IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2509 OF 2008() ------------------------------ CRMP.115/2007 of ENQUIRY COMMR. & SPL.JUDGE, KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------- P.A.ANAND, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, (MOTOR TRANSPORT), O/O.THE ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, SOUTH ZONE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, SPECIAL CELL, KOZHIKODE. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.N. SUKUMARAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRRP 2509/2008 OR DER ON CRL.M.P.7584 OF 2008 IN CRRP 2509 OF 2008 DISMISSED 13.11.2008 SD/- M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. Okb/- /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P. NO. 2509 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of November, 2008 O R D E R Petitioner is the accused in C.C.52 of 2004 on the file of Special Judge, Kozhikode. Revision is filed challenging the order in Crl.M.P.115 of 2007 dismissing the application filed under section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner. Prosecution case against the petitioner is that he committed the offence under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The case is that he had amassed wealth disproportionate to his known source of income to the tune of Rs.3,94,854.09/-. Case of the revision petitioner is that when the prosecution alleged that the wealth amassed by the petitioner is disproportionate to his known source of income, the entire income received by the revision petitioner was not taken into consideration and it is clear from the records of the case. It is contended that the amount withdrawn from the General Provident Fund as well as the amount received by revision petitioner by surrendering the leave were not taken into consideration and if they were also taken into consideration, CRRP2509/08 2 there would not have any asset disproportionate to the income. It was also pointed out that from 1982 onwards petitioner was working and the said income which was saved by the petitioner and the income of the wife was also not taken into consideration and if it is also computed, along with the income for the check period from 1.1.1989 to 25.5.2001, prosecution should not have alleged the offence against the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner relied on the details of the salary based on the Treasury statement and argued that even the entire income received by the petitioner through Treasury was not taken into consideration. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the charge sheet was submitted after collecting materials from the Treasury and there is discrepancy in the statement obtained by the investigating officer and the one produced by the revision petitioner and the aspect is to be cleared. Learned Public Prosecutor fairly submitted that the question may be directed to be reconsidered by the Special Judge. In the light of the discrepancy in the statements produced by prosecution from the Treasury and the CRRP2509/08 3 one produced by revision petitioner from the same Treasury, there is discrepancy. Hence it is necessary to reconsider the question in the light of the materials produced before the learned Special Judge. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner pointed out that the amount received from K.S.F.E was also not correctly accounted by the prosecution. In view of the direction to be issued to the Special Judge to reconsider the question, it is not necessary to decide the dispute in this revision petition and petitioner is entitled to agitate the matter before the learned Special Judge.. Revision is allowed. Order dated 23.7.2007 is set aside. Crl.M.P.115 of 2007 is remanded to Special Judge, Kozhikode for fresh consideration in accordance with law and in the light of the direction given earlier. The Special Judge is directed to dispose the matter expeditiously and in any event within two months from the date of receipt of the records. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-