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. 1853 of 2006() ------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18/10/2001 IN CC.NO.55/00 TO CC NO. 62/00 OF ENQUIRY COMMR. & SPL. JUDGE, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): 3RD PARTY ------------------------------------------ C.MANIYAMMA, SUB REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT OFFICER (RETD.), KOTTAPPALLIL HOUSE, PUNNAPRA.P.O, ALAPPUZHA. BY SRI.M.K.DAMODARAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADV. SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN SMT.RESMI G. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, ALAPPUZHA. 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: sts CRMC.NO.1853/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEX I COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 18/10/2001 IN CC NO.55/2000 TO CC NO.62/2000. ANNEX II COPY OF THE ORDER NO.L2/6367/93 DATED 20/9/1999 ANNEX III COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(RT)NO.143/2000/VIG DATED 19/6/2000. ANNEX IV COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES AND THE STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS DATED 25/3/2002. ANNEX V COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(RT)NO.2350/04/LABOUR DATED 01/9/2004. ANNEX VI COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(RT)NO.83/05/VIG DATED 7/3/2005. ANNEX VII COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT IN WP(C)NO.11296/95 DATED 5/11/2005. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts B.P. RAY, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl. M.C No. 1853 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 is aggrieved by the observations made by the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in a common judgment dated 18-10-2001 in C.C Nos.55/2000 to 62/2000. The case is that the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau had registered Crime No.VC 7/96/Alappuzha. Initially there were 6 accused in the case including the petitioner. However, in the investigation, it was found that one K. Vijayakumar, Former Employment officer, District Employment office, Alappuzha, the 1st respondent in CC 55/2000, CC 58/2000 to CC 62/2000 alone was involved in the crime. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that she was never an accused or a witness in the prosecution case. However, the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge rendered the judgment dated 18-10-2011 in CC Nos.55/2000 to CC 62/2000 and made certain adverse observations against the Petitioner in paragraph Crl. M.C No.1853/2006 -2- 109 of the Judgment. 4. This Crl.M.C is filed to expunge the adverse remarks made in paragraph 109 of the judgment, which reads as follows: “....The FIR was registered against PW 54, PW7, PW14, PW13, Mariyamma (the Junior Supdt.) and the accused. It was also stated that no action was taken against those five other persons (other than the accused). Similarly, no proper enquiry was conducted to see the complicity of PW2 Ramanan and the L.D Clerk Lekshmanan (PW4) whose signatures are seen in the vouchers indicating that the vouchers were verified by them. Without getting the expert opinion, their interested version was swallowed by the Investigating officer to give them a clean chit. That has enabled the accused also to raise a plea of defence that those vouchers were in fact verified and signed by PW2 and Lekshmanan mentioned above. The complicity of those persons also has to be found out. The public money cannot be allowed to be swindled by the officials working in a particular Department. It is seen that all those persons were hand in gloves with each other to embezzle the public money which was actually intended to be disbursed to unemployed persons as a solace to them. When that money was illegally snatched away by unscrupulous officials by forging vouchers it cannot be viewed light heartedly. Hence, stern action has to be taken by the Department concerned against all the aforesaid persons also.” 5. It is contended by the petitioner that the above observations and findings were entered into without giving a notice or giving opportunity to the affected party to defend or Crl. M.C No.1853/2006 -3- present her case. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor fairly submits that no notice was issued to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying 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