JOY JOSEPH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl.Appeal No.126/2001 was filed by the second accused in C.C.No.2/1992 on the file of the Special Judge and Enquiry Commissioner, Thrissur while Crl.Appeal No.127/2001 was filed by the 3rd accused, Crl.Appeal No.128/2001 was filed by the first accused and Crl.Appeal No.129/2001 was filed by accused Nos. 4 and 5 in the same case. The accused Nos.1 to 5 was charge -sheeted by the Superintendent of Police, VACB, Ernakulam in V.C.No.9/87 of VACB, Ernakulam alleging offences under Section 5(i)(c) and (d) read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the P.C. Act for short) and under Section 409, 406, 465, 471, 201 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution in nut shell was that while first accused was working as Executive Engineer, Mutattupuzha Valley Irrigation Project (hereinafter referred to as 'MVIP') Division No.I, second accused as Assistant Engineer of I.I. Muttam under MVIP, 3rd accused as Assistant Engineer of Section -III of Thanneermukkam bridge and accused Nos. 4 and 5 as contractors for the work of Kudayathoor bridge and Kolapra bridge respectively entered into a criminal conspiracy during the period between 26.12.1985 and 31.01.1986 and accused Nos. 1 to 3 misusing their official position on account of the conspiracy hatched between all the accused dishonestly, fraudulently mis -appropriated 19.40 tonnes of 32MM tore steel rods worth Rs.1,26,100/ - by corrupt and illegal means caused undue pecuniary advantage for themselves and forged certain documents in the official records used false documents as genuine documents for this purpose and destroyed certain documents in order to help the accused Nos.4 and 5 and themselves and got absolved from the responsibility of other accused persons and thereby all of them have committed the offences punishable under Section 5(i)(c) and 5(i)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 120(B), 409, 465, 471 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The case was registered on 01.07.1989 as Crime No.9/1987 as per Ext.P38 first information report. Since first accused had retired at the time of filing the charge -sheet, no sanction was required for prosecuting him and since accused Nos.2 and 3 were in service, sanction was obtained for prosecuting them. Since accused Nos.4 and 5 were not public servants, no sanction was required for prosecuting them. After investigation, final report was filed before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur and it was taken on file as C.C.No.2/1992.

(3.) On appearance, first accused filed Crl.M.P.No.252/1992 for discharge and that was dismissed by the Special Judge by order dated 23.09.1992. Challenging the same, he filed Crl.M.C.No.1404/1992 before this court and this court allowed the first accused to withdraw the Crl.M.C. with liberty for him to file revision and accordingly it was withdrawn and Crl.R.P.No.421/1993 was filed before this court. This court by order in Crl.R.P.No.421/1993, allowed the revision and discharged the first accused as no sanction was obtained to prosecute him under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This was challenged by the State by filing appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Apex Court by order in Crl.M.A.No.632/1999 dated 14.07.1997, set aside the order passed by this court in Crl.R.P.No.421 of 1997 restoring the order dismissing the application for discharge by the special judge.