IMPORTANT POINT
Valid sanctions under the Prevention of Corruption Act were obtained for prosecution, and previous sanction under the Panchayat Raj Act was not required for the alleged offences.

ORDER :

The petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.12 of 2021 pending before the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode (crime No.4/2015/NRK of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Kozhikode). They seek to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.12 of 2021.

2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel, appeared on instructions, for the petitioners, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor and the learned Special Public Prosecutor (Vigilance).

3. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and Sections 120B and 465 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC ). The 1^st petitioner was the Secretary of Ramanattukara Grama Panchayat from 15.12.2011 to 17.12.2014. The 2^nd petitioner was the Assistant Engineer, LSGD Section, Ramanattukara Grama Panchayat during the period from 10.08.2012 to 06.08.2015. The 3^rd petitioner was an L.D.Clerk at the Ramanattukara Grama Panchayat. The 4^th petitioner was the Assistant Engineer, LSG Department, Ramanattukara Grama Panchayat during the period from September, 2009 till May, 2012. The 5^th petitioner owned a building within the local limits of the said Grama Panchayat. Petitioners No.6 and 7 were licensed building supervisors. The allegation against the petitioners are that in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy hatched among them, the first floor of the building belonging to the 5^th petitioner was constructed illegally and styling it as a commercial building comprising shop rooms. Later, the second floor was constructed based on a fake building plan. Four residential units were included in the second floor. Without completing the construction, its assessment was completed and building numbers were assigned. A false completion certificate was submitted in order for getting the building numbered. The petitioners allegedly had done so with dishonest intention of gaining pecuniary advantage.

4. The contentions of the petitioners are that without obtaining proper sanction, prosecution was initiated, and cognizance was taken by the court. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would submit that sanction under Section 19(1) of the PC Act was accorded not by the competent authority and that no sanction under Section 248 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 was obtained. The further submission is that the materials produced by the prosecution do not make out any criminal offence but, the Special Court, without applying mind, took cognizance of the offences.

5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would submit further that the law laid down in Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa [ (2013) 10 SCC 705 ] was blatantly violated. It is submitted that petitioners No.1 and 3 being Secretary and a staff member of the Grama Panchayat respectively, sanction from the Government as insisted on by Section 248 of the Panchayat Raj Act should have been obtained. It is also submitted that the investigation was vitiated for want of obtaining previous approval from the competent authority as insisted on by Section 17A of the PC Act.

6. The learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit that sanction to prosecute petitioners No.1 and 3 was obtained from the Director of Panchayats, who is witness No. 29, and in the case of petitioners No.2 and 4 sanction was obtained from the Chief Engineer, who is witness No.30. When valid sanctions in terms of Section 19(1) of the PC Act were obtained, there is no requirement of obtaining a permission under Section 248 of the Panchayat Raj Act. In regard to the previous approval as envisaged in Section 17A of the PC Act, it is submitted that having the crime been registered as early as on 22.01.2015, the said provision cannot have application. Upon the merits of the case, it is submitted that submission of false documents and assignment of building number for unauthorised constructions, that too, before completion are substantiated by the materials produced by the prosecution