1 Crl.Rev.Pet. No.1014 of 2024 2025:KER:26735 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.REV.PET NO. 1014 OF 2024 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.04.2021 IN CC NO.6 OF 2018 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE, KOTTAYAM REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1, 4 & 6: 1 P.R SURESH AGED 59 YEARS (ACCUSED NO:1) PLAVIYAYIL HOUSE NOORANADU PANCHAYATH, WARD NO:III (FORMER BLOCK PANCHAYATH MEMBER, NOORANADU DIVISION), PIN - 690504 2 PUSHPARAJAN AGED 60 YEARS (ACCUSED NO:4), KOZHIVILA VEEDU WARD NO: III, NOORANADU GRAMA PANCHAYTH., PIN - 690504 3 R GANGADHARAN AGED 78 YEARS (ACCUSED NO:6) KALARICKKAL THARAYIL WARD NO:XI, BHARANIKKAVU PANCHAYATH (FORMER CHAIRMAN, STANDING COMMITTEE FOR DEVELOPMENT, BLOCK PANCHAYATH, BHARANIKKAVU), PIN - 690504 BY ADV B.VINOD RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT: 1 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE VIGILANCE AND ANTI- CORRUPTION BUREAU, ALAPPUZHA UNIT, PIN - 688001 2 STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, 2 Crl.Rev.Pet. No.1014 of 2024 2025:KER:26735 PIN - 682031 ADV.SMT REKHA S- SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI A RAJESH - SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(VIG) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 3 Crl.Rev.Pet. No.1014 of 2024 2025:KER:26735 P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J ------------------------------------------------- Crl. Rev.Pet. No.1014 of 2024 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of March, 2025 O R D E R The petitioners are accused Nos.1, 4 and 6 in C.C. No.6 of 2018 pending before the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam. They along with four others were charged by the 1st respondent with offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and Sections 409, 465, 468 and 471 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The petitioners filed Crl.M.P. No.545 of 2020 before the Special Court seeking discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code). Accused Nos.3 and 7 earlier filed similar applications. The Special Court as per the order dated 21.04.2021 dismissed those applications. The petitioners filed this revision petition invoking the provisions of 4 Crl.Rev.Pet. No.1014 of 2024 2025:KER:26735 Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 challenging the order dismissing their applications for discharge. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Special Public Prosecutor (Vigilance) and the Senior Public Prosecutor. 3. Bharanikkavu Block Panchayat decided to undertake maintenance work of Maneeneth Temple Road. The project was to be carried out utilising the excess quantity of rice and wheat allotted to the Block Panchayat during 2007-2008 under the Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojana (SGRY) Scheme. The 2nd accused, who was the Assistant Engineer, Bharanikkavu Block Panchayat prepared an estimate for the maintenance of the road. The 5th accused, who was the Assistant Executive Engineer, Poverty Alleviation Unit, Alappuzha verified the estimate and accorded technical sanction. A member of Bharanikkavu Block Panchayat was the Convener of the Beneficiary Committee for the maintenance of the road. He is 5 Crl.Rev.Pet. No.1014 of 2024 2025:KER:26735 the 4th accused. Accused No.7 was the then Block Development Officer of the Block Panchayat. Accused No.3 was the then Village Extension Officer of Nooranadu Grama Panchayat. Accused No.1 was a member of the Block Panchayat. Accused No.6 was the Chairman of the Standing Committee for Development. 4. The allegations are that accused Nos.1 and 6, being the Chairman and Convener of the beneficiary committee and accused No.4, being the person who executed the work based on the agreement he had entered into with the Block Panchayat, based on the conspiracy hatched among all the accused, created false documents with a view to deceive the authorities and convince that the work on the road in question was executed. In fact, no such work was done. Thereby the accused together had misappropriated Government funds of Rs.1,63,040.90/-. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that having accused Nos.3 and 7 been discharged by this Court as per Annexure A order and accused Nos.2 and 5 expired, no 6 Crl.Rev.Pet. No.1014 of 2024 2025:KER:26735 prosecution against the petitioners, who are accused Nos.1, 4 and 6 is possible before the Special Court. It is urged that this Court in view of the conclusions in Annexure A order, the petitioners are liable to be discharged. The findings in Annexure A are - (i) allegations in the final report concerning lack of sanction for implementation of the project is incorrect, (ii) no work was executed at all is against real facts, (iii) it is incorrect that an amount of Rs.47,675/- was disbursed over and above the estimated amount and, (iv) the allegation of submitting false documents is unsupported by materials. The learned counsel would submit that in the light of the above findings which are based on the materials produced by the prosecution, a bar is created against prosecution of the petitioners. 6. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that what could be seen from the materials is a deviation from the estimate while implementing the work, but not that the work was not executed at all. The learned counsel accordingly would submit that the case, at the best, is an 7 Crl.Rev.Pet. No.1014 of 2024 2025:KER:26735 instance of noncompliance of the contract provisions and not at all criminal misconduct whereby obtaining of pecuniary advantage, and a successful prosecution against the petitioners is an impossibility. 7. The learned Special Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, would submit that from the materials produced by the prosecution, deficiencies in carrying out the work and thereby misappropriation of the money and materials provided by the Block Panchayat for implementation of the work is quite evident. The Special Public Prosecutor invited my attention to the report prepared by the Assistant Executive Engineer as well as the Executive Engineer, who is witness No.11 to substantiate that contention. The report of both these witnesses go in tandem in one respect that as against the projected length of 560 meters, the actual work done was on 189 meters portion of the road alone. Even if the contention of the petitioners that a 25 meters portion of the road was washed away by the flood is accepted, the length of the constructed road was only 214 meters. The 8 Crl.Rev.Pet. No.1014 of 2024 2025:KER:26735 learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit that the fault on the part of the accused would certainly be gathered from the materials available on record. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners would point out that the width of the road as per estimate was only 3.5 meters, whereas the completed road had a width of 6 meters. After referring to the graph prepared by witness No.11, it was submitted that the depth of the road work was much more than that was estimated. Accordingly, it is submitted that the volume of work done was practically more than what was estimated. It is thus maintained that there occurred deviation from the estimate, but there has not been any misappropriation. 9. This Court, in Crl.Rev.Pet. No.24 of 2022 considered the matter in detail. As regards the allegation that no work was carried out at all, and Rs.47,675/- was disbursed in addition to the wheat and rice this Court made, the following observations in Annexure A: “24. Thirdly, the investigating agency concluded that no work was carried out. This finding is based on the statement 9 Crl.Rev.Pet. No.1014 of 2024 2025:KER:26735 of certain witnesses (CWs 25 to 31), who live near the place where the work was proposed. A perusal of pages 108 and 260 of the CD compilation would indicate certain stages of work wherein there is mention that the gravel used is not as proposed. The statement of CW11, who measured the road, speaks of the difference in the levels that occurred on the land before and after the work. Therefore, the allegation that no work was carried out is against the materials relied on by the prosecution. 25. The next allegation against the revision petitioner is that he disbursed a value of Rs.1,62,049.90 as against an estimate of Rs.1,20,000/-. The value was assessed in terms of rice and wheat; more clearly, the value of the estimate was assessed as equivalent to 97.96 Quintals of rice = Rs.87,183/- and 48.98 Quintals of wheat = 32,817/- (87183+32,817 = 1,20,000). Page 195 of the CD compilation shows that 47.90 Quintals of rice were not available and the price of the same was substituted. Therefore, the prosecution case that over and above the quantity of rice and wheat a sum of Rs.47,675/- was also disbursed is factually incorrect.” 10. When this Court found so after apprising the materials available on record and accused Nos.3 and 7 were accordingly discharged, it is inappropriate for this Court to take a different view. It is especially so when the aforesaid order, 10 Crl.Rev.Pet. No.1014 of 2024 2025:KER:26735 Annexure A, stands confirmed by the Apex Court owing to the dismissal of SLP Crl. No.5275 of 2023 as per the order dated 15.05.2023. 11. Accused Nos.3 and 7 were the Village Extension Officer and Block Development Officer respectively. This Court, on the aspect of alleged conspiracy among the accused, held that materials are insufficient to hold that such a conspiracy was hatched. In the light of the said finding of this Court, it may be difficult to prove the charge that in furtherance of a conspiracy involving the said officials the act of misappropriation and mischief were committed. As pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, it may be possible to show that false documents were created and making use of such documents, the work in question was claimed to have been done. But when the public servants, who involved in the said acts are not available for trial, and in the light of the findings of this Court in Annexure A order that the materials are insufficient to establish prima facie the charge leveled against accused Nos.3 and 7, a fruitful 11 Crl.Rev.Pet. No.1014 of 2024 2025:KER:26735 prosecution of the petitioners is not possible. In the said circumstances, I am of the view that the trial of the petitioners will only be an abuse of the process of court. The impugned order is therefore liable to be reversed. Accordingly, this Crl. Revision Petition is allowed. On setting aside the order dated 21.04.2021 of the Special Court, Crl. M.P. No.545 of 2020 in C.C. No.6 of 2018 is allowed. Petitioners are discharged under Section 239 of the Code. Sd/- P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE SMF 12 Crl.Rev.Pet. No.1014 of 2024 2025:KER:26735 APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 1014/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 6/12/2022 IN CRL R.P 582/2020