PRINCE MATHEW Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The original petitioners stand arrayed as accused Nos 2 to 8 in CC.No.336/2016 on the files of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Muvattupuzha for offences punishable under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1) (c) and 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 409, 465, 471, 477A and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The allegation of the prosecution was that while the petitioners were working as agricultural officers in different Krishi Bhavans in Thodupuzha, violated the procedure for distribution of fertilizers, insecticides, chemicals and seedlings under various Schemes and connived to pay encashed fund from the Treasury on contingent bills. Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Idukki Unit, conducted an investigation into the above allegation and submitted a report. The Department framed charges against the petitioners and called for explanation of defence from the petitioners. After OP(Crl)No.494 OF 2019 consideration of defence and the documents, the Government decided to refer the charges against the accused for detailed enquiry by the Vigilance Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram by Ext.P1. A final report was filed before the Special Judge, Kottayam where the matter was pending at that time with a request to delete the case from the files of the Court, treating it as not charge-sheeted. The Special Judge by Ext.P3 order rejected the final report and took cognizance of the offences as mentioned above. By Ext.P6 order Additional Director of Agriculture (Full additional charge of Director)accorded sanction for prosecution under Section 19 (1) (c) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The above proceeding was challenged in Crl.R.P.No.3083/2010. A contention was set up that the petitioners were removable only by the Government and that Ext.P6 sanction was granted by an incompetent authority and consequently, the prosecution was bad. Revision was disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to file application for discharge and also to raise objections OP(Crl)No.494 OF 2019 regarding the legality and acceptability of prosecution sanction. Accordingly, the petitioners filed CMP.No.332/2019, before the Special Judge seeking discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. The Court below by Ext.P15 order held, inter alia, that the sanction for prosecution was valid. However, it was found that misappropriation alleged covered a period exceeding one year. Hence, in the light of the proviso to S.25 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, final report was ordered to be returned for filing separate final reports. The above order is under challenge in the present proceedings.

(3.) Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader for the VACB.