1. The revision petitioner is the 2nd accused in C.C. No. 41 of 2008 of the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Thrissur, alleging offences punishable under Sections 13 (1) (c) and (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'P.C. Act') and Sections 409, 471, 477A and 120B IPC.

2. The petitioner is arraigned as 2nd accused in the case because of the fact that he was working as a Manager of North Malabar Gramin Bank, Muvattupuzha Branch during the period of incident. The crime was registered by the VACB as FIR No.07/2003-Ekm. Criminal misconduct within the meaning of the P.C. Act, has been alleged against the petitioner, through the final report.

3. On the filing of the final report, it seems that the court below has taken cognizance of the offences involved, and processes were issued. The petitioner appeared before the court below and moved a petition under Section 239 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge, mainly on the ground that the investigating agency, i.e., the VACB, who had investigated the case, had no power to register the FIR or to investigate the matter. The said argument was not appreciated by the court below. The court below dismissed the petition under Section 239 Cr.P.C. and has chosen to frame charges.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. This Court has sought for the assistance of the learned Senior Counsel Sri.Vijaya Bhanu as amicus curiae, since serious questions of law are involved.

5. It could be seen that charges have been framed in the matter by the court below. Therefore, this Court had entertained a doubt whether the matter involved is covered by Section 460 (e) Cr.P.C., which makes the matter as a mere irregularity which does not vitiate the proceedings.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that North Malabar Gramin Bank can only be treated as a Central Government institution and therefore, as per the Regulations, the CBI or the Central Vigilance Commission or such other authorities only could initiate criminal proceedings as well as conduct investigation in relation to the allegations of misconduct against its employees. It is argued that, therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner before the court below are not legally sustainable.

7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the North Malabar Gramin Bank could only be treated as a Central Government institution in which the State Government has no control at all. The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to the decision in Chandra Prakash Singh and others v. Chairman, Purvanchal Gramin Bank and others, (2008) 12 SCC 292 wherein it was held that the State Government does not have any control over the Gramin Bank and that the State Government ex facie does not exercise any control over Gramin Bank since Gramin Banks are governed by the policies of the Central Government, as per Section 29 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976.

8. The attention of this Court has also been invited by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the decision in Prathama Bank, Head Office, Moradabad through its Chairman v. Vijy Kumar Goel and another, (1989) 4 SCC 441. In the case relating to the said decision, the State of U.P. was holding 15% of the total share capital of the Bank and in that case it was argued that the State of Utter Pradesh was having control over the said regional rural banks constituted under Section 3 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976. It has come out that the said Bank was sponsored by a nationalised bank. In Prathama Bank (supra) it was held that the provisions of the Regional Rural Banks Act make it clear that the Regional Rural Banks are under deep and pervasive control of the Central Government and have been established as its instrumentality. It was also held that although 15% of the total capital of the Bank has been contributed by the State of Uttar Pradesh, it ha