NIYAMAVEDI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is filed by the petitioner in O. P. No. 15174/98 against the judgment dated 7-4-1999. The petitioner is 'Niyamavedi' represented by its member Advocate Mr. Denizen Komath. According to petitioner, it is an organisation which caters to the public interest and consists mainly lawyers and the original petition is preferred in the larger interest of the general public. The prayer in the Original Petition is for a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to consider the entire materials, documents and evidences collected mainly by the Intelligence Bureau and the Research and Analysis Wing, namely, respondents 4 and 5 during the investigation into Crime No. 246/ 1994 of Vanchiyoor Police Station which was re numbered as R. C. No. 11/S/94 and lodge a complaint in accordance with S.13 of the Indian Official Secrets Act and prosecute all the culprits of the ISRO Espionage case in accordance with law and for consequential reliefs. Crime No. 246/94 was a case registered on 13-11-1994 on the complaint of Vijayan in the Vanchiyoor Police Station under S.3 and 4 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 on the allegation that in collusion with some Indians and foreigners, the Maldivians, committed acts prejudicial to the safety and sovereignty of India. According to the petitioner, after initial inquiry, the investigation was entrusted to the Special Team of Police Officials headed by the Deputy Inspector General (Crimes). In the course of the investigation, a few senior scientists of the Indian Space Research Organisation and others were arrested. During the course of the investigation a report was sent by the Deputy Inspector General (Crimes) to the Director General of Police Kerala seeking steps to handover investigation into the case to the third respondent namely, the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi. Accordingly, the State Government on the recommendation of the Director General of Police Kerala entrusted the investigation to the third respondent by Notification dated 2-12-1994. The third respondent re registered the above case as R. C. No. 11/S/94 and took over the reins of investigation. Upon the completion of investigation, the third respondent filed his report under S.173(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam praying to discharge the accused persons as according to him, the allegations of espionage were not proved. The report was accepted and the accused were discharged. Subsequently, on 27-6-1996, the first respondent, the State of Kerala, issued a notification withdrawing the consent given earlier to the third respondent to investigate into crime No. 246/94. Aggrieved by the Notification withdrawing the consent given to the third respondent, the six accused persons filed separate writ petitions before this court. The writ petitions were dismissed and against which appeals were preferred and in appeals the notification withdrawing consent was struck down. The decision of the Supreme Court is reported in Mariam Rasheeda v. State of Kerala, 1998 (1) KLT 835 .

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the third respondent after taking over the investigation soft pedalled the same against the then Inspector General of Police, Southern Range. State of Kerala by name Ramon Srivastava. The petitioner then moved this court for proper investigation in Crime No. 246/94. That O. P. was dismissed. The petitioner then preferred W. A. 1676/94. While adjudicating the Writ Appeal this court found certain observations against the Investigating Agency. The petitioner referred to the comments made by this court in the above case. According to the petitioner, the State police as well as respondents 4 and 5 have come out openly against the findings of the third respondent claiming that certain material omissions and suppressions were made by the third respondent in the matter. The petitioner referred to certain omissions made by the C.B.I. which is stated by the petitioner as missing gaps. According to the petitioner, the third respondent failed to continue the investigation in a confidence inspiring manner and hence the prayer for reconsideration of the entire materials by the second respondent and lodge a complaint under S.13 of the Official Secrets Act.

(3.) The learned single Judge after hearing the parties dismissed the Original Petition. It is against the above judgment that the present Writ Appeal is filed.