IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA No. 37 of 2007()
1. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Petitioner
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
Vs
1. K.K.JOSEPH, S/O.KURIAN,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.S.SREEKUMAR, SC FOR CBI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.V.K.BALI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.RAMACHANDRAN
Dated :05/01/2007
O R D E R
V.K.Bali,C.J. & M.Ramachandran,J.
-------------------------------------------
W.A.No.37 of 2007
-------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 5th day of January, 2007
JUDGMENT
V.K.Bali,C.J. (Oral)
The challenge in the present Writ Appeal is to the
order dated 4.1.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.
(C).No.618 of 2007. The short order passed by the learned Single
Judge reads thus:
“Petitioner has got a job in United Nation and by
delaying the matter he will lose his job. There will be
a interim direction to CBI to complete the questioning
of petitioner by the end of this week. Petitioner will
produce copy of this order and appear before CBI for
completing his questioning. Release of petitioner’s
passport will be considered subject to the terms. CBI
will furnish instruction on 8.1.07. Post on Monday”.
2. It is quite clearly made out from the petition and in
particular Exhibit P4 that the petitioner in the original lis has got
an appointment in United Nation as Inspector (Chemical
W.A.No.37 of 2007 – 2 –
Production Technologist) within the Inspectorate Division of the
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. The
appointment is effective from 5th January, 2007. While the
petitioner was to join his duties in the new assignment offered to
him, which he has already accepted, the C.B.I. would like to
question him with regard to a F.I.R., Annexure-I produced along
with the Writ Appeal. The said F.I.R. is registered against the
petitioner under Sections 120B and 420 of Indian Penal Code and
Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988. The allegations as made out in the F.I.R.
are of irregular procedure by the petitioner and others in the
matter of acceptance of a tender. The F.I.R. was registered
against the petitioner on 20.11.2006 pertaining to an incident on
4.2.2005. The F.I.R. with regard to the irregularities committed
by the petitioner was, thus, registered after the lapse of an year
and half. In the facts of the case as mentioned above, the
learned Single Judge seems to have passed a just and equitable
order. That apart, the C.B.I. is investigating the case and if
further questioning of the petitioner may be required or, in other
words, if the time granted by the learned Single Judge to the
W.A.No.37 of 2007 – 3 –
C.B.I. to question the petitioner is not enough or sufficient, there
is no embargo on the power of the C.B.I. to go to the witness at
the place of present posting for questioning there. No merits.
Dismissed.
V.K.Bali
Chief Justice
M.Ramachandran
vku/- Judge