The petitioners in the above petitions are A1, A3, A5, A7, A8, A10 and A12 in C.C. No. 1 of 1991 on the file of the Special Judge for Edamalayar Investigations, Ernakulam.

2. The proceedings were instituted before the trial Court against petitioners for various offences punishable under various provisions of the Penal Code and the provision of Prevention of Corruption Act. It is the case of the prosecution that these petitioners along with other accused entered into a criminal conspiracy during the period 1980 to 1987 and conceived a plan to make illegal profits for themselves in executing the construction of Idamalayar dam as a part of the Idamalayar project.

3. Idamalayar dam as a part of the Idamalayar project was sanctioned by the Planning Commission and huge expenditure in its construction was incurred. Later number of leaks were discovered in the tunnel, which showed the inferior quality of construction of the dam which became a matter of public concern. The State Government appointed the then sitting Judge of the Kerala High Court as the Commission of Inquiry to conduct the probe. The Commission of Inquiry found the former Secretary. Irrigation and Power and certain others liable for positives acts of abuse of power. The recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry was accepted by the State Government and a special team for investigation into the crime was set up. After investigation, finally a report under Section 173, Crl.P.C. was filed against these petitioners and other accused before the Special Judge for various offences punishable under various provisions of Penal Code and the provision of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

4. When the matter was taken up the petitioners filed separate petitions under Section 239, Crl.P.C. and sought their discharge from the case. It is now submitted that the petitioner in Crl.M.C. No. 1294 of 1995 though filed a petition before the Special Judge in Crl. M.P. No. 64 of 1994, later withdraw it but chose to advance arguments seeking his discharge from the case under Section 239, Crl.P.C. The petitions filed by the other petitioners were not withdrawn and ultimately the learned Special Judge by his common order dated 18th July, 1995 dismissed the prayer of the petitioners seeking discharge from the case and framed charges. As against the said order of dismissal and framing of the charges against them the petitioners have now filed the above cases.

5. A third party has filed a petition in Crl.M.P. No. 2370 of 1995 seeking to implead himself as an intervener in Crl.M.C. No. 1550 of 1995.

6. As the petitioners are the accused in the same C.C. before the Special Judge I propose to pass the following common order in all the above cases.

7. Crl.M.C. No. 1294 of 1995 is filed by the 1st accused in the said case. As stated above, he filed a petition under Section 239, Crl.P.C. before the Special Judge in Crl.M.P. No. 64 of 1994 and sought his discharge from the case. Though later, he withdrew the petition, he chose to advance his arguments on the grounds raised earlier in the said petition and sought his discharge from the case. Trial Court rejected the plea of the petitioner and hence this Crl.M.C. No. 1294 of 1995, praying to quash the orders of the Special Judge passed under Section 239, Crl.P.C.

8. Two contentions were raised by the petitioner before this Court and they are : (1) The Special Judge ought not to have passed a considered order when he decided to frame a charge against him and (2) the Special Judge, for framing charges against him, ought not to have looked into the statements of the witnesses recorded by the investigating agency during investigation. Counsel for the petitioner, in fact, stated before the Court that the petitioner is prepared to face the trial and prove his innocence before the trial Court. I will first take up the first contention of the petitioner, viz. that the trial Court was not justified in passing a considered order when it chose to frame