IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3164 of 2009()
1. B.MENGHANI B.SC,LL.B,AICWA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :02/03/2010
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR , J.
--------------------------------------------------
Crl.R.P. No. 3164 of 2009
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2010.
ORDER
The petitioner who was working as Accounts Officer in
the Inland Waterways Authority, stands charge sheeted by
the C.B.I for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w
Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The charge sheet was filed before the Special Judge
(SPE/CBI)-I, Ernakulam. In this case the C.B.I claims to
have trapped the petitioner successfully while allegedly
accepting bribe from the de facto complainant. As per the
impugned order dated 08.09.2009, the Special Judge after
hearing the Prosecutor as well as the petitioner, passed the
following order:-
“Heard on charge. A prima facie case made out for framing
charge. For framing charge posted to 20.10.2009. Accused is directed
to be present on 20.10.2009.”
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was not
heard on M.P. No. 218 of 2007 as per which he pleaded for
a discharge and the Special Judge has also not passed any
Crl.R.P. No. 3164/2009 : 2 :
speaking order on the said application. But instead, the
order which has been passed is the impugned order on
08.09.2009 holding that a prima facie case is made out for
framing charge. Reliance is also placed on the decision
reported in 2010(1) KLT SN 64 SC – Vijayan v. State of
Kerala.
3. The learned Standing Counsel for the C.B.I submits
that M.P. No. 218 of 2007 filed on 05.07.2007 was
dismissed on 20.10.2009 which was the date on which the
case stood posted for framing charge. If so, the petitioner
cannot be heard to contend that his application was not
considered or disposed of. It was dismissed on 20.10.2009.
Whether it was by a speaking order or by a cryptic order
need not be considered by this Court since the said order is
not challenged before me.
4. The court need not pass a speaking order while
framing charge. The necessity to pass a speaking order
arises only when the court is discharging the accused and
Crl.R.P. No. 3164/2009 : 3 :
thereby prematurely terminating the proceedings. The
impugned order definitely shows that the court had
considered the material produced by the prosecution and
had come to the conclusion that a prima facie case was
made out for framing charge. That is sufficient for the
purpose of framing charge. I am told that the case stands
posted to today for framing charge. I do not find any
illegality in the impugned order which is accordingly
dismissed.
Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2010.
V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.
rv
Crl.R.P. No. 3164/2009 : 4 :