R.CHANDRANKUTTY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the order dated 12.12.2012 in Crl.M.P.No.905 of 2012 of the court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, by which the learned Judge rejected the complaint filed by the petitioner, this Criminal Revision Petition is preferred.

(2.) THE allegation in the above private complaint filed under Section 190 of the Cr.P.C. is that the second respondent herein, who is the counter petitioner/accused therein, while working as Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Kerala, was also in additional charge of Vice Chancellor, Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University (hereinafter referred to in short as 'University') and while holding that post, the respondents had deliberately incurred a loss of more than Rs.5 lakhs by advertising a news item with regard to selection of Architectural firms for developing a master plan for the University. According to the complainant, such advertisements were made ignoring the fact that during the period, when the predecessor in office of the respondent was holding the post of Vice Chancellor, advertisements were already made for the very same purpose and according to the petitioner, a sum of Rs.55 crores was received from Nabard and ICAR for infrastructural facilities of the University. According to the complainant, the respondents/accused unilaterally entrusted the work of preparation of master plan and construction work with the civil wing of BSNL and an agreement was also executed for that purpose and thereafter deviated from the agreement, on the basis of the alleged objection from the section of Junior Engineers of the University, in entrusting and executing the work with BSNL. Thus, it is the case of the complainant that due to the delay for execution of work, heavy loss was suffered by the University and the respondent is responsible for all these acts since it was done to suit his vested interest. Thus, according to the complainant, the accused, a public servant, who retired from the service on 31.10.2012 committed the above misconduct, just before his retirement, thus, he is liable to be punished for the offence under Section 13(1)(c) and (d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 (for short 'the Act') read with Section 409 of I.P.C.

(3.) I have heard Sri.M.Balagovindan, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have perused the impugned order of the court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge. I have also carefully gone through the materials produced along with the revision petition.