Suresh vs State Of Kerala And Ors

Petitioner claims to be the owner of immovable properties in KDH Village in Idukki District and to have purchased the properties from three persons who acquired ownership on the strength of Pattas issued in their favour by the revenue authorities. Later, there arose allegations that the property for which Pattas were issued was Government land and that the persons in whose favour the Pattas were issued had not even submitted applications. This resulted in vigilance cases being registered and the Pattas being cancelled. Petitioner being an affected person, preferred Exhibits P13, P14 and P15 appeals against canellation of the Pattas issued to his assignors. In the appeals, the petitioner has raised a contention that the Pattas were issued based on applications submitted by his assignors, which fact had been stated by them during investigation of the vigilance case. The petitioner submitted applications under the Right to Information Act before the Vigilance Department, in his attempt to obtain copies of the statements given by his assignors. As per Exhibit P20, the petitioner was informed that the cases investigated by the Vigilance is now pending as C.C.No.342 of 2016 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Muvattupuzha and that the statements required by him are produced in that case. Faced with such a situation, petitioner submitted Exhibit P21 application before the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Muvattupuzha seeking copies of the statements. The application was rejected stating that the witness statements are not enclosed with the charge sheet in C.C.No.342 of 2016.

As directed by this Court, a report has been filed by the 2nd respondent, wherein it is stated as follows;

"4..... All original records inclusive of witness statements (as applied by the petitioner vide RTI Act) with regard to the final report are submitted before the Honourable Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge Court, Muvattupuzha. It is ordered by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge Court, Muvattupuzha vide VC No.10/03 (Part III Report) dtd.08/09/2016 that the final report Part-III will be kept along with original case records of CC.342/16."

On a reading of the statement, it is evident that the witness statements are available among the case records in C.C.No.342 of 2016.

As per Rule 226 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, application for grant of copies of any proceedings or documents by a stranger to the proceedings can be allowed by order of the court. Therefore, the petitioner can be allowed to submit an application under Rule 226.

In the result, the original petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to submit an application under Rule 226 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, for obtaining copies of the statements produced in C.C.No.342 of 2016. In such event, the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Muvattupuzha shall consider the application in the light of the statement of by the 2nd respondent extracted above, and pass appropriate orders within two weeks of submission of the application.