STATE OF KERALA Vs. JOSEPH ALIAS KUNJACHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first of these petitions is by the State against the order passed in Crime No. 61 of 1971 on 14-6-1972 by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kanjirappally, refusing to hand over the records and material objects pertaining to the crime aforesaid to the Deputy Superintendent, Crime Branch, C.I.D, Trivandrum. The other petition is filed by the Public Prosecutor before this Court to direct the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kanjirappally, to return those records and material objects to the Deputy Superintendent.

(2.) The Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, C.I.D., Trivandrum, filed a First Information Report dated 20-6- 1971 in Crime No. 61 of 1971 under S.157(1), Cr. P. C. before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kanjirappally, on 23-6-1971 against 38 accused persons alleging offences under S.120B, 489 A, B, C and D of the Indian Penal Code in which it was stated that these accused persons conspired together for counterfeiting hundred rupee Indian currency notes and thereby counterfeited Indian currency notes of that denomination to the value of about one lakh of rupees, within the jurisdiction of the Sub Divisional Magistrate's Court, and that they took them for uttering to Madras City of Tamil Nadu State where they were engaged in trafficking in those counterfeit notes. The Madras City Police had already registered a Crime No. 1356 of 1971 in Royapettah Police Station on 14-6-1971 against the same 38 accused persons for the identical offences. Investigations in these two crimes have been in progress simultaneously in both the States. Accused Nos. 1, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 22, 23. 24, 26, 27, 33 and 34 had already been apprehended and they are now in custody at Madras and some others are either in custody or on bail in the State. While the investigation is in progress the Deputy Superintendent of Police filed two reports one on 11-2-1972 and the other on 29-4-1972, inter alia, requesting the lower Court to forward the records and the material objects in the crime before it for incorporating the same to the Crime No. 1356 of 1971 registered at Royapettah Police Station of the Madras City so that the prosecution against the accused persons could be launched and enquired into by the Court in the Madras City. Some of the accused persons did not raise any objection in complying with the request asked for by the Deputy Superintendent in his reports, but many other accused persons objected to the prayer of the Deputy Superintendent being granted on the basis of the reports.

(3.) The main line of argument advanced on behalf of those accused persons is that the lower court having taken cognizance of the offence against the accused persons, there is no provision under law to transfer the records and the material objects to the Madras Court on the application of the investigating agency and that the remedy of the prosecution if any would be under the provisions of S.185(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code to move the Madras High Court within the jurisdiction of which the Magistrate of Madras City had taken cognizance of the offence in the first instance. So according to the learned counsel who appeared for the accused in these petitions the request made by be Deputy Superintendent in his two reports cannot be complied with. So it is argued that the order passed by the lower court on those reports shall not be interfered with.