In a sharp rebuke to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), the Kerala High Court on Wednesday questioned the deletion of a major corruption charge from a case under investigation in Alappuzha. Justice A. Badarudeen, while hearing Crl.MC No. 7557 of 2025, expressed dismay over what he termed a “grave mistake” by investigating officers handling offences under the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018.
Background
The case stems from an alleged bribe demand related to the fixation of land value for 12 cents of property in Alappuzha. The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau had registered Crime No.2/2025, naming Sudhi P.D. and Subash S. as accused.
According to the prosecution, a bribe was demanded for processing the land assignment despite regular payments of kuthakapattom (land rent). However, the accused claimed innocence, asserting that they had already recommended a higher land value officially, making any subsequent bribe demand illogical.
Their counsel argued that the fixation report, submitted on 15 April 2025, had valued the land at ₹9.43 lakh after applying a 30% enhancement, leaving no reason for further monetary demand. “When the official recommendation itself increased the land price substantially, the allegation of a bribe is improbable,” the defence submitted.
Court’s Observations
During the hearing, Justice Badarudeen noted with surprise that the investigating officer had deleted the original charge under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act-dealing with bribe demand-and replaced it with Section 15, which pertains to abetment.
The court pointed out that Section 15 would not apply to the facts of this case at all. “The investigation should have remained confined to Section 7(a),” the judge remarked. He added that such an error “should not have happened from officers dealing with corruption cases” as it carries “serious and dangerous ramifications.”
The bench summoned the Deputy Superintendent and Inspector of the VACB, who appeared in court and conceded that a mistake had occurred in the report. The judge, clearly dissatisfied, directed that these lapses must be considered when posting officers in the vigilance department in future.
Decision
Finding procedural lapses and gaps in the investigation, Justice Badarudeen ordered the de facto complainant, M. Jayasurya, to be impleaded as an additional respondent. The court instructed the investigating officer to issue a notice for his appearance on 15 October 2025, when the matter will be heard again.
Further steps, including obtaining the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report regarding a pen drive allegedly connected to the case, have been deferred until the next hearing.
The Registry was also directed to send a copy of the order to the Director General of Police and the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram, urging them to ensure that “only competent officers” are posted in the VACB in the future.
Case Title: Sudhi P.D. & Another vs State of Kerala & Others
Case No.: Crl.M.C. No. 7557 of 2025
Date of Order: 8 October 2025
