Kerala High Court
Tomin J Thachankary vs State Of Kerala on 18 December, 2020
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA,
1942
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.399 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 3/2020 DATED 29-05-2020
OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE, KOTTAYAM
CRIME NO.03/2020 OF VACB, ERNAKULAM , Ernakulam
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
TOMIN J THACHANKARY, AGED 57 YEARS
S/O.JOSEPH, HOUSE NO.32/2899, THACHANKARY
HOUSE, THAMMANAM P.O., POONITHURA VILLAGE,
ERNAKULAM-682032. (INSPECTOR GENERAL OF
POLICE, MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE CO-
OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LTD.,
ERNAKULAM).
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.RAJEEV
SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN
SRI.V.VINAY
SRI.D.FEROZE
SRI.K.ANAND (A-1921)
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031. (V.C. 03/2007, VACB
SPECIAL CELL, ERNAKULAM).
2 ADDL.R2.BOBBY KURUVILA
SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED
R1 BY SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SENIOR
GOVT.PLEADER
R2 BY ADV. TITUS MANI
R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.A.JACOB
-2-
Crl.Rev.Petition. No. 399 of 2020
R2 BY ADV. SRI.BINNY THOMAS
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI B.RAMAN PILLAI - SR COUNSEL FOR REVIEW
PETITIONER
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 18.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
-3-
Crl.Rev.Petition. No. 399 of 2020
ORDER
Crl.Rev.Petition No.399 of 2020 The petitioner, who is the accused in C.C.No.3 of 2020 (V.C. No.3/2007/SCE of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Special Cell, Ernakulam) on the file of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam, for offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has filed this Crl.Rev. Petition, under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking an order to set aside the order dated 29.05.2020 of that court in Crl.M.P. No.152 of 2020, an application filed by the petitioner/accused, under Section 239 of the Code, seeking an order of discharge.
2. By the order, which is impugned in this Crl.Rev.Petition, the court below, on an analysis of the materials produced by the prosecution in the final report, arrived at a conclusion that there is prima facie material available sufficient to frame charge against the accused and therefore, no ground is made out by the accused to show that the charge filed against him is groundless. Therefore, that -4- Crl.Rev.Petition. No. 399 of 2020 application was dismissed as devoid of merit and the point was answered against the petitioner.
3. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this Crl.Rev.Petition.
4. On 10.06.2020, when this Crl.Rev.Petition came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file. The learned Public Prosecutor took notice for respondents.
5. The petitioner filed Crl.M.A. No.3 of 2020 seeking an order to permit him to address arguments before physical Court. By the order dated 12.10.2020, Registry was directed to place that request before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for posting the matter before physical Court.
6. Based on the order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice dated 19.10.2020, the matter is listed before this Court, in physical sitting.
7. On 10.11.2020, when the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned Senior Government Pleader sought an adjournment after two weeks on behalf of the learned Director General of Prosecution. Hence, the matter was posted to 01.12.2020, at 1.45 p.m. in physical sitting. On that day, a -5- Crl.Rev.Petition. No. 399 of 2020 third party has filed Crl.M.A.No.4 of 2020, seeking an order to implead him as additional 2nd respondent in this Crl.Rev.Petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to file counter affidavit and ten days time was granted for filing counter affidavit. On that day, an adjournment was sought on behalf of Sri.B.Raman Pillai, the learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner, since he is not in station. Accordingly, the matter was ordered to be listed today at 1.45 p.m. in physical sitting.
8. Today, when this matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that he has filed a memo dated 15.12.2020. The said memo reads thus:
"Petitioner has submitted Crl.R.P.No.399/2020 challenging the orders passed by the enquiry commissioner and Special judge rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to discharge him. The Revision Petitioner does not want to proceed with the Revision Petition as charge is not framed against him. The petitioner has got liberty to challenge the order framing charge as it is a final order. In such circumstances, it is most humbly prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to dismiss the Criminal Revision Petition No.399/2020 as -6- Crl.Rev.Petition. No. 399 of 2020 not pressed."
9. Heard the learned counsel on both sides.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order, which is under challenge in this revision petition, is one passed on an application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Since the court below is yet to frame charge under Section 240 of the Code, and since the petitioner has got right to challenge the order framing charge as it is a final order, the petitioner does not want to proceed with this revision petition further and the same may be dismissed as not pressed.
11. Recording the aforesaid the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Crl.Rev.Petition is dismissed as not pressed.
Crl.M.A.Nos.4 & 5 of 2020
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner/third party in Crl.M.A. No.4 of 2020 would point out that the petitioner has already filed a Crl.M.A. No.5 of 2020, under Rule 129 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971 for obtaining certified -7- Crl.Rev.Petition. No. 399 of 2020 copy of this Crl.Rev.Petition. Since a memo has already been filed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner to dismiss the Crl.Rev.Petition as not pressed, no orders are required in Crl.M.A. No.4 of 2020, which may be closed. In Crl.M.A. No.5 of 2020, the petitioner may be issued a certified copy of the Crl.Rev.Petition.
13. Crl.M.A. No.4 of 2020 is closed, based on the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner/third party.
14. Crl.M.A. No.5 of 2020 is allowed.
The Registry shall issue certified copy of this Crl.Rev.Petition to the petitioner/third party, in usual terms.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE das