Dr.Sajith Vijayaraghavan vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 3857 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

   WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 14TH MAGHA,1942

                       WP(C).No.11334 OF 2017(N)

PETITIONER/:

                DR.SAJITH VIJAYARAGHAVAN
                S/O. LATE PROF. P.S. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, AGED 50
                YEARS,NOW WORKING AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT
                OF ELECTRONICS & COMMUNICATION, COLLEGE OF
                ENGINEERING TRIVANDRUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695
                016. RESIDING AT"SAMPOORNA", MUTTAPPALAM,
                SRINIVASAPURAM P.O, VARKALA,PIN - 695 145.

                BY ADVS.
                SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR.)
                SMT.ANUROOPA JAYADEVAN
                SHRI.ASHRUTH NASER

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         STATE OF KERALA
                REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,HOME &
                VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
                - 695 001.
      2         THE DIRECTOR
                VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION
                BUREAU,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

      3         DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
                VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU,SPECIAL
                INVESTIGATION UNIT -II,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

                R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER

OTHER PRESENT:

                ADV K GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP-SR ADV,
                SRI A RAJESH SPL PP VACB

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-
01-2021, THE COURT ON 03-02-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.11334/2017
                                  2




                    R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, J
                    ************************
                     W.P.(C) No.11334 of 2017
            -----------------------------------------------
             Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2021


                           JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the first accused in the case registered as

V.C No. 8/15/SIU-II by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau

(VACB), Thiruvananthapuram under Sections 13(1)(d) read with

13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption of Act 1988 (for short 'the

Act') and also under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

2. During the local audit of the accounts of the Kerala

State Centre for Advanced Printing and Training(C-apt) for the

period 2013-14 conducted by the Accountant General, Kerala,

certain irregularities were noticed. A preliminary enquiry was

conducted by the VACB in the matter. Since the preliminary

enquiry disclosed commission of cognizable offences under the

Act, the above crime was registered by the VACB.

3. The prosecution case against the petitioner, as W.P.(C) No.11334/2017

narrated in Ext.P12 first information report (FIR), is as follows:-

The petitioner (A1) was the Managing Director of the C-apt from

the year 2012 onwards. On 12.6.2012, the Executive Committee

of C-apt had taken a decision to purchase two Xerox variable

data printers for Rs.14,80,000/- each, so as to cater to the

demand of the Lottery Department for printing two crores lottery

tickets per month. The first accused abused his official position

and with ulterior motive, scuttled the issuance of purchase order

for the two printers and later he conspired with the second

accused, who was a member of the Tender Evaluation

Committee, and pursuant to such conspiracy, the first and the

second accused fraudulently prepared a cost analysis statement

with malafide intention and they deliberately showed hiring of

OCE variable data printer as profitable. Thus they deceived the

authorities, including the Vice Chairman and the Chairman of

the C-apt and made them to believe that it was profitable to hire

the printers. Consequently, the first accused was allowed to

invite tenders on 18.4.2013 for hiring variable data printer

through the third accused who was the Officer in-charge of W.P.(C) No.11334/2017

Purchase (Material Division) of C-apt. Later, Accused Nos. 1 to 3

entered into criminal conspiracy with the fourth accused who

was the Managing Partner of the establishment by name

M/s.Ansala. The fourth accused had illegal nexus with the fifth

accused, the Managing Director of the company by name M/s.

Xpress Printing Solutions Ltd. Pursuant to such conspiracy, the

first accused awarded the contract of hiring of variable data

printer to M/s.Ansala on 24.12.2013 for a period of two years at

an exorbitant rate of 11.5 paise per ticket, causing a loss of

Rs.1,36,05,442/- to C-apt during the period from December 2013

to September 2015 and the accused obtained corresponding

pecuniary advantage. Further, the first accused, with dishonest

intention, deliberately overpriced the bill amounts (37 paise per

ticket instead of 32 paise per ticket) in the invoices raised from

C-apt to the Lottery Department, against the terms of the

Government Order in that regard and it resulted in payment of

tax to the tune of Rs.4,53,000/- which could not be recouped.

4. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article

226 of the Constitution of India seeking the relief of quashing W.P.(C) No.11334/2017

Ext.P12 FIR. The facts and circumstances leading to the hiring of

the variable data printer are narrated in the writ petition to show

that the allegations in Ext.P12 FIR do not disclose commission of

any cognizable offence by the petitioner.

5. The investigating officer, who is the third respondent

in the writ petition, has filed a statement narrating the facts

revealed during the investigation of the case conducted.

6. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit in response to the

statement filed by the third respondent. Thereafter, the third

respondent has filed an additional statement.

7. Heard Sri.K.Gopalakrishna Kurup, learned Senior

Counsel who appeared for the petitioner and also the learned

Public Prosecutor.

8. The petitioner, the first accused in the case, was the

Managing Director of C-apt from 15.3.2012 to 31.12.2015. The

second accused was a member of the Tender Evaluation

Committee. The third accused was the Officer in-charge of the

Purchase (Material Division) in C-apt during the relevant period.

The fourth accused was the Managing Partner of the firm W.P.(C) No.11334/2017

M/s.Ansala. The fifth accused was the Managing Director of the

company by name M/s.Xpress Printing Solutions Ltd.

9. The Executive Committee of C-apt, in its meeting held

on 12.6.2012, had accorded sanction for the purchase of two

Xerox printers at a price of Rs.14,80,000/- each. When the

purchase order was issued on 20.7.2012, M/s.Xerox India

Limited, by letter dated 1.9.2012, informed the petitioner that

the model for which the purchase order was placed was not

available and that the upgraded model with more features could

be supplied at the same price.

10. The Tender Evaluation Committee, in its meeting held

on 12.10.2012, observed that the offer made by M/s.Xerox

India Ltd. for supply of another model is not in conformity with

the Store Purchase Rules and therefore, the Committee decided

to go for re-tender for supply of the printers. In the same

meeting, the Committee decided to hire machines without

operators for the printing of lottery tickets until new variable data

printers are installed in the C-apt. The Committee entrusted the

second accused to prepare a draft specification for hiring of W.P.(C) No.11334/2017

machines without operators based on the technical and

production details provided by the C-apt and to present it in the

next meeting of the Committee. The Committee also entrusted

the second accused to prepare a draft specification and terms

and conditions for the purchase of new variable data printers and

circulate it among the members of the Committee for discussion

in its next meeting.

11. In the meeting held on 25.2.2013, the Tender

Evaluation Committee considered the draft specification prepared

by the second accused for hiring of the printer and approved the

same with modifications. The Committee also recommended to

forward the same to the Technical Expert Committee of the

Printing Department for approval.

12. Thereafter, the petitioner put up a note dated

25.4.2013 to the Chairman (the Minister for Education) through

the Vice Chairman (the Additional Chief Secretary, Higher

Education Department) for granting sanction for hiring the

machine. The Vice Chairman recommended the proposal made

by the petitioner and the Chairman approved it on 25.4.2013. W.P.(C) No.11334/2017

13. The Executive Committee, in its meeting held on

02.08.2013, accorded sanction for hiring variable data printer

from M/s.Ansala for numbering and bar coding in lottery ticket

printing works. Accordingly, an agreement was executed between

C-apt and M/s.Ansala on 24.12.2013.

14. Prima facie, there is no basis for the allegation against

the petitioner that he scuttled the decision taken by the

executive committee on 12.06.2012 to purchase two Xerox

printers. Purchase order for two printers had been given by the

petitioner on 20.07.2012. In the additional statement filed by

the investigating officer, it is mentioned that the petitioner

deliberately delayed purchase of the printers till 20.07.2012 and

by that time, the supply of the model for which the order was

placed, was stopped by Xerox company. There was no undue

delay in placing the purchase order. The statement of the

investigating officer does not reveal that any material has been

collected during the investigation to show that it was during the

period between 12.06.2012 and 20.07.2012 that Xerox company

had withdrawn that particular model from the market. W.P.(C) No.11334/2017

15. It is alleged that, pursuant to the conspiracy entered

into between the first and the second accused, they fraudulently

prepared a cost analysis statement and with mala fide intention,

showed that the hiring of the printer for two years would be

profitable than purchase of the printers. Ext.R3(b) is the copy of

the cost analysis statement allegedly prepared by the first and

the second accused. It bears no date. The petitioner would

contend that the cost analysis statement was prepared only on

05.03.2014, long after the decision for hiring the printer was

taken. Though the period shown as "30.09.2013 to 30.10.2013"

in column No.3 in the cost analysis statement may indicate that

the contention of the petitioner is probable, this Court cannot

take a decision on this factual dispute in the writ petition.

However, there is no material before this Court to find that, it was

on the basis of the cost analysis statement that the Tender

Evaluation Committee took a decision to hire the printer. The

copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Tender Evaluation

Committee held on 12.10.2012 (Ext.P6) does not reveal that any

cost analysis statement had been placed before it and it was on W.P.(C) No.11334/2017

the basis of such statement that the decision to hire the printer

was taken by the Committee. Further, the decision to hire the

printer was not taken by the petitioner himself but it was a

collective decision taken by the Tender Evaluation Committee in

which persons other than the first and the second accused were

also members.

16. The copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Tender

Evaluation Committee held on 25.02.2013 (Ext.P7) shows that

the Committee considered the draft specification and the terms

and conditions for hiring of the printer prepared by the second

accused and approved the same with modifications and decided

to forward them to the Technical Expert Committee of the

Printing Department for approval. The petitioner has not

produced any document to show that the Technical Expert

Committee of the Printing Department had approved the

aforesaid specifications for hiring the printer. However, in Ext.P8

note submitted by the petitioner to the Vice Chairman and the

Chairman, it is mentioned that the Technical Committee had

approved the same.

W.P.(C) No.11334/2017

17. In Ext.P8 note submitted by the petitioner to the Vice

Chairman and the Chairman, it is mentioned that it is not wise to

purchase the machines. However, it was not mentioned in this

note that earlier a decision had been taken by the Executive

Committee to purchase two printers. What happened to that

proposal is not mentioned in Ext.P8 note. Therefore, it has to be

found that the recommendation made by the Vice Chairman and

the decision or approval made for hiring the printer by the

Chairman were not on the basis of full particulars disclosed by

the petitioner in Ext.P8 note. Whether the petitioner had

deliberately suppressed in Ext.P8 note the full particulars of the

decision taken earlier for purchase of two printers is a matter of

investigation.

18. In the additional statement filed by the investigating

officer, it is mentioned that the second accused fixed unnecessary

higher technical specifications for the machines to be hired so as

to avoid prospective tenders and that the hiring of the printer of

such high specification was not required by C-apt. It is not for

the VACB to decide whether hiring of the printer of such high W.P.(C) No.11334/2017

technical specification was required or not by C-apt. However,

as noticed earlier, there is no material produced by the petitioner

to show that the specification was approved by the Technical

Expert Committee of the Printing Department. At the same time,

it is to be noted that the tender notification had been published

in two leading news papers, one in English and another in

Malayalam. Therefore, it cannot be found that there was no

transparency in inviting the tenders.

19. There is an allegation against the petitioner that the

rate fixed for printing lottery tickets was exorbitant and it was

done with a view to allow M/s.Ansala to get undue pecuniary

advantage. It is alleged that instead of the rate of four paise per

ticket, which was implemented in C-apt and other public sector

institutions, the contract of hiring was made with M/s.Ansala at

the rate of 11.5 paise per ticket. Of course, the petitioner would

contend that the rate 11.5 paise per ticket was fixed in

accordance with the existing government orders. But, in this writ

petition, this Court cannot conduct a factual analysis and decide

whether the rate fixed by the petitioner was exorbitant or not W.P.(C) No.11334/2017

and whether any undue pecuniary advantage had been obtained

by him and M/s.Ansala in the transaction. It is also a matter of

investigation.

20. The matters to be considered by the Court in quashing

a first information report, whether it be in a writ petition filed

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or in an application

filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

(for short 'the Code') by the accused, are well-settled. In State

of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal: AIR 1992 SC 604, while

enumerating seven circumstances as illustrative under which a

first information report could be quashed, the Supreme Court has

stated as follows:

"In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised....... ".

W.P.(C) No.11334/2017

In Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat : AIR

2018 SC 314, it is stated as follows:

"The law on the question as to when a registration of the FIR is challenged seeking its quashing by the accused under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 of the Code and what are the powers of the High Court and how the High Court should deal with such question is fairly well settled".

The passages above are extracted only to indicate that the

principles with regard to quashing a first information report are

the same, whether it be in a writ petition filed under Article 226

of the Constitution of India or in an application filed under

Section 482 of the Code.

21. The main principle is that, where the allegations made

in the first information report, prima facie, disclose the

commission of any cognizable offence, the court shall be

extremely reluctant to quash the report, thereby preventing the

investigating agency from exercising the statutory power of

investigation. The power of quashing a criminal proceeding

should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and W.P.(C) No.11334/2017

that too in the rarest of rare cases. The court would not be

justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to the reliability or

genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the first

information report. But, if the allegations are so patently absurd

and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach

such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal

offence are not satisfied, then the court may interfere.

22. In Janata Dal v. H.S.Chowdhary : AIR 1993 SC

892, the Apex Court has held as follows:

"The High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from giving a premature decision in a case wherein the entire facts are extremely incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved whether factual or legal are of great magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material".

23. In State of Karnataka v. Pastor P. Raju : AIR 2006

SC 2825, the Apex Court has observed as follows:

"Section 482 Cr.P.C saves inherent powers of the High Court and such a power can be exercised to W.P.(C) No.11334/2017

prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This power can be exercised to quash the criminal proceedings pending in any Court but the power cannot be exercised to interfere with the statutory power of the police to conduct investigation in a cognizable offence".

24. In Vinod Raghuvanshi v. Ajay Arora : (2013) 10 SCC 581, the Supreme Court has held as follows:

"It is a settled legal proposition that while considering the case for quashing of the criminal proceedings the court should not "kill a stillborn child", and appropriate prosecution should not be stifled unless there are compelling circumstances to do so. An investigation should not be shut out at the threshold if the allegations have some substance. When a prosecution at the initial stage is to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is whether the uncontroverted allegations as made, prima facie establish the offence. At this stage neither can the court embark upon an inquiry, whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence nor should the court judge the probability, reliability or genuineness of the allegations made therein".

25. In Teeja Devi v. State of Rajasthan : (2014) 15 W.P.(C) No.11334/2017

SCC 221, it has been observed as follows:

"It has been rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that ordinarily power under Section 482 Cr.P.C should not be used to quash an FIR because that amounts to interfering with the statutory power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence in accordance with the provisions of Cr.P.C. As per law settled by a catena of judgments, if the allegations made in the FIR prima facie disclose a cognizable offence, interference with the investigation is not proper and it can be done only in the rarest of rare cases where the court is satisfied that the prosecution is malicious and vexatious".

26. In Dineshbhai (supra), the Apex Court has held as

follows:

"In order to examine as to whether the factual contents of the FIR disclose any prima facie cognizable offences or not, the High Court cannot act like an investigating agency and nor can exercise the powers like an Appellate Court. The question, in our opinion, was required to be examined keeping in view the contents of the FIR and prima facie material, if any, requiring no proof.

At this stage, the High Court could not appreciate W.P.(C) No.11334/2017

the evidence nor could draw its own inferences from the contents of the FIR and the material relied on. It was more so when the material relied on was disputed by the complainants and visa - se - versa. In such a situation, it becomes the job of the Investigating Authority at such stage to probe and then of the Court to examine the questions once the charge sheet is filed along with such material as to how far and to what extent reliance can be placed on such material. In our considered opinion, once the Court finds that the FIR does disclose prima facie commission of any cognizable offence, it should stay its hand and allow the investigating machinery to step in to initiate the probe to unearth the crime in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Code".

27. Section 13(1)(d) of the Act (as unamended) provides

that, a public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal

misconduct, if he,-- (i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for

himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary

advantage; or (ii) by abusing his position as a public servant,

obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or

pecuniary advantage; or (iii) while holding office as a public W.P.(C) No.11334/2017

servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary

advantage without any public interest. Insofar as Section 13 (1)

(d) of the Act is concerned, its essential ingredients are: (i) that

the accused should have been a public servant; (ii) that he

should have used corrupt or illegal means or otherwise abused

his position as such public servant and (iii) that he should have

obtained a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for himself or

for any other person.

28. In the instant case, the allegations in Ext.P12 FIR,

prima facie, disclose commission of the offences alleged against

the petitioner. There is specific allegation against the petitioner

in the first information report that he misused his position as a

public servant and allowed M/s.Ansala to gain undue pecuniary

advantage by awarding the contract of hiring the printing

machine at an exorbitant rate. This allegation, prima facie,

discloses commission of an offence under Section 13(1)(d) of

the Act. It is a matter of investigation whether the allegations in

Ext.P12 FIR are correct or not. At this stage, this Court cannot

analyse the facts and decide disputed questions and enter a W.P.(C) No.11334/2017

finding thereon.

29. The records produced by the petitioner to substantiate

his contentions cannot be considered and analysed in detail by

this Court to ascertain whether the allegations in the first

information report are correct or not. In Union of India v.

B.R.Bajaj : AIR 1994 SC 1256, the Apex Court has observed

as follows:

"In the instant case the High Court while interfering at the stage of FIR holding that the FIR did not disclose any offence, as a matter of fact, took into consideration several other records produced by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and also relied on the affidavit filed by Shri Banerjee and also on a letter written by the Director, State Lotteries. This approach of the High Court, to say the least, to some extent amounts to investigation by the Court whether the offences alleged in the FIR are made out or not".

30. The decisions of the Apex Court, which have been

referred to in this judgment, lay down the proposition that, if the

allegations made in the FIR prima facie disclose a cognizable

offence, interference with the investigation is not proper and it W.P.(C) No.11334/2017

can be done only in the rarest of rare cases. When a prosecution

at the initial stage is to be quashed, the test to be applied by the

court is whether the uncontroverted allegations as made, prima

facie, establish the offence. At this stage, the Court cannot

embark upon an inquiry, whether the allegations in the FIR are

likely to be established by evidence. The Court cannot judge the

probability, reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in

the FIR. The High Court should normally refrain from giving a

premature decision after analysis of the facts. At this stage, the

High Court cannot appreciate the evidence or draw its own

inferences from the contents of the FIR and the material relied

on by the accused.

31. Ext.P12 FIR was registered on 04.12.2015.

Subsequently, investigation has been conducted by the VACB.

When the writ petition came up for consideration before this

Court on 14.08.2020, the learned Public Prosecutor had

submitted before this Court that, after completing the

investigation final report has been submitted to the competent

authority seeking sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of W.P.(C) No.11334/2017

the Act. At this stage, it is not proper for this Court to quash

Ext. P12 F.I.R.

32. The discussion above leads to the conclusion that the

prayer for quashing Ext.P12 F.I.R cannot be allowed. The writ

petition is liable to be dismissed.

33. Consequently, the prayer for quashing Ext.P12 F.I.R is

rejected and the writ petition is dismissed. The interim stay

granted by this Court against filing of final report in the case is

vacated. The petitioner is at liberty to challenge the final report,

if any filed against him, at the appropriate stage. It is made

clear that this judgment shall not be construed as

having decided any factual issue on merits either way.

All pending interlocutory applications are closed.

Sd/-

R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE al/jsr.

W.P.(C) No.11334/2017

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O (MS), NO. 73/92/H.EDN. DATED 28.4.1992.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O (MS) NO.69/2011/H.EDN. DATED 28.5.2011.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 21.5.2009 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE DIRECTOR OF STATE LOTTERIES AND THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE AUDIO VISUAL AND REPROGRAPHIC CENTRE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF THE 40TH MEETING OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE C-APT HELD ON 12.6.2012.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 1.9.2012 FROM THE BUSINESS MANAGER, XEROX INDIA LTD.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE TENDER EVALUATION COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 12.10.2012.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE TENDER EVALUATION COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 25.2.2013.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSAL PLACED BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN OF C-APT ON 25.4.2013.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING OF C-APT HELD ON 2.8.2013.

EXHIBIT 9(A) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 17.7.2013 FROM THE OFFICER IN CHARGE OF THE MARKETING AND BILING SECTION OF C-APT.

W.P.(C) No.11334/2017

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING OF C-APT HELD ON 2.8.2013.

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 24.12.2013 BETWEEN M/S. ANSALA, CHENNAI AND THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, C-APT.

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R AND THE F.I.S IN VC 8/15 OF S.I.U-II REGISTERED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE LETTER NO.SGS II(HQ)III/II/8-3361/351 DATED 12.1.2015 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, C-APT (REFERRED TO IN EXT P12),

EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF LETTER NO.SGS II(HQ)III/II/8-3361/52 DATED 26.6.2015.

EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O(RT) NO.316/12/H.EDN. DATED 15.2.2012.

EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE PAGE NO.58 OF THE NOTE FILE REGARDING THE PROPOSAL TO ADDRESS THE DIRECTOR OF LOTTERIES FOR THE REVISED RATES.

EXHIBIT P16(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LEGIBLE COPY OF EXT.P16 FILE NOTE.

EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE DIRECTOR OF LOTTERIES BY THE THEN MANAGING DIRECTOR OF C-APT DATED 28.1.2012.

EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE 43RD MEETING OF THE C-APT HELD ON 30/01/2014.

EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE INWARD REGISTER FORWARDING THE MINUTES OF 40TH EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE WITH THE DATED INITIALS OF THE OFFICERS CONCERNED.

W.P.(C) No.11334/2017

EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE LEAVE APPLICATION OF SHRI.

AJITHKUMAR, HARDWARE ENGINEER FOR THE PERIOD FROM 02/07/2012 TO 13/07/2012.

EXHIBIT P21. TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE TENDER EVALUATION COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 05/03/2014 ALONG WITH THE ANNEXURES 1 TO 3.

EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE 46TH MEETING OF THE CA-APT HELD ON 4/2/2015

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT R3A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (FINANCE) ON 17/07/2013.

EXHIBIT R3B TRUE COPY OF COST ANALYSIS BREAKUP.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

TRUE COPY

PS TO JUDGE

AL/-