1 Crl.M.C. No.2132 of 2023 2025:KER:26227 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2025/6TH CHAITHRA, 1947 CRL.MC NO. 2132 OF 2023 CRIME NO.118/2015 OF VANDIPERIYAR POLICE STATION, IDUKKI AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.04.2017 IN CC NO.666 OF 2015 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, PEERUMEDU PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED: JAYAKUMAR.P.S. AGED 62 YEARS S/O. P.G. SUKUMARAN NAIR, PARAPPALLI HOUSE, KAVUMBHAGOM (P.O), THEKKETHUKAVALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN – 686519 BY ADVS. R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) G.RAJAGOPAL (KUMMANAM) RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031 ADV.SMT REKHA S- SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI A RAJESH - SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(VIG) THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: 2 Crl.M.C. No.2132 of 2023 2025:KER:26227 P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.2132 of 2023 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of March, 2025 O R D E R Annexure 10 order is under challenge. As per that order, Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Peermedu, directed to forward records in C.C. No.666 of 2015 pending before that court to the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Muvattupuzha. That order was passed pursuant to Annexure 9 report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Peermedu. It was submitted in Annexure 9 that besides offences punishable under Sections 409, 465, 478, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), which were alleged in Annexure 3 final report based on which C.C. No.666 of 2015 was initiated, offences punishable under Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act), were also revealed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor (Vigilance). 3. The petitioner is the 1st accused. There are three accused in C.C. No.666 of 2015. They are public servants 3 Crl.M.C. No.2132 of 2023 2025:KER:26227 inasmuch as they are functionaries under the Block Panchayat, Azhutha. The 1st accused was the Block Development Officer. The 2nd accused was the Joint Block Development Officer and the 3rd accused was the Village Extension Officer. 4. Going by the allegations in Annexure 4 final report, they disbursed benefits under the Indira Awas Yojana (IAY) to beneficiaries selected by the Block Panchayat Authorities without consulting the local Panchayat concerned. Thereby the benefits were disbursed to ineligible persons. It is alleged that a false report enlisting ineligible persons was submitted, and such a report was acted upon to disburse the benefits. Thereby, an amount of Rs.1,85,000/- was disbursed to ineligible persons causing loss of that amount to the Government. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the final report was filed as early as on 30.07.2015 and when the trial in C.C. No.666 of 2015 got delayed, this Court, as per Annexure 7 judgment, directed the learned Magistrate to conclude the trial within a period of four months, and in order to circumvent the said direction only Annexure 9 report was filed. It is pointed out that after an enquiry, the Vigilance Department came to the conclusion that no offence under the PC Act was 4 Crl.M.C. No.2132 of 2023 2025:KER:26227 revealed. Hence, the local police was directed to conduct an investigation. It is urged that after a thorough investigation, Annexure 4 final report was submitted and no offence under the PC Act was revealed from the allegations set forth in the final report. It is further submitted that nothing has been stated in Annexure 9 to contradict the findings in Annexure 4 report, and no material has been produced to reveal commission of the offence under the PC Act. It is submitted that in such circumstances, the learned Magistrate ought not to have accepted Annexure 9 report and stopped the trial in C.C. No.666 of 2015. 6. The learned Special Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, would submit that the observations in Annexure 2 is based only on the preliminary enquiry conducted by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau. That does not stand in the way of having an investigation into an offence under the PC Act, if such an offence is revealed during the further investigation. A further investigation had to be conducted after submission of Annexure 4 final report, and the materials collected during such investigation revealed offences under Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. It was on that premises, Annexure 9 report was submitted. 5 Crl.M.C. No.2132 of 2023 2025:KER:26227 Annexure 10 order was issued by the learned Magistrate which according to the learned Special Public Prosecutor is correct. 7. It may be correct that the conclusions based on a preliminary enquiry report need not always stand in the way of conducting an investigation into an offence under the PC Act, if ingredients of such offences have been revealed in a detailed investigation. But, how the investigating agency arrived at such a finding should have been mentioned in Annexure 9 report. Conspicuously, no such material is furnished in the report. Except for stating that in the further investigation, offences under Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act have also been revealed, it has not been stated on what basis such a finding was arrived at. It is not always required to state every detail in such a report, but in the circumstances of this case, which I shall mention below, the investigating officer ought to have mentioned such details. 8. The crime was registered on 10.03.2015. That was in terms of the direction of the District Police Chief, Idukki. In the said direction, Annexure 2, it has been mentioned that on the preliminary verification, the offences revealed were under Sections 409, 465, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC. Such a 6 Crl.M.C. No.2132 of 2023 2025:KER:26227 direction was issued based on Annexure 1, a letter issued by the Additional Chief Secretary, Home (D) Department. It was mentioned therein that in the view of the VACB, the matter was to be investigated by the local police meaning thereby, no offence under the PC Act was revealed in the preliminary verification. Based on the said direction, a crime was registered by the Station House Officer, Vandiperiyar Police Station and an investigation was held. The allegations in Annexure 4 final report would constitute offences under Sections 409, 465, 468, 471 and 120B read with Section 34 of the IPC. No allegation amounting to any offence under the PC Act is stated in that report. From the materials appended to the final report also, commission of an offence under the PC Act could not be gathered. 9. What is revealed from the materials is that the beneficiaries were wrongly selected and for that purpose a false report was submitted. It is not able to find from the said materials that the petitioner and his co-accused did the alleged acts with dishonest intention of obtaining any pecuniary advantage for themselves. Of course, obtaining of pecuniary advantage by some other person may be enough to constitute an offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. Obtaining such 7 Crl.M.C. No.2132 of 2023 2025:KER:26227 pecuniary advantage by some person should be in consequence of the misconduct committed by the public servant with dishonest intention. When the materials show that the beneficiaries were selected disregarding the directions in that regard, however, the benefits were disbursed, although to ineligible persons, a dishonest intention to misappropriate Government fund cannot prima facie be found. Hence, it cannot be said that an offence under the PC Act has been committed. In order to take a different view, nothing has been stated in Annexure 9 report. 10. O.P.(Crl.) No.264 of 2022 was filed by the petitioner. This Court, as per Annexure 7 judgment, disposed of that original petition directing the learned Magistrate to complete the trial within 4 months after receipt of a supplementary final report. In the wake of that direction by this Court, Annexure 9 report was submitted. When inordinate delay occasioned at every stage of the proceedings and sufficient materials have not been furnished before the learned Magistrate to substantiate that an investigation into the offences under the PC Act is peremptory, I am of the view that allowing a further investigation in the matter amounts to travesty of justice. The learned Magistrate shall proceed with the trial of C.C. No.666 of 2015 and the request to 8 Crl.M.C. No.2132 of 2023 2025:KER:26227 conduct a further investigation can only to be declined. In the nature of the request in Annexure 9 what is proposed is not simply a further investigation, but it amounts to a reinvestigation. That also is a reason to foreclose the request in Annexure 9. In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is disposed of by setting aside Annexure 10 order and directing the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Peermedu to proceed with C.C. No.666 of 2015 and conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE SMF 9 Crl.M.C. No.2132 of 2023 2025:KER:26227 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2132/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure -1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA TO THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, IDUKKI DATED 23.02.2015. Annexure -2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05.03.2015 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, IDUKKI TO THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VANDIPERIYAR. Annexure -3 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO. 118/2015 OF VANDIPERIYAR POLICE STATION DATED 10.03.2015. Annexure -4 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 118/2015 OF VANDIPERIYAR POLICE STATION DATED 30.07.2015. Annexure -5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, PEERMEDU DATED 12.04.2017 IN C.C NO. 666/2015 Annexure -6 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C NO. 666/2015 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, PEERMEDU. Annexure -7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN O.P (CRL) NO. 264/2022 DATED 01.08.2022. Annexure -8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 17.11.2022 Annexure -9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 16.12.2022 Annexure -10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, PEERMEDU DATED 19.12.2022 IN C.C NO. 666/2015.