T.S. RAJAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In view of the commonness of the issues involved in these revision petitions, they are taken up for joint consideration and disposal. The petitioner in Crl.R.P. No. 137 of 2015 is the first accused in C.C. No. 562 of 2005 on the files of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioners in Crl.R.P. Nos. 264 & 265 of 2015 are respectively the first accused in C.C. No. 563 of 2005 and second accused in C.C. No. 561 of 2005 on the files of the same court. They moved Crl.M.P. Nos. 8867/2013, 8870/2013 and 8866/2013 in those calender cases seeking their discharge. Those petitions were dismissed by orders dated 28.2.2014. The captioned revision petitions are filed challenging the order of dismissal passed in their respective petition for discharge. A bare perusal of the impugned orders would reveal that certain observations of this Court made in the orders in certain criminal miscellaneous petitions moved by some of the accused in the aforesaid calender cases, including the petitioners in Crl.R.P. Nos. 137 and 264 of 2015, weighed with the court below in passing the said orders.

(2.) The petitioners are employees of the Aunducode Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank. They applied for salary certificates for the purpose of availing housing loans from Canfin Homes. Subsequently, salary certificates were issued to them for that purpose. A third party made a complaint of fabrication of false salary certificates alleging that in place of the actual salary drawn by each of the accused persons higher amounts were shown in their respective salary certificates and pursuant to the same separate crimes were registered against them and that ultimately led to the registration of the aforementioned calender cases. In all those cases, the revision petitioners are charged for commission of offences u/s. 120(b), 197, 198, 420, 468, 471 r/w 34 IPC. The petitioners in Crl.R.P. Nos. 137 & 264 of 2015 had earlier approached this Court by filing Crl.M.C. Nos. 2318 & 2364 of 2006 respectively under section 482 Cr.P.C taking up the plea that the final reports filed in the concerned crimes registered against them lack ingredients to attract the offences alleged against them. Evidently, the said Crl.M.Cs were dismissed by this Court by separate orders, produced as Annexure-A1 in Crl.R.P. Nos. 137 and 264 of 2015 without prejudice to the right of the said petitioners to argue for discharge under section 239, Cr.P.C. True that a perusal of Annexure- A1 in the aforesaid revision petitions would also reveal that at that point of time, this Court had declined to accept the arguments advanced by the petitioners and the learned Judge who considered the said Crl.M.Cs while dismissing them observed thus:--

(3.) A close scrutiny of Annexure-A1 would reveal that the learned Judge further went on to observe thus:--