Kerala High Court
Anson Anokaran vs The State Of Kerala on 7 January, 2025
2025:KER:1014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 17TH POUSHA, 1946
CRL.MC NO.6071 OF 2023
AGAINST THE PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME NO.2/2018/REV/TSR DATED
06.02.2018 PENDING BEFORE THE COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER
AND SPECIAL JUDGE,(VIGILANCE), THRISSUR
PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:
ANSON ANOKARAN
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O.JOSE ANOKKARAN HOUSE, KUTTUR P.O., THRISSUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 680503
BY ADVS.
ASOK KUMAR K.P.
GENTLE C.D.
RESPONDENTS/STATE/1ST ACCUSED & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU SHORNUR
ROAD, THRISSUR, PIN - 680001
3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
THRISSUR CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680003
4 JAYASREE T
W/O.UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 45 YEARS,
ILAMKUTTIL HOUSE, PANAMUKKU, NEDUPUZHA P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680007
2025:KER:1014
2
Crl.M.C.No. 6071 of 2023
5 VENUGOPAL K.
S/O.SREEDHARAN NAIR, KUTTICHIRA HOUSE,
ERAVU P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680620
SMT REKHA S, SR PP
SRI A RAJESH, SPL PP (VIG)
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
05.12.2024, THE COURT ON 07.01.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:1014
3
Crl.M.C.No. 6071 of 2023
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No. 6071 of 2023
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of January, 2025
ORDER
The petitioner was a village man and the 4th respondent
was the Village Officer of Chiyyaram Village Office. One
Ramachandran had 2.02 Ares of land within the local limits of
that village. Mutation in respect of that property was effected
by altering the area as 2.87 Ares. The said property was
purchased in the joint name of the petitioner's wife and the 4th
respondent's husband on 10.04.2008 by virtue of Annexure A2.
Later, the half right of the 4th respondent's husband in the
property was purchased by the brother of the petitioner. In
turn, the property was sold on 28.01.2011 by virtue of
Annexure A5.
2. Alleging that the petitioner and the 4th respondent,
misusing their duties as public servants and with dishonest
intention of obtaining undue advantage, had effected mutation
adding more area and later purchased the said property, they
were charged with offences punishable under Sections 11 and
2025:KER:1014
13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and Section 120B of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860. Crime No.VC 2/2018 was registered against
them by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Thrissur.
After investigation, a final report was filed against them
charging them with the said offences. The petitioner has filed
this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 seeking to quash the F.I.R., the final report
and also the sanction for his prosecution granted by the 3 rd
respondent.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Senior Public Prosecutor as well as the learned Special
Public Prosecutor (Vigilance).
4. It is an indisputable fact that the petitioner was a
village man at the Chiyyaram Village Office during the period
when mutation was effected in respect of 2.87 Ares of land in
the name of Sri Ramachandran. The facts that the said property
was later purchased in the joint name of the petitioner's wife
and the 4th respondent's husband, whose half right was
purchased in the name of petitioner's brother, and the entire
2025:KER:1014
property was, in turn, sold to one Beena Sureshkumar as per
Annexure A5 are also not disputed. The allegation is that they
effected mutation for an increased extent with a view to
purchase the same and thereby to make themselves as undue
advantage. Violation of the procedure prescribed in the
Transfer of Registry Rules in regard to the mutation has also
been alleged.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that mutation was effected strictly in accordance with the rules
and the purchase of the property was made with all bonafides.
Even if there is a violation of the procedure prescribed for
effecting mutation, that shall not be a cause for criminal
prosecution. The learned counsel in that regard placed reliance
on Surendranath C. v. State of Kerala [2024(1) KLT 728].
It is further submitted that there has been inordinate delay in
according sanction for prosecution and for that reason itself the
final report is liable to be quashed. The property was sold to
Beena Suresh Kumar since the petitioner and his brother, who
are Christians, were unable to construct a building on the
property since it adjoins a temple premises. When no dishonest
2025:KER:1014
intention can be attributed on the part of the petitioner the
prosecution would only be a travesty of justice. Such a wasteful
exercise should necessarily be avoided. Accordingly, the
learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the final report
and further proceedings thereon are liable to be quashed.
6. The learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that
the materials collected by the prosecution sufficiently would
establish the dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner
and respondent No.4. The statement of witness No.2 in the final
report itself is enough to show the total disregard for the
Transfer of Registry Rules and dishonest intention on the part
of the petitioner and his co accused. This is not a case of
procedural violation but a clear case of abuse of the official
powers for garnering unjust enrichment. Accordingly, the
learned special Public Prosecutor would submit that this petition
lacks merits.
7. In Surendra Nath (supra), this Court held that
dishonest intention is a sine qua non to attract an offence under
Section 13(1)(b) of the PC Act. Acts of the accused which
violate the rules and departmental norms would not amount to
2025:KER:1014
criminal misconduct unless there was dishonest intention on his
part. The Apex Court in C.K Jaffer Sharief [(2013) 1 SCC
205] took the view that if in the process the rules of norms
applicable were violated or the decision taken shows an
extravagant display of redundance, that by itself would not
indicate that it was actuated by a dishonest intention. In order
to attract the offence, corrupt or illegal means and abuse of
position as a public servant must be proved.
8. From the statement of witness No.2, who was the
Senior Superintendent, Investigation and Audit at the
Collectorate, Thrissur, it is seen that the increase in the extent
of a land while effecting mutation is ordinarily ordered by the
Tahsildar and not by a Village officer. The statement also shows
that the files concerning the mutation effected in the name of
Sri.Ramachandran by modifying the extent of land from 2.02
Ares to 2.87 Ares do not contain any material to show that
public notices were even given in the above regard. Non-
compliance of the procedure is thus prima facie evident.
Of course, if that alone was the faulty act on the part of the
petitioner and the 4th respondent, the law laid down by the
2025:KER:1014
Apex Court in C.K Jaffer Sharief (supra) and by this Court in
Surendra Nath (supra) could have been relied upon in support
of their plea for quashing the final report.
9. After effecting mutation and allowing
Sri.Ramachandran to pay tax for 2.87 Ares of land, the said
property was purchased in the name of the wife of the
petitioner and the husband of the 4th respondent. That followed
purchase by the brother of the petitioner, the half right held by
the husband of the 4th respondent. Without much delay, the
entire property was sold out to a third party. The petitioner
has set forth a few grounds for justifying such transactions. The
petitioner may be able to raise those contentions in his defence
at the trial. The same cannot be considered at this stage so as
to quash the final report. Materials on records certainly indicate
dishonest intention in such transactions after allowing payment
of tax for a larger area to which the seller had no proprietary
title. Misuse of official power is also quite clear.
10. Whether the delay occasioned in according sanction
for prosecution by the competent authority caused prejudice to
the petitioner is a matter for consideration after the trial and
2025:KER:1014
not now. Therefore, the decisions relied on in that regard by
the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be countenanced
at this stage. The upshot is that the plea of the petitioner for
quashing the FIR, final report and sanction for prosecution lacks
merit. This petition is liable only to be dismissed.
Accordingly, this Crl.M.C is dismissed.
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE
dkr/PV
2025:KER:1014
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A-1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION
REPORT IN CRIME NO.02/2018/REV/TSR
DATED 06.02.2018 OF THE VIGILANCE &
ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU POLICE STATION
THRISSUR
Annexure A-2 TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED NO.
3007/2001 DATED 21.05.2001
Annexure A-3 TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED NO.
2532/2008 DATED 10.04.2008 OF SRO
THRISSUR.
Annexure A- 4 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.
2242/2010 DATED 16.06.2010 OF SRO,
THRISSUR
Annexure A-5 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.376/2011
DATED 28.01.2011 OF SRO, THRISSUR
Annexure A-6 TRUE COPY OF THE PROSECUTION SANCTION
ORDER NO. DCTSR/6552/2019-SS1 DATED
29.11.2022 OF 3RD RESPONDENT
Annexure A-7 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT NO.
03/2023 DATED 16.03.2023 IN CRIME NO.
02/2018/REV/TSR
Annexure A-8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO. SS1-
7596/2018 DATED 27.03.2018
Annexure A-9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. A1-
8495/2017 DATED 26.07.2017 ADDRESSED
TO 3RD RESPONDENT BY TAHASILDAR,
THRISSUR
Annexure A-10 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO.
KL08016002176/2020 DATED 23.06.2020
2025:KER:1014
Annexure A-11 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY
THE PETITIONER DATED 02.05.2018
Annexure A-12 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE
SUPREME COURT IN VINETH NARAYANAN AND
OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
[(1998) 1 SCC 226]
Annexure A-13 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE
SUPREME COURT IN MANSUKHLAL VITHALDAS
CHAUHAN V. STATE OF GUJARAT [(1997) 7
SCC 622 ]
Annexure A-14 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE
SUPREME COURT IN MAHENDRA LAL DAS V.
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS [(2002) 1 SCC
149]
Annexure A- 15 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE
SUPREME COURT IN RAMANAND CHAUDARI V.
STATE OF BIHAR 2002(1) SCC 153
