Kerala High Court
B Padmakumar vs State Of Kerala on 13 August, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 22ND SRAVANA,
1947
CRL.MC NO. 28 OF 2025
CRIME NO.VC 7/2016 OF VACB, KOLLAM, Kollam
CC NO.2 OF 2021 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND
SPECIAL JUDGE (VIGILANCE),THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2:
1 B PADMAKUMAR, AGED 59 YEARS
S/O. BHASKARAN NAIR, VAISHNAVAM, EDAVATTOM,
VELLIMON, PERINAD P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691601.
2 C MUKUNDAN PILLAI, AGED 58 YEARS
S/O. CHELLAPPANPILLAI, KOKKALAYIL VEEDU,
KUREEPUZHA, THRIKKADAVOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM,
PIN - 691601.
BY ADV SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
VACB, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
682031.
SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR VACB SRI RAJESH.A,
SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR VACB SMT.REKHA.S
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 04.08.2025, THE COURT ON 13.08.2025 PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:60950
Crl.M.C.No.28/2025 2
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
================================
Crl.M.C.No.28 of 2025
================================
Dated this the 13th day of August, 2025
ORDER
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section
528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioners,
who are accused 1 and 2 in C.C.No.2/2021 on the files of the Enquiry
Commissioner and Special Judge(Vigilance), Thiruvananthapuram, arising
out of Crime No.7 of 2016 of VACB, Kollam, seeking quashment of
Annexures 1 to 4 and the further proceedings thereon in the above case.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the prosecution records.
3. Here the prosecution alleges commission of offences
punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 (`PC Act' for short hereafter) as well as Sections 409, 420 r/w
34 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short), by the accused. The
2025:KER:60950
prosecution allegation as per the final report reads as under:
"A1, former Officer in Charge of Sub Depot Main,
Kollam and A2, former Godown Asst. of Sub Depot main Kollam
who were the employees of the Kerala State Civil Supplies
Corporation Kollam Sub Depot during the period from 01.04.2012
to 31.03.2013 had misappropriated the property and money
belonging to the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation and also
cheated the Civil Supplies, Corporation for ulterior and illegal
pecuniary gain for them and thereby caused a huge loss to the
Supply Co, for an amount of Rs. 5,95,844.82/- (Rupees five lakhs
ninety five thousand eight hundred and forty four and eighty two
paise only). 1st and 2nd accused gained excess stock of commodities
by not issuing the rationed articles for public distribution and
shortage of varieties of some commodities of rationed articles are
due to the unauthorised sale by diverting the issue for public
distribution system. The 1st and 2nd accused thereby committed
misappropriation of rationed articles for public distribution and it
is punishable U/S 13(2) r/w13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption
Act 1988 and Sec.409,420 & 34 of IPC."
4. While canvassing quashment of Annexures 1 to 4 and the
further proceedings in the above case, it is submitted by the learned counsel
for the petitioners that the Civil Supplies Police and Vigilance have no
consistency with regard to the allegation of the petitioners. In this
connection, it is pointed out that as per Annexure 1, the quantified liability
would come to Rs.14,68,695.89. As per Annexure 2 FIR also, the liability
2025:KER:60950
would come to Rs.14,68,695.89. In Annexure 3, the allegation is that by
misusing their position, the accused caused a loss of Rs.14,68,695.89. But
when Annexure 4 final report had been filed, the amount of misappropriation
was found to be Rs.5,95,844.82 during the period from 01.04.2012 to
31.03.2013. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, no materials
were collected to show misappropriation of the said amount, as alleged in the
final report. It is submitted that as per the document form part of the final
report, nothing available to find commission of offence punishable under
Section 420 of IPC as well as the other offences. In Annexure 6 inspection
report, no independent witness is cited and the statement of witness No.14,
who is the District Supply Officer and who conducted inspection on
20.03.2013, and therefore no evidence could be gathered from the same.
The other allegation is that, in the procedure prescribed in paragraph 13 of
this Crl.M.C, the provisions 7.01(2) and 7.01(5) contained in Chapter VII
of Kerala Civil Supplies Manual, 1978, are to be followed for verification
of stock in view of the decision of this Court reported in [AIR 1999 KER
119], N.Sarojini v. District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram & Ors.,
which read as under:
"13. The provision 7.01 (2) contained in Chapter VII of the
2025:KER:60950
Kerala Civil Supplies Manual, 1978 is as under:
The actual stock on hand at the time of inspection should
be assessed by physical weighment. It is found that sometimes the
inspecting officers have assessed the stock in hand by weighing a few
bags picked at random and working out the average. The weight of
the total stock appears to have been calculated in certain cases on
the basis of the average weight. It is needless to say that the
quantities calculated by above method cannot be accepted under law
if the dealer challenges the accuracy of the stock balance determined
in the
above manner. It is, therefore most essential that the stock is assessed
by cent per cent weighment. There is no other acceptable method.
In the instant case, cent per cent weighment of the stock in
the Sub Depot was not done as is evident from the statement of
witness no.14, the Deputy Controller of Rationing who headed the
inspection held on 20.3.2013. As such, no sanctity can be given to the
finding of excess/shortage in the stock.
What 7.01(5) of the said manual provides is as under:
In addition to noting the details of the variation in stock in
the connected records as pointed out above, a mahazar should be
prepared showing the difference in the stock, which should be got
signed by the licensee or his representative present in the shop and
by two independent witnesses.."
5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners,
there was no excess or shortage in the stock kept at the Sub Depot as found
by the vigilance on 20.03.2013, and therefore, the entire prosecution is
2025:KER:60950
unwarranted and the same would require quashment.
6. While opposing quashment, the learned Public
Prosecutor submitted that the entire allegations raised by the petitioners to
quash the proceedings are baseless. In this connection, the learned counsel
gave emphasis to paragraph Nos.2, 4 to 9 of the statement filed by the
Deputy Superintendent of Police, VACB, Kollam, which appear to be
relevant. The same are extracted as under:
"2. It is submitted that the matrix of the case is as briefed:
That on 27.11.2014, the Kollam East Police Station registered Cr. No.
2413/14 against the petitioners (A1 & A2) for offences under sections
409, 420 & 34 IPC, pursuant to a complaint lodged by Sri. R. Ashokan,
Assistant Manager of Kollam District Depot of Supplyco (Annexures 1
& 2). The complaint alleged that while the 1st petitioner served as the
officer in charge and the 2nd petitioner as a Godown Assistant at the
Sub Depot (Main), Kollam of the Civil Supplies Corporation, an
inspection on 20.3.2013 conducted by Sri. T.P. Kammad Kutty (W-14),
Rationing Deputy Controller, and Sri. K. Unnikrishnan (W-13),
District Supply Officer, Kollam, unearthed irregularities: an excess of
192.90 quintals of boiled rice, a shortage of 12.32 quintals of raw rice,
an excess of 49.80 quintals of wheat, and a failure to exhibit the stock
board, alleging a misappropriation amounting to 14,68,695.89.
Consequently, both petitioners were suspended on 23.3.2013.
3. xxxx
4. All the contentions of the petitioners (A1&A2) in the
2025:KER:60950
petition, except those which are specifically admitted or otherwise
dealt with here under, are baseless and hence denied. The prosecution
case, as detailed in paragraphs 1 to 7 of the petition by the
petitioner(s), is true and therefore admitted.
5. It is submitted that the petitioners (A1 & A2) asserted the
stock verification conducted as part of a surprise inspection by the
Deputy Controller of Rationing (W-14) & District Supply Officer (W-
13) on 20.03.2013 at Supplyco Sub Depot (Main) Kollam was
fundamentally flawed, as it failed to adhere to the cent-per-cent
weighment procedure stipulated in the Kerala Civil Supplies Manual,
rendering the findings of excess and shortage of stock unreliable.
Furthermore, they contended that no mahazar was prepared, nor were
any independent witnesses present during the inspection, thus
undermining the credibility of the findings.
6. The allegation is addressed by underscoring that a
surprise inspection conducted on 20.03.2013 by the Deputy Controller
of Rationing (W-14) and District Supply Officer (W-13), along with
senior officials (W-9, W-10, W-11), in the presence of the petitioners
(A1 &A2), disclosed significant stock discrepancies. These
irregularities were corroborated through meticulous physical balance
calculations based on bag counts and measurements, and were
thoroughly documented. The accused signed the inspection report [R-
25], confirming their acknowledgment of the discrepancies without
lodging any objections, thus indicating their acceptance of the
findings. Although a formal mahazar was not prepared, the inspection
report [R-25] served as an official record of the stock verification. This
report, signed by the accused, was further corroborated by an audit
conducted by Smt. Saramma Mathew (W-2) and Vijaya Krishnan (W-
2025:KER:60950
4), which confirmed the irregularities. Proper reconciliation
procedures [R-26] were followed, and the discrepancies were
substantiated in subsequent audits, thereby validating the accuracy
and reliability of the inspection findings.
7. It is submitted that the petitioners contend that the
discrepancies identified during the inspection and subsequent audit
were unsustainable and unwarranted. They assert that there is no
evidence of misappropriation of money or property, but only evidence
of stock discrepancies. The petitioners further allege that the findings
lack consistency, undermining the applicability of Section 409 IPC.
Additionally, they argue that Section 420 IPC is inapplicable due to
the absence of intent to deceive. Moreover, they emphasize that the
vigilance has not provided any evidence of misappropriation of money
and property of Supplyco by the petitioners. Instead, the evidence
presented pertains to the excess and shortage of certain commodities
in the Sub Depot. The petitioners highlight the inconsistency in the
quantity of such excess/shortage, with different figures emerging
during the inspection on 20.3.2013 and subsequent audit procedures.
Consequently, they argue that the offence under Section 409 IPC
cannot be sustained against them.
8. In response to the above averment, it is respectfully
submitted that the discrepancies identified during the inspection on
20.03.13, and validated through the audit process, are well-
documented and substantiated by multiple pieces of evidence. The
inspection revealed 192.90 quintals of boiled rice (19,290 kg) and
49.80 quintals of wheat (4,980 kg) as excess stock, along with a
shortage of 12.32 quintals of raw rice (1,232 kg). These findings were
corroborated by the Internal Audit Wing, which quantified financial
2025:KER:60950
misappropriation at ₹14,68,695.89 based on economic rates i.e.
₹21.40/- per Kg for rice and ₹15.15/- per Kg for wheat. The figure of
₹5,95,844.82, determined using the wholesale issue price, reflects
discrepancies as per the internal audit report (R-4) dated 14.06.2013
by (W-2). The audit report [R-4] of Smt. Saramma Mathew (W-2)
concludes by remarking that "as an AWD (Authorised Wholesale
Depot), the staff are liable to remit the cost of excess and shortage. Sri.
Padmakumar, Senior Assistant, and Sri. Mukundan Pillai, Junior
Assistant, are the officials who worked during the period and are
equally responsible for this liability." The wholesale issue price of APL
rice and wheat was used to calculate the liability value. Evidence such
as (Inspection Report [R-25]) and Stock Registers [R-20], along with
testimonies from Sri. T.P. Kammad Kutty (W-14) and Smt. Saramma
Mathew (W-2), confirm the petitioners' direct involvement in
unauthorized stock movements.
9. It is humbly submitted that the evidence corroborates the
shortages noted in R-20 (Stock Registers) point to a breach of trust,
justifying charges under Section 409 IPC. The findings are consistent
and supported by evidences. The refinement of figures from
₹14,68,695.89 (economic rate) to ₹5,95,844.82 (whole sale issue price)
i.e ₹8.63/- per bag for rice and ₹6.44/- per Kg for wheat reflects an
effort to exclude procedural ambiguities and focus on provable
misappropriation. Witness Sri. J. Dileep Kumar (W10) testified that the
petitioners failed to reconcile unverified stock movements, which
constitutes a breach of trust justifying the invocation of Section 409
IPC."
7. While appraising the contentions raised by the learned
2025:KER:60950
counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor, it is
relevant to note that the learned counsel for the petitioners, placed
reliance on Annexure 8 judgment, which referred to Chapter VII para
7.01(2) and 7.01(5) of the Kerala Civil Supplies Manual, 1978 and
held that those paras are to be followed for verification of stock. In
this matter, there was a stock inspection on 20.03.2013 by the District
Supply Officer and the inspection revealed that 192.90 quintal of raw
rice (19.290 kg.) and 49.80 quintal of wheat (4.980 kg.) as excess
stock along with a shortage of 12.32 quintal of raw rice (1.232kg.) and the
same was supported by the internal audit wing which quantified the
financial misappropriation as alleged by the prosecution, which quantified
financial misappropriation at Rs.14,68,695.89 based on economic rates i.e.
Rs.21.40 per Kg for rice and Rs.15.15 per Kg for wheat. The figure of
Rs.5,95,844.82 determined using the wholesale issue price, reflects
discrepancies as per the internal audit report (R-4) dated 14.06.2013 by
(W-2). The audit report [R-4] of Smt. Saramma Mathew (W-2) concludes
by remarking that "as an AWD (Authorised Wholesale Depot), the staff
are liable to remit the cost of excess and shortage. Sri. Padmakumar,
2025:KER:60950
Senior Assistant, and Sri. Mukundan Pillai, Junior Assistant, are the
officials who worked during the period and are equally responsible for this
liability." The wholesale issue price of APL rice and wheat was used to
calculate the liability value. Evidence such as (Inspection Report [R-25])
and Stock Registers [R-20], along with testimonies from Sri. T.P. Kammad
Kutty (W-14) and Smt. Saramma Mathew (W-2), confirm the petitioners'
direct involvement in unauthorized stock movements.
8. It is further evident that the shortages noted in R-20
(stock registers) point to a breach of trust justifying charges under Section
409 of IPC. The findings are consistent and supported by evidences. The
refinement of figures from ₹14,68,695.89 (economic rate) to ₹5,95,844.82
(whole sale issue price) i.e ₹8.63/- per bag for rice and ₹6.44/- per Kg for
wheat reflects an effort to exclude procedural ambiguities and focus on
provable misappropriation. Witness Sri. J. Dileep Kumar (W10) testified
that the petitioners failed to reconcile unverified stock movements, which
constitutes a breach of trust justifying the invocation of Section 409 IPC.
9. Regarding commission of offence under Section 420 of
IPC, the prosecution allegation is that the petitioners, through intentional
2025:KER:60950
misrepresentation and manipulation of stock records, dishonestly diverted
rationed goods intended for the Public Distribution System (PDS), causing
financial loss to Supplyco and securing wrongful gains for themselves.
During the inspection on 20.03.2013, discrepancies were identified,
including excess stock of 192.90 quintals of boiled rice and 49.80 quintals
of wheat, alongside a shortage of 12.32 quintals of raw rice. Winesses,
including Sri R.Muraleedharan (W9), former Assistant Taluk Supply
Officer Sri J.Dileep Kumar (W10), former Asst.Taluk Supply Officer and
testified that the petitioners failed to reconcile delivery records and
physical stock, highlighting deliberate attempts to mislead. Furthermore,
the petitioners signed the Inspection Report (R-25) acknowledging the
discrepancies, which substantiates their malintent. The evidence
unequivocally demonstrates that the petitioners induced Supplyco to
deliver property under false pretenses, constituting the offense of cheating
under Section 420 of IPC.
10. In this matter, the main challenge raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioners is the inconsistency regarding the amount of
misappropriation. As per Annexure A1 complaint, Annexure 2 FIR, the
2025:KER:60950
misappropriation alleged was Rs.14,68,695.89 for the period between
1.04.2012 to 31.03.2013 and during investigation, the same was quantified
by support of materials to show that the misappropriation would come to
Rs.5,95,844.82. In fact, the same has no bearing in so far as quashment is
concerned since the petitioners are answerable to the charge ultimately
framed by the court based on the final report. Regarding compliance of
the procedure prescribed in Chapter VII para 7.01(2) and 7.01(5) of the
Kerala Civil Supplies Manual, 1978, the report of the investigating officer
at par with the documents would show that the same was substantially
complied at the time of stock verification done by the District Supply
Officer on 20.03.2013, which was corroborated by the audit wing.
Moreover the same is a matter of evidence and cannot be considered at the
pre-trial stage.
11. In the instant case, going by the entire prosecution
records, it could be gathered that the prosecution allegation as to
misappropriation of Rs.5,95,844.82 could be gathered, prima facie,
warranting framing of charge and trial of the accused. In such a case, the
prayer for quashment of the proceedings for the grounds argued by the
2025:KER:60950
learned counsel for the petitioners would not succeed. In view of the
above, this petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the
jurisdictional court for compliance and further steps.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE
rtr/
2025:KER:60950
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES
Annexure-1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
13.11.2014.
Annexure-2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
2413/2014 OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION DATED
27.11.2014.
Annexure-3 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN
VC-07/2016/KLM DATED 27.10.2016.
Annexure-4 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN VC-
07/2016/KLM DATED 27.11.2020.
Annexure-5 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE STATEMENTS OF THE
WITNESSES IN VC-07/2016/KLM.
Annexure-6 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT
PREPARED BY WITNESS NO. 14 KAMMAD KUTTY, THE
DEPUTY CONTROLLER OF RATIONING, (RECORD NO.
25).
Annexure-7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DATED
13.4.2012.
Annexure-8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN WP(C) NO.
22000/2009 DATED 20.9.2014.
