IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2008 / 9TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 693 of 2008() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27/02/2008 IN CRMP 867/07 IN CC.6/2002 of ENQUIRY COMMR. & SPL. JUDGE, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ------------------ SATHYANESAN, SATHYA BHAVAN, VAZHAYILA CHRIST NAGAR PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: ---------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.N.SUKUMARAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J. ====================================== CRL.R.P. NO. 693 OF 2008 ====================================== Dated this the 30th day of June 2008 ORDER Petitioner, who is the second accused in C.C.6/2002 on the file of the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner (Special Judge), Thiruvananthapuram, challenges the order dated 27.2.2008 passed by the special judge, discharging A3 of the offence alleged against him, but rejecting the petition filed by the revision petitioner/A2 for discharge. 2. The case of the prosecution is as follows: That A1, while working as Valuation Assistant in the office of the Special Tahsildar, Additional Land Acquisition Unit, Thiruvananthapuram, A2, while working as Village Assistant, A3 as Revenue Inspector and A4 as Special Tahsildar in the said office, during 1992, entered into criminal conspiracy with A5 who is father in law of A1, on or before April 1992 and in pursuance of the said conspiracy, A2 prepared a false mahazar in respect of 26.40 Are of land in sy.337/3-5 of Kazhakuttom-Menamkulam Village which was proposed for acquisition to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, to the effect that A5 was residing as Kudikidappukaran in a hut within the said property for a long time and that A3 and A4 verified the details of the mahazar and certified as correct and thereby obtained a sum of Rs.22,308/- as compensation to A5 by CRRP 693/2008 2 illegal means, whereas A5 had never resided in the land nor held possession of the respective holdings. And that A1 to A4 by their acts of awarding illegal compensation to A5 made him eligible to get the status of Project Affected Persons in connection with the acquisition of land for Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and included in the list of Project Affected person to get preference in employment in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. And that A7, while working as Deputy Manager, LPG Bottling Plant, Kazhakuttom during 1992, entered into a conspiracy with A1 and in pursuance of the said conspiracy A7 recommended the name of A6, son of A1 and grandson of A5 who was not actually evacuated for the project of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited as Project Affected Person and thereby enabled A6 to obtain employment in the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited in the category of Project Affected Persons, by illegal means." 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner made the following submissions before me in support of the revision:- The petitioner (A2), who was the Village Assistant, has not reported that A5 was a Kudikidappukaran residing in the property. There is no allegation against A2 in the private complaint filed by Varkey Panhikkaran @ Vakkachan. The CRRP 693/2008 3 petitioner has been implicated only at the stage of the final report. The charge against the petitioner is that he, abusing his official position, prepared a false mahazar, thereby enabling A5 to obtain a sum of Rs.22,308/- as compensation. But the award passed by the Tahsildar will show that it was passed not on the basis of the mahazar prepared by the petitioner, but on the basis of a compromise between the owners of the land and A5. Hence, there is no prima facie case made out against the revision petitioner/second accused. A3 and A4 have been discharged. The petitioner relies on the decision of this Court in Alexander v State of Kerala - 2006(2) KLT 246. 4. I cannot agree with the above submissions. It was the mahazar prepared by the petitioner as Village Assistant which enabled A6, who is the grandson of A5, to obtain the status of a Project Affected Person and secure employment in the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. The prosecution has produced materials to show that A5 never resided in the property in question but on the contrary, A5 was residing elsewhere. If so, the mahazar prepared by the petitioner to the effect that A5 is CRRP 693/2008 4 residing in a portion of the property was opposed to the true facts. The matter has been considered at length by the learned special judge who had the advantage of scanning the entire prosecution records. It is true that the petitioner's complicity was revealed only during the investigation conducted by the Vigilance Department. It is also true that A3 and A4 have been discharged. But their discharge was mainly for the reason that they had no role in the preparation of the mahazar and their lapses were only supervisory lapses. It is pertinent to note that the real owners of the land have stated that they had given signed papers to a relative of theirs, who was acting as the caretaker and the latter had dishonestly converted the same into a compromise petition between A5 and the real owners, thereby enabling A6 to secure employment in the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. 5. It is too early to hold that there is no incriminating material, at all against the petitioner. What is necessary at the stage of framing charge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. is the existence of a prima facie case and not the existence of a case for conviction. I, therefore, do not find any good ground to CRRP 693/2008 5 interfere with the order passed by the court below. This revision is, accordingly, dismissed. It is made clear that the observations in the impugned order as well as in this order shall not influence the trial court while trying the case and a conviction can be entered against the accused only if there is legal evidence in support of the same. Dated this the 30th day of June, 2008 V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE css/