Abhishek S/O Mulchand Thakur (In ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 344 Bom

    Judgment 
                                                                                wp825.15




                                                                                  
                                              1




                                                          
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, 
               NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

               CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.825 OF 2015




                                                         
    Abhishek S/o Mulchand Thakur,
    Aged about 22 years, Occupation Labour,
    R/o Rambagh, PSO Imamwada, Nagpur




                                              
    (Presently at Central Prison, Akola)              ..... Petitioner.
                               ig      ::   VERSUS   ::

    1.  The State of Maharashtra,
                             
    through under Secretary, Home Department
    (Special), Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

    2.  The Commissioner of Police, Nagpur.
      


    3.  Superintendent of Central Prison,
   



    Akola.                                                         ..... Respondents.
    ==============================================
                 Shri Amit Band, counsel for the Petitioner.
                 Shri S.M. Uike, Addl.P.P. for R-1 to 3.





    ==============================================


                                    CORAM :  B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
                                                       V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.

DATED : MARCH 4, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.)

1. Heard finally by issuing rule making it returnable

.....2/-

Judgment wp825.15

forthwith.

2. Learned Addl.P.P. for the respondents/State Shri

S.M. Uike has produced relevant documents for perusal of

the Court. In the backdrop of judgment dated 1.2.2016 in

Criminal Writ Petition No.768 of 2015 and later judgment

dated 29.2.2016 in Criminal Writ Petition No.660 of 2015, it

is not necessary for us to delve into other niceties being

pressed into service by learned counsel for the petitioner

Shri Amit Band or to consider reply thereto by learned

Addl.P.P. for the respondents/State Shri S.M. Uike.

3. Here, two original in camera statements are

taken out of the sealed envelop from records made available

by learned Addl.P.P. One statement mentions a demand of

Rs.7,000/- while other statement mentions a demand of

Rs.2,000/-. Both statements are recorded by the senior

.....3/-

Judgment wp825.15

police inspector with a gap of two days.

4. Both these statements are verified by the

Assistant Commissioner of Police on 5.6.2015.

5.

The statements in original do not contain any

endorsement to show that same were perused by

respondent No.2 Commissioner of Police. The grounds for

detention do not disclose verification about the truth of facts

mentioned therein by the Commissioner of Police either

from senior police inspector who has recorded those

statements or then from the Assistant Commissioner of

Police.

6. During perusal of true copies, supplied to the

petitioner and the original taken out from the sealed

envelope, we have noticed inconsistency in one document

.....4/-

Judgment wp825.15

which has been supplied to the petitioner.

7. The said document which is mentioned as in

camera statement recorded on 13.4.2015 is about demand

of Rs.2,000/-. It mentions that after the said witness

pointed out that he was not having much amount, Abhishek

(petitioner) and Pankaj took out a knife from waist and put

it on his neck. The original statements of the said witness in

Marathi mentions that after the said witness disclosed that

he was not having amount, Pankaj pushed him while

Abhishek took out a knife from his waist and put it on his

neck.

8. Learned Addl.P.P. has rightly pointed out that

this defect in translated copy supplied to the petitioner has

not been expressly made a ground of challenge. Learned

Addl.P.P. has relied upon paragraph Nos.8, 8.1, 8.2, 9 to

.....5/-

Judgment wp825.15

urge that respondent No.2 has demonstrated due

application of mind. Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri

Amit Band states that as original statements were not seen

by him, the ground about defective translation could not

have been urged. He also points out that true copy of

Marathi statement was not supplied to the petitioner.

9. In light of reasons recorded in our judgments

already mentioned supra, we do not wish to go into the said

controversy. However, we have mentioned it here only to

bring it to the notice of detaining authority. The authorities

in future can take appropriate precaution to see that

translation supplied are true and correct.

10. Adopting the reasons already recorded in our

judgments dated 1.2.2016 and 29.2.2016 mentioned supra,

we find that the detaining authority has not recorded

.....6/-

Judgment wp825.15

subjective satisfaction as required by law in relation to two

in camera statements of witnesses, we allow the petition.

11. Accordingly, we quash and set aside order dated

23.6.2015 passed by respondent No.2 and confirm by the

State Government on 11.8.2015. No costs.

                        JUDGE                                        JUDGE

    !!  BRW  !!
      
   






                                                                                      ...../-