Kerala High Court
V.Subramanian vs Union Of India on 7 March, 2025
Author: K.Babu
Bench: K. Babu
W.P.(Crl.)No.1118 of 2024
1
2025:KER:19421
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WP(CRL.) NO. 1118 OF 2024
CRIME NO.RC 10 (A)/2004 OF CENTRAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION, KOCHI, Ernakulam
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 12.02.2007 IN SC
NO.35 OF 2007 OF SPECIAL C SPE/CBI-I&3 ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT COURT , ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/S:
V.SUBRAMANIAN
AGED 60 YEARS
4/330,SOUTH STREET, KARUPPATHUR, LALAPETTAI,
KRISHNARAYAPURAM TALUK, KARUR
DISTRICT,TAMILNADU, PIN - 639105
BY ADV V.SUBRAMANIAN(Party-In-Person)
RESPONDENT/S:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
STATES MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NORT BLOCK NEW
DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 THE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, MINISTRY
W.P.(Crl.)No.1118 of 2024
2
2025:KER:19421
OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS,
NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
3 THE SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE, SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW
DELHI, PIN - 110001
4 THE SECRETARY,
CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION (CVC), SATARKATA
BHAVAN, A-BLOCK, GPO COMPLEX, INA, NEW DELHI,
PIN - 110023
5 THE DIRECTOR,
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, (CBI) HEAD
OFFICE, PLOT NO.5-B,CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW
DELHI, PIN - 110003
6 THE DIRECTOR
DIRECTORATE OF PROSECUTION, CENTRAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION, HEAD OFFICE, PLOT NO.5-
B,9THFLOOR,CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI,
PIN - 110003
7 THE CHIEF VIGILANCE OFFICER(CVO),
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, HEAD OFFICE,
PLOT NO.5-B,9THFLOOR,CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD,
NEW DELHI, PIN - 110003
8 THE JOINT DIRECTOR AND HEAD OF ZONE,
CBI CHENNAI ZONE, CENTRAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION,(CBI) III FLOOR, E.V.K.SAMPATH
BUILDING, COLLEGE ROAD, CHENNAI, PIN - 600006
9 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
SPE/CBI, ACB COCHIN, CENTRAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION,(CBI) KATHIRKADAVU, KALOOR,
COCHIN, PIN - 682017
10 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
SPE/CBI, ACB COCHIN, CENTRAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION, SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT,
W.P.(Crl.)No.1118 of 2024
3
2025:KER:19421
COCHIN, PIN - 682017
11 [THE REGISTRAR GENERAL
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN
PIN - 682031] [DELETED]
R11 TO R13 ARE DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED
27/11/2024 IN IA 1/24
12 [THE PRESIDING OFFICER
HON'BLE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE (SPE/CBI)-I,
DISTRICT COURT(ANNEX), ERNAKULAM, KALOOR,
COCHIN, PIN - 682017] [DELETED]
R11 TO R13 ARE DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED
27/11/2024 IN IA 1/24
13 [K. SATHIYAN
[FORMER SPECIAL JUDGE (SPE/CBI)-) , HON'BLE
COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE (SPE/CBI)-I, DISTRICT
COURT(ANNEX), ERNAKULAM, KALOOR, COCHIN]
[DELETED]
R11 TO R13 ARE DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED
27/11/2024 IN IA 1/24**, PIN - 682017
BY ADVS.
SREELAL WARRIAR, SPL GP CBI
LEO LUKOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 07.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(Crl.)No.1118 of 2024
4
2025:KER:19421
"C.R."
K.BABU, J
-------------------------------------------------
W.P.(Crl.).No.1118 of 2024
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of March, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, accused No.6 in SC No. 35 of 2007 on
the file of the Additional Sessions Court -III, Ernakulam,
seeks to quash the summons dated 12.02.2017 and all
further proceedings.
Prosecution Case
2. During 1998-1999, accused Nos. 1 to 3 hatched a
criminal conspiracy to cheat Canara Bank, Overseas Branch
Ernakulam by availing credit facilities worth Rupees Thirty
Lakhs in Packing Credit Limit and Rupees Fifty Lakhs in FDB
limits in the name of M/s Dharaja Ventures Private Limited
using false and forged documents relating to land not in
existence as collateral security. In furtherance of the
criminal conspiracy, accused No.3 contacted accused No.4
2025:KER:19421
to arrange forged documents. Accused No.4 approached
accused No.5 to prepare those documents, who accordingly
prepared a sale deed, Patta, Pass Books, Chittas, Adangal
Extract, three Encumbrance Certificates, Tax Receipts,
Possession Certificates, etc. for a property measuring 48.58
Acres in Sy.Nos. 50, 67 and 68 of Suriyur Village,
Thiruchirappally District, Tamil Nadu. Accused No.4,
thereafter, approached the Panel Advocate of Canara Bank,
Trichy Branch, for legal opinion based on the forged
documents, making him believe that those documents were
genuine. Accused No.4 approached accused No.6 (the
petitioner herein), who was the Panel Valuer of the Canara
Bank for the valuation report. Accused No.6 joined the
conspiracy and prepared a false location sketch of a property
measuring 48.58 Acres, describing it as situated opposite the
staff quarters of Bharathidasan University. A valuation
report showing its value at Rs.72.87 Lakhs, along with false
location sketch and forged FMB sketches, were prepared.
Accused Nos. 1 and 2, as part of the conspiracy, induced the
2025:KER:19421
bank officials and got the credit facility sanctioned. Accused
No.4 contacted one N.M.S. Shaikh Mohammed and A. Nasar
(accused Nos. 7 and 8, respectively) in order to fraudulently
represent them as the owners of the property to produce the
forged documents in the Bank and to sign the necessary
documents to create an equitable mortgage over a non-
existent property. As a result of the conspiracy, the bank
suffered a loss of Rs.80 Lakhs and accused Nos. 1 and 2
obtained unlawful gain to the tune of Rs.80 Lakhs.
Registration of FIR and Investigation
3. On 16.03.2024, the Inspector of Police,
CBI,SPE, Cochin, registered FIR No.RC10(A)/2004-
CBI/KER against Sri. V. Hariharan, Divisional Manager,
Canara Bank, Sri. T. Baby, Manager, Canara Bank and six
others alleging offences under Sections 120B r/w 420,
467 and 471 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the PC
Act, 1988. The Inspector of Police, CBI, submitted the
FIR before the Court of the Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-I,
Ernakulam, on 16.03.2004. In the investigation, it was
2025:KER:19421
found that no public servants were involved in the crime,
and therefore, no offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)
(d) of the PC Act was revealed. The Investigating Officer
submitted a report deleting respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the
bank officials, from the array of accused and the offences
under the PC Act from the FIR. The ranks of the accused
in the FIR were rearranged.
3.1 The Investigating Officer initially submitted the
Final Report before the Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-I,
Ernakulam. The learned Special Judge returned the Final
Report, instructing the Investigating Officer to submit the
same before the jurisdictional Court. The Investigating
Officer thereafter submitted the Final Report before the
Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam.
Proceedings before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court,
Ernakulam
4. Based on the Final Report, the Chief Judicial
Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under
2025:KER:19421
Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 472 of the Indian
Penal Code against the accused and numbered the case
as C.C.No.110 of 2005. All the accused appeared before
the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
5. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, as per order
dated 20.12.2005 in Crl.M.P.No.3302/2005, tendered
pardon under Section 306 Cr.P.C. to accused Nos.7 and 8.
Committal
6. The tender of pardon was accepted by accused
Nos. 7 and 8. The Chief Judicial Magistrate renumbered the
case as C.P.No.4 of 2006 and committed it to the Court of
Session for trial under Section 306(5)(a)(i) Cr.P.C.
Proceedings before the Court of Session, Ernakulam
Division
7. The Court of Session took cognizance of the
offences, numbered the case as Sessions Case No.35 of 2007
and made it over to the Additional Sessions Court-III, which
is also a Special Court for SPE/CBI cases.
2025:KER:19421
Proceedings before the Additional Sessions Court-III
8. All the accused appeared. Charges against
accused Nos.2 and 5 abated as they died during the
proceedings. The petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.296/2017
seeking discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. The Additional
Sessions Court-III dismissed the application.
Framing of charge
9. On 20.02.2020, the Additional Sessions Court-III,
Ernakulam, framed charges against the petitioner. The
petitioner denied the charges. He also pleaded that the
name of the Court referred to in the charge was wrong.
10. The petitioner appeared in person. I have heard
the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel for the CBI.
11. The petitioner raised the following grounds in
support of the reliefs in the Writ Petition:-.
(1)The CBI has no jurisdiction to register the FIR and also to
investigate offences relating to the banking business.
(2)The Chief Judicial Magistrate should not have committed
the case to the Sessions Court under Section 306(5) Cr.P.C.
2025:KER:19421
(3)As the petitioner received summons from the Special
Court for CBI cases and the trial is being conducted by the
Additional Sessions Court-III, the proceedings are illegal and
irregular.
(4)Two charge sheets have been submitted by the
Investigating Agency and the petitioner has not been called
upon specifically as to which charge he has to answer.
(5)Being a Valuer of property, no prosecution could be
initiated against the petitioner.
12. The learned Standing Counsel for the CBI
submitted that the CBI has jurisdiction to register FIR in
respect of the offences under the PC Act in the case of
Central Government Employees. If a cognizable offence
under the PC Act is revealed, the Investigating Agency has
the power to implicate private persons along with the public
servants, if any conspiracy to commit offences under the PC
Act is revealed. The Investigating Agency may also
investigate offences other than those mentioned in Section 3
of the PC Act with which the accused may be charged at the
2025:KER:19421
same trial. The CBI is empowered to submit Final Report
before the Jurisdictional Magistrate if it is revealed that no
PC Act offences are finally disclosed.
13. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that the
committal of the case to the Sessions Court, Ernakulam, is as
per the relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C. The Additional
Sessions Court-III, to which the case has been made over is
also a Special Court for CBI cases. Initially the summons
happened to be issued by way of a mistake in the name of
the Special Court. After the committal, the Sessions Court
and the Additional Sessions Court proceeded with the case.
The Sessions Judges have not exercised the powers of the
Special Judge (CBI) in the matter. It is contended by the
learned Standing Counsel that the question of whether the
Valuer of land in a banking transaction could be prosecuted
or not is a matter to be decided in trial.
Consideration
14. The first challenge of the petitioner is that the
CBI-Anti-Corruption Bureau has no jurisdiction to register
2025:KER:19421
the FIR and proceed with the investigation. As per Section
17 of the PC Act, an Inspector of Police in the case of the
Delhi Police Establishment is authorized to investigate any
offence punishable under the PC Act. The CBI was
established on 01.04.1963 vide Government of India
Resolution No.4/31/61/T/MHA to meet the need of having
a Central Police Agency at the disposal of the Central
Government to investigate cases not only of bribery and
corruption but also those relating to the breach of central
fiscal laws, frauds in Government Departments and public
sector undertakings and other serious crimes. The
authority of the CBI is stated to have been derived from
the Delhi Police Establishment Act. Therefore, the CBI-
Anti-Corruption Bureau, Kochi Unit is authorised to
register FIR alleging offences under the PC Act and
investigate such offences.
15. In the FIR, the CBI alleged the offences under
Sections 120B r/w 420, 467 and 471 IPC and Section
2025:KER:19421
13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988. In the
investigation, the CBI found that the public servants were
not involved. Therefore, after deleting the offence under
the PC Act, they submitted final report against the private
persons, including the petitioner.
16. The challenge of the petitioner is that in the
absence of PC Act offences the CBI is divested of with the
power to proceed with the investigation and submit the
Final Report. The crux of the arguments of the petitioner
is that the CBI is not empowered to submit final report
alleging non-PC Act offences.
17. As per the scheme of the PC Act, 1988, an
offence under the PC Act can be committed by either a
public servant or a private person or a combination of
both. Offences under Sections 7, 10 and 11 of the PC Act
can be committed only by a public servant. An offence
under Section 7 can also be committed by a person
expected to be a public servant. An offence under
2025:KER:19421
Section 7 or 11 could be abetted by a non-public servant.
An offence under Sections 8, 9 or 10 can be committed by
a person who need not necessarily be a public servant.
As per Section 3 of the PC Act, an offence under the PC
Act is required to be tried only by a Special Judge and no
other court. It is not necessary that in every offence
under the PC Act, a public servant must be an accused.
The existence of a public servant for facing the trial
before the Special Court is not a must and even in his
absence, private persons can be tried for PC Act and non-
PC Act offences. As per sub-section (2) of Section 4 of
the PC Act, every offence under the PC Act shall be tried
by the Special Judge for the area within which it was
committed. Sub-section (3) of Section 4 says that when
`trying any case', a Special Judge may also try any
offence, other than an offence specified in Section 3, with
which the accused may, under the Code of Criminal
Procedure, be charged at the same trial.
2025:KER:19421
18. A conjoint reading of Sections 3 and 4 of the PC
Act would indicate that, insofar as the PC Act offences are
concerned, the jurisdiction of ordinary criminal court is
excluded whereas, such an exclusion is not applicable to
non-PC Act offences. A Special Judge exercising powers
under the PC Act is not invested with the power to try
non-PC Act offences totally unconnected with any PC Act
offences. The Special Judge is expected to try non-PC Act
offences only when those offences are connected with PC
Act offences. This is evident from sub-section (3) of
Section 4 which says that when `trying any offence' under
the PC Act a Special Judge may also try any non-PC Act
offence. The jurisdiction of the Special Court to try the
non-PC Act offence is dependent on the existence of the
trial of a PC Act offence, which is inter-related with the
non-PC Act offences.
19. Section 17 of the PC Act deals with the power of
Police officers to investigate into an offence punishable
2025:KER:19421
under the PC Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 17 says that
an Inspector of Police in the case of Delhi Police
Establishment shall investigate into an offence punishable
under the PC Act. The scheme of the PC Act makes it
clear that the Investigating Officer is empowered under
Section 17 of the Act to investigate into any offence other
than an offence under the PC Act which is connected with
any PC Act offence. The existence of an FIR alleging
offence under the PC Act is a sina quo non for exercising
the power of investigation as provided under Section 17
of the PC Act. An officer empowered to conduct
investigation under Section 17 of the PC Act gets the
jurisdiction to investigate non-PC Act offences when those
offences are connected with the PC Act offences. The
jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer to conduct an
investigation of non-PC Act offence is dependent on the
existence of an FIR alleging offence under the PC Act.
Once the Investigating Officer is conferred with the
2025:KER:19421
power under Section 17 of the PC Act to commence and
continue the investigation of the PC Act offences, he is
empowered to complete the investigation of the said
offences and submit final report.
20. The argument of the petitioner is that once the
CBI concludes that the offences under the PC Act are not
revealed, they are divested of the power to submit the
final report in respect of the non-PC Act offences. In the
circumstances mentioned above, the investigating agency
does not investigate non-PC Act offences independently.
Throughout the process of investigation the inter-
relationship between the PC Act and the non-PC Act
offences subsists. Every investigation shall culminate in a
report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. Where the
investigating agency finds that offence under the PC Act
is not revealed, the investigation shall end in a report
under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. revealing the non-PC Act
offences. In such circumstances, the final report shall not
2025:KER:19421
be filed before the Special Court as the Special Court gets
jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences and
proceed with the trial only in cases where the PC Act
offence is alleged as "trying any case" under the PC Act is
a necessary requirement for the Special Court to exercise
its jurisdiction. (See State through CBI, New Delhi v.
Jitender Kumar Singh [(2014) 11 SCC 724]).
Therefore, the investigating agency is bound to submit
the final report in respect of the non-PC Act offences
before the competent jurisdictional Magistrate to proceed
further.
21. In the Final Report, the CBI alleged offences
under Sections 120B r/w 420, 467, 468,471 and 472 of
the Indian Penal Code. As per notification No. B1-13062/74
dated 10.12.1974, the High Court of Kerala has appointed
with effect from 01.04.1974 the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ernakulam, as Judicial Magistrate of the First Class for all
the districts of Kerala State with headquarters at Ernakulam
2025:KER:19421
to try or inquire into and commit to the court of Session all
such cases arising in any local area within the state of Kerala
in which investigations are made or charge sheets filed by
the Special Police Establishment Constituted under the Delhi
Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No.XXV of
1946). Therefore, the CBI submitted Final Report before
the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam. I find no
irregularity or illegality in the procedure adopted by the
CBI. It is pertinent to note that even complete absence of
valid authorization in law has been held to be a mere
defect of investigation which would not per se vitiate
investigation and has to be judged in each case on the
anvil of prejudice (vide: H.N.Rishbud v. State of Delhi
[AIR 1955 SC 196], Munnalal v. State of U.P. [AIR 1964
SC 28], Khandu Sonu Dhobi v. State of Maharashtra
[AIR 1972 SC 958], State of M.P. v. Ramesh C. Sharma
[(2005) 12 SCC 628], State of M.P. v. Virender Kumar
Tripathi [(2009) 15 SCC 533]. The very purpose of the
2025:KER:19421
investigation is to collect the evidence relating to the
commission of the offence for establishing the accusation
against the offender. It would always be necessary for the
court to examine that if the accused in anyway has been
prejudiced by the steps taken by the investigating agency
and further by the court proceeding with the matter.
(vide: Rekha v. State of Maharashtra [(2010) 15 SCC
725]. This Court, at this stage, finds no prejudice against
the petitioner as a result of the investigation conducted
by the CBI. The contention of the petitioner that once it
was revealed that no PC Act offences were involved, the
CBI lost its jurisdiction to proceed further cannot be
sustained.
Challenge on the committal under Section 306(5) Cr.P.C.
22. The petitioner submits that the Chief Judicial
Magistrate ought not have committed the case to the
Sessions Court. As I mentioned above, the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate tendered pardon to accused Nos. 7
2025:KER:19421
and 8, and they accepted the same. Where a person has
accepted a tender of pardon, and he has been examined,
if the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence is the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, he has to commit the case for
trial to the Sessions Court. This is the mandate of Section
306(5) Cr.P.C.
23. Section 306 Cr.P.C. reads thus:-
"306.Tender of pardon to accomplice.-
(1) With a view to obtaining the evidence of any person supposed to
have been directly or indirectly concerned in or privy to an offence to
which this section applies, the Chief Judicial Magistrate or a
Metropolitan Magistrate at any stage of the investigation or inquiry into,
or the trial of, the offence, and the Magistrate of the first class inquiring
into or trying the offence, at any stage of the inquiry or trial, may tender
a pardon to such person on condition of his making a full and true
disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge
relative to the offence and to every other person concerned, whether as
principal or abettor, in the commission thereof.
(2)This section applies to -
(a)any offence triable exclusively by the Court of Session or by the Court
of a Special Judge appointed under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act,
1952 (46 of 1952);
b)any offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven
years or with a more severe sentence.
(3)Every Magistrate who tenders a pardon under sub-section (1) shall
record -
(a)his reasons for so doing;
(b)whether the tender was or was not accepted by the person to whom it
was made,
and shall, on application made by the accused, furnish him with a copy
of such record free of cost.
2025:KER:19421
(4)Every person accepting a tender of pardon made under sub-section
(1)-
(a)shall be examined as a witness in the court of the Magistrate taking
cognizance of the offence and in the subsequent trial, if any;
(b)shall, unless he is already on bail, be detained in custody until the
termination of the trial.
(5)Where a person has accepted a tender of pardon made under sub-
section (1) and has been examined under sub-section (4), the Magistrate
taking cognizance of the offence shall, without making any further
inquiry in the case, -
(a)commit it for trial -
(i) to the Court of Session if the offence is triable exclusively by that
Court or if the Magistrate taking cognizance is the Chief Judicial
Magistrate,
(ii)to a court of Special Judge appointed under the Criminal Law
(Amendment) Act, 1952 (46 of 1952), if the offence is triable exclusively
by the Court;
(b)in any other case, make over the case to the Chief Judicial
Magistrate who shall try the case himself."
24. Sub-section (5) of Section 306 Cr.P.C. makes it
clear that where a person has accepted a tender of
pardon under sub-section (1) and has been examined
under sub-section (4), if the Magistrate taking cognizance
is the Chief Judicial Magistrate, irrespective of whether
the offence is exclusively triable by a Sessions Court or
not it shall commit it to the Sessions Court. Therefore,
there is no irregularity in the committal of the case to the
Sessions Court.
2025:KER:19421
25. The next contention of the petitioner is that the
learned Magistrate committed the case to the Special
Court for CBI cases, which has no jurisdiction to try the
offences alleged. In support of his contention, he relied
on the summons issued to him.
26. I have gone through the committal proceedings
and the proceedings in the Sessions Court. The learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the
Sessions Court, Ernakulam Division. The Sessions Court
took cognizance of the offences and made over the case
to the Additional Sessions Court-III. These are evident
from the committal order dated 18.12.2006 passed by the
Chief Judicial Magistrate and, the order taking
cognizance by the Sessions Court and the further order
making over the case to the Additional Sessions Court-III.
It is true that the summons was issued to the petitioner
with the seal the Special Court SPE/CBI, Ernakulam.
2025:KER:19421
27. The Additional Sessions Court-III, Ernakulam is
also a Special Court for SPE/CBI Cases. That Court is
notified as an Additional Sessions Court within Ernakulam
Sessions Division. The said Court is also notified as the
Special Court for the trial of the offences under the PC
Act under Section 3. The 'Court Charge' specifically
shows that the Additional Sessions Court-III took
cognizance of the offence and framed charges against the
petitioner. It is only by way of a clerical error in the
summons the name of the Special Court was mentioned.
It is made clear that the Sessions Case is pending before
the Additional Sessions Court-III. This is more clear from
the committal order extracted below:-
"When the accused appeared in answer to the summons,
they are furnished with copies of all prosecution records.
Thereafter, prosecution filed CMP 3302/2005 for
tendering pardons to Accused Nos.7 and 8. After
completing the legal formalities, accused numbers 7 and
8 were tendered pardons as per order dated 20.12.2005
and they were examined under Sub Section 4 of Section
306 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter it is re-numbered as CP 4/2006
and the case is committed the Hon'ble Sessions Court,
Ernakulam for trial under section 306(5)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C.
2025:KER:19421
Accused are on bail with direction to appear before the
Sessions Court on summons." (Sic.)
28. The petitioner and the other accused had
appeared before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ernakulam. The petitioner had knowledge regarding the
committal of the case under Section 306(5)(a)(1) of the
Cr.P.C. to the Court of Session, Ernakulam and the
transfer of the case to the Additional Sessions Court-III.
29. The error in the name of the Court in the
summons will not affect the jurisdiction of the Court in
anyway and this will not cause any prejudice to the
accused. The error is only to be ignored.
30. The further contention of the petitioner is that
the Investigating Agency submitted two charge sheets.
This submission has no foundation. I have gone through
the records placed before the trial Court. The
prosecution submitted only one final report in the matter.
The final report was initially submitted before the Special
2025:KER:19421
Court, which returned the same. The CBI later submitted
the final report before the CJM Court.
31. It is submitted by the petitioner that he was
discharging the duty as a Valuer of the property involved
in the transactions. It is contended that the petitioner
only discharged his official responsibility to value the
property and therefore, he cannot be prosecuted. The
prosecution case is that all the accused conspired
together to create forged documents in respect of a
property not in existence. Prima facie, there are specific
allegations pointing to the involvement of the petitioner
and the other accused.
32. In State of Kerala v. O.C. Kuttan [(1999) 2
SCC 651], the Apex Court held that while exercising the
power, it is not possible for the Court to sift the materials
or to weigh the materials and then come to the conclusion
one way or the other. In State of U.P v. O.P. Sharma
[(1996) 7 SCC 705] a Three Judge Bench of the Apex
2025:KER:19421
Court observed that the High Court should be loath to
interfere at the threshold to thwart the prosecution
exercising its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C or
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, as
the case may be, and allow the law to take its own course.
This view was reiterated by another Three Judge Bench of
the Apex Court in Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar
Bhada [(1997) 2 SCC 397], wherein the Apex Court held
that such power should be sparingly and cautiously
exercised only when the Court is of the opinion that
otherwise there will be gross miscarriage of justice. It is
trite that the power of quashing criminal proceedings
should be exercised with circumspection and that too, in
the rarest of rare cases and it was not justified for this
Court in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability
or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in
the Final report or the complaint. A finding on the
veracity of a material relied on by the prosecution in a
2025:KER:19421
case where the allegations levelled by the prosecution
disclose a cognizable offence, is not a consideration for
the High Court while exercising its power under Section
482 Cr.P.C. This view is fortified by the decision of the
Apex Court in Mahendra K.C. v. State of Karnataka
and Ors. [AIR 2021 SC 5711].
33. In Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and
another [2012 (9) SCC 460], the Apex Court held that
where the factual foundation for an offence has been laid
down, the Courts should be reluctant and should not
hasten to quash the proceedings even on the premise that
one or two ingredients have not been stated or do not
appear to be satisfied if there is substantial compliance
with the requirements of the offence.
34. Yet another aspect that requires consideration
is that the trial Court has already framed charges against
the petitioner and the other accused. The Court is now
proceeding with the examination of the witnesses.
2025:KER:19421
35. In Minakshi Bala Vs. Sudhir Kumar and
Others [1994 (4) SCC 142] ,the Apex Court in paragraph
7 of the judgment held thus:-
"If charges are framed in accordance with Section 240
CrPC on a finding that a prima facie case has been made
out - as has been done in the instant case - the person
arraigned may, if he feels aggrieved, invoke the
revisional jurisdiction of the High Court or the Sessions
Judge to contend that the charge-sheet submitted under
Section 173 CrPC and documents sent with it did not
disclose any ground to presume that he had committed
any offence for which he is charged and the revisional
court if so satisfied can quash the charges framed
against him. To put it differently, once charges are
framed under Section 240 CrPC the High Court in its
revisional jurisdiction would not be justified in relying
upon documents other than those referred to in Section
239 and 240 CrPC; nor would it be justified in invoking
its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash
the same except in those rare cases where forensic
exigencies and formidable compulsions justify such a
course. We hasten to add even in such exceptional cases
the High Court can look into only those documents which
are unimpeachable and can be legally translated into
relevant evidence."
2025:KER:19421
36. In the light of the discussions made above, I am
of the view that this is not a fit case to quash the
proceedings at this stage. However, I clarify that de hors
these observations, the trial Court is absolutely free to
analyse, appreciate, evaluate and arrive at a proper
conclusion based on the evidence and materials placed by
the prosecution as well as the defence during the trial.
The trial Court shall complete the trial and dispose of the
case within six months from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this judgment.
The W.P.(Crl.) stands dismissed.
Sd/-
K.BABU, JUDGE
kkj
2025:KER:19421
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 1118/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P-1 A TRUE COPY OF TABLE 1 SHOWING THE
OPEN IRREGULARITIES IN FIR AND FINAL
REPORT OF RESPONDENT CBI
Exhibit P - 2 A TRUE COPY OF TABLE NO.2 SHOWING THE
OPEN FLAW IN INVESTIGATION AMD
MOTIVATED BIAS IN FIR AND FINAL REPORT
OF THE RESPONDENT-CBI
Exhibit P - 3 A TRUE COPY OF TABLE NO.3 SHOWING
ADMINISTRATIVE FRAUDS COMMITTED BY THE
RESPONDENT - CBI AND THE PRESIDING
OFFICERS OF THE HON'BLE COURT OF
SPECIAL JUDGE (SPE/CBI)-I, ERNAKULAM
AND FAILURE OF FUNDAMENTAL
ADMINISTRATIVE DUTY OF THE HON'BLE
HIGH COURT
Exhibit P - 4 A TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER'S VALUATION
REPORT
Exhibit P - 5 A TRUE COPY OF ANOTHER VALUER
D.RMAKRISHNAN'S VALUATION REPORT
Exhibit P - 6 A TRUE COPY OF COUNTER VERIFIED VALUER
B.KANAGASABAPATHY'S VALUATION REPORT
FOR SIMILAR PROPERTY
Exhibit P- 7 A TRUE COPY OF FIR NO. RC 10(A)/2004
DATED 16.03.2004 LODGED AT CBI,COCHIN
P.S , ERNAKULAM DISTRICT FILED BEFORE
THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE (SPE/CBI)-
I,ERNAKULAM
2025:KER:19421
Exhibit P- 8 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT
(CHARGE SHEET) ADDRESSED TO THE COURT
OF SPECIAL JUDGE (SPE/CBI)-I,
ERNAKULAM, BUT CBI IS FILED BEFORE THE
HON'BLE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
(CJM), ERNAKULAM AND NUMBERED AS CC
NO.110/2005 DATED 29.04.2005
Exhibit P - 9 A TRUE COPY OF STATEMENTS GIVEN BY THE
TWO PUBLIC SERVANTS AND TWO OTHER
VALUERS BEFORE THE RESPONDENT-CBI IN
THE FINAL REPORT.
Exhibit P -10 A TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS DATED
15.06.2005 ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM TO THE
SIXTH ACCUSED IN C.C.NO.110/2005.
Exhibit P -11 A TRUE COPY OF LETTER RECEIVED FROM
THE CBI-DIG DATED 22.12.2005
Exhibit P -12 A TRUE COPY OF THE BAIL ORDER DATED
03.05.2006 ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM IN CC
NO.110/05.
Exhibit P - 13 A TRUE COPY OF ACTUAL DATES OF
HEARINGS AND PROCEEDINGS IN CC
NO.110/2005 IN THE HON'BLE CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM
Exhibit P - 14 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
18.12.2006 BY THE HON'BLE CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM. (COPY
OF THE ORDER OBTAINED ON 24.05.2019
FROM THE HON'BLE COURT OF SPECIAL
JUDGE (SPE/CBI)-I, ERNAKULAM)
Exhibit P - 15 A TRUE COPY OF THE SECOND SUMMONS
DATED 12.02.2007 TO SIXTH ACCUSED
ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE SPECIAL JUDGE
(SPE/CBI)-I, ERNAKULAM IN
2025:KER:19421
S.C.NO.35/2007 FOR APPEARANCE ON
20.03.2007.
Exhibit P - 16 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY
THE RESPONDENT CBI-COCHIN THE HON'BLE
SPECIAL JUDGE(SPE/CBI)-I, ERNAKULAM IN
THE NAME OF IIIRD ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
COURT, ERNAKULAM IN CRL.M.P.NOS.
4400/2009, 3665/2012 AND 20/2013 IN
S.C.NO.35/2007 DATED 04.01.2013
Exhibit P - 17 PETITIONER'S REPLY TO OBJECTIONS FILED
BY THE RESPONDENT/ PROSECUTION ON
04.01.2013 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE
HON'BLE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE
(SPE/CBI)-I, ERNAKULAM ON 18.01.2013
Exhibit P - 18 A TRUE COPY OF THE FURTHER OBJECTION
DATED 06.02.2013 FILED BEFORE THE
HON'BLE SPECIAL JUDGE (SPE/CBI)-I,
ERNAKULAM IN THE NAME OF IIIRD
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM
IN CRL.M.P.NOS.4400/2009,3665/2012 AND
20/2013 IN S.C.NO.35/2007. (THE DATE
WAS MENTIONED WRONGLY AS 06TH JANUARY
2013 IN THE CBI DOCUMENT AND ACTUAL
HEARING DATE IS 06.02.2013)
Exhibit P - 19 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY
SHRI. P. SASIDHARAN, PRESIDING OFFICER
OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE
(SPE/CBI)-I IN THE NAME OF IIIRD
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, ERNAKULAM
IN CRL.M.P.NO.4400/2019 IN
S.C.NO.35/2007 DATED 28.05.2013.
Exhibit P - 20 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY
SHRI.P.SASIDHARAN PRESIDING OFFICER OF
THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE (SPE/CBI)-I
IN THE NAME OF IIIRD ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE, ERNAKULAM IN
CRL.M.P.NO . 3665 / 2012 IN S.C.NO.
2025:KER:19421
35/2007 DATED 28.05.2013.
Exhibit P - 21 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY
SHRI.P.SASIDHARAN PRESIDING OFFICER OF
THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE (SPE/CBI)-I
IN THE NAME OF IIIRD ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE, ERNAKULAM IN
CRL.M.P.NO . 20/2013 IN S.C.NO.
35/2007 DATED 28.05.2013.
Exhibit P - 22 A TRUE COPY OF THE ARREST AND SEARCH
MEMO OF THE RESPONDENT -CBI, COCHIN
DATED 22.02.2014
Exhibit P - 23 A TRUE COPY OF PETITION TO CHANGE THE
CAUSE TITLE IN THE ORDER DATED
28.05.2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON
12.12.2014 AND NUMBERED AS
Exhibit P - 24 A TRUE COPY OF PETITION FOR OBJECTION
OF JURISDICTION IN CRL. M.P.
NO.1104/2017 IN S.C.NO.35/2007 DATED
26.04.2017 FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE
SPECIAL COURT (SPE/CBI)-I, ERNAKULAM.
Exhibit P - 25 A TRUE COPY OF COPY OF THE DAILY
STATUS AND THE RETURN ORDER IN COPY
APPLICATION AND ORDER DATED 16.05.2019
PASSED IN S.C. NO.35/2007 BY THE
HON'BLE SPECIAL JUDGE (SPE/CBI)-I,
ERNAKULAM IN THE NAME OF III
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, ERNAKULAM
Exhibit P - 26 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER FROM
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE
COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE (SPE/ CBI)-I,
ERNAKULAM IN S.C.NO.35/2007 DATED
18.06.2019
Exhibit P - 27 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT TO THE
2025:KER:19421
CBI, DIRECTOR, NEW DELHI BY THE
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC
GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS DATED
23.07.2019.
Exhibit P - 28 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER RECEIVED
FROM THE KERALA HIGH COURT IN 1-3-
43325/2019 DATED 30.07.2019.
Exhibit P - 29 A TRUE COPY OF THE DAILY ORDER PASSED
BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER OF THE COURT
OF SPECIAL JUDGE (SPE/CBI)-I,ERNAKULAM
DATED 13.08.2019.
Exhibit P - 30 A TRUE COPY OF REPLY FROM CVC IN THE
MATTER OF COMPLAINT AGAINST CBI DATED
30.09.2019
Exhibit P - 31 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN W.P.(CRL)
NO.257 / 2019 DATED 04.11.2019 PASSED
BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit P - 32 A TRUE COPY OF DAILY STATUS OF THE
WEB-SITE OF E-COURTS SERVICE AND
SEPARATE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING
OFFICER SRI.K.SATHYAN PASSED IN
CRL.M.P.NO.2850/ 2019 DATED
20.11.2019.
Exhibit P - 33 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF FRAMING
CHARGES BY THE THEN PRESIDING OFFICER
SRI.K.SATHYAN IN S.C.NO.35/2007 DATED
25.02.2020.
Exhibit P - 34 A TRUE COPY OF REPLY FROM THE
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING
DATED 05.03.2020.
Exhibit P - 35 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE THEN
PRESIDING OFFICER OF THE SUMMON ISSUED
COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE (SPE/CBI)-
2025:KER:19421
I,ERNAKULAM IN UNNUMBERED PETITION IN
SC. NO.35/2007 DATED 31.03.2021
Exhibit P - 36 A TRUE COPY OF REPLY FROM THE CENTRAL
VIGILANCE COMMISSION FOR MY
REPRESENTATION DATED 17.03.2023 VIDE
IN COMPLAINT NUMBER 10299/2023/545597
DATED 28-04-2023.
Exhibit P - 37 A TRUE COPY OF REPLY LETTER GIVEN BY
THE REGISTRAR GENERAL OF HON'BLE HIGH
COURT OF KERALA DATED 25.05.2023
Exhibit P - 38 A TRUE COPY OF REPLY GIVEN BY THE
HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA TO THE
PETITIONER DATED 19.07.2023
Exhibit P - 39 A TRUE COPY OF CR.M.P.NO.4073 OF 2023
IN S.C.NO.35/2007 FILED BY THE 1ST
ACCUSED FAKRUDHEEN HAJI BEFORE THE
HON'BLE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE
(SPE/CBI)-I, ERNAKULAM ON 20.09.2023
Exhibit P - 40 A TRUE COPY OF REPLY GIVEN BY THE
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA TO THE
PETITIONER IN THE CASE SC.NO.35/2007
DATED 08.12.2023.
Exhibit P - 41 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN
PASSED BY HON'BLE COURT OF SPECIAL
JUDGE (SPE/CBI)-I ERNAKULAM ON 5TH
JULY 2024 (05.07.2024)
Exhibit P - 42 A TRUE COPY OF SUPREME COURT ORDER
DATED 13.09.2024
Exhibit P - 43 A TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PORTIONS OF
JUDGMENTS PASSED BY HON'BLE SUPREME
COURT
2025:KER:19421
Exhibit P -44 CLARIFICATION TO INCLUDE JUDICIAL
OFFICERS AS RESPONDENT IN THIS WRIT
PETITION
