Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

T.P. NANDAKUMAR, CHIEF EDITOR versus THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


T.P. NANDAKUMAR, CHIEF EDITOR v. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE - WP(C) No. 6674 of 2006(T) [2006] RD-KL 757 (13 September 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 6674 of 2006(T)

1. T.P.NANDAKUMAR, CHIEF EDITOR,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
... Respondent

2. THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY

3. THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,

4. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,

For Petitioner :SRI.K.ANAND

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.R.UDAYABHANU

Dated :13/09/2006

O R D E R

K.R. UDAYABHANU, J.

W.P.C.NO.6674 OF 2006

DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2006



JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is the Chief Editor of a periodical, has contended that he is personally interested in the outcome of the investigation of the crime as the accused has misused his name. It is the case of the petitioner that Crime No.256/CR//SI/D2 OF CBCID, Thiruvananthapuram was registered with respect to a false news item telecast in Surya T.V.alleging the involvement of Sri.K.V.Thomas, the then Minister of Tourism and Fisheries in what is called "Hawala Deal". As the Minister has denied in his involvement, an enquiry was ordered and thereafter a crime was registered as above against one Anil Nambiar, Reporter of the Surya T.V. and three others including Sobhana George, M.L.A. It is the case that the document on the basis of which the news item has been published is a forged one at the instance of the accused. It is the case of the petitioner that the investigating agency is totally lethargical and is attempting to help the accused and that even after a lapse of more than three years, the W.P.C.6674/2006 -2- Crime Branch has not submitted the final report. The petitioner has sought for a writ or direction to entrust the investigation to the C.B.I.and also in that alternative to direct the Crime Branch to file the charge sheet within two months.

2. Counsel for the petitioner, Director General of Prosecutions and the counsel for the C.B.I.were heard. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch has filed a statement denying any latches or the alleged intention on the part of the Crime Branch. It is further mentioned that the matter is pending before the Government for sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. It is pointed out that an exhaustive investigation has been conducted in the matter that consisted of 137 records, 32 MOs.and 171 witnesses.

3. The locus standi of the petitioner was not established. Hence, I leave the matter open. In view of the statement of the investigating agency that a detailed investigation has been done in the matter, I find that at this stage entrustment of the investigation with another agency is not called for.

4. The Director General of Prosecution has undertaken that the final report with respect to Crime No.256/CR/S1/D2 of CBCID, W.P.C.6674/2006 -3- Thiruvananthapuram will be submitted before the court within two months. The writ petition is closed recording the above undertaking.

K.R.UDAYABHANU, JUDGE

ks.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.