Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 25725
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
SOJAN SCARIA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC 7345 2023
C.G.PREETHA
The court affirmed the principle that while investigations are crucial, the rights of individuals and the operational needs of businesses must also be protected.
Headnote:
Atrocities - Company Seizure - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Secs. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(u) and Kerala Police Act, 2011 - Sec. 120(O) - The court emphasized the need for rapid release of seized materials necessary for the company's operations despite ongoing investigations.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a director of a media company, sought the release of equipment seized in connection with allegations of defamation under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The police seized items essential for the company's operations during their investigation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the seizure of all equipment excessive and not justified given the need for the company to operate. It determined the items could be released while allowing for future examinations if necessary.
Issues: Whether the seizure of equipment was necessary and justified under the circumstances, and if so, whether the items should be returned to enable the company to perform its day-to-day operations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the entire seizure was unnecessary for the investigation as the case relied on oral evidence and that items should be returned promptly to the petitioner.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition for the release of seized articles along with conditions imposed.
O R D E R
The petitioner is one of the two directors of a Company named Tidings Digital Publications Private Limited. The Company is registered with the Registrar of Companies, Kerala is the submission. In June 2023, the 1st respondent has registered a criminal case against the Managing Director and two former employees of the company as Crime No. 899/2023 alleging offences punishable under Secs. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(u) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 r/w Sec. 120(O) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 . The defacto complainant is a Member of the Legislative Assembly of the State. Annexure-A3 is the FIR.
2. The prosecution case is that on 24.05.2023, the accused through their online news channel 'Marunadan Malayali' telecasted a video containing certain false news and information about the defacto complainant who belongs to the Scheduled Caste intending to insult and defame him among the public. The Police conducted search of the Company's office at Thiruvananthapuram in connection with the investigation in the above case and seized cameras, monitors, micro phones, laptops, CCTV DVR etc. It is submitted that under the guise of investigation in connection with the case, the respondents issued instructions to the bankers of the Company and freezed the accounts maintained with the SBI, Kowdiar Branch and Federal Bank, Pattom Branch. The search was conducted on 27.06.2023 and 03.07.2023. Annexures-A4 & A5 are the seizure mahazars.
3. On 10.07.2023, the petitioner filed a petition under Sec. 457 Cr.P.C. seeking the release of the articles seized by the police. Annexure-A6 is the petition. The petitioner also filed another application as Crl.M.P.No. 2779/2023 seeking orders directing de-freezing of the Company's bank accounts. When there was delay in passing orders, the petitioner approached this Court and this Court called for a report.
Thereafter, the order is passed dismissing the application. Annexure-A7 is the order rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner for releasing the articles as evident by Annexure-
A6. Aggrieved by the same, this Crl.M.C. is filed.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in the Crl.M.C. The counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the articles seized are necessary to the petitioner's channel for the day to day affairs. It is submitted that the cameras, monitors, micro phones, laptops, CCTV DVR etc. are seized. The Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the petition. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is only one among the Directors and he is not the custodian. But the counsel for the petitioner submitted that Annexures A1 and A2 are the letter of appointment and extract of board of resolution passed by the Company. In the light of Annexures A1 and A2, the contention of the Public Prosecutor will not stand.
6. Annexure-A7 is the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the application mainly for the reason that seized articles have to be forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) and the FSL report is necessary. It is submitted that the FSL report has not been received and therefore, the articles cannot be released. Now, the Public Prosecutor after getting instructions submitted that a forwarding note in respect of all the items seized excluding monitor and camera were sent to the Hon'ble District and Sessions Court for forwarding those items to Regional Forensic Science Laboratory (RFSL) for examination. It is also submitted by the prosecution that as per the forwarding note, the items had been sent to the RFSL, Thrippunithura by the Court on 25.07.2023. But the items were returned by RFSL, Thrippunithura to the District and Sessions Court vide letter No. B1-2350/2023/RFSL-EKM for want of additional sterile hard disk with double capacity for conducting the examination of data c
