IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2010 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 798 of 2010() ----------------------------- C.M.P. NO. 200/2010 IN CC.147/2008 of ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/PETITIONER/A1:- ------------------------------------------ V.G.BALACHANDRAJI, S/O.GOVINDAN NAIR, CHACKAMPUZHA HOUSE, ANICKADU WEST P.O., KOTTAYAM, NOW WORKING AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER, LSGD SECTION, PUTHUPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH. BY ADV. MR. P.VIJAYA BHANU MR. M.REVIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:- --------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE DY.S.P. V.A.C.B., IDUKKI. ADV. MR. B. VINOD, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. -------------------------------------------------- Crl. R.P. No. 798 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of March, 2010. ORDER The revision petitioner/1st accused who is an Assistant Engineer working in a Grama Panchayath, stands charge sheeted by the Dy.S.P., V.A.C.B., Idukki for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120 (B) IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner while working as Assistant Engineer demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.1000/- on 20.05.2003 from CW1 and thereafter he repeated the demand and accepted a sum of Rs.3000/- on 17.06.2003. The occurrence that took place on 17.06.2003 was in consequence of a trap laid by the Vigilance Police. 3. The petitioner filed C.M.P. No. 200 of 2010 before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam for a discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. As per the impugned order dated 23.02.2010, the Special Judge dismissed the application after holding that there is a prima facie case for framing charge Crl.R.P. No. 798/2010 : 2 : against the petitioner. It is the said order which is assailed in this revision. 4. Even though the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner raised several grounds in support of the revision, this Court sitting in revision will be loath to interfere with the prima facie conclusion reached by the court below in support of the order for framing charge. 5. Since a question of identity may not arise in the subsequent stages of the case, it shall be open to the petitioner to file a petition for personal exemption by incorporating the necessary averments and in case such a petition is filed, I am sure that the court below shall consider the same favourably. This revision is disposed of as above. Dated this the 9th day of March, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv Crl.R.P. No. 798/2010 : 3 :