IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2008 / 13TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1782 of 2004(C) ------------------------------- CRMP.323/2004 of ENQUIRY COMMR. & SPL. JUDGE, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: COMPLAINANT. ------------------------------ V.SUMEDAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, JT.SECRETARY, TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL KERALA CAPTER, T.C.5/1918(1)KAVADIAR P.O. TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS. ------------------------- 1. M.A.BABY, MEMBER, STANDING COMMITTEE, MANAVEEYAM CULTURAL MISSION NOW DISTRICT SECRETARY CPI(M) ALAPPUZHA. 2. T.BALAKRISHNAN, CO-ORDINATOR AND NODAN OFFICER, MANAVEEYAM CULTURAL MISSION, NOW SECRETARY TOURISM. 3. T.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, CHAIRMAN, MANAVEEYAM CULTURAL MISSION, NOW R/A.CPI(M)LEADERS QUARTERS OPPO.A.K.G.CENTRE. 4. T.K.KOCHUNARAYANAN, MEMBER, STANDING COMMITTEE, MANAVEEYAM CULTURAL MISSION, KALABHAVAN BUILDING, VAZHUTHACAUD, TRIVANDRUM. 5. P.JAYAKUMAR, OFFICE MANAGER, MANAVEEYAM CULTURAL MISSION, KALABHAVAN BUILDING, VAZHUTHACAUD. TRIVANDRUM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.R.P. No. 1782 of 2004 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 04-07-2008 ORDER The petitioner who was the complainant in a private complaint challenges the order dated 19-4-2004 passed by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram dropping the proceedings on the ground that no prima facie case is made out to suggest the allegation of corruption made by the petitioner against the five respondents. 2. The petitioner alleged in the complaint as follows:- With the intention of misappropriating Government funds, the first respondent M.A. Baby, some time in the year 1999 entered into a criminal conspiracy with the 3rd respondent T.K. Ramakrishnan by setting up “Manaveeyam Cultural Mission”. The Government of Kerala issued orders for setting up of the said Mission which started its functioning with effect from 1-11-1999. The 5th respondent P. Jayakumar was the Office Manager and the 3rd respondent Sri. T.K. Ramakrishnan, the then Minister for Cultural Affairs was the Chairman. The 2nd respondent T. Balakrishnan was the Co-rdinator and Nodal Officer of the said Mission. Respondents 1 to 4 were out of Crl.R.P. No. 1782 of 2004 -:2:- the 16 Standing Committee members of the said Mission. Respondents 1 to 3 are leaders of the political party CPI(M) and the Standing Committee was a body responsible for the overall conduct of the activities of the Mission. To meet the expenditure of the Mission, the State Government initially released a sum of rupees one crore to the Mission. As per order dated 5-8-2000 the Standing Committee received Rs. 50,00,000/- and another sum of Rs. 10 lakhs from the Government on 24-3-2001 . The respondents mobilised the amount and caused a loss of Rs. 2 crores to the Government. The first respondent had entered into a criminal conspiracy with the other respondents who by corrupt or illegal means and by abusing their position as public servants obtained huge amounts for themselves and others. Suppressing the same, the Standing Committee to which the respondents were members approved and accepted false accounts and thereby the respondents have committed offences under Sec. 13(1)(c) and 13 (1) (d)(i)(ii) punishable under Sec. 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sec. 420 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. 2. The Special Judge after considering the averments in the complaint and the documents produced along with the complaint was not satisfied that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case for taking action on the complaint. The learned Special Judge also took note of the fact that the petitioner had earlier moved the Lokh Ayukta Crl.R.P. No. 1782 of 2004 -:3:- alleging corruption, nepotism favoritism and maladministration by violating the laws and procedures seeking the intervention of the Lok Ayukta. Eventhough the Lok Ayukta had initially entertained the complaint, but later directed discontinuance of the investigation commenced by it. Aggrieved by the order of the Lok Ayukta the petitioner filed a Writ Petition before this Court. The Writ Petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge. The said dismissal was confirmed by a Division Bench as per Annexure A2 Judgment. In fact, in Annexure A2 judgment of this Court, this Court had observed that the petitioner herein and the other petitioner who were relying on the report of the audit enquiry conducted by the Accountant General, Kerala were not able to produce the report of the Accountant General since the said enquiry was not over. Hence, upholding the order passed by the Lokh Ayukta ordering discontinuance of the enquiry, the Division Bench as per judgment dated 3-12-2002 in W.A. No. 2744 of 2002 dismissed the Writ Appeal without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to approach the appropriate form if need arises depending on the result of the audit enquiry conducted by the Accountant General or the Enquiry conducted by the Government. It is thereafter that the petitioner preferred the above complaint before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge. Before the Special Judge also there was no material produced to show that the result of the enquiry conducted by the Crl.R.P. No. 1782 of 2004 -:4:- Accountant General or that it had resulted in a report finding fault with the utilisation of the Government funds by the Mission or by any member of the Mission. The learned Special Judge also held that even according to the complainant there were altogether 16 members in the committee whereas the petitioner had not chosen to make 12 members of the committee as respondents to the private complaint. It was after observing that the process of the criminal court cannot be allowed to be misused to wreck vengeance against the respondents that the Special Judge dropped further proceedings. The expression used that further proceedings are dropped may not be legally correct. At the pre-cognizance stage the Special Judge could only reject the complaint. The complaint could not have been dismissed under Sec. 203 Cr.P.C. as the petitioner would canvass for since the dismissal of the complaint under Sec. 203 Cr.P.C. can only be after taking cognizance and after enquiry under Sec. 202 Cr.P.C. I see no scope for interfering with the discretion validly exercised by the learned Special Judge. This Revision is accordingly dismissed in limine. Sd/-V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) /true copy/ ani. Crl.R.P. No. 1782 of 2004 -:5:-