IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 1574 of 2007(K)
1. K.B.MOHANDAS, SUPERINTENDENT, CENTAL
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.TOM JOSE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :19/01/2007
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
W.P.(c) NO. 1574 OF 2007-K
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of January, 2007
JUDGMENT
The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under
the Prevention of Corruption Act. The case was filed as early
as in 1999. It has now reached the stage of defence evidence.
At the stage of defence, the petitioner filed a list of witnesses
as Ext.P3. It is submitted that the learned Special Judge, by a
separate order, permitted the examination of 7 out of the 15
witnesses who were cited by the defence. That order passed
by the learned Special Judge is not produced before this
Court. I may assume that the said direction is not specifically
challenged.
2. The grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that
Exts.P4 to P10 and P18 to P20 petitions filed by the
petitioner at the defence stage are not allowed by the learned
Special Judge. It is submitted that the refusal of opportunity
to the petitioner to summon the witnesses to produce
documents is working out great prejudice and failure of
W.P.(c) NO. 1574 OF 2007-K -: 2 :-
justice to the petitioner. In these circumstances, it is prayed
that the powers under Arts.226 and 227 of the Constitution may
be invoked to interfere with the orders passed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner was requested to
take me through the details of the prayers. The learned counsel
for the petitioner submits that he wants to challenge the orders
passed in Exts.P4, P5, P7, P8, P9 and P10 petitions. Such orders
are Exts.P11, P12, P14, P15, P16 and P17. It is his further
grievance that Exts.P18, P19 and P20 have also not been allowed
by the learned Special Judge, the orders thereon have not been
produced. The order – Ext.P13 passed on Ext.P6 application is
not challenged.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in
detail. The purpose of petitions – Exts.P4, P5 and P7 to P10
have been explained to me in detail. I have been taken through
the relevant orders – Exts.P11, P12 and P14 to P17. At this stage
of the proceedings, it is not necessary for me to consider the
contentions in greater detail. The impugned orders are
interlocutory orders. Normally, the challenge against the orders
passed in the interlocutory applications must wait till the case is
finally disposed of. The bar under Sec.397(2) of the Cr.P.C.
W.P.(c) NO. 1574 OF 2007-K -: 3 :-
clearly discourages the challenge during the pendency of the
proceedings which would retard the progress of the trial. While
considering the prayer to interfere with such interlocutory
orders though not in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, this
Court cannot afford to lose sight of the purpose for which the
challenge against the interim orders is discouraged and not
entertained while exercising of the revisional jurisdiction.
5. Having considered the petitions – Exts.P4, P5 and P7 to
P10 and the orders thereon – Exts.P11, P12 and P14 to P17
respectively, I must say that I do not find any reason which
would justify the invocation of the constitutional jurisdiction
under Arts.226 and 227 of the Constitution at this stage.
Though it is said that Exts.P18 to P20 petitions have been
disallowed, the orders thereon have not been produced and it is
not possible to venture or hazard any opinion on the
acceptability of the rejection of the said prayers.
6. The learned Standing Counsel for the C.B.I., in the
course of submissions before me, offers to produce the norms
relating to the valuation under the C.P.W.D. Scheme before the
learned Special Judge. I make note of that offer.
7. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed making note
W.P.(c) NO. 1574 OF 2007-K -: 4 :-
of the offer made by the learned Standing Counsel for the C.B.I.
to produce the norms relating to the C.P.W.D. valuation referred
to in Exts.P10 and P17.
Sd/-
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge