P O SAMSON Vs. STATE OF KERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is preferred against the judgment in W.P.(C) No.17647/2006. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.9/2006 on the file of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur. The learned Single Judge held that there are no grounds to quash the proceedings and dismissed the writ petition.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are stated as follows:- The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer in the Public Works Department in 1971. He was promoted as Assistant Engineer in 1981, Executive Engineer in 1998 and a Superintending Engineer later and he retired from service on 31.12.2004. On the basis of an anonymous petition an investigation was ordered for the period from 1.6.1972 to 31.12.1992 and First Information Report was registered on 4.5.1994 under sec.5(2) read with sec.5(2)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is the contention of the writ petitioner that he had not amassed wealth in disproportion to the income and he had married from a very rich family and therefore the prosecution case against him is totally unwarranted. On the other hand, the prosecution would allege that he had amassed properties disproportionate to his income and therefore he is liable to be proceeded with. The main challenge by the writ petitioner is to the effect that there had been inordinate delay in completing the investigation and that a second First Information Report has been registered which is unknown to law and therefore the whole proceedings are vitiated which requires interference at the hands of this court. The learned Single Judge found that there is no fresh First Information Report and further the delay is reasonably explained and therefore the writ petition lacks merits and therefore it is only to be dismissed.

(3.) So far as the complaint of a second First Information Report is concerned, it can be seen from the counter statement and the records available that a special unit was formed for dealing with vigilance cases and in the year 1997 the original First Information Report was transferred to the said wing for completion of investigation and so it is not the lodging of a new First Information Report at all. As observed by the learned Single Judge, the First Information Report contained all the particulars and only on transfer it has been re- numbered. So the mere transfer of a First Information Report to the specially constituted cell does not amount to creation of a new First Information Report as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel had drawn the attention of this court to the decision reported in 2001 (6) SCC 181 - T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Others. It was a case where there was a second First Information Report registered in the matter. Here, the First Information Report is Ext.P7 and Ext.P8 is only a re-registration of the First Information Report on account of the transfer to the newly constituted vigilance cell or, in other words, Ext.P8 is only a re-registration of the crime already registered due to certain administrative reasons. Therefore, the dictum and principles laid down in Antony's case (supra) does not apply to the facts of the present case and therefore it has only to be repelled.