Kerala High CourtWilliam Scott Pinckney vs State Of Kerala on 26 August, 1994IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                                     PRESENT:

                     THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

               THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2014/19TH ASHADHA, 1936

                                          Crl.MC.No. 3829 of 2014 ()
                                               ---------------------------
           CRL.MP. NO.1031/2014 OF SESSIONS COURT, KALPETTA, WAYANAD.
                   CRIME NO. 223/2011 OF AMBALAVAYAL POLICE STATION.
                                                           .....

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.2, 4 & 7:
--------------------------------------------------------

        1. WILLIAM SCOTT PINCKNEY,
           K-207, SAINIK FARMS, DELHI-110 062.

        2. ANSHU BUDHRAJA,
           HOUSE NO.10 A, PASCHIM MARG,
           DLF PHASE NO.1, GURGUAON, HARYANA-122 001.

        3. SANJAY MALHOTRA, A-145,
            SECTOR 15, NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH.

           BY DR.K.P.SATHEESAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE.
                ADVS. SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD,
                          SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM),
                          SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR,
                          SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN,
                          SRI.SIDDHARTH KRISHNAN.

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:
----------------------------------------------------------------

        1. STATE OF KERALA,
           REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
           HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
           KOCHI-682 031.

        2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
           AMBALAVAYAL POLICE STATION,
           WAYANAD-673 593.


           BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.P. MAYA.


           THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
           ON 10-07-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
           FOLLOWING:

rs.

Crl.MC.No. 3829 of 2014


                                 APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-


ANNEXURE I:    TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R. REGISTERED BY THE
               2ND RESPONDENT ON 11.07.2011.

ANNEXURE II: TRUE COPY OF THE SIA APPROVAL LETTER NO.FC II: 471 (84)/
               594(84) DATED 26.08.1994.

ANNEXURE III: TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES FRAMED BY THE STATE OF
               KERALA RELATING TO DIRECT SELLING BUSINESS IN KERALA
               AS G.O.(M.S) NO.190/2011/IVYVADATED 12.09.2011.

ANNEXURE IV: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.23243/B1/11/ID
               DATED 07.10.2011 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF
               SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TO THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
               OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

ANNEXURE V: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.24529/B1/11/ID
               DATED 07.10.2011.

ANNEXURE VI: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.05.2013 IN
               BAIL APPL. NOS.2637/2013, 2688/2013 AND 2639/2013.

ANNEXURE VII: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CHIEF JUDICIAL
               MAGISTRATE, KALPETTA DATED 28.05.2013 IN C.M.P.NO.3458/2011,
               3459/2011 AND 3460/2011.

ANNEXURE VIII: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.07.2014 IN
               CRL.M.P.NO.1031/2014 IN CRIME NO.223/2011 OF AMBALAVAYAL
               POLICE STATION PASSED BY THE SESSIONS JUDGE, KALPETTA,
               WAYANAD.


RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:-               NIL.




                                             //TRUE COPY//


                                             P.A. TO JUDGE

rs.



                            K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
            ------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Crl. M.C. No.3829 of 2014
           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Dated this the 10th day of July, 2014


                                     O R D E RThis criminal miscellaneous case is filed by

petitioners, who are accused Nos. 2, 4 and 7 in Crime

No.223/2011 of Ambalavayal police station, challenging the

condition imposed by the Sessions Judge, Kalpetta, in

Crl.M.P.1031/2014 underSection 482of the Code of

Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the 'Code').2.      It is alleged in the petition that, petitioners

were arrayed as accused Nos. 2, 4 and 7 in Crime

No.223/2011 of Ambalavayal police station.                                   Though the

crime was registered in the year 2011, petitioners were not

summoned by the investigating officer, till date. According

to the petitioners, in fact, no investigation is going on and it

is in stand still position. In the meantime, petitioners were

arrested in connection with some other crimes and they

were released on bail on the same day by the learnedCRMC.3829/ 20142magistrate before whom they were produced. Then they

came to know about the pendency of this crime. So they

filed Crl.M.P.No.1031/2014 for anticipatory bail before the

Sessions Court, Wayanad, and the learned Sessions Judge

by Annexure-8 order granted anticipatory bail with

following conditions:"The petitioners A1, A3 and A6 shall be released
     on bail by the Investigating Officer on execution of bond
     for  One lakh each with two solvent sureties of the like
     amount each in the event of their arrest.       They are
     directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer
     within 10 days.    On their surrender, after arrest and
     execution of bond stated above, subsequent to the
     custodial interrogation, they shall be produced before
     the Magistrate concerned who shall dispose of the
     regular bail application if any filed on their behalf
     without delay. They shall report before the investigating
     officer on every Monday and Thursday between 10 and
     11 am till the regular bail is obtained from the
     competent court".3.  The condition being challenged by the

petitioner, is to surrender the petitioner before the

investigating officer, within ten days by filing this petition.4.  Heard the learned counsel for the petitionerCRMC.3829/ 20143and learned Public Prosecutor.5.  The counsel for the petitioner submitted

that, in fact after directing the arresting officer to release

them on bail, there is no necessity to surrender for further

interrogation within ten days. The learned Sessions Judge

ought to have directed them to appear as and when

required alone. The counsel for the petitioner also

submitted that, the rank of the petitioners shown as

accused Nos. 1, 3 and 6 in the order is a mistake and in fact

they are accused Nos. 2, 4 and 7.6.  The application was opposed by the learned

Public Prosecutor on the ground that, they were absconding

after the event.7.  It is an admitted fact that, the petitioner has

been arrayed as accused Nos. 2, 4 and 7, according to the

petitioners wrongly shown as 1, 3 and 6 in the impugned

order in crime No.223/2011 of Ambalavayal police station,CRMC.3829/ 20144alleging offence underSection 420of the Indian Penal Code

andSection 3&4of Prize Chits and Money Circulation

Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. It is also an admitted fact

that they were accused in another case also. In that case

anticipatory bail was granted by this court and they

appeared before the investigating officer in that case, as

directed by this court and at that time another new crime

was registered and in that they were arrested and produced

before the court and later released on bail. At that time

they came to know about the present crime. So they moved

the Sessions Court, Wayanad, by filing Crl.M.P.1031/2014

and the learned Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail.8.  According to the petitioner, there is no

necessity to surrender before the investigating officer

within ten days, as directed, but instead as and when their

presence is required, if the investigating officer issues

notice asking for them to surrender is sufficient.      ButCRMC.3829/ 20145considering the fact that, this court feels that, normally in a

case where anticipatory bail is granted where interrogation

is required, they will be directed to surrender before the

investigating officer and after interrogation, and the

investigating officer wants to arrest them, record the arrest

and if they are produced before the court on the same day,

then the magistrate will be directed to grant bail on certain

conditions. So I feel that, there is some ambiguity in the

order passed by the court below, which requires some

clarification. So this court feels that, the result portion of

the order passed by the court below can be modified as

follows:The petitioners are directed to surrender

     before    the   investigating  officer   in   Crime

     No.223/2011 of Ambalavayal police station,

     within 15 days from today and if they surrender

     before     the    investigating    officer,    afterCRMC.3829/ 20146interrogating them and if the arrest is required

     after recording their arrest, produce them before

     the concerned magistrate court on the same

     date, on such production, if the petitioners

     applies for regular bail before that court, then

     the learned magistrate is directed to release

     them on bail on executing a bond for  1,00,000/-

     with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to

     the satisfaction of the concerned magistrate and

     the      petitioner   shall appear    before   the

     investigating     officer  for the    purpose   of

     interrogation on the last Saturday of every

     month between 9.00 a.m., and 10.00 a.m., for a

     period of two months and thereafter, as and

     when required in connection with the above

     crime in writing to do so, till the final report is

     filed. The petitioners shall co-operate with theCRMC.3829/ 20147investigation of the case as well.With the above modification, this criminal

miscellaneous case is disposed of. Office is directed to

communicate     this   order     to    the  concerned     court,

immediately.Sd/-K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

                         // True Copy //

                                                 P.A. to Judge

ss