Allowed

Devassy @ Sabu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Mar 2019Crl.MC/4218/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court invoked inherent powers to quash a Final Report and consequential proceedings in a case under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. The Court held that the detecting officer lacked territorial jurisdiction and was not empowered under Section 13 of the Act, rendering the detection illegal.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner brought up: qua the petitioner, the second accused, the Final Report is Quashed.

Devassy @ Sabu Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 29TH PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 4218 of 2017

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1449/2015 of JMFC – VIII,MARADU, ERNAKULAM (TEMPORARY)

¶7

CRIME NO. 1172/2009 OF PANANGADU POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM.

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2.:

¶9

DEVASSY @ SABU AGED 57, S/O.DEVASSY, AMBALATHINKAL VEEDU,THAMARASSERY ROAD, POONITHURA

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SI OF POLICE,(CRIME NO. 1172/09), PANANGADU POLICE STATION,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SRI E.C BINEESH - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.3.2019 THE COURT ON 20.03.2019 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

CRL.M.C.No.4218/2017

¶17

¶18

T.V.ANILKUMAR, J.

¶19

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

¶20

CRL.M.C.No.4218 of 2017

¶21

---------------------------------Dated this the 20^th day of March, 2019

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court vested under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code), the 2^nd accused in C.C. No. 1449/2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-VIII, Maradu, Ernakulam challenges Annexure-1 Final report submitted by the Circle Inspector of Police, Ernakulam Town South Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 3,4,5 & 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956 as illegal on the ground that the detection of the crime was undertaken by an officer not empowered by Section 13 of the Act and consequentially the entire proceeding in C.C. No. 1449/2015 are also unsustainable under law.

¶24

The 2^nd accused was found on 5.10.2009 at 5.30 p.m. by the Circle Inspector of Police, Thripunithura Hill Palace Police Station to be involved in the act of prostitution with 3^rd accused at the IInd floor

¶25

CRL.M.C.No.4218/2017

¶26

¶27

of Vrindaram house in Sankar Nagar near White Fort Hotel, bearing door No. 11/32/E in Maradu village in Kanayannoor Taluk and crime No. 1172/2009 was registered against him, the 1^st accused who is running a brothel and also the 3^rd accused, the alleged prostitute.

¶28

On the motion of 3^rd accused, on a previous occasion Annexure-I Final report was quashed by this Court in Crl. M.C.6228/2016 by order dated 22.11.2017 on the short ground that detection was not at the instance of an empowered officer under Section 13 of the Act. The view taken by this Court in Crl.M.C. 6228/2016 is that notwithstanding CW9, the detecting officer being a special officer also, he was not empowered to detect the offence committed within the territorial jurisdiction for which he was not appointed by the Government. His territorial jurisdiction was limited only to Thripunithura Hill Palace. This Court further held that he cannot act as the special officer on the force of any alleged charge arrangement also, even assuming that CW9 was acting under the charge arrangement made by his superior officers. In any view of the matter, the view taken by this Court in Crl.M.C 6228/2016 is to be maintained in the case of petitioner/2^nd accused as well. I am satisfied that the CW9 Circle Inspector of police was not acting within his

¶29

CRL.M.C.No.4218/2017

¶30

¶31

power and in as much as he exceeded the territorial limit of his jurisdiction, the entire action at his instance is vitiated by law. In view of position aforesaid, Annexure-I Final report has to fall to ground as it cannot be regarded as a report submitted in accordance with law. The aforesaid final report is accordingly quashed to the extent it concerned the petitioner.

¶32

In the circumstances, the Crl.M.C. 4218/2017 is allowed quashing Annexure-I Final report and all consequential proceedings in C.C. No.1449/2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-VIII, Maradu, Ernakulam in so far as it concerned the petitioner, the second accused.

Sd/-

T.V.ANILKUMAR,

JUDGE

al/-

CRL.M.C.No.4218/2017

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶41

ANNEXURE I A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT PENDING AS CC.NO. 1449/2015 ON THE FILE OF JFCM COURT VIII, MARADU, ERNAKULAM

¶42

ANNEXURE II A COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 1172/2009 OF PANANGADI POLICE STATION REGISTERED BY THE CI OF POLICE HILL PALACE STATION, TRIPUNITHURA

¶43

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL

¶44

TRUE COPY

¶45

P.S TO JUDGE

¶46

AL/-

Devassy @ Sabu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devassy @ Sabu 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

Sreebudhan @ Sreebu Vs State of Kerala

Mathew Jose Vs State of Kerala

Abhilash T Vs Gopalakrishnan V.K

Ramesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Reeja R Rajan Vs Yasar Latheef

Mohammed Basheer Vs Shahida Beevi