IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2009 / 29TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4808 of 2008() ------------------------- OCCURRENCE REPORT NO.115/08 OF THE KOTTARAKKARA EXCISE RANGE. PETITIONER(S): 2ND ACCUSED -------------------------- MANI RAJ, S/O.RAGHAVAN, MANI BEN, INCHAKKADU, MYLOM P.O.KALAYAPURAM, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, KOTTARAKKARA EXCISE RANGE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, KERALA STATE PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER EXCISE COMPLEX, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM. 4. RAJAMONY,W/O.SATHYAN, ASWINI BHAVANAM, INCHAKKADU, KALAYAPURAM, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DIST PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 4808 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of January, 2009 ORDER The petitioner faces allegations as the 2nd accused in Crime No.115/08 of the Kottarakkara Excise Range. The 4th respondent herein is the 1st accused in that crime. Some contraband articles were allegedly seized from the possession of the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent allegedly made a statement before the detecting official that she was carrying them on behalf of the petitioner herein. It is thus that the petitioner was shown as accused in the occurrence report. Investigation is in progress. 2. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent. The local Excise Inspector and the 4th respondent have some animosity against the petitioner. The Excise Inspector and the 4th respondent in collusion have most unnecessarily raised an Crl.M.C. No. 4808 of 2008 -: 2 :- allegation that the 4th respondent was carrying the contraband articles on behalf of the petitioner herein. The petitioner is aggrieved by the conduct of the 4th respondent and the Excise Inspector who has registered the crime. The petitioner, in these circumstances, came to this Court with a prayer that the investigation may be entrusted to the 3rd respondent. 3. Notice was given to respondents 1 to 3. The learned Public Prosecutor was requested to take instructions as to why the investigation in the given circumstances should not be directed to be conducted by a superior official of the police. The learned Public Prosecutor, after taking instructions, submits that necessary directions have already been issued to ensure that the detecting officer does not continue with the investigation and that the investigation shall be conducted by the Circle Inspector of Excise, Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotic Special Squad, Kollam. The petitioner need not have any apprehension now. The detecting officer will have no role in the investigation hereafter. In these circumstances, this petition may now be dismissed, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not satisfied with the said arrangement. Directions may be issued to the 3rd respondent to personally conduct the Crl.M.C. No. 4808 of 2008 -: 3 :- investigation. If that is not done the investigation by the Circle Inspector of Excise will not alleviate the grievance of the petitioner. Appropriate directions may, in these circumstances, be issued, it is submitted. 5. I have considered all the relevant inputs. The State has now ensured that the detecting officer against whom allegations of mala fides are raised does not continue with the investigation and the investigation is entrusted with his superior – the Circle Inspector of Excise. I am not persuaded to agree that the present arrangement for investigation is not fair or just and should not be accepted. 6. I am satisfied that to ensure purity of investigation, the 3rd respondent can be directed to personally supervise the investigation conducted by the Circle Inspector of Excise. Final report shall not be filed without specific approval of the 3rd respondent. 7. In the result: (a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed. (b) Accepting the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that the investigation shall be conducted hereafter not by the Excise Inspector who detected the crime; but his superior - Circle Inspector of Excise, Excise Enforcement and Crl.M.C. No. 4808 of 2008 -: 4 :- Anti Narcotic Special Squad, Kollam, it is specifically directed that the 3rd respondent must hereafter personally monitor the investigation and the final report must be filed only after the specific approval of the 3rd respondent is received. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge