GOKUL RAJ Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above case is placed before us on a reference made by a learned Single Judge of this Court. A Division Bench of this Court in Basheer K. v. C.K.Usman Koya [2021 (2) KHC 432 (DB)] held that a reference by a learned Single Judge is not of a question, but the case itself. In such circumstances, we heard the issue, which was the subject of reference and the case on merits.

(2.) Sri.Nireesh Mathew, learned Counsel, appeared for the petitioner and Sri.S.U.Nazar, learned Public Prosecutor, appeared for the State. Respondents 2 and 4 were represented by the respective Standing Counsel.

(3.) On facts, the petitioner is the 3rd accused in Crime No.5 of 2020 of Attingal Excise Circle Office, pending before the Additional Sessions Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner filed an application as produced at Annexure-A, seeking directions to respondents 2 & 4 to produce the details regarding the name of the subscriber and the tower location of two mobile numbers respectively said to be used by Circle Inspectors of Excise, Attingal, Varkala and Excise Range Inspector of Kilimanoor. From the 4 th respondent, details were sought of the mobile used by the petitioner. The learned Magistrate, by Annexure-B order, rejected the prayer relying on the decision of a learned Single Judge in [Nimith.C. v. State of Kerala (2014 (3) KHC 771)]. The petitioner filed the Crl.M.C. against the said order pointing out that the seizure of contraband and arrest alleged to have been made in the crime is fictitious, which would be proved by the tower location of the mobile numbers used by the Officers.