Insufficient evidence to establish involvement in conspiracy leads to quashing of proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is accused No.7 in C.C. No.4 of 2022 pending before the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur. The offences alleged in the final report 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).

2. The petitioner seeks to quash the further proceedings against him in C.C. No.4 of 2022. He contends that there is no material to connect him with any of the said offences.

3. A report dated 29.03.2025 and a statement dated 05.05.2025 of the investigating officer were placed on record.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor (Vigilance).

5. The offences were allegedly committed in relation to re-allotment of three plots of land in the industrial area of the SIDCO at Kallettumkara. The plots were originally allotted to accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 in the year 1996. In terms of the conditions in the order of allotment, the plots were ordered to be resumed in the year 2009. It is alleged that a criminal conspiracy was hatched among accused Nos.1 and 3 to 5 and in furtherance of that conspiracy the order of resumption was kept under carpet till 2015. Accused Nos.3 to 5 submitted requests for reallotment of respective plots to them. As per the proceedings No.IE(2)/KLRA/19834/96 dated 13.04.2016 of accused No.2, the lands were reallotted to accused Nos.3, 4 and 5. It is alleged that without refixing the land value, the lands were reallocated and thereby the State sustained a loss of Rs. 2,66,09,591/-. The further allegations are that a conspiracy between accused Nos.2, 6 to 9 and the other accused was hatched. In consequence of that conspiracy, the land was reallotted to accused Nos.3 to 5. The said acts are said to have constituted the aforementioned offences.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that besides the oral statements of witness Nos.7 and 9 and document No.51, the prosecution did not produce anything to establish the guilt of the petitioner and from the said materials no role of the petitioner in committing the offences in question can be gathered or even inferred. It is pointed out that he was included in a committee constituted as per Annexure A7 dated 13.04.2016, and as it was inferrably constituted for working out the modalities for reallotment of the plots, the petitioner cannot be fastened with criminal intent. The petitioner was not a signatory to the report of the committee. After reallotment only the committee was constituted. The petitioner, for the sole reason of being a member of the committee constituted as per Annexure A7 alone he was implicated. It is further urged that even if there occurred any loss to the Government on account of such a reallotment, the recommendation of the committee, which was after the decision for reallotment cannot be a reason to prosecute the petitioner.

7. The learned Special Public Prosecutor handed over copies of the statements of witnesses cited by the prosecution for my perusal. It is submitted that when the petitioner was a party to the committee constituted for deciding the question of reallotment he cannot contend that he did not have any part in the process of reallotment, and when loss occasioned to the Government on account of the reallotment, he also becomes a privy to the alleged offences. It is also urged by the learned Prosecutor that after considering the materials collected by the prosecution, sanction was accorded to prosecute the petitioner and in that view also his plea for quashing the final report as against him is not liable to be declined.

8. What is alleged in the final report is that the petitioner was a party to the conspiracy which resulted in the reallotment of the plots in question to accused Nos.3 to 5. The final report would show that the reallotment was as per the proceedings No.IE(2)/KLRA/19834/96 dated 13.04.2016. Annexure A7 is also dated 13.04.20