ORDER : This Crl.M.C. has been filed to quash Annexure A final report and all further proceedings pursuant to it in CC No.283/2016 on the file of the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Muvattupuzha against the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 2. The petitioner is a retired public servant. He served in the Department of Commercial Taxes from 28/6/1999 to 31/5/2016. He joined as Sales Tax Officer, Second Circle, Perumbavoor on 28/6/1999 and worked there till 29/4/2002. During the said period, one Sri. V.P. Biju (hereinafter referred to as 'dealer') was running an establishment in the name of V & V Match Works, Vadayampady. He was a registered dealer on the rolls of Sales Tax Office, Second Circle, Perumbavoor. The registration was taken on 14/11/1995 to conduct the business in match veneers. At the time when the petitioner joined as a Sales Tax Officer in 1999, the dealer did not renew the registration, but it was not cancelled, revoked, or surrendered. During the petitioner's tenure as Sales Tax Officer, Perumbavoor, on 31/12/2001, the dealer requested to renew the registration, add core veneer in the registration certificate, and issue delivery notes for transporting goods outside the State. It was submitted that he could not continue the business due to his father's illness, and he would like to resume the business w.e.f. 1/1/2002. On receipt of the request, during the tenure of the petitioner, the registration was renewed by accepting the necessary renewal fee and compounding fee. The request of the dealer to add core veneer to the registration certificate was allowed. The delivery notes were also issued. The petitioner was, thereafter, relieved from the office of the Sales Tax, Second Circle, Perumbavoor, on 29/4/2002. One Sri. K.K. Thankappan succeeded him. 3. On 28/6/2007, the Dy. S.P. VACB, Ernakulam, registered a crime against the petitioner and others as VC No.5/2007 alleging the commission of offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short, 'the PC Act') and the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC'). After investigation, a final report dated 15/3/2011 was filed against the petitioner and three others alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act and Sections 420 and 120B of IPC. The petitioner was arrayed as accused No.1, the successor in office of the petitioner Sri. After investigation, a final report dated 15/3/2011 was filed against the petitioner and three others alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act and Sections 420 and 120B of IPC. The petitioner was arrayed as accused No.1, the successor in office of the petitioner Sri. K.K. Thankappan was arrayed as accused No.2, the dealer was arrayed as accused No.3, and the Head Clerk working in the office of Commercial Taxes, Second Circle, Perumbavoor, was arrayed as accused No.4. The gist of the allegation in the final report against the petitioner is that he, by abusing his position as a public servant, criminally conspired with accused No.3 and as a result of such conspiracy, illegally renewed the registration of V & V Match Works of the latter by adding core veneer in the registration certificate without conducting proper verification and violating departmental procedures and guidelines. It is further alleged that the renewal of registration caused the issuance of Form 18 books to accused No.3. The allegation against accused Nos.2 and 4 is that they, by abusing their official position as public servants, conspired with accused No.3 and illegally issued Form 18 books to his benami without proper verification and provisional assessment and also caused disappearance of the evidence by deliberately destroying the documents connected with the transaction. It is the further allegation in the final report that because of the above acts, accused caused loss to the tune of Rs.31,00,672/- to the Sales Tax department and the Government and corresponding pecuniary gain to accused No.3. 4. The Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur, accepted the final report, took cognizance of the offences, numbered the case as CC No.26/2011 and issued summons to the accused. Thereafter, the case was transferred to the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Vigilance, Muvattupuzha and renumbered as CC No.283/2016. 5. I have heard Sri. Sujesh Menon V.B., the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. S. Rekha, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Sujesh Menon submitted that the allegations in the final report, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute an offence or make out any case against the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Sujesh Menon submitted that the allegations in the final report, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute an offence or make out any case against the petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that in the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner on the same set of facts, he was exonerated of the charges framed against him, and once a person is exonerated of the charges in the departmental enquiry, criminal proceedings against him on same facts shall not be continued. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. CBI [ (2020) 9 SCC 636 ]. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor Smt. S. Rekha submitted that there are materials on record to connect the petitioner with the crime and when prima facie case is made out, the jurisdiction vested with this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked. The counsel further submitted that the exoneration of a person in departmental proceedings would not ipso facto lead to the exoneration of him in the criminal proceedings. Reliance was placed on State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ajay Kumar Tyagi [ (2012) 9 SCC 685 ] and Rajesh Kumar J. v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Ernakulam and Another [2021 KHC 692]. 7. I will first deal with the contention of the petitioner that his exoneration in the departmental proceedings would ipso facto terminate the criminal proceedings against him. The records would show that departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner in respect of the same incident. The charges that were framed against the petitioner in the departmental proceedings are as follows : “That you, Sri. Sajan T. Sunny while working as Salestax Officer, Sales Tax Office, 2nd Circle, Perumbavoor had renewed the registration of Shri. V.P. Biju, V & V Match Works, Vadayampady bearing KGST No.2414 2105 and CST No.24147105 from 1998-99 onwards and amended the registration certificate including 'core veneer' also. The dealer had done only nominal business and not run any business from 1.4.97 to 31.12.01. That your above said action of renewing the registration of the above dealer and amending the registration to include core veneer is in clear violation of the Circular No.31/97/TX dated 15.12.1997. The dealer had done only nominal business and not run any business from 1.4.97 to 31.12.01. That your above said action of renewing the registration of the above dealer and amending the registration to include core veneer is in clear violation of the Circular No.31/97/TX dated 15.12.1997. That your above said actions led to the issuance of Form 18 and department delivery notes to the dealer by your successor in office and the dealer misused the same resulting in loss of revenue to the State exchequer. That your above said actions tantamount to gross negligence, grave dereliction of duty and callous carelessness which warrants disciplinary action as contemplated under KCS (CC&A) Rules, 1960.” The Enquiry Officer conducted the departmental enquiry and submitted Annexure B report. The Enquiry Officer found that the petitioner acted in good faith by renewing the registration and amending the registration certificate and he is totally innocent. The Enquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner from all the charges framed against him, holding that none of the charges could be proved beyond doubt. However, the disciplinary authority rejected the finding of the Enquiry Officer regarding the first and fourth charges finding that the petitioner failed to make necessary enquiries regarding the status of the business for which renewal was sought and caused the wrong renewal of the registration to the dealer despite the business and his properties being sold to one Jayalakshmi much earlier on 25/2/1999. Ultimately, the disciplinary authority found that the first and fourth charges were proved against the petitioner. A punishment of barring three years increments without cumulative effect in the scale of pay that existed prior to the retirement was imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner took the matter in appeal before the Government. The Government found that there is no reason to deviate from the findings and recommendations of the Enquiry Authority and, accordingly, the disciplinary action initiated was dropped. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the findings and recommendations of the Enquiry Authority are in respect of the same set of allegations which is the subject matter of criminal proceedings, and since the Enquiry Officer found that the petitioner is totally innocent of all the charges levelled against him, which the Government confirmed in appeal, the criminal prosecution is unsustainable in law. 8. 8. The question whether the exoneration of a person in departmental enquiry ipso facto would exonerate him from the criminal proceedings came up for consideration before the two-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar [ (1996) 9 SCC 1 ]. It was held that if a person is exonerated in a departmental proceeding, no criminal proceedings can be launched or may continue against him on the same subject matter. However, another two-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Kishan Singh v. Gurpal Singh and Others [ (2010) 8 SCC 775 ] took a contrary view. In view of the conflicting judgments, the Apex Court referred the matter for consideration by a Larger Bench in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ajay Kumar Tyagi (Crl. Appeal No.1334/2012 dated 13/9/2010). On reference, a three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court [State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ajay Kumar Tyagi (2012) 9 SCC 685 )] considered the issue and held that the decision in P.S. Rajya (supra) does not lay down any proposition that on exoneration of an employee in the departmental proceeding, the criminal prosecution on the identical charge or the evidence has to be quashed. Ultimately the reference was answered holding that the exoneration of an accused in the departmental proceeding ipso facto would not result in the quashing of the criminal prosecution. However, it was clarified that if the prosecution against an accused is solely based on a finding in a proceeding and that finding is set aside by the superior authority in the hierarchy, the very foundation goes, and the prosecution may be quashed. It was also observed that that principle will not apply in the case of the departmental proceeding as the criminal trial and the departmental proceeding are held by two different entities, and they are not in the same hierarchy. Thereafter, the Apex Court in State of Bihar v. Dhirendra Prasad Shrivastava [2015 (1) RCR (Criminal) 445] followed the decision in Ajay Kumar Tyagi (supra). Later, in Ashoo Surendranath Tewari (supra), another three-judge Bench of the Apex Court took the view that if the allegation in the adjudication proceedings as well as the proceeding for prosecution is identical and the exoneration of the person concerned in the adjudication proceedings is on merits, the trial of the person concerned shall be an abuse of the process of the court. However, the decision in Ajay Kumar Tyagi (supra) has not been either referred to or considered by the Apex Court in Ashoo Surendranath Tewari (supra). That apart, the question in Ashoo Surendranath Tewari (supra) was not whether an accused can be exonerated from criminal proceedings on the ground that he was exonerated in departmental proceedings. In Ashoo Surendranath Tewari (supra), the Apex Court relied on its earlier decision in Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal [ (2011) 3 SCC 581 ] which dealt with the effect of adjudication proceedings on criminal prosecution. The effect of the exoneration of a person in departmental proceedings on the criminal prosecution against the accused was not an issue in Ashoo Surendranath Tewari (supra). The issue therein was the effect of adjudication proceedings on criminal prosecution. In these circumstances, the dictum laid down in Ashoo Surendranath Tewari (supra) cannot be applied in a case where the accused who was facing criminal prosecution was exonerated in departmental proceedings. A Single Bench of this Court on similar facts followed Ajay Kumar Tyagi (supra) in Rajesh Kumar (supra). For these reasons, I hold that the criminal prosecution against an accused can very well be initiated or continued, notwithstanding his exoneration on the identical charge in the departmental proceedings. 9. Coming to the merits of the case, the crux of the allegations in the final report against the petitioner is that he renewed the registration of the establishment of the accused No.3 and amended the registration certificate by adding core veneer in it without proper verification and violating departmental procedures and guidelines. All these acts are wholly governed by Act, Rules, Regulations and Government Orders operating the field. 10. As per Section 14(5) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, the registration certificate is valid for a year and shall be renewed from year to year on payment of prescribed fee and continues to be valid on such renewal. In this case, the registration granted to the dealer was not cancelled by the assessing authority till 31/12/2001. Even though annual renewal of registration is a mandatory requirement, failure to renew the registration in time will not alter the status of registration. As per Circular No.19/95/TX dated 5/8/1995 of the erstwhile Board of Revenue, Taxes, the scale of compounding fee for belated renewal of registration certificate was refixed. Even though annual renewal of registration is a mandatory requirement, failure to renew the registration in time will not alter the status of registration. As per Circular No.19/95/TX dated 5/8/1995 of the erstwhile Board of Revenue, Taxes, the scale of compounding fee for belated renewal of registration certificate was refixed. Thus, it is statutorily permissible to renew the registration at any time before its cancellation. The dealer has stated that due to the disease of his father, he could not continue the business and he would like to resume the business w.e.f. 1/1/2002 as his father was no more. The renewal of registration was granted after the receipt of compounding fee from the dealer. It is pertinent to note that the registration was never cancelled as on 31/12/2001 and belated renewal is legally permissible. Since the dealer gave sufficient reason for the discontinuation of business for a particular period and paid the required compounding fee, there was no reason for declining the request. As on the date, no demand was outstanding against the dealer also. 11. Next issue is regarding the amendment of registration certificate. As per Rule 5(22) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, where a dealer desires the certificate of registration granted to him to be amended, he shall submit an application for this purpose to the assessing authority. If the assessing authority is satisfied, such amendments can be incorporated in the certificate. Here, the dealer requested to add core veneer in the registration certificate. The petitioner permitted to include the said commodity in the registration certificate. The dealer was carrying on business in match veneer since 1995. Carrying business on core veneer is a similar nature of business. A trader in match veneer can do business in core veneer also. There is no law prohibiting a dealer to do business in core veneer. As per SRO 1095/99, the Government has notified the items coming under the category of “packing materials”. The core veneer is not specifically mentioned in the notification as it is an entirely distinct commodity. It was not classified as an “evasion prone commodity” at that time. The dealer was carrying on business in match veneer and since core veneer is a business of similar nature, the petitioner permitted to include the commodity in the registration certificate. The core veneer is not specifically mentioned in the notification as it is an entirely distinct commodity. It was not classified as an “evasion prone commodity” at that time. The dealer was carrying on business in match veneer and since core veneer is a business of similar nature, the petitioner permitted to include the commodity in the registration certificate. Hence, the action of the petitioner in amending the registration certificate to incorporate core veneer cannot be said to be in violation of any statutory provisions. 12. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per Circular No.31/1997/TX dated 15/12/1997, when an application for registration of business in timber and packing case is received, the registering authority, after scrutiny of such application, should forward the same to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) (Intelligence) for detailed enquiry and after receiving the report from him only, the registration can be allowed; however, the petitioner renewed the registration without making any enquiry about the establishment by himself or through IAC. According to the prosecution, the investigation revealed that the establishment of the dealer viz., V &V Match Works and its properties were sold to one Jayalakshmi on 25/2/1999 and the petitioner failed to make any enquiries regarding the status of the business for which renewal was sought and caused wrongful renewal of the registration to the dealer despite the fact that the business and its properties were sold to Smt. Jayalakshmi much earlier, on 25/2/1999. It is true that no effective enquiry was conducted by the petitioner regarding the status of the business. The Circular mentioned above applies when an application for new registration is filed. It is only a case of renewal of registration. At any rate, the mere failure on the part of an officer to make enquiry regarding the status of the dealer without culpability cannot be termed as criminal misconduct falling within Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. To attract Section 13(1)(d), there must be an allegation that the public servant, by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his official position as a public servant or without any public interest, obtained for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. To attract Section 13(1)(d), there must be an allegation that the public servant, by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his official position as a public servant or without any public interest, obtained for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. The gist of the allegation against the petitioner in the final report is that he, being a public servant, by abusing his said position criminally conspired with the dealer and as a result of such conspiracy, illegally renewed the registration of V&V Match Works by adding core veneer in the registration certificate without conducting proper verification and violating the departmental procedures and guidelines which caused the illegal issuance of Form 18 books to the dealer and resultant loss to the tune of Rs.31,00,672/- for the Sales Tax Department and the Government. The allegation does not speak about any illegal gratification, nor does it say that petitioner obtained any pecuniary advantage or valuable thing either for himself or for any other person by abusing his official position. The prosecution allegations at the most point to certain procedural violations and failure to conduct proper verification on the part of the petitioner. Mere conduct and action of the accused contrary to rules and norms without culpable state of mind would not amount to criminal misconduct by a public servant. [See C.K. Jaffer Sharief v State (2013) 1 SCC 205 ]. The dishonest intention is a prerequisite to attract the offence of criminal misconduct. Form 18 declarations are used for the purchase of the raw materials for the production of finished goods. Going by the final report, issuance of Form 18 is the instance which led to revenue loss to the State exchequer. Admittedly, the petitioner did not issue Form 18 declaration to the dealer during his tenure in the office. It was issued by his successor only on 26/8/2002. The petitioner is no way directly responsible for the issuance and consequential misuse of Form 18 declaration. Form 26 delivery note is a transporting document. The petitioner issued delivery note to facilitate interstate sale only. The prosecution has no case that the Form 26 delivery note issued by the petitioner was misused or any revenue loss was occurred to the Government during his tenure. Thus, there is absolutely nothing to attract Section 13(1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988 against the petitioner. 13. The petitioner issued delivery note to facilitate interstate sale only. The prosecution has no case that the Form 26 delivery note issued by the petitioner was misused or any revenue loss was occurred to the Government during his tenure. Thus, there is absolutely nothing to attract Section 13(1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988 against the petitioner. 13. To bring home the charge of conspiracy within the ambit of Section 120B of I.P.C., it is necessary to establish that there was an agreement between the parties for doing an unlawful act. Every act of commission and omission would not result in hatching criminal conspiracy unless the acts have been done deliberately and there is meeting of minds of all concerned (Zakia Ahsan Jafri v. State of Gujarat AIR 2022 SC 3050 ). It is true that the offence of conspiracy can be established by direct or circumstantial evidence. But there must be reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired to commit an offence or an actionable wrong. There is no prima facie material to suggest that the petitioner was a party to such a conspiracy. To constitute an offence under Section 420 of IPC, there should not only be cheating but, as a consequence of such cheating, the accused should have dishonestly induced the person deceived (i) to deliver any property to any person, or (ii) to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security or anything signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security. No action on the part of the petitioner has been alleged that discloses the intention to induce the delivery of any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security or anything signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security. Hence, the offences under Sections 120B and 420 of IPC are also not attracted against the petitioner. The upshot of the above discussion is that even if the entire allegations in Annexure A final report together with the materials collected during investigation which form part of the final report are believed in its entirety, no offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act or 120B and 420 of IPC is made out against the petitioner. The upshot of the above discussion is that even if the entire allegations in Annexure A final report together with the materials collected during investigation which form part of the final report are believed in its entirety, no offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act or 120B and 420 of IPC is made out against the petitioner. It is trite that where the allegations in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same during investigation do not disclose the commission of any offence or make out a case against the accused, the High Court can exercise its wholesome power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings. In these circumstances, no useful purpose will be served by allowing the criminal prosecution against the petitioner to continue. Hence, Annexure A final report and all further proceedings in CC No.283/2016 on the file of the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Muvattupuzha against the petitioner are hereby quashed. Crl.M.C is, accordingly, allowed.