IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2008 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 31573 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. P.V.GOPALAKRISHNAN, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.KUNJUKOCHU, MANALEL HOUSE, POOZHIKKOL PO. KADUTHURUTHY VILLAGE, VAIKOM VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. M.P.MOHAMMED, AGED 72 YEARS, S/O.LATE PAREETH, MUDOOR HOUSE, KADUTHURUTHY VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ESM.KABEER SMT.K.M.AMINABEEVI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 2. DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, DISTRICT PANCHAYATH, DISTRICT PANCHAYATH OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, VAIKOM. 5. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADUTHURUTHY POLICE STATION. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. AMJAD ALI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.C.No. 31573 of 2008 H - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Against the second petitioner, an F.I.R. has been registered on the allegation that he has committed the offence punishable under the Essential Commodities Act. The crux of the allegations is that a large quantity of ration rice was found available in the premises of the second petitioner. Seizure was effected. F.I.R. was registered. Investigation is in progress. 2. At this stage the petitioners have come before this Court offering an explanation for the presence of the rice in the premises of the second petitioner. They contend that the first petitioner was appointed as a Convener of a committee for carrying on the SGY project undertaken by the Panchayat. 2390 kgs of rice was allegedly entrusted by the Panchayat to the first petitioner as per Ext.P2. It is the further contention of the petitioners that the first petitioner had entered into an agreement with one Iqbal, the son of the second petitioner, relating to the W.P.C.No. 31573 of 2008 2 carrying out of the said project of work. It is their contention that as a matter of fact the first petitioner had entrusted the quantity of rice to the son of the second petitioner, who had stored the same in the premises of his father, the second petitioner. They have not committed any offence in respect of the rice in question. Keeping the rice in the premises of the second petitioner does not in any way amount to any offence, it is contended, as the rice has been legally entrusted by the Panchayt to the first petitioner and the first petitioner in turn to the son of the second petitioner. In these circumstances it is prayed that the F.I.R. may be quashed. 3. Notice was given to the learned Government Pleader, who submits that the investigation is in progress. What has to be enquired into is whether the rice in question is part of the consignment entrusted by the Panchayat to the first petitioner and whether the first petitioner had legally parted with the quantum of rice in favour of the son of the second petitioner. Investigation is going on. No final conclusion has been reached. Only on the basis of information collected by the Investigators shall any action be taken against the petitioners or the W.P.C.No. 31573 of 2008 3 son of the second petitioner. The police need time to complete the investigation. At this early stage of investigation the option of the police to conduct and complete the investigation may not be fettered by issuing any direction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Only if the Investigator is satisfied that the offence has been committed in respect of the quantity or rice found in the possession of the second petitioner, shall necessary further action be taken. 4. At the moment and with the available inputs, it appears to be rather difficult for this Court to hazard an opinion as to whether the quantity of rice which has been found in the premises of the second petitioner comes out of the rice entrusted by the Panchayat to the first petitioner and whether the first petitioner had legally parted with possession of such rice in favour of the son of the second petitioner. 5. I find merit in the submission of the learned Govt. Pleader that the police must be given time to complete the investigation. I am not persuaded to agree that any directions under Article 226 of the Constitution are necessary to be issued in this case at this juncture. W.P.C.No. 31573 of 2008 4 The police must be given time to complete the investigation and take appropriate and necessary further action. 6. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. I may hasten to observe that the police have to conduct a proper investigation and ascertain the truth of the contentions raised by the petitioners. Only after entertaining the satisfaction that an offence has been committed, can and need the officials proceed to take action against the petitioners. (R. BASANT) Judge tm