IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2010 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1020 of 2010() ------------------------------ CRL. M.P.NO. 1012/2009 IN C.C.NO. 4/2004 of COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE (SPE/CBI) -I, ERNAKULAM. REVN. PETITIONER/ PETITIONER/5TH ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------------------- ANANTHA NARAYANA BHATT, S/O. LATE NARYNA VADHYAR, AGED 60 YEARS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. ANIT MARINE AGENCIES PVT. LT., INDIRA GANDHI ROAD, WELLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI - 682 003. BY ADV. MR. C.S.MANU RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT:- ---------------------------------------------------- CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, KOCHI BRANCH REPRESENTED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBI, KOCHI BRANCH, ERNAKULAM. ADV. MR. M.V.S. NAMBOOTHIRI, SC, CBI THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. -------------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No. 1020 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of March, 2010. ORDER Heard both sides. 2. The revision petitioner who is the 5th accused in C.C. No. 4 of 2004 on the file of the court of Special Judge (CBI/SPE) -I, Ernakulam for offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120 B and 420 IPC, challenges the order dated 07.10.2009 passed by the Special Court dismissing his application filed as C.M.P. No. 1012 of 2009 for discharge. 2. According to the revision petitioner, he was not liable to be tried along with the 22 other accused persons in the case and his trial along with the other accused would result in mis-joinder of parties. 3. First of all, the court charge was framed as early as on 02.08.2008. The petitioner filed the present application Crl.R.P. No. 1020 /2010 : 2 : in the month of October, 2009. It is not shown as to how an application for discharge could be maintained long after the framing of the court charge. That apart, the petition for discharge was filed after the prosecution had examined 43 witnesses. The court below was therefore, fully justified in dismissing the application. I see no ground to interfere with the impugned order. This revision is accordingly dismissed. Dated this the 24th day of March, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv