IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2010 / 8TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3969 of 2009() ------------------------------ CC.1/2004 of III ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/CHARGE WITNESS NO.6 --------------------------------------------------- VISHNU PRASAD, S/O. V.T.CHANDRASEKHAR, AGED 50 YEARS, KUZHUPPILLY HOUSE, KANDANSERRY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEO PAUL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------- CBI/SPE, KOCHI UNIT, REPRESENTED STANDING COUNSEL, CBI, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. ADV. SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRY,SC, C.B.I. FOR R THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.3969 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of January, 2010 ORDER The revision petitioner is the 6th charge witness in C.C.No.1/2004 on the files of the Special Judge(SPE/CB)I-I, Ernakulam, in which the offence alleged against the accused are under Section 120(b) read with 420 IPC and Sec.13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In this revision petition the challenge is against the order dated 16.11.2009 of the said court in Crl.M.P.1190/2009 in C.C.No.1/2004, by which the court below dismissed the petition preferred by the revision petitioner. 2. In the said petition preferred by the revision petitioner, it is stated that he did not give any statement to the investigating officer of the case accepting his signature in the letter accompanied fixed deposit receipt deposited in Bank of Baroda, Aluva Branch. It is stated in the said petition that Ext.D3 document produced along with the chargesheet are not signed by him and he had not identified the signature in Ext.D3 before the investigating officer. In short, mainly on the basis of the above reason projected in the petition, the revision petitioner requested the court below to order a further investigation of the case so as to book the actual culprits. 3. After hearing the petitioner and on elaborate consideration of the entire facts and circumstances involved in the case, the court 2 below dismissed the said petition. From the facts mentioned above and on a perusal of the records including the impugned order, it is appears that the present revision petitioner is only a charge witness cited as CW6 in the final report launched before the court below by the respondent after investigation. The revision petitioner is neither the defacto complainant nor an accused. The learned counsel has no case that the defacto complainant has got any grievance with respect to the alleged transaction which is the subject matter of the prosecution. As rightly observed and held by the learned Sessions Judge, a witness has no role in the investigation or in the conduct of the prosecution case. Any such attempt cannot be recognized. 4. In the impugned order the trial court observed that the court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the investigation unless there is exceptional circumstances which warranted such interference. The court below has also observed that in appropriate cases and when the circumstances warranted the court can interfere. 5. From the above observation, I am of the view that if the petitioner has got any grievance, the same can be brought to the notice of the court at appropriate time and I am sure that the same will be considered by the court in accordance with law, and the procedure. As the investigation has already been completed and the trial is about to commence this court is not expected to interfere with 3 such proceedings. 6. Therefore, I find no merits in the revision petition. In the result this revision petition fails and accordingly the same is dismissed. V.K.Mohanan, Judge cms