TOMIN J. THACHANKARY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner herein stands arrayed as the accused in CC No.348/2016 pending on the files of the Special Judge and Enquiry Commissioner, Muvattupuzha for offences alleged against him under section 13(1)(e) read with section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(2.) According to the petitioner herein, he is presently holding the post of Additional Director General of Police(Crime Branch). He is entrusted with investigation into a Crime into the construction of four flats at Maradu which were ordered to be demolished pursuant to the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on an allegation that they were constructed violating the norms of Coastal Regulation Zone. Investigation is stated to be progressing. The Crime Branch took up the investigation registered by the local police and re-registered the crime. Petitioner is stated to be directly supervising the progress in the investigation. FIR in the above cases are pending before the enquiry commissioner Special Judge, Muvattupuzha. According to the petitioner, as a supervisor officer of the investigation team specially constituted to investigate the above case, he has to appear before the court below in connection with the investigation. The petitioner hence seeks transfer of CC No. 348/2016 pending before the same court on an apprehension that since he has to appear before the court as an accused and at the same time has to prosecute the case investigated by the team of Crime Branch directly supervised by him, he feels that it may cause serious prejudice and embarrassment to himself and also to the court. Clarifying that there is absolutely no allegation against the presiding officer of the Special Court, Muvattupuzha, he seeks transfer on the ground of balance of convenience and to avoid embarrassment to the prosecuting agency as well as to the petitioner.

(3.) Pursuant to a direction of this Court, learned Special Judge, Muvattpuzha by his communication dated 12/1/2019 has informed that the investigation into the Maradu flats case is being investigated by DYSP. According to the learned Judge, there is no need for the petitioner to appear before that court in connection with the above case. It is stated that it is the investigating officer who is appearing before that court in the above case. The learned Judge asserted that there is no reason for any embarrassment to the presiding officer on account of the pendency of the case in which the petitioner is the accused. According to the learned Judge, still he has no objection in transferring the case to any other court.