IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2011 / 21ST ASWINA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 3303 of 2011(A) -------------------------------------- [CRL.M.P.NO.595/2010 IN CC.43/2003 OF THE COURT OF THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE, KOZHIKODE] .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER/IST ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------------------- M.R.RAGHUCHANDRABAL, S/O.,RAGHAVAN NADAR, 'ASHRAMAM',KADAPANTHALA NAGAR, T.C/2286/1 JAWAHAR NAGAR P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADVS. SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN, SRI.UNNI SEBASTIAN KAPPEN. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE DY.S.P.VIGILANCE & ANTI -CORRUPTION BUREAU,KANNUR. BY STATE PROSECUTOR SRI. T. ASAF ALI. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.M.C. NO. 3303/2011-A: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:- ANNEXURE.A: COPY OF THE CRL.M.P. NO. 595/2010 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER/A1 IN C.C. NO. 43/2003 OF THE COURT OF THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, KOZHIKODE. ANNEXURE.B: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 01/10/2010 PASSED IN CRL.M.P.NO.595/2010 IN C.C. NO. 43/2003 BY THE COURT OF THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE, KOZHIKODE. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Prv. N.K. BALAKRISHNAN,J. ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No. 3303 of 2011 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of October, 2011. O R D E R This petition is filed by the 1st accused in CC.No.43/2003 of the court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode. At the defence stage an application was filed by the petitioner to issue summons to cause production of six documents. That application was considered by the learned Special Judge. The request to issue summons to produce documents showing serial Nos. 3 and 6 was allowed by the court below. The request to summon the officers/witnesses to produce documents mentioned in items 1,2,4 and 5 was disallowed by that court. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that documents serially numbered as 1, 4 and 5 relate to the disciplinary proceedings etc. which were initiated against Dinakaran who was examined as a prosecution witness before the court below. The submission made by Crl.M.C. No. 3303 of 2011 2 the learned counsel is that by the production of those documents, it would reveal that, that witness (Mr. Dinakaran) has got animosity against the petitioner herein. The learned trial Judge has stated that the witness himself has admitted that the enquiry was pending against him. That was stated by the learned Special Judge as a reason to decline summons to cause production of documents. The learned counsel submits that the admission made by the witness is not to the extent the accused expects and that admission was made by the witness is not sufficient for his purpose and it is for that reason those documents are caused to be produced. The learned counsel submits that he would take all steps what are required to cause production of documents at the earliest. In view of that submission request for issue of summons to cause production of documents, Sl.No. 1, 4 and 5 is allowed. But it is made clear that the relevancy and admissibility that evidence (the evidence sought to be adduced) can be Crl.M.C. No. 3303 of 2011 3 considered by the trial court at the appropriate stage. 2. As regards item No.2, the request was disallowed by the court below on the ground that the refusal to grant sanction to prosecute one IAS officer who originally was arrayed as A2 cannot in any way be a reason to hold whether prosecution against this accused cannot be sustained or not. The learned counsel submits that in the order so passed (as regards the sanction to prosecute against A2), it was observed that it was only the policy decision of the Government. Hence sanction to prosecute A2 was declined. The observation made by the Secretary to the Government may not be decisive. That point has to be considered by the court itself. 3. The learned counsel now submits that the petitioner himself will get a copy of the order mentioned above and will produce the same before the court in which case the trial court may be directed to receive the same in evidence. The learned counsel also submits taht the petitioner would Crl.M.C. No. 3303 of 2011 4 produce that document at the earliest, at any rate, within one month from today. Therefore, there is no necessity to summon that officer to cause production of document - serial No.2. In the result this petition is allowed in part. The learned Special Judge will issue summons to cause production of documents shown as Sl.No.1, 4 and 5. The petitioner will take steps immediately and will see that the document reaches the court at the earliest so as to have an expeditious disposal of the case. As said earlier the petitioner can produce other documents(referred to as Sl.No.2) referred earlier within a period of one month. The relevancy/admissibility that document can be considered at the time of final hearing. N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE Crl.M.C. No. 3303 of 2011 5 smvd