IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY GOA BENCH
Manish Pitale, J.
Sanjay Shantaram & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State - Respondent
Criminal Revision Application Nos. 50, 51 of 2014, 21, 53 of 2015
Decided On : 22-12-2021
Indian Penal Code - Unlawful Assembly - Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 153, 324, 325, 326, 332, 333, 427 & 435 of IPC and Section 3 of The Prevention of Damage to Public Property act, 1984 - The court found that there was sufficient prima facie material on record to frame charges against the accused persons for the stated offences. The material indicated that the assembly of persons transformed into an unlawful assembly, leading to violence and damage to public property. The court held that there was grave suspicion against the accused, justifying framing of charges and proceeding with the trial.
Fact of the Case:
The accused persons were charge-sheeted in respect of an incident involving assembly of persons, which turned into an unlawful assembly, leading to violence, injuries to police personnel, and damage to public property. The accused persons claimed that they did not deserve to face trial as there was no prima facie case made out against them.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was sufficient prima facie material on record to frame charges against the accused persons for the stated offences. The material indicated that the assembly of persons transformed into an unlawful assembly, leading to violence and damage to public property. The court held that there was grave suspicion against the accused, justifying framing of charges and proceeding with the trial.
Issues: Whether the accused persons deserved to face trial for the stated offences, and whether there was sufficient prima facie material to frame charges against them.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to determine whether a prima facie case was made out against the accused persons. It found that the material on record raised grave suspicion against the accused, justifying framing of charges and proceeding with the trial.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the applications and vacated the interim order in favor of the accused persons. It directed the Special Court to expedite the trial in the case.
JUDGMENT
Manish Pitale, J. - These revision applications are filed by 29 out of 37 accused persons charge-sheeted in respect of an incident that took place on 19.02.2008 at Panaji, in Goa. The accused no. 1 atanasio Monserrate is a Member of the Legislative assembly of Goa, the accused no.2 is Jennifer Monserrate, now a Minister in the Government, accused no. 3 is Tony Rodrigues, the then Mayor of the Corporation of City of Panaji and other accused persons. The said accused no. 1 has not filed any revision application against the order impugned in these revision applications.
2. By the impugned order dated 12.09.2014, the Special Court for Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in Goa heard the accused persons before charge and held that, prima facie, sufficient evidence was available to frame charges against the accused persons for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 153, 324, 325, 326, 332, 333, 427 & 435 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3 of The Prevention of Damage to Public Property act, 1984, (for short, act of 1984).
3. according to the applicants, not even a prima facie case is made out against them as regards the said offences. These applications were admitted to be heard together. While admitting the applications, by an order dated 04.12.2014, this Court granted stay of further proceedings in Sessions Case no. 4 of 2014, qua the applicants, until the final disposal of the applications.
4. according to the State (through CBI), the brief facts leading to registration of offences in the present case are that, on 19.02.2008, at about 7.30 p.m., the accused no.1, his wife-accused no.2 and accused no.3 i.e. the then Mayor of the Corporation City of Panaji, along with other accused persons gathered near the house of the accused no.1 at Taleigao and thereafter proceeded with a morcha to reach the Police Station at Panaji, where they sat on a dharna. They shouted slogans against the Police and demanded the suspension of one Mr. Sudesh Rohidas Naik, Police Inspector, at the said Police Station. The grievance of the accused no.1 and the other accused persons was that the Police had failed to take any action on a complaint filed by one Ryan Godinho against certain persons for having violently attacked and wrongly confined him. The said accused persons claimed that instead of acting on the complaint filed by the said Ryan Godinho, the Police had sided with the persons who had attacked him and, therefore, the suspension of the said Police Inspector was necessary. The number of persons in the dharna outside the Police Station increased and at about 9.00 p.m., the accused no.1 addressed the morcha, giving the Police half an hour to suspend the said Police Inspector, failing which, he threatened that the persons in the morcha would enter the Police Station and teach a lesson to the Police.
5. It is alleged that some other accused persons also gave inflammatory speeches to attack the Police. The appeals of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Sub-Divisional Police Officer to the accused no.1 and the aforesaid other accused persons to maintain peace, were ignored and the accused persons repeatedly called the members of the morcha to attack them, due to which the entire mob became restless and aggressive. at this stage, the aforesaid Officers requested the accused no. 1 to come to the office of the Police Inspector at Panaji Police Station for discussion with the Police and other officials, but he declined the said request.
6. at about 9.30 p.m., the crowd pushed the Police personnel who had cordoned the Police Station and attacked them with stones, broken bottles, and other such materials. They also attacked the public property of the Panaji Police Station, including doors and glass windows by pelting stones. a motorcycle was set on fire and other vehicles were also damaged. The Police personnel had to intervene at this stage and, in the process, as many as 41 Police personnel sustained injuries, 25 out of whom had to be shifte
Akbar Sheikh & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal (2009) 7 SCC 415
Musa Khan vs. State of Maharashtra (1977) 1 SCC 733
Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya & Ors. (1990) 4 SCC 76
Sajjan Kumar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2010) 9 SCC 368
State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Shiv Charan Bansal & Ors. (2020) 2 SCC 290
State of M.P. vs. Mohanlal Soni (2000) 6 SCC 338
State of Tamil Nadu vs. N. Suresh Rajan & Ors. (2014) 11 SCC 709
Tej Bir & anr. vs. State of Haryana & anr.
Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal & anr. (1979) 3 SCC 4
Yogesh alias Sachin Jagdish Joshi vs. State of Maharashtra (2008) 10 SCC 394
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.