IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2009 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 197 of 2009(D) ------------------------------ CRMP.549/2007 of ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE, KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT. -------------------------------------------- C.K.ABDULLA, S/O. CHERUMKUZHIL ALAVI, CHERUMKUZHIL HOUSE, OLD COURT ROAD, PATTAMBI, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, (SECRETARY, AL-AMEEN EDUCATIONAL TRUST, KOLAPPULLY, SHORNUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT). BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) RESPONDENT(S): STATE & RESPONDENT (ACCUSED) ------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. ESSY V.VHEMMANNUR, W/O. GEORGE, KUNDOORKKARA P.O., KALLADIPATTA VIA., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. (HEADMISTRESS, A.M.U.P.SCHOOL, KARAKKAD). 3. V.P.JYOTHI, W/O.V.K.SURESH, VAZHAKKAD HOUSE, KALLADIPATTA P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. (ASST. TEACHER, A.M.U.P.SCHOOL, KARAKKAD). PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI RAVINDRA BABU FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.197 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of May, 2009. ORDER Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent No.1. 2. Heard counsel for petitioner and Public Prosecutor. 3. Petitioner, claiming to be secretary of Al Ameen Education Trust filed a complaint before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode. His complaint is that respondent No.3, an assistant teacher in a school run by that trust was on maternity leave from 25.10.2006 till 8.3.2007. She was actually admitted in a hospital at Edappal on 26.10.2006 for delivery. But merely to facilitate her getting salary for ramzan holidays from 21.9.2006 to 24.10.2006 she, in connivance with respondent No.2 marked her attendance in the register on the forenoon and afternoon on 20.9.2006 and thereby caused unlawful loss to the school and unlawful gain to herself. The further allegation is that respondent No.2, Headmistress admitted three students in standard V of that school to avoid division fall and create additional posts of teachers. Those three students were actually admitted in some other school during the relevant time. 4. Learned Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge obtained a report from the Deputy Director of Education and recorded sworn statement of Crl.R.P.No.197/2009 2 the petitioner but was not satisfied that any prima facie case is made out and consequently dismissed the complaint. That order is under challenge. Learned counsel contended that the enquiry conducted was not proper since even the petition filed by the petitioner to summon the relevant records from the hospital concerned was rejected by the learned Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge. 5. Even the locus standi of the petitioner who claimed to be the secretary of the trust is in challenge as concededly there is civil case regarding his claim to the post and the petitioner did not produce any document before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge to substantiate his claim that he is the secretary of the trust. Though he was formerly a member of the trust board, he resigned on 17.10.2003 which was approved by the board on 23.10.2003. Thereafter, petitioner is said to have formed another trust and claimed right over the school. Since the status of the petitioner as secretary of the trust is in dispute or doubt, no sufficient material was produced to substantiate his claim. 6. Apart from that, the report of Deputy Director of Education revealed that in fact, respondent No.3 was present in the school on 20.9.2006, she signed the attendance register on the morning and afternoon but on the afternoon she developed uneasiness due to pregnancy and respondent No.2, on humanitarian grounds permitted her to go to the hospital at Edappal. This statement of the Deputy Director is not shown to be incorrect. 7. So far the allegation that respondent No.2 admitted three students to avoid division fall is concerned, Deputy Director of Education has stated in Crl.R.P.No.197/2009 3 his report that those three admissions were not reckoned for the staff pattern of the school and no additional post was sanctioned by reckoning those three admissions. Learned Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge considered all the materials and found that the alleged act of respondent No.2 did not cause any loss to the school or trust. In these circumstances I do not find reason or circumstance to interfere with the order under challenge. Revision petition fails. It is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks