Allowed

Subash Chand Jain v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC30 Jun 2016WP(C)/15136/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition challenging inaction by the State of Kerala and police authorities regarding a fraud investigation. The court issued a direction to the Police Chief to hand over the investigation to the District Crime Branch, Kottayam, to be conducted by an officer not below the rank of DYSP.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to hand over Crime No.140/2016 to District Crime Branch, Kottayam, for investigation by an officer not below DYSP rank.

Subash Chand Jain Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/9TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 15136 of 2016 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SUBASH CHAND JAIN, AGED 70, S/O.V.N.JAIN, PROPRIETOR, M/S.INDIAN RUBBER AGENCIES, KODIMATHA, KOTTAYAM

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.V.GEORGE(PUTHIYIDAM)

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1.STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

¶11

2.STATE POLICE CHIEF, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANATHAPURAM - 695001.

¶12

3.STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PALA TOWN POLICE STATION, PALA PO, KOTTAYAM - 686575.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

mbr/

¶16

WP(C).No. 15136 of 2016 (N)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶19

P1	: TRUE COPY OF THE KARNATAKA FOREST	PACKING STANDARS PUBLISHED BY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.
P2	: TRUE COPY OF THE BOARD.	PACKING STANDARDS PUBLISHED BY RUBBER
P3	: TRUE COPY OF THE RUBER LATEX PUBL	PACKING STANDARDS OF CONCENTRATED ISHED BY ARASU RUBBER CORPORATION.
P4	: TRUE COPY OF THE ISSUED BY LORRY	SALE STATEMENT DATED 11.10.2008 NUMBER KL-01-Y-8082.
P5	: TRUE COPY OF THE LORRY NUMBER TCQ	SALE STATMENT DATED 11.10.2008 FOR 9828.
P6	: TRUE COPY OF THE LORRY NUMBER TN-	SALE STATEMENT DATED 13.10.2008 FOR 30-X-7632.
P7	: TRUE COPY OF THE LORRY NUMBER TN-	SALE STATEMENT DATED 14.10.2008 FOR 30X-7457.
P8	: TRUE COPY OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT P	FIR IN CRIME NO.140/2016 OF OLICE STATION.
P9	: TRUE COPY OF THE TO RESPONDENTS 1	REPRESENTATION DATED 26.02.2016 GIVEN AND 2.

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.(C) No.15136 of 2016

¶28

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

¶29

Dated this the 30^th day of June, 2016

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

1.This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking the following reliefs:

¶32

“(i) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondent 1 and 2 to entrust the investigation of Ext.P8 to Crime Branch or any other agency

¶33

(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to take decision on Ext.P9”

¶34

2.Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as

¶35

well as the learned Government Pleader.

¶36

3.It is submitted that the petitioner herein is the proprietor of M/s.Indian Rubber Agencies, Kodimatha, Kottayam, a firm engaged in the business of concentrated rubber latex. In the course of his

¶37

W.P.(C)15136/2016

¶38

¶39

business, the petitioner had purchased concentrated rubber latex (CRL) from the M/s.Meenchil Rubber Marketing and Processing Co-operative Society during the period from 1988-2009. The specific allegation raised is that the aforesaid society had realized excess price of 53.600 Kgs per load and collected a sum of Rs.42,88,000/- from the petitioner. Large scale fraud was unearthed and though a complaint was duly lodged before the authorities , no action was taken . In the said circumstances, W.P.(C) No.1445 of 2016 was filed. It is thereafter that Crime No.140 of 2016 on 19.1.2016 was registered. According to the petitioner ,the investigation is tardy and the petitioner preferred Ext.P9 representation before respondents 1 and 2 to handover the investigation to the Crime Branch or any authority for proper investigation. The grievance is that the respondents have not acted on

¶40

W.P.(C)15136/2016 3

¶41

his representation. The learned Counsel asserts that very influential persons are manning the society and

¶42

that is the reason for the inaction by the police.

¶43

4.The learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions.

¶44

5.A statement is filed wherein it is stated that the packing list, invoice and other related documents in connection with the sale of concentrated rubber latex

¶45

has to be seized from various companies in North India and for that particular purpose the investigation officer has to visit these places. Logistic difficulties are highlighted to contend that the Investigation could not be carried out in the desired manner. Infrastructural limitations are also pointed out . It is also submitted that there is no objection in handing over the investigation to the District Crime Branch, Kottayam having regard to the magnitude of the offence.

¶46

W.P.(C)15136/2016

¶47

¶48

6.Having regard to the facts and taking note of the

¶49

grievance raised by the petitioner, I am of the view of directions can be issued to the second respondent to handover the investigation to the District Crime Branch, Kottayam.

¶50

In the result, there will be a direction to the second respondent to handover the investigation Crime No.140 of 2016 of the Palai Police Station to the District Crime Branch, Kottayam. The officer not below the rank of DYSP of Police shall take over the investigation and take it to its logical conclusion expeditiously.

¶51

Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE

¶52

vps

Subash Chand Jain v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subash Chand Jain 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vittal Rai Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Anees Vs State of Kerala

Benny Vs State of Kerala

John M.Kuriakose Vs the Superintendent of Police

V.K.Lekha Surendran Vs P.v.Sreedharan

Ajeesh Vs State of Kerala