V.RAMKUMAR
Biju Purushothaman – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented by Its Public Prosecutor – Respondent
Cognizance is taken at the initial stage when the Magistrate peruses the complaint to ascertain if any offence is disclosed, and decides to proceed under Chapter XV Cr.P.C. by applying mind to the allegations, rather than rejecting it, ordering investigation under Sec. 156(3), or issuing search warrants (!) (!) . Cognizance is of the offence, not the offender; issuance of process follows later if prima facie case exists (!) . If the Magistrate proceeds under Chapter XV after not rejecting or forwarding under Sec. 156(3), cognizance is deemed taken (!) .
Rejection occurs at pre-cognizance stage if averments do not spell out any offence; this is an inherent power distinct from dismissal under Sec. 203 (!) (!) (!) . After Sec. 200 examination, if no offence made out, rejection is appropriate before Sec. 202 stage, avoiding dismissal which requires post-Sec. 202 consideration [15000197500007] (!) .
Dismissal under Sec. 203 is only at post-cognizance stage, after considering sworn statements under Sec. 200 (if any), and result of Sec. 202 inquiry/investigation, if no sufficient ground for proceeding; reasons must be briefly recorded (!) (!) (!) . Cannot dismiss pre-cognizance or immediately after Sec. 200 without Sec. 202; must postpone process and conduct Sec. 202 first [15000197500007] (!) (!) . Sec. 204(4) dismissal for non-payment of process is not on merits (!) . Post-Sec. 202, if insufficient ground, dismiss under Sec. 203 (!) (!) .
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 r
2. Bhagat Ram v. Surinder Kumar and Others (2004) 11 SCC 622
3. Mohammed Kutty v. Mohammed 2006 (3) KLT 447
5. Ravi v. Francis 2005 (4) KLT 51
10. CREF Finance Ltd. v. Sree Shanthi Homes (P) Ltd 2005 (7) SCC 467
13. Dilwar Singh v. State of Delhi AIR 2007 SC 3234
15. Nagraj v. State of Mysore – AIR 1964 SC 269
17. Tula Ram v. Kishore Singh – 1977 (4) SCC 459 = AIR 1977 SC 2401
18. Madhubala v. Suresh Kumar – 1997 (8) SCC 476
19. George v. Jacob Mathews – 1996 (1) KLT 73
24. Satheesh v. Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge – 2003 (3) KLT 480
25. Mohandas v. Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge – 2004 (1) KLT 873
26. Sreekumar S. Menon v. State of Kerala – 2004 (2) KLT 53
27. Janardhana v. Bindu Purushothaman –1987 (2) KLT 521
29. Thakur Ram and Others v. State of Bihar AIR 1966 SC 911
6. Sirajudheen v.State of Madras AIR 1971 SC 520
111. Govind Mehta v. State of Bihar AIR 1971 SC 1708) and Nagaraj v. State of Mysore – (AIR 1964
12. Mohd Yousuf v. Afaq Jahan and Another AIR 2006 SC 705 = 2006 (1) KLT 939
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.