Posted On by &filed under High Court, Kerala High Court.


Kerala High Court
Vishnu Prasad vs Cbi/Spe on 28 January, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3969 of 2009()


1. VISHNU PRASAD, S/O. V.T.CHANDRASEKHAR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. CBI/SPE,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.GEO PAUL

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRY,SC, C.B.I.

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN

 Dated :28/01/2010

 O R D E R
                          V.K.MOHANAN, J.
                       -------------------------------
                      Crl.R.P.No.3969 of 2009
                       -------------------------------
             Dated this the 28th day of January, 2010


                                 ORDER

The revision petitioner is the 6th charge witness in

C.C.No.1/2004 on the files of the Special Judge(SPE/CB)I-I,

Ernakulam, in which the offence alleged against the accused are

under Section 120(b) read with 420 IPC and Sec.13(2) read with 13(1)

(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In this revision petition the

challenge is against the order dated 16.11.2009 of the said court in

Crl.M.P.1190/2009 in C.C.No.1/2004, by which the court below

dismissed the petition preferred by the revision petitioner.

2. In the said petition preferred by the revision petitioner, it is

stated that he did not give any statement to the investigating officer of

the case accepting his signature in the letter accompanied fixed

deposit receipt deposited in Bank of Baroda, Aluva Branch. It is

stated in the said petition that Ext.D3 document produced along with

the chargesheet are not signed by him and he had not identified the

signature in Ext.D3 before the investigating officer. In short, mainly

on the basis of the above reason projected in the petition, the revision

petitioner requested the court below to order a further investigation

of the case so as to book the actual culprits.

3. After hearing the petitioner and on elaborate consideration

of the entire facts and circumstances involved in the case, the court

2

below dismissed the said petition. From the facts mentioned above

and on a perusal of the records including the impugned order, it is

appears that the present revision petitioner is only a charge witness

cited as CW6 in the final report launched before the court below by

the respondent after investigation. The revision petitioner is neither

the defacto complainant nor an accused. The learned counsel has no

case that the defacto complainant has got any grievance with respect

to the alleged transaction which is the subject matter of the

prosecution. As rightly observed and held by the learned Sessions

Judge, a witness has no role in the investigation or in the conduct of

the prosecution case. Any such attempt cannot be recognized.

4. In the impugned order the trial court observed that the court

has no jurisdiction to interfere with the investigation unless there is

exceptional circumstances which warranted such interference. The

court below has also observed that in appropriate cases and when the

circumstances warranted the court can interfere.

5. From the above observation, I am of the view that if the

petitioner has got any grievance, the same can be brought to the

notice of the court at appropriate time and I am sure that the same

will be considered by the court in accordance with law, and the

procedure. As the investigation has already been completed and the

trial is about to commence this court is not expected to interfere with

3

such proceedings.

6. Therefore, I find no merits in the revision petition. In the

result this revision petition fails and accordingly the same is

dismissed.

V.K.Mohanan, Judge

cms


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

10 queries in 0.574 seconds.