ORDER: All these Crl.R.Ps. are directed against a common order passed by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode, dismissing as many as 28 Crl.M.P. filed by some of the accused in C.C. Nos.11 of 1992 to 22 of 1992 pending before that Court. The common petitioner in all these Crl.R.Ps. is 2nd accused in C.C. No. 12 of 1992, 20 of 1992, 21 of 1992 and 22 of 1992, 3rd accused in C.C. No. 16 of 1992, 18 of 1992 and 19 of 1992, 4th accused in C.C. Nos.11 of 1992, 14 of 1992 and 17 of 1992, 5th accused in C.C. No. 13 of 1992 and 6th accused in C.C.No.15 of 1992.

2. The petitioner along with other accused are chargesheeted by the respondent alleging that they committed the offences punishable under Secs. 5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Secs.109 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Charges in the abovesaid cases were framed in the year 1989 and trials are not yet over.

3. The revision petitioner and some other accused filed petitions for closing the prosecution evidence on the ground that the time fixed by the Supreme Court for completion of the trial in accordance with principle laid down in Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 3281 was over long back. It is admitted that trial of all these cases were stayed by this Court from 20.8.1996 to 10.7.2001 but according to the petitioner even if the period under stay is excluded, the period fixed by the Supreme Court in Raj Deo Sharma’s case is over and hence the prosecution evidence has to be closed. The prayer was opposed. The learned Special Judge rejected the prayer for closing evidence and granted time till 31.3.2002 for prosecution to complete the evidence. Those orders are under challenge in these criminal revision petitions.

4. I shall first consider the maintainability of these criminal revision petitions. The Supreme Court in Satya Narayana Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, (2001)3 K.L.T. 559 (S.C.), has held that no Court shall exercise the power of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any enquiry or trial under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner in all these criminal revision petitions has argued that the directions issued by the Apex Court in Satya Narayana Sharma’s case are not applicable to these cases, as cognizance was taken in these cases while the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was in force. It is argued that the principles laid down in Satya Narayana Sharma’s case are applicable to cases registered under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, only as the Apex Court has considered the effect of the bar contained in Sec.19(3)(b) of 1988 Act. It is argued that there is no corresponding provision in the 1947 Act and hence the directions issued by the Supreme Court after interpreting Sec. 19(3)(c) of the 1988 Act, cannot be applied to these cases which were initiated prior to 9.9.1988. It is also submitted that these cases were filed before the Court of Special Judge, Thrissur and transferred to the Court of Special Judge, Kozhikode in the year 1992. The Apex Court in Satya Narayana Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, (2001)3 K.L.T. 559 (S.C.) held as follows:

"It is thus to be seen that Sec. 19(3) provides:

(a) that no Court should stay the proceedings under the Act on any ground, and

(b) that no Court shall exercise the powers of revision relating to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings. To be noted that (b) above is identical to Sec. 397(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code which deals with revisional power of the Court. If Sec. 19 was only to deal with revisional powers then the portion set out in (b) above, would have been sufficient. The Legislature has, therefore, by adding the words “no Court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on any other ground” clearly indicated that no stay could be granted by use of any power on any ground. This therefore would apply even where a Court is exercising

Click Here to Read the rest of this document