Back
2024 Supreme(Ker) 395
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. BABU, J.
B.S. Jayakumar – Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
Crl. R.P. Nos. 580, 777 of 2022, O.P. Crl. Nos. 431, 515 of 2022
Decided On : 19-04-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: P. Nandakumar, Vivek Vijayakumar, Amrutha Sanjeev, K.G. Devipriya, S. Abdul Razzak, Sidharth A. Menon, V. Ajakumar, P. Parameswaran Nair.
For the Respondents: Rekha, Rajesh A.
The decision affirms that prima facie evidence of conspiracy and violations of town planning regulations justifies the framing of charges against public officials and private individuals involved in corrupt practices related to building permits.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13(2), 13(1)(d) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 120B - Allegations against public servants and private individuals for conspiracy to issue building permits in violation of town planning regulations. (Paras 1-2, 60-64)
(B) Charge framing - Stage of legal proceedings - The court evaluates the prima facie case based on available materials without delving into extensive factual analysis at the charge framing stage. The test is whether there exists grounds for presuming that the accused has committed an offence. (Paras 14-20)
(C) Violation of Town Planning Regulations - Building permits issued for constructing a 14-storied building in a zone where height restriction is 7.5 meters; clear violations of the detailed town planning scheme established. The accused engaged in a conspiracy to issue the permit contrary to the regulations. (Paras 8, 50, 60)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, public officials, are accused of conspiracy involving issuing building permits for illegal construction against Town Planning Regulations. Violations included exceeding height and density restrictions leading to undue financial gain.
Findings of Court:
The court determined there are sufficient materials to proceed against accused individuals for conspiracy and violation of planning rules, establishing prima facie evidence for charges.
Issues: The central issue was the involvement of various public officials and a private firm in the conspiracy around issuing illegal building permits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that at the charge framing stage, it must evaluate if there is a prima facie case emerging from the materials on record, relying on established principles that criminal conspiracy can be proved through circumstantial evidence.
Result: Criminal revision petitions and original petitions are dismissed.
Key Points: - The court states that at charge framing, the test is whether there exists a prima facie grounds for presuming the accused committed an offence, based on available materials, without detailed factual analysis. (!) (!) (!) - The court discusses that validity of sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 197 Cr.P.C. is a mixed question of fact appropriate to be raised and examined during trial, not at the initial stage of discharge/framing, and that it need not be addressed at this stage. (!) (!) (!) - The essentials of criminal conspiracy under IPC Sections 120-A and 120-B include existence of a design to commit an offence, voluntary concealment of such design, and knowledge/intent to facilitate the offence; conspiracy can be inferred from circumstantial evidence where direct evidence is lacking. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - The judgment affirms that prima facie materials show conspiracy among public officials and private party in issuing a building permit in violation of the Detailed Town Planning Scheme (DTPS), evidencing prima facie conspiracy. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - The court emphasizes that at charge framing, the court must consider whether there is a prima facie case emerging from the record and that the detailed weighing of evidence is not undertaken. (!) (!) - The court refuses to interfere with the framing of charges and dismisses the petitions. (!)
What is the test at the charge-framing stage for prima facie case and how is it applied?
What is the application of sanction validity under Sections 19 PC Act and 197 Cr.P.C. during trial vs. at charge framing?
What are the essential elements and standards for proving criminal conspiracy under IPC Sections 120A-B in the context of alleged municipal building permit corruption?
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the appeal challenges the common order that upheld the framing of charges against the accused. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. the permit issuance process violated the detailed town planning scheme guidelines. (Para 3 , 5 , 6 , 12 , 28 , 39) |
| 3. the importance of sufficient grounds for prosecution and valid sanction were discussed. (Para 10 , 14 , 31) |
| 4. the court established the presence of a prima facie case for criminal conspiracy. (Para 24 , 25 , 55) |
1. The challenge in the Criminal Revision Petitions and the Original Petitions is to the common order dated 27.06.2022 passed by the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in Crl. M.P. Nos. 928/2016, 214/2019, 301/20, 162/20, 67/21, 1334/15 and 739/2016 in C.C. No. 15/2014. In the Original Petitions, the petitioners further challenge the order framing charges against them.
2. The Calendar Case arises from FIR No. VC1/2010/SRT registered by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (the VACB), Southern Range, Thiruvananthapuram. There were nine accused in the case. They are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1)(d) of the PC Act and Section 120B IPC. Accused No. 1 is the petitioner in O.P. (Crl) No. 431 of 2022. The petitioner in Crl. R.P. No. 580 of 2022 is accused No. 2. The petitioner in O.P. (Crl) No. 515 of 2022 is accused No. 8. Accused No. 9 is the petitioner in Crl. R.P. No. 777 of 2022.
3. The prosecution case is as follows:
The first accused was the Town Planning Officer of Thiruvananthapuram Corporation from 2001 to 2004. The second accused succeeded him and served as such from 01.06.2004 to 26.04.2005. Accused No. 3 was the Assistant Town Planning Officer during 2002 to 2006. Accused No. 4 was the Building Inspector during the said period and was holding charge of Building Inspector, Kuravankonam Circle from 2003 to 2005. Accused No. 5 was the Mayor of Thiruvananthapuram Corporation from October 2000 to September 2005. Accused No. 6 worked as the Secretary of Thiruuvananthapuram Development Authority (TRIDA) from 2003 to 2004. Accused No. 7 was the Regional Town Planner during 2003 to 2004. These public servants hatched a conspiracy with Accused No. 8, the Managing Director of Heera Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. and accused No. 9, a registered Architect Engineer, and in pursuance of the conspiracy, they dishonestly and fraudulently issued a permit dated 30.06.2004, for the construction of a 14 storied apartment at Kowdiar, violating the detailed Town Planning Scheme (DTPS) and thereby permitted accused No. 8 to construct the said building illegally with the intention to obtain pecuniary advantage to the tune of Rs. 900,59,340/-.
4. Originally, the case was registered against one T.K. Raveendran, the former Secretary of the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation as well. He died before the submission of the final report.
5. The specific allegations levelled against each of the accused as discernible from the impugned order are extracted below:
“Smt. Thankamma Joseph, aged 86/09 W/o late V.V. Joseph IAS (Rtd), executed an agreement with Abdul Rasheed, Managing Director, Heera Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. (A8) at Sub Registrar Officer, Pattom, on 08.10.2003, as per which the latter was made power of attorney to construct a 14 storied building in her 30 cents of land, in survey No. 3650/18-2/2-12 of Kowdiar village. As per agreement, A8 has to provide a commercial space of 5000 sq. ft. and 2 residential apartments to her in the proposed building. Accordingly, A8 filed an application for permit before the Thiruvananthapuam Corporation on 28.11.2003, for constructing a 14 storied building, with a height of 36.45 meters, covering 68.8% of the plot. Along with the application, the agreement executed with the land owner and a certificate issued by the registered Engineer, Smt. P. Sreelatha (A9), stating that building plan was prepared in accordance with the Building rules and Town Planning Scheme were also
