Zamra Endeavours Pvt Ltd Represented By Its Managing Director Riyas M.A vs Deputy Commissioner Of Police

Devan Ramachandran, J

The petitioner is a Convention Centre Hall, in which an incendiary event occurred on 29.10.2023. Criminal investigation was lodged and it is stated by the learned Government Pleader – Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, that samples have been taken and sent to the Forensic Laboratory for examination. The petitioner prays that they be allowed to operate the Centre/Hall, since there are several bookings scheduled; and that their customers have been put to unnecessary inconvenience.

Sri.Saiby  Jose  Kidangoor  –  learned  counsel  for  the  4th respondent, submitted that his client is one of those who had booked the Centre/Hall in advance for his son’s wedding reception on 20.01.2024. He added that if the hall is not released, his client would be put to irreparable prejudice.

In response to the afore submissions made by Smt.Stiya Sivan – learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose – learned Government Pleader, submitted that there are no legal impediments in the possession of the Convention Centre being restored back to the petitioner, but that there is a practical difficulty, namely, that if the Forensic Department asks for any further samples, it will become untenable. He added that since two mobile phones were also seized from the site of Crime and sent for evaluation, it is only after its report is obtained, will it be discernible if the competent Central Agency have to intervene.

Though I find the afore explanation of the learned Government Pleader to be worthy, the fact remains that the petitioner cannot be put to prejudice ad infinitum. The incident happened on 29.10.2023 and it has been over 60 days thereafter. It may be true that samples have been taken from the Hall and sent for forensic evaluation; and the only apprehension voiced by the learned Government Pleader is that if any further samples are required, it will become impossible, once the same is used by other persons.

The afore, in my view, cannot be a reason for not allowing the restoration of possession of the Hall because, the Investigating Agencies can certainly take further samples within the next few days and preserve it, should it become necessary for further evaluation. The delay caused by the Forensic Laboratory certainly cannot impede the right of the petitioner to be restored back the Hall any further.

That being said, the further explanation of the learned Government Pleader that, Central Agencies may or may not intervene, depending upon the results of the forensic evaluation, also does not appeal to me because, this is speculative and conjectural and something which may or may not happen in future.

In the afore circumstances, I allow this Writ Petition with the following directions:

a) The competent Investigating Officer is at liberty to take fresh samples from the crime scene and preserve it in terms of law and as per the provisions of the applicable penal Statutes, within a period of two days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment

b) The 1st respondent – Deputy Commissioner of Police, will thereupon and on the very next day, handover the Convention Centre to its Managing Director/Authorised person, upon obtaining necessary receipt and complying with all necessary formalities.

c) I record the undertaking of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, they would comply with any request from the Investigating Authority - either present or in future - with respect to the incident and that they will co-operate in the investigation, as required.