V. KRISHNAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter was posted for maintainability. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel pleaded that there is a gross injustice committed to the petitioner. The sanction order passed earlier on 04.12.1998 was suppressed and by playing fraud on the Court, conviction was obtained and the same was confirmed by the high Court and special leave petition was dismissed. Further, the review petition preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed. But, there is no bar in preferring the Criminal Original Petition before the High Court pointing out the fraud committed. To ascertain whether the point agitated in this original petition has been canvassed in the review petition, this Court on 12.02.2018 requested the learned counsel for the petitioner to produce the review petition. Though a serious allegation is made against the prosecution in a case where it has went up to Supreme Court and review petition was dismissed by the Apex court, the counsel did not take any care to file the order passed in the review petition in spite of granting time.

(2.) Today an additional typed set of paper is filed contending that a letter has received from Mr. S.R. Sethia, Advocate-on-Record, Supreme Court of India stating that despite his best efforts, he have not been able to trace the review petition and the order passed in the review petition and he will apply for the certified copy of the review petition before the Supreme Court after Holy vacation.

(3.) This Court directed the Special Public Prosecutor for CBI to ascertain about the execution of the conviction passed against the petitioner/accused. To the shock of this Court, it is reported that though the conviction was confirmed by the High Court on 13.03.2012 in Crl. A. No. 206 of 2006 and NBW was issued after one year to secure the petitioner on 27.03.2013, the prosecution is unable to secure him. They are not able to get any valuable information to take steps to execute the warrant. The facts surrounding the application and the conduct of the petitioner only indicates that he wants to take the judiciary for a raid and despite his conviction, he is not inclined to submit himself, to law but questioning the Judgment of conviction on a different ground which is not per se sustainable. The prosecution agency, which claims itself as premier investigation agency of the country is unable to execute the warrant though knowing fully well about the Judgment, but some of the officers have gone to the extend of helping the fugitive by creating records so as to aid the fugitive thereby not only making mockery of his own institution but also the judiciary.