MOIDEENKUTTY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant in this Writ Appeal is the petitioner in O.P.No. 15632 of 2000. While the appellant was working as Forester in the Forest Department of the Government of Kerala, he was charge sheeted in connection with certain irregularities allegedly committed during 1982-83 in the Social Forestry Units, Palakkad and Pattambi and certain irregularities allegedly committed during 1984 in the Social Forestry Unit, Palakkad. As per the charge sheet, the charges levelled against the appellant were:

(2.) IT is not disputed that the decision of the Supreme Court referred to by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order dated 28-5-2002 is the decision in Satya Narayan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, 2001 (3) KLT 599 (SC). It was a case in which the Trial Court had taken cognizance against the accused (appellant before the Supreme Court) for offences punishable under S.420, 467, 468 and 471 of the I.P.C. and S.5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition in the High Court under S.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the order passed by the Trial Court taking cognizance of the offences against him. The High Court granted stay of the trial. Having obtained a stay of the trial, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition was adjourned from time to time and by that method the accused successfully delayed the trial for seven years. Ultimately, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition was dismissed by the High Court. Challenging the order of the High Court dismissing the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, the accused filed Criminal, Appeal No. 981 of 2001 before the Honourable Supreme Court. While dismissing the Criminal Appeal, the Honourable Supreme Court found that what happened in the case was happening in a large number of criminal cases. The Supreme Court observed that, when public servants are sought to be prosecuted under the said Act, by filing revisions under S.397 of the Criminal Procedure Code or by filing petitions under S.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, stay of the trial was obtained and parties successfully managed to delay the trial. The supreme Court further observed that stays were granted by courts without considering and / or in contravention of S.19(3)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. According to the Supreme Court, this had an adverse effect on combating corruption amongst public servants and it had therefore become necessary to reiterate the law. After considering the provisions contained in S.19, 22, 23 and 27 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and S.397 and 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it was held that in view of the provisions contained in S.19(3)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the High Court cannot stay the proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or exercise the powers of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings. On a careful reading of the separate judgments. On a careful reading of the separate judgement written by Honourable Mr. Justice S.N. Variava and Honourable Mr. Justice K.T. Thomas, we find that Their Lordships were considering the power of the High Court under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, particularly S.397 and 482, to stay the proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Their Lordships did not consider the power of the High Court under Art.226/227 of the Constitution of India to stay the proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Nor did Their Lordships hold that in view of the provisions contained in S.19(3)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the High Court has no power under Art.226/227 of the Constitution of India to stay the proceedings under the said Act. Admittedly, O.P. No. 15632 of 2000 was filed under Art.226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and C.M.P. No. 25532 of 2000 was filed under R.150 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971. The said R.150 is in respect of proceedings under Art.226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Thus the stay granted by the learned Single Judge was in proceedings under Art.226/227 of the Constitution and not under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was not right in vacating the stay and dismissing C.M.P. No. 25532 of 2000 only on the basis of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Satya Narayan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan (supra). Admittedly, the stay was vacated not on any other grounds. Hence, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is illegal and liable to be set aside.

(3.) SECTION 19(3)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 reads as follows: