Kerala High Court
K. Kabeer vs State Of Kerala on 28 January, 2025
2025:KER:6648
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 8TH MAGHA, 1946
CRL.M.C. NO. 8571 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN VC NO.3 OF 2019 OF ENQUIRY
COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE, KOZHIKODE.
CRIME NO.3/2019 OF VACB, MALAPPURAM
PETITIONER:
K. KABEER
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O. ENU HAJI, KUTTAKKAN HOUSE, VELLAYANCHERI
P.O., MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679326.
BY ADV SHABU SREEDHARAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH
COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031.
2 N.P. MUHAMMEDALI
S/O. ABDU NELLAYA, PUTHENPEEDIYEKKAL HOUSE,
PATHIRIKKODE P.O., MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505.
SMT REKHA S, SR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SRI A RAJESH, SPL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(VIG)
2025:KER:6648
2
Crl.M.C.No.8571 of 2023
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 20.01.2025, THE COURT ON 28.01.2025 PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:6648
3
Crl.M.C.No.8571 of 2023
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
---------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.8571 of 2023
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of January, 2025
ORDER
The accused in VC No.3/2019/MPM of the Vigilance and
Anti-Corruption Bureau, Malappuram is the petitioner. He
seeks to quash Annexure-4, objection filed by the 2 nd
respondent to the final report in the said crime and Annexure-
5 order of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge,
Kozhikode.
2. On the complaint of the 2 nd respondent, VC No.
3/2019/MPM was registered alleging offences punishable
under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC
Act). The allegations were that the petitioner while working as
a teacher in Velliyencheri A.U.P. School was elected as a
member of the Edapatta Grama Panchayat. He eventually was
elected as Vice-President and President of the panchayat.
While serving so, during the period from 1995-2015, he
forged documents such as attendance register, travel
2025:KER:6648
documents, duty leave certificates, etc. and drew salary
illegally. It was further alleged that he received various
amounts under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment
Scheme (MGNREGS), for which he was ineligible.
3. After investigation, the 1st respondent-investigating
officer submitted a negative final report. But, it was
recommended that recovery of an amount of Rs.78,234/-
should be made from the petitioner, which he received in
excess of what he was entitled. The Special Judge, after
considering the said final report and materials produced
therewith, ordered as per Annexure-5 that a further
investigation was essential. Final report and the records were
accordingly returned to the investigating officer. The petitioner
assails the said order and also the objection raised by the 2 nd
respondent against the final report.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
5. A report of the investigating officer is made
available for my perusal. In obedience to Annexure-5 order,
2025:KER:6648
the investigating officer had conducted a further investigation. It
is stated in the report that 38 witnesses were examined and six
documents were seized. The petitioner filed Crl.M.A.No.3 of 2024
producing therewith a copy of the report issued from Regional
Forensic Science Laboratory, Thrissur concerning the signatures
of the petitioner in various documents, which were allegedly
forged and manipulated. Annexure-6 is the said report. In the
said report, the handwriting expert opined that the signatures in
question were similar to that of the admitted signatures,
meaning thereby, all such signatures said to have been forged
were put by the petitioner himself. If so, the allegation that the
signature of the petitioner was forged in the attendance register
and other documents may not be correct.
6. The submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that when the investigating agency arrived at a
definite conclusion that none of the alleged offences was
committed and there are enough materials to substantiate
that conclusion, the learned Special Judge ought not to have
ordered a further investigation. Having gone through
2025:KER:6648
Annexure-5 order, it is seen that after considering materials
then available, a further investigation was ordered. When the
investigating officer reports that the further investigation is
almost complete and a factual report is under preparation for
submission before the Special Court, it is unnecessary for this
Court to deliberate further in the matter. It appears that no
fresh materials to implicate the petitioner in the alleged
offence has been collected in the further investigation. In the
said circumstances, I am of the view that the investigating
officer may file the final report before the Special Court and it
is for that court to take a decision on the report in the light of
the materials submitted therewith. Having considered the
aforementioned circumstances, it appears that there would
not be any reason not to accept the further report being filed.
Anyhow, that is a matter to be decided by the Special Court.
With the aforesaid observations, this Crl.M.C. is disposed
of.
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE
dkr
2025:KER:6648
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE-1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN VC
3/2019/MPM DATED 1.3.2019
ANNEXURE-2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 8.1.2018
ANNEXURE-3 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT
IN VC 3/2019/MPM DATED 21.12.2021
ANNEXURE-4 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE OBJECTION
DATED 23.2.2022 FILED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT IN THE ANNEXURE-3 FINAL
REPORT
ANNEXURE-5 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED
BY THE COURT OF THE ENQUIRY
COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE,
KOZHIKODE IN VC 3/2019 DATED 15.6.2022
COURT BELOW IN THIS REGARD DATED
15.6.2022
ANNEXURE-6 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE REPORT OF
THE REGIONAL FORENSIC SCIENCE
LABORATORY DATED 8.7.2024 ISSUED FROM
THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL
JUDGE'S COURT, KOZHIKODE
