IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2009 / 13TH ASWINA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 906 of 2009(S) ----------------------------------------------- ARISING FROM THE ORDER IN BA.7311/2008 Dated 01/01/2009 .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- THOMAS, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.MATHEW, AIKARAKUNNEL HOUSE, KURAVILANGADU.P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE & ADV. SRI. JOJO.A.V. RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. NANDAKUMAR NAIR,(FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THIS PETITIONER), DY.S.P, C.B.I, KOCHI. 2. DR.S.MALINI,(FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THIS PTITIONER) FORMER ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY, BANGALORE. R1 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.S.SREEKUMAR. THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/09/2009, THE COURT ON 05.10.2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------ Cont. Case (C) No.906 of 2009 S ------------------------------ Dated this, the 5th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner, who is the father of late Sister Abhaya has filed this Contempt Case (Civil), alleging that the respondents, who are Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Kochi and former Assistant Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Bangalore, respectively have wilfully disobeyed the directions of this Court in the Order dated 1.1.2009 in Bail Applications No.7311 and connected applications in Crime No.RC8(S)/93/SPE/KER/CBI. In the said bail order, a copy of which is produced as Annexure A1, it was held by this Court as follows: “55. Three independent CDs which were produced before me are stated to be received directly from the Forensic Laboratory, Bangalore. A comparison of those CDs with the other single CD (containing the three files in one CD) reveals that all the CDs are not only edited but manipulated also. Cont. Case (C) No.906 of 2009 - 2 - According to me, in all probabilities, those are edited and manipulated at the Forensic Science Laboratory itself, by the person or persons who were doing the analysis. 56. The editing is clearly visible to the naked eye and to find out the evident editing even an expert may not be necessary. I could not find even a single CD which is unedited. I am not prepared to place any reliance upon the contents of the CDs on Narco Analysis or the reports submitted by Dr.Malini, for the reasons stated above. I have no doubt that if reliance is placed on the CDs made available to this court, the court and the investigator will go wrong in making conclusions. I am making these observations because the court is entitled to monitor investigation, as held in Sakiri Vasu V. State of Utter Pradesh and others (2008) 2 SCC 409). Therefore, it is necessary that the investigator takes all steps to retrieve the unedited original video containing Narco Analysis of all the accused, before he proceeds any further to act upon those CDs. I have no doubt that the edited and manipulated CDs and report on Narco Analysis by Dr.Malini may mislead the investigation.” (emphasis supplied) A reading of the above quoted order shows that the learned Single Judge issued directions to the first respondent herein to Cont. Case (C) No.906 of 2009 - 3 - take steps to retrieve the unedited original video tapes containing the Narco Analysis of all the three accused before proceeding further based on the CDs now made available. We notice that the petitioner herein was not a party to Annexure A1 bail order dated 1.1.2009. The petitioners in the three bail applications, which were disposed of by Annexure A1 common order, have not chosen to file any contempt application. Whether a person, who is not a party to the proceedings, though interested in the subject matter, can file a contempt application based on the alleged violation of the directions of this Court, is an incidental point which arises for consideration in this case. No doubt, the petitioner herein is vitally interested in the subject matter of the case concerned. Therefore, without deciding whether the petitioner has locus standi, we are proceeding with the case on merits assuming that the petitioner has necessary standing. But, since this point is not finally decided, needless to say, this decision will not be an authority for the proposition that a third party can maintain a contempt application in a case involving civil contempt as defined in Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Cont. Case (C) No.906 of 2009 - 4 - 2. The petitioner in his contempt application has pleaded as follows: In the light of the directions in Annexure A1, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P. No.120/2009 in the aforementioned crime before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam, praying to issue a search warrant in favour of the investigating officer of the C.B.I. to search and seize the original unedited video tape containing the Narco Analysis tests of all the three accused from the custody of the second respondent herein. When the above petition came up for consideration before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, it was submitted on behalf of the C.B.I., that they were taking all steps to retrieve the original unedited video tape. Taking note of the said submission, the petition was adjourned. Thereafter, the investigating officer visited Bangalore, contacted the second respondent for getting the original video tape. The second respondent handed over three video tapes to the investigating officer stating that they were the original unedited video tapes. Believing the statement of the second respondent regarding the tapes, the first respondent produced the same before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, along with Annexure A2 report. Cont. Case (C) No.906 of 2009 - 5 - On the request of the CBI, C-DAC, Thiruvananthapuram was asked by the C.J.M.'s Court to transfer the recording in the video tapes into compact discs in the presence of independent witnesses. Copy of the order is produced as Annexure A3, dated 10.2.2009. Since C-DAC informed that it does not have the facilities for transferring the contents of the video tapes to compact discs, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by order dated 20.4.2009 directed the Director, C-DIT, Thiruvananthapuram to carry out the process of transfer of contents of the video tapes into compact discs in the presence of three independent witnesses. A copy of that order is produced by the petitioner as Annexure A4. The Director of C-DIT filed a report before the Magistrate's Court, stating that the video tapes were neither original nor unedited. On knowing this, the petitioner again filed Crl.M.P. No.6353/2009 in the above crime, to issue a search warrant in favour of the officers of the C.B.I., to search the premises of Forensic Science Laboratory, Bangalore and the house of Dr.Malini to retrieve the original video tapes of Narco Analysis Tests conducted on the three accused. Based on the report of C-DIT, the learned Chief Cont. Case (C) No.906 of 2009 - 6 - Judicial Magistrate expressed the view that the original version should be produced before the Court. The C.B.I. was granted ten days' time to question the persons concerned and try to retrieve the original CDs and to produce them before the Court. Annexure A-5 is the order passed by the learned Magistrate on 25.6.2009, containing the above directions. But, the C.B.I. filed Annexure A6 report dated 23.7.2009 before the C.J.M's Court detailing the steps taken by them to retrieve the original CDs. It was stated that what is produced by them was the original and the views of the C-DIT, which are given from a videographer's point of view, are not correct. The absence of knowledge of the protocol for Narco Analysis was the reason for submitting such a report by C-DIT, it was pointed out by the C.B.I. The petitioner submits that the stand of the first respondent that the three video tapes handed over to him by the second respondent are original ones and unedited, is incorrect. His conduct of not retrieving the original video tapes of Narco Analysis and the refusal of the second respondent to handover them to the first respondent are contumacious conduct and wilful disobedience of the directions of this Court contained in Cont. Case (C) No.906 of 2009 - 7 - Annexure A1 order. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the respondents have committed contempt and therefore, are liable to be punished under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 3. If the allegation that the directions of this Court in Annexure A1 order are not obeyed by the respondents is proved, it will amount to civil contempt, as defined under Section 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act. Section 2(b) reads as follows: “(b) 'civil contempt' means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a Court;” We notice that this Court has not issued any direction to the second respondent. Therefore, we have declined to issue notice to the second respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.A.X.Varghese, relied on the decision of the House of Lords in Attorney General v. Times Newspapers Ltd. [1991] 2 All.E.R. 398, to canvass for the position that Cont. Case (C) No.906 of 2009 - 8 - non-parties can also be subjected to contempt proceedings. But, we notice that it was a case of Criminal Contempt and the principles laid down therein have no application to the facts of this case involving civil contempt. The learned counsel also relied on the decision of the Court of Appeal in Seaward and Others v. Paterson, [1895-9] All.E.R. Reprint 1127. The said case is concerning violation of an injunction order, wherein the defendant, his under-tenants, agents and servants were perpetually retrained from doing certain acts. A person, acting as an agent of the defendant, was held to be liable for contempt, though he was not an eo-nomine party to the suit. The terms of the injunction order itself would show that not only the defendant, but his under-tenants, agents and servants were also restrained from doing certain things. So, the person who violated the said order and found to be an agent of the defendant, was held to be liable for contempt. The principle applicable in that case has no application to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioner to issue notice to the second respondent cannot be accepted. Cont. Case (C) No.906 of 2009 - 9 - 4. The first respondent was directed by us to file an affidavit, dealing with the averments of the petitioner in the Contempt of Court Case. Thereupon, the first respondent filed an affidavit, denying the allegations against him. He has stated in the affidavit that all possible steps have been taken by him to retrieve the original video tapes and what have been received by him from the second respondent are the originals. The view of the C-DIT is a videographer's view. The said institution does not know the protocol of Narco Analysis and therefore, it happened to file a report that the video tapes were edited. In the said affidavit, the first respondent has stated as follows: “5. That, pursuant to the receipt of the Report of C-DIT, Trivandrum of the said 3 Narco video cassettes, further investigation was conducted by me at FSL, Bangalore from 29-6-2009 to 04-07-2009. The inventory of all the video cassettes available at FSL, Bangalore in various cases of the Narco Analysis tests, was drawn up by me in the presence of the independent witnesses, through the proceedings on 01-07-09. No cassettes or CDs relating to this case were found. The Hard Disc of the Computer into which the 3 video tapes of the Narco Cont. Case (C) No.906 of 2009 - 10 - analysis tests on A-1 to A-3 were downloaded by Dr.S.Malini, then Asst. Director for burning into the Compact Discs and also the Hard Disc of the Computer used for the preparation of the Narco analysis report of A-1 to A-3 were also seized by me on 02-07-09, through proceedings in the presence of the independent witnesses. The said two proceedings have also been filed before the Hon'ble CJM, Ernakulam. The statements of Dr.S.Malini, Dr.Sreekantamurthy T.N., Prof. and Head, Deptt. Of Anesthesiology, Bangalore Medical College, Bangalore; Ms.N.Krishnaveni former Electro Encephalograph Technician; Sri.Pravin P.Barigadad, Scientific Asst. were also recorded regarding the conduct of the Narco analysis tests and the videography. It is revealed from the investigation that none of the above officials are trained in Videography. As stated by them, the Videography is not done continuously, since the subject slips from the trance stage to the conscious stage or the deep sleep stage and vice versa, and the revelations made in trance stage of the subject only are recorded. Hence the video recording is not continuous, in none of these 3 tapes or of any other Narco analysis tests in other cases, as spoken to by the above mentioned officials. Dr.S.Malini has also denied that she had edited the video tapes and further stated that the video tapes contain the original recordings. Cont. Case (C) No.906 of 2009 - 11 - 6. That the averments in Para No.3 are not fully correct. The sincere efforts made by me in this respect with the assistance of CBI, ACB, Bangalore have already been discussed in para No.4. The proceedings dt. 01-07-09, 02-7-09, at FSL, Bangalore would establish the impartial and professional investigation by the CBI. 7. With respect to the averments made in Para No.4, Dr.S.Malini, Ms. Krishnaveni, who videographed the Narco analysis tests of A-1 to A-3 have given statements to the effect that no editing was done by them, vide statements dt.6.2.09, 30.6.09 and 4.7.09 in respect of Dr.S.Malini, and the statements dt. 5.2.09 and 3.7.2009 of Ms.Krishnaveni. The statements of Dr.Sreekantamurthy T.N. Dated 6.2.2009 and Sri.Pravin.P Barigadad, Scientific Asst. dated 3.7.2009 regarding the conduct of the Narco analysis tests and the videography, including that of A-1 to A-3 in this case, corroborates the evidence of Dr.S.Malini and Ms.Krishnaveni. Dr.S.Malini has confirmed that the 3 video cassettes which were handed over by her on 05-02-09, and seized by me under a “Receipt Memo”, were the originally recorded Narco analysis test video cassettes. The said 3 video tapes have already been submitted before the Cont. Case (C) No.906 of 2009 - 12 - Hon'ble CJM, Ernakulam. 8. The averments in Para No.5 are correct. The statement of Sri.K.Mohan Kumar, Deputy Director, Sri.Ramesh Vikraman, Chief Editor and Team Leader of Advertisement Film Team and Ms.Pinki Vasan, Video Editor cum Sound Recordist will reveal that the analysis of the 3 Narco analysis test video tapes was done from a videographer's point of view and not forensically. None of them have ever forensically analysed any Narco analysis test video tape or any other video tape for the Police or the Judiciary at C-DIT, Trivandrum nor do they possess the knowledge of the protocol of Narco analysis tests and the associated videography. Also the C-DIT, Trivandrum is not a Video Forensic Laboratory. The opinion of C-DIT, Trivandrum, therefore cannot be accepted U/s.45 of the Indian Evidence Act. The report dt.23-07-09 to this effect was also filed by me after the examination of the above officials of C-DIT, Trivandrum, before the Hon'ble CJM, Ernakulam. 9. The averments made in Para No.6 are incorrect. The observations of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and the Hon'ble CJM, Ernakulam were followed by me in letter and spirit, as would be revealed from the facts stated in Para No.4,5,6,7 Cont. Case (C) No.906 of 2009 - 13 - and 8. I have the highest regard and respect for the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and the Hon'ble CJM, Ernakulam and the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and the Hon'ble CJM, Ernakulam have been complied by me in full with due respect and the investigation of the case has been conducted in an impartial and professional manner.”. Dealing with the above averments in the affidavit of the first respondent, the petitioner has filed a detailed reply affidavit. He has reiterated that the opinion of the C-DIT is valid, the produced video tapes are edited and not original and the first respondent has failed to obey the directions of this Court by not retrieving the original video tapes and the CDs. 5. We heard Sri.A.X.Varghese, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.S.Sreekumar, learned counsel for the first respondent. Going by Annexure A1 order, we find that the direction issued by this Court was to take all steps to retrieve the original unedited video tapes of narco analysis before proceeding further. Going by the facts stated by the first Cont. Case (C) No.906 of 2009 - 14 - respondent, we are satisfied that all possible steps have been taken by him to retrieve the original tapes. We find no wilful disobedience to the directions of this Court. Even assuming the video tapes and the CDs retrieved are not unedited and original, for maintaining a contrary view, it cannot be said that the first respondent has committed any civil contempt, as defined under Section 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. So, we do not think, it is expedient or necessary to proceed further with the contempt application. Accordingly, the Contempt Case (Civil) is dismissed. Sd/- K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. Sd/- P. Bhavadasan, Judge. DK. (True copy)