P.K.Sanal Kumar vs Central Bureau Of Investigation Rep By Its Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Kerala,Ernakulam

R.Narayana Pisharadi, J

The revision petitioners were the first and the second accused in the case C.C.No.4/2011 which was pending in the Court of the Special Judge (SPE/CBI), Thiruvananthapuram.

The facts of the case need not be narrated here. Suffice it to state that, the allegation against the first accused, who was a public servant, was that he committed criminal misconduct by acquiring and possessing assets disproportionate to his income and thereby he committed an offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'). The allegation against the second accused was that she abetted commission of the aforesaid offence by the first accused and thereby she committed the offence punishable under Section 109 of the I.P.C read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Act.

The petitioners filed application for discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C in the Special Court. As per the order dated 18.06.2013, the Special Court dismissed that application.

This revision petition was filed by the first and the second accused challenging the aforesaid order passed by the Special Court.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Central Government Standing Counsel who appeared for the CBI.

Subsequent to the filing of the revision petition, the first petitioner/first accused died. Therefore, the revision petition has become infructous as far as he is concerned.

The second petitioner/second accused, after the death of the first accused, her husband, filed an application as Crl.M.P.No.27/2021 in the Special Court praying that the case may be transferred to the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram since the Special Court ceased to have jurisdiction to conduct the trial against her, who is not a public servant and who is only a private person.

As per the order dated 21.04.2021, the Special Court allowed the aforesaid application filed by the second accused and transferred the case to the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram.

In view of the aforesaid developments that occurred after the filing of the revision petition, the revision petition has become infructuous as far as the first petitioner/first accused is concerned. True, it cannot be found that the revision petition has become infructuous as far as the second petitioner/second accused is concerned. However, it is pertinent to note that the application for transfer of the case from the Special Court to the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate was made by the second accused herself and not by the prosecution. Such an application was made by her while the revision petition filed by her was pending before this Court. In such circumstances, there is no need now to consider the merits of the cases against the second petitioner/second accused.

If the prosecution has got any grievance with regard to the transfer of the case from the Special Court to the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the prosecution is at liberty to challenge the order passed by the Special Court in that regard. If the second petitioner/second accused has got any contention that, after the death of her husband, who was allegedly the principal offender, the prosecution against her for abetting the offence allegedly committed by her husband is not maintainable, she is also at liberty to raise such a contention in the trial court before charge against her is framed by the court.

The revision petition is dismissed with the above observations.