ORDER : A. BADHARUDEEN, J. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023, by the 2 nd accused in C.C.No.21/2010 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode, seeking the following prayer: “Quash Annexure :A1 Final Report and further proceedings thereon in C.C.No.21/2010 Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode.” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the records available. 3. Here, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 13 (1)(d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PC Act’ for short) as well as under Sections 465, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for short) by the accused. The prosecution case, as could be seen from Annexure A1 final report, reads as under: “The Charge against (1) Sri KP. Vasu, Tahsildar (Retired) Land Tribunal, Kozhikode (s/o Korappan, 65/08 Vrindavanem House, Sasthri Nagar Housing Colony Eranhipalam) (2) Sri A. Aboobacker, Special Revenue Inspector and Land Tribunal, Kozhikode (s/o, Sri Manned Ambanoor House, P.O. Mayanad, Near Mayanad. UP School) (3)P.K. Moideenkoya, s/o Ummer, Age 67/08 Puthiyakovilakan Paramba, NO. 17/2249, M.M. Ali Road Kasaba, Kozhikode and (4) Sri Ummer Farooq.M. s/o. Moideenkoya, Age 43/08, "Zabeel" House, Keerthi Nagar, Near Kanakalaya Bank, Kozhikode is that Sri K.P. Vasu, Tahsildar, Land Tribunal, Kozhikode (Al) and Sri A Aboobacker, Special Revenue Inspector, Land Tribunal, Kozhikode (A2) in their official capacities as public servants, during the year 1997-98: abused their official position and actively connived with Sri P.K. Moideenkoya (A3) and his son Sri Ummer Farooq. M (A4) and committed criminal conspiracy and A1 Sri.K.P. Vasu granted pattayam to sri P.K Moideenkoya (A3) on 13-05-1998 on the basis of the report of Sri A Aboobacker, Special Revenue Inspector, Land Tribunal, Kozhikode (2) and with the support of a forged sketch got prepared by a private surveyor as directed by Sri.Ummer Farooq, M. (A4) in favour of 17.70 cents of land in R.S. No. 258/1 in Kasaba Village, instead of 16.60 cents, without complying the mandatory provision under K.L.R Act for the pecuniary advantage of Sri P.K. Moideenkoya (A3) and his son Sri, Ummer Farooq.M. (A4) and that the above act committed by the accused persons amounts to offences punishable under sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of PC Act 1988 and sections 465, 471, 120 B IPC and hence, the charge. The accused persons are liable to be tried for the offences shown above before the Hon’ble Court which has jurisdiction and competent to try the same”. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner/2 nd accused that the 2 nd accused has been roped into this case on the allegation that he had inspected the disputed property, for which rival claims have been raised by two siblings, and prepared a sketch. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the sketch, which led to implicate him as an accused in this case, was generated subsequent to the first sketch prepared by the 2 nd accused, showing the extent of property as 16.60 cents as on 24.03.1998. When the aggrieved party raised contention before the Land Tribunal that he was in possession of 17.9 cents of property instead of 16.60 cents, the 2 nd accused, in obedience to the direction of the Land Tribunal, visited the spot and prepared a sketch for 17.9 cents which alleged to be in possession of the petitioner in S.M.C.No.91/98. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when an order was passed in S.M.C.No.91/98 by the Land Tribunal, Kozhikode, on 13.05.1998, based on the sketch showing 17.9 cents of property, which was challenged by the other party by filing A.A.No.103/1999 before the Land Tribunal Appellate authority, Kannur, as per order dated 27.03.2008, the said order was set aside and the matter was remanded back for fresh consideration. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is innocent, and merely because he prepared a sketch as directed by the Land Tribunal, he could not be penalised and a decision based on the sketch has to be taken by the Land Tribunal in the S. M. proceedings which is remanded back and now pending before the Land Tribunal. It is further pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that now the civil disputes between the brothers also have been settled. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor produced copy of the order in A.A.No.103/1999, which would suggest that, as per order dated 27.03.2008, the order passed in S.M.C.No. 91/98 dated 13.05.1998, based on the sketch showing 17.9 cents prepared by the petitioner herein was set aside. Copy of a letter dated 15.10.2025, issued by the Special Tahsildar (LR), Kozhikode to the Deputy Superintendent of VACB, Kozhikode, has been placed by the learned Public Prosecutor before this Court, the same would indicate that after remand, none of the parties appeared before the Land Tribunal and it was decided by the Land Tribunal to obtain another report from the Village Officer for further steps. 6. On perusal of the prosecution allegations, it could be gathered that initially, the petitioner reported that the petitioner in S.M.C.No.91/1998 was in possession of 16.60 cents of property and when the Tribunal again directed for re-measurement of the property adverting to the claim put up by the petitioner in S.M.C., he prepared another sketch showing possession of 17.9 cents of property by the petitioner in S.M.C. Anyhow, the order passed by the Land Tribunal, acting on the sketch prepared by the petitioner, is now set aside and the matter is under consideration of the Land Tribunal, afresh. Merely for the reason that the 2 nd accused prepared a second sketch, in obedience to the direction of the Land Tribunal, including larger extent on the assertion of the petitioner therein that he was in possession of the same that by itself is quite insufficient to hold that he committed the offences as alleged by the prosecution. The rationale is, it is for the Land Tribunal to decide the matter in issue based on the sketch and the Land Tribunal could very well ignore the same to take a contra decision. The rationale is, it is for the Land Tribunal to decide the matter in issue based on the sketch and the Land Tribunal could very well ignore the same to take a contra decision. In such cases, fastening the criminal culpability on the petitioner simply for preparing a sketch could not be justified. Thus prima facie, the case against the petitioner is not made out and therefore, this petition is liable to succeed. In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure A1 Final Report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.21/2010 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode, as against the petitioner, stands quashed. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the special court for information and further steps.