Disposed

Bhimraj Deepachandji Kothari v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Aug 2010CRPIL/14/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Public Interest Litigation, the court directed the Commissioner of Police and Deputy Inspector General of Police to ensure that framing guidelines for police investigations involving jewellers are strictly followed and to take disciplinary action against officers violating these guidelines.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of by directing the respondents to ensure strict adherence to framed guidelines and to take disciplinary action against erring police personnel.

1.The petitioner claims to be the Secretary of Bombay Suburban Jewellers Association. He is a jeweller by profession. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has made the following prayers:

(a)that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to frame guidelines in furtherance of the circular issued by respondent 2 on 24.07.2009 and circular issued by respondent 3 on 18.08.2009 in as much as to hold and declare that if the guidelines so framed by the respondents 2 and 3 in the said circulars, being Exhibits-'C' and 'D' respectively

annexed herewith are not followed in their letter and spirit, those police personnel found and / or alleged to have flouted the guidelines would be viewed seriously and would render such police personnel liable for severe disciplinary action and respondents 2 and 3 be directed to hold and complete such disciplinary action within such reasonable time as this Hon'ble Court may deed fit and proper;

(b)in the alternative but without prejudice to prayer clause (a) above,the respondents be ordered and directed to modify the circulars issued on 24.07.2009 and 18.08.2009, being Exhibits - 'C' and 'D' annexed herewith and / or to issue a fresh circular to include that police personnel flouting and / or disobeying the safeguards given in the said circulars would be liable for severe disciplinary action and such disciplinary action be directed to be completed within such measurable time as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper;

petitioner's grievance. The petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 3034 of 2005. In that petition, the petitioner had prayed for issuance of appropriate order directing the respondents to modify the Police Manual based on statutory provisions of Criminal Procedure Code providing essential guidelines for functioning of police. Further prayer of the petitioner was that the court should lay down guidelines to be followed by the police for preventing harassment to Jeweller Community in the matter of investigation with regard to raids, seizure, arrest, panchanama, follow up panchanama etc. concerning offences of jewellery, gold, silver etc in tune with the guidelines in respect of investigation to be conducted by CBI. The petitioner had placed reliance on decision of the Supreme Court in Vineet Narain Vs UOI - (1998) 1 SCC 226.

3.The basic grievance of the petitioner in that petition was that during the course of investigation, police harass and torture the jeweller community and sometimes, they resort to extortion also. The Division Bench presided over by the then Chief Justice Shri. Swatanter Kumar noted that there were no specific instances noted in the writ petition and observed that the allegations were general in nature which cannot be examined by this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Division Bench recorded the statement of learned APP that the Senior Police Officer shall look into the grievance made by the petitioner and would take steps as may be necessary in accordance with law and expeditiously. The Division Bench directed that two representatives of the Bombay Suburban Jewellers Association be heard and they would be at liberty to bring to the notice of the authorities any specific instances where there have been illegal, erroneous investigation resulting in harassment to the complainants. The Division Bench expressed its concern and observed that every possible step should be taken to ensure that fair investigation is conducted. Further, the Additional Commissioner of Police, Mumbai was directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law and the petition was disposed of.

4.It appears that since, according to the petitioner, this direction was not complied with, he filed application in Criminal Writ Petition No. 3034 of 2005 which was considered by another Division Bench presided over by Justice Nazki on 16.06.2009. The Joint Commissioner of Police was present in the Court on that day. He made a statement that he was ready to hear the petitioner and their representatives and if, there are any specific allegations, those allegations would be examined in accordance with law. After recording this

5.Admittedly, thereafter, the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai has framed guidelines. The guidelines are annexed to the present petition at Exh. C. Similar guidelines have also been issued by the Office of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, (L&O), for Director General of Police, M.S., Mumbai. The guidelines at Exh C state that some irregularities committed by the Police Officers while investigating property offences, involving recoveries of alleged stolen property from Bullion Dealers & Jewellers, have been brought to the notice of the High Court, Mumbai and to avoid such anomaly in investigation, the guidelines which are being framed should be strictly followed.

6.We have perused the guidelines. We find that indeed detailed guidelines have been framed by the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai to redress the grievance of the Jeweller Community. Needles to say that the said guidelines will have to be strictly followed. The present petition is a sequel to Writ Petition No. 3034 of 2005. According to the petitioner, the guidelines at Ex. C are not being followed. To this petition, the petitioner has annexed a copy of the complaint addressed by one Amrit Sankla who is a jeweller, to the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai in which certain specific

allegations are made. Those specific allegations, are however, not found in the body of the petition. However, if there are any such specific instances and they are brought to the notice of the Commissioner of Police or any other police officer, those instances will have to be looked into particularly when a statement to that effect is already made before the Division Bench presided over by Justice Nazki. Apart from the fact that those specific instances have not been stated in the petition, since they involve disputed question of facts, it is not possible for us to deal with them in our writ jurisdiction. The petitioner wants this court to ensure that guidelines at Exh. C are followed. Such a direction would be to state the obvious because the guidelines are meant to be followed and if they are not followed in letter and spirit, the erring police officers will have to be taken to task. There can be no two opinions on this.

7.So far as the instances cited in the complaint annexed to the petition at Exh F are concerned, learned APP on instructions from API S.K. Ramdas attached to Matunga Police Station and PSI Rajesh Kadav attached to D.C.B.C.I.D Unit VII, Ghatkopar who are present in the Court today, states that these allegations are false. Certain FIRs and panchanamas are tendered in the court in support of this

submission.We have already noted that these disputed questions of facts cannot be gone into by us. Learned APP made a grievance that the wife of the complainant Amrit B. Sankla was requested to come to Crime Branch, Ghatkopar Police Station as regards the complaint made by Amrit Sankla. However, she did not remain present. Mr. Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner states that wife of Amrit Sankla will attend the Crime Branch, Ghatkopar Police Station tomorrow between 11.00 am to 05.00 with some responsible person. Mr. Pol, learned PP states that the petitioner's complaint will be looked into in accordance with law by Mr. Vinayak Vast, PI, Ghatkopar Crime Branch.

8.We expect Mr. Vast to look into the complaint independently without being influenced by the fact that the allegations are made against police officers. Since, the guidelines are framed by the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai and by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, the petition can be disposed of by directing the Commissioner of Police and the Deputy Inspector General of Police to ensure that the said guidelines are followed in letter and spirit and if, any police officers flout those guidelines, such conduct is viewed with necessary seriousness. If there is such flouting, respondent 2 and 3 will take such action against the erring officer as they deem fit and as is prescribed in

Bhimraj Deepachandji Kothari v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhimraj Deepachandji Kothari v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashta Vs Sachin Anil Patil

The State of Maharashta Vs Sachin Anil Patil

Vilas Namdeo Kalamkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Zulzulya @ Zunjar S/O Palulya @ Lakkappa @ Laxman Pawar and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Zulzulya @ Zunjar S/O Palulya @ Lakkappa @ Laxman Pawar and Ors.

Advance Locality Management (Alm) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.