JOHN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed under Sec. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code filed by the 2nd accused in crime 2526 of 2019 of Vizhinjam police station. The facts leading to the filing of the petition are as follow:

(2.) The subject matter of the said crime is sale deed, No.13/2007 of Venganoor Sub Registry, which was executed by the petitioner, the 2nd accused to the 1st accused. Going by the statement of facts given by the petitioner, the allegation is that he had impersonated the true owner of 1.66 Ares of land owned and possessed by John, aged 62 years, S/o. Vareeth, who is the 2nd witness in the complaint, comprised in R.sy. 462/5(1) in Block No.16 of Kottukal village and has forged the document styled as sale deed in favour of the first accused. The third accused is the witness to the forged sale deed. The allegations, going by Annexure-A2, are as follow: The names of the petitioner and the second witness are the same, their fathers name are also the same. Taking advantage of this similarity, accused Nos.1 and 3 made the petitioner to impersonate as the original owner of the property, John S/o.Vareeth and on that basis created sale deed No.13/2007 of Venganoor Sub Registry in respect of the property of the second witness, in favour of the first accused. Later, on the basis of the said sale deed, the 1st accused approached the revenue authorities and effected mutation in his name and started paying land tax for the property. The property, that is 1.66 Ares equal to 4 cents, belong to the second witness. However, the said sale deed was executed in respect of 1.90 Ares, that is 4.693 cents, in favour of the 1st accused and using the said document, the first accused instituted a suit against the defacto complainant, the adjacent property owner and obtained some reliefs from the civil court. But only on 30/5/2018, the 3rd respondent, the defacto complainant knew about the mischiefs committed by the accused persons and that was how he made a complaint before appropriate authorities and also before court, which was sent for registering the crime and its investigation is underway.

(3.) Meanwhile, the petitioner conveyed his intention to turn approver. Thus he approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who, after making necessary enquiries, granted him pardon and was made an approver. At the same time, by Annexure-A5 order dtd. 12/11/2021, the petitioner who was not on bail was ordered to be detained in custody in the District Jail, Thiruvananthapuram till the termination of the trial under Sec. 306(4)(b) of the Cr.P.C. In other words, from 12/11/2021 onwards the petitioner is in judicial custody, is under detention. Even though he was not on bail, he is now under detention and therefore his detention till the termination of the proceedings is illegal and unauthorised and therefore he seeks to quash Annexure-A5 order.