IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2010 / 26TH SRAVANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 2546 of 2010() ------------------------- (CRIME NO.6/2010 OF VIGILANCE & ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, KOLLAM) PETITIONER: --------------- DR.K.A.ANDREW PRINCIPAL (RETIRED) KARMELA RANI TRAINING COLLEGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO 6/2010 OF VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU,KOLLAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.B.VINOD THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2010, ALONG WITH CRMC NO. 2566 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.Nos.2546 & 2566 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of August, 2010 ORDER Dr.K.A.Andrew the petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.2546 of 2010 is the husband of Dr.Geetha Janet Vitus the petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.2566 of 2010. Dr.K.A.Andrew is the principal of Karmala Rani Training College, Kollam where Dr.Geetha Janet Vitus is a lecturer in the department of education. Presently she is working as senior lecturer in the department of education, University of Kerala, Thycadu, Thiruvananthapuram. While she was in the Karmala Rani Training College, Kollam the Government accorded sanction on 2/11/2005 to Dr.Geetha Janet Vitus to undergo to do Phd. for a period of two years from 3/1/2005 to 2/1/2007. One Dr.Viswanathan who was head of the department, University of Kerala was her guide. After completing the Crl.M.C.Nos.2546 & 2566/2010 : 2 : research work she submitted the thesis on 28/9/2006. On 29/9/2006 she submitted a report to the Government to the effect that she had submitted her thesis on the previous day. On 30/11/2006 she was relieved from duty by her guide, Dr.Viswanathan. She rejoined duty in the Karmala Rani Training College, Kollam on 1/12/2006. On 2/5/2009 one Dr.G.Balachandran, Selection Grade Lecturer in Commerce, S.D.College, Alappuzha who is an elected member of Senate private college teachers constituency filed a compliant before the Enquiry Commission and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram (“Special Judge” for short) alleging that Dr.Geetha Janet Vitus, a lecturer of Karmala Rani Training College, Kollam and her husband who was the principal of the aforesaid Training College have committed criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On 18/5/2009 the Special Judge forwarded the complaint for a vigilance enquiry to the Director, Crl.M.C.Nos.2546 & 2566/2010 : 3 : Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (“VACB” for short) with a direction that if materials are collected in the enquiry warranting investigation, a case shall be registered and F.I.R. forwarded to the Special Judge and that the Director should then proceed with the investigation of the case. On receipt of the order of the Special Judge the Director, VACB entrusted the matter with Dy.S.P., Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Kollam Unit for a quick verification report. The Dy.S.P. in turn entrusted the matter with one B.Radhakrishnan Pillai, Inspector of Police of Kollam Unit. After quick verification a report was submitted to the Dy.S.P. to the effect that there was prima facie scope for registering a vigilance case against K.A.Andrew, Principal, Karmala Rani Training College, Kollam and his wife Geetha Janet Vitus and Dr.B.Viswanathan Nair (the guide of Geetha) for an offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Crl.M.C.Nos.2546 & 2566/2010 : 4 : Dy.S.P. submitted a detailed report to the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Southern Range, Thiruvananthapuram who however disagreed with the Dy.S.P. for registration of case against the aforesaid three persons. The Superintendent of Police thereafter submitted the quick verification along with his recommendation to the Director of VACB. After endorsing the views of the Superintendent the Director submitted a confidential report to the Additional Chief Secretary, Vigilance Department, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram. It appears that the only report which was produced before the Special Judge was the quick verification report submitted by the Dy.S.P. On receipt of the report of the Dy.S.P., the Special Judge as per order dated 13/5/2010 observed that the report of the Dy.S.P. reveals that there is a prima facie scope for registration of vigilance case under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and directed the registration of an F.I.R. pursuant Crl.M.C.Nos.2546 & 2566/2010 : 5 : to the direction already issued while forwarding the private complaint under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure to the Director. It is the said order dated 13/5/2010 passed by the Special Judge which is assailed in these Crl.M.Cs. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the cases as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. There is no dispute that if we go by the report of the DY.S.P. incorporating the result of the enquiry conducted by B.Radhakrishanan Pillai, Circle Inspector of Police, there is prima facie scope for registering a crime. But then, it appears that the Special Judge did not have the advantage of seeing the report of the Superintendent VACB, Southern Range, Thiruvananthapuram (who had disagreed with the recommendation of the Dy.S.P. for registration of the case against the aforesaid three persons) and the views of the Director, VACB who had endorsed the conclusion reached by Superintendent of Crl.M.C.Nos.2546 & 2566/2010 : 6 : Police. This is not to say that the disagreement expressed by the S.P. and the concurrence of the Director with such disagreement are binding on the Special Judge. But the Special Judge appears to have been deprived of an opportunity to objectively consider the views of the 3 functionaries. The report of the Dy.S.P. incorporating the result of the enquiry could not have been considered in isolation without the report of the Superintendent of Police as endorsed by the Director. Hence the order dated 13/5/2010 passed by the Special Judge without adverting to the views of the Superintendent of Police and Director of Vigilance cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The court below shall also called for and examine the report of the Superintendent and the views of the Director before proceed further. In case after perusing the said report of the Superintendent as well as the views of the Director in the matter the Special Court comes to the conclusion that there is no prima facie case for registering case against the petitioners herein, it Crl.M.C.Nos.2546 & 2566/2010 : 7 : is needless for this Court to mention that Dr.G.Balachandran Nair the complainant shall also be entitled to an opportunity of being heard. These Criminal M.Cs. are accordingly disposed of directing the Special Court to pass revised orders after perusing the report of the Superintendent of Police, Thiruvananthapuram and the view of the Director on that report and in the light of the observations contained above. The Special Judge shall evaluate the views of each of the aforesaid three functionaries and shall arrive at his own independent conclusion in the matter. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE skj