RAMESH CHENNITHALA Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An order passed by the Special Court(Vigilance),Thiruvananthapuram on 30.12.2016 forwarding a complaint to the Director of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau (VACB), Thiruvananthapuram for preliminary enquiry, and also for registering a crime, if found necessary, is under challenge in this petition brought under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was the Home Minister of Kerala in the former Government. The former Government had granted promotion to four Senior Police Officers of IPS rank to the cadre of Director General of Police as per the GO(RT)No.1932/2016/GAD dated 01.03.2016. This order was issued on the basis of a cabinet decision. One of the promotees was posted by the Government as the Director of the VACB, which was a cadre post meant for Director General of Police. The Additional second respondent herein brought a complaint before the court below alleging nepotism, corruption etc, in the said promotion, and also in the posting of the Director of the VACB, and he sought orders for investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act ), 1988. The said complaint was filed as CMP No.1153 of 2016, and after hearing the complainant, the learned trial Judge forwarded the complaint to the VACB for preliminary enquiry, and also for registering crime, if found necessary. The petitioner herein is the third respondent in the said complaint. The police officer who obtained promotion along with three others, and posted as Director of the VACB, is the first respondent in the complaint. The second respondent in the complaint is the then Chief Minister of Kerala, the 4 th respondent is the then Chief Secretary of the Government, and the 5th respondent is the then Additional Chief Secretary of the Government. The complaint itself states that promotion was given to the police officers as decided by the cabinet, but it alleges that it was in prosecution of a design hatched by the then Home Minister with the involvement of the Chief Minister, to by pass some senior police officers who had a better claim for posting as Director of Vigilance, and the then Government was very particular to post the first respondent as Director of the VACB. To facilitate such posting, four police officers including the first respondent were granted promotion in violation of the provisions of the law relating to the promotion of IPS officers, the complaint would allege.

(2.) Finding a prima facie case of wrong exercise of jurisdiction by the court below in forwarding the complaint for enquiry or investigation, this original petition was admitted to files. The complainant in the trial court was later impleaded as the additional second respondent. He filed a formal statement of objection, but later he did not turn up to contest the matter.

(3.) The scope and the extent of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has undergone thorough change, and the Honourable Supreme Court has settled the position that the High Court can interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and correct the jurisdictional errors committed by the subordinate courts and tribunals. When any instance of wrong exercise of jurisdiction, or error of jurisdiction in the exercise of the powers of any subordinate court or tribunal is brought to the notice of the High Court, such errors can very well be corrected, and orders passed without jurisdiction, or on wrong exercise of jurisdiction can very well be set aside in exercise of the supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. (State through Special Cell, New Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afshan Guru and others [2003 (SCC(Crl)1545=2003(2) KLT SN 132] There can be situations where the police powers under the PC Act are misused or abused. This Court had on many occasions come across such instances where crimes were unnecessarily or baselessly registered by the VACB against public servants, and harassing investigations were made simply on the allegation that the acts or discharge of functions by the public servants had caused loss to the public revenue. Loss to public revenue cannot be the sole basis for a prosecution or procedure under the PC Act . The scope and object of the different provisions of the PC Act must be properly understood by the prosecuting agencies. In cases where a crime is unnecessarily or baselessly registered without the necessary elements constituting any offence under the PC Act , or where investigation proceeds baselessly, just to harass a public servant, the Court cannot go helpless, and the Court will have to interfere. In such cases of abuse or misuse of police powers under the PC Act , the High Court will have to interfere to prevent such investigative excess or harassment.