Kerala High Court
G. Haridasan vs State Of Kerala on 4 August, 2025
2025:KER:58503
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.REV.PET NO. 61 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1/2018 OF VACB, KOLLAM,
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 09.10.2024 IN VC
NO.1 OF 2018 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:
G. HARIDASAN
AGED 76 YEARS
S/O GANGADHARAN, ARUN NIVAS, KULAMADA,
KIZHAKKANELA P.O., PARIPPALLY,
KOLLAM DIST., PIN - 691574
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.JUSTUS
SRI.JOSE VARGHESE (MURUKKUMPUZHA)
RESPONDENTS/STATE & ACCUSED Nos.1 TO 12:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 SUNEESH
GRAMA PANCHAYATH SECRETARY, KALLUVATHUKAL,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691578
3 A.K. SHEEJA
ASSISTANT ENGINEER, LSGD WING, GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
KALLUVATHUKKAL, KOLLAM, PIN - 691578
4 RESHMA
RAHUL BHAVAN, VELAMANOOR, KALLUVATHUKKAL,
(ACCREDITED OVERSEER, MGNREGS, KALLUVATHUKKAL
GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOLLAM), PIN - 691578
5 SUBHADRAMMA
RAKESH BHAVAN, KOTTEKARAM, PARIPALLY
2025:KER:58503
CRL.R.P.NO.61 OF 2025
2
(KALLUVATHUKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH MEMBER OK
KULAMADA WARD-VIII, KOLLAM), PIN - 691578
6 RADHA, POOJA VIHAR, KULAMADA KIZHAKKANELA,
PARIPALLY (MATE OF MGNREGS, KALLUVATHUKKAL GRAMA
PANCHAYATH, KOLLAM), PIN - 691574
7 S. L. DEEPAK
S.L. BHAVAN, ELLUVILA, PARIPALLY (MEMBER OF
MGNREGS, KALLUVATHUKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
KOLLAM), PIN - 691574
8 SANTHIKUMAR
SANTHI MANDIRAM, KULAMADA, KIZHAKKANELA,
PARIPALLY (MEMBER OF MGNREGS, KALLUVATHUKKAL
GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOLLAM), PIN - 691574
9 ARAVINDAKASHAN PILLAI
VIJAY BHAVAN, KULAMADA, KIZHAKKANELA,
PARIPALLY (MEMBER OF MGNREGS, KALLUVATHUKKAL
GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOLLAM), PIN - 691574
0 JAYACHANDRAN
IDAPRA PLAVILA VEEDU, KIZHAKKANELA,
PARIPALLY (MEMBER OF MGNREGS, KALLUVATHUKKAL
GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOLLAM), PIN - 691574
11 AMBILI KALADHARAN
AVITTAM, JAWAHAR JUNCTION, PARIPALLY,
(MEMBER OF MRNREGS, KALLUVATHUKKAL GRAMA
PANCHAYATH, KOLLAM), PIN - 691574
12 SHYLAJA
RENJU BHAVAN, JAWAHAR JUNCTION, PARIPALLY
(MEMBER OF THE MRNREGS, KALLUVATHUKKAL GRAMA
PANCHAYATH, KOLLAM), PIN - 691574
13 G. S. SATHIKUMARI
RS BHAVAN, KAVADIKONAM, KIZHAKKANELA,
PARIPALLY (MEMBER OF THE MGNREGS,
KALLUVATHUKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOLLAM),
PIN - 691574
2025:KER:58503
CRL.R.P.NO.61 OF 2025
3
BY ADVS.
SHRI.B.MOHANLAL
SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR
SRI.S.BIJU (KIZHAKKANELA)
SMT.BINI KRISHNA
SMT.ANJALI C.
SMT.SUBHAJA P.
SHRI.HARI R.
SMT.P.S.PREETHA
SHRI.ASWIN V. NAIR
SHRI.KARTHIK J SEKHAR
SHRI.ABIJITH M.
SMT. AVANI NAIR
SMT.JAYAPRABHA ARJUN
SMT.PRAVEENA T.
SMT.PARSHATHY S.R.
SMT.CRISTY THERASA SURESH
SMT.KEERTHANA M. NAIR
SRI.RAJESH.A, SPL PP VACB, SMT.REKHA.S VACB,SRPP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 25.07.2025, THE COURT ON 04.08.2025
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:58503
CRL.R.P.NO.61 OF 2025
4
ORDER
Dated this the 4th day of August, 2025 This criminal revision petition has been filed by the complainant in crime No.VC 01/2018/KLM of VACB, Kollam, pending before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, challenging order dated 09.10.2024, whereby the learned Special Judge accepted the second final report in the form of FAD (Further Action Dropped) after negating the objection raised by the complainant regarding its acceptance.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/complainant, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 9, 11 and 13 and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the relevant records and the order impugned.
2025:KER:58503 CRL.R.P.NO.61 OF 2025 5
3. In this matter, crime was registered, acting on Crl.M.P.No.608/2015 filed by the complainant before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Paravoor, arraying 12 accused persons. The allegation therein is that the accused persons hatched criminal conspiracy and as the outcome of the same, they have embezzled public fund allotted for the 'Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme' (MGNREGS), causing a loss of Rs.1,79,242/- (Rupees one lakh seventy nine thousand two hundred and forty two only) to the State. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and as conceded by the learned Public Prosecutor, initially, on investigation, final report was filed as FAD which was not accepted by the Special Court and further investigation was ordered. Thereafter, on further investigation also, it was found that none of the offences alleged were committed by the accused.
2025:KER:58503 CRL.R.P.NO.61 OF 2025 6
4. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the order accepting the final report on the basis of further investigation could not be justified as the report would indicate that there was loss to the State exchequer and the work was not carried out in full and thereby Rs.59,205/- was remitted back by the 3rd accused.
5. According to the learned counsel for the respondents as well as the learned Public Prosecutor, in the instant case, going through the reports filed and acted upon by the Special Court, none of the offences could be made out prima facie. Therefore, acceptance of the second final report by the Special Judge only is to be justified.
6. In this matter, FIR No.663/2015 was registered by Paripally police, initially, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 468 and 471 r/w Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to 2025:KER:58503 CRL.R.P.NO.61 OF 2025 7 as 'IPC' for short) and the 1st accused approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail and as per the observations of this Court, doubting the involvement of offence under Section 13(1)(c) and (d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'PC Act' for short), the investigation was taken over by VACB by re- registering the crime as VC 01/2018/KLM. Initially, a refer report was filed on 02.07.2019 finding that no criminal misconduct, no intentional malpractice and no loss to the government. Acting on the objection raised by the complainant herein, as per order dated 27.03.2021, the learned Special Judge rejected the refer report and ordered further investigation. As the outcome of further investigation, as on 27.01.2024, the present report was filed. During further investigation, altogether 93 witnesses were interrogated, including 27 witnesses interrogated earlier, and additional 2025:KER:58503 CRL.R.P.NO.61 OF 2025 8 documents were also seized. Apart from that, the labourers who alleged to have received wages were also questioned. Accordingly, the investigating officer came to the conclusion that, even though there were lapses on the part of the officials in implementing, supervising and measuring the works, there was no dishonest intention to misappropriate the funds and therefore, the offences alleged are not made out.
7. While challenging the order of the Special Judge accepting the final report filed for the second time, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that, in this matter, on measurement of the work done by the 3rd accused as directed by the 2nd accused, the 3rd accused remitted Rs.59,205/-(Rupees fifty nine thousand two hundred and five only) received towards excess payment made to labourers. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the total loss in this matter to the government is 2025:KER:58503 CRL.R.P.NO.61 OF 2025 9 Rs.1,02,280.46 (Rupees one lakh two thousand two hundred eighty and forty six Paise only). After deducting the amount already paid by the 3rd accused, the amount would come to Rs.58,552/- (Rupees fifty eight thousand five hundred and fifty two only). It is pointed out that, even though the proposal to carry out the work is at a length of 500m, the work done is only at a length of 148m. Therefore, the same fortifies the fact that the allegation in the complaint as to commission of the above offences by the respondents herein are made out, warranting cognizance of the case and trial. The learned counsel pointed out paragraph No.27 of the order, where the learned Special Judge observed that, the work was carried out from 06.03.2014 to 20.03.2014, but the muster roll from 21.03.2014 to 27.03.2014 was fabricated. On reading paragraph No.27, the learned Special Judge was not inclined to accept this contention, on the finding that the prosecution records showed 2025:KER:58503 CRL.R.P.NO.61 OF 2025 10 receipt of payment by the labourers through their bank accounts. It is pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that in paragraph No.10 of the statement filed by the VACB, this allegation was met and it has been stated as under:
"10. It is submitted that the petitioner claimed that the muster roll was falsified and crucial witnesses were not examined. It is be noted that the petitioner who is a defacto complainant has never raised such an assertion during the phase of investigation neither in his complaint filed before the court. However, the investigation verified each wage entry and confirmed that payments were legitimate. The muster rolls were compared with bank records, confirming that all listed workers were real and had received their payments through bank transactions. Witnesses Smt. Viji VR (W-85), Former Accountant cum Data Entry Operator, and Sri.Biju S(W-76), Panchayath Secretary and Devarajan, Assistant Secretary (W54) testified that the muster rolls were genuine and wages were disbursed as per MGNREGS norms. Moreover, the authenticity of 2025:KER:58503 CRL.R.P.NO.61 OF 2025 11 the alleged muster roll dated 21.03.14 to 27.03.14 was verified with Sri. T.K. Jose, who was the charge officer of Jt. Block Development Officer (BDO) and Block Programme Officer on 20.03.14, in the absence of Sri. Sarangadhara Kurup (W69), the then Jt. BDO (EGS) and Block Programme Officer. Sri. T.K. Jose was not cited as a witness, as he had nothing to corroborate regarding the execution of the project other than authorizing the last phase of work on the muster roll. The trial court ruled that there was no evidence to support the claim that payments were made to fictitious workers or that the rolls were fabricated."
8. The crucial question to be considered herein is whether there is a dishonest intention on the part of the accused persons to obtain illegal gratification or undue pecuniary advantage to themselves or for any other persons. It is seen from the records, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents as well as the learned Public 2025:KER:58503 CRL.R.P.NO.61 OF 2025 12 Prosecutor, that originally the work was estimated at Rs.2,71,862/- (Rupees two lakh seventy one thousand eight hundred and sixty two only), and the estimate was for laying coir textile over an area of 1250 m², with a length of 500 m and a width of 2.5 m. But as per the work done, the same was only upto 148m (in one place the same is stated as 150m). But the trial court found in paragraph No.21 that the evidence collected in the investigation clearly would show that though the Coir Textile was laid for a length of 148m, all other works have been carried out for the entire length of 500m. This is evident from the statement of different witnesses. Witness No.70 was the Assistant Engineer of MGNREGS who had carried out surprise inspection three times when the work was going on. She had stated that when she inspected, the workers were removing waste from the channel and clearing its surroundings, starting from Appilipoika to Kavadikonam 2025:KER:58503 CRL.R.P.NO.61 OF 2025 13 Temple region. Witness No.77 is a local inhabitant who also has witnessed the implementation of work. He stated that the streamlet was cleaned and surrounding bushes were removed up to the temple area at Kavadikonam from Appilipoika which is the place of his residence. He also stated that the coir supplied was not sufficient and it ended for an area of 150 m approximately. Therefore, it could be deciphered that except the laying of Coir Bhoovasthram for the entire length of 500 m, all other ground works have been carried out for the entire length. In other words, there is no evidence to show that ground work was carried out only for a length of 148 m as contended by the complainant. Accordingly, in consideration of the repayment of Rs. 59,205/- (Rupees Fifty-Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Five only) by the 3rd accused, the trial court was of the opinion that there was no dishonest intention on the part of the accused in this case, and in view of the repayment 2025:KER:58503 CRL.R.P.NO.61 OF 2025 14 of Rs.59,205/- made by the 3rd accused, no loss was sustained by the government.
9. On evaluation of the materials available on par with the arguments advanced, the reasoning given by the learned Special Judge to accept the final report based on further investigation is only to be justified. Therefore, the order impugned is liable to be confirmed. Thus, this petition fails and is dismissed accordingly.
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the trial court forthwith.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE nkr