IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2009 / 19TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 36587 of 2008(E) ------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- P.JAYARAJ, "SOPANAM", CHETTAMCOON, THALASSERRY 670 101. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.) SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI SRI.C.S.ULLAS RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. SHRI.N.PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR @ VAIKOM PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PROSECUTIONS (RETIRED), OPP: FEDERAL BANK, ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CBI(SPE), KOCHI. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBI(SPE), KOCHI. ADV. SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRY,SC, C.B.I. FOR R2 & 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.36587/2008 E APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE M.P.NO.10786/2008 IN C.C.513/1995 DTD. 14/12/2008. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPLY/COUNTER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 17/12/2008 TO M.P.N.10786/2008 IN C.C.513/1995. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER NO.225/28/2004-AVD II DTD. 09/05/2008. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE LETTER OF GOVT.OF INDIA NO.225/28/2004-AVD II DTD. 18/11/2004. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(A): COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE PENSION BOOK OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.R1(B): COPY LETTER NO.8252/3/C6/8/9/LD/SPL.COUNSEL/95-2003/ CBI/CHN DTD. 23/10/2003 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.R1(C): COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 23/01/04 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE CJM, ERNAKULAM. EXT.R1(D): COPY OF ORDER NO.225/02/97-AVD-II DTD. 8/10/97 ISSUED BY THE GOVT. OF INDIA. EXT.R1(E): COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.225/62/97-AVD II DTD.09/01/08 ISSUED BY THE GOVT. OF INDIA. EXT.R1(F): COPY OF ORDER NO.225/44/2000-AVD-II DTD. 4/03/02 ISSUED BY THE GOVT. OF INDIA. EXT.R1(G): COPY OF LETTER NO.6030/C2/8(i)/2004/SPE/KER DTD. 14/07/04. EXT.R1(H): COPY OF LETTER DTD. 29/12/04 WRITTEN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE DIRECTOR OF PROSECUTION, CBI, NEW DELHI. EXT.R1(I): COPY OF REMINDER LETTER DTD. 26/05/08 WRITTEN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE DIRECTOR OF PROSECUTION, CBI, NEW DELHI. Kss ..2/- ....2...... WPC.NO.36587/2008 E EXT.R1(J): COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DTD. 3/01/06 ISSUED BY THE DY.LEGAL ADVISER, CBI, NEW DELHI. EXT.R1(K): COPY OF ORDER NO.225/28/2004-AVD II DTD.9/05/08 ISSUED BY THE GOVT. OF INDIA. EXT.R1(L): COPY OF ORDER NO.225/31/2007-AVD II DTD. 17/09/08 ISSUED BY THE GOVT. OF INDIA. EXT.R1(M): COPY OF LETTER DTD. 6/06/08 ISSUED BY CBI, SOUTH ZONE. EXT.R1(N): COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.C.NO.4752/08 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.R3(A): COPY OF LETTER NO.8252/3/C6/8/9/LD/SPL.COUNSEL/95-2003/ CBI/CHN DTD. 23/10/03 ISSUED BY CBI, COCHIN TO SRI.N.PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR. EXT.R3(B): COPY OF ORDER NO.225/62/97-AVD.II DTD. 8/10/97 ISSUED BY GOVT. OF INDIA. EXT.R3(C): COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.225/62/97-AVD.II DTD. 9/0/198 ISSUED BY GOVT. OF INDIA. EXT.R3(D): COPY OF ORDER NO.225/44/2000-AVD.II DTD. 4/03/02 ISSUED BY GOVT. OF INDIA. EXT.R3(E): COPY OF LETTER NO.6030/C2/8(1)/2204/SPE/KER DTD.14/7/2004 ISSUED BY CBI, COCHIN TO SRI. N.PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR. EXT.R3(F): COPY OF ORDER NO.225/28/2004-AVD.II DTD. 18/11/04 ISSUED BY GOVT. OF INDIA. EXT.R3(G): COPY OF LETTER NO.16639/C2/8/(i)/2004/SPE/KER DTD.17/12/2004 ISSUED BY CBI, COCHIN TO THE DIRECTOR OF PROSECUTION, CBI, NEW DELHI. EXT.R3(H): COPY OF ORDER NO.1225/28/2004-AVD.II DTD. 09/05/08 ISSUED BY GOVT. OF INDIA. EXT.R3(I): COPY OF ORDER NO.225/31/2007-AVD.II DTD. 17/09/08 ISSUED BY GOVT. OF INDIA. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(c) No. 36587 of 2008-E ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner faces indictment as the 3rd accused in a prosecution pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, - that is the notified CBI Court. The incident in that case took place as early as on 12/2/88. The case has had chequered career and had turbulent past. By order dated 12/1/07 in Crl.M.C.Nos.3708 & 3737/06, a detailed reference has been made to the sequence of events and the lessons that this case offers for a student who wants to learn how to protract criminal proceedings in this country. There was a peremptory direction in that decision dated 12/1/07 that the trial must be completed within a period of 6 months from the date on which a copy of the order is placed before the learned Magistrate. W.P.(c) No. 36587 of 2008-E -: 2 :- 2. The matter dragged on. Later, this Court had again occasion to consider and in Premshanker v. Inspector of Police (2007 (4) KLT 739) fresh peremptory directions were issued that the case must be disposed of within a period of 7 months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. 3. The trial is almost complete. Now the matter stands posted for judgment. Extension of time was sought for disposal. The matter should have been disposed of by 31/12/08. 4. The learned Magistrate has completed his work. It is reported that the judgment is already signed; but the same is not pronounced because of interim orders issued by this Court. The case is coming up for hearing on 12/1/09 before the learned Magistrate. 5. At this juncture, the petitioner has come before this Court with this petition questioning the right of the 1st respondent to function as a Prosecutor/counsel on behalf of the CBI. It is admitted that the 1st respondent has been conducting the case all along. It is contended that during the interregnum period of 31/12/04 to 17/9/08 the 1st respondent did not have requisite authority to function as Prosecutor/counsel for the CBI. 6. The CBI takes the stand that the 1st respondent has been appointed as Special Prosecutor under Sec.24 of the W.P.(c) No. 36587 of 2008-E -: 3 :- Cr.P.C. and that has been a due and proper notification. 7. I have considered the relevant submissions. It does cause of anguish in my mind that the CBI has not been careful to ensure that proper notifications of appointment have been made to readily satisfy this Court that the 1st respondent has the requisite authority. Reliance is placed on Ext.R3(c) which shows that the 1st respondent was appointed a Special Prosecutor. That notification, I find, does not specify any period and the inference ought to be that the appointee continues as Prosecutor unless such appointment is terminated by a positive order, efflux of time or intervening events. No such circumstance has been brought to my notice. 8. I am of opinion that it is not necessary to go into that question in very greater detail in this writ petition. The question is not about the continuance of the 1st respondent as a Special Prosecutor for the CBI for any other case. The writ of quo warranto is sought to be issued to explain and justify the continuance of the 1st respondent as a Special Prosecutor. But in the facts and circumstances of this case, I find it is not necessary to go into that question in any greater detail. The 1st respondent will certainly have to explain and justify before the courts concerned how he is functioning as a Special W.P.(c) No. 36587 of 2008-E -: 4 :- Prosecutor/counsel for the CBI in all matters arise hereafter. But I am satisfied that it is not necessary, in the facts and circumstances of this case, to issue any directions regarding disposal of the case against the petitioner on the ground that the 1st petitioner does not have the requisite legal authority to function as a Special Prosecutor/counsel for the CBI. 9. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed; but with the specific observation that the dismissal of this Writ Petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to raise objections about the proper conduct of the case in the appeal, if any, which he is obliged to file against the final judgment in C.C.No.513 of 1995. His option to raise contentions about the propriety of the functioning of the 1st respondent as Prosecutor at appropriate later stages shall remain unfettered. But I am certainly satisfied that the case now deserves to be disposed of without any further delay. Of course in such challenge, if any, raised later if will have to be considered whether the conduct of the prosecution on behalf of the C.B.I by the 1st respondent – assuming the same to be without the requisite legal authority is such a vice which would go to root of the matter and vitiate the prosecution conducted by the C.B.I. 10. With the above observations, this writ petition is W.P.(c) No. 36587 of 2008-E -: 5 :- dismissed with the specific direction that the learned Magistrate must proceed to finally dispose of the case on 12/1/09. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge