IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1846 of 2008() ------------------------- (AGAINST C.C.NO: 60/2004 ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO: 16/1994 DT. 26.9.1994 OF VIGILANCE HEAD QUARTERS POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) PETITIONER/ 6TH ACCUSED --------------------------------------------- P.K.SURENDRANATHAN ASARI, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O LATE K.K.ACHARI, (PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS-RETIRED) 'SURASINDHU', T.C.9/2228, KURUP'S LANE, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.HARISH KUMAR RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI. P.N.SUKUMARAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A. NO: 2534 OF 2008 IN CRL. M.C. NO: 1846 OF 2008 DISMISSED: 17.11.2008 SD/- V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE jj /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- CRL.M.C. No.1846 OF 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 17th November, 2008. O R D E R The sixth accused in C.C.60/2004 pending before the Court of Enquiry Commission and Special Judge, Trivandrum is the petitioner in this Crl. M.C in which the prayer is to set aside the proceedings against the petitioner in the above case and he may be discharged from the above case. 2. The allegation against the petitioner is that while he was holding full additional charge of Chief Conservator of Forests, wild life during 28.3.1992 to 23.7.1994 and Chief Conservator of Forests from 23.7.1994 to 5.7.1995, entered into consipracy with other accused to obtain pecuniary advantage to contractors of their choice and in furtherance of the said conspiracy the petitioner issued illegal direction to execute the work of construction of community hall at Vellarada, departmentally as per Social Forestry Norms and in pursuance thereof invited quotation for the construction of work without any approved estimate and accepted bogus and improper quotation in the name of one E.Thankappan Crl. M.C.No: 1846/08 2 Nair along with the quotation work of Smt. Shylaja and awarded the work and supply of materials to accused No:4 after using the bogus quotations as genuine and according to the prosecution the accused-petitioner has committed the offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988 and Sections 468, 471 and 120(B) of Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel submitted that initially the petitioner was not arrayed as an accused as there was no material evidence to prove the charges levelled against him. It is also pointed out by the counsel that crime was registered on 26.9.1994 and that the cause of action arose in the year 1992. Though the cause of action arose in the year 1992 there was substantial delay in filing the charge which was actually laid only on 30.9.2004. It is also pointed out that this Court, as per orders in Crl.M.C.Nos: 5219/03 and 5522/2003 discharged accused Nos: 1 and 2 and the Supreme Court has also dismissed the special leave petition filed by the State against the above order of this Court. It is also the contention of the learned counsel that the prosecution was launched against the petitioner without obtaining proper sanction from the Government of India as envisaged under Section 19(1) of Prevention of Crl. M.C.No: 1846/08 3 Corruption Act. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri. P.N.Sukumaran, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 3. Resisting the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the case against the other accused viz., accused Nos: 1 and 2 were on different footing and this Court allowed those miscellaneous cases on different grounds which are not applicable in the case of the petitioner. Regarding the question of sanction also learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner can raise such contention before the trial court at the time of framing the charge. 4. Considering the facts and law involved in the matter, the question of sanction depends upon the factual foundation of the prosecution case against the petitioner and the case against him is pending before the fact finding authority and therefore, it is just and proper to relegate the petitioner to approach the same court and to seek a discharge if he is able to convince the court below on the grounds on which he prays for such an order. 5. In the result this Crl. M.C. Is disposed of directing the petitioner to approach the court below if he is so advised and seek a Crl. M.C.No: 1846/08 4 discharge at the time of framing of the charge, in which event the trial court shall consider his plea for discharge in accordance with law. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner-accused is now at the age of 64 and he had already undergone a bypass surgery and submitted that his personal appearance may be ordered to be dispensed with. It is open to the petitioner to approach the court below by filing such petition and if he choses to do so, the same shall be considered on merit and I am sure that the court below will not insist the presence of the accused except on the inevitable occasion and otherwise the petition will be considered in favour of the petitioner. Considering the long pendency of the case, I direct the court below to expedite the trial of the case as early as possible. Crl. M.C. Is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN JUDGE jj