The court upheld the necessity for quick verification of allegations against a public servant regarding shares under the PC Act, emphasizing the importance of prior approvals as per legislative framework.

ORDER :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash Annexure A2 order dated 18.01.2023 in CMP No.300/2020 passed by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Muvattupuzha. The petitioner herein is the 1^st respondent in the above case.

2. Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner/ 1^st respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the relevant records. Even though the learned counsel for the proposed additional 3^rd respondent also appeared to support the order, the impleading petition filed by the additional 3^rd respondent was dismissed by my predecessor as per order dated 07.09.2023.

3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that the quick verification order as per Annexure A2 is unwarranted since the entire allegations are baseless. According to the learned senior counsel, the allegation is that during 2004, the petitioner allotted 1,20,000 shares of Cochin International Airport Ltd., (CIAL) to one Sebastian, who is a non-employee of CIAL, which was meant for the employees of CIAL under the Employees Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP). The learned senior counsel would submit that, in fact, no such scheme so far implemented. Further, the allotment of shares is in accordance with the decision of the Director Board and the petitioner has no individual role. Therefore, the quick verification ordered by the court is unwarranted and the order is liable to be quashed.

4. Opposing this contention, the learned Public Prosecutor highlighted the contentions raised in paragraph No.7 of the memo, submitted by the learned Special Government Pleader (Vigilance), suggesting that earlier there was a quick verification as QV No.33/2016/EKM and on verification, the allegations which were the subject matter in the said quick verification were found not sustainable, and accordingly, further action was dropped. He also pointed out that even though the allegations considered in QV No.33/2016/EKM are found in favour of the petitioner, the allegations specifically raised in this case, as to procurement of large quantity of shares of CIAL by the petitioner through a benami named Sebastian was not included in QV 33/2016/EKM and therefore, for the said purpose, quick verification is required and in such view of the matter, facilitating quick verification of the said fact, in tune with Annexure A2 order, this Crl.M.C is liable to be dismissed.

5. The question arises for consideration is whether Annexure A2 order, directing quick verification, is liable to be interfered and quashed in the facts and circumstances of the case.

6. In paragraph Nos.4 and 7 in Annexure A2 order, the learned Special Judge addressed the complaint while ordering quick verification regarding the allegation. In paragraph No.7 of the memo submitted by the Special Government Pleader (Vigilance), it is stated as under:

“7. It is respectfully submitted that, Q.V No.33/2016/EKM was conducted in the year 2016 in the VACB Central Range Ernakulam against the petitioner on the complaints received from 1. Sri.Denny John, Araykal House, Avanomkode P.O., Chowara, Ernakulam, 2. Sri.M.R.Ajayan, Green Kerala News, Mattappilly House, Ochamthuruthu P.O., Ernakulam, 3. Sri.K.P.Paily, (address is not available), 4. Sri.Pramod Kumar (address is not available), 5. Sri.Ajosh.S. (address is not available) and other