Insufficient evidence for criminal prosecution leads to departmental proceedings for conduct in public service.

ORDER

Dated this the 10^th day of October, 2025 The 1^st accused in Crime No.03/2025 of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Malappuram, has filed this Crl.M.C. under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023, seeking the following relief:

“To quash all further proceeding pending against the petitioner/1^st accused in Crime No.03/2024 of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Malappuram.”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail.

3. As borne out from the report filed by the Inspector of Police, who is the Investigating Officer in this crime, the crux of the prosecution allegations, as stated in paragraph No.2, is as under:

“2. It is submitted that based on the source information regarding the allegations of misappreciation at Wandur Par & Palliative Centre (Chethanan) Govt. Homeo Health Centre Hospital during the year 2021-2022, a surprise check was conducted by Vigilance & Anti Corruption Bureau, Malappuram Unit on 08.12.2022. Upon the findings of irregularities during the surprise check, SC Officer recommended preliminary enquiry and a preliminary enquiry was conducted vide PE 07/2023/MPM dated 23.03.2023 by the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, VACB. Malappuram. Preliminary Enquiry revealed prima facie offence of misappropriation and so recommended further detailed investigation by registering an FIR against the accused. Accordingly, on 31.01.2024 FIR was registered by the then D.Y.S.P. of Malappuram Vigilance unit as VC- 03/2024/MPM U/s 7, 13(1)(a) r/w 13(2) of the P.C. Act & Sec 465, 468, 471, 201, 120 B IPC against the two accused.”

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and the allegations are false. Further, no offences as alleged, could be gathered from the circumstances of the case.

5. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor produced the report of the Investigating Officer and submitted that the investigation conducted so far revealed that there is no sufficient material to substantiate the alleged offences. However, procedural lapses and official misconduct were observed on the part of the petitioner/1^st accused in the course of the purchase of medicines and the subsequent maintenance of records and files related thereto, for which, the 1^st accused shall be subjected to departmental disciplinary proceedings.

6. In this context, paragraphs Nos.4, 5, and

6 of the report assume significance and, hence, the same are extracted hereunder:

“4. It is submitted that investigation of this case was assigned to me (Jyodindrakumar-P, Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti Corruption Bureau, Malappuram) and accordingly conducted investigation. During investigation 21 witnesses were questioned and about 24 documents were examined and the investigation is in concluding stage. Based on the investigation it is derived so far that there is no clear evidence of criminal intention to both accused to commit the offences alleged in this case. From the records and collected evidences it is seen that Petitioner/Accused-No.1 submitted the bills which were given by the second accused to treasury claiming as purchased is for avoiding the lapse of fund allotted for the purchase of medicines. But within the expected period the second accused could not supply the medicines as promised. By then the issue of non supply of medicines even after its payment to the second accused was detected by the staff of the hospital which led to internal criticism. In order to avoid criticism, as per the direction of the Petitioner/Accused-No.1 second accused forged the duplicate copies of the bills which were filed in the office files by adjusting the total amount claimed and sanctioned through the original bill. As far as the investigation conducted so far, there is