IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH
G.A. SANAP, J.
Ashish Devidas Morkhade – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Revision Application No. 106 of 2022
Decided On : 21-04-2023
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 59(1) –Indian Evidence Act 1872 – Section 165 – Departmental proceeding – Failure of officer in duty – Held, In Court view, therefore, decision recognizes powers of court to pass such an order – It is true that in this case, order of initiation of disciplinary action was passed – Question whether case warrants a disciplinary action or penal action depends upon facts and circumstances of each and every case – It needs to be stated that as and when it is found by any Court at any stage of proceeding that actionable wrong within meaning of Section 59 of N.D.P.S. Act has been committed then in that event it has to be approached and dealt with firmly by initiating an appropriate action – Dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
G.A. SANAP, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned Advocates for the parties.
2. In this criminal revision application, challenge is to the order passed by the learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act) dated 08.04.2022 whereby, the learned Judge has directed Special I.G. Nagpur Zone and Superintendent of Police, Nagpur (Rural) to take action for registration of crime against PW-10 Aashish Devidas Morkhade, Investigating Officer for the offences found to have been prima-facie committed by him.
3. The relevant facts are as follows:
4. Learned Special Judge while passing the bail order made certain observations against the applicant. The learned Judge at the stage of deciding the bail application prima-facie found that this act of the applicant was an offence punishable under Section 59(1) of the N.D.P.S. Act. While deciding the bail application the direction was issued to the Special I.G. Nagpur Zone and Superintendent of Police, Nagpur (Rural) for initiating necessary action against the applicant. It is to be noted that pursuant to this direction, departmental proceeding was initiated against him. He was suspended.
5. The prosecution adduced the evidence in the main trial. The Special Judge by his order dated 08.04.2022 convicted and sentenced the accused. The learned Judge on consideration of the facts, circumstances and available evidence on record prima-facie found that this act on the part of the applicant was intentional and as such it was an offence under Section 59 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The learned Judge accordingly issued the direction to the Special I.G. Nagpur Zone and Superintendent of Police, Nagpur (Rural) for registration of crime at appropriate Police Station against PW10 Aashish Devidas Morkhade.
6. Being aggrieved by this order, the applicant has approached this Court. It is the case of the applicant that there was no negligence or any misconduct on his part. It is his case that delay occasioned for filing of the charge sheet was properly explained by him. It is further stated that he has been facing the department proceeding for this lapse. It is further stated that the learned Special Judge has no jurisdiction to issue such direction. According to the applicant, he took all possible steps to file the charge sheet within time. However, due to the circumstances which were beyond his control, he could not file the same within time. It is, therefore, submitted that the order which would ruin his entire service career needs to be set aside.
7. The Police Inspector, Police Station Butibori, filed his detailed affidavit and opposed this application. In short, in his reply, the in-charge of the Butibori Police Station has stated that the order passed by learned Special Judge is in accordance with l
Dhanraj Singh vs. State of Punjab
Gajoo vs. State of Uttarakhand
Kamaljit Singh vs. State of Punjab
Karnel Singh vs. State of M.P. (1995) 5 SCC 518
Madan Gopal Kakkad vs. Naval Dubey
Paras Yadav vs. State of Bihar
Ram Bali vs. State of U.P. (2004) 10 SCC 598
Sathi Prasad vs. State of U.P. (1972) 3 SCC 613
Sahabuddin and Another vs. State of Assam
Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and Another vs. State of Gujarat and Others
The main legal point established in the judgment is that failure to complete investigations within the stipulated period entitles the accused to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.
The importance of the report of the Public Prosecutor in justifying the extension of the investigation period and the refusal of default bail.
(1) Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. is maintainable against order passed rejecting application filed under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C.(2) Intelligence Officer can file compl....
The court emphasized the necessity for prima facie evidence to justify arrests, underscoring fundamental rights protections against arbitrary state actions.
The court ruled that the ATS could continue its investigation until the NIA officially took over, affirming the validity of the charge-sheet filed by ATS Nanded due to the absence of a designated Spe....
Point of law : Article 141 mandates every Court subordinate to the Supreme Court to accept the law laid down by it. There is nothing like any prospective operation alone of the law laid down by the S....
A police report under Section 173(2) is not incomplete solely for lacking an FSL report if filed within the stipulated time, thus default bail cannot be claimed.
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.