IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 13TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 22ND BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27927 of 2006(Y) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. SUDEVAN. R., S/O.RAMANDY, AGED 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT VELLAKANNANTHODY HOUSE KADAKURISSI, KANNADI P.O., PALAKKAD. 2. FAIZAL N.A., S/O.NOOR MUHAMMED, AGED 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT THOTTATHIL HOUSE, PUTHUPALLY THERUVU, PALAKKAD. 3. SHIHABUDEEN, S/O.ALAVIKUTTY HAJI. K., KALATHINGAL AGENCIES, IV/2 PADMAVATHI RICE MILL, KINASSERY P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.C.K.PAVITHRAN SMT.N.S.SUMI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUTHUNAGARAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD. 2. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE PALAKKAD. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. 4. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, PALAKKAD. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.A. SALIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SVS/ M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.C.NO.27927 OF 2006 --------------------------------------------- Dated 13th September, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioners are the accused in crime No.275/2006 of Pudunagaram Police Station registered for the offence under Sections 5(a) of Kerala Rationing Order 1966 read with Section 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Prosecution case is that on 9/9/2006 early morning at about 4 a.m, while the patrol party headed by Sub Inspector of Police was checking vehicles at Kollamkode, lorry No.KL-13/C.4962 with load came along the road and when the driver was questioned it was disclosed that it was being transported from General Agencies, Muvattupuzha to Kalathingal Agencies, Kinassery. When the load was examined, it was found that it is ration rice and not rice available in the open market. It Wpc 27927/06 2 was seized and case was registered. Petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India for a writ of mandamus calling for the records leading to Exts.P1, P2 and P4 and to quash the FIR or in the alternative for a direction to investigate the case by higher official. Petitioners would contend that rice being transported was not the ration rice but rice available in the open market which was purchased as per the bills and was being transported and therefore, no offence is attracted. 2. A counter affidavit was filed by the District Collector to the effect that Sub Inspector of Police seized the rice and registered the case as he was satisfied that rice meant for public distribution system was Wpc 27927/06 3 clandestinely transported for black marketing. It is stated that Manager, Quality Control, Food Corporation of India examined the rice and reported that the rice seized seems to be similar to the rice with FCI and as the rice cannot be stocked for a long time orders were obtained from the learned Magistrate and rice has been disposed through Public Distribution System as per order of the learned Magistrate on 13/9/2006. It is also stated that vehicle was released to the third petitioner by order dated 21/11/2006 and the offence is attracted as the rice being transported was meant for Public Distribution System. As per order dated 10/11/2006 this court granted interim stay of further proceedings. Without taking note of the order of stay, Sub Inspector of Police Wpc 27927/06 4 submitted a final report before the learned Magistrate on 30/11/2006. As this court has already granted stay of further proceedings the final report submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police has to be ignored. In view of the final report petitioners filed I.A.12549/2010 to amend the petition seeking the relief for quashing the final report. In view of the fact that final report could not have been filed by the Investigating Officer in view of the order of stay, I find it not necessary to allow the application for amendment and the writ petition is disposed as if, the case is under investigation and the final report is yet to be submitted. 3. Though learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that rice seized by Wpc 27927/06 5 the Sub Inspector of Police is the rice purchased from open market, evidenced by the bills shown to the Sub Inspector, it is the prosecution case that the rice seized was not the rice available in open market but meant for Public Distribution System. Question whether rice seized from the lorry was the rice purchased by the petitioners, evidenced by the bill from General Agencies, Muvattupuzha is a matter to be investigated. If it was purchased by the petitioners from General Agencies, Muvattupuzha and it was the rice meant for Public Distribution System as contended by the prosecution, there should be a further investigation as to how the rice meant for Public Distribution System could be sold by General Agencies, Muvattupuzha. Question Wpc 27927/06 6 whether the rice seized is in fact the rice meant for Public Distribution System is an important aspect to be investigated properly. As seen from the copy of the final report produced by the petitioners which contain the statement of Quality Controller of Food Corporation of India, it is stated that the rice examined appeared to be similar to the rice meant for distribution through ration shops. There should be a proper investigation as to whether the rice was exclusively meant for Public Distribution System or was available in the open market. Considering the entire facts of the case, it is in the interest of justice to investigate the case by an officer superior to the rank of Sub Inspector of Police. Writ petition is disposed directing Wpc 27927/06 7 second respondent to entrust the investigation to an officer superior to the rank of Sub Inspector and to file a final report after thorough investigation. The final report if any filed before the learned Magistrate in violation of the order of stay granted by this Court shall be returned to the Investigating Officer for proper investigation. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.