Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

Serious Investigation Irregularities Don't Affect Trial Competence Unless Causing Miscarriage of Justice: Kerala High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Kerala High Court has dismissed the Criminal Revision Petitions filed by the accused in the Azheekkal Port dredging contract case, thereby upholding the trial court's dismissal of their discharge applications. The judgment was delivered by the Honorable Mr. Justice K. Babu, who observed, "A defect or irregularity in investigation, however serious, would have no direct bearing on the competence or procedure relating to cognizance or trial unless a miscarriage of justice has been caused thereby."

The case, CRL.REV.PET NO. 691 OF 2021 and CRL.REV.PET NO. 65 OF 2022, involved allegations of criminal conspiracy and corruption under Sections 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 120-B of the IPC. The accused were implicated in a scheme that reportedly resulted in a loss of Rs.3,20,000/- to the public exchequer through irregularities in granting permits for the disposal of dredged materials from Azheekkal Port.

One of the critical aspects of the case was the competence of the Investigating Officer. The court noted, “The major part of the investigation was done by the Inspector of Police, VACB, Kannur...as per Notification No.12094/C1/88/Vig dated 02.03.1993, the Government of Kerala authorized police officers not below the rank of an Inspector of Police to investigate any offence punishable under the said Act.” This notification was upheld by the court, thus validating the investigation conducted.

The court meticulously analyzed the evidence and allegations, emphasizing the standard for discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. The court's observation, “The primary consideration at the stage of framing charge is the test of the existence of a prima facie case,” highlighted the necessity to proceed to trial based on the materials presented.

In its conclusion, the court found that the charges against the accused were not groundless and required a full trial for further examination. The dismissal of the Criminal Revision Petitions signifies a crucial step in the judicial process, ensuring that the allegations of corruption and conspiracy in the Azheekkal Port case will be thoroughly scrutinized during the trial.

Date of Decision: 17 January 2024

P.P. FAROOQUE VS Deputy Superintendent of Police

Latest Legal News