V.Bharghavan Pillai vs State Of Kerala

R. Narayana Pisharadi, J

The petitioner had filed Ext.P1 complaint in the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Thiruvananthapuram. A

preliminary enquiry was ordered to be conducted by the court in that complaint.

The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), Thiruvananthapuram Unit, filed a quick verification report in the court

below. Thereafter FIR was registered in the matter as VC07/2013/TVM under Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988. After conducting investigation in the case, the Superintendent of Police, VACB, Special Cell, Thiruvananthapuram filed Ext.P3

final report in the Special Court to the effect that there was no substantial evidence to prove the allegations raised against the accused persons and

that the case may be referred to as “mistake of factâ€​ and further action may be dropped.

Ext.P3 final report (refer report) filed by the investigating officer is under consideration before the competent court.

Meanwhile, the petitioner made Ext.P4 application to the Government, requesting to grant sanction under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 for prosecution against the accused in the case. As per Ext.P5 letter, the Government informed the petitioner that his

representation cannot be considered as the matter was pending before the competent court.

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner to issue direction to the competent authority to grant sanction for prosecution against the accused in the

case as sought by him as per Ext.P4 representation.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

Since the final report filed by the investigating officer is under consideration by the competent court, the writ petition filed by the petitioner appears

to be premature. It is for the competent court to take a decision on Ext.P3 final report filed before it. Only when the competent court passes an order

on Ext.P3 report and if it goes against the petitioner, he can have any grievance in the matter. At this stage, no question of issuing any direction to the

Government, even to consider the application filed by the petitioner for granting sanction for prosecution against the accused, arises.

In the aforesaid circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition with

liberty to approach this Court at the appropriate stage.

Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate proceedings at the appropriate stage in the

matter if the decision of the competent jurisdictional court on Ext.P3 final report goes against him.