KOCHI: In a shocking development, three sets of sensitive files along with petitions and supporting documents have gone ‘missing’ from the Kerala High Court. The missing of files, pertaining to a land case, from a highly sensitive section came to light after a probe by the Registrar (Vigilance) of the HC. Sources said a leading advocate, his registered clerk and the section officer are under the scanner. Surprisingly, a complaint is yet to be lodged with the police even after a major offense was unearthed. After the unofficial media ban inside courts, only advocates and clerks in addition to court staff have entry to courts.
The HC Registrar in his report mentioned the probability of an advocate or a registered clerk being behind the theft. “Since entry to the judicial sections of the HC is restricted to advocates, registered clerks of the advocates and party-in-persons, it is highly probable that removal of the case file RFA No.172/2016 from the court officers section was actually effected by an advocate or a registered advocate clerk in connivance with C K Srinivas - Section Officer/ Court officer,” the Registrar (Vigilance) report said.
The files that went missing pertain to a land case in Palakkad. In November 2016, Kandumuthan of Polpully had filed a Regular First Appeal before the HC against an order by the Palakkad Principal Subordinate Court. The respondent - Chandran of Kolluparambu - filed a caveat. But the appeal was not listed for admission though an urgent memo was filed by appellants.
They also approached the Registrar alleging that the files were missing. During the inquiry it was revealed that Set I and II of the appeal were missing along with the relevant documents in Set III. However, the appellant filed reconstructed petition before the Division Bench. When the Bench assembled on November 17, the ‘stolen’ files were seen on the table of the court officer.
Terming it a serious issue, the court found that somebody had stealthily removed the original file - probably to defeat the appellant. As part of the inquiry, the Registrar had recorded the statements of 16 witnesses and examined the relevant documents. An Amicus Curiae appointed by the court also said a possible conspiracy involving the respondent, his counsel, advocate clerk and court staff could not be ruled out. He had even suggested that the probe should be