VACB
reached a conclusion that there was no materials to proceed
against the bank officials. However, that report was not
accepted by the Special Court and that resulted in the
registration of a crime as VC-13/17/TSR. Offences including
under Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2)
2025:KER:15521
of the PC Act were alleged. The report of the investigating
officer further would show that the materials collected during
investigation revealed commission of that offence, but since
sanction for prosecution was denied by the Managing
Committee of the Thrissur Urban Co-operative Bank, no final
report could be submitted before the Special Court, Thrissur.
It is further averred in the report that as per the oral
direction of the Special Judge, fresh steps have been initiated
to obtain prosecution sanction.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that the investigating agency has been taking a
lukewarm approach and that resulted in the inordinate delay.
The submission of the learned counsel for the 4 th respondent
is that this Court as per the order dated 04.07.2018
[Ext.R4(E)] on recording the submission of the Special Public
Prosecutor that no offence was revealed in the investigation
in V.C. No. 13/2017/TSR closed Crl.M.C.No.663 of 2018,
which was filed by the 4th respondent and other incumbents.
It is urged that when this Court closed the said Crl.M.C.
2025:KER:15521
recording such a submission of the learned Special Public
Prosecutor, it is not proper for this Court to entertain the plea
of the petitioner and grant any relief.
9. As stated, in the preliminary enquiry, the VACB
reached a finding that no offence was committed. But in
obedience to the direction of the Special Court, a crime was
registered and investigation ensued. After a detailed
investigation, the VACB found that the offences under
Sections 13(1)(c) and (d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC
Act and Section 409 read with Section 34 of the IPC were
committed. At the time of passing Ext.R4(E) order, the view
of the investigating agency was that there was no material to
establish commission of the offence. It appears, that was a
stage before conducting a detailed investigation. Therefore,
closing of Crl.M.C.No.663 of 2018 does not stand in the way
of considering the reliefs sought in this writ petition.
10. The learned counsel for the 4 th respondent further
would submit that in regard to the auction of the gold
ornaments pledged by the petitioner, no offence was found
2025:KER:15521
committed; whereas, the finding by the VACB that the
offences were committed is with respect to the second count
of allegations. Considering the reliefs sought in the writ
petition and as the investigation in crime No.VC-13/17/TSR
was initiated upon a complaint submitted by
Sri.Krishnakumar. A, in which there was an allegation about
the auction of the gold ornaments of the petitioner also, there
is no bar for entertaining this writ petition.
11. The administrative committee of the Thrissur
Urban Co-operative Bank denied sanction for prosecution. But
when the administrative committee is not the competent
authority to decide whether or not a sanction is to be granted
in the light of Section 68B of the Kerala Co-operative
Societies Act, 1969 the decision of the administrative
committee has no legs to stand. In K.S.Xavier v. James
[2025 KHC OnLine 164], this Court considered the
aforementioned question. It was held that the Registrar of the
Co-operative Societies is the competent authority to decide
whether or not to grant sanction to prosecute the president,
2025:KER:15521
members of the managing committee, officers and servants
of a Co-operative Society/Bank.
In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of
directing the 1st respondent-Deputy Superintendent of Police,
VACB, Thrissur to take necessary steps for obtaining sanction
for prosecution under Section 19(1) of the PC Act in terms of
the final report in VC-13/17/TSR. Suffice it to say that the
Registrar of Co-operative Societies is bound by the time
schedule prescribed in Section 19 of the PC Act while
considering an application for sanction for prosecution.
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE
smf/dkr
2025:KER:15521
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26589/2019
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 27-06-2015
SENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT BANK BY THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 31-08-2015
SENT TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 29-09-2015 TO THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE RTI REPLY RECEIVED BY
THE PETITIONER REPLY TO RTI APPLICATION
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT NO.Q.V.121/2016 THRISSUR
DATED 3.12.2016.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11-08-2017
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION
EXHIBIT P8(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22-01-2019
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE DEPUTY
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CO-OPERATIVE
VIGILANCE DATED 05.03.2020.
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF ONE OF THE NOTICE OF THE
3RD RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF LOAN NO.711-
2633 DATED 30.09.2011.
EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT OF THE
FILED BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR DATED
14.12.2016.
2025:KER:15521
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE
MANAGING COMMITTEE DATED 30/7/2015 FRO
GOLD AUCTION.
EXHIBIT R4(B) TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICES ISSUED BY
THE BANK TO THE PETITIONER DATED 8/6/2015
EXHIBIT R4(C) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE
BANK TO THE PETITIONER WITH POSTAL
RECEIPTS
EXHIBIT R4(D) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE
SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER (VIGILANCE)
DATED 2/7/2018 IN CRL.M.C 663 OF 2018
EXHIBIT R4(E) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HO'BLE
COURT DATED 4/7/2018 IN CRL.M.C 663 OF
