IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP.No. 31279 of 2002(W)
1. SAMJI DAVID, MUNICIPAL SECRETARY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. P.K.KRISHNAKUMAR, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.HARILAL
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :09/04/2008
O R D E R
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
=========================
OP.No.31279 of 2002-W.
=========================
Dated this the 9th day of April, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is challenging the vires of Kerala Local Fund
Audit Act, 1994. He was working as the Secretary of the
Kayamkulam Municipality. The 2nd respondent initiated
prosecution against him on the ground that he was violated the
provisions of Section 9 of the said Act. The substance of the
allegation is that as on 31.7.2000 while the petitioner was the
Secretary, he failed to submit accounts for audit for the year 1999-
2000 before 31.7.2000 and thereby committed offence punishable
under Sec.9(2) of the Act. Ext.P1 is the complaint and Ext.P2 is the
summons issued by the criminal court. According to the petitioner
he was transferred from Attingal Municipality to Kayamkulam
only by Ext.P3 order dated 13.10.2000 and he took charge in
OP.No.31279 of 2002-W. -: 2 :-
Kayamkulam Municipality only on 30.10.2000. This is evidenced
by Ext.P4. He was also raised a contention that no notice under
Sec.9(3) of the Act was served on him.
2) The constitutional validity of the said Act even though
was challenged in various writ petitions, this Court by judgment in
OP.No.29280/2000 and other connected cases has upheld the
constitutional validity. I am in perfect agreement with the findings
rendered by the learned Single Judge in the above judgment. The
next aspect is whether the prosecution launched can be sustained.
The learned Single Judge in the judgment in the batch of cases has
further directed that reasoned orders are necessary in terms of
Sec.9(3) of the Act. Therefore the competent authority shall
consider the objection raised by the petitioner and hear him, as to
whether he is satisfied whether a criminal prosecution should be
launched. Till orders are passed in the said issue the criminal
prosecution longed against the petitioner will be kept in abeyance.
The Director or the Deputy Director, who is the competent
OP.No.31279 of 2002-W. -: 3 :-
authority, has to issue notice to the petitioner calling for his
objections in the matter and he should pass a reasoned order after
hearing the petitioner. The criminal prosecution will continue only
if the concerned Deputy Director takes a decision to the effect that
such prosecution is necessary in the facts of the case and after
orders are passed as directed above.
The writ petition is allowed as above.
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.
kvs/-