IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2009 / 6TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1421 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRMP.366/2008 IN CC NO.6/2002 of ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.6 -------------------------------------------- V.VINOD,S/O.VENUGOPALAN NAIR, RESIDING AT CHANDINI,T.C.2/2998-1,PANACHAMOODU LANE,PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.M.SREEKUMAR SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COUNTER PETITINER/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.S.HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1421 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of July, 2009. ORDER Petitioner, accused No.6 along with others is accused in C.C.No.6 of 2002 of the court of learned Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram for offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Case in short is that claiming to be a project affected person, documents were created to facilitate the petitioner obtaining job as the nominee of the project affected person in BPCL and accordingly, petitioner got employment which otherwise he was not eligible to get. Investigating Officer after conducting investigation filed charge sheet against the accused including the petitioner. Petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.366 of 2008 seeking his discharge contending that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against him. Learned Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge vide order dated 8.4.2009 dismissed the petition. That order is under challenge in this revision. It is contended by learned counsel that there was no sufficient ground to proceed against petitioner for any of the offences attributed against him. According to learned counsel, petitioner was not involved in the alleged Crl.R.P.No.1421/2009 2 conspiracy. Learned Prosecutor representing the respondent contended that petitioner was also part of the alleged conspiracy and he benefited from the employment that was given to him which was the result of conspiracy. 2. Petitioner is the son of accused No.1 who was the Valuation Assistant attached to the office of Special Tahsildar. Petitioner's grandfather is accused No.5. Case is that with the connivance of accused No.1 and others, documents were created as if accused No.5 is a project affected person entitled to get the benefit of scheme for employment of project affected person, he nominated petitioner as his nominee for employment and accordingly petitioner was given employment. Learned Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge has referred to the materials available on record in paragraph Nos. 5 and 6 of the impugned order. There is reference to the involvement of accused persons including the petitioner in procuring employment for petitioner in BPCL as if his grandfather, accused No.5 was a project affected person. It is too early to say (at this stage) that petitioner was not involved in the conspiracy or the creation of false documents. It is not disputed that petitioner is a beneficiary of the nomination effected by accused No.5. On going through the order under challenge and hearing learned counsel on both sides I do not find reason to interfere with the finding of the learned Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge Crl.R.P.No.1421/2009 3 as regards existence of sufficient ground to frame charge against the petitioner and proceed with the trial. There is no merit in this revision. It is liable to be dismissed. Resultantly, this revision petition is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks