IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 14TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 35647 of 2009(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- RASHEED, S/O. MUHAMMED ABDUL KHADER, ABU SHAGUNAM BUILDING, OLD KARAKKAMANDAPAM, NEMOM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VELLAYANI SUNDARARAJU SMT.P. MEENA KUMARI SRI.SUNIL.M.KARANY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, STATE OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KILLIMANNORE POLICE STATION, KILIMANOOR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SUKUMARAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.35647 of 2009-A ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 3rd day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “i) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 4th respondent or any other officer at the instance of 4th respondent not to harass and intimidate the petitioner on the mere allegations of purchase of stolen Gold Ornaments by stating that the 4th respondent is duty bound to follow Ext.P2 instructions of Ist respondent in dealing with recovery of gold or ingots. ii) to issue necessary order or direction to the respondents not to harass the petitioner in running his small jewelery shop in a lawful manner.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:--Petitioner is the proprietor of a small jewellery shop in Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner has been running the shop for the past 15 years. It is stated that, on 7.12.2009 the 3rd respondent with two police constables went to the jewellery WPC 35647/2009 -2- shop of the petitioner and demanded 5 sovereigns of gold ornaments from him stating that he had purchased 5 sovereigns of gold ornaments from a thief. It is stated that the petitioner told the 3rd respondent that he did not purchase even a gram of stolen gold ornaments from any thief till date. It is also stated that the police party told the petitioner that if the petitioner does not give 5 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the 3rd respondent he will be implicated in several cases under Section 411 IPC and he will not be allowed to sleep peacefully. Petitioner was asked to go to the police station on the next day itself. Petitioner filed Ext.P1 representation before the 2nd respondent. Ext.P2 is an order issued by the Government in the wake of the complaints received from the gold merchants about the practices of the police authorities. Ext.P3 is the interim order passed by this Court. 3. A statement has been filed by the 4th respondent inter alia stating as follows:-- A person was found in a suspicious circumstance and on questioning him he failed to explain his presence there. On further questioning it was revealed that he is an ex-convict and his motive was WPC 35647/2009 -3- committing theft. A case was registered against him. There is reference to various other theft cases. It is stated that he was remanded to police custody and the 4th respondent took up the investigation. It is stated that as per the confession of the accused the 4th respondent along with police party and the accused went to Chalai, Thiruvananthapuram on 7.12.2009. As pointed out by the accused the 4th respondent reached on LR jewelery at Valayachetty Theruvu, Chala. It is stated that while he reached at L.R.Jewellery it was opened and no one was there. He waited there with accused for more than two hours to see the owner of the jewelery but he could not find anybody and he could not know anything about the owner of the said jewelery except the confession of accused. It is also stated that on the same day some stolen properties were recovered from another jewellery as per the confession of the accused. 4. In paragraphs 6 and 7 of the statement it is stated as follows: “6. The accused produced before JFMC II, Attingal on 8.12.2009 after police custody and the Hon'ble Court remanded him under judicial WPC 35647/2009 -4- custody. The case 461/06 of Kilimanoor Police Station crime and 91/09 Pallikkal Police Station were treated as UN and now they are re-opened on the strength of the confession of the accused. All the above three cases are now under investigation. 7. In this cases remaining accused are to be arrested and stolen properties are to be recovered. Investigation is going on in this regard. On my enquiry, it is revealed that, the shop is running smoothly till date without any interference from the part of police.” We record the statement filed by the 4th respondent and close the writ petition. We make it clear that this will not stand in the way of the investigation of offence in accordance with law. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS