IMPORTANT POINT
Insufficient evidence to establish complicity in corruption charges leads to quashing of proceedings against accused, emphasizing the need for prima facie case.

ORDER :

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.

Accused Nos.1 and 8 in C.C.No.7 of 2022 pending before the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur filed, respectively, Crl.M.C.No.8095 of 2022 and 2621 of 2023. They seek to quash the charge sheet and further proceeding in C.C.No.7 of 2022.

2. The case of the prosecution as borne out from the final report is as follows:

Accused No.1 was the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Intelligence), accused No.2 was the Intelligence Officer and accused Nos.3 as well as 4 were the Intelligence Inspectors, Commercial Taxes, Thrissur. They entered into a conspiracy with other accused for reducing tax rate from 12.5% to 4% of the tax due from M/s.Nano Excel Enterprises Pvt. Ltd to which accused No.5 was the Managing Director and accused No.7, the Director. In furtherance of the said conspiracy, the compounding tax liable to be paid by the said company of Rs.13,06,29,613/- was reduced to Rs.7,00,68,469/-. Thereby the company had a pecuniary advantage of Rs.6,05,61,144/- during the year 2009-2010. In consideration of the same an illegal gratification of Rs.1.5 crores was paid to accused Nos.1 to 4 Which they had shared. Accused Nos.6 and 8 facilitated the transaction. The car provided by accused No.8 was used to take the said amount of bribe from the company of accused Nos.5 and 7 to the hotel where the money was transferred. Accordingly, the accused had committed offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC ). The petitioners would contend that there is not enough materials to prosecute them and the final report as against them is liable to be quashed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Special Public Proseuctor (Vigilance) and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

4. Petitioner raised both legal and factual contentions.Raising very same legal contentions the 1^st accused filed W.P.(C) No.20028 of 2013 before this Court. The contentions are enlisted in paragraph No.18 of the judgment dated 08.02.2021 in that writ petition which are the following:

“(1) The prosecution initiated against the petitioner as per Ext.P1 FIR is barred under Section 79 of the KVAT Act.

2) The institution of the proceedings against the petitioner as per Ext.P1 FIR is barred by limitation under Section 80 of the KVAT Act.

(3) Earlier, another FIR had been registered against the petitioner as Crime No. 500/2011 of Wadakkancherry police station in the same matter. Registration of Ext.P1 FIR, on the same set of allegations and facts, is barred under law.

(4) The petitioner was discharged under Section 239 of the Code in the case filed against him on the basis of the final report in Crime No.500/2011 of Wadakkancherry police station. Therefore, he is not liable to be prosecuted and tried for another offence on the same set of facts or allegations.

(5) The petitioner cannot be prosecuted or tried on the same set of facts on the principle of issue estoppel.

(6) The petitioner was exercising quasijudicial functions under the KVAT Act and therefore, he is entitled to get the protection under Section 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985.”

5. All those contentions were considered by this Court in the said judgment. After detailed deliberation, this Court held that none of the said contentions was available or sufficient to quash the FIR. The investigating agency after collecting more materials submitted the final report alleging that the accused had committed the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act and Section 120B of the IPC .

6. Whether these accused, particularly the 1^st accused, can be heard to contend the very same grounds in support of the plea for quashing the final report is raised by the learned Special Public prosecutor. In answer, the learned counsel for the 1^st accused would submit that although the writ appeal filed challenging the judgment in