ORDER : (A. BADHARUDEEN, J.) The 3 rd accused in C.C. No.16 of 2017 on the files of the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thalassery, has filed this criminal revision petition, seeking the following relief: For these and other grounds to be raised at the time of hearing it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to admit this Crl RP and call for the records from the file of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thalassery in CC No. 16/2017 and be further pleased to set aside Order framing charge dated 24.10.2024 passed by the Trial Court in CC No 16/2017 and be further pleased to permit the petitioner to address the Trial Court his grievance u/s 239 Cr.PC and or considering the facts of the case this Hon'ble court may be pleased to discharge the petitioner from the array of the accused. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused the relevant materials available. 3. The genesis of the case as pointed out by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor is that, as per Annexure.II agreement, the 3 rd accused undertook the work of repair of Dasakandam Pond, which is shown as item No.7 in the 5 th year plan of Badiadka Grama Panchayath for the year 2005-2006. Thereafter, the work was completed and the amount was encashed. Later, as on 22.07.2009, Crime No.9/2009 of VACB, Kasaragod, has been registered alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 420 , 486 , 471 read with 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 13 (1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act , by the accused. The allegation in the FIR is that, during the year 2005- 2006, the accused persons, with dishonest intention to obtain pecuniary advantage, abused their official position, entered into criminal conspiracy with one P.Ibrahim, Convenor, Beneficiary Committee of Desakandam Pond repair work at Badiadka and in pursuance of said conspiracy, without executing the work in proper manner, prepared forged documents and encashed Rs.36,665/- from Badiadka Grama Panchayat and caused wrongful loss of Rs.30,001/- to the Government. 4. 4. Based on the FIR, the Investigating Officer conducted investigation, which resulted in filing Annexure.IV Final Report, whereby the Director, VACB, Thiruvananthapuram directed the Investigating Officer to file report dated 02.12.2015 before the Special Judge, Kozhikode, as “further action dropped”, when the said Final Report was filed before the Special Judge on 03.12.2015, the learned Special Judge passed Annexure.V order and the operative portion of the order reads as under: In the result, the final report submitted by Dy.S.P, VACB Kasaragod in this case is rejected. The Dy.S.P is directed to take steps for submitting the charge sheet before this Court. 5. Thereafter, Annexure.VI the present Final Report has been filed by the Investigating Officer alleging commission of above said offences by the accused. 6. While pursuing the relief sought for in this criminal revision petition, after setting aside Annexure.VIII Court charge, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that, as on 21.10.2024, the 3 rd accused/revision petitioner herein filed a petition under Section 250 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (hereinafter referred as ‘ BNSS ’ for short), before the trial court seeking discharge and the learned Special Judge not considered the same. Thereafter, the learned Special Judge framed court charge dated 24.10.2024 for the offences alleged by the prosecution. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, even though charge was framed on 24.10.2024, on the said date, the learned Special Judge ignored the petition filed by the 3rd accused/revision petitioner under Section 250 of BNSS . Therefore, the Special Judge went wrong in framing charge, without disposing the petition at the instance of the 3 rd accused and the said charge requires interference. 7. In this connection, a report from the learned Special Judge, Thalassery, was called for and as per the report of the learned Special Judge, C.M.P. No.1145/2024 referred as the petition filed by the 3rd accused/revision petitioner herein under Section 250 of BNSS , is relating to some other cases and as on 24.10.2024, only one petition viz. C.M.P. No.1144/2024 was on the files of the Court and the same was by the Public Prosecutor. 8. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that, since the stage of considering hearing under Section 250 of the BNSS is over by framing charge, without setting aside the charge, discharge petition could not be considered. C.M.P. No.1144/2024 was on the files of the Court and the same was by the Public Prosecutor. 8. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that, since the stage of considering hearing under Section 250 of the BNSS is over by framing charge, without setting aside the charge, discharge petition could not be considered. However, the Court has be power to set aside the Court charge with opportunity of hearing the discharge petition at the instance of the revision petitioner. 9. Apart from the report filed by the learned Special Judge, on perusal of the proceedings of the trial court, placed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as Annexure.IX, it could be gathered that, as on 22.05.2024 the case stood posted for hearing under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. to 13.06.2024. On 13.06.2024 the order of the Special Judge was that, ‘Heard under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. I am of the view that there is prima facie evidence to sustain charge. For framing charge 05.07.2024’. 10. Going by the report submitted by the learned Special Judge along with the proceedings, there was no petition at the instance of the 3 rd accused/revision petitioner herein, before the Special Court on the date of hearing under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. or on 24.10.2024, when the charge was framed. 11. Before addressing the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, it is relevant to note that, as per Annexure.V order dated 04.06.2016, when the Special Judge considered Annexure.IV Final Report dated 02.12.2015, with request to drop further action, the learned Special Judge passed the order as extracted hereinabove. Thereafter, the present Final Report has been filed as directed by the Special Judge. 12. It is the well settled law that, when there is a Final Report requesting further action dropped, the Court can very well accept the report, for the reasons stated therein. The Court also has the option to scrutinize the materials to find out as to whether as per the said report also any offences made out, for which cognizance can be taken and to take cognizance for the said offences. Apart from that, the Court can very well reject the Final Report for valid reasons, followed by direction for further investigation to file a fresh Final Report. 13. In the instant case, the order of the learned Special Judge rejecting the earlier Final Report is not specific. Apart from that, the Court can very well reject the Final Report for valid reasons, followed by direction for further investigation to file a fresh Final Report. 13. In the instant case, the order of the learned Special Judge rejecting the earlier Final Report is not specific. Anyhow in obedience to the order, the present Final report dated 11.08.2017 has been filed, alleging commission of the offences alleged in the FIR and negating the finding in the earlier Final Report, in the form of refer report. 14. Coming back, as per the proceedings in Annexure.IX, it is discernible that, as on 24.10.2024, the 3 rd accused/revision petitioner herein before the Court. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, a petition seeking discharge of the petitioner was filed as on 21.10.2024 before the trial court and it was initially numbered. Later, noticing defect in the petition, the number was deleted and thereby the trial court failed to consider the plea of discharge at the instance of the petitioner. Therefore, an opportunity may be given to the 3 rd accused/revision petitioner to have hearing under Section 250 of BNSS . As contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the revision petitioner bonafidely filed the petition under Section 250 of BNSS before the date of framing charge along with the vakalath. 15. In view of the facts and circumstances as discussed hereinabove, I am of the view that, an opportunity can be given to the revision petitioner for hearing the petition he filed under Section 250 of BNSS , after curing the defect, if any, or by filing fresh application, within a period of two weeks from today. For the said purpose, Annexure.VIII charge as against the 3 rd accused/revision petitioner alone stands set aside, with direction to the trial court to consider the petition for discharge filed by the revision petitioner. 16. Accordingly, this criminal revision petition stands allowed as indicated above. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Special Court , within three days, for information and further steps.