Judgment : 1. The above two original petitions, both of them, have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, impeaching the order passed by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur, accepting the report filed after further investigation in a crime involving offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998. After completing investigation and filing report, dated 1.11.1999, later,investigating agency requested permission for further investigation and it was accorded by the court. Report filed after further investigation dated 13.5.2011 was found not satisfactory to the court and, thereupon, it was returned with some directions. There were some challenges against those orders passed by the Special Judge before this Court, but, accepting the representation made on behalf of investigating agency that further investigation will be completed within a time frame, setting aside some of the findings and observations made by Special Judge those proceedings were terminated directing speedy completion of investigation. The investigating agency completed further investigation over the crime and filed its report dated 6.1.2012 before the court. Acceptance of that report was challenged by the respective petitioner in the two Original Petitions, filing separate petitions contending that a fair and proper investigation complying with the directions given under the previous order passed by the Special Judge, and having regard to the materials gathered in the crime, with reference to facts and circumstances of the case showing the joint culpability of then Finance Minister (CW23) with the other accused named has not been done in the case. Special Judge negativing such challenges passed the order accepting the report. That order is impeached invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Case presented by both petitioners in their respective original petition to impeach Ext.P12 order is common, though some of the documents produced as exhibits and marked have some variations. Since more or less a common case is presented by both petitioners to impeach Ext.P12 order, for the sake of convenience, the exhibits marked as Ext.P1 to P12 in O.P.1880/2012 and Ext.P13 and P14 in O.P. 1915/2012 are referred to as such hereinafter. If reference to any document produced in O.P.1915/2012, not covered by the other O.P. emerges for consideration it shall be separately adverted to. 3. If reference to any document produced in O.P.1915/2012, not covered by the other O.P. emerges for consideration it shall be separately adverted to. 3. A brief resume of the allegations imputed and circumstances giving rise to registration of the crime involved and what transpired after its registration, may be advantageous since the case has a long chequered career with challenges raised over one or other issues before this Court and also Apex court more than once. The case relates to import of 15,000 Metric Tons of palmolein to the State through a Company named M/s. Power and Energy Private Ltd in a contract entered with the Civil Supplies Corporation. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), in his report dated 11.2.1994 for the year ending on 31st March, 1993, pointed out some irregularities in the above import. Allegation of corruption had been raised earlier over the import in the Legislative Assembly and also print media against the Chief Minister, Minister of Civil Supplies and some senior government officers. State suffered a loss of Rs.2.32 Crores in the import made, allegedly, violating the rules and regulations, and the then Chief Minister, Minister of Civil Supplies and some senior public servants criminally conspired with two Directors of the company, which imported the Palmolein oil , causing wrongful gain to all of them and corresponding wrongful loss to the State was the gist of allegation. All the above persons committed corruption, was the imputation raised, and that gave genesis for registration of the crime later. A writ petition was filed before this Court by one Kallada Sukumaran for issue of orders or directions for registration of a crime. That writ petition was dismissed. Subsequently, one Vijayakumar, MLA, presented a petition before the Director of Vigilance for registering a crime. That request was turned down by the Director of Vigilance. A writ petition filed by the above MLA, and later, writ appeal by him, seeking registration of a crime received the same fate. A special leave petition challenging the order passed in the writ appeal was also dismissed. Then, there was a change in Government in the State, and the Director of Vigilance was directed to conduct a preliminary enquiry into the import of palmolein, with respect to the allegations raised in the Legislative Assembly imputing corruption in such import. A special leave petition challenging the order passed in the writ appeal was also dismissed. Then, there was a change in Government in the State, and the Director of Vigilance was directed to conduct a preliminary enquiry into the import of palmolein, with respect to the allegations raised in the Legislative Assembly imputing corruption in such import. After conducting a preliminary enquiry and on the report thereof, a crime was registered as Crime No.1 of 1997 under Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B of Indian Penal Code naming seven persons as accused. After investigation of the crime, report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for short the Code, was filed before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, indicting the accused, eight in number, for offences under Section 13(1)(d) and 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act read with 120B of IPC. The accused proceeded were a former Chief Minister, former Minister of Civil Supplies, former Chief Secretary, former Additional Chief Secretary, former Secretary (Food and Civil Supplies),former Managing Director, Kerala Civil Supplies Corporation, and, two Directors of the Company, Power and Energy Pvt. Ltd.,Singapore, which imported palmolein under a contract with the Civil Supplies Corporation. The Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge took cognizance of the case on the report filed for offences punishable under sections 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The 1st accused in the crime, former Chief Minister, who then was a member of Parliament, filed a writ petition before this court challenging the absence of sanction to prosecute him which was turned down. That challenge was pursued before Apex Court, and pending such appeal he passed away, and the charge against him got abated. 5. After cessation of the above proceeding before the Apex Court,in which stay of further proceedings of the case continued, Special Judge commenced proceedings with further steps for trial of the case. At that stage Public Prosecutor appearing in the case moved an application under section 173(8) of the Code for further investigation of the crime. Later, Ext.P4 petition was moved by the investigating officer, Superintendent of Police, Vigilance & Anti- corruption Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram seeking permission to have a further probe in the case. At that stage Public Prosecutor appearing in the case moved an application under section 173(8) of the Code for further investigation of the crime. Later, Ext.P4 petition was moved by the investigating officer, Superintendent of Police, Vigilance & Anti- corruption Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram seeking permission to have a further probe in the case. Involvement of former Finance Minister, who was included in the case as one among the witnesses (CW23), in the criminal acts of corruption imputed over the import of palmolein with the other accused already named in the report has to be probed further in view of some revelations/disclosures, was the basis for moving application for further investigation by the investigating officer under section 173(8) of the Code. That application was allowed by the Special Judge by Ext.P5 order dated 14.3.2011 Pursuant to further investigation conducted in the crime the investigating officer filed Ext.P6 report stating that there was no material to connect or inculpate CW23 (former Finance Minister), against whom further probe was conducted in the corrupt acts imputed over the import of palmolein oil. Special Judge after considering that report with the materials tendered found it unacceptable and directed investigating agency to conduct further investigation in the crime passing Ext.P7 order dated 8.8.2011. Against Ext.P8 order challenges were raised before this court by one among the accused filing a Crl.M.C, and when the petition was considered, in which some intervenors sought impleadment also, taking note of the submissions made on behalf of the investigating agency that further investigation then continued will be completed shortly, that petition was disposed vide Ext.P8 order dated 2.12.2011 directing the investigating agency to complete the investigation within the time limit fixed. The investigating agency after completing further investigation filed Ext.P9 report before the Special Judge reiterating the conclusion formed in the previous report that against CW23, former Finance Minister, there is nothing to show his culpability with the other accused in the commission of offences imputed in the crime. The investigating agency after completing further investigation filed Ext.P9 report before the Special Judge reiterating the conclusion formed in the previous report that against CW23, former Finance Minister, there is nothing to show his culpability with the other accused in the commission of offences imputed in the crime. Acceptability of that report was challenged by present petitioners, both of them, filing separate petitions contending that a proper and fair investigation has not been conducted by the investigating agency over the role played by CW23 former Finance Minister with the other accused in the crime with reference to the materials gathered by the case, which, according to them, would disclose his joint culpability in the offences imputed with the accused already named in the crime. Special Judge after hearing the counsel for petitioners, Public Prosecutor and also another counsel appearing for an intervenor came to the conclusion that the objections raised over the report are only to be rejected, dismissed the petitions ordering for proceeding with further steps for the trial of the case. Exts. P12 order so passed by the Special Judge is challenged in these two Original Petitions invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. In the original petitions, both of them, almost similar challenges are canvassed by the respective petitioner to impeach the legality and correctness of Ext.P12 order passed by learned Special Judge. O.P.1880/2012 is filed by a sitting Member of Legislative Assembly and Leader of the Opposition, who filed Ext.P10 objections to Ext.P9 report. Similarly, O.P.1915/2012 has been filed by a former Member of Legislative Assembly, who too filed objections to Ext.P9 report seeking further investigation in the case. Both of them raised objections over Ext.P9 report laid absolving the former Finance Minister, cited as one among the charge witnesses in the case, against whom further investigation was conducted. 7. I may first refer to the challenges raised by petitioner in O.P(Crl.)1880/2012 against Ext.P12 order. Ext.P10 is the objection filed by the above petitioner against Ext.P9 report. Special Judge has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested him by non consideration of the objections raised in Ext.P10 petition, is his case. 7. I may first refer to the challenges raised by petitioner in O.P(Crl.)1880/2012 against Ext.P12 order. Ext.P10 is the objection filed by the above petitioner against Ext.P9 report. Special Judge has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested him by non consideration of the objections raised in Ext.P10 petition, is his case. In Ext.P12 order after initially expressing a view that the question whether it is necessary to hear the objectors will be considered later, without answering the same, according to petitioner, the Special Judge has concluded that in view of the findings and observations made by him it is not at all necessary to hear anybody at the stage. The approach made and conclusion formed by the Special Judge over the validity of Ext.P9 report when serious objections are raised challenging its acceptability, without considering such objections and forming an opinion that the objectors need not be heard in the matter, militate against the principles of natural justice and the order passed by the Special Judge is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record and as such it is unsustainable, according to petitioner. Statements recorded from CW23 and other witnesses during investigation of the crime and the circumstances surrounding the decision taken in the Cabinet over the import of Palmolein, which was done in violation of the Rules clearly spell out that the then Finance Minister CW23 has joint culpability with the other accused in the offences involved in the crime is his case. Petitioner has locus standi to question the acceptability of the report which was filed in a crime relating to corruption which caused huge loss to the State exchequer and any member of the society is entitled to oppose false investigation favouring the accused, is his further case. Observations made and conclusion formed in Ext.P9 report by the investigating officer are factually incorrect and also against the records collected in the investigation of the crime and he has filed Ext.P9 report only to favour CW23 against whom sufficient materials are available showing his joint culpability in the criminal offences involved with the other accused, according to petitioner. Setting aside Ext.P12 order Special Judge has to be directed to consider Ext.P10 petition filed by petitioner and pass fresh orders in that petition in accordance with law, is the relief canvassed in the above O.P. 8. Setting aside Ext.P12 order Special Judge has to be directed to consider Ext.P10 petition filed by petitioner and pass fresh orders in that petition in accordance with law, is the relief canvassed in the above O.P. 8. Petitioner in O.P(Crl.) 1915/2012 in his objections filed to Ext.P9 report, produced and marked in his petition as Ext.P13, had sought for issue of process against CW23 as an additional accused in the case imputing involvement of CW23 with the other accused already proceeded in the case, in the corrupt acts committed over the import of palmolein. Raising similar objections as those canvassed by petitioner in the other O.P to Ext.P9 report this petitioner also challenged the acceptability of that report placing reliance on statements recorded from some of the witnesses questioned during investigation, and also some other circumstances, which, according to him, would indicate the involvement and participation of CW23 with the other accused in the offences imputed in the case. 9. Common respondent in both the Original Petition is the State represented by the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, who investigated the crime. Statements,separately, negativing the challenges raised are filed by the respondent. Respondent contends that petitioners are total strangers to the criminal proceedings and both of them have assumed the role of 'public litigant' with oblique motives to drag the proceedings of the case. Wild allegations are raised by them against CW23 to impeach the acceptability of findings made with the intention to drag CW23 who is the present Chief Minister also an accused in the case. Petitioners have no locus standi to file petitions before the Enquiry Commissioner to assail Ext.P9 report, and also against Ext.P12 order passed by Special Judge accepting that report. Various challenges raised by one or other person before various forums including this court and the Apex Court and findings rendered thereof at different stages during the investigation of the crime are also adverted to in the statement of the respondent to contend that allegations raised against CW23 by the petitioners are devoid of merit. Various challenges raised by one or other person before various forums including this court and the Apex Court and findings rendered thereof at different stages during the investigation of the crime are also adverted to in the statement of the respondent to contend that allegations raised against CW23 by the petitioners are devoid of merit. Allegations raised by petitioners in the respective petition imputing that CW23 who was the Finance Minister when the contract over the import of palmolein oil was given effect to and that he acted hand in glove with the other accused and thus was culpable jointly with them, are controverted by the respondent asserting that the investigation which was done in a fair and impartial manner has disclosed that CW23 has not abused his official position nor did any act dishonestly or fraudulently in the transaction over the import of oil covered by the case. In short, petitioners have no locus standi to impeach the final report filed in the case and Ext.P12 order passed by the Special Judge repelling their contentions and accepting Ext.P9 report is unassailable is the contention of the respondent. 10. I have heard Sri.K.Gopalakrishna Kurup senior counsel for petitioner in O.P.1880/2012, Sri.N.K.Unnikrishnan learned counsel for petitioner in O.P.1915/2012 and learned Advocate General Sri.Dandapani who appeared for respondent State. Adv.Smt.Pinku Thaliath who appeared on behalf of an intervenor was also permitted to address her arguments in the case. 11. Special Judge has not at all considered the objections raised by petitioner to Ext.P9 report, and he did not apply his mind to the question whether petitioners have locus standi to raise objections to that report and, therefore, Ext.P12 order passed is thoroughly vitiated and unsustainable in law is the submission of learned Senior counsel Sri.Goapalakrishna Kurup to contend that interference by this court invoking its visitorial jurisdiction is called for to set aside that order. After expressing a view preliminarily that the question whether petitioners have to be heard in the matter will be considered later Special Judge adverting to some of the facts and circumstances of the case, according to counsel, without considering any of the objections raised to the report, accepted Ext.P9 report holding that the court can invoke its power under section 319 of the Code in case evidence is brought in trial for adding any other person also as accused in the case at the appropriate stage. Special Judge failed to address the question whether petitioners have to be heard in the matter though he held that it would be considered later, is the submission of counsel to contend that there is an error apparent on the face of the order vitiating its correctness and legality and more so failure to exercise jurisdiction on the most significant question involved. Reiterating that the objections raised by petitioners to the report have not been considered by Special Judge, it is contended by learned senior counsel that a third party to the proceeding like petitioner has 'locus standi' to impeach the report filed in a crime especially where the case involved is corruption which affect the general public as a whole. Petitioner in O.P.1880/2012 is the leader of the Opposition and he has been taking a decisive role in waging war against corruption which is a matter of public importance is the submission of counsel to contend that he has every right to be heard on the objections raised by him to Ext.P9 report filed after further investigation of the crime which, according to counsel, prima facie disclose that a fair and proper investigation has not been done over the allegations of corruption imputed in the import of Palmolein by CW23, who then was the Finance Minister, with the other accused in the crime. Learned senior counsel for petitioner in O.P.(Crl)1880/2012 has relied on some decisions rendered by the Apex Court and this court,namely, State v. Gopakumar (1988(1) K.L.T.924), Tafcon Projects (1)(P)Ltd v. Union of India and Others (2004)13 SCC 788 ), Nandakumar v. State ( 2008 (2)KLT 913 ), V.S.Achuthanandan v. R. Balakrishna Pillai and others ( 2011(3) SCC 317 ), Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar and Others (1987) 1 SCC 288), V.S.Achuthanandan v. R. Balakrishna Pillai and others (1994) 4 SCC 299 ), K.Anbazhagan v. Superintendent of Police and others (2004) 3 SCC 767 ), and Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh and another (2012) 3 SCC 64 ). 12. Sri. N.K. Unnikrishnan learned counsel for petitioner in O.P.(Crl) 1915/2012 supporting the arguments canvassed by senior counsel for petitioner in the other O.P.adverted to various materials produced with the report to contend that such materials unerringly show the joint culpability of CW23, who was the Finance Minister at the time of the import of palmolein oil, with the other accused proceeded in the crime. Ext.P6 report filed after further investigation militates against the views made and conclusion formed previously by the investigating agency to proceed with further investigation of the crime with permission of court to examine the role of CW23 with the other accused, as against whom there was sufficient reason to suspect his joint culpability with such accused. The import of large quantity of palmolein oil overlooking the rules and regulations could not have been proceeded without the concurrence and approval of CW23, then, Finance Minister as he is the final authority to decide the financial propriety of the proposal, according to counsel. CW23 has also affixed his signature in the notes put up by senior public servants to place before Cabinet the import of palmolein oil as an extra item which was not earlier included in the agenda fixed and notice given to the Ministers. His signature in the notes not only meant his agreement with first and second accused to place the matter before the Cabinet, but showed he was a consenting party in the palmolein deal, according to the counsel. Learned counsel has also referred to the rules covered by the Business Rules of Meeting for Cabinet to urge that without the consent and approval of CW23, then, Finance Minister and he being a consenting party the deal over the import of palmolein could not have been included as one among the items to be considered by the Cabinet as an out of agenda item. CW23, then, Finance Minister being the final authority to decide the financial propriety of the proposal, his joint culpability in the corrupt acts done with the other accused in the import of palmolein oil is established in the case, according to counsel. The materials gathered by investigating agency, particularly, versions given by CW23 at different stages of investigation and also his assertions in a Press Conference conducted by him on 19.1.2005 would clearly show that he too is culpable for the corruption involved in the import of palmolein oil with the other accused already named in the case. Petitioner in the above O.P, it is submitted, had raised objections to the import of palmolein oil deal covered by the case, the steps for which commenced while he officiated as ex-officio Director of of Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation. Petitioner in the above O.P, it is submitted, had raised objections to the import of palmolein oil deal covered by the case, the steps for which commenced while he officiated as ex-officio Director of of Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation. Since the import proposed was found to be against the norms and rules he had objected sending a communication to the fourth accused and Chairman of the Civil Supplies Corporation, and, later, after sending him on deputation to the Government of India the import was ratified by the Board of Directors of the Civil Supplies Corporation, according to counsel. Pointing out that petitioner in the case previously moved petitions before this court and also Apex Court, as a public spirited citizen opposing corruption learned counsel contended he has every right to be heard on the objections raised by him over Ext.P9 report. Special Judge has gone wrong in holding that petitioners who filed objections need not be heard and also in not considering the objections raised by them to Ext.P9 report, and the order so passed accepting the report is erroneous and illegal submits the counsel. Without adverting to the objections of petitioners Special Judge has accepted the report and it has resulted in miscarriage of justice is the submission of counsel for setting aside Ext.P12 order. Special Judge has to be directed to consider the objections raised by petitioners over Ext.P9 report and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, is the submission of the counsel relying on some authorities namely Jitender Singh v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2003 Crl.L.J.2388), Dr.Subramanian Swamy v. Dr.Manmohan Singh and another (2012(1) KHC SN 29) to contend that the conclusion formed by the Special Judge that it is not necessary to hear anybody in considering the acceptability of Ext.P9 report is wholly unsustainable, and Ext.P12 order is liable to be set aside. 13. of NCT of Delhi (2003 Crl.L.J.2388), Dr.Subramanian Swamy v. Dr.Manmohan Singh and another (2012(1) KHC SN 29) to contend that the conclusion formed by the Special Judge that it is not necessary to hear anybody in considering the acceptability of Ext.P9 report is wholly unsustainable, and Ext.P12 order is liable to be set aside. 13. Learned Advocate General Sri.K.P.Dandapani appearing for respondent State adverting to the different stages and also the challenges raised by one or other party before this court and also Apex Court during the investigation of crime, urged that both petitioners irrespective of the question whether they have locus standi to raise objection to Ext.P9 have been heard by Special Judge and, then, after being satisfied from the materials placed with the report Ext.P12 order was passed accepting such report and negativing objections raised for further investigation or issuing of process against CW23 as a co accused in the crime. In fact, both petitioners have no locus standi to raise objections to the report and both of them with oblique motives to vex and harass CW23, the present Chief Minister, have raised unfounded and untenable objections to the report and they have no right whatsoever at this stage of this case to insist upon the Special Judge to test the veracity of the materials produced by the investigating agency with reference to the objections filed by them to his report is the submission of learned Advocate General. At the stage of acceptance of a report filed after further investigation in a crime Special Judge need not hear the prosecution or the defence or any stranger, but, the court was pleased to allow all parties including present petitioners, who are totally strangers to be heard, and then, passed Ext.P12 order to accept the report after applying its mind to the materials placed in the case. Special Judge has also made it clear that the order passed will not stand in the way of adding any other accused at a later stage if any evidence is brought in the case showing the culpability of such person and thus demanding the exercise of powers of the court under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Special Judge has also made it clear that the order passed will not stand in the way of adding any other accused at a later stage if any evidence is brought in the case showing the culpability of such person and thus demanding the exercise of powers of the court under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At this stage on the question of accepting the report filed after further investigation no one can insist the Special Judge to consider his objections and enter findings on such objections since the only question to be gone into is whether the report is acceptable or not is the submission of learned Advocate General. The investigating agency after full-fledged investigation and on the materials gathered has formed the conclusion that there is not even a shred of evidence or any worth mentioning circumstance showing the complicity of CW23 on the illegalities or corruption imputed over the import of palmolein oil. With reference to one or other statements of witnesses or Press statement of CW23 or Rules of Business of the Cabinet how the decision was formed by the council of Ministers on any matter, none can challenge the acceptability of such a report, and, that is what was attempted to be done by present petitioners raising objections to the report, submits the Advocate General. Both petitioners have no bonafides in filing objections to the report and their sole aim is to vex and harass CW23, the present Chief Minister, and also to see that the crime registered imputing corruption against their political opponents continue to be in the limelight dragging in one or more of their political opponents in the case. Crime was registered nearly one and half decades ago and it was after cessation of the proceedings in the Apex Court consequent to the passing away of the first accused, that too much later to the report filed after completing the investigation of the crime, the investigating agency moved for further investigation, that too at a stage when there was a change of Government, is the submission of learned Advocate General. The report filed after further investigation which was proceeded with to consider whether CW23 had any role in the import of palmolein oil led to filing of a report concluded that he is blameless. The report filed after further investigation which was proceeded with to consider whether CW23 had any role in the import of palmolein oil led to filing of a report concluded that he is blameless. Though that report was not accepted by the Special Judge the order passed thereof was challenged before this court and, then, this court taking note that further investigation continued will be over within a short time directed its completion untrammelled by the observations and findings of the Special Judge within the time limit fixed. The report filed after completion of further investigation reiterating the conclusion formed earlier that CW23 is blameless, after scrutinising the materials, was accepted by the court passing Ext.P12 order. The Special Judge has applied his mind on the merits of Ext.P9 with reference to the materials produced, and, petitioners, strangers to the proceedings, raising one or other objections imputing allegations against CW23, that too without any basis whatsoever, are not entitled to be heard over the acceptability of the report is the further submission of learned Advocate General. Challenge canvassed against Ext.P12 order invoking the visitorial jurisdiction of this court will not lie is the further submission of learned Advocate General relying on the decisions in State of Kerala v. K. Karunakaran( 2003(1) KLT 711 , Janata Dal v. H.S.Chowdhary and Others (1991) 3 SCC 756 , State through Special Cell, New Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afshan Guru and Others (2003) 6 SCC 641 ). 14. Advocate Smt. Pinku Thaliyath who appeared for an intervenor was also heard. She has referred to the sequence of events commencing from the import of palmolein oil, and, petitions filed before this court and also Apex Court on various challenges by one or other parties during investigation of the crime, emphasising that the petitioners in the O.Ps who raised objections to the report filed after investigation have no locus standi to do so and they have no right to be heard by the Special Judge on the question of accepting the report. She has relied on a good number decisions to buttress the submissions made as above, and also to contend that petitioners are solely interested in vexing and harassing CW23, the present Chief Minister. She has relied on a good number decisions to buttress the submissions made as above, and also to contend that petitioners are solely interested in vexing and harassing CW23, the present Chief Minister. Wild allegations of corruption are raised by them against CW23 without any bonafides and challenges are raised against Ext.P9 report on untenable grounds to drag on the investigation of the crime in which three reports have already been filed before this court and two of them after further investigation of the crime is the submission of counsel. There is no material whatsoever to inculpate CW23 as a co accused in the crime, and when that be the case O.Ps filed against Ext.P12 order passed by the Special Judge are unworthy on merit and liable to be dismissed is the submission of counsel. 15. Locus standi of petitioners to raise objections to Ext.P9 report filed after further investigation, according to them, was found against by the Special Judge referring to his conclusion formed in Ext.P12 order that "it is not necessary to hear anybody else in the matter at this stage." The above observation has been banked upon by counsel for both petitioners to contend that Ext.P12 order suffered from serious judicial infirmity and as such it is liable to be interfered with in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. View expressed by the Special Judge as above clearly spells out error of law apparent on the face of record and refusal to exercise jurisdiction, and that has resulted in failure of justice is the challenge raised against Ext.P12 order. Special Judge has initially formed a question whether petitioners are to be heard in the matter over the acceptability of Ext.P9 report and then expressed the view that "on that aspect I shall state a little later". However he did not answer the question later but held that petitioners are not to be heard over the acceptance of the report and dismissed their objections to Ext.P9 report is the basis on which jurisdiction of this court is sought to be invoked by petitioners to challenge Ext.P12 order contending that failure to render a necessary finding on the question formed by the inferior court would also be a jurisdictional error liable to be corrected under the supervisory jurisdiction of this court. 16. 16. Indisputably, the one and only question that emerged for consideration before the Special Judge once Ext.P9 report was filed after further investigation was its acceptability. After taking cognizance of the offences on the previous report filed and process ordered to the accused eight in number named thereunder, on the request of investigating agency for further investigation to probe whether CW23 then Finance Minister had committed any corrupt act with the other accused further investigation was proceeded with after seeking and obtaining permission of the court. The report filed after such investigation was to the effect that CW23 was blameless. That report was not accepted by the Special Judge and further investigation in the crime followed on its remission. That further investigation also led to a report reiterating the conclusion formed in the previous report filed after further investigation of the crime. It was in this backdrop learned Special Judge has expressed the view that on the question of acceptance of the report filed after such further investigation whether petitioners have to be heard is a matter to be considered and he would express his view thereof later. After looking into the materials covered by the case, no doubt, with reference to the objections raised by petitioners in their petitions and also hearing them, Special Judge concluded that over the acceptability of the report filed after investigation in the case it is not necessary 'to hear anybody at this stage'. He was only answering the question posed earlier whether the petitioners are to be heard in the matter and not expressing any finding one way or other on the locus standi of a third party against a report filed after investigation in a crime by Police. After examining the materials covered by the crime and having regard to the backdrop of the case and what transpired at different stages during the investigation of the crime, considering the limited issue involved over the acceptability of the report filed after further investigation, which was confined to the question whether CW23 is to be proceeded as an accused with others after looking into the objections raised by petitioners also against such report, Special Judge has answered the question posed earlier, whether petitioners are to be heard in the matter in the negative while accepting the report. That no way indicates that petitioners have not been heard nor their objections to the report not considered while passing Ext.P12 order. In Ext.P12 order Special Judge has stated so no way indicates that he has not entered a finding on a question that was raised, but, to the contrary an authoritative pronouncement was made that it is not necessary to hear anybody else for accepting the report filed after further investigation. He has considered the objections raised to the report by petitioners with reference to the materials tendered in the case to conclude that at the stage of accepting the report a different view projected over some of the materials covered by the case to inculpate CW23 also as a co -accused in the crime objecting to the conclusion formed by the investigating agency does not have any merit, and the opinion formed by the investigating agency as expressed in its report that CW23 is blameless deserves acceptance and as such report is to be accepted. Special Judge has made it eloquently clear that the conclusion formed by him over the acceptability of Ext.P9 report will have no impact on the powers exercisable by the court under section 319 of the Code during trial. If any material is brought against any other person showing his complicity with the other accused in the crime during trial,then, no doubt the court has ample jurisdiction to proceed against such person adding him as an accused. That has been made clear by the Special Judge in Ext.P12 order. If sufficient incriminating materials are brought out in evidence against any other person who is not proceeded as accused, including CW23, court is empowered to exercise its power under section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure to proceed against such person adding him also as an accused. There is no judicial impropriety leave alone any infirmity, in the views expressed and conclusion formed by the Special Judge in concluding that the report filed after investigation has to be accepted dismissing the objection petitions filed by the petitioners. When petitioners have been heard and their objections were considered and thereupon Ext.P12 order was passed after taking into consideration the report with reference to the materials covered by the case, the challenge raised that their locus standi to file objections was not answered while passing the order is totally devoid of any merit. 17. When petitioners have been heard and their objections were considered and thereupon Ext.P12 order was passed after taking into consideration the report with reference to the materials covered by the case, the challenge raised that their locus standi to file objections was not answered while passing the order is totally devoid of any merit. 17. So far as the question of 'locus standi' of petitioners to raise objections to Ext.P9 report over which both sides have pressed into service a number of decisions I find that has not much significance in the present case. Where a report is filed after investigation in a crime by Police whether with indictment of any person or otherwise, it does not follow that anyone can come forward and object the merit of that report, to have a say before the court over the acceptability of such report. His locus standi to raise objections no doubt has to be considered with reference to the facts and circumstances involved in that case. In a crime involving corruption against public servants, of course, a public spirited citizen may ask the court for hearing his objections also to such report, but, it is for the court to decide whether he has to be heard in the matter, and, that of course to a large extent will depend upon several factors like the bonafides of petitioner in raising objections, facts and circumstances involved in the case, and also whether failure of justice may result if opportunity is not provided to such objector. One among the petitioners is presently the Leader of Opposition in the Legislative Assembly and the other a former member of Legislative Assembly . Assertion of both of them that they have been fighting corruption does not clothe them with locus standi to raise objections to a report filed after further investigation in the crime. Nothing prevented these petitioners in preferring a complaint against CW23 if they have tangible and convincing material to inculpate him for any offence of corruption connected with the import of palmolein oil in the present case if at all they have a case that he too abused his position as Finance Minister and conspired with the other accused in committing corrupt acts over the import of Palmolein oil causing wrongful loss to the State. Now that the investigation of the crime is over and final report filed there will be no bar under law in presenting and prosecuting such a complaint subject to its entertainability. 18. The bar under section 210 of the Code to proceed further on a complaint by Magistrate where police investigation over the same offence is conducted will have application only till a report is filed after completion of investigation. At no point of time before or after filing of the report after investigation of the crime in 2004 any of the two petitioners has filed any complaint before the Magistrate imputing corruption against CW23, the former Finance Minister, is also to be noticed and taken into account in considering their challenges against the supplementary report filed impeaching it one or other ground. A de facto complainant can claim a right of hearing where he has tenable objections to a report filed after investigation of crime whether it be a report under section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure or supplementary report after further investigation. So far third parties are concerned any challenge from them against the report or supplementary report in a crime is limited and only to the extent of pointing out perversity, if any, over the conclusion made in the report, which if not corrected is likely to result in failure of justice. Such third parties cannot claim the status of a de facto complainant even if they are elected representatives of the people or public spirited citizens interested in the outcome of the case. No challenge from them over a report or supplementary report filed after investigation of a crime setting forth a different view on one or other materials produced in the case by the investigating agency to differ from the view taken by it can be entertained unless the court is satisfied that the view taken by the investigating agency on such materials could not at all have been formed by a man of ordinary prudence. It is noticed that one among the petitioners, petitioner in O.P. (Crl)1915/2012, has filed his objection to the report as if that has been so presented under section 190(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the report filed by the investigating agency after further investigation cognizance of offences has to be taken against CW23, is his case. It is noticed that one among the petitioners, petitioner in O.P. (Crl)1915/2012, has filed his objection to the report as if that has been so presented under section 190(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the report filed by the investigating agency after further investigation cognizance of offences has to be taken against CW23, is his case. Views expressed by investigating agency on some materials to seek further investigation earlier are banked upon by petitioners to challenge Ext.P9 report after further investigation. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners have adverted to the Rules of Business of the Cabinet, signature of CW23 on the notes put up approving the request of one among the accused (A2) for placing the matter over import of palmolein oil in the Cabinet meeting,as an extra item not included and notice given earlier, statements recorded from CW23 at different stages of investigation, assertions made by one or other accused in their petitions moved for their discharge to impeach Ext.P9 report. Needless to point out that in considering a report filed after investigation no third party can ask the court to give any finding on such objections raised. 19. Special Judge has taken note of the circumstances covered by the case and also materials produced in accepting the report filed after further investigation. He had also taken note that when a report was initially filed after indicting the accused eight in number named on 1.11.1999 petitioners did not raise any objection to that report. After change of Government that too at a stage when trial was to commence in the case Prosecutor moved an application seeking further investigation of the crime and the basis thereof was CW23 in a Press Conference asserted that no corruption was involved in the import of palmolein oil. That petition from the Public Prosecutor was followed by a petition by the Investigating officer, perhaps, realising late that an application from Public Prosecutor before the court for further investigation may not lie. Ext.P3 is the application moved by the Investigating Officer. Reasons stated for further investigation are quite interesting to note. In the discharge petition filed by one of the accused (A4) he has stated that the proposal for import of palmolein oil had been placed before CW23 Finance Minister as he was the final authority to decide the financial propriety of the proposal. Reasons stated for further investigation are quite interesting to note. In the discharge petition filed by one of the accused (A4) he has stated that the proposal for import of palmolein oil had been placed before CW23 Finance Minister as he was the final authority to decide the financial propriety of the proposal. In answers prepared by senior public servant, one of the witnesses, CW20, has stated that the proposal to purchase palmolein oil was done with the approval of Finance Minister. Yet another reason stated was that a file placed before the Legislative Assembly which, presumably, has some bearing over the import of Palmolein oil disclosed certain aspects of the matter, but what are such matters have not been mentioned. On the above grounds further investigation was applied for to probe whether CW23 who then was the Finance Minister had any joint culpability with the other accused imputed in the crime over the import of palmolein oil. Special Judge had accorded sanction for such further investigation vide Ext.P5 order does not in any way show that the grounds canvassed are relevant for further investigation. So far as investigation of the crime after filing of the report is concerned it has to be taken note that filing of a report in a crime does not interdict the investigating agency in continuing with further investigation. However, while doing so formal permission of the court has to be applied for since the matter is already placed before it. Special Judge has only accorded formal permission under Ext.P5 order for further investigation requested in the crime. 20. Locus standi of petitioners to challenge a report filed in the crime by the investigating agency cannot be equated with the right to prefer a complaint over the commission of an offence including one under the Corruption Act. Petitioners are political activists do not confer on them any special right to impeach the validity of a report filed by investigating agency in a crime involving offences relating to corruption. A report filed by the investigating agency after investigation of the crime can be assailed by any person who is aggrieved showing sufficient cause before court why the report should not be accepted but only on the materials covered by the case before court with reference to the facts and circumstances of the case. A report filed by the investigating agency after investigation of the crime can be assailed by any person who is aggrieved showing sufficient cause before court why the report should not be accepted but only on the materials covered by the case before court with reference to the facts and circumstances of the case. To that extent alone petitioners in the present case also, only if they show such interest, can question the acceptability of the report. But they cannot ask the court to examine the materials tendered in the case with reference to interpretation placed by them on one or other materials produced in the case. These petitioners were heard by the Special Judge, and on the facts and circumstances presented after considering their objections with reference to the materials tendered he has come to the conclusion that they need not be heard in the matter over the acceptability of the report. When hearing was offered and objections were considered and report was accepted negativing such objections the observation made by the Special Judge that they need not be heard only signifies that their challenges to the report are meritless. Many objections raised by petitioners were not considered by the Special Judge is another challenge to contend that no hearing was done on their petitions. I do not find any merit in that challenge. A Press Conference made by CW23 long after the registration of the crime and, in fact, after filing of report completing investigation, making an assertion on one or other aspect over import of palmolein oil, cannot be a ground to prosecute him as an accused with the others. Similarly at a later stage after filing of the report in the case answers prepared to queries raised by public undertaking committee one public servant, CW20 indicated that Finance Minister was aware of the contract over the import of palmolein oil, and, one or other file relating to the transaction was received only subsequently by the investigating agency hardly merited any consideration for further investigation. Permission was granted by the court for further investigation no way adds credence that the grounds canvassed after filing of a report in the crime completing the investigation have merit. Two reports were filed after further investigation, and the first report Ext.P5 was returned by the court. Permission was granted by the court for further investigation no way adds credence that the grounds canvassed after filing of a report in the crime completing the investigation have merit. Two reports were filed after further investigation, and the first report Ext.P5 was returned by the court. However, the fact remains after further investigation conducted in the crime before and after remission of Ext.P5 report the investigating agency had come to the conclusion there is no material whatsoever showing that CW23 had done any corrupt act in the import of palmolein oil with the other accused already indicted in the case. In the notes put up by the senior public servants over the import of the palmolein oil for placing that item in the Cabinet Meeting already fixed for its consideration as extra item, CW23 then, Finance Minister subscribed his signature or initials concurring for such placement, no way indicates that he did any illegal act in relation to the import of palmolein oil. What could be seen from the materials placed with reference to the initials put by the Finance Minister is that the Chief Minister passed an order to show the file to the Finance Minister also when Minister for Civil Supplies made a note for placing it before the Cabinet Meeting fixed, as an item out of agenda. Whether it should have been placed as an out of agenda item is beside the point in looking into whether any illegality or corrupt act was done by CW23 in putting his initial for placing the matter before Cabinet. CW23 has put his initial in the notes prepared by senior public servants over the need for importing palmolein oil emergently, to place the item as an out of agenda in the Cabinet Meeting, that too under the circumstances indicated above, hardly merits any consideration in evaluating the acceptability of Ext.P9 report. Some other accused proceeded in the crime in their petitions seeking discharge asserted that the Finance Minister was also aware of the transaction cannot be viewed or given any value to impute corruption against CW23, to rope him as a co accused in the crime. 21. Some other accused proceeded in the crime in their petitions seeking discharge asserted that the Finance Minister was also aware of the transaction cannot be viewed or given any value to impute corruption against CW23, to rope him as a co accused in the crime. 21. Assertion made by petitioners that they have locus standi to impeach the report filed by the investigating agency after further investigation of the crime banking upon some judicial pronouncements, all of which were rendered in relation to the competency of a person to be a complainant or to prefer an appeal,has to be examined with reference to the provision covered by section 173(8) of the Code. When it is to be examined so, having regard to the facts involved in the case, I find no dilation over the decisions cited by counsel for petitioners is called for as all of them are seen rendered in different contextual situations not applicable to the case in hand. Sub section (8) of Section 173 makes it abundantly clear that even after submitting the report completing the investigation further report can be filed if the investigating agency obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, in the crime. What is now impeached in the present case by petitioners is the validity of a report filed after further investigation. As already pointed out at no point of time earlier after previous report (Ext.P4) was filed, in which only eight persons were indicted as the accused with no imputation against CW23, the former Finance Minister, the present petitioners raised any challenge. Cognizance of the case was taken on such report, but, further proceedings for trial thereof could not be continued because of challenges raised by one or other accused in the superior forums. The investigating agency moved an application for further investigation on one or other ground that the role of CW23 has to be probed further and,later, the report filed by that agency was set aside by the Special Judge expressing one reason or other does not change the situation that whatever report filed after such further investigation would have only the status of a 'supplementary report'. The question emerging for consideration is whether and to what extent a third party could come forward and assail the merit or validity of that report challenging the conclusion formed by the investigating agency after conducting further investigation of the crime. The question emerging for consideration is whether and to what extent a third party could come forward and assail the merit or validity of that report challenging the conclusion formed by the investigating agency after conducting further investigation of the crime. This is a case in which three reports were filed by the investigating agency, and in all of them and particularly in the two reports later filed, which are supplementary reports after filing of a report falling under section 173(2) of the Code, the investigating agency found no material whatsoever to connect CW23 in the offences imputed in the crime. It is also to be noticed that two supplementary reports filed by such investigating agency were after further investigation specifically going into the question whether CW23, who was the previous Finance Minister, had any role with the other accused in the commission of corrupt acts alleged over the import of palmolein oil covered by the case. When such be the case, investigating agency has previously applied for a further probe setting forth one or other ground to have a further investigation to examine whether CW23 had done any corrupt act over the import of palmolein oil cannot be given much significance. As against the supplementary reports affirming the previous report filed in the crime with the investigating agency affirming there is no material to connect CW23 in any of the corrupt acts giving rise to the various offences covered by the crime over the import of palmolein oil, what is the locus standi of these petitioners to object that report and if so, what extent an enquiry thereto can be proceeded by the court with reference to those objections has to be examined with respect to the jurisdiction vested on the court in accepting or rejecting a supplementary report submitted after further investigation. The court can no doubt if so satisfied direct further investigation and refuse to accept the supplementary report where it forms a conclusion with reference to other materials tendered in the case that such a course is called for to avoid failure of justice. No objections from any source is necessary if the court finds on the materials placed that the report is not acceptable, to pass orders for further investigation. No objections from any source is necessary if the court finds on the materials placed that the report is not acceptable, to pass orders for further investigation. But that does not mean in an enquiry over such report the court can proceed with meticulous scrutiny of the materials if some objections are raised on one or other materials tendered to consider whether the conclusion formed by the investigating agency in the supplementary report is acceptable or not. No judicial evaluation or microscopical scrutiny of the materials produced in the case is to be resorted to nor is it permissible to consider whether such report is acceptable or not. Views formed by the investigating agency on materials covered by the case unless it is shown to be patently unacceptable as could not have been formed by one of reasonable prudence,deserve to be accepted at that stage. Merely raising objections over the reasoning made by the investigating officer for expressing one view or other an objector cannot ask for acceptance of his views over the materials placed asking the court to have a scrutiny of the materials of the case to form an opinion different from that of the investigating officer. Arguments were canvassed before me with reference to the Rules of Business for placing one or other item before the Cabinet meeting of the council of Ministers and the initial or signature put by CW23 in the notes prepared over the import of palmolein oil by the senior government officers, imputing his culpability in the alleged corrupt dealings for the import of palmolein oil, to challenge the acceptance of the supplementary report filed by the investigating officer and also to impeach Ext.P12 order of the Special Judge. I am not impressed by such submissions, and in fact such challenges are out of place in considering the merit of such a report. Petitioners cannot ask the court to supplement their views on one or other materials at this stage which can be done only where the court is called upon and bound to appreciate the materials tendered as evidence in the case during its trial. Petitioners cannot ask the court to supplement their views on one or other materials at this stage which can be done only where the court is called upon and bound to appreciate the materials tendered as evidence in the case during its trial. At this stage over the acceptance or otherwise of a supplementary report filed after further investigation petitioners can at best only show in what way the investigation is faulty or also why the conclusion formed by that agency not acceptable for the reason it is egregiously faulty on the face of the record. Merely because the Finance Minister has put his signature or initial in the note for placing the matter as out of agenda in the Cabinet meeting on the direction of the Chief Minister to show the file to him for that purpose, he could not be pinned down for whatever stated in the notes or over any acts of corruption alleged to have been carried out in the import of palmolein oil. At the stage of enquiry by the court over the acceptability of the supplementary report filed petitioners have a case different from the view formed by the Investigating agency over one or other materials would have no impact on the decision making of the court over the acceptability of that report. Where the views sought to be placed on one or other materials by the objectors require meticulous examination of the document and there is nothing apparent on the face of the record that the conclusion formed by the investigating agency is faulty, the acceptance of the report is the rule. Court at that stage is not entering any finding or accepting one or other view over any material or any matter touching upon the merits of the case. At a later stage if evidence comes showing the culpability of any person other than the accused proceeded against in the case the Court can invoke Section 319 of the Code to proceed against such person adding him also as an accused. I do not find any merit in the challenges canvassed that the objections raised by petitioners were not considered meticulously by the court in passing Ext.P12 order for accepting supplementary report. I do not find any merit in the challenges canvassed that the objections raised by petitioners were not considered meticulously by the court in passing Ext.P12 order for accepting supplementary report. No meticulous consideration of the materials on the basis of the challenges raised by petitioners can be gone into by the court at that stage and at best such objections can be looked into in examining the conclusion formed by the investigating officer in the report having regard to the limited scope of enquiry in the exercise of jurisdiction for taking cognizance of an offence on a police report. In the present case cognizance was already taken on the earlier report filed by the investigating agency and supplementary report after further investigation pertained to whether CW23 who was not named as an accused in the case previously should be proceeded with the other accused. Where there is nothing apparent on the face of records produced by investigating agency to connect CW23 in the crime, petitioners have a different perception over some of the materials tendered to contend that further investigation conducted was faulty and they have objections to the report cannot in any way affect the acceptability of such report. Ext.P12 order passed by the Special Judge under the above circumstances does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction. 22. Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is conferred on the High Court to oversee that the Subordinate Courts function within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When a Subordinate Court assumed a jurisdiction it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction it has is being exercised in a manner not permitted by law resulting failure of justice or grave injustice, High Court may interfere to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. That power can be exercised only sparingly and that too to avoid miscarriage of justice and not to correct some errors or mistakes, if any, committed by the Subordinate Courts. Such jurisdiction vested with the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be sought to be invoked or be exercised 'in the cloak of an appeal in disguise' has been pointed out by the Apex Court in State Through Special Cell, New Delhi v. Navjot Sandhualias Afshan Guru and others( 2003 (6) SCC 641 ). Such jurisdiction vested with the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be sought to be invoked or be exercised 'in the cloak of an appeal in disguise' has been pointed out by the Apex Court in State Through Special Cell, New Delhi v. Navjot Sandhualias Afshan Guru and others( 2003 (6) SCC 641 ). Where the order impeached invoking the jurisdiction under Article 227 is one over which there is interdiction in exercise of the revisional powers under the statute exceptional case has to be made out for interference under the above article since the supervisory jurisdiction vested with the High Court thereunder is not meant to circumvent any statutory law. Of course where the Subordinate court asked itself a wrong question or approached the question involved in an improper manner the finding of fact entered by that court can be challenged as one rendered without jurisdiction and thus open to correction by the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. All the same it has to be noticed that such supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court is not against the decision but it is against the decision making process. Petitioners in both original petitions are third parties to the proceedings and challenge raised by them is against the acceptability of a supplementary report filed in the case after further investigation in which cognizance of the case against the other accused on the previous report had been taken more than one decade ago No objection was raised to the previous report questioning the noninclusion of CW23 as an accused with others proceeded with. The investigating agency after getting formal permission proceeded with further investigation to ascertain whether CW23, then, Finance Minister had any role in the corruption imputed with the other accused, finally, concluded, not once but twice, that there is no material to hold him culpable for any offence involved in the case cannot at all be brushed aside in examining the challenges raised by petitioners contending that they have 'locus standi' to do so as political leaders or atleast as public spirited citizens waging war against corruption. The above petitioners have not till date come forward to file a complaint imputing corruption against CW23 though the report after investigation filed against the other accused proceeded way back in 2004 is also a telling circumstance. The above petitioners have not till date come forward to file a complaint imputing corruption against CW23 though the report after investigation filed against the other accused proceeded way back in 2004 is also a telling circumstance. There is some force in the submissions made by the Advocate General that the objections are raised to Ext.P9 report by these petitioners only to drag on the proceedings and thus to gain some political advantage keeping alive the allegations imputed against CW23, the present Chief Minister of the State, in limelight before the public. Challenges canvassed in the Ops against Ext.P12 order passed by Special Judge invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this court are found to be devoid of any merit. Original Petitions, both of them, are dismissed directing the Special Judge to take further steps to expedite the proceedings of the case.