9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 838X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Customs Act, and they are pending consideration - there are sufficient provisions under law to add parties in case any offence is revealed later as having been committed by any person. It is evident that even the very apprehension expressed by the petitioner regarding the non-conduct of a fair and proper investigation is without any basis. The Customs as well as the Enforcement Directorate, have conducted or are conducting proper investigations. There are also no reasons to assume that if the involvement of any person is revealed in the investigation, they will not be proceeded against. For, the dictum Be you ever so high, the law is above you applies with equal vigour to all, irrespective of status or position. Petition dismissed. - WP (CRL.) NO. 227 OF 2023 - - - Dated:- 12-4-2023 - THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS FOR THE PETITIONER : BY ADV SHAJAHAN K.M. FOR THE RESPONDENT : BY ADVS. SRI.S.MANU, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA SRI. P.G. JAYASHANKAR, SC SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP ( SR. ) ADVOCATE GENERAL SHRI.P.NARAYANAN, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.V.MANU, SENIOR G.P. JUDGMENT Petitioner seeks for a direction to the Customs a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to tamper with the evidence. It is also alleged that the investigating agencies have miserably failed to investigate the role of the persons mentioned. Thus the petitioner has sought a fair, transparent and time-bound investigation. 4. Sri.K.Gopalakrishna Kurup, learned Advocate General, assisted by Sri. P. Narayanan learned Public Prosecutor took up a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition. In view of the said objection, notice to 3rd and 6th respondents was dispensed with for the time being. 5. Though six reasons were stated as rendering the writ petition not maintainable, they can be categorized as three for the purpose of brevity. They are: (i) absence of pleadings regarding the credentials, antecedents and other details of the petitioner; (ii) unsubstantiated allegations have been raised against high constitutional functionaries in the State by producing documents the source of which have not been mentioned while efficacious, alternative remedies otherwise exist; (iii) the factual issues in the Writ Petition have already been settled by two judgments of Division Benches of this Court. 6. The preliminary objections to the maintainab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , and he was, in fact, one of the witnesses for the prosecution in the case against the father. These facts were suppressed. However, in the present case, the circumstances differ, and the omitted details cannot be treated as material to dismiss the writ petition at the threshold in the peculiar circumstances of this case, though the fact of the petitioner having been an employer of the 6th respondent ought to have been ideally mentioned. 11. Objections regarding the imperfections in the affidavit vis-a-vis the documents filed as required under Rule 174 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971 and the availability of alternative remedies are also not sustainable objections in the peculiar circumstances of this case. 12. The objectionable document produced by the petitioner is the show-cause notice issued by the Customs Department. The source from which the petitioner received the said document has not been mentioned either in the pleadings or in the affidavit. In this context, it is relevant to mention that attaining high levels of probity in public life is essential for the development of a nation. If a document is available in the hands of any person which can throw l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the consequences could be drastic especially when the person against whom such an order is issued is a high ranking functionary in one of the organs of the State. It was observed in that decision that a direction of far-reaching nature could be misused by the political parties for their vested interests, and therefore, courts must be cautious in issuing directions when high ranking constitutional functionaries are involved. The court further noted that a constitutional court could not be used as a forum for playing political tricks. 17. Further, in Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India and Others [(2017) 11 SCC 731], the Supreme Court had observed that the court has to be on guard while ordering an investigation against important constitutional functionaries/officers or any person in the absence of some cogent legally cognizable material. 18. With the caution required to be adopted in a case of this nature, especially when allegations are levelled against the incumbent Chief Minister of the State and the former Speaker of the Assembly, it is apposite to take note of the two judgments referred by the learned Advocate General as binding precedents to this lis. In the decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this context, the observations of the Supreme Court in National Confederation of Officers Association of Central Public Sector Enterprises and Others v. Union of India and Others (2022) 4 SCC 764 are relevant. 22. Therefore, notwithstanding the non-maintainability of this writ petition, it is pertinent to mention that the Standing Counsel for the Customs Department had submitted that based upon Ext.P1 show-cause notice, where a reference is made to the involvement of high constitutional functionaries, the Customs had questioned the witnesses and later filed two complaints as C.C. No.1013 of 2021 relating to the issue of gold smuggling and C.C. No.704 of 2022 relating to the issue of illegal import of foreign currency, both before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate s Court, (ED) Ernakulam. 23. When the Customs had, pursuant to the show-cause notice, conducted an investigation and filed complaints based on the materials collected, a direction to conduct a further investigation into the involvement of other persons ought not to be indulged in by this Court in the exercise of the Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, unless there are exceptional circumstances. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
