IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2011 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 2451 of 2009() ------------------------------- CC.259/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, ETTUMANUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ------------------------------- C.VIJAYAN NAIR, S/O. GOVINDAN KUTTY NAIR 'AISWARYA' INDIRA NAGAR, KADANVANTHRA KOCHI-20 BY SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV. S. MANU RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. B.RAMACHANDRAN, CONTROLLER OF RUBBER PURCHASE, CEAT LTD., CHITTOOR ROAD, KOCHI. (HOUSE NO.III-F, ROYAL HERITAGE APARTMENTS T TRIPOONITHURA ERNAKULAM DIST.) * ADDL. R3 IMPLEADED 3. CEAT LIMITED REPRESENTED BY SRI. ROOPESH, HEAD R.P.D. RUBBER PURCHASE DIVISION, CHITTOOR ROAD, KOCHI - 682 011. * ADDL. R3 IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 10/10/2011 IN CRL.MA.6338/2011 IN CRMC-2451/2009. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN R2 BY ADVS. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH R3 BY SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADVS.SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN SRI.UNNI SEBASTIAN KAPPEN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs CRMC. NO. 2451/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE I:COPY OF THE F.I.R AND F.I.S IN CRIME NO.562/2008 OF ETTUMANOOR POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE II:COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED BY THE ETTUMANOOR POLICE. ANNEXURE III:COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 01/08/2008 FROM THE VICE- PRESIDENT, HUMAN RESOURCES CEAT LIMITED. ANNEXURE IV:COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING DATED 07/06/2011. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.2451 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 31st day of October 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.259/2009 of J.F.C.M., Ettumanoor (in Crime No.562/2008 of Ettumanoor Police Station). The offences alleged against him are under Secs.408 and 468 IPC. Petitioner was the Assistant Manager (Materials) of CEAT Ltd., a company engaged in manufacture of automotive tyres and tubes. He was in charge of 'Gemjo Godown' maintained by that company. On physical verification of the stock in July 2008, a shortage of 10750 kgs. of rubber was found out. It was alleged that the petitioner was responsible for the loss or shortage. Complaint was filed against him by the 2nd respondent in this case, who was then the Controller of Rubber Purchase of the company. After conducting investigation, charge sheet was laid against the petitioner for the offences as Crl.M.C. No.2451 of 2009 -: 2 :- mentioned above. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequently the company realised that the petitioner alone cannot be mulcted with the liability. It was also pointed out that this petitioner had to be on tour in connection with the company affairs and during that time others were in charge of the business of the company; especially with regard to the stock of rubber. It is also submitted that R2 who lodged the complaint had left the service and is now not available to give evidence. The further submission is that as the company realised that the petitioner alone may not be responsible, the entire matter was discussed and the petitioner was allowed to be relieved from the company. He was given the retirement benefits also. Therefore, it is quite evident that the company later found that the petitioner cannot be further proceeded with in this case. 3. The company, who is the 3rd respondent represented in this Court by its counsel also submits that in Crl.M.C. No.2451 of 2009 -: 3 :- view of the subsequent developments the company itself thought it fit not to proceed further in this matter. The very fact that all the retirement benefits were given to the petitioner, that too after the registration of the FIR, would suggest that the company subsequently realised that prosecuting the petitioner may not be in the interest of justice. Hence, accepting the submission made by both sides, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Further proceeding in C.C.No.259/2009 of J.F.C.M., Ettumanoor is quashed. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt