ORDER : A. Badharudeen, J. The 2nd accused in C.C. No. 4 of 2020 on the files of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance Thiruvananthapuram), has filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the said proceedings. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. The prosecution case is that, the 1st accused, who was the Councillor of Adoor Municipality from 2005 to 2010, in order to obtain D&O license to run a textile shop in building No.XVII/670 of Adoor Municipality, of which Smt.Karthyayani Amma Rajamma was the building owner as per the Municipal records. He prepared a forged consent letter in stamp paper Nos.03AA708144, 03AA708145, 05AA900001, in the name of the said Smt.Karthyayani Amma Rajamma, who had expired on 30-08-1995, used the same as genuine, by submitting the same before the Municipal office, Adoor and obtained D&O license in file No. 111-306/07 for the year 2006-07 on the basis of the forged consent letter on 16-01-2007 to run a textile shop in building No.XVII/670 of Adoor Municipality. Thereafter, during the year 2007-08, the first accused hatched criminal conspiracy with the 3rd accused, to obtain D&O license for running a fruit stall in the same building by fraudulent means and in furtherance of the said conspiracy prepared another forged consent letter of the same Smt.Karthyayani Amma Rajamma in his own handwriting in favour of the 3rd accused in stamp paper No. P 828149 dated 29/07/2008 with date of consent letter as 01-08-2008, affixed his signature as a witness therein, used the same as genuine by submitting the same with an application for D&O license in the name of the 3rd accused, for running a fruit stall in building No.XVII/670 of Adoor Municipality for the year 2008-09, and an application for the cancellation of the existing license in the name of the 1st accused prepared in his own handwriting. Later when complaints were raised before the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions regarding the genuineness of the consent letter, the 1st accused with the intention of concealing the above facts before the Ombudsman in OP 1051/2008 & 1157/2008, hatched criminal conspiracy with the 2nd accused who was the Secretary of Adoor Municipality from 22-11-08 to 27-08-2009 and in furtherance of the said conspiracy, the 2nd accused abused his official position and fraudulently obtained the file No.H1-5242/2008 which contained the records in connection with the application submitted by the 1st accused on behalf of the 3rd accused which was kept in the safe custody of witness No.4 as per the instruction of witness No.5 (Former Municipal Secretary) and removed the forged consent letter made in stamp paper No.P828149 and the application for cancellation of the existing license prepared by the 1st accused in his own handwriting which were incriminating documents against the 1st accused and replaced the same with another application for cancellation of license in the name of the 1st accused and another forged consent letter showing date of preparation as on 01/08/2008, in the name of Late Smt.Karthyayani Amma Rajamma in stamp paper No.P-074600 with the help of the 4th accused, a stamp vendor who issued the stamp paper by putting previous date as on 15/07/2008 with knowledge that the previous dated stamp paper will be used to prepare forged document and the 2nd accused produced the same along with the file 111-5242/2008 before Ombudsman on 29/04/2009 for screening the 1st accused from the offence committed by him and thereby accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 committed the offences punishable under section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of PC Act- 1988 and Section 465, 466, 468, 471, 204, 120B, 34 IPC. 4. While challenging the final report, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the 2nd accused, who worked as Municipal Secretary, Adoor, for a period from 22.11.2008 to 27.08.2009, did not commit any offence. According to him, even if all the allegations in Annexure A1 final report are accepted in toto, the same would not constitute the offences alleged against the petitioner. Since the prosecution has no case that the petitioner had any role in forging the consent letters, which are the substratum of the prosecution case. According to him, even if all the allegations in Annexure A1 final report are accepted in toto, the same would not constitute the offences alleged against the petitioner. Since the prosecution has no case that the petitioner had any role in forging the consent letters, which are the substratum of the prosecution case. It is pointed out that, in order to bring home an offence under section 13(1)(d) r/w 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 there must be allegation that the accused, abused his position as a public servant for the purpose of any valuable thing or any pecuniary advantage. In the instant case, no such allegation could be gathered as against the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is true that a shop room building of Smt.Karthyayani Amma Rajamma, who admittedly died on 30.08.1995, came into the possession of the 1st accused for running a textile shop room, where a forged consent letter dated 16.01.2007 executed by the deceased Karthyayani Amma Rajamma. Again the same was entrusted by the 1st accused to the 3rd accused for running a fruit stall and in this connection, another consent letter was forged in the name of Smt.Karthyayani Amma Rajamma on 01.08.2008. When a petition was filed before the Ombudsman for local self-government institutions, by CWs 5 and 8, the former Secretary and the former chairman of the Adoor Municipality, the entire file was initially produced before the Ombudsman on 23.09.2008. Thereafter, again on 29.04.2009, the same was produced, the Ombudsman noticed the consent letters initially in the file were removed. This is the substratum which the prosecution alleges that accused Nos. 1 and 2 jointly, as part of conspiracy hatched between them to screen the 1st accused from the penal consequence of creation of forged consent letters, removed the forged letters in the hand writing of the 1st accused and substituted the same in the handwriting of a third party. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, regarding those aspects, the petitioner is absolutely innocent and the petitioner never obtained any pecuniary gain; therefore, his case is liable to be quashed. 5. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor argued that, in this matter, Smt.Karthyayani Amma Rajamma, the owner of the building, died admittedly on 30.08.1995. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, regarding those aspects, the petitioner is absolutely innocent and the petitioner never obtained any pecuniary gain; therefore, his case is liable to be quashed. 5. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor argued that, in this matter, Smt.Karthyayani Amma Rajamma, the owner of the building, died admittedly on 30.08.1995. Thereafter, the 1st accused created a forged consent letter of Smt.Karthyayani Amma Rajamma on 16.01.2007 and produced the same before the Municipal Secretary, Adoor, to get license to run a textile business. Thereafter, when the 2nd accused joined as a secretary who held post from 22.11.2008 to 27.08.2009, obtained the file containing the above consent letters which was entrusted by the former secretary CW5 to CW4, the clerk concerned and later, produced the same before the Ombudsman initially with the earlier forged consent letters in the handwriting of the 1st accused and subsequently, the 1st accused removed the earlier forged letters which was in the handwriting of the 1st accused and substituted consent letters in the handwriting of a third party. When the 1st accused demanded the file, CW4 felt some doubt and he kept photocopies of the entire file, and it has been revealed during investigation that accused Nos. 1 and 2, as part of conspiracy, removed forged consent letters in the handwriting of the 1st accused to screen the 1st accused from criminal proceedings. 6. In this matter, as pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, the disputed shop room is in the name of Smt.Karthyayani Amma Rajamma, who died on 30-08-1995 and it is discernible from the statement filed by the Vigilance that after the death of Karthyayani Amma Rajamma a partition deed No:3168 was executed on 18-09-1995. Subsequently the ownership of the property was assigned in the name of his son, Sri.T.S.Anil Kumar S/o Thankappan Pillai, Anil Sadan, Thevally, Kollam. Subsequently the ownership of the property was assigned in the name of his son, Sri.T.S.Anil Kumar S/o Thankappan Pillai, Anil Sadan, Thevally, Kollam. Even though before 2007-2008, the original ownership of the shop room was transferred in the name of T.S. Anil Kumar, the 1st accused forged consent letters as that of the deceased Smt.Karthyayani Amma Rajamma and obtained licence to run textile business in his name in the year 2006-2007 and the fruit stall business in the year 2007-2008 and later, entrusted the same to the 3rd accused thereby without the knowledge and consent of T. S. Anil Kumar, the 1st accused derived income thereof illegally and the 2nd accused after replacing the original consent letters, as part of conspiracy made attempt to screen the 1st accused from the criminal prosecution. 7. As regards the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 2nd accused was found not guilty in that departmental enquiry, it is pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that merely because a person was exonerated in a departmental enquiry conducted against him, the same is not a ground to seek discharge. The Learned Public Prosecutor placed decision of this court reported in 2021 KHC 692, Rajesh Kumar T v. CBI, in support of this contention, though the same has no relevance when quashment prayers is being considered. The learned Public Prosecutor also placed statements of CWs 4, 5, 8, and 9, as well as CW1 – T. S. Anil Kumar, to justify the prosecution allegations, where the allegations as against the petitioner, along with other accused, are prima facie made out. 8. On perusal of the statement of CW4, it is revealed that before leaving Adoor Municipality during March 2009, the 2nd accused obtained No.H1 5242/2008 file. Soon he informed the same to the Junior Superintendent, Jose, and kept copies of the said file, and later, produced before the Vigilance. He further deposed that the 2nd accused obtained the file through CW5 Udayakumar, the Peon, and that he witnessed the entrustment of the file by Udayakumar to the 2nd accused. He also deposed that, at the time of the entrustment, the application and the consent letter of Smt.Karthyayani Amma Rajamma written in a stamp paper, bearing No. P 828149, were present in the file. He also deposed that, at the time of the entrustment, the application and the consent letter of Smt.Karthyayani Amma Rajamma written in a stamp paper, bearing No. P 828149, were present in the file. As of now, as per the records and the findings of the Ombudsman, which form part of the prosecution records, for the second time, when the file was produced before the Ombudsman the consent letters so submitted by the 1st accused in his own handwriting were found to have been removed, and consent letters in the handwriting of unknown persons were substituted. Thus, the question arises for consideration: is whether the 2nd accused is liable to be prosecuted along with the 1st accused for the offences alleged in the above contextual facts. 9. On perusal of the prosecution allegations, it is well discernible that the shop room, for which a license to run textile business was issued during 2006-2007 on the strength of forged consent letter dated 16.01.2007, along with a forged application produced by the first accused. Similarly, in the year 2007-2008, also license was obtained to run a fruit stall by the 3rd accused by using another forged consent letter and application. Thus, by using alleged forged consent letters, the 1st accused obtained illegal pecuniary gain. Thereafter, in an attempt to shield himself from the consequences of the offence committed, the 1st accused along with the 2nd accused, hatched conspiracy and pursuant to thereof he removed the consent letters and applications in the handwriting of the 1st accused and substituted them with that of the third person’s handwriting. All these overt acts were done when the file was in the custody of the 2nd accused, who obtained the same from CW4 through CW5. In such a case, the plea of absolute innocence canvassed by the petitioner could not be addressed at the pre-trial stage, since primary materials would indicate the fact that the 2nd accused was also involved in this crime as part of conspiracy hatched between the accused. Therefore, the quashment prayer, without permitting the prosecution to adduce evidence during trial could not succeed. 10. In the result, this petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. The interim order of stay in proceeding with the trial in this case stands vacated. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the special court for information and further steps.