IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2008 / 24TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 13987 of 2006(M) ------------------------------------ PETITIONERS : ----------------- 1. SALISH KUMAR, S/O. KUMARAN, AGED 29 YEARS, IRUBRANELLOOR HOUSE, PERAMANGALAM P.O., THRISSUR TALUK. 2. T.B. UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O. T.K. BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 42 YEARS, THANGALAZHI HOUSE, THANGALOOR P.O., M.G. KAVU VIA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.M.ABDUL AZIZ (SR.) SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH RESPONDENTS : ------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERAMANGALAM. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KUNNAMKULAM. 3. P.R. VIJAYA KUMAR, S/O. RAMAN, EDASSERRIVALAPPIL HOUSE, CHOORAKKATTU KARA, AMALA NAGAR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH - R3 SRI.T.D.SALIM - R3 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 13987 of 2006(M) APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RETAIL OUTLET DEALERSHIP AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE 1ST PETITIONER AND INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED APPOINTING THE 1ST PETITIONER AS THE DEALER. EXT.P2: A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.179/2006 OF PERAMANGALAM POLICE STATION EXT.P3: A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R3(a): THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PARTY STATEMENT DATED 06.04.2006 AND 07.04.2006 OF THE OD ACCOUNT OF THE RESPONDENT IN ADAT FARMERS CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD -TRUE COPY- P.A. TO JUDGE pac THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------ W.P(c) No. 13987 of 2006 ------------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the revision petitioner and public prosecutor appearing for the first respondent. 2. Prayer in this petition is to quash Exhibit P3, order purported to have been made by the first respondent under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure(for short, 'the Code'). It is stated that at the instance of the 3rd respondent herein, a case was registered against first petitioner and another as crime No.179/2006 of Peramangalam police station for offences punishable under Sections 406, 511 and Section 468 read with Section 34 of Penal Code for alleged criminal breach of trust and forgery of documents. On 27/05/2006 first respondent issued Exhibit P3 order stating that the first petitioner and one Sureshkumar are accused in Crime No.179 of 2006 and that proceeds obtained from the petrol pump being operated by the petitioners at Peramangalam is being used to harbour the accused in the crime case. The Sub inspector gave direction to the petitioners to stop functioning of the petrol pump failing which, it was stated that they will be charged for offence under Section 212 of the Penal Code. Learned counsel W.P(c) No. 13987/2006 2 for petitioners submitted that Exhibit P3 is beyond the power of the first respondent under Section 102 of the Code. 3. Section 102 of the Code refers to the power of the police officer to seize certain property. Subsection (1) states that the Police officer may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstance which create suspicion of the commission of any offence. In this case the allegation is that the income obtained from the petrol pump is being used for habouring the accused. It is not as if the petrol pump is being used for the commission of any offence. Therefore, I am inclined to think that there is no scope for application of Section 102(1) of the Code as against the petrol pump. Hence Exhibit P3 cannot be sustained and it is liable to be set aside. I make it clear that if the first respondent has a case that the petitioners are harboring the offenders as alleged, it is open to him to proceed against them as provided under law. Writ Petition is allowed and Exhibit P3 is quashed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE scm