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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
