IMPORTANT POINT
Mere procedural violations by public servants do not constitute offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act without evidence of dishonest intention.

ORDER :

Accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.10 of 2022 pending before the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Muvattupuzha filed, respectively, Crl.M.C.No.471 of 2023 and Crl.M.C.No.2281 of 2023. C.C.No.10 of 2022 was instituted on the final report filed in Crime No.VC/3/2018/CRE of Vigilance and Anti-corruption Bureau, Central Range, Ernakulam. It is alleged that the petitioners committed the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and offence under Rule 51(A) of the Arms Rules, 1962 read with Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959. The petitioners contend that the allegations in the final report and the materials produced therewith would not make out commission of the said offences and therefore the final report is liable to be quashed, for which they have filed these petitions invoking the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code).

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in the respective petitions and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

3. Facts constituting the alleged offences narrated in the final report are extracted below:

“A1 while holding the charge of Additional District Magistrate, Ernakulam during the period between 11.6.07 to 31.3.08, A2 had submitted an Arms application to the District Collector, Ernakulam for obtaining Arms License for a pistol suppressing the fact that A2 had applied for an Arms License before the District Collector vide Application No M3-57052/06 dated 27.12.06 and is pending at the District Collectorate under A1 and A1 had submitted the 2^nd Arms application filed by A2 during 2008 to the District Collector on 29.3.08 recommending the Arms License without obtaining the report of the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station, Forest and Revenue Departments, within the stipulated time and not obtaining two passport size photographs along with the application and facilitated to grant of license by W-28 and issued the license to A2 by A1 through his proceedings, abusing his official position as a public servant without any public interest, for obtaining pecuniary advantage to A2 and to himself (A1) and hence A1 and A2 had committed offences u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and A2 had committed offences under Rule 51 (A) of the Arms Rules 1962 r/w Sec. 30 of Arms Act 1959.”

4. The learned counsel for the 1^st accused would submit that even accepting the allegations in the final report as true, no offence described in Section 13(1)(d)(i) or (ii) is made out. Unless dishonest intention to enure some valuable thing or pecuniary advantage to the public servant or on his behest to any other person is established, no such offence would be attracted. In that regard, the learned counsel places reliance on the decision of this Court in Surendranath C. v. State of Kerala [2024 (2) KHC 134].

5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the 1^st accused that the acts forming the basis of the accusation are described in paragraph No.4 of the statement filed by the investigating officer and even if those acts were committed by the 1^st accused that would not constitute an offence for, the decision to grant arm license to the 2^nd accused was taken by the Collector. For easy understanding, paragraph No.4 in the statement submitted in Crl.M.C.No.471 of 2023 by the investigating officer (Deputy Superintendent of Police, VACB), Central Range, Ernakulam is extracted below:

“4. It is established in the investigation that A2 had applied for Arms License at Ernakulam District Collectorate on 27.12.06 in the address Sri. Heimaval Maheswara Bhadranandaji, Ravi Vihar, BTS Mamangalam Cross Road, Edappally, which was processed as file No. M3-57052/06 at M3 Section under A1. The application was processed and sent to the Police, Revenue and Forest Departments for getting the enquiry report. Police conducted enquiry and reported on 18.9.07 by not recommen