Dismissed

. v. Mr. Ramesh Gaonkar, P.I. Sanguem Police Station, (Pw 22 in Sessions Case NO.19/2006) and Anr.

Bombay HC8 Oct 2012SMCRC/1/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This suo moto criminal contempt petition arose from the failure of a police officer to produce a memo of arrest as mandated by Supreme Court guidelines in Dilip K. Basu. The officer initially denied the lapse but eventually tendered an unconditional apology and guaranteed future compliance. The High Court accepted the apology and dropped the contempt proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceedings dropped; unconditional apology accepted; notice issued for future defaults.

. Vs Mr. Ramesh Gaonkar, P.I. Sanguem Police Station, (Pw… — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶3

SUO MOTO CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.1/2012

¶4

…....... Petitioner

¶5

V E R S U S

¶6

Mr. Ramesh Gaonkar, P.I. Sanguem Police Station, (PW22 In Sessions Case No.19/2006) Sangeum Police Station Crime No.9/2006 Presently posted at Curchorem Police Station, Curchorem-Goa. .. …. Contemnor

¶7

State of Goa, Through the Public Prosecutor, Panaji-Goa.

¶8

Shri S. N. Joshi, Advocate for the Respondent No.1.

¶9

CORAM: S. J. VAZIFDAR &

¶10

U. V. BAKRE, JJ DATE: 8TH OCTOBER, 2012.

¶11

O R D E R : ( PER U. V. BAKRE, J )

¶12

Heard the learned counsel for respondent no.1.

¶13

In terms of Judgment and order dated 21/06/2012 passed

¶14

¶15

by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.44 of 2011, a show cause notice was issued to respondent no.1 calling upon him to show cause as to why action for contempt of Court be not initiated against him for failure to comply with the directions issued by the Apex Court in the case of “ Dilip K. Basu Vs. State of W.B. And Others” [(1997) 1 Supreme Court Cases 416] in the matter of arrest of the accused Gurudas Gaonkar in Sanguem Police Station Crime No.09/2006 registered for offence punishable under section 302 and 201 of I.P.C.

¶16

During the course of hearing of the said appeal it was found that the accused was arrested in the said crime on 12/3/2006 at 14.30 hours but no arrest panchanama or memo of arrest was produced on record and proved. No witness for such panchanama was cited in the charge-sheet. The index of the case papers of Sanguem police station Crime no.09/2006 annexed to the chargesheet did not mention about any arrest panchanama/memo of arrest. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor could not point out the arrest panchanama in respect of the accused.

¶17

In the case of “ Dilip K. Basu” (supra), the Hon'ble Apex

¶18

Court laid down certain basic requirements to be followed in all cases

¶19

¶20

of arrest or detention till legal provisions are made in that behalf as a measure to prevent custodial violence. The requirement no.2 reads as under:

¶21

“That the police officer carrying out the

¶22

arrest of the arrestee shall prepare a

¶23

memo of arrest at the time of arrest and

¶24

such memo shall be attested by at least

¶25

one witness, who may either be a member of the family of the arrestee or a respectable person of the locality from where the arrest is made. It shall also

¶26

be countersigned by the arrestee and shall contain the time and date of arrest.”

¶27

The Apex Court in paragraph 36 of the judgment in the

¶28

said case further warned that failure to comply with the above requirements, apart from rendering the official concerned liable for departmental action, would also render him liable to be punished for contempt of Court and the proceedings for contempt of court could be instituted in any High Court of the country, having territorial

¶29

¶30

jurisdiction over the matter. It was in view of the above that the notice of contempt of court came to be issued.

¶31

In the Affidavit-In-Reply dated 17/7/2012, respondent

¶32

no.1 stated that he has the highest respect and regards for the Courts and the orders passed by the Courts and tendered an unconditional apology in the event this Court finds that there was any lapse on the part of the respondent no.1 while performing his duties. According to respondent no.1, he had complied with the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “ Dilip K. Basu”, (supra). However, the respondent no.1 did not state that he had prepared the memo of arrest and that such memo was attested by the witness and was countersigned by the arrestee. The learned advocate for the contemnor sought time to file an additional affidavit. Time was granted. In the additional affidavit filed on 9/8/2012, the respondent no.1 again tried to explain as to how he had not committed any contempt and sought time to file further affidavit and to produce relevant document. A last opportunity was granted to him to file the same within a week thereafter. In spite of that, the respondent on 23/8/2012 sought for further time. In the interest of justice and subject to payment of costs of Rs.1000/-, further time was granted to

¶33

¶34

the respondent no.1 to file an additional affidavit.

¶35

On 17/9/2012, an additional affidavit came to be filed by

¶36

the respondent. However, the purported apology tendered by the respondent was found to be not an apology as required in law. When this position was pointed out to the learned counsel for the respondent, he again sought time to file an appropriate apology on affidavit. The respondent no.1 is a Police Office holding the rank of Police Inspector and according to him, he has been in police service for the last 32 years. Hence, he was bound to realize the consequences of breach of the guidelines issued in the case of “ Dilip K. Basu” (supra). However, in the interest of justice and subject to payment of further costs of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only), time was granted to the respondent to file an affidavit tendering unconditional apology as submitted by his learned counsel.

¶37

Lastly by an affidavit dated 1/10/2012, the respondent stated that in view of his failure to demonstrate compliance of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “ Dilip K. Basu“, he tenders an unconditional apology to this Court. The respondent declared and undertook to always ensure compliance of

¶38

¶39

the guidelines in totality and not to commit any default. He prayed to this Court to accept the unconditional apology and to discharge the notice.

¶40

The above requirement mentioned by the Hon'ble Apex Court in “ Dilip K. Basu” (sup ra) was with a hope that the same would help to curb, if not totally eliminate, the use of questionable methods during interrogation and investigation leading to custodial commission of crimes. Although initially the contemnor tried to justify that there is compliance of the directions issued by the Apex Court in the case of “ Dilip K. Basu “, however, in the last affidavit the respondent no.1 has tendered an unconditional apology admitting his failure to demonstrate the compliance of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case. The contemnor undertakes that he shall always ensure compliance with the said guidelines in totality and not to commit any default of the same. Considering the undertaking given by the contemnor, we with much reluctance, accept the unconditional apology tendered by the contemnor.

¶41

In view of the above, contempt proceedings in Suo Moto

¶42

¶43

Criminal petition initiated against the contemnor are dropped putting

¶44

him to notice that any further similar act on his part will be dealt with strictly.

¶45

S. J. VAZIFDAR, J

¶46

U. V. BAKRE, J.

¶47

AP/-

. v. Mr. Ramesh Gaonkar, P.I. Sanguem Police Station, (Pw 22 in Sessions Case NO.19/2006) and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

. v. Mr. Ramesh Gaonkar, P.I. Sanguem Police Station, (Pw 22 in Sessions Case NO.19/2006) and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Goa Foundation Vs the North Goa Planning and Development Authority, and 8 Ors.

The United Goan'S Shanti Concern, through Its Secretary Shri. Jude Felix Fernandes Vs State of Goa through Chief Secretary and 9 Ors.

The United Goan'S Shanti Concern, through Its Secretary Shri. Jude Felix Fernandes Vs State of Goa through Chief Secretary and 9 Ors.

Adv. Aires Rodrigues Vs Goa Cricket Association, Rep. by Shri Prasad Phaterpekar, General Secretary and Anr.

Shri Shailesh Vernekar Vs Canacona Municipal Council through Its Chief Officer

Shri Moreshwar N. P. Navelkar Vs Ponda Municipal Council through Its Chief Officer and 2 Ors.