IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2008 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 14874 of 2008(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ RAJAN, S/O.AYYAPPAN, CHAVANIKKOTTU VEETTIL,MUNDAPPLAVU,KOKATHODU, ARUVAPLAM VILLAGE,KONNI. BY ADV. SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KONNI. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KONNI POLICE STATION. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.C.No. 14874 of 2008 U - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the sole accused in a crime registered by the police under Section 55 of the Kerala Abkari Act. The crux of the allegations is that the petitioner was allegedly found to keep in his possession contraband article and on seeing the detecting police party he allegedly ran away from the scene of the crime. He is named in the F.I.R. on the basis of identification made by certain local witnesses. Investigation is being conducted by the third respondent, it is submitted. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution with a prayer that the investigation may be directed to be conducted by any superior police officer. 2. What is the reason? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations against the petitioner are totally false and that the police party is acting on the basis of the W.P.C.No. 14874 of 2008 2 information furnished to them by some interested local persons. No proper investigation is being conducted and hence appropriate directions may be issued invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, it is prayed. 3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the petition. He submits that the investigation is now complete and final report has already been filed. There is no merit in the contention that the investigation must be entrusted with any other person. 4. Final report having already been filed, it is for the petitioner now to appear before the learned Magistrate and raise his contentions. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the investigation already conducted, needless to say, as per the decision in Shaji v. State of Kerala (2003 (2) KLT 929), the petitioner shall be entitled to claim a further investigation. He will in the alternative is entitled to advance his contentions in the trial or at the stage of discharge. At any rate, I am not satisfied that there are sufficient reasons to interfere with the investigation in the facts and circumstances of this case either before the final report was filed or after the filing of the final report. I am, in W.P.C.No. 14874 of 2008 3 these circumstances, satisfied that this writ petition does not deserve to be allowed. 5. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm