IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 23RD MAGHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 145 of 2004() ----------------------------- CC.2/2000 OF THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE (SPE/CBI)-II),ERNAKULAM. .................... REVISION PETITIONER: SECOND ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------- K.V. BALACHANDRAN, DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, L I C OF INDIA, BRANCH OFFICE, QUILANDY, R/O. PANCHAVADI, KAVUMBHAGAM P.O., TELLICHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI SRI.SALISH ARAVINDAKSHAN SRI.C.S.SUNIL RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. 2. C B I REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.PUZHAKARA MOHAMMED. R2 BY SRI.S.SREEKUMAR, SC FOR CBI. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.145 of 2004-C = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 12th day of February, 2008. O R D E R 1.Petitioner, the second accused in C.C.2/2000 on the file of the Special Judge(SPE/CBI)-II, Ernakulam challenges Annexures A4 and A5 whereby that Court has refused to discharge him and has framed charges. 2.The first accused, a Branch Manager and the second accused, the petitioner herein, a Development Officer in LIC of India are alleged to have entered into a criminal conspiracy, whereby the Syndicate Bank, the employer of the first respondent is alleged to have been defrauded. 3.The basic allegation is that the second accused, CRRP145/2004 -: 2 :- who had a savings bank account with the branch, of which the first accused was the manager, issued a cheque from that account in favour of one Mohammed Ismail towards consideration of a second hand vehicle purchased by the second accused, however that there was insufficiency of funds in that account. It is alleged that the cheque presented by Mr.Mohammed Ismail to his banker, on being placed with the branch, of which the first accused was the manager, was suppressed from the SB section by the first accused and later a credit advice was drawn by the first accused against that cheque knowing fully well that there was insufficiency of funds. That over drawal was allegedly replenished by the second accused paying amounts into the S.B.account on detection of the over drawal. Among those charges included in Annexure-A5, the petitioner, the second accused is covered by the charge of criminal conspiracy, which is the first among the charges. The other attendant charges, though put on the first accused, depend essentially on whether there was a CRRP145/2004 -: 3 :- criminal conspiracy hatched between the accused persons resulting in the alleged fraud on the Syndicate Bank. 4.After adverting to the materials on record, the court below has concluded that it is not a case where the second accused is entitled to be discharged. It is accordingly that the charges were framed. 5.In the light of the materials on record, it has to be stated that the court below cannot be held to have been unjustified in refusing to discharge the second accused. It would also be beyond the scope of jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in this revision to hold that the refusal of the court below to discharge the second accused and the framing of charges against both the accused persons warrant interference. 6.In the result, the revision petition fails. The CRRP145/2004 -: 4 :- same is accordingly dismissed. 7.Having regard to the nature of the allegations and the scope of the trial and the fact that there are hardly 12 or 13 witnesses, the court below will make an endeavour to expedite the trial of this case. Since records were called for, transmit the same to the court below expeditiously. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/