M K PARAMESWARAN Vs. N R SUBRAMANIAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was the second respondent in WP (C) No. 31757 of 2006, a petition filed by the Managing Director of public sector enterprise, challenging the First Information Report filed by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Palakkad before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode on 25/02/2003. The allegation against him was that while working as the Managing Director of the Malabar Cements Limited during 1999 he along with two other accused persons had caused loss to the State exchequer an amount of Rs.4,52,598/- and made corresponding gain and thereby committed criminal breach of trust. Vigilance Case No. 2 of 2003 had been registered by the Vigilance And Anti corruption Bureau, Palakkad after a preliminary investigation, which led to the filing of Ext. P1 FIR.

(2.) Taking notice of the statement and report filed by the Government Pleader, the learned Single Judge came to a finding that the preliminary enquiry had been conducted by the second respondent Sri. M. K. Parameswaran, Inspector of Police, VACB, Palakkad (the appellant herein), with ulterior motive to rope the petitioner along with the other accused. It had also been noticed by the learned Judge that although he had been transferred from the Vigilance and Anti corruption Bureau, Palakkad, he had not handed over the files relating to the vigilance enquiry to his successor nor had submitted the enquiry report to his superior officer. The Court thereupon entered a finding that the second respondent kept the files in his custody and continued the enquiry and submitted report. The above conduct of the second respondent, in the opinion of the Judge, appeared to be suspicious. Ultimately, the Court recorded in the judgment that 'the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner was with mala fide intention and with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance on the petitioner. It was well settled that the Court may be authorised to interfere with an investigation, if mala fides are found coupled with factual details'. With these findings, the Judge had quashed the First Information Report as against the petitioner.

(3.) An appeal had been filed by the second respondent as WA No. 1273 of 2006. This was complaining about the adverse remarks as recorded in the judgment. It had been highlighted that this was even without issuing notice to him or hearing in the matter. We were of the view, however, that a Review Petition would have been a more appropriate remedy and with liberty so granted the appeal was closed.