R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIRversusTHE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT VIGILANCE POLICE & ANR.

                       [2011] 3 S.C.R. 1054


A                   R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
                                  v.
    THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT VIGILANCE POLICE &
                           ANR.
             (Criminal Appeal No. 792 of 2011)
B
                         MARCH 28, 2011
        [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. 8.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.]

        Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit Act, 1994:
C s.50(2)- Protection under- Criminal proceedings against the
  appellant-Vice-Chancel/or of the University - Requirement of
  previous sanction of the Syndicate of the University - Held:
  Any act done by the Officers of the University in good faith is
  protected u/s.50(2) - Vice-Chancellor of the University, is ont:J
D of the Officers of the University in terms of s.23 of the Act -
  s.50(2) is, therefore, applicable to the appellant and in respect
  of any act done under the Act or Statutes or Ordinances or
  Regulations, no suit or prosecution or other proceeding could
  be initiated against him without the previous sanction of the
E Syndicate - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 s.13(1)(d) -
  Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 120-B and 463.

       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.239 - Discharge
  application - Allegation that appellant-Vice-Chancel/or of the
  University obtained pecuniary advantage and caused
F corresponding wrongful loss to the University- FIR - Charge-
  sheet filed after 8-112 years - Application for discharge -
  Held: In the absence of previous sanction of the Syndicate
  of the University which is mandatory in nature, the prosecution
  could not be launched against the appellant- Delay of 8-112
G years in filing charge-sheet was also not explained - Even
  otherwise, there was no mention in the FIR or in the charge-
  sheet that the appellant had made any personal gain in the
  transaction - The FIR stated that the appellant had obtained
  a pecuniary advantage of around Rs. 59,51,5431- whereas in
H                               1054
     R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR v. THE DY. S.P.             1055
                 VIGILANCE POLICE
the charge-sheet, it came down to less than 5 per cent of the A
original estimate, nearly, Rs. 2, 68, 3581- - There was no
mention in the charge-sheet about the huge difference in the
calculation of the loss between the FIR and the charge-sheet
- Moreover, in view of sincere and speedy actions. taken by
the appellant as Vice-Chancellor, Government had decided B
earlier to withdraw the criminal proceedings against the
appellant - In terms of s. 114 of Evidence Act, 1872,
presumption can be drawn that the Government had taken
conscious decision of exonerating the appellant and there
was no reason to doubt integrity of the appellant - Even on c
merits, records depicted that the appellant had not caused any
loss to the government by his actions - Thus, appellant made
out a case for discharge from the criminal proceedings - Sree
Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit Act, 1994 - Evidence
Act, 1872 -s.114.
                                                               D
     The appellant was appointed as Special Officer for
creating the first Sanskrit University in the State of Kerala.
For the said purpose, land of 42.5 acres was acquired.
The land so acquired consisted of low lying and water
 logged fields and any development work could be started E
only after filling up land with earth. The appellant got the
land filled with earth. An amount of Rs.5925 was spent
for filling up of every one cent of the water logged land.
 From 1.1.1994 to 30.6.1996, the appellant was appointed
as Vice Chancellor of the University. On 18.12.1996, FIR F
was registered against the appellant and four other
 persons under Section 13(2) r.w. Section 13(1)(d) of the
 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 120-B
and 463, IPC. The allegation against the appellant was that
the work of filling of earth in the land acquired for the G
 University \i'lS done in an irregular manner and the
 appellant obtained a pecuniary advantage of
 Rs.59,51,5431- with the contractors thereby causing
 corresponding wrongful loss to the University. Charge-
 sheet was filed in the Court of the Enq1,1ry Commissioner H
    1056   SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2011] 3 S.C.R.

A and Special Judge, eight and a half years after the F.l.R.
  and without obtaining the previous sanction of the
  Syndicate of the University under Section 50(2) of the
  Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit Act, 1994. In
  the F.l.R., the pecuniary loss caused to the University was
8 indicated as Rs.59,51,543/- whereas in the charge-sheet
  it came down to less than 5% of the originally estimated
  amount, i.e., Rs.2,68,358/-. The appellant filed an
  application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. for discharge. The
  Special Judge dismissed the application on the ground
c that the appellant was not entitled to get the protection
  of Section 50 of the 1994 Act as being the Vice-
  Chancellor, he was a public servant. The High Court
  dismissed the revision filed by the appellant. The instan~
  appeal was filed challenging the order of the High COloit.

D      Allowing the appeal, the Court

        HELD: 1. The heading of Section 50 of the Sree
  Sankarayacharya University of Sanskrit Act, 1994 would
  make it clear that any act done in good faith is protected.
E The appellant, being Vice-Chancellor of the University
  was one of the Officers of the University in terms of
  Section 23 of the Act. In that event, Section 50(2) was
  applicable to the appellant and in respect of any act done
  under the Act or Statutes or Ordinances or Regulations,
F no suit or prosecution or other proceeding could be
  initiated against him without the previous sanction of the
  Syndicate. A perusal of the FIR made it clear that there
  was not even a whisper of an allegation or in the charge-
  sheet that the appellant had made any personal gain in
  the transaction. The allegation was only that the
G contractor who did the earth filling obtained an excess
  amount of Rs. 2,68,358/-. It is not clear why the
  prosecution waited for nearly 8-1/2 years to file the
  charge-sheet or waited until the death of the contractor
  and until the Assistant Executive Engineer who prepared
H
      R: RAMACHANDRAN NAIR v. THE DY. S.P.              1057
                  VIGILANCE POLICE •
  the quotation for the work and in-charge of the work A
· retired from service on ·superannuation and left the
  country before filing of. the chargesheet .In the court. I n
  the light of the language used in sub-section 2 which Is
  mandatory in the absence of previous sanction of the
  Syndicate of the University, the prosecution cannot be B
  launched or proceeded. Even otherwise, the appellant
  bein1:1 .:: Vice-Chancellor, acted diligently by following the
  procedure, therefore, no action could be initiated after a
  period of 8 years from the initiation of the complaint.
  [Paras 9, 10] [1064-B-H; 1065-A·C]                             C
      2. A perusal of the proceedings of the Government
 of Kerala, Vigilance (B) Department communicated by
 Principal Secretary to Government to the Director,
 Vigilance & Anti Corruption Bureau made it clear that on
 examination of the entire facts In the 3 cases pending D
 before the Special Courts and the sincere and speedy
 action taken by the appellant as Vice-Chancellor of the
 University and also action taken by the appellant in good
 faith in the discharge of the function imposed on him ·
 under the Act, the Government requested the Director E
 Vigilance, Anti-Corruption Bureau to take action to
 withdraw all the 3 cases pending before the respective
 courts. In spite of such decision at the highest level,
 namely, Chief Secretary to Government, no follow up
 action was taken before the concerned courts seeking F
 permission to withdraw the criminal proceedings
 pending against the appellant. In terms of Section 114 of
 the Evidence Act, 1872, this Court may legitimately draw
 a presumption that the Government had taken a
 conscious decision exonerating the appellant even in G
 2006 and there was no reason to doubt the integrity of
 the appellant. [Para 12) [1-067 -C-F]
      3. Apart from the legal issues which were in favour
 of the appellant, even on merits, prosecution could not        H
     1058    SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011} 3 S.C.R.

· A be allowed to proceed against the appellant. When the
    appellant was asked to take required steps for formation
    of the University under the Act, the Government allotted
    42.5 acres of land which was water logged and any
    development work could be started only after it was to
  B be filled up with earth. The records showed that the
    estimate was prepared by the Assistant Executive
    Engineer and based on which tenders were called for
    and the appellant accepted the lowest tender which was
    of lesser amount than the one prescribed by the
  c Engineer. Before the work was started, the appellant had
    consulted several experts in the field including the higher
    officials of the State and actually brought them to the site
    regarding the filling up of the earth. Further, there was no
    mention in the charge-sheet about the huge difference in
    the calculation of the loss between the FIR and the
  0
    charge-sheet. Further, when the Government of Kerala
    decided to establish a University exclusively for Sanskrit
    in its State two decades ago, admittedly, nothing came
    out for a long time and only in the year 1991, the appellant
  E was appointed as Special Officer for creating a University.
    Within two years, the mission was completed and Sri
    Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit was created and
    started functioning in November 1993 and in the next
    month i.e. in December 1993, the Government appointed
    him as the first Vice-Chancellor of the University and he
  F assumed charge of the post with effect from January 1,
    1994. He continued in the post for a period of 2-1/2 years
    i.e. till 30.06.1996. All these factual details clearly showed
    that even on merits the respondents were not justified in
    continuing the criminal proceedings. Though all these
  G legal and factual details were projected before the trial
    court as well as the High Court, the same were not
    correctly appreciated and both the courts committed an
    :H·ror in dismissing his petition for discharge. The
    appellant made out a case for discharge from the criminal
  H proceedings. [Para 13) [1067-G-H; 1068-A-H]
     R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR v. THE DY. S.P.               1059
              VIGILANCE POLICE
    CRIMINAL AP PELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal          A
No. 792 of 2011.
   · From the Judgment & Order dated 12.7.2010 of the High
Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Crl. R.P. No. 1606 of2010.
     K.V. Viswanathan, Nikhil Goel, Marsook Bafakai, Rajesh     B
B., A. Venayagam Balan, for the Appellant.

    Jayadeep Gupta, G. Prakash, Beena Prakash for the
Respondent. .

  · The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                c
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 792 of 2011 .

  . From the Judgment & Order dated 12.7.2010 of the High       D
Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Crl. R.P. No. 1606 of 2010.
    K.V. Viswanathan, Nikhil Goel, Marsook Bafaki, Rajesh 8.,
A. Venayagam Balan for the Appellant.
  · Jayadeep Gupta, G. Prakash, Beena Prakash for the           E
Respondents.
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
    P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. Leave granted.
                                                                F
     2. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment
and order dated 12.07.2010 passed by the High Court of
Kerala at Ernakulam in Criminal R.P. No. 1606 of 2010
whereby the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the
appellant herein seeking discharge from the criminal case       G
pursuant to a charge sheet filed in the Court of the Enquiry
Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur, by the Vigilance
Police Department.

                                                                H
    1060   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2011] 3 S.C.R.

A 3. Brief facts:
       (a) The Government of Kerala was trying to establish a
       Sanskrit University in the State from the year 1972
       onwards. On 15.07.1991, the appellant was appointed as
       Special Officer for creating the first Sanskrit University in
8
       the State. On 16.01.1993, the State issued a Government
       Order directing the District Collector, Ernakulam to acquire
       the land for the establishment of the University. The entire
       land of 42.5 acres, so acquired in Kalady (the holy birth
       place of Sree Sankaracharya) in Ernakulam District which
c      was handed over to the University by the District Collector
       of Ernakulam for establishing the University consisted of
       low-ly!ng and water-logged paddy fields and any
       development work could be started only after it was filled
       up with earth. Before starting the work of filling up, the
D      appellant, who was functioning as the Chief Secretary to
       State Government at the State Headquarters, had
       consulted several experts in the field including the Chief
       Engineer of the State Public Works Department
       (hereinafter referred to as PWD") who was actually brought
E      to the site. The appellant filled 42.5 acres of waterlogged
       land with earth brought from distance. An amount of
       Rs.5,925/- was spent for filling up of every one cent of the
       water logged land.

F      (b) From 01.01.1994 to 30.06.1996, the appellant was
       appointed as the first Vice-Chancellor of the University. On
       18.12.1996, an FIR being Crime No.9 of 1996 was
       registered in the Vigilance Police Station, Ernakulam
       against the appellant and four other persons under Section
       13(2) read with Section 13( 1)(d) of the Prevention of
G
       Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the PC
       Act") and Sections 120-8 and 463 of the Indian Pena,I
       Code (in short "IPC"). The allegation against the appellant
       was that the work of filling of earth in the land acquired for
       the said University was done in an irregular manner and
H
  R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR v. THE DY. S.P.                   1061
 · VIGILANCE POLICE [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
he obtained a pecuniary advantage of Rs. 59,51,543/- with        A
the contractors thereby causing corresponding wrongful
loss to the University.
(c) During May-June, 1997 t.he Vigilance Department
examined the site relating to the alleged earth-filling during   8
the years 1993 and 1994. This examination was done after
three years and after the occurrence of six monsoons. Due
to the impact of rains during six monsoons during that time,
the field had got thoroughly consolidated.
(d) On 30.06.2005, a charge-sheet was filed in the Court C
of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur
with a delay of eight and a half years after the F.l.R. and
without obtaining the previous sanction of the Syndicate
of the Univ.ersity under Section 50(2) of the Sree
Sankaracnarya University of Sanskrit Act, 1994 · D
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). In the FIR, the
pecuniary loss caused to the University was indicated as
Rs.59,51,543/- whereas in the charge-sheet it has come
down to less than 5% of the originally estimated amount,
i.e., Rs.2,68,358/-.                                        E
 (e) In the meanwhile, on 03.04.2006, the Principal
·Secretary to the State Government.directed the Director,
 Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau. to withdraw the
 cases against the appellant. In this communication, the F
 State has admitted that the conduct of the appellant was
 in good faith and that only because of the speedy actions
 taken by him, the University had bec0me a reality within a
 short period of time and that the appellant is eligible for .
 the protection under Section 50(3) of the Act.
                                                                 G
(f) On 19.12.2008, the appellant filed an application under
Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short "the
Code';) being CMP No. 2933 of 2008 in CC No. 31 of
2005 in the Court of Enquiry Commissione.r and Special
Judge, Thrissur for discharge. By order dated 29.08.2009,        H
                                  ..
      1062   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011] 3 S.C.R.

 A       the Special Judge dismissed the abovesaid application
         on the ground that the appellant is not entitled to get the
         protection of Section 50 of the Act as being the Vice-
         Chancellor, the appellant was a public servant.
         (g) Against the said order, the appellant preferred Criminal
 B
         Revision Petition No. 1606 of 2010 before the High Court
         of Kerala. By order dated 12.07.2010, the High Court
         dismissed the revision filed by the appellant herein. The
         said order is under challenge in this appeal.
 c         4. Heard Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, learned senior counsel for
     the appellant and Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel
     for the respondents.

          5. The only allegation on the appellant was that while
  0 functioning as the Vice-Chancellor of the University he was
    found guilty for filling of earth in the land acquired for the
    University in a most perfunctory and irregular manner with
    ulterior motive by not recording the measurements correctly,
    showing inflated figures of measurements in the records and
  E thereby committed falsification of accounts and forgery, criminal
    breach of trust and cheated the Government by corrupt or illegal
    means and committed misconduct, obtained undue pecuniary
    advantage of Rs.2,68,358/-, and he being the first accused has
    committed offence punishable under Sections 13(1) (d) and
    13(2) of the PC Act and Sections 409, 468, 477A and 120-B
· F of IPC.
        6. Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, learned senior counsel for the
   appellant, at the foremost, submitted that in view of Section
   50(2) of the Act, without the previous sanction of the Syndicate
 G of the University, the prosecution cannot be allowed to proceed
   against the appellant. He pointed out that Section 50(2) of the
   Act stipulates "sanction of the Syndicate". He further highlighted
   that the prosecution, which has been initiated without the
   sanction of the University, ought not to be allowed to continue
 H against the appellant. He also submitted that inasmuch as even
      R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR v. THE DY. S.P.                    1063
       VIGILANCE POLICE [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
in 2006 the Government of Kerala, Vigilance (B) Department             A
Thiruvananthapuram, after consideririg all the relevant materials,
decided to withdraw the criminal proceedings against the
appellant in the cases i.e. CC No. 21 of 2000 and CC No. 49
of 2000 pending before the Court of Enquiry Commissioner &
Special Judge, Kozhikode and CC No. 31 of 2005. pending                s
before· the Court of Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge,
Thrissur, with the permission of the respective Courts. He also
submitted that even on merits inasmuch as the appellant
obtained the approval of the Chief Engineer of the PWD and
accepted the lowest tender which was below the amount                  c
prescribed by the competent officer of the PWD Le. Assistant
Executive Engineer, there is no loss to the Government hence
he cannot be held liable.
      7. On the other hand, Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior
counsel for the respondents submitted that in view of the              D
materials available, the appellant has not made out a case for
discharge and he has to face the trial. He also submitted that
the plea of the appellant was considered and rejected by the
trial Court as well as by the High Court, therefore, interference
by this Court is not warranted.                                        E
    8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and
perused all the relevant materials.

     9. Insofar as the first issue, namely, whether or not a
prosecution can be allowed to proceed in the face of Section           ..F
50(2) of the Act without the sanction of the Syndicate of the
University, it is useful to refer the relevant provision which reads
as:-
      "50. Protection of acts done in good faith-                      G
      (1)   xxx
      (2) . No suit, prosecution or other proceedings shall lie
           against any officer or other employee of the
            University for any act done or purported to have           H
    1064     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011) 3 S.C.R.

A                been done under this Act, or the Statutes or the
                 Ordinances or the Regulations without the previous
                 sanction of the Syndicate.
           (3)   XXX"

B The headnote makes it clear that any act done in good faith is
  protected. The appellant, being Vice-Chancellor of the
  University, is one of the Officers of the University in terms of
  Section 23 of the Act. In that event, it is not in dispute that
  Section 50(2) is applicable to the appellant and in respect of
C any act done under the Act or_ Statutes or Ordinances or
  Regulations, no suit or pro~iution or other proceeding be
  initiated against him without the previous sanction of the
  Syndicate. Inasmuch as sub-Section 2 used the word "shall",
  previous sanction of the Syndicate is a pre-condition or
D mandate before initiating either civil or criminal prosecution. To
  put it clear, as per Section 50(2) of the Act, no prosecution will
  lie against the appellant without the previous sanction of the
  Syndicate. It is important to note that the allegations against him
  related to actions which he had taken while he was discharging
E his duties as an Officer of the University, na~ely, the Vice-
  Chancellor of the University. A perusal of the FIR makes it clear
  that there was not even a whisper of an allegation or in the
  charge-sheet that the appellant had made any personal gain
  in the transaction. The allegation was only that the contractor
F who did the earth filling obtained an excess. amount of Rs.
  2,68,358/-. It is not clear why the prosecution has waited for
  nearly 8112 years to file the charge-sheet or waited until the
  death of the contractor and until the Assistant Executive
  Engineer who prepared the quotation for the work and in-charge
G of the work got promoted as Executive Engineer and then as
  Superintending Engineer and retired from service on
  superannuation and left the country for working in UAE before
  filing the chargesheet in the Court.
      10. Apart from the above conclusion, in the light of the
H language used in sub-Section 2 which is mandatory in the
      R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR v. THE DY. S.P.                   1065
       VIGILANCE POLICE [P. SATHASIVAM. J.]
absence of previous sanction of the Syndicate of the University,      A
the prosecution cannot be launched or proceeded. It is not the
case of the prosecuting agency that they obtained sanction from
the Syndicate ofthe University which is the competent authority
to sanction. In the light of the language used in sub-Section 2
and in the absence of previous sanction by the Syndicate of           B
the University, we hold that the prosecution cannot be allowed
to proceed, even otherwise, he being a Vice-Chancellor, acted
diligently by following the procedure, no action could be initiated
after a period of 8 years from the initiation of the complaint.
    · 11. Coming to the second contention, namely, the stand          C
of the Government which is reflected in the proceedings dated
03.04.2006, it is also useful to extract the decision of the
Government of Kerala, Vigilance (8) Department which was
communicated by Principal Secretary to Government to the
Director, Vigilance & Anti Corruption Bureau,                         D
Thiruvananthapuram which reads thus:-
                   "GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
     No. 9575/B1/05Nig.            Vigilance (B) Department           E
                                            Thiruv<"nanthapuram
                                              Dated 03.04.2006
     From
            The Principal Secretary to Government                     F
    To
            The Director
            Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau
            Thiruvananthapuram                                        G
     Sir,
             Sub: Withdrawal of cases pending against Shri R
                  Ramachandran Nair, former Vice-
                  Chancellor, Sree Sankaracharya University           H
    1066   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     (2011) 3 S.C.R.


A                     of Sanskrit - Reg.
               Ref. 1. Govt. letter of even No. dated 07 .10.2005.

                      2. Your letter No. C5/SJK/16465/2000 dated
                      03.12.05 & 18.02.06.
B
                I am directed to invite your attention to the references
        cited and to inform you that a further examination of facts
      · in respect of the three cases viz. (CC No. 21/2000 and CC
        No. 49/2000) of the Court of Enquiry Commissioner &
c       Special Judge, Kozhikode and CC No. 31 of 2005 of the
        Court of Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge, Thrissur
        it is found that steps were taken by the University Centres
        at the earliest possible date and it was due to such speedy
        action that the University which was being contemplated
D       for a very long time became a reality within such a short
        period of 1994-1996. As the former Vice-Chancellor had
        acted in good faith in the discharge of the functions
        imposed on him under the University Act, he is fully eligible
        for the protection of Section 50(3) of Sree Sankaracharya
        University of Sanskrit Act, 1994, which read as follows:-
E
             50(3) "No Officer or other employee of the University
       shall be liable in respect of any such act in any civil or
       criminal proceedings if the act was done in good faith and
       in the course of the execution of the duties or in the
F      discharge of the functions imposed by or under this Act."
            As the action taken by the former Vice-Chancellor
       was "in good faith" in all three cases, it is decided that
       prosecution shall be withdrawn in CC 21/2000 and CC No.
G      49/2000 of the Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge,
       Kozhikode, and CC No. 3112005 of the Enquiry
       Commissioner & Special Judge Court, Thrissur.
             Hence, I am to request you to take urgent action to
       withdraw the cases in CC 21/2000 and CC No 49/2000
H      pending before the Court of Enquiry Commissioner &
     'R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR v. THE DY. S.P.                1067
      VIGILANCE POLICE [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
    Special Judge, Kozhikode and CC No. 31/2005, before            A
    the Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge, Thrissur, with
    the permission of the respective courts.
          The action taken in matter may be intimated to
    ·Government immediately.
                                                                   B
                                                Yours faithfully
                                                          Sd//-
                                K.A. BHAGAVATHY AMMAL
                                         Additional Secretary
                      For Principal Secretary to Government"       c
      12. Perusal of the above communication at the highest level
makes it clear that on examination of the entire facts in the 3
cases, namely, CC Nos. 21 and 49 of 2000 and CC No. 31 of
2005 which are pending before the Special Judge, Kozhikode
and Thrissur respectively and the sincere and speedy action D
taken by the appellant as Vice-Chancellor of the University and
also acted in good faith in the discharge of the function imposed
on him under the Act, the Government requested the Director
Vigilance, Anti-Corruption Bureau to take action to withdraw all
the 3 cases pending before the respective Courts. It is not clear, E
in Spite of such decision at the highest level, namely, Chief
Secretary to Government, no follow up action was taken before
the concerned courts seeking permission to withdraw the
criminal proceedings pending against the appellant. In terms
of Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872 this Court may F
legitimately draw a presumption that the Government had taken
a conscious decision exonerating the appellant even in 2006
and there is no reason to doubt the integrity of the appellant.
      13. Apart from the legal issues which are in favour of the ·
appellant, even on merits, prosecution cannot be allowed to G
proceed against the appellant. When the appellant was asked
to take required steps for formation of the University under the
Act, the Government allotted 42.5 acres of land which was water
logged and any development work could be started only after
it was to be filled up with earth. It is also available from the H
                                                               ! .




    1068    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011) 3 S.C.R.


A records that the,estimate was prepared by the Assistant
  Executive Engineer and based on which tenders were called
  for and it is not in dispute that the appellant accepted the lowest
  tender which is of lesser amount than the one prescribed by
  the Engineer. It can also be seen that before the work was
B started, the appellant had consulted several experts in the field
  including the higher officials of the State and actually brought
  them to the site regarding the filling up of the earth. Further,
  though in the FIR, the complainant had claimed that the
  appellant had obtained a pecuniary advantage of around Rs.
c 59,51,543/- whereas in the charge-sheet filed by the
  prosecution in the Court, it has come down to less than 5 per
  cent of the original estimate, nearly, Rs. 2,68,358/-, admittedly,
  there is no mention in the chargesheet about the huge difference
  in the calculation of the loss between the FIR and the
  chargesheet. Further, when the Government of Kerala decided
D to establish a University exclusively for Sanskrit in its State two
  decades ago, admittedly, nothing came out for a long time and
  only in the year 1991 the appellant was appointed as Special
  Officer for creating a University. It was pointed out that within
  two years the mission was completed and Sri Sankaracharya
E University of Sanskrit was created and started functioning in
  November 1993 and in the next month i.e. in December 1993,
  the Government appointed him as the first Vice-Chancellor of
  the1 University and he assumed charge of the post with effect
  from January 1, 1994. He continued in the post for a period of
F 2112 years i.e. till 30.06.1996. All these factual details clearly
  show that even on merits the respondents are not justified in
  continuing the criminal proceedings. Though all these legal and
  factual details have been projected before the Trial Court as
  well as the High Court, the same were not correctly appreciated
G and both the courts committed an error in dismissing his
  petition flied for discharge. With the abundant materials and in
  view of the non-compliance of statutory provisions mentioned
  above, we accept the claim of the appellant. For all these
  reasons, we are satisfied that the appellant has made a case
H for discharge from the criminal proceedings.
       R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR v. THE DY. S.P.           1069
       VIGILANCE POLICE [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
     14. In these circumstances, the orders passed by the A
Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur dated
29.08.2009 in CMP No 2933 of 2008 and CC No. 31 of 2005
and order of the High Court dated 1·2.07.2010 in Crl. RP No.
1606 of 2010 are set aside, consequently, the appellant Is
discharged from all the allegations leveled against him. The .B
appeal is allowed.
D.G.                                      Appeal allowed.