IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2009 / 24TH ASWINA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1499 of 2003(B) ------------------------------- CMP.407/2003 of ENQUIRY COMMR. & SPL. JUDGE, THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------------- PRAMOD N., S/O.NARAYANAN EMBRANDIRI, VADAKKEGRAMAM VILLAGE, PUDUKODU P.O. PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SMT.SREELEKHA PUTHALATH RESPONDENT(S): STATE & RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THRISSUR. 3. SRI.T.K.VIJAYARAGHAVAN, PRESIDENT, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THRISSUR. 4. SRI.M.K.KRISHNAN KUTTY, MEMBER, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THRISSUR. 5. SMT.M.SAROJINI AMMA, MEMBER, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R4 SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER FOR R2 SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP,SC,COCHIN D.B FOR R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA C. NAIR FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.1499 OF 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of October, 2009 ORDER In this revision, the complainant in C.M.P.No.407/2003 on the file of Enquiry Commission and Special Judge, Thrissur challenges the order of the lower court dated 5-5-2003 dismissing the complaint i.e. Annexure 6 order. 2. The revision petitioner filed complaint C.M.P.No.407/2003 before the Enquiry Commission and Special Judge, Thrissur against respondents 2 to 5 - the Secretary, President and member of Cochin Devaswom Board alleging some malpractice against them. The learned Sub Judge dismissed the complaint by Annexure 6 order stating that with respect to the matters alleged in the complaint, there was proceedings before this court and that therefore the complaint was found not maintainable. On going through the revision petition and hearing the arguments made by the counsel for petitioner and respondents, I feel that the petitioner can be permitted to file a complaint before the Vigilance Crl.R.P.No.1499/03 2 Department regarding the alleged malpractice committed by respondents 2 to 5 . The revision petition is disposed of as found above. P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. Crl.R.P.No.1499/03 2