Kerala High Court
P.J. Antony vs State Of Kerala on 17 July, 2026
CNR : KLHC010326452026
2026:KER:53521
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2026 / 26TH ASHADHA, 1948
CRL.REV.PET NO. 505 OF 2026
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.03.2026 IN CMP 1383/2016 IN CC
NO.235 OF 2016 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE (VIGILANCE),
MUVATTUPUZHA
REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED:
P.J.ANTONY
AGED 87 YEARS
S/O.JOSEPH, PARAYIL HOUSE, NIRMALA COLLEGE ROAD,
MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686661
BY ADVS.
SHRI.SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR
SMT.AFSANA KHAN
SHRI.SREERAJ S. RAJARAM
SHRI.AMAL DILEEP
SHRI.ADARSH PADMANABHAN
SMT.ANNA PAUL
SHRI.ADITHYAN C.
SHRI.VICTOR JOSEPH
SHRI.AGNELO AQUINAS D SAVIO
SMT.SAINA FATHIMA S. R.
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULUM, PIN - 682031
BY SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.ROY THOMAS (MUVATTUPUZHA).
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
14.07.2026, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.545/2026, THE COURT ON 17.07.2026
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.R.P.NOS.505 AND 545 OF 2026 2 CNR : KLHC010326452026
2026:KER:53521
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2026 / 26TH ASHADHA, 1948
CRL.REV.PET NO. 545 OF 2026
CRIME NO.8/2004 OF VACB, IDUKKI, Idukki
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.03.2026 IN CMP.341/2022
IN CC NO.235 OF 2016 OF COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER &
SPECIAL JUDGE, MUVATTUPUZHA
ORDER DATED 04.03.2026 IN CMP.1383/2016 IN CC
NO.235 OF 2016 OF COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER &
SPECIAL JUDGE, MUVATTUPUZHA
REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:
S.VIJAYARAJ
AGED 76 YEARS
S/O.M.SELVARAJ,
'RAJ BHAVAN', MASIVAYAL, MARAYOOR P.O., IDUKKI,
PIN - 685620
BY ADVS.
SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL
SMT.RENUKA VENU
SMT.HELEN P.A.
SHRI.ATHUL ROY
SHRI.INDRAJITH DILEEP
SMT.AMALA ANNA THOTTUPURAM
SMT.GOWRI MENON
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.VC 08/04-IDK OF
VIGILANCE POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN
- 682031
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 14.07.2026 ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.505/2026,
THE COURT ON 17.07.2026 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.R.P.NOS.505 AND 545 OF 2026 3 CNR : KLHC010326452026
2026:KER:53521
CR
COMMON ORDER
Dated this the 17th day of July, 2026
The 1st accused in C.C.No.235/2016 on the files of
the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance),
Muvattupuzha, arising out of Crime No.08/2004 of the
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Idukki, has filed
Crl.R.P.No.545/2026 challenging the order dated 04.03.2026
in C.M.P.No.341/2022 in the said case, whereby the plea for
discharge moved by the 1st accused was dismissed. The 3rd
accused, who had also filed C.M.P.No.1383/2016 in the same
case seeking discharge, has filed Crl.R.P.No.505/2026,
challenging dismissal of the same.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision
petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail.
Perused the records.
CRL.R.P.NOS.505 AND 545 OF 2026 4 CNR : KLHC010326452026
2026:KER:53521
3. The prosecution case is that accused Nos.1 to 3
hatched conspiracy and in pursuance of the said conspiracy,
they proceeded in this matter. The allegation is that the 3rd
accused, a planter had been engaged in agricultural
operations in his property, the properties of his family
members, and the properties of other persons on the strength
of powers of attorney executed by those landowners situated
in Marayoor Village, Devikulam Taluk. During this period,
the 2nd accused was the Agricultural Officer, Marayoor and
the 1st accused was the Assistant Director of Agriculture,
Devikulam. While so, the Government introduced a scheme
under the name ‘Use of Plastics in Agriculture’ and decided to
provide subsidy to agriculturists who introduced drip
irrigation in their properties. At this juncture, accused Nos.1
to 3 hatched criminal conspiracy to misappropriate the
Government funds earmarked for subsidy for drip irrigation
CRL.R.P.NOS.505 AND 545 OF 2026 5 CNR : KLHC010326452026
2026:KER:53521
and, accordingly, they falsely created receipts, estimates,
letterheads, seals, and other documents in the names of in
the names of ‘Kairali Marketing Associates, Thrissur’ and
‘EPC Irrigation Limited, Nashik’. They created false
documents for claiming subsidy in respect of the drip
irrigation work purportedly undertaken by ‘Kairali Marketing
Associates’ in the properties possessed by the 3 rd accused.
Similarly, they created false documents in the names of
‘Kairali Marketing Associates’ and ‘EPC Irrigation Limited’
purporting that those agencies had undertaken the drip
irrigation work in the properties possessed by the 3 rd accused.
Thereafter, the 2nd accused falsely certified the completion of
the drip irrigation work and presented those documents
before the 1st accused, who was then the Assistant Director of
Agriculture. The 1st accused sanctioned a total amount of
₹3,38,750/- (Rupees Three Lakh Thirty-eight Thousand
CRL.R.P.NOS.505 AND 545 OF 2026 6 CNR : KLHC010326452026
2026:KER:53521
Seven Hundred and Fifty Only) as subsidy by encashing
Contingent Bill No.77/03-04 for the said amount and also
prepared a bogus receipt showing that the said amount had
been disbursed to the 2 nd accused. Thus, the prosecution
alleges that the accused persons dishonestly and fraudulently
committed criminal misconduct and criminal breach of trust,
and thereby misappropriated ₹3,38,750/- (Rupees Three
Lakh Thirty-eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Only),
obtained pecuniary advantage for themselves and causing
corresponding loss to the Government. Thus, the prosecution
alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections
13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the PC Act‘ hereinafter), and
under Sections 409, 465, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian
Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC‘ hereinafter), by the accused.
4. The main contention raised by the learned counsel
CRL.R.P.NOS.505 AND 545 OF 2026 7 CNR : KLHC010326452026
2026:KER:53521
for the 1st accused is that the 1st accused, in fact, not involved
in any of the proceedings except granting sanction for the
encashment of Rs.3,38,750/- (Rupees Three Lakh Thirty-
eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Only), believing the
records placed before him by the 2 nd accused, who, in fact,
entrusted with the duty of scrutinizing, verifying and
reporting on whatever records and documents to be produced
before the 2nd accused. Therefore, the implication of the 1 st
accused in this case is totally unwarranted and no materials
available to proceed against him by framing charge and
therefore, the learned Special Judge went wrong in negating
his discharge plea. Therefore, the order would require
interference.
5. The learned counsel for the 3 rd accused read out
the charge and argued that the role attributed to the 3 rd
accused is under Section 12 of the PC Act, as that of an
CRL.R.P.NOS.505 AND 545 OF 2026 8 CNR : KLHC010326452026
2026:KER:53521
abettor, and none of the prosecution records would show that
he had any role in the occurrence. According to him, going
by the prosecution records also, the 2 nd accused placed a
report regarding the work done and, in turn, the 1 st accused
sanctioned the amount of Rs.3,38,750/- (Rupees Three Lakh
Thirty-eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Only). The
said amount was, in fact, encashed by the 2 nd accused, and no
document has been produced by the prosecution to show that
the 3rd accused either received the said amount or any portion
thereof or participated in the encashment of Rs.3,38,750/-
(Rupees Three Lakh Thirty-eight Thousand Seven Hundred
and Fifty Only)(the amount alleged to have been
misappropriated). According to the learned counsel for the
3rd accused, the 3rd accused is an agriculturist, having 10 acres
of agricultural property and, therefore, he might have
submitted an application by affixing his signature for the
CRL.R.P.NOS.505 AND 545 OF 2026 9 CNR : KLHC010326452026
2026:KER:53521
purpose of availing benefits from the Agricultural
Department, and that may be the reason why an application
along with concocted documents in his name forms part of
the prosecution records would have been generated.
According to the learned counsel for the 3 rd accused, the 3rd
accused is absolutely innocent and in such view of the matter,
the discharge plea, at the instance of the 3 rd accused is liable
to succeed after setting aside the order impugned.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed
the contentions raised by both sides and also produced the
relevant records, including Exts.B29, B51, B52, N, P, Q, R and
S, as specifically directed by this Court. According to the
learned Public Prosecutor, on going through the statement of
CW8, the procedure for disbursing amounts exceeding
Rs.1,000/- by cheque and DD was violated by the 1 st accused,
and the same would show that he, as part of the conspiracy
CRL.R.P.NOS.505 AND 545 OF 2026 10 CNR : KLHC010326452026
2026:KER:53521
hatched among accused Nos.1 to 3, was involved in the
commission of the crime and that accused Nos.1 to 3 together
misappropriated the amount. It is also submitted that the
application submitted by the 3rd accused, along with the
documents claiming the amount for the work allegedly
carried out under the names of two ‘concerns’ that were, in
fact, not in existence, as revealed during investigation, is
discernible from the prosecution records, and in this regard,
the learned Public Prosecutor given heavy reliance on the
statement of CW1, and submitted that, as could be seen from
page Nos.31, 43, 101, 113, 115, 127, 129 and 141 of Contingent
Bill No.77/2003-2004, the applications for the amounts
mentioned therein were signed by P.J.Antony. It was further
submitted that the signatures appearing on page Nos.45, 57,
59, 71, 73, 85, 87 and 99 were those of Aliamma, wife of
Antony, to substantiate the involvement of the 3 rd accused in
CRL.R.P.NOS.505 AND 545 OF 2026 11 CNR : KLHC010326452026
2026:KER:53521
the crime.
7. Here, the case of the prosecution is that during the
year 2003-2004, the 1st accused, Sri.S.Vijayaraj, aged 63/13,
Former Assistant Director of Agriculture, Devikulam,
(S/o.Selvaraj, Raj Bhavan, Massivayal, Marayoor), 2 nd
accused Sri.P.Palani, aged 50/13, former Agricultural Officer,
Marayoor (S/o.Palayya, General Hospital Quarters, Munnar)
and as such being public servants, abused their official
position as public servants, entered into the criminal
conspiracy with the 3rd accused Sri. P.J.Antony, aged 70/08,
S/o.Joseph, Parayil House, Nirmala College Road,
Muvattupuzha and in furtherance of the said conspiracy,
accused Nos.1 to 3 prepared false receipts, estimates, letter
pads, seals and receipts in the name of ‘Kairali Marketing
Associates Thrissur and EPC Irrigation Limited Nassik, and
the 2nd accused falsely certified in the
CRL.R.P.NOS.505 AND 545 OF 2026 12 CNR : KLHC010326452026
2026:KER:53521
bills that drip irrigation work was executed by the applicants
without doing any work and the 1st accused passed the
amount and encashed the contingent bill No.77/2003-2004
for Rs.3,38,750/- (Rupees Three Lakh Thirty-eight Thousand
Seven Hundred and Fifty Only) and also made bogus receipts
showing that the amount was disbursed and thus, the
accused dishonestly and fraudulently committed criminal
misconduct and breach of trust and thereby, misappropriated
an amount of Rs.3,38,750/-(Rupees Three Lakh Thirty-eight
Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Only) and thereby, the
accused obtained pecuniary advantage and loss to the
Government. Thus, the accused committed the aforesaid
offences.
8. In the common order in C.M.P.No.341/2022 and
C.M.P.No.1383/2016, in paragraph Nos.13 and 14, the
learned Special Judge discussed the question as to whether
CRL.R.P.NOS.505 AND 545 OF 2026 13 CNR : KLHC010326452026
2026:KER:53521
the prosecution materials would be sufficient to frame charge
against the 1st accused and observed as under:
“13. Now question to be considered is whether
the prosecution has produced any material so as to
frame a charge against the first accused. Learned
counsel for the first accused contended that the first
accused duty is only to verify the correctness of the
endorsement made by the second accused
regarding the recommendation for sanctioning the
amount. No duty cast upon the first accused to have
a further verification of the documents submitted
along with the application. Therefore the first
accused was totally unaware about the
genuineness of the supporting documents.
According to him there was no conspiracy between
him and other accused and there is no evidence
produced by the prosecution in that regard as well.
In view of the above circumstance there is no
material available on record so as to frame a
charge against him and therefore the first accused
entitled for an order of discharge.
CRL.R.P.NOS.505 AND 545 OF 2026 14 CNR : KLHC010326452026
2026:KER:53521
14. It is true that the bogus and forged
documents submitted along with the application of
the third accused have been certified by the second
accused Agricultural officer. In other words the
second accused certified that the drip irrigation
work has been executed in the property of the third
accused. Now question to be considered is whether
the first accused Asst. Director of Agriculture was
unaware about the creation and submission of
those forged documents for the purpose of making a
false claim of subsidy before him. In other words
whether any materials available on record to prove
the conspiracy between the first accused and other
accused. The act of conspiracy often occurred in
secrecy. One cannot expect a direct evidence for the
proof of the actual act of conspiracy. It may not be
possible for the prosecution to produce direct
evidence for the proof of the actual act of
conspiracy. It could be deducible only from the
circumstantial evidence and inferences. The
question is in the instant case whether the
prosecution was able to bring any material so as to
remotely connect the unholy connection between the
CRL.R.P.NOS.505 AND 545 OF 2026 15 CNR : KLHC0103264520262026:KER:53521
first accused and other accused. In this context it is
pertinent note that the first accused is the person
who has to sanction the subsidy amount on the
basis of the recommendation made by second
accused in respect of the application and the
supporting documents submitted by the third
accused. In this context the statement of CW8, the
Deputy Director of Agriculture, Idukki assumes
significance. From her evidence it is seen that the
amount has been disbursed by the first accused as
per B-52 Contingent bill. The total subsidy amount
was ₹3,38,750/-. The said amount has been
disbursed by way of eight receipts. In those receipts
there is no mention of the person who received the
subsidy amount. Further there is a norm to the
effect that any payment made by way of subsidy
exceeding 1000 rúpees, shall be done only through a
cheque or Demand draft. Moreover, the subsidy
shall be given to the applicant and the payment has
been made to the applicant by way of cheque or
demand draft. While making payment in such a
manner, the acknowledgment of that person has to
be obtained and it should be kept in the office. In the
CRL.R.P.NOS.505 AND 545 OF 2026 16 CNR : KLHC0103264520262026:KER:53521
case on hand, it appears that, the first accused had
withdrawn the subsidy amount from the treasury
and subsequently purported to have been disbursed
to the company directly by cash. But the details of
the person who received the money is not shown in
any of the records. It may be true that all these are
procedural irregularities. But these procedural
irregularities must have a direct bearing with
regard to the allegations leveled against the first
accused. These procedural irregularities are
sufficient indications and inferences which would
give raise to a presumption as to the complicity of
the first accused. In other words these procedural
irregularities shown a grave suspicious regarding
his involvement in the alleged misappropriation.
Therefore, the above materials proposed to be
adduced by the prosecution are sufficient enough to
frame a charge against the first accused as well. In
view of the above circumstances I am of the view
that the materials produced by the prosecution are
sufficient enough to frame a charge against first
accused as well. In view of the above circumstances
CRL.R.P.NOS.505 AND 545 OF 2026 17 CNR : KLHC0103264520262026:KER:53521
the Crl.MP 341/2022 is liable to be dismissed. Point
no.1 is not found in favour of the petitioners.”
9. Similarly, in paragraph Nos.10, 11 and 12, the
learned Special Judge addressed the contentions raised by
the 3rd accused and negatived the same as under:
“10. Point No.1. The prosecution alleged that
the third accused was doing agricultural operations
in the properties belonged to him and his relatives
and in the properties of other persons for which he
obtained power of attorney. The records produced
by the prosecution further shows that the third
accused had applied for introducing drip irrigation
project in those properties. It is also seen that the
documents relating to the execution of drip
irrigation work have been prepared and submitted
before the first accused who was the Asst. Director
of Agriculture for the purpose of disbursing the
subsidy amount. Those documents includes
Receipts, Estimates, Letter pads and Seals and
Receipts in the name of ‘Kairaly Marketing
Associates, Thrissur’ and ‘EPC Irrigation Limited,
CRL.R.P.NOS.505 AND 545 OF 2026 18 CNR : KLHC010326452026
2026:KER:53521
Nassik’. Those documents would go to show that
drip irrigation work has been done in those
properties and the said work has been certified by
the second accused. It was done in the year 2003-
2004. The documents produced by the prosecution
further shows that after submission of those
documents before the first accused Asst.Director of
Agriculture, he released an amount of ₹ 3,38,750/-
towards subsidy.
11. On 24/08/2011 the Vigilance
Department conducted an inspection and they found
that no drip irrigation has been conducted in the
properties possessed by the third accused. As per the
inspection report dated 24/08/2011 the inspection
team has inspected 12 properties. Out of those 12
properties they could found remnants of drip
irrigation only in 3 properties. Later, during
investigation they came to know that the bills,
estimates and other supporting documents for
claiming subsidy were found to be forged
documents. The officers of the Kairaly Marketing
Associates gave statements to effect that those
documents were not issued by them and they have
CRL.R.P.NOS.505 AND 545 OF 2026 19 CNR : KLHC010326452026
2026:KER:53521
not under-taken any drip irrigation work in the
aforesaid properties. The above materials would
clearly indicate the fact that bogus documents have
been created and submitted for claiming subsidy
from the Agricultural department. Those documents
have been submitted along with the applications
submitted by the third accused.
12. Admittedly the third accused is an estate
owner and he had done the Agriculture operations
in those properties. He admitted that fact in the
above CMP. In view of the above circumstances
mere denial of the third accused that he is totally
unaware about the supporting documents
submitted along with his application for subsidy
cannot be countenanced at this stage. On
consideration of the prosecution records I find that
there are enough materials available on record to
frame a charge against the third accused. It is seen
from the records that third accused submitted
applications for claiming subsidy and those
applications have been accompanied with
supporting documents and those documents are
found to be forged documents. The correctness or
CRL.R.P.NOS.505 AND 545 OF 2026 20 CNR : KLHC010326452026
2026:KER:53521
otherwise of the defense put forwarded by the third
accused in the CMP cannot be considered at this
stage. Prima facie there are enough materials to
frame a charge against the third accused and
therefore the CMP filed by the third accused (CMP
1383/2016) is devoid of any merits and substance
and it is liable to be dismissed. ”
10. Now, the question that arises for consideration is
whether the findings of the Special Court, as extracted
hereinabove, are justified by the prosecution records so as to
try accused Nos.1 and 3/revision petitioners or whether they
are liable to be discharged after setting aside the impugned
common order.
11. Going through the reasons referred by the learned
Special Judge while negating the pleas for discharge,
supported by the prosecution records, it is pertinent to note
that in this case, CW8, the Deputy Director of Agriculture,
Idukki given statement that the amount alleged to be
CRL.R.P.NOS.505 AND 545 OF 2026 21 CNR : KLHC0103264520262026:KER:53521
misappropriated coming to the tune of ₹3,38,750/- (Rupees
Three Lakh Thirty-eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty
Only) was disbursed by the 1st accused as per Ext.B52
contingent bill and for which, eight receipts were obtained
and those receipts would not depict the name of the person
who had received the subsidy amount. Further, the said
amount was not disbursed by way of cheque or demand draft,
since the prescribed procedure was to disburse amounts
exceeding Rs.1,000/- by cheque or demand draft. It is
relevant to note that, during the vigilance inspection, it was
found that no work had been carried out in respect of the
disbursement of ₹3,38,750/- (Rupees Three Lakh Thirty-
eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Only). Further, the
receipts alleged to have been issued in the name of ‘Kairali
Marketing Associates’ were signed by a person claiming to be
its authorised signatory, and the responsible officers of
CRL.R.P.NOS.505 AND 545 OF 2026 22 CNR : KLHC010326452026
2026:KER:53521
Kairali Marketing Associates gave statements before the
Vigilance that they had neither carried out any work nor
issued any such receipts. Further, they did not receive any
such amount. When conspiracy is alleged in the matter of
misappropriation between accused Nos.1 to 3, the evidence to
prove the same is not direct, but circumstantial. When the 1 st
accused passed a bill for a huge sum during the relevant time,
his involvement in this crime after conspiracy could not be
decided at the pre-trial stage and the said aspect, no doubt, a
matter of evidence.
12. Coming to the role of the 3 rd accused, even as per
the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the 3 rd
accused, and as discernible from the statement of CW1,
pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, applications
appearing at page Nos.31, 43, 101, 113, 115, 127, 129 and 141
of Contingent Bill No.77/2003-2004 were admittedly signed
CRL.R.P.NOS.505 AND 545 OF 2026 23 CNR : KLHC010326452026
2026:KER:53521
by P.J.Antony. It is further discernible that the signatures
appearing on page Nos.45, 57, 59, 71, 73, 85, 87 and 99 are
those of Aliamma, wife of Antony. These materials prima
facie substantiate the involvement of the 3 rd accused in the
alleged crime. It is in the above background that the learned
counsel for the 3rd accused argued that the mere obtaining of
applications and supporting documents from the 3 rd accused
would not suffice to implicate him in the crime and that the
3rd accused is absolutely innocent.
13. Here, the prosecution case is that accused Nos.1 to
3 hatched conspiracy and in pursuance of the same, they have
acted upon applications and documents admittedly signed by
the 3rd accused and considered by the 2nd accused, and
forwarded to the 1st accused for disbursing the amount
alleged to be misappropriated. The prosecution materials
would further show that the claim was made in the name of a
CRL.R.P.NOS.505 AND 545 OF 2026 24 CNR : KLHC010326452026
2026:KER:53521
concern, ‘Kairali Marketing Associates’, and that the said firm
emphatically denied having carried out any work or having
received any amount. Kairali Marketing Associates also
denied issuance of the receipts by them. In this context, it is
very pertinent to note that the name or other details of the
persons who had issued the receipts conspicuously absent in
the receipts. This aspect would show that prima facie the
receipts are forged ones. Thus, as observed by the learned
Special Judge and as discernible from the materials discussed
hereinabove, a strong suspicion regarding the involvement of
accused Nos.1 and 3 in the alleged misappropriation along with
the 2nd accused, as part of the conspiracy hatched between them,
could be found, and such strong suspicion would suffice the
requirement for framing a charge and to proceed with the trial.
14. Therefore, the challenge made in these Crl.R.P.s
against the common order rejecting the discharge petitions filed
by accused Nos.1 and 3, is found to be unsustainable.
CRL.R.P.NOS.505 AND 545 OF 2026 25 CNR : KLHC010326452026
2026:KER:53521
Consequently, the common order is liable to be confirmed.
In the result, these Crl.R.P.s are dismissed. The Special
Court shall proceed with the trial of the case, which has been
pending for the last 10 years, and dispose of the same as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the
Special Court, for information and compliance.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
Bb
CRL.R.P.NOS.505 AND 545 OF 2026 26 CNR : KLHC010326452026
2026:KER:53521
APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET NO. 505 OF 2026
PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES
Annexure A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED BY
THE ENQUIRY OFFICER, DEPUTY
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VACB INDUKKI
UNIT IN FIR NO.VC 08/04-IDK DATED
27.05.2013
Annexure B TRUE COPY OF THE C.M.P.NO.1383 OF 2016
IN C.C.NO.235 OF 2016 FILED BY THE
REVISION PETITIONER FILED UNDER
SECTION 239 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE BEFORE THE ENQUIRY
COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE
(VIGILANCE) MUVATTUPUZHA DATED
27.8.2016
Annexure C CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
04.03.2026 IN C.M.P.NO.1383 OF 2016 IN
C.C.NO.235 OF 2016 OF THE ENQUIRY
COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE
(VIGILANCE) MUVATTUPUZHA
RESPONDENT’S
NIL
ANNEXURES
CRL.R.P.NOS.505 AND 545 OF 2026 27 CNR : KLHC010326452026
2026:KER:53521
APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET NO. 545 OF 2026
PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES
Annexure I THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT
DATED 27.05.2013 IN VC 08/04-IDK OF
VIGILANCE POLICE STATION IDUKKI
EXCLUDING THE WITNESS STATEMENTS AND
DOCUMENTS
Annexure 1(a) THE TRUE COPY OF EXT.B52 DOCUMENT
ATTACHED TO ANNEXURE-I POLICE REPORT
Annexure I(b) THE TRUE COPY OF EXT.B35(A) DOCUMENT
ATTACHED TO ANNEXURE-I POLICE REPORT
Annexure I(c) THE TRUE COPY OF EXT.R DOCUMENT
ATTACHED TO ANNEXURE-I POLICE REPORT
Annexure I(d) TRUE COPY OF THE WITNESS STATEMENT OF
CW8 ATTACHED TO ANNEXURE-I POLICE
REPORT
Annexure II THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION
C.M.P.NO.341/2022 DATED 04.04.2022
FILED BY THE PETITIONER
Annexure III THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED
25.04.2022 IN C.M.P.NO.341/2022
RESPONDENT’S
NIL
ANNEXURES
