P.C.Iype vs The State Of Kerala Represented By … on 27 May, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 8928 of 2008(K)


1. P.C.IYPE, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,

3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOCHI CITY.

4. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.A.FIROZ

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI

 Dated :27/05/2008

 O R D E R
              K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ

            ==============================

                      W.P.(C)NO. 8928 OF 2008

             ============================

             DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2008

                                JUDGMENT

Balakrishnan Nair,J.

The petitioner is a practising lawyer of this Court. He submits

that he was the Special Public Prosecutor in several sensitive cases

involving notorious criminals who are engaged in smuggling of

narcotic drugs. So a police constable was appointed to give protection

to his life. Later when the petitioner became the State Attorney, the

said arrangement continued. Even now the petitioner is the Special

Prosecutor in many sensitive cases and he is facing threat from the

accused in those cases. So the protection granted to him continued

even after he ceased to be the State Attorney. But suddenly the

protection granted to him is terminated and the Constable is

withdrawn without any reason or justification. So the petitioner filed

Ext.P9 representation before the Director General of Police requesting

to continue to provide him the protection of the police constable.

Thereafter, this writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

i)issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other
appropriate writ order or direction commanding the
respondents to continue to provide sufficient police protection
to the life and property of the petitioner and his family

wpc 8928/2008 -2-

members.

2. A statement has been filed by the third respondent as directed

by this Court. In the statement among other things, it is stated as

follows:

It is to be further submitted that the claim of the petitioner
that there is threat to his life was not reported to the SHO.
The police personnel provided to him was also an unarmed
person. The situation has now totally changed and according
to the threat assessment done by us, there is no threat to the
life of the petitioner. The petitioner herein is residing very
close to Central Police Station and we can rush to the spot in
no time, if the need arises. In fact, service of the police
personnel was allowed by the SHO for the time being and the
petitioner was the State Attorney for long time and the service
was continued without interruption. Now there is no situation
warranting special protection to the petitioner. If at all there
is any threat to the petitioner, he can very well approach the
SHO and we will extend necessary protection to the petitioner,
if it is found necessary. As per the report obtained there is no
specific threat to the life of the petitioner.

3. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit denying the

contentions stated in the statement of the third respondent.

4. We heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the

respondents.

5. Going by the statement of the police, as per their perception

at present, there is no threat to the life of the petitioner. The police

also undertakes that if there is any threat, the petitioner can

wpc 8928/2008 -3-

immediately approach the Station House Officer and the said officer

will immediately extend necessary protection. It is further stated

that at this stage, a constable need not be posted for giving protection

to the petitioner and there is no circumstance warranting such an

action. We find no reason to discard the above submission. Providing

protection to individuals is a pure executive function with which we

cannot interfere and substitute our decision for that of the competent

authority under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. So recording

the submission of the third respondent that as and when the petitioner

moves showing that there is a threat to his life, the S.H.O., Central

Police Station, Ernkaulam will extend necessary protection, the writ

petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,
JUDGE

Sd/-

M.C. HARI RANI
JUDGE

ks.

TRUE COPY