K.P.Lawrance @ Roy vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 7054 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

     MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1942

              RP.No.165 OF 2021 IN WP(C). 21691/2019

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 21691/2019(J) OF HIGH COURT OF
                              KERALA

REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN THE WRIT PETITION:

             K.P.LAWRANCE @ ROY
             AGED 58 YEARS
             S/O. K.J.PETER, KAPPITHANPARAMBIL HOUSE,
             H.NO.1/361, PRINCE STREET, FORTKOCHI-682 001,
             NOW RESIDING AT KAPPITHANPARAMBIL HOUSE,
             KONIKKARA, CHULLIKKAL,
             NEAR PUBLIC LIBRARY, KOCHI.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.T.ASAF ALI
             SRI.A.A JALEEL
             SMT.SULFIA.M.A.

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN THE WRIT PETITION:

      1      STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO HOME DEPARTMENT,
             GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
             PIN-695 001.
      2      THE STATE POLICE CHIEF
             POLICE HEAD QUARTERS,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.
      3      THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
             KOCHI CITY, REVENUE TOWER,
             ERNAKULAM-682 032.
      4      THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE/SHO
             FORT KOCHI POLICE STATION, FORT KOCHI,
             ERNAKULAM-682 001.
      5      DYSP
             CBCID (EOW), OFFICE OF THE CBCID,
             JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, KALOOR,
             PALARIVATTOM P.O., ERNAKULAM-682 025.
             BY   ADV..SRI.E.C.BINEESH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

     THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.03.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 RP.No.165 OF 2021 IN
WP(C). 21691/2019
                                     2



                               ORDER

Earlier this Court, by judgment dated

28.01.2021, in W.P.(C).No.21691/2019, had

directed the Investigating Officer to send

original document for expert opinion under

Section 45 of the Evidence Act. Now the very

same petitioner came up with a request to

forward the same to the Central Forensic

Science Laboratory, Hyderabad. It has to be

decided by the concerned investigating agency.

It is not at all fit and proper to have

frequent interference in the investigation

connected with its progress. Hence the

present review petition cannot be sustained.

Review Petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE

SPV