ORDER : 1. The 1st accused in CC No. 1 of 2015 pending before the Special SPE/CBI Court Ernakulam has preferred this revision petition under Section 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging the order in Crl.M.P. No. 287 of 2024 dated 31.07.2024, whereby the discharge plea of the petitioner was disallowed by the special court. 2. Heard the learned Senior counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the CBI. 3. Here, the Prosecution alleges commission offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (for short ‘PC Act’). The prosecution allegation is that the petitioner joined the Directorate of Enforcement under the Ministry of Finance as Assistant Enforcement Officer on 06.12.1975. Later she was promoted as Assistant Director-I w.e.f 22.09.2010, and the post was re-designated as Deputy Director we.f 27.09.2011. She had been working at the Directorate of Enforcement, Calicut since 04 10.2010 as Assistant Director - I/Dy Director. As the Deputy Director, she was the head of the Zonal Office at Calicat. The second accused joined the Directorate of Enforcement as Junior Stenographer Gr. III on 04.09.1991. Later, he was promoted as Enforcement Officer w.e.f 15.09.2011. He has been working at the Calicut zonal Office since 23.07.2001. The third accused joined the Directorate of Enforcement as Assistant Enforcement Officer in 1993 and was promoted as Enforcement Officer in the year 2010. He was working at the zonal office at Calicut as Enforcement Officer from 2010. 4. On 19.02.2012, Sri. T.K. Shaiju, S.I. of Police, Thrissur Town Traffic Police on an intelligence information, observed that at about 07.00 hrs. a person carrying a black air bag (later identified as Mr. Sudheer) got down from the Chennai - Alappuzha train at Poonkunnam Railway Station and hurriedly got into a Mahindra Scorpio vehicle No.KL-08-AH-2424. The Sub Inspector intercepted that vehicle at Patturaikkal Junction. It was driven by one A N Sankaran. 5 kg gold ornaments were found in the possession of Mr. Sankaran and his worker, Mr Sudheer, who were travelling in the vehicle. Since both of them could not produce any valid document justifying possession of gold ornaments, they were arrested and the gold was seized by the Sub Inspector. They, along with the gold, were brought to Thrissur Town East Police Station. Sankaran and his worker, Mr Sudheer, who were travelling in the vehicle. Since both of them could not produce any valid document justifying possession of gold ornaments, they were arrested and the gold was seized by the Sub Inspector. They, along with the gold, were brought to Thrissur Town East Police Station. A case was registered against them under Section 41(1)(a) and 102 of CrPC vide crime No.355/2012, and they were produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Thrissur. They were released on bail on the same day. 5. On 19.02.12, Sri. Benny Jacob, SI of police, Thrissur Police Station, on an intelligence information conducted a search at the office premises of M/s M.J.Gold, Thrissur, and seized two gold bars weighing 2 Kg. and a sum of Rs..44,25,130/-. He arrested Mr.M.K.Antochan and his worker Shino Babu and registered a case u/s.41(1)(a) & 102 of Cr.P.C as Crime No.356/2012. Thereafter, he searched the residence of Sri. Abdul Kadher at Chavakkad and seized 02 mobile phones and two fax machines, and arrested him. Search was also conducted at the residence of Sri. K.H. Shihab and Sri. Sheheem at Kechery, Thrissur, and he seized Rs.56,30,000/- from their house. The arrested persons and the property and money were produced before the JFCM-I Court Thrissur, and they were released on bail on the same day. 6. The first accused, on getting information about the seizure of the gold and money by the Thrissur East Police, dishonestly directed the 2nd accused, who was her subordinate officer, to visit the Thrissur East Police Station and collect information about any FEMA violation in the matter. On 20.02.12 the 2nd accused visited the police station and, without seeing any statements or documents, noticed prima facie that the amount Rs.56,30,000/- seized in the case had foreign linkage and therefore necessary ingredients for investigation under FEMA was made out and requested the Thrissur East Police to hand over the case to the Directorate of Enforcement. As per the request, the police handed over crime No.355/12 & 356/12 to the Directorate of Enforcement, Calicut on 23.02.12. The said cases were taken over by the first accused, and reports were filed before the Magistrate Court. While the matter was pending with them, all the accused hatched conspiracy among themselves and in furtherance of that, they demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.12 lakh and Rs.10 lakh from Sri.A.N.Sankaran and Sri. The said cases were taken over by the first accused, and reports were filed before the Magistrate Court. While the matter was pending with them, all the accused hatched conspiracy among themselves and in furtherance of that, they demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.12 lakh and Rs.10 lakh from Sri.A.N.Sankaran and Sri. M.K. Antochan, respectively, on 04.03.12. The second accused dishonestly used the mobile number 994624716 in the name and possession of Sri. Abdul Nazar, Kappalamkuzhi, Koduvally, for the said illegal act. Mr.Abdul Nazar was arrested under suspicious circumstances with an amount of Rs.1,26,000/- by the S.I. of Police, Chittoor, and he, along with the said mobile phone and money, was handed over to the first accused, Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement. 7. Mr.A.N.Sankaran, after paying the illegal gratification to the accused, moved a petition before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thrissur, for the release of 5 Kg. gold and as per order 19.03.12 of the Magistrate, the same was released to him as the first accused did not oppose the application. Similarly, Sri.M.K.Antochan's brother, Sri.M.V.Joseph, a partner of M/s. M.J.Gold, also moved a petition before the Judicial First Class Magistrate for the release of 2 kg gold and a sum of Rs.44,25,130/-. The same was also not opposed by the accused, and the gold and money were released to him as perthe order dated 29.03.12. 8. A complaint dated 19.11.12 was received by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, and the same was forwarded to the first accused for enquiry into the allegations of acceptance of bribe by enforcement officials. On 19.02.13, when Mr.A.N.Sankaran and his lawyers appeared before the first accused, she told them that the bribe amount received by the 2nd accused would be returned, and he should give a statement in writing that he had not paid any bribe to any Enforcement Officer. As dictated by the first accused, the counsel for Sankaran, Advocate N.G.Madhu, wrote two statements bearing dates 14.02.13 and 18.02.13. Thereafter, the 2nd accused visited the office of Advocate V.R. Jyothish at Ayyanthole and returned the bribe amount of Rs.12 lakh to him for payment to Mr.Sankaran. Advocate V.R. Jyothish gave Rs.5 lakh to Sri. A.N. Sankaran and kept the remaining amount with him. Thereafter, the 2nd accused visited the office of Advocate V.R. Jyothish at Ayyanthole and returned the bribe amount of Rs.12 lakh to him for payment to Mr.Sankaran. Advocate V.R. Jyothish gave Rs.5 lakh to Sri. A.N. Sankaran and kept the remaining amount with him. The 2nd accused had also approached Advocate Madhavan, who was the counsel of M.K. Antochan, and requested him to get a statement from M.K. Antochan to the effect that he had not paid any bribe to him, and Advocate Madhavan did not entertain the request. 9. On the above facts, it is alleged that the accused persons, who were working as the Dy. Director, and Enforcement Officers of the Directorate of Enforcement, Calicut, entered into a criminal conspiracy among themselves during 2012 to obtain pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means and to obtain illegal gratification from Sri.A.N.Sankaran and Sri. M.K.Antochan, who were accused in crime No. 355/12 and 356/12 of East Police Station, Thrissur. In pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, investigation of the above two cases were taken over by the first accused for the violations of FEMA and foreign linkage. Thereafter, during the interrogation of Sri.A.N. Sankaran, the 2nd accused demanded Rs.12 lakh on 01.03.12, as illegal gratification from him after subjecting him to physical and mental torture and stating that the gold ornaments would not be released to him and other agencies like DRI, Income Tax, Commercial Tax etc. would also be called in the case and coerced him to pay Rs.12 lakh as illegal gratification. The 2nd accused then directed Sri. A.N.Sankaran to pay the bribe amount by 04.03.12 and directed his friend Sri.A.R.Ramesh to contact the 2nd accused for clarifications, if any. Mr.A.N.Sankaran and his friend Sri. Ramesh, as directed by the 2nd accused, went to an isolated place on the road after Vyasa College at Vadakkancherry on 04.03.2012 in the early morning, and the 2nd accused repeated the demand for an amount of Rs.12 lakh from Sri.A.N.Sankaran and accepted the same in cash. 10. Sri.M.K.Antochan, along with his counsel Advocate K.Madhavan, appeared before the first accused on 01.03.12 in response to the notice issued by her. During interrogation, the 2nd accused, in furtherance of the above conspiracy, threatened him and demanded Rs.10 lakh as illegal gratification on asserting that if the amount would not be paid, the gold bar and sum of Rs.44,25,130/- would not be released to him. During interrogation, the 2nd accused, in furtherance of the above conspiracy, threatened him and demanded Rs.10 lakh as illegal gratification on asserting that if the amount would not be paid, the gold bar and sum of Rs.44,25,130/- would not be released to him. The 2nd accused intimidated him for agreeing to the said demand for illegal gratification. As demanded by the 2nd accused, Sri. M.K.Antochan paid a sum of Rs.10 lakh to the 2nd accused through his driver Jinesh, at Kuranchery Railway Over Bridge, on the Thrissur Vadakkanchery road on 04.03.12 evening, and the 2nd accused accepted the said illegal gratification of Rs.10 lakh in furtherance of the above conspiracy. It is alleged that the accused demanded and received the illegal gratification of Rs.22 lakh from the said persons and a case was registered at the Cochin branch of the CBI as RC-05(A)/13 on 01.03.2013, suo motu, on information. Investigation was conducted by the Dy. Superintendent of Police, CBI, and final report was submitted before the special court on 11.12.2014 against accused Nos. 1 to 3 alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 120B IPC r/w Section 201 IPC and Section 7 and Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act 1988 by them. The special court took cognizance, and now the same has been pending before the special court as C.C. No. 1/2015. 11. While challenging the order disallowing discharge, the learned Senior counsel argued to convince this court that as far as the allegation regarding receipt of bribe in the present case is concerned, the same is at the instance of the 2nd accused alone. According to him, going by the statements of crucial witnesses, including CWs 36 and 37 who were turned approvers, also the amount was demanded and accepted by the 2nd accused alone. It is pointed out further that, the petitioner has produced order of discharge filed by the 3rd accused in case of discharge by the special court, as per order in Crl.M.P. No. 137 o 2022 in CC No. 1 of 2015 dated 31.05.2024 and in paragraph No.36, the same judge observed that even though there was an allegation in the final report that all the accused hatched conspiracy and the same was implemented through the 2nd accused there was no material to come to a conclusion there was conspiracy among accused Nos. 1 to 3. 1 to 3. Thereby, the 3rd accused was discharged. According to the learned Senior counsel, going by the statements, including the statements of Sankararan and Antappan, who are the persons alleged to have given bribe to the 2nd accused, later repaid by him, nothing could be gathered to see that the 1st accused had any role in the matter of demand and acceptance of bribe. It is pointed out further that the 1st accused was directed to submit input regarding allegations as per Annexure A11 report dated 12.10.2012, she gave a report and in the report it is stated that one of the allegations contained in the above input was that one Paramasivan of Calicut office had taken money from Sri. Sankaran and Manjali Jewellery. But no officer by name Paramasivan was in Thrissur, though an officer by name Parameswaran Nair had been working in the office. As per the report, the petitioner submitted that when she contacted Sri. Sankaran and Manjali Jewelry informed that no money was received by Parameswaran Nair, and the allegations are false. According to the learned Senior counsel, in fact, at the time Annexure 11 report was given, the crime was not registered and the subsequent statements of Sankaran and Antappan regarding the presence of the 1st accused also before demand of bribe by the accused by itself is in sufficient to hold that the petitioner also committed the offence as part of conspiracy hatched in between them. Accordingly, the learned senior counsel sought for interference in the order impugned. 12. Strongly opposing the contention, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI read out the statement of A N Sanakran, the same was also read in detail by the learned counsel for the petitioner, particularly that appears in the second page to contend that when Sankaran received notice from the Enforcement Directorate, Kozhikode and in response to the same, he appeared there along with Sri.Ramesh. During this time, Sri. Parameswaran Nair, Sri.Naik (both are enforcement officials) 3-4 persons later understood as IB officers were present, and all of them were questioned him separately. Later, at about 04.35 hours, 3-4 persons went out and then Parameswaran Nair, Nai,k and Chandni (A1) threatened him and in continuation of the same, Parameswaran Nair demanded Rs.12 lakh personally from him as well as in the presence of Ramesh, in order to avoid dangerous consequences in this occurrence. Later, at about 04.35 hours, 3-4 persons went out and then Parameswaran Nair, Nai,k and Chandni (A1) threatened him and in continuation of the same, Parameswaran Nair demanded Rs.12 lakh personally from him as well as in the presence of Ramesh, in order to avoid dangerous consequences in this occurrence. Pursuant to their threat, he was forced to give Rs.12 lakh. It is also pointed out that in this matter, Adv. V R Jyothish as well as Adv. M P Madhav have given statements, and as per their statements, also the involvement of the 1st accused is specifically narrated. 13. On perusal of the order impugned on par with the arguments tendered, it could be noticed that the learned special judge addressed these contentions relying on the statements of CWs 36,37, 17, and 25, and also the relevant documents produced by the prosecution and finally the special court found that the discharge plea of the 1st accused could not be considered as there are materials to see ‘prima facie’ commission of the alleged offences by the petitioner. 14. In the impugned order, the special court considered the statements of CWs 17, 25, 36 and 37 and the statements available in the file produced as D2 by the prosecution to find that there are prima facie materials to show that the petitioner had an active role in the demand and acceptance of money from CWs 36 and 37 by the 2nd accused at the connivance of the 1st accused. In the instant case, it is true that the statements of CWs 36 and 37, who were arrayed as accused Nos. 3 and 4 initially, later tendered pardon and made as witnesses are the materials to see the involvement of the accused including the petitioner. CW36 given statement regarding the incident on 01.03.2012. According to him, on that day, he along with his worker, brother and counsel, advocate Madhavan went to the Enforcement Office, Calicut. They had met the 1st accused and informed about his gold bullion business. He stated that he was called inside the office and he was interrogated separately by officers numbering about 5-6, including Enforcement Officer Sri. B.A. Naik. It is further stated that during the interrogation, 3-4 officers of the IB had left the office, and the 3rd accused continued interrogating him. He stated that he was called inside the office and he was interrogated separately by officers numbering about 5-6, including Enforcement Officer Sri. B.A. Naik. It is further stated that during the interrogation, 3-4 officers of the IB had left the office, and the 3rd accused continued interrogating him. It is further stated that the 3rd accused tortured him severely during interrogation and after that, as dictated by him, he wrote a statement. While he was writing the statement, the 2nd accused came there around 9.30 p.m. and threatened him by saying that he would be arrested under FEMA and would be handed over to the DRI, and the 2nd accused demanded a sum of Rs.10 lakh as bribe. Thereafter, there was some discussion regarding the same and finally the amount of Rs.10 Lakh was paid to the 2nd accused on 04.03.2012. He has further stated that after payment of the amount, his brother-in-law moved a petition for release of the gold and money and as per order dated 29.03.2012 the 2 Kgs of gold and Rs.44,25,130/- were released from the Court. 15. Similarly, witness No.37 also given statement to the CBI regarding the occurrence on 01.03.2012. According to CW37 on 01.03.2012, he along with one Sudheer and Ramesh, reached the office by 10.15 a.m. He was called inside the office for interrogation and at that time the 2nd and 3rd accused were present along with the 3-4 others. Those persons were identified as IB officials later. He was being questioned by the officers one by one. At around 5.00 p.m., except the accused, all others left the place. It is stated that all the three accused threatened him that they could do anything and they won't release the gold, and if the same would be sent to higher officials, he won't get back any gold. He further stated that at about 9.00 p.m. the second accused approached him with a promise that if he met his demand, the gold would be returned, and the 2nd accused demanded a sum of Rs.12 lakh and accordingly, the amount was paid on 04.03.2012. He has stated that after payment of the amount, the gold was released to him as per the order of the court. He has stated that after payment of the amount, the gold was released to him as per the order of the court. So, CW37 has stated that he was threatened by the officers of the Enforcement Directorate, including the petitioner, and told him that the gold would not be released to him if payment of bribe not effected. It is true that he has not directly stated that there was demand from the side of the petitioner. Witness Nos.36 and 37 also given statements that during 2013 also they were again called to the Enforcement Directorate, and there was an enquiry, and the money obtained by the 2nd accused was returned by him, and acknowledgments were obtained by the 2 accused. A reading of the statements of witnesses Nos. 36 and 37 show that they were physically and mentally tortured by the accused including the petitioner. CW37 has stated that on 19.03.2013 he, along with his counsel, Advocate Jyothish and Madhu, had gone to the Enforcement Office at Kozhikkode. It is stated that at the dictation of the petitioner, a statement was written down by Advocate Madhu, and CW37 signed in the same. Advocate N.G.Madhu is cited as witness No.17. He has stated that on 19.02.2013, he, along with his senior Advocate Jyothish had accompanied CW37 to the Enforcement Office, Kozhikkode. He had identified his hand writings in page Nos.33, 34, 80 and 81 of file No.DD/MISC/CLT/1012 DD/01/KZSZO/2013 (Vig), which is produced as document No.2 along with the final report. He had given statement that "Then after about half an hour, I was also called inside the chamber of Dy. Director Smt.Chandini. Smt.G. S Chandini then asked me to write the above shown statement dated 14.02 of Sri. A.N. Sankaran in Malayalam and I wrote the above statement as directed by her in duplicate, which are in P-33 & P-34. After completing the above statement I was also asked to write the statement dt. 18.02.12 in P-81 as directed by Smt. G.S. Chandini including the address in envelop in P-80. After that Smt. G.S.Chandini obtained the signature of Sri.A.N.Sankaran in the above-written two statements and told him that he would not be called again to the Directorate of Enforcement, Calicut, for this matter. After a few days of the above incident, I was told by Sri. A.N.Sankaran and Sri.A.R. Ramesh that Enforcement Officer Sri. C.Parameswaran Nair had returned Rs12. After that Smt. G.S.Chandini obtained the signature of Sri.A.N.Sankaran in the above-written two statements and told him that he would not be called again to the Directorate of Enforcement, Calicut, for this matter. After a few days of the above incident, I was told by Sri. A.N.Sankaran and Sri.A.R. Ramesh that Enforcement Officer Sri. C.Parameswaran Nair had returned Rs12. Lakh to my senior, Advocate Jyothish, to return to Sri Sankaran....... Pages 33 and 34 contain a statement allegedly given by CW37 to the petitioner. It bears the date 14.2.2013. It is stated therein that there was no demand for any money from the side of the Enforcement Officers. Page 80 is the postal cover addressed to the Deputy Director from A.N.Sankaran and sent by speed post from Thrissur MBC (680 001) on 19.02.2013. Page No.81 is another statement of A.N.Sankaran addressed to the Deputy Director, allegedly written on 18.2.13. In that also it is stated that he had not given any bribe to the Enforcement Officers for the release of the gold. This is seen received by the petitioner on 2.2.13. Advocate Jyothish is cited as CW25 and he has also stated about the statements written in the handwriting of Advocate Madhu, and that such statement was obtained by the petitioner stating that the 2nd accused will return the amount obtained by him. 16. In this case, the 3rd accused was discharged by the special court, and the reason for discharging the 3rd accused also canvassed by the learned counsel for the 1st accused on the submission that the 1st and the 3rd accused are on the same footing. 17. But the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI submitted that the status of the 1st accused and the 3rd accused are different. According to him the 3rd accused is a subordinate officer to the 1st and the 2nd accused and the 1st accused is the senior-most officer having domain over the 2nd and 3rd accused. In fact the 2nd accused demanded and accepted bribe from Antappan and Sankaran at the connivance of the 1st accused as evident from the statements as already discussed. Therefore reasons for discharge the 3rd accused could not be the basis for discharging the 1st accused. In fact the 2nd accused demanded and accepted bribe from Antappan and Sankaran at the connivance of the 1st accused as evident from the statements as already discussed. Therefore reasons for discharge the 3rd accused could not be the basis for discharging the 1st accused. The learned special Public Prosecutor also argued that even otherwise, the order of discharge of the 3rd accused may be challenged by the CBI though he had no specific instructions in this regard so far. 18. Regarding the discharge of the 3rd accused is concerned, this Court cannot act upon the same, since the finding therein can be challenged before this Court. Further legality of the said order cannot be decided by this court without addressing any challenge thereof. Therefore discharge of the 3rd accused by itself is not a reason to discharge the 1st accused. That apart, the status of the 1st accused as submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor as that of a higher official and her involvement would show that the involvement of the 1st accused in this matter is supported by cogent materials. As pointed out by the learned counsel Senior for the accused, Annexure A11 report dated 16.10.2022 was given by the 1st accused much prior to the registration of this crime, and the statements of CWs 36 and 37 and other witnesses were recorded after registration of this crime, much after the report. In this case, the present crime was registered at 11.00 a.m. on 01.03.2013. 19. At the stage of considering plea of discharge, a court is expected to analyse the prosecution records to find out as to whether prima facie materials are there to go for trial or at least the records would show a strong suspicion regarding the involvement of the accused in the crime, warranting trial. In the instant case, apart from the statements of CWs 36 and 37 Adv. Jyothish and Adv. M P Madhavan would support the prosecution allegations. The statement of Adv.Jyothish is that “on 19.02.13 as requested by Smt. G.S.Chandini, I, along with my assistant & Junior Advocate Madhu, and Sri. A.N.Sankaran had visited the office of Smt. G.S.Chandini, Dy. Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Calicut, and met Smt.G.S.Chandini (the petitioner), who discussed with him about the bribe of Rs.12 lakh accepted by Sri. C.Parameswaran Nair from Sri.A.N.Sankaran and the complaint received by her with regard to the same. A.N.Sankaran had visited the office of Smt. G.S.Chandini, Dy. Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Calicut, and met Smt.G.S.Chandini (the petitioner), who discussed with him about the bribe of Rs.12 lakh accepted by Sri. C.Parameswaran Nair from Sri.A.N.Sankaran and the complaint received by her with regard to the same. Smt. G.S.Chandini had asked Sri. Sankaran why such a complaint was made. Smt. G.S.Chandini then told Sri.Sankaran that Sri.Parameswaran would return the amount accepted from him and asked Sri.Sankaran to give a statement that he (Sankaran) had not paid any bribe to Enforcement Officer Sri. Parameswaran. Since Sri.Sankaran was illiterate and expressed his difficulty to write the statement as asked by her Smt.G.S.Chandini requested my junior Advocate N.G.Madhu to write the two statements, as if written by Sri.Sankaran, and Sri. Madhu wrote the statements dt. 14.02.13 (P-33 & 34) and dt. 18.02.13 (P-81) and also the addresses on the envelope (P-80) as dictated by Smt. G.S.Chandini. After a few days of the above incident Sri. C.Parameswaran Nair, Enforcement Officer, came to my office at Ayyantole and handed over Rs.12.00 lakh to me for returning to Sri. A N Sankaran and I, after obtaining a receipt from Sri. Sankaran returns the amount to Sri. Sankaran. I have gone through the receipt in Malayalam without date and signature shown to me now. I had obtained a signed receipt in the same proforma from Sri. Sankaran, when the money was returned to Sri. Sankaran, and this is the unsigned copy of the same given to Sri.Sankaran by me. This receipt was prepared in my office as requested by Sri. Parameswaran Nair, who wanted to conceal the fact of bribe accepted from Sri. Sankaran is to save himself from any case in the matter. Since Sri. C.Parameswaran and Sri.A.N.Sankaran were my clients, and I became a mediator in the matter. I do not have any other role in the above matter. I have gone through the Order dt. 19.03.2012 in M.P.1234/12, M.P.1257/12 & M.P.2033/12 and Order dt. 09.03.12 of the Hon'ble JFCM, Thrissur, shown to me now. I moved the above petitions for my client Sri. A.N.Sankaran in the above Cr.No.355 before the hon'ble JFCM Thrissur and the hon'ble JFCM Thrissur was kind enough to pass the above orders in favour of my client for the release of my client's properties, including the vehicle seized by the Thrissur East Police”. 20. I moved the above petitions for my client Sri. A.N.Sankaran in the above Cr.No.355 before the hon'ble JFCM Thrissur and the hon'ble JFCM Thrissur was kind enough to pass the above orders in favour of my client for the release of my client's properties, including the vehicle seized by the Thrissur East Police”. 20. Advocate Madhavan who dealt with the case of Antappan also given statement regarding the prosecution allegations supporting the same. Thus on evaluation of materials it could not be held at this stage that the special court went wrong in holding that there are prima facie materials to try the 1st accused and the plea of discharge could not succeed. 21. In view of the above, I could not find any merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner. In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. 22. The interim order of stay stands vacated. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are for the purpose of deciding the legality of dismissal of the discharge petition and the same have no binding effect on the special court, and the special court shall decide the case on merits after trial based on the evidence to be adduced.