[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
S. Ajithkumar vs State Of Kerala on 5 December, 2025
2025:KER:94608
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 7971 OF 2025
CRIME NO.VC 39/2016 OF VACB, THRISSUR, Thrissur
CC NO.4 OF 2022 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL
JUDGE,THRISSUR
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.2,6,8 & 9:
1 S. AJITHKUMAR
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O.V.SOMAN, FORMER DIVISION HEAD, SIDCO,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT DEVAKIMANDIRAM, TC 4/326,
AMBALAMUKKU, KAVADIYAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 695003
2 SASI KARMEL
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O.KARMEL FORMER CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER, SIDCO,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT SACHINDHYA, ORIENT NAGAR,
125, PATTATHANAM P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691021
3 LENIN G
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O M.GOPINATHAN, MANAGER, SIDCO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
RESIDING AT KRISHGIRI, KUNNUMMEL, KILIMANOOR P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695601
4 J.BABY
AGED 52 YEARS
W/O.SASIDHARAN PILLAI, SR.SUPERINTENDENT, SIDCO,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT PALLIYADIYIL HOUSE, VENGA
P.O., SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690519
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.T.PRADEEP
SMT.M.BINDUDAS
SRI.NIRANJAN T. PRADEEP
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
BY SPL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH.A,
SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA.S
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.11.2025, THE COURT ON 05.12.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.M.C.NO.7971 OF 2025 2
ORDER
Dated this the 5th day of December, 2025
This Crl.M.C. has been filed by accused Nos.2,6,8 and 9,
viz., Sri.S.Aajithkumar, Sri.Sasi Karmel, Sri.Lenin G., and
Sri.J.Baby, seeking to quash Annexure 1 Final Report, dated
02.03.2020 in C.C.No.04/2022 pending before the Enquiry
Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur, arose out of Crime
No.VC.39/2016 TSR/2016 of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption
Bureau, Thrissur.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned Special Public Prosecutor. Perused the relevant
records.
3. Here, the prosecution alleges commission of offences
punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the PC Act, 1988'
hereinafter) as well as Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code,
by the accused persons.
4. As per the report submitted by the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, VACB, Thrissur, the genesis of the
case and the role of each accused as well as the loss sustained to
the State Government Exchequer to the tune of
Rs.2,66,09,591/- (Rupees Two crore sixty-six lakh nine
thousand five hundred ninety-one rupees only), have been
narrated in detail. The same is as under:
"1)It is submitted that, based on a petition filed by
Sri.Paul Kokkatt, Former President, Aloor Grama
Panchayath, S/o Kunjuvareed, Kokkatt House, P.O.
Kallettumkara, Thrissur, before the Hon'ble Enquiry
Commissioner & Special Judge Court, Thrissur,
alleging illegal and corrupt practices at SIDCO
Kallettumkara Industrial Estate, the Hon'ble Special
Court considered the petition as CMP 876/2016 and
ordered the DySP, Vigilance & Anti-Corruption
Bureau, Thrissur, to conduct a Quick Verification in
the matter. Accordingly, a Quick Verification (QV
61/2016/TSR) was conducted. During the
Verification, it was revealed that there were vested
interest and elements of conspiracy on the part of
the Allotment Committee and the Board of
Directors, who abused their official capacity and
committed criminal misconduct. Consequently, it
was recommended that a Vigilance Case be
registered. Thus a Vigilance Case as
VC.39/2016/TSR U/s 13 (1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of PC Act
1988 & 120 (B) IPC registered on 05.09.2016 at
VACB, Thrissur unit, against the Allotment
Committee members of SIDCO (A1), SIDCO Board of
Directors (A2), Sri.Jose Punneli, Punneliparambil
House, Kallettumkara P.O, Thrissur (A3), Sri.
P.L Paulson, Punneliparambil House,
Kallettumkara P.O. Thrissur (A4) and Sri K.J. Babu,
Kalkuzhi House, Aloor P.O, Thrissur (A5).
2) The brief of the case is that A1, the allotment
committee members of SIDCO, A2 SIDCO Board of
Director, A3 Sri. Jose Punneli, Punneliparambil
House Kallettumkara, Thrissur, A4 Sri.P.L.Paulson,
Punneliparambil House, Kallettumkara, Thrissur,
and A5 Sri. Babu, Kalkuzhi House, Aloor, Thrissur,
conjointly conspired with each other and in
CRL.M.C.NO.7971 OF 2025 5
furtherance. A1 and A2 illegally allowed A3, A4 and
A5 to possess the industrial plots measuring 13, 16,
and 11 cents respectively, Furthermore, they failed
to take effective action to evict the encroachments
made by A3, A4 and A5 on SIDCO land, causing a
loss of Rs.2,66,20,000/- to the Government
exchequer, for obtaining illegal pecuniary gain to
themselves abusing their official position, thereby
committed the offence of criminal misconduct.
3) It is submitted that the investigation of this case
was completed and Charge Sheet filed before the
Court of Hon'ble Enquiry Commissioner & Special
Judge, Thrissur for prosecuting the accused. The
Special Court took cognizance and numbered the
case as CC No.04/2022 on 16.03.2022 and the next
hearing of the case is on 25.03.2025.
The Prosecution case as per CC.04/2022 is as follows.
4) It is submitted that during the investigation it is
revealed that (A1) Sri. Saji Basheer, 50/2021, S/o
Basheer, TC-10/747, Sulthana, Mannommoola,
Perookada, Thiruvananthapuram (A2) Sri.Ajith
Kumar 49/2021, S/o V.Soman, Devaki Mandhiram,
TC 4/326, Ambalamukku, Kavadiyar P.O,
Thiruvananthapuram (A6) Sri. K. Sasi, S/o Karmel,
Sachindhya, Orient Nagar, 125, Pattathanam Kollam
21 (A7) Sri. Sreenath.N.S. aged 40/2021, S/o
S.Sadasivan, Nangelil House, BOC Road,
Perumbavoor, (A8) Sri.Lenin.G, S/o.M.Gopinathan,
Krishgiri, Kunnummel Kilimanoor. P.O,
Thiruvananthapuram and (A9) Smt.J.Baby, aged
49/2021. W/o.Sasidharan Pillai, Palliyadiyil House,
Venga.P.O, Sasthamkotta, Kollam. (respectively
while officiating as Managing Director, Division
Head, Chief Accounts Officer, Assistant Engineer,
Manager and Senior Superintendent respectively of
SIDCO, Thiruvananthapuram and (A3) Sri Jose
Punneli aged 61/2021,S/o Lonappan,
Punneliparambil House, Kallettumkara (A4)
Sri.P.L.Paulson, Punneliparambil, Kallettumkara
P.O, Thrissur and (A5) Sri. K. J Babu aged 54/2021,
S/o. Jose, Kalkuzhy House, Aloor P.O. Near St.Joseph
Church, Thrissur respectively being the allottees of 13
cents, 16 cents and 11 cents of Industrial plot
respectively in survey No.160/8 of Thazhekkad
Village in the Industrial Estate, Kallettumkara on
ORP (Out Rate Purchase) basis, for running the
industrial units in the year 1996; that due to idle
CRL.M.C.NO.7971 OF 2025 7
occupation of the land allotted on ORP basis to A3 to
A5 for a long period, resumption order was issued in
the year 2009; that due to criminal conspiracy
hatched between A1 and A3 to A5, the resumption of
land was kept in abeyance till 2015 and that as a
result of criminal conspiracy hatched between A2, A6
to A9 and A3 to A5, the industrial plot resumed on
18.03.2015 from A3, was re-allotted to him on
13.04.2016 and the industrial plot resumed on
29.04.2009 and 11.03.2015 from A4 was again re-
allotted to 13.04.2016 and the industrial plot
resumed on 29.04.2009 and 11.03.2015 from A5 was
again re-allotted to 13.04.2016 without changing the
enhanced land value vide proceeding No IE
(2)/KLRA/19834/96 issued by A2 on 13.04.2016,
which resulted in loss of Rs.2,66,09,591/- ultimately
to the Government. Thus as a result of criminal
conspiracy hatched between A1 and A3 to A5. A3 to
A5 was able to retain the plots allotted to them in the
industrial estate, Kallettumkara unauthorized for the
period from 2009 to 2015 and as a result of criminal
conspiracy hatched between A2, A6 to A9 and A3 to
A5, A3 to A5 was again re-allotted with the industrial
plot in Industrial Estate, Kallettumkara without
CRL.M.C.NO.7971 OF 2025 8
changing the enhanced land value even after the
resumption of the said plots in the year 2015 and
thereby A1, A2, A6 to A9 obtained undue pecuniary
advantage to A3 to A5, even though the non-
utilization of land from 1996 to 2016 and destroyed
the opportunity of new entrepreneurs and the
promotion of small scale industries in Kalletumkara
Industrial Unit by abusing the official position of A1,
A2, A6 to A9. The lack of spirit attracts the wilful
omission and abuse of official power on the part of
officials and thus committed the offence of criminal
misconduct and criminal conspiracy U/s 13(1) d r/w
13 (2) of PC Act 1988 and 120 (B) of IPC.
5) It is submitted that Kallettumkara Industrial
Estate Unit having 5 acres of land as its own and
managed by an Estate Manager who is the authority
for the day to day working of the estate. If a person
wants to start an industrial unit, after getting SSI
Registration number, he/she has to apply for
allotment of plot to the Managing Director, SIDCO in
form Appendix I after paying required fees. Land
allotment is executed on the basis of Out Right
Purchase Rule 1996. Accordingly he/she has been
allotted with required land by the authorities in form
CRL.M.C.NO.7971 OF 2025 9
Appendix II proceedings. The allottee shall pay all
taxes, cess, land revenue and other dues payable in
respect of the land from time to time as long as the
land is in his possession. All the formalities for the
transaction were made from the Head Office directly
and the price of the land will be fixed by the
Corporation (SIDCO) from time to time by collecting
the land value certificate from the Tahsildar of
concerned area. The general rule is that the allottee
has to start the industrial unit within one year from
the date of allotment of plot.He/she has to enter in to
an agreement in Stamp Paper in form Appendix III
with the Estate Manager SIDCO for effecting the
same. Corporation is having the power to terminate
the agreement and resume the land if the allottee
contravenes with any of the provisions of the Rules
or Agreement executed by him. If anybody wants to
change the line of production, then prior sanction
from the Head office SIDCO must be attained.
Likewise, if one wants to quit from the unit, he/she
can do the same after informing the authorities. If a
person fails to start the approved unit within the
stipulated time, the allotted land will be
automatically resumed by SIDCO. As per the existing
rules, it is not allowed to re allot the resumed plots to
the same party again and again. The lands allotted
in the same Industrial Unit were utilized and started
industry by the allottees except (A3), (A4) & (A5).
6) It is submitted that during the year 1996 (A3) Sri.
Jose Punneli, (A4) Sri. P.J.Paulson, and (A5) Sri. K.J.
Babu applied for the allotment of vacant lands on
outright Purchase Scheme basis for the establishment
of industrial units at the SIDCO Industrial Estate,
Kallettumkara respectively. As per the existing ORP
Rule, SIDCO, allotted 11, 16 & 13 cents of plots to K.J.
Babu, P.L.Paulson and to Jose Punneli Vide
proceedings Nos.IE(2)/KLR/019834/96 dated
02.12.1996, IE(2)/KLR/019834/96 dated 29.11.1996
and IE(2)/KLR/019833/96 dated 30.11.1996
respectively for starting small industrial units.
7) It is submitted that as per proceedings
No:IE(2)/KLR/019834/96 dtd.02.12.1996 13 cents of
land was allotted to (A3) by the SIDCO at Industrial
Estate Kallettumkara, Thrissur. Meanwhile, some
litigation filed by the existing occupants against
SIDCO and A3, A4 & A5 in the Hon. High Court of
Kerala. After the case was disposed, an agreement
was executed based on 'the Corporation's Rules for
CRL.M.C.NO.7971 OF 2025 11
Allotment of Sheds/Land in Industrial Estates in
Kerala on Outright Purchase Basis- 1996' on
05.02.2005 between (A3) and the then Manager,
SIDCO Kallettumkara Industrial Estate on behalf of
SIDCO, Though the land was allotted on 2.12.1996,
(A3) was not ready to start any industry and had not
complied the rules and conditions of SIDCO and had
not utilized the land allotted to him, after the lapse of
18 years, SIDCO issued proceedings Order
No:IE(2)/KLR/19832/96 dtd.16.03.15, for the
resumption of allotted land and resumed by the then
Estate Manager, SIDCO Industrial Estate,
Kallettumkara as per Mahazar No:IE/KR/101/96-97
dtd. 18.03.15.
8) It is submitted that due to non compliance of Out
Right Purchase Rule and non-utilization of allotted
land, a Resumption Order No:IE(2)/KLR/19834/96
dtd.18.04.09 was issued against (A4) and the land
was resumed by the then Estate Manager, SIDCO
Industrial Estate, Kallettumkara per as Mahazar
No:IE/KLR/19834/96 dtd.29.04.09. But Saji Basheer
(A1) then Managing Director, SIDCO,
Thriruvananthapuram issued kept in abeyance letter
No:IE(2)/KLR/19834/96 dtd.27.06.09 of resumption
order for a period of 3 months affirming that if he had
not commenced the industry within this period the
aforesaid resumption order would come in to force.
But, he had failed to comply that direction for a
prolonged period in the pretext of many short
comings. As per Order Nos. IE(2)/KLR/19833/96
dated 27.06.2009, IE (2)/KLR/19834/96 dated
27.06.2009 and IE(2)/KLR/19832/96 dated
27.06.2009 of the Kerala Small Industries
Development Corporation Ltd., resumption of that
unit was kept in abeyance for a period of 3 months
based on the undertaking agreement executed by
(A3), power of attorney holder for (A4) on
13.06.2009. But he had again failed to start any
industry, the Estate Manager had submitted a report
about the non-utilization of land and encroachments
by A4 vide No: IE/KR/100/96-97 dtd.12.02.13 to the
Managing Director, SIDCO. Accordingly, Resumption
Order No: IE(2)/KLR/19834/96 dtd.06.03.15 was
issued against him and the land was resumed by the
then Estate Manager, SIDCO Industrial Estate,
Kallettumkara as per MahazarNo:IE/KR/100/96-97
dtd.11.03.15.
9) After this, on the basis of the Resolution Number-
CRL.M.C.NO.7971 OF 2025 13
276/OT4 dated 02/03/2016 of Board of Directors of
SIDCO, a committee was constituted, to reallot the
resumed land to the same parties by fixing area to
each alottee. The committee included A2, A6, A7, A8 &
A9 where A2, A6, A8 and A9 are the petitioners. As a
result of their conspiracy, on 13.04.2016 a letter, was
sent to (A3) (A4) & (A5) respectively to submit a
project report for intending to start industry, sketch
and Identity card with photo. After inspecting the site,
the committee submitted the report to re allot these
plots, to the persons concerned which are against the
guidelines of ORP Rules. Subsequent to it, a personnel
hearing notice was issued to (A3), (A4) & (A5) on
05.05.2016 and they were summoned for a meeting, at
the Head Office on 10.05.2016. Only (A3) had attended
the meeting and decided to re allot the plot to (A3).
After the registration of Vigilance Case, the Allotment
Committee dated 27/2/2017, recommended to resume
the land from A3, A4 & A5. Till that date the land was
kept idle by the accused A3, A4 & A5.
10) It is submitted that (A3) (A4) & (A5) had no
intention to start any industry in their allotted areas. It
was specified in the letter submitted to the Head IE
Division, SIDCO Tvpm by the Manager SIDCO
Kallettumkara on 17.04.2013 that they were
attempting to resale the allotted area in higher price
and they were dealing real estate business. In spite of
various reports had been received from the Manager
SIDCO Kallettumkara, no action was taken by the head
quarter of SIDCO till 2015. It is seen that (A3) (A4) &
(A5) had tried to get another vacant land and
submitted the documents and remitted application fee.
11) It is submitted that Saji Basheer (A1), the then MD
of SIDCO as the mastermind behind the foul play,
conspired with A3, his brother (A4) and his brother in
law (A5). Their intention was to deliberately delay all
dealings by creating various obstacles, without
initiating any industry in the allotted area, while
seeking interested parties to repurchase their allotted
lands at a higher rate, until the board meeting held on
12.01.2015. As per the conditions of the allotment order
and the rules for allotment of shed/land on an ORP
basis in the Industrial Estate, the allottee was required
to start operations in the allotted plot within one year
from the date of allotment.
12) It is submitted that, the process of re-allotment of
land following the resumption in 2015, by violating the
guidelines cited in "The Corporations Rules for
Allottment of Sheds/Land in Industrial Estates in Kerala
on Outright Purchase Basis-1996" was done by (A1) MD
of SIDCO, (A2) Sri.S Ajithkumar, Division Head of
Industrial Infra structure division, (Petitioner) (A6)
Sri.Sasi Karmal, Chief Accountant Officer, (Petitioner),
(A7) Sreenath N S, Assistant Engineer, (A8) Sri.Lenin G,
Manager IE Division (Petitioner) and (A9) Smt.J Baby,
Senior Superintendent (Petitioner), these acts constitutes
an offence under section 13 (1) d of PC Act 1988. After
two instances of resumption, the above officials
conspired with (A3), (A4) & (A5), to reallot the land to
the same individual who had no genuine intention of
establishing any industry, thereby committing an
offence under section 120(B) of the IPC.
13) It is submitted that as per the Land value Certificate,
No. KDis-20834/2012/C6 for Kallettumkara Village
survey No.611/8 issued by the Tahasildar
Mukundapuram to Estate Manager SIDCO
Kallettumkara on 20.06.2013, the land value of one Are
in the Industrial Estate is Rs. 12,35,000/-. But the
decision to re-allot the land to (A3), and keeping the land
in the possession of (A4) & (A5) till 2017 caused loss to
the Government Exchequer. Thus the calculated loss is
Rs.2,66,09,591/-
CRL.M.C.NO.7971 OF 2025 16
14) It is submitted that the petitioners, (A2) Sri.S
Ajithkumar, Division Head of Industrial Infra structure
division, (A6) Sri.Sasi Karmal, Chief Accountant Officer,
(Petitioner), (A8) Sri.Lenin G, Manager IE Division
(Petitioner) and (A9) Smt.J Baby, Senior Superintendent
(Petitioner) after site visit, recommended continuing the
land in the possession of (A3), (A4) and (A5) after the
second resumption of land held on 2015 and a site visit,
and it was the result of a conspiracy between them. The
Petitioners, Sri.S.Ajithkumar, (A2) Division Head of
Industrial Infra structure division, Sri.Sasi Karmal, (A6)
Chief Accountant Officer, (Petitioner), Sri.Lenin G. (A8)
Manager IE Division (Petitioner), Smt.J Baby, (A9)
Senior Superintendent were the members of the
committee constituted (Sl.No.1, 2, 4 & 6 respectively),
vide Proceedings No.IE (2)/KLRA/19834/96 dated
13.04.2016, issued by the Head of the Infrastructure
Division, SIDCO, for the allotment of the alleged land to
A3, A4 and A5. It is evident vide the minutes of meetings
held on 10.05.2015.
15) It is submitted that it is evident from the Witness
Statements and Documents that the Petitioners had
conspired each other for the illegal pecuniary gain to A3,
A4 & A5. Although there are no evidences of any illegal
CRL.M.C.NO.7971 OF 2025 17
pecuniary advantage to the petitioners, the Criminal
Misconduct of the petitioners lead to the illegal
pecuniary advantage to A3, A4 & A5 without any
element of public interest is proved and amounts to
criminal misconduct under section 13(1) (d) (iii) of the
Act.
16) It is submitted that after the completion of the
investigation, prosecution sanction from Competent
Authority, was procured and the charge sheet of the case
was submitted before the Hon'ble Court of Enquiry
Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur. The role of
the petitioners, S Ajithkumar, Division Head (A2), K Sasi
Karmel, Chief Accounts Officer (A6), Lenin G, Manager
(A8) and Smt.J Baby, Senior Superintendent (A9) as well
as other accused (A1, A3, A4, A5) are proved beyond any
shadow of doubt."
5. At the time of admission of this Crl.M.C. on
11.09.2025, and again during final hearing, the learned counsel
for the petitioners specifically pointed out that, as per Annexure
VII order in Crl.M.C.No.2195 of 2025, this Court quashed the
case against the 7th accused. It is further submitted that the
CRL.M.C.NO.7971 OF 2025 18
footing of the 7th accused is similar to that of the petitioners
herein, and therefore, the petitioners are also entitled to
quashment in respect of the same crime. Apart from that, it is
submitted that the petitioners are neither responsible nor
instrumental for the delay in receiving the lands allotted to
accused Nos.3 to 5, nor for the re-allotment of the land to
accused No.3. According to the learned counsel for the
petitioners, as per the final report, the only irregularity to be
found in the matter of handing over the plots to accused Nos.3,
4 and 5 without measuring the same and determining the
boundaries, which had to be attributed to the Managing
Director, who had already retired. It is also submitted that the
delay in materialising the allotment in favour of accused Nos.3,
4 and 5 stood condoned, as the entire issue had been enmeshed
in litigation. In Ground No.C of this petition, it is stated that, as
per Annexure VI judgment rendered in the writ petition filed by
accused Nos.3 to 5, this Court allowed the writ petition and set
aside the orders impugned therein. The concluding portion of
the said judgment reads as follows:
"It is needless to say that the issue as afore
impelled by the petitioners will also require to be
considered by the competent Authority in terms of
law, since it will not be justified for this Court to deal
with it in any manner. I, therefore, leave it to the
petitioners to raise this issue also before the 1 st
respondent, who shall deal with it in such manner as
is apposite in terms of law."
Similarly, in Ground No.D of this petition, it is stated that, as
per Annexure VII order, this Court quashed the case against the
7th accused. It is further contended that the footing of the 7 th
accused is similar to that of the petitioners herein, and
therefore, the petitioners are also entitled to quashment in
respect of the same crime.
6. Whereas, the learned Special Public Prosecutor
would submit that, as far as Annexure VII order is concerned,
CRL.M.C.NO.7971 OF 2025 20
the case of the 7th accused was quashed by this Court on finding
that the 7th accused was not a signatory to the decision.
Therefore, the reason for quashment of the case of the 7 th
accused, as such, could not be applicable to the petitioners, who
are signatories to the decision to re-allot the plots to accused
Nos.3 to 5 without enhancing the ORP rate.
7. The learned Special Public Prosecutor also taken
attention of this Court to Annexure IV proceedings dated
13.04.2016, whereby a decision was taken by accused Nos.2,6, 8
and 9 to re-allot the land resumed from Sri.Jose Punnell,
Sri.K.J.Babu and Sri.P.L.Paulson, accused Nos.3 to 5. That
apart, Annexure V contains the minutes of the allotment
committee, of which the petitioners were members, and in
terms of which, the committee decided to re-allot the plots to
accused Nos.3 to 5. It is further submitted that, as seen from
the statement of CW7 at page 53 of this Crl.M.C., who was the
CRL.M.C.NO.7971 OF 2025 21
Estate Manager, SIDCO Industrial Estate, even ignoring his
report, the plots earlier allotted to accused Nos.3 to 5 were
taken back in the year 2015, and that a committee was
thereafter formed to consider the re-allotment of the plots to
themselves. According to CW7, he had submitted several
reports to the Managing Director, indicating that the plots
allotted to accused Nos.3 to 5 were liable to be taken back, as
they had not commenced any business therein.
8. CW8, the former Managing Director of SIDCO also
given statement that he held the charge of Managing Director,
SIDCO from 14.09.2015 to 12.06.2016 and he was aware about
the allotment of property/plots to accused Nos.3 to 5 and
thereafter, an internal report of VACB was obtained under the
Right to Information Act and submitted before SIDCO. Based
on the report, accused Nos.3 to 5 were called for hearing, upon
verification of the file, it was found that no formal direction had
been issued to SIDCO by its Administrative Department. In
those circumstances, after taking note of the facts, he had
recorded in his own handwriting in May 2016, that directions
were to be obtained from the Government and the Director of
Vigilance. It is further seen from file No.IE(2)/KLR/019834/96,
at page 72, paragraph 275, that an employee had written this as
an oral direction of the Managing Director. According to CW8,
no oral direction was ever issued by him, and he used to record
his directions in the file or send them by email. He further
stated that, in the circumstances, he was not inclined to re-allot
the plots to accused Nos.3 to 5.
9. On perusal of Annexure IV proceedings, it is relevant
to note that, in the proceedings dated 13.04.2016, accused Nos.
2, 6, 8 and 9, along with the 7 th accused and one Jestin Jose, are
shown as the participants. However, this Court quashed the
case of the 7th accused as per Annexure VII order, mainly for the
reason that the 7th accused did not sign in the minutes of
meeting on 13.04.2016 and had no role in the alleged
conspiracy. But, the case against the petitioners herein is that
they conspired together and re-allotted the plots to accused
Nos.3 to 5. It is discernible, as reported by the Investigating
Officer and as seen from the prosecution records, that as per the
Land Value Certificate No.KDis-20834/2012/C6 of
Kallettumkara Village, the property situated in Survey No.611/8
was valued in 2013 at Rs.12,35,000/- per Are. However, the
property was allotted without realising any amount, and
accused Nos.3 to 5 retained the plots from 1996 to 2015 till the
date of resumption without pyment of ORP rate thereby, a loss
of Rs.2,66,09,591/- was to the Government Exchequer.
10. Even though it is argued by the learned counsel for
the petitioners that as per Annexure VI judgment, Annexure IV
herein and other decisions were set aside, in fact, in Annexure
VI judgment, there is no reference as regards to Annexure IV
herein. Here, the specific allegation of the prosecution is that,
in the year 1996, 3 plots having 13, 16 and 11 cents of Industrial
CRL.M.C.NO.7971 OF 2025 24
Estate, Kallettumkara were allotted to accused Nos.3 to 5 for
running industrial units therein. As a matter of fact, no
industrial unit started, though accused Nos.3 to 5 continued
possession of the same till 2015, since accused Nos.2 and 6 to 9
not taken any steps to get it resumed for non use. Similarly, the
plots allotted to accused Nos.3 and 4, which were resumed on
18.03.2015 and 11.03.2015 respectively, were re-allotted to them
on 13.04.2016. It is not in dispute that plots were allotted in the
year 1996 to accused Nos.3 to 5 for the purpose of running
industrial units subject to payment of money under ORP, i.e.,
Outright Purchase.
11. In the instant case, even though plots were in
possession of accused Nos.3 to 5 from 1996 to 2015, they did not
pay any ORP rate. While so, there was re-allotment of the same
plots on 13.04.2016 without fixing any amount towards the
enhanced land value vide proceedings No.IE
(2)/KLRA/19834/96 and also without taking any decision to
CRL.M.C.NO.7971 OF 2025 25
collect the ORP from accused Nos.3 to 5. Thus, a loss of
Rs.2,66,09,591/- sustained to the Government. It is true that,
even though in Annexure IV proceedings dated 13.04.2016,
whereby a Committee was constituted to decide upon re-
allotment of plots to accused Nos.3 to 5, the 7 th accused was not
a signatory to the meeting, whereas the other members, viz., the
petitioners, are signatories to the meeting. It is true that as per
Annexure III, as on 02.03.2016, decision was taken by the 276 th
meeting of the Board of Directors of SIDCO to implement the
recommendations contained in the report of the Vigilance and
Anti-Corruption Bureau, dated 19.10.2013 and the report
referred therein is produced as Annexure II. Annexure IV is the
decision taken by Sri.K.Sasi, Chief Finance Officer, Sri.S.Ajith
Kumar, Head, Industrial Infrastructure Division, Sri.G.Lenin,
Manager, Industrial Infrastructure Division and Smt.J.Baby,
Dealing Official of the Industrial Estate, who are the petitioners
herein and the decision was to re-allot the plot to Sri.Jose
CRL.M.C.NO.7971 OF 2025 26
Punneli, the 3rd accused, who participated in the hearing on
10.05.2016 and the decision was to resume the plots from
accused Nos.4 and 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners
would submit that merely because a decision was taken by the
Committee as Annexure V to re-allot the plot to accused No.3,
no loss sustained at their instance and it was decided earlier
also to re-allot the plots.
12. On perusal of Annexure IV, it is clear that a
Committee of the petitioners including the 7 th accused was
formed as it states that "in order to take a suitable decision
regarding the same a Committee is constituted". Thus, the
purpose of appointment of the Committee itself is to take
suitable decision regarding re-allotment of the land resumed
from Annexure V after fixing the limit of allotted land and based
on Annexure III decision. Thus, the Committee, which was
constituted to take a suitable decision regarding re-allotment,
should have addressed the issue regarding realisation of ORP
CRL.M.C.NO.7971 OF 2025 27
for the period of occupation of the plots by accused Nos.3 to 5,
and also the fixation of ORP while re-allotting the plots. But a
decision was taken by the Committee to re-allot the plot to
accused No.3 without fixing the ROP or without imposing any
condition to realise the ORP amount. Thus, the prosecution
allegation regarding the monetary loss caused to SIDCO, at the
instance of the petitioners, would disclose the commission of
the offences alleged against them. The case of the 7 th accused
was quashed by this Court on the ground that he had not
participated in the Annexure III meeting. However, for the
same reason, the case of the petitioners herein could not be
quashed.
13. It is well-settled that, while considering a petition for
quashment under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the Court has no power to
conduct a full fledged trial on appreciation of the evidence, as
permissible after recording evidence and its jurisdiction is
confined to examining the prosecution materials to determine
whether a prima facie case is made out, or whether there is an abuse
of process or any other circumstance warranting interference. In the
instant case, it is evident that the petitioners' role in the allegations,
as well as the loss caused to the Government, can be prima facie
inferred from the materials produced. In such circumstances, the
prayer for quashment would necessarily fail.
14. In such view of the matter, the quashment is liable to fail.
Accordingly, this Crl.M.C. stands dismissed with direction to the
Special Court to go for trial after framing charge against the accused
persons.
The interim order of stay granted by this Court, stands
vacated.
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the
Special Court, for information and further steps.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
Bb
CRL.M.C.NO.7971 OF 2025 29
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 7971 OF 2025
PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES
Annexure I TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT DATED
2.3.2020 IN C.C.NO.4/2022 BEFORE THE
ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE,
THRISSUR WHICH AROSE FROM CRIME NO.VC.
39/2016/TSR/2016 OF VACB, THRISSUR
ALONG WITH RELEVANT DOCUMENTS
Annexure I(a) TRUE COPY OF F.I.R.NO.39/16/TSR OF
VACB, THRISSUR DATED 5.9.2016 ALONG
WITH F.I.S.
Annexure II TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 19.10.2013 BY
THE POLICE SUPERINTENDENT OF VIGILANCE
& ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, CENTRAL ZONE,
ERNAKULAM
Annexure III TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF
MINUTES OF THE 276TH MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF SIDCO ON 2.3.2016
ACCEPTING ANNEXURE-II REPORT
Annexure IV TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS
NO.IE(2)/KLRA/19834/96 DATED 13.4.2016
OF THE HEAD, INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE
DIVISION BY WHICH THE COMMITTEE WAS
CONSTITUTED BY SIDCO
Annexure V TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED
10.5.2016 BY THE ALLOTMENT COMMITTEE,
SIDCO TO RE-ALLOT LAND TO ACCUSED A3
AND TO CONFIRM THE RESUMPTION OF LAND
TO ACCUSED A4 AND A5
Annexure VI TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 22.9.2021
IN W.P.(C)NO.15277/2017, 15278/2017 AND
15283/2017 BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
Annexure VII TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 28.5.2025 IN
CRL.M.C.NO.2195/2025 BY THE HON'BLE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
RESPONDNET'S ANNEXURES : NIL
