IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY THURSDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2011 / 13TH SRAVANA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1861 of 2006() ------------------------------- CC.41/2000 of ENQUIRY COMMR. & SPL. COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): 3RD PARTY: ---------------------------------- SRI.K.VIJAYAN, EMPLOYMENT OFFICER, TOWN EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, CHERTHALA. BY SRI.M.K.DAMODARAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV. SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, ALAPPUZHA. * ADDL. R2 IMPLEADED 2. DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. * ADDL. R2 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 25/07/2006 IN CRL. M.A. 3810/2006. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. B. VINOD THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs CRMC NO.1861/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE I:COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 18/08/2001 IN C.C. NOS. 6/2000 TO 11/2000, 18/2000 TO 20/2000, 24/2000 TO 29/2000 AND C.C. NO.41/2000 TO 50/2000. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs B.P. RAY, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl. M.C No. 1861 OF 2006 ------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF AUGUST, 2011 O R D E R Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Petitioner was aggrieved by the observations made by the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in a common judgment dated 18-08-2001 in C.C Nos.6/2000 to 11/2000, 18/2000 to 20/2000, 24/2000 to 29/2000 and 41/2000 to 50/2000. The above cases were registered under Section 13(2) read with Section 13 (1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 471 and 409 of the I.P.C. 3. This Crl.M.C is filed to expunge the adverse remarks made in paragraph 121 of the judgment, which reads as follows: “It was also mentioned that PW 31, while entering the particulars of the payments in the main Cash Book-Ext.P36 also did not take care to see that among them 64 vouchers were not signed by the Employment officer. One voucher (Ext.P54) was not even signed by the candidate. He also cannot plead ignorance of the fact that all those vouchers were filled up by the same officer, the accused, whose handwriting was identified by him when he was examined in Court. Still it did not occur to him that there was foul play in it. It would show that he too was a party to or had at least abetted the misappropriation of pubic Crl. M.C No.1861/2006 -2- money. His contention that he was concerned only with the total amount disbursed on that day cannot be countenanced for a moment. Hence action has to be taken against PW 31 also” 4. It is contended by the petitioner that the above observations and findings were entered into without giving a notice or giving an opportunity to the affected party to defend or explain herself. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor fairly submits that no notice was issued to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a decision in In the matter of : 'K' a Judicial officer reported in AIR 2001 SC 972. The relevant portion of the judgment is quoted herein. “...the fact remains that the observations were made by High Court without affording the Metropolitan Magistrate an opportunity of explaining or defending herself....” Since no notice was given to the petitioner, the observations made in the judgment are unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of the case and the same are expunged. Crl. M.C is disposed of as above. Sd/- B.P. RAY, JUDGE. AMG True copy P.A to Judge