Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act); Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Discharge Petition – Forgery (Sections 468, 471 IPC) – Criminal Conspiracy (Section 120B IPC) – Criminal Misconduct by Public Servant (Sections 13(1)(c), (d) r/w 13(2) PC Act) – Land Encroachment – Impersonation.
(2025) 7 KCD 293 : 2025 KER 56121
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NOS. 221, 235 & 1113 OF 2024; 29 July, 2025
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
FACTS: These Criminal Revision Petitions arose from a common order dated 16.11.2023 in C.C. No. 93/2016 issued by the Court of Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge, Muvattupuzha.
CRL.R.P. No. 221/2024 was filed by Accused Nos. 1 (M.L. Lenish) and 9 (M.M. Lambodaran), challenging the dismissal of their plea for discharge.
CRL.R.P. No. 235/2024 was filed by Accused No. 3 (P. Gopinatha Pillai), also challenging the dismissal of his discharge plea.
CRL.R.P. No. 1113/2024 was filed by the prosecution (State of Kerala), challenging the order of discharge granted to Accused No. 6 (Jaimon N.R.).
The prosecution alleged that Accused Nos. 1 and 9 encroached upon 3.77 acres of government land in Sy.No.148/1 of Venadu Thavalam in Chinnakanal Village and forged a bogus patta (L.A.24/1968) in the name of Sri. K.M. Kurian Mathew (CW11). As part of a criminal conspiracy with other accused, Accused No. 6 (a document writer) allegedly falsely prepared document No. 291/06 dated 08.02.2006 by impersonating CW11, leading to the registration of the land in favour of Accused No. 1. Accused No. 3 (a former Tahsildar) allegedly furnished a false report to the District Collector, Idukki, stating that the land in Sy.No.20/1 was patta land of CW11 instead of government land, and issued a possession and non-attachment certificate to Accused No. 1. Subsequently, Accused No. 1 sold portions of the land to other witnesses (CW3 and CW22) using forged records. The alleged offences included sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
PETITIONERS’ CONTENTIONS:
Accused Nos. 1 & 9 argued that the allegation against A9 was limited to encroachment, with no other material evidence. They contended that the entire case rested on a forged patta and document (291/2006), but the original patta was not produced. They further pointed out a discrepancy, noting that the property in the alleged forged document (291/2006) was Sy.No.20/1, while the alleged encroachment was in Sy.No.148/1 – two different properties.
Accused No. 3 asserted that he had joined duty as Tahsildar after the alleged ‘pokkuvaravu’ (land transfer) occurred, and his report was based on available records, not on an awareness of later forgery.
Accused No. 6 claimed that no material evidence connected him to the crime. As a document writer, he bonafidely believed the identity of the person appearing as CW11 and merely prepared the document for registration.
COURT’S ANALYSIS & FINDINGS: The Court noted that the government land encroached by Accused Nos. 1 and 9 (Sy.No.148/1) was distinct from and approximately 1.5 km away from the property described in the forged document No. 291/06 (Sy.No.20/1). While CW11 confirmed applying for and obtaining a patta for the property in Sy.No.20/1, which was later lost and sold by forged Power of Attorney by third parties, forensic reports indicated that the signatures and thumb impressions on document No. 291/06 were not those of CW11, confirming that he was impersonated. The Court found that this established a prima facie case of forgery of document No. 291/06. Accused Nos. 1 and 9 were found to have used this forged document to take possession of the property in Sy.No.148/1. The prosecution records also supported the allegation that Accused No. 3’s false report facilitated the encroachment of government land in Sy.No.148/1. For Accused No. 6, the Court found a “strong suspicion” of his involvement given that he prepared and produced the forged document (291/06) for registration, knowing that CW11 was impersonated. The Court clarified that these observations were solely for the purpose of deciding the discharge question and would not bind the trial court on the merits of the case.
HELD:
The Criminal Revision Petitions filed by Accused Nos. 1, 3, and 9 (CRL.R.P. Nos. 221/2024 and 235/2024) were DISMISSED. The Special Court’s order dismissing their discharge petitions was CONFIRMED.
The Criminal Revision Petition filed by the State (CRL.R.P. No. 1113/2024) challenging the discharge of Accused No. 6 was ALLOWED. The order discharging Accused No. 6 was SET ASIDE, and Accused No. 6 was directed to FACE TRIAL.
The interim stay granted by the High Court in these revision petitions was vacated.
The trial court was directed to proceed with the trial and conclude it at the earliest.
