IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2010 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4570 of 2010() ------------------------ ( CC.72/2000 of ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE, TRIVANDRUM) .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 ------------------------------------------ SUNNY PAUL, S/O.PAULOSE, PULINATTU HOUSE, IYRAPURAM, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN SRI.UNNI SEBASTIAN KAPPEN RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE DY.S.P. VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, KOLLAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. I.V.PRASAD THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.4570 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 6th December, 2010 O R D E R Annexure-A report was filed before Special Judge, Vigilance, Thiruvananthapuram by the Legal Adviser seeking further investigation under Section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure contending that supplemental Agreement Nos.11 and 14 were executed by late Varghese Mathew, formerly Superintending Engineer and petitioner, the second accused, and it has come to the notice of the investigating officer that in respect of the dumping yard provided by the officers of Kallada Irrigation Project for dumping excess soil, collection of that evidence is highly necessary for a just decision of the case and therefore, further examination of Crmc 4570/10 2 witnesses is to be deferred and further investigation is to be conducted. By Annexure-B order learned Special Judge allowed the application, without a speaking order. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-B order contending that the case has been charge sheeted in 2000 and in such circumstances, Annexure-B order is to be quashed. 2. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. On hearing the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor, when it is found that Annexure-A report filed by the Legal Adviser does not disclose the real purpose of further investigation as expressed by the Crmc 4570/10 3 learned Public Prosecutor and as Annexure-B order does not show that learned Special Judge considered the application on merit, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that Annexure-B order may be quashed with liberty to the prosecution to file a proper application showing reasons. Petition is allowed. Annexure-B order is quashed with liberty to the prosecution to file a proper application, making it clear that quashing of Annexure-B order will not stand in the way of the learned Special Judge considering that application on merit. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.