Quashed

Saju S. & Another v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 May 2010Crl.MC/672/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous petition sought the quashing of proceedings under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. The petitioners argued the Sub Inspector lacked the statutory authority to conduct the search, rendering the report invalid. The court quashed the final report and the subordinate proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Annexure A final report and the proceedings initiated as S.T.No.547/2007 are quashed; the Criminal M.C. is allowed.

Saju S. & Another Vs State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2010 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1932

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 672 of 2010()

¶6

----------------------------------ST.547/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, TRIVANDRUM. CRIME NO.60/2007 OF PEROORKADA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2& 3:

¶8

--------------------------------------------

¶9

1. SAJU. S., S/O.SULAIMAN, AGED 28 YEARS, SAJU MANZIL, CHULLIMANOOR P.O., NEDUMANGADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

2. MAHESH. S.L., S/O.SADASIVAN NAIR, AGED 28 YEARS, MOOLAYIL VEEDU, THAKARAPARAMBU ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SMT.K.R.RIJA

¶12

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶13

---------------------------------------------------------

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

rs.

¶18

V.RAMKUMAR, J.

¶19

Crl.M.C. No. 672 of 2010

¶20

Dated this the 25^th day of May, 2010

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Petitioners are accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crime No.60/2007 of Peroorkada Police Station registered for offences punishable under sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956. The petitioners seek to quash Annexure A final report submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Peroorkada. According to the petitioners, the Sub Inspector of Police is not an empowered officer competent to detect, search or arrest the accused persons.

¶23

According to the prosecution, the Sub Inspector was authorised by the Peroorkada Circle Inspector, who in turn was therefore empowered under the Act. In the light of the decision in Mohammed Ali v. Sub Inspector of Police 2005 (3) KLT 527, Section 15 of the Act does not provide for any authorisation of another officer by a Special Officer, who alone or a Trafficking Officer alone can conduct a search under the Act (see Mohammed Ali v. Sub Inspector of Police 2005(3) KLT 527). Since the Sub Inspector of Police, who conducted the search was totally incompetent to do so in the

¶24

Crl.M.C. No.672 of 2010

¶25

: 2 :

¶26

light of the decision in Radhakrishnan v. State of Kerala 2008 (2) KLT 521, it will be an abuse to the process of the court to allow Annexure A final report and all the proceedings initiated as S.T.No.547/2007 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram to continue. Accordingly, the proceedings culminating in S.T.No.547/2007 are quashed. This Criminal M.C is allowed as above.

¶27

V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE

¶28

dmb

¶29

Crl.M.C. No.672 of 2010

¶30

: 3 :

Saju S. & Another v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saju S. & Another v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Kareem N.M. Vs Senior Intelligence Officer

Varghese Abraham Vs State of Kerala

Karichery Balakrishnan Nair Vs State of Kerala and Anothr

Jaseer L.K. Vs the State of Kerala

Jimmy Zacharia and Others Vs the Forest Range Officer, Munnar Divisio

M.a.Akbar Vs State of Kerala