NANDAKUMAR Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is there any subtle difference between the question of locus standi in the case of initiating criminal proceedings and in the claim of outsiders to come on record in pending criminal proceedings

(2.) This Court has come to a strange situation, wherein a number of Criminal Revisions are being filed by different persons styling themselves as third parties, who are interested in the outcome of the proceedings before the court below in CC No.44/2011. All these Criminal Revisions are directed against common order dated 05.11.2013 in Cri.M.P. Nos.83/2012, 106/2013, 24/2012, 102/2013 and 84/2012 in CC No.44/2011 of the court below. The learned Special Judge (SPE/CBI), Thiruvananthapuram has discharged A1 to A5, A7 and A8 in CC No.44/2011 through the said common order under Section 239, Cr.P.C. It is a case wherein the CBI, being the premier investigating agency of the country, conducted an investigation and filed a final report before the court below, alleging offences punishable under Section 120B read with Section 420, IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against the accused.

(3.) The aforesaid accused preferred various Cri.M.Ps. before the court below seeking discharge under Section 239, Cr.P.C. The CBI has preferred Cri.R.P. No.206/2014 before this Court challenging the said order of discharge passed by the court below under Section 397 read with Section 401, Cr.P.C. Sri. T. P. Nandakumar, who is witness No.108 in the final report, has sought for leave to file Cri.R.P. No.2306/2013. True that it is numbered. Sri.K.M.Shajahan has sought for leave to file a Cri.R.P. and leave has been granted, whereby he has preferred Cri.R.P. No.73/2015. One Sri.K.R.Unnithan has also filed a Cri.R.P. and has sought for leave. The said Cri.R.P. has not been numbered.