IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2011 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 3777 of 2011(V) ------------------------------------- [CRIME NO.1282/2010 OF THE PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION] .................. PETITIONER: ------------------- JACOB.P.G,MURINGOTHU PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE,PARAMPUZHA P.O,KOTTAYAM- 686 032. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. 2. D.I.G OF POLICE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA – 689 645. 4. S.I. OF POLICE,PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA – 689 645. 5. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SPE/CBI,KOCHI – 682 035. R1 TO R4 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR. R5 BY SRI. P. CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI, S.C, C.B.I. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.3777/2011-V: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 20/12/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO.1 WITH COPY TO RESPONDENT NOS.2. AND 3. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 30/12/2010 ISSUED BY THE R.1. TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== W.P(C) No.3777 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims to be the President of an Action Council formed by certain candidates who were promised to be recruited for overseas employment and on the strength of which their Passports and money were collected by certain persons. Those persons failed to arrange employment or return the money and Passports. According to the petitioner though police registered Crime No.1282 of 2010 for offences punishable under Sections 10 and 24 of the Emigration Act and Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code there was no proper investigation and even the victims of alleged cheating were not questioned. Petitioner therefore prayed that investigation of the case may be handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or any other competent agency and also a direction to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta to monitor investigation of the case. 2. The 4th respondent has filed a statement where the details of investigation conducted by the Circle Inspector (who is W.P(C) No.3777 of 2011 -: 2 :- not a party to the proceeding) are stated. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for respondents 1 to 4 and the learned Standing Counsel for the CBI. Learned counsel has asserted the allegations in the petition and argued that the investigation is not being properly conducted. Learned Public Prosecutor stated that the facts stated in the statement of Sub Inspector (4th respondent) would show the steps taken in the course of investigation. Learned Standing Counsel for the CBI submitted that this is not a fit case for investigation by the CBI. 3. On the contention that case has to be entrusted to the CBI having regard to the nature of the offences and the steps already taken by the Investigating Officer I am not persuaded to think that the case should be handed over to the CBI. Hence that request cannot be allowed. 4. Then the question is whether investigation of the case has to change hands to any other agency in the State Police. It is seen that on the Superintendent of Police, Pathanamthitta receiving a letter from the Protector of Emigrants about unauthorised recruitment of manpower to foreign countries endorsed that letter to the Station House Officer of W.P(C) No.3777 of 2011 -: 3 :- Pathanamthitta police station who registered Crime No.1282 of 2010 of (Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the aggrieved parties also had preferred complaint to the Superintendent of Police which was made over to the Station House Officer, Pathanamthitta Police Station). 5. It is seen from the statement of the 4th respondent that case was registered on 26.11.2010 and immediately thereafter a search was conducted in the premises of Exodus International, Pattom. Certain persons were arrested and records of cash transactions, agreements, cheque leaves, hard disc of computer used in that office, etc., were seized. It is stated that 102 Passports, cheque books, Copies of Visa and Passport of the first accused were taken to custody. First accused, the proprietor of Exodus International could not be arrested since he was not traceable. Those accused who were arrested were remanded to judicial custody. Letter was sent to the Banks concerned to freeze the bank account of accused and reply from the banks complying with the said direction were also received. Emigration authorities were requested to disallow emigration clearance to the first accused and apprehend him if found. Later, on getting information that the first accused was in the United W.P(C) No.3777 of 2011 -: 4 :- States a request was made to the authorities concerned through proper channel to impound his Passport and deport him. He was arrested on 04.02.2011 at Pathanamthitta and remanded to judicial custody. His custody was obtained by the Investigating Officer on 07.02.2011 and he was questioned. On his revealing the name of one Binu that person was implicated as accused No.6 in the case. It is also stated that preliminary investigation revealed that first accused being the Proprietor, second accused being Manager and accused 3 and 4 being Sales Executives of Exodus International are involved in unauthorised recruitment of overseas manpower without any licence or registration issued by the appropriate authority and collected money from hundreds of people offering them employment abroad. It is stated that investigation is in progress and is proceeding in the correct line. 6. Though learned counsel for petitioner has argued that there is no proper investigation, having gone through the statement of the 4th respondent I am not inclined to agree with that. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that many of the victims have already been questioned. I must bear in mind that case was registered only on 26.11.2010. It is not as if within no time or within the time as expected by the aggrieved parties investigation W.P(C) No.3777 of 2011 -: 5 :- could be completed and final report filed. Investigation of the case, particularly of this nature would take its own time. Various formalities are to be complied before investigation is completed and final report filed if there should be a successful prosecution. I do not find reason to change investigation from the Circle Inspector at this stage. However having regard to the wider ramifications the alleged incident has it is directed that the Deputy Superintendent of Police having jurisdiction over Pathanamthitta shall supervise the investigation. Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pathanamthitta to supervise investigation being conducted in Crime No.1282 of 2010 and ensure that it is proceeding in the proper line. The Superintendent of Police, Pathanamthitta shall issue necessary orders in that regard within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment which shall be made available by the petitioner. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv