{"id":65897,"date":"2008-02-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-02-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-dinakaran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-february-2008"},"modified":"2017-09-16T03:20:43","modified_gmt":"2017-09-15T21:50:43","slug":"r-dinakaran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-february-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-dinakaran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-february-2008","title":{"rendered":"R.Dinakaran vs State Of Kerala on 22 February, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
R.Dinakaran vs State Of Kerala on 22 February, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl MC No. 2641 of 2003(A)\n\n\n1. R.DINAKARAN,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE DIRECTOR OF VIGILOANCE &\n\n3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.\n\n                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN\n\n Dated :22\/02\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                       V.K.MOHANAN, J.\n\n             ---------------------------------------------\n\n                  Crl.M.C.No. 2641  of  2003\n\n             ---------------------------------------------\n\n           Dated this the 22nd  day of  February, 2008\n\n\n                             O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
             The petitioner,  who is  the  accused in  C.C.No.6<\/p>\n
of   2006   pending   before   the   Court   of   the   Enquiry<\/p>\n
Commissioner   and   Special   Judge,   Thiruvananthapuram,<\/p>\n
approached this Court by filing this petition under Section<\/p>\n
482   of   the   Code   of   Criminal   Procedure   seeking   to   quash<\/p>\n
Annexure-A5   final   report   in   C.C.No.6   of   2006   which   is<\/p>\n
instituted   for   the   offences   punishable   under   Section   5(2)<\/p>\n
read with   Section  5(1)(e)   of the Prevention   of Corruption<\/p>\n
Act, 1947(hereinafter referred to for short as ‘the P.C.Act,<\/p>\n
1947’) and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the<\/p>\n
Prevention   of   Corruption   Act,   1988   (hereinafter   referred<\/p>\n
to for short as ‘the P.C.Act, 1988’).\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      2.     The allegation against the petitioner\/accused is<\/p>\n
that   the   petitioner,   who   was   working   as   the   Deputy<\/p>\n
Commissioner   of   Excise,   being   a   public   servant,   while<\/p>\n
working   as   the   Excise   Circle   Inspector,   the   Assistant<\/p>\n
Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner in the Excise<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C.NO.2641 OF 2003<\/p>\n
                                       :-2-:\n<\/p>\n
\nDepartment at various offices during the period between<\/p>\n
1.1.1981 and 31.1.1995 and his wife Smt.Chandralekha<\/p>\n
had been in possession of pecuniary resources and other<\/p>\n
properties         worth         of         Rs.4,14,127\/-         which         is<\/p>\n
disproportionate   to   his   known   sources   of   income   for<\/p>\n
which he could not satisfactorily account for and thereby<\/p>\n
committed   the   offences   punishable   under   the   above<\/p>\n
provisions  of   the   Act.  The   above   Crl.M.C.   is  filed  when<\/p>\n
Annexure A2 First Information  Report   was filed before<\/p>\n
the court below.   According to the petitioner, no offence<\/p>\n
as alleged in the F.I.R. is disclosed against the petitioner<\/p>\n
even if the entire allegations are admitted as true.       In<\/p>\n
support of the   above   contention, the  petitioner submits<\/p>\n
that   as   per   Annexure   A1   report     dated   4.6.1993,   the<\/p>\n
Director   of   Vigilance   (Investigation)   had   already<\/p>\n
recommended   that   there   is   no   scope   for   any   criminal<\/p>\n
prosecution   and   as   disclosed   by   Annexure   A1,   the<\/p>\n
Director   has   already   considered   the   entire   facts   and<\/p>\n
circumstances   involved   in   the   case   and   the   materials<\/p>\n
available   on   record   and   he   came   to   an   independent<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C.NO.2641 OF 2003<\/p>\n
                                :-3-:\n<\/p>\n
\nconclusion   and   according   to   him,             departmental<\/p>\n
proceedings are sufficient for the ends of justice.   Thus,<\/p>\n
according to the petitioner, there is already a report by a<\/p>\n
competent  authority  in  favour  of  the   petitioner\/accused<\/p>\n
and   the   subsequent   lodging   of   F.I.R.   as   well   as   the<\/p>\n
subsequent   investigation   were   done   overlooking<\/p>\n
Annexure   A1   report.       It   is   also   contended   in   the<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C. that there is inordinate delay which is not at all<\/p>\n
explained   and   no   reason   is   forthcoming   to   excuse   the<\/p>\n
culpable  delay and in the light of the settled proposition<\/p>\n
of   law   regarding   the   delay   on   the   part   of   the<\/p>\n
prosecution,   the   petitioner   contended   that   the   present<\/p>\n
proceedings of the court below will amount to abuse of<\/p>\n
process of court and based upon the above ground, it is<\/p>\n
prayed   that   Annexure-A5   final   report   and   the   case<\/p>\n
instituted thereon, pending  before the court below may<\/p>\n
be quashed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      3.    I   have   heard   Mr.Elvin   Peter,   the   learned<\/p>\n
counsel   appearing   for   the   petitioner   as   well   as<\/p>\n
Sri.P.N.Sukumaran, the learned Public Prosecutor.<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C.NO.2641 OF 2003<\/p>\n
                                   :-4-:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      4.     The   learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner<\/p>\n
submits that the whole proceedings were initiated on the<\/p>\n
basis   of   an   anonymous   letter   received   by   the<\/p>\n
Government            and         as         per         letter         dated<\/p>\n
29.6.1988, an enquiry was ordered.   From Annexure A1<\/p>\n
report,   it   can   be   seen   that   the   enquiry   was   initially<\/p>\n
ordered by the Government rightly as on 29.6.1988.  The<\/p>\n
learned   counsel   further   submits   that   as   disclosed   by<\/p>\n
Annexure   A1   report   of   the   Director   of   Vigilance<\/p>\n
(Investigation),   there   are   several   enquiries   before   his<\/p>\n
opinion   as   per   Annexure   A1   report.     From   the   list   of<\/p>\n
enclosures   shown   in   Annexure   A1,   it   can   be   seen   that<\/p>\n
there   is   a   preliminary   enquiry   report   by   the   Deputy<\/p>\n
Superintendent   of   Police,   Vigilance   Department,<\/p>\n
Thiruvananthapuram   and   the   forwarding   endorsement<\/p>\n
of   the   Superintendent   of   Police,   Vigilance   Department,<\/p>\n
Special   Cell,   Thiruvananthapuram.     It   is   also   seen   that<\/p>\n
the   opinion   of   the   Legal   Adviser   to   Vigilance<\/p>\n
Department,   Thiruvananthapuram   was   also   considered<\/p>\n
while   making   Annexure   A1   report.     It   is   also   disclosed<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C.NO.2641 OF 2003<\/p>\n
                                 :-5-:\n<\/p>\n
\nthat   there   was   a   revised   preliminary   enquiry   report   of<\/p>\n
the   Deputy   Superintendent   of   Police,   Vigilance<\/p>\n
Department, Special Cell, Thiruvananthapuram                   dated<\/p>\n
12.11.1992.  Besides that, there was another forwarding<\/p>\n
endorsement   of  the   Superintendent  of   Police,   Vigilance<\/p>\n
Department,   Special   Cell,   Thiruvananthapuram   dated<\/p>\n
13.11.1992.     Apart   from   the   legal   opinion   mentioned<\/p>\n
above,   there   is   another   remark   of   the   Legal   Adviser<\/p>\n
dated   10.12.1992.     Thus,   according   to   the   counsel   for<\/p>\n
the petitioner, several enquiries were conducted and all<\/p>\n
the   legal   opinions   furnished   by   the   legal   advisers   are<\/p>\n
also   against   the   prosecution.     Thus,   according   to   the<\/p>\n
counsel   for   the   petitioner,   the   Director   of   Vigilance<\/p>\n
(Investigation) who is the highest superior officer of the<\/p>\n
Department had already considered the entire facts and<\/p>\n
materials on record and instead of giving an opinion for<\/p>\n
prosecution,   what   he   had   suggested   is   that     barring<\/p>\n
departmental   action   for   entering   into   financial<\/p>\n
transaction   with   his   subordinates   and   relatives   in<\/p>\n
violation   of   Rule   16(1)(a)   and   (c)   of   the   Kerala<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C.NO.2641 OF 2003<\/p>\n
                                  :-6-:\n<\/p>\n
\nGovernment   Servants   (Conduct)   Rules,   1960,   further<\/p>\n
action   shall   be   dropped   in   the   matter.     According   to<\/p>\n
counsel for the petitioner, that being the position, there<\/p>\n
was   no   further   action   or   information   from   the<\/p>\n
Department and all of a sudden, the petitioner   came to<\/p>\n
know   that   Annexure   A2   F.I.R.   was   prepared   and<\/p>\n
presented  on 30.1.1995 at about 10.30 am.<\/p>\n
      5.     According   to   counsel   for   the   petitioner,<\/p>\n
initially   an   enquiry   was   conducted   by   Mr.A.Surendran<\/p>\n
who   was   the   Superintendent   of   Police,   Vigilance   and<\/p>\n
Anti   corruption   Bureau   who   is   CW   115.     After   the<\/p>\n
registration of the F.I.R., the same was again forwarded<\/p>\n
to   the   said   Officer   for   investigation.     Counsel   submits<\/p>\n
that   the   said   Officer  is   very   much   inimical   towards   the<\/p>\n
petitioner   and   so   he   was   very   much   prejudiced   by   the<\/p>\n
enquiry   conducted   by   the   said   Officer.     It   is   further<\/p>\n
submitted   that   the   above   belief   of   the   petitioner   is   not<\/p>\n
unfounded   since   the   Director   has   already   found   fault<\/p>\n
with the enquiry conducted and the report prepared by<\/p>\n
the said Officer.  It was in the above circumstances  the<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C.NO.2641 OF 2003<\/p>\n
                                   :-7-:\n<\/p>\n
\npetitioner   approached   this   Court   by   filing   the   Crl.M.C.<\/p>\n
on   27.3.2003.     Counsel   submits   that   the   proceedings<\/p>\n
were   started   as   early   as   on   29.6.1988   and   the   matter<\/p>\n
was   being   dragged   unnecessarily.     In   the   mean   while,<\/p>\n
the Government issued Annexure A4 order by which the<\/p>\n
concerned   authorities   were   directed   to   expedite   the<\/p>\n
enquiry   and   guidelines   were   formulated   through   the<\/p>\n
above Government Order.   Counsel submits that in view<\/p>\n
of   clause   (12)   of   Annexure   A4   Government   Order,<\/p>\n
investigation   in   the   present   case   ought   to   have   been<\/p>\n
completed   within   12   months,   but   no   investigation   was<\/p>\n
conducted  and   concluded   in   accordance  with   Annexure<\/p>\n
A4 Government Order.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       6.     Counsel for the petitioner points out that the<\/p>\n
date   of   retirement   of   the   petitioner   was   on   31.3.2006.<\/p>\n
Though   the   alleged   enquiry   and   investigation   were<\/p>\n
started   much   earlier,   no   final   report   could   be   filed   in<\/p>\n
time   especially,   even     though     Annexure   A4   guidelines<\/p>\n
are   in   force.   But   on   the   eve   of   the   retirement   of   the<\/p>\n
petitioner,   all   of   a   sudden,   a   final   report   was   filed   on<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C.NO.2641 OF 2003<\/p>\n
                                  :-8-:\n<\/p>\n
\n30.3.2006   whereas   the   date   of   retirement   of   the<\/p>\n
petitioner was   31.3.2006.   So,   the   mala fide intention<\/p>\n
and     extraneous   consideration   are   manifest   from   the<\/p>\n
above conduct.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      7.     On   realising   the   fact   that   a   final   report   was<\/p>\n
filed   before   the   court   below,     the   petitioner   by   filing<\/p>\n
Crl.M.A.No.   3390   of   2006   sought   permission   of   this<\/p>\n
Court   to   amend   the   Crl.M.C.   after   producing   the   final<\/p>\n
report   as     Annexure   A5   and   by   order   dated   25.8.2006,<\/p>\n
this Court had allowed the amendment petition.   As per<\/p>\n
Annexure   A5   final   report,   the   allegation   against   the<\/p>\n
petitioner   has   been   modified   from   Annexure   A2   F.I.R.<\/p>\n
and the present allegation as per Annexure A5 report is<\/p>\n
to   the   effect   that   the   petitioner   during   the   period<\/p>\n
between   1.1.1981   to   31.1.1995   and   his   wife<\/p>\n
Smt.Chandralekha have been in possession of pecuniary<\/p>\n
resources   and   other   properties   worth   of   Rs.4,14,127\/-<\/p>\n
which   is   disproportionate   to   his   known   sources   of<\/p>\n
income for which he could not satisfactorily account for<\/p>\n
and   thereby   committed   the   said   offences.     Whereas,   as<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C.NO.2641 OF 2003<\/p>\n
                                 :-9-:\n<\/p>\n
\nper   Annexure   A2   F.I.R.,   the   check   period   was  between<\/p>\n
1.1.1981   and   31.12.1988   and   the   allegation   is   that   the<\/p>\n
petitioner\/accused, while working as public servant, has<\/p>\n
been in possession of movable and immovable assets and<\/p>\n
pecuniary resources to the tune of Rs.1,74,024\/- during<\/p>\n
the   period   from   1.1.1981   to   3.12.1988   which   is   prima<\/p>\n
facie   disproportionate   to   his   known   source   of   income<\/p>\n
and   which   has   been   worked   out   to   be   worth<\/p>\n
Rs.56,585.11 (24.62%)  in  excess of his  total income for<\/p>\n
the   above   period.   Learned   counsel   submits   that   due   to<\/p>\n
the   inimical   approach   of   certain   officers   of   the<\/p>\n
Department, especially CW 115 though the check period<\/p>\n
in   the   F.I.R.   is     between   1.1.1981   and   31.12.1988,<\/p>\n
because   of   their   lapse   to   conduct   the   investigation<\/p>\n
properly and effectively and   to show a large amount at<\/p>\n
the   time   of   filing   Annexure   A5   final   report,   the   check<\/p>\n
period   was   enhanced   up   to   31.1.1995.     As   part   of   the<\/p>\n
said wicked plan, though the amount which was alleged<\/p>\n
to   be   in   possession   of   the   petitioner   and<\/p>\n
disproportionate   to   his   income,   was   fixed   as<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C.NO.2641 OF 2003<\/p>\n
                                :-10-:\n<\/p>\n
\nRs.56,585.11   in   Annexure   A2   FIR,   it   was   re-fixed   as<\/p>\n
Rs.4,14,127\/-   in   Annexure   A5   Final   Report.     The<\/p>\n
enlargement   of   check   period   and   enhancement   of   the<\/p>\n
amount   are   made   with   a   view   to   circumvent   the<\/p>\n
guidelines contained in Annexure A4 Government Order.<\/p>\n
On   various   accounts,   the   counsel   for   the   petitioner<\/p>\n
challenges   the   very   assertion   and   the   allegation<\/p>\n
contained   in   Annexure   A5   report.              In   order   to<\/p>\n
substantiate the contention raised by the petitioner and<\/p>\n
the   argument   advanced   by   learned   counsel   for   the<\/p>\n
petitioner,   they have very much placed reliance on the<\/p>\n
document of the prosecution itself namely, Annexure A2<\/p>\n
FIR and also Annexure A5 Final Report.<\/p>\n
      8.      According to counsel for the petitioner, in the<\/p>\n
statement ‘A’ attached to Annexure A5, the assets of the<\/p>\n
petitioner   and   his   family   as   on   1.1.1981   are   shown   as<\/p>\n
Rs.4857\/-   +   40   Sovereigns   and   179.500   gm.   silver<\/p>\n
ornaments.  In the statement ‘A’, the first item is shown<\/p>\n
as bank balance and the figure is only Rs.472.50\/-.   It is<\/p>\n
an  admitted fact   of the  prosecution  that the  petitioner<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C.NO.2641 OF 2003<\/p>\n
                                 :-11-:\n<\/p>\n
\njoined   in   the   service   as   an   Excise   Inspector   during   the<\/p>\n
month of April, 1977 and subsequently, he  was directly<\/p>\n
recruited as Circle Inspector of Excise   with effect from<\/p>\n
December, 1977.  Those salaries have not been shown in<\/p>\n
any of the items in Statement ‘A’  attached to  Annexure<\/p>\n
A5   and,     had   it   been   shown   correctly,   no   allegation<\/p>\n
would   lie.     According   to   counsel   for   the   petitioner,   the<\/p>\n
above aspect itself is sufficient to shake the prosecution<\/p>\n
case.     It is also submitted by the counsel that the total<\/p>\n
assets   of   the   petitioner   as   on   31.1.1995   is  3,81,384\/-,<\/p>\n
which   is   considered   as   the   entire   salary   drawn   by   the<\/p>\n
petitioner   from   the   initial   stage   and   this   amount   is<\/p>\n
different from that of in Annexure A5 Final Report.     In<\/p>\n
item No.2 in Statement-B of Annexure A5 Final Report,<\/p>\n
the   cost   of   construction   of   house   is   shown   as<\/p>\n
Rs.3,30,000\/- whereas the cost of construction of house<\/p>\n
in   Annexure   A2   is   shown   as   Rs.1,36,322\/-.     The<\/p>\n
prosecution   has   no   case   that   the   petitioner   had<\/p>\n
constructed   two   houses   or   there   was     any   renovation<\/p>\n
work on the house already constructed as shown in the<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C.NO.2641 OF 2003<\/p>\n
                                :-12-:\n<\/p>\n
\nF.I.R. Hence the cost of construction now shown has no<\/p>\n
basis   and is contrary  to their  own document Annexure<\/p>\n
A2.     It is  also  pointed out  by  counsel  for   the  petitioner<\/p>\n
that   in   Statement   B   as   item   No.4,   an   amount   of<\/p>\n
Rs.1,00,000\/- is shown as the price of the Maruthy 800.<\/p>\n
Annexure A6 is an order of the Government by which car<\/p>\n
loan   was   sanctioned   by   the   Government.     Counsel   for<\/p>\n
the petitioner submits that   from  Annexure A1 report, it<\/p>\n
is   discernible   that   the   cost   of   house   construction   was<\/p>\n
shown   as   Rs.1,36,322\/-   on   the   basis   of   the   inspection<\/p>\n
and   assessment   conducted   by   the   P.W.D.Executive<\/p>\n
Engineer, but when the final report was filed, the same<\/p>\n
is   shown   as     Rs.3,30,000\/-   and   that   is   without   any<\/p>\n
valuation   conducted   by   any   expert.     So,   according   to<\/p>\n
counsel   for   the   petitioner,   the   documents   relied   on   by<\/p>\n
the prosecution itself are contradictory in nature and the<\/p>\n
allegations   are   not   sufficient   to   constitute   the   offences<\/p>\n
levelled  against the petitioner.   Therefore, according to<\/p>\n
counsel,   the   entire   proceedings   initiated   and   pending<\/p>\n
against the petitioner are liable to be quashed.<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C.NO.2641 OF 2003<\/p>\n
                                  :-13-:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       9.     It   is   also   pointed   out   by   counsel   for   the<\/p>\n
petitioner   that   there   is   inordinate   delay   on   the   part   of<\/p>\n
the   prosecution   in   conducting   the   enquiry   and   further<\/p>\n
proceedings   from   29.6.1988   till   the   finalisation   of   the<\/p>\n
Annexure   A5   Final   Report.     After   the   filing   of   the   final<\/p>\n
report, so far trial has not commenced.  It is also pointed<\/p>\n
out by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had<\/p>\n
already retired from service on 31.3.2006 and so far, his<\/p>\n
pensionary benefits are not given due to the pendency of<\/p>\n
the  criminal  case.   So,  according  to  counsel,  the  entire<\/p>\n
proceedings,   even   though   the   trial   is   not   over,       are<\/p>\n
pending   for   the   last   20   years   and   therefore,   the<\/p>\n
proceedings   now   pending   before   the   court   below   are<\/p>\n
liable to be quashed.  In support of the fervent plea  for<\/p>\n
quashing   of   the   proceedings,   the   petitioner   very   much<\/p>\n
placed reliance on Abdul Rehman Antulay and others<\/p>\n
v.  R.S.Nayak   and<\/a>   another    (1992(1)   SCC   225).     My<\/p>\n
attention is invited to sub-paras 5 and 9 in para 86 of the<\/p>\n
above decision, which reads as follows:-<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C.NO.2641 OF 2003<\/p>\n
                                    :-14-:\n<\/p>\n
               “86.     In   view   of   the   above   discussion,<\/p>\n
       the   following   propositions   emerge,   meant   to<\/p>\n
       serve   as   guidelines.     We   must   forewarn   that<\/p>\n
       these   propositions   are   not   exhaustive.     It   is<\/p>\n
       difficult   to   foresee   all   situation.     Nor   is   it<\/p>\n
       possible   to   lay   down   any   hard   and   fast   rules<\/p>\n
       These propositions are:-\n<\/p>\n
            (1)   xxx        xxx     xxx      xxx\n\n            (2)   xxx        xxx     xxx      xxx\n\n            (3)    xxx       xxx     xxx   xxx\n\n            (4)    xxx       xxx     xxx      xxx\n\n<\/pre>\n
            (5)   While determining whether undue<\/p>\n
            delay   has   occurred   (resulting   in<\/p>\n
            violation of Right to Speedy Trial) one<\/p>\n
            must have regard to all the attendant<\/p>\n
            circumstances,   including   nature   of<\/p>\n
            offence,   number   of   accused   and<\/p>\n
            witnesses,   the   workload   of   the   court<\/p>\n
            concerned,   prevailing   local   conditions<\/p>\n
            and   so   on—   what   is   called,   the<\/p>\n
            sustemic delays.   It is true that it is<\/p>\n
            the obligation of the State to ensure<\/p>\n
            a   speedy   trial   and   State   includes<\/p>\n
            judiciary   as   well,   but   a   realistic   and<\/p>\n
            practical   approach   should   be   adopted<\/p>\n
            in such matters instead of a pedantic<\/p>\n
            one.\n<\/p>\n
            (6) xxx xxx xxx xx  xx<\/p>\n
            (7) xxx xxx xxx xx xx<\/p>\n
            (8) xxx xxx xxx xx xx<\/p>\n
            (9)   Ordinarily   speaking,   where   the<\/p>\n
            court   comes   to   the   conclusion   that<\/p>\n
            right to speedy trial of an accused has<\/p>\n
            been   infringed   the   charges   or   the<\/p>\n
            conviction as the case may be, shall be<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C.NO.2641 OF 2003<\/p>\n
                                    :-15-:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             quashed.     But   this   is   not   the   only\n\n             course   open.     The   nature   of   the\n\n<\/pre>\n
             offence and other circumstances in a<\/p>\n
             given case may be such that quashing<\/p>\n
             of   proceedings   may   not   be   in   the<\/p>\n
             interest of justice.  In such a case, it<\/p>\n
             is   open   to   the   court   to   make   such<\/p>\n
             other appropriate order– including an<\/p>\n
             order   to   conclude   the   trial   within     a<\/p>\n
             fixed   time   where   the   trial   is   not<\/p>\n
             concluded   or   educing   the   sentence<\/p>\n
             where the trial has concluded – as may<\/p>\n
             be   deemed   just   and   equitable   in   the<\/p>\n
             circumstances of the case.”\n<\/p>\n
\nOn   the   basis   of   the   above   passage,   counsel   for   the<\/p>\n
petitioner   submits  that  the  dictum  laid  down  in   the<\/p>\n
above   decision   is   squarely   applicable   to   the   facts   and<\/p>\n
circumstances involved in the case in hand.<\/p>\n
      10.     The   counsel   further   submitted   that   on   an<\/p>\n
examination   of   the   entire   facts   and   circumstances   and<\/p>\n
shabby   nature   of   the   allegation,   the   proceedings<\/p>\n
pending against the petitioner are liable to be quashed.<\/p>\n
It is also not disputed that the proceedings are pending<\/p>\n
for the last twenty years.  In support of his contention to<\/p>\n
quash   the   proceedings   on   the   ground   of   delay,   the<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C.NO.2641 OF 2003<\/p>\n
                                :-16-:\n<\/p>\n
\npetitioner  has cited another  decision  of the  Apex Court<\/p>\n
reported   in  Ramanand   Chaudhary  v.  State  of   Bihar<\/p>\n
and others (AIR<\/a> 1994 SC 948).\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      11.    Counsel   for   the   petitioner   also   invited   my<\/p>\n
attention   to   the   two   judgments   of   this   Court   namely,<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.No.9257   of   2002   dated   6.2.2003   and<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.No.5425 of 2002 dated 14.8.2002.  In those two<\/p>\n
cases   also,   the   proceedings   were   pending   for   quite   a<\/p>\n
long   time   and   considering   the   long   delay   involved   in<\/p>\n
those   cases,     this   Court   has   quashed   the   entire<\/p>\n
proceedings   against   the   petitioner   in   those   cases.<\/p>\n
Counsel   for   the   petitioner   submits   that   the   facts   and<\/p>\n
circumstances involved in the present case are more or<\/p>\n
less same as that of the above two cases and therefore, it<\/p>\n
is   submitted   that   the   petitioner   is   entitled   to   get   a<\/p>\n
similar treatment.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      12.       Per contra, Mr.P.N.Sukumaran, the learned<\/p>\n
Public   Prosecutor   submits   that   Annexure   AI   report   has<\/p>\n
no   relevance   and   it   cannot   be   looked   into   since   the<\/p>\n
Government   was  not  satisfied   with   Annexure   A1   report<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C.NO.2641 OF 2003<\/p>\n
                                 :-17-:\n<\/p>\n
\nand the Government has already ordered for an enquiry<\/p>\n
and based upon such order, the F.I.R. was subsequently<\/p>\n
registered   and   the   investigation   was   subsequently<\/p>\n
undertaken   by   the   department   and   now   a   final   report<\/p>\n
was filed.  Though the above contention has some force,<\/p>\n
but   considering   the   factual   situation   contained   in   the<\/p>\n
present   case   and   the   materials   turned   out   from   the<\/p>\n
report, it appears that the nature of allegations against<\/p>\n
the   petitioner   seem   to   be   very   shabby   and   the<\/p>\n
documents   relied   on   by   the   prosecution,   especially<\/p>\n
Annexure   A2   F.I.R.   and   the   documents   attached   to<\/p>\n
Annexure   A5   Final   Report   are   sufficient   to   show     the<\/p>\n
shabby   and   contradictory   nature   of   the   allegations.     It<\/p>\n
also shows that the allegations contained in the F.I.R. as<\/p>\n
well as in the final report are not sufficient to constitute<\/p>\n
the   offences   against   the   petitioner.     It   is   submitted   by<\/p>\n
the  Public  Prosecutor  that on  the basis  of the  decision,<\/p>\n
even   though   there   is   an   independent   and   separate<\/p>\n
opinion   by   the   competent   authority,   there   is   no   bar   on<\/p>\n
the investigating agency to conduct an investigation and<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C.NO.2641 OF 2003<\/p>\n
                                  :-18-:\n<\/p>\n
\nto file  a final report and thus, according  to the learned<\/p>\n
Public   Prosecutor,   Annexure   A1   report   of   the   Director<\/p>\n
has   no   bearing   or   relevance   to   the   present   case   since<\/p>\n
after Annexure  A1  report, the  Government  has ordered<\/p>\n
to   conduct   an   enquiry   on   the   basis   of   which   the   F.I.R.<\/p>\n
was   registered   and   the   further   investigation   was<\/p>\n
conducted.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      13.    I have perused Annexure A2 F.I.R. as well as<\/p>\n
Annexure   A5   Final   report   in   detail   and   also   the<\/p>\n
documents   attached   therein.     The   argument   of   the<\/p>\n
learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner   furnishing   some<\/p>\n
explanation  to cover up the  amount which is alleged to<\/p>\n
have   been   shown   as   disproportionate   income   is   not<\/p>\n
acceptable   to   me.     Certainly   these   are   all   facts   to   be<\/p>\n
ascertained   through   evidence  and  not   in   a  proceedings<\/p>\n
under   Section   482   of   the   Code   of   Criminal   Procedure.<\/p>\n
According to counsel, his  asset  as on  31.1.1995  will  be<\/p>\n
only  Rs.3,81,384\/-  and  the  prosecution  had  deliberately<\/p>\n
omitted   to   take   into   account   the   salary   drawn   by   him<\/p>\n
from   1977   onwards   while   he   was   working   as   Excise<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C.NO.2641 OF 2003<\/p>\n
                                  :-19-:\n<\/p>\n
\nInspector as well as Circle Inspector of Police.  It is true<\/p>\n
that   neither   in   the   F.I.R.   nor   in   the   final   report,   the<\/p>\n
prosecution   has   considered   the   above   income   of   the<\/p>\n
petitioner.     Similarly   as   noted   above,   the   cost   of<\/p>\n
construction   of   the   house   is   shown   as   Rs.1,36,322\/-   as<\/p>\n
per   Annexure   A2   F.I.R.     In   Annexure   A1   report,   the<\/p>\n
Director   has   observed   that   there   was   a   reduction   of<\/p>\n
Rs.8678\/-  occurred on a detailed valuation of the house<\/p>\n
by   the   Executive   Engineer,   P.W.D.,   Quilon   which   was<\/p>\n
not   done   earlier.     But,   in   Annexure   A2   F.I.R.   also,   the<\/p>\n
cost   of   construction   of   house   was   shown   as<\/p>\n
Rs.1,36,322\/-.   So the above amount shown in Annexure<\/p>\n
A2 F.I.R. is not tallying with  what stated by the Director<\/p>\n
in   Annexure   A1  report.     But,   In   the   very   same   time,  in<\/p>\n
Annexure   A5   Final   Report,   as   seen   in   statement   B,   the<\/p>\n
cost   of   construction   of   the   house   is   shown   as<\/p>\n
Rs.3,30,000\/-.  Absolutely, there is no allegation that the<\/p>\n
petitioner had constructed two houses.  In the absence of<\/p>\n
such   allegation   or   any   explanation,   the   above   figure<\/p>\n
cannot   be   considered   as   true.     Hence   on   an   overall<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C.NO.2641 OF 2003<\/p>\n
                                :-20-:\n<\/p>\n
\nconsideration,    it   can   be   seen  that  figures  shown  in   the<\/p>\n
statement   attached   to     annexure   A5   Final   Report   are<\/p>\n
incorrect and baseless and if those figures are  excluded,<\/p>\n
there   will   be   nothing   as     disproportionate     income   and<\/p>\n
consequently   the   prosecution   case   rendered   as<\/p>\n
unbelievable and untenable.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      14.     It is seen from Statement B, the assets of the<\/p>\n
petitioner and family  as on 31.1.1995.    The price of  the<\/p>\n
Maruthy 800   of the petitioner is shown as Rs.1,00,000\/-<\/p>\n
as item No.4 in Statement B.   The above amount has to<\/p>\n
be   reduced   from   the   asset   since   that   amount   was<\/p>\n
obtained  as loan  from  the Government as evidenced by<\/p>\n
Annexure A6.   It can also be seen from statement B that<\/p>\n
an amount of Rs.54,142\/- which is shown as the value of<\/p>\n
clothings   and   Rs.62,935\/-   shown   as   value   of   Electronic<\/p>\n
and   Electrical   Gadgets   and     according   to   the   counsel,<\/p>\n
these are not correct figures.   Even if these   figures are<\/p>\n
considered   as   correct,     it   can   be   seen   that   the<\/p>\n
prosecution   allegation   rests   on   certain   quantity   of<\/p>\n
clothings and electrical items.  Thus, according to counsel<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C.NO.2641 OF 2003<\/p>\n
                                 :-21-:\n<\/p>\n
\nfor   the   petitioner,   there   is   no   excess   asset   for   the<\/p>\n
petitioner   so   as   to   attract   the   penal   provisions   charged<\/p>\n
against   the   petitioner.     In   the   light   of   the   above<\/p>\n
discussion,   the   figures,   which   are   relied   on   by   the<\/p>\n
Prosecution, are mutually contradictory, unbelievable and<\/p>\n
incorrect,   even according to the documents.   Thus, it   is<\/p>\n
to be held  that the allegations are very shabby and there<\/p>\n
is no meaning in directing the petitioner to undergo the<\/p>\n
ordeal of trial, based on such shabby allegations and also<\/p>\n
the allegations which are  not sufficient to constitute the<\/p>\n
offence.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      15.    It   is   also   an   undisputed   fact   that   the<\/p>\n
proceedings   against   the   petitioner   were   initiated   much<\/p>\n
early, as on 29.6.1988 and thereafter, about 20 years are<\/p>\n
over.  Even now the trial has not started so far.  There is<\/p>\n
no   cogent   explanation   as   to   why   the   enquiry   and<\/p>\n
investigation   are   delayed.       Of   course,  the  Investigating<\/p>\n
Agency   can   take   their   own   time   to   complete   the<\/p>\n
proceedings.     In   the   decision   reported   in   the  Abdul<\/p>\n
Rehman’s   case  (cited   supra),   the   Apex   Court   had   held<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C.NO.2641 OF 2003<\/p>\n
                                 :-22-:\n<\/p>\n
\nthat   ordinarily   speaking,   where   the   court   comes   to   the<\/p>\n
conclusion   that   right   to   speedy   trial   of   an   accused   has<\/p>\n
been   infringed,     the   charges   or   the   conviction,   as   the<\/p>\n
case may be, shall be quashed.  In the above decision, it<\/p>\n
is  further held that this is not the only  course open and<\/p>\n
the   nature   of   the   offence   and   other   circumstances   in   a<\/p>\n
given   case   may   be   such   that   quashing   of   proceedings<\/p>\n
may not be in the interest of justice.  But, in the  present<\/p>\n
case, I am of the view that considering the shabby nature<\/p>\n
of the allegations and the long pendency of the case, the<\/p>\n
proceedings   against   the   petitioner   are   liable   to   be<\/p>\n
quashed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      16.    After  Abdul   Rehman’s   case  (cited   supra),   the<\/p>\n
Apex   Court   was   pleased   to   quash   a   prosecution   in<\/p>\n
Ramanand   Chaudhary’s   case  (cited   supra)   in   which   the<\/p>\n
prosecution   against   the   accused   was   pending   for   more<\/p>\n
than 13  years,  on  the  basis  of  the  complaint  before  the<\/p>\n
Police   that   the   appellant   had   demanded   Rs.200\/-   from<\/p>\n
him   as   bribe   for   getting   his   work   done   in   the   Revenue<\/p>\n
Department.  As a consequence, a raid was conducted on<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C.NO.2641 OF 2003<\/p>\n
                                  :-23-:\n<\/p>\n
\nMarch   30,   1979   and   thereafter,   no   further   action   was<\/p>\n
taken   by   the   Police   for   six   years   and   it   was   only   in<\/p>\n
January 28, 1985 that the opinion of the Public Prosecutor<\/p>\n
was sought by the Revenue Commissioner to enable him<\/p>\n
to   consider   the   question   of   grant   of   sanction   for   the<\/p>\n
prosecution   of   the   appellant   therein.         The   Public<\/p>\n
Prosecutor came into a conclusion that the case in hand<\/p>\n
was not a fit case to accord sanction for prosecution.  The<\/p>\n
Revenue Commissioner also endorsed the opinion of the<\/p>\n
Public   Prosecutor.     Subsequently,   the   Deputy   Inspector<\/p>\n
General   of   Police   (Vigilance)   reopened   the   matter   and<\/p>\n
requested   the   Revenue   Commissioner   to   reconsider   the<\/p>\n
question   of   the   prosecution   of   the   appellant.     The<\/p>\n
Commissioner   again   asked   for   the   opinion   of   the   Public<\/p>\n
Prosecutor   who   reiterated   his   earlier   opinion   and<\/p>\n
recommended for departmental action instead of criminal<\/p>\n
proceedings.     But,   the   Revenue   Commissioner   granted<\/p>\n
sanction   to   prosecute   the   appellant   therein,   and<\/p>\n
accordingly, the  case was  filed  before  the Special  Judge<\/p>\n
(Vigilance),   South   Bihar,   Patna   who   took   cognizance   of<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C.NO.2641 OF 2003<\/p>\n
                                      :-24-:\n<\/p>\n
\nthe  case  on November 21,  1990.    The  appellant  therein<\/p>\n
invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court of Patna under<\/p>\n
Section   482   for   quashing   the   criminal   proceedings   and<\/p>\n
the same was dismissed in limine.  By the judgment, the<\/p>\n
Apex   Court   held   in   paragraph   5   of   the   judgment   as<\/p>\n
follows:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              “5.     It   is   not   necessary   to   go   into   the   legal<\/p>\n
      points raised by Mr.Jain as we are inclined to quash the<\/p>\n
      prosecution   against   the   appellant  in   the   peculiar   facts<\/p>\n
      and   circumstances   of   this   case.     After   the   raid,   no<\/p>\n
      action was taken by the prosecution for six years.  The<\/p>\n
      Public   Prosecutor   consistently   opined   that   no   criminal<\/p>\n
      case   was   made   out   against   the   appellant.     The<\/p>\n
      Commissioner   on   independent   consideration   refused   to<\/p>\n
      grant   the   sanction   but   later   on   at   the   asking   of   the<\/p>\n
      D.I.G.(Vigilance), he changed his view.  The prosecution<\/p>\n
      against   the   appellant   is   pending   for   over   a   period   of<\/p>\n
      thirteen   years   and   it   would   be   travesty   of   justice   to<\/p>\n
      permit the prosecution at this  stage which would mean<\/p>\n
      that   the   appellant   would   suffer   the   trial\/appeal   for<\/p>\n
      another   decade.            In   view   of   the   facts   and<\/p>\n
      circumstances   of   the   case,   we   quash   the   prosecution<\/p>\n
      pending   against   the   appellant   and   also   the   proceedings<\/p>\n
      before the Special Judge (Vigilance South Bihar), Patna<\/p>\n
      who   took   cognizance   of   the   case   on   November   21,<\/p>\n
      1990.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
The   facts   and   circumstances   involved   in   the   case   in<\/p>\n
hand, except regarding  the quantity   of amount  and  the<\/p>\n
mode of amazement of money, are similar to that of the<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C.NO.2641 OF 2003<\/p>\n
                                 :-25-:\n<\/p>\n
\ncase   reported   in   the   above   decision   of   the   Apex  Court.<\/p>\n
Herein, the Director of Vigilance by Annexure A1 report<\/p>\n
refused   to   accord   sanction   for   prosecution,   but<\/p>\n
recommended for departmental action.  The said opinion<\/p>\n
was formed after the perusal of the entire materials on<\/p>\n
record including the opinion of the Vigilance Prosecutor.<\/p>\n
Therefore,   according   to   me,   in   the   light   of   the   above<\/p>\n
decision of the Apex Court, the proceedings against the<\/p>\n
petitioner are liable to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      17.    This Court, in a similar situation, had quashed<\/p>\n
the  order  of  the  prosecution  in  two  cases  mentioned<\/p>\n
above   considering   the   inordinate   delay   in   the   enquiry,<\/p>\n
investigation and trial.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      18.    As   stated   earlier,   the   petitioner   had   already<\/p>\n
retired   from   service   as   on   31.3.2006.     Because   of   the<\/p>\n
pendency   of   the   case,   his   pensionary   benefits   are   not<\/p>\n
given   so   far.     Considering   the   shabby   nature   of   the<\/p>\n
allegations   and   the   fact   that   the   matter   is   pending   for<\/p>\n
the last 20 years, which  will amount to the  violation of<\/p>\n
right to speedy trial as   conferred   under Article   21 of<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C.NO.2641 OF 2003<\/p>\n
                                      :-26-:\n<\/p>\n
\nthe Constitution of India, I am of the opinion that this is<\/p>\n
a   fit   case   where   this   Court   has   to   exercise   the<\/p>\n
jurisdiction   of   this   Court   under   Section   482   of   the<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner to secure the  ends of<\/p>\n
justice and I do so accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        19.         In   the   result,   the   Crl.M.C.   is   allowed   and<\/p>\n
Annexure   A5   Final   Report   and   all   proceedings   in<\/p>\n
C.C.No.6   of   2006   on   the   file   of   the   Court   of   the<\/p>\n
Enquiry              Commissioner               and              Special         Judge,<\/p>\n
Thiruvananthapuram are quashed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                      V.K.Mohanan,<\/p>\n
                                                              Judge<\/p>\n
Mbs\/<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C.NO.2641 OF 2003<\/p>\n
                                        :-27-:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                   V.K.MOHANAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
                                        ——————————————–<\/p>\n
                                            Crl.M.C.NO. 2641 OF 2003<\/p>\n
                                           ——————————————–<\/p>\n
                                                      O R D E R<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C.NO.2641 OF 2003<\/p>\n
                           :-28-:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                     DATED:  -2-2008<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C.NO.2641 OF 2003<\/p>\n
                           :-29-:\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court R.Dinakaran vs State Of Kerala on 22 February, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl MC No. 2641 of 2003(A) 1. R.DINAKARAN, … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, … Respondent 2. THE DIRECTOR OF VIGILOANCE & 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, For Petitioner :SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. For […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-65897","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nR.Dinakaran vs State Of Kerala on 22 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-dinakaran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R.Dinakaran vs State Of Kerala on 22 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-dinakaran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-15T21:50:43+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"24 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-dinakaran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-february-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-dinakaran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-february-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"R.Dinakaran vs State Of Kerala on 22 February, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-15T21:50:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-dinakaran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-february-2008\"},\"wordCount\":4650,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-dinakaran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-february-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-dinakaran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-february-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-dinakaran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-february-2008\",\"name\":\"R.Dinakaran vs State Of Kerala on 22 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-15T21:50:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-dinakaran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-february-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-dinakaran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-february-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-dinakaran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-february-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"R.Dinakaran vs State Of Kerala on 22 February, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"R.Dinakaran vs State Of Kerala on 22 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-dinakaran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-february-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"R.Dinakaran vs State Of Kerala on 22 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-dinakaran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-february-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-15T21:50:43+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-dinakaran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-february-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-dinakaran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-february-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"R.Dinakaran vs State Of Kerala on 22 February, 2008","datePublished":"2008-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-15T21:50:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-dinakaran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-february-2008"},"wordCount":4650,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-dinakaran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-february-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-dinakaran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-february-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-dinakaran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-february-2008","name":"R.Dinakaran vs State Of Kerala on 22 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-15T21:50:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-dinakaran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-february-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-dinakaran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-february-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-dinakaran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-february-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"R.Dinakaran vs State Of Kerala on 22 February, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65897","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=65897"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65897\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65897"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65897"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65897"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}