Accused's failure to take timely legal action led to loss, establishing prima facie misconduct under corruption laws.

COMMONORDER

Crl.R.P.No.726 of 2023 is at the instance of the 1^st accused in C.C.No.4/2021 on the files of the Special Judge, Thrissur. Crl.R.P.No.745 of 2023 has been filed by the 2^nd accused in the above case. In both the matters dismissal of discharge petitions, viz. Crl.M.P.Nos.777/2022 and 1265/2022 as per separate orders dated 28.02.2023 and 31.05.2023 is under challenge.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the prosecution records and the decisions placed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners.

3. Here the prosecution alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 13 (1)(c) and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (`PC Act’ for short hereafter) as well as Sections 409 , 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (` IPC ’ for short), by the accused.

4. The 1^st accused in this crime was the legal officer of M/s.Malabar Cements Limited Company (`MCL Co.’ for short) and the 2<sup>nd</sup> accused was the Managing Director of M/s.ARK Wood and Materials Pvt. Ltd (`ARK Co.’ for short). Accused Nos.3 and 4 were the Managing Director and the Director of ARK Co.

5. The 1^st accused filed Crl.M.C.No.4038/2021 before this Court to quash the entire proceedings against him and as per Annexure-A1 order dated 22.12.2021, this Court considered the said plea at length and finally this Court quashed the offences under Section 13 (1)(c) of the P.C Act as well as under Sections 409 and 420 of IPC , against the 1^st accused. Thereafter this Court given liberty to the trial court to proceed against the 1^st accused for the offences under (1)(d) of the PC Act and under Section 120B of . Liberty also was given to the 1^st accused to file discharge petition under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the said offences. Pursuant to disposal of the Crl.M.C as per Annexure-A7 order, the 1^st accused filed Crl.M.P.No.777/2022 and on evaluation of the prosecution materials in detail, the learned Special Judge dismissed the application holding that the available materials in this case would suffice to show, prima facie, case against the 1^st accused.

6. The 2^nd accused, who was the Managing Director of the MCL Co. during the relevant period also filed Crl.M.P.1265/22 seeking discharge and the same also was dismissed by the Special Judge holding that there are sufficient grounds and materials to see, prima facie, commission of the offences alleged by the prosecution against the 2^nd accused.

7. It is argued by the learned counsel for the 2^nd accused that there are no valid materials to prosecute the 2^nd accused. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the 2^nd accused that the petitioner was appointed as the Managing Director of the MCL Co., on 29.01.2010 and a true copy of his appointment order is Annexure-A2. Thereafter, his service was terminated from the post as on 01.10.2011 as per Annexure- A3. According to the learned counsel for the 2^nd accused, when O.S.No.555/2008, filed before the Munsiff Court, Palakkad, was returned for presentation before the proper court on the finding that the said Court had no jurisdiction, the petitioner filed C.M.A.No.7/2009 before the District Court, Palakkad, but the same was dismissed on 31.10.2011. While so, the petitioner demitted the office as on 01.10.2011, as