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

99
0
Share:
Allegations absence Divorced Family Assert Bail File Limitations Knowledge Licensees father DNA Affidavit Evidence Bail 258 Airport Evidence Bail Property Properties Bail Power Land DNA Land CAT Labour Issuance medical drt Application Jurisdiction Public land Bail 138 GST Intelligence Disciplinary SBI bail Family evidence driving Trusteeship 148 Criminal Sexual Assault Case Murder Divorce Woman Pay Scale bail Publication Teachers investigation bail disciplinary Non-Bailable repayment education evidence Acquittal Bail bail

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

Download Judgment

Share: