AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
COMMON ORDER
The 1st accused in C.C.No.235/2016 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Muvattupuzha, arising out of Crime No.08/2004 of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Idukki, has filed Crl.R.P.No.545/2026 challenging the order dated 04.03.2026 in C.M.P.No.341/2022 in the said case, whereby the plea for discharge moved by the 1st accused was dismissed. The 3rd accused, who had also filed C.M.P.No.1383/2016 in the same case seeking discharge, has filed Crl.R.P.No.505/2026, challenging dismissal of the same.
Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused the records.
The prosecution case is that accused Nos.1 to 3 hatched conspiracy and in pursuance of the said conspiracy, they proceeded in this matter. The allegation is that the 3rd accused, a planter had been engaged in agricultural operations in his property, the properties of his family members, and the properties of other persons on the strength of powers of attorney executed by those landowners situated in Marayoor Village, Devikulam Taluk. During this period, the 2nd accused was the Agricultural Officer, Marayoor and the 1st accused was the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Devikulam. While so, the Government introduced a scheme under the name 'Use of Plastics in Agriculture' and decided to provide subsidy to agriculturists who introduced drip irrigation in their properties. At this juncture, accused Nos.1 to 3 hatched criminal conspiracy to misappropriate the Government funds earmarked for subsidy for drip irrigation and, accordingly, they falsely created receipts, estimates, letterheads, seals, and other documents in the names of in the names of 'Kairali Marketing Associates, Thrissur' and 'EPC Irrigation Limited, Nashik'. They created false documents for claiming subsidy in respect of the drip irrigation work purportedly undertaken by 'Kairali Marketing Associates' in the properties possessed by the 3rd accused. Similarly, they created false documents in the names of 'Kairali Marketing Associates' and 'EPC Irrigation Limited' purporting that those agencies had undertaken the drip irrigation work in the properties possessed by the 3rd accused. Thereafter, the 2nd accused falsely certified the completion of the drip irrigation work and presented those documents before the 1st accused, who was then the Assistant Director of Agriculture. The 1st accused sanctioned a total amount of ₹3,38,750/- (Rupees Three Lakh Thirty-eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Only) as subsidy by encashing Contingent Bill No.77/03-04 for the said amount and also prepared a bogus receipt showing that the said amount had been disbursed to the 2nd accused. Thus, the prosecution alleges that the accused persons dishonestly and fraudulently committed criminal misconduct and criminal breach of trust, and thereby misappropriated ₹3,38,750/- (Rupees Three Lakh Thirty-eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Only), obtained pecuniary advantage for themselves and causing corresponding loss to the Government. Thus, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the PC Act’ hereinafter), and under Sections 409, 465, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’ hereinafter), by the accused.
The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the 1st accused is that the 1st accused, in fact, not involved in any of the proceedings except granting sanction for the encashment of Rs.3,38,750/- (Rupees Three Lakh Thirty-eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Only), believing the records placed before him by the 2nd accused, who, in fact, entrusted with the duty of scrutinizing, verifying and reporting on whatever records and documents to be produced before the 2nd accused. Therefore, the implication of the 1st accused in this case is totally unwarranted and no materials available to proceed against him by framing charge and therefore, the learned Special Judge went wrong in negating his discharge plea. Therefore, the order would require interference.
The learned counsel for the 3rd accused read out the charge and argued that the role attributed to the 3rd accused is under Section 12 of the PC Act, as that of an abettor, and none of the prosecution records would show that he had any role in the occurrence. According to him, going by the prosecution records also, the 2nd accused placed a report regarding the work done and, in turn, the 1st accused sanctioned the amount of Rs.3,38,750/- (Rupees Three Lakh Thirty-eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Only). The said amount was, in fact, encashed by the 2nd accused, and no document has been produced by the prosecution to show that the 3rd accused either received the said amount or any portion thereof or participated in the encashment of Rs.3,38,750/-(Rupees Three Lakh Thirty-eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Only)(the amount alleged to have been misappropriated). According to the learned counsel for the 3rd accused, the 3rd accused is an agriculturist, having 10 acres of agricultural property and, therefore, he might have submitted an application by affixing his signature for the purpose of availing benefits from the Agricultural Department, and that may be the reason why an application along with concocted documents in his name forms part of the prosecution records would have been generated. According to the learned counsel for the 3rd accused, the 3rd accused is absolutely innocent and in such view of the matter, the discharge plea, at the instance of the 3rd accused is liable to succeed after setting aside the order impugned.
The learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the contentions raised by both sides and also produced the relevant records, including Exts.B29, B51, B52, N, P, Q, R and S, as specifically directed by this Court. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, on going through the statement of CW8, the procedure for disbursing amounts exceeding Rs.1,000/- by cheque and DD was violated by the 1st accused, and the same would show that he, as part of the conspiracy hatched among accused Nos.1 to 3, was involved in the commission of the crime and that accused Nos.1 to 3 together misappropriated the amount. It is also submitted that the application submitted by the 3rd accused, along with the documents claiming the amount for the work allegedly carried out under the names of two ‘concerns’ that were, in fact, not in existence, as revealed during investigation, is discernible from the prosecution records, and in this regard, the learned Public Prosecutor given heavy reliance on the statement of CW1, and submitted that, as could be seen from page Nos.31, 43, 101, 113, 115, 127, 129 and 141 of Contingent Bill No.77/2003-2004, the applications for the amounts mentioned therein were signed by P.J.Antony. It was further submitted that the signatures appearing on page Nos.45, 57, 59, 71, 73, 85, 87 and 99 were those of Aliamma, wife of Antony, to substantiate the involvement of the 3rd accused in the crime.
Here, the case of the prosecution is that during the year 2003-2004, the 1st accused, Sri.S.Vijayaraj, aged 63/13, Former Assistant Director of Agriculture, Devikulam, (S/o.Selvaraj, Raj Bhavan, Massivayal, Marayoor), 2nd accused Sri.P.Palani, aged 50/13, former Agricultural Officer, Marayoor (S/o.Palayya, General Hospital Quarters, Munnar) and as such being public servants, abused their official position as public servants, entered into the criminal conspiracy with the 3rd accused Sri. P.J.Antony, aged 70/08, S/o.Joseph, Parayil House, Nirmala College Road, Muvattupuzha and in furtherance of the said conspiracy, accused Nos.1 to 3 prepared false receipts, estimates, letter pads, seals and receipts in the name of 'Kairali Marketing Associates Thrissur and EPC Irrigation Limited Nassik, and the 2nd accused falsely certified in the bills that drip irrigation work was executed by the applicants without doing any work and the 1st accused passed the amount and encashed the contingent bill No.77/2003-2004 for Rs.3,38,750/- (Rupees Three Lakh Thirty-eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Only) and also made bogus receipts showing that the amount was disbursed and thus, the accused dishonestly and fraudulently committed criminal misconduct and breach of trust and thereby, misappropriated an amount of Rs.3,38,750/-(Rupees Three Lakh Thirty-eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Only) and thereby, the accused obtained pecuniary advantage and loss to the Government. Thus, the accused committed the aforesaid offences.
In the common order in C.M.P.No.341/2022 and C.M.P.No.1383/2016, in paragraph Nos.13 and 14, the learned Special Judge discussed the question as to whether the prosecution materials would be sufficient to frame charge against the 1st accused and observed as under:
“13.Now question to be considered is whether the prosecution has produced any material so as to frame a charge against the first accused. Learned counsel for the first accused contended that the first accused duty is only to verify the correctness of the endorsement made by the second accused regarding the recommendation for sanctioning the amount. No duty cast upon the first accused to have a further verification of the documents submitted along with the application. Therefore the first accused was totally unaware about the genuineness of the supporting documents. According to him there was no conspiracy between him and other accused and there is no evidence produced by the prosecution in that regard as well. In view of the above circumstance there is no material available on record so as to frame a charge against him and therefore the first accused entitled for an order of discharge.
14.It is true that the bogus and forged documents submitted along with the application of the third accused have been certified by the second accused Agricultural officer. In other words the second accused certified that the drip irrigation work has been executed in the property of the third accused. Now question to be considered is whether the first accused Asst. Director of Agriculture was unaware about the creation and submission of those forged documents for the purpose of making a false claim of subsidy before him. In other words whether any materials available on record to prove the conspiracy between the first accused and other accused. The act of conspiracy often occurred in secrecy. One cannot expect a direct evidence for the proof of the actual act of conspiracy. It may not be possible for the prosecution to produce direct evidence for the proof of the actual act of conspiracy. It could be deducible only from the circumstantial evidence and inferences. The question is in the instant case whether the prosecution was able to bring any material so as to remotely connect the unholy connection between the first accused and other accused. In this context it is pertinent note that the first accused is the person who has to sanction the subsidy amount on the basis of the recommendation made by second accused in respect of the application and the supporting documents submitted by the third accused. In this context the statement of CW8, the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Idukki assumes significance. From her evidence it is seen that the amount has been disbursed by the first accused as per B-52 Contingent bill. The total subsidy amount was ₹3,38,750/-. The said amount has been disbursed by way of eight receipts. In those receipts there is no mention of the person who received the subsidy amount. Further there is a norm to the effect that any payment made by way of subsidy exceeding 1000 rúpees, shall be done only through a cheque or Demand draft. Moreover, the subsidy shall be given to the applicant and the payment has been made to the applicant by way of cheque or demand draft. While making payment in such a manner, the acknowledgment of that person has to be obtained and it should be kept in the office. In the case on hand, it appears that, the first accused had withdrawn the subsidy amount from the treasury and subsequently purported to have been disbursed to the company directly by cash. But the details of the person who received the money is not shown in any of the records. It may be true that all these are procedural irregularities. But these procedural irregularities must have a direct bearing with regard to the allegations leveled against the first accused. These procedural irregularities are sufficient indications and inferences which would give raise to a presumption as to the complicity of the first accused. In other words these procedural irregularities shown a grave suspicious regarding his involvement in the alleged misappropriation. Therefore, the above materials proposed to be adduced by the prosecution are sufficient enough to frame a charge against the first accused as well. In view of the above circumstances I am of the view that the materials produced by the prosecution are sufficient enough to frame a charge against first accused as well. In view of the above circumstances the Crl.MP 341/2022 is liable to be dismissed. Point no.1 is not found in favour of the petitioners.”
Similarly, in paragraph Nos.10, 11 and 12, the learned Special Judge addressed the contentions raised by the 3rd accused and negatived the same as under:
“10.Point No.1. The prosecution alleged that the third accused was doing agricultural operations in the properties belonged to him and his relatives and in the properties of other persons for which he obtained power of attorney. The records produced by the prosecution further shows that the third accused had applied for introducing drip irrigation project in those properties. It is also seen that the documents relating to the execution of drip irrigation work have been prepared and submitted before the first accused who was the Asst. Director of Agriculture for the purpose of disbursing the subsidy amount. Those documents includes Receipts, Estimates, Letter pads and Seals and Receipts in the name of 'Kairaly Marketing Associates, Thrissur' and 'EPC Irrigation Limited, Nassik’. Those documents would go to show that drip irrigation work has been done in those properties and the said work has been certified by the second accused. It was done in the year 2003-2004. The documents produced by the prosecution further shows that after submission of those documents before the first accused Asst.Director of Agriculture, he released an amount of ₹ 3,38,750/-towards subsidy.
11.On 24/08/2011 the Vigilance Department conducted an inspection and they found that no drip irrigation has been conducted in the properties possessed by the third accused. As per the inspection report dated 24/08/2011 the inspection team has inspected 12 properties. Out of those 12 properties they could found remnants of drip irrigation only in 3 properties. Later, during investigation they came to know that the bills, estimates and other supporting documents for claiming subsidy were found to be forged documents. The officers of the Kairaly Marketing Associates gave statements to effect that those documents were not issued by them and they have not under-taken any drip irrigation work in the aforesaid properties. The above materials would clearly indicate the fact that bogus documents have been created and submitted for claiming subsidy from the Agricultural department. Those documents have been submitted along with the applications submitted by the third accused.
12.Admittedly the third accused is an estate owner and he had done the Agriculture operations in those properties. He admitted that fact in the above CMP. In view of the above circumstances mere denial of the third accused that he is totally unaware about the supporting documents submitted along with his application for subsidy cannot be countenanced at this stage. On consideration of the prosecution records I find that there are enough materials available on record to frame a charge against the third accused. It is seen from the records that third accused submitted applications for claiming subsidy and those applications have been accompanied with supporting documents and those documents are found to be forged documents. The correctness or otherwise of the defense put forwarded by the third accused in the CMP cannot be considered at this stage. Prima facie there are enough materials to frame a charge against the third accused and therefore the CMP filed by the third accused (CMP 1383/2016) is devoid of any merits and substance and it is liable to be dismissed. “
Now, the question that arises for consideration is whether the findings of the Special Court, as extracted hereinabove, are justified by the prosecution records so as to try accused Nos.1 and 3/revision petitioners or whether they are liable to be discharged after setting aside the impugned common order.
Going through the reasons referred by the learned Special Judge while negating the pleas for discharge, supported by the prosecution records, it is pertinent to note that in this case, CW8, the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Idukki given statement that the amount alleged to be misappropriated coming to the tune of ₹3,38,750/- (Rupees Three Lakh Thirty-eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Only) was disbursed by the 1st accused as per Ext.B52 contingent bill and for which, eight receipts were obtained and those receipts would not depict the name of the person who had received the subsidy amount. Further, the said amount was not disbursed by way of cheque or demand draft, since the prescribed procedure was to disburse amounts exceeding Rs.1,000/- by cheque or demand draft. It is relevant to note that, during the vigilance inspection, it was found that no work had been carried out in respect of the disbursement of ₹3,38,750/- (Rupees Three Lakh Thirty-eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Only). Further, the receipts alleged to have been issued in the name of 'Kairali Marketing Associates' were signed by a person claiming to be its authorised signatory, and the responsible officers of Kairali Marketing Associates gave statements before the Vigilance that they had neither carried out any work nor issued any such receipts. Further, they did not receive any such amount. When conspiracy is alleged in the matter of misappropriation between accused Nos.1 to 3, the evidence to prove the same is not direct, but circumstantial. When the 1st accused passed a bill for a huge sum during the relevant time, his involvement in this crime after conspiracy could not be decided at the pre-trial stage and the said aspect, no doubt, a matter of evidence.
Coming to the role of the 3rd accused, even as per the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the 3rd accused, and as discernible from the statement of CW1, pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, applications appearing at page Nos.31, 43, 101, 113, 115, 127, 129 and 141 of Contingent Bill No.77/2003-2004 were admittedly signed by P.J.Antony. It is further discernible that the signatures appearing on page Nos.45, 57, 59, 71, 73, 85, 87 and 99 are those of Aliamma, wife of Antony. These materials prima facie substantiate the involvement of the 3rd accused in the alleged crime. It is in the above background that the learned counsel for the 3rd accused argued that the mere obtaining of applications and supporting documents from the 3rd accused would not suffice to implicate him in the crime and that the 3rd accused is absolutely innocent.
Here, the prosecution case is that accused Nos.1 to 3 hatched conspiracy and in pursuance of the same, they have acted upon applications and documents admittedly signed by the 3rd accused and considered by the 2nd accused, and forwarded to the 1st accused for disbursing the amount alleged to be misappropriated. The prosecution materials would further show that the claim was made in the name of a concern, 'Kairali Marketing Associates', and that the said firm emphatically denied having carried out any work or having received any amount. Kairali Marketing Associates also denied issuance of the receipts by them. In this context, it is very pertinent to note that the name or other details of the persons who had issued the receipts conspicuously absent in the receipts. This aspect would show that prima facie the receipts are forged ones. Thus, as observed by the learned Special Judge and as discernible from the materials discussed hereinabove, a strong suspicion regarding the involvement of accused Nos.1 and 3 in the alleged misappropriation along with the 2 accused, as part of the conspiracy hatched between them, could be found, and such strong suspicion would suffice the requirement for framing a charge and to proceed with the trial.
Therefore, the challenge made in these Crl.R.P.s against the common order rejecting the discharge petitions filed by accused Nos.1 and 3, is found to be unsustainable. Consequently, the common order is liable to be confirmed.
In the result, these Crl.R.P.s are dismissed. The Special Court shall proceed with the trial of the case, which has been pending for the last 10 years, and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Special Court, for information and compliance.
APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET NO. 505 OF 2026
PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES
Annexure A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED BY THE ENQUIRY OFFICER, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VACB INDUKKI UNIT IN FIR NO.VC 08/04-IDK DATED 27.05.2013
Annexure B TRUE COPY OF THE C.M.P.NO.1383 OF 2016 IN C.C.NO.235 OF 2016 FILED BY THE REVISION PETITIONER FILED UNDER SECTION 239 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE BEFORE THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE (VIGILANCE) MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 27.8.2016
Annexure C CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.03.2026 IN C.M.P.NO.1383 OF 2016 IN C.C.NO.235 OF 2016 OF THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE (VIGILANCE) MUVATTUPUZHA
RESPONDENT’S
NIL ANNEXURES
APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET NO. 545 OF 2026
PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES
Annexure I THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 27.05.2013 IN VC 08/04-IDK OF VIGILANCE POLICE STATION IDUKKI EXCLUDING THE WITNESS STATEMENTS AND DOCUMENTS
Annexure 1(a) THE TRUE COPY OF EXT.B52 DOCUMENT ATTACHED TO ANNEXURE-I POLICE REPORT
Annexure I(b) THE TRUE COPY OF EXT.B35(A) DOCUMENT ATTACHED TO ANNEXURE-I POLICE REPORT
Annexure I(c) THE TRUE COPY OF EXT.R DOCUMENT ATTACHED TO ANNEXURE-I POLICE REPORT
Annexure I(d) TRUE COPY OF THE WITNESS STATEMENT OF CW8 ATTACHED TO ANNEXURE-I POLICE REPORT
Annexure II THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION C.M.P.NO.341/2022 DATED 04.04.2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER
Annexure III THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 25.04.2022 IN C.M.P.NO.341/2022
RESPONDENT’S
NIL ANNEXURES