BIJU GOPALAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petitioners who were arrayed as additional accused 4 and 5 as per the impugned order dated 28/01/2009 passed by invoking S.319 CrPC by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muttom, Thodupuzha, assail the said order.

(2.) The revision petitioners are the licensees in respect of toddy shop Nos. 16, 17, 43 and 45 of Muvattupuzha Excise Range. The 1st accused was the competent authority to assess the contribution. The assessment which is conducted in two stages was completed on 30/04/2005, which was the date of retirement of the 1st accused. The revision petitioners were facing revenue recovery proceedings for the advance contribution to the Welfare Fund and the interest due thereon. The revision petitioners preferred a writ petition as WP (C) No. 34498/2006 before this Court, contending that the proceedings have already been completed and assessments were completed and the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner demanding amounts more than what is to be paid as per the final assessment were illegal. The said writ petition is still pending before this Court. While so, the Welfare Fund Board initiated prosecution against 1st accused and revision petitioners alleging that the assessment order produced before this Court were actually fabricated and forged and that the said accused persons have committed offences punishable under S.466 read with S.120(B) IPC. The said case was registered as Crime No. 76/2006 of Thodupuzha Police Station. In the above crime final report was filed after deleting the names of revision petitioners and incorporating the names of accused 2 and 3. During the trial of the said case, registered as CC No. 384/2006 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thodupuzha, charge witness No. 3 was examined as PW 1. Immediately after the chief examination of PW 1, the Public Prosecutor in charge of the case filed CMP No. 7740/2008 seeking to implead the revision petitioners as additional accused 4 and 5. As per the impugned order dated 28/01/2009 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed the said application and the revision petitioners were ordered to be impleaded as additional accused 4 and 5. It is the said order, which is assailed in this revision petition.

(3.) The impugned order suffers mainly from the following two deficiencies: