IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2009 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 676 of 2009() ----------------------------- CC.12/2004 of ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.1: --------------------- M.V. ARAVINDAKSHAN NAIR, S/O. VELU PILLAI, SREESHYLAM, SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVEENDRAN PILLAI SMT. INDIRA RAVEENDRAN RESPONDENT(S)/STATE: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI P.N.SUKUMARAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.676 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June, 2009. ORDER Heard counsel for petitioner and learned Prosecutor. 2. Petitioner is accused No.1 in C.C.No.12 of 2004 on the file of learned Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram (now pending in the court of learned Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram as C.C.No.18 of 2008 by way of transfer). Cognizance is taken against petitioner and others for offences punishable under Section 13(1) (c)(d)(ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 468, 471, 477A, 409, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner seeks to quash Annexure-A6, order framing charge against him for the reason that though prosecution had sought sanction to prosecute him in terms of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the same was refused by Annexure-A3, order by the State Government and which was confirmed by Annexure-A4 , communication of the Commissioner of Rural Development. The order framing charge is also challenged on the ground that there was no sufficient ground made out to frame charge. 3. Along with the statement filed on behalf of Deputy Superintendent of Police, VACB, Alappuzha respondent has produced Annexure-R1, order as per which Vigilance Department has accorded sanction for prosecution of 2 petitioner and others. According to learned prosecutor as per the amended Rules of Business of the Government, Vigilance Department is competent to accord sanction for prosecution. But, this is contested by learned counsel for petitioner. However, at the time of hearing learned counsel for petitioner submitted that revision may be dismissed without prejudice to the right of petitioner to take up appropriate contentions in the court of learned Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam. In the light of submission made by learned counsel for petitioner I am not going into the merits of the contentions raised by petitioner in this revision. Revision Petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of petitioner to take up appropriate contentions in the court of learned Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam at the appropriate stage. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks