IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 28TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 608 of 2009() -------------------------------- CRL. M.P. NO. 192/2004 IN C.C.NO. 1/2004 of SPECIAL JUDGE (SPE/CBI)-I, ERNAKULAM REVN. PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:- ---------------------------------------- MR. VINCENT ANTONY, S/O. MR. ANTONY, KACHAPPILLY HOUSE, CHAPPEL LANE, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, IN ALUVA TALUK, ALUVA TOWN. BY ADV. MR. K.JAGADEESA CHANDRAN NAIR RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:- ----------------------------------- CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION S.P.E, ERNAKULAM, REP. BY INSPECTOR CBI, COCHIN REPRESENTED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, CBI, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. MR. M.V.S. NAMBOODIRI, SC, CBI. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== Crl.R.P. No. 608 of 2009 ========================== Dated this the 17th day of February, 2009. ORDER The revision petitioner who is the 2nd accused in C.C. No.1 of 2004, challenges the order dated 04.11.2008 passed by the Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-I, Ernakulam dismissing Crl.M.P. No. 192 of 2004 as per which the petitioner sought a discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. In as much as the learned Special Judge has decided to frame charge on being satisfied that there was a prima facie case for framing charge, the order dismissing the discharge petition cannot be treated as a final order revisable under Section 397 r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C. The petitioner is free to challenge the court charge if he is able to establish that there was no sufficient material before the court for framing the charge. Reserving this right of the petitioner, this revision is dismissed. Dated this the 17th day of February, 2009. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv