K. BIMAL vs STATE OF KERALA
- Court
- Kerala High Court
CNR : KLHC010321272026
CRL.REV.PET NO.492
&
493 OF 2026 1 2026:KER:81704
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
TH
SATURDAY, THE 24 DAY OF OCTOBER 2026 / 2ND KARTHIKA,
1948
CRL.REV.PET NO. 492 OF 2026
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.03.2026 IN CMP 412/2023
IN CC NO.292 OF 2016 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL
JUDGE (VIGILANCE), MUVATTUPUZHA
REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/SECOND ACCUSED:
K.BIMAL
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O.KESAVAN NAMBEESAN, BINDHU VIHAR, CHOWARA
P.O., ERNAKULAM., PIN - 683571
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN
SMT.K.BINCYMOL
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031
BY SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.BIJU
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 24.10.2026 ALONG WITH CRL.R.P.NO.493/2026,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CNR : KLHC010321272026
CRL.REV.PET NO.492
&
493 OF 2026 2 2026:KER:81704
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
TH
SATURDAY, THE 24 DAY OF OCTOBER 2026 / 2ND KARTHIKA,
1948
CRL.REV.PET NO. 493 OF 2026
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.03.2026 IN CMP 411/2023
IN CC NO.291 OF 2016 OF COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER &
SPECIAL JUDGE, MUVATTUPUZHA
REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/SECOND ACCUSED:
K. BIMAL
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O.KESAVAN NAMBEESAN, BINDHU VIHAR, CHOWARA
P.O., ERNAKULAM., PIN - 683571
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN
SMT.K.BINCYMOL
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031
BY SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.ROY THOMAS
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 24.10.2026 ALONG WITH CRL.R.P.NO.492/2026,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CNR : KLHC010321272026
CRL.REV.PET NO.492
&
493 OF 2026 3 2026:KER:81704
CR
COMMON ORDER
th
Dated this the 24 day of October, 2026
nd
Crl.R.P.No.492/2026 has been filed by the 2
accused challenging the order dated 31.03.2026 in
C.M.P.No.412/2023 in C.C.No.292/2016 on the files of the
Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance),
Muvattupuzha.
2. Crl.R.P.No.493/2026 has been filed by the
nd
very same revision petitioner/2 accused challenging the
order dated 31.03.2026 in C.M.P.No.411/2023 in
C.C.No.291/2016 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner
and Special Judge (Vigilance), Muvattupuzha.
3. In both these revisions, discharge petitions
nd
filed by the 2 accused/revision petitioner herein under
Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the
Cr.P.C.' hereinafter) were dismissed by the learned Special
Judge.
CNR : KLHC010321272026
CRL.REV.PET NO.492
&
493 OF 2026 4 2026:KER:81704
4. The learned counsel for the revision
petitioner raised two specific contentions to canvass
discharge by setting aside the orders impugned. According
nd
to him, in this case, sanction to prosecute the 2 accused was
issued by the Chief Engineer. According to the learned
counsel, the Chief Engineer is not the competent authority to
accord sanction for prosecution, as the Board is the
appointing authority and the authority competent to remove
nd
the 2 accused from service. Therefore, in terms of Section
19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short,
'the PC Act' hereinafter), the competent authority to accord
sanction for prosecution in the instant case is the Board and,
therefore, the cognizance taken by the learned Special Judge
for the offences alleged in the final report is bad in law and,
on the said ground, the impugned orders are liable to be set
aside and the revision petitioners are liable to be discharged.
5. Secondly, it is contended that, on merits
also, it is discernible from the prosecution records and also
CNR : KLHC010321272026
CRL.REV.PET NO.492
&
493 OF 2026 5 2026:KER:81704
from the specific report submitted by the Dy.S.P. that the
period of misappropriation was the period during which the
revision petitioner had been working as Senior Assistant.
According to him, the Senior Assistant is not expected to
collect and account for the money, and his duty is merely
supervisory in nature. In such view of the matter, the
nd
prosecution against the 2 accused, attributing the allegation
of misappropriation to him, is totally unwarranted.
6. Refuting the first submission made by the
learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the learned Public
Prosecutor produced a document titled as “Annexure I to the
BO (DB) No.449/2022 (PLNG-AEE2/2022/31) TVM, dated
26.05.2022” which would show the Delegation of Powers
2022 of Executive Officers of the Kerala State Electricity
Board (‘KSEB)’. According to him, as per Item No.1.1 of
Annexure I produced, the Chief Engineer (HRM) has been
given the powers enumerated from (a) to (h), and the same
include, under clause (g), the power to function as the
disciplinary authority for all cadres up to and
CNR : KLHC010321272026
CRL.REV.PET NO.492
&
493 OF 2026 6 2026:KER:81704
including the cadre of Assistant Executive
Engineer/equivalent category. Therefore, the sanction
issued in this case is valid, and the challenge against the
sanction would not stand.
7. Regarding the second point canvassed by
the learned counsel for the revision petitioner seeking
discharge on the submission that the allegation of
nd
misappropriation could not be attributed to the 2 accused, the
learned Public Prosecutor read out the relevant paragraphs,
namely, paragraph Nos.11 to 14 of the impugned orders, to
nd
substantiate the role of the 2 accused in committing this crime
prima facie , which would warrant trial. He also pointed out that
the report submitted by the Dy.S.P. would show the specific
nd
allegations of misappropriation on the part of the 2 accused.
8. In both cases, the prosecution alleges
commission of offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(c) and
13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act as well as under Sections 477A,
465, 409, 201 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the
IPC' hereinafter). The specific allegation in
CNR : KLHC010321272026
CRL.REV.PET NO.492
&
493 OF 2026 7 2026:KER:81704
C.M.P.No.411/2023 in C.C.No.291/2016 on the file of the
Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance),
st
Muvattupuzha, is that the 1 accused, while working as
nd
Cashier of the Electrical Section, KSEB, Chowara, and the 2
accused, while working as Senior Assistant of the said office
during the year 2001, hatched a conspiracy, abused their
official positions as public servants and dishonestly
misappropriated the funds of the KSEB to the tune of
Rs.75,411/- (Rupees Seventy-Five Thousand Four Hundred
st
and Eleven only) by the 1 accused and Rs.15,983/- (Rupees
Fifteen Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty-Three only) by
nd
the 2 accused. The specific allegation in
C.M.P.No.412/2023 in C.C.No.292/2016 on the files of the
Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance),
st
Muvattupuzha, is that the 1 accused, while working as
nd
Cashier of the Electrical Section, KSEB, Chowara, and the 2
accused, while working as Senior Assistant of the said office
during the year 2002, hatched a conspiracy, abused their
official positions as public servants and dishonestly
CNR : KLHC010321272026
CRL.REV.PET NO.492
&
493 OF 2026 8 2026:KER:81704
misappropriated the funds of the KSEB to the tune of
Rs.98,432/- (Rupees Ninety-Eight Thousand Four Hundred
st
and Thirty-Two only) by the 1 accused and Rs.35,457/-
(Rupees Thirty-Five Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty-
nd
Seven only) by the 2 accused. The reasons assigned by the
learned Special Judge in the impugned orders for dismissing
the discharge petitions could be found in paragraph Nos.11 to
19, which read as under:
“ 11. After collecting the cash the cashier is
supposed to prepare the bill in triplicate and the
original cash bill shall be given to the consumer
and duplicate shall be given to the billing branch
and triplicate shall be kept as a bill book copy
and it shall be subjected for audit on a later point
of time and it shall be kept till the completion of
audit.
12. As far as the duty of the Senior Assistant
is concerned he has to prepare a consumer
personal ledger based on the duplicate copy of
bill.
13. After the detection of the offence the
higher official of the KSEB conducted an audit
and they found out number of anomalies and
CNR : KLHC010321272026
CRL.REV.PET NO.492
&
493 OF 2026 9 2026:KER:81704
malpractices done by both the accused. They
found that the bill books which have been used by
the Cashier were not authenticated bill books
issued by the Superior Officers. In other words
unauthorised bill books have been used for the
collection of the amount. The auditors noticed
that the first accused who was the then cashier
had entered the real amount remitted by the
depositor in the original bill. Whereas in the
duplicate and triplicate he had entered the lessor
amount and thereby he grabbed the amount
which was not entered into the duplicate. In a
case where there is arrears of payment of
electricity charges, the consumer is supposed to
clear the arrears and only on clearing the
arrears, the cashier is supposed to collect the bill
amount of the current period. But he had not
followed the said practice and thereby the KSEB
has sustained the loss.
14. The learned counsel for the second accused
contended that going by the allegation the first
accused had swindled the money by creating false
entries in the duplicate and triplicate and the
second accused is not at all liable for the said
malpractice. Therefore no charge could be framed
against the second accused. The above contention
of the second accused is wholly unsustainable.
CNR : KLHC010321272026
CRL.REV.PET NO.492
&
493 OF 2026 10 2026:KER:81704
From the records it is seen that on every day the
spot biller is supplying demand statement to the
second accused who was the senior Assistant.
Therefore he was aware about the amount which
is to be remitted by the each consumer. Therefore
if any deficient payment is found out from the
duplicate bill he could have immediately pointed
out that fact to the cashier and immediately
action has to be taken for collecting the amount.
In the case on hand it is seen that he had kept on
accepting the incorrect duplicate bills and
prepared consumer personal ledger. Therefore
the second accused was conscious about the
broken collection of the amount by the first
accused. Therefore, the inference is that the
second accused was virtually supporting the act
of the first accused. Moreover, it is alleged that
there are false entries in the Consumer Personal
Ledger (CPL) regarding the collection of the
amount. The entries with respect to the collection
of amount shown the Consumer Personal Ledger
(CPL) have not been supported with receipts. The
total amount collected as per the receipt was
totally different from the total amount shown in
the Consumer Personal Ledger (CPL). Therefore
the materials produced by the prosecution are
sufficient enough to frame a charge against the
CNR : KLHC010321272026
CRL.REV.PET NO.492
&
493 OF 2026 11 2026:KER:81704
second accused and there are enough
circumstances which would indicate the
conspiracy between the first and second accused.
Moreover, during the relevant period the second
accused was in charge of the Superintendent of
that office and therefore he could easily detect the
malpractice done by the first accused. His
inaction looms large regarding his culpability.
Therefore, the arguments contrary raised by the
learned counsel for the second accused is wholly
unsustainable. Hence I am of the view that the
grounds raised by the counsel for the second
accused for an order of discharge are totally
unsustainable and liable to be rejected.
15. Though the first accused has not filed any
application for discharge, the learned counsel for
the first accused contented that the first accused is
entitled for an order of discharge for the offences
under the Indian Penal Code, since the
prosecution has not obtained necessary sanction
under section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
The learned counsel for the first accused
contented that the above offences were allegedly
committed by the accused in discharge of their
official duties. Hence the prosecution has to
obtain necessary sanction under section 197 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. In the instant case
CNR : KLHC010321272026
CRL.REV.PET NO.492
&
493 OF 2026 12 2026:KER:81704
the prosecution failed obtained such a sanction
and therefore no charge could be framed against
the accused for the offences punishable under the
Indian Penal Code
16. The above argument of the learned counsel
for the first accused is factually incorrect. On
perusal of the records I find that the Chief
Engineer of KSEB as per his proceedings dated
26/11/2010 accorded sanction for prosecution. On
perusal of the said order I find that the said
authority was cognizant about the all the offences
which were committed by the accused person.
Therefore by a composite order he had granted
sanction under section 19(1) (c) of the prevention
of Corruption Act for the trial of the offences under
the said Act and sanction has been accorded to try
other offences as well. The relevant portion of the
order of the sanction is as follows:-
"Now thereof I Johnson Peter
Kallada, the Chief Engineer (HRM)
Vaidhyudhi Bhavanam,
Thiruvananthapuram do here by
accordance sanction under section 19
(1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 for the prosecution of said
Gireesh Kumar and Sri. K.Bimal for
the said offences and any other
CNR : KLHC010321272026
CRL.REV.PET NO.492
&
493 OF 2026 13 2026:KER:81704
offences punishable under other
provisions of law in respect of the
acts aforesaid for taking cognizance
of the said offences by a Court of
competent jurisdiction"
17. The above order clearly shows the fact that
the authority competent accorded the sanction for
prosecution of offences under the Prevention of
corruption Act as well as offences under the
General Penal Law under the Indian penal Code.
Therefore there is absolutely no meaning in
contending that prosecuting agency failed to
secure sanction for the prosecution of the offences
under Indian penal Code. Therefore the said
argument of the counsel for the accused is wholly
unsustainable.
18. Sub section (1) of the section 197 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure reads as follows:-
"When any person who is or was a
Judge or magistrate or a public
servant not removable from his office
save by or with the sanction of the
Government is accused of any offence
alleged to have been committed by
him while acting or purporting to act
in the discharge of his official duty, no
CNR : KLHC010321272026
CRL.REV.PET NO.492
&
493 OF 2026 14 2026:KER:81704
Court shall take cognizance of such
offence except with the previous
sanction save as otherwise provided in
the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013
(1 of 2014)"
19. On a reading of the said provision it is seen
that the when the public servant is not removable
from his office except the sanction of the
Government committed an offence while acting or
purporting to act in discharge of his official duty
sanction is required for prosecution. In the case on
hand both public servants were the Cashier as
well as the accountant of Kerala State Electricity
Board. The counsel for the accused does not have a
case that they could be removed only by the order
of the Government. Therefore there is absolutely
no question of obtaining a sanction as required
under section 197 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure for initiating prosecution against
them.”
9. As per the above observations, the learned
Special Judge found that sanction under Section 19(1)(c) of
the PC Act was accorded by the competent authority and that
the sanction also included the offences punishable under the
CNR : KLHC010321272026
CRL.REV.PET NO.492
&
493 OF 2026 15 2026:KER:81704
IPC. It was further found that sanction under Section 197 of
the Cr.P.C. was not required, as the accused were not public
servants removable from office save by or with the sanction
of the Government.
10. While answering the first question, viz.,
‘who is the Competent Authority to issue sanction to
prosecute the revision petitioners herein?’, it is not in dispute
that previous sanction is necessary for prosecution of public
servants for the offences specified under Section 19(1) of the
PC Act. Section 19(1) of the PC Act provides as under:
“ 19. Previous sanction necessary for
prosecution.—
(1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence
punishable under section 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15
alleged to have been committed by a public
servant, except with the previous sanction,—
(a) in the case of a person who is employed in
connection with the affairs of the Union and is not
removable from his office save by or with the
sanction of the Central Government, of that
Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is employed in
CNR : KLHC010321272026
CRL.REV.PET NO.492
&
493 OF 2026 16 2026:KER:81704
connection with the affairs of a State and is not
removable from his office save by or with the
sanction of the State Government, of that
Government;
(c) in the case of any other person, of the authority
competent to remove him from his office.”
11. Section 19(1)(c) of the PC Act is the
provision applicable in the present case. On going through
the order produced by the learned Public Prosecutor, it is
perceivable that, as per Item No.1.1(g), the Chief Engineer
(HRM) is empowered to function as the disciplinary
authority for all cadres up to and including the cadre of
Assistant Executive Engineer and other equivalent
categories. Therefore, the authority competent to remove the
revision petitioner in the instant case, in terms of Section
19(1)(c) of the PC Act, is the Chief Engineer (HRM) and not
the ‘Board’, as contended. If so, the sanction order put under
challenge by the revision petitioner is to be held as one
issued by the competent authority, namely, the Chief
CNR : KLHC010321272026
CRL.REV.PET NO.492
&
493 OF 2026 17 2026:KER:81704
Engineer (HRM), and therefore, this contention could not
succeed. Thus, it is held that the prosecution sanction issued
in this case is legal, to be acted upon.
12. Apart from that, the learned Public
Prosecutor placed reliance on the decision of this Court in
Zakeer Hussain v. State of Kerala reported in [2026
ICO 123] to contend that a finding entered by the learned
Special Judge regarding prosecution sanction cannot be
interfered with unless there is a failure of justice. However,
the said ratio has no application to the present case, as the
challenge has been raised before the commencement of trial.
13. Coming to the plea of discharge on merits,
based on the submission that prima facie materials are not
available to find commission of the offences alleged against
the revision petitioners, so as to frame charges and proceed
with the trial, on going through the reasons stated by the
learned Special Judge, as extracted hereinabove, it could be
seen that the duty of the Senior Assistant/revision petitioner
herein was to prepare the Consumer Personal Ledger (CPL)
CNR : KLHC010321272026
CRL.REV.PET NO.492
&
493 OF 2026 18 2026:KER:81704
on the basis of the duplicate copies of the bills. Further, the
nd
2 accused, being the Senior Assistant, should have noticed
st
the short collection of amounts by the 1 accused by
comparing the daily demand statements supplied by the spot
biller with the duplicate bills. It was also noticed that false
entries regarding the amounts collected were made in the
nd
Consumer Personal Ledger (CPL) maintained by the 2
accused. If so, the reasons assigned by the learned Special
Judge for dismissing the discharge petitions are liable to be
sustained and, in such view of the matter, the revisions must fail.
Accordingly, both these revision petitions are dismissed.
The interim order of stay, if any, granted by this Court,
stands vacated.
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the
Special Court for information, with a view to expedite trial.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
Bb