V.P.SAKARIYA Vs. COCHIN PORT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMIT .

(2.) THE petitioner was working as Deputy Wharf Superintendent under the respondents 1 and 2 and while so, the third respondent registered Ext.P1, FIR dated 23.05.2010 against the petitioner and a few others for offences punishable under Secs.153A r/w Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec.12 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. Following Ext.P1, FIR, petitioner was placed under deemed suspension with effect from 23.05.2010 as per Ext.P2, order dated 23.06.2010. Later, by Ext.P3, order dated 09.09.2010 deemed suspension of the petitioner was revoked and he rejoined duty. The third respondent has submitted Ext.P4, final report in the crime case above stated charging the accused therein other than the petitioner for various offences. The petitioner states that by Ext.P4, he has been exonerated from the charges in Ext.P4 and hence is entitled to get monetary benefits during the time he was under deemed suspension.

(3.) SINCE according to the petitioner, there was no action on Ext.P6, representation he made another representation - Ext.P7 dated 26.04.2013. The respondents 1 and 2 have responded to that by Ext.P8, dated 25.04.2013. In Ext.P8, the respondents 1 and 2 refer to the representation of the petitioner and states that possibility of the learned Magistrate before whom Ext.P4, final report is preferred invoking Sec.173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if not satisfied with the final report of investigation cannot be ruled out, there is scope for further investigation and that the police authorities are also entitled to make further investigation on discovery of new facts. Hence Ext.P4, final report alone could not be taken as conclusive proof of exoneration of petitioner. Petitioner was directed to conform whether learned Magistrate before whom Ext.P4, final report was presented has accepted the same and whether learned Magistrate has proceeded further based on the said report.