P THANGARAJU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the order of the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Dharmapuri dated 10.12.2008 dismissing the petition in CM.P. No. 42 of 2008 in C.C. No. 18 of 2008 thereby declining to discharge the Petitioner herein, who is the 6th Accused in the said case, he has come forward with this revision.

(2.) According to the final report submitted by the Respondent, there are totally 18 accused including the Petitioner. It is alleged that all the 18 accused have committed offences Under Section 120(B) r/w 167, 409, 419, 420, 468 r/w 471 of IPC and Under Section 13(1)(c) and (d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [in short "the PCA"]. Contending that there are no materials on record to frame charges against him, the Petitioner [A6] filed C.M.P. No. 42 of 2008 for discharge. The trial Court dismissed the same. That is how, he is now before this Court with this revision.

(3.) At the outset, Mr. N.R. Elango, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of this revision. According to him, the impugned order declining to discharge the Petitioner from the case is an interlocutory order and, therefore, this revision is not maintainable. To substantiate his contention, he relies on a recent judgment of the Delhi High Court in Dharambir Khattar v. CBI, 2009 159 DLT 636.