T.T. ANTONY VS. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS ON JULY 12 ,2001.

Spread the love

Post Views: 1,700

CITATION	2001 6 SCC 181
DATE OF JUDGMENT	12 JULY 2001
COURT	SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CASE TYPE	CRIMINAL APPEAL 689 OF 2001
APPELLANT	T.T.ANTONY
RESPONDENT	STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS
BENCH	S.S.M.QUADRI,S.N.PHUKAN
REFERRED	SECTION 149,143,147,148,307 IPC

Facts of the Case

Few appeals arose from the judgment given by the division bench of Kerala High Court at Ernakulam in WA Nos. 2708/1999, 2709/1999, 2710/1999, 8/2000, 52/2000 and 200/2000 has been dated on February 29, 2000. Criminal Appeal NO. of 2001 (arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.1522/2000) is filed by T.T. Antony, Deputy Collector and Executive Magistrate, Kannur; Civil Appeal No. of 2001 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 8840/2000) is filed by fourteen police constables; and Criminal Appeal Nos. of 2001 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos. 2724-25/2000 are filed by the State of Kerala.

All these appeals are related to the same incident and the the question of facts and law which are raised in these appeals are same so they all are dealt together

The facts which are giving rise to these appeals are

There was one Mr.M.V.Raghavan who in the past was a comrade in arms in C.P.I(M)and also an M.L.A of that for around 15 years, The Communist Party of India was having a very indestructible hold in Kannur District which is in Kerala.

M.V.Raghavan who was once a part of the party broke out from thatCommunist Party of India and formed his separate new party which he named as Communist Marxist Party or CMP.later on by the ticket of this party from the Azhikode Constituency of Kannur District he was elected as an M.L.A.and then the CMP became a constituent of United Democratic Front that formed the government and was in power at that time in kerala.

M.V.Raghavan at that time became the Minister in UDF Government .So his this position gave rise to the sense of retaliation among the members of C.P.I and in that retribution they just took it upon themselves and prevented the visit of him in Kannur District.

On January 1993 when Mr. Raghavan visited Azhikkal in Kannur District then during the course of his visit a few bombs were hurled on him.

By taking into consideration that incident the government at that time ordered for a more elaborate form of security arrangements for all his visits to the district of Kannur.

Then later on the Ministers finalized his visit on 25 November 1994 in the Kannur District in order to inaugurate the evening branch of the Co operative Urban Bank.

That was the auspicious occasion from the people of kannur but that happiness was not for the long time it turned out to be an ill starred day for the people who were gather among those people five persons died and six got injured by the firing done by the Police at two different places one in the town hall area and another one in the vicinity of police station, in order to protect the Minister and public and private properties.not only this the police firing was followed by the lathi charge which resulted into more than hundred people got injured and even few police personnels also got injured because of such Lathi charge.

Later on the same day that is on 25 November,1994 the crimes were registered in the police station ,the crime which took place in the town hall with regard to that crime the complainat was registered by Assistant Superintendent of Police of Thalassery as a Crime no No.353/94

In Kuthuparamba Police Station under Sections 143,147,148,322,353,324,307 that should be read with section 149 of IPC, Section 3(2)(e) of P.D.P.P.Act and Sections 3 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act against eight persons whose names were known and many persons who are unidentifiable they belong to CPI including the president of DYFI.and with regard to vicinity police station incident the Superintendent of Police had registered the Crime No 354/94 under sections 143,147,148,427,307 that should be read with section 149 of IPC and Section 3 (2)(e) of P.D.P.A Act against an unidentifiable persons of CPI for forming an unlawful assembly .

The said incident had created a very hurdle in public and they demanded for a judicial inquiry in the matter.because of this demand from the public the Kerala government had appointed Mr.K.Padmanabhan Nair ,who was at that time the learned district and the Session Judge and Thalassary for the inquiry in the matter under section 3 (1)of the Commission of the Inquiry Act,1952 .

Following matters were given to them to inquire

Under which circumstances the police officers are forced to fire on 25.11.94 at kannur district which led to the death of five persons and ijured other person
Whether the firing which was done by the police on that day was of justifiable nature
Who are the person responsible for the firing
Whether such matters are incidential

Later on in 1996 election UDF lost and it led to the win of LDF which was headed by CPI they came to power in kerala after that the said government inquired into the incident which took place on 25 November 1994 and they submitted the report that

M.V.Raghavan was aware of the incident which at that time was going to took place because of his visit for inaugural function of the evening branch despite of the fact he went there which led to the firing by the police officials and the lathi charge and hey also held T.TAntony responsible for firing because he wasn’t able to control the situation and resulted in the firing because of which five persons died and many people got injured.
They submitted that the police firing was not justified.
According to them Sri M.V.Raghavan, the former Minister for Co- operation and Ports. Sri Abdul Hakkim Bathery Dy.S.P.Kannur and Sri T.T.Antony former Dy.Collector, Kannur were responsible for the police firing.”

The said report of the commision was accepted by the government

Then three Writ Petitions were filed in the High Court of Kerala quashing the F.IR

Arguments

The learned senior counsel contended that the allegations against him do not constitute any offence; they relate to discharge of his official duties in evaluating the law and order situation at Kuthuparamba in the following background : a mob of about 2000 DYFI workers assembled in front of Town Hall, the venue of the Minister’s programme, and on arrival of the Minister, the crowd surged forward which prompted the Dy.S.P. and the police party under him, who were on escort duty with the Minister, to lathi charge; the agitated crowd turned violent and pelted stones at the police and motorcade of the Minister, set fire the Government vehicles parked in the nearby electricity office and indulged in arson; on finding that both the lathi charge as well as tear gas shells failed to control the mob, he ordered the ASP to disperse the mob by resorting to firing. It was pointed out that the Inquiry Commission also found that DYFI had resorted to a very crude and uncivilized form of agitation. The learned counsel for the accused have argued that registration of a fresh information in respect of the very same incident as an FIR under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. is not valid, therefore all the steps taken pursuant thereto including investigation are illegal and liable to be quashed. The learned Solicitor General countered them stating that no illegality can be attached to the second FIR or the investigation made thereunder as nothing prevented the investigating agency from making further investigation on the basis of the first FIR in view of the subsequent information received and forwarding a further report; at any rate, the objection is merely one of a form and not of substance and it makes no difference so far as the final report is concerned.

On these contentions, four points arise for determination:

(i) whether registration of a fresh case, Crime No.268/97, Kuthuparamba Police Station on the basis of the letter of the DGP dated July 2, 1997 which is in the nature of the second FIR under Section 154 of Cr.P.C., is valid and can it form the basis of a fresh investigation?

(ii) whether the appellants in Appeal Nos.

__________(arising out of SLP(Crl.) 1522/00 and SLP(C) 8840/00) and respondent in Appeal Nos. (arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos. 2724-25/00) have otherwise made out a case for quashing of proceedings Crime No.268/97 Kuthuparamba Police Station ;

(iii) what is the effect of the report of Sri. K.

Padmanabhan Commission of Inquiry; and

(iv) whether the facts and the circumstances of the case justify a fresh investigation by CBI.

Judgment

The supreme court in this case held that there cannot be the second FIR for the same issue

According to the courtthere cannot be any subsequent FIR and cannot be any fresh investigation on receipt of every ensuring data concerning a similar cognizable offence or similar event or occurrence leading to at least one offence.

This case analysis is written by Hidatul Fatima intern under legal vidhiya.