1. The document is a court judgment regarding a writ petition filed by V.S. Achuthanandan, a former Chief Minister of Kerala, seeking to quash an FIR registered against him for alleged offenses of corruption and criminal misconduct. 2. The FIR was registered based on a vigilance inquiry ordered by the new government into the assignment of government land to a relative of Achuthanandan during his tenure as Chief Minister. 3. Achuthanandan contends that there was no illegality in the land assignment or subsequent decision to exempt the assignee from alienation restrictions. The government argues there is evidence of abuse of power and conspiracy to provide wrongful gain. 4.

1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF
DECEMBER 2012/15TH AGRAHAYANA1934
WP(C).No. 21529 of 2012 (M)
PETITIONER:
V.S.ACHUTHANANDAN, S/O.SANKARAN, AGED 88 YEARS, CANTONMENT HOUSE,
PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.
BY SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADVS. SRI.T.B.HOOD,
SRI.MANU .V, SMT.M.ISHA.
RESPONDENTS:
1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME AND VIGILANCE
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR,
VIGILANCE AND ANTl CORRUPTION BUREAU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 033.
3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
VIGILANCE AND ANTl CORRUPTION BUREAU,
KASARAGOD UNIT- 617 123.
R1 TO R3 BY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION SRI. T. ASAF ALI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON . 22-11-2012, THE
COURT ON 06/12/2012 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

2. "C.R."
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
W.P.(C).N0.21529 OF 2012 (M) Dated this
the 6th day of December, 2012
JUDGMENT
Petitioner, a former Chief Minister of the State, is presently the
leader of Opposition in the Kerala Legislative Assembly. He has filed
the above writ petition to quash Ext.Pl FIR registered by the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau,
Kasaragod, wherein he is proceeded as the 1st accused with some
others, for offences punishable under Section 13(l)(d) and 13(2) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for short, the Act' and
Sections 12OB, 201 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, for short, the
'IPC’.
2. In ordering assignment of a piece of land in Kasaragod
District in favour of 5th accused, a relative of the petitioner, and also
further steps taken for relaxing the bar of alienability over such
land, petitioner, then, Chief Minister, abused his official position
and he had entered into a conspiracy with 5th accused, and some
other public servants, including the Revenue Minister of his cabinet,
to favour 5th accused violating the rules, and, later, after such
assignment, in relaxing the conditions imposed for transfer of

3. assigned land, to enable 5th accused to reap unlawful benefits, is
the case imputed.
3. A new Government assuming power after the General
Elections in May, 2011, cancelling the assignment order of land in
favour of 5th accused and also the Council decision relaxing the. bar
of alienation of the land assigned to him, ordered a vigilance
enquiry. Ext.Pl FIR would show that the Government Order,
namely, G.O(MS) No.208/2011/Rev. dated 07.06.2011, was to
conduct a vigilance enquiry into the illegal means adopted by
revenue officials in the assignment of Government land in
Kasaragod District to Sri.T.K.Soman, an ex-service man, who is the
5th accused, in violation of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964,
and also the Council decision enabling the said Soman to alienate
the assigned land in contravention of Assignment Rules then in
force, for his pecuniary benefits. Vigilance enquiry was conducted
by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-
Corruption Bureau, Kasaragod Unit. On the basis of preliminary
enquiry and materials gathered thereof, Ext.Pl FIR was registered
against eight accused persons with the petitioner, former Chief
Minister, named as the 1st accused, for offences punishable under
Section 13(1 )(d) and 13(2) of the Act and Sections 120B, 201 and
420 of the IPC.

4. 4. The gist of the accusation imputed, formed on the basis of
preliminary enquiry, revealed by Ext.Pl FIR is thus:
Petitioner, while he was the Chief Minister, exerting his
influence over revenue officials got an extent of 2.33 acres of land in
R.S.No.111/2 and 111/5 of Maire Village in Kasaragod District
assigned in favour of his relative (A5), who was not eligible for
assignment of Government land. Order of assignment of land in
favour of 5th accused was made with the active involvement of two
District Collectors of Kasaragod (A6 and A7), both of them colluding
with the petitioner (Chief Minister), and under his direction, and,
thereby, 5th accused, who was ineligible for the land, obtained
undue pecuniary..gain by illegal means. Principal Secretary of the
Chief Minister (A4), and Personal Assistant of petitioner (A8)*on the
instructions and directions given by the petitioner instigated the
Land Revenue Commissioner and Additional Chief Secretary
(Revenue) (A3) to issue favourable orders to exempt 5th accused
from alienating his land against the condition stipulated in the
Kerala Land Assignment Rules, and on the basis of instructions
from A4, the Land Revenue Commissioner and Additional Chief
Secretary (Revenue) (A3) gave a false report to Government to grant
exemption lifting the period of alienation. Since the officials in the
Revenue department were not amenable for granting sanction for
exemption in the period fixed for alienation of land assigned,
petitioner in collusion with the then Revenue Minister (A2) got an
agenda note prepared without the assistance of Revenue

5. department, and making use of the unauthorised agenda note, in
the Council meeting took a decision to waive the condition fixing the
period of alienation under the Rules in respect of the land assigned
to 5th accused. That decision was taken as an out of agenda item.
Knowing that the decision to grant exemption by the Council of
Ministers was likely to-be objected by the Law and Finance
Departments, before issuing the said G.O., petitioner, Chief
Minister, in collusion wit^the Revenue Minister (A2) issued specific
orders for issue of Government Order to bypass the examination of
the legality and propriety of the Council decision by the
aforementioned departments in the Government. Later, when
allegations over the assignment of land to 5th accused and also
granting exemption from the period of bar of limitation were
discussed in public, the Revenue Minister (A2), to escape from the
clutches of law caused disappearance of evidence over his prior
involvement and conspiracy giving direction to issue the
Government Order only after examination of the legality of the
Council decision by the departments concerned. The accused
persons acted in collusion to extend wrongful gain to 5th accused,
who was ineligible to get assignment of Government land, and
corresponding wrongful loss to the Government, and, thereby, all of
them have committed the offences under the Act and IPC specified
in Ext.Pl FIR, is the prosecution case.

6. 5. Petitioner seeks quashing of Ext.Pl FIR and further *
proceedings thereof contending there was nothing illegal or
improper in the assignment of the land to 5th accused nor in any act
over the passing of cabinet decision taken to grant relaxation in the
period fixed over the alienability of the land. After a new-
Government assumed office, previous cabinet decision taken by the
former Government was cancelled and a vigilance enquiry was
ordered. That was done only to tarnish his image before the public
and to wreak vengeance against him since he has been
spearheading relentlessly some corruption cases involving two'
major stakeholders in the new Government. He continued the
prosecution of such corruption cases, one of which led to conviction
and incarceration of the offender thereof, a former Minister, and the
present Government which has only a wafer-thin majority has
therefore dug out some issues to malign him, and the case was
framed on false allegations after conducting a frivolous vigilance
enquiry, according to the petitioner. He has co-operated with the
investigation and faced interrogation by the investigating officer.
Realising that the enquiry conducted by the present investigating
officer is totally false, he has filed Ext.P6 representation that the
investigation should be conducted in a fair, impartial and
transparent manner by a superior police officer not below the rank
of the Director General of Police or Additional Director General of
Police. In the writ petition, petitioner seeks quashing of Ext.Pl FIR

7. and further proceedings thereto. He also seeks, in the alternative,
issue of a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, to
command the 2nd respondent, Director of Vigilance, to consider his
Ext.P6 representation and pass orders thereof after hearing him.
6. A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents by
the Director General of Prosecution, for short, the 'DGP'.
Challenging the maintainability of the petition, it is contended that
ExLPl FIR is not liable to be quashed as there is clinching evidence
against the petitioner and other accused, both oral and
documentary, to sustain the imputations over the offences alleged
against them. The Government have ordered a detailed vigilance
enquiry into the corrupt illegal acts done by petitioner in collusion
with some revenue officials and others, while he was in power, for
assigning an extent of 2.33 acres of Government land in Kasaragod
District to 5th accused. That accused, an ex-service man, is the
grandson of petitioner's maternal grandmother's sister. On vigilance
enquiry conducted and also on the basis of evidence collected,
Ext.Pl FIR was registered as the enquiry has disclosed serious
criminal misconduct, conspiracy, fraud and foul play committed by
petitioner and others resulting in substantial loss to the
Government, and undue pecuniary gain to 5th accused. While the
investigation continued, two among the accused including 5th
accused challenged the criminal proceedings approaching this
Court for quashing Ext.Pl FIR. Such challenges were turned down.

8. Those accused have preferred appeals with Special Leave Petitions
before the Apex Court, in which, Ext.Rl(a) order was passed not to
take coercive steps against them in the matter. There were several
stages in the commission of the offences, which commenced in 1976
when the 5th accused moved an application for getting assignment
of Government land measuring 3 acres in Kasaragod Taluk. A
conditional sanctioning registry of assignment of 3 acres of land was
granted in favour of 5th accused vide Ext.Rl(b) order. An assignee in
whose favour such order is made can claim right over that land only
on payment of the land value, tree value and also tax within the
time fixed. He did not pay such value and tax. So much so, there
was no legal, actual or absolute assignment of the land in favour of
5th accused. A suit involving such land questioning the order of
assignment was filed by three persons, in which, State and also 5th
accused were defendants. Ext.Rl(c) is copy of that plaint. Since the
suit was bad for want of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, the plaint was returned. Fifth accused did not pay the
land value of the land and, later, that land was assigned in favour of
other eligible families. Long thereafter, that is, 27 years after the
above suit, at a time when petitioner continued as Chief Minister,
5th accused moved an application before the District Collector for
assignment of land. He approached the petitioner and then moved
the application before the District Collector. That is evident from
Ext.Rl(g) application submitted by him before the District Collector,
wherein he made reference to the conversation which the Collector

9. had with the Chief Minister over assignment of land in his favour.
Application was given to the Collector addressing in his name. In
view of the conspiracy hatched by the petitioner with high level
officials, the District Collector (6th accused) showing unholy haste,
violating all statutory mandates and overlooking the file notes of
officials raising objections on various counts that alternate land
asked for is not assignable, income potentiality of the 5th accused
disentitled him to get such assignment etc., assigned 2.33 acres of
land in favour of 5th accused and his wife. Ext.Rl(q) is copy of that
order. On payment of land value assessed, patta of the land was
issued, that is, Ext.Rl(r). In the statement various circumstances
involved over the assignment, and also law, why 5th accused was
ineligible to get assignment of land and that the land assigned could
not be treated as an alternate land towards the land assigned in his
favour earlier in 1977 are pointed out. Assignment of 2.33 acres of
land made on his subsequent application as an alternate land was
on account of conspiracy hatched by 5th accused with petitioner,
and other public servants. The aforesaid public servants have
abused their official position to provide wrongful pecuniary gain to
5th accused, and, thus, corresponding..loss to the Government, is
the further imputation. Adverting to various illegalities alleged to
have been committed over the assignment of land in favour of 5th
accused and also his ineligibility to get such assignment, it is
stated, the first stage of the offences was completed with the
assignment of 2.33 acres of land in favour of 5th accused and his

10. wife. Second stage of the offences, as per the statement proceeded
with the 5th accused moving an application before the District
Collector to exempt him from the bar of alienating the assigned
land. Alienation of assigned land is prohibited for a period of 25
years under the Kerala Land Assignment Rules. Fifth accused
approached the petitioner with a representation addressed to the
Minister of Revenue seeking exemption from the bar of alienation
over the assigned land. Collecting that representation, petitioner
summoned the Land Revenue Commissioner, 3rd accused, and
wanted him to consider the request of 5th accused. The
Commissioner expressing his helplessness, petitioner insisted for
examining the case stating that the request would be sent to him.
Application presented by 5 th accused was then forwarded to the
Land Revenue Commissioner by the Principal Secretary of the Chief
Minister with an endorsement directing him to examine the matter
urgently and take necessary action without delay. Objections were
raised by the revenue officials at' different levels in the note files
why relaxation over the bar of, alienation requested for cannot be
allowed. Suppressing the note files and objections raised by the
officers of Revenue the matter was brought to the Cabinet meeting
as an out of agenda and it was approved illegally. Cabinet
proceedings for granting exemption to 5th accused from the bar of
alienation of assigned land were made violating the Rules covered
by the Rules of Business of the Government of Kerala. Over the
Council decision taken petitioner directly issued a Government

11. Order in favour of 5th accused. Petitioner in doing so has abused his
official position to favour 5th accused and, therefore, he is liable to
be proceeded with for the offences imputed. Advertence is also made
to Orders passed by this court in the applications moved by two
other accused declining their request for quashing the FIR.
Observations of this court in such Order that 'at this stage it is not
proper to interfere with the investigation of the crime' is pressed
upon in the statement to resist the challenge raised by the
petitioner, another accused in the crime.
7. Learned senior counsel Sri.K.Gopalakrishna Kurup
appearing for petitioner referring to the allegations imputed,
contended that the implication of petitioner as 1st accused in the
crime splitting up the episode over the assignment of land in favour
of 5th accused into two stages is totally bereft of any merit or value.
Ext.Pl FIR is absurd and inherently improbable and there is no
ground whatsoever to impute any corruption or commission of any
other penal offences against the petitioner, a former Chief Minister
of the State, in respect of the assignment of land in favour of 5th
accused and, later, over the request made by the assignee to seek
lifting of the bar of alienability over the assigned land, is the
submission of the counsel. Assignment of land in favour of 5th
accused has been made in accordance with the Rules on the
recommendation of the Land Assignment Committee, and so far as
the first stage of the crime nothing is there other than a reference
made in the application of 5th accused of a conversation of the

12. petitioner with the then District Collector (A6). Even if that is
accepted as true, it will not constitute any offence, leave alone any
offence of corruption against the petitioner, is the submission of the
senior counsel.
So far as the assignment of land made in favour of 5th accused, and
in case there was corruption thereto, that alone, in the given facts of
the case, could be treated as an offence committed, there is
absolutely no material to connect the petitioner with such offence,
submits the counsel. So far as the second stage i.e., request made
by 5th accused for lifting the period of bar of alienability over the
assigned land and steps taken thereto culminating in a cabinet
decision, it is submitted that decision has not matured into a
Government Order and not implemented, and, further, such
decision was revoked by the new Government, even cancelling the
assignment of land made earlier in favour of 5th accused. So, the
second stage of the crime alleged at best constitutes an attempt to
commit an offence, but not an offence as imputed in Ext.Pl FIR. So
far as the imputations made against the petitioner, former Chief
Minister, with reference to one or other circumstance surrounding
the steps taken over the request made by 5th accused in taking a
cabinet decision for lifting the bar of alienability over the assigned
land, learned senior counsel contended that the allegations thereto
are invented to tarnish the image of the petitioner and damnify his
reputation before the general public. Allegations raised against the
petitioner to implicate him as the 1st accused in the crime with

13. respect to the cabinet decision taken, which has not matured into a
Government Order, imputing some circumstances how the request
of 5th accused was proceeded with, are incapable of even showing
prima facie dishonest intention of the petitioner, which is a must to
proceed against him for the offence under the Prevention of
Corruption Act, leave apart the other penal offences, is the
submission of the senior counsel. Political animosity and more so,
for the reason that the petitioner has been fighting against
corruption, particularly, the misdeeds of some persons who are now
at the helm of affairs of the Government, is the real reason in
registering Ext.Pl FIR implicating petitioner as the 1st accused and
imputing corruption against him, is the submission of the senior
counsel urging for quashing that FIR and farther proceedings
thereof as an abuse of the process of court.
8. Resisting the challenges against Ext.Pl FIR and adverting to
various circumstances surrounding the assignment of land in
favour of 5th accused, a relative of the petitioner, Sri.Asaf Ali,
learned DGP contended that there was direct involvement of
petitioner in the assignment of land to 5 th accused and his wife,
both of whom were ineligible to get assignment of Government land.
Later in passing the cabinet decision, after unsuccessfully exerting
pressure on the revenue officials to violate the statutory rules to lift
the bar of alienability over the assigned land, petitioner played the
pivotal role and that clearly demonstrate that he has abused his

14. official position as a public servant to extend wrongful gain to 5th
accused - his relative - and corresponding loss to the Government.
Ext.PI FIR is not assailable on any ground whatsoever, and a
detailed probe of the case is called for. Statements recorded from
the 3rd accused, Land Revenue Commissioner before the magistrate,
and also file noting made at different stages by senior officers
objecting to the lifting of bar over the alienability of the land are
adverted to contending that the petitioner abused his official
position to favour the 5th accused to lift the bar of alienability over
the land assigned to him. It is a clear case of nepotism and
corruption, which demand a full-fledged investigation. Banking
upon the observations made in Ext.Rl, orders passed by this court
turning down the applications moved by two among the accused for
quashing Ext.Pl FIR against them, that 'it is not proper for this
court to interfere with the investigation at this stage' learned DGP
urged that in the case of the petitioner as well his request for
quashing the FIR has to be turned down. The investigation is
complete, and the final report is ready for being presented before
the court is the further submission made to contend that at this
stage challenge canvassed against Ext.Pl FIR by the petitioner is not
to be entertained as it is open for him to canvass whatever
challenges available before the court once the report is filed and
further steps are taken thereof. The writ petition, in the aforesaid
circumstances, is liable to be dismissed, is the submission of the
learned DGP.

15. 9. After both sides were heard and writ petition taken up for,
orders, a petition supported by an affidavit of investigating officer
was filed by DGP, seeking consideration of the maintainability of the
writ petition as a preliminary objection and passing of orders
thereof. A memo was also filed to state that the investigation of the
crime has been completed and the investigating agency is in the
process of filing final report under Section 173(2) of the Code
against five accused persons including the petitioner as one among
them. Request was also made by the DGP for making further
submissions in the matter, more particularly on the question of
maintainability filing a memo.
10. The case was thereupon posted for being spoken to, and
both sides were again heard. Challenge over the maintainability of
the writ petition was canvassed on the premise that against Ext.Rl
order passed by this court dismissing the applications of two
accused in Ext.PI FIR appeals preferred by them with special leave
petition are pending before the Supreme Court, and as such, the
present writ petition of the petitioner, another accused, cannot be
entertained. Inviolable fundamental rights guaranteed and available
to petitioner, insulated under the Constitution, to challenge Ext.Pl
FIR, if he has justifiable grounds to do SO/ and that not being
whittled down or dependent upon the turning down of challenge
canvassed by any other accused, or continuation of proceedings

16. before the Apex Court by them, pointed out, with the empowerment
of this. court under the Constitution to examine such challenge so
long as there is no interdiction from the Apex Court from doing so,
challenge canvassed over the maintainability, which was not urged
previously, was not pursued by the DGP.
11. After the case was again taken up for disposal, later, a
memo was filed seeking permission to produce the case diary for my
perusal. Taking note of that memo also, with reference to the issues
projected for consideration in the writ petition, I have formed the
opinion that perusal of the case diary is not only not to be called for,
but has to be avoided in examining the challenge over Ext.Pl FIR.
12. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner and also the
DGP have relied on a good number of judicial pronouncements
touching upon the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction conferred
on this court under the Constitution in examining challenge raised
for quashing of an FIR in criminal proceedings, and under what
circumstance the FIR could be quashed. No doubt, as a matter of
course, none can seek quashing of an FIR, and any challenge
thereto can be entertained and allowed only in exceptional cases
where justifiable grounds are shown that continuation of the
proceedings on such FIR is an abuse of process of the court or
necessary to meet the ends of justice.

17. 13. The Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Ch.
Bhajan Lai and others (AIR 1992 SC 604) after taking into
consideration the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, for short, the 'Code', and also principles of law
enunciated in a series of judicial pronouncements rendered by that
court over the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226
or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code gave some
guidelines under what circumstances such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of process of the Court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice in the quashing of FIR or
complaint. Cautioning that such guidelines are not exhaustive and
applicable to all situations and it is not. possible to lay down any
precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised inflexible
guidelines, some situations, as hereunder, have been enumerated,
when exercise of such power could be made:
"l. Where the allegations made in the First
Information Report or the complaint, even if
they are taken at their face value and accepted
in their entirety do not prima facie constitute
any offence or make out a case against the
accused.
2. Where the allegations in the First
Information Report and other materials, if any,
accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a
cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by
police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code
except under an order of a Magistrate within the
purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
3. Where the uncontroverted allegations
made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence
collected in support of the same do not disclose
the commission of any offence and make out a
case against the accused.

18. 4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do
not constitute a cognizable offence but
constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no
investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
5. Where the allegations made in the FIR
or complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against
the accused.
6. Where there is an express legal bar
engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or
the
concerned Act (under which a criminal
proceeding is
instituted) to the institution and continuance of
the
proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the concerned Act, -
.
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of
the aggrieved party.
7. Where a criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with mala fide and/or
where the proceeding is maliciously instituted
with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance
on the accused and with a view to spite him
due to private and personal grudge."
The Apex Court in the aforesaid decision has also struck a
note of caution that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding
should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and that too
in the rarest of rare cases. An enquiry over the reliability or
genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint should not be resorted to is also pointed out making it
emphatically clear that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not
confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its
whim and caprice.

19. 14. Where a criminal proceeding is sought to be quashed at
the initial stages, the essential question to be looked into is whether
the uncontroverted allegations made prima facie establish an offence.
If there is any special features present in a particular case, that also
have to be looked into by the court to consider whether it is
expedient and in the, interests of justice to permit prosecution to
continue. Such special features can definitely be taken into account
by the court if present in a particular case to examine whether the
prosecution has been launched with any oblique purpose. In case
the court forms an opinion on the features presented in the case
that the chances of conviction are bleak and no useful purpose is
likely to be achieved by allowing the criminal prosecution to
continue, it may quash the proceedings at a preliminary stage.
15. What is the gravamen or foundation of the case proceeded
against the petitioner, 1st accused in the FIR, necessarily has to be
examined when a challenge is raised that the registration of the
crime is an abuse of process of court and it is liable to be quashed
in exercise of the extraordinary power of the court. Going through
Ext.Pl FIR and also the statement filed on behalf of the respondents
by the DGP, the case set forth to launch criminal proceedings
against the petitioner has two different stages, the first one
commencing from an application moved by 5th accused, stated to be
a relative of petitioner, for assignment of Government land, as an

20. ex-service man, in 1976. Orders were then passed for assignment
of three acres of land to 5th accused, but there was a suit
challenging that assignment. That suit was found not maintainable
for want of notice under Section 80 of the Code and the plaint
thereof was returned. Though some arguments were projected
before me that there was no assignment of land in favour of 5th
accused but only an order of registry of assignment, those aspects
have little significance in considering the challenge against the
criminal proceedings under Ext. PI FIR against the petitioner.
Prosecution has no case that the petitioner had any role at that
point of time in getting assignment of land by 5th accused. Whatever
be the illegalities connected with such assignment, even assuming
that 5th accused was culpable for such illegalities in getting orders
of assignment of land, or such assignment was made in violation of
any Assignment Rules, that cannot in any way be pointed out to
raise any imputation against petitioner, who, concededly, had no
role in the assignment of land ordered in favour of 5th accused in
1977. Whatever be the case projected in the statement filed before
this Court to impeach the assignment of land in 1977 in favour of
5th accused, Ext.Pl FIR does not make out any such case other than
a casual reference that verification of the assignment file in 1976
showed that the genuineness of the claim of the assignee was
'suspicious'. In the suit referred to above, wherein a challenge was
made against the assignment made in favour of 5th accused, the
Government have filed Ext.P3 written statement. Resisting the

21. challenge against the assignment, in Ext.P3 written statement, it
was contended that the assignment has become final and the
assignee has been put in possession of the land. Whatever that be,
and also whatever be the imputations against 5th accused regarding
his ineligibility to claim government land on assignment, and acts
illegally done by him to get such assignment in 1976 in violation of
the Rules, none of his acts even if he is shown culpable for any
offence, can be canvassed to rope in petitioner as a co-accused with
him alleging that both are related. Petitioner is a public figure and
any aspersion over his character should be decided with reference
to his acts or omissions and, not on the contumacious conduct of
any other person even if such person happens to be his relative.
Fifth accused had done some illegal acts with reference to
assignment of land in his favour in 1976 and he was ineligible to get
such land, even if that be so, cannot in the least be canvassed to
connect petitioner for the offences imputed under Ext.Pl FIR.
16. Where none of the acts of 5th accused in relation to
assignment of land in his favour in 1977 can be the basis for any
accusation against the petitioner, with respect to the second part of
the first stage of the offence, if we go by the statement filed before
this court on behalf of the respondents and also Ext.Pl FIR,
imputations against the petitioner to connect him with 5th accused
is founded on the request made by that accused for an alternate site
before the District Collector. In his application to District Collector,

22. 5th accused has referred to a conversation which 1st accused, who
then was the Chief Minister, had with the Collector over his request
for an alternate site in lieu of the land assigned in his favour in
1977. At this juncture, it has to be pointed out so far as the first
stage of the crime commencing from assignment of land in 1977 to
5th accused till the passing of orders assigning an alternate site to
him, one and only material to connect petitioner proceeded as 1st
accused in the FIR is the above statement made in the application
of 5th accused to the District Collector. Copy of the application filed
by 5th accused to the District Collector has been produced as
Ext.Rl(g) with the statement filed on behalf of the respondents. His
application with some accompaniments addressing the District
Collector "Respected Sir" begins thus:
"With reference to the conversation
between you and the Chief Minister of Kerala
regarding assignment land in respect of
T.KSoman."
Then reference is made to number of documents produced. The
aforesaid statement made by 5th accused, that alone, is the basis,
and in fact the foundation, to impute that petitioner has abused his
position as Chief Minister for securing an alternate site to 5th
accused, which is alleged to have been done overlooking and
violating Assignment Rules and also the ineligibility of 5th accused to
get such land. It is also to be pointed out so far as the first stage of
the crime alone, comprising two parts, the prosecution has a case
that the offences imputed are completed.

23. It is conceded in the second stage of the crime, that is, relating to
steps taken for waiving the bar of alienability over the assigned
land, the offences have not been completed and there is only
attempt to commit them. I have already pointed out so far as the
first part of first stage of crime no offence nor even any allegation
could be pointed out or raised against the petitioner. So much so,
the significant question is even assuming that certain irregularities
or illegalities and culpable criminal acts have been done by revenue
officials including the District Collector (A6) in providing alternate
site to 5th accused, solely on the basis of the aforesaid statement in
the application of 5th accused, that alone, referring to a conversation
between the petitioner, then Chief Minister and the District
Collector, can the petitioner be imputed of having committed any
criminal offence, leave alone, any commission of corruption -
abusing his position as a public servant. Whether it be the Chief
Minister or Minister of State, they can function only through the
administrative machinery, and in the course of discharge of their
functions, they are bound to give one or other instruction or order,
to the officials in the State under their control. If at all any
instruction or order given by the Chief Minister or Minister to an
official cannot be implemented for one or other reason, but, it has
been given effect to overlooking the irregularity or illegality thereof,
for that reason alone, without anything more to connect the Chief
Minister or Minister, as the case may be, can he be prosecuted.
Statement made by the applicant in Ext.Rl(g), if it is taken as

24. sufficient to prosecute a Chief Minister, then, no Chief Minister can
discharge his functions. He will be made answerable for culpable
acts done by other persons though he has no role whatsoever in the
commission of such acts. But for the conversation which the Chief
Minister is alleged to have had with the District Collector referred to
in Ext.Rl(g), alternate site in lieu of the land initially assigned in
1977 would not have been made to 5th accused and various
illegalities connected thereto would not have been perpetrated by
revenue officials including the District Collector, was the tenor of
the argument canvassed by the DGP before me to impress upon
that the petitioner, then Chief Minister was culpable with the other
accused in the commission of the offences relating to the grant of
alternate site to 5th accused. Such hypothesis and inferences drawn
are quite out of place and none can for a moment ignore that
petitioner was then the Chief Minister of the State. If a Chief
Minister could be roped in on a statement made by an applicant in
his application referring to his conversation with a Government
official then who else holding responsible position in the
Government could be protected of or insulated from being called
upon to face vexatious prosecution in cases where illegalities have
been perpetrated by the acts of one or other officials in the
proceedings, in which, some reference as indicated is made. That is
too dangerous, and no functionary can then discharge fearlessly his
duties and responsibilities as he could be hauled up to face
prosecution on a mere statement of his name being referred to in

25. one or other application put by a third party, which later ensued in
commission of illegal act liable to be proceeded with. The gamut of
allegations raised over the first stage of the crime referring to the
illegalities and irregularities connected with the issue of alternate
site to 5th accused cannot be pinpointed against the petitioner, then
Chief Minister of the State, banking upon the statement referred to
above in the application of the 5th accused to the District Collector,
the 6th accused. Looking into Ext.Rl(g) also, it is noticed the
application given by 5th accused is dated 09.03.2007 and the
District Collector made an endorsement to the Deputy Collector
(R.R) "Please pay personal attention" on 12.03.2007. The Deputy
Collector as per his endorsement forwarded copy to the Tahasildar
on 27.03.2007 for urgent report. The despatch seal would show that
it was sent from the Collectorate on 30.03.2007. The aforesaid
endorsements seen on the application also indicate whatever be the
alleged conversation which the Chief Minister had with the District
Collector referred to in the application, the application moved at
snail's pace. I have just pointed out the above circumstance only to
show that no significance whatsoever could be attached to the
statement made by 5th accused in Ext.Rl(g) to connect the
petitioner, then Chief Minister with whatever illegalities that are
alleged to have been perpetrated in relation to the alternate site
granted in favour of 5th accused. If any such illegalities has been
perpetrated by revenue officials and 5th accused, no doubt, they will
be liable to be proceeded against for the offences committed thereof,

26. but to proceed against petitioner solely on the basis of the aforesaid
statement in Ext.Rl(g) is obnoxious and has to be deprecated.
17. In the second stage of crime, concededly, there was only
attempt to commit the offences. Case of the prosecution is based on
various steps taken on the request made by 5th accused for lifting
the bar of alienation over the assigned land. When he moved such
an application, addressed to the Revenue Minister, the Principal
Secretary to Chief Minister, 4th accused, issued instructions to the
Commissioner of Land Revenue, 3rd accused, to examine the matter
urgently and take necessary action without delay and that petition
with enclosures was forwarded to him. Though the officers of Land
Revenue put up notes in the file objecting to the waiver sought for,
Commissioner of Land Revenue (A3) issued specific instructions to
send a report conforming with the instructions given by 4th accused,
Principal Secretary to Chief Minister, and later he also sent a report
striking of the objectionable notes made by his subordinates to
make out a case that the Government could pass orders for waiving
the bar over alienation as a special case. When such report was
forwarded to the Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister (A4), she
gave an instruction that the Chief Minister desired to meet the
Commissioner of Land Revenue. Without amendment of the
Assignment Rules, no such waiver can be made, was the stand
consistently taken by the revenue officials. Overlooking that
objection request for relaxation of the period of alienation over the

27. assigned land by 5th accused was placed as an out of agenda item in
the Cabinet meeting and it was approved by the Council of
Ministers. Based on the Council decision, petitioner issued orders
for relaxation of the period of alienation in favour of 5th accused, his
brother, is the case alleged that he has abused his official position
as Chief Minister to favour 5th accused. The Minister of Revenue, the
Principal Secretary to Chief Minister, the Land Revenue
Commissioner, and Personal Assistant of petitioner all of them were
parties to the aforesaid illegal acts done to favour 5th accused, is the
imputation to contend that attempts were made by them along with
petitioner to commit the offences under the Act. Since the new
Government soon after assuming office cancelled the decision of the
Council of Ministers and no notification was issued by the
Government to waive the bar of alienation over assigned land and
even the assignment of alternate site in favour of the 5th accused
was also cancelled, and the Council decision not having been given
effect to, offences as such have not been committed but only
attempt thereto made, punishable under Section 15 of the Act with
substantive offence of that Act under Section 13(1) (d) of that Act, is
the case now canvassed to proceed against the petitioner. Ext.Pl
FIR, it is to be stated, is founded on the basis that the offences have
been committed by the accused, and not a case of only an attempt
made by them to commit the offences. In the statement filed on
behalf of the respondents, detailed reference to the file noting made
by various officials of the Land Revenue Department objecting to the

28. waiver in lifting the bar of alienation, requested for by 5th accused,
and how the matter was placed as an out of agenda item in the
meeting of the Council of Ministers are narrated. At the time of
argument, learned DGP has also adverted to the statement given by
the Commissioner (Land Revenue), 3rd accused, before the
magistrate over his meeting with the Chief Minister on his
summoning to his official residence by the Principal Secretary to the
Chief Minister. Petitioner (Chief Minister) requested him to examine
the matter and see whether anything could be done over the request
made for relaxation in the bar of alienation fixed under the
Assignment Rules, was his statement. Statement purported to have
been recorded from the Principal Secretary (Revenue), in which, she
stated of her summoning by the Minister of Revenue, the 2nd
accused, and the request made by him stating that the Chief
Minister is interested in the matter of relaxing the bar of alienation
requested by 5th accused, has also been banked upon to contend
that petitioner has shown undue favoritism and nepotism in placing
the request of 5th accused for relaxation in the bar of alienation as
an out of agenda item in the cabinet meeting and taking a Council
decision allowing such request.
18. On the allegations raised over the attempts made by
petitioner in committing of an offence under the Act, to prosecute
him thereof, first of all the offence has to be noted. The offence

29. imputed under Ext.Pl FIR falls under Section 13(1) (d) punishable
under 13(2) of the Act.
Section 13(l)(d) of the Act reads thus:
13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant-
(i) A public servant is said to commit the offence
of criminal misconduct, -
(a) ..............................................................
(b) ...............................................
(c) ..............................................
(d) 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 any 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; or
(e) .........................
The aforesaid offence, if committed, is punishable under Section
13(2) of the Act with imprisonment for a term which shall not be
less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall
also be liable to fine. If there is only an attempt to commit the
offence under clause (c) or (d) of sub section (1) of Section 13 of the
Act, punishment is covered by Section 15 of the Act, which provides
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with
fine. Whether the offence has been*committed or an attempt to

30. commit such offence alone is made, in both cases, the essential
ingredient to show corruption by a public servant abusing his
position as such has to be founded on his dishonoured intention in
committing the culpable act or attempt to do such act. Special
features presented in the case disclosed by the facts cannot at all be
overlooked in examining whether petitioner, who then was the Chief
Minister, had committed any act with dishonoured intention to
prosecute him by registering a crime under Ext.Pl FIR. First, it has
to be noted that the material allegation is that he has favoured his
brother (A5) who was ineligible to get Government land. Ext.Pl FIR,
which is based on a preliminary enquiry concludes that A5 is the
brother of Al, the former Chief Minister, as disclosed from a report
of Tahsildar of Ambalapuzha. In the statement filed before this
court relationship of A5 with petitioner is described stating that he
is the grandson of petitioner's maternal grandmother's sister. May
be, in the maternal line, petitioner has a relationship with A5: But if
we go by the term 'relative' under the Law Lexicon and Rules of
Succession, the allegation that A5 is a brother of petitioner (Al) and
how the entire case of corruption based on the relationship with A5
is sought to be projected is' too farfetched. In examining the
challenges against Ext.Pl FIR, the aforesaid aspect may not be
decisive, but, however when a former Chief Minister is sought to be
prosecuted alleging that he had abused his official position to favour
another imputing such person as his brother, when the relationship
between the two, which comes under the cognate line of a great

31. predecessor cannot be brushed aside as innocuous. Nothing more
need be stated about the relationship of brethren between petitioner
and A5 other than stating that it is one of distant kindred.
19. Attempt to commit the offence of corruption imputed
against the petitioner with the acts purported to have been done by
him for lifting the bar of alienability over the assigned land of 5th
accused, abusing his position as the Chief Minister, a public
servant, has now to be looked into. Whether he did any act thereof
with dishonest intention to extend any benefit to 5th accused
illegally and flouting the law, and, that calls for a look into the
backdrop of the whole case. Whatever be the illegalities imputed
over the assignment of land to 5th accused in 1977 on a claim raised
by him as an ex-service man, the fact remains that assignment of 3
acres of land was made in his favour and that was recognised by the
Government even when a challenge was raised thereto in a suit filed
by third parties. Whatever be the reason for his not getting exclusive
title and possession over such assigned land, on the request made
by him at a later stage in 2007 seeking an alternate site in respect
of the land assigned earlier he was given assignment of 2.33 acres
of land in 2010. I have already pointed out that the imputations and
allegations made to connect the petitioner with respect to the
assignment of such land as an alternate site even assuming that
such assignment was illegal, solely based on a statement in the
application of 5th accused to the District Collector, has no merit,

32. and so far as the first stage of the episode relating to assignment
and the offences imputed thereof petitioner never could be imputed
of abusing his official position or committing any act of corruption.
Fifth accused, after getting assignment of an alternate site,
approached the petitioner and then he gave some instructions to
the officials, is the case. Even if that be so, does it postulate any act
of corruption - abusing his position as a public servant - Chief
Minister of the State. Subsequent assignment of land in favour of
5th accused if it was in recognition of the previous assignment made
to him, then, the request made by him for lifting the period of
alienability over the land, at least, according to him, must be
reckoned with the previous order of assignment. In such a case if he
had made a request and any instruction was given by the petitioner
to consider such request to the officials, it can never be stated that
such instructions were given by petitioner, then Chief Minister, with
a dishonest intention to assist 5th accused abusing his position as a
public servant. In fact, after looking into the provisions covered by
the Land Assignment Act and Rules thereof, I find, the whole
exercise of conducting a vigilance enquiry with respect to the acts
done by the petitioner in relation to lifting of the bar of alienability
over the land assigned in favour of 5th accused is totally
misconceived. Nobody has got a case that 2.33 acres of land allotted
to 5th accused in 2010 which, according to him, was an alternate
site for the previous assigned land was under his occupation or
under the occupation of any other person. He has been issued a

33. patta of the land is also not disputed. The acts done by the accused,
public servants, in lifting the bar of alienability over the assigned
land is imputed as a violation of Rule 8(1)(a) of the Kerala Land
Assignment Rules, 1964, as amended under SRO.No.59/2009.
Relevant provision under sub rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Land
Assignment Rules on the bar of alienability over assigned land is
thus:
8. Conditions of assignment on registry: -
[(i) Lands, granted on registry shall be heritable [but not
alienable for a period of twenty-five years from the date of
registry]:]
(rest not required)
Fifth accused claimed for an alternate site on the basis of previous
assignment of land in his favour in 1977 and he was granted land
assigned on registry in 2010, recognising that claim cannot be lost
sight of in noting the request made by him and also instructions, if
any, given by petitioner for its consideration, to the officials, for
examining whether he had any dishonest intention in doing so.
Much has been stated on the file noting put by the officials of the
Revenue department and also placing of the item as an out of
agenda in the Council meeting and the decision taken thereof for
lifting the bar of alienability over the land assigned to 5th accused.
Empowerment of the Government to dispense with any provision
covered by the Rules in the assignment of the land cannot be
doubted for a moment. The revenue officials have made some

34. objections in lifting of bar of alienability over the assigned land and
that was overlooked by the Council of Ministers is of little merit
when the objections of the revenue officials could not be considered
as binding on the Council of Ministers. Viewed in that perspective,
and more so, in the backdrop that 5th accused was assigned a land
in 1977, and later, on his request for alternate site in lieu of the
previous land assigned, an alternate site was given, and on his
request, some instructions were given by the petitioner Chief
Minister, even if that be so, to the revenue officials, to consider the
lifting of bar of alienability over his assigned land and also taking a
decision to do so in the Council meeting, by no stretch of
imagination, could be considered as acts done with dishonest
intention amounting to corrupt acts abusing his position as public
servant.
20. To make a person criminally accountable, it must be proved
that the act imputed against him, which is forbidden by law, has
been caused not only by his conduct and that the conduct was
accompanied by a legally blameworthy attitude of mind. Where a
public servant is proceeded for having abused his position and
misconducted himself either for his own gain or for some other
person the two components of the offence, a physical element and a
mental element, usually called actus reus and mens rea respectively
must be shown to exist. In the present case none of the acts

35. imputed against the petitioner in relation to the steps which
preceded the Council decision, and later, with respect to the
relaxation over the alienability of the land assigned to 5th accused,
which, even according to the prosecuting agency, amounted only an
attempt to commit the offence imputed, would indicate that they
have been done with a dishonest intention or guilty mind. In the
backdrop that a land was assigned in favour of 5th accused in 1977,
upholding his claim as an ex-service man and later an alternate site
in lieu was given to him on his request, when he had approached
the petitioner (Chief Minister) in relaxing the bar of alienability of
such land, instructions, if any, given by petitioner, presumably
taking a view, that the land assigned to him was an alternate site
for a previous land much earlier, it is too hazardous to hold that
such instructions were given with any dishonest intention to favour
5th accused, that too, abusing his official position as a public
servant - Chief Minister.
21. The allegations set out to proceed against the
petitioner as if he had committed the offence of corruption and
thus liable to be prosecuted for doing so, on the facts and
circumstances presented are so preposterous and unworthy of
any merit. Chances are so bleak in his prosecution for such
offences ending in his conviction. When that be so, continuation
of the criminal proceedings against him on the crime registered

36. under Ext.Pl FIR cannot be permitted to, and it calls for
termination to advance the ends of justice.
22. Some of the features presented in the case are too
disturbing and in fact give enough room to generate suspicion
that the machinery of vigilance is misused and abused to silence
a political opponent framing a case against him on false and
frivolous allegations unworthy of any merit. I have already pointed
out with respect to the commission of alleged acts imputing
corruption by the petitioner that the edifice of the case against him
is built upon a statement, that alone, in the application of the 5th
accused to the District Collector that the petitioner had a
conversation with the District Collector over the assignment of an
alternate site to that accused. A Chief Minister approached with a
grievance by any of his subjects, whether he be his relative or
otherwise, if he puts in a word to a Government official to look into
the matter, or even assuming the worst instructed that it has to be
attended favourably, that by itself does not indicate that he had a
guilty mind for perpetrating a corrupt act and thus liable to be
prosecuted for the offence thereof. If that is the prosecution case
over the commission of the offence of corruption by petitioner,
which is devoid of any merit, what is imputed as the next stage of
offence over the attempts made by the petitioner to commit corrupt
acts with respect to orders passed for relaxing the period of
alienability over the assigned land giving instructions to the Land

37. Revenue Commissioner and later taking the Council decision, even
if they are assumed to be true, they do not at all indicate that he
had done any act thereof with a dishonest intention to favour 5th
accused. I have already pointed out that the relationship imputed
of, between petitioner and 5th accused as brothers is silly. No doubt,
that was so put forth to cement the foundation for the alleged
criminal acts of petitioner as favours done to 5th accused, acts
constituting nepotism, abusing his position as a public servant.
Strangely where the FIR has been registered after a preliminary
enquiry, the police officer, who conducted such enquiry refers only
to a report of the Tahsildar to impute in the FIR that 5th accused is
the brother of petitioner. Statement of the respondents filed by the
DGP the relationship of 5th accused with petitioner is shown as
grandson of petitioner's, maternal grandmother's sister. To a Chief
Minister of the State, all his subjects, at least below his age, can be
considered and treated as his brothers and sisters. If that be so, 5th
accused can be a brother of the petitioner, but otherwise he is a
person with whom he is having a too remote and distant
relationship. Foundation of the case against the petitioner imputing
that he has done illegal acts of favoritism to his brother 5th accused,
to project imputations of corruption against the petitioner, is too
shaky and not worthy enough even to be taken note of as an
incriminating circumstance.

38. 23. How the investigation after registering of Ext.Pl FIR
proceeded, which I would not have referred to but for the reason
that some of the materials collected thereof had been pressed into
service to resist the challenges in the writ petition, lend enough
support to the case advanced by the petitioner that the crime has
been registered against him with oblique motives. Investigating
officer, it seems, either does not know the rudimentary principles of
criminal investigation or has scant respect to the fundamental
principles to be adhered to in conducting investigation of a crime,
that too, for grave offences under the Act. Petitioner, a former Chief
Minister of the State is being proceeded alleging abuse of the
position held by him in committing acts of corruption. Any
investigation in a crime registered thereof should be shown to be
fair, just and reasonable. One among the accused (A3) Land
Revenue Commissioner had been produced before the magistrate
and his statement was got recorded. Learned DGP has submitted
before me that it was not recording of a confession of an accused
but only statement as a witness under Section 164 of the Code. An
accused person has an inviolable right that he should not be
compelled to be a witness against himself as guaranteed and
insulated under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India.
Prosecution has no case that A3 has confessed of the criminal acts
imputed against him and other co-accused and he has been
accepted as an approver in the case. If at all his statement is to be
treated as a confession, which, it is seen, has been so treated by the

39. magistrate, who recorded his statement as reflected by the
endorsement made by him in Ext.Rl(v), then such confession could
be made use of against a co-accused only if the accused who had
confessed the guilt is jointly tried with the other accused. After
recording such statement from A3 through magistrate, during the
course of investigation, it is seen that accused (A3) and two other
accused, all of them senior Government officials, who are imputed
to have conspired with the petitioner in doing the illegal acts
alleged, have been omitted from the array of the accused. If any
senior Government official committed any criminal misconduct,
whether it be on the instructions given by the Chief Minister or any
Minister, normally, he cannot be relieved but is liable to be
prosecuted. What is more strange is after setting forth a case that
some senior Government officials named in Ext.Pl FIR conspired
with petitioner and another Minister, and also aided and assisted
them in doing of illegal acts of corruption imputed, at the final
stage, after investigation, they have been left out from the array of
the accused. Statement recorded from one of them with respect to
the acts alleged to have been done by him, which would show that
the spine of such officer is more flexible and elastic than of rubber,
and that too totally inadmissible and unacceptable in evidence, has
been pressed into to inculpate the petitioner, a former Chief
Minister of the State, to sustain the imputations made against him
of having committed acts of corruption.

40. 24. Petitioner has sought for an alternate relief over the non-
consideration of Ext.P6 representation sent by him to the 2nd
respondent Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau
complaining that investigation done by the present investigating
officer, 3rd respondent, is unfair. No doubt, the accused has no right
to canvass who should conduct investigation in the crime proceeded
against him. However, where he has got a grievance that the
investigation is conducted in a most unfair manner, his right to
approach a superior police officer to look into that matter moving a
representation cannot be considered as something which he could
not canvass of or seek redressal. Ext.Rl(z)(6) is the reply given by
the Director of Vigilance to negative his representation. That reply
dated 3.10.2012 is long after filing of this writ petition. Petitioner
has not pointed out any specific instance of animosity or illwill
against the present investigating officer in continuing with the
investigation of the case and the report received from the
Superintendent of Police, VACB, Northern Range, Kozhikode
revealed that the present investigating officer is conducting the
investigation in a fair and reasonable manner without fear or
favour, are the reasons stated for rejecting Ext.P6 representation.
Director of Vigilance is not an ornamental or glorified post for
accomodating a senior police officer of the State. Where a former
Chief Minister of the State, who continues as the Leader of
Opposition, when he is being proceeded with as an accused in a
case involving corruption, presents a petition before a higher police

41. official, pointing out several circumstances, as seen from Ext.P6,
why the investigation is not proceeding on correct lines as
mandated by law, if that is dealt with in the manner indicated as
under Ext.R(z)(6), then it only shows a sad state of affairs how the
Vigilance wing in the State is functioning. Fairness in investigation
not only to the complainant but to the accused who is proceeded
against is the mandate of law. The investigating officer, 3rd
respondent, is empowered to conduct an investigation of a crime
where the petitioner, former Chief Minister is shown as an accused,
is a different matter. Where his investigation is impeached pointing
out material circumstances why it is unfair it should have received
more attention. True, in the reply, the 2nd respondent has stated
that the investigation is nearing completion and if further
investigation is required, action will be taken at the appropriate
time after scrutiny of records, but that reply, as indicated, was given
after filing of the writ petition.
25. Going by the allegations raised in Ext.Pl FIR and the
totality of the circumstances presented in the case to impute acts of
corruption against petitioner, former Chief Minister, with all
sobriety and equanimity, it has to be stated that the case canvassed
by the petitioner that the registration of the crime is intended to
tarnish his image before the public imputing corruption against
him, that alone, cannot be brushed aside. Allegations of corruption
imputed against him are so preposterous and unworthy of any

42. merit, and the later developments after registration of the crime in
leaving out the higher Government officials, proceeded as co-
accused in the crime, and who are imputed of having shamelessly
conspired with petitioner and another Minister to do the criminal
acts of corruption, would also lend some credence to the case
canvassed by the petitioner since he had been fighting corruption
relentlessly through out his political career inviting the wrath of
such persons proceeded against, he is also sought to be projected as
corrupt by registering the crime. Fixing him as the main accused
with baseless and ..unfounded allegations and included with some
public servants as having conspired and assisted him in doing
corrupt acts, the case proceeded, but, later, after investigation, the
Government officials, who primarily could be imputed as culpable
for having done the criminal acts obeying the instructions of Chief
Minister or Minister showing their spineless character, have been
left out in the case. Fixing the man and getting the cross ready for
crucifixion, was it a case in search of nails. If that be so, howsoever
sharp and pointed the nails are, where the cross is made of
softwood each attempt to nail the person would shatter that wood
into pieces. Imputations levelled in Ext.Pl FIR to proceed against the
petitioner, a former Chief Minister of the State, in the facts and
circumstances presented in the case, not only do not make out any
offence to proceed against him but give enough room to sustain the

43. case canvassed by him that he has been proceeded against to
malign him before the public.
26. Appeals preferred with special leave petitions by two
among the accused in the crime against the dismissal of their
petitions challenging Ext.Pl FIR are pending before the Apex Court.
That being so, challenge against Ext.Pl FIR and proceedings thereof
only against the petitioner is accepted to pass orders thereof.
27. Ext.Pl FIR registered against the petitioner, proceeded as
the 1st accused in the crime, in respect of him alone, and all further
criminal proceedings against him on the basis of such FIR, are
quashed exercising the extraordinary powers of this court.
Writ petition is allowed.
S. S. SATHEESACHANDRAN
JUDGE
prp
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE F I R NO. 1/2012 REGISTERED BY THE DEPUTY
SUPERINTENDENT POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTl CORRUPTION BUREAU,
KASARAGOD UNIT.

44. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S NO.108/1977 ON THE FILES OF THE
MUNSIFF COURT, KASARAGOD.
EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1ST AND
THE 2ND DEFENDANTS IN OS NO.108/1977 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF
COURT, KASARAGOD.
EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.3.1979 IN OS NO.108/1977 ON THE
FILES OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KASARAGOD RETURNING PLAINT.
EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF G.O (MS) NO.208/2011/REV. DATED 7.6.2011.
EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 9.7.2012 SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DIRECTOR.
EXBIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 03/10/2012 SENT BY THE R.2.
TO THE PETITIONER.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS & ANNEXURES:
EXT.R1: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DTD. 12/04/2012 IN
CRL.M.C. NO.668/12.
EXT.R1.(A): TRUE COPY OF THE ORER DTD. 25/05/2012 OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME
COURT IN SLP TO APPEAL (CRL.) 3769/12 AND 4362/2012.
EXT.R1.(B): TRUE COPY OF THE CONDITIONAL SANCTIONING REGISTRY OF
ASSIGNMENT ISSUED UNDER RULE 9 (1) OF KLA RULES VIDE NO.LA
15/76/ENMAKAJE DT. 16/04/1977.
EXT.R1.(B)(1): LEGIBLE COPY OF EXT.R1.(B).
EXT.R1.(C): TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO. 108/1977 IN THE COURT OF
MUNSIFF, KASARAGOD.
EXT.R1.(D): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE JUDGMENT IN
O.S. NO. 108/77 DT. 12/03/1979.
EXT.R1.(E) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. L3/8258/11 DT. 30/12/2011 OF
: TAHSILDAR, KASARAGOD.
EXT.R1.(F): TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT. 14/01/2006 OF SRI. T.K. SOMAN
ADDRESSED TO SRI. B. NARAYANA, HQ TAHSILDAR, KASARAGOD.
EXT.R1 .(G): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 09/03/2007 OF T.K. SOMAN ADDRESSED
TO SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD.
EXT.R1 .(H): TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE FILE NO.L2-1900/06 OF TAHSILDAR,
KASARAGOD.
EXT.R1.(I): TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR ASSIGNMENT OF LAND ON REGISTRY
FILED BY T.K. SOMAN.
EXT.R1.(J): TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER OF REGISTRY UPDATION FORM OF
VILLAGE OFFICER, ARYAD SOUTH.

45. W.P.fCl. NO.21529/2012-M:
EXT.R1.(K): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.1-32822/11 DT. 14/11/2011 OF
TALUK OFFICE, AMBALAPPUZHA ADDRESSED TO DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
ALAPPUZHA.
EXT.R1.(L): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. S1/42780/11 DT. 19/11/11 OF DISTRICT
COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA.
EXT.R1.(M): TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. NIL. OF SRI. T.K. SOMAN
ADDRESSED TO THE HQ, TAHSILDAR, KASARAGDO.
EXT.R1.(N): TRUE COPY OF THE PROFORMA REPORT OF MAIRE VILLAGE OFFICER
SUBMITTED TO TALUK OFFICE, KASARAGOD.
EXT.RL(O): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. LA51/08/MAIRE DT. 22/12/2009 OF
TAHSILDAR, KASARAGOD ADDRESSED TO DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
KASARAGOD.
EXT.R1.(P): TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE FILE N0.62510/09/14 OF COLLECTORATE,
KASARAGOD.
EXT.R1.(Q): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSIGNMENT ON REGISTRY IN
LA 51/X/08/MAIRE DTD. 27/03/2010.
EXT.R1.(R): TRUE COPY OF THE FORM OF PATTA IN APPENDIX NO.II ISSUED TO
SRI.T.K. SOMAN AND HIS WIFE KAMALAMMA.
EXT.R1.(S): TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 03/07/2010 OF SRI.T.K. SOMAN
ADDRESSED TO DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD.
EXT.R1.(T): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. C6-37035/2010 DT. 13/08/2010 OF
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD ADDRESSED TO SRI.T.K. SOMAN.
EXT.R1.(U): TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 30/08/2010 OF SRI.T.K. SOMAN
ADDRESSED TO THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR REVENUE THROUGH THE
HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA.
EXT.R1.(V): TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF SR1.K.R. MURALEEDHARAN
RECORDED UNDER SECTION 164 CR. P.C. BY THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF
1ST CLASS (SPL. COURT FOR MARAD CASES), KZOHIKODE.
EXT.R1.(W): TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE FILE NO. LR. J4-51653/2010 OF LAND REVENUE
COMMISSIONERATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXT.Rl(X): TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT LETTER NO. LR.J4-51653/10 DTD. 20/01/2011
ADDRESSED TO ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT.
EXT.R1.(Y): TRUE COPY OF THE PRINTOUT OF LETTER NO. LRJ4-51653/10 DT.
20/01/2011 ADDRESSED TO ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY, REVENUE (A)
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXT.R1.(Z): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. LRJ4-51653/10 DT. 20/01/2011
ADDRESSED TO ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY REVENUE (A) DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM MARKED TO THE PRL.
SECRETARY TO CHIEF MINISTER, GOVT. SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXT.R1.(Z)(1): TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE FILE NO.4387/L1/2011/RD REVENUE (L)
DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXT.R1.(Z)(2): TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE TO THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS SIGNED BY
SRI. K.P. RAJENDRAN.
EXT.R1(Z)(3): TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS HELD ON
16/02/2011.

46. W.P.fCl. NO.21529/2012-M:
EXT.R1(Z)(4): TRUE COPY OF THE NOTES PREPARED BY SRI. K.P. RAJENDRAN,
MINISTER FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DT. 16/02/2011.
EXT.R1(Z)(5): TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF DR. NIVEDITHA P. HARAN, IAS,
FORMER ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY, REVENUE, GOVT. SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RECORDED UNDER SECTION 161 CR. P.C.
EXT.R1(Z) (6): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. T1(VC1/12/KSD) 2237/12 DT. 03/10/2012 OF
THE DIRECTOR, VIGILANCE AND ANTl CORRUPTION BUREAU, TVM.
ADDRESSED TO SRI. V.S. ACHUTHANANDAN.
ANNEXURE I: TRUE COPY OF THE CRL.M.C. NO. 668/12 FILED BY SRI.T.K. SOMAN.
ANNEXURE-II: TRUE COPY OF THE O.P.(CRL) NO.4903/12 FILED BY SRI.A. SURESH.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
Prv.