B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

(1) Is the Magistrate invoking the power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. merely functioning as a 'Post Office' for forwarding anything and everything filed in the form of a complaint?

(2) Whether a Magistrate invoking the power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. shall apply his mind to find out whether it is a complaint of facts constituting an offence?

(3) What should be a complaint on which a Magistrate can invoke the power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.?

These are precisely the questions to be answered here.

2. Petitioners in O.P.(Crl.) No.50/2016 and O.P.(Crl.) No.51/2016 are respondents 1 and 2 respectively in the complaint by the 2nd respondent herein as CMP No.135/2016 before the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Thrissur, alleging offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d), may be intended to be read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The 1st respondent in the CMP was the then Chief Minister and the 2nd respondent in the CMP was the then Minister for Electricity of the State of Kerala.

3. The 2nd respondent herein had preferred the complaint based on some revelations allegedly made by a lady named Saritha.S.Nair, who is the 8th respondent in the complaint, against these petitioners and some others, before the Commission appointed by the Government to probe into the 'Solar Scam', and also before some newspapers and news channels. The court below, immediately on getting Ext.P1 complaint, straight away forwarded the same to the Director of VACB, Thiruvananthapuram, for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., through Ext.P2 order. Inter alia the learned Special Judge has observed in Ext.P2 that “However it is made clear that while forwarding a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the Magistrate or the Special Judge is acting as a post office.” It was by making such an observation, the court below has chosen to forward the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by Ext.P2 order and also aggrieved by the tenor and contents of Ext.P1 complaint, these petitioners have come up under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for getting Ext.P1 as well as Ext.P2, quashed.

4. Heard Sri. S. Sreekumar, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Sri. S. Rajeev, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent, Sri. K.V. Sohan, the learned State Attorney and Smt. S. Hyma, the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the court below has given a go by to all the well established norms of law in passing Ext.P2 order. It has also been argued that merely on the matters of 'hearsay', the court below has entertained Ext.P1 complaint and has chosen to forward it for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It has been further argued that the revelations allegedly made by the 9th respondent before the Commission inquiring into the 'Solar Scam' cannot be treated as evidence, when it was not made before a court of law, and especially when she has not cared to stand the test of cross-examination. Further, it has been argued that the reports in newspapers, and reports in the news channels etc. could only be treated as merely 'hearsay', which is apparently inadmissible in evidence. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the learned Special Judge has not applied his mind in the matters contained in Ext.P1 and he has assumed the status of a mere 'Post Office' in mechanically forwarding the matter. It has been argued that without applying his mind, the learned Special Judge ought not to have forwarded the matter in a mechanical manner for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

6. According to the learned State Attorney, even though the matter was forwarded by the Special Judge in an easy manner under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the matter requires reconsideration and in fact the court below ought to have ordered a quick verification in the matter. He has forwarded the said argument in the