IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2009 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1204 of 2009(A) -------------------------------------- (C.C. NO.9/09 BEFORE THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, KOTTAYAM) .................. PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.4: ------------------------------------------- P.M.SUDHAKARAN, AGED 55, S/O.P.K.MANIKKIAN VAIDER, POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR. BY ADV. MR.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN. RESPONDENT/FORMAL PARTY/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, TO BE REP. BY DY. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ==================== Crl.M.C. No. 1204 of 2009-A ==================== Dated this the 11th day of June, 2009. O R D E R Petitioner is fourth accused in V.C.No.8/2005 of Vigilance registered and now pending as C.C.No.9/2009 before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam. Allegations against the accused are that they entered into criminal conspiracy, manipulated and forged false survey sketch, M-Book, Tour Note, Completion Report and bills and with the dishonest intention allowed the sixth accused to misappropriate Government money and thereby obtained pecuniary advantages of Rs.40,670.96 and also allowed the sixth accused to misappropriate that amount and thereby committed offences under Section 13(1)(c)(d) Crl.M.C.No.1204/2009-A -2- read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 466, 471, 477(A) and 120B of Indian Penal Code. Petitioner approached this Court to quash the proceedings as against him by invoking the powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure contending that petitioner was Field Assistant only from 6-5-2002 to 10-5-2003 and the surveyed sketch was approved by the Manager as well as Divisional Manager much prior to his joining there and therefore he cannot be prosecuted for the deficiency in extent as per the survey sketch. It is also contended that petitioner is not legally bound to re-survey before preparing the bills and he had prepared the bills based on the survey sketch approved by his superior officers and in such circumstances the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for any of the offences. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard. Crl.M.C.No.1204/2009-A -3- 3. On hearing learned Counsel I do not find this as a proper case to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the proceedings pending before the Vigilance Court, especially when petitioner has a remedy to seek discharge as provided under Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure. With that liberty, the petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE dkr