Ranjith Pannackal v. State of Kerala

Criminal Procedure – Framing of Charges – Prevention of Corruption Act – Quashment of Final Report – Jurisdiction of Special Court

Citation: 2025 KER 48151
Court: High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice A. Badharudeen
Case Number: Criminal Revision Petition No. 672/2025 & Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 5225/2025
Date of Judgment: 2nd July 2025
Crime No.: RC05(E)/2018/2019 & RC05(E)/2010, CBI, Thiruvananthapuram
Case No.: C.C. No. 2/2012, Special CBI Court, Thiruvananthapuram

Key Issues:

1. Whether the charge framed by the Special CBI Court in C.C. No. 2/2012 was in accordance with Sections 211 to 214 of Cr.P.C. and Sections 234 to 237 of BNSS, requiring distinct charges for each offence.

2. Whether the final report in C.C. No. 2/2012 could be quashed on the ground that the primary accused was deceased, affecting the applicability of the Prevention of Corruption Act charges read with Section 120B IPC.

3. Whether the case should be transferred from the Special CBI Court to the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court due to the death of the primary accused.

Held:

1. Framing of Charges: The court found that the charge framed by the Special CBI Court was defective as it clubbed all offences together without framing distinct charges for each offence, violating Sections 211 to 214 of Cr.P.C. and Sections 234 to 237 of BNSS. Relying on Joseph Thomas v. State of Kerala [(2024) KHC 644] and V.C. Shukla v. State through C.B.I. [(1980) Supp. SCC 92], the court set aside the charge (Annexure A3) and remanded the matter to the Special CBI Court to frame proper charges for each distinct offence.

2. Quashment of Final Report: The petition to quash the final report in C.C. No. 2/2012 was dismissed. The court referred to its earlier common order dated 06.11.2024 in Crl. Rev. Pet. Nos. 854, 716, and 856/2024, which dismissed a similar plea under Section 239 Cr.P.C. The court held that the prosecution’s evidence, including a ledger indicating payments to the first accused and issuance of fake certificates, established a prima facie case. Circumstantial evidence was sufficient to infer guilt under Section 11 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, as supported by Neeraj Dutta v. State [(2023) 4 SCC 731].

3. Jurisdiction of Special Court: The petitioner’s contention that the case should be transferred to the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court due to the death of the primary accused was rejected. The court upheld the Special CBI Court’s jurisdiction to try offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120B IPC, as per the earlier final order dated 06.11.2024.

Result:

• Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 672/2025: Allowed; charge set aside, and the matter remanded to the Special CBI Court for framing proper charges.

• Crl. M.C. No. 5225/2025: Dismissed; the final report and jurisdiction of the Special CBI Court upheld.

• The Special Judge was directed to expedite the trial of C.C. No. 2/2012.

For Petitioner : Advs. S. Rajeev, V. Vinay, M.S. Aneer, Anilkumar C.R., Sarath K.P., K.S. Kiran Krishnan, Dipa V. & Akash Cherian Thomas

For Respondents : Sreelal N. Warrier & Rajesh A.(Spl. Government Pleaders) & Rekha S. (Sr. Government Pleader)