The petitioner is a practising Advocate at Thiruvananthapuram, who had appeared for the 3rd accused Anil Das @ Jeerakam Ani in Sessions Case No.974 of 2006 before the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-II), Thiruvananthapuram. The defacto complainant was the Prosecutor, who was appearing for the prosecution in that particular case.

2. The aforesaid Sessions Case culminated in conviction and sentence of the accused. When the court disbursed after imposing the sentence, the defacto complainant was sitting and going through the judgment in the court hall. While so, the said accused, who was in the custody of the police personnel, and was waiting for the warrant, approached the defacto complainant with the permission of the police personnel. The accused allegedly divulged an information to the defacto complainant that he had parted with an amount of Rs. 25,000/-, as demanded by the defence counsel for handing over the same as bribe/illegal gratification to the defacto complainant, for influencing him. The accused further told him that during the final hearing of the case only, he could realise that the amount was not handed over to the defacto complainant.

3. Shocked by the revelation made by the accused, the defacto complainant preferred Annexure-A complaint before the concerned Additional Sessions Court detailing all what had happened. The learned Additional Sessions Judge forwarded the complaint to the Sessions Court, from where, the same was forwarded to the court below.

4. The court below, on getting the complaint, heard the legal advisor of the court below and passed Annexure-B order, by ordering a preliminary inquiry into the matter under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., thereby forwarding the complaint to the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau. The VACB conducted a quick verification and furnished Annexure-C report before the court below. In Annexure-C, the Inspector of Police, VACB, had found that there was no reason to disbelieve the complainant as well as the police officer on duty. At the same time, he has reported that the said accused namely, Anil Das @ Jeerakam Ani had totally retracted from his versions allegedly made to the defacto complainant. The investigating officer has concluded that when the allegations are levelled against an Advocate, appropriate action has to be taken by the Bar Council.

5. As per the provisions of the Vigilance Manual, the report was forwarded to the Superintendent, VACB. The Superintendent, VACB forwarded the report to the Director, VACB with Annexure-E report. Through Annexure-F, the Director, VACB has accepted Annexure-C and Annexure-E.

6. When the matter came up before the court below, the court below heard the complainant on the matter. After hearing the complainant and considering the contents of the quick verification reports, the court below has decided to direct the Director, VACB to register the First Information Report and to conduct investigation and to file Final Report in the matter expeditiously, through Annexure-G order. Annexure-G is under challenge.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/complainant.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there are no materials for the registration of a First Information Report in the case and that the court below has passed Annexure-G order without considering that there is no substance to bring out an offence under Section 8 or 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It has also been argued that especially when the accused had retracted from his versions, no purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further. It has been further argued that when the so-called statement made by the accused has been retracted, all further evidence that can be collected in the matter are merely hearsay in nature and therefore, all further proceedings would be an abuse of the process of the court.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner