V V RAMAKRISHNAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the order dated 20-6-1995 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chavakkad on a petition filed by him under section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) The petitioner is engaged in the jewellery business at Kodungallur in Thrissur District. There was an allegation of theft of some gold ornaments weighing about 17 sovereigns. A case was registered as Crime No. 141/CR/94 of the CB CID, Ernakulam. In course of investigation, it is alleged that the investigating team of Crime Branch seized some old gold ornaments from his shop at about 7 p.m. on 4-4-1995 on threat of arrest. The Divisional Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, CB CID, Thrissur told him that the petitioner has received stolen gold ornaments and as such he would seize the same out of fear, the petitioner produced some gold ornaments which were seized by the police. Thereafter, he filed a petition under section 451 of the Cr.P.C. before the Court below for return of the gold ornaments to him on proper security on the ground that the allegation of his having received the same as stolen property is false. On the contrary he contended that he had purchased it from one Dhinakaran, who is another jeweller, for the purpose of business. But, while rejecting the petition, the learned Magistrate made an observation that the circumstances in this case give room for an investigation into the matter so as to find out whether the petitioner had committed offences punishable under sections 465 and 411 of IPC. The Ist respondent therein, who is the Divisional Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, CB CID, Thrissur, was directed to investigate and report regarding the possible commission of offence under sections 4 65 and 411 of IPC by the petitioner under section 156 (3) of Cr. P.C. He suspected that an offence under S. 465 has been committed on the ground that the petitioner was found to have produced some forged documents in this criminal proceeding to be used as evidence.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to give such a direction to the Ist respondent, who is not an officer in charge of a police station under section 156 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Moreover, since the offence under section 465 as defined in section 463, IPC is said to have been committed in the course of a judicial enquiry in the Court, a direction of this nature is incompetent under section 195 of the Cr.P.C.