The main legal point established in the judgment is that the accused's act of slapping a government servant while on duty constituted an offence under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, and the release of the accused on admonition under the Probation of Offenders Act was not warranted.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties both the writ petitions are taken for final hearing and disposed at the admission stage itself.

2. Heard learned Amicus Curiae Senior Counsel Shri S.D. Lotlikar, appointed by this Court to assist the Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition No.1/2013. Also heard learned Senior Counsel Shri S.G. Dessai in Writ Petition No.101/2013, representing the writ petitioner, the original accused. Also heard Prosecutors representing the State in both the writ petitions.

3. At the threshold, it must be mentioned that the Writ Petition No.1/2013 is a Suo Motu Writ Petition taken up by this Court by giving suitable directions vide order dated 24/01/2013 (Coram : F.M. Reis, J.). Said directions were given in two proceedings filed before this Court, one being Criminal Revision Application No.49/2012 and another one being Criminal Writ Petition No.9/2013. In both these proceedings filed by the private individuals, not concerned with the matter, prayer was made to this Court to Suo Motu take up the cognizance of the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao in Criminal Revision Application No.78/2011. When initially these proceedings were filed before this Court, both the petitioners tried to persuade the Court to interfere in the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge as mentioned above. However, apparently, both the petitioners had no locus standi and were not in any way concerned with the judgment which they wanted to challenge. Therefore, they requested that this Court should take suo motu cognizance and remedy the irregularities/illegalities committed while passing said judgment and order in Criminal Revision Application no.78/2011. On those submissions, this Court appointed learned Senior Counsel Shri S.D. Lotlikar as amicus curiae to address the Court so also the learned Public Prosecutor was permitted to make the submissions. By detailed order dated 24/01/2013, this Court entertained the request of the petitioner and passed appropriate orders. Last three paragraphs read thus:

“10. Considering the said aspect, I find that both the above petitions are to be disposed of with direction to the learned Registrar of this Court to register a Suo Moto Writ Petition to consider the correctness, legality or propriety of the said judgment in the context of the matters referred to herein above in the said judgment dated 13.12.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The learned Registrar is also directed to annex all the annexures of both the above petitions to the said Suo Moto Writ Petition. The respondents herein above mentioned shall be respondents to such petition.

11. Rule.

12. Shri Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel is appointed as Amicus Curiae in the said Suo Moto Writ Petition.”

4. Certain factual position finally leading to the passing of the impugned judgment and order in the Criminal Revision Application no.78/2011, is narrated hereunder with advantage so as to have proper perspective of the matter and in order to ascertain as to how the case was initiated against the present respondent no.1 in the Suo Motu Writ Petition No.1/2013 and who is also the writ petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No.101/2013.

5. On 15/07/2006, FIR No.56/2006 was lodged by one Kapil Natekar, employee from Government Electrical Department against then minister, Shri Fransciso Xavier @ Mickky Pacheco. The said FIR was lodged for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 353 and 504 of Indian Penal Code. Said FIR was lodged on account of the incident of slapping said Kapil Natekar in the chamber of the respondent/accused on 15/07/2006. Kapil Natekar was called to the office of the respondent/accused on account of the episode which occurred on the earlier day in the office of the electrical department of said complainant Kapil Natekar. On that earlier day, a telephone call was made by Personal Assistant of the respondent/accused, the call w