IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2011 / 14TH SRAVANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1764 of 2011() ------------------------------ CRL.MP.422/2011 of ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------- P.NAGARAJ, 35 YEARS, S/O.S.P.THYAGARAJAN, AYYAPA NIVAS, OPP.COURT COMPLEX, NEYYATTINKARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.MANOJ RESPONDENT: -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA C. NAIR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.NO.1764 OF 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of August, 2011 O R D E R The revision is by the complainant challenging the order of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, rejecting his complaint in view of his absence on the posting date of the case. 2. Complainant is an advocate, who claims to be a social activist. He had filed the complaint, copy of which is produced as Annexure A1 imputing some allegations against some officers of the Excise Department and others, constituting the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and also the Indian Penal Code in the illicit transiting and transportation of spirit in motor vehicles, through the Amaravila Check post. Enquiry over the complaint was adjourned by the learned Special Judge more than one occasion, and finally on 02.04.2011, the posting date, when Crl.R.P.No.1764/2011 2 it was taken up, the complainant was absent and, thereupon, the complaint was rejected. The rejection of the complaint is improper and unsustainable under law, is the case of the complainant/revision petitioner for setting aside such order with direction to the court below to restore the complaint and proceed with it in accordance with law. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Adverting to the copy of the order sheet of the court below, which has been produced as Annexure A3, and pointing out that the enquiry on the complaint was adjourned on several posting dates, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the learned Special Judge had acted illegally in rejecting the complaint for the reason of absence of the complainant. Complainant could not reach the court on the date when it was rejected for reasons beyond his control, in view of the road traffic block, is the submission of the counsel. Irrespective of the absence of the complainant as the complaint had been adjourned from time to time for enquiry, there could not have been a Crl.R.P.No.1764/2011 3 rejection of the complaint since cognizance over the complaint has already been taken by the learned Special Judge, is the furhter submission of the counsel. 4. Annexure A3 order issued would show that complaint was adjourned on its presentation for hearing. Further posting of the complaint also indicate of adjournments for hearing. Whether the orders passed by the learned Special Judge as indicated above adjourning the complaint from time to time for hearing amount to an adjournment of the complaint after taking cognizance of the complaint is primarily the question to be looked into in considering the propriety and correctness of the order of rejection for the absence of the complainant on an adjourned hearing date. At the most, the adjournment styled as hearing has only the effect of 'call on' for examining the complainant on an adjourned date. There was no application of mind by the learned Special Judge over the complaint, as to taking cognizance to proceed with it further. When the complaint was adjourned without taking cognizance by the Crl.R.P.No.1764/2011 4 learned Special Judge, it would have been appropriate merely to pass an order of 'call on' rather than styling such adjournment for hearing. Needless to point out, an enquiry as to the question whether the complaint has to be taken cognizance of cannot be adjourned from time to time for an indefinite period. It is open to the learned Special Judge to adjourn the complaint in case of other pressing works relating to other cases on the file of the court. The compliant has been adjourned three or four times with an order of 'hearing' does not indicate that the Special Judge has passed such order after taking cognizance of the complaint. Leaving it aside, after going through the complaint as well, I find no ground whatsoever to exercise the revisional jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the order passed by the learned Special Judge rejecting the complaint. In the complaint, apart from naming four excise officials, the revision petitioner/complainant has named some others to be proceeded as accused styling them as three lorry owners of a particular vehicle, three drivers of that vehicle, spirit mafia, manufacturers of forged bills and such other persons as disclosed in the Crl.R.P.No.1764/2011 5 investigation. The nature of allegations raised in the complaint against the excise officials imputing of criminal misconduct by such public servants, and corruption by them in relation to illicit transiting and transporting of spirit in a particular motor vehicle, which is stated to have occurred nearly one year prior to the filing of the complaint through Amaravila check post, to proceed against them with the other accused named as aforesaid, prima facie, indicate that the complainant, has approached the court to gain publicity. The allegations are imputed based on the statements purported to have been recorded in an enquiry conducted departmentally as against the excise officials named in the complaint. Looking into the complaint as a whole, the nature of the allegations raised and also the materials stated to be tendered with it, there is reason to hold that such complaint has been filed at the behest of some other parties with some ulterior motive. It is also seen that in relation to the alleged illicit transit/transport of the spirit in the motor vehicle there is also a crime case pending before the Magistrate Court, most probably now under investigation by the competent authority. Crl.R.P.No.1764/2011 6 Whatever be the reason for the absence of the complainant resulting in the rejection of his complaint, I find that in view of the circumstances indicated above, no interference with the order of the learned Special Judge rejecting the complaint is called for. Revision is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp Crl.R.P.No.1764/2011 7