NOBLE MATHEW Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 28.11.2014 of the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam in Crl.M.P. No. 958 of 2014. The revision petitioner-complainant filed the said petition viz., Annexure-A praying to entertain the complaint and to issue notice to the accused/the 2nd respondent herein and also to call upon him to explain the disproportionate assets possessed by him and to proceed against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and other provisions of law applicable and also punish him accordingly. A bare perusal of Annexure-A and the impugned order would reveal that various allegations were raised by the revision petitioner in the said complaint as hereunder:--

(2.) Evidently, in respect of the allegations in (c) and (d) therein a report was called for and thereupon Annexure-B report was filed by the Additional Legal Advisor attached to the Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau, Kottayam. Thereupon, the Legal Advisor as also the revision petitioner himself were heard by the learned Special Judge and the impugned order was passed. A perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the learned Special Judge had entered into findings with respect to the allegations in (a), (b), (e) and (f), as well. Nonetheless, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not pressing into service the challenge against those findings and the petitioner may be permitted to challenge the aforesaid order only to the extent it pertains to the allegations in (c) and (d) of Annexure-A. Recording the said submission the parties are permitted to confine the arguments only on the aforesaid point.

(3.) The contention of the revision petitioner is that the learned Special Judge has committed an illegality in making observations touching the merits of the allegations in (c) and (d) and entering into a finding of non-existence of prima facie case for ordering an enquiry in the vigilance angle in the case of allegations thereunder, as well, after arriving at a conclusion that it lacks territorial jurisdiction in respect of those allegations. In the said circumstances, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the impugned order is liable to be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.