IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2009 / 22ND POUSHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3137 of 2007() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04/06/2007 IN CMP.1305/2006 IN CC.12/2007 of ENQUIRY COMMR. & SPL. JUDGE, THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT/ACCUSED --------------------------------------- DR.M.L.RAJAGOPALAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.M.V.LAKSHMI NARAYANAN, MANIYUR BUNGLOW, MANNATH LANE, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.PRASUN. S. RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT & STATE --------------------------------------------- 1. SOBHANAN.V.A., S/O.APPUKUTTY, VALATHUVALAPPIL HOUSE, KAREMPARA P.O., PAZHANJI, THRISSUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.FRANCIS JOSEPH KURISINKAL FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. MUHAMMED PUZHAKKARA FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRRP3137/2007 ORDER ON CRL.M.A.9167 OF 2007 IN CRRP.3137 OF 2007 DISMISSED. SD/- M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE 12TH JANUARY, 2009 - TRUE COPY - P.A. TO JUDGE okb M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO.3137 OF 2007 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of January, 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner is challenging the order passed by Special Judge, Thrissur, in C.M.P.1305 of 2006, a private complaint filed by first respondent alleging that revision petitioner demanded bribe and thereby committed an offence under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, directing issuance of summons as provided under section 204 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner argued that in respect of the same incident an inquiry was conducted by the Superintendent of the District Hospital and Annexure-A report was filed and first respondent had again complained to the District Collector, who directed an inquiry by the Revenue Divisional Officer. But, in spite of notice, first respondent refused to appear and meanwhile Additional Director of Vigilance as per direction of the Director of Health Service (Vigilance), conducted an inquiry regarding the misconduct of the revision petitioner and submitted Annexure-C report and C.M.P. 666 of 2003 was filed before the Special Judge by first respondent, which was forwarded to the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption CRRP3137/2007 2 Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram and pursuant to the direction, an inquiry was conducted and Annexure-D report was filed recommending no action against the revision petitioner and it is thereafter the present complaint was filed and learned Special Judge should not have taken cognizance of the complaint and should have dismissed the complaint under section 203 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel argued that as provided under section 71 of The Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection Or Rights And Full Participation) Act, 1995, no suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against the Central Government, the State Governments or the local authority or any officer of the Government in respect of, anything which is done in good faith or intended to be done in pursuance of this Act and any rules and therefore learned Special Judge should not have proceeded further with the inquiry by issuing process under section 204 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the records of the Court below, it is clear that a private complaint was filed, which was taken cognizance by the learned Special Judge as C.M.P.1305 of 2006. Learned Special Judge conducted an inquiry under section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure by recording the sworn statements of the revision petitioner and a witness whose presence at the time of the incident was mentioned even in the CRRP3137/2007 3 complaint. The allegation of the complainant is that disability of the first respondent was assessed by the Medical Board and was fixed 50% and revision petitioner did not participate in the meeting in which the disability was assessed and later to enable first respondent to get a certificate so as to claim the benefit available to disabled persons from Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, first respondent approached revision petitioner to get his signature in the certificate and at that time Dr. Sathish Babu was also present in that room and in the presence of Dr. Sathish Babu revision petitioner demanded payment of Rs.500/- which was refused to be paid by the first respondent and thereafter revision petitioner made corrections in the disability certificate. The allegation is that there was a demand for bribe which is an offence punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The statement of the first respondent regarding the demand for payment of bribe is made in the complaint as well as at the time of recording his statement by the Special Judge in the course of inquiry under section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Dr. Sathish Babu, who was allegedly present at the time when demand was made, was cited as a witness and his statement was also recorded by the Special Judge. The statement of the Doctor shows that it was in his presence first respondent approached revision petitioner and revision petitioner demanded Rs.500/- under the guise CRRP3137/2007 4 that it is the board fee. The statement of the Doctor recorded by Special Judge corroborates the statement of first respondent that no fees is payable for the medical examination to issue disability certificate. In such circumstances I cannot agree with the arguments of the learned counsel that in view of the reports filed by the Superintendent of the hospital or the Revenue Divisional Officer or Director of Health Services, cognizance of the offence cannot be taken. When the materials brought out from the sworn statement of the complainant and in the witness prima facie contains materials to proceed further with the complaint, Special Judge was justified in directing issuance for process under section 204 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Revision petitioner is at liberty to seek discharge at a later stage, if the evidence recorded under section 244 of Code of Criminal Procedure, if stands unrebutted, does not warrant conviction of revision petitioner. Revision is dismissed. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE okb