Back
2002 Supreme(Bom) 102
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(AURANGABAD BENCH)
S.S. Parkar D.S. Zoting, JJ.
Baban Khandu Rajput .... Petitioner.
Versus
State of Maharashtra others.... Respondents.
Criminal Writ Petition No. 182 of 1990, decided on 30-1-2002.
Advocates appeared :
V.D. Sapkal appointed as amicus curiae for A.B. Kale, for petitioner.
V.B. Ghatge, A.P.P., for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 5.
D.A. Gurusahani, for respondent No. 4.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to produce detained persons before the appropriate authority and obtain orders for detention, as outlined in the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Headnote:
ILLEGAL DETENTION - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 110, Section 113, Section 41(2) - The court found that the petitioner was illegally detained for a period of two and a half days without being produced before the appropriate authority. The court highlighted the provisions of Section 110, Section 113, and Section 41(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and emphasized the requirement to produce the detained person before the Executive Magistrate and obtain orders for detention.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was illegally detained for two and a half days without being produced before the appropriate authority. The court found that the detention was without justification and with mala fide intention.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was entitled to compensation for the illegal detention and awarded a symbolic compensation of Rs. Ten thousand to be paid by the State of Maharashtra. The court also directed the State to hold an inquiry to determine the responsible officer and take further action in accordance with the law.
Issues: The main issue was the illegal detention of the petitioner and the failure to produce him before the appropriate authority. The court also considered the abuse of power by the police authorities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the detention of the petitioner without being produced before the appropriate authority was illegal and with mala fide intention. The court emphasized the need to adhere to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the production of detained persons before the Executive Magistrate and obtaining orders for detention.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the court awarded compensation of Rs. Ten thousand to the petitioner, to be paid by the State of Maharashtra. The State was directed to hold an inquiry to determine the responsible officer and take further action in accordance with the law.
2. Certain undisputed facts leading to the filing of the present petition are as follows.
One Uttam Jaywant Chavan was a witness in criminal case filed against the petitioner by Dhawale at C.R. No. 86 of 1988 for offence under sections 324, 504 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The date of the said complaint was 15-5-1988. Criminal case was already pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Newasa. The complaint was lodged by the witness Uttam Chavan that threats were held out to him and, therefore, the petitioner came to be arrested on 5-5-1990 and kept in police custody and chapter proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under section 110 of Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner though arrested on 5-5-1990, he was produced before the Executive Magistrate only on 7-5-1990, on which date he was released on furnishing bond of Rs. One Thousand.
3. On behalf of the petitioner, it is contended firstly that there was no case made out for initiation of proceedings under section 110 of Criminal Procedure Code against the petitioner. Secondly, it is contended that the petitioner ought to have been produced before the Magistrate and obtained orders for his detention in custody. Thirdly, it is contended that in any event the petitioner ought to have been produced within 24 hours before the Executive Magistrate i.e. on the following morning of 6th May, 1990. It is alleged that the petitioner was, deliberately detained in custody without orders and kept under detention for a period of 2 days without production before the Magistrate at the instance of the complainant Uttam Chavan who was a witness in the earlier proceedings pending against the petitioner. It was pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that similar proceedings were initiated by the said Police Station against the petitioner in the year 1988 under section 107 of Criminal Procedure Code on the complaint of the very witness Uttam Chavan. The said proceedings bear Chapter Case No. 102 of 1988. The crux of the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that, it is the respondent No. 4 P.S.I. Pawar who was at the relevant time Incharge of the Newasa Police Station, who is responsible for the illegal detention of the petitioner.
4. The said respondent has filed his reply affidavit dated 9-7-1990. In para 7 of the said affidavit, he has stated that the petitioner was arrested on 5-5-1990 by the then Police Officer Incharge of Newasa Police Station when the respondent No. 4 had gone out for bandobast duty and that he had not arrest or detained the petitioner. He had signed the report dated 5-5-1990 placed before him by his subordinate who had arrested the petitioner. In support of his say, the record from the Police Station has been produced. Heavy reliance is placed of behalf of the respondent No. 4 on the station diary entry for the relevant dates.
5. We find from the station diary entry dated 5-5-1990 at Serial No. 6 that he had left the Police Station for Bandobast duty at 8.00 a.m. on that day. The entries of the same date at serial Nos. 25 and 26 show that he had come back to the Newasa Police Station at 8.15 p.m. on that day when the Head Constable gave back the charge of the Police Station to him. The entry at serial No. 28 of the station diary shows that the charge of the Police Station was again handed over to Head Constable at 9.35 p.m. on 5-5-1990. At serial No. 13, the station diary entry dated 5-5-1990 shows the arrest
