Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 2120
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
G. Mohandas S/o Gangadharan Panicker - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala - Respondent
Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 806 of 2025
Decided On : 18-08-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Kurian Antony Mathew, Arun Thomas, Karthika Maria, Veena Raveendran, Anil Sebastian Pulickel, Mathew Nevin Thomas, Shinto Mathew Abraham, Adeen Nazar, Noel Ninan Ninan, Arun Joseph Mathew, Santhosh Mathew, Aparnna S.
For the Respondents: Rajesh A., Rekha S.
The court upheld that the denial of discharge plea was justified as sufficient evidence indicated conspiracy for illegal construction, reinforcing the need for a trial.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 438 and 442 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13, Indian Penal Code - Section 120B - Criminal revision petition against dismissal of discharge plea - Accused conspired to illegally renovate a building in a heritage zone, resulting in charges under anti-corruption laws. (Paras 4-6, 8-17)
(B) Rights of Accused - Right to file discharge petition notwithstanding previous dismissal or quashment petitions. Court must evaluate evidence and materials to determine prima facie case. (Paras 9, 10, 18)
Facts of the case:
The revision petitioner, accused No.6, owned 'Samrat Hotel' allowing renovation that led to illegal construction of a four-storied building without necessary permits, violating heritage zone rules.
Findings of Court:
Sufficient evidence and suspicion warrant continuation of prosecution; the trial court justified in dismissing discharge petition.
Issues: Whether the discharge plea should have been allowed based on prior court observations and the applicability of zoning regulations at the time of construction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the dismissal of the discharge petition was proper given the evidence indicating conspiracy and the existence of prima facie case for the alleged offences.
Result: Revision petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. criminal revision petition context and accusations (Para 1 , 4) |
| 2. previous court rulings relevant to the case (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. arguments asserted by the revision petitioner (Para 8 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. necessity of prima facie case for charges (Para 10 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. final dismissal and directive on trial proceedings (Para 17 , 18) |
ORDER :
1. This criminal revision petition has been filed under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [hereinafter referred as ' BNSS ' for short] by the 6th accused in C.C. No.3/2020 on the of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, assailing the order dated 09.02.2024 in Crl.M.P. No.147/2024 in the above case, whereby the discharge plea at the instance of the 6th accused was negatived by the Special Court.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused the order impugned and relevant documents form part of the prosecution records placed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.
3. Parties in this criminal revision petition shall be referred as ‘accused No.6/revision petitioner’ and ‘prosecution’, hereafter.
4. In this matter, the prosecution case is that, the 6th accused was the owner of a building by name 'Samrat Hotel' with door No.TC 28/1830 in survey No.709 of Vanchiyoor Village. Accused Nos. 1 to 5 were the officials of Thiruvananthapuram Corporation. Accused No.7 was the Architect engaged by the 6th accused. ‘Samrat Hotel’ building was a two storied one. This locality was proposed to be included in the heritage zone in the Fort area. Construction of new commercial buildings were not permitted in the heritage zone. Accused Nos.1 to 5 having fully aware of this fact, entered into a conspiracy with the 6th accused, pursuant to which the 6th accused made an application for granting permit for making internal renovations to his building. Permit was not required for this work in view of Rule 10 (ix) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999. Officials of Corporation granted a permit an Appendix-C under Rule 11 (3) permitting the internal renovation. The 6th accused, on the pretext of internal renovation, demolished the entire building and constructed a four storied building in violation of the Rules. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 13 (1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred as ‘P.C. Act’ for short] and under Section 120B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , by the accused.
5. Before addressing the illegality, if any, in the order impugned, it is necessary to refer the events before filing of discharge petition. Earlier, the same petitioner/accused No.6 filed Crl.M.C. No.330/2021 before this Court, seeking quashment of the entire proceedings as against him. As per Annexure-2 order dated 16.01.2024, this Court disallowed the petition, holding that the proceedings against the 6th accused/petitioner could not be quashed. In paragraph No.17 of Annexure-2 order, this Court observed as under:
17. In the present case, the materials placed before the Court would disclose grave suspicion against the petitioner, and this Court feels that the trial Court is fully justified in proceeding against the petitioner. In the light of the discussion made above, I am of the view that this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. However, I clarify that dehors these observations, the trial Court is absolutely free to analyse, appreciate, evaluate and arrive at a proper conclusion based on the evidence and materials placed by the prosecution as well as the defence during the trial. The trial court shall complete the trial and dispose of the case within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. Challenging Annexure-2 order, the 6th accused/petitioner approached the Hon’ble Apex Court by preferring S.L.P. (Crl) No.1694/2024. Annexure-5 is the ju
