Kerala High Court
Mm Nazar vs State Of Kerala on 22 September, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 31ST BHADRA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 7476 OF 2025
CRIME NO.2/2024 OF VACB, PALAKKAD, Palakkad
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
MM NAZAR, AGED 57 YEARS,
S/O M M MYTHEEN,
MARANGATTE, MULAVOOR P O,
MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686673.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.RAJEEV
SRI.V.VINAY
SRI.M.S.ANEER
SHRI.ANILKUMAR C.R.
SHRI.SARATH K.P.
SHRI.K.S.KIRAN KRISHNAN
SMT.DIPA V.
SHRI.AKASH CHERIAN THOMAS
SRI.RAAJESH S.SUBRAHMANIAN
RESPONDENT/STATE/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031.
SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR RAJESH.A, FOR VACB
SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA.S, FOR VACB
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 12.09.2025, THE COURT ON 22.09.2025
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
================================
Crl.M.C.No.7476 of 2025-D
================================
Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2025
ORDER
1st accused in Crime No.2 of 2024 of VACB, Palakkad, has filed this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (`BNSS' for short) to quash Annexure I FIR in the above crime.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the FIR and the other records.
3. The prosecution allegation is that the 1st accused, Sri M.M Nazar, while working as Excise Deputy Commissioner in Palakkad, during the period from 18.08.2021 to 24.05.2022, released an Ashok Leyland Taurus Lorry bearing Reg.No.KL50/F 9871 belonged to one 2025:KER:70719 Crl.M.C.No.7476/2025 3 Sri Satheesh.S, who is the 2nd accused in Crime No.98/2000 of Palakkad Excise Division, alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 58 of the Kerala Abkari Act (`KAA' for short), after having hatched conspiracy with the 2nd and 3rd accused, who are the owner and driver of the above vehicle, after creating a false agreement dated 07.12.2000 with a covenant that the driver not to carry any contraband in the lorry. The specific allegation was that the above lorry was liable to be confiscated and, if so, Rs.17,50,000/- could be realised on confiscation. According to the prosecution it is illegal to release the lorry which is the subject matter of confiscation, that too, based on false agreement created with connivance of the petitioner after he took charge on the respective file. On this premise the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 17(c) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (`PC (Amendment) Act' for short) as well as under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420, 120(b) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short), by accused Nos.1 to 3.
2025:KER:70719 Crl.M.C.No.7476/2025 4
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in O.R.98/2020 of Paraly Excise Range, Palakkad, there was an allegation that contraband was transported in the lorry bearing Reg.No. KL50/F 9871 and it was seized while carrying the contraband. During the process of confiscation of the vehicle, evidence under Section 67B of the KAA was taken in tune with direction issued by this Court in Annexure II order in WP(c).No.4381/2020 dated 24.03.2021. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Section 67C(2) of KAA authorises the authorised officer to release the vehicle to the owner of the vehicle if he was able to convince that the vehicle was used without his knowledge or connivance of the owner himself, his agent, if any, and the person in charge of the vehicle. Thus the case argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner exercised his power under Section 67C(2) as well as 67F of the KAA and for which the offences alleged in the present FIR would not attract. Therefore, FIR is liable to be quashed.
5. While opposing quashment of the FIR 2025:KER:70719 Crl.M.C.No.7476/2025 5 registered against accused Nos.1 to 3, on the allegation of illegal release of the vehicle which was the subject matter of confiscation, which resulted in loss of Rs.17,50,000/- to the State Exchequer, the investigating officer filed a detailed report. It is contended that the vehicle bearing Registration No. KL 50 F 9871(Torres Lorry) involved in OR No 98/2020 registered u/s 58 of Kerala Abkari Act of Parli Excise range office, which was subjected to confiscation procedures at Palakkad Excise divisional Office as per file No. P-3/7769/2020, conspired with the second accused- Satheesh S, the owner of the Vehicle and the third accused- Vipin PV, the driver of the vehicle. The first second and third accused conspired and, with an intention to cheat the government forged a document stating that the owner of the vehicle has no responsibility in loading or transporting any prohibited products in the vehicle. Misusing this forged document, the first accused (Al- petitioner) misusing his official position, conspicuously released the Vehicle (KL 50 F 9871) as per the order No. P- 3/7769/2020 dated 31/01/2022 to the Second 2025:KER:70719 Crl.M.C.No.7476/2025 6 accused, the owner of the vehicle, and thus made a loss of 17,50,000 rupees to the government and made an unrighteous profit to the second accused. The accused worked as helpers to each other in creating such a big loss to the government and making unjust profit to the second accused.
6. It is submitted that during the investigation the Vehicle File of Palakkad Excise divisional Office with file No. P- 3/7769/2020 was seized on 26/03/2024 as per the seizure mahazar. As per the search warrant issued by the Hon'ble Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special judge a house search was conducted at the house of the accused No 1 situated in Kothamanglam and three SBI bank account passbooks and one treasury account passbook were seized as per the search list on 28/03/2024. A house search was conducted at the house of the second accused (A2- Owner of the vehicle) on 01/04/2024 as per the search warrant issued by the Hon'ble Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special judge Thrissur. During the house search the agreement allegedly executed between the Vehicle 2025:KER:70719 Crl.M.C.No.7476/2025 7 owner, Accused No 2 and the driver, Accused No 3 stating that the vehicle owner is not responsible for loading or transporting any prohibited products in the vehicle, was found and it was seized as per the search list. While conducting an investigation regarding the authenticity of the seized agreement purportedly executed between the vehicle owner and the driver it is found that it was prepared at document writer's office situated near Sub Registrar Office Kadampazhippuram run by Sri Prakash.The hard disc in the lap top used to prepare the agreement was seized on 05/04/2024 with the assistance of the cyber expert from Cyber Police Station Palakkad. The seized hard disc and hash value report is submitted before Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge Thrissur for examining at Regional Forensic Science Lab Thrissur and other further procedures. While examining the laptop used for preparing the agreement it was found that a file folder with the name "Vaahana Karaar Satheesh and Vipin PMD" was saved in the desktop of the laptop and the creation date of the file folder was found as 15/11/2021. The 2025:KER:70719 Crl.M.C.No.7476/2025 8 statement of the document writer Mr Prakash and his wife Devaki Devi, the typing assistant at the document writing office were recorded. In their statement they have stated that the Vehicle agreement was prepared as per the request of the vehicle owner Sri Satheesh (A2). They added that Sri Satheesh (A2) had asked them to put the agreement date as 05/11/2020 in the document but the agreement was exactly prepared on 15/11/2021.
7. It is submitted that during the course of the investigation Excise Preventive officer Sri Praveen Kumar was questioned and in his statement he stated that during 2021-2022 while working at Excise Divisional office Palakkad, he was given the responsibility of P3 Section which dealt with Confiscation and NDPS and Enforcement by the Accused Officer. Shaji S Rajan, the then Deputy Commissioner had almost completed the confiscation of the vehicle KL 50 F 9871 included in Cr No 98/2020 u/s 58 of Kerala Abkari Act of Parali Excise range office. When the confiscation procedures were at its final stage when the first accused (Al) took over the charge of Deputy Excise 2025:KER:70719 Crl.M.C.No.7476/2025 9 Commissioner, Palakkad. At this time the Second accused (A2) filed a WPC 4381/21 before the Hon'ble High court for releasing his vehicle KL 50 F 9871. The Hon'ble High Court directed Excise commissioner to make an enquiry over the confiscation procedures and to complete it within two months. On the basis of this direction, the then Deputy Excise Commissioner (Al) authorized Excise Circle Inspector of Palakkad, Sri PK Satheesh to conduct the enquiry. As per the enquiry report submitted by Sri PK Satheesh, an agreement document was produced by the Vehicle owner regarding the agreement between the vehicle Owner and the driver Vipin. Even though the former Deputy Excise Commissioner Shaji S Rajan had conducted an enquiry regarding the confiscation procedures of the vehicle KL 50 F 9871, no such agreement was produced by the vehicle Owner during the course of the enquiry. By releasing the vehicle, the government had a loss of 17.5 lakhs. The statement of the Excise Preventive officer Sri Praveen kumar was also recorded u/s 183 of BNSS by the Hon'ble CJM Court Palakkad on 10/04/2025.
2025:KER:70719 Crl.M.C.No.7476/2025 10
8. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the agreement executed in between the 2nd and 3rd was generated after Sri M.M.Nazar took over charge of the confiscation file as part of forgery in between accused Nos.1 to 3. Therefore, prima facie, offences are made out warranting a detailed investigation.
9. In this matter, even though the contention raised by the petitioner is that he had exercised his power under Section 67C(2), after referring 67C of the KAA and also in consideration of Annexure II order directing to complete the confiscation proceedings expeditiously, Annexure II order of this Court never directed the release of the Lorry in any manner.
10. In this matter, the crux of the prosecution allegation is creation of a forged agreement stating that the driver agreed to the owner that he would not carry contraband things in the vehicle and, therefore, the contraband was carried without the consent of the owner. In fact, such an agreement is opposed to public policy and also against the fundamental principles of vicarious liability. In such a case, the prosecution has a specific 2025:KER:70719 Crl.M.C.No.7476/2025 11 allegation that the forged agreement dated 05.11.2020 was falsely created on 15.11.2021, as per statements given by M.N.Prakash, the document writer and his wife Devaki Devi, the typing assistant. Further FSL report also awaiting regarding the forgery. Since the matters are serious, the matter would require an investigation and the prayer to quash the FIR would definitely fail, since, prima facie, prosecution allegations are made out. Hence this petition is liable to fail.
11. In the result, this petition is dismissed. However, in consideration of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there may be a direction to expedite the investigation and taking note of the submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor that FSL report is necessary to finalise the investigation, there shall be a direction to the investigating officer to expedite the FSL report and to finalise the investigation, within a period of two months from the date of getting the FSL report.
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the 2025:KER:70719 Crl.M.C.No.7476/2025 12 jurisdictional court for information and further steps.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE rtr/ 2025:KER:70719 Crl.M.C.No.7476/2025 13 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7476/2025 PETITIONER's ANNEXURES Annexure I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO 2/2024 VACB PALAKKAD.
Annexure II COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS COURT IN WP(C) NO 4381/2021 DATED 24.03.2021.
Annexure III COPY OF THE RESPONSE SUBMITTED BY THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER.
Annexure IV COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
PETITIONER ON 10.01.2022.