Kanyakumari Directorate Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Police had registered cases against Suresh Rajan and three others on October 1,2011,for offences punishable under Prevention of Corruption Act. After the chargesheet was laid against him and three others, the Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed a DVAC's application to attach his properties.
Meanwhile, the CJM dismissed the application of Suresh Rajan's father's (one among three others) seeking to dispense with his personal appearance, holding that the High Court has directed him to serve summons to the remaining accused and frame charges.
Aggrieved by this, the petitioner again approached the High Court through a revision petition. The Judge noticed that the case had been pending from 2011, and the summons could not be served. He found no irregularities and dismissed the petition.
The judge also directed to complete the issue of summons for the remaining accused and to frame charges as per the procedures known to law. Since the order to issue summons etc was administrative instruction,the registry had sent it to the District Court, instead of CJM.
Challenging the Administrative Order of the Judicial Registrar,the petitioner approached the High Court again. The Judge dismissed it, saying the court was empowered to give suitable administrative instructions. Aggrieved by this order, Suresh Rajan filed an appeal.
He said the single judge failed to see that directing the trial court to exercise its statutory power conferred under the CrPC in a particular manner and also retaining supervision over the trial, emasculates the independence of the subordinate judiciary. Justice V Ramasubramanian and Justice V M Velumari posted the appeal for hearing on April 15.