IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 35647 of 2009(A)
1. RASHEED, S/O. MUHAMMED ABDUL KHADER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.VELLAYANI SUNDARARAJU
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :03/02/2010
O R D E R
K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.35647 of 2009-A
----------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 3rd day of February, 2010
J U D G M E N T
K.M.Joseph, J.
Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the
following reliefs:
“i) to issue a writ of mandamus or other
appropriate writ, order or direction commanding
the 4th respondent or any other officer at the
instance of 4th respondent not to harass and
intimidate the petitioner on the mere allegations
of purchase of stolen Gold Ornaments by stating
that the 4th respondent is duty bound to follow
Ext.P2 instructions of Ist respondent in dealing
with recovery of gold or ingots.
ii) to issue necessary order or direction to the
respondents not to harass the petitioner in
running his small jewelery shop in a lawful
manner.”
2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as
follows:–Petitioner is the proprietor of a small jewellery shop
in Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner has been running the
shop for the past 15 years. It is stated that, on 7.12.2009 the
3rd respondent with two police constables went to the jewellery
WPC 35647/2009 -2-
shop of the petitioner and demanded 5 sovereigns of gold
ornaments from him stating that he had purchased 5
sovereigns of gold ornaments from a thief. It is stated that
the petitioner told the 3rd respondent that he did not purchase
even a gram of stolen gold ornaments from any thief till date.
It is also stated that the police party told the petitioner that if
the petitioner does not give 5 sovereigns of gold ornaments
to the 3rd respondent he will be implicated in several cases
under Section 411 IPC and he will not be allowed to sleep
peacefully. Petitioner was asked to go to the police station on
the next day itself. Petitioner filed Ext.P1 representation
before the 2nd respondent. Ext.P2 is an order issued by the
Government in the wake of the complaints received from the
gold merchants about the practices of the police authorities.
Ext.P3 is the interim order passed by this Court.
3. A statement has been filed by the 4th
respondent inter alia stating as follows:– A person was found
in a suspicious circumstance and on questioning him he failed
to explain his presence there. On further questioning it was
revealed that he is an ex-convict and his motive was
WPC 35647/2009 -3-
committing theft. A case was registered against him. There is
reference to various other theft cases. It is stated that he
was remanded to police custody and the 4th respondent took
up the investigation. It is stated that as per the confession of
the accused the 4th respondent along with police party and
the accused went to Chalai, Thiruvananthapuram on
7.12.2009. As pointed out by the accused the 4th respondent
reached on LR jewelery at Valayachetty Theruvu, Chala. It is
stated that while he reached at L.R.Jewellery it was opened
and no one was there. He waited there with accused for more
than two hours to see the owner of the jewelery but he could
not find anybody and he could not know anything about the
owner of the said jewelery except the confession of accused.
It is also stated that on the same day some stolen properties
were recovered from another jewellery as per the confession
of the accused.
4. In paragraphs 6 and 7 of the statement it is
stated as follows:
“6. The accused produced before JFMC II,
Attingal on 8.12.2009 after police custody and
the Hon’ble Court remanded him under judicial
WPC 35647/2009 -4-
custody. The case 461/06 of Kilimanoor Police
Station crime and 91/09 Pallikkal Police Station
were treated as UN and now they are re-opened
on the strength of the confession of the accused.
All the above three cases are now under
investigation.
7. In this cases remaining accused are to be
arrested and stolen properties are to be
recovered. Investigation is going on in this
regard. On my enquiry, it is revealed that, the
shop is running smoothly till date without any
interference from the part of police.”
We record the statement filed by the 4th
respondent and close the writ petition. We make it clear that
this will not stand in the way of the investigation of offence in
accordance with law.
(K.M.JOSEPH)
JUDGE.
(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS)
JUDGE.
MS