Kerala High Court Upholds Conviction In Kulasekharapuram Irrigation Project Corruption Case, Dismisses Contractor’s Appeal And Orders Fine Recovery From Deceased Public Servant’s Inherited Assets
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen, in a recent order, upheld the conviction of a public works official and a contractor in a corruption case connected to the Kulasekharapuram Irrigation Project, dismissing the contractor’s appeal and modifying the outcome in the other appeal due to the official’s death. The Court accepted the prosecution’s case that the two acted in concert to secure undue pecuniary benefit by misusing Limited Competitive Bidding conditions and negotiating enhanced rates for project items, causing corresponding loss to the Government. The sentence against the contractor was maintained, while the deceased official’s substantive sentence was treated as abated, with recovery confined to fine from inherited assets.
The prosecution alleged that the first accused, then Superintending Engineer, KIP RB Circle, Kottarakkara, and the second accused, a government contractor, entered into a criminal conspiracy in relation to the formation of the Kulasekharapuram Distributory from Ch.1700M to 2400M. The work was originally governed by an agreement executed in 1988, based on an estimate sanctioned for ₹23,15,000/-. During execution, Supplemental Agreement Nos.3 and 6 were entered into, granting enhanced rates for several items including cement concrete works, RCC 1:2:4, reinforcement, PVC water stoppers, and shoring.
The prosecution contended that most of these items were already covered under the original agreement and that clauses 31 and 32 of the LCB specifications were misutilised to treat them as “extra items.” Evidence included oral testimony of departmental engineers (PWs 1 to 7), files relating to estimates, negotiation statements, and supplemental agreements. The Special Court found that excess payments amounting to ₹34,78,415/- were sanctioned, resulting in pecuniary advantage to the contractor and corresponding loss to the Government. The accused were convicted under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120B of the IPC.
The Court stated on criminal conspiracy: “It is,therefore, plain that meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing or causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means is sine qua non of criminal conspiracy.” It recorded: “It is extremely difficult to adduce direct evidence to prove conspiracy.” and “Existence of conspiracy and its objective can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the accused.”
On the bidding clauses, the Court noted: “clauses 31 and 32 of LCB specifications to be read together.” It recorded: “clause 32 could not be read in isolation and clause 32 is to be read along with clause 31, as already observed.” and “So, when reading clause 31 and 32 together, the application of clause 32 is subject to clause 31.”
On the prosecution version of the acts alleged, the Court stated: “The prosecution case is that on 23.02.1991, i.e 5 days before retirement of the 1st accused, the 2nd accused pressed for claims under the extra items for the works which were conducted by Ext.P3(a) and it was acted upon by the 1st accused within 5 days…” It further recorded: “even a cursory look at the evidence available would show that the claim for extra work was considered by the 1st accused on 23.02.1991 in a hurry-burry manner…”
On whether the claims qualified as “extra items,” the Court stated: “for the said work, no claim under the head `extra item’ could be granted.” It recorded: “Most importantly clause 32 of LCB has no application for these works already agreed upon in Ext.P3(a) original agreement.”
On the finding of conspiracy and resulting benefit/loss, the Court stated: “It was proved by the prosecution that S.A Nos.3 and 6 were executed as a result of the conspiracy entered between the 1st and 2nd accused in violation of clause 31 and 32 of LCB conditions resulting in pecuniary advantage of Rs.34,78,415/- to the 2nd accused and corresponding loss to the Government.” It then recorded: “Thus the conclusion to be reached by the Court is that regarding the above items, as part of a conspiracy hatched between the 1st and 2nd accused… in a hurry-burry manner the 1st accused granted the same on the date of his retirement.” The Court added: “It is judicially noticeable that the 1st accused also granted amounts to various contractors on the last date of his retirement in a similar fashion and caused huge loss to the State exchequer.”
On sanction, the Court stated: “admittedly the 1st accused… retired on 28.02.1991 and the investigation and cognizance for the PC Act offences against the 1st accused was taken after his retirement and Section 19(1) of the PC Act, 1988 doesn’t provide for sanction in the case of an employee who retired from service at the time of cognizance. Therefore, this contention is found to be untenable.”
On the outcome and sentence, the Court recorded: “Thus the conviction imposed by the learned Special Judge is liable to be confirmed.” It stated: “since he is no more, the execution of the substantive sentence stood abated.” and “Therefore the execution of the sentence in relation to the 1st accused shall be confined to realisation of fine from the accounts, if any, inherited by the legal heirs of the 1st accused, including the additional appellants…”
The Court directed: “In the result, Crl.Appeal No. 106 of 2011 is dismissed, while partly allowing Crl.Appeal No.9 of 2011 by modifying the same as stated in para.56 above. As a sequel thereof, the order suspending sentence and granting bail to the 2nd accused stands cancelled and the bail bond also stands cancelled.”
“The 2nd accused is directed to appear before the Special Court to undergo the sentence forthwith, failing which the Special Court is directed to execute the sentence without fail. As regards to realisation of the fine from the legal heirs of the 1st accused, the learned Special Judge is specifically directed to proceed with the same without fail.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Shri B.G. Hareendranath (Senior Counsel), Shri.Amith Krishnan H., Shri.Sundeep Abraham, Smt.Anna Mary Mathew, Smt.Manavi Muraleedharan; Shri.Joy Thattil Ittoop
For the Respondents: Special Public Prosecutor Sri Rajesh A., Senior Public Prosecutor Smt.Rekha S.
Case Title: T.O. Abraham & Ors. v. State of Kerala
Neutral Citation: 2026: KER:9212
Case Number: Crl.Appeal Nos.9 and 106 of 2011
Bench: Justice A. Badharudeen
