IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 24710 of 2008(N)
1. SHIBU.V,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. I.N.T.U.C NENMARA UNIT,
3. C.I.T.U, NENMARA UNIT, REP. BY ITS
For Petitioner :SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :17/12/2008
O R D E R
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.24710 OF 2008
-----------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The writ petitioner is an agriculturist, who owns 8 acres of
land. He submits as follows:
He has got six permanent workers to do the various agricultural
operations and also to do the incidental work of
loading/unloading. The scheme under the Kerala Head Load
Workers Act is not notified in the petitioner’s area. So, he is
entitled to do the incidental work of loading/unloading, using his
own workmen. While so, the members of respondents 2 and 3
came forward claiming loading/unloading work in his farm. On
6.8.2008, they trespassed into the petitioner’s premises and
obstructed the agricultural operations there. The aggrieved
petitioner preferred Exhibit P1 representation before the Sub
Inspector of Police, Nenmara, seeking police protection. He also
produced the photocopy of the receipt issued from the Police
Station as Exhibit P1(2). Alleging that the police did not take any
effective action to remove the obstruction and to render
W.P.(C)No.24710/08 -2-
protection to him and his workmen, this Writ Petition was filed.
2. The first respondent, the Sub Inspector of Police, has
filed an affidavit before this Court stating that Exhibit P1
representation was not filed before the Police Station by the
petitioner. The photocopy of the receipt produced by the writ
petitioner was not issued from his Office. In fact the receipt No.
PTN/340/K-1/08 was issued to one Smt.Usha, W/o Mohanan on
16.8.2008 for a petition filed by her alleging that her husband is
missing. No receipt with the above said number and date was
issued to the petitioner from the Police Station on 7.8.2008. It was
also stated that receipt Nos.455499 and 455500 were found
missing from the book and an enquiry was being conducted in the
matter.
3. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit denying the
allegations in the affidavit of the first respondent-Sub Inspector of
Police. He further stated that he submitted the complaint on
7.8.2008. He waited in the Police Station to get the receipt. But,
no receipt was issued, as the Station House Officer was not
available at that time. He went to the Station on 8.8.2008 to get
W.P.(C)No.24710/08 -3-
the receipt. But, no receipt was issued. Mr.Rajagopalan a Police
Constable, on 9.8.2008 issued the receipt produced by the
petitioner. According to him, he has no role in the irregularity, if
any, in the issuance of the receipt.
4. Later, the learned Government Pleader filed a memo
producing the report of the inquiry held by the Superintendent of
Police, Palakkad as per the direction of this Court. In the said
report, it is stated as follows:
” The enquiry conducted in the matter revealed
that Sri Shibu the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.24710/2008
managed to get the petition receipt from Nemmara
Police Station through GHC 3434 Rajagopalan. Shibu
and Rajagopalan conspired each other and taken the
petition receipt from Nemmara Police Station without the
knowledge of others. He made false entries in the
receipt and handed over to Sri Shibu for undue
pecuniary benefits. Sri Shibu know that the receipt was
a forged one and he submitted the same before the
Hon’ble High Court with a view to get police protection.
W.P.(C)No.24710/08 -4-
On examination of copy of Exhibit P1(2) it is learned that
the same was lacking with seal of SI as well as Police
Station. The receipt (is) bearing a Printed Serial No. of
455500. Witness No.1 SI stated that the same was
found missing from the original receipt book. Moreover
the receipts contain a Petition No. of PTN/340/K-1/08.
The enquiry officer verified the petition register as well
as the petition receipt counter foil. He noticed that the
receipt No.340/08 was issued to Smt.Usha and seen
corresponding entries were made in the petition register.
Copy of the petition receipt No.340/08 marked as Ext.
(A). Copy of the petition register is marked as Ext.(B).
The enquiry officer verified copy of the Pray (sic-
writ petition) of the petitioner which was submitted by
the petitioner before the Hon’ble High Court. In that
petition the petitioner alleged that he had submitted a
petition before the Hon’ble High Court (sic-Sub Inspector
of Police) on 07/08/2008 and the 1st respondent had not
taken any action in this regard. Enquiry revealed that
W.P.(C)No.24710/08 -5-
no such petition was given by the petitioner before SI of
Police, Nemmara.
As per the directions of Hon’ble High Court of
Kerala, SI of Police, Nemmara had submitted that (the)
statement of fact before the Hon’ble High Court of
Kerala. In the statement of facts SI submitted that he
denied the allegations of the petitioner. Copy of the
statement of facts submitted by the SI of Nemmara is
marked as Ext.(C).
In this connection SI had conducted a detailed
enquiry into the matter and submitted a special report
against the GHC 3434 Rajagopalan through proper
channel to Supdt. of Police, Palakkad for initiating
disciplinary action against him for the grave misconduct.
The special report of SI, Nemmara is marked as Ext.(D).
On receipt of the special report, the Supdt. of
Police, Palakkad suspended the GHC 3434 Rajagopalan
from service and detailed an Oral Enquiry against him
vide Order No.S2/48979/08 P dated 24.11.2008 of
W.P.(C)No.24710/08 -6-
Supdt. of Police, Palakkad. Copy of the order of Supdt.of
Police marked as Ext.(E).
The enquiry into the matter disclosed that Sri Shibu
the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.24710/08 colluded with GHC
3434 Rajagopalan had managed to get a false petition
receipt of Nemmara Police Station. Sri Rajagopalan had
issued the false petition receipt to Sri Shibu for undue
pecuniary benefit. All the witnesses and documents were
supporting the allegation. Sri Shibu has the knowledge
that the receipt submitted before the court is a false
one.”
The above report would show that the Head Constable and the writ
petitioner conspired and created a forged document using a stolen
receipt and the same has been produced as a genuine document
before this Court. The learned Government Pleader further
submitted that the Head Constable Rajagopalan has been placed
under suspension and disciplinary proceedings initiated against him
are being proceeded with by the competent authority.
5. The petitioner has filed an additional reply affidavit
W.P.(C)No.24710/08 -7-
dealing with the report filed by the Superintendent of Police,
Palakkad. He asserts, he has nothing to do with the issuance of the
receipt. Mr.Rajagopalan who was already transferred from the
Station was allowed to continue in the Station and to function in
uniform and the said Constable issued the receipt to him. The
petitioner has no role whatsoever in the irregularity committed by
Mr.Rajagopalan.
6. From the materials on record, it is clear that Exhibit P1
(2) receipt is a forged document produced before this Court as
genuine with the intention to get favourable orders from this Court.
The prayer in this Writ Petition is for a mandamus to the police to
grant necessary protection to the petitioner’s workmen to do the
loading/unloading work in his agricultural farm. So, the demand
before the police and their refusal to render protection
is normally a condition precedent for moving this Court for police
protection. Normally, a Head Constable has no interest
in forging such a document, unless he is persuaded by the petitioner
W.P.(C)No.24710/08 -8-
or else he must be an insane person. The view expressed by the
District Superintendent of Police that the Head Constable has forged
the document for the benefit of the petitioner for pecuniary benefits
received, appears to be a reasonable view on the facts. Unless the
petitioner has influenced the Head Constable and greased his palm,
there is no reason for him, who was already transferred from the
Station, to steal the receipt form and forge the receipt in it so that
the petitioner can produce it before this Court. In view of the above
facts, we are not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition and consider
the matter on merits. It deserves to be dismissed and we do so
with costs, which is fixed as Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand
only). The petitioner shall pay the cost to the State. Normally, this
Court should further pass an order under section 340 Cr.P.C. to
prosecute the petitioner for perjury. But, we feel that the award of
costs will be sufficient in this case and we are not making any
further order in this matter. It is also clarified that the
observations made by us in this Writ Petition will not affect
the contentions of the Head Constable Mr.Rajagopalan before the
disciplinary authority. The said authority will be free to arrive at its
W.P.(C)No.24710/08 -9-
own findings based on the materials produced before it.
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE.
M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.
dsn