IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 7TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 16TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4255 of 2008() -------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.252/2008 OF EDAVANNA POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): OWNER OF VEHICLE/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. FAISAL BABU P.V., AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL MAJEED, PUTHAN VEETIL HOUSE, PERAKAMANNA, P.O.EDAVANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. JAMSHEER, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, MUNDENGARA VARIKODAN HOUSE, P.O. EDAVANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92) RESPONDENT(S): STATE:COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. A. SHINE KUMAR, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE (JUNIOR), EDAVANNA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE SECRETARY, EDAVANNA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, EDAVANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 4255 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of November, 2008 ORDER The 2nd petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered at the Edavanna Police Station, Malappuram District. A crime has been registered alleging infraction of the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act. The crime has been registered. Investigation is in progress. 2. According to the petitioners, the crime registered against the 2nd petitioner is totally unjustified. The 2nd petitioner is alleged to be the driver of the vehicle; whereas the 1st petitioner is the owner of the vehicle. The petitioners contend that they had valid pass to transport river sand at the time when the vehicle was intercepted. Annexure-B is said to be that pass. According to the petitioners, though Annexure-B Crl.M.C. No. 4255 of 2008 -: 2 :- pass was shown to the detecting/Investigating Officer, on account of prior animosity, that pass is not being received, accepted or truth verified by the Investigating Officer. The petitioner has a further grievance that though immediately after the seizure, at 11.30 a.m. - i.e., within the period of validity of Annexure-B pass, the petitioners approached the Superintendent of Police and lodged a complaint. The Superintendent of Police is also not taking any proper steps. In these circumstances, the petitioners have come to this Court with a prayer that the FIR registered may be quashed. 3. The crucial question is whether the transportation was on the strength of Annexure-B pass and whether that pass is true, valid, genuine and acceptable. At any rate, I am in complete agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Investigating Officer has to consider the plea raised that the transportation was on the strength of Annexure-B pass. The plea of the petitioner certainly deserves consideration. After careful consideration only, it can be accepted or rejected. The Investigating Officer is duty bound to consider this defence urged by the petitioner that the transportation at the time of interception is justified by Annexure-B pass. Investigating Officer has to do the same. If he does not do the same, the Crl.M.C. No. 4255 of 2008 -: 3 :- Superintendent of Police before whom the complaint is alleged to have been made within the period of validity of Annexure-B – at 11.30 a.m., must certainly ensure that a fair, proper and sufficient investigation is conducted. The petitioner has already moved the Superintendent of Police. I have no reason to assume that he shall not discharge his duties to supervise the functioning of his subordinate – the Sub Inspector of Police or that he shall omit to discharge his duties under Sec.36 of the Cr.P.C. He must do the same. The offence is bailable and I am not satisfied, in these circumstances, that any further directions need be issued invoking the jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. If a proper investigation is not conducted even after production of Annexure-B before the Investigating Officer and the Superintendent of Police does not take action on Annexure-C, the petitioners option to approach the learned Magistrate for directions under Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C. as recognised in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008 (1) KLT 724 (SC)) shall remain. 4. This Crl.M.C. is, in these circumstances, dismissed with the above observations. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge Crl.M.C. No. 4255 of 2008 -: 4 :-