Jomon Puthenpurackal v. State of Kerala

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 13(1)(e), 13(2), 17A – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 154 – Disproportionate Assets – CBI Investigation – Preliminary Enquiry – Whistleblower Protection.

Petitioner alleged respondent, a former IAS officer, amassed wealth disproportionate to known income sources, including undisclosed properties. Special Judge rejected complaint after VACB’s preliminary enquiry found no evidence.

Held:

(1) Materials prima facie disclosed cognizable offence under PC Act;

(2) VACB enquiry biased, arbitrarily excluded key asset acquisition period to shield respondent, necessitating CBI investigation to ensure public confidence;

(3) No further preliminary enquiry required per Lalita Kumari (AIR 2014 SC 187), as offence established;

(4) Section 17A approval not applicable, as allegations unrelated to official duties;

(5) Special Judge’s dismissal perverse, ignoring critical evidence.

Petition allowed, CBI directed to register FIR and investigate.

Citizen’s right to initiate anti-corruption proceedings and whistleblower protections upheld.

Keywords: Disproportionate Assets, CBI Investigation, Preliminary Enquiry, Section 17A, Whistleblower, Public Confidence, Prevention of Corruption Act.

Case Citation: Crl M.C. No. 8044 of 2018, 2025:KER:31057

Court: High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice K. Babu
Date of Judgment: April 11, 2025
Parties:

• Petitioner: Jomon Puthenpurackal
• Respondents:
  1. State of Kerala
  2. Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), Special Cell, Thiruvananthapuram
  3. K.M. Abraham IAS (Former Additional Chief Secretary)
  4. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)

Facts:
The petitioner, Jomon Puthenpurackal, claiming to be an anti-corruption advocate, filed a complaint (CMP No. 298/2016) before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, alleging that respondent No. 3, K.M. Abraham, a former IAS officer, amassed wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income, violating Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). The allegations included:

• Failure to disclose assets of his wife and daughter as required under the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968.
• Acquisition of properties, including apartments in Mumbai (valued at Rs. 3 crores) and Thiruvananthapuram (Rs. 1 crore), and a shopping complex in Kollam (Rs. 8 crores), without accounting for their funding sources.
• Discrepancies in loan repayments exceeding his income.

The Special Court ordered a preliminary enquiry by the VACB, which concluded no evidence supported the allegations. The Special Judge rejected the complaint on November 28, 2017, prompting the petitioner to file this Criminal Miscellaneous Case, seeking to set aside the rejection order and requesting a CBI investigation.

Issues:

1. Whether the materials prima facie disclose an offence under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act against respondent No. 3.
2. Whether the petitioner established a case warranting investigation by the CBI.
3. Whether a preliminary enquiry is required before registering an FIR in this case.
4. Whether prior approval under Section 17A of the PC Act is necessary.
5. Whether the Special Judge’s order rejecting the complaint was legally sustainable.

Arguments:

• Petitioner:
  • The VACB’s preliminary enquiry was biased, deliberately excluding the period (2014-2015) when the Kollam shopping complex was constructed, to protect respondent No. 3, a senior official.
  • Evidence, including property documents and financial transactions, indicated disproportionate assets.
  • The VACB’s credibility was questionable due to respondent No. 3’s influence as a high-ranking official, necessitating a CBI investigation.
  • The Special Judge’s dismissal was perfunctory, ignoring key evidence like the shopping complex investment.
• Respondent No. 3:
  • The petitioner exaggerated property values without evidence.
  • All assets, including the Mumbai apartment, were acquired through legitimate means (e.g., bank loans).
  • The Kollam shopping complex was funded entirely by his brothers, as per a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), with no investment from him.
  • The petitioner’s motives were suspect, driven by media attention rather than public interest.
• VACB (Respondent No. 2):
  • The preliminary enquiry was fair, and the check period (2000-2009) was appropriately chosen.
  • No evidence supported allegations of disproportionate assets.
  • CBI investigation was unwarranted absent exceptional circumstances.
• CBI (Respondent No. 4):
  • Expressed no objection to conducting an investigation if directed.

Holding:
The High Court allowed the petitioner’s application, setting aside the Special Judge’s order and directing the CBI to register an FIR and investigate. The key findings were:

1. Prima Facie Offence: Materials, including property documents, financial transactions, and discrepancies in respondent No. 3’s asset declarations, prima facie disclosed a cognizable offence under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act.
2. CBI Investigation: The VACB’s preliminary enquiry was tainted by bias, as it excluded the 2014-2015 period when the Kollam shopping complex was constructed, likely to shield respondent No. 3, a high-ranking official. Given his current position as Chief Principal Secretary and the VACB’s doubtful credibility, a CBI investigation was necessary to ensure public confidence and fairness.
3. Preliminary Enquiry: No further preliminary enquiry was required, as the VACB’s enquiry already established a cognizable offence, consistent with Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. (AIR 2014 SC 187).
4. Section 17A Approval: Prior approval under Section 17A of the PC Act was not required, as the allegations of disproportionate assets did not relate to decisions made in respondent No. 3’s official duties.
5. Special Judge’s Order: The dismissal was perverse, ignoring critical evidence (e.g., the shopping complex investment) and failing to address the petitioner’s objections, warranting its reversal.

Reasoning:

• Disproportionate Assets: The court found evidence suggesting respondent No. 3’s involvement in the Kollam shopping complex, valued at Rs. 2.05 crores, despite his claim of no investment. Documents (building permits, powers-of-attorney) indicated joint ownership and investment with his brothers, contradicting the MOU. Financial transactions by his wife further supported allegations of undisclosed wealth.
• VACB Bias: The arbitrary fixation of the check period (2000-2009) excluded the shopping complex’s construction (2014-2015), undermining the enquiry’s credibility. Respondent No. 3’s senior position likely influenced this omission, as confirmed by the VACB’s failure to verify full funding sources.
• CBI Jurisdiction: Citing State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2010) and K.V. Rajendran v. CBCID (2013), the court held that CBI investigation was justified due to respondent No. 3’s influence, the VACB’s questionable impartiality, and the need for public trust in high-profile corruption cases.
• Preliminary Enquiry and Section 17A: Relying on Lalita Kumari and CBI v. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi (2021), the court ruled that no further enquiry was needed, and Section 17A did not apply, as the allegations involved personal enrichment, not official decisions.
• Petitioner’s Motive: The court rejected challenges to the petitioner’s credibility, affirming his right as a citizen to initiate anti-corruption proceedings and recognizing whistleblower protections under Indian and international law (Manjeet Singh Khera v. State of Maharashtra, 2013).

Disposition:

• The petition was allowed.
• The Special Judge’s order dated November 28, 2017, was set aside.
• The CBI (Kochi Unit) was directed to register an FIR against respondent No. 3 and investigate based on the complaint, preliminary enquiry report, and other materials.
• The VACB was ordered to transfer the case file (QV.25/2016/SCT) to the CBI.
• Proceedings in CMP No. 298/2016 were closed.
• Observations were limited to directing the investigation and were not to influence its outcome.

Significance:
This judgment underscores the judiciary’s role in ensuring impartial investigations in 1) upholding whistleblower protections, 2) reinforcing the necessity of independent agencies like the CBI in cases involving influential public officials, and 3) clarifying procedural requirements under the PC Act, particularly regarding FIR registration and Section 17A approvals. It highlights the balance between protecting public servants from frivolous complaints and ensuring accountability for corruption.