Kerala High Court
T. Radhakrishnan vs State Of Kerala on 25 February, 2026
2026:KER:17171
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 149 OF 2026
ORDER DATED 12.12.2025 CRL.M.P. NO.20 OF 2025 IN CC
32/2025/KLM.ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, KOLLAM
REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
T. RADHAKRISHNAN.
AGED 66 YEARS
S/O.THANKAPPAN NAIR, MONYLAND, PANMANA, EDAPALLIKOTTA,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691583
BY ADVS.
SHRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD
SHRI.JOSE ANTONY
SHRI.HARIKRISHNAN P.
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031
2 VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU (VACB)
KOLLAM UNIT REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF
POLICE, VACB, KAANKATHUMUKKU, KOLLAM, PIN - 691013
SR PP REKHA S, SR PP A RAJESH
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 25.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:14531
Crl.R.P. No.149 of 2026
-2-
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
-------------------------------------------------
Crl.R.P. No.149 of 2026
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of February, 2026
ORDER
This criminal revision petition has been filed by the sole
accused in C.C. No.32/2025/KLM (VC 1/13/KLM) on the files of the
Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kollam challenging order
dated 12.12.2025 in Crl.M.P. No.20 of 2025, by which the learned
Special Judge dismissed the application for discharge.
2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the revision
petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor in detail.
3. The necessary facts in this case as alleged by the
prosecution could be seen from the statement filed by the 2 nd
respondent which read as under;
“2. It is submitted that the FIR in VC-01/2013/KLM was registered at V.A.C.B
Unit, Kollam on 17.01.2013 following a Quick Verification conducted by V.A.C.B
Unit, Kollam on the basis of the direction of the Court of Enquiry Commissioner
and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram dated 12.10.2012 in Crl. M.P No.
761/2012 which was filed before the Court by one Lalji from Karunagappally
(CW-1 in CC 32/2025) raising serious allegations of official irregularities and
malpractices in Sree Bala Bhattaraka Vilasam Sanskrit Government Higher
2026:KER:14531
Crl.R.P. No.149 of 2026
-3-Secondary School (hereinafter mentioned as SBVSGHSS), Panmana Manayil,
Chavara. The above case was registered initially against three accused persons,
namely Sri. T. Radhakrishnan (A1), Sri. M. Raja (A2) and Smt. M. Nageena (A3),
who were holding the charge of Deputy Headmaster, Headmaster and
Headmistress respectively at different tenures during the period from 2005 to
2010. One of the allegations in the FIR was that the accused hatched criminal
conspiracy for illegally maintaining the roll strength of the school above 1500 by
making false records showing fake admissions of students during 2008-2009 with
intention to retain the designation of the revision petitioner as Deputy HM and
thereby to gain illegal monetary gain. There were also other allegations of
misappropriation in the FIR against the accused in connection with disposal of
valued answer sheets as scrap, collection and remittance of Special Fees during
the above period and in connection with the construction of new class rooms for
the school specifically against Smt. M. Nageena (A3) during her tenure.
3. It is submitted that only the allegation with regard to bogus admissions of
students was proved on investigation and only the revision petitioner(A1) herein
was found liable for the criminal acts in connection therewith and that he alone
was benefitted by the outcome of the same. So Sri. M. Raja (A2) and Smt. M.
Nageena (A3), who were arraigned as accused in the FIR were exempted as the
offences alleged against them could not be proved. Final Report was submitted
against the Revision Petitioner alone before the Court of Enquiry Commissioner
and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram U/s 13 (1) (d) (ii), 13 (1) (c) of P.C Act
and Sections 465, 468 and 471 of the IPC on 23.12.2020 and the case was
numbered as C.C. No. 1/2021 of Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special
Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. Later the above case was transferred to Court of
Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kollam and now the case is pending as
CC 32/2025.
4. It is submitted that as per G.O (MS) No. 397/95/G.Edn, dated 05.08.1995 and
G.O (MS) No. 598/95/G.Edn dated 27.12.1995, the post of Senior in the Assistants
Government/Aided High Schools, where more than 1500 pupils would be
2026:KER:14531
Crl.R.P. No.149 of 2026
-4-studying, was re-designed as Deputy Head Master. In this case, the Revision
Petitioner was admittedly the Senior Assistant of the school and as such he was
designated as the Deputy HM from 2007-2008 on the strength of the above G.Os.
Accordingly, he had been enjoying the said position as Deputy H.M till January,
2009 and thereby drawing the special allowance of Rs:200/- per month allotted
against the said post.”
4. The petitioner filed discharge petition raising contention
that he is innocent and did not possess the charge as Deputy Head
Master during the period from 24.05.2008 to 04.06.2008, ie. after the
retirement of the earlier Headmistress and appointment of the new
Head Master. The contention raised by the learned Counsel for the
petitioner before the Special Court has been reiterated and the
allegation is confined to obtaining illegal monetary benefit of
Rs.200/- per month on the premise of the accused holding the post
of Deputy Head Master and thereby caused a loss of Rs.1600/- to the
Government and the public exchequer.
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor opposed the
contentions raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner
and produced statement at the instance of the Investigating Officer
and also documents substantiating the allegation against the revision
2026:KER:14531
Crl.R.P. No.149 of 2026
-5-
petitioner. The learned Special Judge assigned reasons for not
allowing the discharge petition on the finding that prima facie
allegations are made out, which read as under;
“It is submitted that the admission process was carried out during the period
from 21.05.2008 to 03.06.2008 and that A2 (CW-51) had not even taken over
charge of HM at that stage in the school. CW-51 was found to have no
intentional involvement or knowledge regarding the fake admissions made by
the Revision Petitioner. Moreover, it was he who physically found out the
reduction in the number of students in the school subsequently and submitted a
report before the District Education Officer. It was on the basis of the above
report that the post of the Revision Petitioner as Deputy H.M was subsequently
abolished. The above report was seized as part of investigation and produced
before the Court. It was on account of the above revelation that A2 was
exempted from the array of accused and made CW-51 in the case.”
6. Referring to Annexure A2, it is pointed out by the learned
Counsel for the revision petitioner that as per Annexure A2, the
witness had given statement before the Investigating Officer that the
charge of Deputy Head Master was not given to the revision
petitioner during the relevant period. Adverting to Annexure A3, it
is pointed out that the petitioner was never given the charge of
Deputy Head Master and he did not receive any applications as
alleged and he did not admit any students. As per Annexure A4
2026:KER:14531
Crl.R.P. No.149 of 2026
-6-
letter of the Head Master to the DEO, it was stated that the students
who were admitted, later failed to attend the class and accordingly,
they were requested to be removed from the attendance roll. The
allegation that the petitioner herein made 46 admissions during the
period 2008-09, while he held the charge of Deputy Head Master of
Balabhattakara Vilasom Sanskrit Govt. Higher Secondary School,
Panmanayil, Chavara is seen from the report of the 2 nd respondent,
which reads as under;
“6. It is submitted that the ultimate power to carry out admission, transfer and
dismissal of students is vested upon the Head Master or on the person who
holds the charge of the HM as per Chapter VI, Kerela Education Rules. Revision
Petitioner was the Senior Assistant in the SBVSGHSS, Panmana Manayil during
the period of 2007-2009 and Smt. Girijamma who was the Headmistress of the
school till the date of 24.05.2008 and Mr. Raja took charge as the new HM as on
04.06.2008. The Revision Petitioner was admittedly the Senior Assistant of the
school and as per G.O (MS) No. 397/95/G.Edn, and G.O (MS) No. 598/95/G.Edn,
he was designated as the Deputy HM. That means he was duly performing the
administrative functions of HM in the absence of the H.M. As per the statement
of Sri. M. Raja (CW-51), he took over charge of H.M on 04.06.2008 from the
Revision Petitioner who had been holding charge of the HM till then. The bogus
admissions were made in the school prior to his taking charge. 39 of the
applications in respect of the above admissions which were pending to be
signed by the H.M were placed before him by the Revision Petitioner and the
clerk concerned and obtained his signature. He signed the above applications,
as the process of admissions in respect of them had already been completed.
2026:KER:14531
Crl.R.P. No.149 of 2026
-7-Sri. Ratheesh Babu, the clerk concerned (CW-52) also supported the above
version of CW-51. Therefore, it is clear that the Revision Petitioner, being the
Senior Assistant and Deputy HM prior to 04.06.2008, was responsible for the
aforementioned 46 bogus admissions made in the school during the absence of
the HM. Investigation revealed that the Revision Petitioner had very cunningly
held most of the bogus applications pending with malicious intention to get it
endorsed by Sri. Raja (CW-51) who was expected to take charge as the new HM
soon and as such he managed to get them signed by Mr. Raja when he took
charge. The fact that the above bogus admissions were made during the tenure
of the Revision Petitioner as HM in charge of the school and it were so made at
the instance of the Revision Petitioner would also be revealed from the
statements of Smt. Preethakumari Amma, Smt. Sobha, Smt. Princy Reena
Thomas, Smt. Dhanalakshmi and Smt. Selina Rani (CW-61, 64, 65, 66 and 67
respectively) who were working as teachers in the above school during the
relevant period.
7. It is submitted that a temporary shift arrangement was made to
accommodate all classes due to the scarcity of classrooms in SBVSGHSS up to
the year 2010. Even during such an arrangement, the school was functioning
under a single Head Master and in the absence of HM, charge of the school was
naturally vested with the Senior Assistant who was upgraded as Deputy HM.
Therefore, no portion of administration of the school could be bifurcated to any
other teachers in the above circumstances as contented by the Revision
Petitioner. The fact that the entire school was functioning under a single Head
Master and in his/her absence, the administrative charge of the school during
the relevant period was held by the Revision Petitioner is reflected in the
statements of witnesses namely Sri. Raja, the HM who took over charge of the
school from the Revision Petitioner (CW-51), Sri. Ratheesh Babu, the clerk
concerned (CW-52), Smt. Preethakumari Amma, Smt. Sobha, Smt. Princy Reena
Thomas, Smt. Dhanalakshmi and Smt. Selina Rani (CW-61, 64, 65, 66 and 67
respectively) who were teachers of the school during the relevant period of
2026:KER:14531
Crl.R.P. No.149 of 2026
-8-
alleged offence.
8. It is submitted that on verification of the file containing the application
forms and connected documents of admission for the period of 2008-2009, a
total of 51 applications of students vide admission numbers 21505 to 21555 were
found received. All of those students were admitted during the period from
21.05.2008 to 03.06.2008. Out of the above 51 admissions 46 were revealed as fake
admissions. CWS to CW 49 are the parents of those students who were shown to
have been admitted as per the above fake records. According to them their
children had never studied in SBVSGHSS and the signatures found in the
column of parents in the applications, as shown purportedly put by them, were
actually not theirs. It was revealed on investigation that most of the
applications in respect of the bogus admissions were received in the school
during the period when the Revision Petitioner as the Head Master in charge of
the school.
9. It is submitted that as per the statement of Sri. Ratheesh Babu (CW-52), it
was at the instance of the Revision Petitioner that some of those applications
were attested by Sri. Raja who took over charge as HM on 04.06.2008. Sri Raja,
who was 2nd Accused in the FIR, was subsequently exempted from the array of
accused and made CW-51. He also stated in line with CW-52 Ratheesh Babu.
CW-52 further deposed that the above file relating to the admission of students,
which contained the applications, was entrusted to his safe custody by the
Revision Petitioner. It is clearly revealed that though it was the Revision
Petitioner who had to attest the applications which were purportedly received
during his tenure as HM in charge, he cleverly waited for A2, who is next HM,
to take over and deceitfully made him put his signature on them. It is the slyest
precaution taken deliberately by the petitioner to divert the culpability from
his shoulders to that of A2. It is also pertinent to note that pages 66 to 70 of the
Admission Register of the school for the year 2008-2009, which contained the
details regarding the students shown in the imaginary admissions, were found
missing. On verification it is revealed that the same was torn away
2026:KER:14531
Crl.R.P. No.149 of 2026
-9-
purposefully from the said register. The above register was seized and
produced before the Court.
10. It is submitted that CW-51, by letter No. P2/08 dated 25.08.2008, addressed
to the District Educational Officer, Kollam, requested permission to remove the
names of 46 students who were not attending classes up to the first week of
August 2008. CW-51 has further stated that he was under the bona fidé belief
that all students would ordinarily be attending classes, as the admission
process had been completed, and that it was only when allegations began to
surface that he noticed the discrepancy.
14. It is submitted that as per the Attendance Register of Standard V-D of
SBVSGHSS, 12 students vide Admission Nos. 21509 to 21514 and 21539 to 21544
were seen added in the 4th sheet of the Register. They were marked present
during the period from 02.06.2008 to 30.08.2008 and were thereafter removed
from the class. This fact would be revealed from sheet No. 4 to 7 of the above
Attendance Register which was seized and produced before the Court, Smt.
Princy Reena Thomas, the class teacher concerned (CW-65) stated that she was
directed by the petitioner to enter the details of those students in the
Attendance Register and it was on his compulsion that their attendance was
marked by her in the Attendance Register. On verification of the Admission
Register and Attendance Register for Standard V-A of Quadisiyya Al-Ameen
Public School, Kottukadu, 5 students who were shown against the above bogus
Admission Numbers, viz: 21539, 21541, 21542, 21543, 21544 were revealed to be
regular students of that school during the same period. This fact was supported
by the class teachers namely Smt. Shamla and Smt. Sobhana of Standard V-A
of that school during the relevant period (CWs-54 and 55). Investigation could
further ascertain that the remaining 7 students having bogus Admission
Numbers 21509, 21510, 21511, 21512, 21513, 21514 and 21540 were actually
regular students of another school, namely Chinmaya Public School,
Parimanam during the relevant period. The above school is non-existent at
present.”
2026:KER:14531
Crl.R.P. No.149 of 2026
-10-
7. In this matter, on scrutiny of the prosecution records,
prima facie, there are materials as stated by witnesses 1 to 49 to show
that 46 students were admitted in the school and the same are fake
admissions and receipt of Rs.1600/- by the petitioner on the premise
of holding the charge of Deputy Head Master. On scanning the
veracity of the records in toto, prima facie, the allegations are made
out or atleast a strong suspicion to be gathered. In such a case, the
learned Special Judge is right in dismissing the discharge petition. In
view of the matter, the impugned order does not require any
interference.
Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed, with
liberty to the revision petitioner to raise his contentions before the
Special Court during trial.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN,
JUDGE
SSK/25/02
2026:KER:14531
Crl.R.P. No.149 of 2026
-11-
APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET NO. 149 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE PETITION
FILED BEFORE THE COURT OF ENQUIRY
COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AS CRL.M.P
NO.113/2022 IN CC NO.1/2021.
Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF CHARGE
WITNESS NO. 59 (CW59) PRODUCED BEFORE
THE TRIAL COURT BY THE PROSECUTION WITH
TYPED COPY.
Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
16.09.2017 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT
EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM TO
MR.ALJABAR, POLICE INSPECTOR, VIGILANCE
AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, KOLLAM
PRODUCED BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT BY THE
PROSECUTION AS DOCUMENT NO.16 WITH TYPED
COPY.
Annexure A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
25.08.2008 ISSUED BY THE HEAD MASTER,
SBVS GOVT. HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
PANMANAMANAYIL TO THE DISTRICT
EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM PRODUCED
BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT BY THE
PROSECUTION AS DOCUMENT NO.20 WITH TYPED
COPY.