The court determined that sufficient prima facie evidence of conspiracy and misappropriation justified dismissal of discharge petitions against the petitioner, affirming the validity of ongoing proceedings despite prior discharge of co-accused.

ORDER :

A. Badharudeen, J.

Crl.R.P No.1035/2025 has been filed by one N.Satheesh Kumar, who is the 2^nd accused in C.C.No.33 of 2024 on the files of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram arising out of Crime No.7 of 2011 of VACB, Thiruvananthapuram, challenging order dated 22.09.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.1030/2025 in the above case.

2. Crl.R.P.No1036/2025 is also at the instance of Sri N.Satheesh Kumar, who is the 2^nd accused in C.C.29/2024 on the files of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram arising from Crime No.7/2011 of VACB, Thiruvananthapuram, challenging order dated 22.09.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.1032/2025 in the above case.

3. Crl.R.P.No1040/2025 is also one filed by Sri N.Satheesh Kumar, who is the 3^rd accused in C.C.01/2016 on the files of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram arising from Crime No.7/2011 of VACB, Thiruvananthapuram, challenging order dated 22.09.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.1029/2025 in the above case.

4. Crl.R.P.No1041/2025 also has been filed by Sri N.Satheesh Kumar, who is the 3^rd accused in C.C.28/2024 on the files of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram arising from Crime No.7/2011 of VACB, Thiruvananthapuram, challenging order dated 22.09.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.1031/2025 in the above case.

5. Thus all these Revision Petitions have been filed by the same revision petitioner, viz., Sri N.Satheesh Kumar in C.C. Nos. 33/2024, 29/2024, 01/2016 and 28 of 2024 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, arose out of Crime No.7/2011 of VACB, Thiruvananthapuram.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the VACB. Perused the records, including the impugned orders.

7. The prosecution case as per FIR No.7/2011 of SIU-I Unit, VACB, Thiruvananthapuram, is that the 1^st accused, who worked as the Commercial Tax Officer and the 2^nd accused who worked as Junior Superintendent of the Commercial Tax Office, Neyyattinkara during 2006 7 to 2008, abused their official position as public servants in between 07.05.2007 and 04.10.2008 by conspiring with the other accused persons and thereby misappropriated the advance tax amount. After investigation, 4 separate final reports were filed specifically alleging that, in pursuance of the conspiracy hatched between the accused, State exchequer sustained a pecuniary loss to the tune of Rs.26,58,595/-, Rs.2,03,150/-, Rs.2,03,150/- and Rs.5,64,115/- respectively in C.C.No.33/2024, C.C.No.29/2024, C.C.No.1/2016 and C.C.No.28/2024 and accused persons got corresponding undue gain therefrom. This is the base on which the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (`PC Act, 1988' for short) r/w Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) as well as under Sections 468 , 471 and 120B of IPC, by the accused persons.

8. The revision petitioner herein, who is the 2^nd accused in C.C.No.33/2024 and C.C.No.29/2024 and 3^rd accused in C.C.No.28/2024 and C.C.No.1/2016, had filed separate discharge petitions in the above cases arose out of the same crime seeking discharge on the submission that 8 he did not commit any of the offences alleged by the prosecution.

9. The learned Special Judge dismissed the discharge petitions on finding that prima facie materials are available to find the commission of the offences by the revision petitioner.

10. While canvassing interference with the orders impugned, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that in this matter, earlier the discharge pettions filed by