Kerala High Court
Bhadranandaji vs €¢ State Of Kerala, Represented By ... on 12 February, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 23RD MAGHA, 1946
CRL.MC NO.471 OF 2023
C.C.NO.10 OF 2022 ON THE FILE OF THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER &
SPECIAL JUDGE, MUVATTUPUZHA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:
A.K.THANKAPPAN
AGED 71 YEARS
S/O.KUNJAYYAN, ALAMITTATHU HOUSE,
EAST KADUNGALLOOR, ALUVA., PIN - 683102
BY ADVS.
V.N.SUNIL KUMAR
AKHIL P.C.
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031
SRI.REKHA S, SR. PP
SRI A RAJESH, SPL PP(VIG)
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
12.02.2025, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.2281/2023, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:12063
2
Crl.M.C Nos.471 of 2023 and 2281 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 23RD MAGHA, 1946
CRL.MC NO.2281 OF 2023
CRIME NO.03/2008 OF VACB, ERNAKULAM,
TO QUASH ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PENDING AGAINST THE
PETITIONER IN C.C NO.10 OF 2022 ON THE FILES OF COURT OF
COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE,
MUVATTUPUZHA(ERSTWHILE THRISSUR)
PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:
BHADRANANDAJI
AGED 37 YEARS
500B, KUNNUMPURAM LANE BAPPUJI NAGAR, PONGUMOODU,
SREEKARYAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695011
BY ADVS.
S.JAYANT
PRASANTH N.L.
JEREES J.
RESPONDENT/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERANAKULAM., PIN - 682031
2 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND
ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU
KALOOR, KOCHI., PIN - 682017
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
12.02.2025, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.471/2023, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:12063
3
Crl.M.C Nos.471 of 2023 and 2281 of 2023
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C No.471 of 2023 and 2281 of 2023
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of February, 2025
ORDER
Accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.10 of 2022 pending before
the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge,
Muvattupuzha filed, respectively, Crl.M.C.No.471 of 2023 and
Crl.M.C.No.2281 of 2023. C.C.No.10 of 2022 was instituted on
the final report filed in Crime No.VC/3/2018/CRE of Vigilance and
Anti-corruption Bureau, Central Range, Ernakulam. It is alleged
that the petitioners committed the offences punishable under
Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and offence under Rule 51(A) of
the Arms Rules, 1962 read with Section 30 of the Arms Act,
1959. The petitioners contend that the allegations in the final
report and the materials produced therewith would not make out
commission of the said offences and therefore the final report is
liable to be quashed, for which they have filed these petitions
invoking the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (Code).
2025:KER:12063
Crl.M.C Nos.471 of 2023 and 2281 of 2023
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in the
respective petitions and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
3. Facts constituting the alleged offences narrated in the
final report are extracted below:
"A1 while holding the charge of Additional District
Magistrate, Ernakulam during the period between 11.6.07
to 31.3.08, A2 had submitted an Arms application to the
District Collector, Ernakulam for obtaining Arms License for
a pistol suppressing the fact that A2 had applied for an
Arms License before the District Collector vide Application
No M3-57052/06 dated 27.12.06 and is pending at the
District Collectorate under A1 and A1 had submitted the
2nd Arms application filed by A2 during 2008 to the District
Collector on 29.3.08 recommending the Arms License
without obtaining the report of the Station House Officer of
the concerned Police Station, Forest and Revenue
Departments, within the stipulated time and not obtaining
two passport size photographs along with the application
and facilitated to grant of license by W-28 and issued the
license to A2 by A1 through his proceedings, abusing his
official position as a public servant without any public
interest, for obtaining pecuniary advantage to A2 and to
himself (A1) and hence A1 and A2 had committed offences
u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of Prevention of
Corruption Act 1988 and A2 had committed offences under
Rule 51 (A) of the Arms Rules 1962 r/w Sec. 30 of Arms
Act 1959."
2025:KER:12063
Crl.M.C Nos.471 of 2023 and 2281 of 2023
4. The learned counsel for the 1st accused would submit
that even accepting the allegations in the final report as true, no
offence described in Section 13(1)(d)(i) or (ii) is made
out. Unless dishonest intention to enure some valuable thing or
pecuniary advantage to the public servant or on his behest to
any other person is established, no such offence would be
attracted. In that regard, the learned counsel places reliance on
the decision of this Court in Surendranath C. v. State of
Kerala [2024 (2) KHC 134].
5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the
1st accused that the acts forming the basis of the accusation are
described in paragraph No.4 of the statement filed by the
investigating officer and even if those acts were committed by
the 1st accused that would not constitute an offence for, the
decision to grant arm license to the 2nd accused was taken by the
Collector. For easy understanding, paragraph No.4 in the
statement submitted in Crl.M.C.No.471 of 2023 by the
investigating officer (Deputy Superintendent of Police, VACB),
Central Range, Ernakulam is extracted below:
2025:KER:12063
Crl.M.C Nos.471 of 2023 and 2281 of 2023
"4. It is established in the investigation that A2 had applied
for Arms License at Ernakulam District Collectorate on
27.12.06 in the address Sri. Heimaval Maheswara
Bhadranandaji, Ravi Vihar, BTS Mamangalam Cross Road,
Edappally, which was processed as file No. M3-57052/06 at
M3 Section under A1. The application was processed and
sent to the Police, Revenue and Forest Departments for
getting the enquiry report. Police conducted enquiry and
reported on 18.9.07 by not recommending the license as
there was no threat against the life of the applicant. As
Revenue and Forest departments have not submitted their
reports in time, the said file was kept pending at District
Collectorate. After a lapse of one year, by suppressing the
above fact, A2 again gave an application on 18.2.08 in the
address Sri. Heimaval Maheswara Bhadranandaji, Karma
Mandir, Chaithram, Chittoor Road, Ernakulam and received
at the Collectorate vide file No.M3-10545/08 processed at
the M3 Section and sent to concerned officials of Revenue,
Police and Forest for enquiry report. Though the normal
period for obtaining enquiry report is 3 months as per Arms
Act, without waiting for enquiry reports from Police,
Revenue and Forest, the petitioner on the capacity of Addl.
District Magistrate, put up a favourable note as
"അപേക്ഷകൻ ശ്രീ.ഹിമപേൽ മപഹരവര ഭശ്രാനന്ദജിയെ എനിയ്ക ്
പനരിട്ട് അറിൊേുന്നൊളുും സൽസവഭാേിെുും ആണ്. മറ്റ്
അപനവഷണ റിപപാർട്ടുകൾ ഇല്ലായെ െയന്ന അപേക്ഷകന്
നൽകാേുന്നൊണ്" and submitted the file to the District
Collector in person on 29.3.08 and got the approval of the
then District Collector Sri. A.P.M. Muhammed Hanish IAS.
2025:KER:12063
Crl.M.C Nos.471 of 2023 and 2281 of 2023
Then the petitioner issued proceedings No.
DDis/10545/2008/M3 dtd, 31.03.2008 effecting the
issuance of license vide No. 1351/KNR for the possession of
one 0.32 bore pistol No. 101290 on producing the chalan
and photos, Since A1 was the supervisory head of M3
Section, who is authorized to get the enquiry report and to
put up the file with proper remarks, the District Collector did
not suspect the note put up by A1 and on seeing the
recommendation, he wrote 'granted' in the file and initialed.
As per the declaration in the application form, two photos
and chalan are to be enclosed along with the application,
but in this case the chalan and photos were produced after
granting the license and the Licence Book vide No.1351/KNR
was issued to A2. Later the arms application of A2 was got
enquired at Central Police Station and processed at the
office of the Commissioner of Police, Kochi City, The then
Asst. Commissioner of Police recommended to reject the
application since the applicant A2 was caught by police for
using beacon light on his car and his financial sources are
suspicious. In this file the then Commissioner of Police,
Kochi City has written a note on 16.5.08 that "give a strong
negative recommendation". Another witness, the SI of
Police, Central Police Station, also reported to the
Commissioner of Police, that A2 holder of Arms License
No.1351/KNR has involved in Cr.919/08 u/s 448, 506(a)
and 294 (b) of IPC of Central Police Station, and hence his
Arms License is to be cancelled. Accordingly the District
Collector issued proceedings on 19.05.2008 to cancel the
arms license No .1351/KNR of A2 Similarly the concerned
2025:KER:12063
Crl.M.C Nos.471 of 2023 and 2281 of 2023
Revenue officials such as Village officer of Elamkulam Village
and Tahsildar of Kanayannoor Taluk deposed by producing
their records that no recommendations to issue arms
licenses to A2 were given from their offices to the District
Collector. Also the concerned officials of Forest department
were stated that no enquiry report in to the file M3-
10545/08 dated 18.2.08 of the Dist. Collector has been sent
to that office. From the above, it is clear that there is no
enquiry report into file M3- 10545/08 dated 18.2.08 have
been received at Dist. Collectorate from Police, Revenue and
Forest Department. But as per records, A1 had put up a
note before the Dist. Collector recommending the arms
license to A2 and vide the proceedings No. D. Dis 10545/08-
M3 dated 31.3.08 of A1, he had issued Arms License
No.1351/KNR to A2 with validity in Kerala State wherein the
application, the validity column has not been filled by A2.
From these it is clear that A1 has abused his official position
for the pecuniary advantage to A2."
6. The learned counsel for the 2nd accused also raised
similar contentions. It is further submitted that the District
Collector on receipt of the application from the 2nd accused for an
arm license, called for a report from the Sub Inspector of Police
as insisted in Section 13(2) of the Arms Act. A report in that
regard was submitted by the Sub Inspector. When license was
issued after considering such a report, which alone was a
statutory requirement for issuance of an arm license,
2025:KER:12063
Crl.M.C Nos.471 of 2023 and 2281 of 2023
recommendation of the 1st accused was superfluous and the
same cannot be a basis for a prosecution for the offences alleged
against the 2nd accused. The learned counsel for the 2nd accused
also places reliance on the principle laid down in Surendranath
C. (supra).
7. Section 13 of the Arms Act reads as follows:
"13. Grant of licences.- (1) An application for the grant of
a licence under Chapter II shall be made to the licensing
authority and shall be in such form, contain such particulars
and be accompanied by such fee, if any, as may be
prescribed.
(2) On receipt of an application, the licensing authority
shall call for the report of the officer in charge of the nearest
police station on that application, and such officer shall send
his report within the prescribed time.
(2-A) The licensing authority, after such inquiry, if any, as
it may, consider necessary, and after considering the report
received under sub-section (2), shall, subject to the other
provisions of this Chapter, by order in writing either grant
the licence or refuse to grant the same:
Provided that where the officer in charge of the nearest
police station does not send his report on the application
within the prescribed time, the licensing authority may, if it
deems fit, make such order, after the expiry of the
prescribed time, without further waiting for that report.
(3) The licensing authority shall grant,-
2025:KER:12063
Crl.M.C Nos.471 of 2023 and 2281 of 2023
(a) a licence under section 3 where the licence is
required;
i. by a citizen of India in respect of a smooth bore gun
having a barrel of not less than twenty inches in length to
be used for protection or sport or in respect of a muzzle a
loading gun to be used for bona fide crop protection:
Provided that where having regard to the circumstances of
any case, the licensing authority is satisfied that a muzzle
loading gun will not be sufficient for crop protection, the
licensing authority may grant a licence in respect of any
other smooth bore gun as aforesaid for such protection, or
(ii) in respect of a firearm to be used for target practice
by a member of a rifle club or rifle association licensed or
recognised by the Central Government;
(b) a licence under section 3 in any other case or a
licence under section 4, section 5, section 6, section 10 or
section 12, if the licensing authority is satisfied that the
person by whom the licence is required has a good reason
for obtaining the same."
8. Going by Rule 2(5) of the Arms Rules, the District
Magistrate is the authority empowered to grant license in regard
to the arms mentioned in Item No.3 of Schedule II, which
includes a firearm. The licensing authority, therefore, is the
District Magistrate (District Collector).
9. As a matter of fact, the license in question was issued
by the District Collector. From the assertions in paragraph No.4
2025:KER:12063
Crl.M.C Nos.471 of 2023 and 2281 of 2023
of the statement of the investigating officer, it is seen that the
1st accused recommended issuance of a license to the 2nd
accused. The 1st accused jotted on the file that he personally
knew the 2nd accused, who was of good conduct and even
without obtaining other reports, a license could be granted. If
the 1st accused is the person who issued the license and the
aforementioned considerations actuated him to issue a license,
certainly the same would have amounted to abuse of his position
as a public servant, which would result in obtaining by the 2 nd
accused a valuable thing.
10. In the above regard, the learned counsel for the 2nd
accused raised a contention that a license would not amount to a
valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, and therefore, the same
would not attract a criminal offence as defined in Section
13(1)(d) of the PC Act. I am unable to accept the said
contention. Getting a firearm license certainly is a valuable thing,
although not a pecuniary advantage. Value of a thing cannot be
counted in terms of its monetary value alone. Something is
valuable or not depends upon its utility to the prospective user
concerned. Insofar as a person apprehending threat to his life
2025:KER:12063
Crl.M.C Nos.471 of 2023 and 2281 of 2023
possessing a firearm is quite valuable since it provides protection
to his life. Section 3 of the Arms Act prohibits possession of a
firearm without a license. Therefore, a firearm license which
enabled the 2nd accused to possess a firearm is certainly a
valuable thing for him. Hence issuance of such a firearm license
to the 2nd accused comes within the purview of 'valuable thing'
mentioned in Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.
11. Profile of this case as presented by the prosecution is
in a different perspective. The 1 st
accused was the Additional
District Magistrate in the office of the District Magistrate, who
issued license in favour of the 2nd accused. An Additional District
Magistrate does not have any empowerment in the matter of
grant of a firearm license where the District Magistrate is the
licensing authority. Section 13(2) of the Arms Act insists on
getting a report from the Station House Officer concerned before
issuance of a license. Of course, reports of the forest and
revenue officials may also be insisted. Nonetheless, the report in
question of the 1 accused, which according to the prosecution
st
resulted in granting license in favour of the 2nd accused, was only
recommendatory in nature. The District Magistrate (District
2025:KER:12063
Crl.M.C Nos.471 of 2023 and 2281 of 2023
Collector) being the statutory authority to decide whether or not
to grant a license, he was not bound to act upon the
recommendation of the 1st accused. Therefore, it cannot be said
that as a result of the recommendation by the 1st accused alone,
the license was granted. In that view of the matter, it is incorrect
to say that misuse of the official position by the 1st accused
resulted in the 2nd accused obtaining the license.
12. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Surendranath
C. (supra) considered as to the essential ingredients of the
offence of Section 13(1)(d). Paragraph Nos.21 and 22 of the
decision are extracted below.
"21. To attract the term 'abuse' as contained in Section
13(1)(d) of the PC Act, the prosecution has to establish
that the official concerned used his position for something
it is not intended. The sum and substance of the
discussion is that dishonest intention is the gist of the
offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.
22. The prosecution allegations, at the most, point to
certain irregularities committed in the tender process. The
prosecution also alleges conspiracy among the petitioners
and the other accused."
13. It can certainly be said that the 1st accused by making
the recommendation in question, committed a grave dereliction
2025:KER:12063
Crl.M.C Nos.471 of 2023 and 2281 of 2023
of duty. Such a recommendation is in gross violation of his duty
as a public servant. He should not have made such a
recommendation which was inferably actuated by his personal
affinity to the 2nd accused. A public servant is expected to take
decisions by virtue of his office dispassionately and unaffected by
any personal predictions. In that prospective, the
recommendation made by the 1st accused is tainted. But when
that amounted only to a violation of the rules and official
procedure, but does not amount to an act actuated by dishonest
intention inasmuch as his decision by its own could not result in
issuance of the license, an offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the
PC Act cannot be charged against him. Similar is in the case of
the offence under Section 30 of the Arms Act.
14. Accordingly, I hold that the charge against the
petitioners in the final report resulting in institution of C.C.No.10
of 2022 is groundless and no successive prosecution is possible
on the basis of that final report. Hence, further proceedings in
C.C.No.10 of 2022 will only be a wasteful exercise and abuse of
the process of the court. In the circumstances, said final report
is liable to be quashed.
2025:KER:12063
Crl.M.C Nos.471 of 2023 and 2281 of 2023
The Crl.M.Cs are allowed. The final report in C.C.No.10 of
2022 on the files of the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and
Special Judge, Muvattupuzha and the further proceedings
thereon are quashed.
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR
JUDGE
PV
2025:KER:12063
Crl.M.C Nos.471 of 2023 and 2281 of 2023
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC NO
2/2010 BEFORE THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER
&SPECIAL JUDGE, THRISSUR
Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY DISTRICT
COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM TO THE COMMISSIONER
OF POLICE KOCHI DATED 18-02-2008 AS
M3/10545/08
Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF UNDATED REPORT SUBMITTED
BY SUB INSPECTOR OF CENTRAL POLICE
STATION TO THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
KOCHI CITY
Annexure A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY
SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL POLICE
STATION BEFORE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDED OF
VSCB, ERNAKULAM DATED 10-09-2008
Annexure A5 A TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF DISTRICT
MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM DATED 19-05-2008
AS M3.29332/08
Annexure A6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN SC NO
169/2014 OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS COURT, NORTH PARAVUR
2025:KER:12063
Crl.M.C Nos.471 of 2023 and 2281 of 2023
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure1 CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CC
10/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE ENQUIRY
COMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE,
MUVATTUPUZHA.
