ABDUL E K Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition preferred by the 1st accused in C.C.No. 73/2000 on the file of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Kollam, in Crime No. 15/1996, filed a final report accusing the petitioner, who was formerly the Chief Engineer of the Kerala Water Authority, and 13 others offences under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'PC Act') and Section 120B read with 34 IPC. The petitioner preferred Crl. M.P. No. 32/2002 before the Special Judge, seeking an order of discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. P.C.) with a plea that there is no sanction under Section 197 Cr. P.C. And that the offences alleged are not made out. After hearing either side, Crl. M.P. No. 32/2002 was dismissed by Annexure-A2 order dated 26.3.2002. Thereafter, the learned Special Judge framed Annexure-A3 charge on 3.4.2002. Assailing Annexures-A2 and A3, this Revision Petition is preferred as early as 15.4.2002. Though no stay of the trial court proceedings was sought for, at the request of the petitioner, this Court palled for the records and for the last ten years it was kept pending before this Court. Therefore, the trial could not be proceeded with. The petitioner managed to stall the proceedings by calling for the records a decade back. Or else, by this time trial before the Special Judge could have been over. Earlier, the petitioner moved this Court a petition as Crl. M.C. No; 1172/2001 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking an order to quash the final report. Initially, a stay was granted by this Court. But, in the tight of the decisions of the Apex Court, the stay was vacated. It is pending Crl. M.C. No. 1172/2001, this petition was filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner, who was a public servant in state service, by virtue of Section 19 of the Kerala Water Supply and Sewage Act, 1986 is entitled to continue with the same rights and privileges and status of a public servant in the capacity as Chief Engineer of the Kerala Water Authority and therefore, to prosecute for offence under Section 120B IPC, there should have been a separate sanction under Section 197 Cr. P.C. It is not disputed that as regards the offence under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) the competent authority had accorded sanction to prosecute the petitioner. The competency of the authority, which granted sanction under Section 19(1) as regards the offence under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d), is also not disputed in this proceedings. Admittedly, the revision petitioner was the Chief Engineer of the Kerala Water Authority. The offence was alleged to have been committed while he was working as Chief Engineer. There is no case for the petitioner that he was appointed by the Government or that he is liable to be removed from office save by or with the sanction of the Government. On the other hand, the very case of the prosecution is that Water Authority is the appointing and removing authority of the petitioner and that no sanction is required under Section 197 Cr. P.C. I find merit in the submission made by the learned Government Pleader because the petitioner has no case that the State Government is either the appointing or removing authority, though he may be an officer coming under the definition of the public servant. For better appreciation a reading of Section 197 Cr. P.C. would be relevant.

(2.) I have carefully gone through the final report, the charge already framed and Annexure-2 order. I find that the allegations in the final report are sufficient enough to send the petitioner for trial for the offences alleged. Therefore, the Special Judge was justified in framing charge for the above said offences. Though brief, the learned Special Judge had given good reasons to reject the request for discharge. The reasons stated for discharge are matters to be considered in trial. As observed by the learned Special Judge, the allegations in the final report prima facie make out the offences alleged to send the petitioner for trial. I am not venturing to delve into the merits as it may prejudice the defence. The Revision Petition is devoid of merits. In the result, this Revision Petition is dismissed. The records may be returned to the trial court forthwith. This case being pretty old one, the trial court shall see that the case is disposed of, as expeditiously as possible. Preferably trial shall be conducted day to day basis.