Kerala High Court
Vidya Sangeeth vs M.S.Jaya on 13 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI
MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 22ND BHADRA, 1943
OP(CRL.) NO. 403 OF 2015
CMP 1111/2014 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL
JUDGE,THRISSUR, THRISSUR
PETITIONER:
VIDYA SANGEETH
AGED 40 YEARS
W/O.SANGEETH, CHEMBAKASSERY HOUSE, THANNYAM
VILLAGE, PERINGOTTUKARA DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.V.C.SARATH
RESPONDENTS:
1 M.S.JAYA
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR, NOW DIRECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.
2 SHELVARAJ
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, THRISSUR, NOW
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD - 678 001.
3 RAGHUNANDAN
VILLAGE OFFICER, THRISSUR, NOW DEPUTY TAHSILDAR,
THALAPPILLY TALUK OFFICE, WADAKKANCHERRY,
THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 582.
4 RANJANA BHARATH BHUSHAN
W/O.BHARATH BHUSHAN, A6, A STREET, JAWAHAR NAGAR,
KAVADIYAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, NOW RESIDING AT
SOBHA CITY, PUZHAKKAL VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680 553.
5 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
6 THE DIRECTOR OF VIGILANCE ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
O.P.(Crl) No.403/2015
2
7 SRI.S.R.JYOTHIS KUMAR
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE &
ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695
001.
8 SRI.M.RAMACHANDRAN
POLICE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT, VIGILANCE & ANTI-
ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, THRISSUR - 678 001.
SRI A RAJESH -SPL PP VACB
THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.09.2021, THE COURT ON 13.09.2021 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
O.P.(Crl) No.403/2015
3
R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, J
**********************
O.P.(Crl) No.403 of 2015
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of September, 2021
-------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
The petitioner filed Ext.P1 complaint against respondents 1
to 4 in the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge,
Thrissur alleging commission of offences punishable under
Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') and also under Section 120B of the
Indian Penal Code.
2. The complainant was a Member of the District
Panchayat, Thrissur. She preferred the complaint in the Special
Court in public interest.
3. Respondents 1 to 4 in this original petition, who were
arrayed as the accused in the complaint filed by the petitioner,
shall be hereinafter referred to as 'the accused'.
O.P.(Crl) No.403/2015
4. The first accused was the District Collector, Thrissur.
The second accused was the Additional District Magistrate,
Thrissur. The third accused was the Village Officer of Thrissur
Village. The fourth accused is the wife of the former Chief
Secretary of the State of Kerala.
5. The crux of the allegations against the accused in
Ext.P1 complaint can be stated as follows: The fourth accused
had filed an appeal before the first accused for reducing the fair
value of the land owned by her. The fair value of the property
fixed by the Government was Rs.24,70,000/- per Are. The
period for filing the appeal had expired on 31.03.2011.
Thereafter, as per the direction of the State Government, appeals
had been received till the date 15.10.2012. But, the appeal filed
by the fourth accused was accepted by the first accused, ignoring
the inordinate delay in filing it. In the above matter, the second
accused conducted an enquiry. He obtained a report from the
third accused which was in favour of the fourth accused. On the
O.P.(Crl) No.403/2015
basis of that report, the first accused, as per the order dated
01.06.2014, reduced the fair value of the land owned by the
fourth accused, to Rs.12,35,000/- per Are. The fair value was
thus reduced without comparing that land with lands similarly
situated and which had similarity in nature. Further, in the order
passed by the first accused, it was specifically stated that, the
fair value thus fixed will not be applicable to any other land of the
same kind in Thrissur Village. The order passed by the first
accused is the outcome of the conspiracy hatched by the accused
persons and it resulted in allowing the fourth accused to get
undue pecuniary advantage.
6. The Special Court, as per the order dated 09.07.2014,
referred the complaint to the Director, Vigilance and
Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) for conducting a preliminary
enquiry. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, VACB, Thrissur
conducted preliminary enquiry and submitted a report before the
Special Court stating that the allegations against the accused in
the complaint were baseless.
O.P.(Crl) No.403/2015
7. The petitioner filed objection in the Special Court to
the preliminary enquiry report filed by the VACB. After hearing
the counsel for the petitioner/complainant, the Special Court
found that there were no sufficient reasons to reject the
preliminary enquiry report and to order investigation. On the
basis of that finding, the Special Court closed the complaint as
per Ext.P24 order dated 19.03.2015.
8. This original petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India by the complainant for quashing Ext.P24
order passed by the Special Court and to issue direction for
registration of FIR and to conduct investigation in the matter.
9. The Dy.S.P, VACB, Thrissur, who is the 8th respondent
in the original petition, has filed a report.
10. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Public Prosecutor.
11. The fourth accused owned land in survey No.1611/1 of
Thrissur Village. The fair value of that land fixed by the
Government was Rs.24,70,000/- per Are. The fourth accused
O.P.(Crl) No.403/2015
filed appeal under Section 28A of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959
before the first accused District Collector, praying that the fair
value of the land fixed may be reduced to Rs.12,35,000/- per
Are. The aforesaid appeal was filed after the period prescribed.
The first accused condoned the delay in filing the appeal. After
hearing the fourth accused and after considering the report of the
third accused Village Officer, the first accused passed Ext.P9
order, reducing the fair value of the land to Rs.12,35,000/- per
Are.
12. The crux of the allegations in Ext.P1 complaint filed by
the petitioner is that Ext.P9 order is the outcome of the criminal
conspiracy hatched by the accused and the undue influence made
on the public servants by the husband of the fourth accused, who
was at that time the Chief Secretary of Kerala, and that the
accused have committed criminal misconduct punishable under
Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act.
13. The Special Court has considered the matter in
Ext.P24 order in the following manner:
O.P.(Crl) No.403/2015
"11. This court is concerned whether the said
appeal was considered and allowed after hatching a
criminal conspiracy, whether in the process they
had committed misconduct and caused anyone to
obtain pecuniary advantage, etc. Necessarily, when
fair value is reduced, it involves pecuniary
advantage to the party concerned. But that is
unavoidable since the valuation was not made
uniformly by the authorities and that had given rise
to the grievance of the 4th respondent. But in my
opinion, that is not sufficient to initiate criminal
prosecution against the statutory authority, unless
overwhelming materials are brought in. Here, I
have no doubt that the respondents 1 and 3 and
Junior Superintendent Pransingh were more loyal
than the King. The 1st respondent has condoned the
delay of more than three years without giving any
reason, whatsoever. But one cannot expect
executive authorities like respondents 1 and 2
would act as expected of a Judicial authority.
Secondly, the 1st respondent had advanced the
hearing of the case for disposing of the appeal at
the earliest. More disturbing is the fact, as pointed
out by the learned counsel, that the gazette
notification was published on the very same day of
despatching the order from the Collectorate.
O.P.(Crl) No.403/2015
12. As said earlier, both the appeal and
application for delay condonation had conveyed
without saying sufficient indication that 4 th
respondent is the wife of the Chief Secretary. Thus
the respondents were acting post haste, exhibiting
their utmost loyalty and devotion to the boss. But
considering the fact, on ultimate analysis that the
grievance raised by the 4th respondent was
genuine, the haste shown by the respondents alone
cannot be taken as a ground for initiating criminal
prosecution against them.
13. The rider in the Ext.A1 order that it will
confine to the property in question, is a stock
sentence which will appear in every order passed
by the District Collector under Sec.28A(4) of the
Stamp Act. Therefore, that also cannot be taken as
a ground for any adverse inference against the
respondents.
14. On these considerations, I am of the
view that sufficient reasons are not made out to
reject the report or to order an investigation under
the vigilance angle. Point found accordingly and the
complaint is closed."
14. Section 28A(1) of the Kerala Stamp Act provides that,
every Revenue Divisional Officer shall, subject to such rules as
O.P.(Crl) No.403/2015
may be made by the Government in this behalf, fix the fair value
of the lands situate within the area of his jurisdiction, for the
purpose of determining the duty chargeable at the time of
registration of instruments involving lands. Section 28A(4) of the
Kerala Stamp Act states that, any person aggrieved by the
fixation of fair value under sub-section (1) may, within one year
of its publication under sub-section (3), appeal to the Collector.
The proviso to Section 28A states that, the Collector may admit
an appeal preferred after the said period of one year if he is
satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring
the appeal within the said period.
15. Since the proviso to Section 28A(1) of the Kerala Stamp
Act enables the District Collector to admit an appeal preferred
after the prescribed period on being satisfied that the appellant
had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the
prescribed period, no dishonest intention can be attributed to the
first accused in condoning the delay occurred on the part of the
fourth accused in filing the appeal. The fourth accused had
O.P.(Crl) No.403/2015
shown cause for the delay in filing the appeal. When the first
accused found that there was sufficient cause for the delay,
nothing in law prevented her from condoning it. As rightly
observed by the Special Court, the administrative authorities or
quasi-judicial authorities cannot be expected to pass a detailed
order in such matters as courts usually do.
16. Regarding the correctness or otherwise of Ext.P9 order
passed by the first accused, the Special Court had no authority to
sit in appeal over that order and analyse it on factual grounds.
The jurisdiction of the Special Court was limited to examine the
question whether, prima facie, any criminal misconduct was
committed by the public servants concerned.
17. Merely because prompt and speedy action was taken
by accused 1 to 3 on the appeal filed by the fourth accused,
abuse or misuse of official position or power by them cannot be
inferred. It may be true that the fourth accused, being the wife
of the Chief Secretary of the State, accused 1 to 3, who were
public servants under him, were keen to ensure that the appeal
O.P.(Crl) No.403/2015
filed by the fourth accused was disposed of immediately without
any delay. It is also true that an ordinary citizen could not expect
such quick action from the public servants. However, these
circumstances are not sufficient to infer any act of criminal
misconduct on the part of accused 1 to 3.
18. Dishonest intention cannot be attributed to the first
accused merely because in Ext.P9 order it was stated that the
benefit of that order shall be confined to the land owned by the
fourth accused. That is so, especially when the fair value of the
lands included in the same category of lands which abutted the
National Highway was Rs.24,70,000/- per Are. Such a stipulation
made in Ext.P9 order was only to ensure that the lands abutting
the National Highway will not get the benefit of the order passed
in respect of the land owned by the fourth accused which was not
abutting the National Highway.
19. Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution is conferred on the High Court to ensure that the
subordinate courts function within the bounds of their
O.P.(Crl) No.403/2015
jurisdiction. When a subordinate court assumed jurisdiction it
does not have or has failed to exercise jurisdiction which it does
have or when the jurisdiction has been exercised by it in a
manner not permitted by law, resulting in failure of justice or
grave injustice, the High Court may interfere in exercise of its
supervisory jurisdiction. Such jurisdiction vested with the High
Court under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be sought to
be invoked or exercised 'in the cloak of an appeal in disguise'
(See State v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afshan Guru : (2003) 6
SCC 641).
20. The reasons given by the Special Court for closing or
rejecting Ext.P1 complaint filed by the petitioner have been
earlier quoted from the impugned order. The Special Court has
taken a reasonable view of the matter. Therefore, I find no
sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned order, in
exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
O.P.(Crl) No.403/2015
21. One thing more requires to be noticed. Even if another
view is possible and if the Special Court had to forward the
complaint to the VACB for investigation under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C., in view of the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in
Anil Kumar v. Aiyappa : (2013) 10 SCC 705, the binding
authority of which has been set at rest by the Division Bench of
this Court in Muhammed v. State of Kerala (2019 (1) KHC
230), in the absence of any sanction by the competent authority
obtained by the petitioner under Section 19(1) of the Act, the
Special Court could not have exercised its jurisdiction under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
22. The discussion above leads to the conclusion that the
original petition has no merits and it is liable to be dismissed.
Consequently, the original petition is dismissed.
(sd/-) R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE
jsr
O.P.(Crl) No.403/2015
APPENDIX OF OP(CRL.) 403/2015
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
P1. TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ENQUIRY
COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE,
VIGILANCE, THRISSUR, NUMBERED
C.M.P.1111/2014, DATED 09.07.2014.
P2- TREU COPY OF THE APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY ACCUSED NO.4 BEFORE THE
THRISSUR CORPORATION DATED 5.4.2014
P3- TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM
DATED 21.4.2014 IN FORM B OF SECTION
28(A) OF THE KERALA STAMP (FIXATION OF
FAIR VALUE OF LAND) RULES, 1995
P4- TRUE OCPY OF THE APPLICATION SEEKING
CONDONATION OF DELAY FILED ALONG WITH
EXT P3 APPEAL, DTED 21.4.2014
P5- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PREPRED BY
THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LR) THRISSUR,
NAMED SMT.PANKAJAKSHI K.M, DATED
29.4.2014
P6- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE REGARDING
ADVANCE HEARING ON 24.5.2014 OBTAINED BY
THE PETITIONER UNDER RTI ACT
P7- TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NOTE
FILE O.2014/24265/8 FROM 29.4.2014 TO
30.7.2014 OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RTI
ACT
P8- TRUE COPY OF THE EVIDENCE ALONG WITH
THE REPORT, DTED 24.5.2014 TENDERED BY
SRI.VINOD JACOB IN THE ENQUIRY CONDUCTED
ALLEGED TO BE ON THE BASIS OF TELEPHONIC
DIRECTION FROM THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
(ACCUSED NO.1)
P9- TRUE OCPY OF THE ORDER PASED BY
ACCUSED NO.1, DATED 01/6/2014
O.P.(Crl) No.403/2015
P10- TRUE COPY OF THE FORM C
NOTIFICATION, WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE
PUBLISHED UNDER RULE 5(8) OF THE KERALA
STAMP (FIXATION OF FAIR VALUE OF LAND)
RULES WAS SIGNED ON 6.6.2014 BY ACCUSED
NO.1
P11- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENGIND
EXT.10 C FROM BY HAND ON 6.6.2014 TO THE
SUPERINTENDENT OF GOVERNMENT PRESS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
P12- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENDING
EXT.10 C FORM BY HAND ON 6.6.2014 TO
REGISTRATION INSPECTOR GENERAL
P13- TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE
NOTIFICATION DTED 6.6.2014
P14- TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH
SHOWING THE RESPECTIVE LAND VALUE WHICH
IS PART OF THE RECORD OF THE VIGILANCE
DEPARTMENT.
P15- TRUE COPY OF THE ASSET REGISTER
MAINTAINED BY THRISSSUR CORPORATION
P16- TRUE OCPY OF THE LETTER DTAED NIL,
NULY 2014 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR,
VIGILANCE & ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU TO
THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE TO
CONDUCT PRELIMINARY ENQUIRY AS PER THE
DIRECTION OF THE VIGILANCE
P17- TRUE OCPY OF THE PRELIMINARY
ENQUIRY REPORT SUBMITTED BY
SRI.S.R.JYOTHISH KUMAR, DEPUTY
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DATED 27.9.2014
P18- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM TO
THE DIRECTOR OF VIGILANCE AND ANTI
CORRUPTION BUREAU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
DATED 5.11.2014
O.P.(Crl) No.403/2015
P19- TRUE COPY OF THE FURTHER ENQUIRY
REPORT DATED 20.12.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE TO THE
DIRECTOR OF VIGILANCE AND ANTI
CORRUPTION BUREAU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
DATED 20.12.2014
P20- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
29.12.2014 SENT BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF
POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION
BUREAU, CENTRAL RANGE, ERNAKULAM, DATED
29.12.2014
P21- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER 5.1.2015
SENT BY THE DIRECTOR OF VIGILANCE AND
ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO TH EDEPUTY
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE &
ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, THRISSUR.
P22- TRUE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY
ENQUIRY REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPUTY
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE &
ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, THRISSUR ALONG
WITH EXHIBITS AND WITNESS STATEMENT
BEFORE THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND
SPECIAL JUDGE, THRISSUR DATED 8.1.2015
P23- TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITONER IN C.M.P
1111/2014, DATED 20.2.2015
P24- TREU COPY OF THE ORDER IN C.M.P.
1111/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE ENQUIRY
COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE,
THRISSUR, DATED 19.3.2015
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :
NIL
TRUE COPY
PS TO JUDGE
