IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2010 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3164 of 2009() ------------------------------ CC.5/2006 of COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE (SPE/CBI)-I, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ACCUSED:- ----------------------------------- B.MENGHANI B.SC, LL.B,AICWA, S/O.MURIJMAL, AGED 57 YEARS, R/O E-191, KALKAJI, NEW DELHI-110 019. BY ADV. MR. SHAJI P.CHALY RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:- ----------------------------------- CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, COCHIN BRANCH, KERALA. ADV. MR. M.V.S. NAMBOOTHIRY,SC, C.B.I. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. -------------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No. 3164 of 2009 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2010. ORDER The petitioner who was working as Accounts Officer in the Inland Waterways Authority, stands charge sheeted by the C.B.I for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The charge sheet was filed before the Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-I, Ernakulam. In this case the C.B.I claims to have trapped the petitioner successfully while allegedly accepting bribe from the de facto complainant. As per the impugned order dated 08.09.2009, the Special Judge after hearing the Prosecutor as well as the petitioner, passed the following order:- “Heard on charge. A prima facie case made out for framing charge. For framing charge posted to 20.10.2009. Accused is directed to be present on 20.10.2009.” 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was not heard on M.P. No. 218 of 2007 as per which he pleaded for a discharge and the Special Judge has also not passed any Crl.R.P. No. 3164/2009 : 2 : speaking order on the said application. But instead, the order which has been passed is the impugned order on 08.09.2009 holding that a prima facie case is made out for framing charge. Reliance is also placed on the decision reported in 2010(1) KLT SN 64 SC - Vijayan v. State of Kerala. 3. The learned Standing Counsel for the C.B.I submits that M.P. No. 218 of 2007 filed on 05.07.2007 was dismissed on 20.10.2009 which was the date on which the case stood posted for framing charge. If so, the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that his application was not considered or disposed of. It was dismissed on 20.10.2009. Whether it was by a speaking order or by a cryptic order need not be considered by this Court since the said order is not challenged before me. 4. The court need not pass a speaking order while framing charge. The necessity to pass a speaking order arises only when the court is discharging the accused and Crl.R.P. No. 3164/2009 : 3 : thereby prematurely terminating the proceedings. The impugned order definitely shows that the court had considered the material produced by the prosecution and had come to the conclusion that a prima facie case was made out for framing charge. That is sufficient for the purpose of framing charge. I am told that the case stands posted to today for framing charge. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order which is accordingly dismissed. Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv Crl.R.P. No. 3164/2009 : 4 :