IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2008 / 9TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 2319 of 2008(A) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------------- M.I. BABY, S.I. OF POLICE,OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (CRIME DETACHMENT), THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.K.I.SAGEER RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT.SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THODUPUZHA. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, IDUKKI. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.2319 of 2008 ------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner, while working as Sub Inspector of the Kanjikuzhy Police Station was subjected to a disciplinary proceedings involving offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The allegation seems to be that two persons, who were accused in Crime No.19/99 of the Kanjikuzhy Police Station were arrested and brought to the station by about 11.50 P.M on 28.2.1999; that thereafter the said accused were manhandled. The offence of demand for illegal gratification and acceptance of the same are raised both against the petitioner as also the Head Constable. 2. According to the petitioner, the allegation involving illegal gratification as against the petitioner is a subsequent afterthought. According to him, this would be evident from the original complaint filed against the accused in Crime No.19/99 of the Kanjikuzhy Police Station. The petitioner submits that his efforts to get W.P.(C).NO.2319/08 :: 2 :: those documents have proved futile. He has filed Ext.P5 before the Government alleging the same. 3. On instructions, learned Government Pleader submits that the Vigilance Tribunal has completed the enquiry as against the petitioner and a report has been submitted before the Government. The Government is yet to take a final decision on the same. 4. In my view, if the petitioner wanted to prove his defence by referring to any documents, which are material and relevant, for the purpose of the enquiry conducted by the Vigilance Tribunal, he was perfectly entitled to do so. The question as to whether any adverse inference could be drawn on account of the inability on the part of the respondents to produce the documents or failure on their part to do so, as the case may be, is a question which will arise for consideration before the Enquiry Commissioner and possibly in proceedings which arise therefrom. I do not think it appropriate to issue any directions to the respondents in relation to such documents at this stage, especially when the enquiry by the Vigilance Tribunal has been completed W.P.(C).NO.2319/08 :: 3 :: and acceptance of the recommendations made by the Vigilance Tribunal is pending decision by the Government. Leaving open the contentions of the petitioner in this regard, the writ petition is closed. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge