Navteq India Private Limited v. State of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/30TH KARTHIKA, 1935 Crl.MC.No. 4673 of 2013 () --------------------------- CRIME NO. 105/2013 OF PONKUNNAM POLICE STATION , KOTTAYAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------- NAVTEQ INDIA PVT LTD AGED 39 YEARS A REGISTERED COMPANY HAVING ITS OFFICE AT UNITNO.407-408, 4TH FLOOR TOWER A, REPRESENTED BY ITSLEGAL COUNSEL, VINAY NAIR S/O.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR BY ADVS.SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ SRI. D. FERDINAND SMT.VINEETHA B. SRI.NIRMAL V NAIR RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM (CRIME NUMBER 105/2013 OF PONKUNNAM POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM). BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI RAJESH VIJAYAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-11-2013 ALONG WITH CRL.M.C.NO.4674/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 4673 of 2013 () --------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ---------------------- ANNEXURE-A1: A TRUE COPY OF MINISTRY OF DEFENCE BY LETTER NO.2(8)/ 2008-D(GS-III) DATED 6TH JUNE 2012 ANNEXURE-A2: A TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.NAVTEQ/2012-AUG-0010 DATED 24TH AUGUST 2012 SENT TO THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KERALA ANNEXURE-A3: A TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NUMBER 105/2013 OF PONKUNNAM POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM ANNEXURE-A4: A TRUE COPY OF SEIZER REPORT DATED 31.1.2013 ANNEXIURE-A5 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.130/623-A3/2 DATED 11/4/2011 ALONG WITH ITS TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION. ANNEXURE-A6 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.N-972/13 DATED 14/4/2013. ANNEXURE-A7 TRUE COPY OF BANK GUARANTEE ISSUED BY THE HDFC BANK FOR RS.50,00,000/-. ANNEXURE-A8 TRUE COPY 0F ORDER DATED NIL. BEARING NUMBER 972/13. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE ## **HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. -----------------------Crl.M.C Nos.4673 & 4674 Of 2013 ---------------------Dated this the 21[st] day of November, 2013.** ## **O R D E R** Navteq India Private limited is the petitioner in both cases. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.105/2013 & 140/2013 of Ponkunnam Police Station. 2. Petitioner company is involved in the development of Digital Maps for the use in car navigation systems, mobile phones and other devices. It is submitted that the petitioner obtained permission from the Ministry of Defence vide letter No.2(8)/ 2008-D (GS-III) dated 6.6.2012 to carryout survey, videography and mapping of various cities across India. Permission granted by the Ministry of Defence is marked as Annexure-A1. It is submitted that the petitioner is undertaking the survey of various cities in the country, including those in Kerala. The petitioner informed the Director General of Police, Kerala, vide communication marked as Annxure-A2 dated 24.8.2012 that its personnel would be undertaking the exercise of mapping in accordance with the permission already granted. The petitioner submits that on 31.1.2013, while the field consultant working on **::2::** ## **Crl.M.C.Nos.4673 & 4674 Of 2013** behalf of the company travelling in a Tata Indica car engaged in videographing various places/streets in Kottayam, was stopped by the S.I of Police, Ponkunnam and the police questioned the field consultant and the driver. They explained that the company was undertaking survey work and collection of data for making digital maps. The Police seized the car, two laptops, 4 cameras, one CPU, two Hard Discs, a computer monitor covering two cameras and other equipment belonging to the petitioner company. Seizure Mahazar was prepared and crime was registered as Crime No.105/2013 under Section 102 Cr.P.C. Annexure-A3 is the copy of the FIR. 3. The very same S.I of Police registered another Crime on 10.2.2013 while the Geography Analyst working on behalf of the petitioner company engaged in videographing various places/streets in Kottayam, the car was stopped by the Police. The police seized the car, two laptops, 4 cameras, one CPU, two hard discs, a computer monitor covering two cameras and other equipment belonging to the petitioner petitioner. The police prepared a seizure mahazar and registered Crime No.140/2013. Copy of the FIR is produced and marked as Annexure A3. Crime ## **::3::** ## **Crl.M.C.Nos.4673 & 4674 Of 2013** No.102/2013 is the subject matter of Crl.M.C.No.4673/2013 and Crime No.140/2013 is the subject matter of Crl.M.C.No.4674/2013. 4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the registration and continuance of proceedings in Crime Nos.105/2013 & 140/2013. of Ponkunnam Police station. It is submitted that the crimes were registered with vague possibility of commission of offence in the future. It is submitted that the FIR in both cases does not set out any offence or for that matter any possible offence in connection with which the property of the petitioner has been seized. The FIR sets out that the seizure has been made on the probability that the seized property may be used for commission of some unidentified offence. It is submitted that Section 102 contemplates action when a genuine and strong suspicion is aroused in the mind of the police regarding possibility of some offence being committed and that a paranoid approach cannot support an action under Section 102 of Cr.P.C. 5. In the statement filed by the S.I of Police, Ponkunnam in Crl.M.C.No.4673/2013, it is stated that on investigation it was revealed that the survey was conducted by the petitioner ## **::4::** ## **Crl.M.C.Nos.4673 & 4674 Of 2013** company as per the permission granted by the Ministry of Defence, New Delhi. It is also stated the in the order granting permission it was specifically noted in clause (i) that before conducting the survey the requisite approval/clearance from Survey of India, State Government and local authorities should be obtained by the company. But, on investigation it was known that the delegates of the petitioner company conducting survey lacks clearance or approval from Survey of India, State Government and local authorities. It is also stated that the case was later finally reported as UN on 20.7.2013. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 102 Cr.P.C can be invoked only under the circumstances i.e., when a property has been alleged to be stolen or is suspected to be stolen or is the object of the crime under investigation or has direct link with the commission of offence. From the statement filed by the S.I of Police, Ponkunnam, it is not stated that the aforesaid circumstances existed in the present case. 7. The Apex Court in the decision reported in _**Enrica Lexie M.T v. Doramma**_ (2012 KHC 4259 SC) explained the **::5::** ## **Crl.M.C.Nos.4673 & 4674 Of 2013** scope of Section 102 Cr.P.C. The Apex Court held as follows: “ _The police officer in course of investigation can seize any property under Section 102 if such property is alleged to be stolen or is suspected to be stolen or is the object of the crime under investigation or has direct link with the commission of offence for which the police officer is investigating into. A property not suspected of commission of the offence which is being investigated into by the police officer cannot be seized. Under Section 102 of the Code, the police officer can seize such property which is covered by Section 102(1) and no other.”_ 8. Crime No.105/2013 was registered on 31.1.2013 and Crime No.140/2013 on 10.2.2013. The statement was filed on 11.11.2013. The prosecution has no case that the properties seized is a stolen property or the circumstances under which the property is found create suspicion of commission of any offence. In the circumstance, the seizure of the petitioner's properties and the FIRs drawn up are totally untenable and contrary to law and as such continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner in Crime Nos.105 & 140 of 2013 of Ponkunnam Police Station are unjustifiable and liable to be quashed. **::6::** ## **Crl.M.C.Nos.4673 & 4674 Of 2013** In the result, Crl.M.Cs are allowed. The proceedings initiated against the petitioner in Crime Nos.150/2013 & 140/2013 of Ponkunnam Police station are quashed. There will be a direction to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kottayam/Sub Inspector of Police, Ponkunnam to return the articles seized in the above crimes immediately. It is made clear that the petitioner company, its field consultant or other staff shall undertake future survey subject to strict compliance of conditions stipulated in order No.2(8)/2008-D (GS-III) dated 6.6.2012 of Government of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi. **HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge.** bkn/-