The court emphasized that the appreciation of evidence and dealing with various disputed questions of facts do not come within the jurisdiction of Art.226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, accepted the report submitted by the Central' Bureau of Investigation, hereinafter called the 'CBF, in what is known as ISRO Espionage case, and discharged six accused persons under S.173(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

2. Petitioners are the convenor of Bharathiya Janatha Patty's Legal Cell, Kerala State, Secretary of All India Lawyers' Unit, Ernakulam District Committee, and a retired Asst. Central Intelligence Officer Gr. I respectively. They arc aggrieved by the report of the CBI, and the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and they have come up before this Court invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and Ss.397 and 401 of the Code. They are also seeking a direction to the State of Kerala to order

reinvestigation of Crime No. 246 of 1994 of Vanchiyoor Police Station and to entrust the investigation with top officers of the Kerala Police and higher officers of Central Intelligence Bureau, Research Wing.

3. On the basis of a written compliant filed by one Vijayan, Inspector, Special Branch, Crime No. 246 of 1994 was registered at the Vanchiyoor Police Station, Thiruvanthapuram, on 13.13.1994 against Fauziya Hussain and Mariyam Rasheeda under Ss.3 and 4 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 read with S.34IPC for charges of espionage. Crime was detected on 20.10.1994 while questioning Mariyam Rasheeda, a foreign national, in Crime No. 225 of 1994 relating to her unauthorised over-stay in India. During the course of examination, it was revealed that Fauziya Hussain and Mariyam Rasheeda in collusion with some others, both Indians and foreigners, have involved in actions prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India.

4. On a request made by the Kerala Government, investigation of Crime No. 225/ 94 and Crime No. 246 of 1994 were entrusted with CBI for investigation. Case R.C. No. 10/S/94 under S.14 and Paragraph 7 of the Foreigners Act, 1948 relating to Crime No. 225 of 1994 and R.C. No. 11/S/94 under S.120-B read with S.3 to 5 of the Official Secrets Act, read with S.34 IPC relating to Crime No. 246 of 1994 were registered on 3.12.1994 by the CBI, New Delhi. After taking over the investigation in Crime No. 2257 94, a charge sheet was filed in Court on 17.12.1994 against Mariyam Rasheeda. However, she was acquitted vide judgment dt.14.11.1995 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam

5. Before taking over Crime No. 246/94 by the CBI investigation was conducted by Special Branch of Kerala Police for a few days and later the investigation was handed over to Special Investigation team headed by DIG (Crimes), Trivandrum. During the course of investigation, Kerala Police arrested 6 accused persons, who are respondents 3 to 7 in Crl. R.P.No. 438 of 1996. All accused persons while in the custody of Kerala Police, except one Sasikumaran, allegedly made incriminating statement before the Crime Branch admitting their involvement in the espionage activities.

6. After taking over of the investigation by the CBI of Crime No. 246/94, all the above-mentioned 6 persons were interrogated and they denied the statements purported to have been made before the Kerala Police, Crime Branch. CBI conducted a detailed investigation and on the basis of the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, they came to the conclusion that allegations of espionage were not proved and have been found to be false. A final report to that effect was filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI/SIC.II/New Delhi before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, under S.173(2)(ii) of the Code. Chief Judicial Magistrate agreed with the report and accused persons were discharged cancelling the bail bonds executed by them. Permission was also granted to the Officer concerned to return the seized documents. Superintendent of Central Prison, Viyyur, was also informed to discharge accused 1 and 2.

7. The main contention raised by counsel for the petitioners was that