Shabeer M.H vs State Of Kerala

Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J

This Crl. M.C. has been filed to quash the final report and all further proceedings in CC No. 306/2016 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Muvattupuzha (for short, the court below).

The petitioner is the accused. The offence alleged against him are punishable under sections 7 and 13(1) (d) r/w section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short, the PC Act).

The prosecution allegations, in short, are as follows: The petitioner, while working as Agricultural Officer, Krishibhavan, Payipra, Muvattupuzha abused his official position as a public servant, demanded an amount of ₹1,00,000/- from the complainant/2nd respondent as illegal gratification on 22/7/2013 for forwarding a favourable report to the District Collector with respect to a paddy field filling case of the 2nd respondent at the Mulavoor Village. On 25/7/2013, the petitioner again reiterated his demand and agreed to accept the bribe money in two instalments. In pursuance of the demand, the 2nd respondent paid, and the petitioner accepted `50,000/ as the first instalment on 26/7/2013. It was agreed to pay the balance of  ₹ 50,000/-before sending the report to the District Collector.

The records would show that the Muvattupuzha Police had confiscated three tipper lorries belonging to the 2nd respondent while filling the paddy field. In order to get those lorries released from the police station, the 2nd respondent applied to the District Collector/RDO and later got the lorries released on bond on interim custody. Thereafter, the District Collector, Ernakulam, directed the Village Officer at Mulavoor and the Agricultural Officer at Mulavoor to furnish specific details concerning the paddy field and the type of land available with the data bank. The petitioner was working as the Agricultural Officer. It is alleged that the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent for a bribe to send a favourable report to the District Collector at Ernakulam. A vigilance complaint was filed to that effect by the 2nd respondent to the DYSP of VACB, Ernakulam. Based on the complaint, FIR No.8/2013 was registered against the petitioner on 26/7/2013. Thereafter, a trap was arranged on 26/7/2013 at 12.30 pm. The trap team proceeded to Payipra Krishibhavan, which is situated near to Mulavoor Village Office. When the 2nd respondent and the trap team reached Krishibhavan, Payipra as per the instruction of the petitioner, he was not present in the office. The 2nd  respondent contacted the petitioner over the phone. The petitioner directed the 2nd respondent to contact him after nearing Muvattupuzha bus stand. The 2nd respondent reached in front of the auto stand at Muvattupuzha private bus stand and called the petitioner over the mobile phone as directed by him. The petitioner reached at 4.15 p.m in a red wagon R car driven by himself and directed the 2nd respondent to come to the road on the northern side of Muvattupuzha private bus stand. The petitioner waited in his car on the northern side road of Muvattupuzha private bus stand. When the 2nd respondent reached near the car, the petitioner again demanded and accepted the money from the 2nd respondent at 4.20 p.m. and put the same in the car’s dashboard as he came in. Following the signal shown by the 2nd respondent, the DYSP and trap team reached the spot. Then the petitioner was alighted from his car, and he admitted that he accepted `50,000/- from the 2nd respondent and the same was kept in the dashboard of the car. Then the trap team went to the nearest building at Kabani International Hotel due to the formation of the crowd and traffic block, and all the rest formalities were conducted in the visitors' area of the hotel. After conducting the investigation, the final report was filed at the court below, which took cognizance of the case as CC No.306/2016.

I have heard Sri. D'souza Philip, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.A.Rajesh, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for VACB.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a false case has been foisted against the petitioner who is an upright officer with very good service record. The learned counsel further submitted that even if the entire allegations in the final report are believed in toto, no offence punishable under sections 7 and 13(1) (d) r/w section 13(2) of the PC Act has been made out. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that there are materials on record to show the involvement of the petitioner in the crime, and when a prima facie case is made out, the jurisdiction vested with this court u/s 482 of Cr.P.C cannot be invoked.

The crime was registered against the petitioner after conducting a pre-verification of the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent on 25/7/2013. In the pre-verification, the complaint was found to be genuine. According to the 2nd respondent, the petitioner contacted him over his mobile phone on 18/7/2013 and passed information that the District Collector had sought a report concerning the land filling. The CDR of the mobile number used by the petitioner was submitted along with Annexure P3, the final report. It would show that the petitioner had contacted the 2nd respondent on 18/7/2013 as alleged. According to the 2nd respondent, on the very next day, that is, on 19/7/2013, as per the instruction of the petitioner, he took the petitioner to the land where he had filled with red earth, and later the petitioner informed him that sending a favourable report to the District Collector is highly risky for him and thus he demanded illegal gratification. He further stated that on 22/7/2013, while he visited the petitioner at his house, the petitioner demanded `1,00,000/-as bribe for sending a favourable report to the District Collector and also threatened him that if he failed to give the money demanded, he has to face dire consequences. He further stated that after lodging the complaint, he contacted the petitioner on 25/7/2013 over the phone and the petitioner directed him to meet at his house. He reached at this house and pleaded his inability of raising `1,00,000/-. Following this, the petitioner consented for `50,000/- as first instalment to be given on the next day and the balance amount should be given before sending the report. It was thereafter the trap was arranged. The records would show that all the formalities of the trap were complied with. The 2nd respondent gave statement that when he reached near the car, the petitioner demanded and accepted bribe money from him at 4.20 p.m and had put the same in the dashboard of the car as he came in, which was recovered by the trap team. The entire procedure and incidents, including pre trap mahazar and recovery mahazar were witnessed by the official witness who escorted the 2nd respondent and the trap team.

The above materials on record are sufficient to attract the offences alleged against the petitioner. When a prima facie case is made out, the jurisdiction vested with this court under section 482 of Cr. P.C cannot be invoked. That apart, it is submitted that the examination of the prosecution witnesses had already commenced, and two witnesses were already examined. In these circumstances, I see no reason to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction vested with this court u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. The Cr.M.C fails, and accordingly it is dismissed.