GEORGE SEBASTAIN Vs. ANOOP GEORG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the complainant in Crl.M.P.No.264/13 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam. The above complaint was filed under Sec.190 read with Sec.200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The allegations in the complaint are as follows:

(2.) The accused 1 and 2 are brothers and they are neighbours also and persons well-known to the complainant since the last so many years. The accused Nos.3 and 4 are Revenue Officers and 5 and 6 are the Headmaster of a Higher Secondary School and the Assistant Director of Agriculture, respectively. The 7th accused is an Advocate as well as a Notary Public. The allegations in the complaint are as follows: The date of birth of the 1st accused was 10.4.1983, as per Document No.3, the certificate of Baptism. In the records of the Kottayam Municipality also the date of birth is mentioned as 10.4.1983. The 1st accused who had been in Italy has returned to the native place recently. Thereafter, with the help of the second accused brother, he started to obtain documents for changing his date of birth as 10.4.1984. The brothers have prepared 3 affidavits of their mother Marykutty to the effect that the date of birth of the 1st accused was 10.4.1984. The photocopies of those documents are marked as documents Nos.5 to 7. The act allegedly punishable under law committed by the accused Nos.5 to 7 is that they have attested those affidavits without verifying the identity of the person, who swore before them. In fact, the mother Marykutty was in England for the last 6 months with her another son. The allegation against the accused Nos.3 and 4 is that without conducting proper enquiry in respect of the date of birth of the first accused, the Village Officer has filed a report before the 3rd respondent stating that the date of birth of the first accused is 10.4.1984 and thus the R.D.O. has passed an order giving permission under Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, for registering the date of birth of the first accused as 10.4.1984 on the basis of the application filed by the mother of the first accused. In short, the allegation against them is that they have not conducted any proper enquiry as provided under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act. The allegation against the accused Nos.5 to 7 was that they attested a forged affidavit only to help the accused Nos.1 and 2. The accused Nos.3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 being the public servants abused their official position and by corrupt and illegal means obtained pecuniary advantage from the accused Nos.1 and 2 and all the accused, with a common intention entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit fraud and committed forgery and cheating. By the above act, they have committed the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 465, 468, 471 r/w Sec.34 IPC and Sec.13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. According to the complainant, only a proper investigation and enquiry could reveal the magnitude of forgery and corruption.

(3.) After considering the averments in the complaint, the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge found that the averments in the complaint do not disclose the offences alleged against the accused, particularly no offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act had been made out even if the allegations in the complaint are accepted at its entirety and thereby dismissed the complaint with cost of L 25,000/-. This order is under challenge in this Revision Petition on various grounds.