PRINCE MATHEW (FORMERLY AGRL.OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, KARIMKUNNAM Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 2 to 8 in C.C.No. 336 of 2016 of the Special Court (Vigilance), Muvattupuzha. Cognizance in this case was originally taken by the learned Special Judge, (Vigilance), Kottayam on 31.03.2010 on the final report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti corruption Bureau, Idukki. The final report contains allegations of various instances of malpractice committed by the revision petitioners during the discharge of their official functions as Agricultural Officers. After investigation, the VACB found some substance in the allegation of misconduct alleged under section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 but submitted a final report dropping the criminal prosecution, and forwarding the matter for enquiry by the Vigilance Tribunal. The learned Special Judge at Kottayam examined the final report, and found that the final report reveals the offence of misconduct as defined under the PC Act, and accordingly, took cognizance on the final report by order dated 31.03.2010. The said cognizance order is under challenge in this revision brought under Section 397 Cr.P.C., 1973 The case was later transferred to the Special Court, Vigilance, Muvattupuzha, and it is pending there as C.C.No. 336/2016.

(2.) The revision petitioners seek orders quashing the cognizance order on the ground that there is no material in the final report submitted by the VACB for a prosecution against them under the PC Act, and that cognizance was wrongly taken by the learned trial Judge.

(3.) When the revision petition came up for hearing, the learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioners projected a ground that the cognizance order is bad in law for the reason that, there is no proper sanction granted by the competent authority, to prosecute the revision petitioners.