The petitioner, implicated in a conspiracy with a public servant, cannot seek quashment as the charges are backed by substantial evidence linking involvement in corruption.

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been moved by the petitioner/2nd accused in C.C.No.9 of 2016 on the files of the Special CBI Court, Ernakulam and the prayers in this petition is to quash Annexure-A1 Final Report and all further proceedings against the petitioner/2nd accused in C.C. No. 9 of 2016.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/2nd accused as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the prosecution records, witness statements, and the written statement filed by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI.

3. While seeking quashment as sought for, the learned counsel for the petitioner/2nd accused argued that going by the prosecution allegations, the specific allegation against the petitioner/2nd accused who got arrayed as the 2nd accused being a travel agent is that he hatched conspiracy with the other accused during the period 2008-2011 and he deposited Rs.11,000/- (Rupees Eleven thousand only) in the account of the 1st accused on 21.03.2011 as illegal gratification. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner/2nd accused, even if it is admitted that the 2nd accused deposited Rs.11,000/- (Rupees Eleven thousand only) in the account of the 1st accused on 21.03.2011 that was during the period in which the 1st accused ceased to be an officer of the Cochin International Airport Limited (for short, ‘CIAL’ hereafter), therefore the allegation of the prosecution that the 2nd accused committed offences alleged would not sustain. In this connection the learned counsel for the petitioner/2nd accused relied on the statement given by Sri.Anil A K (witness No.9) stating that Sri.George John Armed Police Sub-Inspector (for short ‘APSI’ hereafter) joined in CIAL on 26.05.2008 and relieved on 24.04.2009. He also stated that Sri.V.N. Prasanth Kumar Civil Police Officer (CPO) joined on 12.12.2006 and was relieved on 20.09.2011. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner/2nd accused when an officer who is not in charge of CIAL to do any favour as alleged by the prosecution during the period 2011, if any amount is deposited in his account by the petitioner/2nd accused travel agent, the same would not make any offence under the the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, the PC Act’ hereafter). Therefore this matter would require quashment at the instance of the petitioner/accused.

4. Dispelling this contention the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI would submit that it is true that as per the statement given by Sri.Anil A K (witness No.9) the 1st accused worked for the period between 26.05.2008 till20.04.2009 and Rs.11,000/- was deposited in the name of the 1st accused by the 2nd accused on 21.03.2011. But it is specifically pointed out that in fact the entire allegations overlays the period from 2006 to 2011. The 1st accused who worked as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police even though relieved from his assignment in CIAL, he was behind illegal transport of travellers without necessary emigration clearance, thereafter up to 2011 as alleged in this case. Therefore his complicity is a matter of evidence and quashment could not be considered. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI has pointed out the statements given by Sri.Prasanth Kumar V.M. (witness No.42) and Sri M.D. Gokul Das (witness No.43) who were earlier arrayed as accused and later became approvers to substantiate this contention.

5. On perusal of the Final Report in this matter the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 11, 12, 14, and Section 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(b)