MANI Vs. CHANDRASEKHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision arises out of the order dated 19.3.2001 of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Trivandrum in V. C. No. 7/88 HQRS, impleading the petitioner as the 4th accused in C.C. No. 2/99.

(2.) The facts necessary for the disposal of this case may be stated as follows: The Deputy Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anticorruption Bureau, Trivandrum, registered crime No. V. C. No. 7/88 / HQRS against Mr. R. Balakrishna Pillai and four others alleging transfer of power (electricity) unauthorised to M/s. Graphite India Ltd. for enabling the said firm to derive pecuniary advantage. The charge sheet in the first module was filed and the court took the case on file as C.C. No. 27/88. After the trial the court below found accused Nos. 1 and 2 guilty of the offences and they were convicted and sentenced. The conviction and sentence were confirmed by the High Court. The charge sheet in the second module was filed against Mr. R. Balakrishna Pillai, Mr. P. Keshava Pillai and Mr. Gopalakrishna Pillai which was taken on file as C.C. No. 2/99 and charges were framed against them on 20.3.2000. Thereafter a petition was filed by the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anticorruption Bureau, Trivandrum for permission to conduct further investigation in the case and the petition was allowed by the lower court. After further investigation the investigating officer filed an additional report stating that taking the totality of the facts, materials and circumstances that emerged during the further investigation, there is no tangible or admissible evidence against the petitioner or any other person, except for those, who are already charge sheeted. Thereafter, on a consideration of the materials collected during the investigation, the learned Special Judge impleaded the petitioner as the 4th accused in the case. The order is seriously challenged in this revision.

(3.) Heard learned counsel Sri. T. R. Raman Pillai for the petitioner and the learned Advocate General for the State. The learned counsel for the Additional Respondent was also heard.