IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 21ST NOVEMBER 2008 / 30TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4494 of 2008() ------------------------- C.R.NO.26/08 OF PALAKKAD EXCISE RANGE PETITIONER(S): --------------- MOHANDAS, 42 YEARS, S/O.ARAVINDAKSHAN, VELUTHEDATH HOUSE, MANAKKAL PADI, KONATHUKUNNU, THEKKUMKARA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA/EXCISE INSPECTOR, PALAKKAD RANGE, PALAKKAD, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, EXCISE ENFORCEMENT & ANTI NARCOTIC SPECIAL SQUARD, PALAKKAD. 3. ASST.EXCISE COMMISSIONER, (INVESTIGATING OFFICER), OFFICE OF THE ASST.EXCISE COMMISSIONER, IDUKKI. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.4494 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of November, 2008 ORDER Petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered by the excise authorities alleging the offence punishable under Section 55 (a) of the Kerala Abkari Act. The petitioner is the registered owner of a vehicle, in which the alleged transportation took place. The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle as per records. The petitioner has been arrested and he had remained in custody for a period of 60 days. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent. He wants the Investigating Officer to investigate deeply into the question whether the petitioner is really the owner of the vehicle and whether the relevant documents showing him as the owner are true and genuine. Without riveted investigation on that aspect, justice will not be done. In these circumstances, this Crl.M.C is filed for issue of directions to the Investigating Officer to specifically investigate into this aspect - as to whether the petitioner is really the owner of the vehicle or whether the relevant documents showing him as the owner of the vehicle are forged and not genuine. Crl.M.C. No.4494 of 2008 2 2. No specific directions appear to be necessary. Every investigator is bound to investigate into this question raised. I have no reason to assume that the Investigating Officer will not consider this aspect of the matter. 3. Should the petitioner feel that any specific directions are necessary consequent to the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P [2008 AIR SCW 309] which has been followed by this Court in Vasanthi Devi v. Sub Inspector of Police [2008 (1) KLT 945], the petitioner can seek appropriate directions from the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. In fact, no such specific directions appear to be necessary and even without such direction, any Investigating Officer worth his salt must investigate into this aspect considering the nature of the contentions raised by the petitioner. 4. This Crl.M.C is dismissed with the above observations. 5. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned Public Prosecutor to be communicated to the Investigating Officer. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-