SURESH RAJ PUROHIT Vs. DIRECTOR VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Suresh Raj Purohit
Director Vigilance And Anti Corruption Bureau
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The petitioner in O.P. (Crl.) No.126 of 2016 and O.P. (Crl.) 154 of 2016 is the same person. He is a Senior I.P.S Officer in the Kerala Police Force. The petitioner in O.P. (Crl.) No. 132 of 2016 is a Sub Inspector of Police. They are the two accused arraigned in a complaint made by the 3rd respondent in O.P.(Crl.) No.126 of 2016 (one Benny), before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Thrissur. The complaint was received by the learned trial Judge as C.M.P.325 of 2016, and it was forwarded for investigation to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Thrissur, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Before the VACB could register a crime on the said complaint, all further proceedings pursuant to the order of the learned trial Judge were stayed by this Court as per the interim order passed in these proceedings on 11.3.2016. So, presently there is no crime against the petitioners.
(2.) The complainant in O.P.(Crl.) No.154 of 2016 is one P.D. Joseph. He did not contest the matter before this Court. He filed complaint before the Juvenile Justice Board, Thrissur, against the I.P.S. Officer, alleging offences under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act (for short 'the JJ Act'). The said complaint was also forwarded by the Juvenile Justice Board under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation to the Police. By the time crime could be registered by the Police on the said complaint, the further proceedings pursuant to the said order were also stayed by this Court as the per order dated 22.03.2016. The prosecution ordered to be initiated on those two complaints; one by the Special Court, and the other by the Juvenile Justice Board, is sought to be quashed in these proceedings brought under Article 227 of the Constitution of Indian. A preliminary question of law came up at the initial stage as to whether an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be maintained, in view of Section 19(3)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short 'the PC Act'). The law is settled in Moideenkutty v. State of Kerala (2003 (1) KLJ 728), that when jurisdictional lapse is noticed, or when the High Court notices any such jurisdictional error in any proceeding under the PC Act, the High Court will have to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In view of the settled position, this aspect need not be further discussed.
(3.) The prominent allegation in the complaint made before the Special Court is that the I.P.S. Officer allowed his minor son to drive his official vehicle at the compound of the Police Academy, Thrissur. The complaint of Benny does not show when the said incident occurred, or at what time, or on what date, the Police Officer allowed his son to drive the official vehicle. The complainant does not have any direct knowledge about the said incident. He brought complaint on the basis of some paper reports and TV channel reports. In the said complaint, he has alleged offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the MV Act'), and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.