T N JAYADEESH DEVIDAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the second accused in Crime No. 757 of 1978 of the Central Police Station, Ernakulam, to quash the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, directing the petitioner to appear in his court on 15-3-1979 to be placed in the custody of the police for a period of four days from 15-3-1979 noon till 19-3-1979 noon.

(2.) THE circumstances under which this petition has been filed are as follows: Crime No. 757 of 1978 was registered by the police against the petitioner and another person for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420 and 471, read with Section 34 of the I. P. C. The accusation against the accused is that they forged certain documents and cheated the Andhra Bank to the tune of Rs. 500/- and took delivery of certain steel items meant for some other consignee. It was further alleged that the steel items were sub-sequently sold by the accused persons to some other dealers. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 28-9-1978 and the crime was registered on 8-101978. When the petitioner learnt about the registration of the crime, he surrendered before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam on 2112-1978 and moved for bail. He was released on bail on the same day. sub-sequently on the request made by the investigating officer, the Chief Judicial Magistrate directed the petitioner to appear before the officer for interrogation in connection with the investigation of the case. Pursuant to the said direction, the petitioner appeared before the officer on 3-1-1979 and he was interrogated by the head constable attached to the Central Police Station. It was thereafter that the investigating officer submitted a further report requesting the Court that the petitioner be remanded to custody of the police to enable him to effect certain recoveries on information to be furnished by the petitioner. The petitioner objected to this request. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, however, allowed the petition and passed an order -which is under attack in this petition.

(3.) THE petitioner's counsel submits that the order passed by the Court below amounts to an abuse of the process of Court, and is violative of Article 20 (3) of the Constitution. Even in the bail application submitted by the petitioner, he had made it clear that he had no information to be passed on to the police in connection with the crime. In the written objection filed by him, to the report made by the police for his custody, he had further stated reiterating his earlier submission that he knew nothing about the facts and circumstances relating to the alleged crime. Counsel further submitted that there -was no provision in the criminal procedure code to enable a Court to remand an accused person to custody for the purpose of getting a confession for the purpose of recovery on the information to be furnished by the accused.