IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2011 / 11TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 24686 of 2011(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SELVAKUMAR @ RAJAN, S/O.PERUMAL, 11/378, S.P.LANE, NARIKUTHI, KADAMALAKUNDU, MALAMPUZHA VILLAGE, MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.C.ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION REP.BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBI/SCB, CHENNAI-600018 2. K.SUBBIAN, S/O.KANDASWAMI, INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CBI/SCB, KOCHI UNIT, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-682032 3. RINOY M.VIJAYAN, S/O.VIJAYAN, PC 4030, TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD, PIN-678 001. 4. H.SREEDHARAN, HC NO.3563, NORTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD.678 001. 5. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE HOME SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PALAKKAD, PIN-678 001. 7. THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALAMPUZHA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD.678001 GOVT. PLEADER SMT.C.M. CHARISMA ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI, C.B.I. FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.24686 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Abdul Rehim, J. The petitioner is a person working as Salesman in a small shop at Malampuzha at the Dam site. He is complaining about what is described as 'harassment' from the side of officials of the 1st respondent, the CBI. Respondents 2 to 4 are officials of the CBI arrayed as eo-nominee. It is stated that the petitioner was cited as Charge Witness No.22 in a murder case investigated by the CBI, pending trial before the IIIrd Additional District and Sessions Court (CBI Court-I), Ernakulam as S.C.No.367/10. He was examined before that court as PW10. Petitioner alleges that, the said evidence was given under threat and coercion exerted by respondents 2 to 4 stating that unless he gave evidence as demanded by them, he will be implicated as accused in the said case. It is further stated that the petitioner had filed Ext.P4 petition before the trial court seeking recalling and re- examination of himself, for enabling to speak so called “truth”. Grievance voiced in this writ petition is that respondents 2 to 4 are causing threat against the life of the petitioner, since he had W.P.(C).24686/11 -2- moved Ext.P4 petition and since he is going to reveal “truth” against the evidence already given by him. The petitioner submitted Ext.P3 complaint before the 7th respondent. Since no action has been taken to afford protection of the life of the petitioner, this writ petition is filed. 2. Resisting the above contentions, Sri.P. Chandrasekharan Pillai, learned standing counsel for CBI, submitted that the allegations and accusations in the writ petition are totally false and without any basis. He pointed out that the petitioner was already examined as PW10 in the said case and he had supported the prosecution in all respects. He is one among the witnesses who had last seen the deceased along with the accused in the case. It is pointed out that as per legal principles laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions in State of M.P. Vs. Badri Yadav and another ((2006) 3 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 337) and Yakub Ismailbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat ((2004) 12 Supreme Court Cases 229) re-examination of a prosecution witness who had already been examined or his re- examination as a defence witness, is not at all legal and admissible. He further contends that the petitioner is seeking an indirect relief, which if allowed will amount to permit him to perjure before the trial court. However, learned counsel for the W.P.(C).24686/11 -3- respondents submitted that the respondents 1 to 4 have no intention to cause any harassment or threat or intimidation to the petitioner. On the other hand, the apprehension expressed is to the effect that, the attempt of the petitioner to make use of any order which may be passed by this court to impute against respondents 1 to 4 before the court where trial of the case is pending. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances as narrated above and the rival submissions made at the bar, we are of the opinion that the question as to whether the petitioner can be permitted to be re-examined, need not be looked into by us in this writ petition, because Ext.P4 is pending disposed before the trial court. Appropriate decision will be taken on the said application by the trial court in accordance with law. 4. Having considered the specific undertaking on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 that they have no intention to cause any harassment, threat or intimidation to the life of the petitioner, there is absolutely no warrant for issuance of any directions as sought for. We find no material to accept the contentions raised by the petitioner to the effect that the evidence was given under threat or coercion exerted by respondents 2 to 4. 5. Under the above mentioned circumstances we close W.P.(C).24686/11 -4- this writ petition recording the submissions made on behalf of respondents 2 to 4 that they have no intention to cause any sort of threat, harassment or intimidation to the life of the petitioner. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb