State Of Kerala Represented By vs Paul V. Thomas on 18 December, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3674 of 2008()


1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. PAUL V. THOMAS,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

                For Respondent  :SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :18/12/2008

 O R D E R
              M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
            ===========================
           Crl.R.P. NO. 3674     OF 2008
            ===========================

     Dated this the 18th day of December,2008

                       ORDER

Revision is filed challenging the order passed

by Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge,

Thiruvananthapuram in C.C.2/2003 directing Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Vigilance to file the

charge sheet before the proper court for the reason

that second accused who alone is a public servant

expired on 26.12.2003 and the case as against the

first accused a private person will not lie and

Special Court has no jurisdiction.

2. Learned Public Prosecutor and the learned

counsel appearing for respondent were heard.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that

the fact that respondent is a private individual

does not mean that Special Court has no

jurisdiction to try him for an offence under the

Prevention of Corruption Act, when the prosecution

case is that in furtherance of the criminal

CRRP 3674/2008 2

conspiracy the offence was committed along with the

second accused who is a public servant. Learned

counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that

the contract was executed on 8.8.1989 and after the

lapse of 17 years it is not in the interest of

justice to proceed with the case.

4. The only question for consideration in the

revision is whether the Special Judge,

Thiruvananthapuram was justified in directing

return of the charge sheet to the Deputy

Superintendent of Police for the reason that

second accused the public servant expired on

26.12.2003. It cannot be disputed that if the

second accused is alive, respondent could have been

tried by the Special Judge. In such circumstance,

the death of the second accused will not take away

jurisdiction, which was with the Special Judge

when cognizance was taken.

Revision is allowed. The order dated 15.1.2005

is set aside. Enquiry Commissioner and Special

Judge, Thiruvananthapuram is directed to proceed

with the trial. Send back the records.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
tpl/-

CRRP 3674/2008    3

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.




   ---------------------
    W.P.(C).NO. /06
   ---------------------


       JUDGMENT




    SEPTEMBER,2006