Kerala High Court
Ranjith Pannackal vs State Of Kerala on 2 July, 2025
2025:KER:48151
CR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2025 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 672 OF 2025
CRIME NO.RC05(E)2010/2010 OF CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.08.2023 IN CC NO.2 OF 2012 OF
SPE/CBI COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/2ND ACCUSED:
RANJITH PANNACKAL
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O P K ITTUKUNJU, SREYAS, AYMANAM P O,
KOTTAYAM, KERALA, PIN - 686015
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.RAJEEV
SRI.V.VINAY
SRI.M.S.ANEER
SHRI.ANILKUMAR C.R.
SHRI.SARATH K.P.
SHRI.K.S.KIRAN KRISHNAN
SMT.DIPA V.
SHRI.AKASH CHERIAN THOMAS
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE&COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
2025:KER:48151
REPRESENTED BY STANDING COUNSEL,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
(CRIME NO. RC/05(E) 2010/CBI/TVM), PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
SPL PP CBI SREELAL .N.WARRIER,
SPL PP FOR VACB RAJESH.A,
SR. PP FOR VACB REKHA.S
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.07.2025, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5225/2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:48151
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2025 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 5225 OF 2025
CRIME NO.RC/05(E)/2010 OF CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC NO.2 OF 2012 OF SPE/CBI COURT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.2:
RENJITH PANNACKAL
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O P K ITTUKUNJU SREYAS AYMANAM P O
KOTTAYAM KERALA, PIN - 686015
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
SHRI.AKASH CHERIAN THOMAS
SMT.DIPA V.
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 CBI
REP. BY STANDING COUNSEL CBI HIGH COURT OF KERALA
(CRIME NO. RC/05(E) 2010/CBI/TVM), PIN - 682031
2025:KER:48151
OTHER PRESENT:
SPL PP SREELAL N.WARRIER,
SPL PP RAJESH .A, FOR VACB
SR. PP REKHA.S FOR VACB
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.07.2025, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.672/2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:48151
CRL.R.P.NO.672/2025
& CRL.M.C.No.5225/2025
5
CR
A.BADHARUDEEN, J.
================================
Crl.R.P.No.672/2025
and
Crl.MC.No.5225/2025
================================
Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2025
COMMON ORDER
Crl.Rev.Petition.No.672/2025 has been filed at the
instance of the second accused in C.C.No.2/2012 on the files of
the Special CBI Court, Thiruvananthapuram, challenging the
charge framed by the court against him for the offences
punishable under Sections 120B IPC r/w 11, 12, 13(2) r/w 13(1)
(a) 13(1) (d) and 14 of the Prevention of Corruption Act
(hereinafter referred as 'P.C. Act' for short).
2. Crl.M.C.5225/2025 is also one filed seeking
quashment of C.C.No.2/2012, at the instance of the same
petitioner/ 2nd accused.
Crl.Rev.Petition.No.672/2025
3. At the time of argument, the learned counsel for
2025:KER:48151
the revision petitioner pointed out that the court charge under
challenge in this revision is not properly framed. After reading
the charge, it is submitted that charge was framed clubbing all
the offences together, against the mandate of law. Therefore,
framing of charge is not in accordance with law and the same
requires interference. In this connection the learned counsel
for the petitioner placed decision of this Court in Joseph
Thomas v.State of Kerala [(2024) KHC 644], wherein this
Court considered the essentials to be stated in a court charge
in para Nos.7, 9, and 10 and the same are extracted as under;
" 7. Section 211 of the Cr.P.C. deals with
contents of charge and Section 212 of the Cr.P.C.
deals with particulars as to time, place and person to
be included in the charge. As per Section 213 of the
Cr.P.C., the manner of committing offence must also
be stated. Charge also should contain the offence
punishable as per Section 214 of the Cr.P.C. Section
228 of the Cr.P.C. deals with framing charge in
sessions case and Section 240 of the Cr.P.C. deals
with framing of charge in warrant trial.
9. As per Section 218 of the Cr.P.C., for
every distinct offence, of which any person is
accused, there shall be a separate charge, and every
such charge shall be tried separately, subject to
2025:KER:48151
Sections 219, 220, 221 and 223 of the Cr.P.C. As per
Section 211(6) of the Cr.P.C., the charge shall be
written in the language of the court.
10. Going by Annexure A4, charge framed
clubbing all the offences together without framing
distinct charge for distinct offences. Charge also
framed in Malayalam language. In the decision in
V.C. Shukla v. State through C.B.I. reported in [1980
Supp SCC 92] in page 150, the Apex Court observed
that the purpose of framing a charge is to give
intimation to the accused of clear, unambiguous and
precise notice of the nature of accusation that the
accused is called upon to meet in the course of trial.
4. Adverting the ratio of the above decision with
reference to Sections 211 to 214 of the Cr.P.C and the pari
materia provisions, viz., sections 234 to 237 of 'The Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita' ('BNSS' for short) 2013, in the
instant case all the offences together charged, mentioning
seven instances without clarity. It appears that the charges
framed is not in accordance with law. Therefore, the court
charge under challenge which is not proper, would require
interference.
5. Holding so, this criminal revision petition is allowed,
2025:KER:48151
and Annexure A3 charge is set aside. The matter is remanded
back to the Special CBI court, Thiruvananthapuram to frame
proper charge afresh for each distinct offence after following
the ratio in Joseph Thomas case (supra) in its letter and spirit
in tune with the mandate of Section 234 to 237 of BNSS and
then proceed with trial.
6. Coming to Crl.M.C No.5225/2025, even though the
learned counsel for the petitioner argued to quash the final
report, the same is opposed by the learned standing counsel
for CBI. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted
that, in an earlier occasion Crl.Rev.Petition Nos. 854, 716 and
856/2024 at the instance of the petitioner herein were
considered by this Court and passed a common order on 05 th
November 2024, whereby an application filed under Section
239 Cr.PC in C.C.No.2/2012(the present crime) and two other
crimes were dismissed by this Court. On perusal of the order,
in para Nos. 11 to 14, this Court discussed the facts of the case
and considered the plea raised under Section 239 Cr.PC and
finally dismissed the same. The observations in para Nos. 11 to
14 are extracted hereunder:
2025:KER:48151
"11. Having heard the learned counsel appearing
for the respective parties, this Court finds little
merit in the instant revision petitions. It is true
that the acceptance of a valuable thing without
consideration has to be established to drive
home an offence under Section 11 of the P.C.
Act. However, it is not the requirement of law to
adduce positive and specific evidence
pinpointing acceptance, by documentary
evidence. Rather, the same would be practically
difficult, if not impossible. The requirement of
law is only to the effect that the factum of
acceptance of valuable thing by the public
servant has to be established beyond reasonable
doubt, by adducing such evidence to the
satisfaction of the Court, which may be even
circumstantial, answering the legal requirements
thereof. It has been held by a five judges bench
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, recently in
Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of
N.C.T. of Delhi) [(2023) 4 SCC 731] that in
cases where direct evidence is not available, it is
permissible to draw an inferential deduction of
the culpability/guilt of the public servant. Of
course, this judgment was rendered in the
context of an offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)
(d), r/w Section 13(2). However, the principles
laid down therein should also apply to an offence
under Section 11 as well, inasmuch as the
requirement of proof regarding acceptance is a
2025:KER:48151
common thread which runs through both the
offences under Sections 7 and 11.
12. Coming to the facts, the existence of a
ledger seized from the petitioner's custody is not
disputed. It is the prosecution case that such
ledger contains entries indicating payment to
the 1st accused/public servant by the firm run by
the petitioner and Johnson Varkey [A3 in
C.C.No.2 and 3 of 2012]. This piece of evidence
is capable of taking the prosecution case a long
way in its endeavour to prove acceptance of
bribe, at the hands of the first accused/public
servant, provided such ledger, as also, the
entries therein are proved in evidence, in
accordance with law. A submission made by the
learned Special Public Prosecutor is quite
significant in this regard. According to the
learned Special Public Prosecutor, fake
certificates were issued by the bank indicating
that loans were granted to the
students/candidates aspiring education abroad;
whereas, as a matter of fact, no such loans were
given, which fact has been spoken to by the
superior officers of the 1st accused, on the basis
of records. If the above submission is correct and
established in evidence, a clear abuse of official
position by the 1st accused is explicit. The
availability of evidence regarding issuance of
fake certificates to students/candidates and the
2025:KER:48151
availability of the ledger containing entries
regarding payment of money to A1 is quite
sufficient to arrive at a satisfaction regarding the
existence of a prima facie case constituting the
offences alleged by the prosecution. The dearth,
if any, of a direct evidence can be supplied by
circumstances, or by inferential deductions to be
made from the available evidence and
circumstances, as held in Neeraj Dutta (supra).
This Court, therefore, cannot vouch the
submission that there exists no prima facie
material to prove the acceptance of the valuable
thing without consideration by the first accused
to constitute an offence under Section 11.
13. Coming to the judgment in C.C. No.2/2011,
this Court would endorse the submission made
by the learned Special Public Prosecutor. It may
be true that the facts are similar. However, it is
on the basis of the evidence produced in that
case that the learned Special Judge arrived at a
conclusion that the offence under Section 11 as
against the 1st accused could not be proved. It is
also correct that learned Special Judge frowned
upon the ledger. However, the said judgment
cannot be propounded as a legally binding
document, so as to preclude and prevent the
prosecution from prosecuting a similar case, or
for that matter, to claim discharge under Section
239 Cr.P.C. As held in Captain Manjit Singh
2025:KER:48151
Virdi (Retd.) v. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf
and others [2023 KHC 6592], the truthfulness,
sufficiency and acceptability of the material
produced can be done only at the stage of trial,
as rightly taken note of by the Special Judge in
the impugned order. At the stage of considering
a discharge petition, the Court has to proceed on
the assumption that the material produced by
the prosecution is true, as held in State of
Karnataka v. M.R.Hiremath V. [(2019) 7 SCC
515]. At any rate, the findings in judgment in
C.C. No.2/2011 cannot bind the prosecution in a
different set of cases, even though the facts may
be similar, more or less. At any rate, the same,
by itself, offers no ground to seek discharge.
14. That apart, it is not correct to state that none
of the witnesses have spoken about the payment
of money by the petitioner and Johnson Varkey
[A3 in C.C.No.2 and 3 of 2012] to the 1st
accused. Witness no.8 in C.C.No.3/2012,
Mrs.Annu Korah, would state that an amount of
Rs.2,23,700/- was paid to A1 on different dates
by the said accused persons. Besides, she also
spoke about cash voucher of Rs.56,000/-,
Rs.75,600/-, Rs.30,000/-, etc. It is therefore
incorrect to state that no witness have spoken
about the payment of money to A1 by the
petitioner and Johnson Varkey [A3 in C.C.No.2
and 3 of 2012]."
2025:KER:48151
Thereafter, this Court in para No.15 held as under:
"15. In the circumstances, these Criminal
Revision Petitions will stand dismissed. In view of
the fact that the above Calendar Cases are of
the year 2012, learned Special Judge is directed
to schedule the same for trial and to dispose of
the same as expeditiously as possible."
In this Crl.M.C. the contention raised by the 2 nd accused is that
he has been roped in this case alleging conspiracy which is
punishable u/s 120B IPC. As the 1st accused is no more, the
offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act would not lie
against him. In such circumstances petitioner submitted an
application before the Special Court to send back the case
from the Special Court to the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court.
The Special Court as per order dated 04.02.2025, rejected the
said prayer, holding that the offences under the Prevention of
Corruption Act r/w Section 120B of IPC can be tried by the
Special Court alone.
7. On perusal of the prayer in Crl.M.C., the contention
is unsustainable in view of the earlier direction of this Court
2025:KER:48151
extracted in para No.15 as above; as the said order is not put
under challenge and the same has become final. Thus this
Crl.M.C. deserves dismissal.
In the result, Crl.M.C.No.5225/2025 stands dismissed
while allowing Crl.Rev.Pet.No.672/2025 as indicated above.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
rkr
2025:KER:48151
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure-I A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED
04.02.2025 IN CC NO 2/2012 ON THE FILE OF
SPECIAL JUDGE FOR THE TRIAL OF CBI CASES,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Annexure II ORDER DATED 5.11.2024 IN CRL R.P NO.856/2024
OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT
Annexure III ORDER FRAMING CHARGE DATED 4.08.2023 IN C.C
NO.2/2012 ON THE FILE OF SPECIAL JUDGE
SPE/CBI THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
2025:KER:48151
APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 672/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure-I THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
RC05(E)2010 CBI TVM NOW PENDING AS C.C
NO.2/2012 ON THE FILES OF THE SPECIAL COURT
FOR THE TRIAL OF CBI CASES,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Annexure-II THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED
05.11.2024 IN CR.R.P NO.716/2024 AND
CONNECTED CASES
Annexure-III CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER FRAMING CHARGE
DATED 4.08.2023 IN C.C.NO.2/2012 ON THE FILE
OF SPECIAL JUDGE SPE/CBI THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Annexure-IV THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED
04.02.2025 IN C.C NO.02/2012 ON THE FILES OF
THE SPECIAL COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF CBI CASES,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
