IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2009 / 16TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2031 of 2009() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05/05/2009 IN CC.836/2003 IN CRMP.7161/2008 of CHIEF JUDL.MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER: PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN Crl.M.P./ ACCUSED No.2 IN C.C.836/03 ------------------------------------- SABU THOMAS, S/O.LATE THOMAS THOMAS, FLAT NO.402, SNEHAL AADHARSH, DUGTHALAYAM ROAD, BOMBAY. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH SRI.PAUL C THOMAS RESPONDENT: COUNTER PETITIONER IN CRL.M.P./ COMPLAINANT IN C.C.836/03 --------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. ( REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR :SHRI.C.S.HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 2031 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 07th day of July 2009 ORDER Petitioner is accused No.2 in C.C.No.836 of 2003 of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. Police filed chargesheet against six accused persons including petitioner for offences punishable under Sec.120(b) and 420 r/w Sec.34 of the Penal Code on the allegation that accused persons who had not obtained authority from Government of India made advertisement in the Malayala Manorama inviting candidates for recruitment for employment abroad, conducted interview of the candidates on 15- 12-1998, collected money, passport and other documents from the candidates who attended the interview and cheated them without providing the job assured. It is also the allegation of the prosecution that for the purpose of cheating, accused entered into a criminal conspiracy. Petitioner and three others were arrested from the venue of interview. Petitioner at the relevant time, it is contended, was working as paid employee of accused No.5 who Crl.R.P.No.2031 of 2009 2 was running a travel agency with its head office at Bombay and branches at other places. Accused no.6 is the owner of M/s. South Asia Travel Agency. Petitioner filed criminal M.P.No.7161 of 2008 in the court below requesting that he be discharged as the charge against him is groundless. Contention raised by the petitioner was rejected and the petition was dismissed vide the impugned order. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that even as per the final report submitted by police, it was accused no.6 who had received money from the candidates even prior to the holding of interview on 15-12-1998. Learned counsel invited my attention to the statement of one of witnesses incorporated in Annexure-A3 where she stated that accused No.6, owner of M/s.South Asia Travel Agency cheated her. Learned counsel states that petitioner as a paid employee of accused No.5 only conducted the interview as directed and is not a party to the alleged conspiracy or cheating. Learned public prosecutor contended that there is sufficient material on record to show that petitioner is a party to the conspiracy and cheating. Crl.R.P.No.2031 of 2009 3 2. At this stage, what is required to be considered is only whether charge against the petitioner can be said to be groundless. If there is sufficient ground to proceed in the matter, request to discharge the petition has to fail. According to the prosecution there was criminal conspiracy between petitioner and other accused persons as per which without obtaining authority from Government of India, advertisement for recruitment for overseas employment was made and accordingly, interview of job seekers was conducted and from them, money, passport and other documents were collected. Job as assured was not given nor could those who conducted the interview provide such job. So far as the charge of criminal conspiracy is concerned, that can be proved by various circumstances of the case. It may not always be possible to bring out direct evidence of criminal conspiracy. In this case the materials produced by the prosecution would show that advertisement was made for conducting the interview by person who had no authority to recruit candidates for employment abroad. CWs.51 to 53 are police officials who had been to the venue of Crl.R.P.No.2031 of 2009 4 interview on 15-12-1998 and the materials on record show that petitioner was a member of the team which conducted the interview. Memo of evidence produced by the prosecution states in pages 24 to 35 details of witnesses who are to depose that petitioner also was one among team of persons who conducted the interview. Statement of witnesses is to the effect that they had entrusted their passports, money and other documents to accused No.6. Question whether petitioner had any criminal intention while conducting the interview with other accused or not is a matter to be decided at this stage. Based on the defence set up by the petitioner that he was only a paid employee of accused No.5 and acted only as per his direction, petitioner cannot plead for a discharge. Question of considering the plea raised by the petitioner arises only in the trial. On going through the materials it is not possible to say that charge against the petitioner is groundless. Materials on record make out sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioner. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is justified in rejecting the prayer of petitioner . There is no reason Crl.R.P.No.2031 of 2009 5 to interfere. Learned counsel requested that expeditious trial of the case may be ordered. No such direction can be issued without learning the volume of work of that court. But I make it clear that it will be open to the petitioner to make a request in that line before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and if made, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate may consider the request after taking into account the volume of work of the court and the steps, if any to be completed in the case. Revision petition is dismissed. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/