HANEEFA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are alleged to have conducted a parallel telephone exchange, and on getting information, Crime No.340 of 2005 of Ponnani Police Station was registered against them. After investigation, a final report was filed, which was taken cognizance as C.C. No.9 of 2012 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Ponnani.

(2.) The bone of contention raised by the petitioners in this proceeding under sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Cr.P.C') is that the offences for which the crime was registered initially were all non-cognizable offences and by virtue of sec. 154(2) of Cr.P.C, the police could not have commenced the investigation, without an order of the Magistrate. The investigation being illegal from the inception, the final report and the cognizance taken by the Magistrate were all without authority of law.

(3.) Though the detailed facts of the case are not relevant for disposing of this petition, a reference to the basic allegations are appropriate and are as follows: On 24/8/2005, an FIR was registered alleging that the accused had, after obtaining a Reliance telephone connection, shifted the telephone to another place along with seven other telephone connections taken in the name of different persons at different places, and conducted a parallel telephone exchange, thereby causing loss to the telephone department. The petitioners were thus alleged to have committed the offences punishable under sec. 4 and sec. 20 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and sec. 3 and sec. 6 of the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933.