Disposed

Madnay @ Karapa Shankar Atram, Convict No. 35 v. the State of Mah. Thr. D.I.G. Prison (E) (R) Nagpur and Anr.

Bombay HC30 Nov 2010WP/250/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a letter petition alleging frequent false arrests and custody. The court held that production of pending case information served the petition's purpose. It also criticized the summoning of the District Judge for filing an unnecessary affidavit, directing the Public Prosecutor to prevent such procedural harassment in the future.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; Public Prosecutor directed to prevent filing of unnecessary affidavits in future.

Madnay @ Karapa Shankar Atram, Convict No. 35 Vs… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Writ Petition No.250 of 2010

¶3

[Madnay alias Karapa Shankar Atram Vs. State of Mah. & anothr]

¶4

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶5

Petition received by Post.
Mr. V.A. Thakre, APP for respondents.

¶6

 -----

¶7

CORAM: A.H. JOSHI AND
A.R. JOSHI, JJ.

¶8

DATE : 30th November, 2010.

¶9

1. This is a Letter-Petition.

¶10

2.Petitioner claims that he was arrested
on more than thirteen occasions in false cases
registered against him. He further contends that
he has been kept in police custody and sometimes
in Magisterial custody by every time arresting
him under a new offence or offence registered in
past.

¶11

3.Petitioner also claims that he has been
acquitted in fifteen cases, as evidence is not
available against him and four cases are still
pending.

¶12

4. This Court had passed order on 6^th

¶13

¶14

September, 2010 and gave detailed directions for
production of information of pending cases etc.
The chart has been produced.

¶15

5.Now, it has come on record that old
crimes [FIRs] are not pending in which the
petitioner is not arrested so far.

¶16

6.This clarification by the Authority
would operate as sufficient assurance to the
petitioner that now even if he is released in
any of the cases, he would not be arrested by
taking shelter of any pending crime.

¶17

7.In so far as cases, which are shown
pending, are concerned, the petitioner will have
to undergo the process of law.

¶18

8.The purpose of this petition is
substantially served by virtue of production of
the information ordered by this Court.
Therefore, it is not necessary to pass any
further orders.

¶19

9.In this Court�s order dated 6th
September, 2010, this Court had directed the
District Judge, Gadchiroli, to explain the
circumstances in which he had filed affidavit.

¶20

It is seen that the District Judge has
submitted the reply which is dated 5th October,
2010. It is seen from it that because of the
letter sent to the District Judge by the Office

¶21

¶22

of Govt. Pleader, High Court, Nagpur Bench,
asking para-wise comments and to file reply,
the reply was filed.

¶23

This Court has perused the reply as
well as letter written by the Office of Govt.
Pleader.

¶24

10.The explanation furnished by the
District Judge is plausible, and is accepted.
However, had the matter been attended
differently, avoidable exercise in which the
District Judge has fallen, could have been
prevented.

¶25

11.We are of the view that the affidavit
of District Judge was called by the Office of
Public Prosecutor without any need and
justification, whatsoever. The petition did not
contain any allegation against the District
Judge, nor was any reply required.

¶26

12.The Public Prosecutor is directed to
take note of inconvenience suffered by the
DistrictJudge,Gadchiroli,andissue
appropriate orders to his office and other Law
Officers, to avoid filing of unnecessary
affidavits, as has occurred in this case.

¶27

13.Normally, District Judge ought to have
responded to the Govt. Pleader�s letter by
asking copy of petition, and after scrutinizing
contents thereof, by informing the Govt. Pleader

¶28

¶29

that the Office of District Judge, or the
District Judge had no concern in the matter.

¶30

14. Copy of this order be sent to the District Judge for information only.

¶31

15. Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶32

JudgeJudge

¶33

|Hedau|

Madnay @ Karapa Shankar Atram, Convict No. 35 v. the State of Mah. Thr. D.I.G. Prison (E) (R) Nagpur and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madnay @ Karapa Shankar Atram, Convict No. 35 v. the State of Mah. Thr. D.I.G. Prison (E) (R) Nagpur and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Motiram Masram, Convict No. C-5313 Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Secretary, Home Deptt. and Anr.

Vinod Jangluji Bhakare, Convict No. C-8021 Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Secretary, Home Deptt. and Anr.

Chintaman Parasram Kalamkar, Convict No. C 7428 Vs the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division and Anr.

Ashok Reddy S/O Sathi Reddy Vs Distt. Supdt. of Police, Gadchiroli and 2 Oths

Convicts Undergoing Sentence in the Nagpur Central Jail Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Secretary, Home Department and Anr.

Shivsingh Raisingh Ingle, Convict No. C 558 Vs the D.I.G. Prison (C) (R) Amravati and Anr.