IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2011 / 8TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 16236 of 2011(D) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- GRACEWAY MARKETING (P)LTD,D-5,2ND FLOOR, PENTA MENAKA,SHANMUGHAM ROAD,COCHIN-682031, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,MR.SAJU USMAN. BY ADVS. SRI.V.B.HARI NARAYANAN SRI.A.V.VAMANAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT,TRIVANDRUM-695001. 2. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,COCHIN CITY, ERNAKULAM-682031. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,CENTRAL POLICE STATION,ERNAKULAM-682031. R1 TO R3 BY ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL SRI. K.A.JALEEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/06/2011,ALONG WITH WPC NO.16782/2011 AND CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 16236/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE LICENCE. P2: COPY OF THE CLARIFICATION ISSUED BY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ........................................... W.P.(C).NOS.16236,16361, 16606 & 16782 OF 2011 ............................................. Dated this the 29th day of June, 2011. JUDGMENT Basant, J: The petitioners have come to this Court complaining about harassment by the police. According to the petitioners, they are not guilty of any offence, but the police is unnecessarily harassing them. They are bonafide engaged in legal and lawful business practices. According to them, the police have no right to vex or harass the petitioners. In these circumstances it is prayed that directions under Article 226 may be issued to save the petitioners from such unnecessary harassment. 2. The learned Additional Advocate General has entered appearance for the respondent State. A statement has been filed by the second respondent. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that no crime has so far been registered against the petitioners and in these circumstances the police do not require the presence of the petitioners. No action shall now be taken against the petitioners. But W.P.(C).NOS.16236,16361, 16606 & 16782 OF 2011 : 2 : the learned Additional Advocate General submits that the police are closely watching whether the activities of the petitioners amount to offences punishable under the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act. If the police come to a conclusion that the petitioners are guilty of offences under the said Act, crime shall be registered in accordance with law and action in accordance with law shall be taken against the petitioners. Police is not now able to rule out that possibility. The activities of the petitioners are under the scanner of the police and if necessary, crime shall be registered by the police. In these circumstances, the learned Government Pleader submits that there is no necessity to issue any direction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. In the statement filed by the second respondent, it is mentioned that Multi Level Marketing Companies are really engaged in money circulation business and they have to proceed against them for violation of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, if there are sufficient materials. The learned Additional Advocate General W.P.(C).NOS.16236,16361, 16606 & 16782 OF 2011 : 3 : is unable to give any undertaking that no action shall be taken against the petitioners under the said Act. But, at the moment, no crime is registered and the petitioners are not required to appear before the police, submits the learned Additional Advocate General. If their presence is required, proper notice in accordance with law shall be issued to them and then only their presence shall be insisted, submits the learned Additional Advocate General. 4. We are in these circumstances satisfied that the submissions of the learned Additional Advocate General can be recorded and accepted and no further directions need be issued under Article 226. 5. Accepting the submissions of the learned Additional Advocate General, these petitions are dismissed with the above observations. Sd/= R. BASANT, JUDGE. Sd/= K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. /true copy/ P.S. to Judge. cl