Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 2264 (KER)

Aji Krishnan K v. State Of Kerala

2025-08-22

A.BADHARUDEEN

body2025
ORDER : A. Badharudeen, J. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No. 4 of 2024 of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) Thiruvananthapuram have filed this anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor in detail.Perused the relevant documents and the report filed by the Investigating Officer. 3. This crime was registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(a) of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment Act 2018) ['PC (Amendment) Act’ for short hereafter] as well as under Sections 409 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC’ for short) by accused Nos. 1 to 3 after getting prior approval under Section 17A of the PC (Amendment) Act. The prosecution case is that High Range Rural Development Society ('HRDS India’ for short) is a charitable society registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act District Registrar, Idukki, and the project implementing agency of DDU-GKY and Yuvakerala projects which are the Central-State Governments sponsored schemes intended to provide skill development training courses for poor youth and works for the public interest. The 1st accused the Secretary, the 2nd accused an employee of HRDS India and the 3rd accused, an employee of the State Kudumbashree Mission, holding the official position of State Program Manager (Finance) and the first responsible officer to prevent the misuse of the public funds provided to the HRDS India hatched criminal conspiracy in between them and abused their official positions thereby misappropriated Government funds allocated by the State Kudumbashree Mission to HRDS India as the PIA (Project Implementing Agency) for the implementation of three Government projects, amounting to Rs.5,63,24,597/-. The specific allegation against the petitioners is that out of this amount the 1st accused misappropriated Rs.89,70,000/- (Rupees Eighty nine lakh and seventy thousand only), the 2nd accused misappropriated an amount of Rs.77,83,000/-. Both of them misappropriated the fund under the pretext of withdrawing salary for the period from March, 2018 to April, 2023. Furthermore, some employees of HRDS India , along with A1 and A2 collectively misappropriated Rs.3,74,56,200/- from the total fund of Rs.5,63,24,597/-, under the guise of salaries, despite the fund being specifically allocated for the implementation of giving skill development courses and placement assistance to poor youth of the society. Furthermore, some employees of HRDS India , along with A1 and A2 collectively misappropriated Rs.3,74,56,200/- from the total fund of Rs.5,63,24,597/-, under the guise of salaries, despite the fund being specifically allocated for the implementation of giving skill development courses and placement assistance to poor youth of the society. The 3rd accused, who has the responsibility to prevent this defalcation and report the same to the higher authorities, failed to take any action and instead assisted the 1st and 2nd accused , thereby causing huge financial loss to the Government. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 argued that drawing of salary by the 1st accused to the tune of Rs.89,70,000/- (Rupees Eighty nine lakh and seventy thousand only) and the 2nd accused to the tune of Rs.77,83,000/- from Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Grameen Kaushalya Yojana (‘DDU-GKY’, for short hereafter) from the total fund of the Scheme that would come to Rs.5,63,24,597/- (Rupees Five crore sixtythree lakh twenty four thousand five hundred and ninety seven only) is the allegation raised by the prosecution to assert that the petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 herein along with the 3rd accused hatched conspiracy and misappropriated the above said sum out of the scheme fund. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2, the 2nd accused was appointed as the State Head and Assistant Director DDU-GKY project with effect from 09.12.2017 offering salary of Rs.1 lakh per month by HRDS India the implementing agency for the Project. Similarly the 1st accused also was appointed as Project Director of the same offering salary of Rs.1,10000/- as per meeting held on 31.12.2017 of the Directorate of HRDS India. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 would submit that the fund comes to the tune of Rs.5,63,24,597/- (Rupees Five crore sixtythree lakh twenty four thousand five hundred and ninety seven only) was allotted for implementing the project inclusive of the salary and allowances of the officials who engaged in implementation of the scheme. That apart periodically on getting instalments of the fund, the progress of the project was informed to the Executive Director, the State Kudumbashree Mission and on satisfying the incurred expenses out of the first instalment, the second instalment was sanctioned. That apart periodically on getting instalments of the fund, the progress of the project was informed to the Executive Director, the State Kudumbashree Mission and on satisfying the incurred expenses out of the first instalment, the second instalment was sanctioned. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 in this case initially 25% of the amount was sanctioned and on finding that the first instalment was satisfactorily spent including the salary of the petitioners the second instalment was sanctioned. Similarly the whole amount was sanctioned by way of four instalments on satisfying the implementation of the project which would include the salary drawn by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 even though the project was intended to be completed within three years, the same could not be completed within three years due to covid 19 pandemic and seven years time taken to complete the same. During the extended period of time the salary of accused Nos. 1 and 2 was reduced to Rs.60.000/- per month. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 that there was no allegation that the petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 received salary apart from the salary drawn from the fund and drawing of salary from the fund by itself would not attract any of the offences alleged by the prosecution though recovery proceedings as per law can be initiated. However the petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 would not stand in the way of investigation and they are ready to co-operate with the investigation by subjecting themselves for interrogation and therefore arrest and custody would be avoided by granting anticipatory bail to them. 5. Opposing grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 the learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that Rs.5,63,24,597/- (Rupees Five crore sixtythree lakh twenty four thousand five hundred and ninety seven only) sanctioned by the Executive Director State Kudumbasree Mission under two projects of DDU-GKY Scheme and one project under the Yuvakerala Projects was entrusted to HRDS India for implementation as per the request submitted by the HRDS India. It is pointed out that the entire fund was meant for conducting skill development of 474 students participated in the project and the amount never meant for the purpose of giving salary to the petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 who are appointed by HRDS India, a voluntary organization meant to do free service. It is submitted that a voluntary organization and the staff appointed therein are not entitled to salary as of right. According to the learned Special Public Prosecutor salary for petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2, if any entitled by them, the same should have to be independently met by HRDS India and the fund allotted for the project could not be utilised for the said purpose. Since the major portion (60%) of the fund allotted was drawn by petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 towards their salary in fact the project was not properly implemented and thereby the petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 obtained undue pecuniary advantage and therefore the offences are well made out prima facie. Therefore grant of anticipatory bail would impede the investigation. 6. In the statement filed by the Inspector of Police Special Investigation Unit No.1 VACB, the genesis of the case and the expenses incurred including drawing of salary by the 1st and 2nd accused have been illustrated while asserting that more than 60% of the government fund allotted to HRDS India for conducting skill development programmes was misappropriated by accused Nos. 1 and 2 and some other employees of HRDS India under the head salary and the same is the misuse of the public funds by cheating the innocent poor youth community of the State. Thus the offences are made out prima facie and in such a case, for investigation, arrest and custodial interrogation of the petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 are necessary. 7. It is submitted that Aji Krishnan, petitioner and first accused who is the secretary of HRDS India took Rs.89,70000/- (Rs. Eighty nine lakh and seventy thousand only) from the three Government Projects in the guise of salary as Project Director Similarly petitioner and second accused Sri. Praise Pious, an employee of HRDS India got Rs.77,83,000/- (Seventy-seven Lakh and eighty-three thousand rupees) from the Government fund in the guise of salary as project head. Eighty nine lakh and seventy thousand only) from the three Government Projects in the guise of salary as Project Director Similarly petitioner and second accused Sri. Praise Pious, an employee of HRDS India got Rs.77,83,000/- (Seventy-seven Lakh and eighty-three thousand rupees) from the Government fund in the guise of salary as project head. During the investigation it was found that State Kudumbashree Mission had given Rs.5,63,24,597/- (Five crore sixty three lakh twenty four the thousand five hundred and ninety seven Rupees) to HRDS the PIA for conducting three projects of Skill development course and placement assistance to poor youth in the State. The accused A1, A2 and some associates of A1 had collectively taken a total amount of Rs3,74,56,200/- from the Government grant allotted for implementing the said Projects. 8. As a result of the criminal conspiracy with the petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 and the 3rd accused one Sreeraj.G who was the State Programme manager of DDU-GKY and Yuvakeralam Projects of State Kudumbashree Mission, who had the responsibility to prevent this defalcation, did not take any steps to prevent misappropriation of Government fund by other accused Nos.1 and 2. 9. It is quite clear that more than 60% of Government funds allotted to HRDS India for conducting skill development programs for poor Youth was misappropriated by A1 and A2 and some other employees of HRDS India. If more than 60% of the fund was utilized for salary by the accused persons and implementation of the Government project practically an absolute failure. The criminal act of the accused persons resulted not only in misusing the public fund, but they also cheated the innocent poor youth community of the State. 10. It is submitted that there are materials which would prima facie show or otherwise suggest that huge economic abuse by way of misappropriation in the pretext of drawing salary, was committed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 herein and thereby huge loss has been sustained to the state exchequer. It is submitted that economic offences by their very nature stand on a different footing than other offences and have wider ramifications. They constitute a class apart. Economic offences affect the economy of the country as a whole and pose a serious threat to the financial security of the country. If such offences are viewed lightly, the confidence and trust of the public will be shaken. 11. They constitute a class apart. Economic offences affect the economy of the country as a whole and pose a serious threat to the financial security of the country. If such offences are viewed lightly, the confidence and trust of the public will be shaken. 11. It is submitted that the investigation is in the preliminary stage. A lot of students whose names are included in the training program are questioned. More documents in connection with this case need to be verified. The role of other people involved in this case needs to be investigated. Granting pre-arrest bail at the preliminary stage of investigation would hamper the investigation. The petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 have influence in the society and there is every likelihood of influencing the witnesses/persons who are having acquainted with the facts of the case. 12. The materials collected against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 reveal serious misappropriation of government funds by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2. Considering the seriousness of the allegation and materials that have come out during the investigation till now, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 are not entitled to pre-arrest bail. Thus the pre- arrest bail application filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 to be dismissed in the interest of justice. 13. Having addressed the rival contentions, it could be seen that the Executive Director of State Kudumbashree Mission granted permission to conduct the skill development course to HRDS India as the project implementing agency for a total of 474 students and allotted Rs. 5,63,24,597/- (Rupees Five crore sixty-three lakh twenty-four thousand five hundred ninety-seven only). Though the project was intended to be implemented within three years the same could not be completed within the said period and the same got extended for seven years due to covid - 19 pandemic. It is discernible from the prosecution materials that out of the total fund the 1st accused drew salary to the tune of Rs.89,70,000/- and the 2nd accused drew salary of Rs.77,83,000/- . That apart the other staffers also given salary from the said funding and as per the prosecution allegation more than 60% of the total amount allotted were utilised for giving salary to the 1st accused and 2nd accused and some other employees of HRDS India and thus practically the agency failed to implement the project as intended to the benefit of the poor students. It is true that the appointment of accused Nos. 1 and 2 were made by HRDS India and not by the Government. So it is the primary duty of the HRDS India to provide salary for petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 . Going by the records it could not be found prima facie that the fund for the scheme was intended for the salary for the persons appointed by HRDS India including the petitioners and for which no approval obtained from the Government. But HRDS India while implementing the scheme drawn salary towards the accused Nos.1 and 2 for an amount of Rs.89,70,000/- and Rs.77,83,000/- and according to the the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 same was meant exclusively for the project including salary drawn by the petitioners. But as per the prosecution allegations and as pointed out by the learned Special Public Prosecutor the fund was never intended for paying salary to the petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2. 14. On scrutiny of the prosecution records it is discernible that the total fund allotted under the DDU-GKY Scheme was Rs.5,63,24,597/- (Rupees Five crore sixtythree lakh twenty four thousand five hundred and ninety seven only). According to the prosecution, out of the said amount 60% of the fund was utilised for giving salary to the employees of HRDS India particularly a total sum of Rs.1,67,53,000/- were drawn by petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 towards their salary. 15. Regarding the appointment letters produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 a serious anomaly could be noticed as pointed out by the learned Special Public Prosecutor. That is Sri. Aji Krishnan who is the 1st accused was appointed on 31.12.2017 by the HRDS India officials. But surprisingly the resolution of appointment of the 2nd accused was also signed by Sri.Aji Krishnan on 09.12.2017. On close scrutiny of the orders it could be gathered that Mr.Aji Krishnan signed in both orders as the founder Secretary of the HRDS India and Aji Krishnan who signed in both orders is none other than the 1st accused. Thus the 1st accused appointed himself along with other officers of HRDS India, I leave this anomaly to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. Therefore the authenticity of the appointment orders also is in doubt. Thus the 1st accused appointed himself along with other officers of HRDS India, I leave this anomaly to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. Therefore the authenticity of the appointment orders also is in doubt. Therefore it could be held that the allegation of the prosecution as to misappropriation to the tune of Rs.1,67,53,000/- (Rupees One Crore Sixty-Seven Lakh Fifty-Three Thousand Only) together by the 1st and 2nd accused is made out prima facie. Whether the government is bound to give salary for the employees of HRDS India from the fund meant for the project is a vital question and according to the learned Special Public Prosecutor the fund was never intended for the same. However it appears that salary had been drawn from the fund if the same is not permissible the prosecution case would require effective investigation to penalise the culprits. However, having noticed the factual matrix of the case in the context of discussion made hereinabove, I am of the view that by directing the petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 to subject themselves for interrogation for a period of five days they can be enlarged on bail by imposing conditions. 16. In the result this anticipatory bail application stands allowed and the petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail on following directions. 1. The petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 shall surrender before the Investigating Officer, within a period of seven days from today. On such surrender, the Investigating Officer can interrogate the petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 for a period of five days within a period of ten days from the date of surrender starting from 10.00 a.m. to 03.00 p. m. In the event of their arrest, the Investigating Officer shall produce the petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 before the Jurisdictional Court on the date of arrest itself. 2. On such production, Jurisdictional Court shall release the petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 on bail, on executing bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) each, by themselves and by two sureties, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Court 3. The petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 shall co-operate with investigation and shall be made available for interrogation and for the purpose of investigation, as and when the Investigating Officer directs so. 4. The petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2, shall not, intimidate the witnesses or interfere with the investigation in any manner. 5. The petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 shall co-operate with investigation and shall be made available for interrogation and for the purpose of investigation, as and when the Investigating Officer directs so. 4. The petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2, shall not, intimidate the witnesses or interfere with the investigation in any manner. 5. The petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 shall not commit any offence during currency of this bail and any such involvement alone is a reason to cancel the bail hereby granted. 6. If any reluctance shown by the petitioners to cooperate with the investigation, the Investigating Officer is free to approach the court for appropriate directions including cancellation of bail hereby granted.