IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2009 / 4TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4264 of 2006() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07/10/2006 IN CMP 496 OF 2006 IN CC.37/2002 of ENQUIRY COMMR. & SPL.JUDGE, KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ---------------------------------- S.GOPALAKRISHNAN POTTI, S/O. N.SUBRAYAN POTTI, 'SRI KAILAS', T.C.NO.13/2091 III, (KOYIKKAL LANE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-3. (PRINCIPAL, EXTENSION TRAINING CENTRE, TALIPARAMBA). BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.PRASUN.S RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.4264 of 2006 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of June, 2009. ORDER Heard counsel for petitioner and Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent. 2. Petitioner is charge sheeted for offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 409 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. He filed C.MP.No.496 of 2006 in the court of learned Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode for discharge under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”). That petition was dismissed. Hence this revision. 3. It is seen from the order under challenge that case was posted in the court of learned Special Judge for preliminary hearing on 1.8.2006. Learned Special Judge heard counsel on both sides and posted the case for framing charge on 28.9.2006. Charge was framed against both the accused. It is on 6.10.2006, after framing charge that petitioner filed C.M.P.No.496 of 2006 seeking his discharge. Learned Special Judge has observed that the procedure under Section 245 of the Code has already been over and at that stage, question of reconsidering the issue whether charge could be framed did not arise. It is also stated by learned Special Judge that none of the grounds stated in C.M.P.No.496 of 2006 were urged at the time the counsel on both sides were Crl.R.P.No.4264/2006 2 heard on 1.8.2006. I do not consider that at this stage the contentions are required to be considered. Petitioner is also seeking the aid of certain documents produced by him along with C.M.P.No.496 of 2006 to buttress his contention that he is entitled to a discharge. It has been held that for the purpose of framing charge or seeking discharge, only the materials collected in the enquiry under Section 244 of the Code could be looked into. Yet another objection taken by the petitioner is that the sanction obtained is not valid in that is not a speaking order. These are contentions which the petitioner can take in the course of trial. There is no reason why I should interfere with the order framing charge at this stage, in the circumstances of this case and the materials produced. Hence without prejudice to the right of petitioner to take up all his contentions at the time of trial before the learned Special Judge, this revision is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks