The Revision Petitioner who is the 2nd accused in a private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent herein as Crl.M.P. No. 588 of 2006 before the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, (hereinafter referred to as "the Special Judge") alleging offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Sec. 120 B

I.P.C. challenges Annexure XVII order dated 25-3-2008 passed by the Special Judge ordering investigation by the Superintendent of VACB, SIU, Thiruvananthapuram, under Sec. 202 (1) Cr.P.C. after concluding an enquiry by the Special Judge himself under Section 202 (1) Cr.P.C.

2. I heard Adv. Sri. M. Ajay, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Adv. Sri. P.

N. Sukumaran, the learned Public Prosecutor who represented the State. Eventhough the 2nd respondent/complainant (Madathil Marakkar Haji) was duly served, he has not chosen to enter appearance through counsel or oppose this Revision.

3. The allegations in the private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent herein are that in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy hatched by accused Nos. 1 to 4, accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 who are respectively the two sons and son-in-law of the first accused Vakkom B. Purushothaman had during the period from 15-11-2004 to 28-7-2005 acquired in their names immovable properties worth crores of rupees and thereby A2 to A4 are in possession of assets disproportionate to their known sources of income and that the funds for the acquisition of those assets were provided by the ill-gotten gains of the first accused Vakkom B. Purushothaman by corrupt and illegal means and by abusing his official position as the Finance Minister of the State of Kerala and the four accused persons have thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Sec . 120 B I.P.C.

ARGUMENTS OF THE REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED

4. Adv. Sri. M. Ajay, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner made the following submissions before me in support of the revision:-

Annexure -I private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent herein was initially disposed of by the Special Judge as per Annexure III order dated 30-08-2006 directing the Director of Vigilance to conduct a preliminary enquiry into the allegations levelled against the four accused persons. It was further directed that if the materials collected during such enquiry warrant investigation then a case shall be registered and the F.I.R. be forwarded to the Special Court. Thereafter the Director of Vigilance caused a detailed enquiry to be conducted and finally submitted Annexure IV report dated 9-11-2006 as per which it was found that the allegations in the private complaint were not true. Accordingly, on 6-12-2006 the learned Special Judge dismissed the complaint. In Crl.R.P. 734 of 2007 filed by the complainant, this Court had set aside the order of dismissal and had remanded the matter for fresh consideration. After the remit by this Court , the learned Special Judge had heard both sides regarding the procedure to be followed by the Special Court and finally decided to himself conduct an enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The case was then posted for taking the sworn statement of the complainant. After recording the sworn statement of the complainant the Special Judge examined two other witnesses as C.Ws 1 and 2 after issuing summons to them. Subsequently, two more witnesses were examined by the Special Judge as CWs 5 and 6. Documents were also got summoned at the instance of the complainant. Finally, as per the impugned order dated 25-3-2008, the learned Special Judge after noting that the complainant does not propose to examine any more witnesses came to the strange conclusion that collection of materials other than those produced in this case is necessary to ascertain whether the Special Judge should proceed further or not and has accordingly ordered