S. Jayendran Nair, President, Thiruvananthapuram Taluk Taxi Drivers Co-Operative Society Ltd. No. T - 723 Thiruvananthapuram vs The Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram, The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau Southern Range, Thekkummoode, Thiruvananthapuram and The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau Southern Range, Thekkummoode, Thiruvananthapuram

Honourable Mr. Justice. P.S. Gopinathan

The first accused in Crime No. VC.2/2005/SRT on the file of the VACB/SR/Thiruvananthapuram for offences under Sections 13(1)(c) & (d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) and Section 120B IPC assails Ext.P1 First Information Statement with a plea that the offences alleged are not made out. Having gone through Ext.P1, I find that there are two counts of allegations. One is that the petitioners and other office bearers of the Thiruvananthapuram Taluk Taxi Drivers Co-operative Society had been conducting chitties without taking the registration or remitting the required registration fees and thereby causing loss to the Government. The other is that out of the assets of the society, there were unjustifiable payments to various persons causing a loss to the society amounting to Rs. 3,08,100/-.

The case of the petitioner is that the society had been running only a monthly deposit scheme as per Ext.P2 bye laws and that Ext.P2 was ratified by the Co-operative Department and no chitty was conducted and that as per resolution No. 16 of the Board of Directors dated 5.6.2004 there is provision for payment of loan and the amounts said to have been paid causing loss to the society was paid as loan to the members after obtaining sufficient security and guarantee and it is a legal transaction and therefore, no offence is made out. Having heard either side, though I cannot agree with the prosecution regarding the making out offences u/s 13 of the PC Act for failure to take registration and to remit the registration fees, as regards the payment of amount to various persons, I cannot agree with the petitioner. The question whether the payment of amount is in pursuance to Ext.P2 or whether there was sufficient security obtained before making payment is a matter to be investigated by the investigating officer, because the right to take deposit or to conduct chitties and the right to make undeserving payment out of the funds of the society is disputed by the respondents. In other way, whether the payments amounting to Rs. 3,08,100/- is legal or not is matter to be probed. Therefore, it is rather difficult to arrive at a conclusion in a writ proceedings regarding the defence advanced basing upon Ext.P2 and the so-called security obtained by the petitioner for advancing various amounts to certain persons. In the above circumstance, I find that it is not appropriate to invoke writ jurisdiction to interfere with the process of investigation.

In the result, this writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the defence of the petitioner. Respondents 1 to 3 shall look into the defence advanced in this petition during the investigation. In the event they propose to arrest the petitioner, due notice shall be given to the petitioner. The petitioner is at liberty to assail the notice, if any received, in appropriate proceedings or to apply for bail and get released on bail. The investigation shall be completed as expeditiously as possible.