CYRIL PAUL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is one of the many accused in Crime No.VC 04/2015 of the Ernakulam Unit of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau(VACB), registered under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988(the PC Act), on the basis of a Quick Verification conducted by the VACB on a complaint made by the second respondent herein. The petitioner seeks orders under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing the FIR and the further proceedings against him in the said crime on the ground that there is absolutely nothing to disclose any offence as against him. The complaint in question was filed by the second respondent before the Special Court(Vigilance), Thrissur against fourteen public servants including transferred or retired public servants. In the said complaint, the complainant has also given a list of some builders or building owners who obtained building permit from the Cochin Corporation. The complaint of the second respondent in the complaint is that by abusing their official position, or in gross violation of the Rules governing construction of buildings generally, and particularly in coastal areas, the public servants illegally issued building permits to different persons including some builders, and thereby caused heavy loss to the Cochin Corporation and the Government. Without examining whether the complaint actually discloses any offence punishable under the PC Act, 1988, or without examining whether the complaint contains the necessary elements and ingredients to constitute any type of criminal misconduct or acceptance of illegal gratification as meant and defined under the PC Act, the learned trial Judge ordered a preliminary enquiry. The VACB conducted such an enquiry, and on the basis of the report of enquiry, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, VACB registered the present crime against so many persons including the builders and building owners, whose details have been furnished in the complaint. Though the complaint is specifically against 14 persons, and the complainant has furnished the details of some builders and building owners only as the persons who obtained permits from the Corporation, the VACB registered the crime against everybody, and thus there are so many accused in the crime.

(2.) Annexure-A2 produced before this Court is a copy of the complaint filed by the second respondent in the trial court. On a reading of the complaint, I found prima facie that the issue is only concerning the construction of some buildings within the Cochin Corporation, allegedly in violation of the Rules governing such constructions. One of the constructions was challenged in a writ petition before this Court, and the said matter went up to the Honourable Supreme Court in Secretary Kerala State Coastal Management Authority v. DLF Universal Limited, 2018 2 SCC 203].

(3.) On the prima facie finding, that the matter is mainly and prominently concerning violation of Rules in the matter of construction of buildings, I directed the VACB to submit a report as to whether the case actually involves any element of criminal misconduct or corruption, or whether it is only a case of violation of Rules in the matter of issuing building permits. It appears that the main allegation in the complaint is that by misusing the powers as public servants, or by issuing building permits illegally, the public servants have caused loss to the Cochin Corporation. At the initial stage, the VACB took a stand that the matter involves something to be investigated, and a statement of objection was filed to that effect. When the Court directed the VACB to go through the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court cited supra and also the decision of this Court in Ramesh Chennithala v. State of Kerala and another,2018 4 KerLJ 647], and to submit a statement in detail, the VACB made a thorough probe into the facts and allegations, and the VACB submitted a statement, that prominently the issue is concerning building permits issued in violation of Rules, and that despite thorough probe nothing could be detected to find that this is a case involving corruption or criminal misconduct. In paragraph 4 of the statement of objection dated 13.03.2019, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, VACB, who is in charge of investigation has stated categorically that the Investigating Officer could not gather any material for a prosecution against the accused persons including the petitioner, that what is at the best detected is only violation of the Government Order and the Rules, and that such violation would cause only departmental action against the accused public servants. The VACB found on investigation that the public servants issued building permits in violation of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules and also the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification. In the said statement of objection, the Deputy Superintendent of Police has also reported that steps are being taken to refer the crime and to drop further proceedings against the accused persons, and that final report accordingly would be filed in the trial court.