Can the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (hereafter referred to as 'the Special Judge'), on receipt of a complaint under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code', for short), issue an order to the Officers of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau ('VACB', for short) to conduct a "preliminary enquiry" or "vigilance enquiry" while forwarding a complaint under section 156 (3) of the Code? Can such direction be issued, as per the provisions contained in the Code or the Vigilance Manual? Can such enquiry be ordered, following the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras (A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 520)? These are the main questions to be examined in this revision.

FACTS, BRIEFLY:

2. A complaint was filed by revision petitioner against respondents 1 to 4, under Section 190 of the Code, alleging offences under sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act ('the P.C. Act', for short) and also under section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC', for short) etc. As per the allegations in the complaint, first accused was holding office as Finance Minister in the State Cabinet during the period from 15-11-2004 to 28-7-2005. The accused 2 and 3 are his children and 4th accused is his son-in-law. All the accused, allegedly, in furtherance of common intention, to amass wealth by corrupt and illegal methods conspired and acquired property worth lakhs of rupees in Thiruvananthapuram District.

3. It is also alleged that the first accused, by abusing his official position, devised a plan to obtain valuable property, measuring large extent of land for his near relatives. According to complainant, accused 2 and 4 did not have sufficient source of income to purchase so much of properties and hence there are reasons to believe, (which can be proved by materials) that first accused, who by sheer abuse of his position as Finance Minister, by corrupt and illegal means obtained huge sums of money and used that money for the benefit of accused Nos.2 to 4. The entire source, according to complainant, is traceable only to first accused's corrupt practices.

4. According to complainant, while first accused is allegedly liable independently for offences under sections 7 and 13 of the P.C. Act, others are also liable for same offence, under section 120 B of IPC. On knowing that a complaint is filed, accused-second respondent filed Crl.M.P.627/2006 before the court below praying that complaint should not be taken on file for various reasons. The lower court took a view that the court is not expected to hear the accused or consider the merit of his contentions at that particular stage of the case and the complaint was numbered.

COURT DIRECTED ENQUIRY BY VACB:

5. Learned Special Judge forwarded the complaint to the Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau ('VACB', for short), with a direction that a "vigilance enquiry" shall be conducted into allegations levelled against accused/counter-petitioners. The lower court also ordered that if materials are collected in the enquiry warranting further investigation, then a case shall be registered and FIR be forwarded to the Court. It was also held that if sufficient materials are not obtained in such enquiry requiring further investigation, a report shall be submitted before the court below. This was done, as per order dated 30-8-2006.

6. In pursuance of the direction issued by the court below, a detailed enquiry itself was conducted. Several persons were examined and various documents were perused by VACB. A report was filed by the Superintendent of Police. VACB, Special Cell stating that the allegations made in the complaint are not established in evidence. On getting the report and on considering various aspects, the court below found that no materials are available to proceed with the complaint and the offences alleged therein are not made out and therefore, the complaint was dismissed. (It was also observed that follow up action, as recommended by the V