AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Kemal Pasha, J.—Heard both the sides. The original petitioner was selected for the post of Constable/Driver-2011 in the Central Industrial Security Force. As the original petitioner was arraigned as third accused in Crime No. 140 of 2011 of the Kundara Police Station, the records relating to the crime were demanded by the Assistant Inspector General(TS) of the Central Industrial Security Force.
According to the petitioner he was falsely implicated in the crime and therefore, showing the details he made a complaint to the third respondent, Superintendent of Police (Rural), Kottarakkara. Even though the investigation revealed that the petitioner was not involved in the said crime, no steps were taken to delete the name of the petitioner. On receipt of Ext. P1 letter from the Central Industrial Security Force, the petitioner approached the fifth respondent, Sub Inspector of Police, Kundara. According to the petitioner, after verification of the records, the fifth respondent issued Ext. P3 character and antecedent certificate stating that on investigation conducted by the fourth respondent it is evident that the petitioner was not involved in the said crime. The petitioner has filed the original petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondents 4 and 5 to take necessary steps to delete the name of the petitioner from the array of accused in crime No. 1402 of 2011 of the Kundara police Station.
When the writ petition came up for hearing, the learned Public Prosecutor had admitted Ext. P3 character and antecedent certificate as the one issued by the fifth respondent and did not oppose the writ petition. Consequently, by judgment dated 7.5.2013, this Court had directed respondents 4 and 5 to take immediate necessary steps to file a report before the concerned JFCM''s Court thereby deleting the name of the petitioner from the array of the accused, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two weeks from 7.5.2013.
Respondents 3 to 5 in the writ petition are review petitioners 2, 1 and 3 respectively. They have come up with this review petition seeking the review of the above judgment passed by this Court. It is alleged that the original petitioner is the third accused in the crime in which around 90 accused persons had forcibly taken away a mini lorry loaded with illegal sand which was seized by the Sub Inspector of police, Kundara. Two crimes were registered as crime No. 1401 of 2011 and 1402 of 2011. Both the crimes were clubbed together. According to the review petitioners, on a complaint filed by the original petitioner, the investigation of the case was handed over to the Dy. S.P. DCRB Kottarakkara as per the order of the District Police Chief, Kollam. On investigation it was found that the investigation conducted by the then Circle Inspector of Police Kundara was in the right path and therefore, he returned the CD file to the Circle Inspector of Police, Kundara for investigation. While the investigation was being conducted by the Dy. S.P., DCRB Kottarakkara, the Sub Inspector of Police, Kundara was asked to reach the office of the Superintendent of Police Kollam (Rural). The Superintendent of Police ordered him to issue a certificate in the form of Ext. P3 to the first petitioner by making him believe that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, DCRB Kottarakkara had reported that the original petitioner is not an accused in the said crime. Due to the compulsion of the superior officer and by believing his words the Sub Inspector of Police, Kundara had issued Ext. P3 certificate. According to the review petitioners, when Ext. P3 certificate was issued the entire CD files pertaining to the crime was with the Dy. S.P., DCRB, Kottarakkara. The Superintendent of Police, made the Sub Inspector of Police believe that the Dy. S.P., DCRB, Kottarakkara had already reported that the original petitioner is not an accused in the crime. Due to the compulsion from the part of the superior officer, and by believing his words, the Sub Inspector of Police, Kundara had issued Ext. P3 certificate. According to the review petitioners, the original petitioner is still the third accused in the crime and the investigation is going on.
Heard the learned counsel for the original petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for the review petitioners. The learned Public Prosecutor has produced the CD. The learned counsel for the original petitioner submits that, as the fate of employment of a young man is directly in question, the Circle Inspector of Police, Kundara may be directed to complete the investigation and to file the final report relating to the involvement of the petitioner before Court, at the earliest.
The C.D. shows that the investigation of Crime No. 1402 of 2011 of Kundara Police Station was handed over to the Dy. S.P., DCRB, Kollam (Rural) on 12.6.2012 as per order No. D1-16211/2012/QD. DT. 1.6.2012. It further shows that on 16.11.2012 the investigation of the said crime was again entrusted to the Circle Inspector of Police, Kundara by the District Police Chief, Kollam (Rural) and the Dy. S.P., DCRB, Kollam (Rural) was directed to forward the CD file and connected documents to the Circle Inspector of Police, Kundara. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that vide letter dated 16.11.2012 the CD file was forwarded to the Circle Inspector of Police, Kundara on 16.11.2012. Ext. P3 is dated 3.7.2012.
Matters being so, the CD file was not available with the Sub Inspector of Police, Kundara so as to enable him to issue Ext. P3 certificate, as and when he issued Ext. P3.
According to the review petitioners, still the original petitioner is the third accused in the crime and Ext. P3 was happened to be issued under compulsion, and therefore, they will not be able to file a report as directed by this Court and hence they are seeking review of the said order. Of course, it is true that this Court was misled by the learned Public Prosecutor who was then representing the case by suppressing the fact that the CD was not available with the Sub Inspector of Police, Kundara at the time when he had issued Ext. P3. By considering all the above, I am satisfied that the said order issued by this Court is liable to be recalled.
In the result, this Review Petition is allowed and the judgment in W.P. (C) No. 11379 of 2013 is reviewed and recalled. The writ petition is restored to file. Post the writ petition for hearing in the due course.