SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Ker) 228

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S.DIAS
Deputy Commissioner Of Customs – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By Its Public Prosecutor – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Adv Sri.P.G. Jayashankar
For the Respondent: Sr. Pp Smt Seetha

Table of Content
1. scope of issuance of orders under section 94 of the bnss. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. court's responsibility and cooperation in grave criminal investigations. (Para 4 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. arguments related to statutory obligations in investigations. (Para 5)
4. legal interpretation of section 91 and 94 regarding document production. (Para 11 , 12)
5. modification of the order regarding the production of specific information. (Para 15)

ORDER :

C.S. DIAS, J.

Can an Investigating Officer direct a statutory authority to produce a document or thing for the purpose of investigation of a crime?

2. Aggrieved by an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge–II, Thiruvananthapuram, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs of the Thiruvananthapuram International Airport has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.

3. The petitioner was served with Annexure A1 order passed under Section 94 (1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (‘ BNSS ’, in short), directing him to furnish the details of the customs officers who were on duty in the Thiruvananthapuram International Airport on 09.07.2025 between 06.00 p.m. and 09.00 p.m., including their designation, official addresses and mobile numb

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT vs STATE OF KERALA - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 18894: The treatment is unclear. The snippet describes an appeal against an order by the Additional Sessions Judge–II, with opposition from the Public Prosecutor and reference to "State of Kerala and another." No keywords or phrases (e.g., overruled, reversed, followed, distinguished) indicate judicial treatment by subsequent decisions. It appears to be a descriptive case summary rather than an analysis of treatment.

Sarath Kumar VS State of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor - 2019 0 Supreme(Ker) 700: The treatment is unclear. The snippet states a legal principle regarding Sec.233(3) of Cr.P.C., explaining what an accused is entitled to and limitations on issuing process. No keywords or phrases indicate how this case has been treated in subsequent decisions (e.g., followed, overruled, criticized). It appears to articulate a rule without referencing treatment patterns.

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top