FRANCIS Vs. JOHNY CHANDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This original petition has been filed to quash Ext. P2 order passed by the Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge, Trichur. Second respondent is the President of Fathima Nagar Cooperative Bank, Trichur, Petitioner filed a complaint before the first respondent alleging offences committed under S.13 (1)(d) read with S.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The complaint filed by the petitioner was numbered as M.P.No.84/1996 was referred to Deputy Superintendent, Vigilance and And Corruption Bureau, Trichur for registering the crime and investigation of the same. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau registered a crime as 3/97 and thereafter, without proper enquiry, referred the case as mistake of fact. Thereupon, petitioner filed a protest complaint before the first respondent as M.P.No.234/1997 True copy of the complaint is produced as Ext. P1. First respondent, after hearing counsel for the petitioner and the legal advisor of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Kochi, passed an order in M.P.No.234/1997 holding that the sanctioning authority under the Prevention of Corruption Act to prosecute the President of a Cooperative Society is the Government and directed the petitioner to obtain the sanction for prosecution from the Government and the case was adjourned to 20-4-1999. Copy of the abovesaid order is produced as Ext. P2. It is challenging Ext. P2 that this Original Petition has been filed.

(2.) According to the petitioner, Government is not the sanctioning authority. Further, it is submitted that so far as the President of a Cooperative Society is concerned, there is no sanctioning authority and hence, Ext. P2 order is wrong.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the second respondent. Counter affidavit mainly gives the details about the falsity of the, case set up by the petitioner. I am not concerned with that at present. Second respondent submitted that he will not come under the definition of public servant.