Kerala High Court
Jayakumar.P.S vs State Of Kerala on 27 March, 2025
1
Crl.M.C. No.2132 of 2023
2025:KER:26227
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2025/6TH CHAITHRA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 2132 OF 2023
CRIME NO.118/2015 OF VANDIPERIYAR POLICE STATION, IDUKKI
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.04.2017 IN CC NO.666 OF 2015
OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, PEERUMEDU
PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:
JAYAKUMAR.P.S.
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O. P.G. SUKUMARAN NAIR,
PARAPPALLI HOUSE, KAVUMBHAGOM (P.O),
THEKKETHUKAVALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 686519
BY ADVS.
R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM)
G.RAJAGOPAL (KUMMANAM)
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM,
KOCHI, PIN - 682031
ADV.SMT REKHA S- SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
ADV.SRI A RAJESH - SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(VIG)
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2
Crl.M.C. No.2132 of 2023
2025:KER:26227
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J
-------------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.2132 of 2023
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of March, 2025
ORDER
Annexure 10 order is under challenge. As per that order,
Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Peermedu, directed to
forward records in C.C. No.666 of 2015 pending before that court
to the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge,
Muvattupuzha. That order was passed pursuant to Annexure 9
report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Peermedu. It was submitted in Annexure 9 that besides offences
punishable under Sections 409, 465, 478, 471 and 120B of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), which were alleged in Annexure 3
final report based on which C.C. No.666 of 2015 was initiated,
offences punishable under Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read
with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC
Act), were also revealed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Special Public Prosecutor (Vigilance).
3. The petitioner is the 1st accused. There are three
accused in C.C. No.666 of 2015. They are public servants
2025:KER:26227
inasmuch as they are functionaries under the Block Panchayat,
Azhutha. The 1st accused was the Block Development Officer. The
2nd accused was the Joint Block Development Officer and the 3rd
accused was the Village Extension Officer.
4. Going by the allegations in Annexure 4 final report,
they disbursed benefits under the Indira Awas Yojana (IAY) to
beneficiaries selected by the Block Panchayat Authorities without
consulting the local Panchayat concerned. Thereby the benefits
were disbursed to ineligible persons. It is alleged that a false
report enlisting ineligible persons was submitted, and such a
report was acted upon to disburse the benefits. Thereby, an
amount of Rs.1,85,000/- was disbursed to ineligible persons
causing loss of that amount to the Government.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the final report was filed as early as on 30.07.2015 and
when the trial in C.C. No.666 of 2015 got delayed, this Court, as
per Annexure 7 judgment, directed the learned Magistrate to
conclude the trial within a period of four months, and in order to
circumvent the said direction only Annexure 9 report was filed. It
is pointed out that after an enquiry, the Vigilance Department
came to the conclusion that no offence under the PC Act was
2025:KER:26227
revealed. Hence, the local police was directed to conduct an
investigation. It is urged that after a thorough investigation,
Annexure 4 final report was submitted and no offence under the
PC Act was revealed from the allegations set forth in the final
report. It is further submitted that nothing has been stated in
Annexure 9 to contradict the findings in Annexure 4 report, and
no material has been produced to reveal commission of the
offence under the PC Act. It is submitted that in such
circumstances, the learned Magistrate ought not to have
accepted Annexure 9 report and stopped the trial in C.C. No.666
of 2015.
6. The learned Special Public Prosecutor, on the other
hand, would submit that the observations in Annexure 2 is based
only on the preliminary enquiry conducted by the Vigilance and
Anti-Corruption Bureau. That does not stand in the way of having
an investigation into an offence under the PC Act, if such an
offence is revealed during the further investigation. A further
investigation had to be conducted after submission of Annexure 4
final report, and the materials collected during such investigation
revealed offences under Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the PC
Act. It was on that premises, Annexure 9 report was submitted.
2025:KER:26227
Annexure 10 order was issued by the learned Magistrate which
according to the learned Special Public Prosecutor is correct.
7. It may be correct that the conclusions based on a
preliminary enquiry report need not always stand in the way of
conducting an investigation into an offence under the PC Act, if
ingredients of such offences have been revealed in a detailed
investigation. But, how the investigating agency arrived at such a
finding should have been mentioned in Annexure 9 report.
Conspicuously, no such material is furnished in the report. Except
for stating that in the further investigation, offences under
Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act have also been
revealed, it has not been stated on what basis such a finding was
arrived at. It is not always required to state every detail in such a
report, but in the circumstances of this case, which I shall
mention below, the investigating officer ought to have mentioned
such details.
8. The crime was registered on 10.03.2015. That was in
terms of the direction of the District Police Chief, Idukki. In the
said direction, Annexure 2, it has been mentioned that on the
preliminary verification, the offences revealed were under
Sections 409, 465, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC. Such a
2025:KER:26227
direction was issued based on Annexure 1, a letter issued by the
Additional Chief Secretary, Home (D) Department. It was
mentioned therein that in the view of the VACB, the matter was
to be investigated by the local police meaning thereby, no offence
under the PC Act was revealed in the preliminary verification.
Based on the said direction, a crime was registered by the Station
House Officer, Vandiperiyar Police Station and an investigation
was held. The allegations in Annexure 4 final report would
constitute offences under Sections 409, 465, 468, 471 and 120B
read with Section 34 of the IPC. No allegation amounting to any
offence under the PC Act is stated in that report. From the
materials appended to the final report also, commission of an
offence under the PC Act could not be gathered.
9. What is revealed from the materials is that the
beneficiaries were wrongly selected and for that purpose a false
report was submitted. It is not able to find from the said
materials that the petitioner and his co-accused did the alleged
acts with dishonest intention of obtaining any pecuniary
advantage for themselves. Of course, obtaining of pecuniary
advantage by some other person may be enough to constitute an
offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. Obtaining such
2025:KER:26227
pecuniary advantage by some person should be in consequence
of the misconduct committed by the public servant with dishonest
intention. When the materials show that the beneficiaries were
selected disregarding the directions in that regard, however, the
benefits were disbursed, although to ineligible persons, a
dishonest intention to misappropriate Government fund cannot
prima facie be found. Hence, it cannot be said that an offence
under the PC Act has been committed. In order to take a different
view, nothing has been stated in Annexure 9 report.
10. O.P.(Crl.) No.264 of 2022 was filed by the petitioner.
This Court, as per Annexure 7 judgment, disposed of that original
petition directing the learned Magistrate to complete the trial
within 4 months after receipt of a supplementary final report. In
the wake of that direction by this Court, Annexure 9 report was
submitted. When inordinate delay occasioned at every stage of
the proceedings and sufficient materials have not been furnished
before the learned Magistrate to substantiate that an
investigation into the offences under the PC Act is peremptory, I
am of the view that allowing a further investigation in the matter
amounts to travesty of justice. The learned Magistrate shall
proceed with the trial of C.C. No.666 of 2015 and the request to
2025:KER:26227
conduct a further investigation can only to be declined. In the
nature of the request in Annexure 9 what is proposed is not
simply a further investigation, but it amounts to a reinvestigation.
That also is a reason to foreclose the request in Annexure 9.
In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is disposed of by setting
aside Annexure 10 order and directing the Judicial Magistrate of
the First Class-II, Peermedu to proceed with C.C. No.666 of 2015
and conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible.
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE
SMF
2025:KER:26227
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure -1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA TO THE
DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, IDUKKI DATED
23.02.2015.
Annexure -2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05.03.2015
ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
IDUKKI TO THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
VANDIPERIYAR.
Annexure -3 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT
IN CRIME NO. 118/2015 OF VANDIPERIYAR
POLICE STATION DATED 10.03.2015.
Annexure -4 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.
118/2015 OF VANDIPERIYAR POLICE STATION
DATED 30.07.2015.
Annexure -5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II,
PEERMEDU DATED 12.04.2017 IN C.C NO.
Annexure -6 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C NO.
666/2015 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, PEERMEDU.
Annexure -7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN O.P (CRL) NO. 264/2022
DATED 01.08.2022.
Annexure -8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 17.11.2022
Annexure -9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 16.12.2022
Annexure -10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II,
PEERMEDU DATED 19.12.2022 IN C.C NO.
666/2015.
