PREETHY V.M. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner herein stands arrayed as the first accused in Crime No.1137/2016 for offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 409 & 420 read with section 34 IPC and section 13(1)(c) & (d) read with section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. Originally the crime was registered by the police as Crime No.1137/2016 of Poovar police station against the petitioner herein and the second accused for offences under sections 120(B) , 409 & 420B read with section 34 IPC. Subsequently, the crime was re-registered by VACB, Thiruvananthapuram as Crime No.VC4/19/TVM.

(2.) According to the prosecution, the petitioner herein, while working as the Sub Registrar, got registered seven documents in collusion with the second accused causing substantial loss to the exchequer and corresponding gain to the second accused. Investigation is progressing. According to the prosecution, petitioner had caused a loss of Rs.2,62,59,060/- as registration fees to the Government and the deficit registration fee could not be recovered later.

(3.) According to the petitioner herein, she was a head clerk and was posted in the SRO, Poovar, in 2013. When the Sub Registrar, Poovar retired, she was given additional charge of Sub Registrar,Poovar from 1/5/2016 onwards. While so, on 13/6/2016, the second accused presented seven settlement deeds along with documents for registration. Since documents were found to be in order and executed by the second accused in favour of his children, documents were accepted by levying the maximum fee of Rs.25,000/- on each of such deed. On a careful verification, it was found that the documents covered by the settlement deeds stood in the name of a company, of which the second accused was the managing director. Hence, the transfer of such properties would not come within the purview of transfer among family members and hence, without effecting registration of the said deed, the second accused was instructed to remit the balance amounts towards the total fees. Since the second accused did not remit the amount, she impounded the said deeds and forwarded the same to the District Registrar for levying the stamp duty and fees. Contending that the petitioner has done her duty in accordance with law and that she has not caused any loss and further that the prosecution is not sustainable , she seeks to quash the proceedings.