Petitioner sought writ direction for prosecution sanction against Chief Officer who demolished his house due to mistake in High Court order. Court held no criminal intent existed and prior rejection of sanction was well-reasoned.
Petition dismissed; rule stands discharged; grant of sanction to prosecute refused.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.18 OF 2016.
Shri. Shashikant B. Bhagat, S/o of Late Babuso Laximan Bhagat, 52 years of age, R/o. Bhagatwada, Char Rasta, Canacona-Goa.
…..... Petitioner.
Versus
Ms. A. Desai, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. M. Pinto, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.
2
Coram:-F. M. REIS, K. L. WADANE,JJ. Reserved on:22nd February, 2016. Pronounced on:-22nd March, 2016.
JUDGMENT ( Per K. L. Wadane, J .)
Heard Ms. A. Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. M. Pinto, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
The petitioner is a co-owner of the property surveyed under No. 103/2 situated at Nagarcem, Palolem Village Canacona-Goa. In the aforesaid property the father of the petitioner had constructed residential house. The petitioner along with his family members were
3
residing in the said house.
4
months. Therefore, the respondent no. 4 applied for extension of time and same was dismissed. The petitioner filed an application for issue of process against the respondent no. 6. The same was also dismissed on 27.5.2013. The petitioner challenged the order dated 27.5.2013 before the learned Sessions Judge, South Goa, in Criminal Revision Application No.61/2013. The same was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge on 28.5.2015. Meantime by order dated 19.8.2013, the respondent no.5 rejected the request for grant of sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. to prosecute the respondent no. 6. Hence, the petitioner prayed to direct the other respondents to issue sanction to prosecute the respondent no.6.
5
corrigendum dated 2.1.2009 stating that survey no.103/3 be read as survey no.117/7. If corrigendum was brought to the notice of the respondent no. 6 within time, then the demolition of the house of the petitioner in survey no. 103/2 could have been avoided. Any how, it appears that there was gross negligence on the part of the respondent no.6 by which huge loss is caused to the petitioner. But from the record it appears that the act of the petitioner was without intention or there was no mensrea. The respondent no. 6 along with demolition squad had demolished the house of the petitioner presuming that it had to be demolished as per the directions of the High Court. The act of the respondent no.6 was without verification of the relevant record. Therefore, there was gross negligence on the part of the respondent no. 6, but it doesn't mean that the respondent no. 6 has committed any criminal offence. We have gone through the order passed by the respondent no.5 in which it is observed that there was no criminal intention on the part of the Mr. Agnelo Fernndes to demolish the structure existing in the survey no.103/2, however, it was mistake committed by the respondent no.6 and in that process the petitioner had incurred losses. Besides that notice was served on the petitioner for removal of the alleged encroachment within 60 days. The petitioner despite of the receipt of the faulty notice, did not brought it to the notice of the Chief Officer, respondent no. 6. However, this does not absolve gross mistake committed by the officer which has caused financial loss to the Bhagat/petitioner. At the same time it cannot be held that the Chief Officer had deliberately demolished the structure
6
in survey no. 103/2 .
K. L. WADANE,J. F. M. REIS,J.
vn*
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should direct the Government to grant sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. to prosecute the Chief Officer for demolishing a house due to clerical error regarding survey numbers.
Whether the act of the Chief Officer amounts to a criminal offence warranting a sanction for prosecution despite causing financial loss due to gross negligence rather than criminal intent.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Shashikant B. Bhagat
The Chief Secretary, Government of Goa
The Secretary( Personnel), Department of Personnel, Government of Goa
The Secretary (Home), Department of Home, Government of Goa
Police Inspector, SHO Canacona Police Station
The Under Secretary (Peronnel), Government of Goa
F. M. Reis
K. L. Wadane
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
