M.A. MOHAMMED SAYYID Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Crl.M.C is filed by the petitioners who are the accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.79 of 2020 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod. They have been charged under Ss. 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. They seek to quash Annexure A II Final Report in Crime No.511 of 2018 of Vidyanagar Police Station, which is pending as C.C.No.79 of 2020 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod.

(2.) The brief facts that are relevant for consideration of this Crl.M.C are as follows:

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that not even a prima facie case has been made out against his clients and that the offences under which prosecution has been initiated against them are per se unsustainable. It is contended that, insofar as the statements recorded do not reveal that the petitioners have made any correction or alteration in the pledged documents produced before the PWD officials, the offences under Ss. 465 and 479 would not be attracted. It is submitted that producing a copy of the original document does not fall within the definition of the offences alleged in the crime and that, insofar as the Government has not sustained any loss, the petitioners have not cheated the Government in any manner. The petitioners had not produced the copies, passing them off as originals as alleged. They had produced the copy along with the originals, which after verification, were returned to them. Thus the allegations raised against the petitioners are not even prima facie sustainable, and the offences charged in Annexere AII Final report has not even been prima facie substantiated. The statements recorded are evasive, and even if the petitioners are made to face a trial based on the chargesheet, it would inevitably end up in their acquittal. So it is prayed that they who are reputed contractors with more than 30 years standing may not be made to suffer the ignominy of facing a trial, as there have never been any allegations or cases against them. Reliance is placed on the dictum laid down in Mohammed Ali K. v. Chinnamma K.M. (2024 KHC 7122) to substantiate the contentions put forth.