O. Sankara Narayanan v. State of Kerala & connected cases (Criminal M.C. Nos. 1691/2021, 5860/2021, 5890/2021, 5891/2021, 5896/2021)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU** **MONDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF MAY 2023 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1945** **CRL.MC NO. 1691 OF 2021** **AGAINST CC 11,12,13 AND 14 OF 2019 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER &** ## **SPECIAL JUDGE, THRISSUR** ## **PETITIONER/9th ACCUSED:** O. SANKARA NARAYANAN, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.T.P.NARAYANAN NAIR, FORMER EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(ELECTRICAL), GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM,RESIDING AT 'VRINDAVAN', PLOT NO.34,KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD COLONY, EAST NADA,GURUVAYOOR,THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN-680101. BY ADVS. R.RAMADAS SRI.T.SIVADASAN ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:** 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031. 2 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, THRISSUR,PIN-680001. 3 N.SREEJESH, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O PARAMESWARAN UNNI ADIKAL, NEELATH MADOM,P.O.KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR,PIN-680664. BY ADV M.K.PUSHPALATHA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.05.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5860/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Crl.M.C Nos.1691 of 2021 & connected cases 2 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU** **MONDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF MAY 2023 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 5860 OF 2021** **AGAINST CC 11/2019 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL** ## **JUDGE,THRISSUR** **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1,3,4,6 & 7:** 1 K.MURALEEDHARAN, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O. MADHAVAN NAIR, MAYOORA NO.14, P.M.LANE, AYYANTHOLE P.O., THRISSUR-680 003 2 T.V.CHANDRAMOHAN, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O. N.P.GOVINDAN NAIR, "GOVIND", HARISREE MURUGA NAGAR, POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR-682 002 3 G.MADHUSOODHANAN PILLAI, AGED 75 YEARS, S/O. GOVINDA PILLAI ,"VENUKA", NEAR COURT CAMPUS, ATTINGAL P.O. 4 M.JANARDHANAN, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O. UNNIKUTTI VAIDYAR, 'JANEENAM", PALLIYIL PARAMBA, PUTHIYARA P.O., CALICUT-673 004 5 K.SIVASANKARAN, AGED 75 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNAN KUTTI MENON, SOUMYA VIHAR, PALIYAMKADAVU ROAD, CHENGAMANGALAM P.O.,-683 512 BY ADVS. S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) P.MARTIN JOSE P.PRIJITH THOMAS P.KURUVILLA R.GITHESH AJAY BEN JOSE MANJUNATH MENON SACHIN JACOB AMBAT HARIKRISHNAN S. ANNA LINDA EDEN Crl.M.C Nos.1691 of 2021 & connected cases 3 ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 STATE OF KERALA, REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,PIN-682 031 2 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, SPECIAL INVESTIGATION UNIT-1, TRIVANDRUM 3 MR. SREEJESH.N., NEELATH HOUSE, KODUNGALLOOR P.O., PIN-680 664, THRISSUR DISTRICT BY ADV SMT.PUSHPALATHA M K, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.05.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.1691/2021, 5891/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C Nos.1691 of 2021 & connected cases 4 # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU** **MONDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF MAY 2023 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 5890 OF 2021** **AGAINST CC 13/2019 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL** **JUDGE,THRISSUR** **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1,3,4,6 & 7:** K.MURALEEDHARAN, S/O.MADHAVAN NAIR, AGED 63 YEARS, MAYOORA NO.14, P.M.LANE, AYYANTHOLE P.O, THRISSUR- 680 003 BY ADVS. S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) P.MARTIN JOSE(M-580) P.PRIJITH THOMAS P.KURUVILLA R.GITHESH AJAY BEN JOSE MANJUNATH MENON SACHIN JACOB AMBAT ANNA LINDA EDEN ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 031 2 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE & ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, SPECIAL INVESTIGATION UNIT-I, TRIVANDRUM, PIN-695 001. 3 MR.SREEJESH N, NEELATH HOUSE, KODUNGALLOOR P.O, PIN-680 664 BY ADV SMT.M.K PUSHPALATHA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.05.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5860/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C Nos.1691 of 2021 & connected cases 5 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU** **MONDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF MAY 2023 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1945** **CRL.MC NO. 5891 OF 2021** **AGAINST CC 14/2019 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL** ## **JUDGE,THRISSUR** **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1,3,4,6 & 7:** 1 K. MURALEEDHARAN, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.MADHAVAN NAIR, MAYOORA NO.14, P.M.LANE, AYYANTHOLE P.O., THRISSUR - 680 003. 2 T.V.CHANDRAMOHAN,AGED 70 YEARS, S/O.N.P.GOVINDAN NAIR, "GOVIND"", HARISREE MURUGA NAGAR, POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR - 682 002. 3 G.MADHUSOODHANAN PILLAI, AGED 75 YEARS, S/O.GOVINDA PILLAI, 'VENUKA", NEAR COURT CAMPUS, ATTINGAL P.O. 4 M.JANARDHANAN, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O.UNNIKUTTI VAIDYAR, "JANEENAM", PALLIYIL PARAMBA, PUTHIYARA P.O., CALICUT - 673 004. 5 K.SIVASANKARAN, AGED 75 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN KUTTI MENON, SOUMYA VIHAR, PALIYAMKADAVU ROAD, CHENDAMANGALAM P.O.- 683 512. BY ADVS. S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) P.MARTIN JOSE P.PRIJITH THOMAS P.KURUVILLA R.GITHESH AJAY BEN JOSE SACHIN JACOB AMBAT HARIKRISHNAN S. ANNA LINDA EDEN MANJUNATH MENON Crl.M.C Nos.1691 of 2021 & connected cases 6 ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031. 2 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE & ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, SPECIAL INVESTIGATION UNIT-1, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001. 3 SREEJESH N., NEELATH HOUSE, KODUNGALLOOR P.O., PIN - 680 664. BY ADV SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.05.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5860/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C Nos.1691 of 2021 & connected cases 7 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU** **MONDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF MAY 2023 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1945** **CRL.MC NO. 5896 OF 2021** **AGAINST CC 12/2019 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE,** ## **THRISSUR** **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1,3,4,6 & 7:** 1 K. MURALEEDHARAN, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.MADHAVAN NAIR, MAYOORA NO.14, P.M.LANE, AYYANTHOLE P.O., THRISSUR 680 003 2 T.V.CHANDRAMOHAN, S/O.N.P.GOVINDAN NAIR, "GOVIND", HARISREE MURUGA NAGAR, POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR 682 002 3 G.MADHUSOODHANAN PILLAI, S/O.GOVINDA PILLAI, AGED 75 YEARS, "VENUKA", NEAR COURT CAMPUS, ATTINGAL P.O. 4 M.JANARDHANAN, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O.UNNIKUTTI VAIDYAR, "JANEENAM", PALLIYIL PARAMBA, PUTHIYARA P.O., CALICUT 673 004 5 K.SIVASANKARAN, AGED 75 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN KUTTI MENON, SOUMYA VIHAR, PALIYAMKADAVU ROAD, CHENDAMANGALAM P.O. 683 512. BY ADVS. S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) P.MARTIN JOSE P.PRIJITH THOMAS P.KURUVILLA R.GITHESH AJAY BEN JOSE MANJUNATH MENON SACHIN JACOB AMBAT HARIKRISHNAN S. ANNA LINDA EDEN Crl.M.C Nos.1691 of 2021 & connected cases 8 ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN 682 031 2 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, SPECIAL INVESTIGATION UNIT -I, THRISSUR 680 003 3 MR. SREEJESH N., NEELATH HOUSE, KODUNGALLOOR P.O., PIN 680 664 BY ADV G.SUDHEER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.05.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5860/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C Nos.1691 of 2021 & connected cases 9 K.BABU, J. --------------------------------------------------Criminal M.C Nos.1691, 5860, 5890, 5891 and 5896 of 2021 --------------------------------------------------Dated this the 22[nd ] day of May, 2023 ## O R D E R In these Criminal M.Cs the petitioners seek to quash the final reports filed against them in C.C Nos.11/2019, 12/2019, 13/2019 and 14/2019. The petitioners in Crl.M.C Nos.5860, 5890, 5891, 5896 of 2021 are the same persons. They are accused Nos.1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 respectively in the above referred Calender Cases. The petitioner in Crl.M.C No.1691/2021 is common accused No.9 in the cases. 2. In the final reports there were nine accused. Accused No.1 was the Administrator of the Guruvayoor Devaswom. Accused No.3 was the Chairman of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee. Accused Nos.3, 4, 6 and 7 were the members of the Managing Committee. Accused No.5 was also a member of the Managing Committee. Accused No.2 was a staff member of the Managing Committee. Accused No.8 was a System Analyst and accused No.9 is an Executive Engineer in the Devaswom. 3. The accused were alleged to have committed the offences Crl.M.C Nos.1691 of 2021 & connected cases 10 punishable under Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120B of IPC. 4. The charges against the accused Nos.2, 5 and 8 were quashed by this Court in the common judgment dated 01.10.2021 in O.P(Crl) No.452/2016 and Crl.M.C Nos.2090/2020, 2091/2020, 2096/2020, 2099/2020, 3569/2020, 3574/2020, 3577/2020 and 3601/2020. (Annexure XVIII). The parties and documents produced shall be referred to as they are in Crl.M.C No.5860/2021. ## Relevant facts: 5. Respondent No.3 filed a complaint in the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur alleging offences punishable under Sections 7, 9, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the accused. Respondent No.3 alleged that the Managing Committee of which accused No.2 was a member created the post of Foreman Grade-I with intent to appoint accused No.2 in the said post in violation of the rules and regulations. He further alleged that accused No.8 was temporarily appointed to the post of System Analyst, a post not in existence, without notifying the vacancy and conducting any selection process. 11 Crl.M.C Nos.1691 of 2021 & connected cases 6. The Special Court directed the Inspector of Police, VACB, Thrissur to conduct a preliminary enquiry into the allegations levelled in the complaint filed by respondent No.3. A report was submitted before the Special Court wherein no criminal action was recommended. 7. The Special Court refused to accept the report submitted by the VACB. The Special Court was of the view that the allegations in the complaint disclosed commission of the cognizable offences. Therefore, the Special Court directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, VACB, Thrissur to register a case against the petitioners and other accused and conduct investigation into the allegations levelled against them. The VACB registered V.C No.32/16/TSR alleging offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 8. After completing the investigation, final report was submitted before the Special Court, which took cognizance of the offences. 9. Heard both sides. Crl.M.C Nos.1691 of 2021 & connected cases 12 ## 10. The charges against the present petitioners and the other accused are as follows: “A-1 K.Muraleedharan being Guruvayur Devaswom Administrator, A-3 T.V.Chandramohan being Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee Chairman, A-4 Madhusoodhanan Pillai, A-5 Thushar Vellapilly, A-6 M.Janardhanan and A-7 Sivasankaran are being the Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee Members and A-9 O.Sankaranarayan then Executive Engineer (Electrical) with an intention to get a promotion to A-2, and as per the direction of A-2 to A-7, A-9 submitted a report to create 3 new posts in Guruvayur Devaswom Electrical Wing including the post of Foreman Grade-I, and since A-2 had no technical qualification, A-9 prescribed no technical qualification for the post of Foreman Grade -I, A-2 to A-7 who were the Administrative Committee Members of Devaswom illegally resolved to create 3 new posts including Foreman Grade-I in the electrical & water supply wing and the post of 'System Analyst' in the Computer wing of Guruvayur Devaswom, during the period from August - 2012 to August - 2013 conspired together with A-2 N.Raju and with an intention to facilitate promotion for A-2 N.Raju, abused their official position as public servants and violated Guruvayur Devaswom Act 1978, Guruvayur Devaswom Rules and Guruvayur Devaswom Crl.M.C Nos.1691 of 2021 & connected cases 13 Employees Regulation,1983 and also by again violating Honourable Kerala High Court Judgment in O.P.No.15832/1993-I & 5900/97 dated 05.08.1999, illegally created new post of 'Foreman Gr-1' in the Devswom Electrical & Water supply wing, without putting the recommendation to create the post for the study of the Devaswom Expert Committee and fixed qualifications to the new post so as to enable A2 to get the promotion, and also violated Central Electricity Authority (Measures Relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations-2010 Chapter-II Section 3(3), and Circular No-B1 17175/2001/CEI/18/09/2004 of Chief Electricity Inspector Kerala, A-2 N.Raju was illegally promoted to the post of Foreman Grade-1 on 25/05/2013 as he had no technical qualification for the post, and posted A-2 as Power House In Charge in Guruvayur Devaswom Electrical Wing and by the promotion A-2 got illegal pecuniary advantage of 2 additional increments of Rs.440/-each. Sri.V.M.Gopalamenon who was the Guruvayur Devaswom Commissioner who sanctioned to create the 3 posts namely Foreman Grade-1, Storekeeper and Head Draftsman has clearly specified in his order to include these posts in the Guruvayur Devaswom Employees Regulations and to promote eligible persons to these posts. But, the Managing Committee and Administrator made appointment to these posts without Crl.M.C Nos.1691 of 2021 & connected cases 14 taking any steps to include these posts in the Guruvayur Devaswom Employees Regulations (Ext-B2 page 443444). But, A-1 to A-7 had not taken any steps to include these posts in the employee's regulations. As a result of it, A-2 got illegal pecuniary advantage through the promotion to the post of Foreman Grade-1 to an extent of Rs.11,993/-. The promotion list was not submitted to the Commissioner for confirmation. Hence, any abuse of power or misconduct from the part of Sri.V.M.Gopalamenon is not revealed in the investigation, hence he is deleted in the array of accused (specified in the FIR). The array of accused is changed as (A1) K.Muraleedharan former Guruvayur Devaswom Administrator (A-2 in FIR), (A2) N.Raju, former Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee member (A-3 in FIR), (A3) T.V.Chandramohan former Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee Chairman (A-4 in FIR), (A4) Madhusoodhanan Pilla, former Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee member (A-5 in FIR), (A5) Thushar Vellappilly former Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee member (A-6 in FIR), (A6) M.Janardhanan former Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee member (A-7 in FIR), (A7) K.Sivasankaran (former Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee member (A-8 in FIR), (A8) K.Renjith System Analyst, Guruvayur Devaswom (Accused additionally arrayed during the investigation) Crl.M.C Nos.1691 of 2021 & connected cases 15 and (A9) O.Sanakaranarayanan Former Executive Engineer (Electrical) Guruvayur Devaswom, accused additionally arrayed during the investigation). Similarly, A-1, A-2, A-3, A-6 and A-7 abused their official position as public servants and conspired together with A-8 K.Renjith, violated Guruvayur Devaswom Act, 1978 & Rules and Guruvayur Devaswom Employees Regulation, 1983, without publishing any notifications in the medias regarding the vacancy of System Analyst, without conducting any test or interview, appointed A-8 K.Renjith as System Analyst in Guruvayur Devaswom for one year with a monthly salary of Rs.35,000/- and extended his service after the completion of one year violating the order of the Devaswom Commissioner to terminate the service of A-8 who obtained illegal pecuniary gain of Rs.2,99,821/-. By effecting these illegal appointments, the accused persons A2 & A8 obtained illegal pecuniary gain to the extent of Rs.3,09,939/- and incurred huge financial loss of the same extent during 2013-14 financial year to the Guruvayur Devaswom Board and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of P.C Act, 1988 and Sec.120(B) IPC.” 11. The specific allegations discernible from the above charges are the following: Crl.M.C Nos.1691 of 2021 & connected cases 16 - (1) The members of the Managing Committee, with the intention to promote the second accused, created the post of Foreman Grade-I in the Devaswom. - (2) The post of Foreman Grade-I was created in violation of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act 1978, Guruvayoor Devaswom Rules and the Guruvayoor Devaswom Employees Regulations, 1983. - (3) The post of Foreman Grade-I was created in violation of the judgment of this Court in O.P.Nos.15832/1993 and 5900/1997 dated 05.08.1999. - (4) The post was created without putting the recommendation in that regard for the study of the Devaswom Expert Committee. - (5) The qualification for the post was fixed with a view to enable the second accused to get the promotion. - (6) The creation of the post of Foreman Grade-I was in violation of Section 3(3) of the Central Electricity Authority (Measures Relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010 and Circular No-B1-17175/2001/CEI/18/09/2004 of the Chief Electrical Inspector Kerala. - (7) The second accused had no qualification to hold the post of Foreman Grade-I. Crl.M.C Nos.1691 of 2021 & connected cases 17 - (8) The creation of the post of Foreman Grade-I and the promotion of the second accused to that post was the result of a criminal conspiracy hatched by the accused. - (9) Accused 1 to 3 , 6 and 7 abused their official position and conspired together with the eighth accused. - (10) Accused 1 to 3 , 6 and 7 violated the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, 1978 and the Rules and the Guruvayoor Devaswom Employees Regulations in appointing the eighth accused as System Analyst. - (11) The eighth accused was appointed as System Analyst for one year with a monthly salary of Rs.35,000/-, without publishing any notification, inviting application for appointment to the post of System Analyst and without conducting any test or interview. - (12) The service of the eighth accused was extended after completing the period of one year, in violation of the order of the Devaswom Commissioner to terminate his services. 12. Accused No.2 filed O.P(Crl) No.452/2016 and accused Nos.5 and 8 filed Crl.M.C Nos. 2090/2020, 2091/2020, 2096/2020, 2099/2020, 3569/2020, 3574/2020, 3577/2020 and 3601/2020 seeking to quash the final reports filed as against them. Crl.M.C Nos.1691 of 2021 & connected cases 18 13. This Court as per order dated 01.10.2021 quashed the final reports filed by the VACB to the extent they pertain to them and all proceedings against them based on the final reports. 14. The relevant paragraphs in Anx.XVIII judgment dated 01.10.2021 dealing with the allegations against accused No.2 are extracted below: “23. The second accused had entered into service in the Guruvayoor Devaswom as General Workman on 05.06.1985. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Lineman on 11.11.1993. 24. The promotion of the second accused to the post of Assistant Lineman was challenged by some persons in the writ petitions filed before this Court as O.P.No.15832/1993 and O.P.No.5900/1997. As per Ext.P3 judgment in the above writ petitions, this Court found that the promotion of the second accused to the post of Assistant Lineman was improper and illegal. However, this Court did not disturb the promotion given to him on the ground that it was not proper to do so at a distant point of time. But, this Court had observed in Ext.P3 judgment that “the Administrator and the Commissioner, atleast hereafter, shall strictly adhere to the Guruvayoor Devaswom Employees Regulations, 1983 and the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, 1978 and Rules made thereunder and make appointments strictly in accordance with the Regulations.” 25. The second accused was promoted to the post of Senior Technician in the year 2006. 26. As per Ext.P5 notification issued by the Government on 12.08.2011, the second accused was nominated to the Managing Committee as representative of the employees of the Guruvayoor Devaswom. His term as member of the Managing Committee expired on 14.11.2015. 27. At this juncture, it is to be noted that it was while the second accused was a member of the Managing Committee that the Committee took the decision to create three new posts, including a post of Foreman Grade-I. The second accused was thereafter promoted to the newly Crl.M.C Nos.1691 of 2021 & connected cases 19 created post of Foreman Grade-I. This is one of the crucial circumstances projected by the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the third respondent in support of their submission with regard to abuse of power by the second accused and the other members of the Managing Committee. 28. Ext.P8 is the copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Managing Committee held on 17.08.2012. It would show that the second accused had participated in the meeting of the Managing Committee on that day. In that meeting, a decision was taken by the Managing Committee to create the posts of Foreman Grade-I, Store Keeper and Head Draughtsman and to seek the sanction of the Devaswom Commissioner for that purpose and to include the new posts in the Guruvayoor Devaswom Employees Regulations. 29. Ext.P8 minutes would show that the method of appointment to the post of Foreman Grade-I was fixed as promotion from Senior Operator/Senior Technician. The qualification fixed by the Managing Committee for that post was three years working experience as Senior Operator/Senior Technician in Guruvayoor Devaswom Electrical Wing with a pass in S.S.L.C examination or equivalent. 30. It is significant that, as per the decision taken by the Managing Committee, the educational qualification prescribed for the post of Foreman Grade-I was S.S.L.C or equivalent. 31. Ext.P9 is the order dated 11.09.2012 issued by the then Guruvayoor Devaswom Commissioner granting permission for the creation of the above three posts. It would show that the qualification for promotion to the post of Foreman Grade-I was mentioned as S.S.L.C and three years or more experience as Senior Operator/Senior Technician. What is significant is that in stating the educational qualification for the post of Foreman Grade-I in Ext.P9 order, the word 'equivalent' (equivalent to S.S.L.C) was omitted and the educational qualification was mentioned only as 'S.S.L.C'. 32. Neither the prosecution nor the third respondent has got a case that the Managing Committee had no power to create new posts in the Devaswom or to prescribe the qualifications required for the posts in the Devaswom. What was required was only the approval of the Devaswom Commissioner. In the instant case, Ext.P9 order dated 11.09.2012 had been issued by the Devaswom Commissioner Crl.M.C Nos.1691 of 2021 & connected cases 20 granting permission for the creation of the new three posts. 33. The contention of the third respondent is that when promotion was given to the second accused to the post of Foreman Grade-I, there was no such post in the Guruvayoor Devaswom Employees Regulations, 1983 (for short 'the Regulations') and the qualifications for appointment to the post were not stated in the Regulations and therefore, the promotion given was not valid. There is no merit in this contention. When a new post is created and the qualification for that post is prescribed by a decision taken by the Managing Committee, naturally the details of such post would not be in the Regulations. When sanction was given by the Devaswom Commissioner as per Ext.P9 order dated 11.09.2012 for the creation of the new post, the post had come into existence. Then, the Managing Committee had the power to appoint or promote a person to that post. 34. The allegation that the post of Foreman-Grade I and the method of appointment to that post and the qualification fixed for that post were not included in the Regulations does not hold water in view of Ext.P9 order. Once the post was created by the Managing Committee with a decision to include the name of the post in the Regulations and sanction for creation of that post was also granted by the Devaswom Commissioner along with permission to include the new post in the Regulations, the new post had come into existence. The fact that the necessary amendment was incorporated in the Regulations and it was published in a book form only subsequently does not mean that creation of the new post did not take place till the time of such amendment and publication. After the Devaswom Commissioner issued Ext.P9 order, the Managing Committee had authority to promote suitable persons to the newly created posts. 35. Ext.P10 is the copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Managing Committee held on 23.05.2013. It would show that the second and the fifth accused had not participated in that meeting. In that meeting, a decision was taken by the Managing Committee, to grant promotion to the persons who were in the list submitted to the Committee, on the basis of qualification and seniority . 36. In the light of the decision taken by the Managing Committee as per Ext.P10, the Administrator of the Devaswom issued Ext.P11 order dated 25.05.2013 granting promotion to some of the employees including the second Crl.M.C Nos.1691 of 2021 & connected cases 21 accused. As per Ext.P11 order, the second accused was promoted to the new post of Foreman Grade-I. 37. In fact, Ext.P11 order dated 25.05.2013 granting promotion to the newly created post of Store Keeper was under challenge before this Court in the writ petitions filed as W.P.(C) Nos.24270/2013 and 26348/2013. In Ext.P12 judgment in the above writ petitions, after referring to Sections 18 and 36 of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, this Court had stated as follows: “A reading of Section 39 of the Act would indicate that the Managing Committee of the Devaswom is the authority to prescribe the qualifications and methods of appointment to various posts in the service of the Devaswom and the only restriction on the exercise of that power is that the prescriptions in the Rules will be subject to the approval of the Government. It is not disputed that in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 39 of the Act, the Managing Committee had issued, with the approval of the Government, the Guruvayur Devaswom Employees Regulations, 1983, prescribing qualifications and methods of appointment to various posts in the service of the Devaswom. …..... It is thus evident that going by the scheme of the Act, the role of the Commissioner is only to keep a check on the finance management of the Devaswom. As such, it cannot be held that Section 18 of the Act confers any authority on the Commissioner to prescribe qualification for a particular post or alter the qualification prescribed by the Managing Committee for a post". As per Ext.P12 judgment, this Court quashed Ext.P9 order. But, in a review petition filed by the second accused and other persons, as per Ext.P13 order, this Court clarified that Ext.P9 order was quashed only insofar as it relates to the post of Store Keeper. Therefore, Ext.P9 order was not affected by Ext.P12 judgment as far as it related to the post of Foreman Grade-I. 38. The qualification for the post of Foreman Grade-I prescribed by the Managing Committee was three years working experience as Senior Operator/Senior Technician in Guruvayoor Devaswom Electrical Wing with a pass in S.S.L.C examination or equivalent. The third respondent would Crl.M.C Nos.1691 of 2021 & connected cases 22 contend that the second accused had not passed S.S.L.C. Examination. Admittedly, the second accused had not passed S.S.L.C. Examination. But, the educational qualification prescribed for the post of Foreman Grade-I was S.S.L.C or equivalent. Therefore, if the second accused had qualification which was equivalent to S.S.L.C., it was sufficient. As noticed earlier, as per Ext.P12 judgment, this Court had held that the Devaswom Commissioner has no power to prescribe qualification for a particular post or alter the qualification prescribed by the Managing Committee for a post. 39. Ext.P4 is the copy of 10th Standard Equivalency 'A' Level Certificate issued in the name of the second accused by the Government of Kerala in the year 2008. As per Ext.P19 order dated 29.06.2015, the Government has approved Standard X Equivalency Course as equal to S.S.L.C. Subsequently, Ext.P20 order has been issued by the Guruvayoor Devaswom Administrator, approving Standard X Equivalency Course as equal to S.S.L.C with retrospective effect from 09.03.2004. This order was issued by the Devaswom Administrator on the basis of the decision taken by the Managing Committee to that effect on 06.08.2015. 40. In the light of Ext.P20 order, it cannot be now found that the second accused did not have the requisite educational qualification which was prescribed by the Managing Committee for the post of Foreman Grade-I. Ratification would always relate back to the date of the act ratified. 'Ratification' by definition means the making valid of an act already done. Ratification of an act is equivalent to a prior authority to perform such act. 41. However, as far as the second accused is concerned, it is not the end of the matter. The prosecution has alleged that the second accused did not have the qualification to hold the post of Foreman Grade-I in view of Section 3(3) of the Central Electricity Authority (Measures Relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010. 42. One Bhavadas had filed a writ petition before this Court as WP(C) No.10383/2015, pointing out that many of the persons who were working in the Guruvayur Devaswom Board in the Electrical Department were not persons qualified to continue so in view of the provisions contained in the Central Electricity Authority (Measures Relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010. Specific reference was made to Section 3 of the above Regulations, which speaks of designating persons for the purpose of operating Crl.M.C Nos.1691 of 2021 & connected cases 23 and carrying out work of electric lines and apparatus, who shall necessarily posses a certificate of competency or electrical work permit issued by the appropriate Government. It was pointed out that many persons in the Electrical Wing in the Devaswom did not have the above qualification required. Learned Single Judge directed the Electrical Inspector of the State to conduct an inspection and submit a report before the Devaswom regarding the posts available and required for operating the installations and the Devaswom Board was directed to take a decision on that basis. 43. The Devaswom took a decision to adopt what was suggested by the Electrical Inspector, by amending the Devaswom Employees Regulations. In pursuance of that, show cause notices were issued to five persons continuing in the Devaswom, including the second accused, who admittedly did not have the qualification required as per the Central Electricity Authority (Measures Relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations. 44. The second accused filed appeal as WA.No.2375 of 2018 against the judgment in WP(C) No.10383/2015. Learned counsel for the petitioner (A2) has made available copies of the judgments of this Court and the Supreme Court in this regard. The Division Bench of this Court in the above writ appeal held as follows: "The qualifications of the appellant has also been perused by us, which fall short of what is required as suggested by the Electrical Inspector, which again is a mandate as per the Regulation of 2010. ..... We, hence record the submission of the Devaswom Board and direct the Devaswom Board to ensure that the directions issued by the Electrical Inspector, are scrupulously complied with and persons are appointed only with qualifications so as to ensure the safety of the devotees coming to the temple. It is submitted that the appellant is under suspension and this order shall not affect such orders of suspension, which would have to be proceeded with in the normal course. The appellant when adjusted to a different post his pay shall be protected, since though sans qualification, he had been working with the Dewaswom Board and had enjoyed the benefits Crl.M.C Nos.1691 of 2021 & connected cases 24 of pay in that post; who is also now on the verge of retirement. The writ appeal would stand rejected, but however, with the above observations". (emphasis supplied) 45. The Special Leave Petition (SLP(C) D.11350/2020) filed by the Managing Committee against the judgment of this Court in WA.No.2375 of 2018 was disposed of by the Supreme Court on 18.08.2020, stating as follows: "2. The first respondent, who was originally appointed to the post of Helper in the Guruvayoor Devaswom Board was reverted to the post of Attender. The first respondent does not have the qualifications prescribed under the Central Authority (Measures relating to Saftey and Electric Supply) Regulations 2010. The Board had resolved, following the institution of certain writ proceedings, to amend its regulations to bring them in conformity with the CEA Regulations. However, the Board stated before the High Court that the first respondent would be accommodated on another post. The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that his pay should be protected since he was on the verge of retirement. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the direction for the protection of pay would cause imbalance in the pay structure of the post on which the first respondent was subsequently appointed. We have been informed by Mr Roy Abhraham, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent that the first respondent has since retired on 31 May, 2020. 4. Having regard to the fact that the first respondent has retired, which is not in dispute, we are not inclined to entertain the Special Leave Petition insofar as the grant of relief of pay protection to him is concerned. However, we do so in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case with the clarification that the impugned judgment of the High Court shall not be cited as a precedent in any other case. The benefits, if any, due and payable shall be paid over to the first respondent within a Crl.M.C Nos.1691 of 2021 & connected cases 25 period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the present order." (emphasis supplied) The person who is referred to as the first respondent in the above order is the second accused in this case. 46. The judgment of this Court in WA.No.2375 of 2018, as confirmed by the Supreme Court as mentioned above, has protected the pay and allowances paid to the second accused in the post of Foreman Grade-I. The order of the Supreme Court shows that the pay of the second accused in the cadre of Foreman Grade-I was not only protected but a positive direction was made for the payment of the benefits due to him within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Though it is a development subsequent to the filing of the final reports against the accused in the Special Court by the VACB, it shatters the substratum of the prosecution against the second accused for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. 47. Section 13(1)(d) of the Act (as it stood before the amendment in the year 2018) provides that, a public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct, if he, - (i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest. 48. A perusal of the above provision makes it clear that, if the elements of any of the three sub-clauses are met, the same would be sufficient to constitute an offence of 'criminal misconduct' under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. The three wings of clause (d) of Section 13(1) are independent, alternative and disjunctive. Thus, under Section 13(1)(d)(i) of the Act, obtaining any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means by a public servant in itself would amount to criminal misconduct. Under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Act, "obtaining a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage" by abusing his official position as a public servant, either for himself or for any other person would amount to criminal misconduct. Under Section 13(1)(d)(iii) of the Act, if a public servant, while he holds office, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest, it would amount to criminal misconduct. Crl.M.C Nos.1691 of 2021 & connected cases 26 49. To attract the provisions of Section 13(1)(d) of the Act, public servant should obtain for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position as a public servant. Therefore, in order to establish a case under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act, there must be materials on record that the accused has obtained for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. 50. The prosecution has no case that anybody obtained any valuable thing by virtue of the promotion given to the second accused. Here, the prosecution case is that the second accused obtained pecuniary advantage as he received the salary and allowances applicable to the post of Foreman Grade-I due to the illegal promotion granted to him. Therefore, the 'pecuniary advantage', which forms the basis for attracting the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act in the present case, is the excess pay and allowances received by the second accused by virtue of his illegal promotion to the post of Foreman Grade-I. 51. Even if it is accepted that the materials on record produced by the prosecution would establish that the members of the Managing Committee, including the second accused, fixed the qualification for the post of Foreman Grade-I with the sole intention of giving promotion to the second accused to that post and accordingly, illegally promoted the second accused, who did not have the requisite qualification to hold that post, and that the accused had abused their official position and acted against public interest, it would not attract the offence under Section 13(1) (d) of the Act. The reason is that the pay of the second accused in the post of Foreman Grade-I was protected as per the judgment of this Court and that judgment was confirmed and order was passed by the Supreme Court to pay him all the benefits due. Therefore, it cannot be found that the second accused had illegally or wrongfully obtained any pecuniary advantage. It means absence of one of the basic ingredients of the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. 52. In the above circumstances, in relation to the promotion of the second accused to the post of Foreman Grade-I, the allegations in Exts. P27 to P30 charge-sheets have lost their basis or foundation.” ## 15. The relevant paragraphs in Anx.XVIII judgment dealing with Crl.M.C Nos.1691 of 2021 & connected cases 27 ## the allegations against accused No.8 are extracted below: “57. There was no post of “System Analyst” in the Guruvayoor Devaswom. The name of the post which existed was “System Administrator”. 58. The Administrator of Guruvayoor Devaswom had published Annexure-E notification dated 24.01.2013 inviting applications for appointment to the post of System Administrator on deputation basis. 59. Annexure-F is the extract of the minutes of the meeting of the Managing Committee held on 14.06.2013. It shows that there was no application received in response to Annexure-E notification. It further shows that the eighth accused had sent application informing the Devaswom that he was ready to work in the computer section. 60. At this juncture, it is to be noted that the eighth accused had earlier worked in the Devaswom and he was the person who developed the software in the ticket counter of the Guruvayoor Temple. 61. Annexure-F minutes would show that the expert committee of the computer section of the Devaswom had conducted an interview with the eighth accused and that the expert committee had made recommendation to create a post of System Analyst and to appoint the eighth accused to that post. Annexure-F minutes further shows that the Managing Committee found that it had become absolutely necessary to obtain the services of a computer expert in the Devaswom. Therefore, after considering the report of the computer expert committee, the Managing Committee decided to create a post of System Analyst and to appoint the eighth accused to that post on temporary basis on a salary of Rs.35,000/- per month. 62. In the light of Annexure-F decision of the Managing Committee, the Administrator issued Annexure-G order dated 01.07.2013, appointing the eighth accused on temporary basis to the post of System Analyst. 63. Annexure-I order dated 22.02.2014 issued by the Guruvayoor Devaswom Commissioner shows that the decision of the Managing Committee to appoint the eighth accused to the post of System Analyst for a period of one year on temporary basis was ratified by him. 64. At this juncture, it is to be noted that the Administrator had sent Annexure-H request to the Crl.M.C Nos.1691 of 2021 & connected cases 28 Devaswom Commissioner for granting sanction for appointment of the eighth accused to the post of System Analyst for a period of one year. But, Annexure-F minutes does not show that the Managing Committee had taken any decision to limit the period of appointment of the eighth accused for a period of one year. 65. Annexure-J is the extract of the minutes of the meeting of the Managing Committee held on 25.08.2014. It shows that the Managing Committee decided to regularise the appointment of all persons working in the Devaswom on temporary basis and to make them permanent. 66. However, on 14.12.2015, as per Annexure-K order, the Guruvayoor Devaswom Commissioner cancelled the permission granted for the creation of the temporary post of System Analyst and directed termination of the services of the person who was appointed on temporary basis in that post. 67. The eighth accused filed a writ petition as W.P.(C) No.23467/2016 challenging Annexure-K order passed by the Devaswom Commissioner. As per Annexure-L order dated 14.07.2016 in the above writ petition, this Court granted stay of Annexure-K order passed by the Devaswom Commissioner. 68. Regarding the initial appointment of the eighth accused as System Analyst on temporary basis, whatever be the irregularities or illegalities that occurred in the procedure adopted in making that appointment, once Annexure-I order was passed by the Devaswom Commissioner ratifying such appointment, the appointment became legal and valid. As noticed earlier, ratification relates back and it recognizes the initial act. 69. In Sathyan Naravoor v. Union of India : 2017 (2) KLJ 43 , a Division Bench of this Court has observed as follows: “It is well settled that a subsequent ratification has retrospective effect and is equivalent to a prior command. ....... Therefore, the conduct of the 5th respondent in taking up employment during the period of leave without permission cannot now said to be illegal ........ Applying the law relating to ratification to the instant case, conclusion is irresistible that, once the State Government ratified the action of the 5th respondent in taking up employment during the period of Crl.M.C Nos.1691 of 2021 & connected cases 29 leave without Government permission and remitting the remuneration to the Management Institute, it relates back to the time when such action was taken by the 5th respondent without authority, i.e., without prior Government permission”. 70. Further, if the initial appointment of the eighth accused on temporary basis was the result of any criminal misconduct on the part of the members of the Managing Committee and if the eighth accused was a party to the conspiracy alleged by the prosecution in connection with such appointment, the Guruvayoor Devaswom Commissioner V.M.Gopala Menon, who issued Annexure-I order ratifying that appointment, should have also been made an accused in the case. In the final reports filed by the investigating officer in the Special Court, a very detailed explanation is given for deleting his name from the array of accused. But, nothing is mentioned in that explanation with regard to his role in the appointment of the eighth accused as System Analyst. 71. It was as per Annexure-K order dated 14.12.2015 that the Devaswom Commissioner gave direction to terminate the appointment of the person who was appointed on temporary basis as System Analyst. There is a specific averment in the Crl.M.Cs filed by the eighth accused that, as per Annexure-L order in W.P.(C) No.23467/2016, this Court had stayed Annexure-K order and that, even after AnnexureK order, the eighth accused continued to work in the post of System Analyst on the basis of Annexure-L order. This specific averment in the Crl.M.Cs filed by the eighth accused is not denied or disputed by the investigating officer in the statement filed by him in those Crl.M.Cs. Nothing is mentioned in the statement filed by the investigating officer with regard to Annexure-L order passed by this Court and regarding the claim of the eighth accused that he had continued to work in the post of System Analyst on the basis of Annexure-L order. Learned Public Prosecutor has also got no plea that Annexure-L order was subsequently vacated by this Court or that the writ petition filed by the eighth accused was dismissed or disposed of by this Court. 72. It is true that it was long after Annexure-K order was passed by the Devaswom Commissioner that AnnexureL order of stay was passed by this Court. However, the fact remains that this Court had stayed the termination of the Crl.M.C Nos.1691 of 2021 & connected cases 30 services of the eighth accused. 73. When a person has worked in a post and when he has received or obtained the salary and allowances as remuneration for his work, it cannot be found that he has obtained any 'pecuniary advantage' within the meaning of Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. 74. As far as the appointment of the eighth accused is concerned, the role of the second accused is that he was a member of the Managing Committee who took the decision to appoint the eighth accused as System Analyst. In view of the facts stated earlier relating to the appointment of the eighth accused on temporary basis in the post of System Analyst and the subsequent ratification of such appointment by the Guruvayoor Devaswom Commissioner, the charge against the second accused in connection with such appointment, for an offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act, can have no basis. 75. In Dr. Dhananjai Kumar Pandey v. Central Bureau of Investigation: 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 5625 , the basis of the allegation against the accused that they committed offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with 120B of the I.P.C was that accused 1 to 4 in that case entered into criminal conspiracy and by abusing their official position as public servants, recruited Dr. Dhananjay Kumar Pandey as Scientist by grossly violating and flouting the procedures laid down and thereby showed undue favour to him, who did not have the requisite qualification and experience to hold that post and who was reported to be closely associated/related with the first accused therein, and he was selected by overlooking other suitable/eligible candidates. The Bombay High Court quashed the F.I.R, by stating as follows: "The allegations against the present petitioner are that the other accused persons i.e. accused nos. 1 to 4 have selected the present petitioner for the post of Scientist by giving go by to the procedure laid down. The entire contents of the FIR are relating to the alleged irregularities committed by the accused nos.1 to 4 while selecting the present petitioner/accused no.5 which do not constitute any offence under the Penal Code, 1860 or Prevention of Corruption Act. ........ If at all there were irregularities while selecting the present petitioner or his wife Dr.Anju Pandey to the particular post, the concerned Department can Crl.M.C Nos.1691 of 2021 & connected cases 31 look into the matter and see whether really some concession was given to the present petitioner or his wife at the time of their selection. Even assuming for time being, the accused nos. 1 to 4 have not followed the procedure and they have given some concession to the present petitioner even then such act could give rise only to initiate departmental inquiry but in any way no criminal liability can be fasten upon the accused in absence of a specific allegation in reference to the cheating or corruption". The Special Leave Petition filed by the C.B.I against the above order was dismissed by the Supreme Court (See Central Bureau of Investigation v. Dr. Dhananjai Kumar Pandey: MANU/SCOR/80507/2017 ). 76. Mere violation of procedure in the appointment of the eighth accused as System Analyst does not lead to an inference that the Members of the Managing Committee had dishonest intention in making such appointment especially when the appointment was ratified by the competent authority.” 16. The State challenged Anx.XVIII judgment before the Supreme Court in SLP(Crl).Nos.2165-2173/2022. As per order dated 21.03.2022 the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions. Therefore, the findings as against accused Nos.2, 5 and 8 recorded by this Court as per Anx.XVIII judgment have become final. 17. The foundation of the allegation of the prosecution is that the present petitioners and accused No.5 abused their official position and conspired together with accused Nos.2 and 8 and appointed accused Nos.2 and 8 illegally in the posts referred to 32 Crl.M.C Nos.1691 of 2021 & connected cases above facilitating them to gain illegal pecuniary advantage to the tune of Rs.3,09,939/- causing illegal loss to the Guruvayoor Devaswom Board. 18. As per Anx.XVIII judgment, this Court held that the charges against accused Nos.2 and 8 have no foundation. Resultantly, the charge of conspiracy against the present petitioners has no basis. 19. The prosecution has not made any allegation of dishonest intention in the appointment of accused Nos.2 and 8 in the respective posts held by them. The prosecution case against the present petitioners is based on the violation of procedures in the appointment of accused Nos.2 and 8. 20. Dishonest intention is sine qua non to attract the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. Mere conduct and action of the accused contrary to rules and departmental norms would not amount to criminal misconduct by a public servant. 21. A fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence with regard to the liability of an accused is the element of mens rea. On the principles of actus reus and mens rea, the learned author Sri.Glanville Williams in the 'Textbook of Criminal Law' [Third Edition, Crl.M.C Nos.1691 of 2021 & connected cases 33 ## Dennis.J.Baker, page 95] comments thus: “The mere commission of a criminal act (or bringing about the state of affairs that the law provides against) is not enough to constitute a crime, at any rate in the case of the more serious crimes. These generally require, in addition, some element of wrongful intent or other fault. Increasing insistence upon this fault element was the mark of advancing civilization.” ## 22. On the principles of Criminal Liability, the learned author ## Sri.K.D. Gaur in his book Criminal Law [Lexis Nexis, Butterworths, page 37] explains thus: “Criminal guilt would attach to a man for violations of criminal law. However, the rule is not absolute and is subject to limitations indicated in the Latin maxim, actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea. It signifies that there can be no crime without a guilty mind. To make a person criminally accountable, it must be proved that an act, which is forbidden by law, has been caused by his conduct, and that the conduct was accompanied by a legally blameworthy attitude of mind. Thus, there are two components of every crime, a physical element and a mental element, usually called actus reus and mens rea respectively.” 23. Dishonest intention is the crux of the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The question whether violation of the rules and departmental norms would amount to the offence under section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was considered by the Apex Court in C.K.Jaffer Sharief v. State [2013 (1) SCC 205] . The Apex Court held thus: “If in the process, the rules or norms applicable were violated or the decision taken shows an extravagant display of redundance it is the conduct and action of the appellant which Crl.M.C Nos.1691 of 2021 & connected cases 34 may have been improper or contrary to departmental norms. But to say that the same was actuated by a dishonest intention to obtain an undue pecuniary advantage will not be correct. That dishonest intention is the gist of the offence under Section 13(1)(d) is implicit in the words used i.e. corrupt or illegal means and abuse of position as a public servant.” 24. In M. Narayanan Nambiar v. State of Kerala (AIR 1963 SC 1116) while dealing with Section 5 of the 1947 Act the Apex Court held that dishonest intention is the gist of the offence. 25. In the present case, the prosecution records reveal only violation of the rules and departmental norms in the appointment of accused Nos.2 and 8. There are no specific allegations of dishonest intention in the acts alleged as far as the present petitioners are concerned. 26. The result of the above discussion is that there are no factual basis for the allegations against the petitioners that they committed criminal misconduct as defined under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in relation to the appointment of accused Nos.2 and 8 in the Devaswom. The Final Reports filed before the Court below, as far as they relate to the petitioners, are liable to be quashed. 27. The petitions are allowed. The Final Reports filed by the Crl.M.C Nos.1691 of 2021 & connected cases 35 Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau in the Special Court, Thrissur in V.C No.32/16/TSR (Final Report Nos.22/2019, 23/2019, 24/2019 and 25/2019) to the extent they pertain to the petitioners, and all further proceedings against them based on such final reports are hereby quashed. The Criminal M.Cs are allowed of as above. Sd/K.BABU, JUDGE KAS Crl.M.C Nos.1691 of 2021 & connected cases 36 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1691/2021** ## PETITIONER ANNEXURES |ANNEXURE|1|TRUE COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT| |---|---|---| |||CRL.M.P.NO.481/2013 DATED 09.10.2013| |||FILED BY 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE COURT| |||OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL| |||JUDGE,THRISSUR.| |ANNEXURE|2|TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 19.07.2014| |||SUBMITTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF| |||POLICE,VACB,THRISSUR| |ANNEXURE|3|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.06.2016| |||PASSED BY THE COURT OF ENQUIRY| |||COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE,THRISSUR| |ANNEXURE|4|TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.VC 32/2016-TSR| |||DATED 21.07.2016| |ANNEXURE|5|TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL CHARGE SHEET| |||NO.22/2019 DATED 27.11.2019 BY THE 2ND| |||RESPONDENT BEFORE THE COURT OF THE| |||ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL| |||JUDGE,THRISSUR.| |ANNEXURE|6|TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL CHARGE SHEET| |||NO.23/2019 DATED 27.11.2019 BY THE 2ND| |||RESPONDENT BEFORE THE COURT OF THE| |||ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL| |||JUDGE,THRISSUR| |ANNEXURE|7|TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL CHARGE SHEET| |||NO.24/2019 DATED 27.11.2019 BY THE 2ND| |||RESPONDENT BEFORE THE COURT OF THE| |||ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL| |||JUDGE,THRISSUR| |ANNEXURE|8|TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL CHARGE SHEET| |||NO.25/2019 DATED 27.11.2019 BY THE 2ND| |||RESPONDENT BEFORE THE COURT OF THE| |||ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL| |||JUDGE,THRISSUR| |ANNEXURE|9|TRUE COPY OF THE SANCTION ORDER NO.B4-| |||10136/2015 DATAED 06.02.2019 ISSUED BY| |||THE THEN ADMINISTRATOR OF GURUVAYOOR| |||DEVASWOM WHO WAS EXAMINED AS PROSECUTION| |||WITNESS NO.22| |ANNEXURE|10|TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.B1-| |||3430/06 DATED 19.08.2006 ISSUED BY THE| |||GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM ADMINISTRATOR.| Crl.M.C Nos.1691 of 2021 & connected cases 37 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5860/2021** PETITIONER ANNEXURES |Annexure I|TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CC NO.11 OF| |---|---| ||2019, OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND| ||SPECIAL JUDGE, THRISSUR| |Annexure II|TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.6282/2013 /RD| ||DATED 26.11.2013| |Annexure III|TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.3455/2011/RD| ||DATED 12.08.2011| |Annexure IV|TRUE COPY OF RESOLUTION DATED 17.08.2012| ||OF THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE| ||GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM| |Annexure V|TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED| ||11.09.2012 OF DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER| |Annexure VI|TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF MEETING OF| ||THE MANAGING COMMITTEE DATED 23.05.2013| |Annexure VII|TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED| ||25.05.2013 OF THE DEVASWOM ADMINISTRATOR| |Annexure VIII|TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 20.11.2014| ||IN WPC NO.26348 OF 2013 OF THIS HON'BLE| ||COURT| |Annexure IX|TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN RP NO.113 OF 2015| ||IN WPC NO.24270 OF 2013 DATED 30.01.2015| ||OF THIS HON'BLE COURT| |Annexure X|TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATE| ||24.01.2013 OF GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM| |Annexure XI|TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION -28 DATED| ||14.06.2013 OF MANAGING COMMITTEE OF| ||DEVASWOM| |Annexure XII|TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 01.07.2013 OF| ||THE ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM| |Annexure XIII|TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED| ||08.08.2013 OF ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYUR| ||DEVASWOM| |Annexure XIV|TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.166/2013/G.D.C| ||DATED 22.02.2014 OF GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM| ||COMMISSIONER| 38 ## Crl.M.C Nos.1691 of 2021 & connected cases Annexure XV TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT AS CRL.M.P.NO.481/2013 FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE , THRISSUR AGAINST THE PETITIONERS Annexure XVI TRUE COPY OF PRELIMINARY ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 19.07.2014 Annexure XVII TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 30.06.2016 IN CRL .M.P. NO.481/2013 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE , THRISSUR Annexure XVIII TRUE COPY OF COMMON ORDER DATED 01.10.2021 IN OP (CRL) NO.452 OF 2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT Crl.M.C Nos.1691 of 2021 & connected cases 39 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5890/2021** PETITIONER ANNEXURES |Annexure I|TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CC NO.13 OF| |---|---| ||2019, OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND| ||SPECIAL JUDGE, THRISSUR| |Annexure II|TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.6282/2013 /RD| ||DATED 26.11.2013| |Annexure III|TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.3455/2011/RD| ||DATED 12.08.2011| |Annexure IV|TRUE COPY OF RESOLUTION DATED 17.08.2012| ||OF THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE| ||GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM| |Annexure V|TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED| ||11.09.2012 OF DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER| |Annexure VI|TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF MEETING OF| ||THE MANAGING COMMITTEE DATED 23.05.2013| |Annexure VII|TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED| ||25.05.2013 OF THE DEVASWOM ADMINISTRATOR| |Annexure VIII|TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 20.11.2014| ||IN WPC NO.26348 OF 2013 OF THIS HON'BLE| ||COURT| |Annexure IX|TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN RP NO.113 OF 2015| ||IN WPC NO.24270 OF 2013 DATED 30.01.2015| ||OF THIS HON'BLE COURT| |Annexure X|TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATE| ||24.01.2013 OF GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM| |Annexure XI|TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION -28 DATED| ||14.06.2013 OF MANAGING COMMITTEE OF| ||DEVASWOM| |Annexure XII|TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 01.07.2013 OF| ||THE ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM| |Annexure XIII|TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED| ||08.08.2013 OF ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYUR| ||DEVASWOM| |Annexure XIV|TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.166/2013/G.D.C| ||DATED 22.02.2014 OF GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM| ||COMMISSIONER| 40 ## Crl.M.C Nos.1691 of 2021 & connected cases Annexure XV TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT AS CRL.M.P.NO.481/2013 FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE, THRISSUR AGAINST THE PETITIONERS Annexure XVI TRUE COPY OF PRELIMINARY ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 19.07.2014 Annexure XVII TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 30.06.2016 IN CRL .M.P. NO.481/2013 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE, THRISSUR Annexure XVIII TRUE COPY OF COMMON ORDER DATED 01.10.2021 IN OP (CRL) NO.452 OF 2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT Crl.M.C Nos.1691 of 2021 & connected cases 41 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5891/2021** ## PETITIONER ANNEXURES |Annexure|1|TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN C.C.NO.14| |---|---|---| |||OF 2019 OF THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND| |||SPECIAL JUDGE, THRISSUR.| |Annexure|II|TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO.6282/2013/RD| |||DATED 26/11/2013.| |Annexure|III|TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO.3455/2011/RD| |||DATED 12/08/2011.| |Annexure|IV|TRUE COPY OF RESOLUTION DATED 17/08/2012| |||OF THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE| |||GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM.| |Annexure|V|TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED| |||11/09/2012 OF DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER.| |Annexure|VI|TRUE COPY OF MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF| |||THE MANAGING COMMITTEE DATED 23/05/2013.| |Annexure|VII|TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED| |||25/05/2013 OF THE DEVASWOM| |||ADMINISTRATOR.| |Annexure|VIII|TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 20/11/2014| |||IN WP(C) NO.26348 OF 2013 OF THIS| |||HON'BLE COURT.| |Annexure|IX|TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN R.P.NO.113 OF 2015| |||IN W.P.(C) NO.24270 OF 2013 DATED| |||30/01/2015 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.| |Annexure|X|TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED| |||24/01/2013 OF GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM.| |Annexure|XI|TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION - 28 DATED| |||14/06/2013 OF MANAGING COMMITTEE OF| |||DEVASWOM.| |Annexure|XII|TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 01/07/2013 OF| |||THE ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM.| |Annexure|XIII|TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED| |||08/08/2013 OF ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYUR| |||DEVASWOM.| |Annexure|XIV|TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.166/2013/G.D.C.| |||DATED 22/02/2014 OF GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM| |||COMMISSIONER.| 42 ## Crl.M.C Nos.1691 of 2021 & connected cases |Annexure XV|TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT AS| |---|---| ||CRL.M.P.NO.481/2013 FILED BY THE 3RD| ||RESPONDENT BEFORE THE ENQUIRY| ||COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE, THRISSUR| ||AGAINST THE PETITIONERS.| |Annexure XVI|TRUE COPY OF PRELIMINARY ENQUIRY REPORT| ||DATED 19/07/2014.| |Annexure XVII|TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 30/06/2016 IN| ||CRL.M.P.NO.481/2013 OF ENQUIRY| ||COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE, THRISSUR.| |Annexure XVIII|TRUE COPY OF COMMON ORDER DATED| ||01/10/2021 IN O.P.(CRL) NO.452 OF 2016| ||OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.| Crl.M.C Nos.1691 of 2021 & connected cases 43 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5896/2021** ## PETITIONER ANNEXURES |Annexure I|TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN C.C.NO.12| |---|---| ||OF 2019 OF THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND| ||SPECIAL JUDGE, THRISSUR| |Annexure II|TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO.6282/2013/RD| ||DATED 26.11.2013| |Annexure III|TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO.3455/2011/RD| ||DATED 12.8.2011| |Annexure IV|TRUE COPY OF RESOLUTION DATED 17.8.2012| ||OF THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE| ||GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM| |Annexure V|TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 11.9.2012| ||OF DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER| |Annexure VI|TRUE COPY OF MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF| ||THE MANAGING COMMITTEE DATED 23.5.2013| |Annexure VII|TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 25.5.2013| ||OF THE DEVASWOM ADMINISTRATOR| |Annexure VIII|TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 20.11.2014| ||IN W.P.(C) NO.26348 OF 2013 OF THIS| ||HON'BLE COURT| |Annexure IX|TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN R.P.NO.113 OF 2015| ||IN W.P.(C ) NO.24270 OF 2013 DATED| ||30.1.2015 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT| |Annexure X|TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED| ||24.1.2013 OF GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM| |Annexure XI|TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION-28 DATED| ||14.6.2013 OF MANAGING COMMITTEE OF| ||DEVASWOM| |Annexure XII|TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 1.7.2013 OF THE| ||ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM| |Annexure XIII|TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 8.8.2013| ||OF THE ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM| |Annexure XIV|TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.166/2013/G.D.C.| ||DATED 22.2.2014 OF GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM| ||COMMISSIONER| |Annexure XV|TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT AS| ||CRL.M.P.NO.481/2013 FILED BY THE 3RD| ||RESPONDENT BEFORE THE ENQUIRY| ||COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, THRISSUR| ||AGAINST THE PETITIONERS| Crl.M.C Nos.1691 of 2021 & connected cases 44 Annexure XVI TRUE COPY OF PRELIMINARY ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 19.7.2014 Annexure XVII TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 30.6.2016 IN CRL.M.P.NO.481/2013 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, THRISSUR Annexure XVIII TRUE COPY OF COMMON ORDER DATED 1.10.2021 IN O.P.(CRL).NO.452 OF 2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.