Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Mohammad Yasin Mohammad Ibrahim ... on 21 August, 2015
Bench: A.M. Thipsay
903-APPLN-392-2012.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.392 OF 2012
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA )...APPLICANT
V/s.
MOHAMMAD YASIN MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM)
SHAIKH AND OTHERS )...RESPONDENTS
Mr.Deepal Thakre, APP for the Applicant - State.
ig CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.
DATE : 21st AUGUST 2015.
ORAL ORDER :
1 Respondent Nos.1 to 22 herein were prosecuted on the
allegation of their having committed the offences punishable
under Section 143 IPC, Section 148 IPC, Section 225 IPC , Section
332 IPC, Section 333 IPC, Section 342 IPC, Section 427 IPC,
Section 421 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, and Section 3(2) of
the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, and
Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. Respondent no.23 was also
an accused in the said case, but he reportedly absconded during
avk 1/7
903-APPLN-392-2012.doc
the trial, and as such, the trial against him could not proceed. The
Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge at Sewree, Mumbai, after holding
a trial, came to the conclusion that respondent nos.1 to 22 were
not guilty of any of the alleged offences and acquitted them. The
State of Maharashtra, being aggrieved by the said order of
acquittal, has approached this court seeking leave to appeal from
the said judgment and order of acquittal.
2 I have heard Mr.Deepak Thakre, the learned APP, in
support of the application. I have gone through the application. I
have carefully gone through the impugned judgment and glanced
through the notes of evidence, a copy of which is annexed to the
application.
3 The prosecution case was as follows :
On 24th October 2007, P.S.I. Paud and P.S.I. Dhumal of
Unit No.4 along with staff of Crime Branch, had been to National
Market situated at R.A.Kidwai Marg, for making an inquiry into an
application that had been received by them. Respondent no.23
avk 2/7
903-APPLN-392-2012.doc
Bhullu had been taken in custody by them, supposedly, for an
inquiry into the application. When they were proceeding towards
their office, respondent no.1, who is the uncle of respondent
no.23, misbehaved with them and started shouting loudly against
the police and caused respondent no.23 to escape. That, the
respondents obstructed the police from performing their duty by
creating a melee and the members of the mob assembled were
shouting that one Vilas Joshi had sent the staff of Crime Branch
and that "police ki dadagiri nahi chalegi hum rasata nahi
chodege." The information about this incident was received by
Namdev, Senior Inspector of Police, R.A.Kidwai Marg Police
Station, and he then rushed to the place. A mob of about 3000 to
3500 had assembled at that place, and the mob started pelting
stones towards the police staff. Wrongful loss and damage to the
police vehicles was caused. Hurt was also caused to the police
personnel. The mob rescued respondent no.23 from lawful
custody of the police. On the allegation that the respondents were
the members of the said unlawful assembly, they were prosecuted,
but as aforesaid, they were acquitted.
avk 3/7
903-APPLN-392-2012.doc
4 The learned Judge carefully considered the evidence
adduced by the prosecution during the trial. He came to the
conclusion that there was no satisfactory evidence to show that
there was any case for the arrest of respondent no.23 Bhullu. He
observed that, that a case of a cognizable offence was registered
against respondent no.23, had not at all been established. He
found that the purported arrest of respondent no.23 by the
staff of Crime Branch - and not by the local police station i.e.
R.A.Kidwai Marg Police Station - was itself illegal. Infact, the
learned Judge doubted whether, that respondent no.23 was to be
arrested was put forth as a false claim, and that, actually the
police wanted to apprehend respondent no.1 illegally and take
him away to the Crime Branch office. The learned Judge in this
context observed that one Vilas Joshi, who was earlier the
Senior Inspector of Police attached to R.A.Kidwai Marg Police
Station, had some dispute with respondent no.1, who is a
social worker, and the mob felt that there was a possibility
of the Crime Branch Officers having been sent by the said
Vilas Joshi. The learned Judge further observed that even
avk 4/7
903-APPLN-392-2012.doc
assuming that respondent no.23 was really apprehended by PW4
Vaibhav of Unit No.4 of Crime Branch, the said arrest was
unauthorized and illegal. The learned Judge was of the view that
if this was so, the persons who had assembled there, had a right to
inquire as to the cause of the arrest of respondent no.23, and if
the taking away of respondent no.23 was obstructed because of
the collection of the mob and making inquiry into the cause of
arrest, the same would not amount to intentional obstruction to
the police in performance of their lawful duty.
5 The learned Judge also observed that respondent no.1
was, admittedly, a well-known social worker in the locality, and
under the circumstances, the shop owners and others in that area
having gathered to see as to what was happening and why the
respondent no.1 was apprehended by the police, could not be
ruled out, and that, in that case, all the persons who had
assembled there could not be termed as the members of unlawful
assembly.
avk 5/7
903-APPLN-392-2012.doc
6 The learned Judge also noticed that there was no
evidence that any hurt was caused to any of the police personnel,
or that any police vehicles were damaged.
7 Thus, the learned Judge, firstly, held that the story put
forth by the prosecution, viz., that they had gone for
apprehending respondent no.23 on the basis of some application
that had been received by them, into which they were making an
inquiry, was not believable. Secondly, he held that in the
circumstances, the police - much less the officers of the Crime
Branch - had no authority to apprehend respondent no.23. He
observed that there was absolutely no record to show that
respondent no.23 was required by the police in connection with
any investigation - or even an inquiry as claimed by the police. It
may be added that the concept of such inquiry itself is contrary to
law. No case of any cognizable offence had been registered against
respondent no.23. The learned Judge, thirdly, observed that there
was no evidence against any of the respondents.
avk 6/7
903-APPLN-392-2012.doc
8 After going through the evidence adduced during the
trial, not only I am unable to see how the reasoning of the learned
Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge and the conclusion arrived at by
him, can be said to be wrong, but it appears to me that the
learned Judge's approach towards the matter was correct. He
viewed the matter objectively. The learned Ad-hoc Assistant
Sessions Judge has carefully considered the matter, read and
appreciated the evidence in a proper manner, and has come to a
correct conclusion.
9 There is no merit in this application.
10 The application is rejected.
(ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.)
avk 7/7
