SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sudheer vs S.H.O Kadavanthra Police on 25 September, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 3RD ASWINA, 1941

Crl.MC.No.56 OF 2014

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 30/2013 OF CHIEF
JUDL.MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM

CRIME NO.834/2012 OF Kadavanthra Police Station , Ernakulam

PETITIONER/S:

1 SUDHEER, AGED 37 YEARS,
S/O.IBRAHIM KUTTY, ELLUVILAKAM HOUSE, TC
43/273(1) KAMALESWARAM, THOTTAM, MANAKKADU P.O,
MUTTATHARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

2 MAHENDRAN V, AGED 56 YEARS,
S/O.VIJAYA SINGH B, SANGEETH NIVAS, BEHIND
PRESENTATION HIGH SCHOOL, CHEVAYUR P.O,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

3 SUBHASH V, AGED 45 YEARS,
S/O.VIJAYA BABU, KAMALA NIVAS, H.NO.28/561,
OPPOSITE PRESENTATION HIGH SCHOOL, CHEVAYOOR
P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT
H.NO.11/3221, AKSHAYA HOUSE, KASABA VILLAGE,
NEAR KOZHIKODE SESSIONS COURT.

4 P.C.BABU, AGED 51 YEARS,
S/O.POLI CHETTY, RESIDING AT D.NO.37/1388,
ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, NEAR PARK LINE APARTMENTS,
KADAVANTHARA, ERNAKULAM.

5 RAMANAYYAN, AGED 45 YEARS,
S/O.JAYARAMAYYA, BORANGALA HOUSE, KONDITHOPPU
VILLAGE, GEORGE TOWN TALUK, NEAR SIVAKHANA
GARDEN, 198 GOVINDAPPANAYKAM STREET,
CHENGALPETTU DISTRICT, TAMILNADU 79.

6 HARISH N PAREKH, AGED 58 YEARS,
S/O.NATHALA, CC 6/2107, SAMUTHIRI TEMPLE,
GUJARATHI ROAD, MATTANCHERI, ERNAKULAM 2.
Crl.MC.No.56/2014 ,Crl.MC.265/2014,
Crl.MC.330/2014 Crl.MC.3926/2014

-2-

7 RAJESH, AGED 49 YEARS,
S/O.VIJAYA SINGH, H.NO.11/322 M, MEGHNA HOUSE,
CONVENT ROAD, BEACH P.O, NEAR DISTRICT COURT,
KASABA VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE 32.

8 AJAYA KUMAR JANI, AGED 36 YEARS,
S/O.RANJITH KUMAR JANI, FALT NO.IA I, MYSINI
APARTMENT, BEACH P.O, NEAR BEACH HOSPITAL,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SRI.K.SHIBILI NAHA

RESPONDENT/S:

1 S.H.O KADAVANTHRA POLICE
KADAVANTHRA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM 682 001.

2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH
COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI 682 031.

R1 BY ADV. SHRI N.D.PREMACHANDRANSCSUPPLYCO
R1-2 BY ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
25.09.2019, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.265/2014, Crl.MC.330/2014,
Crl.MC.3926/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No.56/2014 ,Crl.MC.265/2014,
Crl.MC.330/2014 Crl.MC.3926/2014

-3-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 3RD ASWINA, 1941

Crl.MC.No.265 OF 2014

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 30/2013 OF CHIEF
JUDL.MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM

PETITIONER/S:

M. ANWAR,
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O.MAHEEN KANNU, TC.35/614A, PRIYADARSHINI
NAGAR, VALLAKADAVU.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI

RESPONDENT/S:

1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

2 KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD.
REPRESENTED BY MANAGER (QUALITY ASSURANCE)
D.PRASAD, GANDHI NAGAR, KADAVANTHRA, MAVELI
BHAVAN, ERNAKULAM-695 020.

R1 BY ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION
R2 BY ADV. SHRI N.D.PREMACHANDRAN,SC,SUPPLYCO

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
25.09.2019, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.330/2014, Crl.MC.3926/2014,
Crl.MC.56/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No.56/2014 ,Crl.MC.265/2014,
Crl.MC.330/2014 Crl.MC.3926/2014

-4-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 3RD ASWINA, 1941

Crl.MC.No.330 OF 2014

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 30/2013 OF CHIEF
JUDL.MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM

CRIME NO.834/2012 OF Kadavanthra Police Station , Ernakulam

PETITIONER/S:

ABDUL RASHEED M
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O.MUHAMMED HANEEFA, T.C.NO.35.

BY ADV. SRI.ANIL K.MOHAMMED

RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

2 KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD.
REPRESENTED BY MANAGER (QUALITY ASSURANCE)
D.PRASAD, GANDHI NAGAR, KADAVANTHRA, MAVELI
BHAVAN, ERNAKULAM-695 020.

R1 BY ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION

OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.SURESH BABU THOMAS,ADGP

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
25.09.2019, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.265/2014, Crl.MC.3926/2014,
Crl.MC.56/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No.56/2014 ,Crl.MC.265/2014,
Crl.MC.330/2014 Crl.MC.3926/2014

-5-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 3RD ASWINA, 1941

Crl.MC.No.3926 OF 2014

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 30/2013 OF CHIEF
JUDL.MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM

PETITIONER/S:

1 RAVIKUMAR
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O. SUBRAMANIAN PILLAI, KRISHNAKRIPA, PAREKKAT
TEMPLE ROAD, CHEMBUMUKKU, KOCHI-682 023.

2 AMBILY K.
AGED 40 YEARS
D/O. GANGADHARAN, SREEVALAM, CHIRAKKAL P.O.,
KANNUR-670 011.

3 LISHA BINTA
AGED 39 YEARS
W/O. ANILKUMAR, KOCHUPARAMBIL HOUSE,
POOZHIKKAL P.O., KADUTHURUTHY P.O., KOTTAYAM.

4 SANIL
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O. ELDHO, KUTTUKALLINGAL HOUSE, VENGOLA,
KUNNATHUNADU.

5 PRIYA
AGED 26 YEARS
D/O. BALAKRISHNAN, KELOTH VEEDU,
PULPALLY P.O., WAYANAD-26.

BY ADVS.
SRI.V.JOHN SEBASTIAN RALPH
SRI.BIMAL PRASAD
Crl.MC.No.56/2014 ,Crl.MC.265/2014,
Crl.MC.330/2014 Crl.MC.3926/2014

-6-

SRI.K.J.JOSEPH (ERNAKULAM)
SRI.V.JOHN THOMAS
SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN
SMT.SANJANA R.NAIR

RESPONDENT/S:

1 STATE OF KERALA
KADAVANTHRA POLICE STATION, CRIME NO.834/2012,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH
COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-31.

2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH
COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-682 031.

3 KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIERS CORPORATION LTD.
REP.BY ITS STANDING COUNSEL, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, KOCHI.

R1-2 BY ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION
R3 BY ADV. SRI.MATHAI VARKEY MUTHIRENTHY
R3 BY SRI.MATHAI VARKEY MUTHIRENTHY, SC,
SUPPLYCO
R3 BY SHRI N.D.PREMACHANDRAN,SC,SUPPLYCO

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
25.09.2019, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.265/2014, Crl.MC.330/2014,
Crl.MC.56/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No.56/2014 ,Crl.MC.265/2014,
Crl.MC.330/2014 Crl.MC.3926/2014

-7-

ORDER

The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 15

in C.C.No.30/2013 on the files of the court

below. The offences alleged are punishable

under Sections 120B, 406 and 420 r/w Section

34 IPC.

2. The prosecution allegation can be

briefly stated thus:-

The first accused was the regular

supplier of articles to the Kerala State

Civil Supplies Corporation from 2007

onwards. The first accused and accused Nos.3

to 10 participated in a tender for the

supply of 200 quintal of UD Washed Dhal at

Trivandrum and Nedumangad depot as per a

purchase order. The first accused supplied
Crl.MC.No.56/2014 ,Crl.MC.265/2014,
Crl.MC.330/2014 Crl.MC.3926/2014

-8-

190 bags of black gram dhal in Valiyathura,

Thiruvananthapuram, which was accepted

by the Depot Manager on 15.06.2012.

Thereafter, the Manager of Quality Assurance

inspected the stock and reported that the

commodity supplied by the first accused was

not conforming to the standard prescribed.

He reported the matter to the Chairman and

Managing Director. It is alleged that while

stacking the commodity by the first

accused, the bags with inferior quality

had been kept in the inside area. He also

filled up the peripheral area with

better quality of the materials for the

purpose of misleading the inspecting

officers while sampling. Based on the
Crl.MC.No.56/2014 ,Crl.MC.265/2014,
Crl.MC.330/2014 Crl.MC.3926/2014

-9-

report of the Manager of Quality Assurance,

the Chairman and Managing Director directed

the Manager, Quality Assurance to initiate

criminal prosecution against the supplier.

Accordingly, the crime was registered.

After completing the investigation, the

final report was also filed.

3. The petitioners have filed these

Crl.M.Cs praying for quashing the final

report and further proceedings against the

petitioners in the above said case.

4. Heard.

5. The fact that the first accused

supplied the commodity to the Civil Supplies

Corporation is not disputed. It is also not

disputed that the quality assurance test was
Crl.MC.No.56/2014 ,Crl.MC.265/2014,
Crl.MC.330/2014 Crl.MC.3926/2014

-10-

conducted before accepting the commodity by

the Civil Supplies Corporation. The

allegation is that even though the commodity

supplied by the first accused was having

substandard quality, the same was accepted

due to the criminal conspiracy by the second

accused, who was the then Manager with

accused Nos.3 to 10, who were the other

contractors and accused Nos.11 to 15, who

were the staff of the Corporation. There is

provision in the Supplyco Manual to reject

the commodity if the quality of the

commodity is not in conformity with the

standard prescribed. In case of rejection,

the supplier should be immediately informed

over telephone or fax or by e-mail. Then a
Crl.MC.No.56/2014 ,Crl.MC.265/2014,
Crl.MC.330/2014 Crl.MC.3926/2014

-11-

letter/notice should be sent through courier

to the supplier informing the rejection and

to remove/replace/repair the stock as

decided by the stock acceptance authority as

per the purchase contract within five days

of intimation.

6. In this case, the commodity was not

rejected. Therefore, no intimation letter

was also given to the supplier. It is not

disputed that the quality control test

conducted at the time of acceptance of the

commodity would show that the commodity

supplied was in conformity with the standard

prescribed. It is alleged that the said

finding was arrived at in the quality

control test due to the criminal conspiracy
Crl.MC.No.56/2014 ,Crl.MC.265/2014,
Crl.MC.330/2014 Crl.MC.3926/2014

-12-

by the accused.

7. It appears that the Quality Control

Appellate Authority conducted the quality

control analysis and it was reveled in the

analysis that the commodity supplied at

Trivandrum depot was in accordance with the

specifications of Supplyco except in size

for that commodity (See Page 35 of Annexure-

D in Crl.M.C.265/2014). Thus, it is clear

from the analysis conducted by the Appellate

Authority that the commodity was not

adulterated with any extraneous or noxious

substance. The finding is that the

commodity supplied was in accordance with

the specifications, except in the size. The

size of the commodity was smaller than the
Crl.MC.No.56/2014 ,Crl.MC.265/2014,
Crl.MC.330/2014 Crl.MC.3926/2014

-13-

specifications. The size specified was 3

mm. However, the commodity supplied was

having a size in between 2.5 mm to 3 mm. It

appears from Annexure-D in

Crl.M.C.No.265/2014 that ‘-5%’ of difference

in size is tolerable.

8. It is not disputed that samples were

collected by the Investigating Officer after

the expiry of the shelf life of the

commodity, for conducting the quality test.

Therefore, the said report of analysis

cannot be looked into for any purpose. It

appears that if at all there was any dispute

with regard to the quality of the commodity

supplied, the Supplyco could have returned

the same and demanded to supply the
Crl.MC.No.56/2014 ,Crl.MC.265/2014,
Crl.MC.330/2014 Crl.MC.3926/2014

-14-

commodity having prescribed standard. It is

also important to note that the price in

respect of the commodity is also not yet

paid.

9. The above discussion would make it

clear that the commodity supplied was in

conformity with the specifications

prescribed by the Supplyco, except in size.

The commodity supplied was not having any other

deviation from the specifications. There is

also provision for replacing the commodity.

However, that was not done in this case. The

money was also not paid for the commodity.

Having gone through the relevant inputs, it

appears that there is no material to constitute

the ingredients of any of the criminal offences

even though the Supplyco might be having cause
Crl.MC.No.56/2014 ,Crl.MC.265/2014,
Crl.MC.330/2014 Crl.MC.3926/2014

-15-

of action for breach of contract.

10. Having gone through the entire

materials, I am of the view that the

materials available on record are not

sufficient to constitute the ingredients of

the offence under Section 420 IPC. There is

also no material to constitute the

ingredients of the offence under Section 406

IPC. The materials available on record are

also insufficient to constitute the

ingredients of the offence under Section

120B IPC. This being the situation, no

purpose will be served even if the

prosecution against the petitioners

is permitted to be continued. In the said
Crl.MC.No.56/2014 ,Crl.MC.265/2014,
Crl.MC.330/2014 Crl.MC.3926/2014

-16-

circumstances. I am inclined to quash the

final report and further proceedings against

the petitioners in the above said case, in

exercise of the inherent power under Section

482 Cr.P.C., to meet the ends of justice.

It is ordered accordingly.

In the result, these Crl.M.Cs stand

allowed as above.

Sd/-

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR,
JUDGE
STK
Crl.MC.No.56/2014 ,Crl.MC.265/2014,
Crl.MC.330/2014 Crl.MC.3926/2014

-17-

APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 56/2014
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE P1 ANNEXURE A1. COPY OF THE COMPLAINT
DATED 23.06.12 FILED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE P2 ANNEXURE A2. FIR REGISTERED BY THE IST
RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE P3 ANNEXURE A3. COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT.

ANNEXURE P4 ANNEXURE A4. COPY OF THE REPORT
SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY.

RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS: NIL
Crl.MC.No.56/2014 ,Crl.MC.265/2014,
Crl.MC.330/2014 Crl.MC.3926/2014

-18-

APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 265/2014
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE P1 ANNEXURE A- CERTIFIED COPY OF THE
COMPLAINT DTD.23.6.12 LODGED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT THROUGH MANAGER (QUALITY
ASSURANCE) PRASAD.

ANNEXURE P2 ANNEXURE B- CERTIFIED COPY OF THE
F.I.R. DTD. 23.6.12 IN CRIME NO.834/12.

ANNEXURE P3 ANNEXURE C- CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL
REPORT IN FIR NO.834/12.

ANNEXURE P4 ANNEXURE D- TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT
SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY
WITH RESPECT TO THE GOODS SUPPLIED BY
THE PETITIONER.

ANNEXURE P5 ANNEXURE E- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT
DTD. 2.6.2003 IN O.P.NO.14879/2003 ON
THE FILE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT.

ANNEXURE P6 ANNEXURE F- TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT
PAGES OF THE SUPPLYCO QUALITY MANUAL.

ANNEXURE P7 ANNEXURE G- TRUE COPY OF REPORT NO.(CS)
V.O.9635/13 DTD. 14.5.13 ISSUED BY THE
COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS: NIL
Crl.MC.No.56/2014 ,Crl.MC.265/2014,
Crl.MC.330/2014 Crl.MC.3926/2014

-19-

APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 330/2014
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE P1 ANNEXURE A- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT
DATED 23.06.2012 FILED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE P2 ANNEXURE B- TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R.

NO.834/2012 REGISTERED BY THE POLICE.

ANNEXURE P3 ANNEXURE C- TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL
REPORT IN C.C.NO.30/2013 ON THE FILES
OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT,
ERNAKULAM.

ANNEXURE P4 ANNEXURE D- TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT
SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY.

ANNEXURE P5 ANNEXURE E- TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.

(SectionCS) V.O.9635/13 DATED 14.5.2013 ISSUED
BY THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES.

ANNEXURE P6 ANNEXURE F- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
DATED 2.1.2014 IN CRL.M.C.NO.56/14 OF
THIS HON’BLE COURT.

RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS: NIL
Crl.MC.No.56/2014 ,Crl.MC.265/2014,
Crl.MC.330/2014 Crl.MC.3926/2014

-20-

APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 3926/2014
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE P1 ANNEXURE 1 : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE
FINAL REPORT CC NO.30/2013 ON THE FILE
OF THE CJM COURT, ERNAKULAM.

ANNEXURE P2 ANNEXURE 2 : COPY OF THE VIGILANCE
REPORT DTD.27.5.2013.

ANNEXURE P3 ANNEXURE 3 : COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE
COMMISSIONERATE OF CIVIL SUPPLIES AT
TRIVANDRUM, DTD.14.5.2013.
RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS: NIL

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation