ORDER : A. BADHARUDEEN, J. Crl.M.C. No.1244 of 2025 has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 [hereinafter referred as ‘ BNSS ’ for short] by the 3 rd accused in C.C. No.13/2023 on the files of the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode, arose out of Crime No.VC 18/2016/KKD of VACB, Kozhikode Unit, seeking quashment of Annexure.A1 Final Report and all further proceedings as against him, in the said case. 2. Crl.M.C. No.2859 of 2025 is at the instance of the 4 th accused in the same case, seeking quashment of all further proceedings as against him, in the said case. 3. Heard the respective counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused the prosecution records as well as the records produced along with these petitions. 4. Parties in these petitions shall be referred as ‘accused/petitioners’ and ‘prosecution’, hereafter. 5. The prosecution case is that, 1 st accused, who served as the secretary of Farook Grama Panchayat from 22.08.2011 to 03.07.2013 and the 2 nd accused, who held the same position from 30.07.2014 to 05.08.2015, and the 3 rd accused who was serving as the Assistant Engineer in the said Grama Panchayath from December, 2011 to October, 2012, along with the 4 th accused, who was the Managing Director of Irshad Charitable Society, have conspired together to build a nursing college without proper building permit and accused 1 and 3, without any public interest and without complying the legal procedures, violated the building rules and the 3 rd accused has recommended the construction of the building without inspecting and examining the width of the road required as per the rules. Further allegation is that, the 1 st accused without proper inspection and contrary to the order of this Court to give provisional building number, have provided a permanent building number and the 3 rd accused has also not collected the required building Tax and caused wrongful loss to the government and wrongful gain to the 4 th respondent. 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] as well as under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code . 6. 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] as well as under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code . 6. While canvasing quashment, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the 3 rd accused that, the 3 rd accused has been roped into this crime merely on the basis of the recommendation made by him, as could be seen from the report of the Building Inspector, form part of Annexure-A1, whereby he recommended construction as per the plan produced, after inspecting the plot with details of description and boundaries. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the 3 rd accused further that, even thereafter, during the time of investigation, a joint site inspection was conducted by Sri.K.V. Abdul Malik, Town Planner, Kozhikode and Sri.Vijith Vijayan, Assistant Town Planner Office of the Town Planner, Kozhikode, in the presence of the Dy.S.P. (Vigilance) on 16.02.2018 and as per the said report also what was found is that, the as built measurements of the building was taken at site were not in much variance from the submitted drawings and did not amount violation of building Rules. Further, the width of the road giving access to the plot was measured and was found to be only 2.7 meter (contrary to 5.5 meter as stated in the submitted drawings). 7. In this context, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the 3 rd accused that, mere dereliction of duty or laches in verifying the field by the 3rd accused, would not amount to criminal misconduct, to attract offences punishable under Section 13 (1)(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act, against him. The learned counsel for the 3 rd accused also relied on the documents placed by the learned counsel for the 4 th accused in the Crl.M.C. No.2859/2025, to substantiate the fact that, subsequently by intervention of this Court through various orders and as per the decision taken in the Adalath, occupancy certificate and building certificate were issued to the building, on finding that there was no violation in the construction. The learned counsel for the 3 rd accused placed decisions of this Court in Surendranath C. v. State of Kerala reported in [ 2024 (2) KHC 134 : 2024 KHC OnLine 33 : 2024 KER 3760] and Chandrababu S. v. State of Kerala reported in [2025 KHC OnLine 759 : 2025 KHC 759 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2382], to contend that, when the prosecution materials do not suggest any pecuniary loss to the Government or gain to the accused or any other persons, prima facie, none of the offences under Sections 13 (1)(c) or 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, would attract. Therefore, none of the offences alleged by the prosecution would attract against the 3 rd accused and the proceedings against him in the instant case are liable to be quashed. 8. Supplementing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the 3 rd accused, the learned counsel for the 4 th accused submitted that, when the 4 th accused approached this Court earlier, by filing W.P.(C) No.15333/2015, as per the interim order dated 26.05.2015, this Court directed the respondent Secretary, Feroke Grama Panchayat, to number the building provisionally and issue occupancy certificate within a period of one week. Thereafter, the writ petition itself was disposed of as per Annexure-A16 judgment dated 06.02.2024 and thereby, Ext.P9 therein was set aside, with direction to the petitioner therein/4th accused herein to file application for completion certificate before the Feroke Municipality (by the time, Panchayat transferred as Municipality), within three weeks from the date of receipt of judgment and the Secretary was directed to consider the same and pass appropriate order, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of application, in the light of the fact that provisional number was already issued to the petitioner therein. 9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the 4 th accused further that, despite the direction of this Court, no action taken by the Secretary. Accordingly, the 4 th accused moved before the Adalath at the instance of the Minister, Local Self Government and as per the order dated 06.09.2024, a direction was issued to the Secretary, Feroke Municipality, to issue occupancy certificate to the building, if it was found that the construction was not against Kerala Panchayat Building Rules , 2011. Accordingly, the 4 th accused moved before the Adalath at the instance of the Minister, Local Self Government and as per the order dated 06.09.2024, a direction was issued to the Secretary, Feroke Municipality, to issue occupancy certificate to the building, if it was found that the construction was not against Kerala Panchayat Building Rules , 2011. According to the learned counsel for the 4 th accused, Annexure-A17 is the order so passed in the Adalath and on the basis of Annexure-A17, Annexure-A18 occupancy certificate or use certificate was issued on 18.09.2024 and Annexure-A19 building certificate also was issued. 10. It is on this premise, the learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that, since the permanent number and occupancy certificate were issued in respect of building under construction, ruling out the possibility of any violation of the building Rules, merely on the ground that, the way shown therein was in shortage i.e. 2.7 meter instead of 5.5 meter, the offences alleged by the prosecution would not attract as against the petitioners. Therefore, these petitions are liable to succeed. 11. The learned Public Prosecutor zealously opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that there is clear violation of building Rules, at the instance of the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 in this case and the same could not be considered as mere laches, warranting disciplinary proceedings, leaving the complicity of the petitioners outside the ambit of misconduct, provided under Section 13 (1)(d) of the P.C. Act. Thus, the quashment prayer sought by the petitioners is liable to fail. 12. On perusal of the prosecution records, at par with the joint report, pointed out by the learned counsel for the 3 rd accused, in page No.257 of Crl.M.C. No.1244/2025, it has been observed as under: We have introduced ourselves to Smt R. Arul Malar, Principal, Red Crescent college of Nursing and sought permission to take measurements in the premises. Sri Hassan P.K watchman of the College accompanied the team during measurements. The as built measurements of the building was taken at site which are not in much variance from the submitted drawings and do not amount to violation of building rules. Further the width of road giving access to the plot was measured and was found to be only 2.7m (Contrary to 5.5m as stated in the submitted drawings). Sri. The as built measurements of the building was taken at site which are not in much variance from the submitted drawings and do not amount to violation of building rules. Further the width of road giving access to the plot was measured and was found to be only 2.7m (Contrary to 5.5m as stated in the submitted drawings). Sri. Ummer, PRO of Red Crescent Nursing College and Sri Rasheed A, Administrator of Red Crescent Nursing College visited the team during the inspection. Based on the scrutiny of the records in the VACB unit Kozhikode and the physical verification at site, the following irregularities were found. (1) Even though, it is mentioned in the drawings that the application is for the permit for construction of an Educational building other than professional Educational building, on physical verification it was found that a Nursing College is functioning from the premises. Due to this the permit Issued by the Panchayath becomes void since professional Educational institutions with more than 2000 m² of floor area requires layout approval from the Chief Town planner (The total area of the building under Consideration is 2759.05?) prior to the issue of building permit by the Panchayath Secretary. This violates Kerala Panchayat Building Rules -2011, rule 56(1)a. (2) The width of road giving access to the plot is found to be 2.7m. As per KPBR -2011, rule 37(1), a building under educational occupancy and having floor area of more than 300 m² in each floor requires access width of 5m. So, the building under consideration violates rule 37 (1). 13. That apart, in the same report, it has been observed further as under: (3) Even though, the completed building is allotted with door number, no building tax is seemed to be collected from the owner of the building. (4) Due to irregularities 1 and 2, the permit issued earlier is void and the building has to be treated as unauthorized. No proceedings are initiated against the un authorized construction under Kerala Municipality Act-1994. 14. Going by the prosecution allegations, at par with the joint report extracted herein above, as far as the plan submitted to get permit for construction of the building is concerned, the measurements of the building taken at site are not in much variance from the submitted measurements and do not amount to violation of building Rules. 14. Going by the prosecution allegations, at par with the joint report extracted herein above, as far as the plan submitted to get permit for construction of the building is concerned, the measurements of the building taken at site are not in much variance from the submitted measurements and do not amount to violation of building Rules. But, the irregularities pointed out as 1 to 3 as extracted hereinabove also were found in the inspection. The joint report would also suggest that, as the total area of the building under construction is 2759.05 m 2 , the same requires layout approval from the Chief Town Planner, since Professional Educational Institutions with more than 2000 m 2 of requires layout approval from the Chief Town Planner, prior to issue of building permit by the Panchayat Secretary. Further, the width of the road available is only 2.7 meter as against the requirement of 5.5 meter. Thus, the joint inspection found that, Rule 56(1)a and 37(1) of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules , 2011, have been violated. 15. In this context, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the 4 th accused that, the intention behind the construction is to do social service and imparting education to the society in general. According to the learned counsel for the 4 th accused, it was noticed during the start of construction and filing of application for permit that the width of the way available to the building is only 2.7 meter and accordingly, 5 cents of property abutting the way was purchased to provide pathway to the tune of 5.5 meter. But, unfortunately, the property so purchased happened to be included under the category of wetland in the data bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008 [hereinafter referred as ‘the Act, 2008’ for short] and request made for lifting the said property from the category of wetland in data bank is still pending, despite the specific direction issued by this Court. 16. According to the learned counsel for the 4 th accused, now, the educational institution has been running and by issuance of occupancy certificate and building certificate, the anomaly, if any, deemed to have been regularized in tune with the directions issued by this Court. 16. According to the learned counsel for the 4 th accused, now, the educational institution has been running and by issuance of occupancy certificate and building certificate, the anomaly, if any, deemed to have been regularized in tune with the directions issued by this Court. The learned counsel for the 4 th accused given emphasize to Annexure-A14 judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.32083/2015, whereby this Court directed to maintain status quo, with direction to the Local Level Monitoring Committee to find out whether the property purchased for widening the pathway could be classified as wetland as on the date of enactment of the Act 28 of 2008. Subsequently, as per Annexure-A15 judgment in W.P.(C) No.39869/2016, this Court considered the definition of paddy land and wetland with reference to Sections 2(xii) and 2(xvii) of the Act, 2008 and finally, Ext.P13 order therein, passed by the Local Level Monitoring Committee was quashed and the Revenue Divisional Officer was directed to reconsider the application filed by the petitioner therein/4th accused, in consideration of the reports filed by the Local Level Monitoring Committee. Anyhow, the property not so far removed from the status of wetland as per the data bank and a decision is yet to be taken by the Revenue Divisional Officer. 17. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, if at all, occupancy certificate and building certificate were issued, the same would not absolve the penal consequence against the accused and if the occupancy certificate and building certificate were issued in violation of the Building Rules, the persons behind issuance of the same are liable to be prosecuted, as per law. 18. Coming to the factual aspects involved, the 4 th accused constructed an educational institution building in 300.21 cents of land in Feroke Panchayat and started running a nursing college. When he faced difficulty in completing the construction of the building for various reasons, he periodically approached this Court and this Court passed orders, so as to address the grievance of the petitioner/4 th accused to get the construction of the building completed and rectified. It is brought to the notice of this Court that, as per the joint report submitted by the Investigation team, violation of Rules 56(1)(a) and 37(1) of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules , 2011, were noted. It is brought to the notice of this Court that, as per the joint report submitted by the Investigation team, violation of Rules 56(1)(a) and 37(1) of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules , 2011, were noted. Anyhow, by issuance of occupancy certificate and building certificate, after considering the variations in the measurements in the submitted plan and the measurement taken during site inspection, it could not be held at this stage that, the building was constructed in violation of any building Rules and there is bonafide attempt on the part of the 4th accused to provide pathway to the building, by purchasing 5 cents of property, after getting the same removed from the category of wetland in the data bank under the Act, 2008. 19. As of now, the building construction was ratified and completed, that too for running an educational institution to provide sufficient number of nursing staff to protect the health issues of the public at large. In such a case, there is no reason to proceed with the prosecution against the petitioners herein/accused Nos.3 and 4, in the facts and circumstances discussed herein above. Therefore, the case as against accused Nos.3 and 4 are liable to be quashed. 20. Holding so, these petitions stand allowed and all further proceedings pursuant to Final Report in Crime No.VC 18/2016/KKD of VACB, Kozhikode Unit, now pending as C.C. No.13/2023 on the files of the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode, stand quashed as against the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Special Court, forthwith, for information and further steps.