Kerala High Court
Xxxx vs State Of Kerala on 12 April, 2024
Author: K. Babu
Bench: K. Babu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
Friday, the 12th day of April 2024 / 23rd Chaithra, 1946
IA.NO.3/2024 IN WP(CRL.) NO. 445 OF 2022(S)
APPLICANT/PETITIONER:
XXXXXX
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001.
2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695 501.
3. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KERALA, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS,
TRIVANDRUM-695 010.
4. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (CRIMES), POLICE HEAD QUARTERS,
TRIVANDRUM-695 010.
5. INVESTIGATING OFFICER, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CRIME BRANCH,
ALAPPUZHA-688 012.
6. STATE FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
7. ADDL.R7:P. GOPALAKRISHNAN @ DILEEP, PADMA SAROVARAM HOUSE,
KOTTARAKADAVU, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the
affidavit filed therewith the High Court be pleased to direct the
Hon'ble District and Sessions Judge, Ernakulam to issue certified copies
of the statements of persons who were examined in the inquiry as whose
statements were recorded in the inquiry, to the petitioner for verifying
the same, in the light of the statements and findings in the inquiry
reports.
This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the
application and the affidavit filed in support thereof, this Court's
judgment dated 07/12/2023 & order dated 21/02/2024 in IA 1/2024 and upon
hearing the arguments of M/S.T.B.MINI, GAURAV AGRAWAL & C.GEORGE THOMAS,
Advocates for the applicant in IA/petitioner in WP(Crl.), SRI. T.A.
SHAJI, DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION & SRI.P. NARAYANAN, ADDITIONAL
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for R1 to R5 in IA/WP(Crl.) and of SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI
(SENIOR ADVOCATE) along with M/S. PHILIP T.VARGHESE, THOMAS T.VARGHESE,
ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM, V.T.LITHA, K.R.MONISHA & NITYA R, Advocates for
Addl.R7 in IA/WP(Crl.), the court passed the following:
P.T.O.
K.BABU, J.
------------------------------------
I.A No.3 of 2024
&
I.A No.4 of 2024
in
W.P(Crl). No.445 of 2022
------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of April, 2024
ORDER
The prayer in this petition is as follows:
".....to direct the Hon'ble District and Sessions Judge,
Ernakulam to issue certified copies of the statements of
persons who were examined in the inquiry as whose
statements were recorded in the inquiry, to the petitioner for
verifying the same, in the light of the statements and findings
in the inquiry reports."
2. Heard Sri.Gaurav Agrawal, the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioner, Sri.P.Narayanan, the learned Senior
Government Pleader and Sri.Philip.T.Varghese, the learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.7.
3. As per the judgment dated 07.12.2023, this Court directed
the District and Sessions Judge, Ernakulam to conduct a fact-
finding inquiry on the allegations of unauthorised access to the
memory card and copying and transmitting its contents.
4. The District and Sessions Judge, completed the inquiry
&
in
within the time period stipulated by this Court.
5. The petitioner had applied for a copy of the report of the
fact-finding inquiry. The learned Sessions Judge refused to give
the copy of the report to the petitioner. She approached this Court
seeking direction to the Sessions Judge to serve a copy of the fact-
finding inquiry. This Court as per order dated 21.02.2024 directed
the Sessions Judge to forthwith give a copy of the report to the
petitioner.
6. It is submitted that the petitioner filed an application on
02.03.2024 seeking to issue certified copies of the statements of
persons examined by the Sessions Judge during the inquiry. It is
further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge rejected the
request on the ground that she has already addressed the High
Court seeking actions to be taken based on the findings arrived at
in the inquiry.
7. In the order dated 21.02.2024, this Court made it clear that
this Court never intended that the report of the fact-finding inquiry
should be treated as confidential.
&
in
8. The petitioner has the right to know the statements given
by various persons in the course of inquiry.
9. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7
resisted the application on the ground that such a petition is not
maintainable after the disposal of the main case. The admission of
this application would not amount to a revival of the proceedings.
The relief sought is ancillary. Therefore, the objection raised by
respondent No.7 is not tenable.
10. Therefore the Sessions Judge, Ernakulam is directed to
issue certified copies of the statements of persons examined
during the inquiry to the petitioner.
11. I.A is allowed as above.
12. Post for hearing on the maintainability of this petition.
Post on 30.05.2024.
Sd/-
K.BABU,
JUDGE
KAS
12-04-2024 /True Copy/ Deputy Registrar
