IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J.
The State Of Kerala – Appellant
Versus
Navaneeth Krishnan – Respondent
Crl.Rev.Pet No. 422 of 2022
Decided on : 26-07-2023
Fact of the Case:
The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) registered a crime against accused employees of a Gramin Bank for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court discharged the accused based on jurisdictional grounds.Finding of the Court:
The court held that VACB has authority to investigate offences involving corruption by Central Government employees within the State. The court set aside the discharge order and directed consideration of the application for discharge on merits.Issues:
Whether VACB had jurisdiction to investigate offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act committed by Central Government employees.Ratio Decidendi:
The court interpreted relevant provisions in the Prevention of Corruption Act, Criminal Procedure Code, and case law to establish that VACB has authority to investigate such offences.Final Decision:
The court held that VACB has jurisdiction to investigate offences involving corruption by Central Government employees within the State. The discharge order was set aside.ORDER :
An important question relating to the authority of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (for short, 'VACB') of the State to register the crime and investigate the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the P.C.Act') committed by the employees of the Central Government arises for consideration in these Criminal Revision Petitions.
2. The VACB, Kottayam unit registered a crime as V.C.No.5/2010/KTM against four accused persons. After completing the investigation, they filed final report at the court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam (for short, 'the court below') alleging offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(c) and (d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C.Act and Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471 and 204 of the IPC.
3. The prosecution allegation in short is a s follows:
The accused No.1 is the Village Extension Officer, Thalayolaparamba and the Implementing Officer of Project No.137/2006 of Thalayolaparamba Grama Panchayat. Accused Nos. 2 to 4 are the officials of North Malabar Gramin Bank, Thalayolaparamba Branch. The accused Nos. 1 to 4 conspired together with the intention to cheat Thalayolaparamba Grama Panchayath and the beneficiaries of the project No.137/2006. In pursuance of the conspiracy, the accused No.1 misappropriated the project amount of Rs.1,85,000/-by forging signatures in the pay orders issued in the name of the beneficiaries. The accused Nos. 2 to 4 without ascertaining the beneficiaries passed nontransferable pay orders and enabled accused No.1 to derive undue pecuniary advantage during the period from 27/02/2006 to 02/01/2007.
4. The court below took cognizance of the case as C.C.No.35/2014. The accused Nos. 2 to 4 filed three separate applications for discharge under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. mainly on the ground that the VACB, Kottayam had no authority or jurisdiction to register the crime and conduct the investigation in as much as they are the employees of the Central Government. The court below accepted the said contention and discharged them as per the common order dated 06/02/2020. The said order is impugned in these revision petitions filed by the State.
5. I have heard Sri.A. Rajesh, the learned Special Prosecutor for VACB, Smt. Shameena Salahudheen, the learned counsel for the accused Nos.2 and 3 (respondent in Crl.Rev.Pet Nos.422 & 626 of 2022) and Sri. A.Arunkumar, the learned counsel for the accused No.4 (respondent in Crl.Rev.Pet No.332 of 2023).
6. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for VACB Sri.A.Rajesh submitted that the P.C Act does not exclude or prevent the State Police or a Special Agency of the State like VACB from investigating cases relating to corruption committed by the public servants of the Central Government and hence, the impugned order passed by the court below is unsustainable. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further submitted that the decision in Vijayan Kottari v. State of Kerala (2016(3) KHC 749) relied on by the Court below to rest its conclusion is no longer good law. The learned Public Prosecutor relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Sharma A.C. v. Delhi Administration [1973 KHC 504], the decision of the Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Arvind Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2018 KHC 4261], the decision of the Divsion Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ashok Kumar Kirtiwar v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2001 KHC 2396] and the decision of the Single Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in G.S.R. Somayaji (Dr.) v. State through CBI [2002 KHC 2104] in support of his submissions.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused/respondent submitted that the Gramin Banks are governed by the policies of the Central Government, the State Government has no control or power on the affairs of the North Malabar Gramin Bank, and the accused Nos 2 to 4, being officers of the North Malabar Gramin Bank, CBI, Central Vigilance Commission or such other Central Government Authority alone has authority and jurisdiction
Ashok Kumar Kirtiwar v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2001 KHC 2396]
Arvind Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2018 KHC 4261]
Chandra Prakash Singh and Others v. Chairman
G.S.R. Somayaji (Dr.) v. State through CBI [2002 KHC 2104
H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi (AIR 1955 SC 196)
Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. And Others [2013 (4) KHC 552]
M.P. and others v. Ram Singh 2000 CrLJ 1401 (SC)
National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi & Others [(2017) 16 SCC 680
Santhosh T.A. And Another v. State of Kerala [2017 (5) KHC 107]
Sharma A.C. v. Delhi Administration [1973 KHC 504]
Vijayan Kottari v. State of Kerala (2016(3) KHC 749)
Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja and Another (AIR 2003 SC 2612)
State police or a Special Agency like VACB can investigate cases relating to corruption committed by Central Government employees under the Prevention of Corruption Act unless there is a specific pro....
Once charge sheet is filed, merely because Investigating Agency had no jurisdiction to investigate matter, charge sheet cannot be quashed.
The ACB in Rajasthan can investigate and file charges against Central Government employees for corruption if committed within state jurisdiction, despite CBI’s authority.
The court upheld DVAC's authority to investigate corruption allegations against Central Government officials, emphasizing that irregularities in investigation do not invalidate subsequent proceedings....
Object of PC Act is to consolidate and amend law relating to prevention of corruption and matter connected thereto, thereby strengthening of Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta is inevitable and “it is high ....
Exoneration in departmental proceedings, based on merits, can lead to quashing of criminal prosecution.
Enquiry or Inquiry or investigation of offences decision taken by public servant in discharge of official functions or duties - Once a constitutional court examines and satisfies itself about necessi....
Point of law: Prevention of corruption – Good faith - Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be made applicable in those cases where the act of the public servant that amounts to an o....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.