KOCHUVARKEY Vs. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed against the order of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Taliparamba in Crime No. 12/1985 of Kudiyanmala Police Station. The petitioners are the accused in Crime No. 12/1985 of Kudiyanmala Police Station. They are alleged to have committed offence under S.302 of the IPC. The Circle Inspector of Police, Taliparamba reported to the court that the petitioners made a confession that the weapon used for committing the offence was kept by them at Kottakunnu in forest area, and their release to police custody is necessary to effect recovery of the weapon. The learned Magistrate allowed police custody. It was ordered that petitioners 1 to 3 would be released to the custody of the Circle Inspector of Police, Taliparamba from 10 a. m. on 19th April 1985 till 2 p. m. on 20th April 1985 and that the Circle Inspector should produce them before the court at 2 p.m. on 20th April 1985.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have nothing to tell the police about any weapon and therefore the learned Magistrate went wrong in passing the impugned order. The contention of the petitioners is that they are innocent of the charges levelled against them and that they know nothing about the material objects used for committing the alleged crime. It is the case of the petitioners that in spite of the open denial of any knowledge about the weapon, the learned Magistrate without considering that, passed the order which cannot be supported legally.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the decision in Devidas v. State of Kerala 1979 KLT 642 and contended that as the petitioners have stated that they have nothing to inform the police about the weapon used in the alleged crime, the learned Magistrate was not justified in granting police custody of the petitioners. Learned counsel also relied on the decision in Sreedharan v. State of Kerala 1980 KLT 829 for the same position Relying on the above decision counsel for the petitioners con-fended that in view of the categoric assertion on the part of the petitioners of complete lack of knowledge or information regarding the existence of the material objects sought to be recovered at their instance there is no purpose in directing police custody for the alleged purpose of recovery It is the contention of the petitioners that as they have unambiguously stated that they have no knowledge about the material objects, court cannot allow themselves to be used for the purpose of enabling the investigator to use means of interrogation not approved by law.