IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2010 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 1079 of 2010 ---------------------------------- (CRIME NO. VC3/2006-WYD OF VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, WAYANAD) .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------- K.CHANDRAN,SUMANGALYA,THOMATTUCHAL VILLAGE,VADAUVANCHAL P.O,KALLERI,WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.RAFFEEKH KOTTAKKAL. RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPT. OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, MEENANGADI, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 3. K.K.MOHANAN, AGED 54,S/O.KRISHNAN, KUNNEL VEEDUE, APPAD,MEENANGADI P.O, PURAKKADI VILLAGE, WAYANAD. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. K.S. SIVAKUMAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.1079 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated 29th March 2010 O R D E R Petitioner is the accused in VC.3/2006 of Wyanad of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau registered under Sections 7 and 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. A final report was already submitted. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the final report. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Argument of the learned counsel is that petitioner is only the village extension officer and by accepting bribe petitioner cannot sanction the loan and Crmc 1079/10 2 the bribe was allegedly received not from his office but from the corridor of the bank and therefore, the offence is not attracted in view of explanation (a) to Section 7 of the Act. 4. On hearing the Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and going through Annexure-1 final report, I cannot agree with the submission that the offence is not attracted against the petitioner. Petitioner is at liberty to raise all the contentions before the learned Special Judge and seek an order of discharge. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.