High Court Dismisses Revision, Directs Special Court To Proceed With Trial And Complete It Within Six Months

A single-judge bench of Justice A. Badharudeen heard a criminal revision petition filed by the third accused, R. Sivadasan, under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging the Special Court (Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Vigilance) order dated 12.11.2024 which had negatived his plea for discharge in a procurement-related corruption case arising out of the Brahmapuram Diesel Power Plant project.

The High Court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the Special Court's refusal to discharge the accused, holding that the question of prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. had earlier been dealt with by this Court in Padmarajan C.V.’s proceedings and therefore could not be reopened in the present revision. The Court found that the prosecution records furnished "prima facie" evidence or at least a strong suspicion against the revision petitioner to require a trial. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "It is the well settled law that, in order to discharge an accused, who has involvement in a crime, the Court concerned shall look into the prosecution records alone and the Court cannot go beyond the prosecution records. Then, the duty of the Court is to evaluate the prosecution records with a view to find out whether offence/offences alleged is/are made out, prima facie or atleast a strong suspicion to go for trial." The Court also recorded that "this Court could not find any illegality or irregularity in the finding of the Special Court while disallowing discharge plea of the revision petitioner" and directed that "the Special Court is directed to expedite the trial and finish the same, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order."

Background

The prosecution alleged that former KSEB chairmen and other office-bearers conspired with foreign suppliers to secure a contract for five diesel generator sets and accessories for the Brahmapuram Diesel Power Plant without inviting global tenders, thereby causing a loss of Rs. 2.538 crore to the Kerala State Electricity Board and conferring corresponding undue pecuniary advantage on the suppliers. The accused faced charges under Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Sections 109, 409, 420 read with 120B of the IPC.

The revision petitioner contended that prosecution could not proceed without sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. and argued that replacing the phrase "Council of Ministers" with "Government" in a file note did not attract criminal liability because circulation among Ministers was permissible under the Rules of Business. The State relied on the earlier decision in Padmarajan C.V. v. Government of Kerala, which had considered similar pleas and had relegated the question of prosecution sanction under Section 197 to the trial stage; the State also relied on documentary material and statements allegedly showing manipulation of minutes and selective citation of suppliers to favour M/s S.E.M.T. Pielstick.

The Special Court had declined discharge after reviewing record material and noted several prima facie indicia: contemporaneous notes and letters by the Chairman-in-charge that omitted lower-priced vendors, changes in a file note replacing "Council of Ministers" with "Government," assertions in Board minutes that the MOU was at the instance of the Government though no authorising order existed, and alterations in contractual pricing terms from C.I.F. to F.O.B. that allegedly generated the financial discrepancy. The High Court observed that the earlier Padmarajan judgment had already dealt with certain jurisdictional and sanction issues (quashing cognizance taken by a different Vigilance Court and relegating sanction questions to trial) and that the present revision could not disturb those conclusions.

After hearing counsel and perusing the record, the High Court held that the Special Court had acted within its jurisdiction in refusing discharge because the prosecution record disclosed at least a strong suspicion against the revision petitioner. The revision petition was dismissed and the Special Court was granted liberty to proceed with the trial; the High Court directed the Special Court to conclude trial within six months and directed registry to forward a copy of the order to the Special Court forthwith.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRL.REV.PET NO. 1365 OF 2025
NeutralCitation: 2026:KER:22724
Case Title: R. Sivadasan v. State of Kerala
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Adv. Sri V.M. Krishnakumar
For the Respondent(s): Special Public Prosecutor Rajesh A. (Spl. PP); Senior Public Prosecutor Rekha S. (Sr. PP)

Source: 2026 CaseBase(KER) 137