IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 4067 of 2009()
1. MUNNAR WOODS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER,
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :11/01/2010
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
===========================
CRL.M.C.No. 4067 OF 2009
===========================
Dated this the 11th day of January,2010
ORDER
Petitioner filed Annexure 6 and 7 petitions
(CMP 423/2009 and 424/2009) before Special
Judge, Vigilance, Thrissur for interim custody
of the documents seized by the Vigilance during
investigation in V.C.1/2008 and produced before
the learned Special Judge, under section 451 of
Code of Criminal Procedure. By Annexure 8
order, A6 petition was dismissed. By Annexure
9 order Annexure 7 petition was dismissed.
This petition is filed under section 482 of
Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure 8
and 9 orders.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were
heard.
3. Petitioner is a partnership firm.
Crl.M.C.4067/2009 2
There are two partners to the firm. One Managing
partner and M.S. Jayakumari. M.S. Jayakumari is
the wife of the sole accused in V.C.1/2008.
Prosecution case is that accused B.S.
Radhakrishnan, a former Chief Engineer of KSEB
amassed wealth disproportionate of his known source
of income and he thereby committed the offence
under section 13(1)(e) punishable under section 13
(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Annexure 6 and
7 petitions are the petitions for release of the
documents relating to the partnership firm, seized
during the investigation. Learned Special Judge
dismissed Annexure 6 and 7 petitions finding that
release of the vital documents at this stage would
effect further investigation of the case.
4. On hearing the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor,
it is clear that the learned Special Judge did not
consider the application in the proper perspective.
Learned Special Judge did not consider the question
Crl.M.C.4067/2009 3
for what purpose the registered documents obtained
by the firm, under which properties were
purchased, are to be retained for the purpose of
investigation and why a registration copy of the
said documents will not serve the purpose.
Similarly the question whether instead of retaining
the original documents, retaining the certified
copies of the documents would suffice for the
purpose of investigation, was not considered by the
learned Special Judge. Learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is
prepared to substitute certified copies of the
entire documents and is also prepared to give
undertaking before the court below that the
documents will be produced as and when required and
in such circumstances the orders are to be quashed.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that
if after investigation it is to be found that the
investment was that of the petitioner which is
part of the disproportionate income of the accused,
Crl.M.C.4067/2009 4
for the purpose of the trial the original documents
will be necessary.
6. It is also submitted that for the purpose of
proper investigation some of the original bills and
vouchers and other documents will be necessary. It
is seen from Annexure A8 and A9 orders that these
aspects were not considered by the learned Special
Judge and without a speaking order observing that
releasing the documents would effect the further
investigation, the petitions were dismissed.
7. In the circumstances of the case Annexure
A8 and A9 orders are quashed. The Special Judge
(Vigilance) is directed to reconsider CMP 423/2009
and 424/2009 and pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law. Investigating Officer is
permitted to point out which are the original
documents necessary for the purpose of
investigation. The Special Judge is directed to
consider which all original documents are
necessary to be retained for the purpose of
Crl.M.C.4067/2009 5
investigation. He shall also consider whether by
substituting the documents by certified copies, the
documents could be released to the petitioner as
sought on sufficient conditions and undertaking.
Petition is disposed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
tpl/-
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
———————
W.P.(C).NO. /06
———————
JUDGMENT
SEPTEMBER,2006