M.P. PADMANABHAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the second application seeking anticipatory bail. The petitioner Sri. M.P.Padmanabhan, was the Secretary of Pariyaram Sree Subramanya Swami Temple, Kakkarakavu Temple Punarnirmana Samrakshana Samiti. The allegation was that he had constituted the said Samiti without the permission of the Malabar Devaswom Board. Several complaints had been received against the Samiti and more particularly against Sri. Padmanabhan alleging several financial irregularities in the conduct of the said Samiti. A preliminary investigation was conducted in the matter by the Assistant Commissioner, Kasaragod Division. The Assistant Commissioner, Kasaragod Division reported after the preliminary inspection that the Secretary, Sri. M.P.Padmanabhan did not produce the accounts before it, which he was called upon to produce. Accordingly, on 7.3.2017 civil and criminal actions have been proposed against him. Accordingly a complaint was filed on 23.3.2017 against him. As per the oral direction of the police, who received the complaint, an audit was directed to be conducted into the accounts of the Samiti. It was reported after the conduct of the audit that several mal practices were involved and the amounts were not maintained properly. Accordingly appropriate action against the petitioner was proposed.

(2.) The learned counsel has also pointed out that in order dated 25.1.2018 rejecting anticipatory bail, this Court has made a mention that the accounts pertaining to the period after 2008 has not been furnished. It is contended by the counsel that the accounts pertaining to the period after 2008 were actually incorporated with the bail application and due to oversight, the learned counsel then representing the petitioner failed to apprise the said factum to the court. According to him, accounts pertaining to the period 2008 being there in the case file itself, a reconsideration of the same is warranted and therefore this application is filed for the second time seeking the relief.

(3.) The learned counsel has also taken up a contention that the offence under Section 420 of IPC would not even prima facie be attracted on the basis of the allegations in the complaint. According to him, the Kakkarakavu Temple Punarnirmana Samrakshana Samiti is one registered under the Charitable Societies Act and the Samiti was transacting in a proper and legal manner. According to him for an offence under Section 420 IPC to be attracted, the allegation that he was cheated must come from a definite and an identifiable person. According to him no such person is available in the case on hand and therefore the offence of cheating alleged against the petitioner would not sustain. It is also contended by the counsel that the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the investigation and he would always make himself available as and when directed by the investigating agency. The custodial interrogation, according to the learned counsel, has no role to play in the nature of the investigation proposed to be conducted in the case on hand. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the allegations levelled by the complainants against the petitioner are false ones and are intended only to harass him due to their grudge and ill motive against him for being the secretary of the Samithi against their wish. Raising the contentions as above, the learned counsel canvanced for enlarging the petitioner on pre arrest bail.