IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2009 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 305 of 2009() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14/08/2008 IN CRL.M.P. 196/2001 IN CC.72/2000 of ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER. & SPECIAL JUDGE, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/4TH ACCUSED:- ---------------------------------------- K.T.NANU, ADVOCATE, MAVELIKARA, FORMERLY EMPLOYED AS LAW OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PROJECT IIII KALLADA IRRIGATION PROJECT (KALLADA) KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. MR. PHILIP T.VARGHESE MR. THOMAS T.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT:- ---------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. MR. JAYAKRISHNAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== Crl.R.P. No. 305 of 2009 ========================== Dated this the 24th day of March, 2009. ORDER The petitioner who is the 4th accused in C.C. No. 72 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, challenges the common order dated 14.08.2008 passed by the Special Court inter alia dismissing the application for discharge filed by the petitioner and the other accused persons. When the court has decided to frame charge against the accused, there is no obligation on the part of the court to give reasons. Same is the position when a petition for discharge is dismissed since the law does not contemplate the filing of a petition for discharge. The learned Special Judge has after perusing the prosecution records, decided to frame charge against the accused persons including the revision petitioner after holding that prima facie, there is material for framing charge. It is actually an interlocutory order and in case the charge framed against the petitioner is without any material, he is free to assail the court charge to be framed hereafter. Otherwise, his remedy is to face trial during which it is open to the petitioner to apply Crl. R.P. No. 305/2009 : 2 : for personal exemption and if the question of identity does not arise, the trial court shall consider his application for personal exemption favourably. This revision is disposed of as above. Dated this the 24th day of March, 2009. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv Crl. R.P. No. 305/2009 : 2 :