T.P. Satheesan vs State Of Kerala

The 1^st accused in C.C.No.12/2017 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Muvattupuzha, has filed this Revision Petition challenging the order in Crl.M.P.No.1541/2022 in the above case dated 08.04.2026, whereby the learned Special Judge dismissed the discharge plea raised by the petitioner/1^st accused.

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ 1^st accused and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the order impugned.

In this case the prosecution case is that the 1^st accused while working as the Secretary of Aluva Municipality during the period from 11-4-2008 to 08-03-2011, where the 2^nd accused was the Health Supervisor, the Municipality invited tenders for supplying Fiber Waste bins, and the informant also put up his tender. Then the 1^st accused demanded an amount of ₹ 1,00,000/- for himself and ₹50,000/- to the 2^nd accused. After negotiation, the 1^st accused agreed for an amount of₹15,000/- as the first instalment and directed the informant to bring the same on 08-03-2011. Later the informant informed the matter to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ernakulam, and they registered the FIR as Crime No.VC 3/2011. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ernakulam, decided to arrange a trap. He had handed over currency notes smeared with Phenolphthalein powder to the informant. Later, the informant, investigating officer and other gazetted officers came near to the vicinity of Municipal office, Aluva. As directed by the Investigating Officer, at abut 3.12 p.m the informant entered into the office of the 1^st accused and later he had handed over the said currency notes to the 1^st accused when he demanded the same and the 1^st accused after accepting the currency notes, put it at the bottom of his office table in front of him. Soon the informant gave a signal to the officials of Vigilance Department and they rushed into the office room of the 1^st accused and they recovered those currency notes from him. When the right hand of the 1^st accused was dipped into Sodium Carbonate solution, positive result has been shown. The accused was arrested and he was taken into custody. Accordingly the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018. Even though the 1^st and 2^nd accused persons were arrayed initially, the case against the 2^nd accused was quashed by this Court as per order in Crl.M.C.No.5300/2017, as could be discernible from the narration in the order impugned.

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused argued that in this case a pertinent legal question is involved, relying on Section 548 of the Kerala Municipality Act. According to him, Section 548 provides that if any offence alleged to have been committed by the Chairperson, any Councillor or the Secretary of a Municipality while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction of the Government. Therefore, sanction provided under Section 548 of the Kerala Municipality Act is necessary to prosecute the revision petition. Here no such sanction was obtained. According to him, even though this legal question was canvassed before the Special Court, the Special Court was not inclined to consider the same, and relying on the decision of this Court reported in [2007 (4) KHC 666], T.P.Satheesan v. State of Kerala, the learned Special Judge negatived the contention. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the ratio in T.P.Satheesan v. State of Kerala's case (supra) is per in-curium and the same is against the statute.

Whereas the learned Public Prosecutor, who supported the impugned order, would submit that in this case the offence alleged is one punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 2018, and for which sanction under Section 19(1) of the PC Act, 2018 would be necessary if the public servant had continued in service at the time of filing the final report. In the instant case, the final report was filed on 31.03.2017 and the revision petitioner retired on 30.11.2016. Therefore, the necessity of obtaining sanction under Section 19(1) of the PC Act, 2018, stood vanished. He also supported the verdict by placing reliance on the decision in T.P. Satheesan v. State of Kerala's case (supra), contending that the ratio laid therein is correct. In T.P. Satheesan v. State of Kerala's case (supra), this Court considered the requirement of sanction under Section 548 of the Kerala Municipality Act and held as follows:

Even though a contention was raised before the Special Court that as per clause (c) of Rule 3 of Part III Kerala Service Rules (`KSR' for short), withholding of pension is possible only in a case where the prosecution got prior sanction of the Government for prosecuting the petitioner, in fact, the said Rule has no direct application to the present case. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner did not press the contention based on the said Rule and he confined his submission reiterating that sanction under Section 548 of the Kerala Municipality Act is mandatory to prosecute the revision petition and that, in the absence of such sanction, the petitioner is liable to be discharged from the proceedings.

It is relevant to note that the Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 218 of Bharatiy Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 provides for sanction and the same would apply to the offences dealt in the Indian Penal Code and Bharatiy Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. Coming to PC Act, Section 19(1) provides for sanction. Similarly, any offence under the Kerala Municipality Act is alleged to be committed by the Chairperson, any Councillor or a Secretary of a Municipality while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no court shall take cognizance of such offence/offences except with the previous sanction of the Government in terms of Section 548 of the Kerala Municipality Act. In the instant case, no offence under the Municipality Act either alleged or could be seen from the prosecution records. Here the offences alleged against the revision petitioner/1^st accused are under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act. Therefore, in this case, as far as sanction for prosecution is concerned, the same is confined to Section 19(1) of PC Act, 2018, since the offences alleged are under the PC Act, 2018. Therefore, the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that, by virtue of Section 548 of the Kerala Municipality Act, sanction is necessary for prosecuting the revision petition for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act, 2018, cannot sustain and the ratio in T.P. Satheesan v. State of Kerala's case (supra) is the correct law on this legal issue. Consequently, the learned Special Judge is fully justified in holding that the revision petitioner's plea for discharge on that ground was liable to fail. Otherwise also here the revision petitioner was nabbed red-handed while demanding and accepting bribe from the informant as part of trap. Thus the prosecution allegations, prima facie, show the ingredients for the offences alleged, warranting trial, and in such a case, the revision petitioner is not entitled to get discharge.

Holding so, this Revision Petition is found to be meritless and is accordingly dismissed.

Since the case is of the year 2017, pending before the Special Court for the last nine years, there shall be a direction to the Special Judge to expedite the trial and finalise the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Muvattupuzha, for information and further steps.