IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 276 of 2009() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12/01/2009 IN CMP 2867/2008 IN CC.20/2006 of ENQUIRY COMMR. & SPL. JUDGE, THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ----------------------------------------------------- P.A.HARIDAS, S/O.M.T.AYYAPAN, PULIYATH HOUSE, MANNUTHY P.O., TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VACB,THRISSUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.PUZHAKKARA MOHAMMED THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.276 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24 th day of February, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioner, who is the sole accused in C.C.No.20 of 2006 on the file of the Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge, Thrissur for offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for the contravention of Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, challenges the order dated 12.1.09 passed by the Special Judge dismissing the petitioner's application filed as C.M.P.No.2867 of 2008 for discharge. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner made the following submissions before me in support of the revision:- This is a case where it was after registering the FIR that the trap was laid and the statements of the accused have been incorporated in the pre-trap and post trap mahazars. In the light of the decision Maha Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) 1976 SCC(Crl.) 135, those statements are hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C and cannot be looked into. The learned special judge has Crl.R.P.No.276 of 2008 2 overlooked the above vital aspects of the matter. 3. Contradicting the above submissions the learned Public Prosecutor argued that whatever is recorded in the pre-trap and post trap mahazars do not amount to statements within the meaning of Section 161(2) Cr.P.C so as to attract the interdict under section 162 Cr.P.C. 4. Since the special judge has only dismissed the application for discharge after finding that there is a prima facie case for framing a charge against the revision petitioner, I am not going into the rival contentions made at the Bar. It shall be open to both sides to make their submissions regarding the legal positions at the time of the trial. 5. It is needless to mention that the petitioner can raise all objections during the trial of the case and the same shall be considered by the Special Judge at the appropriate stage. Reserving this right of the revision petitioner, this Crl.R.P. is dismissed. Dated this the 24 th day of February, 2009. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj