No Palpable Misreading Of Records By Magistrate, Revisional Jurisdiction Cannot Be Equated With Appeal: Kerala High Court Dismisses Plea

These observations by a single bench of Justice K Babu came in a revision plea by the petitioners/accused who faced charges under Section 13 (criminal misconduct by public servant) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B (punishment of criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution submitted that the petitioner (accused no.1) and the other accused hatched a criminal conspiracy in the matter of granting the permit for the disposal of dredged materials from Azheekkal Port, Kannur by adopting different criteria for various dredgers in fixing the quantity of the dredged materials resulting in pecuniary damage worth Rs. 3,20,000 to the public exchequer.

The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Kannur Unit investigated the allegations and submitted the final report against the petitioner before the Trial Court. The petitioners had applied for discharge before the trial court, but their plea was dismissed.

The petitioner argued that the investigation of the matter, the final report, and all subsequent proceedings are invalid in the eye of the law since a major part of the investigation was conducted by a police officer.

It was argued that as per Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, a police officer is not empowered to investigate the offenses that fall under the purview of Section 17. Additionally, the petitioner argued that no material shows that the alleged act amounted to loss to the public exchequer.

The prosecution responded to these allegations by referring to the proviso under Section 17, which notes that the state government may authorize an officer not below the rank of an inspector of police to investigate such offenses.

The petitioner argued that since the guidelines for fixing the criteria of dredging and the rates to be charged had not been published as provided in Section 68 of the Indian Ports Act, the assessment of loss by the Investigating Agency with the aid of the evidence given by the officials concerned cannot be used to attribute a criminal liability against the petitioners.

The court referred to the evidence to state that since the actions of the respondents would prima facie disclose the offenses alleged, their challenge on the prosecution based on the mandate of Section 68 of the Act, would not stand.

It referred to the decision in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation, where the Supreme Court held that interference in the order framing charges or refusing to discharge is called for in the rarest of rare cases only to correct a patent error of jurisdiction, and declined to interfere in this case.

Thus the court was of the view that the findings of the lower court required no interference in a revisional jurisdiction and as such, the impugned order was not affected by any patent error.

As such, both the petitions were dismissed.

Counsel for Petitoners: Advocates M Ramesh Chander, Bonny Benny, Bejoy Joseph PJ, Govind G Nair, Balu Tom, Srinath Girish and P Jeril Babu

Counsel for Respondents: Advocates Rajesh A and Rekha

Case Title: PP Farooque & anr. v. Deputy Superintendent of Police

Case Number: Crl. Rev. Pet. 691 of 2021 and 65 of 2022

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 60