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
