[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
P.Vasanthakumari vs The State Of Kerala Represented By The ... on 19 December, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 1722 OF 2025
CC Nos.24 AND 25 OF 2014 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL
JUDGE (VIGILANCE), KOZHIKODE
PETITIONER:
P.VASANTHAKUMARI,
AGED 65 YEARS, W/O. VASUDEVAN,
EDAMANDODIYIL HOUSE,
CHERUVANOOR AMSOM,
MUYITOTH P.O., NEW MAPPAYOOR,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673524.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.NIRMAL.S
SMT.VEENA HARI
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.
2 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695001.
3 PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.
4 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
VIGILANCE AND ANTICORRUPTION BUREAU,
KOZHIKODE UNIT, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673509.
5 PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 695001.
2025:KER:98257
W.P(Crl.).No.1722/2025 2
6 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673001.
SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI RAJJESH.A FOR VACB
SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA.S, FOR VACB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
11.12.2025, THE COURT ON 19.12.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:98257
W.P(Crl.).No.1722/2025 3
"C.R"
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
================================
W.P(Crl.) No.1722 of 2025
================================
Dated this the 19th day of December, 2025
JUDGMENT
This Writ Petition is at the instance of the 4 th accused in
C.C.No.24/2014 and C.C.No.25/2014 on the files of the Enquiry
Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Kozhikode. The reliefs
prayed for herein are as follows:
"a) Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to
Ext.P3 Sanction Order No. B3/20404/2002 dated 25-11-2013 issued by the 6th
respondent.
b) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to drop all further
proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3 Sanction Order as against the petitioner.
c) Dispense with translation of vernacular documents.
d) Issue such other writ, order or direction this Hon'ble Court deems fit to
grant in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well
2025:KER:98257
as the learned Special Public Prosecutor representing State of Kerala in
detail. Perused Ext.P3 order and the relevant materials, including the final
report produced by the writ petitioner.
3. The petitioner herein is the 4th accused in C.C.Nos.24
and 25 of 2014, on the files of Special Judge (Vigilance), Kozhikode.
Here the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under
Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (`PC
Act, 1988' for short) as well as under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 477A
and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) by the accused. This
crime was originally registered in the year 2002 as V.C.No.3 of 2002. The
prosecution allegation is that accused Nos.1 to 14, while working as
Assistant Teachers of Thodannur U.P School during the academic year
1995-96 and 1996-97, being public servants, abused their official positions
and committed criminal misconduct by hatching criminal conspiracy
among themselves. In furtherance of the said conspiracy, they forged and
falsified school records, made bogus admissions on the basis of forged
transfer certificates in respect of 56 students and marked false attendance
in the attendance register/registers so as to inflate the roll strength of the
2025:KER:98257
students of the above school with fraudulent intention to avoid division fall
and to retain the post of teachers causing financial loss to the Government.
In continuation of the said acts, the accused teachers had drawn salary,
which they were not entitled. According to the prosecution, Rs.3,09,130/-
as pay and allowances for 4 teachers, who were artificially retained by
reckoning bogus admission and Rs.510.50 by way of maintenance grant
allotted to Thodannur U.P.School. Thus a total amount of Rs.3,09,641/-
was alleged to be misappropriated by the accused.
4. Even though this crime was registered in the year 2002,
in respect of an occurrence that took place in the year 1997, the final report
was filed only in the year 2014 due to the delay in obtaining the FSL
report and other related documents to prove forgery and falsification as
alleged.
5. In this petition the prayer is to quash Ext.P3 sanction
issued by the sanctioning authority to prosecute the petitioner, who is the
4th accused in this case. According to the learned counsel for the
petitioner, as per Ext.P4 Government Order dated 08.11.1996, the
Government ordered to retain all aided teachers rendered surplus
2025:KER:98257
consequent on the division fall and reduction of posts during the staff
fixation of the current academic year, i.e 1996-1997. Therefore, none of
the offences would be attracted and the prosecution sanction issued is
erroneous and is to be interfered.
6. Whereas it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor
that, in this matter after framing charge the matter is scheduled for
examination of witnesses starting from 17.12.2025 and at this juncture in
order to stall the trial in a serious case, the petitioner has filed this petition
challenging the sanction which, in fact, was issued as early as on
25.11.2013, i.e, a period of 12 years before and, therefore, this Writ
Petition filed solely with intention of delaying the trial already scheduled,
lacks bona fides. That apart, on a perusal of Ext.P4, it could be seen that
the Deputy Director of Education, Kozhikode, issued Ext.P3 sanction after
verifying the prosecution records, applying her mind, on satisfying that the
prosecution of the accused persons, who had forged and falsified the
records for the purpose of misappropriating an amount of ₹3,09,641/-, was
necessary. Therefore, Ext.P3 sanction cannot be interfered with even on
merits.
2025:KER:98257
7. While appreciating the contentions raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, it is relevant to note that as per Ext.P4
Government Order the Government had issued order and thereby an
opportunity was given to the Headmasters/Headmistress' of the schools to
remove the forged admissions and also to avoid disciplinary actions.
However that Government Order would not save the criminal culpability
of the teachers including the petitioners, who willfully forged transfer
certificates and made admissions of bogus students with a view to retain
the teachers strength and thereby misappropriated Rs.3,09,641/- towards
the pay and allowances of the teachers and Rs.510/- towards the
maintenance grant of the school. At the outset, this Court has no hesitation
in holding that the challenge against Ext.P3 is not at all bona fide because
the same was raised just six to seven days before the commencement of
the examination of the witnesses, in a case where examination of witnesses
scheduled to commence from 17.12.2025 even though Ext.P3 was issued
12 years before. So, the prayers in the petition are much belated and the
same itself is a reason to deny the relief sought for.
8. Ignoring the delay, when considering the challenge
2025:KER:98257
against Ext.P3 on merits, apart from pointing out Ext.P4 Government
Order, nothing has been substantiated by the petitioner to show any
infirmity in Ext.P3 order of sanction.
9. It is settled law that while issuing sanction, the
sanctioning authority must apply its mind to the prosecution records after
verifying the same and form an opinion as to whether prosecution sanction
is to be given or not. The very intent of getting prosecution sanction is to
avoid false implication of innocent public servants in criminal cases.
However, that doesn't mean that when criminal culpability of public
servant was found by the Prosecution Sanctioning Authority on
verification of prosecution records and application of mind, interfering
with the said well reasoned order is unnecessary and counterproductive.
Applying the said legal principles, on a perusal of Ext.P3 order, it could be
gathered that the sanctioning authority carefully examined the materials
placed before her and, by applying her mind, she found that the allegations
therein made out the offences alleged warranting prosecution and
accordingly the sanction was issued. Therefore, Ext.P3 sanction order
doesn't suffer from any infirmity to interfere with the same as payed for.
2025:KER:98257
Thus none of the prayers in this Writ Petition are liable to be allowed.
10. In view of the matter, this Writ Petition (Crl.) would
necessarily fail and is accordingly dismissed.
11. The Special Court is specifically directed to complete the
examination of witnesses already started and dispose of the cases as
expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of three months from
the date of receipt of a copy of the same.
The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the
Special Judge (Vigilance), Kozhikode, for information and compliance.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE
rtr/
2025:KER:98257
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 1722 OF 2025
PETITIONER's EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT NO.07/2014
DATED 11-07-2014.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT NO.8/2014 DATED
11-07-2014.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SANCTION ORDER
NO.B3/20404/2002 DATED 25-11-2013.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS).377/96/G.EDN. DATED
08-11-1996.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.H2/35637/14
DATED 09-10-2014.
