IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2011 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 33726 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SURESH C., S/O.VASU, AGED 35 YEARS, CHENNAMKULATH HOUSE, MARANJERI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY SMT.K.S.SUMITHA SRI.R.SANJITH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY HOME,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CRIME BRANCH OFFICE, MALAPPURAM 4. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CRIME BRANCH CID,HHW 3,KOZHIKODE UNIT, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== W.P(C) No.33726 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 09th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner seeks a direction to the second respondent to conduct a proper enquiry with regard to the alleged unlawful seizure of petitioner’s Passport by the incumbent in office of the third respondent on 7.2.2009, to take necessary steps to recover the Passport and make it available to the petitioner. There is also a prayer to direct third respondent to return the Passport to the petitioner. His complaint is that the then Deputy Superintendent Police, Crime Branch, Malappuram illegally seized his passport from him on 07.02.2009 and thereafter it was not returned. The Passport was not produced before the learned Magistrate. Petitioner filed W.P(C) No.5678 of 2009 in this Court for a similar relief. The then Dy.SP, Crime Branch, Malappuram contended in this Court that there was no such seizure and an affidavit was also filed in that case to that effect. The Officer concerned made a report to the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ponnani to direct petitioner and others (suspected in the murder of one Suroor) to surrender their Passports to the said court. By Ext.P1, W.P(C) No.33726 of 2010 -: 2 :- judgment this Court directed learned Judicial First Class Magistrate to take into consideration the complaint of petitioner regarding the Passport allegedly seized from him and issue necessary direction after due enquiry in that regard. Pursuant to the said direction petitioner filed C.M.P. No.1134 of 2005 (in Crime No.254 of 2005 of CBCID, Malappuram) for a direction to the Dy.SP of the said unit to release the Passport. On that petition learned Magistrate conducted an enquiry as directed by this Court in Ext.P1, judgment. Parties and witnesses were examined and the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that there is no reason to disbelieve version of the police Officer concerned that he had not seized the Passport of petitioner. Consequence was a dismissal of C.M.P. No.1134 of 2009 by Ext.P2, order dated May 20, 2010. It is in the said circumstance that this petition is filed seeking the reliefs as referred above. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that at the time the Dy.SP seized the Passport from petitioner on 07.02.2009 petitioner was not even an accused in Crime No.254 of 2003 and that at any rate the police had no authority to seize the Passport from petitioner. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Suresh Nanda v. CBI (AIR 2008 SC 1414). Learned Public W.P(C) No.33726 of 2010 -: 3 :- Prosecutor submitted that it is incorrect to say that Passport of petitioner was seized by the Dy.S.P. Instead, he only gave a report to the learned Magistrate to direct petitioner and other suspects in the murder case to surrender their Passports since the presence of petitioner is required in connection with investigation of Crime No.254 of 2003. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that in Crime No.254 of 2003 for (alleged) murder of one Suroor petitioner is a suspect and petitioner did not consent for polygraph test (it is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that polygraph test of petitioner is already conducted). When learned counsel for petitioner pointed out that the said Officer had even shown the Passport of petitioner to the witnesses in connection with the investigation of Crime No.254 of 2003 it is replied by the learned Public Prosecutor that what was made use of by the Investigating Officer is only a photocopy of the Passport and it was not the original. Investigation of that case is not so far completed. 2. Question is whether any superior police Officer is to be directed to conduct an enquiry as to the alleged seizure of Passport. This Court by Ext.P1, judgment thought it fit that enquiry shall be conducted by the learned Judicial First Class W.P(C) No.33726 of 2010 -: 4 :- Magistrate, Ponnani and accordingly a direction was issued. That enquiry has already been conducted and the result is contained in Ext.P2, order that there is no evidence to show that the Dy.SP has seized the Passport of the petitioner. 3. Now that learned Magistrate on the judicial side conducted an enquiry and passed Ext.P2, order I do not think it necessary, just or proper that this Court should direct an enquiry by a police Officer into the mater. Hence the prayer to issue direction to the police to conduct enquiry cannot be allowed. But it is a different matter if petitioner preferred a petition to the senior police Officer and such Officer thought it fit to conduct an enquiry into the matter departmentally. With the observation made above this Writ Petition is closed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv