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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
