No prima facie case under the Prevention of Corruption Act was established as there was no evidence of pecuniary loss or gain, resulting in quashing the proceedings to prevent abuse of the legal process.

ORDER :

1. Accused No.4 in Crime No.9/2009 of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ernakulam, now pending as C.C.No.299/2016 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge, Muvattupuzha, has filed this Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’ hereinafter) to quash all further proceedings in the said case as against him.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the final report and Annexures I and V documents in particular, produced by the petitioner.

3. Here, the prosecution allegation is that, during the period between 2006-07, accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 while holding the posts of Tahasildar, Kunnathunadu, Deputy Tahasildar, Revenue Recovery, Kunnathunadu and Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha, respectively, being public servants, abused their official position, connived and conspired together with accused Nos.4 to 6 and as a result of the said conspiracy, paved the way for accused No.4 to purchase 2.22 acres of land and building in Resurvey Nos.110/20-2 and 110/12 of Rayamangalam Village for a meager amount of Rs.25,01,000/- without taking proper valuation of the property, without following procedural formalities for auction, without bidding the land on behalf of the Government and without safeguarding the interest of the State and thus, caused loss to the State, which resulted in undue pecuniary advantage to the auction purchaser, accused No.4, who is, in fact, a benami of accused Nos.5 and 6. This is the base, on which, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 13 (1) (d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , by accused Nos.1 to 6.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner herein, who is arrayed as the 4^th accused is the person who auctioned the property following the procedure and according to the prosecution, the same was for a lesser price. However, as on 05.01.2011, the Commissioner of Land Revenue intervened in the auction, finding some irregularities and he passed Annexure V order bearing No. LR(B7)27473/2010 and set aside the auction sale.

5. Going through Annexure V order, it is evident that the Land Revenue Commissioner considered the irregularities in the auction sale in favour of the petitioner herein and ultimately, the Land Revenue Commissioner set aside the auction and reverted the property back to its original owner. The Land Revenue Commissioner further directed realisation of the due amount to the Government after considering the case of Union Bank of India, who also had a charge in the property, afresh by remanding the same.

6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, after remand, no steps, in fact, warranted in the said proceedings because of Annexure I. As per Annexure I, the State Tax Officer, Kerala State Goods & Services Tax Department, Mini Civil Station, Perumbavoor sent a letter to the Deputy Collector (RR), Collectorate, Ernakulam on 19.03.2020. The same reads as under:

Kind attention is invited to the above reference. As per the reference 1^st cited above RR proceedings were recommended against Shri.I.J.Kuruvilla, Illiparambil (House), M/s.J.K.Rubbers, Kurumpady, Perumbavoor for the year 1999-00 and 2000-01. Later the assessee has filed their application to settle the arrears relating to the above periods under amnesty scheme. According to this scheme entire interest relating to the above period has been waived. Entire Tax amount relating to the above periods has b