P. Ubaid ORDER
P. Ubaid, J.
1. The revision petitioner herein is the 4th accused in C.C. No. 22/2008 of the Special Court (Vigilance), Thiruvananthapuram. He was an Assistant Engineer of the Kerala Water Authority (for short, 'the KWA') from 1994 to 1997. He and other engineers, including the then Superintending Engineer of the KWA, and also a work contractor, who undertook some works under the Thiruvananthapuram Drainage Scheme, are being prosecuted on the allegation of mal practice and corruption in carrying out the said Scheme. Pending the proceedings, this petitioner and some other accused made application for discharge. The petitioner filed application as CMP No. 1661/2009. The learned trial Judge heard all the applications together, and disallowed the request for discharge by the common order dated 6.9.2018. Aggrieved by the said order disallowing discharge, the 4th accused has come up in revision.
2. The specific allegation as against the petitioner and some others is that they did not properly supervise the work or assess the quality of work, and that by their culpable omission and breach of duty, they caused heavy loss to the Public Exchequer, and also caused unlawful gain and benefit to the contractor.
3. When the revision petition came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner pointed out the specific allegations against the petitioner in the final report, and he also pointed out the discussions made by the learned trial Judge on these allegations. Annexure A1 is the copy of the final report, which contains specific allegations against each accused. The allegation as against the petitioner, as the 4th accused, is that instead of properly monitoring and supervising the work as the Assistant Engineer, he committed breach of duty, or culpable neglect, so as to cause wrongful gain to the contractor, and he did it as part of a criminal design hatched by him and other engineers with the contractor to cause loss to the public revenue, and to make corresponding gain to them. The learned counsel submitted that the final report does not show what exactly are the materials as against the petitioner.
4. On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the final report and other materials, including the FIR and the vigilance report, I find that the request for discharge was disallowed by the trial court on the finding that there are prima facie materials against the petitioner to frame charge. A discharge is possible only when the court finds, on a perusal of the materials placed before it, that the charge appears to be groundless, or that the materials produced by the prosecution are not sufficient to form a judicious opinion as to whether there is reason to frame a charge against the accused and to proceed against him.
5. On a perusal of the materials, I find that the prosecution relies mostly on documents, including M-Books, to substantiate or prove the allegations as against the petitioner. What are the entries relating to the petitioner, or how those entries will prove the alleged misconduct, or culpable omission, or how exactly the petitioner caused wrongful gain to the contractor by his omissions, or whether he did it as part of a criminal design hatched with the contractor, are all matters to be examined during trial. This is a revision, wherein, the scope of interference is limited. The factual aspects of the case cannot be examined by the High Court in a revision. Only when the factual aspects are mixed with the legal aspects, and the decision on the legal aspects will conclude the issue as........