KUNJUKUNJU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is one of the accused in a crime initially registered by the local police under Sections 466, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. When the Court concerned found ingredients to attract the offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Court ordered a further investigation. On such investigation, the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau (VACB) detected the offence under Sec. 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, and accordingly, the VACB also obtained sanction from the Government under Sec. 19 of the PC Act. Prior to that the local police had already obtained sanction under Sec. 197 Crimial P.C. as regards the Penal Code offences. After the VACB obtained sanction under the PC Act, the writ petitioner filed Writ Petition(C)No.800 of 2018 before this Court for quashing the said sanction on the ground that it is not legal, and that the matter has been pending for years. Urging his right for speedy trial, he sought a writ under Art. 226 of Constitution of India quashing the whole proceeding including the sanction obtained by the VACB. On 24.01.2018, this Court disposed of the writ petition with observation that the prayer as sought by the petitioner cannot be granted, but, he can urge all the legal and factual aspects before the trial court, and he can also challenge the legality and validity of the sanction during trial before the trial court. The said judgment is now sought to be reviewed by the petitioner.

(2.) On hearing both sides, I find no reason to review the earlier judgment of this Court in the writ petition. Delay in the process cannot, as such, a ground to quash the sanction in exercise of the extra ordinary powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. As regards the stage at which the validity of prosecution sanction will have to be challenged, Sec. 19(3) of the PC Act gives an indication. Whether the prosecution was rightly granted or legally granted, or whether it is in any manner vitiated, or whether the long drawn process of investigation would vitiate the prosecution sanction, are all matters to be considered and examined by the trial court at the right stage. It appears that when the writ petitioner filed a writ appeal, the Division Bench observed that the writ petitioner's remedy must be to apply for review, if his grievance is that his case was not properly considered by the Single Bench, or that anything urged by him went unnoticed by the Single Bench. There is no such circumstance here. This Court disposed of the writ petition after concerning all the relevant aspects, and this Court's definite stand is that the legality or propriety of the sanction, or even the petitioner's right for relief on the ground of the long drawn process of investigation, will have to be considered by the trial court. Let it be so considered by the trial court as already decided. That is not a ground to review the earlier judgment.