Disposed

Kamal Atul Pal v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC27 Mar 2012WP/1144/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This oral judgment disposes of two criminal writ petitions regarding proceedings under Section 18 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. The court set aside the impugned orders passed by the District Magistrate without a trial conclusion and granted liberty to proceed thereafter while waiving notice service for the petitioner in one petition.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 25.10.2010 set aside; petitioner waived notice; ordered to file reply by 30.06.2012; liberty granted for fresh order post-disposal.

Kamal Atul Pal Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

Cri. W.P. No.1144/2010 with Cri. W.P. No.206/2011

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY,

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1144 OF 2010

¶6

Kamal s/o Atul Pal,

¶7

Age 38 years, Occ. Labour works, R/o Din Dayal Nagar, Masjid Gali, Jamner, Tq. Jamner, District Jalgaon

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

The State of Maharashtra

¶11

The Collector, Jalgaon, District Jalgaon.

¶12

The Additional Superintendent of Police, Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon.

¶13

The Assistant Police Inspector, Bazarpeth Police Station, Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon.

¶14

(Copies of respondent Nos.1 to 4 to be served upon Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad) ... RESPONDENTS

¶15

Shri R.S. Shinde, Advocate for petitioner Shri S.N. Kendre, A.P.P. for respondents

¶16

W I T H

¶17

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.206 OF 2011

¶18

Shri Babukhan Majidkhan @ Pappusheth Tyarwala, Age 36 years, Occ. Business,

¶19

2 Cri. W.P. No.1144/2010 with Cri. W.P. No.206/2011

¶20

	R/o National Highway No.6, Khadka Sanare, Behind Balaji Toll Kata, Tq. Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon.
2.	Minabai @ Shaikh Popat Barse, Age 34 years, Occ. Household, R/o Dindayal Nagar, Jamner Road, Tq. Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon.
3.	Kalpana Devraj Chikhalkar, Age 35 years, Occ. Household, R/o Anand Nagar, Jamner Road, Tq. Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon.
4.	Md. Hasan Md. Yakub @ Chinnu Machhiwala, Age 60 years, Occ. Business (Fish), R/o Jam Mohalla, Near Old Kondwada, Tq. Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon
5.	Latabai Ashok Thakaray, Age 46 years, Occ. Household, R/o Bamb Colony, Tq. Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon. ... PETITIONERS
	VERSUS
1.	The State of Maharashtra
2.	The Collector, Jalgaon, District Jalgaon.
3.	The Additional Superintendent of Police, Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon.
4.	The Assistant Police Inspector, Bazarpeth Police Station, Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon.
	(Copies of respondent Nos.1 to 4 to be served upon Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad) ... RESPONDENTS

¶21

¶22

Cri. W.P. No.1144/2010 with Cri. W.P. No.206/2011

¶23

Shri R.S. Shinde, Advocate for petitioner Shri S.N. Kendre, A.P.P. for respondents

¶24

CORAM : U.D. SALVI, J. DATED : 27th March, 2012.

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT:

¶26

Heard. Perused. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by mutual consent of parties.

¶27

In Criminal Writ Petition No.1144/2010, Mr. Shinde, learned Advocate for the petitioner points out two patent illegalities:-

¶28

(1) That, no notice as contemplated under Section 18 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), was served on the petitioner before passing the impugned order and as such, the petitioner was not heard.

¶29

(2) That, the impugned order was passed before conclusion of the trial in the Criminal Case arising out of C.R. No. 3028/2010, registered against 80 accused persons including the petitioner, under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the said Act with City Police Station, Bhusawal. Mr. Shinde, learned Advocate for the petitioner placed reliance on A.C. Aggarwal’s case [A.C. Aggarwal, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Delhi and another Vs. Mst. Ram Kali, etc. : AIR 1968 Supreme Court 1] to canvass a

¶30

¶31

Cri. W.P. No.1144/2010 with Cri. W.P. No.206/2011

¶32

point that action under Section 18 can only be taken after disposal of the cases against the persons, including those against whom action under Section 18 of the said Act has been initiated, involved in the crime, punishable under Sections 3 or 7, as the case may be.

¶33

Learned A.P.P. concedes that the notice was not issued to the petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No.1144/2010, and further submits that if the petitioner waives services of notice, he would be given an opportunity of being heard and the orders in the proceedings initiated under Section 18 of the said Act can be passed after the conclusion of the said trial.

¶34

In Criminal Writ Petition No.206/2011, Mr. Shinde, learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order ought to have been passed after the disposal of the said case wherein the petitioners are allegedly involved. Mr. Shinde, learned Advocate for the petitioners, on instructions, further makes a statement that the petitioners therein were duly served with the notice and were given hearing by the concerned Magistrate. However, the impugned order is bad for the reason that it came to be passed before the disposal of the said case. Mr. Kendre, learned A.P.P. for the State submits that in light of the legal proposition enunciated in A.C. Aggarwal’s case (supra) if the impugned order is set aside, liberty be granted to the State to pass

¶35

¶36

Cri. W.P. No.1144/2010 with Cri. W.P. No.206/2011

¶37

fresh order in accordance with law after the disposal of the said case.

¶38

Considering the submissions of the rival parties, the following order is passed :-

¶39

Order dated 25/10/2010 passed in the matter bearing No.DDP/2/PITA/1/2010 by the learned District Magistrate, Jalgaon, is set aside.

¶40

The petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No.1144/2010 waives service of notice of the said proceedings initiated by the learned District Magistrate, Jalgaon, under Section 18 of the said Act and shall file suitable reply before the learned District Magistrate, Jalgaon in the said proceedings on or before 30th June 2012. Learned District Magistrate, Jalgaon shall pass appropriate orders in the said matter after the disposal of the said case, particularly in light of the outcome in the said case, in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute in terms of the above order with no order as to costs. Criminal Writ Petitions stand disposed off accordingly.

¶41

( U.D. SALVI, J. )

Kamal Atul Pal v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Atul Pal 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Asma Sherkhan Pathan Vs the State of Mah

Karan Vijay Jadhav Vs the State of Maharshtra and Anr.

Rangnath Suryabhan Karle and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Vithal Gulabrao Maske Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Jagannath Ramrao Lande and Ors. Vs Sindhubai Jagannath Lande

Ashok Jaynrayan Zawar Vs State of Mah and Ors.