IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2011 / 30TH ASHADHA 1933 Con.Case(C).No. 737 of 2011(S) ---------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11/03/2011 IN CRMC.NO.637/2011 ............................................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ ALEYAMMA VARGHESE , W/O.T.V.VARGHESE, AGED 61 YEARS, VADAKEVEETTIL HOUSE, AKKANATTUKARA MURI, THAZHAKKARA VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA. BY ADVS. SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL, SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- JOSE MATHEW, AGE & FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, SI OF POLICE, POLICE STATION, MAVELIKKARA - 690 101. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.K.SAJEEV THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss COC.NO.737/2011 S APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEX.A1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 11/03/2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN CRL.M.C.NO.637/2011. ANNEX.A2: COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DTD. 30/03/2011 WHEREBY A COPY OF ANNEXURE A1 JUDGMENT WAS SENT O THE RESPONDENT BY SPEED POST WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT. ANNEX.A3: COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DTD. 30/03/2011 ALONG WITH WHICH ANNEXURE A2 WAS SENT TO THE RESPONDENT. ANNEX.A4: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 07/06/2011 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT THROUGH HER COUNSEL. ANNEX.A5: COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD WHEREBY THE RESPONDENT HAS RECEIVED ANNEXURE A4 NOTICE ON 30/06/2011. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Contempt Case (C) No.737 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 21st day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T Alleging inaction pursuant to and in disobeyance of the order passed by this Court on March 11, 2011 in Crl. M.C. No.637 of 2011 in the matter of investigation of Crime No.755 of 2010 of Mavelikkara Police Station which involved allegation regarding forgery of a Certificate in nursing allegedly obtained by the daughter-in-law of petitioner, this Contempt Case is filed. It is stated in the petition that notwithstanding the order above referred, the Investigating Officer has not moved his little finger in the matter of investigation and thereby willfully disobeyed the order of this Court. 2. In Crl. M.C. No.637 of 2011, petitioner had requested that investigation may be entrusted to some other agency. This Court was not inclined to accept that request and disposed of the Crl. M.C., with a direction that the Sub Inspector of Police has to investigate the case as provided under law. That direction, it is alleged has been violated. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions Cont. Case (C) No.737 of 2011 -: 2 :- submitted that the Investigating Officer has sent the Certificates in question to the Controller of Examinations, University of Kerala, Registrar, Kerala Nurses and Midwifery Council, Thiruvananthapuram, and the Secretary, Board of Public Examinations, Pareeksha Bhavan Thiruvananthapuram on 09.06.2011 as part of investigation to ascertain whether the said Certificates are genuine or not. On 26.06.2011 a reply was received from the Controller of Examinations, Thiruvananthapuram stating that a copy of the mark list of pre- degee examination was not attached to the Certificates sent to the Controller of Examinations. Thereon the Sub Inspector has sent a copy of the mark list to that authority on 15.07.2011. In the meantime the accused was interrogated. The Investigating Officer is now awaiting report from various authorities to whom the Certificates were sent for opinion. 4. Having heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor I am not inclined to think that there was such inaction on the part of the Sub Inspector which could be termed as contempt of the direction issued by this Court. Naturally in a case of this nature opinion of the authorities concerned as to the genuineness of the documents is to be Cont. Case (C) No.737 of 2011 -: 3 :- obtained. In that view of the matter I do not find any contempt in this matter requiring further action. Resultantly, this Contempt Case is closed recording the submissions made by learned Public Prosecutor and stated above. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv