Kerala High Court
Sabu K S vs The Central Bureau Of Investigation on 4 August, 2025
2025:KER:58235
CRL.MC NO. 2794 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 2794 OF 2025
CRIME NO.3E 2014-CBI/SCB/2014 OF CENTRAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
CC NO.1 OF 2015 OF SPE/CBI - III, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4:
SABU K S
AGED 63 YEARS
S/O SRI SUGUNAN, KIZHAKKE VEETTIL HOUSE,
MANATHU PADAM PUTHUPALLIPARAM KARA THRIKKAKARA
NORTH VILLAGE. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682021
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.BIJU
SRI.P.P.PRAVEEN
SRI.K.R.SAJITH
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
COCHIN UNIT,
REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF
POLICE, KATHRIKADAVU, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682017
SPL PP CBI SREELAL N.WARRIER
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON23.07.2025, THE COURT ON 04.08.2025 PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:58235
CRL.MC NO. 2794 OF 2025
2
ORDER
Dated this the 4th day of August, 2025 The 4th accused in C.C.No.1/2015 on the files of the Special Court (SPE/CBI)-III, Ernakulam, arising out of crime No.3E/2014-CBI/SCB/TVM, has filed this Criminal Miscellaneous Case, seeking quashment of Annexure A1 FIR, Annexure A2 final report and all further proceedings thereof in the above case.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/4th accused and the learned Special Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the records, relevant statements and documents produced.
3. As per the prosecution allegations, which led to filing of charge I to XIV against different accused persons, the specific allegation is that, during June 2011 to December 2012, Shri.K.H.Abdul Majeed (A-1), Shri.K.H. 2025:KER:58235 CRL.MC NO. 2794 OF 2025 3 Abdul Salam (A-2), Shri.Murad.E. (A-3), Shri.Sabu.K.S. (A-4), Shri.Geevarghese.E.C.(A-5) and Smt.Krishnakumari.C.R. (A-
6) entered into a criminal conspiracy at Ernakulam to deprive the possession/ownership of Shri.A.K.Nazar, Smt.N.A. Shereefa, Shri.A.K.Noushad and Smt.Smitha @ Shimitha over 40.40 Ares of land in Sy.No.651/8A, B, C (Re.Sy.No: 530/6 Block-V) in Thrikkakara North Village. In pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, Shri.K.H.Abdul Majeed (A-1) and Shri.K.H.Abdul Salam (A-2) prepared a false complaint addressed to the District Collector, Ernakulam, alleging that, 116 cents of land in Sy.No.651/8A, B, C, (Re.Sy.No: 530/6) of Thrikkakara North Village came into the possession of Alungal Bava in the year 1940 under Pattacheet No.2335 from Elangalloor Swaroopam and after a series of transactions, the said land came into possession of Shri.Khader Pillai who is the father of the complainant vide Doc.No.871/1960, that no Pattayam was obtained for the land, despite this as per 2025:KER:58235 CRL.MC NO. 2794 OF 2025 4 Settlement Deed No.362 of 1982, TP No.8826 was allotted and land Tax had been remitted in the TP number. It was further alleged that, as per TP Register there are only 12 cents of land in TP No.8826 in Sy.No.852/2 (Re. Sy.No: 472/1) and that, the said TP number is in the name of Shri.Mani, S/o.Vallon. It was further alleged that, as per Co-Relation Register, Re.Sy.TP No.2127 had been derived from TP No.8826 and TP No.8597 for 40.40 ares of land. It was further alleged that, there are only 12 cents of land in TP No.8826 and 49 cents of land in TP No.8597. It was further alleged that, TP Nos.9365, 9366, 9367 and 21007 were derived from TP No.2127. It was also alleged that, the land tax was remitted in the wrong Thandaper number for the land measuring 116 cents received on lease from Elangalloor Swaroopam. It was requested to cancel the TP numbers which were wrongly allotted from Thrikkakara North Village Office and also to stop further transactions in the disputed land. The said complaint 2025:KER:58235 CRL.MC NO. 2794 OF 2025 5 was signed by Shri.Abdul Salam (A-2) and submitted at Collectorate, Ernakulam on 21.06.2011 by Shri.Abdul Majeed (A-1) accompanied by Shri.Dileep, staff of their brother, Shri.Mohammed Ali.
4. The said complaint was forwarded from the Collectorate Ernakulam to Addl. Tahsildar, Kanayannoor Taluk Office and the same was collected by Shri.Abdul Majeed (A-1) and delivered to Addl. Tahsildar, Kanayannoor Taluk Office and the same was forwarded to Village Officer, Thrikkakara North Village Office from Kanayannoor Taluk Office with direction to conduct an enquiry and furnish a report. The same was collected by Shri.Abdul Majeed (A-1) and delivered to Shri.Sabu K.S. (A-4) on the same day, i.e. 21.06.2011. In furtherance of the criminal conspiracy, Shri.Abdul Majeed (A-
1) requested Shri.Sabu.K.S. (A-4) to give a favourable report on the complaint and Shri.Sabu.K.S. agreed for the same; Thus, both Shri.Sabu.K.S. (A-4) and Shri.Abdul Majeed (A-1) 2025:KER:58235 CRL.MC NO. 2794 OF 2025 6 joined the criminal conspiracy. Shri.Sabu K.S. (A-4) directed Shri.Abdul Majeed (A-1) to handover the complaint to Shri.Murad.E (A-3). Shri.Abdul Majeed (A-1) met Shri.Murad.E (A-3) and also requested to him to give a favourable report on the complaint. Shri.Murad.E. (A-3) agreed to prepare a favourable report and send to the Taluk Office in two or three days time and thereby both of them joined the criminal conspiracy. In furtherance of criminal conspiracy, Shri.Murad.E (A-3), without making any enquiry and without referring any Village Office records, prepared a false report based only on the copies of documents furnished by Shri.Abdul Majeed (A-1) along with his complaint. In furtherance of the criminal conspiracy, he falsely reported that, the land belonged to Elangalloor Swaroopam, as per Co- Relation Register, 40.40 ares of land in Re.Sy.No.530/6 is assigned to TP Nos.8826 and 8597 in the name of Late Khader Pillai and his wife Smt.N.A.Shereefa respectively.
2025:KER:58235 CRL.MC NO. 2794 OF 2025 7 Further he reported that, TP No. 8826 was assigned in the name of of Shri.Mani, S/o. Vallon. Further he stated that tax had been wrongly remitted and the old records and Re- Sy.records of Thrikkakara North Village, in respect of the land, did not match. In furtherance of the conspiracy, the above false report was signed by Shri.Sabu K.S. (A-4), knowing fully well that it is false, and was forwarded by him to Kanayannoor Taluk Office. On receiving the report at Kanayanoor Taluk Office, the then Addl.Tahsildar directed that the collection of land tax on the property to be stopped. A hearing of Shri.A.K.Nazar, Shri.A.K.Abdul Salam and others were held on 27.07.2011 at Kanayannoor Taluk Office by Shri.Harikumar, the then Addl.Tahsildar. Since Shri.K.H.Abdul Salam (A-2) could not produce any documents in support of his allegations, Shri.Harikumar, the then Addl. Tahsildar lifted the ban on acceptance on land tax on the disputed land. Since their earlier complaint did not yield any results, in pursuance of 2025:KER:58235 CRL.MC NO. 2794 OF 2025 8 the above criminal conspiracy, Shri.Abdul Majeed (A-1) and Shri.Abdual Salam (A-2) filed another false complaint on 28.07.2011 addressed to Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram. Allegation in their complaint was that, "No Pattayam was received for 116 cents of land in Sy.No.651/8A, B, C land which came into possession of Late Alungal Bava from Elangalloor Swaroopam vide Pattacheet No.2335/1940 and this land was purchased by Late Khader Pillai vide Sale Deed No.871/1960. The TP No.8826 is mentioned in Partition Deed No.362/1982 and the tax has been remitted in that Thandaper. But as per the TP register of the Village, TP No.8826 is for 12 cents of land in Sy.No.852/2 in the name of Shri.Mani, S/o.Vallon. As per the Re-Sy.Co- Relation Register, Re.Sy.TP No.2127 was shown as derived from old TP No.8826 and 8597 for land measuring 40.40 Ares. But the extent of land available in old TP No.8826 is only 12 cents of land and extent of land available in TP No.8597 is 49 2025:KER:58235 CRL.MC NO. 2794 OF 2025 9 cents. TP Nos.9365, 9366, 9367 and 21007 are derived from Re.Sy.TP No.2127. The Village Officer, Thrikkakara North Village Office, reported that, no pattayam had been obtained for 116 cents of land which was received on pattom (Lease) from Elangalloor Swaroopam, TP No.8826 did not relate to Sy.No.651/8A, B, C but related to 12 cents of land in Sy.No.852/2 of Shri.Mani, S/o.Vallon. There are only 49 cents of land in TP No.8597. But the extent of land in Re.Sy.TP No.2127 is wrongly recorded as 40.40 Ares of land. It was also alleged in the complaint that, based on the report of Village Officer, Addl. Tahsildar ordered to stop the acceptance of land tax of the said land. Now efforts are being made by Shri.A.K.Nazar and others to restore the acceptance of land tax using their political influence. As per the Land Reforms Act, the Jenmi of the disputed land is Elangalloor Swaroopam, only tenant or "Kudikidappukar" entitled for assignment of Jenmom right. As per the records the land belongs to 2025:KER:58235 CRL.MC NO. 2794 OF 2025 10 Elangalloor Swaroopam and the same was given on Pattom to one Jacob @ Chacko vide Mortgage Deed No.1577/1956 and mortgage was released vide Doc.No.1978/1956 by Chacko. Thereafter the land was sold by Late Ganapathy Valiyaraja of Elangalloor Swaroopam to Hassan, Illikkattu Kattiparambu (Father of A-1 and A-2) Vide Doc.No.2907/1966 and 1988/1967. He further falsely alleged that, the present owners i.e., Smt.Shereefa and others have no right over the property and they have created forged documents to show the right/possession of the land and the same are invalid. Therefore, the acceptance of the land tax on the property should be suspended till the decision is taken in the matter by the Land Tribunal. It was also requested to refer the matter to the Land Tribunal.
5. As per charge No.12, it is specifically alleged that Shri.Sabu K.S. (A-4), during 2011-2012 while working as Village Officer, Thrikkakara North Village, Kanayannoor Taluk, 2025:KER:58235 CRL.MC NO. 2794 OF 2025 11 Ernakulam District, in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy as narrated in Charge-I, by corrupt or illegal means sent false reports addressed to Addl. Tahsildar, Kanayannoor Taluk mentioning falsely that the disputed land belongs to Elangalloor Swaroopam, that Pattayam was not obtained for the land, and that the land tax had been remitted in the wrong Thandaper Number 8826 in the year 1969 and 1971, etc. in order to get a favourable order for Shri.Abdul Majeed (A-1) and Shri.Abdul Salam (A-2) in the matter of the complaint filed by them to cancel TP numbers of the land belonging to the complainant and others and thereby he committed an offence punishable u/s.13(2) R/w 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.
6. While seeking quashment of the entire proceedings against the petitioner, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, when an application at the instance of the 1st accused, signed by the 2nd accused, was forwarded before the District Collector regarding wrong 2025:KER:58235 CRL.MC NO. 2794 OF 2025 12 assignment of Thandaper No.8826 in the name of one Khader Pillai, who is the predecessor of the complainant herein when routed through the Tahsildar to the Village Officer, the Village Officer, on three occasions, issued Exts.D-6(11) dated 18.10.2011, D-8 dated 16.07.2010, D-10 dated 24.06.2011 and D-123 dated 24.09.2011 based on the records he verified. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, subsequently, when the matter reached the Land Revenue Commissioner, initially, the same was closed, relegating the parties to resolve the dispute in the civil case pending. Again, when a complaint was lodged before the Minister for Revenue, the same was re-opened, and finally, an order was passed by the Land Revenue Commissioner, cancelling Thandaper account No. 8826. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, thereafter, WP(C) No.23244/2012(E), along with other writ petitions, was filed by N.A. Shereefa, A.K.Nazar and A.K.Noushad. As per judgment dated 26.05.2015, this Court 2025:KER:58235 CRL.MC NO. 2794 OF 2025 13 quashed the cancellation of patta. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, even though in the complaint lodged by accused Nos.1 and 2, the property in question, which as included in TP No.8826, was claimed to be that of Shri.Khader Pillai, who is the predecessor of interest of A.K.Nazar, it was contended that in view of the operation of Land Reforms Act, the property would go to the government. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, if at all, the report submitted by the Village Officer is wrong, ultimately by the intervention of this Court in judgment in WP(C) No.23244/2012(E), same was quashed and as a consequence thereof, the necessary ingredients to attract the offences under Sections 7, 12, and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act would not attract as there is no dishonest intention to be found on the part of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in order to bring home an offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act dishonest intention is the cardinal ingredient.
2025:KER:58235 CRL.MC NO. 2794 OF 2025 14
7. In this connection, the learned counsel placed the latest decision of this Court in Vineesh D. v. State of Kerala, reported in 2025 KHC OnLine 700 : 2025 KHC 700: 2025 KER 46209 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2244, wherein this Court held that on reading Annexures I and V along with the prosecution allegations, the matter emerges is that the petitioner alleged to have auctioned the property for a lesser price than the market price and obtained illegal pecuniary gain to him. According to the prosecution, the same is the result of conspiracy hatched between the accused persons. However, as per Annexure V, the irregularities and non-involvement of Union Bank of India, a banking institution, having charge over the property, were found and the auction sale in favour of the petitioner herein was set aside. Thereby, the Land Revenue Commissioner reverted back the title to the original owner. Annexure I would show that thereafter, the tax due to the 2025:KER:58235 CRL.MC NO. 2794 OF 2025 15 Government was cleared by the owner as per Annexure I. Thus, the petitioner did not obtain any advantage or pecuniary gain, in any manner. In view of Annexures I and V in this case, nobody obtained any gain or sustained loss, as already discussed. The above discussion would lead to the conclusion that there is no pecuniary loss or gain to anybody in this case so as to proceed against the petitioner herein alleging commission of the above offences.
8. Another decision of this Court in Sunil Kumar V. State of Kerala, reported in 2021 ICO 813 : 2021 (4) KLT 51 also highlighted, with reference to paragraph No.37 and the same reads as under:
"37. The condition precedent to the commencement of investigation is that the F.I.R must disclose, prima facie, that a cognizable offence has been committed. The right of the police to conduct investigation is conditioned by the existence of reason to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence and they cannot, 2025:KER:58235 CRL.MC NO. 2794 OF 2025 16 reasonably have reason so to suspect unless the F.I.R, prima facie, discloses the commission of offence. If that condition is satisfied, the investigation must go on. The Court has then no power to stop the investigation. On the other hand, if the F.I.R does not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, the Court would be justified in quashing the investigation on the basis of the information as laid or received. A person, against whom no offence is disclosed, cannot be put to any harassment by the process of investigation (See State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha :
AIR 1982 SC 949). Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused, the F.I.R as against him is liable to be quashed (See State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal : AIR 1992 SC 604)."
9. Apart from that the decision of the Apex Court in C.K.Jaffer Sharief V. State reported in 2012 ICO 2025:KER:58235 CRL.MC NO. 2794 OF 2025 17 1386 : 2012 (4) KLT SN 137:(2013) 1 SCC 205 : AIR 13 SC 48 : 2013 Cri LJ 341 also is highlighted with reference to paragraph Nos.16 and 17, wherein the Apex Court held as under:
"16. A fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence with regard to the liability of an accused which may have application to the present case is to be found in the work "Criminal Law" by K.D. Gaur. The relevant passage from the above work may be extracted below:
"Criminal guilt would attach to a man for violations of criminal law. However, the rule is not absolute and is subject to limitations indicated in the Latin maxim, actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea. It signifies that their can be no crime without a guilty mind. To make a person criminally accountable it must be provided that an act, which is forbidden by law, has been caused by his conduct, and that the conduct was accompanied by a legally blameworthy attitude of mind. Thus, tehre are two components of every crime, a physical element and a mental element, usually called 2025:KER:58235 CRL.MC NO. 2794 OF 2025 18 actus reus and mens rea respectively."
17. It has already been noticed that the appellant besides working as the Minister of Railways was the Head of the two Public Sector Undertakings in question at the relevant time. It also appears from the materials on record that the four persons while in London had assisted the appellant in performing certain tasks connected with the discharge of duties as a Minister. It is difficult to visualise as to how in the light of the above facts, demonstrated by the materials revealed in the course of investigation, the appellant can be construed to have adopted corrupt or illegal means or to have abused his position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage either for himself or for any of the aforesaid four persons. If the statements of the witnesses examined under Section 161 show that the aforesaid four persons had performed certain tasks to assist the Minister in the discharge of his public duties, however insignificant such tasks may have been, no question of obtaining any pecuniary advantage by any corrupt or illegal means or by abuse of the position of the appellant as a public 2025:KER:58235 CRL.MC NO. 2794 OF 2025 19 servant can arise. As a Minister it was for the appellant to decide on the number and identity of the officials and supporting staff who should accompany him to London if it was anticipated that he would be required to perform his official duties while in London. If in the process, the Rules or Norms applicable were violated or the decision taken shows an extravagant display of redundance it is the conduct and action of the appellant which may have been improper or contrary to departmental norms. But to say that the same was actuated by a dishonest intention to obtain an undue pecuniary advantage will not be correct. That dishonest intention is the gist of the offence under section 13(1)(d) is implicit in the words used i.e. corrupt or illegal means and abuse of position as a public servant. A similar view has also been expressed by this Court in M.Narayanan Nambiar v. State of Kerala (1963) Supp. (2) SCR 724::1962 ICO 859 while considering the provisions of section 5 of Act of 1947. If the totality of the materials on record indicate the above position, we do not find any reason to allow the prosecution to continue against the appellant. Such continuance, in our view, would be an abuse of the process of court and 2025:KER:58235 CRL.MC NO. 2794 OF 2025 20 therefore it will be the plain duty of the court to interdict the same."
10. Apart from that, another decision of this Court in Divya S S Rose v. State of Kerala & Others, reported in 2023 ICO 1695 : 2023 (7) KHC 132 : 2023 (6) KLT 750, decisions of the Apex Court in Kim Wansoo Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, reported in 2025 ICO 12, Central Bureau of Investigation Hyderabad Vs. K. Narayana Rao, reported in 2012 ICO 1126 : 2012 (9) SCALE 228 : 2012 (4) KLT 92 : (2012) 9 SCC 512 : 2012 Cri. LJ 4610, decisions of this Court in Bharat Raj Meena Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in 2024 ICO 844 : 2024 (4) KHC 52 :
2024(4) KLT SN 27 : 2024 Cri LJ 3706, Ahammed Nizar C.H. V. State of Kerala and Another, reported in 2022 ICO 2680 : 2023 (3) KHC 386 : 2023 (3) KLT 363 have been highlighted to buttress his contention.
2025:KER:58235 CRL.MC NO. 2794 OF 2025 21
11. The learned Special Public Prosecutor justified the charge against the petitioner. While pointing out the necessity of trial, it is categorically submitted that in this case, all the reports which led to cancellation of thandaper are at the instance of the 4th accused who was the Village Officer during the relevant period, and it was based on the said reports Tandaper No.8826 in the name of Khader Pillai, was cancelled. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the reports are given after passing of D 166(1) judgment of this Court in S.A.No.136/1994 (G) dated 09.07.2010 and also, after passing of the judgment arising out of AS No.110/1987 on the files of the III Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam in O.S.No.222/1981. Therefore, ignoring the civil court verdict in favour of the defacto complainant, reports were filed by the petitioner herein with ulterior motive, after hatching conspiracy between the other accused to get unlawful gain and pecuniary advantage to accused Nos.1 and 2. According to the learned 2025:KER:58235 CRL.MC NO. 2794 OF 2025 22 Special Public Prosecutor, even though in the judgment in WP(C) No.23244/2012(E), there is observation that quashment of the order cancelling the Tandaper No.8826 was subject to the outcome of the civil case. In fact, much before passing the judgment in the writ petition, the civil dispute had been finalised as per Judgment in S.A.No.136/1994 (G) dated 09.07.2010. Therefore, ultimately, by the intervention of this Court, or by the operation of civil court judgment, the cancellation of patta, in no way affected the title of the de facto complainant, offences alleged against the petitioner including other accused are made out warranting trial.
12. On appraising the rival submissions as submitted by both sides, charge No,I, III, and XII, the allegation against the petitioner is that he committed offences punishable under Sections 120B of IPC r/w 420, 167, 201 and 204 of IPC as well as under Sections 7, 12 and 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. Section 7 of the PC Act deals 2025:KER:58235 CRL.MC NO. 2794 OF 2025 23 with public servants being bribed in respect of an official act. Section 12 deals with punishment for abetment of offences defined in Section 7 or 12. As per Section 12, whoever abets any offence punishable under Section 7 or under Section 11, whether or not that offence is committed in consequence of that abetment, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 3 years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to pay fine.
13. Section 13 deals with criminal misconduct by a public servant and Section 13(1)(d) deals with three contingencies. Section 13 of the PC Act provides as under:
"13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant.-- (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,--
(a) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or any property under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do; or
(b) if he intentionally enriches himself illicitly 2025:KER:58235 CRL.MC NO. 2794 OF 2025 24 during the period of his office.
Explanation 1.--A person shall be presumed to have intentionally enriched himself illicitly if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession of or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account for.
Explanation 2.--The expression ''known sources of income'' means income received from any lawful sources.
(2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than four years but which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine."
14. In this matter, it is discernible from the prosecution records that as far as the property in dispute, covered by Tandaper No.8826, is the property of Khader Pillai and in turn the same devolved upon his legal heirs, and now they are occupying the same. As evident from D 166(1) judgment, much earlier, before the start of the entire process for cancellation of patta in the name of Khader Pillai,including 2025:KER:58235 CRL.MC NO. 2794 OF 2025 25 filing of reports by the petitioner emanated during 2011 by way of civil court declaration, the title of Khader Pillai and his predecessors attained finality, and therefore, cancellation of thandaper in the name of Khader Pillai is unwarranted. Thus, the entire overt acts at the instance of accused Nos.1 and 2 at the junction of other accused including the 4 th accused were to nullify the effect of a civil judgment and deny their title over the property through back door intervention.
15. As per the judgment in WP(C) No.23244/2012(E), this Court quashed the cancellation of patta subject to the decision of the civil court judgment and as of now, the property is that of the defacto complainant and others, who are the successors of Khader Pillai, as the judgment in SA No.136/1994 (G) attained finality.
16. Coming to the core issue, the question is, whether cancellation of Thandaper No.8826 in the name of Khader Pillai even though in ignorance or suppression of the civil case which 2025:KER:58235 CRL.MC NO. 2794 OF 2025 26 had attained finality, would form basis for alleging that the petitioner herein committed offences punishable under Sections 7,12 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. It is relevant to note that insofar as the property covered by Thandaper No.8826 is concerned, as per the judgment in SA No.136/1994(G), the matter has attained finality. It was thereafter that the entire reports generated by the petitioner herein led to the cancellation of the Thandaper account number in the name of Khader Pillai, though the said order was subsequently set aside by this Court. The question as to whether the petitioner herein was aware of the finality of the civil case in between them could not be discernible from the prosecution records. It is relevant to note that to find commission of offences punishable under Sections 7, 12 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, there must be a dishonest intention to get unlawful gratification to a person or any other person. In the instant case, even if the cancellation did occur, it would have the effect of reverting 2025:KER:58235 CRL.MC NO. 2794 OF 2025 27 the property back to the government and not in favour of the complainant. Thus, the dishonest intention necessary to establish commission of the offences alleged could not be gathered prima facie even though the procedure adopted by the Village Officer and the higher officials to cancel the Thandaper account in the name of Khader Pillai are unwarranted, that too ignoring the civil case. In such view of the matter, it could not be held that the petitioner herein committed offences alleged against him so as to proceed against him in the facts of the case. In such view of the matter, the quashment is liable to succeed.
In the result, this petition stands allowed. Annexure A1 FIR, Annexure A2 final report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.1/2015 on the files of the Special Court (SPE/CBI)-III, Ernakulam, arising out of crime No.3E/2014-CBI/SCB/TVM, as against the petitioner herein/4th accused stand quashed.
2025:KER:58235 CRL.MC NO. 2794 OF 2025 28 Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the trial court forthwith.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE nkr 2025:KER:58235 CRL.MC NO. 2794 OF 2025 29 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2794/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR NO.3E 2014-CBI/SCB/TVPM DATED 24.04.2014 ANNEXURE A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC 1 OF 2015 DATED 22.07.2015 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE HON'BLE SPECIAL JUDGE (SPE/CBI) III ERNAKULAM RESPONDENT ANNEXURES : NIL