Allowed

G.Sisupalan v. the Deputy Superintendent of Police

Kerala HC6 Dec 2022Crl.Rev.Pet/582/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed the order framing charges against two accused persons. Finding that the charges were groundless and the materials raised only a suspicion rather than grave suspicion, the Court discharged them under Section 239 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

The impugned common order framing charges against accused Nos. 3 and 7 was set aside; they were discharged of the offences alleged.

G.Sisupalan Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶5

CRL.REV.PET NO. 582 OF 2021

¶6

(AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.4.2021 IN Crl.M.P.No.314/2019 IN
CC 6/2018 OF THE COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL

¶7

JUDGE, KOTTAYAM)

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/7th ACCUSED:

¶9

G.SISUPALAN, AGED 59 YEARS
S/O.J.GEORGE, FORMER BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
BHARANIKKAVU BLOCK PANCHAYATH, THALANIRAYIL
PUTHENVEEDU, MANGOTTUKONAM, KATTAKADA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.I.V.PRAMOD
 K.V.SASIDHARAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

¶12

1 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, ALAPUZHA UNIT, PIN 688 001.

¶13

2STATE OF KERALA
REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM 682 031.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA.S.

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 06.12.2022, ALONG WITH CRL.REV.PET.24/2022, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

Crl.R.P.Nos.582 of 2021 & 24 of 2022

¶18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶19

PRESENT

¶20

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

¶21

TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶22

CRL.REV.PET NO. 24 OF 2022

¶23

(AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.4.2021 IN Crl.M.P.No.147/2021 IN
CC 6/2018 OF THE COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL

¶24

JUDGE, KOTTAYAM)

¶25

REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3:

¶26

SHYLAJAN NAIR, AGED 61 YEARS
S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR
KRISHNAVILASOM HOUSE,WARD IX,
PANDALAM P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA – 689501.

¶27

BY ADV AKHIL VIJAY

¶28

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶29

STATE OF KERALA THROUGH

¶30

VIGILANCE & ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU REPRESENTED BY
THE STANDING COUNSEL HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ERNAKULAM – 682 031.

¶31

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA.S.

¶32

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 06.12.2022, ALONG WITH CRL.REV.PET.582/2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶33

Crl.R.P.Nos.582 of 2021 & 24 of 2022

¶34

¶35

ORDER

¶36

Since the issues raised in both these Crl.R.Ps are the same

¶37

those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶38

These Criminal Revision Petitions are filed at the instance of accused Nos.3 and 7 in C.C.No.6/2018 on the file of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam.

¶39

FACTS

¶40

The Bharanikkavu Block Panchayat decided to conduct

¶41

the maintenance of Maneeneth Temple Road. The project was approved by utilising the excess quantity of rice and wheat allotted to the Block Panchayat during 2007-2008 under the Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojana (SGRY) Scheme. The Assistant Engineer, Bharanikkavu Block Panchayat (A2) prepared an estimate for the maintenance of the road. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Poverty Elevation Unit, Alappuzha (A5) verified the estimate and accorded technical sanction. A member of Bharanikkavu Block Panchayat (A4) was the Convenor of the Beneficiary Committee for the maintenance of the road. Accused No.7, the revision petitioner in Crl.R.P.No.582 of 2021, was the then Block

¶42

Crl.R.P.Nos.582 of 2021 & 24 of 2022

¶43

¶44

Development Officer of the Block Panchayat. Accused No.3, the revision petitioner in Crl.R.P.No.24 of 2022 was the then Village Extension Officer of Nooranadu Grama Panchayat. Accused No.1 was a member of the Block Panchayat. Accused No.6 was the Chairman of the Standing Committee for Development.

¶45

It is alleged that all the accused hatched a conspiracy and in furtherance of the said conspiracy they forged documents such as estimates, beneficiary committee notice, beneficiary committee minutes, level field book, M-Book, Muster Roll etc. and used them as genuine and effected payment to accused No.4, the Convenor without executing the said work and thereby caused a loss of Rs.1,63,040.90 to the Government Exchequer and obtained undue pecuniary advantage for themselves.

¶46

Sri.Sudarasanan, Pininte Vadakethil, Pattoor P.O., Pandalam, Alappuzha District filed a complaint before the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. The Special Judge ordered the Director VACB, Thiruvananthapuram to conduct an enquiry into the irregularities and misappropriation allegedly committed in connection with the renovation work of Maneeneth

¶47

Temple Road in Nooranadu Panchayat. The VACB, Alappuzha Unit conducted a preliminary enquiry and thereafter as per the order of the

¶48

Crl.R.P.Nos.582 of 2021 & 24 of 2022

¶49

¶50

Director, VACB, Thiruvananthapuram registered V.C.No.5/2009 of Alappuzha VACB alleging offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 409, 465,468,471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

¶51

After completion of the investigation final report was submitted against the revision petitioners and the other accused.

¶52

The revision petitioners filed Crl.M.P.Nos.147/2021 and 314/2019 respectively before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. seeking discharge. The Special Judge jointly considered those Crl.M.Ps along with Crl.M.P.No.545/2020 filed by accused Nos.1, 4 & 6 and passed a common order dismissing the applications. The relevant portion of the common order reads thus:-

¶53

“10. Allegation against the petitioners is that they have entered into a criminal conspiracy to misappropriate Government money in the renovation work of Maneeneth Temple Road in Nooranadu Panchayath under SGRY scheme of Nooranadu Block division for the period 2007-2008 and in furtherance of that conspiracy accused have forged documents such as estimate, beneficiary committee notice, beneficiary committee minutes, Level field book, M-Book, Muster Roll etc. and used them as genuine and effected payment to 4^th accused, the then Convenor of Beneficiary Committee and the Convenor without executing the said work has misappropriated an amount of Rs.1,63,040.90 causing a loss of Rs.1,63,040.90 to the Government exchequer and obtained undue pecuniary advantage by the accused and thereby committed offence punishable under Secs.13(1)(c) and (d) r/w. Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Secs.409, 465, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC. Investigating officer

¶54

Crl.R.P.Nos.582 of 2021 & 24 of 2022

¶55

¶56

has questioned 47 witnesses and seized documents revealing offences committed by the accused.

¶57

The petitioners, on the other hand, has denied the allegations against them and contended that no material is produced by the prosecution to prove offences alleged against them and charge filed is groundless. Therefore, they contended that they have to be discharged under Sec.239 of the Cr.P.C.

¶58

Prosecution alleges in the charge that the investigation revealed that there was no road having the length of 214 metres or 560 metres as estimated in the scheme. The neighbours residing on the both sides of the road has denied the execution of any maintenance work on the road.

¶59

Even though the work was not executed, muster roll was falsely prepared in accordance with the estimate abstract. The Convenor has obtained 48.98 quintals of wheat, 98.37 quintal of rice worth 1,20,365.90 and another ₹42,675/- including tax, thereby misappropriated a total amount of Rs.1,63,040.90 through manipulations without executing the work.

¶60

Even though it has been stated that administrative sanction was obtained on 02-02-2008 the panchayath committee meeting held on 02-02-2008 did not decide to grant the sanction. This is brought out through the minutes book of the Bharanikkavu Block panchayath committee.

¶61

The project report was prepared for renovation of temple road on the basis of a non-existing decision of the panchayath committee. This project report was examined by the District Planning Committee and sanction was given. Even the formation of the beneficiary committee is doubtful. It has been stated that meeting of consumer committee was held on 17-08-2008 and it is doubtful whether such a meeting was held or not.

¶62

Prosecution allegation is that the minutes book for the meeting was falsely prepared and the signatures of the members were forged. It has been alleged by the prosecution that the

¶63

Crl.R.P.Nos.582 of 2021 & 24 of 2022

¶64

¶65

members have denied their signature during the course of investigation. The 7th accused himself has stated that due to time constraints he has to issue several cheques for payment of money as per the scheme since the SGRY scheme is due to expire on 31-03-2008.

¶66

This submission of 7th accused itself shows that there was no proper verification or assessment regarding the execution of the work and without making any objective assessment of works carried out by the committee, has passed the amount allowing the concerned to misappropriate Government money without any public interest.

¶67

It is the allegation of the prosecution that for that purpose all the relevant records including the minutes of the various committees, muster roll, levels, checks measure, final bills etc. are forged. These are being done by the accused as per the conspiracy hatched by them which can only be revealed through a proper trial of the accused in this case.

¶68

On going through the documents produced the prosecution and the statement of the witnesses it can be seen that prima facie offences alleged against accused are made out against them in this case which includes the petitioners. Contention of the petitioners that conspiracy is not revealed from the materials produced and hence they are not liable along with other accused cannot be accepted at this stage.

¶69

It has to be borne out in mind that conspiracy will be hatched in secrecy and conspiracy can only be revealed through the evidence adduced in the trial by the prosecution and the circumstances brought out through such evidence. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that conspiracy is not brought out cannot be accepted at this stage of the proceedings.

¶70

Contention of the 7th accused that he is a victim of the political rivalry of the panchayath committee cannot be accepted at this stage of the proceedings which the 7th

¶71

¶72

Crl.R.P.Nos.582 of 2021 & 24 of 2022

¶73

accused can bring out in his evidence during trial. For that purpose also, trial has to be conducted.

¶74

3rd accused has contended that he has not prepared the muster roll which has resulted in the misappropriation of food grains and wages. Prima facie it is seen that muster roll is being handled by the 3rd accused also and prima facie there is material to frame charge against the 3rd accused also.”

¶75

This common order is under challenge at the instance of accused Nos.3 and 7 in these revision petitions.

¶76

Sections 239 and 240 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deal with discharge and framing of charge.

¶77

The obligation to discharge the accused under Section 239 Cr.P.C. arises when “the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless.”

¶78

The primary consideration at the stage of framing charge is the test of the existence of a prima facie case. The probative value of materials on record is not to be gone into at this stage.

¶79

Section 239 envisages a careful and objective consideration of the question whether the charge against the accused is groundless or whether there is ground for presuming that he has committed an offence. What Section 239 prescribes is not, therefore, an empty or routine formality. It is a valuable provision to the advantage

¶80

¶81

Crl.R.P.Nos.582 of 2021 & 24 of 2022

¶82

of the accused, and its breach is not permissible under the law. But if the Judge, upon considering the record, including the examination, if any, and the hearing, is of the opinion that there is "ground for presuming" that the accused has committed the offence triable under the chapter, he is required by Section 240 to frame in writing a charge against the accused. The order for the framing of the charge is of a farreaching nature and it amounts to a decision that the accused is not entitled to discharge.

¶83

At the stage of framing charges even a very strong suspicion founded upon materials before the Special Judge, which leads him to form presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offences alleged, may justify the framing of charges. In Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya and Others [(1990) 4 SCC 76] the Apex Court held

¶84

thus:-

¶85

“From the above discussion it seems well settled that at the Sections 227-228 stage the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The court may for this limited purpose sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at the initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.”

¶86

Crl.R.P.Nos.582 of 2021 & 24 of 2022

¶87

¶88

In V.C.Shukla v. State through C.B.I. (1980 SCC

¶89

(Cri) 695) , the Apex Court held hus:-

¶90

“8. There can be no doubt that the stage of framing of the charges is an important stage and the court before framing the charge has to apply its mind judicially to the evidence or the material placed before it in order to make up its mind whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. But this case is not an authority for the proposition that once the court, after considering the materials, passes an order framing the charges, the order is a final order which could be revised and would not be barred under Section 397(2) of the Code which, however, did not exist at the time when the decision was given. It follows therefore that an order framing a charge was clearly revisable by the High Court under Sections 435 and 439 of the Code of 1898. We may, however, point out that we are in complete agreement with the principle, involved in the cases discussed above, that an order framing charges against an accused undoubtedly decides an important aspect of the trial and it is the duty of the court to apply its judicial mind to the materials and come to a clear conclusion that a prima facie case has been made out on the basis of which it would be justified in framing charges.”

¶91

(emphasis supplied)

¶92

The principles emerged from the precedents referred to

¶93

above are; (1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. (2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. (3) The test

¶94

¶95

Crl.R.P.Nos.582 of 2021 & 24 of 2022

¶96

to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. (4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Sections 227 and 239 of the Code the Judge cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. (5) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the Trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal.

¶97

SUBMISSIONS

¶98

The learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended that the materials placed before the Court do not disclose any offence as against the revision petitioners. The learned counsel contended that the revision petitioners have been roped in with the aid of Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, the ingredients of which are essentially absent in the prosecution materials. The learned counsel

¶99

¶100

Crl.R.P.Nos.582 of 2021 & 24 of 2022

¶101

contended that the Special Judge exercised his jurisdiction in a casual manner. He has not applied his judicial mind in considering whether any prima facie materials were placed before the Court to frame charges against the revision petitioners.

¶102

The learned Special Government Pleader, per contra, contended that the statement of the prosecution witnesses and the other documents produced clearly establish the complicity of the revision petitioners. According to the learned Special Government Pleader, the larger conspiracy and the involvement of the revision petitioners in the offences alleged are prima facie evident from the materials, especially the forged documents like Muster Roll, agreements, minutes of the proceedings etc.

¶103

The following facts are not in dispute:-

¶104

(1) Though the Block Development Officer (A7) was the implementing officer of the work, the beneficiary committees under the leadership of Block Panchayat members were responsible for the execution and direct supervision of the work.

¶105

(2) Kerala Panchayati Raj Execution of Public Works Rules, 1997 was applicable to the work in question.

¶106

¶107

Crl.R.P.Nos.582 of 2021 & 24 of 2022

¶108

I shall analyse the materials produced before the Court

¶109

on the touchstone of the principles to be considered at the time of framing charges as provided in Section 239 Cr.P.C..

¶110

Crl.R.P.No.582 of 2021

¶111

The allegations against the revision petitioner (accused No.7) are as follows:-

¶112

(1) No administrative sanction was obtained for proceeding with the maintenance work of Maneenethu Temple Road.

¶113

(2) The revision petitioner acted upon forged documents like estimate, beneficiary committee notice, level field book, beneficiary committee minutes etc.

¶114

(3) The revision petitioner did not verify as to whether actually the work was carried out or not.

¶115

(4) Though the estimate was for a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- the revision petitioner disbursed a value worth Rs.1,62,049.90.

¶116

(5) The revision petitioner was member of the conspiracy.

¶117

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the finding of the investigating agency that no administrative sanction was granted is baseless and against the documents placed before the Court. The learned counsel further contended that the findings of the investigating agency that actually no

¶118

¶119

Crl.R.P.Nos.582 of 2021 & 24 of 2022

¶120

work was carried out and the revision petitioner/accused No.7 disbursed a value worth Rs.1,62,049.90 are contrary to the materials relied on by the prosecution. The learned counsel contended that the documents allegedly forged were placed before the revision petitioner by the public servants responsible for the preparation of the same and he acted upon the same on the bonafide belief that those were genuine documents.

¶121

The learned Special Government Pleader countered and contended that the statements of the prosecution witnesses would establish that the documents relied on were forged and further that there was no administrative sanction for the project.

¶122

Admittedly, the estimate for the work was Rs.1,20,000/-. As per Rule 4 of the Kerala Panchayati Raj Execution of Public Works Rules, 1997 (for short `the Rules’) the competent authority to grant administrative sanction in respect of an estimate exceeding Rs.1,00,000/- is the District Panchayat. Ext.E in the CD Compilation, a proceeding of the Member Secretary, District Planning Committee, Alappuzha District would show that administrative sanction was granted to the project as per decision dated 22.7.2008.

¶123

The second allegation against the revision petitioner is that he acted upon the estimate, beneficiary committee notice, level field book and minutes of the meeting of the beneficiary committee,

¶124

¶125

Crl.R.P.Nos.582 of 2021 & 24 of 2022

¶126

which are forged. Admittedly, the responsibility for the execution of the work was entrusted to the Block Panchayat members concerned. Accused No.4 was the Convenor of the beneficiary committee. The estimate was prepared by an Assistant Engineer of Bharanikkavu Block Panchayat. Accused No.5, the then Assistant Executive Engineer, verified the estimate and accorded technical sanction. The responsibility for the preparation of the Level field book, M-Book etc. is with the officials of the engineering wing of the Block Panchayat. Admittedly, the nature of the work is “beneficiary work” which was being executed by a “beneficiary committee” under the leadership of accused No.4, a member of the Block Panchayat. Page No.85 of the CD compilation shows that, as per the procedure, the Convenor of the beneficiary committee was responsible for the preparation of the minutes of the beneficiary committee. The fact that the revision petitioner issued a notice to the beneficiary committee would not make him responsible for the functioning of the committee and the preparation of the minutes, as those are the responsibilities of the Convenor of the beneficiary committee. Therefore, the revision petitioner cannot be held responsible for the genuineness of the estimate, Level field book, minutes of the meeting of the beneficiary committee etc.

¶127

¶128

Crl.R.P.Nos.582 of 2021 & 24 of 2022

¶129

Thirdly, the investigating agency concluded that no work was carried out. This finding is based on the statement of certain witnesses (CWs 25 to 31), who live near the place where the work was proposed. A perusal of pages 108 and 260 of the CD compilation would indicate certain stages of work wherein there is mention that the gravel used is not as proposed. The statement of CW11, who measured the road, speaks of the difference in the levels that occurred on the land before and after the work. Therefore, the allegation that no work was carried out is against the materials relied on by the prosecution.

¶130

The next allegation against the revision petitioner is that he disbursed a value of Rs.1,62,049.90 as against an estimate of Rs.1,20,000/-. The value was assessed in terms of rice and wheat; more clearly, the value of the estimate was assessed as equivalent to 97.96 Quintals of rice = Rs.87,183/- and 48.98 Quintals of wheat = 32,817/(87183 + 32,817 = 1,20,000). Page 195 of the CD compilation shows that 47.90 Quintals of rice were not available and the price of the same was substituted. Therefore, the prosecution case that over and above the quantity of rice and wheat a sum of Rs.47,675/- was also disbursed is factually incorrect.

¶131

¶132

Crl.R.P.Nos.582 of 2021 & 24 of 2022

¶133

Crl.R.P.No.24 of 2022

¶134

The allegation against the revision petitioner/accused No.3 is that in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy he prepared Muster Rolls relating to the participation of the beneficiaries in the Maneeneth Temple Road renovation work. Copies of the Muster Rolls are incorporated in pages 64 to 75 of the paper book in Crl.R.P.No.24/2022. In the Muster Rolls, Village Extension Officer, Padanilam has affixed his signature against the space ‘Officer’. In all the Muster Rolls except one, the signature of one more person is seen. `Execution of the work through the beneficiary committee’ is narrated in Rule 13 of the Rules. As per Rule 13, there shall be a Convenor to the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee Convenor shall enter into an agreement with the local authority concerned. Convenor of the Executive Committee of the Beneficiary Committee shall keep in writing details of quality, quantity and price of goods and materials supplied, number of labourers etc. The form of agreement attached to the Rules says that the Convenor of the committee has to maintain true and correct accounts of all incomes, transactions etc. and maintain a Muster Roll. The resultant conclusion is that the Convenor of the Beneficiary Committee, (accused No.4) is responsible for the preparation of the Muster Roll. The

¶135

¶136

Crl.R.P.Nos.582 of 2021 & 24 of 2022

¶137

necessary inference is that the revision petitioner/accused No.3, might have affixed his signature in his official capacity as the officer in charge. There cannot be a prima facie conclusion that the Village Extension Officer has prepared the Muster Rolls when accused No.4 is statutorily responsible for the preparation of the same. The prosecution relied on the statements of certain witnesses to the effect that the handwritings of the revision petitioner/accused No.3 are found in the Muster Rolls. The prosecution seeks to bring those statements under opinion evidence as provided in Section 47 of the Evidence Act. Those statements of the witnesses prima facie do not meet the requirements of Section 47 of the Evidence Act.

¶138

CONSPIRACY

¶139

Accused Nos.3 and 7 are sought to be implicated in the case with the aid of the conspiracy theory. It is trite that conspiracy need not necessarily be proved by direct evidence. It is also capable of being proved by circumstances pointing out the existence of a conspiracy to commit an unlawful act. In Bhagwan Swarup Lal Bishan Lal v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1965 SC 682) a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that the offence of conspiracy can be established either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence and the section will come into play only when the Court is satisfied that

¶140

¶141

Crl.R.P.Nos.582 of 2021 & 24 of 2022

¶142

there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, that is to say, there should be prima facie evidence that a person was a party to that conspiracy.

¶143

In State of M.P. v. Sheetla Sahai [(2009) 8 SCC 617],

¶144

the Apex Court has held as follows:-

¶145

“Criminal conspiracy is an independent offence. It is punishable separately. Prosecution, therefore, for the purpose of bringing the charge of criminal conspiracy read with the aforementioned provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act was required to establish the offence by applying the same legal principles which are otherwise applicable for the purpose of bringing a criminal misconduct on the part of an accused.”

¶146

29. In Zakia Ahsan Jafri v. State of Gujarat (AIR 2022 SC

¶147

3050), the Apex Court held that every act of commission and omission would not result in hatching criminal conspiracy unless the acts have been done deliberately and there is meeting of minds of all concerned.

¶148

The Special Judge held that as accused No.7, the revision petitioner in Crl.R.P.No.582/2021 is responsible for the misappropriation of Government money as there was no proper verification or assessment regarding the execution of the work. Conspiracy cannot be readily inferred merely on the basis of the inaction or failure of a public servant. There are no materials to show the participation of accused Nos.3 and 7 in the alleged conspiracy.

¶149

¶150

Crl.R.P.Nos.582 of 2021 & 24 of 2022

¶151

If the materials in the final report before the Special Judge are taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety they do not constitute the offences for which accused Nos.3 and 7 have been charged. There is no legal evidence against the revision petitioners or the facts are such that no offence is made out against them. The materials produced before the Court give rise to a suspicion only as distinguished from grave suspicion as against the revision petitioners.

¶152

What I have undertaken is not a roving inquiry but a simple and necessary inquiry for a proper adjudication of an application for discharge. The Special Judge was bound to conduct a similar inquiry for coming to a conclusion that a prima facie case was made out for the revision petitioners to stand trial. The Special Judge has not exercised his jurisdiction to see as to whether there is any basis for charging the revision petitioners. This Court is of the firm view that the charges against the revision petitioners are groundless. There is patent error in the exercise of the jurisdiction by the Special Judge.

¶153

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are restricted to the revision petitioners, namely, Shylajan Nair (A3) and G.Sisupalan (A7), before this Court and the learned trial Judge may not be influenced by the observations made above and may proceed with the case qua the other accused persons independently on its own

¶154

¶155

Crl.R.P.Nos.582 of 2021 & 24 of 2022

¶156

merits in accordance with law.

¶157

In the result, the impugned common order as against accused Nos.3 and 7 is set aside. Crl.M.P.Nos.314/2019 and 545/2020 & 147/2021 are allowed. Accused Nos.3 and 7 in C.C.No.6 of 2018 are discharged of the offences alleged.

¶158

The Crl.R.Ps are allowed as above.

¶159

S d/K.BABU Judge

¶160

TKS

¶161

Crl.R.P.Nos.582 of 2021 & 24 of 2022

¶162

¶163

APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 24/2022

¶164

PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES

¶165

Annexure ATRUE COPY OF CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.
VC/05/09/ALP, TAKEN ON THE FILES OF THE COURT
OF THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE,
KOTTAYAM AS C. C. 06/18
Annexure BTRUE COPY OF EXTRACT OF GUIDELINES OF SAMPOORNA
GRAMEEN ROZGAR YOJANA (SGRY) ISSUED BY GOVT. OF
INDIA
Annexure CTRUE COPY OF WORK AGREEMENT SIGNED BY A4 AND A7
RELATING TO 'IMPROVEMENTS TO THE ROAD MANNENATH
TEMPLE ROAD IN NOORANAD PANCHAYATH'.
Annexure DTRUE COPY OF MUSTER ROLLS ALLEGED TO BE
PREPARED BY REVISION PETITIONER / A3 SEEN IN
THE WORK FILE.
Annexure ECERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN CMP NOS.
314/2019,545/2020 AND 147/2021 PASSED BY THE
COURT OF THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL
JUDGE, KOTTAYAM VIDE ORDER DATED 21-4-2021.

¶166

TKS

G.Sisupalan v. the Deputy Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Sisupalan v. the Deputy Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chathoth Ajithkumar @ Gundu Vs State of Kerala

Pulichamakkil James Vs State of Kerala

Sukumaran Vs State of Kerala

Akbar K.I. Vs Union Territory of Lakshadweep

G. Sali (Retd.) Vs the Chief Secretary to Government of Kerala

Kaniyarathil Purushu Vs State of Kerala