BIJU C VALIAVANADAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 29th September 2003 of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur in C. M. P. No. 354/2002.

(2.) The facts necessary for the disposal of the petition may be stated as follows: The petitioner filed a complaint before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur against Sri K. V. Thomas, the then Minister for Tourism and Fisheries, alleging that by abusing his position as a public servant he has acquired assets disproportionate to the known sources of his income. The Special Judge forwarded the complaint along with an identical complaint to the Director, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram, for the purpose of conducting necessary preliminary vigilance enquiry and to submit a report as expeditiously as possible. Since there was delay in filing the report, the petitioner filed another petition before the Vigilance Judge alleging that the enquiry is deliberately delayed by the V. A. C. B. with a view to provide adequate opportunity for the public servant to manipulate documents and evidence in his favour. The petitioner wanted to proceed with the matter under S.156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By an order dated 26th June 2003, the Special Judge issued the following directions:

(3.) Thereafter the petitioner approached this Court by filing O. P. No. 12987/2003 for a writ of mandamus to direct the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Trivandrum, to complete the investigation as directed by the Special Judge, without any further delay. The V. A. C. B. appeared before this Court and prayed for some more time to complete the enquiry as directed by the Special Judge and undertook to file the final report after completion of the enquiry on or before 15th September 2003. The prayer was granted and the investigating agency filed the report before the Vigilance Court on 12th September 2003. As per the enquiry report, the total value of assets acquired during the check period was Rs. 55,56,282 and the total income during the check period was Rs. 88,28,974. The total expenditure during the check period is assessed as Rs. 35,73,896. According to the enquiry officer the excess of Rs. 3,01,204 is comparatively small and there is no scope for registration of a vigilance case. The petitioner filed objections to the enquiry report. The learned Special Judge after hearing the parties and on a consideration of the report filed by the Superintendent of Vigilance found that the enquiry officer was fully justified in coming to the conclusion that there is no justification in continuing the proceedings and the further proceedings were dropped. The order dropping further proceedings in the case is seriously challenged in this revision.