IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2008 / 25TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 37434 of 2004(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. THRISSUR DISTRICT GOLD AND SILVER MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION, MISSION QUARTERS, THRISSUR 1, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, P.M.THOMAS, MANUELSONS, FASHION JEWELLERY, M.O.ROAD, THRISSUR. 2. P.M.THOMAS, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.LATE P.T.MANUEL, ALLAPPAT PALATHINGAL HOUSE, PERINGAVU P.O. THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OFPOLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, IDUKKI. 5. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THODUPUZHA. 6. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THODUPUZHA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/10/2008, THE COURT, ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 37434/04. -------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT. 16-6-1981. EXT.P2 SEIZURE MAHAZAR DT. 15-2-2003. EXT.P3 DO. DT. 15-2-2003. EXT.P4 COMPLAINT DT. 15-2-2003. EXT.P5 COMPLAIT DT. 15-2-2003. EXT.P6 LETTER DT. 1-9-2003. EXT.P7 LETTER DT. 5-9-2003. EXT.P8 FACTS CONTAINED UNDER CAPTION, DT. 29-7-1996. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 37434 of 2004 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 17th October, 2008. J U D G M E N T The 1st petitioner is an association of gold merchants and the 2nd the petitioner is a gold merchant. They are aggrieved by alleged action of the police in forcing thieves to admit having sold gold stolen by them to a particular gold merchant and to recover gold from that particular gold merchant as gold stolen by the thieves. According to the petitioners, such type of investigation method is prevalent among the police. The petitioners therefore seek the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to ensure that the seizure of gold from jeweleries may be made only in the presence of Superintendent of Police or a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and duly authorised and appointed by the Superintendent of Police where the recovery is affected with the prior written permission of the Deputy Inspector General of Police of that region. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the police officer of the State to permit the jewellery shop owner to keep the custody of the alleged gold lawfully recovered from the shop until the criminal case is finally disposed off and retain back the same to said shop owner on the basis of conviction or acquittal of accused. iii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to investigate the complaints forwarded on behalf of the petitioners by way of Ext. P. 4 and P5 and P7 in accordance with law. iv) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to make available the presence of local station House Officer if the recovery is conducted by the outside police officers. v) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to proceed against the police officer who conduct the seizure in Crime No. 54/02, 55/2002 if the said recovery is found to be a fake one. vi) Call for the records pertaining to C.C.187/2003 and 188/2003 from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thodupuzha for the purpose of proving the true facts. vii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to appoint police officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police as Recovery Officer, to administer the recovery proceedings and to make sure the recovery is carried out legally W.P.C. No. 37434/2004 -: 2 :- and treat him as a witness to the said recovery.” 2. I do not think that any such sweeping orders can be passed by this Court and if did that would bind the hands of the police from discharging their duties effectively. The question as to whether the gold recovered from a particular merchant is the gold stolen by the thief is a matter which should be raised before the criminal court dealing with the prosecution in respect of the said theft. Therefore, the remedy of the individual gold merchant lies in approaching that particular criminal court where the prosecution proceedings are pending. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/