Kerala High Court Upholds Conviction Of Deceased Public Servant For Corruption, Orders Recovery Of Fine From His Legal Heirs

The Kerala High Court, in a recent ruling, upheld the conviction of two for their involvement in a corruption case relating to the Kulasekharapuram Irrigation Project.Justice A. Badharudeen dismissed the appeal filed by one of the accused whereas modified the sentence passed against the other accused since he was no more.The prosecution case is that the Superintending Engineer hatched a criminal conspiracy with Contractor, who had undertaken the work, with the common intention of deriving undue financial advantage and thereafter, in pursuance of the conspiracy, they adopted corrupt and illegal means by misusing the clauses of the Limited Competitive Bidding (LCB). It is further alleged that the Contractor claimed more rates for the work than he was entitled to and the Superintending Engineer thus allowed a total excess amount of Rs. 8,65,000 to the Contractor. Thus, they caused corresponding loss to the government.The prosecution has also alleged that the 3rd accused Executive Engineer abused his official position, hatched a conspiracy with the contractor and approved certain bills in favour of the contractor that ought to have been rejected considering the LCB. Thus, it is alleged that the contractor obtained undue pecuniary advantage of more than Rs. 16 lakhs.The Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram found the 1st and 2nd accused guilty of the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120B of Indian Penal Code. The 3rd accused was acquitted. They were sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 17 lakhs each. Aggrieved, they appealed before the High Court.The 1st accused passed away while the appeal was pending and his legal heirs were impleaded as additional appellants.The Court re-appreciated the evidence adduced in detail, and came to the conclusion that the the amounts sanctioned were not in accordance with the terms of the agreement. It also took note of the fact that the Superintending Engineer had approved the claims of the contractor on the date of his retirement without properly considering them.It observed:“Thus the conclusion to be reached by the Court is that regarding the above items, as part of a conspiracy hatched between the 1st and 2nd accused, before the retirement of the 1st accused, some claims were raised by the 2nd accused and in a hurry-burry manner the 1st accused granted the same on the date of his retirement. It is judicially noticeable that the 1st accused also granted amounts to various contractors on the last date of his retirement in a similar fashion and caused huge loss to the State exchequer.”The senior counsel appearing for the 1st accused Superintending Engineer had raised a contention that sanction under the PC Act was not obtained before initiating the prosecution against him. However, rejecting the same, the Court remarked:“admittedly the 1st accused, for whom sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act, 1988 is required for taking cognizance of the PC Act offences, retired on 28.02.1991 and the investigation and cognizance for the PC Act offences against the 1st accused was taken after his retirement and Section 19(1) of the PC Act, 1988 doesn't provide for sanction in the case of an employee who retired from service at the time of cognizance. Therefore, this contention is found to be untenable.”The Court confirmed the sentence imposed against the 2nd accused contractor. With respect to that of the 1st accused, the Court said that the substantive sentence passed against him was abated due to his death.“Therefore the execution of the sentence in relation to the 1st accused shall be confined to realisation of fine from the accounts, if any, inherited by the legal heirs of the 1st accused, including the additional appellants,” the Court added.Case No: Crl.Appeal No.106 & 9 of 2011Case Title: T.O. Abraham v. State of Kerala and connected caseCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 98Counsel for the appellants: Amith Krishnan H., B.G.Harindranath (Sr.), Sundeep Abraham, Anna Mary Mathew, Manavi Muraleedharan, Joy Thattil IttoopCounsel for the respondents: Rajesh.A - Special Public Prosecutor, Sri Rekha.S - Senior Public ProsecutorClick to Read/Download Judgment

Kerala High Court Upholds Conviction Of Deceased Public Servant For Corruption, Orders Recovery Of Fine From His Legal Heirs

K. Salma Jennath

Tags