The court emphasized the necessity of substantial evidence to sustain criminal charges and protect individuals from unwarranted prosecution.

1. The petitioner is the 6th accused in C.C. No.3 of 2021 on the files of the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thalassery. The petitioner has filed this Crl.M.C. under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973, seeking to quash the final report in C.C. No.3 of 2021 concerning him. The offences alleged against the petitioner and his co - accused are punishable under S.13(1)(d) and S.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988 and S.120(B), S.468 and S.471 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860.

2. 1.2141 Hectares of land and 0.8094 Hectares of land, both comprised in Re - survey No.199/1 (old survey No.295 / PT) of Peringome Village originally belonged to Vengayil Tharavadu. These properties were part of a larger extent of 3.7250 hectares in respect of which there occurred a wrong entry in the revenue records whereby it was shown belonging to Thidiyil Rayappan Nair. It is alleged that the petitioner, with the dishonest intention of grabbing the said properties, hatched a conspiracy with accused Nos.2 and 3 and remitted tax during the year 2002 for the said properties in the name of accused Nos.7 and 8 respectively, who are his mother - in - law and brother - in - law. By influencing the revenue officials, he paid tax for the said properties in the subsequent years also. With the help of the said tax receipts and fake receipts created for the previous years, he got initiated a suo motu proceedings before the Land Tribunal, Payyannur, in respect of the said properties of 1.2141 Hectares and 0.8094 Hectares. The petitioner had influenced the 1st accused, the then Revenue Inspector and the Additional Tahsildar, so as to obtain pattas in the name of accused Nos.7 and 8. By doing so, the petitioner and his co - accused had committed the aforementioned offences and with those allegations, the final report was filed before the Special Judge based on which C.C. No.3 of 2021 was instituted.

3. A statement was placed on record on behalf of the respondent explaining the materials and evidence proposed to substantiate the charge against the petitioner and his co - accused.

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

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that except statements of a few witnesses, there is no tangible evidence to implicate the petitioner with the alleged offences. The pattas were issued in the name of accused Nos.7 and 8. That is an indisputable fact. Accused No.7 is the mother - in - law and accused No.8 is the brother - in - law of the petitioner. In the view of the learned counsel, only because of that relationship, the petitioner cannot be implicated in the alleged offences. In order to establish his complicity with the offences, no documentary evidence is available. The witnesses cited by the prosecution stated the manipulations occurred and that the officials were influenced by the petitioner. However, the statements of the witnesses cited by the prosecution are not to the effect that any of them has any direct knowledge as to the involvement of the petitioner in commission of such offences. Accordingly, it is submitted that the trial of the petitioner on the basis of such a final report and the documents submitted therewith would be a futile exercise and travesty of justice.

6. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor had taken me through the statements of witnesses, particularly witness No.8, who was the District Registrar in order to show the complicity of the petitioner with the offence. It is submitted that the petitioner is the person behind commission of the alleged offences, as though the beneficiaries are accu