Kattakkada Christian College Elections Row: Kerala High Court Dismisses Anticipatory Bail Pleas Of Principal, SFI Leader

The Kerala High Court on Friday dismissed the anticipatory bail pleas of the former Principal of Christian College, Kattakada, G.J. Shyju, and Student Federation of India (SFI) leader Visakh A in the case related to alleged impersonation, falsification of documents and misrepresentation during the college elections held in May 2023.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, on being informed that the accused were willing to surrender before the Investigating Officer on July 4, 2023, directed that, 

"...in the event of the two petitioners surrendering before the IO on or before 04.07.2023, they shall be subjected to interrogation, and thereafter, the procedure as contemplated under law shall be complied with".

The Principal of the College, who has been named as the first accused person, sharing the common intention with the second accused person Visakh A. who is an SFI leader, was alleged to have created false documents and committed criminal breach of trust and cheating by forging the election documents of the college. The 1st accused was thereafter alleged to have forwarded those forged documents to the Kerala University to enable the second accused to participate in the University Union elections, resulting in damage to the reputation of the Kerala University and eroding the sanctity of the election process of the University. The accused persons were thus accused of having acted in  concert with each other and thereby committed the offences under Sections 409 ('Criminal Breach of Trust by Public Servant, Banker, Merchant, or Agent'), 419 ('Punishment for Cheating by Personation'), 420 ('Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of Property'), 465 ('Punishment for Forgery'), 468 ('Forgery for the purposes of Cheating') and 471 ('Using as Genuine a Forged Document or Electronic Record') read with Section 34 (Acts done in furtherance of Common Intention) of IPC. 

The Principal of the College averred that the allegations against him were baseless, and that no false document had been created by him. It was argued that even if the entire prosecution allegations were assumed to be correct, it would only reveal a circumstance for initiating disciplinary proceedings, and would not be a cause for criminal complaint. It was added that when the the originally elected candidate, Anakha A.S. resigned from the post of University Union Councillor of the college, the first accused had only filled up the vacancy in exercise of the powers under section 43 of the Kerala University Act, 1974, and that no criminality could thus be attributed. 

On behalf of the second accused, it was submitted that the Police had arrayed him as an accused without conducting proper enquiry. He submitted that there were no elections conducted in the college, since the five candidates were selected unanimously, de hors their political affinity. He further said that when subsequently, one of the candidates became medically dispossessed, she voluntarily resigned and since no elections were held in the college, the Principal of the College forwarded his name as one of the representatives.

The Public Prosecutor argued that considering the nature and seriousness of the allegations, custodial interrogation was essential in this case. It was contended that the proforma submitted by the first accused, indicating that the second accused was the duly elected University Union Councillor from the college was a forged document which would have gone unnoticed and thereby destroyed the very basis of a fair University Union elections. 

The Court noted that the age limit prescribed for undergraduate students for contesting the elections is fixed as between 17 and 22, and in the event of any major post of office bearer falling vacant within two months of elections, re-elections ought to be conducted. 

The Court noted that the Principal had submitted the proforma and also signed the same and certified it as correct. It observed that once the list of elected candidates had been submitted by the Returning Officer, there is no authority for any person to change the names, unless a fresh election is conducted. The Court noted that in the present case, nobody had any case that fresh elections had been conducted in the college. 

"Therefore, prima facie, the proforma is seen to be incorporated with the name of a person who was not elected in any valid election," the Court added. 

The Court found that the first accused had included the name of the second accused as the candidate duly elected in the election as the representative of the college to the University Union, while the latter had not even submitted his nomination for such an election and the unanimously elected candidate had been a different person. The Court also found that the second accused had affixed his signature and photograph in the proforma for elected candidates.

The Court accordingly found that there was a prima facie case of dishonest and fraudulent conduct on the part of the first accused. 

"On an appreciation of the aforesaid circumstances, as revealed from the case diary and the documents produced by the petitioners, it is evident that the offences alleged against the accused are serious in nature. The sanctity of the election process has been materially affected. The Principal of a College is not entitled by law to nominate a person to the post of University Union representative, even if it falls vacant by resignation or otherwise...The reasons and the manner in which the name of the second accused was incorporated as the elected candidate and the surrounding circumstances are required to be brought out during investigation. Considering the nature of allegations and its implications, the stage of investigation and the materials required to be unearthed, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the accused is essential," the Court held. 

It also rejected the contention of the second accused that he was innocent and could not be mulcted with criminal liability for the acts of the first accused. 

"Prima facie, he has affixed his signature and supplied his photographs to be affixed on the proforma, thereby aiding the creation of a false document. Further, as per the cause title of his bail application he is 24 years of age. By virtue of the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations accepted by the Supreme Court, the second accused could not even have submitted a nomination to a college election due to the age restriction as he is an undergraduate student. In such circumstances, the contention of the second accused that he should not be subjected to custodial interrogation is only to be rejected," the Court added. 

The anticipatory bail applications were thus dismissed. 

The Principal of the College was represented by Advocate Sasthamangalam S. Ajithkumar. Advocate S. Nikhil Sankar appeared on behalf of the 2nd accused, Visakh. Public Prosecutors P.P. Sreeja V. and K.A. Noushad appeared on behalf of the State in the two cases. 

Case Title: Shyju G.J. v. State of Kerala and Visakh A. v. State of Kerala 

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 299 

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment