Dishonest intention is the essential ingredient to prove offenses of criminal misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and mere dereliction of duty or violation of rules, without proof of dishonest intention or pecuniary advantage, does not amount to criminal misconduct.

Challenging the order passed by the learned Special Judge, Special Court for Cases of Prevention of Corruption Act, Coimbatore in Spl.C.C.No.5 of 2023, the present Criminal Original Petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as follows:- There are six accused involved in this case namely, A.Lakshmanan, B.Prabhakaran, D.Srinivasan, S.Lakshmi Devi, D.Dhandapani and D.Saroja. The petitioner herein/Lakshmanan, who is arrayed as the first accused, was a former Executive/Assistant Commissioner I/C, Central Zone, Coimbatore Corporation, Coimbatore. It is stated that the petitioner along with the second accused colluded with the building owners/A3 to A6 had entered into a criminal conspiracy in the construction of three commercial buildings without proper building approval plan as originally building plan approval had been granted for construction of residential buildings. Initially, a case was registered against the petitioner herein/A1 and A6 on 24.05.2016. On completion of investigation, it came to light that the petitioner/A1 and A2 entered into a criminal conspiracy with the building owners/A3 to A6 and favoured them to construct the commercial buildings instead of residential buildings in violating the building approval plan. A1 and A2 have not inspected the construction site but only after receipt of RTI petition from Samugha Vizhipunarvu Iyakkam, A1 directed A2 to visit the subject premises. Being aware of the violation made by A3 to A6 in construction of the buildings without proper building plan approval, A1 and A2 have not issued deviation notice but acted favourably to them for pecuniary advantage without taking into consideration of public safety. Lock and seal notices were also issued belatedly and no action has been initiated to stop the construction of the buildings by the accused 3 to 6 which paved the way for acquiring tax fixation and by way of this act, the petitioner has favoured the accused 3 to 6, who in turn gained pecuniary benefits. Hence, the case has been registered against the accused in Cr.No.4/2016/AC/CB and a final report has been filed by the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 120B , 109 of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w.13(1) (d) of PC Act.

3. Aggrieved over the same, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner herein/first accused.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner served as Executive Engineer/Assistant Commissioner I/C (Central Zone), Coimbatore from 01.01.2012 to 25.06.2013. The accused/building owners made application to the corporation for building approval and the building plan approval in T.S.No.1212 of Gopalapuram III Street, Coimbatore to the extent of 3993 sq.ft was granted on 12.12.2011, T.S.No.1216/1 part at Gopalapuram I Street, Coimbatore to the extent of 3996 sq.ft. on 14.03.2012 and T.S.No.1216/1, Ward 1A, Block-20 at Gopalapuram I Street, Coimbatore to the extent of 3966 sq.ft. on 19.07.2012. He submitted that there are no ingredients for the criminal conspiracy as against the petitioner as he had not indulged in any agreement or any illegal act and therefore, the offence under Section 120 B of IPC does not attract. He further contended that as contemplated under Section 89 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, the Commissioner of Coimbatore Municipal Corporation is the competent authority/ planning authority to lodge a complaint in writing to prosecute the owners of the buildings for not complying with the notice under Section 56 of . Furthermore, there is no proof of evidence to show that the petitioner had intentionally aided in commission of the crime or instigated any person to do any such act and hence, Section 109 of , cannot be charged against the petitioner. There are no charges levelled against the petitioner at all in the final report stating that the petitioner had obtained any valuable things or pecuniary advantage either for himself or for