ORDER : 1. This criminal revision petition has been filed under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [hereinafter referred as ' BNSS ' for short] by the 6 th accused in C.C. No.3/2020 on the of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, assailing the order dated 09.02.2024 in Crl.M.P. No.147/2024 in the above case, whereby the discharge plea at the instance of the 6 th accused was negatived by the Special Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused the order impugned and relevant documents form part of the prosecution records placed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. 3. Parties in this criminal revision petition shall be referred as ‘accused No.6/revision petitioner’ and ‘prosecution’, hereafter. 4. In this matter, the prosecution case is that, the 6 th accused was the owner of a building by name 'Samrat Hotel' with door No.TC 28/1830 in survey No.709 of Vanchiyoor Village. Accused Nos. 1 to 5 were the officials of Thiruvananthapuram Corporation. Accused No.7 was the Architect engaged by the 6 th accused. ‘Samrat Hotel’ building was a two storied one. This locality was proposed to be included in the heritage zone in the Fort area. Construction of new commercial buildings were not permitted in the heritage zone. Accused Nos.1 to 5 having fully aware of this fact, entered into a conspiracy with the 6 th accused, pursuant to which the 6 th accused made an application for granting permit for making internal renovations to his building. Permit was not required for this work in view of Rule 10 (ix) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999. Officials of Corporation granted a permit an Appendix-C under Rule 11 (3) permitting the internal renovation. The 6 th accused, on the pretext of internal renovation, demolished the entire building and constructed a four storied building in violation of the Rules. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 13 (1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred as ‘P.C. Act’ for short] and under Section 120B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , by the accused. 5. Before addressing the illegality, if any, in the order impugned, it is necessary to refer the events before filing of discharge petition. 5. Before addressing the illegality, if any, in the order impugned, it is necessary to refer the events before filing of discharge petition. Earlier, the same petitioner/accused No.6 filed Crl.M.C. No.330/2021 before this Court, seeking quashment of the entire proceedings as against him. As per Annexure-2 order dated 16.01.2024, this Court disallowed the petition, holding that the proceedings against the 6 th accused/petitioner could not be quashed. In paragraph No.17 of Annexure-2 order, this Court observed as under: 17. In the present case, the materials placed before the Court would disclose grave suspicion against the petitioner, and this Court feels that the trial Court is fully justified in proceeding against the petitioner. In the light of the discussion made above, I am of the view that this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. However, I clarify that dehors these observations, the trial Court is absolutely free to analyse, appreciate, evaluate and arrive at a proper conclusion based on the evidence and materials placed by the prosecution as well as the defence during the trial. The trial court shall complete the trial and dispose of the case within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. Challenging Annexure-2 order, the 6 th accused/petitioner approached the Hon’ble Apex Court by preferring S.L.P. (Crl) No.1694/2024. Annexure-5 is the judgment rendered by the Apex Court on 15.07.2025. In the said judgment, after elaborately considering the submissions made by the appellant therein (the revision petitioner herein) as well as the respondents, the Apex Court made discussion and conclusion in paragraph Nos.11 to 16 of the judgment. The same read as under: 11. We have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned order and the material placed on record. 12. It was not disputed and is also evident from the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999, that there is no requirement whatsoever for seeking permission to make alterations, renovations, or internal changes in an existing building. Despite that, the appellant acted in conspiracy with officials of the Municipal Corporation and procured such permission, which was nothing but a precursor to the fraudulent design of raising construction of a commercial structure in a prohibited zone under the garb of the renovation permission. 13. Despite that, the appellant acted in conspiracy with officials of the Municipal Corporation and procured such permission, which was nothing but a precursor to the fraudulent design of raising construction of a commercial structure in a prohibited zone under the garb of the renovation permission. 13. Clearly thus, from the very beginning, the appellant acted in conspiracy with the Municipal Corporation officials by giving a facade of legitimacy to his fraudulent actions and to establish a preemptive defence in case the illegal acts were exposed. 14. After the complaint was registered against the appellant and other officials, the Vigilance Department was informed, and a stop memo dated 27 th November, 2006 was issued to the appellant, prohibiting any further construction activity. In sheer defiance of the stop memo, a four-storeyed commercial building was constructed. Furthermore, the appellant attempted to legitimise his fraudulent criminal actions by seeking an order for the regularisation of the patently illegal construction. 15. From the above-stated sequence of events, it is evident that the appellant and the officials of the Municipal Corporation were acting hands in glove right from the time of granting permission to renovate the pre-existing building. The officials of the Municipal Corporation deliberately turned a blind eye to the fact that the appellant had commenced construction of a commercial structure by misusing the permit granted for making renovations and/or internal changes. Moreover, they even entertained the fraudulent application filed by the appellant seeking the regularisation of the patently illegal structure. Indisputably, the construction of a commercial structure was not permissible as it fell within a prohibited zone. Hence, the application for regularisation could not have been entertained. Inspite thereof, the conniving officials raised a demand for regularisation presumably to give legitimacy to the conspiratorial design. Thus, the necessary ingredients of the offences alleged are clearly established from the allegations set out in the prosecution’s case. 16. The trial Court has already rejected the application filed by the appellant under Section 239 of the CrPC and has directed framing of charges against him and the officials of the Corporation who were charge-sheeted along with the appellant with the aid of Section 120B of the IPC. These officials have not challenged the criminal proceedings, which is a tacit acknowledgment of the seriousness and prima facie validity of the allegations. These officials have not challenged the criminal proceedings, which is a tacit acknowledgment of the seriousness and prima facie validity of the allegations. Needless to say, that the case of the architect, whose prosecution was quashed by the High Court, stands on an entirely different footing. He was merely discharging his professional obligations while preparing the architectural design for the building, without any active involvement in the alleged conspiracy or the execution of the illegal construction. There is no material on record to suggest his prior knowledge or participation in the criminal intent shared by the appellant and the Corporation officials. Hence, the appellant cannot claim parity with the architect, i.e., accused No. 7 in the chargesheet, and any reliance placed on the High Court’s order quashing proceedings against the architect is wholly misplaced. 7. Thereafter, in paragraph Nos. 17 to 19, the Apex Court directed, as under: 17. We direct that the concerned authorities shall be under an obligation to take suitable action against the illegal construction raised by the appellant, uninfluenced by any extraneous circumstances. 18. It is our firm opinion that the impugned order dated 16 th January, 2024, passed by the High Court of Kerala in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 330 of 2021, does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever so as to warrant interference by this Court. Hence, the present appeal fails and is being dismissed as being devoid of merit. 19. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. 8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for accused No.6/revision petitioner that, after dismissal of the quashment petition as per Annexure-2 order itself (order in Crl.M.C. No.330/2021), accused No.6/revision petitioner filed a petition to discharge him, though he also filed an appeal, which led to Annexure-5 judgment. According to the learned counsel, going by the impugned order passed, the Special Court mainly relied on the observation of this Court made in paragraph No.9 as the plank to dismiss the discharge petition, without considering the grievance of the 6 th accused/revision petitioner, even though, this Court in Crl.M.C. No.330/2021 ordered that the trial court is free to analyze the prosecution records to consider discharge. On perusal of the order passed by this Court in Crl.M.C. No.330/2021, this submission appears to be not correct. This Court did not observe anything regarding filing of discharge petition or its consideration. On perusal of the order passed by this Court in Crl.M.C. No.330/2021, this submission appears to be not correct. This Court did not observe anything regarding filing of discharge petition or its consideration. What this Court observed are matters of consideration during trial. In paragraph No.17 of the order, the observation of this court is that, in the present case, the materials placed before the Court would disclose grave suspicion against the petitioner, and this Court feels that the trial Court is fully justified in proceeding against the petitioner. In the light of the discussion made above, I am of the view that this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. However, I clarify that dehors these observations, the trial Court is absolutely free to analyse, appreciate, evaluate and arrive at a proper conclusion based on the evidence and materials placed by the prosecution as well as the defence during the trial. The trial court shall complete the trial and dispose of the case within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since the order of this Court is self speaking, no further discussion in this regard is necessary, as this Court stated nothing regarding discharge plea or the matters to be considered therein. 9. According to the learned counsel for accused No.6/revision petitioner, dismissal of a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. would not efface the right of the accused to file a discharge petition and it is submitted that, the grounds for quashing a criminal proceedings and the reasons for allowing or disallowing an application for discharge preferred by the accused, are completely different. The grounds falling for consideration under the two jurisdiction are also completely different. In this connection, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner placed decision of the Apex Court reported in Harish Dahiya alias Harish and Another v. State of Punjab and Others , (2019) 18 SCC 69 where the Apex Court considered dismissal of a discharge petition relying on the observation made by the High Court in a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and set aside the order, while holding as submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. 10. 10. The learned counsel also placed decision of the Apex Court reported in Pushpendra Kumar Sinha v. State of Jharkhand , 2022 KHC OnLine 6839 : 2022 KHC 6839 : 2022 (4) KLT OnLine 1067 referring to paragraph Nos. 17 and 18, highlighting the essentials to be considered while considering the plea of discharge. In paragraph Nos.17 and 18 the Apex court held as under: 17. It is also worthwhile to mention that during the investigation, no incriminating material or money was seized from the house of the Appellant. Further, it is not a case where allegations of illegal gratification or disproportionate assets have been successfully found by prosecution against the Appellant. On the contrary, when the Income Tax Department had assessed the block income tax return for seven years, the Department recorded a refund Rs.8843 to the Appellant after detailed scrutiny of the records. 18. It is a well settled law that at the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing of charge the Court must apply it's judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible. Indeed, the Court has limited scope of enquiry and has to see whether any prima-facie case against the accused is made out or not. At the same time, the Court is also not expected to mirror the prosecution story, but to consider the broad probabilities of the case, weight of prima- facie evidence, documents produced and any basic infirmities etc. In this regard the judgment of Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal , 1979 (3) SCC 4 can be profitably referred for ready reference. Having due regard to the documents placed before us and in the light of the submissions and discussion made above, we are of the considered view that sufficient grounds casting a grave suspicion on the Appellant, do not exist. It is observed that the ingredients of alleged offences cannot be prima-facie established against the Appellant as neither had he been entrusted with funds of JSEB nor he had fraudulently or dishonestly deceived senior officials of the JSEB to cause any benefit to RPCL or any wrongful loss to JSEB and no evidence of illegal gratification or disproportionate assets has been found against the Appellant. 11. 11. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/6 th accused, as per the allegation of the prosecution, the 6 th accused constructed the disputed building, without permit during the period between 15.03.2006 to 27.11.2006 and according to him, the entire allegation stems on the premise that, the construction was against G.O.(Ms.) No.144/07/LSGD dated 31.05.2007, whereby the property where the disputed building is constructed is included in the restricted zone under the General Town Planning Scheme for Thiruvananthapuram. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, since the scheme itself was implemented during 2007, if at all, a construction was made even without obtaining permit, there was no prohibition or restriction to construct, treating the property as one within the restricted zone under the General Town Planning Scheme for Thiruvananthapuram. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner pointed out issuance of stop memo by the Municipality and the challenge thereof also. As per Annexure-10, the detailed report, which form part of the prosecution records, it was endorsed that, since Annexure-11 came into force with effect from 31.05.2007, the zoning regulations as per Annexure-11 would not apply to the revision petitioner’s property. 12. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that, in paragraph No.9 of Annexure-2 order, this Court considered this contention and finally made observations as 1 to 5 and in observation No.5 this Court stated that, “the petitioner and other accused were also well aware of the fact that the building was within the restricted zone under the General Town Planning Scheme for Trivandrum”. It is pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor further that, even before Annexure-11, as on 23.12.2006, draft verification scheme imposing zonal regulation was issued as per G.O.(Ms) No.293/06/LSGD dated 23.12.2006. It is also pointed out that during 2006 itself, there was proposal to include the locality where the disputed building situated in prohibited area and as such no building construction permitted in the property of the revision petitioner/6 th accused, during the period between 15.03.2006 to 27.11.2006. 13. Going by the impugned order, the Special Court addressed the contention raised by the revision petitioner before the Special Court, while seeking discharge in paragraph No.3. The same read as under: 3. 13. Going by the impugned order, the Special Court addressed the contention raised by the revision petitioner before the Special Court, while seeking discharge in paragraph No.3. The same read as under: 3. In this petition, petitioner contended the following: After obtaining permit for internal renovation, when the work was going on there was heavy rain and due to that the whole structure collapsed. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to construct a new building. This fact has been stated by some of the witnesses of the prosecution. Under Rule 10 (x) permit is not needed for changing location of the building within the compound. Rule 10 only provides for submission of completion plan after the construction of the building. The petitioner submitted the completion plan and the Corporation has directed him to pay regularization fee. The technical committee had approved the completion plan and this is clear from the statement of CW22. The regularization application filed by the petitioner is still pending. Therefore this is only a case of alleged violation of Kerala Municipality Building Rules and is only a civil dispute. Thus he prays that he may be discharged. 14. It is true that, while passing the impugned order, the learned Special Judge extracted the observation of this Court in paragraph No.9. In paragraph Nos.8 to 10, the learned Special Judge stated reasons for disallowing the discharge petition. Going by the contentions taken before the Special Court as extracted herein above, the revision petitioner never raised a contention before the Special Court to the effect that, in view of Annexure-11, construction of the disputed building is no way restrained based on the zonal restriction, though the same was constructed without a valid permit. It is most pertinent to note that, either in Crl.M.C. No.330/2021 or in S.L.P. (Crl) No.1694/2024 before the Hon’ble Apex Court, this contention was not raised. The submissions made by the revision petitioner before the Apex Court are sated in paragraph Nos.5 and 6 of Annexure-5 judgment. The same read as under: 5. Shri R. Basant, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, vehemently and fervently submitted that the prosecution case, as set out in the chargesheet, does not disclose the necessary ingredients of the offences alleged against the appellant. He fervently contended that since the Municipal Corporation has already decided to compound the disputed construction, no element of criminality remains in the alleged infraction/deviation. He fervently contended that since the Municipal Corporation has already decided to compound the disputed construction, no element of criminality remains in the alleged infraction/deviation. He further submitted that the original building collapsed due to heavy rainfall, and that the appellant merely rebuilt the old structure. As per Mr. Basant, there was no violation of the Rules in raising the new construction, more so, when the application for regularisation has been accepted. 6. Shri Basant, therefore, urged that the appeal is fit to be accepted and the impugned order passed by the High Court, along with all the proceedings sought to be taken against the appellant, deserve to be quashed. 15. In the instant case, the allegation of the prosecution specifically is that, when the locality, where the Samrat Hotel building is situated was proposed to be included in the heritage zone in the Fort area itself, there was prohibition to make constructions therein. Accused Nos.1 to 5, having fully ware of this restriction, entered into conspiracy with the 6 th accused/revision petitioner, pursuant to which the 6 th accused made an application for granting permit for making internal renovation to the building, for which no permit was required, in view of Rule 10(ix) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999. Thus, it appears that, accused Nos.1 to 5 acted on the application put by the 6 th accused/revision petitioner to make internal modifications and granted permit to the same, in violation of the Rules, in connivance with the 6 th accused, to facilitate construction of a four storeyed building after demolishing the existing two storeyed building. So, starting from grant of permit for renovation works onwards the meeting of minds between the accused, to hatch conspiracy to make illegal constructions in the restricted area could be seen. It is true that, the proposal to include the area, where the Samrat Hotel building was constructed was implemented during 2007, the draft verification scheme imposing zonal regulation was issued as early on 23.12.2006, though the notification as per Annexure-11 was issued only on 31.05.2007. It is true that, the proposal to include the area, where the Samrat Hotel building was constructed was implemented during 2007, the draft verification scheme imposing zonal regulation was issued as early on 23.12.2006, though the notification as per Annexure-11 was issued only on 31.05.2007. In fact, the Apex Court considered these aspects while delivering Annexure-5 judgment and in paragraph No.13, the observation of the Apex Court is to the effect that, clearly thus, from the very beginning, the appellant acted in conspiracy with the Municipal Corporation officials by giving a facade of legitimacy to his fraudulent actions and to establish a preemptive defence in case the illegal acts were exposed. In paragraph No.14, the observation of the Apex court is to the effect that, after the complaint was registered against the appellant and other officials, the Vigilance Department was informed, and a stop memo dated 27 th November, 2006 was issued to the appellant, prohibiting any further construction activity. In sheer defiance of the stop memo, a four-storeyed commercial building was constructed. Furthermore, the appellant attempted to legitimise his fraudulent criminal actions by seeking an order for the regularisation of the patently illegal construction. 16. Similarly, in paragraph Nos.15 and 16, after addressing the sequence of events, the Apex Court held that the officials of the Municipal Corporation entertained the fraudulent application filed by the 6th accused/revision petitioner seeking the regularisation of the patently illegal structure in a property, where construction of a commercial structure was not permissible as it fell within the prohibited zone. Therefore, the application could not have been entertained by the officials of the Municipality. Finally, the Apex Court observed that “thus the necessary ingredients of the offences alleged are clearly established from the allegations set out in the prosecution’s case”. The Apex Court also considered dismissal of discharge petition filed by the 6 th accused/revision petitioner with direction to frame charge. 17. Having considered the facts of the case, the reasons stated by the learned Special Judge to dismiss discharge petition is only to be justified. Thus, this revision petition fails. Most importantly, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Annexure-5 judgment, which is binding on this Court, observed that, thus the necessary ingredients of the offences alleged are clearly established from the allegations set out in the prosecution’s case . Thus, this revision petition fails. Most importantly, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Annexure-5 judgment, which is binding on this Court, observed that, thus the necessary ingredients of the offences alleged are clearly established from the allegations set out in the prosecution’s case . That apart, if at all, Annexure-11 came into force with effect from 31.05.2007, the draft verification scheme imposing zonal regulation was issued as early as on 23.12.2006, restricting constructions in the area, where the disputed building is situated. The Vigilance, after registration of the case, issued stop memo to the 6 th accused/revision petitioner on 27.11.2006, pointing out the zonal restrictions. But, the 6 th accused ignored the stop memo and completed the construction, as already observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph No.14 of Annexure-5 judgment. Thus, the contention raised by the 6 th accused/revision petitioner that, at the time of construction there was no zonal regulation in the area, where the disputed building is situated, could not be entertained, at the pre-trial stage, where the prosecution case specifically is that, before Annexure-11 itself the locality was proposed and practically included in the heritage zone, restricting construction of commercial building. Regarding this contention also, the genesis of the case would show that the same cannot be addressed at the pre-trial stage, as the same is a matter of evidence. In such a case, interference in the impugned order sought for by the 6 th accused/revision petitioner could not succeed as the prosecution materials make a prima facie case, warranting trial of the accused, after framing charge. In view of the above discussion, this petition deserves dismissal. 18. In the result, this petition stands dismissed. Interim order in this matter stands vacated. It is specifically ordered that, the observations made in this order are for the purpose of considering challenge against the impugned order and the same have no binding effect during the trial and the Special Court shall decide the case on merits, after adducing evidence. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Special Court, forthwith, for information and further steps.