IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2011 / 5TH MAGHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 144 of 2011 -------------------------------- [CRIME NO.353/2010 OF THE KALPAKANCHERRY POLICE STATION] ................ PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------------------- RAJESH T.J,S/O.K.JANARDHANAN, KADENGAL HOUSE, KURUMBATHOOR, THIRUNAVAYA, TIRUR TALUK,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY SRI. K. RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KALPAKANCHERI POLICE STATION, P.O KALPAKANCHERRY -676 551, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.144 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 25th day of January, 2011 ORDER Petitioner is accused in Crime No.353 of 2010 of Kalpakancherry Police Station for offences punishable under Secs.409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the Code”). Prosecution case is that on September 15, 2010 the Head Mistress of Cherulal High School, Kurumbathoor, Malappuram district entrusted with the petitioner responsibility of taking delivery of 132 bags of rice from the Civil Supplies Corporation depot to the said School to provide free meal to the students. Petitioner took delivery of the said 132 bags of rice but allegedly disposed of 62 bags of rice out of the said 132 bags and thereby committed offences as stated above. Case was registered on a complaint preferred by the Head Mistress. 2. It is contended in this petition that the relevant records would show that there was no shortage in the rice taken delivery and that at any rate no offence as alleged is made out. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioner has referred me to Annexures-C and E in particular, to contend that there was no shortage of the rice. Learned Public Prosecutor contended Crl.M.C.No.144 of 2011 -: 2 :- that petitioner had given an undertaking in writing to the Head Mistress stating that the shortage in rice would be recouped by supplying so much rice of bags which was allegedly disposed of. 3. Annexure-C is the copy of a letter issued by the Noon Feeding Supervisor, Office of the Deputy Director of Education, Malappuram to the Director of General Education, Thiruvanathapuram where, after an inspection on October 18, 2010 quantity of rice which should be seen as per the stock register is shown as 84.8 kg and the quantity found on inspection (as on October 18, 2010) is stated to be 200kg. It is also pointed out by learned Senior Advocate from Annexure-C that the Head Mistress had admitted that on September 15, 2010 petitioner had delivered 132 bags of rice in the school but inspection on September 27, 2010 there was found to be a deficit of 60 bags of rice. In Annexure-E, quantity of rice received during the month of September, 2010 is stated as 6600kg while the quantity utilised is 1540Kg and balance in stock register is stated to be 5060 Kg. 4. Case is now in the stage of investigation. Question whether, as complained by the Head Mistress there was shortage of 60 bags of rice, if so it was due to the same being disposed of Crl.M.C.No.144 of 2011 -: 3 :- by the petitioner and assuming so, whether any offence is made out is a matter which the investigating officer has to look into at this stage. Nor could at this stage be concluded having regard to the requirements of the offences attributed to the petitioner, that no offence is made out. At this stage I do not think it necessary, just or proper to interfere with the investigation and say that no offence as alleged is committed or made out. It is the responsibility of the investigating officer to look into all aspects of the matter and ascertain whether any offence as alleged is committed or made out. 5. Learned Senior Advocate submitted that petitioner may be permitted to plead discharge in case any final report is submitted against him before the court concerned. I make it clear that it is open to the petitioner to raise all appropriate pleas and defences available to him at the appropriate stage in the appropriate court in case any final report is preferred against him. With the above observation this criminal miscellaneous case is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-