This is a revision filed by the 2nd respondent in Crl.M.P.802/2011 before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, against the order directing the Vigilance Department to register a crime.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the complaints were enquired into and quick verification report has been filed rejecting the allegations by the Investigating Agency of the Department, the Learned Special Judge has, by the impugned order in fact gone into the merit of the case and opened his mind and then directed the Vigilance Department to register the case on the basis of three complaints mentioned in the impugned order. Further question of getting prior sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before registering the case against the petitioner has not been considered. But however in this case it is seen that unnecessarily other accused who have not challenged the order were also made parties, and notice could not be served on them. Notice to other persons who are not served has been dispensed with considering the subsequent development happened in this case.
3. The Director, Vigilance and Anti-corruption Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram, filed a statement on behalf of the first respondent through the Special Government Pleader to AG, Tom K Thomas which reads as follows:
“1. The above Criminal Revision Petition is filed challenging the common order dtd. 28.08.2014 passed by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. It is submitted that on the basis of a complaint in Crl.M.P No.845/06 filed by Sri.Sunil S/o Gopalakrishnan, before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, the Court as per its order on 08.11.2006 forwarded the complaint to the Director, VACB, Thiruvananthapuram under section 156(3) Cr.PC for preliminary enquiry.
3. It is submitted that even before the complaint in Crl.M.P.No.845/2006 was forwarded to the Director for enquiry by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, based on a petiton received from Sri.Sebastian George addressed to the then Chief Minister of Kerala, Government had ordered Vigilance Enquiry.
4. It is submitted that while the enquiry was in progress on the complaint of the said Sri.Sebastian George and Sri.Sunil, Sri.Jayan S/o Swarnappan filed another complaint as Crl.M.P.No.802/2011 before the same Court which was disposed of by the Court on 06.09.2011 without forwarding under section 156(3) for such enquiry. As such there was no direction in Crl.M.P No.802/2011 to conduct enquiry into the allegations leveled in the complaint filed by afore said Jayan.
5. It requires to be stated that the allegations in all the complaints are more or less similar in nature. In fact, the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge had forwarded only the complaint in Crl.M.P.No.845/2005 filed by the said Sunil for an enquiry under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
6. It is submitted that this Hon'ble Court, in W.P.(C)No.31497/2014, ordered that Crl.M.P.No.802/2011 has since been disposed of on 06.09.2011, the direction contained in Crl.M.P No.845/2006 need be enforced by the Vigilance Bureau, while considering registration of FIR in the matter.
7. It is submitted that since order of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge to register a case in Crl.M.P.No.802/2011 is not enforceable, it will be just and proper to register FIR and conduct investigation in Crl.M.P.No.845/2006 in the file of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, on the basis of the direction contained in the order of this Hon'ble Court dtd.25.11.2014 in W.P.(C)No.31497/2014. Hence it is decided to register FIR in respect of the complaint in Crl.M.P.No.845/2006 as and when the stay is vacated.”
4. When the revision came up for hearing today Sri.K.P.Danthapani, Learned Advocate General submitted that Government has already decided to register a crime on the basis of Criminal M.P.845/2006 on the file of the Enquiry Commisioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram as per the orders of this Court in W.P.C No.31497/2014 and in view of the stay order granted in this case, they could not register the crime and proceed with the investigation. Sri.S.Rajeev, Counsel for the revision petitioner and Senior Counsel Sri. Sreekumar appearing for the 3rd respondent and Senior Counsel Sri.B.Raman Pillai appearing for the 4th respondent submitted that in view of the fact that Government has already decided to register a crime, they may be permitted to register the crime on the basis of the first complaint and proceed with the investigation. Sri.Chandrasekharan Nair, appearing for the 12th respondent who is the complainant in Crl.M.P.802/2011 submitted that, if a case is registered on the basis of the one complaint alone, then the possibility of collecting possible evidence from other interested persons against all the accused will be forstalled and proper investigation will not be conducted. But it may be mentioned here that even if number of complaints were filed in respect of the same incident or same transactions then, normally case will have to be registered on the basis of the first statement or complaint that has been given. Any number of complaints filed thereafter has to await the investigation of the earlier complaint in view of Section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code. All the complaints subsequently filed also can be forwarded to the Investigating Agency for consideration and they can investigate these complaints as well, and if, the complainants in the later complaints were not satisfied in the investigation conducted, they will be getting an opportunity to file protest complaint against the same. But however in this case, the Vigilance Judge has already directed to conduct investigation in respect of the allegations made in Crl.M.P.845/2006, 802/2011 and also on the basis of the complaint submitted by Sri.Sebastian George before the Chief Minister which was forwarded to the Vigilance Department for enquiry by the Chief Minister.
So, once such a direction has been given though a crime was registered on the basis of the first complainant alone, the Investigating Agency is bound to conduct investigation in respect of allegations in the other complaints which have been filed subsequent to the filing of the earlier complaint namely Crl.M.P.802/2011 and also the complaint said to have been filed by Sri.Sebastian George before the Hon'ble Chief Minister which was forwarded to the Vigilance Department for enquiry. So, that will take in the interest of 12th respondent and also the person who filed the complaint before the Chief Minister in respect of the same subject matter. So, in view of the above submissions, this Court feels that there is no necessity to go into the merits of this case as the Government has already decided to register a crime on the basis of the first complaint which was one of the complaints mentioned by the Special Judge in the impugned order. The investigating agency is at liberty to collect whatever evidence available for the purpose of unveiling the allegations of corruption made in respect of this transaction from the complainants in the other complaints mentioned above to bring all the culprits involved in the alleged corruption in the transaction before the Court below and conduct a fair investigation and file final report before the court as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. With the above directions and observations the revision petition is disposed of.
The interim order granted is vacated.
S d/-
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE iap