Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 238 (KER)

M. Babu v. State of Kerala

2014-03-13

THOMAS P.JOSEPH

body2014
Judgment : 1. These applications arise from Crime No.23 of 2014 of the Upputhara Police Station for the offences punishable under Secs.409, 465, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. B.A.No.1617 of 2014 is filed by the third accused while B.A.No.1757 of 2014 is filed by accused Nos.1, 2 and 4. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the applications. It is submitted that as per the Indira Awas Yogana (IAY Scheme) funds were to be allotted to suitable persons for construction of house and accordingly, the grama panchayath decided to allot funds to one Lakshmi Rajan. The first accused is the former President of the panchayath. The second accused was the Village Extension Officer in charge at the relevant time. The third accused is also the Village Extension Officer but he took charge on 09.07.2010. The 4th accused is Lakshmi Guruswami, mother of the first accused. The accused pursuant to the criminal conspiracy committed forgery of documents and diverted the funds allotted to Lakshmi Rajan to the 4th accused, Lakshmi Guruswami and misappropriated Rs.94,625/- without constructing any house even in the name of Lakshmi Guruswami. These facts were revealed in the vigilance enquiry and pursuant to that, a case is registered against these accused. 3. Learned counsel for the third accused has contended that the fund was to be disbursed at five stages of house construction and the third accused took charge only on 06.07.2010. Thereafter, what remained was only to give the 5th and last report which was given by the third accused on 10.11.2010. As on the date the third accused assumed charge as Village Extension Officer on 06.07.2010, records of the panchayath revealed that financial assistance was rendered to the 4th accused. The property belonged to the Guruswami, husband of the 4th accused and after his death, house was constructed in about 10 cents out of the said property. The only defect so far as the third accused is concerned is that technically speaking the property where the house was constructed by the 4th accused does not stand in her exclusive name as she is a co-owner of the entire property including the 10 cents. 4. The only defect so far as the third accused is concerned is that technically speaking the property where the house was constructed by the 4th accused does not stand in her exclusive name as she is a co-owner of the entire property including the 10 cents. 4. Learned counsel for the accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 has argued that at no point of time the fund was decided to be allotted to Lakshmi Rajan and the fund was made available to the 4th accused where she constructed a house as aforesaid. Learned counsel submits that the police has not verified the records of the panchayath/village office to find out whether there was any such person as Lakshmi Rajan in the word concerned, whether she owned property and whether the allotment was to Lakshmi Guruswami (4th accused). 5. I am inclined to think that the contentions raised by the learned counsel on behalf of accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 are required to be looked into by the investigating agency. The core issue is whether financial assistance was provided for Lakshmi Rajan and if so, whether it was converted as for the benefit of the 4th accused by whatever means it be. In my view these aspects are required to be looked into by the investigating agency. 6. Having regard to the fact that as on the date the third accused took charge on 06.07.2010, the records (allegedly forged) revealed that the financial assistance was made available to the 4th accused and bearing in mind that the third accused has only submitted the 5th report dated 10.11.2010, I am inclined to grant relief to the third accused. So far as accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 are concerned, they have to make themselves available for interrogation by the police. In the circumstance, I am inclined to grant limited relief to accused Nos.1, 2 and 4. Resultantly the applications are disposed of as under: I B.A.No.1617 of 2014: (i) Petitioner/3rd accused shall surrender before the officer investigating Crime No.23 of 2014 of the Upputhara Police Station on 20.03.2014 at 10 a.m for interrogation. (ii) In case interrogation is not completed that day, it is open to the officer concerned to direct presence of the petitioner/3rd accused on other day/days and time as may be specified by him which the petitioner/3rd accused shall comply. (ii) In case interrogation is not completed that day, it is open to the officer concerned to direct presence of the petitioner/3rd accused on other day/days and time as may be specified by him which the petitioner/3rd accused shall comply. (iii) Petitioner/3rd accused shall produce all relevant documents which are in his custody, control and possession relating to the subject matter under investigation and as may be required by the investigating officer. (iv) In case arrest of the petitioner/3rd accused is recorded, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate the same day. (v) On such production the petitioner/3rd accused shall be released on bail (if not required to be detained otherwise) on his executing bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned magistrate and subject to the following conditions: (a) Petitioner/3rd accused shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for interrogation. (b) Petitioner/3rd accused shall co-operate with investigation of the case. II B.A.No.1757 of 2014: Petitioners/accused 1, 2 and 4 shall be released on bail by the officer investigating the Crime No.23 of 2014 of the Upputhara Police Station for a period of one month from 19.03.2014 on their executing Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) each with two sureties each for the like sum each before the arresting officer and subject to the following conditions: (a) Petitioners/accused 1, 2 and 4 shall report to the officer investigating Crime No. 23 of 2014 of the Upputhara Police Station on 19.03.2014 at 10.00 for interrogation. (b) Petitioners/accused 1, 2 and 4 shall co-operate with investigation of the case. (c) Petitioners/accused 1, 2 and 4 shall produce before the officer investigating the case all relevant records in their custody, control and possession relating to the subject matter under investigation and as may be required by the investigating officer. III In case the petitioners violate any of the above conditions, it is open to the investigating officer to move the learned magistrate for cancellation of the bail as held in P.K Shaji Vs. State of Kerala ( AIR 2006 SC 100 ).