The court emphasized that mere suspicion is insufficient for framing charges; a prima facie case must be established, which was not done in this instance.

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Revision is at the instance of accused No. 7 in C.C. No. 4/2018 on the file of the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram.

Facts:

2. The petitioner is a Lawyer by profession. He was the Legal Advisor of the Kerala Transport Development Finance Corporation Limited (KTDFC), a Government owned company. Accused No. 1 was the Managing Director of the KTDFC. Accused Nos.2 to 6 were the employees of the company. Accused No. 8 is the husband of accused No. 1.

2.1. Accused No. 8 is the owner of 17.25 cents of land in survey No. 394/B1-2 of Thycaud village. He mortgaged the said property and availed a cash credit loan of Rs.75 Lakhs from the Punjab National Bank, Kozhikode. The bank declared the loan as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) and proceeded against the property, which was later sold to a third party on 17.11.2004.

2.2. The KTDFC introduced “Aiswarya Griha Housing Finance Scheme” in 2005. There was a provision for ‘housing and taking over loan’ under the scheme. Subsisting housing loans are taken under the scheme. Business loans are not taken under it. There was also a provision for relaxation in interest rate of such housing loans availed by the permanent employees of the KTDFC. Accused No. 8, suppressing the fact that the landed property involved was subjected to mortgage with the Punjab National Bank and that the same was sold out, submitted an application for loan under ‘Aiswarya Griha Housing Finance Scheme’ before the KTDFC. As part of the conspiracy hatched by his wife and the other accused, the property, which was subjected to mortgage with the Punjab National Bank, was offered as security for the loan availed from the KTDFC. The application for loan was made on 04.03.2005. Accused Nos.2 to 6 did not conduct any verification of the application. They dishonestly entertained it knowing that accused Nos.1 and 8 were not actually eligible for the loan. Accused No. 1 sanctioned Rs.46 Lakhs in favour of herself and accused No. 8.

2.3. The petitioner gave a legal scrutiny certificate without properly verifying the original title deeds and dues on the property. The legal scrutiny report was dated 25.02.2005, a date even prior to the application date.

2.4. The loan was sanctioned on 28.03.2005. Thereafter, without any application for loan and only based on the ‘notes’ submitted by accused No. 1, an additional amount of Rs.30,33,983/-was also sanctioned as “top up” in violation of the scheme which limits ‘top up’ only up to Rs.1 Lakh. Relaxation of benefits was availed by accused No. 1 in respect of both the loans. Accused Nos.1 and 8 obtained an undue pecuniary advantage worth Rs.76,92,171/-.

3. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner had the knowledge regarding the intention of accused Nos.1 and 8 and he participated in the conspiracy alleged.

4. The petitioner and the other accused are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

5. The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram Unit conducted the investigation and submitted the final report alleging the aforesaid offences.

6. The petitioner appeared in response to summons. He filed an application as Crl. M.P. No. 1110/2021 seeking discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. The learned Special Judge dismissed the application. The said order is under challenge in this Crl.R.P.

7. The relevant portion of the order under challenge is extracted below:

“10. Involvement of the petitioner in the whole transaction was by giving ante-dated legal scrutiny report. As seen from the prosecution records the legal scrutiny report is dated 25.02.2005. But the said report also states that the petitioner had scrutinized photocopy of a building tax receipt dated 01.06.2005 and photocopy of ownership certificate dated 03.06.2005. The prosecution records further show that the building tax receipt