Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 1204
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
S. Krishnakumari, W/O Ravikumar - Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala - Respondent
Crl.Rev.Pet No. 63 of 2023
Decided on : 11-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : RENJITH B.MARAR, LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL
For the Respondent: SMT REKHA S, SR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI A RAJESH, SPL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (VIG)
The court upheld the dismissal of the discharge petition, finding sufficient prima facie evidence of misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act despite the petitioner's claims of lack of knowledge and absence of necessary sanctions.
Headnote:
(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13(1)(d) and Section 19(1) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 120B - Dismissal of discharge petition - The petitioner, as Secretary of Alangad Grama Panchayat, granted building permits in violation of prohibitory orders, allegedly conspiring with a builder for pecuniary gain. The Special Court found prima facie evidence of misconduct. (Paras 3, 6, 9)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 397 and Section 401 - The petitioner contended that no conspiracy was proven and that necessary sanctions were not obtained. The court ruled that the prosecution was valid despite the petitioner’s retirement and that the allegations warranted further examination. (Paras 4, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was accused of granting building permits for illegally reclaimed land, allegedly in conspiracy with a builder, despite a prohibitory order. The Special Court dismissed her discharge petition, finding sufficient evidence of misconduct.
Findings of Court:
The Special Court found that the petitioner acted with dishonest intention and that prima facie evidence supported the allegations against her.
Issues: The main issues included whether the petitioner had knowledge of the prohibitory order prior to granting permits and the necessity of sanctions for prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the evidence indicated the petitioner granted permits despite restrictions, and the absence of prior knowledge of the prohibitory order did not absolve her of responsibility.
Result: Revision petition dismissed.
ORDER :
The petitioner is the 1st accused in C.C.No.23 of 2017 on the files of the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Muvattupuzha. The offences alleged against her are 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 petitioner filed C.M.P.No.746 of 2019 seeking discharge. The Special Court dismissed that petition as per the order dated 06.01.2023. Challenging that order, this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code) has been filed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor and the learned Special Public Prosecutor (Vigilance).
3. There are two accused. The 1st accused/petitioner was the Secretary of the Alangad Grama Panchayat. The 2nd accused was the General Manager of M/s Alston Builders & Developers (P) Ltd. The 2nd accused had properties in Sy.Nos.108/2B, 78/2 and 78/5 of Alangad Village. Those properties were reclaimed illegally. There was prohibitory order from making any construction in the said property. The petitioner hatched a conspiracy with the 2nd accused and in order to obtain pecuniary gain for the 2nd accused, she granted permit to construct a building in the said property in violation of the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and also disregarding the prohibitory order. She thereby misused her official position and committed criminal misconduct constituting an offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that going by the law in force, and as per the evidence produced by the prosecution, the property in question was reclaimed long before and there was no absolute bar for making construction in the property. Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) prepared a draft data bank and as the property in question was not included in the final data bank, no criminal intention could be attributed on the part of the petitioner in granting building permit. The Revenue Divisional Officer issued a stop memo on 03.07.2012, but the same was received in the office of the petitioner only on 25.07.2012. The building permits were granted on 09.07.2012 and 17.07.2012. It is accordingly contended that the allegation of the petitioner granting building permit in disregard of the prohibitory order is against facts. No material, whatsoever has been produced to prove or probabilise that there was a conspiracy between the petitioner and the 2nd accused. Based on inferences alone the prosecution alleges conspiracy, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is untenable. No sanction as prescribed in Section 19(1) of the PC Act, Section 197 of the Code or Section 248 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 was obtained. For that reason itself, the prosecution is illegal. The learned counsel accordingly would submit that the Special Court went wrong in dismissing the application for discharge.
5. The learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit that a perusal of the note file concerning grant of building permit to the 2nd accused and the statement given to the police by the staff members of the Panchayat and the Assistant Director of Panchayats is enough to substantiate the allegations against the petitioner. It is pointed out that ignoring the note submitted by the subordinates against issuance of building permit, the petitioner granted permission for the construction. She was aware of the prohibitory order and also the fact that the land in question was included in the data bank. Despite, she granted permission. That necessarily would reveal that she did so with dishonest intention. Regarding assigning building number to the said construction also dishonesty is attributed against the petitioner. The learned Special Public Prosecutor accordingly urges that this revision petition is de
