Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 35529
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.BADHARUDEEN, J
NALINI K – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous Case | Crime No. VC 5/2014/TSR
For the Appellants/Petitioners: N/A
For the Respondents: N/A
The court upheld the necessity for thorough investigation in allegations against public servants, emphasizing the importance of due process and lawful verification to prevent corruption.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) - Indian Penal Code - Sections 465 and 120B - Criminal Miscellaneous Case - Quashment of order for further investigation challenged on grounds of lack of evidence against accused - Final report indicated no offences committed - Court found justification for further investigation was lacking. (Paras 3-12)
(B) Conspiracy - Essentials for establishing conspiracy between public servants for illegal issuance of river sand passes discussed - Mandatory requirement of inquiry and verification of documents overlooked in the alleged offences - Findings suggested circumstantial evidence of conspiracy to defraud and distribute illegal benefits. (Paras 6-10)
Facts of the case:
The case arose from allegations against public servants for issuing river sand passes illegally without proper verification, enabling potential financial gain without lawful application. Evidence indicated systematic renewal of passes without necessary inspections and documents.
Findings of Court:
The Court upheld the Special Judge's concern over the integrity of evidence and dismissed the plea for discharge due to sufficient grounds for suspicion based on procedural violations.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Special Judge erred in refusing to drop proceedings based on the final report which excluded charges due to lack of evidence against the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The judges emphasized that the validity of procedures and adherence to legal requisites were essential in preventing corrupt practices, thus justifying further investigation due to procedural concerns.
Result: The petition is dismissed accordingly.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the criminal case and procedural history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding the necessity of further investigation. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. details of allegations and evidence concerning irregularities in pass issuance. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
ORDER
Dated this the 15th day of July, 2025 Accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No. VC 5/2014/TSR, on the files of the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PC Act’), Thrissur, have filed this Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ BNSS ’), seeking quashment of Annexure D order, whereby the learned Special Judge refused to accept the final report recommending to drop further proceedings and instead ordered further investigation of the case.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 3 and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the records, including the Annexure D order.
3. In this matter, based on a complaint lodged by one Varun Dev, crime was registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the PC Act as well as under Sections 465 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘ IPC ’ for short) by the accused. After investigation, as on 12.07.2023, final report filed. As per the final report, the Investigating Officer requested the court to treat the report as ‘further action dropped due to lack of evidence’, after recommending disciplinary action against accused Nos.1 and 2 while not recommending any disciplinary action against the 3rd accused. On scrutiny of the final report, the learned Special Judge was not inclined to accept the final report and accordingly, the Special Judge, as per order dated 01.07.2024, ordered further investigation and the said order has been stayed by this Court as per interim order dated 01.04.2025.
4. While challenging Annexure D order, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, this crime was registered in the year 2014 and thorough investigation was carried out by the Investigating Officer. Admittedly it was found that the accused did not commit any offences and accordingly, report to drop the proceedings had been filed. But the Special Court, for the reasons stated in paragraph Nos.11 and 12 of Annexure D order, ordered further investigation. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the reasons for ordering further investigation are not justifiable and as such the order would require interference.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that since the Special court ordered further investigation, for reasons stated in paragraph Nos.11 and 12 of the order, the investigation agency is ready to proceed with further investigation and file report on the same. Therefore, the order is to be sustained.
6. In this case, the allegation of the prosecution is that, A1 to A3, the Dy.Tahsildars and the L.D. Clerk of Thalappilly Taluk during the period 2011-12, were authorised to renew the river sand pass for the eligible applicants on perusing the records and applying their mind. While the accused persons being public servants holding the power to renew the passes of river sand for eligible persons on conducting enquiry and inspecting relevant records during 2011-12, they hatched conspiracy in between them and issued passes to ineligible and wrong persons as beneficiaries without conducting any inspection or enquiry in their presence. Accordingly passes were issued on 22.11.2011, 23.11.2011, 24.11.2011, 25.11.2011, 08.12.2011, 09.12.2011, 12.12.2011, 14.12.2011, 16.10.2012, 17.10.2012, 19.10.2012, 09.11.2012, 26.11.2012. On these days, accused Nos.1 to 3 endorsed their presence in the attendance book and were in-charge of the renewal of passes. The presence of the beneficiary before the officials or their authorised representative is a mandatory requirement. In this case, 181 pas
