IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR TH THURSDAY, THE 6 DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 17TH MAGHA, 1946 CRL.REV.PET NO.71 OF 2020 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09.12.2019 IN CRL.M.P.NO.78 OF 2018 IN CC NO.5 OF 2014 ON THE FILE OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER &

SPECIAL JUDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:

YOHANNAN KURIAKOSE AGED 73 YEARS S/O.YOHANNAN,ARIKUPURATHU,MANEED.P.O, PIRAVOM,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

BY ADVS. S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY SRI.D.FEROZE SRI.K.ANAND (A-1921)

RESPONDENT/STATE:

STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031 (VACB SPECIAL INVESTIGATION UNIT(KIP)

1/2007 KOLLAM DISTRICT).

BY ADV.

SMT REKHA S, SR PP SRI A RAJESH, SPL PP(VIG)

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Crl.R.P.No.71 of 2020 -----------------------------------------------------------

Dated this the 6^th day of February, 2025

O R D E R

The petitioner assails the order dated 09.12.2019 of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in Crl.M.P.No.78 of 2018 in CC No.5 of 2014 pending before that Court. He is the 2^nd accused in that case. The offences alleged against him are punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He filed Crl.M.P.No.78 of 2018 seeking discharge invoking the provisions of Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Special Court dismissed that petition. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner has filed this revision petition under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code.

2. The prosecution case is the following:

The first accused was the Superintending Engineer, Kallada Irrigation Project from 05.10.1990 to 30.04.1991. He entered into a criminal conspiracy with accused No.2, the contractor, to whom the work of formation of Paravoor Distributary Ch 7033M to Ch 9982M including CD works was awarded, with an intention of deriving undue pecuniary advantage to the contractor. In order to satiate that conspiracy the 1st accused abusing his official position, treated certain items of work as additional and extra items and allowed exorbitant rate by holding a mutual negotiation. A supplemental agreement was executed in that regard by mis-utilising the local competitive bidding specifications. The 2nd accused thereby obtained an undue pecuniary advantage of Rs.4,11,899/-. The 3rd accused, who was the Executive Engineer, made recommendations for excess payment of an amount Rs.4,04,059/- to the 2nd accused. Thus, on account of acts of accused Nos. 1 and 3 the Government sustained a loss of Rs.8,15,958/- and corresponding advantage to accused No. 2. Thereby they committed offences under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act and 120B of the IPC.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

4. Going by the allegations in the final report, a conspiracy was hatched between accused Nos.1 and 2 and in consequence thereof the work in question was awarded in an illegal way to accused No.2. That an excess payment was ordered by accused No.3 also. The total loss caused to the Government was quantified as Rs.8,15,958/-.

5. Indisputably, both accused Nos. 1 and 3 who are public servants expired. Accused No. 2 alone remains. He was the contractor. The learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on State through Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi v. Jitender Kumar Singh [2014 (11) SCC 724] and Sandeep Achuthan v. Central Bureau of Investigation/SPE, Kochi [2025 KHC OnLine 140] contented that the Special Court cannot try the petitioner alone for the alleged offences inasmuch as the trial was not yet commenced and the public servant-accused already expired. It is submitted that since accused Nos. 1 and 3 expired before