Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
Vishakan – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
W.P.(C) No.22328 of 2023
Decided on : 10-07-2023
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a journalist, complained about the police seizing his mobile phone without implicating him in any crime or involving him as a witness in any criminal case.Finding of the Court:
The court held that the police should not seize a journalist's mobile phone in violation of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and emphasized the importance of following proper procedures before seizing such items. ISSUES Seizure of journalist's mobile phone without adherence to Cr.P.C., harassment allegations against petitioner and family members.Ratio Decidendi:
Journalists' rights, procedural requirements for seizing items under Cr.P.C., limitations on police authority regarding seizure, protection from harassment. FINAL DECISION The 7th respondent was directed to file a statement detailing the circumstances under which the petitioner's mobile phone was seized.ORDER :
1. The petitioner is a Journalist. The grievance of the petitioner is that his mobile phone is seized by the police without implicating him in any crime and he is not a witness also in any criminal case. I am of the considered opinion that, the mobile phone of the journalist shall not be seized by the police authorities in violation of the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. If the mobile phone is necessary, in connection with a criminal case, there are procedures to be followed before seizing those items. The Journalists are part of fourth state. The Journalist may be getting several information in their mobile phones. But which news is to be telecasted and published is to be decided by Journalist taking into consideration the information received. Telecasting every information even if it is hearsay is not journalism. Simply because, the Journalist has got some information about the crime, the mobile phone cannot be seized, without following the procedure contemplated in Cr.P.C. There is allegation in this case to the effect that the petitioner and even his family members are harassed. That can’t be allowed.
WP(C) NO.22328 OF 2023
2. The 7th respondent will file a statement, the circumstances under which the mobile phone of the petitioner is seized.
Post on 21.07.2023.
Evidence procured through irregular means is not automatically inadmissible if relevant and genuine. The investigative need to preserve potential criminal evidence, particularly regarding digital har....
The Court determined that interim custody may be granted when evidence is deemed non-essential to ongoing investigations, thereby facilitating the return of seized property.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
