Participation in a conspiracy to obfuscate criminal activity can result in liability, even without direct involvement in the initial crime, based on prima facie evidence of culpability.

ORDER :

A. Badharudeen, J.

The 2nd accused in C.C. No. 4 of 2020 on the files of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance Thiruvananthapuram), has filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the said proceedings.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. The prosecution case is that, the 1st accused, who was the Councillor of Adoor Municipality from 2005 to 2010, in order to obtain D&O license to run a textile shop in building No.XVII/670 of Adoor Municipality, of which Smt.Karthyayani Amma Rajamma was the building owner as per the Municipal records. He prepared a forged consent letter in stamp paper Nos.03AA708144, 03AA708145, 05AA900001, in the name of the said Smt.Karthyayani Amma Rajamma, who had expired on 30-08-1995, used the same as genuine, by submitting the same before the Municipal office, Adoor and obtained D&O license in file No. 111-306/07 for the year 2006-07 on the basis of the forged consent letter on 16-01-2007 to run a textile shop in building No.XVII/670 of Adoor Municipality. Thereafter, during the year 2007-08, the first accused hatched criminal conspiracy with the 3rd accused, to obtain D&O license for running a fruit stall in the same building by fraudulent means and in furtherance of the said conspiracy prepared another forged consent letter of the same Smt.Karthyayani Amma Rajamma in his own handwriting in favour of the 3rd accused in stamp paper No. P 828149 dated 29/07/2008 with date of consent letter as 01-08-2008, affixed his signature as a witness therein, used the same as genuine by submitting the same with an application for D&O license in the name of the 3rd accused, for running a fruit stall in building No.XVII/670 of Adoor Municipality for the year 2008-09, and an application for the cancellation of the existing license in the name of the 1st accused prepared in his own handwriting. Later when complaints were raised before the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions regarding the genuineness of the consent letter, the 1st accused with the intention of concealing the above facts before the Ombudsman in OP 1051/2008 & 1157/2008, hatched criminal conspiracy with the 2nd accused who was the Secretary of Adoor Municipality from 22-11-08 to 27-08-2009 and in furtherance of the said conspiracy, the 2nd accused abused his official position and fraudulently obtained the file No.H1-5242/2008 which contained the records in connection with the application submitted by the 1st accused on behalf of the 3rd accused which was kept in the safe custody of witness No.4 as per the instruction of witness No.5 (Former Municipal Secretary) and removed the forged consent letter made in stamp paper No.P828149 and the application for cancellation of the existing license prepared by the 1st accused in his own handwriting which were incriminating documents against the 1st accused and replaced the same with another application for cancellation of license in the name of the 1st accused and another forged consent letter showing date of preparation as on 01/08/2008, in the name of Late Smt.Karthyayani Amma Rajamma in stamp paper No.P-074600 with the help of the 4th accused, a stamp vendor who issued the stamp paper by putting previous date as on 15/07/2008 with knowledge that the previous dated stamp paper will be used to prepare forged document and the 2nd accused produced the same along with the file 111-5242/2008 before Ombudsman on 29/04/2009 for screening the 1st accused from the offence committed by him and thereby accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 committed the offences punishable under section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of PC Act- 1988 and Section 465, 466, 468, 471, 204, 120B, 34 IPC.

4. While challenging the final report, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the 2nd accused, who worked as Municipal Secretary,