Kerala High Court
P.D.Rajendran vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 31 January, 2025
2025:KER:7842
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 11TH MAGHA, 1946
CRL.M.C. NO. 128 OF 2022
AGAINST THE COURT CHARGE DATED 08.12.2021 IN CC NO.40 OF
2011 OF SPECIAL COURT (SPE/CBI), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.7:
P.D.RAJENDRAN
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O. P.K.DIVAKARAN, RESIDING AT PERUNDANATHU
HOUSE, P.O.AYMANAM, KOTTAYAM-686105.
BY ADVS.
S.K.PREMRAJ
C.ANILKUMAR (KALLESSERIL)
V.SARITHA
S.K.KRISHNAKUMAR
K.V.SUDHEER
P.M.MANASH
REENU KURIAN
NEEMA NOOR MOHAMED
JAIN VARGHESE
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM UNIT, MALABAR HOUSE, KESTOM
ROAD, T.C.11/304, VELLAYAMBALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SUPERINTENDENT.
2025:KER:7842
2
Crl.M.C.No.128 of 2022 and
Crl.R.P.No.15 of 2022
BY ADV SREELAL WARRIAR, SC, CBI
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 16.01.2025, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.15/2022,
THE COURT ON 31.01.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:7842
3
Crl.M.C.No.128 of 2022 and
Crl.R.P.No.15 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 11TH MAGHA, 1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 15 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.12.2021 IN CRMP 106/2021 IN CC
NO.40 OF 2011 OF SPECIAL COURT (SPE/CBI),
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.7:
P.D. RAJENDRAN
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O. P.K.DIVAKARAN, RESIDING AT PERUNDANATHU
HOUSE, P.O.AYMANAM, KOTTAYAM-686015.
BY ADVS.
S.K.PREMRAJ
C.ANILKUMAR (KALLESSERIL)
V.SARITHA
K.V.SUDHEER
P.M.MANASH
REENU KURIAN
NEEMA NOOR MOHAMED
JAIN VARGHESE
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
CBI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM UNIT
MALABAR HOUSE, KESTOM ROAD, T.C.11/304,
VEYYALAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SUPERINTENDENT.
2025:KER:7842
4
Crl.M.C.No.128 of 2022 and
Crl.R.P.No.15 of 2022
BY ADV SREELAL WARRIAR, SC, CBI
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
FINAL HEARING ON 16.01.2025, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.128/2022,
THE COURT ON 31.01.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:7842
5
Crl.M.C.No.128 of 2022 and
Crl.R.P.No.15 of 2022
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.128 of 2022 and
Crl.R.P.No.15 of 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of January, 2025
ORDER
Accused No.7 in C.C.No.40 of 2011 on the files of the
Court of Special Judge (CBI/SPE), Thiruvananthapuram has
filed these petitions. In the Crl.M.C., he seeks to quash
Annexure A-7 court charge dated 08.12.2021 and in the
Crl.R.P., he seeks to set aside the order dated 08.12.2021 in
Crl.M.P.No.106 of 2021, by which the Special Court repelled
his plea for discharge.
2. In the final report filed by the Central Bureau of
Investigation, based on which C.C.No.40 of 2011 was
instituted, the allegations are that the accused have
committed offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read
with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
(PC Act) and Sections 420, 465, 471 and 120B of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The essential allegations are that the
2025:KER:7842
Crl.M.C.No.128 of 2022 and
2nd accused as Managing Director, floated the 3rd accused-M/s
Coromandel Footwears India Pvt.Ltd. and accused No.4 as its
Director conspired with the other accused and availed cash
credit facilities from the Kottayam Branch of State Bank of
Travancore to the tune of Rs.2 crores. They also availed loan
facilities in the name of a partnership firm, M/s J.J.Exports. The
valuation of the property offered as security was falsely
escalted and letters of credit were availed for fake purchases.
By such acts, a loss of Rs.3,68,73,385/-was caused to the
bank.
3. The specific charge levelled against the petitioner is
under the head "charge VII" in the final report, which reads as
follows:
"Sri.Thomas Cherian being a Chartered Accountant, A-6
during 2002-2003 dishonestly prepared the loan application
for Rs.200 lakhs as LC and CC facilities in the name of
M/s.Corromondal Foot Wears India (P) Ltd, a non-existing
company and got forged the signatures of Directors through
his employee on conspiracy with A-2, A-7 and other accused
persons and dishonestly offered 54.67 acres of land situated
at Ambasamundiram, properties of his in-laws Shri George
Dominic, Smt.Elima George, Dominic George and Thomas
2025:KER:7842
Crl.M.C.No.128 of 2022 and
Martin George as collateral security for availing the said
facility with knowledge that the said property would worth
below 2 lakhs and got prepared an exorbitant report through
Sri.K.S.Ramakrishna Iyyer in conspiracy with other accused
and induced the bank to sanction and disburse the loan
amount to A-2 and A-4 in the name of M/s.Corromondal Foot
Wears Pvt.Ltd., thereby caused a wrongful loss of
Rs.3,68,73,385/- to SBI and thus accused committed offence
punishable u/s 420 IPC."
4. The petitioner along with accused No.6 filed
Crl.M.P.No.106 of 2021 seeking discharge. The Special Court
as per the order dated 08.12.2021 dismissed that petition and
framed the charge on the same day against the petitioner and
his co-accused. In such circumstances, the petitioner has filed
these petitions.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Standing Counsel for the CBI.
6. The Special Court earlier framed a charge against
the petitioner and his co-accused. He along with accused No.6
filed Crl.M.C.No.4620 of 2019 seeking to set aside the said
charge. This Court as per Annexure A-3 order set aside the
said charge and directed the Special Court to consider afresh
2025:KER:7842
Crl.M.C.No.128 of 2022 and
the petition for discharge to be filed within a period of one
month. Crl.M.P.No.106 of 2021 was accordingly filed. The
Special Court rejected the contentions of the petitioner and
also accused No.6. After rendering Annexure A-6 order and
framing Annexure A-7 charge, accused No.6 expired.
7. The contentions of the petitioner are that having
accused No.5 been discharged by this Court as per Annexure
A-2 and role of the petitioner in creating false documents is
not at all reflected from any of the materials produced by the
prosecution, no charge against the petitioner should have
been framed. It is contended that the charge framed against
him is without any basis and his trial on such a charge would
only be a futile exercise. The learned counsel for the
petitioner placed reliance on various decisions, particularly,
Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another
[(1979) 3 SCC 4], Sajjan Kumar v. CBI [(2010) 9 SCC
368] and Sanjay Kumar Rai v. State of U.P. [AIR 2021
SC 2351] in support of the contention that the Special Court
ought not to have framed a charge against the petitioner.
2025:KER:7842
Crl.M.C.No.128 of 2022 and
8. The learned Standing Counsel for the CBI, on the
other hand, would submit that the materials produced by the
prosecution sufficiently would establish the complicity of the
petitioner in creating false documents. He was the Accountant
of the 6th accused, who was the Chartered Accountant of the
shell company, M/s Coromandel Footwears India Pvt.Ltd. In
that capacity, the petitioner was fully aware of creation of
false documents. The petitioner being the Accountant in the
firm of the 6th accused cannot claim innocence. He was also
actively involved in creation of the false documents submitted
in the bank and as such a party to the conspiracy. The learned
Standing Counsel accordingly would submit that the charge
framed against him does not suffer from any infirmity.
9. A procedural irregularity has been pointed out by the
learned counsel for the petitioner. Annexure A-6 order dismissing
Crl.M.P.No.106 of 2021 was pronounced on 08.12.2021. The
proceedings of the court as reflected from Annexure A-8 would
show that the case was adjourned to 10.12.2021 for framing
charge. But Annexure A-7 court charge is dated 08.12.2021. The
2025:KER:7842
Crl.M.C.No.128 of 2022 and
said facts are pointed out as impropriety resulting in an irregular
proceedings and canvassed to quash the charge. I am unable to
accept the said contention. The Special Court would have framed
the charge on 08.12.2021. The fact that pleas of the accused by
reading out the charge were recorded on 10.12.2021 by itself
would not become any serious irregularity vitiating the whole
proceedings. Hence, the said contention does not merit.
10. Annexure A-2 is an order of this Court by which
accused No.5 was discharged. Accused No.5 is an independent
evaluator. The allegation in the final report is that he gave an
expert opinion valuing the mortgaged property at a highly
escalated value and he did so with a dishonest intention of
deceiving the bank. This Court found that the opinion of the
5th accused was given to the bank only after sanctioning of the
loan and that the said report was not a binding one. Accused
No.5 was discharged on such premises as per Annexure A2.
The said order cannot be called in aid of the petitioner since
his role is totally different. Therefore, the said contention also
cannot be accepted.
2025:KER:7842
Crl.M.C.No.128 of 2022 and
11. As is seen from charge-VII in the final report,
which was extracted above, the complicity of the petitioner to
the alleged offences is that he knowing fully well about the
false valuation statement and dubious intention of the other
accused aided in creation of a false document, which were to
be submitted to the Bank for creating a mortgage. The
petitioner caused the owners of the property to sign the
documents in question. It has come out that on the basis of
the said documents, loan facility was provided to the 3 rd
accused-company, which was a deceptive and fraudulent act.
12. Besides alleging that accused No.7 as the
accountant in the firm of accused No.6 caused the owners of
the property to sign the documents, no material has been
produced along with the final report to establish that the
petitioner had knowledge about falsification of the documents.
The petitioner was an Accountant working under accused
No.6, who was a Chartered Accountant. Being an employee,
accused No.7 was obliged to act in terms of the direction of
his master, the 6th accused. Beyond that, if accused No.7 has
2025:KER:7842
Crl.M.C.No.128 of 2022 and
involved in the conspiracy and knowingly participated in
creation of a false document, he can be implicated in the
crime. But the materials produced by the prosecution do not
make out any circumstance in order to substantiate that the
petitioner had knowledge at the time of executing the
documents in question that the same were false or fake
documents. In the absence of any such evidence or materials
produced by the prosecution, it is incorrect to ask the
petitioner to stand trial.
13. In Prafulla Kumar Samal (supra) the Apex Court
laid down the following guidelines for considering a plea for
discharge:
"(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the
charges under section 227 of the Code has the undoubted
power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose
of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the
accused has been made out;
(2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave
suspicion against the accused which has not been properly
explained the Court will be, fully justified in framing a charge
and proceeding with the trial;
(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally
depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay
2025:KER:7842
Crl.M.C.No.128 of 2022 and
down a rule of universal application.
(4) By and large however if two views are equally possible and
the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him
while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion
against the accused, he will be fully within his right to
discharge the accused.
(5) That in exercising his jurisdiction under section 227 of the
Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and
experienced Judge cannot act merely as a Post office or a
mouth-piece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad
probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and
the documents produced before the Court, any basic
infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however
does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry
into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence
as if he was conducting a trial."
Similar principles were laid down in Sajjan Kumar and
Sanjay Kumar Rai (supra) also.
14. Considering the factual position of this case as
mentioned above and in the light of the law laid down in the
aforementioned decisions, I am of the view that the petitioner
is not liable to be charged and asked to stand trial. In the
circumstances, these petitions are allowed. The plea for
discharge of the petitioner is allowed. Consequently, the
charge framed against the petitioner as per Annexure A-7 by
2025:KER:7842
Crl.M.C.No.128 of 2022 and
the Special Judge (CBI/SPE), Thiruvananthapuram is set
aside.
These petitions are allowed and the petitioner is
discharged under Section 239 of the Code.
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE
dkr
2025:KER:7842
Crl.M.C.No.128 of 2022 and
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
C.C.NO.40 OF 2011 ON FILES OF THE
HON'BLE COURT OF THE SPL. JUDGE
CBI/SPE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
CRL.R.P.NO.926 OF 2018 ON FILES OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT.
ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.11.2021
IN CRL.M.C.NO.4620 OF 2019 ON FILES OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT.
ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN
CRL.M.P.NO.106 OF 2021 IN C.C.NO.40 OF
2011 ON FILES OF THE HON'BLE COURT OF
THE SPL. JUDGE CBI/SPE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS IN
CRL.M.P.NO.106 OF 2021 IN C.C.NO.40 OF
2011 ON FILES OF THE HON'BLE COURT OF
THE SPL. JUDGE CBI/SPE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8.12.2021
IN CRL.M.P.NO.106 OF 2021 IN C.C.NO.40
OF 2011 ON FILES OF THE HON'BLE COURT
OF THE SPL. JUDGE CBI/SPE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
ANNEXURE A7 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COURT CHARGE
DATED 8.12.2021 ORDER IN C.C.NO.40 OF
2011 ON FILES OF THE HON'BLE COURT OF
THE SPL. JUDGE CBI/SPE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2025:KER:7842
Crl.M.C.No.128 of 2022 and
ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF
THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.40 OF 2011
ON FILES OF THE HON'BLE COURT OF THE
SPL. JUDGE CBI/SPE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
AS UPLOADED IN THE WEB PORTAL E-
COURTS.
ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF CW-35 IN
THE FINAL REPORT IN C.C.NO.40 OF 2011
ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE COURT OF
THE SPL. JUDGE CBI/SPE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
