IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 12050 of 2007(H)
1. JOSE THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. DIG OF POLICE, KERALA STATE,
3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
5. RAJU, S/O.DAMODARAN,
6. OMAN, W/O.RAJU, DO. DO.
7. SOMARAJAN, S/O.MADHAVAN,
8. BIJU, S/O.VARGHESE,
For Petitioner :SRI.BINDU SREEKUMAR
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :29/10/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
W.P.C.No.12050 of 2007
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of October 2007
J U D G M E N T
The grievance of the petitioner is that though further
investigation was ordered as per Ext.P4 by the learned
Magistrate, no proper steps for further investigation under
Section 173(8) Cr.P.C is being taken by the investigating officer.
The investigating officer was directed to file a statement. A
statement and further statement have been filed.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner now submits
that in view of the further statement dated 10/9/2007 filed by the
investigating officer, the petitioner does not seek any further
directions in this writ petition. With leave to the petitioner to
approach this court again, if investigation is not completed
efficiently and expeditiously hereafter, this writ petition can now
be closed, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed as agreed.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
W.P.C.No. 2
R.BASANT, J.
———————-
W.P.C.No.12050 of 2007
—————————————-
Dated this the 23rd day of July 2007
O R D E R
There is controversy arise now as to whether the thumb
impression of the second accused, who even according to the
prosecution, has impersonated the father of the first accused and
executed the document had been taken by the police and
whether such thumb impression has been forwarded to the
expert for comparison. While the learned Public Prosecutor
asserts that the thumb impression of the second accused has
been taken, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
such thumb impression has not been taken. The learned Public
Prosecutor is directed to take further instructions. A further
statement specifying whether the thumb impression of the
second accused has been taken and forwarded to the expert shall
be filed by the learned Public Prosecutor within a period of
fifteen days.
2. Call on 20/08/2007.
Hand over copy of this order to the learned Public
W.P.C.No. 3
Prosecutor.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
W.P.C.No. 4
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.CNo.
ORDER
21ST DAY OF MAY2007