THOMAS Vs. PULIKKAL V STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two applications under S. 407 of the Cr. P.C. for transfer of two criminal cases - C.C. 19 of 1983 and C.C. 4 of 1984, now pending before the Special Court (Mark List Cases), to any other competent court. The prayer was seriously opposed by the Director of Public Prosecution. Petitioners are the first accused in the respective cases and they are brothers. Second accused in both the cases is common and he is the father of the first accused in both the cases. There was another case before the same court - C.C. 11 of 1983 - in which also second accused was the same person and first accused was another son of his. All these cases are for offences punishable under Ss. 120B, 467, 468, 471 and 201 read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code in relation to tampering of mark lists and securing admission in professional colleges. It is said that there are ten other cases also of the same nature in which second accused and other members of his family are involved.

(2.) C.C. 11 of 1983 has been disposed of by the Magistrate convicting and sentencing both the accused. A series of petition for transfer of the cases followed the judgment. All of them, just like these two petitions, are based on (1) encomiums given in the judgments to a witness, P.W. 10, who is common to other cases also and (2) certain language used in the judgment against the second accused who is also common in all the cases. P.W. 10 was described in the judgment as a 'Shining Star', a man of truth and a man who could not be persuaded by the police or whoever may be, to swerve from the path of truth. It was also stated that he has come to give evidence after admonition given by the church and there is no reason to disbelieve him. In the sentencing portion of the judgment the second accused was referred to as a very high and influential person who can move both the heaven and the earth and as an unmitigated villain who had abused the prowess provided by money, fame and status in order to prowl for a predegree certificate. It was also stated referring to both the accused: -

(3.) Both the petitions alleged that P.W. 10 appears as witness in these two cases also and the evidence to be given by him is also identical. Hence they fear that acceptance of his evidence has become a foregone conclusion and the trial will be only an empty formality. So also they have stated in the petitions that the opinion entertained by the Magistrate against the second accused is sure to be reflected in the decisions in these cases also.