IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH TUESDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 22ND MAGHA, 1946 OP(CRL.) NO. 896 OF 2024 CC NO.1332 OF 2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KATTAKADA PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN CMP 5378/2024/COMPLAINANT IN CC

1332/2019:

KRISHNAN KARTHA AGED 56 YEARS S/O. LATE SRIKANDAN KARTHA, RESIDING AT 'DAKSHINIYAM', NEAR POLICE COLONY PULIYARAKONAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695573 BY ADVS.

ARUN KUMAR.P THIYYANNOOR RAMAKRISHNAN AMBIKA RADHAKRISHNAN KAVYA SURESH RESPONDENT/COUNTER PETITIONER IN CMP 5378/2024/ACCUSED IN CC

1332/2019: :

K. DINAKARAN, S/O JANARDHANAN, SECRETARY, KERALA THEOSOPHICAL FEDERATION, RESIDING AT 'SAROJA’, TRIKKUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680306 BY ADV K.P.SURESH KUMAR OTHER PRESENT:

M.P. PRASANTH, PP THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

11.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is the complainant in C.C.No.1332 of 2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kattakkada (for short 'the trial court') and the respondent herein is the accused. The offence alleged is punishable under Section 500 of IPC. The case was taken on file based on a private complaint filed by the petitioner. The allegation in the complaint is that the respondent published defamatory allegations against him through the medium of WhatsApp through an account generated by a particular SIM inserted in the mobile phone of the respondent. The said mobile phone has been seized and produced before the court. The petitioner filed Ext.P4 application before the trial court to send the mobile phone of the respondent so seized to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Marathahalli- Sarjapur Road, Madiwala, Venkatapura, HSR Layout 5^th Sector, Bengaluru, Karnataka for scientific examination. The said application was allowed as per Ext. P5 order. The petitioner remitted the fee for sending the mobile phone for scientific examination. Thereafter, since there was a delay on the part of the trial court to forward the mobile phone to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, the petitioner filed Ext.P7 application to depute an officer of the court to take the mobile phone to the laboratory. However, the application was dismissed as per Ext.P8 order. The said order is under challenge in this original petition.

2. I have heard Sri.Arun Kumar.P, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.M.P. Prasanth., the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. Ext. P7 application was dismissed as per Ext. P8 order on the ground that no provision of law had been cited to enable the court to issue the warrant to depute a court staff to take the mobile phone to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Bengaluru. When Ext.P5 order was passed by the trial court to send the mobile phone in question to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, it is upto the trial court to take effective steps to ensure that the mobile phone reached the State Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. It is quite strange to note that even though Ext.P5 order was passed as early as on 30/10/2021, so far no steps have been taken by the trial court to forward the mobile phone to the State Forensic Science Laboratory.

4. In the absence of a specific provision in this regard, I directed the learned Public Prosecutor to take instructions as to the practice followed in the trial court. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the practice followed in the trial court is that the Chief Ministerial Officer would either send the material object for examination to the State Forensic Science Laboratory through a courier service or depute a court staff to take the material object to the State Forensic Science Laboratory.

5. In the above circumstances, the impugned order dismissing Ext.P7 application on the ground that no provision of law was cited cannot be sustained and accordingly it is set aside. Ext.P7 application stands allowed. The trial court is directed to depute a