A petition has been filed before the Advocate General of Kerala seeking sanction to move a contempt of court petition against Sumit Kumar, Customs Commissioner (Preventive), Kochi for filing a statement regarding the Dollar smuggling case in the High Court
Advocate General K. Sudhakara Prasad issued notice to the Customs Commissioner on the sanction petition filed by K.J. Jacob, CPI(M) leader and former Opposition leader in the Kochi Corporation.
The Commissioner statement had said in his statement that Swapna Suresh, prime accused in the gold smuggling case, had stated that smuggling of foreign currency was carried out at the instance of Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and Assembly Speaker P. Sreeramakrishnan.
According to Mr. Jacob, the Customs Commissioner was not a respondent in the petition filed by the government challenging certain observations in the Ernakulam Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Court' order providing security to Swapna Suresh inside the prison.
The petitioner said that the Commissioner had revealed the statements of Swapna Suresh, recorded under section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code(Cr. P.C)before the magistrate court. According to the petitioner, the statement of Swapna Suresh was not relevant for the consideration of the petition filed by the State government.
He said that it was settled law that a copy of the statements recorded under 164 of the Cr.P.C. could be given only to the investigation offcier and it could be used only by the investigation officer for proceedings with the investigation. Besides, the contents of 164 statements should not be passed on to anybody or made public. In fact, the Customs Commissioner was not an investigation officer in the gold smuggling case in which the statement of Swapna Suresh was allegedly recorded. The Customs Commissioner's sole intention was to reveal the contents of the statement. The revealing and publication of the contents of the 164 statement were vitiated by mala fides. The reasonable presumption that could be drawn from the acts of the Commissioner who was neither a party to the government's petition nor the investigation officer in the gold smuggling case was that he had filed it under the dictates of the ruling dispensation at the Centre and his attempt was only to convert the High Court into a political arena to please his political masters.
The action of the Customs Commissioner was nothing but interference with the due course of the judicial proceedings pending in the High Court. The malicious and improper use of legal proceedings to further political causes was an abuse of process of the court. He had filed the statement without any authority and affected outside parties, leading to criminal contempt. He had used the judicial process to malign those in a higher order of the political executive of the state, he added
The petitioner, therefore, sought sanction of the Advocate General to move before the High Court to prosecute the Customs Commissioner under section 2(c) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971.
