High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-06-13Criminal Revision Petition dismissed; directing...

P.K. Muralikrishnan v. The State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.Rev.Pet.No.297 of 2014

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: B. Kemal Pasha
Judgment Date: 2016-06-13
Court Decision / Holding: Criminal Revision Petition dismissed; directing the investigating officer to conduct a speedy investigation in both matters and to complete the same, expeditiously, within six months from today.
Final Disposition: Criminal Revision Petition dismissed; directing speedy investigation in both matters within six months.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

P.K. Muralikrishnan

Respondents

The State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
K A Akbar

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. P. Chandrasekhar

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Manilal C.S. (Public Prosecutor)
• Sri. P.K. Varghese
• Sri. E.C. Bineesh
• Sri. M. Sasindran

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court criminal revision petition (Crl.Rev.Pet.No.297 of 2014) challenging an order of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur, directing a quick verification and, ultimately, registration of a crime and detailed investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The background involves two sets of allegations against the petitioner: a complaint by the second respondent (Annexure R2(b)) and another prior matter in which the investigating officer had already begun a quick verification linked to a separate complaint of P.P. Jaleel. The court below directed that a crime be registered under Section 7 PC Act and ordered a full investigation, invoking that two independent claims could be pursued simultaneously. The petitioner contends that sanction under Section 19 PC Act was lacking and that the order is not legally sustainable. The respondent 2nd party argues that the allegations were not adequately examined in the quick verification and that the order should stand. The judgment engages settled jurisprudence: Maneesh v. State of Kerala held that sanction for registration is not required and should be interpreted in light of the Constitution Bench decision in Nand Ram Agarwala v. H.C.Bhari that sanction is for cognizance. The court, however, concludes that lack of sanction cannot be a ground to treat the order as unsustainable under Section 19(3)(a) and directs the police to conduct a speedy, combined investigation in both matters within six months. The revision petition is dismissed, with a six-month deadline for completion of the investigations.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988Section 19(3)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Sanction is required for cognizance of offences, not for registration of a crime

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the impugned order directing registration of a crime and a detailed investigation was issued without the necessary sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and that sanction is required for cognizance, not for registration. He argues that two independent sets of allegations cannot be conclusively investigated as part of a single verification and that the lack of sanction renders the order legally unsustainable. He also asserts that the material could be investigated efficiently by assigning the same investigating officer to both matters, avoiding harassment and a Damocles’ sword over the petitioner.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the allegations against the petitioner were not thoroughly examined in the quick verification and that a crime should be registered to enable a full investigation. They maintain that the court below’s direction should not be interfered with, arguing that the two matters, although related, require comprehensive inquiry. They rely on existing jurisprudence to argue about the proper scope of sanction and contend there is no bar to continuing investigations and consolidating proceedings, especially given the seriousness of the alleged conduct.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Maneesh v. State of Kerala	2016 (1) KLT 323	Mentioned Only	Court cites Maneesh only to note that it distinguished Anil Kumar, and then relies on the constitutional bench decision for the current doctrine.
Anil Kumar v. Aiyappa	(2013) 10 SCC 705	Positive	Court relies on Anil Kumar’s dictum to assert that the order is not legally sustainable, reflecting its acceptance of that reasoning in this context.
Nand Ram Agarwala v. H.C.Bhari and others	AIR 1956 SC 44(1)	Positive	Constitution Bench ruling used to reiterate that sanction is for cognizance, not for registration, guiding the court’s interpretation of sanction requirements.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against P.K. Muralikrishnan v. The State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA** **MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/23RD JYAISHTA, 1938** **Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 297 of 2014 () -------------------------------** **CRL.M.P. 679/2010 of THE COURT OF THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, THRISSUR DATED 18-01-2014** **PETITIONER/1ST COUNTER PETITIONER:** **----------------------------------** **P.K. MURALIKRISHNAN, S/O. KERISHNAN, POOVATHUMKADAVIL HOUSE, KUZHIKKATTUSSERY P.O., THRISSUR.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR** ## **RESPONDENT/STATE/PETITIONER:** **----------------------------** **1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **2. K A AKBAR ,** **S/O. KUNNATH ABDUL KAREEM, KOZHIKADA, PULLUT, THRISSUR, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 3A, WEST GATE, P.K.ROAD, THEVARA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 013.** **R1 BY SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.MANILAL C.S. R2 BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.VARGHESE SRI.E.C.BINEESH SRI.M.SASINDRAN** **THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **DSV/20/6/16** ## **Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 297 of 2014 () ------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:** **A1 COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 29.10.2009 SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CENTRAL REGION, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, ERNAKULAM.** **A2 COPY OF REPORT DATED 28.07.2010 OF SHRI.S.R.JYOTHISH KUMAR, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, THRISSUR.** **A3 COPY OF ORDER DATED 24.10.2011 IN CRL.M.C.NO.2379/2010 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.** **A4 COPY OF LETTER NO.T(QV 28/09/TSR)31005/2009 DATED 18.11.2010 OF THE DIRECTOR, V&ACB TO THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY.** - **A5 COPY OF GO(P)NO.65/92/VIG DATED 12.05.1992.** **A6 COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.10/2008 OF THE DIRECTOR VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **A7 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 08.12.2010 OF THE PETITIONER.** - **A8 COPY OF LETTER NO.T-10967/2011 OF DIRECTOR OF VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU TO THE ADDITIIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY.** **A9 COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DIRECTOR VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU DATED 03.06.2013 IN W.P.(C)NO.22120 OF 2011.** **A10 COPY OF THE FORWARDING ENDORSEMENT DATED 17.12.2012 IN VE.05/2011/SCE DATED 17.12.2012 OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VACB, SPECIAL CELL, KOCHI.** **A11 COPY OF MEMORANDUM EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF SHIBU DATED 14.09.2008.** **A12 COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 15.09.2008 ISSUED BY ADVOCATE ANANDAN P.R.** **A13 COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.998/09 OF IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION.** **A14 COPY OF COMPROMISE PETITION DATED 04.10.2011 IN OS NO.238/2009 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA.** **A15 COPY OF REPORT DATED 03.07.2013 OF THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VACB, CENTRAL RANGE ERNAKULAM.** **Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 297 of 2014 () ------------------------------** **A16 COPY OF THE REGISTERED DOCUMENT NO.3952/2011 BETWEEN VEENA WIFE OF SHIBU AND SHAJI.** **A17 COPY OF OBJECTION DATED 18.07.2013 IN C.M.P.NO.679/2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE, THRISSUR.** ## **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:** **R2(A) COPY OF THE REFER REPORT FILED BY THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN CRIME NO.998 OF 2009.** **R2(B)COPY OF THE COMPLAINT, CMP NO.679 OF 2010.** **R2(C)COPY OF THE QUICK VERIFICATION REPORT ON 07.04.2010. R2(D)COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 24.06.2010.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **DSV/21/6/16** B. KEMAL PASHA, J ================= Crl.R.P.No.297 of 2014 ================= Dated this the 13[th] day of June, 2016 ## O R D E R Based on Exhibit-R2(b) complaint preferred by the 2[nd] respondent herein as complainant, the learned Enquiry commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur had ordered a quick verification. Instead of proceeding with the quick verification, the investigating officer by holding that a quick verification was already on process in a complaint preferred by one P.P.Jaleel, reported that the matters relating to the complaint of the 2[nd] respondent herein could also be gone into in the inquiry on the complaint of the said P.P.Jaleel. Crl.R.P.No.297 of 2014 2 2. Dissatisfied with the way in which the matter was dealt with by the investigating officer, the court below, through the impugned order dated 18.01.2014, had ordered the Director, VACB, to cause the registration of a crime and to conduct a detailed investigation into the allegations in the complaint. The said order is under challenge. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 4. It has come out that presently, a crime has been registered on the basis of the verification conducted on the complaint of the said P.P.Jaleel. The investigating officer has reported that no evidence could be collected with regard to the allegation of amassment of wealth and therefore, the said allegations were dropped from the purview of the investigation. The crime has been registered alleging the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Crl.R.P.No.297 of 2014 3 Corruption Act, 1988. 5. According to the investigating officer, the matter involved in Annexure R2(b) complaint were also dealt with in the quick verification conducted in respect of the complaint of the aforesaid P.P.Jaleel and therefore, any further investigation in the matter is not required. The investigating officer is finding fault with the way in which the court below has handled the matter and directed the registration of a crime. 6. The learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent has pointed out that serious allegations were independently raised by the 2[nd] respondent against the petitioner herein and the same were not gone into properly by the investigating officer in the quick verification conducted in respect of the complaint of P.P.Jaleel. It is argued that therefore, there is absolutely nothing to interfere with the direction given by the court below in the impugned order. The petitioner has also a complaint that the impugned Crl.R.P.No.297 of 2014 4 order passed by the court below was without necessary sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and therefore, based on the dictum in Anil Kumar v. Aiyappa [(2013) 10 SCC 705], the said order is not legally sustainable. 7. This Court had occasion to deal with the question relating to sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act for the registration of a crime for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. In Maneesh v. State of Kerala [2016 (1) KLT 323], this Court had distinguished the decision in Anil Kumar (Supra) in the light of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Nand Ram Agarwala v. H.C.Bhari and others [AIR 1956 SC 44(1)]. The Constitution Bench had reiterated that the sanction required was not for the registration of a crime and the sanction is required only for the purpose of taking cognizance of the offences. 8. Over and above it , the lack of sanction or Crl.R.P.No.297 of 2014 5 any error in the sanction cannot be forwarded through a Criminal Revision before this Court challenging an order passed by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, in view of the specific bar under Section 19(3)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Therefore, by highlighting the said aspect, a Revision cannot be filed in the matter. 9. On going through Annexure R2(b) complaint, it seems that serious allegations have been raised by the 2[nd] respondent against the petitioner. All the said allegations were not gone into properly while dealing with the quick verification in the complaint of the said P.P.Jaleel. The matter has to be properly investigated. When the 2[nd] respondent herein has got different sets of claims and allegations against the petitioner, it cannot be said that through the investigation relating to the complaint of P.P.Jaleel, the said claims and allegations of the petitioner can also be properly investigated. There is nothing wrong in Crl.R.P.No.297 of 2014 6 registering a crime based on the impugned order passed by the court below. Both the crimes can been investigated in a speedy manner by the investigating officer. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the crime earlier registered and the proceedings in the present case are hanging as a Damocles’ sword over the head of the petitioner and unnecessarily the petitioner is being harassed and mentally tortured. It is true that the continued proceedings may cause embarrassment as far as the petitioner is concerned. It may affect his future prospects and reputation also. Therefore, both the matters can be investigated together by the investigating officer in a speedy manner by the very same investigating officer. In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed by directing the investigating officer to conduct a speedy investigation in both matters and to Crl.R.P.No.297 of 2014 7 complete the same, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of six months from today. Sd/- DSV/13/6/16 B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE. //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE