The court ruled that occupancy certificates can protect against prosecution for minor building rule violations when social welfare is prioritized in educational constructions.

ORDER :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

Crl.M.C. No.1244 of 2025 has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [hereinafter referred as ‘ BNSS ’ for short] by the 3^rd accused in C.C. No.13/2023 on the files of the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode, arose out of Crime No.VC 18/2016/KKD of VACB, Kozhikode Unit, seeking quashment of Annexure.A1 Final Report and all further proceedings as against him, in the said case.

2. Crl.M.C. No.2859 of 2025 is at the instance of the 4^th accused in the same case, seeking quashment of all further proceedings as against him, in the said case.

3. Heard the respective counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused the prosecution records as well as the records produced along with these petitions.

4. Parties in these petitions shall be referred as ‘accused/petitioners’ and ‘prosecution’, hereafter.

5. The prosecution case is that, 1^st accused, who served as the secretary of Farook Grama Panchayat from 22.08.2011 to 03.07.2013 and the 2^nd accused, who held the same position from 30.07.2014 to 05.08.2015, and the 3^rd accused who was serving as the Assistant Engineer in the said Grama Panchayath from December, 2011 to October, 2012, along with the 4^th accused, who was the Managing Director of Irshad Charitable Society, have conspired together to build a nursing college without proper building permit and accused 1 and 3, without any public interest and without complying the legal procedures, violated the building rules and the 3^rd accused has recommended the construction of the building without inspecting and examining the width of the road required as per the rules. Further allegation is that, the 1^st accused without proper inspection and contrary to the order of this Court to give provisional building number, have provided a permanent building number and the 3^rd accused has also not collected the required building Tax and caused wrongful loss to the government and wrongful gain to the 4^th respondent. 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] as well as under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code .

6. While canvasing quashment, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the 3^rd accused that, the 3^rd accused has been roped into this crime merely on the basis of the recommendation made by him, as could be seen from the report of the Building Inspector, form part of Annexure-A1, whereby he recommended construction as per the plan produced, after inspecting the plot with details of description and boundaries. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the 3^rd accused further that, even thereafter, during the time of investigation, a joint site inspection was conducted by Sri.K.V. Abdul Malik, Town Planner, Kozhikode and Sri.Vijith Vijayan, Assistant Town Planner Office of the Town Planner, Kozhikode, in the presence of the Dy.S.P. (Vigilance) on 16.02.2018 and as per the said report also what was found is that, the as built measurements of the building was taken at site were not in much variance from the submitted drawings and did not amount violation of building Rules. Further, the width of the road giving access to the plot was measured and was found to be only 2.7 meter (contrary to 5.5 meter as stated in the submitted drawings).

7. In this context, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the 3^rd accused that, mere dereliction of d