Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. BABU, J.
Dr. Mathew A. Kuzhalnadan – Petitioner
Versus
Pinarayi Vijayan and Ors. – Respondents
Crl. Rev. Pet No. 588 of 2024
Decided On : 28-03-2025
(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13(1)(b) - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 190 and 200 - Rejection of complaint - The Special Judge dismissed the complaint for lack of sufficient facts constituting an offence, concluding that the allegations were based on suspicion rather than concrete evidence. The court highlighted the necessity of a complaint to contain facts that disclose an offence and noted that the complaint failed to establish a prima facie case against the respondents. (Paras 14 , 32 , 36 , 64 )
(B) Legal Standards - The court emphasized that a Magistrate is not bound to take cognizance merely because a complaint is filed; it must disclose the commission of an offence. The necessity for examining the complainant arises only after cognizance is taken. (Paras 21 , 28 )
(C) Political Motives - The court observed that the complaint appeared politically motivated, as the complainant did not pursue investigations against other implicated parties. (Paras 61 , 62 )
(D)
Findings of Court:
The complaint was rejected at the precognizance stage due to insufficient evidence. (E)
Issues: The main issue was whether the complaint disclosed facts constituting the alleged offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. (F)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Special Judge rightly rejected the complaint for lack of factual basis, emphasizing that mere suspicion is insufficient for cognizance. (G)
Result: The Criminal Revision Petition stands dismissed.
ORDER :
The challenge in this Criminal Revision Petition is to the order dated 06.05.2024 in Crl.M.P No.326/2024 on the file of the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. The revision petitioner is the complainant.
2. The learned Special Judge rejected the complaint, holding that no offence was made out of the complaint and the other materials produced by the complainant.
The allegations in the complaint.
3. Respondent No.1 in the complaint is the Chief Minister of Kerala. Respondent No.7 is his daughter. The one-person company owned by respondent No.7 is respondent No.6. Respondent No.2 is M/s Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd (CMRL). Respondent No.3 is the Managing Director of CMRL. Respondent No.4 is M/S Kerala Minerals and Metals Limited (KMML). Respondent No.5 is M/S Indian Rare Earths Limited (IREL).
3.1. CMRL was incorporated on 18.08.1999. It requires 1 Lakh metric ton ilmenite per annum for its regular production. Though IREL had assured that it would supply the required quantity of ilmenite, it was not honoured after 1999-2000. Since then, CMRL has been importing low-quality ilmenite from abroad and incurring losses. CMRL incorporated M/S Kerala Rare Earth and Minerals Ltd (KREML) on 17.08.2001 with the object of commencing Mining Project in Kerala. KREML purchased 20.84 hectares of land at Lakshmithoppu in Thrikkunnapuzha Village and 3.67 hectares of land in Arattupuzha Village. The lands were purchased for the mining of minerals and for setting up the mineral complexes. KREML is shown as a joint venture company. CMRL owns 49% of KREML's shares. 7% of shares are owned by CMRL Associates. 20% of the shares are with IREL, and 11% are with KSIDC. The remaining 30% is with various financial institutions.
3.2. On 15.09.2004, the Department of Industries, Government of Kerala, granted mining leases to KREML to extract minerals from the Kerala coast. But the lease was cancelled on 25.09.2004. The Government of Kerala also rejected other mining applications filed by KREML after obtaining concurrence from the Ministry of Mines. The orders passed by the Government of Kerala were challenged before the Ministry of Mines, Government of India, in revision. The Ministry of Mines, Government of India, set aside the orders passed by the Government of Kerala and directed to reconsider the matter. The Government of Kerala reiterated its earlier order in the light of its Industrial Policy of 2007. KREML challenged this order before the High Court. The Court quashed the orders of the Government. The Government challenged the order of this Court before the Supreme Court. In the meanwhile, as per the order dated 20.02.2019, the Government of India amended the Atomic Minerals Concession Rules, 2016, whereby mining of beach sand minerals by private companies was prohibited. As per the order dated 19.03.2019, the Chief Controller of Mines, Government of India, decided that the mining lease can invariably be granted to Government companies or Corporations only. The Chief Controller also directed the premature termination of all existing mineral concessions of beach sand minerals by private persons or companies in India.
3.3. On 25.05.2016, respondent No.1 became the Chief Minister of Kerala. During December 2016, CMRL entered into an agreement to obtain IT and Marketing Consultancy Services from respondent No.7. In March 2017, CMRL entered into another agreement with respondent No.6. Based on this agreement, CMRL has agreed to pay Rs.5 Lakhs per month to respondent No.7 and Rs.3 Lakhs per month to respondent No.6-Company. Payments were made as agreed. Neither respondent No.6 nor respondent No.7 provided any services to CMRL. But they received Rs.1.72 Crores based on the agreement with CMRL. These amounts were received by respondent No.1 through his daughter (respondent No.7). BY receiving these amounts through respondent Nos.6 and 7, respondent No.1 has enriched himself unlawfully. These payments were revealed to the I
A complaint must contain sufficient factual material to disclose an offence for cognizance to be taken; mere suspicion is inadequate.
A private complaint against a public servant for corruption requires prior sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, regardless of the complaint's stage.
The sanction contemplated in Section 197 of the Code concerns a public servant who is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge o....
Prior sanction is mandatory for investigating public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, distinguishing between investigation and cognizance stages.
The Magistrate has the power to direct further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC, and such powers can be exercised suo moto as well.
Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out truthfulness of allegations.
The High Court's jurisdiction to quash an order framing charges is limited to cases of patent error of jurisdiction and does not extend to re-appreciation of evidence or interference with the trial c....
Important points:When a complaint is filed before the Magistrate, ordinarily, he has got two options. The Magistrate may either forward the complaint to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code fo....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
