V.S.ACHUTHANANDAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is against Annexure A1 order of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram dismissing Annexure A2 complaint filed by the petitioner against respondents 2 to 9. The petitioner, a former Chief Minister of the State, had raised the following allegations in his complaint;

(2.) The following facts are not in dispute; Prior to the filing of Annexure A2, another public spirited citizen had filed a complaint before the Lok Ayukta. During the pendency of that complaint, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau registered Crime No.03 of 2017 at the VACB, SIU-1, Thiruvananthapuram for offences under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Some of the accused challenged Annexure A3 FIR and further proceedings before this Court in W.P (C) No. 36735 of 2017 and connected cases. The petitioner herein, who by that time had submitted Annexure A2 complaint, was Crl.M.C No.4692 of 2019 also arrayed as a respondent in the writ petitions. This Court, after elaborate consideration of the allegations, found the claim of title by the Water Authority over the 6 th respondent's land to be unsustainable. It was also held that, even if the allegation that the property in dispute belongs to the Water Authority is accepted, the action of the accused will not attract the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act since the 6th respondent Company had not gained any pecuniary advantage by the shifting of the sewerage line from one part of its property to another. Based on the findings, it was held that the FIR did not disclose commission of the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Accordingly, Annexure A3 FIR and further proceedings were quashed. The impugned Annexure A1 order is issued in the light of the judgment in Crl.M.C No.4692 of 2019 W.P(C)No. 36735 of 2017 and connected cases.

(3.) The main ground of challenge against Annexure A1 order is the impropriety in rejecting Annexure A2 complaint for the sole reason of this court having quashed Annexure A3 FIR. According to the petitioner, the allegations in Annexure A2 complaint and Annexure A3 FIR are different and in any event, the complaint should not have been rejected without conducting preliminary enquiry. The decision of the Apex Court in Lalita Kumari v State of U.P. [(2014) 2 SCC 1] is pressed into service in support of this proposition.