AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner is the same in all these petitions. He is accused in so many cases before the Special Court (Vigilance), Thrissur. Some of the cases,
regarding which he seeks orders from this Court are; C.C.Nos.94/2011, 79/2011, 89/2011, 95/2011 and 91/2011. He seeks orders quashing the
prosecutions mainly on the ground of delay in the procedure. The crime that led to different final reports was registered in 2005, and the VACB
submitted final report in the cases after years. Even now, the trial process has not reached anywhere. Finding that pendency of the prosecutions
indefinitely will affect his prospects and promotions in service, he brought these petitions to quash the prosecutions.
A report was called for from the trial court, regarding the cases pending against the petitioner. The report submitted by the learned trial Judge dated
3.6.2019 shows that there are altogether 34 cases in connection with the alleged transaction, and that, as against the petitioner, there are five cases.
The report also shows that steps are being taken by the trial court to schedule the cases for trial.
When these petitions came up for consideration today, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner seeks orders
quashing the prosecution, his concern practically is as regards the denial of future benefits in service due to the pendency of the so many prosecutions
against him.
As per the interim order dated 22.5.2019, this Court has clarified, that if the petitioner is similarly placed as the petitioner in O.P.(Crl.)No. 427/2017,
disposed of by this Court, he can also seek such relief in terms of the Ext.P6 order produced by him, and the Court has also directed the concerned
authority to consider his request appropriately. Of course, it is for the Government or the concerned authority to decide, whether promotions and other
benefits can be granted to the petitioner, pending the prosecutions, or whether such benefits should be denied. Any way, if the petitioner in O.P.
(Crl.)No.427/2017 has received any benefit in terms of Ext.P6 order, that can be considered by the concerned authority, when such claim is made by
the petitioner. Only such an order can be now granted. The question of quashing the prosecutions on the ground of delay cannot be thought of now.
Accordingly, making the interim directions made on 22.5.2019 absolute, and giving liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate relief before the
concerned authority in terms of the Ext.P6 order, these petitions are closed.