IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2011 / 7TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1859 of 2011(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SADHANA, W/O. GILBERT, MALIAKKAL HOUSE, GISA BHAVAN, PONEKKARA, OPPOSITE PONEL CHURCH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN K.GEORGE SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR SMT.M.N.MAYA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY HOME SECRETARY, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY HOME SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE GLOBAL EMPLOYMENT CONSULTANCY(GEC), GEC AFFAIRS, PMB NO.038, 22 CENTRAL CHIDLOM TOWER, PLOENCHIT ROAD, LUMPINI, BANKOK, THAILAND. R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA . R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV. MR. K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C). No.1859 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of January, 2011. JUDGMENT Petitioner apprehends that he has been implicated as an accused in Crime No.202 of 2009 of Kalamassery Police Station for the offence of cheating, etc. The case as could be discerned from the submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that petitioner and others, promising to arrange job for candidates abroad collected money from them but, they did not provide job and thus cheated the job seekers. Petitioner would say that he is only a licensee for overseas recruitment for employment and while so, respondent No.3 approached petitioner to be their agent in Kerala. Accordingly petitioner was appointed as agent as per Ext.P2. Candidates approached petitioner and he in turn, gave information regarding overseas employment. Later candidates contacted respondent No.3 who is said to have collected money from the candidates directly through bank exchange and other means. However, respondent No.3 could not arrange visa for the candidates. It is contended that petitioner is not involved in any incident. It is also contended that investigation is not proceeding in the correct line and hence it is prayed that investigation may be entrusted to the CBI or to the Enforcement Directorate so as to recover the money which went to the hands of respondent No.3 (from the candidates). Learned counsel at the time of hearing submitted that the prayer in this petition is limited to a direction to the Investigating Agency to retrieve the money collected by WP(C) No.1859/2011 2 respondent No.3 from the candidates. Learned counsel points out that in various civil courts in the State, candidates have filed suits impleading petitioner as well and in such a situation it is necessary to retrieve the money collected by respondent No.3 from the candidates. Learned counsel points out that Exts.P9 and P10 are letters addressed to the State and Union Home Secretaries, respectively demanding action in the matter but nothing has been done in the matter. 2. Now that the prayer for CBI investigation is not pursued it is not necessary to consider that question. Next question is whether any direction need be issued to the Investigating Agency to retrieve the money allegedly collected by respondent No.3 from candidates. No such direction as to what the Investigating Agency has to do could be issued. If recovery of money as suggested by petitioner is required as part of the investigation it is for the Investigating Officer to look into that matter. At this stage no direction is required except observing that the Investigating Officer shall pursue investigation as required to bring home the guilt of accused person. With the above observation this petition is closed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks