IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 24830 of 2007(E)
1. P.J.XAVIER, S/O PALAPPARAMBIL JOSEPH,
... Petitioner
2. P.J.JOB, S/O PALAPPARAMBIL JOSEPH,
3. P.J.MONY ALIAS P.J.MOLLY,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER,
3. THE REGIONAL TOWN PLANNER,
4. TOWN PLANNING OFFICER,
5. CORPORATION OF KOCHI,
6. THE TAHSILDAR,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.V.ASOKAN
For Respondent :SRI.K.ANAND, SC, COCHIN CORPN.
Dated :18/03/2008
O R D E R
? IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
+Crl.MC.No. 4808 of 2008()
#1. MANI RAJ, S/O.RAGHAVAN, MANI BEN,
... Petitioner
Vs
$1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, KERALA STATE
3. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER
4. RAJAMONY,W/O.SATHYAN, ASWINI BHAVANAM,
! For Petitioner :SRI.B.MOHANLAL
^ For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
*Coram
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
% Dated :19/01/2009
: O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
————————————————-
Crl.M.C. No. 4808 of 2008
————————————————-
Dated this the 19th day of January, 2009
ORDER
The petitioner faces allegations as the 2nd accused in
Crime No.115/08 of the Kottarakkara Excise Range. The 4th
respondent herein is the 1st accused in that crime. Some
contraband articles were allegedly seized from the possession
of the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent allegedly made a
statement before the detecting official that she was carrying
them on behalf of the petitioner herein. It is thus that the
petitioner was shown as accused in the occurrence report.
Investigation is in progress.
2. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent.
The local Excise Inspector and the 4th respondent have some
animosity against the petitioner. The Excise Inspector and the
4th respondent in collusion have most unnecessarily raised an
Crl.M.C. No. 4808 of 2008 -: 2 :-
allegation that the 4th respondent was carrying the contraband
articles on behalf of the petitioner herein. The petitioner is
aggrieved by the conduct of the 4th respondent and the Excise
Inspector who has registered the crime. The petitioner, in these
circumstances, came to this Court with a prayer that the
investigation may be entrusted to the 3rd respondent.
3. Notice was given to respondents 1 to 3. The learned
Public Prosecutor was requested to take instructions as to why
the investigation in the given circumstances should not be
directed to be conducted by a superior official of the police. The
learned Public Prosecutor, after taking instructions, submits that
necessary directions have already been issued to ensure that the
detecting officer does not continue with the investigation and
that the investigation shall be conducted by the Circle Inspector
of Excise, Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotic Special Squad,
Kollam. The petitioner need not have any apprehension now.
The detecting officer will have no role in the investigation
hereafter. In these circumstances, this petition may now be
dismissed, submits the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is not satisfied with the said arrangement. Directions
may be issued to the 3rd respondent to personally conduct the
Crl.M.C. No. 4808 of 2008 -: 3 :-
investigation. If that is not done the investigation by the Circle
Inspector of Excise will not alleviate the grievance of the
petitioner. Appropriate directions may, in these circumstances,
be issued, it is submitted.
5. I have considered all the relevant inputs. The State
has now ensured that the detecting officer against whom
allegations of mala fides are raised does not continue with the
investigation and the investigation is entrusted with his superior
– the Circle Inspector of Excise. I am not persuaded to agree
that the present arrangement for investigation is not fair or just
and should not be accepted.
6. I am satisfied that to ensure purity of investigation, the
3rd respondent can be directed to personally supervise the
investigation conducted by the Circle Inspector of Excise. Final
report shall not be filed without specific approval of the 3rd
respondent.
7. In the result:
(a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed.
(b) Accepting the submission of the learned Public
Prosecutor that the investigation shall be conducted hereafter
not by the Excise Inspector who detected the crime; but his
superior – Circle Inspector of Excise, Excise Enforcement and
Crl.M.C. No. 4808 of 2008 -: 4 :-
Anti Narcotic Special Squad, Kollam, it is specifically directed
that the 3rd respondent must hereafter personally monitor the
investigation and the final report must be filed only after the
specific approval of the 3rd respondent is received.
Sd/-
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge