Kerala High Court
Basheer M vs State Of Kerala on 20 August, 2025
2025:KER:62896
CRL.MC.NOS.5590,6757 & 6764 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025/29TH SRAVANA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 5590 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 07.05.2025 IN VC
NO.6 OF SCK OF 2021 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL
JUDGE (VIGILANCE), KOZHIKODE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED/RESPONDENT:
BASHEER M
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O (LATE) MOIDEEN KUNJU PARAVATHANI HOUSE
KARASSERY P O, KOZHIKODE (FORMERLY SPECIAL
VILLAGE OFFICER RAROTH VILLAGE KOZHIKDOE
DISTRICT), PIN - 673602
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.RAJEEV
SRI.V.VINAY
SRI.M.S.ANEER
SHRI.SARATH K.P.
SHRI.ANILKUMAR C.R.
SHRI.K.S.KIRAN KRISHNAN
SMT.DIPA V.
SHRI.AKASH CHERIAN THOMAS
RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/PETITIONER:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
SRI.RAJESH A.,SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, VACB
SMT.REKHA S.,SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, VACB
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 07.08.2025, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.6757/2025 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 20.08.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:62896
CRL.MC.NOS.5590,6757 & 6764 OF 2025
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025/29TH SRAVANA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 6757 OF 2025
CRIME NO.V.C.01/2019 OF VACB, ERNAKULAM, Ernakulam
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2:
1 HAMZA V
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O KUNJIPPU THUMBILIMEDU HOUSE - 36/87 (2A)
OTHUNGODU THIRUNELLAI POST PALAKKAD
MUNICIPALITY, PIN - 678004
2 SAJITHA V P,
AGED 52 YEARS
W/O. HAMZA THUMBILIMEDU HOUSE - 36/87 (2A)
OTHUNGODU THIRUNELLAI POST PALAKKAD
MUNICIPALITY, PIN - 678004
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.RAJEEV
SRI.V.VINAY
SRI.M.S.ANEER
SHRI.SARATH K.P.
SHRI.ANILKUMAR C.R.
SHRI.K.S.KIRAN KRISHNAN
SMT.DIPA V.
SHRI.AKASH CHERIAN THOMAS
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 INSPECTOR OF POLICE
VIGILANCE & ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU SPECIAL CELL
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673016
SRI.RAJESH.A SPL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR VACB,
SMT.REKHA.S SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR VACB
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 07.08.2025, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5590/2025,
6764/2025, THE COURT ON 20.08.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:62896
CRL.MC.NOS.5590,6757 & 6764 OF 2025
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025/29TH SRAVANA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 6764 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN VC NO.1 OF
2019 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER& SPECIAL JUDGE,THRISSUR
PETITIONERS:
1 HAMZA V
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O KUNJIPPU THUMBILIMEDU HOUSE - 36/87 (2A)
OTHUNGODU THIRUNELLAI POST
PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, PIN - 678004
2 SAJITHA V P
AGED 52 YEARS
W/O. HAMZA THUMBILIMEDU HOUSE - 36/87 (2A)
OTHUNGODU THIRUNELLAI POST
PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, PIN - 678004
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.RAJEEV
SRI.V.VINAY
SHRI.K.S.KIRAN KRISHNAN
SMT.DIPA V.
SHRI.AKASH CHERIAN THOMAS
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 STATE OF KERALA
VIGILANCE & ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU SPECIAL
CELL, PIN - 682031
SRI.RAJESH.A SPL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR VACB,
SMT.REKHA.S SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR VACB
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 07.08.2025, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.6757/2025 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 20.08.2025 PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:62896
CRL.MC.NOS.5590,6757 & 6764 OF 2025
4
CR
COMMON ORDER
Dated this the 20th day of August, 2025
Crl.M.C.Nos.6757/2025 and 6764/2025 have been
filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS' for short) by
accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.VC-1/2019 of VACB,
Ernakulam, challenging common order in
Crl.M.P.No.1682/2024 & Crl.M.P.No.1403/2024 dated
23.05.2025 in the above case.
2. Crl.M.C.No.5590/2025 is at the instance of
the accused in V.C.No.6/2021/SCK of VACB, Kozhikode. In
this Crl.M.C., order passed in Crl.M.P.No.346/2023 in the
above crime, ordering interim attachment is put under
challenge.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor,
representing the VACB. Perused the relevant documents.
2025:KER:62896
CRL.MC.NOS.5590,6757 & 6764 OF 2025
4. I shall address the issue involved in
Crl.M.C. Nos.6757/2025 and 6764/2025 at first.
5. In this case, the prosecution alleges that the
petitioners amassed disproportionate assets to their known
sources of income, to the tune of Rs.28,78,399/-, (Rupees
twenty eight lakh seventy eight thousand three hundred and
ninety nine only), which would come to 64% of the excess of
the total income, for which they could not account for. On this
premise, the prosecution alleges that the accused committed
offences punishable under Section 13(1) (e) r/w Section
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter
referred to as the 'PC Act' for short) and Section 13(1)(b) r/w
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act,
2018 (hereinafter referred to as the 'PC Act, 2018' for short).
The genesis of the case to be borne out from the application
filed by the prosecution before the Special Judge, seeking
attachment of properties as stated in paragraph No.9 of the
petition is as under:
2025:KER:62896
CRL.MC.NOS.5590,6757 & 6764 OF 2025
"9. The immovable properties
acquired during the check period has already sold by
the accused as per Document number 5310/2014,
5311/2014 of SRO Cherupulassery and as per
Document No.2127/2012 of SRO
Kadambazhipuram. Three properties 1) Thrikandiri-I
Village Sry 102/4 as per SRO Cherpulassery
Document No.2495/2011 (23.25 cent) in the name of
Smt.Sajitha V.P., 2) Thrikadiri-I Village Sry No.-59/1
as per SRO Cherpulassery Document
No.2003/01/13 in the name of Hamsa V. (25.77
cent), 3) Kadampazhipuram -I village Sry No.143/7
of SRO Kadambazhipuram Document
No.2126/1/2012 in the name of Sajitha V.P. (194.73
cent) acquired during the check period are also likely
to be sold. Hence, the I.O. Submitted an Affidavit
and application before the Hon'ble EC & SJ Court,
Thrissur that necessary steps to confiscate the
above mentioned three properties and Rs.9,65,330/-
(Rupees Nine lakh Sixty five Thousand Three
hundred and Thirty only). This petition is pending
before this Hon'ble Court as CMP No.-1403/2024."
6. The trial court issued notice, for which the
petitioners, who are the respondents therein filed objection
2025:KER:62896
CRL.MC.NOS.5590,6757 & 6764 OF 2025
and finally, on appraisal of the matter in issue, the learned
Special Judge ordered to attach the above immovable
properties by invoking power under Section 18A of the PC
Act, 2018.
7. Multiple contentions are raised at the
instance of the petitioners as well as the learned Public
Prosecutor. Coming to the crux of the dispute, the same
centers on Section 18A of the PC Act, 2018, introduced with
effect from 26.07.2018, whereby it has been provided as
under:
"18A. Provisions of Criminal Law
Amendment Ordinance, 1944 to apply to
attachment under this Act. (1) Save as otherwise
provided under the Prevention of Money Laundering
Act, 2002, (15 of 2003), the provisions of the Criminal
Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 (Ord.38 of 1944)
shall, as far as may be, apply to the attachment,
administration of attached property and execution of
order of attachment or confiscation of money or
property procured by means of an offence under this
Act.
2025:KER:62896
CRL.MC.NOS.5590,6757 & 6764 OF 2025
(2) For the purposes of this Act, the
provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment
Ordinance, 1944 (Ord.38 of 1944) shall have effect,
subject to the modification that the references to
"District Judge" shall be construed as references to
"Special Judge"
8. As pointed out by the learned Special Public
Prosecutor, this Court addressed the application of Section
18A of the PC Act, 2018, in the decision reported in Mac
Charles (India) Ltd. (M/s.) v. State of Kerala reported in
2021 (5) KHC 421 and held in paragraph No.34 that, now,
after the introduction of Section 18A(2) in the Act, it appears
that the dichotomy of jurisdiction of the District Judge and
the Special Judge, which was explained by the Division
Bench in Dr.V.K.Rajan v. State of Kerala (2007 (4) KHC
828), has disappeared. The Division Bench had noticed that,
in Section 29 of the Act, it was not mentioned that the words
'District Court' wherever appear in the Ordinance shall be
substituted by 'Special Court'. The change now occurred by
2025:KER:62896
CRL.MC.NOS.5590,6757 & 6764 OF 2025
the introduction of Section 18A(2) in the Act is exactly what
the Division Bench had referred to above. Section 18A(2) of
the Act states that, for the purposes of the Act, the provisions
of the Ordinance shall have effect, subject to the modification
that the reference to "District Judge" shall be construed as
reference to "Special Judge". Therefore, the expression
'while trying the offence' in Section 5(6) of the Act stands
expanded by the words "for the purposes of this Act"
contained in Section 18A of the Act. It means that, with effect
from 26.07.2018, even at the pre-trial stage, the Special
Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application under
Section 3(1) of the Ordinance.
9. It is argued by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that as early in the year 1962, in the decision in
State of West Bengal v. S.K.Ghosh, reported in 1962 SCC
OnLine SC 53 : SIR 1963 SC 255, the Apex Court
considered the provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment
Ordinance, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
2025:KER:62896
CRL.MC.NOS.5590,6757 & 6764 OF 2025
Ordinance' for short) and in paragraph No.14, the Apex Court
observed that the Ordinance came into force on 23-8-1944,
would take the case out of the ambit of Article 20(1), for we
have come to the conclusion that the forfeiture provided
under Section 13(3) is not a penalty at all within the meaning
of Article 20(1) and the second argument urged on behalf of
the appellant must prevail. Now the 1944 Ordinance is an
independent Ordinance and is not an amendment to the
1943 Ordinance. It is true that the Ordinance is termed "the
Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance"; but its provisions will
show that it deals mainly with recovery of money or property
belonging to Government procured by the offender by means
of the offence. An analysis of the provisions of the 1944
Ordinance will show this clearly. Section 3 provides for
application for attachment of property; Section 4 provides for
an ad interim attachment; Section 5 provides for investigation
of objections to attachment; Section 6 provides for
attachment of property of mala fide transferees; Section 7
2025:KER:62896
CRL.MC.NOS.5590,6757 & 6764 OF 2025
provides for execution of orders of attachment and Section 8
for security in lieu of attachment; Section 9 for administration
of attached property and Section 10 for the duration of
attachment. Section 11 provides for appeals. Then come
Sections 12 and 13. Lastly there are Section 14 which bars
certain proceedings and Section 15 which protects certain
actions taken in pursuance of the Ordinance. It will therefore
be clear that the Ordinance provides for no punishment or
penalty; all that it provides is attachment of the money or
property procured by the offence or any other property of the
offender if the above property is not available and the
purpose of the attachment is to prevent the disposal or
concealment of such property. Section 13(3) with which we
are particularly concerned lays down that the District Judge
shall order that from the property of the convicted person
attached under this Ordinance or out of the security given in
lieu of such attachment, there shall be forfeited to His
Majesty such amount or value as is found in the final
2025:KER:62896
CRL.MC.NOS.5590,6757 & 6764 OF 2025
judgment or order of the criminal courts in pursuance of
Section 12 to have been procured by the convicted person
by means of the offence, together with the costs of
attachment as determined by the District Judge. It is further
provided that where the final judgment or order of the
criminal court has imposed or upheld a sentence of fine on
the said person, the District Judge may order without
prejudice to any other mode of recovery, that the said fine
shall be recovered from the residue of the said attached
property or of the security given in lieu of attachment. The
forfeiture by the District Judge under Section 13(3) cannot in
our opinion be equated to forfeiture of property which is
provided in Section 53 of the Indian Penal Code. The
forfeiture provided in Section 53 is undoubtedly a penalty or
punishment within the meaning of Article 20(1); but that order
of forfeiture has to be passed by the court trying the offence,
where there is a provision for forfeiture in the section
concerned in the Indian Penal Code. There is nothing
2025:KER:62896
CRL.MC.NOS.5590,6757 & 6764 OF 2025
however in the 1944 Ordinance to show that it provides for
any kind of punishment for any offence. Further it is clear
that the Court of District Judge which is a Principal Court of
Civil Jurisdiction can have no jurisdiction to try an offence
under the Indian Penal Code. The order of forfeiture
therefore by the District Judge under Section 13(3) cannot be
equated to the infliction of a penalty within the meaning of
Article 20 (1). Article 20(1) deals with conviction of persons
for offences and for subjection of them to penalties. It
provides firstly that "no person shall be convicted of any
offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the
commission of the act charged as an offence". Secondly, it
provides that no person shall be "subjected to a penalty
greater than that which might have been inflicted under the
law in force at the time of the commission of the offence".
Clearly, therefore Article 20 is dealing with punishment for
offences and provides two safeguards, namely, (i) that no
one shall be punished for an act which was not an offence
2025:KER:62896
CRL.MC.NOS.5590,6757 & 6764 OF 2025
under the law in force when it was committed, and (ii) that no
one shall be subjected to a greater penalty for an offence
than what was provided under the law in force when the
offence was committed. The provision for forfeiture under
Section 13(3) has nothing to do with the infliction of any
penalty on any person for an offence, If the forfeiture
provided in Section 13(3) were really a penalty on a
convicted person for commission of an offence we should
have found it provided in the 1943 Ordinance and that
penalty of forfeiture would have been inflicted by the criminal
court trying the offender.
10. As per the decision, placed by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, in Union of India and Another v.
Ganpati Dealcom Private Limited, reported in (2023) 3
SCC 315, the Apex Court considered Section 3 of the
Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 and
observed in paragraph No.127 of the said case as under:
2025:KER:62896
CRL.MC.NOS.5590,6757 & 6764 OF 2025
"127.1 Section 3(2) (sic Section 3) of the
unamended 1988 Act is declared as unconstitutional
for being manifestly arbitrary. Accordingly, Section
3(2) of the 2016 Act is also unconstitutional as it is
violative of Article 20(1) of the Constitution.
127.2 In rem forfeiture provision under Section 5
of the unamended 1988 Act, prior to the 2016
Amendment Act, was unconstitutional for being
manifestly arbitrary.
127.3 The 2016 Amendment Act was not merely
procedural, rather, prescribed substantive
provisions.
127.4 In rem forfeiture provision under Section 5
of the 2016 Act, being punitive in nature, can only be
applied prospectively and not retroactively.
127.5 The authorities concerned cannot initiate
or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation
proceedings for transactions entered into prior to the
coming into force of the 2016 Act, viz.25-10.-2016.
As a sequence of the above declaration, all such
prosecutions or confiscation proceedings shall stand
quashed."
In fact, this judgment was recalled by the Apex Court in a
subsequently filed review petition, as per order dated 18.10.2024,
in the decision in Union of India and Another v. Ganpati
Dealcom Private Limited, reported in (2024) 167 taxmann.com
525 (SC). Thus the learned counsel for the petitioners placed a
decision which is not in existence in the eye of law.
2025:KER:62896
CRL.MC.NOS.5590,6757 & 6764 OF 2025
11. According to the learned counsel for the
petitioners, while passing the common order in Crl.M.P.Nos.
1682 /2024 and 1403/2024, the learned Special Judge failed
to take note of the provisions of the Ordinance. According to
him, under Section 13(3) of the Ordinance, the amount to be
forfeited or recovered shall be limited to the fine imposed as
per the judgment or order of a criminal court, together with
the cost of the attachment, and nothing beyond that.
12. Even though it is submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioners that Section 18A of the PC Act,
2018, has been introduced with effect from 26.07.2018, the
crime in Crl.M.C.No.5590/2025 was pertaining to the check
period upto 31.12.2017, i.e., before the amendment, and
therefore, the same could not be applied retrospectively. The
learned Public Prosecutor justified the orders in tune with the
mandate of the Ordinance and placed a decision of the Apex
Court in Naveda Properties Pvt.Ltd. Through its Directors
v. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in 2019 (4)
2025:KER:62896
CRL.MC.NOS.5590,6757 & 6764 OF 2025
KHC 782, with reference to Section 13 to contend that since
the ordinance was adopted by the Presidential Adaptation of
Laws Order, 1950, issued under the powers conferred by
clause (2) of Article 372 of the Constitution, making the
Ordinance effective in the territory of India, and, therefore,
continues to remain in force.
13. Having addressed the rival arguments, even
though it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners
that the Special Judge wrongly interpreted Section 18A and
provisions of the Ordinance, admittedly, in Crl.M.C.
Nos.6757/2025 and 6764/2025, the check period includes
the period after the amendment came into force with effect
from 26.07.2018, whereas the check period in
Crl.M.C.No.5590/2025 is prior to the amendment, i.e., upto
31.12.2017.
14. According to the learned counsel for the
petitioners, the procedure followed by the Special Judge, in
attaching the entire properties without specifying the
2025:KER:62896
CRL.MC.NOS.5590,6757 & 6764 OF 2025
attachment for the amount involved, also without taking into
consideration of the said contention, would require
interference.
15. On perusal of the Ordinance, it could be
gathered that by the introduction of Section 18A, the State
Government has reason to believe that any person has
committed any scheduled offence may, whether or not, any
court has taken cognizance of the offence, authorised the
making of an application of the District Judge, (here, the
special Judge) within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the
said person ordinarily resides or carries on business, for the
attachment, under this Ordinance of the money or other
property which the said person to have procured by means of
the offence, or if such money or property cannot for any
reason be attached or other property of the said person of
value as nearely as may be equivalent to that of the
aforesaid or other property.
2025:KER:62896
CRL.MC.NOS.5590,6757 & 6764 OF 2025
16. Section 3(3) provides that an application
under Section 3(1) shall be accompanied by one or more
affidavits, stating the grounds on which the belief that the
said person has committed any offences is found, and the
amount of money or value of other property believed to have
been procured by means of an offence. The application also
shall furnish the details provided under clause (a) and (b) of
Section 3(3) of the Ordinance. Section 4 provides for
issuance of ad-interim attachment on receipt of an
application under Section 3 and Section 4(2) mandates
issuance of notice to the person against whom the
attachment is made with the order and records thereof.
Section 5 of the Ordinance provides that on notice, if no
cause is shown and no objections are made under Section 4
on or before the specific date, the District Judge, (here, the
Special Judge) shall forthwith pass an order making the ad
interim order of attachment absolute.
2025:KER:62896
CRL.MC.NOS.5590,6757 & 6764 OF 2025
17. Section 5(2) of the Ordinance provides that if
cause is shown on any objections are made as aforesaid the
District Judge (here, the Special Judge) shall proceed to
investigate the same, and in so doing, as regards the
examination of the parties and in all other respects he shall,
subject to the powers of a court in hearing a suit under the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and any person making an
object under Section 4 shall be required to adduce evidence to
show that at the date of attachment he had some interest in the
property attached.
18. Section 5(3) of the Ordinance provides further
that after investigation under sub-section (2), the District Judge
(here, the Special Judge) shall pass an order either making the
ad interim order of attachment absolute or varying it by
releasing a portion of the property from attachment or
withdrawing the order.
19. The order of attachment made under this
provisions shall be carried into effect as may be practicable in
the manner provided in the Code of Civil Procedure as
2025:KER:62896
CRL.MC.NOS.5590,6757 & 6764 OF 2025
mandated under Section 7 of the Ordinance.
20. Section 8 of the Ordinance provides a
remedy to the person whose property has been or is about to
be attached under this Ordinance may, at any time apply to the
Judge to permit him to give security in lieu of such attachment
and where the security offered and given is in the opinion of the
Judge satisfactory and sufficient, he may withdraw or, as the
case may be, refrain from passing, the order of attachment.
21. On perusal of the Rules, in comparison with
the orders impugned, it is discernible that the learned
Special Judge has passed the common order in a case
where the amount involved is 28,78,399/-. (i.e., in VC
No.1/2019). But the attachment order seems to have been
passed over the entire property without considering the
valuation of the property. In fact, what is the valuation of the
property is not discernible from the records. Even though it
cannot be held at this stage that the Special Judge ordered
attachment of the property in excess of the statutory mandate
2025:KER:62896
CRL.MC.NOS.5590,6757 & 6764 OF 2025
since it has been provided under Section 8 of the Ordinance
that a remedy is available to a person whose property has
been, or is about to be, attached under the Ordinance, to
permit the Judge to accept security in lieu of such attachment
and the security offered and given is in the opinion of the
Judge satisfactory and sufficient, on accepting the security,
the Judge could withdraw the attachment if attachment
already passed or refrain from passing an order of
attachment if attachment not passed. Since the order of the
learned Special Judge could not be found as illegal and the
entire properties have been attached in a case involving
disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.28,78,399/- (as
alleged by the prosecution), the attachment should be
confined to the property which would fetch the said amount
and not beyond that.
22. Having held so, it is specifically ordered that
the petitioners in Crl.M.C.Nos.6757/2025 and 6764/2025 are
at liberty to furnish security for an amount of Rs.28,78,399/-
2025:KER:62896
CRL.MC.NOS.5590,6757 & 6764 OF 2025
either independently or by offering any one of the properties
attached along with original title deed of the property, non-
liability certificate, valuation certificate, tax receipt,
possession certificate and location sketch. On production of
security as stated, the learned Special Judge can consider
the same in terms of Section 8 of the Ordinance and pass
appropriate orders as per law.
In the result, Crl.M.C.Nos.6757/2025 and 6764/2025
stand disposed of as indicated above.
In Crl.M.C. No. 5590/2025, only an interim order of
attachment has been passed, and upon notice, the petitioner
filed an objection. Therefore, the petitioner is at liberty to
raise the contention before the special court in accordance
with the statutory provisions and the decision extracted
above. While passing the final order, the learned Special
Judge shall consider the same.
2025:KER:62896
CRL.MC.NOS.5590,6757 & 6764 OF 2025
Holding so, Crl.M.C.No.5590/2025 stands disposed
of as above.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
nkr
2025:KER:62896
CRL.MC.NOS.5590,6757 & 6764 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE-I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
07.05.2025 PASSED BY THE COURT OF
ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL
JUDGE, KOZHIKODE
ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO
VC.6/2021/SCK REGISTERED BY VACB,
SPECIAL CELL, KOZHIKODE
ANNEXURE-III TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION ALONG
WITH THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED U/SS 18A
OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION
(AMENDMENT) ACT, 2018
ANNEXURE-IV TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED
27.06.2016 IN DOCUMENT NO. 1559/2016
ANNEXURE-V TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED
06.10.2021 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND
USSAIN
ANNEXURE-VI TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
19.09.2023 IN CRL MC NO 777/2022
2025:KER:62896
CRL.MC.NOS.5590,6757 & 6764 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE-I TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO
VC.01/2019/SCE BY VACB SPECIAL CELL,
ERNAKULAM
ANNEXURE-II CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN
CRL MP 1682/2024 & CRL MP 1403/2024 IN
VC NO 01/2019/SCE DATED 23.05.2025
PASSED BY THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND
SPECIAL JUDGE, THRISSUR
ANNEXURE-III TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND
APPLICATION SUBMITTED U/S 18A OF THE
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT DATED
28.10.2024
ANNEXURE IV TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT
FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER IN CRL MP
NO 1682/2024 BEFORE THE ENQUIRY
COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE
(VIGILANCE THRISSUR)
ANNEXURE-V TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF LAND AND
PROPERTY, SHARES IN COMPANIES AND
OTHER INVESTMENT HELD BY THE 1ST
PETITIONER, HIS WIFE AND FRIENDS IN
THE YEAR 2016
2025:KER:62896
CRL.MC.NOS.5590,6757 & 6764 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE-I TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO
VC.01/2019/SCE BY VACB SPECIAL CELL,
ERNAKULAM
ANNEXURE-II CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN
CRL MP 1682/2024 & CRL MP 1403/2024 IN
VC NO 01/2019/SCE DATED 23.05.2025
PASSED BY THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND
SPECIAL JUDGE, THRISSUR
ANNEXURE-III TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED
U/S 18A OF THE PREVENTION OF
CORRUPTION ACT ALONG WITH THE
AFFIDAVIT DATED 23.09.2024
ANNEXURE IV TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT
FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER IN CRL MP
NO 1403/2024 BEFORE THE ENQUIRY
COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE
(VIGILANCE THRISSUR)
ANNEXURE V TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT
FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER IN CRL MP
NO 1403/2024 BEFORE THE ENQUIRY
COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE
(VIGILANCE), THRISSUR
ANNEXURE-VI TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF LAND AND
PROPERTY, SHARES IN COMPANIES AND
OTHER INVESTMENT HELD BY THE 1ST
PETITIONER, HIS WIFE AND FRIENDS IN
THE YEAR 2016
