MADATHIL MARAKAR HAJI Vs. VAKKOM B PURUSHOTHAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (hereafter referred to as 'the Special Judge'), on receipt of a complaint under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Court', for short), issue an order to the officers of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau ('VACB', for short) to conduct a "preliminary enquiry" or "vigilance enquiry" while forwarding a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code Can such direction be issued, as per the provisions contained in the Code or the Vigilance Manual Can such enquiry be ordered, following the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras (AIR 1971 SC 520). These are the main questions to be examined in this revision.

(2.) A complaint was filed by revision petitioner against respondents 1 to 4, under Section 190 of the Code, alleging offences under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act ('the P. C. Act', for short) and also under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC', for short) etc. As per the allegations in the complaint, first accused was holding office as Finance Minister in the State Cabinet during the period from 15-11-2004 to 28-7-2005. The accused 2 and 3 are his children and 4th accused is his son-in-law. All the accused, allegedly, in furtherance of common intention, to amass wealth by corrupt and illegal methods conspired and acquired property worth lakhs of rupees in Thiruvananthapuram District.

(3.) It is also alleged that the first accused, by abusing his official position, devised a plan to obtain valuable property, measuring large extent of land for his near relatives. According to complainant, accused 2 and 4 did not have sufficient source of income to purchase so much of properties and hence there are reasons to believe, (which can be proved by materials) that first accused, who by sheer abuse of his position as Finance Minister, by corrupt and illegal means obtained huge sums of money and used that money for the benefit of accused Nos. 2 to 4. The entire source, according to complainant, is traceable only to first accused's corrupt practices.