Prof. Sabu Thomas v. State of Kerala and Station House Officer, Gandhi Nagar Police Station, Kottayam

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/20168TH BHADRA, 1938** **WP(C).No. 27708 of 2016 (K)** **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** **-------------** **PROF.SABU THOMAS, DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL AND INTER UNIVERSITY CENTRE FOR NANOSCIENCE AND NANOTECHNOLOGY, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM - 686 560.** **BY ADVS.SRI.K.NIRMALAN SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** ## **2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER,** **GANDHI NAGAR POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM - 686 560.** **BY ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **msv/** ## **WP(C).No. 27708 of 2016 (K)** ## **----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-----------------------** **EXBT.P1 PRINT OUT OF THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE EXBT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.806 OF 2014 OF GANDHI NAGAR POLICE STATION EXBT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATD 2.8.2013 EXBT.P4 TRUE COY OF THE POLITICAL CLEARANCE DATED 27.8.2013 EXBT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE INVITATION LETTER DATED 27.8.2013 EXBT.P6 TRUE COPY OF TH LETTER DATED 25.9.2013 EXBT.P7 PRINT OUT OF THE EMAIL DATD 26.9.2016** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:** **------------------------** ## **NIL** ## **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S.TO JUDGE** **Msv/** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C). No. 27708 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 30[th] August, 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **JUDGMENT** 1.The petitioner is the Director of International and Inter University Centre for Nanoscience and Nanotechnology of Mahatma Gandhi University. He had organized an International Conference on Advanced Polymeric Materials (ICAPM, 2013) during 11[th] to 13[th] of October, 2013. Several International Delegates were invited to participate in the said Conference. 2.The prosecution alleges that the petitioner had misled the International delegates and had informed them that they need only take Tourist Visa instead of a Conference Visa to participate in the Conference. Much after completion of the conference as aforesaid, on 6.7.2015 Crime No.806 of 2014 was registered against the petitioner under Section 3 W.P.C. No. 27708 of 2016 -2- - (2)(c) read with Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. - 3.The investigation was carried out by the Station House Officer of the Gandhi Nagar Police Station and a negative report was submitted before the District Police Chief. Later, it appears that a report was submitted to re-open the investigation and the same is pending. - 4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. - 5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein is a well-known Academician and Scientist of international repute and the registration of crime as against him is nothing but an abuse of process of law. Referring to the decision of this Court in **Jonathan Baud v. State of Kerala and Another** (2015 (1) KHC 146), it is contended by the learned counsel that a tourist who visits India on a valid visa would not be violating the provisions of any law on W.P.C. No. 27708 of 2016 -3- the sole ground that he had attended a conference. - 6.The learned ADGP on the other hand submits that the decision of this Court in **Jonathan Baud** (supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. It is submitted that several international delegates were persuaded by the petitioner to take Tourist Visa instead of a Conference Visa and only a detailed investigation will reveal the intentions of the petitioner in the instant case. It is submitted that the offence alleged against the petitioner is squarely attracted and there is no reason to interfere at this particular stage. - 7.I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the materials on record. - 8.It is borne out from Ext.P3 that the petitioner had received a communication from the Ministry of Home Affairs, Foreigners Division on 2.8.2013 with specific instructions as to how the foreign participants should W.P.C. No. 27708 of 2016 -4- obtain Visa for attending the International Conference. Ext.P4 also reveals that the Ministry of External Affairs had intimated that the Ministry has no objection from a political angle for the proposed conference with foreign participants as stated in the request submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner was also directed to obtain clearance from the Ministry of Home Affairs and other competent authorities of the Government of India. The petitioner also produced Ext.P5 which is the official invitation letter sent by the petitioner to various participants. The petitioner also states that by Ext.P6 communication he had issued a letter addressed to the Under Secretary to the Government of India, wherein he has specifically stated that his accounts were hacked. He reiterates in the said communication addressed to the Under Secretary to the Government of India that all required clearances were obtained by him and the W.P.C. No. 27708 of 2016 -5- requirement of VISA was intimated to all the participants. 9.Having considered the materials on record and after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned ADGP, I am of the considered view that the continuance of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner is unwarranted. I also take note of the decision of this Court in **Jonathan Baud** (supra), wherein this Court had held that the application and enforcement of law without assimilating the spirit and without imbibing the objective will deface the law enforcement machinery and the judicial system. It is borne out from the records that the petitioner had secured all clearances and permissions required from the Ministry of Home Affairs and all that he had done was to hold a Conference on Advanced Polymeric Materials. The Conference was purely academic in nature and the mere fact that certain international delegates had attended the conference on W.P.C. No. 27708 of 2016 -6- the strength of a tourist VISA is not a reason to chase the petitioner by initiating a criminal proceeding. There is no case for the prosecution that any other provision of law was violated. It is borne out from the records that the petitioner is a well-known Academician and he is also a person who has been shortlisted to the post of Vice Chancellor to the M.G. University. It does not appear from the records that any intentional act was committed by the petitioner, more so when Ext.P7 reveals that he had issued communication to the participants that Conference Visa is in fact required to attend the conference. It also appears from Exts.P3 to P5 that all safeguards that are mandated under law have been taken care of by the petitioner. 10.Having considered all the relevant aspects, I am of the view that the continuance of the proceedings as against the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process of court. W.P.C. No. 27708 of 2016 -7- This petition is allowed. Ext.P2 and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner herein are quashed. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE** kp/-31.8.16