IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2009 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1931 CRL.A.No. 2240 of 2007() ------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CRLP.102/2007 Dated 27/02/2007 CC.24/1998 of SPL.COURT SPE/CBI-II & IV ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------ CBI-REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV.MR.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRY,SC, C.B.I. RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------- 1. P.S.VIJAYAN, CLERK, SYNDICATE BANK, ALLEPPEY TOWN BRANCH, R/O. `CHAITHRAM', SANATHANAM WARD, ALLEPPEY. 2. P.R.NARAYANA PILLAI, CLERK, SYNDICATE BANK, CHANGANASSERY. 3. SHIVANTHAMON, THAIPARAMBU, ULAKANTHARA, NEAR CHEMPATHRA TEMPLE, AVALUKUNNU P.O., ALLEPPEY. 4. V.RAVEENDRA MENON, PANJARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEDUVA, CHETTIPADY P.O., MALAPPURAM DIST. R3 BY ADVS.MR.B.RAMAN PILLAI, MR.R.ANIL, MR.ANIL K.MOHAMMED, MR.SUJESH MENON V.B., MR.JOSEPH P.ALEX. R4 BY ADV. MR.R.MURALEEKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.A. No.2240 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 26th March, 2009 JUDGMENT The appeal is filed by the State against the judgment of acquittal rendered in favour of the accused who had been prosecuted for the offences punishable under Section 120 B read with Sections 381, 419, 420, 468, 471 and 477 A I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Special Judge(SPE/CBI)-II, Ernakulam passed the impugned judgment of acquittal applying the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Common Cause case that the prosecution had defaulted to complete the trial in the case within the time limit fixed in the above decision. Leave alone the question whether the guidelines formulated by the apex court fixing outer limit for conclusion of various types of criminal cases were applicable to a case involving offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, it is seen, in view of the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka (2002(2) KLT 189(SC), holding that no outer limit for conclusion of criminal proceedings can be fixed by the court, the guidelines fixed under Common Cause case and also Raj Deo Sharma's case have no sanction of law. Crl.A.2240/07 -2- Learned counsel appearing for the first and third accused submitted before me that the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court was at a time when the appeal had not been taken on file by this court. The appeal preferred with an application for leave and also a condonation petition was taken on file after granting leave and condoning the delay much later to the decision and, so much so, according to the learned counsel, the decision is not applicable to the present case. I do not find any merit in the submission. Once leave is granted and condonation of delay has also been ordered, the appeal filed against the order of acquittal is a continuation of the proceedings, and no finality can be attached to the impugned order. The judgment of acquittal passed in favour of the accused cannot be sustained and it is liable to be set aside. I do so. The appeal is allowed, directing the parties to appear before the court below on 1st June 2009, which shall give the case top priority, complete the trial and dispose the case as expeditiously as possible. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE