IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DECEMBER 2007 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4382 of 2007(Y) ------------------------------- CC.4/2005 of ENQUIRY COMMR. & SPL. JUDGE, THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ACCUSED: --------------------------------- S.S.GOPALAKRISHNAN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY (RTD), THRISSUR CORPORATION, S/O.SREEDHARAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT VAISAKH, KOLIAKODE P.O., VIA. VENJARAMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.SREEDHARAN NAIR SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL HIGH COURT , ERNAKULAM. 2. ABDUL RAHIMAN, S/O.MUHAMMED, KALLIPPARAMBIL VEEDU, VADAKKUR DESOM, KOORKANCHERY VILLAGE, THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/12/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J ========================== CRL.R.P. NO. 4382 OF 2007 ========================== Dated this the 12th day of December, 2007. ORDER The revision petitioner, who is the accused in C.C. No. 4/2005 on the file of the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur, challenges Annexure IV court charge dated 08.06.2007 framed against him for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act for the alleged contravention of Section 13(1)(d) of the said Act. At this distance of time, I am not inclined to grant the request of the petitioner that he may be permitted to plead for a discharge. He could have pleaded for discharge before the court below prior to the framing of charge. The court below, having prima facie held that there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the revision petitioner, I am not inclined to interfere with the matter. It goes without saying that the prosecution allegations which form the subject matter of the charge will have to be substantiated by sufficient evidence to be adduced by the prosecution. The petitioner will have every opportunity to defend the case. Having regard to the fact that the case is sufficiently old , the Special Judge shall make an earnest endeavour to dispose of the case expeditiously. The revision is disposed of accordingly V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv