K MURLIDHARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the de facto complainant in V.C. No. 21 of 2000 of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Palakkad. The following are the prayers in the amended Writ. Petition : (1) to quash the direction for further investigation ordered in V.C. No. 21 of 2000, (2) to accept the earlier factual report filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, VACB, Palakkad, (3) to reject the factual report submitted by the 5th respondent, (4) to direct the 6th respondent, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi to take over the investigation of V.C. No. 21 of 2000 and (5) to quash Exhibit P3 order passed by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode in V.C. No. 21 of 2000 accepting the final report submitted by the 5th respondent.

(2.) Petitioner is the proprietor of Bhasker Soap Works, Karipodu, Palakkad which is engaged in the manufacture of soaps. Petitioner filed a complaint against the 7th respondent alleging that he has demanded an amount of Rs. 3,000/-, as bribe and compelled the petitioner to pay the same on the ground that he was instrumental in reducing the water cess amount for the factory from Rs. 2,500/- to Rs. 150/-. Petitioner was not willing to pay the amount demanded. He informed the matter to the Vigilance Department. The 7th respondent was caught red handed and he was arrested. A case, as crime V.C. No. 21 of 2000, was registered. Investigation of the case was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Palakkad who prepared a draft charge-sheet and sent the case file with the factual report to the Superintendent of Police, Kozhikode to be forwarded to the Head Quarters at Trivandrum. It was alleged that the 7th respondent exerted political pressure through one Gangadharan, Secretary, District Con-gress Committee, Kasargod over the top officials through the Minister of Home and accordingly, the 5th respondent, who was about to retire, was selected for the purpose of filing final report referring the case as a mistake of fact. It was alleged that the 5th respondent had no prior experience in handling trap cases. It was alleged that the order of further investigation issued by the Additional Director General of Police, Vigilance, is mala fide, illegal and actuated with malice and is liable to be quashed. It was also alleged that the 5th respondent forwarded a factual report after investigation stating that further action in the matter to be dropped. It was alleged that the entire, investigation conducted by the 5th respondent is mala fide which was done only with the intention of exonerating the 7th respondent. It was also averred that it was understood that the Court below had accepted the report and closed the proceedings. It was contended that no notice before accepting the final report was issued to the petitioner, who was the complainant in the case, either by the investigating officer or by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge. It was averred that the acceptance of final report without service of notice on the petitioner is illegal and liable to be set aside. No useful purpose will be served by conducting the further investigation by the State Police and for a fair and proper investigation, the case must be entrusted with the Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi. Hence the Writ Petition.

(3.) The 4th respondent has filed a counter-affidavit contending that the writ petition is misconceived and unsustainable. It was contended that the prayer to quash the further investigation and also the prayer to restrain the 5th respondent from proceeding with further investigation are not tenable. It was admitted that based on the complaint filed by the petitioner, a trap was arranged and Vigilance Case No. 21 of 2000 under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, 1988 was registered against the 7th respondent. The bribe amount was recovered from the accused after observing the formalities and phenolphthalein test was conducted. It was also admitted that after the investigation of the case was over, factual report was forwarded to the Director, VACB, Trivandrum by the Dy. S.P., VACB, Palakkad. Subsequently, the case was transferred by the Director, VACB, Trivandrum, to the Superintendent of Police, Special Cell, VACB, Kozhikode for further investigation. Further investigation was conducted and factual report was submitted by the Superintendent of Police to the Director. On the basis of the factual report, a request was made to the Principal Secretary to Government to drop further action. The Government had decided to drop the proceedings and directed the Dy. S.P., VACB, Palakkad to file a final report referring the case as a mistake of fact. A final report referring the case as a mistake of fact was filed before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode. The decision to drop further proceedings was taken after considering all material of facts and especially taking into consideration of the fact that the acceptance of bribe could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Hence the 4th respondent prayed for a dismissal of the writ petition.