Bombay High Court
Purushottam Gopal Turwadekar & ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 February, 2016
Bench: Anuja Prabhudessai
914 2979-03.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2979 OF 2003
Purushottam Gopal Turwadekar @ karmakar
& Anr. ..Applicants
(org. accused nos.1 and 2)
v/s.
The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondents
Mr. Shekhar Ingawale for the Applicant
Mrs. G.P.Mulekar , APP for the Respondent-State.
CORAM : SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.
DATED : FEBRUARY 24, 2016.
JUDGMENT.
1. This is an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging
the order dated 07.03.2002 and 25.3.2003 whereby the learned
JMFC, Dapoli, and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Khed rejected
the application for discharge.
2. Mr. Ingawale, learned Counsel for the applicants has submitted
that the FIR as well as the other material on record does not prima
pps 1 of 7
914 2979-03.doc
facie disclose sufficient ground to proceed against the applicants. He
has submitted that by order dated 30.9.1999, the Division Bench of
this Court had directed the Project Authority not to execute any work
of the project unless and until the notification under Section 13(1) of
the Land Acquisition Act is published and the final area of the land is
notified and the final area of the land is declared and the possession
of the land is taken over after following due procedure laid down in
the land Acquisition Act, 1894. The learned counsel for the
applicants has submitted that despite the said order, the Asst.
Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Mandangad, and some others entered in
their property under Survey no. 18. He has submitted that the
applicants had merely questioned him as to how they had entered his
property without his permission. The learned counsel for the
applicants submits that the applicants have not committed any
offence and there being absolutely no material to proceed against the
applicants, they be discharged.
3. The learned APP for the State submitted that the FIR as well as
the other material on record prima facie indicates that the First
pps 2 of 7
914 2979-03.doc
Informant Shri Dilip Jakar who is a public servant had been to the
property of the applicants in order to survey the same and that the
applicants had obstructed him and prevented him from discharging
his duty and further threatened him to cause his death.
4. I have perused the records and considered the submissions
advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned
APP for the State.
5. The applicants herein are the accused in Criminal Case No.374
of 2000 pending on the file of the J.M.F.C., Dapoli. The said case was
filed pursuant to the FIR lodged by Dilip Murlidhar Jakar,, Asst.
Engineer, Grade 2, Minor Irrigation Project. It is not in dispute that
the first informant is a public servant within the meaning of Section
21 of IPC.
6. The records reveal that the applicants herein had filed a
petition challenging the acquisition of his property. A perusal of the
petition reveals that the applicants had sought by prayer clause
pps 3 of 7
914 2979-03.doc
(bb)writ of mandamus directing the respondent project authority not
to execute the work of the project unless and until the notification
under Section 13(1) of the Act is published and the final area is
declared and possession of the land is taken over after following the
due procedure laid down in the land acquisition act. The said
petition was disposed of by order dated 8.9.1999. The short question
falling for consideration is whether the applicant had obstructed the
respondent no.1 from discharging his official duty. A perusal of the
said order passed by the division bench of this Court indicates that
the learned AGP had made a statement that the Government would
not acquire the land of the applicants without following due process
of law, in view of which rule was made absolute in terms of prayer
clause (bb).
7. Section 3(a) reads as under:
"3A. For the purpose of enabling the [State] Government
[for the Commissioner] to determine whether land in any
locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public
purpose, it shall be lawful for any officer of the [State]
Government in the Public Works Department, or any other
officer either generally or specifically authorized by the
[State] Government in this behalf [or as the case may be,
any officer authorised by the Commissioner], and for his
servants and workmen,-
pps 4 of 7
914 2979-03.doc
(i) to enter upon and survey and take levels of any land in
such locality,
(ii) to mark such levels,
(iii) to do all other acts necessary to ascertain whether the
land is adapted for such purpose, an
(iv) where otherwise the survey cannot be completed and
the levels taken to cut down and clear away any part of
any standing crop, fence, or jungle:
Provided that no person shall enter into any building or
upon any enclosed court or garden attached to a dwelling
house (unless with the consent of the occupier thereof)
without previously giving such occupier atleast seven days
notice in writing of his intention to do so."
8. The FIR prima facie indicates that on 9.4.2002, the first
informant along with the contractor and four other labourers had
visited the property under Survey no.18 in order to take preliminary
survey. He submitted that at about 11.30 a.m. while they were
conducting the survey, the applicants herein came to the property
and questioned him as to who had authorized him to conduct the
survey. It is further alleged that the applicants snatched the level
patti and stand (instrument used for marking the boundary) and
threw away the same and further threatened to cause their death.
pps 5 of 7
914 2979-03.doc
The first informant had further stated that the applicanst had
prevented him from discharging his duty and had further abused him
in filthy words.
9. The statements of other witnesses namely Raju Kamble,
Dattaram Kamble, Suresh Ghadi also prima facie indicate that the
applicants herein had obstructed the first informant from discharging
his duties and further abused them in filthy words and threatened to
cause their death. The FIR and the statements of witnesses recorded
under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. therefore prima facie discloses the
offence alleged. The records indicate that the first informant and the
contractor had entered the property in order to conduct the survey
and to mark such levels. The case of the complainant is covered by
the provisions of section 3A of Land Acquisition Act, and as such the
submission of the learned counsel for the applicant cannot be
accepted that the complainant was not entitled to enter the property.
The records indicate that the government employees had entered the
property to discharge their duty. The applicants had obstructed
them, abused them and threatened to cause their death. The FIR as
pps 6 of 7
914 2979-03.doc
well as the supporting statements prima facie indicate that there are
sufficient grounds to prosecute against the applicants for offence as
alleged. Hence, the application has no merits and the same is
dismissed.
10. Rule is discharged.
(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)
pps 7 of 7
