The court affirmed that prima facie evidence of conspiracy and corruption justified the continuation of proceedings against the accused, emphasizing the obligation to verify property ownership before issuing tax receipts.

ORDER :

A.BADHARUDEEN, J.

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No.3/2021 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Thalassery. The petitioners are accused Nos.3 and 4 in the above case.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the VACB. Perused the relevant decisions placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

3. As per the final report, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'PC Act, 1988' for short) as well as under Sections 120B, 468 and 471 of of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ' IPC ' for short). The precise allegation of the prosecution is that, in relation to property having an extent of 3.7250 hectares of land in Re.Sy.No.199/1 (old Sy.No.295/PT) which stood in the Tharavadu of Kuttoor Vengayil, the 6^th accused, by taking advantage of showing the name of one Rayarappan Nair as the person in possession of the said property in the revenue records, attempted to remit tax for the said land with an intention to obtain the said land, where the real owners of the land failed to look after. On this premise, the 6^th accused approached the 4^th accused, the Village Assistant, and requested to remit tax in respect of 1.2141 hectares of land in the name of the 7^th accused, who is the mother-in- law of the 6^th accused, and 0.8094 hectares in the name of the 8^th accused, who is the husband of his sister. The further allegation is that, on this premise, the 6^th accused hatched conspiracy with accused Nos.2 and 3, along with accused Nos.7 and 8, and obtained plan, location certificate, etc. and produced before the Land Tribunal, Payyannur, in SM Proceedings. Thereafter, by influencing the 1^st accused, the Additional Tahsildar, through the 5^th accused, who had been working as an agent for obtaining purchase certificates, accused Nos.7 and 8 obtained purchase certificates in their names from the Land Tribunal, Payyannur and thereby all the accused persons committed the above offences.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are innocent. As per the statement of Sri. Muhammed Yoosaf. E. (CW37), during the period when the Village Officer given the report which led to issuance of SM proceedings granting Pattah in respect of the said property in SM Nos.262/2007 and 263/2007, dated 26.09.2008, accused Nos.3 and 4 were not working as Village Officers in Peringome Village. The statement of Sri.Muhammed Yoosaf E., who worked as the Deputy Collector during the relevant period, would indicate that Sri.Divakaran M. worked as Village Assistant from 08.01.1996 to 17.07.2002, Sri.C.K.Shajimon worked as Village Assistant from 26.05.2003, and during the relevant time, from 25.10.2006 to 29.05.2007, one Sri.Ramachandran Nair was the Village Officer in Peringome Village.

5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, in this case, the report which led to issuance of Pattah and SM proceedings, which is the subject matter of the dispute herein stemmed at the option of the Village Officer, who is the 2^nd accused. At the same time, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners further that, the only the allegation now subsisting as against the petitioners is issuance of tax receipts by the 4^th accused in the name of Sri.Damodaran for the period 2002 – 2003 as per tax receipt dated 16.07.2002, and issuance of tax receipt in the name of Smt.Devaki Amma by the 3^rd accused during the period 2003 -2004 as per receipt dated 10.06.2003. It is subm