ORDER : A. BADHARUDEEN, J. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section528 of Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (` BNSS ’ for short) with prayer to quash Annexure 1 FIR and Annexure 5 final report in Crime No.6 of 2011, VACB Kannur, now pending as C.C.No.10/2017 on the files of Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (`PC Act’ for short), Kannur, Thalassery. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the relevant documents and the decisions placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 7 and under Sections 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, by the accused. The prosecution case is that the accused demanded Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as bribe for allowing one Sri K.M.Abdul Karim to remit Fishermen Welfare Fund contribution and recording his statement as on 21.10.2011, FIR was registered. Thereafter trap proceedings were arranged and the accused accepted the notes smeared with Phenolphthalein powder and returned Rs.500/- to the defacto complainant. On receipt of bribe he was arrested on 21.10.2011 and enlarged on bail on 27.10.2011. Though the Investigating Officer prepared final report alleging commission of the above offences by the accused and submitted before the Director of Vigilance and Anti- Corruption Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram, he ordered a detailed enquiry by the Vigilance Tribunal and the Government vide G.O(Ms)NO.10/2014/Vig. dated 20.05.2014 ordered to refer the case to the Vigilance Tribunal, Kozhikode, for a detailed enquiry and to submit a report to the Government. When refer report was filed before the Special Court, the Special Court was not inclined to accept the same and returned the same to the investigating officer for further investigation as per order dated 21.12.2015. Thereafter, on further investigation, Annexure 5 final report was filed alleging commission of the above offences, and now the matter is pending before the Special Judge, Thalassery, as C.C.No.10/2017. It is submitted further that, thereafter on 08.09.2017, the learned Special Judge as per a non speaking order dated 08.09.2017 (as can be seen from the order sheet produced as Annexure-7) released the accused on bail. 4. It is submitted further that, thereafter on 08.09.2017, the learned Special Judge as per a non speaking order dated 08.09.2017 (as can be seen from the order sheet produced as Annexure-7) released the accused on bail. 4. As per Annexure 5 final report, the allegation is as under: “The charge against the accused is that, accused while working as Fisheries Officer, Kerala Mathsya Thozhilali Kshemanidhi Board, Puthiyangadi, Kannur District on Deputation and as such being a public servant, abused his official position, committed criminal misconduct and by adopting corrupt and illegal means demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.1,000/- for himself from the complainant Sri.K.M.Abdul Karim, S/o.Ibrahimkutty, Madayi Amsam, Choottadu, Puthiyangadi on 14.10.2011 for accepting and remitting an amount of Rs.1,500/- towards contribution to Fisheries Welfare Fund and reiterated the said demand for bribe on 18.10.2011 and directed the said Abdul Karim to bring the amunt on 21.10.2011. In pursuance of the said demand accused accepted bribe money of Rs.1,000/- along with the contribution to Fishermen Welfare fund Rs.1,500/- from Sri.K.M.Abdul Karim at 13.20 hrs on 21.10.2011 from the Kerala Mathsya Thozhilali Kshemanidhi Board office, Puthiyangadi and returned Rs.500/- as a motive or reward for doing the official Act and also an unaccounted amount of Rs.2,302/- found in the possession of accused and thereby accused committed the offences punishable U/s 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.” 5. Going through the grounds urged, to unsustain Annexure 1 FIR and Annexure 5 final report, the main challenge raised is that the Investigating Officer failed to take note of the fact that the petitioner was legally authorised to receive the money from the defacto complainant for registering members to the Fishermen Welfare Fund. Therefore, there is no evidence to show that the petitioner had demanded and accepted any money from the defacto complainant as illegal gratification. That apart, the defacto complainant was already a member of the Fishermen Welfare Board even before the incident and hence there was no necessity for the petitioner to demand any amount as bribe, as contended by the prosecution. According to the petitioner, the defacto complainant entrusted 4 currency notes, viz., one was of Rs.1,000/- and the other 3 were of Rs.500/- notes, amounting to Rs.2,500/- and the recovery mahazar would show that out of the 4 currency notes, 2 currency notes of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/- each were recovered from the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the defacto complainant entrusted 4 currency notes, viz., one was of Rs.1,000/- and the other 3 were of Rs.500/- notes, amounting to Rs.2,500/- and the recovery mahazar would show that out of the 4 currency notes, 2 currency notes of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/- each were recovered from the petitioner. Further, the defacto complainant had handed over Rs.1,500/- and accordingly the contention of the petitioner is that he had only accepted Rs.1,500/-, viz., the contribution towards the Fishermen Welfare Board, from the defacto complainant and no amount given by the defacto complainant was accepted so as to fasten criminal culpability upon him. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed a decision of the Apex Court reported in [2024 KHC OnLine 6039 : 2024INSC 49 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 58 : 2024 KLT OnLine 1036 : AIR 2024 SC 801 : AIR OnLine 2024 SC 38 : 2024 CriLJ 1033], Mariam Fasihuddin v. State of Adugodi Police Station with reference to paragraphs 25, 26 and 27 and in paragraph 27, the Apex Court held as under: “27. The provision for submitting a supplementary report infers that fresh oral or documentary evidence should be obtained rather than reevaluating or reassessing the material already collected and considered by the investigating agency while submitting the initial police report, known as the charge sheet under S.173(2) Cr.P.C ( Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali and others , 2013 (5) SCC 762 , para.22). In the absence of any new evidence found to substantiate the conclusions drawn by the investigating officer in the supplementary report, a judicial Magistrate is not compelled to take cognizance, as such a report lacks investigative rigour and fails to satisfy the requisites of S.173(8) Cr.P.C. What becomes apparent from the facts on record of this case is that the investigating agency acted mechanically, in purported compliance with the Trial Magistrate’s order dated 24.06.2015.” 7. Apart from that, a decision of this Court reported in [ 2024 KHC 541 : 2024 KER 46015 : 2024 KLT OnLine 1802] , Johnson v. State of Kerala , also has been placed, where this Court considered the procedure to be adopted when a final report filed under Section 173 (2) of Cr.P.C and supplementary report filed thereafter under Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C and this Court held that, the legal position is not in dispute that when an initial report filed under Section 173 (2) of Cr.P.C and a supplementary report filed thereafter under Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C, the court would have to take a considered view of both reports, in accordance with law, so as to ensure whether there is ground for presuming that the persons named as accused had committed an offence. If the Court finds that cumulative effect of both reports would make offence/offences committed by the accused, prima facie, the court shall take cognizance of the offence/offences made out and proceed further. If the court finds when considering both reports in juxtaposition, no offence/offences made out prima facie against the accused, the court is bound to take a decision accordingly. 8. On perusal of the records it is evident that the petitioner was arrested on the allegation that he had demanded and accepted Rs.2,500/-, inclusive of Rs.1,000/-, as bribe on 21.10.2011. After investigation final report also was prepared and submitted before the Director of Vigilance and Anti- Corruption Bureau for approval. Meantime, the Director ordered a detailed enquiry by the Vigilance Tribunal and the Government by order dated 20.05.2014 ordered to refer the case to the Vigilance Tribunal, Kozhikode and to submit a report to the Government. But, the Special Court was not inclined to accept the said report. Accordingly, he returned the same for further investigation and the same resulted in Annexure A5 final report alleging commission of the above offences by the accused. 9. In the instant case, the findings of the investigating officer during initial investigation and further investigation is that the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act. But as directed by the Director, VACB, a detailed enquiry was ordered and a negative report was filed. The learned Special Judge did not accept the same and the same resulted in Annexure A5 final report. But as directed by the Director, VACB, a detailed enquiry was ordered and a negative report was filed. The learned Special Judge did not accept the same and the same resulted in Annexure A5 final report. Even though it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was authorised to receive money, the recovery of Rs.2,000/- from him on the allegation that he demanded and accepted Rs.1,000/- as bribe from the complainant is not sustainable, prima facie, the available materials would show that the said contention could not be entertained at the pre-trial stage and the same is a matter of evidence. It is well settled law that when the prosecution materials, prima facie, would show the allegation, quashment of the proceedings could not be considered. 10. Regarding consideration of the reports filed before the Special Judge in this case, no doubt, the Special court should consider the direction of this Court in Johnson (supra) to the extent the same would apply to the facts of this case. 11. In view of the above discussion, the quashment prayer is liable to fail and accordingly this Crl.M.C stands dismissed.