AYYAPPANKUTTY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is prisoner No 4952 undergoing imprisonment in the Central Prison, Cannanore. He requests that the police and other State authorities may be restrained from publishing bis photographs in public places. According to him, this action is illegal and violative of his fundamental rights. In view of his expectation of immediate release from jail, he feels that the publication of his photographs will adversely affect his future life.

(2.) ON behalf of the State, I had the advantage of hearing able arguments on questions of fact and law from the Director of Public prosecutions. The Law Society of India represented by Advocates M/s. K. A, abdul Salam, M. P. Krishnan Nair and C. A. Sebastian entered appearance and Mr. Abdul Salam ably assisted me by presenting the legal and factual aspects which involve public importance.

(3.) IT is in this background that the police decided to circulate the photographs through the possible group victims at different places with a view to alert them and save their lives. Circulation is said to be through the association of taxi drivers. The counsel on behalf of the Law society of India put the State to proof of the involvement of the petitioner in the above-said cases as a condition precedent to justifying the alleged preventive action. But it has to be noted that the petitioner is not being tried for any offence. In this proceedings we are only concerned with the question whether the preventive action of the State through the police machinery is justified or not. The fact that there are at least three convictions against the petitioner is evident from the submissions of the director of Public Prosecutions and the letter received from the Superintendent central Prison. In this proceedings, we are not deciding the correctness of the disputed questions of fact. As earlier stated by me, the subsistence of three convictions against the petitioner is not disputed. The other cases are only pending investigation. In this proceedings the State cannot be asked to place concrete evidence substantiating the involvement of the petitioner as a condition precedent to justification of the preventive action. For the present purpose, this Court will have to accept the reasonable suspicion entertained against the petitioner regarding bis involvement. Arguments will have to be appreciated in this background.