A former Joint Regional Transport Officer sought quashing of two VACB FIRs alleging he accepted bribes to alter registration certificates of prototype open vehicles to closed vehicles contrary to Section 52 MV Act and Supreme Court directions. The High Court found the allegations disclosed the alleged offences and dismissed both petitions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 6570 OF 2021
CRIME NO.5/2021 OF VACB, THRISSUR, Thrissur
PETITIONER/S:
SREEPRAKASH.B.,
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, VENATTU HOUSE,
KANDIYOOR, THATTARAMBALAM P.O., MAVELIKKARA,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 690 103.
BY ADVS.
S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
P.MARTIN JOSE
P.PRIJITH
THOMAS P.KURUVILLA
S.K.SAJU
RESPONDENT/S:
1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.
2 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, THRISSUR 620 680.OTHER PRESENT:
RAJESH A SPL GP VIG..REKHA SR PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 15.03.2024, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.6575/2021, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
..2..
Crl,M.C.No.6570 & 6575 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 6575 OF 2021
CRIME NO.06/2021 OF VACB, THRISSUR, Thrissur
PETITIONER/S:
SREEPRAKASH. B.,
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, VENATTU HOUSE,
KANDIYOOR, THATTARAMBALAM P.O., MAVELIKKARA,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
P.MARTIN JOSE
P.PRIJITH
THOMAS P.KURUVILLA
S.K.SAJU
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.2 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, THRISSUR 620 680.RAJESH A SPL GP VIG..REKHA SR PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 15.03.2024, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.6570/2021, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl,M.C.No.6570 & 6575 of 2021
..3..
K. BABU, J
------------------------------------------------Crl M.C. Nos. 6570 & 6575 of 2021 ------------------------------------------------Dated this the 15th day of March, 2024
O R D E R
The petitioner, a former Joint Regional Transport Officer is accused No.1 in FIR Nos. 5 of 2021 and 6 of 2021 of VACB, Thrissur. He is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 7(b) and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act for short) r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in FIR No.5/2021 and Sections 7(b) and 8(i) (ii) of the PC Act r/w Section 34 of the IPC in FIR No.6/2021. He seeks to quash FIR No.5/2021 in Crl M.C.No.6570 of 2021 and FIR No.6/2021 in Crl.M.C.No. 6575 of 2021.
Crl,M.C.No.6570 & 6575 of 2021
..4..
The petitioner while officiating as Joint Regional Transport Offier of Thrissur RTO dishonsestly issued the Registration Certificates of 32 prototype “open vehicles” altering the specifications cited in Sale Certificates (Form No.21), to “closed vehicles” violating Section 52(1) of the MV Act, the decision of the Apex Court in Regional Transport Officer v. K. Jayachandran [2019 KHC 6032] and Circular No.11036/06/2019 MVL dated 28/2/2019 by accepting bribe from Accused No.2, Tenny C.L. in between 25.04.2019 and 30.04.2019. The alteration of the vehicles was approved by the petitioner who was the registering authority even without collecting the fee for the alteration of the vehicles.
The petitioner while officiating as Joint Regional Transport Offier of Thrissur RTO dishonsestly issued the registration certificates of 25 prototype “open vehicles” altering the specifications cited in Sale Certificates (Form
Crl,M.C.No.6570 & 6575 of 2021
..5..
Number-21), to “closed vehicles” violating Section 52(1) of the MV Act, the decision of the Apex Court in Regional Transport Officer v. K. Jayachandran [2019 KHC 6032] and Circular No.11036/06/2019 MVL dated 28/2/2019, by accepting bribe from Accused No.2, Sudhin C.M. through Sijith @ Kuttayi and Thomas in between 17.08.2019 and 18.12.2019. The alteration of the vehicles was approved by the petitioner who was the registering authority even without collecting the fee for the alteration of the vehicles.
Crl,M.C.No.6570 & 6575 of 2021
..6..
Jayachandran [2019 KHC 6032] and the circulars issued by the competent authority in this regard.
(1)The vehicles were used as Cash Van for the purpose of transporting cash for bank and other financial institutions. There is no approved
Crl,M.C.No.6570 & 6575 of 2021
‘prototype’ for such vehicles. The only option available to the customers is to convert the commercial vehicles to Cash Van in accordance with the specifications stipulated by the Ministry of Home Affairs.
(2).There are only few manufacturers producing the vehicles adhering to the stipulations issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs. In order to accommodate five passengers, the vehicle must have dual cab.
(3)The ratio in Jayachandran’s case is not applicable to the present facts, as there is no material alteration leading to structural changes of the vehicles.
Crl,M.C.No.6570 & 6575 of 2021
..8..
(1)Many goods carrier vehicles altered in violation of Section 52(1) of the MV Act have been issued registration illegally.
(2)The specification of class of vehicle and type of body in the Form No.21 in respect of those vehicles are “Goods Carrier and Open” and the petitioner illegally issued Registration Certificates changing the class of vehicle and type of body to “Cash Van and Closed”.
(3)The petitioner issued registration certificates illegally to the vehicles by accepting bribe. (4) The investigating agency recorded statements of witnesses which would show that the petitioner had received bribe. The investigation of the case is in a preliminary stage and it is premature to seek a relief to quash the FIR.
Crl,M.C.No.6570 & 6575 of 2021
..9..
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which reads thus:-
“ 52. Alteration in motor vehicle. - (1) No owner of a motor vehicle shall so alter the vehicle that the particulars contained in the certificate of registration are at variance with those originally specified by the manufacturer:
Provided that where the owner of a motor vehicle makes modification of the engine, or any part thereof, of a vehicle for facilitating its operation by different type of fuel or source of energy including battery, compressed natural gas, solar power, liquid petroleum gas or any other fuel or source of energy, by fitment of a conversion kit, such modification shall be carried out subject to such conditions as may be prescribed:
Provided further that the Central Government may prescribe specifications, conditions for approval, retrofitment and other related matters for the alteration of motor vehicles and in such cases, the warranty granted by the manufacturer shall not be considered as void for the purposes of such alteration or retrofitment.
Provided also that the Central Government may grant exemption for alteration of vehicles in a manner other than specified above, for any specific purpose.
(1A) A manufacturer of a motor vehicle shall on the direction issued by the Central Government, alter or retrofit safety equipment, or any other equipment in
..10..
Crl,M.C.No.6570 & 6575 of 2021
accordance with such standards and specifications as may be specified by the Central Government.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), any person may, with the subsequent approval of the registering authority, alter or cause to be altered any vehicle owned by him to be converted into an adapted vehicle:
Provided that such alteration complies with such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
(3) Where any alteration has been made in motor vehicle without the approval of registering authority[xxx], the owner of the vehicle shall, within fourteen days of the making of the alteration, report the alteration to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he resides and shall forward the certificate of registration to that authority together with the prescribed fee in order that particulars of registration may be entered therein.
(4) A registering authority other than the original registering authority making any such entry shall communicate the details of the entry to the original registering authority.
(5) Subject to the provisions made under sub-sections ( 1 ), ( 2 ), ( 3 ) and ( 4 ), no person holding a vehicle under a hire-purchase agreement shall make any alteration to the vehicle except with the written consent of the registered owner.
Crl,M.C.No.6570 & 6575 of 2021
..11..
Explanation .--For the purposes of this section, "alteration" means a change in the structure of a vehicle which results in a change in its basic feature.
..12..
Crl,M.C.No.6570 & 6575 of 2021
kits. The Central Government has power to grant an exemption for alteration of vehicles for any specific purpose. The explanation to Section 52 says that “alteration” means a change in the structure of a vehicle which results in a change in its basis structure.
Crl,M.C.No.6570 & 6575 of 2021
..13..
that the vehicle has to be in conformity with the Rules also but Rules cannot be so interpreted so as to permit alteration as prohibited under Section 52(1) of the Act. The alteration under the Rules is permissible except as prohibited by Section 52.
Crl,M.C.No.6570 & 6575 of 2021
..14..
the officials of the Regional Transport Offices. In the surprise check, the VACB found that many goods carrier vehicles were altered in violation of Section 52(1) of the MV Act, 1988 and the judgment in Jayachandran ’s case.
Crl,M.C.No.6570 & 6575 of 2021
..15..
Crl,M.C.No.6570 & 6575 of 2021
..16..
further held that the High Court has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations {Vide: State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha [(1982) 1 SCC 561], Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar [(1985) 2 SCC 370]}.
Crl,M.C.No.6570 & 6575 of 2021
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 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).
..18..
Crl,M.C.No.6570 & 6575 of 2021
(i) xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx
..19..
Crl,M.C.No.6570 & 6575 of 2021
(xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;
(xiii) xxx xxx xxx
(xiv) xxx xxx xxx
(xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged Accused and the court when it exercises the power Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on
Crl,M.C.No.6570 & 6575 of 2021
..20..
merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR;”
The Crl.M.Cs. lack merit and accordingly they stand dismissed.
Sd/- K.BABU, JUDGE
kkj
Crl,M.C.No.6570 & 6575 of 2021
..21..
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6575/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 06/2021/TSR REGISTERED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15.07.2021.Annexure 2 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 08.08.2018 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS.Annexure 3 A TRUE COPY OF THE CMVR CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VEHICLE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, ESTABLISHMENT CERTIFYING THE PARAMETERS OF THE PROTOTYPE OF THE VEHICLE INVOLVED IN THE CASE.Annexure 4 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION PAPERS OF ONE OF THE VEHICLES INVOLVED IN THE CASE.Annexure 5 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 7/2006 TO ALL RTOS ISSUED BY THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, KERALA.Annexure 6 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 5/2014 DATED 26.06.2014 ISSUED BY THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, KERALA.Annexure 7 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO. 11036/06/2019 MVL DATED 28.02.2019 ISSUED CENTRAL GOVERNMENT.Annexure 8 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO. 407/2021/TRANS DATED 22.11.2021.Annexure 9 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR DATED 19-9-2022 ISSUED BY THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONERRESPONDENTS ANNEXURES ANNEXURE R2(A) COPY OF THE JUDGMENT RENDERED BY THE APEX COURT IN SLP(C) NOS.13228-13231 OF 2013ANNEXURE R2(B) COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.11036/06/2019 MVL DATED 28.02.2019ANNEXURE R2(C) COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.7/2066 DATED 28.09.2006Crl,M.C.No.6570 & 6575 of 2021
..22..
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6570/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure |
1 |
CERTIFIED COPY05/2021/TSR |
OF THE FIR IN CRIREGISTERED BY TH |
ME NO.E 2ND |
|---|---|---|---|---|
RESPONDENT DAT |
ED 15.07.2021. |
|||
Annexure |
2 |
TRUE COPY OF |
THE NOTIFICATION |
DATED |
08.08.2018 ISHOME AFFAIRS. |
SUED BY THE MINIS |
TRY OF |
||
Annexure |
3 |
A TRUE COPYISSUED BY THDEVELOPMENT,THE PARAMETERSVEHICLE, INVOL |
OF THE CMVR CERTIE VEHICLE RESEARCESTABLISHMENT CERTOF THE PROTOTYPEVED IN THE CASE. |
FICATEH ANDIFYINGOF THE |
Annexure |
4 |
TRUE COPY OFOF ONE OF THECASE. |
THE REGISTRATIONVEHICLES INVOLVED |
PAPERSIN THE |
Annexure |
5 |
TRUE COPY OF |
THE CIRCULAR NO. |
7/2006 |
TO ALL RTOSCOMMISSIONER, |
ISSUED BY THE TRAKERALA. |
NSPORT |
||
Annexure |
6 |
TRUE COPY OFDATED 26.06.TRANSPORT COMM |
THE CIRCULAR NO.2014 ISSUED BYISSIONER, KERALA. |
5/2014THE |
Annexure |
7 |
TRUECOPY11036/06/2019ISSUED CENTRAL |
OFCIRCULARMVL DATED 28.02GOVERNMENT. |
NO..2019, |
Annexure |
8 |
TRUE COPY407/2021/TRANS |
OF G.O. (RT)DATED 22.11.2021. |
NO. |
Annexure |
9 |
TRUE COPY OFISSUED BY THE |
CIRCULAR DATED 19-TRANSPORT COMMISSIO |
9-2022NER |
RESPONDEN |
TS ANNE |
XURES |
||
ANNEXURE |
R2(A) |
COPY OF THEAPEX COURT INOF 2013 |
JUDGMENT RENDEREDSLP(C) NOS.13228 |
BY THE-13231 |
ANNEXURE |
R2(B) |
COPY OF THE CMVL DATED 28.0 |
IRCULAR NO.11036/02.2019 |
6/2019 |
ANNEXURE |
R2(C) |
COPY OF THE28.09.2006 |
CIRCULAR NO.7/2066 |
DATED |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the FIRs alleging bribe-taking for illegally altering vehicle registrations disclose cognizable offences justifying quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Regional Transport Officer v. K. JayachandranApplied¶14
[2019 KHC 6032]
State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar GuhaRelied on¶21
[(1982) 1 SCC 561] · Who else cites this
Pratibha Rani v. Suraj KumarRelied on¶21
[(1985) 2 SCC 370] · Who else cites this
State of Kerala v. O.C. KuttanRelied on¶22
[(1999) 2 SCC 651] · Who else cites this
State of U.P v. O.P.SharmaRelied on¶22
[(1996) 7 SCC 705] · Who else cites this
Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar BhadaRelied on¶22
[(1997) 2 SCC 397] · Who else cites this
Mahendra K.C. v. State of Karnataka and Ors.Relied on¶22
(AIR 2021 SC 5711) · Who else cites this
M/s.Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd v. State of Maharashtra and othersRelied on¶23
(AIR 2021 SC 1918) · Who else cites this
6 provisions across 4 enactments
Sreeprakash B.
State of Kerala
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Thrissur
K. Babu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court