The court held that strong suspicion of involvement in corruption necessitates trial, and quashing proceedings is not warranted based on innocence arguments.

ORDER :

1. The 3^rd accused in C.C. No.2 of 2017 on the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Muvattupuzha has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashment of the entire proceedings as against him in the said case, arising out of Crime No.7/2013/EKM of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ernakulam.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused the relevant materials available.

3. In this case, 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 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code, by accused Nos.1 to 4, who are the UD Clerk, Superintendent, Town Planning Officer and one Raghuvaran, who was given tender during the year 2011 to erect advertisement boards on 1702 lamp posts owned by the Municipal Corporation of Cochin.

4. The allegations of the prosecution are to the effect that, the accused 1 to 3 being public servants abused their official position, entered into criminal conspiracy with each other and also with the 4^th accused Sri.Raghuvaran, who participated in the tender invited by the Cochin Corporation during 2011 for fixing advertising boards on 1702 lamp post and helped the 4^th accused to make pecuniary advantage and a financial loss of Rs.65,04,865/- to the Corporation. According to the prosecution, the 4^th respondent is conducting an advertising agency and he responded to the tender floated by the Cochin Corporation and his tender was accepted. Instead of collecting the license fee for the whole period for which the amount was negotiated to Rs.74,34,132/-, one month's remittance to the tune of Rs.9,29,267/- was collected from him and permitted him to erect advertising boards. This was without executing an agreement with the Corporation and without showing the files to the Secretary of the Cochin Corporation and without seeking any orders from him. So according to the prosecution the 1^st and 2^nd accused, the concerned UD Clerk as well as the superintendent along with the petitioner, 3^rd accused have helped the 4^th accused to have pecuniary advantage to him and thereby financial loss to the Corporation. It was also alleged that timely action for the recovery of the said amount was also not taken by accused Nos.1 to 3. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of the above said offences by the accused.

5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner entered in the municipal common service on 14.11.1990 and retired as Executive Engineer on 30.11.2015. He worked as Town Planning Officer at the Corporation of Kochi for a period from 14.06.2010 to 01.11.2012. During his tenure as Town Planning Officer, a tender was published as on 04.05.2011 inviting tenders for awarding the work to erect advertisement boards in 2100 + 700 posts in the electric lamp posts of the Corporation as per Annexure-2 and the highest bidder when retracted from the tender, the same was assigned to the 4^th accused, one Raghuvaran. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as per Annexure-4 letter dated 27.08.2011 submitted by the 4^th accused to the petitioner/3^rd accused, he sought permission to remit the tender amount + service tax at the rate of 10.3% for a period of one month and the petitioner permitted the 4^th accused to remit the said amount. Thereafter, the Municipal Secretary, who is empowered to issue license never issued any license to make advertisement in continuation of the tender and it is the duty of the Secretary to deal with replacement of illegal